Summaries in English and Afrikaans / Text in Afrikaans / Die boek Job verwerp vergelding as enigste verklaringsbeginsel van goed en kwaad, maar sluit vergelding en beloning nie heeltemal uit nie: Onmiddellike straf op sonde is onversoenbaar met God se genade, maar indien daar volhard word in kwaad, sal God dit uiteindelik straf net soos Hy uiteindelik die goeie beloon. Die klem op 'n histories-kritiese uitleg van die boek Job, het in die verlede daartoe gelei dat die moontlike literere eenheid van die boek dikwels uit die oog verloor is. Hoewel die boek sander enige twyfel saamgestel is uit verskillende bronne, impliseer dit nie noodwendig dat die auteur nie sy bronne tot 'n sinvolle geheel gei'ntegreer het nie. Die boek Job toon tekens dat dit hoofsaaklik die werk van een auteur was wat sy. bron(ne) net as 'n vertrekpunt gebruik het, maar nogtans 'n heeltemal nuwe werk gekomponeer het met 'n basiese eenheid in struktuur en inhoud. Histories-kritiese eksegete beskou gewoonlik die redevoerings met die drie vriende en die Godsrede as 'n eenheid, maar beskou die raamvertelling en die Elihu-rede as afsonderlike bronne met 'n eie siening van die teodisee-probleem. Die boek Job moet egter as 'n literere-eenheid verstaan word, met 'n enkele geintegreerde standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. Die raamvertelling kan in sy huidige vorm slegs in samehang met die poetiese deel verstaan word en hied nie 'n afsonderlike siening oor die teodisee-probleem nie. Die Elihu-karakter vervul 'n antler funksie in die boek as Job se drie vriende. Die Elihu-rede vorm 'n hegte eenheid met die res van die boek en hied 'n inleiding tot die Godsrede. Die Godsrede kan gebruik word as 'n samevatting van die Job-auteur se standpunt oor die teodisee-probleem. / The book Job rejects retribution and reward as the only principle for explaining good and evil, but acknowledges it's existence: Immediate punishment for sinning can not be reconciled with the love of God, but repeated wrongdoing will ultimately be punished by God, just as the good will be rewarded. In the past the emphasis on a historical critical explanation of the book Job, possibly caused that the literary entity of the book was overlooked. Even though the book is definitely compounded from different sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that the author did not integrate these sources to a meaningful entity. There are certain aspects in the book that indicate that the book was written by one author who used his source(s) as a basis, from which he created a new narrative. In this new creation, the contents and structure of all parts form a basic entity. Historical critical exegetes usually see the speeches of Job's three friends and the Lords' Speeches as an entity. The framework and the Elihu speeches though, are seen as coming from different sources with it's own view on the problem of theodicy. The book Job must, however, be seen as a litermy entity with one integral viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. Although Elihu plays a different role from that of the three friends of Job, his speeches are tightly interwoven with the rest of this book and he can be seen as the forerunner of the Speeches of the Lord. The Speeches of the Lord can be used as a summary of the author's viewpoint on the problem of theodicy. / Th.D.(Old Testament)

This thesis examines the propriety of suffering as a category in political thought. This complex subject matter is approached by examining two responses, and the disagreement arising between these responses, to the perceived failure of politics, modernity and religion in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. The first response to these failures considered is a theological response, representing a politics based on belief, in which we turn to the writings of J.B. Metz as a representative of this position. The second response considered is the philosophical civic humanism of Hannah Arendt as a seminal representative of what we term a politics based on unbelief. Our question regarding suffering as a category in political thought brings our two representative thinkers into disagreement. Metz presents a vision of political life in which belief – and specifically Christian belief – must liberate itself from privatising forces which confine belief and a response to suffering to the private sphere as a matter of individual concern and inward piety. For Metz the issue of suffering is not merely a matter of individual private concern but of political action. Central to his argument are his understanding of theodicy that forms part of his critique of modernity, the central place he gives Christ’s cry of dereliction in theology and his concept of Leiden an Gott. Arendt, representative of politics strictly separated from religion on Modernity’s grounds, robustly argues that concerns which are matters of the private sphere, that is the household, have invaded the public realm and in doing so have destroyed politics. Suffering is such a concern and it introduces to politics the ‘problem of necessity’ and impinges upon her concept of human freedom. She therefore represents the antithesis of Metz’s position. In order to answer our question regarding suffering our argument focuses by engaging with the issues of freedom and forgiveness. This move is important in establishing the basis on which suffering can appear in the political realm. This thesis argues for and concludes that theology provides the means for a reconciliation of the antinomies between the private and public spheres, between suffering and political thought. We therefore conclude that suffering is an appropriate concern of political life and compassion in the form of Christian charity can take an appropriate form in the political sphere.

