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?

[OnceConvinced]

It is not a matter of "trying out" Christianity. It's a matter of looking at it from a particular perspective. In discussion it is an important skill to have if you wish to debate effectively. YOu will find many people on this site have that skill, including Christians who attempt to look at things from a hypothetical non-Christian perspective.

Yeah, but can the truth of Christianity be discovered in a debate format? I feel the instrument of debating is inherently flawed in reaching a conclusion. It is filled with circular points and counter points, retreaded arguments, canned responses and hypotheticals which eventually reach a point of irrelevancy.

With that said, this site is very fun. It is a good way to see the perspective of others. Defending the bible is also a good exercise... The flood really happened. ha ha.

Yeah, it does seem futile some times, doesn't it? And yeah, it is fun.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yeah, but can the truth of Christianity be discovered in a debate format?

The “truth of Christianity”? That assumes there IS truth in Christianity (which has not been established in debate). In debate such assumptions are challenged and the maker of the statement is expected to substantiate the claim. Substantiation of repeated claims of “truth” is missing when all that is presented is opinion and hearsay – no evidence of truth. Biblical quotes are not evidence to those who do not accept the bible as truth (“the bible is true because it says it is true” is circular reasoning that does not hold up well in debate).

It is my opinion that a great deal can be learned about religion in the debate format. Ideas can be presented and evaluated by readers (many of whom do not post to indicate their response). Those who present religious ideas may be disinclined to learn anything about Christianity because they often feel as though they already know the subject well. They often appear to overlook the possibility that others who are NOT committed to believing ARE learning.

The debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending the claims of religion because, by definition, a debate site encourages challenge and question. Supernaturalism does not stand up well to challenge and question. Perhaps some feel as though their “beliefs are strengthened” (and that may be true); however, readers who evaluate what is said pro and con regarding invisible super beings and “miracles” are the real learners in this venue.

Fundamental, fanatical, literal, rigid belief and worship practices do not, in my opinion, fare well when challenged. Such belief systems are based upon “believe on faith alone” and are not tolerant of dissent or question. Thus, such belief systems are at a disadvantage in debate. They SHOULD be at a disadvantage in debate because they CANNOT substantiate their claims.

A clear example of this:

Defending the bible is also a good exercise... The flood really happened. ha ha.

When challenged to show evidence that “the flood really happened” the maker of this type of statement typically quotes from a single source and cites unsubstantiated theories – but cannot provide any real evidence that they speak truth. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in these debates, including two Head to Head debates regarding the biblical story about a worldwide flood in which religious claims were NOT substantiated.

Religion is at a strong disadvantage in debate because debate is based upon reasoning and substantiation with evidence . . . whereas religion is based upon emotion and faith.

Perhaps the present maker of the “flood claim” feels qualified to support the claim with reasoning and evidence in a separate thread????? Can the “truth” of the flood claim be made apparent to readers who do not already accept the bible as truth?

[twobitsmedia]

.

Yeah, but can the truth of Christianity be discovered in a debate format?

The “truth of Christianity”? That assumes there IS truth in Christianity (which has not been established in debate).

There is a "truth of" about most everything. Even a lie. One can lie and another can say what the lie was. If the one reporting reports the proper information than he has reported the truth about the lie. AB is identifying a truth about Christianity. Whether you believe Christianity is legitimate is another issue.

In debate such assumptions are challenged and the maker of the statement is expected to substantiate the claim. Substantiation of repeated claims of “truth” is missing when all that is presented is opinion and hearsay – no evidence of truth. Biblical quotes are not evidence to those who do not accept the bible as truth (“the bible is true because it says it is true” is circular reasoning that does not hold up well in debate).

The problem with this statement is that you have not defined "truth."

It is my opinion that a great deal can be learned about religion in the debate format. Ideas can be presented and evaluated by readers (many of whom do not post to indicate their response). Those who present religious ideas may be disinclined to learn anything about Christianity because they often feel as though they already know the subject well. They often appear to overlook the possibility that others who are NOT committed to believing ARE learning.

Since this is just your opinion, than my opinion is that your opinion is incorrect.

The debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending the claims of religion because, by definition, a debate site encourages challenge and question.

You ought to let the creator of this forum know that.

Supernaturalism does not stand up well to challenge and question.

It does stand up fine to intelligent questions about the supernatural. I see very few questions that address anything to do with the supernatural.

Fundamental, fanatical, literal, rigid belief and worship practices do not, in my opinion, fare well when challenged. Such belief systems are based upon “believe on faith alone” and are not tolerant of dissent or question. Thus, such belief systems are at a disadvantage in debate. They SHOULD be at a disadvantage in debate because they CANNOT substantiate their claims.

Again, since that is your opinion, my opinion is that is is incorrect.

Religion is at a strong disadvantage in debate because debate is based upon reasoning and substantiation with evidence . . . whereas religion is based upon emotion and faith.

Since that was not an opinion and you stated it as fact.: Kindly provide evdience that religion is based upon emotion and faith. One who makes such a claim is required to substantiate his claim.

Can the “truth” of the flood claim be made apparent to readers who do not already accept the bible as truth?

Not without acceptance of the miracluous or the abilities of God, so, no, probably not likely.

[Zzyzx]

.

The debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending the claims of religion because, by definition, a debate site encourages challenge and question.

You ought to let the creator of this forum know that.

Thank you again for the personal attention -- an indication that you feel threatened by what I write (which others can recognize).

I have debated the originator of the forum, Otseng, in Head to Head regarding the flood and have demonstrated that the challenges and questions in this debate format make it less than idea for presenting or defending religious claims. He is not unaware of my position in this matter.

I have also asked Admin to recruit capable theist debaters to achieve a more balanced debate forum.

I observe that as theists learn debating skills and learn about science they often cease being fundamentalists, fanatics and literalists and become liberals or non-religionists. This appears to apply particularly strongly to those who study science (my area of formal study). I noted that those who were fundamentalists as beginning students EITHER became liberal OR went away from science – and that very few appeared to or claimed to maintain fundamental or fanatical beliefs.

Would you care to attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong in my opinion that the debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending claims of religion? I have challenged you several times to debate in Head to Head that ANY of the Christian “miracle claims” actually occurred. You seem to realize that you cannot do so (which is correct, in my opinion).

I am willing to show you and readers that I am not wrong in my analysis / opinion that defending religion is difficult in debate format. Are you willing to attempt to prove me wrong?

Supernaturalism does not stand up well to challenge and question.

It does stand up fine to intelligent questions about the supernatural. I see very few questions that address anything to do with the supernatural.

Kindly back up your claim that “it does stand up fine to intelligent questions about the supernatural” by answering simple questions about the supernatural.

1. Was the flood described in genesis a supernatural event?
2. What evidence can be presented to show that it was supernatural?
3. What evidence can be presented to show that it happened upon this Earth as claimed?
4. What evidence can be presented to show that if supernatural, WHICH supernatural being (or claimed deity) was responsible?

Religion is at a strong disadvantage in debate because debate is based upon reasoning and substantiation with evidence . . . whereas religion is based upon emotion and faith.

Since that was not an opinion and you stated it as fact.: Kindly provide evdience that religion is based upon emotion and faith. One who makes such a claim is required to substantiate his claim.

Add to my statement, “In my opinion”. A statement that “What I say is opinion” is included in my signature as notice to all that I realize that what I write is my opinion – perhaps some do not comprehend.

Can the “truth” of the flood claim be made apparent to readers who do not already accept the bible as truth?

Not without acceptance of the miracluous or the abilities of God, so, no, probably not likely.

I agree. One must believe in supernaturalism before they are likely to believe the flood myth (in my opinion).

If there was evidence to support claims of a worldwide flood it would be reasonable to expect that non-believers as well as believers would acknowledge that such a flood occurred.

I, for one, would readily accept that a worldwide flood occurred IF there was evidence that such a thing happened. However, when all that is offered consists of opinions, hearsay, legends and quotations I do not accept. It would be VERY simple to convince me that the flood occurred – simply present evidence that the story is true.

When I am told to “believe on faith” that a flood happened because it is described in a “holy” book and is said to be the work of a “god”, I do not accept the claims. I was discerning enough to reject that sort of “evidence” as a child – when most were still believing in Santa Claus and other imaginary beings.

[twobitsmedia]

.

The debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending the claims of religion because, by definition, a debate site encourages challenge and question.

You ought to let the creator of this forum know that.

Thank you again for the personal attention -- an indication that you feel threatened by what I write (which others can recognize).

Please substantiate your claim that I feel threatened by what you write. How do you know what I feel? Do you have some sort of ESP? Are you a mind reader?
Pleaase clarify how you might think you are able to interpret my feelings?

I have also asked Admin to recruit capable theist debaters to achieve a more balanced debate forum.

That ought to be interesting.

I observe that as theists learn debating skills and learn about science they often cease being fundamentalists, fanatics and literalists and become liberals or non-religionists.

Who cares about debating science? I thought the forum was debating Christianity and religion...

Would you care to attempt to demonstrate that I am wrong in my opinion that the debate format is not ideal for presenting or defending claims of religion? I have challenged you several times to debate in Head to Head that ANY of the Christian “miracle claims” actually occurred. You seem to realize that you cannot do so (which is correct, in my opinion).

It would be illogical do even attempt to demonstrate the "wrongness" of an opinion, Just as illogical as it is to ask. An "opinion" is not required to have any particular base. Thats why it called "opnion."

From wiki: An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact.

I am willing to show you and readers that I am not wrong in my analysis / opinion that defending religion is difficult in debate format. Are you willing to attempt to prove me wrong?

Your opinion is your thing. Why would I want to make YOU the subject anyway? I was just informed earlier that even though you make yourself the subject I am not allowed to debate you as the subject.

Supernaturalism does not stand up well to challenge and question.

It does stand up fine to intelligent questions about the supernatural. I see very few questions that address anything to do with the supernatural.

Kindly back up your claim that “it does stand up fine to intelligent questions about the supernatural” by answering simple questions about the supernatural.

Oh sure...this test again

1. Was the flood described in genesis a supernatural event?

Yes

2. What evidence can be presented to show that it was supernatural?

What evidence do you think there should be of supernatural?

3. What evidence can be presented to show that it happened upon this Earth as claimed?

What evidence does a miracle leave behind?

4. What evidence can be presented to show that if supernatural, WHICH supernatural being (or claimed deity) was responsible?

The question is absurd. The reference is to the biblical God. If you are not aware of that, even though you mentioned "Genesis," then you are talking in circle around yourself.

Religion is at a strong disadvantage in debate because debate is based upon reasoning and substantiation with evidence . . . whereas religion is based upon emotion and faith.

Since that was not an opinion and you stated it as fact.: Kindly provide evdience that religion is based upon emotion and faith. One who makes such a claim is required to substantiate his claim.

Add to my statement, “In my opinion”. A statement that “What I say is opinion” is included in my signature as notice to all that I realize that what I write is my opinion – perhaps some do not comprehend.

Oh, of course...ask for evidence, then suddenly it is just your opinion!!! . What an interesting game you play .... Now is this another one of those opinions that you are not wrong about in you analysis as you mentioned above, or is this a different kind of opinion??

When I am told to “believe on faith” that a flood happened because it is described in a “holy” book and is said to be the work of a “god”, I do not accept the claims. I was discerning enough to reject that sort of “evidence” as a child – when most were still believing in Santa Claus and other imaginary beings.

If someone says to you to believe on faith in the Biblical flood, or anything else to do with the book,. it would be illogical.

[Cathar1950]

On Twobits' next to the last post:
Even the miraculous ability of God or gods should if breaking through the natural should leave a trail otherwise what do we mean by fact or truth?
Happened implies a reality beyond the supernatural realm.
Your opinion on another opinion is less one opinion, yours as you have failed to explain “truth”.
The supernatural doesn’t stand up because it is by definition without a leg to stand on.
By nature you have nothing to base your opinion on.

[twobitsmedia]

Even the miraculous ability of God or gods should if breaking through the natural should leave a trail otherwise what do we mean by fact or truth?

Yes and??

Happened implies a reality beyond the supernatural realm.

Only if you think nothing happens in the supernatural

Your opinion on another opinion is less one opinion, yours as you have failed to explain “truth”.

Then, by your criteria, your opinion on another opinion on another opinion is less because you also failed to explain truth.

The supernatural doesn’t stand up because it is by definition without a leg to stand on.

You probably need to read the definition sometime.

