The Problem of Evil (version 12,430,459.7)

[cvanwey]

Sorry, but it does. My point in the previous post is that statements like "I'm a moral relativist" just kick the can down the road. Rather than, "Why does God allow evil?" The question becomes, "Why do people make different moral decisions?" You still have to answer.​

Yes and no.

Yes, as I can ask why other humans do things I don't like to me.

No, as I stated here, as 'the problem of evil' does not pertain to me in the classical sense; because I do not believe in such a claimed God, and start asking why He does this or that.... This is a 'problem' for the theist only.'

However, I don't accept some 'absolute' standard for 'moral right and wrong' regardless; as I also don't see one for politics, economics, etc., for instance. As I stated prior, if God exists, He could do whatever He wants, and would have to answer to no one, nor justify His actions to anyone or anything.​

Each of those topics is a lengthy discussion. Science is not a monolith that must be taken whole in order to subscribe to the method. I'm an engineer by trade, and use science on a daily basis. Even as an engineer there are things at work that I accept and things I reject. It's part of the method.

I thought I had answered your question. No, there is no need to invoke some conscious agent who causes cancer. But neither am I a believer in "nature", which I believe to be an under-the-table way for materialists to sneak in spirituality in the guise of secular terminology. As I told you, it's a result of sin.

Well, now it seems it may be you, whom is merely 'kicking the can down the road.'?

You stated that 'bad things are the result of sin (paraphrased).' Or, a 'fallen world'... If God's intent was for a 'perfect' world, until the 'fall', this would mean God set things like cancer, into motion; either directly or secondarily, right?

But as I stated a few posts back, you don't seem to fit the criteria for what (this) post is intended???

However, I would still like to ask you... Do you have an answer for the classical 'problem of evil'? Why does God allow children to receive painful cancer, and then die, prior to emotional maturity? Free will, other, other?

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, as I can ask why other humans do things I don't like to me.

So what's your answer?

No, as I stated here, as 'the problem of evil' does not pertain to me in the classical sense; because I do not believe in such a claimed God …

Mmm. Then I get to claim the "yes and no" excuse as well. It's rare that the god described in theodicy debates is anything more than a strawman.

Why does God allow children to receive painful cancer, and then die, prior to emotional maturity? Free will, other, other?

As indicated above, I don't feel obligated to answer terms set by others - questions about non-existent gods. Further, I don't see theodicy as one question, but many. You've mentioned several issues: pain, free will, God's choices. And there are others, for example: God's responsibility, God's completeness, God's omni-properties, logical impossibilities. In the end, theodicy is the same as the ridiculously open-ended question: Why?

I'll try to give a succinct answer to your basic question (Why pain?), but the fuller answer will involve all those other details. God is good. God does what is good. It was good to create beings with free will. Pain is our choice, not his, and the only way to remove it would have been for God to never create, never do what was good. Instead, God takes responsibility for our pain and promises to bring it back to a good conclusion.

 

[cvanwey]

So what's your answer?

About what specifically? About other humans doing things I don't agree with, or other?

Mmm. Then I get to claim the "yes and no" excuse as well. It's rare that the god described in theodicy debates is anything more than a strawman.

I disagree. You believe that both humans and the Christian God exist. Hence, you have an opinion regarding the actions of both humans and God. Where as I no longer think such a God exists, which negates me from the later, (i.e.) God's actions. In short, I'm asking you God's purpose in the allowance of the torture of young children?

Hence, what is your specific opinion on God sitting idly by, as He watches prepubescent children suffer from disease, starving to death, being raped, etc.?

Assuming 'good' relates to some type of objective/absolute 'moral' actions in which you think exists, how might you square such actions, in light of the 'fact' God possesses 'omnibenevolence' and 'omnipotence'?

In other words, what is the point of God's allowance for such acts?

As indicated above, I don't feel obligated to answer terms set by others - questions about non-existent gods.

I don't see why it matters. You assert that your believed God exists. I'm asking you what purpose/reason/point God used to allow the torture of children?

Further, I don't see theodicy as one question, but many. You've mentioned several issues: pain, free will, God's choices. And there are others, for example: God's responsibility, God's completeness, God's omni-properties, logical impossibilities. In the end, theodicy is the same as the ridiculously open-ended question: Why?

