|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 11:58:27 GMT
BTW: That's a good perspective too. I picked up the metaphor of the fig tree as representing life and in a sense the fig tree that Jesus went up to was no longer representing what it was meant for so there was no longer any purpose for it. The fig tree can also represent us, or more specifically the Jews at that time, because even though they practiced religious law and even appeared religious they lost the purpose of why they were worshiping God. They weren't "spiritually fruitful" (which indicates faithfulness, love, kindness or anything representing God) Similar to how the fig tree was "unfruitful" and no longer representing or giving what it was meant for. I think this story also specifically describes God's judgement towards people who lack this purpose in their so-called "good" actions, and the term "curse" is more closely related to the act of casting judgement on something and not exactly swearing or yelling at it. The comment Jesus makes about throwing the mountain into the sea demonstrates how much we as human beings lack faith and how much we aren't able to fully comprehend the power of faith.One of those quotes you can't seem to find...the other one is just above in this thread. Problem is, all that attractive gobbleydegook has very little to do with the story proper of Jesus cursing the fig tree for its lack of fruit, and Jesus--who certainly loved to spin a parable, and was seldom shy about letting his followers know he was doing so (or chastising them as stupid when they didn't get it, though I don't think he called them 'twats' precisely) gives no indication in the text that his actions are in any way meant to be taken as such. He pulls the face-saving business of letcuring his disciples on the efficacy of prayer the next day, but I'm not willing to let the two halves of the story off as a single event. It's plain enough Jesus acted in anger, and likely enough felt it necessary to use an otherwise embarrassing gaffe as a teaching tool. It's a straightforward little glimpse into Jesus' fallible humanity that Christers have to paper over with lots of 'deep thinks' rhetoric to obscure the fact that their hero was a man, with the faults, failings, foibles and temperament of a man. Not a god. Just a man. When you say "quotes you can't find" do you mean what I'm quoting "spiritually fruitful" in my post? Im referencing it to this verse: Galatians 5:22-23 :
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.Fruit is used in a spiritual sense here and I saw the connection between that and the fruit of the fig tree. So many other verses in the Bible show how the fig tree is metaphorical so I thought that would help represent the metaphor more. The literal fig tree itself isn't so important in these stories, but the physical state of the fig tree is important when teaching the metaphor. Also, you're analyzing this as if it were a true story in a literal sense. To me it's a just a story showing a metaphorical truth. If you believe this was an actual historical event than I could understand your point more. I also understand why someone would wonder why Jesus would kill a tree just because it didn't have fruit. It would be seen unnecessary to physically kill a tree just to teach a point, but telling a story about someone killing a tree and what the tree represents without actually harming any tree in the process could still effectively get the message across. Aye, and there's the rub. Aren't we told, both in the Bible and in Christian teaching in general that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light? Isn't everything he says (as indeed, every word in the bible) supposedly literally true? Yet, what we find is a figure and a book that repeatedly has to be 'interpreted', 'explained' and dissected by the supposedly learned for the benefit of the supposedly unlearned. Jesus' message, god's message, are supposedly so simple and plain, a three-year-old child (or even vegas for that matter) can understand it. So why the need for all the filterings, readings, and interpretations that are subject to whatever the person reading them wants to place on those words and teachings? Couldn't Jesus simply speak plainly, in language so plain that not even the passage of millenia could alter the simple truth of what he said? Some Christians (most I'd imagine) would answer why yes, and that this is already the case. So again--why the need for countless explications that can be re-arranged to fit whatever construction any individual chooses to place upon them? We know that Jesus more than once spoke in 'parables' that even his own followers couldn't understand--and why, if he was Son o' God, should that be the case? He couldn't explain things in the literal, truthful, simple manner Christianity credits him with? All the obfuscatory language and need for countless explanations and varying readings points heavily to one thing, and most Christians know what this is. And they're afraid to admit to this, because it would blow apart the myth that their savior was anything but a man, in fact a divine being, chief messenger of god. Problem is, his 'message' is frequently so garbled, it takes hundreds of thousands of 'explainers' down the centuries to try and tell us what that message is; and after all the years, it's obvious hardly any two people in a room can yet agree on precisely what that message was. That doesn't sound like the utterances of someone whose every word and act was to be taken, ever, as 'gospel truth'. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 12:09:12 GMT
I'm sure that you can convince yourself of anything... So have fun in your Wonderful World Of Dip-shitted Delusion Y'know, I have to apologize. Seriously. I really misjudged you. I mean, looking at the masterful handling of language, the clarity of thought, and the really subtle use of, er, metaphor on your part convinces me--I'm dealing with a true biblical scholar--no, a true scholar of all things in general. I am impressed. Truly. Look … I know a dipshitted cnut like yourself will always be a dipshitted cnut like yourself... So, sure... You can mask your dumbassed ignorance behind meaningless and witless attempts at sarcasm. But, Mrs. Douchefire, you have done nothing to add to this conversation except expressing your own ignorance demanding an explanation to a metaphor that everybody on here already seems to grasp... and demand that act that was done for that purpose was done without purpose. You're a fucking idiot and no amount of sarcastic bullshit that you pull out of your ass will ever change that.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 12:13:24 GMT
