BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS was very clear, specific, and accurate.

I respect and appreciate his contribution here, and the manner in which he posted his thoughts.

---

Shocker. Of course you do. You are two who repeatedly refuse to defend God's glory and honor against clear, egregious Marian idolatry and heresy. Birds of a feather flock together.

---

I try to persuade fellow believers. I know enough History to understand that persecution of a brother for a different understanding is not only poor strategy, but the Gospels make clear that such behavior grieves the Holy Spirit.

---

So... you would consider Jesus turning over the money changers' tables and driving them out with a whip "persecution" for a "different understanding"? How about Paul when he anathematizes (damns) those who bring works into the gospel?

What if this "different understanding" is dead, dead, wrong, and the promotion of it leads people to Hell? Doesn't that grieve the Holy Spirit?

So, YOU try to persuade, but I don't? And I just have to say, that you don't try to persuade. You dodge questions that challenge your view, and in response you attack the person who's asking the question by calling them a "bully", "Pharisee", or saying they have "rage", all so that you can escape the question. People have seen this over, and over, and over. You really need to stop glorifying yourself as "having the Spirit" because a Spirit-led person does not do this, especially repeatedly, over and over and over. A person with the Spirit does not flub the gospel as you did. Ordinarily, a Christian would be humbled by that and realize that they need fixing, not others.

---

First, comparing fellow Christians to the money changers in the Temple is dishonest on its face.

And second, you and you alone have pretended anyone in this discussion is selling a works-earn-salvation perversion of the Gospel. Everyone here has made clear that works are produced as an effect of being a servant of Christ, and in no way are meritorious. You continue to show great confusion on this point.

And third, BUDOS was correct to point out your many insults and attacks, which you deny then project against those you want to go after. More than that I will not go into here, not least because you ignore all counsel but your own.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil" - Proverbs 8:13

"Hate evil, you who love the Lord" - Psalm 97:10

"Hate evil, love good" - Amos 5:15

"Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good." - Romans 12:9

"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens." - Exodus 18:21

"From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way." - Psalm 119:104

"Therefore I esteem right all Your precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way." - Psalm 119:128

"A righteous man hates falsehood" - Proverbs 13:15

"I hate and despise falsehood" - Psalm 119:163

"I hate the work of those who fall away" - Psalm 101:3

"He who profits illicitly troubles his own house; But he who hates bribes will live." - Proverbs 15:27

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows." - Psalm 45:7

"I hate the assembly of evildoers, And I will not sit with the wicked." - Psalm 26:5

"I behold the treacherous and loathe them, because they do not keep Your word." - Psalm 119:158

---

Do not attempt to redefine "fruit of the Spirit" into a vague concept ("being aligned with God's will") just so you have an opportunity to smuggle some of your hostility into it.

---

I'm not redefining anything. There is nothing that is vague. I'm wholly arguing that anger and hatred CAN be fruits of the Holy Spirit in the truest sense of its meaning.

I'd ask you to point out exactly where I've been "hostile", but we all know that you always fail to do it, and plus, we all know this is just another dishonest attempt of yours to discredit me, in an attempt to escape the fact that you were exposed (which you can't - no one's forgotten). You really need to stop this defense mechanism, and stop thinking you have the ability to judge what's in other people's hearts, if you want to retain any sort of credibility.

---

BTD,
We are going to stay with the original claim you made, because that is the point under discussion:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Nothing you've quoted and nothing you've said since changes the fact that Paul explicitly defines the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223, and hate/anger are not included. In fact, Paul places anger, rage, and hostility in the category of works of the flesh (Gal. 5:1921) and instructs believers to "rid yourselves of anger and rage" (Col. 3:8).

The verses you listed about hating evil are true and important, but they don't redefine Paul's list, nor do they turn "hate" or "anger" into fruits of the Spirit. They simply teach that believers should reject evil which is fully compatible with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol.

As for your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and sharing the gospel: Those qualities flow naturally from the fruit Paul actually names especially love, kindness, goodness, and gentleness. But again, they do not replace or expand Paul's list. The list is fixed because Paul defines it.

Regarding your comments about hostility or motives: I'm not going to follow you into personal accusations, that is an area where your skills definitely supersede mine. I prefer to keep the discussion focused on Scripture, not on one another's character. My point was simply that redefining "fruit of the Spirit" into a broad concept like "being aligned with God's will" allows anything including anger to be inserted into it. That's why I'm sticking with Paul's biblical definition, rather than a reframed one.

So to keep this simple and anchored:

• Yes, believers should hate evil.
• Yes, righteous anger exists.
• No, Scripture never calls hate or anger "fruit of the Spirit."
• Yes, Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly.
• No, those categories are not interchangeable.

If you want to continue discussing this, I'm glad to but let's stay with the text itself rather than shifting into personal accusations or unrelated questions.

---

If you don't want personal accusations, then why did you do them? Amazing.

So, to be clear... you believe that Spirit-moved empathy, understanding, compassion, charity, and the desire to share the gospel are NOT fruits of the Spirit?

---

BTD,
I'm going to stay with the original statement you made, because that is the point under discussion:

Quote:

---

"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

---

Everything you've said since then has moved away from that claim.

Your new questions about empathy, compassion, charity, and sharing the gospel are interesting topics, but they do not address your original statement. They are a shift in subject.

So before we go anywhere else, I'm asking you to clarify one thing:
Do you still stand by your original claim that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit?
Or do you want to revise that statement?

Biblically, Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly in Galatians 5:2223, and hate/anger are not included. Paul places anger, rage, and hostility in the category of works of the flesh (Gal. 5:1921) and instructs believers to "rid yourselves of anger and rage" (Col. 3:8).

The verses you listed about hating evil are true and important, but they do not redefine Paul's list, nor do they turn hate or anger into spiritual fruit. They simply teach that believers should reject evil which is fully compatible with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol.

Regarding your personal comments:
I'm not going to follow you into accusations or discussions about motives. I'm keeping the conversation focused on Scripture, not on one another's character.

So again, to keep this clear and anchored:
Do you still affirm your original statement that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit?
Or do you want to revise it?

Once you answer that directly, we can continue the discussion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS was very clear, specific, and accurate.

I respect and appreciate his contribution here, and the manner in which he posted his thoughts.

---

Shocker. Of course you do. You are two who repeatedly refuse to defend God's glory and honor against clear, egregious Marian idolatry and heresy. Birds of a feather flock together.

---

I try to persuade fellow believers. I know enough History to understand that persecution of a brother for a different understanding is not only poor strategy, but the Gospels make clear that such behavior grieves the Holy Spirit.

---

So... you would consider Jesus turning over the money changers' tables and driving them out with a whip "persecution" for a "different understanding"? How about Paul when he anathematizes (damns) those who bring works into the gospel?

What if this "different understanding" is dead, dead, wrong, and the promotion of it leads people to Hell? Doesn't that grieve the Holy Spirit?

