What grave sins Jews commited to deserve the Holocaust?

[Aqueous Id]

Blaming the biblical god for bad divinity. Blaming nazis for bad humanity. Blaming Jews for bad theology. Blaming Romans for adopting bad theology.

None of that has anything to do with the Holocaust, does it? I mean, "Bad humanity" includes leaving your dog out in the cold.

Absolutely not believing in gods

I'm guessing this means: "I am an atheist."

and having reservations about the events of 1935-1945 as the biblical Holocaust.

I'm not sure at all what you mean by that. Think about how the word came into use.

We would have to invent a new vocabulary, for our own words were inadequate, anemic. And then too, the people around us refused to listen; and even those who listened refused to believe; and even those who believed could not comprehend. Of course they could not. Nobody could. The experience of the camps defies comprehension.

(Elie Wiesel)

It was nothing of the kind! It was meant as a challenge to theism, like "How is this supposed to be fair?" Oy! Just everybody stop listening to god-salesmen, okay?

Since there is no God, God can not punish anyone for anything. But people do horrible things according to what they think, and their thoughts (assuming they are lucid) follow what they believe. The blend of religiosity, religion-based myth, and criminal thinking of the Nazis epitomizes the worst imaginable effects upon society of religion. Other than treating the Holocaust like this in terms of religion and its harmful effect on the pathological mind, it's unclear how else anyone might be fair in characterizing it. After all, it defies explanation.

 

[Syne]

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

If "sin" is a necessary prerequisite to suffering then evil people would be incapable of harming good people. They would have no ability to do otherwise than not harm them.

But people do horrible things according to what they think, and their thoughts (assuming they are lucid) follow what they believe. The blend of religiosity, religion-based myth, and criminal thinking of the Nazis epitomizes the worst imaginable effects upon society of religion.

There is no evidence that religion was in anyway causative in such criminality, and it is a hasty generalization to say that this shows "effects upon society of religion". Secular political ideals have been similarly scape-goated as justification. Does that show the negative effects of all political systems or just that men can twist anything for their purposes?

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Bible condemns sin--and the horrors IT causes.

There is a mixed message about what the Bible condemns. In the spirit of Hammurabi, people are required to treat each other appropriately, or else there is hell to pay. An eye for an eye is a stiff penalty. In the case of murder, there was capital punishment, which even the modern world hasn't outgrown. Yet the prohibition against homicide is violated by executions. Horror becomes a relative term. God is not horrified by his own mass murders and the arbitrary punishments heaped on his innocent puppets, who he provokes into countless mundane transgressions, such as by the invention of dietary restrictions and circumcision, who he then brutally massacres, out of psychopathic tantrums. He fosters wars, by fomenting hatred against nations. Throughout the story he reigns terror on the guilty and the innocent alike, and leaves the world in upheaval, in a bizarre game of "torture the puppets". Enter Jesus, to switch the game and invoke feeings of sympathy and pity for God. Poor God. Jesus is the mascot of sado-masochism, and there is some retrenchment from the earlier M.O., but no shortage of cruelty, in what can best be described as a grueling, heinous torture-suicide. The graphic depictions of violence and cruelty were the gift for posterity, to traumatize and program young and impressionable minds, and to set the stage for endless wars, murders and genocide, particularly against the Jews. All of these were precursors to the Holocaust. The Bible may condemn horror, but it is largely a horror that it creates itself.

 

[Photizo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0r1vUSn4Gw

 

[Grumpy]

Photizo

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

My point is that your(or any other's)opinion about what is written in ancient tomes is not something to base your decisions on, that the only basis upon which we should depend for such things is the things we actually have evidence of. I pointed out the lack of condemnation of the PRACTICE of slavery, and it's attendant horrors, not whether or not it was "sin", a concept without basis outside of belief of the theological construct called Christianity. I pointed it out as a blatant example of how the basis for your religion doesn't even meet common modern standards of morality.

