God and war

I hate it when people think opinions are facts.

The link had many texts, the majority of which were not written by Paul.

durhamjen, do you believe in God?

etheltbags1, I will try to answer your question tomorrow.

soon, I was not speaking of the quotes but the interpretation of the quotes, I do not google for interpretations or opinions on the bible, do so and one can read an interpretation by a JW, I respect their right to their interpretation of scripture but do not agree with them. I give my interpretation / opinion and right or wrong, they are mine . If I am troubled and have difficulties I discuss it with my priest but still make my own decisions

etheltbags1 - I think there are 3 questions in your post.

can you tell me why does god (if he exists) allow war
The old chestnut of he allows people to have free will to a large extent.

allows illness to happen
As well as free will which means we can do harm to ourselves to a certain extent, there is also the devil
{I have to say that I am not sure of my own stance myself about illness and where it comes from exactly]

Cant he guide us to live better lives and not to fight each other
I would say that he does actually, though he doesnt exactly ram it down our throats.

soon - your post of yesterday at twenty past eight pm:
if you're going to take part, or start, religious discussions on forums you need to get used to the fact that many people are going to write things that you hate.
it's an emotive subject, I usually try to stay out of them now for that reason.
also, I think Paul , who wrote some time after JC's life, distorts his message.
ps apologies for lack of some punctuation - can't use my left arm

Sorry about your left arm.
I dont think I have ever said I hate anything on this forum before. Either on the religious forum or anywhere else on gransnet. Because I dont.
So I dont think I will worry too much about having used that word once.

Soon, Paul had problems , I think he would have been a happier man if he had married Lydia, unless as some believe - he was gay

And I hate, and I dont use that word lightly, hate, that people including Christians dismiss many books in the New Testament because they are written by Paul, and therefore are deemed too difficult to carry out what is written in them

That is exactly what you said.
Selective memory perhaps?

Well I meant one time. But I apologise Alea. It was twice in my post.

I am not more upset over the killings in Paris than the killings in Africa , but I think all people are equal

Posted by Anniebach on a different thread. And as someone has rightly said, discussing religion on a different topic can get a bit much for posters.

As I have said elsewhere, Ab, and I gave relevant quotes, God instigated the killing of people in the Bible.
Just because it wasnt recorded in one of the 4 books in the BIble that you may like best, doesnt mean that it didnt happen.

Back in Bible times at least, when people persistently disobeyed God , after they had been consistently warned, the end result was not sweetness and light for those concerned.

I simply can't understand what all this debating about the existence of God. whether Jesus is sitting on Gods right hand, the Holy Ghost is heaven knows who, or whether Lucifer lives in hell; because, let's face it, none of knows what lies in the blue beyond, none of us in this world can ever know for certain, no one has ever come back to tell us and the only time we will know for absolute certain whether God, Jesus, the Devil, and the Holy Ghost exist is after we die, so why have an argument about something that no one can prove one way or the other?!!

Because if people are told after they die, it is too late.

People will only find out after they die!! There's no way anyone can be 100% certain till then.

You know what, nigglynellie? I think you are right.

Where was soon debating the existence or otherwise of God? I thought the discussion was about whether 'an eye for an eye' from the Old Testament, or forgiving 7x7 times from the New Tetament, was the subject of the argument.

Testament

soon has given her opinions on so many threads it's hard to keep track - I think the forgiving 7 or 70 times 7 was on another of them, not this one...

The bottom line of any religious argument must hinge on the existence of God, otherwise how can anything be attributed to him? You can quote the Bible uphill and down dale, backwards and forwards till you're blue in the face, but without proof of the almighty's existence it's all pretty pointless.

It occurs to me that St Paul was a kind of extremist. First, he was extremely zealous in his persecution of Christians, then equally zealous in his takeover of burgeoning Christianity. (He also exhibited great pride in his Roman citizenship.) Certainly, James the Greater was no match for him.

There was no argument, soon quoted from the OT and I quoted from the NT, just trying to explain to soon that much in the OT which is at times violent is not in the teachings of Christ and it is on Christ's teachings , death and resurrection that Christianity is based .

The bottom line of any religious argument must hinge on the existence of God, otherwise how can anything be attributed to him?

Yes

You can quote the Bible uphill and down dale, backwards and forwards till you're blue in the face, but without proof of the almighty's existence it's all pretty pointless

No. It is faith related, not proof related.

absent. Yes.

eye for an eye stuff I will post about tomorrow hopefully.

Anything faith related just becomes a boring argument that neither side can prove one way or the other, the Bible (I went to a Convent as a boarder) both old and new treatments prove absolutely nothing. There is no one more zealous than a convert , look.at Thomas Becket. This would explain St Paul, who could have been gay, explaining his obvious dislike of women.

As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible to say or even hint at that.

The BIble does say he was the worst sinner ever, before he became a Christian.

In no way do I think he disliked women.