So, YOU try to persuade, but I don't? And I just have to say, that you don't try to persuade. You dodge questions that challenge your view, and in response you attack the person who's asking the question by calling them a "bully", "Pharisee", or saying they have "rage", all so that you can escape the question. People have seen this over, and over, and over. You really need to stop glorifying yourself as "having the Spirit" because a Spirit-led person does not do this, especially repeatedly, over and over and over. A person with the Spirit does not flub the gospel as you did. Ordinarily, a Christian would be humbled by that and realize that they need fixing, not others.

---

First, comparing fellow Christians to the money changers in the Temple is dishonest on its face.

And second, you and you alone have pretended anyone in this discussion is selling a works-earn-salvation perversion of the Gospel. Everyone here has made clear that works are produced as an effect of being a servant of Christ, and in no way are meritorious. You continue to show great confusion on this point.

And third, BUDOS was correct to point out your many insults and attacks, which you deny then project against those you want to go after. More than that I will not go into here, not least because you ignore all counsel but your own.

---

You: "First, comparing fellow Christians to the money changers in the Temple is dishonest on its face."

How is that dishonest? Christians can be just as wrong and evil in their actions as those money changers. Christians are still sinners. Christians can be promoting very wrong things. Do you really not understand this?

You: "And second, you and you alone have pretended anyone in this discussion is selling a works-earn-salvation perversion of the Gospel. Everyone here has made clear that works are produced as an effect of being a servant of Christ, and in no way are meritorious. You continue to show great confusion on this point."

What confusion? The issue isn't about whether you consider righteous works "meritorious". The issue is that in your answer to the question "how does one go to heaven?", you presented righteous living as the way of salvation. You mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT JESUS' DEATH AND RESURRECTION AND OUR FAITH IN HIM. Your answer is all there, in black and white, people can go see for themselves, and already have seen it. You completely flubbed the gospel, and instead of humbly realizing it and engaging in introspection, you continue unwaveringly in your pride. This is pure and blind arrogance.

You: "And third, BUDOS was correct to point out your many insults and attacks, which you deny then project against those you want to go after."

You mean the same BUDOS who relentlessly attacked me personally with ultra-long posts? That BUDOS?

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil" - Proverbs 8:13

"Hate evil, you who love the Lord" - Psalm 97:10

"Hate evil, love good" - Amos 5:15

"Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good." - Romans 12:9

"Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens." - Exodus 18:21

"From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way." - Psalm 119:104

"Therefore I esteem right all Your precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way." - Psalm 119:128

"A righteous man hates falsehood" - Proverbs 13:15

"I hate and despise falsehood" - Psalm 119:163

"I hate the work of those who fall away" - Psalm 101:3

"He who profits illicitly troubles his own house; But he who hates bribes will live." - Proverbs 15:27

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows." - Psalm 45:7

"I hate the assembly of evildoers, And I will not sit with the wicked." - Psalm 26:5

"I behold the treacherous and loathe them, because they do not keep Your word." - Psalm 119:158

---

Do not attempt to redefine "fruit of the Spirit" into a vague concept ("being aligned with God's will") just so you have an opportunity to smuggle some of your hostility into it.

---

I'm not redefining anything. There is nothing that is vague. I'm wholly arguing that anger and hatred CAN be fruits of the Holy Spirit in the truest sense of its meaning.

I'd ask you to point out exactly where I've been "hostile", but we all know that you always fail to do it, and plus, we all know this is just another dishonest attempt of yours to discredit me, in an attempt to escape the fact that you were exposed (which you can't - no one's forgotten). You really need to stop this defense mechanism, and stop thinking you have the ability to judge what's in other people's hearts, if you want to retain any sort of credibility.

---

BTD,
We are going to stay with the original claim you made, because that is the point under discussion:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Nothing you've quoted and nothing you've said since changes the fact that Paul explicitly defines the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223, and hate/anger are not included. In fact, Paul places anger, rage, and hostility in the category of works of the flesh (Gal. 5:1921) and instructs believers to "rid yourselves of anger and rage" (Col. 3:8).

The verses you listed about hating evil are true and important, but they don't redefine Paul's list, nor do they turn "hate" or "anger" into fruits of the Spirit. They simply teach that believers should reject evil which is fully compatible with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol.

As for your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and sharing the gospel: Those qualities flow naturally from the fruit Paul actually names especially love, kindness, goodness, and gentleness. But again, they do not replace or expand Paul's list. The list is fixed because Paul defines it.

Regarding your comments about hostility or motives: I'm not going to follow you into personal accusations, that is an area where your skills definitely supersede mine. I prefer to keep the discussion focused on Scripture, not on one another's character. My point was simply that redefining "fruit of the Spirit" into a broad concept like "being aligned with God's will" allows anything including anger to be inserted into it. That's why I'm sticking with Paul's biblical definition, rather than a reframed one.

So to keep this simple and anchored:

• Yes, believers should hate evil.
• Yes, righteous anger exists.
• No, Scripture never calls hate or anger "fruit of the Spirit."
• Yes, Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly.
• No, those categories are not interchangeable.

If you want to continue discussing this, I'm glad to but let's stay with the text itself rather than shifting into personal accusations or unrelated questions.

---

If you don't want personal accusations, then why did you do them? Amazing.

So, to be clear... you believe that Spirit-moved empathy, understanding, compassion, charity, and the desire to share the gospel are NOT fruits of the Spirit?

---

BTD,
I'm going to stay with the original statement you made, because that is the point under discussion:

Quote:

---

"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

---

Everything you've said since then has moved away from that claim.

Your new questions about empathy, compassion, charity, and sharing the gospel are interesting topics, but they do not address your original statement. They are a shift in subject.

So before we go anywhere else, I'm asking you to clarify one thing:
Do you still stand by your original claim that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit?
Or do you want to revise that statement?

Biblically, Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly in Galatians 5:2223, and hate/anger are not included. Paul places anger, rage, and hostility in the category of works of the flesh (Gal. 5:1921) and instructs believers to "rid yourselves of anger and rage" (Col. 3:8).

The verses you listed about hating evil are true and important, but they do not redefine Paul's list, nor do they turn hate or anger into spiritual fruit. They simply teach that believers should reject evil which is fully compatible with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol.

Regarding your personal comments:
I'm not going to follow you into accusations or discussions about motives. I'm keeping the conversation focused on Scripture, not on one another's character.

So again, to keep this clear and anchored:
Do you still affirm your original statement that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit?
Or do you want to revise it?

Once you answer that directly, we can continue the discussion.

---

Did you not read and understand in my previous post that I have changed NOTHING about my claim?

You: "Do you still stand by your original claim that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit? Or do you want to revise that statement?"

Is that my claim? READ and THINK carefully.

I fully affirm my statement, every word. Now, after you've figured out what you got wrong, answer the question I asked.

**Post edited to ensure you don't have an excuse not to answer.

Me: "First, comparing fellow Christians to the money changers in the Temple is dishonest on its face."

BTD: "How is that dishonest? Christians can be just as wrong and evil in their actions as those money changers. Christians are still sinners. Christians can be promoting very wrong things. Do you really not understand this?"

It's dishonest because the merchants were not in the Church, while we are specifically commanded to care one for another as brothers.

You do not understand this, because all you do here is attack fellow Christians out of pride.


Me: "And second, you and you alone have pretended anyone in this discussion is selling a works-earn-salvation perversion of the Gospel. Everyone here has made clear that works are produced as an effect of being a servant of Christ, and in no way are meritorious. You continue to show great confusion on this point."

BTD: "What confusion? The issue isn't about whether you consider righteous works "meritorious". The issue is that in your answer to the question "how does one go to heaven?", you presented righteous living as the way of salvation. You mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT JESUS' DEATH AND RESURRECTION AND OUR FAITH IN HIM. Your answer is all there, in black and white, people can go see for themselves, and already have seen it. You completely flubbed the gospel, and instead of humbly realizing it and engaging in introspection, you continue unwaveringly in your pride. This is pure and blind arrogance."

At first I considered that you misunderstood what I said, so I clarified it. Now you continue to claim what you certainly know I did not say.

You are lying, and deliberately so. It's blunt to say so, but the 'blind arrogance' present is all in you, sir.


Me: "And third, BUDOS was correct to point out your many insults and attacks, which you deny then project against those you want to go after."

BTD: "You mean the same BUDOS who relentlessly attacked me personally with ultra-long posts? That BUDOS?"

You are lying yet again. BUDOS has gone to great lengths to be civil and support his points with Scripture, just as I have.

Your only response has been to lie about what we said and launch attacks.

Welcome back to 'ignore'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Me: "First, comparing fellow Christians to the money changers in the Temple is dishonest on its face."

BTD: "How is that dishonest? Christians can be just as wrong and evil in their actions as those money changers. Christians are still sinners. Christians can be promoting very wrong things. Do you really not understand this?"

It's dishonest because the merchants were not in the Church, while we are specifically commanded to care one for another as brothers.

You do not understand this, because all you do here is attack fellow Christians out of pride.


Me: "And second, you and you alone have pretended anyone in this discussion is selling a works-earn-salvation perversion of the Gospel. Everyone here has made clear that works are produced as an effect of being a servant of Christ, and in no way are meritorious. You continue to show great confusion on this point."

BTD: "What confusion? The issue isn't about whether you consider righteous works "meritorious". The issue is that in your answer to the question "how does one go to heaven?", you presented righteous living as the way of salvation. You mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT JESUS' DEATH AND RESURRECTION AND OUR FAITH IN HIM. Your answer is all there, in black and white, people can go see for themselves, and already have seen it. You completely flubbed the gospel, and instead of humbly realizing it and engaging in introspection, you continue unwaveringly in your pride. This is pure and blind arrogance."

At first I considered that you misunderstood what I said, so I clarified it. Now you continue to claim what you certainly know I did not say.

You are lying, and deliberately so. It's blunt to say so, but the 'blind arrogance' present is all in you, sir.


Me: "And third, BUDOS was correct to point out your many insults and attacks, which you deny then project against those you want to go after."

BTD: "You mean the same BUDOS who relentlessly attacked me personally with ultra-long posts? That BUDOS?"

You are lying yet again. BUDOS has gone to great lengths to be civil and support his points with Scripture, just as I have.

Your only response has been to lie about what we said and launch attacks.

Welcome back to 'ignore'.

---

- were not the Israelites commanded to love and care for one another? Weren't the money changers Jesus' own fellow Israelites? The comparison is FAR from being "dishonest".

- HOW am I "lying" about what you said?? It's all there in black and white, and I quoted you. THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR ANSWER ABOUT THE GOSPEL. People can see this for themselves, and both frodo and I noticed it and have tried to correct you. But you continue to resist. So "blind arrogance" is completely appropriate as your description.

- if you've forgotten all the ultra-long posts by BUDOS dedicated to attacking me personally, then you've either got memory problems, or very biased and dishonest selective memory. In other words, either you've forgotten, or you're the liar.

You can do better than this. I will wait until tomorrow to respond and give you more time to think more about your original statement and how this last post fails to explain how it fits Paul's list. Since I used biblical references which directly relate it, let's give you one more shot.

BUDOS said:

---

You can do better than this. I will wait until tomorrow to respond and give you more time to think more about your original statement and how this last post fails to explain how it fits Paul's list. Since I used biblical references which directly relate it, let's give you one more shot.

---

Did you figure out how you misrepresented my statement? Are you not going to acknowledge your mistake? And are you not going to answer my question?

These are important for you to acknowledge first, as you first have to acknowledge the correct statement that you're having me answer to, and you first have to answer my question because it applies directly to your argument about Paul's list.

Your repeated dodging of my points like this is exactly why I consider you to be in bad faith. So, ball's in your court.

"Again (Jesus) entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart" - Mark 3:1-5

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

BTD,
Well, I gave you another shot and, apparently, you are continuing to use blanks. That being said, I guess there is no need to wait until morning. So, let's get back to the issue, not your continued efforts to deflect from it.

You keep insisting I've misrepresented your statement, but you still haven't actually corrected it or pointed to where I may have erred, with any actual biblical and contextual documentation which directly refers to the "fruits of the spirit" as listed by Paul.

Here is the sentence you wrote that I'm responding to:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I've asked you multiple times a very simple, direct question:
Do you still stand by that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

Instead of answering, you've:

• accused me of bad faith,
• demanded I answer a different question, and
• claimed I'm "dodging" while you avoid your own words.

Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not change Paul's list in Galatians 5. Yes, Jesus was angry at hardness of heart, and yes, He hates evil. That does not make anger or hate "fruits of the Spirit."

Paul explicitly lists the fruit of the Spirit as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, selfcontroland he places anger, hostility, and similar attitudes in the category of works of the flesh.

So I'm going to be very clear:
I am not going to chase new questions or defend myself against accusations. I am staying with the statement you actually wrote.

Let's get you to the bottom line:
Do you still affirm that "hate and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit," or do you want to revise that?

If you continue to not answer that directly, then there's no honest conversation to continue.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

BTD,
Well, I gave you another shot and, apparently, you are continuing to use blanks. That being said, I guess there is no need to wait until morning. So, let's get back to the issue, not your continued efforts to deflect from it.

You keep insisting I've misrepresented your statement, but you still haven't actually corrected it or pointed to where I may have erred, with any actual biblical and contextual documentation which directly refers to the "fruits of the spirit" as listed by Paul.

Here is the sentence you wrote that I'm responding to:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I've asked you multiple times a very simple, direct question:
Do you still stand by that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

Instead of answering, you've:

• accused me of bad faith,
• demanded I answer a different question, and
• claimed I'm "dodging" while you avoid your own words.

.... Let's get you to the bottom line:
Do you still affirm that "hate and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit," or do you want to revise that?

If you continue to not answer that directly, then there's no honest conversation to continue.

---

Seriously, are you really this stupid, or are you just really, really dishonest?? Let me cut and paste my response from earlier:


**********************************************************

"Did you not read and understand in my previous post that I have changed NOTHING about my claim?

You: "Do you still stand by your original claim that hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit? Or do you want to revise that statement?"

