The Problem of Evil?

What is the problem of evil? Well, I would say the main conjecture about the "problem of evil" is the assumption that there is in fact evil [meaning evil exists and is real].  However, the assumption [there is evil] presupposes there is good. To actually believe there is evil in this world one would have to presuppose there is good to begin with.  Else, how would we know there is evil without knowing the good?  Is it possible to know evil without knowledge of the good at all?  I don't think it is possible.  Take for example if the universe were to shrink, could we come know the universe had shrunk without comparing it to something-else?  No, we would have to have something to compare [before it shrunk and after it shrunk] with the size of the universe in order to know it had shrunk.  In as much, there has to be some sort of defining factor which allows me to come to some sort of understanding of what evil is.  The only thing I can think of that would acquiesce me to differentiate evil is good.  If evil is a disruption of goodness or at the very least the opposite of good, and let's say such is the case, then good would be able to give us different defining factor(s) of what good is and evil is not.  Therefore, any human being holding to a position that commits them to believing there is evil has to also be assuming there is a certain good.

If what I said above is true, is it fair to accept the following?

[1] Evil exists.
[2] In order to know evil exists good has to also exists.
[3] Therefore, good exists.

Relationship & Responsibility

In Christian Theism human relationships are deem as important.  God created mankind in His image and God also saw the need to create a pair of humans.  Humans need each other and being able to relate to one another in a healthy manner helps the development of self; it is reasoned relationality helps develop/emerge[1] the first-person perspective in each individual.  If healthy relationships help the development of self then it's a fact relationships are important to the development of mankind.  People tend to think about themselves at times, and being concerned with oneself a lot of the time can cause harm to relationships; for example, being a selfish person can impede on relationships one tries to build with different individuals.  Inasmuch, focusing on oneself solely will affect a relationship with God as the focus on God will diminish and the focus on oneself will increase.

Now, it is entirely possible for a person who is disabled, brain damaged, etc. who will not be able to make a conscious choice when it comes to relating to God or others; if such is the case, I am assuming God will not hold the person accountable for not being able to make certain conscious choices.  It is also conceivable to me an innocent[2] person will be pardon by God, but a person that is guilty[3] will be condemn by God.  Exactly who is guilty and how much the person failed to do I leave to God and the individual.  By no means do I deny original sin, but I don't think certain systematic theologies take into account the predicament some individuals with certain deficiencies find themselves in.  What I do know is in Scripture we read about responsibility (i.e. Matthew 25:14-30), and it should be understood some people will have more responsibility than others.

__________________________________
[1] For a more in depth view see Rethinking Human Nature by Kevin J. Corcoran page 74.
[2] I use the term rather loosely as no one is innocent due to original sin.
[3] I mean here a person who is able to make conscious choices (i.e. good or bad). 

On liberalism

For the purpose of this post I'll assume liberalism for the modern Protestant Christian is:

a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

Source

It's interesting the definition of liberalism assumes "intellectual liberty."  What sort of intellectual liberty should Christians be willing to accept?  Should it be liberation from certain basic tenants of Christianity?  A lot of liberals tend to say they follow Jesus.  Okay, and where are they getting their information about Jesus from?  I mean, surely there some ramifications in breaking away from Tradition and Scripture; indeed, even liberals need to have some sort of foundational beginning.  I guess, I want to know where the starting point for the liberal begins.  Can they even have fundamental premises to adhere to?

Where are the liberals when this happens?

It appeared for a moment on Friday afternoon that SunTrust Banks had cut ties with David and Jason Benham, the two brothers who recently lost their reality TV show after activists protested their Christian views on abortion and gay marriage.

The Benhams initially said Friday that SunTrust had “pulled all of its listed properties with the Benham brothers’ bank-owned property business, which includes several [independent] franchisees across four states,” the Daily Caller reported.

Source
 

Now, I believe SunTrust has back tracked and re-listed the properties. However, where is the outcry from the liberals? There is a difference between not supporting gay marriage and being a bigot as far as I can tell. Let's see, bigot means:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Source


The emphasis should be on "dislike." If a Christian dislikes another person because [insert sin here] we have a problem, but if a Christian does not support the sin and yet loves the person, what's the problem?