Syne

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

Never said it was, look at the current mess we're in caused by the belief that tax cuts for rich people creates jobs. Someone can believe what they like, but basing decisions on what you believe leads to reality being rude, like Romney found out a few Tuesdays ago(and we all found out in 2008).

"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."

I know of no religion that has not, at one time or another, led to atrocities based on it's beliefs, do you? Martin Luther, the father of modern Protestant Christianity, was a violent anti-Semite and the German churches preached Antisemitism from the pulpits FOR CENTURIES before Adolf was born. Did the Jews deserve such hatred?(to bring it back to the subject) NO! But it's only been 70 years since last the "Christians" slaughtered 6 million of them, informed by faith based opinion and reason. There are still people alive who witnessed these things with their own eyes.

Grumpy

 

[pjdude1219]

they were different or had something someone more powerful wanted the same people's usualy get dicked over. probably the reason it happened more to the jews than anyone else is they spread out more than most and steadfastly ( some might say stupidly so but I'm willing to give people props for sticking to their beliefs given how humans typically react to the "other) kept their beliefs. did the jews make choices that engender more hate towards them, probably you don't hang around for 3 millennia without pissing somebody off but at the end of the day it is never the victim who is at fault but those who purpertrate and create the enviorments for heinious acts to occur.

 

[youreyes]

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?

Just as all other people cumulative sins and their pains combined, Jews are no stranger of the people who live on the planet, and now in space.

 

[pluto2]

If not, that means God was unfair with them?

Your question lacks substance because it's pretty obvious that God doesn't exist.

 

[Syne]

"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."

A world in which we know enough to make 100% fact-based decisions in every instance is naively optimistic and would be quite boring. Almost every decision we make necessarily includes some amount of uncertainty, and we are forced to augment what we do not know with whatever we have at our disposal. The only way your claim of "often leads to atrocity" would be true is if atrocity were the most ubiquitous (aside from what the news media would have us believe).

I know of no religion that has not, at one time or another, led to atrocities based on it's beliefs, do you? Martin Luther, the father of modern Protestant Christianity, was a violent anti-Semite and the German churches preached Antisemitism from the pulpits FOR CENTURIES before Adolf was born. Did the Jews deserve such hatred?(to bring it back to the subject) NO! But it's only been 70 years since last the "Christians" slaughtered 6 million of them, informed by faith based opinion and reason. There are still people alive who witnessed these things with their own eyes.

You are glazing over the facts that [a] not all atrocities can be associated with religion and all atrocities do have commonalities, i.e. human behavior. Cause is falsely attributed to a partial association when there is a full association. This is a hasty generalization, and is hypocritically contrary to your claim that we should operate solely with "reason based on reality". You see, it is the failings of humans that is the commonality here, not some religion they use to justify their actions. Justifications are superficial. You cannot show that the religion actually teaches antisemitism, so the only alternative is that the religion is twisted by men. You cannot put it on a religion simply because the perpetrator claimed it any more than you can condemn all law enforcement simply because some cops are crooked. A crooked cop is operating outside of his training, just as an antisemitic "Christian" is acting outside of theirs.

 

[Aqueous Id]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0r1vUSn4Gw

Hitler had a Jewish show community set up, as a propaganda ploy, to hide his atrocities. It was a fake community, built like a movie set, to throw outsiders off. The "show Jews" lived a sheltered, pampered life and performed fine arts for outsiders. I can almost imagine your puppet scene being played there, minus the contemporary Christian lyric -- with the furnaces roaring, off in the distance. A fitting tribute to indifference. Religiosity like this gave anti-Semitism its insidious stranglehold on the Christian world, exploiting the fundamental thinking error it breeds on: denial.

 

[Grumpy]

Syne

A world in which we know enough to make 100% fact-based decisions in every instance is naively optimistic and would be quite boring.

