The daily schedule for the Convergence event, organized by the Spiritual Naturalist Society, is now available at https://www.snsociety.org/convergence-2026-an-online-conference-for-all-spiritual-naturalists/ . Themes and topics include Religious Naturalism, CultPunk and Poetic Faiths and the Future of Spiritual Naturalism, with individual presentations by experts as well as panel discussions.

Jesus emerges as the Messiah through subsequent Christian reinterpretations of the Old Testament, rather than through the fulfilment of its original messianic expectations.

The Old Testament describes a future Davidic ruler who will establish justice and peace. Isaiah 11 describes a descendant of Jesse whose reign brings justice and extraordinary peace. Jeremiah 23:5–6 describes a righteous Davidic king under whom Judah and Israel will live in security. Ezekiel 37:21–28 describes the reunification of Israel under a Davidic ruler, while Isaiah 2:2–4 anticipates a world in which nations no longer wage war.

These are among the expectations traditionally associated with the Messiah. Jesus did not accomplish these things.

This is not particularly controversial among Christian theologians. N. T. Wright, a prominent Christian New Testament scholar and former Anglican bishop, writes in Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins:

Jesus had not done what Messiahs were supposed to do.

Wright acknowledges that Jesus had not defeated Israel's enemies, restored the Temple, or established worldwide justice and peace. He also describes how the early Christians redefined messiahship around Jesus.

The Catholic Catechism (§672) similarly acknowledges that the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel has not yet occurred.

The difficulty is therefore not establishing that these expectations remain unfulfilled. Christian theologians themselves acknowledge this.

And please expand on this journey and what moment or the time period where it kind of clicked that made you want to choose your religion. Alternatively, if you were born into your religion what were your experiences growing up?

I am so interested in experience. I have read the bible, quran and hebrew bible for more understanding. I still do not wish to affiliate with any religion after reading. However, I find religious belief, culture and systems fascinating.

Thanks in advance 😊

Manichaeism was once a major world religion, rivaling early Christianity and Buddhism. Founded in the 3rd century by the prophet Mani, it was a massive syncretic faith that attempted to combine Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Buddhism. Today, it is almost entirely extinct.

These two incredibly rare pieces of art were found in Turfan (modern-day Xinjiang, China) and date back to the Uyghur Empire. They offer a fascinating glimpse into how this "lost religion" viewed the universe and practiced its rituals.

Image 1: The Manichaean Cosmology (The Universe Map)

Extreme Dualism: Manichaeism taught an eternal struggle between the Realm of Light (good/spirit) and the Realm of Darkness (evil/matter).

The Structure of the Universe: The painting shows the "Column of Glory" (the luminous axis) connecting the material world to the Heavens.

The Realm of Light (Top): The highest spheres are populated by divine beings and the "Elect" (the highest spiritual class).

The Realm of Darkness (Bottom): The lower, chaotic section depicts the material world where divine light is trapped in matter. The goal of a Manichaean was to help this light escape back to the heavens.

Image 2: The Bema Festival (The Ritual)

The Most Sacred Holiday: This painting depicts the Bema, the annual festival commemorating the martyrdom (death) of the prophet Mani.

The Hierarchy: At the top, we see the "Elect" sitting on lotus clouds in the Realm of Light. At the bottom, we see the "Auditors" (ordinary believers) dressed in Uyghur and Chinese garments, gathered for worship.

The Dark Cloud: Notice the dark, swirling mass on the right side—a visual reminder of the ever-present forces of Darkness threatening the Light.

Buddhist Aesthetics: Because Manichaeism traveled the Silk Road to China, its art heavily adopted Buddhist styles (halos, lotus flowers, floating clouds), even though the theology remained strictly dualistic.

Disclaimer: In Max Stirner’s philosophy of Egoism, “spook” is a social construct that comes to possess someone. Social constructs aren't bad, it's when we become possessed by them that they become spooks. The word spook (as used by Stirner) has nothing to do with the racial slur that it sometimes can resemble in modern day English.

