Godon trial

Photography groups are by appointment only. When you get there, give him your card the good doctor. The examined. Do not say that I care about you. They had to thousand people here. When I got a new transport made space for Were a selection.

Each cabin in was given a card for older on the block, the overseer, and then go the selected area. Do not move well. You look like dead. Leave me alone. You're dead. Try not to see you angry, or be the next.. I'll be fine I taught my numbers? Add them, 18, 18, is the number of life. You can meet up soon Lord your God with. It's very cold here, yes? Imagine the day selection. Nobody knew what was the selection criterion, so all afraid.

Well, this way. I do not understand. How could afford? You know there a story that prisoners set up a tribunal here and conducted a trial. Prosecute they thought was mainly responsible for what happened to them. Can you imagine the look my wife? Suppose if I need someone to wash dishes. These people wait see the doctor! Become Wait and see by the physician. Jewish 85 years in my house.

What I do with her? Some things he can think. Send the old Kuhn left. If you go left, you'll to heaven with the old Kuhn. Other live. Have you sent the right? And you? Come here. Come on. Your notif..! Come on! Before I became a theologian, I was training as a paediatrician.

In that capacity, on occasions, I had to give treatments or conduct tests that were uncomfortable and distressing for the children. Not surprisingly, some of the children did not respond to me particularly warmly as a result. Yet, perhaps remarkably, despite the fact that at times it was their parents who held them tightly during these procedures, the children never failed to continue to show love and affection towards them.

Indeed, even when it was the parents who did these things they continued — as soon as the painful procedure was over — to throw themselves into their parents' arms.

Why this difference of reaction? I would suggest it is because while their main experience of me was either neutral or unpleasant, their experience of their parents was of ongoing care, love, compassion, feeding, warmth, and so on. So when, on occasions, their parents did things they neither liked, nor always understood if they were too young , they were able to put those experiences in the context of an overall picture of unconditional love.

Even though they couldn't always understand why their parents let this particular thing happen, they knew that their parents loved them despite it. Is it possible that this is also why suffering can produce such starkly different responses in people of faith and people of none? Atheists or agnostics do not have a context of God's love into which this particular painful tragedy can be relativised. All they have is the tragedy itself, and no wonder their response is an even more ardent form of atheism or animosity towards the god hypothesis.

In contrast, the people of faith do have such a context. This means that even though they may not be able to explain why God would allow this particular event to occur, they know that the God who on countless other occasions has demonstrated his love and compassion must have a reason. Almost certainly, such a reason has something to do with human freewill, which includes the ability of some to abuse their freedom by infringing that of others.

Of course, for those who consider their rationality to be on a par with God's, such an answer will fail to suffice. For they like to think they could have designed a better world in which everyone has complete freedom to act, but remarkably no-one would freely choose to harm another.

African Christians, then, who have an awareness of God's love and compassion, are entirely rational to conclude that their own particular suffering must be fitted into a wider context than just this event. When such a thing is allowed to happen, God assumes the right responsibility for the fate of all those involved, although He does not hold us accountable at the time or during our life. Those who died in infancy will be received by God with open arm, at the resurrection of the righteous: the best candidates for immortality.

Punishment as purification. A new argument is then made. Perhaps God left this misfortune as an atoning sacrifice, purifying the chosen people and the world. The argument is rejected: it is not mentioned in the covenant and is unsatisfactory for those involved. The Scripture speaks of one atoning sacrifice: one that most Jews still reject, [17] and most Christians soil with human inventions—when they do not ignore it entirely.

How can He be all powerful and just? Still, God, having supreme control over all events, allowed these misfortunes for reasons we can only partially foresee. God is just and omnipotent at the same time, but He does not always apply justice and omnipotence to people, because He is also patient, wise, prudent, and unwavering.

Free will then comes into play as a reason for the many things that happen to human beings. Lieble, a Jew whose three children were taken away by the SS, and was then made to choose one to take back, is brought as a witness. All three of his children had reached out to Lieble, but Lieble could not choose. Another says that they do not have free will because there, in the camp, they cannot even choose whether to live or die. When discussing religion, people often confuse socio-political, physical freedom with moral freedom free will.

Lieble did not have the physical and socio-political freedom to take all his children as he would have wanted, but he had the opportunity to exercise his moral freedom to make the best decision. The fact that he could not simply choose one and leave the other two desperate may have helped the children to have a better image of their father than they would otherwise have had, if he had chosen just one of them. Where does all this goodness come from? This line makes us think of the One who is God incarnate, [19] the Messiah, in whom God suffered as a man among men, incomparably more than any martyr.

We need a God who sends the angel of death to our enemies! Where is He? Save yourself and us! The sending of the angel of death among the enemies was left for later.

The apocalypse will repeat the plagues of Egypt on a global and aggravated scale. Lieble then recalls the day of Purim. The great philosophical problem of all religions is the existence of evil in the world, as if good were natural. The presence of goodness in contrast to the ferocity of others is proof that, in a sense, God is there, with the people who suffer. After a brief interruption, caused by an intervention of the SS who came to cut their hair and rob the newcomers, the trial resumes and a physicist brings a new set of arguments against the Jewish God, ridiculing the idea that, from all the galaxies of the entire universe, He chose a peripheral, lost planet, and not even the whole planet, but only the Jews.

Why did He have to bring other peoples into the world? The physicist elaborates a parody of the philosophy of religion, showing that all religions are forms of socio-political manipulation. From polytheism, Jews advanced to monotheism to support a national monarchy. Then came the Christians, universalizing God, and the Romans took their model, extending empire and religion to all peoples. Finally, Hitler came and put an end to the whole story, asserting himself as a god. In this scenario, which is more sarcastic than pedagogical, the physicist borrows the cynicism of the enemy.

The socio-political evolutionism he expresses is not worth commenting on, but the question of why God chose the Jews, although it takes a sarcastic form in the mouth of the physicist, deserves an answer. Nor does it say they were chosen to receive overindulgence and exclusive salvation. Time is running out. One can already hear the barking of dogs and the roar of SS troops nearby, in the neighbouring barracks.

The three judges retreat to deliberate. One day, however, the Gestapo picked him up because they discovered that he has a Jewish father.

Now he is in the camp, judging the God of the Jews, but knowing nothing of this religion himself. His advice is to give a favourable sentence because God is the only value left. No matter how foolish and useless it may seem, the covenant is yours.

God is your god. Let there be something they cannot take away from you…from us. Unexpectedly, this judge has benefited spiritually from this trial. This fascist, who arrived in the camp for purely genetic reasons, and discovers among the Jews a sense of faith and a change of attitude, provides one of the possible answers to the question of why God allowed the Holocaust.

The court is ready to announce the verdict, but Akiba, who has until then remained silent in a corner, explodes with a new indictment against God, this time emphasizing that throughout history, the Jewish God unfairly favoured the Jews and at the same time brought unnecessary disasters on others, thus proving that he is an evil God, undeserving of the admiration of other peoples.

He is wrong to say that the God of the Jews unjustly favoured them. An act such as killing every firstborn in Egypt is mentioned. Akiba is wrong to say that God punished the children of the Egyptians, and not the guilty Pharaoh.

It was not about all the children of the Egyptians, but the firstborn of every house, starting with the son of the Pharaoh. We could say that in this way God threatened the Egyptians and targeted their most sensitive spot. However, the final justice of each of those Egyptians, parents and children, will be done at the final judgment, at the resurrection.

If God has not yet given the final verdict, it would be wise for us to suspend the verdict on His justice until then. Akiba says that God was unjust when He did not close the sea before the arrival of the Egyptian army, and waited for them, in order to drown them instead.

But why would God perform such a miracle for the enemies of Israel, who were after them to bring them back into slavery? These Egyptians had witnessed the power of the God of Israel for many days, and with this final closing of the curtain, they saw with their own eyes that God had opened the sea to His people.

Entering the land of God to harm His people, despite the miracle they had seen, was signing their own death warrant, committing the capital sin. They deserved their fate. Akiba also talks about the extermination of the Canaanites. We should first note that the Canaanite people were guilty before God, and that He had already begun the offensive against them when He destroyed the rich cities of the Jordan plain, where abuse and perversion flourished.

Most of all, the Canaanites were aware of all the miracles that had accompanied Israel from Egypt to Canaan, they believed in them and feared them, [28] but they still did not repent, not even out of fear, and allied against Israel. God decided to destroy the Canaanites not because they were the only pagans in the ancient world. Disgusting religious and moral issues existed everywhere, but the Canaanites were more to blame for the popularity of these evils because they had better opportunities to correct them than others.

Their presence in the geographical and commercial centre of the Middle East, with wide influence at sea and on land, made their existence a moral danger to mankind.

God had promised all supernatural help for the disinheritance, expulsion, or destruction of those tribes. The few Canaanites who sided with Israel, even those who did so dishonestly, were spared. By law, David deserved the death penalty for both of his sins. However, God decided to spare his life and preserve his royal dignity for the following reasons: 1 David acknowledged and regretted his sins like no other, [35] and God forgave him; 2 God forgives those sentenced to death who repent, without necessarily sparing them of earthly punishment.

After all, by sparing him, God allowed him to bear other consequences of his sin: to live and be a helpless witness to the consequences of his sins, paid by his children.

Four sons were to die, three of them dramatically during his lifetime: the infant who was the fruit of sin; Amnon, the crown prince, an incestuous rapist; Absalom, the next prince, the proud political rebel, unscrupulous, incestuous, and ready to kill his father; and Adonia, the usurping prince and dangerous political opponent of King Solomon.

David would rather have died himself instead of his children, whether they were guilty or innocent. In this world, even innocent babies often suffer, and sometimes die for various reasons, not being aware of what is happening to them. Suffering is not a punishment for them and, for the most part, not even for their parents. Of all these four sons of David who died, the anonymous newborn, who probably did not even make it to his circumcision, is the only one saved for eternity, because he was innocent.

The fact that a child is born of sin, no matter how serious, does not affect their status before God. In the genealogy of David and Jesus Christ, there are two people born of incest.

At what point did this new marriage of David become legitimate before God?