By nature you have nothing to base your opinion on.

You are so close yet so far.

[byhisgrace]

Someone remember the Parable of the Wedding Feast? It is in Matthew 22:1 - 14.? I just recently read it again. I never understood why on earth the person that did not wear a wedding gown got cast out of the wedding feast. I did not understand how God could be so cruel. Last time I read it dawned on me. This is how a lot of our churches are today (they don't have a wedding gown). Unfortunately, the ratio from the ones who wear wedding clothes to the one that don't wear wedding clothes, has dramatically changed into the opposite direction in our churches. I read somewhere that "God did not keep His promise to a church" What was the promise? And - How do you know He did not keep it? What makes you so sure that maybe the people in the church did not keep their promise to God? We cannot look in people's heart! Only God can.
Go ahead: read Matthew 22:1 - 14! I give you a hint, it has nothing to do with clothes!! <grin>
I read a couple of links here in the forum that were placed by onceconvinced, and actually read some other stories about people drifting away from Christ.
-
There was something that stuck out to me. How everyone was so involved and busy in the church activities. I read about one lady who was such a people pleaser that I got the distinct impression that she suppressed her own growth and childhood experiences. We do this a lot. However, by doing this, we put ourselves in chains, instead of letting go of the chains through Christ, we chain ourselves with guilt, pastor pleasing, parents pleasing, self pleasing, perfectionism, etc. The Bible teaches that we should primarily go out and spread the Gospel in our family, in our neighborhoods, in our state, in the world. We must understand - again - again: that Christianity teaches ( the bible teaches) that we CANNOT work or busy ourselves into heaven. If we are willing, we are saved (Born Again) BY GRACE and BY GRACE ALONE ! Ephes. 2:8.
-
Being a Christian has absolutely NOTHING to do as to where we came from or what we have done !!! But God looks at the heart. The Bible teaches that the thief who was crucified next to Jesus was going to paradise that same day. He had no time to play "miss/mister goody toe shoes." -- Again, we are NOT a Christian because our parents were Christians. We are not Christians because we have been in church all our lives. We are not a Christian because we have been very active in church.. We are NOT going to heaven because we are going to church!
-
The bible teaches we go to heaven because we recognize Jesus Christ who He really is, and, therefore, recognize our sins and repent! We are broken before God's Son who died for us and took our sins on Him!! This is where most stumble (the brokenness) because this means we must lay down our pride before The Cross, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit enables us to do for God what we could not do otherwise. God hates pride! (Read 1 John 2:16, and Proverbs 8:13: The fear of the Lord is to hate evil, pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth I hate.)
-
It is NOT about churches, preachers, popes, nor us. It is about God The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit - all in ONE.... The I AM, the Creator ..... as a Born Again Christian, anyway.

Well, this is really all I have on this one. Folks (for the Christians), don't drift!! Stay on the path, read the bible, pray, persevere to the end. God will come through, maybe not at a time when 'we' think He ought to, but He will come through for His people. remember He is God, He does not think and reason the way we do - His thoughts are higher than ours - Remember: HE has got the BIG PICTURE !!

[OnceConvinced]

Being a Christian has absolutely NOTHING to do as to where we came from or what we have done !!! But God looks at the heart. The Bible teaches that the thief who was crucified next to Jesus was going to paradise that same day. He had no time to play "miss/mister goody toe shoes." -- Again, we are NOT a Christian because our parents were Christians. We are not Christians because we have been in church all our lives. We are not a Christian because we have been very active in church.. We are NOT going to heaven because we are going to church!

I agree. But going to church and being active are actions that should come from being born again though, don't you agree? If there are no actions, then as James says your faith is worthless.

The bible teaches we go to heaven because we recognize Jesus Christ who He really is, and, therefore, recognize our sins and repent!

I think every Christian would agree with your last statement here, but then they would not be pointing out a lot of the "fine print" in the bible. Lots of little rules to follow that if you don't follow them, you're stuffed.

Also many would say that once you've reached the point of being born again, there will be a natural drive and desire to serve the lord. If there isn't then as James says, your faith is useless - belief alone is not good enough - you see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. A Christian who becomes born again and sits on the pew doing nothing is exhibiting a dead faith. That's the way I always looked at it. Works are evidence of faith.