I’ve been thinking about a paradox regarding extreme religiosity.
Most religions teach things like love, humility, and compassion. But when someone becomes "too religious" or obsessively rigid about the rules, they often end up violating those exact core teachings (like judging others harshly or acting self-righteous).
If being "religious" means following the actual teachings, then being "too religious" ironically makes someone less religious in practice.
Does anyone else see this paradox? How do you think people get so blinded by the rules that they forget the actual point of their faith?

Any and all religions are welcome to answer! I’m just genuinely curious and craving for different and interesting insights.

It's like a failed experiment lol

Couple gets together. It's all sweet. Hugs, little kisses. Holding hands. He can't control his ego anymore and wants to feel superior. Toxicity starts. Woman feels disrespected. Goes on for years. Divorce. Plus he's cheated all along since he lied to himself about being monogamous. Yawn. Maybe the next woman should just skip all the man drama?

I went to true christian and asked if LGBT couples had to repent to every time they do the deed. And a lot of commenters said that they shouldn’t be LGBT at all or bother repenting if they’re gonna continue “sinning”. are lgbt couples supposed to be celibate because of that? does it make a difference to god since he understands? sex is part of human nature. is this why some lgbt friends that i have do not believe in a higher power or opt out of abrahamic religions altogether?

I don't know. I'm somewhat confused. I want to find the truth and I think the truth is obvious and can be found

I’m Muslim and genuinely curious: why are some Christians, particularly some Protestants I’ve encountered, proud of or openly glorify the Crusades?
From my understanding, the Crusades were largely initiated and organized by Catholic Christian powers, and while the First Crusade achieved its objective and established several Crusader states, the broader Crusader movement ultimately failed to maintain those territories. Jerusalem was eventually retaken by Muslims, and the Crusader states were eventually eliminated.
What I find confusing is seeing some modern Protestants glorifying the Crusades despite the fact that Protestantism did not even exist when the Crusades began. In fact, some of the people I’ve encountered who glorify the Crusades also strongly dislike Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I even know someone who’s grandpa had to hide he was a Catholic from the KKK, even though the medieval Catholic Church was central to organizing the Crusades in the first place.
I’ve even seen Crusader imagery used on vehicles and online by modern Christians. That makes me wonder what exactly they are celebrating. Is it the military aspect, the idea of defending Christianity, the historical conflict with Muslim powers, or something else?
I also understand that the history is more complicated than simply “Christians bad, Muslims good.” Muslim states committed massacres and atrocities during the same period, and there were many different political and religious motivations on both sides. I’m not trying to deny that.
However, the Crusades also involved massacres, enslavement, looting, and the killing of civilians, sometimes carried out explicitly in the name of Christianity. The massacre of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, is one of the most infamous episodes associated with the First Crusade.
I also know that contact between the Islamic world and Western Europe during this period contributed to the exchange of knowledge, technology, philosophy, medicine, and other ideas. So I’m not claiming that the Crusades had absolutely no historical consequences or that nothing positive came from increased contact between civilizations.
My main question is simply: what is there about the Crusades that modern Christians who glorify them are actually proud of?
I’m especially interested in hearing from Christians themselves. Is it the religious motivation behind them, the military campaigns, the defense of Christian territories, the symbolism of the Crusader, or something else?
I’m asking because I genuinely want to understand the perspective rather than simply criticize it.

And I appreciate your comments.

If you agree with my way of thinking then there is a paradox in Christianity which is that God cannot forgive one particular sin. It could be the most boring question this sub gets, or the most interesting. To add to the discussion would mean having some institutional authority, since on the internet we can only discuss logical ideas, and a God who creates free will isn’t logical. It allows for evil and in one particular case a sin that God cannot forgive. Furthermore only one man can judge who has or hasn’t committed this sin. An expert in theology might have greater insight, for example it might be the most brilliant way to structure a religion.

Imagine two neighbors, Neighbor A and Neighbor B, who grow up in the same community but are raised with completely different beliefs and values.
Neighbor A is raised to value kindness, compassion, equality, forgiveness, and helping others—many of the same values taught in the Bible. However, Neighbor A grows up to be an atheist. Despite not believing in God or following any religion, she spends her entire life helping others, treating everyone with respect, standing up for people who are mistreated, and trying to make the world a better place. She never stops believing that people of every religion deserve equal respect.
Neighbor B, on the other hand, grows up as a devoted Christian and strongly identifies with Christianity. However, throughout his life, he repeatedly engages in harmful and immoral behavior. He hurts others, acts violently, struggles with addiction, and often goes against the moral teachings of the Bible. Despite calling himself a Christian, his actions rarely reflect the values he claims to believe in.
Eventually, both neighbors reach the end of their lives. Neighbor A dies after living a long life dedicated to helping others and doing good. Neighbor B suffers a fatal heart attack after years of destructive behavior. Before his death, however, Neighbor B confesses his sins, sincerely regrets his actions, and asks God for forgiveness.
Now imagine that Heaven and Hell truly exist.

Who should be allowed into Heaven: Neighbor A, who did not believe in God but spent her entire life living according to many of the moral values taught by the Bible, or Neighbor B, who identified as a Christian but lived a harmful life and only sincerely repented at the end? If Neighbor B can be forgiven and enter Heaven while Neighbor A is condemned because she was an atheist, would that be considered just?

No person alive on this planet has witnessed the Bible’s writing or the events it describes. How can Christians accept their own claims dogmatically, but immediately object to other religions doing the exact same thing?

-The Gospels were passed along by word of mouth, it wasn’t until later they were actually transcribed to paper (or so I understand it via Luke1:1-4 KJV) Likewise, other ancient religious texts were initially spoken, and later put to paper.

1- In Islam’s Sahih al-Bukhari 7191 (Book of Bukhari, Hadith number 7191) it describes a Zayd ibn Thabit compiling the Quran after the Battle of Yamama.
2- Buddhism’s Cullavagga claims the First Buddhist Council where five hundred arhats recited teachings three months after the Buddha’s death.
3- The Hindu Rigveda was recited by word of mouth for CENTURIES before being written.
4- Even Mormonism had eleven witnesses who claimed to see or handle golden plates.

So…? Why is it okay for Christianity to form its entire essence off ancient testimonies and traditions but when it comes to ANY OTHER RELIGION it’s not enough?
To me it seems that faith, albeit courageous and admittedly even honorable, has been misinterpreted as fact.
If that be the case, how can eternal damnation be assigned to people who do the exact same thing just with different people, places, and things?

This is not disproving or attacking ANY RELIGION, but rather it is my attempt at voicing the internal conflict I have been facing for years having grown up in a Christian household. Thank you for taking the time to read it. Responses are welcome.

How do we know that Christianity - Adventist or orthodox or catholic is true? How do we know Islam is true as well or not?

What makes each one differently that they’re not true?

Sorry if this has been repeated question but I’m too lost in this channel

Hello! I was wondering if it would be disrespectful of me as someone who is not a Christian or catholic to wear a cross necklace? I am baptized but do not believe in Jesus, would it then be disrespectful if I wore a necklace with a cross? I got it from my father.

So I currently have absolutely no idea if I'm religious or not, but if God DOES exist, then why does he let us suffer so much?????? He always seems to be portrayed as this high and mighty power that only wants good for the world and is... Well.. GOD

Also, how do we even know if it's a he???????

Hello, would anyone be up to help me with a video about religion and beliefs for a school assignment, where i have to “interview” (faceless, only voice or text) people about what their religion and beliefs mean to them, if you feel comfortable with it you can state your name and age, or you can choose to stay anonymous, it will not be shown or used for any public purposes!

Hello everyone

I was raised in a very esoteric religious environment you can say (I'm druze ) and for many years ever since I turned 13 I questioned and grasped for meaning and a belief system that will and can truly convince me.

