Quite possibly, but if you feel that way, your response seems more detailed than necessary; but I certainly do not object to anyone expressing their views, even if it is only to refute what they themselves believe is not worth refuting.
You might review the thread for the conversation between MarMema and me. At least MarMema understands the theological significance of the article which was obviously written so those who have eyes and do not see, and those that have ears and do not hear, should not understand the truth that was its object.
By the way, suffering does not "equal" evil, but suffering is always evil.
Hank
You're welcome. The posted article seemed a bit more needy than most.
At least MarMema understands the theological significance of the article ...
No offense to your or MarMema if I don't consider a conversation between the two of you a reliable indicator of theological significance. I find MarMema's attempt to engage you regarding the article in question quite charitable on his part, even if misguided.
By the way, suffering does not "equal" evil, but suffering is always evil.
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Yes that was a joke.
Seriously, your posted article is a bit less sophisticated than that isn't it? "What kind of God places such a high premium on such evil?" isn't exactly calling for a nuanced view of evil. It's saying "evil - are yor for it, or agin' it?!!" And it rather overtly suggests Christians are either naively or goulishly in the "for it" category.
Silly stuff altogether. I don't know any serious minded agnostics or atheists who would bother with it, unless they assumed it would antogonize others less sophisticated than themselves. And that's more than a little contemptible.
Fair enough. Much easier to find fallacies in the beliefs of others than make assertions of your own.
You've never given birth, I take it.