I have been participating in interfaith dialogue as a rabbi and Jewish leader for more than 30 years, and most of the time it just doesn't work.
Most of the time -- and it is painful for me to admit this -- it is terribly boring. Most of the time there is a tendency to manufacture consensus, whether it exists or not. Most of the time we go to great lengths to avoid conflict. Most of the time we cover the same ground that we covered last month or the month before. And far too often we finish our session without really knowing the people across the table and what makes them tick religiously.
And most of we time we are satisfied with mouthing a few noble, often-repeated sentiments. Thus, we affirm the importance of mutual understanding, tolerance and dialogue; we assert that all human beings are created in the image of God; we proclaim that despite our differences, all of our traditions preach love of humankind and service to humanity. Nothing is wrong with these sentiments, of course; in conceptual terms, I believe in them all. But if we don't dig beneath the surface and focus on substance rather than rhetoric, they mean very little.
The result is that most of the time, interfaith discussions are simply excruciating, irrelevant to me and to the world around me. Why then have I been so involved for so many years?
The reason is that very occasionally, something extraordinary happens: One of these conversations changes me, binds me to my colleagues, advances my understanding of myself and others, and adds texture and depth to my own religious beliefs and convictions.
In thinking back on these moments, it seems to me that there are three things that make for a "good" dialogue and that turn tiresome interfaith conversations into meaningful religious moments.
First, meaningful dialogue happens when the conversation turns to our religious differences. Platitudes are set aside when, as representatives of our faith traditions, we cease to be embarrassed by the particular; when we put aside the search for the lowest common denominator that most often characterizes -- and trivializes -- our discussions; and when we recognize that absent a clear affirmation of who we are, how we are different and what we truly believe, all our conversations are likely to come to nothing.
Second, interreligious exchanges become compelling when my colleagues and partners give expression to their religious passions. I am drawn in when they share with me their deepest beliefs and strangest customs, no matter how radically other they are from my own. And the sharing of religious passions should lead to passionate debate, in which we struggle with the really hard questions: What happens when conflicting beliefs lead to conflicting interests? What do we do about those areas where differences cannot be bridged and must be dealt with?
Third, interreligious dialogue truly touches us when we can discuss what we all know to be true but what we rarely say: that, in some ways at least, we all believe in the exceptionalism of our own traditions. We all tend toward the conviction that there are some elements of our religious beliefs and practice that stand above and apart from what other religions offer, and it is liberating when we are able to acknowledge this and then explain why we think that way, without apology but open to the honest reactions of those around us.
Other high points come from those moments when we all say what it is about our own traditions and communities that we don't like and then talk frankly about why that it is so. And I am always delighted when we stop focusing on talk and start planning to work together -- and really mean it.
As I said, these things happen rarely. I, like others around the interfaith table, am often sitting there just going through the motions, distracted by other things and caught in the same old patterns and clichés that predominate in these settings. Still, from time to time, we find a way to speak from the heart. When we do, God's presence -- variously felt and differently experienced -- creates an atmosphere of faith, partnership and common purpose in the room. For those rare moments, I will continue to make the effort, without regrets.
Rabbi Jack Bemporad: Jews and Christians Still Have Much To Learn From Pope John Paul II
Interfaith dialog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious Tolerance : Pictures, Videos, Breaking ... - Huffington Post
We are all becoming "drones" attached to a machine, taking no action outside of insults and tirades against each others comments.
Thus, for those who might be interested, this discussion on why interfaith dialogue doesn't work (and the implications of the failure of that dialogue on that potential conflict) continues at:
http://www.allanbevere.com/2011/06/why-interfaith-dialogue-doesnt-work.html
Thus, the 'dialogue' can continue ONLY on the basis of denying and contradicting the ONE Doctrinal Truth that would resolve all of these inter-religious conflicts in the first place: that the Doctrine of "resurrection" is implied in the Torah, and was specifically taught by Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jesus and Mohammed as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.
The idea of convening such varied beliefs on the hope that it might conclude with a general consensus is not without its challenges, if not all together impossible. The failure to launch interfaith dialogue is a problem more systemic not of the idea, but rather with the rank and file representatives of each respective faith, whom themselves are often times at odds with one another regarding their own beliefs and core values.
Catholics, Lutherans, Baptist and the full guantlet of trinitarian faithbased religions as well as those (strictly monotheistic) muslim counterparts all share a common thread in eaches church or synogogues, the right of expression to operate by autonmomy and only loosely adhere to that institution's central doctrine. And its the experience among many congregants of varying beliefs whom uprooted from one region to another, only to find the principal teachings to vary contrastly from what was previously held. This ideal of autonomy is viral in that it effects and infects the whole of that church, which is only loosely represented when many faiths convene.
