"The bible test" Answered.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

How do I give negative kudos?

You could always give him one, then make a point about how you took it away again.

Because the Lord giveth, then the Lord taketh away.

---

Anyway, as to Drich:

[max-greece]

The 'bible test.' http://ffrf.org/legacy/quiz/bquiz.php as per the other two threads on this subject.

You made a right abortion of this one Drichy

1. What is the last of the Ten Commandments?
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Ignoring the point that the 10 commandments are restated, differently. Also ignoring that this is the most useless instruction ever given. Thought crime.

2. What is the penalty for working on the Sabbath?
The penality for Breaking Any of the commandments was death. That was why Christ died on the cross. The 'good moral people' who wrote this test look deceive by isolating one commandment over the others.

No its just illustrates how mad the commandments are.

3. What is God's name?
trick question. God does not have just one name as the question implies.
These are the formal names of God and their meanings.
http://www.gotquestions.org/names-of-God.html

Not a trick question but not a complete answer. One of his names is jealousy and that's no good name for a supposedly perfect being who suffers badly from it (and wroth, pride and vanity).

4. How should parents treat a stubborn and rebellious son?
This question is also misleading. Because the answer it provides questions for was meant to only be answered from an Old testament Jewish perspective. Christians are to let their 'rebellious sons' leave as per the parable of the prodigal son Jesus himself told.

Nonsense. A parable (that tries to sell deathbad conversion) does not over-rule a commandment.

5. What happens if you are not a virgin on your wedding night?
again trick question. no one in the Old Testament nor the New testament HAD to be a virgin. There are many examples of people marrying without consenquence that were not virgins. This question leads one to believe one Had to be a virgin. This was not true unless (in the OT) one claimes to be or was repersented as a virgin.

On the one hand - remember this answer for when we get to the incest / rape question later. On the other the law was the law - if a spouse chose not to tell that's not the point - although you could argue they were aiding and abetting.

6. What does the bible say about witches?
another trick question. This question is framed in such away as to mean there is only one answer.
Jews were commanded to not allow a witch to live. In Christianity there are examples of 'witches/sorcers' were converted to the faith

Its not a trick question although the answer was not complete.

7. Which of these foods does the bible expressly permit you to eat?
This question narrows the field to only allow for locus to be permitted as food. when in truth any animal who grazed was acceptiable food while scavengers (pigs and shell fish) were forbidden. Without refrigeration these 'meats' spoil 3 times faster and are exposed/lthe animal ive in disease, filth, rot and death. Where animals who's primary food was green grass tended to be cleaner, and safer for the community.

So locust was the correct answer, not a problem then. As for the rest of your answer - and they had refrigeration in the early days of the Christian church when the dietary laws were abandoned?

8. When the Israelites conquered the Midianites, what part of the spoils of war was given to the priest as "the Lord's tribute"?
God took .02% of the 16,000 virgins left of the Midianites. One should ask what does it mean to be 'the lord's tribute?' The christian version would be to make them nuns, who cared for the tabnerical and helped the temple priests care for the people.

3.2 virgins? Are you sure? Never mind what being "the Lord's tribute" might have meant later - what did it mean at the time?

9. What is the origin of the "mighty men" giants known as nephilim?
this one they got completely wrong.
They were a cross breed from demons/fallen angels (who else was on earth besides man and woman?) 'sons of God and daughters of men.' This is mess was what was targeted in the Great flood.

That is the mess that God created sonny Jim - have a bit more respect for your Lord's work!

10. What happened to Korah and his family, Israelites who thought they could deal directly with God without a human intermediary?
This question is also very misleading.
The earth opened up and swallowed them, but the reason why was not for the one stated. They tried to take over and push moses out/start a civil war. read Numbers 16

Actually correct. There was no issue for the Israelites in dealing with God directly - that's a later Christian invention that had Jesus as some kind of broker for God.

11. According to the bible, who created evil?
If God created everything then evil would be included.

Sin= anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil= a strong desire or willful act to intentionally be outside of God's expressed will.

In away Evil is the proof of freewill. For if God's will for us is in His expressed will, and we have the ablity to willfully be outside it, that means we have a 'will' independant of God's own will for us.

Now ask, who has provided attonement for evil?

Too fucked up to deal with. Simply put - other than the God's will aspect there is no way to differentiate many of the acts of God with purest evil.

12. According to the bible, what is God not able to do?
The bible does not say God is not able to do anything. This question refers to when God was with Juda, and when juda's army was defeated by an army equiped with 'charriots of iron.' What the question writer does not seem to comperhend was what was going on through out the book of 'Judges.' (this story takes place in judges one.) God uses 'judges' or armies, or nations to defeat kill capture and otherwise punish the jews who have turned from God, and started worshiping other gods, or breaking other commands in all manner of different ways. The books of judges chronical a pattern of sin by the jews, punishment from God, repentance by the jews deliverence from their captors, and with in a generation or two the cycle starts again.. Judges 1 (where this story is found) tells of the beginning of the first fall.

Long "answer" that ignores the question. God could not defeat iron chariots - whatever was going on in Judges- and your interpretation is a real stretch. Consider Samson - nothing to do with Jews worshipping Baal - Samson is the hero who defeated the Philistines.

13. According to the bible, where does God live?
This question is also misleading. God is everywhere, and therfore 'lives' everywhere. Heaven (the city that God builds After the events of revelation) is the final place, but from the beginning of time to now i can think of 1/2 a dozen places the bible mentions God has lived/lives. This question as stated if answered pushes someone to believe God only resides in one place, which is completely false.

Your answer is evasive - the question stands. Where God lives has nothing to do with your answer - I live in my house - but that doesn't stop me moving around outside.

14. According to biblical biology, what is a bat?
According to a language that had no word nor genus/species form of classification It lables a bat as a( עוֹף /`owph )which means a flying creature. http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...5775&t=KJV

So how does this question fail? It assumes you all are to stupid to understand that the bible was not written in english, and that you will not or can not understand the difference between a literal translation, and a contextual translation. That the KJV is a literal translation and simply lumps bats in with a list of other 'flying creatures.'

In other words - bird is the correct answer.

15. According to biblical anatomy, where does thinking happen?
this one flat out misrepersents genesis 6
"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Avoidance? How about Mark Chapter 7: 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”[f] (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

16. How did Gideon demonstrate his family values?
'Family values' was not a precept then. what kind of person judges a man who lived in the past by laws that did not exist then? a dishonest man looking to stack the deck in his favor.

The phrase may not have existed but the value one puts on one's family did as a concept - if we are going to throw around the dishonest tag....

17. After Jephthah was victorious in battle, what sacrifice did he burn on the altar, as he had vowed to the Lord?
Judges 11 does not say what he did, just that he carried out his vow.

And that vow was. Now who's being dishonest?

18. What price did David pay King Saul for his first wife?
this one is a little bit raceist/elietist. It implies 'we' are better because 'we' do not share the same customs.

As a Jew I can tell you its not racist nor elitist. What was the price Drich?

19. How many sexual partners did King Solomon have?
again how can you judge a man by an non existant law? To super-impose your 'morality' on to life as it was 3000 years ago is just proud foolishness.

There is no judgement in the question other than the reader's own. How many? And don't go telling me that was morally OK in those days - it was fucking unheard of (or should that read unheard of fucking?)

20. What happened to 42 little children who teased God's prophet Elisha for being bald and he cursed them in the name of the Lord?

again here the question writters are playing with the translations to change the meaning of the passage. the words in question are:
קָטָן qatan http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/l...6996&t=KJV
Which can mean small, insignificant young, or unimportant
-and
נַעַר na`ar http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=2K...JV#conc/23
which can mean Children, but can also mean:
a boy, lad, servant, youth, retainer, servant.

Nope - its you that is playing with the translations to try to cover up the horrific nature of the story.

