Religion: Is it Good or Bad?

My theory is to show that it is impossible for a rational person to sustain a belief in God. You can believe in God, or you can be rational, not both. If you are still reading and you believe in God it indicates that there might be at least some hope for you. Those believers who have closed minds are, by definition, not interested in rational argument. It is not my intention to offend people with this post, but I believe that religion is responsible for much more bad than good; that the world would be a much better condition than it presently is without religion. This being so it follows that I feel a responsibility to promote the case against religion.

Many people who do say, and perhaps believe, that they accept one or another of the religions do so because they are terrified of admitting that they have doubts; to have doubts is to risk eternal torture. (I sometimes wonder how these people think of atheists; do they envy the lack of fear that atheists enjoy? Another interesting diversion is to consider that the eternal torture bit was invented for the New Testament, the bit of the Bible that supposedly talks about a loving and forgiving God; the Old Testament was less explicit about Hell.) Getting back to the fear of Hell point, you really don't need to fear Hell because it can be shown that none of us have an immortal soul, so there is no afterlife to fear.

Arguing for Creation Science or Intelligent Design is futile because for argument to mean anything it must rely on the logical evaluation of all the available evidence. To believe in Creation Science or Intelligent Design you must accept some evidence and reject other evidence which is equally, or more, valid. This is irrational. To be able to argue a point in any meaningful way you must be prepared to consider all the relevant evidence on its merrit and with an open mind, and you must be prepared to accept and make logical connections from evidence to conclusion.

It is important that rational people - those who believe that we have a right to freedom of thought, to be allowed to appreciate art, to live our lives as we choose so long as we do not disadvantage others - make a stand. If we do not then there is a very real risk that our world will become dominated by religious bigots who will tell us what to do and how to think. Freedom of thought is a right that must be cherished, during most of our history it is a right that religious bigotry did not allow us.

For instance -

Jesus taught that God is good, loving and forgiving. Yet for centuries the Church has taught that, if you do not believe in God and Jesus Christ, when you die God will send you to Hell where you will suffer eternal torment. Give that a little thought. If some nation in today's world publicly admitted that it was continually and routinely torturing its prisoners, just for the sake of punishment, it would immediately be condemned as barbaric and shunned by all conciensious people. Yet we are to believe that our God, who is loving and forgiving, will send those people who do not believe in him, no matter how exemplary their lives may have been, to eternal torment? I could easily live without that sort of love.

The God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God that Jesus taught about. The God of the Old Testament was cruel, unforgiving, and looked after only his chosen people. Consider, for example, the way that Moses treated the Midianites. The God of Jesus was a much more enlightened and kind entity. I wonder, did Jesus teach about Hell, or is that some invention of those who came later? I don't know.

Even the Old Testament cotradicts itself. As most Christians will know, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not kill". This is simple and unambiguous. Yet there are a great number of references in the Old Testament to people killing other people with God's sanction. There are even at least three places where it is written that a man has the right to kill his son if that son is not obedient! (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

Exodus 21:15 (King James Version)
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Leviticus 20:9 (King James Version)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The Bible is a hodge-podge. Not only does the New Testament largely contradict the Old, but within the New Testament there are writings from many people. 'Saint' Paul never knew Jesus, yet he played a very large part in shaping Christianity. Emperor Constantine I, with his Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, also played a big part in redefining Christianity. The anonymous authors (note the plural) of Revelations (the last 'Book' in the New Testament) added their slant to the forming Christianity. Why should we accept, without evidence, that all these people new exactly who God was and what he wanted?

Religious people tell others how to live -

In the West in the early twenty-first century we have a high level of freedom to do and say what we choose so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. This is reasonable, ethical, and is as it should be.

Under Islam it is unacceptable for an artist to portray any other life-form, even plants. This is because Mohammed was trying to steer people away from worshiping idols - as was commonly done in the Mecca of his youth. He reasoned that if people could not make images of any plant or animal then they could not use that as an image to be worshipped. I suspect that most Westerners don't realise how much poorer fundamentalist Islamic countries are for this; most of what we call art is banned! Under the Taliban in Afghanistan even music - other than in praise of Allah - was also banned.

