Is killing a sin?

and as far as absolution goes, i said u can only talk in ABSOLUTE terms if u are beyond all concepts including creation and destruction but it becomes invalid when you ARE FUNDAMENTALLY "ALIVE" and bound by that conept as beginning and end

it makes sense now and that thing about u countering and proving me wrong again and again n again is an outright lie, sorry. im not a rude person but thats a fact.

Exactly, so it's not absolute. And what you said is just a very fundamental ideal. Not absolute? Are we alright with that now?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Common values and absolute morals are a different thing.
And life is not a common value. Self preservation is. The jump from "I value my own life" to "therefore everyone has to value the life of any other being" is not logical.

It could be genetic. Again, evolutionarily speaking: if you have a group of people with the genetic predisposition to Not value each other's lives, I would think that society would be less likely to survive/thrive than one comprised of individuals with the genetic predisposition to go, "I value your life as much as I value mine."

And I believe there is a "logical" link between values and morals. For example, if I value my neighbor's life, then the moral "Don't kill thy neighbor" has logical meaning: the logic of behavior derived from an evolutionarily advantageous genome.

Bardock, my impression is you're saying that, independent of human existence, on the Grand Scale of things ("God" being an arguable, therefore in this case, invalid starting point), there is nothing "absolute" upon which to base morality, again, independent of human existence.

Your last paragraph basically sums it up.

it does sum it up, but as i was saying before neither you nor me are GOD, we are human who are CREATED

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it does sum it up, but as i was saying before neither you nor me are GOD, we are human who are CREATED

Err....what? How can you prove that? YOu really seem to be a believer in logic. Created...haha.

i got dc n cudnt edit that. i meant created not by any god but the fact that we are CREATIONS and we EXIST. which makes us different from a so called god who is beyond all concepts we are created by the very concept of creation and thus biased towards it. EXISTANCE is what we are, nothing describes u or me better than the fact that we EXIST that os most fundamental and we are therefore logically biased agaonst destruction as existance defines us. so sum1 who EXIISTS{YOU} taking the point of view of a god who is beyond all concepts including existance is irrational and illogical to say the least.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i got dc n cudnt edit that. i meant created not by any god but the fact that we are CREATIONS and we EXIST. which makes us different from a so called god who is beyond all concepts we are created by the very concept of creation and thus biased towards it. EXISTANCE is what we are, nothing describes u or me better than the fact that we EXIST that os most fundamental and we are therefore logically biased agaonst destruction as existance defines us. so sum1 who EXIISTS{YOU} taking the point of view of a god who is beyond all concepts including existance is irrational and illogical to say the least.

Not at all. It is very rational and a thing to be considered. And we are biased towards OUR existance. Not existance in general. BIG ****ING DIFFERENCE.

ive explained this about 4 times already. we are concerned about our existance but all humans are equal and what we want for ourselves we should let others have as they are equal to us. also if every component of a siciety individually wants the same thing as every1 else than the whole society wants the same thing and there isnt a difference between individual and collective thinking and facts. there that takes care of the difference.