Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

[Blues Man]

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

Agreed. It is literally the point of the account of the fall of man . But it is a choice we make. We don't have to rationalize our behaviors. The world would be a much better place if we didn't.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

You are describing a fantasy.

If, could, should, etc are irrelevant .

People should be nice all the time.

People should___________ ( fill in the blank)

These are childish wishes and have nothing to do with reality

I am describing a standard. Standards are not always met but that does not negate the standard.

So you are describing wishes for the ideal.

Like I said before wishes are childish things

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

Standards exist for reasons. These reasons are discovered when the standard isn't followed. It's called normalization of deviance. The standard is independent of men. The standard is based upon what happens when the standard is not followed. If you cheat on your wife you will suffer predictable surprises because you didn't follow the standard. Yes, if you never existed you would have never cheated in your wife. That is brilliant logic on your part. I'm being facetious here in case you missed it.

Yes standards exist for reasons where have I ever said otherwise?

People who live in a cooperative society agree on what the standards of that society will be. Which is why as I have already told you many times different societies have different standards.

Different people have different standards as well.

And People cheat on their spouses every day in the world and they do not all suffer the same consequences.

And I choose to be a person who honors his commitments so I will not cheat on my wife and that is a choice I made. That is a standard I have set for myself. If it was an absolute standard as you think then everyone would honor their commitments and if they didn't they would all suffer the same consequences and we know that is not true

If you believe standards exist for reasons then when men create false standards the reason the true standard exists will make itself known eventually.

So those people in different societies that you are talking about who establish a standard which is inferior to the true standard will eventually realize the consequences of the lesser standard. So just because many times different societies have different standards that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences of selecting a lesser standard. The same is true for individuals.

Yes, many times people do get away with following a lower standard. Violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it. But eventually the reason the higher standard exists will be discovered through the inevitable consequences of following a lesser standard. Thus proving that we can't make that higher standard be anything we want it to be. The higher standard exists in and of itself independent of man. The higher standard exists based upon the logic of the standard itself.

No there is no true standard. Different people, different societies have different standards because those are the standards they as societies have agreed upon.

And what you call moral laws I call a code of conduct that a society has adopted because that code of conduct ensures the society as a whole will be productive and therefore as a whole the people will thrive.

Those codes do not exist in the ether they originate in the minds of the people not somewhere outside of the people.

Logic says otherwise. But if you want to ignore logic be my guest. It won't hurt my feelings at all. I will leave it to you to discover normalization of deviance on your own. Some people have to figure things out for themselves. You seem to be one of those people.

Logic doesn't "say" anything.

Logic is the study of the principles of reasoning. Logic is man's attempt to understand his own thought process it is not some ephemeral thing floating around that people have "discovered".

I have already explained this as clearly as I can. If you don't want to accept it, don't That's up to you. I am more than happy for you to experience it for yourself.

You really think you have all the answer don't you?

And you say others are guilty of hubris.

Did I say that? Where did I say that?

You are 100% sure you know the answers to everything and that I will discover the same answer you have as to your belief in absolute morality because since you are the only one who is absolutely correct then we all will eventually agree with you.

If that's not hubris I don't know what is.

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

The easiest proof of this is war.

If it is absolutely wrong to kill then why do religions absolve soldiers of the killings they commit in war? Why did the god in the bible have people kill for him.

The Commandment says Thou shall not kill but the subtext is unless god tells you to.

Religion is full of these relativistic stances because gods and religion are human constructs.

I am 100% certain that normalization of deviance will eventually lead to predictable surprises. Yes. I know this because logic dictates that error cannot stand.

So if anyone - including you or me - rejects this concepts and lowers their standards of conduct they will eventually suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

I know this because logic and experience tells me so.

I have never mentioned normalization of deviance.

All human behaviors exist on a continuum. So I do not believe in deviance as all behaviors on the continuum are human behaviors therefore all those behaviors are normal to humans. Simply because a larger proportion of people may engage in the same or similar behaviors in no way means the behaviors that few humans exhibit are deviant.

