If all animals were very good, then why were some considered unclean?

[TheNoNamedOne]

If all animals were very good, then why were some designated as unclean? Surely we can digest split hoofed animals, so there was no physical impairment from doing so. Was it just a test? If so, then why call them unclean?

Just say "these animals are not to be eaten as a test to see if you follow my orders." After all, we are told God's ways are not our ways, so we could be satisfied with no explanation -- for we cannot understand his ways. Or can we?

Perhaps the order should not have been to "don't eat the apple," but rather, "don't eat the bacon."

Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Or is it that Bible God plays word games so that conflicting messages arise about what is good and bad and what is permitted and not permitted?

Maybe he is the King of Semantics. But, keep in mind we are exhorted to view him as a Father figure; what father purposely sends mixed messages to their child whose life would depend on accurate understanding of the message when time is of the essence? For example, if I were hiking with my child and I saw he was about to step off a cliff, I would speak in a clear way to warn him without any ambiguity as to the nature of the danger he was in.

Surely an all powerful God could create a timeless message that all of his children no matter in what age could understand?

I just can't understand why if all was good, then some were unclean? Would a Christian please explain it to me?

Thanks.

[Isaak Brodsky]

The questions represent a sophomoric understanding of man's position in the theist schema.

Since you dismiss the warrant that God created all creatures, what is the sense of arguing that the Creator knows better than His creation what sorts of sustenance best sustain physical life?

Sorry, but the mildly clever word-play too on "good" would likely not fool a ninth grader.

Using the concept of ambiguity, you want your audience to accept your interpretation of "good" and apply it to both subjects under question.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Are the questions unanswerable? I think they are avoided, or their understanding is dismissed as sophomoric out of convenience to not deal with them. They most certainly add to a little entanglement that is for sure. Being sophomoric, they should be easily answered.

Or are Paul and Jesus, too, just using clever word play when they refer to God as Father? Or is it only the Bible and Biblicists have a license to use metaphors and analogies freely and those who dismiss a God of Creation are denied from doing so?

Sounds a little unfair if you accept the idea that the two sides can meet in a forum for discussion on a leveled playing field, doesn't it?

[Isaak Brodsky]

I rejected all things Shakespeare until I learned his language.

[TheNoNamedOne]

So there it is, huh, Ian? In all its glory, it comes down to "hey, you are not a Christian and therefore do not understand the Bible so your attempt at using the Bible to meet me to show why it is wrong is wrong itself -- because you just don't or can't understand it.You need to be touched by the Spirit to do so."

Hey, why even join into a discussion with atheists about the Bible if that is going to be the moat around the castle to hide behind? Surely you know they too are going to use metaphores and analogies. Just never lower gate.

[Isaak Brodsky]

I'm sorry if you took my response in that way.

My intended meaning here was that my understanding was able to begin when I approached the Bible in this case - as well as in other works - with a certain measure of humility about me.

I had to set aside briefly beliefs in what I had perceived to be a work replete with problems in order to uncover the abiding truthes and coherence contained therein.

The epiphany did not enter the crown of my head and electrify me until I read with this sort of suspended antagonism and allowed the Spirit to reveal what I had dismissed out-of-hand for decades.

[TheNoNamedOne]

My intended meaning here was that my understanding was able to begin when I approached the Bible in this case - as well as in other works - with a certain measure of humility about me.

I had to set aside briefly beliefs in what I had perceived to be a work replete with problems in order to uncover the abiding truthes and coherence contained therein.

The epiphany did not enter the crown of my head and electrify me until I read with this sort of suspended antagonism and allowed the Spirit to reveal what I had dismissed out-of-hand for decades.

Fair enough, Ian.

However, have you also gone to the Koran with humility and without preconceptions, setting aside beliefs in order to uncover the abiding truthes and coherence contained theirin you may not be aware of?

I hate these personal questions, because I know you can answer "yes" and the point is over despite whether it is true or not. After all, there is no way for me to verify a personal action of your past. But, nevertheless, once in a while I find myself asking a personal question about a member's past.

In any case, many people come to believe in the Koran the exact way you came to believing in the Bible; approaching with humility, putting aside perceptions, etc...and BAM! They, too, get hit with their God Epiphany of Truth. Are you so bold out of loyalty and faith to your scriptures willing to say yours is the Truth and theirs is not? I don't think you are a universalist, are you?

[Isaak Brodsky]

However, have you also gone to the Koran with humility and without preconceptions, setting aside beliefs in order to uncover the abiding truthes and coherence contained theirin you may not be aware of?

As a Jew, I cannot touch anything unclean. Just kiddin' here.

As an agnostic Jew-turned-Jesus-freak, so to speak, my initial contact with sacred texts were with the Nevi'im. My Iraqi roommate during my senior year of college in '86 encouraged me to study the Koran with him during our routine experiments with green bud.

I was very free-thinking then, but as you might imagine not so keen on revealing my Hebrew ancestry. Nevertheless, I found an intersting undercurrent of hostility towards Jews. I had the feeling that that sort of latent hostility was somehow counter-intutitive to inner peace.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Perhaps you didn't go to it humble enough and the pride of your ansectery kept you locked into preconceived perceptions that you were already vaguely aware of.

Outright hostility is a mark of the Bible. God even uses violence to unfold his plan. Isn't violence based on hostility? Perhaps one should embrace violence for what happens will be God's will anyway, won't it?

Wasn't it God's will that Jesus should be the target of violence and He therefore used people to carry out his plan?