I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like “thoughts and prayers,” but real love, which comes with action.
The problem there was that they were defiling his house, disturbing people who were there to worship. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with bad actors, it means not getting involved in things that don’t concern you. Someone else choosing a different religion or lifestyle doesn’t concern you, and the direction to love them still applies. Someone persecuting you does impact you, so righteous anger is justified.
34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.
Matthew 10:34-36
or when he said:
“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
Yes, because Jesus’ message was going to divide families, because some members won’t accept others who choose to follow Him. It was also to correct other ideas about the messiah uniting everyone and creating peace. The conflict Jesus creates are from those who are intolerant, not Jesus Himself.
It helps to read the verses in their context instead of cherrypicking.
Whether or not you believe that Jesus rose from the dead is another thing, but you cannot deny that the Jesus of the New Testament’s moral teachings were good.
Look at Matthew 26 (specifically 52) where Jesus stopped Peter from defending him with his sword. Jesus is opposed to violence, full stop.
The sword Jesus spoke of in Matthew 10 wasn’t a literal sword. He’s saying he’s here to disrupt the status quo. Following him requires being at odds with the status quo (Jewish law), which is likely to result in being excluded from families and whatnot. He certainly doesn’t condone violence, but he does acknowledge that this is a fork in the road and people need to pick sides, because they can’t do both.
This similar idea is conveyed in Matthew 6:24 (replace “money” with anything else that stands between you and following God):
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Or Matthew 5:29:
If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
I also don’t think he means you need to preemptively abandon your family, just that if you have to choose, choose God.
The same idea is true in secular ideology as well. If your family are Nazis, it’s better to leave them than become a Nazi.
It’s so weird how Trump and Jesus fans always need to explain what the words their admiration spoke actually meant. He maybe the evangelicals had it right all along and Donnie is the second coming!
Maybe. But I wouldn’t know because I never voted for that idiot and I think evangelicals are almost always wrong.
All I did here was read the larger context. Jesus was known for relying heavily on symbolism, so if something doesn’t fit the rest of the message, it means I’m likely missing something important in the symbolism. That’s why I provided additional examples to show my thought process.
If Jesus wanted to start a literal war, why didn’t his disciples gather an army? Because they understood his meaning.
Yes. Yes they are. Also, I think a “radical Christian” would be the opposite of the KKK.
I guess I’m a radical Christian then.
I believe Jesus taught tolerance and love, so I try to treat others with tolerance and love. And not fake love like “thoughts and prayers,” but real love, which comes with action.
Tolerantly beat the fuck out of those money changers
Lol.
The problem there was that they were defiling his house, disturbing people who were there to worship. Tolerance doesn’t mean putting up with bad actors, it means not getting involved in things that don’t concern you. Someone else choosing a different religion or lifestyle doesn’t concern you, and the direction to love them still applies. Someone persecuting you does impact you, so righteous anger is justified.
Love is a verb
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
Yep the second part in the link you sent. But it appears as if some people don’t think love is something you have to do. I guess it just happens 🤦♂️
So that’s what he meant when he said
Matthew 10:34-36
or when he said:
Matthew 12:30
So tolerant and loving! 😍
Yes, because Jesus’ message was going to divide families, because some members won’t accept others who choose to follow Him. It was also to correct other ideas about the messiah uniting everyone and creating peace. The conflict Jesus creates are from those who are intolerant, not Jesus Himself.
It helps to read the verses in their context instead of cherrypicking.
Whether or not you believe that Jesus rose from the dead is another thing, but you cannot deny that the Jesus of the New Testament’s moral teachings were good.
Look at Matthew 26 (specifically 52) where Jesus stopped Peter from defending him with his sword. Jesus is opposed to violence, full stop.
The sword Jesus spoke of in Matthew 10 wasn’t a literal sword. He’s saying he’s here to disrupt the status quo. Following him requires being at odds with the status quo (Jewish law), which is likely to result in being excluded from families and whatnot. He certainly doesn’t condone violence, but he does acknowledge that this is a fork in the road and people need to pick sides, because they can’t do both.
This similar idea is conveyed in Matthew 6:24 (replace “money” with anything else that stands between you and following God):
Or Matthew 5:29:
I also don’t think he means you need to preemptively abandon your family, just that if you have to choose, choose God.
The same idea is true in secular ideology as well. If your family are Nazis, it’s better to leave them than become a Nazi.
It’s so weird how Trump and Jesus fans always need to explain what the words their admiration spoke actually meant. He maybe the evangelicals had it right all along and Donnie is the second coming!
Maybe. But I wouldn’t know because I never voted for that idiot and I think evangelicals are almost always wrong.
All I did here was read the larger context. Jesus was known for relying heavily on symbolism, so if something doesn’t fit the rest of the message, it means I’m likely missing something important in the symbolism. That’s why I provided additional examples to show my thought process.
If Jesus wanted to start a literal war, why didn’t his disciples gather an army? Because they understood his meaning.
Oh come on, I can see from a mile away that’s it’s a metaphor
Sure like everything that is uncomfortable. Rest is literal. How convenient.
Now you’re putting words in my mouth. You’re arguing against the wrong person dude, chill
Based tbh
Yeah they are reactionary christians. A radical christian would be like the Catholic Workers and Dorothy Day, or the Fasci Siciliani, or Leo Tolstoy