cursed for seeing your dad naked?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Leo!

Originally Posted by LeoSalinas22

ok, i read thru your post just to be sure i understood it. i will have you know that my friends and i aren't white, but of hispanic origin, so we aren't biased or racist or prejudice. just want to clear that up.

I want to touch on this as gingerly as I can. I am not accusing, I am merely stating what I have found in my experience.

Bias, racism and prejudice are not exclusive to any singular race or gender or culture. In fact, one needn't look far to find these in every culture and race, if one is willing to lay the definitions raw and bare. I think we all have bias and prejudices. Most of us here try very hard to do away with these, but sometimes prejudice can lay unknown and dormant for a long time if unchallenged. Prejudice is not simply a white on black thing. It is not simply a white on anything thing. I have known black people who were prejudiced, I have known oriental people who were prejudiced, I have known hispanics who were prejudiced. One might be perfectly OK with people of any race, nationality or skin color, and still hold prejudice against poor people, or disabled people, or non-traditional sexuality, or gender, or old people. It is still prejudice. I think politics, especially in the western countries, has polluted the term and brought an unfair bias to the meaning of the term, causing an undue prejudice against a specific skin color. I have heard some imply that it is only right, giving back what was dished out for so long...but that is not right. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who from and who receives. One cannot desire an end to prejudice by *falsely* justifying prejudice. That only serves to promote and continue prejudice.

I have been prejudiced, and I have had prejudice aimed against me. I try to overcome my prejudices when I become aware of them. I deal in the most tactful manner I can with those who treat me with prejudice.

I bring this up to clarify, not to accuse. We *all* have our demons to deal with. Side-stepping and avoiding the issue are not constructive ways of dealing with the issue. We all must learn to face our demons head on, and exorcise them ourselves. No one is immune.

[LeoSalinas22]

hello juan,

i knew something would come out of my comment, anyways, here we go. sorry about the misconception, but i was refering to just me and my two friends not being prejudiced about blacks in this thread. though, i know what you mean about everyone having prejudices. i will be the first to let everyone know that i have a crap load of prejudices. i hate this world for crying out loud! even the disciples and Christ were prejudiced in matthew 15:23-26. so there truly is nothing new under the sun.

Bias, racism and prejudice are not exclusive to any singular race or gender or culture. In fact, one needn't look far to find these in every culture and race, if one is willing to lay the definitions raw and bare. I think we all have bias and prejudices. Most of us here try very hard to do away with these, but sometimes prejudice can lay unknown and dormant for a long time if unchallenged. Prejudice is not simply a white on black thing. It is not simply a white on anything thing. I have known black people who were prejudiced, I have known oriental people who were prejudiced, I have known hispanics who were prejudiced. One might be perfectly OK with people of any race, nationality or skin color, and still hold prejudice against poor people, or disabled people, or non-traditional sexuality, or gender, or old people. It is still prejudice. I think politics, especially in the western countries, has polluted the term and brought an unfair bias to the meaning of the term, causing an undue prejudice against a specific skin color. I have heard some imply that it is only right, giving back what was dished out for so long...but that is not right. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who from and who receives. One cannot desire an end to prejudice by *falsely* justifying prejudice. That only serves to promote and continue prejudice.

i completely agree with you on this, man.

I bring this up to clarify, not to accuse. We *all* have our demons to deal with. Side-stepping and avoiding the issue are not constructive ways of dealing with the issue. We all must learn to face our demons head on, and exorcise them ourselves. No one is immune.

you and i think very alike on taking our demons head on. very few actually do this and take the easy way out. you are correct in doing this. amen and amen. God bless you...

[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

[Francis king]

noah was molested by Ham and then became an alcoholic?????

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Francis!

Originally Posted by Francis king

noah was molested by Ham and then became an alcoholic?????

Not quite. Think Oedipus Complex in the Freudian sense, sans killing his father (which Ham may well have gotten around too if he had the chance, we don't know).

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Leo!

I want to touch on this as gingerly as I can. I am not accusing, I am merely stating what I have found in my experience.

Bias, racism and prejudice are not exclusive to any singular race or gender or culture. In fact, one needn't look far to find these in every culture and race, if one is willing to lay the definitions raw and bare. I think we all have bias and prejudices. Most of us here try very hard to do away with these, but sometimes prejudice can lay unknown and dormant for a long time if unchallenged. Prejudice is not simply a white on black thing. It is not simply a white on anything thing. I have known black people who were prejudiced, I have known oriental people who were prejudiced, I have known hispanics who were prejudiced. One might be perfectly OK with people of any race, nationality or skin color, and still hold prejudice against poor people, or disabled people, or non-traditional sexuality, or gender, or old people. It is still prejudice. I think politics, especially in the western countries, has polluted the term and brought an unfair bias to the meaning of the term, causing an undue prejudice against a specific skin color. I have heard some imply that it is only right, giving back what was dished out for so long...but that is not right. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who from and who receives. One cannot desire an end to prejudice by *falsely* justifying prejudice. That only serves to promote and continue prejudice.

I have been prejudiced, and I have had prejudice aimed against me. I try to overcome my prejudices when I become aware of them. I deal in the most tactful manner I can with those who treat me with prejudice.

