Can Christians avoid "Gaslighting" when in dispute/discussion? YES!

[BobRyan]

My Answer is -- "yes they can and should" ... many do not engage in it.

Gaslighting is a term for denying the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking that the obvious is not true.
For example:

Person A says "Two and Two is four" or "The rapture shows up in 1 Thess 4:13-18"
Person B says "I don't see that so it must not be true... it must be your imagination... you only think that because you don't listen to tradition"....

====================================
Here is an example of a Catholic website that is NOT using gaslighting to make its case against the rapture doctrine we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18

From: Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture​

"Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture"​

​

notice that in the rapture-objecting POV above - they admit this point​

​

=============================================== BEGIN QUOTE from the link above​

Then two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left. (Matthew 24:40-41)​

​

"Believers in the rapture argue that in each of these examples, the one taken is a Christian who is raptured up to heaven, and the one left will remain on earth to suffer the great tribulation. At first, that may seem pretty convincing,..."​

​

...​

"The other most common passage used to support belief in the rapture comes from one of St. Paul's letters:​

​

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17)​

​

"Again, this passage looks like it clearly teaches the rapture, ..."​

===================== END QUOTE

That is a great example of NOT using gaslighting. Rather they admit that the text clearly supports the view when one reads it on the face of it - but then they go into reasons from scripture why they choose to reject anyway.

I accept the rapture in John 14:1-3 in John 17 and in 1 Thess 4:13-18 -- but I can appreciate the fact that someone who objects to it - is doing a good thing by not resorting to gaslighting.

BTW - their Matt 24 example above - could also have included

Matt 24:29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

 

[PloverWing]

I agree that a much better approach to debate/discussion is to say "I can see how you would understand the text that way. However, this is why I think differently..."

 

[The Liturgist]

Gaslighting is a term for denying the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking that the obvious is not true.

On the contrary, gaslighting refers to intentional lying and manipulation in order to cause people to doubt their perception of reality. The term is derived from the classic 1944 film starring Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten and Angela Lansbury, in which the protagonist, played by Ingrid Bergman, was the victim of an attempt to compromise her mental health by convincing her that she was hallucinating, misplacing objects, misremembering facts, et cetera.

Gaslighting requires intentional manipulation and dishonesty. A sincere argument put forward in good faith in a theological debate cannot, by definition, be gaslighting.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Gaslighting is a term for denying the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking that the obvious is not true.

Which obviously can be a form of manipulation and even lying when some people comment on it...

On the contrary, gaslighting refers to intentional lying and manipulation in order to cause people to doubt their perception of reality.

Did you mean to type "Agree that is it - gaslighting refers to..."

Instead of starting off with "on the contrary"???

Gaslighting requires intentional manipulation and dishonesty.

Is it your claim that the attempt to "deny the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking the obvious is not true" is a form of "honesty"?

Is that your point??

Note the example already given in the OP


Person A says "Two and Two is four" or "The rapture shows up in 1 Thess 4:13-18"
Person B says "I don't see that so it must not be true... it must be your imagination... you only think that because you don't listen to tradition"....


one can response to a "2 + 2 must be 5" kind of argument with actual logic "lets take two and then count another two to see if we are at 5 or at 4". In other words a logical rational argument is available as a response to prove the point.

But everyone agreeing not to see that "2 + 2 is four" is not actually a logical argument - it is merely manipulation because no actual argument is included in the "I don't see it so ti must not be true" opposition to "2 + 2 is four" claim.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

My Answer is -- "yes they can and should" ... many do not engage in it.

Gaslighting is a term for denying the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking that the obvious is not true.
For example:

Person A says "Two and Two is four" or "The rapture shows up in 1 Thess 4:13-18"
Person B says "I don't see that so it must not be true... it must be your imagination... you only think that because you don't listen to tradition"....

====================================
Here is an example of a Catholic website that is NOT using gaslighting to make its case against the rapture doctrine we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18

From: Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture​

"Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture"​

​

notice that in the rapture-objecting POV above - they admit this point​

​

=============================================== BEGIN QUOTE from the link above​

​

"Believers in the rapture argue that in each of these examples, the one taken is a Christian who is raptured up to heaven, and the one left will remain on earth to suffer the great tribulation. At first, that may seem pretty convincing,..."​

​

...​

"The other most common passage used to support belief in the rapture comes from one of St. Paul's letters:​

​

​

"Again, this passage looks like it clearly teaches the rapture, ..."​

===================== END QUOTE

That is a great example of NOT using gaslighting. Rather they admit that the text clearly supports the view when one reads it on the face of it - but then they go into reasons from scripture why they choose to reject anyway.

I accept the rapture in John 14:1-3 in John 17 and in 1 Thess 4:13-18 -- but I can appreciate the fact that someone who objects to it - is doing a good thing by not resorting to gaslighting.

BTW - their Matt 24 example above - could also have included

Matt 24:29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

That is an excellent OP, Bob. My words may not always reflect it, but I have respected the way you debate though I do not agree with your conclusions. That style should be one that I should emulate although I frequently fall short. You set the example of how we should discuss things with one another

Let’s look at your example. It seems to say that the Church denies the Rapture. Is that correct? The verses you put forth do indeed show a rapture, but the question is the timing.

The Church does not deny a rapture as written in Scripture as these describe the events at the Coming of Jesus.

Wha the Church denies is a secret coming of Jesus to get Christians to avoid persecution or wrath. She denies that there will be a pre-tribulation rapture. Scripture says as lightning is from East to west so shall that coming of the Son of Man be. There is not going to be a mass disappearance and missing babies.

Scripture says that those that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. A servant is not greater than his master. They hated me, they will hate you also. Jesus suffered death, death on a cross. Should we expect or wish for anything less if we indeed profess to follow Him?

When Peter told Jesus to pray that He not suffer, He quickly turned and said Get Behind me Satan!
Peter was well meaning but ignorant of the truth, as I believe those taken in by modern rapture theory are.

Satan is a master deceiver. He will get you in a situation where He tells you that the law of God does not apply. God will allow you to get into that situation to see whether you will believe him.

With the rapture he says you won’t suffer. I know Jesus said you would but you are not going to suffer wrath, don’t worry. The result of this teaching is sometimes the prosperity gospel, which I believe is another deception.

I understand why people want to put forth a rapture theory, as most of the world carries on completely ignorant of God and mocks our belief. We try to use world events to convince others that we are not crazy and there is a God. When the rapture comes, you’ll be sorry. It is an enticing story, but sorry, the Left Behind books are not scripture, not even close.

Scripture says be faithful unto death and you will be given a crown of life. The rapture says you will not die, I’ll save you. You will not surely die? Where have I heard that before? Things that make you go hmmm.

Jesus tells us to take no thought for tomorrow for tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient to the day is the evil thereof. Also, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. How then do you know Christians? Jesus says, if you love me, keep my commandments. Not one or two commandments but all of them. How much does their behavior reflect the seven virtues of humility, chastity, kindness, patience, generosity, temperance and courage in opposition to the seven deadly sins of Pride, Lust, Envy, Wrath, Greed, Gluttony, and Sloth?

No one wants to hear, Come follow Jesus, you will be hated, spit upon, persecuted and killed, but that is exactly what we are called to do

If anyone come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. He who saves his life will lose it, but if anyone loses his life for my sake, the same shall save it. As Christians, we are to practice self denial and mortify the deeds of the flesh and thereby increase in virtue by the grace of God
As a medical doctor, I can tell you that the human body is designed to improve with delayed gratification and degrade with self indulgence, and most everyone can see it too.

If we practice self indulgence we become addicts to whatever pleasure we pursue: drugs, alcohol, sex, money, food, power, prestige, and other pleasures we do not submit to the law of God.

There will be a rapture, but it comes at the end not before we suffer great tribulation

 

[The Liturgist]

Is it your claim that the attempt to "deny the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking the obvious is not true" is a form of "honesty"?

Obviously what you are referring to would be dishonest and a form of gaslighting provided it were done with the intention to deceive.

However people often disagree on facts. What seems obvious to one may not seem obvious to another. Therefore, if person B insists that what seems obvious to person A is wrong, based on person B’s honest belief that what person A perceives as obvious is non-obvious, then that is not gaslighting.

Gaslighting requires an intent to deceive. That is my point. Indeed, I regard it as obvious that one cannot unintentionally gaslight another.

I don’t understand what is so difficult to understand about my response.

 

[BobRyan]

That is an excellent OP, Bob. My words may not always reflect it, but I have respected the way you debate though I do not agree with your conclusions. That style should be one that I should emulate although I frequently fall short. You set the example of how we should discuss things with one another

Let’s look at your example. It seems to say that the Church denies the Rapture. Is that correct?

It is a Catholic author arguing the point that the Catholic Church is an example of one that rejects the rapture doctrine - a doctrine that teaches that there is a future resurrection of the saints where they are then taken by Christ to heaven - as a single - unique eschatological event.

The verses you put forth do indeed show a rapture, but the question is the timing.

If it is acceptable to have the text point to a single, future , unique event where saints are bodily resurrected (as in the 1 Thess 4 example) and then taken up in the air -- "to My Father's home" -- to heaven -- then not much else is needed to say "yes -- we support the Bible teaching on the Rapture"

The Church does not deny a rapture as written in Scripture

Interesting. Can you point to any Catholic documents arguing for the rapture at the resurrection of the saints when Jesus appears??

Wha the Church denies is a secret coming of Jesus

A lot of us reject that Idea.

But we are emphatic about accepting a future literal visible rapture of the saints at the great bodily resurrection when Jesus appears in true Matt 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:14-18 fashion.

Jesus said regarding "Our Father who is in heaven"
John 14 –
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 "I Go to prepare a place for you, and if I go I will come again and receive you to Myself so that where I am there you may be also"

Phil 1:23 Our citizenship Heaven – from which we eagerly await Jesus

2 Timothy 4:18
The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

to get Christians to avoid persecution or wrath. She denies that there will be a pre-tribulation rapture.

A lot of Christian churches also affirm that position as being the one we find in the Bible.

Scripture says as lightning is from East to west so shall that coming of the Son of Man be.

Yep - that is correct.

There is not going to be a mass disappearance and missing babies.

True enough

Scripture says that those that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

sad but true.

Satan is a master deceiver. He will get you in a situation where He tells you that the law of God does not apply. God will allow you to get into that situation to see whether you will believe him.

True

With the rapture he says you won’t suffer.

Not all versions of the rapture say that.

There are a few post-trib rapture views out there- and one of them is affirmed by over 22 million Christians.

Scripture says be faithful unto death and you will be given a crown of life. The rapture says you will not die, I’ll save you.

Actually I think all Christian denominations admit that there comes a point in time where Jesus shows up and there will be saints on the Earth - that will not die regardless if they accept the Bible teaching about where Jesus takes them.

There will be a rapture, but it comes at the end not before we suffer great tribulation

True - but where are all the Catholic "there will be a rapture" documents?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

It is a Catholic author arguing the point that the Catholic Church is an example of one that rejects the rapture doctrine - a doctrine that teaches that there is a future resurrection of the saints where they are then taken by Christ to heaven - as a single - unique eschatological event.

If it is acceptable to have the text point to a single, future , unique event where saints are bodily resurrected (as in the 1 Thess 4 example) and then taken up in the air -- "to My Father's home" -- to heaven -- then not much else is needed to say "yes -- we support the Bible teaching on the Rapture"

Interesting. Can you point to any Catholic documents arguing for the rapture at the resurrection of the saints when Jesus appears??

A lot of us reject that Idea.

But we are emphatic about accepting a future literal visible rapture of the saints at the great bodily resurrection when Jesus appears in true Matt 24:29-31 and 1 Thess 4:14-18 fashion.

Jesus said regarding "Our Father who is in heaven"
John 14 –
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3 "I Go to prepare a place for you, and if I go I will come again and receive you to Myself so that where I am there you may be also"

Phil 1:23 Our citizenship Heaven – from which we eagerly await Jesus

2 Timothy 4:18
The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.


A lot of Christian churches also affirm that position as being the one we find in the Bible.

Yep - that is correct.

True enough

sad but true.

True

Not all versions of the rapture say that.

There are a few post-trib rapture views out there- and one of them is affirmed by over 22 million Christians.

Actually I think all Christian denominations admit that there comes a point in time where Jesus shows up and there will be saints on the Earth - that will not die regardless if they accept the Bible teaching about where Jesus takes them.

True - but where are all the Catholic "there will be a rapture" documents?

The documents that I have found argue against a Pre-tribulation rapture as we have discussed in the previous post. I see none that discredit a post-tribulation rapture, as it describes what happens when our Lord appears
The Latin word in the Vulgate is rapiemur in 1Thesalonians 4. It means to be caught up or raised up. It is where we get the word rapture

The description I read is that we meet the Lord in the air as He descends to earth at the second coming. It reads as a royal welcome at the king’s arrival. I do not see documents arguing against a Post-trib rapture and belief in such appears consistent with Catholic teaching. Have you seen anything to the contrary? They may be others opinion, but I would be interested if you could find official catechism teaching.

Peace be with you

 

[Dan Perez]

My Answer is -- "yes they can and should" ... many do not engage in it.

Gaslighting is a term for denying the obvious as if such denial will confuse the other person into thinking that the obvious is not true.
For example:

Person A says "Two and Two is four" or "The rapture shows up in 1 Thess 4:13-18"
Person B says "I don't see that so it must not be true... it must be your imagination... you only think that because you don't listen to tradition"....

====================================
Here is an example of a Catholic website that is NOT using gaslighting to make its case against the rapture doctrine we see in 1 Thess 4:13-18

From: Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture​

"Why Catholics Don't Believe in the Rapture"​

​

notice that in the rapture-objecting POV above - they admit this point​

​

=============================================== BEGIN QUOTE from the link above​

​

"Believers in the rapture argue that in each of these examples, the one taken is a Christian who is raptured up to heaven, and the one left will remain on earth to suffer the great tribulation. At first, that may seem pretty convincing,..."​

​

...​

"The other most common passage used to support belief in the rapture comes from one of St. Paul's letters:​

​

​

"Again, this passage looks like it clearly teaches the rapture, ..."​

===================== END QUOTE

That is a great example of NOT using gaslighting. Rather they admit that the text clearly supports the view when one reads it on the face of it - but then they go into reasons from scripture why they choose to reject anyway.

I accept the rapture in John 14:1-3 in John 17 and in 1 Thess 4:13-18 -- but I can appreciate the fact that someone who objects to it - is doing a good thing by not resorting to gaslighting.

BTW - their Matt 24 example above - could also have included

Matt 24:29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Hope that you will check out 1 Thess 4:17 where it reads , WILL BE CAUGHT AWAY // HARPAZO does not mean Rapture as there is not a Greek word for Rapture .

HARPAZO means Caught up is used 4 times , Pluck used 2 times , to seize .

Anyone should check the Greek text and see , but I do accept 1 Thess 4:13-18 as ONLY is speaking to the Body of Christ and those verses by Matt 24:29 and John 14:1-3 are out of context .

dan p