Nah, sounds good to me. Guess I get the fruits too, And "against such there is no law". Difficult to understand how this would happen, my being an atheist and extremely anti-religious and all. Does that mean that my atheist and anti-religionist worldview gets a pass on evil as the source of those things? I mean it does say that there can be no law... How then is this a useful metric for determining anything about god (such as an individuals relationship or status with said "god")?

Believe there is also a denomination that focuses on “Joint heirs with Christ.” in Romans, claiming that all things are the "fruits of the spirit". That a "god" has transferred possession of all things to us. "Behold here the reward of every Christian conqueror! Christ’s throne, crown, sceptre, palace, treasure, robes, heritage, are yours." being a wonderful phrase I've just discovered. Care to take a crack at the denominations interpretation on this one?

There isn't a metric for determining/inferring anything directly about God through someone else's fruit, as the Abrahamic God is a personal one. You can infer, however, that if a person claims to be a Christian and doesn't exhibit those fruits, that God isn't the source of t fruit. The New Testament particularly, uses fruit symbolically as the product of either a good or evil life, or an obedient or disobedient life.
If your vine, feeds off of polluted water (ie. evil) then you will exhibit the fruits of the flesh. If substantiate on God and vicariously though the teachings of Jesus, then you will exhibit the fruits of the spirit. Before you as the fruits of the flesh are just prior to the previous verses

With Paul speaking mostly to the gentiles I think a better understanding/translation of the last part would be "there is no law which produces the fruit of the Spirit." He was bringing the law to the lawless in this case and just justifying that there aren't any rules against good virtues.

I'm not sure what denomination you're talking about, you'd have to let me know so I could check out their beliefs. As far as Romans, there's something a majority of Christians believe in called indwelling. Through which we lay down our lives daily and "give it to God" (that's the phrase) so that he may live through us. Frequently tough I've seen that at the slightest resistance or worldly influence though, we pick our lives back up and try and claim the credit for God's works, or turned the selfless example they were given into selfish ideals and wants, etc.. Along with denominations there's a general sense of 2 sides of this coin, some Christians feel condemned under the law and fearful, some feel uber happy and victorious like they have no personal accountability/duty. In reality and my personal beliefs and teachings,like most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the 2 extremes.

All very imaginative. I still don't see how that addresses my question. Would my anti-religious (and extremely so in the case of christianity) worldview not be "evil"? I'm wondering why I get the fruits same as a faithful christian. I'm not just doubting that this is a useful metric for directly determining anything. I'm pretty certain that this is a platitude, useless even at indirectly determining anything.

(Ah, here we are. A very recent sermon on this particular train of thought comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Tabernacle, their sermons are nice and accessible, plenty online at their homepage, and they even broadcast. How pleasant. They're reformed baptists.)

I aoplogize, I had skimmed over "Guess I " so I missed the actual point you were making that you exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, the same as Christians. I'm not excluding atheists and non belivers from having a good personal morality. I'm just establiishing that the Bible has a standard for the personal morality you can use to test the personal morality of a Christian. It doesn't exclude you from having personally good morality, but what do you use as a standard for improvement or goal, societal morality?

To answer your other question yes your extremely antireligious worldview would be considered "evil" and if you review the fruits hatred and discord are on the "evil" list not the "good" list. And if you think this one "bad fruit" doesn't taint the rest of your morality and thusly your worldview and path in life, you're severly compatmentalizing. For instance, with the shoe on teh other foot, I'm not anti-atheism.

As far as the metro. tab. there are a few inconsiencies on teir statement of faith
On Biblical seperation-

Quote:Discernment comes from first receiving Jesus Christ as one's' Lord and Savior and being indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God. (2 Cor. 2:11-15) This enables the believer to comprehend spiritual things. Actual discernment comes from studying the Word of God and learning its precepts and principles. ref

so where does it come from? Plus the entire doctrine reeks of if you don't believe things how we see things then you're a heretic. Not a spirit of Unity. I do however believe that there is a purpose and reason for different denominational beliefs. I'm just not as quick to call everyone who doesn't believe what I do a liar and heretic.

I think the majority of Christianity also questions limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints in the doctrines of grace. I still believe the majority of contemporary Christianity hold to the 5 solas and mostly the baptist denom and some catholics hold to the doctrine of Grace. I don't have numbers for that though.

The eternal circular argument is does
God exist ? For this to be debated like any
thing that may be in question it is important that
as a matter of basic principle certain parameters must
be established. And they should be that logic and reason
be employed and employed to the exclusion of every other type
of interpretation. But such an approach is rather problematic here for
such methodology is insufficient to provide a definitive answer. Since one
would need to reference the metaphysical and that is beyond the remit of logic
That does not mean the proposition must automatically be answered in the negative
as there are examples of what can exist in the physical world that are non physical though
Time exists but is not a physical entity. Thought exists but is not one either. Emotion too. Maths
also. And the whole of it since although it references reality it is not reality itself. So all these entities
exist but cannot be referenced any of the five main senses. This does not mean however that God exists
of course but that logic and reason are flawed mechanisms. But they are the best that we have. Therefore then
one can reference the fact that every one is ultimately agnostic from the most evangelical fundamentalist to the most
strident rationalist and everyone in between. And on the issue of morality originating in religion. That is simply not true for
morality has a psychological basis. Evolution provides the reason as to why that is and it is that Man developed as a social animal

why would logic and reason necessarily reference the metaphysical? Couldn't the metaphysical reference logic and reason? Then couldn't logic and reason help justify the metaphysical? I believe mathmatics and natural law, societal morality and the laws of cause and effect (to name jsut a few) would all be in a sad state without being justified through reason and logic. I agree with the sum of the rest of what you say, although not as poetically visual. I think we can do a little better than "every one is ultimately agnostic" though with a little effort.

Logic can not explain metaphysics as
they are polar opposites and completely
so. And as far as doing a bit better than to
just state we are all agnostics. Sorry but no
Or not unless one can do so with a recourse to
belief over reason. As this is the ultimate classic
example of how we some times feel need to tinker
with the actual truth of what is since it causes anxiety
Reality is just not reality if it has to be seen through an
emotional filter. I accept it no matter how uncomfortable
I find it and is a healthy attitude to possess. As world is not
made for your satisfaction or mine but is as it is whatever you
or I think and no matter how safe we feel masked by deception

With regard to the subject in question, there isn't an ounce of agnosticism in my body. Tack, my aggressiveness towards religion could be interpreted as "hateful", but you would have to ignore the fact that my take on christianity is that it is a fundamentally bigoted and ethnocentric worldview, that there is nothing that religious faith offers that cannot be achieved through less disgusting means. Apparently those fruits you spoke of are one of those things. I use my own head as a measure of improvement btw (you don't?). When I feel that I could have handled something better, I try to do so the next time, ad infinitum. I don't think you could demonstrate any other method by which human beings do the whole self-improvement bit. I think your morality is identical to mine in origin. I wouldn't exactly put the central character of the bible in some moral limelight (as a standard to judge relative levels of "morality"), because it would be an embarrassment. Call that hateful if you like, but I'm just trying to stand up to all the nastiness we wrote into our beliefs.

(November 13, 2011 at 9:50 am)tackattack Wrote: because symptoms were presented for the theists rejecting atheists. I don't have those reactions so I don't mind trying the show on the other foot. re you denying that the symptoms match the reaction? It was not my reason dbp, not did I state that all atheists reject god. It could be worth exploring why some do though.

I would say my frustration with religious people would come from having to deal with such poor reasoning. (However, I disagree with your entire premise as well as the premise of the video as well. I don't think the frustration, etc. comes from a feeling of rejection on either side.) When people say they believe in god because of personal experience, I usually just end the conversation, because that isn't an argument.

Quote:because that isn't an argument.

The theists think we should take their word for it.