How do you feel about burning books?

[Rugged Cross]

I have always been opposed to this form of destruction ever since seeing archive film of the Nazi book burning s in the 1930's. It's not the information contained within the pages that may be deemed evil etc. it is how the information used or understood by the reader. Foe example when the Harry potter books were published most saw them as they were meant to be, stories to entertain. Whilst there some that took them as a promotion of witchcraft and magic. Books are a source of knowledge for now, and in the future people will gain some understanding of how we lived, thought and behaved. Destruction of this nature feeds an irrational fear. An example of this would be from my life. I have always loved history, particular interest Germany 1918 - 1945, rise and fall of Nazism not because I follow that evil ideology it's just an interesting era of history (I might add fueled by the fact my grandfather was murdered during the Dunkirk withdrawal, he was a part of the BEF). If my mother had seen me reading Mein Kampf she would have gone mad at me living in fear that I would influenced and not taking into account that I know my own mind and could discern good from evil. So,in my personal opinion burning books is wrong no matter the content.

 

[Carbon]

Burning books can be an incredibly effective way to suppress heretical out-group thoughts, and solidify a euphoric sense of in-group cohesion. Ideally your censorship should be backed by a credible threat of violence and control over your society’s flow of information.

Indeed it is often assumed that book burning as a strategy for censorship or vandalism is doomed to failure in the age of digital media. But this is not necessarily so. Libraries of rare and/or ancient writings are precisely the ones most likely to be underfunded and their materials therefore un-digitized.

Thousands of unique documents from Mosul, Timbuktu, Baghdad, Sarajevo have in recent memory been successfully erased from existence.

Even in 21st century ~democratic~ states, biblioclasm has been deployed by Christians to dissuade impressionable youth from the world of teenage magic, although some of JK Rowling’s books were burned more as a knock-on affect of her Trump bashing.

A notable failure is the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in North Carolina, US, which was scheduled to burn non-KJV versions of the Bible to reinforce their belief that King James Bibles alone hold the true word of God. Rain began to fall, so the congregation regrouped in the sanctuary where they were forced to ceremonially tear up the wicked bibles by hand.

 

[Robban]

Imagine you find a huge collection of ancient books from some extinct culture with religious beliefs and practices opposed to your own. There is a lot of new information about that culture in those books, but there is also a lot that disturbs and disgusts you.

Imagine you know that if these books become available to ordinary people then thousands or millions will fall away from your religion and go to hell (or some other bad fate).

(1) How do you feel about burning the books?
(2) How do you feel about not making these books a priority for digitization, preservation, and study?

In other words, you are choosing between preserving history and preserving souls.

The burning bush was not destroyed by the flames.

 

[Robban]

The burning bush was not destroyed by the flames.

And Göd spoke to Moses out of a burning bush and the flames did not destroy the bush.

 

[Bobber]

To be honest this very subject brought up reminds me of the statement of Jesus, of a culture that would strain at a gnat but swallow a camel! Matt 23:24

In other words something which isn't so extraordinary important is elevated beyond measure as being so when all the time when things which to God are MOST important register no similar concern upon those who choke over a more minor issue.

To any who would almost pass out over the very thought that a book would be destroyed do such ones feel likewise about LIFE and babies (human life) being destroyed due to abortion? Maybe some do feel the same about that too but maybe many don't? All I'm saying is be careful at what one chooses to get bent all out of shape over . Do people have the flood gates open in putting their stamp of approval on things which are a lot more revolting?

Using the term "book burning" of course brings a repulsive reaction. I wonder if someone said they burned a book your reaction would be one thing. If they said rather they threw a book in the garbage, didn't burn it but sent it to the dump.....would that feel more acceptable?

And question.....If someone gave you a gift of a book an autobiography of let's say Donald Trump
and you're by far not his No 1 fan......what would you do with the book? Store it in your house? Seek to sell it? Or would it hit the trash can. Would throwing something in the trash be any different than burning it? What would you do?

 

[Robban]

To be honest this very subject brought up reminds me of the statement of Jesus, of a culture that would strain at a gnat but swallow a camel! Matt 23:24

In other words something which isn't so extraordinary important is elevated beyond measure as being so when all the time when things which to God are MOST important register no similar concern upon those who choke over a more minor issue.

To any who would almost pass out over the very thought that a book would be destroyed do such ones feel likewise about LIFE and babies (human life) being destroyed due to abortion? Maybe some do feel the same about that too but maybe many don't? All I'm saying is be careful at what one chooses to get bent all out of shape over . Do people have the flood gates open in putting their stamp of approval on things which are a lot more revolting?

Using the term "book burning" of course brings a repulsive reaction. I wonder if someone said they burned a book your reaction would be one thing. If they said rather they threw a book in the garbage, didn't burn it but sent it to the dump.....would that feel more acceptable?

And question.....If someone gave you a gift of a book an autobiography of let's say Donald Trump
and you're by far not his No 1 fan......what would you do with the book? Store it in your house? Seek to sell it? Or would it hit the trash can. Would throwing something in the trash be any different than burning it? What would you do?

Matt 23:24,

Did you read that in a book?

 

[cloudyday2]

To be honest this very subject brought up reminds me of the statement of Jesus, of a culture that would strain at a gnat but swallow a camel! Matt 23:24

In other words something which isn't so extraordinary important is elevated beyond measure as being so when all the time when things which to God are MOST important register no similar concern upon those who choke over a more minor issue.

To any who would almost pass out over the very thought that a book would be destroyed do such ones feel likewise about LIFE and babies (human life) being destroyed due to abortion? Maybe some do feel the same about that too but maybe many don't? All I'm saying is be careful at what one chooses to get bent all out of shape over . Do people have the flood gates open in putting their stamp of approval on things which are a lot more revolting?

Using the term "book burning" of course brings a repulsive reaction. I wonder if someone said they burned a book your reaction would be one thing. If they said rather they threw a book in the garbage, didn't burn it but sent it to the dump.....would that feel more acceptable?

And question.....If someone gave you a gift of a book an autobiography of let's say Donald Trump
and you're by far not his No 1 fan......what would you do with the book? Store it in your house? Seek to sell it? Or would it hit the trash can. Would throwing something in the trash be any different than burning it? What would you do?

Not sure if you are asking me for a response, but the Donald Trump book analogy isn't good. The problem is that burning or trashing a printed copy of a Donald Trump book does not threaten the extinction of that book. In ancient times when a manuscript was burned (or simply allowed to decay without being copied) there was a danger that the book would disappear forever. That is why the example in my OP was a modern discovery of ancient writings that had not yet been preserved.

So burning books today is mostly only a symbolic act - free speech. In the past, burning books was one person or one community deciding to potentially eliminate a book so that nobody anywhere or anytime will ever be able to read it again.

 

[jamiec]

Imagine you find a huge collection of ancient books from some extinct culture with religious beliefs and practices opposed to your own. There is a lot of new information about that culture in those books, but there is also a lot that disturbs and disgusts you.

Imagine you know that if these books become available to ordinary people then thousands or millions will fall away from your religion and go to hell (or some other bad fate).

(1) How do you feel about burning the books?
(2) How do you feel about not making these books a priority for digitization, preservation, and study?

In other words, you are choosing between preserving history and preserving souls.

One of the few books I think is genuinely bad (for a variety of reasons) is “The Two Babylons”. It is full of detailed and ridiculous fiction about ancient Babylonia and Assyria, and as someone with a keen interest in those cultures I deplore anything that makes finding out about them any more difficult than need be - the destruction of Nimrud by ISIS is one example of that; TTB is another, and it is widely available on the Web, and has been very influential.

But I would not destroy TTB even so, because its existence serves as a specimen of human error, and if it did not make the blunders it does, someone else would.

I would not destroy a single line of pre-Christian literature. On the contrary, I regret the loss of any of it. I am all in favour of censorship, because I firmly believe that it is good and right and responsible to limit or prohibit the publication of certain things - such as inappropriate contentography. I totally reject what appears to be the libertarian position, that rejects all censorship of anything whatsoever. I do believe that certain books or parts of books - including the Bible - should be limited or prohibited. I think it is a terrible idea to circulate entire Bibles “without note or comment” to all and sundry, because it is very obvious that many people read it, and find only spiritual poison in it. In no way is that a good thing.

The loss of large parts of the Satyricon of Petronius Arbiter, who wrote during the reign of Nero, is a great pity. It is a risqué work, to say the least - definitely not the kind of thing to put in the hands of all; but still worthy of reading.

Most of ancient Sumerian, Babylonia, Assyrian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, Greek or Roman literature can be objected to, for taking for granted “other gods” and other religions, and their morals. But a world in which only Christian literature existed would be much the poorer. And if one were to obliterate all reference to non-Christian cultures, one would have to throw out a great deal of Christian literature as well.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Depends, am I freezing in the cold, and the only thing that will keep me alive is if I burn a book? Well, I mean, I'd probably feel pretty okay with that.

Jokes aside, I am opposed to book burning in principle. There may be personal reasons why an individual might choose to burn something they own, books included--and their reasons for that might be varied. But as an act of thought and information manipulation, or as acts of terror? Of course not, it's barbaric.

-CryptoLutheran