What manner of human is this that discriminate against the weak, infirm and destitute of society? Ohhhh, it is the Lord god of host, also called Jesus Christ. Turn to Leviticus 16:


Leviticus 16:

10 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes;
11Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;
12Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.
13And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
15Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the LORD do sanctify him.
16And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17Speak 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.
18For 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,
19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21No 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.
22He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.
24And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

whats the discrimination?

noetic:

whats the discrimination?

is this a joke or a question?

mazaje:

is this a joke or a question?

is a 30 year old nigerian qualified to be president?

is a 25 year old nigerian qualified to be govenor?

does this disqualification amount to discrimination?

noetic:

is a 30 year old nigerian qualified to be president?

is a 25 year old nigerian qualified to be govenor?

does this disqualification amount to discrimination?

what is this nonsense you are saying? is this one of your act of equating disobedient children to treason? any disqualification that is purely based on physical appearance is discrimination. . .

huxley:




17Speak 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.
18For 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,
19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21No 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

the people were disqualified purely because of their appearance,(dwarf,blemish in the eye, broken hand etc) that action is what we call discrimination. . . by the way the  character given to the yahweh in the old testament by the "inspired writers" is so contradictory and repulsive that no amount of reasoning will harmonize it with modern ideas of justice, purity, and morality.

Huxley.

Yet again you come across as the rabid, fanatical type who goes on the attack merely for the sake of it.

The title of your thread is not only misleading but to tell the truth, it makes you look pretty despicable. It seems like just a desperate, badly thought out attack on some of the Christian posters here.

You are well aware that the passage refers to the Jewish OT god and was written for the Jewish people in the context of those times and you would also be well aware that Jesus was the antithesis to that god in word and deed according to the NT.


I don't feel the need to defend Christianity but I do feel that it is only right to point out that you should try to be more truthful in future, if only for your own sake.

Bastage:

Huxley.

Yet again you come across as the rabid, fanatical type who goes on the attack merely for the sake of it.

The title of your thread is not only misleading but to tell the truth, it makes you look pretty despicable. It seems like just a desperate, badly thought out attack on some of the Christian posters here.

You are well aware that the passage refers to the Jewish OT god and was written for the Jewish people in the context of those times and you would also be well aware[b] that Jesus was the antithesis to that god in word and deed according to the NT.[/b]


I don't feel the need to defend Christianity but I do feel that it is only right to point out that you should try to be more truthful in future, if only for your own sake.

christians believe that jesus is the same god of the old testament. . .so how is huxley wrong?

I'm a Christian and I don't.

Bastage:

Huxley.

Yet again you come across as the rabid, fanatical type who goes on the attack merely for the sake of it.

The title of your thread is not only misleading but to tell the truth, it makes you look pretty despicable. It seems like just a desperate, badly thought out attack on some of the Christian posters here.

You are well aware that the passage refers to the Jewish OT god and was written for the Jewish people in the context of those times and you would also be well aware that Jesus was the antithesis to that god in word and deed according to the NT.


I don't feel the need to defend Christianity but I do feel that it is only right to point out that you should try to be more truthful in future, if only for your own sake.

Now, tell me.  What does Christian aver about the nature and identity of their God?  Does Christianity not claim that Jesus is God and identifies him with the God of the OT?  Or am I mistaken?

As an apologists for Christianity, can you tell me the nature of the Christian god and whether this god is identically equal to Jesus?

Bastage:

I'm a Christian and I don't.

bastage!!!! you christian? . . . .you answer says that you are not a christian what kind of christian does not believe in the god of the old testament?

Bastage:

I'm a Christian and I don't.

Well, if you are, then I am surprise. Christianity has a very long history of displaying all manner of doctrines and also various types of conflicting Christologies. If you are a Christian, can you inform us what is you Christology and how you come to know this?

FYI, this is how a well known Christian website defines Jesus:

Is Jesus Christ a man, or is he God?

Jesus Christ is most definitely God. He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his image. He is the Creator of the universe. The Bible says, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). This includes all the stars, all the original animals and plants, and even the angels (Colossians 1:15-17).

It is important not be confused. God did not create Jesus. Jesus is God, and he has always existed.

Jesus proved that he is God by doing many things that only God could do. These are called miracles. He made dead people alive. He walked across a great lake. He made blind eyes see perfectly again. He healed deadly diseases with a word.

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html

@ bastage

. . . .

Huxley.

Understanding is not just about being able to quote Bible passages. One has to study the history, sociology and the politics of the time.
When I debate you on the Bible, I don't do so on the pretext of defending Christianity - I do so on the basis of the literature itself and the context it was written in. One has to take into account the evolution of the god in that book.

If I were to give you the purely Christian argument, I could say that Christ bought the New Covenant and that he brought a totally new approach to god's relationship with man, thereby negating the passages in your opening post. That's a very difficult answer to argue with as it is borne out by the NT.
But to me, that is a cop out and running away from the history, sociology and historical aspects.

When we look at the Bible, we have to look at it as a book of it's time. A book written by many people over a long period and where the god evolves in it's pages. To begin with, we have a universal god who creates, this then evolves to the wrathful war god of the Jews and finally, into the loving God of the NT.
Is it all the same god? The answer is yes and no. To a degree it is the same god (omnipotent and eternal) but he has also been changed so much by the writers of the Bible as to become indistinguishable. The trick is to look behind the politics, sociology and history.
Go to the vast mojority of churches and you will see god preached in this way - the authorities quite often look behind the atrocities and look for the goodness of the god of the OT. The god has evolved yet again only this time not in the literature but in the preaching.

Does Christianity not claim that Jesus is God and identifies him with the God of the OT?  Or am I mistaken?

Some do. Some don't. In fact there was a very strong movement that totally discarded the OT and regarded the god as evil in the early days of Christianity. These days, the movement is coming back in a more casual and informal way -  a lot of Christians don't tend to dwell on the OT god and see the only link to the NT god being omnipotence. It only tends to be the fundamentalists who rabidly cling onto every aspect of the OT god.

My personal belief is that the OT is a book that is not relevant to Christianity in any way other than as a historical marker. It has done it's job.
It was used to sell the new religion to it's new converts and those converts needed something familiar to help them change from one belief system to another. I see it as a stepping stone that was used to give early Christianity authority. But I also believe that the river has been crossed and that the stepping stone is not needed any more.

You call me an apologist for Christianity. That simply isn't true. I have no need to apologise, and truthfully, if you were to write that my God is all the bastards under the Sun, I wouldn't mind. I am comfortable with my beliefs and don't feel the need to defend them. The reason I pick you up on these points, as I've already stated, is to defend the literature alone - not the god it's pages contain.

Is Jesus Christ a man, or is he God?

Who cares? Seriously.

I don't care if Christ walked this Earth or not as a man or god. I don't care about physical miracles, physical virgin births or physical resurrections.

What matters is the idea.

Bastage:

Huxley.

Understanding is not just about being able to quote Bible passages. One has to study the history, sociology and the politics of the time.
When I debate you on the Bible, I don't do so on the pretext of defending Christianity - I do so on the basis of the literature itself and the context it was written in. One has to take into account the evolution of the god in that book.

If I were to give you the purely Christian argument, I could say that Christ bought the New Covenant and that he brought a totally new approach to god's relationship with man, thereby negating the passages in your opening post. That's a very difficult answer to argue with as it is borne out by the NT.
But to me, that is a cop out and running away from the history, sociology and historical aspects.

When we look at the Bible, we have to look at it as a book of it's time. A book written by many people over a long period and where the god evolves in it's pages. To begin with, we have a universal god who creates, this then evolves to the wrathful war god of the Jews and finally, into the loving God of the NT.
Is it all the same god? The answer is yes and no. To a degree it is the same god (omnipotent and eternal) but he has also been changed so much by the writers of the Bible as to become indistinguishable. The trick is to look behind the politics, sociology and history.
Go to the vast mojority of churches and you will see god preached in this way - the authorities quite often look behind the atrocities and look for the goodness of the god of the OT. The god has evolved yet again only this time not in the literature but in the preaching.

Some do. Some don't. In fact there was a very strong movement that totally discarded the OT and regarded the god as evil in the early days of Christianity. These days, the movement is coming back in a more casual and informal way -  a lot of Christians don't tend to dwell on the OT god and see the only link to the NT god being omnipotence. It only tends to be the fundamentalists who rabidly cling onto every aspect of the OT god.

My personal belief is that the OT is a book that is not relevant to Christianity in any way other than as a historical marker. It has done it's job.
It was used to sell the new religion to it's new converts and those converts needed something familiar to help them change from one belief system to another. I see it as a stepping stone that was used to give early Christianity authority. But I also believe that the river has been crossed and that the stepping stone is not needed any more.

You call me an apologist for Christianity. That simply isn't true. I have no need to apologise, and truthfully, if you were to write that my God is all the bastards under the Sun, I wouldn't mind. I am comfortable with my beliefs and don't feel the need to defend them. [size=18pt]The reason I pick you up on these points, as I've already stated, is to defend the literature alone - not the god it's pages contain.[/size]

Ignoring the myriads of other problems with this comment for now, you seem to fail miserably with what you claim to care about - the literature.

1) The biblical literature conveys that direct continuity between the OT and NT gods.

