Talk:Religious syncretism

Untitled

This should be rewritten as an encyclopedic article about a field of study as opposed to a "Wikipedia pileup" in list form. As an outline what the article "should" cover, afaics the classical field of study was Hellenistic and Roman-era religious syncretism, especially in the context of the emergence of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. This blends into medieval (Byzantine) sects, western Christian heresies and the emergence of Islam. Then there is a large field of Iranian, Indian and Far Eastern religions, and finally modern syncretism, especially in multi-racial or multi-ethnic societies in the New World. Then there is the anthropological angle, of course, e.g. as in [1] "In a very real sense, all religion is syncretistic", [2] "the ubiquity of religious syncretism]", etc. --dab (𒁳) 15:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, the section on Christianity should mention the view that Christianity is itself a syncretism. Meanwhile, though, I cleaned up the lede and removed the maintenance tag that claimed it was too long. JerryRussell (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that almost all religious practioners, apart from some actual theologians, follow syncretic practices, because humans are always interacting with others around them. So, does, and can, there exist any actual religion that is truly NOT syncretic? (But, I say this as an outsider, who was raised, and remain, a nonevangelical atheist.) I'd like to see some discussion of this in the article, but I don't know where to find sources. Acwilson9 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religious syncretism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203092208/http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/lopez.html to http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/lopez.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213205522/http://www.globaled.org/curriculum/china/bessay1.htm to http://www.globaled.org/curriculum/china/bessay1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ruhaniat.org/readings/3Objects.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

China's Confucian Jews and the Ten Lost Tribes

Under the "Early Judaism" section, the following phrase is written: "Until relatively recently, China had a Jewish community which had adopted some Confucian practices." The claim's cited source links to PBS, but its formatting is strange, resembling a blog post.

Does this seem strange to anybody else? Look at the subject matter: the link identifies the Japanese people as a Lost Tribe of Israel, a title that many fringe religious groups have vied for, such as the Black Hebrew Israelites. It's also an archaeologically and historically contentious term, as no "Lost Tribes of Israel" have been found to date.

I have a rising suspicion that this is an unreliable source.

Oobooglunk (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

It is extremely disappointing that a NOVA-branded site would be hosting such WP:FRINGE material as the Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory. That said, Kaifeng Jews have probably been around a while, even if how long is a matter of debate. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Kaifeng Jews have certainly had a long history as a diasporic Jewish population in Asia, much like the Bukharan Jews in Uzbekistan and the Afghan Jews in Afghanistan. Even so, I've never heard of the Japanese-Jewish common ancestry theory before and it appears to be fringe. In absence of objections, I'll be deleting the sentence and link regarding this theory from the page. Oobooglunk (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Keith Ferdinando?

" The consequence, according to Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion's integrity.[1] "

-This should be framed as an opinion, not stated as fact. -Who is Ferdinando? Why are they an authority? Why reference them? 71.227.169.172 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Assimilation

Under "Early Christianity" is the following sentence: "Syncretism is distinguished from assimilation, the latter of which refers to the church's ability to 'incorporate into herself all that is true, good, and beautiful in the world'." This is hardly a neutral, encyclopedic tone; the biased quote should be replaced with a definition of assimilation and how it differs from syncretism. 207.191.201.66 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)