Any truth to this?

[Anonymous]

[OfDeath]

No. Even though this is intended to impugn Christianity, it is inadvertently too christocentric to achieve the outcome in the third line. A rigorous perusal of the bible may result in someone becoming a non Christian but not necessarily an atheist. However, one needs to already have extrabiblical knowledge. If someone who knows nothing about history and science reads the bible, they might just believe everything. Common sense should prevail here but as we know, common sense is not common.

So if someone well read in history and science actually thoroughly scrutinized the bible, as I said, it would be highly unlikely they would be catholic, evangelist, etc. Although, they would not necessarily be atheist given the multitude of other religions they might be.

[Asker]

What religions don't contradict science and common sense?

[OfDeath]

Well, it depends on how one defines religion. One could religiously follow science and rationality. Rationalism, humanism, materialism etc could be argued to be religions when believed to the point of delusion. It is important to keep at least a modicum of scepticism about everything. For example the big bang could be wrong, black holes might not be what we think we have discovered them to be and evolution might not really happen - which is unlikely in the extreme but it is just a hypothetical example and not a real world one.

But that isn't the point I was making. The point I made was a that an in depth analysis of the bible might prevent someone from being a Christian but won't stop anyone from being a sikh or a hindu or something like that.

[strateguy632]

"someone well read in history and science" many educated professors are christian. surprised?

[ManOnFire]

I am a Christian and can say that many Christians buy Bibles and don't read them regardless of denomenation. Reading only what suits you tends to apply more to liberal Christians who compromise and want to be Christian but are still trying to make secularism fit with God.

Atheists already chose atheism before fully reading a Bible, they just read it so that it can solidify their views about God. They don't have any real intention of thinking in a spirit way.

[Asker]

What is "thinking in a spirit way"? Is that just blind acceptance or something else?

[ManOnFire]

It means you don't look at the world in a basic humanly "logical" way. You see things deeper than just flesh and blood.

[Asker]

Many psychopathic criminals state the same. They claim to see and hear things in a "spirit way."

[ManOnFire]

So do people who don't believe in God and use cannabis or other drugs. But neither they or the psychopathic criminals are seeing things in a spirit way from a biblical perspective.

[Asker]

So, they would have to blindly believe it to see things in a "spirit way." Your argument is circular. It boils down to whether you believe it or not. Every religion believes that their teachings are correct from their "perspective."

[ManOnFire]

It isn't blindly believing. It's believing with the intent to understand. You even have people in other parts of the world who've never opened a Bible and don't know anything about God but give testimonies to having dreams where they were met by Jesus. I think that says a lot.

[Asker]

Anytime believing is mentioned as something that comes before understanding, there's a problem. I would never put believing before understanding. That is anti-rationalism. As far as dreams and visions go, plenty of people around the world have them. People who are religious and non-religious have them. There's a whole body of research in this area. There is no universal subjective experience. People also have powerful experiences which involve dragons, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Krampus, etc. These don't indicate the existence of such beings. It just indicates that our minds can construct all sorts of fantastical things... including religious beliefs.

[ManOnFire]

That's what I'm saying, 'rational' thinking is what someone who doesn't believe has already decided to go into the Bible with. So they aren't going to believe anyway.

So the difference between any ol' random dream about Santa, Tooth fairy, etc. and Jesus is that people who dreamed about him but have never heard of God or the Bible, or have at least never even opened one or became familiar with its words, will describe how he said things to them that they later on found in the Bible when they decided to open it. I think that is a lot more than just any random dream. You don't hear about Christians, Muslims, or atheists dreaming of Hindu gods, or Hindus dreaming about Mohammed.

This is why it's important to listen to those accounts from people who knew nothing about God and the Bible as opposed to ones from Christians or even atheists in first world countries who are already familiar with Christianity.

[Asker]

The accounts you describe are not uncommon. People have visions and experiences about all kinds of things that they have no conscious recall of. There are so many factors to consider. Many of these stories about people claiming to have no knowledge of "God", "Jesus" or the "Bible" before having these experiences have to be thoroughly scrutinized. Many Christian authors and leaders are just selling books or movies. Popular culture is saturated with Christian references. These references are deeply ingrained in people from a very young age, whether you are Christian or not. It also depends on what Christian teachings you are referring to... Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. There is no one Christian teaching. People who claim that their interpretation of the Bible is correct are the most intolerant of differences. There's a reason why you won't find any bonafide scientific findings as to the authenticity of the experiences you mentioned. If something is objectively true, it shouldn't matter what frame of mind that they have. In the realm of science and fact, things must be scrutinized and tested. Where did this occur? Who provided the story? Are there witnesses? Is the story being used to gain more followers or reassure current followers? Is profit involved? Science doesn't shy away from any questions. Studying mathematics has nothing to do with the frame of mind of the student.

[ManOnFire]

Google things like 'Muslim dreams about Jesus' or 'Hindu dreams about Jesus,' and also watch videos on YouTube from ex-Muslims and Hindus who give their stories and you'll see what I mean.

[ManOnFire]

https://youtu.be/Um1EI0mSB-s?si=irNaR_SCPIQDaH-0

[Asker]

The bias is absolutely clear in what you posted. The producers are pushing a particular viewpoint. This is not an objective, inquisitive documentary. This starts off mentioning "God's agents of change"... biased from the beginning. You don't acknowledge the subconscious influence in their lives before having these experiences. How do you explain ex-Christians who have realizations/experiences that lead them to other religions or no religion? Are their experiences less valid? You act like only Christianity has a monopoly on experiences like this.

[ManOnFire]

The producers can try to sell the point to you however they want, but the real point is in the man's experience. Which would still be the same even if it wasn't Christians who made the video. If you listened to what he said, there were no subconscious influences before he had the experience. He had been a Muslim his whole life, with no particular regard for the Bible/Christianity.

When ex-Christians go atheist or convert to another religion, I think of them no differently than Jews who turn atheist, or Hindus who convert to Islam. Forget about it as a Christian thing and think of it as a Jesus thing, if that makes sense. Jesus has/is appearing to people who have never even known him or opened a Bible. This is what makes it so incredibly amazing.

[Asker]

There is absolutely no way to verify the accuracy of any of this. Actors act. That's their job. Your statement "the real point is in the man's experience" just proves my point. It's subjective experience. Also, you can't separate Jesus from Christianity. That's ridiculous. Do you believe Joseph Smith's visions upon which the entire Mormon church is based on? Or the ritual dance of the "Shaking Quakers" that has its origin in the visions of Mother Ann Lee? Or the Catholic belief of transubstantiation (wine and bread LITERALLY becoming the flesh and blood of Jesus)? The list goes on. Other Christians think they are ridiculous. People see angels in cloud formations and stars. Trained illusionists continue to trick religious people out of their money with "miracles" because they understand how to fool people. Any solid proof of anyone being raised from the dead 3 days after death? Or walking on water? Or turning water into wine? Of course not! All of this is based on the strength of your blind belief... not science or fact.

[ManOnFire]

Let's try this one more time: the experience is not just subjective. When you have people who have never known about Jesus or opened a Bible, but had a dream about him - or even say that a man named Jesus appeared to them - and he spoke things to them that they later on found in the Bible when they opened it, where is the lie their story? Where is the act? And what benefit would it be for a Muslim to tell of their experience like that? Why would people who never cared or believed in Jesus before want to make up a story about having a dream where he met them?

All those other things from Joseph Smith and his buddy "Moroni" are not biblical. The Quakers never saw any angels shaking like that, and if Ann Lee did have some kind of a vision of them making that movement, maybe 'shaking' is the only best way her human mind could describe it. And so on. These are beliefs/ideas that come from people who ALREADY believe in God.

Again, the proof is in people who never even knew God or read a Bible but were met by him.

[Asker]

I don't think you understand what I am saying. The accounts that you are sharing from people who "have never known about Jesus or opened a Bible, but had a dream about him - or even say that a man named Jesus appeared to them - and he spoke things to them that they later on found in the Bible when they opened it" are unverifiable stories. Just because they show up in a video or book mean nothing. The Bible itself is just a book with multiple translations and versions that are vastly different. You just pick the version that you like. Anyone can claim that their story is true! You ask why would anyone tell stories like this? It's quite simple... to support their own beliefs, get more believers and/or to make money. This is not rocket science. It's the oldest trick in the book. You are disparaging Mormons or any other group that doesn't agree with your "biblical" view. Others have thier own "biblical" view. You claim that Ann Lee "never saw any angels shaking like that" How do you know? She claimed that she did and thousands of her followers still do! You say "only best way her human mind could describe it"... BINGO! It's all about how the "human mind could describe it." Again, the influence of Christianity on popular culture which affects the "human mind" is deep and profound. It's so deep in fact that people who "never even knew God or read a Bible" are influenced by it. This is not that hard to grasp. The "human mind" is quite powerful. It can produce and create truly incredible and fantastical things.

[ManOnFire]

The verification of their stories is that Jesus often said things to them they never heard about until they opened a Bible. I can't see how any Muslim would stage such an experience knowing very well how Muslims who convert to Christianity especially in the middle east - and where most of these dreams of Jesus happen - are hunted and persecuted for it. There would be no benefit in them making up a story like that for money or fame with their lives at stake. Same for Hindus.

Joseph Smith's "view" and his Book of Mormon are not biblical. The man claimed the he found it originally written on golden plates in ancient Egyptian. No.1 why is there no proof of those plates? No.2 why would it be in Egyptian text, and about Israelites sailing to America?

I didn't say Ann Lee never saw angels shaking. I said the Quakers didn't. I said maybe she did have a vision of them, but doing what appeared to her to be shaking, which wouldn't be wrong, it's just the way she described it.

"It's so deep in fact that people who "never even knew God or read a Bible" are influenced by it. This is not that hard to grasp." - Well, if that's true then it would certainly bolster God up even more and prove how great he is. Although it still would not make sense for someone never to be exposed to something to be influenced by it.

If you were just an average guy in some remote part of the world with no religion, or you had a traditional religion in your community, but one day you had a dream that you were met by a man named Buddha or he appeared to you, would it be because of the popular culture of Buddhism? Even though you never even knew what Buddhism was or even opened a Tripitaka?

[Asker]

I already told you that these stories are not designed to benefit Muslims or Hindus. They are designed to convince people to convert to Christianity from those religions as "proof" that Jesus exists. Any money or benefit from sharing these stories is for the folks producing this stuff! Which version/translation of the Bible do you ascribe to? There is more than one you know! You claim there's no proof for Mormons. Yes! Just like there's no proof of anyone rising from the dead in 3 days, walking on water or turning water into wine. How does the influence of Christianity in popular culture somehow bolster proof of God or Jesus? That's ludicrous. You use Buddhism as an example. How many people claim to have "experiences" regarding Buddha (who have no experience with Buddhism) as opposed to people having "experiences" regarding Jesus (who have no experience with Christianity)? I would think that there are more in the latter group because the influence of Christianity is greater. Also, it would make total sense for someone coming from a culture where Buddhism exists to have such an experience. You seem to completely deny the fact that the power of the human mind is great. Studies show that fetuses can pick up conversations in the womb months before birth. The mind can literally completely change our perspective on anything. A person can literally believe ANYTHING at all. This is why we have to base our civilization on science and facts to keep religious fanatics and other crazies from ruling the world. There is too much suffering based on religious wars! Too many scientists have been persecuted, tortured and murdered by religious leaders throughout history just for sharing their findings. Fanatical religious followers are always threatened by facts and science. Some religious groups won't even allow their own dying children to get blood transfusions because they claim the "Bible" says it's wrong! This insanity has to stop!

[strateguy632]

clearly false propaganda by atheist , mocking people because he can't find even one real problem.

[ChicoFromThe305]

No you either listen to the guidance or you dont if you do you've gotta accept even the things that you don't want to accept because it contradicts the flesh, believer or not someone can choose to do all of them, this image is just pure ignorance created by atheism

[Asker]

Isn't blind acceptance also an example of ignorance?

[ChicoFromThe305]

No because if it's acceptance then it means it's most likely true or you wouldn't have to accept, acepptance means you notice the truth and change for it, normally believers have their own personal evidence to that whatever it may be and they accept it

[ChicoFromThe305]

That's a good question tho

[OfDeath]

No, one does not have to accept something just because they have listened. One may listen and know better than who they are listening to and therefore should not accept what they have found to be wrong. Moreover, accepting something also doesn't mean it is true. For example, one may accept a life sentence even though they are actually innocent.

[ChicoFromThe305]

True but I don't know what people consider blind acceptance, just cause you don't see it doesn't make it not true if I want to accept a belief weither I know it's real wouldn't make me ignorant

[OfDeath]

Blind acceptance would be accepting something without evidence or inquiry. For example, being told a story like Noah's Ark and simply accepting those events really happened without seeing and evaluating any evidence with reliable methods.

Blind acceptance is ignorance. But let's remember ignorance is not always bad. For example everyone is ignorant about whether or not there are alien civilizations in the universe or even simpler things like what the weather will be two weeks from now.

What is important is knowing when to be sceptical.

[ChicoFromThe305]

I see, well they found noahs Ark, it's not the first thing they found either so it's not really blind acceptance cause there's archaeological evidence that have been found that proves places in the bible existed, I guess that depends what people consider blind acceptance but I don't think ignorance is the proper word to describe blind acceptance, now risky maybe but I wouldn't use ignorant as one cause wouldn't blindly not accepting be considered the same thing, the existence of God is a perfect example I'd say cause if there was no evidence of his existence but the possibility is still there cause of the uncertainty then wouldn't that be considered a form of blind acceptance as well, the fact that there's no possible way to be 100% certain of God's existence would mean both believers and non believers would be falling into blind acceptance, i personally don't consider it blind because there's certain things that point out to the existence of a God, faith is the main part of it, I've personally asked for guidance and received it, I see it as personal evidence, of course it's not evidence I can show off cause it's physical but the whole purpose of a connection with God is for it to be personal, so it's hard to really say either one is ignorant cause it all revolves around perspective when it comes to personal beliefs

[OfDeath]

I don't know how to say this kindly so I will have to be frank: your "facts" are wrong.

Somewhere along the line you have believed misinformation and been seriously misguided. Noah's Ark has not been found. The very story itself is utterly absurd. Have you ever actually read that story? It is not something which is possible.

Yes, places in the bible really existed and some of them retain their names to this day. The bible is cultural myth. It is mythical tales about people and places familiar to a particular culture. No different to the same kind of myth belonging to other civilizations around the world.

There is another serious problem with your thinking and that is your statement that people who don't believe in god despite there being no reliable evidence are exercising blind acceptance. That is false. Not believing something is not the same as believing it is not. Many people seem to have a lot of trouble getting their head around that.

Personal testimony which can't be proven true or false is not useful. It would be seriously irrational to accept that.

[ChicoFromThe305]

So it's ignorance to believe but not ignorance to call out my faith without the proper knowledge or disapproving evidence of the existence of God? That sounds like actual ignorance right there, not the fact that you don't believe but the idea of you telling me God doesn't exist without being certain of it, where is your evidence that he doesn't exist? Cause no one has seen air until it was discovered, just cause there's no proper evidence doesn't mean it's not true, and being that close minded to say it doesn't exist because there's no evidence is indeed ignorance.

[ChicoFromThe305]

Just how I'm "blindly accepting god" you are blindly rejecting the existence of god"

[OfDeath]

"So it's ignorance to believe but not ignorance to call out my faith without the proper knowledge or disapproving evidence of the existence of God?"

This is what is known as a loaded question. I have not said that. Both of us are ignorant on the question of god. The difference is you believe it on blind faith and I don't.

"but the idea of you telling me God doesn't exist"

Blatant strawman argument. I didn't tell you god doesn't exist. I ask that you retract that statement or there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I don't bear the burden of proof here. That is borne by you since you are making the positive claim through your blind faith that god exists. I am under no obligation to prove the non existence of something which has not been proven. Do you see how that works?

[ChicoFromThe305]

Yes indeed, I wasn't talking about you, I was speaking in a general point of view for the people that do, mostly to the one person that said it's blind acceptance, it was mostly going to that person like they asking me, when it goes both ways lol

[Asker]

So, it must be true because you accept it? That makes no sense.

[ChicoFromThe305]

That's not what I said *facepalm*

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

2 out 3 is right.

I heard Catholics don't read their Bibles that explains the ignorance of them regarding scripture.

I actually read the Bible and I accept everything in there as it is.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

* 1 out 3

[Asker]

So, you blindly accept everything? Do you see any difference between the Old Testament (especially dietary rules, etc) and the message of the New Testament?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes, there is a difference.

[Asker]

Do you follow all of the dietary rules of the Old Testament?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

No..

[strateguy632]

content food dietary, that specified tell israel. not for anyone else. and same for all holy laws in old testament