1. Good article, Travis. Basically every time I’ve shared my personal experience with God, I’m met with, “That may be true for you, but not for me,” which I think basically just means, “I think you’re either delusional or lying, but I don’t want to tell you that outright.” The problem is, the Gospel is so good it sounds completely ridiculous. And if it’s true, why do almost none of the people I know seem to experience it? It doesn’t make sense to hardly anyone, because there’s so little that seems plausible about it–until it cracks your world open and changes everything inside you.

  2. notleia says:

    Oh boy, flashbacks to retail. I work in a fabric store, and every so often, some clueless person walks in and doesn’t seem to believe that sewing is more complicated than they think it is. They’ll ask me where a specific pattern is, and when I explain the catalog system to them (like an old-fashioned library catalog system), they give me this look like it shouldn’t be this hard and I’m being unhelpful on purpose.

    Like, bruh, look at that cabinet. There are hundreds, if not a couple thousand, of patterns from different companies in there. It’s nearly impossible for someone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of exactly what you’re looking for in there, especially when it changes every season. Also why the heck are you buying apparel fabric to make kitchen curtains, that’s needlessly expensive (but hey, it’s your money). Bruh, we don’t dye the fabric ourselves, it’s not like a paint store where you can pick your shade. Bruh, fabrics have standard widths, if you want an eight-foot wide fabric that isn’t muslin, weave that crap yourself. Yes, that width only comes in muslin, which comes in white and off-white. Bruh, we do not dye this crap ourselves, this isn’t like a paint store.

    • Travis Perry says:

      Your example is a very interesting one but I’m struck by some differences between it and what happened to me. In my case, the people I talked to were fully capable of understanding what I was saying…they just didn’t believe the idea to be credible in that time and place.

      Whereas in your case, it seems people don’t really understand how the fabric business works and show disbelief in what you have to say as someone with inside knowledge of the business, based on their lack of prior comprehension. We could perhaps call the people that you mention who come to buy fabric, “people unwilling to acknowledge the depth of their ignorance.”

      Whereas the people I was commenting on were more like, “people unwilling to acknowledge they could be incorrect, based on the fact they are smarter than most people, and know it.”

      An atheist might say that people who doubt the validity of science are in the first group–they just don’t get how science actually works so they reject it. When faced with the existence of the second group, I would predict most atheists would say, “Oh, I acknowledge all the time I could be incorrect,” but in fact, they don’t really mean it. Not when it comes to the existence of the God of the Bible–they are SURE it’s not possible, even when credible people who are not ignorant and are not liars tell them otherwise.

  3. Too bad you didn’t take any leftovers back as proof :p

    A lot of times during more intense arguments I’ve had, people make assumptions about my reasons, thoughts and feelings and aren’t willing to accept that they could be incorrect about those assumptions. One thing that bothers me about that is that they act like they know me better than I know myself somehow. Like, sheesh, I’m inside my own mind, I know what I’m thinking and feeling, and apparently those people do not. Sometimes that’s due to miscommunication and the fact that it can be hard for people to describe what their reasons, feelings and thoughts actually are, though.

    Technically those things can’t be easily verified visually, but often enough those issues could have been fixed if people were more willing to calm down, listen and understand. Actually, though, a verifiable fact is that they don’t know exactly what’s going on in other people’s heads and should probably check their own assumptions a little more.

    • Travis Perry says:

      The food was too good for leftovers. 🙂

      About a half-hour after the conversation I recorded above, one bystander to the conversation actually checked it out and ate. He came back and agreed with me. Two or three others went after that. But most had pizza, which is what the guys I spoke with really had their hearts on.

      That also could have had a spiritual application, but I stuck to the simpler story.

      • Eh, yeah. If people are already satisfied with what they have, they don’t necessarily have a reason to look further, which can be bad and good at the same time. Sounds like a situation where you were somewhat rewarded for seeking further instead of taking an easy option like pizza 😛

        • Travis Perry says:

          Well, if you will allow me to make this a spiritual metaphor, first of all what I had was unquestionably better than the not-very-good-pizza available for delivery the guys received. But they had not yet received it or even ordered it when I told them about the steak–but the very thought of pizza likely affected their perceptions of what I was saying. They had their intentions, their hearts if you will, fixed on what they believed was a better hope than what I was offering, so their protestations based strictly on logic according to the words they used were in reality not just based on logic alone. They were based at least in part on what they wanted–as I already said, what they hoped for.

