January 7, 2005
Categories of Injustice
As I see it, there are two categories of injustice. The first type is injustice visited upon man by his fellow man; this would include murder, theft and the like. The second type of injustice is that which is commonly referred to as an "Act of God," that is some sort of natural disaster or circumstantial happenstance that causes injustice, often indiscriminately. The recent tsunami and earthquake would be examples.
The goal, or intention, as portrayed in the Torah, was for Man to be free from suffering both these types of injustice. The initial commandment to man, "to be fruitful and multiply, to conquer..." holds within it the mandate to apply Man's rational capabilities in subjugating Nature, allowing Man to live with honor and dignity. Indeed, life in Eden before the chet was free of injustice of the second kind; only after the expulsion from the Garden was the Earth cursed, pitting Man against Nature in a battle for survival.
The ten generations between Adam and Noach were successful in subjugating Nature through technological means. The Torah recounts the innovation from generation to generation, culminating in Noach himself, the Ish HaAdamah. The injustice of Nature had been conquered. The injustice of the first kind, however, that perpetrated by Man on Man, remained prevalent, to the point that God (ironically) unleashed the wrath of Nature upon Man, all but obliterating him from the face of the Earth. Noach, the Ish HaAdamah, but also the Tzadik, was spared, and chosen to rebuild Mankind.
The subsequent generation showed a marked improvement; they all but eliminated the injustice of the first kind, banding together to build a technological wonder, a Tower to the heavens. But their technology became their focus, a goal rather than a means, and they too were punished, ironically, with dispersion and confusion, seperateing Mankind into nations that would forever visit injustice upon each other.
Finally, we arrive at Avraham. In him was the potential for a leader to create a nation that would finally eliminate both types of injustice from society. A nation that would strive to dignify Mankind's existence through technological innovation, while at the same time advancing Mankind morally to all but eliminate injustice. In short, Avraham would build a nation where each and every person wakes up in the morning feeling safe, secure and content, readily experiencing the presence of kindness, justice and truth of the created world he lives in, of the Presence of God.
Perhaps this is a nuanced difference of opinion here or perhaps it’s a fundamental difference, I'm not quite sure. As a Christian, I have never heard nor read anything that would lead me to believe that God could be unjust in anyway. This seems to be the implication of the second type of injustice you are referring to here, as “’Act of God’…that causes injustice.”
It is my understanding that God by his very nature is good, holy, just, righteous and merciful. Therefore, it is impossible for him to be contrary to any of those characteristics. Even calling on his people “to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with [their] God” (Micah 6:8). Why then would any of His actions be considered unjust as He uses all things to fulfill His purposes? Just trying to understand your point of view here.
Posted by: Jeff Price at January 7, 2005 3:59 PMGreg, beautiful once again. A few questions:
1) Where do you see Abraham resolving the first "injustice"? (Put in quotes to alleviate Jeff's difficulty, which I understand.)
2) I see the dispersal as creating a barrier against injustice #1. i.e. It prevents man from establishing a political reality where injustice is universally applied. This link http://yehupitz.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_yehupitz_archive.html#107059753131992541 explains what I mean in political language.
Yehupitz:
I should comment that this was sort of off the cuff; it is not well thought out, more of a stream of consciousness informed by the text and various Midrashim.
So for Avraham, I'm not sure he actually brought about the solution to these problems; rather, as an Av, he laid the foundation for creating a nation that would have the potentional to realize a political reality that would ameliorate injustice.
Good point about dispersal; I will have to think about it. I will admit, I had no intention of including that generation in my exposition when I began writing it; it just sort of flowed from the initial thoughts. It would be worth considering further how this generation fits into the puzzle; I certainly see a bit of framework to your idea.
Posted by: Greg at January 10, 2005 10:07 AMJeff,
What you're expressing, and I'm sure you are aware of this, called "The Problem of Evil." Your tradition, based either on religious texts or Aristotilean philosophy, attributes specific characteristics to God. Then, when an existential situtation (for example, a tsunami) conflicts with the logical conclusion, you must make a choice: does the experience override the a priori logical conclusion, or perhaps does logic not hold sway in this situation.
Your tradition tells you that nothing overrides the logical position, arrived at independent of experience, that God is good and just.
I am not working from within any preconceived ontology of what God is. I'm not going to say that Judaism has not, at times, ascribed specific attributes to God, only that I have found it impossible and perhaps irresponsible to operate within such a context. I would not take my thoughts as authoritative statements of traditional Judaism (although they might be). I would like to think I'm doing something new, approaching the Divine encounter as an experiential, existential reality, not an ontological defintion. As such, the only definitions one can assert are of Divine experience, to whit, what does it mean to be in God's Presence. It is my belief that Judaism is (or should be) more focused on this approach.
Posted by: Greg at January 10, 2005 10:24 AMThanks for taking the time to respond to me and explain your perspective. From my perspective, there is no conflict in logic between the character of God and existential situation. Both are steadfast and neither needs to change to conform to the other. Furthermore, the character of God being good and just is directly dependant upon the experience of being in God’s presence or the experience of being in relationship with God.
Even in a relationship and experiential realities, we come to trust in certain constants; God’s word being a constant that has stood up providing us a history, a law and a future. Being Christian and obviously having a focus on grace, I would agree that Judaism should be more focused on their relationship to the Divine rather than the law. But should that relationship be based on an idea that I only know about God through whatever is occurring in my relationship with him riiiiiiiiigggghtt now!?
Posted by: Jeff Price at January 10, 2005 5:03 PM
