"Christianity in particular has a history of absorbing other religions’ traditions" -- Tangentially related: I'm a Catholic, so I don't know much about other "distros", but the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions in Indonesia.

It's interesting dynamic. Catholic Church is notoriously top-down and hierarchical, yet local parishes can feel entirely distinct. It's not uncommon to see traditional Javanese processions integrated right into the mass. Like skin/mod in a game.

▲

phyzix5761 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Its called syncretism. The Greeks and Romans have been doing it since the time of Alexander the Great.

▲

ASalazarMX 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's more cultural colonization than syncretism. For example, America was culturally colonized by forcibly converting its inhabitants to Catholicism. Their temples were destroyed, the stones used to build churches, and while celebrations were still observed, the deities were replaced with Catholic ones. Even the folklore was rewritten with Catholic characters.

It wasn't syncretism, it was systematic eradication. Syncretism is more akin to reconciliation of different views.

▲

broken-kebab an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Syncretism is mixing religions (as doctrines, beliefs). Assimilating local traditions into one's religious rituals is not that.

▲

phyzix5761 an hour ago | parent [-]

"It can include assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in theology and mythology, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to multiple faiths."

"...in the realm of religion, it specifically denotes a more integrated merging of beliefs into a unified system, distinct from eclecticism, which implies a selective adoption of elements from different traditions without necessarily blending them into a new, cohesive belief system."

"It provides an opportunity to bring beliefs, values, and customs from one cultural tradition into contact with, and to engage different cultural traditions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

	▲	broken-kebab 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Which is what I wrote above?

▲

vinceguidry 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the stranger aspects of Roman history is that for centuries, there was a fight over who gets the public space. You'd have the local mystery cults defacing whatever the Christians put up and vice versa. Assimilating local traditions rather than demanding people just adopt theirs fits in with a faith that aims to be higher than all others. Jesus has no need to fight Vishnu, and never did.

We're just looking at this through the lens of the Protestant Reformation so this pragmatism is often lost.

▲

oreally an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd think you overrate christianity too much. Javanese culture is known to be very welcoming of other traditions.

▲

dyauspitr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t think anything assimilates religions better than Hinduism. New belief system? Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.

▲

kshri24 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> Just throw in a new avatar of Vishnu to legitimize it and carry on.

Except for it's never done. No Hindu believes Allah or Jesus is an Avatar of Vishnu.

It can't be. Vishnu literally means the "All-Pervading One". Allah is explicitly not Omnipresent. Jesus is Omnipresent but does not have infinite forms. So neither fit the bill. Even Buddha, who we Hindus associate as one of the Avatars of Vishnu is not the same Buddha as Gautama Buddha who founded Buddhism.

▲

pessimizer 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That's because there's not really a there there when it comes to Hinduism. It's a nationalism disguised as a religion (by eating every local religion.)

	▲	kshri24 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What do you mean by "there there"? What do you mean by "local religion"?

▲

ajross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really don't think that that use of "in particular" is correct or notable? Cross culture motion of mythology and storytelling is the rule with humanity, not the exception.

Really it's only in the last/final generation of religions, where they started writing them down in canon/scripture/testaments/writs/dogmas/whatever, that you started to see unique stories get associated with specific religions.

Before that? It's all mush. Aphrodite descends pretty clearly from the same line as Astarte/Ishtar/Innana (maybe Isis too), etc... People steal good stories. People get conquered and then confused by retelling the stories their new overlords tell. Again and again.

▲

mightyham 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"In particular" could also be interpreted here as just signaling the main subject of the article, not necessarily making any sort of claim to comparative amount of syncretism.

▲

ajross an hour ago | parent [-]

Editor snobbery digression: that would be poor writing. The job of signaling the main subject of the article belongs to the headline and lede, and "Christian saints" is right there.

No, that phrase is just filler. And IMHO it's basically wrong. Certainly if the author want to show that Christianity is more likely than other religions to import ideas, the article has a lot more work to do than point out one myth. Literally everyone does this.

▲

mightyham an hour ago | parent [-]

This is a really pedantic editorial argument. I'm not going to claim the author's sentence is anything amazing, but you are being overly critical. The paragraph clearly introduces the general concept of religious influence through contact, then transitions that idea to pointing out instances of this in Christianity. It is quite literally particularizing the idea as it relates to the main subject, and so it uses the phrase "in particular" in its transition sentence. It's not "basically wrong", it's basically right and you are interpreting it in the least charitable way.

	▲	ajross 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. I'm just going to repeat: there is nothing notable or unique to Christian appropriation of myths and stories from other religions. It does it at least as much as everyone else does, and everyone does it everywhere. So trying to tie this uniquely to Christianity seems needless and confusing. The deeper point is more interesting and more important. Is there anything in that paragraph you'd like to argue about?

▲

Onavo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> the Roman Catholic Church has a long, pragmatic history of absorbing local traditions

One of the most studied issues in Catholic evangelism is the Chinese rites controversy which is also one of the historical reasons why religions are suppressed in China (aside from ideological policies ascribed to communism).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy

(That and the Taiping rebellion which was estimated to have killed as many people as World War 2 on the higher end. It was led by a failed scholar claiming to be alleged brother of Jesus. Most of the deaths were due to starvation. Not quite Netflix material but interesting plot nonetheless)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

	▲	samus an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The issue is moot since nowadays local practices are accepted to a degree. Even if Rome decided to go back on that it would have little practical relevance nowadays since there are lots of branches of Christianity that are not in communion with Rome and who are perfectly fine with that.
	▲	bitsage 21 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The CCP actually views the Taiping Rebellion positively, as an egalitarian movement which is a precursor to their own, albeit significantly flawed [1]. Upon looking this up, I was surprised to see they rarely even view it from a religious lens, maybe because the movement was so syncretic. Although, that could be due to the similarities between the Taiping Rebellion and Cultural Revolution’s aims. 1. https://bitterwinter.org/the-taiping-mystery-1-why-is-the-cc...