Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/6/2006 12:44:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 12:45:06 PM EDT by QShok]
    Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
    Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
    Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
    Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.



About 800 years after this prophecy was given it was fullfilled when Israel slew or enslaved all the Canaanites. A family and a people was enslaved because of the curse of God. Since this prophesy was fullfilled was the curse lifted? Isn't teaching that it was OK to enslave Africans because they decended from Canaan entirely racist not fundamentalism?



    rac·ism Pronunciation Key (rszm)
    n.

    1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.




Shok
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:02:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 1:50:01 PM EDT by Dino]
The men who believed that would have viewed it as fundamentalism.

People who use the Bible to justify treating a class of people differently will often say its not prejudice on their part, they are just following the word of God.

"I don't make the rules, I just follow them" is the phrase you see a lot



You want to enslave black folk use that quote.

You want to keep women in their place, quote St. Paul

You want to keep those uppity gays in the closet, quote Leviticus

Some things never change

Link Posted: 1/6/2006 1:36:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Some things never change




Yup, well said.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:34:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
The men who believed that would have viewed it as fundamentalism.

People who use the Bible to justify treating a class of people differently will often say its not prejudice on their part, they are just following the word of God.

"I don't make the rules, I just follow them" is the phrase you see a lot



You want to enslave black folk use that quote.

You want to keep women in their place, quote St. Paul

You want to keep those uppity gays in the closet, quote Leviticus

Some things never change





What if a person earnestly attempts to reject any prejudices. This same person wants the Bible to shape his values and approaches God's word with objectivity. He/She reads and studies the Bible and comes to the conclusion that enslaving "black folk" was wrong, homosexuality is a sin (as are many behviours), women shouldn't be priests/pastors, etc.

This person has many characteristics similar to fundamentalists but has only selfless ambitions of persuading people to live a righteous God centered life. Are they still racist? fundamentalists?

Shok
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:04:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 11:05:37 AM EDT by EricTheHun]
Huh?

How is any of this 'BS' a commentary on 'exploring fundamentalism'?

What are y'all trying to say?

Any of you, really, cause I see no sense in anything that's been said so far.

Want to know the most prolific enslavers of black people in human history?

Other black people.

Want to know the most prolific enslavers of white people?

Other white people.

The races had very little contact with each other until approximately 1500 AD, at the time of the 'Age of Discovery'...

Now, what's all this about 'racism'?????

Sheesh!

Y'all really do need a vaccine against PC credulity!

Eric The(AlwaysReasonable)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:17:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 11:18:53 AM EDT by QShok]
In order to shed the fundamentalist stereotype do I have to believe the bible is relative, contradiciting, and erred? Doesn't my objectivity and my intent count for anything?

Shok
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:22:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:
The men who believed that would have viewed it as fundamentalism.

People who use the Bible to justify treating a class of people differently will often say its not prejudice on their part, they are just following the word of God.

"I don't make the rules, I just follow them" is the phrase you see a lot



You want to enslave black folk use that quote.

You want to keep women in their place, quote St. Paul

You want to keep those uppity gays in the closet, quote Leviticus

Some things never change





What if a person earnestly attempts to reject any prejudices. This same person wants the Bible to shape his values and approaches God's word with objectivity. He/She reads and studies the Bible and comes to the conclusion that enslaving "black folk" was wrong, homosexuality is a sin (as are many behviours), women shouldn't be priests/pastors, etc.

This person has many characteristics similar to fundamentalists but has only selfless ambitions of persuading people to live a righteous God centered life. Are they still racist? fundamentalists?

Shok



Of course that can happen. The only problem is it is indistinguishable (sometimes even to the person making the determination) from someone who has a prejudice and looks for Biblical confirmation of that prejudice.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:24:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
In order to shed the fundamentalist stereotype do I have to believe the bible is relative, contradiciting, and erred? Doesn't my objectivity and my intent count for anything?


Sorry, but 'stereotypes' don't hunt around here.

If you wish to present evidence that the Bible is 'relative, contradicting, and erred', then please do so.

So far, I have seen nothing...but absolutely nothing.

Eric The(WiseOld)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:33:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 11:45:04 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Huh?

How is any of this 'BS' a commentary on 'exploring fundamentalism'?

