Christian tropers, join together!

I believe he's South Korean.

For some reason, he just seemed American to me.

Yup, Korean. I have no idea why I even tried to hide that tidbit. XP

It kinda surprised me to hear that Over half of SK identified as Christian.

Then I remembered that their last president had a big thing against porn or something and I began to wonder.

It's more like 42%, but yes, it's quite a lot. Well, not exactly. Porn is illegal in S. Korea (I shit you not) and one of the former presidents made prostitution illegal about two decades ago.

THAT reminds me. There were major churches who supported the last president and condemned her very damn well deserved impeachment. This is despite her following words from a full blown cultist leader who intervened in government matters.

Oh yeah, that was a thing. Among others, the last Korean president was impeached for basically being a servant to a Korean Rasputin. It's...a really long and messed up story.

Why do I have a feeling she was connected to the Moonies?

Considering the current Korean president is named Moon Jae In, it would be rather amusing.

Random wondering.

I wonder if Jesus was white? There are Jews and Arabs that are considered part of Caucasian people, but not sure if Jesus would've been one of them.

Not that his race matters, of course.

Jesus being white is something cooked up by racist evangelical Christians.

Attributing the concept of white Jesus to evangelicalism is misplaced. I think many times people just misblame everything on evangelicalism these days without really knowing if it's there fault or just use the word evangelist as a general term.

edited 16th Jun '18 8:36:08 AM by firewriter

Not like it changes the inherent racism of whitewashing the most important biblical figure as Caucasian, but fine, what would you blame it on, then?

I'm pretty sure Jesus was Jewish. People who think he's white tend to be very close-minded in terms of race. Speaking for myself, I'm from an evangelical southern baptist church that doesn't support racism.

edited 16th Jun '18 1:19:41 PM by Weirdguy149

Given that American chattel slavery predated the concept that would become evangelicalism. I would say that it started the minute people justified the notion of enslaving people because of color. Also interesting enough evangelism started out in New England and England area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

Jesus being depicted as white was something that happened since the Middle Ages. However, I think intentional malicious use of the white Jesus imagery didn't come until slavery and Jim Crow.

I think it's because many people seem to forget the Jewish roots of Christianity. In some strands of evangelicalism, there has been more of an effort to regain understand about Jewish culture in order to understand Christianity and the Bible better.

edited 16th Jun '18 1:26:38 PM by firewriter

Not quite. Jesus is depicted as white in a lot of Renaissance art, including famous works like The Last Supper, which is where the modern Western idea of "white Jesus" comes from.

In reality, Jesus was almost certainly not white.

The Middle Ages like everyone in that age were depicting Jesus in their own image, which is something not unique to one culture. However, the malicious use of White Jesus did come from slavery, when slavers wanted to use religion to justify racist notions.

Not intending to take sides in any theological issue of no concern to me, yet when it comes to artistic depiction of Jesus, there’s this one from the Coptic Museum in Cairo◊ dating back to late Antiquity or early Middle-Ages, I forget.

So it’s not contemporary to the time of the scene it refers to but not that later, not from the Galilee but close enough I’d say.
The Middle-East being a bridge between three continents, it’s always been the dwelling place of people of countless if not all physical appearances.

So when it comes to where Jesus is from, it’s where people come in all shapes and colours (and before you do: and yes, some got killed in the past).

Like the racism in portraying the Middle Easter born, Hebrew Jesus as a Chinese man?

https://churchpop.com/2017/01/13/jesus-chinese-8-beautiful-paintings-life-lord/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depiction_of_Jesus

Was it abused by racists and slave owners? Yes. But the Renaissance image of Jesus is a product of the fact that people tend to see God as looking just like they do. Saying it's the product of racist white evangelicals is stupid and demonstrably wrong. There is no debate here. Maybe instead of insulting whole swaths of people, it's a better idea to let them see the Son Of God as they wish and let them live their lives in peace.

Also: Chinese art of the life of Jesus is rad. Check it out.

edited 17th Jun '18 7:58:06 PM by Troper_Walrus

Things are getting a little too aggressive here. Let's try take it down a notch, a'ight?

Fine whatever, they weren't evangelicals, but you can take one if you think can explain away the inherent racism because it goes as far back as the Renaissance or because other races did it too. Because as we all know, racism didn't exist during Renaissance times. Also, Chinese people can't be racist. You wanna talk about being insulting? How do you think I feel as a black man to be told there's nothing wrong with whitewashing Jesus using the same logic behind "there were African slave owners, too"?

The Bible did not take place in Europe, nor was it set in east Asia. Everything in the Bible happened in Africa and the Middle East, and I am not going to sit here and let someone (who is presumably white themselves, which I'm sure has nothing to do with why you're ranting at me for pointing out racism at the hands of white people) tell me I should accept people depicting Jesus as a white or Chinese man just because they want Him to be (also, perhaps you should think a bit about why one might want to portray Jesus as having distinct European features despite the Bible not being set anywhere near that region, hmm?).

Sure, you can portray Jesus as white. And in return, I'll portray the Buddha as a black man. And just as I would surely be called a fucking idiot for insisting Buddha was of African descent, well...

edited 17th Jun '18 9:07:00 PM by PhysicalStamina

Jesus certainly wasn't an European in terms ethnicity, but I think he did probably fell under the category of Caucasian, as with most Arabs and sizable populations of Jews. Of course, that's only dealing with his physical form as written in historical records. His core essence, the Trinity, would undoubtedly be transphysical.

Or not.

I think this topic has some merits as just a random theologic-anthropology musing. Nothing to take too seriously and certainly nothing to get aggressive over.

I didn't perceive this was getting too aggressive (yet?) despite there seeming to be some slight perceived on part of some. I think discussing these things in detail is pretty useful.

First off, I'm sorry things got a little heated. That's on me, I apologize. My mother comes from a white evangelical tradition, and it's not always easy for me to be calm when I feel like my family is being slighted.

I'm not saying racism didn't exist in those times. I never said that. I just meant your position that it was cooked up by racist evangelicals was historically invalid, and that there are cases around the world of inaccurate depictions of Jesus occurring in art, and that some of your hostility towards these depictions was unwarranted - it doesn't excuse what they did, of course. Personally, I would like to see more depictions of Jesus as accurate to what he looked like as well, I think it would be good for the faith.

Plus: while I sure as hell don't appreciate insinuating some manner of prejudice on my part - just as you wouldn't like it if I insinuated it on yours - I can see why you would think that, and if you could offer some help as to how I could debate better and make my points more clear and less likely to have Unfortunate Implications I do not intend, I would appreciate it very much.

I'm sorry if we made prejudiced assumptions about you, but you have to understand that "white Evangelical" has very ominous implications to a lot of people. You can't blame us for getting defensive.

While I wish you didn't make generalizations like that, I'm not stupid enough to not realize there's a very good reason for it. I hope you can understand why I might get a little defensive as well.

But, on the bright side for all of us: Things are definitely looking up for the church I grew up in.

It's good the SBC isn't sticking to diehard conservative fundamentalism as a platform. Unfortunate that nothing I've seen about this indicates any change in attitudes towards queerness. As a queer Christian growing up in a Southern Baptist church I'm still not inclined to trust the convention or member churches

You're not wrong, but I feel like a shift in attitudes in the denomination as a whole will be inevitable as the church re-engages with the mainstream.