Would that make your version of Christianity Noahide compliant?
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
19 comments:
8
21 days ago
8 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+8Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
Just convert to Islam then. It's literally arianism but with guns and blowing yourself up.
Arius didn't know what the fuck he was talking about and the goths did not stay arian for very long at all, considering the greater picture. Even though the goths held enormous power over rome and could have destroyed the Vatican if they wished, they still ended up converting themselves under no pressure (there wasn't anyone to pressure them into doing this as they were the dominant people of western Europe)
The Vatican didn't force convert the goths because rome was subservient to them in every way imaginable. The goths vanquished rome and filled its power vacuum in totality. Why else would they become trinitarian other than they themselves believing it to be true?
Arius didn't know what the fuck he was talking about and the goths did not stay arian for very long at all, considering the greater picture. Even though the goths held enormous power over rome and could have destroyed the Vatican if they wished, they still ended up converting themselves under no pressure (there wasn't anyone to pressure them into doing this as they were the dominant people of western Europe)
The Vatican didn't force convert the goths because rome was subservient to them in every way imaginable. The goths vanquished rome and filled its power vacuum in totality. Why else would they become trinitarian other than they themselves believing it to be true?
I mean Islam was created by White people so it's not all that bad of a religion. The problem with Islam today is that non-Whites follow it not that it's Islam.
Whatever White people follow is best because at the end of the day, it's the race that creates the religion and shapes it not the other way around.
The problem with Christianity today is that jews run it, like they run most of Western society. If we got rid of jews, we'd be able to turn Christianity into something more akin to the Knights Templar and not this slavish joke of a religion that it is today.
Whatever White people follow is best because at the end of the day, it's the race that creates the religion and shapes it not the other way around.
The problem with Christianity today is that jews run it, like they run most of Western society. If we got rid of jews, we'd be able to turn Christianity into something more akin to the Knights Templar and not this slavish joke of a religion that it is today.
Islam was created by Quraysh Arabs. If you think Arabs are White, there's no hope for you.
You should avoid both Islam and Arianism.
You should avoid both Islam and Arianism.
Gulf Arabs used to be white before the mass expansion of the Arab slave trade into Southeastern Africa and the breakdown of racial consciousness led them to mix with female slaves.
Every depiction of Muhammad describes him as white. Whiter, even, than what would have been normal for the area at the time (mediterannean pretty much) but rather being extremely pale with dark (and in some depictions, but less reliable, red) hair. His living verified descendant, a scholar from syria, looks like Connor McGregor.
Every depiction of Muhammad describes him as white. Whiter, even, than what would have been normal for the area at the time (mediterannean pretty much) but rather being extremely pale with dark (and in some depictions, but less reliable, red) hair. His living verified descendant, a scholar from syria, looks like Connor McGregor.
The word arab itself means mixed
I'm aware. The ishmaelites, if you will, the "arabs" before they started mixing with other races, are the native inhabitants of the gulf and they were white. Muhammad was an ishmaelite more than an "arab"
Everyone now also just gets lumped under the term arab if they speak Arabic, regardless of if they're the children of Ishmael at all whatever. A Lebanese person is 90% canaanite and in many cases can claim no descent from the patriarch Ishmael at all, nor any gulf tribes or bedouins, but they're still called Arabs
Everyone now also just gets lumped under the term arab if they speak Arabic, regardless of if they're the children of Ishmael at all whatever. A Lebanese person is 90% canaanite and in many cases can claim no descent from the patriarch Ishmael at all, nor any gulf tribes or bedouins, but they're still called Arabs
No Arabs were never White. Stop trying to shoehorn them into our family. There is no genetic information supporting this. They're brown because they live in hot countries. There's no reason they would look like Nords. Europeans cluster with each other, Arabs cluster with each other. There is no overlap between them.
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2023/07/25/brown-greeks-and-white-middle-easterners-clearly-race-isnt-real/
I don't take the Islamic accounts as entirely honest. What was the Koran/Hadith going to do? Say he was swarthy? The Bible describes David as "ruddy". Maybe he was, compared to other Arabs. He didn't look like he came from Sweden, and neither did Mohammed.
Someone claiming to be Mohammed's descendant doesn't mean anything, either. You could have a Europeans who have Genghis Khan as a descendant. Does that mean Mongols are White?
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2023/07/25/brown-greeks-and-white-middle-easterners-clearly-race-isnt-real/
I don't take the Islamic accounts as entirely honest. What was the Koran/Hadith going to do? Say he was swarthy? The Bible describes David as "ruddy". Maybe he was, compared to other Arabs. He didn't look like he came from Sweden, and neither did Mohammed.
Someone claiming to be Mohammed's descendant doesn't mean anything, either. You could have a Europeans who have Genghis Khan as a descendant. Does that mean Mongols are White?
This article brings up a lot of archaeogenetics and genetic clustering. However, it does not mention one thing: that every individual peopling that made up the ancestry of both Europe and the levant was closely related to each other.
And if you see a map of genetic clustering across world populations, you see that the middle east and europe are closer to each other than any other 2 populations. Closer even than mongoloid populations:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Whole-genome_based_PCA_and_clustering_of_worlds_ethnic_groups.png/500px-Whole-genome_based_PCA_and_clustering_of_worlds_ethnic_groups.png
Particularly, all of these groups descend from somewhere in the Caucasus. Whether it's Anatolian farmers, natufians, Iranian hunter gatherers, western hunter gatherers, caucasian hunter gatherers (obviously), or even ancient north eurasians, which were a splinter from the same ancestry as WHG that mixed with a tianyuan element not related to west eurasians in Siberia.
