# Why do you suppose the god of the Bible shows disdain for people with physical defects? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253 "2010-02-24T14:21:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/21 "2010-02-24T16:28:33Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > An anthropological answer is that the ancient sacrificial cult described (mostly) in Leviticus were concerned above all with ritual purity, a concept still important in Judaism today (though it lacks the sacrificial cult), but one that is difficult for those from backgrounds lacking in such rituals to understand the point of. > > Ritual purity has nothing whatsoever to do with _morality_, necessarily. The notion is that anything approaching the sacred or “taboo” area of sacrifice must be _perfect_ in form; it is not an ethical or moral commentary on those who are not perfectly formed. This is technically correct, but in these kinds of societies, it’s virtually, and sometimes literally, a distinction without a difference. People with physical deformities are often presumed to be so because they are being punished by gods or karma. In ancient Judaism, even in Jesus’ times, lepers, or people with other skin conditions (it was believed that a person was "impure’ if his skin was not “whole” and unbroken), or other infirmities such as blindness were ghettoized and regarded not only as impure, but as being punished by God. It was believed that even touching such people made them impure. When Jesus “heals” his first leper, the disciples are shocked not that he healed a leper, but that he _touched_ a leper. Jesus’ “healings,” (which are desribed by a word designating ritualistic and symbolic healings, not literal cures) in the historical/cultural context of the Gospels were significant and transgressive because he was taking it upon himself to “forgive” and thus confer a kind of social “healing” on people who it was thought that only God could forgive or heal. Jesus said the “Son of man” could forgive as well. Depending on how he meant this phrase (and in the vernacular of his culture, it was just a way to refer to human beings in general), he was either saying that human beings themselves had the power to forgive, or if he was using the phrase in a titular manner – as an understood allusion to a verse in Daniel describing the Messiah as “one like a son of man” (i.e. a human being), then he was claiming a special status for himself to forgive and “heal.” In any case, it definitely _was_ thought that certain physical maladies denoted moral inferiority. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/22 "2010-02-24T16:43:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is technically correct, but in these kinds of societies, it’s virtually, and sometimes literally, a distinction without a difference. People with physical deformities are often presumed to be so because they are being punished by gods or karma. > > In ancient Judaism, even in Jesus’ times, lepers, or people with other skin conditions (it was believed that a person was "impure’ if his skin was not “whole” and unbroken), or other infirmities such as blindness were ghettoized and regarded not only as impure, but as being punished by God. It was believed that even touching such people made them impure. When Jesus “heals” his first leper, the disciples are shocked not that he healed a leper, but that he _touched_ a leper. Jesus’ “healings,” (which are desribed by a word designating ritualistic and symbolic healings, not literal cures) in the historical/cultural context of the Gospels were significant and transgressive because he was taking it upon himself to “forgive” and thus confer a kind of social “healing” on people who it was thought that only God could forgive or heal. Jesus said the “Son of man” could forgive as well. depending on how he meant this phrase (and in the vernacular of his culture, it was just a way to refer to human beings in general), he was either saying that human beings themselves had the power to forgive, or if he was using the phrase in a titular manner – as an intentional reference to a verse in Daniel describing the Messiah as “one like a son of man” (i.e. a human being), then he was claiming a special staus for himself to forgive and “heal.” > > In any case, it definitely _was_ thought that certain physical maladies denoted moral inferiority. This may well be true but it is important to understand the difference. We are discussing the evolution of religious traditions over time; modern-day Judaism retains in some portion the notions of ritual derived from these ancient sources, but has long ago discarded the notion that the infirm are cursed (not something I’m totally certain can be found in the texts). I am not certain how much of that notion is mandated by the religion in any event, as opposed to popular social taboo: given the alleged contagious nature of leprosy, touching a leper could be ‘transgressive’ even if leprosy had no moral component. May I ask what your source on the ancient interpretation of the meaning of leprosy is? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/23 "2010-02-24T17:00:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In any case, it definitely _was_ thought that certain physical maladies denoted moral inferiority. Like modern society with obese people. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/24 "2010-02-24T17:22:33Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This may well be true but it is important to understand the difference. > > We are discussing the evolution of religious traditions over time; modern-day Judaism retains in some portion the notions of ritual derived from these ancient sources, but has long ago discarded the notion that the infirm are cursed (not something I’m totally certain can be found in the texts). > > I am not certain how much of that notion is mandated by the religion in any event, as opposed to popular social taboo: given the alleged contagious nature of leprosy, touching a leper could be ‘transgressive’ even if leprosy had no moral component. May I ask what your source on the ancient interpretation of the meaning of leprosy is? I first encountered it in John Crossan’s _The Historical Jesus_ (which has a lot of anthropology in it), but also later heard the same thing from my New Testament prof in college. I guess I can’t cite the latter, but I can probably find the page numbers from Crossan’s books if you want (he reiterated the same thing in _Jesus: A Radical Biography_). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/25 "2010-02-24T17:29:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I first encountered it in John Crossan’s _The Historical Jesus_ (which has a lot of anthropology in it), but also later heard the same thing from my New Testament prof in college. I guess I can’t cite the latter, but I can probably find the page numbers from Crossan’s books if you want (he reiterated the same thing in _Jesus: A Radical Biography_). Sounds interesting; I’ll check it out. I’m generally a bit leery about too much precision in our actual knowledge about ancient societies’ social habits, as evidence tends to be lacking, particularly in relation to ancient Judea. Sadly, aside from Josephus and the like, there really isn’t much not contained within the sacred texts themselves that provides a literary source. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/26 "2010-02-24T17:58:15Z")
Crossan uses a lot of cross-cultural anthropology, and I don’t recall offhand how much of it he applied to the leprosy thing, but I do recall that part of what he was saying was based on the fact that linguistically, the word for “leper” (Gr. _lepros_) was liberally applied to anybody with skin conditions, and was not yet used exclusively to designate the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease – that this would be an anachronistic definition of “leprosy” relative to ancient Israel. It seems to me that he even said the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease was not even particularly prevalent (possibly non-existent?) in that area at the time. I’ll find the books and try to find more details on his reasoning and sources. As I said, though, this was something I also heard independently from Crossan in a college New Testament class. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/27 "2010-02-24T18:08:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Crossan uses a lot of cross-cultural anthropology, and I don’t recall offhand how much of it he applied to the leprosy thing, but I do recall that part of what he was saying was based on the fact that linguistically, the word for “leper” (Gr. _lepros_) was liberally applied to anybody with skin conditions, and was not yet used exclusively to designate the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease – that this would be an anachronistic definition of “leprosy” relative to ancient Israel. Which is why, in the bible, even clothing and buildings can have leprosy. And I don’t know if “uncleanliness”, which includes leprosy, necessarily has a moral component. It can…in the bible, leprosy is sometimes due to a divine curse, but I think that instead of seeing unclean as equal to immoral, it’s better to see unclean as unable to participate in religious ritual. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/28 "2010-02-24T20:32:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What you are reading in Leviticus is a very ancient notion of what “God” is about. Actually, it is a Biblical notion of what GOD is about. And it is not a particularly nice notion. That is why I wonder why so many theists choose that god (or more correctly, that description of a god) to be their god…or their description of a god. > [@](#): > > The Bible is best thought of as a grab-bag of texts preserved from antiquity by chance and subject to redaction. Bits of it were written at different times and not all of it is even religious (the Song of Solomon for example appears more in the nature of love poetry). Okay, for you it is that. For some…it is pathetic, childish mythology. Who knows? All I can do is to guess…and I guess it to be a rather self-serving history of the ancient Hebrews with an almost comical theology interspersed. I suspect the ancient Hebrews created such a barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed god…because they wanted protection from the barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed gods of their enemies. > [@](#): > > The God of Leviticus is a God appropriate for Iron Age priests - fussy, insistant on the minutae of ritual, vengeful. He bears little resemblence to the God referenced in Ecclesiastes, who is a God more appropriate to a world-weary philosopher of (presumably) a much later date. Whatever. But many theists hold out the Bible to be the “word” of their GOD…and I am trying to understand why any intelligent, reasonable theist would want their GOD to be anything like that god. That is the purpose of these posts. Why choose this god? Do you understand where I am coming from on this, Multhas? ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/29 "2010-02-24T20:34:23Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > And the God of the New Testament is even more different. The “god of the New Testament” is the same god as the god of the Old Testament. The god of the New Testament is the god Jesus worshipped, right? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/30 "2010-02-24T20:36:08Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t see bald guys excluded in Leveticus. Does God approve bald guys, or not? My dad used to say, God only made a few perfect heads. The rest, He covered with up hair 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/31 "2010-02-24T20:44:56Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > My dad used to say, God only made a few perfect heads. The rest, He covered with up hair 😃 I’m gonna go out on a limb here, Steve…and guess that you father was bald! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/32 "2010-02-24T20:51:11Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > I’m gonna go out on a limb here, Steve…and guess that you father was bald! > > 🙂 Yup. It didn’t bother him at all, he figured there were more important things to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/33 "2010-02-24T20:52:56Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > The “god of the New Testament” is the same god as the god of the Old Testament. > > The god of the New Testament is the god Jesus worshipped, right? :rolleyes: Well, yes, if we’re going to be strictly literal about it, it would be more precise to say that the covenant between God and humanity set forth in the New Testament is very different from the one set forth in the Old. Most of the rules of Leviticus, for instance, have been superseded. (To be sure, this is Christian theology only). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/34 "2010-02-24T21:14:14Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t see bald guys excluded in Leveticus. Does God approve bald guys, or not? Clearly. > [@](#): > > Leviticus 13:40 (New International Version) > > 40 "When a man has lost his hair and is bald, he is clean. Moreover, mocking the bald is dangerous! Kings 2:23 > [@](#): > > 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/35 "2010-02-24T21:17:34Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > :rolleyes: Well, yes, if we’re going to be strictly literal about it, it would be more precise to say that the covenant between God and humanity set forth in the New Testament is very different from the one set forth in the Old. Most of the rules of Leviticus, for instance, have been superseded. They have??? By whom or what? Where does this come from? > [@](#): > > (To be sure, this is Christian theology only). By whom or what? ---
**Author:** ![Frank\_apisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/47e85d/32.png) [@Frank\_apisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank_apisa)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/36 "2010-02-24T21:19:33Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > :rolleyes: Well, yes, if we’re going to be strictly literal about it, it would be more precise to say that the covenant between God and humanity set forth in the New Testament is very different from the one set forth in the Old. Most of the rules of Leviticus, for instance, have been superseded. > > (To be sure, this is Christian theology only). By the way…I am assuming the “yes” in the first sentence…means you are agreeing that “Yes, the god of the New Testament is the same god as the god of the Old Testament.” If I am wrong on that, please correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/37 "2010-02-24T21:27:17Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > Do you understand where I am coming from on this, Multhas? Oh I understand. I just don’t think it is a particularly convincing attack, even for folks who aren’t believers. Most modern-day believers aren’t biblical literalists who believe the OT is the inerrant word of God. They would be pretty open to the concept that the description of God as obsessed with the rules in Leviticus isn’t correct - even the most orthodox of Jews don’t follow all of the rules in Leviticus today. As for why believers "choose’ it - I doubt in the vast majority of cases that they do. They “choose” the judeo-christian God in the same way that they “choose” their parents. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/38 "2010-02-24T21:40:38Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > All I can do is to guess…and I guess it to be a rather self-serving history of the ancient Hebrews with an almost comical theology interspersed. I suspect the ancient Hebrews created such a barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed god…because they wanted protection from the barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed gods of their enemies. You might be interested in reading some comparative mythology. Most ancient world mythology, or that of primitive folks generally world-wide, is “barbaric” and “comical” etc. by modern standards. Of the lot, that of the ancient Hebrews is relatively enlightened in many ways. Look at the family lives of the Greek pantheon for comparison … ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/39 "2010-02-24T21:48:55Z")
> [@Frank\_apisa](#): > > By the way…I am assuming the “yes” in the first sentence…means you are agreeing that “Yes, the god of the New Testament is the same god as the god of the Old Testament.” > > If I am wrong on that, please correct me. Christians would say so, yes. A big part of Jesus’ message was that he was establishing a new path to salvation, through his sacrifice. It wasn’t immediately clear what this meant for Judaism’s rules set forth in the OT, and later, Paul and Peter had a big disagreement over the future of the church. Peter wanted to limit the church only to Jews, while Paul wanted to allow anyone to join. Paul won out, and one consequence of this is that in his letters, he specified that most of the old rules were no longer to be followed. For instance, gentiles could be admitted into the church without having to be circumcised. That had been a big stumbling block to recruiting new members, as it were. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253/40 "2010-02-24T21:53:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Crossan uses a lot of cross-cultural anthropology, and I don’t recall offhand how much of it he applied to the leprosy thing, but I do recall that part of what he was saying was based on the fact that linguistically, the word for “leper” (Gr. _lepros_) was liberally applied to anybody with skin conditions, and was not yet used exclusively to designate the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease – that this would be an anachronistic definition of “leprosy” relative to ancient Israel. > > It seems to me that he even said the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease was not even particularly prevalent (possibly non-existent?) in that area at the time. I’ll find the books and try to find more details on his reasoning and sources. > > As I said, though, this was something I also heard independently from Crossan in a college New Testament class. It is interesting that more modern translations don’t use “leprosy”. In any event, the treatment of infectious skin diseases in Leviticus appears more medical than moral - it is clearly considered, in some cases at least, a temporary condition. See Leviticus 13:1 - 13:45. The result of being found “unclean” is isolation - because, according to the (primitive) medical guidance of the day, an unclean person is considered infectious. > [@](#): > > 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [a] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons \*\* who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, [c] it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a rash. The man must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 7 But if the rash does spread in his skin after he has shown himself to the priest to be pronounced clean, he must appear before the priest again. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease. and > [@](#): > > 45 "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [d] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp. Again, this seems more consistent with an (admittedly primitive) medical code, than a notion that skin diseases are a symptom of god’s curse. Priests are here acting as a sort of medical corps, making the decision as to whether to isolate the infectious from others to prevent the spread of infection - and that isolation isn’t necessarily permanent. > **[Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 13 - New International Version](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+13&version=NIV)** > > Regulations About Defiling Skin Diseases - The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin disease, they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-you-suppose-the-god-of-the-bible-shows-disdain-for-people-with-physical-defects/530253.md?page=3)