Problem is that when they see “love they neighbor” they look around and only see straight white folks, so they assume everyone else is excluded for some reason
When I was in Sunday School, we were given a strict (Catholic Catechism) definition: Your neighbor is anyone you meet. It doesn’t even specify any “human.” My mom always brought home that point whenever animal cruelty was discussed.
Of course, my parents who taught me that lesson are still Catholic and yet super proud of my identity. Very chill with my trans spouse. Even marched with me at a local pride event.
Maybe they’re the exception but “love thy neighbor” does still have tangible meaning to some folks.
It’s the same in finnish as well; the word used is “lähimmäinen”, which translates as “the one that is closest to you”. Basically implying everyone you meet
Race science was created specifically so that they could see non-white people as non-people. This was done so that Christians could (just barely) hold onto their belief system while committing all of the atrocities of the colonial era.
I actually just happened to be reading a relevant part of Lies My Teacher Told Me that quotes Montesquieu (French philosopher who influenced the US founding fathers):
It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.
They’re called to “love thy enemy as themselves” as well. So it’s not just their neighbors, but also the people they hold hatred for that they are called to love.
It was a racial clause from the beginning. -The word wasn’t needed otherwise.
-Same as the sexual clause ‘neighbour’s wife’ instead of ‘spouse’.
And context supports that:
‘Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets’, ‘Do not go among the Gentiles’, ‘I have come only for the lost sheep of Israel’, ‘it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs’.
I mean the Bible is pretty clear on this. In response to the question, “who is my neighbour,” Jesus answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. In Christianity, everyone is your neighbour.
In Judaism there was a lot of debate about it historically and I don’t know where things stand now.
Yeah jesus said didn’t come to abolish the law, but he clearly teaches things different to the teachings of the old testament so it should be pretty clear he’s adding to it.
It’s your problem if you’re not able to understand a very simple and obvious parable. There’s no ambiguity for anyone else, really.
The rest of your reply is babby’s first anti-christian rant. I’m not religious, so direct your tawdry energies elsewhere.
If you want to make arguments, use quotes. Don’t make shit up.
If you want to debate with people, be clear: make a point, defend it when challenged, and say what it is in other points that you find deficient and why. Don’t rant about irrelevant shit then throw around a bunch of slurs.
You’re not worth talking with, having failed at all of that. I’ll be blocking you so I don’t have to see more of it.
You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt:
Sojourn: “short stay, temporary residence”. -That’s if they aren’t subject to the OTs calls for genocide: Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:21, 1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 2:34, 1 Samuel 15:18, Judges 21:10, 2 Kings 10:7. or appointed to slavery: Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
‘Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets’ -His sole existence is based on the OT and is referenced in the first chapter of John. You might be thinking Saul of Tarsus.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
“Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Jesus is being called out by the Cannanite woman and is in the wrong here.
“Do not go out among the Gentiles” is in the context of his specific instructions to the apostles at one point in time. The commission is expanded later.
You can’t pick and choose isolated verses - you’re acting like a Christian.
No, you’re acting Saulinian. -The guy that never walked with Jewsus, lost the lottery to Matthias, destroys the law, lies, and flip flops.
If you want to play context, don’t ignore that Jewsus is the same OT god that subjected women to sex slavery, certain people to brutal racial slavery, and some to genocide. -And don’t ignore all the sexist clauses in their laws and teachings.
Even dogs, beasts of the field (synonym for Gentile in Bible) are rewarded. It doesn’t mean they’re eligible for ‘salvation’.
I love the black and white thinking. Obviously, I must be a Christian because I don’t think the Bible is nothing but “kill all unbelievers” scrawled repeatedly in blood.
C’mon Mister Logical - can you tell me what a false dichotomy is?
Exactly. It’s not like they weren’t instructed to kill and enslave elsewhere in the Bible.
Genocide:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:21, 1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 2:34, 1 Samuel 15:18, Judges 21:10, 2 Kings 10:7.
Slavery:
Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Problem is that when they see “love they neighbor” they look around and only see straight white folks, so they assume everyone else is excluded for some reason
When I was in Sunday School, we were given a strict (Catholic Catechism) definition: Your neighbor is anyone you meet. It doesn’t even specify any “human.” My mom always brought home that point whenever animal cruelty was discussed.
Of course, my parents who taught me that lesson are still Catholic and yet super proud of my identity. Very chill with my trans spouse. Even marched with me at a local pride event.
Maybe they’re the exception but “love thy neighbor” does still have tangible meaning to some folks.
I’m glad to hear that they are so supportive, that’s awesome! I hope my Catholic parents are as accepting when I come out to them as trans
Yeah might be a translation issue. In the german version it’s not “neighbour” but rather “the one next to you”.
In French too. “Aime ton prochain”.
It’s the same in finnish as well; the word used is “lähimmäinen”, which translates as “the one that is closest to you”. Basically implying everyone you meet
I love your parents btw
Me too. Very much.
They just see the kids in their church.
Race science was created specifically so that they could see non-white people as non-people. This was done so that Christians could (just barely) hold onto their belief system while committing all of the atrocities of the colonial era.
I actually just happened to be reading a relevant part of Lies My Teacher Told Me that quotes Montesquieu (French philosopher who influenced the US founding fathers):
Do they see “love thy neighbor?” I think many ignore that part entirely
Removed by mod
I promise you they hate straight white guys too, if you even express a hint of kindness.
They’re called to “love thy enemy as themselves” as well. So it’s not just their neighbors, but also the people they hold hatred for that they are called to love.
It was a racial clause from the beginning. -The word wasn’t needed otherwise. -Same as the sexual clause ‘neighbour’s wife’ instead of ‘spouse’.
And context supports that:
‘Think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets’, ‘Do not go among the Gentiles’, ‘I have come only for the lost sheep of Israel’, ‘it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs’.
I mean the Bible is pretty clear on this. In response to the question, “who is my neighbour,” Jesus answered with the parable of the Good Samaritan. In Christianity, everyone is your neighbour.
In Judaism there was a lot of debate about it historically and I don’t know where things stand now.
Jews are cool with their neighbors. Zios are genocidal. It’s not that complicated.
Given that the phrase “love your neighbour” comes from the Torah, it is at least 2500 years old, predating what you mean by Zionism by millenia.
This was a poor excuse to shoehorn irrelevant modern-day issues where it doesn’t belong.
Removed by mod
Yeah jesus said didn’t come to abolish the law, but he clearly teaches things different to the teachings of the old testament so it should be pretty clear he’s adding to it.
It’s your problem if you’re not able to understand a very simple and obvious parable. There’s no ambiguity for anyone else, really.
The rest of your reply is babby’s first anti-christian rant. I’m not religious, so direct your tawdry energies elsewhere.
If you want to make arguments, use quotes. Don’t make shit up.
Are you asking for a quote of the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Or what?
Oh, that phraise goyim/ beasts of the field/ dogs like to take out of context and twist to their favor?
When you see that “goyim”, it’s time to check the post history. Just as gross as expected.
If you want to debate with people, be clear: make a point, defend it when challenged, and say what it is in other points that you find deficient and why. Don’t rant about irrelevant shit then throw around a bunch of slurs.
You’re not worth talking with, having failed at all of that. I’ll be blocking you so I don’t have to see more of it.
It’s not just “babby’s first anti-Christian rant.” There’s a reason he said “jewsus”…
Strange, because Leviticus says
Sojourn: “short stay, temporary residence”. -That’s if they aren’t subject to the OTs calls for genocide: Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:21, 1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 2:34, 1 Samuel 15:18, Judges 21:10, 2 Kings 10:7. or appointed to slavery: Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Jesus didn’t give a shit about the old testament. Neither should anybody else. It’s like the whole point of the gospels…
‘Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets’ -His sole existence is based on the OT and is referenced in the first chapter of John. You might be thinking Saul of Tarsus.
You are totally misrepresenting the last verse.
Jesus is being called out by the Cannanite woman and is in the wrong here.
“Do not go out among the Gentiles” is in the context of his specific instructions to the apostles at one point in time. The commission is expanded later.
You can’t pick and choose isolated verses - you’re acting like a Christian.
No, you’re acting Saulinian. -The guy that never walked with Jewsus, lost the lottery to Matthias, destroys the law, lies, and flip flops.
If you want to play context, don’t ignore that Jewsus is the same OT god that subjected women to sex slavery, certain people to brutal racial slavery, and some to genocide. -And don’t ignore all the sexist clauses in their laws and teachings.
Even dogs, beasts of the field (synonym for Gentile in Bible) are rewarded. It doesn’t mean they’re eligible for ‘salvation’.
But also
You pick and choose like a good little Christian. The anti semitism is always lovely touch too.
I’d love for you to give me an example of a non sexist Bronze Age society.
You defend like a dick skinning death cultist.
Imagine a society not ruled by your sexist/ racist death cult… maybe a non-sexist one! -Suprise suprise!
I love the black and white thinking. Obviously, I must be a Christian because I don’t think the Bible is nothing but “kill all unbelievers” scrawled repeatedly in blood.
C’mon Mister Logical - can you tell me what a false dichotomy is?
Are you saying that the term neighbour was chosen here so that there’s a way exclude certain people?
Exactly. It’s not like they weren’t instructed to kill and enslave elsewhere in the Bible.
Genocide:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:21, 1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 2:34, 1 Samuel 15:18, Judges 21:10, 2 Kings 10:7.
Slavery:
Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
No need for irrelevant ancient texts.
The obvious interpretation is that Jesus actually meant what he said. There are no tales of Jesus enslaving people or promoting genocide.
You’re just a gross fash troll.
“think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets”
Typical defender can’t quote.