In response to the above image on Twitter, is the following conversation. He claims to be a “pastor”. July 1st 2016
Kyle Cook – The love of God was displayed on the cross. A person doesn’t have to be a theologian to know that Jesus died for us.
S.Tellez – it is not a good thing that people r being lied to led to believe God punished the innocent so they can sin with impunity.
S.Tellez – it is very harmful to others and it dishonors and blasphemes God. Some are ignorant and some are not.
S. Tellez – so let me ask you this. Do you think it an important thing to find out that you might be blaspheming God? I sure as hell do.
S.Tellez – it isn’t a small matter. Not one bit.
S. Tellez – the wrong gospel being preached isn’t a small matter. It’s something that should make those who love the truth VERY angry
Kyle Cook – who is teaching that we can do this? You can find a good message on this topic in Romans 6. The cross of Christ is the sin’s end
S.Tellez – you lie and pretend you havent heard this gospel.
S.Tellez – many people love it that an innocent was “punished in their place” so they can do whatever they want with no punishment.
S.Tellez – do you love it that an innocent was punished in your place?
Kyle Cook - God loved me before I ever loved him. He showed me that love on the cross. Now I love Jesus and I hate sin.
S.Tellez – stop avoiding the question. your answer isnt what I asked you. why do you bear false witness and pretend you answered it?
Kyle Cook – I think it’s important that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling – Philippians 2:12
S.Tellez – you just told on yourself. you do not give a shit about others, the truth or God
Kyle Cook – our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Romans 6:6
S.Tellez – name the sin that babies committed that they are responsible for to deserved to be nailed to trees.
Kyle Cook – I hope you’ll look at the scriptures I shared but I’m not interested in debating or engaging in accusations. God bless you.
S.Tellez – of course youre not. no one is. they run like demons. its predicted in our book to a tee. now run along
S.Tellez – glad to defend my faith. anytime
Kyle Cook – I’ll still be here, I just don’t think we aught to engage in vain debates, or accuse one another.
S.Tellez – “vain debates” – a small matter to blaspheme God and harm others. I know EXACTLY what youre doing.
——————————————————————————————–
The following was a public tweet from Kyle Cook made on June 29th:
Kyle Cook – When you’re #honest, there is no such thing as a tough question.
S.Tellez – well you sure as hell wouldnt answer mine.
I feel honestly sad for you. I don’t think posting this is going to win you any sympathy. I’m inclined to agree with the pastor on this one. You were way off base.
Im sure the Pharisees didnt agree when Christ called them snakes either. I dont do what I do to “win sympathy”. People who purposely avoid simple questions and deflect to other things have something to hide. I don’t have sympathy for liars, truth suppressors and those who think it a small matter to blaspheme God and harm others. But you do and that is because you are just like them. You people who accuse God of injustices and lawlessness are enemies of God and of the cross. Now go defend more liars and truth suppressors.
You think maybe you might not aught to give people half a chance before you condemn them as “truth suppressors”? Maybe they don’t have something to hide, but maybe they just don’t see things the way you’re making it out that they do. Most Christians don’t go around thinking, oh, how unjust God is, how much babies deserve to be hung on trees. Then you spring out demanding answers to a question that is very off putting to them, and get angry when they don’t answer. How can you reform the church if you can’t even take the time to win over any church leaders. Your methods are going to have one result, they’re going to make you bitter, and they’re going to displease God. I’m a theologian by no means, but I know what meekness looks like, and I don’t follow spiritual leaders who cannot consistently employee it.
In fact let me ask you a simple question. Why are there things missing here in your conversation between the pastor and yourself, and why have some things been rearranged. This isn’t the conversation exactly as it originally took place. You know what I think? I think your not a very honest person. I’ll answer your two questions. No I do not love it that an innocent died for me. That innocent one was Jesus. But he chose to partake of that cup. The Bible says that by one man sin came upon all, and by one man all were justified. That includes babies. You see we all belonged to the devil, and Jesus’ death ransomed us. That is, it won us back. Yes even the babies were won back. The Bible says a man is but a few days old and full of mischief. A mischievous baby? How so? Because the seed of iniquity is there, and if that child reaches the proper age, the seed will germinate. But no baby will ever go to hell or hang on a tree… Though Satan would have had it so. Jesus saw to that when he ransomed us. Adam sold us out but he won us back. The other thing Christ did was atone for us. That is how he dealt with our sins, so that those whose righteousness was as filthy rags could stand before a righteous God. As you say, this did not apply to babies. This part was for you and I. The ones who call our brothers idiots and yes, teach false doctrine, even if ignorantly so. Satan would have seen babies, innocent, wicked, everyone in hell, if he could. So why did a righteous judge allow an innocent man to be punished and the guilty go free? First you have to realize that The Bible says God was in Jesus, reconciling the world to himself. Through Jesus he forgave our sins, and made a propitiation for us. You are mistaking the type of judge that Gid is. He is a kingly judge. His decrees are absolute. No one may ever question his verdicts and he will never stand trial. The fact is, he has declared us righteous because of our faith in Jesus. No one may ever question that, because it is Gods verdict. No amount of legal wrangling or accusation on the Devils part can call this verdict into question. Our sins were indeed imputed to Jesus and dealt with on the cross, because we who believe in him were crucified with him. I now take up my cross daily and follow Jesus, and so must you.
[QUOTE] No I do not love it that an innocent died for me [END QUOTE]
This is the case of “its the gospel and it sucks but it is the only one I have” lol. Totally predicted by the PLS.
[QUOTE] But no baby will ever go to hell or hang on a tree… Though Satan would have had it so. [END QUOTE]
So your version of “justice” claims that all deserve to be hung upon trees, even infants…or even deserve “hell”…then make the claim that “justice” executed upon the “supposed sinners who deserve it, even babies”…is “satanic”. So, “the justice of God” carried out upon sinners…is the exact opposite of “justice”, and is “satanic”. How queer, for Satan to want justice carried out on those (you claim who deserve it)…to be evil. lol
[QUOTE] That innocent one was Jesus. But he chose to partake of that cup. [END QUOTE]
Justice and law is not determined or created by “consensus”.
[QUOTE] Satan would have seen babies, INNOCENT, wicked, everyone in hell, if he could.[END QUOTE]
What the hell is the word “innocent” doing in there? lol You are claiming (without establishing a legal basis for it that infants are not innocent and deserve wrath)….Infants are not responsible, nor have they done any of the false claims and false interpretations that you made. In order to deserve wrath, the party that is the target of wrath MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING THEMSELVES, TO DESERVE SUCH WRATH…infants have done none of the things that YOU HOLD AGAINST THEM (AND YOU PHONY VERSION OF GOD).
THIS BRINGS US BACK TO THE QUESTION YOU WILL NOT ANSWER:
The question still stands, unanswered, unaddressed(though you pretend you have, which is bearing false witness).
God does not hold a man responsible for something the man himself has not done, and being born with a corrupted biological nature, due to GENESIS 6…is not a case for wrath against the man THAT GOD HIMSELF PUT IN THAT BODY.
What have infants done that they can be held responsible for, cite the law they have violated, name what is THEIR FAULT, name exactly what infants have done that they are GUILTY OF…establish a basis for wrath against infants FIRST! PROVE THAT INFANTS DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED (for you claim Christ suffered the wrath of God in their place). It is a logical question and logical reasoning to establish the basis for GOD having wrath against infants in the first place, to then claim it was diverted unto Christ. It is a very simple and reasonable question. It is what your whole gospel “rests on’ and is argued from. You can hyperventilate and feign the vapors all you want, you can even claim I am unspiritual and am going to hell, you can even lie about “praying for me”…I DON’T CARE….YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION TO ESTABLISH A LEGAL BASIS FOR YOUR SO-CALLED GOSPEL. Until you do, no further comments from you will be approved.
How queer indeed…the slight difference between God’s justice and satanic injustice…Justice determining that all men even babies deserve to be crucified or cast into hell…wanting to see the determination of that justice carried out is satanic!
hmm, Justice says you all deserve to hang…but for justice to give you what you deserve…is the exact opposite of justice. Therefore, and on that perverted liberal line of illogic(which is about as far from the simplicity of the truth as Bruce Jenner’s “logic” is)…Then if the “criminals” were never sentenced to die in the first place…then no one can be hanged in their place. Was the “first judgment” of the court wrong? One should think so…for to carry out that judgment…is “satan’s will” according to James the idiot.
