[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / bb / dempart / general / hkpol / monarchy / vichan ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Free speech discussion
Winner of the 83rd Attention-Hungry Games
/strek/ - Remove Hasperat

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


| Rules | Log | The Gospel |

File: 9a1bb518602770c⋯.png (746.84 KB, 704x528, 4:3, ClipboardImage.png)

8772bf  No.5945

so, guys, I may be barred from joining a church that I've been attending for nearly two years because I told the pastor, in confidence, that I don't *like* interracial marriage. I made it clear that I don't claim any biblical proof for this, but I do consider it a strong opinion/value. sad thing is that these people are like family to me at this point. I don't know how I can leave now.

f41aab  No.5969

What is your reason for disliking interracial marriage? Marriage between 2 christians is sacred regardless of skin color


8772bf  No.5970

>>5969

>marriage between 2 christians is sacred regardless of skin color

I'm not disputing that. I think they should be shown as much love as any other brother/sister in the faith. But in my heart, I believe that God created separate but equal races. And interrace kids almost always develop identity issues as they eventually realize that they don't really fit in with their mother or father's side of the family. I think it shows poor stewardship of creation, basically.


efec01  No.5971

File: 6ac8e64c736088d⋯.jpg (804.47 KB, 1438x2279, 1438:2279, Screenshot_20190610-080103….jpg)

>>5945

That's the historic Christian position, so if you're barred from membership maybe it's good that you find out and can seek a more orthodox church.

Is this just a worry or do you have cause to think they would refuse you membership?

>>5969

>>5970

You could take the position that interracial marriage should be viewed as sacred while still holding that it shouldn't be performed, like remarriage after divorce.

>equal races

Let's clarify that we're meaning equally made in the image of God, but not equal literally as in identical


f41aab  No.5976

>>5971

The judge in your pic related is an idiot for stating that God did not intend the races to mix. How does he know what God did or did not intend? If God didn't intend for us to mix races, he would have not made it possible to have children outside of your own race.

Furthermore, a child having identity issues is a vain worry. A child should identify as a child of God, and a Christian above all us. To worry about which race to assign themselves to is vain. Do you not think God would take care of it? Do not use mixed races disasters such as Elliot Rodger to say that mixed races have identity issues. Elliot wasn't a Christian so therein lies the true reason why he turned out retarded.


42bd10  No.5977

>>5945

If the churchpeople consider anti-racism to be an essential element of Christianity and don't want people that disagree, the church's not worth joining. Like others have recommended, I'd seek a better alternative.


2f1d0b  No.5980

>>5976

>If God didn't intend for us to mix races, he would have not made it possible to have children outside of your own race.

Just like how if God didn't intend for us to fornicate, he would not have made it possible to have children outside of marriage right? Just because God made it possible for you to sin, does not mean he wants you to choose to do so.


56f1c3  No.5981

>>5976

You are making the error of presuming that a higher identity as a child of God cancels out the biological identity as a member of your ancestors' race. This is an egalitarian lie.


30ab59  No.5985

>>5976

If God didnt intend for separate races to exist he wouldn't have created them.

He makes no mistakes you know.


d3aef2  No.5986

>>5976

yeah, no, racemixing causes nothing but problems and everyone knows it, which is why interracial marriage came at the same time as contraceptives and divorce and before gay marriage


4cadcb  No.5993

>>5945

Children from interracial marriages are more prone to mental health problems. Racemixing is nation-wrecking, it's practically unwise, and it wouldn't exist if not for stupid and greedy politicians.


1f4b26  No.6023

>>5986

>>5993

I donno if you can make general rules about this stuff. If a man and a woman of two different races happen to both be good Christians, were raised in similar circumstances and happen to fall in love, I don't see why that marriage wouldn't work

Yes race mixing generally is bad, but there are times when it does work and produces happy offspring. One example of this is Moses and his black wife

Another is Ruth and Boaz whose happy, well adjusted descendants included the saviour of mankind


f47e0a  No.6024

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.


a129c8  No.6039

>>6023

Sometimes jumping a dirt bike over fifteen busses works out fine.

Sometimes the snake and mouse become best friends and get a special interest story on the local news. Other times… well, you know.

>>5945

I remember a study saying that a brain scan of students at a university (aka poz factory) showed signs of an instinctive "disgust" response when shown pictures of interracial couples. Gotta say I'm getting a similar feeling from that pic.


1bbf74  No.6040

>>6039

>students at a university (aka poz factory) showed signs of an instinctive "disgust" response when shown pictures of interracial couples.

Is there a natural theology argument against miscegenation based on this observation?


1f4b26  No.6052

>>6039

>>6040

Alright, let's put an end to this crap

I'm Asian, whites have lower IQ than we do, higher crime rates than we do, get divorced at substantially higher rates than we do, have substantially lower academic achievement than we do

So do I look at white as inferior or myself as superior, or discourage girls in my family from dating white guys

No I don't care, because I realize that there is substantial overlap between races and I give everyone the benefit of the doubt judging them on their individual merits and not as a statistic or as a group. I think looking at individuals as individuals is an important component of loving your neighbor that some of you need to look into

You can make generalized findings about race, ie. blacks have higher divorce rates, crime rates, coal toll etc.

but the moment you look at the black guy in your church as a statistic rather than judging him on his individual merits you run into problems

does


a33c22  No.6054

File: 1f851f1e040fe31⋯.jpg (680.6 KB, 1479x2060, 1479:2060, mfw.jpg)

>>6052

Wow thanks mlk, who knew individuals are individuals


2f1d0b  No.6055

>>6052

>whites have lower IQ than we do

No, whites have lower IQs than the subset of chinks who invade western countries. We have the same IQ as chinks/nips/mongs, and higher IQ than the south asian monkey creatures.

>higher crime rates than we do

Again you are comparing asian immigrants in western nations to the rest of that western nation.

>have substantially lower academic achievement than we do

And again.

>or discourage girls in my family from dating white guys

Why do you hate God and your family?

>No I don't care, because I realize that there is substantial overlap between races

So?

>I think looking at individuals as individuals is an important component of loving your neighbor that some of you need to look into

I think "mongrels will not go to heaven" is an important component of the bible that you need to look into.


1f4b26  No.6057

>>6055

>I think "mongrels will not go to heaven" is an important component of the bible that you need to look into.

there's no such component


a33c22  No.6059

>>6055

>mongrels will not go to heaven

Ok you're just being edgy


2f1d0b  No.6068

>>6057

>>6059

You heathens seriously never read the bible? Deuteronomy 23:2


73274a  No.6070

>>6068

The assembly of the Lord in Deuteronomy is not heaven


1f4b26  No.6074

>>6068

some of you faggots are as bad as the SJWs who try and read the bible as accepting homosexuality

assembly of the lord refers to an earthly assembly and foreigners and mixed race kids were allowed into the assembly - eg. King David who was 1/4 Moabite due to his ancestor Ruth

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/503/what-does-the-assembly-of-the-lord-refer-to


1f4b26  No.6076

>>6074

To elaborate - Jew was never a racial category, not to the Jews back then and not to the Jews today. All you had to do to be a Jew was to convert to judaism


1f4b26  No.6077

>>6076

I'm going to keep going with this because it gets even better

“One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 3 “An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever,

so 23:2 doesn't even refer to foreigners or mixed marriages, it refers to bastard children - 23:3 refers to Moabites but obviously excludes Moabites who converted to judaism considering King David's Moabite great grandmother Ruth)


2f1d0b  No.6096

>>6070

>>6074

>quoting jews

Seriously? Yes, it is absolutely heaven.

>King David who was 1/4 Moabite due to his ancestor Ruth

That isn't mixed race, they are the same race.

>>6076

Jew didn't exist, it is a modern creation. Judeans absolutely were an ethnic group. They have nothing to do with kikes, who are converts to pharisaism/talmudism.

>>6077

>so 23:2 doesn't even refer to foreigners or mixed marriages, it refers to bastard children

Quoting a kike translation is putting lies into the mouth of God. There's a commandment against doing that remember? The hebrew word used is "mamzer". It literally means mongrel. You can tell not only from all the other ancient hebrew texts using it as mongrel, including in the context of livestock which do not get married and so can not be bastards, but because it is used in another place in the bible: Zechariah 9:6. "And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod". This is why it is for 10 generations, that's how long it takes to breed out enough of the race mixing to be normal again. The KJV is 100% kikery, read the actual bible. There's lots of hebrew and greek study guides to help you.


8de9c6  No.6099

>>6096

> Yes, it is absolutely heaven.

No it isn't, it was a physical assembly for worshipping God before death.

Even if it did mean heaven, you would have to think that the rule has now been reversed. Deuteronomy 23 also forbids entry of certain nations into the assembly, but the great commission and the revelation to John instruct and prophesy that the gospel goes to every nation.

The Samaritan woman at the well directly disproves your conclusion. She was mixed race as a Samaritan, but she was saved by faith in Jesus.

What about the Ethiopian eunuch? Deuteronomy 23:1 would forbid him from the assembly, but in the NT we see that he was saved and is therefore in heaven.

Conclusion: the assembly of deut 23 is not heaven


2f1d0b  No.6105

>>6099

>you would have to think that the rule has now been reversed.

No I wouldn't.

>Deuteronomy 23 also forbids entry of certain nations into the assembly, but the great commission and the revelation to John instruct and prophesy that the gospel goes to every nation.

Those nations don't exist any more.

>She was mixed race as a Samaritan, but she was saved by faith in Jesus.

Samaritans were not mixed race, they were an ethnic group.

>but in the NT we see that he was saved and is therefore in heaven.

No we don't. We see that he converts.


09f4de  No.6106

>>6105

Address the eunuch issue. Deut 23:1 forbids eunuchs from entering the assembly, but the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is saved.

How do you reconcile the two?


09f4de  No.6107

>>6105

Also, samaritans were absolutely mixed race. They were a mix between Israelites and outside pagan nations, and they were recognizable by sight.


2f1d0b  No.6116

>>6106

There is nothing to reconcile. He is not saved. He is taught because being a nigger he can't understand what he reads. He then converts. Nothing indicates he is saved or goes to heaven.

>>6107

And your basis for this claim is what? Your feelings again?


09f4de  No.6123

File: d2bb3be96cff00a⋯.jpg (71.7 KB, 1382x1037, 1382:1037, d2bb3be96cff00a63f563b715b….jpg)

>>6116

Philip preached Jesus to him, he believed, and was baptized. Did Philip not know how salvation worked either? Why did the spirit put him there if that's the case?

Your entire case is very inconsistent and I suspect you're just being edgy. What theological camp are you in? What kind of church do you go to?

My basis for the claim is every biblical historical source I've ever consulted. Even in the testimony of the woman at the well we see that they have a common ancestral faith, but disagree on particulars (example: which mountain to worship upon). The Samaritans were visibly not Israelites, so they were either mixed or an entire separate race from Israel, neither of which is compatible with your position since the Samaritan woman is saved.

I'd like to see any serious case otherwise from your side.


2f1d0b  No.6131

>>6123

>Did Philip not know how salvation worked either?

He did as he was told. It says nothing about him expecting noballs to be saved.

>Why did the spirit put him there if that's the case?

I am not God, I can not tell you why he did anything unless he stated his reason.

>Your entire case is very inconsistent

"The bible is inconsistent if I don't like what it says". Nice argument Shlomo.

>he Samaritans were visibly not Israelites, so they were either mixed or an entire separate race from Israel, neither of which is compatible with your position since the Samaritan woman is saved.

What are you talking about? Being another race is perfectly compatible. Being a mongrel is not.

>I'd like to see any serious case otherwise from your side.

What is not serious about the bible directly stating "NO MONGRELS FOR 10 GENERATIONS"?


e934e7  No.6134

>>6131

You're making God inconsistent by concluding that the spirit behaves nonsensically.

Answer, what kind of church do you go to?

I'm in agreement that mongrels were forbidden from the assembly, and that we can conclude from this that it is negative to be (and thereby produce) mongrels, but the assembly here simply isn't heaven.

Let's remember what the role of Deuteronomy is, it's a second statement of the law. These are the things that Israel needed to obey God on. Does that even make sense if this meant heaven? What could a man do to keep someone from heaven? It was obviously referring to the physical assembly of worshipping the Lord there.

I'm really only bothering to respond to you for the sake of other readers who might not know why you're full of shit.


1f4b26  No.6135

>>6096

Mamzer doesn't mean mongrel

it means someone born of illegitmate union, including incetious marraiges, born out of adultery or born to a Jewish father and heathen mother (ie that specifically not the other way around - as in born to a Jewish mother and heathen father or born of the mixing of two seperate races

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

Your definitions and interpretations are too self serving to be the product of legitimate Christian though


2f1d0b  No.6139

>>6134

>You're making God inconsistent by concluding that the spirit behaves nonsensically.

I am doing nothing of the sort.

>Answer, what kind of church do you go to?

You can't go to a church, we are the church.

>What could a man do to keep someone from heaven?

It doesn't say "you need to keep mongrels out of heaven", it says "mongrels will not go to heaven".

>>6135

>oy vey! the goyim are knowing! listen to (((wikipedia))) not a dictionary!


e934e7  No.6142

>>6139

>You can't go to a church, we are the church.

Equivocation. The local church exists in addition to the catholic church, and you're sinning by forsaking your assembling with fellow believers. It shows in your theology by your novel conclusions that you didn't receive it from a careful teacher and you haven't worked it out (iron sharpening iron) with brothers.


2f1d0b  No.6149

>>6142

>Equivocation

No.

>The local church exists in addition to the catholic church

The catholic church is a satanic corporation, it has nothing to do with the the church, as laid out in scripture.

>and you're sinning by forsaking your assembling with fellow believers

I am doing nothing of the sort. We assemble exactly as the bible says to. You are the one forsaking assembly. Sitting in a corporate office listening to one of satan's minions spout lies at you while you do nothing is not how Christian assembly is described in the bible.

>It shows in your theology by your novel conclusions

They are not novel, they have been the standard understanding for centuries. Only in the last century has the kike rule over "churches" made idiots like you believe "faggots are fine" and "abortion is ok" and "race mixing is good" are biblical.


1f4b26  No.6153

>>6139

>All the sources that interpret Hebrew words don't count cuz dey were written by Joos

>only I a non jewish non Hebrew speaker can properly interpret Hebrew words

nigga wut?

I call shenanigans, name your denomination or the hierarchical body which your church belongs to so we can look up whether there is actually a denomination or church that shares your views - because right now I'm not buying your story


9144d1  No.6155

>>5945

God never intended to create races.

Race is a human invention.

Human's lustful attachment to it's own race is of his flesh.

God is spirit and not flesh and the way you look infront of God He cares not about what's only out side.

Remember the story where God cursed Moses's sister with leprosy for hating on his ethiopian wife.


e934e7  No.6156

>>6149

>1

No what? That's equivocation, you're using a different meaning of a word to pivot the argument.

>2

So you are going to an assembly? I guess you're the one saying the assembly should be your family, right?

The word ekklesia is translated church, but is literally assembly remember.

>3

I'm not at all arguing that faggotry, abortion, or miscegenation are anything other than sin. Stay on topic, that's a strawman.


2f1d0b  No.6184

>>6153

Jews are not Hebrews dumbass. They are converts to talmudism, and until 100 years ago spoke Yiddish. They co-opted the language and identity of the (extinct) Hebrews in order to demand Palestine.

>>6156

>That's equivocation, you're using a different meaning of a word to pivot the argument.

No I am not. Repeating lies does not make an argument.

>I guess you're the one saying the assembly should be your family, right?

Of course you should assemble with your family. But that is not enough.

>Stay on topic, that's a strawman.

No it is not, captain fedora. It is a statement of support for what I told you. I am using the same understanding every christian has had for centuries. Just as we always understood that faggotry was a sin, we always understood race mixing was a sin. You are the one who has latched on to a very new understanding, offered by blasphemers to con Christians into accepting and promoting sin.


efec01  No.6188

>>6184

You are so frustrating and we're so off track

WHY does what you're doing not constitute equivocation? You're the one not providing an argument

There's someone else around here with the idea that your local church should be your family and I thought you may be him since you're apparently rejecting church attendance. Was that not what you're doing? I'm having to play the guessing game because all you're doing is calling everyone else wrong without giving the alternative.

I am NOT supporting miscegenation. Is that a new vocabulary word for you or something? You're accusing me of a position that I DONT HOLD so you can avoid what we're talking about, that makes this a strawman. I'm in an argument about your application of Deuteronomy 23, which you are simply pivoting away from without addressing at all. Is this because you can't? That's what has to be assumed if you can't provide answers.

Just take a few more seconds and read what I say before you reply you smoothbrain. I'm really starting do doubt that you have median white IQ.


2f1d0b  No.6195

>>6188

>WHY does what you're doing not constitute equivocation?

I just told you. I am not using a different meaning.

>since you're apparently rejecting church attendance.

No, I am rejecting your blasphemous re-definition of "church" to mean "a corporation that promotes satanic values" rather than the biblical definition "a group of Christians".

>I'm in an argument about your application of Deuteronomy 23

You have not made an argument.

>which you are simply pivoting away from without addressing at all

Just because you pitch a fit and innocuous statements I make does not mean I am pivoting. You are the one getting distracted by the fact that I am a Christian.

>That's what has to be assumed if you can't provide answers.

To what? I answered you already.


76a351  No.7911


3b7794  No.7914

>>5970

>>5969

Lord.

Never realized how cucked /Christianity/ is.


a5bd8e  No.7916

>>7911

We have an embed function for a reason.


a5bd8e  No.7918

>>5969

But it's up to the person and their personal standards regarding race mixing. The bible never discourages this.


efec01  No.7921

>>7914

Composition fallacy


3b582a  No.7927

File: f6afc43f28cf979⋯.jpg (159.28 KB, 646x788, 323:394, catholic_racemixing.jpg)

>>5945

What I don't understand is, why do people even insist on racemixing? Are you too proud/lustful to find a woman/man of your own race? Every nation and every race has at least millions of people, and every true and diligent Christian will find a partner of their nation/race with God's help.

The only reason why racemixing is even considered is because of Jewish/Papist propaganda, which aims to create a global faceless blob of people without roots that can be ruled easily.


42bd10  No.7931

>>7914

It's a sickness of the soul of many modern Christians. The likely cause is the perversion of the faith due to leftism and the increased sway of women. It's all been feminized.


686545  No.7940

File: 83ca2048be9dd05⋯.jpg (25.78 KB, 624x294, 104:49, jews and papists.jpg)


f587b2  No.8019

>>7927

Because I'm black and don't find black women attractive


e934e7  No.8020

>>8019

Interesting case

Are you sure you aren't propagandized that way? Why don't you find your people's features attractive?


f50558  No.8024

>>8019

Our prophetess Ellen G. White was against race mixing so your stance is anything but Christian


e934e7  No.8029

>>8024

>STILL being this salty about a 20x16 flag on an imageboard


f587b2  No.8030

>>8020

Possibly, I grew up in a white neighborhood and only saw whites or Latinos for the majority of my school years

I admit it's vain, but I don't like our short nappy hair and large noses


2f1d0b  No.8034

>>8019

Just because you also find niggers disgusting doesn't mean you can live among God's people, much less defile them.


cb109d  No.8038

>>8034

God's people? That's idolatry. God's people are Christians. Still doesn't give rando negro the right to force himself onto the White community any more than randos have a right to abuse him for no reason. Also there's no reason churches need to be integrated, though it must be strictly allowed for any Christian in good standing to visit any church.


2f1d0b  No.8061

>>8038

>That's idolatry

What?

>God's people are Christians

God's people are the Israelites. White people. Everyone can be saved through Christ. That doesn't erase the Old Testament.

>though it must be strictly allowed for any Christian in good standing to visit any church.

What is your scriptural basis for such a bizarre notion?


2cb8ef  No.8062

>>8061

>God's people are the Israelites. White people.

Whichever contemporary racial group is descended from ancient Israel, one becomes a member of "God's people" by faith.

>He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

>But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, (Jn. 1:11-12 NAS)

See also Romans 3.

Black people, just like Greek gentiles, can be children of God by belief.


2cb8ef  No.8063

>>8061

>>8062

I notice that you don't object to the conclusion that blacks can be saved. I'm only arguing that the term "God's people" should also be extended to them as with all Christians, since we're the children of Abraham through that faith.


2f1d0b  No.8072

>>8063

>I'm only arguing that the term "God's people" should also be extended to them

Why? The bible is 100% clear, the Israelites are God's people.

>since we're the children of Abraham through that faith

No. You don't magically become a child of Abraham by faith. And it is debatable whether or not niggers are even humans, or if they fall under the general terms usually translated as "beasts".


2cb8ef  No.8077

>>8072

>You don't magically become a child of Abraham by faith.

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. (Gal. 3:7 NAS)

>And it is debatable whether or not niggers are even humans

Let's debate it then. Here's an argument that they are human: white men who we agree are human can procreate with them. What say you?


a5bd8e  No.8081

File: f6f65685d74448b⋯.webm (11.19 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Jews are not the chose on….webm)


2f1d0b  No.8118

>>8077

>(Gal. 3:7 NAS)

What do you think that means? Try reading the original greek and see if it actually says what you think it is supposed to mean.

http://www.christianisrael.org/seed.php

>Here's an argument that they are human: white men who we agree are human can procreate with them. What say you?

That's not an argument, it is just a random statement. Lots of different species can interbreed. The argument is that there were 8 souls saved on the ark. Negros still exist. Negros must have been on the ark. Yet only Noah's family had souls. Obviously negros were among the beasts.

>>8081

Jews are not God's people, whites are. There is absolutely no relation between ancient Israel and jews. All yids are descendants of people who converted to talmudism. Ashkenazi are Khazars, so named because the king of Khazaria said his people trace their lineage to Ashkenaz. White people are God's people, that is why we are Christian.

http://www.christianisrael.org/


6eb505  No.8121

>>8118

You didn't link to an exposition of Galatians 3:7.

It means what it reads, those who are of the faith are sons of Abraham.

>That's not an argument, it is just a random statement. Lots of different species can interbreed.

The argument I'm putting forward is that ability to interbreed is a marker of common humanity.


526797  No.8124

>>8118

I almost completely agree with you, except that everyone is God's people. There is no exception for God's people.

>Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.


e02678  No.8125

>>8029

“[T]he confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.”

- Ellen G. White


aafdd6  No.8128

>>5945

your viewpoint is called racialism

people who don't believe in race mixing


aafdd6  No.8131

>>8125

the beast part is just selective breeding

the human part in her day would just have been sub-species mating as humans were not separated that long we can all mate and produce offspring

"before the flood" would be true "amalgamation" all sorts of repulsive creatures like centaurs etc

today and only today ellen white's amalgamation is truly possible with gene editing

people believe the earth was flooded to kill off what we are now again experimenting with


2f1d0b  No.8154

>>8121

>You didn't link to an exposition of Galatians 3:7.

Yes I did, it just explains more than just 7, ending up all the way at 29.

>The argument I'm putting forward is that ability to interbreed is a marker of common humanity.

That isn't an argument. Where does the bible say if you can breed with it then it is human? How do you explain the 8 souls if negroes are human?

>>8124

So, God is wrong because Paul said so? That's the argument? Wouldn't it be more likely that you are misunderstanding Paul? This seems particularly likely since Paul did not say anything about jews, he said Judean. And while we are at it, are negroes Judeans or Hellenic?


526797  No.8156

>>8154

God's word is right. Why are you against Paul? being against pieces of the bible is very Muslim. It is strange that the bible never talks about whites and their biological supremacy.


2f1d0b  No.8158

>>8156

>God's word is right

Exactly.

>Why are you against Paul?

Huh?

>It is strange that the bible never talks about whites and their biological supremacy.

Have you considered reading it?


09f4de  No.8159

>>8154

>Where does the bible say if you can breed with it then it is human?

It doesn't, that's a biological claim I'm making.

> How do you explain the 8 souls if negroes are human?

I'm not familiar with this argument. Do you mean the eight souls who were saved through water according to 1 Peter 3? Those eight were Noah and his family on the ark.

>>8156

you're begging the question


2f1d0b  No.8162

>>8159

>It doesn't, that's a biological claim I'm making.

Biology doesn't say that either. As I said, lots of different species can interbreed.

>Those eight were Noah and his family on the ark.

Right. So there were only 8 humans on the ark. The negroes were among the beasts on the ark, with the chimps and gorillas.


09f4de  No.8164

>>8162

The taxonomy of animal kinds is not divinely ordained.

Following your model, why can it not be true that the different races should be considered different species, but that all are still human?

>Right. So there were only 8 humans on the ark. The negroes were among the beasts on the ark, with the chimps and gorillas.

Conjecture. How do you account for the fact that the negro is obviously more closely related to the white man than to any type of chimp or gorilla?

Which species of chimp or gorilla are you claiming are the direct ancestors of the negro? You're not, because you're just blowing smoke.


2f1d0b  No.8165

>>8164

>Following your model, why can it not be true that the different races should be considered different species, but that all are still human?

You want to define human as "humans plus any apes that can talk"?

>Conjecture

No, scripture. Again, the bible is 100% clear. There were 8 souls on the ark. So only Noah's descendants have souls, so only Noah's descendants are human.

>Which species of chimp or gorilla are you claiming are the direct ancestors of the negro?

None. What is this evolutionist nonsense? The Lord created the negro and the chimpanzee and the orangutan exactly as he wanted them to be.


526797  No.8169

>>8158

>Huh?

>>So, God is wrong because Paul said so?

It sounded like you were against paul, guess i was wrong.

>Have you considered reading it?

I'm in the process of reading it, i study the stories in the bible and separate quotes.

>>8159

>you're begging the question

Isn't it true that whites are biologically superior though?


09f4de  No.8170

>>8165

>You want to define human as "humans plus any apes that can talk"?

I'm waiting for you to give an adequate definition that percludes negroes. I gave a basic definition: capable of procreation with assuredly human creatures (whites).

>No, scripture. Again, the bible is 100% clear. There were 8 souls on the ark. So only Noah's descendants have souls, so only Noah's descendants are human.

the conjecture is your conclusion that negroes are descended from animals.

>What is this evolutionist nonsense?

You're the one implying evolution by claiming that the negro evolved from animals on the ark. I was supposing your line of reasoning for the sake of argument.


2f1d0b  No.8176

>>8169

>It sounded like you were against paul

No, I presented the logical conclusion of your belief. If you think that Paul is saying humans and negroes are equal, then you think Paul is contradicting God, and God is wrong and Paul is right. Since God is not wrong, the obvious conclusion is that you misunderstand Paul.

>>8170

>I'm waiting for you to give an adequate definition that percludes negroes

Have souls.

>the conjecture is your conclusion that negroes are descended from animals.

They are not descended from them, they are them. What else could they be? They are not humans since they have no souls, but they exist so they had to be on the ark with all the other beasts.

>You're the one implying evolution by claiming that the negro evolved from animals on the ark

What are you babbling about? I said negroes were beasts on the ark.


09f4de  No.8177

>>8176

Prove that they do not have souls. That seems to be the crux of your argument.

>I said negroes were beasts on the ark.

nevermind then, I misunderstood


526797  No.8179

>>8176

Galatians 3:28 is often misinterpreted to people thinking it means we're all equal, but we're clearly not, it just means we're all united in God. Where does it say that blacks and whites aren't equal in the bible?


2f1d0b  No.8185

>>8177

>Prove that they do not have souls.

I already did. There were only 8 souls on the ark. So the negroes on the ark did not have souls, just as the chimps and gorillas did not. You think God just decided to give negroes souls thousands of years later without mentioning it?

>Where does it say that blacks and whites aren't equal in the bible?

Where it says whites are God's children, and blacks are only mentioned as beasts.


09f4de  No.8187

>>8185

Prove that they are not descended from Noah and his family


a0320a  No.8189

>>8019

>I don't find attractive

Like I said, pride/lust.


2f1d0b  No.8191

>>8187

People can't just magically turn black and have their brains shrink. Why would that even happen in your insane evolutionist fantasy land?


fde21d  No.8192

>>7914

>>5969

/pol/ and /b/ arent the only boards with anti-white shills


1bbf74  No.8197

>>8191

I am not defending macroevolution, but the differences between the current races are absolutely possible with standard system that migration of peoples caused different racial characteristics to manifest in the millenia between now and Noah. We see it in just a few generations, and even more dramatically with intentional breeding of animal species like breeds of dogs.

Like I say, you are engaging in conjecture. You are setting up a series of false assumptions that point to your speculative answer to seem the only rational choice, not being directed firstly by sound hermeneutics of the Bible and the scientific method.


686545  No.8201

>>8019

you have bad taste


f2cc8c  No.8202

>>8019

As a white man, I think black women are much more attractive than white women. I regularly masturbate to fantasies of being enslaved and humiliated by a black dominatrix. Black women are beautiful with their wonderful chocolate skin and beautiful faces. I hope to have a black woman myself one day.


2f1d0b  No.8203

>>8197

>but the differences between the current races are absolutely possible with standard system that migration of peoples caused different racial characteristics to manifest in the millenia between now and Noah.

Explain it then. What cause the massive genetic difference between humans and negroes? Why did negroes become so much stupider?

>We see it in just a few generations

No we don't. We've had more than a few generations of white people since photography, and nobody has turned black and retarded.

>Like I say, you are engaging in conjecture.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You are disregarding scripture. Either you believe in the bible or you do not. If you do not, then this conversation is pointless.


1bbf74  No.8205

>>8203

>What cause the massive genetic difference between humans and negroes? Why did negroes become so much stupider?

Different, dumber ancestors who didn't practice eugenics to produce steadily superior offspring like Europeans have.

>We've had more than a few generations of white people since photography, and nobody has turned black and retarded.

No you goof, I'm not saying one generation suddenly and anomalously becomes another race. I'm saying that genetics are hereditary and the population changes based on who reproduces with who. Why are Russians and Mediterraneans so dissimilar? Because they developed independently of one another from some point in the ancient past after the tower of Babel.

>You are disregarding scripture. Either you believe in the bible or you do not. If you do not, then this conversation is pointless.

Fallacious line of reasoning. I am not disregarding scripture. I affirm the inerrancy of scripture. Your role in our debate is to prove how your view is exclusively consistent with scripture, and I'm asking you very directly for your supporting evidence only to be met with conjecture.

Let me present my position very succinctly:

All humans have souls

Blacks are human

Therefore,

Blacks have souls.

We know that blacks are human because they satisfy every reasonable test of humanity. We are not arguing equality in any aspect.

They have every organ that you do. They are capable of speech. They sleep at night and eat in the morning. They are capable of moral action. They can hear the gospel and respond with a confession of believing on Jesus Christ as Lord.

This fits into the Biblical model of the origin of races just as with any other race of man, and we don't need to have an exhaustive answer on their lineage all the way to Adam to prove it. There are fine theories about which tribe went where, but that is beyond our discussion.

It is obvious to any neutral observer that you began with the premise that the negro is inhuman and worked backwards to fit your belief into the text. This is called eisegesis, and it demonstrates that you are the one holding scripture in a low view.


2f1d0b  No.8207

>>8205

>Different, dumber ancestors

But your argument is that we share the same ancestors.

>produce steadily superior offspring like Europeans have.

What makes you think we did that? How are we better than Noah?

>I'm saying that genetics are hereditary and the population changes based on who reproduces with who.

And yet there's no evidence of this at all.

>Why are Russians and Mediterraneans so dissimilar?

Because "Mediterraneans" ancestors sinned and fornicated with beasts of the field.

>I am not disregarding scripture

Yes you are. You continue to ignore scripture and say "well my feelings don't like that". You just declare "oh well negroes evolved from Noah because magic". You have no explanation for how or why that would occur, nor why such a profound change is not mentioned anywhere in the bible, or any other writing ever in all of history.

>We know that blacks are human because they satisfy every reasonable test of humanity

You are just making baseless assertions. In reality, we know negroes are not human as they do not behave like humans, they do not have the intellectual capacity of humans, they do not know God or have morals, they do not have souls. They are beasts, as the bible says.

>They have every organ that you do

So do most mammals.

>They can hear the gospel and respond with a confession of believing on Jesus Christ as Lord.

No they don't. A tiny number of them adopt pieces of dogma from various corporations.

>It is obvious to any neutral observer that you began with the premise that the negro is inhuman and worked backwards to fit your belief into the text.

Quite the contrary. I am going on what is 100% clear and indisputable from the bible. You are starting from the premise that negroes are human, and making all kinds of crazy assumptions about ridiculous devolution to try to dismiss scripture.


125554  No.8251

File: 135ea6432c4e31a⋯.jpg (394.42 KB, 1320x710, 132:71, 2019iq.jpg)

>>8205

Look at the chart and see the grim truth. It's the latest numbers from Flynn's 2019 book. Africa is extremely dumb, and it's due to biology. They have terrible genes. They're also predisposed towards violence, but that's another issue. There are Chimpanzees and Orangutangs with IQs in the high 70s, which enable them to learn thousands of words, language and be far more intelligent than a large proportion of blacks. We can mate with them, but we really shouldn't. Religious arguments notwithstanding, racemixing between high iq peoples and Africans and similar stock is a terrible thing. It's destroying genetic wealth. The people at the bottom of this chart are too dumb to care for abstractions, such as truth, fairness, honesty and morals. They don't have much of an inner life and can only really process what's infront of them. They struggle with simple planning and, if left alone as nations, to even feed themselves. It's not politcally correct and even lots of Christians here shy away from this truth, but it's really very important. Really, I think it's fair to say that the fate of the human race depends on our ability to preserve the genetic wealth of Asians and Whites. No exception to my waring about mixing: Even if you've found an unusually clever black person that you like, your offspring will likely suffer a low IQ due to how the regression towards the mean rule works. Unfortunately, Europe and the US have imported these people by the tens of millions, and they're actively promoting mixing. The Western world has gone mad, and I hate to say it, but us Christians share a lot of blame in this. We have promoted open borders, the "don't be mean PC culture" and "tolerance", and we may have ruined Europe.


09f4de  No.8252

>>8251

I'm not arguing any of this

>Reality of race

>Intellectual inferiority of negroes

>Miscegenation

>Integration of blacks into white nations

I agree with you.

I'm arguing that blacks are human.

Have you ever met a black Christian? I think it's clear you have not.

Let's take the edge cases of blacks who are more intelligent than you and me. What say you about them, are they still not human?


526797  No.8255

>>8185

>Where it says whites are God's children, and blacks are only mentioned as beasts.

where though, give a quote. Christians are God's children.


2f1d0b  No.8269

>>8252

>Have you ever met a black Christian?

Of course not, there is no such thing. I have met many negroes that call themselves Christian. None of them were. None of them even understood the concept of forgiveness, they just thought our Lord was an ATM, if they prayed for money they would get it.

>Let's take the edge cases of blacks who are more intelligent than you and me

There are none. There are literally zero negroes with 140+ IQs.

>>8255

Jeremiah 31:

"After those days, says Yahweh, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

2 Samuel 7:

"And I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them so that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more. Neither shall the sons of wickedness afflict them any more, as before."

1 Chronicles 17:

"And I will set a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall live in their place and shall be moved no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning"

The bible is very clear, over and over again. The people of Israel are God's people. You reject this fact because you have bought into the kike lie that yids are the people of Israel and you don't like that idea. But they are not. The people of Israel were described as having fair skin, ruddy complexions and blond hair. Pilate said Jesus had blond hair, darker than his mother's due to the sun. We are God's people, and we are being punished for rejecting him again. White people were the ones who accepted our Savior. White people are the ones who had 1500 years of glory under Christ. White people are the Israelites the Christ was sent to save. The creatures that call themselves jews are 3 different ethnic groups, all of which converted to the satanic religion of talmudism, and none of which are descended from Israel.


7fb935  No.8270

>>6074

>le David had a Moabite ancestor

So what? Moabites, Edomites, and even Egyptians were allowed to be married, because they were related. Moses married a Midianite. You papist heretics can never satisfy your own sins.

>>6153

Jews manufactured modern Hebrew in the 19th century. Look at an actual Hebrew-English lexicon by people who translated the Bible.


125554  No.8356

>>8252

I only glossed over your earlier post. I thought you were one of the guys that see nothing wrong with mixing black and white christians.


1b9eee  No.8375

>>8131

You forgot to flag yourself with your Seventh-Day Adventist cult icon, you faggot.


eb1fa5  No.8380

Niggers are fake Christian

They should all die


eb1fa5  No.8381

If you marry or date outside your race you are going to Hell


4d03d9  No.8393

>>8380

>>8381

Obvious troll


2f1d0b  No.8406

>>8393

You have to make your post first, then you can sign it.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 1776q / b2 / bb / dempart / general / hkpol / monarchy / vichan ]