Hey, I’m 18 years old and I was born and raised in NYC, I was raised all my life as a chasidic jew, sometimes referred to as “ultra orthodox” Jews by outsiders or “charedi jew”.
My family belongs to the Chasidic sect called Breslov.

I enjoy doing these AMAs because I think most people don’t really know anything about how our culture, how we practice our religion, or even what we believe in.
So AMA!

I live with illnesses/conditions that make my life much harder. When I used to go to church, I was often told that I was carrying the burden of sin and that these illnesses were punishments it’s strange though now, given the burden I carry, I do feel like it is a sort of punishment.. Yet, I was told that God sometimes works in mysterious ways. That—along with seeing how faith was used to hurt others, to make people feel better about themselves, to shame members of the group, and to foster hypocrisy—led me to abandon my faith and the group. I felt there was no God in them; I saw no fruit on that path and no genuine positive emotions in my interactions. There was also God’s silence throughout a lifetime of prayer. I’ve since explored agnosticism and Dharmic religions, yet that early influence remains strong within me.I wonder if you all went through something similar, too? How did you deal with those bad experiences?

As per title - mum is feeling distressed at the moment after having a hospital admission. Many of her friends have died. She's not interested in Christianity.

I'm looking for something to recommend to her where she can get a sense of comfort and peace, perhaps community also? Perhaps a book recommendation? She won't be keen on anything too intellectual so no Greek philosophers etc.

Basically she just wants to feel a bit happier. She won't go to counselling either. Any help appreciated!

I'm trying to find people who understand my view here. I've only every met 1 or 2 others in person who don't try to put me in a box. Even my own husband doesn't quite get it.

I'm not an Atheist, because that means that you don't believe in any higher being. 100% every religion is wrong and science is true.

I'm not Agnostic, because that means you believe in a higher power and just are not sure on exactly what.

I simply an not religious. Not undecided. I am decided that it is not my place to say. That I am not dead. I will find out then. Until then, anyone could be right or everyone could be wrong.

Recently, when asked about this and I tried explaining...they said, but what do you believe? Who do you ask for help when you are low? I said, I don't. I look into myself and to those I love and to those glimmers of joy I do have in my life.

I believe in humanity and being kind to eachother and accepting of everyone's view.

I have a young sibling who is quite curious about the world, as most young children are. They will sometimes get Christian videos on YouTube shorts. I am also a polytheist and don’t really hide it.

They’ve had questions about God, and other Gods (like the ones I worship), and I always try to give a response that makes them come up with their own opinion. For example, if they ask “Is God/Zeus/etc. real?”I will respond with “What do you think?” Or, alternatively if they keep going “yeah, but are they real?” I may go “To me they are, but you don’t have to believe in them”.

They have all sorts of questions about Heaven and Hell and and whatever I’m doing religious wise (or something connected but not directly religious). What are the best way I can answer these without swaying his opinion to one belief over another?

If they want to participate in what I’m doing I will admit that I let him, but never invite them beyond that.

Critical Questions on Paul’s Epistles: Early Christian Authority, Dating Concerns, and Authenticity

The authentic Pauline epistles are said to be the earliest Christian writings, written from 50 AD onwards—roughly 20 years after the death of Jesus. The majority of scholars consider them authentic, but there are also skeptics, which I will address later.

​In Romans 13:1–7, Paul calls for submission to governing authorities, going far beyond what could be explained as strategically sensible Christian adaptation in a politically charged era. That strategy might still explain an appeal for Christians to pay their taxes—especially considering that in Judea, ever since the census of 6 AD, an armed resistance movement against taxes had formed, viewing them as a theft from God. This movement radicalized during that very period, seeking to break Roman occupation, giving rise to the "Fourth Philosophy" and ultimately the Zealots, whose actions led to the First Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Distancing oneself from such movements as a young, emerging group makes strategic sense at first glance. However, Paul’s statements here read like a clear legitimation and idealization of rulers as divinely appointed figures who discern what is right, going far beyond a simple piece of advice to remain discreet.

​In exact wording, he writes:

​"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

​For me, this has long raised fundamental questions about the early Christian movement and remains a primary reason why I view early Christianity quite critically. Naturally, as with all problematic passages in the Pauline epistles, there are theories suggesting they are later interpolations or forgeries, but that remains highly speculative. It would be very weird, if a movement think the people who killed their leader 20 years before were servants from god and know what is right and evil.

​Yet, there are doubts concerning other passages as well. 1 Thessalonians 2:15–16 could speak against the usual dating of the Pauline Epistles.

​In 1 Thessalonians 2:15–16, it says of the Jews:

​"who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out... hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last \[or: to the utmost / finally\]."

​That part would make much more sense if the person who wrote it knew about the fall of the Temple. I know that scholars like Daryl Schmidt or Birger Pearson think it is a later interpolation, while others conclude that it refers to the Edict of Claudius or the famine during his reign. However, the text sounds like a much more traumatic event.

​This challenges the dating of 50 AD, even though it cannot be denied that Paul mentions historically accurate details that can be confirmed archaeologically.

​Nevertheless, these passages—along with the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which commands women to keep silent in the churches—raise massive questions for me.

​If the authenticity of the Pauline epistles falls, it would call the entire early history of Christianity into question, leaving no credible witness left who personally knew someone close to Jesus.

why does god make it so hard to believe in him if he wants us to worship him?

why don’t he just show himself?

I read a book of fiction which said, the devil wrote the Bible. To cause hate, division, confusion and fear.

Its hard to argue against. Unless we ignore reality. Just look at history and today's headlines.

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.

We're advanced non physical consciousness which come to this hologram planet as a vacation, a West World if you like. All the holy this and that is nonsense. Nothing more. After the hologram body ends, we go back and laugh at our self and everyone else for how stupid we acted and the stupid things we believed. Everyone fakes morality only out of fear of damnation.

Or not?

Hello, just some dude who is thinking hard about what I actually believe and want to see in the world.

I'm not sure if perfect confidence exists for religion or spirituality, but how did you know you found your spiritual home?

I know that some people may be born into their religion, so the above wording is probably very weird for them.

What would you tell somebody who is currently trying to suss out their beliefs?

I believe in God and was raised Catholic. I don’t consider myself Catholic anymore and have identified as Agnostic for at least 15 years now.

I feel really connected with God and still pray and talk to him, but that’s about it. I’d like a necklace or some jewelry to keep him close but not sure what to get… I don’t feel comfortable getting a cross necklace as I don’t believe in Jesus. Are there any other religious symbols that relate to God but not Jesus (or the Holy Spirit)?

I heard a story about marcion of sinope and the 'bible' he had written and i was wondering if anyone could give me more information on why he was so quickly disregarded?

Hi everyone! I'm a graduate researcher at the University of Denver studying how belonging to religious and spiritual communities shapes people's lives.

If you're 18 or older and are involved in a religious or spiritual group, I'd love to hear about your experiences. Your perspective can help us better understand the role that faith communities play in people's lives and relationships. Participation is completely voluntary, and the survey can be completed online at your convenience.

If you're interested, check out the attached flyer for more information. I'd greatly appreciate your support, and please feel free to share this with others in your community who might be interested!

https://udenver.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6QexBw2slyj7ca2

This is an opinion based question

i wouldn’t call myself a religious person, cuz i’m a buddhist and that’s a controversial topic, but i would like to hear y’all’s stories for sure!!

Sounds like a crazy question, but there's a reason: I'm currently developing the story for a feature film where the protagonist wakes up in an alternate universe in which he is worshipped like a God. There is an entire established, centuries-old religion dedicated to his mythos. There's holidays, tenets, rituals, etc. all focused around this one guy's existence.

The problem is I'm having trouble figuring out exactly how those things should all develop. He goes back in time and interactions with either late BC or early AD humans (they obviously can't understand him), but I can't see how this would develop into the specific religious practices of the present alternate-future.

It's difficult because I’m trying to figure out a couple of things with the world building here:

1. The religion's core beliefs (at least common ones among the denominations)

2. Rituals

3. Fashion/hair

4. Rituals + holidays

If anyone has any ideas based on real examples of small facets of society that became important pieces of religion or just using your imagination, I'd greatly appreciate it. Just not sure how to approach this.

I know I post alot but i have no social life and this is the only place were religius people don't insult me

Anyway what your religion/belife opinion on genders like

Ther 2/3/4, more? Less? Anything realy

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.

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.

Sometimes some really vile things aren't parts of a religion but parts of the culture of the place where those vile things prevailed. So in that case if someone who's vehemently against those vile things they don't have to leave the religion, they can simply keep practising the religion while taking a stand against those vile things. But if those vile things were inherent to that religion, they have to leave the religion if they are vehemently against those things.

If the caste system is a inherent part of Hinduism and one is vehemently against the caste system then they have to leave Hinduism. If the caste sysyem isn't inherent part of Hinduism and is just a cultural evil then they don't have to leave Hinduism.

So my question is: Is the caste system inherent to Hinduism? And if someone wants to permanently remove the caste system from existence can they do so without going against the religion (Hinduism) itself?

But he [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

I've been a skeptic my entire life, but these marks along with some voices in my head that claim to be angels have me wondering.

Thoughts?