Rabbi says "Jewish Holocaust victims were reincarnation of past sinners"

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443718416&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This is no fringe Rabbi. He is the spiritual leader of a powerful Israeli political block.

#1. Since when does Judaism believe in reincarnation??? I never heard of this one before.

#2. Since when does Judaism believe that reincarnated sinners deserve to suffer horribly...for all eternity?? This guy is truly a nut and an *******.

#3. People who make excuses or lay even 1% of the blame on anyone OTHER then the Nazi criminals...needs to have their head examined.

Christians used to believe that all the Jew's suffering and persecution was punishment for our rejection of Christ. This Rabbi isn't far off from the same thinking.

[AgeGap]

Was he a fan of Formula 1.

[Elizabeth I]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443718416&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This is no fringe Rabbi. He is the spiritual leader of a powerful Israeli political block.

#1. Since when does Judaism believe in reincarnation??? I never heard of this one before.

#2. Since when does Judaism believe that reincarnated sinners deserve to suffer horribly...for all eternity?? This guy is truly a nut and an *******.

#3. People who make excuses or lay even 1% of the blame on anyone OTHER then the Nazi criminals...needs to have their head examined.

Christians used to believe that all the Jew's suffering and persecution was punishment for our rejection of Christ. This Rabbi isn't far off from the same thinking.

Is this really that far off from some of the OT prophets, who blamed Israel's tribulations on their turning away from God? Not that that excuses what the man says, it just means it's not new.

[TsarBomba]

From his Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef)

He is highly revered in the religious world, especially in the Sephardi and Mizrahi communities, for his erudition and Torah scholarship.

[marksman]

As usual, Parky reads the headline, but not the article:

"All those poor people in the Holocaust…we wonder why it was done. There were righteous people among them. Still, they were punished because of sins of past generations."

He's not saying those killed in the Holocaust specifically were wicked. He's saying that the bad things that happen to the Jews -- including the Holocause -- is due to the sin of the Golden Calf. This is no different than the Christian dictrone of original sin. It doesn't mean that it's oay to hurt Jews or that Jews deserved the Holocaust any more than the doctrine of original sin means it's okay to hurt one another or that we deserve to be afflicted.

I'm not saying its a good phlosophy, but it's not as heinous as parky's initial post makes it seem.

[marksman]

Oh and to answer parky's questions

#1. Since when does Judaism believe in reincarnation??? I never heard of this one before.
Gee, it's only been about 1900 years. It's not a universal belief amongst Jews (very little is) but it's one of the more common afterlife theories.

#2. Since when does Judaism believe that reincarnated sinners deserve to suffer horribly...for all eternity??
That's not what he said.

#3. People who make excuses or lay even 1% of the blame on anyone OTHER then the Nazi criminals...needs to have their head examined.
That's not what he said.

Christians used to believe that all the Jew's suffering and persecution was punishment for our rejection of Christ. This Rabbi isn't far off from the same thinking.
Yes, he is. You are misunderstanding what he's saying. His view is just a variant on original sin.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

So...why isn't "Nazis are crazy and evil." a good enough answer?

[marksman]

Depends on what the question is.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Depends on what the question is.

It seems like this guy blames (himself since he's a Rabbi? ok...sure...) Jewish people for their own plights.
That they've inherited the sins of their ancestors.
All because of their golden calf in the old testament (or Torah)
All I can say is that if God is still punishing them for a mistake they made over 2000 years ago he must really be a dick. (If you're a theist that is. I just think people need to stop discriminating against the Jewish people, they've been very unlucky.)

I think he's just spewing silly nonsense like most religious people.

[lightfire22000]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443718416&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This is no fringe Rabbi. He is the spiritual leader of a powerful Israeli political block.

#1. Since when does Judaism believe in reincarnation??? I never heard of this one before.

#2. Since when does Judaism believe that reincarnated sinners deserve to suffer horribly...for all eternity?? This guy is truly a nut and an *******.

#3. People who make excuses or lay even 1% of the blame on anyone OTHER then the Nazi criminals...needs to have their head examined.

Christians used to believe that all the Jew's suffering and persecution was punishment for our rejection of Christ. This Rabbi isn't far off from the same thinking.

I was raised with considerable Jewish tradition though I'm not Jewish now. There is a weird movement called Jewish Reconstructionism. Perhaps, the rabbi is related to the movement.

[marksman]

It seems like this guy blames (himself since he's a Rabbi? ok...sure...) Jewish people for their own plights.
That's no what he's doing.

All I can say is that if God is still punishing them for a mistake they made over 2000 years ago he must really be a dick.
That's not what he's doing. I don't believe in his philosophy, but it's not that God is intentionally sending stuff at Jews. It's more of a karmic metaphysics in that the Jews collectively did something bad lon ago and now karma's a bitch. God isn't sending Nazis. There's no blame involved.

I think he's just spewing silly nonsense like most religious people.
Well, it's easy to think incorrect things if you don't bother to look too deeply. That goes for religious zealots as well as superficial atheists.

[marksman]

I was raised with considerable Jewish tradition though I'm not Jewish now. There is a weird movement called Jewish Reconstructionism. Perhaps, the rabbi is related to the movement.

He's not related to Reconstructionism. Shas is an ultra-Orthodox party. He probably believes in Kabbalistic theories of reincarnation. I doubt he woud have nice things to say about Reconstructionism.

[Thunder]

He's not related to Reconstructionism. Shas is an ultra-Orthodox party. He probably believes in Kabbalistic theories of reincarnation. I doubt he woud have nice things to say about Reconstructionism.


correct. this is a Khabbalistic belief, one that I have NEVER heard of before.

i was taught, that all souls will be resurrected when the Messiah comes. but reincarnation???? this is not a jewish idea.

[a_unique_person]

As usual, Parky reads the headline, but not the article:
"All those poor people in the Holocaust…we wonder why it was done. There were righteous people among them. Still, they were punished because of sins of past generations."He's not saying those killed in the Holocaust specifically were wicked. He's saying that the bad things that happen to the Jews -- including the Holocause -- is due to the sin of the Golden Calf. This is no different than the Christian dictrone of original sin. It doesn't mean that it's oay to hurt Jews or that Jews deserved the Holocaust any more than the doctrine of original sin means it's okay to hurt one another or that we deserve to be afflicted.

I'm not saying its a good phlosophy, but it's not as heinous as parky's initial post makes it seem.

The guy is as wacky as they come. He is saying the sinners deserved it, and the righteous were punished as well for the sins of the past generations. Effectively, he is letting the Nazi's off the hook.

And I don't recall reincarnation being taught anywhere in the OT. It looks like it is a relatively recent belief, and not in the Talmud. According to this, it is accepted by Orthodox Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation#Judaism

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

That's no what he's doing.


That's not what he's doing. I don't believe in his philosophy, but it's not that God is intentionally sending stuff at Jews. It's more of a karmic metaphysics in that the Jews collectively did something bad lon ago and now karma's a bitch. God isn't sending Nazis. There's no blame involved.


Well, it's easy to think incorrect things if you don't bother to look too deeply. That goes for religious zealots as well as superficial atheists.

Hate to be rude especially being a n00b but here goes...
Well...since you obviously know everything, please enlighten me. What does the article mean Marksman since there is apparently some deep hidden meaning that eludes me.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

The guy is as wacky as they come. He is saying the sinners deserved it, and the righteous were punished as well for the sins of the past generations. Effectively, he is letting the Nazi's off the hook.

