Why are some people too ugly for god?

[Darkstar]

The 'blemishes' mentioned were deblitating physical deformities. God estsablished That only the "Set Apart" was worthy to be used in the service of God. The need to be Set apart is the reason 'we' need a full understanding of the many ways we can be considered 'blemished.'

The Israelites wer incapable of understanding morality without a reference to physical deformity.

If one looks down the Path God sets before them, then 'Clear reasons' abound. If one looks down the path he set for himself to live apart from God then the 'clear reasons' God offers is taken away, allowing one to build on his own version of righteousness.

So basically, it is exactly what I said. If you take god's word for it, then you can delude yourself into thinking it makes sense.

Please remind me of when go established that he was trustworthy. Was it when he punished Adam and Eve for a 'crime' that he made it impossible for them not to commit, or when he drowned almost every living thing on earth?

This is were it get deeper. If yu want to go into detail start another thread.

I will do that.
EDIT: Thread created.

and that it is not reqiured to have any bearing on actual morality.

Finally one of you is getting it!

Hmmm, mabe because we aren't god we have fallen short of his 'glory'? Or maybe because he made us defective...

Actually read Genesis again we were created perfectly, we chose to be 'defective.'[/quote]
God didn't give us any morals. How is that not a defect?

Why would an all-powerful god need to create a human/god son and have him killed off in order to let people into heaven when he could just do so by snapping his fingers (or just thinking it, even)?

Before i continue and so we are clear did I dodge the OP? ford model question or not?

It seems that you have given some sort of answer for pretty much all of the question. You failed to answer the main point (about why the fire mistake was so grave) previously, but have added an (albiet unsatisfactory) answer here. It basically comes down to "is god perfectly moral or not"? (hint: It starts with an 'n'. Explicit hint: No)

[Undeceived]

Leviticus 21:17-20

21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

1) Do any churches of today practice this commandment from god? Why not?
2) How could jesus and this god be the same one in the light of this scripture?
3) If god "made" the ugly, and handicapped, A.K.A. "Blemished," why would he shun them from his alter? Why did god draw the line at grotesque and handicapped? Why didn't he say that the priest must be a "Ford Model" with perfect skin and the most perfect "Winsome" face? With no dirt under his nails and no stinky arm pits?

To clarify to people passing through: this is a requirement for priests, not the common people. Leviticus 21:22-23: "He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy." This law is an extension of the defectless sacrifice (a "lamb without blemish"). The priests were to typify Christ's perfection and be an image that teaches people. The common people were not shunned by God--God Himself says "He may eat the most holy food" and "I... make them holy." Do any of you understand what it means to approach the altar? If you do not, don't judge God. Only a very small part of Israel were priests. Like an exemplary, symbolic form of pastor, their job was to represent Jesus and serve the living God.

[Ben Davis]

To clarify to people passing through: this is a requirement for priests, not the common people.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Often, people take the lead from examples that are set for them; if there are expectations set for priests (e.g. blemishlessness), those expectations filter down into the main population. Any god capable of creating human behaviour would not only understand that this would create discrimination but would have either deliberately designed this scenario in order to create discrimination or simply been indifferent to the discrimination it might cause.
Yet another example of the immorality of the abrahamic god.

[Drich]

The Israelites wer incapable of understanding morality without a reference to physical deformity.

Not Morality, Sin. We have discussed the differences before, and you yourself are having trouble understanding the concept. Now try and imagine someone who has never even heard of this concept before, what could he possiable compare it to?

So basically, it is exactly what I said. If you take god's word for it, then you can delude yourself into thinking it makes sense.

God is the standard in which everything is judged. So yes.

God didn't give us any morals. How is that not a defect?

Because their was only one way to sin back then, all we had to understand was not to fall into that sin. (again Morality has little to do with identifying sin)

It seems that you have given some sort of answer for pretty much all of the question.

I answer an illustration with a simliar illustration. leaving the topic open for questions. The OP did not have any so I can only assume 'he' got it.

You failed to answer the main point (about why the fire mistake was so grave) previously, but have added an (albiet unsatisfactory) answer here. It basically comes down to "is god perfectly moral or not"? (hint: It starts with an 'n'. Explicit hint: No)

It seems you are confusing threads.

[Darkstar]

The Israelites wer incapable of understanding morality without a reference to physical deformity.

Not Morality, Sin. We have discussed the differences before, and you yourself are having trouble understanding the concept.

My bad.

Now try and imagine someone who has never even heard of this concept before, what could he possiable compare it to?

His conscience? Or do only religious people have those?

God is the standard in which everything is judged. So yes.

Why is he the standard? Because he is powerful enough to impose his will on us?

God didn't give us any morals. How is that not a defect?

Because their was only one way to sin back then, all we had to understand was not to fall into that sin. (again Morality has little to do with identifying sin)

(bolding added)
So you do or do not admit that Adam and Eve were capable of understanding that eating the fruit was objectively wrong? (Assuming that it even was)

You failed to answer the main point (about why the fire mistake was so grave) previously, but have added an (albiet unsatisfactory) answer here. It basically comes down to "is god perfectly moral or not"? (hint: It starts with an 'n'. Explicit hint: No)

It seems you are confusing threads.

Yes, it does...maybe we should take this elsewhere.

