Share your most life changing faith moment

[Arclight]

I did some acid when I was 17.. I stopped believing in religion at least then. No more Christian God for me.

I believe in creation. But nothing like the way religion teaches it.

 

[cafe]

It wasn't a moment, or rather, it probably was but I don't remember it specifically.

It was after an intense time of disappointment with some of the leadership at the Bible college I was attending. It wasn't adultery or absconding with funds or anything like that -- after all, I was an Evangelical teenager in the late eighties. It was the basic lack of honesty and the apparent complete lack of compassion and ethics toward their fellow man. Also apparently, without the slightest twinge of conscience or loss of sleep. It really made me question what I believed and why I was even bothering to try to live a Christian life.

Ultimately, it came down to my belief in Jesus. Come what will, I believe in him and I believe in what he taught. I am not the greatest at following his teachings, not by a long shot, but he is my north star.

 

[Beorn]

For most of my youth I resisted faith moments or revival. Looking back it was all for the best. I was often pushed, particularly in youth group, to make faith commitments to do this or not to do that. In reality I was being pushed towards putting more and more faith in myself and not God. To the extent that I did put faith in myself I became discouraged as I inevitably would let myself down.

For the past ten years I have been struggling daily with the difference between placing my faith in myself and faith in God. When I began to view God as a steadfast father who's view of me did not change despite my good or bad deeds, but rather fully and totally accepted me then I began to experience true love. Then I realized I was free to do good and that I did need not do good to be free.

 

[Helios]

Abandoning Christianity earlier this year. The best decision I've ever made, thank God.

 

[Lily flower]

It wasn't a moment, or rather, it probably was but I don't remember it specifically.

It was after an intense time of disappointment with some of the leadership at the Bible college I was attending. It wasn't adultery or absconding with funds or anything like that -- after all, I was an Evangelical teenager in the late eighties. It was the basic lack of honesty and the apparent complete lack of compassion and ethics toward their fellow man. Also apparently, without the slightest twinge of conscience or loss of sleep. It really made me question what I believed and why I was even bothering to try to live a Christian life.

Ultimately, it came down to my belief in Jesus. Come what will, I believe in him and I believe in what he taught. I am not the greatest at following his teachings, not by a long shot, but he is my north star.

I know what you mean. I always have to look to Jesus and not to people, because people are fallible.

 

[Lily flower]

For most of my youth I resisted faith moments or revival. Looking back it was all for the best. I was often pushed, particularly in youth group, to make faith commitments to do this or not to do that. In reality I was being pushed towards putting more and more faith in myself and not God. To the extent that I did put faith in myself I became discouraged as I inevitably would let myself down.

For the past ten years I have been struggling daily with the difference between placing my faith in myself and faith in God. When I began to view God as a steadfast father who's view of me did not change despite my good or bad deeds, but rather fully and totally accepted me then I began to experience true love. Then I realized I was free to do good and that I did need not do good to be free.

Have you read Sit, Walk, Stand by Watchman Nee? What you are describing sounds exactly what I got out of that book. I don't know if you are referring to Christian faith or not, but for me that was a life changing book. It was so freeing - to realize that in Christ we have been washed clean and that we don't need to do works to earn God's approval. He loves and approves of us already. And when we fall, we don't need to spend a lot of time trying to fix it, we just stand up and brush ourselves off and see what is next on the journey. Too many people in the church run around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to please God, when they don't realize that He loves us unconditionally and that they don't have to do anything.

 

[Zarathustra]

I have always loved the break, the in between.

...

And I have always loved the break between the inner and the outer, between the introvert and the extrovert.

...

And I have come to understand we perceive by making distinctions. And a distinction is nothing but a break.

So fair Victor, if you are so in love with breaks, and a distinction is nothing but a break, then why do you so hate the distinction between Sensors and Intuitives, and Thinkers and Feelers?

If you love breaks and distinctions, it seems you should love the MBTI.

 

[Mole]

Des are de breaks.

So fair Victor, if you are so in love with breaks, and a distinction is nothing but a break, then why do you so hate the distinction between Sensors and Intuitives, and Thinkers and Feelers?

If you love breaks and distinctions, it seems you should love the MBTI.

Well, there are breaks and breaks. Some breaks are tested by random double blind experiments. And so we can determine whether they describe the world or not.

As I understand it, MBTI has not been tested with even one random double blind experiment in seventy years.

That alone would make any reasonable person suspicious.

But when one discovers its provenance, that is, where is came from, and what it's used for, and who uses it, any reasonable person with integrity would reject it.

Des are de breaks.

 

[Zarathustra]

Well, there are breaks and breaks. Some breaks are tested by random double blind experiments. And so we can determine whether they describe the world or not.

Yes, such as:

...the break between school and university...

...a break between school and work...

...the break between the inner and the outer...

...between the introvert and the extrovert...

...sleeping and waking...

...the break between male and female...

...the break between birth and death...

I'm sure those all have been rigorously tested by double blind experiments...

As I understand it, MBTI has not been tested with even one random double blind experiment in seventy years.

That alone would make any reasonable person suspicious.

OK, I'm gunna break one of my cardinal rules, and actually try to engage you in rational discourse... please don't make me regret this...

So I've seen you use this line like ten times before: but what kind of double blind experiment would you recommend?

It seems to me there's no definitive way to prove type, so how would you set it up?

 

[Mole]

Yes, such as:
I'm sure those all have been rigorously tested by double blind experiments...

It would not be sensible to apply a random double blind experiment to poetry.

However it is essential to apply a random double blind experiment to a personality test to see if it is valid and reliable.

 

[Mole]

So I've seen you use this line like ten times before: but what kind of double blind experiment would you recommend?

It seems to me there's no definitive way to prove type, so how would you set it up?

As I understand it, there is only one kind of random double blind experiment that would meet scientific criteria.

And these criteria are clearly set out in any book on Psychometrics.

 

[Mole]

Arguing is a form of abuse.

OK, I'm gunna break one of my cardinal rules, and actually try to engage you in rational discourse... please don't make me regret this...

May I be brutally frank with you?

I don't believe you wish to engage me in rational discourse. I believe you wish to engage me in an argument.

And I have seen this happen so many, many times here. And it is obvious to me that they engage in arguments because they have nothing to say.

At a deeper level, arguing is a form of neurosis.

Arguing is not creative. Arguing does not create anything new. And it doesn't even persuade anyone of anything. It is purely neurotic.

So to my mind arguing has nothing to say except express deep neurotic feelings.

But worse, arguing is a form of abuse.

 

[Nicodemus]

I enjoy the poetry of that neurosis.

 

[Ginkgo]

May I be brutally frank with you?

I don't believe you wish to engage me in rational discourse. I believe you wish to engage me in an argument.

And I have seen this happen so many, many times here. And it is obvious to me that they engage in arguments because they have nothing to say.

At a deeper level, arguing is a form of neurosis.

Arguing is not creative. Arguing does not create anything new. And it doesn't even persuade anyone of anything. It is purely neurotic.

So to my mind arguing has nothing to say except express deep neurotic feelings.

But worse, arguing is a form of abuse.

You know Vic, rational discourse was and still is the life blood of the Enlightenment, which you have espoused ad nauseum here on the forum. You love metaphors, so I'll say this: Constructing a rational argument is constructing the Tower of Babel. Once you get to the top, you discover the truth. Wouldn't it be nice if we could construct it together, all the nations and people at once?

 

[Lark]

I dont know how to answer this, I've never had any paranormal or supernatural experiences, I've not ever experienced any revelations either.

The most significant spiritual experiences I have had have perhaps been challenges or crisis of faith.

I've never been troubled by an inability to believe in the unseen, inexplicable or mysterious. At least until the last two years of my life, I actually would attribute this to my age, anyone growing up now will experience a different cultural landscape populated by militant atheism, despair and bad religion.

A lot of the cliched 'problem of evil' or 'why must suffering happen' dilemma's have never moved me, it's a little like people disbelieving gravity because they consider there's an essential injustice about it or wrongness about it.

So the most profound experience for me lately is that of doubt, how to explain that, well, its like a bereavement I guess, the feeling of loss but I realise some people have struggled with spirituality more than me and I'm grateful for the ease that I've had most of the time.

 

[Nicodemus]

militant atheism, despair and bad religion

The inextricable trinity of modern-day.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

I wrote a paper about my life changing moment. It dealt with faith. I was I'd say about three-fifths through a depressive state. I would brutally berate myself constantly. Then on facebook a notification came up from I-tunes offering a free song download. The song was Gary Go's- Wonderful. I knew something wanted me to know that I was appreciated and wished me to be alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtLusKMvZ-M

 

[Mole]

You know Vic, rational discourse was and still is the life blood of the Enlightenment, which you have espoused ad nauseum here on the forum. You love metaphors, so I'll say this: Constructing a rational argument is constructing the Tower of Babel. Once you get to the top, you discover the truth. Wouldn't it be nice if we could construct it together, all the nations and people at once?

Yes, the ideal argument is linear and sequential like a sentence, a paragraph, a chapter, a book and a library. In other words an argument speaks to us from the world of literacy.

Whereas we now inhabit the electronic world where things are not linear and sequential but juxtaposed and disconnected.

Things no longer flow like an argument but appear in their own separate space.

Literate man created continuous, connected space while electronic man creates quantum space which is discontinuous and disconnected.

For literate man, his central nervous system was on the inside, but for electronic man, his nervous system is on the outside and so feels every touch. And so now an argument is experienced as a blow.

And so now an argument is simply a form of abuse.

The Enlightenment arose from literacy while we are entering a post-literate, electronic world.

 

[Mole]

The Medium is the Massage

You know Vic, rational discourse was and still is the life blood of the Enlightenment, which you have espoused ad nauseum here on the forum.

The old conflict is between the Enlightenment and tribalism. So today this conflict is between the West and Islam.

But our conflict is between the Enlightenment and electronic man.

So we have two conflicts going on here, the old conflict between literacy and tribalism, and the new conflict between electric communication and literacy.

And I draw your attention to the fact that we are communicating in an electric medium.

Argument is now passé. The medium is the message. And the medium is the massage.

 

[Ginkgo]