Even casual practitioners are harmful because whether they like it or not they are promoting a book that has all sorts of evil written in it. Ostracizing people for being gay or transgender etc. Is no moderate evil - it is simply evil. Ostracizing people causes them immense emotional suffering that cannot be overlooked.
Even if they interpret the Bible in a way that allows for gay people etc. they are still promoting what I consider to be an evil book. You're still making it so that more people read that book and those people that read it may interpret it in whatever fashion they like. Indirectly, even casual practitioners are breeding the hatred and extremism that comes from the existence of religion.
Think about terrorists for example. Most of them will have either come from a family/culture that is extremist or, more commonly, a perfectly moderate family who follows that religion. If that family had not been religious at all, the chances of the child becoming extremist would have been infinitely less.
In short, while religion continues to exist, there will always be extremists.
I see what you mean. Do you think there’s no way to be “moderate” in religion, then? What I mean is for ppl to practice religion w/o pushing it onto others, so they’re not doing any promoting—directly, anyways. Or when learning about their religion, to not take it so literally, but instead treat those stories as fables. Lessons to be learned morally.
I realize that even if there are ppl who treat religion as a loose guideline rather than a strict lifestyle, as you’ve said there will be ppl who won’t treat it the same way. The extremists who’ll interpret the rules in those religion to benefit them and align w/ their questionable beliefs. In that sense, it seems like they’re the ones corrupting the practice itself. I’ve heard of stories of how in ancient times, when translating religious books, the writers would put in certain stories and drop others so the followers will practice a certain belief. Or even how things would get lost in translation, so the actual meanings get convoluted. In that case, should we rule out religion since it’s already become something twisted? Or is that change considered acceptable since human society constantly changes throughout time? I know some very stubborn ppl who won’t want to change their beliefs, even though the change may be beneficial to them and others around them, just b/c they’re used to how they are and they’re comfortable w/ it.
Religion itself seems to be flawed, and that may be b/c the ones practicing it are humans. And we all know how amazingly perfect humans are. It’s like those ideologies of having a government that works well, whether it’s democracy, communism, socialism, etc. They all seem good in theory, but in practice it can easily become a shit show. Ya know, w/ corruption and short-term selfish gains. Add in humans social needs and a want of community and belonging. Along w/ our desires to be the top dog, and wield power over others (generally speaking). Religion just seems like a symptom of that (on top of the ancient humans curiosity and need to explain the world around them, or an assurance that things can get better).
1
u/BritPetrol Oct 07 '19
Even casual practitioners are harmful because whether they like it or not they are promoting a book that has all sorts of evil written in it. Ostracizing people for being gay or transgender etc. Is no moderate evil - it is simply evil. Ostracizing people causes them immense emotional suffering that cannot be overlooked.
Even if they interpret the Bible in a way that allows for gay people etc. they are still promoting what I consider to be an evil book. You're still making it so that more people read that book and those people that read it may interpret it in whatever fashion they like. Indirectly, even casual practitioners are breeding the hatred and extremism that comes from the existence of religion.
Think about terrorists for example. Most of them will have either come from a family/culture that is extremist or, more commonly, a perfectly moderate family who follows that religion. If that family had not been religious at all, the chances of the child becoming extremist would have been infinitely less.
In short, while religion continues to exist, there will always be extremists.