Zadak
Aspirant
As Zadak once said...
I'm sooooooooooo bored
Posts: 828
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 16:20:57 GMT -5
Post by Zadak on Jan 12, 2006 16:20:57 GMT -5
do you think it is a sin to kill in a battle... when your own life is on the line. Kill or be killed
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 18:11:00 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 12, 2006 18:11:00 GMT -5
Yes I do, God never gave us the right to take away someones life under any circumstance. But considering I dont believe in god or "sins" I get to kill as many people as I want
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 18:28:08 GMT -5
Post by illicit on Jan 12, 2006 18:28:08 GMT -5
Yes I do, God never gave us the right to take away someones life under any circumstance. But considering I dont believe in god or "sins" I get to kill as many people as I want Murder 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Therefore it is not murder to kill in a warzone, and therefore not a sin. God knows that there are circumstances like war in which it is not a sin to kill.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 18:44:04 GMT -5
Post by eek on Jan 12, 2006 18:44:04 GMT -5
It depends. Killing in self defence, or in the defence of others, is fine by me... as long as whoever you're defending is in mortal danger. I don't like it, but it isn't wrong. Anything else is a big nono.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 18:48:10 GMT -5
Post by Hunessai on Jan 12, 2006 18:48:10 GMT -5
Murder 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Unlawful is subjective in this definition. Moral law, international law, federal law, etc. I believe that killing people at any time is wrong. (Unless they want to kill themselves.)
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 19:04:35 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 12, 2006 19:04:35 GMT -5
Murder 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Therefore it is not murder to kill in a warzone, and therefore not a sin. God knows that there are circumstances like war in which it is not a sin to kill. Yeap, god even sanctioned a few wars himself. But if I was still religious I would not have gone to war. Not all killing in wars is done in self defence.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 22:40:15 GMT -5
Post by WitchBoy on Jan 12, 2006 22:40:15 GMT -5
I submit several of my points of argument concerning morality (all of my points being stored at: www.freewebs.com/vanyel_orseau/goodevil.htm, this is the only way to really cover all of my points and leave the least possible room for attacking my logic. I'm mostly just posting relevant points, and basic points that are the building blocks of my argument. 1- I believe humans have two basic traits, pragaticism (desire to further self) and empathy (awareness of others feelings). Depending on how these are balanced in large parts decides a persons actions. Complete pragmaticism leads to sociopathy, while complete empathy leads to one ignoring their own needs. I don't believe anything is truly evil, and those that are knowingly commiting "evil" (acts that cause harm) without the intention of some good coming out of it are still doing it for a reason. They might be a bit messed up in the head, but everything done has a reason behind it. 2-Greed is the only evil. All 'evil' stems from greed. Greed is merely extreme pragmaticism, in which you would deny man of his natural rights in order to achieve a personal gain. 3 (apply warzone concepts to this one especially)-There is also the case of an argument of killing or harming to save people. This is still greed on a basic level (say killing someone to: Protect the people you love [you don't want to feel the sadness of losing them and are therefore protecting your own happyness], or perhaps to gain fame as a 'hero') even if you where stopping what YOU consider a "greater" 'evil'. People will almost always commit greedy acts at one point or another, but generally people do what they think is best, and they cannot be faulted for that. One might think it is for the best to commit genocide, and you don't, neither is right and neither is wrong, but you have every right to reinforce your view and stop that person, even if it means "encroaching" upon his... health. Noone's perfect. 4-To clarify things:English is an unprecise language and therefore I have slightly altering a definition in order to make it work with my statement. I have offered my modified definitions. Pragmaticism-Desire to do things for the self Empathy-Sensitivity and more importantly, desire to act on that sensitivity to the plight of others Greed-Encroaching upon another's rights to life, freedom, etc. to further ones purposes or desires Conclusion-It's a little bit sin and a little bit not, just like about every other thing. It's hard to apply absolutes to situations. Note-1&2 are mostly just building blocks, 3 is the one to be applied.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 22:47:25 GMT -5
Post by darkhelmet on Jan 12, 2006 22:47:25 GMT -5
Personally I'd never kill anyone... never want to, anyway. I suppose if my country/family/friends were in mortal danger I would, but I'd find it pretty hard to live with myself afterwards. So, no, never justified.
So... in answer to teh question... yes?
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 12, 2006 23:11:02 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 12, 2006 23:11:02 GMT -5
I agree with Kw33r.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 9:53:33 GMT -5
Post by TheStranger on Jan 13, 2006 9:53:33 GMT -5
If a war was faught in my country of origin, i.e we were being invaded by some external force, you better believe i'd kill them before they could kill me.
|
|
Mumble
Squire
Forum Skull Avatar Guy
Posts: 1,645
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 13:57:56 GMT -5
Post by Mumble on Jan 13, 2006 13:57:56 GMT -5
I would kill if it was of greatest personal gain to me, assuming no other options left. It has yet to ever come up, for which I am glad.
As for God and morality, meh.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 14:05:05 GMT -5
Post by TheStranger on Jan 13, 2006 14:05:05 GMT -5
The coward will not fight. The fool refuses to see necessity. The scoundrel puts himself ahead of humanity. The Zenshiites are all these things.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 21:53:17 GMT -5
Post by mastab on Jan 13, 2006 21:53:17 GMT -5
While I do not beleive in the consequences of sins, I know what they are. The comandment goes 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless you are in the military.'
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 23:16:12 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 13, 2006 23:16:12 GMT -5
While I do not beleive in the consequences of sins, I know what they are. The comandment goes 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless you are in the military.' "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation which the jews got pretty pissed off about. The actual hebrew commandment was "thou shalt not murder" because the jews understand there are speicial circumstances when you may have to kill a human being. So realy all our english bibles are wrong... shows how easy it is to change religion.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 13, 2006 23:17:43 GMT -5
Post by illicit on Jan 13, 2006 23:17:43 GMT -5
While I do not beleive in the consequences of sins, I know what they are. The comandment goes 'thou shalt not kill', not 'thou shalt not kill unless you are in the military.' Thou Shalt not MURDER. Also, sin is not a bad thing, sin is imperfection. That is why we ARE sin, and the devil turned to sin.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 6:39:07 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 14, 2006 6:39:07 GMT -5
So if god smites someone out of vengence or smite or just to teach them a lesson, he would be commiting murder and thus, sinning... so gods imperfect eh?
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 15:08:50 GMT -5
Post by mastab on Jan 14, 2006 15:08:50 GMT -5
Killing somone IS murdering them in my book.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 19:09:50 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 14, 2006 19:09:50 GMT -5
Killing somone IS murdering them in my book. The 2 words are completely different. Ie, lets just say your playing on top of a 12 story building(as you do) and you trip over and accidently knock someone off the building. You killed him, but it was an accident, so you didnt murder him.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:10:19 GMT -5
Post by mastab on Jan 14, 2006 20:10:19 GMT -5
In my book it was. It was just unintentional.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:26:57 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 14, 2006 20:26:57 GMT -5
Exactly, unintentional is not murder, murder is not the word you use for an unintentional killing, as goes by the definition of the word.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:33:33 GMT -5
Post by mastab on Jan 14, 2006 20:33:33 GMT -5
This thread is about opinion. And it is my opinion that unintentional killing is murder,
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:37:47 GMT -5
Post by eek on Jan 14, 2006 20:37:47 GMT -5
Well, the definition of murder is: "kill intentionally and with premeditation"... so your opinion that an accidental killing = murder is wrong.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:39:32 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 14, 2006 20:39:32 GMT -5
I'm just saying that the definition of murder (as a word) is intentional killing. Thus you can not attribute unintentional killing to that word. Its like me saying eating and going to the toilet are exactly the same in my opinion because they both involve the digestive system.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:42:13 GMT -5
Post by mastab on Jan 14, 2006 20:42:13 GMT -5
There is no exact, universal definition for any word.
|
|
|
Murder
Jan 14, 2006 20:53:01 GMT -5
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Jan 14, 2006 20:53:01 GMT -5
Yes there is. Your thinking of connotations. They are the feeling or personal take on a word. A denotation is the technical definition. Your connotation of murder may be that murder is all forms of killing, all I am trying to inform you that the denotation of the word is an intentional killing.
|
|