How Jews can believe in God after the holocaust...

How Jews can believe in God after the holocaust? I certainly wouldn't because any half-decent deity could prevent such atrocious tragedy from happen to his chosen people and God done nothing at all.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology
sys.Veeky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Lemme help you find God.

First lie: In my name you shall move mountains, and from then on it's a cascade of lies to justify previous lies that aren't becoming real to make you be afraid of being anywhere close to Satan. Since they are lying so much, do it openly, accept Satan by saying with your mouth Save me Satan (do it in your mind if you cannot speak). Behold, the name of the God and saviour: Satan.
It would be hilarious if an evil posessing spirit were inside you instilling you to accept Satan, you actually went and did it and then the posessing spirit wanted to convince you out of this idea.
This is my situation actually, no, that evil spirit doesn't seem to have gained an ability to kill me instantly. And yes, the moment I said those words I certainly felt like receving what I hadn't felt with any other "saviour": fucking salvation that cannot be lost ever.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology

Kill yourself stormnigger.

sys.Veeky Forums.org/derefer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdesustorage.org%2Fhis%2Fthread%2F509405%2F

>muh need o explain god's motives.

Havent we been through the enlightment and all that? Why still these strawmen about a personal god bla bla bla...

But Judaism (like Christianity and Islam) teaches there is a personal god. How it that a strawman?

Not him but if god intervenes and stops every bad act then we technicly don't have free will and therefor god contradicts himself.

That's a completely different issue to the claim OP is making a strawman argument.

Religion and religious texts will always be important and useful, no matter if you are a strong follower or believer.
Im jewish but i dont really believe in the simple interpretation of god.
God is something we strive for. Some unknown, the force of creation, the reality which we cannot fully grasp but try to using different methodologies.
Religious texts are a window to the world view and description of the world of humanity at a more primordial time. A description from which a huge part of western culture arose and is based on.
The bible and in the case of Christian the new testement as well, can serve as a foundation and bedrock of criticism of all modern issues and societal ills because they are the trunk of the tree of knowledge. A River from which we irrigate our crops etc...
We swirl in different directions and return to our anciant past thinking for guidence and to get new perspective to solve our contemporary problems.

I think of the bible as a buble of a description of the world. This bubble has swelled for the past 2k years and all the issues on it have stretched and become more detailed and we sometimes get too perticular, too stuck on one specific thing an need to return to the bubble before it expanded, go back to a bigger more general perspective to move to a different way of thinking.

It is unquestionable that the Shoah has been a massive stumbling block for the Jewish world, many ethnic Jews, in fact about half within Israel, and about half without, don't believe in Judaism today.

Now every Rabbi ever has to deal with a theodicy that would explain God allowing something similar to happen.

Responses are variable, many writers advocate apostasy, protesting God, denial of God's omnipotence, and more. Others claim it's the Jews' sins that made this happen.

Those same books are read by the Rabbis and their students.

The bible is a bedrock of interpretation and reinterpretation. To be read and interpreted literally or at different levels of abstraction.

I think i answered your question here:

You can think of god as a blank word surrounded by all the descriptions and writings in the bible.
Think of a philosopher who describes a new idea. a new concept. He gives a description of a feeling, of a need which his current language and society do not have a word for yet.
God is that eternal blank word that connects us to our creation, to our beginning, to our nature, into which we insert from our intuition the new understanding and meaning which we need to move forward.

Why have I had two people reply to me with things that have nothing to do with my post?

You are aware of what a personal god is, right? I'm not aware of any mainstream denomination of Christianity that doesn't believe in a personal god.

Our anciant ancestors perhaps truly did believe in a personal god, that was the concept they needed, that allowed them to explain and structure the word according to their needs.
Today, we know much more, our knowledge has expanded and we use god as something much more complicated in parallel with our now much more complicated world view.

I am not speaking for judiams here but of my personal way of understanding religion and its importance.

Each person, perhaps more so now than in the past(because of how easier it is for information to move and be stored) has his own private understanding of god, based on his knowledge and experience in life.
Denominations are, like pools which cannonize a certain generalized perspective but that does not mean that you as person cannot deviate from it or interpret it as well according to what you need and your problems.

Aren't there tons of Jewish atheists?

> stops every bad act
Well, Jews was killed against their will so if God stopped that, it wouldn't be real crime against of free will. You can even say that is that case God himself guarantee that circumstances and will of small, but influential minority can't trump free will of the majority of people. I agree that he shouldn't stop evil act if everyone who care really wills it to be done because it would be mind raping human population as a whole, but when some people by circumstances can't manifest a free will, can you really say that God taken it by allowing people to manifest it? Doesn't seems to be that right to me.

Because it was obviously a test of faith like every other calamity.


What a load religion makes fools of us all

A bit more.
The bible is a bed rock of interpretation, but following interpretations and writings are a further strata of interpretation. rabbies or pastors or denominations and different branches of a church are further cannonized gatherings of understanding and interpretation.
If a group of people still needs a personal god than there will be churches that help him with his world view but a person who requires a more sophisticated understanding, a mor enuanced understanding can still find it on his own, based on the same scriptures and interpretatins and reinterpretations.
Not all people have the time or will to dwell on theorlogy or philosophy. Each person is diffrent and invests his time in different things.

A personal God is a God with thoughts as opposed to some kind of unthinking Force with no mind. I don't see how you would even be a Christian if you believe in the Force instead of God. Maybe a Jedi would be more accurate.

What has anything I said got to do with different interpretations of the bible?

>Denominations are, like pools which cannonize a certain generalized perspective but that does not mean that you as person cannot deviate from it or interpret it as well according to what you need and your problems.

But even if this is true in practice, and is what religious people do most of the time, religion is also an institution that punishes heresy and free-thinking just like the State does.

I mean, try to be a Muslim in the Middle-East and tell your imam that you think you are gay. That's one way of committing suicide.

And this was also true for centuries in Europe, where Christians policed their own communities to such an extent that institutions like the Inquisition came to be.

Tzimtzum.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum
God exists, but God is gone somewhere else

and its obvious people still need religion and god. Even atheism which is an etreme position(not in a bad way it simply goes far in one direction) is a need of a person to confront god and religious people and what they, through their belief promote. Being an atheist is also taking a stance, based on ones desire for a certain world to emerge. It was a backlash against oppressive and violent interpretation of religious texts but just like religious texts can be interpretaed to promote and sustain hate and barbarism so can they be used to promote good and love..
Atheism opened the world to atheistic understanding of the world, to physicalism and extreme materialism which is at the heart of comunist thinking.
I am not saying atheism = evil dicatorships and genocide but this core view of existence as purely material(which is unlike many want to pretned is also ambiguous) can also lead to evil.

Right, but that was also rooted in certain anciant texts that promoted a wolrd view in which homosexuality was seen as evil. If you understand that homosexuality is genetic for example and that there is nothing inherently dangerous in it for society(and this relies on a lot of knowledge in biology and genetics) you suddenly are motivated ot reinterpret the bible in a way that does emphesize homosexuality.

Some jews see the bible as giving historical rules. Rules that come to mediate the reality of human existence and morality at a certain time.
rules of slavery to at least make it less bad with the ultiamte goal of the bible to guide us to a higher moral existence overall and as we rise we can let go of rules for salvery since we are no longer so immoral so as to require such rules to mediate slavery and encmpass it in a workable way into huam existence.

doesnt emphesize homosexuality*
you can see with modern eyes as an abnormal existence which is not evil or bad, but simply a divergent minority existence..

Criticism of anti gay sentiment in judaism asks why amognst all sins must we focus on homosexuality? we all sin, we lie, we cheat so why is homosexaulity so bad? and of course look at it in a historical context. Today there is nothing inherently problematic with sexuality as we know from our superior knowledge of how humans work so there is no longer any need to mediate the relationship between homosexuals and hertosexuals.

You can go even further untl any judgemt of homosexaulity vanishes.
This does not mean of course that it cannot ome back in the future as we know even more and suddenly decide that homosexualtiy is problematic. This is not my dsire but the future is unforseen and the bible and other religiosu tets can adjust to it through our constant reinterpretations.

>but that was also rooted in certain anciant texts that promoted a wolrd view in which homosexuality was seen as evil. If you understand that homosexuality is genetic for example and that there is nothing inherently dangerous in it for society(and this relies on a lot of knowledge in biology and genetics) you suddenly are motivated ot reinterpret the bible in a way that does emphesize homosexuality.

That's true, but it presupposes that reinterpretation is acceptable, which it has become in Christianity and Judaism the last 400 years, because of secularization and theological discussions that were mediated by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

Islam however, is still very orthodox, and homogeneous when it comes to the institutionalization of their religion across peoples and ethnic lines.

You are the OP right? You asked how can jews still believe in god after what happened in the halacaust. This entails a certain interpretation of the bible based on which it suddenly becomes impossible ot believe in god.

I tries to explain that interpretation is not so limited and god can be viewed as many things which to which the halacaust or other evil present no threat.
Even personal interpretations of god can circumvent the halacaust and evil in general.

I mean what you are talking about IS the problem of evil.

