Is suicide always a sin?

[Navigator]

Suicide might be no more than a lack of faith in the human collective condition.

I personally know what it is like to not want to go on in this awareness and shared reality.

However, I can only say that I have come to my senses, and see that all in all, why should I count my own contribution to the whole thing as being something worthless enough to willingly remove from the reality.

Maybe if the physical pain gets too much, and the drugs addle my ability to add anything sensible to the mix. I might opt for the executioner (if youth in asia becomes lawful) or find a way to do the job myself...but if I tell my 'loved ones' will they dob me in and have me die in a way that any civilised law would not expect owners of pets to allow those pets to suffer pain and eventual death with no thought for the general trauma of the animal concerned.?

Yes - grandma has to suffer and you must watch...but if we catch you doing this to any of your pets, you will be punished.

Go figure!

The condemned murderer get the painless lethal injection.

So one would wonder another thing.

Does a percentage of those who commit 'punishable by death' crimes, do these things because they are wanting to die anyhow, but are too whatever to do the job themselves?

So they create a traumatic string event which has many suffering and the end result is that someone else has to pull the lever which ends their existence.

Hmmm...how many murderours etc... are suicidesi n disguise?

 

[Radrook]

Hmmm...how many murderours etc... are suicidesi n disguise?

Definitely.
Some individuals commit crime to have a roof over their heads and a free meal with such fringe benefits as an exercize room and access to free education.


There are also persons who lack the courage to do themselves in and find a way for the justice system to do it for them. That is why a psycholoigical evaluation of a criminal is always in order. Nevertheless, I am not certain that even if this can be proven to be the motive that it would mean immunity from capital punishment as a diagnosis of insanity would be.

Just recently a fellow offered himself to be eaten and some weirdo responded and ate him. The cannibal was given a lighter sentence because the suicide victim had requested to be slaughtered and consumed. You figure that one out.

 

[Navigator]

Definitely.
Some individuals commit crime to have a roof over their heads and a free meal with such fringe benefits as an exercize room and access to free education.

If everyone was thus given a roof over their heads, food and clothing and health, there might be a dramatic drop in what overall is referred to as crime.
However, s a tradeoff, everyone given these things which ordinarily come about through hard individual yaka to 'earn there right to life" (Which btw is biblically thought of as a god commandment) then there would be a natural expectation from that which gives to those who recieve, (same thing really) that the energy saved in competing for these necessities would be channelled into enhancing the society as a whole,
This is to say that the skills to grow food, build shelter and make clothing and the tools and resorces needed to make these things would be given freely and from these basic skills, the more refine skills which come about from not having to concern oneself any longer with issues of food clothing and shelter would be channelled free back into society as a whole.



There are also persons who lack the courage to do themselves in and find a way for the justice system to do it for them. That is why a psycholoigical evaluation of a criminal is always in order. Nevertheless, I am not certain that even if this can be proven to be the motive that it would mean immunity from capital punishment as a diagnosis of insanity would be.


Insanity is more of a matter of perspective and generally is measured against the number of individuals in the 'normal' zone.

My replay re "give food shelter and clothing" could/would be considered 'insane' if indeed the majority of individuals thought otherwise.
However, if their was a shift in thinking, and giving food clothing and shelter to every individual as a natural birthright of a human individual, to the degree that the majority lived by and practiced this thing, then it would be concidered 'sane' and even a healthy outlook of society.


Just recently a fellow offered himself to be eaten and some weirdo responded and ate him. The cannibal was given a lighter sentence because the suicide victim had requested to be slaughtered and consumed. You figure that one out.

It might be seen as a step in the alternative direction. The law in this case concidered the responcibility of these individual choices together, to being eveident of mutual co-opperation, and ther must have been documented evidence of this fact.

Nonetheless, the law still state that even if you want to be eaten alive and another wants to eat you alive, it is still punishable.
There may not be a God who commands certain things from individuals, but there is the law.
In this case, it might have been no more or less than a statement of contempt for the law by both individuals.

 

[Radrook]

If everyone was thus given a roof over their heads, food and clothing and health, there might be a dramatic drop in what overall is referred to as crime.

I agree.
Such basics should be provided as a birthright.
I came across this same idea years ago and found it very appealing and reasonable.

Insanity is more of a matter of perspective and generally is measured against the number of individuals in the 'normal' zone.

Certainly.
There are those who are considered sane but who others would consider insane as well.

It might be seen as a step in the alternative direction. The law in this case considered the responsibility of these individual choices together, to being evidence of mutual cooperation, and there must have been documented evidence of this fact.

Yes, the email advertisement was one documented fact as well as the cannibal's reply. The cannibal also videotaped the whole thing.

In this case, it might have been no more or less than a statement of contempt for the law by both individuals.

Perhaps but I doubt it.
There are other less gruesome ways to show contempt.
The willing victim was obviously mentally deranged.
He even tried to consume his own penis after having it cut off and frying it.

I disagree with letting the cannibal off on a lighter sentence based on a sick person's willingness to be eaten alive. His responsibility both as a human being and a good citizen was to report this to the police and try to find medical help for the obviously deranged individual. I see his actions as taking advantage of what he might have predatorily perceived as an insane person whose insanity had deprived him of the natural urge of self-preservation.

IMHO

 

[Navigator]

I disagree with letting the cannibal off on a lighter sentence based on a sick person's willingness to be eaten alive. His responsibility both as a human being and a good citizen was to report this to the police and try to find medical help for the obviously deranged individual. I see his actions as taking advantage of what he might have predatorily perceived as an insane person whose insanity had deprived him of the natural urge of self-preservation.


Oh.

I didn't realise that you thought the cannibal sane.

I just assummed they musta been both loony.

Okay so it had nothing to do with telling the law were to get off. It was merely done with no real thought to the most likely consequences?

I have not seen the evidence, nor even read anything in detail regarding the case...I must have been thinking about something else at the time.

So it is 'insanity' and kinda wierd and what exactly is the message and was there even a message and are we reading too much into this.

Is it a general everyday normal event which happens between society at large.

Sexually yes....but that's a different kind of meal.
Certainly THAT was lawless at one time.



Hmmmm.........we are what we eat?

 

[Radrook]

Oh.

I didn't realize that you thought the cannibal sane.

I just assumed they must been both loony.

Good point!
I assumed that he was sane because he did not plead insanity and neither was he sent to the loony bin. In fact, I am astonished that the whole issue of this man being insane did not even come up.

Okay so it had nothing to do with telling the law were to get off. It was merely done with no real thought to the most likely consequences?

I have not seen the evidence, nor even read anything in detail regarding the case...I must have been thinking about something else at the time.

So it is 'insanity' and kinda weird and what exactly is the message and was there even a message and are we reading too much into this.

Is it a general everyday normal event which happens between society at large.

Sexually yes....but that's a different kind of meal.
Certainly THAT was lawless at one time.



Hmmmm.........we are what we eat? [/B]

Well, it does have to do with suicide.
One crazy decided that he wanted to commit suicide via being slaughtered and eaten. So he advertised his willingness to be consumed. The other crazy wanted to consume someone and cheerfully obliged.


BTW
I heard about the incident from a relative and looked it up on the net by feeding the search engine the word Cannibal.

 

[Ladewig]

I have a friend who had a sister who committed suicide after a lengthy battle with cancer. The whole family turned away from the Catholic Church once they were told that the woman could not be buried in a Catholic cemetary because of her unforgivable sin.

If suicide is high up on your religion's list of sins, then I have little respect for your religion.

 

[metropolis_part_one]

? It seems pretty obvious to me that suicide would be the only unforgivable sin. The reason being that God is supposed to have an infinite capacity to forgive, but only if you ask him. Therefore you could commit the most terrible crimes imaginable, but if you repented from your heart, then you would be forgiven. However by commiting suicide you are opting out of even asking God for forgiveness and help.

 

[Radrook]

I have a friend who had a sister who committed suicide after a lengthy battle with cancer. The whole family turned away from the Catholic Church once they were told that the woman could not be buried in a Catholic cemetary because of her unforgivable sin.

If suicide is high up on your religion's list of sins, then I have little respect for your religion.

Whether any individual specific suicide is or is not to be considered sinful is up to God who can evaluate all the factors involved. It certainly isn't up to me or any other limited human being who can only see the behavior but not what led up to it nor fathom the mental and emotional condition of the suicidal person.

 

[Tricky]

? It seems pretty obvious to me that suicide would be the only unforgivable sin. The reason being that God is supposed to have an infinite capacity to forgive, but only if you ask him. Therefore you could commit the most terrible crimes imaginable, but if you repented from your heart, then you would be forgiven. However by commiting suicide you are opting out of even asking God for forgiveness and help.

Interesting tack, Metro, I'm going to start a new thread on post-death forgiveness.

 

[DionysianSmile]

I think suicide is always a sin. This is because it results from despair. Despair is the worst sin and the only unforgivable one. It means that you have given up trusting in God to help you, or you don't think he will/can help you. If you are going to commit suicide, things in your life must have gotten extremely bad. But you should supposedly trust in God to look after you and see you through it. If you don't, you are despairing in him and so commiting the worst sin.

I'm not certain what brings you to the conclusion that despair is from not trusting your god. People who are driven to the point of suicide are mostly affected by things that you obviously completely dismiss such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, abuse, torture -- mental and physical that drive people to consider suicide as the only means of survival from these anguishings. You seem to be blaming a potential victim of these diseases. I've seen the mental affect that these factors can have on thinking and decision making. These people need your help noit condemnation.

Edited to add:
Won't it be great when those darned Suicide Booths hit the market???

 

[Tricky]

Won't it be great when those darned Suicide Booths hit the market???

Do you mean Ethical Suicide Parlors?