What are y'all trying to say?

Any of you, really, cause I see no sense in anything that's been said so far.

Want to know the most prolific enslavers of black people in human history?

Other black people.

Want to know the most prolific enslavers of white people?

Other white people.

The races had very little contact with each other until approximately 1500 AD, at the time of the 'Age of Discovery'...

Now, what's all this about 'racism'?????

Sheesh!

Y'all really do need a vaccine against PC credulity!

Eric The(AlwaysReasonable)Hun



RTFP Eric,
it wasn't discussing a wordwide analysis of the ethnic breakdown between masters and slaves. It was adressing the Biblical justification that was used in the 1800's in America to lend support to keeping black slaves.

It is a justification that goes back to at least the year 700 linking the curse of Ham with black skin.

www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah2.html

The link above points to a straightdope.com article (the 2nd part) that deals with its connection to slavery in America.

The first article is a good analysis of the story and what is left unsaid in the account in the Bible.


p.s. enslaving people is not racist, its just evil. enslaving black people because they are black people is racist and evil. Using the Word to justify it simply compounds the crime imo.



Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:37:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:
In order to shed the fundamentalist stereotype do I have to believe the bible is relative, contradiciting, and erred? Doesn't my objectivity and my intent count for anything?

Shok



Shok,
read the info I posted alink for. Go to the first page. You can read what the Bible actually says and what the interpretation has been.

The Bible hasn't changed, our interpretation of that verse has changed.

The Bible never says anything about skin color or race in the account of Ham. Don't let others misuse of the Bible change your faith.



Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:16:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 12:18:05 PM EDT by EricTheHun]
Originally Posted By Dino:

RTFP Eric,
it wasn't discussing a wordwide analysis of the ethnic breakdown between masters and slaves. It was adressing the Biblical justification that was used in the 1800's in America to lend support to keeping black slaves.


So what?

'The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purposes.'

You are talking about human history and human beings who are likely to use anything at hand to explain their failings and foibles.

That's not Biblical History.

It is a justification that goes back to at least the year 700 linking the curse of Ham with black skin.

Yeah, I'm going to allow Cecil to teach me the Scriptures!

'That'll be the day!' ~ Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), The Searchers, 1956

The link above points to a straightdope.com article (the 2nd part) that deals with its connection to slavery in America.

Again, 'slavery in America' was the least of the many problems that black Africans faced on their own continent and among their own people.

'Slavery in America' was a sidelight, at best, in the never-ending history of human chattel slavery on the 'dark continent.'

Read Numbers Chapter 12 to see how the Lord dealt with those who despised others because of the color of their skin....

Eric The(AlwaysHelpful)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:34:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 12:37:46 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By Dino:

RTFP Eric,
it wasn't discussing a wordwide analysis of the ethnic breakdown between masters and slaves. It was adressing the Biblical justification that was used in the 1800's in America to lend support to keeping black slaves.


So what?

'The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purposes.'

You are talking about human history and human beings who are likely to use anything at hand to explain their failings and foibles. which is exactly my point

That's not Biblical History.

It is a justification that goes back to at least the year 700 linking the curse of Ham with black skin.

Yeah, I'm going to allow Cecil to teach me the Scriptures!

'That'll be the day!' ~ Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), The Searchers, 1956

The link above points to a straightdope.com article (the 2nd part) that deals with its connection to slavery in America.

Again, 'slavery in America' was the least of the many problems that black Africans faced on their own continent and among their own people.

'Slavery in America' was a sidelight, at best, in the never-ending history of human chattel slavery on the 'dark continent.'

Read Numbers Chapter 12 to see how the Lord dealt with those who despised others because of the color of their skin....

Eric The(AlwaysHelpful)Hun



ETH, we seem to be saying the same thing. Those who used the Bible to justify enslaving the blacks were misusing the Bible.

I'd go even further to say that anyone who uses the Bible to justify enslaving, harming, or killing another person for reasons other than self defense, is making a grave error.

Some would debate me even on the self defense part, but I refuse to believe Jesus didn't own a 1911 for just that purpose. He just chose not to use it



Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:43:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dino:

ETH, we seem to be saying the same thing. Those who used the Bible to justify enslaving the blacks were misusing the Bible.

Gadzooks!

You may be right.

I'd go even further to say that anyone who uses the Bible to justify enslaving, harming, or killing another person for reasons other than self defense, is making a grave error.

A house divided against itself...so to speak...cannot stand.

Some would debate me even on the self defense part, but I refuse to believe Jesus didn't own a 1911 for just that purpose. He just chose not to use it

I suppose that the 12 Legions of Angels, Christ said could rescue Him if He wished, might have carried 1911s, but we are not told that.

And IF a single 'angel of death' could kill the firstborn of every living being in Egypt in a single night, imagine, if you will, what 12 legions of angels could accomplish!

Armed or otherwise.

Eric The(Inerrant)Hun
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:51:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:
In order to shed the fundamentalist stereotype do I have to believe the bible is relative, contradiciting, and erred? Doesn't my objectivity and my intent count for anything?

Shok



Shok,
read the info I posted alink for. Go to the first page. You can read what the Bible actually says and what the interpretation has been.

The Bible hasn't changed, our interpretation of that verse has changed.



I agree with that link you gave, we don't know why Canaan was cursed and not Ham. Maybe Canaan was his favorite and that was worse than cursing Ham himself?

I also found this:

    Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
    Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
    Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


If I understand this correctly, the children will no longer suffer for the iniquity of the father.



The Bible never says anything about skin color or race in the account of Ham. Don't let others misuse of the Bible change your faith.




Don't worry about my faith its grounded in the Bible. My intent of this thread was not racism but to quantify fundamentalism. Obviously misusing Gen 9:25 puts one in the racist category. I used this example because it is the biggest difference between a racist/segregationist and a conservative Christian but they both smack of fundamentalism. I often have to accept the title "fundi" when I talk to liberals which is frustrating. Trying to tell some liberals I'm a conservative Christian not a racist is an oxymoron to them.

Shok
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 1:19:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By QShok:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By QShok:
In order to shed the fundamentalist stereotype do I have to believe the bible is relative, contradiciting, and erred? Doesn't my objectivity and my intent count for anything?

Shok



Shok,
read the info I posted alink for. Go to the first page. You can read what the Bible actually says and what the interpretation has been.

The Bible hasn't changed, our interpretation of that verse has changed.



I agree with that link you gave, we don't know why Canaan was cursed and not Ham. Maybe Canaan was his favorite and that was worse than cursing Ham himself?

I also found this:

    Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
    Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
    Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.


If I understand this correctly, the children will no longer suffer for the iniquity of the father.



The Bible never says anything about skin color or race in the account of Ham. Don't let others misuse of the Bible change your faith.




Don't worry about my faith its grounded in the Bible. My intent of this thread was not racism but to quantify fundamentalism. Obviously misusing Gen 9:25 puts one in the racist category. I used this example because it is the biggest difference between a racist/segregationist and a conservative Christian but they both smack of fundamentalism. I often have to accept the title "fundi" when I talk to liberals which is frustrating. Trying to tell some liberals I'm a conservative Christian not a racist is an oxymoron to them.

Shok



Yup, its like when I tell someone I'm an atheist but I'm not a communist. They don't make any distinctions.

I wouldn't worry about the ignorant ones, they are going to dislike you no matter how well you make your case.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:49:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By Dino:

ETH, we seem to be saying the same thing. Those who used the Bible to justify enslaving the blacks were misusing the Bible.

Gadzooks!

You may be right.

I'd go even further to say that anyone who uses the Bible to justify enslaving, harming, or killing another person for reasons other than self defense, is making a grave error.

A house divided against itself...so to speak...cannot stand.

Some would debate me even on the self defense part, but I refuse to believe Jesus didn't own a 1911 for just that purpose. He just chose not to use it

I suppose that the 12 Legions of Angels, Christ said could rescue Him if He wished, might have carried 1911s, but we are not told that.

And IF a single 'angel of death' could kill the firstborn of every living being in Egypt in a single night, imagine, if you will, what 12 legions of angels could accomplish!

Armed or otherwise.

Eric The(Inerrant)Hun



DID ETH AND DINO (and wdsman) JUST AGREE ON SOMETHING??


Isn't that the seventh sign of the Apocalypse?
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:50:25 AM EDT
Top Top