Is it worng to kill ones self as a theological and

We will all probaly agree that people shouldn't kill themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean its wrong to do so. What I'm asking is whether or not people have the right to end their lives because its their life to end?

People have the right to choose to live or die. after all one didn't choose to be born, so live is forced on us want it or not, so the only compensation can be the right at least to die by one own volition, if one so chooses. But here I hear people get arrested if tries it and it didn't work, which I think is quite vile.

It's another question that it's rather pointless to do what will happen anyway.

Of course the Abrahamic religions forbid it because it a freedom, and the Abrahamic religions don't like freedom, they want everyone controlled to the max - one to submit oneself, or to give oneself to the supposed divinity, so one have on will on one's own; and so they call it the right to decide who long one will live a "major sin" - sure. If there is a god, who created all this cruel and painful life, that is based on death, he obviously doesn't follow his own rules that supposedly people have to follow.

So, I spit on it - if I want to kill myself, I'll do it when I want; then if there is a god and I have to meet him, I'm going to have a mighty irreverent conversation with him, and put him on trial according to his own rules. So, there!


Edited by Don Quixote - 19-Apr-2012 at 18:47

If you're in unbearable pain suicide might be acceptable, on condition you do it by your own hand

Maybe my Bulgarian wording wasn't good - I didn't mean to say that obedience to a deity causes tortured lifetime, I'm saying that life itself is a pretty tortured experience. Why do I say that? Because in a world scale, if we are to exclude couple of rich countries, like Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia, everywhere else the standard of life, life expectations, level of medical problems, etc, are, mildly put, highly problematic things to deal with. Next, most humans suffer from multiple diseases, pain, terrible choices like "kill or be killed", that cause a great mental distress, the amount of broken dreams, loved people to lose, etc - pain is a part of human life from day one to day last. Life itself is a tortured existence, IMHO.

Next, people who believe feel better for the most part, because of the calming feel most religions come with - mostly because people come to hope, /how much this hope is supportable is another question/. Of course it's easier to live if one hopes that someone is watching over him/her, and the relinquishing of freedom also make life easier - that's why people fell for ideologies like the totalitarian states employ - it's easier to live if someone else makes the painful and important desicions that otherwise one has to ponder and agonize over.

In other words - god requires one to fully obey him, in which he takes one's freedom, any possible choice you can make of your own, hence the said individual feels free from responsibility to take all the hard choices he will have to make otherwise. Freedom from the responsibility of freedom - this is what whoever obeys god gets, and calls it freedom, which it's not. Which, of course, is only my opinion, which I don't force of anyone.

Now, let's look at how doable are the commandments god gave to people to follow - you shall not kill, but the others can come and kill you, because they have the free will to do that, which a person who submitted to god's laws cannot do; you shall not commit adultery, but the others can do this to you; you shall not gossip, but the others can do that to you, etc. You get attacked, have to turn the other cheek, so you get beaten good, the same goes for mugging, raping, etc. Also you have to give all you have to others, and in result you have to live on the streets. A good wife is supposed to obey her husband, who can beat her, rape her in all possible ways, take her earnings away, make her live like a dog - and she cannot do anything, because she is supposed to obey him, but he is not supposed to do anything.

All this sounds great, I presume, and leads one to have free, happy etc, life. Because it's promised that after death one is to get supposedly to heaven, and maybe get a new body, because the old one is torn to peaces due to the results of obeying god's commands. Also, I have no idea how military men possibly justify breaking the "you shall not kill" command, because their trade is to break this command many times; if not, they'll die right away, because the other side will not follow those commands.

In other words, the world that supposedly god created is based not death and pain, but one is supposed to be fully defenseless against it, because otherwise it will be not following the commands. And somehow the very cruel humans are made in god's image, who is so benevolent, that makes one be beaten, tortured, raped, burned alive, etc, so through those sufferings they learn something.

There is nothing but absurds here. Thousands of persons are born with genetic diseases and spend their lives in 24/7 pain, but they are not even allowed to stop this torture, because they have no right to do it. Only god who in his infinite benevolence gave them this torture can end that, because he didn't let the human being he created to have even this measly choice to make - to end the pain of existence - which is the absurd of the absurds. So, it goes.



Edited by Don Quixote - 19-Apr-2012 at 23:13

My answer to your last post is included in my long one - we don't live by ourselves, we live with others, and those others are not made to obey the same equation, so the point is mute. Following god's commandments leaves the person who does so vulnerable and unprotected for everyone to do what they will with them. Husband-wife relationships are power-axes - every textbook on marriage says so, and so is in life; people like nice people so they can use them, not so they submit to them. Those are the realities, most lamentably. This is one of the things about which I wish I was wrong.





Edited by Don Quixote - 19-Apr-2012 at 23:36

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis  By that definiton.. neither does a secluarist, aethist or agnostic. Who have replaced or denied traditional faith with altered representations, they preach as their gospel and doctrine. Justified either thru science or their own ego driven requirements and agendas; which have become a theology in and of itself as their acceptable replacement.  Thereby making them as much slaves of their created version of counter nirvana as much as the traditionalist.  According to that rationale anyway.

I'm not inferring anything. I didn't use derogatory remarks toward your views, not towards the Abrahamic faiths. I said that according to the Abrahamic religions one has to submit to god, which is equal to relinquishing one's rights. Because according the the same religions one's life doesn't have right on his own life, because it was given to him by god, ergo it belongs to god, that's why is a mortal sin to take it away. I didn't come up with labels toward them, and don't have to take labels either. I think we can come up toward mutual understanding without such.

Millions of human being follow different views form 38,000 different Christian churches, there isn't one traditional view. There are such dramatic differences between some of them, that they have almost nothing in common that Jesus, everything else is seen in different way. I've studied only 3, more or less - Catholic, Orthodox and LDS, - and there is nothing that can put the 3 of them in one equation and call them "traditional". The same is even more valid for the rest of 38,097 faiths. What you claim to be "traditional" in other words, is valid only for your church and your translation of the bible, this done in the cultural context of your culture - what is traditional to someone else, like me, /if I'm to claim Christian affiliations, that is/, is something completely different.

Besides, I'm not dismissing anything - I argue with the Abrahamic faiths, if I was dismissing them, I wouldn't waste my time to write about them, let alone to read or study them. Arguing is not a dismissal, unless one claims that everyone who thinks differently is dismissing.

There is refutation and refutation, it can be made in more than one way. And I'm not "crying", I'm trying to get to a mutual understanding.


Edited by Don Quixote - 20-Apr-2012 at 01:16

''Well, obviously, not a divinity''....... or theology, doctrine or dogma created by a secularist, atheist or agnostic. Who have replaced or denied traditional faith with altered representations, they preach as their gospel and doctrine. Justified either thru science or their own ego driven requirements and agendas; which have become a theology and doctrine in and of itself as their acceptable replacement.-Cebtrix Vigilis

Atheist by definition have no religion and thus no doctrine that they can possibly consider quoting much less replace with their own ideals of the truth. If you' ve met a atheist who is doing that then he is giving himself a definition and so no longer has a purpose. Agnostics on the toher hand do have scripture from which they can quote, bt these are things like Thomas More's Utopia and other mostly humanist works. The idea that either of these groups is doing this out of their own agenda is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Who or what defines... "have the right".

In practise; The community you live in, and the rules that govern that community.

You only have rights when those rules allow you to have them, or rather when those rules don't specifically say you can't have them. If you live in a community governed by rules that do not prohibit killing yourself, then you have the right to do so. If the rules say you can't kill yourself, then you don't have the right to do so.
You can try to oppose and change those rules to allow you to have the right to kill yourself, but sometimes even arguing against a rule (and pick any rule at random, here) isn't a 'right'.

But some communities may have multiple sets of rules covering their behaviour (legal, religious, traditional, etc) which overlap or contradict or create areas of gray, and most people live in a variety of communities throughout their lives (family, school, friends, work, church, society, etc) each of which may favour adherence to varying degrees to their own sets of rules, which may be of different kinds (eg your work follows legal rules, your school traditional, your family religious), which differing sets may also have contradictions or gray areas.

Suicide is one of those subjects that crosses over these different rules and communities simultaneously. Here, in the UK, the law no longer says you cannot commit suicide, but the traditional view and the religious view of the wider society is that you shouldn't. So I have the legal right to kill myself, but I don't have the moral right to do so. However if my desire to kill myself was supported by my family and friends, then I would be gaining extra right to kill myself, as I would also do if I belonged to a religion that permitted it.

However, IMO a 'right' is the freedom (within the rules of the community) to do or not do something. A suttee didn't have the right to kill herself on her husband's pyre, it was an expectation, and she didn't have the right not to. A person who feels compelled to kill themselves because of family or religious pressure is no more exhibiting a right than someone being compelled to live when they don't want to.

I do not have a right to live unless I also have a right to die - otherwise my living is nothing more than a compunction, and something I have no choice over.


Edited by Sidney - 20-Apr-2012 at 09:46

Originally posted by Sidney Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis Who or what defines... "have the right". In practise; The community you live in, and the rules that govern that community.

Very true. We are products of the culture we have been raised in, and even if we try to escape it, it's along the routes that had been permitted and set. The individual input in one's own understanding is limited to what is permitted or not; even the biggest rebels don't have much of a margin space to move in.