Why does god hate amputees?

MrPudding

This is actually a serious question and I am looking for serious answers only please.

Most, if not all, of the christians on this board strongly believe that god heals people. Not all the time, but sometimes he will. There are many cases where there was no hope for a person, medicine had given up on them, but still they pulled through. Christians will call this a miracle and place in firmly in the lap of their god.

So, what does he have against amputees? Why does he never heal them?

MrP

crotalus667

Dude if you ae going to drag up that argument you schould at least link to the Why does god hate amputees website :rolleyes:

MrPudding

crotalus667 wrote: »

Dude if you ae going to drag up that argument you schould at least link to the Why does god hate amputees website :rolleyes:

Sorry, I didn't know there was one.

MrP

EDIT: Ha, there actually is one. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

philologos

This is actually ridiculous. No place in the Bible does God promise to heal amputees. I saw a youtube video recently which had the same sentiment, along with a website:
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com

(MrP got there before me with the link)

If you want a serious answer, try asking a serious question?

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

This is actually ridiculous. No place in the Bible does God promise to heal amputees. I saw a youtube video recently which had the same sentiment, along with a website:
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com

(MrP got there before me with the link)

I certainly never suggested that the bible says anything specifically about amputees.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you want a serious answer, try asking a serious question?

It is a serious question. Just because there is a website about it, which I was not aware of when I made the initial post, does not mean it isn't a serious question.

OK try this then:

Do you believe that god heals people when they were apparently beyond all hope and the medical establishment had given up on them?

If you answered yes to the first question then, why in all recorded history has he never healed an amputee?

I am not trying to be trollish here. This is a genuine question. I am trying to understand why you guys feel the way you do about god and how you explain things which I can't see an explanation for.

MrP

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

This is actually ridiculous. No place in the Bible does God promise to heal amputees.

But there is something in the OT about some form of disfigurement being disbarred from heaven isn't there, or am I getting confussed....?

philologos

As far as I know, the disfigurement barrs those who are disabled in some way from taking a role in the Levitical priesthood or to enter the Holy of Holies in the Tent of the Lord's Presence or the Temple.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

As far as I know, the disfigurement barrs those who are disabled in some way from taking a role in the Levitical priesthood or to enter the Holy of Holies in the Tent of the Lord's Presence or the Temple.

Would that also cover congenital disfigurements and disabilitiees?

MrP

philologos

Theres a difference between being allowed to take a role in the Jewish or Levitical priesthood and getting into heaven.

Yes it refers to disabilities and shortness in sight as a reason for not taking any form of duty in the Holy of Holies.

However this pertains to Judaism and not Christianity as we are under the priestly order of Melchizedek (Genesis 14, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews this is discussed). Of course there is no need for the Temple or for sacrificial rites as a result of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ according to Biblical prophesy (Isaiah 53).

Goduznt Xzst

I posted a thread previously bringing up the same argument:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055384909

Be prepared for some of the most evasive linguistic gymnastics you've ever encountered. Your argument will quickly denigrate into a punch-and-judy-esque situation of you saying "oh yes you do believe this" and them saying "oh no I don't"

PDN went as far to say that he has seen photographic evidence that God has restored peoples limbs :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

I have met people who claim that God gave them new limbs in answer to prayer. They showed me photographs of themselves with missing limbs, but there was no way to ascertain if the photos were fakes or of twins or doppelgangers.

philologos

He didn't say that, he said that he saw people who claimed as much if I'm just going by the quote you gave. I think I remember that thread, but I may read it later.

MrPudding

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I posted a thread previously bringing up the same argument:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055384909

Be prepared for some of the most evasive linguistic gymnastics you've ever encountered. Your argument will quickly denigrate into a punch-and-judy-esque situation of you saying "oh yes you do believe this" and them saying "oh no I don't"

PDN went as far to say that he has seen photographic evidence that God has restored peoples limbs :rolleyes:

Ah yes. I remember that one. The old memeory is going I'm afraid.

MrP

PDN

God did heal at least one amputee. A guy called Malchus had his ear amputated by Peter's sword and Jesus healed it.

