board77

I'm curious as to what people think this means. Is it a good thing or bad? Is it a large group or small? Is it a group at all, and if so, what does this group stand for?

My own opinion is so different than is portrayed elsewhere I'm trying to figure it out.

I'm probably the one who triggered you into posting this, therefore I must answer first ...

I think it is a bad thing. A medium to large group. I don't know if it is actually an organisation, but I suppose several churches use the term "born again" to coin their beliefs in a way several opinions claim to be part of a "moral majority".

I think it is bad because it is fanatic, and I think no fanatism is good, even if it is the fanatism for being good.

I despise the term "born again" as it, in a way, denies responsibility for the "previous" life. You only have one life to live, it may have the ages of man, but you cannot divide it into partitions at your discretion without hurting the surrounding.

Yeah, you brought it up, but I had meant to ask this previously. In fact I probably did, but I don't remember starting a thread on it...

I hope I won't offend anyone if I quote the bumper sticker I saw the other day. It said Born alright the first time.

That aside, and not knowing what prompted hal's post, I have to admit to being wary of "born-again" types, in any religion. The ones I know first- or second-hand seem to be men who suffered from lack of internal structure and found the much-needed support in the external structure of a very strict religious observance.

In some cases, this has helped them to sort out serious personal problems, such as drug addiction in one case, and that is a great thing for them. The problem is, they (the folks I know or know of, I do not wish to generalize overmuch) seemed to be adamantly convinced that what's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. They point to their prior unhappy state and subsequent reformation as a proof that they have found the "one true way". It doesn't enter their heads that those of us who are not as unhappy as they are may not need to rely on such a rigid external structure.

I have great respect for any earnest faith. My own faith was something that I came to as a young adult and it matures with me as part of my personal growth. What bothers me is people who not only seem to discard their own life, but demand that everybody else make their lives over in exact same way. Not sure to what extent this describes the group that hal has mention.

I resent the concept of special revelation given exclusively to an elite which ordinary people must accept from them on faith under threat of damnation.

Dave_LF wrote:

I resent the concept of special revelation given exclusively to an elite which ordinary people must accept from them on faith under threat of damnation.

could you elaborate a little bit?

halplm wrote:

Dave_LF wrote:

I resent the concept of special revelation given exclusively to an elite which ordinary people must accept from them on faith under threat of damnation.

could you elaborate a little bit?

Well; the criticism isn't specific to born-again (or any other type of) Christianity. It applies to most or all revealed religions. There is an elite group (in this case, the Biblical authors) who claim to have access to special knowledge that ordinary people do not, or who have that claim made for them by third parties. Ordinary people are expected to accept them at their word. If they disbelieve or even ask questions, they are condemned. Thomas Paine went on about this in "The Age of Reason". "Faith in God" is replaced with "faith in the person who tells me about God".

I can't say whether born again christians are a large or small group, though I believe they are quite large (and keep mostly to the Southern States), but I am not keen on evangelical types at all, born once or again and again. If I knew more about their doctrines, I could say with more conviction whether being born again is inherently one way or the other. My gut tells me that it isn't inherently bad, but their actions always seem to be socially invasive and I don't care for that. It's all conjecture, though.

I very much like the way Dave phrased things. I agree with that.

Dave_LF wrote:

There is an elite group (in this case, the Biblical authors) who claim to have access to special knowledge that ordinary people do not, or who have that claim made for them by third parties. Ordinary people are expected to accept them at their word. If they disbelieve or even ask questions, they are condemned.

I don't quite understand this view of the Biblical authors as an elite group who claim to have access to special knowledge that ordinary people do not. I mean, couldn't that be said of anyone who writes about anything they've experienced or that has been passed down to them?

I've never quite grasped this notion of elitism with respect to Christianity, because it is up to the hearer to decide if they will accept the Bible as truth. Everyone is free to decide whether or not to accept for themselves what the Bible presents. Membership isn't restricted, as at some kind of exclusive club. It is up to each individual if they want to 'join.' Where is the elitism in that?

I believe this is the biblical passage the term 'born-again' comes from:

Quote:

Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again*, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

John 3:3-6

*or from above

Cerin wrote:

I've never quite grasped this notion of elitism with respect to Christianity, because it is up to the hearer to decide if they will accept the Bible as truth. Everyone is free to decide whether or not to accept for themselves what the Bible presents. Membership isn't restricted, as at some kind of exclusive club. It is up to each individual if they want to 'join.' Where is the elitism in that?

Cerin, the notion of elitism comes from the insistence of (at least some) club members that those who do not join the club will everlastingly burn in hell.

The word "elite" in my post refers to the Biblical authors; not to priests or parishioners. God revealed his word to *them*; not to *you*.

Frelga wrote:

Cerin wrote:

I've never quite grasped this notion of elitism with respect to Christianity, because it is up to the hearer to decide if they will accept the Bible as truth. Everyone is free to decide whether or not to accept for themselves what the Bible presents. Membership isn't restricted, as at some kind of exclusive club. It is up to each individual if they want to 'join.' Where is the elitism in that?

Cerin, the notion of elitism comes from the insistence of (at least some) club members that those who do not join the club will everlastingly burn in hell.

That's twisting it around though. The notion is, that all are doomed to burn in hell. There is no elitism there. However, there is a free pass to avoid that fate. Doesn't make anyone elite, simply willing to take that pass.

I'm finding the definitions interesting so far, and will comment later, but I'd like to hear more first.

Dave_LF wrote:

The word "elite" in my post refers to the Biblical authors; not to priests or parishioners. God revealed his word to *them*; not to *you*.

