Lol, you can try to strawman your way out of this, but I’m not falling for it. All I’m saying is that it’s widely understood “neighbors” refers to everyone “God puts in one’s path.” And that “loving your neighbor” is fundamental to Christianity.
You must assume I’m a Christian or something. I’m not, and it’s directly because of people like this priest. I will say I respect Jesus’ humanist tendencies and he was mostly a noble man, if he ever existed.
Does “any one god puts in your path” include… Idunno. Slaves?
Show me the verse Jesus overturns that set of laws? Show me the verse where Jesus tells you not to beat your slaves? or the one where he beats the shit out of a dealer in slaves.
Jesus would have encountered slaves regularly. It’s incomprehensible that in that time and place, he did not have occasion to speak about it, or do something about it. yet not a peep.
you cannot tell me that Jesus had the same understanding of neighbor you and I do, because he didn’t. His understanding of “neighbor” was definitely not all-inclusive, because it didn’t include slaves.
as much bad blood as there was, Samaritans were still israelites. even if some of the shit they pulled was quite metal.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
the letter to Philemon says nothing about how to treat slaves, only a request that Philemon spare’s Onesimus’s life. Onesimus was a run-away slave, and was to be executed for that. Onesimus had been serving with or for Paul, and Paul didn’t want to steal from Philemon (Lets be honest here, a large part of that decision was probably that if he was caught harboring an escaped slave… he’d be executed too.)
The fucked up part here is that Paul didn’t send just the letter back. He made Onesimus carry it to face Philemon’s decision.
At no point does the letter tell or ask or even suggest that Philemon release his other slaves (of which, Philomon had many, many more. Most of his workforce was likely slaves, in point of fact.
As for in other letters, every time slavery is addressed, it’s in the context of “Slaves: obey your masters.” (Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22-25, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20). These are all the verses I can find directly instructing people on slavery- both slaves and masters. (there’s loads of “slaves in christ” imagery, but whatever. these are direct instructions.)
Ephesians is the only one that contains instructions to masters- and it’s not to free the slaves. It’s “Treat them fairly”. It’s not even “don’t beat them.”. I’ll remind you: that you have to instruct people to not beat the shit out of your slaves unfairly… they’re still beating the shit out of them on occasion.
Ultimately, it’s clear that early christians never condemned slavery, and preferred to work with in the social structure it provided. There is no reason to believe Jesus saw anything wrong with slavery as an institution, because of the glaring silence. Which, you would expect of pretty much anyone living in the Near East during the Iron age (or most the world during that time, for that matter.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
yeah. so like. they were all interbreeding like fuck bunnies during the babylonian exile. And after. if you’re going to hold the samaritans to that standard, gotta hold it to the rest, too, right?
unless of course the idea that they had somehow become “corrupt” was less about any one thing and more about just shitty propaganda to justify crap like destroying the temple at Mount Gerizim. (happend in 128bce.) or, when the samaritans retaliated by desecrating the temple in jerusalem in 6 ce. (talk about holding a grudge.)
There’s a lot of shit that happened between them. it’s complicated. but they were still israelites. Kind of like how there’s a lot of shit that happened between catholics and protestants, but they’re all still christians. except I don’t know that any one that desecrated the cathedral in rome with skulls. details, amiright?
Lol, you can try to strawman your way out of this, but I’m not falling for it. All I’m saying is that it’s widely understood “neighbors” refers to everyone “God puts in one’s path.” And that “loving your neighbor” is fundamental to Christianity.
You must assume I’m a Christian or something. I’m not, and it’s directly because of people like this priest. I will say I respect Jesus’ humanist tendencies and he was mostly a noble man, if he ever existed.
Does “any one god puts in your path” include… Idunno. Slaves?
Show me the verse Jesus overturns that set of laws? Show me the verse where Jesus tells you not to beat your slaves? or the one where he beats the shit out of a dealer in slaves.
Jesus would have encountered slaves regularly. It’s incomprehensible that in that time and place, he did not have occasion to speak about it, or do something about it. yet not a peep.
you cannot tell me that Jesus had the same understanding of neighbor you and I do, because he didn’t. His understanding of “neighbor” was definitely not all-inclusive, because it didn’t include slaves.
as much bad blood as there was, Samaritans were still israelites. even if some of the shit they pulled was quite metal.
Samaritans weren’t Israelites to the Jews, because they had lost their lineage and intermarried with the surrounding peoples. Just look at Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well.
And then look at how Jesus’ disciples interpreted the command in relation to Greeks, Ethiopians, and… even slaves (the entire letter to Philemon deals with exactly this point, instructing the non-Jewish Philemon to treat his escaped slave Onesimus as a brother/kin, not as Romans treated their slaves).
the letter to Philemon says nothing about how to treat slaves, only a request that Philemon spare’s Onesimus’s life. Onesimus was a run-away slave, and was to be executed for that. Onesimus had been serving with or for Paul, and Paul didn’t want to steal from Philemon (Lets be honest here, a large part of that decision was probably that if he was caught harboring an escaped slave… he’d be executed too.)
The fucked up part here is that Paul didn’t send just the letter back. He made Onesimus carry it to face Philemon’s decision.
At no point does the letter tell or ask or even suggest that Philemon release his other slaves (of which, Philomon had many, many more. Most of his workforce was likely slaves, in point of fact.
As for in other letters, every time slavery is addressed, it’s in the context of “Slaves: obey your masters.” (Eph 6:5-9, Col 3:22-25, 1 Tim 6:1-2, Titus2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20). These are all the verses I can find directly instructing people on slavery- both slaves and masters. (there’s loads of “slaves in christ” imagery, but whatever. these are direct instructions.)
Ephesians is the only one that contains instructions to masters- and it’s not to free the slaves. It’s “Treat them fairly”. It’s not even “don’t beat them.”. I’ll remind you: that you have to instruct people to not beat the shit out of your slaves unfairly… they’re still beating the shit out of them on occasion.
Ultimately, it’s clear that early christians never condemned slavery, and preferred to work with in the social structure it provided. There is no reason to believe Jesus saw anything wrong with slavery as an institution, because of the glaring silence. Which, you would expect of pretty much anyone living in the Near East during the Iron age (or most the world during that time, for that matter.
yeah. so like. they were all interbreeding like fuck bunnies during the babylonian exile. And after. if you’re going to hold the samaritans to that standard, gotta hold it to the rest, too, right?
unless of course the idea that they had somehow become “corrupt” was less about any one thing and more about just shitty propaganda to justify crap like destroying the temple at Mount Gerizim. (happend in 128bce.) or, when the samaritans retaliated by desecrating the temple in jerusalem in 6 ce. (talk about holding a grudge.)
There’s a lot of shit that happened between them. it’s complicated. but they were still israelites. Kind of like how there’s a lot of shit that happened between catholics and protestants, but they’re all still christians. except I don’t know that any one that desecrated the cathedral in rome with skulls. details, amiright?