Okay Catholics, time to play “Hard Ball!”

[James_S_Saint]

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.

{URL=“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5717163&postcount=134”]Put You Own Words HerePut You Own Words Here

Or if you use the link button, copy the link into the space provided. When the link is set into your text, it will already have the area highlighted for you to begin typing your words to be the link message.

 

[jake23]

Did you ask an apolagist or a priest yet?

 

[Pro_Domina]

There is no mistranslation from the Latin. Its says “odit”.

But what does this hate mean? It means you must be willing to leave them without the slightest longing for them in the proportion that they impede you to serve God.

If I want to serve God, but I am attached to something and love something in a disorderly manner (which in the end is love of oneself, as St. Augustine teaches that there is only two loves, that of God to the point of forgetting oneself, or that of oneself to the point of forgetting God, and other creatures are simply channels of either love) then he does not love God truly. If I want to be a religious for example, I cannot serve Him if I am in the monastery and all I think about is how life is so much easier with mommy around.
Take married life. Do I love my children above God? Would I rather be in good standing with them, not correct this that, not go through the trouble of being an immaculate example to them as God wants, or do I just want the pleasure of them being around me. Are you getting married more for satisfying such and such instincts or because God expects you to form a family and to sanctify them to form a holy society?

That is what hate means in this context. Hate that self-love you will get through these creatures, procure the glory of God in these creatures.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Did you ask an apolagist or a priest yet?

I found that asking priests, ministers, and pastors yields that phrase, “You should pray on that”. Which immediately tells me that they know nothing of God or prayer.

I came here because this IS an apologist site.

As I explained before, I know the answer. I wanted to know what Catholics understood the answer to be. I am here more to understand the Catholic specifically, I have no questions concerning divine Truth.

After many posts, I find that most accept an excuse for the word rather than understand Jesus’ exact meaning. But gladly, there seem to be a few who see a little more clearly, although I have yet to see a really perfect response. A couple were close enough.

ref: Post #134

 

[Pro_Domina]

There is no putting honey. If my parents are a source of my perdition than I have to break with them. If my brother is an immoral person, I cannot simply go out with him, as he is a bad influence. I must hate that evil with all my heart. If my father was against the Faith, then he would be my enemy. If I myself, in such and such situations, would sin if I put myself there, I would have to hate that inclination of evil in me and fight it and never put myself in a situation where I would sin.

 

[James_S_Saint]

* Main Entry: **hate**
* Pronunciation: \ˈhāt\
* Function: noun
* Usage: often attributive
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
* Date: before 12th century

1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing

For what actual (real) cause must one ever truly be “hostile” and “loathing”? Yet teach and preach to “love thy enemies” and “forgive again 7 times 70”?

 

[SimonArizona]

I found that asking priests, ministers, and pastors yields that phrase, “You should pray on that”. Which immediately tells me that they know nothing of God or prayer.

No, I’m sure priests, pastors, ministers know something about God. God enters by a private door into every individual, and without prayer, precious little will be accomplished in your spiritual life. Prayer is the answer.

I have yet to see a really perfect response. A couple were close enough.

God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud.

 

[Pro_Domina]

What must I love above all things? God.
Therefore I must hate all things that offend Him.
I must hate His enemies and fight them.

My enemies I shall only take care of in the proportion that they either offend or interrupt my relation with God.

If somebody calls me an idiot, unless he did it for a reason related to God, as if someone called me that for being Catholic, I should just let it hit me like water on the window.

But if a person stands in my face and says the Virgin Mary is such and such, I am obligated (of course it is subject to prudence, as going to jail for giving him a facial rearrangement is for now imprudent and counter-productive. For now.) to confront him and defend her honor.

I’ll give the other cheek. When they slap me. Me Nobody. But when God is offended…

Zelo Zelatus sum pro Domino Deo Exercituum!

 

[happilycatholic]

Could it be that what Christ was saying is that if you must choose between Him and your family, IF you must choose, then you must choose Him.

This is the truth and cannot be assumed nor misinterpreted. Christ is saying that if you must deny something, you must deny all but Him.

Hate = denial

Blessings,

HC

 

[James_S_Saint]

What must I love above all things? God.
Therefore I must hate all things that offend Him.
I must hate His enemies and fight them.

God has no adversary and thus cannot be offended. Only Man can be offended.

Can you give a really good example of when one must truly loathe, despise and be hostile?

 

[happilycatholic]

For what actual (real) cause must one ever truly be “hostile” and “loathing”? Yet teach and preach to “love thy enemies” and “forgive again 7 times 70”?

You cannot define the Scripture using today’s vernacular. You must get the definition from the vernacular of that time.

Don’t forget that hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is. If I deny someone, I am doing them more harm than hating them.

Romans 9:13

13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."e]

Is God actually capable of hate? I doubt it. But He is capable of denying Himself to someone. Example: hell, denial of God’s presence

Blessings,

HC

 

[Pro_Domina]

You are jewish aren’t you?

Then you must know that sin is precisely an offense to God.

I’ll give you an example of where a holy hate applies.

In Africa, the muslims attack Catholics regularly. They rape and pillage them.

