>>1089387481.
If suffering is a punishment for sin, then inflicting it on innocents (animals, newborns, children, people incapable of moral agency, etc.) is unjust.
If suffering is a medicine, then it is intentionally prescribed by God as a necessary good.
Christian theology tries to hold both at once, but they don’t sit comfortably together:
- Punishment presupposes guilt.
- Medicine presupposes benevolent necessity.
You can’t coherently claim suffering is simultaneously retributive justice and benevolent healing without equivocation.
2.
The quote frames God as the one who allows or ordains suffering as the cure, AND the one who heals humanity through suffering.
God is functionally like a doctor who deliberately infects the patient, and then claims credit for curing them with the disease He imposed.
This clashes with the Christian claim that God is perfectly good, not the author of evil, and opposed to suffering as such.
If suffering is truly necessary for salvation, then suffering is not merely a tragic consequence of sin, it is instrumentalized by God, which undermines the claim that evil is something God merely “permits” rather than wills.
3.
Christianity teaches that the Fall is a tragedy, a rupture, a corruption of creation. But this passage reframes it as a necessary precondition for salvation through suffering.
That creates a disturbing implication: Without the Fall, humans could not be fully healed or worthy. Therefore, the Fall becomes instrumentally good.
This undermines the doctrine that the Fall is an evil introduced by human disobedience rather than a required stage in God’s plan.
4.
The quote explicitly states suffering begins “from the moment of birth.”
This conflicts with moral responsibility, personal sin, and the claim that suffering corresponds meaningfully to spiritual healing.
Infants cannot consent, repent, understand, or grow spiritually through suffering in the way described, yet they are subjected to it anyway. This exposes the explanation as post hoc rationalization, not a coherent moral account.
Christianity claims God is perfectly good, not the author of evil, yet this explanation portrays suffering as a divinely ordained tool that both punishes and heals, earns worthiness, and is imposed indiscriminately from birth.
That’s not a resolved paradox, it’s a theological sleight of hand, holding incompatible claims together by redefining suffering after the fact to preserve the system. You try to parrot again your apologetic excuses for each of the points brought upon in this explanation, but those excuses contradict each other; this makes your theology incoherent as a whole.