21. What reason did God give for tormenting Job?
None of the above answers were correct. Job was not given a reason.

It didn't ask if Job was given the reason it asked what the reason was. Another side-step non-answer.

22.According to the bible, what does Satan look like?

None of the above. Revelations 12 says there was a 'great sign' that of a dragon and goes on to describe answer b.
a 'great sign' is not a physical description. a Great sign points to symbology, or hidden meaning behind description. Which means what follows is not a physical description.

Yeah - whatever.

23. How does the biblical god treat haughty women?
Misleading question as there are several examples. In Christianity Meekness and humility is the cure for haughtness and pride in men and in women alike. If you were an old testament jew the treatment would be different. But, that's the thing the test gives do not mention. there haven't been any OT jews for over 2000 years.

That's like saying there haven't been any ancient Greeks for 2000 years so we don't need to worry about their laws.

24. In dollars (shekels), how much is a woman worth?
again when? Another misleading question. Jesus/God the Son was sold for 30 shekels of silver and put to death, while Herod's daughter was offered 1/2 of all of herods kingdom for something as trivial as a dance in Mark 6. The makes her net worth far above and beyond that of Jesus. another trick question.

Not a trick question at all, nor is it invalidated by variations in values assigned to different things.

25. What happens if a man rapes an engaged virgin in the city, and no one hears anything?
another misleading question. What is the time frame? The results are different for the Christian and the OT Jew.

Is the exact phrase within the question used in the NT? If not then its reasonable to surmise the reference is to the OT version. Why the constant avoidance of giving the answer?

26. What is the Mosaic Law punishment for being handicapped?
slick ploy. By denoting 'mosaic law' in this question is makes the others based in 'mosaic law' but not identified as mosaic law, as applicable to the Christian...
And yet they still manage to misdirect. There is no Hebrew word for Handicap in that time period. One was either considered clean or unclean. anyone considered 'unclean' could not worship in the temple.
some of the people we currently would consider 'handicap' would be considered unclean, but not all.

Oh well - that's alright then, as long as some of the disabled are in we can ignore those that are banned. WTF Drich?

27. According to the bible, when may a husband have sex with his wife?
Paul says we should not deny ourselves to one another, unless we both agree to over come a given obstical first.

The correct answer is none of the above.

Again avoiding the question - which again contains the specific text to look for (hint - its doesn't come from Paul).

28. How should you feel when you dash babies against the rocks?
as happy as you felt when a woman's right to choose was established and supported by the state.

Fuck you you twat. No-one ever feels elation over an abortion you ignorant shit. Elation over murdering babies is only on your fucking God's instructions.

29. How many human generations were there before Jesus?
of who/what?
http://atheistforums.org/thread-14190.html

30. What Christmas tradition is expressly forbidden in the bible?
none of the above are forbidden.

Fore Paul tells us let no one tell use how when or what we use in worship.

Again - wrong answer - the clue is in the question.

31. According to Jesus, what must you do to have eternal life?
none of the above.
john 3:16 Jesus says: Fore God so loved the world that He gave his only son, that whomever believes in Him shall not perrish BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

Which is also a lie. 144,000 Jews get into heaven without paying any heed to that fuckwit Jesus.

32. According to Jesus, how should Christian disciples treat their parents?
none of the above.

Jesus told a pledge/ a wantobe a disciple --"Let the dead bury the dead"-- The rest of answer 'd' was made up by a self righteous heart.

Now what are you talking about? A self righteous heart that wrote in the gospel?

33. According to Jesus, how should slaves be treated?
none of the above.

Jesus repeatedly says there is no difference between free or slave in the eyes of God and that we should treat EVERYONE the way we wish to be treated.

Wrong answer again. The question is looking for a specific answer.

34. What did Jesus say about peace?
none of the above. Jesus said mat 10: 34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Well Christianity has certainly never brought peace, big on misery though - which must be just a bonus on the list.

35. Which one of these phrases did Jesus not say about witnessing?
Jesus says many things about witnessing. He mentions as he quotes OT law, He teaches about it and He uses the word to describe a testamony. The question does not frame the answers in the correct context allowing the creation of a false dichotomy.

Talking about not framing answers in the correct context - you are the king of that.

36. What personal sacrifice for "the kingdom of heaven" was Jesus talking about when he told his disciples, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"?
as the question reads, and the conclusion it provides none of the above.
Mark 9 says if an eye causes you to sin pluck it out for it is better to enter heave with just one eye...

Yeah - and that Mark reference is relevant how exactly?

37. According to New Testament medical advice, what should you do if you are sick?
seriously? Luke was a doctor, his profession was not condemned. which means the bible has nothing against people seeing doctors.

Another question dodged.


I am now too tired to bother with the rest.

The rest is just more of the same answering the wrong question, evading the question and complaining about the question.


I hope you can see the lenths and misdirection this test had to go to inorder to frame the bible and Christianity in the light you all have been basking in.

Well I can see the lengths someone had to go....

This is a shameful way to do to try and discredit what someone believes. It is lazy, 'immoral' and intelectually dishonest. If the bible is truly so unstable then why not just show it's faults where they truly are? what does it say about the effort it took to present the bible this way? what does it say about the willful ignorance or even obstinance to take something like this test to heart?

Yup, shameful - we just differ on who is being shameful here.

now that you know the truth I trust you will be willing to share the 'answers' to this 'test' as willingly as you were ready to share the test itself.

Absolutely - you just point me in the direction.

[Drich]

The tenor of your answers leads to a very simple question: if so much of the Bible addresses right and wrong in a way that is not applicable to the modern world, what's the point of looking to it for guidance in matters of right and wrong?

Your answers have clearly demonstrated that looking to the Bible for worthwhile guidance is about as useful as reading the manual for an Apple II to fix problems you're having with your iPad.

I have an active 14 page discussion going on this very topic..
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22249.html

---

Once again you have shown that an apologist will invent any shit that pops into his head...declare his bible saved and pat himself on the back.

What you need is a swift kick in the ass, drippy.

move to dismiss with out reading. What's the matter minnie hasn't anyone showed you where to get the darth vader Meme that celibrates your selective ignorance?

---

The tenor of your answers leads to a very simple question: if so much of the Bible addresses right and wrong in a way that is not applicable to the modern world, what's the point of looking to it for guidance in matters of right and wrong?

And another: Drich accepts that there was a time when his god ordered all these bad things to occur, and he also seems to implicitly accept that those things are bad, given that he retreats from each and every questionable thing at the speed of lazy apologetics... and yet he still considers his god a: moral (edit: sorry, make that "righteous," since I don't want to waste a post having to ask the question again when Drich comes back and smugly tells us that god is righteous and not moral ), and b: inerrant.

My question to him is twofold: would he accept this line of reasoning, where atrocities where commanded and commended by the thousands and then redacted later, from anyone else, if not, why does god get a free pass? And secondly, does he then admit that his god was wrong to order those things to begin with?

See the above link to ryan for an active discussion on your topic.

---

@greasy-Max If you want me to respond fix your quote tags.

[xpastor]

max-greece has already nailed down all the pathetic question-dodging that Drich engages in, so I won't bother with a line-by-line deconstruction.

Just a comment on one response. #7 Drich demonstrates that he knows bugger-all about the Old Testament dietary laws and microbiology.

The laws in fact declare unclean some grass-eating animals, like the rabbit mentioned right there in the question and also the camel.

In fact, Drich cannot read. The basis for declaring an animal unclean is clearly stated when you put together the prohibition against pig (And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you) and rabbit (And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you).

The ancient Israelites were herders of sheep, goats and cattle. A species is judged clean only if it displays two of the most obvious characteristics of their herd animals: eating grass and having a cloven hoof.

Fundamentalists used to claim, maybe still do, that pork was prohibited because it could carry trichinosis, though that could easily have been dealt with by a command to cook all meat thoroughly. It is truer than Drich's claim that pork spoils faster than beef or mutton but it's still bullshit. Needless, to say the Bible says nothing about prohibiting these "unclean" meats for health reasons, and the prohibition was lifted in the New Testament when there was no improvement in food preparation hygiene. The distinction between clean and unclean was purely ritualistic with no health benefits.

[Doubting Thomas]

And also...fuck Apple.

What are you talking about? Apple computers never crash, never get viruses, have free, open source software, are made of solid gold and give excellent blow jobs.

[max-greece]

@greasy-Max If you want me to respond fix your quote tags.

Why would I want you to respond? I've already seen how low you will stoop. I just wasn't going to let your gross misrepresentation stand.

[Drich]

max-greece has already nailed down all the pathetic question-dodging that Drich engages in, so I won't bother with a line-by-line deconstruction.

So out of 50 question your best objection is based on a dietary concern?

Just a comment on one response. #7 Drich demonstrates that he knows bugger-all about the Old Testament dietary laws and microbiology.

The laws in fact declare unclean some grass-eating animals, like the rabbit mentioned right there in the question and also the camel.

I said any animal that grazes. To Graze: to feed on growing herbage
Herbage: herbaceous vegetation (as grass) especially when used for grazing
2: the succulent parts of herbaceous plants

Rabbit's diets does include herbage but is not limited to it. the also brows which means they also eat bark, twigs and other tough foods. Because of this (if you had a clue as to what you were talking about) you would know know rabbits do some thing with their 'food' that true grazers don't.
"Rabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are known as caecotrophs and are immediately eaten (a behaviour known as coprophagy). Rabbits reingest their own droppings (rather than chewing the cud as do cows and many other herbivores) to digest their food further and extract sufficient nutrients."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit

Did you see it? They EAT Their own Poop! which makes them just as uncleas as a pig for one of the same reasons.

Camels were considered unclean because they did not have 'cloven hooves', even though they chewed cud. Scientifically Camels and pigs shared a common ancestor, and as recent as 2005 there have been cases of bubonic plague steming from the consumption of camel liver.

Camels' immune system differs from those of other mammals. Normally, the Y-shaped antibody molecules consist of two heavy (or long) chains along the length of the Y, and two light (or short) chains at each tip of the Y. Camels, in addition to these, also have antibodies made of only two heavy chains, a trait that makes them smaller and more durable. These "heavy-chain-only" antibodies, discovered in 1993, are thought to have developed 50 million years ago, after camelids split from ruminants and pigs.[36]

A 2005 report issued jointly by the Saudi Ministry of Health and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention details cases of human bubonic plague resulting from the ingestion of raw camel liver.[105]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel

In fact, Drich cannot read. The basis for declaring an animal unclean is clearly stated when you put together the prohibition against pig (And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you) and rabbit (And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you).

I don't know how the rest of the TNG Fans feel about this, but I would ask you to change your avatar, because your comments make Captian Picard look ignorant of basic biology. As a star ship Captain Picard would have a fundemental understanding of where to Check his facts before he just started spouting uninformed nonsense.

The ancient Israelites were herders of sheep, goats and cattle. A species is judged clean only if it displays two of the most obvious characteristics of their herd animals: eating grass and having a cloven hoof.

If this is the level of scrutiny and attention to detail you approached your faith with, then i can see why you are an 'ex-pastor.'
-or-
Maybe I am wrong and your not ignorant here, maybe your just being dishonest to validate your arguement. Because according to lev 11 the law states Chewing CUD and hooves is the qualifier here. not just eating grass. Rabbits eat grass but to not chew cud. In lew of chewing cud they re-eat their poop. Camels chew cud but have a foot similar to that of a pig, which infact means they share a common ancestor, resulting in a general susceptibility to disease that is readily transferiable to humans. Ever heard of sheep flu or goat fever? what about cow cough no? what about H1N1? what was the common name for that again?

Fundamentalists used to claim, maybe still do, that pork was prohibited because it could carry trichinosis, though that could easily have been dealt with by a command to cook all meat thoroughly. It is truer than Drich's claim that pork spoils faster than beef or mutton but it's still bullshit.

My job/career is centered around keeping the meat hungry populace away from spoilage by providing/servicing the equipment needed to perserve said perishables while in transport. In doing so we are subject to all manor of regulation by the goverment. In the US we have a law obama signed into effect call the food saftey act. In this act/law sets a standards of spoilage on all meats (among other things.) This rate of spoilage is determined by temp the meat is kept, what it is treated with, and the Type of meat. Because Not all meat decays at the same rate. the celluar structure of the meat is apart of this equasion, but so is the presents of enzimes contained with in the meat, due to the diet and make up of the animal. below is an offical PDF that describes all of this in much greater detail, oh and it also includes a table that shows beef and other cud chewing animals with hooves have double if not almost 3 longer shelf life than pork.

http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=fulltext&aId=1468338‎
I could not get my offical pdf up, but this one from the DOAJ uses the same tables.

Needless, to say the Bible says nothing about prohibiting these "unclean" meats for health reasons, and the prohibition was lifted in the New Testament when there was no improvement in food preparation hygiene. The distinction between clean and unclean was purely ritualistic with no health benefits.

Why would the bible say these things? to whom would it be speaking? when were germs even discovered? To give an explaination that bacteria and the break down of celluar material causes sickness and disease would be meaningless for everyone for 4000+ years.. So again preacher man who would the bible be speaking to? Why would it alienate 4000+ years of people just to speak to the last few generations?

God deemed the meat 'unclean.' In a very literal sense it is or can be if not handeled properly. This is enough for people who live 4000 years ago to completely understand. It is also enough for us to now figure out why.

Take very close notes on the facts that just because we are now just figuring out why, the what God said was unclean back then did not change.

---

@greasy-Max If you want me to respond fix your quote tags.

Why would I want you to respond? I've already seen how low you will stoop. I just wasn't going to let your gross misrepresentation stand.

Given the lashing John Luck Pick-herd just endured on just one question, I don't blame you. i would want my poorly conceived zinngers scrutinized with truth and fact either.

[Bad Writer]

Defending a piece of shit doesn't mean it loses its shit status. Great job accomplishing nothing, Drich. I'm inclined to think that you're just bad at taking tests; whether or not you agree or disagree with the questions/answers, you still failed.

[Drich]

Just kinda a side note.

The vast majority of responses i got where most of you celibrated your inablity to read the OP is why i don't generally respond to the stuff you all post that orginates from some artical or anti God website. I generally feel if you need an artical or quote or a video to speak for you and your thoughts you will not have the where-with-all to defend the material you posted, nor should you..

The reason i did this one was to help Dr. B HHOTS (Dr. Builds his HOUSE on the Sand) wife. get it? House/the foolish man who builds his House on the sand?/Dr house

[xpastor]

max-greece has already nailed down all the pathetic question-dodging that Drich engages in, so I won't bother with a line-by-line deconstruction.

So out of 50 question your best objection is based on a dietary concern?

Just a comment on one response. #7 Drich demonstrates that he knows bugger-all about the Old Testament dietary laws and microbiology.

The laws in fact declare unclean some grass-eating animals, like the rabbit mentioned right there in the question and also the camel.

I said any animal that grazes. To Graze: to feed on growing herbage
Herbage: herbaceous vegetation (as grass) especially when used for grazing
2: the succulent parts of herbaceous plants

Rabbit's diets does include herbage but is not limited to it. the also brows which means they also eat bark, twigs and other tough foods. Because of this (if you had a clue as to what you were talking about) you would know know rabbits do some thing with their 'food' that true grazers don't.
"Rabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are known as caecotrophs and are immediately eaten (a behaviour known as coprophagy). Rabbits reingest their own droppings (rather than chewing the cud as do cows and many other herbivores) to digest their food further and extract sufficient nutrients."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit

Did you see it? They EAT Their own Poop! which makes them just as uncleas as a pig for one of the same reasons.

