MylesRyden on Nostr: npub1lzz05…djhl3 Totally agree with you on "sin." The problem, especially when ...
npub1lzz05275zkk6zwuzel45jusr74ftyyuah8zll8vl09k98w8smy7qedjhl3 (npub1lzz…jhl3)
Totally agree with you on "sin." The problem, especially when writing about actual church behaviors is that you get to the point that every other word could or should be in quotes. I think it was even you and I that had a discussion about "Christian."
I don't get the pelvic aspect either, but I will say this. I could not care less who the Catholic church deigns to marry or not marry. Or to have as a member, etc. That is totally their business. But whatever they (or any other religion) does should have zero impact on what the government does (I know you agree with this, it is the major point of the 1st Amendment). I have felt for a long time that since from the government's point of view marriage is mostly about economics and permissions it should be like incorporation. If two guys in suits can become one person under the law, why not two guys in blue jeans?
Totally agree with you on "sin." The problem, especially when writing about actual church behaviors is that you get to the point that every other word could or should be in quotes. I think it was even you and I that had a discussion about "Christian."
I don't get the pelvic aspect either, but I will say this. I could not care less who the Catholic church deigns to marry or not marry. Or to have as a member, etc. That is totally their business. But whatever they (or any other religion) does should have zero impact on what the government does (I know you agree with this, it is the major point of the 1st Amendment). I have felt for a long time that since from the government's point of view marriage is mostly about economics and permissions it should be like incorporation. If two guys in suits can become one person under the law, why not two guys in blue jeans?