BS, AJ. We're evolving into taller people, for one thing, reaching much older ages, etc.
"Ye must be born again" yea, or nay?
- Thread starter look3467
- Start date
BS, AJ. We're evolving into taller people, for one thing, reaching much older ages, etc.
And smarter too!
Peace>>>AJ
There is more fact in science then religion. Religion is based in faith. You have to believe without any proof. Evolution doesn't take anything away from spiritualism. Fundamentalists would have you believe so, but what has fundamentalism done other then burn witches and flown planes into buildings?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
I think for some, not all, being born again is a way to start again. You've made mistakes that you wish were erased, or you have regrets. Boom! Born again. Clean slate. And if it helps people in there lives then where is the harm?
You are correct in your description of faith Gonzo, but what you described as fundamentalism in nothing but the wrath that is found in the human flesh. For truely if the love of God were in them, they would have never burned them.
Man kill man, not guns or God.
Peace>>>AJ
Fundamentalism, to me, is taking a religion to an extreme that is dangerous. They pick apart a religion, and then interpret in there own way to serve their needs. That’s fundamentalism to me. There are believers, then there’s the extreme.
I come from a fundamentalist background and I can tell you that they are sincere in their thoughts, because they know no other view.
Since I have studied more on my own and ventured out of that arena, I have learned allot about what the real truth is.
As life progressed, I had questions that could not be answered by my Baptist background sources because they were all of the same view.
I found my answers outside the general belief and now I see things through different eyes.
I still hold that all of life's questions are found to have answers in the bible.
The learning of them are through trails, and seeking for them.
God never turns away any soul.
Peace>>>AJ
Look3467
“One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”
You know, you’re as free as anyone else to play at semantics regarding the concept of “born again” or “re-birth”, why not; it’s an idea…nothing more….
I will take umbrage with what I regard as a fundamental misrepresentation of fact however.
One’s “spirit” doesn’t control all bodily functions…far from it. It isn’t a spiritual epiphany that causes babies to fill their diapers with that incredible green stuff….it isn’t the spirit that motivates a child to cry…it’s discomfort and early angst in a hostile busy world as yet unknowable to the child and has much more to do with developing homeostasis and signalling hunger, nothing whatever to do with the “spirit”.
If you’re going to manage the way people think…and that’s of course what your beliefs are all about….if you provide a balanced perspective regarding what your belief system characterizes as the separateness of the spirit and the body….I wouldn’t have any difficulty entertaining your contributions, but you’re misrepresenting the human condition.
I’ve attempted to jot down an idea or two for contribution to this thread, but it all seems so pointless so I don’t bother.
I will tell you though that I’m getting more than a little tired at the arrogance of your delivery and the unspoken caveat that everyone owes you something more than a civil response, couched in terms that invite an assumption that your perspective/presentation is just fine with everyone and you have the “blessing” of all participants to support you!
For me personally that’s not the case and although I appreciate that this is an area of Canadian Content dedicated to the expression of these kinds of ideas, has it ever occurred to you that some folk may take offence at the “I know everything there is to know about god, spirituality, the after-life etc. etc. etc….
As an atheist I find your presentation disrespectful, prejudiced and denigrating to people like me who choose to think for myself.
Perhaps the intent here at Canadian Content is to provide the believer with a pulpit or a soapbox, I don’t know and don’t really care, but I’d be willing to bet that if I took a more aggressive stance and attacked your belief-system with the same energy you seem to feel is required to bludgeon other folk into thinking the way you think, after your persecution complex reached its peak level of outrage you’d undoubtedly cry unfair and “personal-attack”….
The quick and dirty response might be… “Well no one’s got a gun to your head Mikey and if you don’t like the thread…then don’t read the contributions…!”
I don’t believe that a Jew has the right to not be offended by a Christmas tree in an airport or a courthouse and I don’t believe that a Moslem has the right to inflict pain and suffering on people because they’re offended by some idiot cartoons….
Similarly I don’t have a “right” not to be offended by a believer pontificating at great length about concepts constructs and morality, the foundations of which are founded in faith not fact.
Just understand that the fervent evangelical proselytism that you and some others promulgate here is offensive and disrespectful to me and perhaps to others. You think it’s your duty or responsibility to manifest your beliefs and convert the woefully ignorant around you to the particular path of enlightenment you champion.
And like most fanatic breast-beating and wailing there’s rarely if ever any consideration that your rhetoric might be in many respects counter- productive and fundamentally insulting.
It may be just a question of style but my impression is that you’re talking “down” to recalcitrant children….