2) Jesus himself associates strongly with the OT gods and commandments. See Matt 5: 17-22


What grand truth about the nature of reality does the bible (both OT and NT) reveal? There was a time when the bible was used as the oracle for questions about reality and at such times no one objected that it was being used incorrectly. The bible was used to explain the origins of everything (universe, humans, matter, etc, etc) with god being the mastermind behind this.

Now, should we continue to hold the literal biblical narratives of the nature of reality? If not, why not? These are things pertinent to the matter you claim to care about - the literature. Basically, how should we read the literature and how would you justify objectively your approach?

huxley:

Ignoring the myriads of other problems with this comment for now, you seem to fail miserably with what you claim to care about - the literature.

I find that a little insulting. Never once have I tried to shove Christianity down your throat or tried to defend the undefendable.

1) The biblical literature conveys that direct continuity between the OT and NT gods.

Really? A couple of very dodgy prophesies? I think that if there really was a direct continuity, we'd see a helluva lot more than just a couple of sentences in the OT, don't you? Or are you going to run away from logic?

2) Jesus himself associates strongly with the OT gods and commandments. See Matt 5: 17-22

Jesus was a Jew. Did you expect him to never refer back? The fact remains though, that he broke plenty of Jewish laws. Enough to distinguish himself as a thinker outside of the box.

What grand truth about the nature of reality does the bible (both OT and NT) reveal?

To me, the "grand truth" as you call it is only relevant to myself. I have no wish to preach it to you.

There was a time when the bible was used as the oracle for questions about reality and at such times no one objected that it was being used incorrectly. The bible was used to explain the origins of everything (universe, humans, matter, etc, etc) with god being the mastermind behind this.

So? It was the science of it's day.

Now, should we continue to hold the literal biblical narratives of the nature of reality? If not, why not?

It's all down to your own personal belief, Huxley. There is no "we" in this matter - only "I" when discussing this aspect of reality. That's part of the grand truth.

These are things pertinent to the matter you claim to care about - the literature. Basically, how should we read the literature and how would you justify objectively your approach?

I've already answered. Take into account history, sociology and politics. If you read a newspaper, you don't swallow every story do you? You look at who owns the newspaper, how reliable it's sources are, what other newspapers are reporting on the same subject, etc.

Bastage:

I find that a little insulting. Never once have I tried to shove Christianity down your throat or tried to defend the undefendable.

Why would you find that insulting? All I said was that there were many problems with your post, which I did not address for reasons of time. But I chose to address your claim that you care about the literature. Why would that be insulting? Nor have I accused you of attempting to shove Christianity down my throat.

You may not want to shove your despicably belief down my throat, that does not mean that others are not. We have Christians muscling into the public arena and trying to set the agenda of socio-political life along Christian lines. Remember the nightmare of the Bush administration in the US and their interfference with scientific research? Remember the Catholic interference in the contraception and AIDS prevention debate? Are these not people of your superstitious ilk trying to set the global agenda. What epistemic basis have they got for trying to put their dirty hands into public affairs?

Bastage:

Really? A couple of very dodgy prophesies? I think that if there really was a direct continuity, we'd see a helluva lot more than just a couple of sentences in the OT, don't you? Or are you going to run away from logic?

Are you really serious? I don't believe you have said this. Am I thought you were really knowledgeable about Christianity! You are just as ignorant as the vast majority of the faith-heads. Check this out:


We could cite many reasons for the Old Testament being God's Word, but the strongest argument comes from the Lord Jesus Himself. As God in human flesh, Jesus speaks with final authority. And His testimony regarding the Old Testament is loud and clear.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).
Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.

The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

It almost seems as though Jesus was anticipating 20th century biblical criticism when He authenticated these accounts. The con-clusion is simple. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.
Source: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm

Bastage:

Jesus was a Jew. Did you expect him to never refer back? The fact remains though, that he broke plenty of Jewish laws. Enough to distinguish himself as a thinker outside of the box.

You serious again? As far as I know, the gospel records only a couple ( I stand to be correct if you know better) of instances of Jesus breaking the Law, the Sabbath law. Even in this instance, it was a matter of needs-must, rather than a deliberate breaking of the law. Basically, although he broke this law because of circumstance he endorsed the spirit of the law.

The second instance was when he advovated liniency towards the woman caught in adultery (if we ignore that fact that this narrative is considered a fraud by most scholars)

Bastage:

To me, the "grand truth" as you call it is only relevant to myself. I have no wish to preach it to you.


So? It was the science of it's day.

It's all down to your own personal belief, Huxley. There is no "we" in this matter - only "I" when discussing this aspect of reality. That's part of the grand truth.


I've already answered. Take into account history, sociology and politics. If you read a newspaper, you don't swallow every story do you? You look at who owns the newspaper, how reliable it's sources are, what other newspapers are reporting on the same subject, etc.

This sentiment is nothing new. Christianity, to the sophisticated Christian elite, has been reduced to merely a matter of a "me"-religion - something to give them solace, a cultural and social identity. Nearly all so-called "sophisticated Christians repudiate nearly all the core tenets of Christianity - virgin birth, miracles, transsubstantiation, trinity, etc, etc. Some even go as far as deny the resurrection, and still call themselves Christians - see Bishop Spong, and Tom Hapur.

bastage is a christian just as bishop Spong is. . .

No.
I don't deny the deity of the idea of Christ.

But who is to say if Spong is a Christian or not?

@huxley
I must say I admire your study of God's word(the Holy Bible).I've seen people 'christians' who don't care to study the Word.keep up the good work,you know what,light will shine soon.You know some are so closed and downgrading but you even read Bible dictionaries,daily devotionals,magazines,christian websites,man thats challenging to many.As to your question about discrimination,though you mixed up the passage as it is not Leviticus16,you'll be sincere to acknowledge that all living things have standards.Like they say,'one man's food is another's poison',we all have tastes.The temperature,salinity,water resource etc that one living thing might enjoy might be disturbing to another living thing.What someone else might revel in,might be nauseating to you.You might feel convenient working with 'disabled' people but God wants the best people to do some specific things in His temple/house.And you can't really blame Him,Psalm 135v6 says Whatsoever the Lord pleased,that DID HE in heaven,and IN EARTH and 24v1 says the earth is the Lord's,and the fullness thereof.You need to create your own world if you can where things will be just in your own eyes,but in this universe,the Lord's will shall stand.And if He wants the best to serve Him,then so be it.
When you open up your own company and you're employing people,you can decide not to 'discriminate'.Allow all,illiterates,educated,disabled,fit,diseased,mad,wise et al to come and serve you even to the top level.They'll show you how just and impartial you are

Image123:

@huxley
I must say I admire your study of God's word(the Holy Bible).I've seen people 'christians' who don't care to study the Word.keep up the good work,you know what,light will shine soon.You know some are so closed and downgrading but you even read Bible dictionaries,daily devotionals,magazines,christian websites,man thats challenging to many.As to your question about discrimination,though you mixed up the passage as it is not Leviticus16,you'll be sincere to acknowledge that all living things have standards.Like they say,'one man's food is another's poison',we all have tastes.The temperature,salinity,water resource etc that one living thing might enjoy might be disturbing to another living thing.What someone else might revel in,might be nauseating to you.You might feel convenient working with 'disabled' people but God wants the best people to do some specific things in His temple/house.And you can't really blame Him,Psalm 135v6 says Whatsoever the Lord pleased,that DID HE in heaven,and IN EARTH and 24v1 says the earth is the Lord's,and the fullness thereof.You need to create your own world if you can where things will be just in your own eyes,but in this universe,the Lord's will shall stand.And if He wants the best to serve Him,then so be it.
When you open up your own company and you're employing people,you can decide not to 'discriminate'.Allow all,illiterates,educated,disabled,fit,diseased,mad,wise et al to come and serve you even to the top level.They'll show you how just and impartial you are

Is this the basis on which you discriminate at your church? If not, can you tell me the basis on which your church discriminates?

@huxley
You're the one who feels that it is discrimination na.the place you quoted says God doesn't want people with blemish/abnormal people from Aaron's family to come to God's house (the altar or within the veil) to offer offerings.You're the one who has a problem with that,God doesn't and I don't.I believe its just logic that you choose who you want to come into and serve you in your house.When you call that discrimination,then its either you're desperate or something else.

@huxley
You're the one who feels that it is discrimination na.the place you quoted says God doesn't want people with blemish/abnormal people from Aaron's family to come to God's house (the altar or within the veil) to offer offerings.You're the one who has a problem with that,God doesn't and I don't.I believe its just logic that you choose who you want to come into and serve you in your house.When you call that discrimination,then its either you're desperate or something else.There are qualifications to be met for leadership, mr

Image123:

@huxley
You're the one who feels that it is discrimination na.the place you quoted says God doesn't want people with blemish/abnormal people from Aaron's family to come to God's house (the altar or within the veil) to offer offerings.You're the one who has a problem with that,God doesn't and I don't.I believe its just logic that you choose who you want to come into and serve you in your house.When you call that discrimination,then its either you're desperate or something else.There are qualifications to be met for leadership, mr

when people discriminate it is wrong but when god does it it is right eh? and the same god is the source of human morality?