Born Again Bozos!

[Perknose]

Apparently, Protestants rule, while born-agains and the non-religiously affiliated are brain-shrunk bozos!

WEDNESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults who say they've had a life-changing religious experience are more likely to have a greater decrease in size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain critical to learning and memory, new research finds.

According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again.

It's SCIENCE, bitches!* :awe:

The researchers noted other factors related to hippocampal atrophy, such as age, depression or brain size, as well as other religious factors such as prayer or meditation, could not explain the study's findings.

http://www.philly.com/philly/health...ain__Linked_to_More_Brain_Atrophy__Study.html














*Me not so srs.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Maybe because the hippocampus in nonborn-again Protestants goes unused?

You must be looking to stir up ATOT this afternoon!

 

[BrokenVisage]

Hello Bozos!

 

[busydude]

Can some one explain it to me who or what.. born-agains are?

 

[WelshBloke]

Can some one explain it to me who or what.. born-agains are?

Usually people trying to get a reduced sentence at court.

"Your Honour, since committing his heinous crime the defendant has found God and regrets his past wayward life."

 

[Nintendesert]

Can some one explain it to me who or what.. born-agains are?

Aren't you a cow worshiper? You should know all about being born again.

 

[WelshBloke]

Aren't you a cow worshiper? You should know all about being born again.

Well a good steak is a thing worth worship.

 

[Crono]

I'm not surprised.

So why would born-again Protestants, Catholics and those with no religious affiliation have a smaller hippocampus?

Researchers speculate it may have something to do with the stress of belonging to a minority group. Chronic stress floods the brain with hormones that, over time, may damage the hippocampus.

Sociologists of religion, meanwhile, aren't buying it. They say the researchers' theory flies in the face of U.S. religious demographics. While it's true that evangelicals are a minority, they're a sizable one — 40% of the U.S. population, according to Gallup Polls — and not exactly a stressed-out minority, especially in the South.

"There are probably more born-again Protestants than non-born-again Protestants, and just about as many Catholics as either born-again or non-born- again Protestants," said David Roozen, sociologist of religion at Hartford Seminary.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-05-25-brain24_ST_N.htm

 

[Crono]

Can some one explain it to me who or what.. born-agains are?

Christians who claim to have repented of sin and claim Jesus as Lord.
Also known as being "saved".

I am a Christian. The "born-again" title became popular due to the evangelical movement. I don't mind saying I am saved or have been born again, but I think saying I am a follower or disciple of Christ (i.e. a Christian) is a better way to put it, since it makes it clear that the Bible and the life/teachings of Christ are central to it.

 

[Crono]

It's interesting to look at the methodology of the study. Points 4 and 5 piqued my interest - it's very inclusive and broad criteria if they were just looking for self-identified "born again" believers. Looks like comparatively they are the worst off:

1) no born again status or life-changing religious experience, 2) baseline born-again status, 3) new born-again status (i.e., responded no to born-again question at baseline, but yes at a later interview), 4) baseline life-changing religious experience, and 5) new life-changing religious experience

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017006

 

[Eug]

This thread made me think of this:

 

[busydude]

Aren't you a cow worshiper? You should know all about being born again.

Cows are OK, not my favorite animal though.

 

[highland145]

Christians who claim to have repented of sin and claim Jesus as Lord.
Also known as being "saved".

I am a Christian. The "born-again" title became popular due to the evangelical movement. I don't mind saying I am saved or have been born again, but I think saying I am a follower or disciple of Christ (i.e. a Christian) is a better way to put it, since it makes it clear that the Bible and the life/teachings of Christ are central to it.

:thumbsup:




Great thread Perk.

 

[busydude]

Christians who claim to have repented of sin and claim Jesus as Lord. Also known as being "saved".

Do I get a free pass to commit sins if I repent after each one?

 

[Nintendesert]

Do I get a free pass to commit sins if I repent after each one?

Yes, but you can never know if you'll have time to repent after each sin. Gamble with your soul if you wish!

 

[Crono]

Do I get a free pass to commit sins if I repent after each one?

If you view being saved as a license to sin, then you probably aren't saved.

Repentance = a complete turning away from the path of sin. It doesn't mean you become perfect, but it means you hate sin and desire it no longer.

If you like the idea of being able to sin and having the slate wiped away each time, you should get a time machine and go back to the pre-Reformation Catholic church.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If you view being saved as a license to sin, then you probably aren't saved.

Repentance = a complete turning away from the path of sin. It doesn't mean you become perfect, but it means you hate sin and desire it no longer.

If you like the idea of being able to sin and having the slate wiped away each time, you should get a time machine and go back to the pre-Reformation Catholic church.

So then, there's a point when God will stop forgiving one's sins?

 

[Crono]

So then, there's a point when God will stop forgiving one's sins?

No.

But the question is intent of heart.
A good way to understand it is the parable of the prodigal son. He was disobedient and as far removed from being a good son, but once he realized his own selfishness and the distance he had fallen, he came back to his father in humility. He was contrite, not looking to take advantage of his father, but seeking only a place - even a lowly one - in his father's house.

Just as a good parent will forgive a child again and again, God will forgive all and forever someone who truly repents. But if you come to come with a rebellious heart, only pretending and not really with a meek or broken spirit, you really can't expect to be forgiven. If you truly want forgiveness, it's there, but it's not something to be seized by those who simply want to break the law of God again and again.

That's the essence of the beattitudes; in Matthew 5 (beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, early in Jesus' ministry) Jesus said this:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Arrogant, unrepentant hypocrites have no place in God's kingdom. It's for this reason Jesus repeatedly spoke against the Pharisees, who demonstrated no real love for God, but only self-righteousness and a thirst for power and prestige among men.

 

[busydude]

It's for this reason Jesus repeatedly spoke against the Pharisees, who demonstrated no real love for God, but only self-righteousness and a thirst for power and prestige among men.

How are Pharisees different from priests?

But if you come to come with a rebellious heart, only pretending and not really with a meek or broken spirit, you really can't expect to be forgiven. If you truly want forgiveness, it's there, but it's not something to be seized by those who simply want to break the law of God again and again.

That is entirely subjective.

Let us assume that Robin Hood was real. He is constantly stealing wealth from the King. The King got all this money by managing its kingdom extraordinarily and Robin Hood does not understand this.. his only motivation is to steal from the rich and give it to the poor. Does it make RH a bad person for stealing wealth.. or a good person for feeding the poor?

 

[Crono]

How are Pharisees different from priests?

They aren't. Not by much.

That is entirely subjective.

No question about that. But I'm not claiming to be the judge of men's hearts. I can only examine my own.

Let us assume that Robin Hood was real. He is constantly stealing wealth from the King. The King got all this money by managing its kingdom extraordinarily and Robin Hood does not understand this.. his only motivation is to steal from the rich and give it to the poor. Does it make RH a bad person for stealing wealth.. or a good person for feeding the poor?

Bad. Doing a good thing by the wrong method (in your case, by stealing from a king) is evil, and if he justifies himself, it makes him self righteous as well. It would be one thing if the king was guilty of stealing and he were returning the wealth to the poor. But that isn't the scenario you gave.

History is filled with examples of leaders and individuals who wreaked horrendous evil because they did "good" by evil means.

 

[Perknose]

Christians who claim to have repented of sin and claim Jesus as Lord.
Also known as being "saved".

I am a Christian. The "born-again" title became popular due to the evangelical movement. I don't mind saying I am saved or have been born again, but I think saying I am a follower or disciple of Christ (i.e. a Christian) is a better way to put it, since it makes it clear that the Bible and the life/teachings of Christ are central to it.

:thumbsup:

That not quite it at all, Crono. You haven't been born again unless you have specifically had a SECOND, FORMAL conversion and baptism. Did you not know this?

It doesn't matter what you "don't mind saying." Unless you have formally gone through this second process you are simply not "born again."

In Christianity, babies (and non-Christian adults) are formally baptized, ie, they receive the sacrament of baptism, which is what formally makes them Christians. Until and unless you are baptized, you simply ARE NOT formally a Christian, which is why the Catholics used to have Limbo, which is where the babies who died before they had a chance to be baptized went since they couldn't go to heaven!

This is not good enough for the born agains, who insist that they have, in adulthood, a second revelatory conversion and so are, like babies come into the world, "born again" and then they are baptized again. More sacraments and pious super-certainty for everyone, yay!

Throughout most of Christian history, to be "born again" was understood as spiritual regeneration via the sacrament of baptism by the power of water and word. This is still the understanding in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy. However, beginning sometime after the Reformation, being born again[5] has been predominantly understood by some Protestants (of the "anabaptist" branch) to be an experience of conversion symbolized by water baptism, and rooted in a commitment to one's own personal faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

[...]

In recent history, born again is a term that has been widely associated with the evangelical Christian renewal since the late 1960s, first in the United States and then later around the world. Associated perhaps initially with Jesus People and the Christian counterculture, born again came to refer to a conversion experience, accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in order to be saved from Hell and given eternal life with God in Heaven, and was increasingly used as a term to identify devout believers.[citation needed] By the mid 1970s, born again Christians were increasingly referred to in the mainstream media as part of the born again movement.

Great thread Perk.

Dude, did not follow my asterix to my "*Me not so srs. " addendum? As any sort of science it's weak sauce indeed.

 

[Crono]

That not quite it at all, Crono. You haven't been born again unless you have specifically had a SECOND, FORMAL conversion and baptism. Did you not know this?

I was born again and baptized. I'm not going by popular theology, Wikipedia, or current (or past) Roman Catholic teaching. Going by what Jesus said, one must be born of the Spirit (action of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the will of God choosing you) and the water (representing the Word of God, consistent with other passages of scripture).

That phrase, "born again", is a scriptural one in origin:

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”- John 3:3

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

Baptism is a symbol of the inward change - it is representative of the death of the old being you were, and the birth of a new one, cleansed from unrighteousness by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The word translated "baptism" is used synonymously with "salvation" or saving faith, but the actual physical act of being baptized is not necessary for salvation, though it is a commandment. Child baptism isn't supported by scripture - people always believed and then were baptized. Baptism serves as a testimony of salvation.

IF physical baptism by water were required for salvation/being born again, Jesus never would have told the thief who hung on a cross next to him, "this day you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). It's pretty clear that man was never baptized, though he did profess faith in Jesus (verse 42 of same chapter): "And he was saying, 'Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!'"

Scripture is clear. If you want to argue outside of it, I have no further comment.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I was born again and baptized. I'm not going by popular theology, Wikipedia, or current (or past) Roman Catholic teaching. Going by what Jesus said, one must be born of the Spirit (action of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the will of God choosing you) and the water (representing the Word of God, consistent with other passages of scripture).

That phrase, "born again", is a scriptural one in origin:

"Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”- John 3:3

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

Baptism is a symbol of the inward change - it is representative of the death of the old being you were, and the birth of a new one, cleansed from unrighteousness by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The word translated "baptism" is used synonymously with "salvation" or saving faith, but the actual physical act of being baptized is not necessary for salvation, though it is a commandment. Child baptism isn't supported by scripture - people always believed and then were baptized. Baptism serves as a testimony of salvation.

IF physical baptism by water were required for salvation/being born again, Jesus never would have told the thief who hung on a cross next to him, "this day you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). It's pretty clear that man was never baptized, though he did profess faith in Jesus (verse 42 of same chapter): "And he was saying, 'Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!'"

Scripture is clear. If you want to argue outside of it, I have no further comment.

This.

 

[TheVrolok]

Hello Bozos!

That is exactly the first thing that came to my mind! Well played, sir!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That study fits a friend of mine perfectly. Was going to a Baptist church with a girlfriend, just so he could get some. Says he had a religious experience while sitting there ignoring a sermon 1 Sunday. Turned into a full blown Jebus freak, and put his brain on hold. His explanations, straight from his church leaders, about why the Bible was 100 percent accurate and the ultimate truth, were the stuff you'd expect from a 6yr old.