Under Christianity, when the Church ran the Western World, the situation was not much better. Religious art was acceptable, but secular art was frowned upon. Music praising God was OK, music simply as an art form was thought somehow sinful. (There are still hangovers from this sort of thinking; traditional Irish dancers don't move their arms because the Catholic Church held that was too sensual and therefore sinful.)

There are Christians in most or all Western countries, but especially in the USA, who do not allow their children to go to public schools, watch television, listen to the radio, or read newspapers because they want to force their own deluded beliefs onto their children. They are allowed to force their children to do what they would like to force the rest of us to do, if they could.

What a terribly poorer place the world would be for thinking, art appreciating, people if Christian or Islamic fundamentalists had their way!

Science has shown us a huge amount about how the world works. Ever since the Golden Age of Greece - when philosophers were first allowed to think and say what logic and observation lead them to believe - those who were not under the thumb of religious bigotry have slowly, falteringly, advanced the state of knowledge. There have been dark ages - caused either by barbarism or bigotry - in different parts of the world at different times, but above this there has been a gradual advancement toward an understanding of the Universe.

Religious fundamentalists - like those in the USA who claim that 'Creation Science' or 'Intelligent Design' is just as valid scientifically as the truly scientific study of evolution - would corrupt science and ban all those fields that they felt might lead to conclusions that didn't suit their preconceptions, if they had the power.

Many things in nature - the way that plants grow, the way animals reproduce, why the stars shine, why the planets move through the sky, where we came from, and very many other questions - were once explained as being the work of God. Science has now provided answers to most of the big questions.

Christians would have us believe that God loves us; He loves us unconditionally. Yet they would also have us believe that if we do not believe in Jesus and God then this same loving God will condemn us to eternal torment.

Isn't there a contradiction here? Are we to believe that, no matter whether you live an exemplary life or not, you must believe in God and believe that redemption can only be achieved 'through Jesus' (whatever that means) or your loving God will torture you for all eternity?

We have had a debate on this subject in the past, but I'm happy to discuss it again given its importance.

I have already stated a brief summary of my personal understanding of religion and faith in a previous post - so please forgive me of any repetition.

Endrin, in the first instance, I feel that your argument doesn't clearly distinguish faith and religious zealotry. It is the zealot who dismisses other people's opinions about their existence and engages in a power struggle to try and ensure that their belief system, and subsequently their way of life, is dominant. A zealot is not necessarily religious either. Any person who openly states that they have the answers, yet fails to present them convincingly, is a zealot. There are religious zealots and there are non-religious zealots - each convinced that their ideology is the correct one to follow. A person who states that they can logically prove that the 'immortal soul' doesn't exist is as fanatical as one who states that all infidels will burn in hellfire in their afterlife. Before you logically prove to me that the immortal soul does not exist, perhaps you can accurately define what I think it is?

People who have a genuine faith in God are in a perpetual struggle with themselves not others - it is an inner battle riddled with doubt and insecurity about who we are, why we are here and how we should behave towards each other and our environment. Science and logic have tried to present answers to these questions for thousands of years - but as you can see throughout the world and its history - these answers have proven not to be enough. They explain certain physical processes and then only within the context of our capacity to explore these processes at any given time. For example: we have a better understanding of how our solar system works since we have had the technology to see it more clearly. When I was a child - scientists that taught me told me there are nine planets in our solar system - now apparently Pluto is not a planet.

The biggest mistake of all, when presenting an opposing argument to Faith, is to limit all people of Faith as believers of superstitions and mythology that has been recorded in some ancient tomes. Religious books contain stories, guidance and ideas - but only a fool would regard these as definitive versions of the truth rather than analogies and metaphors to help us reach an understanding of ourselves and our environment. Of course, I accept, there are many such fools - hence the hypocrisies that you have noted.

