Q&A: K. Tzetnik from the Holocaust and a Summary of God’s Nature
K. Tzetnik from the Holocaust and a Summary of God’s Nature
Question
Hello.
1. First, I want to bring you an interesting support for your point about the “loss of faith in man” during the Holocaust. In the 1970s, K. Tzetnik (Yehiel De-Nur) underwent LSD treatment. He changed his position and said: Auschwitz is not another planet; the Nazis are not unique. In other words, they are ordinary human beings. In a television interview in 1983 he explained why he lost consciousness while testifying at the Eichmann trial. It was not hatred or fear that suddenly arose when he stood before the arch-murderer. Rather, the agonizing thought suddenly penetrated his mind that Eichmann, who had sent so many people to their deaths, was actually an ordinary person, and the implication was that he himself (K. Tzetnik) too, like many others, was capable under certain conditions of doing what Eichmann did.
2. In several places here on the site I’ve challenged the nature of God. I want to make one final and comprehensive summary on the matter, because I have not been persuaded. Let us suppose that I accept your claims that:
A. There is free choice.
B. The almighty God does not intervene in His world.
C. It is impossible to create a different system of laws than the one we have now.
Assuming there is free choice, why should I accept these claims as justifying the “goodness” of God and His perfection, rather than seeing this as simply a product of nature without God?
A. Man is a creature of God, and God created him with a great deal of evil in him. Therefore God is responsible for the evil that comes from him. Will you say that man is intelligent and responsible for his actions? To that I answer: 1. That itself is the question—why create him with such a great measure of evil? 2. It may be that the evil inclination outweighs the good inclination in man. The evil and good inclinations are not evenly balanced, and perhaps researchers would agree with me about that. Scripture itself tells you: “the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” and other verses that show that in the end no one will be found righteous. 3. The world is more prepared and available to encourage evil. The righteous person suffers because he is righteous. 4. Even if all of the above falls away, I am still not convinced that He is not responsible.
B. Fine, say He does not intervene in “human evil”—but why does He not intervene, from time to time, in “natural evil,” which is His doing itself?
C. From the above consequences, dimensions of suffering have been created. By way of metaphor I would say that if suffering were collective, its sheer weight would drag the world beyond the walls of the universe and cause it to crash. Go and see the cries and uproar of the tortured, and they have no comforter.
D. Why would He base Darwinian evolution on force, on violence, on the constant elimination of the weak? If this were a gracious and merciful God, He could have based it on laws of full cooperation and altruism.
E. Every path ends in death. Every friendship. Everyone close to you. Every love. Torture, loss, betrayal, pain, suffering, aging, disabilities, ugliness, mental illness, physical illness, indignity—and all this has only one end.
F. “For time and chance happen to them all” [Ecclesiastes 9:11]. From the course of evolution until our own day.
G. Apparently the world is evil, and there is no hope that it will ever become wholly better in the future, for what is crooked cannot be made straight, and what has been is what will be.
In sum: did He really not think things through to the end when He created the world? From a brief look, your arguments are plainly unconvincing. And now we come to the spearhead of the matter—even your last claim, that God is good according to the Hebrew Bible, I am ready to open a long discussion with you here from the Hebrew Bible and prove to you easily God’s cruelty. Just say yes and we’ll begin. So what, really, do you have left?
Answer
- This is ad hominem support. There is no argument here, only one more person who supports my claim.
- I’ll just correct point C: it is impossible to create a different system of laws that would lead to the same results without the negative points.
You are comparing two possibilities for interpreting the evil nature of the world. But that is a methodological mistake. I am willing to accept your claim that the interpretation of nature without God is preferable. My claim is that there is good evidence for His existence regardless of that. Now there is a difficulty arising from the nature of the world, and for that I offered a solution. That is the way I look at the situation. It is now clear that even if you are right that your interpretation of the nature of the world is preferable, that is not relevant. Within this framework, you also have to examine the evidence for the existence of God. You cannot isolate the question of evil in the world by itself.
Therefore there is no need to address the rest of your arguments, although I also completely disagree with most of them.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that we already argued here about panpsychism, and I see no point in going back to it again.
As for His sadism, I do not accept it. No biblical description changes anything on this score, because everything can be understood in other ways (including Job—and if only because according to certain Sages it never happened and was never created). The descriptions of the Sages are drawn from their own world, and I do not feel bound by their conceptions (as distinct from their halakhic rulings). By the way, nobody is going to prove you wrong; as far as I’m concerned, it is enough to show the possibility that you are mistaken. As I said, it is better to force an answer than to force a difficulty. Therefore I do not see much point in this discussion.
“It is better to force an answer than to force a difficulty”—first of all, you need to answer me. After you answer me, tell me not to force a difficulty. I want to see whether someone whose relative would incur a Torah death penalty—which to me is cruelty beyond comprehension, like “she shall be burned with fire”—would still support it. And don’t tell me it never happened, because Scripture itself testifies that it did happen. In my view, your support for the Torah and its God, who there appears under psychological analysis as nothing less than an infantile-fascist tyrant, amounts to a crime against humanity, and I am not joking at all. I take you to be an intelligent person, and you present yourself as a liberal (the complete opposite of the Torah), but it is very puzzling to me how any of this makes sense to you at all. As if you too were swept along by the imaginary and very strange current that carries everyone. But I can’t judge, because I was there too.
Dear A., I’ve already pointed out to you once that vehemence is not a substitute for arguments. Even if you repeat a hundred thousand times “fascist,” “fanatical,” and “cruel,” etc., perhaps you feel a welcome catharsis, which is also important, but you have not moved beyond slogans.
Killing Sabbath desecrators is not cruel at all. We are talking about people who knew the act was forbidden and carried the death penalty, who were warned by two witnesses immediately before doing it, and who accepted the warning and the punishment upon themselves. If so, these are people who transgress deliberately even though they know it is wrong and that it carries the death penalty (otherwise they are coerced in their understanding and exempt). What is cruel about that? Beyond that, I assume you take Sabbath desecration to be no big deal, and regarding a murderer or thief you would not say the same. But if one accepts the Torah’s premise that Sabbath desecration is as severe as murder and worse than theft, then from its perspective this is like saying that sentencing a murderer or thief to life imprisonment is cruel.
As for “it is better to force an answer,” I have already explained that. There is no point in repeating myself.
Where is it written in the Torah about a warning by two witnesses, or is that a softening by the Sages? Even with witnesses and warning, it is clearly cruel and violates human dignity and liberty. Sabbath desecration is absolutely nothing in my eyes. For theft there is double payment. And I’ll tell you a bedtime story: Joshua utterly placed under the ban the cities he conquered. About Jericho it says: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword… And they burned the city with fire, and all that was in it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord” (Joshua 6:21, 24). Achan violated the ban, and the fierce anger of God went out against all Israel (ibid. 7:1). To Joshua’s prayer-complaint following the failure in battle, God answers: “Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them, and they have also taken from the accursed thing, and also stolen, and also lied, and they have even put it among their own belongings. Therefore the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies; they turned their backs before their enemies, because they have become accursed. I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the accursed thing from among you. And you shall come near in the morning by your tribes… and it shall be that he who is taken with the accursed thing shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord and because he has done a disgraceful thing in Israel” (ibid. 11). From here it follows: A. The sin of an individual is considered the sin of the whole people, and the whole people may be stricken because of him. B. The unavoidable conclusion is not only a duty to inform on those who deviate from the commands of faith, but even active interference in others’ lives, since his sin may bring catastrophe upon the community. Achan the sinner is caught by lot, and he confesses his sin, but his confession does not save him or his household. God demands destruction, and it must be carried out: “And Joshua took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the robe, and the bar of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his ox, and his donkey, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had, and all Israel with him, and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor… and all Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire and stoned them with stones… and the Lord turned from His fierce anger” (ibid. 24, 26). What luck.
When there is no listening, there is no point in discussion. We’ve exhausted it.
Okay, and how would you explain what he brought—that they killed his sons and daughters because of his sin, contrary to what is explicitly stated in the Torah that children shall not suffer for the sins of their fathers [as though one might think otherwise—what are we, barbarians?]
Rashi there:
(24) “And his sons” etc. “and all Israel” — to see his downfall and be admonished not to do likewise. “And his ox and his donkey” — to destroy them, as it is said, “and it shall be that he who is taken with the accursed thing shall be burned, he and all that he has.”
Yes, every time you can’t deal anymore you write “we’ve exhausted it,” and as if I’m the one not listening. I’m not one of the crowd here who’ll buy that, you know. Wow, what a Rashi—he really put my mind at ease. What would I do without that Rashi.
One more thing: I didn’t write “fanatical,” only cruel and fascist, and there are no slogans here, because I fully stand behind what I say and can prove it easily from the texts.
A., I am forced to repeat here what I just wrote in a parallel thread about your bitterness, which is distorting your judgment. It’s a shame. From all the anger, your sentences do not even connect to the discussion or to one another. Letting off steam is a very positive thing, but doing so at the expense of others who are trying to discuss the issues seems improper to me.
So I too am forced to repeat what I wrote. Michi, I really don’t know what you want from me. You haven’t even seen my facial expressions, so how do you know whether I’m bitter or angry? What, have you become a prophet? I’m not bitter and not angry; I’m calm and taking life easy. Distorted judgment—where? Sentences that don’t connect to the discussion or to each other—where? Sometimes you just spout words and don’t prove your claims, as I’ve long been experienced with you. You’re not even willing to open a discussion with me from the Hebrew Bible because you’re afraid of me. And if there were an objective judge here to decide who won, as the Maharal says, I’d beat you easily.
Eliezer, as you saw, he has no answer to the question you wrote. But I do. The Torah contradicts itself right and left, and that is nothing new. And as you saw with Rashi, who has no answer (and for some reason Michi brought him here), he too horrifies us in line with the Torah’s own words.
“But doing so at the expense of others who are trying to discuss the issues seems improper to me” — I didn’t do it at their expense, and as you’ll see from what I wrote there, it was specifically about your words. And sorry, since when do I need anyone’s permission to express an opinion?
Now I really won’t repeat again what I wrote there. Take it from there.
Here’s a tip in reading comprehension: Rashi here answers Eliezer’s difficulty very well. They simply did not kill his sons. The question never got off the ground in the first place.
What I meant was that you are letting off steam at the expense of others who expect discussion and not steam-venting. When you write arguments, of course no permission is needed. I didn’t delete your steam-venting either, so this isn’t about permissions. I merely asked that you take a breath and think for a moment before writing and wasting our time. As I said, I accept any argument of any kind, whatever its conclusion may be—but it has to be an argument.
You’re right. I didn’t pay close enough attention to Rashi’s words. I read quickly. But that is his interpretation; according to the Torah’s own words, his household went too. And that itself—according to Rashi, taking them there and making them watch it—is cruelty beyond compare.
Apparently, judging by the views, I’m not only not wasting anyone’s time, I’m also raising the site’s rating. And my arguments are bombs, not arguments.
As an aside, I’ll note here the stormy dispute between the Ramah and Rabbi Aharon of Lunel (in the book Letters of the Ramah).
Maimonides ruled that in an idolatrous city they strike every human being, children and women, by the sword.
The Ramah was greatly astonished by this: “What are these women like? If they committed idolatry, then they are themselves the people of the idolatrous city; if they did not commit idolatry, why are they killed? If Tuvia sinned, should Zigud be flogged?… And furthermore, he says they strike all the children. Heaven forbid that God should act wickedly—where do we ever find a minor liable such that he should be liable?”
Rabbi Aharon answered him: “And as for your greatly marveling at the words of our master the rabbi, who says that they strike the children by the sword, and your thoughts were appalled and your mind confounded and the matter seemed wondrous to you, as you said, ‘Heaven forbid that God should act wickedly, and where do we ever find a minor liable such that he should be liable’—why should you be appalled and astonished? Open your eyes and see the congregation of Korah, who went down alive into the pit, they and their wives and their children who were with them. And consider the people of Jabesh-Gilead, that because of the men who sinned by not coming to the Lord at Mizpah, they struck the children and the women.”
The Ramah replied: “This is certainly very astonishing, for are the story of Korah and the story of the people of Jabesh-Gilead written for all generations? It was a temporary ruling, and nothing can be learned from it for future generations. In many places we answer: it was a temporary ruling. And all the more so, from the congregation of Korah nothing can be learned at all, because death by the hand of Heaven is different. After all, the Sages said that because of the sin of vows a man’s sons and daughters die when they are small; and if as the master says, should we get up and learn from this to act on it? And the same applies to the story of the people of Jabesh-Gilead and the story of the Gibeonites—it was a temporary decree. For a court may strike and punish not according to Torah law, not to transgress the words of Torah, but to make a fence for the Torah.”
In any case, according to all of them we find several places where the Holy One, blessed be He (or the people of Israel while serving Him), decided that even those attached to the sinners should die, not within the framework of the laws of nature or the granting of free choice. And according to Maimonides this is also the law for future generations in the idolatrous city. In the case of Achan there is indeed some strong indication in the plain sense of the verses that Achan’s children did not die (and that is apparently why Rabbi Aharon of Lunel did not mention it), as Ralbag wrote there.
Joshua, so what do *you* say?
In my opinion, the assumption that the Holy One, blessed be He, is interested in suffering is incorrect, even though any specific difficulty can be weeded out.
So let me advise you: take off the religious hat (because the more you close off the gates of your mind, the narrower and more locked they become), go and study the Hebrew Bible itself attentively, without classic traditional commentaries, and judge for yourself as objectively as possible. You’ll discover a lot, I’m sure of it. Not that the literature of the Sages is lacking, of course, but start with the source.
It is very likely that I know the Hebrew Bible itself, and its commentaries and scholarship, a bit better than you. It is not from the Hebrew Bible that I derive my views about the Holy One, blessed be He (in any direction).
Sure, right—we sat and learned as study partners for years, and then I understood what you’re writing here. Well, there you go, another typical empty religious snob. So tell me, Mr. “It is very likely,” where does your assumption come from that He is not interested in suffering, if not from the Hebrew Bible? After all, our discussion here is about the Hebrew Bible.
I think, therefore I am A.
Wow, interesting that once A. used to write arguments and not trolling.
1. Yes. I already said: interesting support for your point.
2. I accept the evidence for the existence of a designer, but even if that is true and there is one:
A. He is certainly not the biblical God, unless you are willing to accept that He is cruel and infantile. And I’m ready to open any discussion, provided they can prove me wrong. And that is before I even touch on the attributions to Him of Gehenna and the Sling of the Soul, according to the Sages, which include sadistic and psychopathic descriptions. All of this touches on the reflection of human fragility.
B. There is no need for a separate designer; nature itself is like that. I accept the possibility of panpsychism as an explanation for this. And why is it the way it is? It is its own cause—that’s just how it is. Or as Adi Shankara summed up all the Upanishads in one sentence: “Tat tvam asi.”