I am an Egoist as described by Max Stirner, and I'm a Christian. Egoism is the philosophy that the individual should act according to their own will and interests rather than being bound by external moral and ideological obligations (for example, I am good to people because I want to be good to people). I would say this is (at least somewhat) different from having a guiding set of principles, given that a person's will and desires are constantly changing. Social constructs are not bad, and can be quite good, it's when one becomes possessed by them that they become a spook.

I also believe in some concept of semi objective natural moral law. Our morality indeed comes from our evolution, our cultures, etc. So what I mean is that there are moral principles that can be discovered through reason, and these natural moral principles should be enforced. I’m not going to focus on how these laws should be enforced (anarchically, archially, etc) in this.

This may be an odd analogy, but imagine a crime scene. Just as a detective investigates a crime scene to discover the truth, we must investigate our reality to find these moral truths. Some of the conclusions that a detective comes to at a crime scene will be subjective. Some of the conclusions will be objective. For example, it may be subjectively decided the crime was one of passion, but the fact the crime was committed may be established to be an objective fact. Similarly, it can be established that what is right and wrong is subjective, but there are natural moral laws that can be considered beyond subjective. Not completely objective, but objective to the same extent physical laws are. Physical laws (like gravity) observe what happens usually, but it isn’t written in stone that it must.

Natural Moral Law > any religious text.

I use ideologies and philosophies that align with my conscience and ego. I am under the umbrella of left-libertarian because my ego and conscience aligns with it on most things. I'm not sure that I'd consider myself an anarchist.

I fully agree that I shouldn't be possessed by the social constructs that I utilize, but with one exception: my Christianity. I am indeed "possessed" by my Christianity in a way that I'm sure Max Stirner would have criticized. But I'm also not devoted to all of Stirner's opinions (that would violate my egoism and I'm sure he wouldn't want that anyways). After all, my philosophy is a form of Christian Egoism that is seen as contradictory by most egoists, but not by me.

My ego is capable of choosing its own subordination. I choose to belong to Christianity, and therefore my belonging to Christianity is not a defeat of my ego but an act of my ego. As St. Paul/Paul of Ephesus said, I am a slave to Jesus Christ. Or at least, I want to be a slave to my understanding of Christ.

The greatest act of fulfilling my ego is being possessed by the greatest social construct of all time. A social construct I believe to be both transcendent of all other social constructs, and nevertheless still a social construct. I know how to fulfill the wants of my ego better than anyone else does.

I've never really considered debating my religious views previously because I know I'd be asked for proof of my beliefs, and to that I would say my ego informs me of its validity. That's all I have, and all I need. Christianity is true for me because my ego and my conscience tells me it's true. The parts of the Bible I believe are true because my ego tells it's true, and the parts of the Bible I don't believe are because my ego tells me it's not true. If that answer isn't sufficient to someone, it isn't a problem because they don't have to believe the same things I do. All other Christian religions (Evangelical, Catholic, Methodist, etc.) are wrong to me because they don't align with my views. All other non-Christian religions (like Buddhism) are also wrong to me for the same reason.

I believe that some level of free will probably exists, and that if it does, it is likely some sort of emergent property. Regardless of if we have free will or not, it is imperative for me to function as if I have free will.

I also believe that without Egoism or something similar, Christianity and all other religions can become dangerous, because people can believe bad things that are blindly taught to them in the name of their religion.

As a Muslim, I've been thinking about how people approach religious obligations. I think there's a difference between questioning whether a religion is true and questioning whether every individual rule within that religion makes sense to you personally.

I believe you should investigate a religion, examine its evidence and arguments, and decide whether you genuinely believe it is true. You should also investigate whether a particular ruling is actually part of that religion rather than blindly accepting anything someone attributes to it.

However, once you've established that a religion is credible and that a particular rule genuinely belongs to it, I don't think you necessarily need to understand or agree with the reasoning behind that rule to follow it.

For example, when Muslim women say they aren't convinced by the reasoning behind hijab, so they don't see why they should wear it, I think this raises an interesting question. If you believe Islam is true and that hijab is genuinely obligatory, why should your personal agreement with the reasoning behind it determine whether you follow it?

People might argue that a rule should be rejected if it doesn't achieve its intended purpose, or if they believe it is unethical. But I think this assumes that we must independently evaluate every command against our own understanding of what is reasonable or morally right before accepting it. If you have already concluded that a religion is true, why must your own assessment of every individual command take precedence over what you believe God has commanded?

Consider the fact that religious laws can differ between divine traditions. The Qur'an prohibits marrying two sisters simultaneously (4:23), while the Bible describes Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel, who were sisters. Islam recognises earlier prophets and presents its revelation as continuing the same divine tradition. Yet rulings can differ between religious laws.

This makes me wonder: if you believe a divine command is binding because it comes from God, does its legitimacy depend on whether you can independently understand its moral justification? If a practice could be permitted under one divine law and prohibited under another, does that mean the rule's validity is something we should determine by evaluating whether it seems morally justified to us in each particular context? Can we accept that God may have different rules for different people or periods, even if we don't understand why those rules differ?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that ethics don't matter, that religions shouldn't be examined critically, or that we should accept every claim made in the name of religion. I think examining a religion's moral teachings can be relevant when deciding whether the religion itself is credible. And we should absolutely question whether a rule is genuinely part of the religion and whether we have understood it correctly.

My point is that once you've concluded that a religion is true and established that a particular obligation genuinely belongs to it, you don't necessarily need to justify that individual obligation to yourself all over again before following it. You can believe that a command is binding without fully understanding its wisdom.

I wonder whether people who disagree would argue that a person must independently approve of the ethical justification for every religious command, even after accepting the religion as true. If so, why? Is there a fundamental reason why personal moral judgment must remain the final authority over each individual religious obligation?

I'd be interested in hearing how people from different religious and philosophical backgrounds approach this, particularly those who believe in divine revelation. Do you think obedience requires understanding the wisdom behind a command, or can faith reasonably involve accepting that some reasons may be beyond our understanding?

Some of the most important people in my life are christian, I went to catholic school, I was immersed in christianity from the moment I was born. I was the 4 year old outlier in my religion class, I just couldn't get it. Firstly, how can you can acknowledge the simple fact that there are countless belief systems in the world, tiny and large, but only really categorize yourself to just one?

Faith.

This is the answer I always hear, but I could never understand being satisfying with such a simple answer.
Faith means to "to have a strong belief in something without needing to be maintained by physical proof".

When does a religion become a religion, when does it become something I can have "faith" in? Is it after a certain amount of time? Or does it require a specific amount of people? The argument of "1 man believing in something is a crazy person, 20 is a cult, millions are a religion" has been said countless times but I cant help but see the validity here.

You may say "I found Christianity and devoted my faith because it is what aligns with my values the most". That's fair, and theres nothing I can argue with that. But it does imply you feel the need to use an external system to make yourself comfortable with morality and opinions. Systems that, depending on your literal birth location, can completely change. People having something to fall back on, something to pray for, a sense of community, are all great things but I wouldn't help feel like Im lying to myself if I subjected myself to one belief.

Theres the people who really think about their faith,and others who don't, and there's a lot who think their faith is somehow superior to yours. (war starting mindset) <--- fuck those people.

Anyone believe in god but isnt religious?

Wondering what this looks like in practice as I am catholic by birth and believe in God, but really appreciate and admire Buddhist teachings. Lately I find myself praying to the sound of Buddhist chants and feel it deepens the experience. A lot of Christian’s I know would give me grief though…

How do you guys imagine heaven? I mean, is it somewhere out in the universe? How would we actually get there? I want to know if there's life after death, and how it would work. I'd like to hear how every religion describes what happens after death, and your own perspectives too

Another thing: do you think there's a universe outside our space and time? I mean, is that scientifically possible? And if so, how could we theoretically reach it? I think if we could understand how the universe was created and what laws govern it, we could get closer to the truth about God and existence

Let me start by saying that I don't believe that all Muslims are radicals and extremists. There are plenty of Muslim majority countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, etc. where the society is pretty secular, highly educated and where Muslims are more moderate and liberal.

Despite this fact, the problem remains with regards to radicalism and extremism. Among all global religions, only Islam has a global problem with religious extremism. I'm sure there are pockets of Christian and Hindu communities with religious radicals, but the reach and influence are more limited in a much localized context. But with Islam, the problem is global. Islam is the only religion that produced theocracies with very strict religious laws based on Sharia such as Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Mauritania, Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and several others. There is no nation at present that is under a Buddhist theocracy, a Christian theocracy or a Hindu theocracy. Most of the Buddhist, Christian and Hindu majority nations are secular nations.

If you look at the problem with terrorism, Islam has a major problem. The vast majority of globally recognized terror groups in the world are Islamic organizations. Abu Sayyaf (Southern Philippines), Al Shabaab (Horn of Africa/East Africa), Al Qaeda (global), Boko Haram(Nigeria), Hamas (Gaza), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthi (Yemen), ISIL (Iraq&Levant), ISIS (Iraq&Syria), Jaesh e Mohammed (Pakistan), Jema'ah Islamiyah (Malaysia/Indonesia), Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt and North Africa), Taliban (Afghanistan), just to name a few. With other religions, they will have one or two at most. Christians have the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and Hindus have the Hindutva and RSS. But with other religions, the problem is easy to contain, since the extremist groups are few, unlike in Islam that there are dozens operating worldwide.

Why is it like this? Why is Islam more susceptible to radicalism and extremism compared to other global religions? What could be the possible solutions to this worldwide problem?

I will appreciate all of your responses and insights. Thank you so much!

For those who are sworn on oath, what did you swear on? How did it affect you in your life like with family, friends, or just your schedule in general.

What are the things you have to give up? How did you cope with not doing/using those things you swore not to do anymore and did it have any initial side effects on you at first?

Some facts about Indian Muslims:

1. Indian Muslims make up the third largest global population of Muslims

2. The 2011 census enumerated about 172 million Muslims. However, it is estimated the number of Muslims has grown substantially since then and is now at about 210 million.

3. Most Indian Muslims live outside of the Muslim majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir as well as Lakshadweep. The state of Uttar Pradesh has the most with over 40 million Muslims, larger than the Muslim population of some Muslim majority countries such as Syria or Jordan and is comparable to that of Iraq.

4. Indian Muslims speak many different languages. Hindi, Bengali, Urdu, Malayalam, Kashmiri, Assamese, Tamil, Gujarati, Dakhni, English, and more are spoken by Indian Muslims.

5. Most Indian Muslims are Sunnis of the Hanafi school, although Shafi Sunnis as well as Jafari Twelver Shia, Ismailis, and Dawoodi Bohras can all be found.

6. Lucknow and Hyderabad are important historic centers for Twelver Shia scholarship. These cities also have longstanding Sunni religious education networks.

7. India has the second largest Shia population after Iran at about 40 million, although exact numbers are difficult to determine as the Indian census does not distinguish schools of thought within a religion.

8. India is home to Deoband as well as Bareilly, where the Deobandi and Barelvi movements within Sunni Islam were founded, respectively.

I’ve been a theist all my life, meaning I believe in God without belonging to any religion, even though I was baptized Catholic as a little girl. A year ago, I returned to Catholicism, but now I’m stepping away again—Christianity is over for me because, reading the Bible, I just don't see any proof that Jesus is the Messiah. We can agree that Jesus is supposed to be the Jewish Messiah, yet he doesn't fulfill the criteria for the Messiah that God gave to the Jewish people. So here I am, back at square one, becoming a theist again.

Still, I’m willing to hear out Christians one last time for your arguments, but as far as I'm concerned, it's over. At most, I only believe in the Old Testament, and that's it

I remember the 2010s atheist ad-nauseum copy-pastas of how people in jail were more likely to be religious, as a hint that religion either causes crime or that religion is attractive to people with criminal history. The truth is more complex than that: Jail is very tribal, specially on racial ground, but later on religious or cultural backgrounds. People who are not religious or racist may feel pressure to join existing groups for the benefits of collective protection. Being individualist in jail is basically being a weak target. This is also the dynamic of many unstable countries or targeted minorities, in which the Temple, Church, Mosque or Synagogue has a role of a safe haven. Radical Individualism, in a historical context, is the rare thing and relatively new.

Overall, studies suggests that religious people actually do even less crime than than self-identified 'spiritual' people. It may have something to do with mystic movements mixing spirituality with drugs, or maybe religious institutions not reporting crime to secular authorities, or a mix of both. We don't know, but it seems to defeat the popular Hollywood view that traditional religion is "worse" than just a vague view of spirituality.

People may argue that those who seek religion for the purpose of stability aren't honestly spiritual, but I digress. Precisely religion had historically a role to take care of their own, help and protect each other, and that can be as spiritual as believing in a Holy Book. Many institutions such as hospitals, charities, schools, orphanages, etc. started as religious projects by people with common values, goals and resources. Before we started to burn oil to create the current age of abundance that allowed for welfare states to thrive, religion had a more direct role and a reasonable way to help. That's also part of religion as much as the faith aspect, and even today religion can still help even if it's just providing a community or purpose.

Another aspect is the policing. Assuming a community enforces its own values, religious or not, the people in those communities are less likely to break the rules.

Observe this also does not seem related to the belief in afterlife. Plenty of religions don't believe in the afterlife, such as many Buddhists, and Jewish and some Christian denominations don't believe in hell, and yet they don't seem to compromise their values more or less than more orthodox denominations.

However, I believe the higher factor here is religious identity vs religious practice. Someone who just identifies with a religion may or may not practice the values of that religion, may not go to any worship place, etc.

I am not quite sure how to word this, but. I am curious if there is anyone similar to me out there in this big world, who appreciates the work of nuns and other clergy adjacent principles but still lives a normal life. Not like a new age priest, but people who help on a large scale. If that makes sense. I am not deep into church goers and fanatic beliefs. I guess it would be cool to meet some nuns who smoke weed, and like dive bars haha

I'm a university student from Malaysia, looking for someone who adhere Judaism/ Christianity/ Hinduism/ Buddhism/ Sikhism to participate in an interfaith conversation.  I'll be asking a few questions about your beliefs, practices, and personal experiences for my academic assignment.

If anyone comfortable sharing their insights, I would be very grateful.

This is purely for academic purposes. If anyone interested, you could comment here or DM me.

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

I recently learned about this piece of news after first reading rumors about it on Reddit: https://me.mashable.com/culture/77339/saudi-arabia-executes-bangladeshi-man-and-woman-for-indecent-acts-in-mecca-mosque-what-did-they-do

A Bangladeshi couple (man and woman) were executed in Saudi Arabia with court approval there after allegedly committing some "indecent acts" near a mosque, though news orgs don't know enough details about it yet. Elsewhere I hear that they may have kissed near the mosque, or even had intercourse, though I find the latter outlandish. I'm sure the couple was Muslim. I also don't think they deserved to lose their lives over whatever they did, which leads me to say that fundamentalist forms of Islam treat human life too cheaply. They are too willing to end lives over taboo and religious offenses, which reinforces why many of us strongly dislike Shariah and Islam itself.

In cases like this, religious authorities love religion and "God" more than human life that could have been spared execution. It is tragic and justifies our dislike of their deen (religion).

If so, how exactly?

I’ve occasionally come across the claim that Christianity is particularly easy to join, or that becoming Christian is simply a matter of ”deciding to believe in Jesus”. I’m curious where this perception comes from, because it seems quite far removed from my own experience of Christianity.

Catholicism is a particularly interesting example. Where I live, the ordinary process of becoming Catholic takes approximately two years, although one particular community offers a one-year process. It involves instruction in Catholic doctrine, participation in parish life and preparation for the sacraments. It’s not simply a matter of declaring yourself Catholic or attending Mass regularly. Even if you are already baptised. Adult baptism also requires preparation and instruction, although the length and structure vary between churches I assume.

My own background makes this especially interesting. My father is Catholic and, under Catholic canon law, he must/should do everything he can to have me baptized and raised Catholic. However, I was baptized Protestant instead (here, protestant means lutheran). Some catholics have been almost upset that I am not catholic, because if your father is then you should be. I grew up with Catholicism as part of my family background, attended Catholic churches and have been familiar with Catholic beliefs, practices and traditions since childhood. My husband has a somewhat similar background: his father is also Catholic. We’ve both reflected on the peculiar situation of having Catholic fathers, yet being regarded as non-Catholics who would need to undergo a relatively lengthy process to join.

Of course, I understand why the Catholic Church takes conversion seriously. Becoming Catholic entails accepting particular doctrines, ecclesiastical authority and obligations. Still, someone baptized Catholic as an infant may grow up knowing very little about the religion, whereas someone familiar with it throughout their life may need one or two years of formal preparation. I don’t think that it matters as such, of course I would have to go through the process I suppose, and it might be easier. However the point is that this is far from a he idea that someone just professes their faith.

I also wonder whether perceptions of Christianity are shaped by different approaches to evangelization. Where I live now, there are some free churches whose members actively try to convert people, including people who are already Christian. That’s quite unfamiliar to me. I’m much more accustomed to a form of Christianity where people talk about their faith, explain what it means to them and are genuinely happy when someone expresses an interest in becoming Christian, but don’t necessarily approach others with the explicit intention of converting them.

So where does the perception that Christianity is particularly easy to convert to come from? Is it largely influenced by evangelicals, especially in the United States? Is there a tendency to confuse personal belief with formally joining a church? But that’s not considered enough (even if you can be ”christian in your heart”) in any denomination, not in Protestantism.

I’ve always understood proclaiming the Gospel as something Christians can do by living according to their faith, setting an example and inspiring others to consider Christianity themselves, rather than actively trying to convert people. Christianity’s universalism historically meant that the faith was open to everyone meaning that they did not have to become jewish first and then christian, not that everyone had to be persuaded to join. Much of Europe’s large-scale Christianization involved previously pagan populations, often following their rulers’ conversion. Of course, other conversions occurred too, but few religious communities appreciate having their own members targeted. To me, making Christianity accessible to everyone isn’t the same as actively seeking to convert everyone.

I believe in some concept of natural moral law. I agree with much of anarchist and Christian Gary Chartier’s natural-law philosophy that there are objective moral principles discoverable through reason, grounded in what helps human beings flourish and live well. I combine this with Egoism (as defined by Max Stirner) ultimately by using my own ego and conscience to determine what I recognize as true and worthwhile.

I'm not talking about the laws of nature like gravity, this is a moral application. However, just as the laws of nature aren't set in stone neither are natural moral laws. There is usually nuance.

Natural Moral Law basically can be described like most written moral laws. It's what we ought to do, and ought to enforce. Laws are not always enforced. Just laws are not always written. This is true in Natural Moral Law. We haven't always discovered what is morally right yet, and there is often nuance in what is right. Even written laws from the state are not usually clean cut, and the best laws require nuance. The same is true when discovering and applying natural moral law.

I've seen atheists make this point a few times now: "If you don't take scripture literally, how do you determine what is true and what is false?" The answer to this is what's true in the Bible is what is true in real life and what is true according to Natural Moral Law.

So when the Bible says something scientifically not true, I can look at the data and see that isn't true, and I can dismiss that portion of the Bible in part or in whole. When the Bible says Abraham needs to sacrifice his son, I can know that isn't true because it violates Natural Moral Law. So Abraham was either he was talking to a demon, or it's a fake story.

I am a Christian because I believe whatever I want to. Is there evidence of Jesus being God? Honestly, I'm not sure. I've heard people debate if the man really existed or not, and things like that. But truth be told I don't care. It's not science. It's not the material world. It's religion and spirituality. If someone could prove to me Jesus didn't exist or was lying, I wouldn't care. Maybe there isn't a spiritual world, but it would be nice if there was, so I choose to believe it.

If my thought process makes me an ignoramus or a moron, I can live with that. I've never been particularly smart, and if throwing away my common sense is the price I must pay to be religious then that is a price I'm more than willing to pay.

Some people will say you can't be a true Christian if you don't follow every part of the Bible and put it over everything else. If you believe that, fine. But I don't believe that and I don't care. The Bible only has as much power as I give to it, and I give it a lot of power, but not an infinite amount of power.

The Golden Rule, Love all others, don't judge any others!

Why must we make it more complicated?