Do I need to be born again?

[stbruno]

Re: Do I need to be born again?

Just out of curiosity, what would the Catholics on the forum call it when someone in a Protestant tradition comes to a realization of his/her sinfulness and the need to repent and “ask Christ into his/her life,” does so, and lives the rest of his/her life as a changed person, rejecting sin and serving God in the best way he/she knows?

In my opinion…it’s called a CONVERSION MOMENT! And it can happen more than once by receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation. Praise God!

 

[Malachi4U]

To the Catholic “born-again” or “born-anew” means what the Scripture says it means. By Scripture definition “Born-again” means baptized with water (not amniotic fluid). To most protestants Born-again means accepting Jesus. The two use the same phrase but with a different meaning. If we all used the same words with the same definition much of the confussion would end

Being born again is only enough to get to heaven if one endures to the end and follows Christs commandments for salvation. The Christ and only Christ - not you or me - will decide who is saved or not. (“saved” by Catholic definition meaning passed judgement “AFTER” death and going to heaven!).

Looks like much debate here about the same words and phrases but we do not all have the same definition for those words and phrases.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Pipoluojo,

When was Jesus “begotten of God”? Begotten of God is what the term “born again” is reffering to.

After being baraged by Protestants with the term “born again” for years, I went to scriptures to understand the term. I was greatly supprised to find that most of the uses of the term “begotten of God” related to The Father begetting Jesus.

The link Jesus Loves God takes a look at what I found. I am a life long Catholic and this is what I have found and does not nessessarily reflect the Church. Please visit if you like and let me know what you think.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

NAB PSA 2:4

He who is throned in heaven laughs; the LORD derides them; Then in anger he speaks to them; he terrifies them in his wrath: “I myself have set up my king on Zion, my holy mountain. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: The LORD said to me, 'You are my son; this day I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will give you the nations for an inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession. You shall rule them with an iron rod: you shall shatter them like an earthen dish.’” NAB ACT 13:32

“We ourselves announce to you the good news that what God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, in raising up Jesus, according to what is written in the second psalm, You are my son; this day I have begotten you.” **NAB JOH 3:3 **

Jesus gave him this answer: “I solemnly assure you, no one can see the reign of God unless he is begotten from above.” “How can a man be born again once he is old?” retorted Nicodemus. “Can he return to his mother’s womb and be born over again?” Jesus replied: “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit.” NAB HEB 1:5 Messianic Enthronement.

To which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”? And again, when he leads his first-born into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”

 

[Riley259]

You are born again if you’re a baptized christian.

 

[pipoluojo]

Malachi4U:

To the Catholic “born-again” or “born-anew” means what the Scripture says it means. By Scripture definition “Born-again” means baptized with water (not amniotic fluid). To most protestants Born-again means accepting Jesus. The two use the same phrase but with a different meaning. If we all used the same words with the same definition much of the confussion would end

Being born again is only enough to get to heaven if one endures to the end and follows Christs commandments for salvation. The Christ and only Christ - not you or me - will decide who is saved or not. (“saved” by Catholic definition meaning passed judgement “AFTER” death and going to heaven!).

Looks like much debate here about the same words and phrases but we do not all have the same definition for those words and phrases.

I agree with your view. Scriptural truth should be sacrosanct. Where people choose to interpret it outside the teachings of the Church, they do not unify but further dismember the Body of Christ. A catholic cannot mean the same thing as a protestant when he says he is born again.

Lord, that they may be one!

 

[Atheist-669]

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

• MJ - Atheist -

 

[pipoluojo]

Steven Merten:

Hello Pipoluojo,

When was Jesus “begotten of God”? Begotten of God is what the term “born again” is reffering to.

After being baraged by Protestants with the term “born again” for years, I went to scriptures to understand the term. I was greatly supprised to find that most of the uses of the term “begotten of God” related to The Father begetting Jesus.

