Religion and it's responsibility for insanity

I was just watching a 60 minutes program on a religious sect based in Australia that 15 years ago is alledged to have brutally held captive up to 20 children with the view to discipline them for their sins.

According to the report some suicided and most have suffered irreperable damage as a result of their treatment.

The lady at the centre of this sect believes she is the Messiah and has spiritual powers.

Now of course this is a description of what I might call the side effects of conventional religion. One could also suggest that the terrorist threat to the west is also fall out and side effects of conventional religion.

There are many examples of what most people would consider as insane religious beliefs based on the experiences of the participants.

The Wacko Texus, the Jones Town and many others have made headlines.

Psychiatric institutions have many many psychotic persons who fell that they have significant religious potentiality.

The question I ask is how religion it self is creating this monster and further more perpetuating the insanity of many.

What responsibility does the Church have to the sanity of it's members?

It could be argued that the often irrational reasoning involved only aids an unwell personality to achieving an insane state. How can religion prevent overzealous beliefs and behaviour when it's very belief structure is designed to promote just that?

I really don't wish to denigrate religion but only to open a discussion on the responsibility of religion towards the sanity of it's members.
Care to discuss?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My premise:

"When one allows an irrational contention to exist and go on existing then one is reposnsible for the out come of that irrationality."

This irrational state lead to the tragic events in New York 9/11
This irrrational state has lead to many persons assuming a belief that would not have existed otherwise.
This irrational state has lead to an incredible amount of money being spent on world security.

Sensationalist ...very..........fact....debatable....

But this is not the purpose of this thread.

WE have a society here in the west that espouses rationality ( science) and at the same time espouses the contra to critical thought and reason.

I suggest that it is the tolerance of irrationality that CAN and has been proven to create an environment that must by it's very nature allow for insanity to exist and in the least confuse people rather badly.

Rational yet irrational.

The question stands. What responsibility do we have for allowing such a paradox of rationality exist and the outcomes of such. After all is not a paradox of rationality exactly what insanity is?
By allowing this state to exist are we not condemming ourselves to the symptoms of this paradox. ie 9/11?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If Religion is just man-made hodgepodges of intellectual inventions, then it would not be powerful enough to pattern deep psychotic delusions. However, deep psychotic delusions can pattern Religions.

But Religions are only as High as the Souls that Experience them. If a High and Pure Soul becomes Psychotic, then his Experience of Insanity will be High and Beautiful. But if some incestuous piece of drunken carthieving garbage becomes psychotic, then the accompanying religious experience will likely be full of shreeking demons.

This is why all the Ashrams of the East do as much as possible to raise and purify the moral and emotional health of the Spiritual Aspirants before they lead them to the induction of the Mystical Trances -- what you would understand as psychotic episodes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are many people who think they are Messiahs. There are also many "Napoleons", "kings", "gods", etc. It's a psychological illness. A person who became irrational because of religion really would have become irrational due to other things if religion wasn't present. Is it possible to make someone crazy like that? Of course it is.

In the first few hundred years of Christianity, religion was even more important to people, it was a larger part of their life, because it was new. It's not like in recent times we have more zealous lunatics.

I see that religion was created to answer unanswerable questions and instill values when this was impossible to achieve in any other way. So, religion was to create some stability. I wouldn't blame religious devotion for wrongs of society any more than other aspects of life. In some psych class, I learned that the stimulus is neutral, and it is only an individual's perception that makes things "good", "bad", "exciting", etc. Religion is neutral. It is the responsibility of each individual to interpret it in a reasonable manner.

 

A 'normal' ego/persona is a necessary but delicate construct. It is our protection against people locking us up for being 'crazy'.

If you have ever taken note of the complexity of some of your Dream Characters, you could imagine that there are some ready-made personalities already there in your own head which could take over at a moment notice.

One of my favorite Men of Literature, Samuel Johnson, once told of one of his dreams. To put this dream into perspective, Sam Johnson was perhaps the most aggressive Intellect of his time -- brilliant and powerful in the sweep of his Thought. By his own evaluation, only Edmund Burke could even come close to matching him in ready debate. Well, in his dream he was sitting at a table of 5 other Talkers and each one far and beyond so much better then he was. When he awoke he was puzzled as to how it could happen that his own brain could create Characters smarter than he was.

In my dreams I have met with Avatars and Young Kings. But when I awake I am invariably myself again. But for people who have trouble maintaining the integrity of their Ego-Persona, almost any mix of Characters could rise and fall into and out of Conscious Control of the body. When a psychotic person says that he is Christ or Napoleon, I would not be surprised to see a good facsimile. From the deepest levels of an unedited and agenda free Subconsciousness you could probably expect a Very Convincing Christ or a very Imperial Napoleon (a Satanic Archetype).

 

I can only re-quote my question.....

