The story with Ham and his father is brilliant example of complete freedom one can take in Bible exegesis. To remind, the only fault Ham is accused with is that he “saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside”. And then he and his land is cursed by his father. So we can only imagine what was an appalling thing he did to inflict such a terrible curse. But since it appears in the Bible it should bear a meaning and the commentators are ever short of ideas - from suspecting incest to justifying conquest of Palestine by the jew. And why can't it be a simple case of a parental abuse? A folly of a senile man? And it's only said that Noah cursed Ham but not that God implemented his curse. jews. never not sure what is church's view of it but I don't think it's a significant matter you don't understand. the question is not if Noah was wrong. If you ask what was the story about Ham every even not very religious kid will tell you in all details how he called people to see his naked father while Bible in fact has nothing about it. So people can have in their heads all sorts of fantasies they find plausible but which may have nothing to do with Bible. I don't see any problem with it - it's every person's job to find his or her understanding of the Bible and even if it's not same as 'official' one it's perfectly fine because it's about your atonement but what's use of a book when it's so vague I can only repleate what I said in \n link \n everything else is up to your understanding repleate repeate search for understanding of something makes sense when there are at least some kind of the boundaries within which you can search searching for understanding of something makes sense when there are at least some kind of the boundaries within which you can search it's only about something religious of course something religious