Do You Really Want to Eat That? Refuted! Copyright © 2012, by Gun Lap
Common Yellow Dung Fly				Dung Beetles

About our pictures: The common yellow dung fly is pictured on the left and the dung beetle is pictured on the right, feasting on elephant dung. The dung beetle eats dung but is kosher (a biblically permitted food, Lev. 11:22), depending on which translation we read. Some translations say cricket which isn't much better. Is the beetle or cricket any more healthful or appetizing than the fly on the left?

Introduction:

This article is a review of Do You Really Want to Eat That? an article written by Living Church of God (LCG) author Douglas S. Winnail in 2000.

LCG article: Why did God prohibit eating certain foods? Should you follow those same instructions today?

The dietary laws about "clean" and "unclean" meats are among the most unique yet puzzling instructions found in the Bible. For thousands of years these laws have been a striking mark of identity separating God's people from the world (Leviticus 20:25-26).

Comment: The article opens on a dubious note. Is the writer just rationalizing what he wants to believe? The writer assumes these laws are "unique" and that they set the Israelites apart in some special way. That is what the Bible says, and apparently on that basis alone, he just assumes it is true. But here we will not assume the Bible is true. We want to "prove all things" (I Thes. 5:21) to see if it is true. Truth does not fear investigation.

The article starts with a reference to Lev. 20:25-26, so let's read those verses.

Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lord am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. (Lev. 20:25-26).

In what sense are these dietary laws unique? Of course the Old Testament (OT) dietary laws are unique in the sense that no other religion has exactly the same dietary laws. But simply having a set of dietary laws did not make the Israelites unique. Many religions have dietary laws which make them different from other religions. In that respect, all such religions are unique. So there should be something special about these laws that makes them better than all other religious dietary laws, because simply having dietary laws is not unique at all.

What makes the OT dietary laws so special? It is claimed that the health benefits are superior, and the churches which follow these laws attempt to demonstrate that scientifically.

Most people in the West know that Muslims do not eat pork. But it is not clear whether the LCG writer realizes that the other major religions also have dietary laws.

Why is this important? It is important because if the OT dietary laws are from God, and no other religions got their dietary laws from God, then the OT dietary laws should have superior health benefits to the dietary laws of all other religions. So to prove that the OT dietary laws are from God the LCG needs to compare them to the dietary laws of all other religions. But the LCG article does not compare the health benefits of OT food laws to those of other religions. In fact, it does not tell us what the dietary laws of other religions are. One could easily forget that other religions even have dietary laws.

How can they prove the dietary laws of OT Israel were ahead of their time if they present no information at all on the dietary laws of other religions?

The LCG does not compare the dietary laws of the Bible to those of other religions, they only compare them to having no dietary laws at all.

For more information, see our article Did Dietary Laws Make Israel Unique?

LCG article: Consequently, for centuries, these same instructions have been a source of controversy and confusion among various religious groups who all claim to get their beliefs from the same book—the Bible.

Some have felt that "these laws express God's will" and as such are wise, reasonable, and beneficial dietary regulations revealing "God's care for the health of His people" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, "Introduction To Leviticus," 1990). This public health focus of those dietary laws was "espoused by Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages in Spain and other notable scholars" (Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1980).

Comment: Does the Bible itself tell us the laws were given for health reasons? If so, where does it say that? If the main reason for these laws were the health benefits, it seems very odd that the Bible does not say that, but that it does point out the laws were meant to set Israel apart, to make them "holy" (Lev. 20:25-26, Lev. 11:44-45). Note that "holy" (Lev. 11:45-45) does not mean "healthy" so let's not reject what it says and reinterpret that. The idea that these laws set Israel apart is dubious since there is nothing different about just having dietary laws. If the Bible clearly states that these laws were given for health reasons, why are the sources (whom are presumably experts) quoted in the LCG article in disagreement over why these laws were given?

The Bible says "God is not the author of confusion" (I Cor 14:33) yet the article says "for centuries, these same instructions have been a source of controversy and confusion". The article is stating that the Bible instructions are the cause of confusion. If true (and it does seem to be the case), the confusion surrounding these verses disproves either the dietary laws or I Cor 14:33, which I just quoted.

One reason the dietary laws cause confusion is because they are not sufficiently clear and complete. This leaves room for confusion about how to apply them, with different rabbinical interpretations inevitably resulting. Another reason the dietary laws cause confusion is because the purposes are not all fully and clearly stated.

Though some of these laws are clearly intended for health reasons (because some of the forbidden foods can be dangerous) others provide no indication of any health benefit even in light of modern science.

The evidence shows that the Hebrews, like the ancient Egyptians, had some limited knowledge of poisonous fish and other health laws, but also some false ideas.

I did an internet search and found some interesting information in a paper called "Poisonous Fishes" by a medical doctor, Bruce Halstead. One reason I like this source is because it is in PDF format so the reader can easily access the entire paper for himself here. It was published in Public Health Reports, Vol. 73, No. 4, April 1958.

According to the publication, "Halstead is generally regarded as the world's leading authority on poisonous fishes." Here is a quote from Dr. Halstead.

Man's knowledge of poisonous fishes dates back to ancient times. At least one of the Mosaic laws is believed to have been aimed directly at eliminating poisonous fishes from the Israelite diet, "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat: it is unclean unto you" (Deuteronomy 14: 9-10). The French archeologist Claude Gaillard reported that hieroglyphics and figures of the deadly Tetraodon lineatus appear frequently on ancient Egyptian tombs, and according to the Egyptologist Keimer, this scaleless species was recognized as poisonous during the time of the Pharaohs. Galen is said to have reported in his De Alimentis that the flesh of the moray is dangerous to eat. Alexander the Great forbade his soldiers to eat fish during conquests because he believed that some species produced skin disorders.

So it seems that the ancient Hebrews were not the only ones with some knowledge of poisonous fish. But man's knowledge of poisonous fish in those days was much more hit-and-miss than it is today. Presumably Alexander was wrong about the skin disorders but the Egyptians were right about the deadly Tetraodon lineatus. As we will see, the Hebrews were only partially right about "fins and scales" being the way to separate healthful fish from unhealthful ones.

LCG article: However, other theologians have openly referred to the Leviticus dietary guidelines as meaningless, repulsive, arbitrary and irrational ideas that originated in primitive superstitions—not in the mind of God. These theologians have confidently asserted: there are no logical explanations for many of the guidelines—that health was definitely not their purpose; that it is a waste of time for Christians to study this section of Scripture. They have asked, "What has all this [the dietary laws] to do with religion?" (Interpreter's Bible, "Leviticus 11-15," 1953).

Comment: The LCG oversimplifies the debate about the purpose for the health laws. I comment on this in more detail elsewhere. But for now, let's notice an example or two of why some think these laws are arbitrary.

Ex 23:19 says "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Is this an arbitrary law? Note that it does not even say "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in milk.", but "in his mother's milk." This seems like an arbitrary law. Can the churches of God prove that this a health law? Will people get sick if they eat a kid seethed in his mother's milk?

Why does the LCG article gloss over this verse?

Here is another law that sounds arbitrary: "And if any part of their carcase fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it shall be clean. But if any water be put upon the seed, and any part of their carcase fall thereon, it shall be unclean unto you." (Lev. 11:37-38).

If any dry seed comes in contact with a dead animal, that's okay (the seed "shall be clean") but if the seed is wet it's not okay ("it shall be unclean"). Why? This is perplexing—quite a riddle indeed. Contrary to the LCG, these laws are not simple to understand. Of course, the LCG glosses over or totally ignores "little" questions like this, for which they seem to have no good explanation, so they make the subject appear much simpler than it is. Deceptive? To suggest that these laws were all rational, and that none of them were arbitrary or irrational, and to call them simple is misleading.

Also, note that this is talking about seed "which is to be sown" not eaten. Clearly this is not a health law which pertains to the health of the person eating the seed, because the seed was not to be eaten, but sown. If the seed is to be sown, what difference does it make if the seed is wet or dry when it touched a dead animal, or even if it touched a dead animal at all?

