Some defintions are in order, I suppose.
Dialogue: in the kinda academic sense: converse, communicate, engage in active (figurative) conversation on culture, politics, state of humanity.
Fundamentalist: A person who reads their chosen sacred text as the inerrant, divinely inspired word of God. A person who believes that this is not the “real” world: this world is fallen and cannot be redeemed (short of catatrophic destruction and divine intervention). People cannot better themselves, as redemption can only come through God.
So, assuming my definition of fundamentalist isn’t completely misguided, or unrealistic, how is it possible to have an informed, active democratic government with people who not just disagree with me on the best way to do things (that’s immaterial to my question, really) but who deny my fundamental (hah) premises: humans are simply incapable of bettering their lot in life. Education won’t help. Morals come from God, not humans or rationality. This is not the real world.
How can I talk to the fundamentalist who believes homosexuality is evil (because the Bible says so, whether it does or not) about civil rights, equality and fairness when these categories are effectively meaningless to them? It makes me feel stuck.
All the violence incited by the cartoons in the Middle East has brought these thoughts to the surface, but apart from a difference of scale, I don’t see much of a difference between the fundamentalism of the Muslim or Christian world.
I read an article about a Muslim cleric who went to visit terrorists in jail. He said he would study the Koran with them and if they could convince him that their actions were correct according to the Koran and Allah then he would join their cause. If he could show them according to the Koran that their actions were not what Allah comanded then they had to renounce their violent ways forever. He was having some success.
When I talk to anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God I will do one of several things.
I can talk to them accepting that as fact and discuss specific passages that contradict thier beliefs and try to discuss the whole Bible rather than select verses. as in, “If the Bible is the inerrant word of God then how do you reconcile these passages with your belief?”
I can also discuss the whole concept of the Bible as the final and authoritative revelation of God’s will. The Bible itself does not support this view. Nothing in the Bible indicates it was ever God’s plan that we have one final authoritative collection of writings. Nothing in the Bible really supports the infallibility of “inspired” writings. There are however several passages that clearly tell us not to follow the teaching and tradition of men.
If someone really has a dedication to the truth and personal honesty then it has to have some effect on them, even if it’s only planting a seed. If they are die hard fundamentalists who defend their beliefs with irrational justifications and the old, “It’s just a matter of faith” “I accept these things on faith” then there’s not much that can be done until they are willing to at least question what they have faith in.
People, tradition, or their own ability to reason and choose.
Before you start, mutually define the scope of the discussion to avoid pointless and otherwise inevitable and unproductive or evasive sidetracks.
I think a lot of fundamentalists haven’t actually read the bible. They’ve been told what’s in it, and take somebody’s word for it. They might rely overly on books about the bible, with explanations in really simple language of what it supposedly says. I came to this decision because I’ve read the bible cover to cover (catholic boy) and when I talk to fundamentalists they don’t know what I’m talking about half the time.
Anyway, the way to dialogue is not to enter the conversation with the idea that you’re smarter and you’ll win. Heck, enter with the idea that you’ll let the other person convince YOU, and really try to be convinced. Listen rather than lecture. When you talk about your objections to what they just said, don’t stab your palm with your index finger trying to make points. Just say how you feel.
That has nothing to do with the bible or religion, it’s just how to be a good conversationalist.
First, avoid it if you possibly can.
Second, make sure they agree beforehand that if you show them how they’re wrong, you won’t hear them repeating the same thing to someone else. Third, make it clear that you’re not going to change your mind. If it’s a matter of factual record, defer to authority. If it’s a matter of moral outlook, then you’ll have to agree to disagree.
Do you believe that they are any more ignorant of the bible than non-fundamentalists?
Most non-fundamentalists haven’t read the bible either, but I’m not particularly startled by their lack of knowledge since they don’t claim it’s the center of their world. It is remarkable when you meet someone who’s never read their favorite book all the way through. Kind of like meeting a Beatles fanatic who hasn’t heard all their albums and is a bit fuzzy about who played what instrument.
I couldn’t agree more.
You make a good point. I’ve had several lengthy discussions with my beloved sister and she always refers to books about the Bible she is reading. Somehow someone else’s opinion about what the Bible means seems to have more weight with her than figureing it out and deciding for herself.
A similar thing with my older brother who is a brillant guy. People he sees as heavy theologians somehow “must” be right.
I try to start from a place of respecting their right to choose their own path no matter how much I disagree. I try to share opinions and insight. I often learn something myself. I also try to show with scripture that my interpretation is just as valid as theirs. People decide some passages in the Bible are fairly literal and others are not so literal. I try to show that I other beliefs are equally as valid if we simply change which passages are to be taken literally. They assume a certain something is true and filter all interpretations through that assumed truth. I try to show that the assumed truth may not be true, and isn’t nessecary to worship God in spirit and truth.
Have you read the bible?
I’m so pleased that this topic was brought up. The very concept has been bouncing around in my head for some time.
I grew up Catholic, and although I shunned Catholicism years ago, I still consider myself Christian sans ties to any particular denomination. I don’t think I’ve ever read the Bible all the way through, and the portions I have read were viewed in my youth. I’ve had it in the back of my head for some time that I want to read the Bible from cover to cover as an adult: partially to see if I get any rejuvenation of faith from it, but mainly because I’m looking to find contradictions for those who would say that homosexuality is a sin.
I have a good friend who is a fundamentalist Christian. She and I don’t normally discuss religion except in the most generic terms, but I don’t think she quite knows the extent to which I disagree with her on issues like homosexuality. I mentioned to her in passing recently that I was looking to (re)read the Bible, and she suggested that we read it at the same time so that we can discuss it. I agreed at the time, but I’ve been dreading that decision because I can see where the conversations might get ugly. She’s pretty hard-core, from what I can tell.
I think I’m going to go with Walter Windchill’s advice and see how it goes. Of course, I’ve got to go buy myself a Bible, first. The only one I have is a “junior” edition that I think my mom gave me when I was a kid.
If you divide the group that simply, Christian fundamentalists and those who aren’t then I would say no, they aren’t more ignorant. If you limit it to people who claim some knowledge of the Bible then I would say yes, fundamentalists are more ignorant. That doesn’t just include actual passages in the Bible but knowledge about where the Bible came from, and how it is we came to have it in it’s present form.
I would say for anyone to have any meaningful discusion about what’s in the Bible they need to have at least some knowledge of what it contains. Otherwise the conversation would end real soon.
Since you’ve been in other threads concerning the Bible you should know the answer is yes.
Within the fundimentalist/conservative movement, there is a strong element of non- or anti-intellectualism. I’m not going to speculate on the roots of that here, but it is necessary when you accept a dogmatic set of beliefs. To some degree, an intellectual pursuit of the roots of dogmatic belief is heretical because at the root of all faith is the acceptance of core beliefs without any other reason than “just because.” Intellectual pursuit of faith exposes this, and unless you can admit it and get on with a pursuit other than proving the validity of your beliefs, your faith crumbles. Fundimentalism takes this blind acceptance to an extreme and adds to it proof of necessity. That is, something has to be true because it is needed to support a particular belief. I think that’s why the Fundimentalist reading of the Bible is piecemeal and fractured: the themes, content and historical context of a given passage is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the words quoted directly support a given belief.
Off the top of my head, cf Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” It is often quoted as biblical support of why abortions should be banned. On the most tenuous arguments, it might be an argument against abortion, but a more detailed reading of Jeremiah places this verse in a larger description of the relationship between Jeremiah the prophet and God, who sent him. Nowhere is there any mention of God prohibiting abortion anywhere in Jeremiah, yet this verse is attributed to God’s opinion of the human activity of aborting a pregnancy. The ability to lift this verse out of the bible and strip it of all of its intended meaning is the result of a dogmatic belief that abortion is always absolutely wrong, period, end of discussion.
I am an Episcopalian, and in the Anglican tradition, we read nearly the entirety of the New Testament over a three year cycle, and if you include the daily lectionary, we read most of the Old Testament as well. I think that this exposure to the scripture as a whole makes it more difficult for fundimentalist thinking to survive than if you were to attend a church that limited its readings to Genesis, Daniel, Mark, Revelations and other apocalyptic or prophetic books in the bible, for instance. Not that we don’t have our problems, but I have heard of much worse in the churches of our more conservative and fundimentalist brethren.
Vlad/Igor
Many years ago, when I was working on a minor in Religious Studies, I took a course on the New Testament in biblical times. Our first assignment was to read the NT from beginning to end as a novel or a work of literature. The instructor had been teaching this class for many years, and was used to the screams and howls from a good third of the class whose heads were exploding at the idea of reading the bible as a secular text. It occured to me that for them, simply reading scripture was in itself a form of worship and reaffirmation of faith. This ran counter to my exposure to scripture growing up, that it was a guide to be carefully examined and understood in secular as well as spiritual terms. I truly believe that the only way to understand a text like the bible is to see it not only from within Christian doctrine and theology, but also from an outside, secular point of view.
Vlad/Igor
If you’re going to talk to your friend perhaps yopu can agree on a version. From what I understand the King James version isn’t a very good one.
I do a lot of reading on Bible Gateway because it allows me to compare versions. The New International Version is good. There’s also the New King James version which is a bit easier to understand than the original.
It’s a challenge if you haven’t read it in a while. I finally decided that I had every right to decide for myself what the passages mean, or at least, as much right as any other human. I kept hearing, well so and so who has studied the Bible for 20 odd years says it means this, so they must know. The truth is that theologians and Biblical scholars don’t all agree. That means they have an educated opinion rather than “knowledge” when it comes to interpretation. Don’t sell your own interpretation short.
When the discussion came up, my friend immediately suggested that I go for the NIV. I asked her why, and she said that it’s just easier to follow than the King James version. That’s fine by me, so long as there isn’t a great deal of bias involved in the translation. I’m more concerned about a version that seems most consistent with the original (Greek?) text than something that’s easy to follow.
As for my interpretation, I have no intention of selling myself short. In the end, no amount of scholars or religious authorities can define your faith for you. I have my personal beliefs about who God is, and although that may shift somewhat over time, they are still my beliefs. One can argue about the minutae almost endlessly, but at some point you’re going to run out of supporting evidence – that’s what makes it “faith.” I’ll do my best to make use of the information available to me and arrive at my own conclusions.
Can you explain the difference in more detail? When you say “as a novel or work of literature,” does that mean the class was asked to view it as fiction, or just as a historical text devoid of religious meaning? I don’t mean to be ignorant, but I do think that how I decide to look at the Bible going into reading it will be a tremendous factor on what I take from it.
My understanding is that the NIV is a truer translation than the KJV. There are others here on the SDMB that are far more knowledgable about such matters. Perhaps something in GQ would help?
It sounds like you’re ready. I agree with you. Our spiritual journey is very personal and at some point we have to respect that for ourselves and others. My own beliefs have changed quite a bit since I started reading and studying years ago.
I hope your discusions go well and are fruitfull for you and your friend. I’d be interested in hearing how they went.
For myself, spiritual insight springs from within so it can come from reading the Bible because of the rich subject matter. It can also come from other books, music, movies, nature, whatever resonates within you as true and meaningful. I read the Bible as someone’s exspression of their spiritual experience, not as any spiritual authority. When studying with others it’s good to be aware of how they see it.
So the short answer to the op seems to be …
with mutual respect for each others POV.
All Bible as Literature really is, is reading parts of the Bible as you would in a literature class. I took a Bible as Literature class in college and didn’t feel my religion was compromised in any way (I was more religious then than I am now), but did feel I understood the Bible better for knowing the different authors and the descriptions of the different genres and so forth. The instructor never said “it’s not true!” or “devoid of religious meaning,” and was (in fact) a former priest and catholic scholar who did believe there was a lot of truth and religious meaning in the bible. In fact, it was a Jesuit university, so it’s not like they were on a mission to discredit the Bible.