(Video) 8 Years old Girl Sees a Vision of Jesus Coming Back in the Sky

Also, the many Muslims who see visions see visions of Jesus. Not Mohammad. Jesus. And people aren't converting to Islam or Hinduism because they see visions this rarely happens but with Christianity it happens a lot of the time. Like I said. Go listen to some of the testimonies yourself.

This is completely beside the point. People's visions reflect their culture and religious tradition. Jesus is, in some sense, important to the Islamic faith, and so, we shouldn't be surprised Muslims have visions of him. But for the millions of years prior to the birth of Christ, humans had fantastic, exotic visions. Before Judaism originated, people had these foreign, striking visions. If Christianity were to decline and lose prominence, these visions would still carry on, this time with new subject matter, reflecting new cultural and social trends. Pointing out the religious trends of our current epoch is, once again, besides the point. In fact, I think it weakens your case. If Christianity were the minority religious tradition, then perhaps there would be more credence to those claiming the visions were not mere reflections of cultural trends. Viewed as an aggregate, this is not the case.

Finally, why a supposed Christian would be quoting Bertrand Russel a guy who doesn't even believe in the supernatural (meaning he dismisses visions by default) is beyond me, but such is the nature of /r/Christianity. The Christians on here are basically atheists.

Bertrand Russell, if you ever read him, didn't merely dismiss the supernatural "by default". He made the case throughout his writings that we were not in the epistemic position to assent belief in the supernatural, as the evidence, when proportioned to the belief, left us agnostic. You read his essays and assess the merits of his arguments to justify his position, but simply saying it was baseless is factually incorrect. It was a position he tried to defend, and even those who disagree with him have to admit he defended it nobly (which is why a Christian such as myself, alongside many other Christians, genuinely enjoyed and respected Russell). If you think Russell, as an agnostic, isn't for whatever reason, incapable of contributing to the conversation, perhaps Thomas Paine, the deist, will hold more weight:

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it".

You seem to fault everyone but yourself for not taking on the minority position that miraculous testimony. Perhaps it just isn't the strongest position to take. Perhaps the defenses, such as that of William James, are not seen as persuasive. No need to belittle those who are not willing to take on such a hard-to-justify position. The people you aggressively respond to have respectfully raised some genuine concerns about your own beliefs about testimony. Why you find respectful discourse as an assault on your soul or whatever is beyond me. It seems you could answer the questions, address the concerns, and have a conversation without saying such extremities as...

The Christians on here are basically atheists.

This is not being charitable, rational, or commensurate to what has actually been said by myself and ivsciguy. A whole lot of anger and handwaiving, but not a lot of compelling reason or evaluation. Feel free to continue to belittle others by insulting their person or their religious convictions, but it still leaves your position as dubious and dissuasive as it was to begin with. Perhaps even more.

/r/Christianity Thread Parent Link - jesusboom.com