Does Syncretism in Religion Lose that Religion's Authenticity?

[Exaltist Ethan]

The very end of religions DIR forums includes syncretic religions and the sub-forums Christian Wicca and Unitarian Universalism. Most of us should know what Unitarian Universalism is. It's essentially a religion of a big melting pot of faiths united in their common goal for progressive change throughout society. It might as well be called syncretic omnism at this point.

On Wikipedia there is an article on modern Unitarianism and some people have indicated that its syncretism makes it lose its value. And as someone who is trying to find the 'correct' way to perceive syntheism I was curious about that term. There are obvious ways syncretism doesn't work. A Satanic Jehovah Witness, a Scientology psychiatrist, a New Earth biology teacher, and the list could go on.

Then there's the obvious syncretisms. Trinitiarian Christianity, polytheist Hinduism, agnostic atheist. Sometimes we don't really need to express certain syncretisms because one already falls into the other. Atheism, pantheism and gnosticism all fall under the Earthseed and syntheist umbrella, and they don't necessarily need to be expressed when discussing theology.

However, syncretism is kind of a unique thing. Let me pull up a definition of syncretism and let you judge for yourself.

syn·cre·tism

noun

the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

Christian Wicca and Unitarian Universalism are obviously two syncretic religions. They take two or more things and combine it together to make it one whole thing. But can you call a Christian Wicca a Christian? Can you call a Unitarian Universalist a Unitarian? Or how about a Wicca or Universalist? Can syncretism become its own worst enemy when you start incorporating many viewpoints into your own religious paradigm?

And what if you call your own faith syncretic? Syncretic Omnism, syncretic Christianity, syncretic atheism, or syncretic syntheism? What do those terms even mean? Is Syncretic omnism simply this idea that you incorporate many paradigms of religious faith and expression into your own world view? Syncretic Christianity; does that just mean you don't focus on one denomination but many and pray at many churches? Syncretic atheism … I don't even know how to analyze that to be honest.

And last but not least, my term. Syncretic syntheism. What does that term even mean? Well, the way I can most easily express this is, well, the idea that we're creating God through many religious paths - and that there is no "right" path to create God. Syncretic syntheists would say that the Christian God isn't literally true but because so many people have faith, that itself has created the God that we now know.

Syntheists tend to fall into this idea that this God creation is simply using our technology and innovations to create something better than before. Pantheistic syntheism sees God already existing but we're creating a more divine God; gnostic syntheism understands the change we need to make to create this God; syncretic syntheism is simply a term I use and express to explain that there are many paths taken before us from a variety of religions to create God.

And I fall under all three of these umbrella terms. However, I don't want my religious title to be elongated to: Pantheistic Gnostic Syncretic Syntheism, so I shorten it to Syncretic Syntheism and let you do the rest.

I want people to see me as I truly am. I doubt most people know what either syncretic or syntheism means to be honest. But now I hand the question back to you: if someone uses the term syncretic or otherwise expresses syncretism in their view points, such as the Unitarian Universalists, does it in some way invalidate their arguments? Can someone truly stand for anything when they decide to stand for many viewpoints? And can someone still be authentic and at the same time hold a syncretic, or conflicting, position?

I would love to hear people from either side of this discussion tell me either way. If it is proven that the word syncretic holds little weight or is contradictory then I will revise my religious title once again, both on here and on Facebook, to try to suit my needs of expressing it. And even if I find better words to replace syncretic I will most likely still consider myself that; like a trinitarian pantheist and gnostic. The thing I want to avoid most is using terminology I invented myself. It makes me feel self-important and conceited rather than an intellectual.

Let me know what you think.

 

[JustGeorge]

I can't help but wonder why your title means so much, being as so little can be conveyed by it!

I don't ask disrespectfully, but I am curious. What's in the name for you?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I can't help but wonder why your title means so much, being as so little can be conveyed by it!

But does it? What other religions teach that we create Gods? Or that the God we are creating right now through our technology might actually save us all? Syntheism is a very advanced theology that I don’t think any of us fully understands yet, and when you combine syncretism with it you realize that every religion is valid, because the Gods people pray to are actually being created in their head to help them with their situations. And not only that, but as a natural syntheist I have realized that an actual wise God is being developed right now through things like technology, sovereignty, love and compassion that I experience every day through my interactions with other fractals of divinity.

It does mean a lot, even if you can’t see it.

I don't ask disrespectfully, but I am curious. What's in the name for you?

I have been a syntheist since I was 14 and I feel as if I need to clarify exactly what kind of syntheist I am. Syncretism seems like the most obvious term to use now because of how widespread it reaches under the syntheist umbrella. People have expressed to me how they believe in a God or Gods and now I have a proper term to explain this phenomenon. The monotheist creates his God. The polytheist creates his Gods. The atheist creates no God. But as long as you aren’t apatheistic it should come to no surprise that these mythologies deeply affect how people act and behave. And I have not only identified but also explained this in a rather remarkable way.

