The "Right" Times to Kill

Shadow13 · Aug 23, 2009

Omnicron said:
I was saying that apart from occurrences such as the Holocaust and War, there is no true time to kill. Even in War, it is bad to kill, but may be necessary in certain situations. What would you do if the enemy had a gun to your head, and you had a gun to their head? What would you do? Would you save yourself, or let the enemy lay waste to you and continue killing others?

Overall, it was really a human instinct of mine to say have 1 million killed instead of 6 million murdered. I said that I was 'more on the side of having 1 million dead', that does not mean:
1. That I demand those million people dead.
2. That I am fully for this side.

I would save myself by shooting the enemy.
So you are partially on the side of trying to stop WWII and the Holocaust? So you slightly feel that it would be okay to just let the Nazis kill people instead of killing them?
In your earlier post, you stated that there was no true time to kill, but now you say that a situation such as WWII would be a true time to kill. You also say it is human instinct to say have 1 million instead of 6 million or more. So, my point is, do you think there are right times to kill? That is the point of the thread and you seem sort of borderline.

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Aug 23, 2009

Shadow13 said:
So, my point is, do you think there are right times to kill? That is the point of the thread and you seem sort of borderline.

Ah! It is confusing for me dans une mesure. I am half on that side and half on the other.
Because I am looking at it from the perspective of a soldier, it is right to kill during war? Yes, if the enemy has your life in his hands and their life in yours.
Yet I am also looking at it from my own perspective, which states no to killing.

I really am on the borderline, it is right to kill within war and ONLY if your own life is at stake. Other than war, I say there is no time to kill.
Even if you are in war yet your life is not in danger, then do not kill. Killing is not what is actually intended in most wars, save a few of them, wars are mostly caused over land, Religion, or money.

zrky · Aug 23, 2009

Omnicron said:
What would you do if the enemy had a gun to your head, and you had a gun to their head? What would you do? Would you save yourself, or let the enemy lay waste to you and continue killing others?

I doubt a situation would ever come to that, but hypothetically if it does I want you to answer your question. Saving yourself would be your instinct (as stated), but what if you were religious and you knew that your god would disapprove of that action, would you still save yourself. Would you just wound your enemy so you don't kill and you remain unharmed?

it is right to kill within war and ONLY if your own life is at stake.

So in your stance of save 6 million over 1 million, what about the snipers who took out the Somali Pirates on the hijacked boat? Their life wasn't in much danger but they still killed to save. Is that right? Should they have let those people whose lives were truly in danger defend themselves? In the end the Seals probably killed more pirates than there were crew members in danger so was it worth it? Sure of course the mission was successful and they saved innocent lives, but they killed when their life was really not in danger, and it was pretty much a miniature war zone in essence.

Shadow13 · Aug 23, 2009

Omnicron said:
Ah! It is confusing for me dans une mesure. I am half on that side and half on the other.
Because I am looking at it from the perspective of a soldier, it is right to kill during war? Yes, if the enemy has your life in his hands and their life in yours.
Yet I am also looking at it from my own perspective, which states no to killing.

I really am on the borderline, it is right to kill within war and ONLY if your own life is at stake. Other than war, I say there is no time to kill.
Even if you are in war yet your life is not in danger, then do not kill. Killing is not what is actually intended in most wars, save a few of them, wars are mostly caused over land, Religion, or money.

Well, then you would still be saying there is a right time to kill, but just only if your life is at stake. However, that means you still say there are right times to kill just the same.
Of course most wars aren't over just killing, but that is how war is. Even if a country doesn't want to just kill people from the other country that is usually what they do to get the other country to accept what they want. Most of the time in war if you could kill a soldier on the other side, they could kill you, too.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 23, 2009

but what if you were religious and you knew that your god would disapprove of that action, would you still save yourself. Would you just wound your enemy so you don't kill and you remain unharmed?

If I realized what was happening before my first instinct kicked in, no.

Their life wasn't in much danger but they still killed to save. Is that right?

It's never right to kill.

zrky · Aug 23, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
If I realized what was happening before my first instinct kicked in, no.

It's never right to kill.

Those two phrases do not go well together. So if your "first instinct" kicked in and you had control over wether or not you lived or died based on the act of killing, you would kill, but if you are a human capable of thought and therefore able to tell the difference between moral and un-moral acts, you probably would still kill since given the situation your instinct would overcome morality based on the fact that you probably would be in fight-or-flight.

I agree that killing is never right, but there are times when our primitive animal instincts prevail and cause us to kill in exchange for the life we cherish so much (given the proper circumstances that is).

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Aug 23, 2009

zrky said:
I agree that killing is never right, but there are times when our primitive animal instincts prevail and cause us to kill in exchange for the life we cherish so much (given the proper circumstances that is).

^ Exactly what I was aiming at, that killing is not right, but our instincts take over.

Very well, I shall answer my previous stated question: What would you do if the enemy had a gun to your head, and you had a gun to their head? What would you do? Would you save yourself, or let the enemy lay waste to you and continue killing others?

I would kill the enemy out of instinct for my life. Besides, in a situation as such, one does not have the time to think clearly.
You cannot debate in your own mind whether to kill this person or not; he has the gun to your head as well, and will not give you time.

Would you just wound your enemy so you don't kill and you remain unharmed?

In the time it takes for one to move the gunhead downward towards the leg or arm of the enemy, he or she could pull the trigger with ease.
But in the case where they cannot respond quickly enough... Yes, disable them somehow, but that would be in a peculiar situation.

but what if you were religious and you knew that your god would disapprove of that action, would you still save yourself.

Even if my God disapproved, I would kill. Why?
1. Human instincts would overwhelm my Religious beliefs for the time being.
2. One may be purged of sins eventually in life, speaking from a Christian perspective. It is a Mortal Sin to kill, but Mortal Sins may be forgiven at death or by confessing and solving it via a priest.

I shall now choose my side, saying that killing is not right, but due to our animal instincts, humans are required to kill only under certain circumstances (such as the gun to head).

All in all: I may have been trying to say that there is no time to kill, but it is impossible to say so. There is actually a right time to kill, given certain situations and how our animal instinct works. It is just overall viewed as negative among humans.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 24, 2009

Those two phrases do not go well together.

Sorry I will reword it. If my first instinct kicks in and I kill in self defense (lets hope that never has to happen) I will have disobeyed God. Hopefully I will have enough self control to remain composed and not have any savage traits come out.

1. Human instincts would overwhelm my Religious beliefs for the time being.

Unfortunately it's likely.

but Mortal Sins may be forgiven at death or by confessing and solving it via a priest.

No priests or blood any more. All it takes is Jesus.

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Aug 25, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
Unfortunately it's likely.

No priests or blood any more. All it takes is Jesus.

Earlier you said that it was never right to kill.
I am on the side saying that there is actually a time to kill, given that a human is in a life-threatening situation and is held at gunpoint, because of their instincts.
First you say it is not right and that God disapproves of it, yet you agree to say that there is a time to kill. Or did I misinterpret what you said?

thegreatkazoo · Aug 25, 2009

Hey, you're stealing my shtick! :chuckle:

~~But good job for noticing a contradiction in Hooblah's posts: keep it up...~~

EDIT: Apparently there's no contradiction in Hooblah's posts. Fair enough...

Shadow13 · Aug 25, 2009

I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like Hooblah said that he would react on instinct, but that would not be right. So that it may be a time for him to kill, he wouldn't think it is right.
Hooblah if I am wrong correct me.
Although, I think if somebody did kill out of self defence it would be okay. The other person wants to kill you. You have a right to life, and a right to defend it. I would not call that a savage instinct as Hooblah did, if somebody of the two is going to die, it should probably be the one who had murder as his/her intention. The one defending themselves has the intention to live.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 25, 2009

First you say it is not right and that God disapproves of it, yet you agree to say that there is a time to kill. Or did I misinterpret what you said?

You misinterpreted. It's not right to kill, ever, but if your instinct takes over before you can realize what you are doing (which I said is likely - no contradiction there kazoo), then you probably will try to defend yourself. I never said that was okay, I said it's likely to happen.

Wrath` · Aug 25, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
You misinterpreted. It's not right to kill, ever, but if your instinct takes over before you can realize what you are doing (which I said is likely - no contradiction there kazoo), then you probably will try to defend yourself. I never said that was okay, I said it's likely to happen.

Didn't god create instinct within a human? Meaning god wants you to kill.

.Marik · Aug 25, 2009

The wrath of Koarin said:
Didn't god create instinct within a human? Meaning god wants you to kill.

Or rather, God implemented human instinct so we could survive, and therefore serve Him as we live our dreary, bland, and mortal lives.

But since God is only a theory and not actually proven, no amount of "evidence" proposed and examined says it's actual fact, I would say it's meant for survival so we can reproduce.

Hooblah. Listen.

Not everybody has the same moral and/or religious views. Different things are accepted and not accepted in different cultures. So, what you wouldn't do, may be perfectly decent and appropriate in another country.

Hence, they will murder you for money, so they can buy drugs. They are morally corrupted, and you shouldn't allow that. Saying you'd die for God, is a bit unrealistic in everyday circumstances. Don't be a hero, you WILL be forgotten.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 25, 2009

Didn't god create instinct within a human? Meaning god wants you to kill.

God made us perfect. Sin corrupted us.

But since God is only a theory and not actually proven, no amount of "evidence" proposed and examined says it's actual fact, I would say it's meant for survival so we can reproduce.

Of course you can't prove God, unless I did a miracle. There are large amounts of evidence though it just depends on whether or not you are humble enough to see it for what it really is.

Not everybody has the same moral and/or religious views. Different things are accepted and not accepted in different cultures. So, what you wouldn't do, may be perfectly decent and appropriate in another country.

Are you saying morals are relative?

Saying you'd die for God, is a bit unrealistic in everyday circumstances.

Hearing that only makes me feel better. Everything I'm about is supposed to be the total opposite from mainstream views.

Don't be a hero, you WILL be forgotten.

My goal is not to be a hero, but a servant.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 25, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
Are you saying morals are relative?

Yes, they are. Here's an example.

In some East African countries (including the one country from which my parents are from), polygamy is an acceptable tradition there, as one man can have 4-5 wives.

In the US however, it is seen as a morally (and illegal) reprehensible act.

Just a quick point of clarification...

Shadow13 · Aug 25, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
God made us perfect. Sin corrupted us.

If God made us perfect, and God is supposed to be perfect, then wouldn't Adam and Eve not be below God?
Since you base almost all of your argument on God and The Bible, I will use that in my debate against you. It's not like you listen to anything else so here it goes.
In the Bible, God commanded Abraham to kill his son for him. Since you feel that you must obey God, this would have been a right time for Abraham to kill Isaac, which he had the intent to do. Right before Abraham was about to kill Isaac, God had an angel stop him. That still means that Abraham thought that he was going to do it, and was going to go through with it. So would you say that would be a right time to kill? It is basically the same thing attemtped murder.

zrky · Aug 25, 2009

Shadow that's right, but if I remember correctly he was supposed to sacrifice Isaac, so it's like an honorable murder in a way. So in a way it was right to kill, but it would have still been immoral.

Shadow13 · Aug 25, 2009

zrky said:
Shadow that's right, but if I remember correctly he was supposed to sacrifice Isaac, so it's like an honorable murder in a way.

Yes I know Isaac was supposed to be a sacrifce to God, but by definition murder means to either kill unlawfully or inhumanly. He led him up there telling him that God would provide an animal for sacrifice. He planned to do it and led him up there telling him God would provide an animal for sacrifice. He even had Isaac carry the wood which he was to be killed on. So the bottom line is, even if you think it is honorable (I don't really think it is), it is still premeditated murder.

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Aug 26, 2009

Shadow13 said:
Yes I know Isaac was supposed to be a sacrifce to God, but by definition murder means to either kill unlawfully or inhumanly. He led him up there telling him that God would provide an animal for sacrifice. He planned to do it and led him up there telling him God would provide an animal for sacrifice. He even had Isaac carry the would which he was to be killed on. So the bottom line is, even if you think it is honorable (I don't really think it is), it is still premeditated murder.

I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?

God must have given us the human instinct to survive then; to kill another person if the other person is threatening your own life.
Yet killing is considered sinful in Christianity? Why did God ever give us that instinct then?

zrky · Aug 26, 2009

Humans are animals aren't we? So trully he did lead his "sacrificial animal" to be sacrificed. I agree that it's murder, but technically speaking, since it was ordered by God it is exusable. I don't know how this would ever happen, but even if my mind told me in a dream I should kill someone, personally I still wouldn't sacrifice to God since "sacrifice" is just a word to make murder sound nice and respectable.

