Can certain practices/traditions of religion..

**Bojangles69** · 10-07-2008, 08:31 PM

be considered an endorsement for suicide?

This is not intended to raise ANY religous bashing.
We were suppose to pick topics for a huge presentation/paper due this semester in a class based on religions, particularly Hinduism.

When it came to me my topic was "self sacrifice and the endorsement of suicide through religion".

It INSTANTLY turned into a heated debate and I had to tell some porky girl to chill out and take a deep breath. (in class it didn't come off like I was making fun of her fyi - which I was fyi).

My professor basically says THATS NOT SUICIDE, its religious sacrifice and you won't find anywhere in the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc where *suicide is actually being endorsed.

After a 20min discussion he told me he would never stop a student from doing a topic but that my whole concept of it as "suicide" was flawed.
Well I plan on owning the shit out of him when I do the presentation. He's a real smart old man, but thats also his weakness.

My question, how many people consider certain parts of whatever book (we won't get specific if it offends people) an *endorsement for suicide*? Because self sacrifice IS a known practice/tradition, and killing yourself = suicide.
So can someone explain how this ISN'T what I'm trying to prove it IS.

**WARMachine** · 10-07-2008, 08:35 PM

Im sorry but killing yourself is just plain killing yourself.

If you want to self-sacrifice for your God, then preach his word, lead a religous and truthful life, and do your best to do positive things in the name of the Lord.

**RuhlFreak55** · 10-07-2008, 09:18 PM

Odin sacrificed an eye for a drink of mead...

**rykketid** · 10-08-2008, 01:56 AM

you know the insurance return for loosing an eye at work where i live is the same as loosing your life, $38,500

**GT2** · 10-08-2008, 06:58 AM

The problem with humans and religious texts is that so much of what is written are actually metaphors, and people take those things LITERALLY! THAT is where all the problems come from...INTERPRETATION of the Writings from God. The Writings themselves are pure, and intended for the betterment of humanity, but when idiots misinterpret shit written in the Bible, Quran, etc, that is where religious conflicts etc. arise.

**RuhlFreak55** · 10-08-2008, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by rykketid

you know the insurance return for loosing an eye at work where i live is the same as loosing your life, $38,500

well then you and ur avi should be set......38500 x 4

**rockinred** · 10-08-2008, 11:25 AM

First off, you won't win an argument with a teacher... not because you don't have a valid point, but because they will stand firm and they give the grades...

Anyhow, the only anlge you can use to justify your statement is the terms and meaning of the words... you will probably need to draw a correlation between the terminology of suicide, sacrifice, killed, etc... This would need to be done through the definition of the meaning of the various terms used to describe death...

That is the angle that I would use. I would go on to say that the meaning of the word is the same in the end no matter how you dice it based on the fact that you die....take out the cause or justification for the ending result. in other words, religious actions have various motives that all have different reasons.... i.e. a person of a christian/jewish origin, have faith in something (believing in something not seen), and a hope in something (belief in the unknown). Those are the meaning of those words... but those things that are based on faith and hope are unkown and that is why you have those words...

what is a fact is that you die... so if a person was to define sacrifice by death different than suicide, you have to point out that based on the factual evidence of death and no other known facts beyond that, they are actually the same. many other religions, such as hinduism, etc.. believe in an after life as their premise for actions... which in the end result in the same regardless of terminology...

I am not trying to simplify the differences... the term means what it means... you don't call the kamakazees(spelling), or a person going into a battle zone a suicidal person... because they have a reason and cause for it... the same with terrorists, they have their motives, so you don't call all these people suicidal... no different than a man who throws his body on a grenade to save a team... is that suicide, or heroism, or sacrifice... maybe all of it..? boils down to terms and beliefs.

the fact is the term describes different meanings, so if you can say the differences, and maybe draw that the ending result is the same so that is why you say it is the same....

does that help or confuse??? lol.

**Rugger02** · 10-08-2008, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by RuhlFreak55

Odin sacrificed an eye for a drink of mead...

LOL He's hardcore

**JiGGaMaN** · 10-08-2008, 06:43 PM

im having a hard time understanding this. If someone kills themselves in the name of their religion yet said religion does not endorse it, then how is it not suicide?

**Tock** · 10-08-2008, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bojangles69

My question, how many people consider certain parts of whatever book (we won't get specific if it offends people) an *endorsement for suicide*? Because self sacrifice IS a known practice/tradition, and killing yourself = suicide.
So can someone explain how this ISN'T what I'm trying to prove it IS.

I can't think of anything in the Bible that supports suicide. It has a passage where Jehovah doesn't do anything to prevent a human sacrifice, and another passage where it says, "If your eye offend thee, pluck it out," which could lead to complications leading to death, but that's about it.

As far as "self-sacrifice" goes, that's pretty much understood as putting someone else's interests above your own, but not quite to the point of death.

**Bojangles69** · 10-10-2008, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by rockinred

First off, you won't win an argument with a teacher... not because you don't have a valid point, but because they will stand firm and they give the grades...

Anyhow, the only anlge you can use to justify your statement is the terms and meaning of the words... you will probably need to draw a correlation between the terminology of suicide, sacrifice, killed, etc... This would need to be done through the definition of the meaning of the various terms used to describe death...

That is the angle that I would use. I would go on to say that the meaning of the word is the same in the end no matter how you dice it based on the fact that you die....take out the cause or justification for the ending result. in other words, religious actions have various motives that all have different reasons.... i.e. a person of a christian/jewish origin, have faith in something (believing in something not seen), and a hope in something (belief in the unknown). Those are the meaning of those words... but those things that are based on faith and hope are unkown and that is why you have those words...

what is a fact is that you die... so if a person was to define sacrifice by death different than suicide, you have to point out that based on the factual evidence of death and no other known facts beyond that, they are actually the same. many other religions, such as hinduism, etc.. believe in an after life as their premise for actions... which in the end result in the same regardless of terminology...

I am not trying to simplify the differences... the term means what it means... you don't call the kamakazees(spelling), or a person going into a battle zone a suicidal person... because they have a reason and cause for it... the same with terrorists, they have their motives, so you don't call all these people suicidal... no different than a man who throws his body on a grenade to save a team... is that suicide, or heroism, or sacrifice... maybe all of it..? boils down to terms and beliefs.

the fact is the term describes different meanings, so if you can say the differences, and maybe draw that the ending result is the same so that is why you say it is the same....

does that help or confuse??? lol.

Thats excellent, really. Because thats exactly what we're covering in my critical discourse class, which is how many arguements/debates actually have no logical premise or factual base to them at all.
I like that idea of removing all the subjective bullshit (interpretation of passages) and doing like a point A to point B explanation.

Person reads bible/koran
Person is religous
Person dies from self inflicted injury.
Self inflicted injury that causes death is by definition = to suicide.

Just keeping it FACTUAL. That way I can also block out all the people who need to throw in their own philsophies because the grounds of my arguement will be nothing but facts.
I like the direction a lot, thanks.

**Bojangles69** · 10-10-2008, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by JiGGaMaN

im having a hard time understanding this. If someone kills themselves in the name of their religion yet said religion does not endorse it, then how is it not suicide?

Yeh thats one of the core issues of religion.

You can have one group of people who interpret the bible (when I say bible I mean any religious text, just being christian biased) and claim 'suicide is a sin' than another group of people who can justify suicide as a sacrifice for their lord through the same book.
So thats the thing, interpretation leaves one school of people who say NO and another group who says YES. The people who say yes are called radicals and the people who say no we tend to accept in society.

Really fvcked up if you ask me.