Now where is my honorary doctorate at the Harvard School of Divinity? Ha!

 

[Viker]

What other religions teach that we create Gods? Or that the God we are creating right now through our technology might actually save us all? Syntheism is a very advanced theology that I don’t think any of us fully understands yet, and when you combine syncretism with it you realize that every religion is valid, because the Gods people pray to are actually being created in their head to help them with their situations

 

[JustGeorge]

But does it? What other religions teach that we create Gods? Or that the God we are creating right now through our technology might actually save us all? Syntheism is a very advanced theology that I don’t think any of us fully understands yet, and when you combine syncretism with it you realize that every religion is valid, because the Gods people pray to are actually being created in their head to help them with their situations. And not only that, but as a natural syntheist I have realized that an actual wise God is being developed right now through things like technology, sovereignty, love and compassion that I experience every day through my interactions with other fractals of divinity.

It does mean a lot, even if you can’t see it.



I have been a syntheist since I was 14 and I feel as if I need to clarify exactly what kind of syntheist I am. Syncretism seems like the most obvious term to use now because of how widespread it reaches under the syntheist umbrella. People have expressed to me how they believe in a God or Gods and now I have a proper term to explain this phenomenon. The monotheist creates his God. The polytheist creates his Gods. The atheist creates no God. But as long as you aren’t apatheistic it should come to no surprise that these mythologies deeply affect how people act and behave. And I have not only identified but also explained this in a rather remarkable way.

Now where is my honorary doctorate at the Harvard School of Divinity? Ha!

I don't disagree with you. Your theology is important. I don't think you should hold back on it...

What I'm saying is, if I met you in a waiting room, and you told me you were a Syntheist, I'd still have to say "what's that?", and you'd have to explain all this to me. "Pantheistic Gnostic Syncretic Syntheism" would explain more, but I understand that's a mouthful. (And I suspect there's still a lot of folks who would go 'huh?')

I think that's a problem a lot of lesser known religions have, though.

 

[Viker]

I take no issue with syncretism. Religions have been mashing roots together since forever. Syncretic groups retain and attempt to manage two traditions at once. No problem here.

My own is rooted in (theistic) Satanism, diabolism/sinister witchcraft, Luciferianism, Wicca, demonolatry and neo-paganism. It's rooted yet still not entirely syncretic. Kinda has become it's own thing....In Diabolica or I guess just Diabolica. Diabolica used to mean the Devil's work.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I don't disagree with you. Your theology is important. I don't think you should hold back on it...

What I'm saying is, if I met you in a waiting room, and you told me you were a Syntheist, I'd still have to say "what's that?", and you'd have to explain all this to me. "Pantheistic Gnostic Syncretic Syntheism" would explain more, but I understand that's a mouthful. (And I suspect there's still a lot of folks who would go 'huh?')

I think that's a problem a lot of lesser known religions have, though.

The thing is, syntheism can be Google'd. Hell, if you search for "Exaltism" on Google the first website that comes up is mine.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

But does it? What other religions teach that we create Gods? Or that the God we are creating right now through our technology might actually save us all?

This is a view that seems to be common among humanists; The belief that humans create their own gods and that scientific and technological progress leads to "salvation" (as long as people are morally "right").
And humanism is not at all uncommon these days.

Difference is that humanists tend to be irreligious and/or atheistic because such believe that God or Gods are just projections of people's own minds, therefore considering the whole idea of divinity as obsolete.

I think creation of one's own Gods and one's own Salvation is also not uncommon (if not uncommon, part of its definition) in the Left-Hand path, as they are all about self empowerment, rather than submission to divine authorities.

The latter is very individualistic though, so I don't think it really concerns itself with collectivism.

 

[Sedim Haba]

...
Then there's the obvious syncretisms. Trinitiarian Christianity, ....
...
Let me know what you think.

Ah, Trinitiarian Christianity IS the mainstream state. Anything else is fringe to the majority.
Syncretism really doesn't work. You just become a hated heretic/apostate to multiple groups.
Worst of both worlds, trust me I've lived it. I know. Forget about 'authenticity'. Hate.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic. Natural human owned species equal is a human in its species first.

Thinks standing on Rock our planet that didn't begin nor end is just as rock.

It created beyond its body heavens.

So thinking about creation a correct human thinker living on the rock says there was no beginning there was no end in created creation.

As a comparing thinker a human never began anywhere either as thin king they are direct a human. They never ended either.

Says so I'm the same.

Why comparig information is falsification of human advice.

Humans die to no longer be human.

Creation doesn't die.

Humans like God rock create beyond their own body.

God advice said don't compare how it created beyond its rock body as only humans had sex.

God is not a sex being doesn't have sex said thinking.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can't help but wonder why your title means so much, being as so little can be conveyed by it!

I don't ask disrespectfully, but I am curious. What's in the name for you?

Juliet, that you?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

This is a view that seems to be common among humanists; The belief that humans create their own gods and that scientific and technological progress leads to "salvation" (as long as people are morally "right").

