Born Again Christians

Carol_1985

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone here could enlighten me as to what a born again Christian is? Are they Protestant or can they also be Catholic?

Thanks

PDN

Carol_1985 wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone here could enlighten me as to what a born again Christian is? Are they Protestant or can they also be Catholic?

Thanks

Hi Carol,
A 'born-again', or evangelical, Christian is one that treats as pivotal the words of Jesus when He said "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)

Some Christian traditions believe that being born-again is something that is conferred on you by others when you are baptised as a baby. However evangelicals maintain that this refers to an act of faith by which you yourself choose to become a follower of Jesus Christ.

There are many hundreds of thousands of Catholics who claim an evangelical experience of being born again. Here in Ireland, for example, Paddy Monaghan leads a group of Evangelical Catholics http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=15&art=60

I worked with Paddy on an initiative several years ago called Power to Change, and, although we disagree on some significant theological issues, I found him to be a Christian gentleman.

antiskeptic

Carol_1985 wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone here could enlighten me as to what a born again Christian is? Are they Protestant or can they also be Catholic?

Thanks

There is only one valid definition of what a Christian is and that's God's definition. And God's definition of what a Christian is includes a requirement that the person be born again - which is the technical phrase for an act of God carried out upon the person which turns them from being a non-Christian into being a Christian.

It doesn't matter whether a God-defined Christian is a Catholic or a protestant or any other denomination or none, if they are God-defined Christians then they'll be, by definition, born again.

Conversely, a Catholic or Protestant who isn't born again isn't a God-defined Christian - which means they aren't a Christian at all.

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is only one valid definition of what a Christian is and that's God's definition. And God's definition of what a Christian is includes a requirement that the person be born again - which is the technical phrase for an act of God carried out upon the person which turns them from being a non-Christian into being a Christian.

It doesn't matter whether a God-defined Christian is a Catholic or a protestant or any other denomination or none, if they are God-defined Christians then they'll be, by definition, born again.

Conversely, a Catholic or Protestant who isn't born again isn't a God-defined Christian - which means they aren't a Christian at all.

Well said.

Let me just add that any term will change its meaning with time. 'Born-again Christian', to the best of my knowledge, was originally used as a term to denote Evangelicals in distinction to all others who claim the name of Christian, but who do not hold to an Evangelical understanding of salvation. That is, it marked out true believers from nominal/false ones.

Now it is commonly used of any who claim they have encountered Christ in sudden conversion, no matter how heterodox their beliefs and practices.

homer911

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/john-37-reunited-with-stolen-sign-98501.html

There are very committed Christians who would not claim to have had a born-again experience and thats probably why the term is not used too much, as it can be devisive. (I am, but would often use the terms Evangelical Christian or Committed Christian). Its also not a good term to start a conversation with an unbeliever with, as it immediately gets their heckles up!

Note that its the Holy Spirit who changes the individual, but the individual must be willing to be changed: "I stand at the door and knock..."
http://bible.cc/revelation/3-20.htm

Guitareaxe

Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, Began in the late 19th century and early 20th, amongst British and American protestants.

The term "Born again" started to get thrown around by some of these preachers allot in the 70's, and basically came to mean someone who has found the Christian Church (Protestant) after having previously defected from their former christian religion for a number of years and fallen into sin, Be it Catholic or any other Christian denomination. From what i've gathered it usually Involves some sort of emotional or nervous breakdown prior to becoming born again.

While theologically any one who believes in the Bible and Christ can say they are born again without it meaning anything more then a spiritual reconnection with Christ and the church, including Catholics. In practice it is definatly not a catholic thing to identify your religion as and it definatly is a modern form of Protestantism, although it is deviated much from King Henrys VIII's Anglican church, it has it's roots in the 18th century Church of England. Just think of the "God channel" style christian and you have an idea.

If you are really that curious to find out what religion a born again christian is in practice, simply ask that person the church they attend, and it's denomination, and I am sure they will be glad to tell you.

homer911

Guitareaxe wrote: »

.

