You wrote: Deeds, on the other hand, can be viewed more objectively.
Can they, indeed? Do we really ever know all the facts of the case? If someone kills innocent children praying in a mosque, I might say that that action has been despicable and evil, whereas other people (most probably among the right-wingers, but let's not make sweeping generalizations here) might say: "How do you know that parents hadn't strapped bombs to the children?"
To perhaps throw a wrench into this discussion, upon the aforementioned topic of God's ability to judge people, I'm fond of saying that God is the ultimate subjective judge, and hence is the only truly objective judge.
Wonderfully poetic, but what does it mean? Do you feel that the only objective reality is God's subjective feeling? If so, I see that you view God very personally, almost anthropomorphically.
On this topic, I would like to relate something that NG (now a rabbi in Long Beach-- you know whom I mean) told me last summer:
NG: I have a great insight! Me: Tell me about it. [I think: I'm sure it's going to be something about halokho, like all of NG's other thoughts.] NG: We're supposed to judge people justly, according to din. Yet rachamim is considered greater than din, and God is believed to be full of rachamim. [He then said something about Plato's Republic, which I don't remember.] Well, I've just figured out that din vs. rachamim is not a dichotomy. Rather, the greatest kind of din is rachamim. How so? We must judge people based on their situation. If you or I need money for food, we need to work for that money. However, if someone on the street needs food, this person may be mentally ill (there's that term again), or weak, or addicted to substances, or for whatever other reason may not be able to work. It is din that we should show rachamim to such a person, and give him/her food or money, even though we would not deserve for others to give it to us. HaQadosh Barukh Hu is the ultimate Dayyan, because his din is rachamim.
(If Taylweaver finds this comment relevant (רֶלֶוַונְטִי), she may choose to define our Hebrew/Jewish terms in her "glossary". Otherwise, she may choose to delete my comment. Of course, she may choose to do neither. None of these options bothers me terribly.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Evil Deeds vs. Evil People
Date: 2005-07-18 04:57 pm (UTC)You wrote:
Deeds, on the other hand, can be viewed more objectively.
Can they, indeed? Do we really ever know all the facts of the case? If someone kills innocent children praying in a mosque, I might say that that action has been despicable and evil, whereas other people (most probably among the right-wingers, but let's not make sweeping generalizations here) might say: "How do you know that parents hadn't strapped bombs to the children?"
To perhaps throw a wrench into this discussion, upon the aforementioned topic of God's ability to judge people, I'm fond of saying that God is the ultimate subjective judge, and hence is the only truly objective judge.
Wonderfully poetic, but what does it mean? Do you feel that the only objective reality is God's subjective feeling? If so, I see that you view God very personally, almost anthropomorphically.
On this topic, I would like to relate something that NG (now a rabbi in Long Beach-- you know whom I mean) told me last summer:
NG: I have a great insight!
Me: Tell me about it.
[I think: I'm sure it's going to be something about halokho, like all of NG's other thoughts.]
NG: We're supposed to judge people justly, according to din. Yet rachamim is considered greater than din, and God is believed to be full of rachamim. [He then said something about Plato's Republic, which I don't remember.] Well, I've just figured out that din vs. rachamim is not a dichotomy. Rather, the greatest kind of din is rachamim. How so? We must judge people based on their situation. If you or I need money for food, we need to work for that money. However, if someone on the street needs food, this person may be mentally ill (there's that term again), or weak, or addicted to substances, or for whatever other reason may not be able to work. It is din that we should show rachamim to such a person, and give him/her food or money, even though we would not deserve for others to give it to us. HaQadosh Barukh Hu is the ultimate Dayyan, because his din is rachamim.
(If Taylweaver finds this comment relevant (רֶלֶוַונְטִי), she may choose to define our Hebrew/Jewish terms in her "glossary". Otherwise, she may choose to delete my comment. Of course, she may choose to do neither. None of these options bothers me terribly.)