That time when Jesus got pissed off at a tree & cursed it

Here... Let me fix that for you:


The joke that you are making about yourself is that you replied to every one.. and, as you stupidly fail to realize... because you are indeed stupid:



YOU SPENT HALF THE DAY RESPONDING TO THOSE POSTS, DUMBASS!!









 - "You spent half the day making poop posts?... What a loser!"

- "What?..  You spent half the day responding to them."

  1) Thank fucking God...  I hope the door doesn't hit her in the ass on the way out.

2) I love how she's acting like I was somehow forcing her to reply to my every post..  including the  ones.

So the fig tree represents the nation of Israel and it's religious leaders..... The nation wasn't bearing any spiritual fruit, as they were rejecting the coming messiah... and was, thus, losing God's favor, so it would never be blessed with fruit again.


This greater metaphor also serves as a lesser metaphor for the Christian: Bear spiritual fruit or be deemed as purposeless as a fig tree with no figs.

The act of cursing the tree is a "living metaphor" designed to create that lesson.  It was therefore a premeditated action with the lesson being considered in its aftermath, so anger isn't probably apart of the equation.

I made that claim based on how I was taught to read the Bible based on the Catholic Church's Catechism, which is the literal sense and the spiritual sense, and that's because the Bible is understood to be combined with many separate pieces of work of different genres that were written by different authors with different writing styles. I can believe most Christians take certain stories and as a literal truth but not the whole Bible or every little detail in the Bible entirely because then they would more likely be missing the metaphorical and moral meaning and ultimately missing the whole message. You can still say Christians read the Bible literally and spiritually combined depending on that that means, but when I say "literal" I'm referring to it as historical context. "Literal" can be taken as different meanings, such as reading it in the sense the author intended, so it does depend on what we mean by "literal". I believe most Protestants and Catholics alike read the Bible knowing that not everything is literal in that context, but not everyone will agree on which parts of the Bible are literal.

I do think most Christians agree on certain things like that the Resurrection should be taken as a literal truth even if there is a spiritual meaning behind it as well, but I don't believe most Christians take everything in the Bible as literal especially certain details in the Creation story and the story of Adam and Eve. Those two stories are argued upon a lot between Christians because it seems the most open for interpretation as well as having many interpretations and meanings. In my opinion I think it's more important to understand the overall message instead of arguing over literal interpretations. 

I think this relates back to my past point that most people including Christians don't take the whole Bible literally or read it the same way, just like other works of literary fiction. If anything is subject to interpretation then that would include the literal sense. If it can be supported by the text then it can't be seen as inaccurate in context. I agree that translation can get lost and that we don't know the real intent of something written especially of that we don't even know who wrote it. I can see the possibility of intentional alterations of text written in the New Testament specifically in order to promote Christianity. 

I don't think however that misspellings or badly phrased sentences would make any significant difference when it comes to interpreting the meaning of the text within a paragraph or chapter it's found in. I can only really see minor differences in understanding meanings of certain words in small phrases or sentences. Things can be interpreted by a larger context, and even if not 100% true, it can be seen as being pretty close to it. For instance in this thread where it was argued that Jesus was angry at a tree. He may have not actually been angry at the tree depending on interpretation of context. I don't think whether he was angry or not is really an important detail when understanding the literal and metaphorical meaning. Even if he was angry at a tree the literal and metaphorical meaning of the story wouldn't be much different or significantly affected in any way.

I don't.....  That's one more point towards you being a retard.


Does anybody out there speak Retard?.... What the hell is she saying?



Seriously... At any point, have I ever denied that I was replying to you, idiot?

You literally just makes shit up in your head.

Does the retard know that I can still see her?


Does she think that because she blocks me that she just disappears?







Apparently, it's her apparent idea, tho.




What a fuking moron.