You hired a 6-year old retarded child to write your comebacks for you? That's awesome. Good for you.  Yes, the three year old you have under contract was already spoken for, I'm afraid. Do you really lack the mental capacity to come up with anything besides "Nuh huh.. You!"  And for the record that 3 year old isn't under contract.... She's just handcuffed to my desk. So there! |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 12:33:28 GMT
Aye, and there's the rub. Aren't we told, both in the Bible and in Christian teaching in general that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Light? Isn't everything he says (as indeed, every word in the bible) supposedly literally true? Yet, what we find is a figure and a book that repeatedly has to be 'interpreted', 'explained' and dissected by the supposedly learned for the benefit of the supposedly unlearned. Jesus' message, god's message, are supposedly so simple and plain, a three-year-old child (or even vegas for that matter) can understand it. So why the need for all the filterings, readings, and interpretations that are subject to whatever the person reading them wants to place on those words and teachings? Couldn't Jesus simply speak plainly, in language so plain that not even the passage of millenia could alter the simple truth of what he said? Some Christians (most I'd imagine) would answer why yes, and that this is already the case. So again--why the need for countless explications that can be re-arranged to fit whatever construction any individual chooses to place upon them? We know that Jesus more than once spoke in 'parables' that even his own followers couldn't understand--and why, if he was Son o' God, should that be the case? He couldn't explain things in the literal, truthful, simple manner Christianity credits him with? All the obfuscatory language and need for countless explanations and varying readings points heavily to one thing, and most Christians know what this is. And they're afraid to admit to this, because it would blow apart the myth that their savior was anything but a man, in fact a divine being, chief messenger of god. Problem is, his 'message' is frequently so garbled, it takes hundreds of thousands of 'explainers' down the centuries to try and tell us what that message is; and after all the years, it's obvious hardly any two people in a room can yet agree on precisely what that message was. That doesn't sound like the utterances of someone whose every word and act was to be taken, ever, as 'gospel truth'. So, basically, if Chx and Rabbit had a baby.... It would be this moron.  Meanwhile, you're the only one in this thread that still can't comprehend the most basic of metaphors. You don't get to cast any stones here. Do you understand that reference?... or do you need that three-year-old to explain that one to you, too? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 13:03:35 GMT
Ding ding ding, we have a winner! Bear fruit (produce) or die. It's not enough to just look good. KLS's explanation also occurred to me even before I read her post. But something more crossed my mind.
While religious people will readily disagree with me at the moment, one has to acknowledge that such metaphors may be mistranslated by even many religious people.
mistranlation would primarily happen by treating the verses in a vacuum. Jesus pretty much explains the symbolic nature of the action in the same chapter. However if it is mistranslated it’s not that big of a deal unltil it pretends there is a contradiction by saying something stupid like Jesus would never kill an unhealthy tree based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 12, 2018 14:00:55 GMT
Y'know, I have to apologize. Seriously. I really misjudged you. I mean, looking at the masterful handling of language, the clarity of thought, and the really subtle use of, er, metaphor on your part convinces me--I'm dealing with a true biblical scholar--no, a true scholar of all things in general. I am impressed. Truly. Look … I know a dipshitted cnut like yourself will always be a dipshitted cnut like yourself... So, sure... You can mask your dumbassed ignorance behind meaningless and witless attempts at sarcasm. But, Mrs. Douchefire, you have done nothing to add to this conversation except expressing your own ignorance demanding an explanation to a metaphor that everybody on here already seems to grasp... and demand that act that was done for that purpose was done without purpose. You're a fucking idiot and no amount of sarcastic bullshit that you pull out of your ass will ever change that. Might I suggest that we follow Jesus' lead and disagree without being disagreeable? There's no need for name-calling. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 12, 2018 14:16:09 GMT
Didn't He curse the tree because it had leaves (therefore it should have also had fruit)? It looked good from a distance, but examine it and it was barren. Kind of a lesson to not be showy and appear that to be following God when you are not (meaning being deceptive/hypocritical)? But, as someone else noted in the thread, it was not the season for bearing fruit. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 12, 2018 14:22:33 GMT
Look … I know a dipshitted cnut like yourself will always be a dipshitted cnut like yourself... So, sure... You can mask your dumbassed ignorance behind meaningless and witless attempts at sarcasm. But, Mrs. Douchefire, you have done nothing to add to this conversation except expressing your own ignorance demanding an explanation to a metaphor that everybody on here already seems to grasp... and demand that act that was done for that purpose was done without purpose. You're a fucking idiot and no amount of sarcastic bullshit that you pull out of your ass will ever change that. Might I suggest that we follow Jesus' lead and disagree without being disagreeable? There's no need for name-calling. Agreed. Name-calling is never a good choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 12, 2018 14:26:02 GMT
