A Fig for 'what's his name'.
ar...@lymph.dec.com
and about to put a match to the whole thing and start over) and I can't find
the posting, brought up Christ cursing the fig tree as an example of 'God having
a snit' and who could believe in a God who goes around cursing trees, etc.etc.
In my mind's eye I can see a long line of guys like him standing before God at
the Last Judgement saying things like, "How was I to know?" and expecting to
make a favorable impression. What I mean is one would think it might be
reasonable to expect someone to realize that an account of something that
happened two thousand years ago in a different culture involving an item
(figs) which we in our culture only see wrapped in plastic on a food mart
shelf, . . . it might be reasonable to expect them to suspect more than meets
the 20th century reading eye! But then when the average public schooler can
only read on the 4th or 5th grade level what else is new?
One sees the same kind of tripe expressed over and over on the nets - rabid
unconscious ethnocentric rantings. The true mark of a public school pagan!
Especially about things Christian and the Bible. I wonder do they tell their
doctor how to examine them? Or advise authoritatively the auto mechanic who
works on their car? Or do they realize that perhaps there may be some areas
in which a little probing beyond the 'obvious' might be in order before offering
an opinion with such a 'know it all' tone. And I confess that, unfortunately,
I have seen the same kind of thing among Christians sometimes when holding
forth about what the scripture says or doesn't say!! Perhaps it's a function
of the crazy American corruption of the idea that every man's opinion should
be heard into every man's opinion has weight. Shoot first and think later!
But shoot!
Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus
went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was
not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever
eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again
the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead.
Now if you and I are talking and I say, "My son works on Wall Street", you know
I mean he works with stocks and bonds. Or if I had said Madison Ave. you would
have understood something. Would anyone two thousand years from now??? Or in
the time of Jesus?? Perhaps not. They might think I was mentioning only
the street on which my son worked - not at what job he was employed. One could
think of a hundred other examples. I can't write for ALL readers in time. No
one DOES! We HAVE to take into account the cultural context of an historical
document!! There ARE, boys and girls, some things in the scripture that we
STILL don't know what is referenced. Just so with ANY document of age. Just so
the fig tree! Matthew and Mark weren't writing with the 20th Century pagans,
who only see plastic wrapped figs, in mind!!
W.M. Christe, a Church of Scotland (thank God for the glorious Church of
Scotland!) minister in Palestine during the British Mandate regime pointed out
the time of year the incident was said to have taken place, given that Jesus
was crucified in early April, means that "Towards the end of March the leaves
begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coin-
cident with this, and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of
small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grow to
the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and
others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop
off." W.M. Christie, PALESTINE CALLING, London,1939, pp.118-120.
F.F. Bruce, quoting Christie as above in THE HARD SAYINGS OF JESUS,
InterVarsity Press, 1983, pp 208-9, remarks that these precursors of the true
fig are called TAQSH in Palestinian Arabic. If the leaves appear with no
TAQSH it is a sign that there will be no figs!
Remember, God's curse is upon a mal-formed world, a broken world. A world
not as he made it, 'good', and not the way it 'ought' to be. In fact God
has promised to DESTROY this world and replace it with another that is
'good' again. In light of this understanding it is perfectly natural,
reasonable, and wonderful that Jesus should 'curse' the barren fig tree
which should have provided food for them when they were very hungry!!
The way you or I might curse the death of an infant! (Theological turtles
will here see some problem because they cannot conceive of God creating
beings/things not an extension of himself and therefore all the 'blame' and
accountability for a 'broken' world must rest at God's door and it is somehow
unfair of God to require payment for 'sins' from a sinner since God created the
sinner, blah, blah, blah.)
Remember Jesus at the tomb of his friend Lasarus weeping because of death?
Or weeping over the lack of belief of the Jews to receive him as Messiah?
God hates death and hates our angst just as we do! But he can and has done
something about it! Whereas we are powerless without him.
I believe that the cursing of the fig tree should be seen in this light and
was recorded for us by two apostles to express this very thought. I don't
know about you, but it gives me chills to think of Jesus placing his curse
upon what is wrong with/in the world. My curse is merely an expression. I
shake my fist at death, etc. and nothing happens. His curse, his expression
like mine that the world is 'broken' results in judgment! People are falling
all over themselves to save the whales/seals/children (strange, but it often
seems to be in that order) and one really wonders if ANYTHING really lasting
is accomplished.
In light of the above, how silly indeed is the 'God in a snit' explanation
for this recorded event! How much is lost by not looking further.
Well, keep chargin'
Ken Arndt
Oleg Kill the bastards Kiselev
>Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus
>went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was
>not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever
>eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again
>the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead.
Yes, Jesus was a very balanced, level-headed, sane man. He cursed a tree that
through no fault of its own (isn't EVERYTHING except human will controlled by
JHVH?) happened to not be capable of bearing fruit for a season. Well, a worship
of a dead psychopath is as good as any other, right? If J.C. is any reflection ]
on JHVH, Phillip K. Dick and J.R. "Bob" Dobbs were right about Him!
>Remember, God's curse is upon a mal-formed world, a broken world. A world
>not as he made it, 'good', and not the way it 'ought' to be. In fact God
>has promised to DESTROY this world and replace it with another that is
>'good' again.
Uh, He MADE it that way! Why the sudden show of resentment? Or is Jhvh so poor
an engineer that even after a major overhaul via The Flood He still couldn't get
things working right?
>In light of the above, how silly indeed is the 'God in a snit' explanation
>for this recorded event! How much is lost by not looking further.
Ken, if you REALLY believe that Jhvh is THE GOD and is the Creator of the
Universe and all the powerful and omnipotent things Bible and Xtian scholars
would have us believe -- what does it matter WHY JC cursed the damned tree?
And why is it important to you and other Xtian nitwits to prove to us that
JHVH and JC are really great guys that love us a whole bunch? If Jhvh is THE GOD
DOES THAT REALLY MATTER?! Are you afraid to discover that your Creator is an
asshole? And IFF He was -- WHY would that change anything?!! He would STILL be
THE LORD GOD, KING of KINGS, etc. and you STILL have to dance His tune? So
why all these excuses and apologies? You make me sick.....
Hey, Xtians! How many of you would continue to worship your God if it were
undeniably proven to you that he is the Damager-God? Why WOULDN'T you?
Oleg "Have guts to admit your God is is an asshole" Kiselev
HASA, "A" division on a Drug Crussade!
Mike Huybensz
In article <53...@decwrl.DEC.COM> ar...@lymph.dec.com writes:
> Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew. Jesus
> went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates that it was
> not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying, "May no one ever
> eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning passing the tree again
> the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead.
As miracles go, this is pretty pitiful. The tree might have been knocked down,
ripped up, or girdled for all the text says.
[Explanation of how JC could have seen that there were no figs developing on
that tree, even though if there were they wouldn't be ready.]
> ... In light of this understanding it is perfectly natural,
> reasonable, and wonderful that Jesus should 'curse' the barren fig tree
> which should have provided food for them when they were very hungry!!
> The way you or I might curse the death of an infant!
Not at all. Cursing the death of an infant doesn't cause death.
And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing
the tree is simply wanton destruction.
--
Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a
case brimming with such poetical emotion?"
Chancellor: "Distinctly."
From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Paul M Koloc
brilliantly "lucidates":
>Ken Arndt launches into yet another frenzy of fuzzy thinking!
>In article <53...@decwrl.DEC.COM> ar...@lymph.dec.com writes:
>> Anyway, on to the figs. The incident is related by Mark and Matthew.
>> Jesus went to the fig tree and found nothing but leaves and Mark relates
>> that it was not the season for figs. Then Jesus cursed the tree saying,
>> "May no one ever eat fruit from you again", (Mark 11:14). Next morning
>> passing the tree again the disciples were amazed to find the tree dead.
>And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing
>the tree is simply wanton destruction.
Fig trees have deep roots and are extremely hardy compared with the
more common apple, peach, etc., which are more common hereabouts.
Consequently, they usually don't have "barren" years. If this tree
wasn't fruiting there probably was something seriously and fatally
wrong. Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do
it with a damn!
To say that it was "wanton"ly destroyed, is probably just a
random vocalization resulting from "fuzzy wuzzy" thinking!!!
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this |
| {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; p...@prometheus.UUCP | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
R. James Nusbaum
[warning flame ahead]
In article <53...@decwrl.DEC.COM> ar...@lymph.dec.com writes:
>Someone, I can't remember who (I'm losing the battle of the desk top here
[content deleted]
>
>Well, keep chargin'
>
>Ken Arndt
A new crusader appears to have jumped on the net. Every so often someone
attacks the net with a vengence, spewing out article after article. Mr. Arndt
appears to be the most recent example. I have been following
talk.religion.misc since its inception and have been for the most part very
pleased with the high traffic and intelligent discussion in it. However,
occasionally someone like Mr. Arndt comes along and damages the arguments
of many on the net. His rambling, almost unreadable text is filled with
condescending remarks and sickening cuteness. He evidently expects people
to agree with his opionions simply because he has said it is so. This
attitude and method greatly denigrates the efforts of the many well meaning,
intelligent Christians who have been submitting articles to this newsgroup.
I must also comment on his disgusting racial slurs and political diatribe
which he inserted into one of his early articles. That kind of statement
does not have any place in this newsgroup.
I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian
viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people
of diverse religious backgrounds to live together in peace. It is the
intoleration of opposing religious views which has recently been on the
rise in the US that has so many non-Christians striking back in retaliation.
I urge everyone who participates in this newsgroup to keep their postings
intelligent and thoughtful. Postings like Mr. Arndt's are ineffective
at changing opinions and merely incense others. This then leads to emotional
rhetoric from the other side and the ensuing feud wastes time which could
better be spent on logical, adult discussion.
I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering
to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion
on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early
childhood that I believe they simply accept it as fact. It is obvious
that many Christians have had almost no real exposure to any other religion
but their own. In fact it seems that they are even unaware of the many
different sects and offshoots of the Christian religion which are thriving
today. I would urge everyone to spend a little time studying religion
before making rash statements which will simply be rebutted immediately
by someone more knowledgeable.
Not wanting to beat a subject into the ground, but it keeps coming up.
Christian supporters keep quoting from the Bible and other Christian
religious works as 'proof' of certain things. I would hope that you will
soon realize that most of us who do not agree with you will not accept
any of these quotes as proof in any way. The concept of circular reasoning
has been brought up over and over. I suggest you look up the term and
try a new method of persuasion.
Jim Nusbaum
--
R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department,
Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110.
CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn
ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
M.A.Gore - ICR
[warning light ahead]...Well perhaps
In article <85...@duke.duke.UUCP> r...@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes:
>[warning flame ahead]
>
>In article <53...@decwrl.DEC.COM> ar...@lymph.dec.com writes:
[munch]
>>Ken Arndt
>
>A new crusader appears to have jumped on the net. Every so often someone
>attacks the net with a vengence, spewing out article after article. Mr. Arndt
>appears to be the most recent example. I have been following
>talk.religion.misc since its inception and have been for the most part very
>pleased with the high traffic and intelligent discussion in it. However,
>occasionally someone like Mr. Arndt comes along and damages the arguments
>of many on the net. His rambling, almost unreadable text is filled with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps you can't damage an argument unless it has holes in it...?(-:
If you *just* disagree *simply* state your position. History and
your arguments will stand on it's own....But words like 'vengence', 'attacks',
'spewing', 'damages', 'unreadable'. Emotional words from someone who want's
intelligent discussion?
>condescending remarks and sickening cuteness. He evidently expects people
>to agree with his opionions simply because he has said it is so. This
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is the case it would have been noticed and *that would
be that*....
>attitude and method greatly denigrates the efforts of the many well meaning,
>intelligent Christians who have been submitting articles to this newsgroup.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you speak for all? (Some ? ... a few ... 1)?
>I must also comment on his disgusting racial slurs and political diatribe
^^^^^^^^^
I've read many postings by Ken and haven't seen any of this
nature *yet*. An example would have been in keeping with what you
expect from yourself. (I hope that people will not think I'm trying
to speek for them here. I'm voicing my own views here... ie 1)
>which he inserted into one of his early articles. That kind of statement
>does not have any place in this newsgroup.
>
>I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian
>viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people
>of diverse religious backgrounds to live together in peace. It is the
^^^^^^^^^^^
To have peace one must be humble first to *accept* differing views.
Here 'accept' is as in 'endure' without protest but still
adult disscussion can happen.
>intoleration of opposing religious views which has recently been on the
^^^^^^^^^^
There is a difference between intoleration and defence. To some
defence *SEEMS* like intolerance. Two guesses why.
>rise in the US that has so many non-Christians striking back in retaliation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ever thought that 'retaliation' causes defensiveness, as in to
defend?
>I urge everyone who participates in this newsgroup to keep their postings
>intelligent and thoughtful. Postings like Mr. Arndt's are ineffective
^^^^^^^^^^
It's been known that opinions are ineffective if you don't agree.
>at changing opinions and merely incense others. This then leads to emotional
>rhetoric from the other side and the ensuing feud wastes time which could
^^^^^^^
See above.
>better be spent on logical, adult discussion.
>
>I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering
>to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion
^^^^^^^
Use only accepted secular texts? ( I know you
talk about circular reasoning later however....:-)
>on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early
>childhood that I believe they simply accept it as fact. It is obvious
>that many Christians have had almost no real exposure to any other religion
>but their own. In fact it seems that they are even unaware of the many
>different sects and offshoots of the Christian religion which are thriving
>today. I would urge everyone to spend a little time studying religion
>before making rash statements which will simply be rebutted immediately
>by someone more knowledgeable.
>
These last statements I agree with
(just so I'm not labeled a critic here).
[munch]
>...The concept of circular reasoning
>has been brought up over and over. I suggest you look up the term and
>try a new method of persuasion.
>
>Jim Nusbaum
[munch]
>R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department,
[munch munch]
And again I agree in that last statements.
Jim I can see your upset. You fail to live up to your ideal in
this posting though. What do you feel about people that have a personal
experiance with God? Many Christians take that for granted when they
quote the Bible as support. (re circular reasoning etc...)
I realize Ken should reply here in his own defence.
I feel issues here affect more then him. You brought up a problem.
Here is an observation: The method and attitude that you use in your
posting are a self example of some problems in this group. I hope
I haven't cast too much gloom on your day though!
# Mike Gore
# Institute for Computer Research.
# These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
Mike Huybensz
> In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing
> >the tree is simply wanton destruction.
>
> Fig trees have deep roots and are extremely hardy compared with the
> more common apple, peach, etc., which are more common hereabouts.
> Consequently, they usually don't have "barren" years. If this tree
> wasn't fruiting there probably was something seriously and fatally
> wrong. Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do
> it with a damn!
