Nope. That's the Southern Baptist side of my family. They believed that in 2347 B.C., a guy named Ham once saw his dad get naked and pass out drunk, so his dad cursed his son's bloodline for all eternity. That was all the justification they needed to own people.
No, it does not describe incest. The other two sons avoid the sin by walking in backwards and covering Noe's naked body with a sheet. That makes no sense if the sin was incest.
So you are jewish then.
He's 100% jewish
Nope. That's the Southern Baptist side of my family. They believed that in 2347 B.C., a guy named Ham once saw his dad get naked and pass out drunk, so his dad cursed his son's bloodline for all eternity. That was all the justification they needed to own people.
Retards don't even understand that that passage describes incest. A man's nakedness is his wife, for the two are one flesh. Ham fucked his mother.
No, it does not describe incest. The other two sons avoid the sin by walking in backwards and covering Noe's naked body with a sheet. That makes no sense if the sin was incest.