Gaslighting in Faith
- Thread starter CherieR
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The best way to avoid being deceived is to know the truth. When we are established in the truth, no one can shake us. Gaslighting should never happen in the body of Christ.
I have experienced something like it. Some Christians I knew tried to dissuade me from going to a different church by running down the leader. Of course, they were implying that I had been deceived. That was 40 years ago. Ignoring them was one of the better decisions I've made.
I have experienced something like it. Some Christians I knew tried to dissuade me from going to a different church by running down the leader. Of course, they were implying that I had been deceived. That was 40 years ago. Ignoring them was one of the better decisions I've made.
-
1
- Show all
it's difficult to say, because I think gaslighting is more of an intentional tactic. When you're in an environment where people are actually believing things that they are trying to persuade you of, it's not exactly the same thing.
Whenever someone is using a tactic that is a bad faith tactic, then there's not much you can do besides calling it out and or walking away at some point.
Whenever someone is using a tactic that is a bad faith tactic, then there's not much you can do besides calling it out and or walking away at some point.
-
1
- Show all
People often interpret the Bible through the lens of their unique perception of reality. Being unable to understand alternate perspectives, they often reject Bible interpretations that do not align with their own expectations.
Realizing it's impossible to change someone unless they are willing, they use manipulation techniques in an attempt to make people question their own thoughts.
This is easier with something like the Bible, because the Bible can be used as an "appeal to authority." From what I've seen, Christians, certainly not all, do recognize Sola Scriptura as the inerrant and authoritative word of God. That being said, many Christians will not readily reject something they believe the Bible says.
So using the Bible as an appeal to authority to persuade other's of an interpretation is a form of gaslighting I believe.
Teaching the Bible is a sacred responsibility so not many should attempt to teach God's word, risking to bear false witness of God.
Realizing it's impossible to change someone unless they are willing, they use manipulation techniques in an attempt to make people question their own thoughts.
This is easier with something like the Bible, because the Bible can be used as an "appeal to authority." From what I've seen, Christians, certainly not all, do recognize Sola Scriptura as the inerrant and authoritative word of God. That being said, many Christians will not readily reject something they believe the Bible says.
So using the Bible as an appeal to authority to persuade other's of an interpretation is a form of gaslighting I believe.
Teaching the Bible is a sacred responsibility so not many should attempt to teach God's word, risking to bear false witness of God.
-
1
- Show all
"The term is also used informally to describe someone who persistently puts forth a false narrative which leads another person to doubt their own perceptions to the extent that they become disoriented and distressed. "
I had to look it up for myself as well, just to be sure exactly what it was.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
It definitely does occur. Should it? Of course not, but where there are very many humans gathered together there will be some form of manipulation going on. The type that stands out to me most is the, "You're a Pastor/Leader/Christian, so you HAVE to help me or else you're bad and I'm just a poor victim even though I created my own problem".
-
2
- Show all
gaslighting... I looked up the definition, and it has always been an issue within religions, even upon threat of death.
the Holy Spirit is the only true teacher, and given for every believer to find and be made free from all forms of gaslighting of men.
Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
the Holy Spirit is the only true teacher, and given for every believer to find and be made free from all forms of gaslighting of men.
Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
-
1
- Show all
When someone tells you what your emotions are or aren't.
When they use infinitives (you never, you always, and etc)
When they define "good" or "evil" as something that you aren't in complete agreement with.
Then it's time to run! Get away...
The Bible, in context, determines good and evil. Sure there are some explanations that are difficult in understanding...but it's not anything that is outside the box.
When they use infinitives (you never, you always, and etc)
When they define "good" or "evil" as something that you aren't in complete agreement with.
Then it's time to run! Get away...
The Bible, in context, determines good and evil. Sure there are some explanations that are difficult in understanding...but it's not anything that is outside the box.
-
2
- Show all
You misunderstood that incident. The man who approached Jesus assumed that He was merely a good rabbi (teacher). Not that He was God therefore good (indeed perfect). So Christ put him on the horns of a dilemma. "Either I am God therefore I am good, or I am a mere human and not really that good". But this was just the prelude to what was the real issue.
