Critiquing: Why Did God Command Israel Not to Eat Pigs?

August 7, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Commanding Israel — Eating Pigs — Covenant Change — Burden of Law — Moral Directives

---

Introduction

The content aims to explore why God commanded Israel not to eat pigs and discusses various theological aspects of Old and New Covenant laws. It provides speculative explanations and attempts to address why Jesus’ teachings on burdens appear contradictory. The logical coherence of these explanations will be evaluated, highlighting unsubstantiated claims, logical inconsistencies, and potential cognitive biases.

Outline of Content

1. Speculative Nature of Explanations
2. Cultural and Health Reasons for Laws
3. Contradictions and Logical Inconsistencies
4. Lack of Empirical Substantiation
5. Fallacies and Cognitive Biases
6. Recommendations for Evidence-Based Belief Mapping

---

1. Speculative Nature of Explanations

The content acknowledges the speculative nature of its explanations:

“So what we’re left with is speculation. Now, just to know that Jesus is not a word for God, this declared all foods clean.”

This admission sets the tone for the content’s reliance on speculation rather than definitive answers. Speculation without evidence weakens the logical foundation of the argument.

2. Cultural and Health Reasons for Laws

The content suggests cultural and health reasons for the dietary laws:

“Some of these laws were meant clearly to create a kind of cultural dividing wall that kept the Jews distinct in very significant ways from the pagan cultures around them.”

“And of course, for a long time, pork was a problem, even in modern times because of the kind of worm or whatever that could be transferred.”

While these reasons are plausible, the lack of evidence supporting them raises concerns. The explanations are presented as possibilities without empirical backing, leading to unsubstantiated claims.

3. Contradictions and Logical Inconsistencies

The content contains several contradictions and logical inconsistencies. For instance, it argues that dietary laws were necessary for health reasons, but then suggests that these laws were abrogated despite ongoing health concerns:

“And yes, it would still be unhealthy to eat pork, but you have to ask Jesus when you see him because he didn’t make any exceptions.”

This raises the question of why health-related laws would be abolished if the health risks persisted, highlighting a logical inconsistency.

Another inconsistency is found in the explanation of Jesus’ yoke being easy:

“It’s not easy to take up your cross and fight your sin, so why did Jesus say his yoke is easy and his burden is light?”

The content attempts to resolve this by differentiating between the burden of the law and the struggle against sin, but the distinction remains unclear and unconvincing.

4. Lack of Empirical Substantiation

The content frequently presents claims without empirical evidence:

“There was another purpose for some of these laws, but it did not have to do with moral cleanliness.”

Such claims require substantiation to be logically coherent. The absence of evidence undermines the credibility of the explanations and leaves the reader with speculative reasoning rather than solid conclusions.

5. Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

The content exhibits several logical fallacies and cognitive biases:

• Appeal to Tradition: The content justifies practices based on their historical occurrence rather than their logical necessity or evidence:”So you’ve got this purpose. But another purpose might have been health reasons.”
• Confirmation Bias: The content selectively presents information that supports its narrative while ignoring contradictory evidence:”So now it’s a different kind of covenant. We are Christians are not one nation, all huddling together because God’s still developing the worldview and developing the ideas.”
• Appeal to Ignorance: The content frequently states that certain answers are unknown, which does not justify the speculative explanations provided:”I don’t know. And yes, it would still be unhealthy to eat pork, but you have to ask Jesus when you see him because he didn’t make any exceptions.”

6. Recommendations for Evidence-Based Belief Mapping

To enhance logical coherence, it is crucial to map one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence. Unsubstantiated claims and speculative reasoning should be minimized. Testing alleged promises or directives can provide empirical support and strengthen the argument. For example, the health implications of dietary laws could be investigated through historical and medical research.

Additionally, theological claims could be analyzed in light of their practical outcomes and historical contexts. Engaging in interdisciplinary research involving theology, history, and science can provide a more robust foundation for the explanations.

Conclusion

The content’s reliance on speculation, logical inconsistencies, and lack of empirical substantiation undermine its logical coherence. To improve the robustness of the arguments, it is essential to provide evidence-based explanations and minimize cognitive biases. Mapping beliefs to evidence and testing claims through interdisciplinary research can enhance the credibility and logical integrity of the content.

---

Feel free to discuss the arguments further in the comments section.