First, you're just guessing, since there's nothing in the Bible suggesting
that in the least.
Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have
performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear
fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.)
I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume
god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret
the bible to cast god in a favorable light." You blatantly assume what
you want to prove, rather than examining the evidence (such as it is.)
Paul M Koloc
>> In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>> >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing
>> >the tree is simply wanton destruction.
>In article <2...@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> Pruning diseased trees can be a good thing, even if you do it with a damn!
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have
>performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear
>fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.)
Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed
than others and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so
good in this life, so maybe we should be give a few lessons in
"tough love". You can't imagine what monsters some of us turn
out to be when "mommy" and "dada" always come to the rescue every
time we mess up.
>I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume
>god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret
>the bible to cast god in a favorable light."
>You blatantly assume what you want to prove, rather than examining
>the evidence (such as it is.)
On dear, I'm guilty, I'm guilty! Do anything - but Please,.. I beg you!
DON'T FEED ME TO THE CHRISTIANS. aaaaaahhhhhggga
Gee, I think I've met me a "flaming liberal".
Mikki Barry
>In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>>Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have
>>performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear
>>fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.)
>Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed
>than others and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so
>good in this life, so maybe we should be give a few lessons in
>"tough love". You can't imagine what monsters some of us turn
>out to be when "mommy" and "dada" always come to the rescue every
>time we mess up.
Sounds to me like the "Sure, I *could* have done that...I just didn't want
to" you probably heard when the neighborhood pompous ass was cornered as
a kid. You really believe in a god like this?
It is unfortunate that many religious people have to resort to doublespeak
when it comes to dealing with "miracles". They blindly assume that whatever
this entity that they so dearly want to believe is good, ALWAYS does good.
Regardless that it may be killing a tree for being a tree, sending humans
to hell for being imperfect (even though *he* supposedly made us this way),
cursing the human race for seeking knowledge, razing the entire earth with a
flood, killing multitudes in cities he decided weren't quite good enough for
him, killing children for taunting a prophet, and the list goes on.
>>I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume
>>god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret
>>the bible to cast god in a favorable light."
>>You blatantly assume what you want to prove, rather than examining
>>the evidence (such as it is.)
>
>On dear, I'm guilty, I'm guilty! Do anything - but Please,.. I beg you!
> DON'T FEED ME TO THE CHRISTIANS. aaaaaahhhhhggga
You mean you can't think of anything substantial to say to Mike's point?
He brought up a good one, yet all you do is flail around it and make sarcastic
remarks. Why not add a bit of response along with them?
By the way, you ARE guilty if you are a christian. Your religion teaches
you that you are born with ready-made sin. And it seems that it is too late.
You have already been "fed" to the christians.
Believe if you wish, but please do not think that the rest of the net will
look at the absurdities expressed about this "miracle" and not wonder,
doubt, and perhaps disbelieve. It will always be illogical to many of us
that this "wonderful and caring fatherly god" would wontonly kill one of his
creations because it was imperfect when he himself made it that way.
>Gee, I think I've met me a "flaming liberal".
Really? Mike H? Now that *is* funny!
Mikki Barry
HASA
----------------------------------------------
"Here are the five alternate histories," Graud said, his wise old eyes
crinkling humorously. "Each of you will be responsible for planting
the evidence to make one of these histories seem fairly credible."
Mike Huybensz
article before writing a response, or you'll shoot yourself in the foot.
In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP I write:
> [paragraph 1 omitted]
> I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume
> god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret
> the bible to cast god in a favorable light." You blatantly assume what
> you want to prove, rather than examining the evidence (such as it is.)
In article <2...@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) answers
paragraph 1's argument with exactly the same sort of fallacy:
> Very true, but remember Mike, some of us are more thick headed than others
> and we couldn't learn that there miracle thing so good in this life, so
> maybe we should be give a few lessons in "tough love".
Perhaps you need a lesson in "tough love", Paul. Shall I ask Charlie Wingate
to stand behind you with a broomstick to discipline you whenever you repeat
a fallacy you've just been chastised for?
--
"A loud-mouthed, red-necked stogie-sucker! And them's good eatin'"
Anonymous duck in Bloom County.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Paul M Koloc
>Sounds to me like the "Sure, I *could* have done that...I just didn't want
>to" you probably heard when the neighborhood pompous ass was cornered as
>a kid. You really believe in a god like this?
I've got it, you want God to prove that He can be a Candy Man,
and make you a "Snicker bar tree". Least that's one of my favorites!
>It is unfortunate that many religious people have to resort to doublespeak
>when it comes to dealing with "miracles". They blindly assume that whatever
>this entity that they so dearly want to believe is good, ALWAYS does good.
>Regardless that it may be .. ... .. . . sending humans
>to hell for being imperfect (even though *he* supposedly made us this way),
>cursing the human race for seeking knowledge .. .
The hell is simply a state of being in which the soul is incapable of
seeing the "good (reality) around it", and therefore it is tormented
by loneliness and its own distorted impressions of reality. If a being
can "love", "see truth", learn of things and their relationships, act
according to this knowledge to reasonably improve the lot of "balanced
life", and to honestly exchange concepts of reality with others, then
these activities will develop a healthy soul, one fully capable of
"heaven". Imperfection has nothing to do with going to hell per se, in
fact it is usually quite the opposite. It's the conceited and arrogant
who find life a series of short cuts who have the most problems. By
analogy some butterfly pupae undergo metamorphosis to the adult stage
and others do not.
I detect a horrible terror of imperfection and an intense feeling that
no matter what, control over your spiritual destiny is totally lacking
as a Christian or otherwise. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Only strive for an reasonable amount of goodness and in time that amount
may increase.
Since the Creator was the source of everything I suppose all the "good
and bad" that happens could be placed at his feet. I think this is
naive, because the biosphere as a whole works quite well and constantly
moves things toward balance. We now may have the power again to destroy
that. That is what comes from the "misuse of knowledge" or "not getting
a reasonable amount of good (evil)- all things considered" out of a life
time of living. There still may be people in the world who would
selectively learn and apply their knowledge to their own ends to the
detriment of most everything else. Know anybody like that??
So for me, learning and "cross checking" as much knowledge and experience
as one can and still maintain full health and relationships is the way to
go. Science seems to me to be a valuable tool in "condensing" and
extending a lot of that knowledge.
>>>I'm disgusted by the common Christian attitude that "because we assume
>>>god is good, we can make up any outlandish story we want to reinterpret
>>>the Bible to cast god in a favorable light."
Nothing is the most evil thing there is. Divine Matter is quite the
opposite of that. We seem to be a mixture of being and nothing, but
insofar as the nothing is quite inert, I think we have great possibilities.
Of course doing nothing with something won't cut it either.
Mikki Barry
>I've got it, you want God to prove that He can be a Candy Man,
>and make you a "Snicker bar tree". Least that's one of my favorites!
Paul, why can't you address the issue instead of trying to be funny?
The point is that your god incarnate, Jesus, was hungry. Now in the
past, when people were hungry, or thirsty, this Jesus was supposed to
have created fish, bread, wine, etc. But this time, instead of
creating what he wished to have, he killed an innocent tree that
HE made imperfect (i.e. not bearing figs). Seems a bit strange that
a god would rather kill something for being the way he made it, rather
than simply create what he wanted in the first place.
>The hell is simply a state of being in which the soul is incapable of
>seeing the "good (reality) around it", and therefore it is tormented
>by loneliness and its own distorted impressions of reality.