The term "Born again" started to get thrown around by some of these preachers allot in the 70's, and basically came to mean someone who has found the Christian Church (Protestant) after having previously defected from their former christian religion for a number of years and fallen into sin, Be it Catholic or any other Christian denomination. From what i've gathered it usually Involves some sort of emotional or nervous breakdown prior to becoming born again.

Sorry, but what a load of rubbish! I became a born again Christian at the age of eleven and certainly never defected from my previous "religion" or had a nervous breakdown. To suggest that is crass and insulting. I know of born again roman catholics and born again messianic jews. While born again christians may subsequently choose to leave their current church, its usually due to the need for real christian teaching which they hadnt been receiving. Everyone is a sinner - we are all in need of coming to Christ

Guitareaxe

homer911 wrote: »

Sorry, but what a load of rubbish! I became a born again Christian at the age of eleven and certainly never defected from my previous "religion" or had a nervous breakdown. To suggest that is crass and insulting. I know of born again roman catholics and born again messianic jews. While born again christians may subsequently choose to leave their current church, its usually due to the need for real christian teaching which they hadnt been receiving. Everyone is a sinner - we are all in need of coming to Christ

If you read my post proeperly you would see that I said
"While theologically any one who believes in the Bible and Christ can say they are born again without it meaning anything more then a spiritual reconnection with Christ and the church, including Catholics"

Which is the same thing you've just said. You are obviosuly an exception, I was stating the history of term born again in popular culture. I do not wish to argue as I am aware of and in agreement with both your point of view and mine, I agree with you and was not referring to born again as a blanket term, I was reffering to the idea's popularity since the 70's and it's roots in the evangelical protestant church's of the USA and the UK.

I was Not stating that a person cannot become born again in their minds without having any affiliation to the church's associated with the popular usage of the term. Like yourself, you have come to this conclusion through your own journey and I do not begrudge you that nor do I associate you with the Evangelicals simply because you say you are Born again, I have no judgement for you so therefore you can have nothing to defend or be bothered by, Judge not and all that.

that is the problem with theological ideas and misinterpreting peoples views on Christianity. It has always led to problems amongst christians, which is something I would not like to do with your good self so please be more open minded I am not attacking you or anyone elses religious views, If you look at the history of the term and it's sudden rise to popularity in the 70's you will note that it stemmed from the literalistic interpretations of the bible which were popularized by the fundamentalist protestants of the day. I have studied this and am merely stating a historical fact, If history offends you then maybe you should not read when people write of it.

In my personal experience I have met a good few people claiming to be born again, some of these are good friends of mine. These people all have told me of their emotional breakdowns from living a life of sin, prior to returning to Christ, so you can see why I stated it so. I am obviously not talking about everyone born again, just the few I have met, so please don't take that personally. I was replying to the OP and have done that, so I will not be debating if thats what you wish, I have better things to do.
Peace.

homer911

apologies for taking you up wrong..

Guitareaxe

No need my friend, but graciously accepted although there really is no need as i was not offended, I just wanted to clarify what I said so I would not upset anyone.

wolfsbane

Guitareaxe wrote: »

Christian fundamentalism or fundamentalist evangelicalism, Began in the late 19th century and early 20th, amongst British and American protestants.

The term "Born again" started to get thrown around by some of these preachers allot in the 70's, and basically came to mean someone who has found the Christian Church (Protestant) after having previously defected from their former christian religion for a number of years and fallen into sin, Be it Catholic or any other Christian denomination. From what i've gathered it usually Involves some sort of emotional or nervous breakdown prior to becoming born again.

While theologically any one who believes in the Bible and Christ can say they are born again without it meaning anything more then a spiritual reconnection with Christ and the church, including Catholics. In practice it is definatly not a catholic thing to identify your religion as and it definatly is a modern form of Protestantism, although it is deviated much from King Henrys VIII's Anglican church, it has it's roots in the 18th century Church of England. Just think of the "God channel" style christian and you have an idea.

If you are really that curious to find out what religion a born again christian is in practice, simply ask that person the church they attend, and it's denomination, and I am sure they will be glad to tell you.

I think you confuse the theological term 'born again' with Christian movements of the 18thC that emphasised the need for such an experience. They were not introducing a new doctrine, but protecting a threatened one. Being born again means no more than being regenerated, and was always part of the doctrine of the Reformed churches.

