- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Blair Hodges wrote a post on By Common Consent today that I thought most people here would enjoy. http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/21/life-withers-on-testimony/ One early excerpt:
Quote:Having suggests solidity, perhaps a sense of completeness, or a claim that I possess something. Over time, instead, my religious experiences have left me feeling incomplete in some ways (and not just in the “I’m not perfect yet” sense), and feeling possessed by faith more than being a possessor of it.
That was interesting. It kind of takes us back to the original meaning of “testimony,” which is a public witness of something—it is by definition something that’s shared with others, so it’s not something we “have.” It’s maybe not even real until it’s shared. Quote:So I don’t have a testimony because I don’t feel like a testimony is something I can personally and actually have.
I am feeling like he is playing with words, perhaps as a way to be thought provoking…but still, playing with words.He seems to be saying no one can have a testimony. That it exists outside of us and in a gap between us as we communicate ideas.
I don’t understand that. I understand there can be truth, and then there is people’s perceptions of truth, and there are ways people express their perceptions, those can be different things. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have a testimony unless you use a limited defintion which is not widely being considered when people stand to bear testimony on Sunday.
I have a testimony…it is mine…it is my faith and belief and hope for things not seen. I can be very introspective and disect it to what those words really mean to me…but all in all…it is still my testimony.
I really like his other points and quotes from Virginia Woolf and the points about our connectedness with others, and that what we can share is what makes life joyous.
But I fail to see why he is saying he doesn’t have a testimony.
Did you know that in court cases, eye witness accounts are considered some of the least reliable pieces of evidence to a prosecutor? Video or recorded evidence is the best, motive and circumstantial evidence is OK, but relying on people to tell truth around events is a crapshoot…their memory, their ability to communicate the memory, the changing memory…it just has been proven to be unreliable. Not useless, but unreliable. But sometimes, that is all there is.
That doesn’t mean people don’t have testimonies…it just means we should accept them for what they are, and what they are not.
Maybe someone can help me understand his point more.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.