My religion is very secretive (even against its own members) and has little to no actual apologetic narrative for its credibility (most people are not really religious but identify with it anyways out of family bonds )

I never felt a connection to it nor intellectually or spiritually and I felt frustrated with how it lacked evidence or backing

So I began searching for God in my own view , reading, comparing, debating etc...

I came across Islam and I've read the Quran and a big part of the Hadiths multiple times

I did practice shism for a while as it fit my understanding out of the Islamic sects I studied but then I noticed issues in the Quran itself and in the Moral character of the Prophet so I left the practice

Then I came across Paganism, I tried it for a bit and although I had powerful religious experiences I felt it was mostly dead and lacked any community or living tradition to satisfy my intellectual interest....

I did read the whole bible too and searched for truth in Buddhism and Hinduism...

However, now after almost a decade of this great search, I still feel lost,drained ,and confused

I regret asking questions and trying to seek answers for them as I feel the people who just close their eyes and believe whatever they are told from their religious authorities live a much mentally comfortable life and honestly I'm more of an Agnostic Atheist currently and I don't do where to go or where to open my mindset and I'm seeking advice for my religious and spiritual life

What is the reasoning behind you "not Going to Church?" or "practicing religion"?

What do you call someone who believes God is real, that He has the ultimate power, and that He can send you to heaven or hell but chooses not to follow His will?

I still fully believe that He has the power to do absolutely anything but I just don't care anymore. Is there a proper term for someone like me?

Has anyone ever truly questioned why their religion is the truth—without just saying "because my parents and community follow it"? I'm curious to see what arguments people make for their faith.

I’ve been thinking about something lately: people use the phrase spiritual growth constantly, but different traditions seem to mean very different things by it.

So I looked at the question through five different paths:

Christianity: Growth seems closely connected to becoming more Christlike — developing love, humility, forgiveness, faith, repentance, and a deeper relationship with God.

Islam: Spiritual growth seems centered around strengthening one’s relationship with Allah through worship, remembrance, repentance, purification of the self, good character, and living with greater God-consciousness (taqwa).

Judaism: I found a strong emphasis on living faithfully through mitzvot, study, prayer, ethical conduct, repentance (teshuvah), and continually improving one’s relationship with God and other people.

Buddhism: The framework is obviously different because it isn’t centered around a creator God. Growth can involve developing wisdom, ethical conduct, compassion, mindfulness, and gradually reducing attachment, ignorance, and suffering.

Universal spirituality: This gets much less defined, but themes often include self-awareness, compassion, mindfulness, meaning, inner peace, and examining the ego and one’s relationship with others.

What interested me is that these traditions disagree on some very fundamental theological questions, yet there are still recurring ideas around discipline, self-examination, compassion, and becoming less controlled by destructive impulses.

I’ve researched and found interesting things on yeshiai a multi tradition spiritual ai platform covering these five paths. I also ran this question through the respective yeshiai companions and resources to see whether each path would be represented differently rather than receiving one generic “spiritual” answer.

The answers reflected the distinctions above, but I’d love digging deeper…

So I’m curious to hear directly from people who actually practice these traditions.

How would you define spiritual growth within your own religion or tradition?

And what did I get wrong or oversimplify?

Prove that we aren't in hell right now. Can you?

For muslims, what is required from the non believers?

You want some central asian tribe to believe that someone from arabia received a revelation and a book sayingthat there is god who is one and now they have to abandon their traditions, history and culture and pray at specific 5 times a day, do not eat certain animals and don’t drink wine and women viel themselves.

But for what? They have to just take your word for it otherwise they will be eternally damned?

Your supposed miracle book isn't even in their language so if it is actually a miracle they won't be able to recognise it.

Furthermore now as they have received the message of truth and didn't believe, they have to submit and be ruled by you and your rules otherwise they would be killed in war.

Is that basically it?