Ivan Karamazov rejected God by rejecting the world, which is corrupted by suffering and cruelty. In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s book-chapter “Rebellion,” Karamazov showed complexity and depth in their understanding and analyzing of human suffering. The question that led him to reject God focused on God allowing suffering to exist in the world, especially that of children who have not sinned. Karamazov rejected a world founded by suffering and cruelty, therefore rejecting God in light of catastrophic suffering, especially concerning innocent children. Karamazov is deeply troubled by the injustice displayed alongside the existence of a benevolent God, and questions how a Just God can permit such tragic cruelties. Even when he tried to reason that God sacrificed our world for an unconceivable harmonious place, to him there is nothing divine about God’s sacrifice. He does not see the purpose in a child’s suffering so that all of humanity can enter the kingdom of heaven after death. This argument led to him asking his brother Alyosha if he would consent to the suffering of just one child in order to bring universal peace, but Alyosha denied. Karamazov would not consent either, and he stated that he would gladly return his ticket to the entrance of heaven because he cannot understand the existence of God as a perfect being if He allows for children to suffer. Karamazov renounces harmony at the cost of all the suffering that takes place in the world because he sees “Chris-like love for people as a miracle impossible on earth” (1). He claims that harmony comes at a high price and demands justness here on earth, not in the after life. Therefore, his rejection of God is the rejection of a place where oppressors and victims live in “harmony” among ...
... middle of paper ...
...sensible validation in catastrophic suffering, and we must not justify it as part of some divine purpose or for the greater good of humanity in the afterlife; humanity needs justice on earth. Such need to justify cruelty and agony eliminates the incentive for victims and their families to overcome sorrow, grief, and misery, especially if the explanation lies in the after-life. An appropriate response must present solutions to prevent suffering, and an initiative to spread human compassion, thereby overcome suffering. One response is to keep protesting against injustices on human beings, by alleviating poverty, violence, torture, child abuse, and any other sort of injustice. If we are to hold the argument that God suffers with those who suffer, it would be much more justifying to end the suffering rather than to vindicate it, and accept that suffering is God’s will.
paper. It will be argued that the extent to which those are suffering does, in fact, vary, and that others have continued on with their lives with little to no effect at all.
Furthermore, Dostoevsky makes a distinction between the suffering of adults, who are knowledgeable and understand the nature of the world, to the suffering of children, who have not yet learned the nature of the world and suffering. Dostoevsky is fundamentally asking, What incentive does an all-powerful
Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich is a reminder that books can provide answers to questions we never asked, but yearned to know. For that reason alone, The Death of Ivan Ilyich should be considered a work of art. However, due to the many subtle hints and clues pointing at the underlying Christian nature of the book, it deserves to be added to the list of great modern Christian literature. Works Cited Tolstoy, Leo. A.
These arguments made by Berish and Job boil down to the question the theodicy, “why do good people suffer? Where is God in all this? Where is justice” (Fox 173). Elie Wiesel provides an answer that parallels once again with the book of Job. Embodied in the character of Sam, who claims that suffering is, “all because of our sins” (Wiesel 134). Similarly Jobs friends give a similar answer to the theodicy question by saying, “Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same” (Job 4:7). The answer to the theodicy question in t The Trial of God is that suffering occurs because of the sins committed by individuals.
The holes and accidents of living, the unpredictable emotional inconsistency of living isn't explained simply through power and best interest alone, instead let us take accidents and mistakes as the foundation of living. Not all things follow power, nor does power the end needs of human ambition obtain complete happiness, but rather promotes the impossible. Something must be said for pity, for the sight of someone in pain that condemns both concepts. Neither weakness nor passivity, nor the understanding of nature would do in describing our actions when faced with starvation, the holocaust, or dying.
is part of the human suffering due to his cherished relational nature with humans. However,
Suffering plays a key role in many religions, but it is especially prevalent in Christianity. Modern-day critics of Christianity are fond of asking something along the lines of “If there is a god, why does he not end suffering?” And they are perfectly justified in asking. It is a large question–absolutely appropriate for a grand level of consideration. Timothy Keller uses three main points in The Reason for God to show how he sees the issue. These three points can be summarized in three simple phrases: justice and injustice, godly suffering, and cleansing fire.
