Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Prodigal_40s]

Yes … and with only a shoddy knowledge of theology.

I already provided the Julie Burchill quote. I don’t like repeating myself

 

[Peter_Plato]

In case you haven’t noticed, there is quite a bit of dispute among Catholics themselves, and this is one of the first things that an outsider will notice.

While many Catholics like to tow the line “we’re all unified, any Catholic can speak on behalf of Catholicism”, the reality is that this makes for a very confusing picture of Catholicism.

No. The contemporary inquirer faces a whole set of other issues.

The contemporary inquirer needs to deal with the conflicts among Catholics, and the inconsistency in their answers. And their sins.

As things stand, despite the image of simplicity, unity, and perfection that many Catholics appear to operate out of, the reality of day-to-day interactions with Catholics is much more confusing.

I can’t disagree with this, but again the “hospital for sinners” comes into the picture, along with sin. Why does anyone sin? Something very important, in some sense or other, hangs in the balance. Serious sins are not easily dispensed or overcome.

If you visit the hospital, you will encounter many different views about the treatment - some positive, some negative - some will give you misinformation about what their treatment is and how effective they are finding it including, very likely, misinformation about how well they are following the treatment regimen. All of this because something very important is being addressed - what it means to live and live “well.” A great deal of emotional baggage is often in jeopardy - the rich accumulate much more than material “stuff.”

That is one reason I view the words of the patients very thinly until I can get at what they are saying and why - then things make more sense. Not that they are true but I can begin to see why they would think as they do. Much of this comes from my own experiences as patient - my own delusions and possessiveness clouding my view of what Catholicism is. Check my affiliation.

Do I question Catholicism? I spend far more time, energy and profit checking my view of what truth is and revising my misconceptions and refining what moves me, integrally. Stephen Fry, in my opinion, would be much better off directing his critique inwardly rather than ignoring the demons that have taken up residence in what he takes to be his well-ordered house.

My views don’t necessarily represent Catholicism - but that is because I am, doubtless, carrying and presenting a confused version of the truth. Questioning my view, rather than the Church’s has been far more fruitful precisely because I am one with the malady. Christ isn’t and neither is the Church at its core - the Spirit and Truth that is alive within the arrangement of its living stones.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lucy107:

In case you haven’t noticed, there is quite a bit of dispute among Catholics themselves, and this is one of the first things that an outsider will notice.

While many Catholics like to tow the line “we’re all unified, any Catholic can speak on behalf of Catholicism”, the reality is that this makes for a very confusing picture of Catholicism.

Of ALL the World Religions, Catholicism stands alone in having a written stated belief system. Aside from Sacred Scripture and our Creeds, we have Church Councils, and Papal documents. No where else can you get such comprehensive, written, defined Church beliefs.

Now, many Catholics, depending on their adherence to Church teaching, their own knowledge and devotion, may or may not correctly represent Church teaching. But any outsider can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is easily obtained, and even online) and determine the True Teaching of the Catholic Church.

So your argument for confusion is a personal one. True enquirers have no such confusion or difficulty.

 

[PRmerger]

If you think she presents a persuasive and concise argument somewhere along the line, I’ll take a look.

Nah. I’m done with this tributary.

But I will end with this, related to your Hitchens reference: if I read a paragraph he wrote about why he is an atheist and responded with, “I don’t find his arguments compelling” I think your response would be the same as mine was here re: Libresco.

One blog-read can’t make an informed assessment of their arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

Of ALL the World Religions, Catholicism stands alone in having a written stated belief system. Aside from Sacred Scripture and our Creeds, we have Church Councils, and Papal documents. No where else can you get such comprehensive, written, defined Church beliefs.

Now, many Catholics, depending on their adherence to Church teaching, their own knowledge and devotion, may or may not correctly represent Church teaching. But any outsider can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is easily obtained, and even online) and determine the True Teaching of the Catholic Church.

So your argument for confusion is a personal one. True enquirers have no such confusion or difficulty.

Indeed.

