Syncretism Vs Omnism

[wizanda]

Currently we've got no section for Omnism, and really we need one in the interfaith discussion section....

As whereas some try to mix religions, and create a new idea (syncretism)...

Omnism accepts all traditions in their own separate structuring; yet sees that a universal understanding exists between all.

So for the sake of interfaith dialogue, not to compare; yet to find the unity that exists between each, to see how they already fit together in many ways....

Not for the sake of creating some DIY Frankenstein religion (syncretism); yet to see how they are all trying to explain the same things (Omnism).

 

[Estro Felino]

Actually syncretism does not imply mixing up religions or cultures into a new ideology. When a Greek word contains the word συν (syn = with), it deals with a concept implying coexistence among several things, but none of these things loses its identity or its peculiarities.
A very enlightening example is the mentality of Hellenism. After the creation of the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Greek culture evolved into something absolutely modern and cosmopolitan, very different than the original Hellenic nationalism.
That is, the Hellenistic mentality was like a sponge: it absorbed all the cultures of the Middle East (the Egyptian one, the Persian one, the Mesopotamian one), and made them coexist pacifically with the pre-existing Greek culture.
The goal was to enrich the Greek culture and make it evolve, but it never dealt with a fusion, because a fusion would have implied the destruction of those religions and cultures. So the Greeks who lived in those Hellenistic kingdoms didn't consider contradictory to worship Zeus and Osiris at the same time. Or to be Greek and yet believing in Zoroaster or in Ishtar.
So I don't think that syncretism is the opposite of Omnism. Omnism is just syncretism led to the extreme (as Wikipedia says).
Maybe it would be better to define the Hellenistic mentality tendentiously omnistic, because it promoted the respect of all religions and cultures.

 

[wizanda]

When a Greek word contains the word συν (syn = with)

early 17th century: from modern Latin syncretismus, from Greek sunkrētismos, from sunkrētizein ‘unite against a third party’, from sun- ‘together’ + krēs ‘Cretan’ (originally with reference to ancient Cretan communities).

Actually syncretism does not imply mixing up religions or cultures into a new ideology.

1. the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.
   "interfaith dialogue can easily slip into syncretism"
2. Linguistics
   the merging of different inflectional varieties of a word during the development of a language.

So I don't think that syncretism is the opposite of Omnism.

Neither do i think they're opposites, just different definitions....

The reason for putting 'Vs', is that some people see everyone as being syncretists who question all religions, where they are trying to amalgamate everyone's beliefs....

Whereas some of us are interested in how or if they all have a common purpose, in describing what already exists.

 

[idav]

It does seem to me that omnism is naturally syncretic. However normally religions don't go that direction, religions tend to be exclusive to the group they represent.

 

[Kartari]

Hi wizanda,

Currently we've got no section for Omnism, and really we need one in the interfaith discussion section....

As whereas some try to mix religions, and create a new idea (syncretism)...

Omnism accepts all traditions in their own separate structuring; yet sees that a universal understanding exists between all.

So for the sake of interfaith dialogue, not to compare; yet to find the unity that exists between each, to see how they already fit together in many ways....

Not for the sake of creating some DIY Frankenstein religion (syncretism); yet to see how they are all trying to explain the same things (Omnism).

I appreciate your passion for world religions. But for me, your last sentence can be problematic towards genuinely and fully understanding those religions. If you are studying various religions with the fundamental assumption that they are "all trying to explain the same things," then you are not entirely trying to understand those religions on their own terms. Rather, you are imposing your own bias onto them, coloring them to fit into your own preconceptions of similarity. You are of course free to do so, but my point is, it can blind you to what the religions are actually saying, transforming them into something else for you.

Personally, I find it far more interesting, accurate, and rewarding to examine each religion on its own terms, without any expectations. Otherwise, you're going to inevitably misunderstand religions. You might find it informative and interesting to read up on social reflexivity and cultural schemata (or cultural schemas), which describe ways humans tend to unconsciously assume certain social and cultural constructs and how we can reflect on those assumptions in order to at least temporarily put them aside for the sake of more genuinely understanding foreign ways of thinking.

That said, there are certainly some similarities between various religions. But it takes an honest investigation to uncover the actual facts about both similarities and differences. Otherwise, one is at least in part making up things about some or all religions.

I also would agree with you to the extent that religions can be compatible with one another, to varying degrees. Compatibility is not the same as similarity, however. While fundamentalist western monotheists would have the most problem with such an approach, religions can fulfill different roles for a person. A study of Chinese religious history is a perfect case in point for this: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism often intermingled into popular religion, to a degree entirely alien in the west.

 

[Estro Felino]

Neither do i think they're opposites, just different definitions....

The reason for putting 'Vs', is that some people see everyone as being syncretists who question all religions, where they are trying to amalgamate everyone's beliefs....

Whereas some of us are interested in how or if they all have a common purpose, in describing what already exists.

Yes...I had already read that definition and my discourse was meant to disagree with the generally accepted definition of Syncretism. Because, I am pretty sure that the ancient Greeks would not agree with that definition.
In fact, there have been clear examples of religions which are the result of the amalgamation of previous, older religions.
And I wouldn't define this process "syncretism".
Besides, and unfortunately, peoples' mentalities are not equal, but they are very different than one other. Hellenistic syncretism was something very unique in history; in fact, nowadays, there are lots of peoples whose religions repel interfaith dialogue...not to mention syncretism.

As for omnism...it's a beautiful concept of very high spiritual level, because it is based upon the fact that all humans share the same universal conscience.

 

[wizanda]

But for me, your last sentence can be problematic towards genuinely and fully understanding those religions.

Agreed, and unfortunately we can all be bias....Yet do try hard to always read things in their own contexts, without applying my own presuppositions to the meaning.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Currently we've got no section for Omnism, and really we need one in the interfaith discussion section....

As whereas some try to mix religions, and create a new idea (syncretism)...

Omnism accepts all traditions in their own separate structuring; yet sees that a universal understanding exists between all.

So for the sake of interfaith dialogue, not to compare; yet to find the unity that exists between each, to see how they already fit together in many ways....

Not for the sake of creating some DIY Frankenstein religion (syncretism); yet to see how they are all trying to explain the same things (Omnism).

Omnism sounds like an exercise in cognitive dissonance to me. There are too many items of mutual exclusivity between the world's religions to find any sort of harmonic meaning without both liberal amounts of cherry picking and plugging ones ears and singing.

 

[crossfire]

Currently we've got no section for Omnism, and really we need one in the interfaith discussion section....

As whereas some try to mix religions, and create a new idea (syncretism)...

Omnism accepts all traditions in their own separate structuring; yet sees that a universal understanding exists between all.

So for the sake of interfaith dialogue, not to compare; yet to find the unity that exists between each, to see how they already fit together in many ways....

Not for the sake of creating some DIY Frankenstein religion (syncretism); yet to see how they are all trying to explain the same things (Omnism).

You might enjoy listening to Joseph Campbell lectures. You can find them for free on Spotify.
Another one you might enjoy is Carl Jung's writings about Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious.