Racism in Genesis 9

[~Anastasia~]

I will clarify: I am not racist and do not believe that any of that is actually the case. I was just trying to hold Kylissa to her own logic.

If these passages lent themselves to racist interpretations in the past, they might do so in the present. Actually, until the latter half of the 20th century, many Christians used the Bible to justify racism.

LOL!

Well, I hope my logic satisfies you then. I'm a bit tired as it's past 3am here, just having trouble getting to sleep.

Yes, I was aware these things had been taught. I purposely censored them out of some history materials I used in schooling.

And I am aware of a lot of things people use the Bible to justify, that they shouldn't, imo. But while I see family lines receive blessings and curses, no, I don't think that justifies racism. And where I see whole peoples fall under some kind of punishment in the Bible, I tend to put it down to their culture and what they are doing as a people group, rather than their race.

 

[elliott95]

...

 

[Sketcher]

"Line of Humans." "Race." You gotta love semantics.

Details matter. Racists who carelessly read this passage claimed that the curse was far more expansive than the passage says.

Setting aside the issue of curses, Noah said that God is the God of Shem, and blesses Shem. Then he says Japheth is blessed as well, and can dwell in Shem's tents.

The clearest interpretation is that Shemites are more blessed than and superior to Japhethites. If you have an argument against that, I will hear it.

The verses in question:

He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant."​

A plain reading suggests that they are both blessed, and one really needs to go further than the passage says to get racial superiority out of it. An interpretation from a less politically correct day doesn't include racial supremacy of Shemites over Japethites either: Genesis 9:27 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible. If Shem were to be considered more blessed, the extent of that would be that the Jews would come from the line of Shem, and they eventually were entrusted with the Torah. But these are Gospel times now, and God has called both Jews and Gentiles into his church.

 

[redking10]

Details matter. Racists who carelessly read this passage claimed that the curse was far more expansive than the passage says.


The verses in question:

He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant."​

A plain reading suggests that they are both blessed, and one really needs to go further than the passage says to get racial superiority out of it. An interpretation from a less politically correct day doesn't include racial supremacy of Shemites over Japethites either: . If Shem were to be considered more blessed, the extent of that would be that the Jews would come from the line of Shem, and they eventually were entrusted with the Torah. But these are Gospel times now, and God has called both Jews and Gentiles into his church.

I'm curious what the procedure is for conferring blessings and curses upon progeny? Does it involve donning a voodoo mask and scattering chicken entrails? Or perhaps burning incense and sticking pins in a doll? Or did Noah perform Bronze Age genetic engineering on them?

Laying aside sarcasm, though, this thread has reinforced my thankfulness that there probably is no theistic God. Almost every major religion has a deeply insidious way of assigning different groups and individuals "places" and levels of "blessedness" that have nothing to do with their individual character or achievements. Hinduism has its Caste system. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, an Israelite (all other things being equal) is superior to a non-Israealite, based upon nothing more than the actions of long-dead ancestors. Even nowadays, you have Christians such as Hal Lindsey arguing the filth that Palestinians and other Arabs, being the descendants of Ishmael, are genetically predisposed toward violence, and are naturally the enemies of Jews. Until the latter half of the 20th Century, many church leaders (e.g., Aquinas) argued that "bastard" children were spiritually stained and deserved social discrimination and being barred from the priesthood.

A clear message I get from the Judeo-Christian tradition is this: You are not just an individual being judged according to his character. How you were conceived, who you parents were, who your ancestors were, all greatly determine your place in the great Human hierarchy. Shut up and know your place.

If the lack of a theistic god means I am a purely material being who will cease to exist after he dies, that's a small price to pay for living in a universe in which bigotry is not woven into the fabric of reality.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm curious what the procedure is for conferring blessings and curses upon progeny? Does it involve donning a voodoo mask and scattering chicken entrails? Or perhaps burning incense and sticking pins in a doll? Or did Noah perform Bronze Age genetic engineering on them?

Laying aside sarcasm, though, this thread has reinforced my thankfulness that there probably is no theistic God. Almost every major religion has a deeply insidious way of assigning different groups and individuals "places" and levels of "blessedness" that have nothing to do with their individual character or achievements. Hinduism has its Caste system. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, an Israelite (all other things being equal) is superior to a non-Israealite, based upon nothing more than the actions of long-dead ancestors. Even nowadays, you have Christians such as Hal Lindsey arguing the filth that Palestinians and other Arabs, being the descendants of Ishmael, are genetically predisposed toward violence, and are naturally the enemies of Jews. Until the latter half of the 20th Century, many church leaders (e.g., Aquinas) argued that "bastard" children were spiritually stained and deserved social discrimination and being barred from the priesthood.

A clear message I get from the Judeo-Christian tradition is this: You are not just an individual being judged according to his character. How you were conceived, who you parents were, who your ancestors were, all greatly determine your place in the great Human hierarchy. Shut up and know your place.

If the lack of a theistic god means I am a purely material being who will cease to exist after he dies, that's a small price to pay for living in a universe in which bigotry is not woven into the fabric of reality.

Did I miss something?

You post a premise, seemingly deliberately baiting Christians to agree with you that the Bible is racist.

None do (unless I've missed something).

And your conclusion? The racism you tried to attribute to the faith is there so you want no part of it.

I'm sorry, but you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. If you wish to believe there is no God, you have that right. If you wish to call a pile of purple pancakes god, you have that right too. But if you're trying to twist the words of the posts here to justify your preconceptions, I don't see that you have a basis.

 

[redking10]

Did I miss something?

You post a premise, seemingly deliberately baiting Christians to agree with you that the Bible is racist.

None do (unless I've missed something).

And your conclusion? The racism you tried to attribute to the faith is there so you want no part of it.

I'm sorry, but you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself. If you wish to believe there is no God, you have that right. If you wish to call a pile of purple pancakes god, you have that right too. But if you're trying to twist the words of the posts here to justify your preconceptions, I don't see that you have a basis.

No, in this thread, no Christians argued that the Bible is racist.

However, some did write that entire lines of human beings can be blessed and cursed. Let's forget the issue of "race"; the fundamental issue here is the idea that you should judge and treat individuals according to their origin, according to something they couldn't even choose. That you should discriminate against innocent individuals on the basis of "purity" and "blessedness".

 

[Harry3142]

redking10-

Who were the people that Ham fathered? They were the Canaanites, who were at the time of Moses the worshipers of Baal and Molech, sacrificing their own children to them. But they were also fellow Semites.

Who were the people that Moses told the Hebrews they were to destroy? It was these same Canaanites.

Moses was exhorting the people to go after fellow Semites, not another race of people. And in order to get them into the proper mindset so that they would attack their fellow Semites he used The Great Flood story. The story itself goes back centuries before Moses' time, but he was able to use it as a means of getting his people into the correct mindset to wipe out a people whose society would not only threaten their existence, but also the existence of their children.

There are some radical fringe denominations which teach that the curse of Ham applies to present-day Africans. I've 'crossed swords' with one of them, and know that they also teach that we are to totally ignore Matthew 25:31-46 (the 'feed the hungry' passage). And that is due to its being an impediment to their real agenda. The reality is that they are hate groups that use the cross of Christ in order to give their real agenda of fostering hatred the veneer of piety. But this is soundly condemned in Scripture itself:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

Those who permit hatred to dictate their actions are equally condemned with those who are sexually immoral, or who follow any of the other motivations listed as 'the acts of the sinful nature'. It is when we Christians permit the motivations which are listed as 'the fruit of the Spirit' to dictate our actions, and only then, that we have assurance of those actions conforming to what God wants of us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, in this thread, no Christians argued that the Bible is racist.

However, some did write that entire lines of human beings can be blessed and cursed. Let's forget the issue of "race"; the fundamental issue here is the idea that you should judge and treat individuals according to their origin, according to something they couldn't even choose. That you should discriminate against innocent individuals on the basis of "purity" and "blessedness".

I don't see anyone doing that though.

I still see the blessings as being similar to what some fathers pass down today by means of inheritance. Dear old dad passes away, and leaves $2mil to Tommy. Jack only gets $500k because he tends to get on drugs and drink, and dad doesn't want him using that much money to destroy himself. However, Joe is the favorite son, and the one who helped him run the business for the past few decades, so he leaves the business worth $8mil to that son.

He blessed some more than others. Likely their descendants will benefit as well.

But he wasn't racist, and no one is likely to discriminate against Tommy's grandsons because they are less "blessed" than Joe's.

Anyway, of course you will think what you will, and that's certainly your prerogative. The most important blessing I see as affecting human history was when God blessed Abraham as part of the Abrahamic Covenant, and that was a promise to bless all nations of the earth through him, which was referring to Jesus' birth. That is the one that has bearing on us today, and has zero to do with race.

If one chooses to reject belief in God, I would expect them to base it on something more supportable, or even personal preference, as that is an acceptable "reason".

 

[redking10]

He blessed some more than others. Likely their descendants will benefit as well.

But he wasn't racist, and no one is likely to discriminate against Tommy's grandsons because they are less "blessed" than Joe's.

au contraire. These passages about curses and blessings have been used numerous times throughout history (by church leaders and theologians) to justify all manner of racism, slavery and prejudice. There's a YouTube video series, "Bible-Inspired Racism", that does an excellent job chronicling those abuses. In his book, "America's Real War", Rabbi Daniel Lapin cited the passages about Canaan as evidence that families should disown "bastard" children.

Again, forget racism for a second. My main issue is the idea that some people, even before they are born, are marked as stained, evil and sinful, while others are anointed as being blessed and high. Saint Paul certainly thought this was the case with Jacob and Esau. This is a persistent theme in scripture. Sure, individual character and actions play some role in how good you are, but often times, the Bible says you are what your ancestors did. Know your place.

If one chooses to reject belief in God, I would expect them to base it on something more supportable, or even personal preference, as that is an acceptable "reason".

I said these passages make me thankful that there probably is no theistic god. I didn't say these passages make me believe there is no god. I doubt the existence of a theistic god mainly because of evidence found in history and science.

 

[redking10]

redking10-

There are some radical fringe denominations which teach that the curse of Ham applies to present-day Africans. I've 'crossed swords' with one of them, and know that they also teach that we are to totally ignore Matthew 25:31-46 (the 'feed the hungry' passage). And that is due to its being an impediment to their real agenda. The reality is that they are hate groups that use the cross of Christ in order to give their real agenda of fostering hatred the veneer of piety. But this is soundly condemned in Scripture itself:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

Those who permit hatred to dictate their actions are equally condemned with those who are sexually immoral, or who follow any of the other motivations listed as 'the acts of the sinful nature'. It is when we Christians permit the motivations which are listed as 'the fruit of the Spirit' to dictate our actions, and only then, that we have assurance of those actions conforming to what God wants of us.

I agree that nowadays, only fringe groups actively preach that black people are the cursed children of Ham, but look back a little in history. Their beliefs used to be mainstream. They certainly were in the American South, one of the most pious Christian lands ever to exist. Watch the brief video series "Bible-Inspired Racism" on YouTube.

And there is one form of Racism that is very in vogue with mainstream Christians: Dislike of Arabs and Palestinians. You openly hear Christians such as Hal Lindsey denouncing these people as being Abraham's illegitimate children, as not being part of the covenant, etc. Can anyone say "Shut up and know your place"? That certainly seems to be what Lindsey and his ilk are advocating. You can come to my church, get baptized and receive charity, but don't think you're my Earthly equal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know that many Christian churches nowadays have a somewhat egalitarian streak, and lean heavily on passages such as Galatians 3:28, which, when taken out of context, indicate total equality among believers.

However, I am almost convinced that the only reasonable interpretation of Genesis 9 is a racist one:

18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”
[SOURCE: biblegateway.com]

Scholars will debate until the end of time why Noah explicitly laid the curse upon Canaan and not explicitly upon Ham. They will debate whether the curse did or did not extend to Ham's other sons. They will speculate if Ham did more than just look.

However, the story makes at least these certain: A) All the Earth's people came from Shem, Japheth and Ham B) Noah blessed Shem C) Noah gave Japheth a lesser blessing. D) Noah cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers.

I believe this story is telling us that the "Shemite" races are superior to and more blessed than the "Japhethite" races. I believe this story is saying that "Canaanites" are an inferior slave race. While I'm not absolutely certain that the story is saying that all "Hamites" are cursed, that's being pretty generous. They certainly aren't mentioned as receiving any blessing (unlike Shem and Japheth), and if they had, that's a surprising omission of a salient detail.

If anyone has a (scripturally based) argument that this story is not racist and does not advocate a multi-tiered racial hierarchy, I will hear it.

This is simply referring to the Canaanite peoples who were wiped out through Israel's conquest. I hope we understand that the so-called 'Curse of Ham' has little or nothing to do with Black African people.

We ALL understand this, right?

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is simply referring to the Canaanite peoples who were wiped out through Israel's conquest. I hope we understand that the so-called 'Curse of Ham' has little or nothing to do with Black African people.

We ALL understand this, right?

Yeah, I think we actually do. I think the hope was that someone wouldn't.

 

[Joshua260]

This is simply referring to the Canaanite peoples who were wiped out through Israel's conquest. I hope we understand that the so-called 'Curse of Ham' has little or nothing to do with Black African people.

We ALL understand this, right?

Yes, totally agree 2philoVoid.

But I don't see these verses as a curse anyway. I think Noah was not cursing, but *recognizing* the character trait that was exhibited by Adam and Eve when they looked on their own nakedness (like Ham looked on Noah's nakedness) and then proceeded to prophesy about their futures.

 

[~Anastasia~]

au contraire. These passages about curses and blessings have been used numerous times throughout history (by church leaders and theologians) to justify all manner of racism, slavery and prejudice. There's a YouTube video series, "Bible-Inspired Racism", that does an excellent job chronicling those abuses. In his book, "America's Real War", Rabbi Daniel Lapin cited the passages about Canaan as evidence that families should disown "bastard" children.

Again, forget racism for a second. My main issue is the idea that some people, even before they are born, are marked as stained, evil and sinful, while others are anointed as being blessed and high. Saint Paul certainly thought this was the case with Jacob and Esau. This is a persistent theme in scripture. Sure, individual character and actions play some role in how good you are, but often times, the Bible says you are what your ancestors did. Know your place.



I said these passages make me thankful that there probably is no theistic god. I didn't say these passages make me believe there is no god. I doubt the existence of a theistic god mainly because of evidence found in history and science.

I apologize, my mistake. You did actually say that.

I would still maintain that if the apparent purpose of your post was to find Christians who justified racism using the blessings, that didn't happen.

Yes the Bible has been used to promote things in the past that it was never intended to do, as continues to be done today. I would say that this has more to do with the agenda of the ones making the statements, rather than being a true reflection of God's intent and character.

If not forgiven, the ones who have been responsible will have to answer for what they have done. And being that turning people from the faith promises dire consequences, I would not want to be someone guilty of that.

The bottom line is, it's not a wise, fair, or intellectually honest thing to do to decide whether God exists or what He might be like based on a subset of those who claim to follow Him, especially if you choose the worst subset.

 

[redking10]

I would still maintain that if the apparent purpose of your post was to find Christians who justified racism using the blessings, that didn't happen.

In this thread no Christians have come forward defending racism. I acknowledge that. And yes, a resistance to see scripture in racist terms does seem to be the norm for Christians nowadays. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In this thread no Christians have come forward defending racism. I acknowledge that. And yes, a resistance to see scripture in racist terms does seem to be the norm for Christians nowadays. Let's hope it stays that way.

Yes, I will certainly agree with you there. It always saddens me to see Scripture misused to justify wrong thinking and actions.

There are some particularly embarrassing (and sad) small groups out there that I'm sure many of us wish didn't even identify themselves as being Christian, being so opposed to what most of us believe.

The worst thing is the possibility that some people may think they actually DO represent God's point of view.

Peace to you.

 

[redking10]

Yes, I will certainly agree with you there. It always saddens me to see Scripture misused to justify wrong thinking and actions.

There are some particularly embarrassing (and sad) small groups out there that I'm sure many of us wish didn't even identify themselves as being Christian, being so opposed to what most of us believe.

The worst thing is the possibility that some people may think they actually DO represent God's point of view.

Peace to you.

You too.

 

[Sketcher]

Laying aside sarcasm, though, this thread has reinforced my thankfulness that there probably is no theistic God. Almost every major religion has a deeply insidious way of assigning different groups and individuals "places" and levels of "blessedness" that have nothing to do with their individual character or achievements. Hinduism has its Caste system. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, an Israelite (all other things being equal) is superior to a non-Israealite, based upon nothing more than the actions of long-dead ancestors. Even nowadays, you have Christians such as Hal Lindsey arguing the filth that Palestinians and other Arabs, being the descendants of Ishmael, are genetically predisposed toward violence, and are naturally the enemies of Jews. Until the latter half of the 20th Century, many church leaders (e.g., Aquinas) argued that "bastard" children were spiritually stained and deserved social discrimination and being barred from the priesthood.

A clear message I get from the Judeo-Christian tradition is this: You are not just an individual being judged according to his character. How you were conceived, who you parents were, who your ancestors were, all greatly determine your place in the great Human hierarchy. Shut up and know your place.

If the lack of a theistic god means I am a purely material being who will cease to exist after he dies, that's a small price to pay for living in a universe in which bigotry is not woven into the fabric of reality.

Sounds like you're taking away the wrong message. Have you ever read Ephesians?

 

[dazed]

redking10-

Who were the people that Ham fathered? They were the Canaanites, who were at the time of Moses the worshipers of Baal and Molech, sacrificing their own children to them. But they were also fellow Semites.

Who were the people that Moses told the Hebrews they were to destroy? It was these same Canaanites.

Moses was exhorting the people to go after fellow Semites, not another race of people. And in order to get them into the proper mindset so that they would attack their fellow Semites he used The Great Flood story. The story itself goes back centuries before Moses' time, but he was able to use it as a means of getting his people into the correct mindset to wipe out a people whose society would not only threaten their existence, but also the existence of their children.

And methodology repeated itself in the 20th century.

 

[RDKirk]

I know that many Christian churches nowadays have a somewhat egalitarian streak, and lean heavily on passages such as Galatians 3:28, which, when taken out of context, indicate total equality among believers.

Whoa. First you assert that Galatians 3:28 should not be taken out of context, implying that it does not make a statement of egalitarianism.

Then you take Genesis 9 out of context and assert that it makes a statement of racism.

Logically conflicted much?

However, I am almost convinced that the only reasonable interpretation of Genesis 9 is a racist one:t.

There is no statement of "race" in Genesis 9. The concept of "race" did not even exist when it was written.

It does delinate a subordination of tribes, however, and I suspect the intent was to explain the continued emnity between the Hebrews and the Canaanites while at the same time acknowleging that they have the same roots.

Racism was not inserted into that passage until the 1800s, and then only in southern America.