AssemblyBoard

I'm reading Genisis.  I'm camped currently on the exit from the garden.  The curse, delivered to the snake, the woman and the man.

Gen 3:16  "He will rule over you."

Of course, to George, that meant free reign fellows.  A man ruling over a woman.  I disagree that licence was given here, but rather, a different warning, if a man wants to take it.

Just as the ground was cursed, so too, Adam lost something in the fall and instead of the pure intent to share a parntership, Adam, in his fallen state, had a natural compulsion to rule over woman.  I don't think God's encouraging this rule here, I think he's warning that now, Adam's tendancy will not be what it was.

Any takers?

Delila

Jeff VanVonderen and Dave Johnson (The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, see Resources on ga.com) both have this view.  Jeff talks about it in his book, Families Where Grace Is In Place.   Dave Johnson covers it in his tape series on Ephesians.

Hi Delila,

Suzie and I struggled with this a few years back.  Being true believers, and committed Geftakysservants,  we implemented the Heavenly Vision in our marriage without compromise.

Life sucked...especially for Suzie.

About 5 years ago, my eyes began to open with the help of Tim Geftakys, of all people.  It's all in my book,  Navigating The Deeper Life.

Anyways,  the curse of the garden was to the serpent, the man, the woman, the ground, the plants, and everything else that Adam was supposed to be keeping and tending.  The tendency for men to rule over women, and for women to be "weaker" is not a benefit to man, nor a reward for Adam's rebellion, it is his greatest curse.

Men who rule over women and children by force miss out on life's greatest blessings, and the abuse they perpetrate over those dependent on them will not go unnoticed.  

Contrarily, those who understand that the curse is a really bad thing, and don't use this verse to justify being a domineering husband, understand that in Christ, the curse has been removed....in one sense.  Women and men still have physical results of the curse, as does the Earth, etc.   However,  we no longer have to treat our women like beasts of burden,  second class citizens, or "full-service" maids.  Leave that to the Muslims.

Suzie is my equal in every respect.  I defer to her in many areas, and she to me in others.  We both bring a different set of talents and skills to our marriage, and try to make the best use of them.  I reject the notion that I should rule over my wife on several grounds, the most important of them that Christ does not "rule" over his church,  even though He has all power and authority.

Suzie and I are both part of His church, and are therefore equals, co-heirs, and there is the fact that we love eachother too.

Geftakysism is a bad system for women.

Brent

We had a discussion about this two weeks ago in a morning men's group I attend.  Neither the statement, "your desire will be for your husband" and "he will rule over you" were positive statements.  The language behind the "desire for her husband" suggests an intention to usurp (so my studious pastor maintains - I'm not a Hebrew expert).   The language behind "he will rule over you" suggests authoritarian, beating down behavior.

These two abuses of relationships were not known to the charter couple until the curse.  The passage is not condoning this behavior but explaining how relationship breakdown and abuse originated.  As redeemed people, our behavior should be as God originally intended, not as cursed humanity dictates.

Hi folks,

I just want to inform you that I AM THE BIG POTATO in my house!

I make the decisions!  ALL the important decisions.

Like, What should the president do, what the United Nations should do, How the war on terror should be fought.  The REALLY important stuff.

I delegate the small stuff to my wife.  You know, stuff like, how we should spend our money, how we should raise our kids, where we should go on vacations, what we are doing this weekend.   The little stuff.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
 ;)

You people!

I keep expecting all of you to stand up and point at me with your index fingers: "Heritic!" and it just keeps not happening. :P

That's refreshing!

I just finished a book called "The Crow who tampered with Time" by Lloyd Ratzlaff - a former Christian fundamentalist, raised in a very strict Menonite background, and a Saskatchewan writer, like myself.  Pure 'fluke' that I found his book.  Creative nonfiction, he writes.  Here's a quote from "The Barrier of the Patriarchs"

"A friend drove into the country one day to inspect a test plot... Hundreds of cages stood there, each containing a bird; but one door hung from a broken hinge, and a turkey stood on the threshhold, diminutive head peering into the world, body bulking safe in a cage till Thanksgiving... a Far Side cartoon....
"Why must the partriarchal barrier be broken through?  So that we are not diverted by dogmas of a Christ growing in wheat but not in rice.  So that women are not cowed by decrees, canons, ordinances, and regulations about how high they shall be allowed to ascend.  So that patriarchs (LBS) stop raping us and leaving us with 'the emotions that persist after the facts have faded'...So that the religion of Jesus doesn't turn into a doggerel about Jesus, where dead scriptures are more important than living persons, and where past and future are pirates of the eternal Now.

"Why must we pass through the barrier? So we're not turkeys in broken cages.  So any world we enter becomes our playground.  Even a world of patriarchs."

I was so blessed by this.  I read it again and again.

Delila

Tom and all,
    I agree this is a refreshing topic to those of us spiritual 'jocks' who felt we must conform to the 'bringing our wives in submission' bit.  From your description, Tom, you are a realist, which is why, as a medical guy, I have observed that women actually do much better than men without their mates than men!  I actually think this is both a curse ( in the fracturing of relationships) and a blessing ( in the grace-enabled emulation of Jesus) to both husband and wife.  I taught an interesting bible study to High School students this morning on Esther 1...read it and tell me what would Jesus do in this situation?  There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was a radical in the patriarchal society He lived!  Can we men be secure enough in our manhood to behave as He did?   A challenge to us all...SELAH.
Wayne (still crazy about Pat after all these years).  :D

Folks,

I think that Church, the company of the redeemed, should reflect the mind of Christ in the area of marriage.

Ephesians 5:20-23 gives the basic guidlines.  After 39 years of marriage, I have never seen anything that improves on this.  (I don't claim to have scored 100% every day)

In any relationship, someone is always dominant party.  The key is to decide going in who is in charge.  The best choice is Christ.

In many marriages, the issue of dominance is settled by strength of will.  The one who can cause the other the most emotional pain for the longest time wins.  The other one grudgingly gives in.

We have not so learned Christ.

The Bible doesn't teach 21st Century egalitarianism.  But it is pretty hard for a man to mistreat his wife while "nourishing and cherishing" her.  Nourishing her includes her body, soul and spirit.  It means helping her to flourish.   Cherishing means being very concerned for her welfare.  

Values like courtesy, consideration, kindness, attentivness, friendship, listening, and so on, flow out of these ideas.


Making decisions for your family should be a serious responsibility, (after all, we are responsible to God),  not a license to indulge oneself.

Just my .02.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

     Well, thanks everybody!  After 36+ years of marriage, Cathy now insists that I stop beating her immediately and give her keys to the house, the car & the closet where her shoes are.  And I'm now sleeping on the couch, pending the building of a doghouse in the backyard.  Oh, and I get to build it myself!


     Hmmm... It seems to have worked OK for Betty.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     All kidding aside, thank you and thank God for this thread.  You're all right on the mark.

God bless all here,
al

Thanks Tom and Al,

    Ephesians 5 is STILL the best guideline after 24+ years of this wonderful thing called marriage which God, not the courts or the church, designed.  And thanks to Delilah for courageously stimulating this dialogue.....
I would love to hear from some of the wives on experiences, scriptural lessons, etc. on this topic.

Wayne

Interesting take Tom.   :)  From what I understand, I was blamed for our departure as a family from the assembly (along with my daughter Brittni.)  Prior to our leaving, the groundwork was laid by the leadership to paint our marriage as one that had to be carefully monitored in order that my husband, Greg, not be "railroaded" or "led" by me, the wife.  I was the more vocal, the more outgoing, etc.  He is naturally more passive and quiet, reserved.  However, he is no pushover, no pansie.  He will not let me lead him.  However, he is, as Tom pointed out, a kind, gentle, caring, compassionate man who COMPLEMENTS ME.

We each have our gifts, our strengths.  The wonderful thing about my husband is that he is not threatened by my strengths, which happen to be of a more "male" quality, if you will.  This enables our marriage to work in a wonderful, synergistic relationship.  We work "together", he does not "dominate" me.

This was a threat to the assembly leadership from the beginning.

More about the curse:  Mother, May I?

What about that Noah, getting all tanked up in his tent, buck naked, and in comes his son, getting an eye full.  Now, I've heard some preaching on this, assembly style and with all the shame and guilt by the dozens in that turkey cage, it's not hard to imagine what was said.

But what's this about nakedness anyway?  I don't really get it.  Porn aside.  Seriously, folks, what do a drunken old man's ragings matter all that much?  So Noah pronouces this curse against his youngest son and blesses the other two who came in with the blanket to cover him.  The scripture doesn't say if Noah had sobered up yet when he made the pronouncements either.  Just that he said them: curses and blessings.

And another thing, lots of sons gettin' born in Genisis, but no daughters important enough to mention.  Why's that?

Delila

 


Interesting take Tom.   :)  From what I understand, I was blamed for our departure as a family from the assembly (along with my daughter Brittni.)  
...And Kimberly and Brittini Tobin were saved, and all their household.... So great was the power and Spirit of God in that place etc etc.

Love,

Delila

Hi Delila,

If you study Genesis, and employ an understanding of the Hebraic mindset, look at what the Midrash, and the rabinical traditions have to say, etc.  a person understands that Noah pronounced this curse on Ham, not as a reuslt of one little mistake, but due to a clear tendency to evil in Ham and his son, Canaan.

History bore out the fact that not only were Ham and Canaan cursed, but their descendants were cursed......AND THEY DESERVED IT!

As for daughters not being mentioned I could say several things.  First of all, we are talking about a patriarchal family  (Noah, through Eber, Through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs)  amongst and even more patriarchal culture.   The fact that Sarah is mentioned so much, and that her speech is quoted in the New Testament, when she commanded her husband, Abraham, to "Cast out the bondwoman and her son!  

This is set the current culture on its head, in a sense, especially when God told Abraham to "listen to your wife."

Think about it.  The Bible isn't anti-feminist, or chauvenist at all.  However, dishonest, insecure men will happily twist it to meet their own agenda, which is what you and I experienced.

Sadly, much of what we see today in the radical feminist agenda is nothing but the well earned backlash from the disgusting men treated women in God's name over the the last hundred or so years.  

Reaction, while understandable, is not the answer.  Repentance and forgiveness is.  The thing that helped me more than anything else was when I apologized to my wife,  about 7 years ago.  No kidding, minutes after that, the scales fell off my eyes and I began to see light for the first time in many years.

Brent

I agree.  One thing I've enjoyed lately is getting to know some older couples in a small group setting.  By older I mean married for 4 or 5 decades.  They are Christians, & they demonstrate mutual love and respect in how they relate to each other.  One couple reminded me of Hap and Helen G. from Norfolk, who we met many years ago.  Hap once told Phill that before he was saved, he had been "wilder than a cigar store Indian".
Personally, I would say it is hard not to love and respect an Eph. 5 husband.  
Becky

I agree with those who have cited Ephesians 5.  A woman is commanded by Scripture to love her husband.  And 1 Peter literally means what it says.  But a man is commanded by Scripture to love his wife, and to nurture his children.  Unfortunately, in my 23 years in the assembly, I rarely if ever saw a true and untainted example of how it all is supposed to work. :'(  Those who claimed to be our examples to imitate were guilty of malpractice.  Do you know how frustrating it is to have to unlearn all of the garbage I was taught?

Clarence Thompson

Hi Delila,

If you study Genesis, and employ an understanding of the Hebraic mindset, look at what the Midrash, and the rabinical traditions have to say, etc.  a person understands that Noah pronounced this curse on Ham, not as a reuslt of one little mistake, but due to a clear tendency to evil in Ham and his son, Canaan.

History bore out the fact that not only were Ham and Canaan cursed, but their descendants were cursed......AND THEY DESERVED IT!

As for daughters not being mentioned I could say several things.  First of all, we are talking about a patriarchal family  (Noah, through Eber, Through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs)  amongst and even more patriarchal culture.   The fact that Sarah is mentioned so much, and that her speech is quoted in the New Testament, when she commanded her husband, Abraham, to "Cast out the bondwoman and her son!  

This is set the current culture on its head, in a sense, especially when God told Abraham to "listen to your wife."

Think about it.  The Bible isn't anti-feminist, or chauvenist at all.  However, dishonest, insecure men will happily twist it to meet their own agenda, which is what you and I experienced.

Sadly, much of what we see today in the radical feminist agenda is nothing but the well earned backlash from the disgusting men treated women in God's name over the the last hundred or so years.  

Reaction, while understandable, is not the answer.  Repentance and forgiveness is.  The thing that helped me more than anything else was when I apologized to my wife,  about 7 years ago.  No kidding, minutes after that, the scales fell off my eyes and I began to see light for the first time in many years.

Brent


Brent:
I find it difficult to see what it is I need to repent of or forgive, in this inquiry, either.

Further to my understanding the Hebrew and his mindset, what other books to you consult in the way of ancient texts when seeking to understand what exactly the sins of Mosses' son was.  How is it that you're so certain he deserved this curse.  A curse, after all, is a pretty heavy thing to go wailing around.  I take it that you think Noah had sobered up then, by the time he did the cursing eh?

Cheers

Delila

You've got to be kidding me!
A laughable fable espoused only by those totally ignorant of the history of the African continent. Now I've heard everything...!
Not everthing Eidersheim says is necessarily so...
Furthermore, the  text clearly says the curse was issued to Canaan! To try and tar as it were all of Ham's descendants with such drivel is nothing more than black pathology masquerading as theology...you surprise me...
Verne
p.s. I am also assuming that everyone on this BB knows where white people came from...or do they??!!
I have a funny feeling I am going to really regret responding to this...

What I heard is that the cursed Canaanites were mostly destroyed by the children of Israel when they conquered their land under Joshua.  Only Canaan was cursed, not the rest of Ham's sons.

Genesis 10:15-19
And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.  And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha.

I heard that the hebrews were the descendants of Eber.
The lineage: Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber.

Genesis 10:22-24
The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

It seems that most of the rest of the world came from Japheth.

Genesis 10:2-5
The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

OH boy.....

First of all, I am not a racist.  Please leave that out of it,  as it isn't part of the conversation.

Secondly,  why did Noah curse Canaan when Ham was the one who uncovered his father's nakedness?  The answer is that he cursed Ham and Canaan.  Hams descendants are clearly who the anthropologists used to call Negroids.  That was when I was in school, I don't know the modern terminology so please correct me if I'm wrong on the name.  We used to say there were Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid.....Ham was definitely the father of the Negroid.

This has nothing to do with "black pathology," Verne.  The text is clear.  If you want to pull the race thing, I've got you beat hands down, as i am Jewish, a descendant of Abraham after the flesh.....not one of you gentiles, whether white black, brown or red.  Let's not be so thin skinned.

My Jewishness makes me no less a person than your blackness, or anothers yellowness.

Most everyone is agreed that Japeth was the forefather of the Europeans,  Shem the "semitic" peoples,  and Ham the people of Egypt, Africa and Canaan.  

Ham was the first to introduce pagan Gods. 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.  Nimrod was the one who got Babylon started, which is generally considered a bad thing in the Bible.  

Canaan was particularly cursed, but I defy you to find much good in the other sons of Ham listed above.  

No worry, lest a descendant of Ham think I am condemning them for their ancestry, I am not.  There is nothing good in any of Noah's descendants, including those of Shem.  Isn't that why we need a Savior?

As far as the Canaanites being destroyed....yes many of them were.  But the problem was that Israel never finished the job, and there is trouble to this very day,  between the Canaanite and the Ishmaelite,  and the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Verne.  We each belong to one of the lineages of the son's of Noah.

Seriously, I've had about enough of this.  If you are going to call someting drivel, and yell and spout off about it, how about backing it up with some facts and correction instead of just proclaiming how surprised you are?  Why am I wrong?

Brent

Hi folks,

BTW when scholars identify place names from the OT the identifications are VERY tenuous.  Frequently they are nothing more than conjucture.

Even the place names from the Davidic period and afterward are frequently just educated guesses.

Some big cities are well known, and a few places, like Jericho, still exist.  But usually those maps you have in the back of your Bibles for the patriarchal period are nearly all conjecture.

The classification of NE African languages as "Hamitic" by linguists is exactly that...a classification by modern linguists.

I don't think that there is any evidence, Biblical or otherwise, that indicates that the "curse of Ham" had anything to do with the color of his hide.

I should talk...I believed that men had one more rib than women until I was in High School.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

The curse had nothing to do with skin color.  It had to do with his character, which was totally independent and apart from his skin color as it is with all of us.  The curse said nothing about his skin color...it said he was to serve his brethren.  The Mormons are the ones who say that the curse was his skin color, which idea I totally reject.  

The simple fact is that we are all equal, even if we are different in size shape and color.  

As far as I know, while exact locations are impossible, with a few exceptions,  there is no doubt about where the continents where the sons of Noah eventually ended up.

For instance, we have a pretty good idea where Egypt is, also Babylon, Ninevah, Jerusalem, Jericho, Ur,  Arimathea,  The Scythians,  Phoenicians, Greeks, Persians and Medes.

     I'm thinking of changing my career.  From now on I'll devote myself to permanently sticking out my neck on this BB.
     Let me say that Brent's posts regarding Noah's cursing of Ham are based in the fact that Brent is admittedly of Jewish birth.  As every Jew knows quite well, Ham isn't kosher!  (Sorry, folks-- I just HAD to say that before Joe Sperling thought of it.)
*****************************************************
     Everyone who knows me knows that I'm not a theologian nor a Bible scholar, and I'm only a mediocre student at best.  So I'm not going to get into who cursed whom and why and where they went to set up camp or how long they worked on their tans.  Rather, I'm going to say a word about icebergs...

     What we know about icebergs is that the huge percent of their mass is submerged.  From the surface view, we have no idea of the shape of an iceberg's bulk.  We only know that what we are able to observe afloat is but a small bit of the whole.  Beneath the surface, out of our sight, moves a cold, hard, jagged behemoth capable of inflicting incredible damage upon anything it encounters.  An iceberg sank the Titanic, the strongest ship of its day.  The wise seafarer espying floating ice, however small in appearance, will give it a wide berth lest it destroy his vessel utterly.

     When God's people are snipping and sniping at each other over matters that are of little practical consequence, it behooves us to consider that we may be seeing the tip of an iceberg.  There are powerful forces at work in this world whose sole purpose is the destruction of souls and the discrediting of our God.  Let us be keen in deciding whether the crusades we take up are necessary or merely convenient.  Do we engage ourselves for righteousness' sake or for reputation?  Do we strive because we must, or simply because we can?

     We cannot know specifically what warfare lurks beneath the surface, but we can decide what may be distracting us unnecessarily.  Do we maintain a readiness and conserve our strength for the battle that may break at any time, or do we squander our resources in childsplay?  Do our words and deeds unify the forces of the Lord or do they divide?

     Let us strive to rightly divide the word of truth as workmen who need not be ashamed, either at our Lord's appearing or at the outbreak of genuine spiritual hostilities.  We all have feelings.  Let us not wear our own on our sleeves, but be thoughtful of the feelings of our brethren.

God bless us all,
al

Again, Al, you respond just when I think I have to jump into the fray.  And you do it so much better, with some grace, to calm the crowd - I hope everyone else sees it.   ;D  Perhaps it's your age.  ;D  At least I have something to look forward to.    ;D

But I still MUST say SOMETHING.  I love Al's illustration of an ice berg.  It is so true.  Delila is new to this BB.  She doesn't know very well most of the people here or vice versa.  I believe there is much history (water under the bridge, so to speak) and deep hurt that brings Delila to this BB.  It is seen in just this kind of dialogue.  Very typical of a man's response is to answer LOGICALLY (I am not saying that woman aren't logical.  Quite the contrary.  I believe women to be very logical.)  But in this context, with the "ice berg" metaphor as a backdrop, I believe Delila was not searching for a LOGICAL answer.

