Re: The syncretistic origins of Christianity.
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:36 am
Isolated? Stable? Persistent? Coherent? Well-defined? Even if only for a time, or in a region.jferris wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:10 pmHow do you imagine a non-syncretistic religion emerging or persisting?archibald wrote:Personally, I think that your saying that syncretism is at least a very common feature of many religions (I'm not entirely sure about 'all religion, at all times') is a good point.
What sort of words might you use to characterize a (hypothetical) non-syncretistic religion? Original? Authentic? Undiluted? Pure?
So, rather than say "all religion, at all times", is syncretic, it seems better to say that syncretism might be a common factor, to some degree or other, at certain times and in certain places, during the 'lifetime' (birth, growth, adulthood, decline and death) of a particular religion. In other words, that there can be stability as well as flux. To think of syncretism as the only state or process seems to suggest there is only the latter. That is not to say that a religion, at a particular time, in a particular place, needs to be perfectly static, just that stasis might better describe it than syncretism, during some of its phases. It might even be better to say that a core can be essentially static during a stable phase, since this still allows for subgroups to peel away, perhaps.
Bear in mind that the usual definition of syncretism is not merely 'change', but specifically involves the merging of at least two religious belief systems.