You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist, based on their own human set of values. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. That is God's role. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It. For our own salvation and for the sake of the world to come.

You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist, based on their own human set of values. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. That is God's role. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It.

You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. That is God's role. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It.

You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It.

You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people based on how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It.

You are partially right, but also partially wrong. European genes have been conditioned for civilizational success in large part due to the reforms wrought by Christianity over 2000 years - the culling of immorality each generation.

I'd agree with this. Genetics and selection are clearly factors in the evolution of civilisations. Darwin wasn't completely wrong, but the idea that it is trivial to predict complicated evolutionary outcomes based on 5-minute thought experiments - which is what most people do when they think about evolution and 'natural selection' - is flawed (a classic example is the a "tribe with 1 man and 99 women will survive better than one with 50 men and 50 women" which falls apart even on casual analysis).

The point about Darwinism being wrong is that I meant it. Darwinism cannot be merged with Christianity. Why? Because it is a violation of the first commandment - the creation of false gods and a false idol. It leads to humans thinking it is up to them to play the role of god, and decide the outcome of evolution. That is God's role. It is not up to me or you to decide whether or not people from Africa are 'true Christians' and whether their societies and civilisation should survive or not. Yet, that is what people who are busy promoting 'whiteness' are doing - they think it is their role to decide whether Africans should be allowed to exist. It is not up to me or you to decide whether another man, whatever the color of his skin, is worthy of salvation because he is using his reason to avoid sin. Yet, that is what those promoting 'whiteness' do - they decide based on some arbitrary measure of skin color that a person is 'incapable' of using reason and thus a sinner by default, and not worthy of salvation, or even existing.

My point was to make these people focus on what they should be doing - cleaning their own back yard, their own societies, their own minds, hearts and souls of sinful behavior and promoting virtue, not judging people because they don't like how they look.

We shouldn't be trying to play God. Even if it wasn't a sin (which it is, and a particular severe one in my view), that's God's role. The Father gave us his Living Word to tell us what He wanted from us. All we have to do is follow It.