It's like when a wife comes to her husband and is crying over some situation.  Often, the husband will try and RESOLVE THE CONFLICT (think LOGICAL answers).  This is not, generally, what the wife is looking for.  A wife, generally, is looking for sympathy or empathy.

I believe Brent is answering rather LOGICALLY when that is not what Delila (possibly without even recognizing it) wants.  (Please forgive me for speaking for Delila - I am taking a great leap here and could be way off!)

As most of our conversations center around the assembly's influence, this is what was so frustrating to women in the assembly.  This tactic was par for the course in the assembly.  Remember the teaching that we can't trust our feelings?  Feelings will lie to you.  HELLO!  We all have feelings.  That kind of teaching is ludicrous.  And perhaps it worked differently in each assembly.  But I remember, CLEARLY, how it was applied in my locale.  I couldn't share my feelings with anybody.  When I did, I risked a tongue lashing, a rebuke, a looking down upon, condescending attitude, knowing completely that I was a failure and wasn't ever going to measure up.

These kind of dialogues bring up those kind of old FEELINGS when receiving answers of similar nature.

Just my 50 cents.  ;D ;D

We all can be better listeners, maybe that's why God gave us 2 ears and 1 mouth.
Everybody has a bad day/ week and you can make room for that. Sure, some people are non stop complainers that are a bummer to be around and you have to tell them 'enough'. I've seen peoples attitudes change when they knew someone was really listening to them.

Brent,

You are right about us knowing where many of the Bible lands were.  However, when speaking of countries, once you leave Palestine and Mesopotamia it is pretty much conjecture.

Even within Palestine and Mesopotamia the identification of individual cities is tenuous.

For example, the Bible says that Terah took his family, including Abraham, to Haran.  There are three places that have been tentatively identified as Haran.  Most Bibles show the "northern" Haran, but there is also a "central Haran" and a "southern Haran".

The locations are based on theories about how a person "would have traveled" in patriarchal times.  Since we haven't found any travel agency brochures in the ruins of Ur,  ;), we can't be sure.

We know that the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon.  We don't know where Sheba was!  Cush, (today called Sudan), and Yemen are candidates, but no one really knows.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[quote author=Brent A. Tr0ckman
1) Further to my understanding the Hebrew and his mindset, what other books do you consult in the way of ancient texts when seeking to understand what exactly the sins of Mosses' son was?  
2)How is it that you're so certain he deserved this curse.  A curse, after all, is a pretty heavy thing to go wailing around.  

Cheers

Delila
Hi Delila

Following your somewhat flippant interpretation of Noah you clearly imply that for some reason, the Bible doesn't seem to give women the same importance as men, I decided to comment.   At least that is how I understood your words and tone.

The passage says this:

Gen 9:20  And Noah began [to] [be] a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  21  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.  22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  23  But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid [it] on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces [were] turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.  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."

1) What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.  
2) BTW, the scripture does say that Noah was sober when he did this.  Notice the above where it says  "he awoke from his wine and knew....."  That means he was sober.  no, I'm not a racist in any way, shape or form.  I hope no one reads what I just said to be anything other than clear commentary on what the Bible says.  I happen to be Jewish, BTW.

Again, the reason I am sure that he deserved the curse was because of what the scripture says about it, in many places, not to mention history.


  Feminists, those that call themselves Christians, need to repent of their reaction.  I didn't mean you, or anyone else in particular.

Brent:

Can o' worms or what?

First, my two questions (numbered above for your convenience) remain unanswered.

Secondly, it is not clear to me that Moses was sober, perhaps just hung over?  Seriously, alcohol is responsible for much in our society, probably has been always.  And this section of scripture stumps me too because it reminds my of assembly control: submit because I'm the leader, regardless of whether my life is anything really spiritual.  Let's look at the facts.  The man was both drunk and naked and woke up and took out some wrath on his sons.  Immediately when I saw that happening, I thought of the abusive patterns I've seen.  So I wondered, okay, what evidence is there of a crime?  What did those boys do that was so wrong?  I still don't get it.  Yeah, I'm flippant.  But the story I told isn't all that different from the scripture you quoted - it's my perspective, that's all.

Thirdly, I'm pink, if we have to idenity our colours.  Totally pink.  Selah.  Polish and German heritage.  Don't know how I ended up pink.  Cursed, I guess.  Grama says I'm cursed in love anyway.

Fourthly, and lastly: about feminism.  I can see us blaming them (women) for their reaction to systematic cruelty about as much as I can blame African Americans (brought to North America in chains) because they chose to fight slavery and second hand treatment at the hands of those of other colours in North America.  And I can say that, with some authority too.  Because I'm pink.  A Polish/German pink person.  And my Polish side survived concentration camps in Dacau.

No Brent, I'm not offended.  But I am pink, so I should kindly ask you to remember that.  Kindness to pink people, even feminists. BTW my definition of feminism: those who are good to women.  If you like, you could be a feminist too.  We don't burn our underwear anymore.  The older I get, the more I like my underwear.

Cheers

Delilah

Delila,

You are bad  ;) and cursed because you are pink.  Think of all the money you could save if you didn't have to buy all that sun-tan lotion.  At least you don't have to dye your hair blonde.

Sorry Al,  but I did not see a problem with the way the discussion was going.  Maybe it's my eastern blood.  They say that 2 Jews could be having a good discussion on some topic, and to some North Americans it may appear like a big fight, but the 2 Jews are just enjoying themselves.  I know I appear to be calm cool and collected on the BB, but in reality I am very emotional and can get very animated.  Ask my husband and kids.  The BB helps me to collect my thoughts before posting.

So onward forward...
And Lord bless,
Marcia

Epiphany:  I've offended here, too:
-flippant about  a favorite passage of Brent's.
-opening a whole can of worms that nobody especially wants to eat
-There's more than just me who has curse sorting to do

Wonder if I'll be banned from the BB for being BA-AD

I'm encouraging everyone to stay away from wine, at least for the next little while, like Noah probably did.

Cheers!

