It is popular (and trendy, I might add) to subscribe to some form of pantheism. The idea is to take good things from every religion (with the exception of Christianity, of course, because it's so stinkin' intollerant) to form the ideal religion. Herein lies the problem: What is "good"? If "good" is a matter of personal preference, then the decision of which elements of religion one would choose to adhere to is a rather inconsequencial one. In the words of Dr. Ravi Zaccharias, "In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others they eat them. Which do you prefer?"
However, I think that, while in word, many would argue until they are blue in the face that the dicision is in fact a matter of personal preference based heavily on social norms and constructs, in reality, people understand that in order for there to be "good" (or "evil"), there has to be some sort of standard to which one can measure any element of religion (or feeling, or event, or moral decision, etc.).
But when the question is asked, "What is the standard with wich one can measure religious elements and moral decisions?," one is really asking, "Which, if any, of these religions is the true and accurate standard against which one can measure good?" And when this question is asked, oddly enough, the plurality begins to diminish quite a bit. Decisions then need to be made, not as to which elements from which religions need to be adapted, but which worldview most closely matches what seems to be the standard of morality and "good/evil".
But I do understand just how incredibly cool and trendy it is to be pluralistic and "tolerant." So, should you choose to say, "No, Graffius, you're wrong. There is no standard, just personal preference. Can't we all just get along," I would recommend you eliminate the words "good" and "evil/bad" from your vocabulary. By definition, these words are relative, relative to a standard. If there is no standard, then there is no good and no bad. There is simply decisions that one prefers as opposed to decisions one does not prefer. In this case, I could punch you in the face and, while you may not prefer that I do that, you have no grounds to say I was wrong. That would be intollerant of my preference to punch you in the face.
And if this is the case, you have no argument against God on the grounds of the problem of evil. The problem goes something like this: How can a loving God allow so much evil in the world? If there are no standards of good and evil, just personal preference, then there is no loving God and there is no evil. There is just a neutral God making decisions that you do not prefer. But you cannot argue on these grounds. That would be arguing against a God who allegedly does not exist because He does things you don't like. (Also known as BORDERLINE INSANITY!) But if you were to actually attempt such a case, that would be very intollerant indeed.
