• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Syncretism.....Can Mixing Religious Ideas Lead to the Truth?

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Handy authenticity test:
If it preaches greed, hatred, or delusion, reject it as leading to long-term harm.
If it teaches cultivating a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion, accept it as leading to long-term benefit.
So to hell with the truth, right?

It is the hallmark of hypocrisy.
So what is untruthful about the test? Preaching greed, hatred, and delusion leads to long-term harm, no? That would be something to be avoided, no?

Kalama Sutta
5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."

9. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

To the Syncretic? Quite.

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

To me, no. I doubt it would to the Syncretic either since they're...well...syncretic.

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

I would imagine finding personal truths in more than one religion, or not finding a complete personal truth in one exclusively.

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

I would imagine the role wouldn't be all that dissimilar as the role of a god in a major religion.

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

In my experience, given religious truths are typically personal truths, countless.

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

By using a material harder than glass and softer than diamond to pulverize the pile. Something between 7 and 10 Mohs should suffice.
 

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
So what is untruthful about the test? Preaching greed, hatred, and delusion leads to long-term harm, no? That would be something to be avoided, no?

Kalama Sutta
5. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does greed appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to greed, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by greed, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

6. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does hate appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to hate, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by hate, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

7. "What do you think, Kalamas? Does delusion appear in a man for his benefit or harm?" — "For his harm, venerable sir." — "Kalamas, being given to delusion, and being overwhelmed and vanquished mentally by delusion, this man takes life, steals, commits adultery, and tells lies; he prompts another too, to do likewise. Will that be long for his harm and ill?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

8. "What do you think, Kalamas? Are these things good or bad?" — "Bad, venerable sir" — "Blamable or not blamable?" — "Blamable, venerable sir." — "Censured or praised by the wise?" — "Censured, venerable sir." — "Undertaken and observed, do these things lead to harm and ill, or not? Or how does it strike you?" — "Undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill. Thus it strikes us here."

9. "Therefore, did we say, Kalamas, what was said thus, 'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill," abandon them.'
I was referring to the latter part of your comment.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Just personal experience. Notice the statement being prefaced with "IMO"?

Sorry Nakosis. IMO has lost its purpose IMO.

Everyday there are people say something as absurd as "Sky" means "Lake" and they end their post with IMO. So I have stopped valuing it.

But I get what you are saying. Cheers.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I was referring to the latter part of your comment.
Handy authenticity test:
If it preaches greed, hatred, or delusion, reject it as leading to long-term harm.
If it teaches cultivating a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion, accept it as leading to long-term benefit.
Accept teachings that cultivate a lack of greed, hatred, or delusion as leading to long-term benefit? Why would any syncretic not want to overcome their greed, hatred, or delusion? Why is this hypocritical?
 
Last edited:

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions.

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

Help me understand......:shrug:

The way I understand it is each people emphasize on a truth they are familiar with. Get the truths and leave the baggage. Then you gain the treasures from all of them.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The way I understand it is each people emphasize on a truth they are familiar with. Get the truths and leave the baggage. Then you gain the treasures from all of them.
But what if the “treasure” is just cut glass and fool’s gold? Don’t you need help to identify what is real and what just looks real?
“All that glitters.....”
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But what if the “treasure” is just cut glass and fool’s gold? Don’t you need help to identify what is real and what just looks real?
“All that glitters.....”

Satan if he would present falsehood purely as falsehood, no one would follow it. Like wise, if truth was presented purely as truth, no one would not follow it. The reality, every people have mix of both.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
To the Syncretic? Quite.

To me, no. I doubt it would to the Syncretic either since they're...well...syncretic.

I would imagine finding personal truths in more than one religion, or not finding a complete personal truth in one exclusively.

I would imagine the role wouldn't be all that dissimilar as the role of a god in a major religion.

In my experience, given religious truths are typically personal truths, countless.

By using a material harder than glass and softer than diamond to pulverize the pile. Something between 7 and 10 Mohs should suffice.
Looking at the basis for the question of why people choose syncretism, can syncretic religious choices ever satisfy anyone but the individual who chooses their own beliefs, for their own reasons?

When it comes to “religion”, don’t we have to ask why humans have a need for it in the first place? What is this “spirituality” that is naturally inherent in most of us humans, but completely missing in the animal kingdom? Can anyone but our Creator tell us why? It’s undeniable that all through human history, “worship” of some deity(s) has been an important part of life and culture. Atheism and syncretism were virtually unknown until relatively recent times.

If there is a Creator who implanted this need in us, was he in a position to tell us where to direct our worship? Was it ever up to us? Or does he reserve the right to tell us how to exercise that need? Is our worship meant to benefit just us, or the deity(s) to whom we give it? What could be its purpose?

As a syncretic, how would you answer those questions?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Satan if he would present falsehood purely as falsehood, no one would follow it. Like wise, if truth was presented purely as truth, no one would not follow it. The reality, every people have mix of both.
Only those who have studied the real thing, can pick the fakes.

How do we know what the diamond or the real gold is without that knowledge?
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Only those who have studied the real thing, can pick the fakes.

How do we know what the diamond or the real gold is without that knowledge?

I agree with you but learning from everyone helps you recognize how much treasures are in the revelations of God and words of the Guides.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I agree with you but learning from everyone helps you recognize how much treasures are in the revelations of God and words of the Guides.
From my perspective, learning all I can about the authentic word of God, reveals everything necessary to spot the fakes....these are some are very clever counterfeits which have led many people down a wrong path, that looks so right, and is defended very vigorously.

The Bible calls satan one who “masquerades as an angel of light”, so he is a mimic....presenting falsehood as truth and truth as falsehood. It takes careful study and going all the way back to the garden of Eden to show us the right path to take. It all comes down to why we are here. So, how would you answer that question from your perspective?
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Looking at the basis for the question of why people choose syncretism, can syncretic religious choices ever satisfy anyone but the individual who chooses their own beliefs, for their own reasons?

Directly? No. Why should it?

Indirectly? Yes, in the way the Syncretic interacts with others.

When it comes to “religion”, don’t we have to ask why humans have a need for it in the first place? What is this “spirituality” that is naturally inherent in most of us humans, but completely missing in the animal kingdom? Can anyone but our Creator tell us why? It’s undeniable that all through human history, “worship” of some deity(s) has been an important part of life and culture. Atheism and syncretism were virtually unknown until relatively recent times.

If there is a Creator who implanted this need in us, was he in a position to tell us where to direct our worship? Was it ever up to us? Or does he reserve the right to tell us how to exercise that need? Is our worship meant to benefit just us, or the deity(s) to whom we give it? What could be its purpose?

As a syncretic, how would you answer those questions?

Yes, I do think one does need to ask oneself why people need religion to ask as some point.

Has worship of some deity(s) been an important part of everyone's life? I think the answer to that question might help one in attaining answer to the first question.

Just because atheism and syncretism were "virtually unknown" doesn't mean they didn't exist. Before "recent times," what do you think would happen to one that came out as an atheist or a syncretic?
 
I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions.

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

Help me understand......:shrug:
Scripture has verses which prevent mixing. It is the inviolable and sufficient. The motives of syncretism can be then said to violate and falsify the Scriptures/Belief.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree here to a point......"by their fruits" I believe was alluding to what they produce...what kind of people do these religions turn out? The "fruits" in the case of Christianity, was to contrast with the Judaism practiced in the day. It was easy to tell the difference because Christ actually told the religious leaders exactly what was wrong with their teachings. (Matthew 23) He also told them exactly where their course would lead them....and those who followed them.
We could make an easy distinction here that what Christ was responding to was how the religious system took over and made itself and its laws and rules and beliefs, to be of more important than Grace. That very problem exists in Christianity as a religion as well. It's a human thing, not a religion thing.

Some people approach religion with Grace. To them religion is a tool to spiritual development. Other people approach religion from a perspective of seeking rules and beliefs and doctrines. Those who approach it that way, generally do not understand Divine Grace. To them religion is about belonging and community empowerment.

I agree with this too somewhat. Community does give people a sense of belonging but, it was God who brought his people together as one nation, with one set of laws and beliefs that applied to all. Then when Christ came he too set the same theme for his disciples....No one was permitted to pick and choose what they wanted to believe. All had to conform to one set of beliefs. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
I very much disagree with this. You are talking about forcing a singular point of view upon others. That did not happen in the OT times, and it never did in the NT times either. There has always been a diversity of views and beliefs about God with healthy, evolving discourse on the topics. Do you imagine that Jesus would poo poo dissenting points of views? I can't imagine Jesus being so tyrannical and egotistical as to not understand how everyone sees things through different sets of eyes. I think he's a lot more Aware than that.

"All had to conform to one set of beliefs", you stated. Can you explain Romans chapter 14 in its entirety to me in light of this then? Paul certainly showed a Christian perspective which allow multiple perspectives to exist for believers. That whole chapter is the exact opposite of "one view to rule them all" attitude.

Again I agree....no one should feel like God is demanding that they accept anything that is unreasonable or too difficult to believe. We are given intellect for a reason......but propaganda works and we are all subject to it if we don't know where its coming from.
We all need to be critical thinkers, as well as believers. We need to be informed through multiple sources of information, not just the ones that tickle our ears and make us feel certain of our beliefs when we shouldn't be.

So, what if the organized religions of the masses are all of the same ilk? What if they are all just different versions of the same lies? If what people are rejecting is a collective falsehood, why would they assume that God condones it? He did not condone it in Judaism and he will not condone it in Christianity.
What lies would that be? Religions are also different versions of the same truth as well, as the lies.

Any organized religion will be made of individuals all bringing their different energies with them. If they are driven by their egos, fears, desires, angers, greed, etc., then that is now a living active voice or energy within that religion. Likewise, if you have someone of with a heart towards Grace being part of that same religion, then good, and the power of God is also there in that religion. And like anything in our lives, whichever one you feed the most, defines the outcome.

That is as true in your religion, as it is in every other religion on earth that ever has been or will be.

History is repeating, but no one seems to notice. Humans are again following a very familiar pattern of acceptance and rejection. The minority is again a voice in the wilderness, trying to sound a warning of something approaching that will shake this world to its foundations.....but no one wants to listen.
If Christ is due to return as judge of the world....what will he encounter? (Matthew 7:21-23)
I do not doubt history is repeating. It's the ages old cycle human societies go through. You have those who seek overcoming the injustice of the world through Grace. And you have those who seek overcoming the injustice of the world through violence and force. That to me is the epic, ages old battle of good vs. evil. It's our higher human nature, that which is born in the image of God, and our baser animal instincts, our lower levels of consciousness, or 'earthly nature'.

Both of those exist within all of us. And society is shaped by whose inner dog is being fed the most. It all begins within us, life and peace, or greed and war.

What will Christ encounter? The same world it has always been. The same patterns. The same cycles. The same humans.

What if there was a reason for that? I have to include myself in that number too. I left mainstream Christianity because all I saw was the same ridiculous beliefs presented under different banners...those who claimed to be Christ's followers but who betrayed him by their beliefs and conduct.....I rejected all of it...except the part that said God existed and that he left humanity his written instructions. I wanted to find the diamond that I knew existed.
For me, it was similar. I found both their beliefs and their views of everyone else in the world but themselves as lost, to be impaletable to my spirit. It was detrimental to my faith, to be presented with an image of the Divine as harshly judgemental of everyone, but his select chosen few, which happened by chance to be themselves, create this division where none existed in reality. It was all based upon their beliefs.

But that said, there are those within that system itself whose hearts are true. Just because our heads get muddled with theologies and other'isms from the pulpit, doesn't mean there isn't a innocence that still is seen and felt by God at all times. There are many who can find that connection with Grace, even in a system of fear and division, which defined what my church experience was like.

What is truth for one is the opposite for others...so what determines our acceptance of one belief over another?
Why do you have to make it that choice, of one over the other? Can't two or more perspectives be valid? Or must it be one ruling perspective that dominates over all other individualities?

To me, what makes the belief valid or not, is if it is able to help that person bear fruit. If believing God requires you to meet only on Saturday for church, then acting upon that with faith is what matters, not whether or not that belief mattered to God. See all of Romans 14 as support for what I just said.

Can someone find the Divine if they only have a pre-conceived idea about what he should look like? What if he never did fit that idea? Can someone actually find God on their own? What if we need an invitation from him, and without it nothing would make any sense? (John 6:65)
I found God on my own. I found God before I found religion. So I really didn't have any real preconceptions before hand. As far as needing an invitation. Yes, all of creation is invited by the Divine at all times. Whether we see that or not depends on us entirely. I believe all humans are called, just like every plant is drawn to the sun.

True....but I believe its more a case of people wanting to 'make God in their own image' rather than conforming themselves to his. That is what I see to a large extent anyway.
Everyone does this to a large extent. We project our hopes and desires, as well as our beliefs and our values upon God. God tends to look suspiciously a lot like the culture and people we associate with, generally speaking.

As far as conforming to God's image instead of what most people do, that depends upon the individual again. The divide is not between what we believe between each other, but in how we see Life in general.

Do we approach life seeking the Divine, which is beyond our grasp? Or do we cling to religion to tell us the answers from outside of ourselves? God speaks to the heart first. The head is just something that has to be dealt with as it gets in the way. We want something to believe in with the mind, and look to that instead of searching the knowledge of our own hearts, which God has imbued with his Image.

How we belief reflects our culture and community. How are hearts stand naked before the Divine is what makes us true or not.

Since the diamond in question is the unalterable truth about God and his purpose for the human race on this planet.....there is only one diamond worth finding.....God's enemy has hidden it under the pile of broken glass that he created. It isn't God who makes it hard to find....but I believe that he can help us clear away that broken glass...and find the gem...if we let him.
All religions are part of that debris we have to sift thought to find Truth. All religions try to offer is a view of God, and in it there are good and bad things. Religion has a way of clinging to the old out fear. So much of it is fear based, it's truly difficult to find Grace in there. And they all believe they've found the truth. And that makes it hard for someone seeking Grace to break free from all of that and seek the truth beyond it.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
@Windwalker thank you for that thoughtful response and for directing me to Romans ch 14.

As a perpetual Bible student, I am always interested in deepening my understanding and appreciation for God’s word.

Seeing Paul’s recommendations to his fellow Christians in context there, I believe is more important than the words themselves in isolation.

What was the situation that prompted Paul’s words in this instance?
Because of lack of faith on their part, some of Israel’s natural branches were broken off and “wild” non-Israelite ones were grafted in. (Romans 11:17-24) In this situation, some undesirable attitudes were manifesting.

Natural Jews were seeing themselves as somewhat superior because of being adherents to God’s law all their lives, and Gentiles coming into the Christian congregation saw these Jews demanding that they should get circumcised and to follow Jewish modes of worship, as unjustified and unreasonable.

Paul was very outspoken about acceptance of these Gentile “brothers in Christ” and for whom Jesus gave his life equally. But were they to come under the Law as Jews has been required to observe?

When the circumcision issue reached a head, the apostles and elders in Jerusalem convened to prayerfully discuss the problem which was creating serious divisions in the brotherhood. The animosity between to two (Jews and Gentiles) was historical because of the Jewish requirement to remain separate from the nations. But now, there was to be a blending of the two and it did not sit well with many of them, and there had been some heated clashes.

What was the outcome of that meeting in Jerusalem? The recommendation was relatively simple.....

Acts 15:25-29....
25 we have come to a unanimous decision to choose men to send to you together with our beloved Barʹna·bas and Paul, 26 men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

If you think about the basis for their conclusion, you will see what those “necessary things” included....to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols” was not directed towards Jews, because this was already unlawful for them.....the consumption of “blood”, as in eating the flesh of unbled meat or taking blood in the diet in any way was also unlawful for Jews, as well as abstaining from sexual immorality”.....so this recommendation was almost exclusively for Gentiles to whom these things may have been commonly practised.....but for the Jews, there was no recommendation to enforce circumcision on Gentile believers, nor a requirement to follow laws concerning the Sabbath or the festivals etc. For Jewish believers, the Law had been fulfilled by Christ’s death, and was no longer binding on Jewish believers and was not therefore binding on Gentiles except for those “necessary things”.

Christianity was practiced under a “new covenant”.....but as in all covenants, it was a binding legal arrangement between God and man. Under this new arrangement, the old was dispensed with and the new arrangement took over.....but there was still rules to follow....not an extensive, external list of laws as Israel had been bound to, but an exercise of faith that came from a law within the heart. All members of this new arrangement were called by Paul “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16).....a new “Israel” has been created, but no longer a nation where people became such by birth....now it was by choice. (Romans 2:28-29)

‘The Law of the Christ’ had only two requirements.....”love of God, and love of neighbor”....but Christianity also came under a set mode of operation. As with all things created by God, there was order, and a congregational arrangement was to be followed by all. Each congregation had its appointed elders and teachers and the members were encouraged to follow their lead. (Hebrews 13:17) These also were authorised by God to administer discipline if any in the congregation stepped out of line. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

How do you see your own position in relation to that situation. Can we be Christians in isolation? Or is there necessity for a governed brotherhood, with those who are authorised to teach one truth? Can peace, harmony and the search for truth ever be achieved by people doing only what they personally think is right?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I wouldn’t necessarily call it their own personal religion. Syncretic beliefs are simply not institutionalized by any organization. Syncretism may be a result of interpreting the same revered text that a Christian does. So, I would say that they make up their own personal religion just as much as any other Christian from any other denomination does.
Adopting ideas from other religions was why God punished Israel, repeatedly.....do you think He has somehow changed his mind now to accommodate those who think there needs to be more than what God has provided? Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place? Eve had everything she needed to enjoy her life to the full...but someone suggested that her life would improve if she had more......it was a satanic trap back then......it’s still a trap now IMO. If he is a clever mimic....how do we avoid his trap?

Men adding to what God has provided in his word has led to the many sects that exist in Christendom.....others adopt their views and before long he has a following that might become a “church” in its own right....yet all claim to be “Christians”. Are they? Are we what we call ourselves?....or are we what God calls us? All he sees are “sheep or goats”...do you think he cares what species we are?

I think that the fact syncretism isn’t institutionalized makes it appear that no one shares in them. In my personal experience, many people who I know, who don’t identify with any religion, I would consider syncretist.
What do you think is the main reason why people seek to add to what God’s word teaches.......as if we somehow need more?....more scripture...more prophets....other gods?

At least for myself, as a syncretist, I believe God could be described simply as love. It is all encompassing, and I believe that the religions of the world are meant to simply teach this. There are many people who share in this belief about God.
How does one see Jehovah as a God of love, if he does not punish the wicked? In order to protect the innocent he must hold the guilty accountable.....when has this not been the case? Even Jesus as God’s representative will come with his angels as executional forces to rid the earth of all those who oppose God’s kingdom.....these “goats” have failed to do something important....what do you think it is? (Matthew 25:32-33; 41-46)

I think the motive of a syncretist is the same motive of a Jehovah Witness. Both are interested in having a relationship with God. Both are interested in the truth. Their interpretations of sacred texts may vary, but that is because they are different individuals. The motive is no different
Are we judged by our motives or by our actions? (Matthew 7:21-23) I believe that we are all in the process of being separated; judged by our response to the warning being issued by Christ’s disciples in these “last days” before Jesus returns to judge every one of us. (Matthew 24:14) He knows if we are a “sheep” or a “goat”.....but how do we know?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Just because atheism and syncretism were "virtually unknown" doesn't mean they didn't exist. Before "recent times," what do you think would happen to one that came out as an atheist or a syncretic?
Taking cultural norms into consideration, anyone who identified with any position denying the god(s) would have resulted in anything from ostracism to stoning to death.....

Fear has always been used to keep people under control.....it is only in relatively recent times when religion and science got a divorce that they argue over who gets custody of the children....
 
Last edited:
Top