Opinion If Holocaust deniers don't go to hell, there is no God - Dennis Prager weighs in

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Archive | Article)

It is a central tenet of moral theology that there are gradations of sin. To argue that G od views stealing a towel from a hotel and raping a child as moral equivalents renders G od a moral fool. And doing that to G od is a sin.
If we mortals perceive the universe of difference between such actions, it goes without question that G od does, too. The idea that we have greater moral clarity than G od is logically and theologically untenable.

In the pantheon of evils, among the worst is Holocaust denial.

Given the murder of 6 million Jews and the unspeakable amount of suffering they and Jewish survivors underwent at the hands of the Nazis, it takes a particularly vile individual to say this never happened. Think of how we would regard anyone who denied thousands of Americans were murdered on 9/11.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, along with Gens. George Patton and Omar Bradley, visited Ohrdruf, a Nazi concentration camp, on April 12, 1945, a week after it was liberated.

Eisenhower then cabled to Gen. George Marshall:

"The things I saw beggar description... The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda.'"

A week later Eisenhower again cabled Marshall, asking that members of Congress and journalists be brought to the newly liberated camps so that they could tell Americans the truth about German Nazi atrocities.

Patton wrote in his diary:

"When we began to approach with our troops, the Germans thought it expedient to remove the evidence of their crime. Therefore, they had some of the slaves exhume the bodies and place them on a mammoth griddle composed of 60-centimeter railway tracks laid on brick foundations. They poured pitch on the bodies and then built a fire of pinewood and coal under them. They were not very successful in their operations because there was a pile of human bones, skulls, charred torsos on or under the griddle which must have accounted for many hundreds."

To his great credit, Eisenhower understood that what the Nazis had done to the Jews (and many others, but overwhelmingly to Jews) would be difficult for humanity to comprehend and therefore needed to be documented in writing and in photographs. And, it is important to note, Eisenhower saw only a small concentration camp, not one of the enormous death camps.

Beginning in about 1941, the Nazi regime dedicated itself to murdering every Jew — man, woman, child and baby — in countries it occupied. Eventually, more than six of every 10 Jews in Europe were murdered.

Nazi mobile killing units murdered more than a million Jews, usually family by family, in front of open ditches the Jews were forced to dig. Most died upon being shot; the even less fortunate ended up being buried alive. All witnessed the murder of their loved ones.

Most of the other murdered Jews were shipped in cattle cars to concentration and death camps where they were worked to death, starved to death, tortured to death and most often gassed to death in gas chambers.

There may not be a more documented single event in history than the Holocaust.

Yet, some people, including an American named Nick Fuentes, aggressively deny the Holocaust, asserting that a few hundred thousand Jews, not millions, were killed.

It is important to understand why this is evil.

First, it is a Big Lie. Big Lies inevitably lead to violence and can even destroy civilizations.

If the Holocaust never happened, why would Germany maintain that it did?

Second, Holocaust denial is not only a Big Lie; it is pure Jew-hatred, i.e., antisemitism. The proof that it emanates from antisemitism is that no other 20th-century genocide is denied (with the exception of the Turkish government's denial of the Turks' mass murder of Armenians during World War I). No one denies Stalin's mass murder of tens of millions of Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago or his deliberate starvation of about five million Ukrainians (the Holodomor); or the Cambodian communists' murder of about one in every four Cambodians; or Mao's killing of about 60 million Chinese. The only genocide-denial is the genocide of the Jews.

Third, the denial of this Nazi evil is a slap in the face of all the Americans who died fighting the Nazis. As Eisenhower said on seeing the Nazi atrocities, "We are told that the American soldier does not know what he is fighting for. Now, at least, he will know what he is fighting against." If the Holocaust is a fabrication, Americans died fighting against nothing particularly evil.

As a college student, I dated a woman whose parents were Holocaust survivors. She told me on a number of occasions how often she would hear her father scream in the middle of the night as he dreamed about watching his family be murdered. Unable to live with these memories, one night, her father hanged himself.

That man is one of millions of reasons Fuentes — and those who ally themselves with him — will go to hell. If there is a just G od.
 
There is no god regardless if this imaginary genocide happened or not. Jews need to stop being schizophrenic about hygeine. Using soap and water didn't kill your people in the 40s and it won't kill you now.
 
Before I respond, let me explain my Holocaust education. The first jew I met in real life was at the DC holocaust museum. I can think of one other I met in the years before I found myself at the NYC museum. The number that was important then was 11 million. 6 million jews and 5 million other various undesirables. In the years since that education, one number has been drastically adjusted down while the other is a sacred cow.

Like I said, that's a sacred cow and you better cool it with your antisemitism. What would your rabbi think? What further proof do I need that perhaps this is something jews are unified on than you appearing here kvetching over objective fact? I'm not the one supporting a figure that has demonstrably been a claim that predates WWII by ~70 years. Perhaps if you weren't so dogmatically defending a very specific number that every other aspect of demands adjustment, I would be more than happy to leave it at the infrastructure being there.

The problem as I am sure you full well know is that if the 6M is subjected to the same scrutiny as the 5M others, it would have an adjustment of similar magnitude. This would not only be proven by things like I've already posted. There would be outright fabricated accounts, directly contravened by multitudes of more reliable accounts. Hell, there was a "survivor" who turned out to be a delusional Australian that hadn't even been to Europe in his life. He was quoted in a published book! Yet the 6M must remain 6M.
I personally do not really care if it was 6 million, I'm not attached to that number and as multiple Holocaust scholars have stated, 6 million is a rough estimate. The number of 6 million was first brought up by the Nazi Wilhelm Hoettl who testified that Eichmann told him the number of executed Jews was 6 million. Actual Holocaust researchers range from 5.1 million to 6 million while Yad Vashem has the confirmed names of 4 million victims. Jews generally do not care about the exact number, we care that it was a modern industrialized genocide that aimed to wipe our entire people and culture off the face of the earth to the point where when it was clear the Nazis lost, they spent vital supplies and manpower killing more Jews as their final acts.

But yeah it's such a sacred cow that Israeli filmmakers make movies about how 6 million is a wrong number and it gets published in Israel's largest leftist newspaper.

https://archive.md/3VZMP

While the article does support your point that 6 million is important, scholars are constantly revising and are more accurate in their scholarship. As it says in the article, no one interested in the subject academically thinks it's 6 million.
 
I personally do not really care if it was 6 million, I'm not attached to that number and as multiple Holocaust scholars have stated, 6 million is a rough estimate. The number of 6 million was first brought up by the Nazi Wilhelm Hoettl who testified that Eichmann told him the number of executed Jews was 6 million. Actual Holocaust researchers range from 5.1 million to 6 million while Yad Vashem has the confirmed names of 4 million victims. Jews generally do not care about the exact number, we care that it was a modern industrialized genocide that aimed to wipe our entire people and culture off the face of the earth to the point where when it was clear the Nazis lost, they spent vital supplies and manpower killing more Jews as their final acts.

But yeah it's such a sacred cow that Israeli filmmakers make movies about how 6 million is a wrong number and it gets published in Israel's largest leftist newspaper.

https://archive.md/3VZMP

While the article does support your point that 6 million is important, scholars are constantly revising and are more accurate in their scholarship. As it says in the article, no one interested in the subject academically thinks it's 6 million.
I appreciate that you're trying to be nuanced but I'd believe my neighbor found a unicorn in his backyard before I'd buy the line that the 6 million number being exact isn't considered sacred.

Bro it's so obvious it hurts.
 
I appreciate that you're trying to be nuanced but I'd believe my neighbor found a unicorn in his backyard before I'd buy the line that the 6 million number being exact isn't considered sacred.

