ORLAPUBS P. R240: HOW TO HOLD WORTHWHILE INTERFAITH DISCUSSIONS

Since we prove our points on the basis of the axioms of our paradigms, and since the axiomatic paradigms of Western Christians differ radically from the ancient paradigm of the New Testament and the Orthodox East, the only way to discuss a point is with conditionals like "if [premise], then [what follows from the premise] ."

This forces those locked into their cognitive boxes to step outside of them and connect a few dots in the other paradigm without conceding anything. It thus has the advantage of arguing neutrally--not in the vain vein of "this is what I think" or "what y'all hold is wrong."

Otherwise, one is limited to arguing premises--which are not truth-vulnerable or falsifiable. In the approach recommended here, premises can be discussed--e.g. their origins and the date of their origins. Other "retroductive" reasons can be given for accepting or rejecting a premise., but they are neither "true" nor "false."

Since there is no other feasible way in accord with intellectual honesty to discuss East-West theological differences, pursuing dead-ends violates the dictum that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Rather than wasting money and time on insanity, it would be better to refrain from talks altogether . . . the more so since the Orthodox have from the tenth to the twentieth century lost out in every interfaith discussion because of attempting to argue their points in settings framed in with Western axioms. Better no ecumenics than in a vacuum of no commonsense.

A sensible Orthodox approach to interfaith encounters, official or unofficial, would be to ensure the following stepwise procedure:

1a. A simultaneous exchange of a one-page summary of one's own beliefs.
1b. A simultaneous exchange of a revised one-page summary of one's beliefs.
2a. Each side exchanges its requirements for the framework of such an
      encounter. The Orthodox would naturally require (a) absolute parity of the
      Orthodox energy-ontology paraigm and terminology and (b) a banning
      of the bringing in of non-doctrinal practices like priestly celibacy, polity, etc.

2b. Otherdox response.
3. The Orthodox group should include the best Patristic scholars (e.g. Dr.
George Gabriel, Prof. Dr. A. Louth), those most knowledgeable of Aquinas
and/or the Reformers and (alas) current modish theology in the West, etc.

In the fairly infrequent situation of having a discussion with someone able to treat issues objectively, note that the best arguments, where applicable are:

CONTRA: showing a contradiction

With a Western Christian, begin by asking how God could punish a newborn for Adam's guilt without God's becoming a cause of evil in the world. Since so much of Western theology depends on the premise in question, this is a good place to begin.
DEFENSIVE: distinguo, i.e. showing that the opponent is confusing distinct things

If a Denominationist argues that Christ's Sacrifice cannot be repeated (in the Eucharist), show that he's confusing a non-repeatable Immolation (not part of many sacrifices in the third Book of Moses in the Old Testament) with a repeatable Offering (which is what a sacrifice is). Our Liturgy makes it clear that in and through the members of His Body, Christ re-offers His body at the hands of the priest at the divine Liturgy.

SEE R163 AND PAGES LINK TO IT