Finsbury Park: 'Several hurt' as vehicle hits pedestrians

[RandoEFC+]

Religion at it's core is about giving people a reason to live by positive values, something to believe in and, especially for the primitive civilisations in which it was formed, something to give people a reason to be. 

Most people nowadays realise that science has disproven many of the fairy tales that go with religion but still believe in the values of "love thy neighbour" and stuff like that, plus nobody wants to look back on their life and realise they were a bad person which is something we are much more aware of now, right and wrong, than those that lived in the ages when religion came about. 

Religion has a much smaller role to play in the modern world and a very different one, but still a positive role in many people's lives. Although I'm not a Christian, I was raised with Christian values and still live by those values today, as do many other people I expect. For my grandmother, going to church every weekend was part of a lifelong routine, and being part of that community was a big part of her social life, but I don't go to church because that's never been my routine and I have a very different social life. Not being a Christian though doesn't mean I don't abide by the values that have become a part of the Western world primarily because of Christianity.

The problem we have with religion is that the most exposure it gets now is through extremism. This is a combination of people who use religion as an excuse for heinous acts, people who feel so strongly about their beliefs that they genuinely think they're doing the right thing, possibly after being manipulated into feeling this way, and vulnerable "weak-minded" people who don't even really know what they believe in but have certainly been manipulated into believing that extremist acts are the right thing to do.

It's a very complicated and messy picture, all I'm trying to say is that religion is very different to what it was when it started, there are still positive and negative aspects but in the modern world, the negative aspects are currently playing a devastating role in the evolution of society. 

As for whether religion is political, again it was never meant to be that way but throughout history, religion has been more closely intertwined with politics than probably anything else besides wealth. 

[SirBalon]

20 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Religion at it's core is about giving people a reason to live by positive values, something to believe in and, especially for the primitive civilisations in which it was formed, something to give people a reason to be. 

Most people nowadays realise that science has disproven many of the fairy tales that go with religion but still believe in the values of "love thy neighbour" and stuff like that, plus nobody wants to look back on their life and realise they were a bad person which is something we are much more aware of now, right and wrong, than those that lived in the ages when religion came about. 

Religion has a much smaller role to play in the modern world and a very different one, but still a positive role in many people's lives. Although I'm not a Christian, I was raised with Christian values and still live by those values today, as do many other people I expect. For my grandmother, going to church every weekend was part of a lifelong routine, and being part of that community was a big part of her social life, but I don't go to church because that's never been my routine and I have a very different social life. Not being a Christian though doesn't mean I don't abide by the values that have become a part of the Western world primarily because of Christianity.

The problem we have with religion is that the most exposure it gets now is through extremism. This is a combination of people who use religion as an excuse for heinous acts, people who feel so strongly about their beliefs that they genuinely think they're doing the right thing, possibly after being manipulated into feeling this way, and vulnerable "weak-minded" people who don't even really know what they believe in but have certainly been manipulated into believing that extremist acts are the right thing to do.

It's a very complicated and messy picture, all I'm trying to say is that religion is very different to what it was when it started, there are still positive and negative aspects but in the modern world, the negative aspects are currently playing a devastating role in the evolution of society. 

As for whether religion is political, again it was never meant to be that way but throughout history, religion has been more closely intertwined with politics than probably anything else besides wealth. 

I agree with all that which you have said religion was to begin with and what it's used for in the positive manner of your post. But you forgot to add one other very important aspect of why the more established religious doctrines were formed and written up. That is to control the masses in times when not everyone was educated (something we still have unfortunately even in these times) so as to not have all sorts going on and many of the rules are based on hygiene and ways of consuming certain foods in times when there was no refrigeration (obviously) and in climates (due to the geography of the areas where these religions were formed) that could potentially cause plagues and all sorts of problematic chaos. The fear of god would make people stand up, listen and follow what they're told for their own good. 

[RandoEFC+]

1 minute ago, SirBalon said:

I agree with all that which you have said religion was to begin with and what it's used for in the positive manner of your post. But you forgot to add one other very important aspect of why the more established religious doctrines were formed and written up. That is to control the masses in times when not everyone was educated (something we still have unfortunately even in these times) so as to not have all sorts going on and many of the rules are based on hygiene and ways of consuming certain foods in times when there was no refrigeration (obviously) and in climates (due to the geography of the areas where these religions were formed) that could potentially cause plagues and all sorts of problematic chaos. The fear of god would make people stand up, listen and follow what they're told for their own good. 

This is also true. Religion has a long history and has played very different roles as society has changed.

[El Profesor]

@Spike Trying to think about what you wrote. I´m not terribly sure if I´m totally right because I´m no Late Antiquity speciality, so correct if I´m wrong. 