If you will notice, James, Kyle, none of them quote the books of the law (which the law gave me death, non punitive death).
Paul didn’t say “the law said I deserve death but I did not receive said death because for the law to carry out on me what it says I deserve is Satan’s will”. Paul said he actually received that death (non punitive). Paul further stated that as a mature believer, he was still awaiting deliverance from the aforementioned “death”. If you do not know the verses where these things are stated..then you are not even qualified to debate these things.
None of those IDIOTS quote from the books of the law, the same books of the law which Jesus Christ was declared righteous by…and the very same law that Paul says is to be fulfilled in the believer by God.
They invent a “fictitious penal substitute system of law”…derived entirely from their misinterpretation of verses from letters, prophetic books that are not the law. Why? Because, because none of their interpretations are law, and are not found in the law. So when the law does not support their satanic penal substitute views, and in fact the law is violated in its entirety by their views…THEY DON’T USE IT….and claim there is “another law, a higher law than the law of God”. Yeah that’s right, the books of the law are “the law of God”…”not 1 of the 2 systems of law of God which are at war with each other, the higher being the complete violation of the supposed lower”.
An example of “inventing law” is Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin is death”(PUNITIVE DEATH)…(wages are given to the actual laborer after one does the work and not before). Romans 6:23 is written to mature believers and is about those mature believers (not all men, or babies), mature believers delivered from the flesh and the kakos condition…For those mature believers to return to what they were delivered from…the wages for doing that…is physical death(PUNITIVE) by the judgment of God’s court of justice, carried out on such offenders. This is typically done: Applying what is said to a particular group of persons, based on their actual state..to all men even the undelivered in their original state…even babies…TO SUPPORT THE PENAL SUBSTITUTE HERESY.
Read this passage from 1 Cor 6 and see if what I have said about it is exactly what I say it is. It is in reference to believers and the real ramifications and consequences of turning back to living according to the corrupt fleshy desires, VOLUNTARILY. It is obviously not to be applied to all men before they are delivered or babies. By this they try to “invent” or pretend there is a separate system of law…not contained in the books of the law..in order to support their satanic argument against the truth. “They refuse to see what is there, and see what is not there”…and like Bruce Jenner they can look down a pretend they don’t have dicks also…and even pretend that there is something else there as well. Look at the context, the basis and reasoned arguments and statements of fact used by Paul…that the wages of believers voluntarily turning back to what they were delivered from, doing the exact opposite of God’s commands to remain separate from the corrupt nature and stay in the new nature…the payday is the judgment of physical death as a judgment of the court of God.
This is why “the wages of sin is death” is not a quote from the books of the law, and is not concerning undelivered man or infants, just as much as “for you were raised with Him” is not to be applied to all men in their undelivered state or infants, IS NOT. The Roman believers history is not just obeying the flesh against their wills, but they also engaged in criminal acts that were not forced, criminal acts that were deserving of punitive measures. These were a different class of “sin” from “for that which I want to do I do not but the very thing I do not want to do I do”.
What Paul is stating is them returning to unforced violations of law and criminal conduct, the result of which is a punitive death.
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?…We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?…because anyone who has died has been set free from sin…In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness…What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!…What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!..But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance…Just as you USED to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness…
What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Again, a lot of talk, but the fact remains. There is a two part nature of salvation. Ransom and Atonement. Ransom is for us all, atonement for all who have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of humanity was from Adam, and when he was sold under sin and received the wages of sin, death, it passed to all of his offspring. If Adam’s wages had been paid in full immediately none of us would be alive today because our progenitor would have been dead before we were born. Grace sustained us with physical life for a season, until we could be ransomed. Christ died on the cross. Ransom paid. We no longer belonged to sin. Now though we were a sin stained people who belonged to a Holy God. Here both atonement (by the blood of Jesus) and sanctification (by the Holy Spirit) are called for. The issue with your “legal standard” is that it’s based on YOUR standard, not God’s standard. You ask a “yes or no” question designed to trap people who disagree with you. The question reads as “when is it ever right to take an innocent life.” The obvious answer is never. Let me ask you though, since as you say, it takes a sick person to want to see an innocent hung on a tree, what can we make of infants who suffer and die every day in this sin sick world? Aren’t even the innocent who enter this world subject to death? Doesn’t that imply, therefore, that we ALL need a savior? Or do babies not need a savior? yes or no please. Do babies need a savior???
