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

[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

 

[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.

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

Though I really get a kick out of these videos and can completely relate to them from my time in ministry, I have to disagree with you about the Fruits.
These are real words that set a standard of behavior for the Christian that they simply frequently reject. No trickery, no changing the use of the words to form different meanings. Just a high standard of how to treat others and how to live your life. Many Christians simply boil when they are discussed. You almost never hear them bring them up themselves because they are not willing to be accountable to them.
Not all Christians reject them. The people of faith that have my respect are those that live as the Fruits suggest they should. Loving, caring, forgiving folks that preach with their actions, not their words.
But the Fruits aren't part of the lingo. They are too straightforward and demanding to ever become a popular part of "Christianese" lexicon.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

sorry Hollie, but considering your only argument is "Literalist!" and "6000 years!" repeated over and over you aren't leaving anyone befuddled....

In every instance, rebuttals from religionists are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, dismissing evidence, sidestepping and backtracking

gosh, that sounds like someone I know when I asked her for evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism.....

 

[Hollie]

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.

sorry Hollie, but considering your only argument is "Literalist!" and "6000 years!" repeated over and over you aren't leaving anyone befuddled....

Obviously, you are befuddled.

Yours is the typical befuddlement that afflicts so many believers. My argument had been that absurdities in nature as described in the bibles are not believable.

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address because it creates profound contradictions. With reference to the bibles suggesting a 6,000 year old earth, super-magical creation and "miracles" (absurdities), of nature, how do we assign levels of truth vs. absurdities to biblical tales and fables. I'll offer a sliding scale arrangement.

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.

In every instance, rebuttals from religionists are shown to be a litany of fallacious reasoning, describing impossible mechanics, dismissing evidence, sidestepping and backtracking

gosh, that sounds like someone I know when I asked her for evidence a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism.....

You were given evidence that science has shown the pathway to repeatable experiments.

Your issue is that you need gaps to spackle your gods into. Since your contention is that the gods magically made both single and multi celled organisms, it falls to you to provide evidence of your gods. But of course you can't.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

do you deny I addressed it in detail?.....

You were given evidence that science has shown the pathway to repeatable experiments.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

 

[Hollie]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

do you deny I addressed it in detail?.....

I gave you the opportunity and you failed at even attempting to address it.

You were given evidence that science has shown the pathway to repeatable experiments.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

You're not qualified to address science matters. It may come as a shock to you but science continues to explore.

Where is the science experimentation taking place that explores the data supporting a 6,000 year old old and talking snakes?

 

[Avatar4321]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

do you deny I addressed it in detail?.....

I gave you the opportunity and you failed at even attempting to address it.

You were given evidence that science has shown the pathway to repeatable experiments.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

You're not qualified to address science matters. It may come as a shock to you but science continues to explore.

Where is the science experimentation taking place that explores the data supporting a 6,000 year old old and talking snakes?

Then you aren't either since you are unwilling to seriously explore any religious faith.

 

[Hollie]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

I gave you the opportunity and you failed at even attempting to address it.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

You're not qualified to address science matters. It may come as a shock to you but science continues to explore.

Where is the science experimentation taking place that explores the data supporting a 6,000 year old old and talking snakes?

Then you aren't either since you are unwilling to seriously explore any religious faith.

That doesn't make any sense. How would I use science to explore claims to supernaturalism.

Aside from that, the overwhelming majority of religionists have never given a moments thought to actually explore the claims of their religions. They have simply accepted the religion of their parents and blithely proceed on with token gestures to the rituals and traditions of their particular sect/subdivision of faith.

Nothing too difficult in that.

Why get cranky at me for pointing out from pretty obvious dynamics surrounding religious belief?

 

[PostmodernProph]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

do you deny I addressed it in detail?.....

I gave you the opportunity and you failed at even attempting to address it.

You were given evidence that science has shown the pathway to repeatable experiments.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

You're not qualified to address science matters. It may come as a shock to you but science continues to explore.

Where is the science experimentation taking place that explores the data supporting a 6,000 year old old and talking snakes?

/yawn.....dealing with children can be so boring....

 

[Hollie]

It's a simple question (what parts of the bibles are literally true and which are not), that you are unwilling/unable to address....

I gave you the opportunity and you failed at even attempting to address it.

which apparently no scientist has chosen to follow....

You're not qualified to address science matters. It may come as a shock to you but science continues to explore.

Where is the science experimentation taking place that explores the data supporting a 6,000 year old old and talking snakes?

/yawn.....dealing with children can be so boring....

It was best that you didn't try to defend your silly claims any further. Bailing out now will save you the burdensome task of trying to resuscitate your arguments which are Rigor mortis.