 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > God's Love, Part Deux | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/7/2003 12:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Brother John,
I think that the view of eternal punishment that C.S. Lewis held to (which I find coherent and rational) would say that yes, even in the punishment of Hell are there because of God's love. Hell is not a judicial punishment, it is the state of rejecting God, of rejecting the source of everything good and beautiful and rejecting Love. The whole -- either people will say to God "Thy will be done" or God will say to them "your will be done". Lewis says it better, but thats the basics of it. Another excellent article on the subject of God's love and Hell has been brought up several times on the board by PoW, its something like "The River of Fire" by some Greek Orthodox writer (imagine that--
Ross
Hi Ross,
I understand that this idea you have stated is often posited by some. However, do you know of any unbelievers who find it (or have found it) persuasive?
In line with my earlier posts on this subject, rather than saying "God loves all persons unconditionally," I think it is more accurate to say, "God WANTS to reveal his love to all," with the implied condition that love must be accepted and consensual in order to be actualized.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/8/2003 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | [Meph: If I’d have said that God’s sustanance of sentient beings was in DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to God’s love for them, then that would have been what you are talking about. But then for me to have claimed THIS would have naturally lead me to either 1) claim the NECESSARY eternal existence of all sentient beings in order to preserve God’s unconditional love or 2) give the possibility for annihilationism at the cost of saying God’s love is CONDITIONAL in some type of way.
Doc: Fair enough. But two points:
1) If God’s love is truly unconditional, in the way you are defining it, then not only does it not end, based on conditions, it NEVER WAVERS based on conditions. Does God love Satan as much when he withdraws his "expression" of love by holding him in existence as much as he does AFTER? And WHY did he annihilate him?
2) If God loves Satan as much AFTER he annihilates him as before he annihilated him, WHAT IS GOD LOVING? How can you love a being AS MUCH when he doesn’t exist (and YOU put him out of existence!) as when he DOES exist?
This second question especially gets to the heart of the issue. What is LOVE without an object? Now, you may say, "God yet loves what Satan could have and should have been." To which I say, BINGO… now you’re on my side. There’s SOMETHING to love – but it has nothing to do with what SATAN NOW IS – namely, non-existent. The only point of difference between us, Meph man, is that I hold that all that was there to love is non-existent before Satan himself is annhilated.
You catch’n my drift?
Trosie: Perhaps a better way to describe God's love is to say that God's love is PERFECT instead of saying God's love is UNCONDITIONAL.
Doc: This may indeed be a better – or at least less complicated -- way of expressing the matter. There’s baggage wrapped up in "conditional" and "unconditional" love. For example, I don’t think God’s love for me is conditional. But I do think that if I destroyed myself to the point where there was no longer any semblance of the "me" God created to love, he wouldn’t love "me" – because "I" ain’t there! When I say God loves ME unconditionally, I mean his love for ME – the me he knows, or at least hopes, will be the ME he created me to be – goes past all my DOING. If my BEING were to be annihilated – my BEING which IS being-in-relationship-with –God, then its not that God would stop loving ME. Its that I don’t exist to be loved.
Yet, this COULD be construed as conditional love – if a person supposes a non-annihilatable substratum to ME. It depends on ones ontology.
Saying God’s love is PERFECT by-passes this. Good word Trosie.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/8/2003 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
This second question especially gets to the heart of the issue. What is LOVE without an object? Now, you may say, "God yet loves what Satan could have and should have been." To which I say, BINGO… now you’re on my side. There’s SOMETHING to love – but it has nothing to do with what SATAN NOW IS – namely, non-existent. The only point of difference between us, Meph man, is that I hold that all that was there to love is non-existent before Satan himself is annhilated.
I don’t think that you saw what I posted on the “Who Loves Satan” thread…so I’ll post it here…
************************************
Doc:
quote:
My pre-existent twin is so right on, by the way, in his seeing the compatibility between mourning a being and being wholly against a being -- for the being has become something that is the antithesis of love. You LOVE and MOURN what could have been, what should have been, and THEREFORE HATE what now is.
Oh, I see. Heh. This is what I see you thinking…
Imagine your beautiful, intelligent, loving, diligent wife (Hi, Shelly!  ) were, by terrible circumstances taken to an laboratory and tranformed into a horrific zombie like person. (Resident Evil, the video game, baybaaaaaaaay!!) Everything that you knew about your wife is GONE. Only this shell of drooling, seething evil remains. NOTHING of who she used to be is there. You would mourn the LOSS of your wife whom you loved…and you would HATE the mockery of her existence that is the zombie.
This is how I see you thinking. That for God, Satan (or anyone else solidified in sin) would be seen as just a ZOMBIE with nothing there left to love. Satan would be DEAD to God. So, God would only have a MEMORY to mourn and a present reality to HATE.
This ties RIGHT IN with your idea of personhood: the sentient capacity to love. To the extent that a sentient being no longer has the capacity to love, they are DEAD (non-existent) to God and cannot be loved by God except by memory or contemplation on what could have been. If you were to just use sentience as the seat of personhood, then your idea above wouldn’t apply, because you can have a totally evil sentient being.
But understand that this gets you RIGHT BACK to the problem that I tried to show you earlier, that Iconoclast agreed with. I will place it here in full. From page 2 of Part Deux thread…
______________________________-
Let’s cut to the chase of how I see you attempting to get out of this.
Meph, I am saying that God loves the “potential for love” in all persons. Personhood is not just sentience. It is the sentient capacity to love. Actually, THIS is the Image of God. This is the OBJECT of God’s love in all sentient beings. To the extent that sentient beings, for whatever reason, don’t have this object of God’s love, there is nothing there for God to love. Therefore, God doesn’t love them.
This is just to let you know that I know what you are saying. Now…
Think back, Doc. Think back to “Works of Love”
Wouldn’t what you are describing above not be anything but SELF-LOVE as defined by Kiekegaard?? You know the book, Doc.
Think about it. All you are saying is that God ONLY loves the “God-factor” in us. Not only does this completely negate the idea of unconditional love for God, but this also makes it quite clear that God really doesn’t love INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS in all their distinctiveness at all. He loves LOCI OF LOVING POTENTIAL within some people.
So, God doesn’t really love US (sinful, human beings), God loves the “God” in us, no matter how small it is. And when that’s gone, so is God’s love.
So, instead of saying that God loves all sentient beings including Satan…instead of saying that God loves every thinking, feeling, self-aware, choosing being IN all their distinctiveness unconditionally…regardless of WHO they are, WHAT choices they've made, or HOW they've wasted their lives...you would rather say that God:
1) ONLY ultimately possesses SELF-LOVE of a telelogical sort, not true love for the OTHER qua other…
and…
2) doesn’t love individual persons in their particular distinctiveness, just their abstract potential loci.
_______________________________
See the issue. To the extent that you use YOUR idea of personhood, you get into some BIG problems. Ask Iconoclast. God becomes the ULTIMATE lover of self and relativizer of persons. Surely, you don’t want THIS, do you, Doc?
In short, your idea of mourning the past and hating the present is grounded in an idea of personhood that is PROBLEMATIC, at best, when taken to its logical conclusion. So, I humbly ask that you RETHINK your definition, and in turn, your idea of what it means to MOURN beings presently.
********************************
I NEED you to understand this, Doc. Your view of personhood is merely the “God factor” in all sentient beings, which is pretty much the sentient capacity to love. You BASICALLY (intentionally stated  ) say this…
quote:
I take it that we are made to be who we are in relationship with God and others. "I" am this. But I we must choose this, I can choose to destroy "Me." When I do, the is a refuse of what used to be me, and what could have been me, but no "me."
It’s apparent. But you DON’T address the problems that Iconoclast and me (and probably others) see with this. The “I” that you are talking about is a LOCUS OF POTENTIALITY, not a PERSON. This definition of personality is so problematic, it’s almost weird that it needs explaining.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/8/2003 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
This second question especially gets to the heart of the issue. What is LOVE without an object? Now, you may say, "God yet loves what Satan could have and should have been." To which I say, BINGO… now you’re on my side. There’s SOMETHING to love – but it has nothing to do with what SATAN NOW IS – namely, non-existent. The only point of difference between us, Meph man, is that I hold that all that was there to love is non-existent before Satan himself is annhilated.
Understand again, what you are saying. You are saying to the extent that a person is solidified against God, to the extent that have no more “God-factor” in them, THEY ARE NO LONGER PERSONS! They are NON-EXISTENT. So you can have thinking, feeling, willing, self-reflective NON-EXISTENT beings that can have effects on OTHER beings…but are NOT acknowledged by God as even being ALIVE and let alone an object of love?? WTH??? Oh, but the really GOOD part. Since there CAN be humans solidified against God in this life (as YOU’VE stated before, Doc)…and WE can’t know who is and who isn’t, in operating by God’s command, we may actually acknowledge this NON-EXISTENT beings as alive and love them…even though God does NEITHER! This is entire line of thought seems like sheer lunacy. Balderdash. Nonsense. I love you to death, Doc. Heart and soul, man. And I love you enough to tell you when I think you are making a significant theological snafu. Especially now that I’ve have some gin and tonic in me. (Hiccup.)
[Note: Notice I am attacking the IDEA, not Doc. This is NOT ad hominem stuff. Just so you know. And Doc’s a big man. He can take it.  ]
Hit me with yer best shot, sensei,
The Brazen Understudy
"The young are generally full of revolt, and are often pretty revolting about it."
--Mignon McLaughlin
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/9/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, my goodness.
Doc, PLEASE read these articles...
hehe... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/10/2003 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Sure, I’ll answer your questions.
1. Why does God annihilate Satan?
One possible reason that God would annihilate Satan is because the combination of 1) the elapse of the probationary period for ALL sentient beings and 2) God’s putting those people “out of their misery”
****************************
2. What if anything changes about God’s "unconditional" love for Satan when he annihilates him?
The locus of the “unconditional” love. Whereas before Satan’s ultimate annihilation (if one takes the annihilationist stance), there was a sentient being colloquially referred to as “Satan” that was the object of God’s love…there would NOT be such after the point of annihilation. So, then God’s love would be for Satan’s MEMORY in reflection. And the way this would be expressed would be in thinking about “what might have been” But God’s mourning would be somewhat salved in that Satan would NOT be “living death” as he was before.
Do we not feel the same about our loved ones? When we have terminally ill, chronically pained, or emotionally tortured loved ones, we LOVE them. And when they die, we have our MEMORIES of them and in that reflection, express our love for who they WERE. And our mourning is somewhat helped by the fact that their horrendous, tortured existence in this life is now over.
Apply the same thinking to God about Satan. While Satan exists, God LOVES Satan. When God annihilates Satan, God will have memories of Satan, and in that reflection, express God’s love for who Satan was. (probably mostly in mourning dude’s then condition). Annihilation eliminates God’s having to endure the TORTURED, though self-imposed exilic existence of Satan. And works as an act of grace for all parties concerned.
********************************
3. What does God continue to love about Satan AFTER he annihilates him?
See #2.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/10/2003 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | My good bud, do you not see a problem here? Perhaps its just in my head, but I'm puzzled as to how God’s love for sentient beings -- as sheer the sentient beings -- can be unconditional if he annihilates their sentience? In other words, if its their sheer individual sentience that God loves, why end it on ANY "condition" (viz. put them out of their misery)? What does it mean to say God loves sentience unconditionally when he himself annhilates it in judgment?
I could make the same point differently: If in your view God's unconditional love for Satan is in tact even though he annihilates him and is left with just a memory, mostly filled with mourning, how is it you think I deny God's unconditional love when I say the exact same thing? The only difference is that I think the "being" of a sentient being can be annhilated -- God's love is turned to memory and mourning--BEFORE their sentience is annihilated -- which, in my view, is precisely why their sentience is ultimately annihilated (again, assuming as we both are for the sake of argument that annhilationism is true). [
We both hold that Satan becomes utterly contrary to all God loves, and is therefore put out of existence. As I see it, the only difference is that I'm not strapped with the added mystery of holding that God loves the sentience of the being he is making nonsentient.
Catching my drift?
The Good Doc!
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/11/2003 4:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
I could make the same point differently: If in your view God's unconditional love for Satan is in tact even though he annihilates him and is left with just a memory, mostly filled with mourning, how is it you think I deny God's unconditional love when I say the exact same thing? The only difference is that I think the "being" of a sentient being can be annhilated -- God's love is turned to memory and mourning--BEFORE their sentience is annihilated -- which, in my view, is precisely why their sentience is ultimately annihilated (again, assuming as we both are for the sake of argument that annhilationism is true).
Unconditional love for sentient creatures is denied by your logic. Remember, you pretty much say that God LOVES the “God-factor” (aka sentient capacity to love) in persons, NOT persons in their distinctiveness. Therefore, God’s love for sentient creatures is CONDITIONAL based upon whether or not they have ANY “God-factor” or not. That’s why you want to say that God CAN’T love Satan. Satan has NO “God-factor” left.
We are WORLDS apart here…and Kierkegaard would be turning over in his grave that such an ardent reader of “Works of Love” would even propose an idea like this. 