I bring this up to clarify, not to accuse. We *all* have our demons to deal with. Side-stepping and avoiding the issue are not constructive ways of dealing with the issue. We all must learn to face our demons head on, and exorcise them ourselves. No one is immune.

Very wise words my friend...

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Francis!

Not quite. Think Oedipus Complex in the Freudian sense, sans killing his father (which Ham may well have gotten around too if he had the chance, we don't know).

Could you please clarify?

[pattimax]

Or anyone?

[Francis king]

still none the wiser myself.... pls clarify...?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Pattimax!

I gotta feeling I may regret entering this....

You are pointed in the right direction, according to some teachings. "Uncovering his father's nakedness" is a figure of speech, supposedly, that conveys much more than simply seeing his dad without any clothes on. It has to do with sex, and Ham's mother (Noah's wife, therefore his "nakedness"), and I think I will leave the remainder to imagination...but that is why Noah was so pee'd and went so far as to curse Ham.

And it was Canaan, Ham's son {by Noah's wife?} who was cursed...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Originally Posted by pattimax

Could you please clarify?

Originally Posted by Francis king

still none the wiser myself.... pls clarify...?

Originally Posted by seattlegal

And it was Canaan, Ham's son {by Noah's wife?} who was cursed...

You are correct, seattlegal, it had slipped my memory that it was Canaan that was actually cursed, and since Ham did have other sons mentioned, you may be on to something, although as I recall the Bible is not clear on the issue.

But for those who need this spelled out, I have hesitated because it is a yucky subject...at least as yucky as Lot's daughters sleeping with him. It seems, if the teaching I mentioned is correct, that Ham "slept" with his mother. Freud's Oedipus Complex deals with this, although from the vantage of psychoanalysis and borrowing from Shakespeare (I don't know which play).

Freud was under the impression at least at some point that sexuality was a dominating factor in the human psyche, and that a young man typically subconsciously wished to kill his father and "love" his mother in a carnal sense. These tendencies I believe were supposed to be buried deep within the Id. I don't agree, but then I am not a shrink either.

I am not familiar with Jewish teaching on this, it might be nice to have Dauer or BB chime in when they have a moment. But incest in the region was not unheard of. For example, the royal lines of Pharonic Egypt typically married brothers and sisters "to keep the royal lineage pure." So for those who wish to use this example as one more strike against the Bible: number one it was frowned upon, both in this case and in the case of Lot; number two it was not unheard of in surrounding cultures at about that period of time.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, YO-Eleven!

Originally Posted by YO-ELEVEN-11

Very wise words my friend...

Thanks. Every once in a while I even surprise myself.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, all!





You are correct, seattlegal, it had slipped my memory that it was Canaan that was actually cursed, and since Ham did have other sons mentioned, you may be on to something, although as I recall the Bible is not clear on the issue.

But for those who need this spelled out, I have hesitated because it is a yucky subject...at least as yucky as Lot's daughters sleeping with him. It seems, if the teaching I mentioned is correct, that Ham "slept" with his mother. Freud's Oedipus Complex deals with this, although from the vantage of psychoanalysis and borrowing from Shakespeare (I don't know which play).

Freud was under the impression at least at some point that sexuality was a dominating factor in the human psyche, and that a young man typically subconsciously wished to kill his father and "love" his mother in a carnal sense. These tendencies I believe were supposed to be buried deep within the Id. I don't agree, but then I am not a shrink either.

I am not familiar with Jewish teaching on this, it might be nice to have Dauer or BB chime in when they have a moment. But incest in the region was not unheard of. For example, the royal lines of Pharonic Egypt typically married brothers and sisters "to keep the royal lineage pure." So for those who wish to use this example as one more strike against the Bible: number one it was frowned upon, both in this case and in the case of Lot; number two it was not unheard of in surrounding cultures at about that period of time.

From what I understand, taking possession of a man's wife or concubine is an act of usurping his authority and property. When you look at it from this standpoint, if Canaan was indeed the son of Noah's wife, Noah's cursing of Canaan can be viewed as saying that Canaan would not receive a share of Noah's estate or authoritive position when Noah died, because Canaan was not Noah's son. He was basically "writing him out of his will." {The sons of a man's wife customarily received a share of the inheritance.} Notice how Noah affirmed and blessed both Shem and Japheth, 'cursed' Canaan, and made no mention of Ham in the following passage? Notice how this passage is also mentioned in the proximity of the time of Noah's remaining life and his death?

Originally Posted by Genesis 9

24 So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. 25 Then he said:
“ Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.”
26 And he said:
“ Blessed be the LORD,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.

27 May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant.”
28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

With Ham being absent in Noah's 'living will,' I find it interesting that one of Ham's grandsons, Nimrod, tried to create his own 'kingdom or dominion' by force: {perhaps because Ham didn't receive Noah's blessing or authority, but tried to take it by force by sleeping with Noah's wife?}

Originally Posted by Genesis 10

6 The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. 7 The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan.
8 Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.” 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is the principal city). (See also Genesis 11 about Nimrod and the tower of Babel.)

[pattimax]

Excellent explanation. Thanks.

[seattlegal]

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

The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness.

and Leviticus chapter 20, especially verse 11

The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.