A few things that make it different. Dying to save a family member is a choice. Some would make it, some wouldn't. Also, we're not insects. We do not live in a society with one dominate female who produces all our babies and has no need for other reproducing females all of whom are born sterile and so do the same work as males
We are social mammals, not hive insects. We
do have a need for fertile women: to make babies.
And yet sometimes society needs people who are prepared to kill and murder, and paedophilia just depends on what country you live in..
Show me one society were muder is a requirement. Show me one society that cannot live without sanctioned murder.
This is what makes Christianity different from all other religions in my opinion.
Christianity has a unique view of morality, sure. But so does every other religion. Being different from the norm is one thing, but being true? Completely seperate.
You have a scale of love and hatred.
I disagree. Our relationships with other humans is not a Sims-esque number that can be positive or negative. A relationship with a person is indeed the sum of one's interactions, both direct and indirect, with that person, but the sum it is by no means as simple a single value. It is at least a two-vector.
The further someone acts from your moral mid-line into the bad side, the more you hate them. The further they act within the good side the more you love them.
Not really. I can hate someone for a minor misdeed, or even for a good deed. I can love someone for something small they did. The link between hate, love, and morality is tenuous at best.
But what about the man who murders and then saves a child? Do they cancel out or do you love and hate him at the same time.
By your model, they would. But I do not subscribe to that model: I would be thankful for his assistance, but would still hold his murder over his head.
Intention is a very large factor in all of this that you seem to have omitted for the sake of simplicity.
What if someone else's moral mid-line is above or below yours?
Then they are likely to view his actions differently.
Christianity is the ultimate in equality. All have sinned and none are righteous. It recognises that in spite of our proud boasts, many of the bad things we haven't done aren't because we are "better" than someone else, but merely because we haven't wanted to do them nor had the opportunity.
First, this is a premise, and one I disagree with: restraining from doing a bad thing is itself a good thing.
Second, the moral view of Christians is not true simply because it is unique. Few independant religions have the exact same moral code.
Unless I have felt the urge to murder and then stopped myself because I believed it was wrong, what credit is it to me that I haven't murdered anyone?
That you had the urge is troubling, but that you
overcame the urge is praiseworthy, if only so you can seek help before you feel the urge again.
I can debate what a terrible crime it was and the effects it has had on those around it, but have I the right to judge someone who has committed it.
Yes. You have a moral code. Do you have the right to pass judgement and carry it out? Debateable. But simply judging someone is perfectly fine.