C
creativemotion
Guest
the Curse of Cain has been used repeatedly by hate groups to justify racism towards black people. How do we know that this is nothing but bogus and that they are just interpreting the bible falsely?
- Status
S
survive
Guest
Do you mean the curse of Ham by any chance? If so, the obvious reason is that the people closest to the writing of Genesis, the ancient Israelites, left no trace of prejudice against Sub-Saharan Africans. There is just no historic reason to think anyone before the Renassance period even thought of applying it that way. Thousands of years and a continent away, under specific and unusual political conditions, a prejudice appears that supports the moneymaking schemes of a tiny bunch of Northern Europeans, and the preachers they support financially suddenly discover in the Old Testament something no one had ever thought of before. That’s the kind of thing we have the word bogus to describe.
C
creativemotion
Guest
oh yes, im sorry, i actaully meant the Curse of Ham or canaan, not the curse of Cain, i should edit it now.
AlSO can anybody tell me why how come it does not say Canaan’s skin turned black? its not in the bible, was it in the early bibles? where do people get this ‘blackness’ from?
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Blessed Anna Katherina Emmerich says that the skin became darker as the people increased in wickedness. I personally do not disagree; however, it does not justify racism, unless you’re Mormon (since they believe, or used to believe - I don’t keep up with their changing doctrine - that a person is born black because of their sinful choice before birth). For a Christian to discriminate against a black person for the sin of the father is equivilant to hating a child because his mother’s a drunk or his dad’s a murderer…it’s a lame excuse for sadism.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
:bigyikes:
R
Ruthie
Guest
I can think of two possible reasons for this.
The first is that Ham’s sons were cursed to be slaves in Gen 9:24-26. When the African slave trade began, those slaves were dark-skinned. So someone used bad logic to make a connection where there is none.
Second is Gen 10:6-14, the list of the descendants of Ham and the places they lived. The only name I recognize is Egypt, and the average Egyptian today is darker-skinned than I am. Perhaps the other places contained dark-skinned people. Again, bad logic.
Essentially, there is no provable connection between the curse of Ham and the skin color of his descendants.
Also, there is no reason to accept any private revelation as truth, even if the Church approves of it. See CCC 67.
My two cent’s worth, and probably worth less than that.
Ruthie
The first is that Ham’s sons were cursed to be slaves in Gen 9:24-26. When the African slave trade began, those slaves were dark-skinned. So someone used bad logic to make a connection where there is none.
Second is Gen 10:6-14, the list of the descendants of Ham and the places they lived. The only name I recognize is Egypt, and the average Egyptian today is darker-skinned than I am. Perhaps the other places contained dark-skinned people. Again, bad logic.
Essentially, there is no provable connection between the curse of Ham and the skin color of his descendants.
Also, there is no reason to accept any private revelation as truth, even if the Church approves of it. See CCC 67.
My two cent’s worth, and probably worth less than that.
Ruthie
B
Blade_and_Blood
Guest
I’m pretty sure it’s because the Mormons came up with that. I think they were the last religious group to believe that.
Besides, skin color has to do with class of compounds serving as a pigment for humans, animals, and plants called melanin… it has nothing to do with the Curse of Cain.
Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Actually, if the Church approves we have a very good reason to believe; however, we’re not obliged to as it is not part of “the deposit of faith.” Since the Church has made no definitive statement in this matter, I’m going with the Church approved stigmatic. Just my humble opinion.
S
SamTheMan
Guest
Cute…
First off, nothing justifies racism.
Second off, the mormon pre-mortal existence doctrine implies that the conditions we are born into on this earth can be because of who or what we were in the pre-mortal existence (Of course, there can be exceptions because God could have a special plan, etc) being born black is another thing that could be because of the pre existence. Not because it’s particularly bad to be black in anyway, but because the blacks were denied the priesthood. So it’s not a racism thing, it’s just a belief that who you were in the pre existence can effect your ability to get the priesthood in this life (So again, it isn’t because it’s bad to be black, but just because of priesthood restricting purposes). As for why mormons didn’t allow blacks to get the priesthood, I know the answer to that but that isn’t the point of this thread.
Third off, changing doctrine? Because the catholics are known for not changing their beliefs, right?
Anyway, the point of my reply is that mormons aren’t racist. Jacob 3:9 (In the Book of Mormon) “Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them [the lamanites] because of the darkness of their skin.”
M
Matariel
Guest
I don’t see how this could be (besides being a blatantly ethnic prejudice tactic)… but the Curse of Cain couldn’t possibly be the reason for melanin in some ethnic branches of the human family. All of Cain’s descendants were wiped out in the Great Flood. Only Noah and his families survived, along with the ancestors of all the animals (which have since variated, or adapted in different ways).
M
Matariel
Guest
Right!
Not in 2,000 years.
S
Starwynd
Guest
Actually, A Jewish text called the Zohar says the mark Of Cain is the vav.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Cain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Cain
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waw_(letter
M
Matariel
Guest
Ah, yes… the Zohar. The Vav, or Waw, then, must’ve been the Mark of Cain.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
is that what the LDS church now says?
Catholic doctrine has never changed. Traditions, with a little “t” have changed, but doctrine/dogma has not, unlike with the Mormon church. Catholics are divided into three groups: Catholic, schismatic, and heretic. 2 of the three refuse to accept Church teaching, therefore they aren’t Catholic. The accusation doesn’t hold.
The prophet Kimball (spelling) said that abortion cannot be permitted in any circumstance, and now it’s a sin that God “gives permission for.” If I were LDS, I’d only have to pray and ask God if it was okay for me to be a rascist in ____ circumstance, and I could possibly get a yes. It all can be justified. But we’ve gotten a bit off topic.
- Status