Patriot Front (and other White Nationalist Groups)
- Thread starter Rainy
- Start date
Perseus66
Protestant
The Creator manifested himself in Creation though. I'm probably getting banned for this, but Jesus Christ is actually often depicted as a man with Northern European features.
Coincidence? Or do you think that God's Son might be depicted with Aborigine features as well?
Okay looks like you want to put words in my mouth just as you do with God, think whatever you want and I don't even necessarily disagree with what you're saying but don't speak for God just to try and justify your agenda in your head.
Jesus was from the Middle East by the way.
Perseus66
Protestant
Doesn't look very Middle Eastern to me.
A bit cherry picked there reminds me of the black Jesus portraits they sell in the hood but actually yes he looks very similar to many of my relatives who were from the middle east, my grandma had blonde hair and blue eyes. Sorry to burst your bubble...
Last edited:
On this depiction he doesn't look very Middle Eastern to me.
Strange tack to take. Europeans were actually the ones doing what you suggested and re-depicting Christ in their own ethnicity as opposed to how he was traditional held to look like:
I promise you this style predates the fair-skinned ruddy-cheeked light-haired European depiction.
I wouldn't call these races, but breeds within the same race.
Perseus66
Protestant
This may be the oldest known depiction, but it is dated several centuries (6th century AD) after Jesus had lived. So we don't know for sure how Jesus really looked like.
Personally, I think that the "blonde Jesus" depiction looks better. The hair color fits the golden halo and the golden background, making him appear "Sun-like". But yeah - I respect that everyone can imagine Jesus' phenotype like he wants to.
Taking quite a turn here from your previous perspective a couple posts ago, went from Jesus is Gods preferred race of white to now we don't know for sure and it's just your preference while respecting that anyone can see it as they wish.
Perseus66
Protestant
The way I understand it, biologists reserve the term "breed" for domesticated animals only. Dog and cat "breeds" are "bred" by their human "breeders".
Human "races" reproduce by their own volition. I'd say there are various European races within the Europid group.
Human "races" reproduce by their own volition. I'd say there are various European races within the Europid group.
Nah, I wasn't taking turns. I was well aware that there are different depictions of Jesus, though I prefer the ones where Jesus is blonde.
I'm going to nitpick just a bit further:
-> Christ in His incarnation looked one certain way because God did indeed become Man in Christ. It was not a theoretical, generic or subjective incarnation but a real and specific one. His incarnation is not a matter of preference but a matter of objective reality. We can't say we 100% know exactly what his facial structure or hairstyle was, as you rightly say, but neither can we imagine Him however we please.
-> Christ must have looked akin to the inhabitants of the Levant because no one ever remarked on him having an unusual appearance (bar the Transfiguration), his compatriots and relatives expressed skepticism at His ministry and teachings, and Judas had to signal to the chief priests and the mob which man was Christ. So being logical, we can deduce that in His incarnation Christ did not have an unusual or noteworthy appearance compared to the people surrounding Him. If you want to make the argument that there were swarms of blonde, pale, ruddy-cheeked folks running around the Holy Land in the time of Christ, that's a different story.
Perseus66
Protestant
Yes, most historians also confirm that Christ as a human existed in Galilee during the rules of Roman emperors Augustus and Tiberius.
It's definitely possible that as a Jew, Jesus was light pigmented. To this day you can still see some Jews with light pigmentation, such as Mark Zuckerberg whose picture I posted earlier. Not very likely - but possible.
Whatever one considers a race, there are subdivisions of peoples.
There are Caucausoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids.
There are Iberians, Nordic, Anglos, and Gauls.
There are Finnish and Norwegian peoples, all with differences.
None of these differences become untrue because of how one defines "race."
That article doesn't make me think "Golly gee, I guess I'm not white then." It just points out the obvious: different Europeans look differently and come from different ancestors. Did anyone doubt that?
When someone wants to insist you use a certain specific word and answer directed yes/no statements around it, they are not concerned with truth or knowledge. They are playing games and trying to misdirect, confuse, or instill doubt.
There are differences between all these groups. When someone uses the word "race" they could be defining it as narrowly as "the Irish vs the Scots" or as broadly as "the human race." You can ask questions to determine what they really mean by that word (different people use it differently), if you are interested in a discussion with them. But when we've done that here we just get more misdirection and confusion.
If one doesn't have a point about different categories of people, then why are you talking about different categories of people?
I can go in the tranny thread and post random statements like "A boy was born last year with a 1cm penis" or "Thai ladyboys are more feminine than fat women" and just dance around without ever making the conclusion "therefore a third gender exists" which is what seems to be going on in this thread. Throwing all these absurd racial claims out there without ever daring to make the claim "therefore race doesn't exist" or whatever his absurd theory is.
Debating semantics or a bunch of disconnected trivia facts is not interesting or useful.
I'm tempted to call it trolling but it's not good trolling so who knows.
I mean yeah, of course Jesus had darker skin than me BUT SO WHAT???
Water is wet and the sun is currently up. SO??? Draw a conclusion or else stop throwing random trivia facts in a specific thread about an American political group.
If there's no meaningful discussion here people are going to pull away from the forums.
@TruckDriver9 You have a point but it's not like this thread ever had much on topic substance.
Mods, I think we probably need a sandbox / trivia / light area where people can post things that don't meet the level of discussion of ideas or news commentary. The old forum had one. The alternative is just banning all sort of trivia talk.
Great post!
The more I listen to racially-charged arguments, the more absurd they seem. I don't understand how anyone can reconcile them with Christ. It requires such weird leaps.
Racialism, whether employed by "whites" or Zionist Jews in Israel or blacks in BLM, is a fabricated, pagan concept. It relies on some strange claims of heritage to justify ownership of ancient lands. But to do what? I have no clue, what do they think? If blacky sits together, and whitey sits together, or Jewy sits together in Israel all works well? Which proof do we have of that?
Meanwhile, others get sucked in the "earth cult," filled with fear of CO2, rising seas, and expanding deserts – all because they believe "Mother Earth" is angry.
Then there are the "humanists" who believe human happiness comes from fulfilling every desire. To them, true joy means a big house, a fancy car, a perfect family, exotic vacations, lots of money, and social status and fun, a lot of fun. And whatever is not in that list; death, disease, growing older, stress, feeling emptiness they just push or drug away.
No matter the path – racialism, earthism, or humanism – each leads away from God, becoming an idol in itself.
Last edited:
Why did Christianity spread to the Northeast and then parts of Russia? Why didn't it spread greatly towards Africa or Asia?
Why, then, did Islam spread among much of Asia and the Middle East? And Hinduism?
The fact is there's something about the races of Europe that makes them accepting of Christianity much more so than other races. I would argue that the main theme of Christianity is sacrifice (obv not of animals, but of a personal nature for other people), and sacrifice is something not found in those other races' cultures as a concept.
There obviously is a racial element to Christianity given how it spread. If Jesus was indeed a dark skinned middle easterner and race is irrelevant, then how come the ideas took hold in Europeans strongest? Therefore race is pretty relevant.
Why, then, did Islam spread among much of Asia and the Middle East? And Hinduism?
The fact is there's something about the races of Europe that makes them accepting of Christianity much more so than other races. I would argue that the main theme of Christianity is sacrifice (obv not of animals, but of a personal nature for other people), and sacrifice is something not found in those other races' cultures as a concept.
There obviously is a racial element to Christianity given how it spread. If Jesus was indeed a dark skinned middle easterner and race is irrelevant, then how come the ideas took hold in Europeans strongest? Therefore race is pretty relevant.
Just curious, how do you explain the fact that as a whole Black Americans are still more Christian than the entire U.S. population? They may have been evangelized by the white man, but doesn't the evidence show they're proven more faithful over time as a group?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...read-the-bible-regularly-see-it-as-gods-word/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...-but-more-religious-than-white-women-and-men/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...an-overall-public-to-be-christian-protestant/
This is one problem with arguing on the Internet. I pondered a specific question: Why did Christianity spread among Europeans rather easily starting 2000 years ago, and you, who seem to disagree with my stance in this thread, ask "Why do Blacks read the Bible more than Whites in the year 2024?"
It completely dodges my question so I'll just do the same to you.
My initial response was specifically to @paternos ' statement:
Have you ever been to a black church? I have. The style of preaching is completely different. The music is completely different. They aren't playing baroque or classical style at all. In fact, if you had never seen black people or been exposed to their culture before and came from a Catholic upbringing and then went to a black church, you might not even think they were Christian because it's that different (eventually you would see crosses and hear them talking about Jesus, but would it be at all similar to how the Catholic Church was pre Vatican 2? The answer is clearly no.) You may not even understand how what they are talking about applies specifically to Jesus' work on the cross. They seem to, but you wouldn't.
So, the idea that race doesn't matter at all is actually the absurd argument here. You can argue academically and theologically that Jesus didn't mention race, therefore race doesn't matter at all. Like many academic arguments, it seems great, but quickly falls apart in the real world where it's actually applied.
To go even further: and this is speculation on my part, but I'd be willing to bet money on it and be proven wrong, but I would wager that the Greek Orthodox church experience is very close to the Russian Orthodox church experience, and that they are much more similar than a black Baptist church and a non-black Baptist church within 20 miles of each other in any given southern US town.
If I'm wrong here, I'm sure the Orthodox folks will tell me. I'm listening. Please be specific. Thanks in advace.
I don't know why Christianity spread to one group of people in particular regions of the world as opposed to others; it's a good question and so is the one I asked. You said it's a concept of personal sacrifice that isn't shared by all. I don't believe any one group of people has something in their DNA that makes them more prone to come to God. If you're going to make that argument, implicitly if not explicitly, then you should be prepared to be asked questions like the one I posed.
To answer your question: a century of Jews promoting secular behavior targeting Whites. "Winning" WWII has led directly to this for Western society.
If you go back to as recently as 1980, the thesis of your question is invalid completely. Why wasn't it this way as soon as blacks discovered Christ?
Also, the fact that you're asking the question to begin with acknowledges that looking at race is not absurd and that it matters as a factor. To my knowledge you've never said otherwise, but others in this thread have. But my guess is you will not be criticized by them for asking as I would be for pointing certain things out.
During the latin masses quite a few like 20+ black people join every Sunday. Does that count? And that also black guy is an acolyte?
I can tell you from experience some here do. And I know 95% of "whites" don't listen to classical music. Factually 95% of the "white" people here don't go to church regularly to honor God.
I have been to a "black" church as you call and I enjoyed it. It was proper and good mass. And there was a love of Christ.
I think we live in a different reality then.