There is a possibility that it may be beneficial to have such a conversation with someone who feels they have a monopoly on truth about a specific topic. Here is a strategy to follow before you make a decision to go forward:
1. Engage in a conversation with a topic about which you both have a heart space (i.e., children, etc.). This would soften the dialogue.
2. Then take the conversation to the next level which is to meet in the witness role (Witnessing the here and now. It is a plane of consciousness different from the one in which attitudes are being held. It is that place where you observe and witness the nature of the conversation in which you are engaged). Once both of you are in the witness role at least there is some common ground.
3. Then could you move onto the controversial discussion, witnessing not judging as the conversation proceeds.
4. If the person refuses to enter into the witness role of the discussion, break off the discussion, because they probably will not be open to another perspective, their attachment to their viewpoint is too strong. If you assess they could join you in following this strategy, there is a good chance a beneficial conversation could take place with two beings and not two viewpoints.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