This from The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647):
Chapter 10. Of Effectual Calling.

1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,a by his Word and Spirit,b out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;c enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God;d taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;e renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good,f and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;g yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.h

a. Rom 8:30; 11:7; Eph 1:10-11. • b. 2 Cor 3:3, 6; 2 Thes 2:13-14. • c. Rom 8:2; Eph 2:1-5; 2 Tim 1:9-10. • d. Acts 26:18; 1 Cor 2:10, 12; Eph 1:17-18. • e. Ezek 36:26. • f. Deut 30:6; Ezek 11:19; 36:27; Phil 2:13. • g. John 6:44-45; Eph 1:19. • h. Psa 110:3; Song 1:4; John 6:37; Rom 6:16-18.

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man;a who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,b he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.c

Those who are born again, and only those, are true Christians. The term Evangelical was meant to convey the same.

But you are right about many of those who abuse the term today. That is however true also of the term 'Christian'.

ALincoln

Right, up front I'll declare my religious view - strictly agnostic.

The nature of this post is one of inquiry, not theological debate. If my questions appear crass or harsh, don't set anything to store by it - I don't believe in treating religion with kidgloves, I'd like a bald explanation. I'm also quite in the dark about this doctrine, because it doesn't appear to be mainstream in character.

So on with the questions;

1. If a born again Christian entered a relationship with an atheist, where would the church stand on this? Should the relationship be condoned or condemned?

2. Homosexuality - condone or condemn?

3. Teenage pregnancy (unmarried) - sympathy or condemnation?

Apologies if this is written rather bluntly.

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Right, up front I'll declare my religious view - strictly agnostic. The nature of this post is one of inquiry, not theological debate. If my questions appear crass or harsh, don't set anything to store by it - I don't believe in treating religion with kidgloves, I'd like a bald explanation. I'm also quite in the dark about this doctrine, because it doesn't appear to be mainstream in character.

So on with the questions;

1. If a born again Christian entered a relationship with an atheist, where would the church stand on this? Should the relationship be condoned or condemned?

2. Homosexuality - condone or condemn?

3. Teenage pregnancy (unmarried) - sympathy or condemnation?

Apologies if this is written rather bluntly.

I'd suggest you start a new thread or something. I don't get the point of your post at all. What "church" are you referring to for a start? Is you post aimed at born again Christians... or anybody? . Puzzled more than anything.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ALincoln

Given that this is posted in the Born Again Christians thread, I would have thought the branch of Christianity to which I was referring was obvious...evidently not...I wish to ascertain the views of BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS so I posted in the BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANITY thread. This appeared to make a surprising amount of sense.

You have directed me to examine other threads in the Xtianity forum. Does this then mean that Born Again Christianity is an indistinct doctrine?

Finally, the answer I am looking for regarding my question about relationships is not to be found elsewhere on this forum.

A.Lincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Turtwig

ALincoln wrote: »

Given that this is posted in the Born Again Christians thread, I would have thought the branch of Christianity to which I was referring was obvious...evidently not...I wish to ascertain the views of BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS so I posted in the BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANITY thread. This appeared to make a surprising amount of sense.

You have directed me to examine other threads in the Xtianity forum. Does this then mean that Born Again Christianity is an indistinct doctrine?

Finally, the answer I am looking for regarding my question about relationships is not to be found elsewhere on this forum.

A.Lincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Born Agains are Christians, and they pretty much, like most Christians don't approve all three.
Though I guess I need to be pedantic here : they don't approve Homosexual ACTS

Any sex before marriage is not approved, and marriage with a non believer is somewhat controversial..huge thread on it

ALincoln

Clarification: to condone means to approve of...I suspect you meant exactly the opposite! Anyway, thanks for the response.

Turtwig

ALincoln wrote: »

Clarification: to condone means to approve of...I suspect you meant exactly the opposite! Anyway, thanks for the response.

Ahem yeah I did...I meant condemn:o:o:o
I'll get me coat

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Given that this is posted in the Born Again Christians thread, I would have thought the branch of Christianity to which I was referring was obvious...evidently not...I wish to ascertain the views of BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANS so I posted in the BORN AGAIN CHRISTIANITY thread. This appeared to make a surprising amount of sense.

