I.E. if you can prove someone willingly got drugged out of their mind, you need not prove intent.

You did drugs, drove down the sidewalk, and killed people?

You think you weren't responsible for it?

Guess again, bucko. It's not manslaughter, it's murder.

We need a return to personal responsibility.

That's just my opinion on that.

@RyeNorth you are kind of misconstrueing a lot

I mean, I don't know that much about Christianity

but I know enough

(and the only relevant sects are Catholicism and Orthodoxy)

you know, like, it's not just sola fide, tradition plays a role too, which they were granted the permission to do

and also jesus made a new covenant with humanity so many of the old commands were made obsolete.

it's still really useful to understand judaism and the culture to get deeper in it but it's def. not essential

@WHAT Can you specify which old commandments were made obsolete?

Or where Jesus made this new covenant with humanity that bypasses Jewish law?

literally all over the new testament

Then it should be easy to cite.

ill just link a page with all of it that i found

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm

"The teachings of Jesus, the Council of Jerusalem, and other New Testament teachings (John 1:16-17, Acts 13:39, Romans 2:25-29, 8:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:19-21, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:15) make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc."

and I'm no biblical scholar, heck, I'm agnostic, and I bet there are certain rules that are still followed and some that aren't. But the best blanket statement is that Jesus released people from the old law

Well, I mean, aside from the fact that it's in the bible that no prophet should ever take away, nor add to the commandment... It's incredibly likely that a lot of this is poorly translated.

I mean, I can give examples of poor translations within the new testament.

And I don't just mean 'Decearing Egg Preparation' levels of poor translation.

I mean things that weren't understood at the time that translations were made.

For instance, Matthew 26:34 refers to a rooster in the NIV.

Concerning Peter's denial of Jesus, he says that he will disown Jesus three times before the rooster crows.

In the area where this biblical event occurs, there would historically not be any fowl kept there. No roosters would be within range to be heard.

that's such a lame point, I mean, seriously

It's really not, though.

It's an example of the flaws in translation.

nobody has said anything about taht

that

What that line is actually referring to is the temple crier, because the words in their original translations are the same.

literally, I can't find anyone talking about what you're saying

i did just find what you are saying

and the word literally also translates to man

so it would be, if anything, a failure in modern translation.

And yet, in any cinematic retelling of the event

You find Peter deny Jesus three times, and then a rooster crows.

a failure which is completely inconsequential because no doctrine lies on the fact of whether a rooster crowed or not