Your beliefs and convictions are your own and in the party of your peers this attitude of “better than”…because you’re a Christian or a “believer” might be acceptable but in the broader world where millions don’t buy this song and dance, your efforts come across in a way that’s very similar to the arrogance and fanaticism of believers of different faiths upon whom the good Christian is more than prepared to heap scorn and ridicule…
It’s not really important in the greater scheme of things I understand but you might consider that you’re not impressing many and in fact you may very well be defeating your own purpose….
“One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”
You know, you’re as free as anyone else to play at semantics regarding the concept of “born again” or “re-birth”, why not; it’s an idea…nothing more….
I will take umbrage with what I regard as a fundamental misrepresentation of fact however.
One’s “spirit” doesn’t control all bodily functions…far from it. It isn’t a spiritual epiphany that causes babies to fill their diapers with that incredible green stuff….it isn’t the spirit that motivates a child to cry…it’s discomfort and early angst in a hostile busy world as yet unknowable to the child and has much more to do with developing homeostasis and signalling hunger, nothing whatever to do with the “spirit”.
If you’re going to manage the way people think…and that’s of course what your beliefs are all about….if you provide a balanced perspective regarding what your belief system characterizes as the separateness of the spirit and the body….I wouldn’t have any difficulty entertaining your contributions, but you’re misrepresenting the human condition.
I’ve attempted to jot down an idea or two for contribution to this thread, but it all seems so pointless so I don’t bother.
I will tell you though that I’m getting more than a little tired at the arrogance of your delivery and the unspoken caveat that everyone owes you something more than a civil response, couched in terms that invite an assumption that your perspective/presentation is just fine with everyone and you have the “blessing” of all participants to support you!
For me personally that’s not the case and although I appreciate that this is an area of Canadian Content dedicated to the expression of these kinds of ideas, has it ever occurred to you that some folk may take offence at the “I know everything there is to know about god, spirituality, the after-life etc. etc. etc….
As an atheist I find your presentation disrespectful, prejudiced and denigrating to people like me who choose to think for myself.
Perhaps the intent here at Canadian Content is to provide the believer with a pulpit or a soapbox, I don’t know and don’t really care, but I’d be willing to bet that if I took a more aggressive stance and attacked your belief-system with the same energy you seem to feel is required to bludgeon other folk into thinking the way you think, after your persecution complex reached its peak level of outrage you’d undoubtedly cry unfair and “personal-attack”….
The quick and dirty response might be… “Well no one’s got a gun to your head Mikey and if you don’t like the thread…then don’t read the contributions…!”
I don’t believe that a Jew has the right to not be offended by a Christmas tree in an airport or a courthouse and I don’t believe that a Moslem has the right to inflict pain and suffering on people because they’re offended by some idiot cartoons….
Similarly I don’t have a “right” not to be offended by a believer pontificating at great length about concepts constructs and morality, the foundations of which are founded in faith not fact.
Just understand that the fervent evangelical proselytism that you and some others promulgate here is offensive and disrespectful to me and perhaps to others. You think it’s your duty or responsibility to manifest your beliefs and convert the woefully ignorant around you to the particular path of enlightenment you champion.
And like most fanatic breast-beating and wailing there’s rarely if ever any consideration that your rhetoric might be in many respects counter- productive and fundamentally insulting.
It may be just a question of style but my impression is that you’re talking “down” to recalcitrant children….
Your beliefs and convictions are your own and in the party of your peers this attitude of “better than”…because you’re a Christian or a “believer” might be acceptable but in the broader world where millions don’t buy this song and dance, your efforts come across in a way that’s very similar to the arrogance and fanaticism of believers of different faiths upon whom the good Christian is more than prepared to heap scorn and ridicule…
It’s not really important in the greater scheme of things I understand but you might consider that you’re not impressing many and in fact you may very well be defeating your own purpose….
One's spirit exists for the continuance of the flesh, to control all body functions, even though it is alive, it is dead.”>>>AJ
Thank you Mikey for a very well thought out response. I’ve considered all you said and respond in like manner.
The only thing I can say to the above response by you is that once the spirit leaves the body, life ceases.
Without the spirit in the body, the body wouldn’t need to fill diapers.
Two: the discussion question is whether a condition called “re-born” is a must.
In order to do that, there must be made a distinction between the two births.
Each is separate from the other as the word “re-born” designates.
The common sense question to the natural mind is to ask why?
The answer of course cannot be a physical birth because we are already born.
So, it must mean something else. Not physical,………… maybe?
You owe me nothing Mikey, response as you wish. I will not deny you the right to do so.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but you have a right to think as you wish.
Perhaps this is an indication of your tolerance without God in the mix, verses my tolerance with God in the mix?
My point on that Mikey was that if this thread offense you, don’t read it. That’s all, no ill will intended.
