"Hes a loathsome, offensive brute, but I cant look away"
To the ping group - they demand our apologies - but check out docs vomit in patents #48
Posted on 04/26/2002 9:01:52 AM PDT by WhatNot
Many churches focus on the "eucharist," which for them means the bread of the Lord's Supper. Other believer's don't think the concept of the eucharist is Biblical. But the concept of "eucharist" is Biblical. The word "eucharist" comes from the Greek "eu" meaning "good" and "charis" meaning "grace" or "blessing." The eucharist at the Last Supper was not the bread itself, but the blessing Messiah said over the bread. The blessing is one said in Jewish homes to this day: "Baruch Atah Adonai Elohaynu Melech Ha Olam, Ha Motzee Lechem Min Ha Aretz" - "Blessed are You O Lord Our God, King of the Universe, Who brings forth bread from the earth." This is the true eucharist.
The true eucharist is never eaten, it is given. It is a blessing of thanks to God. It's not the bread, it is the blessing over the bread. And this distinction can change your life. Life doesn't consist of the things you have, but the blessings you say over them. You only truly have what you bless and give thanks for. Give the blessing of thanks over your, bread - your parents, your family, your friends, your situation - over everything, good and bad. And your life itself will be truly blessed, for such is the true eucharist.
Luke 22:14-20
TODAY'S MISSION
Prepare a private communion service today, with you and Messiah. Lift up to Him those things that need to receive His blessing - your loved ones, your job, your ministry.
The fact that we Calvinists are logical and accurate and truthful gets us nowhere. We are just regarded as "Catholic bashers." I am tired of this public game. So, I don't propose to play it.
My heart-felt, private appeal was to Brian only. I know that he wants to involve his button-pusher friends against me. I told Brian to forget it. With all due respect, I have nothing further to say to either of you. I think this is a completely reasonable FReeper approach. I think that it demonstrates a proper self-control on our Forum.
My heart-felt, private appeal was to Brian only. I know that he wants to involve his button-pusher friends against me. I told Brian to forget it. With all due respect, I have nothing further to say to either of you. I think this is a completely reasonable FReeper approach. I think that it demonstrates a proper self-control on our Forum.If Brian wanted to push abuse, or if I wanted to, we could just forward the freepermail to the moderators and do so. If you refuse to stand behind your words and let them be discussed openly, you are acting cowardly. You are afraid to stand behind what you said in an open forum.
You continue to use freepermail to abuse other posters by spitting hateful e-mails to them. This practice must be exposed for what it is, and that is going to happen here, the only issue is whether you are willing to defend what you said.
patent
My heart-felt, private appeal was to Brian only.By the way, if it was such a heart-felt Christian action, you should have no problem with the rest of the world seeing it. The fact that you do have a problem shows the state of your heart quite clearly.
patent
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200)
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes'--in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212)
"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:4(c.A.D. 350)
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." " Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350) "Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXIII:7(c.A.D. 350)
"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee." John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370)
"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373)
"If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist(for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing." Gregory of Nyssa,The Great Catechism,37(post A.D. 383)
"Then He added: 'For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].' Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: 'A spirit hath not flesh and bones.' Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death.'" Ambrose,On the Christian Faith,4,10:125(A.D. 380)
"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391)
'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' " Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418)
"He did not say,'This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,' but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." Theodore of Mopsuestia,Commentary on Matthew 26:26(ante A.D. 428)
"Eran.--You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord's body into another nature. Answer now to my questions. Orth.--I will answer. Eran.--What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation? Orth.--It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present. Eran.--Let your answer be put enigmatically. Orth.--Food of grain of such a sort. Eran.--And how name we the other symbol? Orth.--This name too is common, signifying species of drink. Eran.--And after the consecration how do you name these? Orth.--Christ's body and Christ's blood. Eran.--And do yon believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood? Orth.--I do." Theodoret of Cyrus,Eranistes,2(A.D. 451)
"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken." Pope Leo the Great,Sermon, 91:3(ante A.D. 461)
"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, 'This is My body,' not, this is a figure of My body: and 'My blood,' not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live." John of Damascus,Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,4:13(A.D. 743)
IMHO, I think your approach is the cowardly act of a person who is not logical, accurate or truthful and has been shown to lack those qualities on numerous occasions.
One quality you did leave out was "saintly", just ask ccwoody.
The only reason you fear being banned and use Freepmail is because your venemous diatribes are hateful and without substance.
It would do you well to attempt to maintain an open mind when reading comments generated by patent, Dr. Brian Kopp and JMJ333. They are logical, accurate, truthful and compassionate people.
God bless,
EODGUY
By their fruits ye shall know them.
patent
This is a rather unusual use of my bump list for me. I am pinging you because I want to show all of you how “the_doc” and others like him operate. I am specifically not asking you to hit abuse on him or anything like that, I just want to give others an understanding of how these people attack others in case you get the same from them some day.
It’s essentially a combination of a couple classical patterns of emotional abuse. In these freepermails you will see this self-proclaimed “saint” heap insult upon insult, both attacking Brian personally, professional, emotionally, and in his faith. I also note that he calls Brian a coward and claims he (the_doc) has the guts Brian lacks, right before his post on this thread refusing to stand behind his words publicly, preferring to hide in freepermails.
He follows three classic abuse patterns I am familiar with. First, he attacks in private. Now, he and many others he hangs out with here on FR do attack in public as well, but they often reserve the nastiest attacks for private freepermails. The funny thing is that Ward Smythe previously complained about such a freepermail – though from which Calvinist I don’t know. After Ward said that he wasn’t going to post it, the Calvinists vigorously demanded that he post it. Well, this time it’s going to get posted. Watch them attack that just as nastily. Regardless, should you get freeper mails from him or others like him, realize what they are trying to do, they are trying to beat you down emotionally in private, while maintaining some semblance of respectability in public.
Second, they seek to isolate you. You notice he refused to give permission to post it. That is exactly what I expected. In addition, notice the explicit language he used in his response: “Don't be stupid enough to seek reassurance and solace from the rest of the lying cowards in the RCC.” This is textbook. An abusive person doesn’t want others to see and discuss his actions. He doesn’t want his target to get any support from others. It is much easier to wear a person down when they can’t bounce things off others, when they stand alone subject to the assault. No man is an island, and the abuser knows that.
Third, the refusal to discuss the actions. Notice his response in post 41 of this thread, when asked to defend his actions. “all due respect, I have nothing further to say to either of you.” It is very common that when an abuser is challenged he will refuse to discuss the conduct, hoping the challenge will go away and be forgotten. I’m going to post a couple descriptions of emotional abuse. They are directed to the marital relationship, which is obviously different from what we have here, but the patterns are largely the same.
First the doc’s freeper mails:
And the response to Dr. Kopp’s request for permission to post it:
Subject: Re: The True Eucharist
The reason why I posted on the Eucharist thread was to address you in particular. I know that you are not a true Christian and that you are "trying" to be one.
Unfortunately, you are not going about it correctly. You are repeating the mistake I once made. The fact is, you are not even trying to be a **Christian.** You are trying to be a Papist. That really is different.
Today's Papacy is a fraud, Brian. You have been badly suckered. And yes, I say that you were before of old ordained to this condemnation (Jude 4). Augustine himself really **would** denounce you if he were alive in our day--and this despite the fact that he was devoted to the idea of the Papacy in his own day (even though Augustine specifically attacked the notion that the Church of Rome was founded on Peter).
Augustine never realized where his own wrongheaded endorsement of the Papacy was headed. But by the 16th century, it was obvious to spiritually sane people that the Papists had become a bunch of murdering, crooked swine, not Christians.
Your "church" is foul, Brian. It is one of the most morally corrupt entities in Christendom. Some Christians regard Romanism as profoundly embarrassing to Christianity. But I certainly don't. The fact is, Papism is obviously not Christian. It is antichristian.
In other words, you have chosen a false gospel. That's why I decided to make one last appeal to you based on your distinctive (and screwy) doctrine of "transubstantiation."
This is why I dare to tell you that I regard you as a silly cannibal, not a real Christian.
My point, Brian, is that your overall theology is making a fool out of you--i.e., revealing that you are anything **but** a Christian. You need to start noticing this. Being a stubbornly superstitious religious dork does not make you wonderfully spiritual. It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork.
