Born again?

[McCulloch]

Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.

Jesus said

• Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.
  Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
  Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

In what sense do Christians claim to have become born anew? Do the foolish become wise? Does the person get a new personality? What?

[twobitsmedia]

I have to say Twobits you get more elusive as you write.
It seems you are not capable of going beyond your rather cultic or group use of your personal terms to communicate beyond saying “it is the spirit”, “born again” and you concept of a “personal relationship” that hardly sounds like you know what a personal relationship with another human might actually be.

Those words are the words being debated. I cant call them something else.

You seem to have taken a ritual such as baptism and tuned it into some quasi-spiritual experience which is religious in nature, at least anyway we would be talking about religion is a meaningful manner between humans.
I can’t help but feel you say less each time you post.

No I think you look for too much, because i never said anything about Baptism either.

A previous poster has explained that being born again is much like turning over a new leaf or starting over. You turn it into a religious experience and then claim it isn’t.

You are making stuff up.

You are largely objectifying metaphor and analogy with little or no explanation or ability to express anything beyond your esoteric use of word or phrase.

???

I don’t need to re-read. There is no evidence because you have not presented any.

And I never said I did

I didn’t miss your assertions, I question them.

Earlier you said you did not see them, now you see them and question them. ???

What makes you think I don’t know what the evidence should be? This is another assertion on your part that is an unsupported assertion that has neither validity nor coherence.

Then, do tell, what is it supposed to be?

Some Christian experiences are religious experiences but not all religious experiences are Christian.

I don't know what this means. It sounds cliche.

I really waned to say that all Christian spiritual experiences such as being born again, a personal relationship or being saved are religious experiences but I realized some could be faking. But not all religious experiences are Christian.

Then I will agree.

I see no reason why onceconvinced’s experience was not any less Christian then yours or mine.

"experience" or "born again"? [/quote]

Do you know the difference or similarities?
Maybe it is just some pretty words the group taught you to use.

There is a difference and I don't know what group you mean.

You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different.

I have not made any such claim about Christianity. I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

I think you could have fooled everyone and maybe you’re not religious.
I don’t see where anything you have written is not ambiguous. You just keep claiming otherwise and have not desire or ability to explain. Maybe you should go beyond your ancient vernacular that fails to speak to us moderns.

Again, I don't know what you mean. The Bible is loaded with amibguity,. but that is the wisdom of it.

Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

And to you they will remain blurred.. I presume. It is your safe-place to not believe in anything and everything at the same time.

That hardly describes me Twobits but it does describe your methods of debate.
I am having trouble distinguishing you from some blowhard. You are doing the blurring; I am trying to point that out to you.

Well, you are not doing well at it. You just offer more blurry stuff.

[OnceConvinced]

It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

As I said. There is nothing to support that belief.

That's where I have a problem with understanding whatever you experienced. There is a difference. One is via spirit (Holy Spirit) and one is not.

There is no evidence to believe there is a differnce. What we have here is the same thing with different packaging. So many things in Christianity are secular things wrapped up in different packaging.

eg:
God and Devil speak vs negative and positive self talk
Being born again vs turning over a new leaf (no obvious difference).
Faith vs Positive thinking/mind over matter/stubborness
Miracles vs Wonders
Blessings vs Good fortune
Sin vs natural human tendencies
etc
etc

There are no difference between these things, just different ways of looking at them.

I was a Christian for over 30 years. Not just claiming to be one either, but recognised by my peers as such. After 30 years I have seen no real evidence of the Holy Spirit in anyone's lives. 30 years of experience must count for something. What credentials do you have 2bits? How long have you been a Christian? What makes your Christian experience any less religious than what you believe mine to have been?

[OnceConvinced]

I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

You are not religious? I never believed I was religious either. But tell me 2bits, do you practise any of these things?:

• Baptism
• Communion
• Speaking in tongues
• Laying hands on people while praying
• Standing in a congregation together and singing together
• Raising hands to God
• Dancing to God
• Reading the bible daily
• Praying
• Saying grace before meals
• Going to church every Sunday

If you indulge in any of these things, you are doing religious rituals. There for you are involved in religion.

[Cathar1950]

I have to say Twobits you get more elusive as you write.
It seems you are not capable of going beyond your rather cultic or group use of your personal terms to communicate beyond saying “it is the spirit”, “born again” and you concept of a “personal relationship” that hardly sounds like you know what a personal relationship with another human might actually be.

Those words are the words being debated. I cant call them something else.

I noticed that you have a problem explaining your word usage. I suspect you have a problem with metaphors too. Do you have anything to add to the thread?

You seem to have taken a ritual such as baptism and tuned it into some quasi-spiritual experience which is religious in nature, at least anyway we would be talking about religion is a meaningful manner between humans.
I can’t help but feel you say less each time you post.

No I think you look for too much, because i never said anything about Baptism either.

Don’t you find it odd that you left out baptism? It says born of the water and the spirit.

A previous poster has explained that being born again is much like turning over a new leaf or starting over. You turn it into a religious experience and then claim it isn’t.

You are making stuff up. [/quote]
I find it odd that you would write such a thing as you did respond to it.

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Being born again requires a rebirth via the sprit. "Turning over a new leaf" can be done with psychological might and some positve thinking...It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

Maybe you don’t read your posts either.

[twobitsmedia]

It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

As I said. There is nothing to support that belief.

Which, of course, leads me to believe you had a religious experience, but void of any real spiritual rebirth. I don't suspect we are going to change each others mind about it.

That's where I have a problem with understanding whatever you experienced. There is a difference. One is via spirit (Holy Spirit) and one is not.

There is no evidence to believe there is a differnce.

Nothing to put in a test tube or send through the email, no.

What we have here is the same thing with different packaging. So many things in Christianity are secular things wrapped up in different packaging.-

eg:
God and Devil speak vs negative and positive self talk
Being born again vs turning over a new leaf (no obvious difference).
Faith vs Positive thinking/mind over matter/stubborness
Miracles vs Wonders
Blessings vs Good fortune
Sin vs natural human tendencies
etc
etc

There are no difference between these things, just different ways of looking at them.

And you accept the natural way....void of Spirit.

I was a Christian for over 30 years. Not just claiming to be one either, but recognised by my peers as such. After 30 years I have seen no real evidence of the Holy Spirit in anyone's lives. 30 years of experience must count for something. What credentials do you have 2bits? How long have you been a Christian? What makes your Christian experience any less religious than what you believe mine to have been?

I don't wear mine on my sleeves, nor do I collect credentials or rate myself by the number of people who affirm it. So if it is based on that, then you win. But, that is, of course, the way religion rates itself. It is not unheard of for a person to leave a religion after many years. I myself could not underatnd how someone could walk away from the "Holy Spirit", and I myself have yet to meet one who really has,. But the Bible does say it is possible: (Heb 10): How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

The point for my reference is not the punishment, but the fact that the idea is presented that one can leave.

[twobitsmedia]

I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

You are not religious? I never believed I was religious either. But tell me 2bits, do you practise any of these things?:

• Baptism
• Communion
• Speaking in tongues
• Laying hands on people while praying
• Standing in a congregation together and singing together
• Raising hands to God
• Dancing to God
• Reading the bible daily
• Praying
• Saying grace before meals
• Going to church every Sunday

If you indulge in any of these things, you are doing religious rituals. There for you are involved in religion.

None on any reagular basis....only if I happen to be in a place where some of it might be going on. No tongues, laying on of hands, no dancing to God, not even a church. A ritual would be repetitive.

[twobitsmedia]

I noticed that you have a problem explaining your word usage. I suspect you have a problem with metaphors too. Do you have anything to add to the thread?

Oh, good, the old "do you have anything to add to the thread" assertion....I love it when that comes up becasue it means you are running out of steam.

You seem to have taken a ritual such as baptism and tuned it into some quasi-spiritual experience which is religious in nature, at least anyway we would be talking about religion is a meaningful manner between humans.
I can’t help but feel you say less each time you post.

No I think you look for too much, because i never said anything about Baptism either.

Don’t you find it odd that you left out baptism? It says born of the water and the spirit.

I don't find it odd.

You are making stuff up.

I find it odd that you would write such a thing as you did respond to it.

Then enjoy the oddity, whatever it was. It's a free one.

From my perspective now, being born again is more a "turning over a new leaf" than anything else. It's taking a fresh approach at life and adopting new values. I don't see it as any different to say a drug addict or alcoholic deciding they have had enough of the person they are and making a firm decision to change their ways.

Being born again requires a rebirth via the sprit. "Turning over a new leaf" can be done with psychological might and some positve thinking...It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

Maybe you don’t read your posts either.

or you are blurring them all together.

[OnceConvinced]

It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

As I said. There is nothing to support that belief.

Which, of course, leads me to believe you had a religious experience, but void of any real spiritual rebirth. I don't suspect we are going to change each others mind about it.

If you really want to believe that, that's fine. Although I would question the integrity of a God that allowed me to go for over 30 years believing I had a relationship with him, when I didn't.

That's where I have a problem with understanding whatever you experienced. There is a difference. One is via spirit (Holy Spirit) and one is not.

There is no evidence to believe there is a differnce.

Nothing to put in a test tube or send through the email, no. [/quote]

I would have expected to see evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the hundred of Christians I have met and known throughout my life. But they were no different to non-Christians, they just had a faith and they tried to live by it. Some appeared more spiritual than others, but that does not mean they had the Holy Spirit in them.

And you accept the natural way....void of Spirit.

I accept there is no difference. However when I was a Christian I thought otherwise.

I don't wear mine on my sleeves, nor do I collect credentials or rate myself by the number of people who affirm it.

Neither did I when I was a Christian. I state those things now to make a point.

I myself could not underatnd how someone could walk away from the "Holy Spirit",

No and you will never understand it until you are in that position yourself. Much like you claim a non-believer cannot understand the bible unless they become a believer themselves. (I apologise if you have not claimed that, I may be mixing you up with another member)

The point for my reference is not the punishment, but the fact that the idea is presented that one can leave.

So you believe that someone can leave the faith, but do not believe they had a true faith to begin with? Am I reading you correctly? If so that seems to be a contradiction.

[Cathar1950]

You are largely objectifying metaphor and analogy with little or no explanation or ability to express anything beyond your esoteric use of word or phrase.

???

Maybe you need to re-read.

I don’t need to re-read. There is no evidence because you have not presented any.

And I never said I did

Maybe you need to re-read your own posts. I am sure you thought you were being elusive but you write just enough to put yourself in a corner you don’t understand.

I didn’t miss your assertions, I question them.

Earlier you said you did not see them, now you see them and question them. ???
I said I didn’t see any evidence or that you were not making any sense. Even if I know what you are talking about I am not convinced you do.

What makes you think I don’t know what the evidence should be? This is another assertion on your part that is an unsupported assertion that has neither validity nor coherence.

Then, do tell, what is is supposed to be?

I happen to know what you are talking about as I was a Christian and have studied the subject for many decades even in college and grad school. I am not bragging as some was a waste of time. But that is true of anything.
What do you mean what is it suppose to be? I have to tell you what to believe now too?
I am questioning the meaning of the words you use and the claims you make.
I don’t think there is a “suppose to be”, it should at least make sense and correspond to your sacred writings. Your use of Zachariah is a good example of using a passage out of context to affirm your idea of being born again when it has little or nothing to do with your claim.

Some Christian experiences are religious experiences but not all religious experiences are Christian.

I don't know what this means. It sounds cliche.

I really waned to say that all Christian spiritual experiences such as being born again, a personal relationship or being saved are religious experiences but I realized some could be faking. But not all religious experiences are Christian.

Then I will agree.

It is bound to happen sometime.

Maybe it is just some pretty words the group taught you to use.

There is a difference and I don't know what group you mean.

Do you worship with others that agree with you or is it just some personal relationship you imagine to be God or Jesus?

You claim that Christianity is not a religion is not supportable as even your claim to a personal relationship is how you define your religion and doesn’t make it something different.

I have not made any such claim about Christianity. I have told you that I am not religous. "Christianity" is an ambiguous term in modern vernacular.

It is Not any more ambiguous then your claims.

I think you could have fooled everyone and maybe you’re not religious.
I don’t see where anything you have written is not ambiguous. You just keep claiming otherwise and have not desire or ability to explain. Maybe you should go beyond your ancient vernacular that fails to speak to us moderns.

Again, I don't know what you mean. The Bible is loaded with amibguity,. but that is the wisdom of it.

How is that wise?

Your ideas are illusive and esoteric.

And to you they will remain blurred.. I presume. It is your safe-place to not believe in anything and everything at the same time.

That hardly describes me Twobits but it does describe your methods of debate.
I am having trouble distinguishing you from some blowhard. You are doing the blurring; I am trying to point that out to you.

Well, you are not doing well at it. You just offer more blurry stuff.

Maybe you are so blurry with the use of your words, any direct offerings or questions confuse you.

[twobitsmedia]

It's easy to say anything. But the difference is spirit vs none.

As I said. There is nothing to support that belief.

Which, of course, leads me to believe you had a religious experience, but void of any real spiritual rebirth. I don't suspect we are going to change each others mind about it.

If you really want to believe that, that's fine. Although I would question the integrity of a God that allowed me to go for over 30 years believing I had a relationship with him, when I didn't.

When all else fails, blame God. But you have said it was a mind-game now you say it was relationship.

That's where I have a problem with understanding whatever you experienced. There is a difference. One is via spirit (Holy Spirit) and one is not.

There is no evidence to believe there is a differnce.

Nothing to put in a test tube or send through the email, no.

I would have expected to see evidence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the hundred of Christians I have met and known throughout my life. But they were no different to non-Christians, they just had a faith and they tried to live by it. Some appeared more spiritual than others, but that does not mean they had the Holy Spirit in them.

Probably the best evidence is a before and after perspective. But, yes, there are many tares in the wheat.

And you accept the natural way....void of Spirit.

I accept there is no difference. However when I was a Christian I thought otherwise.

"thought" being the key-word.

I myself could not underatnd how someone could walk away from the "Holy Spirit",

No and you will never understand it until you are in that position yourself. Much like you claim a non-believer cannot understand the bible unless they become a believer themselves. (I apologise if you have not claimed that, I may be mixing you up with another member)

No prob. It gets confusing. But no, I never said that.

The point for my reference is not the punishment, but the fact that the idea is presented that one can leave.

So you believe that someone can leave the faith, but do not believe they had a true faith to begin with? Am I reading you correctly? If so that seems to be a contradiction.

No, it "appears" the writer of Hebrews makes a case for it. I have never met such a person, and cannot even imagine what a person in that position would go through having known the truth then trample on it.


About 15 or more years ago I left what might be called a religious cult


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_Movement

It was very deceptive, but certainly had all the markings of truth while at the same time I even blame it for having destroyed my first marriage. I walked away, though crippled spiritually, from a religious experience. I had to take time and sort out the religious from the real. And God remained faithful even when I did not.