The arab tribes served as mercenary forces to both Sasanian and Byzantinian Empires. As it happened with the germanic tribes, this relationship with the most powerful empires at the time led the arabs gain power and organization. After the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 both empires became vulnerable and the arabs profited expanding their territories and creating their own empire. 

Such as Constantine saw how cristianism could be useful to consolidate his power and how the Shahanshas did the same with the zoroastrianism, internal and external politics of the time dictated the promotion of Islam. For a different power, a different religion. 

In that sense, I think the real problem is that the monotheist systems of values that were used to justify the actions of the empires in the Late Antiquity will often clash and interfere in the public sphere of 21st century western powers, who in the turn also have a set of universal values that they were willing to defend and promote. 

What many progressives don´t seem to understand is that they also have a serious of beliefs, though not religious, that have universality as a characteristic and that ithey offend religious beliefs.

Since there is a common heritage in the Abrahamic religions, I actually believe that the integration of conservative muslims would be much easier if the West was still religious.  

 

(It is sometimes difficult to express my ideas in English, but I hope it makes sense). 

 

[Spike]

1 hour ago, El_Loco said:

@Spike Trying to think about what you wrote. I´m not terribly sure if I´m totally right because I´m no Late Antiquity speciality, so correct if I´m wrong. 

The arab tribes served as mercenary forces to both Sasanian and Byzantinian Empires. As it happened with the germanic tribes, this relationship with the most powerful empires at the time led the arabs gain power and organization. After the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 both empires became vulnerable and the arabs profited expanding their territories and creating their own empire. 

Such as Constantine saw how cristianism could be useful to consolidate his power and how the Shahanshas did the same with the zoroastrianism, internal and external politics of the time dictated the promotion of Islam. For a different power, a different religion. 

In that sense, I think the real problem is that the monotheist systems of values that were used to justify the actions of the empires in the Late Antiquity will often clash and interfere in the public sphere of 21st century western powers, who in the turn also have a set of universal values that they were willing to defend and promote. 

What many progressives don´t seem to understand is that they also have a serious of beliefs, though not religious, that have universality as a characteristic and that ithey offend religious beliefs.

Since there is a common heritage in the Abrahamic religions, I actually believe that the integration of conservative muslims would be much easier if the West was still religious.  

 

(It is sometimes difficult to express my ideas in English, but I hope it makes sense). 

 

You are probably right especially if the more extreme versions of each religion were limited (Christian persecutions, and Islamic jizya).

I read (I could be wrong) that before monotheistic religions became the norm, throughout Europe cultures often perceived foreign gods as different interpretations of their own. Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Taranis, Dunraz, et al. were all the same god.

[Happy Blue]

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hmm not sure I agree with his mum that he's not a terrorist because he was mentally ill. I'd venture to guess that very few terrorists are of sound mind.

This is so true

[Beelzebub]

 

@Spike Fair enough on the First Crusade thing but No! by defination there is no successor of Muhammad and Shias only consider Ali ibn Talib as the rightgeous Caliph and reject everyone else and according to Sunni believe Caliphate ended after 30 years of Muhammad but none considers the Caliph as successor(whom you have to follow no matter what). So No! any war waged by Caliph is not recognized as a holy war by both Sunnis and Shias. Sunnis and Shias don't even recognize Ummayad Caliphe Yazid bin Muawiya as a Muslim he is an evil figure in both sects.

 

 

 

[Spike]

9 hours ago, Azeem98 said:

 

@Spike Fair enough on the First Crusade thing but No! by defination there is no successor of Muhammad and Shias only consider Ali ibn Talib as the rightgeous Caliph and reject everyone else and according to Sunni believe Caliphate ended after 30 years of Muhammad but none considers the Caliph as successor(whom you have to follow no matter what). So No! any war waged by Caliph is not recognized as a holy war by both Sunnis and Shias. Sunnis and Shias don't even recognize Ummayad Caliphe Yazid bin Muawiya as a Muslim he is an evil figure in both sects.

 

 

 

But that is the perception of the followers not the [proclaimed] Caliph. If for instance a warlord proclaims them self to be the Caliph (despite no one accepting it as fact) and declares war, wouldn't it be a 'holy war' simply due to the motivations of the instigator? Regardless of how the armies and population feels, wouldn't the war be defined by the instigator? I'm sure not all the Crusaders were religious but it was still a holy war correct, the same would apply to Muslim soldiers during any war. But there lies the difference between feudal Christian kingdoms and feudal Islamic Caliphates; one is secular the other is not.

Even if there has only been one true Caliph, that doesn't negate that many men have claimed to be through war, spirituality, and primogeniture. Would you accept a Crusade instigated by an anti-Pope to be legitimate? I would, just as I would accept a war started by a phony-Caliph to be.