• madthumbs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    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’.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.

              • madthumbs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Oh, that phraise goyim/ beasts of the field/ dogs like to take out of context and twist to their favor?

                  • madthumbs@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Jewsus referenced ‘dogs’ and in his old T used ‘beasts of the field’. -Goyim is appropriate.

                • FishFace@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  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.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            It’s not just “babby’s first anti-Christian rant.” There’s a reason he said “jewsus”…

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Strange, because Leviticus says

      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:

      • madthumbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Jesus didn’t give a shit about the old testament. Neither should anybody else. It’s like the whole point of the gospels…

          • madthumbs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            ‘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.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      You are totally misrepresenting the last verse.

      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.

      • madthumbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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’.

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Paul doesn’t count

          But also

          every verse about the Amaleks does

          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.

          • madthumbs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            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!

            • andros_rex@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              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?

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Are you saying that the term neighbour was chosen here so that there’s a way exclude certain people?

      • madthumbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

          • madthumbs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            “think not that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets”

            Typical defender can’t quote.