Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[AyJSimon]

Aside from being alright alliteration, what do you mean by that? I am not familiar with this concept.

Let’s assume that you grant that it’s possible to experience changes in your well-being, from moment to moment. At this moment, you feel fine, but then you stub your toe, and you feel worse. If you miss a meal and you get a low-blood sugar headache, then you eat something and start to feel better. In this context, your consciousness exists on a straight line (a continuum) between the heights of human flourishing and the depths of human suffering. And you move back and forth along this line.

Both cannot happen at once?

As long as we’re being rigorous about what we mean by “flourishing” and “suffering,” then I don’t think so. It’s possible to behave in ways that create a false sense of flourishing, but actually move you in the opposite direction. And it’s certainly possible that some levels of flourishing can only be reached through some necessary suffering. But no, I can’t think of of example where one would move simultaneously in both directions.

Actually, that also is a good question. Why is being healthy better than being sick?

Other than to point out how closely tied physical health is to the concepts of flourishing and suffering, my point stands - some truths must be presupposed, if only for the benefit of conversation.

 

[fred_conty]

Stephen Fry (an English actor/tv presenter) had an interview on an Irish TV programme recently, and when asked about God, this was his answer: youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

It’s a quite standard Atheistic view, or excuse.

But my question is, what would be the best response to something like that?

I have my own thoughts but want some other insights as to how best to respond.

Thanks.

Children are as much a part of the human race as is everyone else. As such they too will experience what sin of man took out of this world…the goodness that was planned for them.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[onenow1]

Stephen Fry (an English actor/tv presenter) had an interview on an Irish TV programme recently, and when asked about God, this was his answer: youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo

It’s a quite standard Atheistic view, or excuse.

But my question is, what would be the best response to something like that?

I have my own thoughts but want some other insights as to how best to respond.

Thanks.

A sick child brings out two emotions in us. Anger at God . And the compassion in our hearts. It is our choice to trust in God.

God Bless

 

[littlestsouls2]

Bl. Alexandrina, a bedridden invalid, was told by Our Lord: “Thousands have been saved by your terrible sufferings.” She knew, as did all the saints, that suffering can be something precious. By accepting our crosses with love, we give God great glory; we are offering something of our own, other than our sins. And for every act of love, there will be an eternal reward. Love also makes us happy while on earth; it gives us purpose and strength.

Whatever unites us to God, whether it be prayer, love or suffering, is good; for God is the source of all goodness. If God truly exists, as I believe He does, then it is an unspeakable evil to turn others away from Him - especially innocent children.

It is a consoling, albeit scarcely known truth, that we can offer to God the sufferings of children, on their behalf! If they were aware of the immense good that this procures for themselves and for souls, I doubt that they would object to this. After all, even if we do not “deserve” suffering, it is also true, and to a far greater degree, that we do not deserve God’s eternal rewards.

When I was a small child, I was always getting hurt. Did this turn me against God? No. And I thank God that my parents were not so cruel as to turn me against my Creator, Who is the Source of all goodness.

The atheist or agnostic must account for goodness before they can accuse anyone of evil, because evil is a deprivation; it is a privation of goodness.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12717680:

Ask Stephen Fry why people (atheists) who think there is no God, bring children into this world when they know suffering exists.

That would be a silly question. We bring children into the world because we know that flourishing exists along with suffering. The difference is that atheists like Stephen Fry have no control over the suffering that fate visits upon us, and therefore don’t expect to be worshiped for not preventing it.

So atheists are OK with bringing children into the world despite the fact that they know pain exists.
Hmmm.

Anyway, I dont hear too many atheists using the word fate.

*Fate : the development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power. “…fate decided his course for him”

Synonyms: …destiny, providence, God’s will, nemesis, kismet, astral influence, the stars, what is written in the stars, one’s lot in life*

 

[AyJSimon]

So atheists are OK with bringing children into the world despite the fact that they know pain exists.
Hmmm.

No different than a God doing the same thing…except for the fact that God either causes the pain, or does nothing to prevent it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

It is unbiblical to claim God does nothing to alleviate and ultimately put an end to suffering.

 

[AyJSimon]

It is unbiblical to claim God does nothing to alleviate and ultimately put an end to suffering.

Isaiah 45:7

 

[Lion_IRC]

That verse doesn’t conflict with my statement.

 

[AyJSimon]

That verse doesn’t conflict with my statement.

What do we think of a being who creates suffering just so he can take credit for ending it (someday, hopefully)?

 

[Lion_IRC]

What do we think of a being who creates suffering just so he can take credit for ending it (someday, hopefully)?

Again, you are not taking a biblical view.

God did NOT desire suffering and He explicitly warned us against actions - one action in particular - which would bring about self-inflicted suffering.

Don’t you agree that the only way evil (satan) can coexist with pure good (God) is by the deliberate free will act of sinful disobedience to the will of God?

Evil, like a shadow, only exists as an ontological contrast/opposite to goodness (Light/God)

 

[fred_conty]

Isaiah 45:7

Only in the sense that God is the creator of beings who sin, is it said that God creates evil.

“I know the sun is shinning even when it isn’t shinning.” Christian hymn

May God make your day pleasant.

