Why does the god of the Bible consider handicapped people...

No need; it's already been done. You're just not informed - about the bible.

On what basis, by the way, given that the bible is supposed to be divine revelation, do christians get to pick and choose which bits they decide are to be taken as a moral standard and which aren't?

"It is like have a battle of wits with an anarmed man."

Seems you christians and your god treat the handicapped very poorly. LOL

dlowan,

Well, it's a bit hard to take C.I.'s instances seriously when he states that because of hemorroids something or someone was wiped out.

What do you mean God's behavior in light of his own commandments?

Well, C.I., if you are so much more knowledgable than some of us Christians, why won't you share what you know? What omissions are you talking about?

We continually ask you questions and we get what? Someone with hemorroids took the ark? How do you expect to be taken seriously if you won't even back up what you state?

dlowan,

I thought I had answered your question about the Bible and moral standards.

Do we get to pick and choose? I told you nope, the Bible lays the standards out for man.

Can you reword that last paragraph? I am not sure what you are asking and don't want to misunderstand.

Well, as far as the boils and such, did you happen to read why these things happened? The ones that got the tumors C.I. was referring to had stolen the Ark of the Covenant. Do you know what the Ark of the Covenant was? I am not saying you don't know, I am just asking. Everytime it is pointed out that God has punished someone for something it is usually left out why. At least C.I., did say they took the ark; however, C.I., didn't make it clear he even knew what that was.

How can we then reconcile God's apparent anger and harshness in the Old Testament and Jesus' Gentleness in the New Testament?

I think an answer might be in the types of people that He was dealing with at the time. During ancient times in the Old Testament, about the only thing that got people's attention was raw power. The most powerful warrior would conquer territories and become King. When a more powerful person came along, that King was killed and the new person became King. Authority was almost synonymous with power.

Given such a prevailing attitude, it makes sense that God didn't actually change. He simply presented a different view of Himself. He presented a spectacular Creation in Genesis, and He regularly "smote" whole armies in an instant to permit victory for His favored Tribes.

Consider a human father who finds the need to reprimand a young child. He might easily attempt to seem extremely harsh and powerful, in order to get necessary lessons across.

By the time that Jesus Walked on Earth, men's attitudes had advanced (a little). Jesus consistently demonstrated and taught Love and Generosity and Gentleness. We then had first-hand experience of the wonderful Lovingkindness of God. That Lovingkindness had always been there, even in the apparently harsh Old Testament God. But, during Old Testament times, such Gentleness would have been perceived as weakness, and God knew that. Therefore, even though He Loved His followers very much, it was not appropriate for Him to show it.

Jesus showed us that it was possible to display Lovingkindness without affecting the sense of incredible power that everyone knew that He had. Even during His trial and Crucifixion, most people seemed to believe that He could have instantly swept all that away, but that He knew that He had to suffer through those experiences in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy.

Therefore, there is actually no distinction or difference between the attitude or the personality of the Old Testament God and the New Testament Jesus. Our One god just displayed different aspects of His personality as necessary for the people He was interacting with.

I was flipping through a Bible & came to Leviticus 11, with its variety of swimming, walking, crawling & flapping abominations. 'Twas an interesting reread.

Some highlights:

We aren't actually supposed to be eating ostriches. I was a bit surprised by that, as I didn't think ostriches were too bountiful in Hebrew lands in those days, so much so that there were ostrich-avoidance rules in place.

God is really peeved at "unclean" animals, & takes his time calling them names like abomination & defiler.

Apparently no one noticed that 4-footed insects are mighty scarce, & that laws banning their consumption are a bit superfluous. Also, there is a distinction made between jumping bugs & non-jumping bugs. Some of the former are yummy, while the latter are abominations without exception (so if mom tries to sneak one into your dinner, pick it out, feed it to the dog & then stone her to death).

Special mention is made that you aught not to "boil young goats in their mother's milk" (Deut 17:21).

And let us never forget that God hates figs.

This stuff makes me wonder why Christians go after homosexuality more than other things banned in the Scriptures.

It also makes me quite hungry ...Mmmm, shrimp! Gotta go...

Note: I'd bet God is a shrimp lover too. Think about it, he fools us into thinking they're nasty so we don't eat them & they can flourish in the ocean ...Thousands of years of Christianity & Judaism might boil down to nothing more than an elaborate shrimp-saving conspiracy.