Hey Brucie I have an answer for the "fruits of the Spirit" question of yours

[Clement]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

 

[thebrucebeat]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

You make an ass of yourself almost immediately, because I never imply a blanket accusation of Christians as not living up to the Fruits. I ask people that clearly demonstrate a disregard for them in their posting styles, like yourself, why they have contempt for them while proclaiming their piety.
The proof is readily available in the posts I get in reply, and is clear here with your thread. When confronted with wandering off the path and away from the challenge of the Fruits, people can acknowledge that and try to rise to the challenge and amend the way they address people, or, like you, they make unfounded accusations, name call, make up nicknames they think make them seem clever, and so on. They compound their sin rather than try to correct it. They make stupid assumptions, like yours suggesting I am an atheist, and otherwise make themselves further culpable to their failings of the Fruits, rather than try to reach a higher plain which Paul challenges them to do.
If you want to address something to me personally, that is what PM's are for. A thread should be framed as something for general consumption.
I seem to have seriously gotten under your skin.

 

[DriftingSand]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

 

[Clement]

You make an ass of yourself almost immediately, because I never imply a blanket accusation of Christians as not living up to the Fruits. I ask people that clearly demonstrate a disregard for them in their posting styles, like yourself, why they have contempt for them while proclaiming their piety.

That's your opinion and it's neither here nor there. Atheists are the most judgmental pricks in the world. I don't know if I have ever "declared piety", that's another thing from your vivid imagination.

The proof is readily available in the posts I get in reply, and is clear here with your thread. When confronted with wandering off the path and away from the challenge of the Fruits, people can acknowledge that and try to rise to the challenge and amend the way they address people, or, like you, they make unfounded accusations, name call, make up nicknames they think make them seem clever, and so on.

Have you ever caught me in adultery? Orgies? Drunkeness? No. You are just one of those guys who is perpetually pissed off and you come to places like this to act like a big shot.

They compound their sin rather than try to correct it. They make stupid assumptions, like yours suggesting I am an atheist, and otherwise make themselves further culpable to their failings of the Fruits, rather than try to reach a higher plain which Paul challenges them to do.

If you're not an atheist you do a damn good impersonation of one. Paul wasn't a sissy, he used to kill people for being Christian on his last job. He was not talking about holding your pinky out when you drink tea, or hurting some jerk's feelings on a message board - he was talking about serious debauchery.

If you want to address something to me personally, that is what PM's are for. A thread should be framed as something for general consumption.
I seem to have seriously gotten under your skin.

Got something to hide? No matter, I am done with you anyway. That's about what I expected you to say.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You make an ass of yourself almost immediately, because I never imply a blanket accusation of Christians as not living up to the Fruits. I ask people that clearly demonstrate a disregard for them in their posting styles, like yourself, why they have contempt for them while proclaiming their piety.

That's your opinion and it's neither here nor there. Atheists are the most judgmental pricks in the world. I don't know if I have ever "declared piety", that's another thing from your vivid imagination.

Not an opinion at all. I have never made that blanket accusation. If you think I have, find it and quote it. I'll wait here. Add in another silly assumption regarding my atheism and you are off to another great start.

The proof is readily available in the posts I get in reply, and is clear here with your thread. When confronted with wandering off the path and away from the challenge of the Fruits, people can acknowledge that and try to rise to the challenge and amend the way they address people, or, like you, they make unfounded accusations, name call, make up nicknames they think make them seem clever, and so on.

Have you ever caught me in adultery? Orgies? Drunkeness? No. You are just one of those guys who is perpetually pissed off and you come to places like this to act like a big shot.

"enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,..."
These are what you display. The others only you know.

They compound their sin rather than try to correct it. They make stupid assumptions, like yours suggesting I am an atheist, and otherwise make themselves further culpable to their failings of the Fruits, rather than try to reach a higher plain which Paul challenges them to do.

If you're not an atheist you do a damn good impersonation of one. Paul wasn't a sissy, he used to kill people for being Christian on his last job. He was not talking about holding your pinky out when you drink tea, or hurting some jerk's feelings on a message board - he was talking about serious debauchery.

What Paul did in his former life is what he denounced when he began his new one. You seem to envy the old Paul and reject the new one. Your choice.

If you want to address something to me personally, that is what PM's are for. A thread should be framed as something for general consumption.
I seem to have seriously gotten under your skin.

Got something to hide? No matter, I am done with you anyway. That's about what I expected you to say.

You started this, not me. Why do you always run away when exposed as a petulant fraud?

 

[Clement]

You make an ass of yourself almost immediately, because I never imply a blanket accusation of Christians as not living up to the Fruits. I ask people that clearly demonstrate a disregard for them in their posting styles, like yourself, why they have contempt for them while proclaiming their piety.

That's your opinion and it's neither here nor there. Atheists are the most judgmental pricks in the world. I don't know if I have ever "declared piety", that's another thing from your vivid imagination.

Not an opinion at all. I have never made that blanket accusation. If you think I have, find it and quote it. I'll wait here. Add in another silly assumption regarding my atheism and you are off to another great start.



Have you ever caught me in adultery? Orgies? Drunkeness? No. You are just one of those guys who is perpetually pissed off and you come to places like this to act like a big shot.

"enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,..."
These are what you display. The others only you know.



If you're not an atheist you do a damn good impersonation of one. Paul wasn't a sissy, he used to kill people for being Christian on his last job. He was not talking about holding your pinky out when you drink tea, or hurting some jerk's feelings on a message board - he was talking about serious debauchery.

What Paul did in his former life is what he denounced when he began his new one. You seem to envy the old Paul and reject the new one. Your choice.

If you want to address something to me personally, that is what PM's are for. A thread should be framed as something for general consumption.
I seem to have seriously gotten under your skin.

Got something to hide? No matter, I am done with you anyway. That's about what I expected you to say.

You started this, not me. Why do you always run away when exposed as a petulant fraud?

Don't project your faults on me, Brucie, I am just a sinner saved by Grace. You're the one with the uptight attitude.

 

[thebrucebeat]

That's your opinion and it's neither here nor there. Atheists are the most judgmental pricks in the world. I don't know if I have ever "declared piety", that's another thing from your vivid imagination.

Not an opinion at all. I have never made that blanket accusation. If you think I have, find it and quote it. I'll wait here. Add in another silly assumption regarding my atheism and you are off to another great start.



Have you ever caught me in adultery? Orgies? Drunkeness? No. You are just one of those guys who is perpetually pissed off and you come to places like this to act like a big shot.

"enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,..."
These are what you display. The others only you know.



If you're not an atheist you do a damn good impersonation of one. Paul wasn't a sissy, he used to kill people for being Christian on his last job. He was not talking about holding your pinky out when you drink tea, or hurting some jerk's feelings on a message board - he was talking about serious debauchery.

What Paul did in his former life is what he denounced when he began his new one. You seem to envy the old Paul and reject the new one. Your choice.



Got something to hide? No matter, I am done with you anyway. That's about what I expected you to say.

You started this, not me. Why do you always run away when exposed as a petulant fraud?

Don't project your faults on me, Brucie, I am just a sinner saved by Grace. You're the one with the uptight attitude.

Ah, the insightful "rubber/glue" response.
Without addressing my post at all.

 

[Clement]

You started this, not me. Why do you always run away when exposed as a petulant fraud?

Don't project your faults on me, Brucie, I am just a sinner saved by Grace. You're the one with the uptight attitude.

Ah, the insightful "rubber/glue" response.
Without addressing my post at all.

I don't address your posts because you sound like a screaming child.

You asked me a question a while back, this is your answer. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Don't project your faults on me, Brucie, I am just a sinner saved by Grace. You're the one with the uptight attitude.

Ah, the insightful "rubber/glue" response.
Without addressing my post at all.

I don't address your posts because you sound like a screaming child.

You asked me a question a while back, this is your answer. Don't like it? Too bad.

Seems to me that screaming children make up false accusations, make unfounded assumptions, name call, make up nicknames and can't formulate adult responses.
Those things are not coming from me.
I have calmly responded to each of your posts and you never address the substance of any of them. You get very petulant and stamp your feet, but you have no cogent response.
You have done a truly marvelous job of making my case for me.
I barely had to lift my "tea" pinky.

 

[Hollie]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

 

[Avatar4321]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

Some educated people might. Looks like you will too.

 

[PostmodernProph]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

Hollie thinks Christians believe in a flat earth that is 6000 years old......actually we believe Hollie has a flat head and is 16 years old.....

 

[Hollie]

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

Hollie thinks Christians believe in a flat earth that is 6000 years old......actually we believe Hollie has a flat head and is 16 years old.....

As you (a self-entitled "prophet"), apparently take the position of speaking on behalf of Christians, what is the Christian position on talking snakes?

 

[Hollie]

Good thread and good definitions. There are some folks who will NEVER listen to logic and reason. They have ALL the answers and if you don't agree with them 100% of the time then you are a "kook" or whatever their derogatory name is for the day.

The far left; evolutionists; and big bangers will automatically call you a non-Christian if you don't tow the secular line. Contradictory? Yes but we can never accuse them of thinking in a level headed manner.

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

Some educated people might. Looks like you will too.

It's just that I find a biblical literalist denigrating those "evilutionists; and big bangers" as never listening to logic and reason to be a bit twisted.

I suppose when logic and reason is exampled by supernatural events, talking snakes and a 6,000 year old planet, we need to make allowances for a revision to logic and reason.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think you will find that educated people will call you "silly", for believing in literal interpretations of the various bibles replete with talking snakes, a flat earth that is 6,000 years old, etc.

But yeah, you can never accuse those who use antibiotics vs. rattling bones and "prayer" to cure disease of thinking in a level headed manner.

You loons really are laughing stock.

Hollie thinks Christians believe in a flat earth that is 6000 years old......actually we believe Hollie has a flat head and is 16 years old.....

As you (a self-entitled "prophet"), apparently take the position of speaking on behalf of Christians, what is the Christian position on talking snakes?

you're really not talking....just lip syncing......

 

[Hollie]

Hollie thinks Christians believe in a flat earth that is 6000 years old......actually we believe Hollie has a flat head and is 16 years old.....

As you (a self-entitled "prophet"), apparently take the position of speaking on behalf of Christians, what is the Christian position on talking snakes?

you're really not talking....just lip syncing......

Still dodging the tough questions, I see.

If some parts of the bibles are true, and some not, give us your prophet'ly concise rendering of the "well that's true" vs. the "well that's kinda' true but not totally true" vs. the "well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true", scholarly interpretation.

Let's start with that talking snake thingy. Is it:

a) well that's true,

b) well that's kinda' true but not totally true, or,

c) well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true.

Thank you, your prophet'ness, for your prophet'ly determination.

Next, we can hope to have you issue a fatwa regarding snake handling during religious services, sacrifices to the gawds, and ritual slaughter of sheep.

Last up..... those sacrifices of virgins.

 

[PostmodernProph]

As you (a self-entitled "prophet"), apparently take the position of speaking on behalf of Christians, what is the Christian position on talking snakes?

you're really not talking....just lip syncing......

Still dodging the tough questions, I see.

If some parts of the bibles are true, and some not, give us your prophet'ly concise rendering of the "well that's true" vs. the "well that's kinda' true but not totally true" vs. the "well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true", scholarly interpretation.

Let's start with that talking snake thingy. Is it:

a) well that's true,

b) well that's kinda' true but not totally true, or,

c) well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true.

Thank you, your prophet'ness, for your prophet'ly determination.

Next, we can hope to have you issue a fatwa regarding snake handling during religious services, sacrifices to the gawds, and ritual slaughter of sheep.

Last up..... those sacrifices of virgins.

well, you know....I actually put some time into demonstrating that for you, including giving you the tools on the internet you could use to do that.....however, you being the typical idiot you have always been blew it off and decided not to bother reading it....that's why you're stuck having to ask me to do it again.....but I tell you what....just go back and read it now.....the answer is still there......here's a reminder....what is the first word in Genesis 3?......

 

[Hollie]

you're really not talking....just lip syncing......

Still dodging the tough questions, I see.

If some parts of the bibles are true, and some not, give us your prophet'ly concise rendering of the "well that's true" vs. the "well that's kinda' true but not totally true" vs. the "well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true", scholarly interpretation.

Let's start with that talking snake thingy. Is it:

a) well that's true,

b) well that's kinda' true but not totally true, or,

c) well that's not literally true just kinda' made-up true.

Thank you, your prophet'ness, for your prophet'ly determination.

Next, we can hope to have you issue a fatwa regarding snake handling during religious services, sacrifices to the gawds, and ritual slaughter of sheep.

Last up..... those sacrifices of virgins.

well, you know....I actually put some time into demonstrating that for you, including giving you the tools on the internet you could use to do that.....however, you being the typical idiot you have always been blew it off and decided not to bother reading it....that's why you're stuck having to ask me to do it again.....but I tell you what....just go back and read it now.....the answer is still there......here's a reminder....what is the first word in Genesis 3?......

I thought my comments would leave you befuddled. Typical for bible literalists, they are unable to reconcile that the bibles are not a literal rendering of creation 6,000 years ago.

Creationists are forced to fit absurdities into their particular world-view, which apparently they believe breaks apart and dissipates into the void if the fundamental overview of creation isn't upheld. Guess what, they're right-- if any part of the bibles are not literally true, then the whole thing is suspect, so they have every right to be concerned.

This clearly shows there's no real discussion to be had from the religious extremists position. Using the bibles to prove the bibles are true is a waste of time. In every instance, rebuttals from religionists are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, dismissing evidence, sidestepping and backtracking until finally when they're required to provide objective details regarding the veracity of biblical tales and fables vs. verifiable standards, they escape into the "read the bibles" safety net. And they still expect creationism/supernaturalism to be taken seriously.

 

[guno]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

fruits o the spirit are nonsense words only found in the Christianese lexicon

 

[guno]

First off, let me say that I think you are too dishonest in framing the question, because you insinuate that Christians don't have them. Truth known, these are very vague concepts that mean one thing to one person and another thing to the next guy. Atheists (and other nons) think that "love" means I should kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear. It doesn't work like that.

To review, the fruits of the Spirit are:

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control"

Atheists think that if you get one "aw shit" it wipes the slate clean and you have to start over. It doesn't work that way. If you stumble you pick yourself up and begin again. Makes me glad God isn't an atheist.

And it's a lifetime commitment.

By contrast, though, here's what the gifts of the Spirit are NOT, from the same chapter:

"sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these"

But the real truth of the matter is that you don't know anybody here well enough to know who has what. If you can prove someone is walking according to the "flesh", as Paul puts it, then you could accuse. Somehow I don't think not being able to prove anything will stop you.

fruits o the spirit are nonsense words only found in the Christianese lexicon