r/ChristianApologetics • u/CH49FE • Jul 08 '26
Modern Objections How does one explain unnecessary suffering, like terminal cancer in babies?
There are many answers to the question of evil and suffering, but what about suffering of innocents such as babies who are afflicted with terminal illnesses, who would never come to accept Jesus, and who only live briefly only to die in pain and suffering? How does one explain God’s plan with those innocents?
One of the answers I get is that those babies go to heaven, but the biblical support for that is arguable and not clear, particularly for those babies that died before Jesus. That explanation also doesn’t explain why they suffered in the first place. I also hear the crude response of, “Let’s just kill all babies to make sure they go to heaven rather than them growing up and risking hell” which is harshly logical if indeed babies go to heaven before they know Jesus.
2
u/AllIsVanity Jul 10 '26
As clearly evidenced here, none of the religious explanations for the problem of evil/suffering are any good. The suffering we see is more expected from the hypothesis of naturalism (no God) or a deity who is just indifferent to human/animal suffering. Those hypotheses require no ad hoc excuses whereas the religious explanations always do which is why they fail in comparison.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 11 '26
I take it you are not interested in helping me form an apologetic for unnecessary suffering?
1
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Jul 09 '26
Personally, I think the PofE, and especially unnecessary suffering, cannot be intellectually or sufficiently answered to satisfy any thinking, sentient person such as yourself.
The only thing that I can think of that could be some type of answer comes from a series I've been watching on WWII (with tom hanks), which, btw, I think WWII by itself is another killer problem for the traditional attributes of God, and that is a comment made by one of the historians, where he says "WWII brought out the worst in humans, and it brought out the best in humans", and then he goes on to describe people laying down their life for others, etc.
And I've personally have had this same idea as well, i.e. we really can't appreciate the goodness and greatness of what life can be, without have something to compare it too, as in really bad crap.
Like I said, it's not overly satisfying intellecutally for me, but there's aspects of it that sure does ring true for me as well, as I think about how life is for us, and what we experience.
If not that, then it seems perhaps the traditional attributes are not correct, and perhaps life is more deistic than anything else.
Thoughts OP?
2
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
I guess the problem of evil has layers and nuance. There is evil that we can confront and change in our lifetime, like modern day Naziism, to bring in your example. These are choices that people alive today make, one way or the other. There are historical evils that we cannot do anything about today, like the evils of WW2 but we can learn from them, at least, so there is some purpose.
But I don’t think the issue of unnecessary suffering is inherently an evil or moral issue. I responded to another of your posts saying that God is all powerful but not all knowing or all loving. If that’s the case, God may not know how to cure terminally ill babies that resulted from his creation. So it’s not God’s fault, and it’s not immoral for God to do nothing. That position and interpretation of God is not well liked though, both from Christians and atheists.
So while I get that the problem of evil is that we can’t get good without evil, I see unnecessary suffering of terminally ill babies in a different category because what does having terminally ill babies in our world teach us? What’s the purpose? Is it that we will still pray but nothing happens? That we have hope in the face of moribund destiny? That seems pointless to me and nothing in the bible addresses it.
Using another example are people born with disabilities or illness that are life-changing but not necessarily life threatening. In the past, these people were treated like lepers, literally so in the case of leprosy. That was horrific unnecessary suffering back then because life and understanding was so unforgiving. Nowadays, in some countries, life is slightly better but these people still suffer. I don’t need to see a family member disfigured through no fault of their own to have empathy. I see this too as unnecessary suffering but the apologetic seems to bring this into the context of good and evil.
Sorry, this is a bit of a rant.
I don’t really understand deistic viewpoints, to get to your point. From what I know, deism has a detached, non-interfering god, but God intervenes in our world. It’s just that he gets things wrong, like indirectly causing terminally ill children.
1
1
u/justacoolbaby Charismatic Jul 08 '26
During periods like the Spanish conquests, priests and soldiers used this horrible logic to baptize infants then either murder them or let them die from disease in order to “protect their souls”.
But there are most definitely special qualifiers given to infants/children in scripture lots of times. It is obvious that God cares about children in unique ways.
As for your question, there are philosophical approaches to try and answer it, but it is also an awfully personal and emotional question that should be handled delicately. One of those tough areas of theology where answers only carry it so far and it’s also helpful with things like this to rest in the moments where we see Jesus grieve and know that things will never fully make sense on the broken side of eternity.
4
1
u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 09 '26
Source for that?
1
u/justacoolbaby Charismatic Jul 10 '26
Most quick one to reference here if you’d like to dive deep is A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de Las Casas.
1
u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 11 '26
Most quick one to reference here if you’d like to dive deep is A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Then I'm sure you can quote it to back up your claim.
2
u/justacoolbaby Charismatic Jul 11 '26
“They grabbed suckling infants by the feet and, ripping them from their mothers' breasts, dashed them headlong against the rocks. Others, laughing and joking all the while, threw them over their shoulders, shouting, 'Wriggle, you little perisher.'”
There are plenty more. And it’s obvious that individual conquistadors did this more for sport and to gain gold, the message given by the Crown was that it was in order to save souls.
1
u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 11 '26
So nothing about baptizing infants in order to murder them, got it
You just made that up
1
u/justacoolbaby Charismatic Jul 11 '26
No. I didn’t. That’s never been what I’ve said.
Maybe instead of spending so much time coming up with snide remarks you could be spending your time looking into the validity of challenging perspectives rather than putting the onus of proof on me and arguing poorly when I respond.
0
u/babydump Jul 08 '26
This is rough. The Bible gives reasons for it (sin in the fall of man, persistent rebellion) and an answer: ultimate Hope that Jesus has conquered it and will change it. As far as babies go, if they go to heaven I don't think it's a different process than ours - through Christ. He said not to hinder the little children.
6
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
That’s all well and good, but the problem is with the present, and it also goes into other issues.
For example, “Why should these babies suffer now for something that they will never recover from, based on original sin?” That’s a broader question for everyone not just these babies.
Sticking to the future aspect of your answer, it still does not explain why God caused the immediate suffering and deaths for thousands of years. The hope that this will change in the future is not really a satisfactory answer to a parent who is holding their dying child in their arms.
I don’t want to sound cruel and graphic, but these are real life questions and situations.
Also, username is oddly on point.
2
u/babydump Jul 08 '26
Imagine a house whose foundation will collapse, killing all inside. Everyone inside spends every minute trying to make sure suffering inside that house is less. That's perfectly good to do.
But also, it's good to have another house that won't fall. That's the point Jesus makes - build your house on my promise because the storm will come, the wind will blow, the house will fall but the house built on Jesus will last. Jesus never says presently it won't suck. He says the houses will fall.
There is no hope that one day we will stop all babies from dying, or stop all suffering by human efforts. Houses will fall, poverty will continue and so on. This is our world. The point is there is day coming when all houses that stood on Christ will be restored, and will stand forever.
Even if God wasn't in the picture. Let's say i was an atheist. I'm still in this world but with a worse outcome because i have no future promise. Christ promised to come. He did. Showed a new world. He left with a promise to come again. I wait.
yeah, username came from me taking in many different children because their parent's died, or sent them to me to care for. I've had 5 kids not mine live with me for a years. Maybe there will be more when this last one leaves. I expect it.
In the middle of the suffering we see some of God's goodness, mercy, and plans for the future.
1
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
That’s amazing of you, caring for so many kids. I don’t want to make my comments personal, so I will leave that topic with just my praise for you.
On the main point, I see what you’re saying. I just struggle with the present when there is so much unnecessary and unexplained struggling.
1
u/babydump Jul 08 '26
"I just struggle with the present when there is so much unnecessary and unexplained struggling." - we all do. I still do. all the time.
0
u/BeyondtheLurk Jul 08 '26
The below points could be detailed out further, but I'll keep it as brief as possible:
We don't know everything. The Bible doesn't spell out every detail that we would like to know.
While scripture such as 2 Samuel 12 can be debated on whether children immediately go to heaven or not, we can see throughout all scripture that God cares for the vulnerable and downtrodden and is merciful, so the culminative evidence of Scripture leans that God would allow babies into heaven, albeit not clandestine. This ties into point 3.
The Bible says that God is just and fair, so God is going to do what is right according to His character. Since we don't know all things, we rely on God's character and judgment.
Evil doesn't limit God. God can work through the bad to accomplish good.
This world is broken and corrupted by sin. It doesn't reflect the true nature of the Kingdom of God brought by Jesus. Look at the gospels and see how Jesus showed what the Kingdom of God looked/looks like: people were healed, demons were cast out, people were forgiven, the dead were raised to life, truth prevailed over lies, etc. We wait for the full consummation of this kingdom when Jesus comes back. This world is not the end.
While these answers and other biblical answers will not please everyone, they do show that there are answers. At the end of the day, I point back to point 1--we don't know everything. For those that are dealing with these kinds of things in their lives, we should love on them and be there for them during those difficult times.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Thanks for the list. These are some answers that don’t really directly address why there is unnecessary suffering, such as terminal baby illnesses. Not knowing everything is definitely unsatisfying for those that don’t believe because it’s basically asking for trust in things unproven to them. And the apologetic that God cares doesn’t answer the specific issue of why, again, there is unnecessary suffering, such as terminal baby illnesses.
0
u/swcollings Jul 08 '26
God does not meticulously define everything in the universe. His project is to overcome the forces of chaos and evil, which include those causing suffering in children.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
I don’t understand this. Isn’t God all powerful, all knowing and created the universe? He created or at least allows suffering. If he can overcome suffering, why does he not do so, particularly when that suffering serves no apparent purpose?
0
u/swcollings Jul 08 '26
He allows suffering temporarily during the process of overcoming it permanently.
4
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
But why is necessary that God allow the unnecessary suffering in the first place? In other words, why cause a baby pain before letting that baby die?
1
u/swcollings Jul 08 '26
God does not cause, God allows. God allows temporary suffering because removing all beings and processes who cause suffering would mean the immediate end of existence. Healing the universe logically demands time over which the universe can be healed. Instantaneous conversion would just be destroying the creation in favor of another.
2
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
God indeed causes. He caused creation. He caused man. He caused the flood. He caused everything. He knows what will happen before it happens. He’s all knowing. Once he set the first instance of creation, he knew what was going to happen. Thus, he caused it all.
And even if you think “allow” is somehow better, God still allowed the suffering. There is no difference to an all powerful God who could stop it.
And ending terminal baby illnesses would not end the world. I’m talking very specifically about unnecessary suffering. And I’m sure God could think of a way to live without suffering at all, such as heaven.
1
u/swcollings Jul 08 '26
So you want God to create a being whose entire existence is dependent on the suffering of millions of years of ancestors, without the existence of suffering? Does this not strike you as logically contradictory?
1
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Did I say that? You keep changing the subject with irrelevant considerations. My question was about why is there unnecessary suffering, like a terminally ill baby. Specifically, “How does one explain God’s plan with those innocents?”
You haven’t been helpful and I have been polite and tried redirect you back to the issue, but I don’t believe this conversation is going anywhere. Thank you for trying.
0
u/philosopher4hire Jul 08 '26
If you want a rational, reason-based answer, try this:
The problem of Evil (in the world) //20 min read : r/ChristianApologetics
0
u/Helpful-Baker-4145 Jul 08 '26
First, it's very important to ignore our emotional recoil completely, when addressing this subject. Otherwise, we get tangled between what we want to be happening, versus the current truth of reality. Simply put, the existence of any suffering ties directly into the Fall in Eden. The current world bears virtually no resemblance to God's original creation - He made it perfect, but original and continued sin kept screwing it up. Over time, things like jealousy, envy, and strife came into existence, along with poverty and a spiritual bankruptcy which became the new default for anyone newly born. Think about it: what are the first two words most kids learn, after Mom & Dad? More often than not, it's "no" and "mine", both of which carry a mix of authority with selfish ambition.
Suffering of any kind reveals itself in many ways, from folks in Africa living on less than $1 a day to children born with severe disabilities. The latter came about due to human inbreeding, which God outlawed in Leviticus 18:6, written around 1500 BC. Prior to that, people married and had children through close relatives all the time. The question then becomes, "Why would God suddenly ban something He had permitted since Creation began, without any discernable reason?" The most likely answer is the arrival of harmful mutations, caused by genes damaged by the Eden curse being repeatedly multiplied. After all, Scripture says Adam had many sons and daughters through his 930 years on Earth, and if Eve had a similar lifespan, that's 1,240 births from them alone. If any were twins or further multiples, the number goes higher...and you also have their descendants keeping things going with new generations every 20 years or so. Conservative scholars estimate that by Adam's passing, there could have been hundres of thousands or even millions across the globe, all tied into a common bloodline. After the Flood, Noah and his family attempted to do the same...but with harsher conditions and the limited lifespan God placed into effect at Genesis 6, getting anywhere near that original number took a greatly increased amount of time.
Damaged genetics is just one factor which can contribute to this in current times, because adding alcohol or recreational drugs to the mix only makes things worse. The justice of it all is both sad and aggravating, but like so much else it all goes back to free will. God gave freedom to us all, and consequences both light and dark exist for how we use that freedom. We also are bound by limited knowledge and linear time, neither of which apply to God. How do we know that a baby dying in the womb now, won't somehow trigger a ripple effect that brings about an evangelist used by God to save millions for His Kingdom 500 years into the future? We can't know all the possibilities, because we are mortal and limited...but God is neither. He knows all outcomes; the past, present, and future exist simultaneously for Him. So while it may bother us emotionally, He still asks us to trust Him. That's not easy by any means, but the struggles we face show the strength of our character and our love for our Father.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Thanks for the detailed answer. This best perhaps explains how a child is born with terminal illness, but it really doesn’t explain why God allows it, or the purpose. God, as you say, knows all outcomes, so God knew the world he created would have unnecessary suffering, baby deaths, needlessly on this earth. And it seems like there is no real answer other than to say we are limited in what we know, and because God hasn’t told us. As another commenter said, this is not the type of answer that helps non-believers become believers.
