Okay Catholics, time to play “Hard Ball!”

[James_S_Saint]

Thank you JackQ for your response,

The current most popular answers have been;

A) The word was mistranslated
B) The use of hyperbole
C) There are situations when you just gotta get mean Recognize the true need

 

[JackQ]

So when coming to the Church, by what means am I to see that when Jesus said, “hate”, he really meant what the Church says he meant instead?

Granted, once in the Church, you are to not question at all. But what of us who would consider being a member?

Who is our authority to verify the authority of the Church before losing our right to seriously question?

That’s an excellent question, and one that makes me retrace my own steps. It went kind of like this:

First I asked God if he was real. I have since become convinced that he is. Next I became intrigued with Jesus. In fact, I became a Jesus haunted person. No matter how far I went or how close I came to religion, Jesus was present in my consciousness in a unique and unshakeable way. What’s more, I kept returning to the Bible, even when I didn’t completely believe in it. Eventually, I came to notice that the Bible only makes complete sense within the context of Catholicism. At that point I became conscious of a choice I had to make. Either I would approach Jesus in the manner of an amateur historian, without hoping for more, or I would become a Catholic. This was presented to me as a clear and specific choice that I had to make. I chose to become a Catholic, and the light went on.

I hope this helps.

 

[James_S_Saint]

First I asked God if he was real. I have since become convinced that he is. Next I became intrigued with Jesus. In fact, I became a Jesus haunted person. No matter how far I went or how close I came to religion, Jesus was present in my consciousness in a unique and unshakeable way. What’s more, I kept returning to the Bible, even when I didn’t completely believe in it. Eventually, I came to notice that the Bible only makes complete sense within the context of Catholicism. At that point I became conscious of a choice I had to make. Either I would approach Jesus in the manner of an amateur historian, without hoping for more, or I would become a Catholic. This was presented to me as a clear and specific choice that I had to make. I chose to become a Catholic, and the light went on.

Haha…

That’s a good story, but it sounds like you somewhat “gave-in” as though to say, “Well, I can’t realistically figure this all out, so I’ll just jump in the pool and see if I float.”

Of course the skeptic would say, “Well of course after drinking the cool-aid, you drowned and begin to see the bright colors. ”

 

[DOShea]

Thank you JackQ for your response,

The current most popular answers have been;

A) The word was mistranslated
B) The use of hyperbole
C) There are situations when you just gotta get mean Recognize the true need

Your entire treatment of this thread has been somewhat like a contest and makes me wonder if you missed the central point of each argument, which is, that your dictionary definition of “hate” is not the true thought intended to be conveyed by the writer. It is one thing to genuinely inquire what a passage might mean or how it might be interpreted. It strikes me as something else to set up some sort of intellectual funnel through which you try to deliberately force a conversation to some kind of foregone conclusion. That is the impression I get from this. I hope that I am wrong here, but I see a type of game where you are trying to gather wide, diverse opinions on this one interpretation only to use that in a way to show defect somewhere else, possibly Teaching.

Whatever it is, it does not strike me as the usual inquiry of a person earnestly seeking to know the answer to something they did not know beforehand. If I am wrong, I apologize for being so, but I am being truthful about how it appears to me.

The answer to your question is simple enough. You can interpret it one of two ways… it either means hate in the sense of despising, disparaging, and detesting, or it means hate in a comparative sense such as holding one thing in a higher or lower esteem than another. How does one tell the difference?

I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specific articles below.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith. By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

Following only those guidelines, and there are more that lead in the same direction, there is no possible way you could interpret the passage to imply Jesus meant hate in the sense of “detest,” that is, the exact opposite of love. To do so, as other posters have already pointed out, would be to fly in the face of unity of the whole of scripture. It is instructive that all 3 of your “popular answers” have come to the same conclusion, each following one or more principals referenced above. Perhaps that speaks louder than words that these methods are sound and produce consistent results.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your entire treatment of this thread has been somewhat like a contest and makes me wonder if you missed the central point of each argument, which is, that your dictionary definition of “hate” is not the true thought intended to be conveyed by the writer. It is one thing to genuinely inquire what a passage might mean or how it might be interpreted. It strikes me as something else to set up some sort of intellectual funnel through which you try to deliberately force a conversation to some kind of foregone conclusion. That is the impression I get from this. I hope that I am wrong here, but I see a type of game where you are trying to gather wide, diverse opinions on this one interpretation only to use that in a way to show defect somewhere else, possibly Teaching.

