What grave sins Jews commited to deserve the Holocaust?

[lightgigantic]

wynn:

Yes. The opening post starts from the assumption that the Jewish people deserved their persecution by the Nazis, due to pre-existing "sins". Nobody deserves genocide.

I'm afraid you are going to have to unpack this statement of yours a bit more if you wish to clarify your position ... especially as it has a bearing on the question of theodicy.

I mean what do you exactly have ethical (as opposed to philosophical) issues with?

The notion of "pre-existing sins" or the notion of such sins culminating in death being meted out in a particular fashion?

 

[wynn]

Yes. The opening post starts from the assumption that the Jewish people deserved their persecution by the Nazis, due to pre-existing "sins". Nobody deserves genocide.

You are reading too much into it, and blocking discussion.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're assuming Hitler is God... good luck

There is no requirement for an agent of karma (whether it be an individual or community) to be "god"

 

[James R]

I'm afraid you are going to have to unpack this statement of yours a bit more if you wish to clarify your position ...

I think my position is clear enough.

You are reading too much into it, and blocking discussion.

I have not blocked any discussion here. No posts have been edited or deleted. The thread remains open for posting.

 

[lightgigantic]

Explain?

If religious observation/participation began at the point of the total abstinence of anything sinful I think its pretty safe to say that practically no one would be religious nor have the opportunity to develop it.

IOW religion also functions at the point of regulating sinful life as well as curing or obliterating it

 

[lightgigantic]

I think my position is clear enough.

Not really,

perhaps you missed my edit :

I mean what do you exactly have ethical (as opposed to philosophical) issues with?

The notion of "pre-existing sins" or the notion of such sins culminating in death being meted out in a particular fashion?

Its plainly clear that we do live in a society where certain populations apparently deserve genocide (eg cows, chickens, pigs, etc) in circumstances remarkably similar to the death camps orchestrated by the nazis. So in terms of the living entity being assailed by issues of karma, there is no ethical boundary to prohibit a particular living entity suffering at the hands of a nefarious activity that they are already/were previously implicated in.

 

[wynn]

I think my position is clear enough.

I have not blocked any discussion here. No posts have been edited or deleted. The thread remains open for posting.

You are blocking it, by right away dismissing the topic as invalid, as if there would be nothing to discuss about.

As far as the religious context goes, there is plenty to discuss - namely the reason for such things as mass killings and the consequences of sin. Which the OP has proposed to discuss, and the thread is in the religion forum.

 

[wynn]

If religious observation/participation began at the point of the total abstinence of anything sinful I think its pretty safe to say that practically no one would be religious nor have the opportunity to develop it.

IOW religion also functions at the point of regulating sinful life as well as curing or obliterating it

Why is discussing this so tabooed, as evidenced in this thread?

 

[lightgigantic]

You are blocking it, by right away dismissing the topic as invalid, as if there would be nothing to discuss about.

As far as the religious context goes, there is plenty to discuss - namely the reason for such things as mass killings and the consequences of sin. Which the OP has proposed to discuss, and the thread is in the religion forum.

in general there are two jewish responses to the issue of theodicy.

One is that god has a diminished omni-capacity (ie can be two of the three omni qualities of powerful, knowledgable and good) (and hence suffering is about the individual interacting with nature)

The other, which arises from a lesser majority but more orthodox vein says all suffering is punishment from\directed by god.

IOW what to speak of this thread being anti-semitic, you have jews discussing and arguing about this exact subject amongst themselves.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/suffering-and-the-holocaust/#1

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

you have jews discussing and arguing about this exact subject amongst themselves.

Indeed, the existence of the holocaust against Jews presents an immediate and pressing opportunity to address the problem of theodicy, not just among Jews, but among everyone familiar with Western history.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/suffering-and-the-holocaust/#1

From this link:


“One human tragedy is not as heartbreaking as a tragedy multiplied a million fold. A man who murders one person is not as guilty as a mass murderer ... but justice and injustice, guilt and innocence, are matters of degree only for man ... an absolute G-d cannot be a tiny bit unjust ...Once the questioning of G-d over the Holocaust is motivated by the vastness of the catastrophe, the questioning itself becomes ethically questionable. It is of course more human to query G-d about the suffering of the many rather than the few, but it is not more humane… To suggest that one could put up with less evil and less injustice, but not with so much, is cruelly unethical. Indeed, the Holocaust was only possible because man was willing to tolerate less than a Holocaust. ...The question is not why the Holocaust, but why a world in which any amount of suffering is extant.


(Eliezer Berkowitz, The Hiding G-d of History.)


(emphasis mine)

 

[wynn]

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/suffering-and-the-holocaust/#1

From this link:


“One human tragedy is not as heartbreaking as a tragedy multiplied a million fold. A man who murders one person is not as guilty as a mass murderer ... but justice and injustice, guilt and innocence, are matters of degree only for man ... an absolute G-d cannot be a tiny bit unjust ...Once the questioning of G-d over the Holocaust is motivated by the vastness of the catastrophe, the questioning itself becomes ethically questionable. It is of course more human to query G-d about the suffering of the many rather than the few, but it is not more humane… To suggest that one could put up with less evil and less injustice, but not with so much, is cruelly unethical. Indeed, the Holocaust was only possible because man was willing to tolerate less than a Holocaust. ...The question is not why the Holocaust, but why a world in which any amount of suffering is extant.


(Eliezer Berkowitz, The Hiding G-d of History.)


(emphasis mine)

 

[wynn]

abc mod queue

 

[Syne]

It is possible to identify an acumulative count of sins as the cause of their tragedy?
If not, that means God was unfair with them?

Nowhere does Christianity or Judaism suppose all misfortune is a direct consequence of "sin". The trials of Job clearly show that the righteous can be tested with misfortune. And even though Job was not killed, trials do not necessarily preclude death, as Jesus was tempted to try to avoid his fate.

2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. -James 1​

I would have to agree with James R. The presupposition that Jews in any way "deserved" the Holocaust is vile, whether as an attack on theism or a justification of the crime. Since no significant number of theists believe anything of the sort, this does not work as a criticism of theism, as it is a complete straw man. This only leaves trying to excuse the inexcusable.

 

[Grumpy]

The Jews deserved no Holocaust, neither did the American Indians or any other group. There is no "deserve" there is only "what is". The Nazis claimed it was their Christian duty to persecute the Jews, just like slave owners said(rightly)that the Bible does not condemn the practice and all the horrors it causes. The point is that ALL thinking based on belief can(and often does)lead to atrocity, and that only reason based on reality has any chance of working better than the results of randomness and chance.

Grumpy

 

[Photizo]

if any Minister of Church would say the reward of follow their teachings will be an holocaust, all the parishioners would come out terrorized:grumble:

That's precisely what Jesus taught. One must follow him to the cross dying the very same death He did, and that on a daily basis. He warned people to count the cost of following Him. It is a complete and total destruction of one's human life. Those who were unwilling to undergo this process will lose their life in the end suffering eternal loss. Those who are willing to lose their life for His sake will save it--eternally. In one sense He is the pattern for those who follow Him. The Incarnation is the model for any true follower. Life, death, burial, resurrection. He did this voluntarily out of love for God and Man. The same holds true for any who come after Him, they voluntarily give up their life and by doing so, they participate in the event that occurred 2000 yrs. ago. Once risen with Him, a new life principle animates the individual whereby he lives a life re oriented to God and Man corresponding exactly to that of Jesus Himself.

 

[Gorlitz]

I think the premise of this thread is wrong, it presupposes that to suffer then people must have sinned to deserve it, if this is the case then it negates the possibility of freewill, sometimes people do commit crimes and do nasty things to others that don't deserve it so I suggest there is plenty of evidence that shows bad things don't require sin. So really question is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Syne]

The Nazis claimed it was their Christian duty to persecute the Jews, just like slave owners said(rightly)that the Bible does not condemn the practice and all the horrors it causes. The point is that ALL thinking based on belief can(and often does)lead to atrocity, and that only reason based on reality has any chance of working better than the results of randomness and chance.

Just a demonstration of man's capacity to twist things to suit their purposes or justify their actions. This is not isolated to religion, as things like lobbying politicians and propaganda is big business. Saying all belief can lead to atrocity is hyperbole and a hasty generalization. And your link concludes:

... the Bible isn't exactly clear on the subject. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html​

Unless you bother to look.

It says that laws are to be obeyed:

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. -Romans 13​

Where slavery is accepted by law, there is some ambiguity, but then we often justify state sanctioned murder for secular reasons as well, whether in war or penal systems.

But none of this is obligatory now days, where slavery is not accepted:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). -Matthew 7:12​

 

[Photizo]

... the Bible does not condemn the practice and all the horrors it causes...

The Bible condemns sin--and the horrors IT causes. Slavery is not the problem...it is what evil men do on account of sin that brings horrors to slavery. Sinfulness in man brings all manner of distortion to concepts and things that are not evil in themselves. The Apostles considered themselves slaves of Jesus Christ...it was voluntary servitude in response to great love and kindness being shown to them. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think the premise of this thread is wrong, it presupposes that to suffer then people must have sinned to deserve it, if this is the case then it negates the possibility of freewill, sometimes people do commit crimes and do nasty things to others that don't deserve it so I suggest there is plenty of evidence that shows bad things don't require sin. So really question is pretty much irrelevant.

Its unclear how receiving the reactions of sin through the agency of another negates free will

 

[lightgigantic]

The Jews deserved no Holocaust, neither did the American Indians or any other group. There is no "deserve" there is only "what is". The Nazis claimed it was their Christian duty to persecute the Jews, just like slave owners said(rightly)that the Bible does not condemn the practice and all the horrors it causes. The point is that ALL thinking based on belief can(and often does)lead to atrocity, and that only reason based on reality has any chance of working better than the results of randomness and chance.

Grumpy

feel free to give an example of "reason based on reality" that is immune from any issue of "belief" ....