Thought policing and "trigger words" in Christian community

  • 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.

BenjaminN

Well-known member
Oct 7, 2020
1,503
307
83
1 Corinthians 5 (ESV)

11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Jesus was kind to these people, and because he was our Savior, he even was their friends. We are to keep ourselves apart from people who identify themselves with a sin, but on this site, it is Christians who treat other Christians as enemies. We are told never to do that based on differences in ways they believe in honoring Christ.
Are you opposing Paul's words?
 

RemnantRD

New member
Jun 7, 2020
15
9
3
Reducing the sacraments to mere symbolism.
The two biblical sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism?
As long as we're not trying to unbiblically force the unleavened bread and wine to become literal flesh and blood, I don't see the issue?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
15,667
7,732
113
Can you empirically back up this statement?
Science
In the multiple sub-fields of the scientific discipline the impact of evolutionary thought has been almost complete. The influential writings of such leaders as the late Julian Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in support of the infusion of evolutionary thinking into all facets of biology and associated sciences still have great impact in the training programs of young scientists and in the mass communications media as well. In addition to their influence, G.G. Simpson still serves as a strong guide to almost ubiquitous application of evolutionary thought.

However, weaknesses and deficiencies in Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and even the modern synthetic "theory" of evolution have been published by scientists5 in every decade since The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Yet such criticisms have not been included to any significant extent in science textbooks. Actually specific impetus inaugurated in the 1960's to expand and augment the teaching of evolutionary origins in the secondary schools in the United States has really been an important cause in the 1970's for the development of creationism teaching, that is, explanation of the scientific basis or support of the creation account of origins.6

https://www.icr.org/article/impact-evolution-humanities-science/
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
Between Ezekiel 46:24 and Ezekiel 47:1 there does not seem to be a 2500+ (536BC + 2020AC + ? years to the second coming) year time jump from the Ezekiel temple on this physical earth, to the end of time on this physical earth into eternity at the return of Christ / Messiah.

Look at these verses to show the same physical, earthly building structure in the same chronological timeframe being discussed:


Ezekiel 43 (ESV)


4 As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, 5 the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple.


Ezekiel 46 (ESV)


9 "When the people of the land come before the Lord at the appointed feasts, he who enters by the north gate to worship shall go out by the south gate, and he who enters by the south gate shall go out by the north gate: no one shall return by way of the gate by which he entered, but each shall go out straight ahead.


Ezekiel 47 (ESV)


1 Then he brought me back to the door of the temple, and behold, water was issuing from below the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar. 2 Then he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the outside to the outer gate that faces toward the east; and behold, the water was trickling out on the south side.
You give (Complete Disregard) to my post and claim, why?

Direct Question? Do You Deny Ezekiel 47:12 & Revelation 22:1-2 Is The Same Place, Same, River & Tree Seen Below?

Ezekiel Chapters 47-48 represents (The Eternal Kingdom) in the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem,

Ezekiel 47:12 is showing the (Eternal) River And Tree Of Life, Also Seen In Revelation 22:1-2, Same River, Tree, Fruit, Leaves For Healing/Medicine.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Ezekiel 47:12KJV
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Revelation 22:1-2KJV
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
 

RemnantRD

New member
Jun 7, 2020
15
9
3
Honestly, if there are trigger words for Christians, perhaps it's a good time to sit down and search the scriptures regarding the trigger words. If there is merit to stand against certain things, so be it. If there is no merit, and it's based on man made doctrine or beliefs in the church, then perhaps it's time to give them up. The only thing that should be triggering for Christians is if someone is promoting something that is not scriptural as truth or if someone in the Church is attacking who God is.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,071
1,905
113
1 Corinthians 5 (ESV)

11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Are you opposing Paul's words?
Absolutely I am not opposing Paul. Paul is speaking as an appointed apostle of the Lord, for goodness sakes. Please have a heart as you read me. I am saying that Paul does not say to be rude and become these people's enemies. Also we are speaking of Christians relating to Christians. I don't think this scripture is about Christians speaking to each other about doctrine.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
31,596
10,570
113
Science
In the multiple sub-fields of the scientific discipline the impact of evolutionary thought has been almost complete. The influential writings of such leaders as the late Julian Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in support of the infusion of evolutionary thinking into all facets of biology and associated sciences still have great impact in the training programs of young scientists and in the mass communications media as well. In addition to their influence, G.G. Simpson still serves as a strong guide to almost ubiquitous application of evolutionary thought.

However, weaknesses and deficiencies in Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and even the modern synthetic "theory" of evolution have been published by scientists5 in every decade since The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Yet such criticisms have not been included to any significant extent in science textbooks. Actually specific impetus inaugurated in the 1960's to expand and augment the teaching of evolutionary origins in the secondary schools in the United States has really been an important cause in the 1970's for the development of creationism teaching, that is, explanation of the scientific basis or support of the creation account of origins.6

https://www.icr.org/article/impact-evolution-humanities-science/
this doesn't empirically prove your claim that "science began to be corrupted after the theory of evolution was introduced"
in fact it's evidence for the opposite; you showed that evolutionary theories are criticized and hypotheses concerning it disproven among the scientific community, and that its presence has fostered research and development of creation science theories.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
31,596
10,570
113
this doesn't empirically prove your claim that "science began to be corrupted after the theory of evolution was introduced"
in fact it's evidence for the opposite; you showed that evolutionary theories are criticized and hypotheses concerning it disproven among the scientific community, and that its presence has fostered research and development of creation science theories.
be a good scientist @Nehemiah6.
not a corrupt one.


to justify your claim you need to show that science was not corrupt before Darwin's theories were published, that science is corrupt afterwards. that still won't show that the existence of his theories is causal of corruption; it would only be circumstantial.