The fact is you can say it's absolutely wrong to kill but you will have exceptions to that rule depending on the situation. Therefore your moral beliefs on killing is not absolute.

I didn't say you did mention normalization of deviance. I did.

What makes you think I disagree with your standard that killing is wrong on an absolute basis? In fact, I can't think of a higher standard. But let me turn that around on you, if someone entered your home with intent to do harm, would it be wrong to kill them?

I never said killing was wrong on an absolute basis.

I would kill a person who threatened or hurt my wife.

And I would be fine with it.

My morals regarding killing change according to the situation. Hence I am a moral relativist just like all people are

What if I told you I believe it is an absolute? Why would you need to rationalize killing as good or right or justified?

 

[ding]

Humans are and always have been moral relativists.

Agreed. It is literally the point of the account of the fall of man . But it is a choice we make. We don't have to rationalize our behaviors. The world would be a much better place if we didn't.

The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

You are describing a fantasy.

If, could, should, etc are irrelevant .

People should be nice all the time.

People should___________ ( fill in the blank)

These are childish wishes and have nothing to do with reality

I am describing a standard. Standards are not always met but that does not negate the standard.

So you are describing wishes for the ideal.

Like I said before wishes are childish things

No. I am telling you that the standard is what the standard is. Rationalizing our behaviors is the childish thing.

 

[rylah]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

 

[ding]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

 

[rylah]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

Irrelevant.
Defend your claim.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[ding]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

Irrelevant.
Defend your claim.

But I won't hold my breath.

Nothing more to add. The exchange I posted said it all.

 

[zaangalewa]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Then you know now, what I expect from you.

You think I care about your expectations?

I don't.

Would you care, if I would be god, who tells you this? Would you start to break the slavery of death?

 

[rylah]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

Irrelevant.
Defend your claim.

But I won't hold my breath.

Nothing more to add. The exchange I posted said it all.

Your own post defeats your claim.

Are you usually that challenged?

 

[ding]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

Irrelevant.
Defend your claim.

But I won't hold my breath.

Nothing more to add. The exchange I posted said it all.

Your own post defeats your claim.

Are you usually that challenged?

I disagree. I am very happy how it stands.

 

[rylah]

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.

Ok,
tell me,
who posted the following?

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

Do I need to explain again...
how this contradicts your denial of man's ability to do evil?

By next week you will be using what I have taught you.

You have taught me the meaning of the phrase "Satan's biggest lie is that he doesn't exist".

And the kind of archetype that during the Inquisition,
allowed the lowest wicked filth to feel not only that they act most righteously,
but that they are even absolved of doing anything but good.

Kinda like the most outspokenly "anti-racist" folks today,
are the worst banal kind of racists in the most vulgar manner.

I look forward to you using what you learned from me.

The "teacher" didn't get the parallels?
Strange they say schools are so bad in the US.

Read Maimonides, then try Kozari,
it's great material, outstandingly well written, precise and clear language.

A must if you're interested in this kind of subject in whole, which seems you are.

You got caught lying. The question is... are you a liar.

What's wrong, already slipping into your Inquisitor mode?

That's sure easier than defending your none sense.

If that's how you want to see it, be my guest.

We both know what happened.

Sure we both know - you've made a claim and then immediately contradicted it,

and now resort to an old Machiavellian tactic of psychological subversion,

instead of having the integrity to own it like a man.

That wouldn't be at all necessary

if you weren't embarrassed.

Try a rational approach.

You were literally arguing against the teaching of the great Jewish Rabbi's who taught that God did not create evil. That everything God created is good. If you want to backtrack on that now, I am happy for you to do so because at least now you won't be teaching that God created evil.

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

You have taken my words and the words of Maimonides - out of context,
in order to create a strawman because you can't defend your claim.

