Jesus thinks I'm a pillock

[Borachio]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Well, despite what Jesus thinks, I'm not doing it. Cost me my immortal soul (if I had one) though it might.

Why should I abandon* friends and relatives for an ideology? Any ideology?

Is anything I might read, hear, see, write, say, think or believe really worth dying or killing for?

Isn't it a case of

eh?

And if it is "just like my opinion" how certain of it can I truly be?

So, Jesus thinks I'm a pillock, that's clear enough.

Hands up everyone who agrees with him.

Still, placing supreme value on family and friendship (however broadly defined) is an ideology in itself, isn't it?

*Truth be told, many of them would be quite happy for me to abandon them. Come to think of it, where have they all gone to just lately? Have they all beaten me to it, do you think?

 

[DinoDoc]

Pillock? Is that some kind of stupid UK slang term?

 

[JollyRoger]

Jesus was just setting up an insanity defense while trying to avoid execution.

 

[warpus]

Let's analyze what Jesus is saying here using several classical Biblical interpretations:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Dudes, I am not here to save you from war and destruction. I am a sword delivery person.

OR

Dudes, I am not here to save you from war and destruction. I am here to kill, destroy, and ruin your day.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

A man is arguing with his father, the man's daughter is arguing with her mother, and the daughter in law is arguing with the mother in law. Who is arguing with the aunt?

OR

Listen up. My arrival and presence is going to create a variance in the statistical analysis of 3 common family relationships under certain conditions.

OR

I am here to stir up some crap and turn family members against eachother.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

It's pretty clear Jesus is saying here that whatever happens, you are going to be at war with the people you are related to.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Here it becomes clear why all that hostility between family members is necessary - People are going to be arguing about what exactly Jesus is trying to imply here. He has come to stir up crap between family members because family members in certain cases love eachother to unacceptable levels. That's sort of crazy talk, the more love, the better!

It really seems that in this quotation Jesus is trying to hog some love... and you just can't do that, so in conclusion I don't believe that the quote has been correctly attributed to the proper deity or whoever. It's just not the sort of thing Jesus would say, Jesus wants to increase love, not decrease it.

It's also possible he was talking about a board game, in which case that's a totally Jesus thing to say

 

[Kyriakos]

Just googled 'pillock'. The Norwegian origin sounds funnier

 

[Borachio]

A pillock is, as every native English speaker knows full well, a type of fish.

Spoiler :

And here was I thinking that I'd spark some serious discussion about the nature and truth value of ideologies, in general. And whether there are in fact any ideologies that are worth killing or dying for. And why anybody would think that there are.

Also, fish.

Ah, well.

Still, let it be a lesson to me on how not to start a thread.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It means that if you're a follower of Jesus and your family and friends aren't, you should break off all contact with them before they can misguide you.
It's how cults isolate their folowers until all they have left is each other.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sometimes family members can be total creeps. But presenting actual love between people as a hindrance to supposedly better goals, is indeed very sick.

I recall an orthodox monk i saw on tv, years ago. He was talking about love for Jesus, and mentioned that in his view parents should love god far more than their children, and so on.
This made me very sad, cause he also spoke a bit about his very cruel childhood.

I hope that in the future there will be less pain :/

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Sometimes family members can be total creeps. But presenting actual love between people as a hindrance to supposedly better goals, is indeed very sick.

The thing is that not every kind of love has the same quality. Quite often human love is full of attachment and other impurities. Jesus represents God which means supreme love. To posses this love fully one must eventually give up all attachments.

I recall an orthodox monk i saw on tv, years ago. He was talking about love for Jesus, and mentioned that in his view parents should love god far more than their children, and so on.
This made me very sad, cause he also spoke a bit about his very cruel childhood.

The way out of this is love others becouse you see presence of God, supreme love, in them so you can develope unconditional love.

I hope that in the future there will be less pain :/

Evolution seems to be taking that direction...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well, despite what Jesus thinks, I'm not doing it. Cost me my immortal soul (if I had one) though it might.

Why should I abandon* friends and relatives for an ideology? Any ideology?

This is total missinterpretention. Is Jesus asking you to abandon something for ideology? He is asking you to be ready to abandon everything for supreme Love if necessity demands, he is asking not to leave anybody but to live unattached. Since you are not seeing or seeking this you do not need to worry.
Whats more this Love is all-powerfull, all-inclusive so technically there is no loss whatsoever.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. Maybe you're right.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

I'm still not seeing it, though.

And you've not addressed the fish issue at all.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Discrimination is the sword. If you think that human love is the highest you will feel pain if you try to break up any attachment. There will not be any peace. I am afraid the words are in comformity with the understanding of the crowd in JZs time.

 

[warpus]

How can you love something you can't see, touch, talk to, or otherwise detect or interact with more than something you can hold in your arms and hug?

Oh, I realize it's possible, I just find it a tiny bit inhuman.

 

[Borachio]

^ I agree.

And furthermore we're ignoring the fallibility of human rationality and feeling in any case, aren't we?

To say, with Jesus, of this I am so certain I feel able (and not only able, but obliged) to abandon family and friends doesn't allow for a scintilla of doubt.

Is this realistic?

And isn't this the very stuff of ideology? Isn't this what makes people able to blow themselves and others up?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How can you love something you can't see, touch, talk to, or otherwise detect or interact with more than something you can hold in your arms and hug?

Oh, I realize it's possible, I just find it a tiny bit inhuman.

We are too much up to put anything human on piedestal and to see it as a final stage.

Do you love love itself/ do you like to be loved? Here is your answer.

 

[warpus]

Do you love love itself/ do you like to be loved? Here is your answer.

That is an answer that doesn't mean anything. There are words but no meaning.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That is an answer that doesn't mean anything. There are words but no meaning.

O.K. What is love in the first place?

^ I agree.

And furthermore we're ignoring the fallibility of human rationality and feeling in any case, aren't we?

To say, with Jesus, of this I am so certain I feel able (and not only able, but obliged) to abandon family and friends doesn't allow for a scintilla of doubt.

Is this realistic?

And isn't this the very stuff of ideology? Isn't this what makes people able to blow themselves and others up?

Jesus isnt speaking as an intelectual. I dont think he is trying to rationalize or give any ideology. These statement can be difficult to understand when out of the context - including its time.

The fact that people can sacrifice their life for an ideology is proof of existence something beyond physical or in Warps words something you can't see, touch, talk to, or hug.

 

[Borachio]

Love, in the first, second and third places, is concern for another's happiness and well-being.

What it might be in the fourth or fifth places, I don't know.

The fact that people can sacrifice themselves for an ideology is an indication that they think they know it all*. The reality is: they don't. All the evidence points to human fallibility, imo. (Naturally, I could be wrong about this.)

*Or at least enough to persuade them to sacrifice themselves.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Love, in the first, second and third places, is concern for another's happiness and well-being.

This is lofty but how do you reconcile this with the existence of an ego?

What it might be in the fourth or fifth places, I don't know.

Quite a saint you are...

The fact that people can sacrifice themselves for an ideology is an indication that they think they know it all*. The reality is: they don't. All the evidence points to human fallibility, imo.

*Or at least enough to persuade them to sacrifice themselves.

It surely is an indication of a human ignorance but it confirms the supramaterial as well.

 

[Borachio]

This is lofty but how do you reconcile this with the existence of an ego?

What? It's not lofty at all. It's what love is. I don't see it has anything to do with ego.

Quite a saint you are...

Double What-What?