Orthopraxy

Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, it does. Insisting that I am right and you are wrong is the first thing that you relinquish (on both sides) when you agree to make such an approach. It is no longer important, since we are both aware of our own limitations, and we have nothing to prove.

But the differences do not go away despite your repeated insistence that they do.

Also, one of the first doctrines to get jettisoned is the one that at least one of the parties will get eternally punished.
So you start your all inclusive religion by excluding the vast majority of theists. Nice going.

Without this, I agree there can be no mutual understanding.
So you are fine with laying down the law, you just don't like it when someone else does it. Sure looks like an 'I'm right and they're wrong' situation to me.

Exactly. But with the added caveat that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine which of our various opinions is actually suspect and which not.
So, basically you are agnostic. But that too is very much a theological position that sets you apart from the vast majority. I for one do not believe that it is impossible to determine which of our various opinions is actually suspect and which is not. In fact I can state that some of the positions you have expressed in this thread are highly suspect.

I agree that this has been the case. I believe it may have something to do with the limitations of the written word.
Maybe, or it may even be a general limitation of communication in general.

(You do know that the actual words are only 7% of any face-to-face conversation)
That doesn't mean we are particularly good at the other 93%. Certainly I think you will have great difficulty expressing complicated religious beliefs or logical position's through gestures.

I would also like to know who it was who calculated that. I suspect it was a wild estimate.

If you and I should sit together over a beer or two, I can quite imagine that we would have some useful and interesting conversations.
I am sure we would. Largely because we would be less likely to jump down each others throats. ie we would be more ecumenical for the sake of maintaining the peace, but it wouldn't make our beliefs any more compatible or in fact change them in any way. Although the fact that I don't drink beer might make things just a little uncomfortable.

You see, this is what I mean by the limitations of language.

Sometimes one says something, and the other party jumps at the actual words which were undeniably spoken, but the meaning was perhaps not quite clear, and at the very least there were underlying nuances.

Take for example my comment on eternal punishment. We are a member of two groups, one fairly conventional, mainly Baptists and ex-Baptists, and the other largely Buddhist. The former are all hell and salvation believing, and they know my stance, but we get along just fine. A parting of the ways would come when the issue is made a condition of continuing fellowship, which I am sure it won't.

The Buddhists, on the other hand, are extremely non-confrontational and non-divisive, and we are accepted warmly in the group, knowing that we are Christians. My son is a leader of that group, and he gives lectures in meditation and Mindfulness. When we are introduced, he says: "My parents, the Christians" and everybody claps!

Issues and differences only become important when you let them.

Where I do agree with you is that many of the doctrines of the various groups seem to be mutually exclusive. What is NOT a good idea is the practice of a butterfly, flitting from group to group and merely, superficially, partaking in what appeals to one, and glossing over of the problems. This is not what we do. I have my base firmly in Christianity, and from that vantage point view the other positions not as enemies or heretics, but as opportunities for learning.

This is what I understand my quote in the OP to state quite eloquently.

Let me try to get this thread back on track.

Orthopraxy means right conduct and action, rather than Orthodoxy, which means right belief.

This forum generally majors on what people BELIEVE, and how particular verses are interpreted. It is the thesis of this thread that what we believe matters, but by far not as much as what we practice - specifically tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness, humility and love.

Jesus exemplified this by almost never talking about beliefs, but always about actions - see the Sermon on the Mount. He accepted all Outsiders, and made a hero in one of his parables of a Samaritan, who were considered as heretics by those of "Pure Doctrine".

Has the Christian Church lost this? I think all evidence points to the fact that it has - and this is underlined by the majority of discussion in this Forum.

Does any Christian here disagree with the last sentence of the quote in the OP?

Originally posted by CalJust
You see, this is what I mean by the limitations of language.

Sometimes one says something, and the other party jumps at the actual words which were undeniably spoken, but the meaning was perhaps not quite clear, and at the very least there were underlying nuances.

So just to be clear, when you said:

Also, one of the first doctrines to get jettisoned is the one that at least one of the parties will get eternally punished.
Without this, I agree there can be no mutual understanding.

What you meant was:
"They still believe we are going to hell, but they are too polite to say so to our faces, and that's just fine."
Is that correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead

What you meant was:
"They still believe we are going to hell, but they are too polite to say so to our faces, and that's just fine."
Is that correct?

No.

What I mean is that some in our "Baptist" group firmly believe that non-Christians will go to hell (and also in a 6-day creation and Noah) and they know that I believe in none of those. We DO have discussions about it, especially in private one-on-ones. There is no question of "being too polite to say so to our faces".