LCG article: Some have even stated, "The texts [Scriptures] do not claim that health is a factor [in the dietary laws], though possibly hygiene was a by-product" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1990, p. 526). Yet God said His laws were for our good, prolonging our lives (Deuteronomy 5:29, 33; 10:13).

Comment: Not one of the scriptures quoted here (Deuteronomy 5:29, 33; 10:13) by the LCG is specifically referring to dietary laws prolonging life for health reasons. Let's look at each one.

Deut 5:29—"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!"

Deut 5:33—"Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess."

Deut 10:13—"To keep the commandments of the Lord, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?"

Do these verses promise long life for keeping dietary laws? Not really. If the Bible interprets itself, what is the Bible interpretation? We see that in Deut 5:16. Note that their "days may be prolonged ... in the land" if they keep the part of the spiritual law which says "honour thy father and thy mother".

Deut 5:16—"Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

The first two verses are at the end of a chapter reiterating the ten commandments, which is a spiritual law, not a dietary law. Deut 10 also refers to the "two tables of stone" (v.1). It does say to "walk in all his ways" (v. 12) which would include the dietary laws, but it does not say that the dietary laws themselves are health laws or that they will make people live longer for that reason. These verses are pronouncing physical blessings for keeping the ten commandments and other laws, most of which are not health laws. The phrase "prolong your days in the land" could just mean they would not be thrown out of the promised land if they obeyed God. To say that it refers to longer life is an interpretation, and to say that the longer life comes from keeping the dietary laws is reading into it something that is not there. So is saying that the dietary laws are health laws (though a few of them have some health value). So the LCG both reads into and interprets these verses as they see fit. But their "founder" Herbert Armstrong instructed people to neither interpret the Bible nor read things into it. (See our article Did Herbert Armstrong Interpret the Bible?)

Of course, to the degree the dietary laws improve health they could cause people to live longer. That is just common sense. But just because it is common sense does not mean it is in the Bible. If the dietary laws were totally ritualistic and had no health benefits, keeping them would still cause people to live longer if God blessed them with a long life as a reward for keeping ritualistic laws. This makes just as much sense. If God blesses people physically for keeping his spiritual law he can bless them for keeping his ritualistic law as well. There is no scriptural support in these verses for interpreting them to mean that the dietary laws were given for health reasons rather than ritualistic reasons.

The main point is that these verses in no way, shape, or form, prove that the dietary laws are health laws.

The way to know if any of these dietary laws are health laws is to find a clear verse that says exactly that (if there were such a verse the LCG should have and probably would have referred to it), or to examine those laws in the light of nutritional science and see which of those laws have health benefits.

LCG article: His dietary ordinances were not arbitrary. Their purpose was to benefit us. That being so, why would God later inspire a New Testament (NT) that supposedly shows that "Christ repealed all the Leviticus regulations on unclean meats and practices" (Illustrated Bible Dictionary)? Why would an all-wise Creator function in such a contradictory manner?

Comment: The writer assumes the entire Bible was produced by "an all-wise Creator". The Bible contains many contradictions. These contradictions are one of the ways we know it did not come from an all-wise Creator. This could just be another contradiction.

LCG article: If you have ever pondered such questions, perhaps it's time you really looked into the subject to determine for yourself what the real truth of the matter is. The God of the Bible challenges you to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV).

Comment: The LCG pays lip service to proving things, but they don't really prove things properly, as I show in this article and others. The LCG article pretends to prove the OT dietary laws are all sound health laws, but they fail badly.

LCG article: The answers could change your life and positively impact your health!

Comment: On the other side of the coin, the reader might learn that the Bible is false. If so, there must be better sources of health information. The reader might improve his health more without the Bible. For example, the Bible places no limits on the amount of red meats one can eat, and for all its alleged wisdom on health issues, omits many other important principles of good health that cannot be known without either science or divine revelation. I plan to have an article on vital health laws that are not in the Bible. The reader might even save his life by seeking more advanced dietary information. The churches of God have had members die who were taught to rely primarily on faith-healing and avoid the medical profession.

LCG article: The Scriptures reveal several important reasons for the dietary laws.

Comment: The article mentions several reasons for the dietary laws, but where can we find these clearly discussed in the scriptures? The LCG article is not scripture.

LCG article: In Exodus we learn that God chose the nation of Israel for a special purpose (Exodus 19:5-6). Interestingly, the dietary laws were designed to make the Israelites distinct from other nations. Why? God told Moses, "I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You shall therefore distinguish between clean beasts and unclean.... And you shall be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine" (Leviticus 20:24-26).

Comment: This seems to be the main reason for the dietary laws. This must be the most important reason since this is the reason stated more than once in the Bible in the chapters on kosher foods (Lev 11:44-45, Deut 14:2, 21).

LCG article: God chose Israel for the purpose of becoming a model nation—a light and example to the world. "Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4:6-8).

Comment: Read all our articles on the dietary laws and see that they are badly flawed and hardly the laws of a model nation.

LCG article: God separated Israel from other nations so the results of His laws could be clearly seen by the other peoples who would be attracted to Him by the wonderful benefits provided by His righteous ways. "My son, do not forget my law, but let your heart keep my commands; for length of days and long life and peace they will add to you" (Proverbs 3:1-2). God's intention was that other nations would want to follow the example of the Israelites when they saw the wisdom and happiness of living according to God's instructions—which would include physical well-being and freedom from disease (Deuteronomy 4:40; 7:12-15)!

Comment: Was that really God's intention? It seems that things have not worked out as God supposedly planned. This passage cannot be referring to the millennium when there will be "neither Jew nor Greek" (just as there is "neither Jew nor Greek" in the church today, Gal 3:28). The purpose of dietary laws was to set Israel apart, but Israel will not be set apart from the gentiles then since all will keep the same laws.

Also, the LCG uses Proverbs 3:1-2 to imply that dietary laws will result in long life, but where is the evidence this scripture is talking about dietary laws? The Bible is supposed to interpret itself. We must not read into it what it does not say. The Bible says keeping the spiritual law leads to long life.

Deut 5:16 reads "Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

What law other than "honour thy father and thy mother" promises long life? What health law in the Bible explicitly promises long life? The Bible here is promising long life as a miracle, as a blessing from God for keeping the spiritual law, not as a natural consequence of keeping physical health laws.

If keeping the dietary laws leads to longer life, Jews should be the longest lived peoples on earth. The Wikipedia article (on Nov 9, 2010) List of countries by life expectancy has Japan at the top of the list and Israel in position eight.

How can the LCG booklet say "the results of His laws could be clearly seen by the other peoples"? If other peoples clearly saw it why would they not at least keep the most well-known aspect of the OT health laws and stop eating pork? The truth is that other nations do not see that these laws are better.

Except for Islamic nations which don't eat pork (and don't seem to apply here because many of them hate Israel) what other nations are following the dietary laws of Israel? If this were God's intention, it seems that he has failed. Or maybe it is the Bible that has failed, or the LCG's understanding of the Bible.

LCG article: The dietary laws were also designed to promote wise management and efficient utilization of the environmental resources that God entrusted to mankind. The instructions about "clean" and "unclean" foods are important in fulfilling the commission given in Genesis 1:28 and 2:15 to "tend and keep" the earth. To rightfully understand the dietary laws, they must be seen in the context of God's purpose for all humanity.

Comment: If the laws were to separate Israel from all humanity, one can hardly argue they were intended to benefit the environment of all of humanity. It sounds nice to include the whole world, but it is contrary to what the Bible clearly says about why these laws were given.

If promoting wise utilization of land was the idea, why does the Bible not simply limit the amount of meat a person can eat and encourage the growing of rice? Why didn't the Bible tell Israel to rotate their crops or set aside parks?

Where does the Bible say this was the purpose? Unless the LCG can show where the Bible states this purpose, they are simply reading this purpose into the Bible. Yet they said earlier that the scripture gives several reasons for these health laws. Unless they can show where those verses are, it seems like the LCG is just reading this into the Bible because it sounds good and because the environment is on everyone's mind these days.

LCG article: Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are the primary passages in the Bible that discuss this subject. These chapters give very specific information summarized in simple, easy-to-understand principles.

Comment: The on-line Jewish Encyclopedia shows that this topic is anything but simple. Anyone who has seriously researched this topic and calls it simple is not telling the truth. A person could spend weeks (maybe years?) studying it. Just about evey aspect of this article that I researched was a lot more complicated than it appeared on the surface. I spent a lot of 12-hour days researching this topic of Bible dietary laws and know I did not get to the bottom of everything. The subject only seems simple to people who let a church do their research for them and don't actually prove all things for themselves. I think the LCG is trying to make it sound like they know more than they do! They are pretending they really understand this subject but they don't.

LCG article: As one commentary observed, "These were rule-of-thumb laws that God gave in His wisdom to a people who could not know the reason for the provision" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 569).

Comment: They would have known the reason if he told them. Why didn't he?

LCG article: Today, however, the discoveries of modem science are revealing just how practical and important these laws really are.

Comment: Preposterous.

LCG article: Beginning in Leviticus 11:1-3, we read that "the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying... 'These are the animals which you may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth... whatever divides the hoof having cloven hooves and chewing the cud.'" This describes plant-eating mammals (herbivores) classified as ruminants. A ruminant is "the name given to a grazing animal that has a highly specialized digestive system and splits the hoof'" (World Book Encyclopedia, 1995).

These animals have four-chambered stomachs that convert grasses that are inedible to humans and other animals into nutritious, high quality protein products (meat and milk) that people can then use for food. Examples of such clean animals would be all cattle, sheep, goats, deer, bison, moose, antelope, gazelles, caribou and giraffes. They are all herbivores that obtain their food by grazing or browsing on grasses and other plants.

Comment: On the subject of milk, if the Bible had forbidden it, I am sure that the LCG would have quoted grave statistics about people with lactose intolerance as proof of God's wisdom.

Here is what Wikipedia says about Lactose intolerance.

Lactose, the disaccharide sugar component of all milk must be cleaved in the small intestine by the enzyme lactase in order for its constituents, galactose and glucose, to be absorbed. The production of this enzyme declines significantly after weaning in all mammals. Consequently, many humans become unable to digest lactose properly as they mature. ... It is estimated that 30 to 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant, including 75 percent of Native Americans and African Americans, and 90 percent of Asian Americans. Lactose intolerance is less common among those descended from northern Europeans. Lactose intolerance is a natural process and there is no reliable way to prevent or reverse it. (Wikipedia article Milk, as of Nov 10, 2010.)

LCG article: From the standpoint of wise environmental management, these guidelines make a lot of sense. Vast areas of the globe are covered by rangelands (savannas, veldts, pampas), which are often called marginal lands because they do not have enough rainfall to support the production of food crops like corn or wheat. "The only way millions of acres of rangeland can be used for human benefit is via ruminants" (Dairy Council Digest, Jan.-Feb. 1973).

Comment: To better preserve the environment we could eat less meat or reserve more land for wild animals, not domesticated animals of any kind. If preserving the environment was the idea, why did the Bible not command the Israelites to set aside parks?

LCG article: Grass-fed animals also produce meat that has a lower fat content than grain-fed animals—which we now realize is a health benefit. Raising meat animals on grass and other plants is also much more economical.

Comment: Why not eat less meat or trim the fat and get the same benefits? And if these animals are so economical, why is pork often cheaper than lamb, venison, chicken, beef, buffalo, etc? (Prices vary considerably from country to country and with time and market conditions).

Eating variety is a good thing because some foods are high in some nutrients and others are high in different nutrients. No food is high in all nutrients. There might be a disadvantage in eating too many ruminants.

The Bible seems to allow unlimited consumption of almost all clean foods. Honey is an exception. It does warn not to indulge in too much honey because too much will make one vomit (Prov 25:16). It is it not scientific to allow unlimited consumption of any food.

If the dietary laws in the Bible were scientific, there would be limits on even the clean foods. Books on nutrition frequently contain warnings about eating too much of this or that food, even clean foods.

In some cases, clean foods seem to be more dangerous than unclean ones.

Salmonellae are bacteria that may cause food poisoning ... Salmonellae cause a moderate illness with nausea, vomiting, crampy diarrhea, and headache, which may come back a few weeks later as arthritis (joint pains). In people with impaired immune systems (such as people with kidney disease or HIV/AIDS or those receiving chemotherapy for cancer), Salmonellae can cause a life-threatening illness. The illness is transmitted by undercooked foods such as eggs, poultry, dairy products, and seafood. (Found here)

Note that it mentions poultry and dairy but not pork.

The LCG article keeps talking about science, but they are selective in their use of scientific facts.

LCG article: The clean animals that God permitted His model nation to eat—designated simply by split hooves and cud-chewing—were designed to produce nutritious food in an economical and ecologically sound manner. These guidelines were given long before the sciences of ecology, economics and nutrition were ever heard of. This was one of the benefits that God wanted the world to see through the example of the nation of Israel.

Comment: The LCG claims these laws are well ahead of their time but the little evidence they give is easily refuted. For example, it is silly to think that we need the modern science of economics to tell us which meat is cheapest. Just go to any food market and look at the prices.

LCG article: The dietary laws regarding cud-chewing beasts also prohibit the consumption of all carnivorous animals and omnivorous animals for very logical reasons.

Comment: Does the Bible forbid eating carnivores? It permits the consumption of flesh-eating fish like barracuda and groupers.

What about omnivores? The Wikipedia article Chicken says, "Chickens are omnivores. In the wild, they often scratch at the soil to search for seeds, insects and even larger animals such as lizards or young mice." Ducks and wild turkeys are clean foods and they are also omnivores.

So it easily proven that the LCG is totally wrong that the Bible forbids consumption of omnivores. Where is that in the Bible or science? They seem to be just making stuff up to come with a "logical" reason for the Bible dietary laws.

LCG article: God created clean animals to provide food and by-products for human use.

Comment: Many non-clean animals provide by-products that are just as useful. Pigskins are used to make footballs (for North American football) and pig hair has been used in toothbrushes.

LCG article: He created animals unsuitable for human consumption for other purposes. Carnivores, as beasts of prey, play an important role in controlling the populations of other animals. As an example, wolves and mountain lions, which feed on herds of deer, control not only numbers, but also help maintain the health of the herd by culling out older, sick or infirm animals. That's one reason we shouldn't eat carnivores. They may eat sick animals and transmit diseases to humans.

Comment: Are they saying that eating any properly cooked carnivore can make people sick? Where is the proof that the sickness will be passed on to humans? If these predators are designed so that their systems can handle this, why would it make humans sick? The predators don't even get sick. Does the LCG know this for a fact or are they just assuming that without proof?

LCG article: The pig or swine is specifically mentioned as being unclean and not permitted as human food (Leviticus 11:7-8; Deuteronomy 14:8). While some theologians have stated, "We do not know why the swine was forbidden" (Interpreter's Bible), other writers find numerous logical reasons related to ecology, economics, nutrition and public health.

Comment: People find what they want to find. Let's hear these "logical reasons" so we can decide for ourselves.

LCG article: In the wild, swine are often nocturnal animals that root for food. Their nighttime feeding habits should have kept their contact with humans at a minimum. Domesticated pigs, however, have been used for centuries as scavengers around human settlements. Having an omnivorous animal around that could put on weight rapidly by eating anything from garbage to dead animals and human wastes—and that could later be slaughtered and used for food—has seemed like a pretty good arrangement to many peoples. But is it?

LCG article: Today, domesticated hogs "are fed a diet composed mainly of corn and grain" (New Standard Encyclopedia, 1993). However, as non-ruminants with digestive tracts similar to that of humans, pigs are unable to survive on grasses and thus have been ecological competitors with humans for the same types of food grains (such as wheat, corn and barley). In America about 20 percent of the corn harvested is fed to hogs.

