The Instigator
Mingodalia
Pro (for)
The Contender
Aileen3310
Con (against)

Christianity or Islam more likely to be true?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Aileen3310 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 112028
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)

 

Mingodalia

Pro

What religion is most likely correct? I'll argue for Christianity. Con can ask anything and refute any of my points.
Aileen3310

Con

Okay. What am I supposed to do?
Debate Round No. 1
Mingodalia

Pro

Ask me any question you want. You can come up with a list of questions if you want.
Aileen3310

Con

Alright. I'll start with a question to do with the Bible:

1. Sexual violence

"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and forces her to lie with him and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl"s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has raped her; he cannot divorce her all his days." -Deuteronomy 22:28

Why is there such a verse in the Bible? This verse is one of the most violent and unfair I've come across. It's almost encouraging rape. If you want a wife then just rape any woman, and then she'll have to marry you, and you can never divorce?

2. Useless, weird 'laws'

"You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.

"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.
Debate Round No. 2
Mingodalia

Pro

CON:

Deuteronomy 22:28



Why is there such a verse in the Bible? This verse is one of the most violent and unfair I've come across. It's almost encouraging rape. If you want a wife then just rape any woman, and then she'll have to marry you, and you can never divorce?



----------



1)The Laws of Moses-



The first thing one has to realize is that times were different then. Women were viewed differently than the modern Western culture. What happens many time when judging an incident is a logical fallacy called "Presentism".



-In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form ofcultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(literary_and_historical_analysis)



EXAMPLE-

An example of this is that long ago, in Western cultures, homosexuality was viewed as unethical/immoral. In much of the Muslim world, even today, it is viewed as unethical/immoral.



But in modern times, Western Liberals view it as unethical/immoral to judge homosexuality as bad or wrong. They call it intollerance.



The point? Which is it? Is homosexualty wrong or not? Well it depends on the time period and/or the culture and also on the individual you ask.



----------



RAPIST MUST DIE AND CONTEXT-



In Deuteronomy 22:25 it actually condemns a rapist to the death penalty.



"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, the man who has done this shall die."






Hardness of their hearts.



In Matthew 19:8 Jesus tells us the Law of Moses actually came yemporarily to round up the behavior of the Jews.



Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."






And then in the following verses, Jesus points out the semantics of it all.



In John 13:34 Jesus gives them a "New command".



"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."






My opponent has pointed out a verse from the Old Testament Law of Moses. But Christians do not follow the Old Testament Law of Moses. Christians are not Jews from 4,500 years ago. They are a completely different group who believes in completely different things than those following Moses.



An example of this is in Exodus 21:24 where it says:



"An eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..."






But then in the New Testament, Jesus goes rogue from this law and creates his own. This is where we get the term "Turning the other cheek."



Jesus-

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'"



"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other."






Jesus accepted the 10 Commandments as still being useful, but did away with the Ceremonial Law of Moses".






----------



CON:



Useless, weird 'laws'



"You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.



"You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.



-----------



It looks like you and Jesus agree. Keep in mind that Jesus is the supreme authority to a Christian, not the Laws of Moses. Also keep in mind that the Law of Moses was given because the Israelites of that day were acting very archaic and needed nudges to do better things.



According to Jesus man was not ready for his New Testament commands yet, but that they served their purpose, which was the need for law. Those living under the New Testament, who understand law, serve the purpose of a law based on love, and they demonstrate God's grace.
Aileen3310

Con

1.

'The first thing one has to realize is that times were different then. Women were viewed differently than the modern Western culture.'

So are you implying that you do not need to follow a verse in your own Bible because it is 'out of date'?

'Jesus-

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'"
"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other."

If Jesus himself is going against the law of Moses, doesn't that mean one thing is not from God? This is an example of how 2 verses from the Bible contradict each other. So that means one is from God, and one isn't. If they are both from God, then God isn't very just is he? Jesus is telling you to love an evil person and also told you to punish an evil person. Why punish evil people so much in one time period and let them do what they like with love in another? An evil person is an evil person, no matter what time period he/she exists in. Sounds a bit unfair.

2. Another question:

"(Jesus) is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2 NIV)
-http://www1.cbn.com...

If Jesus died on the cross and spent three days in hell to pay for the sins of the world, then why would we have to go to hell ourselves and pay for them again? God is then, in essence, being paid for our sins twice. With that said, was Jesus' sacrifice not worthy enough? If that is the case, why should we care that he died for our sins if his sacrifice means nothing at all?
Debate Round No. 3
Mingodalia

Pro

Imagine a world where you could see everyone's thoughts, their hopes, their dreams, and most especially, their evil thoughts.

