Yes, some people blame things on religion that religion is not responsible for.

Who or what, then, is responsible for the wrongs committed in the name of religion?

Well, people. People do it, not religion. Religion is just the excuse they use. I think "crutch" is a poor metaphor for that.

Marx said "Religion is opium for the people." I agree. Religion lessens the pain of living and makes us feel good. This is more of a real crutch, a helpful crutch that helps us along the difficult road of life.

...just a thought ....wasn't it supposed to be "a way" rather than being a crutch?

Were not the early believers called followers of the way???

What I appreciate about this site is that there seems to be more focus on discussing  "the way" and less focus on imposing "this way".

Hugs

Rita

Hugs

Rita

Yes, Rita, religion is a way of living that smoothes the rough road through life.

Those don't fit the definition of a "crutch", as I understand them.

Some crutches are required for people to function.  Without a crutch, someone with a broken leg is dependent upon others.  I'm sure there are some people who need to feel that someone is looking over them, to raise their self-esteem, to give them confidence, or other perceived benefits of religion.

Then again, some crutches are not needed, and are used only because we have become dependent on a habit that is not good for us.  Smoking and drinking are crutches for some people - some people think they function better with them, but they aren't really needed, and people would be healthier without them.  I think religion fits here in some cases, because religion teaches that belief without reason is a good thing.

So yes, I believe religion is a crutch.  Some people may need this crutch, but I think there are alternate crutches available.  Some are obviously overly-reliant on this crutch, to the point that their reason and judgement are clouded by unsubstantiated beliefs.

Yes, chansen, I agree. There are alternate crutches available that work equally well, or better, because they don't cloud one's mind.

But I would argue that religion does not necessarily cloud one's mind. It is people who cloud their minds, not religion.

Arminius   Great Quote--- And I  agree   :But I would argue that religion does not necessarily cloud one's mind. It is people who cloud their minds, not religion.

We humans can be our own worst enemy at times.

Blessings

Christianity is filled with hundreds or thousands of contradictions, and plenty of immoral messages mixed in among the moral ones.  Same with Islam.  These don't cloud minds?

Leaders will use the parts of scripture they want to achieve the results they want, but those parts of scripture that warp the mind away from moral thought are always available, always at the ready.

Speaking of clouded minds, ask unsafe if belief can overcome illness.

Not if taken metaphorically.

If taken literally, srcipture can be twisted to suit almost any kind of dogma or absolutist ideology. This is a misuse of scripture, for which scripture is not to blame. The Vedas, for instance, state that scripture must not be used to justify one's selfrighteousness. I think there are passages in the NT and the Koran that could be interpreted similarly.

I, for one, take scripture like any other literature: metaphorically.

I have also met people who use there religion as a security blanket.  There tradition is that on Sunday morning you go to church.  They hang out with church people because there mother told them that church people were good and trustworthy.  They use church doctrines to think for them - as in I don't buy raffle tickets because my church says gambling is a sin, instead of thinking about the connection between the two things.

Many of these people claim to be Christian but don't have any familiarity with the Bible and aren't interested in learning more about it, or about the history behind it.  They never read anything spiritually challenging and tend to avoid thinking through there belief system.

Let me know when religion becomes a mobility scooter.  I may need one of those some day.

The fact that other works have contradictions, does not detract from the fact that you can use scripture to defend completely opposite positions on many topics, from slavery to seafood.  If you hold these books as "holy" or somehow divinely inspired, then your divine inspiration is a scatterbrain.

Science doesn't have "messages".  Science is about the accumulation of knowledge and explanations.

I think you're still trying to establish that science is as messed up as the bible is.  The thing is, science works.  People will use knowledge to their own ends, but that doesn't mean that seeking knowledge is a bad thing.  If it were not for the scientific method, we wouldn't know nearly as much as we do about, well, everything.  Religion has never given us anywhere near the same tangible benefits.  Religion lets us discuss what sand dwelling people heard and saw 2000 years ago, as if the words of one mythical preacher from that time and area demand our utmost attention, and almost everything else is just fluff.

[chansen:] Christianity is filled with hundreds or thousands of contradictions. 

