God created evil for his pleasure. Do you recognize the pleasure of creating and doing evil?

[rylah]

According to @rylah’s logic had God not created evil then the Holocaust would have never have happened.

Wow you really scratching the bottom!

Let me help you out.

Had not G-d created evil inclination,
man wouldn't have the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Wrong. Mankind has a choice between doing good and not doing good. So free will still exists. God did not create evil.

And what did G-d call this 'not doing good?

The tree of good and...?

Not good.

unless you want to blame God for creating evil. Is that what you want to do?

I don't blame G-d for creating the evil inclination,
rather thank G-d for allowing me the freedom of choice.

Big difference.

On the other hand, you call 2+2=-5 as "not much correct", and yet, it's wrong.
Imagine Olympic games where everyone gets a golden medal, including the guy who came to walk a 100m backwards, and purposefully hit every real sportsmen, who sweat in discipline for the last 4 years.

Moral relativism corrupts and devalues everything, for the sake of corruption.
Evil for the sake of evil.

God did not create an evil inclination. God created a good inclination. Your understanding is flawed. Man is not inclined to evil. Man is inclined to good. Man must choose not to do good because his inclination his nature is good. It’s an artifact of intelligence. So it’s good that you don’t blame God for creating man’s evil inclination because he didn’t. Man is responsible for his choices and he can chose to do good or he can choose to not do good. But man’s nature and inclination which is from God, who is Holy, is good. Everything God created is good. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The illogical conclusion of your belief is that man’s evil inclination came from God. That is preposterous. God’s nature does not contain evil. Again, which part of and he saw that it was good do you not understand? Which part of and we were created in his image do you not understand?

You say man has inclination to do good, and not to do good.
But what about man's inclination to DO NOT GOOD?

That's man's choice. And he suffers the consequence for his choices; good and bad.

It has always been about God wanting man to choose to do the right thing, the right way for the right reason. And when he doesn't, to acknowledge that he failed, learn from his mistakes and move forward armed with that new knowledge. Isn't that what intelligence is all about anyway? To experience reality and learn from it?

Again describing the evil inclination - face good consequence as result of following what G-d wants man to follow, and bad consequences as a result of following the evil inclination, that which G-d doesn't want us to follow, oppose it.

Wrong. God knew that Adam and Eve disobeyed him. He knew it even before they did it. So in the account God comes to them and asks them if they did it. He didn't come at them angry that they disobeyed him. He asks them if they disobeyed him. The moral of the story isn't that man learned about evil or that man disobeyed God. The moral of this story is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. The moral of this story has been lost on you.

The fact that man won't abandon good is proof that man has an inclination for good. You have totally missed the moral of this story.

Adam didn't deny he did wrong,
and that of course didn't refute or address my post.

Try again to actually address my post without deflecting.

 

[ding]

I can hear it now. Your rabbi’s taught that I created evil. Oy vey.

Don't blame the Rabbis
for your denial of responsibility that comes with your choices.

Try growing up,
that will make the world a better place.

I absolutely do blame them but I doubt they all believe the way you do. You must go to some secular humanist rabbi who excuses man’s behavior. I am actually quite appalled that they have not taught you better.

You're simply paralyzed by fear of your dark side.
But denial won't simply make it go away, only empower it more.

No. I'm not. According to your own religious texts, ancient man told us that God was holy and that we were made in his image but that we had a choice in choosing to be holy. That's why they kept reminding the people to be holy because they had a choice to do good or not to do good.

In Exodus 3:5-6 Moses tells us that he believed that even the ground God walked upon was holy... Then he [the Lord] said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God"

In Exodus 15: 11 ancient man tells us... Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?

In Leviticus 11:44-45 ancient man tells us that they believed that God is holy... I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

In fact, ancient man tells us in Leviticus 20:26 that they believed the nation of Israel was to be set apart to be holy because God is holy... You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

Samuel tells us that he believed God is holy when he said in 1 Samuel 2:2... There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

So I don't know how anyone can conclude that ancient man believed that God would have any evil inclination because they believed God is holy.

And if they believed that God does not have an evil inclination and that we were created in God's image than it is not logically possible for God to have given man an evil inclination.

Deflection.
That's a whole other discussion, and you don't understand these terms.

Holy simply doesn't mean 'good', neither man being created in G-d's "image",
a doorway to confine G-d by projecting man's limited G-dly traits back on Him.

It's not a deflection. It's one of the confirmations that man does not have an evil inclination.

Of course holy means good. Your problem is that you don't understand that evil is the absence of good and is not extant. That's the whole key to this.

Holy means holy,
good means good.

That's why they're different words in Hebrew.
You seem to have a real difficulty separating details.

Same difference in the context of this discussion. Because you are using the phrase evil which is the antithesis of holy.

I’m excellent with details. And logic too. You must think so too since you resort to using insults.

 

[ding]

According to @rylah’s logic had God not created evil then the Holocaust would have never have happened.

Wow you really scratching the bottom!

Let me help you out.

Had not G-d created evil inclination,
man wouldn't have the freedom to choose between good and evil.

Wrong. Mankind has a choice between doing good and not doing good. So free will still exists. God did not create evil.

And what did G-d call this 'not doing good?

The tree of good and...?

Not good.

unless you want to blame God for creating evil. Is that what you want to do?

I don't blame G-d for creating the evil inclination,
rather thank G-d for allowing me the freedom of choice.

Big difference.

On the other hand, you call 2+2=-5 as "not much correct", and yet, it's wrong.
Imagine Olympic games where everyone gets a golden medal, including the guy who came to walk a 100m backwards, and purposefully hit every real sportsmen, who sweat in discipline for the last 4 years.

Moral relativism corrupts and devalues everything, for the sake of corruption.
Evil for the sake of evil.

God did not create an evil inclination. God created a good inclination. Your understanding is flawed. Man is not inclined to evil. Man is inclined to good. Man must choose not to do good because his inclination his nature is good. It’s an artifact of intelligence. So it’s good that you don’t blame God for creating man’s evil inclination because he didn’t. Man is responsible for his choices and he can chose to do good or he can choose to not do good. But man’s nature and inclination which is from God, who is Holy, is good. Everything God created is good. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The illogical conclusion of your belief is that man’s evil inclination came from God. That is preposterous. God’s nature does not contain evil. Again, which part of and he saw that it was good do you not understand? Which part of and we were created in his image do you not understand?

You say man has inclination to do good, and not to do good.
But what about man's inclination to DO NOT GOOD?

That's man's choice. And he suffers the consequence for his choices; good and bad.

It has always been about God wanting man to choose to do the right thing, the right way for the right reason. And when he doesn't, to acknowledge that he failed, learn from his mistakes and move forward armed with that new knowledge. Isn't that what intelligence is all about anyway? To experience reality and learn from it?

Again describing the evil inclination - face good consequence as result of following what G-d wants man to follow, and bad consequences as a result of following the evil inclination, that which G-d doesn't want us to follow, oppose it.

Wrong. God knew that Adam and Eve disobeyed him. He knew it even before they did it. So in the account God comes to them and asks them if they did it. He didn't come at them angry that they disobeyed him. He asks them if they disobeyed him. The moral of the story isn't that man learned about evil or that man disobeyed God. The moral of this story is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. The moral of this story has been lost on you.

The fact that man won't abandon good is proof that man has an inclination for good. You have totally missed the moral of this story.

Adam didn't deny he did wrong,
and that of course didn't refute or address my post.

Try again to actually address my post without deflecting.

Of course Adam denied he did wrong he blamed God and Eve for his failure. He said the woman YOU made gave it to me in response to the simple question “did you do it?” All he had to say was yes, but he didn’t do that.

I absolutely addressed your post. You didn’t like it. It’s like you don’t even know what an external locus of control is.

