The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Christians are not allowed to eat pork.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,256 times Debate No: 37230
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am not trying to provoke anyone, but this is a very simple topic. Most Christians tend to love pig ribs, bacon, and pepperoni pizza{the pig kind, and yes, you can get non-pork pepperoni and bacon} and look down upon Muslims because they do not eat pork.

King James Bible
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.


This passage is taken out of context. Looking at the full chapter we can see that these are not general statements, but instructions given to the Israelites.
Debate Round No. 1


Christians are people of The Book. In this case, "The Book" is the Holy Bible. Christians were meant to believe in this book and follow its instructions, as the Muslims do with the Holy Qur'an, and Buddhist do with the Tipitaka. The Holy Bible consist of two parts, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. Since, this is a fact and cannot be argued against, for it is not an opinion, the Prophet Jesus Christ was the last of the Mosaic successors, and never made a new religion in his own lifetime, the Old Testament was included as being part of the Holy Bible. Thus, it is naturally obligatory for a Christian to obey his book.
Furthermore, Christianity and Islam branch out of Judaism. so Jesus (as), and Mohammad (saw), and there people are considered to be the "people of Moses".

P.S. (a.s.) and (s.a.w.) are just abbreviations for a respectful word when you speak of a prophet of the Lord.


Like I said, the passage is a set of instructions given to the Israelites and do not necessarily apply to other people.
Debate Round No. 2


AMC79 forfeited this round.


It is a shame that my opponent has forfeited, although there may be good reason for it. With that said, a commenter has requested a source for my claims. So I will give the full context and a source.

"1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,

2 "Say TO THE ISRAELITES [emphasis mine]: "Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:

3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

4 ""There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.

5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.

7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you."[1]

Note the "to the Israelites" part.

Also, I would like to thank Solomon Grim for pointing out this part of the New Testament.

Matthew 5:17-18

"17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."[2]

This is often used to mean Christians still have to follow the laws of the OT. However, Jesus says nothing shall pass from the law TILL ALL BE ACCOMPLISHED-since he came "to fulfill" (accomplish) the law and prophecies, this means the laws (at least of the Old Testament) are now subject to change (if you are Christian).


Debate Round No. 3


AMC79 forfeited this round.


Extend argument.
Debate Round No. 4


AMC79 forfeited this round.


Extend argument.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by IslamAhmadiyya 5 years ago
Hey Salam dude, what's up! I know you from the mosque, you made an account here that's awesome. I'm pretty sure you know who I am, don't forfeit, you got this kid.
Posted by simpleman 5 years ago
In the book of Acts, as Peter was at Simon the Tanner's house on the rooftop, the Lord told him at the conclusion of his vision and refutation, "Not so Lord, for nothing unclean has passed my lips.", "Call not thou unclean that which the Lord hath cleansed."
Posted by Solomon_Grim 5 years ago
Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Law of Moses was given to point people's minds forward to Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah-to-come. Once he did come, the Law's purpose was fulfilled, and it became obsolete. It was not destroyed, but superseded by a higher law, the law of the Gospel.
Posted by frio937 5 years ago
What proof does con have for that? Seventh Day Adventists do not eat pork for that reason. You cannot simply rebuttal the same information twice without something backing up your statement.

Seems Cons statement comes from a bias opinion this is a debate on scripture so please post some scripture to back up your claim Con.

I hope Pro, does not forfeit of out aggravation but continues to continue on the point he was making. When debating you cannot make assumptions that what your saying is general knowledge you must assume the audience is uninformed.

Fun fact: The next verse after the orders to not eat pork are also the ones that describe being homosexual as an abomination. By the argument Con is saying he must assume only the Jews cannot have Homosexual relationships.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While I think both were poorly supported and even based of biblical verses rather than focusing on what the actual purpose of the Levitical laws entail. Conduct is a tie due to double FF. Arguments to Con because he had the last case presented, and it therefore went without being refuted.