Is that my claim? READ and THINK carefully.

**I fully affirm my statement, every word.** Now, after you've figured out what you got wrong, answer the question I asked."

**********************************************************


Now, PLEASE tell me you can spot the answer to your question whether I stand by my statement, in that response above.

Now that you've embarrassed yourself, can you finally acknowledge the difference between what YOU said I said (as quoted in my response above), and what I actually said? Are you honest enough to acknowledge your error? If not, then this is exactly what I mean by bad faith.

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

Love is a far better manifestation of the fruits of the spirit than anything hateful. Hate can be very dangerous. It can lead people to become fanatics, doing horrific things "in the name of Jesus", things Jesus never commanded and often the opposite of His command to love our neighbors and love our enemies.

An historic example is John Brown who brutally murdered multiple people for political reasons and tried to start a rebellion. He thought it was God's will although it's more likely he was demon possessed. His assault on Harper's Ferry is a direct precursor to the Civil War.

That a rabbit hole Christians should avoid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

Folks, when someone asks me: "Do you affirm your statment?"

And I literally answered: "I fully affirm my statement, every word."

And yet, repeatedly, in multiple posts afterwards, this person keeps saying that I still not have answered the question, even when I pointed him directly to my exact post where I had answered it, even highlighting it in BOLD, and this person STILL keeps saying I never answered it....

.... then you know this person is operating under a Spirit of blindness, deception, and confusion, which is not of God.

I'm glad you are all getting to see this. If you didn't already see how this person was compromised by his/her refusal to identify obvious and egregious marian idolatry and heresy, then surely you see it now. And it goes for those who supported this person, too.

Know them by their fruits.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

Your exact quotes were:

Quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

AND

Quote:

---

Are you guys really this spiritually dense, that you can't think of how hate and anger can be fruits of the Spirit?

---

"Spirit" is capitalize in both your quotes; therefore, it is implied that it is the Holy Spirit you're speaking of

BUDOS provided you the list from Saint Paul laid out in his letter to the Galatians, the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit.

You have tripled down to prove your point and refuse to admit that he is correct.

I understand what you're saying, but you were going indirect contrast of what Saint Paul says to the Galatians.

In Galatians 5:19 through 23 Paul explicitly says that hate and amity are in complete opposition to the fruit of the Holy Spirit

As a matter of fact, you have tried to add anger and hate as a "fruit" of the Holy Spirit when is clearly in contrast and opposition to the "fruits" listed in the letter.

You are completing God's divine attributes with human spiritual fruits. God's wrath is a perfect expression of his justice and holiness.

To my other Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ reading this post - please take this with the charity in which I type this - I want you all to please take a 20,000 foot view of this particular topic and fully understand where the unbiblical doctrine of sola scripture and pride can lead to you.

We have an intelligent individual who is trying to twist the Bible into his own destruction to prove a point out of pride or arrogance.

Please see how dangerous it is when you attempt to become your own magisterium.

I am not arguing that no one can interpret the Bible, but we must have guard rails on our interpretations else, we commit potential heresy like this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

Your exact quotes were:

Quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit?

---

AND

Quote:

---

Are you guys really this spiritually dense, that you can't think of how hate and anger can be fruits of the Spirit?

---

"Spirit" is capitalize in both your quotes; therefore, it is implied that it is the Holy Spirit you're speaking of

BUDOS provided you the list from Saint Paul laid out in his letter to the Galatians, the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit.

You have tripled down to prove your point and refuse to admit that he is correct.

I understand what you're saying, but you were going indirect contrast of what Saint Paul says to the Galatians.

In Galatians 5:19 through 23 Paul explicitly says that hate and amity are in complete opposition to the fruit of the Holy Spirit

As a matter of fact, you have tried to add anger and hate as a "fruit" of the Holy Spirit when is clearly in contrast and opposition to the "fruits" listed in the letter.

You are completing God's divine attributes with human spiritual fruits. God's wrath is a perfect expression of his justice and holiness.

---

First of all, **do you acknowledge that BUDOS is repeatedly refusing to acknowledge that I had already answered his question, even highlighting my answer in BOLD?

Secondly, can you discern that my original statement: "Hate and anger actually can be fruits of the Holy Spirit" NOT the same as the statement he claimed I made, which was "Hate and anger are fruits of the Holy Spirit"?

Thirdly, can you acknowledge that I've repeatedly explained that the reason I need him to answer my question, is because it goes towards me making my argument regarding Paul's list of spiritual fruits in Galatians 5?

Because if you can't acknowledge these, then I know that you are coming in the same spirit as he is, which is not of God, and thus I'll be wasting my time explaining anything to you.

So what say you?

C said:

---

To my other Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ reading this post - please take this with the charity in which I type this - I want you all to please take a 20,000 foot view of this particular topic and fully understand where the unbiblical doctrine of sola scripture and pride can lead to you.

We have an intelligent individual who is trying to twist the Bible into his own destruction to prove a point out of pride or arrogance.

Please see how dangerous it is when you attempt to become your own magisterium.

I am not arguing that no one can interpret the Bible, but we must have guard rails on our interpretations else, we commit potential heresy like this.

---

To the "Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ" this person is referring to:

Can this person, a Roman Catholic, actually be in the truth if he supports, defends, and even practices the egregiously evil marian idolatry and heresy that's been clearly presented to you, as spoken by their Church's popes, Doctors of their church, and bishops, and written in their official prayers and catechisms?

**** This person fully supports and defends prayers that say, "MARY, you delivered me from Hell, and in your hands I place my salvation; you are the salvation of my soul, and I promise to serve you willingly forever" *****

Can THIS person be your brother or sister in Christ??

Please recognize that there is absolutely NO "twisting" of the Bible on my part. These people are simply refusing to engage me in my argument about Paul's list of spiritual fruits in Galatians 5. In fact, I've caught them in a flaw in their argument, and that is precisely why they are avoiding the question. The question was simply this:

In a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit, is their Spirit-moved empathy, compassion, understanding, charity, and desire to share the gospel with others fruits of the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?


What say everyone? Answer this question, and then we can discuss my argument about Galatians 5.

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

BTD,
At this point, the issue is no longer about Galatians 5 it's about clarity, honesty, and the ability to stay on the actual topic.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You said you "fully affirm every word," yet every time I asked you to explain how that fits Paul's list in Galatians 5:2223, you refused to do so. Instead, your responses have followed a consistent pattern:

1. You shifted the topic.
You abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism. That is not clarification it is deflection.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is an attempt to control the frame of the conversation. You want to dictate the order so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You projected your own dodging onto others.
You repeatedly accused me and now others of "dodging," while refusing to address your own claim.

5. You attacked character instead of addressing Scripture.
Calling people "morons," "blind," "not of God," "compromised," or "judicially hardened" is not theological argumentation. It is spiritual intimidation.

6. You condemned anyone who disagrees with you.
You have now declared multiple participants "not of God" simply for disagreeing with your interpretation. That is not discernment it is spiritual posturing.

