Communication

[TexasSky]

I have been studying effective communication the majority of my life. It began with the same basics everyone in life gets - lessons in reading and writing, then english classes and essays.

I took that part of my education further. My original field of study in college required an understanding that subtle differences in what is communicated vs what someone wants to communicate.

"He said the grass is green" = Statement of fact.
"He said the grass is green." = Indication of doubt over whether or not the grass is green or not.
"He said the grass is green." = Indicated of blame.
"He claimed the grass is green." = Doubt.

My lessons in communication went further than that. When I began doing counseling one of the things we learned was that the vast majority of fights between couples revolve around what someone says vs what someone else hears being said. Remember the old joke that goes, "Which dress makes me look less fat?" "The red one." "Oh, so you think I look fat in blue?!" When all the person really meant was, "I like the red dress?"

I see a LOT of careless communication on this board, and then when responses to the message conveyed by the post are not what they expected, the person leaps up and goes, "You're lying!" When in fact, the problem is NOT that the second poster lied, it is that the first poster did a poor job of communicating.

If you think someone is misquoting you, if you think someone is "twisting your words," how about taking a Christian attitude and saying, "Wow, didn't realize my words came across that way. That isn't what I meant. What I meant was: .... Thank you for pointing out that it could be taken another way," instead of the bitter, back biting, "You lied about me!" childish name calling that is going on around here?

That would save a LOT of time, and be much more Christian. When you come back with, "You liar," you end up hurting your own cause.
1) You've offended another Christian.
2) You have done nothing to correct any communication errors that are going on.
3) You force the person to pick your post apart, thereby justifying their intrepreation that you think is wrong.

On the other hand, a simple, "Wow, didn't realize it would be read that way. It isn't what I meant, this is what I meant," does the following....
1) If comes much closer to how the bible would encourage Christians to interact.
2) It sets an example to non-Christians.
3) It doesn't lead to the other person having to pick your post apart to explain why they read you incorrectly, thus strengthening the reading you dislike, and causing others on the board to divide in the debate.
4) It gives you a chance to re-state what you really meant in a different phrasing that can leaves no doubt.

 

[Pastor Larry]

While what you say is true in some cases, in many cases, the responder is guilty of reading more than was said, of assuming certain things. You yourself were found guilty of this on several occasions just yesterday. The problem was not in the communication, but rather in your willingness to assume certain things that were not said. That never makes for good communication.

 

[TexasSky]

Pastor Larry,

I beg to differ.

Your words were clear, and my interpretation of them was not based on that one post. It was based on numerous posts you made.

You obviously are of the opinion that most poor people don't want to work, and are too uneducated to earn a decent wage.

That's a hateful and cold hearted attitude for a minister of God to take.

 

[OCC]

I saw on a thread where a certain "person" said "we assume". hmmm...

 

[Pastor Larry]

You can beg to differ if you wish. You were wrong. You read into my words something I did not say. When I asked you to demonstrate the truth of your words, you were unable. That was unfortunate on your part. You should have been more careful to read what I actually said, rather than what you think I said. My words were clear. And you did not comment on what I actually said.

 

[OCC]

Actually I wasn't talking about you Larry. And that's a fact. You should be more careful about accusing me. It's not nice. To be honest, you post sounds like whining. If I had said it, I'd be told I'm whining. God bless you Larry.

And I did answer you. Anything I didn't answer was because you did not make sense. My head was spinning and I am not happy about it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think everyone on this thread has been guilty of this in the past and will be guilty of this in the future, including myself.

Good points TexasSky and I would say Larry is right too. Knowledge of how miscommunication happens does not make us immune to it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually I wasn't talking about you Larry. And that's a fact.

And it is fact that I wasn't talking about you. I was responding to TS who began her post with "I beg to differ." I told her she could if she wanted, but she was still wrong. You weren't even near my mind.

You should be more careful about accusing me.

What did I accuse you of?

 

[TexasSky]

Larry,

I wasn't unable, I was tired of your bitter attitude, and didn't think you were worth the effort.

Joseph suggested (accurately I believe) that God sanctioned Governments as both his agent of wrath and his agent of benevolence to the needy.

Your rude comment was "They are God's ministers of justice and government, not handouts." The clear communication that "government aide to the needy is a "handout."

Several other posters asked you to define what Paul meant when he told Christians to do good, or called you on those words before the thread went further.

Someone even asked if you allowing children to starve of families to be homeless was justice, you told them their question was irrelevant.

You then said, "those who don't work shouldn't eat." You made no allowance for those who CAN'T work - or for those who try to work and can't find employment.

Then you came back and repeated the absurd statement that God says people who don't work aren't entitled to the necessities of life. Show me that in the New Testament please.

I posted figures showing that even on minimum wage, hard working people can't survive today without help. YOU came back with "There are few reasons why anyone supporting a family has to work for minimum wage." You called the high school dropouts, people who "couldn't keep a job," "students," people who "can't talk properly," people who "don't know how to dress respectably," and said they live in poverty because they WON'T change.

You totally ignore the reality of the modern world. You ignore the fact that mothers are supporting children because fathers are dead beats. You ignore the fact that there are widows and or widowers who have to be both mother and father to children. You ignore plant-closings, hurricanes, fires, and outsourcing, the physical handicaps, and just assume that you are better than all these "minimum wage workers".

I stand by my words. You are NOT taking a Christ like attitude, Larry.

Jesus Christ said not to judge. You're definately sitting in judgement.

Jesus Christ said to love. Where is love in your words?

Jesus Christ said that if you refuse to help a stranger you are refusing to help Him.

The bible says that if you are a Christian you will be known by your fruits. What are your fruits Larry? Starving children? Homeless families?

Christ said to care for the widows, orphans, homeless and sick. Do you have a right to disavow the words of Christ? Did He give you some "holy idict" to say, "Just ignore that part of what He teaches?"

You are a very hateful man. Christ did NOT say, "Help those who Larry thinks deserve it." In fact, He spent a LOT of time criticizing the pharaisees for that very attitude.

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually I wasn't talking about you Larry. And that's a fact.

And it is fact that I wasn't talking about you. I was responding to TS who began her post with "I beg to differ." I told her she could if she wanted, but she was still wrong. You weren't even near my mind.

You should be more careful about accusing me.

What did I accuse you of? </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, your post was exactly after mine. Given that the moderators are against me I had justifiable cause to believe you were talking to me. It was up to YOU to make it clear who you were talking to. And you know it.

 

[OCC]

You should have been more careful to read what I actually said, rather than what you think I said. My words were clear. And you did not comment on what I actually said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what you accused me of. If you weren't talking to me, you should have made it clear IN your post who you were talking to. besides, you have said the exact same to me as well. Larry...I'm not stupid.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, your post was exactly after mine. Given that the moderators are against me I had justifiable cause to believe you were talking to me. It was up to YOU to make it clear who you were talking to. And you know it.

Unless you "begged to differ," then it was clear who I was talking to. And the moderators aren't against you. You have no justifiable cause to do anything here. Just say, "Oops, my bad" and go on with your life. Why does everything have to turn into a personal issue with you?

 

[OCC]

When someone does something to me it is a personal issue. That, and you told me yourself you purposely generalize to avoid being accused of anything. Well...not putting the name of the person you were talking to is generalizing and I saw it as a way to take a shot at me and have "an out" if you know what I mean.

In this instance, "my bad". Still..."I" try to make it a habit to always address who I am talking to in my posts Larry. I had justifiable cause...even though I was wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
I wasn't unable, I was tired of your bitter attitude, and didn't think you were worth the effort.

Had you tried, you would have been unable becuase I said nothing that would have lead you to that conclusion. Second, I have no bitter attitude. If you don't want to debate, then that's fine. But if you make accusations, be prepared to substantiate them.

Joseph suggested (accurately I believe) that God sanctioned Governments as both his agent of wrath and his agent of benevolence to the needy.

And I pointed out (accurately) that the passage in question has no comment on benevolence.

Your rude comment was "They are God's ministers of justice and government, not handouts." The clear communication that "government aide to the needy is a "handout."

What was rude about that? I made a general comment, and then later proceeded to clarify some more about that comment.

Several other posters asked you to define what Paul meant when he told Christians to do good, or called you on those words before the thread went further.

Where? I am not sure what passage of Paul you are talking about, nor where this was asked.

Someone even asked if you allowing children to starve of families to be homeless was justice, you told them their question was irrelevant.

Really? Would you like me to quote the whole thing so you can see what I actually said? I will do it:

That is irrelevant to what I said. I was commenting on what the passage says, not what other things the government might do are. This passage does not talk about the needy. Period.

Notice the comment. It was irrelevant to what I said. I didn't say it was irrelevant. It was irrelevant to my original comment which was about what this passage talks about. One of the tasks of theology is to find out what a passage is talking about. Something might be perfectly true, but not be the teaching of a passage. If I quote Genesis 1:1 and say that this passage teaches that we are saved by Christ's death, I would be wrong. Not because the statement is wrong, but because it is irrelevant to that text. Joseph's point about Rom 13 and the government helping the needy is a misplaced point. Rom 13 does not address that. I pointed out that Rom 13 does not address that. Therefore, any comment about government helping the needy was irrelevant to my comment. This is a place where you got caught not reading closely.

You then said, "those who don't work shouldn't eat." You made no allowance for those who CAN'T work - or for those who try to work and can't find employment.

I made a general statement. I did not intend to address all possible variations. I would have thought that would have been understood. But sometimes, common sense isn't quite so common.

Then you came back and repeated the absurd statement that God says people who don't work aren't entitled to the necessities of life. Show me that in the New Testament please.

I did, using the principle given above about working and eating. Those who don't work are not to eat. That is not a statement about all. It is a general statement, proverbial in nature.

I posted figures showing that even on minimum wage, hard working people can't survive today without help.

You didn't quite show that. You showed numbers which, in some places, may not be a livable wage, but in other places might be.

YOU came back with "There are few reasons why anyone supporting a family has to work for minimum wage." You called the high school dropouts, people who "couldn't keep a job," "students," people who "can't talk properly," people who "don't know how to dress respectably," and said they live in poverty because they WON'T change.

Yes, that is very often the case. But even here, you didn't quote me correctly. You correctly quoted my comments about "few reasons," which means there are some legitimate reasons. But my very next sentence said "Many of these minimum wage workers are ..." and then your comments above fit in. But notice the little word "many." That implies "not all." Again, you didn't read closely, and ended up making some false charges. My communication was clear. You simply misread, or misrepresented, or read more into it than was actually there.

And yes, the fact remains, that many of these are poor because they won't change. To clarify, not all of them are. But many are.

You totally ignore the reality of the modern world.

No I don't.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You ignore the fact that mothers are supporting children because fathers are dead beats.

No I don't. I realize that. But I also know that many of these women are supporting children because they sinned. They went out and knowingly engaged in behavior that would bring a certain outcome, and now they are paying the piper.

You ignore the fact that there are widows and or widowers who have to be both mother and father to children.

No, I don't. I specifically allowed for that. I specifically talked about never married mothers. I allow for that.

You ignore plant-closings, hurricanes, fires, and outsourcing, the physical handicaps, and just assume that you are better than all these "minimum wage workers".

No I don't. I don't really even make minimum wage. Don't kid yourself. But I said, in response to a comment, I never said someone who was laid off or losing their job didn't want to work. It is foolish for you to say that I did say that, or to imply that I did. In other words, I addressed this very statement, and you ignored it for some reason. There was no way that I could possibly every single legitimate circumstance where something might be an exception. I made general statements about "many," not about "all." And if you konw the truth, then you know I am right.

I stand by my words.

That is unfortunate, because I have just point by point refuted everything you said, based on what I had previously said. I told you you were wrong. I asked your for clarification, on the chance that maybe I said something amiss. You refused to provide evidence. Then I told you you were wrong. Then you persisted, and started a new thread, and now, for everyone to see, I have gone and shown point by point, in public, that you are still wrong. You barked up the wrong tree on this one. You should have read closer. You should not have read into what I said. You should have taken it at face value.

You are NOT taking a Christ like attitude, Larry.

This is now the third or fourth time you have said this. Will you please demonstrate how?

Jesus Christ said not to judge.

No he didn't. He commanded us to judge. His command about not judging was a command about hypocrisy. 1 Tim 5 gives specific direction about helpign widows, and tells us there are certain people we should not help.

You're definately sitting in judgement.

No, I'm not.

Jesus Christ said to love. Where is love in your words?

All through them. It is always loving to tell the truth, in a loving way. Obviously, if someone were sitting in front of me, and I had unlimited time, I would say it differently.

How is it loving to bail someone out of bad choices? The old saying goes, "You made your bed, now you have to lie in it." There are many financial decisions I don't make because I have made them before adn don't want to live that way. I learned the hard way because no one bailed me out.

Jesus Christ said that if you refuse to help a stranger you are refusing to help Him.

That has not been the subject of discussion here.

The bible says that if you are a Christian you will be known by your fruits. What are your fruits Larry? Starving children? Homeless families?

Perhaps I have done more for the families in this area than you know about. What's the chances of that? Do you really want to judge me? You just said it was wrong, but your whole posting on this topic has been very judgmental of me. And to top it all off, it was flat out wrong.

Christ said to care for the widows, orphans, homeless and sick. Do you have a right to disavow the words of Christ? Did He give you some "holy idict" to say, "Just ignore that part of what He teaches?"

I have never said we shouldn't care for them. As I pointed out earlier (another part that you obviously ignored), the question is "What is the best way to care for them?" Is it best to give a homeless man a handout? Or to help him find a job?

Quick story and then I go. A man I know runs a campground. One day he saw a guy standing on a street corner with a sign asking for money. This guy rolled down his window and said, "I have a campground and I have some work I need done. If you will come work, I will give you $10 an hour." (This was about 13 years ago.) The guy refused. He said, "I make $400 a day standing here doing this. Why would I want to go work?"

You are a very hateful man.

Wow ... That's very judgmental isn't it? Since when do you get to be the judge? You just condemned me for doing this and now you turn around and do it. Looks like you are not only judgmental, you are also hypocritical, and that is exactly what Christ condemned in Matt 7. Why do you get to ignore his commands?

TS, You have been exposed. You have made false charges against me because you failed to read what I actually said. You have been very judgmental against me, in violation of your own standard. And I have refuted everything you said. You don't have to agree with my position, but it is wrong for you to misrepresent it. You should have bailed out of this a long time ago to avoid this ugly ending.

 

[OCC]

Hmm...I was called hateful. I have been called many things on here. But that's ok.

Man...You moderators are frustrating. You must WANT to drive people away.

 

[TexasSky]

Larry,

If you think that most of the single parents in this country are that way because they engaged in premarital sex you are SORELY out of touch with social demographics of modern society. The majority of single parents are the result of divorce. Not fornication, but even if it WAS the result of fornication - why should the child suffer? Because you think they deserve to have the sins of the parents visited upon them?

You only allowed for the widows after someone called you on the other.

You can't sugar coat what you said with, "I didn't actually say that people who are laid off..." when what you DID say was "the majority of".

Did you EVER READ the book of Matthew? ?
How can ANY ONE who CLAIMS to be a PASTOR in a Christian Church say that Christ never said don't judge.

Did you MISS Judge not lest ye be judged?
Did you MISS the part about splinters and motes?
Did you MISS the lessons of the prodigal son?
Did you MISS "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you?"
Did you MISS the second is this, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Did you MISS the story of the good samaritan?

How is it loving to look down your nose at someone, declare their choices "bad" and therefore unworthy of assistance?

And whether you find it judgmental or not, I TRULY believe you are the most hateful man I have ever met in my life.

I have known people from all over the world, all walks of life, rich and poor, and you are the ONLY one I know who claims to be a Christian with the attitude you have that they all brought it on themselves.

Did you happen to MISS the fact that a LOT of the people Jesus Christ considered "friends" were the very people YOU have decided are unworthy of help?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In thread after thread, I notice Larry's lack of compassion toward those less fortunate than he. This is not meant to be a slam against you Larry, but perhaps it is time to re-examine how you feel about the less priviledged. I would think that as a pastor who lives off the donations of others, and who is called to minister to the sick and needy, maybe it is time to walk in the shoes of others before casting judgment. Please take this criticism in the spirit with which it is intended. Not everyone who is poor is lazy, and there is none among us who is perfect, save our Lord Jesus.

 

[Bunyon]

Texas Sky-"I took that part of my education further. My original field of study in college required an understanding that subtle differences in what is communicated vs what someone wants to communicate."----------------------------------------------------------------

And yet you never rectified that one thread where you misquoted me and said I said "they" when I actually said "we". Do you really care about effective communication?

[ September 30, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

[Rachel]

How about, if everyone would really think about their posts and re-read it before they hit reply?