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]

It seems to defy an objective definition to those who have not experienced "Spirit." Those who have are quite aware of it.

Yet this is not true for anything else.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

We have objective definitions for sound and colour even though the blind and deaf do not experience them.

We think we do. We do not really know what they are associating it with. We base such an opinion on how they respond to what we tell them. What it truly conjours for them as far as imagery, of anything, is hard to tell sometimes. I have had people say they "understand spirit" but I do not know what the word really conjours up for them just by what they say. Someone who is blind from birth has nothing to really associate anything with. We can say a color means something, but they have nothing to associate either with. But is is similar to me trying to explain "born again" to you. At best you can associate it with all the religious stuff you remember...and it is still hard to say what you would end up with not ever having experienced it.

We even have objective definitions for quantum events, even though no one experiences them directly.

Well, the definition for the experiecne with God is called spirit. If you are accepting a definition of a quantum event based on lack of your own experience, then you are probably accepting the source first and foremost.

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists. And, this, is the "civil" way of telling me I could be lying about my experience: "You my be confident in your belief in God, but without an objective demonstration, it is simply your belief."

Anything that I say that I know, I can specify how I know it to be true.

And I did specify it and stated it clearly .

Furthermore, each thing known has a degree of confidence.

If the world is nothing more than what you have confidence in then that is your thing. I suspect it is bigger than you.

I am more sure of my own dislike for eggplant than I am of the tale of King Arthur.

Based on your logic, I cannot believe that anyone would like eggplant. It sucks to eat. So, I would have to suspect you are maybe delusional...

But think about your question: How do you know it is not delusion? How many people really answer and say, oh yeah, I guess it is delusion after all. If someone IS suffering from a delusion, what do you think they will answer? How does someone suffering from a delusion differentiate anything?

We cannot rely entirely on our own understanding and our own feelings. Is it measurable? Can it be objectively validated? If not, then you don't know you simply believe.

You can't validate it. So it's just a belief to you.

When it happens, you will know. If it does not, then you will always think it is possibly a delusion and assume I am deluded.

The same could be said for the Buddhist and enlightenment.

When you have a Buddhuist experience, let me know.

Are you admitting that God and the spiritual rebirth is subjective?

For you it is apparently. But those words "God" and "spiritual" are void of meaning to you. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness...."

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

One "god" is pretty much like other "gods" -- no evidence of existence, worshipers encouraging others to worship, clerics making a profit representing gods, claims of supernaturalism (without evidence), supposed interference with human affairs (without evidence), oral or written hearsay accounts of "miracles" -- different names, different pictures, similar stories, similar lack of evidence.

[twobitsmedia]

.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

One "god" is pretty much like other "gods" -- no evidence of existence, worshipers encouraging others to worship, clerics making a profit representing gods, claims of supernaturalism (without evidence), supposed interference with human affairs (without evidence), oral or written hearsay accounts of "miracles" -- different names, different pictures, similar stories, similar lack of evidence.

Without arguing your points, I did not say "like other Gods. I said like "anyTHING else." And I also said nothing about people and their activties.

[McCulloch]

It seems to defy an objective definition to those who have not experienced "Spirit." Those who have are quite aware of it.

Yet this is not true for anything else.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

Are you admitting that belief in God requires special pleading?

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists. And, this, is the "civil" way of telling me I could be lying about my experience: "You my be confident in your belief in God, but without an objective demonstration, it is simply your belief."

Anything that I say that I know, I can specify how I know it to be true.

And I did specify it and stated it clearly .

I must have missed that. Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

Furthermore, each thing known has a degree of confidence.

If the world is nothing more than what you have confidence in then that is your thing. I suspect it is bigger than you.

Clearly the universe is vastly beyond what I am capable of knowing. However that does not justify believing without evidence or attributing an unwarranted confidence any particular belief.

I am more sure of my own dislike for eggplant than I am of the tale of King Arthur.

Based on your logic, I cannot believe that anyone would like eggplant. It sucks to eat. So, I would have to suspect you are maybe delusional.

No, there is plenty of evidence that others like eggplant. Just as while there is no evidence that God exists, there is plenty of evidence that some people believe that God exists.
My point is that for each belief that we have, we also have a degree of confidence in that belief. I believe that fruits and vegetables commonly consumed by other humans are good for my continued existence. I have a fairly strong confidence in that belief. I also believe that the people in my country would be better off if dentistry was treated in the same way as other necessary medical practices. I have less confidence in that belief.

When you have a Buddhist experience, let me know.