If death is a punishment, and both adults and infants in this world are subject to death, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Christ became subject to death in order to give adult and infant alike freedom from death? True or false? Infants die every day. If they are subject to death, then who can ransom them but someone who is not subject to death. Who in this world is not subject to death? Christ alone!
Don’t you think you owe all of these people an apology? I’d burn the rest of the copies of that book if I were you.
Hosea 13:14 KJV
[14] I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
1. Lutron does not mean ransom, and is mistranslated as ransom by the idiots who pulled that doctrine out of satan’s ass.
2. you once again went to “gospel number 2” (which an entirely different gospel…but is no gospel), the reason you did that is you cannot answer the simple question we asked…AND HAD TO ABANDON THE WRATH ON ALL MEN GOSPEL #1.
3. Word’s mean nothing to you…and you use freestyle interpretation willy nilly to suit yourself and your ever changing gospels (a.k.a.lies).
Ransom is for us all, atonement —->for all who have sinned<—- and fallen short of the glory of God. Now your story changes…from "all have sinned"… to "all who have sinned"…YOU JUST LIKE CHANGING VERSES WILLY NILLY. What you are attempting to do is have a "limited atonement" for only those who have sinned (clearly implying that all have not sinned i.e. INFANTS). What this of course causes is a REVERSE ATONEMENT. To where offerings were only made for criminal breaches of the law….WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE ACTUAL OFFERINGS AND TYPES OF BREACHES OF LAW THAT WERE NON-PUNITIVE ONLY. There were no offerings for babies PERIOD…They were not able to commit sins of ignorance, just as they were not able to commit criminal violations of law.
4. BOTH, Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah in the LXX that is quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15:55…OCCURS AT SECOND ADVENT…NOT IN AD 33.
You got a big problem there Mr. Kyle! The ransom lunacy claims that the ransom was paid by Christ's death in AD 33…"lutron" (which is in the genetive case, not lemma nominative singular)…is the same word as "lutro'o"…it means to loose or free something from a thing to which it has been bound or under forced subjection to. This is why in Exodus "I have redeemed or delivered you from bondage in Egypt"…THE WORD LUTRON…God didn't ransom them or pay pharo…lutron doesn't mean ransom, NEVER DID. lutra, λυτρώσασθαι, ἐλυτρώσατό, etc, etc. Numerous uses of the word lutroo, lutra, lutron (different cases and suffixes of the same word…does not a different word and completely different definition make).
AGAIN, GOD DIDN'T "RANSOM" THEM OUT OF EGYPT. (same word used lutron). He unbound them from what they were bound to and under bondage because of being bound to slavery. He broke the bonds that bound them, released them from the bondage to slavery. This undeniable. So you do not even understand what the actual doctrine of ransom was and is…you need bone up on your own heresies. The idea of ransom was that it was paid on the cross by Christ's death…not before, not after…not in Egypt, not at second advent. I can cite lots of other verses where it is literally impossible to render "lutron' as ransom DUE TO THE USAGE AND CONTEXT. (just as I have here).
5. You also reveal your ignorance, and your intellectual capacity to be "found more wanting than longshoremen leaning over the deck rail waving a hookers…after being at sea for 200 years."
First you sat this "Christ died on the cross. Ransom paid". That puts ransom at the time of the cross. Then you contradict the above statement by further stating: "Infants die every day. If they are subject to death, THEN WHO CAN RANSOM THEN BUT WHO IS NOT SUBJECT TO DEATH. Who in this world is not subject to death? Christ alone!" First he has to die, and that death paid the ransom…now the only one who can ransom infants is the one who is NOT SUBJECT TO DEATH…Got an explaination for that? Christ can "never die again after the cross, after he was resurrected"…this is POST RANSOM, RANSOM? The act of ransoming being performed after the cross without death…first it is with death and the death paid the ransom…now the condition for ransoming infants from death…is not being able to die! If the ransom was "paid" by His death…how is he ransoming after that…sounds like it was "not paid!"
So wut you gonna do bout dis? Claim you "mispoke"? You also mischaracterize what is going on…Those dead are RESURRECTED, NOT RANSOMED. And as for those who are alive and remain…THEY ARE NOT DEAD BUT ARE TRANSLATED while living..in the twinkling of an eye…BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU CARE WHAT THE SCRIPTURES ACTUALLY SAY? YOU DON'T YOU LIBTARD SATANICALLY PSYCHOTIC WEIRDO. Now you may piss and moan for 16 hours over "ad hominem attacks"…BUT I WILL GET BACK TO BUSTING YOUR SORRY ASS.
6. You stated this: "If death is a punishment, and both adults and infants in this world are subject to death, then doesn’t it stand to reason that Christ became subject to death in order to give adult and infant alike freedom from death?"
"if DEATH IS A PUNISHMENT….IF"???? WHAT, YOU DON'T FREAKING KNOW? WINGING IT, MAKING STUFF UP ON THE FLY? THEORIZING????
If death is a punishment you dumb bitch, then Stephen, Paul, Peter, and every saint…who God holds their death as precious in His eyes…THEY ARE BEING PUNISHED BY GOD! YOU ARE A FREAKING LOON!
What is fascinating is, You have Paul (I heard he was a saint) in 1 Corinthians awaiting to be delivered from "the death" and those alive when that occurs (second advent, the return of the Lord, last day, etc)…never experience death…"in order to be ransomed from it". (maybe you remember "oh death where is thy sting?") you syrup sucking stump jumper!
Ever hear of "double jeopardy"??? I doubt it because you are a legal moron. I will even use your hypothetical subjunctive "if"…if death is a punishment then men are the one's punished and infants etc. But you Christ suffering that same death…so they are all punished and he is punished…but not in their place?
This ransom…you never say who it is owed to and paid to and how it is paid…AND I KNOW THE REAL DEFINITION OF THE WORD "RANSOM" IS IN THE KOINE NON-RELIGIOUS DICTIONARY. This is liberal bullshitism is what it is. The entire doctrine was invented by satan, the scriptures misrtranslated, and the definition of "lutron" being ransom…IS A FANTASY. Death is not the guy in a dark hoody robe with a sickle…it is not a person to begin with you idiot…Much less a captor or kidnapper that is paid. Its all hypothetical unreal symbolism..HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW…EXCEPT IT IS THE COMPLETE VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
Physical death is not a punishment in terms of man becoming mortal. Death is seen as an adversary, one that could have been avoided..but say la vee bay bee!
8. I don't owe none of you assholes an apology.
9. You stated: "The question reads as “when is it ever right to take an innocent life.” The obvious answer is never. Let me ask you though, since as you say, it takes a sick person to want to see an innocent hung on a tree, what can we make of infants who suffer and die every day in this sin sick world? Aren’t even the innocent who enter this world subject to death? Doesn’t that imply, therefore, that we ALL need a savior? Or do babies not need a savior? yes or no please. Do babies need a savior???"
The "obvious answer is never"…how's about the correct charaterization…THE ONLY CORRECT, TRUTHFUL AND LAWFUL ANSWER THAT IS NOT A LIE…IS NEVER! (there is no non-obvious answer to that question you dumbass). YOUR DOCTRINE IS THAT GOD PUNISHED AN INNOCENT AND CALL THAT GOOD…THEN IN THE NEXT BREATH TALKS ABOUT INFANT SUFFERING AND DYING IN THIS SIN SICK WORLD. YOUR GOD SEEMS TO BE MUCH LIKE THIS SIN SICK WORLD…HAVING WRATH ON AN INFANT, PUNISHING AN INFANT, DEATH BEING A PUNISHMENT ON INFANTS…THEN PLAYING WORD GAMES LIKE DEATH, SATAN, GOD OR JERRY FUCKING SPRINGER NEEDS PAID A RANSOM…YOU ARE NUTTIER THAN Friedrich Nietzsche and Alister Crowley!
10. you are not talking about no law, you have to standard, except the standard to violate the law with every satanic pile of dogshit that come out of your mouth.
11. An innocent is an innocent. Whether it is the injustice perpetrated against Christ, killing infants…to even falsely charging a man who did not commit murder…with murder and executing him..and I don't care if he did steal hubcaps…he didn't commit murder and is innocent of murder. It's a principle of law and is based on REALITY you dumb bitch.
12. You also stated: "Aren’t even the innocent who enter this world subject to death? Doesn’t that imply, therefore, that we ALL need a savior? Or do babies not need a savior? yes or no please. Do babies need a savior???"
Now from "if death is a punishment'…to "the innocent who enter this world"??????? Now infants from being guilty, to deserving death, yada yada yada….Now infants are innocent! (according to you)…THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU ANSWER THE YES OR NOT QUESTION bitch???
Have a quote from our book you stupid moron…it is just one of the places in our book that predicts everything you would say and every satanic tactic you have used. (and some satanic tactics you have not…because to use the other tactics, one has to be a whole lot smarter than you are, dumbass)
(special emphasis added for the part by enclosing it in brackets)
(chapter 59)
The Illusion of Freedom from the Corrupt Nature
How does He punish the severely mentally retarded? Did Christ die in every man’s place? Did every man deserve that death and infinite suffering? Explain to me how God has wrath on an infant. How does He yell at an infant or inflict punishment on him, let alone infinite suffering? [[What’s the matter? Is it time to start softening things in your desire to focus on the infant’s need for Christ instead or change the tone by wanting to talk about the “consequences of sin”?]] Who is wiggling like a worm under a magnifying glass in the sun now? How about addressing the issue without trying to move away from it onto some other area of your supposedly true testimony? Did infants, the mentally retarded, those with downs syndrome, etc., deserve the death and suffering Christ experienced?
I won’t bother reading your garbage until you answer my question. Do babies die? Do babies need a savior?
This is the baby kidnapper. I will tell you what babies need..THEY NEED MUN-KNEE AND LOTS OF IT. Follow my instructions to the letter and the babies won’t die! (for the police listening to this telephone conversation…FUCK YOU, ASS-HOLES).
You are to be on the corner of 666th & Dumbfuck streets in the city of Natas at 3:15 AM..the witching hour…the paypho…err RANSOM PHONE!…will ring just 3 times…if you do not pick up the phone before it’s third ring…DA BAY BEES DIE!! MUHAHAHA! You must answer the phone using this secret code: “Ego logeo skabolon eis thanatw apothneisthe” You will be given further instructions! “click”. (dial tone)….
Will the infants die??? (actually yes even after the ransom is paid, except for those who are alive and remain) Stay tuned to this same bat channel at the same bat time next week to find out what happens! Will the caped, horned, and tailed crusader save the infants??? (certainly not if exegesis, using words and definitions as they are found in the koine dictionary, and using principles of the law to use is part of the instructions given to our caped,horned and tailed crusader). PAMPERS LIVES MATTER!
[quote]I won’t bother reading your garbage until you answer my question. Do babies die? Do babies need a savior?[end quote]
We got a rule here, you don’t bother reading, you don’t get to comment. Any further comments from you will be deleted. How you like dem apples?
(P.S. by the way bitch, your changing the issue from wrath because you got pinned in a corner and instead trying to soften things..and start talking about “THE INFANTS NEED FOR CHRIST” was predicted BY ME in our book. All of your arguments have been anticipated). I shall repost “the garbage” that you did not bother to read.
(special emphasis added for the part by enclosing it in brackets)
(chapter 59)
The Illusion of Freedom from the Corrupt Nature
How does He punish the severely mentally retarded? Did Christ die in every man’s place? Did every man deserve that death and infinite suffering? Explain to me how God has wrath on an infant. How does He yell at an infant or inflict punishment on him, let alone infinite suffering? What’s the matter? Is it time to start softening things in your desire to focus on the infant’s need for Christ instead or change the tone by wanting to talk about the “consequences of sin”? Who is wiggling like a worm under a magnifying glass in the sun now? How about addressing the issue without trying to move away from it onto some other area of your supposedly true testimony? Did infants, the mentally retarded, those with downs syndrome, etc., deserve the death and suffering Christ experienced?
What is also interesting, is how what you said is literally impossible…Howdoes one know if “the question is answered” unless one reads? But when you said you would not read any garbage…your comments that were deleted revealed that you did “read the garbage”…you are so contradictory and herky jerky…i bet when you whipe your ass you wind up with shit on top of your head and all over the fucking walls. psycho.