Offense is taken: when a person has no tolerance based on a belief system that limits ones views and no room for entertaining another view.
I convert no one, if they exercise free will.
If I were intolerant, I wouldn’t entertain any views at all.
To you it may seem that way Mikey, but I have not debased you in any way.
I am but a pebble in a sea of sand, but if I can contribute a bit of cheer to my next door pebble, then I would have accomplished much.
If one’s spirit is vexed by some of the responses on this thread, then that is an indication of a need for self analysis of oneself.
Peace>>>AJ
Thank you Mikey for a very well thought out response. I’ve considered all you said and respond in like manner.
The only thing I can say to the above response by you is that once the spirit leaves the body, life ceases.
Without the spirit in the body, the body wouldn’t need to fill diapers.
One: people have a free will to think for themselves and make decisions based on the information given to them.
Two: the discussion question is whether a condition called “re-born” is a must.
In order to do that, there must be made a distinction between the two births.
Each is separate from the other as the word “re-born” designates.
The common sense question to the natural mind is to ask why?
The answer of course cannot be a physical birth because we are already born.
So, it must mean something else. Not physical,………… maybe?
I have no objections to your doing so. But understand what my point of reference is to.
You owe me nothing Mikey, response as you wish. I will not deny you the right to do so.
Yes, I know that some may take offense to what I may say and likewise, I may take offense to what they say, but I won't.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but you have a right to think as you wish.
Perhaps this is an indication of your tolerance without God in the mix, verses my tolerance with God in the mix?
My point on that Mikey was that if this thread offense you, don’t read it. That’s all, no ill will intended.
Offense is taken: when a person has no tolerance based on a belief system that limits ones views and no room for entertaining another view.
I convert no one, if they exercise free will.
I take full responsibility for this thread, and no one has to respond to it.
If I were intolerant, I wouldn’t entertain any views at all.
To you it may seem that way Mikey, but I have not debased you in any way.
Because of my understanding, I hold you in the best regard, therefore have no problem conversing with you.
I am but a pebble in a sea of sand, but if I can contribute a bit of cheer to my next door pebble, then I would have accomplished much.
If one’s spirit is vexed by some of the responses on this thread, then that is an indication of a need for self analysis of oneself.
Peace>>>AJ
Jesus is speaking of rebirth through the actual process of baptism. It also includes by desire where it is not possible to obtain baptism. (ie: point of death,etc.)
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptised,
although by the mercy of God they exist in a natural state of contentment and happiness. So it behooves every parent or guardian who is the child's rep to ensure they are baptised. AndyF
even non-christians should baptise their kids?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
is the service even valid if when the parents say their bits they don't believe it?
,
Re-birth is in the heart. Has nothing to do with baptism. Here’s why.
I will refer you to the book of Romans: Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Circumcision is a fleshly thing, but spiritually, it is of the heart.
The human heart, (not the muscle) but the spirit that is in us to live by, has a veil or foreskin over it blinding it from God. That veil or foreskin has to be spiritually circumcised in order for that spirit heart to have a re-birth.
That is what re-birth means. Now, baptism is simply identifying oneself with the death and burial of our Lord Jesus as a believer and nothing else.
Baptism does not save, Jesus saves.
The young-uns, are innocent, as Adam and Eve, until they grow and start to partake of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Or better understood, age of accountability.
When that happens, sin is exposed, and they find themselves naked. Therefore, they are expelled, and find that they need a Savior.
That’s where they need a second birth from a second Adam. Jesus.
Hope that helps.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Jesus is speaking of rebirth through the actual process of baptism. It also includes by desire where it is not possible to obtain baptism. (ie: point of death,etc.)
Not even our munchkins can make it if not baptized,
AndyF
Re-birth is in the heart. Has nothing to do with baptism. Here’s why.
I will refer you to the book of Romans: Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Circumcision is a fleshly thing, but spiritually, it is of the heart.
The human heart, (not the muscle) but the spirit that is in us to live by, has a veil or foreskin over it blinding it from God. That veil or foreskin has to be spiritually circumcised in order for that spirit heart to have a re-birth.
That is what re-birth means. Now, baptism is simply identifying oneself with the death and burial of our Lord Jesus as a believer and nothing else.
Baptism does not save, Jesus saves.
The young-uns, are innocent, as Adam and Eve, until they grow and start to partake of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Or better understood, age of accountability.
When that happens, sin is exposed, and they find themselves naked. Therefore, they are expelled, and find that they need a Savior.
That’s where they need a second birth from a second Adam. Jesus.
Hope that helps.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Not unless the kids have knowledge of good and evil. They first have to know that they are naked (Sinners) and in need of a Savior. Then upon acceptance of the Savior, they can signify it by Baptism.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Yes. Jesus means that everyone is to be baptised.
NewAdvent.org/Baptism
"(2) Extraordinary Minister
In case of necessity, baptism can be administered lawfully and validly by any person whatsoever who observes the essential conditions, whether this person be a Catholic layman or any other man or woman, heretic or schismatic, infedel or Jew. The essential conditions are that the person pour water upon the one to be baptized, at the same time pronouncing the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Moreover, he must thereby intend really to baptize the person, or technically, he must intend to perform what the Church performs when administering this sacrament"
AndyF
"Ye must be born again" yea, or nay?
Born again?! No, I'm not. Excuse me for getting it right the first time.
-Dennis Miller
Born again?! No, I'm not. Excuse me for getting it right the first time.
-Dennis Miller
Born again? Yeah, but not just once or twice
See, the first time you're born, your soul, while being of the divine and freshly separated from it, is woefully ignorant due to shock. It's also ticked off, not being used to stupid. After this driving will has learned through temporal experience (don't stick your hand in the ferret cage) that nothing can be known which is not rational to the senses it then seeks to fill in the unknown elements with irrationalities. The brain is tangible yet the mind is not. It cannot know itself. That's frustration for ya.
Being reborn, whether you prefer to call a spiritual re-awakening, an epiphany of conscience or just a great new idea it's still the same thing: a complete commitment to compartmentalized beliefs predicated on doctrine. All of your former thoughts must now be viewed in critical fashion through the newly accepted doctrine. Seeing the world through eyes that had not seen before.
That the mind is capable of this leap still astounds and fascinates me. I enjoy it so much that I do it all the time. I change my mind daily just to keep it fresh!
See, the first time you're born, your soul, while being of the divine and freshly separated from it, is woefully ignorant due to shock. It's also ticked off, not being used to stupid. After this driving will has learned through temporal experience (don't stick your hand in the ferret cage) that nothing can be known which is not rational to the senses it then seeks to fill in the unknown elements with irrationalities. The brain is tangible yet the mind is not. It cannot know itself. That's frustration for ya.
Being reborn, whether you prefer to call a spiritual re-awakening, an epiphany of conscience or just a great new idea it's still the same thing: a complete commitment to compartmentalized beliefs predicated on doctrine. All of your former thoughts must now be viewed in critical fashion through the newly accepted doctrine. Seeing the world through eyes that had not seen before.
That the mind is capable of this leap still astounds and fascinates me. I enjoy it so much that I do it all the time. I change my mind daily just to keep it fresh!
I can't make out heads or tails what look3467 is trying to say. Without quoting scripture and in plain modern english, what is your point?
I personally do not believe that "God" sent his son to us to die for our sins. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a wise and good man with the belief we are all the son/daughter of God and that god is all around us.
I hold that the bible was written many, many years after Jesus was crucified by unlearned men with human failings and biases. A literal translation of the bible is plain wrong. As a good book with some lessons on ethics, morality and as a way to live a good and humble life, it has it's merits. Then so does the Koran and various oriental spiritual paths.
I personally do not believe that "God" sent his son to us to die for our sins. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was a wise and good man with the belief we are all the son/daughter of God and that god is all around us.
I hold that the bible was written many, many years after Jesus was crucified by unlearned men with human failings and biases. A literal translation of the bible is plain wrong. As a good book with some lessons on ethics, morality and as a way to live a good and humble life, it has it's merits. Then so does the Koran and various oriental spiritual paths.
Sure, Andy, anybody can baptize anybody, it doesn’t mean anything except for whatever belief one holds.
When we were born, were we not born out of water? We could say then, that we are all baptized by the same principle of being born of water.
Then again, one could say, that everybody comes short of the glory of God, thus a sinner. Meaning that we are all baptized: into sin.
And or we could say, that Jesus was baptized with all our sins and took the sting of it away.
And then it comes down to the signification of what baptism really is.
In the case of becoming a believer in Jesus, we signify it by being baptized, submersed in water, as though meaning that we are death and buried with Christ’s death and burial, and then resurrected up again. As signifying a new birth, but birth in the spirit.
By the way, all of the above are true.
Can you give me a reason why there would be two Adams mentioned in the bible?
If you can, then you will realize the two births.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
The Koran takes it’s cue from Father Abraham of which the Jewish nation does to.
The seed by which Jesus was to be born was by descendent of the Jews. Read the story of Abraham.
The Koran comes from the Abrahams other son Ishmael’s side.
The Koran acknowledges Jesus as a prophet, as well as the Jews. But the Gentiles acknowledge Jesus as the Savior of the world.
The common theme of the bible as a whole is God is love. That has been shown over and over again, and one of these days, humanity will get it right.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Last edited: