We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

Sausages, ham, bacon and other processed meats appear to increase the risk of dying young, a study of half a million people across Europe suggests.

It concluded diets high in processed meats were linked to cardiovascular disease, cancer and early deaths.
The researchers, writing in the journal BMC Medicine, said salt and chemicals used to preserve the meat may damage health.
...
It showed people who ate a lot of processed meat were also more likely to smoke, be obese and have other behaviours known to damage health.

However, the researchers said even after those risk factors were accounted for, processed meat still damaged health.
One in every 17 people followed in the study died. However, those eating more than 160g of processed meat a day - roughly two sausages and a slice of bacon - were 44% more likely to die over a typical follow-up time of 12.7 years than those eating about 20g.
...
"Something has been done to it to extend its shelf life, or to change its taste, or to make it more palatable in some way... and this could be a traditional process like curing or salting."

She said even good quality ham or sausages were still classed as processed meat, while homemade burgers using fresh meat were not.

Processed meats - such as bacon, sausages and ham - do cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Its report said 50g of processed meat a day - less than two slices of bacon - increased the chance of developing colorectal cancer by 18%.

Processed meat includes bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corned beef, beef jerky and ham as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces.

"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal (bowel) cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," Dr Kurt Straif from the WHO said.

The survey looked specifically at asthma symptoms - breathlessness, wheeze, chest tightness - and intake of cured meat: a single portion was two slices of ham, one sausage or two slices of salami.

Among the people with asthma, higher meat consumption was linked with a worsening of their lung symptoms.
People who said they consumed more than four portions a week - eight slices of ham or four sausages, for example - had the biggest deterioration of their asthma by the end of the study.

The experts stress that their work cannot prove diet is definitely to blame. There are lots of factors in a person's life that can make their asthma worse.

The researchers tried to eliminate the most obvious ones, controlling for things like obesity, and the link between processed meat and worsening asthma remained.

I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.

...

Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.

...

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules

...

group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.

...


my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated

...

my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values

...

I ... suffered ... greatly in my life

With this opinion you are making a "religious" choice of your own. You are committing yourself to the belief that religion is not an objective measure of Truth. This inevitably leads to moral relativism and it is moral relativism that can take you to acceptance of slavery or genocide or "culling the herd" as the effective strategy of alpha males. I do not deny that reason can take you to these conclusions. However, before reason and before logic comes a critical metaphysical choice! Make a different choice and reason will take you in a diametrically opposing direction! Other have highlighted this choice to you before.


l3552 was... essentially arguing that your error is not one of intellect but of metaphysics.

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading erroneously selfish propaganda (that their way is the correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.
...
We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

iamback, I have read about everything you posted.

Congratulations, you are probably more right them wrong and even the wrong is not caused by your intellect but your lack of humanity.

My main question now is if you want to help everyone or if you only feel bad that you haven't been invited to the predator's party.

We are working bodies of 37 trillions cells working harmoniously. We are part of a global society of 6 billion human beings working as harmoniously as possible until now. Like it or not, you are part of it and you are not in control of it. Yet you act like the white cells are your enemies. It is so clear. You could be a major part of the nervous system of the human society but you prefer to act like a papilloma growing from it and then falling to infect others on the east!

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

Was the creation accomplished in 6 days... plus a following day of rest?

From the standpoint of our simple determinations, we do not know because we were not there, and there are way too many things that could have happened that are way beyond our ability to determine.

For example. The whole plan of the universe existed in the mind of God "before" He started creation. Since God used a tiny amount of His great strength to create the universe, the fact that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars... and the fact that the 24-hour day existed before the scribing of the planetary action by which we understand the 24-hour day... shows that God's power carried everything just as He had it written down in the Bible, no matter how we want to delude ourselves into thinking things happened.

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

It took a long time for humans to appear ..Just remember NO ZAP and we were here..

In the 21st century with new sciences we will discover many things that we once thought so are not so..
But one thing we do know because of science it takes time for things to happen and it's impossible to
Zap a human and a world in 6 days.. ..
Even if aliens from another galaxy made the earth it still not gods it's science ..

So why does the Bible express itself in terms of six days of creativity culminating in one day of Sabbath rest [Genesis 2:2]? Why would the Bible utilize the Hebrew word “yom” (day) with any meaning other than a 24-hour period?

The truth is that from the usage of the word “yom” it is possible to conclude the very opposite of the charedi dogma just cited. The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore, Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.

And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The first thing to know is that the Torah consists of two parts: The Written Torah, and the Oral Torah.

The Written Torah totals 24 books, including the Five Books of Moses and the prophetic writings – e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.

The Five Books of Moses – comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – was written down by Moses in 1273 BCE, and includes all 613 commandments (mitzvahs)....

(Jews consider it insulting to call it the Old Testament, as this implies a New Testament, which Jews reject.)...

So what is the Oral Torah? Its name derives from the fact that it was not allowed to be formally written down but had to be taught orally. It contains the explanations of the Written Torah...

In 190 CE, persecution and exile of the Jewish people threatened the proper transmission of the Oral Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi compiled written notes on the Oral Torah called the "Mishnah" (Hebrew for "teaching")...

In 500 CE, the Jewish people again suffered an uprooting of their communities, and two Babylonian rabbis – Rav Ashi and Ravina – compiled a 60-volume record of rabbinic discussions on the Mishnah, called the "Gemara." Together, the Mishnah and Gemara comprise what is commonly called the "Talmud."

In its very earliest days, Christianity was seen by the Jewish teachers as a Jewish heresy; its adherents were Jews who believed in the divinity of Christ [and considered Christianity a Jewish sect]. But when Christianity spread and became a world religion, with numerous converts from the Gentile world, it became a rival religion to Judaism. Christians were then seen as Gentiles not because they were Christians but because, in the main, they were, in fact, Gentiles (i.e. not Jewish).

Rabbinic Attitudes
In the Talmud and midrash, the comparatively few references to Christianity (these only appear in uncensored versions) are to this religion as a heretical sect believing in a form of dualism, God the Father and God the Son... It was not until the Middle Ages that the status of Christianity (and of Islam) as a rival religion was considered from the Jewish point of view.

Medieval Attitudes
Attacks on Christian dogma are found in medieval Jewish writings from the biblical commentaries of Rashi and [David] Kimhi, refuting the Christian claim that the Old Testament contains prophesies anticipating the coming of Jesus... on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence...

In these and similar works the main thrust was to deny that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus (the world gave no evidence that this glorious age had arrived, it was frequently protested) and especially to take issue with the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity...The medieval thinkers who held Christianity but not Islam to be an idolatrous faith did so particularly because of the worship of the Cross; to bow before an icon or a crucifix was held to be akin to bowing to idols...

Menahem Meiri [a thirteenth-century talmudist]... argued that the references to pagans in the talmudic literature could not apply to what he called “people whose lives are governed by religion.” Eventually, a distinction was made, unknown in the talmudic sources, according to which Christianity did constitute idolatry for Jews but not “for them” (i.e. Christians). A Christian did not offend against the Noahide laws [the seven principles, including the rejection of idolatry, by which Judaism expects non-Jews to live] since the Torah allows a Gentile, but not a Jew, to worship another being in addition to God.

This concept was known as shittuf (“association,” of another together with God) and the oft‑quoted legal maxim, allowing for a more liberal attitude towards Christians, is: “A Noahide is not enjoined to reject shittuf.”...

Modern Attitudes
In modern times there has been far greater cooperation between Jews and Christians, many Jews welcoming Jewish‑Christian dialogues in which the aim of each side is to understand the position of the other, and even learn from it, without in any way moving from its own. Some Jews believe that Judaism and Christianity have so much in common that it is permissible to speak of a Jewish-Christian tradition...

A single contemporary Orthodox Jewish theologian in the US has argued that Judaism does not oblige Jews to reject the doctrine of the incarnation as impossible in itself. For him, Jews reject Christianity not because God could not have become incarnate in a human being, since that would compromise God’s omnipotence, but because, in fact, He did not do so in the person of Jesus.

This eccentric view is rejected by all other Jewish theologians on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

It appears you missed the class on Talmudic Judaism because everything you typed only pertains to Jews dealing with other Jews.  Non-Jews are referred to as "goyim", and are essentially cattle to be used as slaves.

Here they are in a 1 minute clip flat out saying it as usual.  No, this is not even close to a one off; this is the norm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCLtAbULUtw

II. The Charges
A. Non-Jews as Non-Human

Probably the most far-reaching claim made by anti-Talmud polemicists is that Judaism
views non-Jews as a subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its
Jewish superiors.

The visceral hatred that Jews are alleged to bear for non-Jews is
proven, they claim, by a variety of statements in the Talmud and by Jewish law itself,
which purportedly encourages Jews to exploit their non-Jewish neighbors and engage in
criminal activities against them. Many go so far as to claim that Jews are intent on
subjugating non-Jews around the world and even on committing genocide against them.

In its long history, Judaism has had its share of bigots, racists and xenophobes, some of
whom expressed their prejudices in religious terms. In certain historical periods there
have even been Jewish sects whose worldview placed Jews higher than non-Jews in
inherent value. But normative Judaism has never diminished the essential humanity—
and the concomitant holiness, derived from the doctrine of creation in imago Dei—shared
by Jews and non-Jews alike. Based on verses in the biblical verses in Genesis 1:26-28,
the principle that all men and women are created in the image of God is codified in the
Mishnah (Avoth 3:14) and Talmud (Avoth 9b):

[רבי עקיבא] היה אומר: חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. חיבה יתרה נודעת לו שנברא בצלם,
שנאמר (בראשית ט:ו), "כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם."
[Rabbi Akiva] used to say, “Beloved is man, for he was created in God’s image; and the
fact that God made it known that man was created in His image is indicative of an even
greater love. As the verse states (Genesis 9:6), ‘In the image of God, man was created.’)”

This doctrine is echoed by one of the great rabbis of the twentieth century, Rabbi Joseph
B. Soloveitchik (Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 74):

"Even as the Jew is moved by his private Sinaitic Covenant with God to embody
and preserve the teachings of the Torah, he is committed to the belief that all
mankind, of whatever color or creed, is “in His image” and is possessed of an
inherent human dignity and worthiness. Man’s singularity is derived from the
breath “He [God] breathed into his nostrils at the moment of creation” (Genesis
2:7). Thus, we do share in the universal historical experience, and God’s
providential concern does embrace all of humanity."

In the face of these Jewish doctrines expressing concern for men and women of all
religions, the attempts of anti-Semites to portray normative Judaism as bigoted and
hateful are revealed as thorough distortions of Jewish ethics.

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d's chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as "at the foot of the mountain" literally mean "underneath the mountain"!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.

Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah. Furthermore, the blessings that we received from G-d by accepting the Torah come with a high price: Jews have a greater responsibility than non-Jews. While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews.

Most irrational thing I've ever read.  Jews are the most collectivist, borg-like, hive mind people on the planet.  This is why they're currently winning.  History is a lesson of individuals coming in contact with collectivist groups, who then force the individual into his own collectivist group in order to not be trampled.  

You attempted to take a contrarian viewpoint on the Jewish question out of some ego trip and failed miserably.  It's already been analyzed by millions of intelligent people before all coming to the same conclusion.

Collectivists are a threat to the freedom of the individual, but collectivists cannot be beaten without participating in an opposing collectivist group yourself.

It depends on how you define freedom. If being free means doing whatever you want, with no rules or limits whatsoever, then you are right. If I am only free as long as no one tells me what to do and I can follow my every whim and fancy, then being forbidden to eat bread is indeed an infringement of my "freedom."

But is that really freedom? Am I not then just a slave to my whims and fancies? What if my fancies are not really coming from me? Maybe I have desires that were placed in my head by others. Am I truly free if I follow those desires? What if I have instinctive drives that are harmful to myself? Can you call me free if I am bound by those drives? What about compulsive or addictive behavior? Bad habits? Can't you also be a slave to what you want?

Judaism defines freedom very differently. True freedom is the ability to express who you really are. If there are levels to your personality that have not been explored, if your soul has not had the opportunity to be expressed, then you are not yet free.

The Torah is the instruction manual to our souls. Even its seemingly restrictive laws are only there to allow us to tap in to our inner self. Because sometimes it is only through restrictions that our true self can come out.

A highly respected American rabbi named Dr. Irving “Yitz” Greenberg used to tell American Jewish audiences, whether Reform, Conservative Orthodox, “I don’t care what denomination you’re a member of, as long as you’re ashamed of it.”

I have adopted that phrase, and I apply it to religions generally. One could just as easily say to Catholics, Protestants and Muslims, “I don’t care what religion you identify with, as long as you’re ashamed of it.” Meaning, of course, you’re ashamed of what many of its members have done to it.
Just think of what has happened to much of mainstream Protestantism; to much of Catholicism, including, sadly, the current pope; and most especially, to the Islamic world.

