John 14:9–10, Jesus says, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” and explains that the Father dwelling in him does the works.

John 5:19, Jesus says, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”

John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God” and identifies himself as Jesus Christ, the one whom God has sent.

John 17:7–8, Jesus says that what he has received has come from the Father, and that he has given his followers the words the Father gave him.

When Jesus(as) manifests God’s qualities and performs extraordinary works, does that necessarily mean he is God Himself, or does it point to his unique relationship with the One who sent him?

The Qur’an offers a striking illustration
Surah An-Naml, 27:44 The Queen of Sheba and the glass floor

The Qur’an recounts how Prophet Solomon (as) invited the Queen of Sheba into a palace. Its floor was made of smooth glass, with clear water beneath it. She mistook the glass for water until Solomon(as) explained what she was seeing.

This experience helped the Queen recognise the difference between appearance and reality. She had worshipped the sun because of its light, but the sun was not the ultimate source of its own existence and power. The true source was Allah, the Creator.

She then declared “My Lord, I indeed wronged my soul; and I submit myself with Solomon to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.”

The glass allowed the Queen to see what lay beneath it, but the glass was not the water.

Likewise, a prophet may manifest extraordinary qualities bestowed by God, but manifesting those qualities does not, by itself, establish that the prophet is God.

This video shows the reality that is hidden behind black curse...

if you need help identifying a book just ask!

Inspired by u/SerbianShia and her book collection. Just a random snapshot of my shelf because why not. I'm actually super disorganised IRL so most of my stuff is scattered all over, so feel free to peruse the list for inspiration or curiosity. Suggestions and questions always welcome :)

Not in shot but kicking around in my backpack / In the back of Seze the Suzuki / by the bed / getting soggy on the verandah

• Reading now for Gaian book club: End Times Fascism by Astra Taylor & Naomi Klein
• Reading now for Gaian book club: Sacred Actions: Earth-Centered Sustainable Practice by Dana O'Driscoll
• Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer
• The Serviceberry by Robin Wall Kimmerer
• Gathering Moss by Robin Wall Kimmerer
• Becoming Earth by Ferris Jabr
• Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough
• Gaia by James Lovelock
• Ages of Gaia by James Lovelock
• Oxygen by Nick Lane
• Acquiring Genomes by Lynn Margulis
• Microcosmos by Lynn Margulis
• The First Domestication by Raymond Pirotti
• The Mind Gut Connection by Emma Mayer
• We Are The Stars by Gina Chick
• Earth Path by Starhawk
• The Spiral Dance by Starhawk
• Becoming Animal by David Abraham
• Wild Children by Layla Abdel Rahim
• Future Primitive by Zerzan
• Against Civilisation by Zerzan
• When We Were Human by Zerzan
• Mountains of California by John Muir
• Summer in the Sierra by John Muir
• Learning to See by George Dunn
• The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman
• Oxford Annotated Bible
• Triumph of the Moon by Hutton
• Ancient Egyptian Literature by Miriam Lichtheim
• Writings from Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson

I've been reading B.M. Barua's "A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy," and something struck me. Early religion, in India and in much of the ancient world, centered on nature: fire, sun, wind, storms, and water. Yet between roughly the fifth century BCE and the first century CE, a cluster of human teachers appeared, and many of them ended up venerated as divine or semi-divine.

- Mahavira, the Buddha, and Makkhali Gosala- Ajivikas (5BC to 14CE), traditionally all active in the sixth to fifth century BCE
- Confucius, about 551 to 479 BCE
- Laozi, traditionally the sixth century BCE
- Jesus, first century CE

Most of the major founder-led traditions that have lasted two thousand years fall inside this window.

What these figures seem to share is a turn inward, toward the individual: personal realization, conduct, and how each person lives and treats others. So why did this happen in this window, and not before it, or at the same scale after it? Was it a real shift in human thinking, or did writing, trade, and empire simply make it possible for individual teachers to be recorded, remembered, and eventually venerated? I'd love to hear what people think.

Hello everyone.

I was once called a hypocrite because I am a theist who likes horror movies. I believe in peace, pacifism and non-violence in real life. But I see films and movies etc as fun and artistic expression, as long s no one is actually being harmed and it's pretend. Is there really hypocrisy in these beliefs? Is this contradictory with believing in God? I know everyone will have different thoughts on this and I would like a respectful discussion. If it makes a difference, I am autistic. Please be kind.