Don't put arguments in my mouth that I never made. The simple fact is that nothing is ever certain, nor will we ever know everything but that doesn't mean we should make stuff up. If you wish to cower in a cave because Zeus was throwing thunderbolts, it leads you to the correct decision(cowering in a cave)for all the wrong reasons(a vengeful deity, etc.)and will preclude you inventing a lightning rod without someone thinking you are giving the finger to said deity(not logical in magical thinking people's opinion, just ask Ol' Ben Franklin). In my own experience I see two basic types of thinkers, those who believe but do not understand and those who understand because they do not believe. Some people believe what they believe because that is what their parents and society taught them to believe, and others find out for themselves and make their decisions based on what they find, the first are often theists, the second often scientists. And the thing is that faith based thinkers usually make poor scientists(much of what they believe isn't true), while fact based thinkers are often poor theists(the cognitive dissonance is terrible). The theists believe they know something about deities and thus reality, the scientist has evidence that he knows some things about reality and nothing about any deities(not bias, there just is no evidence). It really is that different. Some theists cannot conceive of anyone living without faith in a deity, it just doesn't compute. They insist that Atheists are rejecting god. I've found that despite years of ultra-religious indoctrination the idea of a supernatural being is just not believable to me, it never was.

Grumpy

 

[arauca]

Photizo


I know of no religion that has not, at one time or another, led to atrocities based on it's beliefs, do you? Martin Luther, the father of modern Protestant Christianity, was a violent anti-Semite and the German churches preached Antisemitism from the pulpits FOR CENTURIES before Adolf was born. Did the Jews deserve such hatred?(to bring it back to the subject) NO! But it's only been 70 years since last the "Christians" slaughtered 6 million of them, informed by faith based opinion and reason. There are still people alive who witnessed these things with their own eyes.

Grumpy

I don't condone the persecution of Jews , but have you ever wondered why Jews were persecuted sense 650 BC then 445 Bc., , 250 Bc ,, 60 AD 130 AD, 600 AD, 1200 Ad 1300 AD 1450 Ad 1800 AD in Russia 1935 Germany and so on. I don't defend Hitler , but there were many Hitles through ages

 

[Syne]

Don't put arguments in my mouth that I never made. The simple fact is that nothing is ever certain, nor will we ever know everything but that doesn't mean we should make stuff up. If you wish to cower in a cave because Zeus was throwing thunderbolts, it leads you to the correct decision(cowering in a cave)for all the wrong reasons(a vengeful deity, etc.)and will preclude you inventing a lightning rod without someone thinking you are giving the finger to said deity(not logical in magical thinking people's opinion, just ask Ol' Ben Franklin). In my own experience I see two basic types of thinkers, those who believe but do not understand and those who understand because they do not believe. Some people believe what they believe because that is what their parents and society taught them to believe, and others find out for themselves and make their decisions based on what they find, the first are often theists, the second often scientists. And the thing is that faith based thinkers usually make poor scientists(much of what they believe isn't true), while fact based thinkers are often poor theists(the cognitive dissonance is terrible). The theists believe they know something about deities and thus reality, the scientist has evidence that he knows some things about reality and nothing about any deities(not bias, there just is no evidence). It really is that different. Some theists cannot conceive of anyone living without faith in a deity, it just doesn't compute. They insist that Atheists are rejecting god. I've found that despite years of ultra-religious indoctrination the idea of a supernatural being is just not believable to me, it never was.

Wow. Of my whole post, you only managed to take something I never attributed to you and went on a justifying rant. In which you have equivocated "faith" with "belief". These are not equivalent, nor does belief require "making stuff up". Your dichotomy of thinkers is a false dilemma. Those who understand necessarily had to believe there was something comprehensible prior to any understanding.

 

[lightgigantic]

If "sin" is a necessary prerequisite to suffering then evil people would be incapable of harming good people. They would have no ability to do otherwise than not harm them.

I don't think free will entails that one necessarily be able to put one's thoughts into action.

For instance there are stacks of people desiring like crazy to be filthy rich (on account of their free will) but only a handful that have the capacity to act in a particular manner to gather such wealth.

