lol Nigee.

Crazy, you make a great point about being called to love our enemies--as ourselves, no less! That's practically impossible (Even Gandhi once hit his wife, I am told), and sometimes that love just is not in me! For those who haven't read the daily post, here's where Jesus says the power comes from--Jesus uses an analogy that all of his listeners were familiar with when he says that he's the vine (the trunk, the main vine) and we are the (side) branches. Today we might think of it as being plugged in to Jesus, the source of power.

Here's the part of today's reading that deals with this topic: John 15:1 “I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more. 3 You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me.
5 “Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. 6 Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned. 7 But if you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for anything you want, and it will be granted! 8 When you produce much fruit, you are my true disciples. This brings great glory to my Father."

It seems obvious to me that Christ isn't saying "if you follow me you'll get rich" although this example of scripture and ones like it are probably the root of that sort of thinking. The question is what is the fruit. What is it to bear fruit? Have children? Bring converts to the church? Be virtuous and an example to others? All of the above or none?

To bear spiritual fruit. The choice is between the true and false self which Paul speaks of I believe. It is a journey from one to the the other which takes time hence the notion of pruning, a cutting away, over time, of that which does share in the life of the Christ.

I'm seeing an interesting theme that seems to be unintentionally carried across the philosophy thread and this one. In Job, over there, we have a biblical figure who Much like Christ warns his apostles loses much but is restored by God. Then today we get this reading that one the surface appears to say the opposite. I agree that we're talking about spiritual fruit, but how do you define spiritual fruit? I'm a bit curious.

Ever heard that song that John wrote in memory of JC, 'Hey Jew'.
Also another one for when he was on the cross, 'Help'

Of course McCartney was an atheist and mocked JC penning 'The Fool on the Hill' but he respected the Disciples to whom he dedicated one of his greatest pieces 'Saint Peters Lonely Hearts Club Band'

The Fruit is the growth of the Christ within us. There is an implication of plurality in the term "fruit" but I think that it is better understood as the many manifestations of one fruit. One follows the commandments of God at first but, as Christ grows within one, they cease to be commandments and become spontaneous actions. Buddhism speaks of this in very similar language. The path is the fruit and the fruit is the path. In this way the commandments are more akin to gifts they are simply misunderstood by the false self.

Why do people feel the need to try and interpret and give their own spin on what is written in the Bible ........ does it need an explanation?
If it doesn't make sense now I guess it didn't at the time, that's why a lot of people can't be arsed with it, if it's not self-explanatory maybe it's just badly written, and just making up what you personally think it means is an unsatisfactory and unconvincing response. They should have adopted the 'KISS' principles.

Are you not giving your own spin now?

And besides he did ask how I defined it.

Then there is the host of problems in determining the meaning of ANY text as much deconstuctionist thought has laid out.

Perception is projection, we will perceive things written or said using our own world view and therefore it will be tainted/distorted to support our own beliefs.
A proper discussion on theology would be interesting but I find that so hard to achieve with committed God-botherers because they spend most if not all their time trying to re-affirm their own beliefs an objective debate is nigh on impossible

Plus which who would sit down to a debate with you when you're so rude? "God-botherers" indeed. lol

Greyson I think there are two chapters in the New Testament that speak about the fruit of the spirit, but a quick search only gave me one: Galatians 5.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Gal&c=5&t=NLTP&x=10&y=7
Verse 22: "But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!"

Mujus, you know what I mean, is it possible to have an objective debate with people who claim they know what God means or thinks.
I'm genuinely open-minded about such a fascinating topic, but speaking with people who have so obviously made up their mind one way or another tends to deaden healthy debate on the issues somewhat.

"Mujus, you know what I mean, is it possible to have an objective debate with people who claim they know what God means or thinks."

Well, Nigee, I don't think most Christians claim to know a priori what God means or thinks. They think He revealed Himself in His word, though, and that's why they're quite serious about interpreting it. (In theory anyway. Of course we all fall short of this ideal sometimes). But in particular, they tend to interpret it under the assumption that it does, in fact, make sense, which is a pretty natural corollary of thinking that it was inspired by a loving and all-powerful God in order to communicate to us.

Lots of people like to say that it's arrogant to think we could understand God; in one sense it's true that we can never understand/comprehend God. But in another sense, it's really insulting to God to suggest that He couldn't communicate with His own creatures if He wanted to.

Great response, Semck! Another point is that we actually *know* God, to the extent that he has revealed himself to us through his word and through his spirit tugging at our hearts. But in case that seems arrogant, it's not because we are better than anyone else--We are not. It's because we've decided to listen. But Nigee, it's very hard to entertain the idea that someone you know well, who has proven his existence over and over, does not exist. The Bible says somewhere "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." So a question that I'd like you to ask yourself is, Are you even listening??

Today's Bible reading is John Chapter 16...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=16&v=1&t=NLT#1
...in which Jesus' disciples are (finally) coming to faith, as Jesus' time on earth is almost up. There is a reference to knowing God near the beginning of the chapter: Verse 1: “I have told you these things so that you won’t abandon your faith. 2 For you will be expelled from the synagogues, and the time is coming when those who kill you will think they are doing a holy service for God. 3 This is because they have never known the Father or me. 4 Yes, I’m telling you these things now, so that when they happen, you will remember my warning. I didn’t tell you earlier because I was going to be with you for a while longer."

@NigeeBaby you are making all kind of assumptions about my attitude here that cannot be derived from what I said. For instance would a "God-botherer" have spent several months at a Tibetan Buddhist monastery getting personal instruction from a Lama? My interests are how many of these faiths have a inner congruity that go beyond their outward appearances and they are many. I THINK this is no accident. You speak of the assumptions of others but take no account of your own. Don't assume that simply because one gives their opinion that you can derive from that their motivations for doing so. I actually think that direct experience is the foundation of any real knowledge. With that I am with the Buddhists.

How odd that you were attracted to the most authoritarian variant of Buddhism.

I've never been more terrified than after I visited Labrang Monastery. Seriously Tibetan Buddhism is worse than the worst forms of Islam or Christianity.

Attack! ...Attack!

You have such a healthy attitude towards criticism, Buddha.

I don't know how anybody could voluntarily want to join the ranks of people who force impoverished peasants to lay face down in the dirt to show their devotion.

mmm... you're there again, Greysoni, poking at the wrong guy... I mean The NigeeBaby.
Just as I was thinking: "But... Here is the precious Babe I was expectant of from the marriage of Putin and Greysin!"
Am I the only one who sees an oracular meaning in every word of the Nigee Baby?

And then BigBang Putin comes onto the scene, and the trinity is complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZud_BP41es

BTW, normally they do have cushions, they just do this in the dirt.