(no subject)

[pat]

I have heard several people on my friends list say something to the effect of "It is impossible for someone to 'hate the sin but love the sinner'."



I saw my friend C at church yesterday. I don't get to see him very often -- he is no longer living in our area.

There are decisions I have made about my personal life that C finds appalling. He has never said so directly -- the closest he has come is to say he was "very concerned" -- but I think I know him well enough to have a pretty good idea of what he thinks of the matter. If pressed, I'm pretty sure he would say, yes, he thinks that I am being sinful.

But when he sees me, he says "I really want to know how your life is going" and means it. He does not spend his time telling me that I am going to hell, or that the struggles I am experiencing in my emotional and spiritual life are a result of these decisions.

I think this is a clear case of "hate the sin, love the sinner."

The problem is that most people who actually say the above phrase, don't really mean it.

Comments

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I do think it's a worthwhile goal, when one disagrees with another's choices, to distinguish between their CHOICES, and THEM. And many people do not do that well. It's not easy, really, when we are trained to conflate a person's actions and their self. We so rarely say "I hate what you just did," instead going for the easy "I hate you," for instance. And that's so damaging to the person, and to our relationship.

I'm glad that your friend can truly understand the distinction. I wish more were like him.

Another important point

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

It's also incumbent upon the listener receiving the message "I'm criticizing what you did/said" not to conflate that as "I'm criticizing you." I've seen that one pop up time and time again, both in face-to-face and online interactions, and it's just as damaging to folks.

What I find weird is when it occurs in online fora where the literal wording is checkable by all parties.

Re: Another important point

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Yes, but even literal wording carries nuance and connotation. And often what is ostensibly presented as criticism appears more like savaging -- in which case it is hard for many people not to take things personally.

Re: Another important point

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I understand your point, and I think it is a good one, but I still come back to the idea that if one is going to work towards a goal of "love the sinner, hate the sin" in speaking their minds, then it follows that one should make an equal attempt to follow the same ideal when he or she is on the receiving end.

As you said to one of my posts "nobody's perfect" and I certainly don't hold perfection as a measuring stick for my interactions (lord knows, I'd be waaaaaaaay shorter than that stick myself). But I do believe that showing behavioral signs that one is making the attempt counts for a lot.

Re: Another important point

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

This is a good case where literal wording does not carry the whole truth. In my "nobody's perfect" comment, I was attempting to make a sardonic reply to your observation about pathological solipsism. Obviously, I failed to communnicate well in that case.

Re: Another important point

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

True, indeed. It does illustrate another point. My literal interpretation, though flawed, was of a conservative nature that continued communication can still occur. Basically, I want a robust process (if I'm using that term correctly) so that my mistakes will allow for more, not less, communication to occur because I know mistakes of interpretation or phrasing will occur.

Re: Another important point

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

*sigh* LJ ate the reply. Let's try again.

I agree that the listener is also responsible for receiving the message correctly. If they are primed to hear criticism, then it may be next to impossible for them to hear anything other than that, unless the speaker is 100% positive and supportive (and possibly not then).

Not that this has ever happened to ME of course! ;^) (Yes, RJ, I'm kidding. For the record, I've got some serious filters in place I fight against constantly).

Basically, it's a variation on "we see what we expect to see."


Regarding the on-line fora being better in this regard because the wording is checkable by all parties--well, I think that mostly doesn't work because only 7% of communication is carried in the words themselves. On-line communication is severely lacking in this dept., even more so than telephones (and we all know that "playing telephone" can lead to some serious miscommunications). That's why we have smileys and emoticons and LJ mood icons--to TRY to overcome some of this "natural" handicap. So being able to check the words would not change the INTERPRETATION that someone might have had about the meaning of those words; hence the continued possibility of miscommunication.

Re: Another important point

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

*sigh* LJ ate the reply. Let's try again.

I hate when that happens (usually because Netscape has decided it hasn't had enough love or something).

If they are primed to hear criticism, then it may be next to impossible for them to hear anything other than that, unless the speaker is 100% positive and supportive (and possibly not then).

Not that this has ever happened to ME of course! ;^)

Nor me. I'm talking about gnomes and elves, of course. :-)

Regarding the on-line fora being better in this regard because the wording is checkable by all parties--well, I think that mostly doesn't work because only 7% of communication is carried in the words themselves.[...] So being able to check the words would not change the INTERPRETATION that someone might have had about the meaning of those words; hence the continued possibility of miscommunication.

Okay, this is where I think the reader has to understand both the medium and the communicator and make a choice. If I'm having a conversation with A Dear Friend Of Long-Standing I will likely choose to attempt to fill in missing tone and pacing cues based on my knowledge of said DFOLS and my accuracy will likely be high. If I am dicussing something with Random Stranger, I will choose to read for literal content, paying close attention to my own triggers getting tripped (again, not perfectly).

I also think that the lack of tone and pacing can be a benefit, not a handicap, if approached as such. I think trying to infer meaning from tone or body-language is as fraught as trying to infer meaning from online content beyond the literal. Even with DFOLS folks make mistakes.

But all this is a digression from the original point "The listener is also responsible for receiving the message correctly" upon which we are in agreement. :-)

Re: Another important point

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

...upon which we are in agreement. :-)

Yay! We agree that we agree! ;^)

Just an observation.....

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

It's hard for people not to take it personally when you call them a "sociopath" in a public forum. That's not distancing yourself from objectionable behavior, that's name-calling.

Re: Just an observation.....

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I'm not aware that I've called anyone a sociopath. Could you please point me at such a reference?