Coming soon....I think it's awesome that you are disagreeing with Moses ben Maimon. Maybe you should discuss it with the Rabbi who taught you that God created evil.You should read Maimonides and educate yourself on Jewish beliefs.You are so prideful. Take your defeat like a man.No. It don't work that way. My point has been made. I don't reward ignorance that thinks it knows.From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXEDI am quoting Martin Buber, a Austrian Jewish and Israeli philosopher who was a prolific author and scholar; Saadiah Gaon, a prominent rabbi, and Jewish philosopher; and Moses ben Maimon, a rabbi, physician, and philosopher who is one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars.You never replied to them. That's how you roll. You dismiss your defeats and ignore your incongruities.
The need to account for the existence of evil in the world became even more acute with the manifestation of dualistic movements. Saadiah Gaon strongly rejects these dualist doctrines and affirms God's unity. Steeped as he was in the *Kalām tradition, he states that God conducts the world with infinite justice and wisdom. God, according to Saadiah, would not have created evil because evil does not have a separate existence sui generis but is nothing more than the absence of good. The sufferings of the righteous are either a requital for the few sins which they have committed, or they serve as an instrument of chastisement or trial, for which reward will be given in the afterlife. Saadiah thus upholds the doctrine of "afflictions of love."
Good & Evil
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
*Maimonides also views evil as a nonexistence, namely the absence of good, which could not have been produced by God. He distinguishes between three different kinds of evil. The first category is that of natural evils which befall man, such as landslides, earthquakes, and floods, or his having been born with certain deformities. The cause of this type of evil is the fact that man has a body which is subject to corruption and destruction. This is in accordance with natural law and is necessary for the continuance and permanence of the species. The second kind of evil is within the social realm, such as wars. This type of evil, Maimonides says, occurs infrequently and, of course, being wholly within the control of man, could not have been caused by God. Though difficult, its remedy is within the hands of man. The third class of evil, the largest and most frequent class, is the evil which the individual brings upon himself through his vices and excessive desires. Again the remedy is within man's power. Maimonides rejects the notion of "afflictions of love," holding instead that even the minutest pain is a punishment for some previous transgression. He explains that the tests mentioned in the Bible, such as God's request to Abraham to offer up his son, have a didactic purpose, to teach the truth of God's commandments and how far one must go in obeying them.
Good & Evil
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
Nice that you've edited that now.
Do I need to explain the meaning of quoting?
I can quote you paragraphs of researches saying Maimonides didn't believe in resurrection of the dead during Messianic era, and yet that's right in his most famous work.
This may surprise you, nevertheless a good opportunity to mention - theJewishLibrary.org
is not the most precise source on Jewish law and history, mildly saying.
There much more authentic serious sources at reach.
"Simon said...." is not gonna ride.
Quote me Maimonides, actual Maimonides, directly.
Then we can talk.
Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?
Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil? For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil. Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was...www.usmessageboard.com
Yes, I know you can quote yourself ad nauseam.
Try actually quoting something THEY wrote, the authors,
not what someone else says about what they supposedly wrote.
Get the idea?
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?
Nope you don't quote the later two.
Austrian Jewish philosophers are neither authority on Jewish thought nor law.
Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked. That was about the point where you started to deflect.
Why are you never capable of quoting the actual text, authors?
Ah remember..."believe".
Part 3, Chapter X, Titled "God is not the Creator of Evil" Pages 265-267
The Mutakallemim, as I have already told you, apply the term non-existence only to absolute non-existence, and not to the absence of properties. A property and the absence of that property are considered by them as two opposites, they treat, e.g., blindness and sight, death and life, in the same way as heat and cold. Therefore they say, without any qualification, nonexistence does not require any agent, an agent is required when something is produced. From a certain point of view this is correct. Although they hold that non-existence does not require an agent, they say in accordance with their principle that God causes blindness and deafness, and gives rest to anything that moves, for they consider these negative conditions as positive properties. We must now state our opinion in accordance with the results of philosophical research. You know that he who removes the obstacle of motion is to some extent the cause of the motion, e.g. if one removes the pillar which supports the beam he causes the beam to move, as has been stated by Aristotle in his Physics (VIII., chap. iv.) ; in this sense we say of him who removed a certain property that he produced the absence of that property, although absence of a property is nothing positive. Just as we say of him who puts out the light at night that he has produced darkness, so we say of him who has destroyed the sight of any being that he produced blindness, although darkness and blindness are negative properties, and require no agent.