 Name one.  I ask because you don't read the relevant texts or books with a contary perspective.  So I know you'll need to google your atheist websites to find one.  It would do my heart good to see you just once do a little research, however, biased, and back up just one point you make.

Berserk:

Are followers of The Way required to be pacifists or to engage some form of Just War theology?

HOw shoould one approach Scripture?

Is the Death Penalty allowable?

Was Jesus born to residents of Bethlehem or people from Nazareth who happened to be in Bethlehem?

Who were teh first witnesses to the Resurrection?

How many animals did Noah take on the ark?

I am sure chansen, or anyone else, can come up with a lot more contrradictions with a little bit of thought.

"The fact that other works have contradictions, does not detract from the fact that you can use scripture to defend completely opposite positions on many topics, from slavery to seafood.  If you hold these books as "holy" or somehow divinely inspired, then your divine inspiration is a scatterbrain."

Again, your starting point is flawed. You assume that I believe
a) the author of Death of a Salesman or Macbeth is somehow different than the writer of say Job.
For me, they are both humans. I do not think one was written by a supernatural entity. You can write inspired by a dead lover or a peanut butter sandwich, it does not mean the peanut butter sandwich dictated it or that it took control of your hand to write it.

b)that Macbeth or Death of a Salesman is somehow literature and the Bible is not a collection of it.
I will say the Bible is a collection of literature from many genres of literature. There are books of poetry in the Bible.

c)that I think there is one unified voice in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures.
I am aware it was written over more than 1500 years, there are 39 books in the Older Testament alone, by over 40 authors who were different people, in different places (even different continents speaking differnt languages), in different times, different moods... and then we are only talking about canonized material.

d) that I think it CANNOT be used to both support and not support most things or positions 
I am well aware that it offers varied voices and perhaps opinions. There is also the fact it is dated. One does not expect and ancient science book to exactly be accurate. I do not use it as a textbook. There have been changes in times and perspectives and one could support slavery with it. One could also support abolition.

"Science doesn't have "messages".  Science is about the accumulation of knowledge and explanations."

So, there is no message in a scientist putting on sunscreen in the middle of the night when about to detonate an atomic bomb?
No message is there or implied by using Tuskegee Airmen, cancer patients at "the Hutch", orphans in Kenya, Nigerian children, the Guatamelans, prisoners, soldiers, the mentally challenged,.... as experiments? For me, the message is that they do not matter. They are walking, talking petri dishes.
Ask a scientist what vivesection means, it usually means without consent. What message is that?
No messages about the weak, the young, the unable to fight back....
Nothing immoral, nothing wrong, about the Monster Study? Tell me as the father of a child, chansen, still just thought of as the accumulating of knowledge? Sorry, not for me.

The Bible does not have "messages" either, then. It is just words, stories, data. The messages come from the people doing the reading.

"I think you're still trying to establish that science is as messed up as the bible is.  The thing is, science works.  People will use knowledge to their own ends, but that doesn't mean that seeking knowledge is a bad thing.  If it were not for the scientific method, we wouldn't know nearly as much as we do about, well, everything.  Religion has never given us anywhere near the same tangible benefits.  Religion lets us discuss what sand dwelling people heard and saw 2000 years ago, as if the words of one mythical preacher from that time and area demand our utmost attention, and almost everything else is just fluff."

Science from 10 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago is not today's science. Often, it does not work anymore. It holds no water, we know better... It is a part of your history, your growth, to learn from and study. It is not any kind of manual to use to be a modern scientist by. Your insistance that the Bible is somehow a handbook of how most of Christianity is practiced in the modern world is just plain idiotic. It is a collection of fleeting moments in people's lives or a glimpse at our past. Yes, there are timeless gems in there. Yes, there is also garbage in there. The scientist and the Christian are left to discern what is what.

You are trying to pigeon hole me as a detractor of the scientific method or of science. I am neither.

I embrace science. I embrace religion. I do not find them incompatible.

[Gord W:] "Are followers of The Way required to be pacifists or to engage some form of Just War theology?"

