Noah was a drunkard who liked to get naked while drinking.    Ham saw this and told his brothers, rather than covering Noah up and keeping it secret.  That was Ham's only crime.

For this, all of Ham's descendants were to be punished by being made the slaves of the descendants of the other 2 brothers.  Ham's only punishment was knowing this would happen to his descendants.

The bible flip flops on punishing others for the crimes of 1.

@Frederick:

In regards to gay stuff in the bible…
There are various references of possible gay behavior with Jesus and John, Jesus and Judas, Jesus and some naked guy who was stalking him, and Noah's own sons raping their daddy.     
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/gen-921-25-did-ham-rape-noah/

Then there is the practice of rabbis to this day which I won't describe because nobody would believe me.. instead, read about it yourselves…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzs-09Of99I
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html

The key word is possible gay behavior and the first two links omit that those passages would have been written in either Greek or Latin, both of which have multiple nuanced words for love/sex which are completely lost when translated into English. And gay would have only referred to some kind of sex, not what we mean when we use the word to refer to homosexual behaviour today. Those kinds of arguments are always tedious because the people arguing for a pro-gay reading are doing so for political/dogmatic reasons.

Either way, the RC's version of The Bible is The King James version where those questions don't come up.

Your analogy about computers is a perfect way to state the problem.

I neglected to mention that a lot of the "gay" stuff is from the Apochrapha - the books written in Latin.  The Torah is the Hebrew bible, where they tossed out the stories that they didn't like.  The Christian bible further censored the books included in the bible.  They need to come up with another bible and remove Leviticus and Revelations - and some other insane jibber jabber.

In regards to gay stuff in the bible…
There are various references of possible gay behavior with Jesus and John, Jesus and Judas, Jesus and some naked guy who was stalking him, and Noah's own sons raping their daddy.     
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/gen-921-25-did-ham-rape-noah/

Then there is the practice of rabbis to this day which I won't describe because nobody would believe me.. instead, read about it yourselves…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzs-09Of99I
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html

The key word is possible gay behavior and the first two links omit that those passages would have been written in either Greek or Latin, both of which have multiple nuanced words for love/sex which are completely lost when translated into English. And gay would have only referred to some kind of sex, not what we mean when we use the word to refer to homosexual behaviour today. Those kinds of arguments are always tedious because the people arguing for a pro-gay reading are doing so for political/dogmatic reasons.

Either way, the RC's version of The Bible is The King James version where those questions don't come up.

Your analogy about computers is a perfect way to state the problem.

@Frederick:

@raphjd:

There are 2 types of conservatives, but in this case I think we're talking about religious conservatives.

I think it's a crock of shit (hypocritical) that they want to have their freedoms, while denying others the same rights.   It's the same thing we see with modern liberals.  They want to have their right to free speech, while denying it to those they disagree with.

I'm not so sure that religious conservatives are REALLY conservatives.  It's possible that they pretend to be conservative only because conservatives are against abortion.  It would be interesting to know who they actually vote for.

I think Religious Conservatives (RC) are genuinely conservative in that they want to preserve their idea of what the US is supposed to be based on, Christian Law. Unfortunately, most RCs cherry picks from the bible without any consideration to context. For example, there was no such thing as a gay person in the biblical era, not as we understand it today. Sex was one way to pray to the pagan gods and many of the prohibitions to sex come from prohibitions against worshiping a pagan god, these rituals and their related customs.

Here's a question for you: RCs want to preserve and enforce ancient biblical laws which require us to reinterpret them for our modern times. The Supreme Court has to do with with the Constitution. Do you want more or less of the Justice Scalia brand of literal interpretation?

(Footnote: Trump has already put into the Judiciary 150+ justices, three times Obama, around the country, many take a literal interpretation of the Constitution.)

In regards to gay stuff in the bible…
There are various references of possible gay behavior with Jesus and John, Jesus and Judas, Jesus and some naked guy who was stalking him, and Noah's own sons raping their daddy.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/gen-921-25-did-ham-rape-noah/

Then there is the practice of rabbis to this day which I won't describe because nobody would believe me.. instead, read about it yourselves…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzs-09Of99I
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304793/Two-babies-stricken-HERPES-ritual-oral-blood-sucking-circumcision-New-York-City.html

@Frederick:

@raphjd:

There are 2 types of conservatives, but in this case I think we're talking about religious conservatives.

I think it's a crock of shit (hypocritical) that they want to have their freedoms, while denying others the same rights.   It's the same thing we see with modern liberals.  They want to have their right to free speech, while denying it to those they disagree with.

I'm not so sure that religious conservatives are REALLY conservatives.  It's possible that they pretend to be conservative only because conservatives are against abortion.  It would be interesting to know who they actually vote for.

I think Religious Conservatives (RC) are genuinely conservative in that they want to preserve their idea of what the US is supposed to be based on, Christian Law. Unfortunately, most RCs cherry picks from the bible without any consideration to context. For example, there was no such thing as a gay person in the biblical era, not as we understand it today. Sex was one way to pray to the pagan gods and many of the prohibitions to sex come from prohibitions against worshiping a pagan god, these rituals and their related customs.

Here's a question for you: RCs want to preserve and enforce ancient biblical laws which require us to reinterpret them for our modern times. The Supreme Court has to do with with the Constitution. Do you want more or less of the Justice Scalia brand of literal interpretation?

(Footnote: Trump has already put into the Judiciary 150+ justices, three times Obama, around the country, many take a literal interpretation of the Constitution.)

I find that painting with a broad brush always leads to disaster.  For instance.. computers are great when used as tools.. but then a computer becomes the draconian authority, or when humans emulate a computer by applying a rigid, literal interpretation of rules..  bad things happen.

@raphjd:

There are 2 types of conservatives, but in this case I think we're talking about religious conservatives.

I think it's a crock of shit (hypocritical) that they want to have their freedoms, while denying others the same rights.   It's the same thing we see with modern liberals.  They want to have their right to free speech, while denying it to those they disagree with.

I'm not so sure that religious conservatives are REALLY conservatives.  It's possible that they pretend to be conservative only because conservatives are against abortion.  It would be interesting to know who they actually vote for.

I think Religious Conservatives (RC) are genuinely conservative in that they want to preserve their idea of what the US is supposed to be based on, Christian Law. Unfortunately, most RCs cherry picks from the bible without any consideration to context. For example, there was no such thing as a gay person in the biblical era, not as we understand it today. Sex was one way to pray to the pagan gods and many of the prohibitions to sex come from prohibitions against worshiping a pagan god, these rituals and their related customs.

Here's a question for you: RCs want to preserve and enforce ancient biblical laws which require us to reinterpret them for our modern times. The Supreme Court has to do with with the Constitution. Do you want more or less of the Justice Scalia brand of literal interpretation?

(Footnote: Trump has already put into the Judiciary 150+ justices, three times Obama, around the country, many take a literal interpretation of the Constitution.)

There are 2 types of conservatives, but in this case I think we're talking about religious conservatives.

I think it's a crock of shit (hypocritical) that they want to have their freedoms, while denying others the same rights.   It's the same thing we see with modern liberals.  They want to have their right to free speech, while denying it to those they disagree with.

I'm not so sure that religious conservatives are REALLY conservatives.  It's possible that they pretend to be conservative only because conservatives are against abortion.  It would be interesting to know who they actually vote for.

I think it's a crock of shit (hypocritical) that they want to have their freedoms, while denying others the same rights.  It's the same thing we see with modern liberals.  They want to have their right to free speech, while denying it to those they disagree with.

Women have 100% of the say in if the baby lives, so they have ALL the power.  Women quite often use children as a weapon against a man.  If a man wants to have the kid, the woman aborts or goes to Canada and puts it up for adoption.   If the man wants to abort, the woman keeps the kid so she can keep her claws in the man for 18-21 years.   Let's not forget all those gold diggers that screw celebs and rich men to get that monthly check.

I've never heard this argument put this way. I have to think about it.

But what do you think of what appears to be a contradiction, stressing independence and freedom while enforcing religious objections to sex, fertility, sexual orientation?

Women have 100% of the say in if the baby lives, so they have ALL the power.  Women quite often use children as a weapon against a man.  If a man wants to have the kid, the woman aborts or goes to Canada and puts it up for adoption.   If the man wants to abort, the woman keeps the kid so she can keep her claws in the man for 18-21 years.   Let's not forget all those gold diggers that screw celebs and rich men to get that monthly check.

@cteavin:

@Frederick:

@cteavin:

Women do have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children.  It's called keeping their legs together.  Here's one idea… to qualify for a taxpayer subsidized abortion, the woman must consent to have their tubes tied.

You're saying that women should take responsibility for getting pregnant. By a very large degree, I agree with you but the opposing view is that men have too much power in deciding when a woman should have sex (which is why we have all this conversation on consent and rape, atm). Here's where I disagree with you, the man also has responsibility. I'd say it's 50/50.

Look up kabedon (it's hard to explain). Women love this. They often say something which translated means the man is being the man. This is what Western women talk about in that the power is different.

It can't be 50/50 if the man is gone.  How many relationships are still intact 9 months after the conception?  Quite a few women never see the man again that got them pregnant 9 HOURS after the deed.

Only after nine hours?

@Frederick:

@cteavin:

Women do have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children.  It's called keeping their legs together.  Here's one idea… to qualify for a taxpayer subsidized abortion, the woman must consent to have their tubes tied.

You're saying that women should take responsibility for getting pregnant. By a very large degree, I agree with you but the opposing view is that men have too much power in deciding when a woman should have sex (which is why we have all this conversation on consent and rape, atm). Here's where I disagree with you, the man also has responsibility. I'd say it's 50/50.

Look up kabedon (it's hard to explain). Women love this. They often say something which translated means the man is being the man. This is what Western women talk about in that the power is different.

It can't be 50/50 if the man is gone.  How many relationships are still intact 9 months after the conception?  Quite a few women never see the man again that got them pregnant 9 HOURS after the deed.

@cteavin:

Women do have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children.  It's called keeping their legs together.  Here's one idea… to qualify for a taxpayer subsidized abortion, the woman must consent to have their tubes tied.

You're saying that women should take responsibility for getting pregnant. By a very large degree, I agree with you but the opposing view is that men have too much power in deciding when a woman should have sex (which is why we have all this conversation on consent and rape, atm). Here's where I disagree with you, the man also has responsibility. I'd say it's 50/50.

Look up kabedon (it's hard to explain). Women love this. They often say something which translated means the man is being the man. This is what Western women talk about in that the power is different.

Again, from a Facebook conversation I've been having. Thoughts? Answers? Insight?

"Why do conservatives keep talking about how much they value freedom but refuse to accept women’s freedom to choose whether or not to have children, LGBT people’s freedom to love who they love and be who they are, workers’ rights to unionize, and people of color’s freedom to not be arrested, jailed, and/or murdered without due process?

"Why do so many on the Right resent the government for encroaching on individual rights…yet they’re fine with the monopolistic invasiveness of huge global corporations?"

Women do have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children.  It's called keeping their legs together.  Here's one idea… to qualify for a taxpayer subsidized abortion, the woman must consent to have their tubes tied.