I would really like to see your proof of this. Others are stating that
hell is eternal torment of fire and brimstone variety. Why do you believe
differently? How do you know?
Seems this whole argument boils down to the fact that your god seems to be
quite irrational. He kills his own creations for being the way he made
them, and damns others to different states of torment (depending on the
literature you read at the time) also for being as he created them.
And the rest of your posting, concerning why people go to this hell has
been contradicted by other christians who say the only way to avoid this is
to believe in the guy who curses fig trees.
Why are your beliefs off the mainstream? Do you have different sources for
them than the other christians who post here? Inquiring minds want to know.
Mikki Barry
HASA
--------------------------------------
"Communication is only possible between equals"
rush
>In article <2...@prometheus.UUCP> p...@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
>> In article <11...@cybvax0.UUCP> m...@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>> >And even if the tree is barren one year, it might bear the next. Killing
>> >the tree is simply wanton destruction.
>>
[some text in defense of God's actions esp. that there was something
wrong with the tree]
>
>First, you're just guessing, since there's nothing in the Bible suggesting
>that in the least.
>
>Second, any god who can supposedly perform resurrections could surely have
>performed a different miracle and caused the tree to spontaneously bear
>fruit (or be cured, if your silly speculation is assumed.)
>
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
>
I always thought that Jesus was warning His disciples in much the same way
He warned them through Matt 23+, Luke 14 (or 17), and other apocalyptic
passages in scripture. He did pick a rather vivid method of illustration
though. That fig tree makes another appearance in scripture, at least
in figure. The owner of it speaks that it has borne no fruit in three
years. Jesus came that we might 'bear much fruit'. This fruit is essentially
a holy life, full of faith and good works.
This discussion is off track... 'The message of the cross is foolishness
to them that are perishing, but to we who are being saved it is the power
of God.' or some such. If you want to hurl insults at God, go ahead, you
will receive your reward. If you are interested in finding out about God's
character, humble yourself and ask. He is good or He isn't God. That is a
personal definition. I find that YHWH is just such a God. (p.s. I felt that
way long before I became a christian, too, and I think that is the primary
point of contention in this discussion. Unfortunately I don't have time
now for further exploration of this topic...)
Richard Rush - Just another Jesus freak in computer science
decvax!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush
All things that look like scripture may not be, since I am working from
memory only.
R. James Nusbaum
>
>[warning light ahead]...Well perhaps
>
>In article <85...@duke.duke.UUCP> r...@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) writes:
>>[warning flame ahead]
>>
>>In article <53...@decwrl.DEC.COM> ar...@lymph.dec.com writes:
[text deleted]
># Mike Gore
># Institute for Computer Research.
># These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
The above article was a criticism of my criticism of Ken Arndt's postings.
It contained a misconception that others may also have. To clear this up
let me say that my posting was a gripe about Ken's style of argument not
the basic content. He has the right to argue as much and as long as he
wants concerning Christianity. He should avoid personal attacks and poor
argumentative style however if he wants to convince me and many others
that his is the correct or true belief.
Jim Nusbaum
--
R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department,
gkm
> I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian
> viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people
>
[deleted material]
> I am also amazed at people who post to the net without even bothering
> to substantiate their words. Perhaps this is inevitable in a discussion
> on religious issues. So many people have been taught religion since early
>
[deleted material]
> Not wanting to beat a subject into the ground, but it keeps coming up.
> Christian supporters keep quoting from the Bible and other Christian
> religious works as 'proof' of certain things. I would hope that you will
[deleted material]
>
> Jim Nusbaum
>
>
Jim, I should think you would realize by now that Christians define
themselves and their beliefs by what is written to them by God in
the scriptures (i.e. The Bible). You and others refer to this as
circular reasoning, however when I, atleast refer to the Bible, I am
not trying to convince someone like yourself, but other Christians
who accept it as the Word of God. Should I attempt to convince you
or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity,
I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a
presuppositional argument. If is best presented by a Christian
named Cornelius Van Till. In essence, it shows that there are
really only two positions: the Christian one and the non-Christian
one. Next, each position is presupposed as being the truth, and
tested as to its ability to explain reality.
Gary McNees
Craig Stanfill
>past, when people were hungry, or thirsty, this Jesus was supposed to
>have created fish, bread, wine, etc. But this time, instead of
>creating what he wished to have, he killed an innocent tree that
>HE made imperfect (i.e. not bearing figs). Seems a bit strange that
>a god would rather kill something for being the way he made it, rather
>than simply create what he wanted in the first place.
Mikki completely misses several points. First, the story of the fig tree
has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time. It is strongly
suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion. Part of it may be
missing, or two stories may have been run together. There is plenty of
precedent for both in other parts of the scripture. Interpreting this
story is difficult.
Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables. The
essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
level. Mikki ignores this. As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
no fruit is the disciple who does no good. When Jesus gives the tree
more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy. When Jesus chops down the
tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.
Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.
-Craig
Stephen Kennedy
>Mikki completely misses several points. First, the story of the fig tree
>has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time. It is strongly
>suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion. Part of it may be
>missing, or two stories may have been run together. There is plenty of
>precedent for both in other parts of the scripture. Interpreting this
>story is difficult.
>
story of the fig tree has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time".
>Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables. The
>essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
>level. Mikki ignores this. As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
>no fruit is the disciple who does no good. When Jesus gives the tree
>more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy. When Jesus chops down the
>tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
>fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.
>
When in doubt, call it a parable and invent an interpretation, right?
It's just got to make sense, it's just got to, someway, somehow, huh?
You're simply speculating. You don't really know any more about the true
meaning/intension of this story than Mikki does. If you want to play
the "missing the point" game, then you're missing the point that Jesus
also "symbolically" shows in this story a lack of patience and a williness
to sacrifice a fig tree just to make a point. By the way, I'd like to
point out that a fig tree, whether producing figs or not, is still an
important part of its ecological system.
>Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
>criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
>free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.
>
> -Craig
Fig trees have free will? Fig trees make choices? Please explain...
---
Steve Kennedy
President, Rich Rosen Fan Club
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Bell Labs (unless threatened)
Kenn Barry
>Should I attempt to convince you
>or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity,
>I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a
>presuppositional argument. If is best presented by a Christian
>named Cornelius Van Till. In essence, it shows that there are
>really only two positions: the Christian one and the non-Christian
>one. Next, each position is presupposed as being the truth, and
>tested as to its ability to explain reality.
Could you expand on this? Especially the part about
there really only being two positions. I've noticed this as a
hidden premise in some pro-Xian arguments, but I've never seen
it properly defended.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
c...@ucla-cs.uucp
>> I am not a Christian, but I am willing to listen and discuss the Christian
>> viewpoint at any time. It is this kind of discussion which allows people
In article <9...@ho95e.UUCP> g...@ho95e.UUCP (gkm) responds:
>... Should I attempt to convince you
>or someone else who is not a Christian of the truth of Christianity,
>I would use an entirely different approach. It is referred to as a
>presuppositional argument.
To make sure, why don't you do THAT from now on whenever you expect your
article to appear in net.religion/talk.religion.misc? If you insist on
using Bible as a "Word of God", you can do it in the special sand-box
created for x-tians only, mod.religion.christian (former n.r.c). Just
assume that most of the people reading your article are HASA members who
do not presuppose the absoluteness or correctness of scriptural references.
And, BTW, there AREN'T just TWO points of view (Xtian and the OTHER). There
are MANY points of view. Rest assured, Islamic, Taoist and Atheist viewpoints
(just to take a random 3) differ from each other as much as from Xtianity.