 

[The Cats Venm]

If everyone was thus given a roof over their heads, food and clothing and health, there might be a dramatic drop in what overall is referred to as crime.
However, s a tradeoff, everyone given these things which ordinarily come about through hard individual yaka to 'earn there right to life" (Which btw is biblically thought of as a god commandment) then there would be a natural expectation from that which gives to those who recieve, (same thing really) that the energy saved in competing for these necessities would be channelled into enhancing the society as a whole,
This is to say that the skills to grow food, build shelter and make clothing and the tools and resorces needed to make these things would be given freely and from these basic skills, the more refine skills which come about from not having to concern oneself any longer with issues of food clothing and shelter would be channelled free back into society as a whole.

Congratulations! You've discovered communism.

In theory at least, too bad it doesn't work (darn human nature).

While some people will buy into it, many (most?) will just coast on what they are given. The betterment of humankind simply isn't enough motivation. We are lazy at heart.

I think most people know how to be ‘good’ and live right. Unfortunately when it comes to actually doing it, we often fail. That is why Christianity is so popular. You don’t have to BE good, you just have to be aware of your faults, say you’re sorry afterwards, and *poof*, eternal happiness is your reward.

That’s what free will is all about after all – the freedom to sin.

 

[Radrook]

That is why Christianity is so popular. You don’t have to BE good, you just have to be aware of your faults, say you’re sorry afterwards, and *poof*, eternal happiness is your reward.

That’s what free will is all about after all – the freedom to sin.

Christians who describe Christianity as a religion that tells us that we can sin as much as we want with absolutely no negative consequences are misrepresenting what the Bible tells us--that voluntary sin leads to death and that there is definitely a limit to God's patience.

Such Christians choose to se only what is convenient to see--the part about forgiveness. True, forgiveness is given, but does not cover the willful choosing to live contrary to how God tells us to.

If forgiveness knew no limit then the Bible would not have to warn us about the consequences that can befalk us if we choose to wilfully sin. Such warnings would be totally unnecessary. Yet the warnings are abundantly given both in the OT and the NT.



Romans 6:16
Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

BTW

Why this same answer is posted below without any commentary is beyond my explanation.

 

[The Cats Venm]

Christians who describe Christianity as a religion that tells us that we can sin as much as we want with absolutely no negative consequences are misrepresenting what the Bible tells us--that voluntary sin leads to death and that there is definitely a limit to God's patience.

Such Christians choose to see only what is convenient to see--the part about forgiveness. True, forgiveness is given, but does not cover the willful choosing to live contrary to how God tells us to.

If forgiveness knew no limit then the Bible would not have to warn us about the consequences that can befalk us if we choose to wilfully sin. Such warnings would be totally unnecessary. Yet the warnings are abundantly given both in the OT and the NT.

Then free will is the freedom to sin in ignorance?
Or do christians enjoy having other sinners around?
(These question are inspired by a post in another thread about people not wanting to living in a world without free will, it just struck me as strange)

Perhaps a more dirct question: when is a sin NOT willful?
If you kill someone by accident (a doctor for example), is it still a sin?

 

[JAR]

I think suicide is always a sin. This is because it results from despair. Despair is the worst sin and the only unforgivable one. It means that you have given up trusting in God to help you, or you don't think he will/can help you. If you are going to commit suicide, things in your life must have gotten extremely bad. But you should supposedly trust in God to look after you and see you through it. If you don't, you are despairing in him and so commiting the worst sin.

A god that expects his follower to continue his or her life regardless of how miserable it is is an unfeeling or perhaps sadistic god that does not deserve to be worshipped.

 

[Doctor X]

Hear! Hear!

Er . . . Read! Read!

--J.D.

 

[JAR]

Society has invested a lot in each person, and has a responsibility to discourage them from making decisions they'll regret later (so to speak).

A person who successfully commits suicide will not live to regret it.

 

[Radrook]

Then free will is the freedom to sin in ignorance?
Or do Christians enjoy having other sinners around?
(These question are inspired by a post in another thread about people not wanting to living in a world without free will, it just struck me as strange)

Perhaps a more direct question: when is a sin NOT willful?
If you kill someone by accident (a doctor for example), is it still a sin?

Free will is not freedom to be a danger or nuisance to others.
People who steal, murder, lie, physically attack, verbally abuse,
are sadistic, uncaring about their neighbors, and so on, are disruptive societal influences. Governments do not grant freedom to engage in such behaviors without there being repercussions. Why we should expect differently from God is far beyond me.

Sin is willful when one chooses to sin though one knows one is sinning. When is theft willful, or murder, or lying in court?

Accidentally killing someone is called manslaughter.
If it is due to negligence it is a sin.
For example, if I know that my stairway is liable to collapse and yet I permit someone to use in it and he kills himself. That is negligence and it a sin. If I swing a bat and kill someone who approaches me from behind by mistake, it is not a sin since the person was unseen.

Yet, in order to demonstrate that life was important such accidents were treated as legal cases under law and certain provisions were made to emphasize the seriousness of taking a human life.

Numbers 35:11
select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee.


But we are no longer under law.
So those stipulations are no longer binding.

 

[The Cats Venm]

Why would anyone desire free will unless they wanted the option to make the wrong choice?

The fact is that anyone who desires free will, ENJOYS sin and doesn't regret it.
As such, there is no real way for them to repent, and thus no way for them to go to heaven.