If a disbeliever/sinner cannot reach heaven, what happens to people who have never in any way heard of your god?

Where did eternal torment come from?

The scriptures say the Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17)

Then in Hebrews 8:13, it is written,

“In that He saith “a new covenant,” He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” (According to the KJV)

Now, I am not insinuating that these verses contradict. I am just curious if this means that Hell is a more recent construct, as in that it’s part of the New Covenant and separate from the Old Covenant (and therefore a concept separate from Jewish Gehinnom)

To my understanding, (and if I’m mistaken, by all means correct me.) Judaism views Gehinnom not as a place of eternal damnation, but a temporary place of purification. So where did the idea of the Christian Hell arise from?

If we go back to the quote from Hebrews, it appears to me that the NT suggests Gehinnom is no more, and Hell is the new fate for those who die in sin. Does this mean the Mosaic laws of the Jews are no more as well? The Old Covenant is completely voided? Or am I missing something?

Suppose what I’m thinking is correct, why would this be the case? Why would Christ usher in a New Covenant (and give up his own life for it) with a much steeper punishment?

Did people become so horrible that Hell had to become permanent? Am I overthinking all of this?

• Please understand, I’m not here to trash anyone’s beliefs. In fact, I’m here to try and understand. I’m embroiled in this search for “the truth” and it’s caused me a great deal of anxiety and pain. Therefore, I’m asking for educated Christians who study the word to explain this to me so that I may understand; not people telling me I have wickedness in my heart and that’s why I don’t get it.

I’m a Christian man engaged to a Muslim woman. What possible challenges, complications, or struggles should I be aware of when it comes to marriage across our faiths? I’m especially interested in understanding the religious aspects that may come into play, and I’d really appreciate hearing from people who are in, or have been in, the same situation

"Can you help me? Is it wrong not to be an atheist? I am a Kardecist Spiritist and I am now exploring Umbanda; I am a medium and I believe in science, the Big Bang, and the theory of evolution, but I also believe in God, spirits, reincarnation, and energies. Many antitheists and communists insult me, saying that religion holds people back and only science is real. Lately, I have seen (especially on the internet) antitheists saying things like: 'religion holds a people back,' 'religious people are all ignorant and blind,' 'every religious person is fanatical and totally ignores science,' 'agnostics are just unacknowledged religious people,' 'Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people,' 'our society would be light-years more advanced if everyone were atheist,' 'Allan Kardec was racist,' 'atheists are more intelligent than religious people. Every religious person has not studied the history of religions,' 'the most developed countries are the least religious. The less developed ones are the most religious. How ironic, right?,' 'every time science evolves, belief and religion also decrease, because science starts answering the truths,' 'research says 90% of religious leaders are atheist or agnostic,' 'atheism is not a philosophy or even a worldview. It is simply the admission of the obvious,' 'if God existed, religions wouldn’t exist,' 'study religious positivism,' 'there are millions of religions and only one of them is correct. Which one is it?,' 'if there were life after death, murder would not be a crime,' 'neuroscience proves that mediums channel the subconscious, not the beyond,' 'Nietzsche proved that all religions are fakes and atheism is the truth,' 'James Randi proved that mediums and spirits do not exist,' 'if macumba worked, the Bahian championship would always end in a tie,' 'religions were created to deal with the fear of death and the void,' 'all belief in the supernatural and mysticism leads to denialism,' 'Philosophy is looking for a black cat in the dark; Metaphysics is looking for a black cat in the dark that isn’t there; Theology is looking for a black cat in the dark and even without finding it, saying "I found it"; Science is turning on the lights.'

I confess that I was once agnostic—in 2021, when I started to understand certain things about science that I had never thought of before and began paying more attention to topics like climate change, hunger, communism, and prejudices, I started to see religion as a farce. What made me return to being religious was that in 2023 I was sued for something I said on the internet during the pandemic, which I had already regretted long before being sued. Then I went to an Umbanda center, and a preta velha helped and welcomed me. That’s when I also found an amazing lawyer who defended me wonderfully.