Jesus authorizes His disciples to carry swords for self-defense and is thus responsible for Peter's access to a sword in the Gethsemane violence.  In Mark, Jesus does not protest the disciple's swordplay; and Mark is the source used and redacted by both Matthew and Luke.  In both Matthew (26:54) and John (18:10-11), Jesus protests Peter's swordplay on the grounds that the disciples must not interfere with Jesus' mission to die.  True, Matthew does insert the saying, "All who take to the sword will perish by the sword (26:52);"  but this saying applies to the aggressive use of force, not to self-defence, and it is Jesus, not  His disciples, that the mob has come to arrest.   

One must always interpret Jesus' sayings in terms of their context and intended scope of application.  Ther is no reason to construe Jesus' teaching on non-retaliation and love for enemies as applicable to either self-defense or  the legal sphere (e. g. capital punishment).   In any case, there is no clear contradiction here. 

Gord W: "Is the Death Penalty allowable?"

The death penalty authorized in Genesis 9:6 is not revoked in the rest of the Bible.  Indded, Jesus seems to approve of the capital punishment authorized in his parable in Luke 18:27.  Nor does the New Testament give a reason to apply love of enemies to the legal sphere.  Your claim of a contradiction would have merit only if a New Testament text abolished capital punishment.    

[Gord W:] "Was Jesus born to residents of Bethlehem or people from Nazareth who happened to be in Bethlehem?"

Luke makes it clear that Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth (2:4).  Matthew never says that Joseph and Mary are from Bethlehem.  It is never said that they own the house where they were visited by the magi  (Matthew 2:9-11).  It might have been the house with the manger, which some kind relative or stranger opened up to them when the inn turned them away.  When Joseph and Mary return from Egypt, a dream warns Joseph to go to Galilee because Herod's successor, Archelaus, might want to kill the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:23).  This couple might have intended to rest up in an extended stay with the same relatives in Bethlehem before embarking on the arduous long trip to Nazareth with a young child.  Matthew's view of Joseph and Mary's true home is probably expressed by the adoring crowds on Palm Sunday: "It is Jesus, the Prophet from Nazareth in Galilee (21:11)."   Again, no established contradititon here; just some ambiguous language! 

[Gord W: } "Who were the first witnesses to the Resurrection?"

Jesus' female disciples were the first disciples to see the Risen Lord (Matthew 28:9-10; John 20:11-18).  In Israel back then, the testimony of women did not count in Jewish courts and was deemed the equivalent of a 5-year-olds words.   It is unlikely that the early church wuold invent an Easter testimony  that hurt their credibility with Jews.  So the appearance to women is understandably deleted from the list of appearances that was handed down to Paul (! Corinthians 15:3-7).  Paul, endorsed by Luke (24:34), reports that Peter was the first of the male apostles to see the Risen Lord.  No contradiction here.

Gord W:] "I am sure chansen, or anyone else, can come up with a lot more contrradictions with a little bit of thought."

Don't you think it's rude to answer a question that was addresed to a specific individual?  In any case, you have offered no contradictions yourself.  You seem unclear as to what "contradiction" means in the logical sense used here.  It means that if A is true and B negates A, then B cannot be true.  If  B is true and A negates B, then B cannot be true.

So, which is it?

Thanks,

A.

 Also...

... how do you know that?  

and

Where does "one" find the final say on what "their context and intended scope" is?

Curious,

A.

Ok, Berserk, how do we deal with inconsistancies and contradictions in just the Passion?
1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Mark 15-16
Matthew 27-28
Luke 23-24
John 18:28-21:25

Now answer,
What was pIlate's concern for Jesus' body?
Who received the body?
Who witnessed the burial?
Time and day?
Who took the body off the cross?
Who witnessed the actual resurrection?
Which women went to the tomb?
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
What were the women told?
What was their response?
To which people did Jeuss appear after his resurrection, in chronological order?
In what form did Jesus appear?
What insturctions did he leave (where would he meet them and where did he)?
 

Wanna compare nativity stories?

No, I am not an atheist and did not search an atheist website.

