The Instigator
othercheek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
miketheman1200
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Figs are an abomination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
miketheman1200
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,201 times Debate No: 42805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

othercheek

Pro

It's the Christmas season, and the Fig Newtons are selling out. But do self-proclaimed good Christians know the wickedness of such consumption?

I will be arguing, from a Biblical-based point of view, that Jesus does not want His children to eat figs ever again. Con will argue against this. I look forward to reading your rebuttals.
miketheman1200

Con

I gracefully accept this debate in the name of Morgan freeman. I await your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
othercheek

Pro

This is why I take the stance that self-professing Christians cannot eat figs while still professing consistent faith:

Mark 11:12-14
"12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it."

The message of this passage is clear. Jesus does not want people to eat figs ever.

Yet few self-professed Christians actually follow through on this command. It is your burden to prove that this command somehow does not apply to modern Christians.
miketheman1200

Con

This is an argument I have seen numerous times and it still has me perplexed as to how people can still believe this.

Genesis 1-12

"he earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good."

God saw that plant life on earth was good. He did not say everything is good except for fig trees. One does not generally hate what they would consider good.

Also Jesus was using that fig tree as an analogy toward the Hebrew people. Even after years of God being good to the Hebrews they did not yield spiritual fruits and so when Jesus cursed the fig tree (and he cursed only that fig tree) he was also cursing the Hebrews for their ill faith.

Thank you and I await Pros response.

Sources: http://biblehub.com...
Debate Round No. 2
othercheek

Pro

Nuh uh. Christians follow Jesus. Jesus is the one who abominated figs, so His word takes the utmost priority.

And as for the metaphor, how would you know? In fact, how could anyone know? That doesn't even make any sense!

I await your repspone
miketheman1200

Con

"Christians follow Jesus"

Christians follow the teachings of Jesus and accept him as their saviour for his sacrifice. They also believe in the trinity where God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one body and that there is one GOD. GOD says what he hath made is good. Therefore it is good.


"And as for the metaphor, how would you know?"


Well for one being a protestant for years and being taught this in church. It is the most told and accepted interpretation and can be found from multiple sources. Although the Hebrew people were the main followers of god this parable was also meant to speak to all people who did not follow god. Sorry for reserving it exclusively to Hebrews in the previous round. Isaiah spoke of the Israelites neglect of their God, "The ox knows his owner, and the donkey his master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand” (Isa. 1:3). This shows that they were not recognizing their creator. It can be extended as well to all people who do not exhibit real faith in God. [1] [2] [3]



Note that Pro has dropped my argument that Jesus only cursed a single fig tree.

No matter which interpretation you believe in the point is that Jesus was not cursing all fig trees. Just the one and it was an analogy. To what the analogy is of is up for interpretation but the ones I have provided are the ones that are most accepted. Case in point is that figs are not an abomination and figs are not cursed

Thank you.


Sources :

[1] - http://www.rc.net...

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] - https://www.christiancourier.com...
Debate Round No. 3
othercheek

Pro

Just because people interpret something to be a metaphor doesn't make it so. The Bible is the clear, holy, Word of God with no contextual contradictions. Why would a God make his Word purposefully deceiving? Also, because the Bible is true, the disciples clearly heard and saw Jesus curse fig trees.

Also why are you not a Catholic?
miketheman1200

Con

Jesus uses parables through out the new testament to teach his disciples. The cursing of the fig tree is more of a live example. You are also still not able to refute the fact that he cursed only that tree. Jesus did not say "No man eat fruit of any fig tree". He said "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever". It is clear that he meant that single tree.

The point is not the interpretation of the parable/analogy. The point is that he was making one.

The bible isn't the direct word of God. It is comprised of stories and letters from many prophets and disciples. The Quran is considered the direct word of god but that's another religion.

I'm not a catholic because I was raised a protestant. If it makes you feel better I'm agnostic now. I don't personally believe in God but I recognize that it's impossible to know.
Debate Round No. 4
othercheek

Pro

othercheek forfeited this round.
miketheman1200

Con

I have successfully refuted the Pros argument. Pro has also shown misconduct through forfeit.

Previous arguments extended.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
@othercheek perhaps you should read the entire story why did Jesus curse the single tree? Because it was baren and had no fruit, by the way I have used this with a tree in my own yard that did not produce fruit in 4 years it became fire wood. You can take anything out of context and make it say what you want
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
@othercheek

I'm sorry if I offended you. I actually thought that you created this debate to be facetious. If you truly believe that figs are harmful to you in some way, then I can respect your right to choose whatever diet suits you. I disagree with your interpretation of the passage, though, and think that you might reconsider it either way. But I, on the other hand, do not believe in the bible so that's also something to consider.
Posted by othercheek 3 years ago
othercheek
Excuse me, chengste? I truly avoid figs because Jesus disallowed them, or at least that's how I interpreted it off the page. You have NO right to tell me that my interpretation "fails."

Along with the "Morgan Freeman" comment in the debate, I have a feeling people think my beliefs are a joke, haw haw.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
how silly people always attempt to find contradictions in the Bible or the life style of Christians always they fail just like this one
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
I laughed pretty hard at this. Cursed be all figs! Lol

But seriously, I read the passage and do not think that that is what the scripture is implying. The passages even state that Jesus was hungry and went to the tree to eat figs himself, so he couldn't have found them to be all that horrible. When he found the tree had no figs (because they weren't in season), he decided to curse that specific tree that no one will ever eat its fruit thereafter. Jesus was kind of a jerk for cursing a tree for not being in season, as if it should be expected that it be otherwise and without any consideration that those who actually have the patience to wait till figs are in season might not like to enjoy figs from that particular tree (if I can't have figs from this tree right now, then no one can ever, d@mn it!). Nonetheless, #14 says,"And Jesus answered and said unto *IT*, No man eat fruit of *THEE*", the words "it" and "thee" obviously implying that particular tree, but he never said,"thee and any like thee" or "thee and any of thy kind" or anything similar. It would be like if someone insulted me and I said to them,"I'm not talking to *YOU*!" and you decided to interpret it to mean that I would never speak to any one else either. Thee=you. Thee =/= anyone or anything like you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
othercheekmiketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: At first, I thought this was a troll debate. After looking at the arguments, I was seriously shocked to find that pro was being serious. Even assuming that the Bible is a valid source for finding out such things, con showed how the Bible did not show that figs are an abomination. Pro kept repeating the same irrelevant argument over and over again, even after con had effectively refuted it.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
othercheekmiketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continued to drop the main point of argument, even after being reminded of it. His entire case only applied to a single fig tree. (Small note, that's a single round forfeit, not a Full Forfeit which would call for two F's).
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
othercheekmiketheman1200Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, this one goes right in the shitpile. We start off with a very interesting round 2. Pro brings up a very funny point and seems able to defend it. After Con refutes the point, we go to round 3, which starts with the greatest philosophical quote to this day: "NUH UH." Pro, you are funny at times, but so am I. What matters the most is who debates better. Congrats on satirizing Catholicism, but I'm sure you're capable of a more clever way to do it than that. Conduct for the forfeit. Sources for having them.