Worst argument for a religion...the personal testimony.

[Bagger_Vance]

There is nothing more subjective and boring than a personal testimony. Christians get giddy and think that if they tell me how God spoke to their heart I will somehow be transformed. I don't get it. It only makes me wonder why God didn't speak to me or heal me. Not only does it show that God gave them preferential treatment but there is no way to verify that they are telling the truth. Are we supposed to take their word? God spoke to you? Then get him to speak right now. God healed you? Why didn't he heal the entire youth cancer ward? God answered your prayer? Then why didn't he answer some desperate mother's prayer about her sick son/daughter? How does the christian respond to a muslim that says Allah spoke with them and healed them? What about a pagan that says the Sun God spoke to him? I mean anyone can say that God spoke to them and without proof it is meaningless.

Personal testimonies are just infuriating to me and raise far more uncomfortable questions that the christian will answer with that dodgy "faith" response.

Do you guys agree? I think the personal testimony is the worst and laziest defense of a religion bar none.

[Matthew]

Bagger,

I couldn't agree with you more. When I was growing up, my father frowned on apologetics. My dad thought that a pesonal testimony was the only reason that anyone should believe that the Christian faith was true. He always operated on an assumption that without Christ, everyone in the world could only, ever, be a miserable, depressed sack of misery. My dad (a fundamentalist minister) thought that his personal testimony was more than sufficient to convince someone like me that the faith was true and couldn't understand why I would want to waste my time on apologetics.

However, I couldn't notice but how selfish he could seem at times. The way that he would share his testimony was by stating that he was happy because he got to go to heaven. The way he worded it sounded as if he was more in love with the destination than the one who was getting him there. I was never allowed to criticize him on this point growing up because my dad considered himself to be unquestionable as a parent figure for most of my childhood. To question him was to question God.

I never brought into the idea of using glowing testimonials, even in my former Evangelical days. Ironically, it was a creationist Dr. Henry Morris who convinced me that glowing testimonials are worthless. In his book Many Infallible Proofs Morris pointed out that many other religions had glowing testimonials, so what does it ultimately prove? When I was in college, I was deeply depressed and I had a good buddy named Derek. Derek was a practicing Buddhist and he was one of the most good-humored, joyful, confident guys that I knew of. He had a glowing testimonial that would put a number of Christians I knew of to shame.

I don't think most thinking Christians can use glowing testimonials without realizing how it becomes a matter of special pleading; if you point out the glowing testimonials of others, a Christian might say "Well that person is lying!" (and this particular Christian isn't? How would you know?). If the Christian said "Well, so-and-so only thinks they're joyful and happy but has been deluded" the same kind of objection applies to the Christian. Why is it that we can trust the glowing testimonials of Christians but yet non-Christian testimonials are treated with suspicion as if they are a lie or delusion?

This is the reason I don't buy into any of it.

Matthew

[Minnesota]

I think the only value a personal testimony has is in reinforcing one's own faith and that of those in the "choir." Outside of that, to me they have always conjured up many of the reasons I reject the religion, some of those mentioned here: the nature of the Christian god is irrational.

[bandecoot]

Depends on the testimony, just kidding! Nope testimony is usually about what a drunken, drug messed,theiving, lying,<insert sin I never heard of here>, waste of skin they were. At which point my Usual answer is(backing slowly away) " Yeah! Keep the faith Bro!".

[Bagger_Vance]

I do find it funny to listen to them list their sins they used to do before they were saved. :lol:

You see some fine looking middle aged woman talk about being a slut and it like Penthouse Letters without the subscription. I will tell her that if you she goes into extreme detail about her sins of the flesh I may be convinced. :lol:

[Matthew]

I agree with the above statements. a testimony is definately not a proof of the existance or anything else about God. Mathew, I'm sorry you lost your faith on account of what your father taught and forced you to believe. It's a hard and sad process to lose faith. It's like the loss of innocence or something. I went through something similar to what you wrote about in my escape from fundamentalist dogma. I guess i just came to a different conclusion than you did (based on your religon icon).

I think I owe something here in the way of a correction. It wasn't what my dad taught me or forced me to believe that killed my faith. My faith was ultimately murdered by being single for so many years. It wasn't until I became convinced that the Bible was errant and non-inspired that I threw in the towell. I lost my faith because I became convinced that God was persecuting me with my singleness. I couldn't figure out what I did in terms of sinning that was so outrageous, so horrible, that I had to be cursed with being single so I came to conclude that Yahweh was simply having fun at my expense and got extreme pleasure at my anguish.

