If you describe someone as "born-again," do you need the word "Christian," or is that implied?

I would, if just to clarify for people who dont know what you are talking about.

@Mr_Paradox Yes, well, that’s kind of the point of the question. Are there literate, well-read people who won’t know what I’m talking about?

Yes, me for instance.

It’s entirely possible that someone may not have heard the term “born-again Christian” and might think you were saying Genevieve had been reincarnated or something. Just throwing that out there…

I don’t think it needs clarification.

Yes. One could mean it in the Buddhist sense. In fact, that is what I will from now on assume.
“Oh, so you were born again? Tell me more about your former life as a tree.”

I think it is redundant to say Christian when you say born-again, at least in the United States. It’s been a common term since at least the late 70s when we had the first “born again” President (Jimmy Carter).

It depends on the audience. Evangelical Christians don’t need more than “born again.”

I would say in educated American society, it wouldn’t be necessary.

The two are largely interchangeable, but it never hurts to be more specific. The term “born-again Christian” is useful for distinguishing between us and Sunday Christians and Chreasters.

What about “born again virgin”?

@lukiarobecheck What about it?

@Nullo: Born again virgin is another type of born again. So I was thinking that specificity was needed when talking about “born again” whatevers.

@lukiarobecheck I think you’d need to include “virgin” since that is a much lesson common use. Similarly, you need to include “Irish” in the statement, “He’s black Irish,” in order to be clear.

@lukiarobecheck Sounds more like a subset rather than a parallel set.

There are others things people want to be besides Christian.

“Born again” would leave me to ask “Born again what?”