Unless, of course, it is coercive rhetoric from Luke (who, arguably, never met Jesus, and, writing decades later, didn't have a clue what he did or didn't say).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's talk "family values."
- Thread starter dust1n
- Start date
Many people are far better than what their religions' scriptures teach. I don't think that has much bearing on what the texts themselves say or don't say, though.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Only, I don't construe this text to depict "hatred" in the context that others are.
I'm no scholar, but, I picked up my own cross. This has different meaning to me than it will to many here.
I do love Christ and understand my God's instruction to include loving my family. The love and worth that I assign to them should not exceed my esteem and reverence for my God.
Last edited:
Only, I don't construe this text to depict "hatred" in the context that others are.
I'm no scholar, but, I picked up my own cross. This has different meaning to me than it will to many here.
I'm not a scholar. I do love Christ and understand my God's instruction to include loving my family. The love and worth that I assign to them should not exceed my esteem and reverence for my God.
I don't doubt that. It just seems to me that many people's interpretation of their religions' texts sometimes reflect those people's values more than they do the meaning of the texts that the authors themselves intended to convey. This seems especially clear to me when I see tolerant people adopt their own interpretations instead of traditionally accepted ones for particularly hateful texts such as certain parts of the Old Testament.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
How do you think my values were formed, DS?
My values are reflective of these very texts.
I don't presume to know how your values were formed. However, since they seem to be tolerant and loving (at least going by your description of them), I don't think anything else matters as much.
Or maybe they are more reflective of your understanding/interpretation of those texts?
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
And influenced by the iteration of others who interpret these texts comparably.
Fair enough.
I hope the milder interpretations like the ones you subscribe to become more and more common over time and entirely replace the intolerant ones. It seems to me that certain "mainstream" sects of some religions need reformation, sometimes direly so.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Agreed. I hang with the likes of Southern Baptists, Lutherans and non-denominationas and I don't know a single person comprised within who interprets (and applies) that verse in Luke to mean what's been implied in this thread.
The concept of picking up your own cross to follow Christ is core to the faith of most Christians.
dust1n
Zindīq
I have read all of Matthew.
Does the verse provided somehow imply that the previous verses were incorrect in their wording?
dust1n
Zindīq
Nope. I am far from a Biblical scholar. I just took the words at face value. I can't speak of the probabilities of Jesus saying what he is quoted for in the Bible opposed to a myriad of other potential factors that alter the scriptures over time. A peculiar choice of words on behalf of Luke would also have to apply to Matthew (or whoever wrote it.)
I'm generally of the opinion that none of the Gospels are likely written or told according to the accounts of the people who supposedly wrote it.
But I am curious as to the reasons why these particulars passages made it through the ages.
BTW, my interpretation is not original, I've only come across it in Mitchell Heisman's Suicide Note (suicide_note) It's one of the most interesting concepts I've encountered thus far in it, but there is a lot of premises to accept to see much value in it. Either way, this crazy Jewish knew a lot more about Judaism, Christianity, European history than I did, so I have to at least entertain the notions.
(Mine is a Catholic version, one I have used because it is one I've had for many years. Since becoming a member of RF, and seeing the comparison with other versions, I find that I do prefer it, because the differences I've seen are much closer to a loving and tolerant presentation than some other versions I've seen.)
I make a practice of viewing scriptural verses within the context of the entire chapter they are presented in, and I find this a preferable approach to taking a few verses out and applying them to particular situations of this day.
What do you think about my thoughts that the gist of this chapter is about Jesus presenting an overall message to those listening to him that they should give serious consideration to what will be required of them (the cost/burden) before embarking on the journey of following him -- through several examples of situations where they would already understand that it is wise for people to do just that, and perhaps choose an alternative if the cost is too great for them to bear, or they don't see good chance of success?
25 On one occasion when a great crowd was with him, he turned to them and said,
26 "If anyone comes to me without turning his back on his father and mother, his wife and his children, his brothers and sisters, indeed his very self, he cannot be my follower.
27Anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my follower.
28 If one of you decides to build a tower, will he not first sit down and calculate the outlay to see if he has enough money to complete the project?
29 He will do that for fear of laying the foundation and then not being able to complete the work; for all who saw it would jeer at him,
30 saying, "That man began to build what he could not finish."
31 "Or if a king is about to march on another king to do battle with him, will he not sit down first and consider whether, with ten thousand men, he can withstand an enemy coming against him with twenty thousand?
32 If he cannot, he will send a delegation while the enemy is still at a distance, asking for terms of peace.
33 In the same way, none of you can be my disciple if he does not renounce all his possessions.
I do not interpret this message as an instruction for all to follow him, or for all to leave their family and their life behind them, or to establish hatred as some form of virtue.
I interpret it as him understanding the opposition and personal cost expected for his followers to have to bear, and him informing them he expects them to give it serious thought, and for them not to come with him if the cost is too great for them, or they do not think they can really see it through to the end of what they will likely have to endure.
dust1n
Zindīq
That's a pretty generous translation. When I look online (Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.), only 2 of 21 translations use a word difference then hate... and they are "abandon" and "disregard."
I agree with that completely. Hate your family, or don't bother being a disciple.
How is it not evident that Jesus is totally saying if you are going to be his disciple, you're going all in, which means serving Jesus and the behest of your own relationship with your family. Thus, I maintain that Jesus's message is to elevate indiscriminate altruism ("love thy enemy") over atavistic altruism (love thy kin). Even though Jesus places emphasis on loving thy neighbor, I'm not even aware of an example where Jesus speaks kindly about how should feel about their kin.
Indeed.
Jesus was basically an doomsday cult leader and a street preacher who basically wanted his followers to leave their lives behind and join his roaming sort of commune. It's really no different from the cults that popped up in the '60s. So it's really funny how people try to tie being a Jesus follower into having anything to do with, well, modern mainstream life.
Funnily, I remembering when I was wearing one of my Charlie Manson shirts and some guy said "Jesus loves you" to me. I wanted to say "Jesus was a cult leader, too" or that Charlie and Jesus aren't so different, because they really weren't, except for the racial stuff that Charlie taught and the murders.
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Personally, I am surprised at all that anyone can really have a good grasp about who he was, what he said, what he did, etc., considering how little say he had in the interpretation of himself for centuries to come.
Let alone worship the guy, or at least on any merit of a book handed by tradition of churches.
But, really, I intended the conversation to be really focus more on what family values you are...
What I don't understand is the distinction of family values from any other value. What values pertain to children that do no pertain to not having children, or a wife, or something along those lines.
I think of my family instance, the values I personally hold (I couldn't speak on behalf of my family, of course) in relation to them is, like, love, and patience, maybe sacrifice. But these values seem to hold the same amount weight in every non-family-related situation.
Assistance in this manner is greatly appreciated.
Let alone worship the guy, or at least on any merit of a book handed by tradition of churches.
But, really, I intended the conversation to be really focus more on what family values you are...
What I don't understand is the distinction of family values from any other value. What values pertain to children that do no pertain to not having children, or a wife, or something along those lines.
I think of my family instance, the values I personally hold (I couldn't speak on behalf of my family, of course) in relation to them is, like, love, and patience, maybe sacrifice. But these values seem to hold the same amount weight in every non-family-related situation.
Assistance in this manner is greatly appreciated.
I think my posts with you probably got side-tracked on the discussion about the verses, so at the risk of repeating myself from my first post on this subject, I think family values would be a value system (not unlike an individual value system) that specifically includes a perspective for the family.
(I don't usually use the term "family values," but I definitely have some beliefs about what is, or is not "good" for my family.)
For example, I think a parent who brings home the paycheck and uses it for taking care of the family FIRST, is doing so within a value system I think qualifies as "family values". And after taking care of the needs of the family, only then looking toward the wants of individual members.
If that same parent cashed the paycheck and spent it at a bar, on drugs, in the mall on frivolities, gambling, etc. and the family had to do without basic necessities because the parent was doing what the parent wanted just for himself/herself -- that, I think, would be valuing one's own wants/compulsions over the well-being of the family. I think family values would be lacking in this situation.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Luke 14:25 reconciles with Matthew 10:37.
Not that I expect this to mean anything to a lot of you - but - in terms of biblical application to my life as a Christian woman - Christ instructed me to love others and to HONOR my husband and love and provide for my family and to plant spiritual seeds in the lives of my children.
But, if I'm placing family before faith - I'm not doing it right. Christ should be in the driver's seat.
Christ didn't call us to hate our family in a literal sense in Luke 14. Christ called us to place him BEFORE family.
I like this explanation and it jives with my own beliefs:
Source
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
If anything, Matthew 10:37 reconciles the preceding verses in Matthew, not Luke. They were two different events that were taking place; they make no reference to one another.
No offense, but is it in the Bible that Christ instructs anyone to honor their husbands and provide for their family?
I am still interested in family values, and I see that providing and responsibility have a big part in forming those values, but I don't see where Christ instructs anyone to do those things in the Bible.
If it works for you, go with it.
dust1n
Zindīq
Thanks. Would you say this is the prime value in families?