Who would drive a vehicle where the wheels operated independantly of the driver and steered in every which direction. An accident is certain to occur.
" It is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all in his image,
But God has long blond hair and blue eyed and colorless skin and I do not look like him or his son. Now I have to go and find a God that looks like me>
Humans have consistently created Gods in their own Images. They have always empowered him, she or it, with their idiosyncrasies from time in memorial.
As you track their Gods over time , you will become aware, as man becomes more knowledgeable ABOUT THEIR SURROUNDINGS , their shed the old ones and create newer module Gods to fit their current conditions
The questions are:
(a) when did humans first create a God ?
(b) why do they constantly do it?
"Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called “cognitive dissonance.” Battle of two opposing thoughts
And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief." Quote by — Frantz Fanon
Yet, we all know that all religions work, or else they wouldn't exist in the first place. No religion would prosper in it's culture if it didn't speak to people. Religions provide mystical, ethical, psychological models for living and when lived correctly...you get holy people. Im sure you've met holy Muslim, Catholics, Buddhists, etc., so if everyone is 'right' where do we go wrong? Would praying to Jesus for a month change your perspective? Would a Muslim do good to try yoga for a month? Would seem an interesting and humbling experience.
What's my dialogue with a Muslim?
I believe in Yahweh the Creator God, Who begot a son Jesus Christ, born of a woman, Who died for our sins, and who will take us up to heaven.
According to the Koran, Muslim beliefs oppose and are the very opposite of what I believe.
A Muslim believes that the God he calls Allah commands that if any Muslim believes that God ever had a son who died for our sins: this is the greatest sin a Muslim can commit, and such is worthy of death.
Islam maintains that no one can die for another's sins.
Yet, when a Martyr dies in Jihad in the name of Allah, his family celebrates his marriage to the 70 virgins in paradis, and also are comforted in the knowledge that as a martyr their son may interceed with Allah to for the forgiveness of sin of 70 or his relatives.
My Christian Faith says that Jesus will come down and for seven years He will correct the world and save the Jews in Jerusalem.
But my Muslim counterpart believes the exact opposite: that Jesus will come and lead all the Muslims to Jerusalem and kill all the Jews.
What is my dialogue with a Muslim here?
This is pretty much a meaningless word. And this usage today is widely regarded as jargon or bureaucratese. Ninety-eight percent of the Usage Panel rejects the word Dialogue as having no real meaning in the world of reality.
If the word itself has no meaning, then the representative persons engaged with separate and opposed Religions engaged in so-called religious discussion cannot be meaningful.
Starting from ground zero let's say: most of us are now aware that modern Secularists and Atheists embrace a universalism of human rights that encapsulate the moral injunctions and ethical precepts of the Christian Bible, but leave behind the faith-based beliefs: supernaturalism, God as Creator..and stories that they rest upon.
But imagining that will suffice as a secular religion in our world...is, naive.
Isn't it an undeniable anthropological fact that human groups rely on mechanisms of exclusion, on maintaining differences and the hostilities they generate, in order to cohere and perpetuate themselves, and religious beliefs are a....perhaps the...principle source of such mechanisms?
Isn't this one of the main reasons why the New aggressive Atheism is behaving like a religion...too?
What this means, is the very premise of such dialogue is morally unsustainable for having abandoned the very defintion of religion: as one of the virtues one has a duty one must give its due; one gives one's parents, the authorities their due, and one gives God God's due. That's religion.
there is not God but Jesus Christ come in the flesh...that's my belief..the moment I agree this is not true, I have neglected my duty.
Religious systems have their own collective minds -- many are control mechanisms from thousands of years ago that still bind people to an ancient world-view that cannot sustain itself in the modern world.
Well, if they are a "religion" in any sense, where can I join up?
If they think they have differences then they are blind to the true meaning of spirituality - love your neighbor as yourself. That's it! That is the essence of what these religions are supposed to be teaching so why do they create so much bitter division? because...
They have it totally wrong!
It isn't about being the only right way to G-d, nor the rituals, nor the history, nor the morality
and if they tell you it is, they are completely wrong.
If you understand that there are varieties within Spirit, and that the foundation is conscious personhood, then you'll accept, welcome, and appreciate differences, even as you stand firm in your own identity.
To experience the ecstasy of loving devotion to G-d and G-d's children, there has to be difference, variety, uniqueness. To say we're all the same is to negate our individuality and, by extension, cultural identity. I'm glad that the good rabbi understands that.
Perhaps because of an inability to understand what was presented.