7. You attempted to isolate and recruit.
You repeatedly tried to rally others to your side by framing disagreement as spiritual corruption. That is manipulation, not exegesis.

None of this clarifies your statement.
None of this explains how "hate and anger" fit Paul's list.
None of this engages the biblical text.

Theologically the issue is simple.
Paul explicitly lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223:

• love
• joy
• peace
• patience
• kindness
• goodness
• faithfulness
• gentleness
• selfcontrol

"Hate" and "anger" are not included.
Paul explicitly lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:1921:

• hostility
• strife
• fits of anger
• dissensions
• and similar attitudes

These are included.
Jesus' righteous anger in Mark 3 does not redefine Paul's list. Jesus' hatred of evil in Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list. Believers hating evil does not redefine Paul's list.

These passages show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate. This is basic category distinction, not complicated theology.

Your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a prerequisite for clarity.
You keep insisting that everyone must answer your question before you will explain your own statement.
That is not how theological dialogue works.

You made a doctrinal claim.
You were asked to explain it.
You have not done so.

Your question is not a gateway to the discussion. It is a diversion from the discussion.

We have now all witnessed your tactics and your familiar pattern:

• When confronted with Scripture, you shift the topic.
• When asked for clarity, you demand others answer your question first.
• When disagreement arises, you condemn the person spiritually.
• When challenged, you attack character instead of addressing the text.
• When corrected, you reframe your own words retroactively.
• When multiple people disagree, you claim they are "not of God."

This is not exegesis. This is not discernment. This is not theological engagement.
It is manipulation.

BTD:
You have not explained your statement.
You have not defended your statement.
You have not clarified your statement.
You have only attacked, redirected, and accused.

Therefore, the conversation is over.

If you ever decide to engage the actual biblical question how "hate and anger" fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223 you can present that explanation plainly.

Until then, I'm done responding to the deflection, the accusations, and the spiritual posturing.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

BTD,
At this point, the issue is no longer about Galatians 5 it's about clarity, honesty, and the ability to stay on the actual topic.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You said you "fully affirm every word," yet every time I asked you to explain how that fits Paul's list in Galatians 5:2223, you refused to do so. Instead, your responses have followed a consistent pattern:

1. You shifted the topic.
You abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism. That is not clarification it is deflection.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is an attempt to control the frame of the conversation. You want to dictate the order so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You projected your own dodging onto others.
You repeatedly accused me and now others of "dodging," while refusing to address your own claim.

5. You attacked character instead of addressing Scripture.
Calling people "morons," "blind," "not of God," "compromised," or "judicially hardened" is not theological argumentation. It is spiritual intimidation.

6. You condemned anyone who disagrees with you.
You have now declared multiple participants "not of God" simply for disagreeing with your interpretation. That is not discernment it is spiritual posturing.

7. You attempted to isolate and recruit.
You repeatedly tried to rally others to your side by framing disagreement as spiritual corruption. That is manipulation, not exegesis.

None of this clarifies your statement.
None of this explains how "hate and anger" fit Paul's list.
None of this engages the biblical text.

Theologically the issue is simple.
Paul explicitly lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223:

• love
• joy
• peace
• patience
• kindness
• goodness
• faithfulness
• gentleness
• selfcontrol

"Hate" and "anger" are not included.
Paul explicitly lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:1921:

• hostility
• strife
• fits of anger
• dissensions
• and similar attitudes

These are included.
Jesus' righteous anger in Mark 3 does not redefine Paul's list. Jesus' hatred of evil in Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list. Believers hating evil does not redefine Paul's list.

These passages show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate. This is basic category distinction, not complicated theology.

Your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a prerequisite for clarity.
You keep insisting that everyone must answer your question before you will explain your own statement.
That is not how theological dialogue works.

You made a doctrinal claim.
You were asked to explain it.
You have not done so.

Your question is not a gateway to the discussion. It is a diversion from the discussion.

We have now all witnessed your tactics and your familiar pattern:

• When confronted with Scripture, you shift the topic.
• When asked for clarity, you demand others answer your question first.
• When disagreement arises, you condemn the person spiritually.
• When challenged, you attack character instead of addressing the text.
• When corrected, you reframe your own words retroactively.
• When multiple people disagree, you claim they are "not of God."

This is not exegesis. This is not discernment. This is not theological engagement.
It is manipulation.

BTD:
You have not explained your statement.
You have not defended your statement.
You have not clarified your statement.
You have only attacked, redirected, and accused.

Therefore, the conversation is over.

If you ever decide to engage the actual biblical question how "hate and anger" fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223 you can present that explanation plainly.

Until then, I'm done responding to the deflection, the accusations, and the spiritual posturing.

---

You are going off the rails with posts like these. Do you not see that all your previous, ultra-long posts were completely unnecessary, because you were ranting about a question being unanswered but which already had been answered, and it made you look completely idiotic and foolish? So why not learn from your mistake, and instead of continuing to write long rants, you slow down, remove your spite that's obviously clouding your thinking, and READ and THINK about my comments?

So you finally sort of "acknowledged" your mistake about your question not being answered (even though you're really not admitting it). The next thing you need to slow down and acknowledge is this: do you finally acknowledge and understand the difference between my actual statement - "hate and anger actually can be fruits of the Spirit" and the statement you said I made, which was "hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit" and why that difference is significant?

If so, then you need to acknowledge the next thing: do you acknowledge that I've repeatedly explained that I've been trying to argue my point in regards to Paul's list in Galatians 5 as per your request, through the question I asked, and that your answer goes toward my defense of my statement? So why not give an answer?

I'll tell you why I think you're not answering - you know it provides a very good defense of hate and anger being fruits of the Spirit. And so you don't want to answer it. If I'm wrong about you thinking this, then just give me your answer. What are you afraid of?

So what say you? Answer?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To the "Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ" this person is referring to:

Can this person, a Roman Catholic, actually be in the truth if he supports, defends, and even practices the egregiously evil marian idolatry and heresy that's been clearly presented to you, as spoken by their Church's popes, Doctors of their church, and bishops, and written in their official prayers and catechisms?

**** This person fully supports and defends prayers that say, "MARY, you delivered me from Hell, and in your hands I place my salvation; you are the salvation of my soul, and I promise to serve you willingly forever" *****

Can THIS person be your brother or sister in Christ??

---

First, any true, baptized Chirstian (sorry, LDS need not apply) are brothers and sisters in Christ, although, they are separated.

Second, this is another of your famous Straw Man arguments (a false belief misrepresenting the position being argued against.)

Many here have explained with reason and patience, ad nauseum, that Catholics DON'T worship Mary OR practice idolatry.

We have ALL explained that many Marian prayers and devotions were often written hundreds of years ago in a different culture, in a different language expressed in the elevated, poetic language.

I have never uttered those prayers, just as MOST of today's Catholics have never spoked those prayers. It's not how we talk today.

I fully recognize that they sound strange in today's ears and I understand how they are written.

In the end, these prayers don't bother me because we Catholic know that all the love that we share for Mary is because Jesus LOVES her MORE. We can't love Mary more than Jesus did. He's not hurt or shocked by the devotion to his mother. She is the most holy human person to walk the earth.

"My soul doth magnify the LORD."

Giving Mary devotion doesn't take away from Jesus. It magnifies Him.

Finally, you have problems with this language because you think that Catholic are worshipping Mary. The REAL problem is that you DON'T really know what worship is.

You think that going to a church service and singing a few hymns and listening to a 30-45 minute sermon is worship.

IT. IS. NOT.

That is a bible study with music. It is good. And it might be a small part of worship, but that's not real worship.

Compare it to the Synagogues and the Temple. The synagogues were for prayer and scripture reading. The Temple is where the real sacrifice and true worship happened, not at the synagogues.

The heart of religion is worship. The heart of worship is sacrifice.

The only place that TRUE worship takes place worship that Jesus commanded us to do at the Last Supper is at a Catholic or Orthodox mass.

Every single day of the year (save Good Friday), every Catholic and Orthodox church has the representation of the ONE true sacrifice. That NEVER happens at a protestant church service.

PS. What does it say about your character, when you continue to make false claims about the Catholic Church even though this topic (and others) have been explained to you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

First of all, **do you acknowledge that BUDOS is repeatedly refusing to acknowledge that I had already answered his question, even highlighting my answer in BOLD?

---

Quite frankly, I don't care if he answers your question or not. You won't accept his answer or you will twist it into something else.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Secondly, can you discern that my original statement: "Hate and anger actually can be fruits of the Holy Spirit" NOT the same as the statement he claimed I made, which was "Hate and anger are fruits of the Holy Spirit"?

---

You are arguing a distinction without a difference.

They CAN'T be fruits of the Spirit. I've explained why, using Scripture Gal. 5:19-21 explicitly says(speaking of hated and anger) "that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

I've also stated that God's divine attributes of wrath are not equal to human fruits of the Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Thirdly, can you acknowledge that I've repeatedly explained that the reason I need him to answer my question, is because it goes towards me making my argument regarding Paul's list of spiritual fruits in Galatians 5?

---

No. I don't care.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Because if you can't acknowledge these, then I know that you are coming in the same spirit as he is, which is not of God, and thus I'll be wasting my time explaining anything to you.

So what say you?

---

I say, "Fine." Maybe we are of the same spirit one that reads what the bible says and NOT tries to use passages out of context to prove a point that is in DIRECT opposition of the words of St. Paul.

I understand what you're are trying to do, but your "righteous anger" is misplaced in your misunderstanding.

So, please don't WASTE your "time explaining anything to" me. Because, quite frankly, you don't have leg to stand on here, and NO one supports you on this point.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

---

You sound bitter.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Did it ever occur to you, that the Protestant Reformation was maybe God putting guard rails on the Rome church?

---

First, I don't know what the "Rome church" is.

Second, protestants didn't reform anything. They LEFT.

---

In all fairness, some protestants do subscribe to Reformed Theology. That was the Theology that came out of the Reformation. Dispensationalism is better Theology, but Reformed Theology is certainly better than Catholic Theology.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

BTD,
At this point, the issue is no longer about Galatians 5 it's about clarity, honesty, and the ability to stay on the actual topic.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You said you "fully affirm every word," yet every time I asked you to explain how that fits Paul's list in Galatians 5:2223, you refused to do so. Instead, your responses have followed a consistent pattern:

1. You shifted the topic.
You abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism. That is not clarification it is deflection.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is an attempt to control the frame of the conversation. You want to dictate the order so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You projected your own dodging onto others.
You repeatedly accused me and now others of "dodging," while refusing to address your own claim.

5. You attacked character instead of addressing Scripture.
Calling people "morons," "blind," "not of God," "compromised," or "judicially hardened" is not theological argumentation. It is spiritual intimidation.

6. You condemned anyone who disagrees with you.
You have now declared multiple participants "not of God" simply for disagreeing with your interpretation. That is not discernment it is spiritual posturing.

7. You attempted to isolate and recruit.
You repeatedly tried to rally others to your side by framing disagreement as spiritual corruption. That is manipulation, not exegesis.

None of this clarifies your statement.
None of this explains how "hate and anger" fit Paul's list.
None of this engages the biblical text.

Theologically the issue is simple.
Paul explicitly lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223:

• love
• joy
• peace
• patience
• kindness
• goodness
• faithfulness
• gentleness
• selfcontrol

"Hate" and "anger" are not included.
Paul explicitly lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:1921:

• hostility
• strife
• fits of anger
• dissensions
• and similar attitudes

These are included.
Jesus' righteous anger in Mark 3 does not redefine Paul's list. Jesus' hatred of evil in Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list. Believers hating evil does not redefine Paul's list.

These passages show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate. This is basic category distinction, not complicated theology.

Your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a prerequisite for clarity.
You keep insisting that everyone must answer your question before you will explain your own statement.
That is not how theological dialogue works.

You made a doctrinal claim.
You were asked to explain it.
You have not done so.

Your question is not a gateway to the discussion. It is a diversion from the discussion.

We have now all witnessed your tactics and your familiar pattern:

• When confronted with Scripture, you shift the topic.
• When asked for clarity, you demand others answer your question first.
• When disagreement arises, you condemn the person spiritually.
• When challenged, you attack character instead of addressing the text.
• When corrected, you reframe your own words retroactively.
• When multiple people disagree, you claim they are "not of God."

This is not exegesis. This is not discernment. This is not theological engagement.
It is manipulation.

BTD:
You have not explained your statement.
You have not defended your statement.
You have not clarified your statement.
You have only attacked, redirected, and accused.

Therefore, the conversation is over.

If you ever decide to engage the actual biblical question how "hate and anger" fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223 you can present that explanation plainly.

Until then, I'm done responding to the deflection, the accusations, and the spiritual posturing.

---

You are going off the rails with posts like these. Do you not see that all your previous, ultra-long posts were completely unnecessary, because you were ranting about a question being unanswered but which already had been answered, and it made you look completely idiotic and foolish? So why not learn from your mistake, and instead of continuing to write long rants, you slow down, remove your spite that's obviously clouding your thinking, and READ and THINK about my comments?

So you finally sort of "acknowledged" your mistake about your question not being answered (even though you're really not admitting it). The next thing you need to slow down and acknowledge is this: do you finally acknowledge and understand the difference between my actual statement - "hate and anger actually can be fruits of the Spirit" and the statement you said I made, which was "hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit" and why that difference is significant?

If so, then you need to acknowledge the next thing: do you acknowledge that I've repeatedly explained that I've been trying to argue my point in regards to Paul's list in Galatians 5 as per your request, through the question I asked, and that your answer goes toward my defense of my statement? So why not give an answer?

I'll tell you why I think you're not answering - you know it provides a very good defense of hate and anger being fruits of the Spirit. And so you don't want to answer it. If I'm wrong about you thinking this, then just give me your answer. What are you afraid of?

So what say you? Answer?

---

BTD, oh, BTD,

Your tactics continue to fail.
I'm not going to follow you into another topic shift.