In a nutshell all of these groups started leaving the area of the Caucasus (and also around Iran and Asia minor) at around the end of the ice age.
But there are 2 groups of people that throw a wrench into this and have stopped us from being, well, completely the same groups of people. Even though Europeans and middle easterners have both to some extent, it's in wildly different amounts:
The Arabs have basal eurasian dna thats much less present in Europeans that was brought by the natufians (the other half of natufian dna is from a population descended from WHG)
Europeans have basal east Asian dna that is effectively nonexistent in Arabs that was brought by the yamnaya which has its roots in the eastern hunter gatherers and therefore from ancient north eurasians, they mixed with tianyuan as I said earlier (indeed haplogroup R is an east Asian haplogroup in origin)
And of course, there was some mixing with unrelated local hunter gatherers of people who were in those areas that are not named.
A small amount of completely unrelated genetics throws off the genetic clustering. But only slightly. Indeed on a chart of world population genetic clustering, one would be forgiven for thinking that the middle east is in Europe. And these are modern populations. Imagine the iron age, which is when Islam spread. Let's go back a bit further and imagine the bronze age while we're at it.
And if you see a map of genetic clustering across world populations, you see that the middle east and europe are closer to each other than any other 2 populations. Closer even than mongoloid populations:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Whole-genome_based_PCA_and_clustering_of_worlds_ethnic_groups.png/500px-Whole-genome_based_PCA_and_clustering_of_worlds_ethnic_groups.png
Particularly, all of these groups descend from somewhere in the Caucasus. Whether it's Anatolian farmers, natufians, Iranian hunter gatherers, western hunter gatherers, caucasian hunter gatherers (obviously), or even ancient north eurasians, which were a splinter from the same ancestry as WHG that mixed with a tianyuan element not related to west eurasians in Siberia.
In a nutshell all of these groups started leaving the area of the Caucasus (and also around Iran and Asia minor) at around the end of the ice age.
But there are 2 groups of people that throw a wrench into this and have stopped us from being, well, completely the same groups of people. Even though Europeans and middle easterners have both to some extent, it's in wildly different amounts:
The Arabs have basal eurasian dna thats much less present in Europeans that was brought by the natufians (the other half of natufian dna is from a population descended from WHG)
Europeans have basal east Asian dna that is effectively nonexistent in Arabs that was brought by the yamnaya which has its roots in the eastern hunter gatherers and therefore from ancient north eurasians, they mixed with tianyuan as I said earlier (indeed haplogroup R is an east Asian haplogroup in origin)
And of course, there was some mixing with unrelated local hunter gatherers of people who were in those areas that are not named.
A small amount of completely unrelated genetics throws off the genetic clustering. But only slightly. Indeed on a chart of world population genetic clustering, one would be forgiven for thinking that the middle east is in Europe. And these are modern populations. Imagine the iron age, which is when Islam spread. Let's go back a bit further and imagine the bronze age while we're at it.
Yes, you're correct. There is very little meaningful genetic difference between Europeans and middle easterners up to the Arab slave trade into Southeastern Africa becoming widespread which niggified the gulf states and parts of North Africa (though the levant is almost entirely canaanite still). The main difference is the yamnaya and western hunter gatherers, but these too are just different branches of the exact same stock that gave rise to the Arabs, the assyrians, the chaldeans, the canaanites, etc. And they didn't diverge that long ago at all.
There are whites that follow Islam though. Just not typically Europeans (only european states that do are Bosnia and Albania, but albania is mostly atheist and bosnians can't follow the Quran worth a fuck). The chechens are probably the best example of whites following Islam. If you want to get technical, levantines following Islam are white, mostly
There are whites that follow Islam though. Just not typically Europeans (only european states that do are Bosnia and Albania, but albania is mostly atheist and bosnians can't follow the Quran worth a fuck). The chechens are probably the best example of whites following Islam. If you want to get technical, levantines following Islam are white, mostly
Christ was not created. He always existed from the beginning. Arianism fails for this reason.
The first century Christians believed that Christ and the Father were distinct beings and that they were both eternal.
The first century Christians believed that Christ and the Father were distinct beings and that they were both eternal.
If you don't recognize Jesus as the incarnation of God then you are disregarding large swaths of scripture.
Before the coming of God in Flesh, God seemed to have taken on two distinctions. One being the figurehead, the Creator, and the other being akin to his avatar which dictates the laws regarding Heaven and Earth. This is the "Spirit" of God, as is referenced in Genesis and is the Christ. The Spirit of God was always with God and is God.. I suppose in the same way the body is with the soul and mind, hence man's likeness of Him.
Before the coming of God in Flesh, God seemed to have taken on two distinctions. One being the figurehead, the Creator, and the other being akin to his avatar which dictates the laws regarding Heaven and Earth. This is the "Spirit" of God, as is referenced in Genesis and is the Christ. The Spirit of God was always with God and is God.. I suppose in the same way the body is with the soul and mind, hence man's likeness of Him.
Toast message