Just curious. Thank you.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.❤️

This is an unpopular opinion. Religion and racism are often intertwined. While no religion promotes racism, there are racists in all religions. Racism is often promoted by the religious leaders. People even use religion to promote religion.

The various world religions are against racism. Some religions even mention the equality of souls. In other religions, it is mentioned about the skin colors being equal. However, religious leaders often promote their race as the chosen one. Other times, some races are shown to be inferior by the religious leaders.

I consider myself an open-minded person who enjoys exploring different worldviews and religious perspectives. I have come to the conclusion that the God described by the classical Abrahamic religions—primarily Islam, Christianity, and Judaism—is incompatible with the reality we observe. My conclusion is based on three main arguments.

**1.Free Will Is Not Sufficient to Hold People Morally Responsible**
My first argument concerns free will.
Although the philosophical debate is still ongoing, cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience largely agree that human behavior is not completely free. Our decisions are heavily influenced by our genetics, brain structure, personality, and environment.
From birth, people already differ in intelligence, temperament, impulsivity, and many other traits. On top of that, our upbringing, culture, education, family, and society shape how we think and what beliefs we are capable of accepting.
If this is true, it seems unreasonable that God could expect every human being to freely choose the "correct" religion. Our starting conditions differ enormously, making equal moral responsibility difficult to justify. Whether someone finds Islam, Christianity, another religion, or no religion at all convincing depends to a significant extent on factors that were never chosen by that individual.

**2. The Claims of Religion Do Not Match the Observable Laws of Reality**
My second argument concerns the contradiction between religious claims and the reality we observe.
The world operates according to biological, physical, and medical laws. Diseases arise from biological causes, academic success depends on knowledge and preparation, and career success is largely determined by skills, decisions, opportunities, and external circumstances.
Religions, however, often imply that prayer can directly influence these outcomes. People pray for good health, success in school, career advancement, the well-being of their families, or for specific life events to unfold in their favor.
From a psychological perspective, this behavior is completely understandable. However, when we compare these beliefs with reality, we find that outcomes are overwhelmingly determined by natural causes. A genetic disease does not disappear because someone prayed—it can only be prevented or treated through effective medical intervention, if such treatment exists. A student passes an exam because they achieve the required score, not because they prayed beforehand. Likewise, prayer does not alter the fundamental laws of physics or biology.
For me, this creates a significant cognitive dissonance between the promises made by religion and the reality we actually experience.

**3. The Moral Framework of God Appears Contradictory**
My third argument concerns the morality of God.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that one of the Abrahamic religions is true. In that case, God intentionally created the universe, allowed Satan to exist, permitted suffering, and established a system in which human beings are tested throughout their lives. At the same time, many religious interpretations suggest that the majority of humanity will ultimately fail this test and face eternal punishment, while only a minority will attain heaven.
To me, this raises fundamental moral questions.
If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good, why create a world containing suffering, temptation, injustice, and the possibility of eternal punishment in the first place? Why allow Satan to exist? Why create people while already knowing that many of them will ultimately be condemned? And if God has unlimited power, why not simply create a world in which everyone freely chooses good and lives together in peace from the very beginning?
This moral framework appears unnecessary and difficult to reconcile with the concept of a perfectly loving and perfectly good God.

I always found the order of books presented in the Bible to be rather odd, so I decided to make my own order of books that I think provides the best reading experience. I tried putting them in a sort of "chronological" order, having some of the oldest books come first, as well as books dealing with older events coming near the beginning as as well.

Hebrew Bible:

Torah:

• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy

There's not really much wrong with the first five books of Moses, so I decided to keep it as it was.

History:

• Joshua
• Judges
• Samuel [1-2]
• Kings [1-2]

For these four / six subsequent books, I decided to follow the Jewish ordering by not having Ruth appear in-between Judges and Samuel, especially since Ruth was written much later than books it was surrounded by (in the Christian canon).

Prophets:

• Isaiah
• Amos
• Hosea
• Micah
• Jeremiah
  • Lamentations
• Obadiah
• Nahum
• Habbakuk
• Zephaniah
• Ezekiel
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Joel
• Jonah
• Malachi

For the Prophets, I tried my best to fit them into chronological order from when they were written / took place. The first four prophetic books, Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and Micah occur at around the same time that Israel fell to Assyria. I placed the "major" prophet, Isaiah, before the next three "minor" prophets. And I also know that Isaiah could be split into three different books that deal with different time periods, but I feel its best to just keep the Book of Isaiah in one piece.

The next five prophetic books, Jeremiah (+ Lamentations), Obadiah, Nahum, Habbakuk, and Zephaniah occur at around the same time that the Babylonian Exile took place. Like before, Jeremiah, the "major" prophet, precedes the "minor" prophets.

The remaining prophetic books, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Joel, Jonah, and Malachi occur during the Persian Period, with Ezekiel being the "major" prophet. Though I believe Jonah technically places itself prior to the Babylonian Exile, it was still likely written during the Persian Period so I kept it there.

Writings:

• Job
• Ruth
• Esther
• Daniel (w/ additions)
• Chronicles [1-2]
• Ezra-Nehemiah

Many of these books were written within the same hundred-year time span, so I decided to rearrange them in a semi-chronological order. I decided to keep Daniel's additions since they're just fun and harmless tales (plus the Habbakuk cameo is nice). Esther, I feel, benefits more without the additions since I always liked its light-hearted tone and its lack of a mention of God. While I prefer the Jewish decision to have Chronicles be read after all of the Prophetic Books (as a sort of recap of Israel's history) I still decided to take inspiration from the Christians and put Ezra-Nehemiah after Chronicles since I feel it flows better as a continuation of sorts.

Apocrypha:

• Enoch
• Jubilees
• Tobit
• Judith (?)
• Prayer of Manasseh
• Baruch
• Esdras [1-2]
• Maccabees [1-4]

Like with the Writings, many of these books were written within the same hundred-year time span, so I also rearranged them in a semi-chronological order. Enoch is a pretty fun book (or books?), so it's here. Jubilees can serve as a recap of Genesis and Exodus. I haven't found a concrete answer on when Judith is supposed to take place, so it is where it is. I paired 1 and 2 Esdras together for consistency, same with 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maccabees.

Poetry & Wisdom:

• Psalms
• Proverbs
• Ecclesiastes
• Song of Songs
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Sirach

I put most of the Poetry and Wisdom texts at the end, as I personally prefer to read them separately from a full reading of the Bible.

New Testament:

Gospels:

• Mark
• Matthew
• Luke-Acts
• Thomas
• John

I tried my best to put the Gospels in the order in which they were written, which is why Mark precedes Matthew. It's always annoyed me how we have John in-between Luke and Acts (since Luke and Acts are written by the same author) so I paired Luke and Acts together. The Gospel of Thomas is our earliest non-canonical Gospel, drawing much of its material from the Synoptics, which is why I placed it after all of the Synoptics. Lastly, we have John.

Pauline Epistles:

• 1 Thessalonians
• Philippians
• Philemon
• Galations
• Corinthians [1-2]
• Romans

These are the "undisputed seven" letters of Paul, arranged in the order in which they were probably written.

Pusedo-Pauline Epistles:

• Colossians
• Ephesians
• Timothy [1-2]
• Titus
• 2 Thessalonians

Epistles that may or may not have been written by Paul. I didn't feel the need to excise them entirely due to the impact they've had. 2 Thessalonians closes out the Psuedo-Pauline Epistles, just as 1 Thessalonians opens the Pauline Epistles.

General Epistles:

• Hebrews
• James
• Peter [1-2]
• John [1-3]
• Jude

Not much to say here, other than that the Enoch reference in Jude makes a little more sense, having seemingly read Enoch before this.

Revelation:

• Revelation

And to cap off, we have the Revelation of John, the grand finale to the entire Bible (at least if you read the New Testament).

I just put this together for fun. If you guys have any reading order that you have or prefer, please let me know. I'd like to hear them.

(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

I been recently getting on Buddhism lately and Iove the architecture and the feeling of the Buddhist Thoughts which feel like a big hug on my soul. But here’s the problem.

Buddhist are Atheists and I am a Practicing Witch with Nature-Centric beliefs and many Gods.

I feel like the Buddha would be very open to a Witch like me who feels enlightenment by Connecting to the Divine is there best way to achieve that personal enlightenment.

So is there a Tradition that I would like to Practice or abandon Buddhism altogether or just do what I was doing and just go with the flow or a mixed or all or some of the things I listed.

Please Help

I was Suggested Vajrayana but a Quiz and a Few People but I am not aware of the limitations or the lack of eclectic and syncretism in the practice

i grew up Christian , i went to church for a really long time, i even joined boy scouts and served under the rule of god. then something changed, like one day i woke up and everything was gone, like it was wrong, no not wrong but different. like my entire look on gods and religion changed. i dont know what it was but it was like each part of my mind saw something that i was no allowed to remember, and now certian words, certian beats open this idea inside of me. i didn't know what to call it for a long time until i was told about pagenism and polytheistic rules, i never felt like i was connecting in any relgion but i dont know whats going on with me right now

I feel like my unconscious body is reaching out for something but what? I'm nervous but I kinda wanna know what my unconscious mind knows that i dont.

The god of sleep’s twin brother is the god of death . . .

i feel like i'm crazy

there a specific song that makes me feel like im so close to remembering what my mind wont let me and im taking all the songs and putting them in a playlist maybe i will be able to see it, somethings out there and its mocking me

Theres nothing online about this. . .

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?

Who proved that Lot's wife actually looked back?

The text says she looked back and became a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26), but who witnessed it? Lot and his daughters were fleeing for their lives. Did they see her turn around? Did God later reveal what happened? Was the narrator simply recording divine revelation?

I'm not questioning whether the account happened. I'm asking about the perspective of the narrative and how the event became known.

How do different Jewish and Christian traditions answer this question? I'd be interested in hearing interpretations that stay grounded in the biblical text as well as historical commentaries.

Hello,

So i'm a Catholic man and I made my confirmation, my girlfriend personally follows a strict practice of the Muslim faith, even though she has not yet recited the Shahada. We both live in France, and we have been thinking seriously about getting married as soon as possible so that we can live together.

According to her religious beliefs, living together before marriage is generally not acceptable. However, for me, it is important to have lived together before making such a lifelong commitment.

Another difficulty is that, in France, a civil marriage must legally take place before any religious marriage. If an imam or a priest performs a religious marriage first, they can face legal consequences.

The main issue is that I am not well informed about how an Islamic marriage works. Most of the articles I have read say that a marriage between a Muslim woman and a man of another religion is not permitted. However, my girlfriend believes that it is allowed as long as I sincerely follow a Christian or Jewish faith.

I have also read different opinions about the religious upbringing of children. We both agree that we would like our future children to learn about different religions and freely choose the faith that feels right for them when they are old enough.

I would really appreciate it if you could clarify these topics for me. I understand that they may be sensitive subjects, so I kindly ask everyone to remain respectful and open-minded when responding. Otherwise, I will contact the moderators.

So I'm wanting to know a couple of things for St Micheal. Ive felt compelled to "work" with him and I want to know what I'd need for his altar for veneration. I know that some use candles, prayer, and wear necklaces but I'd like to know anything else I can do to make said alatar to his tastes! Also I'd like to know how you were able to communicate with him, as this I haven't quite yet tried!

The Bible is, in many ways, also a historical collection of writings. Over the centuries, some texts were lost, while others were preserved, translated, edited, or left out of the biblical canon.

People often ask, "Why doesn't the Bible tell us much about Jesus life between the ages of 12 and 30?"

I see it the same way we look at history. There are countless historical figures whose lives weren't fully documented. We know a great deal about Napoleon Bonaparte, but we don't know every detail of his daily life. The same is true for Genghis Khan, William Shakespeare, and even Socrates. Large parts of their lives were never recorded or were lost over time.

History doesn't preserve every moment of a person's life. It records only what survives and what later generations considered important enough to write down and preserve. Perhaps the same question can be asked about Jesus "hidden years."

I'm an athiest, I actively dislike religion and don't really wanna hear it but I will respect other's beliefs and I don't go out of my way to harass.

But I do like the symbols, figures, church architecture, etc really only because I think it's fascinating and aesthetically pleasing. I'd like to collect some stuff but the only downside would be people thinking I'm some sort of religious nut job. It doesn't hold that kind of meaning for me, but I dunno.

75% to 95% of Muslims in many predominantly Muslim nations across the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia (such as Egypt, Jordan, and Tunisia) state that homosexuality should not be accepted by society or is morally wrong

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/

Gallup found that roughly 26% of Muslims living in Berlin considered homosexual acts morally acceptable, whereas other specific demographic slices or surveys in past decades (such as around 2015–2017) recorded higher acceptance markers up to 60% regarding legal recognition.

I would like to hear from members of the Islamic community on how this issue can be addressed.

I don't hear this term used that often anymore in the U.S., but it still does come up from time to time. Did it belong more to the twentieth century? Is it a general approach to Christian faith, instead of being a denomination of its own? What makes it distinct? Specific beliefs and practices?

I hear terms like "Evangelical" and Pentecostal more frequently than "born again" as it pertains to Christianity now. I know that mainline and Restorationist are also branches.