I agree, it sounds like a Rabbi saying that all bad things happen to Jews because of the Golden Calf (Which I already believe is irrelevant being a rationalist) is responsible for all the bad things that have and are happening to Jews. As for reincarnation, so he's saying that God is repeatedly punishing the Jewish people in a never ending reincarnating living hell? Ok that is a bit much, but see what I mean? That sounds kooky as can be.

[marksman]

Hate to be rude especially being a n00b but here goes...
Well...since you obviously know everything, please enlighten me. What does the article mean Marksman since there is apparently some deep hidden meaning that eludes me.

I already explained it to Parky in this thread. He's giving a variation on original sin. Bad things happen because, essentially, of all the bad karma that was caused (caused is different from "earned") from the Golden Calf incident.

He is definitely not blaming the Holocaust victims, which is why he specifically states there were righteous among the victims. But it's a better headline to make it seem like he's blaming the victim.

And to reiterate. I don't agree with the rabbi, but that doesn't mean I have to tolerate it when people who post to a skeptic's site blindly assume the worst about people.

And, Parky, you're really not the guy who gets to say what is appropriate in Judaism and what is not. The afterlife is a real enigma in Judaism as it is virtually unmentioned in the Tanakh. There are indications of various thoughts in the Talmud, including (but not exclusively) reincarnation. It's been a part of Judaism in one form or another for more than a thousand years. It's one of the more prevalent afterlife beliefs, but it is not, despite what the rabbi stated, a necessary belief even for Orthodox Jews.

[marksman]

As an aside, as for scriptural support for reincarnation, most believers (of which I am not) cite to Job 33:29-30, which indicates that God has people live twice or thrice (or more) in order to give them ample opportunity to live a righteous life.

Another passage that may refer to reincarnation is Job 1:21, in which Job talks about being born from a woman's womb and then "returning" there. That has been considered a description of reincarnation. (I'm hard-pressed to figure out what else it might mean.)

But that's about it for stuff that seems to me to refer to reincarnation in the Torah. (Rabbis cite other passages, but I find their interpretations tortured, at best.)

Nevertheless, the idea of reincarnation was a fringe belief, at best, prior to 12th century. In the 10th century a Jewish scholar named Saadia Gaon wrote down what he believed to be the accepted beliefs at the time. In his section on the afterlife, he discusses the Messianic Age and the belief that all souls will be resurrected. He mentions reincarnation only to debunk it as a Jewish belief, calling it, essentially, heretical. But his work was one of advocacy -- he wanted Jews to accept his vision of things and reject others. It didn't work. However, in writing his book, he seems to be tacitly acknowledging that there was a strain of Jewish thought at the time that at least considered the possibility of reincarnation, thus indicating its presence in Jewish thought for at least the past 1,000 years, if not longer.

With the rise of Kabbalistic practices in the 12th century, reincarnation became a more prevalent idea. When Isaac Luria (16th century) and Baal Shem Tov (18th century), seminal characters in Jewish mysticism, endorsed reincarnation, that pretty much cemented it for Orthodox Jewry.

[a_unique_person]

I already explained it to Parky in this thread. He's giving a variation on original sin. Bad things happen because, essentially, of all the bad karma that was caused (caused is different from "earned") from the Golden Calf incident.

He is definitely not blaming the Holocaust victims, which is why he specifically states there were righteous among the victims. But it's a better headline to make it seem like he's blaming the victim.


You are reading it incorrectly. He mentions that there are righteous as well as those who were not righteous amongst the victims. The righteous died because the 'golden calf', but the others died because they were not righteous.

[marksman]

The righteous died because the 'golden calf', but the others died because they were not righteous.

What you just wrote is not in any of his statements in the article. You are assuming that's what he really meant.

But the doctrine he is discussing is well-established in Orthodox Judaism and it is not a specific punishment like a penal decree. It is a karmic consequence of the Golden Calf, though people who have not studied Jewish philosophy often confuse consequences and intentional specific punishment.

At any rate, there is nothing in the article that indicates the rabbi believes the unrighteous died in the Holocaust for a different reason than the righteous died in the Holocaust. You're mistaken.

[a_unique_person]

"There is no calamity that the people of Israel suffer that isn't part of [the punishment for] the sin of the golden calf. The tragedies we've endured throughout generations - the Inquisition, the Holocaust - they are all part of the sin of the golden calf," Rabbi Yosef explained.


I don't see anything in there about Nazism being to blame.

[marksman]

He wasn't asked why the Holocaust happened from an historical perspective but from a philosophical perspective. I.e., why do bad things happen to good Jews. He was giving the standard Orthodox answer: bad things happen to Jews because of the bad karma created from the Golden Calf incident.

He's not a historian and thus shouldn't be expected to give a discussion of the historical causes of the Holocaust. He is a theologian and thus is giving a theological answer.

I don't agree with him on a theological or philosophical basis, by the way. But his answer wasn't offensive. It doesn't blame the Jews for the Holocaust. It doesn't exonerate the Nazis.

[Jontg]

You know, I once had a similar theory in my teens--only instead of lapsed Jews, I figured they must be the dead of World War One. It was the only logical way I could reconcile my idea of how karma worked with the existence of the Shoah. I outgrew that theory before my voice changed.

[marksman]

Yeah. I don't like the idea of karma. I think it's a horrible philosophy. But it's a prevalent philosophy. There are 900 million Hindus (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) in the world who ascribe to it (at least nominally).

Still, ascribing to the notion of karma doesn't mean people aren't responsible for the evils they do in this lifetime. The Rabbi in question was not exonerating Nazis or blaming Jews for the Holocaust.

[ponderingturtle]

So...why isn't "Nazis are crazy and evil." a good enough answer?

Because you have to explain how god allowed it to happen. From a frame work of a believer it is always an easy thing to do to say that when something bad happens to someone they must have deserved it.

It gives an easy out to a difficult philosophical problem.

[marksman]

He didn't say they "deserved" it. He is describing it as karmic causation not divine retribution.

[marksman]

By the way, this controversy isn't new. He said a similar thing eight years ago, and he actually explained his remarks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/869553.stm):
In remarks broadcast on Israeli television on Monday, the 79-year-old Iraqi-born rabbi said: "Who doesn't bemoan the Holocaust?... Six million Jews, among them one million children...were killed by the wicked Nazis. All were holy and pure and complete saints."

Edited to add: I assume the saints he refers to are the victims of the Holocaust, not the Nazis. :)


Now, if you want to criticize Rabbi Yosef for something offensive and crazy he actually said and meant, try how he blamed Hurricane Katrina on President Bush's support for the withdrawal from Gaza and the insufficient amount of Torah study performed by New Orleans residents (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3138779,00.html). He's also said some pretty nasty things about Arabs -- though each time he gets called on it, he says he was only referring to the terrorists.

[Cainkane1]

This is one of the reasons I can't understand religion and its another reason for my disbelief. To say those jewish people were being punished for sins during a previous life is to say the nazi butchers were the good guys doing Gods will. Nope I'm not into reigion.

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

By the way, this controversy isn't new. He said a similar thing eight years ago, and he actually explained his remarks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/869553.stm):
In remarks broadcast on Israeli television on Monday, the 79-year-old Iraqi-born rabbi said: "Who doesn't bemoan the Holocaust?... Six million Jews, among them one million children...were killed by the wicked Nazis. All were holy and pure and complete saints."

Edited to add: I assume the saints he refers to are the victims of the Holocaust, not the Nazis. :)


Now, if you want to criticize Rabbi Yosef for something offensive and crazy he actually said and meant, try how he blamed Hurricane Katrina on President Bush's support for the withdrawal from Gaza and the insufficient amount of Torah study performed by New Orleans residents (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3138779,00.html). He's also said some pretty nasty things about Arabs -- though each time he gets called on it, he says he was only referring to the terrorists.

Another religious bi-polar nutjob. Gotcha...
Lol, we might as well argue on what a schizo really means.

[marksman]

It's easy to dismiss people whose beliefs you disagree as a "schizo", but that's really not embodying the "critical thinking" this site is supposed to represent.

[FireGarden]

It's easy to dismiss people whose beliefs you disagree as a "schizo", but that's really not embodying the "critical thinking" this site is supposed to represent.

"Schizo" is a daft word, but I'm at a loss as to how to judge this man to be rational.

On the one hand, regarding Katrina,

In his weekly sermon, the rabbi said: “There was a tsunami and there are terrible natural disasters, because there isn’t enough Torah study… black people reside there (in New Orleans). Blacks will study the Torah? (God said) let’s bring a tsunami and drown them.”

But on the other hand,

Rabbi Yosef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, said he was only trying to provide a theological explanation for the Holocaust - adding that he believed all six million Jewish victims were pure and complete saints.

So even if there HAD been Torah reading in New Orleans, that wouldn't have been sufficient. Because maybe they didn't do enough reading in a previous life. Or because Bush needed to be punished for supporting the dismantling of settlements. (And God needs to visit an ophthalmologist).

[a_unique_person]

I wonder how MEMRI missed all this?

[FireGarden]

He didn't say they "deserved" it. He is describing it as karmic causation not divine retribution.

In what way is this karmic causation not part of the divinely ordained way of things? Surely what god has ordained is deemed by the religious to be good and just. Or is karma a bug that god hasn't fixed yet?

(I know it's not your position your defending, but you're trying to explain the Rabbi's. That's the spirit in which I ask the above questions.)

[Soapy Sam]

I think he's just spewing silly nonsense like most religious people.

I think we have a winner.

[Skeptic]

(Sigh)

Can't say I'm surprised parky noticed this statement -- or that he misinterpreted it and tried to put the worst possible interpretation on it.

[ponderingturtle]

He didn't say they "deserved" it. He is describing it as karmic causation not divine retribution.

So it is the belief that god is powerless to stop the supernatual effects of worshiping something other than him?

"You didn't pay me enough respect, I am not responcible for what happens to you" Does anyone really buy this line of crap?

[a_unique_person]

Because you have to explain how god allowed it to happen. From a frame work of a believer it is always an easy thing to do to say that when something bad happens to someone they must have deserved it.

It gives an easy out to a difficult philosophical problem.

Nailed it.

[Skeptic]

A totally manufactured "controversy". Sure, he is not fringe figure -- but his views are not fringe views, either, even if they were expressed somewhat indelicately. He is NOT blaming the holocaust victims of anything. On the contrary: he is trying to explain why obviously innocent people, children and babies and devout religious folks included, suffered this way.

Ever since the holocaust many Jewish believers asked themselves how such a thing can happen if there is a God. To those who did not become atheist, some solution must be found. Traditionally, suffering in Judaism is seen as punishment for the sins of the sufferer. But since it is obvious that the sins of the victims, whatever those sins were, couldn't possibly SUCH a punishment, other excuses need to be found. One of those solutions is the belief of sins in a past life are repaid in this.

It is the solution to the "why bad things happen to good people" riddle of many religions, and many religious people. There is nothing theologically extreme here at all, except perhaps, to some, the realization that some Jews accept reincarnation. Well, welcome to the club -- this belief is at least 1500 or so years old in Judaism.

Yes, Judaism is very unclear and contraditory about what next life, if any, there is. During the biblical times there was no heaven or hell, only a vaguely-defined sheol -- roughly, the world of the dead. The belief in heaven and hell came later, during the Babylonian exile. It now exists simultaneously in Judaism with the belief in reincarnation, and with the belief in the eventualy ressurection of the dead -- all three obviously contradictory with the other two (and all three contradictory with the original biblical view).

But I repeat: while this might surprise some readers, given this common belief in reincarnation (at least for some people), what the Rabbi said is theologically orthodox and not at all surprising.

[Oliver]

Ever since the holocaust many Jewish believers asked themselves how such a thing can happen if there is a God.


And the answer is: Because they think there is a God.
Without "God", there would be no such things as "Jews", "Christians", "Scientologists" - thus, no persecution of the religious minority.

Of course, you don't like that fact, so go ahead and flame me. :)

[Pardalis]

As we said many times in the antisemitic thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040) you've abandoned, religion isn't the only reason why the Holocaust happened.

[marksman]

So it is the belief that god is powerless to stop the supernatual effects of worshiping something other than him?

"You didn't pay me enough respect, I am not responcible for what happens to you" Does anyone really buy this line of crap?

Actually, the philosophy is that God doesn't generally intervene in human affairs. He created an imperfect world and charged humanity with perfecting it. But now we're getting far afield from the initial post, and we're straying into some pretty complex philosophy.

Moreover, the rabbi completely and hypocritically contradicted that philosophy when he attributed Katrina to American approvalof the West Ban withdrawal. I won't defend that statement (which I raised in this thread).

But as to the Holocaust, yes, the belief is that karma is akin to a law of physics and God will not generally interfere in it. God did not want it to happen. The Nazis are not exonerated thereby and the Jews who died are not to blame for it. We can go afield and start criticizing the underlying philosophy of Orthodox Judaism as a whole, but I think that's off-topic for this thread.

[jimtron]

By the way, this controversy isn't new. He said a similar thing eight years ago, and he actually explained his remarks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/869553.stm):In remarks broadcast on Israeli television on Monday, the 79-year-old Iraqi-born rabbi said: "Who doesn't bemoan the Holocaust?... Six million Jews, among them one million children...were killed by the wicked Nazis. All were holy and pure and complete saints."Edited to add: I assume the saints he refers to are the victims of the Holocaust, not the Nazis. :)




I'm having trouble understanding the view that Holocaust victims: "all were holy and pure and complete saints," but also "were reincarnation of past sinners." Anyway, I find this very offensive, saying that Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives. Doesn't that sound a tiny bit like saying they deserved it, or that somehow it was justified? And how would anyone know that they were sinners in past lives?

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, the philosophy is that God doesn't generally intervene in human affairs. He created an imperfect world and charged humanity with perfecting it. But now we're getting far afield from the initial post, and we're straying into some pretty complex philosophy.

Again this is the kind of thing that as an atheist I have problems see why believers buy it. What exact past sin were these people being punished for?

It seems that this goes beyond a non interfearing god not stopping some bad people or unfortunate force into explaining how the victims had it coming.

[marksman]

I'm having trouble understanding the view that Holocaust victims: "all were holy and pure and complete saints," but also "were reincarnation of past sinners."
In Judaism, the status of sinner and saint are not mutually exclusive. Everybody makes mistakes, but that doesn't prevent them from also being righteous.

