|
I'm a Christian, but not quite sure what denominational label to slap on myself at the moment. Due to a recent cross-country move and subsequent pandemic, I'm not actually a member of a church at the moment. I would like to change this, but it'll have to wait a few months. Generally you would not go far wrong if you pigeonholed me somewhere in the traditional Baptist/nondenominational Protestant camp. Over the last few years I have grown alarmingly Orthodox-curious, but given my geography this is not something I've really been able to explore seriously. I always read the thread, but I only post from time to time. Because I'm right-wing politically and a firebreathing lower-case-o orthodox Christian (or whatever the tweedy academic/INTP version of "firebreathing" is), it's hard for me to say anything of substance about religion or politics without being very much contrary to the SA zeitgeist. Still, this is a good thread. It's full of good people, and I hope it stays an island of affable calm on these forums. But if you really want to know what the other side thinks, I'm around.
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Hiro Protagonist posted:Has anyone else had an experience where a deeper exploration of Christianity or Christian History challenged their beliefs? Yes, to an extent. I was raised creationist, literalist, inerrant-ist, premillenial dispensationist, and so on. But I was also a very scientifically literate kid, and by the time college rolled around it became pretty clear that in fact the universe was old, life evolved, the archaeological record doesn't map well to things like the Exodus, and other issues. Since the typical authors in that particular Christian milieu tended to have a very binary "you have to choose our worldview or you might as well be an atheist" outlook, that was hard for me. As I broadened my horizons though, I learned that Christianity was not new to these problems. Some of the theological issues like the age of the universe were thought about and discussed a thousand years before modern cosmology. In fact many of these seeming problems were artifacts of the particularly unusual strain of American Protestantism that I was raised in. Christianity can and should and often does have a symbiotic relationship with science. All that said, I am if anything much more orthodox in a historical sense now than before. There are things that I strongly disagree with purely secular scholars about, and no doubt they will come up in this thread from time to time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:I would like to read about this! What's your source(s) you're referring to? In general if you asked the church fathers how old the earth was, they'd have probably shrugged and given you a young figure based on the geneaologies in the bible. From their writings, they would not have been particularly dogmatic about it. Often the issue was more "did creation take six literal days, or was it instantaneous?" With no science to speak of and the salvation of souls not depending on the answer, it wasn't something they worried about much. What they did care about was that the world was created, and cutely enough this caused some science/church friction when it was discovered that the universe did in fact began to exist (as the church had maintained) as opposed to the universe always existing as was the general secular scientific opinion before the big bang theory was originated (by a Catholic priest!) But certainly ancient Christian figures like Origen and Augustine of Hippo noticed many things like the Genesis account discussing days, evenings, and mornings before the creation of the sun and concluding that the account was deeper than a dry recounting of events. Here's a long quote from Augustine of Hippo, in a work called "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis". I don't claim that he taught an old earth (he didn't), but that he was more than willing to be open to deeper meanings in the text. Augustine of Hippo posted:Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I'd also like to hear more conservative peoples' opinions on matters of theology out of curiosities sake, but I know that for some people there are opinions that given even a chance to be heard are very hurtful and alienating so I don't know how free ranging such discussions could be. Fundamental disagreements about the deepest parts of the human experience are likely to be hurtful and alienating from time to time. This thread has been able to handle those disagreements in a pretty genial live-and-let-live way. Why not continue? If it's too intense for some, there's always every other thread on the forums.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Shiva calls his minions together. "Alright, folks. This is a vital, top secret, and extremely urgent mission. I want you guys to go find the head of a living creature and bring it back to me. PROMPTLY." The first of his minions to return has an elephant head in hand and he rapidly attaches it to the body of the son he inadvertently decapitated, as his wife emerges from her bath. "See? Good as new!" Shoudn't it be the body of a living creature? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Depending on just how hardcore the Calvinist is, it's not so much "God knows who will be saved" as "God affirmatively wills that Bob Smith will be saved. Bob has no choice in the matter." Double predestination is similar, except replace "saved" with "damned".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The predestination stuff got me thinking in the shower, so here's a question in general: Can God change the past? William Lane Craig has written on the philosophy and theology of relativity. I haven't read it and have no idea if it's any good. One of these days I'll have to fix that. Certainly it's interesting that God seems to have made a universe where simultaneity is not a fixed property of events.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2021 00:36
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:An omnipotent and omniscient creator can foresee the results of his creation without needing to actually bring it into existence, and as he sets the parameters of existence has no constraint to create imperfectly unless he desires to do so. This doesn't strike me as at all obvious. Men are created in his image, with what amounts to some of his power. I'm not sure why it should be logically feasible to create a universe with no possibility of evil and still have anything resembling persons with moral agency, creative ability, and an ability to relate to him. Not to be too Panglossian, but a human understanding of "omnibenevolent" that excludes all evil from first principles might well require deleting universe.exe shortly after the bang. From a very explicitly Christian perspective of course, he clearly cared enough about the project to show up in person and promptly get tortured to death in order to give the rest of us life.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 06:36
|
|
|
CarpenterWalrus posted:In the last office job I worked at, I was pulled into HR to discuss my pentagram ring and my response was, "what religions are employees allowed to have here?" The official company response was that religious iconography was banned from the office, but was never enforced, and no one ever bothered me about it again. It's worth being aware that such a ban is illegal in most circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Reading the statement, I don't think it absolutely prohibits the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. It strongly advises that you should get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines instead if at all possible. That's pretty much my plan, given that I have the relative luxury of being both low-risk and able to live a lifestyle that presents very little risk of transmission to others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Well, she gets credit for originality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
White Coke posted:But if the planet, and also the universe, is demonstrably the same age that a particular religion says it is, why would that not prove their account is correct? I mentioned this a while back, but this has been an live philosophical and theological issue. The question was not the specific age, but whether it had a finite age or was eternal? To a lot of secular Hoyle-era astronomers, the big bang was alarmingly Abrahamic and the theory took a lot of flak for just that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:You're misunderstanding BattyKiara's post. Most literal-minded Christians believe that all living humans are descended from Adam and Eve, and you assume this woman believed that as well. But she didn't; she believed that most of humanity evolved naturally, and then 6000 years ago Adam and Eve were placed on the Earth to join the rest of humankind. But Adam and Eve were REAL JEWS and their patrilineal descendants are REAL JEWS while everyone else is just an ordinary dumb human. Even so, there's a mathematical phenomenon in ancestry where if you take any person in the remote enough past, it turns out that if they have any living descendants in the present day, all people in the present day are descended from them. Restricting it to patrilineal descent complicates things, but in this "Adam gets airdropped into the ancient near east 6000 years ago" scenario, it's plausible that he would already be a direct patrilinear ancestor of many, many men. 6000 years is not long enough for it to be everybody, but it would be a gigantic number of people, and certainly not identifiable with a specific ethnic group. In the real world, all men prior to about a quarter million years ago are either direct patrilinear ancestors of everyone on the planet, or have no living descendants.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This is not true. You are vastly underestimating how much "restricting it to patrilineal descent complicates things." And it's not really that it complicates things, but that it so much limits the chain of descent that one's descendants can't grow exponentially. Thanks for the correction, yes, I was mistaken. I was working off what I knew about most recent common ancestors and hadn't properly thought through the changes that result from restricting to the patrilineal (or matrilinear) line. In that case, as I now understand it, any given male's direct male line can last a long time but will inevitably go extinct as various sub-lines are extinguished when a male descendant has only daughters. My father's father's father's... father line, traced far enough, will eventually hit Y-chromosomal Adam (name coincidental and unrelated to present discussion). So will the line of every other living male, and beyond that point all our ancestral paternal lines will be identical. Other men alive at that time may have plenty of modern descendants, (in fact, all living humans), but none with a direct male line leading back to them. Is that about right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 21:28
|
|
|
I have a soft spot for some of these folks. I spent most of college attending an Assemblies of God student group. So this is not coming from a place of scoffing. Whatever speaking in tongues is, it's not a language. At least not in the sense of consistent vocabulary and syntax. Ecstatic utterances as a legitimate form of worship, sure. An interpretable language, no.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Her thread sounds about right: the deep end of Calvinism asserts a lot of things that might charitably be described as counterintuitive. That said, it's also true that Calvinism's fatalism doesn't in my experience lend itself to going out and fixing the world, whether by good works or going out and murdering sinners. It's very passive - God does the electing, not them. This sentence in particular in the article she links misunderstands things in the typical "gorillas in the mist" vein of reporting on Christians, and it's probably part of what she noticed: quote:Experts this week have said the mentality Bayless described is common within evangelical “purity culture,” which teaches that sexual desire outside of marriage is sinful and those who fail to control their lust are sometimes considered “sex addicts.” Ah, "experts". I have never heard anyone, from the mainstream to the most insular Duggar-esque purity ball types, call sexual desire outside of marriage sinful as such. Sexual activity, sure. Overly dwelling on sexual thoughts, ok. Being a person who wants to bone? That's not sin. That's how you get married in the first place. I have also never heard "sex addiction" used unironically in the purity culture context. That would be viewed as a implausible or even contemptible attempt to shift blame away from a person who is guilty by their own free choice. Whether this is healthy or not I leave to the reader, but "sex addict" is definitely a concept that evangelicals would explicitly reject.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Spacegrass posted:I read the Koran, even though I'm Christian. In a lot of that book they use the word "We", often. Like: "We created man, from sperm". Sometimes I think it may be Aliens that wrote some of this book. Thoughts all? The bible does that too on occasion ("Let us create man in our image..."). There's a number of schools of thought, basically all linguistic in nature, depending on one's beliefs: 1. The linguistic "royal we". 2. A linguistic anticipation of the Trinity. 3. A linguistic holdover from an earlier polytheism. e: at least I was the first with #2!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
I haven't seen this case made much, but you could (and I probably would) argue that in Christianity angels and demons fit many reasonable definitions of lowercase-g gods. Now, the argument that the trinity is polytheistic and/or that Mary is a god are clearly heretical. I'll admit that the whole Mary business in Catholicism creeps me out as a cradle Baptist, but I'll happily admit it's not worship.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:Happy Easter to those who celebrate it, belated Passover greetings to those who celebrate that. The Baptist church across the street kicked off their weekly (recorded) bell concert for the neighbourhood with Blessed Redeemer. Its scary how quickly these hymns come back to me despite rarely entering a church since I was like 17. Oh, I love that one. I think "Low in the Grave He Lay" is probably the definitive classic Baptist Easter hymn, and I love it too: quote:Low in the grave He lay,
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
White Coke posted:How much human sacrifice were pagans doing before their holidays were co-opted? Accusing your enemies of human sacrifice predates Christianity, but to say that it never happened seems like an over correction. I suppose it depends on which pagans you're talking about. Certainly it was present in the New World when the Catholics landed, if you want an example with surviving contemporary documentation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:nope nope nope nope nope. we're gonna stop this right now. forums user thirteen orphans does not speak for all of christianity You're quite right. In orthodox Christianity it's neither normative nor valid. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Still, even Catholics soon relented and pushed for translations of The Bible into local languages. I remember reading about this when I got interested in Pascal last month. In the Syllabus of Errors (1864, so not precisely ancient), Pius IX condemns quote:IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES What's up with the condemnation of bible societies? That stuck out to me when I first saw it, although particularly in 1864 it's fascinating to see this list lumped together as "pests of this kind".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:It's very apparent that the simple desire for sex is considered wrong. There's a whole book of the bible about how awesome boning is.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 01:40
|
|
|
Well, people argue about that one. One could claim that for instance mathematical truths exist independent of a physical universe that embodies them. From that viewpoint there's no conceivable universe or lack thereof where there's a greatest prime number.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
White Coke posted:One anti-Catholic trope is that they owe allegiance to a foreign power and so can’t be trusted, and I wanted to know who else that argument could be applied to, to make people shut up. Well if you really really want enjoy crazy arguments with crazy people: two of the three Democratic-appointed justices are Jewish. When Ginsberg was alive it was three out of four.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Is the Pope the actual formal head of state of Vatican City? He is, but he's not merely the head of state. He's the absolute monarch.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
zonohedron posted:So post-millennialists might believe in a Rapture, where all the believers are snatched away into the sky by Jesus before he judges the sinners. Pre-millennialists pretty much always do, but when that Rapture is going to happen differs: I grew up in a Southern Baptist church that taught what they called the literal interpretation. As a kid I thought it all sounded really cool (as apocalypses often do) and would read Tim LaHaye books and whatnot about all of it, and I noticed that honestly the stuff in those books didn't really match what was in the bible all that well. But I figured it was just over my head. Eventually I realized the following important thing about the literal interpretation: it's not literal. It claims to be literal in totally random places. "Ok, so what's up with the demonic locusts who torture people but won't let them die?" "They're demonic locusts who torture people but won't let them die." "Ok, so what's up with the ten-horned beast rising out of the sea?" "That's obviously the European Union." Meanwhile, the rapture isn't in Revelation at all. It's not even in the bible. There are references to Jesus returning of course, but the elaborate tribulation chronology is simply not there. It was mostly made up by Cyrus Scofield in the early 1900s. What I believe these days is that Jesus will return, in a time and manner of his choosing, and however he does it is ok with me.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:More of a history question than anything Christianity got a superseding memo in Acts 11.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
CrypticFox posted:Important context for Christianity's decision to abandon the pork prohibition, they did this at the same time they decided to abandon most of Jewish Law. It wasn't that early Christians uniquely concerned with the pork prohibition, they stopped following that rule because of the broader decision to break with Jewish Law, which also involved getting rid of rules on circumcision and other matters. The pork prohibition does not seem to have been the largest concern in the debates that early Christian had about what to do about Jewish Law. Circumcision was a far more controversial topic then pork, as we can see from Paul's treatment of the matter in letters such as Galatians. (Circumcision was also used as a proxy for the Law in general sometimes, so it could refer to other matters too, but the fact that it was used as a proxy for the Law as a whole still shows that circumcision, and not pork, was the most important issue at stake in the debate.) In Acts and some other places in the New Testament, you can see the early Christians hashing out the question of "When Gentiles follow Jesus, are they becoming Jews in some sense or are they following a new thing that God is doing for them?" After all, if you talk to a Jewish person today (and I think throughout history) and ask them if non-Jews are obligated to follow Jewish law, they'll tell you no. Much of Jewish Law is not universal or intended to be universal. So obviously if you're Bob the Galatian, it's a pretty important question. Do you need to stop eating pork and get some of your junk cut off, or not? I can't really say the question has ever been settled with zero disagreement, but in general the consensus both in the NT and later has been that Gentile Christians (which is of course almost all Christians throughout history) do not become Jews and do not have to follow the specifically Jewish rules. Now for Jewish converts to Christianity the story is less clear - Jesus very explicitly did not come to do away with the Law. But the details of how his sacrifice might obviate some of the old practices is an interesting question, complicated by the fact that Jewish Christians are considered by many people to be a logical impossibility - being one revokes the other.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
In countries with modern agricultural standards, pork is as safe as steak. There's no need to turn it into a shoe these days.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
military cervix posted:The problem of hell was on of the primary reasons I moved on from christianity. To me, it seems irreconcilable to say: Think of it the other way around. Say God did exist, and you don't like him because you disagree with his morality. You like yours better. Wouldn't you want the opportunity to stay away from him?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Honestly, I would say virtually every sentence you've written has an enormous quantity of background assumptions that requires probably an effortpost's worth of unpacking to even get to the point where you and a conservative/orthodox Christian would even be on the same page to start a discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:I must confess I have been eager to read all of your takes on this since it happened, I am not Catholic but from my perspective on the outside this feels like an admission that a split is inescapable and an attempt to rip the bandaid off quickly I'm not sure he could have provoked more of a battle line with the traditionalists if he tried. “...to determine that these groups do not deny the validity and the legitimacy of the liturgical reform, dictated by Vatican Council II and the Magisterium of the Supreme Pontiffs.” He's pretty notorious for weaponized ambiguity in matters of faith and morals, but question Vatican II and you get the Inquisition. I may be a protestant heretic, but I pray there's divine intervention for my Roman friends. They're going to need it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
The Novus Ordo is copyrighted? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
Blurred posted:I know that properly understanding the importance of things like this sometimes requires you to be an insider, but could someone at least try to explain to an outsider why performing the mass in Latin is so very important to some people, and why stopping them from performing the mass in Latin is so very important to others? If you check out a few Baptist churches, you'll sometimes find a "traditional" and a "contemporary" service. What it boils down to is one sings hymns written from about 1600-1900 using a piano and/or organ/orchestra, and one sings praise songs written after about 2010 using stage lighting and a band with a drum kit. In some sense it's a matter of taste, although certainly there's some theological implications and the occasional controversy. I think it's a mistake to think of the Latin mass issue in that way. It's not really about Latin. It's about something much deeper. Assume for the sake of argument that the Roman Catholic Church is the institution set up by God, handed to Peter by Jesus personally, infallible with regard to its teachings on faith and morals (and this is not just Papal infallibility), and therefore a constant repository of unchanging eternal truth. This is what the Church has taught about itself throughout history, and what its members are notionally supposed to believe today - and many of them absolutely do, certainly the traditionalists. You had popes like Pius X say "This stuff is true in exactly the sense we've said so over the centuries. Modernist people will try to change it or interpret it away. Don't let them, it's the synthesis of all heresies." With that assumption in mind, put yourself in the mind of a Catholic who believes this. Between 1962 and 1965, the Church convened the Vatican II council. It produce voluminous output that included writings that skirted right up the edge of changing some core Church teachings, particularly on ecumenicism but on many other things as well. The deep rewrite of the language and content of the mass was the most visible change to Catholics on a daily basis, but there was an impression - not an entirely inaccurate one - that whatever the Council claimed about itself, the "spirit" of the Council was being used to erode the actual foundational teachings of the Church. Sure, officially there was a "hermeneutic of continuity", but you don't need a phrase like "hermeneutic of continuity" if you actually have continuity. A few folks like Archbishop Lefebvre and Leonard Feeney and some others went absolutely ape over it, but to Catholics at large I think it was regarded as somewhat inside-baseball. "Ok, we use English now, that's cool". There were the occasional signs that something was a little awry (John Paul II kissing the Koran, etc), the decline in Mass attendance and Catholic culture in historical Catholic cultures, the eruption of sex abuse cases dating back to the post Vatican II era, and so on. But ok, it's not like the rest of the Christian world post-WWII was doing great. Then Francis was elected, and from day one he started throwing bombs. An atheist Italian journalist interviews him and claims that Francis doesn't believe in hell. Spokespeople deny it. Francis doesn't. He interprets away a key Catholic teaching divorce in a footnote. A group of bishops send him a formal document asking "WTF". He ignores it. He drops a key Catholic teaching on the death penalty. He drops the entire concept of just war in a footnote. He allows bishops to prostrate themselves before South American pagan idols. He lets the German bishops bless same-sex marriages. He says Catholics "breed like rabbits", and that that's bad. Any Catholic teaching or tradition seems up for grabs - except those promulgated at Vatican II. Be unsure about those teachings, or even try to accommodate the Council in a traditional way using licit means, and he descends from the throne with fire and fury. You can disagree with any of the characterizations above, but remember we're putting ourselves in the shoes of traditionalists. They're in the position of having to decide what it means that the man they're bound by church teaching to listen and obey is personally and vindictively taking away the licit means that they can be Catholic as the Church has known it for centuries. So it's not purely that Latin sounds cool. It's that Francis is in their view slowly and systematically (but always in a just barely deniably ambiguous way) burying the faith passed down by the Apostles, and burying them in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:To quote Pope Francis from his time as Archbishop of Buenos Aires: That's quite the quote from a guy who just invoked the literal inquisition in demanding traditional groups fall in line.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
It's possible to separate moral judgment and historical fact. In terms of body count and general unpleasantness, the Inquisition would be a footnote in the history in Europe if it hadn't been politically advantageous for Protestant kings to fire up the propaganda mill. People in this very thread are invoking genocide and the Congo Free State (tens of millions dead) and drunk driving (tens of thousands dead annually) to describe something with an average annual body count in the tens. I don't know what the opposite of whitewashing is, but we shouldn't do it either.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:It's possible to separate moral judgment and historical fact. Ok, clearly not. I won't pursue the subject further. This though is worth a little meta-commentary: Freudian posted:This is the worst post you have ever made. Oh I doubt it, but leave me personally aside for the moment and consider this thread as a discussion of religion generally. The perspective I expressed is considered a mild and mainstream viewpoint among practicing Catholics. It's worth being aware of even if you disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Here's a pretty typical post from what I think's one of the best-known tradcath websites about the current residential school reckoning. It forthrightly admits the scope and scale of the wrongdoing, but will otherwise win few fans here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
Kayten posted:Could it be because it’s reactionary garbage? You've hit on a major reason for the split w/r/t the Pope. Opposition to abortion and contraception may be reactionary garbage, but they're Catholic reactionary garbage. They're not merely stuff the Church believed back in the Middle Ages, they're on the books today and according to the way the magesterium works, are supposed to be there forever. Traditionalists are going to see someone with your view saying good, and take it as confirmation that the Pope is in fact a hostile actor. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Church doesn't deserve judgment for things like the residential schools and sex abuse and the I-word I promised not to talk about. Judgment has a purpose. Evil is supposed to be judged. Fritz: without the need to quote the whole thing, your last post is touching, sad, and hopeful. I hope for true atonement and reconciliation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2021 13:05
|
|