Is killing a sin?

nope i explained before and ill explain again my LOGIC which u cant seem to comprehend. if all humans are fundamentally self preservative than by your definition each one only PERSONALLY desires self preservation but not on a whole. and i AGREE with that entirely only u love urself. BUT if u believe that all humans are equal to YOU than as YOU would never kill urself than YOU should not kill any1 else either reguardless of wheather THEIR self preservation is felt by u or not{which is basically what ur saying that there is no mystical moral TRUTH which binds all} since simply THEY ARE EQUAL TO U AND WHAT U FEAL AND HOLD DEAR, THEY DO TOO AND WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM U, THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM THEM. if u figure this out ull understand that no mystical binding force is needed for self preservation to be desirable as it is LOGICAL and even by your logic all actions that threaten self preservatipon are wrong when compared to actions that dont affect or benefit self preservation. NOW even a horse can take out the LOGIC from this extremely detailed and simple paragraph. just TRY.

I don't get it..

meh, it's your point of view anyway...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope i explained before and ill explain again my LOGIC which u cant seem to comprehend. if all humans are fundamentally self preservative than by your definition each one only PERSONALLY desires self preservation but not on a whole. and i AGREE with that entirely only u love urself. BUT if u believe that all humans are equal to YOU than as YOU would never kill urself than YOU should not kill any1 else either reguardless of wheather THEIR self preservation is felt by u or not{which is basically what ur saying that there is no mystical moral TRUTH which binds all} since simply THEY ARE EQUAL TO U AND WHAT U FEAL AND HOLD DEAR, THEY DO TOO AND WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM U, THEY WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TAKEN FROM THEM. if u figure this out ull understand that no mystical binding force is needed for self preservation to be desirable as it is LOGICAL and even by your logic all actions that threaten self preservatipon are wrong when compared to actions that dont affect or benefit self preservation. NOW even a horse can take out the LOGIC from this extremely detailed and simple paragraph. just TRY.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh here's your mistake. Not all humans are equal to ME. They are equal on an absolute level. Get it now?

now were getting sumwhere. but theres still a paradox in those lines. first u say that to YOU not all human beings are equal. then u say that they are equal on an absolute level. thats contradictory. even if they are equal on an absolute level, u have to BELIEVE that to say it and if u believe that then u cant say that not all humans are equal to u. perhaps what u are trying to say is that you KNOW all humans to be equal but u give YOURSELF PREFERANCE over others?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
now were getting sumwhere. but theres still a paradox in those lines. first u say that to YOU not all human beings are equal. then u say that they are equal on an absolute level. thats contradictory. even if they are equal on an absolute level, u have to BELIEVE that to say it and if u believe that then u cant say that not all humans are equal to u. perhaps what u are trying to say is that you KNOW all humans to be equal but u give YOURSELF PREFERANCE over others?

No it isn't

They are equal (in value) on an absolute level (no value)
They are not equal (in value) to me (mother a lot of value, whobdamandog very few value)

yes so thats EXACTLY what im saying! u should read my posts with hostility. on a PERSONAL level a person can keep whatever preferences they feal like but as a FACT they should know that killing is WRONG "REGUARDLESS" of their personal preferences. ofcourse i might wanna kill an enemy of mine and would have very little value for his life but i should also know the difference between my personal desires and the factual unbiased facts. and the FACTUAL unbiased fact is that life is desireable over death reguardless of personal feeling and all actions against life are bad/wrong compared to action that are pro life.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes so thats EXACTLY what im saying! u should read my posts with hostility. on a PERSONAL level a person can keep whatever preferences they feal like but as a FACT they should know that killing is WRONG "REGUARDLESS" of their personal preferences. ofcourse i might wanna kill an enemy of mine and would have very little value for his life but i should also know the difference between my personal desires and the factual unbiased facts. and the FACTUAL unbiased fact is that life is desireable over death reguardless of personal feeling and all actions against life are bad/wrong compared to action that are pro life.

I don't think it's me that has the problem with reading comprehension that's why I said "no" and went ahead to portray a different view of yours while you said "thats EXACTLY what im saying" and then said something very different from what I said.

What you fail to grasp is that "life is desirable over death" is not an undeniable fact. Why should it be. What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable. Please, just stop attempting to poison the minds of simple minded people with false logic. You make so many mistakes in your reasoning it just isn't pretty anymore.

"What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable"

yes and since we are all HUMANS, in the HUMAN circle atleast its an undeniable fact and we already established that all humans are equal in absolute terms which is why they should all be TREATED equally and since it is in the INTEREST of every human beng to preserve itself its an UNDENIABLE fact that in HUMANS{forgetting other living things} all actions which harm LIFE are BAD. get it now!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"What you really mean is that it is an undeniable fact that "Humans value their own life over their death"..which is arguable but understandable"

yes and since we are all HUMANS, in the HUMAN circle atleast its an undeniable fact and we already established that all humans are equal in absolute terms which is why they should all be TREATED equally and since it is in the INTEREST of every human beng to preserve itself its an UNDENIABLE fact that in HUMANS{forgetting other living things} all actions which harm LIFE are BAD. get it now!

No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

[QUOTE=6977188]Originally posted by Bardock42
No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

so basically what you are saying is that to you all humans are NOT equal as acceptance of moral equality means EXACTLY that u as an individual should treat every1 the same. its not bs logic. ur just not saying clearly that you DONT really believe that all humans are equal as i asked u before.

now that we know what ur sayin lets end this as we 2 are the only 1s talking here. {atleast until sum1 else comes in}

Originally posted by Bardock42
What you fail to grasp is that "life is desirable over death" is not an undeniable fact. Why should it be.

Self-preservation (desiring life over death) is the fundamental biological constant, so fundamental I'm betting we will find it even in extraterrestrial life.

Purely from an evolutionary POV: there may've been organisms in the past that didn't desire life over death, and as consequence they were less likely to survive and have offspring than those that did value life over death. Accordingly, all known forms of life now value life over death.

If anything, it could be argued that humans, to some extent, can value death over life: that's the attraction of suicide. But given most reasons for suicide (ending physical or emotional suffering), that person is really choosing an end to pain--which indirectly indicates a desire for life, one with quality. Death is chosen because the alternative is, or is perceived as, worse.

Originally posted by Mindship
Self-preservation (desiring life over death) is the fundamental biological constant, so fundamental I'm betting we will find it even in extraterrestrial life.

Purely from an evolutionary POV: there may've been organisms in the past that didn't desire life over death, and as consequence they were less likely to survive and have offspring than those that did value life over death. Accordingly, all known forms of life now value life over death.

If anything, it could be argued that humans, to some extent, can value death over life: that's the attraction of suicide. But given most reasons for suicide (ending physical or emotional suffering), that person is really choosing an end to pain--which indirectly indicates a desire for life, one with quality. Death is chosen because the alternative is, or is perceived as, worse.

You realize though that the desire to life of any organism does not equal absolute morals though?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
[QUOTE=6977188]Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]No, just because someone is morally equal doesn't mean you as an individual have to treat everyone the same. Bullshit logic.

so basically what you are saying is that to you all humans are NOT equal as acceptance of moral equality means EXACTLY that u as an individual should treat every1 the same. its not bs logic. ur just not saying clearly that you DONT really believe that all humans are equal as i asked u before. [/B]

First, your post is idiotic babbling. Now let me try to derive some sort of meaning from it. I am saying that humans are eqal in the aspect that their life has NO absolute value. Okay. Point one. I am also saying that I as an individual can decide what I subjectively as an individual value more and less. Second point.

So basically that:

ABsolute Morals - No
Subjective Morals - Yes

Originally posted by Bardock42
You realize though that the desire to life of any organism does not equal absolute morals though?

It's arguable. One could say that absolute morals are those which best enable a society to thrive. For example, "Don't kill" could be considered absolute because a society which didn't follow that--ie, murder runs rampant--is not going to survive as well as a society which respects life and kills only when its own survival is at stake.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's arguable. One could say that absolute morals are those which best enable a society to thrive. For example, "Don't kill" could be considered absolute because a society which didn't follow that--ie, murder runs rampant--is not going to survive as well as a society which respects life and kills only when its own survival is at stake.

Not really. Well, one could say that but they should realize that a subjective view that the advancement of society is desirable is hardly absolute.

I think "Don't kill" is the most fundamental moral there is....but just not absolute. It's the first moral that would be developed when a group gets together, but it wouldn't be there before, see what I mean?

it depends on how you think of sin. the only reason most dont kill os because they were raised not to. all of our beleifes are based on society. sin is what god says is wrong but think about all the sick and terrible things happening... god is responsible for EVERYTHING. they say the devil is the source of all evil but god created him and did not not destrot him wich he could have done without even blinking. think of all the bad things that have happened to you. god is the source of all that.

no it wud be there even with a single man. the very definition of life is EXISTANCE with which comes its oppoite NON EXISTANCE. to even think along the opposite lines, u have to have existance FIRST. its that important. now mindship is repeating what ive said in the last 4 pages or so but ur still answering the same way. its QUITE simple we and alll things hae a bias towards life because WE this phenomenon knows as US are ALIVE and thats ALL we are, supporting life is fundamental which is why all actions against life are bad. its not MORALITY its logical outcome in developing a system for the betterment of what WE are and what WE desire. ur point of view is lacking completely on evidence or logic.

bardock u should understand that all views ARE subjective but they are subjective to HUMANITY and fundamental human nature which is UNCHANGING fundamentally. ur confusing subjectivity. subjectivity doesnt mean that these rules can CHANGE at any time{as it is taken in most contexts} it merely means that they are subject to a medium and are baseless WITHOUT the medium. and since fundamentally all humans are an UNCHANGING medium, we can take these SUBJECTIVE views as absoluyte as we OURSELVES are the medium and not the supreme being to whome such concepts would mean nothing as he can create things from nothing. we ARE sumthing from the beginning which isnt neutral or unbiased. we were CREATED and with creation comes the fundamental bias towards existance. if we were BEYOND the idea of creation than yes we could be neutral about creation and destruction but we ARENT and thats what u shud understand.

Originally posted by Darth Acheous
it depends on how you think of sin. the only reason most dont kill os because they were raised not to. all of our beleifes are based on society.

thats totally it and I think my point was totally bypassed by the arguments between the thinker, bardock, and leonheartmm. Judeochristian beliefs teach its wrong and society teaches its wrong, however nothign is wrong only actiosn with consequences.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no it wud be there even with a single man. the very definition of life is EXISTANCE with which comes its oppoite NON EXISTANCE. to even think along the opposite lines, u have to have existance FIRST. its that important. now mindship is repeating what ive said in the last 4 pages or so but ur still answering the same way. its QUITE simple we and alll things hae a bias towards life because WE this phenomenon knows as US are ALIVE and thats ALL we are, supporting life is fundamental which is why all actions against life are bad. its not MORALITY its logical outcome in developing a system for the betterment of what WE are and what WE desire. ur point of view is lacking completely on evidence or logic.

Again you are for some reason pretending that life is good on an absolute level. Why should life be generally good? There is no reason for such a though.

Dude, as you said we all have a "bias" towards life. But the jump from each individuals "bias" towards life to therefore everything against life is bad is an unjustified one. You have decent assumptions to start with, but you make wrong conclusions.

And now you are saying the same thing as I am. It is, indeed, NOT morality. It is for us subjectively logical to value life. Not absolute. Subjectively. Get it? Are we done now?

So in conclusion there are no absolute morals to say that killing is bad. Therefore killing isn't absolutely bad, And doesn't need to be justified on a moral scale.