-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
All Abrahamic Faiths: Orthodoxy vs Orthopraxy
- Thread starter Katzpur
- Start date
Hy Katz! Personally I think we need a healthy blend of both.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Okay, but do you as a mega-super-ultra-orthodox Jew think that Reform Jews are heretics? I didn't think Jews judged one another the way we Christians seem to.
My own feelings are that orthopraxy is probably more important than orthodoxy. I believe that God wants us to be able to recognize "truth" but if push came to shove, I think He'd rather have us treat one another with kindness, even if we might not get all of the answers on the test correct. But I know a lot of Christians who basically think that accurate beliefs are everything, and to hell with how we behave.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Correct conduct most definitely. My beliefs fly like the wind but at the end, I literally circle right back where I started. I can't do that unless I make that first step. Siting on my cushion just ain't doing it.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Its not a question of judgement, nor does it have anything to do with being Reform or Conservative or even Orthodox. Jewish Law doesn't recognize sectarianism. Anyone who doesn't follow them, whatever Jewish sect they come from, gets the same status. This status has implications on other Laws, so its somewhat important to know. It is more relevant with regards to Reform and Conservative Jews perhaps. But you can have a guy from an ultra-Orthodox sect with long side-locks, long jacket, hat, and prayer shawl swaying in the wind, with his phylacteries on, speaking in Yiddish. But if he pulls out his phone on the Sabbath to discuss some business, I can't serve him any non-cooked wine.
By Jewish Law, one who performs the commandments without intent to fulfill them as a commandment from G-d, didn't fulfill the commandment. So for instance, if someone goes to the synagogue and puts on his phylacteries when he visits his father, because he doesn't want to hurt his father's feelings (rather than because he wants to fulfill the commandment), then it doesn't count. So correct belief is vital to correct action in Judaism.
In Judaism, the Laws regarding interpersonal relations make up maybe less than half of our commandments. Treating others kindly is a Law, so it is important. But not more important than any other commandment. And less important than a number of commandments. I like to say, we weren't commanded to be good Samaritans, we were commanded to be good Jews.
Last edited:
Sad but true. ..Unfortunately
Good question! There is one set of correct beliefs imo. There are at least three sets of correct conduct.
How do I conduct myself while alone? How do I conduct myself with God while praying? How do I conduct myself with other people?*
I think that how I do conduct myself in everything is regulated by what I believe. Then I think correct beliefs have to be more important.
But, from a practical standpoint orthopraxy is most important. (the computer doesn't recognize that word fyi and neither did I)
*there's more. How do I conduct myself with people I like, with people I respect, with people I do not respect, with people who I want to like me, with people I do not care about, with people who can help me, with people I can help...........................
I think that orthodoxy is God's religion, if God has a religion.
Orthopraxy.
Practice is most important, but I think claiming 'Orthopaxy' is too much. Even ants waggle.
arthra
Baha'i
Baha'is value both recognizing the Manifestation of God in this day and following the conduct ..rules and principles of the Faith equally as well. THe opening sentences of the Kitab-i-Aqdas contain the following admonition:
"The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bhi/aqdas.htm
Heterodoxy and heteropraxy in equal measure (at least relative to mainstream versions of Islaam, although to me my beliefs and practice represent orthodoxy and orthopraxy within my version of Islaam).
I am not sure you can have the latter without the former.
For, who defines what currect conduct is?
Ciao
- viole
This is a good point!
Belief vs conduct. Someone might have evil intent (the belief that to do harm to others is not a bad thing to do) but he might act like an angel when it suits his purpose.
It is easier for me to believe that a person can be good to others if he believes it is the righteous thing to do so, than it is for me to believe a person can be good to others but he believes most other people are not worth his time and effort.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
This is a fair point but it might be said that changing the emphasis amounts to constraining the scope of orthodoxy to the focus on conduct. It's true that there still has to be some agreement on (or authority to dictate) what constitutes right conduct, but from a pluralistic standpoint (or a secular one, or an ecumenical one, if those are slightly different) it's usually easier to negotiate some broad agreement on basic and broadly shared ethical concerns. There's something useful in that. Not necessarily as a matter of logical necessity, but with regard to psychology and group dynamics, born out in the way of thinking that an emphasis on orthodoxy tends to lead to in comparison to the way of thinking an emphasis on orthopraxis (orthopoiesis?
) tends to lead to.
This is a fair point but it might be said that changing the emphasis amounts to constraining the scope of orthodoxy to the focus on conduct. It's true that there still has to be some agreement on (or authority to dictate) what constitutes right conduct, but from a pluralistic standpoint (or a secular one, or an ecumenical one, if those are slightly different) it's usually easier to negotiate some broad agreement on basic and broadly shared ethical concerns. There's something useful in that. Not necessarily as a matter of logical necessity, but with regard to psychology and group dynamics, born out in the way of thinking that an emphasis on orthodoxy tends to lead to in comparison to the way of thinking an emphasis on orthopraxis (orthopoiesis?
The problem is with the "big grey".
Helping a needy person is white. Killing chidlren with an assaul rifle in a school is black. We do not really need belief in a God to see that, in general.
But what about the big grey? For instance, is sex abstinence before marriage currect conduct? What about gay marriage? How can I possibly approve gay marriage if I assume that my belief in a God who disapproves is not given?
Ciao
- viole
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I think you're mostly repeating the same point you made the first time, which is well taken. Saying that "orthopraxy" is better than "orthodoxy" certainly doesn't resolve every problem, or answer any of those questions. It's not a panacea to all social problems involving religion. It may at least reduce some tension caused by religious insistence that others adopt particular theological beliefs. It won't directly resolve problems where religions make moral demands that are in tension with a broader secular society.
That said, I do think (as a matter of my own experience) that when people believe that God demands that everyone have exactly the correct beliefs, they tend to also be more strident in their demands for agreement about correct conduct. And conversely, when people adopt a less strident view on orthodoxy, it's usually because (for various reasons) they allow more room for uncertainty about "Truth-with-a-capital-t". That is, it tends to involve a bit more epistemic humility. They also consequently tend to be less strident about demands on conduct. Again, not of logical necessity, but just in terms of their mindset. I suppose my experience here involves a little bit of extrapolation not just from the concepts of orthodoxy and orthopraxis per se, but from the reasons why some people want to emphasize the one over the other, i.e because they allow for doubt and uncertainty about what ultimately correct beliefs are, and so arrive at a more pragmatic and compromising position on moral questions about conduct as well.
True. But if their relaxation concerning what is the right belief is reflected in relaxation of what the right conduct is. then I am not sure how far apart from my initial claim you are. For, what is currect conduct, then?
Ciao
- viole
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
Certainly not too far apart! I wasn't so much disagreeing with you as explaining why I think the choice of terms can be meaningful, despite the fact that I think you are correct to point out the limitation of drawing a conceptual distinction between the two terms. One area in which the choice of terms may lead to meaningfully different outcomes is in religious pedagogy.