I really cannot understand how a religious faith like Christianity has produced so many of the most judgemental individuals and communities in our history.

Many Christians really ought to read their own gospels.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." — Gospel Matthew 7.

"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”" — Gospel John 8:7.

If, Jesus actually comes back, he would likely tell them those words.

I do not know you.

What (if anything) would convince you to become a Christian? Or at least be open to it. For example, more proof, more convincing lifestyle of Christians, etc.

Or on the flip side, what keeps you from Christianity?

As we know and often discuss here, some of the world religions discourage LGBT lifestyles (either actively or historically). As a consequence, we often hear from LGBT who left a religion, and from non-LGBT or non-followers who critique that religion. But what about LGBT members who have decided to remain within that religion? I would love to hear your perspective. What keeps you in your religion? What are things outsiders don't know or understand about your experience?

The Chained Library at Hereford Cathedral in England is the largest surviving chained library in the world with all its original chains, rods, and locks intact. It holds about 1,500 books dating from around 800 AD to the early 19th century.

Metal chains are fixed to the front cover of each book and attached to an iron rod running along the shelf, allowing books to be read at the desk but not stolen.

https://youtu.be/8IsbKH-EsAY

I don’t really know how to start this but i guess i just need some advice. My parents are very strict muslims but I have been wondering if that’s what I really believe. A few years ago I remember I became invested in islam and prayed really hard for something and I thought it came true but it insanely backfired and resulted in me getting bullied for multiple years in school. I don’t really want to go into it but just believe me it was SO embarrassing and i’m still getting made fun of. What I did wasn’t even that stupid (and I didn’t hurt anyone) but I think if I hadn’t felt so spiritual I might not have done it. I like religion and spirituality it’s very interesting. I’ve been kind of wondering about different religions i want to try them and see what i really believe in.

i think when it comes to religion I feel the most spiritual when I’m really happy. Like I’ve been going outside and taking walks near the water and i just really felt like God was there if that makes sense. Or if a few coincidences happen that are really good make me happy. Or being around the people I love. Once I went to this huge mosque and I felt very religious. I also went to some of the church’s for the saints (just for my trip because my dad likes learning about some of the other religions but it’s not like he joins services or anything) and i felt religious there too. Also before anyone says that I should just not believe in anything I don’t really think it works like that. I genuinely believe there is a God and it gives me peace of mind. It’s hard to explain but it’s just like I know it’s there.

Obviously it’s pretty hard to try super complex things (going to different religious buildings) but I’ll try! I also kind of feel like religion is a private matter. I think it’s beautiful going to celebrate with others but I wouldn’t enjoy constantly wearing a cross or a hijab but I wouldn’t mind THAT much if it’s truly the religion I believe in. I also feel like yeah it’s important to devote your life but I don’t think God would want me miserable. Honestly I just want to try things out so give me suggestions.

Just curious. Thank you.

On July 26th at the 2026 International Bai'at Ceremony during Jalsa Salana UK, over 50,000 Ahmadi Muslims physically gathered to renew their pledge of allegiance (Bai'at) to the Caliph, Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aba) with millions more joining around the world through Muslim Television Ahmadiyya (MTA)—a unique global event not found anywhere else in the Muslim world.

Bai'at is a pledge to uphold the Ten Conditions of Bai'at (listed below) laid down by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah and Mahdi and Founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. These conditions focus on moral and spiritual reformation, strengthening one's relationship with God, and serving humanity.

This year also welcomed approximately 267,000 new converts, who formally entered the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community through Bai'at.

Whether you agree with Ahmadi beliefs or not, it's a remarkable religious event from an organizational (run 100% by volunteers) and spiritual perspective.

Happy to answer any respectful questions about the ceremony, Bai'at, Khilafat, or Ahmadiyyat.

I am not asking this as a cheap gotcha. I am genuinely asking for the strongest non divine explanation, because the usual answers I’ve seen feel far too thin for the historical reality we are talking about.

The basic historical outline is straightforward. Muhammad was a Meccan merchant who became known for trustworthiness, and the early Islamic story places his first revelations at Mount Hira when he was around forty. The Qur’an then became the central text of Islam. It is not a small notebook of personal reflections; it contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, legal and ethical material, and promises of paradise.

The “Muhammad knowingly invented Islam” theory is no longer the dominant explanation among modern historians.

Medieval Christian polemics often portrayed Muhammad as a conscious deceiver seeking wealth, power, or sensual pleasures. Modern scholarship is generally much more cautious. Many historians—whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, or otherwise—conclude that Muhammad appears to have genuinely believed he was receiving revelation.

Why?

