Okay Catholics, time to play “Hard Ball!”

[Prodigal_Son]

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

That was *very *well said, De Profundis.

 

[PJM]

=JackQ-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.

***Friend your choosing to ignore a couple of key issues.

“The Church” is guided by God Himself who has given personal assurence of Her integrity truthfulness and longivity. [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 28 and Jn. 17;17].

For the record "new religions have already in GREVIOUS error sprung from Her womb. Over 30,000 called Protestant denominations. and yet, true to His Word, The CC is still the largest of all “Christian churches” and still very active and effective after 2,000 continous years of service.***

Here is what Christ warned us about:***Mt. 18: 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”/*COLOR]

And good luck in finding your medication, may I suugest you began by looking under “T” for the TRUTH

Love and prayers friend,**

 

[James_S_Saint]

Hi James

I haven’t read the rest of the thread but I will try to answer as best I can…
.
.
.
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

Certainly not any more poor than the rest of us. All we can do is try… or try not. I thank you for trying and doing a good job as consequence.

Since you didn’t read the thread (understandably), know that we came to that same conclusion (or very similar) and I tried to emphasis that “at times” the word “hate” is accurate in that the bond to other issues is so strong, that nothing less than a felt hatred would keep it broken.

 

[djeter]

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?

From Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa’s homily on family and marriage:

c. Jesus, an enemy of family?
"Among the many theses posited in recent years in the so-called “Third Quest on the historical Jesus”; we find the idea that Jesus rejected the natural family and all parental bonds in the name of belonging to a different community, in which God is the father and the disciples are all brothers and sisters, proposing an itinerant life, as was lived in that time outside of Israel by the cynic philosophers.

In effect, in the Gospels, Christ uses words that at first glance cause bewilderment. Jesus says: “Anyone who comes to me without hating father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, yes and his own life too, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Certainly harsh words, but the evangelist Matthew hurries to explain the sense of the word “hate” in this case: “No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). So Jesus does not ask us to hate our parents or children, but rather that we not love them to the point to which we refuse to follow him because of them.

Another episode causes confusion. “Another to whom he said, ‘Follow me,’ replied, ‘Let me go and bury my father first.’ But he answered, ‘Leave the dead to bury their dead; your duty is to go and spread the news of the Kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:59). For some critics this is a scandalous request, among them the American rabbi Jacob Neusner, with whom Benedict XVI has a conversation in his book about Jesus of Nazareth.It is disobedience to God, who orders that we take care of parents, a flagrant violation of filial duties.

What we have to give to Rabbi Neusner is that Christ’s words, such as these, cannot be explained while we consider Christ a mere man, as exceptional as may be. Only God can ask that he be loved more than a parent, and to follow that up, to give up attending a burial. For the believers this is further proof that Jesus is God. For Neusner, it is the reason why he cannot be followed.

The confusion caused by these requests from Jesus also come from not keeping in mind the difference between what he asks all without distinction and what he asks of only some that are called to share in his life entirely dedicated to the Kingdom, as continues to happen today in the Church. The same should be said about the renunciation of marriage: He does not impose it, nor does he propose it to all without distinction, but rather only to those who accept to put themselves at the complete service of the Kingdom as he does (cf. Matthew 19:10-12).

All these doubts about the attitude of Jesus toward family and marriage fall apart if we keep in mind the other passages of the Gospel. Jesus is most rigorous regarding the indissolubility of marriage; he heavily stresses the commandment to honor father and mother, to the point of condemning the practice of excusing oneself from the duty to assist them under religious pretexts (Mark 7:11-13). How many miracles Jesus works precisely to step forward to meet parents in their suffering (Jairo, the father of the epileptic), mothers (the Canaanite, the widow of Naim), or of relatives (the sisters of Lazarus), therefore, to honor the family bonds. On more than one occasion he shares the pain of the relatives up to the point of crying with them.

In a moment such as the present, in which everything seems to be conspiring to weaken the bonds and values of the family, we would only need to oppose Jesus and the Gospel to them! Jesus has come to give marriage back its original beauty, to reinforce it, not to weaken it."

If you’re interested the rest is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/28/marriage-and-family/

In Christ

dj

 

[James_S_Saint]

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.

Sean, could you please point out where I have “insisted” on anything being taught in any particular manner? Why must you presume that a man explaining his personal point of view so as to reveal his purpose in asking any question in the first place, is “insisting” and “sounding erudite”?

What pride demands that no man know anything at all prior to asking of another?

 

[James_S_Saint]

***Friend your choosing to ignore a couple of key issues.

“The Church” is guided by God Himself who has given personal assurence of Her integrity truthfulness and longivity. [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 28 and Jn. 17;17].***
I have not placed doubt in this.

For the record "new religions have already in GREVIOUS error sprung from Her womb. Over 30,000 called Protestant denominations. and yet, true to His Word, The CC is still the largest of all “Christian churches” and still very active and effective after 2,000 continous years of service.

Nor have I placed doubt in that either although what you believe is “error” I must advise might not be from a higher perspective (of God). Do you presume that God has no purpose at all in anything that is not of direct Catholic faith and dominion?

No great mountain has ever been without greatness within.

Here is what Christ warned us about:Mt. 18: 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

And I agree. But tell me, do you go to your brother in private and speak to him with your hand on your gun?

Once long ago a police officer approached me with his hand on his gun to ask concerning suspicious activity. I quite willingly showed him around and opened whatever he requested to be opened so as to let him see that there was nothing to actually be suspicious about.

But then he asked for a list of my friends and even of their friends as well. That is where I drew the line. I said to him that such is of private concern (the US is not entirely socialist yet) to them and I see no need in telling him what they might not want me to tell him and that he should go ask them. He insisted and I resisted.

He then turned and got on his radio saying, “I need assistance out here. This guy is stonewalling me.” He lied to his clan so as to gain more support for his demand in belief of wrong doing. 8 more officers showed up, with hands on guns ready for action.

Whether I draw the line as to how much another is allowed to see or whether it is his own blindness that draws that line. Suspicion is not abated. Prosecution born of suspicion inspires effort to gain support from higher authority which tempts presumptions, exaggerations, distortions, and lies while behind a veil of self righteous duty and loyalty.

Was not this the exact case even for Jesus himself?

He tried to explain to the many what only a very few could see. But in so doing, he past their own line of perception of truth. Yet if he had not done so, would there be a Church today? He told some to not speak of what he had done for them. They did anyway. Prosecution pursued.

When Galileo proposed a truth not favored by the Church, prosecution pursued.

It is not a matter of truth that a man is prosecuted or even found guilty and convicted. It is a matter of suspicion and the blindness that it increases even above its already natural limits.

In stating what I certainly knew many would not see and find not in favor, regardless of any truth involved, revealed to me is another truth concerning to whom I speak. With hand on gun, with radio in hand, what presumption (sin) and pursuit shall be tempted and grasped by the righteous?

 

[fhansen]

In stating what I certainly knew many would not see and find not in favor, regardless of any truth involved, revealed to me is another truth concerning to whom I speak. With hand on gun, with radio in hand, what presumption (sin) and pursuit shall be tempted and grasped by the righteous?

Presumption and self-righteousness are human traits-results of original sin -out of sync with reality or Gods order of things. But you’ll find them wherever you find humans. You’ll find them on both sides of the Galileo issue as a matter of fact. But the Church has learned much about human nature-the nature of her own body-over the centuries and the Galileo affair, for one of many, played its part. We’re all called to learn-to be changed-by the gospel and this is a process-requiring time like all processes-and the Church is being tried, molded, refined, perfected, convinced of the necessity of properly understanding and heeding her own gospel of love-of removing the plank from her own eye. And I believe she’s gotten much better at this over the years. Meanwhile I maintain that the gospel, itself, that she’s been commissioned to preach has remained correct and intact from the beginning.

But what are the odds of hearing more of your solution?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Presumption and self-righteousness are human traits-results of original sin -out of sync with reality or Gods order of things. But you’ll find them wherever you find humans. You’ll find them on both sides of the Galileo issue as a matter of fact. But the Church has learned much about human nature-the nature of her own body-over the centuries and the Galileo affair, for one of many, played its part. We’re all called to learn-to be changed-by the gospel and this is a process-requiring time like all processes-and the Church is being tried, molded, refined, perfected, convinced of the necessity of properly understanding and heeding her own gospel of love-of removing the plank from her own eye. And I believe she’s gotten much better at this over the years. Meanwhile I maintain that the gospel, itself, that she’s been commissioned to preach has remained correct and intact from the beginning.

I have no substantial disagreement with that.

But what are the odds of hearing more of your solution?

After seeing what has already taken place, seeing, and even saying what has already been said, you would have me even further tempt sin (presumption)? I have to wonder just on what side your loyalty extends - just making light

But don’t so quickly presume to condemn that seed as being that of “yours” (mine).

The new thing is substantially not at all new and even has been from the very beginning. Not a single living thing has ever been without its essence within. Long before humans, before animals, or even fishes in the sea, and before even the very first struggle of the very first life began its first urge, that essence was already there.

But there has been, for rightful cause, one Angel never allowed to touch such life or known to any man in any way, never spoke of, never even named. That Angel is what brings the light of the truly new, dissolving all that has ever been the struggle of Man.

And when in combination with life, the very adversary of suspicion and doubt comes forth unabated and unstoppable.

That adversary carries the name, Clarity.

What darkness does not flee from light in the presence of clarity?

How many have heard the words of Jesus and yet still hold within themselves suspicion and doubt? Was it because he did not speak truth? Did he not bring the light even as himself? Yet doubt remained. Does it really matter who was holding a plank in his eye if by such cause another must suffer and die?

Jesus pointed the way and even paved the path with his own blood, yet still so very many doubt, suffer, and perish. Do you think Jesus would have such continue? Why pave a path that would merely lead to more of the same?

Imagine for a moment (imagining is all that could done in the present), that someone was born who had a very specific talent, a talent of bringing crystal clarity to every human mind and heart, even the blind and cold. A talent that even Science has not.

Would there still be a place for suspicion or doubt within anyone? Would even Man still be able to hold onto his fleeing darkness if such clarity of light were cast?

What endeavor has Man not inspected and examined to the fullest and beyond even to imagined darkness and yet still is blind. Is it truth and knowledge that he is missing? Or is it merely clarity of what he has already seen?

If God can place a cloud between Heaven and Earth, do you propose that God cannot also remove it at its time?

Is it to be the fate that those of faith so long enduring are never to find that destination of understanding and certainty beyond any further need of the faithfully following of instruction toward a promise now proposed to never to be realized?

It was prayed, “Let it be on Earth as it is in Heaven”. Do you propose that no one was listening? Or are you proposing perhaps that Heaven is as darkly clouded as Earth?

Personally, I have never been in the presence of and in untethered discourse with an atheist or ex-Christian for long at all, before they acknowledge that indeed there is a God and with a little more time, “Okay, Jesus was right.”

But with each and every one of them, “But still, I couldn’t possibly go to any of those churches.”

I do not ask that they do. Why would I? From where did they gain their doubt if not from those already preaching?

When **Clarity **is given reign, and have no doubt it certainly will (with or without Man), there shall be no place for darkness in Heaven/Earth. The Devil himself shall be as in a impervious glass cage surrounded by unceasing and shadowless light, preserved and presented for the edification of the ignorant.

This is the destiny of that seed of the unborn to be whether born of Man or long after Man has come and gone. I prefer to former to the latter. But I will not deny God regardless.

 

[JackQ]

Friend your choosing to ignore a couple of key issues.

"The Church" is guided by God Himself who has given personal assurence of Her integrity truthfulness and longivity. [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 28 and Jn. 17;17].

For the record "new religions have already in GREVIOUS error sprung from Her womb. Over 30,000 called Protestant denominations. and yet, true to His Word, The CC is still the largest of all “Christian churches” and still very active and effective after 2,000 continous years of service.

Here is what Christ warned us about:***Mt. 18: 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”/***COLOR]

And good luck in finding your medication, may I suugest you began by looking under “T” for the TRUTH

Love and prayers friend,

Well, okay, then. Actually, I was restating what I thought I read another poster saying. But that’s okay, because I can always use the prayer.

 

[Systratiotes]

What that understanding yields is, “The Scriptures say what we tell you they say regardless of how obviously they seem to say anything different. WE are the source, not Scriptures.”

That thought, I believe is what instigated the Lutheran separation.

If it were always very conspicuous that no priest in the Church had ever erred or sinned in any way, such a thought, especially after all of this time, could be far more easily accepted.

But the concept of the few elite being the ONLY source and not verifiable or accountable, is a very serious issue. And not at all Holy.

Hi James,

The core issue here is the actual definition of the church. From a Biblical perspective it the the body of individual believers, also known as God’s elect. We cannot see the true church because, as Catholics will admit, we do not know exactly who the “elect” are. But the visible church is the local church that one attends, which there are both tares, the “so-called” believer who makes a profession of Christ and maybe even Baptized and maybe even participates in the Lords Supper, but their hearts are not cleansed and they “play church”; thus making it difficult and sometimes impossible to tell them apart from the true believer, who has made the “heart felt” profession of Christ and God has accepted them on the sole basis of faith in Christ; the result of this justification will be the fruits of righteousness, which are the works God prepared before hand so the the person of God would walk in them.

Catholics have a different view of what the church consists of by including a magisterium, which is separate from the laity, which the concepts of magisterium and a separate division of the church; this is totally foreign to Scripture. They also combine justification before God with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, which is also foreign to Scripture. This is why you witness a “legalistic and works based” system of righteousness; never knowing if they are actually and really saved by God’s grace.

 

[s4angel]

I am a catholic and the first thing that lead me to be a catholic was the complete spirituality that is expressed though imperfectly in my heart. I may be wrong but when I read this quote some time ago I also had many questions about it in fact taken litterely as I am prone to do sometimes it caused a fracture in my belief.

After months of meditation I came to understand it and how it relates to what you feel in the spirit.

Do you not at times want to be with the lord so bad that you find yourself hating anything that takes your mind away? If my father interupts me while I am praying (and I dare say visa versa) I get angry for a moment because all I want to do is be with him, speak to him, feel him. Now I love my dad and lord knows I love my kids but if I am given the oppurtunity to go with my lord well my friend I couldn’t say I would even think twice. If someone interupts my communion with the lord then I can say I would feel hate no matter who or what that person is to me. to feel hate does not negate the capacity to feel love. I can love you but if you get in my way of being with my lord then I can feel hate toward that. The question here is did you read the rest of what is written by our lord?

 

[Answersplease]

Perhaps I have mistaken where I am, but I thought that this was an “apologist forum” where we, the visitors, are given the opportunity to get our concerning questions about Catholicism answered by actual Catholics (rather than presume from other sources).

Facetious comment, you know very well where you are.

I am “quizzing” you for only the purpose of being able to decide what course of action would suit everyone’s true need. (Do I really need to become Catholic? Would the Catholics really be better off without me? Should I expect valid answers from Catholic members? Is there any good to be found here? Is there any actual good I could do here?) Observation is often best served by “testing” or “prodding” merely to discover what is under the surface before presuming based on appearances.

I doubt your intentions: you wanted to “play hard ball” by asking a question and refused to accept the answer when it was given.

Answer: it was a figure of speech.
Counter: then is this a figure of speech as well?
Answer: not everything said is a figure of speech.
Counter: can you prove that, and if so, how do you know what is and what is not a figure of speech?
Answer: match one saying with every other saying and use common sense combined with historical tradition (small “t”) and guidance by The Holy Spirit.
Counter: who decides what is common sense and what is not, and can you prove guidance by The Holy Spirit?
Answer: the Church was given authority by Jesus The Christ himself, and some would say they have felt the presence of The Holy Spirit and some have witnessed miracles and supernatural events and the Church’s unwavering adherance to its received teachings handed down from the past proves protection by The Holy Spirit.

More Counters…
More Answers…
etc…
etc…
etc…

It will never end because you are an unbeliever and no person here can convince you.
Only 2 people would ever be able to convince you, God and yourself.

The simple and best answer was “it was a figure of speech”, peroid.
If you don’t want to believe that, that is your perogative.
If you want to say that Christianity is repulsive because you say it is not a figure of speech, that is also your perogative.

Granted such testing might be taken as offensive, but that is also a part of the testing necessary to reveal the truth of who I am really talking to.

Seeking is not offensive, but if you are not truly not a seeker and want to discredit Christianity and are never truly open to the answers you get, that is very offensive as it could cause an observer to stumble and fall away.

I consider it a greater offense to be offended than to offend. I hold myself to that standard as well.

I suspect that is to force Catholics to take the “high road” and give yourself free reign to offend Catholics as you please.

If I spat in your food right in front of you, would you not be offended?
If you were out on a first date and trying to get the girl to like you and I made you look foolish and she walked away and never returned your calls again, would you not be offended?

 

[Systratiotes]

Facetious comment, you know very well where you are.

I doubt your intentions: you wanted to “play hard ball” by asking a question and refused to accept the answer when it was given.

Answer: it was a figure of speech.
Counter: then is this a figure of speech as well?
Answer: not everything said is a figure of speech.
Counter: can you prove that, and if so, how do you know what is and what is not a figure of speech?
Answer: match one saying with every other saying and use common sense combined with historical tradition (small “t”) and guidance by The Holy Spirit.
Counter: who decides what is common sense and what is not, and can you prove guidance by The Holy Spirit?
Answer: the Church was given authority by Jesus The Christ himself, and some would say they have felt the presence of The Holy Spirit and some have witnessed miracles and supernatural events and the Church’s unwavering adherance to its received teachings handed down from the past proves protection by The Holy Spirit.

More Counters…
More Answers…
etc…
etc…
etc…

It will never end because you are an unbeliever and no person here can convince you.
Only 2 people would ever be able to convince you, God and yourself.

The simple and best answer was “it was a figure of speech”, peroid.
If you don’t want to believe that, that is your perogative.
If you want to say that Christianity is repulsive because you say it is not a figure of speech, that is also your perogative.

Seeking is not offensive, but if you are not truly not a seeker and want to discredit Christianity and are never truly open to the answers you get, that is very offensive as it could cause an observer to stumble and fall away.

I suspect that is to force Catholics to take the “high road” and give yourself free reign to offend Catholics as you please.

If I spat in your food right in front of you, would you not be offended?
If you were out on a first date and trying to get the girl to like you and I made you look foolish and she walked away and never returned your calls again, would you not be offended?

He is not interested in answers, nor is he seeking God; you might call it “playing the devils advocate”, so to speak. Sounds more like an atheist or agnostic to me. He may even proof it by responding to this post; wait and see. God bless you.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’ll make it easy for you if 5 posts aren’t also too much;

Post #59
Post #60
Post #87
Post #89
Post #90

 

[SimonArizona]

what is the hard question?

 

[jake23]

ask an actual apolagist on this sight and he should give you the answer. I have found in my studies in school that the word is not hate however I cannot recal the source at this time.

If you are really sincere about finding this answer then please talk to a priest.

The catholic church does not take everything litteral in the Bible and we depend on the church to help guide us on these differences. My wife who is swedish gave me a book translated from swedish once and remember being way off on my interpreting the meanings of the book even though I can obviousely read english does not mean that the words where litteral in its english version. you should be able to find it in allot of study bibles that provide the actual word and a longer discreption of its meaning.

It is more than obviouse that the english version of the Bible is not fully accurate leaving us who are of the english language to rely greatly on the church to guide us. If you are sincere than you will surely agree with this for it is not a matter of opinion. Good luck!

 

[schmoond]

ok, i havent read most of the thread because its really long, so what i think you’ve come to so far is that Jesus really does want us to hate our families,forgive me if im wrong. I bet something along these lines has been posted in the past ten pages but heres a little something i found online, just in case it hasn’t,
“Great question. Sometimes it’s hard to grasp the meanings of phrases uttered 2000 years ago in different cultures and languages. Written in Greek, probably spoken in Aramaic, and always with a Hebrew mindset, Jesus’ words do not give a command to hate one’s parents and spouse, but simply is using hyperbole to express having nothing before service to God (i.e. following him). Hebrew is a very idiomatic language, which means that they had certain phrases which did not mean what they literally signified. For instance, being a native English speaker, I might say that the local football team (the Ravens) “slaughtered” the opponents, and by this I mean simply that score-wise and performance wise they greatly out-performed their opponents. You’d not actually expect to see the opposing team gutted, blood and body parts strewn across the field”

 

[James_S_Saint]

Post #134

 

[MindOverMatter]

Post #134

How do you write the words in with out messing up the link? I want to learn this; it looks better then just slapping down a link with a load of incoherent numbers. Thanks.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Having not read all 10 pages in this thread, I hope you received your answer by now. Just in case you didn’t here is my 2 cents.

This is a matter of hierarchy of love. And while hate doesn’t sound like what Jesus would say, never the less, When God said,

1. 
   *]love God with your whole heart mind and soul
   *]THEN love neighbor as yourself (parents included in that)
   
   No BODY is to get in the way of #1. If ANYBODY interferes with #1 we aren’t to be half hearted about our commitment to #1. We still love and honor the person but hate their interference if it comes in conflict of our keeping to #1.