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.
Chastisement or punishment can be performed in various forms that can produce in a variety of consequences. In J.B., the sudden punishment of God on J.B has caused a commotion in his family physically and mentally. Nevertheless, J.B’s faith does not die and he also continues to fulfill his responsibility as a “puppet” in a play created by God. After the death of his five children, J.B is placid and not abhorring God for his punishment. “God will not punish without cause, God is just.”, said J.B (109). J.B knows that there must be a reason for God to punish him, because God always acts impartially. Ev...
And indeed, suffering, lack of safety, is unavoidable, and also necessary for some things. "When I was downstairs before, on my way here, listening to that woman sing, it struck me all of a sudden how much suffering she must have had to go through. It's repulsive to think you have to suffer that much" (65). But we do. Everyone does. In fact, "There's no way not to suffer" (65). We are never safe from it.
The question of why bad things happen to good people has perplexed and angered humans throughout history. The most common remedy to ease the confusion is to discover the inflicter of the undeserved suffering and direct the anger at them: the horror felt about the Holocaust can be re-directed in the short term by transforming Adolf Hitler into Lucifer and vilifying him, and, in the long term, can be used as a healing device when it is turned into education to assure that such an atrocity is never repeated. What, however, can be done with the distasteful emotions felt about the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Surely the citizens of those two cities did not themselves directly provoke the government of the United States to deserve the horror of a nuclear attack. Can it be doubted that their sufferings were undeserved and should cause deep sorrow, regret, and anger? Yet for the citizens of the United States to confront these emotions they must also confront the failings of their own government. A similar problem is found in two works of literature, Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound and the book of Job found in the Tanakh. In each of these works a good man is seen to be suffering at the hand of his god; Prometheus is chained to a rock by Zeus who then sends an eagle to daily eat Prometheus' liver while Job is made destitute and brought to endure physical pain through an agreement between God~ and Satan. To examine the travails of these two men is to discover two vastly different concepts of the relationship between god and man.
After reviewing the work of David Hume, the idea of a God existing in a world filled with so much pain and suffering is not so hard to understand. Humes’ work highlights some interesting points which allowed me to reach the conclusion that suffering is perhaps a part of God’s divine plan for humans. Our morals and values allow us to operate and live our daily lives in conjunction with a set of standards that help us to better understand our world around us and essentially allows us to better prepare for the potential life after life. For each and every day we get closer to our impending deaths and possibly closer to meeting the grand orchestrator of our universe.
The question of suffering comes up much when talking about, or practicing any religion. Many ask why people suffer, and what causes suffering? The various religions try to answer these questions in their own way. Pico Iyer’s editorial, “The Value of Suffering” addresses the questions of suffering and how it is handled. This article could be compared to the Bhagavad-Gita which also addresses and explains suffering through different stories of the interactions of humans and different Gods. One can specifically look at “The Second Teaching” in the Bhagavad-Gita, which explains the interaction between a man named Arjuna and the god Krishna. In it Arjuna is suffering because he does not want to fight in a war and with people whom he should be worshiping. Krishna says to fight because the souls of the people will forever live on, and because he needs to fulfill his Dharma. With what is known about the Bhagavad-Gita and how Iyer thinks about the subject, Iyer would agree with how the Bhagavad-Gita address suffering.
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...
to state suffering as the entirety of the first noble truth, is not enough because the expression of
The novel revolves around the three Karamazov brothers – Dimitri, Ivan and Alyosha – ‘s emotionally spiritual conflict between reason and faith. Dostoevsky portrayed this best through Book V, chapter 3 to 5 – in which an intellectual conversation between Ivan and Alyosha takes place. Their dinner conversation opens up a whole new paradigm of spirituality. Ivan, in order to explain his point of view on the matter, brings up the suffering of innocent children in particular and the human race in general. It is beyond his grasp how a living God could let mankind suffer for no particular reason. Furthermore, Ivan cannot seem to comprehend why the innocent and harmless children have to live their lives in suffering. He says in Book V chapter 4 – Rebellion: “Listen: if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It’s quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering. “ His poignant speech is so eloquently articulated that it makes us question whether this is actua...
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.
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.
It is easy to place the blame on fate or God when one is encumbered by suffering. It is much harder to find meaning in that pain, and harvest it into motivation to move forward and grow from the grief. It is imperative for one to understand one’s suffering as a gateway to new wisdom and development; for without suffering, people cannot find true value in happiness nor can they find actual meaning to their lives. In both Antigone and The Holy Bible there are a plethora of instances that give light to the quintessential role suffering plays in defining life across cultures. The Holy Bible and Sophocles’ Antigone both mirror the dichotomous reality in which society is situated, underlining the necessity of both joy and suffering in the world.
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.
Leo Tolstoy, author of The Death of Ivan Ilyich, suffered numerous tragic losses such as his parents and his aunt, Tatyana Ergolsky who created a tremendous impact during Tolstoy’s childhood. Overtime, Tolstoy was cultured and for Tolstoy it was common within his community. During the 1840, Tolstoy developed a strong, eager interest for the studies of moral philosophy. In The Death of Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy suggests that although people can find happiness in materialism, they need spirituality during a crisis.
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,
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.