Why has Norway yet to become secular?

No, I am not wrong in that. Both mean the same thing. You can continue arguing what it means, but it'll just keep going as it is going at the moment. You believe one thing, I believe another...it won't go anywhere. Ask average people what they think when they are told both sentences and I can almost guarantee that they will believe they mean the same thing. What a person is trying to say DOES matter when people know exactly what the person is trying to mean.

The technicality of semantics does not matter. Semantics is arbitrary, meaning is not (at least in the mind of one who is trying to define the meaning).

 

I agree with the monkey.

 

"I don't believe in god"
God failed you in some way. But he's still there, doing stuff for other people.

"I believe there is no god."
There was never a god to begin with, or end with. There is no higher power.

 

So when someone says "I don't believe in Santa Clause" is that saying that Santa Clause exists in that individual's mind and they just don't believe what he represents? Because I often time hear "I don't believe in Santa Clause" and not "I believe there is no Santa Clause."

The point of the matter is that generally when someone says "I don't believe in God," it usually means they do not believe he exists. It is the general intention of the speaker. When I do not believe what another individual says, I usually respond "I don't believe you," and not "I don't believe IN you." If I disagree with god, I would say "I don't believe god."

 

How can you not believe in Santa Clause??? I physically own a copy, I'm sad to say, so I know for a fact that it exists.

 

...and therefore they are without religion, aka athiest?

 

Well...there is a reason babies go to hell.

 

Actually, according to Christianity (possibly to the Jews and Muslims too, correct me if I'm wrong) you can't actually go to hell unless you deliberately sin - i.e. you already know right from wrong, yet you decide to do wrong. The Bible says by about the age of six we begin to understand the difference of right and wrong, and and are able to act upon whether we want to sin or not.

So no, babies can't be evil, not unless they're Satan.

 

Christianity no longer preaches that unbaptized babies go to hell, however they used to prior to the inclusion of Vatican 2 (or whatever it's called, that's just the colloquialism that I was told) into Papal law. Since Christianity believes that we are all beget through Original Sin every infant is therefore born wicked. They never do explain how it's a sin if it's the way God intended procreation...

I wouldn't use the Bible as any form of law. It was meant as a guide for how more primitive man should have lived his life and should have no bearing on today. Leviticus is exceptionally suspect for according to it wearing mixed clothing (i.e. cotton-polyester blend) or eating hamburgers are affronts to God. Or my favorite "A man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman for such is an abomination before God." I actually agree with this one for if a man lays with a woman the eventual result is pregnancy, if a man were to lay with a man and he became pregnant I would agree it's an abomination before God, or affront to nature, or whatever other term you would wish to apply to it.

 

The Bible doesn't say anything about the 'age of accountability.' It's just our understanding that up to a certain age, children can not be expected to make logical and right-minded decisions, or understand concepts like sin and redemption. Since God is merciful and forgiving, he would not condemn a person who couldn't comprehend the path to salvation. This also includes retarded people. Also, most protestants do not believe that baptism is part of the process of justification, rather it is a public proclamation of rebirth. In other words, you get saved then get baptized, in that order.

In regards to the Old Testament, I would once again like to point out that, unless you are Jewish, you needn't attempt to live by the strictures of the Law of Moses. To cite one reference to this:

Romans 2: 12-16
12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The book of Romans explains the concept pretty thoroughly. We are not saved by living according to the Law. After all, if we could be saved through the Law then Christ died in vain.

 

Yesterday someone berated my boyfriend at work because I was the 'wrong' kind of Christian. I'm a Methodist, and already there's a few out there who believe Methodists are 'wrong' in the sense that we're apparently the most practical of Christians, i.e. we only apply the Bible as we see fit in our current way of life. Sort of like Majikot's example of a man getting pregnant is against the laws of nature, etc.

What exactly makes one sect 'wrong' as opposed to another? Why don't the Christians like the Jews or the Muslims or whatever? How can it all be wrong when we all live by the same basic commandments - thou shalt not kill, etc? Even atheists as have principles.

As a side note, in Britain this week there have been atheist advertisements on the side of busses, claiming, "There probably is no God, so start living your life now!" It's now sparked a debate as to whether the Church should take this group of atheists to court. If the Church wins, there probably is a God. If the atheists win, there probably isn't a God. But it would set a whole new legal precedent....

 

That's one of the joys of living in America, if an atheist or agnostic or whomever wanted to pay enough to put that on the side of a bus then the church can't do shit because it's protected speech.

 

Well, the Jews blew it when they rejected and murdered the messiah, and the Muslims are a bunch of double-talking sand niggers bent on world domination. As for Christians hating other Christians, this is what they resort to when there are no Semites or towel-heads around to vent their hatred on. So basically, no matter what interpretation of the Bible you take, there will be somebody out there telling you that you're wrong and are therefore going to hell. Never mind that it's over something petty like whether you sprinkle or immerse in the baptismal water.

There are a lot of Christians out there that like to tell people they are going to hell because they don't attend the same church, but at the end of the day, the road to salvation is the same under the doctrine of almost every denomination of Christianity. They are just haters.

 

From the denizens of my blog...

An atheist with plenty to say.

With particular regards to an argument about the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill

 

That guy is mad at his dad or something. 'Thou shalt not kill' clearly means 'Thou shalt not murder' when taken in context with the rest of the Old Testament. It doesn't take long to tell a person who has heard a few Bible verses from a person who has read the Bible. They know just enough to make themselves look foolish when they try to talk about it.