Camels were considered unclean because they did not have 'cloven hooves', even though they chewed cud. Scientifically Camels and pigs shared a common ancestor, and as recent as 2005 there have been cases of bubonic plague steming from the consumption of camel liver.

Camels' immune system differs from those of other mammals. Normally, the Y-shaped antibody molecules consist of two heavy (or long) chains along the length of the Y, and two light (or short) chains at each tip of the Y. Camels, in addition to these, also have antibodies made of only two heavy chains, a trait that makes them smaller and more durable. These "heavy-chain-only" antibodies, discovered in 1993, are thought to have developed 50 million years ago, after camelids split from ruminants and pigs.[36]

50 million years! Why, Drich, I'm so happy to see that you have become an evolutionist.

In fact, Drich cannot read. The basis for declaring an animal unclean is clearly stated when you put together the prohibition against pig (And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you) and rabbit (And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you).

I don't know how the rest of the TNG Fans feel about this, but I would ask you to change your avatar, because your comments make Captian Picard look ignorant of basic biology. As a star ship Captain Picard would have a fundemental understanding of where to Check his facts before he just started spouting uninformed nonsense.

The ancient Israelites were herders of sheep, goats and cattle. A species is judged clean only if it displays two of the most obvious characteristics of their herd animals: eating grass and having a cloven hoof.

If this is the level of scrutiny and attention to detail you approached your faith with, then i can see why you are an 'ex-pastor.'

Drich, you are putting your ignorance of biblical scholarship on display. I was summarizing a theory held by some reputable OT scholars; it originated with the anthropologist Mary Douglas.
Maybe I am wrong and your not ignorant here, maybe your just being dishonest to validate your arguement. Because according to lev 11 the law states Chewing CUD and hooves is the qualifier here. not just eating grass. Rabbits eat grass but to not chew cud. In lew of chewing cud they re-eat their poop. Camels chew cud but have a foot similar to that of a pig, which infact means they share a common ancestor, resulting in a general susceptibility to disease that is readily transferiable to humans. Ever heard of sheep flu or goat fever? what about cow cough no? what about H1N1? what was the common name for that again?

Well, Drich, you have just proved my contention that you cannot read. YOUR Bible says that the rabbit "chews its cud" same phrase it uses for the "clean" animals; I did not see any need to make a big fuss about the ignorance of the primitive Biblical writers over this small issue, but since you raise the point, and put your ignorance of the Bible on display, I will correct you here. Do you seriously think that there are no diseases carried by cattle, sheep and goats? "There are numerous diseases that humans may contract from endogenously infected meat, such as anthrax, bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, listeriosis, trichinosis or taeniasis." And to bring this list up to date we might also instance mad cow disease. And then there is "bird flu" which is contracted from bird types considered clean.

It is truer than Drich's claim that pork spoils faster than beef or mutton but it's still bullshit.

... This rate of spoilage is determined by temp the meat is kept, what it is treated with, and the Type of meat. Because Not all meat decays at the same rate. the celluar structure of the meat is apart of this equasion, but so is the presents of enzimes contained with in the meat, due to the diet and make up of the animal. below is an offical PDF that describes all of this in much greater detail, oh and it also includes a table that shows beef and other cud chewing animals with hooves have double if not almost 3 longer shelf life than pork.

I concede that I was wrong about pork having a shelf life as good as beef, which is more than you will ever do on any point, no matter how egregiously stupid it was. However, I note that you have not a word to say about the shelf life of poultry, which was accepted as clean.

In any case, the biblical laws were NOT instituted for health reasons. Pork and camel and rabbit would be considered unclean even if they were thoroughly cooked immediately after slaughter.

You utterly ignored the point both max and I made, that these dietary prohibitions were lifted in New Testament times, although there was no advance in sanitary handling of meats, which plainly indicates the original prohibition had nothing to do with food safety.