Not exact matches
Some
people are disturbed by the idea that Christian faith may rest only upon the
testimony of certain individuals to have experienced a vision
of Jesus after his death.
The purpose rather is to call up Paul Ricoeur's reflection on why we pay attention when
certain people speak and why we find what they say convincing: «The term
testimony should be applied to words, works, actions, and to lives which attest to an intention, an inspiration, an idea at the heart
of experience and history which nonetheless transcend experience and history.»
For how else are we to carry a
certain idea
of justice or goodness to extremes if not by conforming our judgment
of eminence to the
testimony given outside
of us in history by the words, the deeds, and the lives
of certain exceptional
people who are not necessarily famous, but who testify by their excellence to that very way
of eminence that reflection attempts to reproduce in itself and for itself?
We have a newsletter that now we get on a monthly basis; we launched a newsletter on the congresses; we use the story file when we do
certain acts, we have a book... Another key element: Audiovisual for
testimonies,
testimonies that cause goose bumps, that get
people to know about others, not only through
testimonies of professionals.
The robosigning issue brought to mind a Talmudic evidentiary rule that declares the
testimony of certain types
of people inadmissible: