Broken America: Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson and Stefan Molyneux (Must Watch)

"Black Lives Matter, for an example: a far left, liberal, radical, evil agitative organization that's worse than the KKK.[/U]

Look what they did while Obama was in the White House. They chanted: 'What do you want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!' They chanted: 'Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!'

They lied and said there was something called police brutality. So they are deceivers, because they have a hidden agenda. And that agenda is to destroy white Americans, to destroy anything that look white, act white- That's why they hate black people, those who are educated, don't have hatred in their heart, those that speak well, do well, and don't hate. They hate them too because they think those people are acting white.

Antifa, same kind of thing.

So when the President said, there is anger and evil and destruction on both sides of the fence, he was right about that. He was absolutely correct.

For too long, we've allowed black Americans to be very destructive. They are now, uh, raping, killing, robbing, and attacking white Americans. You barely hear about it, because their anger and destruction is protected. But it's only making it worse. And the only way that's going to change, is we got to tell them the truth. Because they're just getting lies.

Barack Obama invited them to the White House. Just imagine if President Trump invited the KKK or the skinheads to the White House after knowing that they had caused destruction in the past, that would not be tolerated. But because blacks are blacks and they're complaining about slavery, which has no impact on their lives at all, this country is allowing them to do it. It is not good for the country, and especially not good for black people."

- Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson (around the 11:20 mark)



giphy.gif
 
You are taking his words out of context. Reverend Peterson is not denying that there are problems between different groups of people, but he explains that it is not a matter of race. Instead he says it is hatred in one's heart. If you can remove the hatred, than you solve the problem. His purpose in framing it that way is to take the focus off of race and make the issue a human problem. Rather than focusing on a solution to racism, he wants to find a solution to removing the hatred from people's hearts.


Reverend Peterson explains it in this video (timestamped @21:41)



He said there has never been racism, like ever. Tell me, did Thomas Jefferson hate slaves? He deemed black people to have inherent physical and mental differences that made them inferior. He did not seem to hate black people, however.

If I am a leftist who thinks black people need affirmative action, do I hate black people in my heart? I mean, I am holding black people to lower standards than whites, no?
 
He said there has never been racism, like ever. Tell me, did Thomas Jefferson hate slaves? He deemed black people to have inherent physical and mental differences that made them inferior. He did not seem to hate black people, however.

If I am a leftist who thinks black people need affirmative action, do I hate black people in my heart? I mean, I am holding black people to lower standards than whites, no?

Reverend Peterson's framework on racism is rooted in the religious ideas of good and evil. Instead of racism Peterson uses the idea of evil. He looking more to the root of what causes racism rather than racism itself. He also avoids the term because he says race hustlers and the media use it to exploit and control people. Again, he is approaching the idea of racism through a religious lens.



 
Blacks are so damn destructive. We try to appease the bad ones. It is true. The damage of any white group is miniscule in comparison.
 
Reverend Peterson's framework on racism is rooted in the religious ideas of good and evil. Instead of racism Peterson uses the idea of evil. He looking more to the root of what causes racism rather than racism itself. He also avoids the term because he says race hustlers and the media use it to exploit and control people. Again, he is approaching the idea of racism through a religious lens.





Yeah, I dont think the Bible is a good framework in which to be telling anyone anything about racism or hatred...
 
Yeah, I dont think the Bible is a good framework in which to be telling anyone anything about racism or hatred...
It is if you've read it & understand it, but that's my opinion I guess too lol.
I think the Beatitudes show the opposite of hate.
Now are you talking the Bible version with 66 or 73 books? Have you read the apocrypha?
 
It is if you've read it & understand it, but that's my opinion I guess too lol.
I think the Beatitudes show the opposite of hate.
Now are you talking the Bible version with 66 or 73 books? Have you read the apocrypha?

I cant take any passage or book in the Bible seriously, because no matter what the moral point the specific passage or book shows, it will have it's antithesis in another book or passage.

Is Jesus holy, or merely human?

Was Jesus arrested the day before, or the day after the Passover?

Is Jesus here for Jews alone, or are the Gentiles allowed as well?

Is Jesus coming back to spread war or peace?

Can Jesus even be the Messiah?

All these questions are internally contradicted within the Bible. Thus, I cant really take any of it's positions seriously.
 
Yeah, I dont think the Bible is a good framework in which to be telling anyone anything about racism or hatred...

<TrumpWrong1>


"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
-Galatians 3:28

 
<TrumpWrong1>


"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
-Galatians 3:28

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. - Matthew 10:5-6


Mark 11:15–19
15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came they went out of the city.

Like I said, contradictory.
 
These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. - Matthew 10:5-6


Mark 11:15–19
15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came they went out of the city.

Like I said, contradictory.


What is the contradiction between the two verses you posted?

Yes, there are many contradictions in the bible. It is a collection of different books written by different authors over a span of 1,500 years. The authors in the New Testament base many of their writings off of the much older books of the Old Testament. It is not meant to be read literally or like a novel from cover to cover. The four Gospels are all a different interpretation of the life of Jesus. The Bible is a symbolic and poetic reflection of the human condition. What is consistent about the bible are themes relating to the rise and fall of nations and the fall and redemption of human beings.





...the Lord has a charge to bring
against you who live in the land:
“There is no faithfulness, no love,
no acknowledgment of God in the land.
2 There is only cursing, lying and murder,
stealing and adultery;
they break all bounds,
and bloodshed follows bloodshed.
3 Because of this the land dries up,
and all who live in it waste away;
the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky
and the fish in the sea are swept away.

Hosea 4: 1-3
 
What is the contradiction between the two verses you posted?

Yes, there are many contradictions in the bible. It is a collection of different books written by different authors over a span of 1,500 years. The authors in the New Testament base many of their writings off of the much older books of the Old Testament. It is not meant to be read literally or like a novel from cover to cover. The four Gospels are all a different interpretation of the life of Jesus. The Bible is a symbolic and poetic reflection of the human condition. What is consistent about the bible are themes relating to the rise and fall of nations and the fall and redemption of human beings.





...the Lord has a charge to bring
against you who live in the land:
“There is no faithfulness, no love,
no acknowledgment of God in the land.
2 There is only cursing, lying and murder,
stealing and adultery;
they break all bounds,
and bloodshed follows bloodshed.
3 Because of this the land dries up,
and all who live in it waste away;
the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky
and the fish in the sea are swept away.

Hosea 4: 1-3

Christians read the bible literally until a couple hundred years ago, when the enlightenment started taming and sequestering faith. The religious always talk of metaphor and allegory AFTER their stories are proven false.

The Gospels disagree on almost every single important moment of Jesus' life, ministry and death. These four books are supposed to all be true, and yet they contradict each other. So the one claim you must throw out is the claim that these books are divinely mandated. They are obviously the work of some extremely ignorant men.

Really, is this an allegory?

At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.…

The gospel writers, on a few occasions, attempt to place Jesus squarely in history, and fail to do so. After all, these books were written decades after the events they fail to describe even plausibly, by people who obviously never met Jesus.
 
Religious beliefs have parallels to cognitive therapy, it's thought re-framing. Psychologists figured out long ago that there's endless ways to interpret situations. You can always frame a situation in a way that makes you feel sad or angry, that's easy. SJW ideology says "You've always been a victim, you should be angry and look, here are the perpetrators: go destroy them. It's fine if you use violence, virtuous even, because you're doing it in the name of good". The problem with this framing is that it doesn't help your life in a constructive way whatsoever, you're not coming out of it any happier or better than when you came in, you're not working towards anything, you feel (and accordingly, act) like a helpless victim of circumstances instead of an active participant in your life. They're among the most privileged people on the planet, living in the most privileged era of humanity, feeling sorry for themselves.

The reverend is correct that dysfunctional family is a big root cause of problems, he doesn't know the academic literature but it's true from a psychological perspective. Dysfunctional parents wound their children, they impair their normal development. It's inter-generational as well, children usually repeat their parents' dysfunctional patterns, unless they have the introspection and personal character to put a stop to the cycle.
 
Usually vague drive-by criticisms like this indicate lack thereof

OK.check out these videos and then tell me whats going on here...

Either Jesse is dihonest or a retard, you choose.
Hes a prick too.


Don get me started on Stefan, a dishonest man if i ever saw one.

Explain this too me...




 
Back
Top