Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on April 01, 2017, 11:49:15 AM
-
God accounted Abrahams faith as Righteousness.
So no Law was around Abraham accepted by God because he believed what God had told him.
Moses brought the law and when the law implemented men died because they knew what sin was.
You had to obey the law to be part of the covenant and sacrifice to take sin away established.
Christ came he died for sins so the full sacrifice now paid. One man brought sin and death to all = Adam
One man innocent suffered the penalty for sin and brought life to all. =Christ.
Those who believe in Christ have their sins forgiven and are no longer under judgment.
Every believer have to give an account of what they did with the gifts the Lord gave to them but are ot judged for sins.
But anyone not in Christ will be judged for their sins.
The final judgment of all is Gods through Christ Jesus the books opened.
The believe is saved by faith. God tells us through Christ the greatest love you can have for another is to give your life for them.
Love covers over many sins. But we need to remember that actions speak louder than words.
All have to examine themselves.
-
I have no doubt you believe all that to be true, even though you have not one iota of evidence to verify your assertions.
Actions do speak louder than words, the trouble is some theists spend more time going on about their faith than doing something practical to help others.
-
Msg ! Here we go again with a strange statement. I dont get it, it does not make sense, theres no evidence, faith is fairly useless, its not logical, its not sensible, its wierd, it does not stand up to scrutiny, its endless words and interpretation, its a time expired idea and its just plain annoying. And im a good guy.
-
You've not come across Sassy before, then?
-
Sassy,
God accounted Abrahams faith as Righteousness.
So no Law was around Abraham accepted by God because he believed what God had told him.
Moses brought the law and when the law implemented men died because they knew what sin was.
You had to obey the law to be part of the covenant and sacrifice to take sin away established.
Christ came he died for sins so the full sacrifice now paid. One man brought sin and death to all = Adam
One man innocent suffered the penalty for sin and brought life to all. =Christ.
Those who believe in Christ have their sins forgiven and are no longer under judgment.
Every believer have to give an account of what they did with the gifts the Lord gave to them but are ot judged for sins.
But anyone not in Christ will be judged for their sins.
The final judgment of all is Gods through Christ Jesus the books opened.
The believe is saved by faith. God tells us through Christ the greatest love you can have for another is to give your life for them.
Love covers over many sins. But we need to remember that actions speak louder than words.
All have to examine themselves.
Presumably this stuff means something in your head at least? Either way, it's another one for the Faith Sharing Area.
-
Christ came he died for sins so the full sacrifice now paid. One man brought sin and death to all = Adam
One man innocent suffered the penalty for sin and brought life to all. =Christ.
I didn't ask him to die for me. I will not have his blood on my hands. I'll take responsibility for my own actions, thank you.
-
The idea that Jesus died to 'save' humanity was more than likely created by his followers to try to give meaning to his unpleasant death.
-
Isn't it "Saved by grace through faith"?
Bye.
-
Isn't it "Saved by grace through faith"?
Bye.
Indeed.
-
Isn't it "Saved by grace through faith"?
Bye.
-
Yep!
-
That it is.
-
Agreed, I was beginning to wonder who grace was. ;D
-
Amazing!
-
Amazing!
;D
-
I don't think we have an active JWs on this forum at present, otherwise I would address this post to them.
Members of their cult spend a lot of time knocking on doors trying to drum up support for their faith, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all; apparently they believe only 144,000 of their lot will make it into heaven. So presumably a selection process will take place, and those that don't make it will join the rest of us in hell. If so few are going to be invited through the Golden Gate, why are they always trying to get more and more converts?
-
I don't think we have an active JWs on this forum at present, otherwise I would address this post to them.
Members of their cult spend a lot of time knocking on doors trying to drum up support for their faith, but that doesn't make any sense to me at all; apparently they believe only 144,000 of their lot will make it into heaven. So presumably a selection process will take place, and those that don't make it will join the rest of us in hell. If so few are going to be invited through the Golden Gate, why are they always trying to get more and more converts?
