Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
With your question, you have addressed one of the most difficult and interesting problems of Christian apologetics.
I would divide the answer into two parts. The first one is very simple. If there is no God, then there is no universal justice. The world is cruel, sometimes something good happens in it, sometimes something bad, and in fact there is no logic or meaning in all this.
The second part is more complicated. Let's say there is a God. Why, then, does He allow the innocent to suffer? The most popular line of reasoning of apologists is based on the postulate of the unconditional value of human freedom. If we expect God to prevent all the evil actions of evil people, to what extent are we willing to sacrifice our own freedom? Are we prepared for the fact that one day these “evil people” will turn out to be ourselves and will not be able to perform some action or even be physically destroyed for trying to commit a bad act? Probably not. In other words, if we expect God to remove all evil from our planet, are we prepared for Him to remove it with us? Or do we treat evil selectively – if I do evil, then it's okay, and if someone else does it, then something must be done about it? It turns out that God values our free will even more than we do ourselves.
As you can see, even if you look from our human point of view, this question is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. It is aimed at criticizing theism, but it shoots a little off the mark. And, of course, if we talk about Christianity, it not only philosophically postulates this problem, but also offers ways to solve it. Which ones? – we can talk about this separately.
From the point of view of Christianity and similar religions, the human soul will live forever. And it is this eternal life that is the goal for which all actions are performed. A person is given the right to choose, thanks to which he earns a certain afterlife. Justice, from the point of view of such religions, consists in the fact that in the next life the soul will receive what it earned in this world. The murderer will be punished, the martyr will receive a reward in the form of bliss. A child killed in infancy, it turns out, will just immediately go to heaven, instead of wandering around the world for another seventy years. And if a person suffers, but does not die, then the gods test him, checking whether he is worthy of a posthumous reward. In short, the question in any theology is long settled and God is always right. The main thing is to understand that from the point of view of religion, God does not have to be either logical or fair in our understanding. By definition, we don't know his goals, thoughts, or priorities, so we should just follow the teachings. If it suits you, believe in the gods. If not, be an atheist like me.
But God doesn't promise anyone prosperity and justice in this particular life, does he? Everything has to happen later, on Judgment Day, or something like that. And I don't think there were any such explicit stories in the Bible where God or Jesus turns someone's life into a fairy tale.
God doesn't kill anyone. Death is the work of the devil. And murderers are very useful and close to the devil. But after death, they will answer to God for all their sins.
Why do you think that taking a life is justice? Earthly life is not an absolute good, but its termination is an absolute evil. If you are talking about God, then you must accept that existence does not end with death here. And much more important is the eternal, posthumous state. Both for the injured innocents and for the murderer. He who accepts darkness in his heart is already punished by what is in his heart. Whether he is alive or dead, his soul is in darkness. The life of such a person can last that would not deprive him of the slightest chance to escape from the darkness that he chose.
In my opinion, there is no justice on earth (in our world). The idea of justice is a myth. I do not deny the existence of God. But even if he is, it is not a fact that he is the ultimate bulwark of justice.
Our life is probably a game. Like a computer game. And the suffering in this life, perhaps it is payback for the deeds in the past. …
Probably because he's not like us. And Its interference in our lives is tantamount to people trying to stop wars between ant colonies. But even this analogy is not comparable to the gap between God and us, why God does not bother to reach us. But still, we are like God in that we also care about how the World works, the desire for knowledge. This is the only part of God in us. It is with this part that we must arrange our own happiness.
It seems to me that when we realize that God's attitude toward us boils down to:
“The world is cruel, sometimes something good happens in it, sometimes something bad, and in fact there is no logic or meaning in all this”
We'll get better.
To begin with, it is necessary to understand that justice is different, he may live to die, but his daughter will die, for example, and this is still torment.�
Again, as rightly noted in the first answer to this question, there are two situations: there is a God and there is no God.�
I agree with the interpretation of the problem if there is a God, but if there is no God, then it's not just that:
Just logic is there, in this case it is worth turning to philosophy and the original concepts of Good and Evil. After all, everything has an opposite, and this is quite well combined with classical physics)). Together, these two parts form a balance, or rather a precarious balance. Yes, sometimes there is more evil in the world, but it is compensated by good, in one form or another, either it is the flourishing of art, or it is the creation of technology or medicine that will help many people.�
So in this world, everything is relative.
Why shouldn't it be?Where did you get the idea that if you killed an unprotected person, he should be struck by lightning or the plague?All the concepts about this come from the church, if you are hit on the cheek, substitute the other, do not resist evil .But in real life ,all this only leads to more evil, and such fools quickly die out.Messed up people's heads.Murderers live to an old age, probably just their health is worse?)
And how many people understand what justice is?
They talk, but do they understand?
Where is the clear line of justice?
I understand that the law of justice is ” a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye…”, and so on.
Can you imagine a situation when you hit a person unfairly in a certain fever?
Then God should give you a slap in the face in order to observe justice. And so for each item: stole the watch, and God took them out of your pocket and returned to the owner; pushed the man himself fell; the man spat in the face, and came back; he dropped the brick colleague on the foot, and brick have arrived on your family, rescued a girl from an opponent, and she walked away in the end back to him; accidentally shot down a child, and it was yours, etc.
Blamed God for something that wasn't His fault and got blamed by his best friend for something that wasn't His fault.
Would you call such a life fair?
Also unlikely.
Conclusion: even if you consider that justice prevails, people will still call it an injustice.
For example, the killer did not live quietly to old age, but he left a loving family who did not know, or did not want to know or think about this side of his life. The children and the wife grieve and ask God why He took their father and husband away so early.
Therefore, there is a wise saying : “do not swear”.
I confirm from my own experience that when I swore, I did the same thing after a while.
Therefore, I do not advise anyone to proudly swear that “I would never …”
Everyone should have a chance to correct their mistakes – that would be fair, I think.
In our narrow-mindedness, of course, we can say that you can not leave a person unpunished. And suddenly”one!” “here we are at fault.
Now put a comma for everyone in fairness: “You can't punish them by giving them a chance to fix them.”
Well, it allows you to ask stupid questions without killing stupid ones on the spot.Really – where is justice?!A fool does not understand that he is a fool, only relatives and friends suffer.How to zHyt?!