Why does God create men who are disabled?

[pianistclare]

Your not disabled: your just short as are lots of men everywhere. Take yourself to a VA Hos[ital. where you will find plenty of men who would praise God…just to be short.

Porn and masturbation are choices in most cases and have little to do with being short. This is something you can overcome with lots of intent and prayer. If being short were a disability a lot of men would be drawing disability checks from the government.

Let your brain and intellect, heart and soul, make you taller than the average man. Peace.

Yup. The hubs read this and said “why does God make bald men?”

(a perennial worry…
[/quote]

 

[EveningSkye111]

Being short is a disability? Gee, I thought my asthma, A-Fib, fibromyalgia, bad back, arthritis and osteoporosis were disabilities. Now I have to throw my 5’2" stature into the mix?

I wonder if Social Security will pay more?

 

[jaimeleglise]

I too, prefer men who are well versed in philosophy and theology over athletic types I find them interesting.
My husband is very intelligent and treats me well. That is what is important to me. He is bringing me closer to God.

Get out and meet ladies with similar hobbies as yours. Believe me there are many of them. Work on your self-esteem and you will attract more friends. You might want to try shortersingles.com

 

[CB_Catholic]

My sister-in-law is 5 foot. Her husband is 6’1". Guess who’s boss? Short stature is not the disability. Your attitude might well be your disability. You appear to have a good brain–develop that. Not too many people do that these days.

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton, by that reasoning you (and it appears God) are saying that those with disabilities, blemishes, or malformaties are of lesser worth than those without them.

Hi, Mike!

…let’s see if we can further clarify this:

…Old Covenant Currency: temporal values – there was physical means to atone for sin and physical consequences… it was a mirroring of the Spiritual which would come into effect at the Onset of the Messianic Revolution: ‘I did not come to abolish the Law but to Fulfill it.’ ‘I did not come to bring peace but war.’

…there was a physical separation of God’s people from the pagan/Gentiles; there was a physical separation of the Priestly clan from Israel; there was a physical separation of those who would Serve in Temple/Tent from the rest of the Levi clan; there was a physical separation of those who would serve at the Altar from amongst the Priests… Yahweh God required the Best Offerings… this is mirrored in Abel’s Offering: only the best for Yahweh God.

…this is as best as I can offer you; I hope you can reconcile this issue so that your heart and mind may be at peace.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

jcrichton, you’re blaming the values of the time despite the fact that those value came from God. God made a specific point to tell Aaron who he absolutely did not want seting foot in the house of the Lord. It wasn’t about being holy or having a pure heart, it was all about lacking physical defects. The most holy man who loved God with all his heart would not be allowed in if he had a scar on his face.

I don’t know if you’re a football, but even if you aren’t you may have heard of a player named Drew Brees. He’s one of the best quarterbacks of his generation and in my opinion a shoo-in Hall of Famer. He also has a birthmark on his face that looks like a scar. When he was drafted 1st by the Chargers they didn’t concern themselves with any blemishes, just how good he could play. When the Saints traded for him, they had the same considerations. When he helped the Saints win the Super Bowl the league didn’t say he couldn’t touch the Super Bowl trophy because of his birthmark.

What aspects of a person that are being judged says a great deal about the judge. When God says that a person with a limp or a lazy eye or whatever can’t serve him, he’s telling everybody that he considers people with physical ailments lesser people.

only the best for Yahweh God.

If he was considering holiness, righteousness, love, etc. that would be understandable; but God dislikes the mere idea that someone who isn’t perfectly formed appear in his house. It speaks poorly of God. And again, using God’s rules to justify this attitude does not make it any better.

 

[jcrichton]

jcrichton, you’re blaming the values of the time despite the fact that those value came from God. God made a specific point to tell Aaron who he absolutely did not want seting foot in the house of the Lord. It wasn’t about being holy or having a pure heart, it was all about lacking physical defects. The most holy man who loved God with all his heart would not be allowed in if he had a scar on his face.

