Why did God create pediatric cancer?

[Anonymous]

First off, this question, the question of suffering (and evil) is one of the toughest questions for Christianity, so you are not alone in raising this. It has been written about over and over from different angles by different theologians. If are looking for an answer, start with some books, not here.

Here are some personal thoughts on this issue. First, Christianity looks at suffering through a very different lens than secular society. In Christianity, suffering is redemptive. Part of the reason Jesus has to die (as someone asked) is precisely to show us the power of obedience and suffering. So I think for the faithful, they view tragic events differently, or aspire to. They try to focus on the love in the situation, and the grief, while real, is an extension of that love.

Second is the idea that whatever suffering there is in this world will pale in comparison to the glory of heaven. We feel suffering and evil acutely because this world is all we know and anything that shatters our lives in this world feels catastrophic. However, this is not how God sees things. It is like if your 2 year old needs to have some procedure, it might feel like the end of the world for him, but you as the parent know that the small pain is worth it because it will make him healthier in the long run. We don't have the long view but God does.

Third is the idea that God does not create any of the evil or suffering. He allows it, which might be a small distinction but it is an important one. And he only allows suffering and evil when it would ultimately bring about a greater good. I find the parent analogy really apt here. A good parent would never cause harm or suffering to their child but might allow a certain amount of suffering in order to bring about a greater good (natural consequences, for example, or to learn value of hard work etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancer is related to God’s will only as that which God rejects and negates.

God sent His son, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ removes the dark and darkness from life, as light and eternal life are now possible.

This has never made sense to me. Why did Jesus have to die in order for there to be eternal life? It's pretty twisted when you think about it. God proved his love by killing his own kid even though he has the power to grant eternal life regardless of whether his son was crucified or not? I promise I'm not being purposely obtuse. I just don't understand it. If one of us used our kid as a human sacrifice and claimed it was for a greater good, we'd be rightfully thrown in jail. But God did it and we worship and honor him.

Poster from above. I went back to your post to read again what doesn’t make sense to you.

First, God did not “kill his own kid.” Jesus IS God so in effect he sacrificed himself.

You say that God has the power to grant eternal life without this but I’m not sure that’s true. The Bible is clear that there are things God Himself cannot do- for example he cannot sin. He cannot lie. We are separated from him because we do sin and sin cannot coexist in his presence. By dying on the cross and descending into Hell he conquered sin for us.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it. It makes a little bit more sense.

[Anonymous]

. I can think of no good reason a benevolent God would allow children to suffer, from cancer, abuse or war. None at all. If such a Gif exists, why worship them. Wake up,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. I can think of no good reason a benevolent God would allow children to suffer, from cancer, abuse or war. None at all. If such a Gif exists, why worship them. Wake up,

+1. There is no god.

[Anonymous]

I completely reject that any of it is for a greater good. Nope.

I take comfort in the idea that as Jesus, God suffered like us. There's also a Madeleine L'engle bit (essay? poem?) where she thinks about Jesus's descent to hell as a time where he went and gathered all the babies Herod had killed in Egypt after his birth. He may have chosen, or accepted, his death, but they didn't. There's no sense in any of it, but not being alone is comforting. I'm not sure how far that would carry me if my own kids got sick - maybe not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:. I can think of no good reason a benevolent God would allow children to suffer, from cancer, abuse or war. None at all. If such a Gif exists, why worship them. Wake up,

Here is a question for you.

Why do YOU allow any suffering in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either God doesn't exist. Or God is incredibly cruel.

God is a loving force. Kind of like positive karma.

Except when God give children cancer or longterm suffering only to have them and their parents suffer then die. I don't see that as kindness - or am I missing something?

You missed learning to read, apparently.

Clearly I can read. Clearly you don't understand logic.

If God is a loving force or positive karma, why do kids who have put nothing positive or negative in the world suffer? The fact is they do suffer - so.... that is not a loving thing or karma. So unless your definition of 'positive' is exactly the opposite of everyone else's, there is no logic to your statement.

I am the poster you were responding to and I don't believe God wills cancer. I believe in free will. So therefore, I believe that cancer is not FROM GOD. Its from the world and obtained through genetics and environment. It is not a positive force. It is related to death. God can accept a loving child in heaven but I don't believe in a lot of direct intervention in this world except through passing of positive energy. Hope that clears it up. Maybe that is more of a Hindu explanation, but to me it makes sense being a Christian. He allows free will and instructs us to care for the sick. So the caring and the accepting into heaven is God's will.

[Anonymous]

This came up a few posts ago as well, but there was a great line in one of the holocaust movies where a jew said God is dead and humankind killed him. Meaning we bring God to live through our actions and that our actions are related to each generation before and after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancer is related to God’s will only as that which God rejects and negates.

God sent His son, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ removes the dark and darkness from life, as light and eternal life are now possible.

This has never made sense to me. Why did Jesus have to die in order for there to be eternal life? It's pretty twisted when you think about it. God proved his love by killing his own kid even though he has the power to grant eternal life regardless of whether his son was crucified or not? I promise I'm not being purposely obtuse. I just don't understand it. If one of us used our kid as a human sacrifice and claimed it was for a greater good, we'd be rightfully thrown in jail. But God did it and we worship and honor him.

Poster from above. I went back to your post to read again what doesn’t make sense to you.

First, God did not “kill his own kid.” Jesus IS God so in effect he sacrificed himself.

You say that God has the power to grant eternal life without this but I’m not sure that’s true. The Bible is clear that there are things God Himself cannot do- for example he cannot sin. He cannot lie. We are separated from him because we do sin and sin cannot coexist in his presence. By dying on the cross and descending into Hell he conquered sin for us.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it. It makes a little bit more sense.

Look at it this way: God chose to die for you rather than live without you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this case it sounds like the pain and suffering were inflicted by the child's parents and doctors who selfishly chose to inflict those medical treatments on him.

Once in a long while, a true wisdom such as the above appears. Bravo!

[Anonymous]

Gotta love how OP asked a question that is one of the hardest to understand as a human much less a religious human, has no religious experience herself, and yet has the audacity to complain to Jeff about the responses not meeting her criteria. No good deed goes unpunished. This is why you don't respond to people who haven't done the work themselves on anything. They are coming from a place of self-indulgence and grandiosity. The fact that OP hasn't pursued religion herself at all, basically complains about God in her opening post, complains about others while trying to paint herself as the caring one and yet thinks that some poster will twitter a response to her so that she will be all knowing is absurd. Vulnerable narcissist like so many these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love how OP asked a question that is one of the hardest to understand as a human much less a religious human, has no religious experience herself, and yet has the audacity to complain to Jeff about the responses not meeting her criteria. No good deed goes unpunished. This is why you don't respond to people who haven't done the work themselves on anything. They are coming from a place of self-indulgence and grandiosity. The fact that OP hasn't pursued religion herself at all, basically complains about God in her opening post, complains about others while trying to paint herself as the caring one and yet thinks that some poster will twitter a response to her so that she will be all knowing is absurd. Vulnerable narcissist like so many these days.

Oh the irony of this post is off the scale!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this case it sounds like the pain and suffering were inflicted by the child's parents and doctors who selfishly chose to inflict those medical treatments on him.

Once in a long while, a true wisdom such as the above appears. Bravo!

I have to assume this is sarcasm. The alternative is that you are as out of your mind as the PP is, unless that is sarcasm also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love how OP asked a question that is one of the hardest to understand as a human much less a religious human, has no religious experience herself, and yet has the audacity to complain to Jeff about the responses not meeting her criteria. No good deed goes unpunished. This is why you don't respond to people who haven't done the work themselves on anything. They are coming from a place of self-indulgence and grandiosity. The fact that OP hasn't pursued religion herself at all, basically complains about God in her opening post, complains about others while trying to paint herself as the caring one and yet thinks that some poster will twitter a response to her so that she will be all knowing is absurd. Vulnerable narcissist like so many these days.

Oh the irony of this post is off the scale!

Uhh no. This is not an easy question to answer and quite frankly is not answerable. Someone without any basic understanding of religion will not understand the responses any better than someone asking why there isn't enough justice in America from our government. It's complex and without understanding people and government you don't have the perspective to understand. It's like talking to a child and the child getting upset that they didn't get a direct answer. The answers have all been helpful. You are too blind and too ready to complain about God and about people rather than doing the work yourself. Generations before you didn't have the internet and actually had to do deep thought on these questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love how OP asked a question that is one of the hardest to understand as a human much less a religious human, has no religious experience herself, and yet has the audacity to complain to Jeff about the responses not meeting her criteria. No good deed goes unpunished. This is why you don't respond to people who haven't done the work themselves on anything. They are coming from a place of self-indulgence and grandiosity. The fact that OP hasn't pursued religion herself at all, basically complains about God in her opening post, complains about others while trying to paint herself as the caring one and yet thinks that some poster will twitter a response to her so that she will be all knowing is absurd. Vulnerable narcissist like so many these days.

Oh the irony of this post is off the scale!

Uhh no. This is not an easy question to answer and quite frankly is not answerable. Someone without any basic understanding of religion will not understand the responses any better than someone asking why there isn't enough justice in America from our government. It's complex and without understanding people and government you don't have the perspective to understand. It's like talking to a child and the child getting upset that they didn't get a direct answer. The answers have all been helpful. You are too blind and too ready to complain about God and about people rather than doing the work yourself. Generations before you didn't have the internet and actually had to do deep thought on these questions.

If it is not answerable, then why do you think you can go and answer it? That's the irony man, and it is, as quoted, "off the scale".

You just don't like the one thing we DO know for sure on this topic: if your God DOES exist, he has to answer for this. Fortunately, it is most likely he does not exist.