"The bible test" Answered.

[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.