Petergdi

I didn't say it was an exaggeration.

In this case, it must be obvious to anyone what it can't mean, "Hate" in the text can't mean "cultivate a personal hatred for". A person may discover what it does mean when her family or her friends accuse her of hating them.


While different legitimate interpretations of some texts certainly exist, and there are certainly theological differences between denominations, denomintions generally split for reasons other than a legitimate difference in interpreting a text.

I am glad there are many denominations for the same reason I am glad there are many countries. In every country (including my own) some people will find their lives improved by escaping to another.


I agree with you there. A strong word is needed.

Peter.

Petergdi

Nonsense. It's the famous old "let's find parts of the bible where a boneheaded reading might embarrass or offend believers, and insist on it" routine.

Peter.

show_no_mercy

Silly atheists! The Bible and Christianity are perfect, didn't you know?!?!

Petergdi

I didn't say that. But it is patently obvious that the "let's find parts of the bible where a boneheaded reading might embarrass or offend believers, and insist on it" routine is extremely common in online discussions.

Peter.

gdeering

If by "bonehead" you mean a "straight forward reading of the text, read in a traditional manner for edification." Then I agree with you.


Gregg

spin

In reality, this is a no-boner. You start with what the text actually says. We've seen in four languages that the word is hate/misew/odeo/$N). But then, you haven't got the stomach to start with what the text actually says. You want to pervert the text because it doesn't suit your presuppositions. That shows your real relationship with the bible. Literal when it suits.


spin

Sai

The way to spot a true Literalist is if they think it is literal in the part that shows the value of Pi would be 3.0

mrunicycler

You mean 'parts'. It does this at least twice.

Petergdi

I'm not claiming anything about the word, except that it quite clearly is strong language.

No, the text is part of the Gospel of Luke or part of the sayings of Jesus preserved in Luke. In both contexts the text is clearly designed to provoke a "what does he mean byTHAT" response from the reader or hearer.


Rubbish. The text as it is fine. It is meant to be shocking. The claims sometimes made that "hate" is really a weaker word are lame because the shock value is clearly intentional. Hate is a strong word, and it is meant to be a strong word. But I find it hard to believe that anyone can read the Gospel of Luke without getting the idea that they are meant to be jolted by this passage.


I know enough about language to know that very little communication is or can be strictly "literal." You are a linguist, so you should know this too.

Peter.

spin

"[H]ate" is a strong word.

And that helps you to change the meaning of the statement?

So, you are jolted. And how does that effect the meaning of the statement?

A simple rule: one needs to deal with the literal meaning of a text before one can do anything else. If you think that meaning is not the intended meaning of the writer, there must be evidence in the communication or context.

Hating your mother and father is a way of disowning the fleshly limitations you were born into and need to put aside. But what would make one think that "hate" was not the desired feeling in Luke?


spin