SnakeLord said:
That's exactly what I do.
Then you shouldn't have the problems you're having with a single translation - or type of translation.
But there's the thing: I'm not trying to 'catch' out anyone or anything. Do note that I did not write the damn thing. I see what is there and comment on it, you just ignore what's there if you don't like the sound of it. That's where we differ.
As most translators would tell you, there's
no such thing as a pure literal translation - there's always interpretation involved. Can you back up
your interpretation of the passage in question with some scholarly references? Are there translators, modern or ancient, religious or secular, that share your conclusion?
You seem to have a love/hate relationship with the translators of the Bible. When their reading suits you, you appeal to their authority; when their reading doesn't suit you, you question their expertise.
Rather obvious you'd pick the ones that completely obliterate the actual statements in favour of not having to acknowledge it's existence:
"Do not think I have come to make life cozy".
Obliterate? What do you base that conclusion on? Have the translators turned against you now?
The Message and the
Amplified complement each other very well, being a paraphrase and a literal-explanatory translation, and both are generally well-respected. The agreement between the two should be enough to make you think twice about your particular interpretation of the passage. Unless your next claim is going to be that there is a great conspiracy among translators to hide the truth that is plain to you?
Surely the people that have done the translating have already done that job for me? And yet here you are giving me the "cozy" version just to hopefully dissuade me from even knowing what the actual text says. I'm very dissapointed in you.
I rest my case. You rely on one translation for being the "actual text" (since you have no knowledge of the original languages or idioms), and you shoot down another for contradicting your interpretation.
As I said before, if you really used a few translations in parallel, and informed yourself of the pros and cons of each, you wouldn't run into the problems your having. Yet you'd rather jump at the opportunity to question my motives. Is this an example of the attitude you suggest as an alternative to religious bigotry?
Would you concur that none of those religious or political leaders were god, or the son of?
Is that who you believe he was? Because if he wasn't divine, why is it a problem for you that he accurately predicted division, rather than peace, would follow in his wake?
And if you accept the premise that he was divine, why don't you accept the other premises implicit in his teachings? Like the binding authority of his command to love one's father and mother (as he did himself, by example), or to love even ones enemy, or to "try hard to be reconciled to [your adversary]" - which would be binding
regardless of the strong reaction he knew he would provoke against himself and his followers. This is certainly the conclusion his disciples came to: "So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and
continue to do good", "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you,
live at peace with everyone" and "God has called us to live in peace."
I have never stated otherwise, indeed you've been arguing against it. He came specifically to set a man against his father yada yada.
So from your reading of the Bible and everything Jesus said, you have come to the conclusion that this was his ultimate goal? The focus of his ministry?
Or was it rather that because he came to forgive sin, people who were outraged at being judged in need of forgiveness would actually turn against him - and by extension his followers? If you're going to tell people what they need to do to have lasting peace, you
are going to upset those who don't want to do it, and it would cut across even the closest of relationships. But if Jesus didn't step on any toes, he would have been part of the problem, not the solution.
Imagine yourself in a similar position for a moment: let's say your ideas for a secular society are really revolutionary, and guaranteed to restore peace on earth, would you risk upsetting the religious world against you by proclaiming them, polarizing them against everyone who share your views? Or would you stand back so that you can say to everybody you bring peace? Isn't keeping the problematic groups happy and unoffended the same as keeping them alive? Or is that where Marx got it wrong?
*correction: He did not come to bring peace at all. His goal was to not bring peace... remember?
You haven't explained how you reconcile this extreme belief with the bulk of Jesus' teachings? If preaching something will bring fierce opposition, how does saying so make opposition the
object of preaching? Shouldn't you actually take the subject into account?
Yes it is, but it only looks stupid when you do it.
I am rubber you are glue?
Yeah, for jesus to have bought it along instead of the sword. My point.
But that sword was the means of your salvation. The persecution that came down on Jesus from his enemies is what crucified him, and its the same force that is behind all suffering and injustice in the world. By conquering it, he paved the way for everybody who would follow after him and experience the same injustice and suffering, which brings us to the passage in question.
The passage speaks about the cost of following Jesus to the end God promised, which is lasting peace and eternal life. If the cost is too high (because our immediate life, family or possessions seem more important) then they dictate our judgement, even though we will surely lose those valued things to death and decay. But if we make God our first priority and follow Jesus, we have learnt to value those things regardless of their value to us or to the world, but according to their value to God. That is
how you can manage to love your enemies, or seek reconciliation with parents or friends who have wronged you, or be comforted from unfair pain and meaningless suffering. Your motives, values, principles and peace will come from internal conviction rather than people's opinion or relative worth.
That is why I have absolutely no respect for the religious, and also why we're disagreeing here - and exactly why you'd rather believe he said life wouldn't be "cozy".
And with that this thread would seem to have come full circle. If you admit that there are circumstances under which respect will not be granted, then you have defeated your own argument: that there are priorities that justify division,
especially if they are towards a more noble and lasting end than just "getting along" for the moment.
No doubt it would seem more cozy and acceptible to say you put family and friends first, while there's no cost to saying it, but if you ever have to choose between blood and morality, that luxury might be gone.
