[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have people not been bleating that Muslims are not doing anything to denounce extremist violence?... Then when they do it's not enough :/

Since when is asking people to condem violence seen as 'bleating'?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Since when is asking people to condem violence seen as 'bleating'?

Since they are presuming is isn't already being asked naturally...

[billy123]

I dont know how many people Muslim terrorists have murdered in the west but im willing to bet it isnt as many as the 4 million people the western terrorists have murdered in wars in the middle east since 1990.
You would have to be pretty stupid not to realise why some might view the west as an enemy and as terrorists.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...-1990-39149394

Why is it so hard for some people to accept that we are just as guilty of being horrible murderous wankers as anyone else is? Maybe even more so.
Is it really that suprising that some people hate the west to the point that they want revenge?

Until we stop murdering,pillaging and trying to force our own ideals on the rest of the world then we have no right to complain.

[Kizzy]

the analogy being the cloak of religion is used as a cover for evil deeds... That is how I understand it.
The sickening descriptors aren't necessary either for me.

Are those Muslims living the 'soft life' those born here, why then do they have to speak for anyone... why are they 'brothers and sisters'?
Surely this is 'stepping up' too, it's a positive non violent message hopefully it vibrates and expands rapidly.

[Crimson Dynamo]

For all the Muslims saying ISIS are not proper Muslims etc

Can you tell me who decides what the correct interpretation is?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

For all the Muslims saying ISIS are not proper Muslims etc

Can you tell me who decides what the correct interpretation is?

No one. It's called a personal opinion/belief.

That's the whole point.

If religion was proven and came down to one thing then there'd be no atheists and everyone would have the same interpretation wouldn't they?

[Northern Monkey]

It should and could be peaceful.But it needs to evolve to be so.It is still a relatively young religion.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

It should and could be peaceful.But it needs to evolve to be so.It is still a relatively young religion.

I think that's probably right

[Maru]

Does the media in the UK openly talk about Muslim vs. Muslim/World crimes? We don't get a lot of specifics here... mostly it's the terror vs US angle.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Maru

Does the media in the UK openly talk about Muslim vs. Muslim/World crimes? We don't get a lot of specifics here... mostly it's the terror vs US angle.

I'd say it gets quite a bit of coverage, although I suspect there will be people here who disagree. I was pleased that recently the UN camps have been the subject of a couple of documentaries. We also have quite a bit of coverage of the refugee crisis. Honestly? I don't know what we'd all do without access to the Internet, it's so liberating to be able to get a variety of news from around the world.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Maru

Does the media in the UK openly talk about Muslim vs. Muslim/World crimes? We don't get a lot of specifics here... mostly it's the terror vs US angle.

It gets brief mention in the headlines, very little or zero meaningful coverage in the mainstream media. Apparently that's because of "distance", but 5 deaths in Australia or the USA will get significantly more coverage than 1000 deaths in the Middle East.

You need to look at alternative / online news sources for anything else. The sad fact is, it just doesn't sell.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Maru

Does the media in the UK openly talk about Muslim vs. Muslim/World crimes? We don't get a lot of specifics here... mostly it's the terror vs US angle.

You can watch the Al Jazeera news channel for Middle Eastern stuff.

[Crimson Dynamo]

it needs to be eradicated from the UK and people "taught" evidence based logic, thought and reality if needs be. Why we tolerate any religion in 2016 is beyond me

and no town council should be allowed to build any mosque, in fact i would systematically close them one by one

or use them for youth clubs and craft fairs

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it needs to be eradicated from the UK and people "taught" evidence based logic, thought and reality if needs be. Why we tolerate any religion in 2016 is beyond me

and no town council should be allowed to build any mosque, in fact i would systematically close them one by one

or use them for youth clubs and craft fairs

So on the one hand you don't want people being "taught" religion, yet on the other you want any beliefs people have to be eradicated and people "taught" to be intolerant of such things?

Okey dokey.

[Kizzy]

Agreed, the idea that there is a 'house of god' is ridic.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Agreed, the idea that there is a 'house of god' is ridic.

To you maybe.

Why should the country/world bend to suit your belief or lack thereof?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

To you maybe.

Why should the country/world bend to suit your belief or lack thereof?

Yeah to me that's why I said it just there... I never said anyone should bend anything :/


pfff...

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yeah to me that's why I said it just there... I never said anyone should bend anything :/


pfff...

You "Agreed" with LT about systematically closing mosques down one by one, reason being apparently because you personally don't see a use or reason for them? The councils should not be allowed to open them because you find the idea of a house of God "ridic".

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You "Agreed" with LT about systematically closing mosques down one by one, reason being apparently because you personally don't see a use or reason for them? The councils should not be allowed to open them because you find the idea of a house of God "ridic".

I agreed with a portion of the post, please don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

My statement that houses of god are ridic was not a retort to LTs coment, I agree with the evidence based logic theory, that said there is room for faith... Which I choose to separate from religion.

Have I to issue a disclaimer every time I comment, that these are my own views and are not designed to offend or influence any one else in any way?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it needs to be eradicated from the UK and people "taught" evidence based logic, thought and reality if needs be. Why we tolerate any religion in 2016 is beyond me

and no town council should be allowed to build any mosque, in fact i would systematically close them one by one

or use them for youth clubs and craft fairs

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Agreed, the idea that there is a 'house of god' is ridic.

Who knew you were only agreeing with a part of the post and disagreeing with the rest?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Who knew you were only agreeing with a part of the post and disagreeing with the rest?

I have explained that query to marsh, I don't have to reiterate it for you.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have explained that query to marsh, I don't have to reiterate it for you.

Really? I'm still at a loss to know how you meant the opposite of what you said. But whatever...

