Stephen Fry - Why does God let children suffer?

[Achilles6129]

I think this is a good point!

Thank you!

Maybe, like in Job’s case, the hardship is not a matter of whether it is deserved or not.

Perhaps. So then why would God allow them to suffer? In addition, some people (like very small children and infants) suffer without having anything that we would call “real” consciousness. They’re conscious, but they don’t really know what’s going on. That means that the suffering couldn’t be some sort of “trial of the faith” like it is with Job.

Secondly, who knows what those innocent people feel when they are experiencing all those hardships.

Right. We must also keep in mind that the Apostle Paul and the rest of the Apostles also suffered (at least physically) as well. So it seems that obeying God’s commands is not going to necessarily keep you from physical hardship. We should also keep in mind that God delivered them spiritually, and in some cases physically.

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of someone who’s not in conscious rebellion against God suffering, what’s the point?

Generating compassion from others? Bravery and courage? Redemption? Union with Christ in His suffering?

And there are so many other possibilities that we may not be able to comprehend.

But we do know that in the end, God can make it up to those who suffer in this life with eternal joy in heaven.

 

[Lucy107]

Perhaps. So then why would God allow them to suffer?

This is easy to answer with an Eastern view with karma and reincarnation. In that view, infants who are afflicted with disease or abuse, could be so due to having committed karmically negative actions in their past lives and are now experiencing “payback”; or this affliction is due to humans mistreating nature and nature “striking back” or withholdig its riches.
In the Eastern view, an infant isn’t viewed as innocent, but as a being with a karmic load.

In a only-one-lifetime-for-action view, many things are much more difficult to explain.

In addition, some people (like very small children and infants) suffer without having anything that we would call “real” consciousness. They’re conscious, but they don’t really know what’s going on. That means that the suffering couldn’t be some sort of “trial of the faith” like it is with Job.

It could still be “trial of the faith” for the parents of these children and for others who see these children suffer or who know of them.

It’s a trial of the faith for us who discuss these things.

Right. We must also keep in mind that the Apostle Paul and the rest of the Apostles also suffered (at least physically) as well. So it seems that obeying God’s commands is not going to necessarily keep you from physical hardship. We should also keep in mind that God delivered them spiritually, and in some cases physically.

And it is the spiritual deliverance that matters.
Consider martyrs: physically, they undergo immense hardship. But inside? Do they also undergo immense hardship? I presume not.

 

[jmcrae]

In the case of Christ suffering, however, the suffering had a specific purpose and point. Remember that Christ asked God to take the cup away from him but was denied the request. In the case of someone who’s not in conscious rebellion against God suffering, what’s the point?

Same thing - to add our sufferings to the Cross for the redemption of souls.

 

[faithsmind]

I don’t reject the basic formulation of the ontological argument. I think it is quite sound.

But our atheist friend found it unpersuasive. And I don’t see why there is an assumption, on your part, that people like AyJ who reject the OA must simply not understand what they are rejecting. There are countless philosophers with objections to the OA none of whom are ignorant or incapable of ‘restating’ its premises and conclusions.

You were asking that he/she ‘restate’ the ontological argument when the more important question is WHY AyJ finds it unpersuasive.

I guess, for me at least, nothing is more frustrating than when someone ( esp. an atheist ) says they don’t agree with explanations on this forum, but then won’t enter the discussion and explain why. My assumption was that “our friend” was coming at it from more of an emotional standpoint.

 

[faithsmind]

So then, why would God allow suffering for a baby or an animal who does not have the capabilities of raising her suffering to new heights in virtue and unity with Christ?

God’s use of suffering, here, is to make it a negative experience in order to alert the physical body of a threatening phenomenon that is taking place, and to get the body to respond and change course.

 

[Achilles6129]

Generating compassion from others? Bravery and courage? Redemption? Union with Christ in His suffering?

And there are so many other possibilities that we may not be able to comprehend.

But we do know that in the end, God can make it up to those who suffer in this life with eternal joy in heaven.

Several things:

First, what about someone who suffers gratuitously - i.e., someone who suffers without anyone else being aware of it. For example, a forest burns down and a small child is caught in the forest fire. No-one ever knows about it or is ever aware that it ever happened. This is apparently gratuitous suffering.