Whatever it is, it does not strike me as the usual inquiry of a person earnestly seeking to know the answer to something they did not know beforehand.

Well now, how easy it is to presume and accuse the stranger.

I apologize for any appearance of “Teaching” as the point of this or that of an “intellectual funnel” ploy. I thought I made it clear in several posts of what my intention has been (and will continue to be) as did Prodigal_Son.

I find that to take offense and strike back is even a greater offense fore it must be that offense was taken within to become a part of the heart and thus must bare its own fruit of offense. But I can only suggest to try to avoid presumption in deciding an attitude and taking offense. The choice, as always, is up to you.

If I am wrong, I apologize for being so, but I am being truthful about how it appears to me.

More innocently asking the right question before lecturing might be a consideration to ponder. The first act of love is a question.

The answer to your question is simple enough. You can interpret it one of two ways… it either means hate in the sense of despising, disparaging, and detesting, or it means hate in a comparative sense such as holding one thing in a higher or lower esteem than another. How does one tell the difference?

I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specific articles below…

Those are indeed good rules to follow. I made certain that I followed them long before I ever new a Catholic had advised such. But glad to see one has. Thank you.

But as you can possibly see by reading the entire thread, especially post #87, using those concepts does not in itself always bring about the same or right conclusion. It still depends on just how well one considered the things suggested to consider.

That being the case, it seems wise to me, to simply ask of those who have attempted to use such and see which response (of all distinctly different of the 3) seems to adhere more to those rules.

Personally, I agreed with KindredSoul’s effort.

I see that you do not. But did you read his? And if so, to what do you disagree with his reasoning?

Unless of course you would rather merely lecture me on being a better person than I am.

 

[PJM]

=Prodigal_Son;5666180]Used to be a music minister, now I pretty much attempt to keep my two-year-old from banging his head on the pew during mass. But I’ll let the pope know I’ve got your recommendation.

This is very encouraging to me. I’ve heard a lot of talk of “convergent ecumenism”, but generally this just means Protestants and Catholics cleaning up trash together. OK, great, but what about the center of the issue?

Your use of symbolism – which I must admit somewhat confounds me – has me thinking. It almost seems like the fundamental church divisions could be aspects of a holy “trinity” among believers. The Catholic Church could contain three fundamental giftings, united in one: the loving and purposeful father, the dynamic and evangelical son, and the mysterious and ineffable spirit. These are represented in the Catholic, the Protestant, and the Orthodox – but we are a broken trinity.

Our unity is not to be found in doctrine – at least not first of all. It is to be found in the humility to know one another as lovers of Jesus. Anyone who says he is a Catholic first, and a Christian second, is saying precisely a contradiction.

Well done, Thank you!

 

[4everjustjesus]

The following is a question that I find Christians understandably avoiding, but I am more than merely curious about the Catholic response. I need a Catholic answer.

Catholicism is an admittedly dogmatic faith, and this leads to many serious problems. As I am not very dogmatic (more Hebrew actually), this attribute of Catholicism is seriously blocking me from becoming Catholic despite being a very serious proponent of Jesus and even conceptually an apostle of God .

An excerpt from Luke;

These are the recorded words of Jesus himself, not an apostle and thus cannot be merely written off as a misunderstanding. Dogma requires that such a statement never be removed or replaced and would constitute a serious apostate.

Every English translation uses those same words of “hate” and “cannot” thus attempting to infer that Jesus meant something else, will not fly. Regardless, I personally know what Jesus meant so how anyone translates it is irrelevant to me.

According to that quote from Jesus himself, if any man does not hate his direct family and his own life, he CANNOT be a disciple (and thus IS not).

Does the Pope, do the Cardinals, the Bishops, and all others purporting to be disciples of Jesus within the Church hate their families and their own lives?

Is this a prerequisite, requirement of office and discipleship maintained throughout Catholicism? By what means is it verified?

If not, by what cause of belief are these people to be followed and where can I find a disciple of Jesus?

When Jesus said “hate,” he meant like, willing to let go of. You should not be so attached to anything so much that you could not put Jesus before it/her/him/etc.