********************************
Doc:
quote:
We both hold that Satan becomes utterly contrary to all God loves, and is therefore put out of existence. As I see it, the only difference is that I'm not strapped with the added mystery of holding that God loves the sentience of the being he is making nonsentient.
It’s not that mysterious. Remember my self-talk about annihilationism on the other thread. Do we say that we DON’T love our loved ones that we take off of life support…even WHILE we are doing it?
**************************
Let me draw up again what I believe to be the KEY difference between you and me, Doc:
My definition of personality lies in what it means to be SENTIENT. A person can be wholly LOVING or wholly ANTI-LOVING. This keeps things grounded in the distinctiveness of each individual.
YOUR definition of personality lies in what it means to have a LOCUS OF POTENTIALITY FOR LOVE. A “person” cannot wholly anti-loving, for by definition, if a being is wholly anti-loving, then they are non-existent and not a person. This keeps things grounded in the “God-factor” in some individuals.
This is where it comes down. Iconoclast AGREES with me that your definition of personality has SEVERE problems when you work everything out. By Kierkegaard’s standards, God would end up being the purveyor of SELF-LOVE par excellence…and would NOT love “US” at all.
Iconoclast said:
quote:
Yes. There is just no escaping this in my opinion. IF Satan were an actual sentient being THEN God loves him unconditionally. This whole idea of Satan losing his personification or his Imago Dei and yet still being self-aware, able to deliberate and act within this world has serious problems with it.
In my view if Satan lost his personification / his Imago Dei THEN he has by definition been ANNIHILATED. How then can he continue to act in the world?
and…
quote:
Doc suggests that Satan being solidified in evil has "lost" his personhood. Most others seem to say similar things. Personally I think you are correct to disagree with this assertion - I think it has all the problems that you have so clearly laid out. Suddenly we have to say that God unconditionally loves the "Godness" within us rather than loving US in all of our actuality. I believe that God unconditionally loves the REAL man just like Bonhoeffer articulates. Yes, God is FOR us and would like to see the very best for us but He really loves US not our "Godness" within us. To me this is no different than loving our behavior.
See, Doc. It’s very clear, I think. Come on, Doc. All you’d have to be willing to say is that God loves all sentient beings, including Satan. It’s not THAT hard to do, is it? Alan Padgett doesn’t think so. We asked.
Holla,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
Perhaps its just in my head, but I'm puzzled as to how God’s love for sentient beings -- as sheer the sentient beings -- can be unconditional if he annihilates their sentience? In other words, if its their sheer individual sentience that God loves, why end it on ANY "condition" (viz. put them out of their misery)? What does it mean to say God loves sentience unconditionally when he himself annhilates it in judgment?
The more I thought about it, the more I think this question needs to be dealt with. Restated, if you merely love someone’s EXISTENCE uncondtionally, why would you end said existence for ANY “condition”? Let’s also do this analogically. If you, Meph, say that you have a loved one in critical, comatose condition and the decision needs to be made whether or not to pull the plug. If all you love is your loved ones CONTINUED EXISTENCE and that unconditionally, then why would you ever consider pulling the plug?
I think you’re getting this way wrong, from the jump. I am not saying that God unconditionally loves PERSONS’ EXISTENCES…as if to say that God loves PERSONAL EXISTENCE unconditionally. If that’s what I were saying, then your question would be valid in that I’d have to say that God would never annihilate sentience. For any reason. Period.
What I am saying that God demonstrates God’s unconditional love by loving people IN THEIR DISTINCTIVE, ACTUAL EXISTENCES BY UPHOLDING THEIR EXISTENCES. Simply, whatever life that ANYONE has, they have as a display of the unconditional love of God. God rains on the JUST and the UNJUST.
See, the difference. There’s a BIG one.
Yeah, the problem’s just in your head, Doc.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/11/2003 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Unconditional love for sentient creatures is denied by your logic. Remember, you pretty much say that God LOVES the "God-factor" (aka sentient capacity to love) in persons, NOT persons in their distinctiveness….. By Kierkegaard’s standards, God would end up being the purveyor of SELF-LOVE par excellence…and would NOT love "US" at all.
Doc: Non-sequiter dude. You juxtapose (what YOU – not me – call) the "God-factor" and "persons in their distinctiveness." They need not and should not and cannot be so juxtaposed. Consider each individual as a unique prism (remember my sermon?) made to reflect light (love, goodness, joy, LIFE, GOD – "the God factor" as you put it -to BATE me poophead). We ARE ourselves only as we are related to the source of light. But when we are related to the source of light, we are radically unique. God delights – and we delight – in the one-of-a-kind way we INDIVIDUALLY reflect/ refract – and thereby contribute to – the light.
If we destroy our "prismness" – our capacity to receive and reflect light love, goodness, joy – LIFE – we are hopeless dead rocks. Nothing of our "prismness" – our personhood – remains. There IS nothing to love. Annihilation adds nothing to the equation, except God showing his justice and putting us out of our pathetic "rock" misery.
Meph: My definition of personality lies in what it means to be SENTIENT. A person can be wholly LOVING or wholly ANTI-LOVING. This keeps things grounded in the distinctiveness of each individual.
Doc: If a being is wholly anti-loving, all their thoughts, feelings reflections and decisions are anti-loving. It would be BETTER if they didn’t have thoughts, reflections, feelings and decisions – which is why God annihilates them. An evil genius is worse them an evil unreflective person. So how is it a loving thing to love their thoughts, reflections, feelings and decisions?
Also, you say that your view grounds God’s love in the distinctiveness of each individual. I would argue the exact opposite (guess we are "worlds apart"). What is unique about each prism is its capacity to uniquely refract light. If it blocks itself from the sun, ITS JUST A FRIGG’N UNLIT ROCK—like all other rocks. A person LOOSES their distinctness to the extent that they set themselves against the source of life. They FIND their distinctness – their uniqueness shines – only in relation to God.
Meph: See, Doc. It’s very clear, I think. Come on, Doc. All you’d have to be willing to say is that God loves all sentient beings. It’s not THAT hard to do, is it? Alan Padgett doesn’t think so.
Doc: Dang. I'm up against you, Iconoclast, Kierkegaard AND Padgett. I must be wrong!
but I talked to Jesus this morning and he said he agrees with ME
Also, I think John Piper agrees with me.
later
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/16/2003 2:58 AM (GMT -6) | | [PROS for applying my description of love:
1) One can make sense of the very thorny theodicy problem of how an omnibenevolent God can be loving to EACH individual IN their distinctiveness IN every moment of their PRESENT lives…while evil exists.
Doc: So the thorny problem you’re correcting is having to accept that an individual may become soley an object of wrath before they cease to exist? But dude, that’s just the position you’re arguing AGAINST – so its no wonder you "solve" it. From my perspective, I’m saying, "What’s the problem"?
Meph: I can make contributions to the Kingdom of God that NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH can. But I can also make contributions to the Kingdom of Darkness that NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH can.
Doc: Yes, you CAN make a distinctive contribution to the Kingdom of Darkness – but why think God LOVES this distinctivness? If your distinct only in how you engage in anti-love, what is it about your distinctiveness God loves? What he loves – and yet loves (by way of mourning and grief) is how an individual’s distinctiveness COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE REFLECTED HIS LIGHT!
Meph: You take the good idea that we can only truly be FULLY ACTUALIZED sentient beings in relationship to God…and turn it into we can only be sentient beings IN ANY SENSE in relationship to God.
Doc: I don’t need to deny that evil beings are non-sentient. But I am arguing that, insofar as they remain sentient, it is not a lovable reality.
JE. Perhaps when God sees that an individual's potential for good has been extinguished/exhausted by their own evil choices, His love (in the sense of potential future blessings on their life) is from that point on removed. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but His Spirit shall not strive forever.
Doc: Good point JE. God DID withdraw his spirit in Genesis 6 – BEFORE he annihilated the rebells. I’m honestly not sure what HOPELESS love looks like – except as grief over the hopelessness. In this sense I would be willing to say "God loves Satan." But the ACTUAL Satan, I yet believe, God hates – precisely BECAUSE he is perfect love.
Loved the rap Meph.
Preach away tonight!
Sorry I’m such a hard sell.
But YOU’RE even harder.
By the way, I think my unwillingness to go all the way down you’re road (which I still think is only a quarter inch shy from the whole way – we are NOT that far apart) doesn’t compromise you’re general insight about God expressing love for beings by giving them existence – viz. existence being a testimony to God’s love. My only qualification is that I hold that in love God gave beings the potential (TWT4) to out last their lovability. What you say they will be once annihilated I think they can be BEFORE they are annhilated. – the ONLY difference between us.
Blessings
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 148 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:14 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|