So a priest once told me that the only way to survive is to fight back.

They once came in and killed 4 Catholics.

Then the priest went back with the survivors of the village and killed 40. That way those cursed monsters won’t come back.

The same hate ( again subject to prudence) would apply to an enemy of the Church. Like a communist leader for example. Take this Chavez guy. He says and orders things against the Church. One day he orders to take out a statue of Our Lady of Coromoto in the hospital of the same name and put a picture of Che Guevara.
What a monster!!! That merits the loathe of every Catholic. That merits all the curses possible upon him.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You cannot define the Scripture using today’s vernacular. You must get the definition from the vernacular of that time.

No he meant “hate” just as it is meant today. My question to you is “why?”

Don’t forget that hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is. If I deny someone, I am doing them more harm than hating them.

That is insidiously false.

 

[Contarini]

That is the point, this verse requires no “interpreting”, thus I am not interpreting.

It is absurd to say that anything “requires no interpreting.” Interpreting simply means discerning what a statement means. All statements that have meaning require interpretation. Some of them are very easy to interpret. You can tell them by the fact that people do not usually argue about them. Obviously this passage is not one of those.

Edwin

 

[James_S_Saint]

You are jewish aren’t you?

I could be called Hebrew, but still something different.

So a priest once told me that the only way to survive is to fight back.

They once came in and killed 4 Catholics.

Then the priest went back with the survivors of the village and killed 40. That way those cursed monsters won’t come back.

The same hate ( again subject to prudence) would apply to an enemy of the Church. Like a communist leader for example. Take this Chavez guy. He says and orders things against the Church. One day he orders to take out a statue of Our Lady of Coromoto in the hospital of the same name and put a picture of Che Guevara.
What a monster!!! That merits the loathe of every Catholic. That merits all the curses possible upon him.

So I take it that you haven’t learned of Jesus. That seems to be the norm.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It is absurd to say that anything “requires no interpreting.” Interpreting simply means discerning what a statement means. All statements that have meaning require interpretation. Some of them are very easy to interpret. You can tell them by the fact that people do not usually argue about them. Obviously this passage is not one of those.

* Main Entry: **in·ter·pret**
* Pronunciation: \in-ˈtər-prət, -pət\
* Function: verb
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
* Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe

A person is not said to be interpreting if they are using the formal definition because they are not judging, construing, or twisting to satisfy personal belief.

He said, “hate”. He meant what he said. I am just asking if you understand why.

 

[JohnT58]

Are you proposing that I deny what is written so very clearly in Scripture because I personally don’t see how it fits?

But he DID. It is you who are arguing against Jesus’ direct words, not me.

That is what I mean by “dogma”.

The Church, it seems (and I am still reserving opinion), has usurped the pre-established authority of Jesus himself such as to establish their own more practical dogma.

Again, right back at ya, it’s all about the context. It seems you have chosen one line, and chosen to get hung up on it, like a lot of others who find an example for themselves and think they have proven everyone else wrong. I usually find they are trying to bolster their on erronous beliefs, or lack of faith.

For example to counter your original quote, you could juxtapose it with other direct words of Christ. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”-Matthew 5:21-22. This would not seem to tally with your “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.”

Also, unless you really consider yourself a saint you might have trouble with
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."
-Matthew 5:29
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” * -Matthew 10:34 would seem t contradict “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." -Matthew 12:25
*
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
-Matthew 10:37-39 This would corroborrate the accepted meaning, but I suppose if you’re serious about being a Christian, you will be lugging your 'literal cross’ around with you everywhere.

"I tell you the truth I am the gate for the sheep. Whoever enters through me will be saved.* He will come in and out, and find pasture.**" John 10:7, 9* So our Lord came to Earth to save the sheep of the world.

Rather than trying to pick holes that aren’t there, try reading things in context.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Again, right back at ya, it’s all about the context. …
Rather than trying to pick holes that aren’t there, try reading things in context.

“Back at ya”

If you had read the “context” of this thread. You wouldn’t be making such errors (sins) in trying to pick holes that aren’t there. Try reading the thread contents.

 

[Pro_Domina]

Evidently, the first manner we must read things is the literal sense.
No doubt, but it is not necessarily the sense intended to be passed. He does not mean to hate because they are your father or mother etc. He means it when the situations I described come into play.

And DNJC did not come to sing kumbaya. He does not mean that now it is time to say peace and love. No, He brings peace and love, but to those who seek Him. You must see what He means by His words. When He said He comes not to bring peace but the sword, it does not mean He came to cut off all our sinful heads. No, it means His coming divides the waters, it forms the sides of the battle. Those who accept Him and those who don’t. There is the sword, there is the battle.

 

[JohnT58]

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?

“Back at ya”

If you had read the “context” of this thread. You wouldn’t be making such errors (sins) in trying to pick holes that aren’t there. Try reading the thread contents.

Seem to have hit a raw nerve. Just used the strictures of your logic of taking e-v-e-r-y s-i-n-g-l-e w-o-r-d absolutely literally. Like Martin Luther, you don’t mind doing your own iterpreting, you just don’t like it when others use your methods and come up with something different.