The appeal I perceive in orthopraxic Christianity

[Dexta]

It's chaos out there. I hate it. Monkeys ravaging all and everything, in the name of nothing....no guidance...nothing. Sluts, both male and female, everywhere. The results of that sluttery evident in the substance abuse, violence and criminality of one and all, more or less. 

I say the beliefs aren't the important thing, it's the behaviour. I think we need to be faithful...wink wink. That's the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Few people are aware of the distinction IME, maybe the only reason I know is because I'm old as fuck.

So what do you think I should go for, Catholicism, Protestantism, the razor blade, or perhaps Islam...or Judaism (as PM Kier Starmer has)....

Also fuck me and fuck everything and I'm right on the edge. If I die, let it be known...I love America....if only Donald Trump were content. I know I'm not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Speed limit 100 mph.

[Dexta]

Yup, it's a big one. I don't think there's any u-turn on the cards.

[Dānu]

The problem with orthopraxy is the same as that of moral relativism; if it isn't tethered to something objectively real, then it becomes a purely subjective enterprise and the justification for any specific component collapses.

[Unsapien]

Christianity is so last Millennium, it's on it's way out.

You have to think outside the box, if I had to choose I'd become an ECKist.

You get to live forever, but not in heaven or hell, you just keep being reincarnated until you're "good" enough to go on to the next plane of existence (which explains why the world as we know is sh*t, cause everyone here has failed to move up, we're the lowest form of spiritual beings).

You even get to keep Jesus & Christmas too, and their meditations are better then praying.

It was the last religion I looked into before I just said "f*ck it, this is bulls*t too, nicer bullsh*t, but still bullsh*t."

And it's made in America, if you like that sort of thing.

[Dexta]

The problem with orthopraxy is the same as that of moral relativism; if it isn't tethered to something objectively real, then it becomes a purely subjective enterprise and the justification for any specific component collapses.

Yeah but it's got cathedrals. BTW, does the USA have any cathedrals?

[pattylt]

The problem with orthopraxy is the same as that of moral relativism; if it isn't tethered to something objectively real, then it becomes a purely subjective enterprise and the justification for any specific component collapses.

Yeah but it's got cathedrals. BTW, does the USA have any cathedrals?

Yes….some quite beautiful.  Don’t expect them to be 500 years old, though.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve explained orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy to people.  Christianity is based on correct belief…you must believe and accept Jesus.  Judaism is Orthopraxic.  You really don’t have to believe in god as long as you follow the correct practices…though god belief is expected, naturally.   Some get it.  Some don’t.  It’s why Jews have all those laws on behavior while Christian’s adapted the laws to suit their beliefs.  That makes some Christian’s a bit irritable…which I enjoy.

[Dexta]

The problem with orthopraxy is the same as that of moral relativism; if it isn't tethered to something objectively real, then it becomes a purely subjective enterprise and the justification for any specific component collapses.

There's the fine tuned, nudged, cultural consensuses. Invaluable. I need it.

[Rizen]

It's chaos out there. I hate it. Monkeys ravaging all and everything, in the name of nothing....no guidance...nothing. Sluts, both male and female, everywhere. The results of that sluttery evident in the substance abuse, violence and criminality of one and all, more or less. 

I say the beliefs aren't the important thing, it's the behaviour. I think we need to be faithful...wink wink. That's the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Few people are aware of the distinction IME, maybe the only reason I know is because I'm old as fuck.

So what do you think I should go for, Catholicism, Protestantism, the razor blade, or perhaps Islam...or Judaism (as PM Kier Starmer has)....

Also fuck me and fuck everything and I'm right on the edge. If I die, let it be known...I love America....if only Donald Trump were content. I know I'm not.

Don't kill yourself. Seek help if that's what you're feeling. Get on meds. I went through a really bad time when I was chronically depressed but I'm glad I didn't kill myself.

[Minimalist]

All forms of jesusism suck.

[brewerb]

All forms of jesusism suck.

and, paradoxically, blows.

[GenesisNemesis]

All forms of jesusism suck.

Yeah I could never get over the whole thing where Jesus said "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me." Dude seems like a narcissistic piece of shit I'd want nothing to do with.

[Minimalist]

Hmmm.... or the people who invented him and put words in his imaginary mouth had a particular bug up their asses at the moment and which we do not understand at a remove of 1,500 years.

[GenesisNemesis]

Hmmm.... or the people who invented him and put words in his imaginary mouth had a particular bug up their asses at the moment and which we do not understand at a remove of 1,500 years.

I'm still not totally convinced the Jesus figure was completely imaginary. However, not a lot of evidence he isn't imaginary.

[SYZ]

What do the mainstream (and non-Christian) scholars say?

Surprisingly very little; of substance anyway. Only Bart Ehrman
and the late Maurice Casey thoroughly attempted to prove Jesus’
historical existence in recent times.

Their most decisive point? The Gospels can generally be trusted
—after we ignore(!) the many, many bits that are untrustworthy(!)—
because of the hypothetical (IE non-existent) sources behind them.

Who produced these hypothetical sources? When? What did they
say? Were they reliable? Were they intended to be accurate historical
portrayals, enlightening allegories, or entertaining fictions?

Ehrman and Casey can’t tell you—and
neither can any New Testament scholar.

Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods
used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be
resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’
historical existence—if not to think it outright improbable.

[Reltzik]

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy share a problem:  If orthodoxy is right belief, and orthopraxy is right practice, what counts as right and who gets to decide?  Sprinkling vs dunking is an orthopraxy question, and no one's going to come up with an objective answer any time soon.

[Dānu]

The bigger problem is that orthopraxy is supposed to have good effects because of orthodoxy's truth and substance. If orthodoxy isn't true, the promise of orthopraxy becomes empty.