As an American, I can’t boycott them any harder.

It’s NYT. They know. They just can’t admit that.

And for consumer data to be sold to, for example, the Russians.

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?

Uhuh.

I wear a heavy coat in winter.

I don’t wear a heavy great coat with giant lapels and epaulet boards and a baldric strap.

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.

just for comparison.

also just for clarification Drumpf is a fucking nazis and the shitty american education on the matter is why so many fail to see it. Even though “make germany great again” wasn’t exactly a slogan… it was not an uncommon refrain in hitler’s speeches. Sure other politicians used ‘make xyz great again’, but Trump doesn’t sleep with their autobiographical manifesto’s next to his bedside.

at best, you could say that he’s in good company with Reagan also recycling some of hitler’s rhetoric, but it’s still recycling hitler’s rhetoric. Reagan was an asshole, too.

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. ²⁰ For 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.

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.

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.

You realize, of course, that samaritans were also Israelites?

Just as that one uncle who married someone the rest of the family did not like is still family. Or perhaps more acutely, like how Catholics and Protestants more or less hate each other but are still both Christians

I’m confused why a story Jesus literally just scraped off the wall to aggravate the Pharisees is in any way altering his selective understanding.

Or are you saying Jesus didn’t see slaves as people, and therefore not worthy of kindness and hospitality … or you know. Freedom.

Cuz he would have seen slaves on a daily basis. Yet we literally have more on paying taxes.

Or is it the other way ‘round? State works for the church.

Which would easterwood put first?

You can call them Nazis and people will blink past it, because they don’t look like Nazis.

Not important… but Bovino absolutely dresses like a Nazis.

And many of the CBP agents have Nazis tats.

More generally… Trump himself was recycling Hitler’s rhetoric in his ‘16 campaigns.

So I do feel that it’s both.

When Jesus said “neighbor” he wasn’t talking to a modern audience. He was talking to people that understood that to mean more in the way we’d understand “kin”.

He also had more to say about paying taxes to one’s oppressors than he did about slavery; and literally used a law that called for stoning unruly children to criticize the Pharisees.

Still has ties, to be clear.

Fuck’n pastor works as St Paul field director for ICE.

originally, it could have been not consensual, in point of fact.

Frequently, piercings were ways of marking people as being property or similar. Frequently, also, it was a way of marking tribal affiliations.

Otzi had ear piercings- ~3300 b.c.e.

so yeah. that checks out.

that would make a lot of sense for digital formats.

I was thinking for more physical media- possibly including bits and bobs that don’t survive for very long (Like the banksy self-shredding painting, or the one I saw somewhere with an ax that chopped it’s leg. or something more performative/experiential.)

it would suck for the public to basically fund art, and not get to experience it, is all that idea was getting to. It would also suck for the artist if they weren’t allowed to take commissions or sell off high-value pieces.

edit: imagine if you will, libraries with reading nooks and paintings or whatever in them. or for there to be a sort of public museum. that puts things on display. And after a while, you could probably just sell some of the art (particularly if they get famous, lol. kinda like how venture capitalists shotgun start ups looking for the golden ticket.)

they’re not being kinky about it, if that’s what you’re saying.

Just a guess… but that they’re not actually married.

edit: yeah, they weren’t actually married. also they drank booze.

Hmmm.

Yes but with conditions?

Part of their art is public (so like, installed in public places- city/town halls, parks. Libraries.)

This might look like just paying commissions.

Just spit balling here.

And we’d need to talk about some practical limits of who is an artist. All I know, is that there are artists, and then there are people who think they are. And then there’s the genuinely offensive people, and the people getting rejected because of pearl clutching.