Conversing with religious fundamentalists

[Dawnofhope]

When someone starts seeing manifestation of their "insert name here" it is no longer merely about religion but their mental state. Also it is time to back away slowly, nod and smile. When someone is that delusional there is no conversation to be had as their delusion is part of the religious motivation.

I tend to avoid either thinking or labelling religious fundamentalists as delusional. They certainly wouldn't meet the criteria for delusions in psychiatry as there is an exclusion criteria for those with religious beliefs. The mental state of many religious fundamentalists are just fine and most are able to function in society OK along with the rest of us.

 

[Deeje]

@adrian009 To answer this question I first had to get an accurate definition of the term.

"The word fundamentalist is used most often to talk about religion. As an adjective, it describes a very strict, literal interpretation of a religious text or set of beliefs, and the noun means a person who holds those firm, often extreme, beliefs." (Google)

On that basis we have to ask...."what is the point of having beliefs that you don't uphold wholeheartedly"?

If one is a Bible believer and hence a believer in its author as the Creator of all things, why would anyone doubt what it says, regardless of what others think?

From the Christian perspective, Jesus said that we must 'love God with all that we are, and to love our neighbor as ourselves'. God and the Bible are inseparable to us...or they should be. A half-hearted excursion into anything produces no commitment....no one can respect a person whose beliefs are 'wishy-washy' and may be swayed by the least whim or fancy (James 1:5-8).......on the other end of that spectrum however, is an overzealous attitude that tries to force extreme beliefs on others under threat of damnation.

Taking Jesus as our exemplar, we see that he offered his teachings to people on a "take it or leave it" basis. Belief is personal and should be left up to individual hearts.....but at the same time our choices should be informed ones....that includes being mindful of the consequences of our choices.

Paul said at Romans 10:13-15..."However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out? Just as it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”

Remember that Jesus' apostles preached to their fellow Jews exclusively at first, so it wasn't like their countrymen had no knowledge of God....it was because their religious leaders had taken them so far off track that the Jewish system no longer led anyone to God. Jesus was sent to show the "lost sheep" the way out of that corrupted system....into a new pen, with a new Shepherd, and a new covenant.

From my own experience, having studied the Bible and engaging in this work commanded by Jesus for most of my life, I find that when the Bible is being literal, and when it is being figurative or metaphorical, the context is what allows the reader to distinguish between the two. Those who have a thorough knowledge of the Bible have no difficulty distinguishing between them. Understanding original language words clarifies translation and identifies bias in translation.

JW's are often accused of being Fundamentalists, but we are just dedicated servants of our God and his son, fulfilling our commission to preach Christ's message to those who want to hear it. (Matthew 28:19-20)

If that is fundamentalism...then guilty as charged. I have had wonderful conversations with people of many different faiths in my ministry. No one is forced to accept our message but many have commended us for the fact that we are out there doing it when most others are not. One can understand how difficult it is when others have opted not to engage in it. (Matthew 10:11-15) Christ said he would back this work.

 

[Vinayaka]

I tend to avoid either thinking or labelling religious fundamentalists as delusional. They certainly wouldn't meet the criteria for an delusions in psychiatry as there is an exclusion criteria for those with religious beliefs. The mental state of many religious fundamentalists are just fine and most are able to function in society OK along with the rest of us.

This paper Delusional Disorder | Psychology Today Canada doesn't mention anything about a religious exemption, but it may be something as simple as an oversight. The first sentence would describe several people here, including some Baha's folk on this forum. Can you show me where somewhere where religion is given an 'exempt'?

I also consider some Bahai's behaviour here as fundamentalist, according to Deeje's definition. Certainly there are Hindu fundamentalists.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Thank you very much
I would have fun time examining that link.

In fact, the first verse was already dissected.
Most of the time the error is on what Bible more clearly shows the verse.

Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

KJ21
2 Samuel 24: 1
And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he [Satan] moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

KJ21
I Chronicles 2 1:1
And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Satan did.

I wasn't offering to get into a debate over the various verses. I said you can use bits of the Bible to disprove other bits of the Bible. You can. The link I provided provides examples. Now, you can twist yourself into whatever theological and exegetical knots you like to try to square that particular circle, if you feel you need to. I'm not making any claim either for or against any such apologetic. I'm pointing out that apparent contradictions exist, as they unarguably do.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This paper Delusional Disorder | Psychology Today Canada doesn't mention anything about a religious exemption, but it may be something as simple as an oversight. The first sentence would describe several people here, including some Baha's folk on this forum. Can you show me where somewhere where religion is given an 'exempt'?

I also consider some Bahai's behaviour here as fundamentalist, according to Deeje's definition. Certainly there are Hindu fundamentalists.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the single most important text used by clinicians. It is the diagnostic rulebook. Currently, the DSM grants religious delusions an exemption from classification as a mental illness. The following is the DSM-IV’s definition of delusion:

“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion)”

The bible of psychiatric diagnosis exempts religion from “delusions”, even though it is one

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

This is how delusions are described in the DSM-5 (Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders):

Imperfect Cognitions: Delusions in the DSM 5

 

[Vinayaka]

@adrian009 To answer this question I first had to get an accurate definition of the term.

"The word fundamentalist is used most often to talk about religion. As an adjective, it describes a very strict, literal interpretation of a religious text or set of beliefs, and the noun means a person who holds those firm, often extreme, beliefs." (Google)


If that is fundamentalism...then guilty as charged. I have had wonderful conversations with people of many different faiths in my ministry. No one is forced to accept our message but many have commended us for the fact that we are out there doing it when most others are not. One can understand how difficult it is when others have opted not to engage in it. (Matthew 10:11-15) Christ said he would back this work.

I commend your honest look at yourself. It's truly admirable. As an outsider to many debates, I often see you as no more fundamentalist than the person or persons you're debating with. The main difference is that you are honest enough to admit to it whilst other either can't see it in themselves or are unwilling to admit it.

 

[Vinayaka]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the single most important text used by clinicians. It is the diagnostic rulebook. Currently, the DSM grants religious delusions an exemption from classification as a mental illness. The following is the DSM-IV’s definition of delusion:

“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion)”

The bible of psychiatric diagnosis exempts religion from “delusions”, even though it is one

Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

This is how delusions are described in the DSM-5 (Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders):

Imperfect Cognitions: Delusions in the DSM 5

Thank you ... with the exception of grandiose delusion of the religious variety, I presume. I've never been a fan of tossing 'delusion' out there unless it's really extreme either. Just as a part of a discussion, I think it's uncalled for. But I'll personally excuse people just for being ignorant of the true definition. Any word used incorrectly too often can lead to general misuse.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you ... with the exception of grandiose delusion of the religious variety, I presume. I've never been a fan of tossing 'delusion' out there unless it's really extreme either. Just as a part of a discussion, I think it's uncalled for. But I'll personally excuse people just for being ignorant of the true definition. Any word used incorrectly too often can lead to general misuse.

I agree. Of course there are religious people who get schizophrenia and bipolar disorder along with everyone else. Many fundamentalist Christians believe in a real Satan and literal demons trying to affect our souls but this isn't considered delusional as this is the belief system of many people who form part of a recognised belief system shared by many others. So for the sake of a more constructive dialogue, I would always refer to peoples beliefs and never use the word delusion.

 

[Firemorphic]

@adrian009 To answer this question I first had to get an accurate definition of the term.

"The word fundamentalist is used most often to talk about religion. As an adjective, it describes a very strict, literal interpretation of a religious text or set of beliefs, and the noun means a person who holds those firm, often extreme, beliefs." (Google)

On that basis we have to ask...."what is the point of having beliefs that you don't uphold wholeheartedly"?

If one is a Bible believer and hence a believer in its author as the Creator of all things, why would anyone doubt what it says, regardless of what others think?

I agree completely with you here. I think that the term "fundamentalist" is largely used as a pejorative by people, as if it is in and of itself a negative thing. It's to do with conformism. In this day and age I notice a curious trend of the past 50 or so years, wherein people for social acceptance or popularity take in these revisionist versions of their religion where they see their scripture as mere poetry or their religion as only a moral/ethical guide only. I have strong dissent for that kind of view. Of course, at the same time, one can't be naive of their religion and must understand the nuances of their scriptures and history of their interpretations.
Two people that strongly hold to two different religions can still be friends, this should never be thrown out when someone doesn't believe their religion is just fluffy, feel-good metaphors and poetic stanzas.

With the way the term "fundamentalist" is used as a pejorative, I often see it myself as a rather intolerant view of other beliefs or interpretations personally, in it's almost ironic common use but the modern age breeds this kind of mentality anyway so I shouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You could try completely ignoring anything he might say and press on with whatever you wanted to tell him about how much more sensible your interpretation of the Bible is quite regardless of how clearly he demonstrates that what you are saying is not what the Bible says at all by showing you verse after verse that counters your point of view...that approach usually seems to work for many on RF. He probably still wouldn't believe you though - pesky fundamentalists - absolute sticklers for whatever their chosen prophets/scriptures say even if it contradicts all known evidence! Did someone mention irony?

Good to see you back.

Interestingly the guy may have left the conversation seeing me as a fellow believer in Christ as I never mention I was a Baha'i. At the time mentioning the interfaith council appeared to be more than enough of a challenge. However we have a very respected minister of religion or Reverend who is part of our council, who my associate had spoken to recently. I was clear I believed in the same Jesus, Bible and God as he did, just understood it differently. Further when asked if I believed Jesus was the 'Son of God', I agreed He was.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"At this point he felt compelled that He was a follower of Jesus Christ and he had seen first hand the dark side of Islam. He had been an atheist up until 15 years ago, when Jesus Himself had appeared before him and so he gave himself over to the Lord".

Carl Jung said a mystic swims where the insane drown.

So I see the conversation above and know that it's normal person making such statements. For me there is an fine line between the mystic and the insane the mystic sees the line for want it is and breathes the insane forget to breathe.

The difference between normal and insanity is there is no line it's the same but on spectrum, one functions the other doesn't. I don't get fooled by functionalism. The way I deal with all of it regardless of religion is to tune out what they say, and tone in to who they are. I disregard belief non belief or agnosticism as being relevant. Here on RF because of the nature of writing I can sort the bad logic more easily.

Some of us have mystical experiences in our lives and I accept my acquaintance had one with Christ. We're both comfortable enough with the thin line between mysticism and insanity to enjoy the moment and suspend the need for logic, if just for a while.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But that warning came from Jesus himself.
Not from somebody else.

Do you think Christians can misinterpret the words of Christ?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well that don't work either. A Christian is trying to save you from going to hell. That Christian is taught that it is their duty to "share" with you the "good news"... that Jesus died to save you from your sins. Likewise, if Christ has returned and a Baha'i says nothing? Only problem is for those who don't believe the Christians or Baha'is or whomever. For them it is annoying, but once in a while one of those people "sees" the light and our glad someone "shared" their faith with them. But mostly, it's just annoying, because they always act as if they are right.

Sometimes we just need to chill out about religion and enjoy the moment, don't you think?

 

[siti]

...when asked if I believed Jesus was the 'Son of God', I agreed He was.

Did you? Do you? How would you interpret Surah 19:92 in the Qur'an? Or are you advocating dishonesty in religious discourse?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Did you? Do you? How would you interpret Surah 19:92 in the Qur'an? Or are you advocating dishonesty in religious discourse?

That a Baha'i may see it different, does not mean it is wrong or dishonest.

Both the Bible and Quran give the Balance needed, to understand the Spiritual metephor.

Regards Tony

 

[Shad]

I tend to avoid either thinking or labelling religious fundamentalists as delusional. They certainly wouldn't meet the criteria for delusions in psychiatry as there is an exclusion criteria for those with religious beliefs. The mental state of many religious fundamentalists are just fine and most are able to function in society OK along with the rest of us.

The delusion was about seeing Jesus manifesting in front of a person and talking to him. That would be a delusion fit for even the weakest of psychiatric standards. Religion is not an out merely because the delusion is of a religious figure.

Captain America just told me that he agrees and I can see him giving the thumbs up.

 

[MJFlores]

I wasn't offering to get into a debate over the various verses. I said you can use bits of the Bible to disprove other bits of the Bible. You can. The link I provided provides examples. Now, you can twist yourself into whatever theological and exegetical knots you like to try to square that particular circle, if you feel you need to. I'm not making any claim either for or against any such apologetic. I'm pointing out that apparent contradictions exist, as they unarguably do.

OK.
That is your point of view, I respect that.

But I believe that the Scriptures do not contradict each other.
More than often, it is the quality and the comprehensibility of the Bible used
As I have used a version of the Bible to bring to light the first verse - allegedly inconsistent with another verse

 

[siti]

That a Baha'i may see it different, does not mean it is wrong or dishonest.

Both the Bible and Quran give the Balance needed, to understand the Spiritual metephor.

Ah Tony! That a Baha'i may see it different is not dishonest, that a Baha'i may see it different yet pretend to see it the same way - that is dishonest.

But we should let Adrian answer I think - it was his conversation he was reporting.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Did you? Do you? How would you interpret Surah 19:92 in the Qur'an? Or are you advocating dishonesty in religious discourse?

I haven't needed to quote from the Baha'i writings this entire thread!

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.
. – Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, pp. 109-110.

So how do we reconcile statements in the Gospels and Baha'i writings that affirm the Sonship of Christ with those in the Quran that appear to deny it?

The "Son of God' is a Messianic designation so in that sense Jesus is the spiritual Son of God, rather than being the physical or literal son of God that the Surah of Maryam rightly rejects.

A Baha'i perspective on Jesus as the 'Son of God'

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Ah Tony! That a Baha'i may see it different is not dishonest, that a Baha'i may see it different yet pretend to see it the same way - that is dishonest.

But we should let Adrian answer I think - it was his conversation he was reporting.

Sure Adrian is more than capable of answering the question you posted to him.

I saw in the question an import aspect of faith. I say wisdom, not dishonest!

I see as God always gives us what our heart wants to hear, so it would be an accusation we would also have to level at God;

"...Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”
Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace....."

Thus when Christ gives a truth, Christ knows what we are thinking and knows its far from what He is teaching, Christ also knows we will not change our view if more is explained.

Regards Tony