If one or more were to continually preach to me to save me from hell (for not believing in hell!) then I suppose it would strain our relationship. So my statemt that you quoted in which I imply the prerequisit for jettisoning the belief in hell before one can fellowship, was wrong.

What is important is that we accept each others' povs, and do not let that difference of belief stand in the way of our Orthopraxy, as mentioned in my previous post.

Having said that, I must add that there was one couple that felt very strongly about the issue of adult baptism, and when they found out that the rest of us don't really care how you baptise (and I refer here also to the amusing discussion between Dive and RJH about what exact formula to use!) they left the group.

So it is clear that for some people, your exact beliefs will determine whether they will associate with you or not, but we already know that.

Originally posted by CalJust
Let me try to get this thread back on track.

If my understanding of the quote in the OP is correct, it is not about 'right practice' as opposed to 'right belief' at all. (despite the first sentence). It is instead a call to stop protecting what you know to be traditions and claims such as 'we have always done it this way so it must be right'. Nevertheless both you and he go on to make doctrinal assertions and don't actually talk about practice all that much.
Both you and the person quoted seem also to wish to co-opt Jesus as your hero in order to lend weight to your claims. For me this sort of behaviour always triggers a red flag. If you genuinely think your argument makes sense it should stand on its own without Jesus' apparent approval.

The first sentence is correct. There is for example a lot of emphasis on conduct in Chinese philosophy. But even so, there are disputes over what 'correct conduct' should be and why and paradox's arise when you try so hard to avoid doctrine that you create doctrine.

I should explain here that the quote was, as I pointed out, the daily meditation from Fr Rohr, which is a part of a series and was not necessaily intended to stand on its own. So further comments as to actions and practices occur in previous and subsequent articles.

Secondly, the series is addressed mainly at Christians, hence the reference to Jesus. It was not really intended to convince you or other atheists of anything. Hence my OP was also addressed at other Christians, who have been surprisingly silent so far!

Originally posted by CalJust
I should explain here that the quote was, as I pointed out, the daily meditation from Fr Rohr, which is a part of a series and was not necessaily intended to stand on its own. So further comments as to actions and practices occur in previous and subsequent articles.

Fair enough. That explains the apparently out of place first sentence. It remains the case that the rest of the quote is not about Orthopraxy at all despite your thread title and apparent wish to discuss orthopraxy.
Interestingly the Wikipedia article on it is somewhat confusing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy
It would seem that Fr Rohr is against both Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy as defined in the Wikipedia article but I suspect Wikipedia is wrong.

Secondly, the series is addressed mainly at Christians, hence the reference to Jesus.
That doesn't change the fact that both of you wish to coopt Jesus for your argument something that you should not need to do if you have a valid argument. It is also unlikely to be effective.

It seems to me that are some impassable divides. A big one is non-dualistic versus dualistic concepts of God.

Another is exclusivism versus non-exclusivism—and this can apply to orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy. Since the exclusivist does not accept the premise of non-exclusivism (multiple paths to God), there really is no middle ground. (There might be “soft” exclusivists that accept the possibility, while remaining doubtful.)

In a Christian context, I have now become convinced that Biblical literalists/inerrantists and those of us who do not hold such a view, are also at a foundational hermeneutical impasse. We simply do not do exegesis the same way. And so discussions over Biblical content and meaning are bound to collapse.

Again in a Christian context, orthopractic divides can persist over liturgical issues.

In Judaism, an Orthodox Jew and a Reform (or Conservative) Jew might hold identical theological beliefs—but, whereas you might find a Reform Jew (one who knows Hebrew, anyway) in an Orthodox synagogue, the reverse would be rare I think. The differences are more orthopractic. (And, even between Reform and Conservative, there can be disagreements over acceptable prayer books—this, I have seen.)

Buddhism is not free of such divides either. In Japan, Zen Buddhists and Pure Land Buddhists have had an often rancorous history (though that seems not to be so in China)—even though both are Mahayana schools. Theravada Buddhists rely strictly on the Pali Canon, and do not recognize Mahayana sutras. I read an account somewhere not too long ago about a multi-national Theravada conference in Southeast Asia: The monks from one country would not participate until the monks from another country learned “to bow properly”.

On the other hand, I read a book some years back that consisted of a collection of papers given at a conference of Orthodox Christians and Sufis and their shared mystical approach to their respective faiths. And Thomas Merton once noted that Christian and Buddhist monks could come together in the silence of meditation/contemplative prayer.

Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that I can spend my time in contemplation or argument, but not both—and I am now finding the latter to be time less well spent.

