Here's an example of a faulty assumption that can cause communication to disconnect.
Let's look at a conversation about homosexuality. I've had people ask "How can God say that homosexuality is wrong if science has so much evidence that it is an innate orientation?" Have you ever had this conversation?
Our impulse might be to start quoting Scripture: we believe same-sex sexual relationships are not what God desires from us because the Bible tells us so.* On the other hand, if we're more scientifically inclined, we might attack the evidence that a homosexual orientation can be genetically linked to and present from birth and is, rather, an environmental or decisional orientation that can be reoriented by the (sadly) standard evangelical tools for life-transformaiton: change of scenery and willpower.
But both of these approaches ignore the underlying assumption. "Our innate desires are good." Now, is that true? Is God someone who denies us our good desires? No. Scripture presents us as a broken people before God, desiring darkness instead of light. Our innate desires are twisted, broken, corrupting. If this is true, then God's commands are not oppressive, but rather liberating.
How can God say that homosexuality is wrong? Because God loves homosexuals too much to stand silent and passive as they are twisted, broken and corrupted by their sin. How can God say that heterosexual lust is wrong? How can God say that drug abuse is wrong? How can God say that gluttony is wrong? How can God say that restlessness is wrong? Because God loves me too much to stand silent and passive as I am twisted, broken and corrupted by my sin.
*If you think differently on this, please pop a comment, give me a call or shoot me an e-mail before you write me off as a all-Christians-must-be-unthinkingly-party-line Republican. I don't consider myself one of those and would like a chance to explain myself further. :)