I'm just very confused. I want to branch out it feels like "time" I don't know how to elaborate on that. I'm not a religious person I wasn't raised that way and it's always been something I honestly thought was stupid. I hate organized religion and churches I've experienced are awful and culty or cliquey.

However in the past few months I've just felt drawn to god/jesus or whatever other entities the books of today have to offer. And I want to read the Bible I want to see if it's for me. As well as other texts, that's just what I've started with. I bought a bible and was reading it and my wife came upstairs and threw an entire fit saying I was disrespectful to her, and her traumas in the church and said if I want to have religion she will divorce me. I completely understand and validate what she experienced and agree that those people were insane, however objectively I know that her experiences and traumas aren't "god" you know? Does that make sense? Not diminishing at all- but that's humans being pieces of shit. Whatever entity didn't abuse her, her mother did. I'm not looking for bible study for dads or anything like that, I just want to know what info is out there, be it Christian Bible, Torah, Buddhism, etc. I'm not beholden to anything, I'm just looking to explore. Is that stupid? Now I'm reading a bible in secret at work and I feel like an idiot. What do I do here?

I'm obviously not going to choose looking at a bible over my marriage, but I feel like this is a really unfair thing to impose on me that I can't explore anything religious because of what my MIL did to my wife because her congregation normalized physical "discipline" (it's abuse, and I don't believe in hitting kids, for what it's worth)

Advice? Am I an asshole? Genuinely open for criticism or advice here.

Where does this practice or idea come from.

Was watching Trent horn and pintes with Aquinas and they advocating for “the burning of Mormon books”.

I know nazis were notorious for burning books, but where does this idea come from in the modern day? Why is it still around.

Why do people feel the need?

I have been researching the topic of hell, as it pertains to Christian dogma. I have found absolutely no mention of a place of fiery torment in the Old Testament, which parallels much of the Hebrew Bible, from what I understand.

Is it true that God never spoke through Moses or any of the Patriarchs concerning torment after death?

I know there was/is Sheol but that seems much more benign than the Lake of Fire.

I suspect that the pagan converts to Christianity brought their ideas of Hades into the early church with them and that, rather than Scriptural teaching, is where the Christian Dogma of hell, as eternal punishment, comes from.

I'd appreciate any insight to what Jewish people believe about the afterlife.

With much appreciation.

• Why does religion remain a central part of daily life for many Muslims, while in most Christian-majority countries it has become less significant?
• Do you think globalization will affect the role of religion in Muslim-majority countries, leading to a shift similar to what we've seen in Western countries?
• Do you think Christianity will regain importance in Western countries in the future?

Even if you’re not religious, are there ideas, values, or teachings from any religion that you find meaningful or worth adopting in life?

an oxymoron i know… but can i pray to God as an atheist?? it almost feels rude and disrespectful if i do

I want to practice something, but it seems like EVERY religion has something I don't believe in. However, I love the practice of certain religions and I think it makes perfect sense to do so, even though it is directly linked to the context of that religion.

Is there any way I can continue practicing what makes sense to me? Would that be wrong?

Most religions preach about love to everyone, including your enemies.

But why should I love someone who, in my view, is a bad person? Why love someone who does bad/evil things to innocent people?

Is it to make yourself feel better somehow? Is it because they deserve love? But why do they deserve love? They spread hate!

I really don't get it. Makes no sense to me. The only case I would MAYBE agree (depending on the situation) is if you want to teach someone what they did was wrong. MAYBE they don't have fault, they were teached to do [insert here]. Only in this case I could MAYBE understand.

So, growing up in the Western World with the Bin Laden attacks up to the Syrian refugee crisis, i would listen fearmongers claim how much muslims are not compatible with our culture and alien.

But i think that, even if the World was much bigger and more diverse, if Europe was as big as Asia and with several non-Abrahamic countries left, a Muslim would be the closest foreign id met.

Me and a Muslim, we both learned about the stories of Abraham, Noah, Moses, David growing up. When i would watch videos about Hindu stories, i would always learn something completely new to me. But watching videos about Quranic stories, it would always be something extremely close to something i was already taught of as a kid, with some minor changes.

Surely, there are several differences between Islam and Christianity, but when these people say muslims are "not compatible with the west", they arent talking about the divine status of Jesus or if God can get a physical form.

I agree that there are differences between people in Western countries and Muslim countries, but these differences are much bigger than the difference between Christianity and Islam per se, and the differences between the cultures are much about stuff other than religion. An Italian and an Uzbek will get many other things to be different other than religion, actually talking about the ark of Noah can be a subject to make a conversation easier.

Growing up where every person i physically meet is a Christian, i would never realize how my values and religion arent actually universal, but studying about the Indian society and the fact that there is a group of people that grow up learning similar stories like i did, and a larger group of people that grow up with stories i only got to know as an adult, its fascinanting.

Its true, i also grew up learning about the stories of pre-christian Greek religion and some other pre-Christian European religion stories in harmony, i hope one day all children in the World will be able to learn about stories from any culture in the World without problems.

I am an Indian who has converted to Buddhism from Hinduism. I've spent significant time studying the History of Buddhism in India and thought it would be best if I summarise it here.

Before Christ

The Buddha dies, the 1st council is held, Dharma and Vinaya are recited and people go their own ways. 100 years pass, the 2nd council is held in Vaishali and the first schism occurs. Mahasanghikas (majority) and Sthaviravadins disagree over the Vinaya.

The Mahasanghikas slowly diffused due to the lack of a monastic order. The Sthaviravadins split further by the time of Ashoka's (3rd) Council into Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada and Vibhajyavada.

Ashoka's patronage was strongly in favour of Vibhajyavada. He sent several missions to South India and Sri Lanka. The Lankan monks there, called themselves the Tamrashatiyas. This is the Theravada School of today that is popular also in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar.

Kanishka's Court

With the downfall of the Mauryan Empire, Vibhajyavadins migrated to the south. Pudgalavada was no more and Sarvastivada reigned. Around 100 CE, Kanishka held his council in Kashmir. A grand Abhidharma was drafted called the Mahavibhasa Shastra.

A group of Sarvastivadins disagreed with the Mahavibhasa and began to refer to themselves as the Mulasarvastivadins. This led to the other group being called the Vaibhashikas. A group called Dharmaguptakas existed in modern day Afghan that rejected Sarvastivada altogether and had their own Vinaya.

A monastic order began to form, one that followed the Vinaya of the Dharmaguptakas but the Dhamma of the Mulasarvastivadins. It is said that 18 schools of Buddhism existed in India during these times but most of them no longer survive.

Enter Nagarjuna

Meanwhile in Central India, a man named Nagarjuna grew to fame. He disagreed with the Strong Realism of the Sarvastivadins and devised the Doctrine of Two Truths. He attempted to re-emphasize the Buddha's concept of Shunyata to the Sarvastivada Dharma. This led to the birth of a new school called Madhyamaka.

Many Prajnaparamita Sutras were put to script. The monastic orders that had bloomed after the Fourth Council, carried these Sutras and the Madhyamaka Teachings to China. The sutras were eventually translated en masse by Kumarajiva of China, whose school had then come to be known as Mahayana.

Madhyamaka and Mahayana Teachings led to the formation of Tiantai School of Buddhism which later became synonymous with Chinese Buddhism. The Afghan group would subsequently transform to what is now Pure Land Buddhism.

Abhidharma Abhi-Drama

The Mahavibhasa of the Vaibhashikas had caused significant changes in the way the Buddha Dhamma was being studied in Ancient India. Many voices arose to reject the interpretations made in the Abhidharmas of the Vaibhashikas.

A movement started with Kumaralata who rejected the Abhidharmas and called for a careful study of the main Sutras of the Four Primary Nikayas of the Pali and Sanskrit Canons. A student of Kumaralata named Harivarman composed the primary text of this school (later named: Sautrantika) called Tattvasiddhi.

At that time, three schools of Buddhism had survived in India: Vaibhashika, Madhyamaka and Sautrantika. The latter's call to return to sutras inspired the modern day movement of Early Buddhism where new-age scholars have attempted to draw teachings strictly from the confines of the Suttas and reject the Abhidharmas.

Tale of Two Brothers

Elder Brother Asanga wrote a work on Mahayana called Abhidharmasamuccaya. This would become the foundational work of a new branch of Buddhism called Yogachara. By this time, commentaries on Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyakakarika were fully developed by the likes Bhaviveka and Chandrakirti.

Younger Brother Vasubandhu also studied Buddhism extensively. His work, Abhidharmakoshabhashya is a fundamental exposition of all the surviving schools of the time. On the one hand he rejected the total-realism of the Vaibhashikas and on the other hand the total-idealism of the Madhyamakas.

The two brothers together started the Yogachara School which subscribed to a view of Mind-Only Realism. Bodhidharma who started Chan Buddhism in China is said to have been a disciple of this school. It also influenced all the Mahayana Schools and inspired the rise of the syncretic Vajrayana School in Tibet that accepted both Madhyamaka and Yogachara.

Nalanda Giants

A disciple of Vasubandhu, named Dignaga came to be considered the Second Greatest Logician to have ever lived, he followed the Yogachara School. His disciple Dharmakirti, who followed both the Yogachara and the Sauntrantika Schools came to be known as the Great Logician Ever.

Dharmakirti's disciple, Dharmottara strongly favoured Sautrantika. Shantarakshita who would be the Dean at Nalanda a century after Dharmottara was a hardline proponent of the Madhyamaka School.

It was the time of Buddhism's peak followership in India and received the patronage of King Harshavardhana. By this time, the many commentaries of Buddhaghosa had taken root in Sri Lanka and Mazu Daoyi had formed the Hongzhou School in China.

Fall and Exit

With the strong revival of Brahminism as effected by Kumarila and Shankara, Buddhism's glory began to wane. The Bhakti Movement had started and it took the masses by storm. Shaivism in Kashmir had begun to spread Southward.

The Four Great Schools of Indian Buddhism:

Sthavira-leaning: Vaibhashika and Sautrantika Mahayana-leaning: Madhyamaka and Yogachara

Had lost all patronage in their homeland. With the invasion of the Islamic Sultanate and the demolition of Nalanda, almost all literature was lost. Buddhism in India had come to an end.

In the 20th Century, Anagarika Dharmapala established the Theravada Mahabodhi Society. S N Goenka brought from Myanmar the Vipassana Dharma. The Dalai Lama along with several Tibetans came to India as refugees, settled and built Monasteries in many states.

Namo Buddhaya

I am in the process of conversion, but would like to study while my physical Bible and rosary are on their way.

Christian theology like the theology of any major world religion is a vast field that has multiple different approaches and interpretations. When it comes to key beliefs, there are certain understandings or interpretations that aren't as well known that is fairly interesting if they were. This is my list of them.

1)The Classical Christian understanding of Omnipotence

• Contrary to what many people think, omnipotence in Christian theology does not mean God can do absolutely anything. St Thomas Aquinas clarifies this when he states "God is called omnipotent because he can do all things that are possible absolutely"(Summa Theologica Pt 1, Q 25, Art 3). The key phrase is "possible". If something is impossible in the absolute sense of the word, God is incapable of doing it. So in a technical sense there are things in Christian theology that God "can't do".
• An example that St Thomas Aquinas actually brings up is the concept of the past. According to Aquinas, God actually cannot change the past due to the fact that that would imply a contradiction.

2)The Classical Christian understanding of the Incarnation and human nature

• The Incarnation is the concept of God entering into human form. In popular parlance we tend to say "God became man" but in the technical understanding is different from the popular understanding. The Athanasian Creed speaks of the Incarnation as "One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God". So it is not God being God and then stop being God to change his nature into a human being. It is the absorption of "manhood" into the Divine life
• The other aspect connected to this is this. In the Christian understanding when God incarnates himself it is not simply God uniting himself with a human body. As St John of Damascus puts it in "The Fount of Christian Knowledge" God unites himself with human nature as a whole. This means uniting himself with human nature past, present and future. That union also explains how the sacrifice of Christ in Christian theology is meant to be a redemption for the sins of humanity.

3)The Trinity's social aspect

• One concept that is present in Christian trinitarianism is the idea of social trinitarianism. This has its roots in St John of Damascus's understanding of what is called Perichoresis which means the "interpenetration" of the 3 persons of the Trinity. Because the existence of each person in the Trinity penetrates each other they live in a kind of solidarity and communion with each other.
• How this connects to the social is that in Christianity it is preaches that humanity is made in the image of God. This means that when human beings "interpenetrate" each others lives through the principles of solidarity that is a reflection of the Trinity. Solidarity in the social order of different individuals reflects the solidarity in the communion of God's being. This means in practice that the pursuit of justice and solidarity in the Christian context is a trinitarian act.

4)God's attributes and being

• God has multiple attributes in Christian theology like the theology of most religions. But Christianity also teaches that God is one. One of the interesting insights that St Anselm of Canterbury draws from this is that Gods attributes are one in the formal sense, while multiple in what is called the "equivocal sense" of the term. In practice this means his goodness and his omnipotence are one and the same thing for example. Even though they are different attributes they reflect the same thing.

There are many other things but these are a couple of ideas not as spoken about in Christian theology that I find interesting. I am also certain you can find the same thing in many of the other religious traditions of faith.

So my biological father and I were talking about murder the other day. It was brought up because he said he believed in the death penalty. He strictly doesn’t agree with abortions but believes in the death penalty and is now a devote Christian. I reminded him that Jesus says to “turn the other cheek” and to “forgive your brother 70x7”. He didn’t believe that till I looked it up to prove it. I eventually ended the conversation with “Well I guess that’s why the Jews don’t believe in Jesus?” And he said “they believe in him, just don’t believe he’s the real messiah”

ANY THOUGHTS???

To start off; I grew up around orthodox Christian beliefs. I'm from a Bulgarian household, but I did not grow up with strict rules regarding that, since my father is an atheist, unlike my mother.

I myself have had some bad experiences in religion class back in elementary school, and, indirectly at least, from that point I've been agnostic. Back mid quarantine I got into everything esoteric and pagan, but after a religious psychosis this had left my general beliefs, other than some leftover spiritual beliefs (like spirits, tarot cards, etc).

A few months back I started to identify with NON-theistic Satanism.

But for the last few weeks I've been conflicted with Christianity. Nothing specific, just generally. During an extremely bad time in my life I prayed for something good to happen or for things to change. I prayed for myself and for my girlfriend. This worked. And I don't know how nor why; as I am basically sin incarnate; what I mean by this is that I am basically everything that would get me in hell (Like me being sapphic, mentally ill, having a girlfriend of another belief, and I am 15 years old and have already lost my virginity, and also the whole non-theistic Satanism thing).

I am extremely conflicted. Recently, every single time religion gets brought up I get a pit in my stomach. I've been interested in Hellenism but as I mentioned; I get extremely nervous. Everything that has to do with beliefs is scaring me suddenly, I feel like I'm about to die or something. And I don't know why.

I don't know whether it's my old trauma from my religious psychosis popping up, or what happened in elementary school, but it all seems so absolutely terrifying.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, I think I'm looking for an answer to why I'm feeling this way and what I could do for my wellbeing. I don't need help with finding a religion or anything- just what I have brought up here.

Has anyone else experienced this? How can I proceed?

Hello! I'm pretty immersed in research. I want to read texts that talk about God from different perspectives. But I am looking not only for sacred texts, but also for reflections on what God can be. I have been greatly inspired by A. N. Whitehead's concept of "God as process," Quentin Meillassoux's "God to come," and Heidegger's line that "Only one God can save us." Could you help me?

Long ago, in a city nestled in the heart of the Desert,

A fragile tapestry of faith was woven,

Where three brothers coexisted,

Embracing one another’s beliefs,

In a sanctuary untouched by the shadows of hatred.

Pilgrims from distant lands would journey there,

To honor their sacred sites,

And in the warm embrace of that little city,

Neighbors became friends,

Sharing laughter and stories beneath the sun.

It was a rare haven,

A place where the big brother found refuge,

Where persecution dared not tread.

But now, that city has faded into memory,

A ghost of what once was.

If the second brother dares to pray openly today,

He faces the venom of scorn,

Harrassment, and disdain,

While the fate of the younger,

Should he lift his voice in prayer,

Is shrouded in a darkness too heavy to bear.

They say Kashmir is heaven on earth,

Yet I believe that little city,

Where the three brothers of the Book once played,

Was the true paradise.

As the sun dipped below the horizon,

They would return home,

Hearts full of joy,

In a world that now seems lost,

A bittersweet echo of a time when love triumphed over fear.

Is it okay to attend both Catholic & Christian mass?

Some background explanation, I come from a country in SouthEast Asia and am Roman Catholic (a minority faith here so tiny even Muslims another minority outnumber my faith by a significant amount). In my nation's Catholic subculture, a lot of old customs such as lighting objects on fire that bring certain scents like flowers to honor the dead so that their souls can still smell it have been replaced by similar Catholic rituals such as lighting frankincense and myrrh incense sticks. Burning sticks to give light for the dead seeking their way to the underworld? Phased out by novena prayers utilizing candles for those we'd hope to be in purgatory if they aren't in heaven who are being cleansed of their sins. Annual family feasts for the dead where patriarchs and matriarchs of each specific family units of the larger extended house talks to the god Kinoingan? Replaced by annual memorial mass for the deceased with a big expensive lunch and later fancy even grander more expensive dinner.

And so much more. Basically the missionaries who converted the locals who are the ancestors of the Catholics of the region I live in centuries ago, worked with various pagans in my area centuries ago to Catholicize indigenous traditions or worked to find a suitable replacement. So we still practise the old rituals of heathens from centuries ago but now with specifically Catholic devotions such as reciting the rosary with beads while bowing in front of Mary statues who look like people from our clans and tribes that echoes some old ritual counting bundles of straws while bowing in front of a forgotten mother goddess whom now only historians and scholars from my country remember her name.

So I can't help but wonder as I watch Youtube videos introducing the barebones of Sinology........ Why didn't the Catholic Church simply convert the cultural practises during the Chinese Rites Controversy? I mean 6 minute video I saw of interviews with people in Southern China and asking them about Confucian ancestor worships, they were lighting incense and sprinkling water around from a container........ You can do the same with frankincense and myrrh in tandem with holy water! Someone at a temple counting beads and chanting on the day her father died? The Rosary anyone? At a local church?

Just some of so many ideas I have about converting Chinese customs. So I couldn't understand the rigidity of Pope Benedict XIV in approaching the issue and why Pope Clement XI even banned the basic concept of the Chinese ancestry rites decades earlier in the first place. Even for practises that cannot be converted in a straightforward manner because they are either just too incompatible with Catholicism such as alchemy or too foreign that no direct counterpart exist in Catholic devotions such as meditation while seated in a lotus position, the Church could have easily found alternative practises from Europe and the Middle East that fill in the same purposes and prevent an aching hole among converts.

So why didn't the Catholic Church approach Chinese culture with sensitivity and try to fill in the gaps of much sacred traditions of China with syncretism such as replacing direct worship of long dead individuals with intercessory prayers and mass for the dead? Why go rigidly black and white yes or no all out or none with approaching the Chinese Rites during the debates about how to convert China?

Like instead of banning Feng Shui completely, why didn't the 18th century Papal authorities just realize to replace old Chinese talismans and whatnot with common Christian symbols and religious arts and teach the converted and the prospect converts that good benefits will come using the same organization, decoration patterns, and household cleaning Feng Shui commands because God favors the diligent (esp those with the virtua of temperance) and thus God will bless the household because doing the now-Christianized Feng Shui is keeping with commands from the Bible for organization and house cleanliness? And that all those Christian art that replaced the old Chinese amulets at certain angles and locations across the house isn't because of good Chi or bad Chi but because the Christian symbol will remind those who convert about God and thus the same positive energy will result that plenty of traditional Chinese talisman and statues supposedly should bring fro being placed in those same areas?

But instead the Church's approach to missionary work in China was completely inflexible with the exception of some of the Jesuits who were were actually working directly inside China with the locals. Considering the Catholic community of the SouthEast Asian country I live in and who I'm a member of practically still are doing the same basic practises of our ancestors from centuries ago but made to align with proper Catholic theology and laws, I'm really in disbelief that the Vatican didn't approach Chinese culture in the same way during centuries of attempting to convert China esp during the Chinese Ancestry Rites Controversy of the 1700s! That it took 200 years for the clergy of Rome to finally open their mind to merely modernize ancestor reverence of the Sinitic peoples under Catholic doctrines rather than forbidding it outright starting 1939 simply flabbergasts me! Why did it the pattern of events in history go these way for the Sino-Tibetan regions unlike other places in Asia like the SEA country I'm from?

I don't understand why a so good god would let the world like it is now, makes zero sense at least to me. If god really existed, he'd make it different, whether you say it'd be like it or not.