Originally posted by vistesd

Thank you, vistesd. It is most encouraging to know that I am not alone. Everything in your post I agree with, and encourages me that I am on the right track.

It seems to me that are some impassable divides. A big one is non-dualistic versus dualistic concepts of God.

True. But somebody elses dualism does not need to stop me from fellowshipping with them, because otherwise we would really be lonely.

Another is exclusivism versus non-exclusivism—and this can apply to orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy. Since the exclusivist does not accept the premise of non-exclusivism (multiple paths to God), there really is no middle ground.

Yes, that is a biggie. But I like the old quote (can't remember from where) that goes: he drew a circle to shut me out, but I drew a bigger one to include him in. Again, it takes two parties to create a division, and if I refuse to accept a shut-out, I cannot be isolated.

In a Christian context, I have now become convinced that Biblical literalists/inerrantists and those of us who do not hold such a view, are also at a foundational hermeneutical impasse. We simply do not do exegesis the same way. And so discussions over Biblical content and meaning are bound to collapse.

I totally agree. That is why I, in meetings with our Baptist group, mostly keep my views to myself, unless specifically asked about how I see things, and then do so diplomatically and non-confrontationally. And I have seen slight movements to both non-dualism as well as non-exclusivism.

Buddhism is not free of such divides either. In Japan, Zen Buddhists and Pure Land Buddhists have had an often rancorous history.

I gathered this from discussions with my son, too.

And Thomas Merton once noted that Christian and Buddhist monks could come together in the silence of meditation/contemplative prayer.

You referring to Thomas Merton is a welcome surprise. He was one of Richard Rohr's mentors, and a person I admire greatly. Also, Thomas Keating is a mentor to me.

Frankly, I have come to the conclusion that I can spend my time in contemplation or argument, but not both—and I am now finding the latter to be time less well spent.

I can just say Amen to that. My sentiments entirely. But my False Self still likes to argue, and feed on showing that I know more than the next guy. Work in progress!

Originally posted by CalJust
Originally posted by vistesd

Thank you, vistesd. It is most encouraging to know that I am not alone. Everything in your post I agree with, and encourages me that I am on the right track.

[b]It seems to me that are some impassable divides. A big one is non-dualistic versus dualistic concepts of God.

True. But somebody elses dualism does ...[text shortened]... still likes to argue, and feed on showing that I know more than the next guy. Work in progress![/b]

All of this just goes to show no human has any real knowledge of anything outside of his or her own body, in a philosophical sense. It is also clear no deity, if they exist at all, have zero interest in the lives of humans. It seems clear to me we are on our own in a hostile universe and it will be humans who keep humanity from going extinct not some man made deity.

Originally posted by sonhouse
All of this just goes to show no human has any real knowledge of anything outside of his or her own body, in a philosophical sense.

I don't believe that is a valid conclusion to be reached from this thread. This thread merely shows that there are indeed many opinions, but not whether one or more of them has "real knowledge".

It is also clear no deity, if they exist at all, have zero interest in the lives of humans.

Again, that is not a valid conclusion either. No evidence on this matter has been presented or refuted.

The main subject being discussed here is that our actions are more important than our beliefs, and that there is merit in being able to objectively examine alternative povs, rather than stick to ones own comfort zone and cultural conditioning.

Whether there is a god or not, and whether such a god would be interested in human affairs, is a different topic altogether. And each of us can and should make up our own minds on that matter based on the evidence available to us.

Originally posted by CalJust
The issue of how anybody knows that he or she is RIGHT has been discussed here many times

For people like dasa and rjh there is no problem: it is absolutely obvious that they, and they alone, are RIGHT and everybody else is WRONG!

For some of us who think a bit further, it is not that simple. I cannot deny somebody else the same right that I demand for ...[text shortened]... w to recognize and honor God everywhere, and not just inside your own group symbols.[/quote][/b]

I found this to be a very good and interesting post Caljust. Thank you, it has challenged me to think and consider the other person even more.
Finding common ground is very challenging especially on a forum where you cannot see the person you are speaking with. Then you would see and hear words being spoken in a different light.
It would be easier if one can articulate as some here I see. Vistesd, Sonhouse, and many more come to mind. I have difficulty since my vocabulary is not as refined as theirs.
I was born in Puerto Rico and have been in NY most of my life, so now I speak English better than Spanish.
But even then I pray that I can articulate in a more profound way to get my point across.
I have been having my problems lately communicating on this forum.
But I agree, the church has gotten away from civility and push their point across. Jesus didn't do that, He led by example.
I am as I write this, asking the Lord to forgive me and remind me to pray before I post.🙂