Now focus,
You've posted:

2. Man has free will to choose doing good or to choose not doing good.
Same argument Moses ben Maimon made.

Then immediately contradicted with:

From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Part 3, Chapter XII, Titled "Three Kinds of Evil; 1 Caused by the Nature of Man, 2 Caused by Man to Man, 3 Caused by Man to Himself"

This denial of man's G-d given ability to do evil,
is what I have been arguing all along, my argument is consistent.

It's your contradiction to solve...

And if we already quote Jewish sages, let me add:

Kiddushin 30b:4-6

So too the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: My children, I created an evil inclination, which is the wound, and I created Torah as its antidote. If you...

www.sefaria.org.il

How does the above argue your case?

That exchange could not have been more clear. Nothing was taken out of context.

Irrelevant.
Defend your claim.

But I won't hold my breath.

Nothing more to add. The exchange I posted said it all.

Your own post defeats your claim.

Are you usually that challenged?

I disagree. I am very happy how it stands.

Then why can't you defend your claim?

Give me an update if you have something new.

 

[zaangalewa]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

I am a empiricist.

And I'm not dismissing anything I am stating the nature of things.

Without man there would be no logic, no morals, no standards of human behavior so they cannot exist in the absence of man.

And I have said all along that good, evil, morals etc are created by the minds of men. I don't know why you say I am dismissing them when I acknowledged their origin.

So you are saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it it doesn't make a sound.

I've never been in that camp.

Where did I say that?

We know the physical properties of the tree, the wood in the tree and what happens when a tree falls because we have witnessed enough trees falling to know what happens.

A tree is a physical thing. Morals are not, standards are not so they are whatever we as a people decide they are.

A tree is life and so a tree has rights. And if you replace moral with justice (a formal system of justice has often not a lot to do with justice) then you know or will see that people are not able to live without justice.

So tell me do you not own anything made of wood?

If you own wooden furniture, live in a house made with wood, or burn wood in a stove for heat then you have violated the rights of all those trees .

You are a tree murderer

I was expecting such a reaction. It needs a long time to understand this. All people all over the world lack respect for life.

Do you eat meat?

Yes.

 

[ding]

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
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.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

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.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

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.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is 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;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

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.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

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.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is 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."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

 

[rylah]

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

That's not the point you were challenged to address.
Now stop docking and defend your claim.

Why can't you?

 

[ding]

I 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.
Are you surprised that they believed God did not create evil? Can you show otherwise?

Yes I can show otherwise, back in our discussion I referred to a verse in which G-d calls man's heart wicked.

I rest my case.

 

[Unkotare]

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 mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

The animal is innocent any knowledge of good and evil. For it, there is no good or evil, it kills to eat, to survive, nothing more.

The Tree of Knowledge referred to carnal knowledge of pleasure. This was written into the Bible as a way to shame Christians that the sex act should only occur between married couples for the sake of begatting children.

I'll say this: If everyone practiced this, we wouldn't have the population problem we have today.

But knowledge of good and evil in and of itself cannot be evil, because for God to be God, he must have knowledge of good and evil and he is Good Personified. God is the antithesis of evil.

There is no "population problem," and the metaphor is not about "carnal knowledge."

 

[ding]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
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.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

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.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

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.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is 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;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

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.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

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.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is 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."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

 

[rylah]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
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.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

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.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

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.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is 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;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

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.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

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.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is 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."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

G-d did create the evil inclination.
And I've provided the reference.
Which you failed to address.

My argument is that your claim about Maimonides agreeing with your idea about man's inability to do evil has been disproven by your own post.

You can't defend it.

 

[zaangalewa]

... I find it amazing that any Jew could believe that God was responsible or capable of creating evil.