Not to get off track, but Biblical authors witnessed things, they were not "revealed to them." The Book of Mormon was "revealed" to Joseph Smith, and I don't believe a word of it, but the Biblical account of Jesus was witnessed and we have their account.

That's not quite the same thing.

Frelga wrote:

Cerin, the notion of elitism comes from the insistence of (at least some) club members that those who do not join the club will everlastingly burn in hell.

But consider it in a different light. Suppose a large ship is sinking, and a group of people in a lifeboat are shouting to others who aren't in the lifeboat, 'Hurry, get in or you'll drown!" Would you call that elitism?

I just don't think elitism is the right word. Elitism would apply if the people in the lifeboat believed they deserved to be in the lifeboat more than the people who weren't in it, and were trying to keep others out of the lifeboat (and I do not think there is any basis for assuming that is the attitude of those who consider themselves 'born again').

Cerin wrote:

Cerin, the notion of elitism comes from the insistence of (at least some) club members that those who do not join the club will everlastingly burn in hell.

If it wasn't evident that the boat was sinking, and the club members belief that it was was based on a supposed supernatural revelation that only they could receive, then yes, I would.

Cerin wrote:

But consider it in a different light. Suppose a large ship is sinking, and a group of people in a lifeboat are shouting to others who aren't in the lifeboat, 'Hurry, get in or you'll drown!" Would you call that elitism?

It's a great analogy, Cerin.

Let's call it a difference of perception. One group sees everybody on a sinking ship and is piling into the lifeboat while trying to rescue as many people as it can. The other group sees everybody on solid ground and is greatly puzzled at all the fuss. Each group is firmly convinced that their perception is the right one.

It is hard for many Christians, no matter how many times they are born, to imagine a worldview in which hell does not exist and no damnation is looming.

EDIT: Crossposted with Dave_LF. Mind you, I was only referring to the large group that is sincerely trying to rescue what they see as men overboard. There are plenty out there building there own little lifeboats, claiming them to be the only ones that are seaworthy, and charging a steep price for admission.

Dave_LF wrote:

The word "elite" in my post refers to the Biblical authors; not to priests or parishioners. God revealed his word to *them*; not to *you*.

I still don't see how that qualifies as elitism. God had to reveal his word to someone, in order for it to be made available to everyone. The authors are not held on any different level than anyone else. Elitism is about having a group above the masses, to rule over them. Faith is the same personal type of experience to everyone, be it the Biblical author hearing and responding to God's revelation by writing it down, or myself, responding to God's revelation as represented in the Bible, by deciding to believe it.

halplm wrote:

That's twisting it around though. The notion is, that all are doomed to burn in hell. There is no elitism there. However, there is a free pass to avoid that fate. Doesn't make anyone elite, simply willing to take that pass.

Yes, that's well put.

Dave_LF wrote:

If it wasn't evident that the boat was sinking, and the club members belief that it was was based on a supposed supernatural revelation that only they could receive, then yes, I would.

But the club members' belief that the boat is sinking isn't based on a supposed supernatural revelation that they believe only they can receive. It is based on faith, the decision to believe what the Bible says, a decision anyone is free to make.

Cerin,

An apt analogy in light of the date; 93 years ago as of 2:20 AM April 15, the passengers of a certain ship were dealing with just that sort of elitism I happen to be a fanatic about said ship, so indulge me

I agree with those who have said that elitism isn't the right word, although I understand the underlying sentiment.

***

I will be blunt: I take issue with religions that insist that they have the "one true path". Assuming there is a Divinity, I do not accept that there is a "one size fits all" approach to religion and spirituality that would be conducive to each person approaching Him/Her/It.

I remember when I was in high school, and we were taking Algebra II. There were two given ways to solve for a certain variable, both of which would tell you what "x" was. One of them made perfect sense to me; I could solve for "x" every single time. The other was complete gibberish to me - it was absolutely a valid means to solve for x, and other people were using it, and they were asking why I just couldn't see that that was a reasonable means of finding x, but it just didn't work for me. That didn't make their way wrong, and it didn't make my way wrong. We both got x.

I have always thought of religion, like all things, the same way. There is not going to be one way to understand any Higher Being that works for all of us. There can only be many paths.

Otherwise, how are we to understand the world? Here am I, agnostic extraordinaire. I decide, while treading water in the Atlantic Ocean following the demise of my secular, "God himself could not sink this ship" ship ("Titanic"), I want to adopt a religious worldview ("lifeboat"). I talk to the born-again Christians, and they tell me to get on their lifeboat, and I won't sink. Their lifeboat is made of the highest quality materials, they claim, and it is the only one of its kind. As I'm treading water, Islamic right-wingers call me over, and they tell me that only one lifeboat is durable enough to weather this crisis, and it's theirs. Both are equally convinced they are right. But, either one or both is wrong that their boat is the only one that won't sink. Logic dictates that (1) one of them has the only viable boat, or (2) they are both wrong, and neither of them has a viable boat, or (3) they both have viable boats and are wrong about their exclusivity.

As I'm mulling these issues over and treading water vigorously, I speak to the Jewish and Hindu lifeboats, and they tell me something else: these lifeboats are all constructed equally. They will all weather the crisis. They tell me that I have but to determine which is the closest to me (the "most accessible") and climb on. I follow their advice.

I suspect that I can keep floating this way until the Carpathia arrives.

- TP

Wow, I was thinking of the Titanic, but I didn't know this was the date of the sinking.