Prophets were extremly good looking

[CopeIsReal]

First things first, let's set some stuff straight.

There's a """""scientific """" portrayment of Jesus

This is complete bullshit. To make an actual accurate representation of how Jesus looked, his skull would be needed and to this day it hasn't been found. This bs assumption just came along by a few aspies making assumptions about how the average middle eastern man looked at that time and then went ahead to create a completly unbacked version of his face. If that was truly his face, his religion would have never been spread.


Now to my actual post
I am 100% certain that Prophets of world religions were extremly good looking for numerous reasons.

We are all aware of how good looks can halo you and how bad looks do the opposite. If chad manages to (maybe) get away for speeding over the speed limit then how good looking do you have to be to make a mass of people believe about whatever belief you're spreading.
How good looking did Moses have to be to convince the egyptians that there aren't multiple gods but only one, that they have to give up sex and that they have to settle for one person (marriage as we know it was introduced with Judaism).
How good looking did Jesus have to be to convince people that he is the son of god himself in a time where religion was the most important thing to people ?
How good looking did Muhammad have to be to convince people that their current belief is wrong and that he is spreading gods word ?
Especially since we know how primal and one dimensional women actually are and how all they see in you is your looks, in order to even get them interested in these things your looks have to be unbelievably appealing.

Also prophets have been described in ancient texts by all of their peers as ridiculously good looking.
Moses was described to be extremly tall and strong and have an almost intimidatingly masculine look. Muhammad had 11 wifes and on top of that in ancient texts of Islam people describe his facial beauty as so astonishing that whenever he entered a room, both men and women weren't able to lay their eyes off him. He was described to have long and smooth hair and skin, a very wide smile (wide palate = high fwhr,), kind beautiful eyes ( normie term for hunter eyes), etc.

None of them were even born into rich or high class families. Jesus was born in a barn as the poor child of maria, Muhammad was the soon of a poor clay worker, literally illiterate, no education, no nothing. Moses wasn't of pharaon aristocracy or even anything close.

It's ridiculous. It shows how truly one dimensional and primal we all are. If your looks are good enough, people will even follow the belief you spreed and are willing to live their whole life and their offsprings life dedicated to the way of life you tell them is right.

 

[maxmendietta]

Jesus most likely prettyboy cuz prettyboy features = trust, dom features not that much trustful but good for leadership

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

Jesus was described as not that good looking. Shit thred

 

[CopeIsReal]

Jesus most likely prettyboy cuz prettyboy features = trust, dom features not that much trustful but good for leadership

I think it's more important for a prophet to have a leader pheno. Trust is good but a leader is who a prophet was to these people

 

[Petsmart]

Tales from the bible

 

[CopeIsReal]

Jesus was described as not that good looking. Shit thred

Where the hell do you get your information from turbomanlet
big fucking cope, do you actually believe people will follow a newly introduced religion if youre ugly ? ded srs

 

[rockndogs]

Didnt read

Amen

 

[Dogs]

Jesus was described as not that good looking. Shit thred

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

Where the hell do you get your information from turbomanlet

nevermind, that was the old testament. How many times do I have to say I'm not a turbomanlet, my upper body is just shrunken by lordosis, but I'll fix that in the next few months

 

[CopeIsReal]

nevermind, that was the old testament. How many times do I have to say I'm not a turbomanlet, my upper body is just shrunken by lordosis, but I'll fix that in the next few months

You as a manlet should know best that no person ever will see manlets as leaders, they get bullied constantly or there are pre-assumptions made about them. Now try to explain to me how an ugly man can get people to follow a new human ideology

 

[Deleted member 3902]

Finally some good fucking Post
Read every single Word

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

You as a manlet should know best that no person ever will see manlets as leaders, they get bullied constantly or there are pre-assumptions made about them.

Been known, I could care less about that though as long as I fit in. Off topic anyway

. Now try to explain to me how an ugly man can get people to follow a new human ideology

Vast majority of presidents were average af at best if we're just talking face. You're being legit ugly makes it almost impossible but being average looking isn't that bad for leadership

 

[CopeIsReal]

Been known, I could care less about that though as long as I fit in. Off topic anyway

Vast majority of presidents were average af at best if we're just talking face. You're being legit ugly makes it almost impossible but being average looking isn't that bad for leadership

That's not wrong but there's a difference between being a president and being a prophet, someome alleged to spread Gods word.
Presidents nowadays are just there to help lobbyists get their interest through, legit every election is rigged and manipulated. Even if people really don't like you that much, you can cheat your way through.
A prophet, a completly different levl. Especially in that time, if the people weren't convinced by you, it was over. Even kings got overthrown when they pissed their people off jfl.
Comparing short period (4-20 years) presidents to prophets who spread an ideology that lasts for over thousands of years is not a good comparison in all respect.

Someone who I would consider a good president would be worlds away from someone whos ideology I would dedicate my life to.

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

That's not wrong but there's a difference between being a president and being a prophet, someome alleged to spread Gods word.
Presidents nowadays are just there to help lobbyists get their interest through, legit every election is rigged and manipulated. Even if people really don't like you that much, you can cheat your way through.
A prophet, a completly different levl. Especially in that time, if the people weren't convinced by you, it was over. Even kings got overthrown when they pissed their people off jfl.
Comparing short period (4-20 years) presidents to prophets who spread an ideology that lasts for over thousands of years is not a good comparison in all respect

The most recent popular "religion" is Scientology, and I wouldn't describe L Ron Hubbard as particularly good looking. Mormonism creator Joseph Smith maybe, but he still isn't that great imo

 

[KEy21]

Jesus was black @NiBBaCel

 

[CopeIsReal]

The most recent popular "religion" is Scientology, and I wouldn't describe L Ron Hubbard as particularly good looking. Mormonism creator Joseph Smith maybe, but he still isn't that great imo

Scientology is far from being a world religion my friend, it's mostly rich dudes scamming other rich dudes

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Jesus is king

 

[CopeIsReal]

Jesus was black @NiBBaCel

Middle easterners weren't black.

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

Scientology is far from being a world religion my friend, it's mostly rich dudes scamming other rich dudes

I meant recent religions, not many other religions I can think of in the 20th century or later that are that big

 

[CopeIsReal]

I meant recent religions, not many other religions I can think of in the 20th century or later that are that big

It doesn't contribute to it well for 2 reasons, first one being people aren't as religious in the 21st century and I am talking about widely spread world religions that lasted for well over a thousand years. Imo scientology wont even last half of that

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

It doesn't contribute to it well for 2 reasons, first one being people aren't as religious in the 21st century and I am talking about widely spread world religions that lasted for well over a thousand years. Imo scientology wont even last half of that

Irreligious people don't have as many kids so that's probably won't last given current projections

Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population

Though the percentage of religiously "nones" in America has risen, the global share of religiously unaffiliated people is expected to fall in coming decades.

www.pewresearch.org

And yea Scientology won't be around that long imo

 

[CopeIsReal]

Irreligious people don't have as many kids so that's probably won't last given current projections

Why people with no religion are projected to decline as a share of the world’s population

Though the percentage of religiously "nones" in America has risen, the global share of religiously unaffiliated people is expected to fall in coming decades.

www.pewresearch.org

And yea Scientology won't be around that long imo

I don't think shit's going to change especially in the west, people here are way too obsessed with drugs, sex, materialism and other shit, it's literally the foundation to modern western society. Irreligious people don't have as many kids but most irreligious people i know have religious parents so

 

[LordNorwood]

Jesus was described as not that good looking. Shit thred

 

[CopeIsReal]

@LordNorwood Low iq bs, if you acknowledge halo effect then you should get checked for autism if you think any world religion prophet was unattractive. Also jfl how nobody mentions Moses or Muhammad

 

[LordNorwood]

Where the hell do you get your information from turbomanlet
big fucking cope, do you actually believe people will follow a newly introduced religion if youre ugly ? ded srs

he was probably average or slightly below, we can deduce from the Gospel accounts that Jesus looked incredibly similar to all his followers as the Romans were unable to discern him from his followers without aid, this rules out that he was noticeably very attractive as that would be a discerning feature that could be looked for
Also, extrabiblical traditions inform us that Jesus likely named Thomas "Thomas" (which in Aramaic literally means "Twin") because Thomas happened to look very similar to Jesus physically. This also indicates that Jesus could not have been extroardinarily attractive.
Finally Isaiah claims that the coming messiah will not attract people to him through physical beauty or the appearance of majesty.

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

I don't think shit's going to change especially in the west, people here are way too obsessed with drugs, sex, materialism and other shit, it's literally the foundation to modern western society. Irreligious people don't have as many kids but most irreligious people i know have religious parents so

The west is probably going to have major social changes by the time we are older, or just collapse entirely. White people may be getting more irreligious, but we're a dying race so it really doesn't matter. China has gone from about 3 million Christians to around 100 million in 30 years and the government has been trying to do whatever they can to stop it

 

[LordNorwood]

@LordNorwood Low iq bs, if you acknowledge halo effect then you should get checked for autism if you think any world religion prophet was unattractive. Also jfl how nobody mentions Moses or Muhammad

Don't give a shit about Moses or Muhammad, I probably IQmog you to death as well.
Back then it was much more important what you could provide as opposed to how you looked than it is today (not saying looks WEREN'T important). We live in the most image obsessed time in the world by far. Islam is also some weird ass shit that tends to misrepresent Judaism and Christianity, is this descrip of Moses from Islamic tradition? If so I would consider it untrustworthy. There is no physical description of Moses in the Torah as far as I'm aware, the closest I can find is shit made up by Jewish historians centuries later.

 

[CopeIsReal]

he was probably average or slightly below, we can deduce from the Gospel accounts that Jesus looked incredibly similar to all his followers as the Romans were unable to discern him from his followers without aid, this rules out that he was noticeably very attractive as that would be a discerning feature that could be looked for
Also, extrabiblical traditions inform us that Jesus likely named Thomas "Thomas" (which in Aramaic literally means "Twin") because Thomas happened to look very similar to Jesus physically. This also indicates that Jesus could not have been extroardinarily attractive.
Finally Isaiah claims that the coming messiah will not attract people to him through physical beauty or the appearance of majesty.

Old testament boyo, also the romans had trouble discern him because none of them have ever seen him before jfl. Surely his peers wouldn't have betrayed him, (besides judas ig)

 

[LordNorwood]

Old testament boyo, also the romans had trouble discern him because none of them have ever seen him before jfl. Surely his peers wouldn't have betrayed him, (besides judas ig)

What do you mean "old testament" lol
Also, think. If Jesus was known to be very attractive than that would have been a discerning quality about him that the Romans could have noted and looked for. Imagine I don't know what Gandy looks like but you just tell me he's an insanely attractive supermodel and then a couple qualities about him (like coloration) and send me into a room to find him. I bet I could point him out, most people are not good looking (7+)
Also like how you have no rebuttal to the Thomas argument

 

[CopeIsReal]

Don't give a shit about Moses or Muhammad, I probably IQmog you to death as well.
Back then it was much more important what you could provide as opposed to how you looked than it is today (not saying looks WEREN'T important). We live in the most image obsessed time in the world by far. Islam is also some weird ass shit that tends to misrepresent Judaism and Christianity, is this descrip of Moses from Islamic tradition? If so I would consider it untrustworthy. There is no physical description of Moses in the Torah as far as I'm aware, the closest I can find is shit made up by Jewish historians centuries later.

Lol at your assumption of correlation of IQ and education, already shows me how "high IQ" you are. Also mentioned in my thread that no prophet was of aristocratic descent and were all dirt poor. Idk too much about christianity but I've made extreme amounts of research in islam and judaism and there are countless texts admiring botg moses and muhammads beauty which was my initial point. Prophets were gl and you reply with some shit saying you don't care about 2 of the 3 world religion prophets jfl

What do you mean "old testament" lol
Also, think. If Jesus was known to be very attractive than that would have been a discerning quality about him that the Romans could have noted and looked for. Imagine I don't know what Gandy looks like but you just tell me he's an insanely attractive supermodel and then a couple qualities about him (like coloration) and send me into a room to find him. I bet I could point him out, most people are not good looking (7+)
Also like how you have no rebuttal to the Thomas argument

I do get your point but it's still not compareable, how are you going to compare that, you live in the 21st century with social media and ads all over your face about models and what makes a face aesthetic plus you spend hours upon hours on male aesthetic forums. I do get where you're coming from though

 

[LordNorwood]

Lol at your assumption of correlation of IQ and education, already shows me how "high IQ" you are. Also mentioned in my thread that no prophet was of aristocratic descent and were all dirt poor. Idk too much about christianity but I've made extreme amounts of research in islam and judaism and there are countless texts admiring botg moses and muhammads beauty which was my initial point. Prophets were gl and you reply with some shit saying you don't care about 2 of the 3 world religion prophets jfl

I'm banting about the IQmogging mate but I am confirmed high IQ, your opinion doesn't matter, IQ is confirmed by tests not by internet autists with biases.
Moving on from that silliness, quote some of that shit about Moses and try and make an argument that its historically reliable. You can't. An initial search on this brought up only a couple results ever attempting to describing Moses physically and all of them were several centuries at least from his latest estimated lifetime. In other words, those people didn't know what the FUCK they were talking about.
As for why I said I didn't care about Muhammad (I later engaged you on Moses) its because I don't know much about him and because Islamic traditions generally strike me as weird as fuck. I'm not going to talk about the Had if I don't know shit and I also would not be at all surprised if the Qur'an describes him as a giga Chad, seems like a very Islamic thing to do.
I am really enjoying this autistic quibbling over prophets looks though so thanks for the thread
EDIT: To your credit, the Buddha has been described as GL

 

[CopeIsReal]

I'm banting about the IQmogging mate but I am confirmed high IQ, your opinion doesn't matter, IQ is confirmed by tests not by internet autists with biases.
Moving on from that silliness, quote some of that shit about Moses and try and make an argument that its historically reliable. You can't. An initial search on this brought up only a couple results ever attempting to describing Moses physically and all of them were several centuries at least from his latest estimated lifetime. In other words, those people didn't know what the FUCK they were talking about.
As for why I said I didn't care about Muhammad (I later engaged you on Moses) its because I don't know much about him and because Islamic traditions generally strike me as weird as fuck. I'm not going to talk about the Had if I don't know shit and I also would not be at all surprised if the Qur'an describes him as a giga Chad, seems like a very Islamic thing to do.
I am really enjoying this autistic quibbling over prophets looks though so thanks for the thread

All I see is a norwooding narcy ranting about his "confirmed high IQ" and about how he is extremly woke and can't seem to be wrong. High IQ contributes nothing to this discussion you recessed dog, there's low IQs who are extremly educated and vice versa. No point in discussing with you, your hairline is probably too pushed back for you to ever accept being not right in a discussion.

 

[LordNorwood]

All I see is a norwooding narcy ranting about his "confirmed high IQ" and about how he is extremly woke and can't seem to be wrong. High IQ contributes nothing to this discussion you recessed dog, there's low IQs who are extremly educated and vice versa. No point in discussing with you, your hairline is probably too pushed back for you to ever accept being not right in a discussion.

Aw, did I trigger you? Sorry bud, I was fucking around about the high IQ shit and you were the one who brought it up first. I thought we were just having some bant. Sorry I fucked up your thread

 

[CopeIsReal]

Aw, did I trigger you? Sorry bud, I was fucking around about the high IQ shit and you were the one who brought it up first. I thought we were just having some bant. Sorry I fucked up your thread

I was obviously serious but whatev man

 

[FatJattMofo]

Everyone from the old ages eho were worth something looked good

 

[LordNorwood]

I was obviously serious but whatev man

damn dude you got me ngl, looks like I took a massive L here
I gotta go recover via porn and carbs, brb

 

[CopeIsReal]

damn dude you got me ngl, looks like I took a massive L here
I gotta go recover via porn and carbs, brb

haha !

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

Jesus is king

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

People are dumb as shit, especially shitskins, and especially back then. It's why religion is so imposed and prevalent in shitskin countries. Religious people have predisposition to follow blindly even more, Jesus was just a titration to an ideology that already existed.

You can see ugly leaders in other walks of life, it has nothing to do with looks. The closest you've come to delivering your point is when you said that prophets were described as good looking (highly questionable), but no more than that. Shit thread.

 

[LordNorwood]

People are dumb as shit, especially shitskins, and especially back then. It's why religion is so imposed and prevalent in shitskin countries. Religious people have predisposition to follow blindly even more, Jesus was just a titration to an ideology that already existed.

You can see ugly leaders in other walks of life, it has nothing to do with looks. The closest you've come to delivering your point is when you said that prophets were described as good looking (highly questionable), but no more than that. Shit thread.

Disagree that people back then were dumber, low IQ opinion
Other than that agreed

 

[godsmistake]

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

Disagree that people back then were dumber, low IQ opinion
Other than that agreed

It's fair to indict shitskins from 2019 years ago for lower IQ based on their highly penetrable beliefs.

 

[LordNorwood]

It's fair to indict shitskins from 2019 years ago for lower IQ based on their highly penetrable beliefs.

Most whites weren't too much better with their pagan beliefs tbh
That said if you can't see the beauty and intelligence in myths then idk what to tell you. Just because you're not doing science doesn't mean that you aren't exercising your intelligence. Jews of that time period were skilled af in rhetoric, still are tbh

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

Most whites weren't too much better with their pagan beliefs tbh
That said if you can't see the beauty and intelligence in myths then idk what to tell you. Just because you're not doing science doesn't mean that you aren't exercising your intelligence. Jews of that time period were skilled af in rhetoric, still are tbh

This isn't about race, I'm just using the word "shitskin" to refer to population of that period.

Overall pointless debate since you're using vague things as a frame of reference for IQ, and even then, you're failing since that period's literature is inferior.

 

[TsarTsar444]

In Islam prophet Yunus was described as too good looking and how he could get all the ladies as far as i remember. Correct me if im wrong tho

 

[LordNorwood]

This isn't about race, I'm just using the word "shitskin" to refer to population of that period.

Overall pointless debate since you're using vague things as a frame of reference for IQ, and even then, you're failing since that period's literature is inferior.

Fair enough on the race thing. First I would say that if we want to get as specific as IQ in terms of estimating intelligence its impossible because we obviously can't go back in time and administer IQ tests. Secondly I would contend that in general ancient literature is not inferior to modern literature, in fact its the reverse.

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

Fair enough on the race thing. First I would say that if we want to get as specific as IQ in terms of estimating intelligence its impossible because we obviously can't go back in time and administer IQ tests. Secondly I would contend that in general ancient literature is not inferior to modern literature, in fact its the reverse.

To be clear, my original comment was partly about race, my second one wasn't. But it's redundant anyway since every race was dumber back then, and using ancient books (that most people of that period couldn't even read) to gauge IQ is dumb as shit.

 

[LordNorwood]

To be clear, my original comment was partly about race, my second one wasn't. But it's redundant anyway since every race was dumber back then, and using ancient books (that most people of that period couldn't even read) to gauge IQ is dumb as shit.

Ngl I don't see your logic. How tf would people be dumber back then and suddenly have gotten smarter now? Our genome hasn't changed significantly in a fucking while last time I checked. I've read some convincing arguments (obviously this shit is impossible to truly prove one or way another) that human intelligence peaked 2500 years ago. It doesn't really matter who can read and who can't, the capstone cultural achievements of various races indicate what IQs those races are capable of producing, to a certain extent, i.e. this is, of course, a very rough approximation and is very biased by cultural attitudes. For example, hard to show your scientific potential when your racial culture doesn't give a shit about science. But that intelligence will be channeled in other ways.
Also you didn't reply to my challenge that the period's literature was inferior. Again, on the whole I find ancient literature to be aesthetically and therefore intellectually superior to modern literature. Intelligence isn't about the facts you know or affirm lol, its about capability. We probably find the idea of believing in the Greek pantheon ridiculous today. Doesn't change the fact that Greeks were smart as shit.
tl;dr old books good new books bad

Edit: Before you respond I'm very aware of the Flynn effect, but I think assuming its biological and trying to extrapolate it back to negative infinity are two very retarded assumptions.

 

[Blackpill Scholar]

Ngl I don't see your logic. How tf would people be dumber back then and suddenly have gotten smarter now? Our genome hasn't changed significantly in a fucking while last time I checked. I've read some convincing arguments (obviously this shit is impossible to truly prove one or way another) that human intelligence peaked 2500 years ago. It doesn't really matter who can read and who can't, the capstone cultural achievements of various races indicate what IQs those races are capable of producing, to a certain extent, i.e. this is, of course, a very rough approximation and is very biased by cultural attitudes. For example, hard to show your scientific potential when your racial culture doesn't give a shit about science. But that intelligence will be channeled in other ways.

Now you're arguing IQ potential instead of IQ. Feral child will score shit on IQ tests, but it doesn't mean IQ potential was never there. I.e. environment/upbringing is important, and BC era doesn't facilitate high IQ.

Also you didn't reply to my challenge that the period's literature was inferior. Again, on the whole I find ancient literature to be aesthetically and therefore intellectually superior to modern literature. Intelligence isn't about the facts you know or affirm lol, its about capability. We probably find the idea of believing in the Greek pantheon ridiculous today. Doesn't change the fact that Greeks were smart as shit.
tl;dr old books good new books bad

Subjective. You might think the Bible is good, I might think it's a shit book. But who cares, I thought we established that literature is a shit frame of reference for IQ. You're obviously invested in this because you have affinity for ancient literature.

 

[LordNorwood]

Now you're arguing IQ potential instead of IQ. Feral child will score shit on IQ tests, but it doesn't mean IQ potential was never there. I.e. environment/upbringing is important, and BC era doesn't facilitate high IQ.

Subjective. You might think the Bible is good, I might think it's a shit book. But who cares, I thought we established that literature is a shit frame of reference for IQ. You're obviously invested in this because you have affinity for ancient literature.

IQ potential is IQ. Your "true IQ" is the highest potential IQ you can output. What we're interested in is obviously actual, biological intelligence, not practical intelligence, a.k.a whatever intelligence you happen to have due to the situation. I'm glad you brought the point up though because its a very important distinction to keep in mind.
Also, yeah I'll come clean you're right, I have an affinity for ancient literature. But aesthetic value is not subjective. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, mogs anything written in the last 200 years to death, this isn't up for debate. Read Plato's dialogues and then read some quote by Tyson or Krauss without wanting to blow your head off. We've learned a hell of a lot, but we've forgotten how to think. \rant
You are also right that literature isn't a great frame of reference (I wouldn't call it shit, Native Americans and Africans wrote nothing of value while all Indo-European and many Asian cultures were crafting masterpieces. That isn't a coincidence) but its the best approximation we have since, again, we cannot actually take IQ tests. And your initial implication that people back then were dumber because of the myths they chose to affirm is retarded.