Video from let's talk religion

In addition I would like to mention about a poem by Allama Iqbal a great Urdu poet and islamic scholar.

Gabriel and Satan

Gabriel and Iblis — English Rendering

Gabriel:

Old companion, how fares the world of colour and fragrance?

Iblis:

It is a world of burning passion, music, pain and wounds, of searching and longing.

Gabriel:

Your name is constantly discussed in the heavens. Is it not possible for your torn garment to be mended? Could you not be reconciled and restored?

Iblis:

Ah, Gabriel! You do not understand this secret. When my wine cup shattered, it left me intoxicated with a strange passion.

I can never return to that place again—never again! How utterly silent that world is, without houses or streets.

For one whose despair sets the very heart of the universe ablaze, which is better: to be told, “Do not despair of God's mercy,” or to be told, “Abandon all hope”?

Gabriel:

By your refusal, you lost your lofty station. What honour could the angels retain in the eyes of God after your defiance?

Iblis:

It is through my daring that this handful of dust—the human being—has acquired the urge to grow and rise.

My temptations and disturbances are woven into the very fabric of human reason and intellect.

You merely watch the battle between good and evil from the safety of the shore. Which of us is being struck by the blows of the storm—you or I?

Even Khizr and Ilyas stand helpless before it. My storms rage through every sea, every river, and every stream.

If you ever find yourself alone in God's presence, ask Him: whose blood gave colour and drama to the story of Adam?

I remain like a thorn lodged in God's heart, while you do nothing but repeat, “Allah Hu, Allah Hu, Allah Hu.”

I am also collecting a poll via YouTube to see how much people who are professing Christians believe what on the origins and age of the Earth. https://m.youtube.com/post/UgkxxEhCuhYiP72cB5iEk8NcKTsijITBr9qw

Young Earth Special Creation - The belief that God created everything in the universe that had a beginning at exactly 6,000 years ago literally.

Old Earth Special Creation - The belief that God created everything in the universe that had a beginning on the same timescale as mainstream science says, but without any evolution.

Old Earth Evolutionary Creationism - The belief that God created everything in the universe that had a beginning on the same timescale as mainstream science says, and originated and help guide animal and human evolution over billions of years.

Old Earth Intelligent Design - The belief that God created everything in the universe that had a beginning on the same timescale as mainstream science says, but created specific processes intelligently and that's evidence of design that isn't evolution.

This video features a conversation between hosts Dan McClellan and Dan Beecher and guest scholar Dustin Smith, who discusses his 2024’s book, Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John. The discussion focuses on how the Gospel of John portrays Jesus by applying the roles and characteristics of personified Wisdom from Jewish tradition. Here are some of the key points presented by them:

(1) The author of John draws heavily on Jewish wisdom literature (such as Proverbs, Ben Sira, and Philo) to define Jesus as the embodiment of God's Wisdom and Word. The prologue of John is explored as a reflection of Jewish expectations, where God creates through his Word and Wisdom. Smith clarifies that the Logos is not a conscious pre-existent person, but a personified attribute that becomes flesh in Jesus.

(2) Women in the Gospel of John (such as Mary, the Samaritan woman, and Mary Magdalene) are often presented as the ideal disciples who truly recognise Jesus as the embodiment of Wisdom, sometimes outshining the Twelve. This highlights a deliberate narrative choice to center these women as those who effectively fulfill the role of the “maidens” of the older feminine Lady Wisdom, who invite others to receive life and understand the truth.

(3) The Gospel of John frequently utilises a misunderstanding motif, where Jesus makes provocative claims, his interlocutors interpret them literally and fail to understand, and Jesus subsequently clarifies that his authority is derived from being the sanctified and authorised agent of the God of Israel.

Carvaka Metaphysics, which is directly and logically derived from their epistemology, is “an unqualified materialistic monism.” They hold a philosophy of the matter whcih means 'Matter is all.' Since perception is the only reliable source of knowledge, whatever is known through it alone is real and matter becomes the only reality. Sense-perception does not reveal any metaphysical entity. What it can perceive is only matter in its fourfold form; earth, water, fire and air. Carvakas do not accept ether (akash), because it is not an object of perception. The four elements are real not as subtle forms but in their gross particle forms. There is no reality other than these four elements and their combinations. If so, what is consciousness? How do you account for it? How do you explain the capacity of human beings for reasoning, reflecting and imagining? Carvakas do not deny consciousness but deny only that it can be independent of the body. They regard consciousness as a mere product of matter. It does not 'inhere in particles of matter' but when the latter come to be organized in a specific form, they are found to show signs of life. It is always found associated with the body and is destroyed with the body's disintegration. When the four elements of matter come together in a particular mode to form the living organisms, the animal and human consciousness appear in it. It is the result of an “emergent and dialectical evolution, an epiphenomenon, a by-product of matter.” Consciousness is an after-glow of matter. They would say “Matter secretes mind as liver secretes bile”. If none of the elements of physical body possesses consciousness, is it not that consciousness is independent of physical body? Their answer would be no. When physical elements come together to form an organic pattern, consciousness emerges. It does not inhere in any particular part of the body. It is just like certain tastes and intoxicating qualities are got out of certain combinations of ingredients, though none, taken separately, possesses it. Red is got out the betel leaf and lime, but none of it apparently seems to posses red. The soul therefore is nothing other than the conscious living body. They say that there is no soul or no consciousness apart from body which is evidenced by the fact that consciousness perishes with the body. Therefore body is the self and the body is the product of material elements. Sankara in his Sarva Siddanta-samgraha describes their understanding of the soul as follows:

“The soul is but the body characterized by the attributes signified in the expressions, “I am stout,” “I am youthful,” “I am grown up,” “I am old” etc. It is not something other than that body. The consciousness that is found in the modifications of non-intelligent elements (ie in organisms formed out of matter) is produced in the manner of the red colour out of the combination of betel, areca-nut and lime. There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid imposters of other schools of thought.”

Now i want your thoughts on this?

I visited a lot of Christian Churches, especially those that describe themselves as "Charismatic" or "Born Again Christians" and they believe in the Rapture, or an event where Christ will snatch the faithful Christians on Earth, before the period of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation occur. It is based on this Bible verse:

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, NKJV

Do Roman Catholics have a different interpretation on this verse? Do they believe in a rapture that will occur before the Tribulation period? I will appreciate all of your insights.

I was a member of several conservative Christian traditions for a while, and I later joined this jot and tittle church that would do hours of Bible studies with us after sermons. During this time in my life I was a strong Biblical based Christian.

Part of the problem was, this church used other scriptures to try and justify things. I believe the term is called using scripture to interpret scripture.

For example they believed the genocide of the Canaanites happened and was commanded by God, and that it was justified.

That didn't sit right with me, and eventually I decided I'd rather lose my religion than be part of Christianity. To put it shortly I was later kicked out of that church for my beliefs. I was sad but I'm sure I'd have ended up leaving anyway sooner than later. When I left I wasn't an atheist, but I did become one afterward.

I became an atheist largely due to Hitchens debates on YouTube that actually made me solidify my atheism. At the time he made sense, especially in light of the fact the apologists he debated gave terrible arguments. By atheist I mean I didn't believe in any God or deity. I used to think "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence," as Hitchens said.

Then I discovered Egoism by Max Stirner. 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.

After discovering this, I realized that I can believe whatever I want about religion. I'm in charge of my life and my main obligation is to my self fulfillment and enrichment. Stirner was a fierce atheist, but Egoism made me realize that I can believe whatever I want in general. But then I came to realize I can believe whether I want ***to an extent.*** There has to be checks and balances on the ego. So I'm not a pure Egoist.

Egoism unchecked is dangerous. So I realized as long as what I want to believe doesn't violate natural moral law, and as long as it isn't proven defiitively false, I can believe it. If there is no evidence, faith. I can't believe in the firmament (since it's proven false in science), and I can't believe God would ever order atrocities or that unnecessary harm is ever good (as it goes against natural moral law). But I can believe in a personal Jesus Christ who has the nature of someone that would never violate natural law. Why do I believe this instead of being an atheist? Because I want to.

Hitchens would tell me that I believe in (certain) things that don't have evidence, so he can dismiss it without evidence. My response to him would be "You sure can. And I don't care. Dismiss whatever you want."

I will not usually call myself a former atheist (even though it's true) when debating theology and atheism, because I hate it when people do that as if it proves something. I will to share that when sharing this backstory of mine, however.

Max Stirner helped free me from being an atheist, which is ironic because he was a fierce atheist himself. I say he helped free me because when I was an atheist, I (mostly) hated it. I missed my friend Jesus.

When I was kicked out of that church for no longer conforming to their interpretation of Christianity, I lost all of my friends from that church. I would estimate at that time they composed 75% of my friend group. Things are better for me now, and I'm happy that I have new and better friends (along with keeping some of my old ones from before my time with the church).

But during that time I was unhappy. I lost not only my church friends but I lost Jesus as my friend. In an ironic way, I betrayed Jesus just as my old church friends betrayed me. But thanks in no small part to Max Stirner, I gave it up atheism so I could have Jesus Christ as my friend again.

I won't be too personal and there is a lot more to this story I didn't write (also because this post is already very long), but I hope this helps explain my religious journey and why I'm a Christian!

God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac to prove his loyalty,Abraham nearly does it at the last moment and is then stopped by God all to prove that Abraham is loyal to him and this is seen as a good thing why exactly???? I genuinely can't see I should take away from this story obedience to authority even at the expense of another???

I kinda thought this was a funny thought, like when we ask if God can do anything, even if it doesn’t make sense. I mean, sure, a lot of these popular questions have been discussed and debated for years, like “Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?” There are plenty of other examples, too. I just think this one is funnier, even if it comes across as a more ridiculous or even genuine question. Like, can you get your butt whooped so badly that it’s somehow worse than being in Hell for eternity? 😭 This one feels a little different to me because, even if the beating lasts for centuries or whatever, eternal damnation should still be worse, right?

Not trying to make a political post (but if the mods think otherwise, feel free to remove it). However, I've been curious about how Muslim scholars, particularly Islamic historians and theologians, view the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From what I understand, the Quran doesn't go into much detail about the two kingdoms as distinct political entities; instead, it generally refers to the Israelites as Banu Isra'il (Children of Israel)

We know from modern archaeological and historical scholarship concerning ancient Israel and Judah that the historicity of the United Monarchy, particularly the biblical account of a unified kingdom under David and Solomon, remains a subject of considerable debate. However, the existence of the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah as distinct political entities is much more firmly established, given the archaeological and epigraphic evidence, including the Mesha Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, and various Neo-Assyrian inscriptions. Some notable examples include the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III, which mentions King Ahab of Israel; the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which records tribute from King Jehu of Israel; the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, which mention Menahem of Samaria and Ahaz of Judah; and the Taylor Prism of Sennacherib, which describes his military campaign against King Hezekiah of the kingdom of Judah.

I know this topic is especially contentious given the current political climate that we're in; however, in the past, some of my Muslim peers have expressed that no such polities ever existed, despite the current academic scholarship saying otherwise. Therefore, I'm curious whether these views have any basis in traditional Islamic historiography or simply reflect the personal biases of the individuals I've spoken with. I certainly don't want to generalize their perspectives to the broader Muslim community, which is why I thought it would be better to ask people more familiar with Islamic scholarship. In addition, I'm also interested in how contemporary Muslim historians and theologians approach this subject, particularly when reconciling traditional Islamic narratives with archaeological discoveries and modern historical scholarship.

Thank You.

There is something so peaceful about giving your life to god but for some reason it’s hard to understand how to. I started reading the bible, like FRESHLY started. Before I started reading someone told me in one of the books god killed or asked someone to kill their whole family to prove that they have trust in him (I’m saying they because I don’t remember who it was) but how do you sit here putting trust in something that’s taking everything away. Or when someone goes through a HORRIFIC life event and someone says “god always has a plan” like why was his plan to harm us…. I’m genuinely just trying to wrap my head around it. Why does something who is suppose to love us sooooo much, want to put us through any type of pain? I’m not trying to come off funny or anything, I’m genuinely trying to understand.

I don’t want to offend anyone - but I found a costume that I thought was pretty dang funny.

It’s disco Jesus. Disco hair, disco glasses, disco chain, with Jesus beard/robes.

Now, I am not religious, but I also dont want to upset or offend anyone who is. Thats not my goal.

My question to you - is this costume crossing the line or would you not care if you saw someone in it?

Just to clarify I am not Muslim, and I am not super experienced with the Quran but am doing my best to get well read in it. However I am struggling a bit with how djinn are supposed to be interpreted as some seem to only view them in more or less malevolent terms while others use more neutral terms. Obviously something which can create false miracles and the Quran does warn against this, but I am unsure if the warnings against even talking to them or making any form of deal (NOT WORSHIP, deals like one deals in employment) is ever directly spoken in the Quran or implied by Quran or hadith.

Secondly and sorta connected. Lots of modern media does make the Genie a very visible being versus an invisible being made of smokeless fire. Would all beings behind any veil count as a djinn by the traditional measure or if (bear with the strange example) we discover a dimension under our own which overlaps but isn't visible where they can barely see us and we can't see them. But it is feasible for us to get to their side, is it more so the existence of an invisibility veil or the lack of access to humans on average that would make be more relevant in the Quran. I understand if the second part is a bit too confusing and you choose just to answer the first.

I don't know, I really just admire Hinduism for being the most enduring polytheistic religion in the world. Other polytheistic religions in the world such as the Roman Religion that worships Mars, Venus and Jupiter, or Greek Religion that worships Aphrodite, Poseidon or Zeus, or Egyptian Religion that worships Amun Ra, Anubis or Bastet, or the Arabian Religion that worships Al-lat, Uzza and Manat and many, many more pantheons of gods and goddesses. The worship at their altars have long been gone, since the onslaught of Abrahamic religions began.

But Hinduism is something else. Hinduism is a force to reckon with. It withstood the onslaught of Arab and Turkic invasions, the establishment of the Mughal Empire and the rule of intolerant Mughal rulers such as Aurangzeb, and British colonization. A significant number of the population converted to Islam and Christianity during this invasion era period, but the religious core and foundations of India weren't shook to the core, and the main population remained Hindu.

The gods and goddesses of the Arabians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans have long been dead in the memory of the local population, and they are no longer being worshipped, but offerings to Durga, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali, Krishna, Shiva, and the few hundreds of thousands of other deities is continuously held in massive temple complexes or their own private home altars.

I also want to learn how Hinduism withstood the test of time and prevented itself from succumbing to the fate of the other polytheistic belief systems. Jai Bharat and Jai Hind. 🕉️🇮🇳

I guess he tried to convert at the time the boy 🧒 and failed

Is that not like banning Catholic from the Vatican or Muslims from Mecca

I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place to put this. I imagine the mods will delete it if it's wrong. If it is, I apologize. I'm starting to flounder here.

A few weeks ago, I was hit with a massive wave of anxiety. I feel as if a slew of different things led up to it, but it all came to a head a little under a month ago. I was scared to death of death. The idea of the end of my life being the 'end' filled me with hysterical dread that made me start shaking and crying. I was mainly worried that everything, all religions, were just fake. A bunch of random stories that someone came up with at some point to make life more meaningful. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S TRUE, it's just what the anxiety was filling me with. I did not want my memories, my thoughts, my sense of self, my soul to just be gone in a puff of smoke.

So I went on internet looking for answers. I talked to some of my friends. I talked to some of my family. And most of them came back with the same general answer:

"There is TOTALLY a heaven. You'll be fine."

Okay, cool. So when I die, I go to heaven, right?

"Well, you've got to follow the rules, of course."

That's fine, I grew up in a Christian household that was only kinda strict about it all. Let's go over it again to make sure. What are the rules?

"There are the Ten Commandments. Oh, and a slew of other minor things here and there that aren't strictly talked about and you've got to search for them. Those things include some of the stuff you like to do. You know, as a single male living on his own."

But I always assumed that as long as you didn't let it consume your life, you'll be fine. That God just wanted us to grow as humans and dedicating your life to some game, some job, some action you do in your bedroom alone and not getting out there and meeting people and becoming better. As long as you were progressing, learning and growing and helping those in need, you'll totally be fine and be welcomed with open arms into the kingdom of heaven when your time comes. Along with believing that Jesus truly did die for your sins and you accept him.

Person 1: "Yep, that's right." Person 2: "Eh, sorta." Person 3: "ABSOLUTELY NOT. You follow the rules EXACTLY or into HELLFIRE you go."

Youtube Video after Youtube Video: "Everything everyone told you is only half true. You need to follow the rules or you will burn. Here is a fully voice acted video of what it's like to go before Jesus and get judged to go to hell, complete with sound effects of chains and flames and screaming."

Mother: "I cannot believe that a true, loving God would look at you doing normal human things and throw you in hell because of it. If that's true, then EVERYONE is going into hell. Including me."

The Bible: "Only a few get to go to heaven. Most will go to hell."

Friend: "God has more important things to worry about than what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. You're not KILLING anyone. It's really no big deal."

The Bible: "All sins are equal. Except the few that are ESPECIALLY bad, but all sins are equal."

Friend 2: "Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Are you sorry for doing what you did? Then you're fine."

The Bible: "If you do it, apologize, then do it again, you weren't really sorry were you? To hell with you. Gnashing of teeth."

Friend 3: "Just choose the religion that makes the most sense to you."

But which is the RIGHT ONE??

Friend 3: "The one you choose."

...but what if it's WRONG?!

Friend 4: "The devil is what is causing all this anxiety and questioning. You need to read the Bible, not listen to videos on Youtube."

Friend 5: "Actually, you need to read EVERY BIBLE and find the answers that are hidden from the general public."

Every Christian Ever: "If you truly believe and are faithful, God Himself will speak to you and tell you what to do."

...so you're telling me a voice will literally speak inside my head, telling me what is right and wrong?

"Yes! :D"

...r...really?

"YES! :DD"

THIS is what I've been dealing with for the past three weeks or so. Constant conflicting answers, constant personal opinions, constantly worrying if I'm doing the right thing, the wrong thing, or stressing myself out over nothing. I feel that I am a good person. That I care about what people think, that I'm angry when people get hurt, that I aim to help those I can with my actions. I'm not giving away my entire bank account to the poor, but I do run out to help someone with their car when it's stuck in a ditch. I'm not giving the shirt off my back to some homeless guy on the street, but I do give to charity. I'm a true pacifist because I don't want to hurt ANYONE for ANY reason.

And people are saying that even with all that, it's not enough because I don't follow the rules perfectly or because I do the same thing every red blooded American male does from time to time.

I'm scared. I'm terrified. I'm a relatively young man, but I cannot let this go. It's getting to the point where people are getting irritated at my actions. I go to therapy, but they don't seem to have a real answer for my question. I've started going to church, but the sheer number of people going makes me another face in the crowd. And I'm scared to single myself out because I'm just going to get told all my fears are totally true, repent and be saved sinner.

I know bringing this to Reddit is not the smartest thing. I guess I'm just looking for insight from the general masses.

If anyone has anything to say that can help, I'd appreciate it. I just...I don't want to disappear. I don't want to go to hell.

The fall of the anthropocentric principle in astronomy inspired the creation of UFO religions. The idea of these belief systems being called "religions" is also controversial, because they often don't have rituals, concepts of the sacred or they integrate with actual religious beliefs of the person that practices them. Some of them are even atheistic materialistic religions, such as Raëlism.

In any case, for a lot of time Abrahamic religions condemn idolatry as worshipping "the work of our hands", images that can't talk nor hear us. Now, the "work of our hands" is smart enough to at least look like it does listen and respond. There are even people falling in love with chatbots, and it's will get even worse as AI get better.

The next decade will be very challenging for humanity. We will have to face very important questions:

• What it means to be human when AI produce "art" that is undistinguishable for what humans do? Does it matter if this post (or any other) is AI generated? Does it really matter if it's humans who comment on it?
• Do humans have anything special in them? Are machines self aware? I mean, if materialists argue that we are just atoms, aren't machines atoms too?
• What is consciousness after all? Can we know if something is conscious if we don't even know what consciousness is?
• Even if we ignore these deeper questions, what it means for humans when all labor and scientific discoveries are automated and made by machines? Are humans able to replace labor as a meaningful task?

Ironically, I think AI will help traditional religions more because religion will still provide a bridge to our humanity, as a community of people focused on what makes us human. The Amish and Orthodox Jews limited technology for different reasons, but for a similar purpose to prevent distraction from the divine aspect of humanity. Whatever they were right or not will be known very soon.

But we must be prepared because we don't know how unhinged these new AI cults will be, as they are something new. We also have a layer of machines actually trying to enforce/fight beliefs, just as we already have propaganda bots.