How to dialogue with fundamentalists

Great Debates
21

This was a while ago, so I don’t remember clearly exactly what the prof said. However, his point was that he wanted us to notread it as an expression of faith or building a belief. Whether we read it as fiction or non-fiction, it didn’t matter because we went on to look at it from a lit-crit point of view, and reading it as fiction or non-fiction was the first step. That’s also what happens in non-fundimentalist seminaries, as students learn the themes, threads, historical context and the intents of the authors as they study the bible. I think, too, that’s where you start dialogue with a conservative or fundimentalist when you discuss the bible. Otherwise, it devolves into using various passages to demonstrate that the other person is wrong and in moral, mortal peril.

Vlad/Igor

22

As much as possible. I have respect for someone’s right to choose their own path and grow spiritually at their own pace. However, when people feel the need to share their “truth” with me or testify that their view is the one I should have if I really care about God and salvation, then they should be prepared to defend that view and to hear mine. That’s especially true when they try to influnce the government because of what their interpretation of certain Bible passages. Right now we have people trying to pass laws based on their religious beliefs. They may sincerely feel that what they are doing is “God’s will” and for the greater good of this country but that doesn’t excuse their actions. They set the parameters of the arguement by their own language. If they are so sure they know God’s will for the rest of us then they’d better be ready to have their views vigorously challenged.
I’m sure that kind of challenge will be seen by some as a rejection of God. It isn’t, and I’m glad to see more Christians standing up to say, “They don’t speak for me or the God I worship”

To deny people their equal rights based on a prejudiced interpretation of 2000 year old writings is something that needs to be challenged. The abortion issue is a serious one but when Pat Robertson goes on national TV and claims he knows the will of God concerning abortion I have a hard time respecting that.

23

Let me re phrase the question.

Have you read the whole bible, all the way through, in a structured planned way? How many times?

24

I worked with a girl who was just like this. She would quote scripture to me that didn’t exist. I have six years of Fundamentalist Christian school under my belt-- I know the Bible. However, even when I *proved *to her that the scriptures were non-existant, she continued to cite them. I guess she thought if it wasn’t in the Bible, it should have been.

You can’t change a person’s mind unless they WANT it to change. Someone who is utterly convinced that they are right will never be swayed by something as trivial as logic.

25

Atheist here, although I debate theology from the position of an agnostic. Lots of experience debating fundamentalist Christians IRL and in chatrooms. Here’s what I find works.

First and foremost, know whom you’re debating. Before things get hot and heavy, take a moment to find out where they’re coming from. The operative word here is “why” as in “Why are they a fundamentalist?” The answer might surprise you. I learned this lesson the hard way. I was debating with a fundy in a chatroom, and things were getting pretty intense. Tempers flared on both sides, the debate turned personal, and finally I snarkily asked why she was so fired up about Jesus.

It turned out that she wanted to follow Jesus as best she could, because she believed her five year old daughter was waiting for her in heaven. :frowning: That conversation has stuck with me a long time, and five years later, I wish I could take some of what I said there back.

Secondly, on that point, don’t get frustrated, don’t raise your voice, and never show anger or belittle them. Remember that you are probably not the first person they’ve dialogued with, and unless they are from deep within the Bible Belt and have never chatted on the Internet, they’re used to being ridiculed, argued with, and marginalized. Whether they deserve this or not is a matter of debate, but doing any of this will certainly shut down communication quickly, and while you might continue arguing, you will not be communicating or dialoguing. Indeed, by keeping your cool through the debate, you’ll likely surprise them pleasantly.

Thirdly, keep your composure and act kindly and politely no matter what they say to you. As I’ve said above, these guys are used to put-downs, and they might very well act like pricks out of defensiveness. If you want to dialogue with fundies of any stripe, you’ll have to learn to accept that as part of the territory. More often than not, the hardest, most backward fundies will lighten up and start speaking civilly once they realize you’re not out to bust their balls for the hell of it. Occasionally one or two might even apologize for their previous behavior (But don’t count on it.).

