Children Suffering

[Bob Evans]

Why would a all-good God allow or create the specific suffering of young children? There are a wide range of diseases and conditions that affect only children, so why would God specifically create or allow these things to exist?

 

[Sir Doom]

Why would a all-good God allow or create the specific suffering of young children? There are a wide range of diseases and conditions that affect only children, so why would God specifically create or allow these things to exist?

To challenge their parents, perhaps. Challenge the child. I don't believe in that kind of god, but that's one reason a god like that might do it.

Additionally, that god ultimately knows that child's suffering is temporary and meaningless in the long run and probably doesn't think much of that sort of suffering at all. If we assume that the all-loving god puts the afflicted child in heaven after death, there should be millions of formerly afflicted children in heaven who probably barely remember what it was like to be afflicted, and considering their current state, probably totally understand why God does it, too. I'm just speculating, of course. Again I don't believe in that sort of god or afterlife like that, so... just hypothetical.

The basic assumption is that inflicting a disease or condition on a child is inherently evil or at least cruel beyond doubt. But from an omniscient perspective this may not be the case.

 

[Quintessence]

Why do human children warrant special consideration?

 

[Bob Evans]

To challenge their parents, perhaps. Challenge the child. I don't believe in that kind of god, but that's one reason a god like that might do it.

Additionally, that god ultimately knows that child's suffering is temporary and meaningless in the long run and probably doesn't think much of that sort of suffering at all. If we assume that the all-loving god puts the afflicted child in heaven after death, there should be millions of formerly afflicted children in heaven who probably barely remember what it was like to be afflicted, and considering their current state, probably totally understand why God does it, too. I'm just speculating, of course. Again I don't believe in that sort of god or afterlife like that, so... just hypothetical.

The basic assumption is that inflicting a disease or condition on a child is inherently evil or at least cruel beyond doubt. But from an omniscient perspective this may not be the case.

Yes, I suppose it might be possible for God to just not care. But from a Christian perspective, I would expect that God to care that his most treasured creation is suffering so much from seeing their own or other children suffer. I could see that from a God-level view, the welfare of one child who is destined for heaven is rather meaningless, but that's what would make God a moral monster.

 

[Bob Evans]

Why do human children warrant special consideration?

Well from a Christian perspective, a child, I suppose depending on the age, is innocent and therefore could never deserve whatever suffering they would have.

 

[Ostronomos]

Let us be clear on something. My experiences with God have lead me to believe in a deistic universe. God is not a programmer that executes the operations of every single minute thing in existence. Rather, suffering and other such maladjustments are the inevitable out growth of the freedom of a self-generating existence. We are faced with our own mortality. Such things are inevitable given the nature of the material world. It is up to humans to help each other through adversity.

 

[Sir Doom]

Yes, I suppose it might be possible for God to just not care. But from a Christian perspective, I would expect that God to care that his most treasured creation is suffering so much from seeing their own or other children suffer. I could see that from a God-level view, the welfare of one child who is destined for heaven is rather meaningless, but that's what would make God a moral monster.

I mean that god values the bond between parent and child far more than physical comfort since one is temporary and one isn't. Not that it doesn't care at all.

 

[David T]

As someone who grew up in rural area and basically was a free range child I find caged gmo city suburban children excessively clueless dull witted beasts being brainwashed by their excessively involved parents. The poor creatures.

 

[Nakosis]

Why would a all-good God allow or create the specific suffering of young children? There are a wide range of diseases and conditions that affect only children, so why would God specifically create or allow these things to exist?

I kind of let my kids do as they wished, explore the world as they saw fit. Only stepping in when I saw irreparable harm coming.

Now a supposedly all powerful God can fix anything. So that a pretty broad spectrum of activities man is capable of that God can fix any possible fallout from.

 

[Quintessence]

Well from a Christian perspective, a child, I suppose depending on the age, is innocent and therefore could never deserve whatever suffering they would have.

I could see that. This makes me think of another question. Who decides what is deserved? If, for Christians, it is their god, I wouldn't expect human norms in terms of what is "good" and "deserved" to apply that much.

That said, I can hardly speak for the multitude of traditions of Christianity; I'm no Ph.D. in Christian studies. These sorts of problems don't happen in my religion.

 

[Milton Platt]

To challenge their parents, perhaps. Challenge the child. I don't believe in that kind of god, but that's one reason a god like that might do it.

Additionally, that god ultimately knows that child's suffering is temporary and meaningless in the long run and probably doesn't think much of that sort of suffering at all. If we assume that the all-loving god puts the afflicted child in heaven after death, there should be millions of formerly afflicted children in heaven who probably barely remember what it was like to be afflicted, and considering their current state, probably totally understand why God does it, too. I'm just speculating, of course. Again I don't believe in that sort of god or afterlife like that, so... just hypothetical.

The basic assumption is that inflicting a disease or condition on a child is inherently evil or at least cruel beyond doubt. But from an omniscient perspective this may not be the case.

Then that god is a dick......

 

[Shaul]

Why would a all-good God allow or create the specific suffering of young children? There are a wide range of diseases and conditions that affect only children, so why would God specifically create or allow these things to exist?

On what basis are you saying suffering is a bad thing?

 

[Sir Doom]

Then that god is a dick......

If we hypothetically assume that the all-loving god is real, then we also have to hypothetically assume that every action is done 'lovingly'. Without separating the human perspective its not easy to imagine suffering in a positive light. Not impossible though. Horrible. But not impossible.

What is a dragon-slaying hero without a dead village of dragon victims? Just a poacher.

 

[Caesar Saladin]

It depends on which 'God' you're blaming for those children suffering. If you're blaming it on the Christian God, you've got a problem reconciling that with his 'all-loving' job description. If you blame it on the Jewish God, you're on firmer ground as THAT God is a known killer and bringer of any number of troubles to Man. Or, if you blame it all on the Demiurge (still the OT God but from a different point of view) you're on even more solid ground because he created the world flawed and suffering and hardship are just part of the program. Unless you allow that your 'all loving, all-forgiving' deity is also capable of horrific acts, then you've got a rogue God (or Gods) in the hen house stirring up mischief.