Are Transgender People Sinners? Theists?

[Cerebrum123]

In the Honor/shame culture of the Biblical world, Ham's ploy would indeed be a powerplay. For a highly patriarchal society like the Biblical world power or honor would lay in the eldest or an elder family member. Whether one takes the maternal incest or paternal incest interpretations, Ham's action involved him showing superiority over his father the head of the group after the Flood.

There were only 8 people, so there wouldn't have much if any power to gain, especially since if he wanted to he could have simply taken his family, and left to a place where he would have ALL of the power.

It would be illegitmate totality transfer if there were no contextual reasons for believing it, but as I argued in a previous post there are. You still haven't answered some of the arguments I made in a previous post, but nonetheless I'll list some more.

You have very little to go on to support your thesis given what the context of the rest of the account says. Also the only other point I saw you make was the "done to him" which IMO is just as valid regardless of which position you hold on this, and gives no more credence to your position than mine.

First, you object that Canaan wasn't enslaved since they were wiped out, but recall that Isreal actually failed to wipe out all the Canaanites and other people of the land. Consequently, they could have easily been enslaved in the ensuing years. Also we don't know what happened to Japeth since the focus is on Shem's descendants, so that's an argument from silence.

Yeah, it's possible that some of them could have been enslaved, but most were killed, and probably a lot of them that survived would have fled. Now as for the "argument from silence" except for a few instances of prophecy yet to be fulfilled, I can't think of anything like this in the Bible where it doesn't specifically mention the fulfillment of said curse, or prophecy, and this one is mysteriously absent of anything other than what you are currently proposing.

Second, As the article points out the text emphasizes that Ham was the father of Canaan. This would make perfect sense if with this text, Moses was trying to show the Isrealites the wicked origins of Canaan and why they were under God's wrath. This, however, does not make sense if all Ham did was see his Father naked. In such a case the emphasis would have been on the fact that Noah acted rashly and irresponsibly, there would probably by a part where Noah is rebuked or repents. None of this occurs.

That is mere speculation, and I don't see anything to back it up with(think of what Lot did while drunk, do you have any mention of him, or his daughters having regretted it, or repented of such action?).
The Amorites were left alone for around 400 years so that their sins might be complete, and God would have given them a good chance to turn things around, I don't see any reason why the same doesn't apply to the other nations in the region. Also, if that was the reason for God's wrath, then no waiting around would have been necessary to destroy Canaan, and the Israelites could have simply waited a while after conquering Canaan to go after the other inhabitants of the Promised Land. There would have been no need to be in Egypt, and in bondage for so long if at least one of the nations was ripe for the picking, and the others could have been left alone while Israel populated the area, while waiting for the Amorites to reach the full capacity of their sins.

Third, the curse itself is evidence against your interpretation. It makes no sense that Noah would go so far as to curse Ham's descendants if his actions were as innocent as you make them to be. Also, it makes no sense that he would curse Ham's descendants. If anything he would curse Ham himself and leave his descendants alone. The paternal/maternal incest interpretations explain the nature of the curse since Ham's actions involved his sperm or seed.
These are just a few more points like I said I raised points in a previous post which you still have not answered.

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Especially if Noah had a hangover he could have acted quite rashly, and gone farther than he should have. And since the Bible records things accurately, then if Noah didn't repent in the account, then he didn't actually do it at all.

PS. If you had other points, I might have missed them, could you direct me to the post where you made them, I have a hard time with short term memory, thanks.

[Rolo megatheist]

There were only 8 people, so there wouldn't have much if any power to gain, especially since if he wanted to he could have simply taken his family, and left to a place where he would have ALL of the power.

Actually there would have been power and honor to gain. With only 8 people around, and those 8 people needing to be the source of the people who would repopulate the land, Ham had much to gain by usurping his father, Noah. As the head of those 8 people, Noah figured as the obvious target for a grab for power.

You have very little to go on to support your thesis given what the context of the rest of the account says. Also the only other point I saw you make was the "done to him" which IMO is just as valid regardless of which position you hold on this, and gives no more credence to your position than mine.

Actually I do give a number of contextual points and will offer more in this post. Also the "done to him" part does strongly help my case. As a scholar by the name of Robertson points out, “It seems very unlikely that Noah would have had any remembrance of a mere look from his son while he was in a state of drunkenness”

Yeah, it's possible that some of them could have been enslaved, but most were killed, and probably a lot of them that survived would have fled. Now as for the "argument from silence" except for a few instances of prophecy yet to be fulfilled, I can't think of anything like this in the Bible where it doesn't specifically mention the fulfillment of said curse, or prophecy, and this one is mysteriously absent of anything other than what you are currently proposing.

Actually looking at other Bible's translations and the original text, the verse actually says "a servant of servants" and not just servant or slave. This seems to indicate a metaphorical usage of the statement as in the descendants of Shem and Japeth will dominate Canaan. The slaughtering of the majority of the Canaanites as well as the subsequent slavery of the survivors would both figure as domination. Also biblical prophecies frequently do use figurative or exaggerated language. Recall the propecy of Isaiah 17 where it says, "1 An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. 2 Her towns will be deserted forever; they will be places for flocks, which will lie down, and no one will make them afraid."
Now obviously if one takes this prophecy literally then its a failed prophecy. Damascus is still around and is not a place for flocks. The proper way to understand this prophecy is figuratively as Damascus undergoing tremendous suffering under God's wrath. This is but one example of prophecy as figurative in the Bible
Also you say the fulfillment of a prophecy is a given in the Biblical text, but I honestly don't understand what you're getting at since many of the biblical prophecies do not mention their fulfillment such as the one concerning Damascus in Isaiah. On top of this the ancient isrealities would more than likely understand their successful invasion of Canaan as a fulfillment of this curse.

That is mere speculation, and I don't see anything to back it up with(think of what Lot did while drunk, do you have any mention of him, or his daughters having regretted it, or repented of such action?).

As is your interpretation. Your interpretation says that Noah made a rash vow, and that he was simply embarrassed among other things, but this can't be found in the text. It is not speculation if you're simply making a logical inference from what the text says. The difference between Lot's daughters and Noah is that whereas Lot's daughters were sinful Noah was considered righteous and blessed by God. If Noah really did something as serious as curse Ham's descendants then there would more than likely God would or someone else would have rebuked him, or there would be some indication that what Noah did was wrong. Instead there is zero indication that what Noah did was wrong. The text does however, consistently indicate that Ham did something grievously wrong, but not Noah. Also you dodged my objection. Why does the text repeatedly emphasize Ham as the Father of Canaan if it doesn't care to make the connection between the Isrealites future destruction of Canaan and the actions of their Father, Ham

Also, if that was the reason for God's wrath, then no waiting around would have been necessary to destroy Canaan, and the Israelites could have simply waited a while after conquering Canaan to go after the other inhabitants of the Promised Land.

This objection makes little sense. Why couldn't the prophecy be fulfilled at a later time? Numerous Biblical prophecies are fulfilled way off in the future so this is a complete non sequitor that since the propecy was fulfilled later on that means that the prophecy must have been incorrect. I also don't see why God wouldn't allow the Canaanites the same oppurtunity he did the Amorites. Omniscient God of course allowed the Amorites, Canaanites, and other people of the land a chance at repentance even though he knew most wouldn't take it.

PS. If you had other points, I might have missed them, could you direct me to the post where you made them, I have a hard time with short term memory, thanks

Happily obliged. Previous post below.
In response to you Cerebrum, nothing of what you said undermined what I said. As I said before we don't know what happened to Japeth's descendants. Also concerning the suggestion that Ham would have been killed note Noah's curse on Ham's descendants. Especially in an age where one desired to have an honorable lineage Noah's curse is an extremely serious punishment. Also both the article I sent you and Robert Gagnon's book explain why Noah's son walked backwards and covered him. Whether it was maternal or paternal incest, Ham's actions caused extreme dishonor on Noah. The actions of the two brothers is a way for them to at least partially restore some of that honor. Out of piety to their father they avoid seeing Noah's naked body which Ham violated and cover his body. In contrast to Ham's extremely vile action which dishonors their father's "nakedness" the actions of the two brothers honors their father. The idea that Ham simply saw his father naked has many problems. First and foremost is the curse. If Noah was simply embarrassed by what Ham did he would have cursed Ham and not Ham's progeny. He also probably wouldn't have made the curse so severe. The maternal/paternal incest interpretations explain this feature. Noah condemns Ham's progeny since in both scenarios the crime was sexual and thus involved Ham's seed. By cursing his descendants Noah is cursing Ham's seed. Second, such an interpretation doesn't explain why Ham went out and told his brothers. In the incest interpretations this is explained by Ham wanting to dishonor Noah and thus proclaiming his triumph to his brothers. Third, your guys' interpretation does not explain why the text refers to Noah finding out what Ham had done to him. The fact that the texts says "done to him" suggests more than mere looking, but a physical act done to Noah. There are more points I could make, but I'll leave it at that for now.

[Cerebrum123]

Rolo I read over that article you linked to again, and now I don't know what to think. After reading it I think that the maternal incest theory is more valid than paternal, but I'm still not sure either way. I understand the reasoning for all of the views except the castration one, but I simply don't know what to think on this one anymore.

[Rolo megatheist]

Understandable. Personally I still side with the Paternal view although the article does make a great case for the maternal incest view. If you want a thorough take on the paternal view then read Robert Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice." Regardless of the view you take, I think its clear from the evidence and context that Ham's actions involved something much more serious than simply looking at his father.

[Cerebrum123]

Understandable. Personally I still side with the Paternal view although the article does make a great case for the maternal incest view. If you want a thorough take on the paternal view then read Robert Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice." Regardless of the view you take, I think its clear from the evidence and context that Ham's actions involved something much more serious than simply looking at his father.

Is there a way I can get something like a free pdf. file of it? I can only read on computer screens, and I don't have any money to spend. Even if I could read library books, I couldn't use that option since I have a weakened immune system.

[Rolo megatheist]

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a free pdf file of Robert Gagnon defending the paternal incest view. I did however find this link which I think offers the same interpretation.http://epistle.us/hbarticles/secrets.html