a fascinating article on the subject of forgiveness, and how the
theology of christians and jews is so different on this essential
topic.

<http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0302/articles/soloveichik.html>

an excerpt:

During my regular weekly coffees with my friend Fr. Jim White, an
Episcopal priest, there was one issue to which our conversation would
incessantly turn, and one on which we could never agree: Is an
utterly evil man — Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden — deserving of a
theist's love? I could never stomach such a notion, while Fr. Jim
would argue passionately in favor of the proposition. Judaism, I
would argue, does demand love for our fellow human beings, but only
to an extent. "Hate" is not always synonymous with the terribly
sinful. While Moses commanded us "not to hate our brother in our
hearts," a man's immoral actions can serve to sever the bonds of
brotherhood between himself and humanity. Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew
term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah
lisnoso — one is obligated to hate him.


he goes on to picture this as a schismatic difference: christianity
is all about being utterly sinful and utterly forgiven, something
that seems sloppy to judaism, which is all about striving to be
righteous and rational.

i tend to agree with his assessment: the issue of forgiveness is one
of the central differences between practicing jews and practicing
christians.

i guess my only question is, where would such a 'rational' person,
striving for human righteousness (or, in secular terms, common
decency), draw the line? in christianity, the line is drawn far above
even the best of us: billy graham and mother teresa are morally
equivalent to hitler and pol pot as they stand before a perfect and
unblemished almighty. but obviously, both judaism and secularism draw
the line much lower. where? not merely with murder, surely?
interesting question.