Oleg Kiselev, HASA, "A" division
Mikki Barry
>Mikki completely misses several points. First, the story of the fig tree
>has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time. It is strongly
>suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion. Part of it may be
>missing, or two stories may have been run together. There is plenty of
>precedent for both in other parts of the scripture. Interpreting this
>story is difficult.
Well, Craig. If I am missing several points, perhaps you can enlighten me.
Why is it that when stories do not quite "fit", "scholars" suspect there
is something wrong with the story, rather than with the act?
Does this mean the bible is not infallible? If so, who is to decide
which portions are garbled, and which are not?
>Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables. The
>essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
>level. Mikki ignores this. As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
>no fruit is the disciple who does no good. When Jesus gives the tree
>more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy. When Jesus chops down the
>tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
>fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.
Who are you to say that this was a parable? Why is it that some stories
are labeled as parable, and a strange interpretation given them, while
others MUST be interpreted as fact? Craig seems to have a convenient
explanation, ignoring the "facts" as stated in his own bible. What if
I tell you the resurrection is a parable, and christ returned from the
dead not physically, but only in spirit (as the gnostics believe)? How
are we to tell which is parable and which is "real"?
>Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
>criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
>free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.
Excuse me, Craig, but could you please tell me how a tree can "decide"
whether or not to bear fruit? Perhaps like a person "decides" to breathe?
Mikki Barry
HASA
--------------------------------------
"The bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it
describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important
key to the political behavior of Western Civilization"
R. James Nusbaum
Of course I realize that Christians define their beliefs by what is in
the Bible! I'm glad that you would use an argument like you described,
but the fact is that no one else has bothered to make an argument like
that on this newsgroup and that is what I am complaining about. People
keep saying to read the word of God, and repent and it will all be made
clear to me. Bullshit! I've read enough of the 'word of God' and
although I certainly agree with many of the moral standards and teachings
of Christianity, I find nothing special in these teachings. They are
basically the same as the moral teachings of many other religions and
philosophies. As to the other aspects of Christainity, I've seen no
reasons to suspect that these are true explanations of reality. I see
very few devout Christians who I respect. The image of Christianity
I see today in the US is that of TV preachers and abortion clinic
bombers. When your God deals with these people, who are using his name
and teachings in a warped way then maybe I'll believe. You and maybe
others on the net may be good well meaning people, but the others drown
out your voices.
You know I would even be impressed if someone could give me a solid
argument as to why Christainity is better than any other of the worlds
major religions.
BTW, I do believe in a superior power. I have only to look at the
wonders of this planet and the living creatures on it to see my
miracles. I don't need any promises of personal salvation to coerce
me into loving my fellow creatures. What arogance it is to think that
in the immensity of time and space, the creator would give a holy damn
about the lives of a single species on a single planet. The creator
has given us the greatest blessing imaginable, life and a beautiful
planet to live it on. We make our own heavens and hells, don't blame
them on God.
Marty Smith
In article <63...@think.COM> cr...@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes:
>In article <33...@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ba...@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes:
>>The point is that your god incarnate, Jesus, was hungry. Now in the
>>past, when people were hungry, or thirsty, this Jesus was supposed to
>>have created fish, bread, wine, etc. But this time, instead of
>>creating what he wished to have, he killed an innocent tree that
>>HE made imperfect (i.e. not bearing figs). Seems a bit strange that
>>a god would rather kill something for being the way he made it, rather
>>than simply create what he wanted in the first place.
>
>Mikki completely misses several points. First, the story of the fig tree
>has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time. It is strongly
>suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion. Part of it may be
>missing, or two stories may have been run together. There is plenty of
>precedent for both in other parts of the scripture. Interpreting this
>story is difficult.
The fact that the fig tree fiasco has given scholars (modern and biblical)
trouble for a long time suggests to me that Mikki's analysis is at least as
good as their's. At least, her analysis makes sense from a particular point
of view. God must have known, when he divinely inspired some poor sot to
write it down, that future people would have Mikki's pragmatic point of view.
He knew they would, based on this point of view, correctly arrive at a
conclusion similar to hers, namely that Jesus's killing the fig tree makes no
sense. The only avenue left open for a non-pragmatist is to go on a
righteous crusade for a pious meaning, as you have done below.
>Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables. The
>essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
>level. Mikki ignores this. As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
>no fruit is the disciple who does no good. When Jesus gives the tree
>more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy. When Jesus chops down the
>tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
>fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.
This whole business of Jesus speaking in parables, though I believe it to
be true, seems to me to be a huge strategic blunder on Jesus's part. Why do
it? If his purpose was to communicate God's word to the unwashed, uneducated
masses, why speak in a language that is inherrantly more difficult to
understand? Why not speak the plain truth instead of a parable that can be
interpreted many ways only one of which is the truth? Or, and I'm sure
you won't agree with this, do all possible interpretations of the fig tree
fiasco contain some truth that Jesus wished to communicate? If so, and I'm
inclined to believe it is, then both Mikki's interpretation and yours are
true in some sense. She just happens to be working on a different set of
problems in her life right now. If you can't add any insight, then you are
acting the "disciple who does no good" roll, and you should, by your own
analysis, beware of lightning storms.
>Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
>criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
>free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.
That snapping noise you just heard was the rubber band of your analogy.
Marty Smith
P.S. I thought Mikki was of the female persuasion. If I have erred here,
I apologize.
Dorothy Nelson
>In article <63...@think.COM> cr...@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes:
>>Mikki completely misses several points. First, the story of the fig tree
>>has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time. It is strongly
>>suspected that the story is garbled in some fashion. Part of it may be
>>missing, or two stories may have been run together. There is plenty of
>>precedent for both in other parts of the scripture. Interpreting this
>>story is difficult.
>>
>>Second, Jesus spoke an parables and often acted in parables. The
>>essence of a parable is that it MUST be interpreted on the symbolic
>>level. Mikki ignores this. As I interpret it, the fig tree that bears
>>no fruit is the disciple who does no good. When Jesus gives the tree
>>more time to show fruit, he is showing mercy.
and nukes it.
>>When Jesus chops down the
>>tree, the day of judgement has arrived and Jesus will disown the
>>fruitless disciple as a hypocrite.
WE have the ability to alienate *ourselves* from God, the God that is good
and does not "destroy what He created." Were the parable to reflect this
it would read that the fig tree shriveled due to it's own evil and disease,
and not through Jesus' cursing.
Of course, you may say,"Well, God can do whatever the heck He wants," and I
suppose that's OK... but it undermines the whole argument that started this
off about the Damager God. Originally it was stated that God has
given us the great gift of His Son and forgiveness, and it is we ourselves
in denying this gift who condemn ourselves. This jibes very poorly with the
fig parable.
>>
>>Third, since Mikki misses the symbolism of the interpretation, his
>>criticism is way off the mark: God created the fig tree (disciple) with
>>free will, the choice of whether to bear fruit or not.
>>
>> -Craig
>
>Fig trees have free will? Fig trees make choices? Please explain...
In parables almost all the symbols are fairly malleable. They are intended
to evoke a response about a misunderstood concept by referring to understood
concepts. Problem is, these u
Paul M Koloc
>Ooooo, Mikki! Thirty lashes with a wet noodle for missing point #1: "the
>story of the fig tree has given biblical scholars trouble for a long time".
>Or was it "Interpreting this story is difficult"?