Hope that helps. :slight_smile:

26

One of the biggest differences between me as Straight Dope’s Sampiro and me as The Waking’s Jon is that on SDMB (and other boards) I’ll openly attack or pit or sometimes even debate religion but in the real world I never do unless I absolutely have no other choice or cannot reasonably be expected to hold my tongue. My ‘Thomas More’ position in the Waking is for several reasons, but not all of them logical or obvious. I’ll way oversimplify my reluctance into two categories:

  1. (The obvious ones): In 99.99% of cases it’s a waste of time. Thomas Jefferson had a quote I can’t quickly google from 200 years ago saying the same thing: that he’d heard hundreds of well argued dialogues and debates on religion and couldn’t recall one person ever having changed their mind. Ultimately it’s like sending the world’s greatest cavalry to attack and battle with the world’s greatest battleship- there’s going to be lots of fire and explosions and noise but at the end of the day nothing’s really accomplished as they’re fighting on two entirely different terrains.

  2. (The less obvious ones): I have no desire to take away people’s faith. It could very well be the only thing that keeps them going. I’m not going to tell a person whose father molested her, whose mother beat her, whose husband left her and whose only child died at 16 that Zoroastrianism inspired big chunks of her mythology or that it’s not for certain Jesus even existed let alone loved her and that in all probability the only way she’s ever going to hear her dead son’s voice again is if, God willing, one day she goes senile and has hallucinations from her past. NO! She needs something from her faith that I cannot give her- atheism/agnosticism has its comforts (i.e. your son didn’t die because of something you did or your husband did or even as part of a great plan but because he got into a car with the wrong buddy at the wrong time, the end) but it lacks the carrot in front of the nose, and while I personally don’t believe there is a carrot there. It’s a very hard thing to say that “Anne Frank died covered in shit and sores in a filthy prison camp and there was absolutely no good and for the most part the people who informed on her family and the men who callously and indifferently guarded her and the other prisoners went home to their families after the war and had pot roast and comfortable lives and they died of old age in their bed and they never burned in hell and she never went to heaven, the end”, and even though there are some major philosophical lessons to learn (i.e. if this life is all there is then all the more reason to make it perfect and fight evil), forgive me when I say they may not be the ones that she needs to hear, and very possibly to her right now the LIE is better. The alternative is that she’s a woman to whom far more terrible things have happened than good and the only thing in her future is probably a state supported nursing home to deteriorate in. I’m not touchin’ that.
    While the above case is maudlin, the point (as I recall it) is that I’m very reluctant to go after logical flaws in faith for the same reason that I’m not going to delete files I don’t really know what they do on my computer, because I know there are some that will forever crash the bugger if they’re removed. Now what I will do in the waking is if the Maudlin Mama Worstcase from above is also racist and homophobic due to the same religion or because she associates the horrible father who molested her brother with gays in general, then I’ll try to surgically remove that part of her sustaining myth by quoting the “Sin of Sodom was hubris” portions of Ezekiel, or pointing out that the Bible mentions charity and good works a hell of a lot more than it mentions judging people or that Jesus himself never said anything about gays and that the New Testament says there are no Jews or Gentiles or Ethiopians or Israelis, only Christians, whatever.

I’m sorry, I thought I had a point when I started this but then I haven’t taken my medicine yet. If it’s totally incoherent I’ll come back after I’ve taken both the Morning Pebbles & the Afternoon Wilma, but I’m reluctant to dialogue/debate much more than a very specific area (the gay issue or some other one) and I never attack the faith itself even though I believe it to be a fiction. I think if you want success in a religious debate the key is to focus on a surgical strike- change something within their existing theology, but don’t try to napalm the whole jungle.

27

Well, I guess it’s all relative.

Did you ask her to cite them? It seems to me that short of reading the whole bible to her you couldn’t prove to her that they didn’t exist.

Did you ask her to cite what she quoted? What did she say?

28

Some thoughts…

I don’t think reading the Bible helps much. While fundamentalists claim to read the Bible as the divinely-inspired word of God, they still interpret (of course, they will usually deny this vociferously). Whether it be the question of homosexuality (wherein the word in question is translated in different ways) or the question of why God commanded the Israelites to kill all women, children and babies in some of their attacks (yet abortion is a sin), most fundamentalist ideas are based on interpretations, as opposed to direct commands.
For example, being raised a JW I read their translation of the Bible several times through. Now, if I try to confront a non-JW fundamentalist on a Biblical question, they will argue that the JW translation is incorrect, and dismiss the JW interpretation out of hand (just as the JW’s do in regards to other translations, ie, the trinity). Each group believes their translation is the wholly Correct one, and are often reticient to admit the impossibility of certainty, due to translation or which books are now included in the Bible, and which aren’t.
In my experience, fundamentalists are experts at finding miniscule “flaws” or differences which then render an entire belief or ideology invalid.