D., why do I get the impression that you're going to name your next daughter Epiphany? ;D ;D ;D

Delila:

I think you've got it!  ;D

Having waited 24 hours, I think I can calmly say the following:

There is no bigotry so intransigent as religious bigotry. It is an unfortunate fact that people of religious fervor will justify the most vile and despicable dispositions and conduct on the basis of their religion. The teaching that Black people labor under Noah’s curse of his eldest son Ham,  is one form of such religious bigotry and has been used by countless Jim Crow era preachers to justify the treatment of Blacks during America’s appalling participation in the enslavement of Africans. Persons of weak minds reading a statement like that made by Brent Tr0ckman could easily assume the man is a bigot and find comfort for their own bosom prejudices.
I want to say clearly that I do not believe the man to be a racist. The statement was simply monumentally stupid and I will attempt to show why. Invoking history was particluarly amusing. One could easily ask:
What period of history are you referring to?
Zimbabwe pre or post Robert Mugabe?
South Africa pre or post Nelson Mandela?
America pre or post Columbus?
The fundamental error of a statement that it is a historical fact that Black people from Africa have been cursed to serve their brethren  as a result of Noah’s curse over Ham’s behavior is that it has basis in neither fact nor history, and by its  indiscriminate and all-inclusive scope comprise the very essence of prejudice. I had written a long piece about the history of African nations springing from the other descendants of Ham but I am not going to post it. Rather I will simply post in three installments an excellent treatment of the subject by Christian scholar Gleason Archer. I think this would be more useful and less contentious. My only interest is in setting the record straight, and not a confrontation with Brent. I think he is a good guy.

The reason Noah cursed his son Ham was that he had derided and dishonored his father after he found him naked, sleeping off a drunken stupor. Ham should have treated him respectfully even though his father (who had apparently never tasted liquor before) had made a fool of himself. But it should be carefully noted that only one of the sons of Ham, namely, Canaan was singled out for suffering the effect of Ham’s curse. Genesis 9:23 quotes Noah as saying:”Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants, {or slave of slaves; Heb-ebed badim} he shall be to his brothers. (NASB)
Ham had three sons besides Canaan, namely Cush, Misraim and Put (Gen 10:6), but the penalty was announced only for Canaan, the ancestor of the Cannanites of Palestine, rather than for Cush and Put who were probably the ancestors of the Ethiopians and the black peoples of  Africa. The fulfillment of the curse came about in Joshua’s conquest, (ca. 1400 B.C), and also in the conquest of Phoenicia and other Cannanites by the Persian Emptire, since the Persians were descended in all probability from Japheth through Madai. This does seem to be the earliest occurrence of ebed in the sense of “slave”, that can be found in Scripture.
More on slavery…
Verne

Verne,

I believe that you misunderstood Brent's comments.  I do not agree with your statement that his comments encourage the harboring of prejudices.  If someone is weak minded the issue is that they are weak minded not that they are harboring prejudices.  Weak minded individuals will not honestly investigate in order to find out the truth of the matter anyway and will therefore continue to harbor their prejudices.

I am not any more anti-Germanic for having watched a movies like Schindler's List where the German's were portrayed in a bad light.  Even as The Passion movie is not an anti-semetic movie but rather a portrayal of a historical event.

Brent's comments are valid in the context of his presentation of them and in the context of his past history on this BB.  I believe this racist issue is a 'trigger' for you.  You once suggested that I made racist comments when I posted that Indians tend to be tardy.  I urge you to re-consider you line of attack on this matter.

Lord bless,
Marcia

Discussions about racism are truly touchy. So I won't comment. I'm on the BB this morning because I'm waiting for the Indian cable guy to show up. He's late.


--Joe

Marcia,

I believe that what Verne said is very civil and level-headed.  You have slightly misrepresented what he said by replacing a passive statement with an active one, so your argument is against something a little different from what he actually said.


Brent's comments don't seem to agree with what it says in Genesis 9.  Is there another passage on this subject?

While I am not positive exactly what Marcia is referring to,  I suspect it may have something to do with what you said in your posts on this thread.  Here is a stab in the dark:


What I said is:  Laughable drivel.
The reason I said it is because I suffer from"black pathology" and I am totally ignorant of the history of the African Continent.  Furthermore Eidersheim is also wrong for the same reasons.

Some people might read what I said, and what you said,  and draw the conclusion that you were attacking my character, while ignoring my words.

Here are some facts:

Jehovah pronounced judgement against the gods of Egypt----the descendants of Mizraim, I believe.  Also, the Philistines, Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites and a few other 'ites.  Descendants of Ham all of them!

Why did only Canaan suffer when it was his Dad that did wrong?  Again, read between the lines and use what it revealed in Scripture to get the best possible answer.  Ham's line became evil faster than the others, with Nimrod at the vanguard,  and Mizraim in close second. These are the facts.

I believe that Noah recognized this in his son Ham, and his son Canaan, when he pronounced the curse.  This is my opinion, but one that has some merit and is shared by others.

No worries about racism, or black pathology here,  The Medes---descendants of Madai, Japheth's son were also cursed as were the Semites, Shem's descendants.  It's called sin, and it was present in Adam, and also Noah.

Whites aren't any better than blacks by nature, neither are Jews better than people of Oriental descent.  We all comprise the human race, all share the same number of chromasomes,  have the ability to smile, the need to eat and drink and all of us have the same claim to God's grace as we are sinners who call upon His Name.

History is history.  Re-writing it, or ignoring it is tantamount to telling a lie.  
Being ignorant is a situation that is easily remedied, however.

Please tell me how what I said was wrong.  However, if all you do is dismiss it as "black pathology," without correcting my factual and logical errors you are being intellectually dishonest, at best.

I am ready for my history lesson.

Brent

Hi everyone,
   I want to weigh in on the last interactions regarding racism and the curse of Ham.  First of all, I believe that in Christ ALL past curses are nullified as per Gal. 3:13.  Therefore all speculation about curses, whether racial or national, are at best foolish speculation, and at worst, justification of the ugliest form of racism, that being religiously justified.  I suggest some further reading for my comfortably white conservative Christian friends: God's Long Summer by C. Marsh, and This Far By Faith by Juan Williams.  Both describe the terrible religious justification by whites for prejudice and domination.  More than any single issue, this history is a pall and blot upon the Christian testimony in America  :-[.  The miracle is that in spite of white behavior and policy, the African American community has been anchored by its Christian faith.  Personally, after dissociation with the Geftakys ministry, my primary priority in finding a church was to find a bible believing church REALLY COMMITTED to racial reconciliation.  Thankfully God has led me to New Covenant Fellowship here in Champaign, IL.   Finally, as for the exegesis of Gen. curse of Ham, i agree with Verne that it was singled out for Canaan, and historically played out in the dispossession of the land of Canaan by Israel (read The Bible as History  by W. Keller to see the lifestyle of Canaanites if you think this was unfair.  I have traveled around the world and I have not seen people as open to the Gospel as Africa.  Yes I know the arguments about poverty and HIV as part of Hamitic curse, but I could make as strong an argument that these are by-products of european colonialism and slavery, but I will not venture into historical speculation.  Selah.
Wayne

I agree, totally.