Chapter 3 of Remedial Christianity: What Every Believer Should Know about the Faith, but Probably Doesn't  - Paul Alan Laughlin (I think it should be read by everyone.)

berserk the question was about contradictions in Christianity not in Scripture.  THerefore teh Death Penalty and Just War questions fit.  And of course there are plentiful other examples both in Scripture and in Christian theology (not to mention at times between Scripture and Christian theology)

Is religion a crutch?

I lean on it all the time.

Here's a small PDF with a handful of contradictions in the bible.  These are the only ones Sam Harris and his Reason Project could come up with (link to full size PDF):

So, which is it?

Thanks,

A.

In John 20:1ff., Peter and the Beloved Disciple are notified by Mary Magdalane that some one has stolen Jesus' body from the tomb.  The 2 men race to the tomb; the BD "sees and believes," but by implication, Peter does not (20:8).  Meanwhile, a traillng Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb, sees angels, and then Jesus .  The question is: did she see Jesus before Peter sees Jesus after his disappointed return from the tomb to the place where he and the BD were staying?  We can't be certain, but Peter needs a situation in which he is isolated from the BD (20:10), because no tradition claims that they saw the Risen Lord together.  So i'd lean towards Mary Magdalene as the first.  Her use of "we" in John 20:2 implies that other unspecified women were present at the tomb as suggested in Matthew 28:9-10).   

Jesus' female disciples were the first disciples to see the Risen Lord (Matthew 28:9-10; John 20:11-18).  In Israel back then, the testimony of women did not count in Jewish courts and was deemed the equivalent of a 5-year-olds words.   It is unlikely that the early church wuold invent an Easter testimony  that hurt their credibility with Jews.  So the appearance to women is understandably deleted from the list of appearances that was handed down to Paul (! Corinthians 15:3-7).  Paul, endorsed by Luke (24:34), reports that Peter was the first of the male apostles to see the Risen Lord.  No contradiction here. [/quote]

[Ag:] So, which is it?

In John 20:1-10, fter the foofrace to the tomb, the Beloved Disciple "saw and believed (20:9)," but Peter by implication did yet not believe. Meanwhile, a trailing Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb and sees Jesus, whom she initially mistakes for the gardener (20:11-20).  Mary's use of "we" suggests the presence of the other women as well (cp. Matthew 28:9-10.

Matthew does insert the saying, "All who take to the sword will perish by the sword (26:52);"  but this saying applies to the aggressive use of force, not to self-defence, and it is Jesus, not  His disciples, that the mob has come to arrest.   [/quote]

[Ag;}... how do you know that?  

First, the expression "take to the sword" is  expresses an aggressive violent policy, not self-defense.  Indeed, the expression "take up the sword" never applies to self-defense (see e. g. Genesis 34:25; Romans 13:4).  Second, in the context, Jesus has just authorized the disciples to acquire swords for self-defense.

Now to chansen: As always you still duck my question.  I asked YOU to present ONE biblical contradiction that you stand by and you refer me to a website thaI I can't call up on my computer.  By the way, notice that, as always, he must google his information from anti-religious websites just as I predicted.  No independent investigation by direct engagement with the biblical text! 

These three sentences explain why so many conflicts in the Religion and Faith forum are ongoing and are incapable of being resolved.

There are those that embrace science and not religion. There are those that embrace religion and not science. There are those that embrace both science and religion.

If the basic premise differs - and folks are content with their position - what is achieved?

I can't help feeling that others might tinker with the edges in matters of faith, but as for changing that basic premise..........

How amazingly ironic; I just finished writing a blog about this exact subject: http://bit.ly/9rpEwI

Frankster, that is ironic. Welome to the cafe.

Religion is a crutch.  Atheism is a religion.  Therefore, Atheism is a crutch. 

Religion is a crutch.  Hockey is a religion.  Therefore, hockey is a crutch.  (Don Cherry is the high priest.)

SG gives an nice overview and interesting Berserk does as well - he addresses the strawhorse of contradictions - and using scholarship overcomes it.  Now we may not agree with all his interpretations but deal with what he has outlined.   Not a contradiction for example on the resurrection - the gospels have two traditions and he shows how they work - paul picks up another tradition - not contradictions but different cuts -  again though sg gives a excellent response on science and religion and the non issue there is there.

