The Differences Between Interfaith and Intrafaith Dialogue

[dauer]

Hello all.

In your experience, what are the differences between interfaith dialogue and intrafaith dialogue (including between sects or denominations of the same religion, perhaps as a separate category) not merely in more abstract terms of how people relate to one another and the difficulties or benefits blah blah blah, but personally, how do you relate differently, if at all differently, in each of these situations? Do you regard the individual in any way differently if they are of a different religion, than if they are of a different sect, or if they are of your own sect? What are experiences that you have had that show how for you these types of encounters are similar or different, not just the experiences themselves but even more, your experience of them? How do you approach each of these situations in your mind?

Dauer

 

[wil]

Namaste Dauer,

Great stuff, absolutely exposes my weakness. Now when I read the title I saw something different than your post...so I'll discuss your post rather than the thought which was brewing when I saw the title.

I'd sure love to say that I respect all religions, all sects, all denominations...but I can't...I've got issues. I'd be so happy to point out that I can discuss anyone's thought/philosophy without predjudice, but I can't.

Here is where the line gets tough for me. Anytime I deal with folks that are my way or the highway. Anytime I deal with folks that are happy to damn others for their behaviour/beliefs. Anytime I deal with folks who belittle others in order to lift their own thought higher. I'm sure I've got more issues if I gave it more time...but here is where my work lies...learning how to come to grips with my predjudice, my judgement, my intolerance in this regard.

So I don't run into this with Buddhists, Jains, Taoists, Sufis, Sikhs, Hindus, or Jews...maybe there are some in these religions who are more authoritarian, dictatorial...I may have just not been exposed. I do run into this with Atheists, Muslims and Chirstians, not all, not even close to all, but I do run into individuals, denominations and sects, which display intolerance, which I am currently unable to not display intolerance as well.

Whatta challenge for the new year...If I could grow in this regard that would be sweet.

 

[dauer]

Great stuff, absolutely exposes my weakness. Now when I read the title I saw something different than your post...so I'll discuss your post rather than the thought which was brewing when I saw the title.

Make a new thread. More the merrier.

I have to say I'm with you on that difficulty. Getting better at not personalizing it, but it's still a struggle when I know I'm dialoguing with someone who says (loudly) that their way is correct, all others are not only incorrect but somehow corrupt, blasphemous, mental illness, etc, and are highly critical of any position but their own. However, on some level I have to wonder, am I projecting Shadow? Because I may be tolerant of a lot more views than they are, but the other views also contain more of the ideas of tolerance vs. active condemnation, which means they're more in line with my view. And I certainly can be critical of those groups who don't fit into my ideas about tolerance, and I do tout quite a bit my own view that we shouldn't hold those types of beliefs. But at the root of it in my opinion, they only hold to their beliefs for the same reason I hold to mine: genes and life experiences, shaken together in a canister with some possible other factor (like free will if it exists) playing a factor as well. And if that's why I really think they hold the views they do, then it does seem like I'm just projecting as I said. And another question it raises for me is if it's really good to be tolerant of everything. Certainly it's good not to tolerate oppression. I think the key factor for me is really emotions. If you let your emotions rule you in a dialogue, it's just gonna be a mess. Lately though I feel like I've been better able to validate my feelings without letting them take the driver's seat. I still notice myself slip up once in a while though. But when I start to get that kick of satisfaction for letting them take over, I notice I'm able to become aware that it's happening and redirect more frequently. I hope that continues for a while. I don't like the periods of time when I really have to struggle with that. It'll come I'm sure. That's life.


The other thing I notice when dialoguing with non-Jewish people is there's a certain automatic degree of chuminess that isn't there. It's a very small factor because a talk with a Jewish individual could easily turn sour, or a talk with someone who's not Jewish could become far more enriching, worthwhile, and affirming than any recent talk with a Jew, but there's still some factor of being a member of the same club that I recognize plays into it.

Dauer

 

[InLove]

Well--I am having a bit of trouble reaching this site today! I made another post, but it appears to be lost. So I apologize if it shows up later. I will try to recreate it here:

Hi dauer--great topic.

While intrafaith dialogue can be more comfortable for me language-wise, I often find that these are also the discussions that can frustrate me the most. I can only guess that the reason for this is a difference in interpretation. I am sometimes more at ease with a person of an entirely different religious tradition than my own, as long as he or she is interested in a true exchange of information with the goal of understanding and not condemnation.

It can be both difficult and wonderful to find that one's native faith can actually continue to be the foundation of one's beliefs, as well as the catalyst to even more, if one is willing. It can also mean rejection by those we have always considered the closest. But I trust that eventually, or "in the end", if you prefer, everything will become clear, and Love will prevail.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Want a response from a non-sectarian?

The trick of course is the extent to which you can be tolerant towards someone who is intolerant (of you). It doesn’t matter if someone has wildly differing views to your own as long as neither of you want to do something unpleasant to the other (or be threatened with unpleasantries in the future).

How to remain tolerant then? Ultimately, perhaps this is why it is said that the perfect view is no view. I try to not be attached to my views greatly, as they may change. The views of others may also change. No-one is about to “convert” me and I don’t want to “convert” anyone else so I don’t get hot under the collar. I'm interested in differing POV because some of it may cause me to change or grow in some way.

The more divergent two people’s background the more they need to take their language into account of course. I may be interested in the beliefs of a X but if they litter their language with words I don’t understand, or quotes from contexts I do not understand or are not explained, then there isn’t going to be much communication going on, is there?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

The other thing I notice when dialoguing with non-Jewish people is there's a certain automatic degree of chuminess that isn't there.
Dauer

Hi,

Do you mean you find Jews or non-Jews to be automatically "chummy"?

Why would you think this is so?

s.

 

[wil]

Hi,

Do you mean you find Jews or non-Jews to be automatically "chummy"?

Why would you think this is so?

s.

My friend and business partner is Jewish, and he tends to hire other Jewish business people. He related it to me as this...you know what stories and what understandings their parents instilled in them regarding business relationships. There exists an immediate unspoken understanding of how to deal with each other based on this. I thought it intriguing.

Dauer is this similar to what you are referring to?

 

[dauer]

Snoopy and wil,

Well, I wouldn't take it as far as wil's friend did. It doesn't have anything to do with what I think of a person's ethical understanding of the world. Most religions agree on all the important stuff on how we should treat one another. But let's say, for example, that a mason meets another mason. They didn't know each other before they met, and they neither knew the other was a mason until they saw the ring. However, once that's established, there's a certain connection. Or let's say that it turns out two people attended the same college, and maybe they even at different times.

Especially being a minority, to come across someone who's, as I put it before, part of the same club, that's a connection. It's an initial foothold on which to start a new relationship. Now, for that matter, if I meet someone who's a big fan of Frank Herbert and the Dune series, that's going to be something too, but a little less so because being a fan of Dune (for most people) is much less encompassing than a religion.

Dauer

 

[Snoopy]

not so metaphysical but a fine door stop!

s.

 

[Promethium]

I think intrafaith dialogue(from a theoretical perspective) can be easier because similar terminology is often used(although this can also be a sharp point of disagreement). Interfaith dialogue can be much harder because you may not know how ones approach to a certain subject can offend others and basic assumptions and agreements among those of the same Faith can be absent. Many times People tend to be kinder during interfaith dialogues because they are representing their religion and they have expectations that others will disagree. Whereas someone who disagrees within ones own tradition can be seen as ignorant. Both types of dialogue are catalysts for intellectual as well as spiritual growth. (physical too if there is food being served)

 

[InLove]

I agree, Promethium. In either situation, it can sometimes be like untangling knots, but it is worth it if it is done sincerely and respectfully. And sometimes I find myself just being quiet for a while until I can ascertain what I should or should not ask or say. (That's when those casseroles come in really handy!)

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Popeyesays]

I think it's easy to use the right words that someone not knowing the context immediately takes as the WRONG word. I think, in my own faith, the term "Progressive Revelation" rankles some folks because they assume that means it is the quality of the Revelation that is 'progressing', not the civilization of man that is progressing.

That the civilization of man has progressed is strictly BECAUSE of the quality of the Revelation that has gone on in the past.

When I use it, I mean that the teacher has the same knowledge he always had but the class has progressed and is ready to build on what it has come to know.

But 'buzze phrases' for me, do not equate with 'buzz phrases' known by others. Therein lies the rub--even when no one intended to chaffe others in the first place.

Regards,
Scott

 

[InLove]

That the civilization of man has progressed is strictly BECAUSE of the quality of the Revelation that has gone on in the past.

I have never heard it stated quite this way before. Nice way of putting the idea into words.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[flowperson]

Scott...I couldn't have described the process/progress of revelation any better. To me it always results in progress for humanity over time as a whole, but the road is narrow and the way is hard and is strewn with rocks and boulders my brother.

flow....