How do guys like Ken Ham explain the different races of people?

[VirOptimus]

We'll let God break the tie; how's that?



Until when?

Until they aren't facts anymore?

Is Thalidomide still a prenatal wonder drug?

As I dont belive in any God(s) thats a silly statement.

And please, drop the Thalidomide crap, it only shows your ignorance. and inability to honestly debate subjects.

 

[ChetSinger]

Chetsinger wrote:

True, it doesn't say exactly that dark skin was a result of the curse. However, Genesis does say that:

1. Ham is cursed.
2. This curse extends to at least one son (Canaan), and includes slavery for all descendants.
3. A son of Ham is explicitly named "black skinned" (Cush).

From there, it's not much of a leap at all to say that the the curse of Ham commits black skinned people to scripturally approved slavery. And that's how it has been interpreted by many people for a long time.

That was a fiction manufactured by Europeans.

Well, the above three logical points are evident early on, such as in the writings of Philo, who lived in Egypt, part Africa - not Europe, around the time of Jesus - so I wouldn't call it a European invention.

However, the Book of Mormon is explicit that black skin is due to a curse from God, so maybe call the Mormon detailing of it "American"?

In Christ-

Papias

Then it's older than Europeans.

But myself, I think the idea is a giant unscriptural leap. Because even if one son of Ham had black skin, it wasn't that son who was cursed.

The curse was directed at Canaan, and was that he would be a slave of slaves. That was fulfilled when Canaanites were enslaved by Israelites.

 

[Papias]

First -

Thanks, SW, for answering a question asked of me. Hey, we can agree on some things, eh?

But myself, I think the idea is a giant unscriptural leap. Because even if one son of Ham had black skin, it wasn't that son who was cursed.

An unscriptural leap? Yes.

Giant? Well, certainly no more giant than the idea that Gen 1 rules out evolution - since there it doesn't describe any method used at all. After all, it never says Cush is not cursed (as it does, say for Shem) - in addition to the reasons listed above.

The curse was directed at Canaan, and was that he would be a slave of slaves. That was fulfilled when Canaanites were enslaved by Israelites.

No, it was directed at least at both Ham (Cush's father) and Canaan (because he's Ham's son, and Ham was the transgressor). That's why it is called "the curse of Ham". Your point above proves that it was an effective curse that did lead to slavery in some of Ham's descendants. And multiple confirmations of a prophecy are certainly common in scripture.

Regardless - I agree that this scriputural leap should not be used to justify slavery of blacks (nor Canaanites, for that matter), and that slavery is nothing short of abhorrent. To best combat slavery, we need to be open about the many affirmations of slavery in our scripture - Including stuff all through both the old and new testaments (because even if we reject the curse on Cush, there is still a clear curse of slavery on Canaan - again affirming slavery), and from a position of honesty, pledge to work against slavery, which still exists today.

After all, the curse of slavery on Canaanites is clear - and I hope no one is going to try to say that the enslavement of the Canaanites - or anyone else - was justified.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

First -

Thanks, SW, for answering a question asked of me. Hey, we can agree on some things, eh?

Please don't let your reading of my response to anyone
interfere with your thought process. Just ignore me and
answer the question from your heart. I don't presume to
speak for anybody else.

 

[SkyWriting]

After all, the curse of slavery on Canaanites is clear - and I hope no one is going to try to say that the enslavement of the Canaanites - or anyone else - was justified.

Don't get all hung up on the slavery thing. People get beaten in jail, killed in jail, drugs in jail, raped in jail, and they die from aids (somebody I knew) while in jail. So lets not demonize historical slavery and ignore active cases of child sex slavery in our enlightened world.

"We" are no less evil today than "them."

 

[RickG]

Not this one.

Then are you a mammal?

 

[RickG]

As I dont belive in any God(s) thats a silly statement.

And please, drop the Thalidomide crap, it only shows your ignorance. and inability to honestly debate subjects.

Or we could associate the atrocities in the old testament by the chosen people with the problems with Thalidomide?

 

[ChetSinger]

No, it was directed at least at both Ham (Cush's father) and Canaan (because he's Ham's son, and Ham was the transgressor). That's why it is called "the curse of Ham". Your point above proves that it was an effective curse that did lead to slavery in some of Ham's descendants. And multiple confirmations of a prophecy are certainly common in scripture.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one. The text names only Canaan as being cursed, even though it was his father who sinned.

The Curse of Ham is a misnomer for the curse upon Canaan that was imposed by the biblical patriarch Noah. The narrative occurs in the Book of Genesis and concerns Noah's drunkenness and the accompanying shameful act perpetrated by his son Ham the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:20–27). The controversies raised by this story regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over two thousand years.

The story's original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, but in later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Muslims, Jews and Christians as an explanation for black skin, as well as slavery. Nevertheless, most Christian denominations and all Jewish denominations strongly disagree with such interpretations due to the fact that in the biblical text, Ham himself is not cursed and race or skin color is never mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

Regardless - I agree that this scriptural leap should not be used to justify slavery of blacks (nor Canaanites, for that matter), and that slavery is nothing short of abhorrent. To best combat slavery, we need to be open about the many affirmations of slavery in our scripture - Including stuff all through both the old and new testaments (because even if we reject the curse on Cush, there is still a clear curse of slavery on Canaan - again affirming slavery), and from a position of honesty, pledge to work against slavery, which still exists today.

After all, the curse of slavery on Canaanites is clear - and I hope no one is going to try to say that the enslavement of the Canaanites - or anyone else - was justified.

I agree with you here. Also, I see slavery as opposed to Christ's second commandment.

 

[RickG]

... I see slavery as opposed to Christ's second commandment.

Jesus had commandments?

 

[ChetSinger]

Jesus had commandments?

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was referring to the two commandments he gave in Matthew 22.

 

[RickG]

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I was referring to the two commandments he gave in Matthew 22.

I believe he was just repeating the first two given to Moses, wasn't he, not two of his own?

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe he was just repeating the first two given to Moses, wasn't he, not two of his own?

Yes, they're among the commandments given to Moses (but not the first two). Some churches call them the "Two Great Commandments".

 

[Papias]

SW, of course I agree that slavery still exists today. I said in my post "Let's pledge to work against slavery, which still exists today."


You wrote:

"We" are no less evil today than "them."

Well, how "evil" we are is hard to measure. It is clear that we have improved wrt slavery. Today, even taking into account the entire world, the rate of slavery is a tiny fraction of what it was in the past. In the ancient world, around a quarter of the whole population was enslaved - and even higher after a war, when women and children of the defeated nation were sold into slavery as a matter of course.

Today, less than one half of one percent of the world's population is enslaved, and this is even lower in western countries like the United States. We are much, much better wrt slavery than we were in the past. Anyone looking at the data can see this. For instance:

• The percent enslaved has dropped to about one fiftieth of what it was.
• Wealthy households are not "expected" to own slaves.
• Slavery is widely recognized as abhorrent, not expected.
• Nations victorious in war are not expected to enslave the defeated population.
• There are no longer laws requiring escaped slaves to be returned.
• There are now, instead, laws outlawing the owning of another human being.
• and so on.

Yes, some people are still enslaved. Yes, people are unjustly imprisoned and die of AIDS. Yes, all of that is terrible - but it's all worlds better than it was in the past, when people were routinely imprisoned or killed by the government unjustly, it was normal to be a slave, and slavery was a constant threat to everyone alive.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Chetsinger wrote:

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one. The text names only Canaan as being cursed, even though it was his father who sinned.

Yep, I agree. It's a pretty short passage, after all. Regardless of the ethics of the curse itself, point conceded.

I agree with you here. Also, I see slavery as opposed to Christ's second commandment.

: )

Papias

 

[Sofaman]

... which says today that Africans are apes.

It also says that Europeans are apes, and Americans, and Asians and Inuits and... Well every human

 

[AV1611VET]

Then are you a mammal?

I'm not going down that road, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

It also says that Europeans are apes, and Americans, and Asians and Inuits and... Well every human

Did I say it didn't?

 

[Sofaman]

Did I say it didn't?

Did I say you said it didn't?

 

[RickG]

I'm not going down that road, either.

Yeah, I know. Ignore it and it will go away, at least in your mind.

 

[Ryukil]

One day I am going to write a short story about reptilian aliens who vigorously deny that they are evolved from reptiles despite the fact that they are obviously reptiles to any outside observer (no one steal my idea, please!).

To those who think humans are not apes, I would advise you to look in a mirror. It really should be that simple. I understand the idea makes people uncomfortable (it used to make me VERY uncomfortable; I went through a little bit of an existential crisis when I first came to the conclusion that I accepted evolutionary theory), but as said fact is fact.


Anyway, I would like to know more how people can even justify the fact that the Bible endorses slavery. I mean how do people just have no problem with that? It's pretty strange to me. What's strange to me is that people can gloss over the fact that this book endorses the type of killing of people of other religions that ISIS or Boko Haram carry out (Deuteronomy 13: 12 - 17).
It's much stranger to me that people can live in a world where 500,000,000 people died from smallpox in the 20th century and believe that God is looking out for us than it is to not believe in God.
It's much stranger to me that otherwise kind people can believe that those who did not follow their religion, or were gay, or drank too much, billions and billions of people, are now burning in Hell, screaming in horrible agony, and will be screaming in horrible agony, for all of eternity, yet still claim that theirs is a religion of love and peace.
I mean you want to talk about morality? Please.