SG, what specifically do you mean by "science" in the diatribe above?

I am not a Fundamentalist and no biblical inerrantist.  But to have meaningful dialogue with skeptics, both sides must be willing to read the best literary examplars for conflicting perspectives and be open to the logical possibility that they might be mistaken.    I actually kile and enjoy chansen, and if he lived nearly, I'd love to go out and have a beer with him.  But he pontificates about thousands of biblical contradictions, and yet, as expected after 2 days, cannot even come up with one clearly ariticulated example, though he posted an illegibly googled chart without comment.   My challenge has filled tihe barnyard with clucking Canucks, but right now, I am targeting the strutting rooster!   :-)  And yes, some appropriate comments have been made by others. 

Chansen must address this challenge to the viability of his quest: one day, he may well be an elderly patient in a nursing home, totally dependent on a nice Puerto Rican nurse named Maria.  With fading longterm memory, the meaning of  his life may be reduced to the question of whether he was finally able to have a good bowel movement.  We humans are ultimately pathetic creatures without some postmortem hope to ground some sense of meaningful value and personal worth.  .We all need some metaphysical crutch.  It is no more rational to demand some impossible proof than it was to demand proof that survival was assured for       those forced to leaie the sinking Titanic.   

Berserk, that is only true about us as long as we live our lives with an impression that we, individually, have some sort of cosmic importance.  It is the lack of humility, the rejection of our own insignificance, that leads us to despair of the end of our lives.

Hey there,

Just need clarification, please.

So:  women were the first disciples to see the Risen Jesus?  yes?

Again, I'm confused: Jesus has authorized aggressive self-defence.  How does that fit with "turn the other cheek"?

No denunciation of science here, no attack, and only criticism where it is well earned, Agnieszka. The same as I do not denounce faith or attack it, but I will criticize it where it is warranted.

If you were to ask me what "science" means, I would say knowledge and that, for me, that can come from many places -including hard and soft science... it is scientific methodology, what scientists do, but I would acknowledge that it is not easy or simple to come up with an answer to "what is science?"

I was not however discussing with myself. I was using the word science in conversation, where it was (I thought) defined.

I would say chansen was very likely meaning hard sciences (he is a fan of observation, experimentation, empirical quantifiable data) , thus natural and physical sciences. He is a fan of those. Not so much so the soft sciences, or all scholarship.

My point was that there are messages in the way data or knowledge is garnered/gathered, in the research subjects chosen, in the way they are chosen, in the studies one does, in the methods one uses, in whether there is consent or not.... the list goes on.

 Religion is a crutch?  What is wrong with using a crutch if you can't walk on your own?  What is the benefit of facing the trials of your life without aid?  Do you get some kind of prize?  When you finally climb to the top all by yourself will it be lonely up there?

So far in my life religion has been something I could pick up and put down at my pleasure.  But my life isn't over yet ... and I'm holding my decision about religion (as well as about whether I will ever use a crutch to walk) in abeyance.

Hi SG,

I think you have me confused with another poster?  I was just asking Beserk about the contradictions.  Thanks.

 Again, whether the criticism is earned depends on what you mean by "science" or "faith", respectively.  And I am not Agnieszka.

Well, you were criticizing it, so I had assumed you were operating with a definite idea of what it is you were criticizing.  The knowledge is not equivalent to the methodology.  And the methodology as an abstract tool is not equivalent to the methods used by an actual person, in practice.  The specifics make a large difference to the validity of one's criticism, wouldn't you say?

Defined by whom?  You were the one who brought it up initially, here:

"Let's also not wander into how science can have immoral messages; because nuclear weapons, eugenics, experiments on prisoners/people who could not consent, etc and animals exist without mentioning designer babies or cloning."

In some uses of the word "science", you might have a point.  But not as you've defined the word in your recent post.

What about the hard sciences, SG?  Does the knowledge gained, really have an intrinsic message?  Or is any message we get instead a lesson from experience?  If the latter, then the message is our own.  We make it for ourselves, a tool forged from experience, for better or worse.  Any experience can enable this, whether science is involved or not.