As another poster has referred to above (with the customary rolling eyes muppetry) I have met people who claimed to have had amputated limbs restored. I wasn't there when the claimed miracle happened, so I simply and truthfully stated that I had seen photographs of someone who looks identical but that I had no way of testing whether they were genuine or not.

Miracles, by their very nature, are rare. A world where miracles occurred at the drop of a hat would, I think, be a very confusing and unpredictable place. It was the conviction of Christians that there is a God-given order to the universe that allowed for the development of the scientific method and inspired Christians like Copernicus and Galileo to produce advancements in scientific knowledge.

We also know that there is a biblical link between faith and answered prayer. People find it much easier to believe for the healing of something hidden, even if serious (eg terminal cancer), than for something like an amputation that is in front of their eyes. So, assuming that miracles happen rarely, we should expect a highly visible miracle such as a amputated limb restored to be even rarer.

Of course a large number of Christians are cessationists, so the question in the OP is not an issue for them at all. Cessationists believe that miracles occurred during the apostolic age until the Canon of Scripture was completed but are now considered unnecessary and not part of God's plan for the church age. Denominations such as the Southern Baptists are cessationists and, given his views on other theological issues, I would not be surprised if Wolfsbane holds to a cessationist position (if I'm wrong I'm sure he will correct me). Now, I myself am not a cessationist, but I thought it only fair to point out that millions of Christians don't believe that God heals anyone miraculously today, amputee or otherwise.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Be prepared for some of the most evasive linguistic gymnastics you've ever encountered. Your argument will quickly denigrate into a punch-and-judy-esque situation of you saying "oh yes you do believe this" and them saying "oh no I don't"

I know that you would prefer a forum where atheists can present false stereotypes as much as they like without anyone pointing out the dishonesty of such misrepresentations, but this board allows Christians to point out when others are telling porky pies. If you really see that as 'linguistic gymnastics' or 'punch-and-judy-esque' then I suggest you avoid trolling in a forum that allows for open discussion of Christianity.

MatthewVII

Nodin wrote: »

But there is something in the OT about some form of disfigurement being disbarred from heaven isn't there, or am I getting confussed....?

I think this is the one:

Leviticus 21:19-21

no man 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. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.

Once again, Leviticus shows us the way. God was quite exclusive back in the day.

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

This is actually a serious question and I am looking for serious answers only please.

Most, if not all, of the christians on this board strongly believe that god heals people. Not all the time, but sometimes he will. There are many cases where there was no hope for a person, medicine had given up on them, but still they pulled through. Christians will call this a miracle and place in firmly in the lap of their god.

So, what does he have against amputees? Why does he never heal them?

MrP

I seriously hope this post isn't setting the tone for 2009!

philologos

How does that refer to heaven? Infact I can see that it would have been a good thing for God to alleviate disabled Levites from their priestly duties.

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

I think this is the one:

Leviticus 21:19-21

no man 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. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.

Once again, Leviticus shows us the way. God was quite exclusive back in the day.

Indeed He was. Nothing to do with being disbarred from heaven, or from being a worshipper of God, but this passage in Leviticus refers specifically to the priests who offered the sacrifices.

This is because the Old Testament sacrificial system was a type or shadow of the ultimate sacrifice - that of Jesus on the Cross. As the book of Hebrews explains, both the priest and the sacrificial animal typified Jesus Christ. Therefore both the priest and the sacrifice had to be without flaw or blemish - pointing the way forward to a perfect and sinless Saviour.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

PDN went as far to say that he has seen photographic evidence that God has restored peoples limbs :rolleyes:

Funny that! You ask the question 'why?' and then reject any answers that don't conform to your preconceived ideas. I fail to see the point in this topic other than a display of your atheistic plumage.

A friend of mine claims to have witnessed such a miracle with his own eyes - actually, it was more along the lines of a deformed limb spontaneously regenerating. However, even if such a thing as spontaneous regeneration were proved true to either you or Mr P, it would still would bring you no closer to God.

MatthewVII

Those words still sound as if they relegate certain people to a lower class, that because they have perceived defects they are unworthy of presenting themselves before their god to totally serve him.

I thought one of the messages of the Bible is that god loves everyone equally?

philologos

Or say this. If you are disabled, it's probably best that you don't serve in the Holy of Holies. I think that's a rather fair call to make.

God does love everyone equally, however He commanded that the Jewish priests in the Temple who carried out sacrifices be of good health. That doesn't negate God's love for all people.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Or say this. If you are disabled, it's probably best that you don't serve in the Holy of Holies. I think that's a rather fair call to make.

Why?

MrP

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

Those words still sound as if they relegate certain people to a lower class, that because they have perceived defects they are unworthy of presenting themselves before their god to totally serve him.

I thought one of the messages of the Bible is that god loves everyone equally?

Loving everyone equally doesn't mean they all get to do the same jobs.

The selection of those eligible for priesthood was never intended to be 'fair'. Eleven of the tribes were discriminated against straight away, since the priesthood had to be from the tribe of Levi. Then, out of that tribe, only the descendants of Aaron were eligible.

In the words of Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

God did heal at least one amputee. A guy called Malchus had his ear amputated by Peter's sword and Jesus healed it.

I believe that was an allegory PDN and should not be taken literally.

PDN wrote: »

We also know that there is a biblical link between faith and answered prayer. People find it much easier to believe for the healing of something hidden, even if serious (eg terminal cancer), than for something like an amputation that is in front of their eyes. So, assuming that miracles happen rarely, we should expect a highly visible miracle such as a amputated limb restored to be even rarer.

I think you'll find that this is the point, you even agree with it. That God is less likely to help you, in fact, for the vast majority he won't help you, if you are an amputee. He has a bias against people with obvious external maladies. So to save the faith of those around this individual he chooses to renege on their pleas for help and instead gives his miracles to those with internal illnesses where it is not apparent in the least that he did anything at all. In Gods eyes you have a greater chance of him having sympathy for you if you catch the common cold then if you where to lose both your arms and legs in a car crash... seems fair doesn't it?

PDN wrote: »

I know that you would prefer a forum where atheists can present false stereotypes as much as they like without anyone pointing out the dishonesty of such misrepresentations

lol... no I wouldn't, where would be the fun in that? I also find it rich coming from an individual who has stereotypes as his signature.

PDN wrote: »

but this board allows Christians to point out when others are telling porky pies. If you really see that as 'linguistic gymnastics' or 'punch-and-judy-esque' then I suggest you avoid trolling in a forum that allows for open discussion of Christianity.

No the liguistic gymnastics comes from the varied understandings of the Bible that the OP will find here. Anything I could or ever say could be rebutted by simply re-understanding a particular verse of scripture. You have already expressed half my point, the OP's argument will fall flat with cessationists and also with arguing with you as he cannot conclusively say you haven't seen these photographs.

PDN

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I believe that was an allegory PDN and should not be taken literally.

And, in a democratic society, you are entitled to hold that belief if you want. However this forum is for the discussion of Christian beliefs. So your deliberate misinterpretations of Scripture are of little interest to the rest of us.

I think you'll find that this is the point, you even agree with it. That God is less likely to help you, in fact, for the vast majority he won't help you, if you are an amputee. He has a bias against people with obvious external maladies. So to save the faith of those around this individual he chooses to renege on their pleas for help and instead gives his miracles to those with internal illnesses where it is not apparent in the least that he did anything at all. In Gods eyes you have a greater chance of him having sympathy for you if you catch the common cold then if you where to lose both your arms and legs in a car crash... seems fair doesn't it?

Absolute nonsense. We are discussing whether certain people get healed, not who God has sympathy for. The fact that people find it easier to believe for one thing than another says a lot about the nature of faith but nothing at all about any 'bias' on God's part.

I also find it rich coming from an individual who has stereotypes as his signature

A stereotype that posters on these boards are living up to in marvellous fashion.

In the past few days we've seen religion accused of burning Copernicus at the stake (presumably they switched a body double to fool everyone who thought he died peacefully in his bed), had Wesley accused of advocating the burning of witches (he didn't) and it has been claimed that if there was no religion then people wouldn't know who to hate! When I tried to confound the stereotype by posting an article by an articulate and thoughtful atheist (not a poster here) who actually acknowledged some good being done by religion then the immediate response was to label him as someone who just writes rubbish for money.

