>>17830337
Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion. It was Theodosius who did so. Constantine simply lifted the foot up Christianity's neck and let it breathe.

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?