cursed for seeing your dad naked?

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

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]

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]

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!

Could you please clarify?

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

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!

Very wise words my friend...

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

 

[seattlegal]

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?

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?}

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.

 

[wil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"...