What does "born again" mean?

Question

When we are all born atheists. We have no religious beliefs at first, we learn those from our parents. So if you are born again, does that mean you have returned to your beginning and are Atheists again? Interesting...

Answer 1

It means you become a child again, with no knowledge of evolution, still believing in fairy tales, thinking because you pray or wish on a star, that it will actually change something.

And of course, you believe there's a shining city in the sky where you & your enemies (Christian) will live happily together for ETERNITY.

You also think people want to listen to your incessant religious talk, like a child thinks everyone wants to listen to them all the time.

Answer 2

Well, religious beliefs don't necessarily come from ones parents, although many times they do.

Some Christians believe that you have to be born again in this life, a mis-interpretation of the Bible in my view. Simply saying one is born again doesn't make it so. I believe that one is born again at death. And that, that is what the Bible says.

But being born atheist is an oxymoron, at best. You aren't born anything, you are completely dependent on someone taking care of you and you have no knowledge of anything.
Don't know why I gave a serious answer to this question, but that's just me. And I have a problem with the "born again" thing.

Answer 3

Born Again? Very good question, and not surprised that you're confused. This term comes from John chapter 3, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus: "Do not marvel when I say to you, you must be born again..." (John 3:7). A more literal translation of the Greek would be: "you all must be born from above." It has come to characterize Christians who have undergone a personal conversion experience. The question remains whether or not this new birth is something that the believer must consciously feel. Traditional Christian Churches such as the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, later the Lutheran, and Anglican (and Methodist) believed that baptism of infants was sufficient to confer the grace of salvation upon the person. Anabaptists, for example, questioned this and said that only adult believers should be baptized as an act of their own free will. Most modern day Evangelical churches follow this practice. Pentecostalism is somewhat different from both traditional Protestantism and contemporary Evangelicalism. This is because of their belief in a second Baptism--that of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes they view speaking in tongues as the "evidence" of this Baptism. This doctrine has caused more division than it ought to, but the belief in the second indwelling of Christ is something that has been uncomfortable for a lot of Christians for some time. It's possible that this experience is what the Wesleys were after. Their revivalist movement was called "Methodism" because they seemed to have a method to getting people saved and then sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit. They can be understood as precursors to the modern day Pentecostal revival that was sparked at Asuza Street in Los Angeles in the early 1900's. It was at an AME (African Methodist Episcopal) church that a preacher named William Seymour led the revivals that came to be called Pentecostalism. Your question underscores the unfortunate, but very real divide that exists in today's Evangelical Christians between the Charismatic (another term loosely meaning Pentecostal) and the Fundamental (those who are strongly Bible based but deny any miraculous powers are given to the believer). An example would be Oral Roberts (Charismatic healer) vs. Billy Graham (dynamic, but not "Charismatic," preacher). The emphasis on being born again would be more Fundamental, while the Pentecostals would urge the believer to be "filled with the Holy Spirit." An example of a strongly Fundamental but anti-Charismatic institution would be the Dallas Theological Seminary. Some people would disagree with this characterization of "Fundamental," by I think its accurate. I'd much rather preach to you the scriptures; but I remember my days of seeking answers, and I just wanted some basic information. Yours in Christ, Nick

Answer 4

there is more than one meaning because god teaches at more than one level. That is ,,, in a couple sentences or so he can teach 2 or more precepts. One is a deeper or hidden precept. Some say it is a rebirth of your attitude towards god and things like that there. Which it is. But to the deeper student it means also that you were born once when god created everything and everybody. Then you were born again after the sixth "day" mentioned in Genesis. This your earthly birth is your first baptism. It is a birth of water. In your mothers womb you were fully submerged in the water sack, were you not? Baptize means "fully submerged". So it means that you must be born of woman (born again) to enter heaven. Do you know that there are some angels that refuse to be born of woman.
So when God said "ye must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven". It was and is a warning to those angels who refuse to do so. Instead they come in from other ways. John chapter 10 v 1 alludes to this fact. also Jude verses 5&6. It is not for everbody to be able to descern this. I pray you will understand this.

Answer 5

Sorry, you have a misunderstanding of this issue. According to the scriptures, every person is born with an inherent knowledge of God. Read Romans 1 verse 19 and 20. It is ones choice to become an atheist.

Answer 6

To be born again is to be born of the Spirit. First we are born of flesh, then (those of us who are followers of Christ) are born again. Meaning we are born of the Spirit. This does not mean we are to go back into our mother's womb and start again. Read the book of John3:3-8. This should clear things up for you.

Answer 7

Born Atheists?


William Edelen, a former professor of religious studies and anthropology, wrote a commentary article in a Palm Springs, California newspaper under the title, "We’re all born atheists and brainwashed to believe." In the article, he argues that if we were really "born again," then we would all return to atheism because "that is the way we were born the first time around." He says that every baby born into this world has no belief in "god, goddesses, Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Shiva or anything else until such time as we brainwash, indoctrinate, threaten or coerce them into some adult belief system, the same one usually that we were brainwashed into as children." He continues:

"Through acculturation, we become something other than what we were at birth. That is the definition of atheism. The only reason that you are a Christian is because you were born in America."

He continues throughout the article in a similar vein, charging that "religious belief systems are only an accident of birth." He thinks that the "Christian myth" will soon die out, and concludes: "The resurrection of a free human spirit from this dying monolith will turn out to be one of the most significant events in the history of civilization. Like the Phoenix, the spiritually free will rise alive from the ashes."

Mr. Edelen has a few problems with his own "belief system." Setting aside his misconception about being "born again" (i.e., not a return to what we were but an entrance into an entirely new life), I challenge his concept of atheism. Atheism is not so passive as Mr. Edelen tries to make it sound. Atheism is not having no belief at all; atheism is an active belief that there is no God. Babies are not atheists; they are just ignorant. They have no beliefs in anything whatsoever because they have not developed the capacity to think and reason. If Mr. Edelen’s article says much at all, it’s consequence is that a return to atheism is a return to ignorance, since that’s what babies really are. I don’t think he would want to accept that conclusion. But it’s only logical.

From what he says, atheism is becoming something other than what we were at birth through acculturation. Huh? Again, what we are at birth is ignorant. Now I wonder if Mr. Edelen teaches anyone that there is no God. If so, is he also guilty of the acculturation, brainwashing, indoctrination, or coercion with which he charges everyone else who believes in something?

He argues that the "only reason" anyone is a Christian is because of this acculturation. Children come to believe in whatever their parents teach them. But if Mr. Edelen is correct in the idea that there is no God, then would he not have to admit that there was a time when someone, somewhere first believed in God without being taught it by parents? If so, what was the "only reason" that this person became a theist? And I doubt he or she was born in America.

It’s also very poor scholarship to suggest that the "only reason" anyone is a Christian is due to being "born in America." That’s not a very scientific statement. Now I would agree that many people are what they are religiously because they have been "born" into a family with this religion. But to suggest that this is true of everyone? I don’t think I’d have to travel very far to find someone who can disprove that. I wonder if he would appreciate the statement that the "only reason" he or anyone else is an atheist is because they have been indoctrinated by atheists who tell them that smart people are atheists.

There is a subtle suggestion that Christians have no real minds of their own; they have blind faith and no evidence to back up their beliefs. That’s another article, though. It’s interesting that he accepts things that supposedly happened 150,000 years ago, even though there are no documents, eyewitnesses, or anything else to back it all up, but then calls something a "myth" that has plenty of historical evidences, including eyewitnesses and early documents. What was that proverb about the legs of the lame? By the way, I wonder if he would call macroevolutionary theory a myth? Think there’s any "brainwashing" going on there?

Mr. Edelen would probably not admit it, but atheists also have a religious belief system. It’s called secular humanism. Atheists deny it’s a religion, but then watch them turn around and defend it with ardor and zeal, trying to "evangelize" people into believing that there is no God. That’s what his article is doing. He’ll avoid religious-sounding terms (e.g., "think" instead of "believe"), but this is just playing around with words to avoid the undeniable consequences. The god of atheism is just materialistic instead of spiritual.

In the end, Mr. Edelen’s article is an attempt to coerce people into believing there is no God; after all, only brainwashed people believe in God. I guess we just don’t get it, do we? Shouldn’t we have figured out by now that only intelligent people are atheists while everyone else is brainwashed and enslaved? I guess he’s enlightened.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ... Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:20-22).

Answer 8

To be "Born again" means to be Baptized in the Name Of the Father, & Of the Son, & Of the Holy Spirit.

We are all born with the stain of original sin.

When we are Baptized, we die to our sins with Christ Our Lord, & Rise again with Him as Christians.

The common teaching among fundamentalist & evangelical Protestant churches such as Baptists & Pentecostals, that teach that being "Born again," means suddenly accepting Jesus with such missionary zeal is error.

Answer 9

We are born by Gods will and thus are born in God. Being born again simply means that you make a consious decision to believe in Him.

Answer 10

No, it means you are spiritually born again into Christianity to get it right the second time.

Answer 11

I agree with the first person that we are born anything we are taught everything. Born again means, Christianity, a person has accepted Christ as their personal savior. Not living via worldly things but through the bible and its principles.