I also submit that if our "Bible knowledge," causes us to act like racist bigots, it is neither biblical, or knowledge.

I want every resident of Egypt to be saved, but that doesn't mean that God didn't curse their firstborn at one time.

Similarily,  the fact that there is a large Christian community amonty Palestinians doesn't erase the fact that at one time God cursed them and told Joshua to kill them all!  (I am fully aware that the modern day Palestinians are not the same as the ancient ones,  but they are somewhat related.  The Jews are definitely the same, and they have people illegaly occupying their land!----at least that is one way to look at it.  However, even this is debateable, given the facts that we are in the age of Grace, and live in a secular/Islamic world.)

This is a new day, and a new dispensation,  and the Grace of God has appeared to all men.

The fact that I view Noah's curse on Canaan, for Ham's actions, as something that effected his entire line doesn't mean I am justifiying racism at all.

If someone says,  "Ham was cursed, therefore we should enslave them," I will totally oppose such a person, as I completely disagree with them.  Biblical slavery was voluntary.  The type of slavery we see today in Africa and the MiddleEast, as well as the atrocities that were committed in America are condemned in the Bible.

They fall under the category of kidnapping, which was punishable by death.

Poverty and HIV have nothing to do with the curse.  They have to do with corrupt politics,  immoral behavior and a large disadvantage due to recent history.  Certainly these things are in plentiful supply right here in multiracial America.  Does that mean we are under the curse of Ham?  Certainly not!

America shall surely grow worse and worse, as we fall more and more into secular morality.  It has nothing to do with Ham, or Canaan.

Nevertheless,  I see no reason to ignore Genesis 9 and 10.  Just because I interpret it the way I do does not earn me the label of "ignorant black pathologist."

Putting the racism issue aside for good, can someone please answer this:

If Ham, the father of Canaan, was the one who saw the nakedness of his father, why did Noah curse Canaan for what his father had done?

Gen 9:17  And God said to Noah, "This [is] the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that [is] on the earth."  18  Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham [was] the father of Canaan.  19  These three [were] the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.  20  And Noah began [to] [be] a farmer, and he planted a vineyard.  21  Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent.  22  And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside.  23  But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid [it] on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces [were] turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.  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."

So far, Delila makes the strongest argument about this passage.  If I read her correctly she is saying:(I am not trying to put words in your mouth, this is more of a rhetorical statement)

Ham, and especially Canaan, didn't deserve such a harsh punishment.  After all, Noah was the one who got drunk.  Also, Noah may have been drunk when he pronounced the curse.  The main point of the passage is that it is confusing at best, and most likely demonstrates bad conduct and inequity from Noah.  The whole thing is a strong argument against the validity of the scripture.

I don't agree with this view,  but it sure carries more weight than just saying that it is foolish to speculate about these things.  

What are they in the Bible for if we are not supposed to think about them?

I answer my question above by saying that Noah cursed Canaan, because he saw in him a virulent form of the behavior that he learned from his father Ham.  The other boys (and girls) were undoubtedly influenced by Ham as well.  Certainly Cush had a bad apple in his family....a guy named Nimrod.

At the same time, Shem had a few nice kids, as did Japeth.  Even Ham had a few nice descendants, but overall, they became evil, fast.  

Here is an interesting fact.  While we are not told how long Ham lived,  we are told that Shem actually was alive after Abraham died.  Surely, Shem was able to pass along the knowledge of God to many people.  Perhaps the Magi in Jesus' time were the recipients of ancient Semitic knowledge, who knows?

My point is that if Shem's godly influence molded one culture, surely Ham's influence molded another.  Clearly,  someone created or related the god's of Egypt, Babylon and elswhere.  Ham is the father of polytheism.  

So, why did Noah curse Canaan for Ham's actions?

So far, since we are rejecting my argument under guise of racism, Delila is in first place.

Brent

P.S.  I shall take your advice and read those books Wayne.

Folks,

Regarding the harshness of the curse on Ham.

When I took Old Testament at Talbot, the professor, a Hebrew scholar, said that it was at least "strongly implied" that Canaan had commited a sexual act involving his incapacitated father.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I saw this Marx Brother's movie where Groucho was a teacher, and Chico and Harpo were in class. Harpo started goofing around and then Groucho got very angry, pointed at a pretty girl in the class and said "Just for that, she stays after school". The girl says"Hey, why should I stay after school? I didn't do anything wrong!" Groucho says "Well, it's no fun keeping him(nodding towards Harpo) after school."

Sorry---but Canaan getting cursed for Ham's wrong-doing made me think of that.

--Joe

I had heard the same thing, and the fact that Ham knew about it and did nothing.  

Brent

     Of all the quotables posted on this thread in the past 24 hours, this is my favorite:


     Were it not for the 24-hour pause, who knows but what we very well might have seen Verne in "attack mode?"  A day's pause to reflect is one of the wisest decisions one can make prior to initiating reactive action.  By this means, reaction may be replaced by reasonable response.
     Thanks to Verne's insightfulness, I have placed above my monitor, in bold red block lettering, the motto WAIT 24 HOURS...[/color][/u].


     An interesting sidelight to the current discussion is the consideration that many native Africans and their descendants came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as a result of slavery in the Americas.  If not for their captivity, they would have almost certainly remained in ignorance of the gospel in Africa.
     Does this wholly or in part justify slavery?  Of course not!  
     Does it justify God's behing-the-scenes manipulation of the elements of our lives?  God needs no justification!
     As we run our marathon, let us not become distracted by the surrounding scenery and lose sight of the goal...

al

As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest. Slavery was as integral a part of ancient culture as commerce, taxation, or temple service. Not until the more exalted concept of man and his innate dignity as a person created in the image of God had permeated the world as a product of Bible teaching did a strong sentiment arise in Christendom in criticism of slavery and a questioning of its right to exist. No equivalent movement toward abolition is discernible in any non-Christian civilization for which we have any knowledge
  In Genesis ebed is used in the sense of being politically in subjection to a foreign power. Hebrew slaves were required under the Mosaic law to be set free after six years of service; they could not be made to serve out their entire lives as slaves unless they willingly chose to remain so, out of love for their masters. (Exodus 21:2-7) In some cases slaves were held in great honor, that is to say, the nobles were generally called "servants" of their king- a title of honor, something like Paul's reference to himself as a "bondslave of Jesus Christ"
Gleason Archer

Thanks Brent for your thoughtful reply.  When we agree that the wonder of the Gospel is that Christ has redeemed us from ALL CURSES of the law, and its subsequent condemnation, we can proceed with love and liberty.  No race or people has a monopoly on slavery and oppression.  Although the dialogue so far has been challenging, and I do not pretend to have the final scriptural interpretation on the curse of Ham, there is no doubt a historical consequence to his shameful behavior.  However, this past sin has been used as a scriptural justification for subjugation of people of color by European professors of Christianity.  Of course, much of the Islamic and Arab culture is still practicing slavery, however, they do not name the Name of Christ, 2 Tim. 2:19.  All in all, I think this is a healthy dialogue. Thanks for everyone's input.  I am willing to learn more about this issue.  :)
Wayne

That's encouraging.  But what is this need we have to curse things?

Even those with no professed religion say "God Damn you!" and why?  What is it in us, what was it in Noah that made him want to curse?

Who are we to have to curse others?

I don't get it?

drj

Verne,

I am colored myself and have been the brunt of 'racial' commentary, so I understand the feelings that arise when 'white' people make insensitive comments.

This discussion about Noah cursing Ham does not, however, have to do with racism.  I agree that people misuse the Bible to justify their prejudices, but that is aside from the fact that Ham was cursed by Noah.

The reason I lump Indians as tardy is because it is generally true.  On the other hand I did say that Indians tend to be tardy, which indicates that not all are.

I was away today, celebrating my brother's 10th Birthday. He will be 40 on the 29th Feb, 2004. So I have only just gotten an opportunity to read the posts of the day.

Lord bless,
Marcia

     Interesting question, and I'm not sure there is an absolute answer to be found in scripture.
     My opinion is that it is the fruit of mankind's collective sensing of our own accursedness; an innate knowledge that God has pronounced judgement upon us producing in us the angry desire to pass the curse along to others.  The subjective realization of our fallen state is similar to the "god-shaped vaccuum in the heart" of every person.  The urge to pass it on follows the concept of waste rolling downhill...

just my shilling & ha'pence,
al

 What I was trying to say was that Ham and Canaan DID deserve the curse, and historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.

I take issue with this quote on the follwing grounds:
Factual
While the text ascribes culpability for the disrespectful conduct to Ham, he is clearly not the one who is cursed. It is Canaan.
There have been all sorts of linguistic contortions to deny this obvious fact, including specious claims that Ham is called Canaan in verse 26 of Genesis 9. It is quite ironic that Noah's specific intention to not indict all of Ham's progeny by limiting the curse to only one of them, has been turned on its head by those apparently only too eager to find a Biblical basis for casting aspersions on "generally black people from Africa". This  assertion is certainly not new. It is not surprising to find the national media obsessed with "black pathology". It is still startling to me to find it in the church. For those of you unfamiliar with this concept, in addition to the books Wayne recommeded I recommend Airing Dirty Laundry, if you can find it, by Ishmael Reed, who is by no means a godly man, but nevertheless will rock your world. The kind of denial, obfuscation and double-speaking that goes on around the matter of race in this society is sickening, You want to talk about intellectual honesty? Read your history! There is nothing intellectually honest about the way so many of our white brethren deal with the history of racism in the church.
The progenitors of the black peoples of Africa most scholars agree was not Canaan but the two sons Cush and Put, who, as stated, were not named in Noah's curse, To extend the curse to all of Ham's offspring is not warranted by the text.
The use of the present perfect tense "have been" suggests a permanent and on-going condition. Have any of you ever seen a Canaanite?
It is the very height of ignorance to suggest that black people in Africa today, or anywhere else, for that matter have anything whatsoever to do with Noah's curse of that particular son of Ham.
How the assertion is a proven fact is also unclear. Are we to assume that an examination of the history of black inhabitants of Africa would reveal a particular history of servitude to their (presumably white?) brethren as compared with non-black folk everywhere? What historical facts constitutes such proof? Most of us when we think of slavery think of black folk, understandable in view of the American experience. I suggest you check the relationship of the term to Slavic, as a reference to a people.

Historical
Assume for a moment the Biblical record of servitude in some way constitutes evidence for the validity of the statement, and I quote:

"...historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham-generally black peopke from Africa, have been cursed to serve their brethren"

It so happens that the Bible seems to take a keen interest in this matter of servitude. A cursory examination of the Bible would reveal an extended time of servitude for the nation of Israel in the land of Egypt- were they cursed?
A cursory look at the book of Judges for example reveals:

Servitude to the king of Mesopotamia - 8 years
Servitude to the king of Moab - 18 years
Servitude to the king of Cannan - 20 years
Servitude to the Midianites -7 years
Servitude to the Philistines - 18 years
Servitude to the Philistines - 40 years
I will not mention the Assyrian captivity from which there was no return, nor the Babylonian captivity, nor...
Trying to invoke historical evidence for a universal curse of servitude on particularly all of Ham's sons is risky business indeed. It would appear Brent, that history contradicts you my friend.

I know we can play the historical game ad nauseam but I have a simple question.
Why would anyone, knowing the history of race relations in this country, and what so-called Christian people have done to black folk invoking exactly that language in Genesis 9, make the pronouncement that:

... historically it is a proven fact that son's of Ham----generally black people from Africa----have been cursed to serve their brethren.  

Is this what we teach our children?
Is this what we would say to a black child from Africa, or anywhre else that this is what  the Word of God teaches?
Most importantly, DO WE BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE???!!!
If so, it goes a long way toward explaining the state of race relations in the American church today...
Is this what we are going to say to the brothers in the 'hood when we share the gospel? They already know some of us think it...
I think some of us carry a greater influence of our Geftakys era than we care to admit...


Verne
 

Verne,

Perhaps you should double-check the meaning of the word "slavic".
It is totally unrelated to the word slave.

Here is a list of related words from a Russian dictionary:

slava -- glory, fame, reputation
slavit~ -- to glorify, to sing the praises of
slavit~sya -- to be famous for, to be renowned for
slavno -- wonderfully
slavnIy -- glorious, famous, renowned
slavoslovie -- glorification, paean of praise
slavyanin -- Slav
slavyanskiy -- Slavic, Slavonic

For comparison, here are some Russian slave words:

rab -- slave
rabota -- work
rabotat~ -- to work
rabotnik -- worker
rabotnitsa -- woman worker
rabskiy -- slave, slavish
rabstvo -- slavery, servitude, bondage
rabInya -- woman slave

The word robot came from a related Czech word.

More about curses:

My grandmother tells me a story about her grandmother, in Grabicz Poland, sometime pre WWI.  Grama Hafiah opens her door and looks down on the step where someone's spilled an awful mess.  She has a bad feeling about it and calls the dog.  The dog runs up the step and into the mess and is immediately paralyzed.  Grandma tells me this was a curse left intentionally for her Grandmother by someone who hated her.  When once an assembly-ite and told this story, I thought my grandmother wako.  Now, I believe her.  

And for the record, no, I don't think a lot about UFO's

Delila

From Webster's dictionary: SLAVE: fr. Sclavus Slav: the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe.
The English eytomology does apply here.

Hey, I've been waiting for the reply to Verne's question, "Do you know where white people came from?" (I think it was Verne).

I've only heard one credible answer to that. My neice told me, and I see no reason not to believe it, that when God was making people he got really anxious and took the first batch out too soon. They still looked pasty and doughy and God called them white. On the next batch God didn't want to repeat the same mistake but this time took them out too late. They were very dark and God called them black. Finally, God put in a third batch and this time took them out at just the right time. These people were golden brown and their appearance pleased God very much, so he decided to stop. These people were called Hispanics.

BTW, my neice is 1/4 hispanic and has struggled with her identity all her life. She is studying education at school and has a heart for CA's migrant families.

Anyways, back to the topic.
 :)Karey

I'm definitely pasty and doughy in the winter! ;) But it won't be long before I'll be golden brown again. 8)

S

Yes, but Verne referred to the word Slavic rather than the word slave.  Of course, I made the mistake of not looking up the word slave, but it is still true that the word Slavic is not derived from the word slave, and it should not be interpreted in such a way.

You won't hear a Slavic person complain about it because in their culture they believe in pessimism.  They distrust anyone who is doing well.  They figure such a person must be a KGB informant (now called FSB) or else involved in organized crime.

Yeah, I've definitely learned to be more careful the last few years.

My motto for the beach these days is, "Apply early and often." I still get fairly dark and bleach out pretty good. 8)

Not bad for a farmboy, huh?

S

While talking about offences, it might be good to avoid offending Slavic people.

My deepest apologies to all those of Slavic descent ( I do not say dissent! ) :)
 I am not of the opinion, that it is a proven fact of history, that the sons of Japeth, generally white people of the Slavic region, have been cursed to serve their brethren...I do not believe that one bit you hear me??!!  ;D
How's that for a disclaimer Stephen?
Verne

p.s Are we starting to get too cute? After-all this is a serious topic and maybe I should quit while the quitting's good....NYAAAHHH!
I was never one to take myself too seriously, thankfully...and why should I? nobody else does!  :)

Stephen, Stephen-- make up your mind.  You previously said:


...which sounds awfully like a broad generalization even stronger than saying that Indian people tend to be late...

There will be offenses--  Let us all be exercised to not be those by whom they come...

God bless,
al

Al:

Ever read Gulag by Solzeniezen (I can never spell his name) Also wrote: One Day in the Life of Ivan Deninovich (also, how do they spell it?)  These Slavs, as you call them, have every right to their learned suspicions.  Talk about systematic oppression.  George has almost nothing on the governments these people survived.  No joking matter.  BTW Al, had you been living in that place at that time, you'd have been a sure target.  You're far too smart and far too nice.  You'd have been first on the list for interrogation and relocation.  You'd have been in Siberia,had you made it that far.  It ain't funny, hunny.

drj

I remembered only part of what I read in an article in the English version of Moscow News.  From #23, June 14-20,2000 issue, in an article titled, "Success and Failure" is the following:


(It seemed better to include more of the article.)

I am aware of 'history' lessons.  In Pakistan the Indians were the bad guys; in India the Pakistanis were the bad guys. The perspective presented was dependant on which country's history book you read.  BTW I am a Pakistani immigrant to Canada, and now have Canadian citizenship.  I have been in Canada longer than not.  My parents made the big decision to immigrate, I had nothing to do with it.  So here I am and am happy to be here.  But I do remember waiting for a bus at a shopping center at the young age of 17 or so.  A much older white woman with white hair stood there beside me and exhorted me for immigrating to Canada and taking advantage of the comforts of Canadian society that white pioneers had labored to bring about. I stood there and silently 'took' it from her until one of our buses arrived.
Then there are the history lessons of the British in India.  Half of the Indian population believe that the British influence was damaging to their country.  My mother grew up prejudiced against the British.  The other half believe that the British did a lot of good by helping to bring stability and to unify the country, whereas before there was continuous strife amonst the various kingdoms.

Verne, if I am ignorant of some matter, then I would hope that you would endeavour to 'educate' me, rather than berate me for my lack of knowlege.  Maybe you did not intend it that way, but that is the way I interpreted it.
George and Betty Geftakys have definitely used the Scriptures in an abusive manner.  In my re-evaluation of the Scriptures, I may end up holding a position similar to theirs without the abusive slant.  Do you agree?

Lord bless,
Marcia

The Indian cable guy never showed up. He said some Slavic guy worked on his truck and botched the job so he had no transportation.

--Joe

From what I've learned from reading about biochemistry, the prevalence of genetic diseases is evidence of near extinction.  An example is what Hitler did to the Jews.  Perhaps sympathy is better than viewing them as if they were inferior.

Another kind of genetic quirk of people from tropical climates is the selective advantage conferred on those with only one of the genes for sickle cell anemia, since it provides resistance to malaria.  Unfortunately, it also means for such people nearly certain death for a quarter of their offspring: those who have both genes.

Hey, Stephen,

I don't understand the example. In what way is Hitler's treatment analagous?

I'm slow. Be patient. :)

S

Since Hitler killed 6 million Jews, the result is that the prevalence of genetic diseases among the survivors is higher than it was before, because of diminished genetic diversity.  They continue to suffer the consequences of the holocaust.

. . . the prevalence of genetic diseases among the survivors is higher than it was before, because of diminished genetic diversity.
That's the info I was missing. ;) Thank you.

S

Appolgy accepted, and no offense taken.  Please don't edit your posts.  It's good to own one's words, don't you think?

Brent

More about Genesis:

About that tower of Babel.  I wonder if when all speak the same language, if this is perhaps a terrible thing.  In the assembly we all spoke the same language, assembly language.  It was not, however, the language of the redeemed.  It was a limited language, a careful and crafty language and with it, a great edifice was built, bypassing God completely.  God seems to love diversity.  When I look at the cultures of the world, I'm glad about that diversity.  When I look at the diversity on this board too, the various opinions and the freedom that we have to express them without fear of punishment, I'm pleased too.  The tower, though some seek to rebuild it, is crumbling.  Of that, I'm certain.

delila

AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN.
preach it sister preach it.
It is the difference that makes up the body, not robotic people that do the same thing.
After all how many one part bodies do you see.

DELILA: Good , excellent ,
Thank you.