What is the acid test?

[Brown Cat]

Originally posted by Brown Cat

The bittersweet nightshade plant is related to tomatoes and has fruit that looks like small red tomatoes but are very poisonous. I think one should examine "fruits" very closely to insure that appearances don't deceive. Sometimes you gotta be very careful that certain fruits that look good are in fact, good and not harmful.

Then I guess that by tasting the actual fruit, and becoming ill, you would then know something about the plant from which it came, right?

That would be one way though but definitely not the preferred way. I don't think I'd care for the result as the possibility exists that "ill" could be replaced with "dead". The better way would be to learn from trusted sources who know of the harm it could cause.

[Brown Cat]

Continued:

Or you would also want to look at the evidence that some have gotten sick and died as a result of eating these fruits (I found out later they're really closer to berry size, but the analogy still works). The acid test in this case has been done by others and it would be foolish for one to ignore that evidence and go ahead and put them in your salad because you may want a personal witness of it.

Doesn't everyone form his or her belief system on things he or she sees and hears? The thing we need to do is take a comprehensive view that considers all the data as much as possible. Big problems occur if we selectively choose some evidence and disregard other pertinent information that argues against what we'd like to believe.

[Cow Poke]

There's a lot we could probably argue about, but what's the use? Really? Where does that lead?

I don't think I could have been any more conciliatory in that post, OC.

Anyway, on this one point, I was asking specifically of "Fruits of the Holy Spirit" that seem to come via other means than the Holy Spirit.

Why add "Holy" when the Bible calls them the "fruits of the Spirit"? Is there a distinction you're trying to make?

I don't believe Satan can imitate the "Fruits of the Spirit". If so, then those fruits are mis-labeled.

Then you're missing the point entirely, OC.
You don't think somebody who is NOT a Christian can exhibit "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness OR temperance?

Can you, watching a person you don't know - for example a nurse taking care of a patient - and say 100% that the care they are giving is a "fruit of the Spirit" or is NOT a "fruit of the Spirit"? Can you watch a mother wipe the tears from her child and say, with authority, "yes, THAT is love... definitely a fruit of the Spirit"? Or would you be able to say -- "no, she's just being a mother - that 'love' is NOT fruit of the Spirit".

When you say Satan can't imitate the "Fruits of the Spirit" -- then they're mislabeled --- THAT is my POINT, OC --- that's what an IMITATION IS. What I'm getting at is, how do you, from the outside, declare with certainty that somebody's "love" is or is not a fruit of the Spirit?

[Cow Poke]

What you are describing as "REAL" loss is your interpretation of something physical and worldly. I think that spiritual persecution can be just as painful even though it cannot be seen.
God bless,

jo

You missed it entirely. When I said "real", I did NOT mean "physical" as opposed to "spiritual". I meant "REAL" as in INTENSITY. If somebody hit me on the arm, I might say "he hit me".... if he hit me REALLY HARD, I might say he hit me REALLY HARD!!!

People use words differently than they used to. I hear "awesome" all the time to describe things as petty as somebody's cell phone bling. When I think of "awesome", I think of Isaiah standing in the presence of the Lord, seeing Him "High and lifted up, and his train filled the temple" that caused Isaiah to spontaneously declare "woe is me, for I am undone..."

If somebody laughs at me, or makes fun of me because I went to Church Sunday morning instead of going golfing with "the guys" -- I don't consider that "persecution".. that's just guys being guys. For me to think I've been "persecuted" in that case is a slap in the face to those who were burned at the stake or drawn and quartered or thrown to the lions.

I meant "REAL" persecution as opposed to somebody just snickering at me or making fun, and "calling that" persecution.

When we were kids, we might whine before bed "but I'm hungry", and my dad, who had BEEN through the great depression and had suffered greatly, could always be counted on to say "you don't know what hunger IS"... (I think, sometimes we did it just to hear him say that )

In that regard, some of the people today who complain about "persecution" -- i can hear the saints under the altar crying out "you don't know what persecution IS".

[OtherCheek]

I don't think I could have been any more conciliatory in that post, OC.



Why add "Holy" when the Bible calls them the "fruits of the Spirit"? Is there a distinction you're trying to make?



Then you're missing the point entirely, OC.
You don't think somebody who is NOT a Christian can exhibit "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness OR temperance?

Or course I do, and this would mean that the "NON Christian" is exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit too. That has been my whole point. Real love is never an imitation. Real peace is never an imitation. Real longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, brotherly kindness, temperance, patience, etc, none of these are imitations.

In other words, it does not require a Christian to exhibit the genuine real fruits of the Spirit. The Spirit has the power to influence "anybody" and lead "anybody" to do right. It's just that a Christian knows (or should know) more and have more light and knowledge and therefore responsibility than a non-Christian does.

I used the word "Holy Spirit" because I thought someone might try to be a smarty pants and accuse me of talking about an evil spirit.

When I see any act of genuine kindness--I definitely count that as "fruit of the Spirit". Even when a stranger wipes the tears away from a child and offers comfort. It is the Same Spirit that is promoting such tenderness and love whether it be in a Christian or not.

[OtherCheek]

Continued:

Or you would also want to look at the evidence that some have gotten sick and died as a result of eating these fruits (I found out later they're really closer to berry size, but the analogy still works). The acid test in this case has been done by others and it would be foolish for one to ignore that evidence and go ahead and put them in your salad because you may want a personal witness of it.

Doesn't everyone form his or her belief system on things he or she sees and hears? The thing we need to do is take a comprehensive view that considers all the data as much as possible. Big problems occur if we selectively choose some evidence and disregard other pertinent information that argues against what we'd like to believe.

Sometimes we may be asked to "try" or "taste" the fruit as an act of faith.

[Cow Poke]

Or course I do, and this would mean that the "NON Christian" is exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit too.

I think that's semantics. Just because somebody has love for somebody else does not mean these are THE "fruits of the Spirit" --- but the fruits of the Spirit DO include "love". Agape love, particularly.

That has been my whole point. Real love is never an imitation.

By definition, it CANNOT be. However, somebody can ACT like they love because they have ulterior motives.

In other words, it does not require a Christian to exhibit the genuine real fruits of the Spirit.

Again... just because a momma loves her newborn baby does not necessarily mean THAT love is a fruit of the Spirit, anymore than a momma dog licks and protects and cleans and nourishes her puppies. Does the momma dog have "the fruits of the Spirit"?

The Spirit has the power to influence "anybody" and lead "anybody" to do right. It's just that a Christian knows (or should know) more and have more light and knowledge and therefore responsibility than a non-Christian does.

Momma dogs? Monkeys?

I used the word "Holy Spirit" because I thought someone might try to be a smarty pants and accuse me of talking about an evil spirit.

Ah, perfectly understandable. Thanks. (and please note - I didn't know, so I asked - and it did NOT lead to an argument! )

When I see any act of genuine kindness--I definitely count that as "fruit of the Spirit". Even when a stranger wipes the tears away from a child and offers comfort. It is the Same Spirit that is promoting such tenderness and love whether it be in a Christian or not.

OK, seriously... when a primate does this same thing, is it "fruits of the Spirit", or just maternal instinct.

[OtherCheek]

By definition, it CANNOT be. However, somebody can ACT like they love because they have ulterior motives.

Then it wouldn't be love, would it.

Again... just because a momma loves her newborn baby does not necessarily mean THAT love is a fruit of the Spirit, anymore than a momma dog licks and protects and cleans and nourishes her puppies. Does the momma dog have "the fruits of the Spirit"?



Momma dogs? Monkeys?

OK, seriously... when a primate does this same thing, is it "fruits of the Spirit", or just maternal instinct.

Ah. Straining at gnats again, I see.

Let's say that animals are different than humankind in that animals live by the laws of the animal kingdom--pure instinct, survival of the fittest, etc. While humans are to live by higher laws (or principles if you wish)

Do you see humans as animals, or as something higher? Do you see all humans as being created in God's image, or do you see them as animals unless they become Christian?

[Cow Poke]

Ah. Straining at gnats again, I see.

Come on, OC -- we've been having a very civil discussion, and I'm asking an honest question. No need for this kind of comment.

Let's say that animals are different than humankind in that animals live by the laws of the animal kingdom--pure instinct, survival of the fittest, etc. While humans are to live by higher laws (or principles if you wish)

But this "pure instinct" is not always violent or destructive, OC.

Do you see humans as animals, or as something higher? Do you see all humans as being created in God's image, or do you see them as animals unless they become Christian?

Are you being facetious, OC? Of COURSE animals and humans are different. The main difference, IMO, is that we have souls.

Do you deny that a momma monkey can APPEAR to love and cuddle and snuggle her baby, in a very similar way to humans?

[OtherCheek]

Are you being facetious, OC? Of COURSE animals and humans are different. The main difference, IMO, is that we have souls.

Do you deny that a momma monkey can APPEAR to love and cuddle and snuggle her baby, in a very similar way to humans?

And we also have "conscience". Animals don't. Some animals eat their own young too. Animals are governed by instinct, humans are governed (hopefully) by by logic, reason, and a moral compass.

Are you suggesting that your own love of God is a form of animal instinct?

In case you need specificity, I'm talking about "Philia" and "Agape" types of love. But mostly agape. Do you know any animals that demonstrate agape? I don't. Would you say that non-Christians are incapable of agape love? Or are non-Christians capable of agape?

[Brown Cat]

Do you see humans as animals, or as something higher? Do you see all humans as being created in God's image, or do you see them as animals unless they become Christian?

I think your words that I highlighted are key. Because humans are created in God's image there is a great capacity for good, although mankind's fallen nature after Adam's sin has damaged that image. God's influence remains in the world and the Holy Spirit continues to influence men often in indirect ways that really can't be called fruits of the Spirit as defined in Galatians 5. A lot of times we just see qualities in people in that list that are just the result of man's capacity for good. We can't really say that these acts are necessarily the fruit of the Spirit just as we can't always say when people commit great evil that it was done by direct demonic influence.

In the OT, the Holy Spirit came on people and directly influenced them for His specific purposes at the time (e.g. Balaam in Numbers 22-24 and King Saul in 1 Samuel 19). Neither instance was a permanent condition. But what you have in Galatians 5 is the result of the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life, the constant indwelling where God energizes the Christian's life after the new birth.

As a believer grows in Christlikeness, these qualities began to grow in his or her life. Oftentimes we fall short in these qualities, along the way; I know I certainly have. But like fruit grows on plants in the natural realm, so they increase in the believer's life whose heart and will are fully yielded to God. When this happens, that is what the "fruit of the Spirit" really means.

[Cow Poke]

And we also have "conscience". Animals don't. Some animals eat their own young too. Animals are governed by instinct, humans are governed (hopefully) by by logic, reason, and a moral compass.

None of this negates the fact that animals CAN certainly appear to exhibit human-like conduct - particularly the primates. (Yes, OC, humans don't always obey the "higher moral compass" model, sometimes even going WAY off the chart -- Ted Bundy? Jeffry Dahmer?)

Are you suggesting that your own love of God is a form of animal instinct?

Come on, OC. You would have to look at my comments with a pretty jaundiced eye to read that into what I said.

In case you need specificity, I'm talking about "Philia" and "Agape" types of love. But mostly agape. Do you know any animals that demonstrate agape? I don't. Would you say that non-Christians are incapable of agape love? Or are non-Christians capable of agape?

OK, earlier you insisted that we NOT get "too specific". NOW you're narrowing down the scope of discussion.

Sorry, no more clarity will be given. The Spirit is best for teaching actual specifics and application. It suffices me to discuss things in generalities here, because whenever we discuss specifics, then the spirit of argument and contrarianism takes hold and dominates from there on.

But NOW you want to narrow it to " "Philia" and "Agape" types of love."

You were talking about a "panel" observing this, OC. Do you think it is possible for a panel to discern with 100% accuracy what is agape or eros or philia or storge by looking at a particular person? You think that each type of love ALWAYS looks exactly like what it is? I would suggest there are MILLIONS of people who have been duped, believing that a person loved them with a particular type of love, only to find out it was a less altruistic type.

And I noticed you chose not to deal with my comment on "civil discussion", OC. I think this is a clue to why JB has "turned into a monster" when he was a perfectly lovely conversant prior to that. No matter how civil one tries to be, there can be that...

Ah. Straining at gnats again, I see.

... kind of comment.

I'm maintaining civility, here, OC. You SEEM to be on the path of taking things I say and using them to try to start a battle. How bout let's keep this civil - it would be a wonderful exception for BOTH of us.

[OtherCheek]

OK, earlier you insisted that we NOT get "too specific". NOW you're narrowing down the scope of discussion.

But NOW you want to narrow it to " "Philia" and "Agape" types of love."

CP, you are talking about the kind of love that a momma cat has for her litter. And compare that kind of love that we call the fruit of the Spirit. That is soooo far off from the scope of this discussion that I'm trying to not laugh. Really.

ENOUGH!

[jo7241974]

OC,

I admit I DO laugh at many of CP's posts. I rarely respond to him any more.

God bless,

jo

[Cow Poke]

CP, you are talking about the kind of love that a momma cat has for her litter. And compare that kind of love that we call the fruit of the Spirit. That is soooo far off from the scope of this discussion that I'm trying to not laugh. Really.

ENOUGH!

I am demonstrating, OC, that it is not guaranteed that you can look at "love" from the outside, and determine what's going on on the inside.

And you are becoming rattled. I'm being very civil.