And Saint Edith Stein.
Really, it’s ridiculous for a Catholic to deny the Holocaust when the Vatican itself has investigated and approved the causes of these saints.
And Saint Edith Stein.
Yes, in Judaism there is no ultimate apocalyptic confrontation between G-d and Satan since G-d is always in control. Besides HaSatan works for HaShem.
There are always fools and bigots, and I’m afraid there always will be.
Some of the Eastern Orthodox monks and hermits say something similar. Not in the term that Satan works for God but God is most powerful and if He allows for us to be tempted and even face evil (to which we must not subdue) it is through His choice alone for His own purposes. They also claim there is no conflict between angels and fallen angels. Not a direct conflict. Angels are perfectly good and demons are intrinsicly evil. Demons do what is in their nature to do. When people do evil people do not equate demons, people are disobedient to God when we do evil. The actual conflict (and they say this will be also the final conflict at the end of the Apocalypse) is between God and people (some people).
Do you think this view is close to the one in Judaism?
But in Christianity nobody will say God created Satan to be evil. God created Satan to be perfect like any angel. Satan fell and now evil exists and is controlled by him. The idea is that God allowed freedom to all the created persons - angels and people. But He disapproves of evil - both angels and people. However there is this spiritual hierarchy that human beings were created in His image (to be good) but still under the angels. (In Creation, after the fall, God, or someone in power in Heaven cries that people “cannot be like us”).
Is this second paragraph in contradiction or in agreement or in parallel to Judaism?
P.S. as all spiritual scholars please do not be shocked that when forbidden ones are mentioned the discussion may be big. But the internet gives way to a lot of information such as - Satana and Lucifer both mean Light in Hebrew and respectively in Latin. Is this correct?
So true! I ran out of hearts it seems on this site, haha!
You are right about what the title Lucifer means. Satan just means adversary, David is called a Satan a few times in Tanakh, so is G-d. This is nothing to be worried about.
The way we look at it, there never was a fall of Satan. The Satan is not even given a name, though the Talmud tells us to sympathize with him, for his role, per se, is to break the barrel but not spill any wine. Akin to causing a person to be tempted but then actually not sining. In Jewish tradition, there is no final confrontation between G-d and Satan for G-d controls all things. That was a really good question.
Can I make a statement about Jewish temple worship and synagogue worship?
I seems to me that the difference is similar to the difference between non-Catholic/non-Orthodox (Protestant/Evangelical) worship and Catholic worship.
In Synagogue worship services, you have Scripture, Sermon/Message, Song (with a Cantor). This seems to be to be equivalent to many Protestant/Evangelical worship services.
In Hebrew Temple worship, you may have all the elements (Scripture, Sermon, Song) above but you also had animal sacrifices and the sacred presence of God in the Holy of Holies. This seems comparable to me to Catholic worship in the sacrifice of the Mass where we have a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist. In the Liturgy of Eucharist, we “behold the Lamb of God” who was sacrificed for the sins of the world and who inhabits the bread and wine which spiritually become His Body and Blood. We eat His Flesh and drink His Blood because he commanded it. He gave His all. Every tabernacle in every Catholic Church in the world has become a Tabernacle and a Holy of Holies where Almighty God is present in a holy manner unlike his presence anywhere else on earth.
Note: Eastern Orthodox would need to add their particular details about how it works for them.
…gave one heart to you on the post on this site.
You forget I think that there was in a sense several Holocausts, hundreds and thousands of Roma and Sinte were also killed as were members of other groups. Also several million prisoners of war from the Soviet Union died in the camps. So unless you believe all the people in those groups (as well as the Jews) popped of on an extended holiday you will need to explain where they went if you are going to try and argue the Holocaust did not happen.
One of the chief rhetorical gambits of the holocaust denier is to say that it is unacceptable to question the exact numbers killed. This is in fact rubbish and historians studying the period have often made differing estimates of deaths and revised figures upwards or downwards over time. What Holocaust deniers want to actually do is minimize the deaths or deny them altogether, which is a completely different thing.
Like another WWII subject, not to be named, this was once one of my points of interest (now mostly faded, books packed away), and I posted a few times on it, on the old board, in response to a very similar accusation.
One can compare Hilberg’s figures, which he once adjusted, himself, after more study, with, say, Reitlinger’s, who reached a different total. Counted stuff in different ways, but reached a total estimate of deaths fairly close to each other.
The subject is not one on which a final, precise, definitive total can be reached; scholars differ. Scholarly differences differ from denial.
Indeed, Holocaust deniers however tend to not be likely to engage in nuances such as this. For example the Porajmos has all sorts of estimates because of the way people tally up Roma and Sinte deaths and thus you get estimates of from a quarter of a million to a million deaths.
Holocaust deniers like to pretend that no questions or discussion on methodology or figures has taken place which is complete and utter nonsense and easily disprovable. It’s simply one of the totems of the Holocaust denial mindset, usually accompanied with claims that the camps could never have worked due to technical considerations etc. etc.
I know. I went several rounds with folk like that, back, I dunno, 10 years ago, maybe.
The total number of books accumulated for the library on the subject was around 50+. Which makes the subject one of interest, but not overwhelming interest, in my scale. Meaning I rarely buy more books on it, nor do I continue my reading on it, in those I have. Unlike other topics.
I have no more room for any more books. Time to downsize. Unfortunately regarding the topic of this thread I think it is inevitable as with any other major faith that politics will become part of the discussion eventually if a faith is discussed in detail. It is impossible I would submit to easily separate the theology from the politics except in the most abstract theological works or discussions and even then I am not sure that is entirely possible. Not that this means we need to start going on about official narratives and such like as per one poster earlier on in the thread.
Never said it didn’t happen.
Never denied it happened.
Very strange reactions indeed.
Then clarify your views. Make plain what your view is so we can respond to that if you feel you are been misrepresented.
I cannot comment on deleted posts of course. However the way language used is often a clue to the subtext of a conversation or dialogue and the choice of words in your post is shall we say, interesting.
I couldn’t have said it better regarding oral tradition! To rely on the Written word alone is useless, there must be something oral to accompany it, it’s often mentioned by the prophets. Tell me, if it’s not much to ask, where can I find the Catholic oral tradition? Which book(s), and is there a mystical element (assuming so) as in Judaism’s Kabbalah? Thanks!
You are so right, many perished in the gas chambers of Nazi Germany, not just Jews. It’s tmr their voices were heard also.
All the best