Omni, God didn't give us the instict to kill (if that's what you are referring to), he gave us the instinct for self-preservation, which can sometimes lead to murder.

Riddle · Aug 26, 2009

Omnicron said:
I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?

God must have given us the human instinct to survive then; to kill another person if the other person is threatening your own life.
Yet killing is considered sinful in Christianity? Why did God ever give us that instinct then?

Wow your posts are really hard to read. could you pick another size, font, and color combo?

I suggest changing the size to size 2, picking a different font (A bigger one like Verdana), or both:

Size 2:

Omnicron said:
I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?

God must have given us the human instinct to survive then; to kill another person if the other person is threatening your own life.
Yet killing is considered sinful in Christianity? Why did God ever give us that instinct then?

Verdana:

Omnicron said:
I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?

God must have given us the human instinct to survive then; to kill another person if the other person is threatening your own life.
Yet killing is considered sinful in Christianity? Why did God ever give us that instinct then?

Both:

Omnicron said:
I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?

God must have given us the human instinct to survive then; to kill another person if the other person is threatening your own life.
Yet killing is considered sinful in Christianity? Why did God ever give us that instinct then?

A lighter color would also make it contrast better with the black most people use to view the forum.

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Aug 26, 2009

Riddle said:
Wow your posts are really hard to read. could you pick another size, font, and color combo?

I suggest changing the size to size 2, picking a different font (A bigger one like Verdana), or both:

Size 2:

Verdana:

Both:

A lighter color would also make it contrast better with the black most people use to view the forum.

How is this?

Riddle · Aug 26, 2009

Omnicron said:
How is this?

Yeah that's perfectly fine, but its pretty similar to my font, color, and size so I'm going to chage mine.

How does this look?

thegreatkazoo · Aug 26, 2009

~~Same font homes...~~

Shadow13 · Aug 26, 2009

Omnicron said:
I am sorry, state that again, how can one carry "would"?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Yeah......................
I just edited that, that is what occurs when I don't pay enough attention to what I type. That, or me being too lazy to proofread my post.

zrky said:
Humans are animals aren't we? So trully he did lead his "sacrificial animal" to be sacrificed. I agree that it's murder, but technically speaking, since it was ordered by God it is exusable. I don't know how this would ever happen, but even if my mind told me in a dream I should kill someone, personally I still wouldn't sacrifice to God since "sacrifice" is just a word to make murder sound nice and respectable.

^ That is part of my point. God isn't agreed by everybody to be real, so many wouldn't consider that an excuse. I doubt many people who do believe in God would consider that as an excuse besides the situations mentioned in The Bible.

.Marik · Aug 27, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
God made us perfect. Sin corrupted us.

Hooblah, meet Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve, meet Hooblah.

We were corrupted from the beginning. Even Biblical sources confirm that.

Of course you can't prove God, unless I did a miracle. There are large amounts of evidence though it just depends on whether or not you are humble enough to see it for what it really is.

Well, the point is it's never been proven.

Are you saying morals are relative?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Go to the Middle Eastern countries, and then come back to America. You'll see how different customs, morals and traditions are.

Did you know that if a girl gets *****, the family can stone her because she's disgraced the family name? Even if she was overpowered by five men and brutally *****. Yeah, I'd say morals are relative and subjective.

Hearing that only makes me feel better. Everything I'm about is supposed to be the total opposite from mainstream views.

Again, not realistic.

My goal is not to be a hero, but a servant.

Cool story bro.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 27, 2009

Hooblah, meet Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve, meet Hooblah.

We were corrupted from the beginning. Even Biblical sources confirm that.

Well we became corrupted, that doesn't mean we were corrupted to begin with.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Go to the Middle Eastern countries, and then come back to America. You'll see how different customs, morals and traditions are.

Did you know that if a girl gets *****, the family can stone her because she's disgraced the family name? Even if she was overpowered by five men and brutally *****. Yeah, I'd say morals are relative and subjective.

