The Fruit of Gods Spirit.

[bbyrd009]

all the gods i know have fallen. I think it is dangerous to suggest a God that can be known, myself. A scientist would admit to you that we know about less than 5% of the physical world.

 

[Wormwood]

all the gods i know have fallen. I think it is dangerous to suggest a God that can be known, myself. A scientist would admit to you that we know about less than 5% of the physical world.

Well if God has chosen to reveal himself, I think he would do it in an intelligible and reliable way. So I guess it boils down to whether or not one believes in divine revelation or inspired Scriptures.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well if God has chosen to reveal himself, I think he would do it in an intelligible and reliable way.

Ha well, intelligent and reliable to God, yes. Meaning likely not either of those to men. Re the passages on God's nonsense v Man's sense.

So I guess it boils down to whether or not one believes in divine revelation or inspired Scriptures.

As to that, imo the difference in "belief" and "faith" is even occluded to most people, it seems, so i might ask "believes in divine revelation or inspired Scriptures" to do what, exactly? Because answering this reveals the heart of the seeker, and the man is then revealed. Imo divine revelation will never countermand inspired (the one in the lexicon, iow) Scripture, anyway; but i don't know if i even have a Witness for this in the Book...yes, it appears that i do, at least imo. So now the argument might be who is interpreting the Book for one, and are these doctrines standing up to the fire of others' interpretations? Imo the "high" and "low" dissent on a disputed doctrine might reasonably be disregarded, but if one has a substantial body of disagreement on a doctrine, this is a sign to me that they have swung too far in whatever direction, and headed down a cul-de-sac, so to speak.

The example of Sabbath comes to mind, wherein there is a valid argument for either side, at least in the minds of the petitioners. Is it better for me to contend with those who have changed the day, or see that i am judged by contending, where the Book plainly tells me not to contend? What do i care if you take the first day of the week off, if you are the one taking care of widows and orphans iow.

27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision.

 

[lforrest]

Love is a relationship: wouldn't you say?

It is possible to love oneself. But that could be a perversion of what real Love is supposed to be.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, every concept has a counterfeit, right? You can love yourself without being a narcissist--which might be recognizing that replaying past sins, etc in your mind is from satan.
We can read that we are to "hate our lives," but i don't think that means cut yourself.

 

[Wormwood]

Ha well, intelligent and reliable to God, yes. Meaning likely not either of those to men. Re the passages on God's nonsense v Man's sense.

As to that, imo the difference in "belief" and "faith" is even occluded to most people, it seems, so i might ask "believes in divine revelation or inspired Scriptures" to do what, exactly? Because answering this reveals the heart of the seeker, and the man is then revealed. Imo divine revelation will never countermand inspired (the one in the lexicon, iow) Scripture, anyway; but i don't know if i even have a Witness for this in the Book...yes, it appears that i do, at least imo. So now the argument might be who is interpreting the Book for one, and are these doctrines standing up to the fire of others' interpretations? Imo the "high" and "low" dissent on a disputed doctrine might reasonably be disregarded, but if one has a substantial body of disagreement on a doctrine, this is a sign to me that they have swung too far in whatever direction, and headed down a cul-de-sac, so to speak.

The example of Sabbath comes to mind, wherein there is a valid argument for either side, at least in the minds of the petitioners. Is it better for me to contend with those who have changed the day, or see that i am judged by contending, where the Book plainly tells me not to contend? What do i care if you take the first day of the week off, if you are the one taking care of widows and orphans iow.

27 A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision.

Well, first, I think you are a bit pessimistic in your view of God's ability to intelligibly communicate with fallen man. Of course we are bound to mess things up. But that doesn't mean that God's message is out of reach. Besides, I believe most things Christians debate about are not essential matters of the faith (which isn't to say they are unimportant). Paul does give us instruction on debatable matters (such as the Sabbath and eating meat). His instruction is that we should act in faith and hold to our convictions while not causing our brothers to stumble. So, yes, I think it is acceptable to contend with someone if we believe they are misinterpreting Scripture. Yet, at the end of the day, we should always encourage people to act in faith and know that we are all responsible to God and his leading.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, first, I think you are a bit pessimistic in your view of God's ability to intelligibly communicate with fallen man. Of course we are bound to mess things up. But that doesn't mean that God's message is out of reach. Besides, I believe most things Christians debate about are not essential matters of the faith (which isn't to say they are unimportant). Paul does give us instruction on debatable matters (such as the Sabbath and eating meat). His instruction is that we should act in faith and hold to our convictions while not causing our brothers to stumble. So, yes, I think it is acceptable to contend with someone if we believe they are misinterpreting Scripture. Yet, at the end of the day, we should always encourage people to act in faith and know that we are all responsible to God and his leading.

nice, i agree. As to the first part, it seems like it is adulting that blocks the communication, prolly not God's problem, so i don't mean to characterize it like that.

and you say "which isn't to say they are unimportant," but i would go as far as to say that they rep the influence of those under tares, and define the blind leading the blind.

 

[waterlilyoflife]

Can we get back to the original subject of this post? The fruit of the spirit...we are blessed to have a God who feels like we do, yet is not swayed like a reed in the wind by his emotions. God is constant and trustworthy. he hates evil, but he does not delight in the destruction of evil people, he would rather have evildoers repent and turn away from their sins, beg for forgiveness and lead a good, righteous life in obedience to God, no more behaving in an evil way and frogeting the life of sin. Jesus tells us to love our enemies and pray for them.

God was angry in the days of Noah, but he was also heartbroken because His beloved creation was behaving so terribly, violently fighting each other, they hated and fought with their neighbors.


We must be fruitful Christians. The fruit is the product of the tree, what makes the fruit tree worthy, a delight. The fruit of the spirit is a blessing. God loves us and gives us these gifts to spread to our fellow Christians but especially to our unsaved acquaintaces, pray for them, bless them, love them, tell them the gospel of Christ. Easter, and Christmas, are great witnessing oppurtunities.