WHY do they teach that ...

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]'Servant', since you've been consistently dishonest and dishonourable, it's pretty clear that you're continuing in the same way. However, if you want to accuse me of dishonesty have the decency to do so to my face.”

Done. You are dishonest.

{Fledgist: That's to my face? You are dishonest, dishonourable, and cowardly. }

”I happen to think that dressing in baggy trousers which expose the underwear is tasteless. That many young black, Hispanic, and white people dress in this way is a fact. Pointing this out is not racist.”

Aaah. Now we have the sudden appearance of “and white people” even having admitted, in this same thread no less !, that the term “inner city youth” refers to young ethnic minorities.

{Fledgist: I work in the inner city, I see all 'races' dressed in ways I find tasteless. Now, call that racist.}

What a weasely and cowardly thing to do. What a breathtaking piece of intellectual dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself !

”On the other hand, touting a religion forced on your forebears by the criminals who enslaved them is certainly an insult to the memory of those forebears.”

“A fine Tu Quoque” as you would say.[/qb]

Hardly, since I'm hardly a racist and finding something tasteless is not a matter of 'race'.

On the other hand, betraying your ancestors certainly is.

[servant]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

"{Fledgist: I work in the inner city, I see all 'races' dressed in ways I find tasteless. Now, call that racist.}"

That may be, but your slipping "white people" into your post, this late in the game, is a patently dishonest attempt to paper over the racist implications of your sentiments. A Clintonesque device you have employed merely to bolster your increasingly weak defence.

The fact of the matter is that white youth do not define this manner of dress any more than Elvis Presley did Rock and Roll in his time, or Eminem does rap in ours.

Your bald faced attempt to re-define what "inner city youth" means therefore, is just more evidence of your dishonesty.

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Tim:
Ham knew better than to do what he did. Jewish laws and customs were not taken lightly.

But there wasn't "Jewish Law" in Noah's time (thanks Mutty!). There was just this little family, with a drunken father, who thought if his son saw him naked, laying around the tent, then this was worthy of changing his son's future, and all of his son's decedents futures, for the worse. I think it was a hang up, neurotic. A father who wanted to be a king. Who among us now would curse a son for such a minor infraction?! Who among us would even make that rule?

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:

Insofar as whom Ham "broadcast" his tale (about his father's state of dishabille)... that he broadcast it to ANYone, rather than keeping it to himself was a sin because he was disrespecting his father -- a grievous sin for the ancient Jews.

As Mutty has pointed out, this little scene played out before those ancient rules. And also, making seeing someone's privates (especially when one drinks too much), is going to happen often.

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:

That he told "only his brothers" isn't the point (and it wasn't the point to ancient Jews); He SHOULD have told NO ONE AT ALL, and merely silently rectified the situation (as his brothers did)

Why is this seeing such a big deal? So what if it is a rule in the yard there, it is irrational for it to be actionable.

Originally posted by WitchyOoman:

And, you ask why Noah got angry??? I suggest that, being human, as we all are, and being prone to fualt, as we all are, that... Noah was embarrassed at being found in such a state, and he took it out on his son. Like we all, at times, do... (Again, I could try to contact Noah's spirit, and ask him. Short of that, all we can do is speculate!).

So Noah made a bad and hasty decision in this case?

[Mutty]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

40 and others, I think there was more that went on than what we read in the account. This is just MY opinion. I also have this funny feeling Canaan was in on something with his dad. Considering what archeology has gleaned about the Canaanites -that they were some of history's most perverted and religiously gross people, I can only deduct from that that Canaan may have, by nature, been a rather sick individual. The curse then, was prophetic in nature and NOT a cause of any wayward ways Canaan or his progeny may have set upon.

In our Dr. Spock world, we are not supposed to tell kids they are going to turn out to be worthless bums based on their present dispositions but I detect that is exactly what Noah was telling Ham about his son. In other words, "Ham, your son is going to be this and this. He is going to be no good and become servants to others."

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:

In our Dr. Spock world, we are not supposed to tell kids they are going to turn out to be worthless bums based on their present dispositions but I detect that is exactly what Noah was telling Ham about his son. In other words, "Ham, your son is going to be this and this. He is going to be no good and become servants to others."

So in the Christian world it makes sense to say that to your son, when he comes across you naked after binging on wine? Because, I can't imagine a REAL world where it makes sense. It isn't because of Dr. Spoke either, it's about self preservation, and species preservation. We want our children strong, and full of self esteem... all fathers with common sense do, anyway.

[kthydvs]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]

Originally posted by Mutty - The return:

In our Dr. Spock world, we are not supposed to tell kids they are going to turn out to be worthless bums based on their present dispositions but I detect that is exactly what Noah was telling Ham about his son. In other words, "Ham, your son is going to be this and this. He is going to be no good and become servants to others."

So in the Christian world it makes sense to say that to your son, when he comes across you naked after binging on wine? Because, I can't imagine a REAL world where it makes sense. It isn't because of Dr. Spoke either, it's about self preservation, and species preservation. We want our children strong, and full of self esteem... all fathers with common sense do, anyway.[/qb]

Your quite correct when you say we want our children strong and full of self esteem, but what happens if we know that a child has a serious personality flaw. Would we ignore it so that we don't damage their ego or would the correct thing to do as a parent/guardian be to bring the problem out in the open so if possible the child can be disciplined and corrected? The record only mentions that Ham the father of Canaan saw his father's nakedness. The question arises as to why Canaan rather than Ham became the object of the curse? Also why was Canaan abruptly introduced into the account? There are conjectural views that suggest Canaan indulged a perverted lust upon Noah and although the Bible does not give any details, it is possible that Ham knew that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on Noah and failed to act and then compounded the wrong by making known to his brother's Noah's disgrace.

[fOrTyLeGz]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Kumba:

Your quite correct when you say we want our children strong and full of self esteem, but what happens if we know that a child has a serious personality flaw. Would we ignore it so that we don't damage their ego or would the correct thing to do as a parent/guardian be to bring the problem out in the open so if possible the child can be disciplined and corrected?

And putting a curse on his grandsons is going to accomlish... what? It doesn't sound like discipline to me at all. It sounds like rage.

Originally posted by Kumba:

The record only mentions that Ham the father of Canaan saw his father's nakedness. The question arises as to why Canaan rather than Ham became the object of the curse? Also why was Canaan abruptly introduced into the account? There are conjectural views that suggest Canaan indulged a perverted lust upon Noah and although the Bible does not give any details, it is possible that Ham knew that Canaan had committed or attempted to commit some abuse on Noah and failed to act and then compounded the wrong by making known to his brother's Noah's disgrace.

We have been discussing a more literal interpretaition... but just flipping like this because you have been "seen naked" seems like a very unnatural reaction... to me.

[kthydvs]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

There is also the prophetic element of the curse to consider. The curse expressed by Noah was divinely inspired and since GOD's disfavour is not expressed without just cause, it is likely that Canaan had already manifested a definitely corrupt trait, perhaps of a lustful nature, and that GOD foresaw the bad results in which this characteristic would eventually culminate among Canaan's descendants.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

40legz, if it makes you feel any better, it may have been no more than a rage that Noah flew into... Or, it may be that God foresaw (and foreshadowed) about Canaanites... Or, it may be that Noah was always hot-tempered, and this is the only surviving record of his tempper... *shrug* Your point is ... ?????????

Besides, check back and re-read before you jump all over me: I DID in fact already conceed Mutty's point to him BEFORE you jumped in. Sorry, but I see no reason why that first apology (and concession) wasn't sufficient; I'm not issuing a second one!

[Fledgist]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]"{Fledgist: I work in the inner city, I see all 'races' dressed in ways I find tasteless. Now, call that racist.}"

That may be, but your slipping "white people" into your post, this late in the game, is a patently dishonest attempt to paper over the racist implications of your sentiments. A Clintonesque device you have employed merely to bolster your increasingly weak defence.

The fact of the matter is that white youth do not define this manner of dress any more than Elvis Presley did Rock and Roll in his time, or Eminem does rap in ours.

Your bald faced attempt to re-define what "inner city youth" means therefore, is just more evidence of your dishonesty.[/qb]

Hardly. I merely observe who I happen to see wearing clothing in styles I find distasteful.

Frankly, this is getting boring. You're attempting to tar me as racist for not liking a particular style of dress. That's idiotic, but then, I wouldn't expect otherwise.

You, on the other hand, are doing this to cover up the fact that you are a traitor to your own people. Nice try. Especially when done from the haven of complete anonymity.

[dahjah]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mutty - The return:
[qb]

Now I know what you are stumbling over. You are wondering how white, black, Chinese, Indian could all have derived from three brothers who you assume looked the same in complexion and other features. It IS possible in the world of genetics. You do know it is possible for black parents to have a white child (albino) but white parents cannot have a black child. So consider that if the first peoples were black or at least of a darker or suave shade.

But now I ask you the question. If these three brothers looked the same and say they were ebony black or chocolate brwon in complexion, where do you think the other races of people come from?[/qb]

No that's not wah mi stumble ova, an mi knaw stumble

I dunn ahreddy kno seh all de oddah ppl's of the earth derived from black to brown to ...

But for these three to go off on their own an start up other nations and for the offspring to come out as it's been put, there would have to be some mixing.
If so weh dem fine de ppl to mix wid?
If climate is the factor then why the different bone structure betwen the races?
Francis Cres mi tink a suh she name answers nuff a dis in the "Isis Papers"
But what I'm saying is I've heard it taught that the three were actually different races that's how this all got started.
Mi nuh even kno how de jew talk cum een a dis oh yeah witchy DWL.
For them to be the father of theses races they would have had to start it. When it was more likely way down the line b4 a change took place.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]

Mi nuh kno how de jew talk cum een a dis oh yeah witchy DWL.[/qb]

Mind you mouth, K-dajah! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] The use of the term "Jew talk" is offensive in the extreme. It is no different, in this manner of usage, than the use of the n-word, as in *n*-talk".

Secondly, it is NOT I who brought up discussion of anything Jewish in here. Do try to use what reading comprehension skills that you might possess...

The first person to use the word "Jew" in this thread was in fact YOU (the third post in this thread, and your first response, the post dated posted December 15, 2002 04:17 PM). Or do you run off so much that you don't know what you say/post?

The second person to use the word "Jew" in here was Tim (quote: "The Jewish people believed that sexual organs should not be displayed hence Noah's sons covered him."), and my own first post in here was directly related to (answered) that post (go back and re-read my first post in here, dated December 17, 2002 11:59 AM, and take especial note of the fact that I even quoted Tim to point out that THAT was what I was answering, speaking to).

[dahjah]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WitchyOoman:
[qb]

Originally posted by King dahjah:
[qb]

Mi nuh kno how de jew talk cum een a dis oh yeah witchy DWL.[/qb]

Mind you mouth, K-dajah! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] The use of the term "Jew talk" is offensive in the extreme. It is no different, in this manner of usage, than the use of the n-word, as in *n*-talk".

Secondly, it is NOT I who brought up discussion of anything Jewish in here. Do try to use what reading comprehension skills that you might possess...

The first person to use the word "Jew" in this thread was in fact YOU (the third post in this thread, and your first response, the post dated posted December 15, 2002 04:17 PM). Or do you run off so much that you don't know what you say/post?

The second person to use the word "Jew" in here was Tim (quote: "The Jewish people believed that sexual organs should not be displayed hence Noah's sons covered him."), and my own first post in here was directly related to (answered) that post (go back and re-read my first post in here, dated December 17, 2002 11:59 AM, and take especial note of the fact that I even quoted Tim to point out that THAT was what I was answering, speaking to).[/qb]

Nuh even cum roun here wid dem kinda talk bout is de same as de "N" word ar what eva.
All I can say to dat is wad eva.
First we should clear up who the "REAL" Jews are anyway.
And they happen to be the ones who were stolen from a land a put in ships and sent to a land not of their own.
The ppl today who call themselves Jews stole these other ppl's birthright and have fooled the whole world into believeing they are the chosen of GOD.
Even the very ppl who have had their birthright stole deny themselves that they are the ones.

[N.L.L.L. Aimé Olenga]

Re: WHY do they teach that ...

Originally posted by Kumba:
[qb]"All men living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and are derived from a common stock...Biological differences between human beings are due to differences in hereditary constitution and to the influence of the environment on this genetic potential. In most cases, those differences are due to the interaction of these two sets of factors. Differences between individuals within a race or within a population are often greater than the average differnces between races and populations" quote from A Statement on Race, comvened by UNESCO.

A race is simply one of partially isolated gene pools into which the human species came to be divided during and following its early geographical spread. Roughly one race has developed on each of the five major continental areas of the earth...man did indeed diverge genetically during this phase in history and we can measure and study results of this divergence in what remains today of the old geographical races. As we would expect, divergence appears to be correlated with the degree of isolation. Thus early in human history, when a group of people were isolated from others and married within the group, certain distintive combinations of genetic traits were emphasized in their offspring.

now it seems we have a choice here. Is it creation or evolution that brought about the diffent races of mankind. If we believe it is evolution, then the flood is nothing but a fairystory. But if we believe the creation theory, then the resulting explanation for the different races is easily understood as the various races are merely facets of the total variation possible in mankind[/qb]

Sorry dear this is not right but a kaukazian propaganda... Kaukazians and Ebonite are very distinctive races and have nothing with each other origin.

What UNESCO is saying or supporting is but kaukazian supremacist view not the reality. I will come back to you with this one.

Good walk.