There's also a bit of mistranslation, likely. Judaism doesn't have sainthood in the Catholic sense. More likely, he means they were martyrs in the sense they died blameless because of their status as Jews.

Anyway, I find this very offensive, saying that Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives. Doesn't that sound a tiny bit like saying they deserved it, or that somehow it was justified? And how would anyone know that they were sinners in past lives?
According to Orthodox thought, every Jew was present at Mount Sinai and participated in some way in the Golden Calf idolatry. So all Jews, including the victims of the Holocaust, and the Rabbi himself, was present and culpable.

That sin, so the philosophy goes, caused a lot of bad karma. That doesn't mean that people are to be blamed fo their own wrongdoing. It doesn't mean that the people who abuse Jews are blameless. It is just a theological basis for explaining why bad things happen to good people.

Sadly, this is not something that can easily be explained in a Jerusalem Post article, and it doesn't really seem the Post was all that interested in finding out the theological background to the statement. So his statement was reported without a proper context. It happens quite often when religious figures talk about events with historical or political significance.

The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.

[marksman]

Again this is the kind of thing that as an atheist I have problems see why believers buy it. What exact past sin were these people being punished for?
Punish is an imprecise word in that context. The victims are punished by karma in the same sense that someone who is thrown off a building is "punished" by gravity. The fact that the victim was pulled by gravity does not impugn blame to the victim. Nor does it exonerate the person who threw the victim from the building.



It seems that this goes beyond a non interfearing god not stopping some bad people or unfortunate force into explaining how the victims had it coming.
That is not what the philosophy states. He is not blaming the victim.

[ponderingturtle]

Punish is an imprecise word in that context. The victims are punished by karma in the same sense that someone who is thrown off a building is "punished" by gravity. The fact that the victim was pulled by gravity does not impugn blame to the victim. Nor does it exonerate the person who threw the victim from the building.

The problem is that the person threw themselves off the building not was thrown off the building by someone else. Or was it now the Nazi's karma who caused all the problems?

It seems that by saying it is karma is saying that it is a trait of the victims that caused it.

That is not what the philosophy states. He is not blaming the victim.

And I don't see how you can reach that position.

[ponderingturtle]

According to Orthodox thought, every Jew was present at Mount Sinai and participated in some way in the Golden Calf idolatry. So all Jews, including the victims of the Holocaust, and the Rabbi himself, was present and culpable.

That sin, so the philosophy goes, caused a lot of bad karma. That doesn't mean that people are to be blamed fo their own wrongdoing. It doesn't mean that the people who abuse Jews are blameless. It is just a theological basis for explaining why bad things happen to good people.

The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability. Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.

He might not be excusing the Nazi's, but he is blaming the victims.

The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.

And I can see broadly why that would be. This is not a remarkable way of dealing with the issue of why bad things happen to good people. But I don't see why it isn't part of it that blames the victims, like say Pat Robertsons saying that 9/11 was because of tolerance for homosexuals and abortion.

[jimtron]

In Judaism, the status of sinner and saint are not mutually exclusive. Everybody makes mistakes, but that doesn't prevent them from also being righteous.

So sinners are holy and pure? I guess I don't understand what those words, and the word "sinner" mean.



The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.What he said was offensive to me. And the idea that all Jews are sinners is an idea that I find offensive (same goes for all Christians are sinners, etc).

eta:

Yeah, what ponderingturtle said: The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability. Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.

[Thunder]

This Rabbi was not saying that "all Jews are sinners". He was saying that the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were reincarnations of Jews who had done a terrible crime, and therefore in some way, had it coming. This also means that the Jews who survived...did not deserve to die and therefore were not killed.

If a Catholic priest said something like this, the ADL and other groups would rise up in comdemnation. But because this is a rabbi, silence prevails.

=(

[marksman]

The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability.
First off, I don't believe in karma, so please don't think I scrib to the rabbi's beliefs. I've studied them -- I don't accept them.

Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.
They are innocent. There's no culpability.

He might not be excusing the Nazi's, but he is blaming the victims.
No, he isn't.

But I don't see why it isn't part of it that blames the victims, like say Pat Robertsons saying that 9/11 was because of tolerance for homosexuals and abortion.
Because karma is supposed to be like a law of physics (a law of metaphysics, if you will). It's a consequence to an action, but that doesn't mean you're to blame for that consequence.

[jimtron]

Marksman, in your opinion, what is the relevance of mentioning that the Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives? I'm curious to hear what you think the rabbi meant by that--what was his reason for mentioning it.

[marksman]

This Rabbi was not saying that "all Jews are sinners".
Yes, he was. Under Orthodoxy, every Jew was present at the Golden Calf incident.

I understand how people wouldn't get the enormous amount of context behind what the Rabbi said. And given this Rabbi's history of saying rather hateful things, that's understandable. In this specific context, though, he was not blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

[marksman]

Marksman, in your opinion, what is the relevance of mentioning that the Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives? I'm curious to hear what you think the rabbi meant by that--what was his reason for mentioning it.

In my opinion, he was trying to explain the notion of the impact of the Golden Calf incident. The negative karma associated with it touches every Jew, even the most revered Jews in Israel -- the victims of the Holocaust. Even they are impacted by the negative karma of the Golden Calf. Nobody is exempt.

In essence, he was answering the unspoken implication that the Holocaust victims were so innocent that surely they should have been spared the negative karma. (In essence, he was imagining someone saying "I accept that bad things happen to good people, but surely the Holocaust was so bad, and its victims so good, that this should have been an exception.") His response -- nobody is spared of karma, just as nobody is immune to gravity, no matter how good they may be, even the victims of the Holocaust because they, like us, were present at the Golden Calf when the bad karma was first generated.

That's how it reads to me, having reviewed this article and the articles about a similar statement about the Holocaust he made in 2000.

[jimtron]

In my opinion, he was trying to explain the notion of the impact of the Golden Calf incident. The negative karma associated with it touches every Jew, even the most revered Jews in Israel -- the victims of the Holocaust. Even they are impacted by the negative karma of the Golden Calf. Nobody is exempt.

In essence, he was answering the unspoken implication that the Holocaust victims were so innocent that surely they should have been spared the negative karma. (In essence, he was imagining someone saying "I accept that bad things happen to good people, but surely the Holocaust was so bad, and its victims so good, that this should have been an exception.") His response -- nobody is spared of karma, just as nobody is immune to gravity, no matter how good they may be, even the victims of the Holocaust because they, like us, were present at the Golden Calf when the bad karma was first generated.

That's how it reads to me, having reviewed this article and the articles about a similar statement about the Holocaust he made in 2000.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that Orthodox Judaism, like all other religions, is most likely only imaginary, because this sounds pretty awful to me. All humans (or all Jews, or all Orthodox Jews, or all Christians--whatever) are paying for the sins of those who lived thousands of years ago--and this based on zero evidence. No thanks.

Also, and perhaps I'm nitpicking here; how were Holocaust victims "so innocent" or "so good?" I don't understand what is meant by that--the victims were more innocent or ethical or pure or something than everyone else?

[marksman]

how were Holocaust victims "so innocent" or "so good?" I don't understand what is meant by that--the victims were more innocent or ethical or pure or something than everyone else?

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

[ponderingturtle]

First off, I don't believe in karma, so please don't think I scrib to the rabbi's beliefs. I've studied them -- I don't accept them.

Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

I don't see how you can say that, it is punishment for past actions, regardless of if you are aware of them.


