Jesus hates figs!

[Sonart]

.

It is what it is. It is fruit Jesus rejected.

Well, ummm... dang..... in that case.... ?????????????????????

That anything like George H.W. Bush not liking brocolli?

The fig is known as the false fruit.

I very seriously doubt that was ever meant in a pejorative sense, but simply descriptive. Just like a pomegranate is called a fruit, but is actually just a giant seed pod with none of the sweet seed protecting 'meat' we normally associate with fruit, except around that individual seeds.. They are what they are... there's no right or wrong or good or bad involved. A coconut is just a coconut... there's no good and evil about it, no conscious "deception" on the part of a coconut palm to be something it's not.

Jesus saw the deception the fig tree exposed.

It said all that in the Bible, did it? Or are you simply making this sh*t up as you go along, simply to defend the Bible?

.

[Cruella]

I think it's safe to say figs are worthless examples of fruit because the world has no taste for them.

I think it's safe to say that the writer of that particular sentence has never spent any time in Europe. Whilst Greece and Turkey in particular adore figs, and when they're in season, they're impossible to avoid all over the continent. There are fig cookies, puddings, entrees and even fig-scented cosmetics available in countries all over the world even where figs aren't native.

I think that sentence is about the stupidest theory I've seen put forward on this board in quite some time.

[GeminiBrian]

I think it's safe to say that the writer of that particular sentence has never spent any time in Europe. Whilst Greece and Turkey in particular adore figs, and when they're in season, they're impossible to avoid all over the continent. There are fig cookies, puddings, entrees and even fig-scented cosmetics available in countries all over the world even where figs aren't native.

I think that sentence is about the stupidest theory I've seen put forward on this board in quite some time.

Seconded... I have three 'Brown Turkey' fig trees, very prolific. Twice a year, there is so much fruit that the locals help themselves, and the kids even have rather messy fig fights in the street outside.

Most years I make lovely fig chutney, fig crumble (gorgeous) and even fig-and-ginger-ice-cream - all hugely popular... (especially with my cat, Sydney).

My only worry is that Jesus walks past and decides to curse these trees - I think he wouldn't be too popular round these parts if he did...

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

If this weren't about the Bible, it might be funny?...

Usually, when you start to see the funny side of things, you realise just how ridiculous they were all along.

Especially when one admits to themselves, that in the same manner as a funhouse mirror, they have been purposely {misinterpreting} those Things.

But then, the bible is one of the most preposterous books ever written.

And what would be the other books?

Jesus cursed a fig tree! That's ridiculous. It's a tree, for God's sake! How's it supposed to know what it's supposed to do?

The same way other fruit trees seem to [know] when they are to produce fruit.

It's a f*****g tree!

…that failed to produce what was required of it.

Who knows maybe it was doing it's best.

And maybe, from the standpoint of He that is in the Position of authority, its {best} was not {good} enough. In other words, He that was in a Position of authority had determined that the {best} thing for the fig tree to do was to produce figs for human consumption. The tree from his Position had determined that the best thing for him to do was to produce fig leaves. Unfortunately for the fig tree, man doesn’t eat fig leaves.

Now, this is no different than any other job in which the employer evaluates the work of his employee. He that is in charge must examine your work to determine if you are doing what’s best for the company. For example: There may be a need for bottles. And with that need, there is a company which survives by meeting that demand. You work at the company producing bottles which meet the demand. One day, the boss comes in to pick up the bottles that you were assigned to produce. But instead of finding bottles, he finds you hard at work doing your {best} to make boxes. The Boss reminds you that you were needed to do your {best} to make bottles and not boxes. The company survives by your Action of doing your {best} to make bottles. But instead of doing your {best} to make bottles, you continue to make boxes. Later on, the Boss comes back to find you still doing your {best} to produce boxes.

So, what do you expect that this Boss would do?
A. Do you expect him to allow you to do your {best} to continue to make boxes when the company needs bottles?

B. Do you expect him to allow you to continue to refuse to do what you are required to do?

C. Do you expect him to get rid of you and bring someone in who will do their {best} to produce what the company requires?

All this is really quite {simple} and may be summed up this way: Though you may be doing your {best,} your {best} may not line up with what the Boss has determined is best for the company. So again, the fig tree may have been doing its {best} to produce leaves, but unfortunately for it, it was called to do its {best} to produce figs.

And Jesus and God trashed it. That's really cruel, and just plain mean.

And again, since you seem to think, that it is {evil} to kill a tree that is no longer producing that which is needed, then what do you propose that an orchard worker should do with such a tree? Do you propose that an {unproductive} tree be allowed to take the place of one that is {productive?} Or, do you propose, that in an effort to keep the {unproductive} tree, men should hungry? Which is more {evil?} Do you suggest that the earth should be filled with {unproductive} fruit trees while men go hungry? Is that your grand plan?

It's amazing. No matter how absolutely irrationally stupid and cruel Jesus and God get, there's someone who'll defend them.

Is there any difference between that defense and those of this thread who will defend you and your proposal that dictates that humanity should save {unproductive} fruit trees while men go hungry? Is there any difference? Is it any less cruel to propose that humanity should save {unproductive} fruit trees while men go hungry?

Nobody who has any sense at all kills a fig tree because it didn't happen to have some figs for you to eat when you walked by, except Jesus.

1. So What do We do with Old Fruit Trees

Quote from article:
"So the take home message from this article is to take trees out when their productive life has expired. Many have sentimental value, but are worthless as far as production goes. So if your quest is to produce fruit, you must bite the bullet and take trees out when they are no longer productive.

By the same token, do not give a tree too many second chances. If it fails to produce a quality product after four or five years, then it will probably never produce one and should be eliminated.

This may seem harsh but survival of the fittest is a must for commercial orchard folks and homeowners would be wise to follow their lead. "

So Mr. Barts, would those that are {senseless} include the commercial orchard people who are trained to eliminate unproductive fruit trees? Or, are the {senseless} just limited to Jesus?

Not only did Jesus curse the poor tree, he punished it by decreeing it would never bear fruit again. Why? What possible good can come from that? It was just a tree.

…that failed to produce what was required of it. You appear as one who does not want to remember that part. Why? Why do you chose to ignore that detail?

In Mark's version, the tree wasn't even in season, and Jesus condemned it.

The tree was not in season? Now, does the fact that the tree in question was not in season, mean that all of the other fig trees of the region were not in season? Or does it mean that it was just that this fig tree was not in season?

Luke 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
Luke 13:7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
Luke 13:8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]:
Luke 13:9 And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
Mark 11:13 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].

The tree couldn't have produced a fig for Jesus even if it wanted to.

And yet, Jesus is supposed to allow it to continue to occupy that space? A fig tree that is not producing the fruit that it is required of it, is supposed to be allowed to continue to occupy space and resources? What about the fig trees that want to and can? Is he supposed to allow the fig tree who can’t, to continue to siphon off resources from those fig trees who can? Is he supposed to continue to provide spacing and resources for a fig tree that can’t and won’t?

I Am, I'm sure if there was a passage in the Bible about Jesus eating babies after raping their mothers, believers would praise it.

Have believers lost all critical capacity?

And which believers would you be referring to? Are you referring to those believers who believe that it is of a greater value to save an {unproductive} fruit tree than it is to feed a hungry man? Or, are you referring to those believers who believe that it is of a greater value to feed a hungry man than it is to save an {unproductive} fruit tree? Who are you making this reference to?

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote:
Quote by: GeminiBrian
But then, the bible is one of the most preposterous books ever written.

And what would be the other books?

You think I need a fatwah slammed on me?

[Sonart]

.

The same way other fruit trees seem to [know] when they are to produce fruit.

Odd then, that Jesus, Son of God, couldn't figure out that fruit trees don't bear fruit on demand.

…that failed to produce what was required of it.

On demand. Oh, wait, fruit trees don't work that way.

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:12–14

And maybe, from the standpoint of He that is in the Position of authority, its {best} was not {good} enough. In other words, He that was in a Position of authority had determined that the {best} thing for the fig tree to do was to produce figs for human consumption.

I'm terribly confused, here. Does "He that is in the Position of authority" get to order figs trees around, or has "He that is in the Position of authority" already determined that "fruit trees seem to [know] when they are to produce fruit."?

Which is it?

And what would be the other books?

How about the Old Testament.

.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Dude, trees are people too.

Why? Why should trees be classified as people? How did you come to your conclusion?

One would think that the omnipotent superbeing who designed something would have more of a clue as to how it works.

And one would think that an {omnipotent} super being who has a clue of how his design works, would know when a designed Object is not working as it is asked to work. Therefore, in light of that fact, one would also think, that in response to that {recalcitrant} Object, that omnipotent super being would be responsible enough to eliminate it and bring in one that does do what it is asked to do. Just as any other {omnipotent} company executive is expected to do.

I suppose it's a good thing Mary wasn't being visited by her Aunt Flow when god decided to impregnate her. She probably would have spontenously combusted for the sin of functioning as intended.

Before you scold me too harshly by what I am about to state, keep in mind that I am in fact an atheist.

Yes, please don’t forget to remind them that you are an atheist. We don’t want them ignoring the fact that they are scolding an individual just because they are a theist.

I think the fig tree was a metaphor used by the authors. If you view the fig tree as a society or a person his message makes sense. If a society or person is not bearing fruit, or doing well and producing what it should even during a short time (a season) then it/he/she is bound to collapse and will not produce fruit anymore.

…and should be eliminated.

[quote=yourwrong;601242] Jesus in the second statement I think is saying as long as you stay faithful to God which according to Jesus would be necessary for a society to function, you will prosper and have the ability to overcome and get rid of ineffecient trees or decrepid societies who may be opposed to you or stand in your way.

…or who are no longer faithful to the God who brought them to that {prosperity.}

This statement I think backs up the meaning because it is saying that the sword, famine, and plague will make figs uneatable meaning society ceases to function and attract people to it since it tastes bad.

But here is the Thing: Since {uneatable} or {rotten} is subjective, even an {uneatable} or {rotten} fig has the ability to attract. Now, though it may not attract the type of Persons, Objects, and Things that it used to attract, a fig will still attract Persons, Objects, and Things. Are flies, maggots, worms and various other insects and animals not attracted to {rotten} things?

Fig trees represent the most bountiful fruit of the time. They can survive in the climate that they are in. They are actually quite hardy, so, this tree regaurded as easy to come by - a common tree - is not giving Jesus what He wants. This means you better obey God or suffer His wrath. If you do not obey God, be you special or a fig tree, you will not recieve His blessings, but rather his anger, so, you better do what He wants, as He is asking the tree for fruit, which is what we are supposed to give to the Lord - worship - that is His food, as He requires nothing else. There is plenty of other places where God tells people what to do, but to say He wants people to act srongly and produce fruit is probably Islamic.

That is so {mean} and {evil.} Why should one not be allowed to continue at his job when he is not producing what is required of him? Why should one not be allowed to occupy space and resources when he refuses to that which is required of him? In fact, why shouldn’t everyone be allowed to occupy space and resources when they refuse to do that which is required of them? Why can you not produce what is required in a society and still get paid? Why can you not be {unproductive} in society and still get paid?

Now, as a result of its flagrant contradiction, here is what can be said to be quite hilarious: The same people who are in an uproar over the elimination of a fig tree that was not producing as it was asked to do, are the same individuals who are part of the group of people who called for and call for three Things:

1. The impeachment and removal of President Bush who is said to not have produced the desired fruit .

2. The punishment and elimination of the heads of company executives at AIG and other {failing} American institutions who are said to not have produced the desired fruit.

3. The abortion of fetuses that are said to be undesired fruit.

But yet, the removal of a fig tree that refused to produce the required fruit, is said to be {evil} and {mean.} Jesus is now {evil} and {mean} for implementing an Action that they so enjoy. Do we dare say that we sense some hate? Do we dare say that that may be seen as a contradiction? Do we dare say that that may be seen as hypocritical? Do we dare say that we sense a bit of what may be called intellectual dishonesty?

[Cruella]

Let's keep the discussion on this thread about the topic of this thread alone, please.

[do not respond]

[Sonart]

.

And one would think that an {omnipotent} super being who has a clue of how his design works, would know when a designed Object is not working as it is asked to work. Therefore, in light of that fact, one would also think, that in response to that {recalcitrant} Object, that omnipotent super being would be responsible enough to eliminate it and bring in one that does do what it is asked to do. Just as any other {omnipotent} company executive is expected to do.

Except that's just wrong. It's baloney. I'll print it again...

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:12–14

HIS design is that trees bear fruit when it's their proper season to bear fruit, and at no other time, and certainly not on demand. Expecting a tree to listen to instructions to do otherwise is absurd, whether those instructions come from Son of God or whoever. And cursing one 'recalcitrant' fig tree is absolutely not going to compel other fig trees to tremble in fear and begin bearing fruit out of season.

This smacks of a revisionist effort to turn a really pathetic action into some sort of wise parable. Sort of like the immaculate conception. Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock, then says an angel told her God did it. Wow, presto... not only is Mary absolved of any shameful conduct but exalted by this 'Proof' of her son's divinity.

How bloody convenient.

.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Yeah, I just looked it up and I guess that is the common consense as to what the fig tree signifigance is. I guess when I was a Christian, I always viewed God as a more hands off person who allowed humans to destroy themselves.

And do you still view God in the same manner?

Secondly, by stating that you “viewed God as a more hands off person who allowed humans to destroy themselves,” it appears that you are of the belief that a hands- on God would not allow humans to destroy themselves? Or that a hands-on God would not make self-destruction possible? So questions: Can you not have your hands on a person and still allow them to destroy themselves? Is that not possible? Or is allowable self- destruction only possible with the hands off?

Hence if you don't believe in God then you will become an immoral decantent person/society and your life will go badly because of your decisions and not due to God not liking your actions.

Can it not be due to both? Does a criminal go to jail only as a result of his Actions and Behavior? Does he not go to jail as a result of multiple Actions and Behaviors:
1. As a result of his own Actions and Behaviors
2. As a result of the Actions and Behaviors of the society in which he lives?

Though in a sense whether the statement means God directly punishes society or whether human destroy themselves through nonbelief it has basically the same meaning: If you are not Christian, you will not prosper due to God's wrath.

And how about your own Actions and Behaviors? Do we not factor your Actions and Behaviors into the equation? How about you not prospering due to your Actions and Behaviors? How about you not prospering due to your Actions and Behaviors and God’s wrath?

I would rather be called a tree hugger than a licker of the Divine Ar$e.

That's sick.

What’s the difference? Isn’t a tree a part of the “Divine Ar$e?”

Not on command, they're don't. Trees bear fruit when it's the season to bear fruit, as your god supposedly designed them to do, not when we demand it.

First, what is the difference? What is it that differentiates the season to bear fruit and the command to bear fruit? Isn’t the season to bear fruit a command to bear fruit? Doesn’t man demand fruit from his trees when it is the season to bear fruit?

Secondly, you have said it yourself: “Trees bear fruit when it's the season to bear fruit.” It was the season to bear fruit and the fig tree decided not to produce the figs that he was commanded to produce.

Thirdly, is it not possible to design something that bears fruit when it is demanded?

Certainly you can understand that simple concept... why couldn't Jesus?

Maybe he understood that there was no difference between the season to bear fruit and the command to bear fruit? And also, unlike you, maybe it is because he also understood that it was the season to bear fruit.

Nice out of context Non Sequitor, but it has nothing to do with the topic in question.

Why is that verse a non sequitur? Why does it not have anything to do with the topic in question? Again, here is the verse: Jeremiah 29:17 NKJV - "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad."

So a couple of questions:
1. Is the discussion not about figs?
2. Is the discussion not about figs or Things that cannot be eaten?
3. Is the discussion not about Things that are said to be {bad?}
4. Is the discussion not about things that wither or rot away?

Then it's a pretty crappy metaphor for someone who also said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Now, with the injection of this verse, you seem to be suggesting that Jesus’ Action of cursing the fig tree is in contradiction with that statement? How? Is the fig tree not required to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s? Is the fig tree exempt from that Action and Behavior? Should the fig tree not have rendered unto God the things of God?

In other words, if Jesus is believed to be God, and God is the designer of trees, then this makes Jesus the designer or creator of the fig tree. Does it not? Therefore, if Jesus is the designer or creator of the fig tree, then the things of the tree belong to Jesus and should have been rendered unto him. Do they not? But here is the Thing: Somehow you have come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Somehow you have come to conclude that the fig tree is exempt from rendering to God the things of God. Why? Why is the fig tree exempt from rendering to God the things of God?

Any farm child understands that nature provides fruits and vegetables on a regular and unchangeable schedule, not when we simply walk up and demand it... just as societies and people often do things by their own schedules.

What about when man demands it during the Time when that which nature provides is supposed to be there? What if the demand is based on the fact that that provision should be present?
So Mr. Sonart, does any farm child understand, that since nature provides fruits and vegetables on a {regular} and {unchangeable} schedule, then one can demand to know where those fruits and vegetables are when they are not on that schedule?

[Sonart]

.

First, what is the difference? What is it that differentiates the season to bear fruit and the command to bear fruit? Isn’t the season to bear fruit a command to bear fruit? Doesn’t man demand fruit from his trees when it is the season to bear fruit?

Well that's just about the silliest hairsplitting I've seen in some time. Someone walking up to a tree and expecting it to deliver fruit is definitely NOT the same as the season to bear fruit. The latter relates to firm yearly cycles, the former to an arbitrary request.

Jeez, get a grip.

And also, unlike you, maybe it is because he also understood that it was the season to bear fruit.

Ummm... except that it wasn't. I already posted that information. Here, read it again... please tell me if there's any words you don't understand.

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, >>>FOR IT WAS NOT THE SEASON FOR FIGS<<<. He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:12–14

Maybe he understood that there was no difference between the season to bear fruit and the command to bear fruit?

Yeah, right, nice try, but there's a huge difference.

Why is that verse a non sequitur? Why does it not have anything to do with the topic in question? Again, here is the verse: Jeremiah 29:17 NKJV - "Thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad."

So a couple of questions:
1. Is the discussion not about figs?

No, it isn't. It's about what God promises to do if the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar didn't release the Jews he held captive.

It's like saying, "I'm gonna split your head open like a ripe melon."

I'm definitely not talking about melons, am I?

2. Is the discussion not about figs or Things that cannot be eaten?

No, it isn't. See above.

3. Is the discussion not about Things that are said to be {bad?}

Yeah, holding Jews captive. And rotten figs are no worse than rotten apples, rotten bananas, rotten potatoes, or rotten anything else.

4. Is the discussion not about things that wither or rot away?

Not figs, it isn't.

Now, with the injection of this verse, you seem to be suggesting that Jesus’ Action of cursing the fig tree is in contradiction with that statement?

Yes, a direct contradiction.

By rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, Jesus concedes that there are temporal laws that even believers must obey. If Roman law is the law of the land, then you have to obey it. The laws of nature are the same... if a fruit tree only bears fruit in season, you have to accept it.

Is the fig tree not required to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s?

Not out of season it isn't.

So Mr. Sonart, does any farm child understand, that since nature provides fruits and vegetables on a {regular} and {unchangeable} schedule, then one can demand to know where those fruits and vegetables are when they are not on that schedule?

Sheesh, you seem a bit dumb for such a smart ass. ONCE AGAIN!

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, >>>FOR IT WAS NOT THE SEASON FOR FIGS<<<. He said to it, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ And his disciples heard it." - Mark 11:12–14

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Look at it this way: No one will ever doubt that fig trees exist. Hell, you can even eat them (the figs, not the trees unless you are a termite).

One thing that you will eventually learn is that you should never say never. If you look long and far enough you can find someone who will doubt that fig trees exist. In fact, there are some on this board who doubt their own existence. So if you can find an individual who doubts his own existence, then you can best believe that you can find somebody who doubts that figs exist.

God and Jesus have some difficulty having their existence accepted by some folks (quite a bunch of them, 1000 million Muslims to start off).

One thousand million Muslims have a difficulty accepting the existence of God and Jesus? Since when?

I would hat them too if I was God or Jesus! I guess I would hate everything whose existence could be proved physically (which includes a LOT of stuff)... oh wait...

You would hate who too?

Turning water into wine was a much better idea. As was healing the sick, etc.).

Why? Why is it better to turn water into wine than it is to remove an object that is not producing the fruit that hungry men require?

I don't think Jesus should have killed a tree because it wasn't bearing fruit. )

This is interesting: With this reply, it appears that you are answering these questions from POST# 26

“So, since you seem to think that it is {evil} to kill a tree that is no longer producing that which is needed, then what do you propose that orchard workers should do with such trees? Do you propose that {unproductive} trees should be allowed to take the places of ones that are {productive?} And therefore, are you proposing, that in an effort to keep non-producing trees, men should go hungry? “

Now, what this answer tells us all is a couple of Things:
First, it tells us all that you are of the mind that orchard workers should not kill trees that are not yielding the desired fruit.

Secondly, you are proposing that {unproductive} trees should be allowed to take the places of ones that are productive.

Thirdly, you are proposing that, in an effort to keep non-producing trees, men should go hungry. In other words, in your eyes, a {young} productive man is worth less than a non-productive tree.

Fourthly, you are of the mind that orchard workers who engage in the killing of trees that fail to yield the desired fruit are {evil.}

Again, Mr. Barts, considering the fact that the elimination or removal of trees which no longer produce the desired fruit is the standard procedure in orchards all around the world, your propositions may be seen by many as quite {strange} and {outlandish.}

Now, seeing that you are of the mind that the {standard} procedure that humanity has used for eons is itself quite {strange} and {outlandish} and therefore no longer {viable,} maybe we should follow your lead and carry your {new} and {exciting} proposal to all of the countriesof the world? What say you? What say you that we start a worldwide movement that moves to stop and prevent all orchard workers and fruit growers from following the Actions and Movements of that {evil} Jesus? What say you that we start a worldwide movement that moves to stop and prevent all orchard workers and fruit growers from eliminating and removing trees that no longer produce the required fruit? Or are you aware of a movement that is already in progress that we may join?

1. So What do We do with Old Fruit Trees

Do you, Mr. Mxyzptlk, think Jesus was justified in killing a tree that had no idea Jesus was going to be coming along or that he might want to eat a fig at a time of year when the tree couldn't have produced a fig even if it wanted to?).

First, who said that the tree did not have an idea that Jesus was going to be coming along? Are trees not alive?

Secondly, why keep a tree that will not produce the needed fruit during the time of year that it is required to?

And another thought. What kind of person talks to trees? ).

The same kind of person that has no problem talking to animals.

1. Communicating with Your Cat

2. Nuts?: Author 'talks' to squirrels

3. Poll: 67% of pet owners say they 'talk'

Did Jesus think the tree knew it was being punished?

Are trees alive or not?