You say that like it's a bad thing, but it can't be bad if morals are relative.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8233079&postcount=61

Again, not realistic.

That's the point, it's not really supposed to be.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 27, 2009

Starting from now on, I will attempt to not make sardonic remarks when replying to your posts. To this end, I will hope that when criticisms of your posts are made, you don't

Avoid the question
Claim superiority by being closer to God then others, &
Say "Goddunit" and claim the debate over

With that, said, I will turn over a new leaf.

Hooblah2u2 said:
Well we became corrupted, that doesn't mean we were corrupted to begin with.

Some advice: When you ignore previous posts that debunk your previous posts, this does not make you a better debater. From this post (and the one you made previous to it), you are stating that you still hold on to the creation myth. Notwithstanding the fact that this claim was debunked (in terms of the age of the Earth) here, and partially debunked on this link as well, you seem to be ignoring previous replies made to you. You are also appealing to authority when saying that humans have become corrupted--to make matters worse, your authority is one in which there is no (empirical) evidence for and that not everyone believes.

Watch out for logical fallacies, they can make your debate a lot weaker.

Hooblah2u2 said:
You say that like it's a bad thing, but it can't be bad if morals are relative.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8233079&postcount=61

Alt just replied to your post, as did I a few posts before. Take the time to read them.

Shadow13 · Aug 27, 2009

Shadow13 said:
If God made us perfect, and God is supposed to be perfect, then wouldn't Adam and Eve not be below God?
Since you base almost all of your argument on God and The Bible, I will use that in my debate against you. It's not like you listen to anything else so here it goes.
In the Bible, God commanded Abraham to kill his son for him. Since you feel that you must obey God, this would have been a right time for Abraham to kill Isaac, which he had the intent to do. Right before Abraham was about to kill Isaac, God had an angel stop him. That still means that Abraham thought that he was going to do it, and was going to go through with it. So would you say that would be a right time to kill? It is basically the same thing attemtped murder.

Hooblah I made this post trying to make a point to you and it seems you either didn't see it or didn't respond on purpose.
Also at you, Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth according to the Bible. They were corrupted, and not even smart enough to realise that snakes don't talk. That is totally a sign of perfection right there.

zrky · Aug 27, 2009

Shadow13 said:
Also at you, Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth according to the Bible. They were corrupted, and not even smart enough to realise that snakes don't talk. That is totally a sign of perfection right there.

Watching the History channel once I think they had a story of a woman created before Eve, but since she wasn't obedient towards Adam, God got rid of her and created Eve out of Adam's rib making him superior to Eve since she came from his body. The snake thing, wasn't the devil supposed to be disguised as a snake?

Shadow13 · Aug 28, 2009

zrky said:
Watching the History channel once I think they had a story of a woman created before Eve, but since she wasn't obedient towards Adam, God got rid of her and created Eve out of Adam's rib making him superior to Eve since she came from his body. The snake thing, wasn't the devil supposed to be disguised as a snake?

I did hear of the woman who was supposed to be made before Eve(I think Lilith was her name), but Hooblah bases his debate on the Bible, and she isn't in the Bible. I have heard that she was in some Hebrew text, but she isn't even in the Torah.
Yes it was the supposed to be the devil disguised as a snake, but that is part of the point. Adam and Eve were humans, they were supposed to know that they were above the snake. My point is if she thought it was a snake, shouldn't she have known that snakes do not speak? If you saw a snake that told you to do something you were forbidden to do, would you do it? If that happened to me I would think I had taken drugs.

zrky · Aug 28, 2009

Shadow13 said:
Yes it was the supposed to be the devil disguised as a snake, but that is part of the point. Adam and Eve were humans, they were supposed to know that they were above the snake. My point is if she thought it was a snake, shouldn't she have known that snakes do not speak? If you saw a snake that told you to do something you were forbidden to do, would you do it? If that happened to me I would think I had taken drugs.

So the devil would have had to trick Eve in some way (which I believe he did), but thinking a snake can talk really is stupid. Especially if through ID we are supposed to be cable of understanding that Humans (and divine beings apparently) are the only beings that are capable of speech.

I think we are getting a little off-topic, we should probably get back, no?

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 28, 2009

God isn't agreed by everybody to be real, so many wouldn't consider that an excuse.

Half the things you (you meaning everyone else) have said isn't agreed by everyone, and I sure wouldn't count that as an excuse to find a right time to kill.

To this end, I will hope that when criticisms of your posts are made, you don't
Avoid the question
Claim superiority by being closer to God then others, &
Say "Goddunit" and claim the debate over

Sorry about the avoiding part. Most times I get on it's before school and I only have a few minutes to respond. I try not to claim superiority, and I don't believe I have. Sorry if you took it that way. God plays a key role in just about everything, so I will say God has done things.

In some East African countries (including the one country from which my parents are from), polygamy is an acceptable tradition there, as one man can have 4-5 wives.

In the US however, it is seen as a morally (and illegal) reprehensible act.

I understand what you mean. Here is a quote by J.P. Moreland I found in a book I read not too long ago. It's lengthy, but worth your time:

One could respond to this objection [that morals can't be relative] by pointing out that society A may have in it's moral code the principle that one should criticize acts of say, murder, regardless of where they occur. So members of A could criticize such acts in other societies. But such a rule further reveals the inconsistency in normative relativism. Given this rule and the fact that normative relativism is true and embraced by members of A, those in A seem to be holding the position that members of B ought to murder (since their code says it's right) and I ought to criticize members of B because my code says I should. Thus, I criticize members of B as immoral and at the same time hold that their actions should have been done. Further, why should members of B care about what members of A think? After all, if normative relativism is true, there is nothing intrinsically right about the moral views of society A or any society for that matter. For these and other reasons, moral relativism should be rejected.

There's more where that came from. In other words, you are all hypocrites (those who believe morals are truly relative) if you are criticizing me for anything.

Also at you, Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth according to the Bible. They were corrupted, and not even smart enough to realise that snakes don't talk. That is totally a sign of perfection right there.

If you heard a snake talking to you, wouldn't you become instantly curious? Besides, who said animals didn't talk? I don't believe they did, but you can't know for sure.

Watching the History channel once I think they had a story of a woman created before Eve, but since she wasn't obedient towards Adam, God got rid of her and created Eve out of Adam's rib making him superior to Eve since she came from his body.

Unfortunatelly, the History channel (one of my favorites) has loads of questionable material. One day they will say the Creation account like it's 100% fact, and the next they will treat Evolution the same. It's hard to tell what really is true.

The snake thing, wasn't the devil supposed to be disguised as a snake?

That is correct.

I did hear of the woman who was supposed to be made before Eve(I think Lilith was her name)

Just curious. Where is your evidence of this woman?

Note: I skipped some posts, because the questions were the same, so the answers would have been the same. If I skipped your post on this page, I probably answered your question if it was relevant.

Shadow13 · Aug 28, 2009

Shadow13 said:
If God made us perfect, and God is supposed to be perfect, then wouldn't Adam and Eve not be below God?
Since you base almost all of your argument on God and The Bible, I will use that in my debate against you. It's not like you listen to anything else so here it goes.
In the Bible, God commanded Abraham to kill his son for him. Since you feel that you must obey God, this would have been a right time for Abraham to kill Isaac, which he had the intent to do. Right before Abraham was about to kill Isaac, God had an angel stop him. That still means that Abraham thought that he was going to do it, and was going to go through with it. So would you say that would be a right time to kill? It is basically the same thing attemtped murder.

Hooblah I read that you skipped some but this was directed specifically at you and is on topic, so I would appreciate if you at least seemed to know this is here.

Hooblah2u2 said:
Half the things you (you meaning everyone else) have said isn't agreed by everyone, and I sure wouldn't count that as an excuse to find a right time to kill.

Many people here don't even think God is real. That would be like somebody using Hinduism values to back up all of their arguments.

If you heard a snake talking to you, wouldn't you become instantly curious? Besides, who said animals didn't talk? I don't believe they did, but you can't know for sure.

I have never heard a snake talk, have you? If you can show me a Bible quote that shows that snakes had the ability to speak then feel free to.

Just curious. Where is your evidence of this woman?

My brother was reading something on the internet about a woman that was supposed to have been created before Eve, here are a few links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
http://paracleteforum.org/archive/email/history/lilith/dialogue.html
There is nothing set in stone that proves she is real, but same with most things in The Bible.

thegreatkazoo · Aug 29, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
Half the things you (you meaning everyone else) have said isn't agreed by everyone, and I sure wouldn't count that as an excuse to find a right time to kill.

Sorry about the avoiding part. Most times I get on it's before school and I only have a few minutes to respond. I try not to claim superiority, and I don't believe I have. Sorry if you took it that way. God plays a key role in just about everything, so I will say God has done things.

You still claim superiority with "Goddunit" after I declare a truce with you?
Hooblah, for your sake--read the criticisms more carefully!

Hooblah2u2 said:
I understand what you mean. Here is a quote by J.P. Moreland I found in a book I read not too long ago. It's lengthy, but worth your time:
There's more where that came from. In other words, you are all hypocrites (those who believe morals are truly relative) if you are criticizing me for anything.

No you don't. It's as if you glazed over anything ~~Alt &~~ I said and called me a hypocrite if I disagree with you. That is not how you debate: That is what some would call an ad hominem.

You also committed two logical fallacies: Appeal to authority & a false dichotomy.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 29, 2009

Hooblah I read that you skipped some but this was directed specifically at you and is on topic, so I would appreciate if you at least seemed to know this is here.

Oops. I didn't realize their were other responses on the last page.

So would you say that would be a right time to kill? It is basically the same thing attemtped murder.

If God told me to kill someone, I probably would. Yes it would be murder. Would it be immoral? Not necessarily. You gotta remember, God called it off. It was just a test.

My brother was reading something on the internet about a woman that was supposed to have been created before Eve, here are a few links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't stand up to evidence for Eve being the first woman.

You still claim superiority with "Goddunit" after I declare a truce with you?
Hooblah, for your sake--read the criticisms more carefully!

Well God does do things.

No you don't. It's as if you glazed over anything Alt & I said and called me a hypocrite if I disagree with you.

No, I read it and posted the counter argument. I wasn't really calling you a hypocrite, I was just showing you how hypocritical you are if that is how you believe.

That is what some would call an ad hominem.

There are ways you can make anything look negative. Besides, it's not that at all. I didn't attack you, I quoted a very wise man and showed you the consequences of having moral relatives.

You also committed two logical fallacies: Appeal to authority & a false dichotomy.

That's not an appeal to authority. I was simply quoting another person. The person I quoted wasn't the main focus, but the content. That is what some would call an ad hominem.

I don't see where I made a false dichotomy either, could you please help me understand there?

thegreatkazoo · Aug 29, 2009

Hooblah2u2 said:
Well God does do things.

There is no empirical evidence for this both ways. What is better for you to say is that I believe that God does do things, while keeping in mind that not all people share that same opinion, which is cool. Also, people not believing in your version of God doesn't make them any more or less of a person than you.

Hooblah2u2 said:
No, I read it and posted the counter argument. I wasn't really calling you a hypocrite, I was just showing you how hypocritical you are if that is how you believe.

Really? Read this again:

There's more where that came from. In other words, you are all hypocrites (those who believe morals are truly relative) if you are criticizing me for anything.

To any average Joe, that would sound as if you were calling somebody a hypocrite. You also done this before, where you will strongly imply that someone is something and then slowly back off from saying it. For example, read from this thread onwards where you implicitly state that I am a hypocrite, but never come out and say it.

That is not a proper method to debate. Also, if you are going to come out and say something about someone, then just do us a solid and say it.

Hooblah2u2 said:
There are ways you can make anything look negative. Besides, it's not that at all. I didn't attack you, I quoted a very wise man and showed you the consequences of having moral relatives.

You are making an argument for relativism while calling those who believe in relative morals hypocrites? There's a lot of irony with that.

Also, I am not very certain that I would claim Moreland an authority on the subject of moral relativism. In what ways is he very wise on such things? And yes, this would mean giving me evidence in which he is an authority on this topic, which could include papers he may have written in his field and the like...

Hooblah2u2 said:
That's not an appeal to authority. I was simply quoting another person. The person I quoted wasn't the main focus, but the content. That is what some would call an ad hominem.

You're doing it wrong!
If you wanted to focus on the content, you would have said that I believe that morals are not relative & used that quote to support your claim. Rather, you made a statement (that everyone who criticizes you that morals aren't absolute are hypocrites), then showed a quote from a "wise man" authority which supported your claim. Did you click on the link I sent you?

Hooblah2u2 said:
I don't see where I made a false dichotomy either, could you please help me understand there?

You (heavily) implied that either morals are absolute or that you are a hypocrite for criticizing this, though there are far more than these two options to consider.

Hooblah2u2 · Aug 29, 2009

What is better for you to say is that I believe that God does do things

Good idea.

Also, people not believing in your version of God doesn't make them any more or less of a person than you.

I never said it did.

To any average Joe, that would sound as if you were calling somebody a hypocrite. You also done this before, where you will strongly imply that someone is something and then slowly back off from saying it. For example, read from this thread onwards where you implicitly state that I am a hypocrite, but never come out and say it.

That entire post was talking about the consequences of relative morals, and my calling you a hypocrite was more of a warning than an attack. I wasn't trying to attack you personally, just show you how you would look.

You are making an argument for relativism while calling those who believe in relative morals hypocrites?

No I wasn't? How do you see that?

In what ways is he very wise on such things? And yes, this would mean giving me evidence in which he is an authority on this topic, which could include papers he may have written in his field and the like...

What do you mean "in what ways"? It's not paper that makes people wise. Whether he is an expert on the issue or not doesn't matter in this case. Children's innocence many times makes them wiser than full grown adults. Have they had years of studying? No. Don't worry about "evidence", the quote is evidence in itself.

Here's some of his work, if you are still not satisfied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Moreland

If you wanted to focus on the content, you would have said that I believe that morals are not relative & used that quote to support your claim. Rather, you made a statement (that everyone who criticizes you that morals aren't absolute are hypocrites), then showed a quote from a "wise man" authority which supported your claim.

This is what I said:

Here is a quote by J.P. Moreland I found in a book I read not too long ago. It's lengthy, but worth your time:

I give credit to the author like I should and you criticize me for it. I later stated that I believe he is a very wise man. Yes, it was the content I wanted you to read, not the name.

Did you click on the link I sent you?

I did.

You (heavily) implied that either morals are absolute or that you are a hypocrite for criticizing this, though there are far more than these two options to consider.

Like what?

handsockpuppet · Aug 29, 2009

A lot of that is based on technicalities. A suicide bomber is about to blow himself up in front of a huge crowd, you included (this is all hypothetical, so let's say you're 100% sure it's a suicide bomber). You have a gun. Would you shoot him? (preferably in the head, so he can't pull the switch. and don't try the "this would never happen" excuse, because there are a lot of suicide bombers in Israel every month, and there's also a lot of Israeli soldiers, so I'm sure this has come up before) I would. It's self defense as well as the saving of many lives.

How about a story from a few years ago in the newspaper. It was titled, "Kill Mary to save Jodie?" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997967,00.html). Two babies were just born. But they're Siamese twins, one had a functioning body, but the other didn't have a functioning heart or lung. She was depending on the other one to live. but together they could only live 6 months. if they were separated, however, one would live a normal life and the other would die. The parents, devout Christians, refused to have them separated, saying something like, "we know G-d will make a decision, and we're fine with whatever he chooses". However, the doctor pushed for the separation, and eventually won in court.

For reasons like that, maybe you guys should drop religious backup. I mean, I guess it's all subjective, but religion and the Bible are not evidence at all. Terrorists use the Koran to back up what they believe about American and Jew killing (although it must be said that they completely twist the words and put it so out of context that it doesn't even slightly resemble the point it was trying to make. kinda like what Christians do). Picking and choosing which verse to cite is unfair and stupid. there's a small section in the bible about how you should "Stone disobedient children" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-bibleshocking.shtml). Even Evangelicals agree this does not make it right. Although prostitution is illegal in 49 states, from the link directly above, "Prostitution is punished by burning the woman alive according to Leviticus 21:9". yah...'nuff said.

The "Right" Times to Kill

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Lol'd

Smash Journeyman

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lol'd

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

is a social misfit

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lol'd

Smash Journeyman

Smash Hero

Smash Lol'd

Smash Lord

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

is a social misfit

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lol'd

Smash Journeyman

Smash Lol'd

Smash Apprentice

Smash Journeyman

Smash Master

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Information

Network