Agreeing to Disagree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatthewBerkeley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MatthewBerkeley

Guest
Hi

I’m wondering if anyone has experienced the same difficulty I seem to have at the moment.

Whenever I get involved discussing faith with anyone, be they Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, I do a lot of reading to tackle their claims. Because of this I learn a lot about the topic and become ever more convinced as to where the objective truth lies.
At times in a discussion, the other person is content to agree to disagree, because he obviously isn’t subscribing to my view, and knows that I’m pretty unshakeable in mine too.
Now, this is okay with me when the topic is trivial, or when there is no objective truth, but when it comes to areas of faith that are vitally fundamental to Catholics, I feel this urge not to give in, to help them really see the truth, because an objective truth exists outside of anyone’s opinions.
It’s because I know I’m right and that by them not seeing why, they are missing out.
For example, debating with non-Catholics about the status of Mary within the Catholic faith, and debating with Catholics about the possibility of women priests…

I don’t know if I’ve explained that well enough, but does anyone relate to that? And what do you do in that situation?

God bless:)
 
MatthewBerkeley said:
Hi

I’m wondering if anyone has experienced the same difficulty I seem to have at the moment.

Whenever I get involved discussing faith with anyone, be they Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, I do a lot of reading to tackle their claims. Because of this I learn a lot about the topic and become ever more convinced as to where the objective truth lies.
At times in a discussion, the other person is content to agree to disagree, because he obviously isn’t subscribing to my view, and knows that I’m pretty unshakeable in mine too.
Now, this is okay with me when the topic is trivial, or when there is no objective truth, but when it comes to areas of faith that are vitally fundamental to Catholics, I feel this urge not to give in, to help them really see the truth, because an objective truth exists outside of anyone’s opinions.
It’s because I know I’m right and that by them not seeing why, they are missing out.
For example, debating with non-Catholics about the status of Mary within the Catholic faith, and debating with Catholics about the possibility of women priests…

I don’t know if I’ve explained that well enough, but does anyone relate to that? And what do you do in that situation?

God bless:)
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

It usually doesn’t bother me much…except when they make their statement OR Challenge me and I counter with facts. If you make a statement as a fact and someone proves it not fact…IMHO you should listen OR be willing to present your case.

As always, just my thoughts
 
Seek what you can “agree to agree” upon FIRST. then what is left is much easier to handle and discern why someone doesn’t agree. Not only that, but you naturally build a better relationship, honor, and trust.
 
It takes two people to debate, unless you’re debating something with youserlf. When the other person invites you to agree to disagree, this is their signal that they don’t want to continue the conversation. There is nothing wrong with letting it end there. You have done the best you can to help them understand.

We always have to remember that this phrase is usually a polite way of saying that the person does not want to cotinue the discussion. It’s not an actual agreement. Therefore, you are not agreeing to anything other than to terminate the conversation.

There is no use pushing onward when a person wants to stop. Often this can backfire. If you stop when the person wants to stop, you may find that you leave the person with some food for thought. If you plow onward, even though the person has politely asked for an end to the conversation, you may end up making an enemy, in which case your point is not going to be taken under consideration, because the other person is now angry at you. Anger has a way of blurring our vision.

My strategy is to say something like, “Ok, let’s talk about it later.” This way I leave the door open for future dialogue and the other person feels that they have been treated with respect, rather than bullied or under attack. Our mission is to evangelize, not proselytize. There is a difference. Proselytizing is not a method that is embraced or even suggested by the Catholic Church. Those who keep pushing are really doing just that. Sometimes they may get agreement, because they wear their audience down, not because they have converted the heart. That’s not what we want to do do. We don’t want to bring people to the faith by wearing them down. We certainly don’t want to make them so angry that they run the other way the next time they see a Catholic.

We must always remember that there are two possible outcomes. 1) grace does its part once we have planted the seed of faith and 2) another apostle will pick up wheer we left off.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Well, doesn’t it depend on what you’re actually agreeing to disagree about? For example, I’d find it probably near impossible to agree to disagree that the sky is blue and the sun is out, when in fact, it’s raining at a rate of an inch an hour…But you might have a hard time convincing someone that all is black and gloom in a storm if that someone needs the rain. For them, gold may as well be pouring from the sky 😉 So without lying, you can agree to disagree that despite it’s raining, the two of you can look on the situation differently, one with gloom, and one with appreciation. I mean, heck, in a drought, I’d be dancing in the rain, to me, it’s a beautiful day! Right?

But if you’re agreeing to disagree on what something means to you or the other party, why is that so bad? For example, if you’re reading a few verses of Scripture with a JW or SDA or anyone really, and the two of you are just going on and on for hours and neither is budging, there will come a point where one of you will just say, hey, can we agree to disagree? I wouldn’t agree to disagree that my interpretation is incorrect or anything like that. But I think we’re agreeing that the two interpretations are different and that our individual interpretations are imporant to us individually. Yes, we get our interpretation from the Church, in whom we entrust our learning of Scripture, but the other person you’re debating with thinks they’re just as right. And really everyone has the right to interpet a situation, whether they’re dead on or whether they misunderstand. In the end, we only answer to the Lord, no one else. So, duking it out isn’t going to make your interpetation more accceptable to the other party.

But eventually, if you don’t respect each other’s views, without saying that you’re wrong (you never have to concede that what you know to be correct is wrong, ever), you will just end up fighting, angry and with bad feelings, and you’ll never get that person to even think about what you’re saying with any notion that it might be correct.

Sometimes the charitable thing to do is give someone a break and let them chew on what you’ve just debated about for a while 😉 If you’re relentless, believe me it will reflect on the point you’re trying to make as well as your credibility.

And having that charity can sometimes mean being the one to say, hey, can we just agree to disagree that we’re different? Even if you’re the one who is right. I know I was debating something with someone who was just the equivalent to a brick wall. And when I asked for us to agree to disagree , he flatly refused because he wanted me to accept his beliefs. Not only could he not have changed me, but in addition, I think he’s a moron 😛

So, again, it’s WHAT you’re agreeing to disagree on. It’s usually an acceptance of another’s differences without the rejection of your truth.

And I agree with JReducation: why beat a dead horse? each party certainly wouldn’t hurt from a break, and the more gracious you are about it, the more likely you’ll talk to that person again. If you’re relentless, it’s unlikely that person will want to talk to you about anything anymore, and you will have lost your opportunity to set that person straight in the future.
 
JReducation said:
We must always remember that there are two possible outcomes. 1) grace does its part once we have planted the seed of faith and 2) another apostle will pick up where we left off.
Click to expand...
Good post, Br. JR. One of my closest friends is a Swedish Lutheran. Although she attends church, she has always been pretty secular; her Lutheranism is more of a cultural thing, and she enjoys the social contact with the other immigrants in that congregation. We do not see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, but at least I sow a seed here and there. I know our conversations have made her think about several issues on a deeper level. We’re not “there yet” as far as agreeing on a lot of things, but God isn’t finished with her…or with me…yet! 👍
 
When St. Francis of Assisi taught our early brothers about preaching and St. Dominic taught his Friar Preachers, the message that both sent to their spiritual sons was to remember humility. Humility means that we don’t allow ourselves to get caught up by our pride. Sometimes, there is a little pride in our debate. We want to be the person who converts the other. We want to win the debate. We want to prove that we’re rigth. We want to achieve something.

Both Francis and Dominic, being outstanding preachers, were very aware that preaching is not about the preacher. It is about the message. The message has to be delivered even if the preacher gets no satisfaction out of it. We see this very clearly when Francis visits the Sultan. He fails to convert the Sultan, but he won the Sultan’s respect and trust. What happened later was good for the Church. The Muslims on the Western side of the Middle East made a treaty with the Franciscans, to allow them safe passage to the Holy Land. This treaty has been in effect to this day. When Israel was carved out of Palestine, the Israeli Government, the Egyptians and the Jordanians honored the 800 year old treaty.

As a result of that treaty, the Franciscans have an extensive ministry in Israel, Jordan and Egypt which is protected by the state. A lot of evangelization has taken place over these 800 years.

The legacy that we received from Francis and Domnic was to be humble in our mission to evangelize. Preach always, when necessary use words. But always observe charity. You’re not compromising truth because you leave some work to the Holy Spirit and to the apostles who will follow you. You never know how much good you may have done, just because you don’t get a white flag from your opponent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
CarrieH said:
Good post, Br. JR.

I second that. Br. JR has a way of expressing the simple in things
Sometimes when a person say’s " lets agree to disagree" there seems to be an edge of " you didn’t win the debate" in the tone, but if I apply JR’s words, that haughty tone is just how I’m hearing and not necessarily what they are meaning. I think it’s really just venting frustration that collects as one butts their head against a wall for too long. :banghead: The person really is just ready to end the conversation:coolinoff: and isn’t saying 'I’m still right and you are wrong".:dts:
Click to expand...
 
—I disagree with nothing that has been said already, it is all fair opinion.
—I have to agree with the OP it is disheartening to hope on the truth. All have walked away from a conversation thinking, “IF”. If I would have said this, that, explained it this way, listened a little better, found the key to their confusion, I may have been able to help one person enter the narrow gate. It is a very serious matter. Life or Death. Trusting the Lord is really hard in these matters. Not because I think any of the Trinity are slackers, just the person you are trying to help is not accepting Gd or the Truth. So there seems to be a personal responsability to help where some one has turned a deaf ear to Gd.
— I propose this notion. An opinion is subjective and subject to change. Truth is what an opinion hopes to be one day, a stage in a process. The faithful have been charged with representing and presenting the truth. But we must understand that we didn’t accept the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth at one exact moment in time and most of us still struggle with some aspects of the faith. (For me an ex. St Pauls teaching that a person who is abandoned by their spouse may divorce and remarry against the chuch’s no divorce.)
—Agreeing to drop the subject allows the other person time to reflect. It also allows you to move to a subject that the person will except then you can build on that.

So as I said in the begining I agree
And I have to learn to trust in the Great Teacher
 
MatthewBerkeley said:
For example, debating with non-Catholics about the status of Mary within the Catholic faith, and debating with Catholics about the possibility of women priests…
Click to expand...
These would be examples of non-essentials that are not central to the faith, yes? Because if they are, you’ve got some problems.
 
JReducation said:
When the other person invites you to agree to disagree, this is their signal that they don’t want to continue the conversation. There is nothing wrong with letting it end there. You have done the best you can to help them understand… My strategy is to say something like, “Ok, let’s talk about it later.”
Click to expand...
Excellent post. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top