God discriminates against the handicapped (directly from The Bible)

[NAO]

If God does not like people with flat noses why did he create them? If people have a crook-back, or are lame, or in any way "defective" isn't God (aka "The Creator of Us All") the one to blame? Possibly this verse should be the basis of a lawsuit by some advocacy group for the physically challenged - either ban the Bible or strike this passage, which clearly violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. Read for yourself f from the inspired "Word of God":

Leviticus 21:16-21
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17 Speak unto 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 broken-footed, or broken-handed,
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.

Now that seems like a clear case of discrimination, and even a case of mean-spirited discrimination against people for not being "perfect".

"God is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

"God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

REALLY?

Do people think God really said that? Or do they concede that there are errors in the Bible? Do they really believe that God told it to Moses as a kind of employment policy? It seems almost blasphemous to attribute such a saying to God. How do believers of the Bible defend this shocking, offensive passage?

[Ilsa]

1. Leviticus. Ugh. Old law. It is supposed to be superceded by

the new law in Christ, which would remove such restrictions.

[NAO]

4. OK, Superseded But did Almighty God actually SAY that?

Did the all-powerful, all-knowing, loving Creator of the universe really say something so small and mean spirited? Even if he later revised the policy, would God, the real God ever have such a policy in the first place?

Is God a savage who gets more civilized as time moves forward?

[beyurslf]

5. If the NT replaces the OT then how is God unchanging throughout

all of time?

[papau]

9. God chose to allow free will - and with that comes acceptance by God of

humans making errors in interpreting his guidance.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. what do you expect from people who

believe in fairytales?

[yankeeinlouisiana]

3. I think this may be talking about ritual.

Anyone with a "blemish" should not do sacrafices, etc. But yes, this is very mean spirited. And yes, the NT should do away with this passage. Christ was the one that healed the sick and infirm.

[mntleo2]

6. Moses Himself Claimed He Stuttered....

He told God he could not possibly talk to Pharaoh because he "was slow of tongue and speech" which some linguists say meant that he stuttered. So God sent Moses' brother Aaron to speak for him (Exodus 4:10-16).

Also there was (and still are) factions of Semitic people who believed in reincarnation and physical deformity was considered karmic. "...as ye sow, so shall ye reap..." So, with this thinking, if you were born blind perhaps it was because you blinded others in other lives and were still in the learning time, not ready for the tasks at hand. Karma was not considered punishment, it was and is considered a learning time and a time to feel the consequences of what you caused to others. It is a serious thing to be born with affliction because it was a particular lesson you "chose" to learn before you came to this life and failure simply means you have to try again. So often if you were heartless with people in your lives before, you are now ready to "reap" what that hardness of heart created in others so that with each passing incarnation you learned more how to "love thy neighbor as yourself..." You would then not be ready to partake in ritual because you are still in the learning phase.

My two cents

Cat In Seattle

[Igel]

7. Yes. The priests had to have no obvious physical blemishes.

They could still receive tithes, teach, and do other duties: their income was unaffected, as well as most of their duties. But the actual offering of the sacrifices on the altar they weren't to do. Such would be a "desecration"; Why this is so, isn't said.

But the priests, and their families, had incredible restrictions put on them to maintain their ritual purity. The entire system was well-nigh unbearable. Which was, I suppose, the point.

[papau]

8. This forum is A much better place to post this stuff! :-)

God chose to allow free will - and with that comes acceptance by God of humans making errors in interpreting his guidance.

The crowd you seem to be addressing are the fundies - and they hang out with the GOP.

Most Christians and Jews and Muslim's read the Bible for intent and general thrust. The 400 or so "laws" mainly in Leviticus are either not worried about, worried about only in part, or worried about only as to the rules of the Temple (Leviticus 21:16-21 is a temple rule on who makes offerings), with a few Orthodox Jews and Fundi Christians worried about the exact King James wording, or some other wording.

[NAO]

10. I got carried away over in LBN, but Frist started it

with his endorsement of Intelligent Design.

I think many Christians believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. They do not read it for "general intent"; they read it as an absolute guide in spiritual and factual matters. They do not acknowledge that there are ANY errors, contradictions, or mistakes. They believe it is a communication, a revelation from God to mankind.

I know there are some liberal (theologically, not necessarily politically) Christians, but I believe that Catholics and Mainstream Protestants, as well as Fundamentalists, uphold the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.

[papau]

11. the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible is upheld by all - but what

does that mean -

There are very few that demand one accept that the the inspiration and inerrancy of God could not have been messed up in the transfering to paper in the book called the "Bible" (which just means "book" in Greek).

Indeed many Christians are also Buddists - and do not let little things upset them!

:-)

[NAO]

12. Meaning of Inspiration / Inerrancy and Why It Is Very Important Right Now

This site has excellent resources on the concepts of inspiration and inerrancy.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm

The topic of the specific meaning of the concepts is discussed here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran5.htm

This section - http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran4.htm - has a topic on "What Christians Really Believe". Although the numbers are lower for theology students, they are positively shocking for "Americans in General":

However, Christians generally are far more supportive of the inerrancy position. The Barna Research Group reported in 1996 that among American adults generally:

58% believe that the Bible is "totally accurate in all its teachings"
45% believe that the Bible is "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally."

Support dropped between that poll and another taken in 2001. Barna reported in 2001 that:

41% of adults strongly agrees that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches

Think about those numbers. About HALF of ALL Americans - not just half of the RELIGIOUS Americans - this stat includes all the atheists, all the Buddhists, all the Wiccans, all the other/none people - half of American ADULTS (?!?) generally believe that the Bible is absolutely accurate in everything and can be taken literally!

Further - and this is why this issue is critical right now - these conservative (theologically speaking, usually but not necessarily politically conservative) Christians are AGGRESSIVELY on the march.

The recent book, "Exodus: Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity" describes the contempt that conservative Christians have for their liberal brethren. He chronicles the recent phenomenal increase of conservative Christians and the parallel decline of the liberal denominations. These are the same type of people described in "Heretics And Heresies"; this is why I feel that Ingersoll is utterly relevant right now.

Ingersoll may not have entirely relevant in decades past, but he has recently become relevant again as today's Christians are embracing 19th century Christianity. Ingersoll's lectures may have been "attacking a straw man" 30 years ago, but that straw man has come to life and seized control of the United States government and the National Psyche.

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup: Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

I am very concerned about the proliferation of the belief that "absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally." Review "Heretics And Heresies"; and re-consider it in the light of those statistics. The mentality that is described in that piece is literally what is being adopted by millions of Christians right now.

Heretics And Heresies
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html

[papau]

13. AGGRESSIVELY on the march equates to loud, IMHO, not noticeable

in the religous groups I hang with (Episcopal, Roman and Othodox Catholics, Conservative and Liberal Jews, and Masons and mainline Protestant folks) - but this is New England, perhaps a reason.

Then again, I suspect any word survey since "totally accurate in all its teachings" gets a yes from me as phrased - and

"absolutely accurate and everything in it can be taken literally." gets a pause from me as I wonder if someone is trying to get me to say "no" to "totally accurate in all its teachings" via a question worded a bit more strongly than I would prefer.

I think "The Bible is wrong" crowd has problem understanding faith as well as a problem in understanding the Bible.

[NAO]

15. their numbers and influence are increasing. misunderstand faith/Bible

Yes they are loud, and I would not take notice except that they are gaining in numbers and are furnishing an army of politically active "electoral shock troops" for the far-right conservatives.

Agreed that survey wordings can be tricky. Still, I think those numbers are quite noteworthy.

I will admit that I am not sure I understand "faith" - other than in the ordinary language sense of the word. However, I do understand the Bible. Unless the context is poetic or allegorical, the statements are meant literally. Sometimes they are statements on matters of history; other times they are alleged reports of conversations that God had with certain individuals; usually they are some combination of these two.

- The Bible says God sent locusts to plague Egypt. Now either the Almighty used his power to induce large numbers of insects to swarm on Egypt, in which case the Bible is correct, or possibly the insects came because they were on a spree, and the Israelites interpreted it as their God helping them; or none of it ever happened.

- The Bible says Moses had a magic rod which he could turn into a snake. The Egyptian Magicians also had magic rods which could be turned into snakes. Those Egyptian Magicians were pretty good, eh?

- The Bible says God killed all the first-born children in Egypt, except where the Israelites had smeared blood on their doors. In this story God slaughters thousands (tens of thousands?) of innocent children to get at the Pharaoh for being stubborn. These children had nothing to do with the decision to let the Jews go or not. They were in the same boat as the kids that were born around the time of Jesus, whom Herod slaughtered (assuming that Biblical story is historically accurate and not just made up) to try to get at the baby Jesus.

Those statements are made as historical accounts, not as allegorical statements. Either they transpired as recorded, or they did not. I don't see what the problem is or why someone would say I don't understand the Bible.

In the case that opened this thread, either God had a discriminatory policy based on physical handicap and/or functional problems and/or aesthetic blemishes, which God spoke to Moses about, and Moses relayed the conversation to Aaron and then recorded it in the Pentateuch, or these events did not transpire as recorded and there are mistakes in the Bible.

[mzteris]

14. his STONES broken??

:rofl: