Gal 5:22-26

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by clark thompson, Oct 29, 2013.

  1. Galatians 5:22-25
    KJV(i)22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
    NSB(i)22 The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 meekness (mildness), self-control; against such there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have impaled the flesh with its passions and lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

    These are my thoughts, please share yours.

    22 We as believers are to have the Spirit bear this fruit thru us. We are to love; we are not show a worldly love but heavenly love. Having Jesus should give a joy that the world does not have. We will show the Lord thru loving others and have a joy doing so. Knowing Jesus gives us a peace, we can take all our problems to Him and we have Him to take care of them. We serve God thru patience; we wait on opportunities to serve Him. We should show kindness like Christ did and not show favoritism. We should be good, this is only done by following the Lord’s will and having grace. We as believers put our trust in the Lord instead of others or ourselves.

    23 We should be gentle and not hard to be around or hard to talk to. We should not constantly be overcome by our fleshly desires. There is no law against serving the Lord. We are bearing these fruit as a witness of the Lord.

    24 We should not seek fleshly things. Our desires change as we grow thru the Spirit, we will seek less things of the flesh. Our desires will become doing His will. The Spirit wills old us into servants of His and vessels He can use.

    25 We are to follow the Spirit. The Spirit will never lead us against the word or against the Lord’s will. Following in the Spirit is not always easy but it is the best decision. Following thru the Spirit leads us to do what the Lord wants of us.
  2. Does this mean that anyone who displays these qualities has the spirit of your god in them? If not, how do you know who has the spirit of your god and who doesn't if the external "fruits" of both are the same?
  3. @WingedVictory You will know it when you experience him. You need to believe the Word of God. The Spirit gives some of us the gift of discernment which can be useful in situation where we don't know if it's the Spirit of God or Spirit of the world. You have too many questions because you are not yet saved.

    Let me present the Gospel to you via the link below.

    Please go through it with an open heart.
  4. I appreciate the link Jeff. It doesn't seem to be any different from anything I've seen, but I'll take a look with an open mind. Thank you.

    As far as your comment about me having too many questions, I approach your religion in the same way I approach any other claims. I ask questions in order to understand more about the claim. If something seems like a logical inconsistency to me, I ask more questions to be sure and see if I'm wrong. If I still see it to be a logical inconsistency, I have to provisionally conclude that it is inconsistent. Saying that I have too many questions because I'm not saved seems to me like telling a car customer that he has too many questions about a car. He should just drive it without checking out the history of the car, the condition, mileage ect, right? Of course not. Same as with religion. My goal here is to see why people drive the car when it seems like a bad car to me.

    If your god was really all powerful and loving, and this gospel was true, I would expect him to find a way to explain to my limited mind (it would be limited compared to his) all my question and doubts. Since that hasn't happened, what am I to conclude? (rhetorical question) I became an unbeliever, and eventually an atheist when I read 1 Peter 3:15 and found that I couldn't objectively do it under scrutiny, even after reading much of the apologetic info out there.
  5. No problem. I can understand your situation. We are not perfect as Christians too. Some of us may see you as threat and some of us will see you as opportunity to share the saving Word of God. Church is not perfect. Church like any other organisation consists of people of various types.

    To blame God for our imperfectness is like blaming a car manufacturer for a bad car. It's when you look at the car's history you will be able to see the number of accidents it had, the number of owners it went through, the type of terrain its been driven on, the purposes it's used for and so forth. God, our creator designed us for a purpose into a perfect world. We were given the choice to be in relationship with him and to show his loving and caring character to others around us. We used the freedom he gave us to sin thus we have all fallen short the perfectness that God desired of us. The result is what you see around you and is why you blame God. He always gives you a chance to recognize him as God and as the only being through whom you can receive back the perfectness. Christians call it righteousness. And he did it all by himself at the cross for me and for you. There is penalty for imperfectness or sin which he bore by himself. Christianity like you mentioned is not like any other religion. God is a spirit having unconditional love towards us. He offered us a way out of the mess we are in. It is up to me and you to accept that offer. There is no compulsion.

    If you are skeptical, keep the Bible aside and pray that God reveals himself. There are many Biblical scholars who don't accept Jesus as God. I'm not as good as them. By my faith I have accepted Him and I have confidence that his spirit abides in me and my future is in his hands ie eternal life. Give yourself a chance and accept him in a prayer. Take one step towards him.
  6. Thanks for understanding. I agree.

    No no, I haven't blamed God. I simply don't believe he exists. Just like I don't blame Poseidon for floods and tsunamis. I just don't believe he exists. Can't blame someone who you don't believe exists.

    Some of the wording I used may make it seem like I'm placing blame. Sometimes I speak in hypotheticals in order to make my point more apparent to people, like what I'm going to do next.

    Your quote above (my emphasis added) actually brings up one of the key reasons I don't believe in this god. Let's for a second assume that this god exists, then I'll show you why he can be blamed for everything that happens in the universe.

    If he did exist with all of the concepts regularly attributed to him (all knowing, all powerful, creator of the universe (defined as ALL that exists, except himself of course, which approaches the realm of special pleading fallacy)), then your car analogy doesn't apply. The reason why is that the car manufacturer isn't the all powerful, all knowing, creator of all that exists. Because of that, the manufacturer can't be held accountable for what other people do. He doesn't have the power to stop them from messing the car up. He can't predict all the things that could go wrong with the car. He's limited.

    This hypothetical god, however, IS all powerful and all knowing. He created ALL things. All that exists has to come from him. Evil exists? It comes from him. What seems like free will comes from him, and the circumstances that we use free will in comes from him. It's really not free will though, because he created us with full knowledge of what we would do, and full power to change that. Since he didn't change it, then he is to blame for how things happen. There's no way to logically get around this.

    Before the universe, there was nothing but God. He logically is the only person to blame for anything that happens after that. A better analogy is the relationship between an author and a book. For example, lets say is J.K. Rowling is as to God, as the Harry Potter universe is as the universe. J.K. Rowling is all powerful with respect to the Harry Potter universe. Could J.K. Rowling blame Voldemort for the evil decisions he made? No, because Rowling created Voldemort and directed his actions with her all powerful pen. To other characters in the Harry Potter universe, it may seem as if Voldemort has free will, just like from my perspective, it seems like you have free will. But from Rowling's perspective, he doesn't. The ONLY person who can be responsible for anything that goes on in the Harry Potter universe is Rowling. Same goes for God and this universe. Which is why the concept of a god with all those attributes AND who holds us ultimately accountable for our actions is inconsistent. That god can't exist.

    Some days I wish this religion where true. I do find myself calling out hoping that someone is there, even though I don't really believe anyone is. It's human to wish things were different. But that's my emotional mind. If there were a god, he would have to appeal to my rational mind.
    Thanks man, I appreciate that.
  7. This hypothetical god, however, IS all powerful and all knowing. He created ALL things. All that exists has to come from him. Evil exists? It comes from him. What seems like free will comes from him, and the circumstances that we use free will in comes from him. It's really not free will though, because he created us with full knowledge of what we would do, and full power to change that. Since he didn't change it, then he is to blame for how things happen. There's no way to logically get around this.

    You are making more than a few irrational assumptions here.

    "All that exists has to come from him. Evil exists? It comes from him."

    That would be NO. He gave us free will, and within our limited abilities that also gives us the ability to modify our environment and to a limited ability also create. Without free will we have no unique existance.
    Evil is the result of the misuse of free will. In man, it is most often caused by the desire of things that are good, in and of themselves, in ways that harm others. i.e. food is good and necessary, stealing food is an evil act.
    To know that someone will do evil is not equivalent to causing or agreeing with the evil.

    " It's really not free will though, because he created us with full knowledge of what we would do, and full power to change that. Since he didn't change it, then he is to blame for how things happen. There's no way to logically get around this."

    There is nothing even vaguely rational about that statement. What are you attempting to say?

    "Before the universe, there was nothing but God. He logically is the only person to blame for anything that happens after that."

    As alluded to above, only you are to blame for what you do. Blaming another for your faults is a copout.
    KingJ likes this.
  8. If they truly have them they do but they can act as if they have love and these others but truly without the Spirit is just an act. The Spirit may let us know by how they react in times of trouble acting often stops at these times and the truth then will come out.
  9. Contrary to what many people think about atheists, I largely don't enjoy appearing to put someone down, or questioning their intellectual honesty, but this statement you made really makes me question your intellectual honesty. Maybe you just don't understand the argument though. So I'll explain. It's not an irrational assumption. It's a conclusion that logically follows from a hypothetical premise.

    Premise 1: Before all that exists came into existence, there was ONLY God (I'm ignoring the special pleading fallacy, he is thought to be preexisting).
    Premise 2: God created ALL that came into existence.
    Premise 3: Evil exists.
    Conclusion: God is the ONLY person who could have had a hand in creating evil.

    You're using your doctrine to try to explain away a clear logical progression that follows from the premises. It doesn't work. Don't let traditional doctrine of your religion stop you from seeing/accepting the realities of this textbook-simple valid argument by calling it irrational. It's right there.

    Can you logically explain to me how the conclusion that God created evil is not true, assuming the 3 premises? Any appeals you make to your doctrine would be irrelevant. If you can do that without logical errors, I'll admit that my use of logic was flawed. And because everything else I typed in this post extends from my argument, it would also be flawed.

    As a hypothetical, I'm provisionally assuming those 3 premises to be true to make a point (I don't really believe them all to be true). However, if you don't accept any of those 3 premises, that's a discussion I don't mind having if it comes to that.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Again, maybe I didn't explain very well. The term "free will" is so loaded, that it's hard to get people to keep the term in mind as an object without the extra baggage it has because of religious doctrine. As I said above, my argument about free will extends from my argument above, so showing my above logic to be flawed would make my free will argument flawed as well. So, I won't directly try to explain it unless you really insist or is necessary.

    Maybe it would help for you to refer to my "God-Author, Story-Universe" analogy to better understand.

    From yours and mines perspective (one of limited knowledge, power, and of not having created ALL that exists), I am the only person to blame for my actions. But from the perspective of an all powerful creator of ALL things, it can't ultimately be my responsibility, just as an author can't ultimately hold his creations (story book characters in a universe he created) responsible for their actions.
  10. So anyone who under times of trouble doesn't display these fruits means they don't have the Spirit?

    What I'm getting at is that even people who call themselves Christian have been known to lose composure and not display these under certain stress. Conversely, I'm sure there are non-Christians who display these values even under trouble times. Think Ghandi.

    What does this mean in terms of who has the Spirit and who doesn't? How do we know what is an act?
  11. I believe that these fruits are not the fruits of the Holy Spirit because the word spirit here can be taken to be the new born human spirit and in my observation this fits the context. The enmity here is not between the flesh and the Holy Spirit. That would go without saying. The fight is between "our" flesh and "our" spirit.

    This is my thought.
  12. If taken as the fruits of the new born human spirit we can derive this teaching; When we exhibit fruits we are walking (Paul's command here) in our spirit. When the works of the flesh are present, we are not walking in our new born spiritual capacity. Furthermore in chapter six Paul uses a different word for walking, the word means a military cadence or march. If we are led by the spirit so let us march together in unison with one another. Our goal is to be filled with the Holy Spirit and we achieve this by having our will under the control of our new born human spirit. If we are filled then by the Holy Spirit then it will produce unity among each other. If we have unity together with other believers this means we are being led by the spiritual capacity we now possess. If we mis step we can stumble the guy in front and the guy behind us. This leads to bearing one another's burdens and restoring other Christians and not to forget evaluating our own lives with sober evaluation.
  13. #13 Roads, Nov 7, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
    Hey WingedVictory,

    Even though you've said that "Any appeals you make to your doctrine would be irrelevant," hopefully I can make an appeal to doctrine that will, at the least, help us explore some of the complexity in these assumed premises. :)

    Consider the Genesis account of creation: God doesn't create darkness. There is simply an absence of light, and God's creation of light allows non-light to be recognized, and named "darkness." Genesis 1:3-4. Darkness didn't need to be created. What was created through the creation of light was the ability to name light's absence "darkness." The existence of something allows its non-existence to be nameable.

    Similarly, what we call "sin" or "evil" can be thought of as simply the opposite of the nature of God: Romans 3:23. To say that "things that are not the nature of God" are created by God isn't quite precise: rather, the absence of the nature of God, like darkness to light, is recognizable and nameable simply because of the presence of the nature of God. In the Christian doctrinal understanding of good and evil, then, evil is not a thing "that came into existence" at all, it is a non-thing, the absence of good, only identifiable and nameable because of the existence of good. Since God is as you say in the first premise, not having a beginning at all, neither did evil have a beginning, it is simply "the opposite of God's nature" and is nameable only because God has a nature.

    So then we could revise your third premise from "evil exists" to "the ability to name and define the absence of good exists." And then we have to revise the conclusion.

    Paul's comparison between sin and "the law" in Romans 7 is a similar argument.
  14. #14 KingJ, Nov 7, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2013
    Firstly, it is good that you ask questions. As I am sure you know scripture says 'seek and you will find'.

    Now, onto logical thought :D, I love it!! Lets start with your excerpt above.

    Yes!! God created all. He is the first and the last. He is the alpha and omega. But what exactly is evil???????
    Lets look at satan. What did he do that got him kicked out of heaven? he....rebelled against God's authority. Evil is hence best defined as simply ''rebellion'' against God. Now we have God's laws written for us. So obvious evil would simply be rebellion against them. So lets consider God's laws / 10 commandments. Look closer at them!!!! ''You shall not murder'', ''you shall not commit adultery'' ask yourself WHY do these laws please God? WHY and WHAT does obeying them ''ADD'' to God?? the answer is NOTHING, simply that He desires to see us love and be good to one-another. He hates adultery because it leaves one person on the verge of suicide. He hates murder because it robs a family of a loved one. He hates stealing because it hurts others trying to survive and live upright lives.

    So we know what God disapproves of. Now what does God approve of? Jesus taught it best...turning the left cheek and loving our neighbour as ourselves. Now be dead honest with yourself right now!!! When you wake up in the morning / encounter someone at college or work, you have the ability to hug or punch them right? Having that ability to daily choose wether you will live the day being selfless or selfish is true free will. Living selfless / humbly causes God to draw nearer to you James 4:8. Living selflishly / prideful causes distance between you and God James 4:6.

    Conclusion: We are only capable of evil because we are created higher then animals Heb 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor. It is with our increased intelligence that accountability / ability to do evil / rebel against God comes. Many would prefer God made them at a monkey's intelligence with no accountability I am sure.

    God's impartiality is something we need to grasp Acts 10:34. God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is the first and the last, God is good, God is impartial. We make a huge mistaken assumption when we try define God. Omniscient does not equal partial with God, only with our limited minds. So I encourage you to start off with ''assuming'' the best about God and work from there, back. God does happen to be your some respect ;).

    Onto more logic....How do you explain your atheism??? You see I am fully convinced that you need to daily brainwash yourself that ''there is no God'' ''there is no God''''there is no God''''there is no God''''there is no God''.... as evidence of Him is all around Rom 1:20.

    1. You are here.
    2. This world is limited by the laws of physics
    3. Remove the 'particle' from a particle collision trying to re-create a big bang and you have??
    4. The only sane / logical answer to our existence is hence that we are a creation, created by a being from a realm not limited by the laws of physics.
    5. The question we should be asking..... is not, 'where is God'? But rather 'who and where is the true God'. What religion is the truth?

    Jesus's impact on the world and how His teachings defied logic, puts everyone living today at a T-junction. The T-junction is not as laughably silly as 'believe or dis-believe in God's existence'...rather, do we accept or reject His teachings? Either you agree that it is good and right to turn the left cheek or you don't. Either you feed the beggar at your doorstep or you don't James 1:27.
  15. I agree they are not fruits of the Spirit but they could apear to be for a time, It is thisw way when people try to live the Christian life without submitting their life to the Lord, the fruits are not true.
  16. Those who the Spirit may not display these fruits at first but thru their troubles they will become closer to the Lord.
  17. Very true, Romans 12:1
    clark thompson likes this.
  18. Yes, I did say that. but I meant they were irrelevant in the sense of using them to try to escape the logic I used. The way the person I originally wrote to was using his doctrine was irrelevant to the argument. I didn't see your use of it as irrelevant though. You're addressing why you have a different take on one of the premises.

    As I said to the person I originally wrote that too, if anyone has a different take on the premises, then obviously the conclusion doesn't follow, or is in question.

    But lets take a look at your take.

    Your post made me think, and I appreciate that man.

    I understand your point, but as far out an interesting as the concept of a non-thing is to think about, I think it may be borderline equivocation/word games the way you redefine evil's existence to be a "non-thing".

    A key characteristic of existence is the ability to have an effect on other things that exist. We know wind exists because we see its effect on other things that exist. Darkness might simply be called the "absence of light" in a physics sense, but in a philosophical sense, it exists because it has a clear effect on other things that exist.

    Keep in mind, my original argument is purely a philosophical/logical argument. You can't compare the current scientific understanding of darkness being "non-light" to evil in this argument to just call it a "non-thing". If you believe that evil has an effect on things that exist, then you believe evil exists. Re-defining it as a non-thing in the philosophical sense isn't sound because a true non-thing can't logically have any effect on anything.

    This is out of the realm of my original argument, but another pitfall your argument falls into is the question, why is it that evil has to be the non-thing? Why can't God be the non-thing? By creating a non-thing and saying it is only defined in terms of God, you open up the question of why God can't instead be defined in terms of evil, and the evil be pre-existing, with God being the non-thing.
  19. It's no problem man, I enjoy having these types of conversations. It's good to have your comments too.

    I understand that your doctrine teaches these things. I'm not sure if you were responding to my hypothetical argument with this, or if you were just trying to educate me on what you believe. Either is fine with me, but I need to know which one so I can better respond.

    If God can't at least be defined, then any questions of God are impossible to answer. If God really couldn't be defined in some way, then it's impossible to believe he exists/doesn't exist. If I asked you if you believe in ljfaghakdgj, you'd have to have a definition before you could begin to have a conversation about it.

    You're asking me to assume and respect things about something that I don't believe in. That's impossible. ;)

    If you're convinced of that, then you have a misunderstanding. First off, my position isn't to simply say "there are no gods". My view of the question of gods is to first define what is meant by "God". Then I make a decision about it. Different people mean different things when they say "God".

    The commonly held concept of the Christian God (all knowing, all powerful, creator of all that exists, yet holds us accountable for evil) is logically impossible. That's what explains my atheism with respect to that concept.

    What you're doing is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. This means you don't know how something happened, so you just assume a cause. "I can't think of any explanation for the universe, so it MUST be a creation" - this is an error in logic. Also, the existence of apparent laws of physics isn't good enough to be evidence of a creator.

    The only logical answer to our existence is to say "we don't know", rather than jump to a conclusion that it was created by a being.
  20. Yes, I see your argument, evil exists because we can observe its effect. I don't think evil doesn't exist, for the record. It is a thing in the context of something that has an observable interaction with other things, as you accurately point out, but it's a non-thing in the context of creation: it is as uncreatable as nothingness is uncreatable -- it doesn't need to have been created to explain its existence. Even in a purely philosophical sense where we recognize the existence of evil as a "thing," we also don't have to ignore that it's existence can be explained without it needing to have been created.

    The intention of my argument was to help you modify your premises to more accurately reflect Christian doctrine, to demonstrate that Christian doctrine can explain the existence of evil without it needing to have been created.

Share This Page