do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

verbal pocketplay · #1 by **verbal pocketplay** » Apr 18, 2011 9:33 am

in light of the destruction of the second temple (which was itself rebuilt within only a few generations of the destruction of the first), and the holocaust, did/do jews think that yahweh was unhappy with them or had abondoned them or had broken his covenant with them? do they think the creation of the state of israel is proof that god has made good on his covenant? if so, what changed in the few years between the holocaust, which he allowed to happen to his chosen people, and the creation of the state of israel? if i was a jew, i would figure god ended the covenant when the second temple was destroyed, since almost two milena later a new one hasn't been built. how do practicing jews explain this? was the 1900 year diaspora a really, really long egyptian or babylonia exile? it's not like they reverted to polytheism in the last 2000 years, so what could they possibly have thought they had done wrong to merit this unjust punishment from their god?

some people joke about hitchens that he doesnt believe in god but he hates him as though he does. if i was a believing jew, i think i'd probably feel the same way. god exists, but i hate him.

Zwaarddijk · #2 by **Zwaarddijk** » Apr 18, 2011 12:23 pm

verbal pocketplay wrote:in light of the destruction of the second temple (which was itself rebuilt within only a few generations of the destruction of the first), and the holocaust, did/do jews think that yahweh was unhappy with them or had abondoned them or had broken his covenant with them?

they do not think the covenant has been broken.

]do they think the creation of the state of israel is proof that god has made good on his covenant?

some do think the creation of the state of israel is a result of god acting on the covenant, some think it's jews rebelling against the covenant. (the latter form a minority, of course).

if so, what changed in the few years between the holocaust, which he allowed to happen to his chosen people, and the creation of the state of israel?

one thing that changed - and this is entirely different from the premise of your question, of course - is that religious jews increasingly accepted zionism as an option (or even _the_ option).

in the talmud, there's a discussion about the diaspora that says something to the effect of "god has decided not to let you live in Israel until [I don't remember the requirements they were supposed to fulfill]. however, this requirement is void if the gentiles attack you really harshly"

if i was a jew, i would figure god ended the covenant when the second temple was destroyed, since almost two milena later a new one hasn't been built.

based on what premise?

how do practicing jews explain this?

why would they have to? their premises aren't the same as those of yours - theirs are more based on things in the bible and the talmud - maybe more things in the talmud really.

was the 1900 year diaspora a really, really long egyptian or babylonia exile? it's not like they reverted to polytheism in the last 2000 years, so what could they possibly have thought they had done wrong to merit this unjust punishment from their god?

one thing the talmud says is that they were forced out of israel to be a light to the gentiles - to inspire the occasional gentile to convert and to contribute to mankind as a whole, rather than just to contribute to their own tribe.

some people joke about hitchens that he doesnt believe in god but he hates him as though he does. if i was a believing jew, i think i'd probably feel the same way. god exists, but i hate him.

if you came at it with your premises, thing is, everyone doesn't use the same premises.

verbal pocketplay · #3 by **verbal pocketplay** » Apr 18, 2011 10:17 pm

why would they have to? their premises aren't the same as those of yours - theirs are more based on things in the bible and the talmud - maybe more things in the talmud really.

because im comparing the first destruction of the temple and babylonian exile with the second destruction of the temple and the enduring diaspora. during the former, jews reasoned that god had "done this to them" because they had broken the covenant and laws of moses.

and isn't there all this talk (whether in books of moses and/or the books of the pre exile prophets, im not sure) of god telling his chosen people he will wipe them out and spread over the world in exile if they continue to break the covenant?

if you came at it with your premises, thing is, everyone doesn't use the same premises.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhx_WLM4oU[/youtube]

Zwaarddijk · #4 by **Zwaarddijk** » Apr 18, 2011 10:24 pm

verbal pocketplay wrote:
why would they have to? their premises aren't the same as those of yours - theirs are more based on things in the bible and the talmud - maybe more things in the talmud really.

because im comparing the first destruction of the temple and babylonian exile with the second destruction of the temple and the enduring diaspora. during the former, jews reasoned that god had "done this to them" because they had broken the covenant and laws of moses.

Primarily, Judaism from 2nd temple times onwards isn't just the Bible, so it's not enough to just read things in the OT to understand how Judaism can understand something. yes, they did reason that God had destroyed the temple because of things they had done - but this isn't the same as thinking that God had canceled the covenant. And the later prophets do make a big point of that. The covenant, they teach, is still in effect, so repent and stuff.

and isn't there all this talk (whether in books of moses and/or the books of the pre exile prophets, im not sure) of god telling his chosen people he will wipe them out and spread over the world in exile if they continue to break the covenant?

spread them out in exile - yes, but nowhere is there a mention of canceling it. however, as I said, there's talk of other things too. such as the idea that the exile is for the benefit of mankind. this idea doesn't appear in the bible, but it does in midrashim.

if you came at it with your premises, thing is, everyone doesn't use the same premises.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDhx_WLM4oU[/youtube]

That movie did have some nice moments, and such reasoning can occasionally be found among Jews - but most rabbis wouldn't reason like that.

verbal pocketplay · #5 by **verbal pocketplay** » Apr 18, 2011 10:29 pm

thanks. helps clarify a few things. but how do most rabbis explain the holocaust and destruction of the second temple (god's very own home)? certainly the former cant be to spread the light.

Zwaarddijk · #6 by **Zwaarddijk** » Apr 18, 2011 10:55 pm

verbal pocketplay wrote:thanks. helps clarify a few things. but how do most rabbis explain the holocaust and destruction of the second temple (god's very own home)? certainly the former cant be to spread the light.

The talmud attributes the destruction of the second temple to baseless hatred and sectarianism.

the holocaust, according to some ultra-orthodox rabbis was due to modernism - reform judaism and such. other explanations occur. however, the discussion of why is rather difficult to grasp - it's definitely not the most straightforward language game.

Tyrannical · #7 by **Tyrannical** » Apr 18, 2011 11:03 pm

There is the opinion that the holocaust was God's divine punishment for Jew's sins, and Israel was their retribution.
The Bible was clear that the slavery in Egypt and Babylon was punishment, the Roman destruction of the Temple was probably also. If you're religious, what else could the Holocaust be but a message from God?

vsop44 · #8 by **vsop44** » Apr 19, 2011 12:17 am

2000 years , make that 3500 years , it started 3 generations after god gave Abraham the land of milk and honey as it turned out it didn't take long before the milk got sour (drought) and the israelites found themselves in Egypt for 3 + centuries , then there was the 3 generations captivity in Babylon around 700 BC etc ...
Boy am I glad that my ethnic group didn't get picked as god's favourite people Phhheeeewwww :whistle:

.

Byron · #9 by **Byron** » Apr 21, 2011 10:11 pm

Zwaarddijk wrote:That movie did have some nice moments, and such reasoning can occasionally be found among Jews - but most rabbis wouldn't reason like that.

Or wouldn't admit that they did. The rabbi who delivered the speech was portrayed as ultra-orthodox throughout, until he started talking. As one astute review noted, he was like Chekhov's gun, waiting to fire. And fire he did. That final, devastating monologue, delivering impeccable logic in crisp language, lifted God on Trial from being a solid drama to a brilliant one. "God is not good. He's powerful. And he's made a new covenant with them." (Paraphrased.) Now that's cursing the almighty. :clap:

Zwaarddijk · **#10** by **Zwaarddijk** » Apr 21, 2011 10:14 pm

Byron wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:That movie did have some nice moments, and such reasoning can occasionally be found among Jews - but most rabbis wouldn't reason like that.

Or wouldn't admit that they did. The rabbi who delivered the speech was portrayed as ultra-orthodox throughout, until he started talking. As one astute review noted, he was like Chekhov's gun, waiting to fire. And fire he did. That final, devastating monologue, delivering impeccable logic in crisp language, lifted God on Trial from being a solid drama to a brilliant one. "God is not good. He's powerful. And he's made a new covenant with them." (Paraphrased.) Now that's cursing the almighty.

I did find it pretty good, but at times Elie Wiesel's books are even more to the point than this dramatization of but a few scenes in one of them.

Byron · **#11** by **Byron** » Apr 21, 2011 10:57 pm

Zwaarddijk wrote:I did find it pretty good, but at times Elie Wiesel's books are even more to the point than this dramatization of but a few scenes in one of them.

That's often the way with adaptations. I was impressed at how the drama appeared to build up to a fluffy agnostic conclusion, and then brutally swerve past it. So un-BBC.

Which ties in nicely to the thread question. If the personal God of the Bible exists, he's either an indifferent bastard, or bound by the consequences of human freewill. Anger at a covenanted people is not required.

I think Job says it nicely. God is Other. You can't hope to understand him. When it comes down to it, he made leviathan, you didn't. That's all there is to it.

Thank God I'm an atheist.

Tyrannical · **#12** by **Tyrannical** » Apr 22, 2011 2:53 am

I think Job says it nicely. God is Other. You can't hope to understand him. When it comes down to it, he made leviathan, you didn't. That's all there is to it.

There is even a word for it, Chukim.

[url]http://www.chabadnj.org/page.asp?pageID={2F39F577-95B6-40DA-BFCD-81DC8BAECB5B}[/url]

The commandments of the Torah are divided into the three general categories of Eidos, Chukim and Mishpatim -- testimonies, decrees and laws. The difference between them regarding their degree of comprehensibility is the following:

Mishpatim are those commands that are also dictated by mortal understanding, such as the obligation to honor one's parents and the prohibition against stealing.

Eidos are commandments that recall and/or testify to past significant historical and Jewish events, such as Shabbos and Pesach. Although not necessarily dictated by reason, once the commandments were given they are understood logically as well.

Chukim are those commands that have no rational explanation; moreover, they defy reason. These commandments are performed not out of any sense of understanding, but because a Jew accepts upon himself the "Yoke of Heaven," Kabbolas Ol Malchus Shomayim.

Chukim, however, are entirely different. Here the Divine Will has not clothed itself in the garments of rationality, and is therefore found below in the same manner that it is found above -- essential Divine Will that entirely transcends intellect.

Since Chukim are the essence of Divine Will that is bound up with G-d's Essence[1] -- for which reason it did not descend into the realm of intellect in the first place -- it is therefore necessary for man to perform them with the essence of one's soul, i.e., with the sense of Kabbolas Ol and total self-effacement that derives from the essence of one's soul and that far surpasses a person's revealed soul powers.

do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Re: do jews think god has been mad at them for 2000 years?

Who is online