Which is right? Use all arguments that you know of!
(media.scored.co)
Comments (60)
sorted by:
Blacks are human. I'm going to get bashed for that, but I'll speak my mind openly.
That's not an argument, it's an appeal to emotion ("look how based I am for going against the narrative").
We should always feel free to speak the truth.
The "non-human humans" theory isn't true.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/e7/2b/f3e72b0ff37d62983a5bf838a281c1e3.jpg
Based. Genesis is correct. The Bible is correct. Do you believe that Jesus Christ did what He did?
He died for all mankind.
Who was Cain's wife? There is zero mention of Adam and Eve having daughters.
Cain also says to God: "You have made me a fugitive. All who see me will try to kill me" ~Genesis 4:14
Who was going to kill him? Adam or Eve, the only two other humans at that point, whom he was being banished from?
Then he fled to the land of Nod. Who named it thus?
Eve later gives birth to Seth, who had a son named Enosh. "It was during his lifetime that men first began to call themselves the Lord's people" ~Genesis 4:26. But aren't all humans the Lord's people, created by Him? Who else was there?
I'll also point out that God made "a man" on the sixth day of creation and "[gave him] all the plants and all the fruit trees for your food" ~Genesis 1:29. Then God formed "a man's body" from the dust of the ground and breathed life into it, set him in the garden as gardener and forbade him to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that Adam was the first man.
It is entirely consistent with Genesis for God to have created "men" who were basically human shaped animals with no concept of Good and evil, and then created Adam and Eve whose descendants (the Isrealites) carried the original sin and eventually produced Jesus Christ.
Guy got it, but it's instructive to compare the quote: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters".
What idiot told you that when the Bible names certain people it excludes there being any other people? That's Ketanji logic.
Tradition suggests (which may or may not be true) that Adam and Eve had a boy and a girl every year for hundreds of years and their children were similarly fruitful. However, in any situation where we date the first murder late, e.g. 130 AM, there are opportunities for plenty of people to be available for Cain to be fearful of.
Cain's wife was named "Mrs. Cain". She could have been his sister, or a daughter of other incest, or a product of human parthenogenesis, and there are more complicated solutions.
It's entirely possible that Cain himself named the land of Nod by virtue of laying claim on it.
Yes, all humans are the Lord's by creation. Gen. 4:26 KJV: "Then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." Your translation is one minority possibility, namely that people started giving themselves collective names e.g. Yahwists as if those names didn't apply to all people. Another possibility is simply that the eventual disappearance of the cherubim from the gate of Eden would have led to people calling on God rather than going specifically to a gate of God.
There's no "then" there, sorry. Perhaps you've never considered that ancient writers knew how to use the flashback device. It's well-known that Gen. 2 retraces particulars of the events of Gen. 1. This is indicated by the transition text that recapitulates in 2:4-5, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew." It's going back to Adam's point of view after having described God's point of view.
You did it again! And Guy didn't spot this one. "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). Also, Job 15:7 in Hebrew: "Art thou the first man [adam] that was born? or wast thou made before the hills?" He's named Adam because he was the first adam.
Not entirely consistent, just barely defensible with lots of special pleading, as many wackier theories are. We don't kick out Christians who come up with weird views via special pleading because these matters may be inessentials. But we do agree to go to the source and find things out by consulting the voice of truth.
Just jumping in to flesh it out, trying to be helpful. It's fun to be cryptic too, this seemed a better idea to me right now.
adam means man as a noun and Adam is the pronoun: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h120/kjv/wlc/0-1/
u/WeedleTLiar
Actually they did. Genesis 5:4
Nod, as in, a place of wandering. God could have named it.
People are prideful. They can call themselves anything. And they can also try to de humanize people to feed their own ego.
Nor does it explicitly say that God made blueberries. But we know He did.
God is not the Author of confusion. Why would He put non human humans there to confuse us and to get us to waste a bunch of things to help them?? That view of God makes God look more like loki the prankster, not God.
Then how are they accusing people of being bad and racist?
What is human?
Is it simply any species of bipedal ape? Then yes Blacks, alongside gorillas and chimpanzees, are human.
Is it bipedal apes who have the ability to distinguish Good and evil and choose to act accordingly? Do humans have the ability to understand how they would feel if they didn't eat breakfast? To engage internal dialog and picture the apple? Then 99.9% of Blacks are not human.
Anyone descended from Adam and Eve.
Ketanji, meet 1 USC 8(a):
Don't make me tap the Klee diagrams.
a) Human/hueman implies "colored man"...black aka "absence of visible light" contradicts that.
b) A singular rainbow shows the spectrum of each singular color within...plurality (blacks) contradicts singularity (color).
c) Right vs wrong + is vs isn't implies one side vs another side aka a plural (black) conflict among singular (color) beings. It's the conflict which clouds brightness with darkness.
And what's all that supposed to imply?
Nothing, it's a bot that occasionally spews out stormfaggotry when its master is in trouble.
White nationalists aren't human.
Would you say Charles Manson was human?
An evil one, yeah. If a spider eats its young then that must mean its DNA magically changed and now it's a shark, turtle, eagle, or python now.
Words matter. Language matters. Don't make up newspeak to fit your emotions.
But humanity implies a right to live that they don't deserve. Words do matter, and allowing them to hide behind "that's a bad person", still implying they possess humanity, doesn't work.
Is there any repeatable, observable, testable, strictly scientific proof for this?
Doublethink. That's like saying that shining a light on something is hiding it.
Yes. Killing people who wish to start a war that will kill millions is logical.
Pretending they are just "bad" and not a completely mentally unwell cult that needs significant intervention to prevent violent uprising against innocent people by them is hiding it. A thief is "bad", a white nationalist is far more.
So you actually believe these so called "White nationalist" want a war or a bunch of people to die.
But what if they don't have any position on that or they want no one dead?
Jewish philosophy, summed up.
Natalist philosophy.
"Natalists" are the only ones who pay taxes, anti-natalists live in their parent's basement until they're 50.
Aside from taxes, natalists produce the next generation of society. Taxes are completely irrelevant if this is the last generation of civilization, which is why anti-natalist opinions on anything don't matter; you're a dead end.
He isn't advocating to raise taxes at all. Nice strawman though.
Black nationalists?