Another Answer to Questions Christians Cannot Answer

"If God is so perfect, then why did he create something so imperfect allowing pain, suffering and daily atrocities?" (from the article "50 Questions That Christians Cannot Answer." available at http://www.bukisa.com/articles/107211_top-50-questions-christians-cant-answer).  The site continues, "Don't get me wrong, they will have an answer for them. You will find, however, that their answers have no basis in verifiable fact or evidence whatsoever, and will be largely based in their blind faith. Their faith has mad (sic) them whole."

As noted in the previous blog to assume that some Christian some place on this earth or who lived in some time period could not legitimately answer these questions is a quantum assumption which though postulated is impossible to defend.  Maybe these questions cannot be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner but that in no way validates the questions presented nor invalidates such answers as are provided. As well, just as many of the questions are not validated with facts, one should not expect the answers will be either.  It is an unfair stipulation that even the questioner cannot abide.

As to the current question the prudent observer of life knows that evil exists in the forms listed and others beside.  For the honest seeker of truth, this and other questions are deserving of a thought out answer.  Most certainly there are questions that cannot be answered due to their illogical nature.  

Look first at the question being ask.  Of course it is an "if-then" question which taken at face value seeks to impugn the character of God.  In effect it is saying that God is responsible for evil in its various forms.  Therefore God is evil and not to be trusted if He even exists at all.

There are some other questions one might consider.  Is God really the origin of evil or is it found in man?  Is it a consequence of culture or as a natural bent of man?  Are there exceptions to this evil?  Is evil ever in its final form or is it ever dynamic?

There are answers if one is willing to enlarge his frame of reference!  The challenges in asking the question are the limiting factors one embraces.  Following are several question to be asked of the one proposing the initial idea.   

First, is it legitimate to postulate that because evil exists there can be no God?  This seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and evil's existence.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Similarly, is it legitimate to suggest that because evil exists there exists a malevolent even vengeful God?  Again this seems to assume a correlation between God's existence and that of evil.  How can that link be legitimately established?

Can one accept the assumption of a malevolent God and thus be able to postulate the opposite question?  "If God is so imperfect, then why did he create something so perfect allowing good in all of it multivariate forms?" There are a multitude of difficulties with such a thought, not the least of which is that in order for there to be imperfect, there 

must be an antecedent perfect (more in a moment).

 

Second, is it legitimate to say that what God originally created has not changed, either devolving or evolving?  In order for the initial question to have legitimacy, there can be no change from the original creation.  How can such be legitimately established.  So then if one allows for some form of change then the merits of the question fall apart.

Now for a rebuttal question.  If the original questioner is correct and such is as he has proposed, from where comes a sense of "good?"  From where does the standard that labels something or someone as "good" originate.  As noted, for there to be "evil" there must be an initial "good."  Since that is so, from where did that initial notion of "good" originate? 

The Bible explains that in fact the original creation was good.  It remained so for some period of time until man given the freedom to choose, then make the fateful choice to disobey.  In doing so he opened the door to evil. 

As well, because there is a right and it involves God then consider this.  If one can accept that God is good and that He involves Himself in the affairs of man, then, one must at least give the possibility that the wrong can in fact turn out to be a "right," an "evil" turned to a "good," and a "curse" turned to a "blessing," etc.  This is but one of the advantages of an open system of thought that allows for God's intervention in the affairs of mankind individually and corporately.

So why did He not intervene in the disobedience of the original man and woman?  He did, just not in a way that the skeptic chooses to label as proper and good.  You see, God does all things "well and good" but, He is the one who defines "good!"  For man to do so would result in a shortsighted and selfish good.

Once again the supposed nail in the "God" coffin is fragile at best and crumbles under the scrutiny of a few simple questions.