WHY do they teach that ...

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Is how dis cum een ya fledge?
mi knaw seh yuh wrong doe but...[/qb]

Dahjah weh yuh been. Yuh done knoa seh Fledge like im one-liner dem. Thank God he has NO racist bone or hatred in his body. When I grow, I wanna be like him.

[wonbyone]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

What was it that Ham did that his brothers did not? Here is Noah, passed out and naked. BTW It is interesting that this is the first mention of wine and it is connected to drunkenness and immodest behavior. Anyway, what does Ham do? He goes out and broadcasts Noah's indiscretion unlike his other sons who wish to save their father from further embarrassment. They avert their eyes and cover their father.

"Planting a vineyard" means just that...planting a vineyard which would be common for "a man of the soil" such as Noah. Claims are made that just about every phrase in the bible stands for having sex. Some spend entirely too much time on porn sites.

Nakedness means without clothing but is also used in the bible to express poverty (Matthew 25:36-44), desolation (Genesis 42:9), openness (Hebrews 4:13), and moral bankruptcy (Revelation 3:17). Nowhere does it refer to Noah having sex with his wife. Nor does it refer to his wife at all in the story.

Sex is not taboo in the bible nor is it the degrading porn site fodder that some like to fantasize about while discussing the bible.

Mankind was created as male and female (Genesis 1:27, 5:2). Procreation was the primary reason for sex..."Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Legislation was sought to restrict premarital and extramarital sex (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:10). Homosexuality, beastiality and incest were condemned (Leviticus 18:6-18; 22-23). Cross dressing was not allowed (Deut. 22:5). Sexual intercourse within a marriage is honorable (Hebrews 13:4). Sex was to be avoided during a women's menstrual cycle (Leviticus 15:19-24). If involved in a war a man was to refrain from sex until God gave him a victory (1 Samuel 21:4; 2 Samuel 11:11).

The Jewish people believed that sexual organs should not be displayed hence Noah's sons covered him.

What words ARE used in the bible to depict sexual matters? The male sexual organs were referred to as "feet" (Exodus 4:25), "nakedness" (Exodus 28:42), "privy member (Deut. 23:1 KJV), and "unpresentable parts" (1 Corinthians 12:23). the female sex organs are "nakedness" (Leviticus 18;20) and "feet" (Deut. 28:57). what are the euphemisms for sex? To "become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), to "know" (Genesis 4:1) and to "lie with" (Leviticus 18:20,22). Skip the "do unto", "planting a vineyard" and all of the other ridiculous ideas born on porn sites.

Perhaps this is a bit more than you ever needed to know about sex and the bible. The point is do not believe a word that you read without checking it out for yourself (hence the references).

As far as the triplet theory...Genesis 10:21 says that Japheth was Shem's older brother. Genesis 9:24 says that Ham was the youngest. Therefore from youngest to oldest it would be Ham, Shem and then Japheth. Of course, age could be judged in minutes but that is not typically the case in the bible.

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

"Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists."

This from a man who described inner city youth as "tasteless" in their manner of dress.

[NotkaTAA]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Is how dis cum een ya fledge?
mi knaw seh yuh wrong doe but...[/qb]

Dahjah weh yuh been. Yuh done knoa seh Fledge like im one-liner dem. Thank God he has NO racist bone or hatred in his body. When I grow, I wanna be like him.[/qb]

Thanks people well debated in the spirit of brthrenhood, respect of ecach other I would expect all the discussion take this format... Good work.

Thank you.

NotkaTassili.

[Pakow]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Hi! Mutty, thanks for a good job well done in sheding the light of reason on Noah's cursing of Ham's son, Canaan. The reason session performed here provides the only logical explanation for what actually happened.

From what we know of the bible, incest was not really an issue... the problem for Noah was the sense of shame he felt in watching Ham ravish his woman, and not being able to do anything about it. That was something he couldn't forgive and forget. He had to do something about it...

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Thank you for your clear, pointed insights.

Nobodady was asking about any biblical writers. The author of the thread made it very clear he was referring to "yt" interpreters and teachers of the Bible.[/qb]

Then you might care to explain why the redactors of Genesis were clear on two concepts: (1)that there was a curse on Ham and his descendants, and (2) that his descendants were black Africans?

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Is how dis cum een ya fledge?
mi knaw seh yuh wrong doe but...[/qb]

Really? How do you know that?

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]"Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists."

This from a man who described inner city youth as "tasteless" in their manner of dress.[/qb]

You have a point? I'd no idea that a generation was the same as a 'race', nor that a distaste for a particular style of dress was, somehow, racist.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Tim:
[qb]

The Jewish people believed that sexual organs should not be displayed hence Noah's sons covered him.

[/qb]

Here we go again... WHY is it that so many people claim to understand the Bible, but they have absolutely NO understanding of the cultural references of the ancient Jewish people, and therefore, they canot popssibly have any clear understanding?!!

Tim is 100% correct. The Jews had (and still do have) a cultural taboo against the display of human sexual organs. Pure and simple. You'll not find any Jew (besides, perhaps the Reform Jews) who will nurse a baby in public, either!

The "crime" or the sin was that ONE son broadcast his father's state of drunken dishabille to the public ... and the "good deed" was that ANOTHER son respectfully caused the father's humiliating state to be covered up, or that he remedied/rectified his father's tacky situation.

The story may be taken rather literally, and there is no hidden insinuation. None whatsoever, other than modern fabrication.

Mutty and Tim are correct.

It IS, however, interesting to note, as someone already pointed out, that this does seem to be the earlyiest refernece linking drunkenness to lewd (or unacceptable) behavior. Then again... imbibing to much alcoholic beverage does indeed cause such, and how could our distant ancestors not recognize that?

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Thank you for your clear, pointed insights.

Nobodady was asking about any biblical writers. The author of the thread made it very clear he was referring to "yt" interpreters and teachers of the Bible.[/qb]

Then you might care to explain why the redactors of Genesis were clear on two concepts: (1)that there was a curse on Ham and his descendants, and (2) that his descendants were black Africans?[/qb]

1. No curse was placed on Ham directly
2. The curse was directed at ONE of Ham's sons not [all] his black descendants. The one son is specified and the Bible follows up its fulfillment centuries later.

You have proven EXACTLY what Dahjah was trying to say. Misinterpretation leading to misunderstanding.

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Fledgist: ”You have a point? I'd no idea that a generation was the same as a 'race', nor that a distaste for a particular style of dress was, somehow, racist.”

That statement is marginally less disingenuous than those of the reptilian Trent Lott.

Your previous effort to negatively stereotype inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’) in regards to their manner of dress was unambiguous with nothing that was open to multiple interpretations

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]Your previous effort to negatively stereotype inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’) in regards to their manner of dress was unambiguous with nothing that was open to multiple interpretations[/qb]

Servant, I don't know what previous post is underdiscussion, but... I must disagree with your statement that "inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’)". Perhaps it depends on which part of the country (USA) that you mean, as to what is meant by "inner city youth", but in the greater-Newark area, it isn't necessarily Blacks that's meant, but often Hispanics, and in yet other parts of Northern NJ, it can mean certain Asians.

Yes, I am sure that some media in some areas do in fact mean "Blacks" when they say that... Just not always.

I find it rather racist (of anyone) to blanket-statement call "ALL young Black males" (or ANY OTHER group) ANYTHING!!

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]Fledgist: ”You have a point? I'd no idea that a generation was the same as a 'race', nor that a distaste for a particular style of dress was, somehow, racist.”

That statement is marginally less disingenuous than those of the reptilian Trent Lott.

{Fledgist: That's disgusting.}

Your previous effort to negatively stereotype inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’) in regards to their manner of dress was unambiguous with nothing that was open to multiple interpretations[/qb]

If you are questioning my honesty, I'll thank you to do it to my face. Otherwise, I'd suggest you retract the insinuation.

You seem particularly eager to confuse distaste for a style of dress with racism. That seems to suggest a complete intellectual bankruptcy.

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]Because the authors of the Bible were a bunch of racists. That's simple.[/qb]

Thank you for your clear, pointed insights.

Nobodady was asking about any biblical writers. The author of the thread made it very clear he was referring to "yt" interpreters and teachers of the Bible.[/qb]

Then you might care to explain why the redactors of Genesis were clear on two concepts: (1)that there was a curse on Ham and his descendants, and (2) that his descendants were black Africans?[/qb]

1. No curse was placed on Ham directly
2. The curse was directed at ONE of Ham's sons not [all] his black descendants. The one son is specified and the Bible follows up its fulfillment centuries later.

You have proven EXACTLY what Dahjah was trying to say. Misinterpretation leading to misunderstanding.[/qb]

If so, I apologise.

However, you need to explain a long tradition of interpreting it exactly thus.

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[qb]

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]Your previous effort to negatively stereotype inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’) in regards to their manner of dress was unambiguous with nothing that was open to multiple interpretations[/qb]

Servant, I don't know what previous post is underdiscussion, but... I must disagree with your statement that "inner city youth (which any honest person knows is mediaspeak for ‘Young Black Males’)". Perhaps it depends on which part of the country (USA) that you mean, as to what is meant by "inner city youth", but in the greater-Newark area, it isn't necessarily Blacks that's meant, but often Hispanics, and in yet other parts of Northern NJ, it can mean certain Asians.

Yes, I am sure that some media in some areas do in fact mean "Blacks" when they say that... Just not always.

I find it rather racist (of anyone) to blanket-statement call "ALL young Black males" (or ANY OTHER group) ANYTHING!![/qb]

That's so.