-
1
- Show all
Some people approached Jesus according to His deity and some people approached Jesus as merely a man approved by God not knowing about His deity.
The rich man approached Jesus as a man and not knowing of His deity and said good Master which Jesus said why call me good for there is only one that is good and that is God which the man Christ Jesus was giving glory to God that the only reason He did good was because God is causing Him to do good.
If he approached Jesus according to His deity and said good Master Jesus would of accepted it without saying why call me good.
The rich man approached Jesus as a man and not knowing of His deity and said good Master which Jesus said why call me good for there is only one that is good and that is God which the man Christ Jesus was giving glory to God that the only reason He did good was because God is causing Him to do good.
If he approached Jesus according to His deity and said good Master Jesus would of accepted it without saying why call me good.
Gaslighting is different.
Arguments from the authority of scripture are founded in ethos. It is an axiom or starting premise in the scope of a wider conversation. From an axiom we explore logical branches of interpretation. Gaslighting seems to be a combination of ethos ("my rendition of the conversation has greater authority than your memory") and negative pathos ("hate this person for their attempts to dispute my case"). References to scripture by itself are not gaslighting. Arguments from scripture are just contingent on acceptance of the premise of its authority but fundamentally are (or should be) premised in logos beyond the initial axiom(s).
An example of gaslighting with scripture would be to insist that scripture says something or doesn't say something when the opposite is true - especially in cases where the other party has clearly outlined the discrepancy. And when confronted: deny, deflect, project, accuse, and play the victim in order to distract from the factually incorrect statement being posed as true. The aim in these targeted emotional narratives is to take away energy and focus from a level-headed rational discourse (to silence logos). These revilers will insist that they've "already answered that!" even in an open forum environment where anyone can take the time to check that claim for themselves. The strategy banks on the idea that most people won't have the attention span to fact check for themselves and that most people are more receptive to hate as a motivator than the search for truth itself.
It would be like trying to convince someone that 1+1 is actually 3 and instead of showing them a logical proof to substantiate, just call them names and slander until they leave. Gaslighting is different than just stating a starting premise. Gaslighting is the art of punishing wrongthink irrespective of and often in opposition to the truth. Gaslighting is the attempt to shutdown logic and reason in the name of introducing confusion to avoid having to address or resolve one's own cognitive dissonances.
Arguments from the authority of scripture are founded in ethos. It is an axiom or starting premise in the scope of a wider conversation. From an axiom we explore logical branches of interpretation. Gaslighting seems to be a combination of ethos ("my rendition of the conversation has greater authority than your memory") and negative pathos ("hate this person for their attempts to dispute my case"). References to scripture by itself are not gaslighting. Arguments from scripture are just contingent on acceptance of the premise of its authority but fundamentally are (or should be) premised in logos beyond the initial axiom(s).
An example of gaslighting with scripture would be to insist that scripture says something or doesn't say something when the opposite is true - especially in cases where the other party has clearly outlined the discrepancy. And when confronted: deny, deflect, project, accuse, and play the victim in order to distract from the factually incorrect statement being posed as true. The aim in these targeted emotional narratives is to take away energy and focus from a level-headed rational discourse (to silence logos). These revilers will insist that they've "already answered that!" even in an open forum environment where anyone can take the time to check that claim for themselves. The strategy banks on the idea that most people won't have the attention span to fact check for themselves and that most people are more receptive to hate as a motivator than the search for truth itself.
It would be like trying to convince someone that 1+1 is actually 3 and instead of showing them a logical proof to substantiate, just call them names and slander until they leave. Gaslighting is different than just stating a starting premise. Gaslighting is the art of punishing wrongthink irrespective of and often in opposition to the truth. Gaslighting is the attempt to shutdown logic and reason in the name of introducing confusion to avoid having to address or resolve one's own cognitive dissonances.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