Very good point…but damn, I don’t know. I think the thread may be best focused on an individual level: how one person can talk to another, but to be honest, I was originally thinking of a larger sense: how can a modern representative society exist when there is a portion of it that effectively declines to believe in said society?
That may just be too hoary and emotional of a question to deal with (without devolving into a mess of posters talking past each other the way Trust’s thread on faith did). But it’s been on my mind.
As I said in the OP, I don’t see much of a difference between Muslim and Christian fundamentalists: their ways of thinking are distinguished by scale, but they are familiar: de-emphasize critical thinking/ education; limit the rights of women (birth control, autonomy); limit free speech; and ultimately, a belief that this world is doomed, and one ought to be living this life not with a view towards bettering this world, but making it into the next one, the real one. In a (overly-generalized) nutshell, fundamentalists don’t believe in the ideals of the Enlightenment, while modern society is deeply informed by it. I feel like fundamentalists really don’t want to be a part of society. But of course they are. How can this dichotomy be resolved?

29

Why would I have to read the whole bible to someone to prove, for example, that 1 Corinthians 99-198 does not exist? If she is claiming certain cites exist then all it takes to refute that is to go to the referenced chapter and verse, no?

30

I grew up Episcopalian and went through that same three-year cycle. I’m now LDS and my church goes through our Scriptures in a three-year cycle also. For us it’s: first year, Old Testament and Pearl of Great Price; second year, New Testament; and third year, Book of Mormon.

We LDS, just like you Episcopalians, are exposed to the entire book, not just some preacher’s favorite parts.

31

LOL, wish it was 5 years ago … I could have given you your choice of about 10, all gifts of my Great Aunt who was one of the founders of one of the more notable childrens funding programs.

My personal take? I agree that most fundamentals havent read the bible completely - either they just do the ‘guided readings’ in classes offered by their church [you know, the young mens group, the young womans group, the church my parents raised me in offered quite a number of different classes on different nights of the week. They read a specific section then discuss it.] or they just read books about the bible. I happen to like the epic quality and poetic quality of the writing of the old testament myself.

Of course I got into serious trouble trying to avoid being dragged kisking and screaming to sunday school [which interfered with my watching the SSSSSH! show … which had Kukla, Fran and Ollie, and some cartoons and a cheesy movie which started at 0800 and ended at noon] I had the temerity to ask in sunday school why we still had to go if JC died for our sins washing them away … since I wasnt a sinner I didnt feel like I had to go get bored to death discussing stuff I had already read. Then I pointed out that theoretically the devil acknowledged JC, so he was saved also. [Truly thou art the Son of God … the devil believed that JC was who he said he was, so was saved. I figured if you are going to baby word and water down the bible, take your consequences when you run into an 8 year old who actually had read it from cover to cover :dubious: ]

32

Thanks for the thought. :slight_smile: However, five years ago, I wouldn’t have had any interest, honestly. I had what I consider to be the great fortune of attending a Jesuit high school for four years. I’d been Catholic all my life, but the Jesuits were the first order I’d encountered that actually seemed to push the idea that religion isn’t about believing everything you’re taught, but that you were given the gift of thought, which you ought to put to use. By the time I’d graduated (just before I turned 18), I’d done a lot of thinking and concluded that a lot of Catholicism didn’t fit my ideas of who God was (and I’m phrasing that nicely), so I walked away from it. Unfortunately, that experience left me without the desire to pursue any religion specifically because they all seemed to me to be flawed.

It’s only in the last year or two (I’m 30) that I’ve begun to come to terms with the idea that it’s OK for me to form my own ideas about who God is without necessarily falling under the umbrella of a specific denomination or sect.

If by “resolved” you mean that both sides will come to a peaceful, happy agreement, I’m not sure that’s possible. I don’t see fundamentalists as wanting to not be part of society; instead, I see their goal as converting society as a whole to their way of believing. If the entire United States were to become fundamentalist, I believe Canada and Mexico would become their next targets for salvation. And I don’t mean that as a slight – I think that, generally speaking, fundamentalists truly believe they are doing what’s best for the world, and what God would want, by helping those who are not fortunate enough to share their understanding.

I imagine that the best one could hope for from a society that includes fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists is mutual tolerance, not resolution. But I also think that the more involved fundamentalists become in any nation’s governance, the more likely they are to actively seek ways to change that nation and its non-fundamentalist citizens to fit their own ideals.

I’m also tired, so my apologies if I’m not making a ton of sense.

33

She came over to my house one afternoon, and we spent the day trying to locate it. She didn’t know the verse number, but she “knew” it was something the Apostle Paul had said.

That particular verse contained a word which appears nowhere in the King James Version (which is the only version of the Bible they accepted as legitimate.) I whipped out an electronic Bible that I have from my school days which featured a search function, and did dozens of searches-- using the exact wording, and then many, many variations thereof. Since she then declared that the electronic Bible must be “missing” it somehow during the searches, I then got out several different KJV Bibles with concordances, and when they didn’t turn up anything, we actually read all of the books written by Paul.

She still insisted we must be missing it. I even spoke to her pastor, asking where it could be found, since he quoted it in nearly every sermon. The guy was a master at avoiding a straight answer.

It was easier for her to avoid me after that, rather than admit her church had lied to her since childhood.

34

Among others, try the following threads:
Which Bible version should I read next?
Recommend me a Bible
Bible 101 - differences between versions
Do we have accurate copies of the Bible?

35

How many times is sufficient?

Reading the Bible all the way through from Genesis to Revelation is not a very good way to attack it anyway, but simply having read the Bible without understanding any context as to history, genre, authorial intent, etc. will not make you especally educated about it on more than a superficial level.

I have read the Bible all the way through on more than one occasion, including formal, academic settings. I have also read some of the books quite a bit more than that and read them in Greek. I can say with confidence and without ego that I am better read and more educated about the Bible than the average Christian. I can also say that a lot of fundamentalists are woefully underinformed about their Bibles and that they imagine the scriptures to contain or to mean all kinds of things that they neither contain nor mean.

36

So noted. Thank you for telling me that. I suspect that many other denominations do that too. I need narrow my brush strokes.

A very good question. I think the answer is that if you corner someone who rejects the society they live in, they will eventually admit that they do depend on it. It’s the dirty little secret that everyone knows, but no one wants to admit, because despite the flaws or inherent evil we may see in it, we prefer an imperfect system to nothing at all. I suspect, too, that some people define their beliefs as a rejection of part or all of what they see. By doing so, they depend on the continued existence of what they reject, because they haven’t come up with a belief independent of rejection.

I don’t know of a way to deal with the attitude you mention, or if it’s acceptable to do so if we live in a society that values independent thought and belief. The only time I feel compelled to say or do something is when someone asserts that my and their beliefs are mutually exclusive, and mine has to go. This is something I have struggled with as well: If I believe in a representative, free society, am I not imposing my beliefs on someone who rejects it and seeks to impose their beliefs on me because they believe they’re right and I’m wrong? Or, how can a society accomodate those who reject it? Maybe the answer lies in the existence of subcultures.

Vlad/Igor

37

Do you remember what the particuar verse or general wording she was alleging. Sometimes passages get misquoted or misconstrued but may have an actual origin somewhere. I might be able to figure out what she was talking about if there is anything even close to it in the New Testament.

38

I’m not certain what your purpose in dialoging with this person would be, but if I wanted to educate that person, I would begin with asking the person to talk about her or his beliefs and asking that person questions and eventually more probing questions. Don’t lecture. Build on what is within that person. Draw it out and help to reflect it.

Always use kindness, never anger or ridicule.

39

That’s what I thought too, but I wasn’t able to find anything approaching it.

I don’t remember the wording, but the gist of it was that you’re saved only if you can speak in tongues-- that it’s the only certain proof of salvation. If you can’t do it, you’re spiritually fucked.

She had very specific wording of it, I remember, and recited it verbatim every time. It was two or three lines of dialogue between the Apostle Paul and some church members.

40

I have heard that one before, and there is absolutely no where in the Bible that it says if you can’t speak in tongues you aren’t saved. It does say that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and there are guidelines to govern its use in the church in 1 Corinthians 14, but no where does Paul make that statement, nor do any of the other authors in the New Testament.