So a person can desire any which way they want - but their inability to follow up such thought with action is something else entirely that has no bearing on teh question of free will

 

[wynn]

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.

A common problem that comes up when discussing sin, deserving and karma, can be summed up in the questions "Where did it all start? Who started it?"

In theisms, this typically goes back to the Original Fall as the beginning of all trouble for people.

If "sin" is a necessary prerequisite to suffering then evil people would be incapable of harming good people. They would have no ability to do otherwise than not harm them.

That assumes that people are either inherently good, or inherently evil - ie. that some are inherently good, and others are inherently evil, and neither can do anything about it. It's difficult to defend that assumption.

 

[wynn]

I don't think free will entails that one necessarily be able to put one's thoughts into action.

For instance there are stacks of people desiring like crazy to be filthy rich (on account of their free will) but only a handful that have the capacity to act in a particular manner to gather such wealth.

So a person can desire any which way they want - but their inability to follow up such thought with action is something else entirely that has no bearing on teh question of free will

Reinhold Niebuhr provides an interesting argument for the existence of anxiety that can put other problems into perspective:


"Regardless of which form of sensuality we pursue, it is built on the failure to trust God as the center of our world. Thus, we rely on our own resources to solve our anxiety problem. In trusting our own resolutions, rather than God, we become preoccupied with eliminating our anxieties. The attempts to eliminate our condition make the condition worse. For Niebuhr, any solution to the problem of human existence that does not trust in God is an expression of pride. Why? Because we are replacing at the helm of our lives our own solutions instead of relying on divine assurance. This may not look like an obvious form of puffed-up self-congratulatory pride. But pride is inherent in any form of God-replacement. Distrust in God and human pride are always two parts of a single process." (pg. 63).

"This distrust in God perpetuates our anxiety. We attempt to outmaneuver life and find our own "solution" to the problem of anxiety. This is what makes it prideful: we know better than God! We will seize on some type of security apart from the only security that can console us. This is Niebuhrian pride. The more we distrust, the greater our anxiety. The greater our anxiety, the more tempted we are to sin by acting in frantic ways to establish our own security" (pg. 153).

http://www.ptypes.com/pride-and-distrust.html
(also here: http://www.ptypes.com/pride-and-sensuality.html)

I think this line of reasoning can put many other problems into perspective, at least as far as truisms and definitions go.


The question was what sin may the Jewish people have incurred to be met with such consequences as in the world wars. You earlier suggested slaughtering animals.
Note that in the Bible, the Israelites are called stiff-necked by God Himself, and He didn't seem too pleased with them altogether:

Exodus 33:3
"Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.”

Even though the Jews consider themselves to be "God's chosen people," there is a history of the idea of them also being stiff-necked. There is an ongoing discussion about what "stiff-necked" may mean, but it seems it was essentially about pride and a lack of trust in God and instead relying on their own solutions to anxiety, thereby increasing sin (in Niebuhr's sense) - and thereby increasing the consequences of sin.

 

[arauca]

"Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.”[/I]

Even though the Jews consider themselves to be "God's chosen people," there is a history of the idea of them also being stiff-necked. There is an ongoing discussion about what "stiff-necked" may mean, but it seems it was essentially about pride and a lack of trust in God and instead relying on their own solutions to anxiety, thereby increasing sin (in Niebuhr's sense) - and thereby increasing the consequences of sin.

Consider from a biblical point of view " 40 years wondering in the desert before they entered into the promised land "

2000 year wondering in the world until they entered into the promised land , Thy were pushed many time in the last 1000 years but they did not wanted until a bug sweep come in 1940 so they finally went into the promised land .

 

[Aqueous Id]

I don't condone the persecution of Jews , but have you ever wondered why Jews were persecuted sense 650 BC then 445 Bc., , 250 Bc ,, 60 AD 130 AD, 600 AD, 1200 Ad 1300 AD 1450 Ad 1800 AD in Russia 1935 Germany and so on. I don't defend Hitler , but there were many Hitles through ages

The ancient references you give aren't properly called persecutions. They were wars and occupations. For example, the 60 AD occupation by Rome was met with a dogged resistance by Jewish freedom fighters, until the Romans crushed them like bugs.

