Comments on: Rites And Beliefs http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:45:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8591 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:46:50 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8591 Sorry. That sentence was a bit of a mess, and I see that there is a "to" in that sentence that shouldn't have been there at all. The theoretical distinction I was referring to was between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, or between doctrine and praxis. My point *was* that praxis and belief are one and that theology is best understood as prayer, but that the average believer experiences his religion through praxis (though which, yes, he becomes familiar with doctrine). Sorry. That sentence was a bit of a mess, and I see that there is a “to” in that sentence that shouldn’t have been there at all. The theoretical distinction I was referring to was between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, or between doctrine and praxis. My point *was* that praxis and belief are one and that theology is best understood as prayer, but that the average believer experiences his religion through praxis (though which, yes, he becomes familiar with doctrine).

]]> by: Charles Curtis http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8590 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:12:03 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8590 Daniel: What do you mean by this: "Converts to Orthodoxy, in my experience, tend be rather fixated on doctrine (as some might say that I am) and have a much harder time with all the details of orthopraxy, even though you should understand that the distinction between them is to essentially theoretical, in the same way that theology properly understood is first and foremost prayer?" Even though you should understand that the distinction between them is to essentially theoretical, in the same way that theology properly understood is first and foremost prayer? What or who is meant by "them?" The converts? And why do you say "religions that are focused most heavily on ritual are religions that do not seem to put, at least from the perspective of the everyday experience of the average believer, great emphasis on doctrine?" You say this as an Orthodox Christian? As though praxis and belief are not essentially one? Lex cedendi, lex orandi, lex vivendi, all that? You're confusing me, Daniel. Daniel:

What do you mean by this:

“Converts to Orthodoxy, in my experience, tend be rather fixated on doctrine (as some might say that I am) and have a much harder time with all the details of orthopraxy, even though you should understand that the distinction between them is to essentially theoretical, in the same way that theology properly understood is first and foremost prayer?”

Even though you should understand that the distinction between them is to essentially theoretical, in the same way that theology properly understood is first and foremost prayer?

What or who is meant by “them?” The converts?

And why do you say “religions that are focused most heavily on ritual are religions that do not seem to put, at least from the perspective of the everyday experience of the average believer, great emphasis on doctrine?”

You say this as an Orthodox Christian? As though praxis and belief are not essentially one? Lex cedendi, lex orandi, lex vivendi, all that?

You’re confusing me, Daniel.

]]> by: Bobcat http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8587 Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:10:32 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/16/rites-and-beliefs/#comment-8587 I think you miss one reason why people might find that kind of ecuminism appealing: beliefs about the nature of God. Assuming God is omnibenevolent, all-loving, or maximally good (assuming you want to distinguish them), you might wonder either (1) why he would reserve his revelation in Jesus to a small piece of the world and then providentially assist in its spreading out, or (2) what happens to those people who are not in the Judeo-Christian tradition. <i>Prima facie</i>, it seems to go against God's goodness to eternally damn everyone who isn't lucky enough to be evangelized to by Christians from the middle east or, later, the west. Now, if you say they are not so damned, then what happens to them after they die, assuming they never encountered emissaries of Christ in this life? Do they encounter Christ after they die? If so, what sort of factors make it easier or harder for them to accept Christ as their savior? If one is a firm adherent of Buddhism or Hinduism, does that set you back a ways? If so, how much? Maybe you think it is a <i>non sequitur</i> to move from these considerations to any kind of ecuminism, but I do not; I think it is hard to imagine that God could be loving but not make any exceptions, or have any special plan, for virtuous non-Christians. I think you miss one reason why people might find that kind of ecuminism appealing: beliefs about the nature of God. Assuming God is omnibenevolent, all-loving, or maximally good (assuming you want to distinguish them), you might wonder either (1) why he would reserve his revelation in Jesus to a small piece of the world and then providentially assist in its spreading out, or (2) what happens to those people who are not in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Prima facie, it seems to go against God’s goodness to eternally damn everyone who isn’t lucky enough to be evangelized to by Christians from the middle east or, later, the west.

Now, if you say they are not so damned, then what happens to them after they die, assuming they never encountered emissaries of Christ in this life? Do they encounter Christ after they die? If so, what sort of factors make it easier or harder for them to accept Christ as their savior? If one is a firm adherent of Buddhism or Hinduism, does that set you back a ways? If so, how much?

Maybe you think it is a non sequitur to move from these considerations to any kind of ecuminism, but I do not; I think it is hard to imagine that God could be loving but not make any exceptions, or have any special plan, for virtuous non-Christians.

]]>