Omnism

Post Reply New Topic

Am I the only omnist here on this website?

For anyone unfamiliar with what the term means, it's basically a belief that all religions have some truth to them and that every deity is real in their own way.

It's not really as absurd a thing as it sounds. All one has to do is a little bit of comparative research into various religions around the world to learn the way every religion out there either borrowed from each other or developed strange similarities seperate from each other.

I once had someone who shared my beliefs tell me this when we were discussing Inanna/Ishtar becoming Aphrodite/Venus etc.

"The real question is not IF the gods exist, it's HOW they exist".

I have some sympathy with it, as I can't stand monotheism when they get all totalitarian about it. Much more friendly to accept that other views are fine as long as they're doing no harm. But I think it's only valid up to a point. There are similarities between religions (and atheism), and there are differences.

This guy pointed out the problem with it, but took it too far and I think the way they presented it really stinks, because they ridiculed it quite horribly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOyZseJCN2o


It turns out the guy's on the totalitarian wing of Christianity (I kind of thought so because that lot in particular can't stand to see anything else gain momentum).

Like I say, I think he points out the folly of taking omnism too far - that there are some fundamental differences between various belief systems that can't easily be reconciled, if they can be reconciled at all - but what he doesn't acknowledge is that it's only by focussing on common ground that people of different religions can hope to get along.

I can't share his disdain for approaching people who are at loggerheads and saying "you're both right." It's a somewhat effective way of defusing a conflict in which the opposing sides are each feeling invalidated.

So, although I wouldn't describe myself as much of an omnist, I see merit in it as a peacemaking thing, and when I look at the crap that its opponents throw at it, I feel that if I had to choose between their camp and yours, I'd choose yours, simply because theirs is so much worse. It's true that there are contradictions between different ideologies, and it would be a mistake to always pretend there aren't, but I think it's better to deal with that later when the different sides have learned to like each other better.

Hinduism has a pantheon of hundreds of Gods but most of them are avatars (manifestations) of higher ranking gods, many of which are in turn avatars of still higher gods. And (depending upon the sect) it all traces up to the top three gods (the Trimurti) of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer). So as I understand it Hinduism is polytheistic and almost monostheistic at the same time.

So conceivably Christianity might have taken a similar route, and just incorporated Pagan gods as avatars of the Christian Trinity. Jehovah, the son, and the holy ghost at the top,...but have the Gods and goddesses of mount olympus be thought of lower manifestations of one or the other of those three. Not advocating it. Just speculating.

I'm not certain that I'd be considered Omnist, as I enjoy the different myths and beliefs from around the globe (and spanning time). And I do find archetypal correlations between many of the stories/beliefs, there are a lot of commonalities (Hero with a Thousand Faces). But I am not religious, in that I don't believe the "Truth" of any of them. Only the facets of human thought and expression in trying to understand those things which we (as a species of a particular technological level) can not quite make out in our heads.

This is just my thought on this, I do believe all religions do have commonalities as they are an expression of the human condition.

I like to say, that I believe absolutely nothing, but will believe anything for a time. Life is but a lucid dream.

The OP already has a song for his creed.


https://youtu.be/YBtSFhbxBTg

I guess I'm part Omnist. I am a polytheist, animist, etc. I accept that the different gods exist, and my not liking one or more of them doesn't factor into their existence.

Where I might diverge is on the concept of 'truth'. People argue over it, but I think the diversity of existence scuttles truth being simplified to a point where we can articulate it.

Consider comparing an Australian banksia to an English oak, or an Australian platypus to a beaver. That barely scratches the surface. And the banksia isn't a kind of oak, the beaver isn't a kind of platypus. They require different growing conditions, different food, have different habits and habitats. They are just different. And they don't have truth or meaning, though they do have facts.

Same with gods and various spirits. Lots of variety, and they have their own rhyme and reason.

You can choose to choose a bit of the overall, specialise in it, and find the 'truth' of that piece. That's what religions are. But overall, it's just too diverse.

And even if it could be shown that there's one god... why would it be the god of a tiny patch of sand in the middle east? Better to accept that monotheist religions are tainted by culture and ignorance, then take a deist approach (kind of a monotheist version of Omnism).

It would be hard to write something the length of the Bible or Koran and not get anything right or have any commonality with other brands. Much as I think the Gospels are largely propaganda, I can't imagine there's nothing in them that was true of the real Jesus. Just that for the most part there's no way to know which bits are true. Not yet anyway.

But my mind has an unusual degree rejection of anything that's not plain English, and an insistence that ideas make rational sense, so a lot of what many people see as truth in this or that scripture, I just pass over as too muddled to be worth my attention. Unless I see it as art - i.e. fun without having to make logical sense. Truth to me has to be true to fact.