Evidence for God from Science

Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

Really, "fruits of doctrine" sounds like a spiritual political correctness stick.

Dear Heavenly Father,

Please bestow the gift of interpreting strange tongues, to everyone on this board, so we can understand what bbyrd009 is saying.

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive, and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part, rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar, then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive, and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part, rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar, then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

Where does the Bible say to judge a doctrine by the doctrine's fruit?

Kurieuo wrote:Really, "fruits of doctrine" sounds like a spiritual political correctness stick.

so now, fruit tastes like crap, and no one should judge causes by their effects, we can't even agree on "hey, this tastes good" or "hey, this unintended consequence is not worth it," results are now disconnected from actions, and it is judging now to even suggest that someone actually judge by the fruit, we are not to do that anymore, now we are going to judge by...um, by...uh. ya.

See how people who can make you believe absurdities can then make you commit atrocities, no offense meant. If you cannot witness the fruit of a doctrine, then you cannot judge by the fruit, and it is as simple as that. If someone asks you, "well, what was the result?" and you cannot discern what the result is (which in this case is very simple; if you are now a Trinitarian, spend the rest of the day not being a Trinitarian, and by sundown you will--or should--have a pretty good grasp of the fruit), imo take this as a sign that some political maneuvering is going on all right, but it has nothing to do with judging by the fruit of course, because God forbid you should judge by the fruit, right.

So, to put that another way, "we can't see the fruit, and we don't even know what you're talking about, this fruit thing, you are speaking in tongues now, and our doctrines come right out of the Word, which we think is the Bible, so they are just going to be divisive, and the "opposing" doctrine, that is not equally divisive, because it does not even exist, it is untrue, i just cannot show you how, because of course they have as much Scripture as i do, like, Scripture for Scripture, and pal, i got plenty of fruit to witness about that doctrine, only i can't witness any fruit of my own doctrine, because there is none, fruit does not even apply there, and of course i don't have to listen to them witness the fruit of my doctrine--just like i can do to theirs, but not mine--because it is mine, so of course i know it best, and i am in the best position to witness the fr...no, wait, i mean, just listen to Me, and believe what I Say, because i love Jesus. Trust me, honest injun. Cross my heart.

So, i don't mean this for you personally, it is just a general thing that goes on, in everyone, i do it, too.

If judging by the fruit sounds to you like a political correctness stick, then BAM please illuminate what you are going to judge by, since i notice that you did not supply this yet. Ty.

RickD wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive, and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part, rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar, then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

Where does the Bible say to judge a doctrine by the doctrine's fruit?

well Rick, you are not going to specifically find that, because you may of course judge doctrines however you like, once you decide to make doctrines in the first place, which i understand where that comes from, there are, after all, doctrines in the Book, and so the next logical step is to get defining them, right, and nevermind all that "Love believes all things" as a doctrine, for now, because after all how can we use that against people, how can that serve us (who, after all, all desire service).

So, see that my reply to that would be more like "Stop assuming that you can define doctrine, about the third or fourth time you define one, and someone comes along with an equal, opposing doctrine with equal, opposing Witnesses, and understand what people who are telling you they "know" some doctrine are actually telling you, and see that you know what fruit tastes like without any help."

The Book says "Judge by the fruit," and if you want to disqualify "doctrine" from that, that is your right, Rick.

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive, and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part, rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar, then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

Where does the Bible say to judge a doctrine by the doctrine's fruit?

well Rick, you are not going to specifically find that, because you may of course judge doctrines however you like, once you decide to make doctrines in the first place, which i understand where that comes from, there are, after all, doctrines in the Book, and so the next logical step is to get defining them, right, and nevermind all that "Love believes all things" as a doctrine, for now, because after all how can we use that against people, how can that serve us (who, after all, all desire service).

So, see that my reply to that would be more like "Stop assuming that you can define doctrine, about the third or fourth time you define one, and someone comes along with an equal, opposing doctrine with equal, opposing Witnesses, and understand what people who are telling you they "know" some doctrine are actually telling you, and see that you know what fruit tastes like without any help."

The Book says "Judge by the fruit," and if you want to disqualify "doctrine" from that, that is your right, Rick.

Where does the Bible say, "Judge by the fruit".

I'm just trying to understand where you get the idea that we're supposed to judge a doctrine by its fruit. Then maybe I can see how a doctrine even has fruit.

So, Where does the Bible say, "Judge by the fruit"?

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive,

Now who's being not only divisive but also quite inventive (to put it very charitably). Show me exactly where I said that I accept my doctrine because it is divisive. You will find it nowhere so please be careful not to invent things I didn't say. What I did say is that the expectation is the opposite of what you contend and in fact that is precisely what history proves.

bbyrd009 wrote:and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part,

I would say you don't have any support for your doctrine but I don't even know what your doctrine is. The fact is that the trinity is a necessary conclusion to a set of premises found in scripture. If you think you can tear it down then state your case.

bbyrd009 wrote:rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar,

Hey, I'll rip a cursed fig tree and plant a blessed cedar tree any day. I am Lebanese after all, cedar trees are sacred where I come from.

bbyrd009 wrote:then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

Reaching, yet again.

bbyrd009 wrote:ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

What I cannot see is what it is that you're talking about. You keep referring to some vague doctrine that supposedly produces good fruit and yet we see nothing but empty words. State your case and we'll be happy to tear it down for you.

Matt7
16You'll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

RickD wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

RickD wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:
The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive, and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part, rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar, then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who hold a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

Where does the Bible say to judge a doctrine by the doctrine's fruit?

well Rick, you are not going to specifically find that, because you may of course judge doctrines however you like, once you decide to make doctrines in the first place, which i understand where that comes from, there are, after all, doctrines in the Book, and so the next logical step is to get defining them, right, and nevermind all that "Love believes all things" as a doctrine, for now, because after all how can we use that against people, how can that serve us (who, after all, all desire service).

So, see that my reply to that would be more like "Stop assuming that you can define doctrine, about the third or fourth time you define one, and someone comes along with an equal, opposing doctrine with equal, opposing Witnesses, and understand what people who are telling you they "know" some doctrine are actually telling you, and see that you know what fruit tastes like without any help."

The Book says "Judge by the fruit," and if you want to disqualify "doctrine" from that, that is your right, Rick.

Where does the Bible say, "Judge by the fruit".

I'm just trying to understand where you get the idea that we're supposed to judge a doctrine by its fruit. Then maybe I can see how a doctrine even has fruit.

So, Where does the Bible say, "Judge by the fruit"?

^

bbyrd009 wrote:Matt7
16You'll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

I think you forgot to mention the subject, found exactly above the verse you quoted:

Matthew 7:15 wrote:Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Whomever else might want to respond to those two posts, by all means do.

The whole idea of the 'fruit' of a doctrine is simply made up in order to tear down said doctrine. It is meaningless to say if a doctrine doesn't produce 'fruit' then it's divisive. First of all, doctrines don't produce anything, it comes down to our interpretation of such. Second, who exactly decided that a good doctrine must produce good fruit? It does not follow. In fact I would contend it is the exact opposite. Every single Christian doctrine was and still is controversial and divisive. A doctrine is true or not based on its own merits, not how it is interpreted and practiced (thereby producing - or not - any fruit).

It is simply an indefensible position by any measure, logically, theologically, or apologetically.

So then, do not judge by the fruit, toss that one out, and accept that your doctrine is correct because it is divisive,

Now who's being not only divisive but also quite inventive (to put it very charitably). Show me exactly where I said that I accept my doctrine because it is divisive. You will find it nowhere so please be careful not to invent things I didn't say. What I did say is that the expectation is the opposite of what you contend and in fact that is precisely what history proves.

look, don't get me wrong, doctrine is divisive, and there is another side to that coin, namely when you find yourself in a group of people who are not divided over a doctrine, it is time to pause and reflect imo. A point may be to recognize that people are conflicted, and you do not suddenly lose all of your conflicted just because you have made a profession of faith, as is advertised to us. Another point may be that we seek "peace," we seek to eradicate the conflict, by accepting a doctrine, and then grouping up with other people who agree with this doctrine, becoming "us," and naturally those who hold whatever opposing doctrine become "them," and "Love believes all things" is not made into a doctrine by either side much, now, is it.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:and don't recognize that the guy you are contesting with has just as much Support for his doctrine as you got for yours, nevermind that part,

I would say you don't have any support for your doctrine but I don't even know what your doctrine is.

"Love believes all things," is my doctrine, at the moment. And, recognizing that i cannot get a witness of any fruit from either the Trinny or the Oneness crowd, because imo there is no fruit in either one, and when you list the tenets of them side by side--which i guess someone should do if they are curious the differences, and seeking to understand "Trinity"--you start to see the "political" influence, and might even make comparisons to Reps and Dems, if you like.

Byblos wrote: The fact is that the trinity is a necessary conclusion to a set of premises found in scripture. If you think you can tear it down then state your case.

well, another way to put that is the fact is, that is your opinion, and 50% of "us," roughly, have a different opinion, when "judge by the fruit" would clear everything up, and we can go back through all the posts that have been posted, since i asked for this, the fruit, and we can now witness the fruit, that has been witnessed so far, without fail.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:rip that fig tree out and plant a cedar,

Hey, I'll rip a cursed fig tree and plant a blessed cedar tree any day. I am Lebanese after all, cedar trees are sacred where I come from.

it is you who decides what that means, then, and you who said that the tree was cursed, when you have not shown this, and in fact, the fruit suggests otherwise, in that analogy, does it not, as we are right now witnessing the fruit in real time lol.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:then, and that "Love believes all things" thing, that is just some poetry, that really means "make everyone who holds a doctrine different from yours to understand you, upon pain of death."

Reaching, yet again.

i don't mean to be rude, so please try and take this the way that i mean it, that being that i see your lips are moving, but i cannot hear what you are saying; because you have only made an accusation, now, fair enough, but you have not established how or why you are making it. It has no witness. You have not provided a reasoning--which i will grant might be perfectly valid, if you make it, ok--to illuminate your accusation, you have only made an accusation. Yes, i put that baldly, on purpose, and a better reflection might be forthcoming.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:ok. So i made up "judge by the fruit" then, fine. See what you will see.

What I cannot see is what it is that you're talking about. You keep referring to some vague doctrine that supposedly produces good fruit and yet we see nothing but empty words. State your case and we'll be happy to tear it down for you.

so then, "my" doctrine of "judge by the fruit," and "love believes all things," is vague, and speaking in tongues, but defining God as, Trinity, in this case, that is perfectly reasonable, and we don't need to figure out what "fruit" even means, today, and doctrines do not even have any "results," per se, so that is why we can't witness any. And i am the one with "empty words," now, but you are the one who does not judge by the fruit, because, as Rick is surely demonstrating right now, that verse only applies to "people," "them" has to be people, "prophets" i guess, because that is what you read when you read Matt x:x whatever, so that is what It has to mean, right. And "Love believes all things" ha, we are not even addressing that one, not today at least, i mean after all who can make a doctrine out of that lol.

So, at the very least, we have learned that doctrines are divisive, people even fight and die over them, but they do not have any effects, no fruit to witness, good or bad. Hmm.

Byblos wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:Matt7
16You'll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

I think you forgot to mention the subject, found exactly above the verse you quoted:

Matthew 7:15 wrote:Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

there you go, must be prophets that was talking about then, my bad.