0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
I dont often post when I do, its usually along the lines of ;I think ironically he gets the G-d is bad bit from the talmud that talkes about the debate bet bet shami and bet hillel and the conclusion was reached. It is better not to be created. But now that we are alive we make the best of it. With that logic gods creation was not good and contradictory to genesis 1.
How are we to understand Adam’s sin? It is important to remember that both good and evil find their source in G-d. Hashem is the definition and source of all good; however, He also created the potential for evil in order to bring about the opportunities necessary for our rectification and the redemption of the universe. In Isaiah 45:7, we are told: “I am the One Who forms light and creates darkness; Who makes peace and creates evil: I am Hashem, Maker of all these.” The Torah teaches that man has an inclination towards good and an inclination towards evil. In Judaism, these are referred to as the Yetzer haTov and the Yetzer haRa. Nonetheless, Genesis 1:31 is very clear: “G-d saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good.” Therefore, the Yetzer haRa is considered “very good” in the eyes of G-d, as is the evil He allows for His purposes. G-d is Sovereign and All-Knowing, unbounded by time and space. The prophet Isaiah wrote that Hashem knows the end from the beginning. Whatever He allows in this world ultimately has a purpose for good. The Rambam, referring to Genesis 1:31, taught that the words “very good” refer to the evil inclination, the Yetzer haRa. How can the evil inclination be considered good? The Rambam explains that evil became part of man’s nature after the sin, that it suddenly became a natural impulse within man. Is this always bad?
Halacha 6The first blessing preceding [the Shema] in the day [begins: "Blessed are You, G-d...], the One who forms the light and creates darkness,..." The second blessing [begins with]: "With everlasting love, You have loved us..."[The Shema] is followed by [the section beginning] "True and certain..."The first blessing preceding [the Shema] at night [begins: "Blessed are You, G-d...], the One who brings the evening,..." and the second [begins] "With everlasting love, You have loved Your people Israel." The first blessing after [the Shema] is [the section begining] "True and faithful..." and the second [begins] "Lay us down..."
Part 2: The Morning Song of TikunIntroduction:When we view all the diverse forces within the creation – including forces which seem to be opposite of each other – we are to remember the One and Unifying Source of all creation. This higher consciousness is expressed in the following Divine message:“I am the One Who forms light and creates darkness; Who makes shalom and creates evil; I am Hashem, Maker of all these.” (Isaiah 45:7)“Who makes shalom and creates evil” – The Hebrew word for evil is rah, and as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch teaches, it is related to the Hebrew word rah’u’ah – broken, shattered (commentary to Genesis 2:9). Rabbi Hirsch explains that evil appears as something broken, when the moral harmony of the universe is disturbed, and when the whole is no longer ruled by a unifying purpose. The Unifying One Who made “shalom” – harmony, wholeness, and peace – also created the potential for rah which enables human beings to develop a “broken” world. Our prophets and sages indicate that there are profound and mystical reasons why this potential for rah exists. As human history demonstrates – beginning with the sin of Adam and Eve – human beings have the ability to actualize this potential for evil; nevertheless, deep within their souls, human beings have the potential and the power to do a tikun – fixing – of our broken world through rediscovering and actualizing the unifying Divine plan for the world. In this letter we shall discuss a teaching about two morning prayers which use an euphemism for the word rah. The prayers within the Siddur – classical Prayer Book – were written by prophets and leading sages who also understood the deeper mystical meaning of each word; thus, I do not claim to know all the reasons why they chose to use an euphemism for rah within these morning prayers. I will, however, suggest two possible reasons:...
What He gets it from his own twisted logic. The debate between Beit Hillel and Shami IS NOT if G-D is bad (G-D forbid). It was if it was better to be put in this world with all the troubles and temptations etc. or not but to just to remain in the world of souls without possibility of sins, temptations, and having to pay for one's actions afterwards. That was the whole debate.
One can deduce from this. His logic is not twisted you are thinking with too much emotion.
