Omnism: The New Spiritual Belief

You've probably heard of a lot of other "isms" when it comes to beliefs. There's agnosticism (not sure if there is a God), theism (belief in one or more Gods), monotheism (one God), polytheism (many gods), deism (belief that there is a God, but he's not personally involved), and even atheism (belief in no God). Get ready to add a new ism to your vocabulary: omnism.

File:Gods.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

It's actually not new; the term was coined back in 1839 by Philip J. Bailey in his poem "Festus." But in the new millennium, the time seems to be ripe for the concept to catch on. - Omnism-- the New Spiritual Belief

This is actually a good article covering what Omnism is and how many who hold this philosophy interpret all spiritual paths.

Related articles

• Whats the diference between Deism and Omnism?
• Defining Atheism
• Science and faith have exchanged places but God is not dead among the philosophers

Whats the diference between Deism and Omnism?

Found this little gem from a discussion forum...

Deists believe in a god as creator, but they believe that that god does not intervene in the universe and thus do not believe in miracles or anything supernatural. Incidentally, many of the Americas so-called 'founding fathers' were deists.

God: Image Source: Wikipedia

In contrast,. omnists claim to to "believe in all religions" including atheism. At a simple look, this idea is fraught with obvious logical problems. However, modern self-described omnists have watered down the concept to what seems to me to be a more hyperbolic use of the word belief to argue for tolerance and appreciation for all religions and to be believe that some truth can be found in all religions or belief-systems. In this way, omnism is not a form of theology, and unlike deism or atheism does not take a position on the existence of god.

Thus, there many contrasts between omnism and deism, and on many of these points deism actually is in common with atheism rather than omnism. Incidentally, the only difference between deism and atheism might be arguably meaningless from certain philosophies such as logical positivists since neither alleges the existence of that which would have observable effects, and thus under those philosophies be meaningful, such as alleged miracles or divine intervention. But that last sentence is ripe with philosophical points of debate and is arguable completely in its own right with no reference to this very different idea of omnism. - Whats the diference between Deism and Omnism? • View topic • Philosophy Discussion Forums

What is your opinion of the ideas set forth in this post? Let's see if we can come up with something better.

Related articles

• Agnosticism: A Fertile Middle Ground.
• Science and faith have exchanged places but God is not dead among the philosophers
• Deism
• Everyone's God Is No One's God: Antonin Scalia And The Scourge Of 'Ceremonial Deism'

Divine Mother a global thing?

Global Recognition of the Divine Mother ? (via Jonathan Evatt Online - Wisdom for a Life of Freedom)

Was there Global Recognition of the Divine Mother ? I was reading through an interesting web page with information on ancient prophecies. Someone made the comment that the idea of an “Mother Earth” within Native North America is a new idea. The…

---

On Seeing God.

No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. – John 1:18

Here we have a statement, given as a rule, that no one has ever seen God, yet we have evidence in the Old Testament that not only did a few people glimpse God, some saw God face to face.

I guess the author of John forgot all about the alleged parents of mankind, Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden, they walked and talked with God.

When they heard the sound of God strolling in the garden in the evening breeze, the Man and his Wife hid in the trees of the garden, hid from God. God called to the Man: “Where are you?”
He said, “I heard you in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked. And I hid.”
God said, “Who told you you were naked? Did you eat from that tree I told you not to eat from?” –Genesis 3:8-11

oil on wood panel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is no direct reference to God walking with the first couple, but we can see that it was a common enough thing that Adam and his wife thought it wise to to hide from God in their newly discovered nakedness.

God appeared to Abram and said, “I will give this land to your children.” Abram built an altar at the place God had appeared to him. –Genesis 12:7

Abram, later known as Abraham, had many visitations from God, this was but the first. The Bible says he lived to be the ripe old age of 175. And then there is Abram’s grandson, Jacob who not only saw God, but wrestled all through the night with “Him”.

The man said, “But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it’s Israel (God-Wrestler); you’ve wrestled with God and you’ve come through.” –Genesis 32:28

Jacob named the place Peniel (God’s Face) because, he said, “I saw God face-to-face and lived to tell the story!” – Genesis 32:30

Moses was said to have spoken to God as one would a neighbor.

And God spoke with Moses face-to-face, as neighbors speak to one another. When he would return to the camp, his attendant, the young man Joshua, stayed—he didn’t leave the Tent. –Exodus 33:11

And, it would appear, Moses also got a unique glimpse of God later on.

God said, “Look, here is a place right beside me. Put yourself on this rock. When my Glory passes by, I’ll put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with my hand until I’ve passed by. Then I’ll take my hand away and you’ll see my back. But you won’t see my face.” –Genesis 33:21-23

There are others who saw God in the Old Testament: Isaac, Job, Isaiah, and Amos. So, what was John thinking when he said that no one had ever seen God?

Related articles

• The First Time We Talked to God
• Are you in Peniel?
• The Invisible, Visible God
• Noah - a Christian Philosopher Review

The Cosmic Teapot

Along the lines of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Bertrand Russell’s Cosmic Teapot. If you have never heard of this concept, here it is.

Russel's cosmic teapot has a posse (Photo credit: psd)

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day…. But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions.

Is There a God? by Bertrand Russell (commissioned-but not published-by Illustrated Magazine in 1952) 

Even with those who profess no religious belief there are concepts that are used over and over in an almost religious way.

Related articles

• Russell's Teapot
• The Teapot Delusion
• Word of the Day: Russell's Teapot
• God stole my wallet.

Suffer not a witch to live?

I was discussing the subject of my spiritual path the other day with a co-worker. She brought up some of the tired arguments about not being a Christian or a follower of YHVH. I really wish I had remembered this little paragraph.

A bible from 1859. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Romans 8:2. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." This means that whatever has happened before is now forgiven, and we no longer handle these issues in the same way. This reflects New Testament teachings, by the way. It's not enough to simply bully other people when you pick and choose certain passages that meet the requirements of your own personal prejudices. You're either all in, or all out. And if you're in, then we have to accept that this silly nonsense about killing people who follow a different path is no longer appropriate. Which would kind of be following this biblical passage: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law." (Romans 13:8.)
--In Response to "Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live."

It amazes me how many people claim to have read the Bible and how few understand what they read.

Related articles

• John's Baptism
• Witchcraft
• What is Grace?
• Witches Reed of Chivalry

Suffering Children and the Christian Science Church

April 1995 | The Atlantic Online

I am one. Most people who have heard of Christian Science know one thing about it: Christian Scientists do not "believe" in doctors.More accurately, Christian Scientists do not believe in medical science, or what they call "materia medica."

He had braces on his teeth (Christian Scientists often accept dental care), and his hair was cut short.

His grandmother, Ruth Wantland, who lived nearby, and his father were Christian Scientists.She wanted to move with her children and her new husband to Pennsylvania, but James Wantland wanted his children to stay with him.Gayle Quigley, who had been raised as a Christian Scientist but had left the faith after her remarriage, told the judge that she wanted her children to be provided with mainstream medical care and not just Christian Science treatment.

His treatment had consisted of the prayers of his father, his grandmother, and a Christian Science "practitioner," or Church-appointed healer, Ann McCann.

Within the past decade criminal convictions have been obtained in California against two sets of Christian Science parents who allowed their children to die without medical treatment.

The Mother Church was built in 1894, at the behest of Mary Baker Eddy, who was for years known to her followers as Mother. Along with the Bible, it became the foundation of Christian Science.

The Mother Church, from another perspective (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

During the 1960s and 1970s a number of Christian Scientists occupied powerful positions in the federal government, as judges and as directors of the FBI and the CIA. H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, both Christian Scientists, used their influence as top aides in the Nixon White House to shepherd a bill through Congress which extended the copyright of Eddy's Science and Health (its full title is Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures) for an extra seventy-five years.

In recent decades the Christian Science Church has succeeded in most states in establishing the right of Christian Scientists to deny their children medical treatment. Lobbyists have encouraged state legislatures to enact laws that protect Christian Scientists from prosecution for child abuse or neglect.

The Church refuses to release any figures on its membership, but in 1989 a Church official told the Los Angeles Times that there were roughly 7,000 Christian Science children in this country. No national studies on the mortality of Christian Scientists have ever been done, but smaller studies have pointed to a high mortality rate among Christian Scientists--for example, among the graduates of Principia, the Christian Science college.

You've decided to become an Omnist...Now what?

Coming out of the closet (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Modern Omnists are coming out of the closet on a daily basis. Many of these people are coming out on the Internet. They have discovered a path that makes more sense to them than the mainstream or other religion they have been practicing up to that point. Most of the time, you only see one statement from these individuals and then they never say another thing about it.

Why is this?

Several things can be contributing factors.

• No one takes them seriously.
• They get told, you really mean you are a Unitarian.
• They have trouble finding others who are like minded.

The last is probably the biggest reason they never say anything again. There is really no central place to go on the Internet or publications in the bookstores that give more information on what being an Omnist is all about. 

This is a call to all Omnists. We need to organize. We need to band together. We need to let others know that they are not alone. We need to let Valissa & JB over at Omnism.com that we would like to form a community with their website as a hub. Go visit the website, find their e-mail addresses and let them know that you are interested in their site and want to see it become the central hub for the Omnist Movement. 

It is time to make our presence known!