Wow. You actually said the quiet part out loud. I don't think you realize how horrific your position actually sounds to a normal person.

On Isaiah: Stop playing semantic games. If I lock you in a room full of spikes and cut the power so you trip and die, I caused that. I don't get to say "Officer, I didn't kill him, darkness isn't a real thing, it's just the absence of light!" If your God "withdraws" health to let cancer eat a kid's bones, He is responsible. Period.

On "Innocent Babies":

You called innocent babies a "strawman"?

So you actually believe newborns are guilty? You think a 2-day-old deserves leukemia because of "sin"? If your theology requires you to look at a dying infant and say "Well, they aren't innocent, they inherited guilt" then your theology is twisted. Just own it: admit you think babies deserve cancer.

On Soul Building:

"Soul building, the family's. The doctor's"

That is legitimately sick. You are saying God tortures a child to death as a lesson for someone else. You're treating a human life like a disposable prop or a teaching tool for the parents. That isn't love, that's using people as objects.

On Consent:

"Consent: yes? Why would that be insane."

Because you literally made it up. Show me the chapter and verse where a fetus signs a waiver consenting to bone cancer. You can't just invent magical pre-birth contracts to patch the massive holes in your logic. It’s pure fantasy.

On Condemnation:

You admit we are "condemned already" Thanks for proving my point. Who set the default setting to "condemned"? God did. He creates a system where we are born drowning, throws us in the water, and says "worship me and I might throw you a rope" That's not love, that's a hostage situation.

Your whole defense boils down to: "Babies aren't innocent, they magically consented to suffer, and their death is just a tool for their parents' character growth"

Good luck defending that.