The story of the fig tree can be found in Mark 11:12-26 and in Matthew 21:17-22 . Most Christians I have encountered say it is a metaphor. But is it? If you read the following passages, it is not a metaphor, but a continuous narrative on that day before Jesus and his gang went to Jerusalem. Jesus was hungry and went up to a fig tree to get something to eat — and subsequently cursed the tree to death because it had no fruit.
Now, is this the way this “Jesus loves me” thing is supposed to act? Aside from the obvious question as to why Jesus, being so big on forgiveness here, did not forgive the fig tree (or even heal it). He even cursed it! In my interpretation, Jesus just woke up on the wrong side of the bed, that’s why he’s too crabby on that day. Anyway, the Fig-tree enigma just tells me that Jesus is not “all-good” as what Christian fundies are saying. It’s a myth. If the New Testament is as accurate as these fundies would have me believe, its main character, Jesus, is a dolt.
We can summarize the story so far as:
1. Jesus was hungry.
2. He looked for figs on a tree.
3. But it was not fig season.
4. So, because the moron didn’t get his way, Jesus killed the poor tree in retaliation.
Why did Jesus (if he’s a god) cannot even tell if it’s fig season? Can”t this nut even tell if its fig season? Remember that it is Passover season. Passover (Pesach in Hebrew) begins on the eve of the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan according to the Jewish lunar calendar. The date varies from year to year according to the English calendar, falling in March or April (that falls in springtime.) So, it’s not even a season where fig trees are supposed to have fruits! I thought Jesus is god and a god is supposed to be all-knowing?
If it wasn’t fig season, why would this moron look for figs? Is killing a tree for not bearing fruit out of season a reasonable response by any standard?
Now, what is the moral of that story? As a good Christian, if you asked for something and the guy failed to give it to you, kill him! Is that what your Jesus likes to teach? Sounds more like the MAFIA to me.
Furthermore, the Fig-tree story is another proof of biblical inconsistency. Compare Matthew 21:17-22 to Mark 11:12-14 and 20-26. Look closely, in the Matthew version, when Jesus cursed the poor fig-tree, it died immediately and his apostles saw it happened. On Mark’s version, the poor tree died sometime and was already dead when Jesus and his gang passed by it from Jerusalem. (Talk about accurate reporting huh.)
Now the Christians want me to believe that an All-Good God named Jesus exists, but the Bible says otherwise. Then, the Jesus is God concept doesn’t exist.
jesus is not the son of god. we like to believe the son of god is intelligent and not violent. so he will understand it is not the season for figs and he will not revenge the tree but try to optimize it's opportunities like finding water or fertiliser. But for sure not curse it or destroy it, being the son of god, the creator of also this tree.
who are you accused jesus is not the son of god… it is written and it is the prophecy everything jesus did is written and yet you say that jesus is violent and son of god is intelligent.. why do you know are you genius? there is a logical reason why he curse a tree… and if you don't know do not judge the son of god or your soul will burn in everlasting fire…
I believe it's better to leave scripture interpretation to experts, Catholic or not. Trying to discern their meaning would only lead to further fault-finding by liberals (in order to justify the whims of their flesh and mind). Regards
Never expected you'd find your way here, Pepe.
Railing at our "libetine execceses", aren't we?
Get ready for the backlash. It won't be pretty.
just curious… who are the "real" experts in bible interpretations??
Agree…
Even with reason, the haters can't even argue with the fig tree as a symbol and keep pushing it as a person.
you're free to think… is what this is about and I can't force people if they wish to deliberately misinerpret it with rigid bias.
It's not always about rights, it's also about responsibilities people. You want to push it so that you are free to do everything you want without consequences without authority. This story is a story of just punishment (whatever you think of just) of faults isolated in acts alone not of people as a whole.
And who may ask are the…er…"experts" on scriptural interpretations?
I get pissed off when these christians tell us to read the bible and uses it as an argument, can't they just use pure logic and reason? And the way they put "everything" into parables and signs. I bet that even if jesus tells you to "jump off a cliff and rot", christians will just tell us that "jesus wants us to trust him". Come on! (I woke up in the wrong side of the bed, just ignore me).
Oh and by the way @ reallythinkingfreely (?) (er…are you really thinking free?) Christmas is not about your God and Jesus. Have a nice winter soltice.
I'm somewhat with you @ penoy atheist, Christmas is not December 25 for me too. Christmas is when Christ was born to save you and me from our stupidities and sins. I am a free thinker, I care less about dates or holidays. It's like the day my girlfriend said 'YES' to me (although I still remember when)- that specific date does not matter to me much. What matters to me is that she acknowledged that she does love me ( and still loves me >20 yrs and counting). Araw-araw ay Pasko sa akin dahil alam ko na may Diyos na Nagmamahal sa akin 24/7.
So you're saying that you are using pagan and traditions of men to give glory to God?
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. <>
Christmas is base on pagan worship. I thought you're a Christian?
Also, remember what Jesus said to his deciples: And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? <>
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. <>
So are you sure Jesus know you? @ reallythinkingfreely (?)
"Christmas is base on pagan worship." nope. the true statement is many traditions have celebrations at or around december 25.
So what happened with being er…omni-benevolent? @ reallythinkingfreely (?). Dpo you say that Jesus has the right to snuff a life out because he owns it? That doesn't sound like a good god to me.
why isnt it a good god? this is interesting… if u create something, and this something isnt being/doing what its meant to do, isnt the 'good' thing to replace it?
But then it is the creator's fault for the imperfection of his creation. If the creation transgresses law established by the creator, it is due to the weakness that was instilled in the creation by the creator.
An omniscient God erring? @ GabbyD
If "God" err, then what made it a "god" in the first place?
@kiel, john
why? what kind of perfection are you looking for? immortality? mechanical perfection?
if one tree fails to bear fruit, does that mean the species is irrepecably damaged? hell, it doesnt even mean its totally useless. it can serve another purpose, as firewood, etc.
created life on earth IS good. and we are part of creation — humans can make it better!
for humanity, there is another wrinkle — freedom. our freedom allows humans to make mistakes. doesnt mean we're flawed….
We are not talking about "perfection" @ GabbyD, we're talking about omniscience.
So human can make it better…eh then what is the purpose of the gods? GabbyD we are talking about ethical implications here (chuckles)not mechanical perfection nor immortality.
Please try reading something first before replying. It will lessen you the burden of embarrasment @ GabbyD
@john
i try my damndest to read.
why i spoke of perfection, i was refering to "But then it is the creator’s fault for the imperfection of his creation."
if u read it, u'll see the word (im)perfection somewhere in there.
it also dovetails nicely to omniscience of God. if god is omniscient/benevolent, if u create something that can err, are u still omniscient. my contention is yes.
A God that yells "Adam! Eve! Where the fuck are you?!" in the garden of Eden is far from omniscient.
@ako
i dont think God says that
Parang inamin narin niya(god) na bobo siya(god) kung hinusgahan ka niya na bobo. Yun yung ibig kong sabihin dun sa sinabi ko. Tagalog na po yung ginamit kong lenggwahe kaya sana naman maintindihan mo na yung punto ko.@ GabbyD
"Theologians never try to address free will from the aspect of causation because they know it is a no win situation." – Lawrence Louis
@kiel
hindi naman kabobohan ang issue. its whether we choose to become the best person we were meant to be.
its freewill, not intelligence. sin is a choice. if we choose to sin, thats our call.
hence, the possiblity of failure isnt a flaw. it isnt a mark of imperfection, etc.
i think this is all a good thing.
Last year my 2 teenagers and I went on a cross country trip across US. One of the highlights of our trip is the the Yellowstone Ntl. Park visit. That's where the 'Old Faithful' geyser is located. The whole area including the adjacent Grand Teton Ntl Park, and Jackson Hole area – impressive work of God's creation. Some people call it God's country because of the awesome natural beauty present in that area. (I'm sure RP has some places equal in beauty to this). Anyways, many parts of Yellowstone was off limits to any visitor because the park rangers were intentionally doing controlled burning of acres-and -acres of mature forest areas in the park. We're talking thousands and tens of thousands of innocent trees that just happened to grow naturally where they were. I'ts like Jesus cursing to death that single fruitless fig, except you multiply it by hundreds of thousands. I am sure if pinoyatheist was aware of this atrocity/holocaust of trees which is being done on a regular basis by the US Ntl Park Rangers he will call them worst names than the way he described Jesus (for killing that solitary fig tree).
The issue here is AUTHORITY. The rangers at Yellowstone are authorized to burn down specific acreage of trees to prevent uncontrollable wild fires such as what happens in Calif on an annual basis. Likewise, Jesus has the AUTHORITY to do whatever he wants to do with people, trees or animals because He is the Lord of all creation. If He decided to burn down the whole Middle-East at that time because of Jewish and Roman leaders – He has the full authority to do it. Instead, Jesus just killed one tree to serve as an example that one day wether you are ready or not – Jesus will check on you. If you, pinoyatheist, are bearing fruits that will make Him happy – you are gonna be OK. But if you are bare of fruits, you're gonna get what happened to that tree.
The disciples learned the lesson that day. Killing that one fig tree for demonstration purpose is totally within the bounds of Jesus authority as the Lord of all creation.
Pinoyatheist, there were 2 more trees that were cut down, but they were FOR YOU. One was stuck vertically on the ground, the other shorter piece across the top side. YOU deserve to be nailed on that cross for maligning/insulting the God of this universe. But because Jesus (whom you call a nut job) loves you despite your great stupidity and sin – He volunteered to take your place.
He died for all of you atheists, deists, and religionists, etc.. . And Christ has the authority to live again and He did. He also has the authority to give each of you more meaningful and purposeful lives if you believe and commit your full trust on Him. If you really are free thinkers, you will seriously consider what Christ did for you on that wooden cross instead of getting stuck questioning his authority over a fruitless fig tree.
By the way, have you eaten a fresh fig fruit? I own a fig tree in my yard. If only I can plant a lansones tree in its place I would cut it down anytime. I am authorized – I own it! (except lansones can't grow here in the northeast).
Wishing you all God-haters: 'A Merry Christmas!'
Authority? So God err and the best way to correct his error is to destroy it @ reallythinkingfreely?
beside, let us (or maybe you) re-read the narrative. Jesus saw a fig tree and the tree don't have a fruit so he cursed it.
1. Does Jesus own the fig tree who have grown naturally on that place? Oh don't tell me that "God own everything" crap of an excuse @ reallythinkingfreely
The lot where the fig tree was growing wasn't from Jesus lawn!
Gosh! You're depicting God and Jesus @ reallythinkingfreely like a bad bully SOB…(chuckles!)
2 You say that those rangers in Yellowstone Park cut trees to prevent forest fire @ reallythinkingfreely So what does Jesus accomplished for killing a fig tree to make a…eh…demostration (?) woah…talk about Mafiosos Hahaha! Anyway, so what did he accomplised?
Can Jesus demostrate such a mundane example without extinguishing a life?
"Jesus will check on you. If you, pinoyatheist, are bearing fruits that will make Him happy – you are gonna be OK. But if you are bare of fruits, you’re gonna get what happened to that tree" Boy do Christian like you @ reallythinkingfreely always rely on scare tactics?
Jesus died for what? For me? For atheists? For deist? My papaya naman…Jesus died not because of me, but because he's a blasphemer. My gulay naman!
Jesus has an authority for himself? Are you reading your Bible? Jesus said…er seems you don't even read your Bible.
"If you really are free thinkers, you will seriously consider what Christ did for you on that wooden cross instead of getting stuck questioning his authority over a fruitless fig tree…"
John the Atheist: That depends if you know the meaning of the word "Freethinker". I guess not. Jesus did nothing for me…Maybe you should first try proving that your Jesus Christ character really exist. If you can't…then how does a non-existing being accomplished anything?
Try thinking first before posting something here for a change @ reallythinkingfreely
This is the best reply I have read so far in this thread. Thanks “john the atheist” for making my day.
Sorry can't see you in hell @ john the atheist. I'm movin on up!
If open mind needs some enlightenment, we should know how is carbon dioxide is on oxygen… Now… can you test your mind of how it would be with it. Experiment shows that plants have emotions and reacts on anything that it had with. So, what do you think, the plant just reacted?
Maybe the fig tree committed suicide because it doesn't want to commit sin and just wanted to be with Jesus. :o)
"You hypocrites, you could see that the rain will come but you could see the tide of things to come." :o)
P.S.: on my post I forgot to put 'not' in my last sentence. It should go like this;
“You hypocrites, you could see that the rain will come but you could 'not' see the tide of things to come.” 😮 )
Huh? Committing suicide is a sin right? So how can someone who committed it(suicide) be with Jesus?
And that's its biggest problem. you got this thick old book that people are willing to kill and be killed for, and you still can't tell for certain which parts are literal, and which ones are figurative. It switches literary style so often and without warning that no two readers will ever interpret it in exactly the same way and yet it has become justification for just about every atrocity committed in the name of christianity
I think this discussion can be wrapped up by Wes' initial comment:
"..yes it supposed to be a literary mechanism and shouldn’t be taken literally"
Shouldn't that apply to the whole Bible? Because human literary creativity is more plausible than a supernatural creator/big sky daddy.
It's a story, folks. Fiction, not fact.
If I likened Obama to a leader of an orc chief tribe because he is the president of a country. Are you saying he is not the president?
Metaphor is the creative part not the basis.
@ GabbyD:
Oops, you're right, now 'my' analogy is flawed. Please let me correct it:
How about if the owner of McDo gave a directive a long time ago that they will not be serving carbonated drinks on summer but only natural fruit juices and spring water. Then one summer he orders a Coke, and finding that there is none, decides to close that branch.
@innerminds
well, if you accept my argument that jesus knew the fig tree was barren (one of my comments above), then its like the boss of McDo wanted coke but was given dirty water instead.
@wes
it matters what it symbolizes. otherwise, we can't talk about it without a common vocabulary. there is agreement about what it symbolizes.
@innerminds
i'm lost with this mcdo analogy.in what sense did christ change the menu of the restaurant? if u say "natural foods fad", i'll kill myself 🙂
@innerminds, point taken. Still, I wouldn't want to work under a boss like that inasmuch as I wouldn't want to worship an egotistical god like that.
@Gabby, it wouldn't matter what they symbolize, I leave that to your biblical scholars… that is, if they would even agree among themselves what it's supposed to mean. But after 2000 years have passed and the Vatican still hasn't come up with an annotated version of the bible to let Christians know exactly what these biblical passages mean literally, I doubt even suck church elders can agree among themselves. So I refuse to be sucked in to lengthy discussion on such an opinionated issue.
What matters is how the customer-slash-Jesus reacted when he didn't get what he wanted.
From you bible:
"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven" – Ecc.3
If it's not fig season, tough luck, you'll have wait a few more months like everyone else because that's how the natural world works. As innerminds pointed out, if god was the one that made all the rules in the first place, why get mad if his creation doesn't break them for his benefit? If Jesus gave trees the ability to alter their biology at will or if McDonald's owner trained his staff to accommodate special orders for VIP's, then the story could have ended differently, but that's not the case, is it? We are bound by natural and/or corporate laws so demanding more is simply power-tripping.
@ Gabby:
I think the Coke/dirty water analogy is flawed. What would be more accurate is if the McDo owner wanted coke but was told that they no longer sell Coke because a few months ago the owner himself made a directive that they will no longer sell carbonated drinks and will shift to natural fruit juices and spring water instead. And because he was not given Coke, the owner decided to close that branch.
I think a more accurate McDonald's analogy would be that the owner of McDonald's himself demands a breakfast meal at noon and then closes that branch for not being able to come up with his order.
first, lets maintain the assumption that mcdo and the fig tree is symbolism. you seem to argue that they symbolize the SAME thing/idea. what is this "same thing/idea?
are you saying that jesus demanded from creation what is rightfully due him? (lets assume that he is God)
are you implying that jesus demanded something he had no right to (assume he is God)?
This reminds me of an incident I witnessed in McDonalds a while back…
There was this guy who tried to order a Big Breakfast meal kahit tanghali na. The counter-girl politely told him that they only served the breakfast menu till 10. Unfortunately this asshole wouldn't take no for an answer. He started berating and threatening the girl if they didn't give him his breakfast meal. He was ranting for around 15 minutes about the quality of service, that the customer should always be right, yadda yadda… He even threatened to write a complaint to the manager to get the poor girl fired.
—
Now how is this different from what Jesus did?
I think you should be the one answering your question about what the fig tree symbolizes to justify its death sentence.
death to sinfulness.
read the posts.
Man, this exegesis bullshit is simply cherry-picking. Most Christians, upon encountering a passage that makes them feel good (or that reaffirms their faith) take it literally. But when they encounter a very unsavory depiction of god, they assign all sorts of representations and twist the semantics.
Is that all you papists are good at?
@Innerminds
Good point. I overlooked that later part.
So he did wished for it to be withered. But what did the fig tree symbolize in the first place? It must be put into context.
I wonder if this doesn't have enough correlation to strongly suggest causality:
12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
22"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.
@ wes
what if he was hindu or taoist or even atheist?
Interesting theoretical situations. I wouldn't know what happened. But IMO I don't think it would differ. Just as telling a robber not to rob anymore whatever his religion.
Jesus didn’t even bother to check, but whatever he did to the “fig tree” caused it to die the next day. Still not “kulam”?
No. Obviously that's not a fact. Correlation doesn't mean Causality. As I said Jesus didn't destroy the fig tree.
Judgment? but according to who’s rules? Christianity is not the sole measure of morality in the world. Like it or not, we share the world with a hundred other faiths, each one with their own system of right-and-wrong.
I'm not imposing that everyone should follow Christianity nor would I coerce to follow Christianity.
here's a thought… what if the "fig tree" (in quotation marks) wasn't christian? what if he was hindu or taoist or even atheist? Jesus didn't even bother to check, but whatever he did to the "fig tree" caused it to die the next day. Still not "kulam"?
As I've said before, its biblical stories like these that may give license to radical theists to impose judgment on people not of their faith. They would just be following Jesus' example. I have no problems with other biblical stories that focus on the positive side of humanism but the very existence of stories like this give dangerous precedent.
Judgment? but according to who's rules? Christianity is not the sole measure of morality in the world. Like it or not, we share the world with a hundred other faiths, each one with their own system of right-and-wrong.
innerminds- very accurately and concisely expressed. I like you.
GabbyD, can anyone? i was being facetious with that statement. I havent had the luxury of reading enough of your posts to understand your real position, because you seem to give arguments both for and against. if you could clarify, i would appreciate it.
@SN
i too hold the opinion that god may not be proven. however, i am of the opinion that this is not because people of faith are stupid, gullible, and all kinds of wrong; but only that god isnt a statement of science and musnt be judged as so.
as for the fig tree, its an example of judgement in xtianity. while it is true we can reconcile with god until (almost) the very end — due to Jesus' mercy– it is NOT true that judgement can be postponed forever.
i have come to understand that judgement is something that many atheists have trouble with.
but i contend that judgement is a natural consequence of a relationship. it is NOT a theological contradiction to have a merciful god on the one had, and have judgement on the other.
Kayung mga atheist kyu, masunog kayung lahat sa impyerno!!!Dont you know that Jesus died for us? bakit hindi kyu naniniwala sa kanya? kawawa naman kyu!! mga mang mang sa katotohan, isa kyu sa mga naka hanay na mga antichrist..mga kampon ni satanas!!!
