Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[MaryFrancesRome]

Maybe if God were to do this it would draw people to Him. Many people turn away from God because of suffering. How is that good for their souls? In the gospels Jesus healed people who were suffering. He didn’t say “Let them suffer, it’s good for their souls.”

Read deeper. There is more to our relationship with Jesus Christ than the physical cure. There is something greater, but we have to search to find it. He did not cure the good thief on the cross when the good thief expressed great faith (though many other raisings from the dead ocurred when he died on the cross), He told the good thief, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.” All the best in your search for the truth, Flagstone!

 

[Prodigal_40s]

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.

Sluggy and his fawning sycophants wouldn’t even attempt to read it. They just comfort each other with the “progressive, liberal society” that they think exists. Watch it crumble while the faith remains

 

[faithsmind]

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.

I disagree. It is NOT pertinent. And based on how you’ve answered questions and what things you’ve shared, I think it would help you very much to deal directly with the OP topic at hand, whatever topic it may be. I think it may help clarify things for you.

 

[faithsmind]

Um, and one more thing–

Even though I’ve already responded to Fry’s question,

I think his question is bunk because it automatically assumes that an adult (whatever that is lol) deserves his suffering. I mean, really, we are all children of God. I’d argue that no one understands or truly deserves most of the suffering he/she encounters.

A better question would be: Why would God give us bodies and stick us on earth? But I suppose that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[AyJSimon]

Um, and one more thing–

Even though I’ve already responded to Fry’s question,

I think his question is bunk because it automatically assumes that an adult (whatever that is lol) deserves his suffering.

No, it doesn’t. It merely assumes that a young child doesn’t.

 

[Lucy107]

I disagree. It is NOT pertinent.

No question is ever asked in a vacuum. There is always some context to it.

And based on how you’ve answered questions and what things you’ve shared, I think it would help you very much to deal directly with the OP topic at hand, whatever topic it may be. I think it may help clarify things for you.

I have no issue with God allowing suffering.

 

[faithsmind]

No, it doesn’t. It merely assumes that a young child doesn’t.

Alright, but it comes from this notion of thinking that a good God should and would only allow pain to be reserved for just punishment. I disagree.

 

[faithsmind]

No question is ever asked in a vacuum. There is always some context to it.

Yes…

I have no issue with God allowing suffering.

Cool. I just meant that it may be helpful in general for you to really focus deeply on just one topic instead of multiple, even though it definitely is interesting and can provide some perspective… sometimes it can confuse things.

 

[Lucy107]

Cool. I just meant that it may be helpful in general for you to really focus deeply on just one topic instead of multiple, even though it definitely is interesting and can provide some perspective… sometimes it can confuse things.

Thank you for your concern. I gave myself one week for this forum to figure out how much I can handle. I’ve never had the intention to always post at this tempo and extent.

 

[faithsmind]

Thank you for your concern. I gave myself one week for this forum to figure out how much I can handle. I’ve never had the intention to always post at this tempo and extent.

Haw! I know what you mean. Although I never put a time limit on myself. Maybe I should have!

And, pain… it can be a difficult subject. Especially when we give it more credit than it is due… and can’t deal with it directly and objectively for what it is truly meant to do… alert us that we are not in accord or order with natural law and health.

 

[faithsmind]

My thought is that atheism has sky-rocketed in the past couple decades within first world countries because people suffer much less, nowdays. And pain, as a result, is seen as something to be medicated and avoided instead of fpr what it truly is; a healthy response to be dealt with.

 

[MFHMFH]

*Maybe if God were to do this it would draw people to Him. Many people turn away from God because of suffering. How is that good for their souls? In the gospels Jesus healed people who were suffering. He didn’t say “Let them suffer, it’s good for their souls.” *

I feel the same way, and this is why I am conflicted with religion in general.

 

[Musikero31]

Reminds me of one of the children who shared their experience during Pope Francis’s visit in the Philippines.
youtu.be/C77Qk6To4Zk?t=56s

This video always… ALWAYS… makes me cry… :crying:

Please stop chopping onions!

If only there are subtitles to this…

 

[MatthewMckibben]

DesCartes confronts this same issue in his problem of error, however, his insights demonstrate a degree of trust in free will; for free will is his defense against the problem of evil. Although, if evil is something to be stated, than evil must be defined. How would one define evil? Pain, misfortune, sorrow, sadness or things we just simply dislike? Well, that cannot be the case, because all of the previously mentioned are sufferings. Further, if evil and suffering are two in the same, than it might be easier to erase evil on the condition of redundancy. But to do that is illogical, instead evil occurs when things aren’t the way they are supposed to be. If things are to be a certain way, than it leads one to think there must be a designer or creator. And I call this God.

With his particular attack on suffering children- I don’t find the atheistic position helpful. By what moral code would the atheist even care? Humanism? Come on, most atheist don’t care. When Dawkins was questioned on the topic of abortion he stated simply, if you know your child is going to be born with any form of human defect abort the child. How is that comforting or succering? The atheist can choose, arbitrarily, whether or not to care. Child suffering isn’t without divine intervention. God calls everyone to his goodness- some people are transformed into loving vehicles in the name of Jesus. What would Kalcutta be like had Mother Thresa not heard the words of the suffering love “I thirst” or " You did it to me?" What would the world be like if Jesus had never interceded in the world? Would Martun Luther King have protested against equal rights? Would Gahindi have been called to a world of non-violence? Jesus is the linchpin that connects everything to himself. Suffering transforms people into Saints. Jesus is love. Ask for his grace to be upon you and his spirit to be within you, and He will hear you. He loves the world so much, It’s a shame anyone goes through life bearing witness to themselves. The Catholic Church is the number one charitable organization in the world. Suffering is suppressed because of Christ’s sacrifice.

 

[Andriana]

After Jesus explained to his disciples that he would have to suffer and die, Peter objected vehemently: “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” This is a very human (and our) reaction to a foreshadowing of pain. Thereupon Jesus told Peter - in no uncertain terms: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16)
I think this shows not only that we are quite limited in knowing what God’s designs are but it is also a reminder of the redemptive value of suffering.

It is certainly obvious to me that suffering is a result of sin and that it does not always immediately affect the guilty party. I think humanity must be taken as a whole - the Body of Christ. When one part is injured or sick (sin), other parts are definitely affected (punishment), whether innocent or guilty. Yes, we cannot understand God’s ways. However, we can do our share (prayer, works of mercy, practicing virtues) to limit sin and suffering to the best of our ability.

I grieve when I see the innocent (children) suffer. However, it is good to remember that Jesus, the most innocent of all, suffered the most. And it breaks heart of Jesus to see children suffer.

 

[SteveQ]

Since God is eternal without beginning or end, all of our human existence is one ever-present moment to Him. He already knows you in your earthly struggles as well as in what will be your Heavenly glory. Since your heavenly joy infinitely outshines your earthly struggles, He does not need to intervene in the ephemeral realm of mortality.

 

[faithsmind]

*Maybe if God were to do this it would draw people to Him. Many people turn away from God because of suffering. How is that good for their souls? In the gospels Jesus healed people who were suffering. He didn’t say “Let them suffer, it’s good for their souls.” *

I feel the same way, and this is why I am conflicted with religion in general.**

No–many people turn away from God because they want to turn away from suffering.
God has allowed suffering in order to capture attention and signal misalignment with health. When Christ healed, he restored order within the person’s body as a demonstration of who He is and what He wants from us; love and trust of Himself and His teachings. This is why He created the physical, malleable, and changeable world–a world where misalignment is possible. But change allows for the hope of love.

Change occurs for the sake and hope of the decision to love. Love is that valuable.

What atheist does not want love in his life? In fact, what atheist does not have an inordinate desire for love, and anyhow, why don’t they question this non-sensical desire more than they do pain? Because, to me, love is not empirical at all. And if we put the theory of evolution into play, the human mind has evolved far enough to rely on it’s own abilities for survival than on the necessity of companionship as an adult. As a matter of fact, our minds have evolved far enough as to question the value in surviving at all. (btw, the church does not refute evolution; sweet!) So what need do we have for it now? It’s obviously not just a leftover fin from prehistoric times. If we do not practice it, we waste away. And that makes no physical sense.

Hey, you guys need to come over to our side. Look, pain is on both sides, but at least on our side, when Christ’s laws are authentically practiced, they equate to peace, joy, fulfillment, community, and health. Just look at the stats. It’s because we do not deny who we really are.

Christ came “that they may have life, and have it abundantly”. John 10:10

 

[madagoo]

hi ALl,

Every Blessing to all.

Fry’s and other Atheists’ response is rather flawed…how can they blame a God they don’t believe exists?

So, in their worldview, WHO is to blame for bone cancer, famine etc. Some part of that is to be laid at the feet of human agency either doing things (like polluting the world) or NOT doing things (like sharing resources) that lead to these things.

So, what are the above explanations not valid in the theist worldview?

Yours in His Name Love and Service

Malcolm

 

[PRmerger]

hi ALl,

Every Blessing to all.

Fry’s and other Atheists’ response is rather flawed…how can they blame a God they don’t believe exists?

So, in their worldview, WHO is to blame for bone cancer, famine etc. Some part of that is to be laid at the feet of human agency either doing things (like polluting the world) or NOT doing things (like sharing resources) that lead to these things.

So, what are the above explanations not valid in the theist worldview?

Yours in His Name Love and Service

Malcolm

Well, I think their argument is this: IF God exists, then he is not a good god for letting children suffer.

 

[clem456]

Well, I think their argument is this: IF God exists, then he is not a good god for letting children suffer.

And I think their favorite argument is against God’s omnipotence.

The assumption among atheists seems to be that God’s power must assert itself over human nature, or it is no power at all. So when God sees evil, suffering, or when people reject him, he must assert himself or he cannot be powerful.

Christianity proposes a relationship of love, not one of assertion. Christian power is not arbitrary or contrary to loving sacrifice.

(heading off the knee-jerk objection: that doesn’t mean that we Christians necessarily love well).
(heading off the next knee jerk objection: yes our scriptures do portray a God who forces himself on humanity, and that’s a topic for another thread)