Why is your first reaction to make one contingent on the other? I said no such thing. Is it any wonder I question your integrity?
I maintain you have no scriptural basis to claim "being born again" is a valid work of God, while maintaining receiving the Eucharist is merely a kind of memorial.
In a very real sense, it is a fallacy, at least in the same genus, as the unforgivable sin... if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out?
I am sorry, but upon returning to the quote, I still see that same comparative... But be that as it may, I now have a different phrase to dissect:
I maintain you have no scriptural basis to claim "being born again" is a valid work of God, while maintaining receiving the Eucharist is merely a kind of memorial.
I would take exception to the second part - While it absolutely IS a memorial ("[...] This do in remembrance of me...", etc.) I think that the arguments hereon have cornered most Protestants into that position (or seeming position)... and the term 'merely' is an unfortunate choice. Most Protestants take the admonition to be in the right frame of mind (and soul) before participating in the Communion just as seriously as you do... So there is nothing 'mere' about it.
Where there is contention in the grander scheme is in labeling the Eucharist as a sacrament: While Protestants come very close to accepting it as such in practice, I believe it is the insistence upon a priest presiding over it that is unpalatable. The Protestant position that we are all a priesthood (each individually) necessarily and thankfully omits this cumbersome need - and most of the bells and whistles it would entail. It is not against the Protestant mindset to have a Communion "wherever two or more of you are gathered in His Name," even though the normative process would be officiated by a pastor in a church, with a simple and predictable ceremony. So while we may seem to play it fast and loose in comparison to the Roman Eucharist, I think it unkind to suggest that it is without solemnity to the Protestant.
On the finer point, the matter of transubstantiation, the previously mentioned commandment against the ingestion of blood and human flesh naturally precludes the Roman interpretation, and combined (again) with the supposed necessity that a priest must handle the consecration (and the host thereafter), the whole concept flies in the face of our own individual priesthood, and more importantly, Yeshua's eternal one.
So, to conclude, I don't see the dilemma. I think the problem may well be in your (y'all) preconceived notion wrt the definition of Communion according to Protestant thought. And again, to be fair, that definition is not perfectly defined, depending upon how authoritative a particular denomination might be wrt Communion.