Will we get a syncretistic religion?

So all we need is one non believer and the answer becomes no.

No. The answer isno”, if somebody says that we will not get a syncretistic religion. So the “no”-sayer does not have to be a non-believer. Both “yes”-sayers and “no”-sayers have only to have plausible arguments. :slight_smile:

I mean, in say 1 million years time, when we have one religion left and all 3 Bazingallion humans on Earth and Mars believe in it… Except one (he believes in something else). Then we don’t have a syncretistic religion.

I know what you mean. But what does that have to do with the question as title of this thread? It postulates „singly“ religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not! If someone believes in something else, then that does not necessarily mean that this one can prevent that the other believers will not get a syncretistic religion. This single, and probably lonely, one believer does not represent a religious community. You know what I mean?

Okay, instead of “we all” I should have said “most of us”. But therefore I have a counterquestion: Would you avoid the words “manhood”, “mankind”, “humankind”, “humanity” just because of the fact that there are some people who do not believe in “manhood”, “mankind”, “humankind”, “humanity”?

Q: Is there allowed to be non-believers in a syncretistic religion?
A: Yes, but “most” need to be believers in that religion for it to be syncretistic.

Q: Can we have more than one syncretistic religion?
A: No it must be one and only one

There will always be people who deviate from the norm.
This deviation will not allow “perfect” syncretistic religions to form as these people will be excluded.

Q: Was it allowed to be a Non-Roman in the Roman Empire?
A: Yes, but most needed to be Romans in that emprie for it to be a Roman empire.

Q: Could the Romans have more than one Roman Empire?
A: No, ist had to be one and only one.

There will always be people who deviate from the norm.
This deviation will not eternally allow one perfect and eternal Romam Empire (therefore Jesus said: “My empire is not of this world”), but temporarily it is possible.

Temporarily one syncretistic religion can exist, if deviation is allowed. Later this syncretistic religion will decay. Everything deacys, but temporarily it can exist.

That is why there has never been a single empire in the history of human kind (prior to nations/empires there were clans).
People will always differentiate and break away and start there own thing.

Edit: The system will not allow for a temporary creation of a unified whole. I am trying to think of an analogy but my brain is a bit fatigued at the moment (I have a lot on my plate).

What “system” is that?

We can think of many analogies in that case. For example: Each living being has a so-called “individual” body, a unit, although there are many other living beings in that body, if this living being is a so-called “higher living being” like a human being. The other living beings in that one living being are the deviations of the rule that one living being is always one living being. It’s right: one living being is one living being, regardless whether there are many other living beings in that one living being or not. Beyond that: this one living being needs the other living beings. Living beings are beings of self-preservation (including: self-organisation and reproduction) with an immune system; and the immune system of a so-called “higher living being” depends on other living beings (bacteria / germs).

Without deviations a syncretistic religion can not exist, but we have to call it “syncretistic religion” nonetheless, even then, if some people who are part of this syncretistic religion say “we do not want to be part of this syncretistic religion”. As long as this deviated people of one syncretistic religion are not too many, the “immune system” of that syncretistic religion works very well, thus that syncretistic religion is very “healthy”, exists very well.

If there was a “pure” syncretistic religion already in place and it had a specific doctrine in place that maintained itself… then I would agree with you but to get to that point in the first place is, I believe, not possible. The same question could apply to politics; and I do not think that is possible either.

[size=150]One syncretistic religion is possible. Maybe that the probability of it is not very high, but that does not change its possibility and probability at all.[/size]

[size=150]It is not my intention to propagate a syncretistic religion or many syncretistic religions - but I just want to ask: Will we get a syncretistic religion?[/size]

Yes, and in modern secular words religion is ideology. I estimate that 99% of all ILP members are religious (and most of this 99% are religious in the modern secular way), and the most religious ILP members are those who say and say and say they were not religious. :wink:

It will be a peaceful world when humans have eradicated themselves. Up until then, so long as we have people who divorce and separate we will also not have syncretistic anything. People will never unify.

When humans have eradicated themselves there will be no one who knows what a peaceful world is.

Syncretism has always been a part of the human evolution at some times.

That is even not necessary.

Precisely my point about a peaceful world.

Your statements, to me, appear as contradictory.
I have already said there are a lot of syncretistic religions in existence.
You disagreed with this and say there must only be one and not many.
What example can you give me where syncretism (only one of for all of humanity) has been part of human evolution.
Remember, humans have been and are scattered across many continents.
A Eurocentric view of humanity does not constitute syncretism.

Sorry, by definition… unification is required for syncretism. Unless you create a new meaning for the word.

No. I did not disagree with that what you said. I did not say that there “must” be one and not many. Furthermore I am not of the opinion that there “must” be one and not many - I merely asked about it.

“Eurocentric view”? Who said that?

What is your definition of the word “syncretism”? It seems that you have the wrong definition of the word “syncretism”.

If a “unification is required for syncretism” (and remember: a unification is a total one!), there could be merely one unification and merely one syncretism.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry, ,my fault not yours.

See: if you want to unify, then you must be aware of the fact that there are one human, some / many humans, and all humans; if you unify one human, then you are a pastor, an ideolog, or a doctor (physician, therapist) and do not unify all humans; if you unify some or many humans, then you do not unify all humans. You do not have to unify all humans in order to get a syncretism. You can unify (for example) 99% of the humans and get a syncretism - with a 1%-non-syncretistic minority of course. So unification is not really required for syncretism and syncretism is not really required for unification.

If the whole does not need to be unified then the parts can be unified. Then there are already many syncretistic religions. The discussion has gone back in a full circle.

Maybe the question has nothing to do with syncretism… Just one religion and the rest atheists. Is this the real nature of the question.

What did the Romans do when they got their syncretism? Did they unify all inhabitants of the Roman empire? No. But nevertheless: their religion became a syncretistic religion, a syncretistic religion with a minority that did not want a syncretistic religion.

The question is whether we will get a syncretistic religion, and the answers can be “yes”, “no”, or “i don’t know” (see above).