Christian Freethought

[Goliath]

Well, you're right about one thing, Angakuk: I most certainly missed any intended irony in your choice of avatars. Don't let that stop you from your usual screaming and hate-mongering.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Well, if the Domestic Partnership Act (I don't claim to know that much about it) does not extend to such benefits, then it should be amended as such.

Or they could do what they did with blacks when they were not getting equal treatment under the law but had a separate set of laws just for blacks. They got rid of the special laws. Either gays are American citizens just like any other citizen or they are not. But that is a slippery slope, because once you lay claim that one group should not get equal treatment then it opens up the door to identifying other groups that should not get equal treatment, and that is not my understanding of how the whole thing is supposed to work. So either nobody gets marriage benefits or everybody gets them. I personally think that marriage is a personal matter which the government has no business in anyway. So do away with the marriage benefit laws, and it may have the added benefit of reducing our tax burden which appears is gonna get huge in the future and we are going to be looking for everything we can to cut.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I personally think that marriage is a personal matter which the government has no business in anyway.

At last, something we agree on.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

At last, something we agree on.

Thank heaven for small favors.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Well, you're right about one thing, Angakuk: I most certainly missed any intended irony in your choice of avatars. Don't let that stop you from your usual screaming and hate-mongering.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Don't let that stop you from your usual screaming and hate-mongering.

[Angakuk]

You both beat me to it.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I personally think that marriage is a personal matter which the government has no business in anyway. So do away with the marriage benefit laws, and it may have the added benefit of reducing our tax burden which appears is gonna get huge in the future and we are going to be looking for everything we can to cut.

I think marriage laws have more to do with having children and bringing up a family or, at least potentially.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I think marriage laws have more to do with having children and bringing up a family or, at least potentially.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have been married and divorced with children and if the laws are about family then I don't see how. They are mostly about property and parenting rights after divorce. And even though the courts may claim to have the interest of the children at heart you could have fooled me. And what laws there are that don't cover property and parenting rights, seem mostly to do with what is due a spouse when the other spouse dies or one or the other spouse is incapacitated or in the hospital. The whole family thing seems to be pretty much a vacuous argument as far as the actual laws are concerned.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Yet you could not actually find them nor cite them.

Try Jn 3: 6 (which I cited)

"6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

You've gone blind again!

Great deal of pleading and eisegesis which does not challenge Jn's consistent use of "from above" in passages cited,

Jn 3:6 is addressed to Nicodemus as an explanation of Jn 3:3

He says so explicitly in Jn 3.7

"7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.' "

There's none so blind as those who won't see.

nor, more importantly, challenge his distinction between those "from the above" and those "from the below."

Another of your pet fantasies.

Read Jn 8 22 -23

22 Then the Jews said, "Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23 He said to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world."

Jn writes that Jesus is from above - there's no "Those" that are from above.

Jn begins the gospel by introducing Jesus as the "λογος" and makes it quite explicit that Jesus is from heaven. No one else is "from heaven".

See John 3:13

"13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

"It is in their nature."

Quite probably - but not because they haven't been born from above at birth.

"Can't help fools."

True

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't claim to be an expert, but I have been married and divorced with children and if the laws are about family then I don't see how. They are mostly about property and parenting rights after divorce. And even though the courts may claim to have the interest of the children at heart you could have fooled me. And what laws there are that don't cover property and parenting rights, seem mostly to do with what is due a spouse when the other spouse dies or one or the other spouse is incapacitated or in the hospital. The whole family thing seems to be pretty much a vacuous argument as far as the actual laws are concerned.

Children need a stable environment in which to live. If the parents, by means of the marriage laws or, whatever is necessary, are unable to provide this, then the children become wards of the state, that is, if they're lucky, and don't fall prey to predators and the like. And this is much more costly in terms of government spending overall, as well as the stability of society as a whole. But you're right, the government probably doesn't understand this.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Children need a stable environment in which to live. If the parents, by means of the marriage laws or, whatever is necessary, are unable to provide this, then the children become wards of the state, that is, if they're lucky, and don't fall prey to predators and the like. And this is much more costly in terms of government spending overall, as well as the stability of society as a whole. But you're right, the government probably doesn't understand this.

I agree that children need a good home. But I am afraid that the laws that apply to marriage have little to nothing to do with providing children with a good home. Besides the trend seems to be that children are more likely to be raised by a single parent then they are by a married couple. So the whole marriage law thing for the protection of the family is a red herring.

As for the government raising children that appears to be pretty much a failure. I hate to say this but letting each community handle it as best they can probably led to a greater number of positive outcomes than the current disaster that is administered by the state and federal government. I have been a consultant for the Florida Department of Revenue, and one of the programs I worked with was Child Support Enforcement. That program is run more as revenue producing program for the state of Florida than as any kind of a program for helping kids and families. And I gotta tell you when you see the records of mothers with twelve kids from twelve different fathers it makes you wonder if the system in place is not just making things worse.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Listener

Jn 3: 6 (which I cited)

Represents too different and exclusive origins as explained previously. Apparently you did not read any of the previous posts . . . again.

You've gone blind again!

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Blathers on in this same fashion of misrepresenting texts, spinning in circles, and ignoring analysis given over and over to him, while failing to provide evidence for his claims--such as Jn using ἄνωθεν differently than he actually uses it in passages cited.

I will be informed, I am sure, should he ever extricate his cranium from his rectal vault an responds substantively rather than spinning in circles and appealing to texts that rebut him--how embarrassing!--or to forged letters written only a century or two after Jn.

Apparently took my direction a wee bit too literally.

--J.D.

[Listener]

Have you ever read this as one text?

