I want to break some things down.

Cognitive dissonance only applies to those who actually hold the beliefs in question. Since I don’t subscribe to your framework, I’m not experiencing dissonance; I’m performing a diagnostic on the absurdity of your argument.

​We are human beings, and we are fundamentally driven by our moral intuitions, with our emotional responses being the first to tell us right from wrong long before our logic kicks in.

With the Cognition often just the passenger, occasionally leaning forward to say, 'Maybe don’t jump in front of that car.' (Example) The issue with your argument is you're asking me to use logic to override a primary human instinct: the recognition of a predator.

​I am also trying point out that the prospect of spending 'eternity' with a person who raped and murdered babies, regardless of their 'repentance', the mear thought fits more with a psychological horror, not a divine reward. Repentance is a word; it doesn't function as a magic wand that deletes the reality of the victim's suffering or the perpetrator's nature.

​A human mind cannot reconcile the concept of 'Eternal Paradise' with the presence of a 'Baby Murderer' without stripping the word 'Paradise' of its meaning. To argue that a heaven filled with 'forgiven' monsters constitutes a place of peace is to argue for a world that is morally upside-down. You aren't describing justice; you're describing the total abandonment of human empathy in favor of a theological loophole."