Well, perhaps for some, but tell me -- what's this borderline sado-
sexist remark Steve. Better get some religion before SCUM chops you
up. Actually, the parable thing should be considered, although I
agree, in today's society not many of us have much experience with
growing "productive" non-toxic things so that kind of parable may
not make much sense.
>By the way, I'd like to point out that a fig tree, whether producing
>figs or not, is still an important part of its ecological system.
Huh? That's NOT what I was lead to believe. In fact, the premature
death of barren food producing individual organisms could do wonders
for the ecology. It simply makes more room for more productive
food producing plants. The more food produced the more humans can
be supported in comfort and the more humans the more BS and the more
BS the more plant food to grow better and healthier plants with even
higher yields et cetera. Hope you like them apples .. . ah figs.
So it all goes to show, kill the right fig tree and you'll end up
with more figs. Jesus knew a little more about ecology than Steve!
What do know about that?
Tom Albrecht
>
>This whole business of Jesus speaking in parables, though I believe it to
>be true, seems to me to be a huge strategic blunder on Jesus's part. Why do
>it? If his purpose was to communicate God's word to the unwashed, uneducated
>masses, why speak in a language that is inherrantly more difficult to
>understand? Why not speak the plain truth instead of a parable that can be
>interpreted many ways only one of which is the truth? Or, and I'm sure
>you won't agree with this, do all possible interpretations of the fig tree
>fiasco contain some truth that Jesus wished to communicate? If so, and I'm
>inclined to believe it is, then both Mikki's interpretation and yours are
>
First of all, don't confuse the meaning of the verse with the application.
Each scripture passage has only one correct interpretation, but may have
many different applications. You learn that in Hermeneutics 101. You can't
interpret a verse one way and someone else interpret it another way and have
both interpretations be correct. One must be wrong; both may be wrong.
Secondly, why don't you read the Bible to find out why Christ spoke in parables?
In Matthew 13 the disciples ASKED Him, "Why do you speak to the people in
parables?" and He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given
more, and will have a abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has
will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. ..."
That OT quote by Christ is from Isaiah.
It seems pretty clear that the reason Christ spoke in parables was to keep
hidden from unbelievers those truths which only the children of God could
understand. It merely emphasizes the blindness of unbelief. In many
places Jesus uses physical blindness as a picture of the state of the
unbeliever. It's only when the Son of Man comes and removes the scales
from one's eyes that one can believe in Christ and receive His salvation.
>
>That snapping noise you just heard was the rubber band of your analogy.
>
> Marty Smith
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can be such experts
about Christ and His teachings and yet be so unfamiliar with His Word.
--
Tom Albrecht
"Reformata, semper reformanda"
Marty Smith
>ma...@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes:
[I questioned why Jesus spoke in parables]
>First of all, don't confuse the meaning of the verse with the application.
>Each scripture passage has only one correct interpretation, but may have
>many different applications. You learn that in Hermeneutics 101. You can't
>interpret a verse one way and someone else interpret it another way and have
>both interpretations be correct. One must be wrong; both may be wrong.
A good point, Tom. You should have stopped there.
>Secondly, why don't you read the Bible to find out why Christ spoke in parables?
>In Matthew 13 the disciples ASKED Him, "Why do you speak to the people in
>parables?" and He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
>heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given
>more, and will have a abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has
>will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
> Though seeing, they do not see;
> though hearing, they do not hear or understand. ..."
>
>That OT quote by Christ is from Isaiah.
>
>It seems pretty clear that the reason Christ spoke in parables was to keep
>hidden from unbelievers those truths which only the children of God could
>understand. It merely emphasizes the blindness of unbelief.
This seems ludicrous. You're saying Christ deliberately withheld the word of
God from all people who couldn't understand what he was saying. It is my
belief that Christ wanted to reach everybody. But, apparently, because I
don't interpretate these parables correctly (as you claim there is but one
absolutely correct interpretation), I have thus been condemned by Christ
right out of the gate.
>In many
>places Jesus uses physical blindness as a picture of the state of the
>unbeliever. It's only when the Son of Man comes and removes the scales
>from one's eyes that one can believe in Christ and receive His salvation.
The scales from ones eyes? I hope you didn't get that metaphor from the
Bible. But anyway, you can't have it both ways. First you say I
cannot be saved, because Christ is deliberately not speaking to me. Then
you say I can be saved, if I will only open my eyes. It is the unbelievers
who need the saving. Why withhold the truth from them?
>>That snapping noise you just heard was the rubber band of your analogy.
>>
>> Marty Smith
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can be such experts
>about Christ and His teachings and yet be so unfamiliar with His Word.
I hope you're not accusing me of claiming to be an expert on Christ. Anyway,
your argument has done nothing to dispel my belief that my unfamiliarity
with His Word is partly due to his speaking in parables. But, of course,
that just proves your point: I don't understand, so therefore I'm not
meant to.
Marty Smith
rush
>
>Bullshit! I've read enough of the 'word of God' and
>although I certainly agree with many of the moral standards and teachings
>of Christianity, I find nothing special in these teachings. They are
>basically the same as the moral teachings of many other religions and
>philosophies.
from 'other religions and philosophies' was Christ. People everywhere
know the difference between good and evil (that's a consequence of the
garden incident...), but I have yet to see a religion/philosophy that
really enables people to live holy lives. I looked into quite a few
before the Lord took hold of my life, they are all just roads to emptiness
and frustration. But after once being freed from sin, life in the Lord
is joy and peace. It was difficult for me as a confirmed sinner (i believed
that God was, and was the creator of all things, I just wasn't interested
in the Bible's explanation of things -- it was too threatening to my ego.
Pride is the root of all sin.) to accept the neccessity of Christ's
death for me, in light of the similitude of the moral teaching of the
Bible. So I took the hard road, I tried to 'be good' without the Lord
(via Taoism, Buddhism, Am. Indian Paganism, Grateful Deadism et al),
and I got better than I deserved. Jesus took me aside one day, and said
"Why are you fighting what you already know to be true? You only hurt
yourself, and bring yourself to death. Follow me to life." Christ said
of _Himself_, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no man comes
unto the father except by me." Truth is stranger than fiction.
>I see
>very few devout Christians who I respect. The image of Christianity
>I see today in the US is that of TV preachers and abortion clinic
>bombers. When your God deals with these people, who are using his name
>and teachings in a warped way then maybe I'll believe. You and maybe
>others on the net may be good well meaning people, but the others drown
>out your voices.
--- Someone once said, "let God be true, and every man a liar." What
people do in the name of God does not change God. I don't claim to have
an inside track on the Lord's plans for those who "have given occasion
to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme", but I do know that Jesus said
"Many will come in that day and say, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in
Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in your name perform
many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you,
depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."
>
>You know I would even be impressed if someone could give me a solid
>argument as to why Christainity is better than any other of the worlds
>major religions.
--- As far as I know, the only thing that makes Christianity 'better'
is that it's true (how that for circular reasoning :-). But seriously,
as far as I know Christianity is the only religion whose founder sacrificed
His authority, His power, and His life for the sake of mankind. But
because He humbled Himself and served man, God exalted Him to reign
over men (see Colossians, chapter 1).
I know that this is not a 'solid' argument by the standards that I would
have set if I had written the original article. Would you please be so kind
as to post you criteria for judging such an argument?
>
>BTW, I do believe in a superior power. I have only to look at the
>wonders of this planet and the living creatures on it to see my
>miracles. I don't need any promises of personal salvation to coerce
>me into loving my fellow creatures. What arogance it is to think that
>in the immensity of time and space, the creator would give a holy damn
>about the lives of a single species on a single planet. The creator
>has given us the greatest blessing imaginable, life and a beautiful
>planet to live it on. We make our own heavens and hells, don't blame
>them on God.