 

[James_S_Saint]

When Jesus said “hate,” he meant like, willing to let go of. You should not be so attached to anything so much that you could not put Jesus before it/her/him/etc.

Yes, “should not be so attached”, but what if someone already is? Then what does he do?

What if he has an addiction (for example)?

 

[fhansen]

This is the dangerous part.

As I had just posted to Prodigal_Son, “When one chooses to close his eyes from all deception then so too shall he see no truth, but only clouds and reflections from the vain brilliance of his own mind and heart.”

By the Church going to whatever measures it might go to so as to ensure that you see no deception (as truth), then you become blinded to actual truth. This is what causes and is the make of “ego”.

Every cult attempts this same thing and is really what qualifies it as a “cult” more than anything else.

I am not accusing, nor am I worried, that the Church is a cult, but that principles of “over-protecting” members due to the chaos of the real world today, is an issue of paramount concern (to me). And is the issue of “dogma” and its limits.

Dogma helps holds the Church together but it’s not to be an end in itself. Catholicism didn’t spawn Protestantism, in the sense of Reformed churches being natural offspring. They were simply children who left home-in part because home wasn’t so cozy anymore due to some of Mamas’ other children doing some really objectionable things -by not heeding or adhering to Mamas’ dogma. But it wasn’t the dogma itself that was at fault even though the separated children decided it was and proceeded to come up with dogma of their own.

Do you think you’re somehow insulated from deception merely because your source of information is a written word rather than the word proclaimed by an institution arguably established for that purpose? Sola Scriptura cannot logically be supported so, for myself, the options inevitably became Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or nothing-there simply was no way of understanding the Christian gospel with accuracy on my own, and at least those Churches have a connection to the beginning of Christianity that can be logically traced through history, not to mention that their teachings happen to compare and fit neatly with Early Church Father testimony.

The Church’s teachings/doctrines/dogma are a guide or outline-a finger pointing to the proverbial moon-which a believer can follow or not. In any case believers must be exhorted to ask, seek, and knock on their own. To the extent that they’re not being challenged to go beyond being Catholic in name only-to put into practice those teachings-the Church fails to do her job. To the extent that the Church becomes, in a persons mind, the end-all, the savior herself, something to be merely submitted to and obeyed, rather than loved and agreed with, then we’re mistaking the finger for the moon. Her role is to point us to God and help us on the way to Him but like St Augustine said: “The words printed here are concepts. You must go through the experiences.”

As to those other children I think principles are set forth in Matt 23:

**Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. **

 

[JackQ]

Haha…

That’s a good story, but it sounds like you somewhat “gave-in” as though to say, “Well, I can’t realistically figure this all out, so I’ll just jump in the pool and see if I float.”

Of course the skeptic would say, “Well of course after drinking the cool-aid, you drowned and begin to see the bright colors. ”

And against a determined solipsist I can’t even prove that I exist.

It didn’t feel like giving in to me–more like choosing. And I didn’t preconceive floating, sinking, or levitating, or even if I was jumping into water. Anyway, that was just my story. If it helps you, use it. If not, drop it.

I don’t think there’s a valid deductive argument with completely unquestionable premises available to prove the truth of Catholicism. The good news is that if we ask God to show us the truth of something, he will.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Do you think you’re somehow insulated from deception merely because your source of information is a written word rather than the word proclaimed by an institution arguably established for that purpose?

I am not largely disagreeing with what you are saying, but I would like to point out that the real answer to this question is actually not to your favor.

Although at no time would I be “insulated from [possible] deception”, if I come to a conclusion “on my own” (whatever that might mean) and I compare it to Papal doctrine and see that we agree, then I have greater incentive to believe our mutual understanding.

If I see that we do not agree, then it makes sense to look into why we disagree. If during that investigation, I cannot determine who is right or wrong, then I have incentive to avoid the situation of potentially being wrong by depending on either proposition.

But if I join the organization, I have already committed myself to agreeing whether I see disagreement or not. This is the dangerous effect of dogma. It places all members at risk of having to be wrong when they could have otherwise avoided the situation. Such an act of joining (unrealistically assuming no other reason for joining) would constitute a sin.

Thus the choice to join must be based on other incentives independent of who might actually be right.

The solution to this involves the exact extend of dogma. There is actually a “best cure” that contains almost no dogma at all. The newly born Son will be using that method.

