Omnism, Theology, & Connections Between Religions

Hey, your favorite schizo moron here. Apologies in advance because this is going to be unbearably long-winded.
Omnism is the respect of or belief in all religion. Those who hold this belief are called omnists. In recent years, the term has been resurfacing due to the interest of modern-day self-described omnists who have rediscovered & begun to redefine the term. Omnism is similar to syncretism, the belief in a fusion of faiths in harmony. However, it can also be seen as a way to accept the existence of various religions without believing in all that they profess to teach. Many omnists say that all religions contain truths, but that no one religion offers all that is truth.

Theology is the study of religious belief from a religious perspective. More narrowly it is the study of the nature of the divine. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities & seminaries. It occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural, but also deals with religious epistemology, asks & seeks to answer the question of revelation. Revelation pertains to the acceptance of God, gods, or deities, as not only transcendent or above the natural world, but also willing & able to interact with the natural world & to reveal themselves to humankind.

Anybody have any rabbitholes you suggest I dive into regarding consistent myths, legends, deities, & more across cultures? Ex. Jesus = Horus = Buddha = Krishna = Zarathrustra = Hercules = Mithra = Dionysus = Thammuz = Hermes = Adonis, Pandora's Box = Greek interpretation of the Garden of Eden, etc.
As a beginner its difficult to wrap my head around & I desire understanding, as I'm at least privy to the knowledge that we have a lot of ontological surprises in store for us this decade, fabricated & factual. I hold particular interest in serpentine creation myths & gods as this concept is littered throughout every single religion of recorded history. Sorry for your having to read this, appreciate any replies.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The strongs exhaustive concordance helped me understand the Bible a lot more. Jesus may be the piscean ambassador who replaced Zeus.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really, Jesus is more of a Dionysiac figure. Reading about Orphism will give you context to where many of the Christian ideas came from.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    many goddesses and gods are the same across the world mythologies.if you study the mythologies you see it. obviously it comes from somethign else. here is all what i have put together https://shithole.neocities.org/way

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sumerian tablets have a story of adapa very similar to the garden of eden story but much older and also quyite mixed up from the bible story. you can see the telephone game did work on it before it made its way into the bible

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Jesus = Horus = Buddha...
    These are all different, different beings pointings to different levels of consciousness.
    I find approaches like yours quite fruitless, too much possible confusion, why don't you rather take the best looking pointers and follow those.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

      The only way to root fact from fiction is to be able to "play" God via finding all of the potentialities of truth & falsehoods, then discerning the different realities until the underlying narrative is unrooted. Obviously equating beings (who often are unrelated but extremely similar, or a separate interpretation of the being entirely) will lead to discord, but the start & end of a circle lie directly on the same point. As such, the deciphering of these myths & interconnected parables will lead to ultimate understanding, splitting the utterly wrong from the astoundingly correct. It seems fruitless, but in reality it is simply a really, really long time before the tree bears its fruit. I would prefer to advance its maturity, even on the individual level, and get the shit over with so we can all converse on how nonsensical it all is, maybe change it for the better.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it is simply a really, really long time before the tree bears its fruit
        That is both the problem and the attraction, unconsciously seekers are afraid to find so it's normal to choose ineffective ideologies to follow. If you simply want the truth you will quit that bs.
        >will lead to ultimate understanding
        Says who, your ego-mind?
        The stories you read can't contain the Divine, the stories can help you with getting fed to all stories and going beyond them.
        >finding all of the potentialities of truth & falsehoods
        These are infinite and how do you know what perspective to select? At any time you can realized a higher truth that flips everything around.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Religions are encoded, humans are simply unable to find ultimate truth by mere reason and understanding. That's why we need myths, to convey the sacred mysteries. Don't think that because you oick and choose and play the role of Frankenstein you will find truth. Truth is already out there, but others can not tell it to you, they can only point you in the right direction but you must experience truth by yourself.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Each religion is actually unique with it's own metaphysics, ontology, ethics, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it is just diferent ways to describe the same thing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, by definition, metaphysics seeks to explain the fundamental rules behind nature and reality.
        If religions have different metaphysics, then they all FUNDAMENTALLY disagree on the nature of reality.
        Likewise, having faith in a religion requires you to accept the revelations or insights of its teachers.