Er... let's take your first question..

1. If a born again Christian entered a relationship with an atheist, where would the church stand on this? Should the relationship be condoned or condemned?

No, that makes no sense since you failed to point out what "church" you are referring to. Born Again Christianity isn't a church. Suprising indeed.

ALincoln wrote: »

You have directed me to examine other threads in the Xtianity forum. Does this then mean that Born Again Christianity is an indistinct doctrine?

Perhaps you missed the bit about text speak etc.I respectfully suggest you check that out if you want to be taken seriously. Born Again Christianity is not an indistinct doctrine, in that somebody could be of any denomination and be "born again".

ALincoln wrote: »

Finally, the answer I am looking for regarding my question about relationships is not to be found elsewhere on this forum.

See point above about born again Christians being any denomination. Therefore yes it is to be found elsewhere.

ALincoln wrote: »

A.Lincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Good for you. Did you study under the professor of cunning?

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Born Agains are Christians, and they pretty much, like most Christians condemn all three.
Though I guess I need to be pedantic here : they condemn Homosexual ACTS

Any sex before marriage is not approved, and marriage with a non believer is somewhat controversial..huge thread on it

If we're going to be pedantic there is a huge difference between not approving of something and condemnation. Personally I have no problem with an atheist and a Christian being together as long as both sides are equally accomodating, which usually leads to problems more from the atheist side IMO but never mind. I don't believe sex before marriage is right, but I have never condemned anyone for doing it. I'm guilty of that myself. I have never condemned a homosexual person on the basis of their sexuality. Do I believe homosexuality over all is the best way to go, no I don't.

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

If we're going to be pedantic there is a huge difference between not approving of something and condemnation. Personally I have no problem with an atheist and a Christian being together as long as both sides are equally accomodating, which usually leads to problems more from the atheist side IMO but never mind. I don't believe sex before marriage is right, but I have never condemned anyone for doing it. I'm guilty of that myself. I have never condemned a homosexual person on the basis of their sexuality. Do I believe homosexuality over all is the best way to go, no I don't.

Af gawddammit....

Words aren't with we right now, it's being a long day....:o:o:o:o

Surely, no one will disagree with the third edit :o:o:o

ALincoln

prinz wrote: »

Er... let's take your first question..



No, that makes no sense since you failed to point out what "church" you are referring to. Born Again Christianity isn't a church. Suprising indeed.



Perhaps you missed the bit about text speak etc.I respectfully suggest you check that out if you want to be taken seriously. Born Again Christianity is not an indistinct doctrine, in that somebody could be of any denomination and be "born again".



See point above about born again Christians being any denomination. Therefore yes it is to be found elsewhere.



Good for you. Did you study under the professor of cunning?

No, I believe I studied under an ordinary professor and obtained an Hons. degree with a snappy little (Oxon.) after it. Thank you very much for asking, people are often curious about the college, it being all high profile and such.

I would like to compliment you on one of the longest posts I have seen...without an answer. You did not address one issue which I raised. Perhaps you don't know the answer, or the answer is indefensible?

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

prinz

Malty_T wrote: »

Af gawddammit....
Words aren't with we right now, it's being a long day....:o:o:o:o
Surely, no one will disagree with the third edit :o:o:o

Could happen to a bishop....;)..

I'm lost in a sea of edits, which one was third :D

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

I would like to compliment you on one of the longest posts I have seen...without an answer. You did not address one issue which I raised. Perhaps you don't know the answer, or the answer is indefensible?

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Perhaps if you clarified your question like I asked... I'm going to hazard a guess and say you didn't study English.

Prinz LLB PQA NVQ2 etc etc

ALincoln

Evidently not an Oxford graduate...
Funnily enough, my qualification is also in law. I'm studying for a BCL at the moment, which is the best law degree in the world. Sweet.
My questions did not need clarification, they are blunt as.
But if you need simplicity, simplicity you shall get;

Born Again Christians:

1. Marrying or dating a non Christian partner - yea or nae?
2. Homosexuality - approve or disapprove?
3. Pregnancy in wedlock - sympathy or condemnation?

