“In the religious-ideological sphere in the past, we came together to discuss with those differing with us, for example, Catholics with Protestants, either to defeat an opponent, or to learn about an opponent so as to deal more effectively with her or him, or at best to negotiate with him or her. If we faced each other at all, it was in confrontation–sometimes more openly polemically, sometimes more subtly so, but always with the ultimate goal of defeating the other, because we were convinced that we alone had the absolute truth.

“But dialogue is not debate. In dialogue each partner must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as s/he can in an attempt to understand the other’s position as precisely and, as it were, as much from within, as possible. . . .”

That such a dialogue is not only possible, but actually occurred between a Heathen and a JW is quite a heartening experience to read about. One becomes quite jaded when dealing with such entities via interfaith forums and the like, it is good to know that there are people out there who are willing to discuss such matters and leave in disagreement but without ill will.

Stuff like this is why I miss my Socratese Cafe group. I think I mentioned this once a while back, but we used to et together every week and ask questions. We would then focus on one question to discuss for the evening. What made it so wonderful though was the group of people, each with different beliefs and backgrounds. There were atheists, Catholics, Buddhists, Methodists, Wiccans, agnostics, and several others. I think I need to get on Mos Maorium more ofthen.