Kill or murder?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religion and Morality
- Thread starter battig1370
- Start date
Kill or murder?
Saquist:
You claim that religions' moral codes are absolute and not arbitrary.
Is it the moral code of the bible that you claim to follow?
If so, I'm betting you pick and choose which parts to follow, rather than following all the dictates of the bible to the letter.
You're claiming to know more than you actually know, James.
Kill or murder?
thanks for the correction, althought I´m a little confused. Did I said it wrong? You can´t say "kill people"? I´m Spanish, so this two ways of saying it are exactly the same to me.
Getting passed the gramatical aspect of the situation, do you want to? I mean murder people...
thanks for the correction, althought I´m a little confused. Did I said it wrong? You can´t say "kill people"? I´m Spanish, so this two ways of saying it are exactly the same to me.
Getting passed the gramatical aspect of the situation, do you want to? I mean murder people...
Well its more than grammatical error. I can't say "kill" because that wouldn't always be wrong, however murder is. Sorry you didn't catch that. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. No I do not want to murder any one. Why?
Well its more than grammatical error. I can't say "kill" because that wouldn't always be wrong, however murder is. Sorry you didn't catch that. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. No I do not want to murder any one. Why?
Because if you don´t want to murder anyone, why would you?
It is in you that you don´t want to. Your goal in this life is not to murder people, we are here to create things, not destroy.
Morals have nothing to do with this. This is instinct, intuition, intelligence.
If you do something against your own will, that is what I call "sin".
Because if you don´t want to murder anyone, why would you?
It is in you that you don´t want to. Your goal in this life is not to murder people, we are here to create things, not destroy.
Morals have nothing to do with this. This is instinct, intuition, intelligence.
If you do something against your own will, that is what I call "sin".
Morals have nothing to do with it? So murder could be a good thing.
Morals have nothing to do with it? So murder could be a good thing.
Murder is ignorance, is neither good or bad. If you are conscious, you wouldn´t murder a person. But if you are ignorant and murder someone, you are only killing the body, the soul is inmortal. At the same time, you are causing your own bad karma, this is ignorance, and you will suffer as long as you are ignorant.
Murder is ignorance, is neither good or bad. If you are conscious, you wouldn´t murder a person. But if you are ignorant and murder someone, you are only killing the body, the soul is inmortal. At the same time, you are causing your own bad karma, this is ignorance, and you will suffer as long as you are ignorant.
How would I suffer?
How would I suffer?
You can suffer in many ways:
- By realizing the damage you have done.
- By realizing the pain you caused to others.
- Simple conscience.
- Other people are going to make you pay.
- The rest of society will judge you, and discriminate you.
Or from a Karmic perspective, that I personally believe in:
- You pay for every action you do. Cause and effect.
- What Christians call "Heaven", or "Garden of Eden", what Buddhists call "Nirvana", or others call "The Kingdom of the Gods". Is only achievable by people who had accepted their Karma, and not interfere on it. You can only go to heaven if you are free from Karma. Even if you have good karma, you have to pay for that (in a good way). So we are re-born numerous times until we pay for our Karma, until we consciously break the cyclic existence.
If you kill, you are accumulating bad Karma, and you are going to have to be re-born (if you don´t pay for that in current life) again and again, until you pay for your accumulated Karma.
Why do you think Jesus went voluntarily to his crucifiction? He didn´t ran away like most people would. He was paying for past bad Karma, he broke his cyclic existence consciously. If Jesus would have ran away (interfere with his karma), then he would have had to pay for that karma in many other lifes, little by little.
Is my interpretation of Buddha´s Four Noble Truths:
- Life is suffering: as long as you are alive, you will suffer, not all the time, sometimes you will be happy, but it will only be momentarily. You will experience the attachments of life, like being afraid of death, the experience of pain, the experience of depression, fear, hate...
- The origin of suffering is attachment: as long as you have goals and dessires you will suffer, when you experience losses.
- The cessation of suffering is attainable: you can be happy 24/7 if you want to, after all, our brain creates the feelings, and we can control our brain.
- There is a path to the cessation of suffering: you can break your cyclic existence, and not be re-born again, letting your karma take over, not interfering with it. Nirvana, Heaven, Kingdom of God, whatever you want to call it. All religions have a name for it.
You can suffer in many ways:
Suffer=bad thing/ wrong?
- By realizing the damage you have done.
Suffering=bad thing and causing damage=suffering and the damage was caused by murder so therefor murder is a bad thing.
neither.Morality: > principles conerning the difference between right and wrong
Are human morals defined from the religion that they are born in, and are there universal right and wrong behaviour?
Morals are instilled from the family - upbringing being the main method for instilling morals. As the family lives in and is integrated within a society then in a greater sense society ultimately instills values which will change as society changes.
from morality on wiki:
Morals define and distinguish among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within individuals. By contrast, ethics are more correctly applied as the study of broader social systems within whose context morality exists. Morals define whether I should kill my neighbour Joe when he steals my tractor; ethics define whether it is right or wrong for one person to kill another in a dispute over property.
It seems that humans often learn their behavior from their parents (but, maybe also from their peer group, and occasionally from a mentor.) For the most part I think this would be societal-based assuming the family is in the "norm".
Deciding what is moral or immoral behavior (ethic) appears IMHO to be a tug of war between religion and society. One which is rooted in dogma and the other continuing to evolve. Maybe this is why Religious people often get pissed off at the state of society. They derive their ethics from a book but that book was based on 1000+ year old morals. If we think that society should to continue to advance then we must accept the morals will change with this advancement.
Take the establishment of Democracy, the abolishment of Slavery, the granting of women equal rights, emerging acceptance of homosexuality.
All of which was ethically viewed differently than today.
Michael
Morals define and distinguish among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within individuals. By contrast, ethics are more correctly applied as the study of broader social systems within whose context morality exists. Morals define whether I should kill my neighbour Joe when he steals my tractor; ethics define whether it is right or wrong for one person to kill another in a dispute over property.
It seems that humans often learn their behavior from their parents (but, maybe also from their peer group, and occasionally from a mentor.) For the most part I think this would be societal-based assuming the family is in the "norm".
Deciding what is moral or immoral behavior (ethic) appears IMHO to be a tug of war between religion and society. One which is rooted in dogma and the other continuing to evolve. Maybe this is why Religious people often get pissed off at the state of society. They derive their ethics from a book but that book was based on 1000+ year old morals. If we think that society should to continue to advance then we must accept the morals will change with this advancement.
Take the establishment of Democracy, the abolishment of Slavery, the granting of women equal rights, emerging acceptance of homosexuality.
All of which was ethically viewed differently than today.
Michael
Suffer=bad thing/ wrong?
Suffering=bad thing and causing damage=suffering and the damage was caused by murder so therefor murder is a bad thing.
I agree
I agree
But earlier you said>>>>>>>>>>
Murder is ignorance, is neither good or bad
See my confusion. What is wrong and what is right?
But earlier you said>>>>>>>>>>
See my confusion. What is wrong and what is right?
If you are aware of the damage of murder, then you just won´t do it.
If you are ignorant and do it, then you are going to pay for it.
We are nobody to judge others, that is what I´m talking about when I say is neither good or bad.
In my perspective, murder is a bad thing, I won´t do it. Because I know the repercutions, and I don´t really want to murder anyone with or without repercutions.
If someone else murder another person, then who are you to judge if that person is good or bad? Is just ignorance what the person is demonstrating.
Don't you think there is a huge seriousness to morals?
That statement is wrong. Some people commit murder for the sole purpose of the damage it causes. So there is no right and wrong? But there are bad things?If you are aware of the damage of murder, then you just won´t do it.
I think the only real, the only true and the only useful morality is the kind that people do for their own good.
In some cases it is hard to see why being moral is for your own good(and I AM NOT TALKING about "otherworldly" rewards). It only requires a broader viewfinder to see why being moral is for your own good.
In some cases it is hard to see why being moral is for your own good(and I AM NOT TALKING about "otherworldly" rewards). It only requires a broader viewfinder to see why being moral is for your own good.