> - Jim Nusbaum
Another attitude that seems arrogant to me is one that declares that God is
*not* interested in the affairs of Earth. In the Bible God shows great
interest in human, earthly, life. And if He is omnipotent and omniscient,
I certainly think He'd have the time to be interested.
"The devils also believe and tremble."
Richard Rush - Just another Jesus freak in computer science
decvax!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush
All scripture quotations are approximate as I am relying on memory.
Craig Stanfill
ahead and scoff. I really don't care. If you want to understand the
story of the fig tree, it requires a bit of effort and a good study
bible.
In Jeremiah 8, there is the following (Jerusalem Bible):
``I would like to go harvesting there,'' says Yahweh.
But there are no grapes on the vine,
no figs on the fig tree:
even the leaves are withered.
This is because I have brought them
ravagers to ravage them.''
The last sentence of the above is absent in the greek. It is not clear
whether the fruit being gone represents Israel's sinfullness, which God
is about to punish by ravaging the tree, or whether the absence of fruit
is the punsihment itself. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to provide
context for the next ocurrance of the fig tree.
In Luke 13 there is a parable. A man has a fig tree
in a vinyard. In three years, it had borne no fruit. He is
ready to have it cut down, but a servant talks him into waiting
one more year; if it still bears no fruit, then he may cut it
down.
This is something different. The fig tree (Israel) is still fruitless,
and it is still on a collision course with God, but a servant (probably
intended to be Jesus) has obtained for the tree a year's grace in which
to bear fruit (repent). This story is clear and unambiguous.
Now consider the following:
In Matthew 21 and Mark 11, during the week of the passion, Jesus
goes to a fig tree, which has no fruit. He curses it and it
withers.
Several interpretations are possible. First, it may be that this is a
corruption of the parable in Luke. Or, in the context of Luke, it might
mean that the period of grace for Israel has expired. Or, in the
context of Jeremiah and the passion, it may mean that Israel has
rejected Christ and has earned retribution. Or...
I tend to favor the story in Luke being accurate, with the version in
Mathew and Mark being a corrupted version. Also, I read the fig tree as
being broader than simply Israel, including all who would worship God.
But, as I have said, other interpretations are possible.
Anyway, Biblical scholarship requires honest effort. Those who are
meerely looking for something to scoff at are not being honest.
Dave Triplett
> This whole business of Jesus speaking in parables, though I believe it to
> be true, seems to me to be a huge strategic blunder on Jesus's part. Why do
> it? If his purpose was to communicate God's word to the unwashed, uneducated
> masses, why speak in a language that is inherrantly more difficult to
> understand? Why not speak the plain truth instead of a parable that can be
> interpreted many ways only one of which is the truth? Or, and I'm sure
> you won't agree with this, do all possible interpretations of the fig tree
> fiasco contain some truth that Jesus wished to communicate? If so, and I'm
> inclined to believe it is, then both Mikki's interpretation and yours are
> problems in her life right now. If you can't add any insight, then you are
> acting the "disciple who does no good" roll, and you should, by your own
> analysis, beware of lightning storms.
>
>
>
> P.S. I thought Mikki was of the female persuasion. If I have erred here,
> I apologize.
I disagree that the use of parables is a strategic blunder, that "the plain
truth" speaks more clearly across the almost two thousand years which have
passed since the time of Jesus. A parable, like a poem, or a good story
is actually much more powerful in presenting an idea than a simple statement
to that effect because it brings the hearer directly into the situation
through the use of "word pictures" and powerful images.
I found the statement "all possible interpretations of the fig tree fiasco
contain some truth" to illustrate another truth about scripture, that scripture
or the "Word of God" is inspired or "God breathed". As is suggested above,
this means, among other things, that it is possible for a particular verse
to have more than one meaning; the particular meaning seen by a hearer or
reader WILL depend upon where the person is at a particular momement, whether
the person is reading or seeking in faith or reading in an attempt to debunk.
I believe it was in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus told His disciples that it
wasn't given unto everyone to understand, that that was why Christ taught
many things by parable so that not everyone would understand. This might
seem to conflict with what I say in my first paragraph but I believe that
parables do have the paradoxical nature of both being very clear to some but
difficult to understand by others.
--
Dave Triplett (415) 939-2400 x2087
Varian Instruments 2700 Mitchell Dr. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598
{zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,resonex,rtech}!varian!davet
Paul Zimmerman
> In article <33...@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> ba...@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) writes:
> >Sounds to me like the "Sure, I *could* have done that...I just didn't want
> >to" you probably heard when the neighborhood pompous ass was cornered as
> >a kid. You really believe in a god like this?
>
> I've got it, you want God to prove that He can be a Candy Man,
> and make you a "Snicker bar tree". Least that's one of my favorites!
What I find consistently disturbing is the flagrant rationalization
for God's behavior. If God is as you you describe Him, all powerful and
benevolent, then we have every single right to absolutely demand whatever we
want from Him. It's certainly no skin off his nose, and certainly the
capability exists for Him to do so. If He is less than all powerful, then why
does He tell us that He IS all powerful and demand that WE whorship HIM?
Mikki's statement seems a very likely conclusion about the type of entity that
God really is: a pompous ass. Look at His boasting and bragging about how
powerful He is, followed by His excuses for not doing all He can to bring
about what we need and want in this world. The claim that ``if you're good
you'll get it all in the next world'' is fatuous; if He was truly what He said
He was, why hasn't He built it so that we ALL get it ALL right here in this
world? Who is He to ``test'' us? Is He so perfect? The Bible shows that He is
not, that He gets angered and takes it out on human beings, that He is selfish
and greedy, and that He is a scurrilous liar. When WE act in this way, we are
considered ``sinners'' worthy of eternal hell. Why isn't God deserving of
exactly the same treatment?
Paul questions our ``right'' to demand that God do the diametric
opposite of His regular behavior, that He give rather than take, that He
cooperate rather than dictate. He makes it seem through his words that those
who dare to see things in this way are like children looking for a ``candy
man.'' It seems to me quite clear that those who attempt to sway us to see
things in that way lack any real foundation for their assertions about God,
as they seem to feel they must resort to such crude emotionally manipulative
tactics as labelling their opponents as ``children.'' While that might
certainly satisfy their own egos in that they have ``justified'' their
dismissal of the opponents' viewpoint as the ``ravings'' of a child (to
themselves), they have failed to actually say anything substantial that
proves their opponents wrong. I say this only because even with those who
do start trying to discuss this whole issue in a rational fashion, it almost
always (with few exceptions) deteriorates into ``you must be paranoid/crazy''
or ``your words sound like the ravings of a child.'' What's ironic is this
is the same sort of thing that is told to people who rebel in totalitarian
countries. The points made about the nature of the cruelty of the despot
are undeniable, so the response is that ``this is the way it is, you are
being childish/insane if you oppose it.''
---
Be well,
Paul Zimmerman (p...@mit-eddie.UUCP, p...@unirot.UUCP)
Paul M Koloc
>>Each scripture passage has only one correct interpretation, but may have
>>many different applications. You learn that in Hermeneutics 101. You can't
>>interpret a verse one way and someone else interpret it another way and have
>>both interpretations be correct. One must be wrong; both may be wrong.
In article <37...@ism780c.UUCP> ma...@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes:
>A good point, Tom. You should have stopped there.
Why stop?
I don't quite agree with the "one correct interpretation". The
reason is that truth isn't reducible to just one set of words,
and it's difficult to confine it to a single concept. It's also
difficult to "isolate a chunk of it" from other truth.
So it's not so much that a different interpretation is incorrect
although that's possible, it can be that it simple expresses a
different blend.
>>In Matthew 13 the disciples ASKED Him, "Why do you speak to the people in
>>parables?" and He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
>>heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given
>>more, and will have a abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has
>>will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
>> Though seeing, they do not see;
>> though hearing, they do not hear or understand. ..."
>>It seems pretty clear that the reason Christ spoke in parables was to keep
>>hidden from unbelievers those truths which only the children of God could
>>understand. It merely emphasizes the blindness of unbelief.
>This seems ludicrous. You're saying Christ deliberately withheld the word of
>God from all people who couldn't understand what he was saying. It is my
>belief that Christ wanted to reach everybody. But, apparently, because I
>don't interpretate these parables correctly (as you claim there is but one
>absolutely correct interpretation), I have thus been condemned by Christ
>right out of the gate.
I don't think that such a conclusion is clear in the slightest and
I agree that saying Christ deliberately withheld truth is ludicrous,
with one exception. My understanding is that certain people have
"mental blocks" and still others are incapable of learning such
principles because they have sociopathic personalities. In those
cases it is some deep seated feelings that "authority figures" are
stupid, and that such "clap trap" is just so much jive to keep them in
a position of power and to keep the "good stuff" away from the
person. So it's every one for himself, and it's really not too
difficult to defeat them.
The exception has to do with "lying". As I see it we must tell the
truth to those that have need of it and we are not reasonably certain
wouldn't misuse it. For example, in WWII I would cleverly lie to the
Nazi SS who are seeking Jews, to both protect their lives and to
protect "truth". Perhaps the human mind protects itself from truth
it would misuse by developing "mental blocks".
>>In many
>>places Jesus uses physical blindness as a picture of the state of the
>>unbeliever. It's only when the Son of Man comes and removes the scales
>>from one's eyes that one can believe in Christ and receive His salvation.
>
>The scales from ones eyes? I hope you didn't get that metaphor from the
>Bible.
That's interesting, our souls are blind, now, but if we are to
"be in heaven", that is to be a saint or "saved" we must learn to
see the "good" in all things, and act accordingly (love). Then we
should be in much better shape as far as what we can do as beings.
>But anyway, you can't have it both ways. First you say I
>cannot be saved, because Christ is deliberately not speaking to me. Then
>you say I can be saved, if I will only open my eyes. It is the unbelievers
>who need the saving. Why withhold the truth from them?
I think there is a misunderstanding or a mistake here, Christ
speaks to all, but certainly, all of us aren't listening or at
least we all may not be paying attention.
>I hope you're not accusing me of claiming to be an expert on Christ.
Judging by your questions you are getting there fast - two steps
forward.
Paul M Koloc
>> I've got it, you want God to prove that He can be a Candy Man,
>> and make you a "Snicker bar tree". Least that's one of my favorites!
In <34...@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> p...@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) writes:
> What I find consistently disturbing is the flagrant rationalization
>for God's behavior.
Behavior?? Ha! That's terrific, Gads, let's forget about God
for the moment and think of "nature". 'Nature you have have not
been behaving the way I want, shame on you. I'm going to ... to
ah .. . well I can't think of anything now but I'll get you one
of these days. '
>If God is as you you describe Him, all powerful and
>benevolent, then we have every single right to absolutely demand whatever we
>want from Him.
Sure as long as you are breathing, but that won't be long, by
comparison with the age of the earth.
>It's certainly no skin off his nose, and certainly the
>capability exists for Him to do so. .. . .... ....
>God really is: a pompous ass. Look at His boasting and bragging about how
>powerful He is, followed by His excuses for not doing all He can to bring
>about what we need and want in this world.
There are stories on the "Outer Limits" "Amazing Stories" etc.
every once in a while where the good "wizard" grants the demands
and the demandor lives to regret it. Candy, cocaine, are all
here so when you raise your children, why don't you give your own
children all they want. Oh and they should not have to go to school
or attend clubs or relgious meetings either. Heaven forbid! :-)
Now, giving in to your childrens whims means that you are all
powerful to your children, right? I think you would do what is
best for them in the long run, and that may be not to grant the
demand, or even "listen" if they don't learn civility. Otherwise,
they well may turn out to be "pompous asses". But, does it
make you any less there parent if you choose not to respond?
I sincerely hope you are not offended by being put in the
position of "not knowing as much as God knows about what is best
for you". (Watch out for the fall out)
>He was, why hasn't He built it so that we ALL get it ALL right here in this
>world? Who is He to ``test'' us? Is He so perfect? The Bible shows that He is
>not, that He gets angered and takes it out on human beings,
I suppose He isn't any different than we are and we "test".
Anger is inherently wrong?? No! Are we talking about God as Nature?
Even "nature" tests.. . survival of the more fit - although apparently
for humans over the last 25,000 years, "society" has put a monkey
wrench in the works.
> Paul questions our ``right'' to demand that God do the diametric
>opposite of His regular behavior, that He give rather than take, that He
>cooperate rather than dictate. He makes it seem through his words that those
>who dare to see things in this way are like children looking for a ``candy
>man.'' It seems to me quite clear that those who attempt to sway us to see
>things in that way lack any real foundation for their assertions about God,
>as they seem to feel they must resort to such crude emotionally manipulative
>tactics as labelling their opponents as ``children.'' While that might
>certainly satisfy their own egos in that they have ``justified'' their
>dismissal of the opponents' viewpoint as the ``ravings'' of a child (to
>themselves),
Gosh I didn't know that only children had a sweet tooth. I think that
if an adult can't be child like once in a while, there is something
seriously wrong. On the other hand, I have never heard of "mature
adults" "demanding" to be taken care of, although there are people who
would misuse welfare, and insurance policies. The fact that you
generated a two paragraph response to a two line comment, indicates
to me it must have touch a very important issue for you. Sorry you
were derailed by the cliche' that "only children love candy". I
really think that "immature adults" be included as "demanding".
>.. . . . they have failed
>to actually say anything substantial that proves their opponents wrong.
>do start trying to discuss this whole issue in a rational fashion, it almost
>always (with few exceptions) deteriorates into ``you must be paranoid/crazy''
>or ``your words sound like the ravings of a child.'' What's ironic is this
>is the same sort of thing that is told to people who rebel in totalitarian
>countries. The points made about the nature of the cruelty of the despot
>are undeniable, so the response is that ``this is the way it is, you are
>being childish/insane if you oppose it.''
Proof? You want proof? You are dreaming! This isn't geometry 102.
I certainly would not question your sanity.
Totalitarian countries (and perhaps the Democratic Party :-)) very
well may act paternalistically, but the "demands" of subjugated
people are not in the least trivial. I think in this case, the
problem was that a human life wasn't at stake, it was an orchard
tree, and the demand was that God should set aside perfectly good
ecological and agricultural practices.
One can take courses on "getting what one wants", by taking "Dale
Carnegie courses, offered in most metro areas. Christians, and
others, too would like God to intervene for them in some "super
natural" way quite very often. They do it with considerably more
care and sometimes even with humility. If you knew what I know
and you probably never can, you might tone your approach down a bit.
God give me a new hard disk, and a mazda and a .. . . and make it
snappy! :-)