Noah's drunken curse of Canaan

a reply to: wisvol

Everything I have said has been true I typed the story word for word and I summed up the Joshua conquest because that was the curse of Canaan being carried out all those years later, every bible student knows this.

The Canaanites were giants according to the story, the "and later" giant descendants of the Nephilim spoken of in Genesis. In other words, they were genetically "inferior" and it was ok to murder them and there animals too.

a reply to: SerapisChrist


The "inferiority" as you call the death of Canaan is derived from Ham's behaviour and not his genetics as evidenced by the fact that his brothers share his blood but not his curse. How do you not see this besides it fitting your ill advised comparison?

Ham should clearly have stopped procreating after Noah cursed him, as Noah had demonstrated ability to foretell things to be. Some people today should also stop procreating when they see how their own lives are already being negatively affected by overcrowding and bondage. China made it a law a while back.
Canaan chose to ignore Noah who saved him from the flood, took it upon himself as a bloodline to occupy the land and thrive with knowledge derived from Noah and whaddaya know, Noah was right again.

and there animals too.

Their animals too, yes: as the israelites view god as their shepherd, their cattle is bred and raised in a specific way, and therefore would be preferable to Canaan's cattle, absolutely.

Chosen to receive the law isn't demeaning to other people, and equating it with racism/nazism/khmerism is both dishonest and misleading. Tell me who the israelites kill once they secure the promised land. Do they wage war on the entire world like the master race folks tried did? Or do they make respectful alliances with their neighbours like the bible says?

Also it's clearly a hangover curse and not a drunken curse.

War is hell but it does beat slavery.

So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers. They said: O Moses! We will never enter (the land) while they are in it. So go thou and thy Lord and fight! We will sit here. He said: My Lord! I have control of none but myself and my brother, so distinguish between us and the wrong-doing folk. (Their Lord) said: For this the land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk

From the Quran, surah al Maidah 5:20-26

Just for clarification: allah is yhvh is elohim isn't Baal (the demon worshipped by Canaan)

originally posted by: SerapisChrist
a reply to: chr0naut
Yeah and did I say he made a claim to divinity? I did not.

Your idea of a Messiah is not what it means. A Messiah like in Judaism was a human who would restore glory to his people. There was no expectations of divinity on behalf of the Jews and to this day still isn't.

So I say Messiah and you think God, which is because you're a Christian. Annointed one doesn't mean God.

Your message is irrelevant, your putting words in my mouth.

Twice God said directly and audibly that Jesus was His beloved son. Firstly when Jesus was baptized (Matthew 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–23) and secondly when Jesus was transfigured (Matthew 17:1–9, Mark 9:2–8, Luke 9:28–36).

I actually made no mention of a 'messiah', or 'anointed one'. That was you in your previous post where you said: " Hitler was the German Messiah".

I was just pointing out that Adolf Hitler made no reference to himself as 'messiah', 'son of God' or anything 'divine' in his book/s Mein Kampf, even if he had a penchant for the esoteric.

a reply to: chr0naut

Actually, Hitler hated Christianity. The Bible was burned. In piles. I don't know why you are inventing history. There was no Christianity in NAZI Germany under Hitler. It was all but outlawed. He even said Islam was superior to Christianity, so you are incorrect, Mein Kampf was the bible of Nazi Germany.

a reply to: wisvol

Your rationalization for the slaughter of the Canaanites is "Ham should have stopped procreating because Noah could foretell things to come?"

Ham wasn't the one whose decendants were to be cursed, it was Canaan, but neither were guilty of any wrong doing. Your line of reasoning is flawed because:

A. Ham wasn't the one cursed, Canaan was
B. This doesn't justify one person dying, never mind a whole nation.

I could go on but what's the point.

a reply to: Mryhh

Rationalization is a term you bring here.

A. Canaan was not the object of the curse as an individual, but as the seed of Ham
B. Not in your eyes, but then again you're not the god of Noah

The point is one of us realizing the incoherence in our points of view is due to being obtuse.

Ham wasn't the one whose decendants were to be cursed

Since you wrote the OP and now say this, it may take a while.

a reply to: wisvol

Your incorrect, YHWH is not El Elyon. You are welcome to think that as most people today are unaware of the facts about ancient Canaan anyway. But the truth is that El and YHWH are very different, a historical FACT, not an extrapolation.

Also, YHWH IS evil, do you read the bible or just lug it around so everyone knows how righteous you are?

a reply to: wisvol
Except y
I didn't write it, I am commenting off your misguided comments.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Mryhh

Rationalization is a term you bring here.

A. Canaan was not the object of the curse as an individual, but as the seed of Ham
B. Not in your eyes, but then again you're not the god of Noah

The point is one of us realizing the incoherence in our points of view is due to being obtuse.

Ham wasn't the one whose decendants were to be cursed

Since you wrote the OP and now say this, it may take a while.

Wow, I guess you don't like being wrong. Tough, you are, deal with it. You say you believe that this is justification for the slaughter of an entire nation. I think that is INSANE and you don't actually believe it.

Usually when people insult you for pointing out the defects in their argument it's because they are low in character. I'd say this is the case here as you just endorsed genocide.

Consequently, when Absalom "uncovered his father (David)'s nakedness", Joab killed him, because he learned from Noah and Ham. Details in the second book of Samuel.

David was sad, but it did prevent the massacre of the multitude Absalom might have become centuries down the line.

It means in a nutshell that sexual deviants aren't the best parents. Not too hard to grasp if you try.

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: chr0naut

Actually, Hitler hated Christianity. The Bible was burned. In piles. I don't know why you are inventing history. There was no Christianity in NAZI Germany under Hitler. It was all but outlawed. He even said Islam was superior to Christianity, so you are incorrect, Mein Kampf was the bible of Nazi Germany.

I agree that Hitler hated Christianity and that Bibles were burned.

However, Christianity survived under the Nazi reign, that was why Hitler, as a politician, pandered to church groups (as politicians who don't believe, do today).

I was unaware of Hitlers apparent acceptance of Islam. Apparently he saw Christianity as weak and flabby and Islam as a strong ally. Regardless, an endorsement by Hitler isn't likely to get many converts.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I heard from a couple of people that Canaan had anal intercourse with Noah and that is why he was cursed. Now, I don't support this theory or even know where this idea came from, but that is what I was told. I certainly never looked into this one and really don't know if I should even take that theory seriously enough to do some fact checking. Maybe I should check this one out now.

I also heard that Canaan was dark skinned and this is where the idea that the Bible supported black slavery. Not sure about that one either.

We really only have the scriptures. According to several 'experts', the actual events were 6,000 years ago. Beyond what is in the Scriptures is only speculation.

a reply to: chr0naut


There is no way that the Lord, who was so protective of, and loyal to Noah that Ham would've been allowed to sodomize Noah, who was in Essene scripture a virgin birth. I don't recall any sodomy in that, the only known deuterocanonical scripture about Noah besides Enoch.

So that is definitely speculation and just unpleasant. Ham was a great Patriarch and namesake of Khem or Egypt and not a rapist.

I don't know where he heard that from but have never.

It sounds like an attempt to justify the unjustifiable curse of Canaan.

a reply to: chr0naut

No, and I suspect that he only was pandering to the Islamic authorities for the sake of gaining an alliance. I am certain he would have exterminated them too eventually.

Interesting side fact: Iran means " land of the Aryans and the myth of the Aryans is closer to Indians and Persians than Norse and Germanic people. The swastika is originally a Hindu symbol so Hitler knew this and was aware ofhis
own lies. Big propagandist.

originally posted by: wisvol


Consequently, when Absalom "uncovered his father (David)'s nakedness", Joab killed him, because he learned from Noah and Ham. Details in the second book of Samuel.

