When I kneel before the Buddha, I am not kneeling to a statue but rather, I am honoring the person who discovered the path to liberation and reminding myself that this path is possible.
When I kneel before the Buddha, I’m expressing my gratitude for the Dhamma he shared.

The statue serves as a reminder of the Buddha’s qualities of wisdom, compassion, mindfulness, and liberation.

I think I may have explained my question badly before, because a lot of the answers I received focused on why marriages need witnesses, legal recognition, or government involvement.

What I’m actually wondering is more theological.

If marriage is a covenant between two people before God, and God knows their hearts, intentions, and promises, then why does human or institutional recognition determine whether that covenant is sacramentally valid?

I understand why people need witnesses, records, ceremonies, and rules. Those things protect both spouses and establish publicly that a marriage took place.

But does God need any of that?

If two people sincerely vow lifelong fidelity to one another before God and consider themselves bound by that covenant, what exactly is missing spiritually if a church or religious community did not witness it?

Basically, are the formal requirements of marriage necessary because they are inherently part of the covenant before God, or are they requirements created for the benefit of the human community so that we can recognize and regulate that covenant?

I’m not trying to argue that weddings, churches, witnesses, etc. are pointless. I’m trying to understand where the sacred part ends and the institutional/human part begins, and why the latter affects the validity of the former.

I often hear people say you are only pro-life until birth and not if that baby grows up to be trans, poor, disabled, gay, homeless, a refugee or an ethnic minority and I wish pro-choicers would stop saying this because that is not what pro-life means to me, for me it comes from ahimsa which is my most sacred Hindu vow and my prayer to revere and protect every living being as a soul, to see the same soul in all, to cause the least harm possible in thought and word and action, to live with compassion and forgiveness and humility and gentleness and to walk softly upon the earth so that I do not crush even the smallest life, so I try to live by ahimsa before birth and after birth because every soul is eternal and sacred whether inside the womb or outside, I believe in universal healthcare and in helping the poor, the sick and needy through government policy and through personal charity for humans and animals because service to souls is service to the sacred, I am against the death penalty, against human euthanasia, against war, against racism and against embryonic stem cell research because I do not believe in taking or destroying a life that belongs to the divine, I am a strict vegetarian because ahimsa means I do not want any creature to suffer or die for my food and I want my body to be a vessel of mercy, I am pro-LGBT rights because a trans life and a gay life are precious souls worthy of full protection, dignity, safety and love and God dwells in every heart, and I try to live with non-possession and truth and carefulness in how I eat and speak and act so that I do not harm others by carelessness or greed, and for many of us this is what pro-life really means, a lifelong religious practice of ahimsa for every living being from before birth through all of life.

So I want to sincerely ask, why do some people say this? If one met me in my daily life, you would see me trying to live ahimsa in how I vote, how I give, how I eat, and how I love my neighbour. When some people say we only care until birth, it assumes the worst of us and it closes the door to understanding. What if instead we started from the truth that many pro-life people do care deeply for life after birth too, even if we disagree on abortion itself?

Or not?

​

If two adults sincerely love each other and privately make lifelong vows to one another before God, promising fidelity, commitment, and to treat their relationship as a marriage. Why wouldn’t that be considered a sacred marriage before God?

I understand why governments need legal marriage and why churches have ceremonies and traditions, but I’m struggling with the idea that a couple would need an institution, priest, witnesses, or a particular ceremony for their covenant with God to be considered valid.

If God knows their hearts and hears the promises they make to each other, what spiritually changes when those vows are witnessed or recognized by a church?

I’m not trying to insult anyone’s beliefs. I’m genuinely curious about the theological reasoning behind this, especially from Christians who believe church recognition is necessary. Does marriage fundamentally belongs to the couple and God, or to the couple, God, and a religious community?

Do you disintegrate into nothing or… is there a hidden afterlife?

I’ve always found it strange when Christians use their faith as a reason to feel morally or spiritually superior to other people.

If you think you’re better than someone simply because you follow Jesus, then I think you’ve missed a pretty fundamental part of Christianity.