 

[ding]

Adam tells God that he was afraid because of his nakedness, and God asks Adam if he has eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Acknowledging their transgression but avoiding an admission of guilt, Adam blames his wife, while the woman blames the serpent.

Adam and Eve — and why we control our own morality and destiny

The Torah column is supported by a generous donation from Eve Gordon-Ramek. Bereishit Genesis 1:1-6:8 The second chapter in the book of Genesis presents us with a vision of human existence that is primeval and idyllic. Adam, who is created first, tends to the Garden of Eden in peaceful solitude...

www.jweekly.com

 

[ding]

...Did you eat of the tree from which I had forbidden you to eat?”

Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent...

Adam and Eve | My Jewish Learning

The first human beings are banished by God. By David Mandel

www.google.com

 

[ding]

Eden Defines the Truth About Responsibility

In B’reishit, God tells Adam he may eat the fruit of any tree but the tree of knowledge. But when Eve offers him the fruit, he eats it and then blames Eve for the transgression. Is Adam’s evasion acceptable?

reformjudaism.org

The paramount sin of the Garden of Eden was lack of accountability. When Adam was questioned by God about eating the fruit, he passed the responsibility to Eve: "The woman whom You gave me, she gave me the fruit of the tree, so I ate" (Genesis 3:12). Eve did not own up to her deed as well: "The serpent tricked me into eating it" (Genesis 3:13). Neither was willing to take responsibility for the misdeed, and so they were cast out of the Garden forever.

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

 

[rylah]

I can hear it now. Your rabbi’s taught that I created evil. Oy vey.

Don't blame the Rabbis
for your denial of responsibility that comes with your choices.

Try growing up,
that will make the world a better place.

I absolutely do blame them but I doubt they all believe the way you do. You must go to some secular humanist rabbi who excuses man’s behavior. I am actually quite appalled that they have not taught you better.

You're simply paralyzed by fear of your dark side.
But denial won't simply make it go away, only empower it more.

No. I'm not. According to your own religious texts, ancient man told us that God was holy and that we were made in his image but that we had a choice in choosing to be holy. That's why they kept reminding the people to be holy because they had a choice to do good or not to do good.

In Exodus 3:5-6 Moses tells us that he believed that even the ground God walked upon was holy... Then he [the Lord] said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God"

In Exodus 15: 11 ancient man tells us... Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?

In Leviticus 11:44-45 ancient man tells us that they believed that God is holy... I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

In fact, ancient man tells us in Leviticus 20:26 that they believed the nation of Israel was to be set apart to be holy because God is holy... You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

Samuel tells us that he believed God is holy when he said in 1 Samuel 2:2... There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

So I don't know how anyone can conclude that ancient man believed that God would have any evil inclination because they believed God is holy.

And if they believed that God does not have an evil inclination and that we were created in God's image than it is not logically possible for God to have given man an evil inclination.

Deflection.
That's a whole other discussion, and you don't understand these terms.

Holy simply doesn't mean 'good', neither man being created in G-d's "image",
a doorway to confine G-d by projecting man's limited G-dly traits back on Him.

It's not a deflection. It's one of the confirmations that man does not have an evil inclination.

Of course holy means good. Your problem is that you don't understand that evil is the absence of good and is not extant. That's the whole key to this.

Holy means holy,
good means good.

That's why they're different words in Hebrew.
You seem to have a real difficulty separating details.

Same difference in the context of this discussion. Because you are using the phrase evil which is the antithesis of holy.

I’m excellent with details. And logic too. You must think so too since you resort to using insults.

Am I?
That's exactly what I meant by your incapability to differentiate details.

If you feel insulted by having your nonesense refuted, don't visit discussion forums.

 

[ding]

I can hear it now. Your rabbi’s taught that I created evil. Oy vey.

Don't blame the Rabbis
for your denial of responsibility that comes with your choices.

Try growing up,
that will make the world a better place.

