theodicy -
The justification of God in the face of suffering in the world
The term". theodicy "was first used by Leibniz in his 1710 published book" On the theodicy - consideration of the goodness of God, human freedom and the cause of evil published. Theodicy derives from the Greek theos (God) and Dika (justice).
There is a contradiction between the omnipotence of God and his goodness.
How can God allow this?
Our life shows many disease: natural disasters, war, crime, disease. Why did God create a world in which it is suffering and pain there? If God can not create a better?
The theodicy problem is grounded in the experienced conflict between faith in God and the meaning of loss, which is connected with suffering. How can an omnipotent and benevolent God allow evil and evil in the world why we have to suffer?
The problem is not only intellectually, but directly to the person who believes in God and by a great sorrow, wrong, or is even haunted by a crime. "How can God allow this?" Is the question. God only want the good, the best? Is this the best?
But how can a good God cause so much suffering in his creation or ? Allow The immense suffering seems either to his omnipotence or his goodness to stand. This question is both understandable, given the overwhelming suffering in the world, on the other hand, it is often asked to God to put in the dock as a superficial spirituality can not really answer these questions satisfactorily.
How are held in God's justice and goodness, if God has for hundreds of millions of years of illness, deformity, cruelty, death, Artentod, and most recently used (in humans), the possibility of turning away, to bring forth the living creatures? The evil will not appear therefore as a "burglar" in an initially free sorry Creation, but from the outset as its host.
If God exists, why is this evil? But where does the good, if he does not exist. What would be consistently good?
French existentialists have concluded: "The only excuse for God (in the face of evil in the world) is that it does not exist."
The experience of the dictatorships of the 20th Century, then showed that atheistic systems that would indeed bring about a better world, are getting high in the evil. Without God seems the dignity of man is not protected.
A concise, often cited formulation of the problem is:
will either God will remove evil and can not do it:
Then God is weak. And that would mean: not God.
Or he can and it will not, then God is
spite. That would contradict His mercy and compassion.
Or he will not and can not:
He is weak and envious at the same time, not God,
Or he can and wants what is fitting only for God:
come Where, then, the bad and why he takes it not overlook it?
This argument was of the Church handed writer Lactantius (about 250 to after 317).
The problem of theodicy consists in the contradiction between two statements. On the one hand there is the statement that there is an omnipotent, all-good and omniscient God - on the other side is the finding that there is evil in the world.
tolerate the doctrine of the omnipotent, just and loving God with the experience of a world full of injustices? How can the infinite suffering in this world agree with the idea of a God of love?
attempts to explain the evil
If one hires such considerations one must always keep before the presumptuousness to really have the overall view. Kant warns against this spiritual arrogance: "We are too limited to make metaphysical speculations. Here our reason has limitations (Kant: About the failure all philosophical trials in theodicy, 1791).
These are for convictions relied on source material and developed from theological and philosophical models of thought inadequate, are not yet complete. People are simply amazed
in his incomprehensible creation, as it were divine spectators in processes.
And yet God has given us reason and will, of course, we also use them - in order to understand the revelation of Him.
In this context, to understand the following thoughts as well.
-We live in the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz)
After Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, there are an infinite number of possible Worlds. Of these, God created only one, namely the most perfect, in the evil that has the smallest room ("the best of all possible worlds"). Every form of evil is ultimately necessary and explicable.
Leibniz says that the "malum metaphysicum, metaphysical evil is, of course. The creation is necessarily imperfect, as otherwise would be identical with God.
had an all-powerful Creator can not but create a different kind of creation?
No, he created the best of all worlds-
He had constructed so that it is eternal. That would be the eternal separation from God.
-He could each each being a separate world to give. That would be infinite boredom.
- Another option would be to take the free will of mankind. But that would make it impossible for any love.
-He puts a lot of creatures in a world. That would be hell. His grace is the impermanence and inherent in each moment rather allow him to return.
-by accepting the freedom of man
Another approach to the solution of the theodicy question lies in the assumption that God let the people freedom and responsibility in his actions. Without love of freedom was not workable.
This freedom is, however, the risk of failure. But here you can continue to ask, whether this risk would not be avoided without losing the love of freedom.
