motionscribe

I was simply saying that having to present to God a basket of fruit in order to get into heaven after being saved by grace is not grace at all. Ok, so you're extending that verse to supposed believers. If a Prophet doesn't produce any spiritual fruit, then they are false prophets. If a believer doesn't produce any spiritual fruit, what does that make them? Now you can say that the deathbed guy didn't produce any spiritual fruit either, therefore he's a false believer, but he never got the chance to show you, so how do you know? If his conversion was the same as a sincere true believer that produced spiritual fruit, then he would've produced spiritual fruit as well, right? Aren't we all thorn bushes until God turns us into an apple tree? In the case of the deathbed apple tree guy, he didn't have enough time to produce fruit so we'll never know in this life. It's between him and God, and I'm pretty sure God knows if he turned him into an apple tree or not. . .

But you just said "Repentance and living a life that produces "good fruit" is evidence that your faith is sincere and have actually been redeemed." As Jakee and Ron pointed out, God knows your heart, so it seems the only practical use for that evidence would be for the believer to know they are on the right path and/or identify possible false teachers as you've mentioned in the OP. It's not like after being saved you then need to present a basket of fruit. That would negate the idea of grace, right? And just because someone converts on their deathbed doesn't mean they can't produce fruit. Perhaps they find themselves at peace. They may experience joy, and if time permitting, show forbearance /forgiveness regarding various family legal issues, rather than dying in spite and needlessly allowing the effects of their bad fruit to continue on long after they're dead.

I don't know, it seems that would that be more analogous to an atheist coming face to face with God after they've died.

I'm sure they can do that. But equally they can not do that, and carry on both being horrible and believing in Jesus quite happily. Why does God only care what some people do? I don't buy that. Even the scripture I quoted explicitly states that he "chastens everyone he accepts as his son." Now how that takes place in every instance of each believer's life, I don't know. I don't know what their issues may be or how God is working in their lives. It's a very personal thing between that person and God, so YMMV depending on a number of factors. "To whom much is given, from him much is expected" Yes, exactly - which means god doesn't care what you do, you can be saved regardless. And I asked you about that - most people of that opinion say you need to be saved by faith because simply existing in the real world is such a terrible sin that nothing good you do could ever balance it out, from god's point of view you're basically just sinning with every waking moment (probably while dreaming too- what do you think?)But you're now saying it is possible for god to balance the good and bad things you do and reward you appropriately... so why the arbitrary requirement for belief? We were talking about rewards for believers after they've already been saved and given spiritual life that is now capable of actually producing "spiritual fruit." It should also be noted that just because a Christian does something that they think is good, doesn't necessarily mean it's spiritual. For example, it they give to the homeless, but the reason for doing so was completely self serving, then they shouldn't expect to be rewarded for it. In this instance it was more likely an "act of the flesh." Perhaps they just wanted recognition or feel better about some sin in their life.

If we're saved by grace then I don't see why the time and place would matter, unless of course there is some deadline that I don't know about other than death.

Which is 100% irrelevant to what we're talking about. No, It demonstrates how a Christian can come to a point where their sin put's them in an utter state of despair, guilt and/or confusion among other things and cause them to question "if they genuinely believe." These are often considered signs of God's discipline. "My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son." "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness." "let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith." So this clearly shows how God cares for believers and what they do. That's what I thought we were talking about. I thought we already established that I believe we are saved by grace through faith. I also understand that many people have a problem with that. It's probably the oldest and most debated topic even among christian sects. It's probably why Catholicism initially came up with the idea of purgatory and indulgences that eventually led to the reformation. edited to change "disciple" to "discipline"

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/009MA_Kritios.jpg/220px-009MA_Kritios.jpg

Agreed. But that seems to fly in the face of the more conventional Christian thinking, which is that if you bear nothing but bad fruit - but repent as you are dying, and you believe yourself to be sincere - then all that bad fruit is wiped away from a theological perspective. Even with no good fruit to replace it. I don't really see a conflict there, just an unfortunate instance of spending a lifetime embattled with the "acts of the flesh" rather than experiencing the "fruit of the Spirit."

Evidence to who? The person in question will know if they genuinely believe. Then I think you might be underestimating the effects of persistent sin in a believers life. It tends to create a lot of confusion, steal their joy and cause them to question their faith, preventing them from experiencing the finer things of Christian life.

Ya, sorry if I made things weird with that whole pedicure thing. . .

If He's forgiving an offense, then naturally He cares, otherwise there would be no offense to forgive in the first place. You haven't mentioned any measure of the validity of belief. You have specifically denied that good behaviour has anything to do with redemption though. Repentance and living a life that produces "good fruit" is evidence that your faith is sincere and have actually been redeemed. If there is no evidence of saving faith, and all you're doing is insulting God's "Spirit of Grace" by using it as an excuse to sin, then it suggests that you might not really be saved to begin with. But again, you specifically said that behaviour has nothing to do with being saved. If we are saved by grace, then obviously it wasn't something that could be earned on our own. Once saved, you probably heard Ron talk about the process of sanctification which entails repentance and producing "the fruit of the spirit" I think Christians can go through periods of sin in their lives. If that sin persists long enough, they may grow uneasy and start questioning their own salvation and modify their behavior accordingly.

I've found myself in a state where marijuana has been legalized for recreational use. I can't lie, I'm tempted. . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFFTlDMTxwc&t

Ok then. Would you also agree that the poster who started this chain of discourse is misguided in his intended use of IQ and the implications thereof? Even success is subjective. You left out the part about social standards. "A person is smart, people are dumb."

Exactly, the only thing he wants from you is belief, and he doesn't care what else you do. Where does it say that? You just said that, didn't you? Where did I say that God doesn't care what else you do? It really sucks that I have to do this, but when you were a child, I'd suspect that you were bound and subject to your parents rules and probably punished if you disobeyed, right? When you became a man, you were no longer subject to that punishment, right? Does that mean that they didn't care if you disregarded everything they instilled in you as a child? If you failed to heed their direction, would they've not forgiven you and welcome you back into their home? Does that mean you should take advantage of their grace? No I didn't. I said that we can use the bible to justify practically anything we want to, but I never said that that makes it right. As I've already illustrated, it's most likely due to taking scripture out of context or relying on extra biblical text/ideas to form your religious ideology. For example, you originally believed that killing someone regardless of the reason for doing so would put one's eternal soul in jeopardy, but since then you've been given a lesson in Hebrew and informed about biblical texts that deal with the idea of self defense, not to mention the deadly dangers of moralism and relying on one's self to make things right with God. . . This is all really beside the point. I was initially trying to explain why I wasn't comfortable with judging one's decision to join the military and possibly killing someone. It's not necessary for one to be completely familiar with scripture in order to be saved. You don't even need to know how to read in order to accept Christ. I don't know what their religious beliefs entail. I don't know their understanding of scripture, or how much they've actually read or how much of their beliefs were influenced by extra biblical sources. If I had to judge, I'd want to have all the details so that I can judge each individual case on it's own merit. Yes, that is correct. But now you're ignoring the part where I posted the measure by which one uses to see if that belief is real or not. . . As much as I like you, I'll take that as a good thing. Your selective quoting, and obvious but failed attempt at tying me in knots demonstrates that you might not be as honest, nor clever as you let on, and has only distracted you from the fact that I've already addressed your original question, so there is no need for you to "struggle" with it any longer. If you think you're going to be saved in the afterlife regardless, why wouldn't you floor it through every intersection if that's what you felt like doing? Is that more inline with the "fruit of the spirit" that I've already mentioned or is it more inline with "the acts of the flesh," specifically, the lack of self control? See what I mean? That's that selective quoting thing that I was talking about. Assuming you've accepted redemption through jesus, what consequences? Aside from forfeiting the joys this life may have to offer regardless of whether or not one believes, I believe it's written that God will reward those in the next life according to their deeds in this life. I'm assuming those rewards or lack thereof will last for an eternity. I don't know about you, but I'll consider myself damned if I spend the rest of my life giving Ron pedicures every week in heaven for the next billion+ years. . . But it doesn't actually matter whether or not they do that. I think that's one of the most important parts. If we don't care to examine ourselves and modify our behavior accordingly, then we can't definitively say that we're saved to begin with.

IIRC, IQ tests were originally developed to identify those that might need special attention wrt to education. They weren't designed to ridicule and/or oppress certain people. My IQ suggests that I should be further along in life according to social standards, but the fact that I'm not suggests that there are other factors involved in determining one's capability.

No, I'm not asking for scientific proof. I'm asking how you're sure the soul is a biblical conceot It's right there in Matthew 19:25-26, Romans 10:9-10, Hebrews 7:25. It's also alluded to in John 3:16. But perhaps I'm taking it all out of context. Perhaps that's just what I want to believe. Maybe I'm wrong. You're welcome to present a biblical argument that counters the sole basis of Christianity, but that one is pretty solid. Other concepts no so much. For example, contemporary views of hell were probably influenced more by Dante's inferno than anything found in scripture. Exactly, the only thing he wants from you is belief, and he doesn't care what else you do. Where does it say that? If we were no longer subject to municipal penalties, it still wouldn't be wise to floor it through every intersection. I'm under the impression that there are still consequences for our actions, not only in this life, but the next as well. However, those consequences will be dealt with in the presence of God, not absent from Him. Furthermore: "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" More on that can be found in Romans. Also, keeping inline with the OP title: "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like." If a believer finds that their life is defined more so by the latter, then they should be concerned and desire to address those issues. "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith."

Link? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17547485 Here's the full pdf: faculty.chicagobooth.edu/bernd.wittenbrink/research/pdf/cpjwsk07.pdf Also, I don't necessarily disagree with your previous statement. It should be noted that this is the only study of it's kind and focused only on Denver, so as always, more studies are needed.

It is what it is. One will most likely find new insight and modify their beliefs as they read beyond john 3:16 (or wherever else they started) and apply biblical principles to their life. Although you just said those biblical principles could be anything, and may well have nothing whatsoever to do with what god may or may not want people to do? Ya it could. For example, you picked out one verse about not killing, but then apparently overlooked verses dealing with self defense and war. You also seem to have a strictly moralistic view of Christianity, and that any failure to live up to those morals puts one's soul in jeopardy, but that ignores the parts of scripture that say we were already condemned because of that failure, and that eternal life only comes through Christ. If we could somehow redeem ourselves by living in strict adherence to the law from this point on, then there would be no need for Christ in the first place. You brought up that Christians believe there is a soul. The idea of the soul/spirit is a biblical concept, just as the idea of it being saved is a biblical concept. If you're asking for scientific proof, then I can't help you there since it's all taken on faith. As you already pointed out, it's a belief. so god doesn't care what people do Of course He does, according to scripture He wants us to accept Christ's death and resurrection as the propitiation for our sin. I think the real question here is whether certain types of killings are considered sins or not. As I've mentioned above, there are parts of scripture that deal with the idea of self defense. Also, the original Hebrew word used in the 6th commandment is ratsach which is most commonly translated as murder. If it was meant to include killings during war or battle, then it would've most likely used the word harag.

Again, that's not what the study showed. The cops' bias in reaction time did not translate to their ultimate decision to shoot or not, as it did with civilian subjects.

This really isn't about blacks being more prone to violence than whites, but rather socioeconomic factors that may make it seem that way.

It is what it is. One will most likely find new insight and modify their beliefs as they read beyond john 3:16 (or wherever else they started) and apply biblical principles to their life. Huh? If I didn't want to find out I wouldn't be asking the question. What could possibly be bad about finding out? I'm talking in general about how some may pompously judge the way others act in precarious situations. Perhaps one day they might find themselves in a similar situation, and then it'll hit them like a ton of bricks - "oh, that's what it's like." What it's like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1nGPM9yHA How do you know there's any such thing as a saved soul? I don't. What prompted you to bring up the soul in the first? So now you do know what scripture really says? Cool, could you go back and re-answer the earlier questions? That is my interpretation. You obviously had your own. Others have their own. Some Christians believe that saved souls can get lost again, I don't.

You said you don't pretend to know what other people think. Not with regard to their perception of Christianity. He made his thoughts quite clear. and I told you. So what's the point? It's a process, so I don't see the point in judging another's spiritual condition. I've learned it's not wise to say how can they do this or how can they do that - you just might find out. . . Wouldn't the only souls in jeopardy be the one's that aren't already saved? There are certainly consequences for your actions, but losing your soul isn't one of them.

The idea of implicit/unconscious bias is a relatively new concept in scientific research. IIRC, A recent study showed that typical citizens showed bias in reaction time toward blacks as a threat. The same test showed that while police officers also had a bias in reaction time, it didn't translate to whether or not the police officers decided to shoot as it did with the civilian subjects. So given that, when it comes to a trained officer's decision to shoot a suspect, there are other factors involved rather than just race. Perhaps in most instances it has nothing to do with race at all? Also, not sure if it was the same study, but there was also bias among black police officer's reaction times against blacks as well.

Well ya, especially when this country is mostly comprised of white people. You're more likely to get killed by whites in white areas, and more likely to get killed by blacks in black areas. It's interesting how the media likes to talk about the disproportionate numbers when it comes to cops killing blacks, but then ignore the disproportionate numbers when it comes to the amount of gun violence committed by blacks along with other crimes in general. The numbers are also disproportionate when it comes to domestic violence, rapes and murders of black women. To me, the latter is a more important issue so that we can finally address the problem of systemic racism in this country along with other issues that are contributing to the problem. We can continue to focus on how the white gun toting christian conservatives are all fucked up, but it's not going to change the relatively higher rates of violence in black neighborhoods while the overall trend of violence in this country has consistently been on the decline over the past 30 years or so. . .

I don't think this country has anything much to do with manufacturing clothing, fruit, or anything else related to central american business that's worth having the OP repeat it ad nauseam. Trump is no Sam Zemurray.