Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is something really pathetically sad about starting a thread about the digestive habits of an animal very few have heard of in a religion and philosophy forum. What other fanciful delusions and fairy tales do these people also worry about?
You really want an answer to that one, Asheville? You might regret asking... I'm just sayin'....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hljc
Looks like a Grey squirrel which eats it poop, I would not eat one ...
As an ex-polar bear research biologist, I can tell you, absolutely, that we observed those magnificent animals seeking out and consuming both the "results" of our daily "organic output" buried in a local pit near our research station, as well as similar "offerings" by passing tundra caribou, foxes and small rodents.
As well, the grizzlies of, let's say, Kodiak Island in Alaska certainly do regularly eat the droppings of other bears, since the percentage of "unprocessed" salmon, incl. undigested roe, in their "personal unsanitary output" is substantial. Talk about "unclean"!
And yet, the northern-based Inuit, plus the more southerly coastal native Americans and aboriginal Russians (same mtRNA, btw... Same ancestors back a ways...) regularly consume, to this day, the meat of these species! They obviously didn't get the memo!
(btw, where did ol' Noah get the tonnes of salmon roe to feed all those danged cantankerous bears on board?
Seems the literal biblical definition of "clean" or "unclean" may need cleaning up! And yes, you are quite right, whoppers(in your post # 8) in which you point out that the scientific illiterati of those olden days simply had no accurate or valid ideas about any of what they wrote...
And yet supposedly educated adults here in the 21st century still believe it all, literally; they buy into all that bronze-age mythology! Salmon roe-encrusted hook, line and sinker!
Seems the literal biblical definition of "clean" or "unclean" may need cleaning up! And yes, you are quite right, whoppers(in your post # 8) in which you point out that the scientific illiterati of those olden days simply had no accurate or valid ideas about any of what they wrote...
And yet supposedly educated adults here in the 21st century still believe it all, literally; they buy into all that bronze-age mythology! Salmon roe-encrusted hook, line and sinker!
Luckily, the Christians took the lazy way out and just declared that they were making a "New" Covenant, so they didn't have to follow the commandments of the "Old" Covenant. Convenient - bypassing the supposed statements of God that the Torah was to be eternal and binding forever, just so they could get some more Gentile converts! They just kept the Covenant of Noah, and threw out all those other pesky regulations that really put a bummer on a shrimp cocktail party, or a barbecue. Paul knew what he was doing...
1st Century Conversation between potential convert and proselytizer:
Convert: "I dunno - if I join this Christianity thing, I have to radically alter my diet and get the end of my wee-hee cut off. People at the gym will point at me and laugh. And....I've become kinda' attached to it."
Proselytizer: "No, it's cool, Maximus Prime - you can totally eat shellfish and keep the end of your penis in Christianity. Do robots even have those things?"
Convert: "Of course we do - but they are for purely non-reproductive functions. We're not like you fleshy things that can just magically self-reproduce somehow. We are created beings."
Proeselytizer: "Huh. Never knew that. On second thought, you're a robot and probably don't have a soul, and your insinuation that we are not created beings is confusing me, so maybe you had better stay in your own little Autobot Sect. Sorry - we can't transubstantiate motor oil into the blood of Christ."
This is from a historical play I wrote which I hope will be highly popular among many different types of people, and which will hopefully make my filthy stinking rich so I can pay someone to write my posts for me. I'm hoping I can get Meagan Fox to play the role of Mary Megatron.
The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.
That works out well for me, because if I wanted to violate the laws of kashruth and eat hyrax, I'd have a tough time finding any for sale in my neighborhood supermarkets.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,831,906 times
Reputation: 6438
Exactly. How could the Bible be wrong? I'm blaming the Devil on making them translate this wrong. If God drove the pen, it would be right. If the Devil drove it, it would be wrong. Did God drive the pen wrong? Or the Devil?
I certainly sympathize with how it feels to be taught that the entire Bible is the Word of God - inerrant, etc. Definitely a Fundamentalist idea nowadays.
But men decided which of many writings were "the word of God" and included them in the scriptures, and the self-appointed clergy excluded the ones that they didn't like and didn't suit their interests..
The Bible says it chews its cud. It doesn't. The Bible is wrong. Someone observed it chewing and wrote it down. It does chew. It doesn't chew its cud. The Bible is the word of God. Ergo, the word of God is wrong. Or Science is wrong. They both can't be right. They both can't be wrong.
And *gasp!* bats aren't really birds!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bible was written from their perspective...not using scientific language and knowledge of the 21st century.
The Bible was written from their perspective...not using scientific language and knowledge of the 21st century.
Yes, the authors were certainly writing from the limited perspective of the ANE and those cultural beliefs. To them, a bat was a bird, and rabbits chewed cuds, etc. The animals that they did have personal experience with as pastoralists are given much greater detail in the text.
Yes, the authors were certainly writing from the limited perspective of the ANE and those cultural beliefs. To them, a bat was a bird, and rabbits chewed cuds, etc. The animals that they did have personal experience with as pastoralists are given much greater detail in the text.
But bats do fly--and anything that flew is called a "bird" to them. They didn't have our classification system.
Also...."chewing" was seen as chewing cud. No error in the text--just the way they observed it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
