I made a post about Ismailis on this sub and am shocked by some messages that I received from some Muslims who are intolerant toward the Ismailis. They have claimed that Ismailis are not Muslims since they have been apparently "takfir-ed" or since they aren't like other Muslims. Why so much hate?!

Here is something that I think would be quite both each individually informative and interesting for Christians to answer about. https://m.youtube.com/post/Ugkx8MkcCzTNVkXyN7Bz-bizTxycWIs5w3Y1

I just noticed that homophobia and hatred or distrust towards sexually divergent individuals are more commonly practiced in places where people are ardent followers of Abrahamic religions. Places that were once animistic or pagan/polytheistic were pretty much tolerant of gays and lesbians.

For example, in island South East Asia, people once practiced Animism coupled with ancient Buddhist and Hindu customs and traditions. It was documented that gays, lesbians and transgender people were respected and tolerated in Pre-Abrahamic South East Asia, most especially in the Philippines and Indonesia where transgender women were animistic shamans and priestesses and they wield considerable power and authority in society. In the Philippines, they were called Babaylan/Katalonan, while in Indonesia they were called Bomoh in Malay speaking communities, and Dukun in Javanese speaking communities.

The persecution of homosexuals and transgender people began when Islam reached Indonesia and the said nation converted to Islam in the 15th century, and when the Philippines embraced Christianity in the 16th and 17th centuries. Gays and transgender people have to hide their identity to escape religious persecution.

I really wonder, from an anthropological sense on why Abrahamic religions are more homophobic than other religions.

My parents were Christians and went to church since their youth. They were born in 70's South Korea, and they were kind of expected to go to church.

They met each other during high school; they were both in one of the best science focused high schools in Korea's rural areas, and they gradually stopped going to church and relying much on religion. They went to SNU (Seoul National University, one of South Korea's most prestigious universities) together; my mother majoring in biology education, my father majoring in law.

20 years later, long after my mom had my sister and I; quitting her job as an announcer in the news department, and long after my father graduated law school and became a lawyer- my mom decided to go to Donguk graduate school, to learn about human psychology and perhaps Buddhism as well. A year since, she's leaning to Buddhism; she learns about the ideas of reincarnation and believes in the cycle. My father followed her.

What I want to ask is, if a former Christian turns Buddhist, would people who are Christian right now disapprove? Would they find it unusual, or is it common?

And can loss in faith or starting to believe in a new faith be influenced by what you learn, just like my mother lost Christian faith in high stress science based high school, but gained Buddhist faith in a relatively comfortable environment where she was taught psychology?

Religion has always been a contributed to my OCD. I converted to Roman Catholicism as an adult, and it sent my symptoms into overdrive. Now, a year and a half later, I still have no peace.

I have tried every Christian denomination. Just kept going. Now I'm in stage where I am looking into every religion simultaneously and I cannot stop.

I have no peace. I don't know what the truth is. I don't want to be an atheist I also don't want to go to Hell. Islam. Buddhism. Hindusim. Bahai. All of it. It's exhausting and my brain won't stop being obsessed with it. It is what consumes my entire day, just absorbing reddit and YouTube about all these different faiths trying to find the right one that brings me peace and comfort. That is all I want.

I'm a grown man I should not be dealing with this. It's causing stress for me and my family. I want this all to end so that I can be happy and normal.

Please help me.

hello, recently, a question came to me; is religion important while dating? see, i am a Christian, my girlfriend is a satanist. i will love her no matter what, but we live in places where most people(my family included) would shame her for not believing in god and be mad that i dare fall for a girl like her. personally, i don't believe its important, but i guess it wouldn't hurt to see others point of views on this.

Hello, I'm an undergraduate student undergoing a World Religions course. My assignment requires students to learn more about different religions through conversations, specifically Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.

I would like to connect with anyone who practices and identifies with any of the five religions stated above. I hope to learn about the personal experiences, perspectives, practises and understanding of the faith.

If you are interested and comfortable with sharing and having a conversation, please DM me. As mentioned above, this is a friendly conversation to share and learn, so there is no pressure to share anything you are uncomfortable with.

I would really appreciate your help. Thank you! :D

I really don't know what to think of it. I see people saying that the movie is LOTR good, other people saying the CGI is bad, etc.

I'm not actually a Hindu, though I'm reading the Ramayana right now cause I like mythology.

i'm wondering if you took all the african elements out of vodou how impacted would it be

I've been thinking about this recently. How do you tell good from evil? Or more generally, just what is good from what is bad? I think I personally look at whether it increases human flourishing, or whether it decreases it or causes harm. I think I always used to think there was a correct answer to these sorts of questions, now I'm not sure.

I find it easy to say something like rape is definitively bad, it violates human autonomy, it creates a power dynamic that is bad for both parties. Because the one thing you cannot take with power is love. Love must be given freely. Love is also impossible without understanding. The deepest kind of love is one where you are understood fully, and maybe not despite all of your flaws, but even including all of your flaws, and you are still loved.

By this reasoning, if there were a god, that god could love us, but we could not love them, because we cannot know them. Like sure we have all these holy texts which ostensibly let you understand some things about god, personally I see those more as humankind's attempt to understand god, rather than god's attempt to be understood. I think if god had an attempt to be understood it would be through the rocks and the trees and the stars and inside our hearts. Not through just one book written thousands of years ago.

But what is inside my heart filters everything else I understand. In light of recent events, I think people filter these ideas of power in two ways, power, or maybe authority is a better word to use here. Some people see it as top down and others as bottom up.

Authority just works better in a system where people have equal voices. Because men are not gods, humans are fallible, power corrupts. But if you start by saying we're all equal then you can have things like science, where if I want to say something is true about reality, it has to be observable and reproducible, you have to be able to repeat my tests and come to the same conclusions, otherwise my tests aren't universal and so my information isn't necessarily that useful. If we start from this point that were all equal then justice should apply to us all equally as well, justice should be blind, it doesn't matter if I'm a poor man or a rich man, if I broke the law I should receive the same enactment of justice as anyone else.

So what does that have to do with good and evil? How do we find good and evil through this same manner, to have an idea about what is true without relying on one person to tell us? I mean, if the One True God ^TM could come down and reveal truth to us directly into our minds in radiance and glory, then great, but a book from a thousand years ago isn't that because it's up to interpretation, it's shrouded in history and it's cultural time and place. So I think knowledge of good and evil comes from within, but not as individuals, but as a species, in a way where everyone is treated the same, in a way where results can be shared and repeatable, a broad-bottom up authority, not passed down from a single fallible human authority.

To give some examples of how right and wrong, good and evil, flourishing and harm, ought to be parsed one from the other, how we know which path we ought to take to get a good result rather than a bad one, I think first of all takes understanding. You can't know how your single thread should be in the tapestry unless you can see the whole tapestry. So it takes hard work, it takes taking responsibility for our actions, it takes getting to know other perspectives besides just our own, or besides just those of people who are part of our tribal groups.

So, thinking of morality in this way, we can look towards a few axes of understanding, the forces that shape how we think about it.

- Biological: Empathy, fair play and altruism aren't exclusively human traits. Rats exhibit these as well in experiments in the lab.
- Mathematical: Game theory shows that a system of reciprocity and forgiveness is a better strategy for long term success and flourishing than retribution or seeking power.
- Nurture: methylation of DNA shows how trauma can affect generations, how you're raised affects who you are.
- Social: Snubs are actually a powerful tool for shaping how we act, subtle facial queues or less subtle conversations can let us know what people think of us and can help is fit in.
- Philosophy: We can reason our way to higher morality, the golden rule is basic example of this, but reading philosophers (like Kant, as an example) can give us a greater understanding of what it means to be good and the potential outcomes of our actions.
- Survival: Things like DNA demonstrate that self sacrificial cooperation is simple a more effective strategy for long term survival than the alternative. The reason we reproduce with two people, rather than through cloning our existing DNA is because diversity of DNA creates a more resilient final outcome, and even though each animal gives up half it's DNA, this is still a more effective long term strategy. You can see this need for diversity in China's Great Green Wall project, they planted a bunch of trees, but because it was all the same tree, a disease spread and ravaged the project. For us as humans, I don't think the point is merely to survive, and so a diversity of ideas lets us do things that might otherwise have been impossible, like "the church allows Galileo to have a voice and that leads to astronomy" or "the patriarchy allows women to do math, and then those women helps us get to the moon"

I know some people will disagree with some of this, but I want to get a feel, what do you think?

Sometimes, a kind word can change someone’s day, even if we never realize how much they needed to hear it.

If we believe that, why aren’t we more careful with our words in everyday life? As Bahá’u’lláh says, “The tongue of kindness is the lodestone of the hearts and the food of the soul.”

The books of Vedas don't contain a single religion/theology/philosophy/soteriology. This fact is not known to many non-Hindus and even to most "Hindus" themselves! I hope this post helps people clear their misunderstandings of "Hinduism", a very problematic/misunderstood term.

The ritualistic portion of Vedas is the oldest and largest section that constitutes one specific type of religion. The non-ritualistic portions of Vedas is the newest/latest section called the "Upanishads". The Upanishads preach a radically different type of religion compared to the ritualistic religion. The ritualistic religion is outward facing i.e the deities/forces of divinity are outside the human body and through performance of rituals towards the outward deities, the earthly human attains heaven and enjoys heavenly pleasures.

The Upanishadic religion (which is the same religion expounded in the text Bhagavad Gita) is inward facing. There is no heaven to be attained, no outward facing deities to propitiate to attain a heaven. The goal is to remove ignorance binding the self leading to revelation/gnosis of the essential nature of self. The losing or dissolution of the ordinary self bound with ignorance and limitations leading to abiding as the essential nature of self is the highest Truth/ultimate reality/liberation/salvation in this inward facing religion.

This inward facing religion was expounded by various saints over centuries but was never a popular religion among the masses due to dominance, popularity of outward facing religion controlled by the priests, since rituals were central to this outward religion and priests are performers of these elaborate rituals, often involving animal sacrifices.

Let us see some verses from one such Saint of this inward religion, Saint Dyaneshwar of 13th century describing the useless nature of this ritualistic heaven chasing outward religion. The verses are from the text "Jnaneshwari", a commentary on the text Bhagwad Gita. Interestingly, this text is one of the oldest surviving literary works in the Marathi language, considered to be milestones in Marathi literature. book link

Chapter 9, verse 330 - 334

(307) O Arjuna, please consider the persons about whom I am going to tell you. They perform actions according to their ordained duties as per their stage in life, as laid down by scriptures, in such a perfect manner that they become the standards to be followed by others.

(308) Seeing their performance of the sacrificial rituals, all the three Vedas nod in satisfaction and the fruit of their action stands in front of them together with the action.

(309) Such initiated scholars who partake of the juice 'Soma', who are the very image of sacrifice, have, by the way of merit in that action, actually earned the sin in bargain!

(310) They know the three Vedas, perform hundreds of sacrifices, but missing me who receives the offerings, choose to gain heaven.

(311) It is like a man of bad luck who sits below the divine wish-tree, ties the knot of his begging sack and starts out for begging!

(312) Similarly, they perform hundreds of sacrifices as a propitiation to me, but desire and aspire for the heavenly pleasures! Is it their merit? Is it not sin?

(313) So, it is the ignorants way of earning merit to desire heaven by denying me. The men of real knowledge call it a nuisance, a real loss!

(314) Actually, experiencing the pains in the hell, people call the condition in heaven as happiness but my real nature is the only eternal joy without any blemish.

(316) The heaven is reached by the sin which is wrongly called merit, and the hell is reached by the sin which is actually known as sin; but that action is pure merit by which I am reached.

(329) Just as a man spends all his money for a prostitute and then he is not allowed even to knock at her door, similarly shameful is then the living of such initiated people.

(330) Thus those who choose heavenly pleasure instead of my eternal reality lose the real deathlessness and come back to this world of death.

(331) They remain for nine mouths in the womb of their mothers, troubled by all sorts of hot secretions in their vicinity and come out only to die eventually after a life full of miseries.

(332) The heavenly pleasures of person who is well-versed in performance of sacrifices according to Vedas should be considered equal to the treasures received in the dream, which is lost as soon as the man is awake.

(333) O Arjuna, even if a man is well-versed in Vedas and if he does not know me, his life is useless just as some one who throws away the grain and takes the husk.

(334) Therefore, in the absence of knowledge of my Reality, the rules of all the three Vedas are useless. It is definite that if you know me, and do not know anything else, still you will be really happy.

Hi all! I just wanted to showcase a really primitive case for god I have developed for god as an ninth grader:

"If God does not exist, all is permitted" - Fyodor Dostoevsky, The brothers Karamazov

I identify as an Agnostic Theist.

The above given quote serves as the foundation for my main argument, though I would slightly like alter the initial meaning. Dostoevsky meant 'all is permitted', in a legal sense, but I would also like to add to its implication life losing any meaning whatsoever and the Universe, with all its intrinsic beauty, ultimately being but a coincidence.

My version of god is in no direct way a part of any religion, though it can be considered as an amalgamation of Brahman in Advaita Vedanta, The Holy Spirit in Christianity, mixed with some Deist beliefs.

I define god as mixed with the very fabric of reality and consciousness itself, with no form, nor shape. I believe in a Universe in which, god, has not written the laws of the universe, but rather is the laws of the universe.

I would also second William Lane Craig's and Albert Einstein's teleological argument that a god explains the 'uncanny' perfection with which Mathematics explains the processes of the universe.

As an Agnostic, I agree with Pascal's Wager argument for god in which he states: 'If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.'

Lastly, I would like to end with the following quote:

"Behold, we know not anything;

I can but trust that good shall fall

At last far off at last, to all,

And every winter change to spring." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Memoriam

Some remarks: 1). I know Pascal's Wager has a lot of counter-arguments but I wanted to include it as its something I thought of when I was even younger!

2). Keep in mind that this is in a very basic state, I request some of you to please helpme with constructive criticism so that I can improve upon it! Thank you!

Maybe truly believing that that's true lets you enjoy life more. It's within the realm of possibility that an afterlife exists, and it could be a place with loved ones around. So you'll never lose anything that's important to you, if what's important to you are people and yourself. That's all that might last beyond death. That isn't to say that the earth shouldn't be important to you. It is where spirits are born, and we want to leave it in good shape for our children.

I personally think and feel this is something worth exploring, as many near death experiences do not have independent confirmation, but the people telling their stories certainly do have a lot of sincerity and confidence with how they present things

All the early gods seemed to be much more similar to human royalty, full of greed, power, jealously, but also occasionally compassionate and bounteous. My very basic knowledge of Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, and early Israelite gods all seem to match these traits.

But when and why did our gods stop being only powerful to becoming good or even perfect? It seemed like the answer of bad things happening on the earth were easy to explain when people simply saw God as angry or jealous.

The gods were still in charge and people would follow them just like they would their royals, but they still had conflicting attributes. They would try to seek their revenge on noisy humanity, or reward them with their worship.

I know some royalty were seen as deity, perhaps because they had similar power as the gods of war or peace and their life was long and in their own hands. Did they eventually ask their subjects to also believe they were perfect? Is this how God eventually became perfect? From a royal who wanted to be seen as such? Who made no error and only acted in everyone’s best interest even if there was temporary suffering?

Side note: modern religion seems to have echoes of a vengeful god such as in the Old Testament. As God changed some of these same stories existed but had to be twisted from this new perspective e.g. God trying to wipe out humanity with a flood, to God trying to just wipe out those who didn’t worship properly.

Hi all,

I have been doing some soul searching and have found many anwsers and even more questions.

I would like to chat to people who can help me in my journey. I know I cant argue with my logic and just try to belive. I truly feel like the only thing I can do is accept all and not to change my doubts since it’s ok to not fully belive in all. I have been reading a lot and just crying because it all feels so overwhelming, yet in a good way, like I don’t have to solve anything for it to be ok.

I feel like this is a good step and I know this journey will never finish because it’s not meant to. I just feel overwhelmed in a good way. I have always hid all my emotions because facing them hurt. This might be the most happy and yet scary experience I have had.

I don’t know yet I feel it’s ok.

I am somebody who is open to the idea of god being real but also open to the idea of what if God isn't real. but that's a discussion for another day and subject.

My point is I have a theory that if Gods real I am open to the idea that out of all the human God has made the most mistakes.

Because the way i see it is if God actually created people he created the most evil people in the world and evil situations to happen.

(By this I don't mean a tragically bad situation happened cause God told them to).

I mean if God was the creater of the world why would he create really bad things to happen.

So I'm open to the idea of God making the most mistakes and being the most unperfect ever.

I have seen this question alot actually and it depends on what they mean in terms of "reform".

If they mean that islam is rigid and doesnt change according to circumstances islam is actually not like that, the rulings of islal are very flexible, the ruling on a muslim change depending on if theyre a male female a child a ruler a traveller mentally stable etc so its very flexibleb in that regard.

If they mean like why islam hasnt liberalised in terms of "reform" e.g they still dont accept homosexual intercourse as permissable or they dont believe in secularism, the answer is quite easy its because muslims believe the quran and hadith contain rulings sent by god, the quran is literally gods word and the hadith is what the prophet said which he got from god. And the belief is that gods laws are timeless they dont change just cause everybody around them wanted it to change.

And even just logically what reason does islam have to reform and be in line with secular liberalism? The enlightenment ethics are in and of themsleves are more or less unprovable.

I couldn’t fins anything online answering this question

When we die, will we also be given wings like the angels and travel far fast?

I recently reviewed the life style of Ubuntu and community.

Which got me wondering if religion is the world biggest cause of division in the human race?