Street Preachers on Youtube

Dustofyears wrote:

My claim here was the Catholic church and religion has been the cause of much devastation upon the earth and to mankind, that it's actions speak louder than the emptiness of its contradictory words. That's where this all started.

No, you claimed that the Catholic church has done nothing good whatsoever.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic church and I agree there has been and still is a lot of corruption and a lot of evil use of sexuality within the priests. That doesn't negate the good the Catholic church has done and still does. If Catholic church stopped existing today, all the vipers within that church would go elsewhere to abuse their power and abuse children. It's not just a Catholic church problem. It's a lot wider issue and it has sneaked into politics, the school system, hospitals, everywhere.

It was not a weird tangent or non sequitur. It was a point I was trying to make based on Black Rider's post about different cultures embracing Jesus like their own race (which is true).

I would naturally assume all my posts would look like stupid arguments to you all, however it was both those posts mentioning Black Jesus with dreads that got disliked right away...why no other post? Thus I had my suspicions.

So there's no possibility that your arguments in those posts just happened to be just enough stupid that people cared to react? Even if it was because of the mention of black Jesus, it doesn't mean people dislike the idea of that. It just might mean that you are jumping the shark with your arguments at that point.

You are assuming I did not know this or take this into account... I do and I did...

If you did, you wouldn't have written what you wrote.

No. Not based on my view but history. White Jesus was brought into the western world through European colonists (missionaries) and taught in schools and as a systemic foundation of society. White Jesus was used as to subjugate a caste system, a caste system where Europeans are top of the system.

The world is not USA centric.

I am European. We live relatively close to the Middle East. In fact we don't call it the Middle East, but instead in Finland it is called "Lähi-Itä" which means "Close East". In Europe our natural looks span from blonde and red, to asian type of features, to something close to what people in the Middle East look like. From Italy to Greece people look more and more the way the Jews in Israel look like. Part of Turkey is European, and they look like that even more.

We have never been taught that Jesus was European. We have always known where Jesus lived and where he was born.

Your claims of Europeans bringing white Jesus to the USA to create a caste system is more of a conspiracy theory than actual reality. We do not have a caste system in Europe. In order for your claims to be true, we should have that here too.

Yes against Christianity and especially the Catholic Church. yes, a truth claim. This, all based on history, not my ignorance or prejudice, as you put it.

No. Only partly based on history. You take parts from history and ignore the rest.

Both camps are stupid. That's my opinion. No I don't have special knowledge, just common knowledge many don't want to look at because it makes them wince.

See, here you are being both obnoxious and condescending again.
You see the knowledge you have as something that if anyone disagrees with it's because they don't either want to look at it or that it makes them wince.
It's not a matter of not wanting to look at it because, as far as I'm concerned, I've openly read all kinds of material - esoteric, satanic, jewish, pagan, theosophic etc - and none of that makes me wince.

So you come off as arrogant with all of those claims of how we just don't dare to look at what you know.

Perhaps it's my awareness that disturbs you. I am very self aware. Sensitive people are more aware than those who are not. We are observers. Cheers.

Being aware and observant does not mean one is self-aware. You can be observant about everything that surrounds you and you can be extremely sensitive about it, but that does not mean you are aware of how your own actions and words really look like.

Dustofyears wrote:
Just some facts you find hard to swallow. Bitter pill, I know

This is a great example of the lack of self-awareness and the condescencing style of discussing you have when it comes to discussions about religion.

If people are annoyed with what you write, it's not because of your arguments are good. It's because of behavior like that.

Dustofyears wrote:I would say all that to your face, why wouldn't I... Why has that particular line made you so angry, so defensive all the sudden, hmm...



So what say you Scott.

You're not remotely as aware or nuanced as you think you are if you can't figure this out. 

Also, I invited you to tell me if you're dim or nefarious.

seth wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:

seth wrote:Scott is right, that isn’t a “gotcha.” As has been said before, many depictions of Jesus are made to look like the race/ethnicity of the artist and their culture. Including white people.

Ironically, the only group I’ve ever seen be confidently incorrect about Jesus’s race is black supremacist groups like the Black Hebrew Israelites. They openly claim that Jesus was black

Do you see a contradiction here Seth

There are many mutli-cultured Jesus' then suddenly

White Jesus checks the tick.


Black Jesus=wrong.

I could careless about any Jesus. But I am simply making a very clear point that even a blind man should see. Add it all up the evidence shines like the sun on cloudless blue sky day.

I didn’t say depicting Jesus as black was wrong. The Black Hebrew Israelites however actively claim He was black and use this claim to promote black supremacy. If any white person or group of white people do the equivalent with a “white Jesus”, they should be condemned just as strongly as the Black Hebrew Israelites. 
However, if a group of people depicts Jesus in art to look like them, without actively making false claims about Him or promoting racial supremacy of any kind, I don’t see a problem with that, regardless of what color they are. You seem to be making the point that people here are ok with depicting Jesus as white in art but not black, but I don’t see that attitude from anyone here. 
As for the point about “white Jesus” being used for political conquest, it is undeniable His name has been falsely used for political conquest. Where we disagree is that His depiction as white in art by white people was an integral part of this, as an effort to set Him up as some sort of white overlord

Forget black Jesus. Let's focus on the white Jesus, that's the one we all grew up with and know.



As for the point about “white Jesus” being used for political conquest, it is undeniable His name has been falsely used for political conquest. Where we disagree is that His depiction as white in art by white people was an integral part of this, as an effort to set Him up as some sort of white overlord


Not just his name Seth (nice try). His complexion. White Jesus was used as a caste system; or let's be more to the point "Supremacy". Christianity and white Jesus was used as a brain washing weapon in the same way  the lgbtq uses the rainbow. Why do you think Jesus is white, why do you think all the disciples are white, why do you think Mary is white, why do you think Moses was a white dude dressed in arab attire... like white actors wearing black face.

I know the bible characters (not just Jesus) in books and the movies etc I grew up with, I know the Christ my grandma had hung up all over her walls and he was white with long blonde hair. How about you Seth, you have any black Jesus or Asian Jesus or Indian Jesus or... Now do a google under the name Jesus, what do you see... WHITE JESUS HEAVEN is what. You think that's a happy coincidence?

Guns and missionaries, that was the flavor of the colonial conquest. WHITE Missionaries converting everyone with a WHITE Christ. You think that was a happy little coincidence too? Keep turning your blind eyes from the ugly truth you wish not to see, for you if see it you might have to question the lies and corruptions and contradictions your very faith is built on. That's a mirror you just don't wish to look at, that's the truth of it.

seth wrote:And I know the “they weren’t real Christians” sounds a lot like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, or communists claiming every failure of their ideology “wasn’t real communism,” but Jesus Himself said that many will call His name, but did not truly follow Him, but will be told “I never knew you” on the judgement day. I think it’s fair to say people who use His name to oppress other people would fall into this category

No they were real Christians. I am tired of that excuse. Like I said earlier, all religion always used and uses, that excuse as a scapegoat. always some kind of scapegoat. They were the real Christians of their time.

Airola wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:
Just some facts you find hard to swallow. Bitter pill, I know

This is a great example of the lack of self-awareness and the condescencing style of discussing you have when it comes to discussions about religion.

If people are annoyed with what you write, it's not because of your arguments are good. It's because of behavior like that.

I could shoot back at all your comments above they are all incredibly weak arguments. Also no one has mentioned a damn good reason for the Catholic church to exist... and I wasn't even thinking about the pedo's in the church, I was talking about the murderous savage and political history and the duplicity of the wretched empire. It's house is built on plain evil. Simple as that. But keep defending evil if it makes you feel better about your own faith.

I don't wish to be sitting here all day typing and repeating myself to people who willingly wish to remian stubbornly blind to make themselves feel better about their faith.

Here's what you are doing.You pick one part of my narration and say it's all like that. Actually the majority of it is calm, I am calm, I just shoot from the hip. And anyways no one has mentioned the tones of some Christians here towards good ol' Dusty, cept for Steven. So you know that game goes both ways.

Even when magnus said thank you dust you just confirmed  my faith even more, that gave me sense of "I'm clutching my security blanket because now you've actually got me  thinking." Of course he's not going to admit that.

lolz man had no idea this thread would go in this direction but that's the fun thing about discussions, you just don't know which direction they're going to go. Anyway I have written enough here and said my piece, I'll just be repeating myself. Open your eyes or stay willingly blind.

Cheers have a good day.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:I would say all that to your face, why wouldn't I... Why has that particular line made you so angry, so defensive all the sudden, hmm...



So what say you Scott.

You're not remotely as aware or nuanced as you think you are if you can't figure this out. 

Also, I invited you to tell me if you're dim or nefarious.

You still haven't answered my question Scott. Stop avoiding it with personal attacks, or is that all you are left with. Think about it friend. Have a good day.

You are absolutely hilarious, Dust!

Of course I'm not going to "admit" to your wishful thinking projection.

Your "senses" betray you.

You've said absolutely nothing that I haven't heard before. 

Nothing in your arsenal of bitterness is going to change a thing.

Nothing.

There will be no "break-throughs". 

No "eureka moments".

Not for you, not for me, not for anyone else here.




You and I have a lot in common in our musical tastes that others here do not share (except maybe Steven). Let's focus on that.

I'll see you in the music section.

Yeah. Sounds good to me Magnus. I'm over this thread. See ya in the music section.

Dustofyears wrote:
Here's what you are doing.You pick one part of my narration and say it's all like that. Actually the majority of it is calm, I am calm, I just shoot from the hip.

I haven't said anything about your calmness or temper. I said you are obnoxious and condescending. You can be both with a zen-like serenity.
I don't care if you're angry or if you're calm. I only care about what you write.

Airola wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:
Here's what you are doing.You pick one part of my narration and say it's all like that. Actually the majority of it is calm, I am calm, I just shoot from the hip.

 I only care about what you write.

 


I only care about what you write.

Yep. You do.






 I've said all I can say. That's my last post. Have at it.

Just to be clear, I didn't put a dislike to that last post. I haven't ever clicked likes or dislikes here.
I assume dust makes his own conclusions based on reactions, so just to be clear, it was someone else who gave his opinion on the content and merit of that post.


The irony of this thread is that when it comes to talking against religion and religious people, Dust really isn't that much different from what he initially criticized street preachers for. There were many who agreed with a bunch of his initial criticism concerning those street preachers and all was ok, but things took a turn when Dust kinda became an anti-religion "street preacher" - and this isn't the only time he's done that here. And to be fair, criticism is fine and it should be allowed here. It's just the condescending and passive-aggressive nature in the posts that gets in the way of actual honest criticism, but he's not aware of any of that but instead when that's criticized he'll double down and sees that only as an evidence of others being wrong, manipulated and brainwashed, and him being right and free from erroneous thinking. And that's why it feels like what this thread was originally critical about has manifested into Dust. Obviously he's not going to use the same words. He's not going to tell we have demons, but he says we are supporting evil which isn't that much different from saying we have demons. With all the condescending remarks and insinuations added to that without him even realizing that, yeah, that's kind of what those street preachers do.

I like Dust and I'm sure we all get along fine, but he just can't seem to help himself when the subject gets into religion. There are much better ways to be critical of religion.

I just hit like on just about every post in discussions/debates like this even if I dislike like someone's post, it's just my sense humor lolz.

Thanks for that, I sorta figured it wasn't you that hit dislike. Only grown man-childs hit dislike. Cheers.

Dustofyears wrote:

seth wrote:

Dustofyears wrote:

seth wrote:Scott is right, that isn’t a “gotcha.” As has been said before, many depictions of Jesus are made to look like the race/ethnicity of the artist and their culture. Including white people.

Ironically, the only group I’ve ever seen be confidently incorrect about Jesus’s race is black supremacist groups like the Black Hebrew Israelites. They openly claim that Jesus was black

Do you see a contradiction here Seth

There are many mutli-cultured Jesus' then suddenly

White Jesus checks the tick.


Black Jesus=wrong.

I could careless about any Jesus. But I am simply making a very clear point that even a blind man should see. Add it all up the evidence shines like the sun on cloudless blue sky day.

I didn’t say depicting Jesus as black was wrong. The Black Hebrew Israelites however actively claim He was black and use this claim to promote black supremacy. If any white person or group of white people do the equivalent with a “white Jesus”, they should be condemned just as strongly as the Black Hebrew Israelites. 
However, if a group of people depicts Jesus in art to look like them, without actively making false claims about Him or promoting racial supremacy of any kind, I don’t see a problem with that, regardless of what color they are. You seem to be making the point that people here are ok with depicting Jesus as white in art but not black, but I don’t see that attitude from anyone here. 
As for the point about “white Jesus” being used for political conquest, it is undeniable His name has been falsely used for political conquest. Where we disagree is that His depiction as white in art by white people was an integral part of this, as an effort to set Him up as some sort of white overlord

Forget black Jesus. Let's focus on the white Jesus, that's the one we all grew up with and know.



As for the point about “white Jesus” being used for political conquest, it is undeniable His name has been falsely used for political conquest. Where we disagree is that His depiction as white in art by white people was an integral part of this, as an effort to set Him up as some sort of white overlord


Not just his name Seth (nice try). His complexion. White Jesus was used as a caste system; or let's be more to the point "Supremacy". Christianity and white Jesus was used as a brain washing weapon in the same way  the lgbtq uses the rainbow. Why do you think Jesus is white, why do you think all the disciples are white, why do you think Mary is white, why do you think Moses was a white dude dressed in arab attire... like white actors wearing black face.

I know the bible characters (not just Jesus) in books and the movies etc I grew up with, I know the Christ my grandma had hung up all over her walls and he was white with long blonde hair. How about you Seth, you have any black Jesus or Asian Jesus or Indian Jesus or... Now do a google under the name Jesus, what do you see... WHITE JESUS HEAVEN is what. You think that's a happy coincidence?

Guns and missionaries, that was the flavor of the colonial conquest. WHITE Missionaries converting everyone with a WHITE Christ. You think that was a happy little coincidence too? Keep turning your blind eyes from the ugly truth you wish not to see, for you if see it you might have to question the lies and corruptions and contradictions your very faith is built on. That's a mirror you just don't wish to look at, that's the truth of it.

seth wrote:And I know the “they weren’t real Christians” sounds a lot like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, or communists claiming every failure of their ideology “wasn’t real communism,” but Jesus Himself said that many will call His name, but did not truly follow Him, but will be told “I never knew you” on the judgement day. I think it’s fair to say people who use His name to oppress other people would fall into this category

No they were real Christians. I am tired of that excuse. Like I said earlier, all religion always used and uses, that excuse as a scapegoat. always some kind of scapegoat. They were the real Christians of their time.

I know you aren’t a leftist or “woke,” but I think you need to take a step back and make sure you don’t borrow from their playbook by looking for white supremacy under every rock. I don’t see any reason to believe the artistic depiction of Jesus as white by white people as anything more than that, artistic license. Same for Mary, Moses, or any other biblical character. However, if I see any historical evidence that anyone ever actually believed Him to be European, or any other Jewish Biblical character for that matter, I’m open to changing my mind. 
However, ultimately this “white Jesus” argument is pointless and going nowhere. My faith is not built on the European colonists, the Catholic Church, or anything of the sort, it is built on the words of Jesus Christ Himself, and the word of God to His servants the prophets and apostles. If your basis for believing Christianity to be a lie based on corruption and oppression is founded on those who came along later misusing His name, then no wonder you feel the way you do. Like Gary Lenaire said, you aren’t finding God because you are looking in the wrong place, at the wrong “God.”
As for the last point, how do you define a “Christian?” It’s pretty safe to say people who conquered and oppressed in the name of Jesus were going directly against His teachings. If not defined as one who follows Jesus, then what is a Christian anyway? Simply one who identifies as a Christian, to borrow that postmodernist phrase?

Oh boy...so much for my last post being my last post


Yep I hate left and I hate right in the same way Christians and Atheists have a few things I'd agree with but ultimately are two extremes that suck. Being alone in the middle like a lone ranger you get to see the extreme rage and war in both camps while they both think, in a matter of speaking, God is on their side. It makes for a tough life if you don't pick an extreme side, it really does lolz.

 Anyhoo...

It's got nothing to do with taking anything from from anyone's book Seth, I'm telling you historical fact but I'm getting frustrated coz it ain't sinking in no matter how many times I flog the horse lolz. everyone is avoiding the agenda part.

Read carefully

White Jesus came from white European men who introduced Christianity into  western civilization. It was part of a systemic Caste Agenda where white people were top tier (class) this is factual history Seth. 

So my point is not that I don't think YOUR heart is in the right place, but that your RELIGION (Christianity) comes from the wrong heart and the wrong place. It was introduced to dominate other people that weren't white, thus the word "supremacy" comes into play

Christianity and white Jesus are in fact political symbols and ideologies that were ingrained into western society through chapels, legal systems and schools and not to mention the good Christian white folk that were slave masters. And of course, the good word, the bible. And Yes, they were Christians of their time.

That's why you have white Jesus Seth. Besides this, Jesus more than likely had olive or brown skin.

In short, Christianity was forced upon the western world and built from corruption (like all abrahamic religions, no good has come from them just corruption and evil deeds. That said, I'm not saying there aren't good people that are Christians, and more than likely most of them are blinfd to their own faith and the foundation it was built from, that or deliberately trun their head from it. It would be refreshing if a Christian just admitted it for once rather than avoid it.


However this seems futile and I am just going round in circles saying the same stuff and getting the same avoidance and results. No one is going to see the other eye to eye. Let's call it a day.

We are going in circles because you keep repeating the same false claim, without providing evidence, and whenever you are called out on it you fall back on the “poor brainwashed fools can’t handle the truth” trope. Christianity was not founded by European colonizers. That is a fact. Jesus was a real historical figure who lived in the early 1st century AD, and Christianity is built around this man. That is also a fact, agreed on by most secular scholars. The teachings of this Jesus, and His followers, along with the history and prophecies of the Jewish people prior to His birth, have been collected into a book called the Bible. This book is the foundation of the Christian religion. Even if you don’t believe it is true, it is the standard for what a Christian is. Even if you reject that Jesus was the son of God, to act like Christianity is founded on racism and oppression by Europeans is simply historical ignorance. Like I said, your argument about what constitutes a Christian basically boils down to “anyone who identifies as a Christian.” If someone who lives a life completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Bible, then that person is not a follower of Jesus. It’s really that simple.
We are not blind to the evils done by those claiming to be Christians. But to claim these acts were the “foundations of Christianity” is just as ridiculous as claiming Caitlyn Jenner or Dylan Mulvaney represent the foundations of womanhood.

I wasn't talking about the origins of Christianity Seth. I wasn't born yesterday and I was a Christian so I know all about that stuff Seth.

I was talking about how it was introduced into modern western civilization and used as an agenda for a systemic caste system where white people were top tier...again you avoid the topic and your avoidance speaks volumes.

It's kinda sad. But that's humans for ya, all in the name of Gods and religions they will fight to keep the lie alive. Go as you will. I'm tired and I'm done with this thread.

This guy isn't going to get it my brothers.

Middle? Yeah, right.

scottmitchell74 wrote:This guy isn't going to get it my brothers.

Middle? Yeah, right.

All right smart guy who never answers any questions, you tell me how Christianity was introduced to the modern western world, how it wasn't used to enslave native people or exploit lands and used as political agenda and enforced, this goes for any of you. None of you have stepped up on that step yet, so let's hear it. If I'm wrong then where did it come from and in what wonderful way was it utilized...

So there was no churches built, no missionaries, no religion in schools or legal systems, no hands on bibles to swear the truth and oaths, nope, no white Jesus. mary, disciples, moses, noah etc... back in the interrogation room with kurt again and good ol' dusty be imagining stuff again. So tell me how it was then and where it just magically appeared from...


Let's go Scott or you gonna hide behind your "brothers" again and poke the spear some more...Run rabbit run. You got nothing.

Step on up

Dustofyears wrote:

scottmitchell74 wrote:This guy isn't going to get it my brothers.

Middle? Yeah, right.

All right smart guy who never answers any questions, you tell me how Christianity was introduced to the modern western world, this goes for any of you. None of you have stepped up on that step yet, so let's hear it. If I'm wrong then where did it come from...

So there was no churches built, no missionaries, no religion in schools or legal systems, no hands on bibles to swear the truth, nope, no white Jesus. mary, disciples, moses, noah etc... back in the interrogation room with kurt again and good ol' dusty be imagining stuff again. So tell me how it was then and where it just magically appeared from...


Let's go Scott or you gonna hide behind your "borthers" again and poke the spear some more...Run rabbit run. You got nothing.

Thought you were done. 

You've been answered ad nauseam.  You're being a disingenuous troll at this point. 

You know what we believe because we've said it, but you continue to repeat your nonsense.

That's what I thought. Nothing to say like a little punk Bit$#

What about the rest of you

Step on up, tell me how it was or are you all like this little punk bit%$

Come then who can tell me where Christianity came from in the modern western world and how it was utilized because apparently Dusty got it wrong...so help me understand "brothers".

I was gonna let it go till Scott the punk bit@# popped out like a gutless wonder and again accuses rather than answer a damn question! I didn't ask or care about what you believe Scott, again, like your brothers, you avoid the question!

SO tell me how Christianity was introduced to the modern western world, how it wasn't used to enslave native people or exploit lands and used as political agenda and enforced,  So this goes for any of you. None of you have stepped up on that step yet, so let's hear it. If I'm wrong then where did it come from and in what wonderful way was it utilized...

So there was no churches built, no missionaries, no religion in schools or legal systems, no hands on bibles to swear the truth and oaths, nope, no white Jesus. no white mary, no white disciples, no white moses, no white noah etc... back in the interrogation room with kurt again and good ol' dusty be imagining stuff again. So tell me how it was then and where it just magically appeared from...


ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION

What was so great about the Western World before Christendom?

Pro-Zak wrote:What was so great about the Western World before Christendom?

THAT"S NOT THE BLOODY QUESTION!!!

Pro-Zak wrote:What was so great about the Western World before Christendom?

And what's so great with it. This just shows me you know it was here to dominate all else. NOW ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION!!!

Pro-Zak wrote:What was so great about the Western World before Christendom?

People had their own way of living, their own beliefs and owned their own lands then became enslaved under the the new white Christ religion. And you seem to have no problem with this (well you are a Catholic the most arrogant church of all)There I answered now will someone finally ANSWER MY QUESTION.


Guess not Dusty. There is no answer. Just denial and avoidance.