cursed for seeing your dad naked?

[wil]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

For biblical verses explaining "uncovering your father's nakedness," see Leviticus chapter 18, especially verse 8:

and Leviticus chapter 20, especially verse 11

Namaste S.

Wow, good explanation, made everything totally clear. While we (maybe just I) was imagining the son doing something untoward with his father, it was actually with his mother. Patriarchal society language...his father's nakedness is his father's wife...property issues of another time...his father owned that nakedness...and they didn't cover up Noah, but his wife...huge explanation.

It was so strange as to why the sons would have to be ashamed of seeing their father naked and had to walk backwards with the robe, but it would make complete sense with this.

This is exactly why I think we are compellled to dig....and exactly why it is such a benefit to do so in a group of folks as one can find something to help us all!

thanx!

[post-abrahamic]

Utterly amazing. And frightening. To see you all continuing the ancient Jewish smear of the darker races (Ham) and the peoples of Canaan who's land they coveted and still covet.

I thought this was a forum where intelligent people discussed religious matters and not another church forum where everything one preaches the religious party line. Why don't you talk about the historic effects of this story of Noah, e.g., the continuation of hatred towards the people of Canaan with the genocidal stories of Joshua's conquests and for that matter, modern Israeli treatment of descendents of the Canaanites.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by post-abrahamic

Utterly amazing. And frightening. To see you all continuing the ancient Jewish smear of the darker races (Ham) and the peoples of Canaan who's land they coveted and still covet.

I thought this was a forum where intelligent people discussed religious matters and not another church forum where everything one preaches the religious party line. Why don't you talk about the historic effects of this story of Noah, e.g., the continuation of hatred towards the people of Canaan with the genocidal stories of Joshua's conquests and for that matter, modern Israeli treatment of descendents of the Canaanites.

Once you examine the scriptures, you'll see that race has nothing to do with it.
This is a scriptural discussion. Please take your politics to the appropriate board.
Thank you.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by post-abrahamic

Utterly amazing. And frightening. To see you all continuing the ancient Jewish smear of the darker races (Ham) and the peoples of Canaan who's land they coveted and still covet.

I thought this was a forum where intelligent people discussed religious matters and not another church forum where everything one preaches the religious party line. Why don't you talk about the historic effects of this story of Noah, e.g., the continuation of hatred towards the people of Canaan with the genocidal stories of Joshua's conquests and for that matter, modern Israeli treatment of descendents of the Canaanites.

Did you happen to read post 16 in this thread? If so, I don't see how you could possibly level such a false accusation. Be that as it may, this is a forum where intelligent people discuss religious matters, and one where apparently those with political agendas would like to derail with prejudicial (as in "pre-judged" or "pre-conceived") notions without actually exploring what passed between those in the discussion. As long as one's mind and attitude are already made up, what further sense is there in dialogue?

You are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion actually taking place here in this thread. Or, if you prefer, to begin a new thread in the politics section regarding what you feel are improprieties surrounding this through history. Perhaps even a thread on political misuse of the verses in question by various cultures?

Whatever you choose, I think you will find that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you honestly desire dialogue, the way you approach any subject makes a great deal of difference as to how much active participation one is likely to receive in response. I will leave it to discerning intelligence what precisely that means.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Did you happen to read post 16 in this thread? If so, I don't see how you could possibly level such a false accusation. Be that as it may, this is a forum where intelligent people discuss religious matters, and one where apparently those with political agendas would like to derail with prejudicial (as in "pre-judged" or "pre-conceived") notions without actually exploring what passed between those in the discussion. As long as one's mind and attitude are already made up, what further sense is there in dialogue?

For scriptural support of this and the content of post #16, please read Ezekiel chapter 18.

You are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion actually taking place here in this thread. Or, if you prefer, to begin a new thread in the politics section regarding what you feel are improprieties surrounding this through history. Perhaps even a thread on political misuse of the verses in question by various cultures?

Whatever you choose, I think you will find that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you honestly desire dialogue, the way you approach any subject makes a great deal of difference as to how much active participation one is likely to receive in response. I will leave it to discerning intelligence what precisely that means.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

out of curiousity can any brit tell me if black people are referred to as african-english? Are we the only ones that do this? What brought the question up was leos original post stating that he respected people of african american descent and I thought that it sounded wierd like maybe he should have just said "of african descent" which led to the thought of how a black person in the UK would read that...

Not meaning to derail the thread

Hi FS

No we do not refer to people as african-english. We went through a stage in the 80's when the word black became banned (so kids in school could not say blackboard or blackbird - although no idea what we were meant to call them - one was chalkboard but don't know about the bird). People of colour had to be referred to as coloured. That died out as it was unworkable, we have so many words like blackberries, blacktie dinners, etc. It was a bit like the N word, it seems ok for black singers to say it but if I did I would go to prison - seems a little hypocritical (that is not to say the N word should be allowed but if it offends people then no-one should use it imho). Black people are still often offended here, for example the police must now ask people they question to describe their own ethnicity and some black people find this offensive as they see themselves purely as British - I mean, what does it matter what race you oroginate from, surely nationality is more important. These figures are used to assess crime statistics and trends, which again could be seen as catogorising people purely by skin colour.

Sorry it's off topic but thought the question was good and needed an answer.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

For biblical verses explaining "uncovering your father's nakedness," see Leviticus chapter 18, especially verse 8:

and Leviticus chapter 20, especially verse 11

It makes perfect sense when you put it that way. Thankyou so much for this explanation seattlegal. I would never have come up with it in a million years and yet I live in a society where my nakedness is still seen as belonging only to my husband (not in an ownership/possession way, just as his nakedness only belongs to me).

Three cheers for CR, isn't learning fun.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

It makes perfect sense when you put it that way. Thankyou so much for this explanation seattlegal. I would never have come up with it in a million years and yet I live in a society where my nakedness is still seen as belonging only to my husband (not in an ownership/possession way, just as his nakedness only belongs to me).

Three cheers for CR, isn't learning fun.

perfect example here in today's world, right under our noses...(oops just pissed off the neighbors and family again!) I mean it isn't as if we haven't discussed this on other threads...

Sometimes I'm just so dense I can't put 2 and 2 together.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by wil

Sometimes I'm just so dense I can't put 2 and 2 together.

Erm 16? Oh no give me a clue. Hands up who isn't so dense sometimes? I actually believed they painted lions blue for a bank advert a number of years ago, I wanted to protest about it until my father pointed out they used a blue filter. Oops.

[Francis king]

ham went with his own mam..? lol

cheers for the clarification.. maybe I should next read my bible looking for juicy gossip instead of "answers" or "salvation"...

[17th Angel]

Dirty blaggards...

[post-abrahamic]

My criticism still stands. The last two posts show how the slander of Ham and Canaan in the Jewish story of Noah is being perpetuated here on CR. These ancient texts are not free of politics and that's why Israelite proponents wrote their myths showing their god's favor over the Canaanites. That same political bias can be seen in the refusal of modern Zionists and supporters of Israel to acknowledge the human rights of the descendants of Canaanites as Palestinians.

Prejudices don't just pop out of nowhere. They are instilled in our cultural heritage and we need to address their roots when they appear in our Abrahamic faiths.

[wil]

Originally Posted by post-abrahamic

My criticism still stands. The last two posts show how the slander of Ham and Canaan in the Jewish story of Noah is being perpetuated here on CR. These ancient texts are not free of politics and that's why Israelite proponents wrote their myths showing their god's favor over the Canaanites. That same political bias can be seen in the refusal of modern Zionists and supporters of Israel to acknowledge the human rights of the descendants of Canaanites as Palestinians.

Prejudices don't just pop out of nowhere. They are instilled in our cultural heritage and we need to address their roots when they appear in our Abrahamic faiths.

What is prejudicial is the belief that the darker races stemmed from this story...why do you hold onto this?? Your criticism is echoing back at you my brother...so often when one sees racism there is a mirror...

CR is a group of people that happened upon this website...and in reading decided to become members...please to remember you are of this group.

You've picked one thread of discussion and distorted the context..one thread out of thousands...take your glasses to the rest of CR if you see prejudice everywhere....you may need your eyes checked.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by post-abrahamic

My criticism still stands. The last two posts show how the slander of Ham and Canaan in the Jewish story of Noah is being perpetuated here on CR. These ancient texts are not free of politics and that's why Israelite proponents wrote their myths showing their god's favor over the Canaanites. That same political bias can be seen in the refusal of modern Zionists and supporters of Israel to acknowledge the human rights of the descendants of Canaanites as Palestinians.

Prejudices don't just pop out of nowhere. They are instilled in our cultural heritage and we need to address their roots when they appear in our Abrahamic faiths.

Please read Ezekiel chapter 18, which refutes the false proverb,

‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3 “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

The sort of racism you are implying as being endemic to Abrahamic religions is not scriptural.

[greymare]

my problem with all this is that you first have to consider the Bible as something other than a moral story book appropriate for its time. that is not now, 2000 years ago. I'm still having trouble with that, I guess I have a long way to go before I am convinced. However it is interesting to note that the dysfunctional family is only a modern theme. Interesting and disturbing. Why today we have society to blame and how our parents bought us up and the fact that we didnt get enough attention etc etc. Maybe genetically we are just a bunch of misfits. Bye the way, I thought I saw or read somewhere how science can prove that the human species came from the african/middle east area. So we are all black and we are all family. Now that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.