Puzzling beyond words then, is the following passage in the Talmud Eruvin 13b:"For two and a half years, the Academies of Hillel and Shammai debated. One school maintained that we would have been better off having never been created, while the other opined that we are indeed better off having been created. They finally concluded that we would have been better off having never been created but now that we are created we should examine and refine our deeds."If ever a passage of Talmud needed explanation, this is it. The Talmud cannot mean what it seems to say. God is the Ultimate source of goodness. He decided to create the world. Can we now sit and debate whether He chose correctly? Is there any other possibility but to conclude that it was an absolute act of God's generosity and kindness for Him to create us? What kind of discussion could Hillel and Shammai have had?Just as a passage in the Talmud that were to say that 2 + 2=77 cannot mean what it seems to say, so too with this passage of Talmud. There must be some explanation beyond what the simple reading of the words indicates. What then is the deeper meaning?We may be tempted to suggest (a simple reading of Tosafot might imply this but it cannot be taken at face value) that while it is certainly beneficial for righteous individuals to be created, most people do not fulfill God's Instructions for Living, and they will be punished. Therefore, it would have been better for them not to have been created.Even if we were to try to fit that into the language of the Talmud, which has no indication that it is only discussing the wicked, it will still be very difficult to tolerate such an explanation. Could God have created a world in which only one pious person out of 100 or so succeeds in making creation worthwhile, while for all others, creation is detrimental? If so, based on Imatatio Dei, we can derive that it is permissible to make 100 people suffer as long as one benefits. Could this be what is meant by God as the ultimate source of Kindness?Rather, the explanation is the following. God created mankind and it is obvious that it was beneficial for all to have been created. Hillel and Shammai are not questioning God's actual choice to create. The only issue is whether specifically from our perspective, we should feel as if we should have been created.Every person is bound to sin even if only once, as the verse in Kohelet 7:20 says: "There is no man so completely righteous on earth who always does good and never sins." Therefore, Hillel and Shammai wonder if all the benefits of being created are worthwhile from our human viewpoint, if it means we inevitably must disappoint and pain God through sin at some juncture.If a baby knew that by being born he would be giving his mother intense pain he should believe that all the benefits of being born are not worth having to give his mother this pain. Even if the mother says it's worth it to her, the child should be of the mindset that he would never want to put the mother through any pain even though he benefits later.So too, we should feel similarly when it comes to our relationship with God. We know that God's creation is an amazing kindness. But we are unsure, says the Talmud, if we should experience feelings of regret at having been created since creation must involve delivering God some pain as a result of sin. We conclude in the Talmud that from our human vantage point we would not have chosen existence since it does entail sinning and disappointing God, to some degree. But once God has created us, "we should examine and refine our deeds." We must do our utmost to avoid sinning so as to distress and dissatisfy God as infrequently as possible.God is not merely a distant Creator. He is a loving parent. We must always be aware of this.Children naturally like to please their parents. We should make it our business to naturally want to please our Father in Heaven.
Here is what Aish.com says of this discussion:http://www.aish.com/tp/i/ky/48950711.htmlQuotePuzzling beyond words then, is the following passage in the Talmud Eruvin 13b:"For two and a half years, the Academies of Hillel and Shammai debated. One school maintained that we would have been better off having never been created, while the other opined that we are indeed better off having been created. They finally concluded that we would have been better off having never been created but now that we are created we should examine and refine our deeds."If ever a passage of Talmud needed explanation, this is it. The Talmud cannot mean what it seems to say. G-d is the Ultimate source of goodness. He decided to create the world. Can we now sit and debate whether He chose correctly? Is there any other possibility but to conclude that it was an absolute act of G-d's generosity and kindness for Him to create us? What kind of discussion could Hillel and Shammai have had?Just as a passage in the Talmud that were to say that 2 + 2=77 cannot mean what it seems to say, so too with this passage of Talmud. There must be some explanation beyond what the simple reading of the words indicates. What then is the deeper meaning?We may be tempted to suggest (a simple reading of Tosafot might imply this but it cannot be taken at face value) that while it is certainly beneficial for righteous individuals to be created, most people do not fulfill G-d's Instructions for Living, and they will be punished. Therefore, it would have been better for them not to have been created.Even if we were to try to fit that into the language of the Talmud, which has no indication that it is only discussing the wicked, it will still be very difficult to tolerate such an explanation. Could G-d have created a world in which only one pious person out of 100 or so succeeds in making creation worthwhile, while for all others, creation is detrimental? If so, based on Imatatio Dei, we can derive that it is permissible to make 100 people suffer as long as one benefits. Could this be what is meant by G-d as the ultimate source of Kindness?Rather, the explanation is the following. G-d created mankind and it is obvious that it was beneficial for all to have been created. Hillel and Shammai are not questioning G-d's actual choice to create. The only issue is whether specifically from our perspective, we should feel as if we should have been created.Every person is bound to sin even if only once, as the verse in Kohelet 7:20 says: "There is no man so completely righteous on earth who always does good and never sins." Therefore, Hillel and Shammai wonder if all the benefits of being created are worthwhile from our human viewpoint, if it means we inevitably must disappoint and pain G-d through sin at some juncture.If a baby knew that by being born he would be giving his mother intense pain he should believe that all the benefits of being born are not worth having to give his mother this pain. Even if the mother says it's worth it to her, the child should be of the mindset that he would never want to put the mother through any pain even though he benefits later.So too, we should feel similarly when it comes to our relationship with G-d. We know that G-d's creation is an amazing kindness. But we are unsure, says the Talmud, if we should experience feelings of regret at having been created since creation must involve delivering G-d some pain as a result of sin. We conclude in the Talmud that from our human vantage point we would not have chosen existence since it does entail sinning and disappointing G-d, to some degree. But once G-d has created us, "we should examine and refine our deeds." We must do our utmost to avoid sinning so as to distress and dissatisfy G-d as infrequently as possible.G-d is not merely a distant Creator. He is a loving parent. We must always be aware of this.Children naturally like to please their parents. We should make it our business to naturally want to please our Father in Heaven.Ok then I know its off topic but it still a interesting topic to talk about. When I read this It seems as if Hashmes creation is good as it says in the torah. It does not mean though hashem is good or bad is he? This loving parent also seems more of an analogy then what is really at play. Good has no form No real personality. He creates a set of laws designed to help us in our path . He does not care nor need us to worship him. If you want to keep the Sabbath, keep it but you don't have to keep it, but it would benefit you. It simply brings you back to the creator and makes your energy whole so to speak again. That how I see things. Sorry .
Puzzling beyond words then, is the following passage in the Talmud Eruvin 13b:"For two and a half years, the Academies of Hillel and Shammai debated. One school maintained that we would have been better off having never been created, while the other opined that we are indeed better off having been created. They finally concluded that we would have been better off having never been created but now that we are created we should examine and refine our deeds."If ever a passage of Talmud needed explanation, this is it. The Talmud cannot mean what it seems to say. G-d is the Ultimate source of goodness. He decided to create the world. Can we now sit and debate whether He chose correctly? Is there any other possibility but to conclude that it was an absolute act of G-d's generosity and kindness for Him to create us? What kind of discussion could Hillel and Shammai have had?Just as a passage in the Talmud that were to say that 2 + 2=77 cannot mean what it seems to say, so too with this passage of Talmud. There must be some explanation beyond what the simple reading of the words indicates. What then is the deeper meaning?We may be tempted to suggest (a simple reading of Tosafot might imply this but it cannot be taken at face value) that while it is certainly beneficial for righteous individuals to be created, most people do not fulfill G-d's Instructions for Living, and they will be punished. Therefore, it would have been better for them not to have been created.Even if we were to try to fit that into the language of the Talmud, which has no indication that it is only discussing the wicked, it will still be very difficult to tolerate such an explanation. Could G-d have created a world in which only one pious person out of 100 or so succeeds in making creation worthwhile, while for all others, creation is detrimental? If so, based on Imatatio Dei, we can derive that it is permissible to make 100 people suffer as long as one benefits. Could this be what is meant by G-d as the ultimate source of Kindness?Rather, the explanation is the following. G-d created mankind and it is obvious that it was beneficial for all to have been created. Hillel and Shammai are not questioning G-d's actual choice to create. The only issue is whether specifically from our perspective, we should feel as if we should have been created.Every person is bound to sin even if only once, as the verse in Kohelet 7:20 says: "There is no man so completely righteous on earth who always does good and never sins." Therefore, Hillel and Shammai wonder if all the benefits of being created are worthwhile from our human viewpoint, if it means we inevitably must disappoint and pain G-d through sin at some juncture.If a baby knew that by being born he would be giving his mother intense pain he should believe that all the benefits of being born are not worth having to give his mother this pain. Even if the mother says it's worth it to her, the child should be of the mindset that he would never want to put the mother through any pain even though he benefits later.So too, we should feel similarly when it comes to our relationship with G-d. We know that G-d's creation is an amazing kindness. But we are unsure, says the Talmud, if we should experience feelings of regret at having been created since creation must involve delivering G-d some pain as a result of sin. We conclude in the Talmud that from our human vantage point we would not have chosen existence since it does entail sinning and disappointing G-d, to some degree. But once G-d has created us, "we should examine and refine our deeds." We must do our utmost to avoid sinning so as to distress and dissatisfy G-d as infrequently as possible.G-d is not merely a distant Creator. He is a loving parent. We must always be aware of this.Children naturally like to please their parents. We should make it our business to naturally want to please our Father in Heaven.
What about karaite single women if you're already married and perform the proper ritual... you might believe them about being Jewish until they say G-d is bad... and what happens if you marry an undercover one by accident? Also, what is their stance on Israel?
Karaites also forbid themselves from marrying rabbinic Jews.I don't understand the first part of your question. A single karaite woman who is already married? Singles are not yet married.Anyone can lie about being Jewish. That problem (to the extent that it exists) is not limited to karaites. Also it seems hard to imagine to people would get engaged and get married and in all that time interacting not once would it come up in conversation that the woman is opposed to all rabbis and all Jewish law of the Talmud. These topics come up.
Not into married girls.
huh?My point was only that I have no idea what this means: "What about karaite single women if you're already married and perform the proper ritual."
Well I guess since you mentionned they weren't really Jews, it dosen't matter. I was just wondering where the line was as far as their women are concerned.
Topic: Can someone explain these delusional Karaite sects? (Read 8417 times)