Fig Tree Morality

[bigmrpig]

Matthew 21:17-20 state that Jesus was hungry, and after finding a fig tree to be bare, he killed it. I question the morality of this decision.

How can the Bible be a moral guide for other areas of life when it blatantly it shows Jesus killing a living thing after it did nothing wrong? In other times in the Bible when people are killed, sometimes there are obscure or questionable reasons, but for the fig tree, he had no reason to kill the fig tree, and accomplished nothing to do so.

Is Jesus showing us we should succumb to unfounded rage?

I would like to stick to this specific incident. Morality of the whole Bible can be discussed elsewhere, but if in this one instance Jesus' decision cannot be found to be moral, I don't see why any other controversial part should be.

So, to reiterate... how is killing a fig tree for having no figs moral?

[scorpia]

Okay, I found this passage that I though related to the fig tree;

Luke 13: 6-9; "A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, an he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, "For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?"
"Sir" The man replied, "Leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down."

[seyorni]

Did Jesus compensate the owners of the orchard and the pigs? He sometimes seems pretty hard on other people's property or means of livlihood.

[kens91765]

Did Jesus compensate the owners of the orchard and the pigs? He sometimes seems pretty hard on other people's property or means of livlihood.

John 1:3-5 NIV

Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

If Jesus made everything, then everything belongs to Him. Though I would assume that you consider your own life your property, consider this: God gave you life and one day you will be required to give it back. One day you will be required to give an account to God as to how you have used or misused it.

IMO, the point of the fig tree parable is that those who fail to bear good fruit (as defined by God) will suffer death and, possibly, even the second death (i.e. hell). This was a solemn warning even to His disciples not to be idle. If this applies even to the disciples of Jesus, how much more does it apply to those who are not His disciples?

[bernee51]

. If this applies even to the disciples of Jesus, how much more does it apply to those who are not His disciples?

It can't possibly apply at all.

[kens91765]

It can't possibly apply at all.

Why not?

Jesus said the following to his disciples:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." (John 15:5-8) NIV

If even his disciples can't bear fruit without abiding in him, what makes you think that those who have rejected God can bear any thing of value to God? Such works are as filthy rags to the Lord.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6 NIV), emphasis mine

[bernee51]

It can't possibly apply at all.

Why not?

Well first of all prove that Jesus existed.

And after you have done that prove that he was who it is claimed (by others) he was.

Then we can talk about why it should or should not apply.

Jesus said the following to his disciples:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." (John 15:5-8) NIV

Jesus said no such thing, it was written by the writer of John (in approximately 85CE)

[kens91765]

Well first of all prove that Jesus existed.

After you prove he didn't.

Faith is required. I would suggest that all that you have written requires a faith of sorts. You, apparently, have faith that God does not exist. I have faith that he does.

...without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6 NIV)

I find it sad that as long as you claim that God does not exist, you will never seek him nor find him (except on the day of judgement). In your arrogance, you will never find what, I think, deep down you hope to find. Why else would you so vehemently deny the very existence of God. Me thinks that thou doth protest too much. If you were so secure in your faith, why would you even bother to argue with someone so foolish as I?

[bernee51]

Well first of all prove that Jesus existed.

After you prove he didn't.

Actually it is you who is making the positive claim, so it is you with whom the burden of proof rests.

Nonetheless, let us look at facts and see where the balance of probabilities leads.

Jesus the man. No contemporary account of his life exists. Despite the Romans being excellent historians not one of them thought to mention Jesus. This is not to say that there may not have been some influential rabbis in the area at the time. The meek were under the thumb of a religious elite. The Romans were occupying their land. Fertile ground for those with a revolutionary viewpoint.

Jesus the miracle worker. Again no contemporary accounts of some pretty amazing stunts. Have you looked at the number of sacred scriptures extant in the world. There are very, very many. Some make claims similar to those made regarding Jesus. They are pretty well universally regarded as myths. I regard the bible in the same way.

So on the balance of probabilities the Jesus of the bible is a mythical character.

Now it is your turn prove he is not on the balance of probabilites.

Faith is required. I would suggest that all that you have written requires a faith of sorts. You, apparently, have faith that God does not exist. I have faith that he does.

Ah faith!

Faith can be a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing or faith can be a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence or faith can be a the theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of god's will.

My faith is the first. Yours is the second two.

It does not take faith as you understand it not to believe in your god. It simply does not exist.

I find it sad that as long as you claim that God does not exist, you will never seek him nor find him (except on the day of judgement).

I find it sad that you need to hang on to an illusion to give your life meaning and purpose. See I can be just as patronising as you.

In your arrogance, you will never find what, I think, deep down you hope to find.

Are all christians mind readers? I wish I had a dollar for all the times Ive been told that. How do you know I have not already found it?

Why else would you so vehemently deny the very existence of God.

Why do you vehemently defend the existence of god?

If you were so secure in your faith, why would you even bother to argue with someone so foolish as I?

Why do you denigrate yourself so? Im sure you are not foolish.

I am quite secure in my worldview. I have never felt more spiritually centred in my life. Like everyone on this planet I seek meaning, purpose and legitimacy - my worldview gives me these things.

I come to fora like this is for the sport - the mental gymnastics.

Why are you here?

[palmera]

Has anyone stopped to talk about the nature of Jesus's parable's to begin with? It's never as simple as "those who don't bear good fruit" go to hell, and it's not about compensation. (both discussed earlier.) The parables were meant to confuse those outside (us!!). The parable of the fig tree if taken literally can be made to be not only exclusionary of others, but also can be seen as an example of an immoral Jesus- neither of which, I argue, is the case.

There has been interesting interpretation about the fig tree parable as told in Mark (the first instance) in it's relation to the Marcan community and the historical Jewish revolt against the romans (to keep the temple safe among other things). Anyway, the idea being that the fig tree does not represent the individual, but that it represents a social critique by Jesus about the Temple and is a caveat against joining the revolt against the romans to save the temple (which no longer bears fruit). A much longer explanation should be provided, and for those interested I will.

The main point here is that the oversimplification of scripture leads down some unproductive paths, and into debate which can be argued both ways for eternity never getting anywhere.

[kens91765]

A much longer explanation should be provided, and for those interested I will.

I am sure that your esoteric wiccan views of scripture would be fascinating to many. As for me, I would prefer not to go too far beyond what the text actually says. You may view this as being simplistic. I view it as being honest.