Self-compassion involves acceptance of what you cannot change.
Accepting things that you can do nothing about, accepting them as they are, does not mean you have given up or given in. You are only realising you can do nothing and refusing to let that upset you or consume you.
Acceptance can be about accepting the unfair things that happen to you. Or to others. Or both.
Accepting what happens to you is one thing. But do you really have the right to judge that when others suffer there is nothing more you can do? Surely some things are so terrible that acceptance is inappropriate?
Human nature cannot and does not accept everything.
That in essence involves a refusal to accept that God is right to let innocent suffering happen - supposing there is a God.
Faith in God involves accepting all that allegedly comes from God. Faith in God is an insult to those who refuse to accept all.
We should limit what we accept from people - and God even more. Nobody knows God personally so what they call God is a construct of their own wishes and ideas. He is partly an extension of themselves. For that reason, we should have little tolerance for claims that God sends and uses evil for a good purpose.
A God like the Christian one who asks us to think that things like sex outside marriage, missing Mass, not paying the priest, that don’t have to be that bad are very serious sins cannot ask us to believe in a good purpose. He is not even capable of being fair so how could any purpose of his be truly worthy and there is no good purpose in accepting a God like that. You end up saying that these ludicrous "sins" are evils that he has to allow suffering and disaster over as part of his plan to wipe them out. What kind of person would you be then?
Believers may argue that God is not indifferent to the suffering of the innocent. However, they must at least acknowledge the possibility, however unlikely, that God could be indifferent. In that case, they are, in a sense, accepting the idea of divine indifference and may rely on their faith to motivate them to address the suffering of others. Over time, however, this reliance can make them less sensitive to suffering. Genuine love for those who suffer requires the willingness to act, even if God is not intervening.
APPENDIX
If a being with vastly greater power than humans exists, the deliberate suffering of innocents—such as babies—is profoundly troubling. It is not something that can be easily justified or excused. Decency requires acknowledging that some actions are unacceptable, regardless of possible explanations.
When someone witnesses the suffering of a child and cannot intervene, it is understandable for them to feel anger or despair, even directing it at God. Criticizing God in such circumstances can be a natural human response to injustice. The moral concern should be the well-being of the child, not protecting an abstract conception of divinity from critique.
Believers often emphasize faith and acceptance, yet anger and protest are legitimate emotional responses to suffering. Anger can motivate action to alleviate harm; it signals a desire for change. If humans are justified in expressing righteous indignation toward other humans who inflict harm, it seems consistent to express similar indignation toward a being of ultimate power if that being allows preventable suffering.
Some believers argue that accepting God’s role in evil motivates them to act compassionately, helping others in response to suffering. While helping others is good, doing so primarily to reconcile or justify divine allowance does not address the underlying ethical problem. The moral value of aiding others does not automatically justify or neutralize the suffering or the rationale that caused it.
Believers sometimes attribute the goodness of human actions to God, suggesting that acts of compassion illustrate divine goodness. A clearer view is to recognize human goodness independently, while still conceiving God separately. Confusing human virtue with divine intent risks reducing moral responsibility to theological speculation.
When belief in God leads to minimizing or excusing suffering, it can become ethically toxic. Efforts to justify the suffering of innocents—such as framing deadly illness as necessary or purposeful—often serve to preserve belief rather than address the suffering itself. True ethical concern requires prioritizing the well-being of those affected over maintaining theological consistency.