I think it's just a question of semantics. If you want to call it a violent act than fine, but I don't necessarily think that it is. The word suggests an uncontrolled force and I think that what they did took an extreme level of self control. I am sure you can set yourself on fire violently or non violently and to be honest, I don't really see how attempting to define it as violent or not relates to the act itself, its outcome or effect that it had on others.Originally posted by The Architect
arran, you mention that the Buddhist monks burnt themselves to death was in an act of protest against the violence that was happening. While I do not doubt thier intentions or what motivated them to do this, my opinion of this is that their protest - burning themselves - while not inflicted upon others, is an act of violence depending on how you see it. How do you see it?
This sentence seems to contradict itself. Doing something to give yourself a better nights sleep would seem to suggest that what you are doing is something you believe that you should do. Sorry to be pedantic.:pOriginally posted by The Architect
As for the theory that in some cases, religion was used as the excuse for political and military gain, perhaps those who are using it for this purpose are not using it becuase they believe that is what they should do, but to give themselves a better night's sleep. What do you think?
i agree, it is brainwashing..(gee, brainwashing is a wierd word)Originally posted by mirek03
and also, yes i have been brianwashed (sorry but thts how i see it) as a christian