Now imagine a world where you can see the outcome of every event and every possible outcome of every possible event.

We must actually take judgement on an omniscient being in a different way. I'll call it "omniscient morality".

EXAMPLE:
I hate Joe, so I murder Joe simply because I hate him. This could be deemed as an act of evil.

But what if I could see Joe's thoughts and see the outcome of everything he would do in his life. What if I peer into Joe's mind and future, and see him blowing up Europe with a tactical nuclear weapon? Am I evil if I take his life, preventing the destruction of an entire continent?

It's impossible to blindly judge a being who knows completely, the hearts and minds of everyone, and always knows if the end justifies the means.

CON SAYS:
"If Jesus himself is going against the law of Moses, doesn't that mean one thing is not from God?"
Rabbinic Judaism asserts that Moses presented the Jewish religious laws to the Jewish people and that those laws do not apply to Gentiles (Anyone non-Jew, including Christians).

In other words, Jews are under the "Old Covenant" for one purpose, and Christians are under the "New Covenant" for another purpose.

The Jews follow and followed Moses under the "Old Testament". The Christians follow Jesus Christ under the "New Testament".

"Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant." Hebrews 7:22
-
If you could read everyone's thoughts, you could prove to yourself that anyone and everyone was evil or worthy of death. Jesus himself backs this train of thought by saying:

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt 5:28

The same could be said for theft, murder, lying, or any other "sin".

The point? When God does or doesn't bring judgement or wrath upon someone, by the law, he shows that there is a standard that justifies them being punished. By not bringing wrath or judgement, he has shown mercy, forgiveness, and grace.

CON SAYS:

"So are you implying that you do not need to follow a verse in your own Bible because it is 'out of date'?"

Imagine trying to convince a toddler to look both ways before crossing the street. The toddler pays no mind, doesn't look both ways, and keeps winding up in the street. So what do you do seeing the toddler will not mind a simple command? You oversimplify the regulations in very specific ways that the toddler either can understand, or you put barriers between the toddler and the street. You might make a rule that says "you cannot go outside."

So someone later sees video of you making a rule "you cannot go outside". They can't believe you would make such an archaic rule!

You had to make that rule because the child wasn't comprehending the rules for looking both ways and staying out of the street. In other words, you made an archaic command because more complex commands weren't doing the job or being understood.

-

Now, with your Deuteronomy verse, you must understand how mankind viewed women thousands of years ago. They were property. Women could not work, thus could not actually survive without a husband. This is why fathers would many times try to arrange a marriage with a suitable man to take care of her.

Imagine the man just up and divorces her. No big deal right? Wrong. Now she has no way to make money or even survive. Divorce was practically a death sentence to a woman, and being pregnant without a husband or being a divorced woman made you damaged goods, unclean, unwanted.

So what does God do with people that think this way and have these traditions? He gives them rules. He says, hey, if you go get some girl pregnant or have sex with her, making her unclean in your culture, you don't get to just up and leave her to die. No. You're going to take care of her if she agrees.

Throughout most of history, marriage had nothing to do with 2 people falling in love, having a giant romance, etc. It was about survival.

Many times a marriage would be made simply to find a caretaker for your daughter.

Sometimes a marriage would be because a man liked the female, and their two fathers made an agreement, many times ending in a payment of some sort to the daughter's father.

In THIS case, God is actually protecting the woman. The man can't damage her, make her unmarriable, and defenseless. There are ramifications according to God. You play, you pay. You play with someone else's girl, you're gone completely. The verse also does not say that the woman is obligated to marriage, but the man.
-
Christians are not under the Laws of Moses. Jews were.

CON SAYS:
"So that means one is from God, and one isn't."
Not necessarily. You could have one set of rules for your child at age 5 and another set of rules for the same child at age 16, and even another set of rules for the next child due to personality and obedience differences. It doesn't necessarily follow logically that one set of rules is wrong. It means you dictated 2 sets of rules based on 2 unique circumstances.

Telling the us how to deal with Jewish situations 4,000 years ago, wouldn't be logical seeing the we haslve no such situation culturally. But it WAS necessary in 2,000 BC.

2)God said The New covenant would come in the Old Testament. Jesus isn't a contradiction but the fulfillment of God's own promise.

GALATIONS 3:8-9
"The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."
"But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises." Heb 8:6
"But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah."Heb 8:8

CON SAYS:
"If Jesus died on the cross and spent three days in hell to pay for the sins of the world..."

1)Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus went to hell. It's a theoretical conceptualization.

2)He came to pay for the sins of anyone who would ask for it. Some people reject him, thus are not under the payment and have to stand on their own merit alone.

CON:
"...why would we have to go to hell?"

1)Hell is being used in a semantical way here. Most attributes of hell that people believe aren't actually Biblical or are theoretical. If we use the actual words from the Bible, we do not objectively know who all will go there, if anyone, or even what it literally is or exactly what happens there.

2)"Sheol is found in the Bible 65 times. It is translated the pit 3times, the grave 31 times, and hell thirty-one times. Hades is used eleven times, being rendered hell 10 times and grave once. 2 other words are also translated hell in the New Testament. These are Tartarus, which is found once and Gehenna, which is used 12 times."


CON:
"With that said, was Jesus' sacrifice not worthy enough?"

It was enough according to the Bible itself. But a just God, in theory, cannot force his enemies to love him, serve him, like him, accept him, accept salvation through Christ, etc, thus, they receive from God whatever penalty or lack of penalty he deems correct, which may be extreme or may even be little to no punishment. We can't magically jump into the hearts of others to judge them, but God can.

CON:
"If that is the case, WHY SHOULD WE CARE that he died for our sins..."

Most people couldn't an objective judgement long before the bad things of the past started coming out in droves.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
correction: "Hmmm how did a Roman become a student of the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in the first PLACE.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
Moshe stands as the Head of all later Prophets. Shmuel/Samuel stands second, Of all the Prophets, In order of authority to Moshe. To comprehend the meaning of the prophet anointing David as Moshiach, This requires deep consideration of Shmuel anointing Sh'ul/Saul as Moshiach!

If a person dedicates a korban O'lah/burnt offering, He cannot afterwards change this korban to say a korban Cha'tat/Sin Offering. Only something has a holy dedication, It violates the Torah to exchange this dedication. Herein defines the term: "HOLY".

Moshe anointed Aaron as Moshiach
Shmuel anointed David as Moshiach. What does this mean?

Moshe anointed Aaron as Moshiach of the Cohen nation.
Shmuel anointed David as Moshiach of the laws of Moshe. What evidence proves the k'vanna/intent of the dedication of the house of David as Moshiach. Shmuel's anointing of the house of Shaul/Saul as Moshiach.

Why did the prophet Sh'muel receive command to reject the house of Shaul as Moshiach? King Shaul failed to obey the commandments of Moshe the prophet - obedience to the Commandments: greater than sacrifice.

I submit to you that the Gospels represents a Roman counterfeit! The idea of human sacrifice in the T'NaCH literature represent an absolute abomination! The valley of Hinnom wherein Israelites sacrificed their children later rabbinic literature developed the idea of Gehinnom. The xtians religion translated Gehinnom as HELL.

The Roman counterfeit forgery transforms human sacrifice by means of oppression, Torture, And absolute perversion of justice as sacred whereby God made atonement for the Pauline propaganda of Original Sin and the fall of Man!

Therefore Jesus son of Zeus exists only as a imaginary mythical man.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
Now lets turn to the next essential and fundamental moral instruction of the Torah of Moses. Where from the Torah does the concept of Moshiach learn? Translated in English as "messiah" and Greek as "Christ".

Moshiach means dedicated to the God of Israel. It learns from korbanot/sacrifices. A Torah korban did not exist as a bar BQ made to Heaven. A person swore a Torah oath by means of dedicating a korban! A Torah oath, That's serious business. The concept of Brit [this word its located in the 1st word of the Torah - Brit Aish/brit fire]. Brit does not mean covenant as the Xtian bible translates. Brit means a. Alliance and b. By extension - Republic. The 12 Tribes swore and alliance/brit and therein established the first Torah Constitutionally based Republic. What caused the floods in the days of Noach? False oaths!

A Torah oath represents a very serious matter. God swore an oath to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. At the sin of the Golden Calf, God said that he would make Moshe a great nation! Moshe asked what of the oath sworn to Avraham etc? There the Torah writes an absolutely amazing statement: it states that God repented! Just as the sides of a right triangle can not be longer than the hypotenuse so too the God of Israel can not annul a Torah oath! Wow!

The 611 laws of Moshe exist as secondary commandments to the first two opening commandments of Sinai - which Israel accepted directly from God. Discerning between Primary and Secondary authorities represents a fundamental basics in any real scholarship. A modern biblical translation, That a tertiary source, A very weak basis by which to base scholarly opinion thereon.

Moshe in his humility anointed Aaron and his House [Rosh Biet/Head of House/ also within the opening 6 letters of the 1st word of the Torah], As the Moshiach. In the 4th Book of the Torah, Korach challenged the eternal holiness of this anointing of Aaron as Moshiach.

Where does this place the anointing of king David?
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
The first time that Jews had ruled Judea as an Independent nation since before the Babylonian empire destroyed the kingdom of Judah.

Our agent provocateur based his Psy Ops war against Caesar and Rome upon the success story of Judah Maccabee. Our Roman citizen traveled to Rome and our born again agent provocateur started preaching. . . Come worship the King of the Jews. . . The son of God. Only this God lives as the true God! Now this message of 'good news' directly threatened the Roman civilization which based itself upon (1) Greek polytheism and (2) that Caesar himself was the son of God! Caesar had our agent provocateur murdered as a foul criminal against the State!

The Psy Op of our agent provocateur, To foment Civil unrest against the government of Caesar by injecting a form of monotheism into the polytheistic Roman civilization. The Psy Ops eventually worked but alas not before the Romans had defeated 3 major Jewish revolts and sent the surviving Jewish populations out of Judea and renaming the country Palestine!
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
Next hole in the book of Acts story: the Sanhedrin only has jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Paul was tried within the province of Syria, Not Judea! Ooops.

Having miraculously surviving the judicial death sentence of stoning, He walked way from being stoned on his own power - my how convenient! Our born again agent provocateur now heads to Damascus and assumes the leadership of this Jewish heretical false messiah movement. Paul could accomplish this b/c he was a Torah scholar - and not a ignorant fisherman like the so called deciples of the son of Zeus.

First off the bat our born again Xtian starts preaching that circumcision with the coming of the messiah together with all the commandments of Moshe the Prophet no longer have validity. Goyim audiences just ate this 'good news' up. Jews abhorred this sh-t. At a stoke our agent provocateur destroyed the influence of this vile false messiah movement among Jews. Whooooooooop first stage of his mission a complete success!

Second phase of the 2 prong mission of our agent provocateur's Psy Ops war against the Roman empire. To foment Civil War within the Roman civilization against Caesar! Our agent provocateur remembers the famous Psy Op which Judah Maccabee did which undermined the power of the Greek empire in Syria which once ruled over Judea as a satellite province of the Greek empire, Originally conquered by Alexander the Great.

Prior to the Jewish revolt against that Greek empire, Whose Capital was Damascus, Judah Maccabee declared the Jews allegiance to a Syrian pretender to the throne. The consequence, On repeated occasions the Syrian Greek army had to pull its Army out of Judea and return back to Syria to put down an internal Civil War wherein the pretender king declared that he ruled the Syrian Greek empire! This Psy Ops proved very successful, The Maccabees defeated the Syrian Greek empire and Jews won our National Independence!
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
The writings of Paul precede those of the Gospels by some 100 years based upon the available existing manuscripts.

If Paul was Jewish, Then he served as an agent provocateur. The Yidden sought to rebel against the Goyim Roman pigs. The Great Sanhedrin sent an agent [think Mossad] to accomplish a two prong Psy Ops/PsyWar.

First this agent provocateur had to infiltrate this tiny heretical false messiah movement and destroy its influence among the Jewish people. This he achieved by staging an stoning event and the 'Hand of God' saved him from death: saying [lol] Saul Saul why do you persecute me?

A 3 man Torts court has no power to put a man to death by any of the 4 methods of death penalty. Stoning being the most sever. Only a Sanhedrin Court has the jurisdiction to try a man on a Capital Crimes Case. Which was - avoda zara. If a Sanhedrin court did try and convict a criminal for avoda zara, Then the stoning had nothing comparable to people throwing stones till the criminal died - as happened with our agent provocateur. Stoning entailed a 3 story high scaffold. The criminal stripped naked and bound. A judge would lead up the stairs up to the 3rd floor. The criminal then pushed face forward off the scaffold upon a jagged bolder below. The Talmud declares that no man ever survived this fall.

Halacha, Jewish law, Its places a central role in the lives of the Jewish people. This goy concept of stoning as depicted in the book of Acts - represents a custom totally alien to halacha but common among Goyim. This agent provocateur sought to infiltrate the ranks of Goyim not Jews.

This agent provocateur was tried by a Torts court/damages court of 3 judges! Torts courts, As stated above, Do not have jurisdiction to try Capital Crimes Cases. Later another torts court would again try Paul for a Capital Crimes Case of avoda zara - in Rome. Paul being "a Roman citizen"! Hmmm how did a Roman become a student of the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in the first
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
C/P: "If Jesus himself is going against the law of Moses, Doesn't that mean one thing is not from God? "

That's really a very advanced and exceptionally complex question.

What distinguishes a Torah commandment from a rabbinic mitzva. Other than the first 2 commandments at Sinai, All the rest of the 611 Torah commandments came from Moshe the prophet! Torah law according to the Apostle Paul - none Jews have absolutely no obligation what so ever to keep. You live in Scotland, Who would expect you to keep as an obligation the laws of Germany or Russia or Canada? ! How much more so the thousands of rabbinic mitzvot/interpretations defining the intent of the Torah laws.

War determines much of the ancient Israelite history. The kingdom of David lost a war to the Babylonian empire and the kingdom of Yechuda went into exile. Yechuda, The name of the 4th son of Yaacov. King David came from that Tribe. The latter Books of Daniel and Ezra refer to this people 'Yechudim". Do you see the similarity of the 2 words? Yechudim has the translation of "Jews".

Jews fought 3 major rebellions against the Romans, In the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. The Romans won those wars and changed the name of Judea to the Greek epitaph of Palestine!
For Jews to revolt against Rome compares to Puerto Rico rebelling against the US!

How did the Jews hope to defeat the mighty Romans? Its an essential question. The new testament has no real meaning without asking this vital question!

I submit to you that Saul who became the Apostle Paul was a Jewish Agent Provocateur sent to promote Civil War within the Roman Republic. About 115 years earlier the Jews rebelled successfully against the Syrian Greek empire. What tactic did Yehuda Maccabee in 161 BCE deploy against the King of the Syrian Greek empire? He promoted Civil War within that empire. The N. T. Calls it: "a nation divided against itself cannot stand". The Eu calls this policy: "the 2 State Solution"!
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
C/P: 2. Useless, Weird 'laws' (1) "You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together. (2) "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

Contrast the compassion of the moral ideal with the question about women. The later addresses as researched evil for evil. The former - compassion. The yoke of an ox and a donkey. The ox its much larger and stronger than the donkey. The moral objective: do not force "animals" with vastly different powers and skills to do the same work and produce the same results. That's oppression.

The garments of a Cohen when he did service to God included mixing linen and wool together. The latter makes a person sweat whereas the former - a summer garment. The two ideas share much in common. The Cohen, As mentioned earlier has to attain the condition of tohor to do service to God. The commandment then not to duplicate the garments of a cohen effectively states the moral instruction that the common man does not have to work and make a living in a tohor condition. Compassion - the opposite of oppression.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
C/P: "So are you implying that you do not need to follow a verse in your own Bible because it is 'out of date'? "

None Jews never in all recorded history ever accepted the Torah revelation of Sinai. Torah teaches the spirituality of morality. Morality never goes "out of date". The Torah begins with the Creation story, Not to teach that way back when God created the Universe but rather that the Creator has already created all decision and thoughts that Man can ever make!

Life or Death; blessing or curse. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil refers to the inclination within the heart of Man to do either Good or Evil. The Torah refers to the one and only Cohen Nation. Shall this Cohen nation live as the Cohen Nation or shall this people despise this cultural identity and assimilate to the cultures and customs practiced by non Cohen nations?

During a crisis situation what decision does the Cohen nation make? As mentioned earlier the idea of G'lut/Exile represents a major theme in the T'NaCH literature. The alliance cut between the God of Israel and the Cohen nation: shine as a light unto the Nations as the Cohen Nation and prosper, Dwell securely within you country. Abandon faith in both the God who brought Israel out of Egypt and assimilate and copy the customs and manners of the none Cohen nations - - exile/oppression/death.
Posted by mosc 2 years ago
mosc
C/P: 2. Useless, Weird 'laws' (1) "You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together. (2) "You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.

Contrast the compassion of the moral ideal with the question about women. The later addresses as researched evil for evil. The former - compassion. The yoke of an ox and a donkey. The ox its much larger and stronger than the donkey. The moral objective: do not force "animals" with vastly different powers and skills to do the same work and produce the same results. That's oppression.

The garments of a Cohen when he did service to God included mixing linen and wool together. The latter makes a person sweat whereas the former - a summer garment. The two ideas share much in common. The Cohen, As mentioned earlier has to attain the condition of tohor to do service to God. The commandment then not to duplicate the garments of a cohen effectively states the moral instruction that the common man does not have to work and make a living in a tohor condition. Compassion - the opposite of oppression.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.