Did God drown his Jewish creation including in Noah's ark?

Author: Tradesecret ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 37
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation, including zygotes and babies in his great Flood Scenario  according to Genesis 7.

    I would suggest that this statement is absurdly put.  In the first place the Jewish nation did not come into existence until hundreds of years after Noah's Flood.  Jacob who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, was the first one called Israel.  It was not until many years later that the Israelite nations were known as Jews.  Whoever were killed at the time of the great flood, it was not the Hebrew Creation. 

    But leaving that silly statement aside for one moment,   for the sake of the sake of the argument, let us assume for a moment that Noah was a Jew. Did God kill the entire Jewish creation? And the answer again must be no. 

    The story of Noah's Ark is a picture of salvation for 8 persons and thousands of animals.   To say the Entire Jewish Creation was horribly drowned is therefore an over reach. 

    But again let us leave even this picture of salvation aside - for the sake of the argument,  let us ask the question whether there were zygotes and babies who drowned during the flood? 

    And the answer is most likely yes. Did they drown horribly? It certainly is very likely. 

    So if Noah's flood occurred, literally, and it covered the entire earth, and only 8 people and thousands of animals survived, is it likely that many people - perhaps millions drowned horribly? And my answer would be yes it is very likely. I am sure some would have died by other means - but most would have drowned and I cannot imagine drowning to be a fun affair? Would the zgotes have drowned?  I can't say. Most likely their mother's drowned and they lost the ability to keep breathing. It really does not matter how it is spun, the fact is - it would have been horrible - nasty. Incredibly brutal and cruel. There is no getting around this. 

    The next question that arises is did God do it? Did God drown them? And the answer is yes. God did.  

    So does this make God a murderer? Does this make what God did wrong? 

    And I would say no. Murder is a technical term. It is distinguished from killing. It is distinguished from self defence. It is distinguished from lawful punishment. 

    No one is saying God came down from heaven and literally forced people's heads into the water. 

    The question really comes down to whether it was lawful for God to put all of these people to death. And the answer is found in Genesis 6:6-7. 

    "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously." So the Lord said I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, man, animals and creeping things, birds of the air - for I am sorry that I have made them". 

    Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 

    If he had not made them, he may not have had lawful grounds to destroy them. But they were his possessions and he has the legal right over them to destroy them. Secondly, they were evil- continuously. This was his reason for destroying them. It is not like God looked down at the earth and thought - how lovely they are - all doing the right thing and being so nice - and so  I will therefore kill them. 

    No, God destroyed the creation as it was then known on the basis of the fact that it was evil to its heart - and also on the basis that he had jurisdiction to do so because he had made the earth and all in it. 

    I will aside the other technical issue of murder being something that only humans are able to do anyway. But the point is - God's actions on that day were lawful. Some might say - well even if they were lawful, it was cruel and unusual punishment. And my response to that is - all forms of capital punishment are according to some - cruel and unusual. 

    The evil being committed by the people at that time was monsterous and evil. Imagine an entire nation of pedaphiles. And only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 

    Now I accept some will reject my  reasoning for why I say God's act was lawful. I have provided my justifications for it. God saw their hearts and knew they evil. And secondly, he made them, giving him total jurisdiction. 

    To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 


  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,323
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Tradesecret
    To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 
    Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,325
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

    Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ludofl3x
    To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment. 
    Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
    But you see dear Ludo, 

    I am not arguing that the story is literal. I never have. People make many assumptions - sometimes I run with a discussion to see where it goes. But I have never once argued - at least here on this forum in the recent past that it needs to be taken literally. 

    My particular intention with these questions and responses is to demonstrate that the character of God as described in the Bible is not vile or cruel or evil. But  rather is one who is good and just and perfect in what he does. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

    Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
    No. This does not address or answer the question or the topic. 


  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,323
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @Tradesecret
    Oh, okay, then I disagree with you on this charcter being loving and just and all that crap. This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing. If he were truly all knowing, then, this situation wouldn't have arisen unless he wanted it to (which makes him a sadist, far from loving and just). If he were truly all powerful, why not just change whatever he didn't like in the humans? Was that beyond his ability? Then he's not all powerful...if it's within his power an dhe chose basically a near extinction event over rewriting the program, he's a cruel dick, because those babies that drown didn't do anything to him. I'm also not sure I agree with 'creating something igves you the authority to destroy it.' My wife and I created our children, and we don't have the authority to kil l them. 
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,017
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @ludofl3x
    Oh, okay, then I disagree with you on this charcter being loving and just and all that crap.
    Fine. You have freedom to think that. 


    This is an all powerful character who's supposedly all knowing being "sorry" he made them would indicate clear regret. Surely if his knowledge was all encompassing, he'd have seen this problem coming and decided to either skip making people all together, or make them differently, so as to not have to drown the whole thing.
    Why is this so? I knew that before I had kids they would do things that would make me  angry. They would let me down. Perhaps even things that might make me want to throw them out of the family. I certainly was not foolish enough to think that they would be perfect and would never have the capacity to kill or murder or even rape. But I still had them.  And I would do it again even if I knew for sure that they would do this. I don't accept the argument that since God knew what would happen, then he ought to have done something differently. In the first place, it actually denies his holiness and perfection. It also actually makes people guilty before they are guilty. We cannot condemn someone before they have done it.

    The other flaw in doctrine in relation to that particular aspect is not one I would typically discuss with non-believers but it goes to the distinction between first and second causes. This particular doctrine enables believers to understand that God plans all things and brings it to pass according to his good and perfect will. It states that nothing happens without God planning it in the first place. But it also provides man with his own responsibility for his actions. Hence, this doctrine teaches that without GOD, nothing happens. Yet it also provides a break in responsibility between the creator and the creature. 

    If he were truly all knowing, then, this situation wouldn't have arisen unless he wanted it to (which makes him a sadist, far from loving and just).
    Sorry, i don't agree. I am of the view that God is just. This means he won't condemn any without a lawful reason. And just because he knows the future does not change this aspect of his justice. People are not condemned because of future sins. God won't condemn you just because he knows you might turn into Adolph Hitler -even though we as humans might wish that he had never been born. It would be unjust to kill him or his mother before he became this monster. 


    If he were truly all powerful, why not just change whatever he didn't like in the humans? Was that beyond his ability?

    The flaw in your argument assumes that there was a flaw.  Truly God could have created human beings without a free will.  He could have made them all robots. Is that what you would prefer?   The flaw is not the person. The flaw is not the environment. Neither the genetics or the environment can be blamed.  It was the fact that God gave them liberty which I say is a very good thing. Yet - it was something that despite its very goodness was able to do very good things or be used for evil.   Humanity chose to exploit his own freedom. I don't think free will was a flaw. Trying to find a flaw I think is our way of trying to excuse ourselves for our own evilness. 


    Then he's not all powerful...if it's within his power an dhe chose basically a near extinction event over rewriting the program, he's a cruel dick, because those babies that drown didn't do anything to him. I'm also not sure I agree with 'creating something igves you the authority to destroy it.' My wife and I created our children, and we don't have the authority to kil l them. 
    You did not create your own children.  LOL @ that thought.  And even our law says you don't own your children, any more than you own yourself. 

    The argument about God making the world gives him the right to destroy it.  You admit you have the authority to kill your children? Why not? Someone is bigger than you and has authority to stop you from doing it. Well lawfully anyway. But you could kill them. 

    But who is bigger than God? Who has authority over him? Which court is he bound to obey? 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Castin
    I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
    I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

    Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

    A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

    The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

    Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,017
    3
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @Tradesecret
    I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?
    I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

    Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

    A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

    The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

    Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 
    Thanks for your response.

    In Genesis 8 we read:

    • The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
    I note the present tense, is evil from childhood - appearing to indicate that even after the flood, our every inclination is still corrupt. Human nature has not improved. If we are no better after the flood than before, then what makes God change his tune about floods? If Christ was his plan, why could Christ not have saved the pre-flood world, as he saved the post-flood world - since it seems God thinks we were bad seeds in both worlds?

    I appreciate that you don't have all the answers. I'm simply interested in more of your speculation.
  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 171
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @Tradesecret
    Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 
    This doesn't really answer your question, but it is food for thought. 

    One of my professors in college had a policy concerning test questions.   Many teachers have the same policy.  If at least 50% of the class got a question wrong, it was thrown out.  The professor explained that it was his job to "make us" into people proficient in the subject at hand (say Philosophy 101).  if half the class missed the question, then "HE" was the problem, not the "STUDENT".  If only a few people missed the question, then he "passed judgement" in the form of a grade. 

    This is ham-handed I know, but if your question is about God's right to wipe out his creation, then he needs to take responsibility for so MUCH of his class completely failing the course!
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @lady3keys
    Two really important things here provide an answer for us.  God's action took place on two grounds. First, they were evil. Secondly, he had made them. 
    This doesn't really answer your question, but it is food for thought. 

    One of my professors in college had a policy concerning test questions.   Many teachers have the same policy.  If at least 50% of the class got a question wrong, it was thrown out.  The professor explained that it was his job to "make us" into people proficient in the subject at hand (say Philosophy 101).  if half the class missed the question, then "HE" was the problem, not the "STUDENT".  If only a few people missed the question, then he "passed judgement" in the form of a grade. 

    This is ham-handed I know, but if your question is about God's right to wipe out his creation, then he needs to take responsibility for so MUCH of his class completely failing the course!

    Hi and thanks for your thoughts. Sorry which question did I not answer. 

    I see your point with respect of your teachers. Funny, in Australia it would not be the teachers fault if 50% fail.  They will blame the curriculum or the government or the students.  I cannot ever think of one teacher who would blame himself - even if it were his fault. 

    Nevertheless, I think that analogy does not fit with Noah's Ark.   Firstly, it was not a test. God was not testing humanity.  I wonder what you would think of a court room scene where the judge heard 100 cases brought by the police?  And in 90% of those cases the judge found them guilty and sentenced them.  Would the fact that 90% of those people being found guilty be a reflection of the judge failing? 

    In other words, I think the court room scene is a much more apt picture than a school room testing scenario. I think that God like the judge has to be responsible for what he is doing - not for the actions of the crooks. If a judge let people go - others in the community would scream injustice at the judge. 
  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 171
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @Tradesecret
    I wonder what you would think of a court room scene where the judge heard 100 cases brought by the police?  And in 90% of those cases the judge found them guilty and sentenced them.  Would the fact that 90% of those people being found guilty be a reflection of the judge failing? 
    Absolutely, if the judge was also those people's father and teacher.
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,325
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Some have suggested that God drowned his entire Jewish creation,

    Let us see when and who has   suggested that god  drowned  "the entire Jewish nation"? 
    No. This does not address or answer the question or the topic. 

    So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

    Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim. 

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @lady3keys
    Where is the teacher part coming in ? 


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

    Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim.
    Why would I make it up? As for someone not being so familiar with the scriptures, lol, that is ironic. 

    I am sure you are capable of looking up who might have asked this question.  

    Is there a reason you are not addressing the question. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,325
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    So you are just making it all up then. Or you are purposely missing all of the context of what "some have suggested". 

    Listen I doubt anyone, except someone not so familiar with the scriptures has said what you claim.
    Why would I make it up? As for someone not being so familiar with the scriptures, lol, that is ironic. 

    I am sure you are capable of looking up who might have asked this question.  

    Is there a reason you are not addressing the question. 
    I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .



  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
    I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.




  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,325
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
    I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.


      Of course you can't, because  you have made it up to create a thread.  You are making claims that "others" have made claims but conveniently left out any and all context of the claims. 

    Just point us to the thread/s on which you say the claim/s have been made.   It cannot be that difficult.  You must have had them at your fingertips seeing that you are able to start a thread about what people are alleged to have claimed.

  • lady3keys
    lady3keys avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 171
    0
    2
    6
    lady3keys avatar
    lady3keys
    --> @Tradesecret
    Where is the teacher part coming in ? 
    You said people are "God's creation" and he has the right to judge and to punish them.  He cannot judge them unless he has first laid out the rules (taught them the rules they must obey or he will kill them in a flood).   So the court "judge" in your example was a stand in for God.  The 100 people on trial were a stand in for every living soul on Earth before the flood.  And the 10 people the judge didn't find guilty were a stand in for Noah and his family.    So instead of Creator and Judge, I used Father and Teacher. 

    In my example, the teacher threw out the question if 50% of the class missed it on a test.  He maintained that if over half the class missed it, he had failed as a teacher.  If your "court judge" had to find 90 out of 100 of his own children guilty of a serious crime (one that necessitated death), then I would say as a "Father" and "Teacher" (much as a "Creator" and "Judge"), he had (and has) seriously failed his children.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    The problem Stephen is that I don't trust you. I think you have an ulterior motive for wanting me to post to that link.  You know where it is. It is a topic which is now closed. Is there any reason why you don't post it - since you know very well where it is and who posted it? 




  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,325
    3
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret

    I want to see the context of the alleged author that you say has  said  "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .
    I can't see how it is relevant to you answering the question.


      Of course you can't, because  you have made it up to create a thread.  You are making claims that "others" have made claims but conveniently left out any and all context of the claims. 

    Just point us to the thread/s on which you say the claim/s have been made.   It cannot be that difficult.  You must have had them at your fingertips seeing that you are able to start a thread about what people are alleged to have claimed.



    The problem Stephen is that I don't trust you.




    Irrelevant.


    I think you have an ulterior motive for wanting me to post to that link.

    Stop stalling. Simply put up the links to the relevant threads that you allege  "others"  say "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" .


      You know where it is.


    No I don't.


     Is there any reason why you don't post it

     I have asked you right at the start of this thread for the evidence for what you allege "others" have claimed#3 . So don't waste your time trying to throw this back to me sunshine.


    - since you know very well where it is and who posted it? 

    Not to my knowledge. So would you kindly post those links that  YOU alleged that "others" claim that "God drowned his entire Jewish creation" instead of arguing about it?




  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @lady3keys
    Where is the teacher part coming in ? 
    You said people are "God's creation" and he has the right to judge and to punish them.  He cannot judge them unless he has first laid out the rules (taught them the rules they must obey or he will kill them in a flood).   So the court "judge" in your example was a stand in for God.  The 100 people on trial were a stand in for every living soul on Earth before the flood.  And the 10 people the judge didn't find guilty were a stand in for Noah and his family.    So instead of Creator and Judge, I used Father and Teacher. 

    In my example, the teacher threw out the question if 50% of the class missed it on a test.  He maintained that if over half the class missed it, he had failed as a teacher.  If your "court judge" had to find 90 out of 100 of his own children guilty of a serious crime (one that necessitated death), then I would say as a "Father" and "Teacher" (much as a "Creator" and "Judge"), he had (and has) seriously failed his children.


    Absolutely I said that. Read the first couple of chapters of Genesis and you will see the one rule he made. After that - humanity was kicked out of God's family. So I feel your link to him having fatherly responsibilities is an overreach. Humanity rejected God. They did not want to be part of his family. Humanity well before the flood was living on borrowed time. They were - indeed as humanity to the largest extent is now - on death row awaiting execution. God at the time of the flood - simply brought down the axe. 

    God found grace in the eyes of the Lord. If you understand the term grace - you will understand it is a undeserved gift - and mercy means not getting what you do deserve. Hence Noah also deserved death by God for his own reasons decided to let him and his family survive the deluge and to be the new father of the new world. 

    I think that the teacher is unhelpful.  I don't see God as a teacher in the sense of a classroom. While it is true that Adam was on probation during his time in the Garden, and to it seems that of those students 100% failed - I see this not as the result of the teacher. In fact that suggestion simply makes a mockery of the entire bible.  And it makes a mockery of Jesus own death and resurrection from the grave.  

    A judge need to remain objective in his judgment. If it turned out that the judge was also the father of the defendant - the judge would need to recuse himself - as a conflict of interest. Justice demands that to be the case.  Justice is blind - not that it is ignorant of truth - but that it sees all defendants the same. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Are you really saying you don't know that a recent topic I started was closed down? 


  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tradesecret
     I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  
    Well stated. I applaud your honesty and only wish I saw this kind of admition more often. From theists and atheists alike.