I don’t know if you’re a football, but even if you aren’t you may have heard of a player named Drew Brees. He’s one of the best quarterbacks of his generation and in my opinion a shoo-in Hall of Famer. He also has a birthmark on his face that looks like a scar. When he was drafted 1st by the Chargers they didn’t concern themselves with any blemishes, just how good he could play. When the Saints traded for him, they had the same considerations. When he helped the Saints win the Super Bowl the league didn’t say he couldn’t touch the Super Bowl trophy because of his birthmark.

What aspects of a person that are being judged says a great deal about the judge. When God says that a person with a limp or a lazy eye or whatever can’t serve him, he’s telling everybody that he considers people with physical ailments lesser people.

If he was considering holiness, righteousness, love, etc. that would be understandable; but God dislikes the mere idea that someone who isn’t perfectly formed appear in his house. It speaks poorly of God. And again, using God’s rules to justify this attitude does not make it any better.

Hi, Mike!

…you are confused; here are some passages about serving as a Priest:

16 Yahweh spoke to Moses; he said: 17 ‘Speak to Aaron and say: “None of your descendants, in any generation, must come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity – 18 no man must come near if he has an infirmity such as blindness or lameness, if he is disfigured or deformed, 19 if he has an injured foot or arm, 20 if he is a hunchback or a dwarf, if he has a disease of the eyes or of the skin, if he has a running sore, or if he is a eunuch. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest must come forward to offer the burnt offerings of Yahweh if he has any infirmity; if he has an infirmity, he must not come forward to offer the food of his God. 22 “He may eat the food of his God, things most holy and things holy; 23 but he must not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has an infirmity, and must not profane my holy things; for it is I, Yahweh, who have sanctified them.”‘

(Leviticus 21:16-23)

6 I myself have chosen your brothers, the Levites, from among the sons of Israel as a gift to you. As ‘oblates’ they will belong to Yahweh, to serve at the Tent of Meeting.

20 Yahweh said to Aaron: ‘You shall have no inheritance in their land, no portion of it among them shall be yours. It is I who will be your portion and your inheritance amongst the sons of Israel.

22 The sons of Israel must no longer go near the Tent of Meeting; they would be burdened with sin and die. (Numbers 18:6, 20, 22)
…then there are the other mandates about marrying a virgin, etc…

You are professing to knowing God and you Judging God according to your “knowledge” on the basis of what you understand to be the correct disposition of the Priesthood and those who serve as Priests!

You then conclude that God deems human physical imperfection as a sign that those humans who are “cursed” with it are lesser human beings than the “perfect” ones… what was prescribed for the Absolution of sin, Christ or a Sin Offering, what was prescribed as an Offering, whatever or very specific items?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You then conclude that God deems human physical imperfection as a sign that those humans who are “cursed” with it are lesser human beings than the “perfect” ones… what was prescribed for the Absolution of sin, Christ or a Sin Offering, what was prescribed as an Offering, whatever or very specific items?

You’re saying that offerings without malformaties were prescribed, but again God prescribed them. He made the rules, and if the rules demean people, then he is at fault.

God – by his own words – thinks less of people which physical imperfections. The mere presence of someone with blindness or a hunchback would “profane” (his word) his holy things.

 

[jcrichton]

You’re saying that offerings without malformaties were prescribed, but again God prescribed them. He made the rules, and if the rules demean people, then he is at fault.

God – by his own words – thinks less of people which physical imperfections. The mere presence of someone with blindness or a hunchback would “profane” (his word) his holy things.

Hi, Mike!

…you keep grasping…

If you start a club, do I get to make the rules or do you?

If you build a house, do I get to tell you where to place the kitchen and how wide to build it or do you make that determination?

God, in a time that was different, decided that “physical imperfection” was not to be accepted as the currency of the times… He was absolutely right!

In the economy of the New Covenant, where Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb, God determines that there shall be no more Sacrificial Offerings other than Christ Himself and that Worship is transmuted from the corporeal to the Spiritual… well, again, He is absolutely right!

Yet, not once did God determine that one person was of lesser value to Him… not during the Old Covenant and not during the New Covenant!:

4 See now:** all life belongs to me; **

the father’s life and the son’s life, both alike belong to me. The man who has sinned, he is the one who shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

45 in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on bad men as well as good, and his rain to fall on honest and dishonest men alike. (St. Matthew 5:45)

8 but what proves that God loves us is that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. (Romans 5:8)
Mike, the problem you, and others as you, have is that you want to hold God to your definition of “goodness,” “righteousness,” and “justice.”–all the while constantly changing your definition according to your own particular preference/s…

…look how far you keep reaching… it does not faze you that not a single right has been denied to those who are not physically sound/healthy… only that they not “Serve in the Priesthood’s Offerings;” never mind that they can get the same portions of the spoils (goods) distributed them as it is distributed to all Levites…

…it’s like that spiritual bankruptcy that people keep selling as women’s health (abortion) or gender fluidity; you want Yahweh God to cater to your whims and conditions… your world; your rules!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Dorothy]

You’re saying that offerings without malformaties were prescribed, but again God prescribed them. He made the rules, and if the rules demean people, then he is at fault.

God – by his own words – thinks less of people which physical imperfections. The mere presence of someone with blindness or a hunchback would “profane” (his word) his holy things.

Mike,

God is perfect love. He is perfect Love. The meaning of the rules are symbolic.

God is not at fault for anything!

May He grant you His Peace and Wisdom,

Dorothy

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!

…you keep grasping…

Yes, I’m grasping for facts – because you grasped every one of the straws!

If you start a club, do I get to make the rules or do you?

If you build a house, do I get to tell you where to place the kitchen and how wide to build it or do you make that determination?

Let’s go with a club. I’m relatively close to the shore, so let’s say I start a beach cleanup club. Anybody can join, but as far as team leaders go let’s say I don’t want to put any black people in those positions. Let’s also say that when I have meetings in my apartment with the higher-ups I don’t want any black person to step foot inside.

Now in this unfortunate scenario I’ve created I have every right to make the rules I want. That does shield me from being called out for being a terrible person for making such rules.

The scenario in the Bible is the same. Yes, God can make up any rules he wants. I never questioned that. What I did question is how this devalues people who have physical imperfections versus those that don’t. To say that’s the way it’s done or that’s the way God wants it in no way excuses this behavior. There’s no way around it.

God, in a time that was different, decided that “physical imperfection” was not to be accepted as the currency of the times… He was absolutely right!

How is he “right”? Are you saying that you too feel that people with physical imperfections are not acceptable like those without those imperfections?

In the economy of the New Covenant, where Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb, God determines that there shall be no more Sacrificial Offerings other than Christ Himself and that Worship is transmuted from the corporeal to the Spiritual… well, again, He is absolutely right!

The fact that he said there were to be no more sacrificial offerings in no way lessens the utter disgust God has for the possibility that a hunchback might enter his place of worship.

Yet, not once did God determine that one person was of lesser value to Him… not during the Old Covenant and not during the New Covenant!:

He literally gives a list of attributes people could have that would make them lesser in his eyes, and not worthy to serve him as a priest.

Mike, the problem you, and others as you, have is that you want to hold God to your definition of “goodness,” “righteousness,” and “justice.”–all the while constantly changing your definition according to your own particular preference/s…

…look how far you keep reaching… it does not faze you that not a single right has been denied to those who are not physically sound/healthy… only that they not “Serve in the Priesthood’s Offerings;” never mind that they can get the same portions of the spoils (goods) distributed them as it is distributed to all Levites…

So they have the same rights, except for the one right I mentioned repeatedly, the one that God spends several sentences telling Aaron how the proximity of these non-physically perfect people would profane him. I used the word disgust earlier, but profane is far, far harsher.

But even if their rights were the same, just the way that God in great detail finds blind people and eunuchs and damaged hands (and assumedly lazy eyes, limps, knife scars, among others) is in and of itself a poor showing for God.

…it’s like that spiritual bankruptcy that people keep selling as women’s health (abortion) or gender fluidity; you want Yahweh God to cater to your whims and conditions… your world; your rules!

That’s not really what we’re talking about. It’s all about the worth of a human versus another. If being full of the spirit means degrading the worth of those with physical blemishes or ailments that may I always be “spiritually bankrupt”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike,

God is perfect love. He is perfect Love. The meaning of the rules are symbolic.

If this was only symbolic does this mean that a person with a birthmark on his face would be allowed to be a priest, to enter his place of worship?

