NOGO

Right on!
And how many broken families were left behind throughout the centuries as Christianity spread.

Paul actually says that what is best is to be like him, that is, unmarried. But if you cannot be without sex then it is best to marry. Talk about anti-family.

Now if all Christians of the day had followed his advice there would be no Christianity today and we would all be better for it.

Unless Paul was a complete moron he would have understood that Christianity was going nowhere if people did not marry and make children. This is another strong indication that Paul believed the end of the world to be at hand.

NOGO

One gets the impression that you have written this in order to help your cause. It does not.

You have simply confirmed the literal interpretation of the text.

Basically the text prepares the sect (cult) members for persecution. You need to hate your very life - and of course everybody in it like friends and family.

As I stated the purpose of the sect (cult) is to separate the new members from their environment that is the only way to keep them in the group.

NOGO

Today nobody thinks that they need to hate their mother and father to be a Christian.

But when Christianity was a cult this is a simple rule of survival.

Look around. All cult/sects which recruit have similar rules.

It is virtually impossible to convert a whole family in one shot.

Isolation is essential.

Sven

Did you miss it when I said "I only adressed the die-hard literalists" and later "this was only addressed to the folks who don't know this and take for example Genesis literally"?

I totally agree that there are interpretations which manage to wriggle out of the fact that Jesus apparently said nasty words. But if we conceed this, we also have to conceed that

(1) not everything in the bible has to be taken literally
(2) that one can explain away almost any contradiction in any sacred work

or, in short, that the claim of bible-inerrancy is nonsense.


A short, personal note, at the end: I experienced the separating of family members by myself as a teen, when I "lost" my mother to a sect. I have to agree with the postings of others: When you want to establish a cult, you have to separate new members from their family. Worked quite well in my mother's case

HaysooChreesto!

Darn. It's just too bad that Jesus didn't keep his appointment with "This Generation" so that 2,000 years later we wouldn't have to argue about this stuff.
Do they sell alarm clarks at Xtian book stores?

Paul5204

You might wish to consider the parallel version in Matthew:

"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."

It is from reading Matthew and Luke in conjunction that James Strong reports that, by extension, miseo means to love less.

You might also consider: (1) I love chili cheese fries; (2) I love my wife. Any confusion here about my love for my wife meaning the same thing as my love for chili cheese fries? I thought not.

You might also consider:

Jesus said, "Those who do not hate their fathers and their mothers cannot be disciples of me, and those who do not hate their brothers and their sisters and take up their cross like me will not become worthy of me."

That is saying no. 55 from the gospel of Thomas. As one soul has written re the same:

"This Q1 saying was first in Aramaic. The Greek MISEI in Aramaic is SANA which is an idiom for "set aside." The idiom was not transmitted in the Greek nor from Greek to Coptic." If you want to know why no transmitting....hyperbole.

Johann_Kaspar

Can you provide the evidence of that?
Thanks!

Johann_Kaspar

I think that the "cross" reading here is rising huge problems. If to make guesses, then it could well be a xian forged substitute for "spade" or "sica", for who will - unless with an insane mind - go voluntarily and directly to be crucified? By the way, at the end he had only two followers! According to the available literature. Finally crucified people were not asked to carry a "cross", but only one piece of wood. Another xian forgery.

Sven

OK, thanks. This it at least kind of an argument. A small (?) problem: The context of Jesus saying this is not the same. In Luke, Jesus is speaking to "large crowds" at no special time, in Matthew it's only the disciples, and the time is special: Jesus sends them out to preach.
Another problem are the verses directly preceding this (the above is Matthew 10:37-39).

Matthew 10:34-36
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn" 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."

(these verse are very well-known, I think)
Do you think this is also hyperbole?

Do you have any evidence for this or only the opinion of an anonymous "soul"?

Anyway, can we agree on the first or on both of the points I wrote in my last post? If yes, this discussion should be settled.