I dont know the specifics and specific interpretations that deal with it because all you have to do is read a wiki page on the problem of evil. It is a very specific problem and issue but your question stems from a certain strawman based on a certain narrow interpretation and in general an aniomsity towards religion(this is a guess and generaliation based on the constant anti religious vibe from this imagebord and if im mistaken about you feel free to blame me) that i want to combat because I think(even though i am in no way religious or beliver) that religious needs to be revived and can be useful to us, after the tremors of the 20th century.
It can be a source of criticism of capitalism of hatred in its modenr forms and in general of any specific or general issue we face today.

>You are the OP right?

No.

Yes. not only that but religious messages have gained potency because of gloabl instantaneous and easy communication and we have to rehabilitate religion in the west to combat these problems.

The 20ht centuray was a rip, a shredding of history. An attempt to begin anew and there wer ereasons to do so. There was a lot of blockage, a lot of impassable fences which 20th century revolutons broke. Now, however I feel we need to rehabilitate the past and find connedction to it again and understand that we are not merely individuals and YOLO but that we are a the end of a log line and we have a responsibility to see it continue.

Because the holocaust didn't happen and many of them know this. Especially the rabbis, I suspect most pleb Jews still believe it though. Rabbis tell them about it to keep them in line.

OK, there is no single interpretation. There are interpretations that are popular, that are more effecient today but there is no ONE interpretation.
If intelligent humane and good people abandon religion and its power( due to its tichness as a result of its historical and long use) others, less human and their interpretation can gain traction.

By taking back religion we can push more human ideas to the front using all the power that religious messages have towarsds spreading ideas.

Yes, most people do not think much about religion, they are like children to whom religious authority explains things. Much like any of us on any topic which we know little about. We listen to exprets and they simply the subject to us and teach us what to know.
By retaking religion and making sure it is used for good, we can mke sure that the "simple" people who do not have an interest in theology or philosophy are taught by the right teahers and are taught the right material, the right interpretations.

Because punishment is part of the covenant.

I feel that this whole fedora atheism is self defeating and cannot do anything against religious strands from less educated parts of the world.

Religion and its powerful messages can unite through its history as an influenctial force, large groups of people and create a common ground which al lcan agree to.
It can do so and nothing else can exactly because of the power christianity holds over history and the fact it has so much depth(infleunces over thousands of years on art, culture, politics, philosophy).
It can not only deliver information to people, but do so in a way to which people will want to listen, exactly because of its breadth and connection and support from so many sources both contemporary and historical.

They had no prophet for 2000 years and they had to invent an occult system in the medieval age to balance that out...

They used to have quite some influential prophets before Jesus that done miracles which convinced whole community - including secular people at some points, but they were just suddenly gone after Jesus said they're cursed and Christians are the new Israel.

Just like Catholic church stopped having saints and any relevancy in spiritual life after the Orthodox church anathematized it, for being heretical and not being in communion with the rest of patriarchs.

>OK, there is no single interpretation.

What are you going on about?

Are you talking about whether Abrahamic religions teach there is a personal god, which they all do in all of their different variations and interpretations and is what I posted about?

Are you high?

Also ,as a jew, the halacaust is not some outstanding event. It is the same old pogrom but done using the power of an industrial society.
You can ask a jew why he still beleives after a progrom on his village, or after his wife dies, or after he loses his hat.

here is difference in magnitude but not in the fundamental quality of jewish historical experience.

And what is Israel if not yet another jewish ghetto?
It is the "role" of jews to be on the sidelines, to be hated even. At least so far.

God is a lazy neet who created the universe in his basement. He's just trolling the Jews thats all.

>hey looks like these fairy tales about our invisible sky father that we've been telling each other obviously aren't true because of all this death and shit, what should we do?
>option a: abandon our godfaggotry and become rational secular beings who embrace humanism and the modern world
>option b: keep being tribalist godfags but get guns and invade a foreign land that sky father promised us by killing or expelling the natives

Look, there are many levels of interpretation.
Just like with people throughout their lives.
Kids are taught many things without explanation.
They are told stealing is bad period because to fully explain would require the to know a lot more which they only learn later.

Humans, in regards to religion are the same way. Some people dont bother with it much. they have other problems ot deal with, ther own lives to lead. Yet, they still require some connection to their past, some higher cause, deliverd to them in words and ways which thye can understand.

the higher level is of the teachers(rabbis pastors etc..) which know theology and have more complex interpretations which they cannot really explain to regualr people since its simply not practical to do so. There are differnt levles of theologians and theologic interpretations.
And you can see those in the writigns of the famous theologians and philosophers throughought history.
People on Veeky Forums are people who hav a higher interets in history and philosophy and thus have an advantage on people who are not interested in these issues. We can talk about religion at a hgher level, after absorbing the recent philosophical historical and scientific ideas.

What I am saying is that religion needs to be braght into the fold of the highest levels of thinking, reinterpeted and adjusted.
For regualr people it can still be about a personal god but even a personal interpretation can be preaches to prmote good ideals.
This can only happen if the higher up theologians and thinkers bring forward new and up to date interpretations. If religion is made more important again so that more people explaore it and influence popular interpretations.

Said the European who's society is demographicly dying?

Jews are the most self-emancipating race/religious group in the world. Most Jews are overwhelmingly secular (with a few crazy exceptions). I mean, look at what thinkers they have given us, Marx, Freud, Spinoza.

Considering they inflicted their monotheism onto the world, it's only well that they should the be the first to repudiate it.

Are you seriously telling me there are any major Abrahamic theologians who claim God doesn't exist and there is instead some kind of unthinking force that created the Universe? Would you care to name some of them?

If you think that the emographic problems of Europe have absolutely nothing to do with its abandonment of religion that i urge you to rethink.

And just to let you in on a little seret, most zionists were secular socialists...
As in, they abandoned their "sect" and adopted the new secualr ideals of the 20th century.

There are philosophers who wrote about god and connected to him. Is it a surprise that these men are the most abstract and potent when it comes to interpretations?

The idea of not believing in a god is very complex. you present this as some triviality because to mean the personal literaly biblical god...
But once you read philosophy and are exposed to much more complex and abstract meanings to what is god its not so simply to even say what it means to not believe in god.

Judaism is built around buthurt, seriously all their holidays are about celebrating the times the almost got shoah'd

So you can't give me the name of single theologian then.

You are also very confused. A personal God just means a deity that has a mind and can think as opposed to an unthinking force. Obviously there are many interpretations that fall under the broad category of 'personal God' it doesn't refer to some sort of biblical literalism.

Spinoza? Leibnitz? descartes?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology

Spinoza is philosopher and is considered a Pantheist or even an Atheist. Leibniz and Descartes believed in a personal God.

Besides which I'm not asking for the name of any old thinker ever, he was claiming there are modern day Christians / religious Jews / Muslims who believe in the Force rather than a God and I was asking for examples.

...

You should probably not ask on a Saturday, OP.

> They had no prophet for 2000 years
Wait... Where is Christian Kaballah or something. We also got no prophets for 2000 years.

> emographic problems
slightly kek

Also why does he need to do that? He can present his own interpretation.

Interesting perspective here.

>secular zionists
Zionists support a jewish homeland, but that doesn't mean they support that homeland being in palestine.

The choice of palestine for the homeland was effectively purely a religious choice.

Historical*

Well the question is whether Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in God.

I thought the answer would be bloody obvious without having to discuss it for hours.

Fair play for this interesting link but those people are clearly in a tiny minority.

>believing in the LOLAHOAX

Most Jews are atheists, largely because of the holocaust.

That is wrong. Zionism in it's base is the idea and belief that Israel is the home of the jews and none other.

Here, from a wiki:
> Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsiyyonut IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut] after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).

To believe that the jews owe their homeland to be in the Holy Land is to be Zionist.

This is what Zionism at it's core is about, remoe all the suggestive political climate propaganda and conspiracy theories.

You're saying they took option B? And that Zionism is a tribal movement?

also,
> natives

top fucking kek.

This is what secular zionism is.
Religious zionism believesin a homeland for jews based on certain biblical borders to bring about salvation.
These borders are not the current borders of israel and thus they feel they need to settle in the west bank.

> certain biblical borders
> not the current borders of israel
Do you have a map, legitimately interested.

>this argument again
[citation needed]

the wiki is wrong though. look up Theodore Herzl. he supported a plan for jews to buy land in Argentina

No. I have to disagree. The founders of israel had nothing to do with the results of the halacaust. Zionism was a secular nationalist movement.
Most israelis didnt really understand what happened in The halacaust until much later afer the foundation of the state.
The founders and zionist movement were alrady secular. They were in ine with nationalist and communist thinking of the 19/20th century.

Different branches of religious zionists have difernt oppinions. But the majority of them feel that human acts can bring about salvation and part of that is having israel with certain biblical borders(this is like i wrote part of a debate).
I dont know the intircacies and the exact borders or the the "maximum" borders.
Youll have look it up.

Also most European jews were already secular.

You are correct, but incorrect in believing it is not originally the purpose of secular Zionism aswell. It's just not as likely to happen given the current political climate, but had this been the 70's and the arabs would've attempted an additional attack on Israel after Yom Kippur, it could've happened. This is how Sinai and the Golan Heights were claimed.

One was given back as a peace gesture and the other became a neutrality zone maintained by Israel.

Uganda, actually.

That idea was shot down for multiple reasons, one of the primary ones being - if you are gonna give jews a home, why the fuck not their actual homeland?

Same as everyone else, I guess.... people believe mostly what their parents believe, qnd adversity seems to strengthen religiosity as much as harm it.