[KingSolomon1611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Underlining and bold mine for emphasis:Can someone show me, Chette, Solomon, or others, WHERE the entire family of Ham was cursed??? ONE man's decendents, Canaan's, were cursed. These are NOT identified as all black-skinned people!!!

Are you implying that I said entire family of Ham was cursed? I know I didn't. I know full well that cursed be Canaan a servant of servants shall he be unto his bretheren. I believe blacks are descendants of Noah though. That isn't bigoted. It is a belief.

I will point out an observation that may appear to be bigoted. Look at the violent crime statistics compared with the ethnic statistics of population.

Black on white robberies and gang assaults are 21 times more common than white on black crimes. Blacks make up about 15% of the population.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

To get this thread back on balance (or to bring it to an end), I would like to summarize my position on the various points brought out (that at least have something to do with the topic ):

1. Ham did SOMETHING that so offended his father, Noah, that Noah spoke a curse upon the decendents of ONE of Ham's children, Canaan. What that deed was is not explicitly explained in the passage or elsewhere in the Scriptures. Sufficient, therefore, is that we accept that it had to have been a gross offense. To attempt to define what it was is nothing more than speculation.

2. The decendents of Canaan settled in the region that later became known by his name. It was the land later given by God to Abraham.

3. Because this is a curse spoken by a man and not God, we cannot tell the duration or the extent of its application. There is Scriptural evidence of the curse being in effect to some degree. [Example: the Gibeonites] To say that the curse is still in effect is not provable, primarily due to inability to clearly distinguish the decendents of each affected party. [such as: Who today are the decendents of Canaan? Where are the tents of Shem? etc]

4. It is Biblically clear that Black Africans are not the decendents of Canaan, and therefore the past and present slavery of Blacks by Whites has nothing whatsoever to do with this curse.

An additional personal observation: The intermingling of the decendents of Noah is so extensive today that it is impossible to divide the peoples of this earth into each of the three sons' families. The possible exception would be some "nations" such as the Jews that have maintained isolation as a practice. Even there, the scattered ten tribes are likely lost.

I would greatly appreciate each of the principal posters on this thread, in particular, Chette, to comment on my four points.

Am I one of the principal posters on this thread? As usual, nothing's ever quite clear with you. If so, I believe I have already addressed your issues on my previous posts. Even after I did, I still received a rebuke from you. Even though I corrected myself immediately, after the fact I have received corrections or rebukes from three or four different people now on this thread and one other person has stopped communicating with me, I believe because of this thread. I have received no acknowledgment from these people as to what I have actually said. As far as the "race" issue, I don't know how anybody could come out more clearly about what they believe than I did on the Race and Love thread. I didn't even say anything about American blacks as being descendants of Canaan. I never said I thought Noah's curse applied to American blacks. I never said Noah's curse meant that white Americans would rule over black Africans. But of course even defending yourself against false accusations about emotionally charged issues like "race" just makes you look even more guilty. So let people think what they will think. I made a foolish statement connecting American black lingo to a speculative idea of the reason for the curse. I apologized profusely, it was an unthinking stupid comment. I have never believed Noah's curse applied to black Americans. But some fail to carefully read the entirety of a person's opinion on a thread.

Brother Tim, you make an insinuating comment about George who wasn't even involved in the thread in any way. You link Chette's opinion with the KKK who used to murder blacks in this country and maybe still might today if they could get away with it, then you lump every body together to address your comments. You accuse Bro. Parish of "disliking" George when he never said that. I may disagree with Bro. Parish on some things he has said in the past and feel he was unkind to the uttermost in what he said about George on this thread but I can't read his heart so I won't make a judgement on whether he likes or dislikes brother George. You are careless with other people's reputations, in my opinion.

Most of my faults are right out there for everybody to see. At times I've been overly opinionated, in your face, unkind and lacking in meekness and grace. But I have always admitted on this forum when I saw I was wrong about something. I don't need other people insinuating untrue faults or opinions to me. Sometimes people seem to lack the mental or spiritual clarity to discern important details which are necessary to come to a full understanding of what a person has actually said. It's real easy to stop short especially if it enhances one's own reputation and position while destroying someone elses. I'm not saying that is what you are doing now and I'm not saying I have never done that here. I just think we need to be aware that human beings have a propensity to do this so we should all be careful in this area.