You guys crack me up!

No the liguistic gymnastics comes from the varied understandings of the Bible that the OP will find here. Anything I could or ever say could be rebutted by simply re-understanding a particular verse of scripture. You have already expressed half my point, the OP's argument will fall flat with cessationists

There are certainly different interpretations of Scripture. That's nothing to do with linguistic gymnastics and everything to do with hermeneutics. We apply standard academic criteria in textual criticism etc. and sometimes people disagree as to their conclusions - as happens when interpreting any text, be it Shakespeare, Homer or the Constitution.

and also with arguing with you as he cannot conclusively say you haven't seen these photographs.

And why should he be able to conclusively prove any such thing. I hope you are not sinking so low as to label someone as a liar just because they post something that doesn't fit in with the way you would like things to be?

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

Loving everyone equally doesn't mean they all get to do the same jobs.

Loving everyone equally means you give everyone the same respect and allow everyone to pursue their ambitions, dreams etc.

It's hard to imagine that in these days people who are short-sighted or for some reason suffer from testicular damage in all its forms (e.g Cystic Fibrosis, mumps, vaircoceles, torsion, hernias etc) would be prohibited from priesthood.
I fail to see how defects which have no impact on their abilities to perform rites should be grounds for exclusion.

Not in a trolling way, but when one thinks about it, it's remarkably similar to a sort of fascist perfectionism. It's easy to draw parallels between this discrimination and the nazist purges of disabled people. Obviously the magnitude of the sanction is completely different, but the concept is the same - those who are not perfect should not be given the same chances as those who conform to what a given group view as perfection.

hivizman

I'm surprised that, so far, everyone seems to assume that healing can only take the form of the physical restoration of the amputated body part. But surely healing can come in more "mental" ways as well. A few years ago, one of my colleagues lost her little finger as a result of a domestic accident. For most people this would just be an inconvenience, but she was a keen pianist, and for a while she was very low in spirits because she thought that her accident had left her unable to play the piano to her satisfaction. However, over time she came to regard her accident as actually giving her an opportuniy to relearn how to play the piano with nine fingers rather than ten, and she is still excited to find new pieces that she can play even without one of her fingers. She told me that, initially, she couldn't see any good in her accident, but that now she had come to terms with what she was still able to do, she felt much calmer and happier. You could perhaps say that God had healed my colleague in a mental sense by helping her to appreciate what she could still do, even though God had not actually restored her missing finger.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

We are discussing whether certain people get healed, not who God has sympathy for.

Yes and in that discussion you said it is "rarer" for God to heal amputees than it is for him to heal individuals suffering from less visible illnesses. So you are accepting Gods partiality when it comes to illnesses, this is the root of his bias. You have already acknowledged that as miracles go, Amputees are on the losing end of them.

PDN wrote: »

And why should he be able to conclusively prove any such thing. I hope you are not sinking so low as to label someone as a liar just because they post something that doesn't fit in with the way you would like things to be?

No I don't think you are a liar, I think you wholeheartedly believe that you viewed a before and after of a miracle, but I'm not going to accept something merely on the word of an individual. I know people who believe in Alien UFO's and have pictures their friend has taken to prove it. I'd bracket your experience in with theirs.

Everything should be conclusively proven to be accepted. But I suppose that's asking a lot in this forum.

Húrin

MrPudding wrote: »

This is actually a serious question and I am looking for serious answers only please.

Most, if not all, of the christians on this board strongly believe that god heals people. Not all the time, but sometimes he will. There are many cases where there was no hope for a person, medicine had given up on them, but still they pulled through. Christians will call this a miracle and place in firmly in the lap of their god.

Uh-oh, the science vs religion fantasy is rearing its amputated head again.

Phototoxin

Or say this. If you are disabled, it's probably best that you don't serve in the Holy of Holies. I think that's a rather fair call to make.

As a person with a disability I find that grossly unfair.

The selection of those eligible for priesthood was never intended to be 'fair'. Eleven of the tribes were discriminated against straight away, since the priesthood had to be from the tribe of Levi. Then, out of that tribe, only the descendants of Aaron were eligible.

i thought god was supposed to be infinitly just?whathe is supposed to be often seems nit to fit with what he is

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

It's easy to draw parallels between this discrimination and the nazist purges of disabled people. Obviously the magnitude of the sanction is completely different, but the concept is the same - those who are not perfect should not be given the same chances as those who conform to what a given group view as perfection.

I don't think it's easy to draw such parallels at all. In fact I cannot imagine the kind of mental somersaults it must take to draw such parallels.

The Aaronic priesthood was a small select group of people chosen for a specific task. They were to be a type of a coming Saviour who would be perfect, therefore they themselves were to free from disabilities or blemishes.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

I'm surprised that, so far, everyone seems to assume that healing can only take the form of the physical restoration of the amputated body part. But surely healing can come in more "mental" ways as well. A few years ago, one of my colleagues lost her little finger as a result of a domestic accident. For most people this would just be an inconvenience, but she was a keen pianist, and for a while she was very low in spirits because she thought that her accident had left her unable to play the piano to her satisfaction. However, over time she came to regard her accident as actually giving her an opportuniy to relearn how to play the piano with nine fingers rather than ten, and she is still excited to find new pieces that she can play even without one of her fingers. She told me that, initially, she couldn't see any good in her accident, but that now she had come to terms with what she was still able to do, she felt much calmer and happier. You could perhaps say that God had healed my colleague in a mental sense by helping her to appreciate what she could still do, even though God had not actually restored her missing finger.

I seem to remember (don't quote me, though) that this was suggested in the other thread but rejected. Of course, if you are speaking to someone who does believe in God then this seems perfectly valid.

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

i thought god was supposed to be infinitly just?whathe is supposed to be often seems nit to fit with what he is

I don't think that infinite justice is incompatible with choosing people for certain tasks or ruling certain groups of people to be eligible.

I am not eligible to become President of the USA as I am not a natural born US citizen. As a fat person I will never be eligible to appear on TV advertising a slimming product. As a guy aged over 45 I can never play football for the national under-21 bteam. As a male I will never be eligible to be a nun. I don't view any of these things as being unfair or unjust.

I think in today's world there are things more worth getting worked up over than whether you would have been allowed to serve as a priest of a God that you're not sure that you believe in at a specific point in history thousands of years ago.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

As a fat person I will never be eligible to appear on TV advertising a slimming product.

You could be the 'before' guy!

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You could be the 'before' guy!

No, the difference would be too dramatic. No-one would ever believe it.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I seem to remember (don't quote me, though) that this was suggested in the other thread but rejected. Of course, if you are speaking to someone who does believe in God then this seems perfectly valid.

Yes, it was mentioned in passing:

sorella wrote: »

I just find it funny, when previously a believer I remember my parents praying for friends and relatives to get better or get cured when they fell ill, but then a friend's son lost his arm in a car accident, and instead of prayers for him to get his arm back we were praying for him to "get through this ordeal and be able to cope"... it was like subconsciously everyone knew that once you lose a limb, the best God is ever going to do for you is give you solace. It was this disparity that initially got me thinking further, as the fact that God would help you if you got a minor internal affliction but if you were to lose your arms and legs the best God would give you was solace.

The point that sorella makes is that we don't pray for miracles that we believe are medically impossible, although this raises the question of why the current state of medical technology should act as a constraint on God's powers. If medical technology improved to a position where amputated body parts could be regrown, but where the probability of success was relatively small, we would probably see people begin to pray not just for solace but also for physical healing.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

I am not eligible to become President of the USA as I am not a natural born US citizen.

Reasonable.

PDN wrote: »

As a fat person I will never be eligible to appear on TV advertising a slimming product.

Fair enough

PDN wrote: »

As a guy aged over 45 I can never play football for the national under-21 bteam.

Obviously.

PDN wrote: »

As a male I will never be eligible to be a nun.

Again, fairly obvious example.

Not quite the same as saying someone with a mis-shapen hand can't be a priest though is it. But then you know that, this is one of your favourite tools of debate.

MrP

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

The Aaronic priesthood was a small select group of people chosen for a specific task. They were to be a type of a coming Saviour who would be perfect, therefore they themselves were to free from disabilities or blemishes.

I'm sure you don't think that Jesus' freedom from disability was what made him perfect, but this is how it reads.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

Not quite the same as saying someone with a mis-shapen hand can't be a priest though is it.

No, it is not the same. But it does explode the PC modern myth that anyone can be anything.

God set certain requirements for the priests in the Old Testament Tabernacle. He had the right to set whatever requirements he wanted. He could have specified they must be a certain height, not be bald, or whatever he wanted. As it was he specified that they must be Israelites (excluding 99% of humanity), must be of the tribe of Levi (excluding 90% of Israelites), must be descendants of Aaron (excluding 90% of Levites), must be male (excluding 50% of Aaronites), must be within a certain age group (excluding 50% of male Aaronites), and must not be disabled (excluding a handful of people). I find it interesting that this last piece of particularity should attract such attention.

I think, when God was setting the criteria for the priesthood, that He was more concerned with looking forward to the coming of Jesus, as the great High Priest, rather than admitting 90-year old Pakistani women in wheelchairs in order to satisfy your ideas of fairness.

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

I'm sure you don't think that Jesus' freedom from disability was what made him perfect, but this is how it reads.

It certainly wasn't meant to read that way.

For instance, a lamb with a nasty skin rash was not fit to be offered as a sacrifice. This is because the spotless lamb foreshadowed Jesus as the spotless Lamb of God. However, this does not imply that Jesus' freedom from skin rashes was what made him perfect.

I suppose someone will now pretend to get all outraged that scabby-skinned lambs were being discriminated against because they weren't allowed to have their throats cut in the Temple. "And I thought God loved all lambs equally? How unfair of God ...... "

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

It certainly wasn't meant to read that way.

For instance, a lamb with a nasty skin rash was not fit to be offered as a sacrifice. This is because the spotless lamb foreshadowed Jesus as the spotless Lamb of God.

There may be that, but I would say more that it was so that the Israelites made a genuine sacrifice, rather than using the temple as a crematorium service for bad livestock!

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

No, it is not the same. But it does explode the PC modern myth that anyone can be anything.

PC Myth? How incredibly paternalistic of you. We're not saying that someone with no legs can win a marathon, we're just suggesting that someone who had a nasty accident with his testicles shouldn't have been denied the chance to do what they are in no obvious way unfit to do.

"PC modern myths" are basic human rights which came about through realisation that people should be equal and not enslaved by a book.

PDN

MatthewVII wrote: »

PC Myth? How incredibly paternalistic of you. We're not saying that someone with no legs can win a marathon, we're just suggesting that someone who had a nasty accident with his testicles shouldn't have been denied the chance to do what they are in no obvious way unfit to do.

Well, actually in that case they were unfit to fulfill the role of priests. It was strictly a family thing so part of the role of priests was to produce sons of Aaron's line to be the next generation of priests.

My reference to PC myths has nothing to do with human rights. It has to do with the nonsensical entitlement thinking that anyone can be anything they want, irrespective of talent or fitness etc. Therefore we have tone deaf morons who audition for reality TV shows and act as if someone has denied their basic human dignity by telling them that they are talentless. But that discussion would take us down a whole new rabbit trail ....

God set certain criteria for who could serve as priests in the Tabernacle - a requirement that ended nearly 2000 years ago. I think the manufactured outrage over this historical detail is very amusing, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over this one.

MatthewVII

PDN wrote: »

God set certain criteria for who could serve as priests in the Tabernacle - a requirement that ended nearly 2000 years ago. I think the manufactured outrage over this historical detail is very amusing, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over this one.

It's not outrage, I'm just interested to know how it could be justified. I find it very hard to identify with a code which on one hand promises equal love to everyone but gives different opportunities with another. It's sort of as if god's concept of love is different to what humans want or expect.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

As a fat person I will never be eligible to appear on TV advertising a slimming product.

Perhaps if all the christians pray really hard god will slim you down a bit

(Do let me know if it works - I could do with a bit of help in that department myself.)

philologos

Phototoxin wrote: »

As a person with a disability I find that grossly unfair.

I find it quite the opposite given the nature of what the Jewish priesthood was. Sacrificing large and often heavy animals wouldn't be ideal for someone with a disability to do in many cases in terms of lifting etc. This is Jewish law, not Christian, as the sacrifice of Jesus Christ atones for our sins.

Phototoxin wrote: »

i thought god was supposed to be infinitly just?whathe is supposed to be often seems nit to fit with what he is

God is infinitely just, he just has different roles for certain people in society. Jewish society under Torah law was no different. God had chosen a tribe of people to perform priestly duties in the Temple, the Levites, and out of the Levites, God had chosen the descendants of Aaron to be cohens or priests in the State of Israel.

Another example of this would be the kings, God had chosen the tribe of Judah to be the royal house of Israel, and not only the tribe of Judah but only those in Judah that were decended from Jesse.

Even in our society God has different roles for us today, God will call us to work in different jobs, and God will cause some of us to be pastors, some of us to be involved in youth ministry, some to go off as missionaries, and some of us to minister to our friends and those who we know.

Dave!

hivizman wrote: »

I'm surprised that, so far, everyone seems to assume that healing can only take the form of the physical restoration of the amputated body part. But surely healing can come in more "mental" ways as well. A few years ago, one of my colleagues lost her little finger as a result of a domestic accident. For most people this would just be an inconvenience, but she was a keen pianist, and for a while she was very low in spirits because she thought that her accident had left her unable to play the piano to her satisfaction. However, over time she came to regard her accident as actually giving her an opportuniy to relearn how to play the piano with nine fingers rather than ten, and she is still excited to find new pieces that she can play even without one of her fingers. She told me that, initially, she couldn't see any good in her accident, but that now she had come to terms with what she was still able to do, she felt much calmer and happier. You could perhaps say that God had healed my colleague in a mental sense by helping her to appreciate what she could still do, even though God had not actually restored her missing finger.

If god could heal the person mentally, then he could surely heal them physically too... So why didn't he just give her back the finger, and all would be dandy?

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

If god could heal the person mentally, then he could surely heal them physically too... So why didn't he just give her back the finger, and all would be dandy?

How more demanding can you get? This is about God's will, not about the will of humanity. God isn't there to do absolutely everything at our whim. God is in authority not us.

Things happen to us for many different purposes. Some people ask why there is evil in the world, I genuinely believe that evil can be turned into something positive.

In the Bible we notice this with Joseph having been sold by his brothers into slavery in the land of Egypt, when they ask Joseph not to take revenge against his brothers. He says the following to them, when they settle in Egypt after Jacob's death:

Genesis 50:16-20 "So they approached Joseph, saying 'Your father gave this instruction before he died, "Say to Joseph, I beg you forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you." Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father.' Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Then his brothers also wept, fell down before him, and said, 'We are here as your slaves'. But Joseph said to them, 'Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.'"

This can be the same for our injuries, and our struggles. Paul also raises this issue in 2 Corinthians.

2 Corinthians 12:6-10 "But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better than me than what is seen or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelation. Therefore to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given to me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient in you, for power is made perfect in weakness'. So I will boast all the more gladly of my weakness, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong."

Or there is another option:

Matthew 8:13 "And the centurion Jesus said, 'Go and let it be done for you according to your faith'. And the servant was healed in that hour"

Matthew 9:22 "Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, 'Take heart daughter, your faith has made you well.' And instantly the woman was made well."

Matthew 9:28-29 "When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, 'Do you believe that I am able to do this?' They said to him, 'Yes, Lord'. Then he touched their eyes and said, 'According to your faith let it be done to you.'"

Let the Bible explain it for you. There could be numerous reasons why someone wasn't mirraculously healed. These are just three of them.

Nodin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I think this is the one:

Leviticus 21:19-21

no man 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. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.

Once again, Leviticus shows us the way. God was quite exclusive back in the day.

Doesn't bar you from the Sky Party though.....Leviticus.....miserable oul git all the same.