IS JEHOVAH A PERVERT?

by jayhawk1 23 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Mistah MOJO
    Mistah MOJO

    Yes Jehovah is a pervert, and THAT is the "moral lesson" to be learned from this passage.

  • jayhawk1
    jayhawk1

    Joe Gundy, thanks for directing me to that site. It appears somebody has way too much time on their hands. I bookmarked the site, because it needs further study.

  • robhic
    robhic

    The story is illustrated here:

    http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/er_and_onan/gn38_01.html

    Did you see the size of the "deposit" Onan left in that "Brick Testament" illustration? Wow, he was almost super-human!

  • Etude
    Etude

    Well, I never looked at it that way -- I mean considering that men literally penned the Bible and that they might have shaded the message with their views. Whichever way one looks at it (Divine inspiration or just an account from humans), it might have been important for the readers at that time to know such things, keeping in mind how the lineage to the Messiah did or did not happen. On the other hand, I fail to see the full implication of relating what I suspect was the first homosexual act in history (if that Bible account is meant to signify something more than a juicy tale), when Noah was taken advantage of by Ham during a drunken stupor in his tent. I confronted some elders with this issue one time and pointed out the wording in Genesis 9:20-25: 20 And Noah began to be a husbandman [a man of the soil or farmer], and planted a vineyard:
    21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.
    22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without [outside the tent].
    23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father. And their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
    24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him.
    25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. -- 21st Century King James Version Here’s what I couldn’t understand: It just seems that putting a curse on someone and all their descendants is a wee bit over-the-top for just "looking" at somebody naked and telling others. My guess is that, even then, people wore very little clothing, kids (up to a ripe age) ran around naked and modesty was probably not a big issue. My guess is that Ham saw more than just a naked body. He probably saw the diluvial giggle-stick and maybe did something with it. You'd think that Shem and Japheth would have tripped walking backwards while blocking their vision by a garment to put over Noah. How could they even find him if they couldn't see him to cover him? What makes this account strange for me is the wording: "…Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." What the heck did he do? Ham saw Noah naked and told his brothers, who covered him up? I don't know. Seeing him naked and telling the others would have been a favor. How did Noah find out what “his youngest son had done unto him”? I bet that sore ass was a dead give-away. On the other hand, Ham couldn't have helped it if Noah was naked and Ham happened to have walked into the tent. How could that be enough to elicit such condemnation? Or, did he just "happen" to walk into the tent? Or instead, after walking in (by accident or not), did he just take advantage of a drunk and horny man? After all, Noah was not that old considering how long he lived. If not, should he have gouged his eyes out because he saw his father naked? For crying out loud! If Witnesses think that was bad -- after all, it would probably be interpreted as a biblical example of what not to do just like birthdays -- they should ban showers and locker rooms at Bethel, where it happens to be my observation, some guys would get naked first after a shift and wait in line for a shower stall while parading their schlongs for everyone else. Believe me, it wasn’t casual. But I didn't see it as perverted either. It's just something guys do, like Latin men grabbing their package constantly or the way other guys spit all the time. Nevertheless, it was hard on the other guys that were not so well endowed or were experiencing "shrinkage" at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong (maybe somebody can give the biblical reference), but I read somewhere in Isaiah, I think, were God describes the nation of Israel as his "wife" who has run off to spread her legs "under every luxurious [or expansive] tree" with the men of Syria "with members like those of horses". I was shocked then. Now, I must conclude that the men of Syria were well-hung and that women, particularly those used for the biblical analogy, liked guys with above-normal tally-whackers (I'm trying to keep it clean). I remember mentioning this passage to one of my JW sisters when she tried to paint Jehovah as a clean, loving and family-oriented personage. I asked her: "Then why is such language used in the Bible if it's not meant to show reality at its rawest, while God displays anger and derogation at his 'wife'?" I will not ascribe the label of "pervert" to the Supreme Being, just in case He really is there and I experience some Divine retribution manifested by my kielbasa turning into one of those tiny Vienna sausages. I'd have to borrow my wife's tweezers to take a pee. Perverted or not, I fail to grasp the complete intent for such biblical accounts, except that it is obvious, particularly in the Old Testament, that frankness abounds and people had a different way when it came to societal behavior. I can never forget the account of the Levi priest who cut up his wife, who had been repeatedly raped until she died, into twelve pieces and designated one piece to be paraded around each tribe’s homeland. Gee! I wonder who got...never mind. Pretty gruesome, but apparently it was tolerable in those days even if it contained a good measure of shock-value. I guess if one assumes that Ham did more than take a peek at the patriarchal one-eyed snake and that Onan, being Catholic, couldn’t use a condom and failed to give Tamar an orgasm, or that Lot had a “Noah” pulled on him by his daughters (yep, they got him drunk and took turns at him so it was incest too [Gen. 19-30-38]), we have to at least wonder about the purpose of such stories. Funny how the Bible fails to mention if Lot or the daughters went back for seconds. As to whether or not Jehovah is a pervert, I want to keep my Doctor Johnson intact, thank you very much. Etude.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit