By that I mean that many have bettered themselves through introspection and practice, but that the certainty many have of adhering to the 'one true religion', and the resultant hatred of others, has led to incalculable misery and destruction.

Just my take.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2019, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Not in any way. Nor does hatred, really. I think that religion is essentially neutral in both areas, generally. Religion offers support for all human emotions and endeavors, good or bad. It supports slavery and kindness. It supports war and peace. It's very convenient for humans, since whatever they choose to do can be supported by the religions they create.

Human cultures have created religions that support their cultures. Religions are useful in that way, but are not forces for good or evil. They are merely designed to support human behavior, either way.

wanted.

in almost any religion. Religions are neutral. Humans do as they please and seek support, which can almost always be found in the doctrines and scriptures of whatever religion they follow. That's because humans have created their religions to match their natures.

Some atheist somewhere sometime once ran over some people which proves religion had absolutely nothing to do with this.

The idea that "you know, if everybody did that, society would fall apart" isn't enough of a motivator. They need "you know, if you do that, you'll burn in Hell."

I call my own point of view The Modified Krauthammer: religion isn't necessarily anything I'd personally want for the world, but since it's inevitable, better to try to push religions away from destructive beliefs and toward constructive, or at least benign ones.

On the other hand, consider China, which has never really relied on religion as a foundational basis for society. One of the oldest cultures on the planet, China has pretty much eschewed theistic religion throughout its history.

Of course, someone will be along shortly to explain that China suppresses religion within its borders. That might actually be true. Why mess with what has worked for thousands of years in that culture?

None of that, of course, is to say that China is an ideal culture. It's made up of humans, so it is capable of both good and bad behavior, like all cultures. It just does it without theistic religion.

But it doesn't fit neatly into our Western ideas about religion which assumes Western European Christianity is the archetypal religion and and all other religions are compared to it.

It occurs even here on DU. In Christianity, "belief" is a central focus, so we talk about belief all the time. We rarely talk about religions as sets of practices, stories and traditions. When we do, people here seem to want to shoehorn it back into the belief framework so that they can call the beliefs bullshit. That's easier than understanding why so many people find meaning in ancient rituals and stories.

That is not the teaching of most flavors of Christianity. Most of them teach that everyone is a sinner, and so everyone deserves to burn in Hell for eternity. Faith in Christ is what gets you your ticket to Heaven. Behavior has nothing to do with it.

Ironically if any of Isaiah Peoples' victims were actually Muslim and die they will go to hell while he goes to heaven.

The escape clause that keeps the doctrine from being totally absurd is that if you do horrible things, then you never really believed and thus are going to Hell. If Isaiah Peoples had had a "born again" experience before his crime, Evangelicals would argue that it wasn't genuine otherwise he wouldn't have done that. If he had genuine one after, then he could go to Heaven.

No True Scotsman, doncha know.

It goes something like they weren't a "real" Christian because no "real" Christian would have done that.

Furthermore, if you dare to say that some person who did a bad thing is a Christian, then you are smearing ALL Christians, because that's exactly the same as saying ALL Christians do that same bad thing. You better put the word Christian in quotes, and add a bunch of modifiers to make it perfectly clear to everyone that the person who did the bad thing isn't a "real" Christian.

I think my current favorite modifier is "self-identified Christian" as if that actually means something. Are there Christians out there who aren't self-identified Christians? How would that work, exactly?

I like your "self-defined Christians" sentence. The other line that is often used is that "Christianity isn't a religion; it's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." It can only be a personal decision, right? Every Christian is a "self-defined" Christian. That's the whole point.

elsewhere on DU, in which posters insisted that John Earnest be called that, so they can pretend he isn't a Christian. The rant fit well enough here that I went ahead and posted it. Yes, I do feel better now.

Because that's just "human nature".

But religion gets all the credit whenever a religionist does something good because they were obviously divinely inspired.

Funny how that works.

that she couldn’t imagine any situation in which her mild-mannered son would deliberately crash into innocent people, other than something related to the PTSD she said he experienced after serving as an Army sharpshooter in Iraq.

“Unless the car malfunctioned, he would not have done that. He’s like the perfect, model citizen,” she said. “He’s an Army vet, he’s a good kid, never been arrested. I promise you: It was not deliberate. If anything, it was that Army.”

Peoples, who is an auditor for the Department of Defense in Mountain View, received inpatient treatment for PTSD in 2015, his mother said ...

Motorist held on 8 counts attempted murder

By Juliet Williams, Jocelyn Gecker and Janie Har
AP April 24

suffering from PTSD associated violent behavior? Or is his religiousness a symptom of his PTSD psychosis?

The prosecutor seems to be saying that this was a deliberate hate crime and that he has expressed no remorse.

He may have been a Christian, but that had nothing to do with it. It was PTSD. Never mind that he didn't run into a group of soccer players or some track runners. No, he ran into the enemy of his religion.

It's a fact he was wearing them.

and the fellow in question was part of that. He was trained to kill the people identified to him as the enemy; and it seems well established that combat experiences can produce long-term psychological problems, associated with phenomena such as reverting unpredictably to a homicidal frame-of-mind

So there might be some comprehensible "explanation" for his behavior, in terms of the times in which he has lived and his personal experiences

maybe it's not so ironic after all.

religion in the sense of an organized "sect" or group of people ?
or
religion in the sense of spirituality or philosophy - more individual stuff?

either way there can be good or bad parts - but it's when you get to the organized religion and it's use to control, direct, etc that you really get problems

"Religion is indifferent in its influence on society. It is neither a force for good, nor a force for evil. It is simply a reflection of those who worship it. That's the irony of religion. Religion doesn't care, one way or another. People do things, not religions."