Second, the fact remains that small children, infants, etc., still have done nothing to deserve the physical suffering that they’re put through. I agree that God can undo suffering at a later point in time; the question remains, however, as to why he allows them to suffer at all, why he allows them to suffer for the length of time that he does (thousands of years), and why he allows so many of them to suffer (from our perspective, obviously).

Third, it needs to be realized that God could prevent the suffering of small children/infants quite easily if he wanted to. He does not. That leaves us with the mystery of explaining why.

 

[Achilles6129]

This is easy to answer with an Eastern view with karma and reincarnation. In that view, infants who are afflicted with disease or abuse, could be so due to having committed karmically negative actions in their past lives and are now experiencing “payback”; or this affliction is due to humans mistreating nature and nature “striking back” or withholdig its riches.
In the Eastern view, an infant isn’t viewed as innocent, but as a being with a karmic load.

Biblical theology knows nothing of reincarnation, so this is irrelevant for our purposes.

In a only-one-lifetime-for-action view, many things are much more difficult to explain.

And that is the view we’re going by.

It could still be “trial of the faith” for the parents of these children and for others who see these children suffer or who know of them.

True. But what about the gratuitous suffering I pointed out in my above post?

It’s a trial of the faith for us who discuss these things.

It’s certainly a mystery. It definitely provides ammunition for antitheists who want to claim that God is evil.

And it is the spiritual deliverance that matters.
Consider martyrs: physically, they undergo immense hardship. But inside? Do they also undergo immense hardship? I presume not.

I’d have to agree. Biblically speaking, you’re correct:

“24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and [o]acts on them, [p]may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the [q]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not [r]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”” Mt. 7:24-27 (NASB)

However, this will no doubt be small comfort for an antitheist.

 

[Achilles6129]

Same thing - to add our sufferings to the Cross for the redemption of souls.

Could you explain a little more what you mean here?

 

[PRmerger]

Several things:

First, what about someone who suffers gratuitously - i.e., someone who suffers without anyone else being aware of it. For example, a forest burns down and a small child is caught in the forest fire. No-one ever knows about it or is ever aware that it ever happened. This is apparently gratuitous suffering.

A child being held down for vaccinations may also see his sufferings as gratuitous.

But we can see from our adult minds that there is indeed a purpose to his sufferings.

Second, the fact remains that small children, infants, etc., still have done nothing to deserve the physical suffering that they’re put through. I agree that God can undo suffering at a later point in time; the question remains, however, as to why he allows them to suffer at all, why he allows them to suffer for the length of time that he does (thousands of years), and why he allows so many of them to suffer (from our perspective, obviously).

The child in the pediatrician’s office also may ask: Father, why are you allowing them to jab me with 5 needles??? And why are you holding me down while they do it?

And no explanation will suffice for this child, right? He’s just mad and bewildered that his daddy is permitting this suffering, and even inflicting it!

Third, it needs to be realized that God could prevent the suffering of small children/infants quite easily if he wanted to. He does not. That leaves us with the mystery of explaining why.

The Father in the above scenario may try to explain the intricacies of immunology to his 5 yr old son, but no explanation will suffice. The 5 yr old is simply incapable of comprehending the reason why he needs 5 shots.

 

[thesmiter1]

I’ve always wondered this. It’s not that suffering exists that perplexes me, it’s that there exists suffering that drives people away from God. For example, those with mental illness such as depression, are often driven to despair by what God gives them. Now, God being God, he knew that the amount of suffering he allowed them would cause them to despair (getting a little into foreknowledge and predestination here), but he still gave them that suffering anyway.

I can actually speak from experience in this regard. And all I can answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know why God gives suffering that leads some to despair. I don’t know why he doesn’t relieve it when the person cries out, I don’t know why it keeps getting worse, I don’t know why he never sends anyone to help them or love them. It’s not redemptive because it drives them from God. So I have no idea. It’s a mystery.

 

[Lucy107]

Biblical theology knows nothing of reincarnation, so this is irrelevant for our purposes.

An excursion into another religion can sometimes be useful, as a ladder - climb it and then leave it behind.

True. But what about the gratuitous suffering I pointed out in my above post?

The kind of gratuitous suffering you describe is such that nobody ever knows of. So how do you know it even exists?

It’s certainly a mystery. It definitely provides ammunition for antitheists who want to claim that God is evil.

However, this will no doubt be small comfort for an antitheist.

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Rom 2:24

 

[michaelmas]

I

Serious sins are not easily dispensed or overcome.

Explain that…

Thanks

 

[Achilles6129]

A child being held down for vaccinations may also see his sufferings as gratuitous.

But we can see from our adult minds that there is indeed a purpose to his sufferings.

Right, I see that, but there’s a huge difference between being held down for vaccinations and going into the Holocaust.

The child in the pediatrician’s office also may ask: Father, why are you allowing them to jab me with 5 needles??? And why are you holding me down while they do it?

And no explanation will suffice for this child, right? He’s just mad and bewildered that his daddy is permitting this suffering, and even inflicting it!

The Father in the above scenario may try to explain the intricacies of immunology to his 5 yr old son, but no explanation will suffice. The 5 yr old is simply incapable of comprehending the reason why he needs 5 shots.

If you’re trying to say that the reason why sometimes the innocent suffer so terribly is a mystery, then I would have to agree (at this present point in time with my current knowledge). It’s apparently a mystery that God has not explained or really addressed in Scripture, which is interesting.

 

[Achilles6129]

The kind of gratuitous suffering you describe is such that nobody ever knows of. So how do you know it even exists?

I suppose you’re right about that - I don’t know it exists. But back to your main point: that God allows the suffering of innocents to try our faith. We do have to wonder, I think, if there isn’t some other way he could try our faith, other than allowing such terrible suffering. I suppose it’s a mystery that only God knows the answer to. Perhaps he refrained from giving us the answer (as another poster suggested) because we simply wouldn’t be able to understand it.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, I see that, but there’s a huge difference between being held down for vaccinations and going into the Holocaust.

But the difference between those 2 things is finite.

The difference between the human father and God the Father is infinite.

So, if anything, the analogy doesn’t do enough justice to how infinitely LIMITED our human understanding is.

IOW: Compare God trying to explain to humanity why he permits suffering to a human father trying to explain to a 5 yr old why he is permitting the vaccination…and you can see how inadequate the analogy is.

Except it’s in the OPPOSITE way that you mean.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re trying to say that the reason why sometimes the innocent suffer so terribly is a mystery, then I would have to agree (at this present point in time with my current knowledge).

Not exactly.

It’s apparently a mystery that God has not explained or really addressed in Scripture, which is interesting.

This is not true. God has explained it and addressed it in Scripture. And it has been addressed in numerous writings and texts.

That it doesn’t quite satisfy…I would have to agree.

But to say that “God has not explained or really addressed in Scripture” is categorically incorrect.

 

[jmcrae]

Could you explain a little more what you mean here?

In Romans 5:1-5, St. Paul reminds us that suffering brings us closer to being like Christ.

Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we[c] rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 More than that, we[d] rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

But why do we need to be like Christ in His suffering?

He seems to answer this question in Colossians 1:24

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

We have the power, it seems to add our own sufferings to the Cross of Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the Church.

Our first Pope also adjures us:

But rejoice in so far as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

• 1 Peter 4:13

When we say, “offer it up,” we mean, offer your sufferings to Jesus on the Cross, and let it be for the redemption of souls - rather than complain.

 

[Lucy107]

I suppose you’re right about that - I don’t know it exists. But back to your main point: that God allows the suffering of innocents to try our faith. We do have to wonder, I think, if there isn’t some other way he could try our faith, other than allowing such terrible suffering.

Of course there is such a way in which God can try our faith. It begins the moment one wakes up in the morning. Is one willing to devote all one’s actions to the service of God? Is one willing to wash up the service of God? Is one willing to eat breakfast the service of God? and so on.

If one does so, things look different then.

 

[Ignatius]

Stephen Fry had an interview on an Irish TV programme recently,. . .

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

Fry is such a Complete Hypocrite! If he were actually concerned about it, he would be working to eliminate the suffering. Instead he Hypocritically uses it as an excuse to castigate others for failing to do what he himself fails to do. That is the very Definition of a Hypocrite.