Comment: There is nothing unbiblical about feeding grains to livestock.

LCG article: Basically, pigs enjoy eating the same types of food that people eat. This is not a wise use of resources in a world where an exploding human population is outstripping our capacity to produce food. Probably this is another reason why God does not want us to eat pigs. He foresaw that great herds of hogs would take life-sustaining grain out of the mouths of poor people!

Comment: In my view the world is greatly overpopulated. Perhaps the most efficient use of resources is if we all eat rice seven days a week, feel guilty about living a decent life, and eat little or no meat. But is that what God wants? An over-crowded planet full of people who eke out a meager subsistence living? Some COGs interpret John 10:10 to mean we are to live even this life abundantly. How much wealth did God give to Abraham and Solomon? Until people learn to live within their means (available resources) there will always be ignorant or irresponsible people who have more children than they can afford to properly feed, clothe, and educate. The issue is not a lack of food or other resources, the issue is living within our means. The LCG does not provide scriptural support to prove that food resources should be diverted from foods that people want to eat just so we can squeeze more people onto an already overcrowded planet. Unless they can show clear scriptures stating their views, they are making up their own non-biblical values and reading that into the Bible.

Furthermore, pigs are extremely efficient. Even though hogs are fed that "expensive" grain, pork can still be cheaper than beef, chicken, lamb, turkey, and venison. The overall efficiency of producing a product is usually reflected in the free market price. Looking at the type of food an animal eats is only one factor in the final price. One must also consider the cost of the feed (which might vary due to local conditions), how much feed the animal must eat to gain each gram of weight, the nutritional and energy value of the meat when it is eaten, and so on.

As far as energy value goes, the calorific value of pork is 4.58 per gm. That is 2.95 times as high as beef which is 1.55 per gm. So pork is not only cheaper to buy by weight, but provides almost three times as much energy by weight. In this respect pork is a far better use of resources. The consumer gets three times the energy value and probably pays less for it.

LCG Article: Jesus Christ Himself did not feel it inappropriate to allow an incident that caused the destruction of a commercially raised herd of pigs! "Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. And they [demons] begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them. Then the demons went out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the lake and drowned" (Luke 8:32-33). Would Jesus have allowed the destruction of someone's valuable property, without cause, through carelessness or accident?

Comment: We already know there are scriptures which oppose eating pork, so this adds nothing to the argument.

LCG article: One of the major diseases transmitted by swine and other unclean animals is trichinosis.

Comment: Clean animals can transmit disease also.

LCG article: It is caused by a small parasitic roundworm that gets into the muscle tissue of animals and humans. The disease has a global distribution and affects about 1 percent of the world's population—nearly 60 million people (Gerald Tortora, Microbiology, 5th ed., 1995). This is not surprising considering that "people throughout the world eat more pork than any other kind of meat" (World Book Encyclopedia, 1995).

Comment: If pork is the most heavily consumed meat one would expect more diseases from eating pork even if it is no more dangerous than other meats.

LCG article: Americans consume about 60 pounds (30 kilograms) per person each year. It should be noted, however, that many carnivorous and omnivorous animals are infected with the parasite Trichinella spiralis. Bear meat, walrus and wild pigs have been significant sources of infections in humans (Baron, Medical Microbiology, 1993). The list could also include squirrels, rats, cats, dogs, rabbits, foxes, horse meat and marine mammals (Nestor, Microbiology 1995; Benenson, Control of Communicable Diseases in Man, 12th ed., 1975).

Comment: What are the odds of getting this disease from foods that are properly cooked? Why do they mention only unclean animals? Are there no clean animals that can get this? That seems doubtful.

It is meaningless to say "many carnivorous and omnivorous animals are infected with the parasite" since many clean animals might also be, but they don't mention that. What is needed is an objective comparison, and the article does not give us that.

If it is simply a matter that clean animals are less likely to poison us, that is disturbing because the Bible says these foods are CLEAN. If "clean" does not mean free of toxins, worms, parasites and such, then "clean" does not sound very clean. At best it is semi-clean, or simply less toxic.

LCG article: It is hardly an accident or coincidence that God prohibited the consumption of these animals by His divinely given dietary laws.

Comment: Even if it can be shown that unclean foods are more dangerous, the LCG has to prove they are more dangerous even when properly cooked because God could have just told them how to cook it properly. Since all meats should be cooked, it is irrelevant which meats are dangerous when they are not properly cooked.

LCG article: Tapeworms, which afflict about 3 percent of the world's population (about 180 million), are another serious health problem encountered when pork is eaten (Tortora). While beef and fish can also contain tapeworms that will colonize the human digestive tract and cause discomfort, the pork tapeworm is much more dangerous. The larva of the pork parasite, once inside the human intestine, can migrate through the tissues to the heart, eyes and brain—and can eventually cause death (Morello, Microbiology in Patient Care, 5th ed., 1994).

Comment: What are the odds of getting tapeworm from pork if it is properly cooked? Zero?

LCG article: With reference to pork tapeworm disease, "the highest rates of infection are seen in countries with lower levels of hygiene and where pork is a major part of the diet, such as Mexico, Latin America, Spain, Portugal, Africa, India, southeast Asia, and China" (Baron, Medical Microbiology, 1994).

Comment: Please re-read that carefully. It says "With reference to pork tapeworm disease..." Note that is it only talking about where you are most likely to get pork tapeworm, not tapeworm. Of course the odds of getting pork tapeworm is higher where people eat more pork. Just like the odds of getting beef tapeworm is higher where people eat more beef.

LCG article: Although the general advice for avoiding parasitic infections from pork and other unclean animals is to adequately cook the meat, the most effective way to avoid these diseases is to avoid eating unclean animals that do not have cloven hooves and do not chew the cud—as God instructed Moses and the Israelites 3,500 years ago. If only this portion of the biblical dietary code were applied today, the global burden of parasitic disease could be dramatically reduced within a generation!

Comment: The same advice—not eating the meat—is also the most effective way to avoid infections from clean animals, so the LCG argument is silly.

Summary: The LCG article is very misleading.

The LCG promotes OT dietary laws but they do not compare those laws to other ancient religious or non-religious dietary practices. In essence all they do is try to show that these laws have benefits. Even if true, it would only prove they are better than not having any dietary laws at all. Proving the OT laws have some benefits would not prove these laws were divine or even ahead of their time. To prove the laws are divine they need to prove the laws are both perfect and complete (they are neither). To prove the laws are ahead of their time they need to compare to many other dietary laws of those days. They don't do that. To prove the laws are meant for our time they need to prove these laws work better than modern science (because if they are no better than nutritional science, we have no need for them in our time). They don't do that either.

There are many problems with the LCG article. The basic problems are that the LCG is very biased and is selective about the information they present.

Note: The Bible permits eating beetles including dung beetles, which seems a lot like eating flies. I don't see where the LCG points out things like that. Why not? Are they even trying to deal with this subject honestly? If they are hiding information on this subject, what makes us think they are any more up-front on other subjects? It is very disappointing to see this kind of behavior from a church.

Some translations of Lev. 11:22 say "cricket" instead of "beetle". Crickets are not much better than beetles. Here is what Wikipedia says about crickets.

Crickets are omnivorous scavengers who feed on organic materials, as well as decaying plant material, fungi, and some seedling plants. Crickets eat their own dead when there are no other sources of food available, and exhibit predatorial behavior upon weakened, crippled crickets. (Wikipedia, Cricket (insect), as of Jan 6, 2012).

My article "Don't Eat The Cleanup Crew" Refuted shows that the LCG is very much against eating scavengers, which might explain why they skip discussing the cricket.

Some translators admit they don't really know how to translate Lev 11:22, but if the COGs admitted that, they would have to give up some of their other cherished notions, like the idea that the Bible interprets itself, is written for our time today, and that not one jot or tittle would pass away.

Note: Please read my other material which refutes OT dietary laws.