          The pizza they received, which came after a delay, which wasn’t that fresh, nor that good in the first place, which they had to pay for–they accepted as a substitute for something better, fresher, and free of charge.

          In a rather obvious spiritual parallel, atheists’ protestations about the existence of God are usually based on logic but in fact, it isn’t logic alone that’s driving their disbelief. They also have a hope to enjoy the pleasures of this world and feel belief in God would interfere with that. Yet they wind up rejecting something better in favor of something worse in the long run…

          • Yeah.

            Since I’ve been a little obsessed with cognitive functions and stuff, bringing up logic kind of made me think about some of the research I’ve been doing on that. A lot of C S Joseph’s videos have been good, and I guess the sources he uses make a distinction between logic and rationality. Logic being more like a boolean true false thought process, somewhat like what a computer uses. Technically everyone has both logic (Ti, also called introverted thinking) and rationale (Te, also called extroverted thinking), but will primarily use one or the other, and the exact way each person uses it depends on where each function sits in their cognitive stack.

            Rationale is sort of like looking at all the data and evaluating it, I think. Like having multiple lines in mind evaluating true/false, and then the majority rules. It also has to do with beliefs. Since I’m an INTJ, Te (extroverted thinking/rationale) is my secondary/Parent function. But that means Ti/logic is my Critic (which I believe is the sixth cognitive function). So it’s like rationale kind of governs most of my functions and manages them (kind of like a parent would), and I guess it forms beliefs based off what it sees and knows could happen. But then Ti Critic comes along and reminds that Parent function to verify the truth, over and over, because INTJs kind of have a need for their beliefs to line up with the truth. To an extent it’s like that for everyone, but the verification is a huge deal for a lot of INTJs. That’s kind of why I use a lot of qualifiers in my speech sometimes. Part of me worries that I didn’t verify good enough and that something I said could be incorrect.

            That said…I have no clue what personality type the people in your example were. They couldn’t all be INTJs, considering how rare the personality type is. But, I dunno, it comes across like a lot of them were using a more rational approach, while maybe the logical thing might have been just to go verify. Yet, they would have each been processing it in their heads differently, based off their experiences and personality type. Some of them might have just been running a stream of logic statements in their head, while others might have been evaluating the whole situation with rationale.

            It’s interesting how the conclusion was more or less the same for most people. As you mentioned, people that already had their minds set on pizza were less likely to verify your claims. And then who knows what other data they were working with in their minds (like whether or not you tend to make jokes like that). The analogy you made is good, though. In a way it’s sad that the way our minds have to operate and survive in this world can interfere with our spiritual survival at times.

            • Travis Perry says:

              On Myers Briggs I test either INTP or INFP–which is a combination I’ve been told isn’t supposed to happen.

              I find myself a bit skeptical about personality tests in general and the explanations the creators of such tests make in regard to how reasoning supposedly works. I think human behavior is significantly more complex that 16 possible combinations (even when including secondary personality traits).

              Having said that, it’s true I was using the word “logic” rather loosely in what I said above. What I meant was, that instead of saying, “What I want is pizza so don’t waste my time with this” which was at least in part seems to have been an underlying motivation, they instead questioned the credibility of what I said by reference to past events, reference to the known nature of what we’d already witnessed, reference to their understanding of what the base was like, and reference to how my story supposedly “changed” as I remembered more details (they immediately noticed all inconsistencies in everything I said, which were not the result of fabrication, but the process of pulling up the memory). So they used “logic” as in “intellectual reasoning” to challenge what I’d witnessed with my own eyes, nose, hands, and mouth. Their reasoning would only partially qualify as logical in the strictest sense of the word.

              I’m not sure what they would have tested on Myers Briggs but as I mentioned, I’m a bit skeptical about those tests anyway, so I wouldn’t hazard to guess.

              • Well, they probably wouldn’t have all had the same personality type. Though maybe the people that eventually investigated your claims had the same personality type or at least shared a few cognitive functions. Part of my point was that, regardless of their personality types (it’s doubtful they all had the same one), and regardless of what cognitive processes they used, most of them arrived more or less at the same conclusion.

                Myers Briggs tests do tend to be inaccurate, and are really only good for ballparking one’s type. I think I took the humanmetrics test, which tends to get me right, but I took a test on another site and it got me way wrong. Part of the issue was that I ended up answering according to what I believe now, instead of how I operate (or at least used to operate).

                The best way to type people is actually through their cognitive processes and interaction styles. It takes a while to truly understand those, though. One thing I’m trying to understand now is how to tell the difference between an Abstract and an Informative statement, since there’s a lot of similarities. Right now I think the main difference is that Abstract statements mainly deal in whatifs, whereas Informative statements just tend to be more vague and expect the listener to ascertain what the speaker wants and expects. Of course everyone is going to make both kinds of statements sometimes, but it’s a matter of what types of statements are their natural/primary/or default.

                There are also four sides to the mind, so when I say that I’m an INTJ, that means that my Ego (the apex of who I am) is an INTJ. But people cognitive transition to other sides of their mind as needed (and depending on their life experiences and how they learn to solve problems) One of the other sides of my mind is an ESFP, which is often nicknamed the entertainer. When I am reasonably comfortable and caught up in a situation and trying to please and entertain people, that side of me comes out. That tends to manifest in a slight mischevious streak, and at that point I can actually manage to be funny. But, since it is not my ego, it takes a lot of energy and isn’t a mode that’s healthy for me to stay in forever.

                There might be more than 16 types, for all we know, but it’s also likely that there’s 16 types, but that the other differences we see are due to life experiences and upbringing. The current me acts way different than the thirteen year old me, for instance, but my cognitive functions were the same all along. I’ve just learned to use my traits differently as I’ve matured. So nurture would account for a lot of the complexity we see.

                There’s also personality disorders to consider. Antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy) is going to greatly impact behavior, but presumably, a psychopath could have any Myers Briggs type.

                Words can have different meanings depending on the context they are used, and you kind of just seemed to be using the word logic in a conversational way, which is totally fine. It just reminded me of personality type stuff since one of the sources I’ve been learning from makes a distinction between Rationale and Logic. That distinction is fine for that source’s discussion of personality type, but of course other people are going to use those words differently in other contexts.

  4. Jenni says:

    Perhaps the steak & shrimp dinner was unbelievable because it was too good to be true. If you had told them there was beef stew down the road with iced tea and rolls, maybe they would have been more inclined to believe.

    When I witness, I many times feel that what I’m saying about my Christian experience sounds “too good to be true” in the minds of my audience, and thus, they can’t allow themselves to be “fooled” into believing. If I told them instead what a hard path it is to follow, and quote some of the negative aspects of Christianity, maybe they would listen more. But all the negative features are only negative from their point of view, on the other side of the divide, but not in my point of view.

    I appreciate your point that we are tasked with telling what happened, not explaining how it happened.

    • Travis Perry says:

      Not that there’s anything wrong with us TRYING to explain how the unexpected benefit happened, but in the end our attempts to explain that isn’t as important as simply telling what we have witnessed.

      The downside in the particular case I shared was having to walk 5 minutes to go get the meal. While that isn’t unusual at all in the military, the pizza these guys had delivered to them came to them–they didn’t have to walk anywhere. So in that way it was easier.

      Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

  5. Very good story. It depicted memories of my tour in the Army along with trying to tell others about Jesus and His love. It’s good to know there are others who not only fight the battles of our nation’s liberties, but help free those who are in spiritual bondage.

    Thanks for this wonderful article.

  6. David says:

    You should have told them there was pizza there and they could save their money. When they got there they wouldn’t see pizza, and they’d really be shown the fools then as they’d see you were telling the truth all along about everything else, but then they’d have to decide if pizza was really what they wanted.

    If that didn’t work, you could simply have said, “Guys, I don’t care if you believe me or not. I just had a wonderful steak and shrimp dinner while you losers are ordering pizza just because you’re too lazy to walk a little bit for some free food that’s far superior. Now that I’m back from it, I’m going to go sit down and read (if you had a book) or play a game. Enjoy your cardboard with stuff on top, guys!” Then just turn around and walk away to your bunk or whatever.

    You’re not responsible for whether they eat what you had or not. The blessing was yours, you told them, and they didn’t believe you. Tough on them! If they won’t believe you, it’s not your job to convince them it’s real. Obviously the more you talked, the worse it got. That’s pretty typical. And, like another commenter on here mentioned leftovers, if you really wanted to convince them, and you didn’t have leftovers, you could have walked back for a few shrimp, threw it in their faces and said, “So where did I get those, Neverland?”

What do you think?