[CynicalBear]

>>No, it isn't: it's a complex mixture of water, electrolytes, proteins, carbohydrates, and loads of other miscellaneous items.<<

Did you simply need something to disagree about?

>>Let's do a quick Bible study, with a specific focus on CONTEXT.<<

The context was Jesus own words when He explained that being born of the water was being born of the flesh.

[paladinan]

Did you simply need something to disagree about?

No. It was simply a lame argument (no disrespect meant to the author), and I was pointing that out. The commenter in question was making a doubly-unsupported claim: that "born of water" was somehow "undeniably referring to natural birth with the 'water' of the amniotic sac" (which is a stretch by any standard, and certainly far from self-evident, and absolutely not proven with any certainty), and that he was somehow "not interpreting" John 3:5 when he was making this claim... which is ludicrous.

The context was Jesus own words when He explained that being born of the water was being born of the flesh.

He didn't say that. Honest. Go check, again. Nowhere does He say, "Being born of water is being born of the flesh." I'd also like to hear an explanation as to what gives you (or anyone who claims that he/she "doesn't interpret") the right to paraphrase anything--since a paraphrase is, by definition, an interpretation. (Honestly: don't fundamentalist dictionaries have the word "interpret" in them? They also seem to lack the word "mediator", as well... but I digress.)