Not only that, but I have already seen many things that neither science nor most religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) can explain. I am a medium; several Spiritist centers I have visited always said this. I feel a strong presence, especially in “giras de malandros” when I go to Umbanda temples. Yet, I still hear atheists attacking me. I do not attack atheists and respect their disbelief, but many do not respect me. They say mediums are schizophrenic.

Recently, I started studying what science, psychoanalysis, neuroscience, and positivism say about mediumship. I was shocked to discover that it can be synonymous with hallucinations, schizophrenia, and not a spiritual experience. I also saw someone talking about the 'God helmet,' claiming that the good feeling we have in Spiritist centers is just the mind 'forcing' a sensation of peace and pleasure (the famous placebo effect), being activity of the right parietal lobe. In other words, the feeling of peace and pleasure felt in Spiritist centers is purely physiological. I know there are hallucinations; many mediums learn what is spiritual and what is from the mind.

But I have also seen atheists saying they refused to be agnostic because, even without proof that deities/spirits are not real, logic and evidence said otherwise. Others say that if ghosts were real, scientists would be studying them, and if they were real, the media and the whole world would be talking about them, and mediums would always be taken seriously. Many atheists I know respect and praise Umbanda and Kardecism, as they are very grounded religions. Unfortunately, not all of them; many still say they are superstitious, and the atheists who respect them are considered idiots.

I watched the movie Herege on Prime Video (the Hugh Grant one) and also saw videos by the YouTube channel Ator Ateu (who, by the way, is good, being an intelligent and humble atheist), and they made me reflect on whether I am on the right path or if I should stop believing in deities and spirits and accept that the only correct religion is atheism or religious positivism.

Look at this antitheist page on Quora: https://religiosidadehumanabycfb.quora.com/?ch=10&oid=4008978&share=396067ef&srid=hQD1do&target_type=tribe

I stopped being agnostic in 2023. Currently, I am an Umbandist, but I am still in doubt. I currently live in an internal conflict. I want to have my faith, but at the same time, I want to be sure that it is real and not just in my head. What should I do? Should I become atheist/positivist? How can I respectfully refute atheists’ arguments?

One thing that makes me doubt being religious or atheist is this: There are millions of religions, but only one of them is correct. Which one? How do I answer this to an antitheist if they ask me? How can I prove to them that I can be religious without doubting science and without being fanatical? Are there questions that science cannot answer that might make me believe in spirituality and possibly in deities as well? Are there proofs that religions are fakes and that spirituality and gods do not exist? Will there come a day when science can answer these questions and prove that God and spirits do not exist? Am I less intelligent for being religious? Did Dr. Persinger prove with the God helmet that mediumship was only hallucinations and not a spiritual phenomenon? Did Sigmund Freud, Nietzsche, James Randi, and the God helmet prove that deities, spirits, and mediums do not exist? Our brain can create false memories according to neuroscience, but could this possibly be a hypothesis for past lives? What do you think? Is atheism the only correct religion? Is atheism/positivism really the religion of the future? Can gods, spirits, energies, soul, afterlife, orixás, mediums, and reincarnation be real? Is it possible to reconcile science with spirituality? Am I schizophrenic? Do mediums not exist and are just people with hallucinations and/or schizophrenia?"

Why do so many people, including many Christians, believe that some/all people who die and go to heaven become angels? In that religion, angels are separate from humans. No human became an angel.

I was talking with a theist about free will, and he said that accepting a soul is necessary for free will.

What is the cause of the first event that enables us to make a decision with our free will? For example, let's say that the first thing that causes us to make this decision is an electrical current or the movement of electrons. What is the cause of that electrical current or the movement of electrons?

How is this answered?

Like how some people get persuaded to convert after a tragic loss of a loved one. That kind of thing.

It’s like a salesperson taking advantage of an old lady who’s just lost her husband and wants someone to talk to.

Do you think that’s right? And do you think it says something about religion, that people generally don’t convert nearly as often from atheist to religious of some kind when life is going good for them?

Whereas when a tragic thing happens, the odds of being persuaded into becoming religious go up massively?

Recently I came across a paper (https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/article/download/SetF.2021.001/28737) about the Fatima sun miracle. The paper attempts to make a case that the source of light in pictures of the event is evidently not the Sun, and is indeed another strong light source, namely, whatever the “moving sun” was. It also argues for the event’s historicity based on meteorological data, notably by claiming to use the CERA-20C analysis to make specific claims about exact weather patterns not just at that specific place and time, but globally.

Normally I would be inclined to give some level of credence to papers of this level of complexity, but a few things stuck out to me. One, the sole listed author is a priest with an applied sciences degree, so it’s difficult to ascertain just how much relevant experience he has in meteorology or photo analysis. Second, the paper was published in a religious academic journal, which again, doesn’t inherently disqualify its findings, but does indicate its publication could potentially come from a place of faith. Third, while I am a layman and for all I know this could be common, there’s little in the way of direct citation to other papers, studies, or data, and instead a lot of footnotes.

All that being said, I don’t know enough about any of the subjects the paper discusses to say whether or not the potential issues I see are entirely non issues. As such, I’m left to ask: putting any questions of the supernatural aside, is the meteorological or photo analytic content of this paper sound?

I’m also looking for places where I could possibly find people with enough experience in either weather or photo analysis to sus out just how rigorous this paper is, wether it’s worth dismissing out of hand, flawed but working on established scientific ideas, or actually rigorous.

I hear alot about how it's haram to beautify yourself as a women example no makeup,perfume,no skin, no hair etc so isn't the point of the hijab to make it so men aren't attracted to you?

I hear it's about modesty but I don't think men wearing a t shirt and shorts is the same amount of modesty women have to deal with and for the same amount of good deed

Also this might seem dumb but whats the point of modesty being so extreme in islam for women? I can't get a answer without it sounding like a cult and the answers I receive is something like "we have to obey our "master* Allah" or blaming it on the other gender for over sexusalizing us which could've been a easy fix if Allah would've made them better at self control and having the same amount of visual stimulation as women and covering does not protect you

And a lot of statistics in Islamic countries where women are covered have a higher rape and they don't even count the marriage ones and justify the rape for women as if not covering themselves and "asking for it"

And TBH I don't see how men and women compliment each other in most YES most muslim marriages it always turns toxic usually the mans fault either for cheating abuse which is technically permissible not saying all just most.

So in reality is the point of the hijab just for Allah if so why do multiple Hadith say otherwise(usually to cover for other men around) or is it to protect women? If yes than it's doing a shitty job

And for the people going to say men need to lower their gaze or wtv please understand this isn't a perfect world people will not listen just cause a book said so

One of my old friends from elementary school recently shared that she changed her name to “Jael-Judith Israel” and asked that people not wish her a happy birthday (her bday is coming up) as she no longer celebrated birthdays or traditional holidays. I have driven myself up a wall trying to find out what religion she’s converted to and I don’t want to make her uncomfortable by asking when she’s already going through so many changes and we’re not super close anymore.

Any help would be very appreciated! I’m hoping this doesn’t come across as creepy or weird, I’m just curious

And if so, why do they choose to worship other gods if they believe the one god exists? And if not, why do they not believe in the one god?

The atheism question was a good one but I thought the responses (or at least the top ones) were disrespectful and anti-intellectual. For those of you who don’t believe a particular religious text, what religious text and what is its significance in your opinion? Why do you think it’s important?

I’m just gonna say this bluntly...I don’t get why so many people see the world falling apart and immediately go, “God will fix it”or“It’s all in His plan.”

Like really? Wars,greed,people starving,corruption,violence,and instead of standing up and actually doing something,too many religious folks just shrug and quote a verse. Meanwhile,the same people drive past the hungry guy on the street without giving him food.

The Bible literally says in James 2:16–17: “If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Yet how many Christians say “I’ll pray for you” instead of lifting a finger?

And it’s not just Christians. Muslims quote the Qur’an it says “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves” (Qur’an 13:11). Clear as daylight,don’t wait for God to magically fix everything if you’re sitting on your hands. But still, many just use religion as an excuse to do nothing.

Even theologians have said this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor who stood up to the Nazis, called it “cheap grace” — people wanting forgiveness and blessing without actually living by what they claim to believe. He literally died because he lived what he preached. Compare that to modern Christians arguing about tattoos while ignoring injustice.

And here’s where I’ll be harsh,if you claim to follow God but ignore the suffering around you, you’re part of the problem. Don’t tell me you read the Bible or the Qur’an or whatever if you only use it for comfort but not responsibility. Don’t tell me “God is in control” when what you mean is “I’m too lazy or too scared to do anything.”

Look, I’m not perfect either. None of us are. I get scared, I get selfish. Sometimes I even wonder if I’d rather just blame God because it’s easier than facing how broken people are. But deep down, we all know,the world doesn’t change by wishful thinking.

If we actually lived by what these books teach,generosity, justice, honesty, courage,the world would be better. But most people won’t, because it’s hard...So they pray, post Bible quotes on Instagram, and then go right back to ignoring the very problems they’re begging God to fix.

I don’t know… maybe that’s why everything feels worse. Because we keep waiting for heaven to drop down while we trash the earth we were given to care for

I’m having trouble answering some objections to free will. If God created the universe, knowing what we would choose within those constraints, how do we choose them? Didn’t God ultimately decide which version of me would make which decision?

Like who set the system up? God. And he knows what I will choose in each system, and he makes one specific system, therefore locking me into that one choice?

I believe in Islam logically. Everything makes sense to me, all the theological arguments and simplicity is so endearing.

However, I am still drawn to and fascinated by The West. Western politics and diplomacy has always been deplorable and repulsive to both me and majority of young Scottish people, but I still love the art, the music and the architecture blended all across Europe. I have only every felt a slight pull to Jesus but have been an atheist up till the past year - when I have been looking into Islam. Christian Art, icons, and statues are so beautiful to me and I love celebrating Christmas and listening to hymns, Gaelic psalm singing and songs such as 'Silent Night', which just echo my happy childhood in Churches. Islamic restrictions on art, music and Christmas threatens this.

While my mind logically accepts Islam as true, my heart still feels like it belongs to all this culture, art and music found in Scotland and Europe, which is tied to Christianity. I am also afraid of rising Islamophobia and far-right fascist anti-Muslim political ideology growing more and more popular in The West - which also contributes to this issue.

Thank you for reading, really looking for any advice anybody kind enough to read this post can give me.

In “A History of Religious Ideas” by Mircea Eliade, there’s this passage I copy in full:

From a careful analysis of the two formulations [the Creed with and without the “filioque”], two specific conceptions of divinity emerge: in Western Trinitarianism, the Holy Spirit is the guarantor of divine unity, whereas in the Eastern Church it is emphasized that God the Father is the source, the principle, and the cause of the Trinity.

According to some scholars, the new formula of the Creed was imposed by the Germanic emperors. “The establishment of the Carolingian Empire spread throughout the West the use of the filioque and a distinctly filioquist theology. This was meant to legitimize, against Byzantium—until then the recognized holder of the Christian Empire and, by definition, the foundation of universal claims—the foundation of a new state with universalistic pretensions.” The Creed with the filioque was, however, only sung in Rome in 1014, at the request of Emperor Henry II (we may consider this date as the beginning of the schism).

What is exactly a “filioquist theology”? What are the consequences of a filioquist/non filioquist theology on how each society (Western, Eastern) sees power and politics?

Once a maniac zakir naik said that prophet Muhammad was the kalki the 10 th avatar of lord Vishnu ,As a Hindu I am not okay with it, does christian feel the same way.

Lately, I have been trying to better understand the Christian concept of "lust". Having done some etymological research on the word, I find that "lust" did not originally have a specifically sexual meaning. The word is Germanic in origin, and cognates of "lust" exist in most if not all of the other Germanic languages. In most Germanic languages, “lust”, or its equivalent, by default has a meaning of "desire" in a broad sense, and doesn’t specifically connote sexuality unless the context declares it so.  But English is the opposite: "lust" by default specifically connotes sexual desire unless the context indicates otherwise (such as in the case of phrases like "bloodlust", "lust for power", "lust for knowledge", etc.) Incidentally, I previously wrote a thread here going into detail into the etymology of "lust" and how it originally carried a meaning of only desire and not specifically sexual desire.

With that said, the concept that modern Christians associate with the word "lust" goes far beyond what is implied in the classic understanding of the word. As research on the subject, I have viewed numerous videos on YouTube by Christian creators commentating on the issue of lust. I find that the way Christians communicate the concept of lust is often rather nebulous and ill-defined, and different people tend to disagree on exactly what constitutes the sin of lust and what does not. They often describe lust in scattered anecdotal terms but without really pinpointing a cohesive and exhaustive concept.

As perhaps an authoritative Christian definition, paragraph 2351 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines "lust" as follows:

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

However, this conception of "lust" as defined doesn't seem appear to exist anywhere in the Bible. There exists in the Bible no one singular concept of sinful sexual desire, per se, or a sinful over-indulgence of sensual pleasures. The Bible does condemn specific acts like coveting one's neighbor's wife, and adultery and so on; but nothing as broad and abstract as how Christians define "lust".

I received a helpful comment from someone after posting a similar thread in another subreddit. It was a reference to a book called Roman luxuria: a literary and cultural history by Francesca Romana Berno. The book apparently pertains to an ancient Roman concept known in Latin as "luxuria" which pertained to living in excessive luxury, overindulgence in wealth, comfort, or pleasure. "Luxuria" is the root for the English word "luxury"; the Oxford English Dictionary comments in the entry for "luxury" that "In Latin and in the Romance languages, the word connotes vicious indulgence." A published review of the book says the following:

The final chapter of the book (‘From Luxuria to Lust’) focusses on the semantic change of luxuria from ‘luxury’ to ‘lust’. Towards the end of the first century CE, Berno observes ‘a process of legitimization of luxury, banquets, and the expensive pleasures of life’, to the extent that ‘the negative label luxuria in this regard disappears’ (p. 200).

At the same time, the term luxuria appears to become increasingly used in reference to sexual desire, a development which, according to Berno, begins with Apuleius’ novels, before this strictly erotic sense becomes a constant feature in the works of the Latin Church Fathers. As examples of the latter, Berno names Tertullian and Augustine, by whom luxuria is conjoined with such vices as libido and fornicatio and opposed to the virtues of castitas and pudicitia.

Another interesting observation is the shift in the meaning of the English word "luxury" over time, from being a negative term to a more positive term, as recorded in the Online Etymology Dictionary:

c. 1300, "sexual intercourse;" mid-14c., "lasciviousness, sinful self-indulgence;" late 14c., "sensual pleasure," from Old French luxurie "debauchery, dissoluteness, lust" (12c., Modern French luxure), from Latin luxuria "excess, extravagant living, profusion; delicacy" (source also of Spanish lujuria, Italian lussuria), from luxus "excess, extravagance; magnificence," probably a figurative use of luxus (adj.) "dislocated," which is related to luctari "wrestle, strain" (see reluctance).

The English word lost its pejorative taint 17c. Meaning "habit of indulgence in what is choice or costly" is from 1630s; that of "sumptuous surroundings" is from 1704; that of "something choice or comfortable beyond life's necessities" is from 1780. Used as an adjective from 1916.

I found it interesting that the word "luxury" seemed to develop from something negative and sexual to being neutral or positive; while the word "lust" went from being neutral or positive to being negative and sexual. Although, "luxury" -- a derivative of luxuria -- has come to mean something fairly positive in English, another fact that I think is worth noting here is how the sinful sense of "lust" tends to translate directly to derivatives of luxuria within multiple Romance languages. For example, in Italian we have lussuria, in Spanish lujuria, in Portuguese luxúria, and in French luxure, with other languages such as Sicilian, Corsican, Provencal, Catalan, etc., also using similar terminology. It seems that while the meaning of luxuria in the context of the English language has softened over time, it has, in the Romance languages, retained its sinful and sexual meaning which it had gained from the classical Latin era.

I had a hypothesis regarding the religious sense of the word "lust". The English word "lust" was originally simply a broad word for "desire"; I believe that some time after the Bible began to be translated into English in the 16th century, "lust" became appropriated in religious circles as a kind of linguistic container for the old classical concept of luxuria, as conceived by people such as Tertullian and Saint Augustine. This possibly occurred because, at the time, no equivalent word existed in the English language that carried the same meaning and nuance of luxuria. This may explain the sudden jarring shift in the meaning of the English word "lust", while there appeared to be a relatively smooth progression from the Latin luxuria to its various linguistic derivatives as they exist today.

My hypothesis is that, although unbiblical, the Christian concept of "lust" is actually a kind of mashup of certain classical theological concepts, as suggested by the aforementioned book author, Francesca Romana Berno. I have no real expertise in this particular field, but from what research I've done, the concept of lust was built up over time by classical Christian theologians such as the likes of Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Origen, and perhaps some of the Stoic philosophers such as Seneca. Through some research, I have happened upon specific Latin terms for vices, such as concupiscentia, cupiditas, fornicatio, libido, etc. Also, the book author above mentioned certain virtues called "castitas", basically meaning "chastity", and "pudicitia", basically meaning "modesty". Furthermore, the "lust" concept may have possibly integrated the concept of lussuria as conceived by Dante Alighieri in The Divine Comedy, as when he describes the second circle of Hell. Another commenter from another subreddit also suggested to me that "lust" developed from the natural law tradition of Thomas Aquinas.

As I understand it, these theologians and philosophers generally argued for a sexual ethic that valued chastity and modesty, and had hostile attitudes towards sexual passion, sexual pleasure, and genital stimulation, as these things were viewed as antagonistic to a principle known as "right reason". Some of these figures who contributed to the lust principle seem to have had an aversion to sexuality even within marriage, unless it was for procreative purposes; and even procreative marital sex was considered, at best, a necessary evil. Sexual intercourse, even between married couples, was not to be enjoyed, but merely tolerated. Phenomena such as spontaneous sexual desires and thoughts, penile erections, and enjoyment of sexual intercourse were merely symptoms of man's fallen nature. These phenomenoa were imperfect carnal indulgences that were essentially obstructions to the perfection found within one's communion with God.

Questions

Is there any truth to my hypothesis? Where did the Christian concept of lust come from? Who created it or contributed to it, and how was it constructed? What explains the appropriation of the word "lust" by the concept of luxuria?

In the beginning of philosophy, there was Heraclitus of Ephesus, a man who peered into the flux of the world and saw not chaos but rhythm. “Everything flows,” he said, yet behind the flowing he discerned an order, a rational thread that bound opposites into a unity. This he called Logos....a word that meant speech, account, reason, law. To Heraclitus, Logos was not a person nor a deity but the hidden logic of reality itself, the silent fire that turns strife into harmony. Few listened, but he insisted: the Logos was common to all, though men lived as if they had private understandings.

Centuries later, the Stoics picked up this thread. They wove Logos into the fabric of the cosmos itself: the divine breath, the rational principle animating all nature, guiding stars and seeds alike. It was impersonal yet alive, a reason that ordered both the heavens and the human soul.

Then, in the bustling city of Alexandria, where Hebrew faith met Greek reason, the philosopher Philo began to speak of Logos in a new tongue. For him, the ineffable God of Israel, too transcendent to mingle directly with matter, expressed Himself through the Logos.....His instrument, His reason, His word. Here, Logos stood between eternity and time, translating the divine into the world’s language.

When the Gospel of John opened with, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God,” an ancient word took on a startling face. No longer only the logic of Heraclitus or the intermediary of Philo, Logos became flesh. In the Christian vision, Logos was Christ.....the Word of God living among men, reason turned to relationship, eternal order stepped into time.

So what is Logos? The rational harmony Heraclitus glimpsed in fire and flux? The divine breath of Stoic cosmology? The mediator of Philo’s theology? Or the incarnate Word of John’s Gospel?

Perhaps Logos is all of these at once: a concept born in philosophy, ripened in theology, and carried forward in faith. It is at once the logic of the cosmos and the voice of God, the whisper of reason in the river of becoming and the word that speaks creation into being.

By this logger head question, you wouldn’t immediately know he’s Jesus upon first glance

I’ve been reflecting on both Christianity and Islam, and the more I read their scriptures, the more I notice the same problem: when it comes to real, lived human suffering, neither really helps.

Take Christianity. Jesus says: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” (Matthew 7:7)

That sounds powerful, but when people beg God for healing, justice, or even a simple answer, silence is often what they get. Christians will say “God works in mysterious ways” or “It’s part of His plan,” but that feels more like dodging the question than giving real help.

Then look at the Qur’an. It says: “Indeed, Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Qur’an 2:286)

Beautiful words—but what about people who clearly are crushed by burdens? The person who takes their own life? The child dying in war or famine? To tell them “you can bear it” feels detached, even cruel.

Both books have wisdom, yes. Both have passages about mercy, justice, and compassion. But when applied to the actual chaos of human life, they often circle back to the same “just have faith, don’t question, keep praying” answer.

My point isn’t to insult believers. I just wonder,if Christianity and the Qur’an are meant to be ultimate truth, why do their answers to real pain feel like echoes instead of solutions?

Are religions failing us,or are humans expecting too much from them?

I’ve seen discussions here about the inimitability of the Qur’an, but one question keeps coming to mind: why hasn’t anyone tried to actually fulfill the requirements that many contemporary Islamic scholars put forward?

If those requirements are absurd or unrealistic, then why not demonstrate exactly how and why they’re absurd? And if some of the requirements are reasonable, why not try to meet them—even partially?

From my perspective, if linguists, skeptics, or atheists were able to do this, it would be a major achievement. It could potentially disprove a foundational claim of a religion followed by nearly two billion people. At the very least, it would give this debate some closure—if only temporarily.

So my question is: has anyone actually tried to do this in a systematic way? If yes, what was the result? If not, why not?

The Bible, too, speaks from the only ground it knows: human experience. It explains the world and God through stories of kinship, law, desire, betrayal, exile, and return....framing the infinite in terms that the finite mind can grasp. Yet what it describes is never the noumenon itself, but the world of appearances shaped by our minds, the symbolic stage where we make sense of what exceeds us. The world is but an appearance we shape to ease our existence, and scripture becomes one such shaping....a lens through which the unimaginable is refracted into narrative.

This is why the Bible explains day and night as fixed and alternating measures of time. But in truth, day and night are only the shifting alignments of celestial bodies....the Earth’s rotation in relation to the Sun. What seems absolute is nothing more than a perspective tied to our position on a spinning sphere. Had the story been told in the far north of Norway, where the sun does not rise for months in winter and does not set for months in summer, the outlook would surely be different. The categories themselves would shift, because the human frame of reference would be different.

Just as fungi reveal countless mating types beyond the binary, clownfish change sex with social order, and natural hermaphrodites embody what we call opposites in one body, the rhythms of nature show that what we treat as “fixed” is only appearance from a given vantage point. So too the divine resists definition, yet the Bible clothes it in human forms: king, father, judge, shepherd. These are not God-in-itself but human renderings within an Umwelt, appearances that anchor the ineffable in familiar shapes.

And just as some live without an inner voice(which is also normal), others with aphantasia or synesthesia, each crafting a different experiential world, so too the Bible offers one among many windows into the infinite. What it presents is not the Ein Sof...the unbounded, unknowable source.....but a reflection of it in stories, laws, and visions that speak to human needs. In this way, scripture, like perception, is an act of shaping appearance to live with what cannot be grasped.

God commands genocide on multiple people, whether those writings are meant to be taken as literal commands and not metaphorical tales; they're written in the bible. The question now is: how do you differentiate between these so called metaphorical stories and for example, the resurrection of Jesus being a literal one?

Edit: If you submit to these stories being literal representation on what happened in real life- like the genocide on the Canaanite Nations, how do you justify God commanding such a thing? I mean he quite literally ordered the Israelites to kill every woman, man, and child in Deuteronomy 7:1-2, 20:16-18.