Born Again Christian and Personal Relationships with Jesus

[Arch]

Personal relationship with God or Jesus, Born Again Christian, and True Christian™

I personally am getting tired of countless threads being detoured with these statements of superiority over the masses of people who were once Christians but now are not or to avoid debated about the actions of people that Christians wish not to claim as such because it is embarrassing to them and provides significant holes in their theory of a just and fair GOD.

I think it is time this is addressed.

First off many people have converted the original meaning of the word Christian to fit their own twisted agenda. In there hands a Christian is only someone just like them only guilty of the crimes they would commit and agrees with their own PERSONAL views. This I feel is an injustice.

I would like first to properly define a Christian secularly and biblically.

Secularly a Christian is one who believes in Christ.

This definition is met with so much distain by so called True Christian™ (got that from Burnee) who seek to proves themselves to be the truest believers in Christ. To there own dismay the bible directives aren’t far from that. This is why when So called True Christians™ make these types of statements they never use to bible to back their claims.

In the bible two direct mandates are given as to what makes one a Christian.

1. Jesus states that whoever believeth in his name the same shall be saved.

2. Another is you must confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior. (This is derived from the statement where Jesus says he who professes me before man I shall profess him before my father and he who denies me before man the same shall I deny before my father). Ironically, the first Pope and Co founder of Christianity, PETER, did just that deny Christ. So I guess Peter wasn’t a True Christian™

Now that we know what Webster’s and the bible says a Christian is let’s look at the next term Born Again Christian.

In the bible, Jesus says for one to enter heaven he must be born again. Now since Christians say they are going to heaven isn’t Born Again Christian redundant.

Answer me this is there such thing as a Not Born Again Christian?

People use this same term to try to debate what a Christian would and would not do to paraphrase:

A Born Again Christian will not rape someone This gives the image that if a Christian rapes someone it’s because they weren’t a Born Again Christian™ or a True Christian™

This is ridiculous because Jesus states that whoever believeth in his name the same shall be saved. Salvation of course means going to heaven your soul will not be cast into hell.

He then says that to go to heaven one must be born again. These two concept must be synomonous each other, unless Jesus himself is confused.

Note the logic:

If to go to heaven you must be born again

and Christians are going to heaven because Jesus says they will be saved

Christians must be born again.

So Born again Christian is redundant. All Christians are born again.

Lastly, is the last statement the person (a Christian of course) did not have a personal relationship with Christ. So he or she was not a True Christian™.

First I would like to ask how it is that a person can have a PERSONAL relationship with someone they have never spoken too and have that person speak back, never written to and have that person write back, never saw physically, never had a conversation with, never touched, and never met?

How is it that a person who is not from the house of Israel, can have a relationship with a man that said he only came but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

How is it that a gentile can have a personal realtionship with a person that said "Do Not Go Unto The Gentiles" to teach.

And even if we say that Jesus came for the whole world, how is this relationship personal? When this same exact simply esoteric and asomatous relationship is supposedly shared with millions of people?

The word Personal is defined as
Of or relating to a particular person; private

The relationship that Christians Claim to have with Jesus neither relates to them particularly nor is it private. This so called same love or relationship is shared with everyone in the world including those who don’t even believe in it. It is in fact public and impersonal.

Which is why, I would think he would be highly upsetting with people making themselves his spoken person on who is and who isn’t a True Christian.

Personally I think these statements are cop outs used to explain away the many destructive and harmful actions that Christians have done during recorded history. These many acts transcend just those who lead them, such as Hitler who was a professed catholic, but also consume and convict those who followed him as well. These millions of followers believed in the faith as well.

One says well Hitler wasn’t a True Christian, then what about his millions of followers. Were all of them not True Christians as well? What about the many cathlolic writing that professed destructive views against Jews at that time were all of those people not True Chsirtians™ as well?

What about the Crusaders were all of them not True Christians™ as well?

I would have to assume that going halfwayacross to the world to murder people because they don’t believe as you do wouldn’t be the act of a True Christian™.

Aren’t these terms just used to relieve the doctrine of faith of all of the negative events it has inspired?

Is it not a bible verse that says suffer not a witch to live, who is it left up to, to decide who and who isn’t a witch? God leaves this task to men this verse inspired the witch trials and hunts. This one small verse inspired the apathy in individuals that watched and allowed these trials to go on. The individual True Christians™ are just as guilty as those enacting these atrocities.