Thanks a lot, Steven. The information is rich and I need little time to digest it thoroughly. But after running through it I could see a link between the term “born again” in the catholic sense, "Begotten of God " and “Obedient to the Will of God” They appear to describe a single channel by which we belong to the FATHER through Jesus. I will study more.
God Bless!

 

[Melchior]

Atheist-669:

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

• MJ - Atheist -

Please take this in all sincerity - How the heck do you know? You speak as if you have omniscience. You are certain of what you do not believe. But why should we believe you?

Also, you seem to assume only atheists can have fun. In my experience the atheists I have known were the most dour people I have ever met. What makes you think Christians don’t know how to have fun? Some of the greatest hymns of Christianity were written in taverns with the writers having a good Ale in one hand and a pen in the other.

No hope. No real enjoyment of life.

Mel

 

[Atheist-669]

Melchior:

Please take this in all sincerity - How the heck do you know? You speak as if you have omniscience. You are certain of what you do not believe. But why should we believe you?

Also, you seem to assume only atheists can have fun. In my experience the atheists I have known were the most dour people I have ever met. What makes you think Christians don’t know how to have fun? Some of the greatest hymns of Christianity were written in taverns with the writers having a good Ale in one hand and a pen in the other.

No hope. No real enjoyment of life.

Mel

Right. First of all, I don’t say believe, because I am an atheist:
Either I know, or I don’t know. That is a whole lot better than “I suppose, or I believe”, because suppose/believe means you are not certain. But that’s logical, since no religion can prove anything anyway.

Second, I don’t tell you to believe me, I tell you what I know, then it’s up to you if you can handle the truth.

And about atheists beeing “dore”: I don’t know the atheists in your community, and I don’t want to know them. But all my friends are atheists, and we party just about 2 times a week and we are having the best time since we all know that …our lives are only about having a good time, so we do what we want, when we want it (of course following the law).

If it gives you pleasure to enjoy your religion, please do, but the second you are bored of it, I suggest it’s time to abandon it.

By the way… You say Ale like an old Brit. Try ‘Beer’

 

[Melchior]

Atheist-669:

Right. First of all, I don’t say believe, because I am an atheist:
Either I know, or I don’t know. That is a whole lot better than “I suppose, or I believe”, because suppose/believe means you are not certain. But that’s logical, since no religion can prove anything anyway.

Second, I don’t tell you to believe me, I tell you what I know, then it’s up to you if you can handle the truth.

And about atheists beeing “dore”: I don’t know the atheists in your community, and I don’t want to know them. But all my friends are atheists, and we party just about 2 times a week and we are having the best time since we all know that …our lives are only about having a good time, so we do what we want, when we want it (of course following the law).

If it gives you pleasure to enjoy your religion, please do, but the second you are bored of it, I suggest it’s time to abandon it.

But you told us to “believe you”. Your beliefs, and atheism is a belief, are no more provable than ours. Do you believe in things you cannot see? Before you say no think about things like love, hate and compassion. You cannot prove any of these things exist but I am pretty sure you believe they do.

Before I was marrried and had kids I spent 2 nights a week at clubs and bars and had tons of fun. I still do when I can. My faith never hindered me from enjoying myself. Again, you don’t need to be an atheist to have fun. In fact I bet it’s much harder.

By the way… You say Ale like an old Brit. Try ‘Beer’

I am far from an old Brit. I said Ale because the people I was referring to tended to drink Ale (a type of Beer). Now if you want to talk beer I am all for it. I am a dedicated *beer * drinker.

Mel

 

[Atheist-669]

Melchior:

But you told us to “believe you”. Your beliefs, and atheism is a belief, are no more provable than ours.
Mel

I take this back: “Believe me on this one” (I suppose you understood what I meant anyway).

Atheists have nothing to prove, because they don’t believe in anything supernatural, and therefore is atheism not a “belief”.

Melchior:

Do you believe in things you cannot see? Before you say no think about things like love, hate and compassion. You cannot prove any of these things exist but I am pretty sure you believe they do.
Mel

Love, Hate and compassion are emotional responses the brain recognizes as a result of a hormone beeing released in your head. And by the way these emotions DO exist, and it is not too hard to prove with enough resources for biological and chemical tests. Everything you do is a result of how you choose to react, so called “free will”. And how you react in different situations is a result of what you have experienced through your life. Remeber that the brain is controlled by eletrical impulses, and your free will is controlled by your reactions on events that have taken place in your life.

Melchior:

Before I was marrried and had kids I spent 2 nights a week at clubs and bars and had tons of fun. I still do when I can. My faith never hindered me from enjoying myself. Again, you don’t need to be an atheist to have fun. In fact I bet it’s much harder.

I am far from an old Brit. I said Ale because the people I was referring to tended to drink Ale (a type of Beer). Now if you want to talk beer I am all for it. I am a dedicated *beer *drinker.
Mel

That’s nice.

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist-669:

No, you can and will not be born again.
Neither have you ever been reborn. This is your only life, when you die, it’s over. Believe me on this one: Have fun while you live! You are NOT going to live again, - ever.

• MJ - Atheist -

What brings you to this forum, then? I know when I was an agnostic I didn’t waste my time on anything religious, and if I was still an agnostic I wouldn’t even give this site a second glance. Not being rude, just curious.

 

[dfb1105]

RNRobert:

What brings you to this forum, then? I know when I was an agnostic I didn’t waste my time on anything religious, and if I was still an agnostic I wouldn’t even give this site a second glance. Not being rude, just curious.

Some people just like to push other people’s buttons. They like confrontation.

 

[Melchior]

Atheist-669:

I take this back: “Believe me on this one” (I suppose you understood what I meant anyway).

Atheists have nothing to prove, because they don’t believe in anything supernatural, and therefore is atheism not a “belief”.
Love, Hate and compassion are emotional responses the brain recognizes as a result of a hormone beeing released in your head. And by the way these emotions DO exist, and it is not too hard to prove with enough resources for biological and chemical tests. Everything you do is a result of how you choose to react, so called “free will”. And how you react in different situations is a result of what you have experienced through your life. Remeber that the brain is controlled by eletrical impulses, and your free will is controlled by your reactions on events that have taken place in your life.

Prove to me love exists. Just by talking about chemical reactions proves nothing. You cannot show me love. You cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, see it or hear it. You have absolutely zero empirical evidence of it’s existence. Yet you believe it exists. All based on subjective evidences. There is no way that love can be shown to be a chemical or neurological reaction since you cannot even say what love is or prove it’s existence.

And I honestly wonder how happy you really are in your Atheism since you chose to visit and participate in a Christian board. Why bother?

I have known two types of Atheists. The ones who say the don’t believe in God but act really angry with Him. And those who say they don’t believe in God and make a strong case for wanting to do whatever they please. Neither one is genuine. One Atheist is mad at God for various reasons and decides to ignore him in a type of cosmic juvenile hissy fit. And the other Atheist is not gonna let God tell them what they can and can not do. The cosmic equivalent of a bratty teenager.

In short Atheists usually end up betraying there supposed unbelief by showing they are simply rebellious. It is really very simple psychology.

Mel

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist-669:

…our lives are only about having a good time, so we do what we want, when we want it (of course following the law).

If our lives are only about “having a good time” and "doing what we want,’ why bother following the law (besides the obvious reason of staying out of jail)? If you can get away with it (or don’t care about the consequences) you should do whatever you want. If you get your jollies torturing animals, or if practicing pedophilia sends you into ecstasy, then why should you let soemthing like the law stop you?

 

[Atheist-669]

Umm, a little bit too many people to answer at once, but I will try.

dfb1105:
Right, well I am not one of them, i just think that religion should not be allowed to misguide people in the way “it” does today. Therefore I seek a discussion over wheter the religious persons in our societies can defend their beliefs, or if science has finally overrun it once and for all. Which would soon be… ‘about time’.
Of course I fully understand people who need a religion either to be a part of a group, or because they cannot handle the fact that they are gonna die etc. etc.

RNRobert:
I don’t seem to see which side you are supposed to be on this case, but I suppose you are a Catholic. First of all, that’s a nice fantasy you got there, but when I say ‘within the boundaries of the law’ I presume that the law is common rules which everyone accepts in a normal democracy or such. Everyone cannot do exactly as they please, remember - your freedom ends where respect for others begins.

And the original: Melchior:
I do not think I am either of the two ‘versions’ of an atheist you described. I am simply pro-science, and I do not like the many churches and religions in the world that are teaching people wrong ideas of how this world is put together. Many religious views today says the opposite of what the laws of physics can teach us. That is directly lying to people, and therefore I do not support it.
And about ‘love’: No I cannot show, touch, taste, smell, see or hear it, of course not. All feelings (love too) are electrical impulses in your brain. You usually cannot touch, taste, etc. electricity either, but you can feel it. And when you feel it, you have physical evidence that it exists. Of course we cannot materialize love, there are lots of things in this world we can’t materialize, f.ex. thoughts. Actually we can measure feelings, by keeping track of brain activity, sweat-production, bodyheat, etc. Neither of these are subjective evidence, they are very physical. Remember that love is just part of a whole spectrum of feelings, so I’d prefer if you didn’t pick out a single feeling/object that you can’t understand, try to keep the theme objective please.

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist-669:

RNRobert:
I don’t seem to see which side you are supposed to be on this case, but I suppose you are a Catholic. First of all, that’s a nice fantasy you got there, but when I say ‘within the boundaries of the law’ I presume that the law is common rules which everyone accepts in a normal democracy or such. Everyone cannot do exactly as they please, remember - your freedom ends where respect for others begins.

Yes, I am Catholic. Now, can you tell me WHY I should respect others. “Respect” is just another chemical reaction like love, hate or compassion. Why should someone let it influence them if it gets in the way of their having a good time? Same things about “Law” and “Rules.” After all, what are they? They are simply words on a piece of paper. And those words were put there by men who thought them up. So, they are simply ideas in someone’s head, more chemical reactions. And why should one person’s “chemical reactions” impede another person’s good time?

Atheist-669:

Therefore I seek a discussion over wheter the religious persons in our societies can defend their beliefs, or if science has finally overrun it once and for all. Which would soon be… ‘about time’.

I seriously doubt it. First off, there is no conflict between religion and science. Science can only answer the ‘how’, but only religion can answer the ‘why.’ The more scientists study the universe, the more many of them realize there has to be prime mover. Also, can you explain to me why, of all the species on this planet, we are the only ones with a rational mind, with the ability to create language, music, art, science, etc. If pure atheistic evolution is true, then after billions of years, surely other species should have evolved to our level, or close to it. Yet, none have.

 

[RNRobert]

Atheist-669:

RNRobert:
I don’t seem to see which side you are supposed to be on this case, but I suppose you are a Catholic. First of all, that’s a nice fantasy you got there, but when I say ‘within the boundaries of the law’ I presume that the law is common rules which everyone accepts in a normal democracy or such. Everyone cannot do exactly as they please, remember - your freedom ends where respect for others begins.

Yes, I am Catholic. Now, can you tell me WHY I should respect others? “Respect” is just another chemical reaction like love, hate or compassion. Why should someone let it influence them if it gets in the way of their having a good time? Same things about “Law” and “Rules.” After all, what are they? They are simply words on a piece of paper. And those words were put there by men who thought them up. So, they are simply ideas in someone’s head, more chemical reactions. And why should one person’s “chemical reactions” impede another person’s good time?

Atheist-669:

Therefore I seek a discussion over wheter the religious persons in our societies can defend their beliefs, or if science has finally overrun it once and for all. Which would soon be… ‘about time’.

I seriously doubt it. First off, there is no conflict between religion and science. Science can only answer the ‘how’, but only religion can answer the ‘why.’ The more scientists study the universe, the more many of them realize there has to be prime mover. Also, can you explain to me why, of all the species on this planet, we are the only ones with a rational mind, with the ability to create language, music, art, science, etc. If pure atheistic evolution is true, then after billions of years, surely other species should have evolved to our level, or close to it. Yet, none have.

 

[Atheist-669]

RNRobert:

Yes, I am Catholic. Now, can you tell me WHY I should respect others. “Respect” is just another chemical reaction like love, hate or compassion. Why should someone let it influence them if it gets in the way of their having a good time? Same things about “Law” and “Rules.” After all, what are they? They are simply words on a piece of paper. And those words were put there by men who thought them up. So, they are simply ideas in someone’s head, more chemical reactions. And why should one person’s “chemical reactions” impede another person’s good time?

I don’t know if you read the last part of what I wrote: Your freedom ends where respect for others begins. You should understand this, your freedom is only extended to where the comfort and safety of ‘your next’ begins.
Those laws and rules were NOT created by “some men who thought them up”, they were created as a bottom line to a civilized democracy. Everyone has agreed that it would be in common interest to keep these laws to ensure the safety of all persons in a society. If your ‘joy’ conflicts with another person’s safety and/or comfort, then you should not be allowed to have that “joy”. If you disagree, please take it up with authorities, not with me. Remeber it is important that all persons in a society feel safe. With that as a ‘base’ you can start building your personality, find joy, find confidence and find comfort. Psychologically, safety is often viewed upon as the most important human reaction. (Maslow).

RNRobert:

I seriously doubt it. First off, there is no conflict between religion and science. Science can only answer the ‘how’, but only religion can answer the ‘why.’ The more scientists study the universe, the more many of them realize there has to be prime mover. Also, can you explain to me why, of all the species on this planet, we are the only ones with a rational mind, with the ability to create language, music, art, science, etc. If pure atheistic evolution is true, then after billions of years, surely other species should have evolved to our level, or close to it. Yet, none have.

There ARE conflicts between religion and science. A lot of statements/stories in the Bible are in direct conflict with possibility. And by the way do not give me that “you have to interpret all the stories”.
Yes, science can answer how. But I would not in any circumstance claim that religion could answer why. First of all you mentioned a so called ‘prime mover’. I haven’t heard ONE single scientist claim that there is a “prime mover”. And if there even were, it would of course stick to the ‘laws of physics’, as we call it, or in other words: What is possible. It would not be anything supernatural, that is why the call it “super”-natural.

And by the way, humans are NOT the most intelligent species on this planet. Per definiton, large whales have a higher brain capacity and could therefore learn a lot more than us. Unfortunately for the whales it isn’t easy to build a society without arms, hands and a mouth to communicate properly with. So NO, we are not the only species with a ‘rational mind’. Please check your facts before you submit an argument. And secondly, evolution does not just “jump” forward. It is a very long process and only the strongest will survive. The only reason humans are the masters of this planet is because our bodies are very practical in use; we can create, destroy and act together with communication (thanks to our forefathers). Still, humans are technically just another animal (only more advanced than the “average”).

 

[mlchance]

Atheist-669:

I haven’t heard ONE single scientist claim that there is a “prime mover”.

Then you’re obviously not as knowledgeable about science as you think you are. Start with Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur for scientists who had no problem believing in God. Then segue into Dr. Stanley Jaki for a more modern figure. I recommend you start with The Bible and Science.

Atheist-669:

This is your only life, when you die, it’s over.

Looks suspiciously like a positive truth claim. In that case, it ought to be demonstrable. So, please prove that this is your only life.

– Mark L. Chance.