Quote from Jeremy

Well your faith does define your religion.

Indeed. In which case I am challenging both the basis of the faith and whether the faith is actually true.

But who is wrong? Are you saying that no one is right and no one is wrong? Isn't that the same as everyone is right and no one is wrong?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if one of them is right, the the others are wrong. However, it is also possible that they are all wrong.



So Jeremy, we agree that the entire basis of religion is faith, right?

Quote from Ash

So Jeremy, we agree that the entire basis of religion is faith, right?

No, not entirely. A large part maybe but not entirely.

And if you are going to try and push that "faith is what gets you into heaven" shit again, you might as well stop right now.

Let's just agree that someone might be right but we aren't sure who.

I will agree there. And add that there really isn't a way to know who will ever be right so no one can really claim to be completely without a doubt absolutely right.

Quote from Jeremy

No, not entirely. A large part maybe but not entirely.

So is it possible to be religious without having faith of any sort? Not just physically possible, I mean logically possible, in the confines of the religions that actually exist in the world.

Quote from Ash

So is it possible to be religious without having faith of any sort? Not just physically possible, I mean logically possible, in the confines of the religions that actually exist in the world.

I don't want to have this faith debate with you again, we already did that dance.

Oh fantastic, I left for almost a year and this holy way is still going on.

Is there really anything new left to say on the subject anymore?

*bitterness*
*cynicism*

There's a year's worth of events to draw new examples from. Apart from that, no, I don't think there's anything new in the general arguments.

I never knew you before but welcome back anyway.

Quote from Jeremy

I don't want to have this faith debate with you again, we already did that dance.

Okay okay, fine, we'll go straight to the other step I had planned.

Earlier on, you said

Common sense I guess, there are things that define the religion, like accepting Jesus as your personal savior, and admitting he was the son of god, those things aren't really open to interpretation, but parables, proverbs, etc I would say are.

Suppose someones interpretation is that Jesus was not the son of god, but an alien who only claimed to be god. Is that valid fro them to believe?

See this is the thing that you seem to be having problems with. The Catholics stance on protection is a personal stance, it states nowhere in the bible or hints to that having protected sex is wrong.

Just like nowhere does it hint to Jesus being a alien.

It was just an example to illustrate the point. Given a few minutes I will find one which is supported by the Bible both ways and held differantly by differant denominations.

Homosexuality. Held by the Church of England to be an acceptable practise and supported by the passages in the new testament where Jesus says we should love everyone.

Rejected by the Catholics and many of the smaller denominations in Africa and the US who quote from Leviticus (although if my memory serves me correctly there is a passage in Leviticus which says you mustn't wear clothes of more than one type of fabric. Catholics tend to ignore that).

See, now this thing againsts homosexuals is bullshit. As every sin is equal in Gods eyes. I.e. A sin is a sin. Hence why I can't stand Christians who rave against it while sinning openly themselves.

I don't see your point or any reason that that invalidates mine.