Not all people of Faith function illogically. It is very much the opposite for most of us. It is logic itself that drives us to the ultimate conclusion that there must be something more to our existence than a temporary and meaningless flirtation with life. The zealot who condemns this feeling is equal to the zealot who decides to bomb people who have a different view of religion to them.

yawn ..i think we had before same topic so no need to say something
And i think this subject is too personal .......and i am not going into same subject..doesnt worth the efforts ..i am believe in God ...i am Muslim and for me that's the right thing ..This what other think ..doesnt concern me
Maggie

When people speak about religion, all heads turn attentively to make sure no one is insulting their religious beliefs... The amusing part is that some people so blindly follow their faith yet don't ponder all the scientific proof that abounds proving that we are products of evolution and not some planned creation by a higher power or being that we have no proof exists. I'm not here to degrade anyone's religion intentionally, just to open people's minds to the truth.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you believe in your faith? Was it taught and drilled into you at a young age, or did you research religions and choose the one that best suited your moral or ideological beliefs? Why is it that you believe in an afterlife or even a god or gods? Have you ever pondered whether perhaps there is no afterlife?

The main reason religion was created was to control the public. There is no god or gods that created us. There is no afterlife. Religious zealots do not want you to know that because if everyone stopped believing in an afterlife, then what would be the point of going to work, or following laws besides the obvious criminal punishment.

The world would fall into chaos or so they would like you to think. If everyone opened their eyes and realized that there is no god(s) or religion, then we probably wouldn't have all the conflicts and wars that we currently have.

If we look back on history, the majority of wars have come to fruition based on someone's radical religious beliefs. The crusades, the moors into Western Europe, the Spanish inquisition, the Israeli incursion into Palestine, all have been based on religion as an excuse for mass genocide.

All the religious groups are quick to point out each others' faults, but fail to realize their own. People who believe in any religion are just lemmings awaiting their turn to jump off the cliff with the rest of the group in ignorance.

I was raised under Roman Catholic parents who were highly religious, and when I reached around the age of 17-18, I started pondering the meaning of life and researching other religions to see what they had in common. I came to the conclusion that there is no afterlife and that the only reason religion exists is for people in power to control the ignorant public, just as our government does each day.

Catholics, Christians, and all their subdivisions claim how holy they are, yet you see cases each day of priests molesting little kids and churches using donations to finance their personal expenses such as lavish cars, vacations etc. We might as well set all child molesters and defrauders free since the church defends its own criminals. Don't forget the thousands of artifacts the Vatican stole and has stored in Rome from previous crusades.

Jews claim they are god's children, yet kill innocent Palestinians to takeover land that they lost in the time of the Romans. If that's the case the United States should give back all of America back to the Native Americans, because it's their ancestral home and they have been petitioning to get it back ever since it was conquered by Europeans.

Not to mention I find it highly hypocritical that Jews defend their right to be saved from the Nazis during World War II and establishing Israel, yet deny refugees from Darfur from entering Israel because, "It's not our problem..." Interesting how they only help when it benefits their cause only.

Muslims claim non-violence, and complain about how many innocents are killed in a war, yet are quick to suicide bomb and massacre thousands of innocent people who do not follow their religious beliefs or ideals. Ironic isn't it? They get violent when someone insults their religion, but it's ok for them to insult everyone else's. Sorry, but freedom of speech is a two way street, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Hindus also are at fault; they believe in religion yet have a caste system that prevents individuals from moving up the social scale. How can someone believe in a god or gods that allow them to prevent others from having basic freedom of choice?

This is not a bashing of any of the above religions or an exclusion of others. These are just major examples of the faults and hypocrisy in religion. Has anyone come back from the dead to prove there is an afterlife? No, they have not... Has anyone seen their god or gods in person? No, they have not. If anyone claims they have, I want physical proof that cannot be altered.

At least science has theoretically proven that we evolved from a single celled organism to what we are today. Religion has nothing besides a book written by man claiming events happened and people existed. Is there any physical proof that these fantastical events happened, no there is not. It seems that religions are quick to create fantasy stories and claim they are fact instead of telling the truth that they are just stories created to control the masses with rules of conduct and laws to follow in order to prevent chaos.

While we are at it, lets start founding new religions based on every fantasy story out there, for example Dragonlance, or the Chronicles of Narnia.

The best example of religious ignorance are Evangelists who have some ridiculous museum claiming dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time as humans and that they coexisted like humans with dogs. How ridiculous is that? Try swimming with a great white shark or jumping in a swamp with an alligator and see how long you can stay around it before it decides you are dinner.

For those who claim religion creates hope, ask all the Atheists if believing in non-existence of a higher power has led them to despair, I guarantee not one of them including myself believes such nonsense. I may not know what lies after death, but I sure won't waste my life praying to something that may or may not exist. If there is a god, isn't he/she supposed to forgive me for all of my sins?

So technically I can apologize afterward for my ignorance if after I die some higher power appears before me. Until then, I prefer to travel in reality and take care of the real problems in the world like my family and friends, not some guy in a robe preaching about the end of the world and my sins for the past two thousand years....

I'm sorry if my thoughts on the subject offends people and I'm sorry if this was a topic previously discussed. Maybe you can jusfity your answers in your beliefs, maybe not. Who knows. But one thing I know and I'm sure all can agree is Religion isn't for everyone and believing in what makes you feel at ease when you rest your head is all that really matters.

=0)

Endrin i suggest that u read all this and u will know we discussed that before ..https://xxxgodxxx.forumotion.com/the-big-issues-f10/religion-part-1-religion-and-intellect-t50.htm


And i know for sure only one thing :discussing religion with EVERYBODY is just waste of time ...is good that u realise u can offend many with your post personally i just started read your post and then stopped .
Will say one last thing :
believing is BIg THING ...few people can understand it can feel it
Religion as like that isn't for everybody ...that's why there is Hell and Heaven ..if could everybody believe there will be no need of Hell .
BTW i wanted say something to Space who removed all offending religion avatars ..
Simons avatar .Adrs avatar ..I think that was the right thing ..such a avatars offend every believer ..no matter Muslim Cristian and etc ....of course there is freedom but when this freedom offend somebody's believes then have to be stopped : ))

Spoken like a true misguided Muslim:

"You offend me so YOU will be removed"

I suggest reading some Voltair!

For those who are unfamiliar, Voltair said:

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

You offend others Maggie, so you should be removed!

Fox i even didnt start to offend somebody ..... of course there are some things which cant be allowed get it u uneducated little boy ??
Like all other i post my Opinion BUT without to offend somebody !!!
So i think everybody have to do it in this way u understand ?
You really shouldnt allow bitterness to take such a grip on your emotions : )
and one thing is Voltaire not Voltair!!!

Oh I think I hit a nerve there didn't I? Uneducated little boy? So you don't think I am Heartsss anymore?

Clearly you have failed to understand my comment. Adra was banned from the forum because her avatar offended poor little Space. Simon was banned because he offended some of you. I didn't say you had offended anyone. I pointed out that you support the removal of anyone who offends you.

Question: If I am offended by your Avatar, will you remove it?

It reminds me of the cartoon published in Denmark that caused the muslim riots. It was not OK to publish the cartoon but it was perfectly fine for people who claim to be muslim to threaten murder in response.

I am not bitter because I couldn't care less. My only aim is to provoke a reaction and it works every time. A simple trick of changing IP locations provokes a banner message. I am honored that my post here has also provoked a reaction. I look forward to further opportunities, and believe me there will be plenty of them.

Thanks for correcting my spelling of Voltaire though. I bet you looked that up!

For the record....

Adra was banned for re-editing an edited post - not for her lame avatar, which I asked repeatedly for her to remove.

Simon...why would he be banned? I have yet to see a post from him.

She didn't look up Voltaire...I told her. If you wish to quote philosophers in future, save your embarrassment and ask me how to spell their names : )

Maggie I suggest you read the last sentence of my post. I would also suggest that being given the freedom of speech that I may excersize that right. Thirdly when making a post that reads 'Religion as like that isn't for everybody ...that's why there is Hell and Heaven ..if could everybody believe there will be no need of Hell .' Is like pushing your thoughts on Religion onto others. For every action there is a reaction. I made this post specifically to support MY ideas and to start a conversation to get insight on other's ideas and beliefs as well. Not to start an arguement. Grown people should be able to discuss things of this nature without getting 'Heated' under the collar over a few words. I am open to your views as well as comments. What I stated is very much true and with little research it can be proven. I didn't single out one Religion and slam it into the ground. I posted and commented on a few Religions. I support freedom of choice until that freedom is taken from me and crammed selfishly down my throat.

Religion and Politics are very sensitive subjects, views and opinions vary on both but should the topic be Taboo in this forum? Afterall this is the correct area to post a topic like this.

BTW I have read that post quite enthusiastically and in a manner of trying to comprehend why people do believe reguardless of what negativeness has emitted from that particular Religion, that is why I posted a new thread here instead.

=0)

As my post was removed, I shall re-post it.

Maggie was told what to say? Oh Maggie how disappointed I am that you have to take your lead from others.

Adra was banned because she reinstated her original post? I love it!

It's interesting to see that the more attention was paid on the spelling of the name than the important detail of the quote itself. Or was it a very lame attempt to show that someone must be stupid because they spell a name wrong? It is hilarious that the person making that attack didn't even know herself, and had to be prompted by Space. The scheme partially worked. Yes it did make someone look stupid, but it's a shame it was Maggie and Space.

Besides, it is no embarrassment to have my spelling corrected, particularly from the typo king himself!

Endrin i am agree with that religion is sensitive subject at least for me i never deny it !!!Its too personal thing too
The best what i can do is to stop discuss it ...always ends as argument .I know already i discuss religion only with choiced people (u prolly wont understand that with non -belivers i dont like to talk about religion ) I would like to discuss with you everything else ..hmmm lets think what else we can discuss : ))
Fox .... "Question: If I am offended by your Avatar, will you remove it?" yeah Fox if my avatar offend somebody believes has to be removed .. I dont know adrs avatar but i seen Simons Avatar .such a jokes with Prophets have to be removed immediately .I understand different people have different opinion BUT i dont accept that OFFENDING somebody belives is freedom of speech .Some things have to be with limits
"Yes it did make someone look stupid, but it's a shame it was Maggie and Space."
FOx NOBODY can make me look stupid u know why ??because i am quiet smart and educated woman ..The fact i cant talk English like you means nothing ..i know other languages and i accept my self for an intelligent person :)about Space being stupid i suggest that u find another word we all know Space and he can be everything else but NOT a stupid : ))
"My only aim is to provoke a reaction and it works every time. " ..Well we all post something to get some reaction ....u post topic we reply ..we post topic u reply ..of course the negative reaction have to be with some limits .
I hope we are done with WHY somebody avatars were removed ..i suggest Fox that we speak for something else like ..well hmm what about do u have any idols in your life ?Do u want to be like somebody esle ?to has his /her life ?
I will look for your honest answers : ))
Maggie

Foxthree...

You really must try to be more humble in light of your own errors. Pointing out your spelling mistake of Voltaire's name was not motivated from a desire to make you look stupid - I think you do that very well all by yourself. Maggie only remarked on it because of the manner in which you introduced the subject:

'I suggest reading some Voltair!

For those who are unfamiliar, Voltair said:....'


Now, anyone who introduces a subject with that level of arrogance and patronization, really needs to have a complete command of the subject matter. In the very least, we would expect them to spell correctly the name of the philosopher that they are quoting. If you can't do that...then how can any of us have any confidence in what you say?

Two last points: your post was not deleted, and typos are an issue with a person's ability to type whilst spelling errors suggest a lack of appropriate knowledge. I accept my inability to type well; do you accept your lack of knowledge?

Maggie only mentioned it because you told her to.

Einstein couldn't spell nor did he have any qualifications, yet he was one of the finest minds of the 20th Century. Are you suggesting the inability to spell correctly has any bearing on knowledge of the subject matter? Perhaps the inability to type correctly on a regular basis suggests you have no hand-eye coordination and perhaps you should avoid using any kind of machinery.

But again you seem to focus on small errors rather than the statement itself. Using a quote to illustrate a point has little bearing on a missing e on the end of a name, but if you insist on assuming someone is lacking in knowledge and intelligence based on spelling I am happy to explore that idea.

Maggie.

No-one has the right to threaten physical violence either. If you offend me would you expect me to threaten you with physical violence? This was the purpose of the VoltairE quote to demonstrate that whilst I may not agree with you, I am not going to threaten to bomb your offices as a result of your statements. This is why I think the Muslim faith has much to consider when it responds to a Danish magazine cartoon with acts of terror. I always assumed that Islam stood for peace but not anymore it seems.

Other faiths have blood on their hands also, so I do not single out the muslim faith. If you exercise that faith in the manner it was intended, then peace be with you.

I have my own faith of sorts, but it does not include an established religious system. I believe in divine entity of sorts because of what I have seen, experienced and studied over the years. However, I refuse to be part of any religious group, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc, as I believe them to be flawed and corrupt. Whatever faith I may have is practiced in my own time, in my own way, and is not pushed on others. Some of the nastiest people I have met claim to be part of a Christian Church. Some of the world's deadliest terrorists claim to be devout muslim.

To answer your final question: I admire many people for a variety of reasons but do I want to be like anyone else? No, I am happy being me.

At last....

Foxthree, you have made some significant steps towards civilisation : ) Well done, I am proud of you and the progress you have made under my guidance!

Look how far you have come! From the sneering aggressive post that you started with in this thread - to what amounts to a reasoned and well argued post. You started by calling Maggie a misguided Muslim...insinuated that she was wrong in her statements...vented your hostility like a drunken thug on the street. This last post has a better tone. If you wanted a discussion, perhaps you should have started with this tone in the first place!

Now to the points you make. Of course spelling has a bearing on knowledge - knowledge of spelling. Since our interactions will only ever be made through 'text' - the quality of your text is all I can judge you on. The quality of your written text, the tone with which you address me and the agenda for your contribution are the key features that determine my impression of you. So far my impression has not been positive : )

However...since you made a reasonable post...I will indulge you with an answer. Your original quote refers to freedom of speech. The right of any individual to say what they like regardless of consequence. Whilst I believe in freedom of speech, I also believe in freedom of reaction. The banner of freedom of speech is too often waved by people who want to do nothing more than just taunt others about their beliefs and principles. When the intention is to taunt and humiliate - I believe the injured party have the right to react. If you accost me on the street and taunt me with your words - exercising your freedom to speak - I will NOT defend you to the death - quite the opposite. Voltaire made his statement in a particular context - against the dogma of the Church and the censorship of his time. Although he was a satirist, I am pretty sure his thinking at that time did not include taunting people about their beliefs. He was fighting for the right to present a different view of life, political and religious belief.

Freedom of speech is a privilege that should not be abused or mixed up with people's desire to humiliate others. If they choose to go down that path then they should stand and take whatever retribution is thrown back at them. After all....they have the freedom to make a decision as to whether they say the offensive things or not!

yeah like Spaces said Fox your last post is with better tone ))
i knew u can do it : ))))

Space.

I realize it was said tongue in cheek (at least I think that was a tongue) and designed to provoke a reaction, but in case it was your ego speaking I assure everyone that you had no influence on my tone or approach to this forum. I merely choose my approach as I see fit.

Back to the spelling issue: If you find fault in the general quality of my spelling then I am sure you will let me know, but ensure first you use the relevant dictionary.

Of course what and how I type on a forum dictates how you view me and what response I will ultimately receive. My tone is placed as I choose but ultimately your views about me are irrelevant. If you think my tone shows a lack of intelligence then that is your own view, but again irrelevant. If you judge me purely on how I misspell a name then your judgment is flawed.

I made my comments on Maggie based on other posts and what she has said in various rooms. The fact that she is a Muslim is not an issue. The fact that she used it as an excuse to berate homosexuals is in my view very offensive. I am not homosexual myself, but have no patience for those who are homophobic. Therefore in my view, to use a religion in that way is misguided. But as you say, Voltaire was fighting for the right to present a different view of life, political and religious belief. If Maggie’s beliefs are religious, as she says they are, where does this take us?

I won’t generally taunt anyone in a street unless it is deserved, such as those who preach hatred and violence in open arenas. In a forum, however, it is a different matter. Posting logs of Na_Nashi for example is childish and serves no other purpose than to try and humiliate people. You also enjoy trying to humiliate individuals but I recognize you are prepared to take any abuse in return. I think you enjoy that too. However, to point the finger at others for doing the same is hypocritical.

merry christmas

I didn't think you would understand, but if you read my post in the logger's section it may help you.

An individual makes a web site to post logs and humilate people in the past (according to meet) and that's bad. Doing the same in this forum though is good it seems.

Either it is acceptable or it isn't. If it is don't complain about the past actions of another individual. If it isn't, then doing the same thing yourself is hypocritical.

As this thread is about religion and its values how about turn the other cheek, as the good books say?

merry christmas