David was sad, but it did prevent the massacre of the multitude Absalom might have become centuries down the line.

It means in a nutshell that sexual deviants aren't the best parents. Not too hard to grasp if you try.

Sexual deviance has nothing to do with the story of the curse of Canaan. And seeing your father naked is not sexual deviance, it's just something that accidentally happens like being a kid and walking in your parents room when they are doing the deed. It isn't pleasant, but you are stretching to justify this curse of Canaan so bad you need to just give up. It isn't justifiable so why are you trying?

You need to just admit you like genocide, or admit it is an atrocity and it was an unjust curse.

You previously blamed Ham for continuing to have children after the curse was pronounced. But does that make sense? No, because Canaan's lineage and descendants were cursed so Ham's descendants (Egypt) would not have been under the curse. This is a totally inept attempted explanation for the slaughter of Canaan being just. It doesn't even apply.

Now it's sexual deviance that is the reason for the slaughter of the Canaanite people. Are you saying sexual deviants should be killed or not allowed the right to procreate? You did say that sexual deviants should not have children, or don't make the best parents. That isn't actually true, many adult parents have untraditional sexual tendencies and there children become Senators, Presidents even Preachers and priests. Sexual orientation has no bearing on ability to raise children.

What is your idea of sexually deviant behavior?

a reply to: Mryhh

Sexual deviance has nothing to do with the story of the curse of Canaan.

You're mistaken: it does. Canaan is cursed because he "uncovered his father's nakedness", as other characters in the same book have done, with examples provided to you in this thread, showing the euphemistic nature of the quoted part.

It isn't justifiable so why are you trying?

Because some of us are slow learners and need help understanding these stories so bad they ask for it online, so that would be altruism. Mostly directed towards those who learn about biblical stories from you at this point.

You need to just admit you like genocide, or admit it is an atrocity and it was an unjust curse.

Your assessment of my needs is also erroneous. Your view of justice isn't the biblical god's view of justice, and understanding how the two differ will help you solve the frankly less than beneficial notion that god is the devil or that there is more than one god in the bible, because he isn't and there's not.

You previously blamed Ham for continuing to have children after the curse was pronounced

No. I expressed the fact that if my father had correctly predicted the flood, and then cursed my seed to slavery I would believe him and limit my descendants and theirs because odds of him being right would be against them.

What is your idea of sexually deviant behavior?

Irrelevant entirely, the case we're discussing breaks two of the ten commandments, being respect of one's father and adultery.

Being stubborn is only a virtue when you're right. Being insulting never helps at all.

Now it's sexual deviance that is the reason for the slaughter of the Canaanite people.

You're thinking of the Sodomite people, who were basically nuked.
Canaan was into Baal worship, a notion where god is the devil and they worship a devil as a god, and the reason for their slaughter is that Joshua's army was better at war than their army. As you said, they were previously cursed by Noah right after the flood, and chose to name themselves as a nation with the cursed name of Canaan, which in retrospect might not have been the best course of action.

Surely you will keep saying I lie about this but enough reference has been given.

Good luck.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Mryhh

Sexual deviance has nothing to do with the story of the curse of Canaan.

You're mistaken: it does. Canaan is cursed because he "uncovered his father's nakedness", as other characters in the same book have done, with examples provided to you in this thread, showing the euphemistic nature of the quoted part.

It isn't justifiable so why are you trying?

Because some of us are slow learners and need help understanding these stories so bad they ask for it online, so that would be altruism. Mostly directed towards those who learn about biblical stories from you at this point.

You need to just admit you like genocide, or admit it is an atrocity and it was an unjust curse.

Your assessment of my needs is also erroneous. Your view of justice isn't the biblical god's view of justice, and understanding how the two differ will help you solve the frankly less than beneficial notion that god is the devil or that there is more than one god in the bible, because he isn't and there's not.

