the idea that an all-powerful, all-good deity would allow extreme suffering, especially of children, is morally incompatible with any meaningful definition of goodness.

>>17801050 (OP)
Unfortunately for you God gets to decide what goodness means and his definition is true and correct. You've never pondered how much happiness does he allow to the inhabits of heaven. It is greater than what you could ever imagine. You've never wonder how good he is with those who he is good with? It is beyond human comprehension the amount of joy he allows to the holy ones in heaven.

The one who suffered on earth, when he is compensated by God, he will not even remember the suffering he went through, he will not even care about his siffering when he is given the joy of heaven. God is greater than you think.

He created orgasms and allows even the wicked to enjoy it, even dogs, he allows the joy of fatherhood and even a wicked man can be a father and love his son. Imagine then if he is so generous even with the wicked on earth how much more generous must he be with the innocent who live in the most holy place in heaven.

It's unimaginable the joys and the pleasures and the happiness that God allows the innocent in heaven. Immesurably pleasant is to dwell in the heavens.

Someone who gives so much joy to the innocent cannot be evil by any meaningful definition of the word.

>>17801072
>Unfortunately for you God gets to decide what goodness means and his definition is true and correct
Cuck

>>17801072
God didn't create goodness retard, goodness is a form that exists in the immaterial world of forms that preceded God. God was preceded by a void that was absolute nothingness and so had the potential to become anything, the infinite potentialities of the void is the same thing as the immaterial world of forms, all possible things, all potentialities. God is the consciousness that emerged from the void with the ability to manifest the forms into the material realm, he didn't create the forms, he doesn't define them, he can't alter or destroy them, his only power is to choose which forms are made manifest and in what quantities. He create a world that's mostly evil and suffering because he is evil. Everything you say about "heaven" is just a retarded lie because you're a retarded liar. When I die I just get force-reincarnated so he can abuse me for another lifetime and "the afterlife" is just the womb in the next life. God is a complete retard for believing that dreaming for 9 months somehow makes up for being abused by him for 30+ years on earth, especially when he can influence my dreams in the womb in negative ways too to prevent me from being happy in the womb-afterlife, which he fully intends to do because he's a retarded sadistic tranny.

God’s goodness isn’t just human morality on steroids. It’s rooted in His nature as the source of all being. Suffering, even the gut-wrenching kind, doesn’t negate that. The Catholic view holds that God permits evil for reasons tied to a greater good, often beyond our limited view. Think of it like a parent letting a kid struggle through math homework; not cruelty, but a path to growth. Free will plays a big role here: God allows humans to act freely, even if it leads to sin and suffering, because genuine love requires choice. A world without free will is a puppet show, not a creation.

>extreme suffering, especially of children
The idea that it’s "incompatible" with God’s goodness ignores redemptive suffering. Suffering can have purpose: uniting us to Christ’s cross, fostering virtues like compassion, or even atoning for sin. Look at the martyrs: their pain wasn’t pointless, but transformative. Even innocent suffering, like a child’s, can mysteriously contribute to the world’s redemption in ways we don’t fully see. Job didn’t get a neat answer for his pain, yet he trusted.

I’m not saying this ties it all up with a bow (evil’s a tough pill). But writing off God’s goodness because we can’t solve the puzzle is like ditching calculus because integrals are hard. I'll ask this, OP: what’s your take on why suffering disproves divine goodness?

>>17801104
>God’s goodness isn’t just human morality on steroids. It’s rooted in His nature as the source of all being.

Apparently murdering Canaanite babies who didn't do anything wrong is good. Christcucks are psychotic

>>17801112
The Canaanites weren’t just random neighbors minding their own business. Ancient sources, including non-biblical ones like Ugaritic texts, describe their culture as steeped in practices like child sacrifice, idolatry, and ritual depravity. God’s judgment wasn’t arbitrary; it was a response to centuries of unrepentant evil. Think of it as divine justice, not a cosmic tantrum. The Israelites were God’s instrument, not a roving death squad.

Now, the babies part. Catholic theology doesn’t dodge this. The death of the innocent is a mystery tied to God’s broader plan. Those kids weren’t “punished” for personal sins; their deaths fall under the harsh reality of a fallen world where collective consequences hit hard. In Catholic thought, God’s justice ensures no soul is judged unfairly. Those infants, incapable of sin, are entrusted to His mercy. We don’t know their eternal fate, but Tradition leans toward hope, not despair.

Calling believers psychotic for wrestling with tough texts is a bit like calling someone crazy for reading Thucydides and not cheering for war. The Bible’s not a feel-good novel; it’s a raw account of God’s dealings with a messy world. If you’re hung up on the Canaanites, what’s your take on how a good God should handle entrenched evil? Or is it just easier to dunk and run?

>>17801123
>Ancient sources, including non-biblical ones like Ugaritic texts, describe their culture as steeped in practices like child sacrifice

Therefore it's morally good to kill their infants yourself?

>>17801129
You’re zeroing in on the moral tension: if the Canaanites were doing awful stuff like child sacrifice, does that justify God commanding their destruction, infants included? The implication in your post is that it’s hypocritical or barbaric to kill infants to stop a culture that kills infants.

The key isn’t that killing infants is “morally good” in itself, because it’s not. Taking innocent life is intrinsically evil, full stop. It’s not about moral relativism but divine prerogative. God, as the author of life, has the unique authority to judge and execute justice on a scale humans can’t. The Canaanite conquest was a specific, divine act of judgment against a culture that had, per biblical and Ugaritic accounts, defiled itself for generations with practices like burning kids to Molech. Think of it as a divine “reset” on a society too far gone, not a blanket endorsement of slaughter.

The infants’ deaths are a mystery wrapped in the problem of evil. God’s justice and mercy aren’t fully scrutable to us. Those kids, innocent of personal sin, aren’t condemned; Tradition suggests God’s mercy covers them, though we don’t get a neat explanation. It’s less about “it’s good to kill babies” and more about God’s right to judge nations while still holding individual souls in His care.

>Therefore it's morally good
You’re framing it as if Catholics cheer for this. Nah, it’s a grim necessity in a specific context, not a moral template. If you’re saying it’s still indefensible, what’s your alternative? How does a just deity handle a culture that’s systematically evil without collateral damage? Or do you think any divine intervention is a nonstarter? You still haven't answered to my previous post's questions.

>>17801096
Nothing proceeds God. All things are made by him. He is the creator of all things spiritual and material. All dorms are the works of his hands. You know nothing.

There is no reincarnation. When you die you're unconscious until the day of judgement. If you're rigtheous in peace, if you're wicked in torment

>>17801072
>Unfortunately for you God gets to decide what goodness means and his definition is true and correct.
Why not just end your post there? If your definition of good is whatever God decides, then arguments like "he allows people to experience joy" are not only unnecessary, but meaningless. He could just as well decide never to allow any creature to experience joy and that would be equally as good.

>>17801135
>The infants’ deaths are a mystery
Ah this old cope again

>encounter problem in God's logic
>IT'S LE DIVINE MYSTERY!!!

>>17801050 (OP)
You are assuming that you know all ends. What is “bad” or “evil” for a limited person may not be the same for someone who can see the whole picture.

>>17801135
Faggot CHATGPT copy pasted response burn in hell, atheists are better in the eyes of God than any faggot who uses ChatGPT to argue for Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible fucking faggot fuck you

>>17801163
What he decided good is truly is good. He is wiser than wisdom. He decided to give joy to the innocent and that is good.

>>17801158
God didn't create anything idiot he just manifests the pre-existing forms from the immaterial world into the material world.

>>17801329
The immaterial world is also his creation. He manifests physically what resides only in his mind. He thought us for long before he made us.

>>17801406
No the immaterial world isn't his creation. You're a liar pandering to a lying tranny who takes credit for ideas that weren't his. His only power the ability to manifest and animate the forms, he didn't create them.

>>17801185
Meltdown

>>17801050 (OP)
Morality is a human concept now obey or burn

>>17801050 (OP)
>the idea that an all-powerful, all-good deity would allow extreme suffering
Exatly, because a all powerful deity can decide what is wrong or right since they are superior in everything to humanity, and since all of these concepts came from him in the first place, this is the sad reality you clowns live on in the end