you need to precisely define what you mean by the words 'science' and 'corruption' in terms of it.
you need to demonstrate these things.
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,891
2,530
113
Reducing the sacraments to mere symbolism.
I don't know what denomination you belong to, but that's a very controversial and problematic thing to say if you're a Protestant, considering pre-Protestant beliefs and how Protestants did just that: "reduced" sacraments to symbolism (yet they choose to stick to baptism as sacrament for some reason). If you're not adhering to Reformation, then at least you're being coherent in your beliefs so I can respect that.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
31,596
10,570
113
you showed that evolutionary theories are criticized and hypotheses concerning it disproven among the scientific community, and that its presence has fostered research and development of creation science theories.


i need to correct my statement: @Nehemiah6 did not show these things -- the source he quoted stated them, with subjective language, but they haven't been demonstrated, and not in an empirical way.
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
I don't know what denomination you belong to, but that's a very controversial and problematic thing to say if you're a Protestant, considering pre-Protestant beliefs and how Protestants did just that: "reduced" sacraments to symbolism (yet they choose to stick to baptism as sacrament for some reason). If you're not adhering to Reformation, then at least you're being coherent in your beliefs so I can respect that.
Lutheran's maintain the sacraments
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
I don't know what denomination you belong to, but that's a very controversial and problematic thing to say if you're a Protestant, considering pre-Protestant beliefs and how Protestants did just that: "reduced" sacraments to symbolism (yet they choose to stick to baptism as sacrament for some reason). If you're not adhering to Reformation, then at least you're being coherent in your beliefs so I can respect that.
You can maintain the sacraments and still reject primacy of the Pope and iconism and works salvation
 
B

Blackpowderduelist

Guest
The two biblical sacraments of the Lord's Supper and Baptism?
As long as we're not trying to unbiblically force the unleavened bread and wine to become literal flesh and blood, I don't see the issue?
There is a problem when you deny what Jesus and his apostles say that those things are. They are what scripture says they are. And nowhere in scripture is it written that they are symbolic.
I fully reject iconism.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,653
3,038
113
Well, your opinion is wrong. You didn't see my agreeing reactions on brothers' and sisters' posts, who did condemn it? That also reflects my views, not only what I wrote in my post. And in my post, I was looking at the consequence. I think it will sober people up.
Anyhow.
This is exactly a classical example of Christians thought policing one another in a totalitarian way. See, having to write big giant disclaimers every 5 words so you are not accused of something and witch hunted is exactly the problem I am speaking of.
The only people in a forum that can act in a ""Totalitarian way"" is the Moderator / owners of the site who can ban a person from the forum..

Someone opposing our views / beliefs is not them being Totalitarian.. They are simply voicing their opposing views and standing against the our views.. I often oppose views i believe are not Bible based in this forum but i have no powers to silence or ban anyone here because i do not have that power.. So it cannot be justifiably said that normal contributors in this forum can be Totalitarian because that needs the power that only the Moderators and Owner of this site posses.

If a person is a christian and is convinced that the beliefs / doctrines being advocated by another person in the forum is not aligned to true Christianity then they SHOULD stand up and post in opposition to that particular teaching / doctrine.. I often have people posting against my beliefs in here.. Usually on minor disputable matters of no eternal salvational consequence.. But no matter.. If the other person is serious about the issue then i accept the reality that people will be opposed to my beliefs and they will challenge them with counter posts..

Christians have to have at lest some thickness to their skin..
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,990
10,466
113
You give (Complete Disregard) to my post and claim, why?
You seem to think that others are obligated to respond to you, and when they don't, you assume the worst about them. When someone does give a response you don't like, you mock and deride them. Are you this much of an ass in person, or just when you hide behind your keyboard?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
i need to correct my statement: @Nehemiah6 did not show these things -- the source he quoted stated them, with subjective language, but they haven't been demonstrated, and not in an empirical way.
I disagree, his citation is credible and self sufficient.

My study finds that the the French Enlightenment added the turn in science, and its progression was down hill from there.

A study of Sir Isaac Newton shows a brilliant man, that attributed much to true science, however his life was entangled in the occult, Rosicrucianism, Alchemy, that saw a biased down hill turn in his work.
 

SoulWeaver

Senior Member
Oct 25, 2014
4,891
2,530
113
You can maintain the sacraments and still reject primacy of the Pope and iconism and works salvation
But I am telling you, not as a Catholic, because I am not one (and not only Catholics were out there before the Reformation, btw), I am telling you that Reformation DID do away with many sacraments, that are still maintained in older denominations... So, insisting on maintenance of sacraments after having done away with almost all of them, is an "interesting" thing to say...

There is a problem when you deny what Jesus and his apostles say that those things are. They are what scripture says they are. And nowhere in scripture is it written that they are symbolic.
I fully reject iconism.
I wasn't referencing icons, icons are objects... I was talking about sacraments.
Anyhow. Nobody is going to change their mind on this I'm sure, it was just an observation on my part is all.
 

Blik

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2016
6,071
1,905
113
You seem to think that others are obligated to respond to you, and when they don't, you assume the worst about them. When someone does give a response you don't like, you mock and deride them. Are you this much of an ass in person, or just when you hide behind your keyboard?
Why ever would one
Christian call another Christian an ass? Isn't anyone interested in that Christ told us not to even call another a fool?
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
May 19, 2020
7,708
2,496
113
You seem to think that others are obligated to respond to you, and when they don't, you assume the worst about them. When someone does give a response you don't like, you mock and deride them. Are you this much of an ass in person, or just when you hide behind your keyboard?
Your claims are false, it's my opinion you hate truth presented to you, and your personal attacks are the end result.

Jesus Christ Is Lord!