Who Would You Save?

[Madhuri]

The most interesting thing about this thread, imo, is the different ways that people interpret the question. Am enjoying all the responses!

 

[arthra]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?
BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

I'd make an effort to save of them... in a real life situation likely I wouldn't know either of them that well enough to know who believed what... but I would see if there was a way to save both.

There is a story in the Mahabharata about a house made of lacquer that was designed to catch fire and kill the Pandavas....

see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshagraha

Alsso there is a parable about saving children from a burning house symbolic of Samsara..

See:

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism/parable_burning_house.html

 

[Trichakra]

I will save one who deserves it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

I wouldn't save anyone based on beliefs (I doubt in a fiery building I have time to interview). It would be most likely based on practicality.
Bonus: Hmmm. I guess the only reason I might refuse is if the other person keeps acting like a delusional freak job. Even then, I might knock them out and drag them out anyway.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

All other things being equal, from where I'm sitting now, of the two I'd go for the person who most enthusiastically shared my views on religion (though I've yet to meet somebody who does share my views on religion!). I'm biased like that. But that's from where I'm sitting now. I've never been in that situation, and I might act very differently on the day! So ultimately, I don't really know!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

Sorry, forgot to answer this one. Yes. The one who had it in for me (big time), a major threat to me. Or if they were a really nasty piece of work. And if that applied to both of them, I'd save neither. But again, maybe I`d act differently on the day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm surprised and a bit disturbed by the vote.

 

[jbkoleen23]

I would sacrifice myself to save both. But if I couldn't save both, I would evaluate the situation and try to save the one I can. I don't care who believes in what, it's not my place to judge.

 

[Sapiens]

Naw, Chewbaca's Fists of Furry.

 

[Sapiens]

Naw, Chewbaca's Fists of Furry.

It is pretty simple, the coreligionist has it made, he's headed for heaven, the other one is not but still has time to change his mind.

 

[Smart_Guy]

"No preference between the two"

Bonus answer:
You mean if I could save both on equal grounds but had to choose to give higher priority to save only one of them due to pressing reasons like my own power's limitations? If the circumstances are perfectly the same, I'd try to save whom is closer to what my circumstances allow me to save, while trying to save them both. Same as above. There are factors, however. If one is family, for example, I'd give them priority (does not mean neglecting the other, mind you).

What about you, Sun? Following the bonus question, who would you prioritize if one of them is family or someone who shares something of such importance with you?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I'm surprised and a bit disturbed by the vote.

Pray tell, why?

 

[McBell]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

I voted no preference based upon the religious criteria the OP limits the poll to.

However, after thinking about it for a second longer, I have a question...
How do I know which is which?
Would I not have to at the very least previously know about them?

 

[idav]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

If two people were trapped in a building on fire, I wouldn't care their belief. I'd have to save whoever is hotter.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If two people were trapped in a building on fire, I wouldn't care their belief. I'd have to save whoever is hotter.

"That girl is on fire!"

 

[Unification]

Suppose two people were trapped in a building on fire, and you could rescue only one of them. Further suppose that one of the those people enthusiastically shared your views on religion, while the other person was contemptuous of your views on religion. Given a choice, would you be more inclined to save the person who enthusiastically shared your views than the person who was contemptuous of your views? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose you had the choice to save both. Would there be any circumstances in which you refused to save one or the other? If so, which one would you refuse to save? Why?

Everywhere around me, I perceive people trapped in their bodies of suffering. Knowing I cannot save them, and if I knew more about them... the righteous or self-righteous would be in no need of a physician while the other would be in need of a physician.
Likewise, there are two minds trapped in one body at war with one another. One of those minds will be left behind.

But with literal fire, if I can only save one and I knew this in advance, I'd save the younger of the two or the one that has the more anti-qualities of the qualities of myself. I'd save both, even if one were of "Isis."