(June 18, 2015 at 12:13 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'd like to hear your thoughts on Luke 14:26, CL.

Luke 14:26 - "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple."

And hey, how 'bout John 12:25?

John 12:25 - "Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

Hi F&F

Good question. I hate to give people reading material, but this guy specifically addresses Luke 14:26 and explains it way better than I ever could. I have copied and pasted below but it's better if you just go to the site, since it looks confusing here. (oh and this can also apply directly to John 12:25)

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.php

Updated September 2014 to address some objections.

Quote:Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The subject here is the word for hate, which is the Greek miseo. One Skeptic is typical of critics when he writes:

Quote:Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word 'hate' to something like 'love less than me,' even though the Greek word miseo means 'hate.'

In line with this comment, Skeptics will stress the meaning of the word "hate" and insist that the word must be read literally, and that Jesus is truly preaching hate. But in fact, the "softening" is correct to do -- and is perfectly in line with the context of the ancient world, and the Jewish culture in particular.
For a background on the use of extreme and hyperbolic language in the Bible, I direct the reader first to my foundational essay (link below) on this subject. Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.
Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

Quote:And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)
Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:

Quote:No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other.
Now let's move into some secular works with the same sort of hyperbolic language. Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary offers this example from Poimandes 4:6:

Quote:If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself.

Would critics suppose that this teaches literal hatred of the physical body? It does not -- it emphasizes the need to give preference to the whole self before the body alone. Literal hate of the body would have us cutting it with razors or hitting it with blunt objects -- an extreme practiced in some Eastern faiths, but not among the Greeks.
Here is another example from a war song in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci (see James Denney, "The Word 'Hate' in Lk. 14:26," Expository Times 21, 41-42): it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" -- is this a literal hatred of one's own life being taught? No! It is emphasizing the need to make one's life secondary for Sparta's sake. Here's a final example from Epictetus 3.3.5: "The good is preferable to every intimate relation." This is just a more abstract version of Luke 14:26!
Those who think that Jesus is preaching literal and misogynist hate in this verse are anachronizing.
Objections
"The word used in Greek is quite explicit, it means hate!"
The first error of this point is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So whatever word he spoke in Aramaic that was translated "hate" but be judged in terms of the linguistic tendencies of those who spoke Aramaic. As Rihbany shows us, that means hyperbolic excess.
"All those other references from the Old Testament and Greece could be read as literal hate!"
No, they cannot, and I explained why not in each case.
"Yes they can be! Kierkegaard explained how. He said that hatred was an ethical expression."
It would be enough in response to simply note the absurdity of appealing to the views of a 19th century European when judging the intentions of members of a collectivist, agonistic society. But we may further explain that any idea of "hatred as an ethical expression" is simply foreign to such a cultural setting. Kierkeegard, in Fear and Trembling, "Problem Two," explained Luke 14:26 as reflecting "absolute duty towards God" and rejects an explanation like ours on the rather strained grounds that the parable that follows, about the building of the tower, indicated a more fundamentalist reading. It does not. The parable is told as an illustration of forsaking all one has (14:34). The obvious parallel is to those who really did so, the Apostles, who obviously did not "hate" their families in the literalist sense, as they continued to be with them (e.g., as Peter was still married). Kierkegaard is incorrect to say that the word must be "taken in as terrible a sense as possible." It also could not possibly be reconciled with the order to love others if read so literally. (Rather tellingly, Kierkegaard evades explaining how, in practice, we are to "hate" these others while still loving them, and settles for deeming it a paradox.)
"We can argue a literal interpretation from all those people who gave up their wealth to follow Jesus!"
No, we cannot, because the number who were told to do so was only a tiny fraction of believers. Men like Nicoedemus were not told to give away their wealth. Nor was Zaccheus. Nor were Ananias and Sapphira told to give away all they had. The obvious point is that having money does not always mean one is serving money.
"Hatred here means the truth is betrayed by your actions!"
That is nothing more than a contrivance to accommodate a literalist reading. The far simpler explanation is that this statement, made in a social world within which dramatic language was the norm, is intended hyperbolically.
-JPH

So, long story short...we can't trust that jesus actually said what the bible claims he said, or that jesus intended for his audience to take it in the way that the arbitrators of biblical truth decided to write it?  Are you sure that this is the road you'd like to take?

(June 18, 2015 at 12:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Hi F&F

Good question. I hate to give people reading material, but this guy specifically addresses Luke 14:26 and explains it way better than I ever could. I have copied and pasted below but it's better if you just go to the site, since it looks confusing here. (oh and this can also apply directly to John 12:25)

---

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.php

Updated September 2014 to address some objections.

Quote:Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The subject here is the word for hate, which is the Greek miseo. One Skeptic is typical of critics when he writes:

Quote:Most Christians feel obligated to soften the face meaning of the word 'hate' to something like 'love less than me,' even though the Greek word miseo means 'hate.'

In line with this comment, Skeptics will stress the meaning of the word "hate" and insist that the word must be read literally, and that Jesus is truly preaching hate. But in fact, the "softening" is correct to do -- and is perfectly in line with the context of the ancient world, and the Jewish culture in particular.
For a background on the use of extreme and hyperbolic language in the Bible, I direct the reader first to my foundational essay (link below) on this subject. Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture. There is no word, he notes, for "like" in the Arabic tongue. "...[T]o us Orientals the only word which can express any cordial inclination of approval is 'love'." The word is used even of casual acquaintances. Extreme language is used to express even moderate relationships.
Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. To seal this matter completely, let's look at some parallel materials which prove our point. The closest example comes from Genesis 29:30-1:

Quote:And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Here, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. Let it be added that if Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is hardly believable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. (See also Judges 14:16 and Deut. 21:15-17.)
Now here is another example from Jesus, Luke 16:13:

Quote:No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Such extremes of feeling would be atypical, but the extremes are not meant to be taken literally; the point is that one master will get more dedicated labor than the other.
Now let's move into some secular works with the same sort of hyperbolic language. Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary offers this example from Poimandes 4:6:

Quote:If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself.

Would critics suppose that this teaches literal hatred of the physical body? It does not -- it emphasizes the need to give preference to the whole self before the body alone. Literal hate of the body would have us cutting it with razors or hitting it with blunt objects -- an extreme practiced in some Eastern faiths, but not among the Greeks.
Here is another example from a war song in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci (see James Denney, "The Word 'Hate' in Lk. 14:26," Expository Times 21, 41-42): it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" -- is this a literal hatred of one's own life being taught? No! It is emphasizing the need to make one's life secondary for Sparta's sake. Here's a final example from Epictetus 3.3.5: "The good is preferable to every intimate relation." This is just a more abstract version of Luke 14:26!
Those who think that Jesus is preaching literal and misogynist hate in this verse are anachronizing.
Objections
"The word used in Greek is quite explicit, it means hate!"
The first error of this point is that Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So whatever word he spoke in Aramaic that was translated "hate" but be judged in terms of the linguistic tendencies of those who spoke Aramaic. As Rihbany shows us, that means hyperbolic excess.
"All those other references from the Old Testament and Greece could be read as literal hate!"
No, they cannot, and I explained why not in each case.
"Yes they can be! Kierkegaard explained how. He said that hatred was an ethical expression."
It would be enough in response to simply note the absurdity of appealing to the views of a 19th century European when judging the intentions of members of a collectivist, agonistic society. But we may further explain that any idea of "hatred as an ethical expression" is simply foreign to such a cultural setting. Kierkeegard, in Fear and Trembling, "Problem Two," explained Luke 14:26 as reflecting "absolute duty towards God" and rejects an explanation like ours on the rather strained grounds that the parable that follows, about the building of the tower, indicated a more fundamentalist reading. It does not. The parable is told as an illustration of forsaking all one has (14:34). The obvious parallel is to those who really did so, the Apostles, who obviously did not "hate" their families in the literalist sense, as they continued to be with them (e.g., as Peter was still married). Kierkegaard is incorrect to say that the word must be "taken in as terrible a sense as possible." It also could not possibly be reconciled with the order to love others if read so literally. (Rather tellingly, Kierkegaard evades explaining how, in practice, we are to "hate" these others while still loving them, and settles for deeming it a paradox.)
"We can argue a literal interpretation from all those people who gave up their wealth to follow Jesus!"
No, we cannot, because the number who were told to do so was only a tiny fraction of believers. Men like Nicoedemus were not told to give away their wealth. Nor was Zaccheus. Nor were Ananias and Sapphira told to give away all they had. The obvious point is that having money does not always mean one is serving money.
"Hatred here means the truth is betrayed by your actions!"
That is nothing more than a contrivance to accommodate a literalist reading. The far simpler explanation is that this statement, made in a social world within which dramatic language was the norm, is intended hyperbolically.
-JPH

---

I'm well aware of the idea of 'softening' the verses from apologists, but I'd rather they just update the damn verse itself to reflect what they claim is its true meaning.

But my primary objection isn't the word 'hate' itself, I've read plenty writings like the one you linked. I wasn't trying to pull a "gotcha" just because of one word in one verse.

My larger point is the ideas behind the verses. In order to follow Jesus, one must (using your linked words) value his family and even his own life less than Jesus, and must put more stock in the next life than this life (the only life we can be sure we're going to live). I find it rather repulsive for one figure to literally say that you must love nothing more than he himself, and that if you value the here and now - our reality and societies and loved ones - over the hereafter, then you're somehow wrong.

(June 18, 2015 at 3:25 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys?  Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?

Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening.  You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.

This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys  is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.

You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle.  Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.

Oh the Irony.

You hypocrites came out of the woodwork to defend a homosexual (Harvey Milk) having sex with an underage teen, I wonder why you guys can't seem to get behind the homosexuals in the Catholic church.....
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679293

(May 31, 2014 at 10:59 am)Esquilax Wrote: 16 is the age of consent where I am. Bit shaky, but I don't find this particularly objectionable on its own, and certainly not enough to label the guy a pedophile. Seems like classic theistic stretching beyond their means to me.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679295

(May 31, 2014 at 11:06 am)Chas Wrote: Note that Milk recorded his age as 18.  It is credible that the boy said he was, and if you look at photographs, he looks all of 18.

He didn't look like a child, so the accusation of pedophilia collapses.

Gee I wonder what reason Milk would have to lie about age...  
http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679301

(May 31, 2014 at 11:13 am)Kitan Wrote: A statutory rapist under a superfluous law is one thing.  Taking the unreasonable theistic leap of referring to him as a pedophile is something else.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-26392-po...#pid679303

(May 31, 2014 at 11:15 am)Chas Wrote: My point was about pedophilia.  Go ahead and quote statute, but that says nothing about whether or not Milk was a pedophile.

He does not fit the definition.

Speaking of semantics... you were saying?

(June 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Welp, I dun goofed and fucked up my formatting that ended in a double post.  Could a mod delete my second quote-post?

Next time, just report your own post with that as a reason. We might miss it in the thread.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:58 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:54 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Welp, I dun goofed and fucked up my formatting that ended in a double post.  Could a mod delete my second quote-post?

Next time, just report your own post with that as a reason. We might miss it in the thread.

Will do, sorry.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:43 pm)robvalue Wrote: Jesus on how to beat your slaves:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Other stuff about slavery in the NT:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

  Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Quote:Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.

   Christians are always claiming, “he’s the lamb”, “our savior”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature.  Jesus a nice guy?  Not in my book.  Nor in any other person’s who is capable of compassion and rationality.  Let’s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is.  These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him.  Jesus’ real mission to come to earth:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other.  He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.”  Matthew 10:34

Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth!  No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine.  “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family.  I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with?  Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him.  Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus.  “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  Matthew 5:17



Jesus advocates murder and death:

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth.  Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God.  (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.)  Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire.  The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus.  “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”  Revelations 19:20-21



Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.”  Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell.  Mark 4:11-12



Jesus advocates child abuse:

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward.  Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him.  To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark 7:9



A few other things about Jesus:

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come.  Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea.  Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse.  Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season.  Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly.  You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season.  Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

Robvalue, with this and all the other quotes people here are showing me (though they are all covered here), what I see is a handful of one or two sentence lines being picked out from thousands of pages of text.