Seriously, I can't make it any easier to understand than that.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Turtwig

ALincoln wrote: »

Born Again Christians:

1. Marrying or dating a non Christian partner - yea or nae?
2. Homosexuality - approve or disapprove?
3. Pregnancy in wedlock - sympathy or condemnation?

Seriously, I can't make it any easier to understand than that.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Well, unfortunately the reason why you're not getting clarity is because you don't seem to be showing an understanding of Born Agains.

They're Christians - plain and simple.
Not sure.
Disapprove of Homosexual ACTS.
Disapprove of sex before marriage.

ALincoln

Thank you. A simple answer, devoid of the sniping and overall snide tone of the posts above is rather refreshing.

I do, however, find it hard to see how Xtians can confine condemnation to homosexual ACTS - does this then mean that being homosexual and not acting on it is acceptable? It doesn't appear to be so. If I'm honest, attempting to shroud the attitude of the church in a veil of tolerance by playing the semantic card is a bit of a weak approach.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Evidently not an Oxford graduate...
Funnily enough, my qualification is also in law. I'm studying for a BCL at the moment, which is the best law degree in the world. Sweet.

Whatever you say Abe. Funny though, when I was going to university the BCL if I recall correctly was a 3 year course and had lower entry requirements. Anyway I dither..

ALincoln wrote: »

My questions did not need clarification, they are blunt as.
But if you need simplicity, simplicity you shall get;
Born Again Christians:
1. Marrying or dating a non Christian partner - yea or nae?

So you dropped the bit about the mysterious approving unnamed "church"? Thanks, that was what I was asking, it does make it simpler, since as I pointed out more than once that this was causing confusion.

As you can see from this thread many of the regular posters here are born again Christians, and these issues have been dealt with in numerous threads by those self same posters. There is no stock answer for you unfortunately. I have already given my stance on all three.

ALincoln wrote: »

2. Homosexuality - approve or disapprove?
3. Pregnancy in wedlock - sympathy or condemnation?
Seriously, I can't make it any easier to understand than that.

I like your black and white world, but I love technicolour.

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

I do, however, find it hard to see how Xtians can confine condemnation to homosexual ACTS - does this then mean that being homosexual and not acting on it is acceptable?

Many Christians would find that perfectly acceptable yes.

ALincoln wrote: »

If I'm honest, attempting to shroud the attitude of the church in a veil of tolerance by playing the semantic card is a bit of a weak approach.

Again with the "church".... what church?

ALincoln

prinz wrote: »

Whatever you say Abe. Funny though, when I was going to university the BCL if I recall correctly was a 3 year course and had lower entry requirements. Anyway I dither..



So you dropped the bit about the mysterious approving unnamed "church"? Thanks, that was what I was asking, it does make it simpler, since as I pointed out more than once that this was causing confusion.

As you can see from this thread many of the regular posters here are born again Christians, and these issues have been dealt with in numerous threads by those self same posters. There is no stock answer for you unfortunately. I have already given my stance on all three.



I like your black and white world, but I love technicolour.

You're evidently an Irish graduate...in Ireland, BCL is an undergraduate degree. In Oxford, it is an elite one year masters. But you clearly never made it that far...or perhaps didn't want to. Who am I to judge? We'll see in a few years time...

Congratulations on learning to love technicolour, television has been quite the innovation of the past few years. But your post lacked relevance...

What I'd like to see is a counter argument to my contention about the role of semantics in conveying a contemptibly thin veneer of tolerance on the church's views re homosexuality. This, you have sadly failed to provide.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

ALincoln

prinz wrote: »

Many Christians would find that perfectly acceptable yes.



Again with the "church".... what church?

For crying out loud, please desist from your linguistic pedantry - the Christian denomination! If I intended to discuss Islam or something else, would I really be posting here? I know you must have common sense, please utilise it.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Turtwig

Seriously guy's what with the personal attacks??

