Murder is a sin, not killing.
Depends on which interpretation you want. People will take whatever interpretation is most convenient for their lives.
If you want to believe that. I mean I was only doing it for 12 years, what the hell do I know about what I was taught.
That you were taught something. It doesn't necessarily mean what you were taught was correct.
So you can read minds now? Because someone does not think like you they are "deadend." :lol:
No, because there are fundamentals and absolutes to humanity. All humans are human and we all share a common base. When humans are forced to do things against that nature, they can occasionally break. The breaking involves disconnection with actions, which is exactly what you described.
I understand exactly what you are saying and it is bull****.
You obviously don't. Because you keep trying to say something that I'm not.
Or maybe you have not typed it clearly. :doh
Or maybe you have not read it clearly :doh
"It's quite clear. Maybe there is something trying to prevent you from understanding."
What does that have to do about your claim of Vietnam baby killers? Nothing? Yup. Again, I've seen no evidence of it in this thread. Come back with real proof next time.
Well please point out what I have done?
You've dehumanized certain sects and enemies to ignore the overall humanity of those whom you wish to destroy. It's a standard tactic and one which is "necessary" for sustained, unnecessary war. This is because fundamentally humans know that killing other humans is wrong. And we need an excuse or a reason or an ideology we can get behind in order to excuse the action itself.
I've already said that legally there can be justification for the act, but that doesn't erase the act. I think maybe you should pay attention.
If accepting responsibility amounts to nothing, than it means as does your argument in this case, nothing.
It's not nothing. You just don't seem to understand the consequences of accepting the responsibility and what that means overall towards an aggregated effect on society and warfare in general.
What does my religion have do do with the fact that morality is subjective and has no absolutes? It is different for each person.
Because gods make absolutes.
To what end? Nothing legally? Nothing morally since you throw out justification. So to what end?
I will tell you...
Nothing.
It's the acceptance of the absolute humanity of humans. That has many moral implications as well as understanding what is done in war and removes the propaganda typically used to sustain war after it's outlived its usefulness.
Well you have nothing legally to stand on.
Never claimed legal. Please keep up.
So what? They are dead, **** happens. Welcome to reality.
You only go to prove my point that you can't understand the fundamental. You're continually dodging the consequence. If you've killed someone, you've done something bad. Instead of hiding from that bad, you should accept it so that you understand fundamentally what you are doing. But this entire shrugging your shoulders thing is nothing more than running away from the reality of your actions.
What is up with this "sin" all of a sudden? It is not a sin to kill. It is a sin to murder.
So I accept the fact that people need to die to protect society.
Depends, the Catholics I believe say Thou Shall Not Kill, as they (like I) take absolutes such as respect of all human life. People change what the "sin" is to fit their lives. It's not that there isn't absolutes, it's that some humans don't want to accept that there are absolutes and will work in ways to make it appear that there are not. It's a defense mechanism so they don't feel bad about actions which they really should feel bad about.
A soilder will tell you that is wrong. We are not dehumanizing anyone, but they are the enemy and we kill them, end of story.
Thanks for proving my point. You say in one sentence you're not dehumanizing, but then go on to show fundamentally that you are.
Says a lot of things. But don't let that stop you from trying to deflect deflect deflect.
And what says the man who wishes to run from consequences?
My car crash scenario? You are now confused.
Fair enough, not yours but Apocalypse's. But you still confused and ignored the original quote because that was a direct response (which was even quoted) to a scenario about a guy who decides to crash his car into a wall with passengers in his car. Read the whole thing before you try to throw out accusations.
You still have yet to point out the consequences? Even 1. So again it means nothing.
The consequence is that you've killed a human and you bear partial responsibility for it. Now that's the "you" in context to the question posed in the thread. Someone bad guy takes a human hostage. Some good guy takes the shot and takes both out. The consequence is that the good guy bears some responsibility for the death of the innocent. And that is what you run from.