Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter civilwar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
No. I think their question is a valid one. And all good Christian apologists ought to acknowledge the validity of their question.

It’s a perennial problem for Christians called “The Problem of Suffering” and I think it best to admit that the question begs for an answer.

That said, I think there have been numerous thoughtful, well-argued responses to the atheist’s question: how could a good God permit suffering?

But I think it inutile to dismiss the question.

It is something, indeed, that needs to be answered.
Click to expand...
I would completely agree, it is both useless to dismiss the question and the question needs a proper response. Neither of which I’m arguing against. Your argument was unapodictic and suggests God only exists if suffering doesn’t exist, which is, palpably, false. What I find particularly detrimental, to logical analysis, is suggesting God’s existence is contingent upon human suffering. But, taking a step forward, what would the world be like if there was no suffering? There probably wouldn’t be war, violence, or pleasure. Okay, if there is no war, than it can be suggested a limit to virtue. For, what is the virtue of maytrdom if there is no dictatorial oppressor? As you know, the Christian life is defined in imitating Christ- who suffered namely because humanity suffered and dictatorially killed Him. Okay- there wouldn’t be any violence, great; now, imagine a family was brutally murdered and the Father comes home to see witness to such unimaginable pain and suffering- yet, in that suffering, he transforms his pain into the virtue of forgiveness- I could elaborate the Christian virtue of his actions, but I’m sure your aware of them. Continuing, pleasure, if the world was without suffering, than it’s fair to suggest a world without pleasure. Why? Well, does pleasure make people happy? No. What did Jesus despise on the cross? Wealth, power, pleasure, and power. All the things humanity thinks are joyous and wonderful are in reality less than God. Suffering, from the Christain view, is something God allows so humanity can grow closer in love with Him.
 
MatthewMckibben said:
I would completely agree, it is both useless to dismiss the question and the question needs a proper response. Neither of which I’m arguing against. Your argument was unapodictic and suggests God only exists if suffering doesn’t exist, which is, palpably, false. What I find particularly detrimental, to logical analysis, is suggesting God’s existence is contingent upon human suffering. But, taking a step forward, what would the world be like if there was no suffering? There probably wouldn’t be war, violence, or pleasure. Okay, if there is no war, than it can be suggested a limit to virtue. For, what is the virtue of maytrdom if there is no dictatorial oppressor? As you know, the Christian life is defined in imitating Christ- who suffered namely because humanity suffered and dictatorially killed Him. Okay- there wouldn’t be any violence, great; now, imagine a family was brutally murdered and the Father comes home to see witness to such unimaginable pain and suffering- yet, in that suffering, he transforms his pain into the virtue of forgiveness- I could elaborate the Christian virtue of his actions, but I’m sure your aware of them. Continuing, pleasure, if the world was without suffering, than it’s fair to suggest a world without pleasure. Why? Well, does pleasure make people happy? No. What did Jesus despise on the cross? Wealth, power, pleasure, and power. All the things humanity thinks are joyous and wonderful are in reality less than God. Suffering, from the Christain view, is something God allows so humanity can grow closer in love with Him.
Click to expand...
Disagree. I think.

Does this make sense?
God allows suffering period. He does not allow it because we must have it to know what peace is. It is on us to endure suffering and practice virtue in the midst of it, so that we might be drawn back to him. Christ participates in our suffering because we are fallen, not Him. God does not prefer that the Son of God suffers. It’s tragic because of us, but in him we find our way back to the garden. In the garden, there was no suffering. We were created in peace and love. But we chose our own way of thinking and acting, not God’s.

Simply, we as humans cannot conceive of a world without suffering. And it is the ony way for us. God did conceive a world without it, we rejected it.
 
MFHMFH said:
As far as my comment with ‘getting the point’…
I’ve always heard that we - humans - suffer for a reason…what is that reason, exactly?
In thousands of years, what have we ‘learned’ to keep suffering from happening? (Are we so dumb - or blind - that we can’t figure out what God is teaching us)? Do we continue to suffer, since we’re too dumb to do what God wants us to do to stop it?
Of course, we should continue to be the best we can be, and that would include helping those who are suffering - who may be less fortunate than us. This should be done without expecting a reward. But, as far as God goes…then what?
Click to expand...
Bill Gates may be extraordinarily rich, but you probably aren’t. Just because some humans have something, doesn’t mean that every human has it.

IOW, the point you are missing here is that humans are individuals, each person experiences life on a personal, intimate level.

And not on some abstract, generalized, communal, and ultimately depersonalized and impersonal level. (Your use of “we” suggests just this kind of communal etc. experience of life.)

How a person experiences suffering is in some vital way individual, personal, intimate, and has to do with what they do (mentally and physically).
MFHMFH said:
Moral responsibility has a lot to do with it…whether there is a God or not, or whether one believes in God or not.
Our species (with the exception of some who are insane) knows the difference between right and wrong, and behave - or should behave - accordingly.
Click to expand...
There’s that “we” again.
Religion - or a belief in a deity - isn’t required in order to love and care for another person.
Click to expand...
Religion tends to make the difference in how one cares for another person.
 
GaryTaylor said:
I don’t understand what makes you think this. God or no God, a loving relationship is not required for you to thrive, nor does the lacking of it result in body failure. Love is required, one, as we see may simply Love themself.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “thrive.”

Consider feral children, Language deprivation experiments.

Also, many adults are also unable to thrive without a measure of at least friendly social contact (provided they have the food, clothiing etc. necessary).
 
MatthewMckibben said:
Your argument was unapodictic and suggests God only exists if suffering doesn’t exist, which is, palpably, false.
Click to expand...
***My ***argument? Are you confusing me with someone else? When did I suggest that “God only exists if suffering doesn’t exist”?
Suffering, from the Christain view, is something God allows so humanity can grow closer in love with Him.
Click to expand...
I find this argument to be quite uncompelling when presented to atheists.

Imagine a man offering you a marriage proposal (which is a wonderful icon for Christianity) with this: you’re going to suffer with me, but it’s only so you can grow closer in love with me.

Lame. Not very attractive.
 
PRmerger said:
***My ***argument? Are you confusing me with someone else? When did I suggest that “God only exists if suffering doesn’t exist”?

I find this argument to be quite uncompelling when presented to atheists.

Imagine a man offering you a marriage proposal (which is a wonderful icon for Christianity) with this: you’re going to suffer with me, but it’s only so you can grow closer in love with me.

Lame. Not very attractive.
Click to expand...
Sure, PR, but the question might be asked if it is any less “lame” than a proposal which offers to take you away “from it all” into heavenly bliss and thornless rose gardens. It would seem the proposal or promise rather than the eventuality is what makes the proposition “lame.”

On the other hand, it might make a difference who it is making the proposal and what their intentions are, correct?
 
Peter_Plato said:
Sure, PR, but the question might be asked if it is any less “lame” than a proposal which offers to take you away “from it all” into heavenly bliss and thornless rose gardens. It would seem the proposal or promise rather than the eventuality is what makes the proposition “lame.”
Click to expand...
I’m not understanding your point here, Peter. How is it lame to have someone promise me he’ll take me to a place of bliss if I marry him? :confused:
On the other hand, it might make a difference who it is making the proposal and what their intentions are, correct?
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
PRmerger said:
IHow is it lame to have someone promise me he’ll take me to a place of bliss if I marry him?
Click to expand...
Because people who promise such things have a dismal record of keeping those promises.

It takes feral naivete to take such a promise seriously.
 
PRmerger said:
I’m not understanding your point here, Peter. How is it lame to have someone promise me he’ll take me to a place of bliss if I marry him? :confused:

Indeed.
Click to expand...
My point being that the lameness is contingent on the proposer not the proposition.
 
PRmerger said:
***My ***argument? Are you confusing me with someone else? When did I suggest that "God only exists if suffering doesn’t

Imagine a man offering you a marriage proposal (which is a wonderful icon for Christianity) with this: you’re going to suffer with me, but it’s only so you can grow closer in love with me.

Lame. Not very attractive.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly the Christian standard, whether or not people participate is subject to understanding, for Jesus calls each individual to take up his cross and follow Him. Suffering, in the fullest sense, is the transformative that allows the soul to endure pain so as to grow closer with Christ. “My heart does not rest until it rests in you” St. Augustine- the quintessential formula to recognizing the heart- soul- mind (from the Cartesian sense) go through continual suffering and anguish until fully enveloping into the body of Christ, namely the Eucharistic sacrament. With regards to "when did I suggest God exists only when suffering doesn’t? I can’t remember if I singled you out or not, if I did my apologies. I meant the individual, Fry, who brought forth the argument in such a format.
 
PRmerger said:
I find this argument to be quite uncompelling when presented to atheists.

Imagine a man offering you a marriage proposal (which is a wonderful icon for Christianity) with this: you’re going to suffer with me, but it’s only so you can grow closer in love with me.

Lame. Not very attractive.
Click to expand...
And based on your 28,000+ posts here, I believe you!!
Makes sense, they haven’t been introduced to their awesome groom, yet. ❤️❤️❤️
Happy Valentine’s Day, everyone.
 
Peter_Plato said:
My point being that the lameness is contingent on the proposer not the proposition.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that changes anything.

Inviting someone to love you with the caveat that “you’ll love me more if I let you suffer” is the worst kind of invitation.

I don’t blame atheists for saying, “Thanks, but no thanks to that!”
 
MatthewMckibben said:
That’s exactly the Christian standard, whether or not people participate is subject to understanding, for Jesus calls each individual to take up his cross and follow Him. Suffering, in the fullest sense, is the transformative that allows the soul to endure pain so as to grow closer with Christ.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with this.

But it’s inutile to present it to atheists as such, because*** no atheist is going to accept this marriage proposal when it’s proposed in such a manner.***
 
PRmerger said:
But it’s inutile to present it to atheists as such, because*** no atheist is going to accept this marriage proposal when it’s proposed in such a manner.***
Click to expand...
Nor are they going to accept it if you try to hide the reality of this proposal under $6.50 words.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t disagree with this.

But it’s inutile to present it to atheists as such, because*** no atheist is going to accept this marriage proposal when it’s proposed in such a manner.***
Click to expand...
Agree.

However you slice it, suffering itself is an evil. The cross can sometimes be seen as a glorious end in itself. But the cross is not the end. The risen Christ is our end. The suffering of the cross is the ultimate evil: deicide.

To prove his glory, God does not need or wish that a child is born into grinding poverty, or born with out legs, or born to abusive parents. We can never present a convincing case that God needs or desires suffering in order to prove himself. An atheist’s BS meter immediately goes into the red zone when this line of thinking is presented, as it should. It is like tossing stale cake to a beggar, this attempt to convince someone that God wishes them to suffer so that they may draw closer to him. That is un-reasonable, and if nothing else, God is at least reasonable. “Logos”

Suffering simply is. It’s a mystery. The Church explains it through the fall of humanity, but that will never convince non-believers to believe in God.
Suffering helps us participate in redemption because it is a reality in our lives, and God can work all things to his glory and our salvation, but God does not need to make us suffer to redeem us. Our free will bears responsibility.
Jesus Christ willingly participates in our full humanity, which includes suffering, so that we might be shown the way to deal with it. He does not exempt himself from the wicked vicissitudes of human life.
 
PRmerger said:
I don’t think that changes anything.

Inviting someone to love you with the caveat that “you’ll love me more if I let you suffer” is the worst kind of invitation.

I don’t blame atheists for saying, “Thanks, but no thanks to that!”
Click to expand...
Ah, but “if I let you suffer” was not the way the invitation was phrased the first time. You said,
PRmerger said:
"…you’re going to suffer with me, but it’s only so you can grow closer in love with me.
Click to expand...
“I will suffer with you” is not the same as “I [will] let you suffer.” The words, “you’re going to suffer with me” mean something quite different, implying, even, that “I know I will suffer in this life and am letting you know that up front.”

Sounds, eerily like this invitation:
“If you wish to follow me, you must take up your cross.”
True, some atheists may NOT find that invitation very appealing and may very well say, “Thanks, but no thanks to that!” However, those particular atheists may be the very same ones who disappear when any suffering at all raises its ugly head.

The old saying…
“When the going gets tough… the tough get going.” comes to mind here.
 
Peter_Plato said:
“I will suffer with you” is not the same as “I [will] let you suffer.”
Click to expand...
Interesting that the bolded is the Christian definition of the word “compassion”, “to suffer with”.
The words, “you’re going to suffer with me” mean something quite different, implying, even, that “I know I will suffer in this life and am letting you know that up front.”
Click to expand...
“you’re going to suffer with me” is simply true. It’s not the whole truth, because we don’t suffer all the time, and it’s not our beatitude to suffer, but it’s simply true, “for better or worse”.
Sounds, eerily like this invitation:
“If you wish to follow me, you must take up your cross.”
True, some atheists may NOT find that invitation very appealing and may very well say, “Thanks, but no thanks to that!” However, those particular atheists may be the very same ones who disappear when any suffering at all raises its ugly head.
Click to expand...
In this invitation Christ invites us to bring suffering to it’s proper context, to make “Logos” out of the “un-Logos”, sense out of the senseless. Suffering is evil but it is not the last word. We must take up the cross, because it simply is part of our existence, and if we deny it, we deny the truth about ourselves. The truth about ourselves is that we need redemption from, or in the midst of, suffering and evil. God did not give us himself so that he might suffer, he gave us himself so that in the midst of suffering, through him, with him, and in him, we might find faith, hope, and love. These are the things that bring us life in Christ, not suffering per se.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top