*Not far away from hitting report posts*

The Christian Denomination is following what they believe to the truth, or rather, what many followers KNOW to be the truth. There is no thin veil or anything, the bible makes reference to homosexual acts as being sinful so thus Christians who wanted to avoid sin will tend to disapprove of homosexual acts. The official line is that homophobia is NOT tolerated at all. Whether homosexuality being regarded as sin helps lead to homophobia is debated in that huge thread just down there.....

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

You're evidently an Irish graduate...in Ireland, BCL is an undergraduate degree. In Oxford, it is an elite one year masters. But you clearly never made it that far...or perhaps didn't want to. Who am I to judge? We'll see in a few years time...

Since I am the final year of a professional qualification, by rights I have made it further than you chappy.

ALincoln wrote: »

What I'd like to see is a counter argument to my contention about the role of semantics in conveying a contemptibly thin veneer of tolerance on the church's views re homosexuality. This, you have sadly failed to provide.
ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

Once again with "the church"..... are you referring to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Church of Latter Day Saints.....
So your contention is Christianity and Homosexuality.... I could swear I saw a whole big long thread on just that somewhere recently....

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

For crying out loud, please desist from your linguistic pedantry - the Christian denomination! If I intended to discuss Islam or something else, would I really be posting here? I know you must have common sense, please utilise it.

:pac: ok... there is no universal Christian position on everything. To get the views of many different Christians visit the thread dealing with the issue. Pretty simple.

By the way Christianity isn't a denomination. For future reference.

ALincoln

Fair enough.

Drawing upon the sobriety of retrospect, the tone of some of my posts was rather harsh.

I do have an insatiable appetite for ascertaining people's views however, and I do feel I succeeded in teasing out the real stance of Christians on some important issues.

I shall mull over what this thread has revealed. I do feel that there is still some obfuscation due to verbal gymnastics for convenience.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.)

But I must argue, an Oxford undergraduate degree=far, far more esteemed than a qualification from any Irish uni, regardless of what level that qualification is at. This is nothing to be ashamed of, merely a fact.

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Fair enough.
Drawing upon the sobriety of retrospect, the tone of some of my posts was rather harsh... This is nothing to be ashamed of, merely a fact.

You do that, and like I said visiting the threads specifically dedicated to those issues may enlighten you further. Verbal gymnastics is something you should make yourself familiar with if you ever want to practice.

ALincoln

Ah, nothing like accepting an apology in a graceful Christian manner...

Wait a second...

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Ah, nothing like accepting an apology in a graceful Christian manner...

Wait a second...

What apology? When I see one I'll accept it.

ALincoln

Look, I know you don't exactly have an Oxbridge degree, but you speak Eniglish to a reasonable level, and seem to have mastered the necessary skills of communication adequately. Read back through my posts and it will all become clear.

In any case, I have more interesting things to do than engage in such petty and pointless discourse.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.), BCL Candidate (Oxon.)

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

Look, I know you don't exactly have an Oxbridge degree, but you speak Eniglish to a reasonable level, and seem to have mastered the necessary skills of communication adequately. Read back through my posts and it will all become clear.

In any case, I have more interesting things to do than engage in such petty and pointless discourse.

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.), BCL Candidate (Oxon.)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60717769&postcount=156

...and a good day to you too Sir. :pac:

ALincoln

More than one person posting from the same account? It also explains how I know the distinction between the two degrees. I find it rather alarming that you went through my forum posts, but that is the price we pay for internet access in this modern age.

Funny, that in all of this, you stalked and insulted, but never engaged in theological debate. Typical Xtianity argument - ad hominem all the way!

ALincoln, BA (Oxon.), BCL Candidate (Oxon.)

prinz

ALincoln wrote: »

More than one person posting from the same account? It also explains how I know the distinction between the two degrees. I find it rather alarming that you went through my forum posts, but that is the price we pay for internet access in this modern age.
Funny, that in all of this, you stalked and insulted, but never engaged in theological debate. Typical Xtianity argument - ad hominem all the way!
ALincoln, BA (Oxon.), BCL Candidate (Oxon.)

I generally only debate with someone who knows what they are talking about. Just a little quirk I have.

Fanny Cradock

OK, let's knock of the sniping, guys.

