–IP

Well, I agree with rachel and Mr. Soul - wow, what an ablist post - kind of like responding to a question about feminism by talking about the many different men’s club you belong to.

I do agree that many/most Christians believe as you post above, perhaps that is why there are so few people with degenerative disabilities who stay in Churches (at least where I am) - Hmmm, did my friend on a ventilator (now dead) work to ensure she had a healthier life? Well, she really wanted to get off that ventilator, but she kept getting psnumonia - guess she didn’t focus enough, or eat enough carrots? While many people with terminal disabilities do take control of their lives, I think it the knowledge that the person has the choice IN SPITE that the ability to get better or healthier is beyond is how they do it.

And disability is pretty important to women too - since more women with disablities get sexually abused and raped than AB’s and yet more are seen in society (particularly chaired) as sexless.

Then you say “It is, of course, a disabling condition.”

Well, which is it? Is mental “illness” not a disability, too? Why isn’t it? And why do you dislike USING THE WORD? (And how long is it an “illness” before it gets to cross over into “disability”) That was my question.

Your disability-phobia (illustrated by fear of using the word, applied to yourself or other people with your own disability) is part and parcel of your fitness-worship. I am interested in whether the two can ever NOT go together–so far, never met a jock or fitness addict who wasn’t disability-phobic also.

I personally prefer the term “psychological disability” or “mental disability” to the nebulous and murky term “mental illness”. And there is NO SHAME in using either term, unless you think disability itself is shameful.

If we want to have a discussion about defining identity through what we are able to do as opposed to who we are — then I’m up for that. I didn’t think that was where I was supposed to go; a lack of imagination on my part.

I also assumed that the question about disability was about physical disability, not mental illness. As my posts last year in defense of my bipolar colleague, Yves Magloe, made clear, I am passionate about defending the rights of those who struggle with mental illness. It is, of course, a disabling condition.

I’m delighted you’re a vegetarian, Mr. Soul.

Rachel, thanks for getting it. Blue (at GIMP PARADE) got it, too. If Hugo is a feminist or pro-feminist, it seems he would understand that this is where I was hoping this discussion would go, regarding masculinity and ability (what the postmods like to call “gendered disability”)… but alas, Hugo prefers one of those “non-reply replies” that you get from bureaucrats in Washington press conferences.

Hugo, is there some reason you totally ignored my mental health question? (Rhetorical. Actually, I do know why. I just want everyone else to see it, too.)

Taking the biblical text at face value, God only grants people permission to eat meat following the Flood (Genesis 9:3) - there’s an implication that permission to eat animals is an acknowledgement or concession to human weakness. The Noachide covenant requires that meat *not* be taken from living animals, but doesn’t require that meat be eaten.

The laws of slaughter in Exodus and Deuteronomy are generally understood as negative commandments - the Israelites are prohibited from eating certain species and animals that have not been properly slaughtered - not as positive commandments requiring the consumption of meat.

There’s a story in the Talmud, Tractate Baba Metzia, in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is punished by God for telling a runaway animal, “Go back to be slaughtered, for this is what you were created for.” The rabbis understand this as teaching us that animals were not created for human consumption, but rather that God later decided to give people permission to eat animals, which apparently had been created for some other purpose or reason.

I have to work within my limitations of time, budget, and genetics, and given those limitations I’m never going to be running a marathon. (Nor am I inclined to do such a thing.) I do take care of myself as best I can within my limitations, but I’m never going to look like I am, and people will continue to make judgements about my morality based on that. That’s just the way it is. But then again, it’s not about putting your morality on display, is it? IMO that’s the important disconnect to make…

And I basically agree with you, Hugo, that we should take care of ourselves as best we can, but there are plenty of ways to serve God that don’t involve marathons. (Thank goodness!)

Re: OT dietary restrictions (and the rest of the old law, too) — doesn’t Galatians 3:24-25 indicate otherwise?