News Reminder

baqqrih said:
Is this scriptural?
Click to expand...
Actually, All jokes aside; There is a Verse that was used to Justify slavery and to promote the idea of the white race being higher then the black race. Genesis 9:18-27

“18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
 
Anon_Humor said:
Actually, All jokes aside; There is a Verse that was used to Justify slavery and to promote the idea of the white race being higher then the black race. Genesis 9:18-27

“18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
Click to expand...
Do you believe that interpretation?
 
baqqrih said:
What scriptures say this?
Click to expand...
Already told you, Stop being clinically braindead
Anon_Humor said:
Actually, All jokes aside; There is a Verse that was used to Justify slavery and to promote the idea of the white race being higher then the black race. Genesis 9:18-27

“18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
Click to expand...
 
SiegeChud said:
View attachment 4392
Click to expand...
A fascinating perspective. Thank you for actually providing me with something that cites scriptures in a way that gives a line of reasoning, rather than plain and worthless jibber-jabber about how you simply "learned it in Sunday school." I appreciate it.
The main thing that troubles me here is what this theory hinges on, of Cain's apparent inter-species marriage with a soulless animal. The argument made here is that, clearly, this wife could only have been some sort of beast if Adam had no offspring between the births of his two first sons, Cain and Abel, and of his later son after them, Seth. Yet, in the chapter after we hear Cain's story, in the fourth verse of chapter five in Genesis, the text states that, when mentioning the birth of Seth, Adam also had other sons and daughters. Now, the main counterclaim that would be brought up to this point would be that this line does not precede the prior statement announcing the birth of Seth, thus, there could be an implication that Adam only had these offspring following Seth's birth.
Still, I find this unlikely because, paired with the statement that Adam did have other sons and daughters within the same time as Seth, it just seems biologically absurd for Cain, a descendant of this Adamite blood, to have fucked and successfully impregnated an animal that did not match his Adamite genes whatsoever. If you hike out into the jungles of Borneo and get it on with an orangutan, you aren't going to have a surprise nine months later, as the genes are just too distinct for it to be a possibility, and I don't know how it could have been different for Cain.
 
baqqrih said:
A fascinating perspective. Thank you for actually providing me with something that cites scriptures in a way that gives a line of reasoning, rather than plain and worthless jibber-jabber about how you simply "learned it in Sunday school." I appreciate it.
The main thing that troubles me here is what this theory hinges on, of Cain's apparent inter-species marriage with a soulless animal. The argument made here is that, clearly, this wife could only have been some sort of beast if Adam had no offspring between the births of his two first sons, Cain and Abel, and of his later son after them, Seth. Yet, in the chapter after we hear Cain's story, in the fourth verse of chapter five in Genesis, the text states that, when mentioning the birth of Seth, Adam also had other sons and daughters. Now, the main counterclaim that would be brought up to this point would be that this line does not precede the prior statement announcing the birth of Seth, thus, there could be an implication that Adam only had these offspring following Seth's birth.
Still, I find this unlikely because, paired with the statement that Adam did have other sons and daughters within the same time as Seth, it just seems biologically absurd for Cain, a descendant of this Adamite blood, to have fucked and successfully impregnated an animal that did not match his Adamite genes whatsoever. If you hike out into the jungles of Borneo and get it on with an orangutan, you aren't going to have a surprise nine months later, as the genes are just too distinct for it to be a possibility, and I don't know how it could have been different for Cain.
Click to expand...
I don't buy the animal fuckery story. According to the Bible, it never specifies what the mark was, but for centuries, Christians believed the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham was tied to African lineage, due to Noah cursing Canaan, saying he would be a servant to his brothers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Adolf Hitler
Politics Daily reminder that "Yes, Capitalism is just as Jewish as Communism"
Replies
13
Views
261
panchito
panchito
1Based Frog1
Caged Reminder to use Yandex if you want uncensored search results
Replies
7
Views
229
panchito
panchito
Back
Top