Jn ch 3 1 -10

"1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews. 2 He came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do apart from the presence of God." 3 Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.(ἄνωθεν)" 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be astonished that I said to you, 'You must be born from above.(ἄνωθεν)' 8 The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." 9 Nicodemus said to him, "How can these things be?" 10 Jesus answered him, "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?"

You can't seperate being born ἄνωθεν from being born of the Spirit without butchering the text!

If Nicodemus couldn't convert, how do you explain Jn 19:39 - 42?

"39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I agree that children need a good home. But I am afraid that the laws that apply to marriage have little to nothing to do with providing children with a good home. Besides the trend seems to be that children are more likely to be raised by a single parent then they are by a married couple. So the whole marriage law thing for the protection of the family is a red herring.

I'm having trouble getting this paragraph straight in my mind. First, you say "children need a good home" which no one can dispute. Then you claim that "laws that apply to marriage have little to nothing to do with providing children with a good home." Are you trying say that assigning two adults to be responsible for the raising of children does *not* provide children with a good home? Or are you referring to the end of a marriage, i.e., "laws that apply to the end of a marriage have little to nothing to do with providing children with a good home"? I can understand the latter statement, but not the sentence as you wrote it.

I think one might make the case that complicated divorce law can contribute to the stability of families because the mere thought of having to navigate through them is a dis-incentive to divorce.

The seond part of the paragraph makes even less sense to me: "Besides the trend seems to be that children are more likely to be raised by a single parent then they are by a married couple. So the whole marriage law thing for the protection of the family is a red herring."

The fact that an increasing proportion of children are being raised in single-parent homes is *not* a result of marriage law. In many cases, the parents were never married to begin with, and in others, the parents chose to end their marriage. I think it's not marriage law you're talking about; it's divorce law.

I personally feel that the biggest threat to society today is the fact that so many children are not being raised in stable two-parent families. I have a whole theory about the causes of the current situation, but I have no answers. I think Hillary said it best when she said it takes a village to raise a child (and that the foundation of that village should be the family, be it by blood relation or neighborhood proximity), but that kind of environment just isn't a part of society's makeup these days.

[naturalist.atheist]

Sorry about that. In a previous post I mentioned that the so called marriage laws such as they are have little to do with raising children and have more to do with divorce, property transfer at death, spousal benefits and power of attorney. That protecting children is usually under a separate set of laws. So the idea that gays should not be given equal treatment under the marriage laws because some how putting them under the same marriage laws as heteros is gonna effect raising a family is a red herring. Because marriage laws as they stand have little to do with raising a family.

Besides granting gays rights does not remove rights from hetoros. So if the laws as they stand are not getting the job done in terms of raising a family then treating gays equally under the law is not going to change that situation.

I personally think that passing laws is not how you create a responsible and caring society.

[Doohickie]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Sorry about that. In a previous post I mentioned that the so called marriage laws such as they are have little to do with raising children and have more to do with divorce, property transfer at death, spousal benefits and power of attorney. That protecting children is usually under a separate set of laws. So the idea that gays should not be given equal treatment under the marriage laws because some how putting them under the same marriage laws as heteros is gonna effect raising a family is a red herring. Because marriage laws as they stand have little to do with raising a family.

Besides granting gays rights does not remove rights from hetoros. So if the laws as they stand are not getting the job done in terms of raising a family then treating gays equally under the law is not going to change that situation.

I personally think that passing laws is not how you create a responsible and caring society.

I guess my personal definition of "marriage law" was too narrow. Your remark about "granting gays rights does not remove rights from hetoros" resonates with something Obama said in his recent speach- something to the effect that success/prosperity of the black community does not have to come at the expense of the white community.

I think this is a fundamental problem in the country today- this prevailing belief that each time someone benefits from something, there must be someone who's being hurt by it. That if there is gay marriage, it will hurt hetero marriage, or if blacks prosper it must come at the expense of money coming out of the pockets of whites. It sounds plausible enough at first blush so it makes it to the rhetoric of talk radio. But the opposite is very often true. If gays are allowed full marriage rights, more children will be raised in stable households; if black people prosper that will mean less money needs to be paid out in public support. I don't want to turn this into a political discussion, but I really think this is why this country needs a uniter, not a divider. W claimed to be a uniter but he has failed miserably; the only way to unite with him is to decide you agree with what he says and go over to his camp. There is no reaching out to the other side in an attempt to understand; there is only that smug sneer of a president who is so convinced he's right that there is no need to understand other viewpoints.

[Doctor X]

. . . not like Hillary . . . no . . . not at all. . . .

Or Obama . . . no. . . .

Politics is in the other section. . . .

Now about those prophecies?

Find any?

One?

No?

Then someone will inform me should you ever do back a claim with evidence.

--J.D.

[Listener]

Originally Posted by Wonderer

My mother thinks it's fine, but she's kind of confused by the whole thing. Can't really blame her it's been a big change in my life.

"Born again" comes from the book of John

Born of the Spirit is what people mean when they say "Born Again" it means they have accepted the holy spirit into them and accepted Christ as their own personal saviour.

"Born again" does come from John's gospel in the KJV. DoctorX is correct when he says that "from above" is a better translation than "again".

You are correct, in spite of DoctorX's assertions to the contrary, that in John's gospel, being born from above is synonymous with being "born of the Spirit".

DoctorX is incorrect in saying that Nicodemus could not convert because he was not "born from above". Nicodemus, in John's gospel, participated in Jesus burial! There's no reasonable doubt that he did eventually convert in that Gospel story.

"Born again" is widely understood as you do and you have no need for changing your use of the words - even if there is a more precise translation.

May I wish you well in your new-found faith.