I agree. But I hadn't attempted to go quite this involved/deep, as of yet

I'll try to give a succinct answer to your basic question (Why pain?), but the fuller answer will involve all those other details. God is good.

How do you know "God is 'good'?"

God does what is good.

Again, how do you know "God does what is 'good'?"

Pain is our choice, not his,

I don't think an infant/toddler/child's pain is their choice? Again, if a small child obtains cancer, gets raped, or is starving, they are powerless to choose as such.

the only way to remove it would have been for God to never create, never do what was good.

Disagree. God can apparently do whatever He wants/wishes. God has the power to set the stage, and allow anything he wants, even applying 'free will'. God also apparently intervenes, by sometimes answering prayer. --- Unless you have fully resigned to the 'fact' that when someone's cancer is cured, God was not ever present, and/or did not aid in recovery?

Sounds as though you are either attempting to rationalize the events, by stating that humans need to be allowed to see 'evil' to appreciate or to know what's 'good'? Or, maybe, you are instead saying that God allows any/all 'evil'? Which then begs the question, regarding the 'problem of evil' once again:

(i.e.)

"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”

Instead, God takes responsibility for our pain and promises to bring it back to a good conclusion.

I disagree. The human child is the one whom feels the pain. It would be like God telling the young child, "hey, I'm taking responsibility for your pain, and some day, you won't feel pain anymore;" which is quite frankly no different than a fellow human telling the same child, "hey, I have the power to end your pain right now, but I choose not to at this time." The child does not understand, and never will understand, because they will die prior to theodicy.

 

[Resha Caner]

About what specifically? About other humans doing things I don't agree with, or other?

The question I asked you in post #20. Why do people make different moral decisions?

How do you know "God is 'good'?"

You don't seem to get it yet. I'm not going to answer your question based on what you believe. I'm going to answer it based on what I believe. I get it that you don't believe God exists. I understand "omnibenevolence" is a commonly used term, so it's reasonable for you to assume it. But all of that is irrelevant to my answer.

Wouldn't it be best, then, for you to understand my answer before you disagree with it? In that regard, we can do this one of two ways:

1) Go through my statements step by step so you understand them.
Statement 1: God is good. This statement is established by Psalms 34:8, Mark 10:18, etc.

or

2) Cut to the chase. You disagree that God is good. OK.
2A) If God doesn't exist that's irrelevant. It's the same as thinking the Joker is evil. They have been written as they have been written, and that won't change. However, like the Joker movie, maybe we can make a movie that explains the difficulties of God's childhood so you can sympathize with how he came to be evil and maybe forgive him for it.
2B) If God does exist that's irrrelevant. He is what he is and he's a lot more powerful than you. You'd better start working on appeasing him.

 

[cvanwey]

The question I asked you in post #20. Why do people make different moral decisions?

This question is too vague. You need to ask me a specific 'moral' question, and about a specific person to boot. (i.e.) Such as...

What is the purpose of (God) allowing Jimmy, a 6-year-old boy, to be continually raped by his father, then killed at age 7 for attempting to escape, when all-the-while, (God) has the power to stop it?

Much the same as....

What is the purpose of (Greg) allowing Jimmy, a 6-year-old boy, to be continually raped by his father, then killed at age 7 for attempting to escape, when all-the-while, (Greg) has the power to stop it?

Now, before (you and I) can answer this question, we need to ask ourselves....

Do both God - (all knowing, all loving, all powerful, all present), and Greg - (a 40 year old neighbor of Jimmy, with a 'fully functioning' brain), think 'rape' is a 'sin'?

I think, that if both this human and this God exists, they probably both do. But who knows, because I cannot ask God I may be able to ask Greg, but even if I can, maybe he is lying to me.

However, above is presented a specific case of 'situational ethics'... Where it would look that there would exist no 'favorable reason' to allow as such rape?.?.?. However, maybe there is a reason?

And if there is, I would really like to hear it????

You don't seem to get it yet.

I beg to differ. I'm pressing you for the 'reasoning'. Please see below.

I'm not going to answer your question based on what you believe. I'm going to answer it based on what I believe.

I'm already aware Please proceed.

I get it that you don't believe God exists. I understand "omnibenevolence" is a commonly used term, so it's reasonable for you to assume it. But all of that is irrelevant to my answer.

