No conflict between the Abrahamic faiths

[aware of emptiness]

I'm not sure how realistic this is, but what would the world be like if the monotheistic religions Christianity and Islam, like Judaism, did not encourage forced proselytism and were a lot more tolerant? Say, their scriptures were interpreted early on in a way that they would not to kill or fight in the name of their God. Could we even have all these Monotheistic faiths have an attitude similar to that of say, Buddhism, where it is "other faiths are just a different way of knowing God and we don't force our beliefs on them" instead of "kill the infidels" .
Could we have a world where Christians, Jews and Muslims get along just fine, co-existing and tolerating each other. No crusades, holy wars etc. I mean there'd be still wars, but no holy ones.

Is this implausible? or even ASB (considering what the world is like now)?

 

[Flocculencio]

In that case they probably wouldn't last long. The reason why Christianity and Islam have been so successful is the hard-wired determination to proselytise, to dominate and overthrow other faiths.

Christianity would end up as one of the cults that drifted around the Mediterranean- just like Mithraism was the religion of the soldier, Christianity would become the religion of the slaves...the slaveowners would probably encourage it since it would be a religion that encouraged it's believers to be pacifistic, which would make for much less of a problem with slave rebellions.

They'd be much more like Judaism- subjugated by other people but remaining faithful to their beliefs down the centuries.

 

[aware of emptiness]

what about a version of christianity or islam that's more flexible and lends its to syncretism. Could they survive by adapting to local as well as farther away religions and cultures (like buddhism in east asia did to the shamanism and folk religions) without overthrowing and displacing them? Could they even be syncretized into native european (polytheistic) religions without displacing them downright?

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Tolerant monotheism is very difficult to obtain, as monotheism inherently argues that every other religion is at best misguided and mistaken. If there is only one diety as monotheism posits, it is dogmatically impossible to argue that faiths that do not follow this single divine entity are equally valid. That said, I could pretty easily see Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all being fairly tolerant of each other, though in that case they probably just all be seen as different traditions within a single faith instead of seperate religions in their own right.

Buddhism is rather hard to compare to just about any other religion, I believe it shares much more in common with ethical philosophy than with any other religion. I suppose if there was even more influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity you could end up with something somewhat similar to Buddhism, but that would only fufill 1/3 of your idea.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

what about a version of christianity or islam that's more flexible and lends its to syncretism. Could they survive by adapting to local as well as farther away religions and cultures (like buddhism in east asia did to the shamanism and folk religions) without overthrowing and displacing them? Could they even be syncretized into native european (polytheistic) religions without displacing them downright?

Monotheistic religions are not inclined to syncreticism; why should they adopt the ideas of the heathens when they already have the truth from God Himself? Adopting polytheistic beliefs would mean rejecting one of the basic core principles of the religion, which would probably mean that the utter collapse of that faith as an independent entity is eminent.

 

[Kester]

Not syncretic? In a pig's eye.

The Christian religion is certainly monotheistic and it has always displaced and absorbed rival religions by syncretism.

The original resurrection doctrine came from Mithrianism, the religion of the Roman Army. The cult of Isis also contributed much of the early Christian teaching. Anyone who's gone into a Greek Orthodox service - in Greece - as an outsider cannot fail to be struck by the feeling that one has strayed into a pagan Hellenic temple.

I could go on, but would need to check some specifics. Other writers, better scholars that me, have laid out all the details.

Kester.

 

[Keenir]

The Christian religion is certainly monotheistic and it has always displaced and absorbed rival religions by syncretism.

Really? What did we pick up from the Aztecs? The Inca? The Sami? The native Australians?

The original resurrection doctrine came from Mithrianism,

Gee, and here we thought it was part of the original doctrine.

the religion of the Roman Army. The cult of Isis also contributed much of the early Christian teaching.

Um, and what would that be? The fact of miracles ("magic") being performed?

Anyone who's gone into a Greek Orthodox service - in Greece - as an outsider cannot fail to be struck by the feeling that one has strayed into a pagan Hellenic temple.

If it was in Greece, it very well may have been a Hellenic temple.
(what other sort would it have been??)

I could go on, but would need to check some specifics. Other writers, better scholars that me, have laid out all the details.

James Brown doesn't qualify as a scholar.

You gave two examples...yet however much or little truth there is to those claims, they are still in the first century of Christianity. Once the faith was born, syncreticism essentially stopped.

 

[DominusNovus]

Monotheistic religions are not inclined to syncreticism; why should they adopt the ideas of the heathens when they already have the truth from God Himself? Adopting polytheistic beliefs would mean rejecting one of the basic core principles of the religion, which would probably mean that the utter collapse of that faith as an independent entity is eminent.

Absolutely correct. An excellent example of this is the celebration of the birth of Christ 3 months after the most likely month of his birth and shortly after the pagan winter solstice festivals. Even more non-syncretic, this festival of a religion born in the Middle East is traditionally celebrated with northern evergreens, yule logs, and mistletoe.

I, for one, could not agree more that Christianity, at least, in all its myriad forms (particularly the Mormons), has not adapted and syncretized with native populations and cultures.

 

[DominusNovus]

Really? What did we pick up from the Aztecs? The Inca? The Sami? The native Australians?

There's been much syncretizing in Latin America, but us up here in the North don't see it much. I think its most evident in Brazil, where otherwise strict Catholics still might offer sacrifices to river gods and the like.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

The Christian religion is certainly monotheistic and it has always displaced and absorbed rival religions by syncretism.

The original resurrection doctrine came from Mithrianism, the religion of the Roman Army. The cult of Isis also contributed much of the early Christian teaching. Anyone who's gone into a Greek Orthodox service - in Greece - as an outsider cannot fail to be struck by the feeling that one has strayed into a pagan Hellenic temple.

I could go on, but would need to check some specifics. Other writers, better scholars that me, have laid out all the details.

Keenir covered most of it already, but I have a few points of my own. First off I think you consider syncretism to be something rather different from what I understand the standard definition to be.

Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity.

You seem to feel that syncretism any small influences or or correlative practices between Christianity and the various mystery cults it competed with, which is simply not the case. Even if Christianity borrowed one or two ideas from other religions it is not syncretic, as Christianity has never made any attempt to reconcile itself with other religions or adopt significant elements of foreign religions into itself. If Christianity had a lot of syncretic elements, then Christians would be sacrificing young bulls to Jesus-Mithras and giving offerings to Mary-Isis, not just having one or two rites and ideas that are somewhat similar.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Absolutely correct. An excellent example of this is the celebration of the birth of Christ 3 months after the most likely month of his birth and shortly after the pagan winter solstice festivals. Even more non-syncretic, this festival of a religion born in the Middle East is traditionally celebrated with northern evergreens, yule logs, and mistletoe.

I, for one, could not agree more that Christianity, at least, in all its myriad forms (particularly the Mormons), has not adapted and syncretized with native populations and cultures.

To restate, syncretism is not one or two small similarities between religions, or even something like stealing the date of the Feast of Sol Invictus for Christmas, it is the open acknowledgement and incorporation of a foreign religion into the faith. Monotheistic religions by their very nature do not incorporate foreign gods into their system. If you can show me any groups of Christians that worship the Unconquerable Sun, Mithras, and Isis as well as the Jesus, I will concede that Christianity is syncretic.

There's been much syncretizing in Latin America, but us up here in the North don't see it much. I think its most evident in Brazil, where otherwise strict Catholics still might offer sacrifices to river gods and the like.

That is a great example of syncretism in Christianity, but I doubt that the Vatican is going to accept such practices any time within the next few centuries.

 

[aware of emptiness]

If there is only one diety as monotheism posits, it is dogmatically impossible to argue that faiths that do not follow this single divine entity are equally valid.

But then, what about having the belief that there is a transcendal universal deity they call God, but that other faiths just have a different manisfestation of that being. For say, Jesus and Jehovah, Brahma and Allah are just different names or revelations/manifestations of that God. Could a tolerant monotheism have developed in that direction? Seeing other gods not as rivals but manifestations of their deity?

For example, a Hindu who wanted to accept Christian ideas, for example, Jesus might be seen as an avatar of Vishnu.

 

[Superdude]

Ok, here we go.

Somehow make Islam become a non-Proselytizing religion. To do this, make the Arabs believe they are the Chosen people, much like the Jews. However, Muhammad and successors also believe they must conquer the world, for mcuh the same reasons the Mongols tried to.

There is are almost no intra-faith divides in Islam, since outside influences are spurned. The Muslims manage to capture Constantinople, and also defeat the Franks. Their initiative relatively unbroken, they manage to capture Rome.


With Christianity's religious center's captured, its power wanes. The remaining Christian kingdoms eventually become vassal states of a Muslim colossus.


Lets say this takes 2 to 3 centuries. The Muslim Empire falls apart, and the local traditions take over the remnants. Soon, the faiths of the conquerors and conquered intermingle. It blends together to form a dualist religion which incorporates both Islam and Christianity, with some pagan influences.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

But then, what about having the belief that there is a transcendal universal deity they call God, but that other faiths just have a different manisfestation of that being. For say, Jesus and Jehovah, Brahma and Allah are just different names or revelations/manifestations of that God. Could a tolerant monotheism have developed in that direction? Seeing other gods not as rivals but manifestations of their deity?

For example, a Hindu who wanted to accept Christian ideas, for example, Jesus might be seen as an avatar of Vishnu.

Valid points, when I was speaking of the standard intolerance of Abrahamic Monotheism I had European/Mediterranean polytheistic paganism more in mind that Hinduism. Snycretism between two different monotheistic religions is certainly possible, it is no great stretch to argue that Brahma, Allah, and YHWH are simply different names for the same entity; polytheistic religions did the same sort of thing after all.

However, syncretism of polytheistic elements into a monotheistic system is much more problematic, as that involves changing the fundamental doctrine of the faith, rather than simply conceeding that someone might use a different word to identify the same deity. Monotheistic religions have also shown themselves to be less open to syncretism than polytheistic ones, as there is more of a tendency for monotheists to believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[DominusNovus]

But then, what about having the belief that there is a transcendal universal deity they call God, but that other faiths just have a different manisfestation of that being. For say, Jesus and Jehovah, Brahma and Allah are just different names or revelations/manifestations of that God. Could a tolerant monotheism have developed in that direction? Seeing other gods not as rivals but manifestations of their deity?

For example, a Hindu who wanted to accept Christian ideas, for example, Jesus might be seen as an avatar of Vishnu.

Jehovah and Allah are just different names for the same God.

 

[Keenir]

For example, a Hindu who wanted to accept Christian ideas, for example, Jesus might be seen as an avatar of Vishnu.

Um, wouldn't Jesus' ressurection conflict or contradict the idea of reincarnation?

 

[Flocculencio]

Um, wouldn't Jesus' ressurection conflict or contradict the idea of reincarnation?

Don't worry- Hinduism makes everything fit. The Hare Krishnas already see Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu.

 

[Max Sinister]

Yes, but now, they're extremely wacky...

 

[Wendell]

I saw this topic, and expected it to be one in which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were all internally consistent.

 

[Keenir]

Don't worry- Hinduism makes everything fit. The Hare Krishnas already see Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu.

With respect, my friend, do other Hindus regard the Hare Krishnas as mainstream or orthodox?

Though, on that thought, is there anything that isn't able to be fit into Hinduism? (cannibalism?)

have nice days.