I agree with Rubenstein in some ways. I agree that after the Holocaust many Jews must have lost faith

I agree with Rubenstein in some ways. I agree that after the Holocaust many Jews must have lost faith in God. I think that he over reacts in saying “What else can a Jew say” because we know that Jews have come up with many reasons for the Holocaust. For example, “There must be an afterlife” and “Suffering is a punishment from God”.

        For Rubenstein, it is incoherent to maintain belief in God as he is presented in the Jewish scriptures. Rubenstein therefore offers an argument whereby God is completely immanent in the world. He believes that God did not react at the Holocaust because either:

1. God is not all powerful – therefore he cannot be God.
2. God is not willing.
3. God is not all good.
4. God cannot be everywhere.

        These statements are very radical and are utterly different to most views on suffering in the world. Rubenstein believes we must reject the God of traditional Jewish theology. Modern thinkers confronted the problem of evil and suffering long before the Holocaust. As with post-Holocaust theologians who mediated traditional Jewish theology with the specific challenges of the modern world.

        I do not agree with Rubenstein because I believe that mankind is responsible for evil and suffering and that God gives us free-will, therefore he cannot interfere with our doings, even though he has the power to do this. God gave man free-will when he gave Adam and Eve the freedom to eat off any tree in the garden. They disobeyed him and that is how evil and suffering cam upon the earth. I think that Rubenstein just lost his faith too early rather than holding on a little longer. The main reason why I disagree with Rubenstein is because I believe suffering is simply a punishment from God. Like Ignaz Maybaum I believe that the Jews were punished for the sins of the world at large. i.e. as an atoning sacrifice.