You previously blamed Ham for continuing to have children after the curse was pronounced

No. I expressed the fact that if my father had correctly predicted the flood, and then cursed my seed to slavery I would believe him and limit my descendants and theirs because odds of him being right would be against them.

What is your idea of sexually deviant behavior?

Irrelevant entirely, the case we're discussing breaks two of the ten commandments, being respect of one's father and adultery.

Being stubborn is only a virtue when you're right. Being insulting never helps at all.

Now it's sexual deviance that is the reason for the slaughter of the Canaanite people.

You're thinking of the Sodomite people, who were basically nuked.
Canaan was into Baal worship, a notion where god is the devil and they worship a devil as a god, and the reason for their slaughter is that Joshua's army was better at war than their army. As you said, they were previously cursed by Noah right after the flood, and chose to name themselves as a nation with the cursed name of Canaan, which in retrospect might not have been the best course of action.

Surely you will keep saying I lie about this but enough reference has been given.

Good luck.

I am not saying you are lying, just rationalizing. Also I insist once more sexual deviance has nothing to do with the story. I've provided my explanation. Your obsessively trying to make your comments make sense but they don't. I don't know who you are referring to that doesn't understand the story and needs to go on the internet and learn, but you said "us" so I want to tell you that this is the place for the learned to discuss and the unlearned to chime in with erroneous arguments because they aren't educated enough to understand what is being discussed. The topic has nothing to do with sexual deviance. It's about an unjust curse and the genocide ordered by the Lord and how he is more like a genocidal dictator than the benevolent God Churchianity claims him to be.

And you mentioned David being sad. David was a lowlife who slept with his comrades wife and to cover it up tried to get him to sleep with her and when he refused out of honor David sent him purposely to his death.

And you are specularing about sexual deviants being unfit parents and how this is the moral of the story. But David, according to Israelite Law, was an adulterer which they would consider a form of sexual deviance. Were David's descendants wiped out? Or were they honored?

Your arguments are terrible, your interpretations dishonest, and your just so unbelievably transparent. You can't stand that someone spotlighted the barbaric nature of the God-impersonating demonic entity that is YHWH. We live in an age of intellectual achievement and are evolving scientifically every day.

People like you keep us from forcing the beliefs of the church about the nature of God to evolve with the rest of our knowledge. People like you prefer the god of the dark ages who has been responsible for more war and death than any god in history.

And when people promote a benevolent God like El who all knowledgeable people know is a Canaanite deity and not the god of Israel, Yahweh.

Hell even Jews religion has evolved into non-Yahwist because they see how he treated them in the bible. They won't even say YHWH, which isn't a biblical command, and have downgraded the Tanakh in favor of the Talmud which is saying that they don't give a damn about Yahweh. Rabbis are more respected than Yahweh now.

Christianity is still in the dark ages.

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: chr0naut


There is no way that the Lord, who was so protective of, and loyal to Noah that Ham would've been allowed to sodomize Noah, who was in Essene scripture a virgin birth. I don't recall any sodomy in that, the only known deuterocanonical scripture about Noah besides Enoch.

So that is definitely speculation and just unpleasant. Ham was a great Patriarch and namesake of Khem or Egypt and not a rapist.

I don't know where he heard that from but have never.

It sounds like an attempt to justify the unjustifiable curse of Canaan.

With the feminine sense of the wording used, perhaps Ham raped his mother who was naked & unconscious beside Noah?

I don't think one could assume Ham is an innocent victim. It is obvious from the text that Ham did something that angered Noah and that was unmentionable by their standards.

You, however, seem happy to vilify Noah and absolve Ham of blame? It is obvious that Noah shouldn't have gotten drunk and naked, but it isn't a mortal sin (and wasn't back then either). I think this passage of scripture shows the fallibility and humanity of Noah but that doesn't absolve Ham in the slightest.

You must also remember that Noah was a revered Patriarch too, and as Ham's father, of higher standing, as a Patriarch's, Patriarch.