In accordance with this view we explain the following passage of Isaiah : " I form the light and create (bore) darkness : I make peace, and create (bore) evil" (Isa. xlv. 7), for darkness and evil are non-existing things. Consider that the prophet does not say, I make ('oseh) darkness, I make ('oseh) evil, because darkness and evil are not things in positive existence to which the verb "to make" would apply ; the verb bara "he created" is used because in Hebrew this verb is applied to non-existing things, e.g. "In the beginning God created" (bara), etc. ; here the creation took place from nothing. Only in this sense can non-existence be said to be produced by a certain action of an agent. In the same way we must explain the following passage: " Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or the deaf, or the seeing," etc. (Exod. iv. I I). The passage can also be explained as follows: Who has made man able to speak ? or can create him without the capacity of speaking, i.e., create a substance that is incapable of acquiring this property? for he who produces a substance that cannot acquire a certain property may be called the producer of that privation. Thus we say, if any one abstains from delivering a fellow-man from death, although he is able to do so, that he killed him. It is now clear that according to all these different views the action of an agent cannot be directly connected with a thing that does not exist; only indirectly is non-existence described as the result of the action of an agent, whilst in a direct manner an action can only influence a thing really in existence ; accordingly, whoever the agent may be, he can only act upon an existing thing.
After this explanation you must recall to memory that, as has been proved, the [so-called] evils are evil only in relation to a certain thing, and that which is evil in reference to a certain existing thing, either includes the non-existence of that thing or the non-existence of some of its good conditions. The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations." Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence. Illness, poverty, and ignorance are evils for man ; all these are privations of properties. If you examine all single cases to which this general proposition applies, you will find that there is not one case in which the proposition is wrong except in the opinion of those who do not make any distinction between negative and positive properties, or between two opposites, or do not know the nature of things,--who, e.g., do not know that health in general denotes a certain equilibrium, and is a relative term. The absence of that relation is illness in general, and death is the absence of life in the case of any animal. The destruction of other things is likewise nothing but the absence of their form.
.After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible. His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good ; whilst evils are of a negative character, and cannot be acted upon. Evil can only be attributed to Him in the way we have mentioned. He creates evil only in so far as He produces the corporeal element such as it actually is; it is always connected with negatives, and is on that account the source of all destruction and all evil. Those beings that do not possess this corporeal element are not subject to destruction or evil ; consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. The book which enlightened the darkness of the world says therefore, " And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good " (Gen. i. 31). Even the existence of this corporeal element, low as it in reality is, because it is the source of death and all evils, is likewise good for the permanence of the Universe and the continuation of the order of things, so that one thing departs and the other succeeds. Rabbi Meir therefore explains the words " and behold it was very good" (tob me'od) ; that even death was good in accordance with what we have observed in this chapter. Remember what I said in this chapter, consider it, and you will understand all that the prophets and our Sages remarked about the perfect goodness of all the direct works of God. In Bereshit Rabba (chap. i.) the
same idea is expressed thus : " No evil comes down from above."
At last, thank you.
Now we can start - tell me, where does it say all man does is good?
You confuse G-d's work with man's work, which is exactly how you end up corrupt.
Read the next chapter.
What point did you make,
that man can do no evil?
I don't think so that what it said.
Read again.
Rylah intentionally denies examination because Rylah is irrational. Rylah has no formal defined belief system. Instead Rylah only has is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Rylah has an extraordinary ability to be incited and inflamed by different points of view. Rylah dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities. Rylah practices moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. Rylah worships science but is the first to reject it when it suits his purpose. Rylah can be identified by an external locus of control. Rylah practices critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what he does not believe to arrive at what he does believe without ever having to examine what he believes. Rylah confuses critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something Rylah never does.
Wow nice rant.
What about the quote where Maimonides
supposedly claims man can do no evil?
Try again snowflake.
So Maimonides didn't say that?
Try another Jewish sage.
Read carefully.
Nice try but I'm not,
Maimonides says man can do evil.
Where does Maimonides say man can't do evil?
From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XI, Titled "Man is the Cause of his own Misfortune" Page 267
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1256/0739_Bk.pdf
