Here's a back and forth I had with someone on Facebook awhile back. I'm including it here because I want people to see how people avoid, twist, and read things in that aren't there and for whatever reason but in this case, because among other things, I believe Jesus when he says that he is the way the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except by him.
This person professes Buddhism (this person's reactions hardly project to me the kind of inner calm I was taught that Buddhists seek) and despite my attempting to discuss things on a straightforward level, read into my words the exact opposite of Christianity, read into my words sociopathy. It's ironic that I've written so much against sociopathy to get sociopaths to see the error of their ways and written so much against abuse, etc.
I really wasn't in a position to exorcise the demons here.
It began with a post and lead-in by the Buddhist, which immediately follows:
?- More Nonsense in Oklahoma !!!!!!!! <<U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said Tuesday he voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan because of her position on what the Oklahoma Republican has defined as natural or God-given rights. "Without natural law, so-called 'progressives' would take us back to the 17th century, when rights emanated from the state or the king rather than the creator,'' Coburn said in a written statement following a committee vote for confirmation.>>
Coburn outlines vote against Kagan | Tulsa World
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn said Tuesday he voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan because of her position on what the Oklahoma Republican has defined as natural or God-given rights.
Tuesday at 8:03pm Â· Comment Â· Like Â· Share
?- Today they are for God-given natural rights, and yesterday they were against the Shariah Law... hummm... Could somebody define what God-given natural rights are supposed to be ? The rights for corporations to pile up profits and for the people to be homeless ?
Tuesday at 8:19pm Â· Like Â· 2 people
Well, Buddhist, begin the process of elimination starting with the Hobbesian.
Tuesday at 8:24pm Â· Like Â·
I thought we were not supposed to go back to the 17th century...
Tuesday at 8:25pm Â· Like Â· 1 person
It began before it begun. Than having begun, human critters declared MINE ! The rest is history.
Tuesday at 8:41pm Â· Like Â· 1 person
Aaaaahhhhh!!! I got it !!! I was right !!! COMMERCE is a God-given natural law!!!! Those repos are so predictable !!!! => <<dozens of Senate Republicans are ready to vote against her, and many are citing her interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, the one that says Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. >>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20tue1.html?src=me&ref=general
Tuesday at 8:51pm Â· Like Â· 1 person
[to the other Commentator] :o) I like your expression "human critters" :o))))))
Tuesday at 8:53pm Â· Like
<<Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked Ms. Kagan a seemingly silly hypothetical about the constitutionality of a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and fruits a day. Would that violate the commerce clause, he asked? (She didn't give him the answer he wanted.)>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20tue1.html?src=me&ref=general
Tuesday at 8:58pm Â· Like
?- NEWSPEAK IS SHIFTING FROM "PROTECT CORPORATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHTS" TO "GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS" => A VERY DANGEROUS LANGUAGE SHIFT !!!
Tuesday at 9:35pm Â· Like Â· 2 people
Clarification required: Are you pro or anti the Declaration of Independence as concerns the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and/or "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? Please explain. My Hobbesian point was anti-selfishness.
So as not to be misread here, I am not staking out a position about the whole of the Declaration simply by asking. Also, my Hobbesian point was anti-selfishness.
Tuesday at 10:06pm Â· Like Â·
Tom, why are you taking things personally ? I was only doing additional readings and found answers to my initial question, keeping in mind that Coburn did not want a regression to the 17th century. I found it interesting that your first reply was to give a reference taking us back to the 17th century. As far as I know, commerce is NOT a "law" of nature, and the Creator is NOT exactly God as you might understand it in WASP terms. Remember the pharisees that got their butts kicked by Jesus for their unduly practices of commerce !!!!
Tuesday at 10:25pm Â· Like Â· 1 person
Unalienable Rights - Natural Rights :
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.
Those rights speak of individuals, not of corporations.
Tuesday at 10:32pm Â· Like Â· 2 people
EXERCISE YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS WITH RESPECT FOR OTHERS => NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS => http://www.unalienable.com/
Tuesday at 10:49pm Â· Like Â· 2 people
And, Tom, to answer your question I am ALL PRO Declaration of Independence !!! But, what does it have to do with the question I was raising at the beginning ???!!!
Tuesday at 10:57pm Â· Like
You have a hard time understanding me, don't you. I try to be plain, but ....
Well, it's a matter of different styles. Okay, let me try again. Most importantly, I wasn't, and am not now, taking things personally. When I re-read my comments, I don't know what it is about either that you thought it. However, as I've said, I suspect it's the style difference. I thought I was anticipating that enough when I said, "I am not staking out a position." Really, I only wanted a clarification so I'd understand better what you're thinking and saying here.
The 17th century thing was deliberate on my part and something that I suspect would offend Tom Coburn, as his point was about only part of the 1600's (kings, ironically the divine right thereof) and he would then be leaning on the "Enlightenment" of Locke (17th century) and even more so then Rousseau (noble savage), although he might hate that idea. The reason I suggested a process of elimination starting with Hobbes was to eliminate the Natural Right to be a greedy pig, a la the excesses of commerce and corporatism, as Hobbes (life in nature was nasty, brutish, and short) was the antithesis of Rousseau.
I definitely lean to the Romantics. Materialism leaves me cold.
So, I hope you see that I'm more closely aligned with you than with Coburn, who is likely exercising the conveniently timed Tea Party within and certainly not showing forth some deep and abiding love of God else he wouldn't even be a Republican senator.
Tuesday at 11:57pm Â· Like Â·
I surely have difficulties understanding your style, Tom.
May I ask why you asked me if I am pro- or anti Declaration of Independence as if putting me on the stand of the accused ? In which way does answering such a question constitute a clarification and a contribution to the debate?
Why ask an irrelevant question if not to push folks into a YES or NO position followed by ambiguous statements that you warn should not be misread? You were CLEARLY anticipating misreading, but counting on the YES stand to the intial irrelevant question to have your ambiguous nonsense accepted.
[quote] "So as not to be misread here, I am not staking out a position about the whole of the Declaration simply by asking. Also, my Hobbesian point was anti-selfishness." [unquote] => What are these lines supposed to mean???
You push folks to misread you by your ambiguity then (bingo!!!) you accuse them of misreading you, turning the gaze away from your own lack of clarity in the first place. What is the purpose of such a game ??????????
You should know that these are common tactics used to silence interlocutors. They are used primarily by men against women, interjecting contradictory statements to trigger insecurity and paralyze them through conflicting messages that you know are likely to be turned into conflicted emotions. These are the foundations of MENTAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE.
Your latest comments show that you can, indeed, be clear. So why not be clear to start with instead of playing with other people's minds ?
Your claim of "unselfishness" is merely an EGOCENTRIC protection => All good writers are supposed to show a minimum of empathy to anticipate their readers' and interlocutors' projections, unless your intent is to paralyze their thought process.
Wednesday at 8:35am Â· Like Â· 2 people
If your comments on the whole thread had not left me wondering about things, I would not have asked for a clarification. You put it on "personal" terms. I did not. I was being very cool, calm, and collected about it - very matter-of-fact - zero game playing but you've come back at me again not only with the same thing but with some kind of vengeance. Why?
You asked me why I asked you if I am pro- or anti Declaration of Independence. I asked because I wanted to know the answer. I asked because I didn't know your thinking on the subject. I asked because I'm not a mind reader. That all seems to offend you. Why?
"...stand of the accused ?" Why did you feel accused by a question? I don't see it. What did the question accuse you of?
"In which way does answering such a question constitute a clarification..." As I said, I didn't know your views on it. Getting your answer should have made things clearer. However, you've read so much into my simple and straightforward question that there is even less clarity for me here then before I asked.
How can the Declaration of Independence be irrelevant when that document is the basis of the Senator's attempted points?
"Why ask an irrelevant question if not to push folks into a YES or NO position followed by ambiguous statements that you warn should not be misread?" First, I've answer to "irrelevant." Second, "push" is a loaded term that is your characterization assigning me motives out of the blue that have zero connection with my true motives that are not and were not hidden in the least. Third, "warn" is also a mischaracterization of what I did by saying that I wasn't staking out a position by asking. It was by way of reinforcing that I was only asking for more information (which question ought not to be construed as a pro or anti position by asking - people do jump to conclusions in ways my statement was intended to preclude) so I would have a greater base from which to dialogue.
"You were CLEARLY anticipating misreading..." I was clearly anticipating the possibility of anyone/someone jumping to some false conclusion that I was staking out a position - exactly what I said.
"...but counting on the YES stand to the intial irrelevant question to have your ambiguous nonsense accepted."
I was not counting on a yes answer. You are assigning thoughts to me I never had. You could have said, "No," and added any qualifying language you wanted. I was prepared to hear from you which ever way you come down on the issue. The Declaration touches on all sorts of issues that touch upon other conversations or threads where we both have participated. I didn't come to know the whole of your heart or mind by virtue of those few threads just as you have not come to know mine, despite your claim here to be able to read my mind concerning why I may or may not have written or asked whatever. Rather than accuse me of all the things you have here, why didn't you do what I did, which was to ask for clarification(s) - since our styles are so different, as any reasonable person will readily see?
Look, Buddhist, the same thing you've said here about me you could apply back upon yourself. If I didn't fully understand you, if I'm not able to read the deepest recesses of your mind, could I not accuse you of "pushing" me with "ambiguous nonsense"? Of course I could have done that. Rather though, I asked as plainly and clearly as possible looking only to understand all of your commentary about the Senator, etc., which I simply didn't fully understand.
When someone adds information to avoid others (there are others than yourself who may read this and never comment) from possibly jumping to false conclusions (happens all the time), that one is not accusing people of misreading. That one is attempting to avoid confusion. In this case, you've taken everything I wrote wrong anyway. I suspect if you remain true to some form that's coming into view here, you'll look for every way you can to continue to hate me and to encourage others to do likewise. Why?
"You should know that these are common tactics used to silence interlocutors. They are used primarily by men against women, interjecting contradictory statements to trigger insecurity and paralyze them through conflicting messages that you know are likely to be turned into conflicted emotions. These are the foundations of MENTAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE."
Are you silenced by my asking questions so I can understand the points you've said you've come to about Kagan, the law, Coburn, etc.? If so, how? Did my comments make you feel insecure or paralyzed, conflicted, abused? Those are strange outcomes to me. I don't see any of why my simple question and then my comment that clearly should have elicited the opposite emotions dredged up all this in you.
Buddhist, reevaluate my comments and all you've assigned to me here:
Comment #1: "Well, Buddhist, begin the process of elimination starting with the Hobbesian."
Comment #2 [with much intervening commentary on your part that I only understood in parts]: "Clarification required: Are you pro or anti the Declaration of Independence as concerns the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and/or "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? Please explain. My Hobbesian point was anti-selfishness.
"So as not to be misread here, I am not staking out a position about the whole of the Declaration simply by asking. Also, my Hobbesian point was anti-selfishness.
Mentioning Hobbes twice there was inadvertent. I added something and didn't proof it. I was in a bit of a hurry.
If I were to do to your comments what you've done to mine, I could make you out a monster. Why are you working overtime here to try to paint me with what doesn't apply to any aspect of my being?
You claim to have received from those two comments all sorts of things that I didn't say or intend. Then you say, "Your latest comments show that you can, indeed, be clear. So why not be clear to start with instead of playing with other people's minds ?"
In order to have been compelled to have written as extensively as my immediately preceding comment in my first comment, I would have had to have known (anticipated) that my first two comments would throw you, as they apparently did but not on account of my knowing they would or on account of my trying to get them to do that. You created all of that in your head. Absolutely zero of it was in mind.
"Your claim of "unselfishness" is merely an EGOCENTRIC protection => All good writers are supposed to show a minimum of empathy to anticipate their readers' and interlocutors' projections, unless your intent is to paralyze their thought process." When I attempted to anticipate by saying that I was not staking out a position, you accused me of intending to paralyze your thought process even though that's a load of hogwash. It never occurred to me to paralyze your thought process. From this, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with you.
I don't know fully what is going on with you. I don't know if you've been abused physically or sexually or whatever. Whatever it is, you're transferring on to me stuff that just isn't there.
I know you have issues with my Christianity. At one point, you sent me hugs about it. Now though, you seem to want to rip me in pieces. I don't understand whom you are seeing or hearing when I've written on your Wall, but whomever it is, it's not I.
You don't know me, Buddhist. You've jumped on me here for many of the things you've done here - not anticipated - not tried to read what I've written here in a sincere, truthful, peaceful, loving way. You look for the worst and read it in no matter my effort to avoid that very outcome.
Wednesday at 6:13pm Â· Like Â·
I'm sorry you are so full of hate against me. There's something you haven't shared here as to what's gone on or is going on with you that you have projected (attempted to) on to me. I don't accept any of what you've said about me. I'm not confused or paralyzed or abused or whatever by it either. My soul is intact. I don't harbor any of the ill-will you've assigned to me, accused me of.
I hope you work it out. If you want to think I don't mean that and have some bizarre and sinister plan I've unfolded here to cause you to become unstable or whatever, that's you. That's not I.
I hope you don't act like this toward your male students who ask for clarifications.
Wednesday at 6:14pm Â· Like Â·
To start with, I don't think you would ask an American born citizen if s/he is pro or anti declaration of independence. Your prejudice is rather blunt.
Second, to ask of someone if s/he is pro or anti declaration of independence is odd. What does a pro or anti declaration of independence mean to you? In 26 yrs in the U.S. I've never heard of such a question.
Third, Coburn was referring to the Constitution, not to the declaration of independence.
Fourth, my field of expertise is in linguistic analyses related to gender, minority issues and propaganda => analyses speak more loudly than denials.
Fifth, you are not my student, and I do not owe you any clarifications. Go get yourself a professor elsewhere.
Sixth, I do not have time to waste on your narcissism. You can have the religion you want along with all the labels you wish. I really do NOT care.
Wednesday at 7:46pm Â· Like Â· 1 person
You're wrong, Buddhist. I would definitely ask an American-born person.
You judge things according to an arbitrary standard of oddness? If it's odd to you, it's presumed to come out from evil? That's coming from someone who declared I'm prejudice in a negative way against people who aren't American born. My non-American-born relatives would find that more than odd on your part.