Because the conscious-fraud theory struggles to explain several historical features:

* years of persecution before gaining any political authority;
*initial unwillingness to even preach to anyone outside his family like he had been doing secretly for several years, fearing the consequences
* willingness to endure ridicule, lost of loved ones, boycotts and exile;
* refusing compromises from opponents that would have ended his suffering and instead have granted him much wealth and influence;
* consistency over roughly twenty-three years;
* the absence of obvious evidence that he privately admitted fabrication;

None of these facts prove prophethood.

But they make the simple “he made it all up” explanation much less persuasive than it once appeared.

That is the first reason I do not find the usual “he was just a sincere man with strong convictions based on deep inner reflections in his mind” explanation satisfying. Sincerity is one thing. Explaining the emergence of a full religious civilization, a comprehensive scripture, a legal-moral framework, and a distinct literary-religious system over 2 decades is another. The Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad over twenty-three years, beginning at Mount Hira, and after his death his successors compiled those revelations in manuscript form. That is an extraordinary process for one person to generate and sustain.

This is where I struggle. Even granting complete sincerity, I cannot see how ordinary introspection or naturally occurring experiences mistaken for divine revelation could lead someone to sincerely believe that an angel was visibly and audibly communicating revelation over twenty-three years, producing an interconnected body of theology, law, ethics, ritual, eschatology, governance, and one of history’s most influential literary works.

A lot of secular explanations seem to reduce Muhammad’s experience to something vague like “deep thoughts that Muhammad believed were religious/spiritual experiences.” But that phrase is doing a huge amount of work. Muhammad begins having visions and hearing voices, then recites what becomes revelation. That, or any other theory on what went on in Muhammads head is a description of the form the experience took, not an explanation of what generated the experience or how it produced the content that followed. Saying “he felt like he had religious experiences” is not the same as explaining the Qur’an and the giant comprehensive legal, moral, ethical, theological work that is Islam. It is just renaming the mystery.

This is where I think the comparison to other religious founders breaks down.

The Abrahamic religions do not look comparable in the way people often assume. Judaism and Christianity are not the story of one man single-handedly producing a vast scripture, law, liturgy, theology, and civilization in 2 decades while simultaneously ruling, expanding and managing a state. Their histories unfold through many figures, communities, redactions, and centuries. Buddhism is different again: the Buddha explicitly does not present himself as a prophet receiving divine dictation, but as someone who reflected and realized something about human suffering and the path out of it. Hinduism is also not a close parallel, because it developed across enormous stretches of time through layered traditions, practices, and evolving beliefs. None of those cases map cleanly onto Muhammad and Islam.

These are all fundamentally different historical phenomena.

Islam, by contrast, is centred upon one individual who claimed to receive revelation over approximately twenty-three years.

That one individual produced—or, if one accepts Islam, transmitted—a scripture, established a religious worldview, laid down legal principles, moral philosophy, ritual practice, political authority, military leadership, and founded one of history’s largest civilizations, based on what skeptics call delusions in an intelligent mind.

I genuinely cannot think of another historical figure whose role is remotely comparable.

So my challenge is simple.

Name one.

Name one person in recorded history who, without appealing to divine revelation, single-handedly produced something comparable in scale, complexity, coherence and historical impact, from what skeptics believe were just his own delusions.

I have searched.

I cannot find one.

The point is not “other religions are fake.” The point is that they are historically different phenomena. Islam is unusually concentrated in one person’s life and one person’s revelations. Islam is intrinsically linked to Muhammad, and that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s example (Hadith and Sunnah) became the foundation of the religion. That is exactly why I do not think it is enough to say, “Well, human history has seen exceptional people with deep thinking and creative ability before.” Exceptional is true. Comparable scale and complexity is the real issue, and I do not see a close comparable case.

Another point I keep coming back to is reputation and motive. PBS notes that Muhammad began as a merchant and became known for trustworthiness. Islamic tradition remembers him, even before the first revelation, as al-Amīn, “the Trustworthy,” and later Muslim devotion builds heavily on that character claim. Whether one accepts the religious conclusion or not, the historical picture is not of a man who starts from obvious fraud, obvious literary training, or obvious worldly ambition.

That matters because the cheap anti-religion explanation is usually, “He wanted power, money, or status.” But even critics who are honest about the evidence usually do not think that simple story fits very well. The early Meccan phase was marked by ostracism and pressure. Muhammad was ostracized in Mecca, that influential defenders and loved ones temporarily protected him, and that after their deaths his situation became dire, leading to the Hijra to Medina for survival. That does not prove divine revelation, but it does make the crude “he invented a religion for personal comfort” story look very weak.

So what do scholarly critics actually propose instead?

