Religion is born of culture, and serves in part to preserve it (and prevent it from changing). A culture that fosters violence will almost certainly develop a religion that fosters violence. Where there are religions prone to violence, it is a good bet that there is a culture that is prone to violence. A violent religion isn't the cause of violence, it's the a symptom of it.
When religions prone to violence are introduced to a culture that is not, the religion is often modified to be more in line with local customs. The opposite is also true; excuses for existing local violent or oppressive customs are found in their new religion.
I'm afraid I don't, that was just me pontificating. Mostly gathered from observations on how different people with different senses of morality get wildly different readings from the same religious book, almost invariably a reading that is convenient for themselves.
I think most people agree that at least most religions are man-made (all, if you are an atheist, but I think that most theists would agree that religions other than their own are man-made). If a particular religion is man-made, then it is made within the context of some particular culture. While it is possible that the new religion introduced new and novel ideas, more often than not I think the religions that found acceptance in their host-culture did not rock the boat too much. Those religions therefore largely reflect the cultures that they were created in. If a religion advocates stoning gay people, then chances are the culture in which it was created was also pretty on board with stoning gay people.
I think that religions are adapted or re-interpreted when they are introduced to other cultures that already have different values. Lots of things that were taken literally by the host culture suddenly become metaphorical. Holidays that were previously cherished by the new culture are wedged into their new religion under flimsy pretenses. Etc.
Comments
Religion is born of culture, and serves in part to preserve it (and prevent it from changing). A culture that fosters violence will almost certainly develop a religion that fosters violence. Where there are religions prone to violence, it is a good bet that there is a culture that is prone to violence. A violent religion isn't the cause of violence, it's the a symptom of it.
When religions prone to violence are introduced to a culture that is not, the religion is often modified to be more in line with local customs. The opposite is also true; excuses for existing local violent or oppressive customs are found in their new religion.
Do you have any more sources on these claims? (I'm genuinely interested to read more about this)
I'm afraid I don't, that was just me pontificating. Mostly gathered from observations on how different people with different senses of morality get wildly different readings from the same religious book, almost invariably a reading that is convenient for themselves.
I think most people agree that at least most religions are man-made (all, if you are an atheist, but I think that most theists would agree that religions other than their own are man-made). If a particular religion is man-made, then it is made within the context of some particular culture. While it is possible that the new religion introduced new and novel ideas, more often than not I think the religions that found acceptance in their host-culture did not rock the boat too much. Those religions therefore largely reflect the cultures that they were created in. If a religion advocates stoning gay people, then chances are the culture in which it was created was also pretty on board with stoning gay people.
I think that religions are adapted or re-interpreted when they are introduced to other cultures that already have different values. Lots of things that were taken literally by the host culture suddenly become metaphorical. Holidays that were previously cherished by the new culture are wedged into their new religion under flimsy pretenses. Etc.
Your pontifications were interesting to read nonetheless!