having influence on someone's death same as killing someone?

[tenshi_R]

i just watched constantine yesterday, love the movie, alot of good things to think about.
so i did
and the questions is
technicaly speaking, you take a life knowingly-you go to hell

but what if you either knowingly or unknowingly, accidentally or in any other way influenced someone's death how does that affect your "resume"?
i give you a simple example.
you cut someone off because you had a rough day and you trying to get home soon and this guy is just beeing a turtle and not letting you go in front, so you cut him off.
and you flip him off while doing that.
30 minutes later he dies from heart attack or crashes and dies because he had even worse day than you did and you were the final push to break him.

i mean even though you do not directly kill anyone during your whole life you probably interacted with millions of people and influenced few deaths one way or another


so how does that reflect on you?

[SnakeDoctor]

that scenario, you didn't cause the heart attack. all the YEARS of stress and poor diet is what caused it. not you cutting him off and flipping him off

[SnakeDoctor]

but to answer your question..."Thou shalt not kill"


doesn't say "Thou shalt not tinkle other's off"

[floating raft]

You never intended to eliminate him.so it doesn't count. Any activity with a purpose or intention will be counted. 

[zareste]

That's another reason why Judaist-based religions are dangerous: They function on technicalities, which can be circumvented and exploited in every way, making a person think their actions have no effect on the world or their quality of living.

When there is death taking place anywhere in the world, it effects you in some way. The more problems people are having, the more problems you have. Everyone depends on the quality of the life systems.

This gets complicated because sometimes, it's beneficial to hurt or kill someone when you can't think of an alternative. For example, if you killed someone who conducts animal testing or deforestation, you would effectively lower the amount of death in the world. They've created a condition where their death is beneficial to the planet. Although, in some cases, it's more beneficial to leave the person alive - perhaps they were forced into the destructive job even though they disapprove of it, and would be a useful tool against it (they know how the system works and could subvert it with some help)

Technicalities are, invariably, destructive. Judgment is needed for order

[CFTraveler]

i just watched constantine yesterday, love the movie, alot of good things to think about.
so i did
and the questions is
technicaly speaking, you take a life knowingly-you go to hell

but what if you either knowingly or unknowingly, accidentally or in any other way influenced someone's death how does that affect your "resume"?
i give you a simple example.
you cut someone off because you had a rough day and you trying to get home soon and this guy is just beeing a turtle and not letting you go in front, so you cut him off.
and you flip him off while doing that.
30 minutes later he dies from heart attack or crashes and dies because he had even worse day than you did and you were the final push to break him.

i mean even though you do not directly kill anyone during your whole life you probably interacted with millions of people and influenced few deaths one way or another
so how does that reflect on you?

Well, it seems that you're making some assumptions here, the first one being the idea of hell as a set punishment for the taking of a life.
Right away it's apparent that you get the interconnectedness of us all, as you described the 'butterfly effect' concept.  So why take the idea that we're all one, and combine it with the idea that there is a being out there separate from us that is going to effect 'ultimate' judgement for a 'temporal' crime?
It just doesn't make sense to me- contradictory.

That's another reason why Judaist-based religions are dangerous: They function on technicalities, which can be circumvented and exploited in every way, making a person think their actions have no effect on the world or their quality of living.

When there is death taking place anywhere in the world, it effects you in some way. The more problems people are having, the more problems you have. Everyone depends on the quality of the life systems.

This gets complicated because sometimes, it's beneficial to hurt or kill someone when you can't think of an alternative. For example, if you killed someone who conducts animal testing or deforestation, you would effectively lower the amount of death in the world. They've created a condition where their death is beneficial to the planet. Although, in some cases, it's more beneficial to leave the person alive - perhaps they were forced into the destructive job even though they disapprove of it, and would be a useful tool against it (they know how the system works and could subvert it with some help)

Technicalities are, invariably, destructive. Judgment is needed for order

Zareste said it differently than me, but I see some similarities in the answer.
Now, let me describe a slightly different scenario:
That we are all one, as described by the 'butterfly' effect, and that everything we do, physically and even emotinally/mentally affects the whole, not just part of the sum of it's parts?  What if the God that is 'in charge' is not a cause, but instead the universe/multiverse are but ways of expressing this 'being' we call God?  Then how could the idea of Hell work in such a scenario?
If your idea of hell comes from religion, please be assured that the religion that invented hell (Catholic) has in later years redefined it to mean something that 'really does not exist'.  I have to look it up, but I think I read in one of the catholic publications I sometimes read that the Pope actually apologized for the idea of hell, and admitted it was made up.
I'll have to look this up, because I have no sources ATM other than my memory of something I read.
It's too bad that modern christian religions (and muslim, as their religion appeared after christianity) still want to cling to the idea of hell.  It's too good a control mechanism.

[CFTraveler]

Because I don't like to lie (on purpose, unless I absolutely have to) I looked it up.

It had been advertised to say he did say there was a hell, but then he 'officially and for the record' reworded it to say:

"Vatican officials said that the Pope — who is also the Bishop of Rome — had been speaking in "straightfoward" language "like a parish priest". He had wanted to reinforce the new Catholic catechism, which holds that Hell is a "state of eternal separation from God", to be understood "symbolically rather than physically".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1572646.ece

So they still believe in eternal damnation for temporal crimes  but not in 'official punishment' hell.

Boy I'm glad I'm not catholic.

Zareste was right about the 'technicality' thing.