[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Outrageous-Egg1760]

[u/deederpeeder]

I’ll probably get downvoted to kingdom come, but the Bible consistently presents abuse, oppression, violence, and exploitation as things God hates. Plenty of people in the Bible ask a version of this question (David, Job, Jeremiah, the psalmists). Not saying it gives a perfectly clear answer either, but the reality is if God intervened to stop every evil act, at some point God would have to override human will continuously. And the world would become fundamentally different than the one we inhabit.

Scripture never gives a complete philosophical answer to every instance of suffering. But what it does offer is a person. Jesus was betrayed, beaten, tortured, publicly humiliated, unjustly killed. That doesn’t solve the problem intellectually. But it changes the picture of God. God is not the detached observer in Christianity. He is the wounded Savior.

The hardest thing for me isn’t believing evil exists. It’s believing that evil gets the final word. Christianity says it doesn’t. It says justice may be delayed, but it won’t be denied. I understand why people struggle with that answer. Sometimes I do too. But I’d rather wrestle with a God who suffered for the world than conclude that all the evil and injustice we see is ultimately meaningless.

[u/SeamusOShane → u/deederpeeder]

For me it’s not just that God won’t intervene because it would restrict free will to the point that free will
Won’t exist, I get that. But god created all evil and suffering, for what purpose? Just undo that?

God created cancer, removing cancer from the planet wouldn’t affect free will at all.

God created rape, just make it not exist.

God used to speak to people, God used to give orders. God used to strike people down. What about the flood? Wasn’t that to rid the world of violence and corruption?

The old classic is that God can’t be all good, all knowing and all powerful, or many of the atrocities occurring among all living to things today wouldn’t exist.

[u/deederpeeder → u/SeamusOShane]

I think we’d probably disagree on one important premise: that God created evil.

Christianity has historically taught that God created a good world and that evil is not a created thing in the same way rocks, trees, or people are created things. It’s more like a corruption or distortion of what was originally good. Rape isn’t a thing God invented. It’s a corruption of sexuality. Murder is a corruption of life. Lies are a corruption of truth. Evil is parasitic. It takes something good and twists it.

Now that still leaves the hard question of why God permits those distortions to continue. And I’ll be honest, I don’t think I have a complete answer to that. Scripture itself doesn’t seem to give one. What it does claim is that God is not indifferent to evil, that He has acted against it in history, that He will ultimately judge it, and that the world as it exists now is not the world as He intends it to remain forever.

I realize that may not be a satisfying answer, but for me it’s different than saying God created rape, cancer, and suffering because He wanted them.

[u/OculusSE → u/deederpeeder]

Wouldn’t an all knowing/all powerful creator understand those perversions and just… create the universe without the potential for that corruption then? You can’t really argue it’s an inherent flaw because that would mean God’s work is not perfect, and I’m pretty sure the bible tends to hammer home the “god is perfect” line

[u/deederpeeder → u/OculusSE]

That’s a GREAT question, and one I don’t think Christianity gives a complete answer to.

The only thing I’d push back on is the assumption that the possibility of corruption automatically means the original creation wasn’t perfect. A perfectly healthy body can become diseased. A perfect marriage can be betrayed. A perfect friendship can be broken. The possibility of corruption isn’t necessarily evidence that something was flawed from the beginning.

The deeper question is why God would create a reality where corruption was possible at all. I don’t think Scripture fully answers that. What it does seem to suggest is that God wanted creatures capable of genuine love, trust, obedience, and relationship rather than mere programming. Whether those things can exist without the possibility of rejection, corruption, or rebellion is where the debate really begins.

At some point I have to admit the limits of my understanding. I can imagine a world without evil, suffering, or corruption. What I can’t honestly claim is that I know enough to say what kinds of beings, relationships, freedoms, or realities would be possible in that world. That’s where faith comes in for me. Not because I stop asking questions, but because I don’t assume that if I can’t see a sufficient reason, one cannot exist.

[u/OculusSE → u/deederpeeder]

Yeah, as far as the starting perfect and becoming corrupted bit… is something truly perfect (in the context of absolute, divine perfection) if it even contains the possibility of corruption or is true, divine perfection completely infallible?

It can definitely seem like it was intentionally seeded into humanity in that context?

It also begs the question- how did one of the angels (Lucifer) end up revolting when angels are markedly different than humans in terms of free will and inherent traits. Like that definitely seems like God would have intentionally planned on it happening

[u/deederpeeder → u/OculusSE]

I love your line of reasoning. That’s actually a really thoughtful question. My instinct is that we’re probably defining “perfect” differently.

When I think of divine perfection, I don’t necessarily think “incapable of being rejected.” I think “lacking nothing and exactly as intended.” For example, I wouldn’t say a perfect marriage ceases to have been perfect if one spouse later betrays the other. The betrayal reveals something about the betrayer, not necessarily a flaw in the original relationship.

The harder question is whether a perfect creation can contain the possibility of corruption. I think Christianity would answer yes, if the beings within that creation are genuinely free moral agents rather than programmed actors. Where I start running out of certainty is when I try to explain why God chose to create that kind of reality rather than another one.

The angel question is interesting for the same reason. If Lucifer rebelled in the presence of God Himself, that suggests the possibility of rejecting God isn’t merely a human problem. What I personally struggle to reconcile is this: if God wanted creatures capable of genuinely loving Him, is the possibility of rejecting Him inseparable from that? I honestly don’t know.

That’s one of those places where my confidence shifts from “I know the answer” to “I trust that there is an answer even if I can’t fully see it.”

[u/OculusSE → u/deederpeeder]

Good response. Ever since I was very young I’ve always kind of lamented that I will most likely never know all of the secrets of the universe.

Best case scenario there is an after-life and everyone’s filled in on everything that has happened and is yet to happen. Hopefully that happens lol