Separating evaluation of the act from evaluation of the person sounds like a good way to approach people who really have comitted a serious transgression. It might also be useful to understand the individual's beliefs re what the fact that they committed the transgression means about them. For example, the Viet Nam vet who experienced an adrenaline rush when killing combattants in a combat setting seems to think that this reveals something terrible about him. In reality, it simply shows that his adrenal glands are functioning as they are designed to. For those who are particularly fixated on how "unforgiveable" their act is, it can also be useful to find out what convinces them the act is indeed "unforgiveable." If by "unforgiveable" they mean that no one could forgive that act or that no one who has committed that act can be forgiven, then it is not easy to find acts which are truly unforgiveable. Different religious traditions have different ideas about what acts are forgivable and which are not, but most of the Christian traditions that are predominant in the US teach that persons who have committed terrible acts (including rape and murder) can be forgiven if they sincerely repent and make a serious effort not to repeat their transgression. It sometimes is useful to imagine another individual who had committed a similar transgression and ask how the client would deal with him or her. Often individuals treat themselves more harshly than they would treat someone else who committed the same transgression.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.