|
Post by Josh on Jun 23, 2011 15:57:26 GMT -8
What do you think? Which elements are essential for respectful dialogue between people of different faiths/ belief systems?
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 23, 2011 17:26:41 GMT -8
Recently I've been on a Facebook group that practices interfaith dialogue. Wow, it's tricky. It's so easy for people to be insulted, to think that because one makes a statement of belief that it is insulting to those who don't believe it. Also, many people state their beliefs in terms that say how they are so much better than other religions. So people are insulted again.
I'd say one of the main issues is clear communication without reference to other religions. Secondly, even if we explain our differences, we must be clear not to downtalk what is honored in another religion. We don't have to agree with it ourselves, but once we are perceived to be insulting dearly held beliefs, then all communication is shut down.
Finally, many of us want to evangelize, and that is important. But pre-evangelism is more important because otherwise you have no hearers. Pre-evangelism is about building trust, making what you say worthy to be listened to. Usually this is done through relationship, but it could also be done through service, through wise (non-Christian) counsel, and through a positive life. "The gospel should be preached at all times, occasionally through words."
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 24, 2011 10:26:21 GMT -8
I think is important to restate what the person is saying and to show them that you understand their feelings even if we don't agree with them.
For example Josh , I don't agree with a lot of your theological beliefs but I can understand how and why you feel that way. I know your intentions are good and you have a good heart. So it is easy for me to accept what you are saying without having to agree with them. Besides we agree on more issues that we disagree on.
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 24, 2011 10:30:28 GMT -8
One element that I think is also important is the desire of both parties to take what is good from the other person but also to respect and understand the they may never change their minds about a certain subject and be ok with it.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 24, 2011 11:03:21 GMT -8
I think is important to restate what the person is saying and to show them that you understand their feelings even if we don't agree with them. So you are saying that you think that communicating with others includes repeating what they say in other words? Perhaps you are saying that because you feel that no one can really make sure that they are understood unless their feelings are reciprocated? But what if the feelings are not reciprocated? Perhaps Josh doesn't feel like you've really heard him because you still disagree with him?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 24, 2011 11:39:05 GMT -8
A lot of it has to do with the expectations of people going into the discussion.
For instance, I welcome people challenging my faith, explaining in no uncertain terms what bothers them about it, what they think isn't worth believing, etc. And it's really refreshing when you can find someone who brings that same expectation to the table. But that's usually not the case, and so clear expectations of what kind of conversation is going to be had beforehand is hugely important.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 26, 2011 7:31:06 GMT -8
Josh: That is a noble ideal, but I have found two things in religious discussions. First, the majority of people don't share this view, they believe that their "correctness" also gives them the right to never be challenged, and even if you tell such a person what the expectations of the conversation is, that doesn't dissuade them from being insulted when challenged.
Second, and this is the most insidious, we are all human and we never know when a challenger will undermine our determination to be fair minded and anger swells up at the audacity of such a one to approach us with "stupid" remarks. It is difficult to remain objective when our emotions run away with us.
Does this mean I don't challenge people? Of course not. I'm notorious for it. But mostly Christians, who, I think, should know better (although, to my disappointment, I find that my beliefs are simply not true). But it is almost always better to lead a person to right thinking and then allow them to challenge themselves-- or allow the Holy Spirit to do it. It is more organic that way and a conversion is truer.
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 26, 2011 15:49:28 GMT -8
stevekimes wrote:
Hi Steve. No, I wasn't meaning what you stated above. What I was talking about when saying it's good to restate what the person is saying is what is referred to as "active listening". This way they know you are listening to them and therefore being courteous. This is good to do whether or not the person listening agrees with the person talking.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 29, 2011 13:38:08 GMT -8
It tends to be easier to do with skeptics and atheists than with religious folk, it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Jun 29, 2011 21:00:55 GMT -8
I'd like to chime in here. (Hi, I'm Kirby, remember me? For me, it is essential to assume my worldview may change as a result of the conversation. That is not to say it is necessary to not be confident in your worldview going in, but open to the possibility that new possibilities may exist.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jul 1, 2011 16:07:54 GMT -8
That's great, Kirby.
I think we should assume that with every conversation, every book we read, every movie we see and every time we read the Bible. What is most important is that we "test the spirits", or the worldview, every time our current worldview is challenged. If we are open about the changes in our worldview, that gives others the opportunity to be changed in a similar way.
|
|