<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Your left wing propaganda is just so misleading that it makes me sick.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, at least I made that point clear! <br><br>

Call me a prophet, eh <br><br>

Why do you baste born-again Christians in the "extreme" label? Just the liberal thing to do? What's with the intolerance? <br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

So a president can't be Christian?? When the majority of folks in the US are Christian?? (I thought you libs love that majority rules stuff... or is that only in Florida... when it's convenient?)<br><br>

interesting question, sam; however, born again and christianity are not the same thing though there is some overlap in that almost all born again folks would consider themselves christians. on the other hand, many folks would consider themselves christians, yet they would not consider themselves to be born again (most catholics and a great many other denominations). born again christianity is just one sect of christianity. <br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Hello??? That's Christianity 101. What's the point of being a Christian if you don't think Christ being your savior is necessary? It's sort of why Christianity exists. An a la carte viewpoint isn't Christianity, nor Biblical.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What's the point of being a Christian if you don't think Christ being your savior is necessary?<p><hr></blockquote><p>this is a bit of a slippery slope because the term, "born again" is not mentioned in the bible, thus many people interpret it in many different ways, i suppose. here's a nice description from wikipedia that will help clarify how i am using it: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Most Christian denominations would agree that a true Christian must be born again, based on the above passage, and thus that those who are true Christians are in fact born again, whether they describe themselves as such or not. The Roman Catholic church, for example, considers that "Baptism is ... the sacrament by which we are born again of water and the Holy Ghost" [1] . However the term is most frequently used by Evangelical Protestants, where it is often associated with an intense conversion experience and an encounter of the individual with the power of God. Some would deny that those without such an experience are true Christians, based again on the above passage. It is common to find that Christians who describe themselves as born again consider those who do not to be counterfeit.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the bolded part is how i've always thought of "born again." i was baptized as a catholic and i never considered myself to be "born again" and most evangelical protestants would agree with me, though i did consider myself to be a christian for most of my life.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

My own personal experience with born-agains is that they tend to be a little over-zealous about their Christianity, so maybe that's the case with Bush too.<br><br>Friends of my in-laws are almost pushy when the subject of religion comes up- how we should accept Christ, live life as Christ would, etc, etc, ad infinitum. Great people overall, but you should see the look in their eyes when they're discussing their faith.<br><br>A *tad* frightening.<br><br><br><br>[color:red]C'mon...you know me.</font color=red>

I know what you mean, but as you say, great people on the whole. The problem is when zeal and government power work together.<br><br>As a historical side note, it's sort of interesting (and part of my field of study, as it happens) that the experience of the indwelling spirit of the born-again, who in the 16th and 17th century were called "visible saints" has, for better or worse, always been politically charged. In 1649 the visible saints cut the head off their king. And one version of visible saints, who established the theocracy in New England from 1636 onwards, had a heck of a hard time with other visible saints who rejected the official theocracy. Read Roger Williams' Bloudy Tenet of Persecution some time! The beauty of Williams' argument is that it leads directly to the separation of church and state, since any state religion is by definition an imposition on the freedom of the indwelling spirit of the visible saint. That definitely shocked the theological establishment in the Massachusetts Bay Colony--and led to Williams' exile to found that radical enclave, Providence, RI.<br><br>