Why do people feel that by burning a holy book or books in general you are morally wrong? What is a book but the ideas and thoughts of others written on paper. As a human race we have no issues destroying beautiful landscapes, burning flags, tearing down statues, yet we want to freak out over a book? In the day and age we live in, with all the different forms of information we still hold on to old time values. Why? I have seen and heard of people burning the pictures of an ex in order to move forward after a hard break up. Is this equally as damaging in the eyes of others? We humans honestly take ourselves and our thoughts too seriously. I invite you to express yourself in anyway possible, and if you happen to want to smash some shit in the process or burn a book, ok. I will not stop you, as long as you are not harming another human. Sure bad people burned books, they also played the stock market, are food, drank water, talked with family, argued, fought. So if we are going to compare burning a single book in protest, to the most extreme examples of human evil, well then I say back it up. Give me a good reason why burning a book is actually bad.
Because a book is the thoughts a person put on paper. In almost every circumstance, this is the sole record they leave behind. Everyone has the right to express their thoughts and beliefs, no matter how repugnant and offensive it may appear to others. When you limit what others may express or leave behind as a legacy, you are censoring and playing the revisionist game.
Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Or the Communist Manifesto? I have, and although I disagree with a lot in those books, they offer an understanding on how leaders arrived at their conclusions and positions. I actually learned a lot. In fact, from Marx I embrace the concept of egalitarianism.
We must always strive to keep learning, even if the topic is offensive.
And that takes us to the big question: who decides and when does it stop, if ever? One day we ban any religious books, the next we defock priests, the next we ban all music related to religion?
F you if you think you can take this away from me.
@David_Killens
Would you be opposed to burning pictures? Tearing down statues? Throwing away film? Burning a flag?
Again I really want to drive the point home that I am not suggesting or wanting people to BAN anything. The idea that by me burning a single book that has millions if not more copies, would instantly mean I am trying to erase it from history is silly. Everything seems so extreme. I donât want to pile up all the Bibleâs in the world and burn them so no one knows what was written. I wouldnât break into the Vatican to burn books or scrolls. However, I will gladly go to the local dollar store and pick up a few king James editions to use are kindling. I agree that humans should keep record and information should not be eradicated.
The phrase burning books generally carries much more baggage than just the combustion of piles of paper.
Its often carries the notion that we should discard knowledge itself and retreat back to the darkness.
Something that many here will find very unpopular.
@Burntheholybooks, it seems you have a knack for managing to convince people you are something you are not. And then counter attacking them when they are inevitably wrong about you. I hope this is the last time we see this pattern.
ETA: OP continued to troll in separate thread and was removed
OMG ---- Here we go againâŚ
" The burning of books represents an element of censorship and usually proceeds from a cultural, religious, or political opposition to the materials in question. In some cases, the destroyed works are irreplaceable and their burning constitutes a severe loss to cultural heritage."
The fact that you justify burning THIS BOOK opens the door to the acceptability of others justifying the burning of any book they donât like as well. The fact that you find no value at all in the bible is ignorance to the extreme. It has historical value, poetic value, and certainly literary value. The fact that you can extend your ignorance to all religions is utter insanity. Taoism and Buddhism contain amazing inquiries into the human condition in addition to all the religious woo woo accepted by the faiths. Hinduism was an amazing journey that actually made enough sense to free me from many of my early Christian PRECONCEIVED NOTIIONS. Your ignorance is boundless when you can wave a hand and assert, âBurn them all, whatâs wrong with that?â You my friend are a sad example of a human being.
False Analogy - You are not burning your personal bible so you can move on. Frankly, I think that might be an okay idea. Burn all the little underlines and the little expressions in the margins. Burn all the thoughts you had while reading and jotted down. Burn the part of your life that you no longer want to hold onto. That way you could burn it and LET GO. You would not spend your entire life hating all religions and running about burning all bibles.
Obviously you have not LET GO. If you can find that old bible, The one you used as a kid. The very one that you were forced to copy from. Psychologically; it just might do you some personal good to burn it. To burn it and allow the anger and hatred to dissipate with the flames and smoke. To let your PRECONCIEVED notions waft away on the breeze with the walls you have constructed against religions for self preservation and fear of being hurt again. (With that said⌠understand⌠neither you or the person burning the photo will actually change a damn thing. This is a psychological technique that is used to help free people from preconceived notions and tends to work pretty well with âhate.â It is not the picture or the bible that is actually being burned in the âpsychological ritual.â but rather, it is the 'hate." The picture or the bible in such cases is simply a symbol. It becomes a symbol of the bonds of the past, and burning them leads to psychological freedom. But again, this would apply to YOUR BIBLE not all bibles. To make your analogy work, you would not only have to burn the picture of your girlfriend by burn the pictures of everyone elseâs girlfriends as well,. FAIL
Stupid statement of the week. Congratulations, you win the Magic Dipstick of the night award. Letâs all go over to Egypt now, rip down the pyramids and build a parking lot.
