[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by skip spence

You mistyped and mixed up the terms here, didn't you?

Pitch got to this before me. Both the Wiki article and Armstrong's discussion explain how the right behaviour matters more than the belief and argue that this is more predominant in Judaism and Islam. In fact, she retells this story from Hyam Maccoby:

Originally Posted by The Spiral Staircase, p. 235

"Some pagans came to [Rabbi] Hillel and told him that they would convert to his faith if he could recite the whole of Jewish teaching while he stood on one leg. So Hillel obligingly stood on one leg like a stork and said, 'Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto you. That is the Torah. The rest is commentary. ' "

There's a good bit of Jewish humour in this, of course.

If y'all will bear with me, I'll quote the most succinct passage in Armstrong's argument about orthopraxy.

Originally Posted by The Spiral Staircase, pp. 270-271

Hyam Maccoby had given me a clue. . . . He had told me that in most traditions, faith was not about belief but about practice. Religion is not about accepting twenty impossible propositions before breakfast, but about doing things that change you. It is a moral aesthetic, an ethical alchemy. If you behave in a certain way, you will be transformed. The myths and laws of religion are not true because they conform to some metaphysical, scientific, or historical reality but because they are life enhancing. They tell you how human nature functions, but you will not discover their truth unless you apply these myths and doctrines to your own life and put them into practice. The myths of the hero, for example, are not meant to give us historical information about Prometheus, or Achilles--or for that matter, about Jesus or the Buddha. Their purpose is to compel us to act in such a way that we bring out our own heroic potential.

In the course of my studies, I have discovered that the religious quest is not about discovering "the truth" or "the meaning of life" but about living as intensely as possible here and now. The idea not to latch on to some superhuman personality or to "get to heaven" but to discover how to be fully human--hence the images of the perfect or enlightened man, or the deified human being. Archetypal figures such as Muhammad, the Buddha, and Jesus become icons of fulfilled humanity. Gor or Nirvana is not an optional extra, tacked on to our human nature. Men and women have a potential for the divine, and are not complete unless they realise it within themselves.

This is, of course, her personal statement of where she has come on her journey, but it is consistent with much in medieval mystics and, for instance, Buddhism, which does not have a god demanding fealty or imposing creeds. She goes on to explain how this is not "unbridled individualism" (p. 271)--after all, Armstrong spent several years training as a nun. It might be seen as too "liberal" for Tolkien's own faith, but I think that the central tenet for him was his experience of the Mass, when he believed he partook of the divine, and this fits in with Armstrong's explanation I think. So this idea of orthopraxy is not just a modern ethical system. The word has a long tradition in religious studies.

As to what sets up the standard, perhaps that would be the issue of suffering (as it is in Buddhism). When the Numenoreans turned to worshipping Melkor, how did that change their society and behaviour to each other?

Note to Inzil: I cannot recall when I first read The Spiral Staircase, so I cannot remember if it influenced my earlier post about Frodo, but there could well be a consistency in my own journey that's coming out.

EDIT: Thanks, guys, for the props. Good to see many contributing here.