The concept of suffering plays an important role in Christianity, regarding such matters as moral conduct, spiritual advancement and ultimate destiny. Indeed an emphasis on suffering pervades the Gospel of Mark where, it can be argued, we are shown how to "journey through suffering" (Ditzel 2001) in the image of the "Suffering Son of Man" (Mark 8:32), Jesus Christ. Although theologians have suggested that Mark was written to strengthen the resolve of the early Christian community (Halpern 2002, Mayerfeld 2005), the underlying moral is not lost on a modern reader grappling with multifarious challenges regarding faith in the face of suffering. In his article "A Christian Response to Suffering", William Marravee (1987) describes suffering as an "experience over which we men and women continue to stumble and fall". The way we view God is crucial to the way we view suffering according to Marravee, who delineates the disparity between a view of God as an ‘outsider’ and the biblical image of God – where God is an ‘insider’ who suffers with us in our struggle. This essay seeks to explain the Christian view of suffering and the purpose suffering can have in our lives.
The spiritual suffering means people lose their faith under such situations. Faith is the most fundamental element of a person which can’t be lost easily. When they lose their faith, it also shows they confront a huge suffering. “The question had never entered my head, I wept because---because of something inside me that left the need for tears. That was all I knew”(2). He used to be an enthusiast of the study of God, and even volunteer to learn the theology. But when he was in the camp, he doesn’t believe in God now because he doesn’t understand why God let Jews suffer, and why the God doesn’t give them salvation when they face death and loss of dignity. His change can be found on page 64. “Why, but why should I bless him? I every fiber I rebelled.”(64) The quotation means he has lost his faith after his experience in the camp. He wonders why God doesn’t save those young child who were killed and thrown to the owen in the camp; He also wonders why they are here instead of enjoy their original fabulous life. He doesn’t trust God now because he thinks God doesn’t save them when they suffer, and God doesn’t give equal treatment to Jews. The spiritual suffering also afflicts him when he stay in concentration camp.
representation of these cruelties." So in that case, suffering is being acknowledged, but only to see if you can bare to look at it.
Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky was among those philosophical thinkers who grappled with the task of explaining why evil exists in a world created by a perfect god. Despite the powerful influence of Christianity in his early childhood and throughout his life, Dostoevsky encountered difficulties in answering this question, which he described, “Nature, the soul, God, love – all this is understood by the heart, not by the mind” (Gibson 1973, 9). Nevertheless, Dostoevsky not only felt obligated to discover a solution to the problem, but also “responsible to his fellow believers for its success or failure” (Gibson 1973, 169). This quest for a solution to the problem of theodicy ultimately led Dostoevsky to write The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that attempts to explain the need for evil in the world. In posing his solution to this problem, Dostoevsky explains the necessity of suffering for the realization of human redemption, as well as the role of Christ’s atoneme...
As previously, stated God uses difficult situations as a way to improve the relationship we have with Him. Why suffering though? Frederick Sontag wrote in his book that evil or suffering are the best circumstances in which to find a God, unlike times where everything goes well
Although Christ promises persecution for his followers, God never intended for suffering to enter the world. Suffering is a consequence of death, which was brought into the world by Adam and Eve. It is our continual choice to sin that keeps suffering in our world and the only ways we could eliminate it is by matching our will to God’s or by God taking away our free will. Since the latter option will never happen, our continual suffering is brought on by ourselves and our resistance to align our wills with God’s.
Since the commencement of time, people have been questioning and debating the problem of evil and why God allows for evil to exist. If evil is the spiritual balance of good, then without the existence of evil, good would not be able exist. This belief may be explained by the contrast theodicy that God may have reasons for evil to exist in society. An example of a contrast theodicy would be that bad things happen to good people and is the basis of the relationship of evil to God’s intent for the good of mankind. People also question why God does not eliminate the suffering of mankind from the world. Again, we can turn to a theodicy to provide an explanation to this question. The answer may found in the big-plan theodicy, which explains that suffering may be part of God’s big plan and needs to happen for good of mankind.
Christian worldview’s response to the problem of evil and suffering is a reality because they are born into a broken world in the result of the fall (Hiles & Smith, 2014). Christians understand that “suffering increases our compassion and equips us to comfort others who suffer” (2 Corinthians 1:3-4). Also, Christians understand that Jesus died for humanity to gain eternal life. If people reject the purifying death of Jesus, then they will suffer the consequences of God’ rebellion (Gockel, 2009). This means that God will not save them, nor force them to believe in Him; in which they will be condemning themselves to suffer. Suffering allows people to prove their character to others. Christians understand God is entitled to do what He plays because “for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). People are sinners by nature, but it teaches them to become an obedience of God’s ways. Christians understand that suffering is used as a tool for God’s punishments. Also, Christians comprehend evil as wicked, hurtful, painful, and deathful; the opposite of God’s will allowing them to seek forgiveness (Rubin & Yasien-Esmael, 2004). Christians lived humbly because they depend on God by living life by the righteousness of his faith (Habakkuk 2:4). In addition,