My concern at this time, is whether the Mother Church with currently established dogmas, can provide proper motherhood to a Son who will not be using Her dogma methods (having no need for such and having need to use the more perfect method).

If such a situation cannot be established or is not the actual situation, that Son cannot be born from that Mother. Another Mother must be selected (by God/Father himself).

Dogma requires risk to be taken that could have been avoided if not for such dogma. The risk that occurs due to having no dogma (which certainly would exist) has another means of removing such risk.

By knowing of and using that means to dutifully avoid anyone’s dogma and its risks to resolve truth, it is already very clear to me that the Church has not been enlightened to this very real truth (or does not choose to respond to it).

But being a Mother is a different issue than being a Son, so I am not concerned with trying to make the Church into that form of perfection.

I am concerned with whether the Mother’s dogma (genes of Her DNA) would allow Her to nurture that Son.

How to resolve that concern is simply to “investigate” the reality of that Mother regardless of professed holiness.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t think there’s a valid deductive argument with completely unquestionable premises available to prove the truth of Catholicism. The good news is that if we ask God to show us the truth of something, he will.

Well okay…

…or instead of my lengthy last post, I could have just put it that way.

 

[fhansen]

I am not largely disagreeing with what you are saying, but I would like to point out that the real answer to this question is actually not to your favor.

Although at no time would I be “insulated from [possible] deception”, if I come to a conclusion “on my own” (whatever that might mean) and I compare it to Papal doctrine and see that we agree, then I have greater incentive to believe our mutual understanding.

This is the right reason for joining. In practice, most people-converts- first come into agreement on the main things and then sweat more of the minor details later. Blind faith is unacceptable-if by that we mean unquestioned faith-while JackQs comment about God responding to a sincere desire to know the truth is a major part of the process.

The solution to this involves the exact extend of dogma. There is actually a “best cure” that contains almost no dogma at all. The newly born Son will be using that method.

I don’t know. One problem I see is that any amount of dogma, as simple as “God is”, will still be contested and can be viewed as an arrogant claim. But I’m interested in hearing more of your solution anyway.

BTW, many of the Catholic saints, Augustine and Teresa of Avila come to mind, were “free-thinkers” in their own rights whose insights helped shape and clarify Catholic thought immensely, even though they weren’t necessarily accepted immediately, FWIW. This process should be never-ending. But maybe you’re thinking of a more major over-haul?

 

[James_S_Saint]

What I keep trying to say is similar to the concern expressed by, “a man cannot put new wine in an old wineskin”. Of course in saying this, he was talking about “fixing” the Jewish “church” and proposing that one cannot “fix” it (or should not at that time).

Similarly, I am not saying that the Mother Church should be “fixed” or “over-hauled”, but rather merely BE the Mother She is proposed to be and let the Son be born within.

That “solution” is a very masculine type of thing not befitting a feminine organization. A Mother must nurture even a masculine offspring, else there could be none.

The primary component of concern in that seed involves something similar to what you are pointing out with your Augustine example except in its pure form a Godly principle is involved, “every whisper must be heard”. The new seed will indeed hear every whisper with attention and compassion. It will not be an issue of having to have Church stature, education, or even favor. ALL will be heard and anything said by anyone anywhere if of God, it will be acted upon (and nothing said is totally without God).

Truly ALL angels will come before this newborn. It cannot be that his Mother forbids such or forbids that Son from acting by his own passionate will in response. He will hear what She will not. He will know what She never knew. He will “fix” what “cannot be fixed”.

I know that sounds very arrogant of me to proclaim, but these things I know and know extremely well. But I am not here to preach of such or ask for any belief in such, merely to investigate a possible womb.

 

[PJM]

deception", if I come to a conclusion “on my own” (whatever that might mean) and I compare it to Papal doctrine and see that we agree, then I have greater incentive to believe our mutual understanding.

If I see that we do not agree, then it makes sense to look into why we disagree. If during that investigation, I cannot determine who is right or wrong, then I have incentive to avoid the situation of potentially being wrong by depending on either proposition.

But if I join the organization, I have already committed myself to agreeing whether I see disagreement or not. This is the dangerous effect of dogma. It places all members at risk of having to be wrong when they could have otherwise avoided the situation. Such an act of joining (unrealistically assuming no other reason for joining) would constitute a sin.

***Dear Brother James,
Paerhaps you missed my eariler responce with I quotes ***“Strongs” ****** translation of “hate” in both Greek and Hebrew. If you’d care to see them back uo a couple of pages. My Post are easily identified.

Aramaic and Hebrew, somewhat akin to English are not always precise languages. For example, I can say that I “hate” your position on this issue. My meaning is that I disagree with you.

Either the Entire Bible is true, ot none of its true. There is a super abundance of historical evidence that the Bible is true, and none that I have seen proving that it is not.

A Key element of this TRUTH is the fact that no one part of this true bible can contradict another part of the bible. It’s a basic tenent for understanding what is being said.

That being said: Rom. 13: 9* The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
which would be an accurate articulation of the Entire Bible, gives clear evidence that Jesus, who Himself is “Love” did not mean “hate” in the sense you seem to prefer.

Indeed “Love” is the main and underlining theme of the entire Bible, especially the NT.

Mt. 5: gives additional support for my explaination:" 43 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

***What Jesus was saying is summurized by Luke 16: 13 “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” ***

The call to serve God as a Priest or Religious is total, complete, and unemcumbered by past relations, relatives and friends. The rewards are in relation to the sacrifice.

That is what Chrsit is saying.

Love and prayers,

Thus the choice to join must be based on other incentives independent of who might actually be right.

The solution to this involves the exact extend of dogma. There is actually a “best cure” that contains almost no dogma at all. The newly born Son will be using that method.

My concern at this time, is whether the Mother Church with currently established dogmas, can provide proper motherhood to a Son who will not be using Her dogma methods (having no need for such and having need to use the more perfect method).

If such a situation cannot be established or is not the actual situation, that Son cannot be born from that Mother. Another Mother must be selected (by God/Father himself).

Dogma requires risk to be taken that could have been avoided if not for such dogma. The risk that occurs due to having no dogma (which certainly would exist) has another means of removing such risk.

By knowing of and using that means to dutifully avoid anyone’s dogma and its risks to resolve truth, it is already very clear to me that the Church has not been enlightened to this very real truth (or does not choose to respond to it).

But being a Mother is a different issue than being a Son, so I am not concerned with trying to make the Church into that form of perfection.

I am concerned with whether the Mother’s dogma (genes of Her DNA) would allow Her to nurture that Son.

How to resolve that concern is simply to “investigate” the reality of that Mother regardless of professed holiness.

 

[PJM]

***A freindly reminder:

Even Hardball has an Umpire and is palyed fairly

Love and prayers,

Pat***

 

[JackQ]

What I keep trying to say is similar to the concern expressed by, “a man cannot put new wine in an old wineskin”. Of course in saying this, he was talking about “fixing” the Jewish “church” and proposing that one cannot “fix” it (or should not at that time).

Similarly, I am not saying that the Mother Church should be “fixed” or “over-hauled”, but rather merely BE the Mother She is proposed to be and let the Son be born within.

That “solution” is a very masculine type of thing not befitting a feminine organization. A Mother must nurture even a masculine offspring, else there could be none.

The primary component of concern in that seed involves something similar to what you are pointing out with your Augustine example except in its pure form a Godly principle is involved, “every whisper must be heard”. The new seed will indeed hear every whisper with attention and compassion. It will not be an issue of having to have Church stature, education, or even favor. ALL will be heard and anything said by anyone anywhere if of God, it will be acted upon (and nothing said is totally without God).

Truly ALL angels will come before this newborn. It cannot be that his Mother forbids such or forbids that Son from acting by his own passionate will in response. He will hear what She will not. He will know what She never knew. He will “fix” what “cannot be fixed”.

I know that sounds very arrogant of me to proclaim, but these things I know and know extremely well. But I am not here to preach of such or ask for any belief in such, merely to investigate a possible womb.

Okay, now, wait a minute! This sounds like you have an idea of a religion arising out of Catholicism (or some religion) in much the same way that historians would say that Catholicism arose out of Judaism (or Buddhism arose out of Hinduism), that you know what that new religion should look like, and you’re trying to discern the proper religious matrix for the new religion.

Or maybe I’m projecting some new insanity on my part, and I must now go in search of the proper medication.

Either way, the weird seems to have paid a visit to the rational, and I would be grateful for any assistance in making this conversation appear normal again.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Okay, now, wait a minute! This sounds like you have an idea of a religion arising out of Catholicism (or some religion) in much the same way that historians would say that Catholicism arose out of Judaism (or Buddhism arose out of Hinduism), that you know what that new religion should look like, and you’re trying to discern the proper religious matrix for the new religion.

Or maybe I’m projecting some new insanity on my part, and I must now go in search of the proper medication.

Either way, the weird seems to have paid a visit to the rational, and I would be grateful for any assistance in making this conversation appear normal again.

Now don’t get carried away. Define “religion”…?

In a higher sense Christianity was born out of Judaism, carrying substantially the same DNA but adding to it so as to complete a design. I seriously doubt that Jesus intended a totally new “religion” that had nothing to do with Judaism or Moses. He intended a new “Church” that left behind the impurities and added a few essential concerns.

Would you call the Baptists a different “religion” than the Lutherans? They look very different, yet one was born eventually out of the other just as Luthernism was basically born out of Mother Catholic (although apparently an abortion was attempted).

The Orthodox is different than Mother Catholic. It has substantially the same DNA, yet has variations. Is it a different “religion”? The Orthodox would claim that their way is “better”, if not they obviously would be Roman Catholic instead.

With each of these, it was known well beforehand that such would take place. Although at any time to make a claim of the future of such an event is thought to be impossible if not improbable (insane ramblings), if such were not so, if all could see and understand the events, how could anything ever be a miracle?

Do you for some Catholic reasoning believe that nothing shall change from the order of today? And even that there shall be no “second coming”? I ask in earnest.

 

[de_profundis]

Hi James

I haven’t read the rest of the thread but I will try to answer as best I can. Perhaps someone has already responded in a similar vein. What the first response to your post said was essentially, right, it is a denial of anything that stands in the way or ‘blocks’ our conversion. However, you’re right, it’s not a mistranslation. And, while it does have some symbolic meaning, yes you’re right it can even mean literally to hate. I once heard a Catholic apology for it, though I’m not sure where, I’ll try to explain it…

Hating one’s own life is an obvious requirement of becoming a Christian. We are bound by sin in our fallen nature. Unless we realise this and hate our sinful lives then we cannot come to know God. I know plenty of people in the Church that truly believe that they uphold the 10 commandments and are without sin, because they are “good people”. I feel sorry for these people as they are refusing the gift of God’s only Son for our redemption.

With regards to hating one’s mother, brother, sister etc., while hard to understand on face value, the exact same logic applies. Most of our relations with our family members are sick and need curing by God, to the point that they prevent us from coming close to God. Relationships are only brought to perfection in the light of Jesus. Unless we hate these relations, specifically mother etc., then we are putting a barrier between ourselves and God and thus cannot follow him.

I’ll elaborate a little on the above… Most relationships revolve around an economy of exchange, e.g. children will hang out with other children because they have cool toys. Husbands will love wives only if their wife loves them back. We treat others well only if we are treated nicely. Parents love their children only if their children fulfill their own vein, vicarious desires.

Families are often torn apart by one member’s decision to follow Jesus rather than preserve the unity of the family for the sake of the family itself! It’s not uncommon to hear of a Catholic mother or father’s weeping over his/her son’s/daughter’s decision to enter religious service!

You get the picture. We can’t follow Jesus unless we sever our family’s hindering effect on our pursuit of God. And where this means hating what our family are to us, then this is a significant suffering that we need to bear in following Christ.

Ok that was a fairly poor attempt at externalising something I feel I understand in my heart… I’ll leave it to someone more articulate in future

 

[Sean11]

James S. Saint,

I did not read every post, but I detect your pleasure in arguing logically, and also a degree of enjoyment on your part in sounding erudite.

You are asking questions about whether the femine Mother Church is not too rigid in “her” dogmatism to nurture her son, after a lengthy, and very rigid debate insisting that a teaching of the Son of God be treated in a strict logical intepretive fashion. Interesting.

I encourage you to direct your energy to seeking the Truth of Jesus and his teachings, his Sacred Heart, and also the compassionate heart of our Lord’s Mother.

Becoming conscious of how we are capable of getting too centered on strict, rigid logic, should make us all pray for a few more points on our “emotional intelligence” quotient.

-Sean