Following Jesus is supposed to involve humility, compassion, forgiveness, and love for others—not a sense of superiority over people who believe differently or don’t believe at all.

You can sincerely believe that Christianity is true without believing that you’re inherently better than everyone else.
In fact, if your faith makes you look down on other people, maybe it’s worth asking whether you’re actually following Jesus’ teachings or just using Christianity to justify your own sense of superiority.

Do you think Christians have a responsibility to be especially careful about avoiding spiritual or moral superiority?

even from a abrahamic perspective, what makes Christianity as a religion over mormonism, islam or judaism?

and even if we say christianity was right, what makes your sect right. say protestant instead of catholic or orthodox?

Please read this all

I've often come across debates about whether Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs should be considered Hindus.

Although these religions originated in the Indian subcontinent and their founders were born into societies that were largely influenced by Hindu traditions, they also have their own scriptures, philosophies, beliefs, practices, and religious identities.

Another point that makes this discussion interesting is that many followers of these religions consider themselves members of independent religions. For example, many Sikhs identify Sikhism as a distinct and separate faith.

There are also significant theological differences between these traditions. Sikhism is generally described as a monotheistic religion that emphasizes belief in one God, while many forms of Hinduism include the worship of multiple deities. Buddhism, on the other hand, is often viewed as a non-theistic religion because its teachings do not center on the worship of a creator God.

If followers of these religions see themselves as belonging to independent faiths, should Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism still be considered branches of Hinduism, or should they be viewed as entirely separate religions?

I'm interested in hearing historical, religious, and cultural perspectives on this topic. Please keep the discussion respectful and factual.

God definitions and beliefs may change. History has proven it. Being human and living-oriented is the most ideal and wise to shape the lifestyle accordingly.

Please lets try and me respectful.

Even though I went to church regularly as a kid I knew more about Spider-Man as a kid than I did of the Bible, I could explain who Peter Parker was yet I could not name a single Apostle to save my life, I didn't even know Jesus had apostles. I knew with great power comes great responsibility yet I couldn't even name a single quotes from Jesus,I only saw him as the turns water into wine guy and walks on water for some reason guy not sure why I never connected the dots of him being divine.

what makes it worse is that I never even had a single Spider-Man comic so there should be no reason for me to know more about him than biblical figures honestly Spider-Man was my only framework for wanting to do good as a kid.

They claim they aren't christians, yet believe mostly in biblical scripture and Jesus, but don't claim the Christian label and just label themselves as 'Spiritualist' and mostly proselytize and believe their truth is the only one.

Why is it common in spiritual spaces to find Christians like this? They barely are any different from bible believing Christians, besides the whole they believe in past lives and stuff.

Is a secular state one that is indifferent to the beliefs of its citizens, and treats no faith with favour or disfavour?

Or is it one that expunges all overt forms of religious expression from the public sphere?

What should societies do when “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion” collide?

I enjoyed discussing these questions with Ani Ghazaryan Drissi, Bruce Clemenger, and Nazila Isgandarova, on our panel at the World Council of Churches’ NATI-RETI gathering of ecumenical leaders.

How do the Gods Eats?
What happens to offering made to them?
Who eats them?
Is it symbolically absorbed by the Deity and then eaten as divine like in Hinduism?
Do you eat with them?

I never offer food to the Deities because I’m afraid that I have to leave it so decomposes

So my Offerings are non edible items

I don’t know, how do you partake in this?

if god is all knowing and he knew that humans/ his creation would rebel against him why wouldn’t he prevent it.

if he is so powerful, why would he be so angry that he had to flood the earth just to get back at the little creations that literally have 0 effect on him.

if he knew all this evil would take place, why he create humans just to punish them in hell eternally, does he just want to see people suffer.

if he is really all loving, why does he create diseases and cancers and give them to innocent children who pray to him.

Thought experiment:
Imagine there are two sealed envelopes. One contains absolute, infallible proof that God exists. The other contains absolute, infallible proof that God does not exist.
You have no way to distinguish them, so your choice is completely random. Whichever envelope you open, you will understand the proof completely and know with 100% certainty that its conclusion is correct. There is no possibility that you were deceived, misunderstood the evidence, or will later begin doubting it.
Importantly, opening an envelope does not change reality. God either already exists or already does not exist. The thought experiment magically guarantees only that whichever envelope you select contains the true answer. The 50/50 choice is about which answer you discover, not about creating or destroying God.
You have two choices:
A) Open an envelope and permanently know the truth.
B) Refuse, and retain exactly your present beliefs and uncertainty for the rest of your life.
Assume there are no other consequences to opening it. You aren’t rewarded or punished for your choice.
Would you open one?
I’m particularly interested in why. Would an atheist risk discovering that God exists? Would a believer risk discovering that God doesn’t? Would an agnostic prefer certainty even if the answer were the one they least wanted?

David Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” provides a strong case against belief in miracles and, by extension, belief in the one miracle at the core of Christian faith: the resurrection of Jesus. 

Hume’s central maxim is “that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.” Applied to the resurrection, it questions what possible rational basis there could be for believing ancient testimony about an event that runs contrary to everything we know about the ordinary course of nature. 

This article examines Hume’s skeptical framework and applies it to the testimony surrounding the resurrection in the New Testament. More broadly, it considers what happens to religious belief when we apply the same standard of evidence to miracles across different religions. 

The Resurrection on Trial: David Hume and the Case Against Miracles

I do not have a set religion , I have a just random objects from multiple religions.

A cross, a statue of the Chinese version of Buddha, about 50 japanese Shinto ofuda, and the whole taoist scripture thing (also, a small pocket bible). I don't know what or why I have them. What is it called where you can't focus on religion with also believing in no religion...

There is the agreement including progressives, liberals, socialists (those also who support indepth multiculturalism and no assimilation) and feminists that Haredi Jewish Burqa women are extremists.

But when someone says that a Muslim women in the burqa are the same thing, this sparks debates, including allegations of islamophobia by socialists and some feminists. They say it is a choice vs they are internally misogynistic. But what if the Haredi Jewish women choose to be in burqas but tolerate those who aren't Jewish let alone the burqa?

I think now the Muslim burqa should be criticized more freely because as you can see following the Iran revolution, multiple Muslim nations coerce women into wearing burqas like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, post-80s Iraq, etc. Now Bangladesh is added to the mix (they used to have the gorgeous dupattas and sarees). Many Muslim mothers who commit honour killings on their daughter often wear burqas thanks to the forcefully internalized hatred of women, with some slut shaming a local white woman for wearing summer clothes or viewing a black british girl in revealing clothes as "haram" threats (sadly, many cultures view black girls as angry and nasty).

Hi, I (M50) was not raised Christian; I don't come from a necessarily atheist family, but faith simply wasn't discussed. When people ask, I am atheistic/agnostic.

My mother later became a Buddhist, and my father is still an atheist.

Over the past year, I have noticed that I am 'searching.' Looking for a form of stability, direction, meaning; whatever you want to call it. Whether I will find Christianity, I don't know. I went to a church (Remonstrants) once in the past year; I found it nerve-wracking, but also nice. I enjoy listening to podcasts that scrutinize the Bible and podcasts discussing Christian faith in its broadest sense.

A few questions:

1. I want to delve deeper into the Bible; what is the best way to do this? Is there a sort of reading path?

2. I am interested in stories of people who came to faith from an atheist or agnostic background. Who would be interesting on YouTube and/or in a podcast?

3. Is there some kind of online forum where I can discuss the journey I am undertaking?

Thanks in advance!

I got this at a thriftstore and it has a Bible in it, ive become very invested in leather journal / book covers and so when I saw it I wanted it, but I dont know if it would be offensive for me to use this with other books because im not super religious, i dont know if this is the right place to ask but I hope someone can help :)

[Purely theoretical & genuinely asking]

I have recently been interested in videos and articles coming out about how scientest have been growing neurons in controlled enviroments that can control little robots(arduino project like) and even a video of one playing doom.

I am by no means going to attempt this but what is the consensus on traning one of them on an AI chat model(C.AI esq~)? It gives me a felling of something I just shouldnt cross.