They are innocent. There's no culpability.

Now you are just being inconsistent.

[jimtron]

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

Yes, the Holocaust probably is the ultimate example of Jewish persecution, but of course they didn't deserve genocide--who does? Were the victims more innocent than the average human being, or not?

Sorry, but I'm still confused about this--the victims were "pure," "holy," and "so innocent" and "so good," but also sinners in past lives. Again, I guess the problem here is that I don't buy the religion stuff, which from my view appears to be contradictory and nonsensical.

eta: Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

So all Jews sinned, and in later lives will/might receive Karmic metaphysical backlash. So they did bad, and they get punished, but there's no blame?

[ponderingturtle]

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

And here their actions in past lives meant that it was inevitable and as such they had it coming.

I don't see this as being specifically Jewish, lots of religions believe that if you are the victim of some great tragedy you had to be in some way responsible.

[FireGarden]

So all Jews sinned, and in later lives will/might receive Karmic metaphysical backlash. So they did bad, and they get punished, but there's no blame?

I'm confused, too. But here's a thought:

Let's go back to Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans. People ask "How could this happen to good people?" One answer could be "They lived in a place where the levies weren't strong enough".

A response to this answer could be: "What? Are you blaming the people of Katrina because they chose to live in a place were the levies weren't strong enough?"

In this context, the response seems unfair. Perhaps because blame is too strong a word. For sure: if people had chosen to live somewhere else, they wouldn't have suffered from that particular catastrophe. But it doesn't seem appropriate to assign guilt to that particular choice. Good people can make such a choice.


Now back to the Holocaust.
"How could this happen?" and the answer, "These people did something unspeakably bad in a previous life" -- after all, worshipping a Golden Calf is supposed to be unspeakably bad.

And all 6 million who died, the survivors, their relatives, the Gypsies, the gays, the mentally infirm... All of them did something unspeakably bad thousands of years ago. And that is the explanation of the Holocaust.

There is an important difference between the two cases: Choosing to live in New Orleans wasn't an unspeakably bad thing. Bad things can happen as a result. But that doesn't imply punishment. We are to believe that worshipping the Golden Calf also doesn't lead to punishment, but only to consequences.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to see things that way, but I think that is the argument.

[marksman]

I think firegarden has it essentially right, with one important caveat -- people aren't responsible for what they did in a past life (at least in a the Jewish version of reincarnation). The point of reincarnation is to give people another chance of living a righteous life. If you could be blamed in this life for sins of the past then the new incarnation really isn't a fresh start.

However, karma dictates that even though you are blameless for what happened in past life, the consequences are still there. It's like a business who buys property only to find that the prior owner (who is now gone) polluted the site. You're still responsible for cleaning up the mess, even though you didn't do the polluting.

And to reiterate, I don't believe in reincarnation or karma. I'm just trying to explain the doctrine.


As for whether the Holocaust victims were actually more innocent than other victims of other tragedies, of course they weren't. However, the Holocaust evokes very strong emotions from people, particularly Jews. So I think some emotional hyperbole is not something unexpected.

[Skeptic]

To clarify, I agree that, to an atheist, this explanation of the holocaust makes no sense. But NO religious explanation of the holocaust, or of human suffering more generally, makes much sense -- which is one of the reasons I'm not a religious person. My point is that this explanation is, for all its faults, not worse, or more extreme, than any other religious explanation.

[Oliver]

As we said many times in the antisemitic thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040) you've abandoned, religion isn't the only reason why the Holocaust happened.


Uh, I actually know that and said so to you in this thread you mentioned. However, Religion is the source for Anti-Semitism and Anti-Semitism+Rassenlehre [inspired by Darwins theories] is the source for the Holocaust. It isn't that hard to understand, nor is it Anti-Semitism to point out those historical facts.

And yes, I abandoned that thread since people, including you, turned it into a quite non-sceptical rantfest without arguing reasonably by providing evidence to the contrary.

However, my main point remains:

Religion led to Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust

[ponderingturtle]

I'm confused, too. But here's a thought:

Let's go back to Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans. People ask "How could this happen to good people?" One answer could be "They lived in a place where the levies weren't strong enough".

A response to this answer could be: "What? Are you blaming the people of Katrina because they chose to live in a place were the levies weren't strong enough?"

In this context, the response seems unfair. Perhaps because blame is too strong a word. For sure: if people had chosen to live somewhere else, they wouldn't have suffered from that particular catastrophe. But it doesn't seem appropriate to assign guilt to that particular choice. Good people can make such a choice.


Now back to the Holocaust.
"How could this happen?" and the answer, "These people did something unspeakably bad in a previous life" -- after all, worshipping a Golden Calf is supposed to be unspeakably bad.

And all 6 million who died, the survivors, their relatives, the Gypsies, the gays, the mentally infirm... All of them did something unspeakably bad thousands of years ago. And that is the explanation of the Holocaust.

There is an important difference between the two cases: Choosing to live in New Orleans wasn't an unspeakably bad thing. Bad things can happen as a result. But that doesn't imply punishment. We are to believe that worshipping the Golden Calf also doesn't lead to punishment, but only to consequences.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to see things that way, but I think that is the argument.

I can't see this, as you are comparing choice with no choice and saying that you are equaly responcible in cases where you made a choice and where the choice was made long before you came into existance.

[marksman]

I can't see this, as you are comparing choice with no choice and saying that you are equaly responcible in cases where you made a choice and where the choice was made long before you came into existance.

Under Jewish theory of reincarnation, the new incarnation did not make the choice of the prior incarnation. The soul is the same, but the individual is different. Does that help? I know it may be difficult to grasp the distinction between free will and soul if you don't believe in the existence of a soul.

To get any father into this, we have to delve into really weird esoteric Jewish concepts of the distinction between the soul, the will and the individual.

[ponderingturtle]

Under Jewish theory of reincarnation, the new incarnation did not make the choice of the prior incarnation. The soul is the same, but the individual is different. Does that help? I know it may be difficult to grasp the distinction between free will and soul if you don't believe in the existence of a soul.

To get any father into this, we have to delve into really weird esoteric Jewish concepts of the distinction between the soul, the will and the individual.

They might claim there is a difference, but it seems to fall broadly into the "you had it comming" way of dealing with the problem of evil. It might focus less on that it is repayment for old sins and more on repercussions of old sins, but that still seems a very very fine distinction to say that it should be classed differently.

[Pardalis]

However, my main point remains:

Religion led to Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust

I guess nobody can cure you from your simplistic worldview.

[marksman]

They might claim there is a difference, but it seems to fall broadly into the "you had it comming" way of dealing with the problem of evil. It might focus less on that it is repayment for old sins and more on repercussions of old sins, but that still seems a very very fine distinction to say that it should be classed differently.

I don't understand what the issue is here. You're not discussing the substance of what I wrote. It seems like you're saying "I understand what you wrote, but am unconvinced."

I'm not trying to convince you to believe in Orthodox Jewish reincarnation theories. I don't believe in Jewish Orthodox reincarnation theories! But do you understand their position enough to agree they did not intend to blame the victims of the Holocaust or to exonerate the Nazis... even if you think (and they disagree that) the import of the philosophy allocates some blame?

Edited to add: At a minimum we seem to have advanced from "This rabbi blames the Jews for the Holocaust" to "Orthodox Jewry adheres to a believe in reincarnation and karma that allocates at least some portion of blame when bad things happen to Jewish people to the Jews themselves because of transgressions committed in past lives, and that included what happened to Jews in the Holocaust." I'll accept that as progress.