The issue is still your original statement:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Everything you've written since has been an attempt to avoid explaining that claim. Your latest reply continues the same pattern, so I'm going to lay it out plainly.

1. You are reframing your own words.
You now insist there is a "significant difference" between:

• "hate and anger can be fruits of the Spirit," and
• "hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit."

But this distinction still does not help you, because Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly in Galatians 5:2223.
Hate and anger are not included in any form "can be," "might be," or "sometimes are."

You are wrong. This is not a semantic issue. It is a biblical one.

2. You are claiming I made a mistake without showing one.
You keep saying I "failed," "misrepresented," or "looked foolish," but you never demonstrate where.
You simply assert it.
That is not correction.
It is posturing, misleading, and unethical.

3. You are demanding I answer your question so you can avoid yours.
Your repeated question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a defense of your claim.
It is a diversion from your claim.
It does not explain how hate or anger fit Paul's list.
It does not redefine Paul's list.
It does not support your statement.

It is simply a way to avoid addressing the biblical text.

4. You are projecting your avoidance onto me.
You accuse me of "dodging," "fear," "spite," or "dishonesty," but you have not answered the one question you were asked from the beginning:

How do hate or anger fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit?
You have avoided that question in every reply.

5. You are using personal attacks instead of Scripture.
Calling people "idiotic," "foolish," "blind," "dishonest," or "not of God" is not theological argumentation.
It is emotional escalation.
It does not clarify your claim.
It does not defend your claim.
It does not engage Galatians 5.

6. You are continuing to try and regain control of the conversation.
Your pattern is consistent:

• shift the topic
• accuse the other person
• demand they answer your question
• declare victory
• avoid your own claim

This is not exegesis.
It is manipulation.

7. You still have not explained your statement.
So I will ask you one final time, without detours:

Can you show, from Scripture, how hate or anger fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223?

Yes or no?

If you can, present the explanation plainly.
If you cannot, simply say so, and let's move on. I'm willing to if you are.

I'm not engaging further accusations, reframing, or topic shifts.
Just answer the biblical question you have avoided from the beginning.
Yes or no?

I will admit that you are starting to get on my nerves, and I grow tired of your repeated ineffective maneuvers to avoid a direct response to the question, and I am apparently not the only one.

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus, to the Church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:6):

"Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

---

God hates all sin. But He also lives the sinners. It's not incompatible to love people but to hate the things they do. And hating sin does not mean hating people.

Gos is God. He does not operate by our rules.

---

I'm in full agreement. This isn't what I'm arguing against. The point of quoting this verse is to show that hatred can be aligned with God. Jesus praised the church at Ephesus for their hatred of evil works.

Now, the question is: if a believer who is indwelled with the Holy Spirit is moved by the Spirit to hate the same things that Jesus hates, then HOW is having that hate NOT a "fruit" of the Spirit? Doesn't manifesting the "fruits of the Spirit" mean a person is being more and more like Jesus?

---

BTD,
Let's stop circling around this.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I have asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. Instead of answering, you've tried to redirect the conversation, accuse me of misrepresentation, and demand that I answer a different question.

None of that addresses your own words.
Quoting Mark 3 and Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5. Jesus' righteous anger does not turn anger into a fruit of the Spirit. Jesus' hatred of evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit. Believers hating evil does not turn hate into a fruit of the Spirit.

These are basic category distinctions.

So, you are avoiding your own claim.
You are refusing to clarify it.
You are insisting I answer your question while refusing to answer mine.
And you are accusing me of "dodging" while you dodge the central issue.

I'm not playing that game.

It's a game you know quite well. So, before I respond to anything else, Iet's address the pattern in your replies, because it's preventing any honest discussion.

Once again, here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Again, I asked you directly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You have still not answered that question.

Instead, your responses have followed a predictable pattern (one you know so well):
1. You shifted the topic.
You immediately abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, and charity. That is a subject change, not an explanation.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic, plus, I didn't make a mistake.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is your habitual attempt to control the frame of the conversation. As in so many of your posts, you want to dictate the order of discussion so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You claimed I was "dodging," while you avoided your own claim.
This is projection accusing me of the very thing you're doing.

5. You quoted Scripture that does not address your claim.
Mark 3 and Revelation 2 show that Jesus has righteous anger and hates evil. That is true. But it does not redefine Paul's list in Galatians 5, nor does it turn anger or hate into "fruit of the Spirit."

These verses do not support your original statement. They simply show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate.

Now, back to the actual issueagain.
You wrote:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."
I have asked you repeatedly:
Do you still affirm that statement as written, or do you want to revise it?

You have refused to directly answer every time.

So, I'm going to be clear as I know how: Until you answer that question directly, there is no meaningful conversation to continue. If you won't clarify your own words, then you're not engaging in good faith, which may indicate you have other motives.

---

^^^^ Can somebody help this guy?

- I tried to make it as easy as possible, even for a complete moron, to see that I already answered his question, even putting it in BOLD.

- I tried to get him to slow down, read and think, and see how he misrepresented my statement.

- I tried to get him to answer my question, and tried to explain how his answer is going toward my argument to support my statement that he is challenging me to defend.

BUDOS won't have any of it. There is something really, really wrong with this person, which was obvious when he/she repeatedly refused to identify obvious marian idolatry and heresy. He has put up seemingly an impenetrable wall of pride that just won't let anything get through that's coming from me. He appears to be hardening his own heart, or even "judicially hardened" by God.

Maybe he'll hear someone else?

---

BTD,
At this point, the issue is no longer about Galatians 5 it's about clarity, honesty, and the ability to stay on the actual topic.

Here is the exact statement you made:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

I asked you repeatedly whether you still affirm that statement or whether you want to revise it. You said you "fully affirm every word," yet every time I asked you to explain how that fits Paul's list in Galatians 5:2223, you refused to do so. Instead, your responses have followed a consistent pattern:

1. You shifted the topic.
You abandoned your original claim and tried to force the conversation onto a different question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism. That is not clarification it is deflection.

2. You accused me of misrepresenting your words.
But you never showed how I misrepresented them. You simply asserted it and demanded I "acknowledge my mistake." That is an evasion tactic.

3. You demanded I answer your question before you answer mine.
This is an attempt to control the frame of the conversation. You want to dictate the order so you never have to clarify your own statement.

4. You projected your own dodging onto others.
You repeatedly accused me and now others of "dodging," while refusing to address your own claim.

5. You attacked character instead of addressing Scripture.
Calling people "morons," "blind," "not of God," "compromised," or "judicially hardened" is not theological argumentation. It is spiritual intimidation.

6. You condemned anyone who disagrees with you.
You have now declared multiple participants "not of God" simply for disagreeing with your interpretation. That is not discernment it is spiritual posturing.

7. You attempted to isolate and recruit.
You repeatedly tried to rally others to your side by framing disagreement as spiritual corruption. That is manipulation, not exegesis.

None of this clarifies your statement.
None of this explains how "hate and anger" fit Paul's list.
None of this engages the biblical text.

