rr
Discord ID: 313472492918538243
379 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/4
| Next
I can't speak to what God's purpose was for the other races. But there are theories on it.
Messiah died for *all the world*
and I haven't made up my mind. I believe that's a mistranslation, but I'd have to research it.
As I said, there are people I trust to know better than me right now, and they will have an opinion on that. I can only answer to what I know. It takes months to analyse every translation claim
When you say "mistranslation", what do you mean?
Because I can read the Greek manuscripts
Again, semi-competently
In this case, I am assuming mate. I don't believe that can be true. If it is, I'll eat my hat
There would have to be some major cover-up in the Ancient Greek language itself, involving the changing of all Ancient Greek works pre-and post NT
This is a good one on the topic of Adam and the other races, who were here before Adam, that much is clear.
let me see if I can find it
I guess if I quote Messiah saying that "in the beginning he made them male and female" is not a reference to the Most High making Adam and Eve "male and female"?
I'm literally listening to a podcast on that atm dude.
but I don't wanna throw too much at you at once
grammar isn't my strong point especially when I don't speak or read Greek.
so it takes me a while to understand these ones
Yes, I geuss that makes it a little uneven ground
Although I was hoping for some background info into this theory (its completely new to me, and I fancy myself an amateur bible scholar) because I find it fascinating
but I will look into those resources
๐๐ป
-re- nevermind
Absolutely Perfection
Lets say that the theory about Jesus being black is true, would you follow him knowing that he is a subhuman?
Nein
Even if he really is the son of God?
I'll still follow Luther.
I will convert him to Godhood
I have faith in Jesus now, but I would be disgusted if he turned out to be black
isn't that antithetical to jesus' teachings?
Yeah, but I'll never listen to a nigger rofl
@Pretorius Can I talk to you in PM for a sec?
Oh surprise... We were right... <:whatdidtheymeanbythis:319245722039877633> <:whatdidtheymeanbythis:319245722039877633> <:whatdidtheymeanbythis:319245722039877633> <:whatdidtheymeanbythis:319245722039877633>
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,โas in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,2 the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.3 But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans,4 who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.
"Social science traits are complex. There is no single gene causation like you see in something like Huntington's disease," he says. "So there are probably multiple or even hundreds of genes at play. We need to increase our sample sizes by a large degree of magnitude, 100,000 subjects or even more, so we can find the genes that only have these small effects. Once we nail those down, then we can look at what I think is the coolest question, which is how can we further understand how the brain works by looking at these genes at the molecular level."
Thereโs been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization weโve built with the same body and brain -gould (my favorite)
What was the last biological change in humans?
Do you guys know of any good studies done on blacks and whites (or any race for that matter) that can show inherrent social differences? For example, offer children a nickel today or a dime tomorrow if they wait.
@vaultright Is the goy you need to ask ๐
He knows all that shit
Right on, I'll see if I can reach him on Twitter.
Just wait, He'll be here later tonight
I mean unless its really important
Trying to put together a video focused more on inherrent differences that are almost 100% genetic rather than environmental.
Nah not a rush.
I usually take several days to complete a video.
๐๐ป
Indeed, white power.
Well I think I jus tliked my own message like a narcissistic asshole.
@TNB the marshmallow study is good but I don't know if they break it down by race
The best studies are IQ and brain structure stuff
@vaultright Thanks I will check it out.
Summary of Human Differences
We are often told that all men are created equal, but this is the biggest lie in world history. Not one person was ever born equal to another; some people have worse hearing and some people have better, some people are blind and some people have better than perfect vision. It is obvious when this is examined that this notion is simply lunacy. The crux of inequality applies not only in regards to the differences in the sexes (as centrists like Sargon of Akkad like to point out), but to even beyond that in the human races. These racial differences can even be broken down further into ethnic group differences, but the broadest category that covers the most differences is race. โWhat actually is race?โ you may ask. Well race is simply put, the taxonomically defined different genetic ancestral groups. Races can be identified by genetic testing, bone structure, skull shape, skull size, and a variety of different biological aspects. Races score differently on intelligence tests, and these intelligence tests are 50-80% genetically determined. (As evidenced by twins reared apart studies, transracial adoption studies, and genes being identified in association with intelligence) This is due to the evolutionary differences in how groups evolved. Some groups (Europeans and East Asians) evolved in the far north where cold winters and agriculture accelerated the development of civilization. It put a higher bar for traits like intelligence and deferral of gratification. This is evidenced by the work of Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Steven Pinker, and the many other accredited social scientists who have studied this topic. This is a large part of the explanation for why there is such large socioeconomic inequality in the world.
This is so true
this is on the sexes rather than race
how long is this?
In fact, a case
where a person of one nationality is closer genetically to someone
of a distant nationality than to his or her own compatriots
never happens. If youโre Swedish, every Swede (not counting
recent immigrants) is genetically closer to you than any person
in Japan.
For whatever reason, a lot of people think that regression to the mean will keep happening to someoneโs descendants until they research original populationโs mean. This is not true. Once the next generation inherits an additive genetic advantage in some trait it keeps it. Their kids and their grand kids will continue to have it.
Can anyone here please link to evidence that hapas are more likely to have mental health problems?
Thanks
He's arguing "no it's actually different if they are specifically Japanese-German hapas"
What a retard
Because they'll be the master race or something
@asdf this applies universally
Objectives. This study compared the health and risk status of adolescents who identify with 1 race with those identifying with more than 1 race.
Conclusions. Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.
speaking of which
two idiots with no expertise are mad at Rage After the Storm
@vaultright apologize for the tag but misinfo annoys me
and I want people to know this will be happening
kraut and jeff are about to go full steven jay gould on us @The Goat
I'd like to see what the have to say lol
Probably radical centrist nonsense
if you want a taste of Holiday (it seems like his thing, just using Kraut's platform) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUs2ZdLksSc&t=52s
I think iowa is a good place to live
Not very scenic compared to other Midwest states, but probably the most conservative.
Dr. Sakaluk,
My roommate had some reading assigned to him in class and I decided to read the article as well. I felt like some of the claims that it made were wrong and I wanted your opinion. Below is a quote from the article.
โThere is no biological basis for classifying race according to skin color instead of body formโor according to any other variable, for that matter. All that exists is variability in what people look likeโand the arbitrary and culturally specific ways different societies classify that variability. There is nothing left over that can be called race. This is why race is a myth.โ
Itโs my understanding that we can almost exactly classify people, surely not based on some phenotype but based on things like haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA. Putting people into a "Race" is surely a shallow classification but it could be done. Is this incorrect? This article later goes on to talk about how Americans believe that an Avocado is a vegetable because they eat it in salad but a Brazilian will tell you itโs a fruit because they eat it with sugar; and that just like this example cultural differences change the perspectives of people. This still doesn't change the fact that an Avocado is a fruit. I feel like this article conflates a lot of scientific topics. Specifically saying that simply because there is no accurate way to classify people based on phenotype that there is no way to classify them at all. Am I wrong?
379 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 3/4
| Next