(Anti-Semitism among Arabs, in its modern incarnation, is a holdover of the British abandonment of Palestine after WWII, coupled with the reluctance of nomads to allow displaced Jews to stake their claims to land by homesteading. Zionism--the return to their ancestral homeland by European Jews, esp. after WWII--aggravated the Arab hostility. Presumably, had there been no Holocaust, no oppression, no Anti-Semitism, the Arabs would not have the perception that Palestine was being invaded and occupied. Anti-Semitic Arabs seem to have no memory of the Holocaust [the Iranians even held a conference to call it a hoax], or else they approve of it, or they hate them despite the heinous atrocities they suffered.)

But the Holocaust and the main arena for anti-Semitism was in the Christian world. The perception that they should be exterminated--for their religion, for their refusal to be baptized, and/or in retaliation for the crucifixion--dates back at least to the account of the 1096 at the massacre at Mainz:

It was on the third of Siwan.... at noon [Tuesday, May 73], that Emico the wicked, the enemy of the Jews, came with his whole army against the city gate, and the citizens opened it up for him. Emico a German noble, led a band of plundering German and French crusaders. Then the enemies of the Lord said to each other: 'look! They have opened up the gate for us. Now let us avenge the blood of 'the hanged one' [Jesus]."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1096jews-mainz.asp

This was one of a series of attacks on peaceful civilians by bloodthirsty Crusaders on the march eastward to liberate (of all places) Jerusalem.

Even if we arbitrarily choose this as the first episode of anti-Semitism, isn't it phenomenal how the Christian version of anti-Semitism has dragged on for a thousand years? At some point, you would expect people to give it a rest, to move on. What, if not their Bibles, and if not their preachers, is breeding so much irrational fear and hatred of the Jewish people? And, of course, that's the answer. Christianity itself breeds anti-Semitism.

 

[Syne]

If "sin" is a necessary prerequisite to suffering then evil people would be incapable of harming good people. They would have no ability to do otherwise than not harm them.

I don't think free will entails that one necessarily be able to put one's thoughts into action.

For instance there are stacks of people desiring like crazy to be filthy rich (on account of their free will) but only a handful that have the capacity to act in a particular manner to gather such wealth.

So a person can desire any which way they want - but their inability to follow up such thought with action is something else entirely that has no bearing on teh question of free will

"Getting rich" is a general goal, not a specific action, so your example completely fails. No one is barred from taking any action that may lead to getting rich, but free will does not necessitate success of goals, only ability to execute an action. If there is no choice, aside from physical force or limitations, there is no free will.

That assumes that people are either inherently good, or inherently evil - ie. that some are inherently good, and others are inherently evil, and neither can do anything about it. It's difficult to defend that assumption.

It assumes nothing of the sort. Even if misfortune was due to "sin", that would not make anyone unalterably or inherently good or bad.

 

[wynn]

It assumes nothing of the sort. Even if misfortune was due to "sin", that would not make anyone unalterably or inherently good or bad.

That is your formulation:

If "sin" is a necessary prerequisite to suffering then evil people would be incapable of harming good people. They would have no ability to do otherwise than not harm them.

You are the one speaking of "evil people" and "good people" - as opposed to "evil actions" and "good actions."

"Getting rich" is a general goal, not a specific action, so your example completely fails.

Wrong. This is what he said:

"For instance there are stacks of people desiring like crazy to be filthy rich (on account of their free will) but only a handful that have the capacity to act in a particular manner to gather such wealth."

No one is barred from taking any action that may lead to getting rich, but free will does not necessitate success of goals, only ability to execute an action. If there is no choice, aside from physical force or limitations, there is no free will.

In that case, you are limiting free will to physical actions, while you relegate mental and verbal actions into a domain outside of where free will applies.
It's not clear how such a limitation is justified.