ALincoln, as a Christian, I'll attempt to clear some issues. Most Christians (despite the earlier tradition, we tend not to drop the C and replace it with an X) would consider themselves born again through Jesus. Therefore, unless you initially specified that you are talking about the denomination known as Born Again Christians, the confusion that arose has an understandable explanation.

As there are already threads running on the topics of Christians marrying non-Christians and homosexuality (links have kindly been provided by plowman, but there was one recently that dealt with marriage. I'll see if I can dig it up for you), there is little point in seeking opinions on this thread. I encourage you to read through the these links.

As for your third question, I would imagine the answer would ideally be something along the lines of: loving support for the mother and child (and father if he is around) but without approving or dwelling upon a deed that can not be undone. Of course, this is an ideal, and given that humans are a contradictory and hypocritical lot, I know that reality can be different. But Christians aren't alone in this.

Fanny Cradock

Here is that link I promises to the Christian/ non-Christian marriage thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055642055.

PDN

And let's have less of the educational willy waving on this thread.

An Oxbridge degree is no guarantee of intelligence. For example Prince Edward, who appears to be as dumb as a bucket of hair, has a Masters from Cambridge.

Many of our posters on boards.ie have doctorates and professional qualifications, but they don't parade them in every post, preferring that their posts be judged on the quality of their arguments.

PANADOL

Carol_1985 wrote: »

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone here could enlighten me as to what a born again Christian is? Are they Protestant or can they also be Catholic?

Thanks

i would say they are protestant as in they dont believe jesus was a mammys boy or virgin mary etc like the catholic religion teaches, or that god leaves the room when people have sex, however i do think cathloics are better fun, that awl protestant humour very engineered

Turtwig

I'd say you are wrong.

wolfsbane

ALincoln said:

So on with the questions;

1. If a born again Christian entered a relationship with an atheist, where would the church stand on this? Should the relationship be condoned or condemned?

Condemned.

2. Homosexuality - condone or condemn?

Condemned.

3. Teenage pregnancy (unmarried) - sympathy or condemnation?

Both - also applies to the former two sins.

The unequal yoke, homosexuality and fornication are sins against God and as such are to be abhorred.

Yet the sinner is to be pitied in as far as their sin comes from ignorance or weakness in the face of temptation. We ought to seek their recovery.

Repentance and faith in Christ will bring forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all who come to Him.

PANADOL

christanity something to help the working classes get up for work on a wet tues morning , why do people need this , it makes more scense to worship the sun whats this nonsence about finding jesus , its just insane infact a waste of forum space let fools follow fools

PDN

PANADOL wrote: »

christanity something to help the working classes get up for work on a wet tues morning , why do people need this , it makes more scense to worship the sun whats this nonsence about finding jesus , its just insane infact a waste of forum space let fools follow fools

Panadol, if you're going to call other people fools then maybe you should learn how to spell basic words such as 'sense'. You can start improving your literary skills by reading the Charter.

Btw, if you troll in this forum again you'll be banned.

ALincoln

wolfsbane wrote: »

ALincoln said:

Condemned.


Condemned.


Both - also applies to the former two sins.

The unequal yoke, homosexuality and fornication are sins against God and as such are to be abhorred.

Yet the sinner is to be pitied in as far as their sin comes from ignorance or weakness in the face of temptation. We ought to seek their recovery.

Repentance and faith in Christ will bring forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all who come to Him.

Eurgh. That post encompasses everything which acts as a repellent to Christianity in modern times.

Firstly, pity does not equate to sympathy. "Pity" connotes a certain air of condescension - of offering placatory remarks and gestures whilst looking down upon somebody and the situation in which they have become embroiled. "Pity" conveys the sense that the person engaged in pitying somebody else somehow "knows better", and would not expect to find themselves in that situation.

At the end of the day, somebody in a situation like teenage pregnancy needs constructive advice and emotional support, not some sententious, nebulous waffle about being a "sinner" searching for redemption.

Who are you to label somebody a sinner, in a situation such as the above, in which they are not actively encroaching on somebody else's rights? You can't possibly objectively define what sin is in said instance? In my opinion, religion may become more palatable if it stopped trying to draw on an inherently subjective force to place grave rubrics like "sinner" on another person.

For those reasons, the reply which I quoted was simply indigestible.