Being a sinner just for being born

[Losty]

Moonie what picture can you not get to work?

[Ignorant]

You agree, you don't agree.  Hard to keep up. It's not offensive, even if it is irritating. [1] 

What -does- add to the "fullness of what we-are"....if acting out what we are doesn't..in every case, such as merciless killing? [2]

1) =) Let me make it simple. Mercilessly killing people/things does not add to a full human life => If that is the case, then a full human life is not concurrently compatible with a life of merciless killing => If that is the case, then humanity is not fundamentally a thing that mercilessly kills.

2) The key discrepancy is your premise that asserts that "mercilessly killing" is synonymous with "acting out what we are". I do not think what-we-are and merciless-killer are synonymous. You certainly are not a merciless killer. I think many things are radically MISSING in the act of mercilessly killing people/things, and I know that because of the death and suffering caused in the victims and their communities. Though, I am starting to get the sense that your objection deals more with the concept of "humanity" than with any moral syllogism. 

Let me ask you this: do you think that you have the same humanity as I do? as Robvalue has? as mlmooney89 has?

When you read the report of the atrocity in Orlando, did you think to yourself, "Well, I guess that is just a human doing what humans do." OR did you find the murderer's actions to be a colossal human failing?

[mlmooney89]

https://www.facebook.com/friendlyatheist...=3&theater

This one Losty. I already had the quote so I reckon it's okay but if you wanna fix it I won't say no lol

[Losty]

https://www.facebook.com/friendlyatheist...=3&theater

This one Losty. I already had the quote so I reckon it's okay but if you wanna fix it I won't say no lol

Ok so you have to click "View full size" below the image.


Then use that link --> https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t...e=580B5C4F

[The Grand Nudger]

1) =) Let me make it simple. Mercilessly killing people/things does not add to a full human life => If that is the case, then a full human life is not concurrently compatible with a life of merciless killing => If that is the case, then humanity is not fundamentally a thing that mercilessly kills.

2) The key discrepancy is your premise that asserts that "mercilessly killing" is synonymous with "acting out what we are". I do not think what-we-are and merciless-killer are synonymous. You certainly are not a merciless killer. I think many things are radically MISSING in the act of mercilessly killing people/things, and I know that because of the death and suffering caused in the victims and their communities. Though, I am starting to get the sense that your objection deals more with the concept of "humanity" than with any moral syllogism.

So death and suffering - victims and communities, these are the metrics?  It appears that we're considering dead humans at present.....we've got more depth than that, in the killing business, I think.  Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?  There's a fun example.  We have, perhaps, the opportunity to eradicate mosquitoes.  It would be a far less charged subject than the eradication of human beings, I think, lol.   

Should we?  Is it a moral good to eliminate them - as it adds to human fullness by the metrics of victims and communities, death and suffering?  

Let me ask you this: do you think that you have the same humanity as I do? as Robvalue has? as mlmooney89 has?

I think we're all variations on a theme, yes..lol.  

When you read the report of the atrocity in Orlando, did you think to yourself, "Well, I guess that is just a human doing what humans do." OR did you find the murderer's actions to be a colossal human failing?

 Both, ofc. Not big on binary thinking. Failing collossally is -also- something that we do, in addition to merciless killing, what we-are . I'm guessing that doesn't add to our fullness either...unless maybe that failure is somehow beneficial to victims and communities? Is it a moral good to fail if that failure yields communal gain?

Let's say I fail...at being a christian. If that failure benefits those around me..if it reduces death or suffering....would that be a moral good?

[Ignorant]

So death and suffering - victims and communities, these are the metrics? [1] It appears that we're considering dead humans at present.....we've got more depth than that, in the killing business, I think.  Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?  There's a fun example. [2] We have, perhaps, the opportunity to eradicate mosquitoes.  It would be a far less charged subject than the eradication of human beings, I think, lol.   

Should we?   Is it a moral good to eliminate them - as it adds to human fullness by the metrics of victims and communities, death and suffering? [3] 

1) In the context of evaluating the humanity, the rationality, the goodness/evil of mercilessly killing people? Yes, those are some of the principal metrics, and I imagine there are even more in the fullest picture.

