LeviF

I'm assuming you're talking about infant salvation. I guess the answer would be that the Bible doesn't directly speak to it in general. They can point at examples of children that were saved in infancy or in the womb (John the Baptist, David's first child with Bashsheba) and hope, I guess. I haven't met someone who claimed to know for sure.

From what I understand about modern evangelicalism is that, in those churches, typically, only adults (or those who have come to what I'll call a "mature faith") are baptized because it's representative (that is, not required for salvation) of the new life they have committed to following God. Since babies cannot make that commitment, they do not baptize babies. Additionally, after the ascension of Jesus there is no record of babies/infants/toddlers being baptized by the apostles. Instead, adults were only baptized by immersion after they had demonstrated saving faith in Christ. When it comes to issues with literal interpretations of John 3 (water and the spirit), there are answers to be had, though I won't speak as to whether they are convincing. Ezekiel 36 speaks of the promise of the New Covenant and promises a cleansing water for those under it (as a Pharisee, it is highly likely that Nicodemus had memorized Ezekiel's prophecies, and certainly knew of them). John 7 refers to the Holy Spirit within believers as living water. Though it may simply state the obvious, we do appear to come from a sack of water at birth. As far as whether an unbaptized infant (or even a stillborn or miscarried child) is denied heaven, I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Most of my friends in the evangelical community appeal to the goodness of God and his demonstrable affection for children in the Bible in believing that babies who have no concept of God are admitted into paradise.

I think you're on to something with the superman mentality. People that came of age in the 1960s and 70s were also very skeptical of religion (maybe not to this level, but still) and now we're seeing that age cohort flocking to church again. Maybe this will be the new pattern: teens, 20-somethings, and 30-somethings having little to no religious convictions and 40-somethings and up having much more religious conviction on the whole. Time will tell.

I thought it was quite a good attempt, actually (explained below). Teens, as well as people in my generation (for those of you who don't know, that would be 20-somethings), are "fleeing religion" for a number of reasons, two I think being principal: 1. They don't see the need for something to worship. This is because they have filled this void with two things: sex and themselves. The extreme vanity and promiscuity that exist in these age cohorts is stunning when compared with previous generations. This is where Greg's joke comes in: Tinder is the perfect combination of the two trendy gods that teens and 20-somethings love to bow to. You craft an image of yourself in such a way that not only are you lying to the people you're advertising to, but you're also lying to yourself about how wonderful you look and are. Then you shop around for people who have done the exact same thing; swipe right to try and bone them, swipe left to dispose of them. Teens and 20-somethings dislike prudence, self-restraint, and humility, so they worship the things that are opposed to them. 2. Teens and 20-somethings suffer from a way of thinking that C.S. Lewis brilliantly coined "chronological snobbery": the "uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited." Ask your typical teen or 20-something atheist why they believe there is no god and they will not give you even a coherent response, much less a well-reasoned one. Atheism and its various forms are trendy and popular among internet warriors and give the teen and 20-something the false sense that they are much more common and much more intellectually grounded than any sort of theism. They reject theism, then, not because they have reasoned there is no god, but because they have decided that that is what their generation thinks and therefore they should think it also. It is worth pointing out that chronological snobbery gives birth to all sorts of leftist thought and the like, but that is a topic for another thread.

Because that's not how vaccines work.

Sorry, but I'm all in with the statists on this one. Home school your kid if it's that important to you.

Regular lemonade is my choice. Never seen anybody actually buy a pink lemonade one.

p// I once woke up next to a girl who was over 120 pounds. end// Phew. Feels good to let go of the shame.

C'thulhu fhtagn.

Yeah, reasoning didn't die in the SCOTUS on Friday; it died on Thursday.

See here's my issue, and maybe it is just me, but if you're going to say, "lots of things in the Bible are subject to interpretation and could be allegory or symbolism but the resurrection and the virgin birth most definitely happened and are literal" then I can't deal. Who's to say that many things in the supposed life of Jesus aren't also symbolism?

How do we know the basis for God's judgment, then? How many things in the Bible are symbols or literary devices and what's actually true?

No, which is why I only said that, and why I supposed you were commenting on the Bible and not simply your own personal feelings on the matter, refuting the notion that you are the moral compass you're basing these things on. The Bible unequivocally states that the practice of homosexuality (along with other sexual sin, thievery, and lying) will keep one from getting to heaven. Undoubtedly, you know this, and so does birdog, assuming he's read the book. The Pope knows this as well. The litmus test that I tend to apply is this: "Do you believe that the Bible, in its original writing, is the inerrant word of God?" From what I understand about the Bible, if you don't believe one part the whole thing falls apart because the Bible speaks of and assumes itself as inerrant. Do you, or birdog perhaps, have a better litmus?

He's basing it on the Bible, I presume. You know, the bits about how those who practice homosexuality will be denied the kingdom of heaven (that is, they will go to hell). That's all he really commented on.

I drink the yellow ones, and I'm a caffeine fiend. Only 25 calories to a can and gives my brain a few extra RPMs. Coffee does nothing for me anymore when it comes to waking up, being energetic, etc. Fast living back in the day probably skews my perspective a bit, though.

Before lunch and after dinner: coffee, hot and cheap. Between lunch and dinner: Monster Rehab On top of that I tend to drink between 2 and 3 liters of water a day.

Why? He clearly has no idea how the judiciary in this country works, or why you said that the equal protection clause has been reinterpreted again, or why someone could possibly disagree with five lawyers in funny-looking outfits.

Ask that Wes Anderson-obsessed weirdo over in the other thread. Made me want to drill holes in my his head.

Can either of you make a case for taxing museums, hospitals, churches, schools, and charities that upends the longstanding reasoning against doing such a thing? I just got done getting lectured about how if the USSC says it, it must be a good argument, so take a look at Walz v. Tax Commission and get back to me.

This opinion of yours extends to charities and schools, I presume?

Undoubtedly, there will be attacks on the free exercise of religion coming in a few years, if not sooner. Very real challenges to tax breaks and tax-exempt status for religious organizations as well. But I doubt it'll start with churches and mosques and temples. I think para-church organizations, like independent religious universities and independent charities with strong religious ties will see their government help dry up very quickly due to their core tenets and beliefs. I'm thinking something along the lines of what happened to Bob Jones University back in the 70's with their discriminatory admission policies, only on a massive scale the likes of which we haven't seen before.

Yeah I was thinking about that. But the same thing applies even then: marriage in England, since England has had rule of law, has always been a religious establishment. Your point is well-taken, however. Anyway, more Scalia quotes: GodDAMN, Scalia, you're on a ROLL

What makes the constraints flawed? United States law has only existed for that long, and the SCOTUS only holds jurisdiction in the United States and only rules on United States law. I understand where you're coming from but believe that your constraints (or lack thereof) should have no bearing on a USSC decision.

My point was that marriage, in the United States (the only relevant time, then, being 1776-present. Maybe the early 1700s if you want to stretch it), has always been a religious concept. That it was co-opted by religion however many thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the conversation.

Despite today's SCOTUS ruling, I'm still pretty sure marriage in this case isn't allowed.