And humanism is not at all uncommon these days.

My idea however is that scientific and technological progress leads not just to salvation but also allows us to become a larger part of the pie of divinity. Well, that and things like population growth, being generous and obtaining new and unique wisdom. I see technology as a large part of salvation but not the only thing that leads to it.

Difference is that humanists tend to be irreligious and/or atheistic because such believe that God or Gods are just projections of people's own minds, therefore considering the whole idea of divinity as obsolete.

Have you ever heard of these studies that show how control studies are affected simply from an unknown and unacknowledged observer sees and studies an outside participant's behavior? I believe something like this is happening but amplified to many theists. Now, I'm not saying that these God or Gods are real and tangible in any scientific way, but what I'm trying to point out is if a lot of people believe in something, even if it isn't true, their reaction to it is. And ultimately I think the minority use God negatively whilst the vast majority use it to build character and morale, and I see these God or Gods mostly as a positive rather than a negative.

So I don't really fall into the humanist camp, despite the similarities. These God and Gods are very real to me as long as the person holding these theistic beliefs isn't also ignostic or apatheistic. The thing is, most people place a high degree of importance to things they consider to be divine. Divinity is perfect and they are chasing that perfection while they can when they are still alive. I consider that trait to be a positive force. If people keep envisioning a future where they can either create, be or be closer to their perfections, then life itself will eventually become more perfect, or divine, you see?

I think creation of one's own Gods and one's own Salvation is also not uncommon (if not uncommon, part of its definition) in the Left-Hand path, as they are all about self empowerment, rather than submission to divine authorities.

The latter is very individualistic though, so I don't think it really concerns itself with collectivism.

The left-handed path leads to autotheism and egotheism. I subscribe to neither. If you say you are divine and perfect then there is nothing to change, because you are already divine. Now, if you say, well, you hold a lot of divinity, but are trying to possess more of it, then we have something to work from. However, both tend to signify the divinity of self rather than the divinity of other people, animals or things. It's too focused on the individual and if I know anything from my syntheistic teachings is that change only happens when two different things come together in sorts. I eat food. The food becomes part of me. The rest becomes waste. I talk to others, I gain insight and ideas from them. I change because of this.

Egotheism doesn't wish to carry on that idea, their ideas are stagnant and avoid change - even among the egotheists who want to become more divine. Wearing all black and listening to death metal might be cool but I don't see it increasing the divinity or character of anyone doing so. I believe human divinity can be divided into five parts: utility, generosity, sagacity, sovereignty and unity. If we keep working on that rather than, say, obsessing and mentally masturbating about how perfect you already are, then we might get somewhere. Plus, many churches already have the generosity part down pretty well by now.

In conclusion, I see syncretic syntheism to take the initial idea of Earthseed, that God is change, analyze it through syntheistic understandings; God is change is that change is creating God; and also, the syncretism leads to understand that there isn't just one path to creating that God either. Someone can be sagacious and be Hindu, Christian, Confucius, Taoist, Muslim and any other faith and have a unique insight into God. And if God is perfect, and they either want to be, create or be closer to that God, then they also want to be, create or be closer to perfection as well. We might argue what that perfection might be, but regardless everybody, even the non-theist humanist, is trying to develop a more divine world for us all.

As long as we can identify this we see that everybody really belongs to the same creed. That creed is truth and its sacrament is change. And isn't that what we all want anyways?

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

That creed is truth and its sacrament is change. And isn't that what we all want anyways?

I think it's this ambition though, that tends to turn out ironic when people try too hard to spread what they call truth and change people accordingly.
Especially when a clique grows bigger and grows used to getting its way, it often becomes increasingly complacent, judgmental, and intolerant.

In a past thread awhile back I once said:
"When two dogs are fighting for a bone, a third one runs away with it.
I try to be that third dog, does that make me a thief or a cheater?"

 

[ajay0]

I want people to see me as I truly am. I doubt most people know what either syncretic or syntheism means to be honest. But now I hand the question back to you: if someone uses the term syncretic or otherwise expresses syncretism in their view points, such as the Unitarian Universalists, does it in some way invalidate their arguments? Can someone truly stand for anything when they decide to stand for many viewpoints? And can someone still be authentic and at the same time hold a syncretic, or conflicting, position?

Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system. ~ Bruce Lee

From a spiritual perspective, I would say that religions have been created for the spiritual evolution of the individual, and he or she has the right to take those religious philosophies or parts and methods which he deems fit and logical to put in his or her philosophical framework for self-evolution.

From a religious perspective and standpoint, such syncretisms can cause confusion among traditional adherents, and there should be communication to bring clarity and reduce confusion.

Also such practices are useful in terms of inter-faith relationships, and helps reduce ignorance of other religions that is the usual cause of conflict.

Bharat Thakur who is a yoga master and founder of Artistic Yoga, is also a student of sufism and a Hafeez, meaning one who had memorized the quran.

Swami Vivekananda had similarly studied the bible and recited verses from it in his lectures and talks and conversations to provide context .