Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All-loving, all-merciful Christian God discriminates against the handicapped


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 214 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Feb 2013 09:00:17 GMT
G. M. Seed says:
Apparently the Christian God's love is supposed to be both unconditional and impartial - why would It therefore discriminate against people who are handicapped? But, amazingly, here God specifies that no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed or with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles can come to offer food to him. An obvious question to ask at this point is, if God dislikes the handicapped, why would It make people that way in the first place?

Leviticus 21:16-23:
16. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17.Speak un to Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18.For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,;
19. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20. Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23. Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the alter, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.

What a load of nonsense the Bible is.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 09:50:38 GMT
DB says:
"This passage restricts those in Aaron's line from functioning as priests if they have any kind of defect physically. The reason that might have made sense to the Israelites was that like the sacrifices they offered that had to be perfect, so the priests who offered them had to be "perfect" in order to please God. They would certainly have also had some idea that a perfect sacrifice was representative of the need for a blameless substitute for their sin and guilt. When they offered the animal in their place it was the "just" for the unjust that was being offered. Likewise, the priest who offered it could not be "unjust" symbolically speaking, but needed to be perfect to get the desired result - forgiveness from God.

We know that God was also preparing His people to receive the real and ultimate sacrifice for our sins and high priest to offer the sacrifice - Jesus Christ. The symbols of the Old Testament rituals were symbols of Jesus and how his sacrifice was of a truly sinless substitute for our truly sinful selves.

Consequently this passage says nothing about the way God views people with disabilities in any personal sense. Jesus' willingness to touch and heal many who had severe disabilities and illnesses is proof that God loves all of us. We are all disabled in many ways, spiritually, emotionally and physically. We cannot come to God on the basis of how "together" we are. I come "just as I am, without one plea, but that His blood was shed for me."

God uses the disabilities in our lives and the comfort He teaches us to find in the midst of our disabilities to give us something to share with others in their disabilities. Our disabilities become one source of our ministry in the lives of others. We can identify with those who have our same disabilities and offer them what God offered us with a passion and believability that no one else can."

Randall Johnson

Posted on 16 Feb 2013 09:51:38 GMT
Bellatori says:
For the same reason he allowed the child abuse by Catholic priests to go on. He does not exist...

It is the only answer that satisfies. Anything else suggests that 'He' is a colossal fraud. I end up quoting Epicurus at this point...

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Says it all really. If you then ask why religion then I have to go for Heinlein...

"The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."

Sorted?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 09:56:39 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Feb 2013 10:01:50 GMT
Bellatori says:
"God uses the disabilities in our lives and the comfort He teaches us to find in the midst of our disabilities to give us something to share with others in their disabilities. Our disabilities become one source of our ministry in the lives of others. We can identify with those who have our same disabilities and offer them what God offered us with a passion and believability that no one else can."

That is genuinely funny. Basically - 'all you disabled people stick together and tell one another it doesn't matter' There... there... How patronising is that. Your own quote from Jesus suggests that he, at least, tried to get things fixed.

Nauseatingly complacent.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 10:06:59 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 10:07:29 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
'Consequently this passage says nothing about the way God views people with disabilities in any personal sense. Jesus' willingness to touch and heal many who had severe disabilities and illnesses is proof that God loves all of us.'
Tosh. Tell that to the army of carers, myself included, who dedicate their time and energy to making the lives of the disabled slightly more bearable. Is your god busy elsewhere?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 10:07:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Feb 2013 10:09:42 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Likewise, the priest who offered it could not be "unjust" symbolically speaking, but needed to be perfect to get the desired result - forgiveness from God."
So now the disabled are unjust and imperfect, even if symbolically! Only a theologian could compound their problems while, even with the best will in the world trying to solve them.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 10:58:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Feb 2013 11:00:39 GMT
DB says:
Drew

The OT was of it's time. The words and expressions are of that time.
It is often symbolic in meaning.That is how the people wrote when they wrote at all. Much is passed down by word of mouth.
Do you take the words from all history books and examine every phrase in each one.
Which other books have you done this with? Please give examples.

Posted on 16 Feb 2013 11:00:21 GMT
Pretty long list of people the Christian god dislikes, isn't it...?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 11:12:32 GMT
K. Hoyles says:
'The OT was of it's time. The words and expressions are of that time.
It is often symbolic in meaning.That is how the people wrote when they wrote at all. Much is passed down by word of mouth.'

Chinese whispers?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 11:17:09 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"The OT was of it's time."
I doubt you'll be holding to this idea for long.

"The words and expressions are of that time."
You didn't quote the OT but a theologian giving a recent rationalisation, he could have picked any words he liked to communicate to a modern audience. The best he could do will his source materials was suggest disabled people to be unjust in his god's eyes. Note that he as talked as if the OT should have merit if seen in the right interpretation, so much for your first sentence.

"It is often symbolic in meaning."
Yes, the symbology cited in your quote clearly states disabled people to be a symbol of imperfection to the god in the OT (luckily time has past by making him and his ways defunct).

"That is how the people wrote when they wrote at all."
You're still not citing the OT directly but a modern theologian, it's his rationalisation I was addressing.

"Much is passed down by word of mouth."
Apart from the Bible, the book you go on.

"Do you take the words from all history books and examine every phrase in each one."
Yes. But I genuinely leave it in the context of it's time, I have no need to rationalise it so that it has relevancy today or is seen as good. When I say "X was of it's time" I mean it.

"Which other books have you done this with? Please give examples."
All of them. What's the point of giving yourself over to an author, an artist, actor, director or singer if you are just going to project your own ideals onto anything and everything they do or say?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 11:27:50 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 16 Feb 2013 11:37:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Feb 2013 11:43:03 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 11:43:17 GMT
James Smith says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 11:51:29 GMT
Bellatori says:
Corby Ken says:...

and so you copy what you perceive as his faults and take them for your own....

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 12:10:32 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 12:16:48 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"I'm still waiting for examples."
OK, let's take fiction: In Harry Potter he *literally* walks into the wall at King's Cross to get to Hogwarts. The words convey this exact idea, you're not meant to read around it, justify the physics or look for the platform, it's just fiction and you leave it as escapism when you put it down. Harry Potter is of it's genre.

Read a non-fiction book, Mein Kampf for instance, and there's no need to rescue Hitler as a moral champion, see his statements against the Jews as symbolic or reinterpret it as sensible. It can be the ranting of a hateful mind and it's best read as that I think. Mein Kampf was of it's time and author.

Now take the Bible, it's escapism doesn't need to leave the pages, the commands or characters can be understood to be immoral, the writers can be read as if they are competent in language to be communicating the concepts as they appear. The Bible was of it's time.

Posted on 16 Feb 2013 12:25:35 GMT
Wouldn't worry about the friendless one. Amazon will probably flush the little nugget before long anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Feb 2013 23:49:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Feb 2013 04:04:45 GMT
light says:
"For the same reason he allowed the child abuse by Catholic priests to go on. He does not exist..."

I have a legitimate question, if so many people do not believe that God exists then why don't the people get together and, "do something", about "all" the child abuse. Priests aren't the only ones who sexually abuse children.

I understand that priests are singled out because they represent God to the world but considering that much of the abuse is done by people are not priests, why not stand against all child abusers?

Maybe studies can be done to figure out who and what group of people commits the highest amount of sexual abuse then figure out what can be done to stop it. From what I've read it is men who commit the highest amount of sexual child abuse so now let's figure out what can be done to stop it, then pass this information on to the church.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2013 08:14:40 GMT
DB says:
Drew
Nice try.
but if you read my post again, you will see that the question referred to 'history' books-

"Do you take the words from all history books and examine every phrase in each one."
you said - 'Yes.'

Same question. Examples please

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2013 09:07:45 GMT
Drew Jones says:
I read the words from *all* books literally otherwise I'm not reading the book. Which part of "everything" are you failing to see as an wide ranging example?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2013 10:29:50 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Drew- IMHO one of your very best posts.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2013 17:16:09 GMT
Archibald F says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 17 Feb 2013 19:31:52 GMT
Spin says:
First, if one believes in Creationism, then God created the disabled; it has nothing to to do with genetic mutation. So, God is not as compassionate and caring as theists make out. And those who become disabled through natural or man-made events are also proof that God can be a right illegimate male offspring at times. Secondly, Jesus "cured" those whom God had created dis Disbility is, in fact, a moral issue, not a religious one. And if Jesus was God, then he was recognising his error in creating disabled people and corrected his blunder among only a few lucky souls. So God does make mistakes. And it means God prefers physical and mental health to any disability. If he prefers it that way, why did he create folk with disabilities? Simply to allow Jesus to show off his magical talents?

Posted on 21 Feb 2013 00:42:02 GMT
People who talk like this don't understand God at all, or even the meaning of the English language. I have heard people ask questions such as whether it's possible for God to create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, or the like. Those kinds of questions are meaningless. It's no more possible for God to perform both of two mutually exclusive options than it would be for the weakest of His creatures. Not because His power meets an obstacle but because you're talking nonsense. Many of the things I've read in this thread are questions of exactly that type. God gave us freedom to choose our own way in life, and there are quite a number of evils in the world that He can't do anything about without also taking our freedom away from us, and that He will not do. He never breaks His promises that way. Yes, He could do it if He chose, but He would be inflicting on us something even worse than the original problem.

You have also neglected to mention Satan, who is now the ruler of this world since we relinquished our rulership to him. He has no problem inflicting pain and suffering on us, and God can't do anything about that either, because that was also our choice. That's what it means to live in a dark and fallen world.

So what good is God, then? Well, you see what Jesus did, healing the sick and loving the poor and the forsaken. Part of why He came here in human form was so that people could know Him as something more than an abstract concept. . . to see what He would be like in person. Not only that, but to pay the price for our bad choices in a way that would set us free without also making Him a hypocrite. And at the appointed time, when humanity's grant of power is up, He will return and rule this world with a rod of iron, and then every evil will be wiped out and He will do exactly what you seem to think He ought to do right now if He existed. But till then, He will keep his word.

And the idea that He somehow needs our adoration is rubbish. He commands it not because He needs it in any way, but because WE do. If you pay attention to people, you will find that those who praise the most are generally the happiest, and those who are sour and find fault with everything are the worst off. Praise is one of the tap-roots of our happiness, and THAT is why we're told to do it. We could no more decrease God's glory by refusing to worship him than a lunatic could put out the sun by scribbling the word "darkness" on the walls of his cell.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  214
Initial post:  16 Feb 2013
Latest post:  25 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions