Talk:Born again

"text and context was meant to apply to Nicodemus particularly"

If the content is in the source, there's no reason to remove it, even if it doesn't make sense to one editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we follow that rule, we'll eventually end up with poor quality composition and out of context citations that are incorrect and misleading, on every article. Your position would mean that the first editor a section of content would be able to use tenuous and out of context citations, as long as the words or idea being cherry picked as a cite exist somewhere in the source text, regardless of the meaning the text was originally intended to convey. It's possible that the editor's interpretation of the source is incorrect, in which case there is a food reason to remove it, even if only one editor disagrees. Obviously, it only takes one critically thinking editor to spot (and correct) a cite by another that ignores the context of the content within the source text. Simply replying "there's no good reason" is territory/lazy, the proper thing for you to have done would be to address the merits of his assertion: to wit, that in the context of the source text, the content/language you cite was meant to apply specifically to Nicodemus. - wHm, 05:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05A:863C:6C5F:F86A:5835:3E6C (talk)

I think you've missed the point: the content is clear to everyone except you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

'Famous conversions'

Asserting that famous individuals are notable as born-again Christians or for conversion to born-again Christianity may be a violation of Wikipedia's rules about biographies of living people. Any of the entries that cannot be properly sourced—specifically, sources showing that the person's conversion is both a) true and b) relevant to their notability—can (and should) be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeffro77: I can see claiming a subject as a "born again" Christian without a reference could be a violation of BLP, but I cannot see that it must be relevant to their notability. The entire concept of WP:GNG applies to both articles and lists. WP:LINKFARMs are discouraged, but unless you can supply a policy or guideline to support b, I would state it's you're personal option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And that would be your opinion. The fact remains that there is a list of names asserted as members of a faith with no sourcing whatsoever, and it's not appropriate. I clearly wasn't referring to notability in the context of the subject of an article, as it's just a list of names in a paragraph (distinctly different from a 'list article'); reliable sources are required for asserting that individuals are members of particular religious groups, and those sources should indicate such membership as somehow relevant rather an irrelevant passing mention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree the sources are needed. The fact is you do not have a policy or guideline to support your "b" point, so I will not allow you to continue to gut the article at your whim. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem confused because I didn't use "notability" in a Wikipedia buzzword context. What I meant is that it is not sufficient to use, for example, some tabloid magazine that briefly states 'xyz is a born again' as a 'source' to support the assertion in the article that the listed people have 'influenced modern culture' (hence, their membership being relevant to their notability). The assertion in the article requires more than just that the status of membership is true because a 'famous person being a member' does not automatically 'influence modern culture'. I'm not particularly interested in what you imagine you will 'allow', and it is not at all clear why you are trying to equate unsourced claims about celebrities in one paragraph with 'continuing to gut the article'. Since you claim I would be 'continuing' to gut the article, you should also justify your accusation with evidence of what has supposedly already been inappropriately removed or retract the false accusation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not confused. I understand that I'm pointing to GNG which is a notability guideline. No false accusations: you need a policy or guideline for removing items from a list just because you don't want them there. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're not confused, then you're just wrong. It is not appropriate to claim that specific famous people being members of a particular religious group has influenced modern culture without a suitable source. A source that simply says 'xyz is a member' does not support the claim that their conversion/membership has influenced modern culture. Unsourced entries can be removed without notice; I will liberally allow a month, to allow proper sourcing before unsourced items are removed, but other editors may remove any unsourced entries at any time. More broadly, you do still seem confused about the application of the GNG as it applies to 'lists', which actually refers list articles, not merely any list of comma-separated names in a sentence in a paragraph of a standard article. You have repeatedly claimed that I don't have a policy on which to base the fact that sources are required to support the claim that famous people becoming 'born again' has influenced modern society; though it should be obvious to any experienced editor, the relevant policy is obviously verifiability, particularly as it relates to reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As you have made no attempt to justify your false accusation, I have struck it out.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And I have restored it. Don't ever change my comments.

As you have not proven that it's required, you're wrong. Yes, references are needed. Nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you feel the need to be obtuse. I'll let it slide for now, since you obviously have no concept of yourself being wrong or taking responsibility for your errors. However, if you ever make another false accusation about me, it will be reported to admins. The fact remains that the claim that famous 'conversions' have 'influenced modern culture' remains unsourced, and unsourced material can be removed at any time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

In any case, another editor has removed the trivial list of names for most of which there were no sources, and for all of whom there were no sources indicating any 'influence on modern culture'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't read what you wrote the first few times, so I was clearly obtuse. Your primary object was not the list itself but the phrase "influenced modern society". It's a fluff phrase and I don't even like it. I understood it as evangelical culture, but I can see how it would be read as culture in general. I don't like link farms, but I do see how evangelicals like to hold up celebrities as some sort of trophy or proof that this form of belief is valid.

I'm OK with the list leaving, but I'm not OK with the claim that their faith must be "relevant to their notability" as that's not what the list claims to represent. Think of it as a list of notable individuals born or from a specific location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, it seems you simply misunderstood (repeatedly, which is somewhat disappointing). The list, with the claim that their membership or conversion has influenced modern society is specifically why their membership/conversion would need to be supported by a suitable source that is relevant to the claim that they have had such influence. If the sentence were modified such that it doesn't make any claim of 'influence' but simply reports a 'list of members', then it would not require sourcing for the additional claim. In any case, sources are still required regarding membership/conversion for each person in such a list.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Reversion by Walter Görlitz

@Walter Görlitz:

Walter:

The article infers that there are only two passages in the bible which speak of being born again and then raises doubt as to whether those verses were properly translated. It suggests that the english usage as "born again" is "wordplay". It ignores the many evangelical sources and verses that speak of the new birth, but use different terminology (born of god, new creature, new heart, new spirit, etc.). The article as written seems biased against the common evangelical use of the phrase.

I attempted to remove bias.

I would request that you undo your reversion.

Thank you

Peter

PTSaputo (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter

What are you on about? You removed a section in the lede without clearly explaining why. That phrase, "In contemporary Christian usage, the term is distinct from sometimes similar terms used in mainstream Christianity to refer to being or becoming Christian, which is linked to baptism" is supported. You also add "In contemporary Christian usage, the term is intended to distinguish between water baptism, as an act of obedience, and regeneration, as a new birth", which isn't supported and is linked incorrectly (although that can be easily fixed). The underlying problem is that it approaches a theological bias: one particularly close to Calvinism and linking that to "contemporary Christian usage".

Yes, you also removed the "wordplay" sentence, which was correct and discusses the "born from above".

I would rather call this section "addition of Calvinist bias by PTSaputo". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Walter:

Yes, I attempted to add some clarity by rewriting a complicated sentence ("contemporary Christian usage" + "mainstream Christianity" + "becoming Christina" + "baptism") which includes many concepts that are not explained. The complexity adds to the primary issue. The primary issue: the article lead and introductory discussions (1) ignore the many evangelical sources and verses that speak of the new birth, (2) cite only two of the many passages on the subject and do so in a manner which infers that the whole subject depends upon their standing alone, and (3) suggest that common English translations of those verses are incorrect or improperly interpreted ("wordplay"). Together, the article presents a viewpoint which will lead the reader to conclude that the common evangelical (not just those who embrace Calvinism) understanding of the phrase "born again" depends upon a very complicated argument and can easily be discarded as unsupported without any need to read further.

Do you oppose adding other sources which more clearly explain the subject? --PTSaputo (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The article does not ignore any Evangelical sources as none have been provided.

Unfortunately, there are no Evangelical verses, only Evangelical interpretations of verses. The verses themselves are primary sources and an Eastern interpretation of those may differ wildly from a conservative Protestant interpretation of those. As such, we should not reply on verses alone, and adding more would require synthesis of sources. The best we can do is to state "author x makes claim y" and support it with a reference. If that author is a recognized theologian, that should satisfy the readers. If they're a soteriologist, even better. If they're an author, or just a pastor and author, that may impress attendees of the CBA, but it will not fly on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Double entendre line is absurd and should be removed.

Simply put, the so-called "ambiguous" mention of the Koine Greek would be considered an heretical idea. It falsely suggests that Nicodemus thought Jesus mentioned going back into his mother's womb as a confusing sexual reference. Being that both of them were Jewish teachers, the notion that Nicodemus would assume that Jesus was saying that is fallacy. Of course, he would find the notion of reentering the womb to be strange, but not because of any sexual reference, but as a reference of climbing back into, as if to climb into a sack. The notion of a double entendre is nothing but a sick attempt to try to sully the faith, the Bible, and Christianity in general. This mention of the double entendre should be replaced with something akin to "returning into the place of birth" to display Nicodemus' confusion without any crass mention of perverse ideas for which Nicodemus clearly would not — and did not — have.

I will make the change, myself. And it definitely should not be reverted as to do so only adds to the insult that the original author of that lie of "double entendre" sought to portray upon Christian ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.11.33 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The actual double entendre is that it could mean either "a second time" or "from above" and has nothing to do with your own misunderstanding of it as a sexual reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, a double entendre has an explicit meaning. To try to claim that it is used innocently violates the reasonableness paradigm. The original author of that part of the entry clearly could have chosen any other word, but added a clearly-sexual reference to place a pall upon the description and conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. The revision has been reverted. You've gotta do better than that, if you want to beat someone (me) who happens to be a student of theology and of apologetics, who has a full and comprehensive understanding of the concept of being "born-again"....and who also just so happens to be an actual and genuine "born-again" Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzuria (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize that all caps is considered as WP:SHOUTing? Please don't shout.

I reverted you again because you just do not understand the nature of the double entendre. There is absolutely no discussion of sex or anything else. Your work is WP:OR at best and one branch of Evangerlicalism's interpretation of the source text.

Also, your language appears to allude to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We're not trying to beat, defeat or win anything with you. The fact is that there are several problems with your edit.

1. The source does not call Nicodemus a "teacher of the law' (3:1) but later (3:10) Jesus refers to him as a "teacher of Israel" (διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ) but is that a teacher of the law? Not from what I can see.
2. The word "seemingly" is a WP:WEASEL word.
3. There's no indication that Nicodemus misunderstands Jesus. At best the OR here could state that he chose one possible form of the double entendre.
4. MOS:DASH. We use either unspaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes. You elected spaced em-dashes.
5. You're adding the assumption of having something to do with a sexual reference. I have no idea why, but it's unnecessary and the main problem in your OR essay.

So reverted and do gain WP:CONSENSUS before you restore the article again. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

========================================

I strongly agree that the word double entendre is absolutely not the contextually appropriate word for this particular article. The notion that the word double entendre does not have a sexual connotation is patently false. Please understand, I am not giving my personal opinion, but rather I am referencing both Wikipedia's own article on the word as well as the Merriam Webster dictionary.

• Wikipedia's article on double entendre

• Merriam Webster definition of double entendre

Furthermore, though the argument can be made that it can have meaning which is not explicitly sexual in nature, I believe that this argument is ultimately fallacious due to the fact that sexual innuendo is cited first in the two Merriam Webster definitions, along with the fact that in popular culture, sexual innuendo is the most commonly understood meaning for the word. As such, even if you can argue the two definitions and be correct on a technicality, this only bolsters the obvious nature of the fact that it is clearly not the best word to use as it can and most likely will most certainly result in confusion. Therefore, anyone who is stuck on the idea of keeping the word in place no matter what must ask themselves what is motivating them to have such a "never say die" attitude, rather than simply relinquishing this word and choosing another word having a more distinct and contextually appropriate definition.

Honestly, is this not the clearly logical conclusion? Mbgrafix (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing literature and so the second American definition applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

========================================

Walter, I of course do not know you, and you and I have never conversed before...so please correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume that you are indeed a Christian. If that is the case, asking as a brother in Christ, may I ask you why you are so "never say die" committed to this word rather than simply choosing another word or phrase which does not have any ambiguity?

Thank you, Walter!

-----------------------

Mbgrafix (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

========================================

Leaving aside the argument about the original language of the NT, is it likely that Jesus and Nicodemus would have been conversing in Greek? Is not Hebrew or Aramaic more likely? I would suggest that it is likely that any double entendre that could be construed from the Greek translation would not have existed in the original conversation. johnmark†:Talk(talk to me) 22:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Faulty information

The article states, "Individuals who profess to be "born again" often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" which is simply untrue for many reasons. I suggest this be amended or deleted. 86.18.18.39 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This is in relation to the evangelical understanding of the term, and is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jesus' words in the Gospels

The article quotes Jesus as saying "You must be born again before you can see, or enter, the Kingdom of Heaven." Where is this from? It seems to be an amalgamation of John 3:3 and John 3:5. Should we not use an exact Bible verse/quote instead, especially if we are putting quotation marks? Obviously there will be disagreements over translation, but the way it is now, I can't even find where exactly the "see or enter" line is from. -KaJunl (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)