I've lost the point of your objection. Are you suggesting that my framework can't accurately identify merciless killing as bad human behavior, or are you still trying to argue that my framework leads to the conclusion that merciless killing is a good human action?

2) There's a ridiculous example =). Why must the killing be merciless in order to benefit the community? You might as well suppose that the merciless slaughter of a square circle is beneficial to the community.

3) Not enough information. Does it add to human fullness in other ways? Does it limit or subtract from human fullness in other ways? What are the effects on the ecosystem and the life within it? How do those changes affect our communities? And many more questions that I don't care to investigate about an imaginary and poor particular case for a framework we don't even agree about in so far as its internal principles and the manner in which it provides for conclusions.
  

I think we're all variations on a theme, yes..lol.

Great. Do you think, insofar as I am a human like you are a human, that I am a merciless killer? If the answer is yes, then I can understand your objection. If the answer is no, then I can't understand your objection to be anything more than sophistry. Help me!

Both, ofc.  Not big on binary thinking.  Failing collossally is -also- something that we do, in addition to merciless killing, what we-are .  I'm guessing that doesn't add to our fullness either [1] ...unless maybe that failure is somehow beneficial to victims and communities?  Is it a moral good to fail if that failure yields communal gain? [2]

1) Ah yes, all of us fail at living our full humanity sometimes, that much is true. Not all of us fail as colossally as merciless killers do. Some of us fail in bigger or smaller ways. But do all of us mercilessly kill people? I don't think so. But if we can legitimately call things failures, then that must be because we fell short of some way-of-being human. If that is not the case, then there is no such thing as failure (what standard or goal or measure are we "failing" to reach or attain?). 

So no... failing colossally at adding to human fullness does not add to human fullness... are you just messing with me?

2) No.

"Ultimately, every individual MUST be the one to determine what they think will bring them fulfillment, and then determine the most fulfilling ways to seek it out. No one does that in a vacuum." - ME HERE

It can't be a "fulfilling way" to if it is a failed-way.

Let's say I fail...at being a christian. If that failure benefits those around me..if it reduces death or suffering....would that be a moral good?

No. (Assuming in this hypothetical scenario that being-a-christian adds to human fullness) Your failure, if it is a moral one, is a moral failure. Even if the community derives some benefit from your failure, it is still missing out on what your failure didn't provide: your own growth in human fullness. Your failure is still a failure.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) In the context of evaluating the humanity, the rationality, the goodness/evil of mercilessly killing people? Yes, those are some of the principal metrics, and I imagine there are even more in the fullest picture.

One imagines so, yes.  

I've lost the point of your objection. Are you suggesting that my framework can't accurately identify merciless killing as bad human behavior, or are you still trying to argue that my framework leads to the conclusion that merciless killing is a good human action?

It very easily can be framed as such, even with your new weaseling of terms.  But who cares...that probably has more to do with how full the fullest picture is, eh?  I think it's far more interesting how, and what, we make edge cases out of.  Merciless killing obviously wasn't on your mind before.  

2) There's a ridiculous example =). Why must the killing be merciless in order to benefit the community? You might as well suppose that the merciless slaughter of a square circle is beneficial to the community.

The killing of mosquitoes is -already- merciless, as is a great amount of the killing we do.  The example is something altogether more thorough, though.  Extermination.  The extermination of mosquitoes, by the metrics offered before, would be beneficial to human communities.  Lives would be saved.  Even the fans of the mosquito don't quibble over that point.  This seems like a shoe-in for a moral good as you've described them...and yet it's ridiculous?  Why?

3) Not enough information. Does it add to human fullness in other ways? Does it limit or subtract from human fullness in other ways? What are the effects on the ecosystem and the life within it? How do those changes affect our communities? And many more questions that I don't care to investigate about an imaginary and poor particular case for a framework we don't even agree about in so far as its internal principles and the manner in which it provides for conclusions.

Does it -have- to add to fullness in other ways than say..reducing disease pressure of which it is a primary vector and from which a great many suffer and more than just a few die?  The case isn't imaginary, you realize?  Neither the death, the suffering, nor our potential to wipe them out.  As far as the ecology angle (and that came out of nowhere)...it's widely held that mosquitoes are, truly, useless.  The only tangible objection to our various plans (we have more than one) are ethical ones along the lines of a playing god, as it were.  Deciding the earth could do without this or that........

Great. Do you think, insofar as I am a human like you are a human, that I am a merciless killer? If the answer is yes, then I can understand your objection. If the answer is no, then I can't understand your objection to be anything more than sophistry. Help me!

I think that a framework for determing the moral good ought to be able to handle a little sophistry.....but even so, yes - I do think that you're as much a merciless killer as any other human being, myself included.  So much so that you don't seem to realize it, or have consciously trivialized it so as to make perfectly understandable exemptions.  We're not known for being uniformly friendly, as a species. That's not how we got to where we are or how we've maintained our position.

1) Ah yes, all of us fail at living our full humanity sometimes, that much is true.

all of us fail as colossally as merciless killers do. Some of us fail in bigger or smaller ways. But do all of us mercilessly kill people? I don't think so. But if we can legitimately call things failures, then that must be because we fell short of some way-of-being human. If that is not the case, then there is no such thing as failure (what standard or goal or measure are we "failing" to reach or attain?). 

You're the man with the scheme and the sliding scale..you tell me?   Seems to me that someone we'd call a merciless killer must be pretty damned successful at what he does.  

So no... failing colossally at adding to human fullness does not add to human fullness... are you just messing with me?

Think of me as a mirror. 

"Ultimately, every individual MUST be the one to determine what they think will bring them fulfillment, and then determine the most fulfilling ways to seek it out. No one does that in a vacuum." - ME HERE


It can't be a "fulfilling way" to if it is a failed-way.

-and now it's personal success over death and suffering, communities and victims?  A guy can't get it right for getting it wrong.  Certainly can't take your word for anything either.    

No. (Assuming in this hypothetical scenario that being-a-christian adds to human fullness) Your failure, if it is a moral one, is a moral failure. Even if the community derives some benefit from your failure, it is still missing out on what your failure didn't provide: your own growth in human fullness. Your failure is still a failure.

Convenient, that being a christian has something to do with human fullness.  Seems pointless to assume as much when you initially fielded this business to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god.  I think you offered up a platitude in place of justification or explanation.  Our subsequent conversation has done nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.  You live in a world where the christian moral framework is affixed, just-so, to a "proper" moral framework by whatever metrics, however inconsistently applied.  An outsiders perspective, however, can differ greatly.  I see nothing that might add to the fullness of what we are by stringing up the better man, or worshiping the administrator who made it all possible.

You tell me..from the communities and victims angle, is the world a better place or a shittier one for having one less scapegoater in it? Is it possible that I have succeeded - on that angle, that I have expressed human fullness in this objection? Here again we see an edge case, where consistent application of -any- of your offered metrics would leave me holding a moral imperative which would get me into some really hot shit with your god. So again I ask..how do we decide when things like this come up?

[Ignorant]

It very easily can be framed as such, even with your new weaseling of terms.  But who cares...that probably has more to do with how full the fullest picture is, eh?  I think it's far more interesting how, and what, we make edge cases out of.  Merciless killing obviously wasn't on your mind before.

True... mercilessly killing people wasn't on my mind as a good human action. Mercilessly killing people is a bad action. If a person thinks that mercilessly killing some other person will bring them fulfillment, they are simply wrong. I don't understand why you think I should conclude otherwise.

The killing of mosquitoes is -already- merciless, as is a great amount of the killing we do.  The example is something altogether more thorough, though.  Extermination.  The extermination of mosquitoes, by the metrics offered before, would be beneficial to human communities.  Lives would be saved.  Even the fans of the mosquito don't quibble over that point.  This seems like a shoe-in for a moral good as you've described them...and yet it's ridiculous?  Why?

Go re-read this point again. I was calling the ridiculous example the more general case which you described as "Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?" <= That was too general for me. I admit, coming after your suggestion that mercilessly killing people is a good action, I thought your were trying to propose an absurd connection between human fullness and the arbitrary killing of organism X.

As far as the ecology angle (and that came out of nowhere)...it's widely held that mosquitoes are, truly, useless.

Out of nowhere? You'd think that the complete eradication of an insect would include at least some ecological questions (at least to me, an amateur). You seem to be in the know when it comes to that topic, so I defer to your knowledge of it. If the complete loss of mosquitoes truly has no impact on the environment and our relationship with it, then killing mosquitoes is quite similar to killing bacteria and other pathogens.

I think that a framework for determing the moral good ought to be able to handle a little sophistry.....but even so, yes - I do think that you're as much a merciless killer as any other human being, myself included.  So much so that you don't seem to realize it, or have consciously trivialized it so as to make perfectly understandable exemptions. [1] We're not known for being uniformly friendly, as a species.  That's not how we got to where we are or how we've maintained our position. [2]

1) It has finally occurred to me that since the beginning, when you said "merciless killers", you meant killing much more generally than killing other people. I thought you had shifted to that more general understanding just a few posts ago HERE. But I see now that you were thinking more generally all along. So thank you for answering this question.

I still will not grant you that what-we-are and merciless killer are synonymous. Sometimes, killing things (perhaps like mosquitoes) is a rational and fulfilling way to add to human fullness. Mercilessly killing a mosquito is irrational. Maliciously killing mosquitoes is irrational. Killing mosquitoes as if they are guilty and condemned people is irrational <= If that is not what you mean by mercilessly killing things, then I may withdraw my objection to that qualifier.

2) Yes, we kill things for our benefit, and there is a fulfilling and rational way to do that, and there is an irrational and unfulfilling way to do that.

You're the man with the scheme and the sliding scale..you tell me?   Seems to me that someone we'd call a merciless killer must be pretty damned successful at what he does.

Yes, he is. Now consider some people playing darts. They are very and intentionally successful at hitting the wall with their darts just to the right of the target. 

Are they successful at what they are trying to do? Yes. 
Are they colossally failing at the game of darts? YES.

-and now it's personal success over death and suffering, communities and victims?  A guy can't get it right for getting it wrong.  Certainly can't take your word for anything either.   

No. See above. If you want to be good at darts, and you think that dropping your darts on the ground is all you need to do to get there, then you are wrong. You'd fail to get good at darts.

Convenient, that being a christian has something to do with human fullness.

Ha! You were the one who proposed the hypothetically failing Christian.

 Seems pointless to assume as much when you initially fielded this business to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god.

Where do you think I have been trying to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god? I am arguing FOR a moral imperative: seek what is good, avoid what is evil. I don't think that imperative comes externally from us [to us externally], I think [it] comes from what and who we are, [from "within"]. Whether or not god exists, we still are what we are. Atheist or theist, what-humans-are is the measure of our actions, not some arbitrary list of rules/laws floating around in the ether.

You live in a world where the christian moral framework is affixed, just-so, to a "proper" moral framework by whatever metrics, however inconsistently applied.  An outsiders perspective, however, can differ greatly.  I see nothing that might add to the fullness of what we are by stringing up the better man, or worshiping the administrator who made it all possible.

Fair enough. Can anything add to the fullness of what-we-are?

You tell me..from the communities and victims angle,

Look, hopefully by now you know that when I proposed those as metrics of evaluating the evil in the act of mercilessly killing other people, I was speaking to that specific action. You seem to have seized on that as if those are the only two things I use to evaluate the goodness or lack of goodness in an action. It's a straw man.

is the world a better place or a shittier one for having one less scapegoater in it? 

It's a shittier place, because it is missing the goodness it would have from your fully lived human life.

 Here again we see an edge case, where consistent application of -any- of your offered metrics would leave me holding a moral imperative which would get me into some really hot shit with your god. 

No. You seem to have skimmed over the posts in which I emphasize that (contrary to utilitarianism), your fullness and my fullness are connected (HERE; HERE; HERE). Your fullness and the fullness of the community are connected, not opposed. The communal good is not a competitor with the individual good. If you fail at living a full human life, even if it brings some good to the community, your failure could never bring as much good to the community as your success could bring. 

So again I ask..how do we decide when things like this come up?

See above. Your failure at living a full human life will always bring LESS benefit to the community than your success.

[The Grand Nudger]

True... mercilessly killing people wasn't on my mind as a good human action. Mercilessly killing people is a bad action. If a person thinks that mercilessly killing some other person will bring them fulfillment, they are simply wrong. I don't understand why you think I should conclude otherwise.

