Crisis in Creationism: Was There Animal Death Before Sin?

[@audreypistor4610]

You are brilliant I so enjoy your explanations. Love how you look at both sides. Thank you.

[@theologywithseth]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate your kind words. I'm glad you're enjoying the content!

[@phaedragalloway4544]

I love how you argue two sides of thought on something. I don't have a clue on exactly how old the earth is but I was on the restoration side in regard to predatory animals. I had never thought about inside the Garden of Eden versus the rest of the world. Interesting! Thanks!

[@theologywithseth]

Thank you for watching!

[@soaringeagle123321]

What a great and down to earth and pleasant communicator and teacher you are, Seth. Your love for the Word of God and for everyone who hears your voice is very evident. Young earth or Old earth, it's all about Jesus and living for Him!

[@theologywithseth]

That's such an encouragement to me! Thank you for watching and taking the time to leave me a comment. God bless you!

[@Fastbenefits-y4p]

While many of your arguments seem reasonable truth sometimes evade human logic.

[@ZackJJones]

This was such a great video! Thank you!

[@theologywithseth]

Glad you enjoyed it! I hope you'll check out some of my other vids as well. God bless you!

[@think7406]

Death after running out a lifecycle and being killed aren’t the same thing clearly. Using a passage after the fall like Job, to say plants die is faulty. Peoples representation of life is what they are familiar with not what God originally intended

[@jwalsh5764]

Thanks, this was helpful. I've been pondering this topic recently. I'm firmly in mid air on the issue, but young earth seems to require super rapid evolution after fall for the ecosystem to get where it is today. I guess they would call it devolution.

[@theologywithseth]

I'm glad it was helpful! I agree with your assessment. Thank you for watching and I hope you'll check out some of my past videos as well!

[@robinsonmitchell9995]

This is a pretty good overview of the age of creation issue strictly from the perspective of the biblical text. We Christians affirm Biblical authority for all matters of faith and redemption. But is our epistemology limited to the Bible alone? Creation is God's handiwork, and when we study creation we honor God as well. If all truth is God's truth, then any truths we discover about creation by studying God's handiwork can only ever honor God, so doing science is driven by a commitment to fearless truth-seeking. And as Christians, we should not try to teach our children science and mathematics by limiting their knowledge solely to the content of Scripture. Next a terminological point is the limiting of the discussion of the age of creation to only our planet. "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" terminology ignores the entire rest of the universe, which contains hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars and planetary systems. Focusing only on the Earth means looking only at a tiny infinitesimal piece of the universe our God created. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves about God's creation by studying his handiwork directly. Creation has much to say about itself and about its creator. God's creation is wondrous and beautiful and tells us much about how our God is the lord of time and space, matter and energy, the Ancient of Days, whose realm is vast beyond our imagination. We honor God when we seek to discover truths about his vast, ancient, and marvelous handiwork. God's creation is much, much bigger than just the Earth, and seeking truth compels us to discover all we can about the masterpiece he has created. My graduate degree is from seminary, but I still love to get out my telescope and look at distant stars and galaxies, and to look at the images from the James Webb Space telescope of galaxies so far away and moving away from us so fast that their light has redshifted out of the visible spectrum so they are invisible to telescopes that operate in the visible spectrum. The heavens still declare the glory of God.

[@nobody.of.importance]

I'm not a christian, but I've always thought of the Bible less as a users manual for reality. I think if God had tried to send the Bible alongside Jesus, our knowledge wouldn't have been advanced enough to understand it. It'd be an esoteric text with no relevance to their life. Instead, the Bible is a collection of stories (metaphorical and retellings), poetry, encouragement, some bits of history, and other things that the people of the time could get something useful out of. I feel like now that we're where we are in science, if God did send a second Bible, it would probably have a lot more high level scientific concepts in it. It'd be more useful to us today, y'know? I mean "gospel" literally translates to "good story" or "good news". Was never MEANT to be a textbook! And stemming from that, I personally think a God that's capable of creating a complex, self building and repairing system that can naturally adapt to change over time without constant supervision would make the christian God a lot more glorious and awe inspiring than if he had created everything static and unchanging, only to decay. Just my thoughts.

[@hoplitefinancial]

Do you believe God slaughtered the animals to get the skins he clothed Adam and Eve with as a first sacrifice, instituting the sacrificial system and foreshadowing the need of a perfect sacrifice that would later come through Christ?

[@AnHebrewChild]

14:54 I'll push back on this and ask, If the wolf shall feed with the lamb, and the lion shall eat straw like an ox (Isa65), then why should God see to it that the New heavens & new earth wolf & lion have predatory features? The lion shall eat straw like the ox. If the lion shall eat straw like the ox then (in the future), could not the lion have eaten straw like the ox then (in the past)?

[@theologywithseth]

You know, that is a 100% fair point. I think an Old Earth advocate could potentially respond by saying that at least in their system, those features had an intended function at least for a season, whereas a Young Earth advocate would have to say they were unnecessary features from the start. In other words, I think it still *slightly* favors the Old Earth view, but I see your point and I appreciate you sharing it with me!

[@Adrian_Mason]

What do you do with texts like these? Isa 11:6: "In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all." Gen 3:17: "And to the man he said, “Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat, the ground is cursed because of you. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it."

[@ChristinaBiasca]

He covers this starting at 4:51 in the video. Did you watch it?

[@Adrian_Mason]

I see your point. I did watch the video, but I am still struggling to accept the explanation. I reject evolution as things only devolve except for adaptation.​@@ChristinaBiasca

[@ChristinaBiasca]

@@Adrian_MasonI was completely holding this view a month ago. I changed my mind when I started to really analyze the Bible and think logically. The Bible tells man to subdue the fish. That to me implies killing them. Even if you disagree with that point though…. I believe the Bible is clear. The tree of life is what made them live forever. They are barred from the garden of Eden and angels are set to guard it to make sure they didn’t eat of it and live forever. Are fish, sharks, lions, lambs, etc… all given access to this tree and barred too? That seems unlikely. I would say that Adam and Eve, being formed out of dust is showing they were made mortal, not immortal. The Bible doesn’t say God changed their molecular structure after the fall. The Bible also never places a death curse on animals as a result of the fall, it’s only the people and plants/ the ground will be harder to work for them. Eating animals is good. It’s healthy, it’s a way God provides for us. Something that isn’t wrong now, was most likely not wrong before sin. If it’s sinful to eat animals back then, it should still be. If it’s not sinful, then they aren’t barred from it and could legitimately eat them since they had complete dominion over them. Also just to add- there were only given one rule. Not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They weren’t given a second rule ( don’t eat animals). Would it have been sin for them to eat a fish? If not then we have to realize that animals could have died and it was fine. Anything bad- was sin. Animal death has never been sin.

[@Adrian_Mason]

@@ChristinaBiasca I will have to rewatch the entire video as I can't remember all the arguments now. I appreciate the time stamp that you gave as the Isaiah passage was definitely covered. It is possible that my previous church that I grew up in could still be affecting my recognition of things as I notice them not seeing what I point out that goes against their indoctrination.

[@ChristinaBiasca]

@@Adrian_Mason honestly I finished watching it and he didn’t cover this in depth. Thats where it’s brought up. I’ve heard other arguments in debates for this verse, but he didn’t get to it in depth. I will say that the Bible does talk about animals sacrifice during the millennial kingdom. So whether animals are killing each other or not it’s clear ( at least to my understanding) that there will be death.

[@holirumicsfriend]

Disagree!!! Strongly! Some really good points but most of your explanation falls short for one reason!! The world changed drastically because of sin and no one knows the significance of the change. You can’t assume everything today is as it was in Eden! It is simple there was NO death before the fall! Also plants didn’t did! You would never have tree stumps! Worms wouldn’t have been eaten, etc!

[@runeaanderaa6840]

There are plenty of animals that can't survive on plants. Do creationists believe that poisonous snakes ate fruits?

[@theologywithseth]

Young Earth Creationists would say yes, but Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionary Creationists would say no. It all comes down to how you interpret the various issues presented in the video. Thanks for watching!

[@georgedonner2115]

If I can't trust that death wasn't a part of the original creation, why can I trust that death won't be a part of the new creation?

[@dtuck1076]

Hey, Seth, another great video! One thing that has crossed my mind as (I think) an original thought is how the concept of pre-fall animal death and the command to “subdue” the earth can add to the Adam/Christ type/antitype fulfillment. Basically Christ accomplished all that Adam was meant to and more, reversing the fall and inaugurating the new creation, etc. If Christ arrived on earth and commissioned disciples and a new humanity for himself to go forth and spiritually subdue a world full of chaos and death, wouldn’t it make sense for Adam to have had a similar “job” in spreading Eden across a world full of chaos and death? Of course the ultimate fulfillment of the type is in the new heavens and earth, but I think the OEC understanding of Genesis only adds to fullness of Christ as the Adamic antitype. Fun to think about!

[@theologywithseth]

@dtuck1076 I hadn't thought about comparing them like that before, but that's an excellent point! I definitely think you're on to something there. Thanks so much for sharing that with me! Old Earth Creationism is definitely worthy of more serious consideration than it usually gets in Evangelical circles, that's for sure

[@ileneyadegari8055]

It’s complicated. I just know God is the creator so whatever the answer it is his plan.I truly don’t know but I believe the first vision. It doesn’t mean I am correct. God is the creator of all for his purpose

[@theologywithseth]

I agree that it's always appropriate to remember the sovereignty of God and to keep the big picture in mind. Thank you for sharing!

[@sarahstevens3050]

First!!

[@theologywithseth]

Glad you're here!

[@oscargr_]

It's just one of those topics that the bible is crystal clear on.

[@leeBoB4257]

The ANSWER that your looking for is very easy. When God said to the only living Human on this Earth, in the Day that you eat the Forbidden Fruit you will DIE now if Adam was the only Human on this Earth how could he understand what Death was if he hadn't observed it with seeing the creatures Dieing around him and RETURNING back to the Ground, also they where never ment to LIVE FOREVER only that posablity would only have been posable with the Tree of Life.

[@williamtotherow3367]

I think Adam stepped on a bug while walking in the Garden

[@scottb4579]

There is a difference between soulish creatures like animals, and insects which do not have souls. Insects have no soul which is extinguished at death as with animals. Romans 8:20-21: 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. So the animals were subjected to death at the curse.

[@williamtotherow3367]

@@scottb4579 According to what creationist believe,there was no death before Adam sinned, so lions and sharks ate grass. I was saying I think Adam stepped on a bug to be facetious. Anyway the whole story is a fairy tale and now many clergy are admitting it so. One of the dumbest stories that someone could possibly believe.

[@scottb4579]

@@williamtotherow3367 You obviously don't know the difference between fairy tales and truth. And I suppose you believe a quantum fluctuation created the universe? One of the dumbest stories someone could possibly believe and straight up scientific mythology.

[@williamtotherow3367]

@@scottb4579 Well, talk about fairy tales, you believe a supernatural being did it. This is what uneducated and ignorant people thought about what caused storms, thunder, volcanoes, drought, and a host of other natural acts. Which God created the universe? The one you think, not any other God that Billions of other people believe did. But you are right for sure, aren''t you. I know a lot more about science and the Bible than you. Are you referring to Yahweh as the God who did it? The Bible is full of fairy tales, contradictions, and horrible laws. So many scholars have debunked almost the entire Bible, if you are using the Bible to prove the Bible, that is your problem with not understanding. Read and research if you are not afraid of the truth. I have been doing this with no predetermined bias to find what is true. The truth will set you free.

[@theprinceofdarkness4679]

Let me just grant everything that you are saying about animal death & plant death & focus more on what Paul says Unless I am wrong Paul is claiming that there were no humans or human deaths before Adam So when did Adam really live? was Adam a Neanderthal or a Cro Magnon or an Australopithecus or maybe Adam was the first primate ever the first point is that the date for Adam might have to be pushed back to at least 2 million years or more at that point it is almost impossible to show any evidence that an Adam actually existed & whether or not he lived in a "garden Of Eden" & had a wife named "Eve" & actually "sinned" by eating the fruit of a weird tree & lost this access to "paradise" Maybe YEC people have the same problem considering the evidence is somewhat stacked against everything that they claim but then all they have to do is claim that the science is wrong in so many ways that is their problem though OEC makes it easier to talk in metaphors such as sin is a metaphor if sin is a metaphor then Paul's "justification by faith in Jesus Christ" must also be a metaphor considering that Jewish rabbis are quick to point out that the claims that Jesus is a messiah are patently false for a number of reasons then basically the only thing that Christianity has is a bunch of metaphors to support it so here it is thanks but no thanks to Christianity because basically it seems rather meaningless

[@boardtodeath46]

I really don’t want to come off as rude. I don’t . I’ll do my best to watch my words here. This is only my opinion but I have gained it through study. Before the fall, and after the fall, all plant life, animals anything that can die was and is perfect. They follow exactly as the were designed. Only human beings have the awareness to be able to sin. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were immortal, they were innocent as little children. They could not reproduce. They would have stayed in this state of innocence forever. The Fall was meant to happen. Otherwise the plan of salvation could not progress. Outside of the Garden of Eden life was full filling its natural path. Natural cycles. They did not leave until after the fall and the location of the garden is still on earth and protected. Inside the garden we do not have record of its condition, but I believe it is safe to assume it is as original. This is why Adam and Eve after the Fall were cast out, no longer enjoying its security. Outside the Garden, Weeds, briars, thorns we already allowed to grow to hedge up the way of mankind. This fallen state was worldwide and the reward for the the disobedience. Also, necessary for the growth and development after the veil of knowing right and wrong was lifted. This is my opinion. Don’t reply in a argumentative stance. Believe what you will

[@theologywithseth]

Hi friend! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. There is much in your comment I agree with! However, I struggle with your statement that Adam & Eve "could not reproduce" before The Fall. May I ask where you see that in the Bible? Another comment of yours that stood out to me was when you said that the fallen state was a "reward for their disobedience". Is there any place in the Bible that speaks positively about the Fall or Adam & Eve's disobedience in general? Is it even appropriate to speak of our Heavenly Father "rewarding" disobedience? I'm thankful that you felt comfortable enough to speak from your heart here. Now I'd like to speak to you from mine... Your comment reads as if you're mixing the Bible with some external source of theology- a modern day prophet or alternative holy book of some sort. I would humbly counsel you against such a combination. Long ago, Jude told us that the Christian faith was delivered "once for all" (Jude 3) and therefore we should not expect any new doctrines or Scripture. The Apostle Paul, at the end of his life, told us that everything we needed for Salvation and good works had already been revealed in the Scriptures written up to that point (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The ultimate revelation from God was Jesus Christ himself and the New Testament was written by his own followers- something that no modern collection of authorities can match or surpass. I would encourage you to set aside whatever outside influences you may be deferring to, and simply read the Bible on its own, as if you've never read it before. In doing so, I think you will be surprised at how simple, clear, and wonderful God's *true* plan of salvation really is. Blessings!

[@boardtodeath46]

@@theologywithseth hello!! Thank you for your wonderful reply! I can reread my comment but I thought I wrote it was just my opinion. It could have been a different post. I have collected years of Bible study and used common sense to come up with my opinions. They are my own. I don’t claim them for anyone else. The whole conversation of Adam and Eve is a beautiful one. I notice you had a hiccup on my comment of God rewarded Adam and Eve. I figured I would clarify. Because The Fall was necessary and the Lord used Satans influence to tempt Eve to further his plan, I felt it was appropriate to use the term reward instead of punishment. Because of the fall Eve was then able to bear children and enjoy the wonderful gift of motherhood. I could have also used the term consequence, and at the same time I felt she deserved respect in any way possible explaining my opinion. There are some people who think the experience of the garden of Eden was unnecessary. They are under the impression that Adam and Eve could have accomplished the same outcome without the Fall. So to allow there own belief and not get involved, I’ll simply share Truths found in the Bible. Their situation before the fall. Adam and Eve were immortal They were innocent, unable to tell the difference or experience good from evil. They had no understanding of physical traits or what they were for, especially sexual organs. This is why they were naked. It wasn’t until after the partook of the fruit of knowledge did they understand what their nakedness was, in so began covering themselves In their innocent state they would have been adult but as like little children. You don’t see a 3-5 year old with that mental capacity talk or initiate sex or without being taught, try and understand the concept of procreation, childbirth and parenthood. To me it would be logical that only until after their bodies were changed and that veil was lifted, that there understanding was raised to procreate. Part of the bodies chemistry turning from immortal to mortal. Once you grasp how important the fall was to happen, you will start to see just how necessary it was. God knew ahead of time and allowed the temptation to take place. God knew what he was doing and he knows how to keep his plans from being frustrated. Thank you again for your wonderful comment. Bless your heart.

[@mrscience1409]

You have and opinion on the inerrant infallible word of god?

[@nobody.of.importance]

Always confuses me when people say kids are innocent. Have you been around them? They're vicious little buggers! Had a neighbor of mine tell her son to say "good night" to his dad on the phone, and his reply instead was "DADDY YOU'RE FAT." and hung up xD

[@boardtodeath46]

@@nobody.of.importance haha that is funny! My two little boys have said things and my mind kinda glitches, I shake my head and think “wow”. On the other hand, more to your point, the Term innocent is referring to their mental capacity. Just as Adam and Eve did not understand the difference between good and Evil before they ate the fruit, young children don’t have the capacity to grasp it fully yet. So they can’t be Judged with accountability. There are behaviors we have that are motivated by how we are designed. The Nature man. When children do something that is “wrong” it is these motivations and our job as parents is to instruct them the best we can so when there understanding has formed, they will have a good base to resist temptation and buffeting of opposition. The age of accountability is roughly around 8-9 years old. That is my belief. This is why when children pass before this age,wether through health or tragedy, they pass as perfect souls. They have no sin.

[@philipgrobler7253]

3:36 - This is a fallacy if god is omnipotent and omniscient, because then sin did not come into the world through one man, but was already there from the beginning, like some people being allergic to bees because it is built into their genes.

[@TheAngryAtheist]

So you say, "before the fall there was no death" making the implication that Adam and Even didn't age until they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sure, I can accept that within the parameters of the story. The creation story is scant of details, and we sort of need to make implications to fill in the gaps in the areas lacking details, being mindful that the implication doesn't get contradicted by details that actually are present in scripture. That makes sense to me. So I have a great problem, obviously, with the implication that Adam and Even couldn't die until they disobeyed God. "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Genesis 3:22) so my question is, seeing as this is a present detail that very much states that Adam and Even did NOT eat from the Tree of Life and were NOT immortal, why is this detail ignored or manipulated in the name of an implied detail that is NOT present? The information is right there! Why are you changing what it says to make room for something that it does not say?

[@ravikeller9626]

Who said Adam and Eve were immortal before eating the tree of life?

[@TheAngryAtheist]

@@ravikeller9626 the implication was that there "was no death" before the falling. Lol I dunno... not me.

[@ravikeller9626]

@@TheAngryAtheistBut just because they didn’t die doesn’t make them immortal. You haven’t died yet but surely you don’t think you’re immortal, right?

[@TheAngryAtheist]

@@ravikeller9626 oh no wait. God did, according to Genesis 3: "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" Lest: for fear that. often used after an expression denoting fear or apprehension.

[@TheAngryAtheist]

@@ravikeller9626 I'm not in the mood for semantic nonsense.

[@beethaniel]

No, because there was no "fall" nor was there an literal Adam and Eve. It's a myth, borrowed from more ancient cultures.

[@mrscience1409]

A eukaryote ate a prokaryote before there ever was an animal. That is where the mitochondria in your cells, necessary for the cells energy production.

[@robertmorgan7698]

How did Adam "rebel" when he didn't know Good or Evil such as sin and death? If God knew that eating from the tree of life would make Adam immortal, was Adam mortal before eating from the tree of knowledge? Would he have died if he hadn't eaten from either tree?

[@theologywithseth]

Those are good questions! I'm not sure how deep Adam's knowledge of morality was prior to the fall, but he still heard and understood God's command. As a result, he was rightly culpable for breaking it. As far as him being immortal before eating from the tree of life, that is a matter of some debate within Christianity. Most Christians would say he was immortal from the start, but others would say he was mortal and had to regularly partake of the tree of life in order to maintain his life.

[@mrscience1409]

There are so many problems with the Genesis fable that it strains the boundaries of incredulity. If Adam and Eve chose not to eat before the fall, would they have starved to death? If not, why eat? If Adam could not die, why was god worried that they would gain the knowledge from eating from the tree of knowledge to know to then eat from the tree of life an become a god? Why didn't Adam die when he ate from the tree, was god lying? How did they hide from god in the garden? How did the serpent talk and why was he the one who didn't lie? How did the 3 pigs build houses when they did not have opposable thumbs?

[@nobody.of.importance]

@@mrscience1409 I get where you're coming from, but being sassy generally doesn't get people on your side, m8. Try honey instead of vinegar.

[@gracefulsledge2857]

I don't mind people making up back stories. I love the Lord of the Rings and Star wars back stories. But I understand that those are made up stories. this made up story isn't even all that entertaining. It seems like a waste of time to me .

[@TheDanEdwards]

So then the question becomes: why don't all the YECs believe you? If all of this is obvious to *you* , why is not obvious to them?

[@theologywithseth]

Hi Dan! I don't think I ever claimed it was "obvious" to me. Indeed, I find it to be a very tricky debate with lots of unknowns. That's why I was very careful to qualify my final thoughts as tentative convictions rather than immutable conclusions. However, even if it was totally cut-and-dry, realistically you can't expect to convince all of your detractors. That's true with any topic- religious or otherwise. If you feel I've made an error in reasoning somewhere in the video, let me know specifically and I'll reconsider it!

[@TheDanEdwards]

​@@theologywithseth By "obvious" I meant to imply that you were able to step through an argument with facts that are pretty straightforward. So I am (expanding on my first question) asking why so many YECs do not go through the same process as you.

[@theologywithseth]

Oh, I see. Well, there are a few reasons I could mention. For one, YEC's don't believe the Bible even allows for an old Earth in the first place, so the question of pre-fall animal death is immaterial anyway. But probably the biggest issue is an emotional one: it's very difficult for many people to believe that God would include animal suffering in His "very good" creation. It's much easier to stomach if you assume animal death only happened after the fall. For many YEC's, that's the main sticking point and it's very hard to change their mind on it. I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are certainly some of the most relevant ones. I hope that helps!

[@nobody.of.importance]

@@TheDanEdwards While logically it makes sense to you, do keep in mind that not all people know how to actively, CRITICALLY engage with a thought. Especially one they consider deeply ingrained and "controversial". I know of many, MANY young earth creationists that had all their questions answered far beyond deniability and they'll still go on repeating their original statement like they never heard a thing. It's very off putting, isn't it?

[@ChristinaBiasca]

As someone who was a YEC until less than a month ago let me answer this. We are taught if someone doesn’t take Gen 1-2 as literal in the same way they do that they are basically against the Bible. So we won’t even listen to others points of view. I told a friend I was listening to information on this topic. Not believing it- simply just listening to BOTH sides and it was basically like I told her I was questioning the Bible. She sent me a verse about scoffers in the last days after my conversation ( implying I was that scoffers) for even so much as listening to two sides of the issue. We are taught if we don’t convince our kids of this they will leave the faith. Ken Ham wrote about called Already Gone where he claims this belief will lead to our kids not being saved. So why even consider it? As a homeschool mom I would make sure NO books contradicted this. I could only use curriculum that took creation as seriously as I did. The second I started to listen to both sides it was incredibly obvious how much the YEC view adds to the Bible in order to make their case. Worms and crickets can die but not a fish? Did fish get access to the tree of life? Or do they take that tree as symbolic and not literal? It’s ok to do that, because it supports their view, but the other stuff is for sure literal because- reasons. I basically thought with the same logic as a flat earther and was trained I couldn’t trust any science. Unless it was filtered by a real Christian. It’s embarrassing to admit this. Especially since a month ago I would have dismissed this all. However I’m on the other side and can see how ignorant I was and allowed myself to be. How conspiratorial I allowed myself to become.

[@donaldwestgarth3313]

It’s all just a big story a fairy tale

[@Matty0311MMS]

So why comment? Be glad about your omniscience.

[@ravikeller9626]

@@Matty0311MMS Indeed! If @donaldwestgarth3313 says it, then that’s good enough for me lol. Donald has spoken!

[@donovancarson9595]

@@ravikeller9626 😂

[@paulsevers7740]

no