[Kirbmarc]

Not Morality, Sin. We have discussed the differences before, and you yourself are having trouble understanding the concept.

The concept of Sin is only "what my god doesn't like". Not hard to understand. So basically what you are saying is that your god shows contempt for the physically impaired because he wants to show that he doesn't like them. It's not a groundbreaking conclusion.

[Drich]

His conscience? Or do only religious people have those?

Remember the time frame we are talking. What they had as a conscience may not be considered to be a conscience by anyone alive now. Conscience like morality is subjective to the soceital standards that influence it. How else do you think it possiable that so many jews found themselves Gassed or in camps?

Why is he the standard? Because he is powerful enough to impose his will on us?

Yes! That and His creation His rules. No other reason.

So you do or do not admit that Adam and Eve were capable of understanding that eating the fruit was objectively wrong? (Assuming that it even was)

Again it boils down to doing A when God says to do A and not doing B. They knew sin = death. This was enough for them to understand Not to do B.

---

Not Morality, Sin. We have discussed the differences before, and you yourself are having trouble understanding the concept.

The concept of Sin is only "what my god doesn't like". Not hard to understand. So basically what you are saying is that your god shows contempt for the physically impaired because he wants to show that he doesn't like them. It's not a groundbreaking conclusion.

No God is using the physical deformities, and physcial limitations all of those 'blemishes' that everyone can see, and builds an understanding as to how 'sin' deforms us spiritually.

[Kirbmarc]

Yes! That and His creation His rules. No other reason.

So I guess that parents can do whatever they want to their children. They're their creation, their rules.

No God is using the physical deformities, and physcial limitations all of those 'blemishes' that everyone can see, and builds an understanding as to how 'sin' deforms us spiritually.

By isn't sin just what your god doesn't want? So why does he to show what it is? Unless he's threatening us. God: "Do what I say to you, or you'll become ugly and physically impaired like those disgusting creeps"

[Drich]

So I guess that parents can do whatever they want to their children. They're their creation, their rules.

Perhaps you misunderstand the term as it is used in the bible. To create is to make something out of nothing. to re-create or reproduce (what parents do) is to take what has been already created and make a version of what has already been created.

So, in short to answer your question: No. Parents do not have free reign because by the standard of God they have not created anything, but just reproduced a version of what has been already created by God. 'We' are simply care takers of our children. Nothing more.

By isn't sin just what your god doesn't want?

God has prepared or made plans to process and attone for sin. Sin is Choice so to say God never wanted sin is not true. Sin allows us to Chose whether or not we want to be with God, but it also disqualifies us for deserving to be with God. That is why Jesus Died for our sin.

So why does he to show what it is?

So we can understand why we need to seek attonement.

Unless he's threatening us. God: "Do what I say to you, or you'll become ugly and physically impaired like those disgusting creeps"

No, God is saying because of your sin you are "ugly and disgusting like those creeps, Now here is a way for you to Heal yourself."

[Brakeman]

To clarify to people passing through: this is a requirement for priests, not the common people. Leviticus 21:22-23: "He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy."

It doesn't help the argument that it was only priests, that only divides the people further. The point of the issue is that your god sees a level of "defect" in the shallowness of an outward physical appearance that one would expect of a teenage valley girl. The "flat nose" prohibition seems to be aimed at the blacks. Was the author wearing a pointy white rode at the time? Today's christians believe in a god that is fair and inwardly seeking, yet they are wrong, the god of the bible is a shallow asshat that cares not what the heart of a slightly imperfect priest wanna-be contains.

---

The Israelites were incapable of understanding morality without a reference to physical deformity.

Not Morality, Sin. {twittiness by DRICH removed}

He knows perfectly well the the words "morality" and "sin," are not synonyms, it is you that has the problem with the logic. Perhaps you've banged your head too many times? The "morality" is that it's wrong to sin in a particular way. Now try to follow the conversations by answering the obvious intended question and not prattle on about semantics in order to derail and dodge.

God didn't give us any morals. How is that not a defect?

Because their was only one way to sin back then, all we had to understand was not to fall into that sin. (again Morality has little to do with identifying sin)

From Google:
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/
Noun:
1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Sounds like the rest of the inhabitants of planet earth disagree with you that morality has little to do with sin, provided one classifies "wrong" with "sin."
The moral question is whether it was wrong or not to commit a particular sin. Without the "morals" of right and wrong, adam and eve would not have known that it was wrong to disobey god. Having even that one moral destroys the story because all other morals are branches from that one according to the bible.

It seems that you have given some sort of answer for pretty much all of the question.

No, He has provided dodges and non-answers for pretty much all of the questions. That is all.

The question about the "ford" models was requesting that you describe the reasoning behind the "perfection line" that god drew to deem one of his creations as "blemished", and another as "perfect" when we know that everyone's body is imperfect and different. Is there a such thing as "Imperfect fingerprints" Why didn't god get into the imperfect DNA sequences? We know today, that short of photoshop, no one is physically perfect and that "perfection is in the eye of the beholder. We further know that this "beholder" is an asshat if he judges people by outward appearances.

If god was an onmipresent then as christians claim he is now, then the alter was no more "god's presence" than my toilet seat. God would see man in all of his imperfect blemishes every day, priest or not. Again, give us a good reason why god would care if his priest before the alter had a flat nose or not.