        Tldr:
        A chimerical faith is thinly veiled nihilism, for you don't really believe in anything.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think they believe in their own idea.
          They have put themselves as the ultimate arbiter of truth which can discern the proper and improper in all traditions.
          But I agree with your sentiment.
          They are like people that go to a doctor for their diagnosis and medicine, but then decide the doctor doesnt understand the medicine and only they know how to properly treat ailments.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          but they dont. its exactly as i said

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think perennialism makes more sense. The idea that all religions are interpretations of a single Divine truth. But I would never say that Calvinism and Taoism are equal, or that Scientology and Platonism are equal.
    There's clear differences between religions that make some closer to divine truth than others.
    Like Christianity and Islam being so disruptive to the religious fabric of late mediterranean antiquity with their historical centered narrative, which puts mythic time inside historical time, and their claim to an exclusive revelation which turns every other religion into something obsolete.
    Of course Islam and Christianity still retain that ancient predisposition to accept that there was truth to be found in different paths, and thus their incorporation of things like Platonic thought into their theology.

    I think we need a better way of categorizing religions.
    I've been thinking of the following:

    Traditional or True Religions: these are religions that work with the traditional view of the Divine and the religious cults. Meaning that the Divine is universally present and that peoples throughout the world worship the same Gods and principles but have given them different names. Platonism, Hermeticism, Taoism Hinduism, etc.

    Counter Religions: Religions built upon the assumption that they are the sole carriers of Divine truth and that all other paths must be suplanted by one. They are built against Traditional religions and against other Counter Religions. Islam, Christianity, Protestantism, some sects of Buddhism, etc.

    Counterinitiatic or Ainitiatic religions: the new age, the theosophists. Flase claims to initiation which leads their adherents off of a spiritual cliff while thinking they've been enlightened. The typical modern sects where the founder puts himself as the head of a supposed religious movement which is just rhethorical games and nice sounding slogans. Theosophy, Spiritsm, the New Age cults, Scientology, Golden Dawn, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let me know what you think of this classification.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

      I suppose perrenialism is closer to what I was intending to reference anyways, as I accounted for there being clear differences in opinion / faith, even within grouped sects of religions. These are good categories & I think further dissection of our stories like this is always beneficial, even if these tales are only manifestations of our minds & hold no ground in our explanations or world in which we reside.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

        man the compression ruined it. imgur link will have to do: https://imgur.com/LwtXk20

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be honest I have not found any concrete definition of omnism. Perennialism has it's own branches as well. I think the earliest perennialism can be found in antiquity, when ancient peoples would translate the Gods as understood from one nation to the other as they would with any other words.
        In the western world it resurfaced with Platonic thought, translated by Marsilio Ficcino.
        I think the most important Perennialist current in modernity is that of the Traditionalists, spearheaded by Guenon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Perennialism is Omnism made coherent. It's the mystical, revelatory core to all religious traditions. It's good to be accepting of all expressions of divinity, but in practice any fundamentalist, sectarian tendency is not salvageable.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sauron said it best.

    “I have been awake since before the breaking of the first silence. In that time, I’ve had many names.”

    Different peoples, times, and cultures all have different names for the same higher beings. It’s easy to laugh at the people who cry about Abrahamic religions and call them desert fairy tales and shit. Ok mate go back further. Sumerians and Akkadians are telling the same story in more detail with more lesser higher beings named and chronicled. Call it what you want, it happened.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

    To throw my own hat in the ring, I think that Cain is a depiction of Prometheus, Lucifer, Pan, Satan, Jinn, Divine Serpents, & corrupted paranormal entities altogether. "In the Gnostic text known as the Secret Book of John, Elohim is another name for Abel, whose parents are Eve and Yaldabaoth. He rules over the elements of water and earth, alongside Cain, who is seen as Yahweh ruling over the elements of fire and wind." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim) This is my interpretation of why water / earth origin Gods are associated with serpents, fertility, the harvest, and crops, as Cain was a farmer born of the Demiurge in Gnostic faith. This is why Prometheus was punished for bringing fire to mankind in Greek mythology, & why Lucifer is proclaimed a shining "light-bearer" & "morning star" who rebelled against the Creator, as Cain is associated with the elements of fire & the air. Satan, the opposer, aka Cain & his Serpent Seed, is prince of the power of the air because of this. "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil," (Hebrews 2:14) "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him." (John 8:44)
    This is also where I believe the Jinn myths originate-- "A number of religions, legends, and belief systems describe supernatural entities such as shades of the underworld, and various shadowy creatures have long been a staple of folklore and ghost stories, such as the Islamic Jinn and the Choctaw Nalusa Chito." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_person) Teachings of the Curse of Cain & the Curse of Ham attributed the curse to Black people, but I think more accurately this curse was an affliction that turned the Cain bloodline into paranormal shadow entities that reside between (1/2)