Given the subject of this column — the destructive influence of leftism on Jews and Judaism — it is relevant to mention some of my Jewish involvement. Among other things, I taught Jewish history and religion at Brooklyn College, was the spokesman for the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, have written two books and hundreds of essays and columns on Jews and Judaism, received the American Jewish Press Association Louis Rapoport Award for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, have brought many thousands of Jews to Judaism and have lectured to more Jewish groups in the past 40 years than almost any living Jew.

So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jews and their clergy at various synagogues around America were gathering to sit shiva — the Hebrew and Jewish term for the seven-day period of grieving that Jews engage in after the loss of an immediate relative — because Donald Trump was elected president.
Consider for a moment how childish and narcissistic this is, using the sacred ritual reserved for the death of one’s child or parent as a way to express disappointment over a presidential election.

And of course, there were the irresponsible, over-the-top outbursts by Jewish columnists and academics. Take Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who devoted his column after the election to writing an open letter to his 12-year-old daughter...

Add similar comments made during the election by other Jewish leftists in the media and academia, and you get the picture.

How are we to understand this?

Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

If left-wing Jews want to sit shiva, they should do so for their religion, which, like much of Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, has been so deeply and negatively influenced by leftism.

Are you saying that atheists are not people?  

To me being religious is a sign of weakness. You need to make up stories in your head in order to function.
You need an imaginary friend to get you through the day.

People who are not religious believe in themselves and are not afraid.  If we don't know how something works, we study it and to figure the shit out.

...

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

Recently there has been debate about a global warming pause. Apparently the temperature data both land based and satellite data have shown little global warming since 1998. There have been many attempts to explain this pause including theories about volcanic eruption and the oceans absorbing more heat.

This year there was an article in the Journal of Science arguing that there was no pause in global warming and that the data once "adjusted" revealed the previously hidden warming trend.

A chart summarizing the papers conclusions.

US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'


Now science is one of the most selective scientific journals in the world. Studies published there are supposed to be both rock solid scientifically important and subjected to extreme peer review.

This study appears to reach very shaky conclusions using adjusted data.    
  
‘HIDE THE HIATUS!’ HOW THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS ELIMINATED THE INCONVENIENT ‘PAUSE’ IN GLOBAL WARMING'


Here is the satellite temperature data since 1998
Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': Study reveals Earth's temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995



Now if you have two data sets and the adjusted data is giving you completely different results from the raw data one must immediately scrutinize the methods and motivations of the adjuster.
...

Religions trail well behind in the development of ethical and moral frameworks.  The secular thought is leading the pack.  Always had.

...

...
Basically, you follow a God who is vengeful and merciless..... yes your bible highlights that! You speak about forgiveness and truth, yet, you fail to exhibit any of those qualities by stating things which you believe are true about someone and are a negative in your world.
...

The daily news offers countless examples of the ways religion influences behavior, but the specific characteristics people attribute to their gods may be the most important factor in deciding their actions. Belief in an all-knowing, punishing god encourages cooperation with strangers, say researchers from the University of British Columbia. In fact, faith in such gods may have been necessary to the development of modern-day states.

Since the origins of agriculture, the scale of societal complexity has dramatically expanded while cooperation increased as well. According to the authors, communal agreement, most usually stimulated by genetic relatedness, reciprocity, and partner choice, should falter, not bloom as people increasingly deal in fleeting transactions with unrelated strangers in large anonymous groups.

So how did the large-scale cooperation we see today develop?

For that we can thank the belief in an all-knowing God who will punish us if we do not cooperate with and interact fairly within wider social circles, the authors hypothesize.

MINE OR YOURS?

To test this idea, they played a couple of games with people from far-flung locations around the world. Specifically, the research team enlisted the help of 591 people from Brazil, Fiji, Mauritius, Siberia, Tanzania, and Vanuatu; their religious beliefs included animism, ancestor worship, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism. Led by Dr. Benjamin Purzycki, a research fellow at the Center for Human Evolution, Cognition, and Culture, the team conducted extensive interviews before the games began.

To play, an individual participant was given money and a two-color die. The researchers instructed the participant to roll the die and drop some coins in their own pot if one color came up. However, if the other color came up, the money was supposed to be placed in a pot for an unknown person who shared their religion in another community. In a second round, the participant was to drop coins into either the cup of a local co-religionist or a distant co-religionist. No one watched as each participant played the game.

