And I’m still waiting, it seems. Yep, I know the definitions, OS. I’m waiting for evidence to support your claim about the two authors. Now I’m seeing in Webster’s unabridged a slightly different version than you have. Here’s the part “3. (Script.) To love less, relatively. Luke xiv.” So we have definition that is no where else supported but in a claim of interpretation from the bible and only in one part of it. It ignores the fact that the same word is used to mean hate just like in the other definitions that the dictionary gives. Very amusing and convenient for Christians.
That has no bearing on the point I made.A word like "hate" is often better understood in context.I think you should see that in Websters definition it is pretty much necessary.
Oh yes it does have bearing. I do love how you make such claims and of course can’t support them. You even use the claim of “context” that thing that Christians run too but ignore when it’s inconvenient for them. Sorry, OS, but I am using context and there is nothing in the context that shows that JC meant anything other than hate as the revilement of the objects or people hated (your one commentator supports this but has the caveat that one has to be asked by JC). But I’m willing to give you a chance. If it does, please so show me how this context works to support your claim. And to help you, this is what context is: “Anything beyond the specific words of a literary work that may be relevant to understanding the meaning. Contexts may be economic, social, cultural, historical, literary, biographical, etc.” http://rwc.hunter.cuny.edu/reading-writing/on-line/lit-terms.html
I have shown the context I believe relevant, the words of the bible itself, the knowledge that JC seems to believe that the end times are imminent, the subsequent changes in the message by “Paul”, etc.
He has- several billion times so far.Just because you couldn't seem to grasp it doesn't make it wrong.
Oh, so I should just ignore that there are thousands of Christians sects that don’t agree on what God really meant.
OS, I see Christians try this over and over, you want to claim that all people who claim to be Christians are just that when trying to bulk up your numbers but when looking at an individual person’s beliefs, those numbers dwindle quite sharply. Is the Roman Catholic Church correct? Are Calvinists? Are the Orthodox churches? Are Southern Baptists? The Mormons? The Jehovah’s Witnesses? All are in those “billions” you want to claim but if they are so correct, why do they try to convert each others adherents? Why aren’t you a Catholic since that’s been around longest and seems to have the most adherents? And I grasped it quite fine, until I realized it made no sense, partially for the exact thing just mentioned, that Christians of any stripe are no more in possession of any truth than the next.
And when Islam overtakes Christianity, what then OS? Will you become a Muslim since, by your reasoning, numbers matter on determining what you believe? Even Islam isn’t immune to sects.
You are just rambling here. Make a point- I'd answer it...not many in one paragraph.
I have made a point, and it’s so cute to see you dodge by claiming I’m “rambling.” I’ve asked two, count them, two whole questions. I have followed up those questions with what I have seen as a common answer from Christians. I’m asking you if you can answer it any differently and show how you know that your answer is any better than anyone else who has claimed the “holy spirit”.
You want only answer one question, pick one. It’s not hard, OS. I’ll even simplify the first one for you: Why does your god allow people to have a supposedly wrong interpretation of this book that he supposedly divinely inspired?
Again pointing to Matt 10 : 37.Comparatively speaking......
Condition 1 ) When they stand in the way of the honor and interest of Christ.
Condition 2) When Christ calls for it.
So, now its’ up to Christ to call for you do do what he’s asked. And how does one know they are called? Isn’t that convenient, to depend on a “call” now. Funny how that call is just as up to the believer as what God really means. Since God has not called you to forsake your family, then you must be cool with him, right? or is it that your god says nothing at all, and you assume this is the case because you want to love your family? We have the one should not “properly hate” people but then we should indeed do anything short of whatever that is, if they “stand in the way”. Of course, that’s also dependent on what the believer wants.
Probably it didn't need an accompanying definition in the 1700s when it was 1st written.I think you might be able to pull the meaning from the context, though.
Probably? And pull meaning from the “context”? Again, I did and found such a nice contradiction. Again, if you wish to show how the context works for you, please do.
Relative to serving Jesus?Meeting the conditions mentioned above? I agree with Gill on that matter.As far as you not being in my family: I would say I'm joyous about that."Happy" seems too transitory...Joy; deeper and more abiding.
Oh, can I play word games too? I’m quite *joyous* that I am not part of a family that has someone who would do anything as long as he was “called”, and who thinks that it’s okay to forsake and resent his family as long as he doesn’t quite “hate” it.
If circumstances require a choice I would hope to choose Christ.
I should think you would indeed hope that since you are damned if you don’t. Such a nice god, making people choose between him and family.
I have to wholeheartedly agree. Although my Dad died several years ago I do indeed love my Mom more than any imaginary being(s).
so you do have that evidence that your god isn’t imaginary?
It seems as if their opinions differed with yours?
Because they pick and choose? Yep.
Are you saying that they( the linguists) don't factor in the historic period or culture or geography and so on when doing translations?The character of persons who's quotes they may be translating?
You’re right and that is what I meant, excepting the nonsense about the “character”. They do indeed use the history, culture, and they get what you see, for example saying “hate” rather than saying “love less”. How do you think they know the character of the author, OS?
I'm not ignoring the word " hate".I just want its best definition based on the best scholarship.So far all we have is - every expert on one side and on the other side is you.Gee, decisions, decisions.I wonder which side has it right.
And no, the only expert on my side is not me. Cute but not true at all. We have translators saying “hate” not “love less”. The only people who say it simply must mean “love less” is Christians who need to ignore JC’s direct words since they are inconvenient. In every other instance they are quite happy to go with hate meaning hate, no attempts to redefine a word at all. You want to have hate mean hate when it works well in a supposed prophecy, but oh if it requires you to give up something, then magically it changes.
I don't recall making that claim.Could you point me to where you believe that I did?
Ah, the word games again. I am sure you’ve never said directly “I have the only right claim of what god really means”. However, you don’t have to. You have claimed that I am wrong. You have claimed that other Christians are wrong. Thus you believe you have the only right claim, correct? If you don’t think that you are right, why do you claim to believe the things you do?