Messages from one human to another, then.  A form of language, isn't it?  But the messages we embed, intentionally or not, in our actions, do not have their genesis in those actions.  Rather, they come from us.  Information from humans...to humans.

What message do we gain from the fact that nuclear weapons are possible, and the information about how to do so?  Merely the what, and the how.  That's all the message contains.  Where do you think that any other perceived messages are really coming from, SG?

Hey!  Nothing wrong with being Agnieszka!

Azdagari/Agnieszka- Sorry for the mistake.

Azdagari,

Conversation with chansen has been ongoing, this post is a moment in that time. It is always a science versus religion debate. Chansen has repeatedly defined science. People have repeatedly defined what Christian is.

I would agree that whatever is said to be done by "religion" is done by people, who may be religious or may be pseudo-religious or quacks. I would say the same of "science".

For me, neither is above reproach and both have elements of heirarchy, power, control... both have much suffering and blood on their hands. So, yes I criticize that.

Your comment about me having an idea since I was, in your opinion, critical is well condescending at best. The word, like most, have many meanings. They also have common usage.

If we use study/learning through scientific method, it can exist/be used in a way worthy of criticism. If we use the sum of knowledge, it can have been accumulated or interpreted in ways that can be criticized. If it is a branch of learning or disciple, none are immune (because again like religion people are present). If it is the experimentation, gathering of knowledge... that can be worthy of criticism.

We can say science is just an experience, as is religion, as is gravity.... we can run so far that everything means nothing without experience and do "if a tree falls in the forest without anyone around to hear it, does it make a sound?" We can also be like the dog and chase our own tail around.

Again, I embrace religion (that does not mean I always respect what has been done by its practitioners, done in its name or that I find it above reproach or that it is has always been right/just/moral) I also embrace science (that also does not mean I always respect what has been done by its practitioners, done in its name or that I find it above reproach or that it has always been right/just/moral)

 To the original question, whether religion is a crutch, I've been pondering this because these days I find I really miss having religion be a solid part of my life...  Is it because I need a crutch?  I definitely feel like I need something to connect me with meaning and beauty and a sense of awe in life... but even that doesn't sum up what I'm yearning for.  I suppose an imaginary friend would be nice.   But I would like that friend to be real, too.  But not human because humans are not very reliable.  

I *can* and do make the best of my life as it is, without religion or spirituality.  But I reminisce about my days as a spiritual person... there was a sense of fulfillment and connectedness which I simply don't experience right now.  

So, it's not that I'm looking for a crutch.  I'm looking for *music*... the music of life...  That's what religion used to add to my life.    

Here you are talking about the human institutions again, rather than about scientific knowledge or religious beliefs.

Yes, it has common usages.  But you were the one using it, so it's up to you to mean something definite by it.  Your comment invited condescension; I make no apologies for it.

Actions are always open to criticism, no?  But the messages are the messages of people.  They are not messages of science.  Science as a methodology is neutral.  People are not.  The way people use science, or use anything else for that matter,  can carry a message and be worthy of value-based criticism.  But that's not what you were saying...or is it?  I can't really tell, because you keep switching between uses of the word "science".

Umm, yeah...I'm not a fan of navel-gazing either.  But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

I have no problem with this.  But it's the "what has been done by its practitioners, done in its name" part that gives messages.  It's the human whose actions send a message.  Science is irrelevant, as is religion.

IF  IT'S REALLY  T-R-U-T-H- THAT YOU WANT

HERE IT IS!!! (I HAVE A FONT)

Stop all the discussion end the fighting

The truth now comes from this that I'm writing.

It'll be a surprise for you to finally see

That truth comes only from poetry.

All truth is therein soley contained

Rhyming does not make one a bit restrained

And good news is this

(so you'll not miss}

If writing poems for you is new

Doggeral  such as this will also do.

And what better time than now, today

What place better than Wonder Cafe?

Your truth can come from above

Such as saying  that God is love.

Tell me a truth by you or others

(It'd be from you if I had my druthers.)