pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/26/86)
In article <3306@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> barry@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! >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. +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/26/86)
In article <262@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >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"
craig@think.COM (Craig Stanfill) (09/30/86)
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. 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
smk@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Stephen Kennedy) (10/01/86)
In article <6336@think.COM> craig@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. > 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"? >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)
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (10/02/86)
In article <6336@think.COM> craig@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. 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"
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (10/02/86)
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.
dnelson@joevax.UUCP (Dorothy Nelson) (10/02/86)
In article <> smk@cbosgd.UUCP (Steve Kennedy) writes: >In article <6336@think.COM> craig@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. Then why are you so certain Mikki is wrong in her interpretation? >> >>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 does He give it more time?? He's hungry, sees the tree, gets pissed off 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. Ah. But who is doing the condemning here? It has been said here that only 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
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/02/86)
In article <2648@cbosgd.ATT.COM> smk@cbosgd.UUCP (Steve Kennedy) writes: >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? +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/03/86)
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes: > >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. ... > 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@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (10/06/86)
In article <2724@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >marty@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
craig@think.COM (Craig Stanfill) (10/07/86)
Much ado about a fig tree. If all you want is something to scoff at, go
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.mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/08/86)
In article <6406@think.COM> craig@godot.think.com.UUCP (Craig Stanfill) writes: > Anyway, Biblical scholarship requires honest effort. Quite true. Scholarship of any sort generally requires effort. But... > Those who are merely looking for something to scoff at are not being honest. Some "scholarship" is quite deserved of scoffing. If it is based on bad assumptions, its results are worthless. GIGO. Your responses show exactly that kind of bad scholarship. > Much ado about a fig tree. If all you want is something to scoff at, go > ahead and scoff. I really don't care. Real scholars do pay attention to the claims of their opponents: otherwise they can't learn to rebut them. > In Jeremiah 8, there is the following (Jerusalem Bible)... Nevertheless, it > is sufficient to provide context for the next ocurrance of the fig tree... In > Luke 13 ... One of the unproven (and probably false in my opinion) assumptions implicit in the above statement is: disparate sections of the bible are related by solitary words like "fig tree". It's possible to construct interpretations that encompass both consistantly, but any claim that was the original intention is unfounded. > I tend to favor the story in Luke being accurate, with the version in > Mathew and Mark being a corrupted version. This happens to agree with my prejudice (since I don't believe in miracles), but what is your justification? (At least you're not a literalist! :-) > 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. So many other interpretations are possible that I don't see how you can do more than satisfy your own preconceived prejudices. That's not scholarship. -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
davet@vaxwaller.UUCP (Dave Triplett) (10/09/86)
> > 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. > > > Marty Smith > > 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
pez@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Paul Zimmerman) (10/13/86)
In article <262@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: > In article <3306@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> barry@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 (pez@mit-eddie.UUCP, pez@unirot.UUCP)
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (10/14/86)
>In article <2724@burdvax.UUCP> devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) writes: >>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 <3764@ism780c.UUCP> marty@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, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+