Thou shalt hate


Ty: I remember the Bible making lots of nods to the weaknesses and failings in our behaviour, so maybe it’s easier to say the Christian ideal is all of those things you listed. The Christian ideal is Jesus Christ, and Christ is a radical personality. Maybe even a person against the physical life (at least the physical life as we now know it.) He’s a healer too, so maybe it’s better to say Jesus, seen as the ideal, is against the system of things.


So Christ and His people aren’t against the physical things themselves, just the system of things and how they influence our physical and mental lives. In addition, Christians (and Christianity) as a day to day thing have loads of fall back positions, they’re biblical fall backs too, they’re not just plucked out of nowhere to defend us having a chill day, chilling while all the “real” Christians are being murdered.


Christ taught about poverty, yet John could house and provide for His mother Mary for the rest of her life. “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven.” Then Christ says all things (including the rich man going to heaven) are possible with God.


Paul writes approvingly of celibacy, while admitting marriage is a live option for two people who are enamoured with each other. Christians are said to take no care for their bodies, yet they’re healers of other people’s bodies, which leads into their own healing. Christians are said to be gentle, yet the Bible acknowledges a world at war and unbelieving governments “wielding the sword” to satisfy God’s purpose (a purpose He has with His peaceful people in mind.)


Maybe all of these aren’t spot on for your question, but my point is that the Christian ideal (like you shared) and the Christian ordinary (like I shared) are both compatible with the Bible description of Christianity in action. They’re both Christian. Actions at the ideal end of the spectrum might sometimes seem reckless, but there’s so much more to it that rebounds to our good (and the good of the “physical world,” when understood as different from the system of things.)


Inky: I do not think we can even say that Christians aren't against the physical things, as Paul writes approvingly of celibacy. Paul does not just set this out as another option. He explicitly states that being unmarried and childless is superior. Similar to Christ saying that anyone who does not hate their parents is unfit to follow him. This could be why, in fact, that he says such. Christians are healers you say,  whilst teaching the people they heal to become


Christians and no longer be concerned for their bodies. I will leave that particular rabbit-hole for another time. Christians are not just "gentle". They're told not to retaliate at all. If someone strike you, offer your other cheek also. If someone takes you coat give also your shirt. But if someone wrongs you forgive them. This is utter repudiation of anything but the most ascetic life. If it did not involve Christ we would call it self-harm.


Ty: You settled on the word superior, Paul writes being married is superior, that's part of the ideal, namely Jesus Christ Himself. Something being superior (if that’s the wording) makes it better amidst the other live options. They’re both Christian options nonetheless. In the same way, the comment “if anyone doesn’t hate his father or his mother” is clarified in another gospel.


If you read the stories in both gospels, you find one teaching “if you don’t hate your mother and father,” while the other gospel, providing clarity, teaches “if anyone loves father or mother more than me,” Christians are to love mother, father and Christ. It’s a sliding scale, like in the case of celibacy being “superior,” part of the ideal, but not ruling out a happily married Christian life.


You can’t love your mother more than Christ, but you’re certainly commanded to love her, even to honour your mother and your father. About the “self harm” comment, I mean, not to be flippant or to offend my brothers and sisters in Christ, but Jesus was murdered in His early 30s. His lifestyle isn’t exactly self harm, but it’s dangerous, dangerous to the system of things, and so the system gets dangerous to you if you follow Him.


Inky: You have that the wrong way aound. It is not the "more than" line which clarifies the "hate" line. It is the "hate" line which clarifies the "more than" one. We are told not just to love Christ more than we love our parents but to actually hate our parents. Exactly my thoughts about self-harm. In ANY other situation, it would be counted as self-harm. If anyone lived that way today, they would be sectioned for their own safety. The only difference is Christ. Literally the only one.


Ty: Do you have any reason to believe that the hate verse clarifies the more than verse? I have an interpretive principal, that’s how we read in context. Not to mention the fact that to “hate” is a Jewish idiom used differently in their day then it’s used in our day. Not to mention the fact that in Genesis one wife is described as “hated,” then almost immediately after they are described as “loved less” than the other wife.


Why do you believe it’s the reverse?


Ty: Still no reply. This is something I taught at Sunday school, it’s not enough to say what you believe, you have to be able to say why you believe it too. It’s all well and good writing “you got it twisted,” or something equally silly, but afterwards you have to (as the old saying goes) put up or shut up. Justify the belief being argued for or admit your view of the Christian life is myopic and informed by cherry picking through the Bible.


You’re not wrong because I (as a Christian) am supposed to be avoiding so-called biblical contradictions, you’re wrong because the preponderance of evidence says you’re wrong. You’re wrong because 1. To “hate” is a Jewish idiom meaning to “love less.” These Bible poems, letters, Gospels and apocalypses weren’t written in English, so writing that hate is “such a strong word” has no proper relevance to the subject.


2. Genesis uses the same hated/loved less clarifying language regarding Rachael and Leah (Genesis 29.)


3. The loved less language clarifies itself within a wider reading of the gospels.


4. Jesus taught overwhelmingly that honouring your mother and father was the right way to behave. John 19. Jesus making a provision for His mother said: “but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”


And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. Matthew 15. Jesus teaching about honouring your mother and father said: “Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”


Mark 7. Jesus quoting Moses about honouring your parents (again) said: “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God) then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”


So I ask once more (if I haven’t convinced you yet,) I’ve shared four lines of argument that prove the verse which says you shouldn’t love your parents “more than” Jesus help to clarify, interpret and compliment the Bible verse that says you must “hate” your parents. You disagreed. If you still disagree, on what grounds do you disagree?


Inky: They were written in Greek, which is why I quoted the Greek which means "hate" and not simply "love less". Here are a few examples of its use: Matthew 5. Matthew 6. Matthew 10. You get the picture.


Ty: I’m not, maybe your drawing skills need some work. My 4 arguments haven’t been touched, while you aren’t making any arguments.


Inky: Your arguments were blown out of the water when I listed just a handful of the many places that the word is used to say hatred. Never mind, at least you've added you post count up to a mighty 36.


Ty: A word can mean many things without a context, but it’s the context that defines ancient words. Context even defines modern words. For example, this Jewish idiom is found not just as an expression in the New Testament, but the Old too. As we can plainly read. Genesis 29. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. Yes a mighty 36, it's not my fault it takes so few posts to debunk you.


Inky: Find me a translation of the Bible which says "If anyone comes to me and does not [like less] his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" for Luke 14:26


Ty: It’s not “like less,” you’ve recast “loved less” as liked less more than once. I’m not sure you’re aware. Many dynamic translations use the wording I’ve already suggested. Word of word translations don’t work the way you’ve described, they’re structurally different and in many cases even the word ordering isn’t relevant. It’s the entire context that defines the material.


Good News Translation: ”Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well.”


Contemporary English Version: “You cannot be my disciple, unless you love me more than you love your father and mother, your wife and children, and your brothers and sisters. You cannot follow me unless you love me more than you love your own life"


You ask that I find verses but It’s not an election, mate. This goes to show how unfamiliar you are with the language. How many times a word appears in one context wouldn’t undo the words meaning in another context. Honestly.


Inky: No, it goes to show that you are using dodgy translations. "Dynamic" so-called translations change the words. The KJV, the NIV, the ESV, the DR, and YLT....ALL of them say hate. Not one of them turns it into something less. The point is proven; it means hate, it has NEVER in any of the serious translations EVER been used to mean anything else. Next.


Ty: Except for the fact that it’s a Jewish idiom, and you’ve arbitrarily tried to use the idiom “hate” in one gospel to interpret “more than” in another gospel. Annnnd the fact that the OT disagrees with your usage, and the fact that more than one translation committee of Ancient Greek speakers disagrees with your usage, and the fact that the overwhelming biblical material from Jesus is about loving your mother and father.


So the interpretive principles disagree with you too. Dynamic translations form the meaning to a particular phrase so that the thrust of the argument isn’t lost. It’s so people like you (people who clearly don’t know Greek) can read and understand the meaning behind certain words and phrases. Did you know some words literally don’t translate from one language to another. And did you know certain letters have no suitable equivalent in other languages. But yeah, next yeah. Sure.