My point was that your claim to have had a life changing experience from a spiritual source are as valid as anyone else's.

Are you admitting that God and the spiritual rebirth is subjective?

For you it is apparently. But those words "God" and "spiritual" are void of meaning to you. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness...."

Subjective means that it means different things for different people. Beauty, religion and joy are subjective. Objective means that it means the same thing regardless of the point of view of the person. Physics, mathematics are objective.

[twobitsmedia]

It seems to defy an objective definition to those who have not experienced "Spirit." Those who have are quite aware of it.

Yet this is not true for anything else.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

Are you admitting that belief in God requires special pleading?

No, I asked a question that you are purposely not answering.

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists. And, this, is the "civil" way of telling me I could be lying about my experience: "You my be confident in your belief in God, but without an objective demonstration, it is simply your belief."

Anything that I say that I know, I can specify how I know it to be true.

And I did specify it and stated it clearly .

I must have missed that. Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

S - P - I - R - I - T.

Furthermore, each thing known has a degree of confidence.

If the world is nothing more than what you have confidence in then that is your thing. I suspect it is bigger than you.

Clearly the universe is vastly beyond what I am capable of knowing. However that does not justify believing without evidence or attributing an unwarranted confidence any particular belief.

And what would evidence of God Be?

I am more sure of my own dislike for eggplant than I am of the tale of King Arthur.

Based on your logic, I cannot believe that anyone would like eggplant. It sucks to eat. So, I would have to suspect you are maybe delusional.

No, there is plenty of evidence that others like eggplant.

There's plenty of people who say so. Based on your logic, it appears to be a mass delusion.

Just as while there is no evidence that God exists, there is plenty of evidence that some people believe that God exists.

OK

My point is that for each belief that we have, we also have a degree of confidence in that belief.

OK

I believe that fruits and vegetables commonly consumed by other humans are good for my continued existence.

OK

I have a fairly strong confidence in that belief.

And you then have faith in the source of that information for some reason or other.

I also believe that the people in my country would be better off if dentistry was treated in the same way as other necessary medical practices. I have less confidence in that belief.

Same. But I suspect you either have good teeth or insruance to cover problems, or your opinion could be dfifferent. Your reality, after all, is experience based.

When you have a Buddhist experience, let me know.

My point was that your claim to have had a life changing experience from a spiritual source are as valid as anyone else's.

I am not debating anyone elses exeperience nor Buddhism.

Are you admitting that God and the spiritual rebirth is subjective?

For you it is apparently. But those words "God" and "spiritual" are void of meaning to you. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness...."

Subjective means that it means different things for different people.

I understand what it means.

Beauty, religion and joy are subjective.

Yes, but the "fruits of the spirit are..." (hint. there's only one list)

Objective means that it means the same thing regardless of the point of view of the person. Physics, mathematics are objective.

Thanks for the lesson.

[McCulloch]

It seems to defy an objective definition to those who have not experienced "Spirit." Those who have are quite aware of it.

Yet this is not true for anything else.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

Are you admitting that belief in God requires special pleading?

No, I asked a question that you are purposely not answering.

How is belief in God different from any other belief? Should it not also be based on evidence?

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists. And, this, is the "civil" way of telling me I could be lying about my experience: "You my be confident in your belief in God, but without an objective demonstration, it is simply your belief."

Anything that I say that I know, I can specify how I know it to be true.

And I did specify it and stated it clearly .

I must have missed that. Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

S - P - I - R - I - T.

That answer only pushes the question back. I admit that I don't know God. I don't know spirit either. What is spirit? How does spirit convey factual information? How can you be sure about spirit?

Furthermore, each thing known has a degree of confidence.

If the world is nothing more than what you have confidence in then that is your thing. I suspect it is bigger than you.

Clearly the universe is vastly beyond what I am capable of knowing. However that does not justify believing without evidence or attributing an unwarranted confidence any particular belief.

And what would evidence of God Be?

I would think that those who claim that there exists a God should be able to furnish some answers to that question. If they cannot, then the existence of God is a non-falsifiable question.

I am more sure of my own dislike for eggplant than I am of the tale of King Arthur.

Based on your logic, I cannot believe that anyone would like eggplant. It sucks to eat. So, I would have to suspect you are maybe delusional.

No, there is plenty of evidence that others like eggplant.

There's plenty of people who say so. Based on your logic, it appears to be a mass delusion.

Just as while there is no evidence that God exists, there is plenty of evidence that some people believe that God exists.

OK

My point is that for each belief that we have, we also have a degree of confidence in that belief.

