Ecumenical Dialogue or Compromising on the Truth?
Is there such a thing as believing in truth and not being imposing?
When you are discussing matters of truth, especially on divisive issues, is it ever permissible to engage the other person's perspective to see whether it is true? It seems among people that are "rigid", which is to say unopen to talk of any kind to do with a contrary view/philosophy to one's own, the answer is a "hard no". The problem with this is it renders evangelization impossible and sometimes even growing in conformity to the truth for oneself. This is quite distinct from giving up on the whole truth thing altogether and lauding one's own perspective of a thing to be the only permissible belief on a subject. However, if you think about this at all, you will probably realize the person who is so uncompromising to not even discuss matters in their depth because they so hold to the truth they favor and the person who is so flagrantly "ecumenical" person that rather abandons the truth to be "welcoming" commits the very same logical fallacy, the former just appears more disguised. How do we avoid this easy pit to adhere to what reality really is without being "dug in" before "the facts are in" and at the same time not always waiting for "the facts to be in" to be swayed by any new and appealing philosophy? The answer would seem to be being a philosopher. Let us consider that authentic ecumenism is an open discussion of ideas that does not rest in a single perspective and does not compromise on the truth, but rather considers its aspects and draws one's interlocutors into a shared mindset at its end, not only conformed to the truth but also with increased understanding of the relevant/practical aspects of a subject.