And no one here has even remotely professed anything close to: “we’re all unified, any Catholic can speak on behalf of Catholicism”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m saying it’s absurd to believe that suffering did not exist prior to human sinfulness.

Yep. That’s not the Catholic position to assert that suffering did not exist prior to human sinfulness.

I mean, really–do we actually think that the saber-toothed tiger’s attack on an ibex would have been painless prior to the Fall?

The CC certainly doesn’t endorse that view.

 

[clem456]

Of ALL the World Religions, Catholicism stands alone in having a written stated belief system. Aside from Sacred Scripture and our Creeds, we have Church Councils, and Papal documents. No where else can you get such comprehensive, written, defined Church beliefs.

Now, many Catholics, depending on their adherence to Church teaching, their own knowledge and devotion, may or may not correctly represent Church teaching. But any outsider can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is easily obtained, and even online) and determine the True Teaching of the Catholic Church.

So your argument for confusion is a personal one. True enquirers have no such confusion or difficulty.

Yes.
One of the main reasons for confusion is the intentional ignorance of what the Church proclaims.
You see this time and again among Catholics themselves.
Opinion is elevated over what the Church proclaims. People avoid looking the Church in the face and listening in good faith, “bona fides”. because it challenges ingrained ways of thinking and acting.
There is no excuse for this in the age of google, where every word the Body of Christ proclaims is available at any time, in any part of the world. You have to have “mala fides” to avoid what the Church proclaims.

 

[PRmerger]

Among other things, I do not believe that all parents are all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good. As such, I don’t see any problem with them being imperfect. Moreover, they don’t have the power to prevent all the suffering their child might go through- most parents would seek to prevent their 1 year old from suffering from diseases, to the greatest extent possible. If they could will bone cancer in children out of existence, I suspect they would- because they love their child and don’t want him or her to suffer needlessly.

And yet we have examples IRL of parents who DON’T prevent all the suffering their child might go through.

#sendingthemtoschoolwheretheyarebored

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

#sendingthemtobedwhentheywanttoplay

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

#beinghelddownforanIV

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Children+Receive+Emergency+Care+Pediatric+e6kL7aVdzqUl.jpg

#beingtoldshecantplaywithhercousintoday

http://centerforparentingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/tantrumming-girl.jpg

#tellingthemtocleantheirroom

EveryDollar | Make a Budget and Track Expenses

EveryDollar is the best way to budget with confidence, track transactions, and get insights into your spending and savings habits.

www.ramseysolutions.com

So if imperfect parents do this–permit suffering, and even INFLICT suffering!!!-- why can’t God?

And please note: it is acknowledged that there is a gulf between making a child clean her room and a child suffering from bone cancer…

but it is a finite gulf.

There is an INFINITE gulf, however, between comparison of human parents and the Godhead.

So one needs to extrapolate this in order to understand the comparison.

A loving God can permit suffering in the same way that loving parents can permit suffering.

If you can see this (and the logic is impeccable, so I can’t imagine that you couldn’t, AS), then the point has been made.

 

[Lucy107]

Of ALL the World Religions, Catholicism stands alone in having a written stated belief system. Aside from Sacred Scripture and our Creeds, we have Church Councils, and Papal documents. No where else can you get such comprehensive, written, defined Church beliefs.

And there are those who write off Catholicism as too legalistic …

Now, many Catholics, depending on their adherence to Church teaching, their own knowledge and devotion, may or may not correctly represent Church teaching. But any outsider can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is easily obtained, and even online) and determine the True Teaching of the Catholic Church.

See, I never understood that part. I was told that since I am not baptized, I don’t have the Holy Spirit, so all my study of scriptures and other documents is bound to be for naught.
I still have trouble figuring out how much I, as an outsider, can hope to understand properly, if anything at all.
Or, come to think of it, in what ways exactly am I an outsider; because in some, I might not be, as I just recently discovered.

So your argument for confusion is a personal one.

True enquirers have no such confusion or difficulty.

Or maybe they had such confusion at one point, but overcame it.
I firmly believe it is possible to overcome this confusion, this is one of the reasons I am here.

