Are you able to guide somone without judging them?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are you able to guide somone without judging them?
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
What sort of judging are you talking about?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not effectively. You have to assess (judge) the capabilities of your student before you can give guidance that they can understand and follow.
Without judgment, how have you determined they need guidance?
"I like you just the way you are" is different from "I agree with everything you do." It is important for people to know they can be loved and can make other people feel loved. They don't have to do anything sensational for that. Sometimes we cannot feel that ourselves within ourselves, but we should. (Yes some of that is from Fred Rogers.)
Sometimes people have a problem in which they must make other people feel unable to be loved. That is the wrong approach to judgment, however correction is a guide. Shameful actions should produce a little shame, but you shouldn't provide the shame or seek to get any high from someone else's shame. That is not healthy. Shame comes from within the individual who hopefully is able to determine that its not that they are unlikable but that they need to do things differently. You who provide the direction and correction and should feel good about yourself without having to shame anyone else.
Therefore you can guide without loathing someone, but you still have to provide intelligence sometimes. Or you might be able to get them to do it for themselves. That would be better.
So for example if somone is an extremist, can you guide him without judging him to be extreme? Perhaps you may not even say to him, "you are an extremist", but have you not made that judgement whether or not you convey it to him?
I don't think so. You have to judge them in order for you to think they needed guidance. Judgement follows observation. First observe, then assess. But I can see a challenge with the word 'judge' here as it's developed a negative connotation of seeing someone in a negative way. An example is the oft used phrase, 'don't judge others'. Some respondents to this question might see it like that.
Not myself probably, but I do believe this is what many or most psychologists who have to interact with those who misbehave (criminals or otherwise) do profess to do, given they are striving to understand rather than condemn. And hence the guidance following from the understanding. Not a popular view I would think though.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I know I can't.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
A further complication is than in some cases you can't use yourself as a standard for making considered decisions or coming to sensible conclusions.
rocala
Well-Known Member
Hi, yes I agree. I think that this is where the word "considered" can be seen to be a crucial part of the definition.
There is implicit judgment just for living in a society that has established norms. A person who acts contrary to social norms can be recognized as breaking from those norms and by default are being judged. I's say the issue is whether judgment of others has a good or negative intent. Trying to help a person overcome a drug addiction can be a good thing. But then perhaps im smokes a little weed once in a while and grandpa thinks it's bad, and truies to get him to stop, that might be crossing a line. Or someone who grew up in a Christian family and their social norm is that anyone who isn't saved by the sacrifice of Jesus is damned, and they act through that set of beliefs might be crossing a line.
To guide others requires a person who is pretty hip and wise, and understands tolerance and balance. Religious folks tend to be too deeply imbeded in their beliefs to offer guidance as others need it, versus motivated to save others through their beliefs. There can be a deep motivation for a religious person to expand the tribe they belong to, and this helps themselves feel more secure in their own belief, and not genuinely guiding another in a way THEY need it. Religion is tricky, it acts on minds in ways the believe is not consciously aware of, and that can have negative results as we observe. They are deemed negative because we have judged their behavior and impact.
To guide others requires a person who is pretty hip and wise, and understands tolerance and balance. Religious folks tend to be too deeply imbeded in their beliefs to offer guidance as others need it, versus motivated to save others through their beliefs. There can be a deep motivation for a religious person to expand the tribe they belong to, and this helps themselves feel more secure in their own belief, and not genuinely guiding another in a way THEY need it. Religion is tricky, it acts on minds in ways the believe is not consciously aware of, and that can have negative results as we observe. They are deemed negative because we have judged their behavior and impact.
We Never Know
No Slack
Define guide and judge in the context you're talking about.
If the assessment is relevant to what the guidance is about, then the assessment would be made. Otherwise not. So if I am guiding him in how to play chess then no. But if I am guiding him as say a psychiatrist on his mental problems related to his violent life. Then yes.
And the word would be awareness, not judgement.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Of course. But only if by guidance, you mean leading a person somewhere they are willing to go.
To lead a person against their will, is to assume you know better than they do, where they ought to be going; doing that is judgemental and seldom leads to anything but conflict.
Last edited: