In my personal opinion, absolutely. Although it sounds contradictory at first, being a Monotheistic Omnist is possible in my eyes.
How so?
As long as they are open to any aspect of every religion, be that metaphorical, or spiritual, they can still call themselves an Omnist even if they only literally take one religion as truth above all. For instance, a member of the Christian society can call themselves an Omnist, if they acknowledge that all religions and ideologies have merit, and some form of truth behind them. Sometimes even personally follow some ways of life from other books. They are not worshipping false gods if there is a moral guide in the Vitas and not in the Bible. One does not have to take every religious text as being 100% truthful. So in some aspects of Omnism, you do not have to worship or claim every god exists, just to recognise that every religion has fundamental truth behind it.
An acknowledgment of every religion being one of self betterment is a clear acceptance of all religions, but at the same time, you can believe that every single god exists, which in my eyes can seem far fetched, and contradictions become clear in differing religions.
This is where the term 'recognition of another god' can become a little misunderstood in my opinion. Let's say I'm an agnostic Omnist, I don't know what god there could be, if any. Anyone could be right, anyone could be wrong. There could be a god that none of humanity ever thought of. Most agnostics fall into this category. But does an agnostic recognise the truth behind all gods in every religion? I would argue yes. Recognition does not imply that you believe in the being, or worship them. It is a recognition that one can worship a god in their own right, be that truth or fiction.
Does recognition imply existence?
There can be an argument both ways for this question, which I will make as clear as I can in a way I can understand myself. Suppose the UN officially recognises a new country, this implies it's existence. Now suppose you don't recognise a new law of the government. Is the law still active? Are you protected from the effects of that law, simply because you do not recognise it? Does your lack of recognition deny it's existence altogether? How about if you can't recognise your cousin in an old photograph, when looking through your family album? Did the boy not exist, simply because you did not recognise them? One can recognise that the boogeyman has been a terror to children. Or what about Santa bringing them gifts. We can recognise the merit and morals these ideas give children. Despite us knowing the truth, the recognition of Santa's moral teachings is not the recognition that he does, or has ever, existed. Therefore, one can recognise the gods of all religions, yet still not recognise the existence of them.
You can see where the term of 'recognition of their gods' can become a little mixed. It is such a broad word that a clear definition in the sake of this case is not given. So, I see it is down to you how you recognise other gods, but to be an Omnist you must fall under those criteria.
Terms such as 'Monotheistic Omnist', 'Agnostic Omnist' etc, will be further explained later.
(These are fleeting thoughts and so posts might be jumbled, but I am trying to write about certain topics in one go.)
Comments