3rd Gen said-
Adamah said "as a Xian aren't you and the rest of the believers supposed to be displaying the "FRUTAGES of the spirit"? (capitalization mine) I am relatively new in my exit and my beliefs are still evolving as I gradually learn and grow, but I do know that the word frutage is PLURAL for fruit.There is no such word as frutages. That is like saying fruitses. Love, joy, peace, etc. are the "frutage of the spirit" OR the fruits of the spirit. Sorry for going off topic but for a person as prone to flaunt his higher education and thinking ability I would simply point out a gramatical error that was a pet peeve of mine when I heard it at the KH.
Better inform the dictionary editors, since 'fruitages' IS the plural of 'fruitage' (and you're unintentionally correct, since there is no word 'frutages': the actual spelling is "fruitages" (note the 'i'). Always good to check your own spelling BEFORE calling others out on their grammar, in keeping with Jesus' words of pointing out splinters in the eyes of others, when a rafter is in one's own eye).
'Fruitage' is a derivative of 'fruit', which plays a dual role in English as both an 'uncountable noun' AND a 'countable noun'.
The word 'blood' is an example of a word which serves both roles in English, too, unlike in ancient Hebrew, where the singular ('dam') and plural ('damim') forms convey quite-different meanings (even beyond just the plural sense of indicating 'more than one'). The transliteration 'bloods' doesn't exist in English, but not recognizing the distinction between the singular and plural forms in Hebrew played a critical role in the development of the flawed JW blood policy, when NWT translators missed the important distinction that 'countable nouns' play in English, leading to their mistranslation in Genesis 9).
But back to fruit: the plural forms ('fruits', and also derivative words, like 'fruitages') are used to indicate different types of fruit; in the analogy used in Galatians, the plural may be used to indicate actions that result from manifestations of Holy Spirit that are performed by the same individual over time, or the varied manifestations displayed by different members of a group over time. Since my comment was directed to individuals in this thread, that was my point. So although not as common a usage as 'fruitage' (unless you're an ex-JW, where 'fruitages' was commonly heard in the KH, as you pointed out), 'fruitages' IS perfectly-acceptable usage depending on it's application.
But don't take my word for it: here's dictionary.com, which lists 'fruitages' as a synonym of 'fruitage', so unlike the difference in Hebrew between 'blood' and 'bloods', your objection seems to be a 'distinction without a difference':
http://m.dictionary.com/synonym/fruitages?linkid=jluc57&srcpage=definition&site=dictwap
Lisa Rose said- Yes, he is giving Athiesm a bad name.
Off the top of your head, can you name ONE atheist whom you think gives atheists a GOOD name? Hitchens? Dawkins? Dillahunty?
Per most theists, the name 'atheist' itself is a dirty word, where the only "good atheist" is a dead one (or at least, one who keeps their mouth shut and doesn't spread their blasphemous talk to others).
Not that it matters: usually the objections of theists condense down to simple 'tone trolling', a tacit admission that the atheist cannot be defeated by reason in a moderated debate, so the theist can only protest by criticizing their 'style' (which is a form of ad hominem; it's not attacking their argument, but their methods). Tone trolling relies on the 'style over substance' fallacy, one that many believers are prone to not even realize IS a fallacy (although it is referred to in the Bible many times, where even the stones are said to cry out if needed, out of the mouths of babes, etc).
Of course, many believers absolutely HATE when the same standard they apply to atheists is applied to them, since they often feel entitled to assume a privileged position in asymmetric conflict, expecting to spout THEIR beliefs with total immunity but then play the role of the victim of a "mean bully", or balk when an atheist dares request evidence to back up the theist's assertions.
Lisa Rose said- If a Christian told him what him what he ought to believe as an Athiest, he wouldn't stand for it.
Actually, my threshold for acceptance of theism is even LOWER than yours for atheism: I only demand compelling evidence to adopt a belief in anything (eg I believe in radio waves, since I can perceive evidence for their existence). Usually when I ask the question of a theist of what evidence I could POSSIBLY present to convince them that God doesn't exist, the more honest ones will admit that there's NO CONCEIVABLE EVIDENCE that could possibly make them change their minds, due to their strong avowed faith, which makes their beliefs immune from ANY challenge. And THAT'S the asymmetrical position we are in: they approach discussions with a closed-mind, dead-set in their beliefs, and the approach of skepticism requires just the opposite, of being willing to examine any new evidence as it's presented.
From here though, 'faith' seems actually to be just a polite way of describing 'dogma', since there's no difference I can see.
Lisa Rose said- But he tells Christians what they should believe, based on his superior knowledge, and throwing in the views of well known Christian scholars, as if that give his arguments added authority.
Well, yeah, no kidding: that's why I did it. It's called an "appeal to authority", and it's a perfectly-valid rhetorical approach to cite authorities to back one's claims. The next question becomes whether the cited authorities reflects the consensus opinion in their field of expertise, since as the article above points out, most lay people can't study the many available scholarly resources that contain vital clues that lead to the truth, and most people generally must rely on others who are more knowledgable in certain areas (like doctors, auto mechanics, etc).
Speaking of grammar, you know what gives theists a bad name? Repeatedly mispelling the very word that describes one's belief system (theism, a belief in Gods). It's actually spelled 'theist', and hence the proper spelling of a non-believer is 'atheist'.
Lisa Rose said- Adamah, you are a bully.
You value your own emotions and desires over reality and what IS known to be true. If you feel you're being beaten up by the truth, then you've got to ask yourself if your beliefs need to be better-aligned with the truth, or if you want to holdfast to those beliefs but strengthen your faith. The choice is yours....
Ruby456 said-
I wish you wouldn't give emotion such bad press. There is such a thing as emotional intelligence you know. And i don't think believers are defending faith based primarliy on emotional reasons as I think cultural beliefs (including religious beliefs) are based primarily on the mental shortcuts we and the group we belong to habitually take. A kind of confiramtion bias in how we and our group judge things. To overcome this we need to, every now and then, challenge how we recognise things. Okay yes emotion does play a part but i don't think this is as significant as habitual thinking.
You seem to be asserting that habitual thinking doesn't result from emotional factors (such as resistance to change, AKA dogmatism)?
Anyway, I recommend reading books on the topic of E IQ, a topic of interest since the concept emerged in the 1980's.
Of course, emotional intelligence is NOT defined as allowing one's emotions to run willy-nilly, or to serve as an excuse for allowing emotions to 'rule the roost' and overtake decision-making processes. In fact, such vulnerability to emotional manipulation is commonly-found in ex-JWs, simply because the JWs (and other religions) are magnets for such personality types, manipulating people based on their emotional vulnerabilities to get them to join in the first place! That's how cult "love bombing" operates.
The believers here are giving emotions far-worse press than atheists ever could, since whether they recognize it or not, they're exposing their own weakness. As ex-JWs, we all should know Xian theology well enough to know that if a person has strong faith as a believer, they shouldn't feel the need to defend their beliefs from challenges, in the first place! Instead, faith itself SHOULD be enough.
Adam
