No offense, but as someone who was raised Christian but no longer believes, this is the first time in over 40 years that I’ve heard that explanation/definition of neighbor when referring to that commandment. Do you have any source to back that up?
Also, there are numerous other references throughout the bible that tout kindness to strangers/visitors/outsiders, including lepers and prostitutes. Your definition seems to be at odds with not just the commandment but all the other parables of kindness and tolerance that Jesus spoke of.
Luke 10:25-35, “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” is completely unambiguous and proves them in error. I’m in the same boat as you. Former Christian that refuses to be associated with the ghouls of today’s Christianity.
This is going to get long winded. the TL/DR is that the people at that time understood there were classes of people, and jesus never said anything about it… we are putting our modern understanding on his words. There are strangers who happen to be the same as you, and they’re the ones you care for, and there are the strangers who are not… and they’re the ones you take as slaves. Part of why that’s not really taught much at all is because we would be part of those people who could be taken as slaves and that’s just awkward.
Ultimately, having multiple classes and making racial distinctions was just how everyone thought. Just like how slaves were an institution, and nobody spoke against it until the very late 1700’s. You cannot sit there and apply your modern understanding of ‘neighbor’ to what jesus was saying. You have to understand the culture he was in and speaking to.
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed slave owners to beat the shit out of their slaves, so long as they didn’t die that day. (and no, that wasn’t any more kind or loving or protective of slaves than the assyrian codex the Law of Moses was kinda sorta based on)
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed the taking of slaves from the foreigners. And yes. by force. Jesus was in a culture that allowed men to sell their own fucking daughters as sex slaves.
if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus taught that this was appropriate.
Mat 5:17-20 is pretty clear:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(emphasis was mine.)
it wasn’t until Paul that we have any church leader saying “well maybe beat your christian slaves a little less.” and even then, he was only speaking of slaves who were also christian.
So no. Jesus didn’t preach universal kindness. Or universal love. Or anything we say he does today because that makes us pretty fucking uncomfortable.
Jesus taught the Law of Moses and the Prophets. His beef with the Pharisees was that they taught the Tradition of the Elders, which was significantly less offensive. For example, one of the distinctions was that the Tradition of the Elders didn’t stone kids for being unruly. (he actually took a direct shot at the pharisees for this in mark 7, ostensibly because the pharisees were allowing people to make offerings instead of supporting their parents. but he’s citing the law saying unruly children should be stoned.)
Another distinction comes from having realized that 60% of women did not (and today still do not) bleed the first time they had sex, and therefore, stoning women because they did not bleed on their wedding night meant killing 60% of young women just as a matter of biology.
also more to the general racism of Jesus, just ask yourself what The Messiah was supposed to do.
That is, the Messiah was supposed to be a king, of the direct line of David, who would rule in Israel, and lead them to a gold age of world domination, where every one would come to the worship of the israelite god, and then we shall have peace. And if you read anything in the Prophets, you would know that it wasn’t going to be accomplished by lubby-dubby warm fuzzies.
I can’t say I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the verse you quoted, but I do see the validity of the argument. The wording is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, it’s not something I’m hugely invested in as I’m no longer a believer.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your post. Have a good one.
No offense, but as someone who was raised Christian but no longer believes, this is the first time in over 40 years that I’ve heard that explanation/definition of neighbor when referring to that commandment. Do you have any source to back that up?
Also, there are numerous other references throughout the bible that tout kindness to strangers/visitors/outsiders, including lepers and prostitutes. Your definition seems to be at odds with not just the commandment but all the other parables of kindness and tolerance that Jesus spoke of.
Luke 10:25-35, “The Parable of the Good Samaritan” is completely unambiguous and proves them in error. I’m in the same boat as you. Former Christian that refuses to be associated with the ghouls of today’s Christianity.
Bullshit.
Samaritans were still Israelites. Still part of the mosaic covenant.
Which Jesus taught the law of Moses and the prophets, a law that expressly condones the taking of slaves from foreign people.
This is going to get long winded. the TL/DR is that the people at that time understood there were classes of people, and jesus never said anything about it… we are putting our modern understanding on his words. There are strangers who happen to be the same as you, and they’re the ones you care for, and there are the strangers who are not… and they’re the ones you take as slaves. Part of why that’s not really taught much at all is because we would be part of those people who could be taken as slaves and that’s just awkward.
Ultimately, having multiple classes and making racial distinctions was just how everyone thought. Just like how slaves were an institution, and nobody spoke against it until the very late 1700’s. You cannot sit there and apply your modern understanding of ‘neighbor’ to what jesus was saying. You have to understand the culture he was in and speaking to.
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed slave owners to beat the shit out of their slaves, so long as they didn’t die that day. (and no, that wasn’t any more kind or loving or protective of slaves than the assyrian codex the Law of Moses was kinda sorta based on)
Jesus was in a culture that explicitly allowed the taking of slaves from the foreigners. And yes. by force. Jesus was in a culture that allowed men to sell their own fucking daughters as sex slaves.
if the gospels are to be believed, Jesus taught that this was appropriate. Mat 5:17-20 is pretty clear:
(emphasis was mine.) it wasn’t until Paul that we have any church leader saying “well maybe beat your christian slaves a little less.” and even then, he was only speaking of slaves who were also christian.
So no. Jesus didn’t preach universal kindness. Or universal love. Or anything we say he does today because that makes us pretty fucking uncomfortable.
Jesus taught the Law of Moses and the Prophets. His beef with the Pharisees was that they taught the Tradition of the Elders, which was significantly less offensive. For example, one of the distinctions was that the Tradition of the Elders didn’t stone kids for being unruly. (he actually took a direct shot at the pharisees for this in mark 7, ostensibly because the pharisees were allowing people to make offerings instead of supporting their parents. but he’s citing the law saying unruly children should be stoned.)
Another distinction comes from having realized that 60% of women did not (and today still do not) bleed the first time they had sex, and therefore, stoning women because they did not bleed on their wedding night meant killing 60% of young women just as a matter of biology.
Another distinction comes from not stoning young women who were raped in town, but did not call out.
are you really going to tell me that these teachings of Jesus are… loving? kind, compassionate? or even decent? it’s self evident that jesus did not teach compassion to everyone. I mean, it’s totally compassionate, forcing a young girl who was the victim of rape to marry her rapist so he could rape her for the rest of her probably short life.
also more to the general racism of Jesus, just ask yourself what The Messiah was supposed to do.
That is, the Messiah was supposed to be a king, of the direct line of David, who would rule in Israel, and lead them to a gold age of world domination, where every one would come to the worship of the israelite god, and then we shall have peace. And if you read anything in the Prophets, you would know that it wasn’t going to be accomplished by lubby-dubby warm fuzzies.
I can’t say I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the verse you quoted, but I do see the validity of the argument. The wording is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, it’s not something I’m hugely invested in as I’m no longer a believer.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your post. Have a good one.