In 1999, aged eighteen, I read 'The Brothers Karamazov' by Dostoevsky. I read this novel in Burundi, where I witnessed the suffering of others. The country's basic problem was civil war, which is best described in this terse note: "Rwanda, the sequel. Same story, different location. Nobody cares." The well-publicised problems in Rwanda in 1994 didn't end, they went next-door. The only thing separating the problems of those two countries was the most heavily landmined stretch of road on the planet. It was on this road, which was littered with the remains of vehicles and people, that I experienced the immediacy of 'the problem of evil'.I had hoped that the book I held in my hands on those lifetime-long hours on the road would resonate with my experience. Ivan Karamazov's accusation of the God who creates a world of atrocities seemed fuelled by an unflinching look at senseless, disteleological suffering. I had hoped that Ivan, with his face turned against God, could countenance the horror I saw. Karamazov's stance has been seen as the antithesis of theodicy, which is the attempt to reconcile faith in God with the existence of evil. This antithesis seems to overcome the distance between the experience of real suffering and the account of that suffering given by academic theodicy. Ultimately, however, that distance remains. Dostoevsky's protagonist in his railing against God connects no more with the victims in this world than a writer of theodicy does with her defence of God.

Så säger en av romangestalterna i Sven Delblancs Samuelsvit ochger därmed uttryck – ett av många – åt något som skulle kunna benämnas ’vanmaktens makt’. Vanmaktens makt har också blivit titeln på denna undersökning av sekulariseringstematiken i Delblancs Samuelsvit och Änkan. – Hur framställs och bearbetas sekulariseringen i dessa texter? – Vilka bilder ger de av sekulariseringsprocessen och dess följder,av ett sekulariserat samhälle och en sekulariserad människa? Dessa frågor, bland andra, diskuterar Helene Blomqvist i denna studie.Delblancs fem romaner bearbetar två livsfrågor som tycks bli på ett särskilt sätt aktualiserade genom sekulariseringen: frågan omontologin och frågan om etiken. Det handlar å ena sidan om ett teoretiskt spörsmål – om hur man kan uppfatta tillvarons grundläggande beskaffenhet – och å andra sidan om ett praktiskt – hurman bäst skall leva sitt liv i denna värld. Såväl Samuelsviten som Änkan gör upp räkningen med en gammal monistisk allsmäktig-Gud-ontologi. Teodicéproblemet visar sig vara trons stötesten: föreställningenom en allsmäktig och allgod gud kan inte fås att rimma med allt det destruktiva i tillvaron, ondskans framfart,eget och andras lidande. Romanerna gestaltar alla ett sökande efter en mer hållbar ontologisk och etisk grund. Hur skulle ett sådant alternativ kunna se ut? Detta är frågor som är helt centrala för Delblancs romaner och således också för denna undersökning. / <p>Distrubution: Genom författaren</p>

The publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 raised a host of theological issues. Chief amongst them is the question of how a good, loving, and powerful God could create through an evolutionary process that involved so much suffering, pain, and violence. The traditional Christian answers for suffering in the natural world are not plausible in an evolutionary world. We cannot blame natural evil on human sin, since earth history shows that non-human suffering long preceded humans. Nor can we say that God allows suffering because it allows opportunity for moral choice, spiritual closeness with God, and the development of virtue, as none of these apply to the non-human realm. A new approach is needed to address the question of suffering and violence amongst non-human animals. In this dissertation, I address the question of evolutionary suffering with a multi-disciplinary approach of biblical studies, philosophical theology, and systematic theology to build a compound theodicy. After a survey of the various scholarly contributions in this area, I begin with biblical considerations of the God-world relationship. I set aside, based on exegetical examinations of Genesis 1-9, notions of “fallenness” in the natural world. I therefore argue that evolution was God’s intended process of creation, and that we should not attribute it to any kind of corruption. The rest of the dissertation engages in the development of a compound theodicy rooted in a philosophical and theological definition of love. How does a God who loves creatures respond to their suffering? I argue that God’s action in creation is characterised by kenotic restraint, the giving of freedom, co-suffering with creatures, and the work of redemption.

Consagrado pela doutrina de que o nosso mundo é o melhor dos mundos possíveise por seu otimismo em relação à humanidade, o filósofo alemão G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) não poderia deixar de tecer considerações sobre o problema da felicidade humana.Mas, em face das inúmeras mazelas que afligem a humanidade, e sendoo leibnizianismo um otimismo teísta, fundado naconvicçãoa respeitodo governo soberanode um Deusbom, segundo oqual se admite a existência de uma ordem moral e divina no Universo, apresentam-se para o pensador algumas dificuldades no que tange àdefesa da tese do melhor dos mundos, se quisermos admitir que este melhor consiste de um plano divino que diz respeito de alguma forma à humanidade e a seu bem estar, demandando-se, assim, a justificaçãodesua posiçãoà luz da experiência humana observável e dos aspectos metafísicos, teológicos e moraisde seu pensamento. O presente trabalho visa, assim, tratardo problema da felicidade humana no melhor dos mundos possíveis, partindo-se da exploração da concepção leibniziana de felicidade, elucidando-se o sentido da tese do melhor dos mundos possíveis, e culminando com a defesa da tese de que, a despeito das aparências em sentido contrário, neste melhor mundo, a felicidade dos espíritos é o principal embora não o único desígnio de Deus, considerando-se também o papel de uma solução escatológicae levando-se em contaque a felicidade, para o autor, não é um atributo estáticodo mundo, mas parte de um progresso perpétuo em perfeição e na direção de novos prazeres. / Establishedby his doctrine that our world is the best of the possible worldsand by his optimism about humanity, the german philosopher G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716) could not depart himself from considering the problem of human happiness. But, in face of the numerous ills that afflict humanity, and since leibnizianism is a theisticoptimism, founded on the conviction aboutthe sovereigngovernment of a goodGod, according to which the existence of a moral and divine order in the universe is admitted, some difficulties arise for the thinker in defending the thesis of the best of the possible worlds, if we want to admit that this \"best\" consists of a divine plan that somehow concerns humanity and its welfare, demandingthe justificationof his position in the light of observable human experience and the metaphysical, theological, and moral aspects of his thought. The present work, therefore, proposesdealing with the problem of human happiness in the best of possible worlds, starting from the exploration of the leibnizian conception of happiness, elucidating the meaning of the thesis of the best of possible worlds, culminating in the defense of the thesis that, in spite of appearances incontrary, in this \"best world\" the happiness of the spirits is the principal -though not the only of God\'s designs,andalso considering the role of an eschatological solution,and taking into account that happiness, for the author, is not a staticattribute of the world, but part of a perpetual progress in perfection and in the direction of new pleasures.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-25T19:20:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Flavia Santos Arielo.pdf: 2225345 bytes, checksum: 99d70d569806b1db87e0fdc156e7b48e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-12-05 / The investigation regarding the existence of evil in the world is confused by human existence. This investigation presents itself in a natural way to the theological world, practically referring to all religions-taking into consideration that the definition of good and evil are present in all of them. Also, in the philosophical field, from the Greek to the Contemporary, this is a theme that triggered many speeches and theories. The goal of this dissertation is to evaluate the evil from the cinematographic art, specifically using the film Antichrist, from the Danish director Lars Von Trier. For that reason, Philosophers and Theorists will be quoted from each religion that relates to the theme. With the unfolding of film plot, besides the evil, another two other references will be discussed: Theodicy and Gnosticism. Both the movie and the theme of evil allow for further reading and questioning of these tow concepts. It is indispensable to study those who try to justify God in respect to the evil in the world, hence the Theodicy theme, developed by the philosopher Leibniz, and that kept being debated for centuries. The Gnosticism starts the discussion from the cosmogenic and anthropogenic concepts. Viewed as one of the cults form primitive Christianity, Gnosticism spreads that the creation of the world and man was the act of an evil God. The analysis of the movie in question allows, through questioning in the characters dialogues and scenes, the relating of the problem of evil, Theodicy and Gnosticism in the world created by the Danish director / A investigação sobre a pertença do mal no mundo se confunde com a própria existência humana. Essa investigação se apresenta de forma natural ao mundo teológico, referente a praticamente todas as religiões - levando-se em consideração que as noções de bem e mal estão presentes em todas elas. Também no campo filosófico, dos gregos aos contemporâneos, é este um tema que incitou inúmeros discursos e teorias. O que se propõe nesta dissertação é avaliar o mal a partir da arte cinematográfica, especificamente tomando por objeto o filme Anticristo, do diretor dinamarquês Lars Von Trier. Para tanto, serão utilizados por princípios de pesquisa, filósofos e teóricos da religião que abarcaram o tema. Como desdobramento da história do filme, além do tema do mal e inserido nele, outros dois pontos referenciais serão sondados: a teodiceia e o gnosticismo. Tanto o filme quanto o tema do mal permitem leituras e indagações pertinentes a estes dois conceitos. É imprescindível estudar aqueles que tentaram justificar Deus perante a presença do mal no mundo, daí o termo Teodiceia, cunhado pelo filósofo Leibniz, e que continuou a ser debatido séculos adiante. O gnosticismo adentra a discussão a partir de suas concepções cosmogônica e antropogônica. Tido como uma das seitas do cristianismo primitivo, o gnosticismo difundia que a criação do mundo e do homem havia sido obra de um Deus maléfico. A análise do filme em questão permite, através dos questionamentos propostos nos diálogos, cenas e personagens, relacionar o problema do mal, da teodiceia e do gnosticismo ao mundo criado pelo diretor dinamarquês

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [56]-68).

Several commentators make the claim that Augustine is not a systematic thinker. The purpose of this thesis is to refute that claim in one specific area of Augustine's thought, the metaphysical foundations underlying his solutions to the problem of evil. Through an exegetical examination of various works in which Augustine writes on evil, I show that his solutions for both natural and moral evil rely on a coherent metaphysical system, conceived of and expounded upon within a Platonically influenced Christian context.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, The Divinity School, Dec. 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.