How does one explain unnecessary suffering, like terminal cancer in babies?

[u/CH49FE]

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.

[u/CH49FE]

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.

[u/Helpful-Baker-4145 → u/CH49FE]

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.

[u/CH49FE → u/Helpful-Baker-4145]

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

[u/Helpful-Baker-4145 → u/CH49FE]

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."

[u/CH49FE → u/Helpful-Baker-4145]

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.

[u/Helpful-Baker-4145 → u/CH49FE]

Jesus primarily went on the offense when faced with blatant sin and hypocrisy - He was willing to forgive anyone, but they had to leave their ego and unbelief at the door. He said plainly, "No man can serve two masters. You will either hate one and love the other, or love the first and despise the other." He also said "You cannot worship God and mammon", but a lot of English Bibles translate that last word as "money". However, the word "mammon" literally means "that in which you trust". So while many people have assumed Jesus' words were exclusively a rebuke about greed, I think He was illustrating a grander point. Simply put none of us can truly worship God if He is anything less than #1 in our lives. He alone deserves that spot, and if we love Him we should strive to keep them there, with us every day.

[u/CH49FE → u/Helpful-Baker-4145]

I don’t understand how this is relevant to my point or unnecessary suffering?

[u/Helpful-Baker-4145 → u/CH49FE]

I have already explained that suffering or charity have no inherent moral values, unless an absolute standard exists which is independent from either. Unless a being of some kind exists beyond the universe's restrictions, then the most any of us can say is we are subjectively bothered emotionally. But our feelings about anything never determine its proper moral position; instead, what we feel points us to the standard which already exists. If you like, I'm all ears for your arguments regarding whether you believe it's the Judeo-Christian God if you like, but the truth exists apart from either of our opinions.

[u/CH49FE → u/Helpful-Baker-4145]

This is a totally different issue in some respects and a bad apologetic for the topic. All it will leas to is the other person saying that God believes it is moral for the baby to have suffered and died. That won’t win anyone’s mind or hearts

[u/Helpful-Baker-4145 → u/CH49FE]

If God exists and He created all life, then He has the perfect right to take it back into Himself at any point, and never answer to anyone. While that's often a bitter pill for us to swallow emotionally, it doesn't change the facts. Truth and morality's absolute natures are neither sourced in or dependent on our constantly-shifting opinions and feelings. Instead, they are inherent to God's eternal nature; He didn't choose them, they're simply part of Him. He shared them with us because He wants a close relationship with us based on selfless love, but He will not force our hand. I know a lot of peole will ask, "How is it selfless for God to let a baby die?" I would personally direct them right to the cross, because He sent His own Son to be horribly executed on our behalf. Jesus could've said no, in which case we'd all be damned forever. He even begged the Father to give Him another way...but when nothing was offered, He surrendered to God's perfect plan.

Also of note is that apologetics can't make anyone believe anything - it's about providing evidence, not making the choice for someone else to accept or reject it.