[FireGarden]

I can't see this, as you are comparing choice with no choice and saying that you are equaly responcible in cases where you made a choice and where the choice was made long before you came into existance.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to illustrate a distinction between punishment and consequence. The distinction is very naturally made in the Katrina case, because few people would think the choices made require punishment.

In the other case, choices were indeed made: the choice of many to worship a Golden Calf. To the theological narrative, it makes no difference that the choice was made in a previous life. It still carries consequences. The paradox is that this particular choice, according to the same theological narrative, involved commiting a grave sin. Punishment would seem an appropriate response to a sin.

But, according to the argument -- and I don't think the case is made well enough -- punishment is absent and only consequence remains.

If this is a long standing idea used to explain suffering since before the Holocaust, then it won't be the first badly argued theological apology for an uncaring God.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't understand what the issue is here. You're not discussing the substance of what I wrote. It seems like you're saying "I understand what you wrote, but am unconvinced."

You have not convinced be that the distinction that you are trying to draw is a significant distinction.


I'm not trying to convince you to believe in Orthodox Jewish reincarnation theories. I don't believe in Jewish Orthodox reincarnation theories! But do you understand their position enough to agree they did not intend to blame the victims of the Holocaust or to exonerate the Nazis... even if you think (and they disagree that) the import of the philosophy allocates some blame?


For certain values of blame.

[ponderingturtle]

That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm trying to illustrate a distinction between punishment and consequence. The distinction is very naturally made in the Katrina case, because few people would think the choices made require punishment.

I guess I see what you are saying. It broadly has to do with how much one should try to change the curcumstances leading to the bad event. In this trying to avoid and mitigate the consequences of past lifes misdeeds would be moral, while other religions might view mitigating karmic consequences as immoral.

But both are just as much an answer to the problem of why bad things happen to good people. Here it is just saying that it is bad when bad things happen to good people while others might be more of the opinion that when bad things happen to seemingly good people that is good as they must have had it coming.

This seems like too small a difference to view them as fundamentaly different answers to the problem of evil.

[marksman]

I guess I see what you are saying. It broadly has to do with how much one should try to change the curcumstances leading to the bad event. In this trying to avoid and mitigate the consequences of past lifes misdeeds would be moral, while other religions might view mitigating karmic consequences as immoral.
Well, Judaism definitely believes in tryign to mitigate the consequences of bad karma. (Or the bad consequences of anything, whether karmic or not.) But I don't think that's what the Orthodox concept of reincarnation/karma is trying to address.

But both are just as much an answer to the problem of why bad things happen to good people. Here it is just saying that it is bad when bad things happen to good people while others might be more of the opinion that when bad things happen to seemingly good people that is good as they must have had it coming.

This seems like too small a difference to view them as fundamentaly different answers to the problem of evil.

Well, the (metaphorical) devil's always in the details. I think it's an important distinction if one thinks it bad when crap happens to people, as opposed to another philosophy that might think it just.

[Oliver]

I guess nobody can cure you from your simplistic worldview.


I told you it's more complicated than that, but if you sum up the reasons for the Holocaust, it's religion and racism. Although - before Darwin, I don't know if Anti-Semitism was based on religious [and therefore] cultural differences only, or if Jewish citizens were seen in a racial light before Darwins theories as well.

You tell me...

[Oliver]

I guess nobody can cure you from your simplistic worldview.


And would you give us your non-simplistic worldview concerning the topic at hand then?

[marksman]

Religion led to Anti-Semitism
In what way did religion lead to antisemitism?

Are you making a tautology? Are you saying "Race leads to racism"?

The above-quoted sentence is meaningless. You might as well say "The Big Bang led to antisemitism."

[Pardalis]

He also seems to say Darwin lead to racism...

Although - before Darwin, I don't know if Anti-Semitism was based on religious [and therefore] cultural differences only, or if Jewish citizens were seen in a racial light before Darwins theories as well.

He's priceless.

[marksman]

But what does he mean by "lead"?

I can't tell what the purpose of Oliver's point is. If he's just identifying random points in the temporal history of Big Bang to the Holocaust, then lots of things led to the Holocaust. The Fall of the Roman Empire. Whatever killed off all the dinosaurs. The coefficient of gravity. If that's his "point" then he's clearly just begging for attention by choosing one of the more provocative random elements along the line.

But if he's using "led" to indicate something more than "one of many things in the big chain of cause and effect that eventually resulted in the Holocaust" then he needs to explain the significance of his point. He needs to explain why he's singling out religion as a causation of antisemitism. But he doesn't seem to be doing it. It feels like Oliver is just throwing rhetorical grenades and then snickering if he gets people to make the very reasonable inference that he's blaming the victim. And then when people call him out on it, he plays the victim and pretends his point is innocent. But I can't fathom what his innocent point may be. He's either being offensive or utterly innocuous.

Does Oliver not realize how his posts come across? Is this an act of some sort? Is he trying to be JREF's version of Borat? I mean, he writes well enough in a language clearly not his primary tongue to indicate he is not entirely unintelligent. So I always find it very confusing when he tries to pretend he didn't realize what he's doing. I mean, he eve admitted that he purposely wrote a misleading title in order to get attention to the thread.

I'm just very confused by what Oliver thinks he's gaining or contributing by behaving in this odd fashion.

[Pardalis]

I think he realized he said something antisemitic, and now he's trying to redeem himself by saying platitudes like "religion led to antisemitism", but he doesn't realize in the process he's still being offensive by insulting Darwin.

I really don't think he means it, I think he's genuinely harmless, but extremely naive.

[a_unique_person]

In what way did religion lead to antisemitism?

Are you making a tautology? Are you saying "Race leads to racism"?

The above-quoted sentence is meaningless. You might as well say "The Big Bang led to antisemitism."

It was historically the xian churches who blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus. That would be the reason for the rise of anti semitism. Curiously, the xians celebrate the death of Jesus, because it was necessary for him to die for their sins. The Romans weren't anti semties, they just conquered and killed equally all those who who stood in their way. Carthage was completely wiped off the map, for example.

[marksman]

It was historically the xian churches who blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus.
I'm pretty sure only Christians would care who is to blam for Jesus, so you're replacing one tautology for another.

That would be the reason for the rise of anti semitism.
More accurately, as Christianity began converting Romans (and not requiring them to follow Old Testament laws of, among other things, Sabbath observance, circumcision, and kashrut), rather than being merely a splinter sect of Jews, it began to adopt Roman prejudices. As you pointed out Christianity celebrates Jesus' death as a necessary fulfillment of prophecy. To the extent the Sanhedrin were "responsible" for it, they were merely instruments of prophecy. Most of the early pre-Pauline Christians were Jews. There is little record of them being anti-semites (though there's little record of them at all). Antisemitism didn't creep into Christianity until Paul began converting Romans.

The Romans weren't anti semties, they just conquered and killed equally all those who who stood in their way. Carthage was completely wiped off the map, for example.

The Romans hated some people more than others. They destroyed Carthage, but then had no problem absorbing the Phoenicians into their Empire, as they did with Egyptians, Greeks and others. What they couldn't abide was that the Jews (unlike Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians) refused to assimilate into Roman culture, due to some strict laws that made it difficult to assimilate, like the laws of kashrut, which prevented Jews from eating at the homes of Romans, and the laws of the Sabbath, which prevented Jews from engaging in many social events. This willful refusal to assimilate led to a general distrust of Jews in ways the Romans did not trust other races.

Yes, the Romans were vicious bastards. That doesn't mean they weren't also antisemites.

At any rate, the question was directed at Oliver. I want to know what he meant when he wrote the aforementioned quotation.

[Oliver]

I think he realized he said something antisemitic, and now he's trying to redeem himself by saying platitudes like "religion led to antisemitism", but he doesn't realize in the process he's still being offensive by insulting Darwin.

I really don't think he means it, I think he's genuinely harmless, but extremely naive.


You're wrong.

In what way did religion lead to antisemitism?

Are you making a tautology? Are you saying "Race leads to racism"?

The above-quoted sentence is meaningless. You might as well say "The Big Bang led to antisemitism."


Since the thread I started is more appropriate concerning Religion and Anti-Semitism/Holocaust, I will answer your questions here:

"Holocaust is Jews own religious fault" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146040)

[Skeptic]

Talk about digging yourself into a hole.

In the other thread ("Holocaust Jews own religion fault") he now posted a long list of Jew-haters through the ages, in an attempt to prove they "only" hated the Jews for their religion, not because they are Jews. But to hate the Jews "for their religion" IS, of course, to simply hate the Jews, to be an antisemite -- just like hating, say, Italians "for their catholicism" IS hatered of Italians.

Apparently, then, Oliver wishes not to be misundertood: he didn't mean to say ONLY the holocaust is the Jews' fault -- he meant to say ALL antisemitism through the ages is the Jews' fault.

Still, one can sympathize with Oliver. Unless the holocaust is shown to be the Jews' own damn fault, it is hard for him to root, as he does, for an Arab victory over Israel and a second holocaust -- which he has already, in many posts, blamed the Jews for in advance.

Oliver is not content to blame the Jews for their own killing merely in the past (holocaust, Jewish history) or the present (terrorist attacks). He is already working on justifying possible (in his view, inevitable) Jew-killings in the future.

[a_unique_person]

I'm pretty sure only Christians would care who is to blam for Jesus, so you're replacing one tautology for another.


More accurately, as Christianity began converting Romans (and not requiring them to follow Old Testament laws of, among other things, Sabbath observance, circumcision, and kashrut), rather than being merely a splinter sect of Jews, it began to adopt Roman prejudices. As you pointed out Christianity celebrates Jesus' death as a necessary fulfillment of prophecy. To the extent the Sanhedrin were "responsible" for it, they were merely instruments of prophecy. Most of the early pre-Pauline Christians were Jews. There is little record of them being anti-semites (though there's little record of them at all). Antisemitism didn't creep into Christianity until Paul began converting Romans.



The Romans hated some people more than others. They destroyed Carthage, but then had no problem absorbing the Phoenicians into their Empire, as they did with Egyptians, Greeks and others. What they couldn't abide was that the Jews (unlike Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians) refused to assimilate into Roman culture, due to some strict laws that made it difficult to assimilate, like the laws of kashrut, which prevented Jews from eating at the homes of Romans, and the laws of the Sabbath, which prevented Jews from engaging in many social events. This willful refusal to assimilate led to a general distrust of Jews in ways the Romans did not trust other races.

Yes, the Romans were vicious bastards. That doesn't mean they weren't also antisemites.

At any rate, the question was directed at Oliver. I want to know what he meant when he wrote the aforementioned quotation.

I was commenting on the difference between anti-semitism and just conquering and killing. The romans did not hate jews in particular, the anti-semtism that was created by the early churches was specifically about the Jews being Jews.

[Marduk]

Yeah. I don't like the idea of karma.


Karma, Heaven/Hell whats the difference ?
:D

[marksman]

Karma, Heaven/Hell whats the difference ?
:D

I don't believe in heaven or hell either.

[marksman]

The romans did not hate jews in particular, the anti-semtism that was created by the early churches was specifically about the Jews being Jews.
The Romans did hate Jews in particular. The Diaspora was only the beginning of a wave of Roman antisemitism that continues for a long time, well before Rome made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. In fact, as a percentage of the Jewish population, the Romans may have killed a higher percentage of world jewry than the Nazis managed.

They hated Jews because, unlike Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Dacians, and other peoples, Jews posed some very serious barriers to assimilation in the Empire. If you think Rome only began hating Jews after Constantine, you are in error.

[FireGarden]

In the other thread ("Holocaust Jews own religion fault")

Oliver has already disowned the title you quote. I haven't read all of that other thread, so maybe I missed an apology from Oliver -- which I think would be due.

[marksman]

He didn't "disown" it. He said he wrote it to be deliberately provocative. Of course, since he didn't apologize for it either, it's unclear whether he was being provocatively honest or provocatively dishonest.

The longer he goes smirking at the rest of us, the more I think he was being provocatively honest.

[Skeptic]

To say that you don't hate Jew because they are Jews, you "only" hate them because they have this weird religion, is like saying you don't hate Blacks because they are Black, you "only" hate them because they are barbarians and savages.

If only the Jews abandoned their religion we won't have to kill them -- and if only Blacks abandoned their savage ways we won't have to enslave them. Makes perfect sense to some people, I suppose.

[Skeptic]

He didn't "disown" it. He said he wrote it to be deliberately provocative.

And you believe that?

A much simpler explanation is that he (a) accidentally blurted out what he really thinks about the Jews, and (b) stupidly put it in the thread title, not in the body of the post, so it could not be edited afterwards.

Now that the proof of his hatered of Jews is stuck on the forum's thread count forever, he must try and pretend he was "deliberately provocative", or even claim to be nothing more than a troll -- anything to try and make people believe he didn't really mean what he obviously did.

[a_unique_person]

The Romans did hate Jews in particular. The Diaspora was only the beginning of a wave of Roman antisemitism that continues for a long time, well before Rome made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. In fact, as a percentage of the Jewish population, the Romans may have killed a higher percentage of world jewry than the Nazis managed.

They hated Jews because, unlike Egyptians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Dacians, and other peoples, Jews posed some very serious barriers to assimilation in the Empire. If you think Rome only began hating Jews after Constantine, you are in error.

They hated the Carthaginians more. The Druids in England came in for some special attention too, they were wiped out, in particularly bloody fashion. It was not anti-semitism in the sense that it was specifically directed at Jews, it was just directed at any group, depending on how much trouble they made.

[Elizabeth I]

I really don't think he means it, I think he's genuinely harmless, but extremely naive.

You're wrong.

You're not harmless?

[marksman]

They hated the Carthaginians more.
The "Cathaginians" are not a people and were not treated as such by the Romans. now you're playing semantical shenanigans. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, which i why the wars with Carthage were known as the "Punic" wars. They destroyed Carthage, but they didn't try to evict all Phoenicians from Phoenicia. Instead they absorbed Phoenicia into the growing Roman Empire and helped the Phoenicians Romanize, just as they did with the Greeks, Egyptians, Dacians, and numerous other peoples they conquered. The Romans did not hate everybody. Their hatred was resrved for those races/religions who refused to acknowledge the superiority of the Roman culture.

The Druids in England came in for some special attention too, they were wiped out, in particularly bloody fashion. It was not anti-semitism in the sense that it was specifically directed at Jews, it was just directed at any group, depending on how much trouble they made.
So they were antidruidic and antisemitic. "How much trouble they made" was dependent on how much their culture refused to accept Roman culture. You're arguing from tautologies. I'm not even sure what you're working definition of antisemitism is. If it's hating Jews for being Jews, then the Romans were antisemitic. They may have had a different reason for hating Jews than the Christians did, but they still hated them. They just happened to hate other peoples as well.

The KKK is antisemitic, even though they hate blacks, gays, Catholics and others as much as they hate Jews. Why is the Roman Empire not considered antisemitic merely because they also hated the druids?!

[Oliver]

You're not harmless?


Yes, I am harmless since I still think that it wasn't the Jewish peoples fault that they were treated the way they were in light of their different religious culture. Nor do I think that Jews are in any way to blame other than religious Jewish-Isreli nuts thinking that God promised anything concerning Israel, which I think is just as stupid as any other religious claim about territory or any religious claim in general given all the different scriptures contradicting other scriptures.

Actually, the majority of Jews throughout the world are rational and peaceful, so I don't see any reason to attack those rational views. But that does not mean that I will NOT oppose irrational views no matter if they are Jewish/Republican/conservative/christian/liberal/caucasian/"scientological"/muslim etc. ones.

[Ducky]

EDIT:

Not worth adding to what appears to be some personal digs.

[Skeptic]

Nobody ever hates Jews "just because they are Jews", just like nobody ever hates Blacks "just because they are Blacks", or for that matter, any group "just because" it is some group. There are always some phoney-baloney excuses ready -- self-contradictory ones, as well -- why the hatered is purely "rational".

For example, My grandfather was kicked out of Europe for "really" belong in Palestine, the Jewish homeland -- the grandchildren of those who did that now want me kicked out of Palestine because I am "really" an evil European colonialist. I have in my library 1940s books claiming Blacks are so childish and innocent, so unused to violence and the struggle for survival, that naturally they must be told what to do by the tough, violence-using superior White race which had conquered the globe. Today, the grandchildren of those authors are probably writing books explaining that Blacks are so violent and thuggish, so savage in their use of force, that naturally they must be told what to do by the civilized, peaceful White race.

Obviously, these are just excuses for hatered. So is assimilation: in 1800, people wrote polemics about Jews, claiming they are "really" hated because they refuse to assimilate and stay with their primitive, stupid religion that is obsolete in this new age of enlightenment. In 1900, people wrote polemics about Jews, claiming they are "really" hated because they are masters of disguise and deception, secretly assimilating and infiltrating gentile society, so much that it is impossible to tell the difference between them and real Poles (or real Germans or real Englishmen or real Russians or...)

[Oliver]

Nobody ever hates Jews "just because they are Jews", just like nobody ever hates Blacks "just because they are Blacks", or for that matter, any group "just because" it is some group. There are always some phoney-baloney excuses ready -- self-contradictory ones, as well -- why the hatered is purely "rational".

For example, My grandfather was kicked out of Europe for "really" belong in Palestine, the Jewish homeland -- the grandchildren of those who did that now want me kicked out of Palestine because I am "really" an evil European colonialist. I have in my library 1940s books claiming Blacks are so childish and innocent, so unused to violence and the struggle for survival, that naturally they must be told what to do by the tough, violence-using superior White race which had conquered the globe. Today, the grandchildren of those authors are probably writing books explaining that Blacks are so violent and thuggish, so savage in their use of force, that naturally they must be told what to do by the civilized, peaceful White race.

Obviously, these are just excuses for hatered. So is assimilation: in 1800, people wrote polemics about Jews, claiming they are "really" hated because they refuse to assimilate and stay with their primitive, stupid religion that is obsolete in this new age of enlightenment. In 1900, people wrote polemics about Jews, claiming they are "really" hated because they are masters of disguise and deception, secretly assimilating and infiltrating gentile society, so much that it is impossible to tell the difference between them and real Poles (or real Germans or real Englishmen or real Russians or...)


What is your opinion regarding Rabbi's that see it as problem that the holocaust also refers to non-jewish, equally innocent victims while they think that the Holocaust is all about the Jews only?

[We had a thread about this rabbi a short while ago, but I didn't find it yet...]

[marksman]

What is your opinion regarding Rabbi's that see it as problem that the holocaust also refers to non-jewish, equally innocent victims while they think that the Holocaust is all about the Jews only?

[We had a thread about this rabbi a short while ago, but I didn't find it yet...]

I'll give you my opinion when you find an article in which a rabbi denies that non-Jews perished in the Holocaust.

[Lord Emsworth]

And you believe that?

A much simpler explanation is that he (a) accidentally blurted out what he really thinks about the Jews, and (b) stupidly put it in the thread title, not in the body of the post, so it could not be edited afterwards.

How does the use of quotation marks ("") figure in to your theory?

[SirPhilip]

Christians used to believe that all the Jew's suffering and persecution was punishment for our rejection of Christ. This Rabbi isn't far off from the same thinking. It isn't hard to understand when you consider Jewish history. They've had more of an adventure than everybody else in world history. Given their yield to population volume, they've lived up as a people to be chosen, at least by fate, for intrigue.

[ponderingturtle]

The Romans hated some people more than others. They destroyed Carthage, but then had no problem absorbing the Phoenicians into their Empire, as they did with Egyptians, Greeks and others. What they couldn't abide was that the Jews (unlike Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians) refused to assimilate into Roman culture, due to some strict laws that made it difficult to assimilate, like the laws of kashrut, which prevented Jews from eating at the homes of Romans, and the laws of the Sabbath, which prevented Jews from engaging in many social events. This willful refusal to assimilate led to a general distrust of Jews in ways the Romans did not trust other races.


They also did not participate in state religious functions properly, this was one of the big issues with the christians as well.

[ponderingturtle]

So they were antidruidic and antisemitic. "How much trouble they made" was dependent on how much their culture refused to accept Roman culture. You're arguing from tautologies. I'm not even sure what you're working definition of antisemitism is. If it's hating Jews for being Jews, then the Romans were antisemitic. They may have had a different reason for hating Jews than the Christians did, but they still hated them. They just happened to hate other peoples as well.

This does depend on your exact definition of Jew. The one being used by the Orthodox Jewish school in the thread in social and current events is not the one being used here.

[marksman]

They also did not participate in state religious functions properly, this was one of the big issues with the christians as well.

Sure. But so what? I'm not sure how that fact pertains to the issue at hand.

And why are you bringing up another thread?

[ponderingturtle]

Sure. But so what? I'm not sure how that fact pertains to the issue at hand.

And why are you bringing up another thread?

You quoted the wrong post.

It also speaks to how various groups define jew.

[marksman]

No, I quoted the right post with respect to my first paragraph. My second paragraph was referring to your second post in sequence.

Why is how various groups define Jewishness relevant to the instant discussion? i don't understand what point you're trying to make here. it feels like you're just trying to drag a discussion from another thread into this thread.

[ponderingturtle]

No, I quoted the right post with respect to my first paragraph. My second paragraph was referring to your second post in sequence.

Why is how various groups define Jewishness relevant to the instant discussion? i don't understand what point you're trying to make here. it feels like you're just trying to drag a discussion from another thread into this thread.

To discriminate against a group you have to define the group in some fashion.

[marksman]

Right. So what? How does that relate to the specific point at hand?