What grave sins Jews commited to deserve the Holocaust?

[wynn]

I think it would take a lot more extrapolation to define the previously linked Jewish statements about the holocaust and divinity as derivative of "self hating jews".

I wasn't suggesting that this was the connection - ie. I wasn't suggesting that the idea that the Holocaust was deserved is based on Jewish self-hatred. I don't think it is. I provided the link to the self-hating Jew article to further illustrate your point, namely, as you mentioned Jewish anti-semitism.
Although there probably are Jews who believe that only self-hatred could lead them to conclude that the Holocaust was a just punishment or deserved, and popular psychology would agree with them.


I think the discussion about Jews and their troubled history is biased in many ways, there seem to be many taboos in it, introduced by some Jews themselves, as well as by some non-Jews who partake in those discussions. I think it would be very revealing to look into this.

I gave you an answer generalized to ANY particular perspective. Whether victim, perpetrator, or bystander, any rational, unbiased person can evaluate whether harm was justified by some previous action of the victim.

Only an omniscient agent could rightfully make that claim.

"Directed by god" does not imply "deserved". Jews typically think they were tested, which is quite different from thinking they deserved it.

For a theist, whatever comes from God is deserved, whether it is a test or a punishment.
For a theist, everything that happens, happens because God willed it so.
To believe so is what it means to be a theist, at least pertaining to God, as opposed to a demigod.


Which puts Job's complaints into context:
Job is basically saying: "God, I have done enough to worship you, therefore, I should have been spared of this misfortune that has befallen me."
This is where Job was wrong. Because a person's devotion to God is never completed, never enough - because a person's dependence on God is total and eternal.
Job's point would stand with a demigod, but not God.

 

[wynn]

If a person is said to have a particular nature, then this is the nature they have, something that cannot change. Thus redemption has to be about something other than change of a person's nature.

Do you have anything to support that claim? People can repent and change their ways. Again, look up neuroplasticity.

We are talking about the meaning of terms.
"Inherent nature" is something that, by definition, cannot change; if it could change, it would not be "inherent nature."

Your argument about neuroplasticity would apply if and only if the body would be the alpha and omega of who and what a person is. Characteristically, all major theisms make the point that the body is not the alpha and omega of who and what a person is; instead, they make the point - more or less elaborately - that a person has an inherent nature that remains the same, and usually, that's called the "soul," while the person's body, along with the person's possessions, relationships, thoughts, emotions, behaviors, are subject to change.

Misfortune is misfortune.

"Misfortune" exists in the eye of the beholder.

Arguably, for a theist, there, ideally, is and can be no misfortune.

What do you think that greater reason is?

Free will.

That is either perverse, or you have many good arguments that you will yet present.

People have all kinds of desires, make all kinds of efforts - and often, they are stopped in those efforts by death, disease, injury, old age, other people, the weather, lack of resources, animals.

If, as you suggest, God would really make such allowance for free will simply for the sake of allowing free will, then people would not be stopped in their efforts by death, disease, etc.

It is really strange to suggest that God would allow the Nazis to act on their free will and kill many people, while the free-willed efforts of, say, a young aspiring swimmer are cut short by an injury that leaves him paralyzed from the neck down.

Scope is immaterial, as free will is only about the ability to do otherwise.

Then you are operating with an unrealistic concept of free will, a concept that is based strictly on opposing determinism, and in which the person's value system, their memory, their capacity for planning, the fact that some actions take longer to complete than others and the fact that actions have results, are seen as hindrances to free will, or even as proof that there is no free will.

For people to be deserving of all harm they experience, any human inflicting the harm has no choice. If it is necessarily deserved then it is unavoidable.

As I noted twice earlier, for a theist, everything that happens is just, deserved.

 

[Syne]

I gave you an answer generalized to ANY particular perspective. Whether victim, perpetrator, or bystander, any rational, unbiased person can evaluate whether harm was justified by some previous action of the victim.

Only an omniscient agent could rightfully make that claim.

Apparently you are neither rational nor unbiased then, as these are all that is necessary and do not require omniscience. Or would you like to make the argument that only the omniscient can be rational and unbiased?

"Directed by god" does not imply "deserved". Jews typically think they were tested, which is quite different from thinking they deserved it.

For a theist, whatever comes from God is deserved, whether it is a test or a punishment.
For a theist, everything that happens, happens because God willed it so.
To believe so is what it means to be a theist, at least pertaining to God, as opposed to a demigod.

8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” -Job 1

3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” -Job2​

You cannot be both deserving of misfortune and blameless. Nothing about a god's will necessitates in being deserved. So once again you are equivocating simple words into utter meaninglessness. This is getting to be your MO. Apparently you think if the words mean nothing you can safely make any claims you like.

Maybe you should lay off all the gnostic demigod nonsense. Or better yet, support your claims with anything other than your bare assertions.

We are talking about the meaning of terms.
"Inherent nature" is something that, by definition, cannot change; if it could change, it would not be "inherent nature."

Equivocal garbage, as nothing in the definition of "inherent" necessarily implied "unchanging". Quit talking out of your ass.

And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. -Ephesians 4:24

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! -2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. -Romans 12​

All affirming change is possible.

Your argument about neuroplasticity would apply if and only if the body would be the alpha and omega of who and what a person is. Characteristically, all major theisms make the point that the body is not the alpha and omega of who and what a person is; instead, they make the point - more or less elaborately - that a person has an inherent nature that remains the same, and usually, that's called the "soul," while the person's body, along with the person's possessions, relationships, thoughts, emotions, behaviors, are subject to change.

See the above verses.

"Misfortune" exists in the eye of the beholder.

Arguably, for a theist, there, ideally, is and can be no misfortune.

Complete nonsense. How many words are you going to claim have no meaning? If you claim this is "arguable" then make an argument to support it already.

What do you think that greater reason is?

Free will.

That is either perverse, or you have many good arguments that you will yet present.

People have all kinds of desires, make all kinds of efforts - and often, they are stopped in those efforts by death, disease, injury, old age, other people, the weather, lack of resources, animals.

All natural consequences within a closed causal system. There are simply natural laws which dictate how the competition of wills will be resolved. In a physical universe, it is usually the one who can bring the most physical force to bear that wins.

If, as you suggest, God would really make such allowance for free will simply for the sake of allowing free will, then people would not be stopped in their efforts by death, disease, etc.

It is really strange to suggest that God would allow the Nazis to act on their free will and kill many people, while the free-willed efforts of, say, a young aspiring swimmer are cut short by an injury that leaves him paralyzed from the neck down.

A god cannot arbitrarily intervene. It is a false dilemma to assume that all free will must be allowed to succeed in order for free will to exist at all. There are numerous examples of competing interests that cannot possibly both be allowed to succeed. That is the definition of "competing". A universe of consistent and discoverable laws that dictate how competition should be resolved necessarily includes the competition of all organisms, including those that contribute to human death and disease. These laws are fair, without any arbitrary favoritism.

If causation is interrupted, then causation no longer exists and neither does a fair playing field in which free will can exist.

Scope is immaterial, as free will is only about the ability to do otherwise.

Then you are operating with an unrealistic concept of free will, a concept that is based strictly on opposing determinism, and in which the person's value system, their memory, their capacity for planning, the fact that some actions take longer to complete than others and the fact that actions have results, are seen as hindrances to free will, or even as proof that there is no free will.

There is nothing unrealistic about the most succinct definition of free will being the ability to do otherwise. As explained above, it is a false dilemma that hindered free will means no free will. For one, obviously free will must exist in order to be hindered. Secondly, as I have said many times now, free will does not imply any guarantee of success. That notion is the only unrealistic and overly optimistic one here.

As I noted twice earlier, for a theist, everything that happens is just, deserved.

Bare assertion that you have not supported in the least.

 

[Photizo]

Where do those "spiritual forces hostile to God" come from?

Nowhere.

 

[wynn]

Nowhere.

They exist, but they come from nowhere?

How can that be??

 

[wynn]

LG -


8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” -Job 1

3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” -Job2


What say you to this?

I say this is the Bible and God speaking to Satan - and as such, to be taken with reservations.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG -


8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” -Job 1

3 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.” -Job2


What say you to this?

I say this is the Bible and God speaking to Satan - and as such, to be taken with reservations.

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments: “Krsna says, ‘For one whose heart has become purified, I destroy completely whatever karma has already been generated with the exception of his parabdha-karma.’ ”

Transcendental knowledge thus destroys all reactions, both pious and sinful; all, that is, except prarabdha-karma, or matured reactions, such as one’s present material body."

Can one who has sinned be a saint?

 

[andy1033]

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?

No i think the holocaust was a sacrifice for the jews, so they could get there promised land.

Thats what i think that happened for. The ptb do not care about the jews like the other groups. They are just playing out a game they have to play, and i totally believe they are not in control of anything really.

So i reckon that ww2 was total misdirection, and the holocaust was a literal sacrifice. I think the ptb are playing this out like a game to them, they are emotionless and apathetic too all but there goals.

The ptb believe a price has to be paid, and the jews paid there price before they got there lands. It was just human sacrifice on mass scale.

The world is that sick, and full of darkness, all religions are just variations of voodoo.

The history of the world is that its run by what we perceive to be the devil, but jesus came to save us. Thats what human history is.
All religions are mainly all voodoo, and people want to destroy others, you see that all over the world do you not?

 

[wynn]

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura comments: “Krsna says, ‘For one whose heart has become purified, I destroy completely whatever karma has already been generated with the exception of his parabdha-karma.’ ”

Transcendental knowledge thus destroys all reactions, both pious and sinful; all, that is, except prarabdha-karma, or matured reactions, such as one’s present material body."

That, of course, works within the conception of reincarnation (serial and cross-species). Which is at odds with Christianity.

But Syne's line of reasoning is that Job was blameless altogether (and that so were the Jews killed in WWII).


What could possibly justify Job's complaints against God?

 

[wynn]

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?

This whole discussion could simply be reframed into less charged terms, and simply focus on the question
"Why do things happen the way they do? Why do people act the way they do?"

 

[wynn]

guess it depends whether one views being implicated in the killing of animals as bearing any negative reaction

Eventually, this is like saying that Jewish theism has little or no efficacy.

only if one is engaged in fatalistic "hero or zero" thinking

Actually, no. My conclusion about the inefficacy of a particular theism seems inevitable and accurate within the context of the idea that there is only one lifetime in which we get to act.

 

[lightgigantic]

That, of course, works within the conception of reincarnation (serial and cross-species). Which is at odds with Christianity.

But Syne's line of reasoning is that Job was blameless altogether (and that so were the Jews killed in WWII).


What could possibly justify Job's complaints against God?

that god is ineffective in managing the universe - IOW the definition of god starts to crumble

 

[andy1033]

IOW the definition of god starts to crumble

But no human can understand what God is, how do we define God.

All our religions and science(religion) too gets a small taste of what God is, but rarely does anyone even get any real idea of what God may be.

Your making an assumption that mankind has worked out what god is, no.

 

[lightgigantic]

But no human can understand what God is, how do we define God.

if that is true then ....

All our religions and science(religion) too gets a small taste of what God is, but rarely does anyone even get any real idea of what God may be.

Your making an assumption that mankind has worked out what god is, no.

... then why are you assuming to know what god is and how you /we go about getting an (apparent) taste of him?

IOW rhetorical arguments aside, if defining god wasn't an option, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Its never really a case of "we cannot define god" but rather "which definitions of god are more complete than others".

Hence the definition of a god that has the habit of losing it with his followers due to getting goaded by an inferior energy (ie satan) has issues that a properly omni god doesn't

 

[lightgigantic]

That, of course, works within the conception of reincarnation (serial and cross-species). Which is at odds with Christianity.

But Syne's line of reasoning is that Job was blameless altogether (and that so were the Jews killed in WWII).


What could possibly justify Job's complaints against God?

actually there's something more in it there - it basically means that by dint of material existence (ie being incorporated in a material body) an element of parabdha karma is in action (if it wasn't, you wouldn't have a material body).

IOW material existence necessitates reversals, etc even for a jivan mukta

 

[wynn]

actually there's something more in it there - it basically means that by dint of material existence (ie being incorporated in a material body) an element of parabdha karma is in action (if it wasn't, you wouldn't have a material body).

IOW material existence necessitates reversals, etc even for a jivan mukta

Like I noted earlier, along similar lines - Job's being human is evidence that he was guilty of the original fall, and everything that comes from that.

that god is ineffective in managing the universe - IOW the definition of god starts to crumble

What do you mean?

According to the definition of God with which Job was operating, God indeed seemed to be inefficient in managing the Universe. That was Job's justification, but it can hardly be considered an adequate justification. It's pernicious to think that God is ineffective in managing the Universe!


I've noticed something peculiar: Among all the Christians, of various denominations, that I have been acquainted with, the Book of Job was considered off limits, it was not supposed to be discussed.

 

[wynn]

Its never really a case of "we cannot define god" but rather "which definitions of god are more complete than others".

You do realize that with an outlook like that, we're heavily into natural theology. That ever so abstract way of reasoning about God that may come up with quite complete and consistent propositions, but which no actual, existent theism holds. With natural theology, one likely ends up all on one's own, isolated from existing theisms. Which is a maddening predicament.

 

[Syne]

According to the definition of God with which Job was operating, God indeed seemed to be inefficient in managing the Universe. That was Job's justification, but it can hardly be considered an adequate justification. It's pernicious to think that God is ineffective in managing the Universe!

Cite the verses you are talking about.

 

[wynn]

Cite the verses you are talking about.

In the whole book, Job is complaining. If he wouldn't believe that God is inefficient in managing the Universe, he would have nothing to complain about and there would be no Book of Job.

 

[Syne]

In the whole book, Job is complaining. If he wouldn't believe that God is inefficient in managing the Universe, he would have nothing to complain about and there would be no Book of Job.

Nonsense.

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him -Job 13:15a​

Even in his overwrought complaining rant, he still trusts god. His complaints are about fairness, not efficiency. And the unfairness is simple to understand. If the righteous were guaranteed freedom from woes then they would only have selfish reason to remain righteous, as opposed to living right for its own sake or to trust in god.