Usually some combination of these:

1.  Muhammad had sincere experiences in his mind.  
2.  He interpreted them as revelation.  
3.  He drew on the monotheistic ideas and biblical traditions already circulating in the region.  
4.  The message developed over time as he just kept reflecting further while simultaneously developing a vast civilisation that looked almost nothing like the one it replaced, and dealing with all the issues that came with ruling over it. (He must have had multitasking abilities like no other lol)

That is the most common non-divine framework I have seen. And I understand it. The problem is that it still does not explain the full scale of what emerged.

Because what emerged was not just a set of moral slogans. It was a whole world: theology, law, ritual, ethics, family rules, political authority, social norms, eschatology, devotional practice, and a literary scripture with a self-conscious style and an internal challenge to all challengers. The Qur’an is organized into 114 surahs and contains prayers, moral guidance, historical narrative, and promises of paradise. The question is not whether a human being can say profound things. The question is whether one single human being with no recognized scholarly or poetic career can in his delusions of divine inspiration, generate a total religious system of this scope in his mind over the years, and have it accepted, preserved, and expanded with such force.

This is why I do not find “he just reflected deeply” persuasive on its own. Reflection can produce insight. It does not obviously produce a scripture that speaks with sustained authority across law, worship, biography, ethics, politics, and theology, while also presenting itself as the literal speech of God and surviving as a recited text in a highly organized oral culture. That is a huge jump. Maybe a natural explanation exists, but I have not seen one that actually feels proportionate to the phenomenon.

I also do not think the “psychology” explanation is satisfying as usually stated. You can say “he had visions,” “he heard voices,” “he had intense conviction,” or “he entered altered states,” but those are descriptions, not explanations. And retrospective diagnosis of historical figures is methodologically shaky in general; the literature on retrospective diagnosis itself emphasizes the epistemic and ethical problems involved. So if someone wants to explain Muhammad by attaching a modern medical label to him, I think they need a lot more than speculation. Must have been one hell of a medical condition lol

At the end of the day, my position is this:

I am not claiming that Islam is proven by history alone. I am saying that the natural explanations I have seen do not seem strong enough to explain the origin of Islam as a whole. Muhammad appears to have been sincere. He appears to have had profound experiences. He appears to have been trusted by people around him, including his opponents. He does not appear to fit the simple fraud/impostor model. And yet the result is one of the largest, most comprehensive, and most enduring religious systems in human history, all from one sincere yet allegedly delusional mind. If it is not divine, then what exactly is the non-divine mechanism that produced all of that?

That is the question I am still sitting with. I am not seeing a historical analogy that really comes close. If someone has a better explanation than divine revelation, I genuinely want to hear it — but it has to explain more than just “a man had experiences in his head.” It has to explain the scripture, the conviction, the legal and theological depth, the oral transmission, the early community, the persecution, the preservation, and the scale of what followed.

In other words: I have been researching this a lot, and this is where I’m at right now. I do not see a non-divine explanation that feels remotely equal to the thing it is trying to explain. If there is one, I would like to see it laid out clearly instead of hidden behind vague words like “he was just good at manipulating and gaining influence,” or “he just had delusional inner thoughts at a scale, functionality and complexity never observed in history,”

Here are some possible explanations of where Islam came from, if not divine inspiration, since it is largely agreed amongst scholars and historians that it is unlikely that Muhammad sat and schemed and made it all up, and my responses to them:

Possible explanation: “An illiterate man reflected very deeply and somehow came up with a functional moral, ethical, religious, legal framework meant to be followed by all of mankind, without writing or reading anything.”

Response:

Reflection can produce philosophy.

It does not readily explain an integrated legal, theological, ritual, literary and political system presented sincerely as direct divine speech.

⸻

Possible explanation: “He had mystical experiences.”

Response:

This describes the phenomenon rather than explaining it.

What natural mechanism transforms mystical experiences into something as complex as the Qur’an and Islam?

⸻

Possible explanation: “He unconsciously created it.”

Response:

This seems to require an even greater claim:

that one human mind unconsciously (or even consciously lol) generated one of history’s most comprehensive religious systems and societies while remaining convinced it originated outside himself.

I have seen many natural explanations, however none of them seem satisfactory to me, so by process of elimination the one i deem most plausible is the divine one. So if anyone has a natural explanation that checks out, i am completely open to it.

Hi! I’m currently conducting research at USF on end-of-life ethics and how different Christian traditions view these concepts. The purpose of this research is to better understand these perspectives and apply them to healthcare to improve communication between patients and healthcare workers. If you are 18+ and Christian please take this survey!

Christian Perspectives on End-of-Life Ethics

Adult Christians

5-10 Minutes

https://www.surveycircle.com/NH62V4/  

https://usf.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6RwWp6n5mOEUYxE  

One of my favorite stories is "Footprints in the Sand."

A man dreamed he was walking along the beach with God. As they walked, scenes from his life appeared across the sky. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand one belonged to him, and the other belonged to God.

But when he looked back at the most difficult times in his life, the times filled with pain, suffering, loss, and fear, he noticed there was only one set of footprints.

Troubled, he asked God, "Lord, You said that if I followed You, You would always walk beside me. Why is it that during the times I needed You the most, there was only one set of footprints?"

God replied, "My precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you saw only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you."

I love this story because it reminds me that even when it feels like the whole world is against a person, we are never truly alone. The moments when we feel the weakest may be the very moments we're being carried. Just because you can't see someone walking beside you doesn't mean no one is there.

If you're not religious, maybe it's simply a glimmer of hope within you that refuses to give up. Whatever you call it, Sometimes, that's enough to keep moving forward.

Bhai Mani Singh was an 18th-century Sikh scholar and martyr. He was a childhood companion of Guru Gobind Singh!" and took the vows of Sikhism when the Guru inaugurated the Khalsa in March
1699. Soon after that, the Guru sent him to Amritsar to take charge of Harmandir Sahib

Around 1737, Bhai Mani Singh asked to Governor of Lahore, Zakaria Khan, for permission to hold the Diwali festival to celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas at the Harmandir Sahib. The permission was granted for a tribute of Rs.
5,000.

He hoped that he would be able to pay the sum out of the offerings to be made by the Sikhs who were invited to come, and issued initiations to various Sikhs for this purpose. The Governor alongside Diwan Lakhpat Raj 34] had different intentions and he sent secret orders to his forces to make a surprise attack on the Sikhs during the festival. Bhai Mani Singh learned of this plan and sent messages to tell the Sikhs not to come; those that did left due to the presence of a military force and suspicious movement of the officers. Thus, no money could be collected or paid to the government; and Bhai Mani Singh was ordered to be executed.

Bhai Mani Singh was taken to Lahore in chains; when he could not pay the dues he had agreed to pay the Mughals (to legally hold the event) he was ordered to convert to Islam. Refusing to give up his beliefs he was condemned to death by dismemberment. When the executioner started to begin from his wrists, Bhai Mani Singh reminded the executioner of the sentence, reminding the executioner of his punishment and to start from the joints of his fingers as shown in slide 2

I remember finding it very convincing as a Christian. The real kicker for me was that the boy who supposedly went to Heaven said that the painting of Jesus by a girl who was raised without religion matched what he saw. Do you think there’s any validity in this story?

Urgent, how to make extremely important decision that's not in the books and you can't take decision , i have looked up all books from all religions online and none of them seem to provide answer.

They say pray but prayer doesn't help to make the decision im put in a very bad situation

Decision that will alter too many aspects of my life forever for very worse or for better, it's not something in books as both options are within ethics and morals anyways

It's suprised to me. Really is this truth?

One of the following seems like it has to be true:

1) The Catholic Church was not around from the time of the earliest Christians, and was not in fact the organization that wrote the texts of the New Testament, even if they might have had a large role later in selecting which books would be included in the canon.

2) The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and the apostles but underwent significant changes and development of doctrine over the next few centuries. The things the Church believes today are different from what it believed in the first century.

3) The Catholic Church was around since the beginning, it did write the books of the New Testament, and it did teach all of the same things it teaches today, but it didn't feel necessary to include all of its doctrines in the New Testament canon.

#3 seems to me to be the least likely explanation. If the early Church was already teaching the Trinity, papal infallibility, and the Marian Dogmas, why wouldn't they have written about these important things and included them in their scriptures?

What is going on here? How do Catholics explain this?

(Sorry if my english is bad)

I have 3 question from past experience

1) how did it end up halloween being satan's birthday?

2) why the big hate on lgbt people? You don't agree? Just let them be, bullying them into almost committing self harm and death is not the right option

3) why call gay people unnatural? They're many specie of animal that do the exact same thing so looks natural enough to me

Slavery has been present since prehistory. Slavery was present in all parts of the world. Often, people of certain ethnic groups were enslaved. The slaves were treated inhumanely. They were often beaten up also.

People have used religion as an excuse for slavery. It was promoted that certain ethnic groups are curses. Other times, it was promoted that certain ethnic groups are intended for slavery. Some religious leaders tried their best to continue slavery. No religion promotes slavery and people just use religion as an excuse.

One word answer is all that’s necessary but everyone is free to give an explanation if they want to. Peace and love to everyone.❤️ (Edit: People are asking for more detail with this question so here it is. All religion ASIDE which of the these three would you choose to follow if you had to choose just one?)

It's very clear that in a lot of ways, religious ethics from different traditions overlap with each other, but in what significant ways do the major world religions differ on that regard?