You may be able to find such discussions on Beliefnet. Thye have the ROC that doesn't allow 'witnessing' or personal insults, which makes things more civil.
i think the first five most apply to interfaith dialogue
1) Courtesy and Respect: You agree that you will be courteous to every Beliefnet member, even those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. You agree not to make negative personal remarks about other Beliefnet members, including negative remarks about their age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, intelligence, character, appearance, health, mental health, education or any other personal characteristic. You agree not to create posts and discussions intended to criticize or ridicule other members personally. You agree not to engage in derogatory name-calling, including calling anyone evil, a liar, Satanic, demonic, antichrist, a Nazi, or other inflammatory comparisons.
2) Hate Speech: Even if religiously motivated, you agree not to engage in hate speech on Beliefnet. You agree not to allege that groups or individuals deserve violence, or attempt to dehumanize or degrade them on the basis of age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.
3) Violence: You agree not to advocate illegal violence against or harassment of groups or individuals, even if religiously motivated.
4) Proselytizing: You agree not to make aggressive, repeated, or unwanted attempts to convert another member's religious beliefs. Please respect the rights of others to follow their own religious beliefs, even if you think those beliefs are false.
5) Disruptive behavior: You agree not to disrupt or interfere with discussions, forums, or other community functions. Disruptive behavior may include creating a disproportionate number of posts or discussions to disrupt conversation; creating off-topic posts; making statements that are deliberately inflammatory; manipulating topic lists to disrupt conversation; posting in a language other than English without providing an accurate English translation; expanding a disagreement from one discussion to another; or any behavior that interferes with conversations or inhibits the ability of others to use and enjoy this website for its intended purposes.
something else from another forum that i found useful...
Try only to speak what you are sure is the Truth. If you are speaking of your own experiences, you can be surer that you are doing so.
When speaking in this way, exaggerating is the same as lying! We are often tempted to enlarge ourselves so that others can "see us more easily". The result is that we perform from a persona and the Truth we are attempting to communicate cannot shine forth.
It is impossible to argue with someone about the validity or lack of validity of his or her experience. It is theirs and theirs alone.
I don't think that type of dialoge is possible here.
While there are a number of posters that could participate in a respectful way toward others, there are too many contentious 'righteous' believers who would feel the need to distract, shut down, insult, confront etc. yadayada
It's like they have to win something, a big competition.
I do enjoy hearing about other people's spiritual journeys, their personal convictions, beliefs, why they think that way, what joy or peace it has brought them.
I just don't like to continually hear the 'and you must believe like i do, too, because it is Right.'
I must?
What if I can't, what dire consequences await me?(always seem to be dire consequences)
What if no matter what I do I can't be like you and have the experiences you did?
What if I have compelling experiences that are different than yours?
But carry on, Sir Guess. Maybe it will happen.
And maybe after a good night's sleep I'll be more optimistic.
what are the tools/"secrets" for dialogue between people of different faiths?
what value might such a level of dialogue have?
what benefits?
are there examples from history we can reflect on?
are there examples in the present day?
I hardly ever post down here in doctrinal- as Im not big on discussing abstract beliefs-I am of the opinion personally that actions weigh much deeper and reflect the inner beliefs, the real beliefs, that people carry with them more than their words can express
That being said, my town has an interfaith community that works very well together, but 'the dialogue' is primarily built around projects and things that we all DO together as opposed to just discussing, that bring us together.
The homeless shelter and transitional housing program in town was completely built, funded and manned by volunteers from the interfaith community that found common ground in something that they all believed in and were able to do together. It forged lasting and deep friendships and fostered great respect among people of different faiths who if confined to just dialogue may not have been able to understand how close there actual beliefs really were despite the different spiritual languages that each may speak.
From my own personal experience, this is one of the better things that i have done that allows me to connect with people of other spiritual backgrounds and histories without developing an adversarial type relationship that I wrestle with occasionally as a holdover from my waydaze.
Your Hospice type work that you mentioned on another thread is bound to put you in a similar position.
I think that faith people of any type have much more common ground than dissimilarities generally speaking. If you can find that common ground I think you'll pretty much be on good ground
Hmmm. Still don't think you can have this type of converstation on GSC. You've already got Allan here, ready to attack, I'm sure. Others will soon follow.
TWI was very good at teaching people to attack, name call, froth at the mouth in order to get their way. Anger and manipulation of others through anger was the magic that made it all happen.
Since yelling doesn't work on a message board, they are forced to insult etc.
I have always wondered if this kind of dialogue is possible. There are spiritual consequences noted in the bible, some dire, for not believing/acting correctly. Then, filter in the ego and self-esteem of the believers themselves, and you have a potentially volatile situation. Passions will always run high, assuming of course, there is some level of commitment to the beliefs.
And how big of a problem on GS is it really? Is it horrible to the point that GreaseSpot Radio lately needs to spend all of its time discussing it? Do we need threads and lists of rules to follow? Is there something going on the moderator(s) can't take care of? Am I missing something?
Not really Clay. I think both statements stand on their own. Believe God or suffer the consequences is quite a prevalent theme throughout the bible. That we have a piece of ourselves invested in what we believe is, I think, also quite apparent.
"Yours is not to question why. Your's is but to do or die."
According to quite a number of fundamental religious teachings, that's what it seems to boil down to. Obedience. ... Don't aggressively question what you're told to believe or do, at least not to challenge the veracity of it. ... We are the Lord's servents. ... We are lowly sinners, so who are we to question The Almighty. ..... and so forth, ad nauseum. <_<
People have been putting up with this garbage for hundreds and hundreds of years. Now, in the past 150-200 years or so, more and more folks have been pulling away from that kind of mentality in one form or another (The Enlightenment, different schools of political/economic/social thought throughout history, etc.), and some how some folks have seen the need for 'revivals' and such because of this.
And so this continuing to break away continues, much to the chagrin of the staunchly religious. ... Which I see as a good sign. :)
Absolutely, Clay! And I agree with Garth too. I just don't see how its done without giving up on literal bible interpretation. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It takes a degree of determination to see what we agree on.
And to perhaps extend our minds into the unknown.
Meaning not to be too quick to decide what was said is valid.
It may have to be done outside of greasespot. Unfortunately.
There are many here that would be interested i think.
But do not want to be attacked as we have seen.
What does "discredit what someone says" mean?
So, If I state that I believe that Adam and Eve were Rhesus monkeys and that the garden of Eden was in southern Idaho, does this mean that no one is allowed to discredit my statement and belief by preventing facts or evidence that Rhesus monkeys are indiginous to INdia/Asia and there is no archeological evidence of them ever living in Idaho?
If the rules for discsussion dissallow disagreement by supressing facts or evidence that may discredit a proposed view or alleged truth, it is not likely that such discussions will lead to any kind of deeper understanding.
My, my...so where do you suggest we all meet Clay ? Your place or Todds ??!!
Even though I think half of GS posters are misguided a** holes (myself included at times). Arrogant di** heads. Pompous atheistic *ankers. I'D STILL FEEL SAFER IN A ROOM WITH THEM THAN WITH YOU AND TODD.
I dunno....it's just an uneasy feelin' I get about you two and your motives. The same kind of feelin' I got before we 'checked out' of twi2.
So, If I state that I believe that Adam and Eve were Rhesus monkeys and that the garden of Eden was in southern Idaho, does this mean that no one is allowed to discredit my statement and belief by preventing facts or evidence that Rhesus monkeys are indiginous to INdia/Asia and there is no archeological evidence of them ever living in Idaho?
If the rules for discsussion dissallow disagreement by supressing facts or evidence that may discredit a proposed view or alleged truth, it is not likely that such discussions will lead to any kind of deeper understanding.
Hi Goey,
I mean to take what someone says, and the sole purpose of what someone else says is to discredit what the first person says. Rather then presenting what you believe that would be different then the other. Allowing a person the room to present their beliefs and pov's without a specific attack against it. See the difference that I'm trying to convey? Both ways would accomplish what you want though the first would be stifling another.
Not sure if that says it well and I'm not upset or anything.
Just to be able to voice our beliefs without fear ya know.
In the spirit of peace rather then a battle of ideas against ideas, we could look to see what is common more then what is different. And even the different could bring deeper understanding to all involved.
I mean to take what someone says, and the sole purpose of what someone else says is to discredit what the first person says. Rather then presenting what you believe that would be different then the other. Allowing a person the room to present their beliefs and pov's without a specific attack against it. See the difference that I'm trying to convey? Both ways would accomplish what you want though the first would be stifling another.
Sometimes we can figure out what may be true, by first sorting out what may not be true. This means considering, analyzing and then either accepting, setting aside or rejecting, certain views and ideas.
For example, we may be presented an idea or a view by someone who to insists that it is "truth". We may not have a particular set view on that idea, yet what we are presented when weighed and balanced seemingly has no basis or foundation and is not supportable, like my Rhesus monkey example.
I see no problem in presenting both the weaknesses and/or strengths of what is was initially set forth as true. It would also seem to me that the person who set the premise forth would want know what weaknesses his/her view might have. This of course, assumes that that person is actually more interested in truth and/or further understanding, than insulation of his/her view from crituque, which unfortunately is not always the case.
Not sure if that says it well and I'm not upset or anything.
Just to be able to voice our beliefs without fear ya know.
In the spirit of peace rather then a battle of ideas against ideas, we could look to see what is common more then what is different. And even the different could bring deeper understanding to all involved.
Peace
Voicing our beliefs without fear of what? I would suggest that when we are confident in our beliefs and that we have adopted them in a manner that is reasonable to us, there should be no fear in what someone else may have to say about them. To find out where we may agree means that we must also find out where we may disagree, does it not ?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
12
14
12
Popular Days
May 24
15
May 21
13
May 22
9
May 23
7
Top Posters In This Topic
CM 8 posts
Bramble 12 posts
allan w. 14 posts
dancing 12 posts
Popular Days
May 24 2006
15 posts
May 21 2006
13 posts
May 22 2006
9 posts
May 23 2006
7 posts
Bramble
You may be able to find such discussions on Beliefnet. Thye have the ROC that doesn't allow 'witnessing' or personal insults, which makes things more civil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
oh yeah...very cool
thanks, Bramble
now, i know and agree that more rules are not what this board wants or needs
but for the purposes of this thread, which is to explore possibilities
i think it might be worth looking at them
and asking ourselves if they might have any value
not as rules, either
and not because we are somehow supposed to do this
...but because we can
and because things like this might actually work
Beliefnet: Rules of Conduct
i think the first five most apply to interfaith dialogue
and here is what googles: Interfaith Dialogue
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
something else from another forum that i found useful...
and from here...The Key to Effective Religious Dialogue
A few things that stuck out for me that might help us here...
5. Each partipant should be allowed self-definition
6. There should be no preconception as to areas of disagreement
7. Dialogue can only occur between equals
8. Dialogue can only occur where there is mutual trust
9. Participants must be self-critical of their religious beliefs
...which came from here
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I guess I'm just feeling gloomy tonight.
I don't think that type of dialoge is possible here.
While there are a number of posters that could participate in a respectful way toward others, there are too many contentious 'righteous' believers who would feel the need to distract, shut down, insult, confront etc. yadayada
It's like they have to win something, a big competition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i hear ya
i guess that's why i started this thread, dear Bramble
with hope of inspiring greater possibility in spite of the gloom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I do enjoy hearing about other people's spiritual journeys, their personal convictions, beliefs, why they think that way, what joy or peace it has brought them.
I just don't like to continually hear the 'and you must believe like i do, too, because it is Right.'
I must?
What if I can't, what dire consequences await me?(always seem to be dire consequences)
What if no matter what I do I can't be like you and have the experiences you did?
What if I have compelling experiences that are different than yours?
But carry on, Sir Guess. Maybe it will happen.
And maybe after a good night's sleep I'll be more optimistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Sorry...but I still prefer Paw and Modiwasher as moderators Todd. Thanks all the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Maybe the article below can be of some help.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010413013354/...min.org/tcs.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Good article Goey.
There would have to be no attempts to discredit
what someone else says in any way.
Or even for another to take what someone says
and key off of it to oppose rather then agree.
It takes a degree of determination to see what we agree on.
And to perhaps extend our minds into the unknown.
Meaning not to be too quick to decide what was said is valid.
It may have to be done outside of greasespot. Unfortunately.
There are many here that would be interested i think.
But do not want to be attacked as we have seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I hardly ever post down here in doctrinal- as Im not big on discussing abstract beliefs-I am of the opinion personally that actions weigh much deeper and reflect the inner beliefs, the real beliefs, that people carry with them more than their words can express
That being said, my town has an interfaith community that works very well together, but 'the dialogue' is primarily built around projects and things that we all DO together as opposed to just discussing, that bring us together.
The homeless shelter and transitional housing program in town was completely built, funded and manned by volunteers from the interfaith community that found common ground in something that they all believed in and were able to do together. It forged lasting and deep friendships and fostered great respect among people of different faiths who if confined to just dialogue may not have been able to understand how close there actual beliefs really were despite the different spiritual languages that each may speak.
From my own personal experience, this is one of the better things that i have done that allows me to connect with people of other spiritual backgrounds and histories without developing an adversarial type relationship that I wrestle with occasionally as a holdover from my waydaze.
Your Hospice type work that you mentioned on another thread is bound to put you in a similar position.
I think that faith people of any type have much more common ground than dissimilarities generally speaking. If you can find that common ground I think you'll pretty much be on good ground
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmmm. Still don't think you can have this type of converstation on GSC. You've already got Allan here, ready to attack, I'm sure. Others will soon follow.
TWI was very good at teaching people to attack, name call, froth at the mouth in order to get their way. Anger and manipulation of others through anger was the magic that made it all happen.
Since yelling doesn't work on a message board, they are forced to insult etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I have always wondered if this kind of dialogue is possible. There are spiritual consequences noted in the bible, some dire, for not believing/acting correctly. Then, filter in the ego and self-esteem of the believers themselves, and you have a potentially volatile situation. Passions will always run high, assuming of course, there is some level of commitment to the beliefs.
And how big of a problem on GS is it really? Is it horrible to the point that GreaseSpot Radio lately needs to spend all of its time discussing it? Do we need threads and lists of rules to follow? Is there something going on the moderator(s) can't take care of? Am I missing something?
-JJ
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
JJ
care to clarify?????Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Not really Clay. I think both statements stand on their own. Believe God or suffer the consequences is quite a prevalent theme throughout the bible. That we have a piece of ourselves invested in what we believe is, I think, also quite apparent.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
this is what we would try to be avoided jj
there is no believe or else anything.......
religions teach this-we have had it with that,
don't'cha think????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
This reminds me of something I heard long ago:
"Yours is not to question why. Your's is but to do or die."
According to quite a number of fundamental religious teachings, that's what it seems to boil down to. Obedience. ... Don't aggressively question what you're told to believe or do, at least not to challenge the veracity of it. ... We are the Lord's servents. ... We are lowly sinners, so who are we to question The Almighty. ..... and so forth, ad nauseum. <_<
People have been putting up with this garbage for hundreds and hundreds of years. Now, in the past 150-200 years or so, more and more folks have been pulling away from that kind of mentality in one form or another (The Enlightenment, different schools of political/economic/social thought throughout history, etc.), and some how some folks have seen the need for 'revivals' and such because of this.
And so this continuing to break away continues, much to the chagrin of the staunchly religious. ... Which I see as a good sign. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Absolutely, Clay! And I agree with Garth too. I just don't see how its done without giving up on literal bible interpretation. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
What does "discredit what someone says" mean?
So, If I state that I believe that Adam and Eve were Rhesus monkeys and that the garden of Eden was in southern Idaho, does this mean that no one is allowed to discredit my statement and belief by preventing facts or evidence that Rhesus monkeys are indiginous to INdia/Asia and there is no archeological evidence of them ever living in Idaho?
If the rules for discsussion dissallow disagreement by supressing facts or evidence that may discredit a proposed view or alleged truth, it is not likely that such discussions will lead to any kind of deeper understanding.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
My, my...so where do you suggest we all meet Clay ? Your place or Todds ??!!
Even though I think half of GS posters are misguided a** holes (myself included at times). Arrogant di** heads. Pompous atheistic *ankers. I'D STILL FEEL SAFER IN A ROOM WITH THEM THAN WITH YOU AND TODD.
I dunno....it's just an uneasy feelin' I get about you two and your motives. The same kind of feelin' I got before we 'checked out' of twi2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Hi Goey,
I mean to take what someone says, and the sole purpose of what someone else says is to discredit what the first person says. Rather then presenting what you believe that would be different then the other. Allowing a person the room to present their beliefs and pov's without a specific attack against it. See the difference that I'm trying to convey? Both ways would accomplish what you want though the first would be stifling another.
Not sure if that says it well and I'm not upset or anything.
Just to be able to voice our beliefs without fear ya know.
In the spirit of peace rather then a battle of ideas against ideas, we could look to see what is common more then what is different. And even the different could bring deeper understanding to all involved.
Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Pretty simple Clay. We've both got two eyes, ears, arms and legs. That's where our commonality parts ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
To all interested, maybe these would help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...rfaith+Dialogue
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...log&btnG=Search
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Sometimes we can figure out what may be true, by first sorting out what may not be true. This means considering, analyzing and then either accepting, setting aside or rejecting, certain views and ideas.
For example, we may be presented an idea or a view by someone who to insists that it is "truth". We may not have a particular set view on that idea, yet what we are presented when weighed and balanced seemingly has no basis or foundation and is not supportable, like my Rhesus monkey example.
I see no problem in presenting both the weaknesses and/or strengths of what is was initially set forth as true. It would also seem to me that the person who set the premise forth would want know what weaknesses his/her view might have. This of course, assumes that that person is actually more interested in truth and/or further understanding, than insulation of his/her view from crituque, which unfortunately is not always the case.
Voicing our beliefs without fear of what? I would suggest that when we are confident in our beliefs and that we have adopted them in a manner that is reasonable to us, there should be no fear in what someone else may have to say about them. To find out where we may agree means that we must also find out where we may disagree, does it not ?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
hi goey,
well....let me put it this way
whether anyone believes it or not they should be allowed to speak
and not have to prove every phrase and nuance to what they say
and be challenged at every turn instead of people shutting up and listening
nor does anyone else have to believe it
and noone is required to believe anyone
that's about it, those links help
if you have ever experienced this it is quite enlightening
that's all i got to say about it, whether anyone asks me again or not at this point
and today i don't believe in the shift key....lol....lol
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.