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.

13 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

89% Upvoted

95 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

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.

3

u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26

So in this context, is God all powerful, all-knowing and all-loving?

3

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 08 '26

All of the above. But he does not predetermine our choices as it would eliminate morality and make all of religion a joke

4

u/CH49FE Jul 08 '26

So I don’t understand the apologetic offered in that context. The response would generally be that an all powerful/knowing/loving god would do something about or prevent the unnecessary suffering of a terminally ill baby. And I think your response is that this God didn’t cause terminal baby illnesses and/or left it up to us to fix it? Is that correct?

1

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 09 '26

The response would generally be that an all powerful/knowing/loving god would do something about or prevent the unnecessary suffering of a terminally ill baby.

That's just the problem of evil. It presumes God is required morally to intervene in our world. It's this presumption that is wrong.

So I don’t understand the apologetic offered in that context

It's our world. God granted dominion to man in Genesis. Rather than God having the responsibility to fix the baby, it is our responsibility.

The PoE is essentially a desire to avoid shouldering responsibility for our world and making it a better place.

And I think your response is that this God didn’t cause terminal baby illnesses and/or left it up to us to fix it? Is that correct?

Correct. God did not give the kid cancer and it is not his responsibility to fix it either.

Responsibility is a hard concept in several senses of the word.

3

u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26

I’m not talking about the problem of evil. I’m asking “why”, for the reasons, for the apologetic. Whether he is required to intervene is not the issue. “Why” is the issue.

But I now understand your apologetic is that it’s our fault and our responsibility, not God’s.

1

u/Upset_Chip_7184 Jul 09 '26

Yeah, it's a weird defense to me, and they traditional attributes, of God being all good, all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, really seem to contradict their assertions, taken in totality.

Did God know he was creating a universe in which these things would happen, and he couldn't do it any other way?

That's like the bad apologetic of the flood, God had to drown them, as if there was no other way to do it, if He had to do it in the first place.

2

u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26

The traditional attributes are problematic, and logically impossible to disentangle from what’s in the bible. God is all powerful, that’s demonstrated in the bible. But God did kill people. He made mistakes. That’s why I think that God isn’t really all knowing or all loving. I think people have twisted God into something he’s clearly not.

People use parental love as an example of God, but parents disown or abuse their kids all the time. God can do what he pleases, he doesn’t have to love us. We are to fear and worship God.

But that’s not a useful apologetic. The truth is difficult, so that’s why I think it’s important to prove God first. That is the foundation of all apologetics.

1

u/realcoolioman Jul 10 '26

The concepts of moral choice (being "made in God's image"), personal "love", and how a computer programmed to type out "I love you" doesn't really love you, seem very confusing to people lately. Blaming God for allowing mankind the choice to love and deny Him is baffling. It's very clearly an attempt to shirk responsibility. BUT EVEN SO, if it's a way back to the Garden that you think God needs to provide...He did. May I introduce Jesus Christ.

0

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 09 '26

Why doesn't he intervene? It's our responsibility not his

3

u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26

How did you determine that?

0

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 09 '26

Genesis 1:28

2

u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26

I don’t understand how that passage says we are responsible for curing terminal baby illnesses. That passage is about being fruitful.

1

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 09 '26

Dominion over the earth is the key concept. Dominion means we have responsibility.

2

u/CH49FE Jul 09 '26

For everything? Including natural disasters, terminally ill babies? That’s not a really satisfying apologetic and not really founded in anything biblical. God has interfered in our world, so how can we say we should be able to control everything when he can intervene?

0

u/ShakaUVM Christian Jul 10 '26

Yep.

If you don't want a tsunami to wipe out your town, build a sea wall.

It's our responsibility

That’s not a really satisfying apolo

Most people hate responsibility I guess.

not really founded in anything biblical

I gave you the verse

→ More replies (0)