Rambam. Abenezra. Baudelaire?
Moderator: Moderators
I'll put the word puzzle in now...just for you kids
I found this earlier and posted it on a different thread
Okay, so check this out. I found Abenezra on wiki, followed a link and found this
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pentateuch
has to do with 5/5
maybe something, maybe nothing
Okay, so check this out. I found Abenezra on wiki, followed a link and found this
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pentateuch
has to do with 5/5
maybe something, maybe nothing
It's official!! I'm getting married September 28, 2007!!
IMO don't get hung up on the name, the Pentateuch is just the old testament.Ziola wrote:I found this earlier and posted it on a different thread
Okay, so check this out. I found Abenezra on wiki, followed a link and found this
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pentateuch
has to do with 5/5
maybe something, maybe nothing
-
FunkyMonkey
- Lonely Fan
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:47 pm
With the new update to the text, she's telling us that what ever Baudlaire means is contrary to what the other two have in common.
They were all thinkers and writers. Perhaps they disagreed on a certain intellectual point? We need to understand each of these figures better.
Unless it's an anagram...but I doubt it.
They were all thinkers and writers. Perhaps they disagreed on a certain intellectual point? We need to understand each of these figures better.
Unless it's an anagram...but I doubt it.
"Death, in the strict sense, cannot be defined, for whatever predicate we, the living, attribute to it necessarily belongs to Life. This means that Death, as a category, behaves in a manner indistinguishable from the Infinite, and from God."
-
PiIsYourFfriend
- Casual Observer
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:26 pm
Here is where I am at with this...
The first two, Rambam and Abenezra, being Neoplatonists, denied the existence of evil. Evil was merely the absence of "good". So essentially, either there was good, or nothing.
Baudelaire, on the other hand, being a Gnostic, believed that good and evil coexist, but evil hides itself and its true identity.
This quote is very interesting:
"To be effective against the enemy you must know your enemy so you can be prepared to effectively counter his attacks. For this reason alone, the doctrine of Satanology is a very important study, and one which is often filled with opposition because Satan, the deceiver, never likes to be revealed for who and what he is and how he operates. As Baudelaire the french poet says "The Devil's deepest wile is to persuade us that he does not exist." "
Too much Wiki'ing maybe, but it seems interesting nontheless.
The first two, Rambam and Abenezra, being Neoplatonists, denied the existence of evil. Evil was merely the absence of "good". So essentially, either there was good, or nothing.
Baudelaire, on the other hand, being a Gnostic, believed that good and evil coexist, but evil hides itself and its true identity.
This quote is very interesting:
"To be effective against the enemy you must know your enemy so you can be prepared to effectively counter his attacks. For this reason alone, the doctrine of Satanology is a very important study, and one which is often filled with opposition because Satan, the deceiver, never likes to be revealed for who and what he is and how he operates. As Baudelaire the french poet says "The Devil's deepest wile is to persuade us that he does not exist." "
Too much Wiki'ing maybe, but it seems interesting nontheless.
Thinking about this further, cuz it might be useful:
The first two were right, in that there is good and not good, but believed it was controlled by one being (God). Evil was merely the absence of good.
Baudelaire on the other hand, believed that evil coexists with good (God and the Devil), but evil hides its true form from us. And maybe he is correct?
The first two were right, in that there is good and not good, but believed it was controlled by one being (God). Evil was merely the absence of good.
Baudelaire on the other hand, believed that evil coexists with good (God and the Devil), but evil hides its true form from us. And maybe he is correct?
Invocation means:
a prayer asking God's help as part of a religious service;
an incantation used in conjuring or summoning a devil;
conjuring: calling up a spirit or devil;
the act of appealing for help
So if my theory holds true, if Rambam and Abenezra were right, we summon God, or "good".
But perhaps Baudelaire is correct instead, and we summon evil in disguise
a prayer asking God's help as part of a religious service;
an incantation used in conjuring or summoning a devil;
conjuring: calling up a spirit or devil;
the act of appealing for help
So if my theory holds true, if Rambam and Abenezra were right, we summon God, or "good".
But perhaps Baudelaire is correct instead, and we summon evil in disguise
-
covedweller
If Baudelaire was right, maybe it means that evil wants us to believe that it doesn't exist so that it can work while being ignored.
Then the other two not acknowledging it would work in evil's favor.
Given the Jewish outlook on evil though, it is interesting that you don't hear about Jews being possessed by demons or anything. Ignoring that seems to have worked in their favor!
Then the other two not acknowledging it would work in evil's favor.
Given the Jewish outlook on evil though, it is interesting that you don't hear about Jews being possessed by demons or anything. Ignoring that seems to have worked in their favor!