If this is symbolic, doesn’t this still show that God finds people with physical ailments to be of lesser worth than those without.

God is not at fault for anything!

As jcrichton says, God makes the rules. He is at fault if the rules give certain people lesser value than others.

 

[JPUSC]

Your descriptor ‘disabled’ isn’t very positive, God just gave everyone talents to use, not cry over!

Good luck, I’ll pray things start looking up!

I agree that the word isn’t very positive, but why does the Catechism of the Catholic Church use a similar, not so positive word?:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[Dorothy]

If this was only symbolic does this mean that a person with a birthmark on his face would be allowed to be a priest, to enter his place of worship?

If this is symbolic, doesn’t this still show that God finds people with physical ailments to be of lesser worth than those without.

As jcrichton says, God makes the rules. He is at fault if the rules give certain people lesser value than others.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is the spotless Lamb!

Anything that would cause you to think that God is “at fault” is a misunderstanding.

Please go and ask a priest known for his biblical scholarship to explain much better than I can the meaning in the verses you are misunderstanding.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes, I’m grasping for facts – because you grasped every one of the straws!

Hi, Mike!

…no; your grasping abilities lack; you are attempting to force the facts to fit your preconceptions.

Let’s go with a club. I’m relatively close to the shore, so let’s say I start a beach cleanup club. Anybody can join, but as far as team leaders go let’s say I don’t want to put any black people in those positions. Let’s also say that when I have meetings in my apartment with the higher-ups I don’t want any black person to step foot inside.

Now in this unfortunate scenario I’ve created I have every right to make the rules I want. That does shield me from being called out for being a terrible person for making such rules.

The scenario in the Bible is the same. Yes, God can make up any rules he wants. I never questioned that. What I did question is how this devalues people who have physical imperfections versus those that don’t. To say that’s the way it’s done or that’s the way God wants it in no way excuses this behavior. There’s no way around it.

…you see how you are grasping? The values you present are dissimilar… say your club is a soup kitchen–would you allow people with all sorts of ailments to handle and distribute the food? Communicative diseases can be transferred through direct or indirect contact; it would be irresponsible of you to not disqualify anyone for the sake of “political correctness.”

This is the correct understanding of the restrictions of the Old Covenant; the restrictions were not on the benefits that people received but on the representation of Spiritual Perfection which the physical perfection mirrored.

How is he “right”? Are you saying that you too feel that people with physical imperfections are not acceptable like those without those imperfections?

No. You are the one that is intimating that.

You are saying that God should not put any type of demands on who/what is Offered because that devalues humanity–so if the imperfection is that of a killer, thief or liar, God should have no problem with that because His Demands would only make the killer, thief, and liar feel rejected–never mind that God requires “perfection.”

The fact that he said there were to be no more sacrificial offerings in no way lessens the utter disgust God has for the possibility that a hunchback might enter his place of worship.

…again, you are missing the point: Old Covenant’s currency was physical; New Covenant’s currency is Spiritual.

Demanding the best does not translate to your determinant judgment!

He literally gives a list of attributes people could have that would make them lesser in his eyes, and not worthy to serve him as a priest.

…again, your judgment. A reasonable person would require that the rejection of these people would also limit the benefits that they would share in order to jump to such judgment as you have.

So they have the same rights, except for the one right I mentioned repeatedly, the one that God spends several sentences telling Aaron how the proximity of these non-physically perfect people would profane him. I used the word disgust earlier, but profane is far, far harsher.

But even if their rights were the same, just the way that God in great detail finds blind people and eunuchs and damaged hands (and assumedly lazy eyes, limps, knife scars, among others) is in and of itself a poor showing for God.

…again, your problem is acceptance of rules and regulations… you want to be the champion of those poor people who God refused to allow to be Altar servers… you want to champion for equality. There’s no equality in Spiritual perfection. You are either pure or impure; sound or unsound. The mirroring of this in the physical aspect is only an extension of what is required of man’s perfection, both in the Old Covenant and in the New Covenant!

That’s not really what we’re talking about. It’s all about the worth of a human versus another. If being full of the spirit means degrading the worth of those with physical blemishes or ailments that may I always be “spiritually bankrupt”.

…do you even qualify what you are saying (how you express your thoughts)?

You are saying that you reject God on the grounds that people who have been dead for thousands of years were not allow to serve at the Altar because they did not meet the qualifying perquisites.

…then, you reject the New Covenant on the grounds that Spiritual Perfection is required… so you rather side with unrighteousness for the sake of those who do not meet/qualify the requirements of Salvation.

…you malign God for the sake of a human fervor and for the sake of unrighteousness–all the while ignoring that all Life is precious to God and that God has the Right to require “Perfection.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If this was only symbolic does this mean that a person with a birthmark on his face would be allowed to be a priest, to enter his place of worship?

If this is symbolic, doesn’t this still show that God finds people with physical ailments to be of lesser worth than those without.

As jcrichton says, God makes the rules. He is at fault if the rules give certain people lesser value than others.

Hi, Mike!

…only humans have such narrow views and discriminative practices (one person better than another):

34 Then Peter addressed them: ‘The truth I have now come to realise’ he said ‘is that God does not have favourites, 35 but that anybody of any nationality who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him.

(Acts 10:34-35)
…all Life belongs to God!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ZenFred]

Hi, Mike!

…only humans have such narrow views and discriminative practices (one person better than another):

…all Life belongs to God!

Maran atha!

Angel

I agree with you. But what of Leviticus 21 where God forbids those with visible deformities to enter the temple? How are we to make of that? Obviously all people are inherently valuable and all are children of God. Is this just cultural views (not Godly) of purity?

-Fred

 

[jcrichton]

I agree with you. But what of Leviticus 21 where God forbids those with visible deformities to enter the temple? How are we to make of that? Obviously all people are inherently valuable and all are children of God. Is this just cultural views (not Godly) of purity?

-Fred

Hi, Fred!

…as I attempted to explain on my previous posts… the Old Covenant’s currency was temporal values… everything was geared to that which man could touch and feel; at one point in Israel’s trek Yahweh God Commanded his prophet to marry a prostitute so that He could point out Israel’s disobedience, adultery, and depravity as it embraced the practices of the nations around her… it was Yahweh means to bring home Israel’s disgrace.

…Worship Service required purity, since the Old Covenant currency was that of temporal values Yahweh God used the visual of impurity (deformities, imperfections, maladies) as a means to demonstrate what could not be afforded/allowed…

…the New Covenant’s currency is Spiritual… the same perquisites apply; the difference is that it is now required that man must be pure/holy… can man make himself holy?

It is through Jesus Christ, and only through Jesus Christ, that man can become holy… so the impurities, deformities, imperfections, maladies… still remain as not allowed:

27 Nothing unclean may come into it: no one who does what is loathsome or false, but only those who are listed in the Lamb’s book of life.

(Apocalypse [Revelation] 21:27)
Your problem is that you think as man; you judge God according to man’s judgments… you want God to be “politically correct.”

It is not about man’s sensibilities!

It is about God’s sensibilities!

The same God that requires “perfection” in His Worship, is the same God that gives all of humanity its validation:

23 These were my orders: Listen to my voice, then I will be your God and you shall be my people. Follow right to the end the way that I mark out for you, and you will prosper.

(Jeremiah 7:23)

4 See now: all life belongs to me; the father’s life and the son’s life, both alike belong to me. The man who has sinned, he is the one who shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

34 Then Peter addressed them: ‘The truth I have now come to realise’ he said ‘is that God does not have favourites, 35 but that anybody of any nationality who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts 10:34-35)
…the problem some have is that they want to fit God into their own created morals, which are as fluid as water and as malleable as man’s machinations, and lie under their control and whims.

…this, of course, is nothing new:

20 But what right have you, a human being, to cross-examine God? The pot has no right to say to the potter: Why did you make me this shape? 21 Surely a potter can do what he likes with the clay? It is surely for him to decide whether he will use a particular lump of clay to make a special pot or an ordinary one?

(Romans 9:20-21)
…so if it is Yahweh God’s Will that only “perfection” comes into His Presence, why do we (mankind) object to His Will?

Maran atha!

Angel