Some of the Protestant Reformators, for example, had a similar confusion, and for some of them, the solution was to go off on their own, starting a new religion. I don’t think this is a realistic option for me. I’m trying to figure out where they went wrong and to learn from their mistakes. (I am sure that sola scriptura is a recipe for solipsistic madness.)

 

[Lucy107]

A great deal of emotional baggage is often in jeopardy - the rich accumulate much more than material “stuff.”

Yes … Except that for someone like me, that also means the baggage of the what now look like wrong beliefs about God which were nevertheless beaten into me, sometimes physically.
Why should something be true just because it came with a slap to the face, right?
It’s hard to forget such things, though. Many people who have been abused in the name of religion simply leave religion behind altogether, because it is such a herculean task to overcome this.

Both of my parents were beaten “in the name of God.” My paternal grandfather wanted his son, who later became my father, to become a Catholic priest, as this was back then a quick way for a family to get good reputation in society. Grandfather would have my father kneel on the stone floor of the church while they were reciting Latin liturgy. Nevermind that being a priest is supposed to be a matter of vocation, grandfather didn’t seem to care about that. To this day, my father never forgot about these things, and he still talks about them. He seems very hurt.
My mother also has horror stories to tell.

And then I got my own dose of “God’s love.”

Do I question Catholicism? I spend far more time, energy and profit checking my view of what truth is and revising my misconceptions and refining what moves me, integrally.

I’ve been reading The Imitation of Christ and I really appreciate it. Also the Ignatian examen.

Stephen Fry, in my opinion, would be much better off directing his critique inwardly rather than ignoring the demons that have taken up residence in what he takes to be his well-ordered house.

Agreed.
It’s just that religion seems to be a special combination of the private and the public, a special combination of a formal, objective matter and personal application, a special combination of relying on others and relying on oneself, a special combination of being a member of a group and being one’s own person. I find it difficult to navigate these dichotomies.

My views don’t necessarily represent Catholicism - but that is because I am, doubtless, carrying and presenting a confused version of the truth. Questioning my view, rather than the Church’s has been far more fruitful precisely because I am one with the malady.

You will have noticed that I never question the Church. I collect the various (name removed by moderator)ut from scripture and doctrine and from Catholics, and then try to figure out what exactly my problem is in all that.

 

[clem456]

…
See, I never understood that part. I was told that since I am not baptized, I don’t have the Holy Spirit, so all my study of scriptures and other documents is bound to be for naught.

God speaks to everyone. The first task for all of us is to listen. Baptism is not the end of the journey. It is a sacrament of initiation. We are all on a journey toward God. God wishes to communicate himself to all of us, and he does. Scripture study is never for naught. Scripture is one of the ways God reveals himself. Reading the Catechism is never for naught. In it the Church proclaims and proposes the faith for our belief.

I still have trouble figuring out how much I, as an outsider, can hope to understand properly, if anything at all.
Or, come to think of it, in what ways exactly am I an outsider; because in some, I might not be, as I just recently discovered.

The first step for all of us is to listen in good faith. Understanding may come slowly. The process of listening in good faith helps us realize we are not outsiders. Christ comes to reconcile us to himself.

Maybe it is good to note the etymology of the word “obedience”.
Ob-audiere, “to listen”.

 

[thistle]

I recommend the book called Making Sense Out Of Suffering by Peter Kreeft.

 

[Flagstone]

Stephen Fry is like every atheist I’ve known, loud, preachy and insecure

Nothing like painting with a broad brush.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Of ALL the World Religions, Catholicism stands alone in having a written stated belief system. Aside from Sacred Scripture and our Creeds, we have Church Councils, and Papal documents. No where else can you get such comprehensive, written, defined Church beliefs.

Now, many Catholics, depending on their adherence to Church teaching, their own knowledge and devotion, may or may not correctly represent Church teaching. But any outsider can pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is easily obtained, and even online) and determine the True Teaching of the Catholic Church.

So your argument for confusion is a personal one. True enquirers have no such confusion or difficulty.