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

    ... this realm & the "underworld" or "shadow world", the metaphysical space. "Despite being invisible, jinn are considered to have bodies" ... "Jinn are further known as shapeshifters, often assuming the form of an animal, favoring the form of a snake." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn) Further interpretations of the mark, "Abba Arika ("Rav") said that God gave Cain a dog, making him an example for murderers." This would be Hades' guardian Cerberus, another interpration reads, "that God made a horn grow out of Cain" which would satisfy the bull-horned symbolism of the serpent/dragon/jinn/demons & classical depictions of Satan / Pan. 2 Corinthians 11:14 "Even Satan tries to make himself look like an angel of light", aka a shadow entity who rebelled against God who wields the power of fire whilst also possessing the ability of flight associated with angels and fallen angels. This would, finally, tie into the depiction of the horned, winged Sumerian Queen of Heaven Inanna (Eve / Sophia) of love, war, & fertility who holds the reigns of her son, Yaldaboath (Cain, Tammuz, Lucifer, Yahweh, etc.) under the Star of Innana (a representation of his power over the air & fire)(2/2)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Some good thoughts here but the syncretism is garbled. To support your thesis, fairies and monsters are said to be the children of Cain in post-Christianization Irish lore. Inanna doesn't always sport horns though (seems to be a headdress), and Tammuz is her lover, the original dying-and-resurrecting Good Shepherd, called Adonai or Adonis, NOT her son. Inanna has no children in fact. Sophia is a supracosmic being, an Aeon rather than a nature/archetypal goddess, who because of her fall into matter is better syncretized with the Anima Mundi or Gaia.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

        After posting the chart I recalled that I knew for a fact the birth dates were different, should have opted for something different. I also read that Tammuz was her husband but then tried too hard to solve for my cognitive dissonance to tie Tammuz to Abel. Interestingly, after you brought it up, there does seem to be one instance in which Inanna does bear a child. "Inanna is not usually described as having any offspring, but, in the myth of Lugalbanda and in a single building inscription from the Third Dynasty of Ur ( c. 2112 – c. 2004 BCE), the warrior god Shara is described as her son." They fit the bill of what I was going for, coincidentally enough.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Mega-Faggot-Robo-Bitch

    I also think that the "Antichrist" is really just any all worship of sun stand-ins, the son of perdition who has had many names, the prostitute of Babylon who "shapeshifts" as the Jinn do to fit the culture & times. We are secretly worshipping Cain, aka Lucifer the lightbearer, when we worship Jesus or any other figure in picrel.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that chart is overly reductionist and straight up wrong. You should read about the religions you are talking about.

      Perennialism is Omnism made coherent. It's the mystical, revelatory core to all religious traditions. It's good to be accepting of all expressions of divinity, but in practice any fundamentalist, sectarian tendency is not salvageable.

      true, it's not the same to talk with a perennialist sufi than to talk with a fundamentalist salafist jihadist

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let the others debunk their chosen deity, but it is all wrong fro Krishna
      >Krishna was Devaki's 8th child
      His birth is described as immaculate, not from sex between Vasudev and Devaki but from simply entering her womb by His choice, but this was after Devaki has seven other kids. Hardly a virgin.
      >there was no single star indicating his birth
      It is described that all the demigods were there and shining in the sky and celebrating. Not a star, and certainly not just one.
      >Krishna was not in any way resurrected
      Whether you accept that He actually died, or His "death" was simply leaving an illusory body as He ascended to the spiritual realm - Krishna does not return from that departure. At least not in that body/form.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Let the others debunk their chosen deity, but it is all wrong fro Krishna
      >Krishna was Devaki's 8th child
      His birth is described as immaculate, not from sex between Vasudev and Devaki but from simply entering her womb by His choice, but this was after Devaki has seven other kids. Hardly a virgin.
      >there was no single star indicating his birth
      It is described that all the demigods were there and shining in the sky and celebrating. Not a star, and certainly not just one.
      >Krishna was not in any way resurrected
      Whether you accept that He actually died, or His "death" was simply leaving an illusory body as He ascended to the spiritual realm - Krishna does not return from that departure. At least not in that body/form.

      Sounds fun
      >Dionysus thrice-born
      Dionysus was said to be thrice born, none of the parents were virgin. Firt to Persephone, second to Semele, third to Zeus.
      Persephone was at the time married to Hades, then she had intercourse with Zeus and Dionysus was born from the union. Here is the strongest claim to him being born of a virgin since Proserpina's epithet is Kore, or maiden/unmarried girl. But I think it is a stretch, as the myth already has her married to Hades when the union happens. Second to Semele, I guess you could here argue that Semele was a virgin because she didn't have intercourse with a human but with a God, Zeus. But I think this is also a stretch since the myth also says they had intercourse. Third he was born to Zeus after he stitched Dionysus back to his leg to allow the baby to come to term. Zeus is in no way a virgin.
      >born on December 25
      As far as I know no festivity to Dionysus was held on this date
      >"alpha and omega" "king of kings"
      The closest thing to this is Dionysus being the heir to the throne of heaven, but again I think this is a stretch.
      >resurrected
      Yes, this is true. Dionysus is indeed a resurrected God.

      I would also point out to the most obvious similarities between both qhich you straight up ignored. Like the association with vine, the liberation of the soul, and the fact Jesus calls himself the true vine in John, an obvious allusion to Dionysus.
      Also Osiris would be somewhat closer here to Jesus than Horus.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Read the anthropologist Joseph Campbell.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's all about the mind and stages of consciousness. The same thing, described by different cultures at different times.
    Highly recommended, to connect many dots:

    https://www.youtube.com/@bdona4556/videos

    Main focus is on christianity, but you will understand the other religions and their connection as well then. Even freemasonry.
    Garden of Eden is discussed there, too.

    Also
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5303035235F70283
    (cosmic serpent)

    If you want more answers, start to look inside you and meditate.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both syncretism and omnism are arrogant stances of
    >I know the real truth, and I will judge everything on my opinion
    Syncretism shows this arrogance by twisting various parts of different religions to make them seem more equivalent (NOT TO SAY THERE ARENT SIMILARITIES), and thinking a person can mix and match different parts like they were all made of Legos with no respect to each religion as a whole.
    Omnism, as you said, proposes that the limited individual can look through various sytems and decide which parts are proper and which improper as if their choices arent a priori affected by both culture, upbringing, and personal biases and agendas.
    I thiunk it is much better to accept a system, wholly, and dedicate yourself to it, while ALSO understanding that the other paths and traditions can be valid.

    In any case, here is a nice excerpt from Bhaktivinode Thakur.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if you dont learn from everything you will always be stuck in dogma

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you learn from all dogma, you are still only stuck with dogma.
        Nor does it track that you would need to learn from everything, if what you learn the first time is accurate and successful.
        High jumpers no longer practice the western roll, nor the straddle. They do not need to learn from them in order to compete at the sport, and learning those techniques would only hinder actual progress.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          all of these things are training weels. all of them

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All training to get to your dogma.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what a waste of time to speak to such low being as you

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Run along and dupe others, then.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what syncretism is, what your are describing is closer to theosophistic thought.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought
        That is what I mean, the definition of syncretism.
        I like to parallel religion and spirituality with diet/exercise and health.
        There may be lots of different diet and exercise routines, a lot of them may even be similar, but you start trying to mash them together and you lose what the synergy of the whole system provides. Like trying to do the Atkins and the Mediterranean diet at the same time. Or like trying to genetically modify an apple to have citrus and beta-carotene.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You wouldn't say Hermeticism is bad because it is syncretic, for example. Syncretism wss the natural state of ancient religions.
          What you are alluding to is the New Age sentiment of playing Frankenstein with all the traditions which is not the same as syncretism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought
            That is what I mean, the definition of syncretism.
            I like to parallel religion and spirituality with diet/exercise and health.
            There may be lots of different diet and exercise routines, a lot of them may even be similar, but you start trying to mash them together and you lose what the synergy of the whole system provides. Like trying to do the Atkins and the Mediterranean diet at the same time. Or like trying to genetically modify an apple to have citrus and beta-carotene.

            If you want to use a single word I would recommend eclectism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You wouldn't say Hermeticism is bad because it is syncretic, for example.
            Yes, I would.
            >Syncretism wss the natural state of ancient religions.
            Disagree. Ancient religions were often arguing, debating, and defeating and driving out other religions.
            The appropriation of elements of other religions was always a system of social control.
            The Greeks forcing the deities of others - like Athena - to now become subservient to their own Zeus.
            The Christians insisting pagan holidays are actually about Christ.
            These are detrimental acts.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All religions in antiquity influenced each other. There's no pure religion. And you would be a fool by denying things like Hermeticism, Platonism or Orphism on your anti-syncretic grounds.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >influenced each other.
            Is a far cry from syncretism. If you persist in calling them syncretic, then I call them detrimental. I dont accept it as syncretic. There is a huge difference between
            >arose in parallel and influenced each other
            and
            >the attempt to amalgamate different religions or schools of thought

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because you are straight up using the word syncretism wrong. All religions imfluence each other, all religions incorporate elements of other religions.
            In ancient times you had Greeks straight up saying their philosophers got their religion and oractices from Egypt, and incorporating foreign Gods into their own practices was common. Practices like astrology would not exist without syncretism, and the basis of Mediterranean thought would straight up be detrimental, according to you.
            What you are refering to is eclectism, and the act of taking things from many different sources without attempting to reconcile them.
            Syncretism arises naturally and it was very common in the Hellenistic world, especially obvious in the Greco-Egyptian sphere and the later incorporation of such things to Latin and western religion as a whole.
            Hermeticism is very obviously syncretic and its essential for Mediterranean and western religious thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >influenced each other.
            Is a far cry from syncretism. If you persist in calling them syncretic, then I call them detrimental. I dont accept it as syncretic. There is a huge difference between
            >arose in parallel and influenced each other
            and
            >the attempt to amalgamate different religions or schools of thought

            Your argument could work better with exclusivist religions, but that's not really the mindset the religious people of the ancient world had. As far back as the early Mesopotamians we have things like tablets listing the names for the Gods in their native language and the translation of those names for foreing languages. The implication being that since the Gods are universal that must mean other people still worship the same Gods but have given them different names and slightly different interpretation. Just as the moon and the sky are common to all.
            This attitude persists till late antiquity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you are straight up using the word syncretism wrong.
            Incorrect, here is the definition again.
            >the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought
            This is not religions arising and influencing each other.
            >Practices like astrology would not exist without syncretism
            Wrong, but IF you were right - that would be an excellent reason to see the detriment of astrology, as MANY religions declare.
            > tablets listing the names for the Gods in their native language and the translation of those names for foreing languages
            Henotheism is not syncretism.
            You are desperately trying to apply the term on events and times that it does not fit.
            Influence and appropriation are not syncretism.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are using a definition of syncretism which you took from google but it is not what people refer to in religious studies when they talk about syncretism.
            Idk where you got your negative view on syncreticism from, probably from theosophists and new age folk, but your overly purist view of religions doesn't really coincide with what religions are actually like.
            I would like to know what is an example of syncreticism to you, because for me the most obvious examples of syncretism are things like Hermeticism, the Mysteries of Isis, and Greco-Egyptian religion.
            Which I would guess you don't consider syncretic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            People incorrectly use the term, like you are now admitting finally.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >refuses to argue in good faith
            Well then.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >this is X
            >no it isnt, here is what X means
            >well thats not how i use it
            >then you dont mean X

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >with no respect to each religion as a whole
      No one should have respect for any religion "as a whole" since they are all made by imperfect humans. Only the prophetic insights themselves are worth anything since they come directly from above. The institutional cruft accumulated over centuries of human "tradition" can be safely discarded.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When you truly understand the concept of the Prisca Theologica, every event, school of thought, and zeitgeist in human history begin to make sense. It is not simply a matter of syncretism; the ocean of knowledge has been plagued with hydra for thousands of years and it is impossible to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis without the guidance of heaven. Establish a relationship with God, don't simply profess your belief trying to 'convince' yourself. If you truly believe in his omnipotence then he is most able to hear, most able to communicate. But those who truly establish worship are few and far between, this is why they utter the same begging pathetic prayers every night as though yesterday God was deaf, or that somehow he has forgotten. Follow in the footsteps of Enoch, for Enoch walked with God until Enoch was no more.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "He, Allah, is One.
    Allah is He on Whom all depend.
    He begets not, nor is He begotten; And
    none is like Him"

    "Don't associate partners with Allah"

    "O you who believe! do not take the israelites and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people"

    omnism can't include islam in itself.
    >Jesus = Horus = Buddha = Krishna = Zarathrustra = Hercules = Mithra = Dionysus = Thammuz = Hermes = Adonis, Pandora's Box = Greek interpretation of the Garden of Eden, etc.

    Don't speak of what you know nothing of. Don't attribute such such BS to Jesus pbuh.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >
      "O you who believe! do not take the israelites and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people"

      "Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity"

      "For you is your religion, for me is mine religion"

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Syncretism is thinking that you can get a bird and a crocodile to frick and produce offspring because they are both archosaurs.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bump

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *