Darth Behemoth
Registered Member
Do religions teach, in any form or fashin, either explicitly or implicitly, to look down on or pity the disabled? Do you think that religion teaches ablism?
Dose God HATE the disabled?
- Thread starter Darth Behemoth
- Start date
Yes, clearly the Bible does in Leviticus 21:
18For whatever man he be that has a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that has a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19Or a man that is broken footed, or broken handed, 20Or hunch back, or a dwarf, or that has a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or has his stones broken; 21No man that has a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come near to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he has a blemish; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. 22He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23Only he shall not go in to the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 24And Moses told it to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel.
Last edited:
Sorry, it's 21
Its the very nature of the material world to be limited or challenged in some form or other. IOW, technically speaking, everyone is disabled.
It would probably be like that in the offices of the wealthy today, if you want to work there you had better be without blemish, for they will be trying to make the best impression on their clients.
And it might have been like that in the Temple, to give the best impression.
Healing of the maimed, those with leprosy, blindness and those crippled, seems more a feature of Jesus' mission. There are a few healings in the Old Testament but not that many. The emphasis there seems more bent on power and domination.
And did Jesus not say (Matthew 25):
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
So it seems to me there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament on this issue. I don't think God hates anyone, although sometimes it might appear that way and people may feel that way. I believe we are all a part of God and God is a part of us.
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
So it seems to me there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament on this issue. I don't think God hates anyone, although sometimes it might appear that way and people may feel that way. I believe we are all a part of God and God is a part of us.
Is the Bible the word of God as frequently represented or is it man’s interpretation of God? Is God separate and distinct from man, which is a common perception, or is God an integral part of man and all creation? Is the universe alive? Is our definition of life incomplete?
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ing-cosmologists-think-like-biologists--.html
In the old testament, the differentiation of the disabled, like in Leviticus, was connected to an ancient version of human evolution based on natural selection. The new environment for humans was civilization, with beauty providing selective advantage. This is not a judgement call; many humans are superficial. Modern women spend so much money trying to look beautiful because beauty provides selective advantage. The same gal without the make-up gets demoted among her peers unless she is naturally hot.
The new testament shifts away from natural selection based on the outer man, where the weak and sick are food for the predators; The sick and weak buffer the healthy and strong of the herd. Christ says not to judge by surfaces, but to look at the inner man. Christ is a basis for modern compassion. Christ preaches to the sick and weak and heals the sick, instead of exploiting them like a predator.
The path of human evolution was to change from the animal toward the inner depths of humans. What may not appear beautiful on the surface, and which may not be able to open doors with natural beauty, might still contain an inner beauty which is important to the future of civilization. Modern medicine uses this philosophy. The old testament would see herds and predators and notice the predators pick off the weak and sick; so this is the natural way of God's creation; follows natural laws.
The irony is, science and atheism are adamant about natural evolution, but criticize the ancients who maintained this natural tradition. They ancients could observe nature, just as Darwin did, and designed practical laws which would parallel the ways of the natural world. The old testament were not trying to define a new set of rules but rather used observational data to maintain the ways of selection based on fitness. Beauty definitely makes it easier to breed within the cultural worlds of humans; natural selection.
Science should marvel at these early evolutionists, who don't get credit from those who would plagiarize centuries later. Instead they try to make them look ugly and disabled, so they can own natural selection. The new testament would say instead of making them look ugly, to give yourself an excuse to prey on them, look deeper into their ways and you might be surprised.
The new testament shifts away from natural selection based on the outer man, where the weak and sick are food for the predators; The sick and weak buffer the healthy and strong of the herd. Christ says not to judge by surfaces, but to look at the inner man. Christ is a basis for modern compassion. Christ preaches to the sick and weak and heals the sick, instead of exploiting them like a predator.
The path of human evolution was to change from the animal toward the inner depths of humans. What may not appear beautiful on the surface, and which may not be able to open doors with natural beauty, might still contain an inner beauty which is important to the future of civilization. Modern medicine uses this philosophy. The old testament would see herds and predators and notice the predators pick off the weak and sick; so this is the natural way of God's creation; follows natural laws.
The irony is, science and atheism are adamant about natural evolution, but criticize the ancients who maintained this natural tradition. They ancients could observe nature, just as Darwin did, and designed practical laws which would parallel the ways of the natural world. The old testament were not trying to define a new set of rules but rather used observational data to maintain the ways of selection based on fitness. Beauty definitely makes it easier to breed within the cultural worlds of humans; natural selection.
Science should marvel at these early evolutionists, who don't get credit from those who would plagiarize centuries later. Instead they try to make them look ugly and disabled, so they can own natural selection. The new testament would say instead of making them look ugly, to give yourself an excuse to prey on them, look deeper into their ways and you might be surprised.
I am sorry; all I can do is laugh in amazement. That is a serious rewrite of history and the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not known for its advocacy of evolution. It had something to do with the whole Genesis thing where God spoke and created everything. It’s called creationism not evolution.
I would make some question about this passage . There are 10 commandments and there are 613 commandments thy are different and among them. The the 10 are given at Sinai by God to Moses and the 613 made by man ( Moses ) on how to live and how to survive in the new environment.
God, and Moses, should be ashamed of themselves.
Disabledophobic, the pair of them.
The bit about the flat nose made me laugh.
I mean for ferks sake!
How intolerant is that?
Even Club doormen will let you in with a flat nose.
On the brighter side, this is a quote from Isaiah, which Christians interpret as referring to Jesus:
Isaiah 53:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
It might mean that Jesus was disabled.
Besides, an understanding of evolution doesn't mean that you must model human society on nature.
I take that there is a comparison in choosing a leader : King Saul by Samuel Was selected as a man of great appearance and of good looks , yet at his end he could not lead well the nation and he fell emotionally as a leader . Yet Jesus was a humble and not good looking person but of strong character , he approached all kinds of people, ( my opinion )
And here is another verse, Isaiah 52:14
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him--
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness--
So, if Isaiah is to be believed, he most certainly did not look like this:
Jesus as Babemagnet
The verse suggests to me that he was either crippled, or had a physical deformity.
In the New Testament, it says that children were attracted to him,
so he probably did have a kindly appearance.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him--
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness--
So, if Isaiah is to be believed, he most certainly did not look like this:
Jesus as Babemagnet
The verse suggests to me that he was either crippled, or had a physical deformity.
In the New Testament, it says that children were attracted to him,
so he probably did have a kindly appearance.
Last edited:
The main message of the Old Testament is obedience to God. If you are not obedient to God, God will render punishment through catastrophe, calamity, pestilence, and death; whereas belief in God and obedience to God was generally rewarded with wealth and health.
Jesus was a softer sell. Instead of death and vengeance he offered compassion and forgiveness.
Jesus was a softer sell. Instead of death and vengeance he offered compassion and forgiveness.
Last edited:
That's true.
Apart from the Book of Job of course,
where an exemplary man, like Jesus, is inexplicably punished.
Like Isaiah, it is a great work of poetry.
I think that Judaism was evolving, through brilliant thinkers, towards a more humanitarian Religion.
Jesus was the realization of that development.
Cometh the hour, Cometh the man, as they say.
Apart from the Book of Job of course,
where an exemplary man, like Jesus, is inexplicably punished.
Like Isaiah, it is a great work of poetry.
I think that Judaism was evolving, through brilliant thinkers, towards a more humanitarian Religion.
Jesus was the realization of that development.
Cometh the hour, Cometh the man, as they say.
Which is why he brought tha sword!
He meant Gurns!
The symbol of American freedom.
Just they weren't invented yet.
The symbol of American freedom.
Just they weren't invented yet.