Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!usc-oberon!sdcrdcf!ism780c!marty
From: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: From Fig to finding a Candy Man
Message-ID: <3723@ism780c.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 12:59:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780c.3723
Posted: Thu Oct  2 12:59:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:36:00 EDT
References: <5369@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1150@cybvax0.UUCP>
Reply-To: marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith)
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp., Santa Monica, CA
Lines: 59
Xref: linus talk.religion.misc:387 net.religion.christian:4816

Organization:

In article <6336@think.COM> craig@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes:
>In article <3325@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> barry@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.