A Conversation without Sides

   "I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument."                          ----Thomas Jefferson

   "People do not listen; they reload."  ---William Isaacs

   When conversations fail, as most do, they fall into hardened positions protected by advocacy. The "Us vs. Them" mentality prevails. A successful conversation would be one that enables each one to hear the other and move to a new way of thinking/acting together. This new thinking/acting would be one where all come to something they can endorse with some degree of enthusiasm.

   What is the basis for thinking/acting together? Issues, the needs of the moment, change from moment to moment. What is the basis for our acting together when the key issue of the day becomes the forgotten memory of yesterday?

   We do have to have something to unite us. Opportunism pales shortly. Revenge is a nutritionless meal, not one better served cold as the old adage describes.

   What is our basis for working together, on this planet, in nations, in Christian conventions, in churches? We should start the conversation soon.

   

Comments

[codepoke]

Hmmmm.

I'm not sure on this one. My position at work is to prevent things from being fixed .... incorrectly. Needless to say, I have been in my fair share of disputes, and I have become used to seeing disputants convinced by my arguments. I have become used to being convinced by my disputants' arguments, too. I have even gotten used to seeing people place their weapons on the table and unload them.

It can happen.

You are asking the right question.

[Paul]

Good stuff. I'm linking to it at my place.

[Tim Dahl]

ok, I've added my two cents on my blog.

Tim

[bryan riley]

Clearly, Christians should never be us and them amongst Christians. We are all us. One. Yet we attack and take "sides."

Even with the non-Christians, they are never the enemy, only unwitting or witting subjects of the Enemy.

Good stuff.