Bro it's so obvious it hurts.
Quoting directly from the article

Another person Fisher interviewed was historian Dr. Avraham Milgram, an expert in contemporary Jewry, whom he says is the only one at Yad Vashem who’s studied the issue of numbers intensely over the years. “He told me that by posing my question, I am placing myself between history and memory,” Fisher says. “He explained that if he were to tell the present generation that it’s not six million but a smaller number, that would harm the memory of the Holocaust, and he is not willing to do that. However, in his academic work as a scholar, he will give the accurate number. In other words, for the sake of preserving the memory of the Holocaust, whether justified or not – and I think it’s not – he and other scholars are not prepared, at least right now, to touch the six million number, because there is pressure from the establishment and Holocaust survivors to preserve the symbols that have been set.”
In other words, scholars have known for years that six million is not an accurate number, but no one says so, so as not to damage the symbol.
“Yes, and they won’t say so either.”
One of the things this film talks about is how history is written, how a number becomes a symbol and becomes permanently set. As anthropologist Dr. Carol Kidron says in the film: Holocaust scholars aren’t interested in finding exact numbers, because as long as the number is round, the research will be alive, and that serves the scholarly establishment.”
To be clear, it's a quasi sacred cow where on one hand the scholars stress the number of 6 million being important. on the other hand these scholars are questioning it privately and finding more accurate numbers. This is non controversial enough to be featured in an Israeli leftist newspaper.
 
Quoting directly from the article

To be clear, it's a quasi sacred cow where on one hand the scholars stress the number of 6 million being important. on the other hand these scholars are questioning it privately and finding more accurate numbers. This is non controversial enough to be featured in an Israeli leftist newspaper.
Yeah but if a goy says maybe it was 5 million on national TV, what do you think would happen to them?

I know, do you?
 
lmao where is this from again? Even by pedo standards, this seems too evil.
It's linked in my post, short explanation is "in the Talmud" but to be more precise, the first part, explaining you can marry a 3 year old by raping her, is from the Mishnah, which is the older part of the Talmud. Pious Jewish legend claims that when God handed Moses the tablets with the Torah on them, he whispered the Mishnah in his ear. It is referred to as the "oral law" and is considered every bit as binding as the written law (the bible.) The part where it says "Rabbi Yochanan said" is the Gemara, which is the somewhat later (circa first couple centuries AD) commentary on the Mishnah that makes up the bulk of the writing in the Talmud.

Ask @Catch The Rainbow to tell you how it's totally not a big deal that infant rape is endorsed in the Mishnah. I love to watch that dance.
 
Quoting directly from the article



To be clear, it's a quasi sacred cow where on one hand the scholars stress the number of 6 million being important. on the other hand these scholars are questioning it privately and finding more accurate numbers. This is non controversial enough to be featured in an Israeli leftist newspaper.
So it is a lie. It's one story for the chosen, a different one for the cattle. Good to know.
 
Prager doing his low-effort trolling by spamming Prager U ads on YouTube is almost amusing enough to make me forget that he's a piece of shit.

Then he plays his "Jew" card to deflect any criticism and starts preaching about the 6 gorillion like this...
 
It's linked in my post, short explanation is "in the Talmud" but to be more precise, the first part, explaining you can marry a 3 year old by raping her, is from the Mishnah, which is the older part of the Talmud. Pious Jewish legend claims that when God handed Moses the tablets with the Torah on them, he whispered the Mishnah in his ear. It is referred to as the "oral law" and is considered every bit as binding as the written law (the bible.) The part where it says "Rabbi Yochanan said" is the Gemara, which is the somewhat later (circa first couple centuries AD) commentary on the Mishnah that makes up the bulk of the writing in the Talmud.

Ask @Catch The Rainbow to tell you how it's totally not a big deal that infant rape is endorsed in the Mishnah. I love to watch that dance.
its an edge case exploring the edges of the law and the text openly says it:

Rabbi Akiva saw his students looking at each other, puzzling over this ruling. He said to them: Why is this matter difficult in your eyes? They said to him: Just as the entire Torah is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, so too this halakha of a girl who engaged in intercourse when she was less than three years old, i.e., that she is fit to marry into the priesthood, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and it applies whether she engaged intercourse against her will or with her consent. The Gemara notes: And even Rabbi Akiva did not say to the woman that she was unfit to marry into the priesthood because that is the halakha; rather, he did so only to sharpen the minds of his students with his statement, to see how they would respond.

This whole scenario is essentially explaining that someone who was molested under age 3 is still a virgin, someone molested above the age of 3 is not. The whole matter violates two prior Talmudic rules:
Kiddushin 12b states that betrothal through intercourse is forbidden.
An earlier rule states that betrothal cannot happen unless the girl is able to know what she's getting into and is able to verbally express her consent which is usually the biblical age of twelve.

I view this as equal to Bavli Sukkah 23a where it talks about if animals are allowed to be a wall of a ritual hut:

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that an animal is unfit for use as a partition in areas of halakha where a partition is required? Abaye said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, leaving the sukka without a wall. Rabbi Zeira said: It is due to the concern lest it flee. The Gemara explains the practical halakhic differences between the two opinions. In the case where one established a wall with a tied elephant, everyone agrees that the sukka is fit, as even if it dies and falls, its carcass still has a height of ten handbreadths and is fit for the wall of a sukka. Where they disagree is in the case of an elephant that is not tied. According to the one who said: It is due to the concern lest the animal die, we are not concerned in this case, as the carcass would remain a fit wall. According to the one who said: It is due to a decree lest it flee, we remain concerned.

It's arguing the legality of something that will never happen realistically but just in case it happens this would be the course of action.

A common cope argument that isn't valid is that Sanhedrin 69A states that children matured faster back in those days but I refuse to accept that as an argument personally.
 
its an edge case exploring the edges of the law and the text openly says it:



This whole scenario is essentially explaining that someone who was molested under age 3 is still a virgin, someone molested above the age of 3 is not. The whole matter violates two prior Talmudic rules:
Kiddushin 12b states that betrothal through intercourse is forbidden.
An earlier rule states that betrothal cannot happen unless the girl is able to know what she's getting into and is able to verbally express her consent which is usually the biblical age of twelve.

I view this as equal to Bavli Sukkah 23a where it talks about if animals are allowed to be a wall of a ritual hut:



It's arguing the legality of something that will never happen realistically but just in case it happens this would be the course of action.

A common cope argument that isn't valid is that Sanhedrin 69A states that children matured faster back in those days but I refuse to accept that as an argument personally.
This is the absolute best spin you can put on it and yet, lol. Lmao even.
 
Sounds like someone doesn't understand the concept of salvation coming from grace alone, rather than achieved through personal works.
 
I dunno, we're talking about a group of people whose whole religion is about cheating God in anyway possible while worshipping a volcano demon. I don't think God particularly gives a shit if you make them seethe by claiming "the numbers just don't add up".
 
This is the absolute best spin you can put on it and yet, lol. Lmao even.
legal thought experiments are the bread and butter of the talmud. I explained why there are two rules that make it impossible for this to happen. Personally speaking if the Talmud didn't prohibit betrothal via sexual intercourse then my proposal to my fiancée would have been a lot more fun.
 
I may be wrong, but as I understand it Longinus stabbed Christ to give him a quicker death after being on the cross for some time, as it is an agonizing death. Not to be gloried in, sure, but not necessarily to be reviled. I say not to be reviled because as it has been said, Christ's death was nessecary. Italians do not, in general, glorify the torture and death of Christ as a good act in and of itself. There are, however, many Jews that loudly proclaim pleasure in those acts, while denying that Christ is the Messiah. While I have no doubt that many people don't consider this and just label Jews as 'Christ Killers' in their general hatred of them, one can have a more nuanced view of it. Jews do not deserve to be persecuted for their role in his death, but they should be derided and shamed for glorifying in it as an act of torture and execution, rather than a nessecary sacrifice to redeem mankind.
I recall a story that some Romans relished the idea to show their superiority since Jesus was declared "King of the Jews", executing a king would show Rome's power over conquered lands. This is what I heard, not sure if true.
In what universe does a person who actually believes in God ever utters the phrase: "Then there is no God" in any context?
 
I recall a story that some Romans relished the idea to show their superiority since Jesus was declared "King of the Jews", executing a king would show Rome's power over conquered lands. This is what I heard, not sure if true.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lNK_6PuEM1U
Which, even if true, Italians today don't celebrate it, except possibly some pasta flavored Varg types. Plenty of Jews today relish Christ's execution and torment. But again, to hate Jews just because they played a part in the nessecary death is dumb, and you are looking for an excuse to hate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom