I’m on here looking for advice on how to engage with my super religious SIL. I want to preface this by saying she is very sweet with good intentions. She is my husbands sister and 22 years old. While his family is Catholic, she takes it to the extreme. I think this all started due to mental health issues as a child that I think she continues to have. Anyway, she got married very young and just had her first baby. The baby ended up having some unforeseen problems and we are getting lots of updates via group text. Every single text from her has a religious under tone either telling us to pray to certain people or saying “praise the lord” and “god is good” when there is good news. I, myself, was raised Catholic (by liberal parents) but as an adult, I really don’t believe in the religion or god at all. So here’s my question- can anyone relate? How do you interact with people like this on a genuine level. Being Catholic is her whole personality and it is so cringe to me. I mean she is saying “god is good” while the baby in the NICU next to hers is dying, why isn’t god good to that innocent baby? It just makes no sense to me and I have such a hard time being genuine to her bc it is all so weird and fake to me. Advice?

This question is mainly for Christians. In genesis 1 it is described as animals being created and than man and women but in genesis 2 we get a kind of new telling, where man was created than animals so he could name them than a women for him. Do these differences not make a contradiction within the story or is there a misunderstanding I have if so please explain- thanks to anyone who does give there input on this

Hi!! I'm a diletante when it comes to religion. I'm most experienced with forms of paganism, but I'm not very experienced. I think I'm beginning to formulate a general idea of what these religions really are, but my perspective is insular and I want to hear others' thoughts.

There are obviously differences between all religions, but that's not what I'm asking about. I'm talking about "essence" or the general concepts and how they differ.

Like I said, I don't know a lot, but the big difference I feel like I've seen (besides stuff like revelation being present in Abrahamism) is this idea that the world was made for us, that we were put htere, we're children of God. I feel as if Abrahamic religion view our universe as somewhat of a "habitat" or diorama that was made for us. It's seen as our domain.

On the other hand, I see modern paganism as being almost opposite (questionably)-we're merely part of the universe, somewhat of a byproduct the processed that spawned this vast realm. We're part of nature and despite the illusion of being distinct, there's no real way to define where humans end and environment begins, if that makes sense. It's decentralized in how it views the spiritual, kind of a pantheist/panemtheist perspective. I think it fits well with panpsychism, the idea that all is conscious.

You might be able to tell by how I wrote this, but what I view as the pagan perspective resonates more with me. That said, there are a lot of critical issues with paganism, I won't get into them all but it's the lack of authority and organization primarily, for me.

I'm curious as to your thoughts. It's an interesting dilemma to me, modern paganism (neopaganism, reconstructionism etc) really resonate with me, but at the same time, I could be very wrong. I want to learn about Abrahamic religion from the perspective of an Abrahamist. Perhaps it resonates more with me than I think.

All are welcome.

I was raised as a Jehovah's witness and I grew up reading the New world translation on the Jw Library app. I have been to church before and I see the King James, New revised standard, and new American bibles. What is the difference in the translations. Are they specific to old and new testament or specific to old english vs modern english

The real question I am trying to ask is why do they think women are too emotional, as well as the title question. I was watching a true crime case about a misogynistic cult leader on YouTube ( surprise surprise….he’s woman hater 🙄) I noticed that his ideals about women are similar to a lot of other misogynists. For example, his ideals are things such as

Women are inherently overly emotional, they need a man to lead them because said emotional state, they’re destructive and shallow, and they don’t use logic because again….they’re very emotional.

My question is where did that thought process even come from? There has to be more to it besides they’re just mad women don’t want to get with them.

In what religion there's room for people who aren't that fond of people?

I'm wondering if anyone has comes across this strand of thought I started developing earlier in life:

Just to 'preface', I suspect it's something that many of those relatively few people whose course of life would make it a comfortable belief system have naturally drifted into - but that it's also a view so harsh from most people's point of view that they wouldn't necessarily wish it on many of them. In other words, whether it happens to be true or not, it's a scenario one maybe ought to hope (for one's own good as well as everyone else's) isn't true - especially if you take an agnostic position and consider the fact that all the major religions would condemn it as satanic or worse.

So, it's arguably a fusion of two views (Nietzscheism and Buddhist rebirth) that already existed, although I wasn't really aware of what either of those systems amounted to at the time the outline took shape.

In this hypothetical religious belief system, there's an original sin of consciousness separating itself off from and against the physical world, creating a rift that can only be repaired by saturating (to its full potential) the human brain's everyday actualisation of the mind with concrete links into the concrete world of selves and objects - which [presumably] can only be achieved through the constant manipulation of internal and external artefacts and people to the most sophisticated levels achievable.

From a moral point of view, the angels in this picture (obviously taking a Nietzschean 'revelation of values' into account) would be primary psychopaths, and sin/Wrong would be emotions like fear and hesitation that pull consciousness back into its fundamental antagonism with the physical world - or at least (thinking of Love etc. as well) leave it mired in unproductive mush.

Already there's some irony, in that 'healing the rift' with the physical world might involve actively contributing to its destruction. But on the mental side, creating conditions in which others will naturally feel it harder and harder to keep their nerve (see above) and follow the elect into salvation (even if they do keep their nerve...) would effectively render those involved the Agents of 'divine' justice / retribution, "visiting the sins of the fathers against the third and the fourth generation of them that hate"[/remain estranged from] the Laws of Nature. A sort of Antichrist's Judgement Day.

{Bringing things into the here and now, clearly Boomers and GenXers (to use those current US terms for westerners of their respective birth year spans) would be saved or damned more fully than less-meritocratic generations.}

Returning to Buddhism, there's a teaching in which the Buddha supposedly compared all the pain in the world with a mustard seed, giving a parallel comparison of the entire Hindu universe (which is pretty big...) with the pain of the deepest hell. If you include this picture, suffering that's as good as infinite as well as everlasting (the span is about 10 to the power of 18 years according to other texts) would await those who let themselves be distracted by wild goose chases that don't "heal the rift" - or that simply have no hope of doing so, even if they aim to.

See if you can show how I'm wrong - while still accepting that the idea of being freed at death from any further negative consequences (to past actions) is at least too good to be true.

I've seen this question get tossed around a lot. Mainly from people who want to know if getting their cards read is OK to do.

I mean the Bible talks against Mediums and divination, but the bible goes through so many different stories and revelations that it's confusing. I mean come on - Prophets were men having visions from God and the future constantly.

Any thoughts about Psychics, Mediums. Getting your tarot card read. Will you be cursed forever?

What's the real deal here?

Say I was born to parents who are billionaires. Then, my whole life I just hang out in a mansion doing nothing that contributes to society. For example, watching TV, playing video games, order a bunch of food, etc.

Are there any religions that would view this as very bad?

I thought Catholics believe you have to do good works possibly?

I'm asking out of curiosity for the very few people in the world who do live life like this.

This was a question I posed to my RS teacher recently, and she couldn't answer, so please share your thoughts.

The reasoning for the question is that I was thinking about hell (in the lesson, I'm not just a wierdo who thinks of hell randomly) and it came to me that if Hell is the state of the absence of God, and the Holy spirit guides humans, then God is no longer caring for humans once in Hell. Plus, this also shows how he cannot be omnipresent if Hell is the absence of God.

The other option that I've read about is that Hell is not the absence of God, but one that's away from "the glory of his light" (2 Thessalonians 1:9), meaning that people in Hell are not experiencing his love, but God's wrath. This is contradictory as God is represented as omnibenevolent (all loving), suggesting that if "God is love" (1 John 4:8), then God loves all humans, yet places them in Hell, either the absence of God, or under God's wrath, yet is still all loving. I guess this links to the Inconsistent Triad.

Please share your thoughts and even add to the question if you have anything you want to understand too.

The relationship between faith and works is one of the most intriguing and profound questions within Christianity. On one hand, we find passages like Ephesians 2:8-9, which emphasize salvation by grace through faith, without human merit: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." On the other hand, the book of James challenges us to consider that faith without works is dead (James 2:17), suggesting that actions are a visible manifestation of true faith.

This apparent tension raises important questions: Are we justified by faith alone, or do works play an indispensable role in the process of sanctification and Christian witness? Furthermore, how should we understand this relationship in practical contexts, such as our daily decisions, community life, and commitment to social causes?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. How do you see the connection between faith and works? Do you believe this tension can be resolved, or is it part of the mystery of Christian faith? Share your theological insights or personal experiences that have shaped your understanding of this topic.

I'm curious if any non-Catholics have considered the idea because there has been a movement toward "universal salvation" among progressive Christians.

The Trinity of God

An attempt to make it understandable and how our modern language makes the concept more confusing than it needs to be.

When we, as humans, try to comprehend the mystery of the Trinity of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), it often leads to confusion and questions such as:

• How can God be all three at once and yet distinct?
• Isn’t there one God, not three?
• How can Jesus pray to the Father if they are the same God?

These questions are neither rare nor wrong. Anyone who genuinely seeks to engage with the topic and at least attempt to "understand" the Trinity must confront these questions.

First, let’s clarify something upfront:
God is God; humans are humans. To think that we can fully comprehend the infinite nature of God is both naïve and presumptuous. Our human minds cannot and will never grasp infinity. With this fact in mind, let’s address the question: what is the Trinity, really?

The Church’s Explanation of the Trinity

The Church often describes the Trinity as: three persons who are in a relationship with one another and yet are the same God.
While this is entirely correct, it can be hard to grasp in modern times.

The problem lies in the modern meaning of the word “person.”
In today’s language, a “person” refers to an individual or a separate being. This is why the questions and confusion arise.

The Original Meaning of the Word

However, if we look at the origins of the word and its meaning in its original context, things become much clearer:

• The word “person” comes from the Latin persona, which originally meant “mask” or “role.”
• The Greek equivalent, prosopon, also means “face” or “mask.”

Understanding this original meaning helps us clarify:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three separate individuals or distinct beings. They are three different masks, roles, or manifestations of the same divine essence, which work, think, and act together as one.

A Simple Analogy

To make this even more relatable, here’s a simplified example:
Imagine a man who is one being. He also takes on multiple roles in his life:

• As a father to his children.
• As a friend to his companions.
• As a businessman at work.

It remains the same one man, but his being carries multiple roles or “masks” that operate differently, yet all work together as one.

Returning to the Question

How can Jesus pray to the Father if the Son and the Father are the same God?
Jesus was 100% God and at the same time 100% human. As a human, he prayed to the Father (God) just as we do, without losing his divine role as the Son, Redeemer, and God in human flesh.

Final Thoughts

This explanation doesn’t remove all mystery, as God’s infinite nature is far beyond what human language or analogy can fully express. However, understanding the original meaning of terms like persona and prosopon helps us approach the concept of the Trinity with clarity.

God is one being who reveals Himself in three roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These roles interact and work together, but they are not separate beings. It is a profound mystery, yet one rooted in love and unity.

EDIT:
Well, I’ve spent hours discussing with GPT and, thanks to some comments here, I’ve come to understand one key point: The debate about what the Trinity truly is—whether roles, persons, or attributes—is pretty irrelevant. At the end of the day, God gave us the explanation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to provide some insight into the "attributes" of God in relation to us humans, so that we can grasp it within our limited human understanding. Ultimately, God is almighty and, above all, infinite. To confine Him solely to these three persons doesn’t do Him justice—He is everything and beyond everything. The Trinity, however one may interpret it, remains an attempt to make God’s nature somewhat comprehensible for us humans.

I will leave this post here so maybe others can think about it if they come down the same learning-path as me.
Thank you!

I often hear this phrase from religious people and as a non-religious person, I find it a bit confusing. Is it simply a case of saying 'my religion takes a position on issue x, so therefore I take the same position on this issue too'?

I guess I find the phrase a bit baffling as the people in question aren't really saying 'this is what I think and believe about this issue' but are citing what the religion they believe in says.

For example, MPs in the UK recently voted on legislation around assisted dying and several religious MPs voted against it 'due to religious beliefs'. Also, a Premier League footballer recently chose not to wear a rainbow armband in support of the LGBTQ community 'due to his religious beliefs'.

Putting these individual issues aside, and respecting people's right to believe whatever they want, isn't using this phrase a bit disingenuous? It feels quite evasive as people aren't saying what they as individuals think about an issue...or indeed why they believe something.

(I presume many religious people don't believe exactly what their religion teaches about every issue? And that within any given religion, there are often different interpretations about what position that religion takes on a particular issue?)

Hi!

I don't really know where to even begin. I'm 22F and I've struggled with my faith for quite a while. I was a christian all my childhood/teen years up until a certain point, left the church after turning 18, was confused for a while, found norse paganism which i followed for 2-3 years, back to being confused because I acknowledged the existence of all gods but did not have a specific faith I followed and now I've looked into islam and christianity again.

My partner is muslim and has told me things about islam and I have sometimes prayed to Allah along with learning about it, some of my prayers have come true so some belief has started to form but something hasn't felt right with me yet. I haven't had that moment where everything clicks and I still question things. I also have started to look into christianity again, because that's the religion I grew up with and feels natural. But I don't know, there are things I don't agree with when it comes to christianity but there are things I also don't agree with when it comes to islam. I don't want to not believe in something, because I know there is a God and I find comfort in praying but the confusion comes from inability to know which religious path to follow.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what would be your advice? It's starting to stress me out, having a belief of a higher being but not being guided/having no path to follow. Do I just keep researching until I find the one that makes sense the most and feels right?

If you religous then what is the point of going through the steps of life if your only working your way to heaven. What I mean is. What's the point of risking your spot in heaven with sins. Whether it be drugs, sex, saying stuff. I don't see the point of trying to make connections with people if all I'm working up to is an eternity of living after death.

This is a bandanna. I got last year at a hippie commune visited. Somebody gave it to me, and I just cannot find who this figure on this handkerchief is supposed to be if any of you and your religion knows who this is. Please let me know.

So I'm currently on a course and there's a lady who is Muslim also on our course. We all celebrate Christmas and obviously she does not. Next week I'll be handing out Christmas cards to the whole class but it would be haram for her for me to give her one and I really don't want to leave her out. I was thinking I could draw and paint a picture on a canvas for her (I was thinking animals as she mentioned she loves animals) but when I've been researching what is acceptable and what isn't in Muslim culture I found a few articles which state any art created in or for islam can not show depictions of living beings and that that would be haram for them in their household. So now I'm stuck and have no idea what I can draw.

Any help would be very appreciated 🎉

I teach a world religions course to high school students and tomorrow we start our Buddhism unit. I've taught this course in the past and consider myself pretty knowledgeable, but as I was lesson planning last year and this year, I encountered some road blocks in my knowledge that I was looking for clarification on.

In the past, I taught that reincarnation for Buddhists is more or less the same as it is for Hindus minus the caste system. But I am unsure about the difference between the Hindu concept of atman and the Buddhist concept of anatta. If there is no soul, what exactly gets reincarnated?

Also, I've always known there's a difference between the Hindu idea of moksha and nirvana for Buddhists, but I have a hard time articulating exactly what that difference is.

Any help is greatly appreciated!

My family is holiness, trinity pentecostal. We've been in this since I was 9, so I wasn't raised this way my whole life. I am not 17 and I have hit a wall. Well, I've always hit a wall. I tried, surrendered when I was told, and I never felt like I could commit. I didn't pray or read, I had no desire to. But it was expected of me. I had a calling on my life, and a promised healing of type 1 diabetes. I also have a voice, so I lead songs. My bf and I have known each other since childhood, and we ended up at this sake church. He's a preacher, but he was the same feelings i do. We both have decided to leave once we marry. But, I wonder if I'm making the right decision. We kissed once and we're required to break up for 3 months. I was told he was hindering my calling and I needed to leave him. We've been together almost 2 years and I love him. My parents made me talk to the pastor when this happened and they suggested 3 months, which my family readily accepted. I'd like to add that when I started feeling like I couldn't commit to this was when I ended a year long relationship with the pastors son. He used to hit me with brooms, and on the back if the head when I didn't listen. He would be let me talk to my now bf and said he'd never marry a woman who had male friends or wanted to work. He was controlling and would cause scenes over things and cry so I'd give in. His parents saw him make a scene and made us break up. I never went back. But I got involved with a worldly guy and loved him. But after that, I couldn't love this way of life anymore. I miss the clothes and the music and the dancing. I miss the jewelry. I want freedom. But I want to know I'm not making a mistake. We are told to not be led by emotions, but when asked how we know this way is real, we say that it's because we feel it. It is hypocritical. The men hit their wives and children till they can't breathe. I can't bear the idea of having a daughter become a slave at 18 if we stay here. I wonder if my views are different bc I want raised in this, as my bf also wasn't raised in this. So. I ask. What do i do? Is this a cult? How do i combat guilt? My pastor was preaching and looked at me and said I wasnt on fire And I was in danger. Right in front of everyone. I feel guilty, as I do care about this church and life, and I love my pastor as a father.

Like for spirituality, empty your heart from love of this world. This world is trap and etc.

I've never been religious and because of that I understood that if I wanted something done I had to do it - it wouldn't magically happen. But due to various life situations I began to experiment with the idea of God.

I first rationalized it's existence the best way I could and I soon integrated it into my day to day thinking.

Fast forward several months I have gotten very little done, especially compared to the rest of my life.

The reason for this is an over reliance on "faith" and "divine purpose" which at best provides a very easy rationalization for any behavior or lack of action.

Instead of doing what I know I need to do I found great comfort going with the flow and trusting the process of some higher power. This has spiraled into laziness and complete lack of focus in my life.

Now the only benefit I saw during this time is that I was OK with the lack of action and my current place in life. I felt relaxed and at peace with my current situation because I was convinced that whatever happened was happening at the right time for the correct reasons. This was very beneficial during times where I needed to heal.

Unfortunately this is the exact cause of my complacency in life.

Some may find benefit in believing in a higher power and rationalizing it, but for me it has only pushed me to live life on the sidelines - no longer the creator of my own story.

So I am once again an agnostic atheist because I wish to be in control of my own destiny.

In many of Baha'u'llah's writings, He instructs believers to learn sciences and arts, but not sciences which begin and end in words. Often the context is directed towards religious scholars, but in general, what sciences which exist today could be included with "beginning and ending with words?"

EDIT: I'm not asking about using words to describe sciences. Please do not include answers about how words are required to express science and scientific discoveries.

EDIT 2: If you do not have an answer to the questions, don't feel compelled to comment.

Hi im a (20M) spaniard, i recently converted to christianity and have a doubt. So im from a disfunctional family and my mother a couple years ago said with no kind of remorse that se had so many abortions se cant even remember, before with and after she divorced from my father. I asked my family beacuse the usually avoid talking about my mothers past, i think she once was a prostitute for about 2-3 years while she was living in Paris, but i don’t have any proofs.

So is there any kind of way i could see my “brothers” in the afterlife,or not.

Thanks for reading.

Someone posted this Buddhist video on /r/Catholicism today as causing/empowering in him feelings of depression and anxiety and I was wondering whether it and other graphic depictions of hell in Buddhist sources that I have seen accurately capture the mainstream Buddhist understanding.

(The video is, again, very graphic so please consider whether you truly want to subject yourself to watching it)

https://youtu.be/SEucLZLMkac?si=3bZbvxWdiXmQuOX8

It always happens. I cant decide over islam and christianity, its like both has some type of truth and some type of doesnt make sense in it. I js wanan follow the true religion forreal bruh😭 but yes, i usually go for abrahamic religions that still see Jesus as sinless but im truly still confused

:

Similarities with previous scriptures

Why do academics seem to only be interested with the similarities of quran with Syriac scriptures when it seems as though the quran has just as many similarities (in verses) with other parts/versions of previous scriptures ( the Psalms being a good candidate).

Is it because we can only prove a linguistic connection if the text is syriac?

I believe this would make for a good argument by an apologist who could claim that not only is the quran similar to texts in its milieu but also to texts that we can't prove that it had access to.

I would like to know if there has been a thorough comparison with the previous scriptures and the quran ( not just Syriac texts but Christian and Jewish texts as a whole)

I'm curious as to what religious people on this board believe heaven to be. Not what the Bible says but what you believe it to be. Is it just like Earth, but better? Are there pets in heaven? Do we work? Do we eat? What do we do there? How do we spend our time? Or is heaven just a way station we go to before we move on to the next stage of our souls' existence?

*** Please don't quote scripture. I want to hear what you think, not what is written in religious texts.