 

[estesbob]

What do we think of a being who creates suffering just so he can take credit for ending it (someday, hopefully)?

I can understand why someone who does not believe in God would have this attitude. if their is no “spiritual” then all we are left with is the physical and if you base happiness and self worth solely on the physical your caricature of god does indeed appear valid.

I believe that ALL joy and happiness comes via the Spiritual. Any sufferings I or my loved ones endure on this earth are but a blink of an eye when compared to eternity. I have found joy in suffering and offering it up. I have found joy is suffering as it causes me to reflect on my place in this world and the shortness of time I will occupy it. I have found great joy in comforting my sick child and watching them get better. I found great joy is watching the way my father handled his suffering in his final days. Suffering is not bad per se-it s just another state of our being

You are missing out on so much when you dismiss God. You are like the man in Plato’s cave-without God you see the world as shadows and a world displayed in black and white .People of Faith see it in 3d Technicolor.

There is good news for you however. Although you do not believe in God he believes in you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Maybe Mr. Fry just has high standards for believing in an all-loving God.

Perhaps the “all-loving God” has higher standards than Mr. Fry, since he was willing to suffer and die a horrible death for his, while Mr. Fry only manages to express his shrill annoyance that he must exist in a world where he has to “put up with” the suffering of others happening all around him. God “walked the walk.” Mr. Fry not so much.

If he was really serious about eradicating suffering he would, perhaps, be alotting a great deal more of his time, money, energy and assets to actually relieving suffering rather than living the good life and in his spare time expressing his fashionable annoyance at God for having the gall to expose him vicariously to the suffering that others – but not he, so much – must endure.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What do we think of a being who creates suffering just so he can take credit for ending it (someday, hopefully)?

Pain and suffering are indicators of evil and harm. God “creates” suffering for the same reason that he creates pain when you touch a hot stove. It is an integral aspect of things not being right – of harm, ontological evil and moral disorder.

He “takes credit” only in the sense of taking credit for making ALL things and making degenerated things new or fixing what was broken as a result of sin.

It is pretty clear that it will be ended only for those who allow the “fix” to take. He doesn’t promise to end it for those who willfully persist in breaking things, causing harm or fomenting evil.

 

[sadiebelle]

Let’s get real specific :

An 11 month old baby is being raped by its father.

Does God watch this, comforted by the fact that after the baby dies, someone reading his story will convert or some other such good?

Does he watch?

That’s what tells me if he is a being worthy of worship.

 

[estesbob]

Let’s get real specific :

An 11 month old baby is being raped by its father.

Does God watch this, comforted by the fact that after the baby dies, someone reading his story will convert or some other such good?

Does he watch?

That’s what tells me if he is a being worthy of worship.

So you would prefer a world where there was no free will? Should God smite this man dead? Should have he created a world where we all sit around singing Kumbaya while Angels attend to our very need?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s get real specific :

An 11 month old baby is being raped by its father.

Does God watch this, comforted by the fact that after the baby dies, someone reading his story will convert or some other such good?

Does he watch?

That’s what tells me if he is a being worthy of worship.

Much too superficial.

Not only does he watch, but he IS the baby and IS being raped by the father; along with being existentially murdered in the father by the father’s act of rape – that is, essentially what mortal sin is. This is what God becoming man reveals to us – that God is in us and more “us” than we are to ourselves, not merely watching us.

If you want to complain about some form of distanced deism, where “God” watches complacently from a distance, take it up with a deist. This is Christianity and theism that we are subscribed to; meaning that God is immanent in all of reality.

Now the question becomes, “Why would God permit himself to be crucified by every evil act we do?” That is the question worth addressing that may lead us more deeply to understanding and being aware of the presence of God within our own being – and perhaps make us a little more humble with regard to our own foibles, frailties and sins.

 

[Ignatius]

Stephen Fry (an English actor/tv presenter) had an interview on an Irish TV programme recently, and when asked about God, this was his answer: youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
.

I believe God is asking him the same questions. What is he doing about it?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Let’s assume that you grant that it’s possible to experience changes in your well-being, from moment to moment.

I grant it.

At this moment, you feel fine, but then you stub your toe, and you feel worse. If you miss a meal and you get a low-blood sugar headache, then you eat something and start to feel better. In this context, your consciousness exists on a straight line (a continuum) between the heights of human flourishing and the depths of human suffering. And you move back and forth along this line.

You seem merely to be repeating your assertions. Lemme see if I understand them:

Things that feel good are good. Things that don’t feel good are not good. Or, more sophisticatedly, things that tend towards life and desirable feelings are good, and towards death and undesirable feelings are not good.

Am I understanding you correctly?

As long as we’re being rigorous about what we mean by “flourishing” and “suffering,” then I don’t think so. It’s possible to behave in ways that create a false sense of flourishing, but actually move you in the opposite direction. And it’s certainly possible that some levels of flourishing can only be reached through some necessary suffering. But no, I can’t think of of example where one would move simultaneously in both directions.

What is emesis? Vomiting?

Other than to point out how closely tied physical health is to the concepts of flourishing and suffering, my point stands - some truths must be presupposed, if only for the benefit of conversation.

Is death flourishing? Is it healthy?