Gee, it couldn't have been your comments of the God of the Bible being a "monster", saying I worship a "monster", for God's Wrath against sin being satisfied by the Blood of His Own Son as payment for our sins. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it couldn't be anything like that, now could it?
Gee, it couldn't have been your comments of the God of the Bible being a "monster", saying I worship a "monster", for God's Wrath against sin being satisfied by the Blood of His Own Son as payment for our sins. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it couldn't be anything like that, now could it?
Or was he misstating the EO position again?
“Gee, it couldn’t have been your comments of the God of the Bible being a “monster”, saying I worship a “monster”, for God’s Wrath against sin being satisfied by the Blood of His Own Son as payment for our sins. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it couldn’t be anything like that, now could it?”
Shouldn’t be. The theology of The Church is quite clear, MLG, as is the error of the West in worshiping a blood thirsty monster. Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god. Tell me I got it wrong, MLG. :)