THE INTRODUCTION
Even if suffering is not technically a punishment, the idea that it is necessary for spiritual growth can be deeply offensive and harmful. The Bible portrays even Jesus as learning obedience through suffering, suggesting that hardship is a divine tool to shape character (Hebrews 5:8). Framing suffering this way can imply that people are somehow responsible for the pain inflicted on them or that they should welcome it as a path to virtue. This perspective can justify abuse, excuse cruelty, and pressure people to accept trauma instead of seeking help or justice. It risks turning natural compassion and empathy into judgment, making real suffering seem morally “useful” rather than deeply damaging and unacceptable.
Belief in God should never be promoted lightly when one of its potential implications is that suffering—even extreme suffering—can be necessary or beneficial/ Or religiously, spiritually or morally useful. It is not what children should be exposed to - especially when children may get sick.
Before advocating belief in God, it is essential to go deep and do the homework. Confront and critically examine the implications of doctrines that claim suffering is necessary or purposeful.
Jesus himself, seems, to be a totem for such a doctrine and his place in the world needs rethinking.
THE ARGUMENT
Hebrews 12:7–11 presents all suffering as divine discipline, meant to make people holy.
Hardship is framed as purposeful from God, not random; suffering itself is the tool, not just a side effect.
There’s a distinction between suffering happening and a person growing from it: growth may occur, but suffering is still objectively harmful.
Teaching that evil is discipline implies that suffering is “good” in a twisted sense, which conflicts with natural human aversion to suffering.
Leads to blaming others: suffering may be interpreted as correcting them or for their benefit, not the sufferer’s.
Can justify extreme moral problems, e.g., abuse or torment, as “divine discipline,” which is inherently victim-blaming.
Discipline often involves others; suffering may be intended to train someone else, making the sufferer a means, not an end.
The problem of evil: the doctrine assumes all suffering is purposeful; it conflicts with observable suffering like illness or innocent suffering (babies, animals, insane).
Suffering only produces virtue if we choose to learn from it; free will is what effects moral growth, not suffering itself.
Soul-building theory is redundant: virtue can be instilled without suffering; suffering is cruel if used to “build virtue.”
Discipline as a doctrine is anti-happiness: temporary suffering for virtue conflicts with love, free will, and happiness.
Encourages spitefulness: satisfaction in others’ suffering is morally dangerous; we cannot reliably judge actions as evil if God supposedly orders them.
Bias and injustice: condoning divine suffering over human suffering privileges belief in God over human well-being.
Christianity, by valuing virtue above happiness, promotes a cruel and questionable moral order.
Concluding critique: if divine discipline were real, suffering would improve people—but it doesn’t; improvement, if it occurs, comes from personal effort, not God.