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.
It’s always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis’ buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being “indentured” and “learning valuable skills!” the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties’ plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I’m telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I’m teaching these things, in the back of my head I’m thinking “This is surprising… Isn’t this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?”
Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you’d swear it was the second coming of the führer.
I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
gay marriage - I’ll even include polyamorous marriage (assuming consent)
drugs - any restrictions should merely protect those who don’t use it (e.g. BAC limits for driving)
prostitution
gambling
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
Love God
Love neighbor as yourself
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
tolerance - allow gay people in your church, but don’t do anything proactive about it
compassion - feel bad for gay people, and offer to help them overcome it
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
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."
They said they believe Jesus taught tolerance. They didn’t say it’s the ultimate fact just that they believe it. Of course you can find anything in the Bible. You can interpret the text in a hundred ways. There’s no one true interpretation. You can just choose one to believe in that makes sense to you (or decide non of it is for you). I think sugar_in_your_tea has chosen a very positive interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
Love is a verb
John Brown was a radical Christian, and he’s okay in my book.
Truly an American hero.
Pretty telling that he’s not mentioned in history books. I didn’t learn anything about him until well into adulthood.
It’s always funny when I hear this, currently teaching ELA in Florida of all places. So, we all heard of the cuts to education, stop teaching certain bits of history (please fill me in on the correct term, I currently remember trump or Desantis’ buzzwords about not teaching slaves being enslaved and them being “indentured” and “learning valuable skills!” the cunt.)
Anyway, our current section for this lesson plan is on Harriet Tubman, underground railroad, teaching the kids how to get characterization from the text and follow context clues, stuff like that. John Brown is mentioned, and in my counties’ plans is a side lesson on John Brown, what he did, which works better for me since I should be teaching history regardless. I’m telling these kids all about him, what he believes in, and how raiding that armory is what caused the federal government to come crashing down on him, all the crazy radical badass things this man did.
Now, as I’m teaching these things, in the back of my head I’m thinking “This is surprising… Isn’t this supposed to be forbidden knowledge right know? What got cut?” Anyway, sorry for the walk of text. Slightly drunk, figured it fit here.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I am in a VERY fucking red part of Florida. Lifted white trucks, truck nuts, punisher stickers over blue line American flags, the fuckin works. You guys should see bike week, you’d swear it was the second coming of the führer.
I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
I grew up in Appalachia and he was covered a bit in our school history books, more than just mentioned.
Same. The dude should have a statue in DC and probably a holiday.
Naa, one in Harper’s Ferry. Near where the armory was (is?)
I feel like “tolerance” is the wrong word here. If you instead strive for “compassion” you’d be closer to the mark.
When I think of tolerance, I think of how Jesus dealt with sinners. He didn’t go around pointing out others’ mistakes, instead he helped any who came to him. He even asked his father to forgive the people that killed him, saying they didn’t know what they were doing.
To me, tolerance doesn’t mean ignoring people who live differently, it means quite the opposite: look past the sin and love people for the rest of who they are. Getting into compassion, that also means championing causes that you disagree with, but that help your sinner friends and don’t hurt you.
For example, I fully support legalizing the following:
I’m morally opposed to each of those, but that only applies to my own actions, and others choosing to do those doesn’t hurt me. If someone else makes a different decision, that’s not my business and I’ll continue loving them for who they are. Banning those things causes harm, and legalizing them makes people happy without hurting me, so why should I oppose?
Likewise, a homeless person addicted to drugs isn’t any less deserving of love than my local religious leader. Jesus gave two commandments:
He didn’t say, “love saints more than sinners,” in fact he said we shouldn’t judge others at all. So if I love my religious leader and not the homeless person, I need to repent. And I show that love through action (i.e. compassion), otherwise it’s just lip-service and I’m no better than the Pharisees that showed piety in public but were incredibly intolerant.
Tolerance without commission isn’t love just like faith without works is dead.
Sure, but also “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Compassion still feels more appropriate.
True. I just want to point out that isn’t a quote from the Bible though, it’s from Saint Augustine.
Compassion is also appropriate, but it’s also has the ugly connotation of looking down on others, as in people looking for problems to solve instead of unconditionally loving others around them.
People don’t want to be a project, they want to be loved and accepted. So don’t help someone because they’re a project, help because you love them and you helping is what they want (not what you think is good for them).
I wasn’t aware the quote wasn’t considered relevant today. But in the same vein, tolerance has a similar implication: acceptance without understanding.
Compassion is usually read as acceptance despite no understanding. You don’t have to like things people do, or even the people themselves. But it’s always best to treat them as humans up front.
It’s absolutely relevant, I just pointed out it’s not a quote from Jesus or the apostles. That’s all. I believe it’s a quote Jesus would whole heartedly agree with though.
Maybe, but like “tolerance,” I think people attach more meaning to it, twisting it to something like “feeling bad for someone.”
Let’s use an example of homosexuality from the perspective of your average Christian:
The first largely ignores the issue, though there’s certainly some hidden prejudice. The second confronts the issue in a way that’s likely to offend (a gay person doesn’t see anything wrong, it’s the way they are).
My perspective is we should be more like the first than the second, but without the prejudice. Compassion should also be there, but without the preconceived notion of what’s best for that person.
People have twisted “tolerance” into “turning a blind eye” toward something, and I think that’s overloading the term a bit too much. Tolerance and compassion are two sides of the same coin.
So that’s what he meant when he said
Matthew 10:34-36
or when he said:
Matthew 12:30
So tolerant and loving! 😍
They said they believe Jesus taught tolerance. They didn’t say it’s the ultimate fact just that they believe it. Of course you can find anything in the Bible. You can interpret the text in a hundred ways. There’s no one true interpretation. You can just choose one to believe in that makes sense to you (or decide non of it is for you). I think sugar_in_your_tea has chosen a very positive interpretation.
Btw I love your user name!
Oh come on, I can see from a mile away that’s it’s a metaphor
How can you tell the difference between what should be interpreted as literal vs 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
i fucked god’s asshole
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.
Based tbh
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.