OK

I believe that fruits and vegetables commonly consumed by other humans are good for my continued existence.

OK

I have a fairly strong confidence in that belief.

And you then have faith in the source of that information for some reason or other.

It is consistently repeatable and objectively applied.

I also believe that the people in my country would be better off if dentistry was treated in the same way as other necessary medical practices. I have less confidence in that belief.

Same. But I suspect you either have good teeth or insruance to cover problems, or your opinion could be dfifferent. Your reality, after all, is experience based.

Yes it is.

When you have a Buddhist experience, let me know.

My point was that your claim to have had a life changing experience from a spiritual source are as valid as anyone else's.

I am not debating anyone elses exeperience nor Buddhism.

I misunderstood. I was taught that Christianity was an exclusive spirituality.

Are you admitting that God and the spiritual rebirth is subjective?

For you it is apparently. But those words "God" and "spiritual" are void of meaning to you. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness...."

Subjective means that it means different things for different people.

I understand what it means.

Beauty, religion and joy are subjective.

Yes, but the "fruits of the spirit are..." (hint. there's only one list)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control

Love - subjective, but possible outside of Christianity
joy - subjective, but possible without the Christian Holy Spirit
patience - subjective, but has been demonstrated by those who reject the Christian God
kindness - subjective, but not always shown by those claiming to follow the Christ, certainly possible and demonstrated by those who don't
goodness - more of the same.
gentleness - ditto
self-control -

It seems like there is a whole lot of spirit distributed among the infidels and non-believers and withheld from God's faithful.

Oh and you misquoted. It is the fruit singular of the spirit not the fruits of the spirit discussed by Paul in Galations.

[twobitsmedia]

It seems to defy an objective definition to those who have not experienced "Spirit." Those who have are quite aware of it.

Yet this is not true for anything else.

Yes, and how much is God like anything else?

Are you admitting that belief in God requires special pleading?

No, I asked a question that you are purposely not answering.

How is belief in God different from any other belief? Should it not also be based on evidence?

"belief" may not be, but now you are changing the subject again. I said "God is" not belief about God. God is whether I believe or not.

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists. And, this, is the "civil" way of telling me I could be lying about my experience: "You my be confident in your belief in God, but without an objective demonstration, it is simply your belief."

Anything that I say that I know, I can specify how I know it to be true.

And I did specify it and stated it clearly .

I must have missed that. Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

S - P - I - R - I - T.

That answer only pushes the question back. I admit that I don't know God. I don't know spirit either.

That is without dispute.

What is spirit? How does spirit convey factual information? How can you be sure about spirit?

God is spirit. Circular to you probably. But you have a void outside of your evidenced reality.

Furthermore, each thing known has a degree of confidence.

If the world is nothing more than what you have confidence in then that is your thing. I suspect it is bigger than you.

Clearly the universe is vastly beyond what I am capable of knowing. However that does not justify believing without evidence or attributing an unwarranted confidence any particular belief.

And what would evidence of God Be?

I would think that those who claim that there exists a God should be able to furnish some answers to that question. If they cannot, then the existence of God is a non-falsifiable question.

Maybe, but, as usual, those who ask for evidence have no idea what they are asking for. So if they got it, how would they know? So, they ask for some ambiguous peice of whatever....and wonder why they don't get it.

I am more sure of my own dislike for eggplant than I am of the tale of King Arthur.

Based on your logic, I cannot believe that anyone would like eggplant. It sucks to eat. So, I would have to suspect you are maybe delusional.

No, there is plenty of evidence that others like eggplant.

There's plenty of people who say so. Based on your logic, it appears to be a mass delusion.

Just as while there is no evidence that God exists, there is plenty of evidence that some people believe that God exists.

OK

My point is that for each belief that we have, we also have a degree of confidence in that belief.

OK

I believe that fruits and vegetables commonly consumed by other humans are good for my continued existence.

OK

I have a fairly strong confidence in that belief.

And you then have faith in the source of that information for some reason or other.

It is consistently repeatable and objectively applied.

It can be faked.

When you have a Buddhist experience, let me know.

My point was that your claim to have had a life changing experience from a spiritual source are as valid as anyone else's.

I am not debating anyone elses exeperience nor Buddhism.

I misunderstood. I was taught that Christianity was an exclusive spirituality.

I am losing your point, sorry. I see no conection if it was some kind of analogy.

Are you admitting that God and the spiritual rebirth is subjective?

For you it is apparently. But those words "God" and "spiritual" are void of meaning to you. "The wisdom of the cross is foolishness...."

Subjective means that it means different things for different people.

I understand what it means.

Beauty, religion and joy are subjective.

Yes, but the "fruits of the spirit are..." (hint. there's only one list)

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control

Love - subjective, but possible outside of Christianity
joy - subjective, but possible without the Christian Holy Spirit
patience - subjective, but has been demonstrated by those who reject the Christian God
kindness - subjective, but not always shown by those claiming to follow the Christ, certainly possible and demonstrated by those who don't
goodness - more of the same.
gentleness - ditto
self-control -

And thats the way you see it. Gods love is NOT possible outside of Christianity (and I mean via the Christian God) Nor joy, or the other "fruits of the spriit" because they are fruits of the spirits. There may be attempts to duplicate, but the reality is different.

It seems like there is a whole lot of spirit distributed among the infidels and non-believers and withheld from God's faithful.

Seems that way doesn't it...but I would disagree.

Oh and you misquoted. It is the fruit singular of the spirit not the fruits of the spirit discussed by Paul in Galations.

Then you can take away my typing star for grammar. I will get over it.

[McCulloch]

I said "God is" not belief about God. God is whether I believe or not.

Saying "God is" or even "Gravity is" is not really a statement of fact. It is a statement that you believe that the statement "God exists" or the statement "gravity exists" is true. I agree with you that the existence of God or gravity is not dependent on your or my belief in it. On the other hand, if you assert that God exists, then there should be some objective evidence to support that assertion. "God is" because spirit (which itself cannot be objectively defined or measured) tells me so. "Gravity is" because every measure and test objectively done, regardless of the situation, confirms gravity.

I don't know spirit either.

That is without dispute.

I know that God does not exist because of heliochromatofixatives. You know that God exists because of spirit. Until either of us actually defines our terms in an objective way, we are at an impasse.

What is spirit? How does spirit convey factual information? How can you be sure about spirit?

God is spirit. Circular to you probably. But you have a void outside of your evidenced reality.

No, not circular to me. Just circular. Objectively verifiably circular. Anyone trained in elementary logic could discern this. Even substituting meaningless symbols, your claims are clearly circular.

And thats the way you see it. Gods love is NOT possible outside of Christianity (and I mean via the Christian God) Nor joy, or the other "fruits of the spriit" because they are fruits of the spirits. There may be attempts to duplicate, but the reality is different.

So many humans who experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control would be quite surprised to find out that their experiences are all false and that only those things as experienced by Christians are true. Is there any objective way to distinguish between the true love as a fruit of the spirit and the false love that seems to be so common among humans?

It seems like there is a whole lot of spirit distributed among the infidels and non-believers and withheld from God's faithful.

Seems that way doesn't it...but I would disagree.

And let me guess, the basis of your disagreement is ... spirit.

[twobitsmedia]

I said "God is" not belief about God. God is whether I believe or not.

Saying "God is" or even "Gravity is" is not really a statement of fact. It is a statement that you believe that the statement "God exists" or the statement "gravity exists" is true.

Well. I guess it is clear why you have never experieced God. You can pray to something that you believe might be based on you, or to the God that is. Prayer to a belief makes aboslutely NO sense. You may as well just pray to yourself. And you will get those results.

I agree with you that the existence of God or gravity is not dependent on your or my belief in it. On the other hand, if you assert that God exists, then there should be some objective evidence to support that assertion. "God is" because spirit (which itself cannot be objectively defined or measured) tells me so. "Gravity is" because every measure and test objectively done, regardless of the situation, confirms gravity.

Gravity desribes a theory which explains why things fall down. I could not provide evidence of gravity for you either. I could only tell you what it does....and you will accept it or not based primarily, on the source of the information. It would not be me, though, it would be the faith you have in the traditional science explanations you have probably heard since grade school. You would then assimilate the information I might give you an explanation and say OK, I beleive gravity exists. I myself do NOT believe gravity exists, but I do believe the word describes the phenomemon in which things fall to the ground.

I don't know spirit either.

That is without dispute.

I know that God does not exist because of heliochromatofixatives. You know that God exists because of spirit. Until either of us actually defines our terms in an objective way, we are at an impasse.

You can call it an impasse, but I will agree that your imagination stops you.

What is spirit? How does spirit convey factual information? How can you be sure about spirit?

God is spirit. Circular to you probably. But you have a void outside of your evidenced reality.

No, not circular to me. Just circular. Objectively verifiably circular. Anyone trained in elementary logic could discern this. Even substituting meaningless symbols, your claims are clearly circular.

Logic describes a way of thought that can also depends on input and experience. Logic, by itself, is NOT is the the foundation for reality. So, no I will stick to it being circular for you. God is quite logical to me but I am not void of information (input, etc)

And thats the way you see it. Gods love is NOT possible outside of Christianity (and I mean via the Christian God) Nor joy, or the other "fruits of the spriit" because they are fruits of the spirits. There may be attempts to duplicate, but the reality is different.

So many humans who experience love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control would be quite surprised to find out that their experiences are all false and that only those things as experienced by Christians are true.

I did not say that, I said Gods love, joy peace, etc. Diffrentiate: Gods Love and love void of God.

Is there any objective way to distinguish between the true love as a fruit of the spirit and the false love that seems to be so common among humans?

"false" love is your insertion. Not mine.

It seems like there is a whole lot of spirit distributed among the infidels and non-believers and withheld from God's faithful.

Seems that way doesn't it...but I would disagree.

And let me guess, the basis of your disagreement is ... spirit.

Without a long explanation, I guess that could summarize it.

[McCulloch]

I said "God is" not belief about God. God is whether I believe or not.

Saying "God is" or even "Gravity is" is not really a statement of fact. It is a statement that you believe that the statement "God exists" or the statement "gravity exists" is true.

Well. I guess it is clear why you have never experienced God. You can pray to something that you believe might be based on you, or to the God that is. Prayer to a belief makes absolutely NO sense. You may as well just pray to yourself. And you will get those results.

I think that I am beginning to get it. In order to be a Christian you must believe that God exists and that God's existence is so self evident that evidence, reason and logic cannot be used. To you God is not a belief, because that implies that there is some uncertainty. God is a fact, which cannot be argued or debated but just is. And it must be so, in order that your prayers be effective.

I agree with you that the existence of God or gravity is not dependent on your or my belief in it. On the other hand, if you assert that God exists, then there should be some objective evidence to support that assertion. "God is" because spirit (which itself cannot be objectively defined or measured) tells me so. "Gravity is" because every measure and test objectively done, regardless of the situation, confirms gravity.

Gravity describes a theory which explains why things fall down. I could not provide evidence of gravity for you either. I could only tell you what it does....and you will accept it or not based primarily, on the source of the information. It would not be me, though, it would be the faith you have in the traditional science explanations you have probably heard since grade school. You would then assimilate the information I might give you an explanation and say OK, I believe gravity exists. I myself do NOT believe gravity exists, but I do believe the word describes the phenomenon in which things fall to the ground.

Did you get past High School physics? Gravity is not a theory which explains why things fall down, although it does explain that on the surface of a planet, massive objects are attracted to the center of the planet. Gravity, in the classical sense, is the observation that all particles with mass are attracted to each other with a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances. Einstein had some adjustments to that, but they can be safely ignored for the most part.

I suppose that if you live in a metaphysical world of magic, you might say that God exists and gravity does not. But in the real world, gravity exists and can be confirmed to exist. God cannot be confirmed to exist.

I don't know spirit either.

That is without dispute.

I know that God does not exist because of heliochromatofixatives. You know that God exists because of spirit. Until either of us actually defines our terms in an objective way, we are at an impasse.

You can call it an impasse, but I will agree that your imagination stops you.

I have an imagination, it is not the lack of imagination which stops me. It is just that I don't take what I imagine to necessarily be real. That is called delusion. I don't know what spirit is, so trying to prove to me that God is real because of spirit is like trying to prove the existence of irrational numbers to someone who does not understand primes. Let's do this one step at a time. Show me what spirit is and prove to me that spirit exists. Then show me how spirit proves God.

God is spirit. Circular to you probably. But you have a void outside of your evidenced reality.

Logic describes a way of thought that can also depends on input and experience. Logic, by itself, is NOT is the the foundation for reality. So, no I will stick to it being circular for you. God is quite logical to me but I am not void of information (input, etc)

If you believe that logic is relative, by saying that it is logical to you but not to me, then you do not have a proper understanding of logic. Logic is a formal way of thinking about the truth value of statements and the relationship between the truth values of related statements. If something is logically true, it is logically true and can be shown to be logically true. I think what you are trying to convey is that even though your argument depends on circular logic, it seems right to you.

You stated that the fruits of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These attributes, while subjective are evident in the lives of Christians and non-Christians. So, I must conclude that you either think that the spirit is dispensing these fruit regardless of individuals' relationship with the spirit or that the love, peace etc experienced by non-Christians must be of a different (presumably lesser) sort than that experienced by the Christians.