IT'S A CURSE? Prove it! (A Spinoff)

[MonPetite]

*Note to the Mods: I posted this here because it is directly related to some hair threads that has been posted in the past that focus on hair and hair goals and hair type more so than the biblical theology involved.

As a spinoff to a recent thread let me begin by saying: I LOVE the intelligent and thought provoking dialogue of this forum. It's so refreshing it makes me smile.

Just to add a bit of extra info to the, "IS our hair more difficult thought train?" I did a bit of soul-searching myself. I
looked at other forums online that had breached the same topic. Time and time again, certain verses of the Bible were mentioned
to substantiate the claim that somehow we are cursed and our hair texture is proof.

HOGWASH!

But I wanted to arm myself with a smart rebuttal.

Knowing how the wonderful ladies of this board are eager to learn new things and to help abolish ignorance about our hair, I thought
you may like to have this information handy to whip out during a "teachable moment" as well.

The argument I heard by some mislead ladies who felt our hair is not something to be proud of was backed by this passage (TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, as well):

Genesis 9:25-27
25 he [Noah] 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 [a] territory;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth."

So...we're cursed right? Africans are supposedly (though there is convincing evidence in that vein but that's another post and another forum) those of Ham's line. Which make up the most of our ancestors. This must be why we've got the "strange" hair type we do. It's an extension of this curse, right? Whether you believe or don't, someone "messed" things up for us/our ancestors in the past and royally. Right...?


I will dispute this with the already articulated genius of Dr. Thomas L. Constable Th.D. Why do I take his word for it? His credientials for one thing:

Department Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition
Dallas Theological Seminary
Dallas, Texas
Education Background:
Moody Bible Institute, Diploma (1960)
Wheaton College, AB (1962)
Dallas Theological Seminary, Th.M. (1966), Th.D. (1969)

Professional Experience:
Instructor, Dallas Bible College (1966-67); Dallas Theological Seminary: Teaching Fellow (1966-69); Supervisor of Practical Work (1969-70); Assistant to the Academic Dean (1969-70); Founder and Director of Field Education department (1970-82); Instructor in Practical Theology (1971-74); Founder and Director of Lay Institute (1973-85); Assistant Professor of Practical Theology (1974-77); Director of the Doctor of Ministry degree program (1979-96); Department Chairman and Professor of Field Education (1982-85); Associate Professor of Bible Exposition (1985-89); Professor of Bible Exposition (1989-96); Department Chairman and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition (1996-)

Oh...and he is a White male, for those that are concerned. erplexed


Now, to quote Dr. Thomas L. Constable Th.D:

There is no basis for the popular notion that this oracle doomed the
Hamites, who were mainly Africans, to a position of inferiority or slavery
among the other peoples of the world. Canaan and his branch of the family
are the subject of this prophecy, not Ham and all his descendants.

"There are no grounds in our passage for an ethnic reading
of the 'curse' as some have done, supposing that some
peoples are inferior to others. Here Genesis looks only to
the social and religious life of Israel's ancient rival Canaan,
whose immorality defiled their land and threatened Israel's
religious fidelity (cf. Lev 18:28; Josh 23). It was not an
issue of ethnicity but of the wicked practices that
characterized Canaanite culture."


Reference:
Charles C. Ryrie, You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . ., p. 60; Thomas Figart, A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem, p. 55; and O. Palmer Robertson, "Current Critical Questions Concerning the 'Curse of Ham' (Gen 9:20-27)," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
41:2 (June 1998):177-88.

Long-winded post cut-short:

OUR HAIR IS NOT A CURSE! Not that we didn't already know.

Hopefully with this, we've all got a little more fact and theology NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO OR DON'T BELIEVE to back up something I think we all know!

Our hair is amazing. I'm far from militant. Especially since I came to be natural in an odd way. Still, I love my texture!

There are far too many things that are much more deserving of the emotional energy that this topic can create.

Keep growing ladies! In hair, intellect, and community!

 

[MissMasala5]

Interesting first post

 

[gymfreak336]

Look

At the end of the day every race has its advantages and disadvantages when it comes to cosmetic issues.
I don't think any of it is a curse

Okay, so it might be easier for other races to retain length. On a scientific biological level their hair has characteristics that do make it easier. So what? That doesn't mean we can't have it long and strong, that just means we have to have regimes that take in account these factors and stay consistent with what every works. Thats it...End of Story, It isn't that serious

Think about it this way......Black women as a whole have better skin....We all know the saying, black don't crack. While I see more older black women looking better than their white counterparts, it doesn't mean that a white women can't age gracefully. They might have to use a higher SPF, start anti-aging treatments at an earlier age but that doesn't mean she can't retain great skin if she puts the work it. Our hair is no different. I personally love the fact that we have great skin genetics. You can buy some hair, you can't really buy great skin.

Indian women have great hair as well but they also have problems with body hair and hyperpigmentation as well.

Bottom line..... You can have it all, great skin, nice hair, nice nails but you might have to work harder for it in some areas but isn't that like with everything in life.

 

[MonPetite]

Look

At the end of the day every race has its advantages and disadvantages when it comes to cosmetic issues.
I don't think any of it is a curse

Okay, so it might be easier for other races to retain length. On a scientific biological level their hair has characteristics that do make it easier. So what? That doesn't mean we can't have it long and strong, that just means we have to have regimes that take in account these factors and stay consistent with what every works. Thats it...End of Story, It isn't that serious

Think about it this way......Black women as a whole have better skin....We all know the saying, black don't crack. While I see more older black women looking better than their white counterparts, it doesn't mean that a white women can't age gracefully. They might have to use a higher SPF, start anti-aging treatments at an earlier age but that doesn't mean she can't retain great skin if she puts the work it. Our hair is no different. I personally love the fact that we have great skin genetics. You can buy some hair, you can't really buy great skin.

Indian women have great hair as well but they also have problems with body hair and hyperpigmentation as well.

Bottom line..... You can have it all, great skin, nice hair, nice nails but you might have to work harder for it in some areas but isn't that like with everything in life.

Great points. I absolutely agree.

 

[ladylibra]

this is long, so bear with me... but OP, i do not believe we are cursed at all.

Some Christians think the Bible placed a curse upon certain races, making them inferior. This is based upon a misunderstanding of the curse placed on Canaan after the Flood. This started with the sin of Noah.

After the Flood Noah and his family started replenishing the earth. It could have been years since the flood because, Noah's son Ham already had children. Noah had apparently planted a vineyard because the Scripture states that he lay in a drunken stupor. Noah's culpability is greater because he was the only righteous one at the time of the Flood and this makes his sin all the more terrible. Growing grapes resulted in making wine and the excess use led to the drunken stupor, which led Noah to lie down and uncover himself.

When Ham entered Noah's tent and saw his naked father, he told his two brethren. The verb "saw" means more than a casual glance. It indicated that Ham gazed with satisfaction at his father. Although Ham did nothing to his father, disrespect and possibly evil thoughts that occurred when he gazed on his father brought condemnation on Ham.

In contrast to Ham's action, Shem and Japheth went into their father's tent backward, so as not to see Noah's condition, and they covered his naked body. Based on what we see on TV today this seems rather trivial, but you must remember that in Noah's time respect for the Patriarch of the family was not only required but demanded. When Noah awoke, he inquired what his younger son had done to him. Then he pronounced a blessing on Shem and Japheth and a curse, not on Ham, but on one of Ham's four sons, Canaan. Many think that the curse was placed on Ham and thereby on African people, because Ham's other sons are as follows: Cush - Ethiopia; Mizraim - Egypt; Phut - Libya; and they populated Africa. However, Canaan was the father of the people in Phoenicia, Palestine, and Canaan.

Canaan's sons were Sidon, inhabitants of the Phoenician city in Lebanon; Heth, the Hittites, Syria,; Jebusites, dwellers in the hills around Jerusalem; Amorites, who inhabited the hill country on both sides of the Jordan; Girgasites, inhabitants of Canaan; Hivites, who were early inhabitants of Syria and Palestine; Arkites, dwellers in Lebanon; Sinites, inhabitants of the Lebanese coastal area; Arvadites, dwellers on an island off the coast of Syria, fifty miles north of Byblos; Zemarites, who lived in the territory of Benjamin; and the Hamathites, who lived near the Orontes River. Clearly none of these were inhabitants of Africa. The Canaanites were wicked inhabitants of Palestine whom God commanded to be destroyed under Joshua. The subjugation of these people was the primary fulfillment of Noah's prediction of servitude.

The descendants of Canaan have been conquered by Israel, Assyria, Babylonia, Persians, and then Alexander the Great, who captured the territory in 332 B.C.

Ham was the one who showed disrespect but clearly the curse was placed on Canaan and not on Ham. The Scripture does not say why Canaan was cursed and not Ham, some suggest that since Ham had already been blessed, he could not have been cursed by his father; thus the curse had to fall on Ham's sons. Ham was Noah's youngest so Ham's youngest received the curse and brought dishonor to Ham. Ham was punished in his son, and the punishment was clearly from God. The curse on Canaan was from God and not on Ham or his other three sons (and therefore was not on the people of Africa).

God is not concerned with race. His message of salvation through faith in Christ is to all men, regardless of ethnic background. God's judgments and blessings are without partiality. It is man that is partial to his own race and circumstances, and employers are to treat their employees impartially. Partiality is also outlawed in the church. James deals with the particular problem in the early church of preference being shown to those who had money. They were given seats of honor, whereas poorer people were shunted to the rear. Although the passage is speaking against partiality because of economic differences, it also applies to similar instances that might arise because of racial differences. People who do not "have respect to persons" thus "commit sin".

***So once again, this was nothing but a half-assed excuse made up to justify the enslavement of Africans.***

Biblical references: Genesis 9:18-27 (Noah curses Canaan); Genesis 10:6-20 (sons of Ham, v. 15-20 are specifically about Canaan and his desendants); Joshua 1:1-9 (God commands Joshua to take the land the Canaanites live in); James 2:1-13 (partiality

 

[MonPetite]

this is long, so bear with me... but OP, i do not believe we are cursed at all.

Some Christians think the Bible placed a curse upon certain races, making them inferior. This is based upon a misunderstanding of the curse placed on Canaan after the Flood. This started with the sin of Noah.

After the Flood Noah and his family started replenishing the earth. It could have been years since the flood because, Noah's son Ham already had children. Noah had apparently planted a vineyard because the Scripture states that he lay in a drunken stupor. Noah's culpability is greater because he was the only righteous one at the time of the Flood and this makes his sin all the more terrible. Growing grapes resulted in making wine and the excess use led to the drunken stupor, which led Noah to lie down and uncover himself.

When Ham entered Noah's tent and saw his naked father, he told his two brethren. The verb "saw" means more than a casual glance. It indicated that Ham gazed with satisfaction at his father. Although Ham did nothing to his father, disrespect and possibly evil thoughts that occurred when he gazed on his father brought condemnation on Ham.

In contrast to Ham's action, Shem and Japheth went into their father's tent backward, so as not to see Noah's condition, and they covered his naked body. Based on what we see on TV today this seems rather trivial, but you must remember that in Noah's time respect for the Patriarch of the family was not only required but demanded. When Noah awoke, he inquired what his younger son had done to him. Then he pronounced a blessing on Shem and Japheth and a curse, not on Ham, but on one of Ham's four sons, Canaan. Many think that the curse was placed on Ham and thereby on African people, because Ham's other sons are as follows: Cush - Ethiopia; Mizraim - Egypt; Phut - Libya; and they populated Africa. However, Canaan was the father of the people in Phoenicia, Palestine, and Canaan.

Canaan's sons were Sidon, inhabitants of the Phoenician city in Lebanon; Heth, the Hittites, Syria,; Jebusites, dwellers in the hills around Jerusalem; Amorites, who inhabited the hill country on both sides of the Jordan; Girgasites, inhabitants of Canaan; Hivites, who were early inhabitants of Syria and Palestine; Arkites, dwellers in Lebanon; Sinites, inhabitants of the Lebanese coastal area; Arvadites, dwellers on an island off the coast of Syria, fifty miles north of Byblos; Zemarites, who lived in the territory of Benjamin; and the Hamathites, who lived near the Orontes River. Clearly none of these were inhabitants of Africa. The Canaanites were wicked inhabitants of Palestine whom God commanded to be destroyed under Joshua. The subjugation of these people was the primary fulfillment of Noah's prediction of servitude.

The descendants of Canaan have been conquered by Israel, Assyria, Babylonia, Persians, and then Alexander the Great, who captured the territory in 332 B.C.

Ham was the one who showed disrespect but clearly the curse was placed on Canaan and not on Ham. The Scripture does not say why Canaan was cursed and not Ham, some suggest that since Ham had already been blessed, he could not have been cursed by his father; thus the curse had to fall on Ham's sons. Ham was Noah's youngest so Ham's youngest received the curse and brought dishonor to Ham. Ham was punished in his son, and the punishment was clearly from God. The curse on Canaan was from God and not on Ham or his other three sons (and therefore was not on the people of Africa).

God is not concerned with race. His message of salvation through faith in Christ is to all men, regardless of ethnic background. God's judgments and blessings are without partiality. It is man that is partial to his own race and circumstances, and employers are to treat their employees impartially. Partiality is also outlawed in the church. James deals with the particular problem in the early church of preference being shown to those who had money. They were given seats of honor, whereas poorer people were shunted to the rear. Although the passage is speaking against partiality because of economic differences, it also applies to similar instances that might arise because of racial differences. People who do not "have respect to persons" thus "commit sin".

***So once again, this was nothing but a half-assed excuse made up to justify the enslavement of Africans.***

Biblical references: Genesis 9:18-27 (Noah curses Canaan); Genesis 10:6-20 (sons of Ham, v. 15-20 are specifically about Canaan and his desendants); Joshua 1:1-9 (God commands Joshua to take the land the Canaanites live in); James 2:1-13 (partiality

I don't think we're cursed... This was the argument presented to me by other black women, which I refuted with the above info.

 

[ladylibra]

^^^oh i know... i didn't mean for it to come off as me accusing you of thinking that.

 

[longhairdreamzz]

wow that was really interesting...i'm going to have to study that bible a little bit more...I really didn't know it said that. But thanks for clearing all of that up!

 

[naturalgurl]

I'm imagining a skin board with white people saying they're cursed because most of them burn instead of tan. Then them saying how black people walk around year round and never have to go in the sun to keep color. I can see some of them being of Jewish persuasion saying they are the cursed people. I guess what I'm saying is every person on this planet has an issue and two sides to it. I'm just glad we can have educated discussions about this...now proceed!

Oh yeah Lamb- nice research!

 

[ladylibra]

I'm imagining a skin board with white people saying they're cursed because most of them burn instead of tan. Then them saying how black people walk around year round and never have to go in the sun to keep color. I can see some of them being of Jewish persuasion saying they are the cursed people. I guess what I'm saying is every person on this planet has an issue and two sides to it. I'm just glad we can have educated discussions about this...now proceed!

Oh yeah Lamb- nice research!

LMAO you are WRONG for that one!!!!

 

[ladylibra]

y'all 1-star raters are TRIFLIN

 

[cmw45]

Look

At the end of the day every race has its advantages and disadvantages when it comes to cosmetic issues.
I don't think any of it is a curse

Okay, so it might be easier for other races to retain length. On a scientific biological level their hair has characteristics that do make it easier. So what? That doesn't mean we can't have it long and strong, that just means we have to have regimes that take in account these factors and stay consistent with what every works. Thats it...End of Story, It isn't that serious

Think about it this way......Black women as a whole have better skin....We all know the saying, black don't crack. While I see more older black women looking better than their white counterparts, it doesn't mean that a white women can't age gracefully. They might have to use a higher SPF, start anti-aging treatments at an earlier age but that doesn't mean she can't retain great skin if she puts the work it. Our hair is no different. I personally love the fact that we have great skin genetics. You can buy some hair, you can't really buy great skin.

Indian women have great hair as well but they also have problems with body hair and hyperpigmentation as well.

Bottom line..... You can have it all, great skin, nice hair, nice nails but you might have to work harder for it in some areas but isn't that like with everything in life.

This is a great arguement.

 

[MonPetite]

Whoo! My first post and first one-star! I'm on a roll.