The Fruit of Gods Spirit.

[WalterandDebbie]

Galatians 5:22
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/29185/eVerseID/29185

 

[heavenforbid]

Galatians 5:22
5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/29185/eVerseID/29185

How does this square with Gods vengeance on the day of destruction, will God be basing his wrath on such qualities you describe above.

 

[lforrest]

How does this square with Gods vengeance on the day of destruction, will God be basing his wrath on such qualities you describe above.

God's patience is likely why it is taking thousands of years for that day to come. But his anger is still building, and one day his wrath he will be unwilling to refrain.

 

[heavenforbid]

God's patience is likely why it is taking thousands of years for that day to come. But his anger is still building, and one day his wrath he will be unwilling to refrain.

My God never gets angry.

 

[Wormwood]

My God never gets angry.

So you don't believe the Bible is true?

 

[heavenforbid]

So you don't believe the Bible is true?

I don't understand the nature of the question, what I believe or don't has no bearing on the true believer.

 

[Wormwood]

The nature of the question is simply: Do you personally believe the Bible is accurate in its descriptions of God and contains a true understanding of God's plans and purposes int he world? I am simply asking for you to answer for yourself as I have my own assessment on what constitutes the faith of a "true believer."

 

[heavenforbid]

The nature of the question is simply: Do you personally believe the Bible is accurate in its descriptions of God and contains a true understanding of God's plans and purposes int he world? I am simply asking for you to answer for yourself as I have my own assessment on what constitutes the faith of a "true believer."

Why exactly, what's your faith and belief got to do with me. It's obvious you believe it to be that way, but why do you want me to tell you what I think it means. Don't you already know?

 

[Wormwood]

Look, you are the one who made a declarative statement, "My God never gets angry." I am just inquiring about "your God" and how you arrive at such conclusions about the nature of God. If you want to just keep answering questions with questions to sound wise, I'll bow out of the discussion. Im not interested in a rhetorical battle with you. I am just curious about the views you shared. If you want to know about my beliefs Id be happy to share them. Thats kind of the purpose of these boards...to share our views, discuss, agree, disagree, learn from each other, etc. Ive never really discussed views with someone who understood God to never get angry and I wanted to hear about your views and how you arrived at them so I could learn more about your perspective on things. If you don't want to do that, you can simply say, "Id rather not talk about my views" and I will be more than happy to exit the discussion.

 

[heavenforbid]

Look, you are the one who made a declarative statement, "My God never gets angry." I am just inquiring about "your God" and how you arrive at such conclusions about the nature of God. If you want to just keep answering questions with questions to sound wise, I'll bow out of the discussion. Im not interested in a rhetorical battle with you. I am just curious about the views you shared. If you want to know about my beliefs Id be happy to share them. Thats kind of the purpose of these boards...to share our views, discuss, agree, disagree, learn from each other, etc. Ive never really discussed views with someone who understood God to never get angry and I wanted to hear about your views and how you arrived at them so I could learn more about your perspective on things. If you don't want to do that, you can simply say, "Id rather not talk about my views" and I will be more than happy to exit the discussion.

My God never gets angry, because it is not human. It doesn't need to relate to me with pithy emotions that are a throw back from my mammalian ancestors.

 

[Wormwood]

Ok. Thanks for the response. Just curious as to how you draw your conclusions. Is this something you read, your own logical conclusions or something else?

 

[heavenforbid]

Ok. Thanks for the response. Just curious as to how you draw your conclusions. Is this something you read, your own logical conclusions or something else?

Well anger is a primitive emotion that we get from our distant ancestors, it's purely mammalian by nature (Other animals display this emotional response as well) I can't see why a pure spirit of love that does not have a physical mammalian brain (Such as God) would ever feel anger.

 

[Wormwood]

Isn't love an emotional/chemical response in the brain as well? What makes love more pure and genuine than anger? In fact, if you see a child being beaten and abused, isn't it right that love would turn to anger since one cannot bear to see injustice and evil done to those they love?

 

[heavenforbid]

Isn't love an emotional/chemical response in the brain as well? What makes love more pure and genuine than anger? In fact, if you see a child being beaten and abused, isn't it right that love would turn to anger since one cannot bear to see injustice and evil done to those they love?

That's a good point as per a chemical reacting on the brain. So therefore my concept of a love based God is wrong too. God not being physical can not generate these purely physical responses, like love or hate, or any human mammalian chemical. So the question is, what would God "Feel" if it has some compacity to feel.

 

[bbyrd009]

if you assume that God does not have "feelings" as we understand them, then a better definition of "Love" (and also hate) is in order, i guess.

 

[heavenforbid]

if you assume that God does not have "feelings" as we understand them, then a better definition of "Love" (and also hate) is in order, i guess.

A better form of hate? Who knows.

 

[bbyrd009]

well, we are called to hate evil, yet love your enemy; a dichotomy, iow. I see that there is a sense of "hate" as in "hate your life" that differs from our definition today, though. Iow "hate" is prolly not always the best rendition.

God doesn't get angry, metaphorically speaking, at least? I think that would be hard to justify with the Book wadr.

 

[lforrest]

If I had to describe love with one word, I would say it is creative. Love builds and sustains. It makes sense that God, our creator, would be the spirit behind Love. Perhaps calling Love an emotion is oversimplifying things.

 

[heavenforbid]

If I had to describe love with one word, I would say it is creative. Love builds and sustains. It makes sense that God, our creator, would be the spirit behind Love. Perhaps calling Love an emotion is oversimplifying things.

Love is a relationship: wouldn't you say?

 

[Wormwood]

Well, heavenfold, my view is that we are made in God's image. Therefore, perhaps the emotions we feel are, in some way, like God's own expression of Himself. Certainly the Bible gives us an anthropomorphic rendering of things that is more for our benefit than likely an exact portrayal of God...yet I do believe it is accurate. If Scripture tells us God is angry, then I believe that my understanding of anger must, in some way, be like God's response to evil and wickedness.

Of course, I am not sure if you also hold to the Bible as a viable means of understanding the person and work of God in the world, but those are just my thoughts.

Something else to consider:

There are some who argue, philosophically, that our views of God as a distant, totally unlike us being, are based more in Scotian philosophy than how most world religions, including Christianity understood God throughout the ages. What I mean is, most theologians prior to the 1500s understood as our ontology being based out of God's own ontology. We are not separate, distinct and ontologically univocal beings as modern philosophy suggests. The idea that we are entirely separate from the divine creates an infinite gap between God and his creatures that he is wholly other and therefore entirely incomprehensible and unknowable. I mean, if God is infinite and wholly unlike us, then he must also be infinitely distinct and distant from us and therefore in no way relatable to us.

However, I believe nothing exists except by and through God. I believe our being is derived from his being. So while I believe we have truly been given freedom (I am not a pantheist), yet I also believe all things are derived from God's essential being and are expressions of himself. For instance, a tree does not exist independently from God. It is not univocal and does not exist in, of and for itself. No, its existence is based in and through God's existence and the tree (or sunset, or anything else in creation) is an expression of God and a means by which we can understand the divine. I believe the same is true of us...and especially true of us. Our minds, our creativity, our emotions and our concepts of right, wrong, truth and justice are imprinted on us from the divine (although skewed by sin). As a result, I believe we can understand God, because he has made us in his nature and our being is derived from his being.

I hope that isn't to convoluted. Have a good day.