You're wrong again: "Coburn responded that he wanted her to act on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, and he picked up that theme again Tuesday." Do you see that? Do you see the words, "Declaration of Independence" there, or are you just going to gloss over them because you are bound and determine to hate me for no good reason?
"...analyses speak more loudly than denials." Where did you learn that? That's worthless. Analyses can be total crap. There are people who analyze the Palestinian issue and conclude that all Arabs are terrorists. The Palestinians who deny it are right, and your "law" that "analyses speak more loudly than denials" is the stuff of tyrants. You're interested in smearing others with junk you make up about them in your head. That's what you've done here toward me, Buddhist.
"Fifth, you are not my student, and I do not owe you any clarifications." For someone who thinks she's so expert in language, you sure throw around the inappropriate words to twist things to put an ugly light on everything. I never said you owe me a clarification. That was not the spirit in which I approached you. If you will re-read my comment, you will not see any word that even remotely justifies your negative spin. I "required" a clarification in an attempt to understand what you had written and the points you were trying to make.
So, now I'm a narcissist. Buddhist declared it, so it is so. Well, you can call me all the names you want, but that doesn't mean any of them are true. I do not suffer from narcissism. Your analysis about that may be loud, but it is also based upon your wild imagination — grounded in unreality.
As I said before, you're upset about something and you're trying to take it out on me. It hasn't work.
Well, I'm sorry for you that you have your monkey on your back. The only thing that will ever remove it is soul searching for the real truth, not all this jumping to false conclusions about people who try to communicate with you in earnest with no ulterior motives, which was how I approached every bit of my dealings with you. You really need to repent, Buddhist.
Now, you can rant (and it has been a rant) all you want after this comment; but I'm not going to bother with you unless and until you repent of all the distortions and venom obvious in this thread. If you don't care, that will be your loss.
May God bless you with the real truth, Buddhist, if you will accept it. May you stop hating Jesus. That's why you've attacked me.
If someone claiming Christianity abused you, don't blame Christianity, don't blame Jesus, don't blame God, and don't blame me. We didn't do it.
Yesterday at 3:01am Â· Like Â·
I think the original question must be sent to Congress. g-d has enuff to do. People disagree over constitution, declaration alla time. It is like baseball and apple pie = Argue and dispute.
20 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1 person
After analysis of Tom's comments, he fits the following profile of psychopaths:
The communications of psychopaths are odd and part of a general tendency to go off track by changing topics, go off on irrelevant tangents, and fail to connect phrases and sentences in a straightforward manner. The story line, though somewhat disjointed, may seem acceptable to the casual listener.
Psychopaths are notorious for not answering the question posed them or for answering in a way that comes across as unresponsive, or by raising their own out-of-the blue odd questions.
Psychopaths go on odd and strange tangents slanting their responses in evasive and glib ways.
Psychopaths make it difficult for their listeners and readers to understand parts of their narratives, stringing words and sentences together that often reveal abnormality.
Psychopaths use contradictory, incoherent and inconsistent statements in their story-telling: their goal is power and self-gratification in lieu of contributing to discussions.
Psychopaths understand the intellectual rules of speech but the emotional rules are lost to them, due to the fact that they suffer from emotional poverty.
Psychopaths' communications tend to be dramatic or unnerving: it serves to distract, impress, control, or intimidate, drawing attention away from what is actually said.
Psychopaths recognize and turn to their own advantage perceived "hang-ups" and self-doubts of their interlocutors.
Psychopaths use what others say by distorting it to make it conform to their prejudices and idea of what it should be: they break down ideas, concepts, and language into basic components and then recombine them in a variety of ways, almost as if they were playing Scrabble.
For psychopaths, conscience is little more than an intellectual awareness of rules, using empty words to prove a religiosity that is nothing more than a mask of normalcy.
A psychopath's narrative is animated and expansive but dry and dispassionate,: They know the words but not the music.
Ideas of mutuality of sharing and understanding are beyond psychopaths' understanding in an emotional sense: they know only the book meaning of words.
Psychopaths exhibit a facility with words that mean little to them: words are forms without substance. Their seemingly "good" judgment and social sense are only word deep.
Psychopaths lack an important element of emotional experience: they have learned the words, and will also learn to reproduce appropriately all the pantomime of feeling, but the feeling itself does not come to pass.
Psychopaths perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile, dog-eat-dog world in which others are competitors.
13 hours ago Â· Like Â· 2 people
Source Readings for more information:
<<Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us>> by Robert D. Hare
<<The Emptied Soul: On the Nature of the Psychopath>> by Adolf GuggenbÃ¼hl-Craig
<<The Sociopath Next Door>> by Martha Stout
<<Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work>> by Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare
11 hours ago Â· Like Â· 2 people
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)