Since the temporal and earthly life is a very high, but not the highest good is, it must be neither God nor sought by the people by all means. The ultimate goal or good of man is always the return, the eternal relationship with Sri Krishna of the animal, ie the maximum possible with God.
If you think that any hardship or suffering that is experienced in samsara (the cycle of births and deaths), other cause, would have as its separation from God, this is the perfect definition of maya (what is just not is).
God causes the suffering and the moral Not bad, but allows for the dignity of free will, which itself includes turning away from reality. At the same time, he makes all the arranging, added to attract the soul to eternity. He leaves the soul the possibility of choice within the limits of the law of karma, which are intended to regulate the excessive selfishness and do represent only a spare God, if you want to escape the loving exchange.
before and with God we live without God. God is not out of the world press, but very well from our view. As long as you still want to resist?
-The perspective of reincarnation
If the theodicy problem in its original Formulation can not resolve, this must not necessarily mean that God does not have the properties attributed to it. It is also possible that the assumptions are too simple: God's kindness is to give people a time frame of an infinite number of lives in which they carried the desired of them separation from the reality that they perceive as suffering corrected slow us they learn to behave in the divine sense.
can be evil, which strikes the innocent not explained by the particular that it does it great education. The question of reincarnation is clear: Is it innocent?
reincarnation expands the horizon of viewing the life history and can cause a being becomes aware in the Einmaligkeitstheorie human life simply are not apparent. At this point, it needs the extension of the perspective of reincarnation. The book is effective not understandable, if I tear out a single page of it. God's infinite goodness
is not reduced to a life of cutting perspective detected. If the divine guidance is observed over several lives, it can be seen as having a mind slowly and carefully deflected back towards eternal home, enabling her Sadhu Sanga, spiritual community. This leads to an increased intensity and longing in the heart of the soul.
-false projected Longing
The suffering was only the result of lust for life of man, from his frantic clinging to maintaining a superficial role identification as a person with specific needs. They searched for infinity ... but in the finite, and thus was called "infinite" tossed about - in samsara. But no one left to stand, it gives you early promise. You can stop only at the after one is looking - in the most intense love relationship - with Sri Krishna. Longing always flows to the infinite.
suffering is not what one has previously thought of suffering.
The suffering is not openly identify as suffering. Most people believe. Suffering means that the body or the mind is sick. If they do, then they think the suffering was supposedly over.
Then there are all sorts of techniques and distractions to hide the pain, the effort to look for medical and subtle healing, small pleasures, and something be done so that the suffering is obvious.
suffering is the relationship with the I-thought. Constantly, you are making thoughts that I begin with three letters.
These are the thoughts that we perceive no more, but which one, if they arise.
These thoughts arise feelings and sensations, and it is formed into them, from them. sada tad bhava bhavitah (Bhagavad Gita 8.6)
The truth is that the awareness of suffering has been caused accessible only when something went according to his ideas.
years it is a well. You have a wonderful partner, do you progress professionally, and his family understand each other well, they earned enough money and you find a nice apartment with no problems. There seems to be no reason to suffer.
some point, we notice a certain emptiness. Maybe you have to step up its just affirmations? But there comes a time in which one senses that something much more fundamental is wrong. But most people do not have to years, but thousands of years. Thousands of years for the simple phrase, that one suffers.
It is now but not that to suffer one of the request as a wish to show suffering. He seems to be happy as a desire - without God. But it does not recognize the panel. For example, he
can show up as the desire to emigrate, or the unfulfilled desire for a child or an alleged soul-partner. Every unfulfilled desire that is directed to the transitory, outside of the relationship with Sri Krishna, is actually the desire to suffer, is not his real wish.
hope of fulfillment in this world, and suffering are inseparable. (Bhagavad Gita 18:54 - na na socati kansati)
God's attributes are to be understood again. He is not part of the dual experience of the people
God is not good. Nor not-good. He is beyond our valuation. (Caitanya caritamrita, 3.4.176) He is in the absolute and he is not perceived by the dual terminology of the petty aspirations of man.
final thought
The suffering and the horror of the world has led many people to a disappointing-atheism.
care When natural disasters or earthquakes is injured and their families, offering advice and help - but it would need a theological work-up: Is this cruelty of nature compatible with the infinite goodness of God?
disease, calamity, tragedy will quickly interpreted as God's punishment for the misconduct of the people. It has been provoked by guilt the sky. You want to understand it and can arrange. Will the world interpreted by a moral order, it comes in front of a home. God is a father who guides his children - with praise, punishment and blame. This is a very naive and archaic image of God, of which many people of our time, free intuitive.
The theological problem it is a false understanding of nature. Nature is nature and we can draw no conclusions from it to God. Religion means to order his life from God. The love you do not learn in nature.
cause in nature, the vicissitudes Exclusion from their own group. An oil-gull is chopped by the swarm, because she looks different. The weak and sick in nature will not reproduce, they are not authorized to generation. Darwinists legitimize cruelty of this nature is a ruthless world where only the fittest survive easily (survival of the fittest). The Russian anarchist Kropotkin
writes that compassion, mercy and reset their own interests in favor of the other are part of nature. But the absolute goodness can not be derived from nature, as the ambivalence of ruthlessness and compassion inherent in it exists.
This world is a Testimony of God, revealed to her his mercy, power, wisdom and beauty. This is fundamentally wrong. In the Gita Krishna says: ". This world is my separated Energy abhinna prakritir astadha And this can never be equated with him. God envisions a world, not suffering in the people. Therefore, we can reduce the grace of God, never on the physical and subtle level. Krishna wants us to not create the dream idyll.
God is more than its dual creation of the material world of nature.
Evil is by fallen angels, Satan, Demiurge or world competing principles to explain. One example is the ancient Persian religion of Zoroaster, serve, was understood that two equally powerful primordial principles rule the world: on the one hand, the good, giving, divine Principle, on the other hand, the bad, accepting, ungodly. In this way the representation is put into perspective the omnipotence of God, for the two indivisible principles result in a dualistic, good and evil, containing God's idea. Other
also dualistic conceptions of God are found in Gnosticism and Manichaeism. An example would be the atheist Ying-Yang of Chinese philosophy, which explains the events in the world through dualistic original principles.
It is not possible to think of the world to her God. Theology can not answer causal questions ("why did it happen?"), But the wherefore. It's about the teleological question, the question of what God intends us to me.
Nature takes no account of its creatures. Religion therefore can not find their basis in nature. Pantheism is superficial enthusiasm, for there is in this nature and the viciousness and ruthlessness. If God is on nature, his creation, reduced, then this ambiguity would be the obligatory template for our own actions. Then I had to so as to deal, as does the nature (many meat eaters defend their murder on the grounds that animals eat meat, too) - But that I must not. Man is the only creature to another mission: to live not according to the law of God ("natural"), but by the will of God. Dharma is not ethics, but by God, a defined practice. Prema.
Sri Krishna is the background beyond the phenomenal this world.
Augustine writes in "Confessions," as he goes in search of God and asked the sun, the moon, the stars, the desert, the sea, the wonderfulness of nature, and they all tell him: "I am the God you are looking for. "
Krishna lives in the longing for a love that are not found in nature is. Nature is never the resting place of the soul - it can only rest at infinity, only with God.
The man has something that does not exist in nature - religion, the design of a supernatural love that is directed to God and because of her act within this world.
It's not about love everything in this world and it is equated with God to do, but be incorporated single to God's love again in the world can be.
The love of God can never fathom in nature, but in spite of nature. If you reduce God only to his creation, the king therefore regarded only as the prison guards are the Enttäuschungsatheismus and the problem of theodicy are the natural consequences.
suffering is to point out to be not yet arrived. Not his real determination to live and still in the Provisional reside just outside his Nitya-sambandha (his eternal relationship with Radha Krishna).
It's about unconditional and free radical trust in God, despite the inability of the mystery of suffering and evil can unravel. You can use the exact cause of suffering is not always "explain", but there.
After Job has gone through the pain, he says at the end of the book of Job 42.5: "I had heard from you only by hearsay, but now mine eye seeth thee."
Unfortunately, God is convincing? Job puts his finger to his mouth in amazement and silence in recognition of the vast extent of his ignorance. He loses the foundation to complain.