-and that's a problem..since the frameworks you've offered cannot actually determine merciless killing to -be- a bad action...and may, in some cases lead to it being assigned to the set of good actions.  However, there is already the sense that it is a bad action and no amount of applying those frameworks is likely to change your opinion or my opinion on that.  

Which is precisely the point of asking how we decide between competing imperatives, eh?  

Go re-read this point again. I was calling the ridiculous example the more general case which you described as "Suppose the merciless slaughter of some organism x were beneficial to the community?" <= That was too general for me. I admit, coming after your suggestion that mercilessly killing people is a good action, I thought your were trying to propose an absurd connection between human fullness and the arbitrary killing of organism X.

Out of nowhere? You'd think that the complete eradication of an insect would include at least some ecological questions (at least to me, an amateur). You seem to be in the know when it comes to that topic, so I defer to your knowledge of it. If the complete loss of mosquitoes truly has no impact on the environment and our relationship with it, then killing mosquitoes is quite similar to killing bacteria and other pathogens.

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

1) It has finally occurred to me that since the beginning, when you said "merciless killers", you meant killing much more generally than killing other people. I thought you had shifted to that more general understanding just a few posts ago HERE. But I see now that you were thinking more generally all along. So thank you for answering this question.

I still will not grant you that what-we-are and merciless killer are synonymous. Sometimes, killing things (perhaps like mosquitoes) is a rational and fulfilling way to add to human fullness. Mercilessly killing a mosquito is irrational. Maliciously killing mosquitoes is irrational. Killing mosquitoes as if they are guilty and condemned people is irrational <= If that is not what you mean by mercilessly killing things, then I may withdraw my objection to that qualifier.

Of course it isn't, because that's not what the word merciless means nor have I -ever- mentioned guilt or condemnation............we do an awful lot of it - even to human beings- for something that isn't "what we-are".  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.  

2) Yes, we kill things for our benefit, and there is a fulfilling and rational way to do that, and there is an irrational and unfulfilling way to do that.

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?   

Yes, he is. Now consider some people playing darts. They are very and intentionally successful at hitting the wall with their darts just to the right of the target. 

Are they successful at what they are trying to do? Yes. 
Are they colossally failing at the game of darts? YES.

No. See above. If you want to be good at darts, and you think that dropping your darts on the ground is all you need to do to get there, then you are wrong. You'd fail to get good at darts.

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

Ha! You were the one who proposed the hypothetically failing Christian.


Where do you think I have been trying to avoid a moral imperative brought about by the desires and peculiarities of the christian god? I am arguing FOR a moral imperative: seek what is good, avoid what is evil. I don't think that imperative comes externally from us [to us externally], I think [it] comes from what and who we are, [from "within"]. Whether or not god exists, we still are what we are. Atheist or theist, what-humans-are is the measure of our actions, not some arbitrary list of rules/laws floating around in the ether.

We've seen that what we-are doesn't seem to have much to do what what we do, that a significant portion of what we are, by any account..is already bad *for reasons.....and that failing to be a christian is somehow failing at the game of being human.  I think gods wishes are, indeed, under all of this rationalization.  This is the second time you've objected to the notion but you won't be satisfied if the framework offered in it's stead doesn't align with those floating laws, clearly. You won;t even address the notion of competing moral imperatives..instead preferring to frame them in such a way as to pretend that they do not exist.

Fair enough. Can anything add to the fullness of what-we-are?

Look, hopefully by now you know that when I proposed those as metrics of evaluating the evil in the act of mercilessly killing other people, I was speaking to that specific action. You seem to have seized on that as if those are the only two things I use to evaluate the goodness or lack of goodness in an action. It's a straw man.

It's a shittier place, because it is missing the goodness it would have from your fully lived human life.

Unless a fully lived human life requires christianity, this is absurd.   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.  I'm not short any goodness, and neither are those around me, on account of my not being christian.  

No. You seem to have skimmed over the posts in which I emphasize that (contrary to utilitarianism), your fullness and my fullness are connected (HERE; HERE; HERE). Your fullness and the fullness of the community are connected, not opposed. The communal good is not a competitor with the individual good.

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

Your failure at living a full human life will always bring LESS benefit to the community than your success.

Id like to see the math on that one.

[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.