| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is the US hostile to science? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 28 2005, 08:26 PM (2,853 Views) | |
| Nina | Nov 2 2005, 10:57 AM Post #176 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Regarding "born again," I think it starts with the gospel of John, where it says: " Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again." Nicodemus said to him, "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (John 3:4-5). So what does it mean to be born of water and Spirit? The Roman Catholic church believes it is the sacrament of Baptism, as do the Baptists (go figure) and many others. But Evangelical Protestants tend to view it as a strong spiritual rebirth, with an equally strong conversion and personal encounter with God or the Holy Spirit. Without this spiritual conversion, there is no rebirth... in other words, it's more than baptism and church attendance. I don't know about you guys' experiences, but most born again Christians I know feel that "regular" Christians (the un-born again, sorry I don't really know what to call it) aren't true Christians as they haven't had that final conversion and rebirth. Maybe "complete" Christians would be a better term than true Christians. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 11:00 AM Post #177 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Just vote Democrat. You might even get invited to the pizza and cocaine orgies in the next Dem White House. :lol: |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 11:32 AM Post #178 |
|
Nina, interesting post. ![]() To be born again of water and spirit. Hmmm...I think to be "born again" is basically to truly believe in Jesus, etc. in your heart. It doesn't need to be a fainting-heart-attack experience or anything. I think the water aspect is simply a physical and visual representation of having your sins washed away. It's also a visual testament to others, in this oh-so-physical world. You also mentioned church attendance, and I definitely think that's not a necessity. Gratned, I encourage it, as it helps you fellowship, worship, study, and pray with other believers, but if you never stepped in a church in your life, that shouldn't affect your "born again" status in the least bit. There are many catholics and protestants who are "born again" and many who aren't. Personally, I know what I believe, and think it's really a relationship between you and God, that is based on His word - the Bible. Whether or not you are "born again", IMO, really just refers to whether or not you believe what Jesus taught in the Bible, which includes accepting him as your personal savior. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 11:51 AM Post #179 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
How on earth can you claim to know this? Can you tell who is and who isn't? Anyone who is even attempting to live their life according to the teachings of their Church must be "born again" (even if they do not use that language). If they are not even attempting to live according to the the teachings of the Church, then (from the Catholic perspective at least) they have excommunicated themselves, and are not "Catholic". |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Nov 2 2005, 11:51 AM Post #180 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Staying out of the meat of the discussion, but I will say that the distinction is that between being born "of water" is our first, physical, earthly birth; and "of the spirit" is the second birth that Jesus was referring to. But the question remains, what does it mean to be "born of the Spirit?" (i.e., to be "born again?") Does it require a lightning-bolt, "mountaintop" conversion experience? Can it be a much more quiet thing, even one that occurs over a long period of time? What about a person who never really gave it much consideration; they're just basically good-acting, average nice folk who go to church because they always have, ever since they were little kids? Are they going out of spritual acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior, or out of mere social custom? Does it matter? Are they redeemed in either instance? All just other ways of asking, what does it mean to be "born again" - because it is a question that must be answered by all Christians, whether Catholic, Protestant; mainline, evangelical, or otherwise. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 12:00 PM Post #181 |
|
Ivory, all I'm saying is there are those in your church and mine, who would say there is only one god. I've met both types...they exist. That's all I'm saying. Just because you go to church, doesn't mean you are born again. Dwain, you are asking far more questions than you are answering...that's not normal!!!
|
![]() |
|
| Nina | Nov 2 2005, 01:25 PM Post #182 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Going from my born-again friends' experience, there is a strong contingent who believe in a "lightning bolt" rebirth. Tears, feelings of extreme emotion, delirium, down-on-your-knees praying for hours, etc. Most haven't spoken of a gradual realization over the course of time. Instead, they point to a specific time and place when the Holy Spirit unambiguously entered their soul... in an instant. It's those friends who tend to be the most adament that only those who've experienced a similar conversion are truly saved. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:27 PM Post #183 |
|
Nina, they are wrong. You can have the lightning bolt experience, or you could have been a cradle christian (aqua's cool term for it)....but either way, as long as you have faith, it doesn't matter how you got it. By the way, I think it's natural for all Christians to have a "tears, emotion, delirium, down on knees prayin, etc." moment every now and then. I haven't, but I've had other experiences close... God is good. |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Nov 2 2005, 01:30 PM Post #184 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Prove it. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 01:32 PM Post #185 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
To further expound 89th's rather lucid and meaningful contribution to the conversation: Yay God. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Nina | Nov 2 2005, 01:34 PM Post #186 |
|
Senior Carp
|
![]() God, God, he's our man Let's give Him a great big hand! |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:41 PM Post #187 |
|
Nina, you should prove that they said it first. The burden of proof is on you, since I'm responding TO your claim.
|
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 01:42 PM Post #188 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Actually, if you want to get technical, Nina started with the claim. The burden of proof would be on us to refute it. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:44 PM Post #189 |
|
No, it would be on her. For example, if I said that the sun was cold. You would say, "hey 89th, prove it." I wouldn't say "no? well prove me wrong" You make that point all the time Aqua. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 01:45 PM Post #190 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Ad Ignorantiam - Appeal to Ignorance 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. --- Nina (side A) has made claim X. The burden of proof rests on side B (you, 89th). EDIT I do that a lot, yes. Because that's how a logical progression is run. If you disagree with me, it's YOUR job to produce the evidence to refute it, you can't just say "you have no proof." That's Appeal to Ignorance, and it most assuredly is a fallacy. If you don't agree with Nina's claim, you yourself need to refute it; she doesn't have to "prove" anything. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:49 PM Post #191 |
|
No, Aqua...back in the selfish thread, you asked me to prove to you that all things had a selfish motive. Why would you do that...if the burden of (dis)proof is on you? |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:49 PM Post #192 |
|
Aqua, you're an idiot! If someone claims something, such as the media bias...YOU asked me to prove it. How many times are you going to prove yourself wrong? :lol: |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 01:51 PM Post #193 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Aqua: The Argumentum ad ignorantiam is actually a logical fallacy. The burden of proof is not truly placed on the listener. 89th is correct here. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 01:51 PM Post #194 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I may have said that at one point, but that's not quite what my stance was. I also said that I had references to refute this claim, which would follow in the logical progression of debate, but you said don't worry about it, I believe. I can still produce the support, if you'll give me a day. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 01:55 PM Post #195 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
However, 89th made his own claim "they are wrong", and as such the burden is now on him to prove it. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:56 PM Post #196 |
|
And I said I would...after she proves her point. Kinda like aqua saying the sun is cold, and me saying "no its not!", and then him saying that i have to prove him wrong. Domino effect. I dont want to disprove something that isn't even supported by anything yet. The burden of proof is on her. Once she shows something of value, then the burden is on me. But until then.... |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 01:57 PM Post #197 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Using 89th's terms, touche, salesman! So my question then is this: Suppose I make claim X to 89th. Where does the burden of proof lie? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Nov 2 2005, 01:57 PM Post #198 |
|
On you. Unless it's obviously common sense, which is always up for debate! |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Nov 2 2005, 02:00 PM Post #199 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
On you. The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The point of discourse is to advance the truth, not to refute falsehoods. (and WTH does "touche, salesman" come from? and must we continue to endure it?) |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Nov 2 2005, 02:01 PM Post #200 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Family Guy is a wonderful show, Ivory... BTW:
Good ol' goin' back to fundamentals! Thanks for the clarification.
|
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








Thanks for the clarification.

6:34 AM Jul 11