Sin I believe is deadly. The opposite of goodness I would put as evil. (God is good.)
I think your "opposites" are preliminary and watered down. For example a child is impulsive, assertive. A long-time practicer of wicked ways becomes evil.
Think, "look what vpw, lcm, and obl have done." These are men who have fruit of wickedness in their lives. Wickedness is not a mild thing.
Fruits are the result of work. Sins are a type of work. (I was astounded to find out that evil men have friends, too. Of course their friends are like them.)
Goodness and evil -- if you work at doing good, your fruit is goodness. Those who work at evil become evil.
These are my fleeting thoughts and in no way exhaustive treatment of the subject. The PALE GAS sins I found on the internet, and I have extrapolated what I think the fruits of those sins would be.
The 7 deadly sins are sometimes defined as (Memory aided as PALE GAS). Sin produces sinful fruit.
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Produces arrogance and consequential separation from God.
Avarice/Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Produces selfishness. Destroys compassion.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Produces depravity. Destroys graceful living.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Produces hate. Destroys mercy.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Produces one's own physical death. A type of suicide or self-murder. Kills yourself.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Produces murder. Kills others.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
Produces destruction. Evil spirits allowed reign to destroy. Opens the way for them to steal.
These are my fleeting thoughts and in no way exhaustive treatment of the subject. The PALE GAS sins I found on the internet, and I have extrapolated what I think the fruits of those sins would be.
The 7 deadly sins are sometimes defined as (Memory aided as PALE GAS). Sin produces sinful fruit
I have not heard that there be any such thing as PALE GAS.
My wife pointed out to me that PALE GAS is like a memory device to remember the 7 deadly sins.(do I feel like a dunce) I didn't spot it and was confused by the term.
I think your "opposites" are preliminary and watered down
Yes, my list of opposites is rather preliminary, but I think evil is an accurate opposite for goodness. What other opposites might you list that would convey the fruit of an evil lifestyle?
hmmm... fruit is to be picked and eaten
This happens at harvest time or as a test to see if the fruit is fully rippened.
21envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like"
Like the fruit of the spirit, these are just not one time actions, but a flowing out of what has imbeded itself in the heart. Any which a little leaven leavens the whole lump and you cannot produce rippened fruit of the spirit. These seem like character builders whether good or evil. Can a branch bring forth both good and evil from it's heart. Not just a one time sinful action, but a practiced sinfull action.
You cannot serve both God and Mammon(whatever that is).
Mammon is a word used in the Bible to describe riches, avarice, and worldly gain. It is personified as a false god in the New Testament. Often, mammon is regarded as material wealth and thought to have an evil influence.
Middle English, from Late Latin mammon, from Greek mamns, from Aramaic mmon, riches, probably from Mishnaic Hebrew mmôn.
The Greek word for "Mammon", mamonas, occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (during the discourse on ostentation) and in the parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:9-13). The Authorised Version keeps the Syriac word. John Wycliffe uses "richessis". Other scholars derive Mammon from Phoenician "mommon", benefit.[citation needed]
From Wikipedia
Does is, possibly, just boil down to whether one is living according to Jesus's command to 1) love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and 2) love your neighbor as yourself or whether one is living selfishly regardless of the impact on others?
Fruits are the result of work. Sins are a type of work.....
Goodness and evil -- if you work at doing good, your fruit is goodness. Those who work at evil become evil.
Kit, you've treated the two differently. Work at good and your fruit is goodness. Work at evil and you fruit is evil. You arn't going to become goodness anymore than you are going to become evil....but your fruit is.
DDwrote
Convieniently the works of rhe flesh were listed before the fruit of the spirit
Galations 5....
Like the fruit of the spirit, these are just not one time actions, but a flowing out of what has imbeded itself in the heart.
cman wrote
ithink it's always harvest time Jerry
the fruit of the spirit is always around, just have to recognize it
not that you bon't
just sayin'
those opposotes i think are works of the flesh
I think fruit is the what shows up. How do you know an apple tree is an apple tree? The apples. An orange tree? The oranges. How do you know the spirit the fruit. "By their fruits you will know them."
That list of opposites, Jerry, we all have that fruit at different times, Christian, Jewish, Whatikki...both sides of the list. Some will have more than the others though, Christian, Jew, Whatikki.
Do all those "of the flesh" manifest the "works of the flesh"only? Do all those of the spirit manifest the works of the spirit only? By their fruits you shall know them.
It all seems to be weaving a tapestry that doesn't have clear cut lines with one group on one side and one on the other.
It all seems to be weaving a tapestry that doesn't have clear cut lines with one group on one side and one on the other.