I can promise you, Jesus does not want us to hate our parents. He does not want us to abuse children. He does not want us to murder people. He does not want us to beat our slaves or even to "own" slaves. We have to look at the entirety of the message and example of Jesus, and keep in mind that this happened over 2 thousand years ago in a completely different culture/time, where people spoke and explained things differently than they do in 21st century America.

I don't think anyone can read the entire Gospel and come out with the honest belief that Jesus promoted the above.^

I found this page to be pretty disingenuous, and that is why I had not previously responded to it. The very first thing it states is "Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other." Yet the verse they are referring to (Matthew 10) says neither of those things. I did not need to read much of the rest after that, since it is made very clear that the agenda of that site is to bash Jesus in any way possible, even if that means being dishonest about it. I don't see the point in responding to arguments that are dishonest in the first place.

I am not directing any of this at you, I know you are not the author, so please don't take it personally.

Should we defer to -your- promises, or the text purporting to be the words of a god? Ignore all the rest, you think they don't mean much, that they're disingenuous, fine. We still have the nagging issue of vicarious redemption, the foundation of your entire belief structure. Not going to be able to wave that away with a flip of the wrist. It's been brought to your attention -many- times.....and you've declined to respond.

I admit I haven't gone and read the context myself, so I'll do so when my brain is up to it and see what shakes. I posted them up as a quick reply.

Personally I don't think Jesus, if he was real, said any of those things at all. It's all hearsay accounts written way after his supposed death. I doubt 10% of the quotes attributed to him are accurate. But the bit about him biting the heads off baby kangaroos is definitely him.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'm well aware of the idea of 'softening' the verses from apologists, but I'd rather they just update the damn verse itself to reflect what they claim is its true meaning.

But my primary objection isn't the word 'hate' itself, I've read plenty writings like the one you linked.  I wasn't trying to pull a "gotcha" just because of one word in one verse.

My larger point is the ideas behind the verses.  In order to follow Jesus, one must (using your linked words) value his family and even his own life less than Jesus, and must put more stock in the next life than this life (the only life we can be sure we're going to live).  I find it rather repulsive for one figure to literally say that you must love nothing more than he himself, and that if you value the here and now - our reality and societies and loved ones - over the hereafter, then you're somehow wrong.

Ah gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm impressed and glad you were able to look past the one word to see what the actual message is.

I know this won't be convincing or make any sense for someone who doesn't believe in a God, but "to worship" is a more powerful thing than "to love" (as we understand it), and we are supposed to worship God. We are not supposed to worship any member of our family. So yes, we are supposed to put God above our families. Also, I believe that God made us and that He made us for Himself... so when all that we know here on earth is gone, the thing that will matter most and give us complete fulfillment, is God. No one or nothing else will ever be able to fulfill us completely, until God does when we are reunited with him in the afterlife... because that is what we were made for. Heaven isn't great because there are flying horses and everyone is nice, Heaven is great because it will give us complete fulfillment by being with God. We won't need flying horses. I know you don't agree with that or understand it, and this probably isn't the answer you wanted to her, but I can't deny that this is what I believe and I stand behind it.

As for the afterlife being more important than this life... well, I know you don't believe in afterlife, but imagine for a second that you did. Let's say you live until you are 100. What is 100 years in comparison to an eternity? Seriously, in the realm of eternity, forever and ever, something that will never ever end, what is 100 years?? When you put it into perspective like that, 100 years is nothing, nothing, compared to our entire, never ending existence. So for someone who believes in the afterlife, it makes absolute sense to care more about the never ending, eternal life more so than the one that will last a measly 100 years. Does that make sense?