 

So you are a controlling type A personality, huh?

"You will only talk about what I want you to talk about!"

"You MUST answer the Question!"

 

For clarity, I answer: society, religious or secular, is not to blame for other persons' mental illnesses. Religion is not to blame for 9/11 or any other disasters. Why? For reasons I mentioned earlier. Are we still responsible to take care of the mentally ill? Yes. Well, psychiatrists' ethics aren't really known to me. If it's unclear, pardon, 3 hrs of sleep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Short History of the Collapse of Mental Health Care in America: In the Seventies there was a movie called "One Flew Over the Cukkoos Nest" based on a book by Ken Keyse. It was about a Ward full of delightful and happy free spirited insane people who were oppressed by a brutal Medical Establishment.

Anyway, the movie did its job. The American People were prepared for what came next. Every Public Mental Health Ward in America was soon shut down and those delightful, happy, free-spirited insane people were tossed out onto the Street where they would no longer be oppressed by a brutal medical establishment. Or fed. Or sheltered. And where they could be as dangerous to themselves and others as their absence of mental restraint would allow them.

 

I have seen that movie. Very powerful.
Truth is, humanity did not know how to take care of the mentally ill for a long time. But we have progressed. I am aware that the mentally ill are on the street and in and out of jail.
It will be difficult to convince societies of today that suicidal terrorists are mentally ill. But, if those dangerous to themselves and society are to be placed under careful watch in nut houses, terrorists belong there.

 

possibly I use the word "Insane" in a different way.

The insanity of 9/11 compared to the insanity of a padded cell patient.
The insanity of this Byrnes lady and her followers, and the insanity of going to war in Iraq over WMD's that don't exist.

I guess if a child is taught that a paradox of reason is allowed and expected to be tolerated then it is no surprise that a person will grow up with the belief that irrational or "inappropriate " behaviour has justification.

 

Whilst I stand by my requoting the question to try and maintain thread relevance I apologise for posting it before seeing your post about the persona issue Leo. if I had seen your post prior to posting my response may have been different.

 

Master Quantum Quack,

There is no repression of knowledge. Surely you, considering yourself to be of above average intelligence, are aware of the folly of repressing the obvious, repressing reality.

Are you currently aware of the masses of patients roaming the halls of asylums claiming they are God, the Messiah, or quite specifically, Jesus?

Surely, most assuredly, I say unto you, do not be amazed when these things happen. It is evidence of the Father of glory in the firmarments and on the hearts of men. These are the things which are known.

 

your point being?

 

It is obviously your only resort to point blaming fingers. I must admit, I digressed largely to reply to your comment on asylum patients... something that occured to me this morning. Forgive me please.

It is all to obvious that "each one shall bear his own load." As each shall carry his own cross and each is surely responsible for his own deeds, it is surely foolish of you to point fingers at religion as the culprit (or one of the culprits). Unfortunately, you are ignorant of this saying: God, who "will render to each one according to his deeds"...

You must note, this saying does not say God will judge man for religion's misdeeds. Such is your bemusing belief, and even as your own surely great intelligence must tell you, that sentence is void of logic. Be careful, before looking at the speck in another's eye, that you consider the plank in yours.

 

so when a guy comes up to you and says he needs to crash a plane and kill all on board to release the Devil because he believes God told him to ( recent event here in Australia) what do you do?

What do you say to him? How do you reason with his interpretation of the book of revelations or his interpretation of other religious deeds, historically and current.

Is not religion in some way responsible for what it inspires or not? (Good and/or bad)
It could be argued that the bible and other religions scriptures are dangerous books....maybe there should be a warning label attached to them or some form of indemnity statement. And of course this is an absurd statement.

By the same token it could be said that the paradox of reason itself is responsible and this implies a blame also of the more orthadox science attitude to that which is religion.

 

BTW i am not excluding other forms of inspiration either but am focussing on one form that being religion. it is true that other froms of inspiration for insanity exist ...there is no doubt of this.....

 

Surely you have taken note in the difference of opinion evident among Judaism.

HOWEVER, you simply cannot refute the fact that there are essential doctrines of Judaism. When these are thrown to the wind to embrace "any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was commited to my trust" (1 Tim. 1:10), you simply cannot point blaming fingers at Judaism as the culprit.

Again, the guy going to crash the plane (if he survives) will be judged, NOT religion. Verily, religion does not guarantee conformity, however there are those good and pleasing essential doctrines which define a religion. When these are responsible for some ungodly and profane actions, THEN and only THEN can you blame religion.

Until then, religion does not dictate how the gospels should be interpreted. But this is certainly no cop out, for as I have said, there are those edifying essential doctrines which are contrary to the deeds of the lawless and insubordinate.

 

Sorry if I seem confused.

If religion does not dictate how the gospels should be interpreted then I ask what does determine how they should be interpreted?