Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage

[Brenus]

“How hard is it to understand that the last so and so many years of violence perpetrated by some extremists don't prove that anything is inherent to a religion that has been around for more than a thousand years? You're basically taking the view of the extremists and saying they are correct.” How hard is to understand that extremists justify rightly their actions are on line with the Holy teaching. So it is inherent to a religion. Is it compulsory? No (let's pretend). However it not a sin to burn people alive or to throw homosexuals from building or to kill Jews and so and so because the Prophet himself did it or it is clearly written in the Holly scriptures.
For these reason, pretending that these actions are not religious is plainly wrong.

“Why don't you tell the non-violent muslims that they should kill you if they want to follow their religion properly?” Err, they are. Killing Jews, agnostics, atheists, relapses and pagans is clearly a command, but much of the Muslims, being human beings, just choose to ignore this command. In theory that makes them bad Muslim, but as it makes them better human beings, they live with it.
However, this points out THE problem. They are better human beings by living against the teaching of the Holly Book.

So, we have two problems:
Denying that violence is inherent to religion (I picked Muslim one, I could have done the same with the 2 other monotheistic religions) is a cul-de-sac, as everyone reading the book(s) can see it is not true.
Second, to be a better human being goes against the Message(s) of God allegedly provided by the Holly Book(s).
Let’s go for the Christian faith:
The only way out of it is to reform and pretend that God change is message (so good-bye God as all knowledge etc.) and to “forgot” bad passages in the book but in maintaining the “bibleish” of the Holly Books that can’t be contested even if you just do this.
And that where Religions have problems. Some do.
A new-born Christian just told me that the Bible is partly rubbish, partially history, partially word of God mixed with pure propaganda. She de facto rejects the meaning of the Gospel, but refuses to go until the end of the logic. Fine with me, as I can understand a desire to believe in a God who wouldn’t be a maniac genocidal one.
But her view doesn’t mean that Slavery is not a Christian value, so rape, slaughter and genocide as the Bible clearly shows God allowing it, even told the warriors to do exactly this. So pretending that slavery or genocide is not inherent, part of, the Holly Book, foundation of Christianity is untrue.
What is true is Christians (if you kick out the Army of the Lord in Uganda) reject nowadays slavery. As it is not compulsory to have slaves in order to be good Christian, they can. But they can’t say that to be a slaves’ owner is against Christian’s principles.