Seems pretty stupid when most faiths core ‘truth’ is that they are the only true faith.

So you are someone who wants a reason to explain your behavior to others, with no real conviction or faith. If you have dual faith, it actually means no faith, just an excuse for your shitty behavior.

Seems like a number of Christians also worship Trump

I’m certified omnireligios. I celebrate every religious holiday of every religion, ever. Employers have to accommodate; I work, like, 4 days a year.

Hi there. I teach World Religions (and other philosophy classes), so this is my area of expertise.

Some religious traditions are more open to being practiced along side other traditions, while some have beliefs that demand exclusivity.

In Hinduism, for example, there are millions of gods… all of which are a part of the Supreme God. This logic can, and has, been extended to the gods of other religions.

Likewise, some religions pair together quite nicely, like Buddhism and Shinto or Taoism and Confucianism.

There are also ways in which some religions might have some common ground. You can apply some Buddhist ideas within your Christianity, depending on what those Buddhist ideas are. On this, see Thomas Merton’s work on Zen, or DT Suzuki’s work on Christianity.

As to practicing multiple faiths being a sign of maturity… I think it’s more that friendliness to ideas outside your comfort zone is the mark of maturity here. This can include atheism too. Someone who genuinely wants to understand other perspectives is going to walk away with at least a few ideas they can affirm.

I have been described this way before, even though I see what I am as one whole. You could even call it “trial faith” if you count “agnosticism” as a component. I say that because I don’t think of myself as metaphysically focused. Sure, God may exist, and I do have those leanings, but metaphysical matters are, by virtue of their nature, left out of the strict equations of life, by definition. I see my specifications with God as being summed up with “for all intents and purposes” (as much as people tend to mock it, Jordan Peterson’s “what is” speech comes to mind here).

This may be my Pacific Islander side showing, but adherence to “folk LDS” has to do with the first part of my alignment. It has often been called Hagothism. In the Book of Mormon, one might recall (or so I am told) there are a few random verses where a sailor named Hagoth goes to different places in the Pacific to spread the light of the Nephites. This is where the tradition would come in. There are those of us who hold all the main teachings of “Mormons” (who don’t really like being called that) but who teach something that’s Australianized instead of Americanized. So different story narrative and whatnot. “Hagothists” still, however, identify as LDS. You can be a “Mormon” but not a “Hagothist” and vice versa, though even “Mormons” who have been to places relevant to “Hagothism” have seen the signs possibly indicative of being visited by the lord, such as stories in native beliefs about heavenly visitors. Though I am not absolute, I definitely lean towards these teachings known as Hagothism, it’s not as judgmental and best matches expectations and answers questions.

Along comes the Mune Shinri, a scripture whose “faith name” is “Aiken”. I only had to read it once, and everything fits perfectly. Components such as the views on gods (technically henotheism but technically monotheism, one doesn’t rule out other gods while the other is like “hey, the angels of old were gods in a way”), the views on the afterlife (Hell is not for the good-hearted; one says you have to try really hard to get into Hell, the other speaks of a man named Akuma who was the first to do just that and resides in a place where people who haven’t repented serious things stay given they don’t speak their heart out), the views on geography (Aiken’s connection to Japan comes to mind, and a lot of people wonder how Japan fits in with the lore about Hagoth, which may have an answer here), and the views on human rights (both are LGBT-friendly for example, err, one suggests it’s not God’s plan but implies it isn’t damnable while the other says he does not look down on any form of unity) all come together like a rope and a curtain. As many of us do with many things, I, at different times, may vocally identify differently and with different semantics, even though it’s all there at all times. As for what church I go to, it’s a mix between a non-specifically denominational group and a regular LDS one.

In the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), having multiple faiths is explicitly forbidden in the Ten Commandments: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Exodus#20:1

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And you can see this play out historically: when Christians met peoples of other faiths, they didn’t see it as an opportunity for learning and cultural exchange, they saw them as heathens that needed to be proselytized… or eradicated.

Conversely, I feel like Buddhists are the most likely to have other faiths, because Buddhism changed and adapted as it spread throughout Asia, and incorporated elements of the local religions.

https://www.learnreligions.com/religion-in-japan-4782051 The main religions in Japan are Buddhism (69.8%) and Shinto (70.4%)

Lol.

My mind is like split between “There is no gods and no afterlife” But then, when I feel the Death Anxiety, I go to “There’s probably some reincarnation thing that scientists still haven’t been able to measure”

So like a superposition of simultaneously not believing in the supernatural and believeing in the supernatural, depending on how anxious I am of death.

I think it’s basically the norm.

Categorising people neatly is for the benefit of statisticians, not something that’s real in the human heart.