Okay

Wouldn't it be best, then, for you to understand my answer before you disagree with it? In that regard, we can do this one of two ways:

1) Go through my statements step by step so you understand them.
Statement 1: God is good. This statement is established by Psalms 34:8, Mark 10:18, etc.

So we are clear here, you have concluded that God is 'good', based upon some passages, written by humans, in the Bible? You are aware this is about as circular as you can get, right?

Have you ever heard of the term, 'actions speak louder than words'? Do statements, such as Psalm 34:8, for instance, negate anything and everything God could ever do, simply because He states He is 'good'?

2) Cut to the chase. You disagree that God is good. OK.

Take the situation above... (i.e.) God vs. Greg. If the cops found out Greg completely knew about the incident next door, watched it, and never did anything, (could) there be a logical reason Greg would not be held accountable in some way, shape, or form? Furthermore, going back to your statement above, 'Greg is good', as 'everyone' says, or as it is written in a book. Would such proclamations of 'good' mean anything here, in this instance of allowing the continued rape and eventual murder next door?

2A) If God doesn't exist that's irrelevant. It's the same as thinking the Joker is evil. They have been written as they have been written, and that won't change. However, like the Joker movie, maybe we can make a movie that explains the difficulties of God's childhood so you can sympathize with how he came to be evil and maybe forgive him for it.

There's a difference. A big difference here. We both don't believe the Joker is a real character

You believe God is real. Hence, I would ask you in all sincerity. What would be the point in God allowing Jimmy to be raped, and then murdered? Especially allowing as such prior to emotional maturity, age of enlightenment, theodicy...

2B) If God does exist that's irrrelevant. He is what he is and he's a lot more powerful than you. You'd better start working on appeasing him.

I agree. So how am I to know He does exist? Because, as of thus far, I attempted to get to know Him for decades, only to fail miserably. I finally concluded that He either does not exist, or has no interest in contacting me. Hence, I can only ponder the scenarios which appear to validate my (current) conclusion, that if God is as 'good' as He states He might be, I cannot fathom a logical reason why He allows for the torture of small children? Can you?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So we are clear here, you have concluded that God is 'good', based upon some passages, written by humans, in the Bible? You are aware this is about as circular as you can get, right?

When a sheep hears the shepherd's voice,

nothing else matters We know His Voice, and follow Him. You don't.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is there a reason you always post in blue? It's kinda hard to read, and a little annoying.

This question is too vague. You need to ask me a specific 'moral' question, and about a specific person

OK, if that helps you. John joins the military and fights in a war. Jim, his brother, avoids the draft and protests the war. Why did they make different decisions?

There's a difference. A big difference here. We both don't believe the Joker is a real character

You believe God is real. Hence, I would ask you in all sincerity. What would be the point in God allowing Jimmy to be raped, and then murdered? Especially allowing as such prior to emotional maturity, age of enlightenment, theodicy...

OK. You've chosen option 2.

It seems you're concerned with the effect my belief in God may have on you? Is that correct? In other words, you're concerned my belief (or the belief of some other Christian) may lead to an action that has negative consequences for you. Is that correct? For example, you're concerned I might justify violence against you as, "Well, God allowed it. You must have deserved it."

I agree. So how am I to know He does exist? Because, as of thus far, I attempted to get to know Him for decades, only to fail miserably. I finally concluded that He either does not exist, or has no interest in contacting me. Hence, I can only ponder the scenarios which appear to validate my (current) conclusion, that if God is as 'good' as He states He might be, I cannot fathom a logical reason why He allows for the torture of small children? Can you?

Mmm. This has moved beyond simply answering a question. It seems to have moved into the realm of counseling. We can do this in a personal chat if you want, and honestly it would be better if you found someone for a face-to-face chat. But if you wish to continue the discussion here, I can start with this: Forget everything you think you know about God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What is the purpose of (God) allowing Jimmy, a 6-year-old boy, to be continually raped by his father, then killed at age 7 for attempting to escape, when all-the-while, (God) has the power to stop it?

A lot of victims, and families of victims, and friends of victims, ask this.
The answer is and comes from the Healer, the Comforter, the Savior, whether it seems gentle, or seems like a sword, and brings comfort, healing, and restoration to all who trust the Father and the Shepherd.