Excellent post!

 

[Lucy107]

The first step for all of us is to listen in good faith. Understanding may come slowly. The process of listening in good faith helps us realize we are not outsiders. Christ comes to reconcile us to himself.

For as long as I can remember, I’ve always envied cradle Catholics. I figured that if only I had been baptized as an infant, the way the others were, everything would be fine. And I’m sure I haven’t been the only to think that way. It would have been easier for the Catholics of my youth to not have among them an unbaptized child; and for some now as well. Meh, nobody likes people with religious troubles.

It has been this envy that has connected me to Catholicism for so long. Quite troubling, isn’t it. I guess in the end, this envy has to do with a sense of entitlement and the wish for things to be easy and convenient. Not to mention that in the envier’s eyes, it also minimizes the role of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Anyway, these things are not exactly on topic, although meta-religious issues are always pertinent to such questions as the one in the OP, because they contextualize them.

 

[Ignatius]

And yet we have examples IRL of parents who DON’T prevent all the suffering their child might go through.

#sendingthemtoschoolwheretheyarebored

https://timsstuff.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/bored_in_school_bigstock_13149116.jpg

#sendingthemtobedwhentheywanttoplay

http://www.pregnancy-baby-care.com/images/Toddler/toddler-crying-tantrums.jpg

#beinghelddownforanIV

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Children+Receive+Emergency+Care+Pediatric+e6kL7aVdzqUl.jpg

#beingtoldshecantplaywithhercousintoday

http://centerforparentingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/tantrumming-girl.jpg

#tellingthemtocleantheirroom

EveryDollar | RamseySolutions.com

So if imperfect parents do this–permit suffering, and even INFLICT suffering!!!-- why can’t God?

And please note: it is acknowledged that there is a gulf between making a child clean her room and a child suffering from bone cancer…

but it is a finite gulf.

There is an INFINITE gulf, however, between comparison of human parents and the Godhead.

So one needs to extrapolate this in order to understand the comparison.

A loving God can permit suffering in the same way that loving parents can permit suffering.

If you can see this (and the logic is impeccable, so I can’t imagine that you couldn’t, AS), then the point has been made.

Exactly, best answer. What Stephen Fry doesn’t understand is that sometimes suffering is necessary to bring about a good that would otherwise not happen.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Lucy107:

See, I never understood that part. I was told that since I am not baptized, I don’t have the Holy Spirit, so all my study of scriptures and other documents is bound to be for naught.
I still have trouble figuring out how much I, as an outsider, can hope to understand properly, if anything at all.
Or, come to think of it, in what ways exactly am I an outsider; because in some, I might not be, as I just recently discovered.

You call yourself an outsider, perhaps because you say you are not baptized. However, you are still a child of God, and with humble prayer, you can be assured of God’s assistance in helping you find your way.

 

[clem456]

Exactly, best answer. What Stephen Fry doesn’t understand is that sometimes suffering is necessary to bring about a good that would otherwise not happen.

Suffering sometimes shows a reason-able way to a greater good. Discipline, as noted above, can be reasoned out as part of the road to a greater good.

I think the easy objection is to what we would call “senseless”, or unreason-able suffering, suffering in which common reason cannot comprehend a reason-able purpose. The discipline of a child is reasonable. The murder of a child is not.

So, maybe it could also be said that in the absence of a reason-able good, suffering simply is. “Stuff” happens in the human condition, and God permits humanity to live in our condition. Death is part of that condition. Christian doctrine proposes that God does not will that we suffer, but that we chose it, in the first sin of our first parents. It’s hard to swallow the imputability of original sin, for sure.

Christ comes to share completely in that senseless suffering and reconciles us who suffer, to the good that God can bring out of it. I guess the question is, can we accept his offer to fully live the difficult human condition while trusting that his offer of eternal joy is good.

 

[ericc]

No, I’m saying it’s absurd to believe that suffering did not exist prior to human sinfulness.

Who is denying it? I am not.

I hope this is obvious to you, but if there was no smallpox, there would be no need to cure small pox. If the world was plagued by insects that entered people’s brains and caused the maximum amount of pain, you could just as easily argue that god had to create said insects or else we wouldn’t be able to learn how to fight them.

It is also obvious that a best possible world may have some suffering.

You talk about believing that your god created the best possible world, but then go on to say there’s no way to discern whether or not the world could have been better.

So I’ve got to ask what you’re basing your “best of all possible worlds” belief on. I know for a fact that it has not been endorsed by scripture or your church. If we cannot discern whether or not a better world was possible, and sources you recognize as divine do not support the view that this is the best possible world, then your claim is wholly baseless.

When the best you can to support your claim is to say that I can’t know 100% for sure that the world coul have been better, you aren’t arguing for your claim- you’re just saying “I think this and I’m right unless you prove me wrong.” I could just as easily claim this is the worst possible world and you couldn’t prove otherwise either.

The best possible world is a logical conclusion that a good and omnipotent God would want to create the best possible world he could. St Aquinas Thomas in his Summa Theologica on the question "whether God can do better than what he does? says this:

“…thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it, because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness.”

Therefore, my argument is still valid in that we have no yardstick to measure that. We can complain but we have no knowledge that the current world is not the best possible world.

I have not claimed there would be no suffering in the best possible world

I have not claimed that suffering must be eliminated

Among other things, I do not believe that all parents are all knowing, all powerful, and perfectly good. As such, I don’t see any problem with them being imperfect. Moreover, they don’t have the power to prevent all the suffering their child might go through- most parents would seek to prevent their 1 year old from suffering from diseases, to the greatest extent possible. If they could will bone cancer in children out of existence, I suspect they would- because they love their child and don’t want him or her to suffer needlessly.

I broadcast my affiliation and my former affiliation at the top of every post. I don’t hate your god any more than you hate Zeus.

It’s an argument from contradiction- work within the assumptions of a claim I believe to be false and show that the two don’t mesh.

Then accept there is suffering in the best possible world and quit the blame game. Accept that God created the world that operate within natural laws consistently and that some people with certain genetic makeup are not as healthy as others. A world that does not operate consistently is a poorly created world. If God were to intervene each time a suffering were to occur, it would render this world inconsistent and that would not be an optimal world. So parents are not all knowing. But they have freewill to procreate and produce kids. Problems arising from lack of knowledge does not impose a responsibility on God to repair unwanted results. If man wants to kill each other, God is not obliged to stop wars. If parents wants to abort babies, God is not going to frustrate their freewill. Millions die from abortion yearly. I suppose you would feel even more strongly against it due to the overwhelming numbers compared to your cancer stricken babies. Millions die from wars. Kids get killed as collateral damage. God isn’t going to intervene each time man starts a war and innocent children get maimed or killed because he gave man freewill.

The people on this forum and in this thread have chosen to be here, I presume because they enjoy discussing their beliefs as much as I enjoy discussing mine. I am not running into a church yelling that god is not real. If you find this discussion displeasing, you are by no means required to continue.

You are running into CAF yelling that the Christian God is no good and for which I claim that you have no value add. It need not be a church. You could also run to an atheist blog and claiming that god is not real but I suspect you wouldn’t enjoy it so much.

 

[Lucy107]

What Stephen Fry doesn’t understand is that sometimes suffering is necessary to bring about a good that would otherwise not happen.

I don’t think suffering is necessary for that. Can you back up your view with scriptures or doctrine?

There is a difference between, on the one hand, suffering,
and, on the other hand, poverty, hunger, aging, illness, poverty, death, separation from loved ones, oppression.

Typically, when ordinary people experience hunger, aging, illness, poverty, death, separation from loved ones, oppression, they suffer.

But it is possible to experience hunger, aging, illness, poverty, death, separation from loved ones, oppression, and not suffer.
(This is what traditional Buddhism is all about.)

Are hunger, aging, illness, poverty, death, separation from loved ones, oppression sometimes necessary in order to bring about a good that would otherwise not happen?
Seems so.