How do you know an apple tree is an apple tree? The apples. An orange tree? The oranges.
well said Lindy
i think such notions are what gives us access to goodness and truth as they exist beyond the language we use to describe them
which then, allows us to see the one and selfsame "fruit of the spirit" that the Bible is describing, whether it is in a Buddhist's life, a Sufi's life, a Hopi's life, a Jesuit's life, etc...
and Christ is then seen (whose name is beyond names) regardless of the racial background of the writings that are used to give names to the fruit.
i think such notions are what gives us access to goodness and truth as they exist beyond the language we use to describe them
which then, allows us to see the one and selfsame "fruit of the spirit" that the Bible is describing, whether it is in a Buddhist's life, a Sufi's life, a Hopi's life, a Jesuit's life, etc...
and Christ is then seen (whose name is beyond names) regardless of the racial background of the writings that are used to give names to the fruit.
This sounds fine and all, but then you still have to reconcile the statement that Christ made of no one comung to the Father but by him(Jesus Christ). Can one come to the Father without knowing Christ's name? Or having heard his name and rejecting it, still come to the Father and manifest the good fruit?
i honestly dont think we have come to understand that kind of statement very well, drtyd
and i think it has a lot to do with our sense of identity, and how we project that onto the character of jesus
it may be that he meant "no man comes to the father but by me" ...as in "no man comes to father (ultimate cause) unless he comes the way I am coming to (and from) father right now as i speak to you, and as i have shown you," etc....
which, has a lot to do with the radical kind of contemplative life Jesus led
in all the traditions it is mentioned in, practicing "I AMness" is often about resting in "the witness" of a much greater subjective awareness
where what was once subject becomes object, and then again, and again, and again, etc...
more and more...i seriously doubt Jesus was promoting himself as The unique personality that leads to a God who is seperate from ourselves
as the story is commonly told in mainstream christianity (as well as in other traditions with saviors)
but rather, it may be that he knew that his perspective was the only way to comprehend and experience the causal end of things
and strange as it may seem, i think Jesus and Buddha were in complete agreement on this sort of thing (and other things)
not to mention in agreement with about a thousand other masters and rabbis and teachers and gurus in history
cuz the name "Jesus" is not enough, nor is the name "Christ"
and both are modern versions of names from other languages, anyway
not to mention how many times the story has changed since the telling it
he had to be talking about something else that is beyond language
and beyond individual personalities and names
cuz not only is he said to have a name beyond all names
but it is written that we are given such a name as well
there comes a point when the language always fails, and names always fail
but the fruit of it is evident in spite of the names and bloodlines
there comes a point when the language always fails, and names always fail
I'll give that language always fails at some point. It just is inadequate to convey spiritual truths. But it seems that the bible claims that the Name of Christ is the one exception to the idea that names always fail.But at the same time, the language we use around the name Jesus Christ(or however it is said in any other language)is subject to failure. It is the name Jesus Christ that is above all other names and unique when compared to Buddah or Muhammad or Ghandi etc. Let us call upon the name of the Lord, for therein is salvation.
But the fruit of the spirit sure seems present in good people who reject Christ, It is a puzzle to me.
I don't think you can whitewash everyone's rejection of Christ as simply being a point of view.There are plenty who are good people who have these fruit of the spirit qualities, yet deny that Christ is the only way to salvation.Acts4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."
I'm just trying to reconcile the concept with verses like Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.. Seems like there must be a difference between a corrupt tree and an unbeliever.
I know there are Christians out there who are able to practice their faith and not attribute corruption and evil to all others of different faiths or no faiths.
IMO, the idea that 'my way is the only right way, all others are corrupt' is a great flaw in any religion. I think it leads to all kinds of bad things...
Recommended Posts
Kit Sober
Sin I believe is deadly. The opposite of goodness I would put as evil. (God is good.)
I think your "opposites" are preliminary and watered down. For example a child is impulsive, assertive. A long-time practicer of wicked ways becomes evil.
Think, "look what vpw, lcm, and obl have done." These are men who have fruit of wickedness in their lives. Wickedness is not a mild thing.
Fruits are the result of work. Sins are a type of work. (I was astounded to find out that evil men have friends, too. Of course their friends are like them.)
Goodness and evil -- if you work at doing good, your fruit is goodness. Those who work at evil become evil.
These are my fleeting thoughts and in no way exhaustive treatment of the subject. The PALE GAS sins I found on the internet, and I have extrapolated what I think the fruits of those sins would be.
The 7 deadly sins are sometimes defined as (Memory aided as PALE GAS). Sin produces sinful fruit.
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Produces arrogance and consequential separation from God.
Avarice/Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Produces selfishness. Destroys compassion.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Produces depravity. Destroys graceful living.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Produces hate. Destroys mercy.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Produces one's own physical death. A type of suicide or self-murder. Kills yourself.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Produces murder. Kills others.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
Produces destruction. Evil spirits allowed reign to destroy. Opens the way for them to steal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Makes it hard to get the point.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm... fruit is to be picked and eaten
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
My wife pointed out to me that PALE GAS is like a memory device to remember the 7 deadly sins.(do I feel like a dunce) I didn't spot it and was confused by the term.
Yes, my list of opposites is rather preliminary, but I think evil is an accurate opposite for goodness. What other opposites might you list that would convey the fruit of an evil lifestyle?This happens at harvest time or as a test to see if the fruit is fully rippened.Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
ithink it's always harvest time Jerry
the fruit of the spirit is always around, just have to recognize it
not that you bon't
just sayin'
those opposotes i think are works of the flesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Convieniently the works of rhe flesh were listed before the fruit of the spirit
Galations 5
19"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, quarreling, rivalry, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21envying, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like"
Like the fruit of the spirit, these are just not one time actions, but a flowing out of what has imbeded itself in the heart. Any which a little leaven leavens the whole lump and you cannot produce rippened fruit of the spirit. These seem like character builders whether good or evil. Can a branch bring forth both good and evil from it's heart. Not just a one time sinful action, but a practiced sinfull action.
You cannot serve both God and Mammon(whatever that is).
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
i think mammon is one's self
where as fruit is there for all
the works of the flesh serve one's own self
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
From Wikipedia
Does is, possibly, just boil down to whether one is living according to Jesus's command to 1) love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and 2) love your neighbor as yourself or whether one is living selfishly regardless of the impact on others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Cool Belle,
This where giving and receiving come into play i believe.
I mean if one is always taking do they ever really have anything?
Giving is where true receiving happens.
And I don't mean money but our heart of giving to help.
Money being given is needed by some but it's so much more and bigger imo.
So fruit given has seed in it and what it yields we may not see directly.
But someone will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
DDwrote
cman wrote
I think fruit is the what shows up. How do you know an apple tree is an apple tree? The apples. An orange tree? The oranges. How do you know the spirit the fruit. "By their fruits you will know them."
That list of opposites, Jerry, we all have that fruit at different times, Christian, Jewish, Whatikki...both sides of the list. Some will have more than the others though, Christian, Jew, Whatikki.
Do all those "of the flesh" manifest the "works of the flesh"only? Do all those of the spirit manifest the works of the spirit only? By their fruits you shall know them.
It all seems to be weaving a tapestry that doesn't have clear cut lines with one group on one side and one on the other.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
well said Lindy
i think such notions are what gives us access to goodness and truth as they exist beyond the language we use to describe them
which then, allows us to see the one and selfsame "fruit of the spirit" that the Bible is describing, whether it is in a Buddhist's life, a Sufi's life, a Hopi's life, a Jesuit's life, etc...
and Christ is then seen (whose name is beyond names) regardless of the racial background of the writings that are used to give names to the fruit.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i honestly dont think we have come to understand that kind of statement very well, drtyd
and i think it has a lot to do with our sense of identity, and how we project that onto the character of jesus
it may be that he meant "no man comes to the father but by me" ...as in "no man comes to father (ultimate cause) unless he comes the way I am coming to (and from) father right now as i speak to you, and as i have shown you," etc....
which, has a lot to do with the radical kind of contemplative life Jesus led
in all the traditions it is mentioned in, practicing "I AMness" is often about resting in "the witness" of a much greater subjective awareness
where what was once subject becomes object, and then again, and again, and again, etc...
more and more...i seriously doubt Jesus was promoting himself as The unique personality that leads to a God who is seperate from ourselves
as the story is commonly told in mainstream christianity (as well as in other traditions with saviors)
but rather, it may be that he knew that his perspective was the only way to comprehend and experience the causal end of things
and strange as it may seem, i think Jesus and Buddha were in complete agreement on this sort of thing (and other things)
not to mention in agreement with about a thousand other masters and rabbis and teachers and gurus in history
cuz the name "Jesus" is not enough, nor is the name "Christ"
and both are modern versions of names from other languages, anyway
not to mention how many times the story has changed since the telling it
he had to be talking about something else that is beyond language
and beyond individual personalities and names
cuz not only is he said to have a name beyond all names
but it is written that we are given such a name as well
there comes a point when the language always fails, and names always fail
but the fruit of it is evident in spite of the names and bloodlines
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
But the fruit of the spirit sure seems present in good people who reject Christ, It is a puzzle to me.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I think you may be underestimating Christ, Jerry.
What you think that someone is rejecting,
could be just your view of Christ.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=13015
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I don't think you can whitewash everyone's rejection of Christ as simply being a point of view.There are plenty who are good people who have these fruit of the spirit qualities, yet deny that Christ is the only way to salvation.Acts4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."
I'm just trying to reconcile the concept with verses like Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.. Seems like there must be a difference between a corrupt tree and an unbeliever.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I Don't think there is an unbeliever.
There are unbelievers and fools.
But we are not to call anyone a fool.
I think this would also apply to unbeliever.
Corrupt trees for sure.
And the fruit that may seem sweet could be bitter.
But I've found that the what may appear bitter,
is actually sweet.
Certainly only One knows the heart.
And if I can stay in step with Christ enough,
He can bless and bring to pass his will within,
in due time....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I know there are Christians out there who are able to practice their faith and not attribute corruption and evil to all others of different faiths or no faiths.
IMO, the idea that 'my way is the only right way, all others are corrupt' is a great flaw in any religion. I think it leads to all kinds of bad things...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.