God created everything. Your theory the absence of god (whatever this could be, because nothing is without god) creates evil, is not plausible. Again: When someone kills someone else then there are many factors in this "game". For example a weapon has to be produced, transported, dealed, sold, bought ... - a situation has to be created - a meeting arranged - and so on and so on - and then someone kills someone with a bullet. Nowhere is any absence of anything - except the absence of the respect for life. The whole evil system is wrongdoing - and not absence.

And again. God created the devil. And he knew before he created the devil what will happen. He knew also what Eve and her children will do. And so on.

It's not a theory. Evil is the absence of good.

Soap is the absence of a sword. So what?

If you want to believe that God created evil. Be my guest.

I'm not god, I don't know what he created and how - but I think he created (and creates and will create) everything - what's a little bit more than we know. I'm convinced he made a good job. And as crazy as it sounds - it is possible that Leibniz was indeed right and we live in the best of all possible worlds ... or multiverses ... or whatever this is, where we live in. A "best of all possible worlds" is for example a world, which is not perfect, but able to grow better.

Maybe this will help.


From MOSES MAIMONIDES, THE GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
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.

Seems to me Maimonides confuses psychology and pyhsics.

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.

What's totally stupid, Maimonides - oh sorry, you are dead and never speak bad about the dead - because the night is dark, how everyone knows. But that's onyl the physical side of the problem. Psychologically you speak about ignorance in case of "darkness". An in this context ignorance (or darkness) is the normal situation which needs to be enlightened. And the darkness which is psychologically an evil darkness is an intentional ignorance - the will not to know what someone is able to know.

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.

But is the nothing dark or black? It is 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;

That's what I tried to tell ding, Marmonides, but he did not like to listen or was not able to understand this.

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.

By the way: We have in Germany a similar problem now about 900 years after your death, Marmonides. In our constitution is written the word "race" and some ... let me call them 'liberals' ... like to eliminate this word, because 'race' is not real. But the meaning is in this case: no one may be - or is it "must be" in English? - discriminated because of his race. I this context it is unimportant whether a race really exists or not - because every discrimination because of race must stop.

The proposition has therefore been laid down in the most general terms, " All evils are negations."

Oh oh oh - take care now, Maimonides. Which from of negations? The negation of an apple cake is a complete world - only without this apple cake. And in this negated world exist lots of things we don't know.

Thus for man death is evil ; death is his non-existence.

For all life death is evil. And god is life.

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.

Some hundred years you will think in another way when you see what a little virus is able to do. It's not the absence of god, which produces dangerous viruses. And what you are not able to know in your century: Sometimes something happens without any special reason. So the world is not fully understandable, if we think only in causes and effects.

After these propositions, it must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil,

And indirectly? Do you think god is a muddel?

or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible.

Hmm ... a hypothetic Muslim coud say now "No - that is possible. God can do whatever he likes to do: He is god." The question is perhaps: Why go things wrong? Some times it is good, if some thing go wrong.

His works are all perfectly good.

I said it to ding in this way: Music is good - to sing is good. But not every music is good and not every song is 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."

That's also what I tried to explain ding. Sometimes shit happens - what not means god hates someone. The problem is perhaps just simple: If we can go into a good direction there have also to be bad directions - and because no one knows a concrete perfect way we need contact to god for our journey. Perhaps he likes it to cuddle and to snuggle?

I'm sure it does seem that way to you because you believe God created evil. I think that is a ridiculous proposition.

Only to make this clear: As far as I know I never said god created evil. I said I believe god created everything - without any exception. And I don't see any sense in your "absence"-logic. If something is not here, then I just simple do not know what is not here. I'm sure the world could be a more perfect world, if something would be here, what is not here. But it also could be, something will be more worse with something, what is not here.

It seemed to me that you were arguing that God created evil.

God created everything. For example he created the devil. And he knew what will happen. He created Anders Behring Breivick and his narcissism - perhaps better to say he had created a world in which this is possible. For a long time he shot down teens - because he fought against an hypothetic invasion of Muslims. That's what totally stupid and evil propaganda is able to make out of human beings.