Was it not Martin Luther who said that vengeance should be taken on the Jews? Was it not the bible and Christianity that depicted the Jews as betrayers of Christ? And if Christ indeed is GOD the Jews betrayed GOD himself.

If one betrays GOD does this not make him EVIL? The Jews killed GOD. Imagine the implications of that for an uneducated believer, for millions of uneducated believers.

Was it not the bible that said that one of Noahs sons would be a servant of servants unto his brother. Was it not the bible that said that caanan was cursed and that no one should mix with his decendants. These same verses were used to explain slavery and the mistreatment of the Africans during the slave trade. It was taught that africans were the children of caanan, that they were the decendants of the son of Noah who was destined to be a servant to his brotheren and that they were cursed black.

It is in the same manner that Christians use terms such as all loving and all good to relieve God of the responsibility of the evil it created, that they use the terms True Christian™ and Born Again Christian™ to relieve Christianity or the responsibility it holds for many of the actrocities recorded in history.

Is there any Christian who would be so honest as to admit that these terms are being abused?

[trencacloscas]

But to say that he was a myth.....???
You have your place to disagree and everyone does, so you could say that anyone that is not alive in your time frame on this earth could be a myth. I mean there is no REAL way to know unless you KNOW it for yourself...right?

Well, there is no actual proof of his existence or his nature. We have a lot of evidence about other historic characters, but not him. You'll even find some debates on this subject going anywhere in the forum.

[KanIwalkAstraightLine]

trencacloscas, as i said; I am new here and I do not know everyone's history on this forum. I saw were you started another thread and I found out that you were a Christian. I find that interesting, as you can tell by my forum name I am still wondering about this "religion" thing. I see why people get angry about their religion....they put a lot of trust in the fact that they have chosen the "right" one. I personally am open minded and enjoy reading your post b/c it gives me a chance to see yet another side. I am not going to try and protect myself and get heated over a discussion. I respect your views and I mentioned that Jesus taught common sense....by that I meant, he taught about being good, and what i call common sense is relative b/c I do not have much so called common sense (lol) I have had to work for all the sense that I have so in my mind if I know it I figure most everyone else knew it a long time ago.
loving enemies, yes-common sense. I say that b/c I have been taught to "kill them with Kindness" if someone makes you angry...you try to stay calm and resolve the issue. I have just begun to really study the bible so to say that I am a "born again" or "true Christian" or whatever else, I would have to say that I am a work in progress and I am just wondering why you said what you said about the fig tree and fruit out of season?

I don't know if I am following this forum's edict, but I was wondering what you thought about when you were reading the bible and how that has changed your views on Christianity. I mean I know you do not agree with it, but I am trying to see your point of view, and how you have come to reject the bible, etc...?

[trencacloscas]

I am just wondering why you said what you said about the fig tree and fruit out of season?

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. (Mt. 21:19)

And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not [yet]. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard [it]. (Mk. 11:13-14)

loving enemies, yes-common sense.

There are many contradictions in Jesus behaviour and words about this point, anyway. But just take a look at this beautiful reflexion of Jim Walker as a sort of answer:

Curiously, Jesus does not give a command to love all people, only neighbor's and enemies, and above all, to love God (but not the other thousands of gods and goddesses). And although it might sound admirable to command one to love, the problems here stem from the fact that humans simply cannot turn on the emotion of love at will from a command. Love does not work like a light switch where one can simply turn it on at will. Love describes a complex emotion, a biological feeling, not a correct method of morality. Love can generate jealousy and greed just as easily as it can selfless acts. If, instead, the Biblical Jesus had requested us to respect, this would have stated something that might work. Respect does not require unreliable emotions but yet allows tolerance to flourish. Many times respecting others will in time lead to affection or even love. The character Jesus never even used the word respect and abstained from the concept of tolerance.

The command to love your enemy also does not fit with human nature. Just how can one will oneself to love an enemy of yours that threatens you or your family with death or destruction? Of course one can pretend to love or act as if one loves, but this cannot possibly serve as actual love. How many American Christians, priests or ministers have you known that claimed to love Osama bin Laden, Hitler, or Pol Pot? And those that do claim to love their enemies, do they do it with sincerity or do they simply act as if they do?

Some theologians try to escape this problem by claiming that Christian love doesn't mean the feeling of love but the will of love, but people can't turn on and off will any more than they can any emotion. Moreover, even the will has everything to do with mental faculty. You simply cannot separate any form of love (however you want to define it) from brain chemistry.

As for love of God, the Bible's description of its jealous God and his vengeful actions which include the slaughter of men, women, children, and animals, hardly inspires one to love him. If you can't understand this, try to imagine your father treating you like a dog, offering you love or reward only if you obey his commands and demanding that you ritually flatter him every day, killing your friends, and sometimes ordering you to kill, and all the while threatening you with everlasting fire if you speak ill of him. Do you really think such a father deserves respect? Do you actually think that this would make you love him, even if your father held ultimate power over the universe? Even if such a god existed, it would not inspire love. Rather, it would trigger fear and loathing and I would do everything I could to stay away from such a monster. Moreover, given that many Christians believe that no one can know or understand the mysteries of God, how can an unknown entity inspire the human emotion of love? And given that virtually anything can fit into that unknown (including devils, falsehoods, and deceivers), what moral advantage can love of an unknown possibly give to its believers?

I say that b/c I have been taught to "kill them with Kindness" if someone makes you angry...you try to stay calm and resolve the issue.

No doubt this attitude is a civilized one and useful in many occasions, but not a moral system or a social strategy in itself. Problem also is that the Jesus portrayed in the NT doesn't behave as a model to this attitude. He is arrogant, insulting, cocky, even unstable many times.

[trencacloscas]

I was wondering what you thought about when you were reading the bible and how that has changed your views on Christianity. I mean I know you do not agree with it, but I am trying to see your point of view, and how you have come to reject the bible, etc...?

It was a long process that should require a long answer. I'll try to keep it short. I was raised as a Catholic and during most of my life never questioned the Bible and the way that priests explained it. I think my first problem was Jesus himself. I never saw His character, merits or preach remarkable in any sense. I lied to myself for many years, but finally I broke the pressure of education and environment and only recently "came out of the closet" to express my particular opinion on the subject.


Another breaking point was History. If a religion doesn't make men any good, any spiritual purpose attained to it is worthless. And the atrocities made in the name of the Christian God just made my stomach revolt. Twenty centuries of the most unbelievable acts and intrigues, Crusades, Inquisition, Persecution of heretics, freethinkers, Jews, pagans, destruction of culture, denial of science, damnation of sex, joy and everything valuable in life, a whole civilization drowned in piety and guilt. The absolute horror. And all for what? An unremarkable carpenter from Judea? But... wait a minute. Perhaps he never existed anyway! It was all just myth an invention? Paulus, Constantine, Nicaea... The answer to myself is still... "probably so".


Then, the reading of the Bible in itself, without the veil of deceit that religious put over it, was a great stimuli for abandoning any faith, for it is a boring, disgraceful book, full of irrational anger, inmorality and superstition, with a hateful main character such as the evil Yahveh, a malign thug as Mark Twain would say. Maybe the NT was better? Not indeed. It bears the most cruel idea invented by the mind of man: eternal torment and pain, wailing and gnashing of teeth forever. Yep, I'd recommend a non-prejudiced direct reading of the Bible to prevent any religious inclination.


Then, reasons just became a list. Reasons for abandoning faith? Rather try to find "reasons to have any faith" at all!

[Arch]

Arch,

Now about that Crusader denigration. Does the same thing apply to the Muslim's that started the whole thing in the first place? Or just to the people trying to take back what was taken by murder and by force, by the Muslims. Is Darwinism coming into play or just hypocrisy? You did learn that Muslim's STARTED the reasons for the Crusades. No? Yes?

No one ever talks about the fact that Christians were doing nothing to Muslims before Jerusalem was taken by force away from the Christians living there. Even before the peaceful prophet Muhammad was born. But then aghain that would probably force the additional examples of Mecca's demise or Medina and nameless other innocent cities in Arabia that fell to the religion of peace.

Please Jerusalem did not and doesn't belong to european Christians or the the Christian population. You just can't claim a land or city because of a event you feel happened there is signficant to your religion

[MagusYanam]

Common sense? I don't see common sense in loving enemies, especially if it is an order. I don't see common sense in despising your family to follow a crazy charlatan. I don't see common sense in cursing a fig tree that doesn't give fruit out of season. I don't see common sense in threatening people with eternal pain for not believing the same things. And, above all, if common sense is real common, it doesn't need to be taught.

I didn't say Jesus' teachings were common sense. In fact, in many ways they are counterintuitive. What I did say was that, thanks to about 2000 years of Christian existence and 1400 years of Christian hegemony (from about 400 to about 1800), Christian morality has become commonplace. There is a difference - commonplace just means established, which Christianity has been in the West since the 390's (as I think we can all agree). Common sense means that the logical validity of the teachings is obvious.

On the other hand, some of the accusations here are not exactly well-placed. Loving enemies doesn't mean you agree with or condone what they do - to use your example, it doesn't mean letting Usama bin Laden go free. Hopefully, through extension of goodwill he can be captured and rectified. And most references to eternal punishment are mistranslations and misinterpretations from the Greek. The actual term for Hell [Gk. Gehenna] is gai-Hinnom, which refers to a place outside Jerusalem where garbage is burned. Most Jewish scholars when using gai-Hinnom in the same sense that Jesus used it mean a place of repentance and purification of souls. Sins are burned away in the fire for twelve months before the soul can rest.

Also, the cursing of the fig tree is likely symbolic. The fig tree was often used as a metaphor for the nation of Israel, as in Jeremiah 8:13 and Micah 7:1. So when Jesus is cursing the fig tree, it is not because the fig tree had no fruit out of season and likely not because of the fig tree itself, but rather to indicate his dislike of the policies of the temple and the religious leaders of Israel, whom he saw as being barren perhaps of spiritual fruit.

I don't see common sense in despising your family to follow a crazy charlatan.

Heh heh. If he had been raised in China's Warring States Period, Jesus would have made a lousy Confucian but a great Mohist.

If a religion doesn't make men any good, any spiritual purpose attained to it is worthless. And the atrocities made in the name of the Christian God just made my stomach revolt. Twenty centuries of the most unbelievable acts and intrigues, Crusades, Inquisition, Persecution of heretics, freethinkers, Jews, pagans, destruction of culture, denial of science, damnation of sex, joy and everything valuable in life, a whole civilization drowned in piety and guilt.

Religion is a double-edged sword. Actually, even that cliché is not well-placed, because religion can be used for good or evil. To say, for example, that religion is a loaded gun is appropriate for people like Usama bin Laden and Jerry Falwell, but when applied to Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., to quote historian Charles Kimball, 'the analogy is obscene'.

Yes, there have been intrigue, murder, war and atrocities all attributable to Christianity in its history - I will be the last to deny it. But to take account of these and these alone is only half the picture. In addition to Reverend King and Mother Teresa, we have to our history St. Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Menno Simon, F. D. Maurice, Abraham Lincoln, Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch et cetera, all of whom made their names seeking peace, justice and enlightenment through their personal understanding of religion.

Then, the reading of the Bible in itself, without the veil of deceit that religious put over it, was a great stimuli for abandoning any faith, for it is a boring, disgraceful book, full of irrational anger, inmorality and superstition, with a hateful main character such as the evil Yahveh, a malign thug as Mark Twain would say. Maybe the NT was better? Not indeed. It bears the most cruel idea invented by the mind of man: eternal torment and pain, wailing and gnashing of teeth forever. Yep, I'd recommend a non-prejudiced direct reading of the Bible to prevent any religious inclination.

I wonder... the Bible (that of it I have read) was far from a boring read. I remember back when I was taking my OT lit class in high school, we would have very enlightening discussions on the sexual-innuendo drenched Samuel, Kings and Wisdom literature. You just have to read it from an appreciative standpoint.

Anger, immorality, superstition... yeah, it was all there. But, come on, what good novel doesn't have some kind of dramatic tension, some kind of conflict amongst the characters? (And conflict there certainly was, heh.) Purely from a literary standpoint, the Old Testament is definitely an interesting anthology.

As to God himself, his personality in the OT is far from straightforward, and definitely nowhere near as simple and petty as you make him sound. At times he is a kind companion, at other times a raging, wrathful deity and at yet other times a sad, grieving spirit. Some of what was attributed to God was probably holdover from the Chaldean days - you have to remember that throughout much of the OT the Hebrews were still struggling with their spiritual heritage of polytheism. It wasn't as though they decided overnight that 'well, we're just going to boil it down to one God and this is what he's like'. See, the Bible - like any good history or novel - doesn't simply depend on just the internal to support itself. One needs to understand it in context.

I must be sounding like a confounded Ritschlian again, so I'll just sign off before I go off touting the merits of the reign of Queen Victoria.

