Anyone saying anything akin to “The massacre of those 20 children does nothing to disprove the existence of a benevolent God-it’s just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other evil things happening to innocents around the world” isn’t seeing the forest for the trees.
Any amount of evil greater than is present in heaven. Otherwise, the most benevolent action would be genocide. If the free will on earth outweighs the pleasure of heaven, then eternal bliss is a punishment.
The whole opposite. The 30 dead is a tree, we’re poiting out that the forest contains so much evil that one, in perspective, minor event doesn’t change the underlying facts.
I can’t see how a person that understands the level of evil that happens every fucking second i n the world can have his faith shaken by this particular event.
I thank you for the answer.
Since the rewards of heaven are infinite, any suffering we may experience is, in hte end, 0. It’s less than the prickle of a vaccine.
But it’s been 2,000 years. Assuming God kind of showed up in Jesus, 2,000 years before that was pre-Exodus. Isn’t it time to admit that God has left the building?
Beckett didn’t choose the name of the title character in his play randomly.
You still don’t get it. Those twenty deaths alone should shake your belief in a benevolent God. The fact that it is a mere drop in the bucket of violence against innocents points out the utter stupidity and incredible deliberate ignorance of believing in such an entity. It’s as if you said you believed that all cats had stripes, I showed you a cat without stripes, and you replied “So what? That’s just a drop in the bucket. I’ve seen thousands of cats that don’t have stripes and I still believe that all cats have stripes, so why should your little example convince me?”
Agreed.
Your example does not make sense.
Yep. You too?
(Hey, someone asked, I offered a possible explanation as to his comments. I really don’t give a shit what his belief system is either way)