They don't believe in hell as a place of torment in the first place- "hell" for them is simply the grave. The 144,000 destined for a heavenly life are supposed to be the 'very special' who lived after Christ's death. All the rest - billions, presumably - get a chance to live forever on a paradise earth. That's why they keep evangelising.
The Jehovah's Witnesses may be pretty stupid, but not that stupid.
-
They don't believe in hell as a place of torment in the first place- "hell" for them is simply the grave. The 144,000 destined for a heavenly life are supposed to be the 'very special' who lived after Christ's death. All the rest - billions, presumably - get a chance to live forever on a paradise earth. That's why they keep evangelising.
The Jehovah's Witnesses may be pretty stupid, but not that stupid.
If you say so.
-
The idea that Jesus died to 'save' humanity was more than likely created by his followers to try to give meaning to his unpleasant death.
Yes, and then they jumped in a time machine and planted the Old Testament to give credence to their imaginations.
-
Yes, and then they jumped in a time machine and planted the Old Testament to give credence to their imaginations.
You've lost me with that one :o
-
Yes, and then they jumped in a time machine and planted the Old Testament to give credence to their imaginations.
More likely they created the life of Jesus to fit in with the stuff in the OT!
-
Isn't it "Saved by grace through faith"?
Bye.
Grace exists that doesn't change but it won't save you if you have no faith in it's truth.
So it is saved by faith through grace. Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen.
So you think the way it is written actually matters?
Speaks more about lack of knowing the content and seeing just the outside shell.
So much of how you think and others is showing how it falls short of the truth.
-
Grace exists that doesn't change but it won't save you if you have no faith in it's truth.
So it is saved by faith through grace. Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen.
So you think the way it is written actually matters?
Speaks more about lack of knowing the content and seeing just the outside shell.
So much of how you think and others is showing how it falls short of the truth.
How do you know its the 'truth', as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up?
-
#21
How do you know its the 'truth', as there is no verifiable evidence to back it up?
There is no verifiable evidence to back it up therefore it's not truth. As it is not truth, there is no verifiable evidence to back it up.
Time and time again, you can be seen adopting the stance in the second sentence whilst acting as if evidence is a factor in your stance, as per the first sentence.
Therefore, your question is pointless.
-
#21
There is no verifiable evidence to back it up therefore it's not truth. As it is not truth, there is no verifiable evidence to back it up.
Time and time again, you can be seen adopting the stance in the second sentence whilst acting as if evidence is a factor in your stance, as per the first sentence.
Therefore, your question is pointless.
Surely even you can see that if you have no evidence to back something up, you cannot claim it to be true, even if you believe it to be so.
-
If Grace alone saved everyone would naturally be saved automatically.
So you have to faith to believe in that Grace to be saved.
So you are saved by faith through Grace.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whomsoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
You have to have faith and believe otherwise you are not saved.
-
Surely even you can see that if you have no evidence to back something up, you cannot claim it to be true, even if you believe it to be so.
And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?
If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?
If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?
-
And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?
If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?
If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?
No evidence to support your position has been presented.
My husband is a flesh and blood person. God if it exists, is hiding away somewhere so no one can actually ascertain what it is thinking
-
My husband is a flesh and blood person. God if it exists, is hiding away somewhere so no one can actually ascertain what it is thinking
But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was
If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?
If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?
-
But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was
As usual you are not comparing like with like, but are unable to work that out, which why posters find your contributions irritating
-
Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.
-
Sword,
And what are you using to evaluate the evidence Floo?
If you're going down the empirical route, what empirical evidence do you have that your husband loves you? Is there an SI unit for love, faithfulness in marriage, etc?
If you go down bluehillside's route that it must be testable, what approach do you have that distinguishes your conclusions from just guessing?
It's simple enough. There are various ways to investigate the claim - you can look at his actions, you can take samples of hormonal changes when he thinks of her, you can take MRI scans to see whether relevant parts of the brain "light up" when she enters the room etc.
Now then, about this god of yours...
-
If Grace alone saved everyone would naturally be saved automatically.
So you have to faith to believe in that Grace to be saved.
So you are saved by faith through Grace.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whomsoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
You have to have faith and believe otherwise you are not saved.
Saved by Grace - God made man for me giving Himself for me - first - then faith to accept it.
As per Scripture - and normal Christian teaching.
http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-8.htm
-
Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.
Each to their own, I think he is..........., no mustn't say it, that would be too impolite! ;D
-
Robinson,
Some posters might. I don't find Sword of the spirit's posts irritating.
Really? He's a one-trick pony with a very bad trick ("world view"). Do you not find his endless repetition of it rather than engaging with the falsification of it to be irritating?
Oh well - each to her own I suppose.
-
He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.
-
Getting back to the subject of being 'saved', I am still not exactly sure what we are being 'saved' from?
-
But the question wasn't Does your husband exist?, it was
Your question displayed a basic confusion between naturalistic methodology as a whole, and science as a subset. You need to rephrase it when ypu have got over your confusion.
-
He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.
No, but his posts have an air of smugness in my opinion.
-
Robinson,
He is far from being the only poster whosays same thing over and over.
I think that's called damning with faint praise.
And besides, there's nothing wrong with explaining why 2+2≠5 over and again when someone keeps posting 2+2=5. It's for the latter do deal with the falsification - something Sword refuses to do when his "world view" schtick is falsified.
-
#21
There is no verifiable evidence to back it up therefore it's not truth. As it is not truth, there is no verifiable evidence to back it up.
Time and time again, you can be seen adopting the stance in the second sentence whilst acting as if evidence is a factor in your stance, as per the first sentence.
Therefore, your question is pointless.
Except Floo never said that 'it's not the truth', only that one cannot claim something to be true without verifiable evidence.
Therefore your response here seems rather pointless.
-
It seems to me that Hillside has managed intentionally or not to massage minds into accepting the equivalence of opposing beliefs to 2+2=5 and the implication that his beliefs are equivalent to 2+2=4.
There is form here of course when he previously started a thread called ''can we move on'' where he bid us accept that his version moral irrealism was the 2+2=4.
The answer here is to stop the hypnosis of the repetition of suggesting that his beliefs about ontology are in anyway equivalent to 2+2=4 whether intentional or not. Particularly when he takes pride in his answers being a meatily honest ''I don't know''. In his schema that actually isn't 2+2=4 but 2+2=? which disqualifies him from maths analogies anyway.
Enough of the lack of perspective already.
-
It seems to me that Hillside has managed intentionally or not to massage minds into accepting the equivalence of his beliefs to 2+2=4 and the equivalence of opposing beliefs to 2+2=5.
There is form here of course when he previously started a thread called ''can we move on'' where he bid us accept that his version moral irrealism was the 2+2=4.
The answer here is to stop the hypnosis of the repetition of suggesting that beliefs about ontology are in anyway equivalent to 2+2=4 whether intentional or not.
Enough of the lack of perspective already.
Except it isn't about beliefs on ontology but in the continued use of fallacies in argument. Arguments that are fall. That's it. That's all bluehilkside has said. What you are doing is misrepresenting his statements. Why are you misrepresenting?
-
Except it isn't about beliefs on ontology but in the continued use of fallacies in argument. Arguments that are fall. That's it. That's all bluehilkside has said. What you are doing is misrepresenting his statements. Why are you misrepresenting?
How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.
-
How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.
Citation?
-
Citation?
Replies Reply #33 and Reply #38
-
Replies Reply #33 and Reply #38
They don't say fallacy, they say falsification. These are different things.In this case it might be that you just read them too fast so got confused when you wrote out your post.
-
How is using the term ''world view'' a fallacy equivalent to 2+2=5.
Just a suggestion Vlad, when you change your name again, as you do on a fairly frequent basis, how about 2+2=5? ;D
-
As do yours in spades!
We can never see ourselves as others see us.
At least Sword of the Spirit isn't nasty.
Interesting post! I may be all sorts of things, but I think I can safely say nasty is not one of them!
-
Moderator Some posts have been removed as being a derail
-
Grace exists that doesn't change but it won't save you if you have no faith in it's truth.
So it is saved by faith through grace. Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen.
So you think the way it is written actually matters?
Speaks more about lack of knowing the content and seeing just the outside shell.
So much of how you think and others is showing how it falls short of the truth.
Ephesians 2:8-10 from the NIV for you, Sassy.
"8 For it is by grace (τῇ γὰρ χάριτί) you have been saved, through faith (διὰ πίστεως)--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
You wrote, "Because having faith alone cannot save you if grace not there for it to happen." It isn't possible for us to have that faith without God's grace enabling us to have that faith, so such a situation would not occur.
-
Interesting post! I may be all sorts of things, but I think I can safely say nasty is not one of them!
That would suggest that other people's opinion doesn't matter.
-
That would suggest that other people's opinion doesn't matter.
it really doesn't.
-
Saved by Grace - God made man for me giving Himself for me - first - then faith to accept it.
As per Scripture - and normal Christian teaching.
http://biblehub.com/ephesians/2-8.htm
Be still Anchorman you are going to learn very soon how Jesus was fully human a holy thing and the Son of God.
Soon because you are going to start to question when you find the evidence to support what you preach is not in the OT.
-
Be still Anchorman you are going to learn very soon how Jesus was fully human a holy thing and the Son of God.
Soon because you are going to start to question when you find the evidence to support what you preach is not in the OT.
And what you 'preach' Sass is the product of your imagination. ::)
-
And what you 'preach' Sass is the product of your imagination. ::)
Floo,
There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.
I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.
Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.
God never lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.
-
Floo,
There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.
I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.
Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.
God never lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.
There you go again Sass, more assertions, no evidence to support them. ::)
-
it really doesn't.
But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.
-
But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.
It really isn't
-
It really isn't
Of course not...all secular humanists are the nicest people you could ever meet. :)
-
Of course not...all secular humanists are the nicest people you could ever meet. :)
Your misrepresentation is tedious even for you.
-
But that is the secular humanists conceit isn't it...... ''No matter how I treat you I am always doing you a favour''.
Is it your mission to convince secular humanists that all Christians are lying pillocks?
-
Is it your mission to convince secular humanists that all Christians are lying pillocks?
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
-
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
Christianity doesn't need any berating from non believers when there are one or two Christians on this forum of whom dear old Satan must be very proud. Do you get a special badge of honour with a horns and tail crest, Vlad? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
No, I'm here to have interesting conversations and discussions. Unfortunately I get sidetracked by liars.
-
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
Why Green Vlad? What's the green got to do with anything?
ippy
-
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I think you are both misrepresenting Rhiannon's position and possibly that of other Christians here by use of the term 'berating'. As far as I can see critiques of Christianity are either refutations of arguments offered or involve fair comment about the content and delivery of the Christian 'message' (for want of a better term).
I'd say you owe Rhiannon an apology.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
Do you? Well that's nice, we'll just have hope that there are some secular humanists here who will take your views to heart - mind you I can't think of anyone who fits your definition, so perhaps the problem lies with your take on this along the same lines as your take on PN.
-
Vlad,
One post, three mistakes:
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you
People don’t “berate Christianity”. What they actually to is to falsify the arguments Christians often attempt to claim special privileges for their beliefs.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
Secular humanism just says that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It also supports the equal treatment of everyone regardless of religious beliefs, which is a good reason by the way for you to be grateful for it. If you think it has shortcomings nonetheless though then you’ll need to tell us what they are and why you think them to be so.
That though would require exposition rather than mere assertion, so I won’t hold my breath.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.’
An advert for the Green Party maybe?
Whatever, again you’d have to tell us who “we” is and how you think “others” see it if you want your (presumably pejorative) point not to be treated as just more Vladdism.
-
It's a question.
You yourself are here on a mission to berate Christianity and I think I am on pretty secure ground when I say that the Christians on this board feel berated by you.
I do feel that secular humanism as a collective movement has not fully realised the shortcomings of it's own mission to rely on it's own goodness which it seems to take for granted.
It has not yet, in my opinion reached a position where it sees itself as others see it, although any damage issuing from that could possibly be in large part 'inadverdent'.
You could actually try reading with attention some of the things that Rhiannon has written on Christianity. Firstly, Rhiannon is not a "secular humanist", and secondly, I fail to see secular humanism as a 'collective movement', though there are various groups around with 'humanist' principles (some with Christian affiliations).
Ippy, Walter and Floo etc seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Though not a believer, I do not wish to do so. Neither, I think, does Rhiannon. But I'd like the believers to face up to some of the faith's more deeply unpleasant aspects.
-
Whatever, again you’d have to tell us who “we” is and how you think “others” see it if you want your (presumably pejorative) point not to be treated as just more Vladdism.
I don't think there's much common ground between Vlad, Sassy, Ad_Orientem, Spud and Anchorman (though the latter is certainly open to debate, and even Spud seems capable of actually reading what other people write)
Ad_Orientem of course thinks all the others are bloody heretics :)
-
Ippy, Walter and Floo etc seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Please can you explain that comment?
-
Hey Dicky,
I don't think there's much common ground between Vlad, Sassy, Ad_Orientem, Spud and Anchorman (though the latter is certainly open to debate, and even Spud seems capable of actually reading what other people write)
Ad_Orientem of course thinks all the others are bloody heretics :)
No, there doesn't seem to be. That in itself though is informative I think. If we imagine just for a moment that religious faith is BS but that lots of people have it anyway, I'd expect just that - every opinion on it pretty much being different from every other one, precisely because they are opinions.
People here often ask why "God" didn't make his presence felt such that atheists couldn't agree on "His" existence. Another question though might be why "He" didn't reveal himself such that any two believers would agree on the details.
As for ad, I agree - it's a wonder he doesn't think himself to be a heretic sometimes...
-
Very droll!
-
Secular humanism just says that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.
I think we would be hard pressed on finding two secular humanists who could agree on the details of these beyond slogan use against theists.
-
Vlad,
I think we would be hard pressed on finding two secular humanists who could agree on the details of these beyond slogan use against theists.
Then, as so often, you think wrongly. There is no “slogan use against theists”. There’s just the rejection of the faith-based claims theists make in favour of reason and evidence. There’s also incidentally the belief that the rights of religious people to think and practice whatever they like should be protected, something very few theocracies afford to faiths other than their own.
You’re also confusing a supposed difference of understanding between secular humanists (actually a fairly homogeneous position) with the difference between what secular humanism really is and your paranoid misrepresentation of it (see above).
-
Floo,
There is a difference between something which is and something you don't want to exist.
I know if you really had a heart that cared if God existed or not. Then you could tell God that you want to believe but need him to show you he is there. But the truth is, that even though God is there, you believe yourself to be superior to your creator.
You blame him and not the devil for everything bad in the world. This you do because you do not realise if God exists then so does the evil one who does the evil and causes you to believe the evil about God and not him.
Sometimes, knowing about God means you have to learn about the reality about yourself and Satan.
God never lied to you only humans and the devil. But you choose to remain with the people who lied and with Satan.
Do you not realise in rejecting God you are accepting Satan and accepting that the evil he does is okay with yourself?
You actually condone what Satan does in rejecting God.
Sass how does anyone regect something when there's no rational reason to think, such as lack of evidence; to say pixies, are there in the first place to be able to regect, if there were any? Isn't it a bit of a daft idea Sass?
ippy
-
Christianity doesn't need any berating from non believers when there are one or two Christians on this forum of whom dear old Satan must be very proud. Do you get a special badge of honour with a horns and tail crest, Vlad? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Whereas you are Satans best pupil and follower. Satan has to be proud of you, you are his best conquest when it comes to the deceived.
-
Whereas you are Satans best pupil and follower. Satan has to be proud of you, you are his best conquest when it comes to the deceived.
Poor Sass, is that the best you can do? ;D