There are many interpretations of Luke 14:26. This is just one of them:

Luke 14:26

Greetings GB,

It is true that Christ did not bring peace but a sword, and I strongly believe in the power of the sword to fulfill prophecy. I accept that many will use the sword for their own self defence, but myself I try to use a sword as little as possible. Naturally this makes me vulnerable to attack, but actually I profit more when I am under attack than when I am not under attack.

Regards, Bariyon

From that link:Yeah, I admit that I tend to use standard meanings of words. I can't think of any other use of the word "hate" where it does not at least signify strong dislike.

And this is my problem with such things. In order to deal with the contradictions of the Bible, apologists must resort to redefining words like "hate" and "good". Heck, the Bible has been translated many times. If there was a more appropriate word, why didn't the translators use it?

Then other biblical believers will insist that every word must be taken literally. Who is right? It is impossible to tell. Therefore, I treat the Bible as a book full of interesting stories and occasionally good philosophy which has all the inconsistancies you would expect out of a book written by many people over many years.
Actually, I'm comfortable with the use of a sword as a metaphor for "fighting for what you believe". It is the "not bringing peace" part that I'm uncomfortable with. Sometimes Jesus practiced peaceful resisistance, like when he allowed himself to be captured and crucified, and sometimes he practiced angry resistance, like when he drove the moneylenders out of the temple. Sometimes he advocated giving up wealth, sometimes he allowed himself to be pampered. Again, this bears the hallmarks of many different writers and of cobbling toghether stories which don't always fit together. There is no clear picture of who Jesus was or what he believed.

And I find that the way people view Jesus or Christianity tends to rely more on how they were raised rather than any truth contained in the Bible. It is the same phenomenon that you see when some Muslims are models of tolerance while others fly airplanes into buildings. In this, people use religion to justify what they already believed.

Barry, I believe that you are basically a peaceful person (as am I) so you try to "use the sword as little as possible". Others would read the same verse and decide to use the sword as much as possible, because they are not basically peaceful people.

And this is one thing I object to about religion in general. It often discourages people from examining their beliefs by convincing them that it is God's will. If you think this is what God wants, then there's no reason to think about it any more, right? In fact, I've even seen a bumper sticker that says, "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." I find it incredible that people would advertise their own refusal to think for themselves, but there it is, plain as day.

DC,

Your request for evidence is entirely reasonable. But what form should the evidence take? You would like it in the form of a scientific paper. But I am saying that knowledge doesn’t necessarily come that easily. If you want knowledge that is essentially transcendental, you must go through a lengthy process of personal change and independent discovery. Are you trying to bypass that process?

You may have realised by now that I am heavily influenced by the bible. The bible is by no means being direct, and as a result it takes the reader through a learning process. No one who has passed through the way and gained understanding is going to jeopardise the way for others by speaking openly. Besides, if the person spoke openly, others would not understand or believe.

After all, what use is transcendental knowledge unless it brings us into a transcendental state?

Are you in danger of rejecting the coming unified theory because I am providing evidence but not in the way you expect?

Forgive me, as I know this was addressed to Diggy, not me, but this is a discussion forum, after all.

Evidence must be data which is available to all. It must be possible for any person to do this "trancendental process" and they should come up with results, or revelations that fit in with each other, and with the way the world actually works.

So how about this. Take a number of people who have gone though this "process of personal change and independant discovery", but whose entry points for that journey were very different, eg. a Christian, a Buddhist, a Confucian a Wiccan, an atheist, etc. Now, ask each one of those people a simple, straightforward question that would be be known to a person who had made such a journey. For example, "What is evil". Do not let them hear each other's answers. Now, evaluate the answers to see how well they fit in with each other, and whether or not they violate any well-established laws of nature.

If there truly is a universal truth, then all of the answers should be very similar, or "unified", since that is what we are looking for, right? Do this for many questions.

Now of course, there are obvious problems with this course of action, such as how to tell if a person has made a trancendental journey or not, which would involve defining what a trancendental journey is. This introduces prejudice into the test, because the person(s) who decided which candidate were acceptible would also be influencing the outcome by choosing only those candidates whose experiences were like their own. The only solution I can see to this is to take the person's word that they have made such a journey.

I feel like I have done so myself. I have studied Christianity, astrology, trancendental meditation, I've had out-of-body experiences and I even have a totem animal (an otter, if you must know.) Would I be eliminated from consideration simply because I am an atheist? I would hope not because to do so would obviously bias the results.I too have studied the Bible. I've read it from cover to cover. Yet I see that those who study the Bible do not come to the same understanding. In fact, the understanding they come to is usually heavily influenced by teachers, such as parents, ministers and others. This indoctrination may be very subtle, but what else can account for the fact that the majority of Christians tend to hold the same religious views as those closest to them, but are very different from the religious views of those not close to them? Have you ever been to church, Barry, and had the minister (whatever you call him/her) "explain" a passage of the Bible to you? Did you find yourself agreeing with him more often than not?
This is very bad news for ministers. I do not agree with your statement because I have seen just the opposite in my experiences. In fact, I find that the more certain a person is of his "understanding", the more likely he is to speak openly about it.
But what is a trancendental state? If we cannot agree on what this means, then it means nothing. I feel like I have been in trancendental states. Who is to tell me I am wrong?
Can't speak for Diggy, but I am not rejecting any evidence, because I have not yet seen any. All I have seen so far is speculation.

Hey I really like this. An example of a Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Yes, very interesting indeed. The master is saying, "I don't care to hear your theories and I don't have any of my own." What a wise man

Gooze already did a better job of answering this than I will, but since you addressed it to me I owe you the courtesy of a response.
If that is what it takes to get evidence, then of course I would not bypass that process. Thus far, though, there is no reason to believe that it is necessary or even desirable. Those who go through these transcendental experiences are no more likely to agree with one another than those who have not (in my limited experience--I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong. Note that this sort of "proof" would require evidence not of my own transcendence, but merely reports by others, sort of what 'Berry said. It should be very possible...but thus far, no agreement.). Indeed, the highly stylized writings of these experiences are so open to interpretation as to be impossible to compare with one another...Why do you assume this? I ask seriously, not just to be contrary; why should not the assumption be that a spirit guide can, well, guide. It seems to me that, when people are willing to believe, spirit guides are offered as a way to smooth the path to enlightenment, but when people are skeptical, suddenly the journey is one which cannot be shown to you, and it is your own fault if you cannot find it. It is a convenient double-out, if you ask me.I won't pretend to know what this means. Does it mean the same as "what good is a transcendental state unless it brings us transcendental knowledge?"?I doubt it. Thus far, you have provided no evidence at all. When you do, I will look at it critically, as I would with any evidence. I do not reject any before evaluating it.

There is also a book, "Still the Mind" and here's the Alan Watts website:

Alan Watts

I went for a walk this afternoon and fed apples to the horses at a farm and then I took my brand spanking new fly-whisk and whisked away those danged flies. I've come across this quote on the internet before when I was looking up information about meditation. I liked it, too.

Fly Whisk

Spanking? Is that what you use it for? I'm impressed, Peggy. I didn't think you were into that kinky stuff.
And what do you think it means? In your own words, please.

Gooze, you should ask people to send their interpretations to you privately, else they can look at one another's responses first...it would, I think, be an informative little experiment (unless the "e" word is forbidden around here).

This only goes to show that they've accepted an externalized version of religion, in what some circles might be deemed brainwashing, and haven't accepted anything internally. Nonetheless, it's still up to each of us to find it for ourselves, regardless of how other folks behave. In fact that's one way of illustrating that you have it is by setting a good example. In which case it's important that we learn to hold up our own fly-whisks (thanks for the picture Peg, is that what one really looks like? ) and allow others to experience it for themselves.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I'd have to disagree. They've simply accepted another person's interpretation uncritically, much as one might do if they accepted Swedenborg's interpretation uncritically.

But really, faith is what religion calls for, which means accepting without evidence. Some, like the bumper sticker displayers, can manage to accept things without thinking much at all. Others may think about them a lot, but still in the end accept them without evidence.

But you make a good point about brainwashing. For most Americans, we are steeped in religion from our earliest childhood. Some of us are brought into the church (baptised) before we are even capable of cognizance, and the indoctrination starts from before we can even understand words. It has been shown by countless studies that much of what you learn is done at a very early age, which is why young children can pick up languages so easily. At that age, the mind is a blank slate and whoever gets to write on it first is often the one that guides the thought patterns for the rest of the person's life.

So it is no surprise that people accept the religion of their parents and their community. It makes those who break away from this indoctrinated pattern of thinking more of a rarity, which is why you find so few atheists in the US.

You, Iacchy, have also broken away from a lot of the indoctrination. You have found other sources (Swedenborg, Campbell et. al.) that influenced your dogma more than your earliest upbringing. That is to be commended. However, you still retain that powerful meme that was planted and has taken root, that there must be something besides this physical world. It appears that no assemblage of evidence will convince you otherwise, and indeed you seem to be angry at science for even making the attempt to explain things without invoking metaphysical thinking.

I wish you could release that anger and see how much there is to learn out there, but some person or persons got to the "slate" first, and wrote in indelible pen, "THERE IS A GOD". You appear to reject any notion which even suggests otherwise, which restricts your thinking. This sort of mind control is exactly why I have a beef with the kinds of religion that propagate by insinuating themselves on young, suggestible minds.

I totally agree with you about leading by example. That is how I (hope to) demonstrate that my version of morality is better than others. But the fly-whisk thing is a red herring. The fact that the young learn from the "Old Master" demonstrates that exchange of ideas is critical. The koan is self contradictory. It is essentially saying, "I hope you learn from me that you have to learn for yourself." Does anybody besides me see the humor in that statement?

I'm referring to nothing other than discernment here which, is the means by which we accept and, internalize things. Whereas to the degree that we don't employ discernment, we are externalized.

It's called culture, and in fact has very little to do with religion. Which is not a matter of following the crowd.

I am the shaman priest. I ought to know what I'm talking about.

And might I suggest this is merely evidence of your bias that such an entity doesn't exist? Hey, these words are coming from you, not me.

No sense to run off at the mouth when you can see things for yourself. Otherwise you have "babel."

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Discernment is also the means by which we reject things. Is rejection "internalizing" too? What if you don't employ discernment and wind up internalizing something that is wrong?

What if you actually replied to the things I said instead of changing the topic? Would that be internal or external? Your nomenclature is so tricky.
Examine that statement, Iacchy. You're saying culture has little to do with religion??!! I'm hoping you realize you misspoke, because I'm betting anybody here and probably anwhere else would agree that you have just said one of the most incorrect statements in the history of mankind.

Following closely in the "all time incorrectness contest" would be the statement that it's not just "following the crowd". That is totally inconsistant with the observation that crowds of people tend to have very similar religious views.
I agree. You ought to.
Well, you know I spent a good portion of my life believing such an entity existed (thanks to my early indoctrination). It is only through the observation that this "entity" has no definition, no consistancy, and no effect on anything that I concluded that my earlier "bias" was incorrect.

Or maybe it was all that time I spent at the "Church of Atheism" that biased me. They really instilled the fear of No God in me at those No Prayer meetings.
LOL. From your lips to mine.

Yes, discernment is the means by which to differentiate between things and involves rejecting those things which don't adhere. Whereas if you internalize something which is wrong you're liable to pick up a bad habit or two. That doesn't mean you can't reject it later though.

You leave me no choice but to offer up my fly-whisk.

This is more of a cultural phenomenon, and has very little to do with following what you understand to be true.

So which is it then?

Strictly a form of cultural indoctrination.

Like you, I don't particularly care for organized religion. While essentially for the same reasons that you do. Fortunately for me though I didn't have someone trying to ram it down my throat when I was very young, otherwise I probably would have rejected it or, accepted it totally "blindly."

And ladies and gentlemen, here is ... Roy Masters.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

This is closer to the more standard definition of "discernment", rather than that "discerment=internalizing, no discernment=externalizing" stuff you were pushing in your earlier post. I'm glad you came to your senses.
Or you +10 "armor of ignoring", or your +20 Shield of Non Sequitors, or your +15 Mace of Metaphors. You are well equipped for battle.
Oh. My mistake then. How foolish of me to think that it was religion, just because it took place in a church and ministered by a man who had studied theology and included an established dogma and invoked the name of God. What a fool I've been. Thank you for showing me the truth.
(sigh) Irony is wasted on you, isn't it?
Yes, I see now! It has nothing to do with religion! I've seen the light! Praise Go... um.
Well, I did accept it, although probably not "blindly", thanks to my Mom who taught me at an early age not to believe everything you hear. However, even having it "rammed down my throat", I was able to overcome the indoctrination.
It's a pity we'll never see Roy debate this guy.

Only to the degree that I understand something -- through discernment -- do I commit it to memory. Which, is basis for how I know anything and, is an internalized experience as far as I'm concerned.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

So how do you know that you understand something? Do you compare it to your internal model, and accept it if it agrees with what you already suspect to be true? Or do you compare it to external things...oh, let's call them "evidence"...to see how well it agrees with this?

The former is a recipe for closed-mindedness...the latter is science.