@ dark red: are you serious with your question considering you posted it on a freethought site?
This is the best reply I have read so far in this thread. Thanks "dark red" for making my day.
See you in hell @ dark red
John the Atheist
pero buhay pa siya di ba? so burado na yun!
GD – Sorry for this horribly late reply. just saw this today and i'd like to reposte.
I think you're making a distinction w/out a difference here. If atheists have an issue with judgment (i can't speak for all of them), it surely lies with God's record of judgment, not the concept of judgment itself. What you said here-
"but i contend that judgement is a natural consequence of a relationship. it is NOT a theological contradiction to have a merciful god on the one had, and have judgement on the other"
is an obvious and innate quality in human beings, but this sort of implies that atheists only expect mercy from God, and still want to be able to live their lives the way they want, free of any consequences. If this were true, we would see an extension of that belief system in their submission to local and governmental laws. It turns out that atheists – as a whole – are some of the most law abiding people on the planet, and there are entire countries as evidence that fact. Besides, how can a person have a relationship with something that we haven't even proven to exist yet? It's like trying to sum up a dissertation when people are still stuck on your thesis. There's an exploration of some very hard questions before we have the luxury of discussing relationships, don't you think?
Judgment is fair if laws are fair, clearly stated and available to all. Up to the arrival of Christ, that was hardly the case. If you read the bible carefully, it's quite clear that many people died throughout history as a consequence of the Israelites favored status with Yahweh more than anything else. Sure they worshiped false gods, but many were clueless and were never given the opportunity to come into the fold. In the context of what we, morally, as humans, have now obtained, this is wrong and unacceptable. We can't use the argument "but Christ changed…" because judgment has already been rendered on millions of people over thousands of years. Those people have no hope of a resurrection.
One reason i really refrain from discussions like these is because they often become arguments for the sake of arguing, but i can assure you – i'm not someone claiming to have all the answers here. It's nice when these discussions are made in plain english though, minus the authoritative/overly complicated speak often used as an aim to obfuscate an issue, or as a means to sound intellectual. I'm sure everyone has experiences with that.
Corrections from previous post:
the symbolism of the tree was more to the state of unfruitfulness rather than it being simply a person.
…pagbasbas (blessing) not babas.
Because he freaking attacked a friggin’ tree that was minding its own business! arrgh, the tree wasn’t out robbing a Rolex store or something like that.
I think you're confused to the symbolisms. If I symbolize saving someone from a burning building as slashing a sword against a huge monster, am I to be labelled as a killer or a violent person?
saving -> person
killing -> monster
Killing the monster means a good thing.
The tree wasn't a person, it was a state of being unfruitful in the eyes of God.
And he cursed the tree to death, in tagalog, KINULAM nya! And if you say that it was merely “condemnation” (though I wonder how you could say condemnation is “not bad”, have you ever felt being condemned in your entire life? like us atheists? Let me tell you, it doesn’t exactly make me feel the “love” of christ)
Ah gets ko na kung bakit napakabigat ng tingin mo sa "curse"/condemnation. Ang "kulam" ay iba sa "curse" dito at sa hebrew. Iba ito sa pangkukulam na ibig sabihin ay "pagkagusto ng masasamang pangyayari sa isang tao". Masama ang mangkukulam sa bibliya (Deuteronomy 18:10-11). Dito ang 'curse' ay parang kabaligtaran lang ng 'pagbabas'. Magaan lang parang 'hindi pag sang ayon'.
Ang kulam ay nakatutok na mismo sa buong pagkatao ng walang pagasa ng pagpapatawad. Ang condemnation o curse dito ay sa isang aspeto lang ng tao. Sa isang masamang ugali o gawain tulad ng ginawa niya sa templo.
Yes I know what it means to be condemned/hated/betrayed for what feels like a lifetime. Even Jesus knows it. Read other gospels on how he was betrayed, spitted upon, labelled as being possessed by demons and oh…to be freakin' nailed to a freakin' cross. This single story is even a weak example of how Jesus viewed people. Read and see how he forgave people who crucified him, betrayed him (Luke 23:34). How he forgave and defended a harlot from a group of self-righteous pharisees and scribes (John 8:1-11).
This story is significant for that very reason. Atheists can relate to the fig tree. All we want is to be left alone to live our own lives as we see fit. We are minding our own business, not out killing or stealing or whatever. Then along comes Jesus who curses/condemns us because it displeased him. Now take a look at what you christians are doing. See the parallelism?
Where’s the love? the forgiveness? the tolerance? All I see is bigotry, judgment, and an insane level of pushiness to force everyone to conform to your own standards.
On behalf of Christians, I am sorry. I am fully aware of the bigotry of Christians (mostly Catholics) today that's why many people see Jesus as a judgemental, punishing, oppressive figure. I assure you those people do not live a life in parallel to that of Jesus but are Christians in name only. I see many Catholics today being self-righteous thinking high of themselves and exclude their love from non-christians. Ironic considering that the adjective catholic means universal, not narrow-minded, partial, or bigoted.
@Ed
agree with you here.
@SN
proving God exists? can u do that?
GabbyD w/this: "at the end of the flood, its written that God wouldn’t do that again"
Yes of course, he will bring some other form of worldwide cataclysm upon us. Instead of water, it will probably be fire or perhaps an asteroid next time around.
also- "with jesus/NT, the situation has changed– reconciliation is ours to have if we want it."
hang on Gab… we are still in the process of proving God exists.
instead of a flood, in January 2010 god will use the LEGION. 🙂
It's one thing to judge, but totally another thing to condemn to death.
Can you imagine a loving and merciful God who would punish His own creation for the imperfections He Himself caused? If a boy makes a kite that won’t fly, probably the most he will do is throw it away and then make another. He will not burn it – much less for all eternity. Well a sadistic kid with the makings of a sociopath might do that, but is that what God is supposed to be – a sadist?
@SN
at the end of the flood, its written that God wouldn't do that again. also, with jesus/NT, the situation has changed– reconciliation is ours to have if we want it.
@Pinoyatheist
its beginning to dawn on me that the idea of judgement is troubling to many.
however, assuming God exists and free will exists, judgement is only natural.
in society, we judge others all the time. if someone makes a mistake, we judge him/her for relationships are severed when mistakes occur.
this isn't the action of malevolent people/beings. unless we are all malevolent beings, which i dont think is true.
"…the answer is plants ought to be pleasing to god, and be fruitful. if they are not, there will be judgement."
Judging on what I have read in your post @ GabbyD, I'm dealing with a melevolent monster-bully in the clouds, not on something worthy of unfettered devotion.
@wes
i'm sorry i caused you to *sigh* — far from it!
i agree that the tree is a symbol, but we must ask: a symbol of WHAT/WHO?
is it, as you say: some group? what group? these are important questions to ask, so as to truly get the point of it.
as edward said at the top, its a symbol for those people (presumably all of us) who are being judged, and refuse to be fruitful/pleasing to god.
a tree, if its barren, cannot CHOOSE to be unbarren. as i mentioned to pinoyatheist, a tree (in general, all of us) are expected to be fruitful/pleasing to God. its true — if a person refuses to be fruitful, then its to be judged accordingly.
so, to be clear, i think we are both on the same page on the concept of symbolism.
we are also in agreement about not "softpedalling" the notion of judgement. its harsh, but its key. we will all be judged.
what i was trying to clarify is what the tree is supposed to be. its a tree — its either fruitful or its not. more to the point, it is unable to make the choice. it represents people at the endtimes, who, like a tree, will be unable to make a choice.
so the tree is not a human in this VERY fundamental way — able to freely make choices that make all the difference. the tree doesnt represent "any sector of society" you wish this to apply to, ie athiests, scientists, etc. technically, all people can choose to be "fruitful" (where i used "." coz this is a different kind of fruitfulness)
@pinoyatheist
perhaps you've hit on an interesting consequence of christian attitude regarding forgiveness on the one had, and judgement on the other.
God expects us to be fruitful, like a fruitful tree. if a tree is not fruitful, it will be judged as such.
its a reminder about the fact that, at some point, people will be judged. the commenter above says its symbolism for the end times. i agree.
judgement is harsh. but its a key part of christian theology.
but here's the key thing — we (people) can choose to change and be fruitful. Jesus came to give us this opportunity/show us the way. in fact, jesus himself said, we can repent till the very end (as he forgave the thief on the cross).
the tree represents people who cannot/refuse to be fruitful in a way that is pleasing to god.
to put in terms of what you wrote, the answer is plants ought to be pleasing to god, and be fruitful. if they are not, there will be judgement.
i agree with wes' early comment. we can't soft pedal this implication. end-times judgement is a big part of xtianity.
In the spirit of comaraderie, I’ll address my own speculation and say that my personal theodicy fails simply because God, for a long stretch of history, actually DID have a direct hand in the affairs of humankind and still failed repeatedly. We’ve established his inability to properly sovereign his creation ages ago. A few here are encumbered with that fig tree parable, but from a very early age the SN has found himself particularly disheartened with our lords hot-headedness and lack of patience with his own creation- hang-ups that are bountifully and lamentably evident throughout the old testament, and most significantly displayed during Noah’s time. Indeed, God summited the pinnacle of his volcanic ire at this point in history, where at Genesis 6:7 we find a proclamation sufficient to render a despair beyond anything our petty mortal hearts could ever bear. I’m sure everyone realizes that if it weren’t for Noah, not one living, breathing, heathen among us would be around to smoke cigarettes and drink beer while we type stuff up to castigate him. In all honesty though, he should have trusted his instincts at the time for the sake of millions upon millions who have suffered in every horrible and imaginable way since. For me personally, it’s hard for him to justify that decision, and I haven‘t gotten over that particular verse since grade 5.
Though the believers would point out that this repeated saga of giving chances over and over again just exemplifies his mercy, you have to wonder why he hasn’t been able to get things right by now. The debauched history of our planet presents us with the indubitable truth that free will is and always will be the persistent flaw in his handiwork. Based on what we’ve seen, there is a very likely probability that we will replay this scenario over and over again no matter how clean of a slate of righteous people God starts over with in the future- unless he decides to wise up and snuff out any would-be rebels before they ever became a problem. Maybe we expect too much out of that guy. Maybe the solution is as simple as that, but you know what that means- there will be no free will in the post-apocalyptic new world.
If all things are possible with God, he could have possessed us with free moral agency and yet somehow, made sure that the inclination of our hearts were good all the time, instead of what you read in Genesis 6:5. It should be totally within his abilities, but all we see is self-refutation, everywhere you look.
*sigh*
how can I put it in terms you can understand? for whatever sector of society the fig tree is supposed to represent, its the reaction of Jesus toward them that I find disturbing, not the fact that he was actually talking to a tree. Are we on the same page?
Fig trees also has the right to live @ GabbyD. In fact, every life form in this planet has the right to live.
he's such a retard for throwing tantrums at a fig tree
@wes October 24, 2009 at 12:08 pm
i was reacting to your comment on (October 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm), where u said he shouldve forgiven/given mercy to the fig tree.
indeed, you continue in the next comment, saying: "Because he freaking attacked a friggin’ tree that was minding its own business! arrgh, the tree wasn’t out robbing a Rolex store or something like that….And he cursed the tree to death, in tagalog, KINULAM nya"
its a tree. we dont forgive trees. perhaps more to the point, trees dont desire to be forgiven/have a relationship with god (in the way humans do).
@edward,
Because he freaking attacked a friggin' tree that was minding its own business! arrgh, the tree wasn't out robbing a Rolex store or something like that.
And he cursed the tree to death, in tagalog, KINULAM nya! And if you say that it was merely "condemnation" (though I wonder how you could say condemnation is "not bad", have you ever felt being condemned in your entire life? like us atheists? Let me tell you, it doesn't exactly make me feel the "love" of christ)
This story is significant for that very reason. Atheists can relate to the fig tree. All we want is to be left alone to live our own lives as we see fit. We are minding our own business, not out killing or stealing or whatever. Then along comes Jesus who curses/condemns us because it displeased him. Now take a look at what you christians are doing. See the parallelism?
Where's the love? the forgiveness? the tolerance? All I see is bigotry, judgment, and an insane level of pushiness to force everyone to conform to your own standards.
@gabbyD: we already moved past that a couple of exchanges ago, its symbolism, we know. please keep up
@wes says:
October 23, 2009 at 5:35 pm
he didnt forgive the fig tree… its coz its a fig tree. humans, we forgive…
″I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.
— i guess this is the reason why we filipinos suffers from 20+ typhoon eventhough our country is 99+ % theist… they pray their heart out so that typhoon will not reached the philippines but alas…
@wes
maybe jesus is really having a bad day that time… he was hungry. though i can't understand kung bakit yung puno yung pinag intirisan nya….
"pag di mo nakita yung pinapahanap ko sayo… makikita mo!"
@wes
No matter how much you soft-peddle the interpretation, Jesus still comes out as judge-jury-and-executioner
Being judge-jury-and-executioner is neutral in this scenario. If you witness a robbery happening you're not going to stop it?.
not as the enlightened messiah full of love and forgiveness for those who have gone astray.
He forgave the temple by allowing them a second chance but did not allow the profiteering to continue. Forgiveness doesn't mean you allow or consent for sins to continue.
Ascribe as much layer of symbolism as you wish to that fig tree, but the fact still remains that this portrayal of Jesus would rather destroy than rehabilitate.
As I read Jesus didn't destroy the fig tree. It withered on its own.
Cursing it was most likely a sybmolism of condemning people of being unfruitful. Which is not bad.
Its passages like these that make it so easy for religious radicals to quote as justification for atrocities committed in the name of jesus.
For their selfish/sinful reasons or simply out of ignorance, religious radicals want to see their own translations to be apparent to begin with – even with meditation and discussion. I wouldn't blame the messenger.
please read all the verses why jesus do that its because he want his disciples have faith. I'll copy and paste it here.
Mark 11:12-26 (New International Version)
Jesus Clears the Temple
12The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[a]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[b]"
18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19When evening came, they[c] went out of the city.
The Withered Fig Tree
20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
22"Have[d] faith in God," Jesus answered. 23"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."[e]
is it clear
"Why did Jesus (if he’s a god) cannot even tell if it’s fig season?"
____________
He was (is) not a God, he is the son of God, no? Peruse the old testament and you clearly observe a radical personality change from Yahweh to that of Christ, so who can honestly accept the notion that they are one and the same? A vindictive ("venegence is mine, i shall recompense") God turned over a new leaf, and suddenly urged his followers to practice the law of love. Way different approach.
If one chooses to venture into any belief in the bible, the first thing they should do is reject the trinity doctrine. Jefferson, Adams, and the other founding fathers did, but one doesn't need such intellect to identify it as a crock.
@wes
indeed! this is important — love doesnt mean, everything is ok, no matter what you do with your life. this is true is xtianity, as well as anywhere else. for xtianity: jesus said that there will be judgement at some point. and when this time comes, we should be ready (be vigilant always).
So, my unsolicited (and perhaps unwanted) viewpoint is really this: from the vantage of an anti-thiest, accepting the edict of the trinity doctrine (hypothetically, of course) gives you tons more ammo to pick apart any concept of our lord and savior having an immaculate nature that is above any reproach. You can tee off endlessly because that makes christ the god of the old testament, and God knows (oops) there are cases upon cases of humanitarian violations strewn about Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, numbers… all the way up to their culmination with that fig tree incident.
Does anyone here swallow the typical theodicies floating around out there that might justify his (their) unacceptable neglect and disinterest in human affairs? This may or may not be an original thought, but it could boil down to God proving to humans, once and for all time, that he deserves to be the rightful ruler of the universe. Consider- if things were hunky dory up till our present day, perhaps some evil shmuck would get testy one day and question Gods rightful sovereignty over mankind. It seems inevitable that it would happen. At present, we have a record of what happens when we stray from Gods commands, and in the future, we can just refer back to the wreck humanity once was and say “those were some f*cked up times, lets not try that sh*t again”.
I can sum it up with the following question- does some justification exist for that fig tree incident, and since we are suddenly trinitarians, for christ’s outrageous behavior in the old testament?
@crusader: Don't you see the irony of the story? while Jesus preached about forgiveness to his apostles, he didn't give a chance to the fig tree to make up for displeasing him. I find it hypocritical of Jesus to say one thing and act another way. Di nya lang hinusgahan, pinatay nya pa.
Parang isang tatay na sinasabi sa anak nya "Anak, wag kang manigarilyo at maglasing, masama yan para sayo" sabay yosi at toma.
A truly enlightened and forgiving god would urge the tree to bear good fruit to better glorify his name. amen, amen, hallelujah.
@edward: appreciate the little exegesis there. yes it supposed to be a literary mechanism and shouldn't be taken literally (though I'm pretty sure pinoyatheist is pretty much aware of this and this just poking fun)
But the overall theme of this bible passage cannot be ignored. No matter how much you soft-peddle the interpretation, Jesus still comes out as judge-jury-and-executioner, not as the enlightened messiah full of love and forgiveness for those who have gone astray.
Ascribe as much layer of symbolism as you wish to that fig tree, but the fact still remains that this portrayal of Jesus would rather destroy than rehabilitate.
Its passages like these that make it so easy for religious radicals to quote as justification for atrocities committed in the name of jesus.
thanks for sharing this parable, as i dont remember this at all. a google investigation reveals that, there should be a form of immature figs that ought to have been there even if it wasnt fig season itself.
without the precursor figs, the real figs would not grow. the tree would be barren.
If you see the recurrent theme of the fig-tree in the gospels:
Luke 13:6-9 Parable of the fig tree
Mark 13:28-33 Another reference
The fig tree is God's people. They are naturally to bear fruit in God's name. The unbearing fruits are to be cut off from God's Kingdom.
Personally my interpretation of the destruction of the fig tree is a metaphor. Jesus was making a point using a reference his parables in the new testament. He wasn't really looking for fruit at the fig tree. He already knew that there was none there. Remember that his disciples were taking notice of him while with the fig tree.
Before the incident happened Mark 11:11 happened first. This was to be interpreted as Jesus seeing all the corruption in Jerusalem including the temple in which is later revealed as being made into 'a den of robbers'.
The destruction of the fig tree was to be a foreshadowing (or plan) to what will happen next. Jesus and his followers were to cut off the unbearing fig tree from God's Kingdom. They stormed the temple and cleansed it of corruption that the priests,scribes and elders (supposedly people of God) had done.
The temple serving as God's people is a fig tree planted by God to serve the 'hunger' of the people for God. But here we see that this temple is not only unfruitful but even worse. They allow merchants and money changers inside the temple. A house of prayer made into a house of profiteering. "May no one eat fruit from you again!"
Now, is this the way this “Jesus loves me” thing supposed to act? Aside from the obvious question as to why Jesus, being so big on forgiveness here, did not forgive the fig tree (or even heal it), He even cursed it!
His forgiveness is apparent in this story when he came back from the temple (Yes the temple was still standing and fully functional) and allowed them to explain themselves. Mark 11:27-33.
Refer to the Parable of the Fig Tree. I think Jesus manifests his being the vine-dresser when the latter said ‘Lord, leave it alone this year also, until I dig around it, and fertilize it. If it bears fruit, fine; but if not, after that, you can cut it down'. In the parable, the owner of the land is the vengeful God who wishes to cut down the unfruitful fig tree, and Jesus asks him to let him to 'leave it alone this year'. Even though he cursed the fig tree, he didn't actually cut it off but dug around it and fertilize it hoping it will grow.