I've got to "bee" honest and tell you I did not look at your source for "bees for dummies". I already know they generally use all six feet for walking unlike your god says in his holy book.
The text doesn't say what you think you know about bees. If you can't be objective enough to look at scientific sources and apply logic and reason from a non-biased premise, then, you will not learn anything new.
Sword, with about 20 hours of hesitation, I think I will finally open up the source you gave me on bees. The reason why I first didn't look at it is because I already know bees walk on all six feet and not "all fours". But, I am open minded and maybe my eyes deceived me when I witnessed the dozen times I have seen a bee walk on all six legs in addition to the four youtube videos I saw yesterday. Plus, like you said, I might learn something new. Soooooooo..............let's see if this source you gave me says bees walk on "all fours" or are "four-footed". Here goes nothing......................
WOW, and I mean NOTHING. There is nothing that would make me change my belief that bees walk on "all fours" or are "four-footed". The article for "dummies" does say, "The hind legs are specialized on the worker bee". The article also says the front pair of legs are special too as they are used to "clean the antennae". In addition, "The middle legs help with walking and are used to pack loads of pollen". So with your logic (or lack thereof) should I now conclude that a bee walks on ALL ZERO'S since all six legs have additional special functions besides just walking?
On a side note, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth when pretending to know how to correctly interpret the bible. You responded to nogodsforme by saying, "When someone places their views and desires above the bible, you get subjective interpretation."
But then regarding the defects of Lev. 21 you place your "views" and "desires" above a literal interpretation of the bible. You can't imagine worshiping a god that is intolerant of people with defects so you say, "These physical examples of disabilities are pictures of the spiritual. We must learn to read the Bible with the spiritual in mind, as well as for the obvious physical teachings."
Soooooo, you interpret the bible literally unless the text points to your god being a jerk? I'm sure you probably do this with the doctrines of heaven and hell too. You probably interpret the verses about heaven literally but then you "spiritualize" the verses about hell because you can't imagine your god being a god of torment. I could be wrong but I am going to check into what the Seventh-Day Adventist's think about hell..............
Okay, I'm back and I was right! I guess I could be wrong about your personal beliefs on hell as you could actually be involved in a Seventh-Day Adventist "spin-off" cult of a cult of a cult of a cult, but Wikipedia points out how your denomination views the doctrine of hell:
"Adventists teach that the resurrection of the righteous will take place at the second coming of Jesus, while the resurrection of the wicked will occur after the millennium of Revelation 20. They reject the traditional doctrine of hell as a state of everlasting conscious torment, believing instead that the wicked will be permanently destroyed after the millennium. The theological term for this teaching is Annihilationism."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology
I cracked the code. I know how you interpret the bible now. Just for the record, I can't believe Christians say there is a "science" to interpreting scriptures (which is called "hermeneutics") because how does one determine what Christianity has the correct interpretation since the bible is ambiguous and contradictory. Anyway, I think I cracked the code to SDA hermeneutics: If a verse in the bible makes god look good - interpret it literally. If a verse in the bible points to god being a stupid jerk - interpret it "spiritually" to make him look good.
By the way Sword, nice dodge on the unscientific passage of Lev. 11:5,6 describing rock badger's and rabbit's as animals that "chew cud". I don't think you have to answer me now. I think I figured out what your answer will be. Since you don't want your god to look stupid for not knowing how to observe or describe the creatures he created, I am supposed to literally interpret that camels "chew cud" (verse 4) but am supposed to "spiritually" interpret verses 5 and 6 that wrongly describe the rock badger and rabbit as animals that "chew cud".
Sword, I know it is hard for you to defend the bible because the bible is really a piece of crap. And I know 1 Peter 3:15 says to always be prepared to "make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you". But I want you to know that you are giving a horrible defense. The only defense you have is throwing out blatantly stupid karma smites. If I was a Christian and saw some of the things you are writing here, I would pray to god that you would leave the forum as you are doing a HUGE disservice to the movement of Christianity. However, since I am an atheist, I say keep clickin' away as you are doing a HUGE disservice to the movement of Christianity. Plus, I have gotten a few good chuckles out of your posts.
As I look back at the many conversations I read on this forum, I see many people trying to "fish" and reach out and get people "hooked" on reason and logic. Atheist and christian alike. Unfortunately for you, I don't foresee too many people wanting to engage in conversation with you because in your case, the lake is dry.