Poll: Dilemma Time, would you burn a book ?

[Kakujin]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

 

[stinkyrobot]

Yes, because religion is bad, in my humble opinion.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Well, perhaps you have some insight that I lack. Can you cite or source some examples of murder and war being justified by Buddhism?

Sorry but LMGTFY

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

Google is our friend

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

 

[Gincairn]

At what point should a piece of text outweigh that of a human life?

When the benefits of the text outweighs that of the human life in question.

And surely that in itself is subjective?

Granted something big like the cure for cancer could be worth considering, but a religious text? No, there are those that have lived their entire lives reading those books and some still who could recite every word from memory, that ensures that their text lives on.

 

[Kakujin]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

 

[funguy2121]

Well, perhaps you have some insight that I lack. Can you cite or source some examples of murder and war being justified by Buddhism?

Sorry but LMGTFY

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

Google is our friend

You've left me to assume what LMGTFY can possibly mean. Oh, internet...

Is that the new way to say LGBT? Lesbian Mainly-Gay Transgendered Fully pansexual Yetis included? Or Laughed-My-Godforsaken-Teeth-down-the-Fucking-Yellow-brick-road? I dunnoh. So I'll simply say "LMGTFY to you."

Link was to a book review. The book seemed like propaganda, so I looked up "Buddhism war murder" on ReligiousTolerance.org.

Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

This page covers every place in the world wherein religious war is being waged. Out of 26 countries, war is being waged involving Buddhists in only 3, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Tibet. In Sri Lanka, until recently a Hindu minority has been waging war for independence; in the Thailand and Tibet, Buddhists have been under attack by radical Muslims and a communist regime.

Of course, if a religion lasts long enough, some dogma-pushing opportunist will twist the words to his/her own meaning, and sometimes this will involve violence. My point was that far more war, war crimes and murder have taken place because in the name of certain other religions which, even in their most peaceful forms and in strict accordance with their original texts, do involve a sort of taking over of the world, an imperialism which is notably absent from the central premise(s) of Buddhism.

 

[Kakujin]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

Because I would still be alive, my life's worth is not determined by what I do, or what I don't do, my life is valuable to me because I live it, and I am alive.

 

[funguy2121]

By the way, OP, I did eat the book. It tasted sweet on my tongue, but was bitter to my stomach.

Care for a cookie, John?

 

[dogenzakaminion]

While I'm not comfortable burning any book for no reason, If it's "burn the last holy book or get killed" I would do it. Who's to say the people who want me to burn it wouldn't just burn it themselves after they killed me and my sacrifice would have been moot.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Well, perhaps you have some insight that I lack. Can you cite or source some examples of murder and war being justified by Buddhism?

Sorry but LMGTFY

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

Google is our friend

You've left me to assume what LMGTFY can possibly mean. Oh, internet...

Is that the new way to say LGBT? Lesbian Mainly-Gay Transgendered Fully pansexual Yetis included? Or Laughed-My-Godforsaken-Teeth-down-the-Fucking-Yellow-brick-road? I dunnoh. So I'll simply say "LMGTFY to you."

Link was to a book review. The book seemed like propaganda, so I looked up "Buddhism war murder" on ReligiousTolerance.org.

Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

This page covers every place in the world wherein religious war is being waged. Out of 26 countries, war is being waged involving Buddhists in only 3, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Tibet. In Sri Lanka, until recently a Hindu minority has been waging war for independence; in the Thailand and Tibet, Buddhists have been under attack by radical Muslims and a communist regime.

Of course, if a religion lasts long enough, some dogma-pushing opportunist will twist the words to his/her own meaning, and sometimes this will involve violence. My point was that far more war, war crimes and murder have taken place because in the name of certain other religions which, even in their most peaceful forms and in strict accordance with their original texts, do involve a sort of taking over of the world, an imperialism which is notably absent from the central premise(s) of Buddhism.

It means "Let Me Google That For You".

My point is that it isn't the faith but the people who wage war, the bible isn't some malicious murderer waiting in an alley to shank you.
Of all the people who believe only a few have chosen to be violent or wage war.
If you want war you can find justification in any text if you wanted to.
For all the times the bible calls people to war or demands conversion through force you can find a verse that will contradict that.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

Because I would still be alive, my life's worth is not determined by what I do, or what I don't do, my life is valuable to me because I live it, and I am alive.

But the worth of other people's lives is determined by their actions ?

 

[Kakujin]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

Because I would still be alive, my life's worth is not determined by what I do, or what I don't do, my life is valuable to me because I live it, and I am alive.

But the worth of other people's lives is determined by their actions ?

In so much as that it is gone if they attack me with intent to kill, yes.

 

[Mcmuffin]

No Absolutely not, i love knowledge. Even if this book was like the most hated book in the world about how to revive hitler and cause another holocaust i would not burn it. I love knowledge as knowledge is always good, its the people who use it that are evil

 

[funguy2121]

Well, perhaps you have some insight that I lack. Can you cite or source some examples of murder and war being justified by Buddhism?

Sorry but LMGTFY

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

Google is our friend

You've left me to assume what LMGTFY can possibly mean. Oh, internet...

Is that the new way to say LGBT? Lesbian Mainly-Gay Transgendered Fully pansexual Yetis included? Or Laughed-My-Godforsaken-Teeth-down-the-Fucking-Yellow-brick-road? I dunnoh. So I'll simply say "LMGTFY to you."

Link was to a book review. The book seemed like propaganda, so I looked up "Buddhism war murder" on ReligiousTolerance.org.

Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

This page covers every place in the world wherein religious war is being waged. Out of 26 countries, war is being waged involving Buddhists in only 3, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Tibet. In Sri Lanka, until recently a Hindu minority has been waging war for independence; in the Thailand and Tibet, Buddhists have been under attack by radical Muslims and a communist regime.

Of course, if a religion lasts long enough, some dogma-pushing opportunist will twist the words to his/her own meaning, and sometimes this will involve violence. My point was that far more war, war crimes and murder have taken place because in the name of certain other religions which, even in their most peaceful forms and in strict accordance with their original texts, do involve a sort of taking over of the world, an imperialism which is notably absent from the central premise(s) of Buddhism.

It means "Let Me Google That For You".

My point is that it isn't the faith but the people who wage war, the bible isn't some malicious murderer waiting in an alley to shank you.
Of all the people who believe only a few have chosen to be violent or wage war.
If you want war you can find justification in any text if you wanted to.
For all the times the bible calls people to war or demands conversion through force you can find a verse that will contradict that.

Agreed.

Wait, mod wrath. OK, who's your zombie avatar? Looks familiar.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

Because I would still be alive, my life's worth is not determined by what I do, or what I don't do, my life is valuable to me because I live it, and I am alive.

But the worth of other people's lives is determined by their actions ?

In so much as that it is gone if they attack me with intent to kill, yes.

So does your life always have value over those who attack you ?
If your death was seen as justice would you still resist the slaying ?

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Well, perhaps you have some insight that I lack. Can you cite or source some examples of murder and war being justified by Buddhism?

Sorry but LMGTFY

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

Google is our friend

You've left me to assume what LMGTFY can possibly mean. Oh, internet...

Is that the new way to say LGBT? Lesbian Mainly-Gay Transgendered Fully pansexual Yetis included? Or Laughed-My-Godforsaken-Teeth-down-the-Fucking-Yellow-brick-road? I dunnoh. So I'll simply say "LMGTFY to you."

Link was to a book review. The book seemed like propaganda, so I looked up "Buddhism war murder" on ReligiousTolerance.org.

Here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

This page covers every place in the world wherein religious war is being waged. Out of 26 countries, war is being waged involving Buddhists in only 3, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Tibet. In Sri Lanka, until recently a Hindu minority has been waging war for independence; in the Thailand and Tibet, Buddhists have been under attack by radical Muslims and a communist regime.

Of course, if a religion lasts long enough, some dogma-pushing opportunist will twist the words to his/her own meaning, and sometimes this will involve violence. My point was that far more war, war crimes and murder have taken place because in the name of certain other religions which, even in their most peaceful forms and in strict accordance with their original texts, do involve a sort of taking over of the world, an imperialism which is notably absent from the central premise(s) of Buddhism.

It means "Let Me Google That For You".

My point is that it isn't the faith but the people who wage war, the bible isn't some malicious murderer waiting in an alley to shank you.
Of all the people who believe only a few have chosen to be violent or wage war.
If you want war you can find justification in any text if you wanted to.
For all the times the bible calls people to war or demands conversion through force you can find a verse that will contradict that.

Agreed.

Wait, mod wrath. OK, who's your zombie avatar? Looks familiar.

She is Jeannette/Therese from Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines.

 

[Kakujin]

Nothing makes me, or my children unique or special at least not by default. But the same thing is true about the stories in religious books. Who is to say that those stories are more special than any other.
I did not say it would not be tragic for some, but how many works of art have not already been lost forever and forgotten about, or never completed at all? Life would go on and new masterpieces would be created and studied for generations to come.
Not that I am sure of what this has to do with anything, but I would never hunt down and kill people for the sake of my children, but I would defend them against any attack, no matter how many I would have to kill. That which is mine will always be more important to me, than anyone else.

So to be harsh, ultimately the only thing of value to you is your own life and that of your family.
Fair enough, it's hard to argue with that reasoning.

I find it interesting that that side of the story, which you brought in all on your own, is now the only argument that gets a response. Then let me ask you something back, would you kill everyone you love and care about to save the Mona Lisa?

That's assuming I have loved ones or people I care about.
No, I would happily burn the Mona Lisa.
You should know that I was the first "yes I would burn the book" vote in my poll.
I just argued with you to understand your value system better.
You don't care about people over culture, you care about your life over culture.
Would you still burn the book if it was a stranger's life you'd save ?

Yes I care about my life over culture, but I am impressed that you from that would conclude that I don't value people over culture, because I do. Like I said in my second post, human culture springs from humans. Therefore it can never be right to sacrifice a human for the sake of culture. Thus, of course I would burn the book to save a stranger, I would burn that book to save someone I hate, because a human life will always be worth more than culture to me.

True but you also care about your life and those of your loved ones over the lives of others.

Yes I do, and I feel no shame about that. What could be more important to me than my own life? And yes I do value the lives of the people I know and love above the lives of those I have never met. However, I would gladly kill myself and anyone I hold dear, if it was the only to save a large number of people. I do value my life, and the lives of my loved ones higher than anything else in this world, but I also know that sometimes, what you love must be sacrificed for the greater good, of course provided that it truly was the only way, not just the easiest way.

So if twenty people stormed your house with the intent to kill you, you wouldn't fight back with lethal force ?
Better to die at their hands than kill twenty times more people than would be killed if you fought back ?

Nope, of course I would fight back, they are attacking me with intent to kill me, and have therefore forfeited their human value in my eyes. Like I already stated, if I am attacked, of course I will defend myself.

If so, how can your life still have value when you'd attack and kill twenty times as many people ?

Because I would still be alive, my life's worth is not determined by what I do, or what I don't do, my life is valuable to me because I live it, and I am alive.

But the worth of other people's lives is determined by their actions ?

In so much as that it is gone if they attack me with intent to kill, yes.

So does your life always have value over those who attack you ?
If your death was seen as justice would you still resist the slaying ?

If they attack me with intent to kill, yes. I strive to return that which is given.
If my death was seen as just by me, no. If my death was seen as just by the ones trying to kill me, yes.

 

[Mandalore_15]

The majority of religion has been nothing but a cancer upon the world, and that is especially true for any religion that has a codified holy book. So hell yes, I'd burn them all even if my own life wasn't at stake!