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Really? I'm still at a loss to know how you meant the opposite of what you said. But whatever...

Again I have explained it once if you don't understand then it's not my issue, I don't have the time to be repeating myself constantly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Agreed, the idea that there is a 'house of god' is ridic.

I have NEVER witnessed views as contrary and confused issuing from the same member.

You state on other threads that you do not deny God or some omnipotent 'Spirit' - or words to that effect - then on here you decry as ridiculous any 'House of God'.

Ordinary, rational people in their millions regularly go to purpose built buildings called Cinemas - drawn there by their love of film.

Similar numbers regularly attend purposely designed and erected buildings called Sports Stadiums - drawn there by their love of Football, Rugby, Athletics, and other sports.

Similar numbers attend purposely built or adapted buildings called Theatres - drawn there by their love of drama.

Spiritual people who believe in God - and that includes Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, or Scientologists - LOVE God, so why is it 'ridiculous' that purpose built Churches, Mosques, Temples, and Meeting Houses, should be afforded to them where they can congregate to express and indulge that love?

Why would YOU or ANYONE else deny them that right?

Or does your much heralded and advertised Left leaning advocacy of Liberalism, and belief in Human Rights and Equality, only selectively apply to those doctrines which are a result of Cherry Picking that ideology?

Is NOT 'Religious Tolerance' a major part of Liberalist ideology?

In addition, there are SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES behind ALL religious 'HOUSES of GOD' - though just HOW ancient man understand them is another thread subject.

Mosques and Cathedrals are DESIGNED to maximise their acoustic value, and scientists have discovered that singing HAS a tranquilising yet energizing effect on Humans, so it both soothes the nerves and elevates the spirit.

Endorphins - hormones released by the body during singing - are known to be responsible for feelings of pleasure.

Oxytocin, another hormone released by the body during singing, has been proven to not only combat anxiety and stress, but to also stimulate feelings of trust and bonding between groups of singers - such as CHOIRS and CONGREGATIONS of ALL denominations CHANTING or SINGING HYMNS.

In addition to the many benefits which COMMUNAL singing or Chanting in Houses of God bestows on participants, there is a SCIENCE behind the EXTERNAL EFFECTS of such practises - one which involves VIBRATIONS - hence the particular payment to the detail of acoustics on the part of the architects of these 'Houses of God'.

The term, 'Good Vibrations' has its roots in Religious congregational chanting and singing, and in addition, vibration is a KEY part of the rituals of WORSHIP in MAXIMISING the participant's 'Bond With God', and though I have no desire or heart to expound on that here, it involves 'Mathematical Resonance' and the fact that 'the processes by which sound is turned into harmonious music are the same processes that govern all associating vibrations throughout the universe.'

Anyway, NO ONE has THE right to deny anyone else the RIGHT to believe in God or to WORSHIP that God in a House of God - no matter WHO that Worshipper may be, WHAT his Religion may be, or WHAT deity he worships.

In MY opinion of course.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I have NEVER witnessed views as contrary and confused issuing from the same member.

You state on other threads that you do not deny God or some omnipotent 'Spirit' - or words to that effect - then on here you decry as ridiculous any 'House of God'.

Ordinary, rational people in their millions regularly go to purpose built buildings called Cinemas - drawn there by their love of film.

Similar numbers regularly attend purposely designed and erected buildings called Sports Stadiums - drawn there by their love of Football, Rugby, Athletics, and other sports.

Similar numbers attend purposely built or adapted buildings called Theatres - drawn there by their love of drama.

Spiritual people who believe in God - and that includes Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, or Scientologists - LOVE God, so why is it 'ridiculous' that purpose built Churches, Mosques, Temples, and Meeting Houses, should be afforded to them where they can congregate to express and indulge that love?

Why would YOU or ANYONE else deny them that right?

Or does your much heralded and advertised Left leaning advocacy of Liberalism, and belief in Human Rights and Equality, only selectively apply to those doctrines which are a result of Cherry Picking that ideology?

Is NOT 'Religious Tolerance' a major part of Liberalist ideology?

In addition, there are SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES behind ALL religious 'HOUSES of GOD' - though just HOW ancient man understand them is another thread subject.

Mosques and Cathedrals are DESIGNED to maximise their acoustic value, and scientists have discovered that singing HAS a tranquilising yet energizing effect on Humans, so it both soothes the nerves and elevates the spirit.

Endorphins - hormones released by the body during singing - are known to be responsible for feelings of pleasure.

Oxytocin, another hormone released by the body during singing, has been proven to not only combat anxiety and stress, but to also stimulate feelings of trust and bonding between groups of singers - such as CHOIRS and CONGREGATIONS of ALL denominations CHANTING or SINGING HYMNS.

In addition to the many benefits which COMMUNAL singing or Chanting in Houses of God bestows on participants, there is a SCIENCE behind the EXTERNAL EFFECTS of such practises - one which involves VIBRATIONS - hence the particular payment to the detail of acoustics on the part of the architects of these 'Houses of God'.

The term, 'Good Vibrations' has its roots in Religious congregational chanting and singing, and in addition, vibration is a KEY part of the rituals of WORSHIP in MAXIMISING the participant's 'Bond With God', and though I have no desire or heart to expound on that here, it involves 'Mathematical Resonance' and the fact that 'the processes by which sound is turned into harmonious music are the same processes that govern all associating vibrations throughout the universe.'

Anyway, NO ONE has THE right to deny anyone else the RIGHT to believe in God or to WORSHIP that God in a House of God - no matter WHO that Worshipper may be, WHAT his Religion may be, or WHAT deity he worships.

In MY opinion of course.

I didn't do that... of course.

I don't believe anyone or anywhere is any godlier than anyone or anywhere else is all.