I can understand the term, ‘attack’ when someone fabricates opinions or lies about someone and disperses or projects them to be damaging to a person’s character. In law it is known as defamation, libel or slander. However, if someone is just disappointed or offended because someone thinks differently or believes differently, then I suggest they are going to be disappointed everywhere in life.
I submit that words themselves can NOT hurt or control anyone except the person that speaks them.
Imagine that I have several trained Dobermans and I say, “Dogs, attack that evil man.” Would my words hurt? Does it hurt if the dogs attack? I suggest the reality is that you don’t have to hear the words to get attacked. So it is not hearing the words themselves that do the hurting. When a person hears the words it might very well illicit emotions if the person does not have a grasp of themselves and their emotions. If there are dogs at the ready then those emotions might serve to be helpful. I further submit that emotions do not necessarily help or hurt anyone except the person that experiences or makes use of them. In other words if a person feels good or bad by some words, it doesn’t serve to help or hurt the person that spoke them.
So in the case of a character attack I suggest it is not the words themselves that do the attacking. You don’t even have to hear the words, and the damage is that someone else might pick them up and believe the projection rather than to see it as someones interpretation or belief. If false information is pushed on purpose then it is known as defamation, libel, or slander. In the media it is propaganda. The character is just a personification or a projection.
But if I say something and someone responds, “You offended me”, or, “You make me angry”, or, “You make me sad”… I just see a person denying the power that their soul has in their gray matter by insisting that words can hurt them or control their emotions. They are projecting an intention or motive from their own set of beliefs. There is always information in the words and emotions, but I don’t think for a second that I caused them. If I am to get offended or angry over someone’s words, then I consider that my reaction… I either choose the reaction or I do not have a firm grasp of my own emotions. I am not downplaying the value of emotions, but I am recognizing the person that they serve. As another example if I hear a person singing out of tune, see them pick their nose, or get stuck near them when they have bad breath, I’m not going to blame them for ruining my ears, my eyes, or my nose… I might go look elsewhere and seek fresher air but I consider it my fault if I stick around or don’t say something. How different is an emotion?
The other gem I’ve picked up along the way is recognizing when people project their beliefs and thoughts onto other people. It happens all the time and it is very telling when a person does it. For example if I asked, “Why are you scared?” It might be a harmless question but it basically projects an emotion. In a group, some people will actually look at you as if you were possibly scared. It was conjecture. A longer statement like, “It sounds to me like you are scared… why?” might be better than the original which basically said, “You are scared… why?” I suggest it might be better because it helps to teach those who have not learned that interpretations only represent what the person that speaks them thinks and believes. Is there anyone on the planet that can say to you, “You are scared”, and induce fear into you? I suggest NOT because the words only reveal the heart, soul, or mind of the person that speaks them. So if I were to say to anyone, “I am going to offend you,” should they feel offended? It would only reveal the false belief that words can necessarily offend.
Some other examples of projection might be, “Now stop getting mad at me.” Or, “Don’t get offended again.” Or, “No reason to be disrespectful” or even, “No offense was given.” It is like a magic trick. An illusion that someone has telepathy to determine that someone was mad, offended, trying to be disrespectful, or that a person thinks they can be offended by someone’s words. Certainly a person can have senses and try to pick up the emotions of another person in their words, but it often relies on the assumption that two people think, feel, and believe the same way. There should be plenty of examples around to show that is false. So when the projection is made it ends up revealing quite a bit about the originator if you learn how to read it.
Projections don’t have to be negative either. They can be positive and seeking agreement too. For example simple things like, “You are so right” or, “You made my day with that thought.” To me it just means someone agreed or liked something. If a person draws pride from the praise then he/she has already set themselves up to be directly controlled by the words of others without their control. Taken literally they can easily be false statements too.
Doesn't have to be emotions. I know a number of individuals that deny emotions and prefer to think they themselves are above them with logic. I think I have spent a bit of time with this belief. Who wants to be the emotional wreckage seen in others, right? But sometimes if words are challenged then it is considered an attack, as if having some 'Truth' or logically correct answer justifies a person. To this I would ask if the logic or challenge from a young child is unjustified? Is it an attack? Is it wrongful for a child to question? I say not. Sometimes undesired words are responded to with a reply something like, "That is an emotional response"... or, "That is an opinion"... or, "You have proved nothing"... or, "I have proved you wrong". With a person like this you can't really tell them too much from your life experiences, beliefs, or scripture because those can all be thrown out as emotions, unproven material, or somehow tainted. Furthermore why waste the time laying out logic when it too will be considered an attack? When a differing belief, logic, or train of thought is considered an attack it reveals that someone thinks the words can hurt them. So I ask... how logical is that? In science and engineering the 'attack' or 'challenge' is often referred to as 'peer review'... which is itself usually a good thing but some people have a hard time with it. Especially when their job performance or career is being evaluated. If behind the logic is attached pride, money, or a leveraged belief system then it ceases to be logic when it is percieved that the words from others might bring harm to whatever the logic was attached to.
I dislike long posts... but my cents, guided or misguided.