George has been stalked on this forum for a month now by custer. She has mocked and scorned him so dozens of times. Last night she equated him to Nabal. Of course, she didn't come right out and say it in her own words, it was in the form of a "word study". The ugliest things have come out of this thread and you want to "get this thread back on balance (or to bring it to an end), I would like to summarize my position on the various points brought out (that at least have something to do with the topic ):"

This thread was started by a first time poster who has posted exactly once. If anyone would care to click on her website you can see that she sells "biker chic" apparel including black leather lingerie. Gee, I wonder what her motive could have been in posting this topic? The devil does work among believers to break up fellowships and I believe he has tried to do it here. That's just my discernment, however. But by all means, brother Tim, go on with your attempt to isolate Chette and publicly "out" him as a bigot and a racist because he has a different interpretation or misunderstanding of a passage.


I'm sick with being falsely accused and not even in a direct fashion, directed to "each of the principal posters on this thread, in particular, Chette" but with insinuations that are general. That way if you try to defend yourself you can be accused of being defensive or paranoid. I'm done with this board. And I will NEVER participate on any christian forum again. It is death to the spirit. There are many people here who have shown love and taught clearly and precisely from the Word, and cared enough to put forth the effort to understand what somebody was actually saying, not making assumptions for self-serving purposes. Those people I will take with me in my heart. The rest I will have to forgive their faults as they will have to forgive mine if they are Christ's.

[Diligent]

Apparently, some people were in the midst of responding to the topic of this thread, so I will re-open it. Any additional posts in this thread that are of a personal nature and not directly on-topic will be deleted.

[chette777]

Sorry Tim, mums the word on my thoughts concerning this hot issue. the reason is you have a tendency to read into my post your own bias, bigotry, and assume that certain terms are being used in a derogatory sense in which it would not be on my heart as such.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Brothers Tim and Tony,

I'm with you guys. I'm really, really tired of people reading into this passage -- both in making assumptions about what was "done to" Noah and assuming that our modern ideas of "race" can be grafted on to the curse in some way.

Brandon, I'm having mucho computer problems, I've missed being in the forum. I'm gonna use this message of yours as a base so to speak, and explore the various myths dealing with Scripture being used to justify hatred becasue of something as insignificant as skin color.

God put a mark on Cain and many, many people stop there, and say, "h'it was black skin..." without reading what the Scriptures say. Why did God put a mark on Cain? "Wayall, he killded his brother..."

Ge 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

oops. All those hangings, burnings, shootings, stabbings, stonings, and dragging behind pickup trucks has put a lot of the white pointy kaps into hell. If the "mark" was "black skin", we should be as nice as we can to black folks because the "mark" was given for Cain's protection, not curse.

It's possible if every murder in the Bible is studied, the identity of this "mark" might be revealed, if there is a reason God would want to have us know it. People have commented to me the mark of Cain and the mark of The Beast in Revelation is the same mark> Rationally I can;t see this as being the same mark. The mark of Revelation is a mark of damnation, the mark put on Cain was for his protection. I can also find no Scriptural evidence that God has cursed one race of people from nearly Adamic times to the present, considering that "Hamites" are Gentiles and according to Eph. 2 and 3 all Gentiles, from then to the revelation given to Paul of the mystery of Jew and Gentile in the same Body co-equal, we were all out of the Commonwealth of Israel, we were all afar off "but now" all made nigh by the blood of Christ, "Hamites" and "Japethites".

An anthopological anomaly exists that cannot be explained by the JEB Stuart College Of Natural Sciences: The aborigines of the Solomon Islands are scientifically and anthropologically Caucasians, their skin is black as coal.

The native tribes of Africa did not jump into little wooden canoes and cross the Atlantic to invade South Carolina in the 1600s, these people were brought here against their will, stolen from their homes and sent here in the most brutal conditions known to man and subjected to persecution that makes the children of Israel in Egypt look cushy.

I'm a pretty hard person and I have a "secret sin" I make no secret of: I'm a cynic. I'm the person they used to invent the word "cynic". But there are two things I will absolutely not tolerate in a Christian setting of any kind where I hold the reins: Galatianism, being made nigh by the Spirit through the shed blood of Christ and then made "perfect" by "ordinances", "obediences", "traditions", "laws", and using the Scriptures to justify racism.

My next message will demonstrate the Scriptures disconnecting Leviticus 18 from Genesis 9.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

[Brother Tim]

Greenbear, I know that you have said that you were leaving, but I hope that you will see this and respond.

I do not understand what it was that caused you to make your last post here directed at me. I am going to reprint portions and comment, but first I appeal to you to continue posting on the forum. Because it does not fit this thread, I want to comment on the general chat part of the forum.

I will answer your post here if we are reconciled on the other thread.

[Brother Tim]

KingSolomon1611:
If you review posts #4, #5, #6, #10, and #11, the intermingling of the curse of Canaan with all Hamites should be observable.

In the following quotes, I will indicate notable areas in bold underlining:

In post #4, Chette said:

Noah ... curses his son Canaan and Hams decedents to be a slaves to the other two brothers decedents forever.

Chette (I believe unintentionally) sets the curse of perpetual slavery on all Ham's decendents. Biblically, it is clear that the curse applies only to Canaan's decendents, and the term is "servant" not "slave".

In post #5, KingSolomon1611 uses a quote from Luke, and then links (using the rules of pronoun - noun antecedents) the name "Ham", the question of sodomy, and his past knowledge of certain behavior. The phrase "their culture", the term "rappers" and immoral acts in prisons are brought together in one paragraph. Then in post #6, Chette poses a question of linkage as to whether or not many prisoners who are immoral were also Hamites. In post #10, KingSolomon1611 answers in the affirmative.

Last, in post #11, Chette expands this linkage of Hamites and slavery: Note again that there absolutely no Biblical connection between Canaan's curse and Black slavery.

Yeah it is sad to say know the Hamite's want the Jhaphite Americans to apologize for slavery and give them appropriations. when it was God who put them in that predicament. They should thank the God of Israel they have freedom in the USofA. I have seen a few Hamite submit themselves to a Jhaphite company owner and work hard and that Jhaphite has blessed them and they are well off because of that.

In every place in the above quote, it is clear that Chette is using "Hamite" for black-skinned people and "Jhaphite" for white-skinned people. He then applied God's judgment as the reason for the slavery of Blacks.

In post #12, I make my initial statement. In the part of the post where [King]Solomon's name appears, I am appealing to Chette, Solomon, [who have posted on the topic] and any others to show evidence where all of Ham's decendents are cursed. This statement did not claim that Solomon had made this statement any more than that any unnamed "others" had done so. Chette and KingSolomon had jointly tied the ideas together in their previous posts. Chette did so specifically, and KingSolomon gave supporting statements.

KingSolomon, I did not claim that you said that the entire family of Ham was cursed. What was evident in your posts was that you did not disagree with Chette when he made that connection. It appeared from your responses that you may have agreed with that connection. I apologize if I read more into your posts than you meant. Also, I am in no way claiming or even implying that Chette is racist or bigoted. What is true is that there are those who are racists who do use this argument to support their "superiority" over black-skinned people. I do beseech Chette to clearly reject any connection with Canaan's curse and Black slavery.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Greenbear, I know that you have said that you were leaving, but I hope that you will see this and respond.

I do not understand what it was that caused you to make your last post here directed at me. I am going to reprint portions and comment, but first I appeal to you to continue posting on the forum. Because it does not fit this thread, I want to comment on the general chat part of the forum.

I will answer your post here if we are reconciled on the other thread.

Brother Tim, I want to note that we have been reconciled on the other thread. I appreciate your post #98, as well.

Jen

[Brother Tim]

Thanks, Jennifer.

Brandon, if you see this, could you please delete #95? It is now been slightly updated as #98. Thanks.

[KingSolomon1611]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

KingSolomon1611:
It appeared from your responses that you may have agreed with that connection. I apologize if I read more into your posts than you meant. Also, I am in no way claiming or even implying that Chette is racist or bigoted. What is true is that there are those who are racists who do use this argument to support their "superiority" over black-skinned people. I do beseech Chette to clearly reject any connection with Canaan's curse and Black slavery.

I do believe all blacks are Hamites but I don't believe all blacks are descendants of Canaan. I am a racist and a bigot but I didn't think it was fair for you to call my hand on it before I have had an opportunity to adequately articulate my sinful pride and arrogance (ha ha ha- I'm just joking. I don't dislike a person based upon the color of their skin). I too like another brother or two on this forum have a wife of another nation/race. I am white and she is oriental. I have black friends and my recent disciple is a Hametic Brother in the Lord (I don't know if he is a Canaanite though...I thought about barking out a couple of orders and see if he obeys me or punches me in the mouth. Ha Ha Just joking again!).

I don't have time tonight but I would like to jump back to this discussion and maybe elaborate on some ideas and toss them out to a critical crowd to see if it can stand the scrutiny of the bretheren. I have a ton of homework to do and need to get back to it. Thanks for your response.