scripture, insects have for legs??? - Page 3

Actually vk4, you are describing yourself. You are just unawares of your deficiencies to the point of absurdity.

Or, you just purposely miss the most salient points. In either case, it is your loss, not mine or ML's. You just don't have the expansion of the mind necessary to grasp what scares the pants off of you.

I can understand a certain amount of confusion leading people of biblical
times to equate bats with birds.
But the feet on bugs thing ?   Some of those mentioned, I suppose it could
be a matter of interpretation, based on a lack of close observation, to describe
them as "four legged" - but some so obviously have six legs + feet, it is hard
to see why they used 4 as the 'shorthand'.  And what did they describe spiders as ?

Hundmutter,

LOL. The purpose of the scripture quote was not to be a taxonomy on entomology! Just google the quote and do a little reading... it isn't all that big of a stretch to understand what is important. 

Unfortunately, vk4 loves to divert from the real importance of these things. He does that because he is "running scared". IMHO

Oh please, what am i scared of? Snakes in my sleeping bag, my mare getting stung on the ass by a hornet while i am riding her, f'ing red back spiders biting me on the ass. sure i am scared of lots of things. but a bronze age book that has appropriatted myths from disparate cultures thst came before and mashed them all together into an incoherent. mind numbingly stupid pile of shit you call the bable, or that's what you should be call it. try again to trivialise me away cos your faith is paper thin, you just want there to be a heaven cos you want there to be a heaven and that's about the strength of it and the bable promises you that heaven. a promise you won't know is
true until after your dead Bwahaha.

Fear based obsession towards God and the spiritual. Yes, this is your burden. That is why you can't let it go and attack people with faith, and specific religions. It is very obvious and all your bravado like what you just displayed can't hide that fact. 

You don't really have any idea what motivates me, vk4. That's the God's honest truth. 

 

Do you read one thread and reply on another. i have no clue what motivates you or who even "you" is. i would just like you to see the hypocrisy you post. And i would like your religion to stop harming people.

Why do Christians always accuse non-theists of hating or fearing god, that is so illogical. how can anyone fear something they don't think exists??

Once again, it is you doing what you accuse. Get it straight for yourself, first, vk4! 

What is hypocritical about what I post? Please be detailed in your explaination. This ought to be interesting. 

What exactly is my religion? Really? That should be enlightening, too, especially for me.

I know why I accuse you of your fear; it is because of your actions. That was easy to answer.

 how can anyone fear something they don't think exists??
 

Notice how the doubt has crept in! 

Well that's nice I must say Beetree  - someone who admits only selectively
reading their bible, rather than cover to cover, tells me to use goggle,
read & research ... to understand what is/was 'important'.  LOL, ha de
ha ha!

The Lev. passage was chiefly about what was 'clean' or 'unclean'  in
order that Peter (representing the people) should be able to eat it, yes ?
Many religions see dietary laws as important.  Whether the ability to
reject e.g. pork is a good & sensible thing OR NOT (perhaps depending
on hygiene conditions and/or slaughter methods used, at the period of
history in question) is a moot point.  [btw  That's the word most people on
here spell: "mute", for some reason.]  If not a member of such a religion,
dietary laws have NO importance, geddit ?

One could also argue that - in some versions of biblical texts at least - there
is a possible confusion with whether Peter can eat the four footed animals
that came out of the clouds;  for which one can read 'alien' animals, rather
than 'unclean'-but-earthly and therefore god-given.  (Maybe that was where the
bugs lost two of their legs  .)

Either way, what vk4 and others expose is that the text makes little  practical
sense if it is deleterious in the accuracy of its descriptions.

Which also goes for translations years afterwards.
 

Hundmutter,

Yes, the lesson on "clean and unclean food" is about survival. Knowing what will keep one healthy would be a plus in an age without refrigeration. True, too, in that age, pork would be seen as an iffy food, because of what we know of as trichinosis. Of course, through modern husbandry such cautions to thoroughly cook pork are pretty much a moot point.

And yes, I know lots of folks misuse "mute and moot"! I am forced to smile at that one all the time! You missed the whole point however, about "feet and legs", though. It would be that some legs have feet for propulsion and other legs would have a purpose more like hands. That seems to be the difference in naming, that will change the number.

Context, again is what vk4 ignores, same as others. It exposes nothing but their own limits.