Look … I know a dipshitted cnut like yourself will always be a dipshitted cnut like yourself... So, sure... You can mask your dumbassed ignorance behind meaningless and witless attempts at sarcasm. But, Mrs. Douchefire, you have done nothing to add to this conversation except expressing your own ignorance demanding an explanation to a metaphor that everybody on here already seems to grasp... and demand that act that was done for that purpose was done without purpose. You're a fucking idiot and no amount of sarcastic bullshit that you pull out of your ass will ever change that. Might I suggest that we follow Jesus' lead and disagree without being disagreeable? There's no need for name-calling.Probably not... But, hell... It sure is fun, especially when somebody is really deserving of it.   Pointing that an idiot is being an idiot isn't really name-calling… It's just pointing out a fact. Also.. It's funny that we don't seem to mind someone throwing out insults... but, God forbid that a guy retaliates with a name or two.  |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 12, 2018 14:26:36 GMT
you're analyzing this as if it were a true story in a literal sense. To me it's a just a story showing a metaphorical truth. If you believe this was an actual historical event than I could understand your point more. I also understand why someone would wonder why Jesus would kill a tree just because it didn't have fruit. It would be seen unnecessary to physically kill a tree just to teach a point, but telling a story about someone killing a tree and what the tree represents without actually harming any tree in the process could still effectively get the message across. The Gospel recounts in the passage immediately following the fig tree episode in Mark and immediately preceding the fig tree episode in Matthew how Jesus drove out the merchants from the temple, overturning tables and benches. Was this also merely metaphorical or are we to believe that this event actually happened? And Vegas , was Jesus a dispassionate automaton in the temple during this episode, as you apparently think he was with the fig tree, or was he angry? The text says nothing about him being angry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2018 14:28:34 GMT
Strange scriptures like this not removed makes one wonder at what King James left on the cutting room floor. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 12, 2018 14:38:37 GMT
I'm hereby nominating this thread for the annual awards for the "thread that started out with an intelligent premise, but deteriorated into the dullest thread imaginable" category.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 14:40:01 GMT
Didn't He curse the tree because it had leaves (therefore it should have also had fruit)? It looked good from a distance, but examine it and it was barren. Kind of a lesson to not be showy and appear that to be following God when you are not (meaning being deceptive/hypocritical)? But, as someone else noted in the thread, it was not the season for bearing fruit. The leaves normally indicate figs have grown. In fact figs can start growing before the leaves appear so while it was not the season it could still be presumed that figs would be there since the leaves weren’t supposed to be there either. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 14:44:00 GMT
I'm hereby nominating this thread for the annual awards for the "thread that started out with an intelligent premise, but deteriorated into the dullest thread imaginable" category. well it wasn’t really an intelligent premise as much as it was a Bible quote with silly title. It did become intelligent though |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 14:44:54 GMT
Strange scriptures like this not removed makes one wonder at what King James left on the cutting room floor. There was no reason to remove it. It ties to the chapter well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2018 14:45:26 GMT
Strange scriptures like this not removed makes one wonder at what King James left on the cutting room floor. There was no reason to remove it. It ties to the chapter well. Mmm hmm... that's nice. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 14:54:14 GMT
There was no reason to remove it. It ties to the chapter well. Mmm hmm... that's nice. It is!😊 |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 14:59:41 GMT
Y'know, I have to apologize. Seriously. I really misjudged you. I mean, looking at the masterful handling of language, the clarity of thought, and the really subtle use of, er, metaphor on your part convinces me--I'm dealing with a true biblical scholar--no, a true scholar of all things in general. I am impressed. Truly. Look … I know a dipshitted cnut like yourself will always be a dipshitted cnut like yourself... So, sure... You can mask your dumbassed ignorance behind meaningless and witless attempts at sarcasm. But, Mrs. Douchefire, you have done nothing to add to this conversation except expressing your own ignorance demanding an explanation to a metaphor that everybody on here already seems to grasp... and demand that act that was done for that purpose was done without purpose. You're a fucking idiot and no amount of sarcastic bullshit that you pull out of your ass will ever change that. Uh-huh. That literary prize is mere inches from your grasp. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 12, 2018 15:04:49 GMT
Actually the thing theophobiacs should be wondering is how long the cursing happened.
In Matthew it’s at the same time. In Mark the tree is dead at the end of the day.
You’re welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 12, 2018 15:12:37 GMT
Yes, the three year old you have under contract was already spoken for, I'm afraid. Do you really lack the mental capacity to come up with anything besides "Nuh huh.. You!" And for the record that 3 year old isn't under contract.... She's just handcuffed to my desk. So there! I assume you've got your junk stuffed in her mouth as well. Somehow you just sound the type. |
|
