Jesus and the NT: the sequel is always worse than the original

In a few seconds, Madalyn Murray O’Hair delivers the one-two punch to knock down both JC and the NT off their high horse. AMV expands on the wickedness of JC’s message:

Jesus says plainly:
“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34).
Luke explains exactly what that means: division within families, father against son, mother against daughter (Luke 12:51–53). This is not atheists reading violence into the text. The text itself says his message will fracture households.

And it goes further. Jesus explicitly says:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).

Matthew softens the phrasing, but not the meaning: loving family more than Jesus disqualifies you (Matthew 10:37). That is absolute loyalty language, not Hallmark theology.

So to the first question: no, “the sword” is not about Jesus swinging weapons, but it is very much about social and familial rupture caused by devotion to him. Jesus says so himself.

To Jesse: this is not “misotheism” or ignorance of context. It is the opposite. It is reading the verses honestly. What is happening instead is theological damage control. When the text sounds harsh, believers rush to reinterpret, soften, or spiritualize it to protect Jesus from criticism and, by extension, protect their own identity.

Calling atheists hateful while insisting Jesus was only love requires ignoring Jesus’ own words about division, exclusion, and hating family. That is not context. That is apologetics.

You do not need to take the Bible literally to notice when it says something uncomfortable. You only need to read it.

If Jesus says something hateful, you try to soften it and accuse atheists of misinterpreting the Bible; while accusing the atheists of bad faith when we just point out what is there. Seems hypocritical and your double standards show.
-AMV