Matthew

[mentored1]

Personal testimonies seem pretty straight-forward to me: they reinforce to the person what God has done for them and why they owe their allegiance to Him... It's a mechanism that keeps the personal thinking about it: no real difference between that, confession, mantras, chants, and so forth... All tools to keep the mind in that realm...

That doesn't mean it's wrong: I floated through all of the Christian doctrines for years (some hardcore fundamentalist) and still don't know what was real and what was fashioned in the depths of my own mind... Reinforcing ideas and doctrines is a VERY PRIMITIVE mechanism: just like repeating your alphabet in kindergarten...

Does that make if false? I don't know... But I find it hard to explain away the primitive hypnotic effects of repetition...

Take care! Excellent thoughts folks!

[zorathruster]

Personal testimonies seem pretty straight-forward to me: they reinforce to the person what God has done for them and why they owe their allegiance to Him...

I think it also places the asserting person in a position where if you disagree with their assertion you must now (in polite company) confront that person and explain how their impressions and perceptions are not entirely correct. That takes a lot of effort, requires a solid understanding of the topics involved and also requires a strong underlying personality to basically tell someone they are wrong. Since they obviously have emotional involvement in the topic, like "my mother had her cancer cured by God" it would be difficult to isolate the actual events and causes. So theists who assert "personal testamony" force detractors into a position of inadequate information and must accept their analysis at face value.

Imagine something similar: Confronting someone who claims a UFO effected their life in some way. First you would have to go through the process of confronting the UFO and then the interaction of which you have no information on the exact encounter. Then you would have to present numerous alternative suggestions that might explain why the occurance happened as it did. (remember they have a personal credibility stake in ensuring the presented data only allows for their favorite explanation of what happened) In the end, to debunk these type myths, you are diving into a pool of unknown depth, usually considered an unwise act.

[Bagger_Vance]

When confronted with a personal testimony by a Christian I use the same tactic. I tell them about Ahmed.

I met Ahmed when he was 25 and he was a devout muslim. Ahmed told me how at 21 he was a drug addict and petty criminal who never gave God any thought. One day he ODed and he claimed to see Allah and felt Allah pushing him back to earth. He awoke and there was a friend of his that he hadn't seen in years that just happened to have come by for a visit and called the ambulance. This friend happened to be a devout muslim and he and Ahmed spoke at length about Islam and Allah. Ahmed not only converted but to the astonishment of his doctors he was able to break free from his addiction to drugs without cravings and very limited withdrawals. He now devotes his life to helping drug addicts recover. He is fast on his way to becoming a doctor with a double major in Medicine and Theology. Allah and Islam saved him. He felt Allah.

I listened to this story and I say that Ahmed looked to be telling the truth. He had no reason to lie and his life is proof that he lives what he says. I ask all christians is Ahmed wrong? Is his story somehow not valid because he doesn't believe Jesus is the messiah? How do you respond to that? Ahmed felt what he felt and it helped him. How can that be wrong? How is he wrong?

[mentored1]

I think it also places the asserting person in a position where if you disagree with their assertion you must now (in polite company) confront that person and explain how their impressions and perceptions are not entirely correct. That takes a lot of effort, requires a solid understanding of the topics involved and also requires a strong underlying personality to basically tell someone they are wrong. Since they obviously have emotional involvement in the topic, like "my mother had her cancer cured by God" it would be difficult to isolate the actual events and causes. So theists who assert "personal testamony" force detractors into a position of inadequate information and must accept their analysis at face value.

Imagine something similar: Confronting someone who claims a UFO effected their life in some way. First you would have to go through the process of confronting the UFO and then the interaction of which you have no information on the exact encounter. Then you would have to present numerous alternative suggestions that might explain why the occurance happened as it did. (remember they have a personal credibility stake in ensuring the presented data only allows for their favorite explanation of what happened) In the end, to debunk these type myths, you are diving into a pool of unknown depth, usually considered an unwise act.

Indeed you've identified numerous "pressure-points" of dealing with a personal testimony... I live in the midst of them: an agnostic - a philosopher - surrounded by devout Christians.

Having a testimony is a very personal matter that involves all of their emotions and instincts (a lot of primitive substance)... Their honor is at stake, the egoism that is central to humanity, their explanation for the comic tragedy of life... Your description of it as a pool of unknown depth is very fitting - considering we know not ourselves beyond a certain depth!

