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

[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 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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

 

[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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

 

[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 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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

 

[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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

 

[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 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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

 

[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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

 

[ding]

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

Personally I believe that saying God gave man an evil inclination desecrates 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.

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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

Of course,
but G-d didn't create humans to be animals.
What's good for animals is not enough for humans.

 

[rylah]

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

Personally I believe that saying God gave man an evil inclination desecrates God.

Let's see what G-d said:

"And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done."
Ber. 8:21
​

 

[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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

Of course,
but G-d didn't create humans to be animals.
What's good for animals is not enough for humans.

Agreed. But he did not need to give them an evil inclination for them to become more. He needed to give them an inclination for good.

 

[ding]

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

Personally I believe that saying God gave man an evil inclination desecrates God.

Let's see what G-d said:

"And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done."
Ber. 8:21
​

There was never a curse. You don’t understand the fable.

 

[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 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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

Of course,
but G-d didn't create humans to be animals.
What's good for animals is not enough for humans.

Agreed. But he did not need to give them an evil inclination for them to become more. He needed to give them an inclination for good.

Instead of discussing what 'G-d needed',
which is confined by limited human grasp of dependency,
you should focus on understanding what G-d wanted and became the world.

From the very beginning we read about a part of Adam in interaction with which he was persuaded to disobey G-d and deny the good He gave him.

Been Adam an animal that wasn't a problem to begin with,
animals were not follow human commandments, and are not given human choice.
Except for the Nachash is there a verse calling an animal evil or wicked?
But sure plenty in reference to humans...

Animals maybe confined between less good and more good,
but humans are given a real choice to deal with, to do evil.
That's why what's good and legit for animals,
is measured as wrong and evil for humans.
Because humans have that choice.

 

[rylah]

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

Personally I believe that saying God gave man an evil inclination desecrates God.

Let's see what G-d said:

"And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done."
Ber. 8:21
​

There was never a curse. You don’t understand the fable.

That wasn't the first time earth was cursed.

But what's your argument now,
that the verse is not what G-d said?

Where is the verse referring to 'good inclination'?

 

[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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

Of course,
but G-d didn't create humans to be animals.
What's good for animals is not enough for humans.

Agreed. But he did not need to give them an evil inclination for them to become more. He needed to give them an inclination for good.

Instead of discussing what 'G-d needed',
which is confined by limited human grasp of dependency,
you should focus on understanding what G-d wanted and became the world.

From the very beginning we read about a part of Adam in interaction with which he was persuaded to disobey G-d and deny the good He gave him.

Been Adam an animal that wasn't a problem to begin with,
animals were not follow human commandments, and are not given human choice.
Except for the Nachash is there a verse calling an animal evil or wicked?
But sure plenty in reference to humans...

Animals maybe confined between less good and more good,
but humans are given a real choice to deal with, to do evil.
That's why what's good and legit for animals,
is measured as wrong and evil for humans.
Because humans have that choice.

Way to twist words. A sure sign you believe you are losing.

But since you bring this up you don’t know what God wanted because the same argument you made concerning what God needed applies to you arguing you know what God wanted.

You don’t understand your own fable. Adam didn’t start off as an animal. He started off with God containing male and female. It was after Adam was placed in the garden that he was split into male and female.

So when God said you would surely die it wasn’t because he was gaining knowledge of good and evil it was because he would be placed in the material world and he became mortal; where he had a choice between doing good and not doing good whereas before Adam had no choice because he was with God. It was always known that man would not always choose to do good so that is not the cause of the fall of man so to speak. The root cause of the fall of man is his rationalizations he makes. It is this which creates all of man’s troubles. Not that he doesn’t always do good but that he rationalizes he does when he doesn’t.

 

[ding]

Seriously you people are idiots not to understand this concept.

Man is imperfect. He will make mistakes. He compounds those mistakes when he fails to acknowledge and take accountability for those mistakes.

This... more than anything else is man’s number one problem and the source of all his suffering.

 

[ding]

God is reality. If you want to know God stop rationalizing. Confront reality. Die to self.

 

[ding]

Like I have been saying all along, the original meaning of these accounts have been lost through time.

 

[GreatestIam]

God is reality. If you want to know God stop rationalizing. Confront reality. Die to self.

Do it quickly please. Do us all a favor.

Regards
DL

 

[ding]

God is reality. If you want to know God stop rationalizing. Confront reality. Die to self.

Do it quickly please. Do us all a favor.

Regards
DL

I do. Every single day.

 

[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 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.

Of course,
otherwise man was a robotic being,
which is what the OP has claimed before.

But again, so if man is only inclined to do good,
how can man choose, if there isn't inclination not to do good?

Because an inclination is merely a preference; a native state. Man can still behave without goodness. He has a choice.

Then this explains much of our disagreement,
we literally use the same words but speak an entirely different language.

When I use the word 'inclination' it means drive, when you use it means innate nature.
However, neither 'inclination' nor 'nature' refer to preference, which is product of choice.

Human nature can be perfected, by fighting the drive to do bad action, disobey G-d,
for which humanity was granted with the freedom of choice to oppose that evil inclination.

Essentially the existence of this drive, the evil inclination is a good thing,
which instead of receiving 'free bread of shame', dependent on our choice,
allows humanity earn fruit for its choices - Eve's ultimate choice for her children.

We are not exactly on the same page because I believe God gave man an inclination towards good.

Can you actually find a reference to 'good inclination' in the entire Tanach?

Torah teaches there's the G-dly part of the Adam soul,
which drives us to act in positive with G-d's intent for humanity,

And the Animalistic part associated with the body and material world.
which when used incorrectly corrupts both the soul and the body.

The G-dly soul is the 'good inclination'
the Animalistic part is the 'evil inclination'.

The Animalistic part is in itself good, for animals, but for the Adam,
who was commanded to rise his Animalistic, and that of the nature, the material world.
to the G-dly above, has to moderate the order of the things involved as G-d commanded.

Human being is not only the G-dly soul,
humanity has bodily needs, and bodily mind,
with its own inclinations that can create a lot of good,
but when in the incorrect way and moderation cause corruption.

Human was given the material, the animal to override, and sanctify it,
humans can sanctify their bodily needs, and raise the animal and the material words.
but either over indulgence in any of the parts of the human needs creates corruption,
desecrates G-d Name and the whole creation.

I could have sworn that when God created the animals he thought they were good too.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he said everything was very good.

Of course,
but G-d didn't create humans to be animals.
What's good for animals is not enough for humans.

Agreed. But he did not need to give them an evil inclination for them to become more. He needed to give them an inclination for good.

Instead of discussing what 'G-d needed',
which is confined by limited human grasp of dependency,
you should focus on understanding what G-d wanted and became the world.

From the very beginning we read about a part of Adam in interaction with which he was persuaded to disobey G-d and deny the good He gave him.

Been Adam an animal that wasn't a problem to begin with,
animals were not follow human commandments, and are not given human choice.
Except for the Nachash is there a verse calling an animal evil or wicked?
But sure plenty in reference to humans...

Animals maybe confined between less good and more good,
but humans are given a real choice to deal with, to do evil.
That's why what's good and legit for animals,
is measured as wrong and evil for humans.
Because humans have that choice.

Way to twist words. A sure sign you believe you are losing.

But since you bring this up you don’t know what God wanted because the same argument you made concerning what God needed applies to you arguing you know what God wanted.

You don’t understand your own fable. Adam didn’t start off as an animal. He started off with God containing male and female. It was after Adam was placed in the garden that he was split into male and female.

So when God said you would surely die it wasn’t because he was gaining knowledge of good and evil it was because he would be placed in the material world and he became mortal; where he had a choice between doing good and not doing good whereas before Adam had no choice because he was with God. It was always known that man would not always choose to do good so that is not the cause of the fall of man so to speak. The root cause of the fall of man is his rationalizations he makes. It is this which creates all of man’s troubles. Not that he doesn’t always do good but that he rationalizes he does when he doesn’t.

That confirms there's evil,
yet you abstain from quoting a verse referring to 'good inclination'.

We can talk about what G-d wants because G-d said it.
But what 'G-d needs' in an oxymoron not found in Torah.

In fact, each time you're brought before or asked for a verse to back up your none sense,
all you do is resort to the 'the original meaning is lost, no one understands it, but what I think'.

If you were into starting a new religion, maybe,
but for a theological debate, I don't think you understand how it works.