I absolutely do blame them but I doubt they all believe the way you do. You must go to some secular humanist rabbi who excuses man’s behavior. I am actually quite appalled that they have not taught you better.

You're simply paralyzed by fear of your dark side.
But denial won't simply make it go away, only empower it more.

No. I'm not. According to your own religious texts, ancient man told us that God was holy and that we were made in his image but that we had a choice in choosing to be holy. That's why they kept reminding the people to be holy because they had a choice to do good or not to do good.

In Exodus 3:5-6 Moses tells us that he believed that even the ground God walked upon was holy... Then he [the Lord] said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God"

In Exodus 15: 11 ancient man tells us... Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?

In Leviticus 11:44-45 ancient man tells us that they believed that God is holy... I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

In fact, ancient man tells us in Leviticus 20:26 that they believed the nation of Israel was to be set apart to be holy because God is holy... You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

Samuel tells us that he believed God is holy when he said in 1 Samuel 2:2... There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

So I don't know how anyone can conclude that ancient man believed that God would have any evil inclination because they believed God is holy.

And if they believed that God does not have an evil inclination and that we were created in God's image than it is not logically possible for God to have given man an evil inclination.

Deflection.
That's a whole other discussion, and you don't understand these terms.

Holy simply doesn't mean 'good', neither man being created in G-d's "image",
a doorway to confine G-d by projecting man's limited G-dly traits back on Him.

It's not a deflection. It's one of the confirmations that man does not have an evil inclination.

Of course holy means good. Your problem is that you don't understand that evil is the absence of good and is not extant. That's the whole key to this.

Holy means holy,
good means good.

That's why they're different words in Hebrew.
You seem to have a real difficulty separating details.

Same difference in the context of this discussion. Because you are using the phrase evil which is the antithesis of holy.

I’m excellent with details. And logic too. You must think so too since you resort to using insults.

Am I?
That's exactly what I meant by your incapability to differentiate details.

If you feel insulted by having your nonesense refuted, don't visit discussion forums.

Yes. You are. And you are projecting your feelings here by trying to make it about me.

 

[rylah]

I can hear it now. Your rabbi’s taught that I created evil. Oy vey.

Don't blame the Rabbis
for your denial of responsibility that comes with your choices.

Try growing up,
that will make the world a better place.

I absolutely do blame them but I doubt they all believe the way you do. You must go to some secular humanist rabbi who excuses man’s behavior. I am actually quite appalled that they have not taught you better.

You're simply paralyzed by fear of your dark side.
But denial won't simply make it go away, only empower it more.

No. I'm not. According to your own religious texts, ancient man told us that God was holy and that we were made in his image but that we had a choice in choosing to be holy. That's why they kept reminding the people to be holy because they had a choice to do good or not to do good.

In Exodus 3:5-6 Moses tells us that he believed that even the ground God walked upon was holy... Then he [the Lord] said, "Come no closer! Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." He said further, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God"

In Exodus 15: 11 ancient man tells us... Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?

In Leviticus 11:44-45 ancient man tells us that they believed that God is holy... I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.

In fact, ancient man tells us in Leviticus 20:26 that they believed the nation of Israel was to be set apart to be holy because God is holy... You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

Samuel tells us that he believed God is holy when he said in 1 Samuel 2:2... There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

So I don't know how anyone can conclude that ancient man believed that God would have any evil inclination because they believed God is holy.

And if they believed that God does not have an evil inclination and that we were created in God's image than it is not logically possible for God to have given man an evil inclination.

Deflection.
That's a whole other discussion, and you don't understand these terms.

Holy simply doesn't mean 'good', neither man being created in G-d's "image",
a doorway to confine G-d by projecting man's limited G-dly traits back on Him.

It's not a deflection. It's one of the confirmations that man does not have an evil inclination.

Of course holy means good. Your problem is that you don't understand that evil is the absence of good and is not extant. That's the whole key to this.

Holy means holy,
good means good.

That's why they're different words in Hebrew.
You seem to have a real difficulty separating details.

Same difference in the context of this discussion. Because you are using the phrase evil which is the antithesis of holy.

I’m excellent with details. And logic too. You must think so too since you resort to using insults.

Am I?
That's exactly what I meant by your incapability to differentiate details.

If you feel insulted by having your nonesense refuted, don't visit discussion forums.

Yes. You are. And you are projecting your feelings here by trying to make it about me.

Talking about projecting...
is that why you constantly resort to deflecting with strawman fallacies?

For someone declaring to be "defending G-d", you whine quiet a lot for getting refuted.
May I suggest, you're not doing good service to G-d if you claim He needs your "defense".

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

 

[ding]

For someone declaring to be "defending G-d", you whine quiet a lot for getting refuted.

Get it out of your system.

 

[rylah]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

Yes, I will. The original sin was when Adam and Eve denied accountability for disobeying God.

 

[rylah]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

Yes and no. It’s way to deep for you to understand.

But the moral of the story is that the original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God.

 

[rylah]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

Yes and no. It’s way to deep for you to understand.

But the moral of the story is that the original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God.

In one post you claim they didn't disobey G-d,
then in the next you claim they're accountable for disobeying Him.

There's nothing deep here, merely your cognitive dissonance on display.

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

Yes and no. It’s way to deep for you to understand.

But the moral of the story is that the original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God.

In one post you claim they didn't disobey G-d,
then in the next you claim they're accountable for disobeying Him.

There's nothing deep here, merely your cognitive dissonance on display.

I am not going to argue with you.

I am not going to debate with you.

The original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God. If we fix that everything else takes care of itself.

 

[rylah]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

Yes and no. It’s way to deep for you to understand.

But the moral of the story is that the original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God.

In one post you claim they didn't disobey G-d,
then in the next you claim they're accountable for disobeying Him.

There's nothing deep here, merely your cognitive dissonance on display.

I am not going to argue with you.

I am not going to debate with you.

The original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God. If we fix that everything else takes care of itself.

And yet, you've claimed man is only inclined to do good.
How does the inclination to disobey G-d fit within that equation?

You're left with only two options - define disobedience to G-d as good, which you did,
or admit that man is not only inclined to do good, and there's an evil inclination man is supposed to oppose as a prerequisite for -freedom of choice, retribution for choosing good.

Don't want to argue, debate, that's fine, just think before you mindlessly disagree by default.

 

[ding]

Want me to keep going, rylah ?

You can keep going,
but you won't find where Adam ever denied he ate from that Tree.

I've already explained this, blame IS ALREADY confirmation of wrong deed.
If you go get sued in court of law for murder, and start blaming someone for that,
in the middle of questioning, that will be used as a proof for your committing the crime.

Very simple... and now you start the usual weasel dance.

I’ve already posted 3 links where rabbi’s have concluded otherwise.

Their sin was not disobeying God. Their sin was denying accountability.

So they didn't disobey G-d?
And if denying accountability was the sin, what was it they were accountable for?

Yes and no. It’s way to deep for you to understand.

But the moral of the story is that the original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God.

In one post you claim they didn't disobey G-d,
then in the next you claim they're accountable for disobeying Him.

There's nothing deep here, merely your cognitive dissonance on display.

I am not going to argue with you.

I am not going to debate with you.

The original sin was denying accountability for disobeying God. If we fix that everything else takes care of itself.

And yet, you've claimed man is only inclined to do good.
How does the inclination to disobey G-d fit within that equation?

You're left with only two options - define disobedience to G-d as good, which you did,
or admit that man is not only inclined to do good, and there's an evil inclination which man is supposed to oppose as a prerequisite for -freedom of choice and retribution for choosing good.

No. That’s not what I claimed. You claimed God gave man an evil inclination. I claimed God gave man an inclination to good but that man has a choice in doing good or not.