Being a sinner just for being born

[Ignorant]

Which is precisely the point of asking how we decide between competing imperatives, eh? [1] ... You fielded this -entire line- as a response to robs comments about moral imperatives being the wishes or desires of a god. [2]

1) Which competing imperatives? Between humanity and other organisms?
2) I'd go back and read that again HERE. I objected to the idea of sin and morality being simply about rules and rule-breaking.

Many agree, and we hardly give the eradication of bacteria or pathogens an ounce of thought, let alone mercy.   We just take the pills.  

Sure. How would one even go about doing so with mercy? Can you show mercy to an amoeba? Can you forgive a bacterium? I wouldn't understand what that even means.

I'll be completely blunt and suggest that you might have decided "what we-are" based upon a preexisting and unspoken set of moral value judgements even as you suggest this what we-are business as a way to determine moral good.

I appreciate your clarity. Allow a suggestion of my own: you might have not actually read what I've written. We learn about what-we-are through our actions, not vice versa.

1) What-we-are is something that is learned through action by way of human fulfillment. In other words: What are we? That isn't perfectly clear a priori. We don't come pre-loaded with a definition. We learn about what-we-are through actions that are fulfilling. I have hesitated to assert an a priori definition => "Every person's life, even if not explicitly, is a search for an answer to THAT question."; "Human fulfillment is the measure of morality. If an action leads to human fulfillment (), then it is a good action.". 

2) We begin with an action (e.g. merciless killing of human beings) => if it is truly fulfilling to the individual and to the community (e.g. merciless killing of human beings is not truly fulfilling to the individual or the community) => then it is a good action (e.g. mercilessly killing human beings is a bad action) => if it is a good action, the good(s) obtained and the manner of obtaining them are concurrent with what-we-are (e.g. mercilessly killing cannot be concurrent with a full human life) => The better we act, the more we learn about what-we-are and what fulfills us (e.g. we are not merciless killers of human beings) => That knowledge is passed on to future generations.

3) What about the merciless killers of human beings. They are unfulfilled, they take fullness away from others, they act badly, and they are ultimately wrong.

So.....if I could come up with a rational and fulfilling way to eradicate humans............would that be kosher?  It would be a moral good?  Or is this a line that simply cannot be crossed? 

You would have just as much luck coming up with a square circle.

Responses like these are what lead me to conclude that you've rigged the moral game....rather than determined it by your stated metrics.

Why? Is there any rational perspective from which you think it could be successfully argued that mercilessly killing people is good for the merciless killers AND the people they kill AND the community related to the victims? No, there is no such perspective. I haven't rigged the game. Reality did that.

Since then, we've seen that what we-are doesn't seem to have much to do what what we do, [1] that a significant portion of what we are, by any account..is already bad *for reasons [2] .....and that failing to be a christian is somehow failing at the game of being human. [3]

Slow down.

1) Sure it does. It has everything to do with what we are able to do, but it may only have something to do with how well or poorly we actually do it. 

Are you the sort of thing that is physically capable of mercilessly killing people? Yes. 
Are you the sort of thing that will certainly mercilessly kill people? No. 
Are you the sort of thing that needs god to constantly remind you not to mercilessly kill people? No. 
Are you the sort of thing that can recognize in the abstract hypothetical that mercilessly killing people is not compatible with human fullness? Yes.
Are you the sort of thing that can recognize in concrete reality that mercilessly killing people is not compatible with human fullness? Yes.
Is that knowledge sufficient for your abstaining from mercilessly killing people? Yes.
Does that tell you something about what-we-are? Yes.

2) See above. What-we-are is not bad (which is the OP's original point). How people come to act poorly is a separate question. Evaluating poor action depends on the reality that there is such a thing as good action, and if good action, then good people, if good people, then good human life.

3) This is sad. You proposed the hypothetical situation in which you were failing to be a Christian. Playing along with the hypothetical (and your intention within), I made explicit the underlying hypothetical assumption that "being-a-christian adds to human fullness" (HERE, emphasis mine) within the scenario you were proposing. I highlighted the word "adds" because it is important to your critique above: 

I DON'T THINK FAILING TO BE CHRISTIAN IS FAILING AT THE GAME OF BEING HUMAN. 

From the Christian perspective, "being-christian" can only ADD divine fullness to human fullness. I said as much in posts you probably didn't bother reading:

"You may or may not reach a sort of human happiness through the human relationships you described as growing through reconciliation and forgiveness. God is offering you something that goes beyond that. He is offering you a share in his own divine happiness which you can reach through your humanity, through your human relationships, and through a relationship with divinity itself which grows through reconciliation and forgiveness" -HERE

"Christianity would only come into play with an assertion that participation in the life of Jesus Christ is the actual source and goal of humanity achieving divine happiness." -HERE

Your failure at being a Christian would be a failure to bring this sort of divine fullness into the world and the world of your community.

Unless a fully lived human life requires christianity, this is absurd. [1]  I think anyone who even implies such vaguely is failing to live a fully human life.  Again, an outsiders perspective...but something tells me my not being a christian isn't having that effect on me. [2]  I'm not short any goodness, and neither are those around me, on account of my not being christian. [3]

1) A fully lived human life does not require christianity, so I guess it isn't absurd. Would you like to continue beating up a straw man, or are you done yet?

2) I'm sure it isn't. I'm actually pretty sure you are a good person capable and on your way to living a fulfilled life.

3) That may be the case. Christianity offers both human goodness and divine goodness found through human goodness.

It often is. I'm astounded that I have to say this, as it forms a substantial part of our shared narratives and heritage......

Going how far back? Psychologically pitting the communal good against the individual good has been one of the great failures and dead ends of enlightenment's search for a universal rational ethic.

Honestly, I've spent enough time with you on this and I'm thankful for it. You may have the last word if you wish.