 

[cvanwey]

Is there a reason you always post in blue? It's kinda hard to read, and a little annoying.

I've always posted here in blue, to distinguish my responses from other responses in the post. No one has ever complained about it before, but here you go

OK, if that helps you. John joins the military and fights in a war. Jim, his brother, avoids the draft and protests the war. Why did they make different decisions?

I noticed you did not just go with my preemptive given example. Is there a specific reason? My example is just as 'good' as the next, isn't it?

Well, I could possibly ask Jim and John their reasons. God, I apparently cannot. I could then either believe their 'reasons' or not. But again, as I stated, 'actions seem to speak louder than words.' If John is in battle, helps invade a town, and takes hostages, and rapes them, then kills them; but John tells you/others he's 'good', because he is fighting for our country, is he really 'good' or 'bad'?

In this particular case, do I judge what he says, or what he does? See below...

OK. You've chosen option 2.

It seems you're concerned with the effect my belief in God may have on you? Is that correct?

No. I'm instead curious how you rationalize God's apparent avoidance in the situation(s) of rape/murder of small children prior to theodicy, all-the-while, claiming 'good'? Can you tell me God's reason(s)?

Mmm. This has moved beyond simply answering a question. It seems to have moved into the realm of counseling. We can do this in a personal chat if you want, and honestly it would be better if you found someone for a face-to-face chat.

Been there, done that. I'm actually following the natural progression of the discussion. But if you cannot answer, I understand, I guess

But if you wish to continue the discussion here, I can start with this: Forget everything you think you know about God.

And [you] are going to teach me?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I could possibly ask Jim and John their reasons. God, I apparently cannot. I could then either believe their 'reasons' or not. But again, as I stated, 'actions seem to speak louder than words.' If John is in battle, helps invade a town, and takes hostages, and rapes them, then kills them; but John tells you/others he's 'good', because he is fighting for our country, is he really 'good' or 'bad'?

In this particular case, do I judge what he says, or what he does? See below...

To be honest, a lot of this sounds like equivocation to me. Another possibility is that this is a lengthy way of saying, "I don't know." If the latter is your answer, I can respect that.

And [you] are going to teach me?

No. I said you're better off finding someone to speak with face-to-face, but you reject that. So, you're stuck with me. If you don't want to engage with what I said, then I guess you're stuck with nothing. Your choice.

No. I'm instead curious how you rationalize God's apparent avoidance in the situation(s) of rape/murder of small children prior to theodicy, all-the-while, claiming 'good'? Can you tell me God's reason(s)?

That's a nice passive-aggressive move to claim God's avoidance is only "apparent". I've answered you, but we can't get past one sentence before you attack. If you're really that curious, you'll be a little more patient. Ask clarifying questions to take us deeper.

Can you expand on your curiosity? Are you interested to know if someone has a new angle on theodicy? Are you curious about how the religious mind handles pain? Are you curious about me?

 

[cvanwey]

To be honest, a lot of this sounds like equivocation to me. Another possibility is that this is a lengthy way of saying, "I don't know." If the latter is your answer, I can respect that.

How could I know? I don't even claim to know this particular 'John' or 'Jim'. You at least claim to know God, however. Thus, I cannot evaluation 'John' and 'Jim', and their fictitious unspecified claims. But you apparently have the ability to discern that God is 'good', i.e. psalms 34:8, etc...?

As I stated before, we are looking at 'situational ethics' here. John states he's 'good.' He states he 'fights for our country'. However, if I were to find out he raped and murdered hostages in war, is he 'good', in that instance? Could I conceive of ANY reason, at all, this could be deemed a 'good' action? Furthermore, if Jim was there beside him, and did nothing to stop it, is Jim 'good' in that instance as well?

I'm not 'equivocating' here. I'm trying to draw you directly back to my question -- in which you are avoiding.

I answered your question. ---> I see no logical reason to account for a 'good' action in this particular case. The victim was helpless, was violated, then murdered. Is this my subjective conclusion? Yes.

Can I think of a 'reason' why this act of John is considered 'good'? No.

Does this mean there is no reason? Maybe not???

Hence, when someone asks me if John is 'good', do I simply state that he is, because it says so in a book? Or, do I instead evaluated known actions and then assess, with my own conclusion?

I'm now pressing [you], yet again.

Do you know of a/any logical reason(s) an all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and all present God would allow for the rape/murder of children, prior to 'theodicy'?

That's a nice passive-aggressive move to claim God's avoidance is only "apparent". I've answered you, but we can't get past one sentence before you attack. If you're really that curious, you'll be a little more patient. Ask clarifying questions to take us deeper.

Can you expand on your curiosity? Are you interested to know if someone has a new angle on theodicy? Are you curious about how the religious mind handles pain? Are you curious about me?

I don't recall getting any direct answer to the question, at hand, to then expand upon?.?.?

Why does God sometimes allow the rape/murder of children, prior to theodicy?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't recall getting any direct answer to the question, at hand, to then expand upon?.?.?

Why does God sometimes allow the rape/murder of children, prior to theodicy?

IT has never seemed as if you want the truth.

 

[Resha Caner]

As I stated before, we are looking at 'situational ethics' here. John states he's 'good.' He states he 'fights for our country'. However, if I were to find out he raped and murdered hostages in war, is he 'good', in that instance? Could I conceive of ANY reason, at all, this could be deemed a 'good' action? Furthermore, if Jim was there beside him, and did nothing to stop it, is Jim 'good' in that instance as well?

Sigh. You stated? It was my question. You are using my scenario to answer your question. How about trying to use my scenario to answer my question?

I answered your question. ---> I see no logical reason to account for a 'good' action in this particular case. The victim was helpless, was violated, then murdered. Is this my subjective conclusion? Yes.

That was not my question.

How could I know? I don't even claim to know this particular 'John' or 'Jim'. You at least claim to know God, however. Thus, I cannot evaluation 'John' and 'Jim', and their fictitious unspecified claims. But you apparently have the ability to discern that God is 'good', i.e. psalms 34:8, etc...?

If the answer to my question is also, "I don't know," then maybe we can move on. Regardless, I will say this: you're assuming a larger claim about God than I am making. I never said I know God - at least not in the way you're framing this discussion.

What is the purpose of [God] allowing Jimmy, a 6-year-old boy, to be continually raped by his father, then killed at age 7 for attempting to escape, when all-the-while, [God] has the power to stop it?

For this exact particular situation with the details you've provide me … I don't know.

 

[cvanwey]

Sigh. You stated? It was my question. You are using my scenario to answer your question. How about trying to use my scenario to answer my question?

I did. You gave vague details about possibly fictitious characters, that I do not even claim to know (i.e.) 'John' and 'Jim'. Hence, to answer the question, I have to fill in my own blanks, as I was not given a book to assert either of them are 'good'

If the answer to my question is also, "I don't know," then maybe we can move on.

As stated in a prior response, "how could I know?" Heck, I don't even know if either one claims to be 'all good', like God seems to claim. I was not given enough information to assess either direction. Hence, I filled in my own blanks

Regardless, I will say this: you're assuming a larger claim about God than I am making.

Can we clarify here? You stated 'God is good', then quoted Scripture. Are you stating you agree, or instead only stating what the Bible says?

I never said I know God - at least not in the way you're framing this discussion.

Depends on your answer to the above

For this exact particular situation with the details you've provide me … I don't know.

Unlike your John/Jim example, I've gone far and beyond

-You claim you know God exists, where-as I have no clue that if this John/Jim even exists; let alone what they claim?

- The claim of God is being all good, all powerful, all present, and all knowing; where-as I doubt many humans would even attempt to make such claims.

- The claim is that God intervenes, where-as I not only don't know if this John/Jim exist, let-alone what they claim.

In conclusion, If I had the same information available to me, even if they were just claims/assertions, as I had for God, I could then answer your question. However, I have to fill in many blanks.

In your case, God apparently has the power to intervene. God apparently has the power to see what is going on. God claims to love all humans. God apparently wants all humans to know Him. etc etc etc....

So when you say, 'I don't know', I find this response an attempt to avoid exposing your opinion in this response.

Case/point - I can justify why I don't know. Why? Because of the reasons given above.

However, why don't [you] know? Given the 'fact' God claims He is good, all present, all powerful, and all knowing? And also given the claim that He has the ability intervene.

What is your opinion as to why God sets on the side-lines and watches children get raped and murdered? All-the-while, allowing as such prior to enlightenment.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What is your opinion as to why God sets on the side-lines and watches children get raped and murdered?

The pain gone thru has kept many from turning to God, but not everyone.

Those who do come to Jesus, are healed, comforted, nurtured, trained, disciplined, and set free from such sin and from the power of sin and of the devil and of the flesh.

Those who reject Jesus, remain slaves of emotions, the flesh, the devil, the world, and sin.

 

[Resha Caner]

Can we clarify here? You stated 'God is good', then quoted Scripture. Are you stating you agree, or instead only stating what the Bible says?

I would call my personal experiences with God good.

I did. You gave vague details about possibly fictitious characters, that I do not even claim to know (i.e.) 'John' and 'Jim'. Hence, to answer the question, I have to fill in my own blanks, as I was not given a book to assert either of them are 'good'

I didn't ask if they are good.

You claim you know God exists ...

Though I don't recall saying that, I do believe God exists.

- The claim of God is being all good, all powerful, all present, and all knowing; where-as I doubt many humans would even attempt to make such claims.

I did not claim this.

- The claim is that God intervenes, where-as I not only don't know if this John/Jim exist, let-alone what they claim.

I did not claim this.

Further, just as you don't know a fictitious John/Jim, I don't know a fictitious 6-yr-old Jimmy. It is an honest answer that I don't know what God would do in your fictitious situation. For you to reject that is disingenuous when you expect me to accept the same response by you to a fictitious situation. Plain and simple.

 

[cvanwey]

I would call my personal experiences with God good.

This doesn't really answer my direct question. Were you merely regurgitating Scripture? Meaning, you are simply reiterating what the claim from the book states, or, do you believe He IS good? Meaning, anything God does IS 'good'?

Though I don't recall saying that, I do believe God exists.

You didn't have to. Your Avatar description gave it away.

I did not claim this.

Do you need to? If 'God is good', as you claim, does God also have the ability to intervene, at will? If not, then isn't He less-than-a-god?

I did not claim this.

God cannot and does not intervene, ever? Have you read the claims of the Bible?

Further, just as you don't know a fictitious John/Jim, I don't know a fictitious 6-yr-old Jimmy. It is an honest answer that I don't know what God would do in your fictitious situation. For you to reject that is disingenuous when you expect me to accept the same response by you to a fictitious situation. Plain and simple.

Negative. As stated prior, I'm not given a 66 Chapter book of claims and assertions about such a being/human. If I did, I could conclude if this agent was 'good', based upon the actions, or lack there-of, not the mere claim that this agent/human is 'good.'

 

[Resha Caner]

Negative. As stated prior, I'm not given a 66 Chapter book of claims and assertions about such a being/human. If I did, I could conclude if this agent was 'good', based upon the actions, or lack there-of, not the mere claim that this agent/human is 'good.'

I am not omniscient. I don't even know what (or if) my wife is cooking for dinner. How can I know what God is going to do?

If all it takes is a book about a real being, I can point you to extensive writing on Jimmy Carter that exceeds the length of the Bible. Based on your position, you should then be able to predict what he would do in any given situation. Unless you don't believe Jimmy Carter exists.

Interesting how you omitted the conversation about my question.

 

[cvanwey]

I am not omniscient. I don't even know what (or if) my wife is cooking for dinner. How can I know what God is going to do?

But that's not what I'm asking. Again, as I stated many posts ago:

“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”

You opted to bring your spouse into this, so here we go...

If your spouse claims she is 'good', claims she is all powerful, and sees children being raped and murdered, and does nothing, what would you think? Simple question.

Is there any reason she could furnish for you, which you might deem acceptable? Saying 'I don't know', is to simply avoid the question. You must have an opinion?

If all it takes is a book about a real being, I can point you to extensive writing on Jimmy Carter that exceeds the length of the Bible. Based on your position, you should then be able to predict what he would do in any given situation. Unless you don't believe Jimmy Carter exists.

If Carter ever claimed He sees all rape/murder, has the power to stop it at will, and sometimes chooses to do nothing, in such published books, it would not be hard to assess that maybe he is not completely 'good', in my book - (no pun intended)

 

[cvanwey]

Interesting how you omitted the conversation about my question.

I'm curious as to what you feel I'm directly avoiding here? Please provide, and I will do my best to answer.