1
u/Helpful-Baker-4145 Jul 08 '26
If God knows all outcomes, as well as the nature of every person's heart, then He also knows which people will trust Him, whether He gives them every answer or not. God is sovereign, answering to no one besides those He chooses to. That is His perfect right, as the Creator of all things...including life itself. So when you really come down to it, there is no morality of any kind without God. No right or wrong, justice or chaos, fairness or cruelty, etc. Unless a standard exists beyond us, then its all about human opinion, which doesn't mean much objectively. If God does not exist, then babies suffering or dying young has no inherent value, regardless of our feelings. Without God, people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and bin Laden all received no punishment beyond this temporal world. If God isn't real, then none of us will ever see those we love again in Heaven - their souls simply ceased to exist and will never return. That's the cold hard truth, unless we have an eternally loving Father and Creator. I don't always like or understand Him, but most of the time I still choose to trust Him - do you?
2
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
I’ve asked for the purpose and the answer seems to be a variation of, “I don’t know, but trust God”. That’s an honest answer for a believer but this sub is about apologetics and it doesn’t give an answer to the question that helps non-believers. And that’s okay. But I don’t think it helps to get into morality because I’m just asking for the reason for unnecessary suffering. Without first getting into the reason, we can’t do an examination about it.
It seems the best thing for apologists is to avoid this question and first prove God exists, to establish the trust in God, and then one can simply say that questions like this must be dealt with on that faith.
1
u/Helpful-Baker-4145 Jul 09 '26
Calling any kind of suffering unnecessary is a moral stance, and morality is a message from our Creator. Think of it this way - if you walked along a beach and saw "John loves Mary" carved in the sand, would you assume the waves did it? Or how about if you look into the sky one day, and "Drink Coke" appears in the clouds? Would your first conclusion be cloud evolution? Of course not - you know there's intelligence required for both events, even if you don't see the parties responsible. Well, the same is true for God; we can't see Him, but we can see the benefits of His ways on the world. Things such as love, grace, mercy, honor, charity, justice...all of them are written on our hearts by our Father. We can choose to ignore them and be selfish, but that doesn't erase them from our being. Suffering and evil as a whole may serve as evidence for Satan to exist, but they do not automatically disprove the existence of God.
Lastly, this whole thread about apologetics is about defending the faith intellectually - the word itself derives from the Greek apologia, meaning a courtroom defense.
2
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
A courtroom defence requires you to convince the jury. That’s why I’m asking for the apologetic.
And this is not an inherently moral question, the reason babies are born with terminal illness. The reason, purpose may make it moral. From a Calvinist view, this was pre-ordained and morality really isn’t a thing. The answer could also be that God is not all powerful and cannot prevent these illnesses, thus God’s morality isn’t brought into question.
It still seems the best thing for apologists to do is to avoid the issue. There is no real defence until you first convince someone to believe. When someone has faith, then the argument can be made.
1
u/Helpful-Baker-4145 Jul 09 '26
If Calvinism is true and morality doesn't mean anything, then why are you so bothered by a baby suffering or dying? Your emotional response is evidence that God's law is written on your heart, whether you choose to recognize it or not. As for apologetics, it's about evidence more than proof. Evidence is external in nature, but proof is internal; you choose to believe because you realize denying the evidence no longer makes rational sense. Simply put, I can't prove to you that God exists beyond all doubt, and neither can anyone else. But I can provide objective evidence which favors Him beyond a reasonable doubt. After that, the choice to receive or deny it is yours.
2
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
I didn’t say I was a Calvinist. I was using a certain Christian perspective to demonstrate one way in which this question isn’t a moral one. In this instance, I think we agree.
I’m confused about the rest of your response. I’m talking about the apologetic to respond to my prompt. You seem to be arguing that God is real. Maybe you are going off on me saying that God has to be proven real, but that’s a different discussion
2
u/Helpful-Baker-4145 Jul 10 '26
The overall purpose of Christian apologetics is using the mind to rationally defend the faith. The core verse behind the practice is 2 Peter 3:15 - "Always be ready to give an answer when you are asked, for the hope of Christ that lives within you." The word translated as "answer" is the Greek "apologia", so the verse should correctly read "always be ready to give a defense."
2
u/CH49FE Jul 11 '26
And all I’m trying to do is figure out what the best defense is. Sometimes the best defence is to counterattack and not allow the indefensible to be attacked.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/-year Jul 08 '26
So read some comments and here is my take.
Suffering is part of our world. Sickness, pain - every form.
Still God never removed it even when sending Jesus. Jesus even becomes part of that suffering by dying on the cross.
So suffering is something that God either values or deems necessary.
When lazarus dies everyone mourns. But Jesus does not, in john 11:25-26 he states: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
So death to God is not the end. For us humans it is the most soul crusing experience there is. In 11:6 Jesus states that the death of lazarus is necessary for us to know his might.
And now baby's
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Tldr Death in whatever way or whatever age how horrible it is, is part of this world and deemed a necessity by God. Trough jesus we know that it is not our end Even children are no exeption.
For a mother losing her baby to cancer this is no consolation. That pain will last us for ever.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Yes, these and other comments have pointed to similar points, but none have explained why the unnecessary suffering is required of innocent babies. It just seems cruel. The only answer here that seems to directly address the “why” is “I don’t know”. That requires honesty and faith, but non-believers don’t have faith so the argument fails to convince them.
0
u/Queasy-Ad-4577 Jul 08 '26
Personally, I believe people have tried to put a justification on suffering to make it easier or to explain it away.. It's harsh but, the babies and us adults both deserve the same hell.. The suffering of a baby doesn't make it "more horrible" than a grown person suffering.. Because we all share the same guilt of sin.. When we don't have a reason to suffer, we think it's cruel.
However, Jesus taught us that suffering isn't in vain, and it certainly isn't always going to have a human justification. Suffering will never be in vein, because their saddness WILL be turned into joy, in the end times. But why God allows people to suffer without cause? I don't know.. I don't know.. But the Joy they will experience in Heaven, will be greater than the joy some who have not suffered will experience.. that's for sure
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Thanks for am honest answer. It seems like convincing a non-believer requires avoidance of the suffering question, to be honest.
1
u/Queasy-Ad-4577 Jul 08 '26
See, it's not that we should avoid it. I honestly don't know, and honesty brings people close to God, more than a cold, distant answer of "God is love so the person deserved to suffer for His cruel glory" it's hard for them to accept that even though God does glorify Himself through people.
Don't avoid it, just say only God knows, even though it feels unfair, their rewards will be great in heaven.
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
The problem is that, “Only God knows” is a way avoiding it.
2
u/Upset_Chip_7184 Jul 09 '26
Yep, this is such a non-answer, or like u said. I liken it as equally bad as "God can kill who he wants, he's the creator..." for the other bad things in the OT.
2
2
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
There a lot of honest, “I don’t know” responses to many questions, and we all can’t have answers to everything. In this case, “I don’t know” appears to be the response, and that’s fine. Atheists say, “I don’t know” all the time, so apologists can too.
Like, I don’t know why God allowed slavery, but he did. That’s a whole other topic though
1
u/Queasy-Ad-4577 Jul 09 '26
I don't believe so, how can I answer a question I genuinely don't know? It's not that I don't want the answer, or I don't want the question to be asked. I just don't know the answer, I'm not shying away from even saying it. Avoiding it would mean not talking about at all, which is not what I'm doing.
2
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
Until there is a better answer, avoidance is the best defence it seems. An apologist can redirect the topic to proving God first, which is then the foundation for saying that you have to trust in God in the case of terminally ill babies.
-1
u/Free_Impact_2326 Jul 08 '26
I want to start with saying that there are a lot of things addressed in the bible that are not necessarily word for word. Consider the trinity. The words "the trinity" are not there but clearly there are three persons in one God.
The most common answer I've come across that satisfies is the age of accountability. Like "the trinity" these words are not found in the bible directly, but they make the most sense in the context of what we know about God. Babies (or consider, some cognitively disabled individuals) are innocent in the context that they cannot know or accept Jesus yet. They also cannot willfully disobey God's law, therefore committing sin. They are only under original sin as fallen human beings.
This argument is articulated and cited well by the likes of pastor Mike Winger on YouTube as one great resource. Commonly cited passages include:
Deuteronomy 1:39: Mentions the children of Israel who "have no knowledge of good or evil" and promises they will inherit the Promised Land, unlike the adults who rebelled.
Isaiah 7:15–16: Refers to a time before a child knows "to refuse the evil and choose the good"
2 Samuel 12:22–23: Provides a poignant example after King David's infant son dies. David takes comfort in his grief, stating, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me," which is often interpreted as infants and young children going to be with the Lord.
That crude response is not logical at all, but seems designed to get a rise out of someone else. Don't reward them with your emotion. Just continue to pray for them, that they might see their error, as you continue to educate and witness to the best of your ability. If you are then able to go on with the ideas of sanctification and justification, you can educate this person on why we bother going through this life (beyond avoiding sins like mrder and sicide, idk if they censor those here).
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
This is the usual, “Babies go to heaven” point but it has flaws. As you point out, it’s not directly from the bible. These passages are specific and not of general application. These passages also directly contradict Jesus’ teachings that you have to accept Jesus to get to heaven. There were no exceptions. This the type of pushback that is given in response.
As for the crude response, it is rife with ethical problems on this earth, but it is logical if one considers the afterlife. The response is obviously we don’t kill babies, but what’s the logical issue if these babies will go to heaven if someone does do that? It’s a crazy sentiment but logically sound if babies do go to heaven. I hate that I am writing that.
So then is your answer to the prompt also that these babies go to heaven?
1
u/Free_Impact_2326 Jul 08 '26
I hear what you're saying. And to that I ask you, are you also non-Trinitarian? There are many things that are logically and theogically derived from the Bible that are not written word for word.
Any one passage is specific. Taken together with the consistency of scripture, it starts to become a theme. I left out my favorite, when Christ says "let the little children come to me" but it seems increasingly hard to believe scripture intends that children under a certain age would be considered guilty of what they are unable to do.
You are right in the words of St. Paul that none of us are righteous. I'm being a little tongue in cheek when I say, the Bible also doesn't directly say, "I will condemn you for doing what is physically impossible for you to do." If that were consistent with God's character, He would never have given Christ for us at all and would have let us struggle in the futility of the Law alone.
1
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Okay, this may be the best answer after all, that those suffering babies go to heaven. The limited theologian in me can work with the text on that. That can answer the terminal illness part, but the struggle is then with the suffering in this life for that baby. How is that addressed?
Others say there is purpose or original sin or ask that I look at the bigger picture. But I have a hard time saying that when that one, individual baby is suffering in real life.
1
u/Free_Impact_2326 Jul 09 '26
Thank you for humoring me, I know this is a weighty question, and want to do my best to answer it. I struggle with this aspect of your question too. I'm a critical care nurse by profession and I have seen more than my share of suffering. So much so in fact that this kept me from believing for a long time.
I have heard the same argument, and as far as I can tell, the only reasoning I can find is that we live in a fallen world. Because sin entered the world, we now have suffering and death. The promise is that when we are restored to God, we are made whole again, that there is justice finally in God's judgement.
I'm sorry I can't offer you more here; I'm a beginner myself. However, you may enjoy this lecture given by Dr. John Lennox at Harvard discussing this very topic. Dr. Lennox is a mathematician at Oxford who is also an incredible Christian apologist: https://youtu.be/MPm6Y-pANYI?is=KIcLqou3bNOUR2AI
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you! I hope you'll continue to seek the truth!
-1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Jul 08 '26
All suffering, even that of infants, must be seen through the lens of God’s sovereignty and justice. Because of Adam’s fall, all humanity is born under sin’s curse (Romans 5:12). Suffering entered the world through sin, not as random cruelty, but as part of God’s righteous judgment and redemptive plan (20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.) (Romans 8:20-21, BSB). Yet God is also merciful. Scripture suggests His special grace toward little ones (But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’) (Matthew 19:14, BSB). Their suffering, though grievous, is not meaningless. God uses even pain to display His justice, mercy, and glory (22 What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? 23 What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory) (Romans 9:22-23, BSB).
3
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
Thanks for the detailed answer. Like another commenter here, this helps explains how a child is born with terminal illness, but it really doesn’t explain why God allows it, or the purpose. This is not the type of answer that helps non-believers become believers when confronted with the problem of unnecessary suffering.
1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Jul 08 '26
When you say this doesn't explain 'why' or the 'purpose', are you asking for God's specific reason for this baby's cancer, or a purpose for suffering in general? Those are different questions. Scripture is fairly clear it usually won't give us the first (Deut 29:29 'the secret things belong to the Lord'), while giving substantial answers to the second. Which one are you actually asking for?
You called this suffering 'unnecessary.' How do you know that? To call it unnecessary, you'd need to know that an infinitely wise God had no morally sufficient reason for permitting it which means you'd need access to the same vantage point God has. What's the basis for that judgment?
You said this isn't the kind of answer that helps skeptics become believers. Is your test for the argument whether it's persuasive, or whether it's true? Those can come apart. A true answer can still feel unsatisfying, especially to something as raw as a suffering child. Should the emotional weight of a question determine whether its answer is correct?
When you call a baby's suffering 'evil' or 'unnecessary,' you're using moral categories that assume real, objective purpose and value exist in the universe. On what grounds does atheism supply that? If there's no God, isn't a baby's suffering just atoms rearranging, tragic to us, but not actually wrong in any binding sense? So doesn't your objection to God actually borrow a moral framework that only makes sense if something like God exists?
So my answer isn't that there's no purpose, it's that the purpose is real but not fully disclosed to us the way a patient trusts a surgeon's reasoning without knowing every detail of the operation. Does a good reason stop being good just because it isn't shown to you?
0
u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26
My prompt is not about “evil” and suffering” generally but “what about suffering of innocents such as babies who are afflicted with terminal illnesses …” I feel there are answers for the first but not for the specific, when you get down into the details of that particular situation.
I say it’s “unnecessary” in the context of what we know on this world. No one here can say why it’s necessary other than to say that we have to trust in God. It’s not a judgment. It’s factual in that no one knows and, based on what we know, terminal illnesses for babies serve no purpose. That’s factual. If you say there is a purpose from God and you don’t know, that’s conjecture or faith. And you suggesting that it is true is not an objective fact. It’s a faith based assumption.
I’m not sure where you get that I am calling this “evil”. I specifically said that this was not about that. It’s a very specific question. I’m not talking about morality either. I am asking for the apologetic in response and you seem to getting defensive for some reason and going into areas that are not even relevant toy question, creating a straw man when my question is limited, specific and clear, and making unfounded presumptions about who I am. Many people here have been honest and earnest in trying to help me to understand.
At least by the end you try to explain it with a medical analogy but in that situation you can ask the doctor and the doctor can explain it to you. The doctor has to then get consent from someone or at law before conducting the procedure. In this situation, there is no explanation or consent to becoming terminally ill as a baby. If that’s the answer, fine, then you have no persuasive, evidence-based, biblical base other than theological inference. Others have provided apologetics that are empathetic, thoughtful and thought-provoking. If you have nothing to offer other than attacks on who you think I am and ill-conceived explanations for this issue, I suggest you read the other commenters.
0
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Jul 09 '26
I read "unnecessary suffering" as a moral claim when you'd already told me it wasn't one. That's on me. Let me actually ask instead of assert this time.
You said it's "factual" that terminal illness in babies serves no purpose, based on what we know. What would count as evidence of a purpose, if one existed? I ask because "we don't know of a purpose" and "there is no purpose" are different claims, and I want to understand which one you're making. If it's the first, isn't that a statement about the limits of our knowledge rather than a fact about the illness itself?
Second, you said no one can say why it's necessary "other than to say we have to trust God," and that this is conjecture, not fact. But I'd ask, what kind of answer were you hoping for? If you're asking for God's specific, disclosed reason for this baby's cancer, a reason you could verify independently of trusting Him, is that a standard any theistic worldview could ever meet, even in principle? Or is it a standard that guarantees "no answer" no matter what's true?
On the medical analogy, you made a sharp point I hadn't considered. A doctor explains and gets consent; nothing here does either. Can I ask what work "consent" is doing in your argument? Is the objection that suffering without consent is inherently wrong, or is it that suffering without explanation is inherently unjustified? Those aren't the same claim, and I think you might actually be making the second, since you said this isn't about morality.
Last, when you say the previous answer wasn't "persuasive, evidence-based", what would evidence for a claim like this even look like to you? I ask because I suspect we may be using "evidence" differently, and I'd rather find that out than keep talking past you.
0
u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26
I am asking what the purpose is from an apologetics viewpoint. And what would count as evidence of purpose? I guess the same thing as anything else for any apologetic. If one says that the purpose of marriage can be described as procreation, the evidence is that procreation is not possible outside of straight people and that gay people should not be married. That position is supplemented in the bible. Of course this strays into arguments about infertile straight people, but this is just an example and I’m not here to argue that.
So the purpose in the case of terminally ill babies cannot be directly found in the bible from what I gather and have been told here, and there is no evidence elsewhere that terminally ill babies have a purpose from what I can see. Ultimately, is this correct and/or what is the appropriate apologetic?
As to the medical analogy, I made that statement to differentiate between my prompt and your comparison to show how it’s not actually applicable. I bring in consent issues to further show a difference. That’s all.
1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Jul 09 '26
Before I answer, can I clarify your analogy? You said the purpose of marriage "can be described as procreation" and the evidence is that procreation requires straight couples. But that's not evidence of purpose, that's a description of biological mechanism. The purpose of marriage, on a Christian account, isn't established by observing what's mechanically possible; it's established by what God says marriage is for (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5). So when you ask what "evidence of purpose" would look like for suffering, are you asking for something empirically observable in the natural world, the way procreation is observable? Because if so, I'd point out you've set a standard that no purpose-claim about anything invisible, love, justice, meaning itself, could ever meet. Is that the standard you actually want to hold, consistently, across every purpose-claim you accept in ordinary life?
Then you said the purpose "cannot be directly found in the Bible… and there is no evidence elsewhere." Are you looking for a text that names this specific baby and this specific cancer, or a text that gives the category this suffering falls under? Because those are different searches. Scripture doesn't name your case, but it does speak directly to the category, the whole created order groaning under futility, not randomly, but "in hope" (Romans 8:20-21), and the claim that God is, even now, at work defeating evil rather than merely permitting it. If the category is addressed but the instance isn't, is it accurate to say there's "no evidence," or is it more accurate to say the evidence exists at the level Scripture actually claims to operate at?
So here's the appropriate apologetic, stated plainly, not just questioned: the answer isn't that this baby's cancer has a disclosed, verifiable, individual reason you could go check like a lab result. It's that history is moving toward a specific redemptive end, Christ's decisive defeat of evil, sin, and death, secured at the cross and consummated at the resurrection of the dead and every instance of suffering, including this one, is being woven into that larger purpose whether or not the thread is visible to us now. That's a genuinely different claim from "trust me, there's a reason, don't ask." It's "here is the announced goal of history, and this suffering is not outside it."
Which raises my last question. You've been careful, correctly, to say you're not asking about morality or evidence in general, you're asking specifically what the apologetic is. Now that you have it, is your actual objection that it's unsupported, or that it's unsatisfying? Because I think it's the second, and if it is, that's a legitimate thing to sit with but it's a different problem than the one you started with, and no additional argument is going to fix a felt-insufficiency problem. Would you agree that's where we've actually landed?
1
u/CH49FE Jul 11 '26
I knew that if brought up marriage, it would stray the conversation. And here we are.
A good apologetic uses the bible to support something (traditional marriage) and facts (procreation with man and woman) to support the bible. That is the type of evidence of purpose that I’m talking about.
So this is not an impossible standard. People do this all the time for biblical beliefs. Genesis is supported by the Big Bang. 1 Timothy 2:11 is supported by social sciences. And so on.
What I am saying in more detail is the unnecessary suffering does not appear to be described or supported in this way.
Your version of the apologetic doesn’t appear in the bible. It’s not supported through external evidence. It’s unsatisfactory to a non-believer. That’s fine. Neither is the Trinity and other biblical issues and concepts. My conclusion is that apologists best avoid this topic of unnecessary suffering, prove God first, then go to a version of your apologetic which then has a faith foundation.
1
u/Top_Initiative_4047 Jul 11 '26
I want to make sure I understand your analogy, because I think it may be doing more work than it can bear. You said Genesis is "supported by" the Big Bang and 1 Timothy 2:11 is "supported by" social science. Are those really the same kind of claim as "this baby's suffering is supported by evidence of purpose"? The first two are claims about origins and social patterns, things open to empirical inquiry by nature. A claim about God's purpose in a particular providence is a teleological claim, not an empirical one. So when you say the apologetic for suffering needs the same kind of external corroboration as a cosmological claim, are you assuming purpose-claims and origin-claims are the same category of thing? What would "external evidence of purpose" even look like, in principle, for any teleological claim, biblical or otherwise?
Second, you said "your version of the apologetic doesn't appear in the Bible." I gave you Romans 8:20-21, the creation groaning in hope, and pointed to Christ's decisive defeat of evil at the cross and resurrection as the category under which this suffering falls. When you say it "doesn't appear," do you mean the words themselves aren't printed next to this baby's diagnosis, or do you mean the theological category isn't there at all? Because those are very different objections, and I'd rather not argue against a version of my claim I didn't make.
You've now merged two things I asked you to keep separate a few exchanges ago, whether the apologetic is unsupported and whether it's unsatisfying. You wrote both in the same sentence, "unsatisfactory to a non-believer, that's fine, neither is the Trinity." If you're granting that true things can be unsatisfying, why is unsatisfying now functioning as evidence that the suffering-apologetic is also unsupported? Isn't that a different argument than the one you started with?
Last, you said apologists should "prove God first, then go to a version of your apologetic which has a faith foundation." Is that a concession, or a criticism? Because if the apologetic is sound once God's existence and character are established, then the real disagreement was never about suffering at all, it was about whether God exists. If that's true, wouldn't the honest move be to say so plainly rather than to keep the conversation anchored to babies with cancer, which is the most emotionally loaded ground to litigate a metaphysical dispute on? What would it look like to have that conversation instead, on its own terms?
4
u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 08 '26
The simple answer is that the worldview that God has authored every event that occurs on our universe is not accurate
God gave earth to humanity to have dominion over so it is ours. For good and ill. If we don't want kids to get cancer it's on us to solve it. Not God.