"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

After the Rapture

The rapture may have failed but one can't say that there are no victims in this "tragedy". Yes. The rapture indeed claimed lives and livelihoods though not for the non-believers.

Some christians have actually sold off their possessions and discarded their futures, thinking that there will be no tomorrow after May 21 of 2011. The concept of the rapture itself may be laughing matter but the effects aren't. I have no pity for the believers but I do pity those who have been dragged into this mess.

Still nothing wrong in believing?

_____

It's a good thing that most christians didn't believe what the crackpot Harold Camping had foretold. They are open-minded enough to doubt the claims of a mere man though not open enough to doubt the roots of their faith. It's somewhat a good thing, in my opinion but if these christians have the courage to doubt more than just the rapture prohpecies, that'd be even better.

It's somewhat similar to fanfiction. Camping, being a fan, merely coupled his own fantasies with pre-existing fantasies that had been established by most people as canon. But even the canon itself is mere fiction. The holy texts themselves are mere fanfictions of a story called Reality, as the writers wrote out how they wanted the world to be.

One more step.

Indulging in Materialistic Pleasures

I don't understand why some hardcore conservative Christians (or conservatives of any other religion) refuse to give in to their materialistic desires. I do understand that indulging too much in material pleasures isn't a good thing but to willingly discard even the slightest thoughts of it... that I do not understand.

They claim that their god had created and fine-tuned this world for all humans to enjoy. If they shun the material world, they're spitting on the face of the one who provided the world for them. If they argue that shunning the material world will cleanse their souls for the path to heaven, then what is the sense of god having to create and "fine-tune" a world in the first place?

What I don't like about conservatives is that they impose their boring lifestyle upon others who are having reasonable fun. In other words, killjoy.

I don't believe in gods or heaven. I believe that humans are a part of nature, not rising above from it. Partaking what the world has to offer is human instinct.

Why a Massacre is Needed

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?