You are a disgrace to your profession, of course.
Please don't assume that I get a kick out of saying this. Heck, our roles could easily have been reversed. I don't look down on you. You even seem like a bright, interesting fellow. But being bright and interesting count for nothing at all with the God of the Bible. You are hereby warned, Brian.
Unfortunately, you don’t like unctuous, clear warnings. I realize that. In fact, you lovely RCs got OP banned for stating **your own doctrine** of the Eucharist in completely **clear** terms. You RCs were profoundly **embarrassed** to hear it stated so clearly. You were speechless when he demonstrated that your supposedly sublime, supposedly lovely doctrine of the Eucharist is actually quite ABSURD and quite MONSTROUS. Ah, but your demonic controller will never let you be reasonable about this stuff. When you start to lose an argument with a Protestant, you try to **silence** him.
You spiritual idiots would rather go to hell than to admit that a Protestant is right in CONDEMNING your ASININE doctrine of the Eucharist. You would rather whine that we don't understand the Eucharist. But we do understand it. We understand from your doctrine that you are idiots and cannibals to boot. We understand that you are spiritually worthless cowards for failing to rise up against Rome and its filthy superstitions. We understand that you are spiritually worthless cowards by conspiring to suppress someone who has the guts which you lack.
What you are doing in your agitation, of course, is simply blaming us Protestants for your own RCC's stupidity. And you do this over and over and over. When we Protestants **point** out that your silly and flagrantly unscriptural priesthood is overrun with filthy little queers, you want to kill us for telling you the **Truth.** You can't stand the Truth. Rather than face the Truth, you try to kill the Truth-teller.
Hey, it has happened before. The Lord Jesus, the Truth Incarnate, was killed by reprobate religionists aligned with Rome, of course. And it is inarguably **true** that the RCC has murdered MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of Christians. What else should we expect from cannibals?
Do you see the pattern? Cannibals, cowards, liars, queers, murderers. It really is the stuff in the Book of Revelations. The RCC really is a Whore of Babylon, of Judaizing Apostasy, sitting on a City of Seven Hills.
And I happen to be a saint. Already. It is quite literally the greatest thing in the world. On the other hand, you are--to put it bluntly--Satanically screwed. The saddest thing about this is that it's your own fault.
If you will abandon Rome, I will joyfully receive you as a brother. Failing that, you will stumble and fall right into the hell from which there is no escape--**ever.** Take your choice. Either way, on Judgment Day, I win.
Sent 04/29/2002 1:16 AM by the_doc
Subject: Re: The True Eucharist
You guys already know where I am coming from. That's why you hate us Calvinists and want us banned as bigots.
We are not bigots. We are concerned about you. That's why I am bluntly **honest** with you **liars.**
So, you do **not** have my permission to post my private e-mail. You have only my permission to **live** with my words ringing in your **own** ears. Don't be stupid enough to seek reassurance and solace from the rest of the lying cowards in the RCC.
Gosh, your solidarity with those fools is your problem, Brian. They are spiritually **dead.** So are **you.** What you have is **not** faith, but a demonic counterfeit.
You need to LIVE.
Sent 04/29/2002 6:48 PM by the_doc
patent +AMDG
The following patterns are presented to diffuse confusion on the part of someone trying to clarify the events causing hurt, anger, and pain.
Lois was married to a successful executive. Everyone always told her how lucky she was to have such a wonderful husband. She always agreed with them and upheld Jim's good reputation. But when she was alone, she kept wondering why she didn't see him as a wonderful husband like everyone else did.
She began to realize that the reason for her different perspective was because Jim's behavior towards her was very different when they were in public gatherings together than he was when they were at home "in private."
"In private", Jim insulted her, called her derogatory names, ignored her, and in general, made her feel a great deal of humiliation. In public, however, he held her hand, called her sweetheart, listened attentively when she spoke, etc.
Her suspicions led her to begin to track the pattern that had caused her confusion. The pattern of "in private" abuse became evident after a short period of time.
Lois received very little support from her family who could not accept the reality of her experiences with Jim since they only witnessed the "in public" behaviors.
Glenda and Tom have been married for five years. Glenda is very concerned about their relationship. Tom insisted years ago that she stop working and tend to their home. They have no children, but Tom felt she should be a "homemaker" by cleaning, doing the laundry, and having supper ready at night. Though she didn't mind this arrangement, his demands left little time for her to socialize. She was lonely.
After being married only six months, Tom felt a move to Florida from New York would provide a more relaxing, healthier environment for them to start a family. She left her family and long-time friends to "make a new start." Money was tight since they were living on one paycheck so long distance calls to her family were few and far between. Just when Glenda was feeling like part of her church community, Tom announced he was ready for another move.
Glenda believed that moves were necessary for Tom's job improvement and salary increases. But Tom was increasingly becoming more and more controlling and demanding and she had church friends to "bounce" her feelings off of. Another move would mean a loss of those friends and a valuable support system for her.
Tom insisted on the third move. Glenda deferred to him.
In a period of five years, Glenda and Tom had moved three times. Glenda was not only lonely, but had no one to do a "reality check" regarding Tom's demanding behavior and his insistance that she stay home and be a dutiful wife instead of "wasting her time" socializing. She began to notice a pattern of isolation in their marriage. Every time she started to make friends in the community, Tom insisted they move.
Emotional abuse is the most common form of abuse - & yet least talked about. Part of the reason it is so easy for people to overlook is that so that much of what is considered normal & acceptable forms of communication is in fact abusive. Many people don't know that they have been - or are being - emotionally abused. In addition, a lot of emotional abuse doesn't appear to be severe or dramatic, although its effects can be.
Emotional Abuse is Characterized by a Climate of Abuse
Unlike physical or sexual abuse, where a single incident constitutes abuse, emotional abuse is made up of a series of incidents, or a pattern of behavior that occurs over time. Emotional abuse is more than just verbal insults, the most common definition of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse is a series of repeated incidents - whether intentional or not - that insults, threatens, isolates, degrades, humiliates and/or controls another person.
It may include a pattern of one or more of the following abuses: insults, criticisms, aggressive demands or expectations, threats, rejection, neglect, blame, emotional manipulation & control, isolation, punishment, terrorizing, ignoring, or teasing. Harassment, physical & sexual abuse & witnessing abuse of others are also forms of emotional abuse.
Emotional abuse can take place anywhere: at home, at school, in relationships & in the workplace. Contrary to popular beliefs that bullies are only found in the school yard, many bullies also exist in the workplace.
Emotional Abuse & Gender
It's unclear whether males or females are more emotionally abusive, however, it seems that girls/women are more likely to use emotional abuse to gain control & power, while boys/men are more likely to use physical intimidation, aggression & violence.
The Effects of Emotional Abuse
Emotional abuse is not only under-reported, but it's effects are minimized. The famous childhood verse, "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is simply not true. In fact, many physical & sexual abuse survivors have said that the emotional abuse was often more devastating & had longer-term effects. Emotional abuse cuts to the core of a person, attacking their very being. Emotional abuse, if frequent enough, is usually internalized by the victim & leaves them feeling fearful, insignificant, unworthy, untrusting, emotionally needy, undeserving & unlovable & as if they were bad, deserving of punishment & to blame.
Survivors of emotional abuse often have a hard time understanding why they feel so bad. The abuse may not sound like much & often people around them will minimize the experience, telling them it's not so bad. But a climate of disregard for a person's feelings, where one is subjected to constant or frequent criticisms, being yelled at, or being ignored - has a deep & profound effect, attacking the very self-image & confidence of a person.
Identifying Emotional Abuse
How do you recognize emotional abuse? One thing that can help is to step back from your situation & examine the overall climate in your home or your workplace. Trust your instincts & feelings about people. Sometimes, a person can just look at you & you know that they are looking down at you. Other times, their words are okay but their tone is mean. Emotional abuse is insidious & can be very subtle, so trust your gut; it's telling you something.
Naming It
Because it is harder to name emotional abuse as abuse, it can be harder to heal from as well. The first step is to name your experience as abuse. Trust how you feel. Many people can identify the abuse once they know what to look for because they change from being outgoing, self-confident & care-free to feeling nervous, anxious & fearful in the company of an emotionally abusive person. Just because you're feeling those feelings doesn't mean that you're being emotionally abused; there could be something else going on. But, those feelings combined with abusive behavior is convincing evidence that you are being abused.
Try describing to other people how this person behaves. Be honest & listen to the feedback you receive. If you don't feel good about the feedback, try someone else. Remember that emotional abuse is frequently minimized.
Overcoming the Dynamic
Emotional abuse sets up a dynamic where the victim comes to believe that they are to blame & that they must work harder to fix the problems (such as improving the relationship.) This never works because the problem is not the victim; the abusive behavior is the problem. Nothing you do will change that. No matter how nice & accommodating you are, nothing that you do will change an emotionally abusive person's behavior. In fact, many people get even more aggressive when you try to make it better, because they sense that you think it's your fault & this confirms their own beliefs! It can be very hard to not fall into the role of being "good girl" or "good boy" when someone is emotionally abusing you, but it's important to avoid that.
If You're Presently Being Emotionally Abused
If you know that you're currently being emotionally abused, you'll need to find ways to protect yourself emotionally; to reduce or stop contact with the abusive person; to find allies; to talk about what is going on & to look into options to keep yourself from being further abused. This can get complicated, depending on the context, but there are many resources to help you with workplace bullying & abuse in relationships.
If You've Been Emotionally Abused in the Past
Identifying the abuse as abuse is an important step in your healing. It means that you recognize that what happened to you was wrong, hurtful & not your fault. Placing responsibility for the abuse on the abuser is key to healing from abuse.
Countering Negativity
Countering the negative messages that you received is also really important. You may need to write down all the insulting things that you learned about yourself & counter each one with the truth. It may feel unnatural or foreign to counter these messages, but it will help you to feel better in the long-run. Catch yourself when you find that you are putting yourself down. Take a breath & remind yourself that you don't want to do that anymore, that you don't deserve to be hurt & that you want to think of yourself differently.
See if you can come up with something that you like about yourself. If you can't come up with something good, think about how you would like to think about yourself. The idea is to interrupt the flow of insulting thoughts you have & to find ways to replace those thoughts with self-soothing ones.
By finding ways to be gentle & soothing with yourself, you are directly countering those messages. Being kind to yourself by asking yourself what you need, what you want to do & letting yourself do those things are all ways to create a more positive & loving relationship with yourself.
No matter what you've been told or how you've been treated, you are worthy of love & respect. The more you know this, the less likely you will be to accept disrespectful or abusive behavior towards yourself or others. You should not have to take emotional abuse from anyone - no matter what the excuse. You deserve to be treated well.
Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist, © 2001
It's sick to see it, but it needs to be exposed. I've had that sort of thing happen to me once only, but it is disturbing.
Bwwahahahah - followed by a thumb sucking, woobie blanket rubbing walk back home.
Methiniks he lacks the chick peas
"You are a disgrace to your profession, of course."
Which has nothing to do, of course, with the subject at hand.
I do think "the_doc" spoke more truthfully than he intended when he wrote:
"Unfortunately, you don’t like unctuous, clear warnings."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
unctuous
SYLLABICATION: unc·tu·ous PRONUNCIATION: ngkch-s ADJECTIVE: 1. Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness: “the unctuous, complacent court composer who is consumed with envy and self-loathing” (Rhoda Koenig). 2. Having the quality or characteristics of oil or ointment; slippery. 3. Containing or composed of oil or fat. 4. Abundant in organic materials; soft and rich: unctuous soil.
SYNONYMS: unctuous, fulsome, oily, oleaginous, smarmy These adjectives mean insincerely, self-servingly, or smugly agreeable or earnest: an unctuous toady; gave the dictator a fulsome introduction; oily praise; oleaginous hypocrisy; smarmy self-importance.
One last thing. Were I to receive a freepermail like this I would now forward it to the moderators. He has been warned enough about his conduct, as have others like him. Using freeper mail in an abusive fashion like this is uncalled for, and uncivilized.
patent
"Hes a loathsome, offensive brute, but I cant look away"
To the ping group - they demand our apologies - but check out docs vomit in patents #48
Ignore, ignore, ignore. Publish their private e-mails so that everyone can see just what kind of "Christians" they are, but don't engage them in conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.