I wonder though, whether in some sense these testimonies and the miracles claimed by them did in fact occur: for if a person believes they did and that belief has affected them so (believing God has cured cancer - perhaps that mental state has done just that) then convincing them otherwise seems folly indeed....

Take care

[zorathruster]

Indeed you've identified numerous "pressure-points" of dealing with a personal testimony... I live in the midst of them: an agnostic - a philosopher - surrounded by devout Christians.

Having a testimony is a very personal matter that involves all of their emotions and instincts (a lot of primitive substance)... Their honor is at stake, the egoism that is central to humanity, their explanation for the comic tragedy of life... Your description of it as a pool of unknown depth is very fitting - considering we know not ourselves beyond a certain depth!

I wonder though, whether in some sense these testimonies and the miracles claimed by them did in fact occur: for if a person believes they did and that belief has affected them so (believing God has cured cancer - perhaps that mental state has done just that) then convincing them otherwise seems folly indeed....

Take care

I think that in the case of very emotional events, many people are overwhelmed by the sequence of events, good or bad. They think it extremely unlikely that for all of this to occur exactly as it did would be very small and therefore: something extra or special that is outside of normal coursing events happened to them. Remember the odds, in a nation of 350 million people the number of one in a million events averages 350 occurances a day. We can also expect 3 - one in a hundred million chance - events to happen. So they need some way to rationalize the event that occurred with the high probability against it. Religion adds in a non-random player to the mix. God cares and wants the best for you and orchestrates it for you.

In a prosperous nation, when generally things are getting better, it is true that you as a member will generally have good things happen in your life. For those who live in repressive societies, like Afghanistan or Mexico, where societies are not generally increasing the life style of citizens, their days are invariably filled with repression failure death and mayhem. Odds are greater that they will have bad occurances more frequently than those in prosperous societies.

[anthrogirl]

I don't like hearing personal testimonies--which reveals an inconsistancy on my part, because as an anthropologist, I'm devoted to the importance of the personal narrative as a way to expose meaning and metaphor.

But it is precisely the metaphors used by evangelical Christianity that bug me so much! Perhaps it's because I was up to my nose in Christian metaphor the whole time I was growing up.

...Or perhaps it's because the Christian metaphors that I am familiar with seem empty, imprecise and totally proprietary...

ag

[Griggsy]

I don't like hearing personal testimonies--which reveals an inconsistancy on my part, because as an anthropologist, I'm devoted to the importance of the personal narrative as a way to expose meaning and metaphor.

But it is precisely the metaphors used by evangelical Christianity that bug me so much! Perhaps it's because I was up to my nose in Christian metaphor the whole time I was growing up.

...Or perhaps it's because the Christian metaphors that I am familiar with seem empty, imprecise and totally proprietary...

ag Gee, am I an atheist ,because I never was such a sinner? My testimony is that my computer is my higher power. With it , I lead a productive life in which I can fllail away at theism. Lo, the errantists ! How they can still highly regard their Buy-bull . Bishop Spong in his denuncitation of execrable portions of it is a good start to becoming an atheist.John Hick destroys natural theology , thereby helping us . Too bad , he cannot go all the way ,but remains a fideist. What are their personal testimonies? Our testimonies are natural and thus not irrational for the religious to cling to. [Please post at my least posted threads . They are so lonely . Ca n anyone add to my comments so as to push the thoughts forward ? ]

[neonmagek]

I think it also places the asserting person in a position where if you disagree with their assertion you must now (in polite company) confront that person and explain how their impressions and perceptions are not entirely correct. That takes a lot of effort, requires a solid understanding of the topics involved and also requires a strong underlying personality to basically tell someone they are wrong. Since they obviously have emotional involvement in the topic, like "my mother had her cancer cured by God" it would be difficult to isolate the actual events and causes. So theists who assert "personal testamony" force detractors into a position of inadequate information and must accept their analysis at face value.

Imagine something similar: Confronting someone who claims a UFO effected their life in some way. First you would have to go through the process of confronting the UFO and then the interaction of which you have no information on the exact encounter. Then you would have to present numerous alternative suggestions that might explain why the occurance happened as it did. (remember they have a personal credibility stake in ensuring the presented data only allows for their favorite explanation of what happened) In the end, to debunk these type myths, you are diving into a pool of unknown depth, usually considered an unwise act.
I've shown that something other than what happened actualy happened when it was presented as personal testimony before. It is difficult to do. Also, the reaction from the person and others is usualy hostile. It usualy goes in the flavor of "you're a big meany" regardless of what actualy transpired.