Straw man fallacy. People burned books. No one called them good or bad. Perfectly nice people burned books. Ignorant people who had no understanding of the value of books burned them. Loads of religious people burned books or banned them as the books challenged their ideas. Politicians burned books for the same reasons. And YOU are insisting on burning them for NO BETTER REASONS.
Now you are back stepping and redefining the topic. Pretending that the topic is not YOUR NAME. What is your name??? Did you fucking forget? âBURN THE HOLY BOOKSâ Where in this are you justifying burning only one book. I have justified burning 'one book" for you. However; if you recall the example, the BOOK being burned was not what was important. What was important was moving on, going forward, and letting go of anger. Burning the anger the book represented was the goal.
You have clearly stated, âBurn all holy books.â and that you have hated all religions since you were 19 years old. What is obvious from your posts and from the name you have chosen is this⌠YOU HAVE ISSUES.
Burning a book is bad for the simple reason that it sets a really bad example to others. It validates book burning. Even in the case of using a book burning in a psychological session. That is why is is to utterly and completely important that the focus is on burning the Anger and Hatred and not on the book. The book is completely insignificant. If the anger and hatred are not âburned awayâ the entire psychological ritual is useless. The burning served no purpose at all and was a complete waste of time and effort and a book was destroyed for no good reason at all.
Burning a single book is the same thing as burning money. Itâs wasteful.
Burning a single book is a traditional early step in facilitating a highly restrictive culture or government. It is a step to restrict information which might conflict with the information the culture or government wants people to trust. It begins with a single individual. That is how any movement begins. It takes one person to start a movement. It takes one person to convince the ignorant to follow. It took only one person to Draw Muhammad and thus create Draw Muhammad day.
Your book burning is just not justified. Whatâs wrong with it? You are supporting your version of book burning out of pure ignorance.
By your name I inferred that your goal was to burn all holy books. By your tone and obvious hatred and fear of religion, that was what I assumed.
To me, the individual act of burning a sole book for personal release/gratification is pointless, and I do wonder why you even proposed this topic.
May I humbly suggest you be a little more concise, and instead of âburning booksâ, you alter it to âI burned a bookâ.
⌠I took my childhood green bible (dinosaur in the inside map drawing) and threw it in the garbage.
Didnât name myself after it ⌠@byebyegreenmeanmachine.
ah yes, the âJWâ bible
Yes to all except the flag.
Burning art, including books, is the action of narrow-minded, bigoted controllers like Savonarola, the Nazis, and various Popes.
Sorry to be dense, but does that mean Elvis has left the building?
Seems I may have been right to accuse him of being disingenuous . I sincerely hope he was lying about his mental state, because that is deeply concerning to me.
Not sure I understand what you mean.
It does seem to me that some of the more conservative religious sects want exactly that. They are anti science and anti reason. Seems to me it is precisely that ilk who are responsible for inflicting Donald Trump on the civilised world as American President. I think itâs crucial for people with a working cerebral cortex to oppose those troglodytes.
Recently, itâs become a thing all over the world to remove public statues because folks donât like what they represent, usually slavery, colonialism or both.
In the US Sports teams with âoffensive namesâ, such as âThe Redskinsâ have been changing their names.
I do not support the thinking [or lack of it] behind such ideas.
Apologies for Godwins Law: Nazi Germany began burning books in 1933. These were books written by Jews and/or containing Ideas the Nazis did not like. A failed artist, Hitler hated modern art, considering say the French Impressionists to be degenerate. Fortunately, not all Nazi higher ups agreed, so most was saved. Plus, what the French hid.
I think it was the Taliban (?) who destroyed huge millennia old statues of the Buddha. Should say Notre Dame De Paris or the Hagia Sophia be destroyed because of the religious ideas and practices they embody? What about say Michelangeloâs David, The Pieta or Medici Tomb? Or Perhaps the sublime wood caving of Penitent Magdalene by Donatello? (so far the only work of art which has moved me to tears)
I do not support destroying a book or anything else because of the ideas they represent. Itâs a slippery slope I think. The same reason I am unable to support anti hate speech laws. (we have them in Oz)
Once again I post the clip on free speech, the right to insult or offend by Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry.
Thought for the day; âYouâre offended? So fucking what?â (Stephen Fry)
PS In the film âV for Vendettaâ Stephen Fry plays a man who is killed by the government for possession of banned books, such as a masterpiece of illustration in a copy of the Quran.
yeah 
Odd this subject should come up now⌠I am just about 3/4 of the way through a recent book
called âBurning the Booksâ by Richard Ovenden , (a history of knowledge under attack).
According to Ovenden the possession of written records dates from the beginnings of Royal Records ,eventually
these records were accumulated together in what we might recognize as a form of library or archive.
Initialy these archives were for storing information on taxes ,tallies of crops and livestock ,taxes and monies spent on
Royal works and projects. But in time other records were also collected ,religious texts ,oracular and divination records.
Then more ,censusâ ,marriage records ( for noble and royal families ,complete with records of dowries) ,records of legal
cases and judgements.
Then histories , foundation stories descriptions of geographic areas ,in fact the core of a national awareness.
Ancient kings used to instruct their armies to destroy an enemies libraries if the chance arose⌠(not an easy task as clay
tablets and carved stone is a bugger to burn, although striking matches is a bit of a doddle).
This destruction is an attempt to destroy an enemy peoples unity and sense of community.
But then Ashurbanipal (Kng of Assyia) gave his generals different orders⌠only destroy that which cannot
be carried away , bring everything else back to the Assyrian library.
In this way he not only deprived his enemy of their knowledge but also gathered the knowledge to himself.
Knowledge had become a commodity.
Sorry this is getting a bit âwordyâ ⌠but there is only one more point I want to make⌠If I control your library,
I can prevent you and your people useing it , indeed I can destroy your history and even rewrite it to suit my purposes.
Powerful tools these librariesâŚ
Yair
I find it telling that much of the Vaticanâs library is not available to researchers.
It was only in May 2020 that Vatican archives about Pius 12 and the Nazis was unsealed.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Vatican apocrypha: In the1800âs Pope Pius 1X chopped the penises off every statue in the Vatican. (thatâs true) Local folklore has it that somewhere deep within
the vatican there is a chest full of penises. If itâs not true, it should be.
Because it is an act of pernicious violent censorship.
This is a straw man fallacy, plenty of people would probably find those actions objectionable, I certainly would.
That isnât remotely comparable, since the image is not being destroyed to deprive others of it, or to silence anyone elseâs ideas, or to harm the person in the image.
So we shouldnât take any of your thoughts here at all seriously? You might want to think that over again.
Except you are, as burning books is an act of violent censorship, though I suspect having not got the reaction you want, youâre about to indulge in disingenuous semantics.
So we canât condemn Hitler because he was married and kept a beloved dog? What a truly asinine idea.
So now itâs a single book, here come the semantics, if you want to protest against ideas in a book then do so, just donât indulge in violent acts of censorship.
Another straw man fallacy, and a ludicrous piece of hyperbole to boot.
Done and done, you donât seem to want to view it for what it is though, a violent act of censorship.
Often when we destroy these we do it as a symbol. Burning The Bible, or any culturally significant book is going to make a statement. Even if its as a personal statement.
Equally religious books can help understand the perspective of religions. If you appose religion donât buy the book, but if you want to read it for fun and then put it on a shelf with all your other fiction thatâs fine, or give it away. You have a right to destroy your own property and nothing is going to happen if you burn a single bible, (it might anger some theists if you tell them). The only reason to burn any symbol is for the personal gratification, or to anger/upset someone.
Nope, not even close to being true , and burning books is wrong because itâs an act censorship, I donât care if itâs Mein Kampf being burned, it is not the way to oppose bad deas.
The more you agree with me,busing bad reasons, the more Iâm starting to question my rationale.
I do hope thatâs an example of your poor language skills. Only it reads as if youâre suggesting burning symbols is a good thing if itâs to anger people or for self gratification?
That isnât what you meant to say, is it?
While youâre hereâŚ
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Yes, I would agree. However one of the biggest problems with censorship is it prevents academics and scholars from learning from past events. For instants, in the hands of a psychologist, Mein Kampf, might teach how to prevent the recurrence of a figure like Hitler raising to power today, whilst to a historian it might provide a better understanding of the time.
Ok let me make it clear, No, I donât condone the burning of any symbols regardless of position. But if some idiot has the idea in their head that burning a symbol is a good idea, there isnât much point in telling them not to do it, as there probably just going to do it anyway.
If you really want me to discuss this topic, create a new thread, otherwise Iâm not going to discuss any of my deeper opinions on this forum as I have already been temporarily banned for my beliefs. I think the discussions on this Forum are interesting, so Iâm willing to follow the grain and stay silent on matters that I disagree with. If this topic comes up I might discuss it, but only if I feel able to give an opinion without admins taking things too far.
Indeed. Thatâs been done to death. âMein Kampfâ is still readily available, at least in Oz. Hitlerâs Rise to power is not an extraordinary thing in itself. Read some history.
We human beings tend to ignore many of the lessons from history. Hence thing such as genocide happen again, and again, and again ad infinitum.
The biggest problem is it endorses the idea that itâs ok to censor voices you donât agree with.
Bad ideas should always be challenged.
You were not banned for expressing beliefs.
Iâve started several threads asking theists and religious apologists for evidence. They all make the same lame excuses you have.
No. @Nyarlathotep used his admin because I refused to answer a DM question for which the answers where say Iâm a troll, which Iâm not, say his opinion was fact, or 'something else he did not know. I said that everything I said was my opinion. And he blocked me for 24hrs. When I logged back on, he asked me to answer the same question again. Telling me my next post on the website needed to be an answer to his question. So, we about to find out what you all really think about censorship. Or is this âgood censorshipâ.