Theologically the issue is simple.
Paul explicitly lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223:

• love
• joy
• peace
• patience
• kindness
• goodness
• faithfulness
• gentleness
• selfcontrol

"Hate" and "anger" are not included.
Paul explicitly lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:1921:

• hostility
• strife
• fits of anger
• dissensions
• and similar attitudes

These are included.
Jesus' righteous anger in Mark 3 does not redefine Paul's list. Jesus' hatred of evil in Revelation 2 does not redefine Paul's list. Believers hating evil does not redefine Paul's list.

These passages show that Jesus opposes evil which aligns with the fruit of love, goodness, and selfcontrol, not with anger or hate. This is basic category distinction, not complicated theology.

Your question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a prerequisite for clarity.
You keep insisting that everyone must answer your question before you will explain your own statement.
That is not how theological dialogue works.

You made a doctrinal claim.
You were asked to explain it.
You have not done so.

Your question is not a gateway to the discussion. It is a diversion from the discussion.

We have now all witnessed your tactics and your familiar pattern:

• When confronted with Scripture, you shift the topic.
• When asked for clarity, you demand others answer your question first.
• When disagreement arises, you condemn the person spiritually.
• When challenged, you attack character instead of addressing the text.
• When corrected, you reframe your own words retroactively.
• When multiple people disagree, you claim they are "not of God."

This is not exegesis. This is not discernment. This is not theological engagement.
It is manipulation.

BTD:
You have not explained your statement.
You have not defended your statement.
You have not clarified your statement.
You have only attacked, redirected, and accused.

Therefore, the conversation is over.

If you ever decide to engage the actual biblical question how "hate and anger" fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223 you can present that explanation plainly.

Until then, I'm done responding to the deflection, the accusations, and the spiritual posturing.

---

You are going off the rails with posts like these. Do you not see that all your previous, ultra-long posts were completely unnecessary, because you were ranting about a question being unanswered but which already had been answered, and it made you look completely idiotic and foolish? So why not learn from your mistake, and instead of continuing to write long rants, you slow down, remove your spite that's obviously clouding your thinking, and READ and THINK about my comments?

So you finally sort of "acknowledged" your mistake about your question not being answered (even though you're really not admitting it). The next thing you need to slow down and acknowledge is this: do you finally acknowledge and understand the difference between my actual statement - "hate and anger actually can be fruits of the Spirit" and the statement you said I made, which was "hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit" and why that difference is significant?

If so, then you need to acknowledge the next thing: do you acknowledge that I've repeatedly explained that I've been trying to argue my point in regards to Paul's list in Galatians 5 as per your request, through the question I asked, and that your answer goes toward my defense of my statement? So why not give an answer?

I'll tell you why I think you're not answering - you know it provides a very good defense of hate and anger being fruits of the Spirit. And so you don't want to answer it. If I'm wrong about you thinking this, then just give me your answer. What are you afraid of?

So what say you? Answer?

---

BTD, oh, BTD,

Your tactics continue to fail.
I'm not going to follow you into another topic shift.

The issue is still your original statement:
"HATE and anger can actually be a fruit of the Spirit."

Everything you've written since has been an attempt to avoid explaining that claim. Your latest reply continues the same pattern, so I'm going to lay it out plainly.

1. You are reframing your own words.
You now insist there is a "significant difference" between:

• "hate and anger can be fruits of the Spirit," and
• "hate and anger are fruits of the Spirit."

But this distinction still does not help you, because Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit explicitly in Galatians 5:2223.
Hate and anger are not included in any form "can be," "might be," or "sometimes are."

You are wrong. This is not a semantic issue. It is a biblical one.

2. You are claiming I made a mistake without showing one.
You keep saying I "failed," "misrepresented," or "looked foolish," but you never demonstrate where.
You simply assert it.
That is not correction.
It is posturing, misleading, and unethical.

3. You are demanding I answer your question so you can avoid yours.
Your repeated question about empathy, compassion, charity, and evangelism is not a defense of your claim.
It is a diversion from your claim.
It does not explain how hate or anger fit Paul's list.
It does not redefine Paul's list.
It does not support your statement.

It is simply a way to avoid addressing the biblical text.

4. You are projecting your avoidance onto me.
You accuse me of "dodging," "fear," "spite," or "dishonesty," but you have not answered the one question you were asked from the beginning:

How do hate or anger fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit?
You have avoided that question in every reply.

5. You are using personal attacks instead of Scripture.
Calling people "idiotic," "foolish," "blind," "dishonest," or "not of God" is not theological argumentation.
It is emotional escalation.
It does not clarify your claim.
It does not defend your claim.
It does not engage Galatians 5.

6. You are continuing to try and regain control of the conversation.
Your pattern is consistent:

• shift the topic
• accuse the other person
• demand they answer your question
• declare victory
• avoid your own claim

This is not exegesis.
It is manipulation.

7. You still have not explained your statement.
So I will ask you one final time, without detours:

Can you show, from Scripture, how hate or anger fit Paul's explicit list of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:2223?

Yes or no?

If you can, present the explanation plainly.
If you cannot, simply say so, and let's move on. I'm willing to if you are.

I'm not engaging further accusations, reframing, or topic shifts.
Just answer the biblical question you have avoided from the beginning.
Yes or no?

I will admit that you are starting to get on my nerves, and I grow tired of your repeated ineffective maneuvers to avoid a direct response to the question, and I am apparently not the only one.

---

Seriously, you really must be stupid. That is the only explanation for your posts.

You: "1. You are reframing your own words"

Nothing has been reframed. If there is a "significant difference" between the two statements, then that obviously means to any normal, intelligent person that they are NOT the same statement. You have a real problem with comprehension and understanding.

You: "2. You are claiming I made a mistake without showing one"

You JUST SHOWED us your mistake. You claimed I made a signficantly different statement from what I had originally made. Are you not able to put two and two together? YIKES.

You: "3. You are demanding I answer your question so you can avoid yours"

I have clearly and repeatedly explained that YOUR ANSWER IS THE ANSWER to the question you are asking. I have said this OVER AND OVER, but apparently, you are just too stupid or dishonest to acknowledge it. As I said, I think you're too scared to answer it, because YOU KNOW YOU LOSE THE DEBATE if you do. That's why you're not answering it.

You: "4. You are projecting your avoidance onto me"

No, you really are the one avoiding. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GIVE A "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, INSTEAD OF POSTING YOUR LONG RANTS, AND THEN THAT WILL DEMONSTRATE MY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.

You: "5. You are using personal attacks instead of Scripture"

Rrrriiiight. After I had posted Scripture after Scripture. Something really is wrong with you. And you deserve the "foolish", "blind", and "dishonest" descriptions because that's what you're displaying. I'm only giving you harsh rebuke that you deserve.

You: "6. You are continuing to try and regain control of the conversation."

I'm trying to answer your question, but you won't engage. There has been NO SHIFT in topic. You just want to avoid answering my question.

You: "7. You still have not explained your statement"

I have repeatedly explained that your answer to my question goes toward the defense of my statement.
So why not just answer it??
WE KNOW WHY YOU WON'T.