Counting the coins in each pot, the researchers discovered participants in both games were more likely to play by the rules and dole out more coins to others if they believed in a god who knew about people’s thoughts and behavior, and punished for wrongdoing. By comparison, those who believed in a god who rewarded good behavior were not quite so equally inclined to play fair.

Based on these results, Purzycki and his colleagues say religious beliefs may have been a major contributing factor in the development of highly complex social organizations. Apparently, fear of supernatural punishment helps us remain on the earthly straight and narrow.

You have my vote for Best comment in the "Fuck You" to Badecker's god!

Brilliant!

Whoever wrote this sentence gets an F-.  Anarchy is social Darwinism, while Nazism is group evolutionary strategy.  Jews practice Nazism themselves, they just call it "Zionism" or "Judaism" as a red herring when both groups practice the exact same thing:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_group_evolutionary_strategy

The thing that defeated nazi germany on russian territory was pretty much the same thing that defeated napoleon some hundred years ago: the weather (and of course the russian army that needed time to rally).

Secret communication can be broken best example is the enigma.

The US entry into ww2 was nothing of a wonder it was more or less very obvious for all war parties (supporting allied powers with money, arms and soldiers while having economic sanctions and blockades against the axis powers).

All in all the war was very unlikely to be won after germany went into a 3 front war in the west, east and south in africa.
Germany itself has nearly no resources and could only run their war machinery by looting the invaded nations and getting help by swiss bankers who they used to sold their stolen goods (mostly gold) for foreign currency to buy war needed assets (historians say that probaly 75% went through switzerland).

There is a reason why people want to save their (illegal) money in swissbanks. And the reason is if even nazis could do good, secret and stable business in wartime their everyone else could too.

The German mistake

As the number of intercepts, now being made at Knockholt in Kent, increased a section was formed in Bletchley Park headed by Major Ralph Tester and known as the Testery. A number of Depths were intercepted but not much headway had been made into breaking the cipher until the Germans made one horrendous mistake. It was on 30 August 1941. A German operator had a long message of nearly 4,000 characters to be sent from one part of the German Army High command to another — probably Athens to Vienna. He correctly set up his Lorenz machine and then sent a twelve letter indicator, using the German names, to the operator at the receiving end. This operator then set his Lorenz machine and asked the operator at the sending end to start sending his message. After nearly 4,000 characters had been keyed in at the sending end, by hand, the operator at the receiving end sent back by radio the equivalent, in German, of "didn't get that — send it again".

They now both put their Lorenz machines back to the same start position. Absolutely forbidden, but they did it. The operator at the sending end then began to key in the message again, by hand. If he had been an automaton and used exactly the same key strokes as the first time then all the interceptors would have got would have been two identical copies of the cipher text. Input the same — machines generating the same obscuring characters — same cipher text. But being only human and being thoroughly disgusted at having to key it all again, the sending operator began to make differences in the second message compared to the first.

The utter defeat of Nazis is something of a historical oddity. The Nazi’s were the 20th century’s equivalent of the Mongols or the Huns. They were motivated, technologically advanced, disciplined, and man for man outclassed their rivals of the time. This advantage was seen in their multiple strategic triumphs. Until the fall of 1941 they went from victory to victory always one step ahead of their opponents. They conquered almost all of continental Europe and Norway quickly and decisively.

Hitler believed that the Soviet Union would rapidly collapse in the face of sustained attack and initially it appeared his assessment was entirely correct. In the first few months of the German attack the Germans captured millions of soviet prisoners. In the fall of 1941 German’s encircled destroyed the bulk of the armies guarding the approach to Moscow capturing over 500,000 prisoners. For a brief window the Soviets had only 90,000 men and 150 tanks left to defend Moscow.



Yet the Nazi’s did not capture Moscow they were repulsed and ultimately crushed. Three historical quirks of fate led to this defeat:

1)   Extreme and unusual weather that started in October 1941.
2)   Odd Nazi’s error in August 1941 that compromised secret German communications.
3)   Historical oddities in August of 1941 that led directly to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

All three of these oddities played a role in the defeating the Nazi regime and all three involved an unusual element of chance or circumstance. Let’s examine each of these.

A)  Extreme and unusual weather
Unusual Fall Rains:
Following the defeat of the armies guarding Moscow in October situation was dire for the Soviets. General Georgi Zhukov the soviet commander said the following.

“The defensive front in the west has been destroyed a huge gap has appeared in our lines and there is nothing to fill it as there are no reserves. The roads leading to Moscow are open.”

The Nazi’s were confident of victory. German Army Chief-of-staff, Franz Halder, wrote in his diary, “To save Moscow the enemy will try to bring up reinforcements, especially from the North.  But any such miscellaneous force, scraped together in an emergency, will not suffice against our superior strength, and provided our strategy is any good at all (provided the weather is not too bad), we shall succeed in divesting Moscow.”

https://www.tcc.fl.edu/media/divisions/library/citation-guide/turabianx2fchicago/Turabian-Sample-2012-Footnotes_ADA.pdf

I will provide rain for your land in the proper time, the autumn and spring rains (Deut 11:14)

With the severe mud German mobility ceased. The mud also wreaked havoc on German machinery. Fuel was consumed at three times the normal rate. General Guderian recalled that,

“. . . the roads rapidly became nothing but canals of bottomless mud, along which our vehicles could advance only at snail’s pace, and with great wear to the engines.  The next few weeks were dominated by the mud. Wheeled vehicles could advance only with the help of tracked vehicles. These latter, having to perform tasks for which they were not intended, rapidly wore out.”

http://www.allworldwars.com/Effects-of-Climate-on-Combat-in-European-Russia.html



By November 1, two-thirds of the German trucks had broken down. The muddy season destroyed much of Germany’s motorized transport. What followed was winter and it was not a normal Russian winter. Instead the Nazi’s faced the most severe winter of the twentieth century.

Germany‘s soldiers froze when the full fury of the Russian winter hit on December 5, and the temperature subsequently plunged to a staggering -40º. Over one hundred thousand German soldiers had fallen out ill during the month-long Rasputitsa. Between the first week of December and early March, Army Group Center suffered frightful losses: over 256,000 dead and 350,000 sick or hospitalized with winter-related maladies such as frostbite.


B) Loss of operational secrecy
Prior to the Fall of 1941. The Nazi’s constantly surprised their enemies. Everything from the Invasion of Norway, to the assault on France, to the invasion of Russia came as a surprise to their opponents. After 1941 the Nazi’s lost all operational secrecy resulting in a dramatic loss of initiative.
 
The Allies achieved this advantage in part by breaking a top secret German code called Tunny. This was the high-level Nazi encryption machines used by Hitler and Mussolini to communicate directly with their generals in the field. The Germans were convinced that the Tunny cipher system was unbreakable. The system used 12 encryption wheels, four times as many as the famous Enigma machine, which was used in the field and carried standard military communications. How did the Allies break the code?

http://www.rutherfordjournal.org/article030109.html

So a German officer violated protocol sending a not quite identical message twice without properly encrypting the second message. This allowed the British codebreakers to reverse-engineer the German encryption machine, a process later described as "an incredible feat of dedication". This was all made possible because "random" atmospheric noise corrupted a transmission at the exact moment a lazy operator was sending a long message and did not follow protocol. Had this atmospheric noise not occurred the Tunny code may not have been broken.
  
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/captain-jerry-roberts-bletchley-park-codebreaker-who-helped-crack-the-tunny-code-hitler-used-to-9219984.html


However, Tunny was not fully broken in time to warn the Soviets of the German’s 1942 summer offensive towards Stalingrad. The 1942 German invasion plan was called Case Blue and was an attack on southern Russia. The goal of this attack was to destroy the Soviet forces of 1 million soldiers at the frontline in that area and capture the soviet oil fields in the caucuses. Stalin was entirely focused on Moscow certain a German attack would occur in the North. Yet despite this misconception a quirk of history would warn the Soviets of the upcoming German attack.

Early on the morning of the 19th of June 1942 an unarmed German liaison plan guided to earth near soviet army positions. There was no trail of smoke or obvious reason for its crash landing. When soviet troops captured the aircraft they found a single bullet hole through its petrol tank. The pilot was killed before he could destroy his briefcase which contained the top secret German plans. The dead German was Major Richter head of operation for the German 23 panzer division. He was carrying plans for the upcoming Case Blue Invasion. The single bullet hitting a moving plane at exactly the right spot apparently caused the plane to run out of fuel right over Soviets positions. The secret German plans literally fell in the Soviet’s hands out of “chance”. Unlike the the previous year when the Germans surprised and surrounded millions of soviet troops Case Blue lead to very few prisoners as the Soviets conducted an orderly withdraw in front of a German attack that was no longer a surprise.      

C) Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor
In 1941 the US was highly isolationist. Public opinion was strongly against entry into war. On December 7th, 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. This act would change public opinion and bring the massive strength of the USA down upon the Axis ensuring their defeat. Why did Japan attack the USA? That story is a very interesting one and revolves around a man named Dean Acheson.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=22899

When the United States froze Japanese assets in the United states the president told his interior secretary, Harold Ickes, at the time, his goal was not war in the Pacific: “I simply have not got enough Navy to go around—and every little episode in the Pacific means fewer ships in the Atlantic.”. He had earlier told Churchill that a fight with Japan would be “the wrong war in the wrong ocean at the wrong time.” The PM agreed their first objective must be to defeat Hitler. Roosevelt’s involvement is unclear but with or without approval it was in August of 1941 that Assistant secretary of state Dean Acheson set the USA on the course to war against Japan.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/oil_led_to_pearl_harbor/

Oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States. IJN headquarters informed Emperor Hirohito its reserve bunker oil would be exhausted within two years if a new source was not found. In August 1941, Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe proposed a summit with President Roosevelt to discuss differences. Roosevelt replied Japan must leave China before a summit meeting could be held. On September 6, 1941, Japanese leaders met to discuss this crisis. Prime Minister Konoe argued for more negotiations and possible concessions to avert war. Prime Minister Konoe, was almost assassinated by pro-war fanatics wielding ceremonial knives. Weakened by the attempt to overthrow him and losing power and influence to militarist elements, Prince Konoe’s government fell on October 16, and he was replaced by hardliners.

In August of 1941 the Nazis appeared on the brink of total victory. The UK was in danger of being economically strangled by submarine warfare and armies of the Russians were collapsing. Two months later the vectors of fate had dramatically shifted. The severe weather was crippling the German army, top secret German communications were compromised, and the stage was set for US entry into the war. Tremendous sacrifice from the allies especially Russia would follow. The Nazi’s were now destined for defeat.
 
When asked to defend their belief that there is no God non-believers will often point to some horrific evil in the world and ask the following question:

“Why did God permit this why didn’t he stop it?”

The horror of the Holocaust is one example commonly cited. Here is one such argument:
https://whistlinginthewind.org/2012/05/07/why-did-god-not-stop-the-holocaust/

Such argument ignores another possibility. Perhaps God did intervene to stop the Holocaust! The books of Jeremiah and Genesis are Holy Scripture to both Christians and Jews. These books spell out a promise made by God.

For I am with you, says the LORD, to save you: though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, yet will I not make a full end of you: but I will correct you in just measure, and will not leave you altogether unpunished. (Jer. 30:11).

I will keep My covenant between Me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant to be your God and the God of your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7).

Let us for a moment explore a hypothetical. Is it possible that God exists and that he created a world where humans are given free will even to do evil? Is it also possible that the promises written in Jeremiah and Genesis are promises from God that will be kept?
 
In their early years the Nazi’s discriminated against Jews but they did not try to exterminate them. This early Nazism was not an existential threat to the Jewish people. However, with the invasion of the Soviet Union that would change.

In June 1941. Four mobile killing groups were formed called special duty units Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D. These squads would follow the German army, as it advanced deep into Soviet territory, and carry out mass-murder operations. At first, the mobile killing squads primarily targeted adult Jewish men. Initially there was a semblance of legality given to the shootings, with trumped-up charges being read out (arson, sabotage, black marketeering, or refusal to work, for example) and victims being killed by a firing squad. However, by August of 1941 net had been widened to include women and children.

The Einsatzgruppen gathered Jews town by town, marched them to huge pits dug earlier, stripped them, lined them up, and shot them with automatic weapons with survivors being killed with a pistol shot.


A people can perhaps survive the murder of its adult male population but it cannot survive the deaths of its women and children. By August of 1941 there was no longer be any doubt that the Jewish people were in danger of complete destruction.
 
http://chosenpeople.com/main/index.php/the-bible-and-the-preservation-of-the-jewish-people

Perhaps it is all a giant coincidence that it was also in August of 1941 that the fortunes of Nazi Germany took a dramatic turn for the worse. Perhaps it is simply chance that simultaneously altered so many vectors of destiny.
 
Nevertheless when people ask why didn’t God stop the holocaust and save the Jews I answer with a query of my own.

What makes you think he didn’t?