[LillSnopp]

I didn't say Jesus' teachings were common sense. In fact, in many ways they are counterintuitive. What I did say was that, thanks to about 2000 years of Christian existence and 1400 years of Christian hegemony (from about 400 to about 1800), Christian morality has become commonplace. There is a difference - commonplace just means established, which Christianity has been in the West since the 390's (as I think we can all agree). Common sense means that the logical validity of the teachings is obvious.

Perhaps this is out of place, but i dont really agree with this. OR, perhaps i dont understand what you mean.

90% of the "Christian" morality (i presume you mean societal structures), are needed for survival for the societies. Hence, it always been there in one way or another. You shall not kill is not a Christian made command, it is a necessary command for a civilized society to exist. Christians on the other hand, seem to believe their God gave us this morality (or should follow it), yet, we need it, else our society would not exist.

Pardon the interruption.

[MagusYanam]

No, you're right, LillSnopp - perhaps 'Christian morality' wasn't the best of my word choices. I meant merely to convey that the Christian worldview pervaded through the undeniable positions of privilege enjoyed by the Roman Catholic (and later Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican) churches in the West. Jesus' teachings (the Gospels especially) have become a part of our culture - so much so that they are instantly recognisable and are considered commonplace (though not necessarily commonsense).

I agree that much of Old Testament law (you cited the Commandments - 'thou shalt not kill') was necessary for maintaining societal order in the early Hebrew nation, which was emerging from the tribal stage of its existence into a real civilisation. I presume this is that to which you refer? At the risk of sounding like some cynical Niebuhrian, I haven't really heard of any successful organised state adopting a Christian (i.e. Gospel-based, non-retributive) set of laws as such. It's one of the reasons why Mohism never really caught on in feudal China: it's just not practical.

[AlAyeti]

"I must have hit ti on the nail trencacloscas becaue not one True Christian has responded. I believe they have viewed it because it has many views but non have stepped up to the plate to answer it."

///

First thanks for validating that there are "True Christians."

Go to the source for the answer on this. Jesus in one of His many un-lovey-dovey sermons, uses the parable of seeds landing on good and bad places and taking root in the condition. No one with unless they are truly witlees can't understand that message.

In fact what parable of jesus can't answer most of the questions people ask to belittle Christians like the one that started this topic?

Why is it improper to say that a person who does this or that is not a "true" follower? Only Jesus sets the agenda and the paradigm.

"Born-Again Christian" is the only way one can "be a Christian." Just because it makes a modern-day person woozie to think in absolutes, it makes little difference to the factual subject matter. Can a person not believe in the resurrection and be a Christian? Absolutely no way. Can a person be Christian

"Examine yourselves." "Test all things." "Study to show yourself approved." and last but no where near least . . . "Confess your sins!"

Ahhh, now that is the root of the quest for the convoluted debate of this topic. "I ain't gunna repent for nothin'" "Where is this God to tell me what I can and can't do?"

It is time to put away childish things and stop the denial of the human condition. Like a five-year old that thinks as long as he can pout and tantrum that the stolen cookies will magically appear in the jar.

"Cognitive dissonance" had its origin in Jesus.

[Arch]

"I must have hit ti on the nail trencacloscas becaue not one True Christian has responded. I believe they have viewed it because it has many views but non have stepped up to the plate to answer it."

///

First thanks for validating that there are "True Christians."

lol that was actually sarcasm...lol Funny you thought it was validation. How can a non believer validate a believer? hummmmm

"Born-Again Christian" is the only way one can "be a Christian." Can a person not believe in the resurrection and be a Christian? Absolutely no way. Can a person be Christian

It would be better if when disagreeing you didn't used exactly the same things I said in my post.

I said exactly that there is no need to say born again christian like its some seperate category according to NT doctrine one must be born again to be a Christian. That would be like one JEW (decendant of judah) saying to another Jew(decendant of judah) "I am the true Jew"... thats madeness either you are a Jew or you are not. Either you are a christian or you are not.

If you meet the criteria given in the NT and also given in my initial post then you are a Christian Period. True Christian and Born Again Christian are empty terms.

"Examine yourselves." "Test all things." "Study to show yourself approved." and last but no where near least . . . "Confess your sins!"

Ahhh, now that is the root of the quest for the convoluted debate of this topic. "I ain't gunna repent for nothin'" "Where is this God to tell me what I can and can't do?"

If you need a book and a GOD to tell you to be good to your neighbors and not to steal or covet your neighbors property, then it is you that has a problem not me

I do that all on my own. I probably keep way more of the laws of the bible then most christians you know