Is Religion the Greatest Cause of Murder? (PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER)

That's sorta of nonsensical.

Where does it say he shows mercy for breaking the ten commandments?

I guess if that is the case why bother adhering right?

I think it has more to do with the fact that he can't smite anyone, seeing as existence comes before ability to interact with the world.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

That's sorta of nonsensical.

Where does it say he shows mercy for breaking the ten commandments?

I guess if that is the case why bother adhering right?

I think it has more to do with the fact that he can't smite anyone, seeing as existence comes before ability to interact with the world.

This is specifically addressed in Romans I believe. I don't have the exact passage memorized. It says something to the effect that the laws (of moses) were created to show us how to live. Since it is impossible for humans to live %100 by the law, that it is by the old laws that men are condemned, not saved. Rather, it is through faith in God that men are saved and it is by the law than men are able to know that they are sinners.

He later goes on to address the question, "then shall we disobey the law in order to gain more forgiveness? Surely not!"

Or something like that.

I think the logic is, if we fail to obey the laws anyway, then why go out of our way to break more laws?

In summary following the laws is not how man is saved, because it is impossible for man to live and not break a law. So it is through striving to follow the law and having faith in God that man is saved. He (Paul I believe) also uses to explain how Moses and Abraham and the like were saved without knowing the word of Christ. It is because they had faith in Yahweh that they were saved, not solely because they had the laws.

Does that make sense?

PS: you changed your name Is that one of the archangels from the cabala "Aziel"?

Every person is responsible for their own actions. Period.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

That's sorta of nonsensical.

Where does it say he shows mercy for breaking the ten commandments?

I guess if that is the case why bother adhering right?

I think it has more to do with the fact that he can't smite anyone, seeing as existence comes before ability to interact with the world.

I'm not going to show you since that would be the easy way out. I'd like you to find it. If you don't want to find out then don't ask the question. And please use the correct book, chapter, and verse of the Bible.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

Every person is responsible for their own actions. Period.

The legal system would dissagree.

Originally Posted by morval

This is specifically addressed in Romans I believe. I don't have the exact passage memorized. It says something to the effect that the laws (of moses) were created to show us how to live. Since it is impossible for humans to live %100 by the law, that it is by the old laws that men are condemned, not saved. Rather, it is through faith in God that men are saved and it is by the law than men are able to know that they are sinners.

He later goes on to address the question, "then shall we disobey the law in order to gain more forgiveness? Surely not!"

Or something like that.

I think the logic is, if we fail to obey the laws anyway, then why go out of our way to break more laws?

In summary following the laws is not how man is saved, because it is impossible for man to live and not break a law. So it is through striving to follow the law and having faith in God that man is saved. He (Paul I believe) also uses to explain how Moses and Abraham and the like were saved without knowing the word of Christ. It is because they had faith in Yahweh that they were saved, not solely because they had the laws.

Does that make sense?

PS: you changed your name Is that one of the archangels from the cabala "Aziel"?

To my name. Doubtful, longstoryshort, I'm named after a "promisee"

Is Romans OT, or NT? That factors in heavily.


@Soren: you giving up your required side of the arguement is pretty much the same as conceding my side is correct. I need not mention other topics here

Originally Posted by Cukeman

Every person is responsible for their own actions. Period.

Even the schizophrenic, the sociopathic, the autistic, those suffering from tourette's syndrome, people whom are coming down with dementia... (I could go on)

You feel that even they're all 100% responsible for their own actions?

While nearly all psychopaths have antisocial personality disorder(sociopath), only some individuals with antisocial personality disorder are psychopaths.

the syndrome of psychopathy is characterized by many things, a few of which are:
A reckless disregard for the safety of themselves and others.
Lack of remorse.
Lack of empathy.

I'd have to say that they should be held responsible for their actions. "Sociopaths/Psychopaths" at least.
They do what they do because they simply want to, and don't care that it's wrong.

Originally Posted by Soren707

I'm not going to show you since that would be the easy way out. I'd like you to find it. If you don't want to find out then don't ask the question. And please use the correct book, chapter, and verse of the Bible.

Soren, if you argue a point then it's up to you to provide evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

Is Romans OT, or NT? That factors in heavily.

New Testament. The Apostle Paul showed that the purpose of the Law was as a placeholder until Christ came, died, and resurrected (Gal. 3:19). Jesus said "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall be done away with, till all is fulfilled" (Matt. 5:18), where "till all is fulfilled" by most interpretations (other than 7th Day Adventist interpretations) is taken to mean His death and resurrection. Paul, in Romans, talks about how we're not under the law anymore up to about the 8th chapter, and he keeps saying it intermittently throughout the rest of his letters.

How does it factor in heavily?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Soren, if you argue a point then it's up to you to provide evidence to back it up.

Yes, I know it's up to me to provide one, but I'm not the one who commenced the argument. If Satori thinks that my answer is inadequate, then Satori should look the answer up. It's actually a smarter thing to look it up yourself than wait for someone else who actually knows it to give the answer to you.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

@Soren: you giving up your required side of the arguement is pretty much the same as conceding my side is correct. I need not mention other topics here

How am I giving up my required side? I'm giving you a chance to actually look up the subject in the Bible but nonetheless, I suppose not everyone knows the Bible well. I'll put the reference in my next post. Have to go.

For the record, I don't believe in God. But I also don't believe that religion causes violence.

In fact, religinion in and of itself causes nothing. People cause things to happen. As it pertains to this situation, religion is used as either a shield, which helps you survive, gives you strength and hope and such, or a sword, used to harm others. But its still every person's choice whether to use it as a shield or a sword.

Great good and Great evil has been carried out in the name of religion. However, I simply choose to see it as a reflection of the people involved.

Like I'd actually have a bible in my place of residence to begin with?
Besides who knows what viruses my poor computer could get if it visited a religious site.

Originally Posted by Aziel Satori

Like I'd actually have a bible in my place of residence to begin with?
Besides who knows what viruses my poor computer could get if it visited a religious site.

A 404 probably. "God not found."

Originally Posted by Sage of Earth

A 404 probably. "God not found."

zing. one point for SoE.

Um about romans, yea thats one of the first books to come after the NT gospels, math, mark, luke, john.

And quick commentary as to what zauriel said.

"Paul, in Romans, talks about how we're not under the law anymore"

I would say more specifically that the fate of our damnation/salvation no longer falls under the jusristiction of the "old" laws. This because it is impossible to live up to all the standards that the laws prescribe. It also says that it is not by living by the law that the jews of old were saved, it was through faith in yahwe. That's how I interpreted it at least, but I haven't read Romans in over 4 years.

@Soren

Stop being rude. If you are going to entertain a proposed discussion/argument you at least owe it to people to provide your own sources, regaredless of who "started it". If that seems too difficult for you, then don't expect people to take your view points seriously in discussions.