Vjerovati naspram znati

[NIN]

moze

Kad bi sad još i ja dobio poljubac od nase ....

od mene neces - ne volim bradate obraze.

[NIN]

@sejtansomun, odmorices malo i u bududuce pripazi sta pises!

Banned user for reason “krsenje pravila foruma”
» zlokruhovic
1 hefta

[fatamorgana]

moze

Kad bi sad još i ja dobio poljubac od nase ....

od mene neces - ne volim bradate obraze.

Ali bar ne nosim špilhozne k'o neki,

[pussysmoke]

[NIN]

Ali bar ne nosim špilhozne k'o neki,

neka, neka, nose ih kome su namjenjene jer, vecinom, nosioci istih ne biraju.

[dustaban]

Sad nesto kontam, bilo bi zanimljivo da zamenimo strane, i da izabermo nekakav topik i diskutujemo sa stanovista koje ne zastupamo u stvarnosti. Bilo bi jako zanimljivo videti fatu kako argumentuje iz ugla vernika, recimo, ili vatrogasca sa ateistickog stanovista.

O toj zamjeni strana sam i ja razmisljao, zapravo zamisljao sam se u onim nadmetanjima pro-et-contra (dobre su to vjezbe), ali bih zaista mogao nekako braniti samo ideju Boga i vjerovanja, ali religije ne bih mogao braniti nikako.

Jer da bih se stavio u poziciju onog manijaka Abrahama... trebao bih se dobro napiti, bog bi trebao biti u liku Ante Markovica i prijaviti Reformiste za oktobar, neko dijete bi me trebalo makar popisati, da ga zamrzim, a u ruku bi mi trebalo tutnuti daljinski da mu skinem crtice...

Ne ide jelda?!


Ma zayebi, kakav ja i religije. Zapravo, ja ga yebem ko moze pravdati manijaka Abrahama.
Drzimo se mi nasih ustaljenih pozicija.

[pussysmoke]

...ja ga yebem ko moze pravdati manijaka Abrahama...

[Chagalj]

@Chagalj

Samo da te pitam nešto jednostavno. Ako nije problem? Da nešto započnemo. Pređimo na stvar. Zanima me zašto vjeruješ Muhamedu a.s.? Zašto smatraš da je ono što je on rekao istina? Mora da postoji razlog, jer ako razloga nema... onda mislim da imamo ozbiljan problem. Ako nemaš ozbiljan razloga...

Zanima me zašto vjeruješ Muhamedu a.s.? Zašto smatraš da je ono što je on rekao istina?

vjerujem zato sto sam se uvjerio svojim ocima u istinitost njegovog govora(u hadisu) i Kurana.
toliko toga se moze napisati da bi trebali mjeseci i mjeseci da se sve to pohvata na jedno mjesto.

Kako ces vjerovati muhammedu kad ne studiras njegov govor i djela. Znaci moras da studiras , sporedis kako je govorio u pocetku kako na kraju, kakav je bio u blagostanju i oskudici, u ljutnji i tuzi i veselju.


1. Islam je logicna vjera, i ide u korak sa ljudskom prirodom
2. Podstice te na dobro , a odvraca od zla
3. Primjena islama me cini sretnim covjekom, kad bi mi neko nudio cijeli svijet u zemjenu da ostavim islam, ja bi mu rekao ne hvala, ostavi meni moj islam a eto vama cijeli svijet, eto koliko mi znaci to.
4. Vjerujem Muhammedu jer sam se uvjerio masa puta u istinitost njegovog govora , najfriski primjer jeste to kad sam citao knjigu predznaci Sudnjeg dana, ja mislim da je izasla negdje oko 2002, tamo u jednom hadisu pise o govoru obuce, i cudio sam se tom hadisu, kako ce obuca govoriti, mislim ono, nigdje veze svezom, ali sam ipak vjerovao u to zbog drugih stvari, jer poslanik nikad nije lagao, a prosle godine, ulazim na stranicu nezavisne .com i procitam, Google napravio obucu koja govori, to je nesto sto sam znao da ce se desiti u buducnosti i onda kad vidis svojim ocima to, takve stvari samo pojacavaju vjerovanje i ponos sto sam sljedbenik muhammeda.

DA bi uvidio istinitost islama, moras ga studirati detaljno, i kad sve sagledas logicki, jasno ti bude da je to to, ona istinska vjera od Boga, kojoj su pripadali svi boziji poslanici.

5. Dobio sam odgovore na pitanja koja sam zelio znati, o zivotu, smrti, zivotu poslije smrti, raju, paklu, zgrobnom zivotu, duhovnom svijetu Dzinna itd

6. Osjetio sam moc Kurana prilikom rukje (islamsko lijecenje Kuranom) , gdje recitacijom odredjenih sura i ajeta to se osjeti na tvom tijelu, i to je po meni jedno istinsko cudo koje se moze prouzrokovati u vecini slucajeva kad se hoce.

7. U islamu osjecam dusevnu smirenost i srecu


Preporucio bi ti da pogledas seriju OMer, to je najbolja serija koja je ikad uradjena o zivotu poslanika Muhammed, tu mozes da vidis vizuelno kako je islam nastao i koja je Muhammed velicina od covjeka





Poučna priča o Sureki ibn Maliku

Kada Allah naredi Svome Miljeniku, Muhammedu sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, da učini hidžru (preseljenje iz Mekke u Medinu), on se odazva i spremi za put. Pored toga što je to trebalo da bude daleko i teško putovanje, problem je bio što su Kurejšije raspisale veliku nagradu onome ko sustigne Poslanika, s.a.w.s. i vrati ga u Mekku. Naravno, na ovom teškom putovanju, u društvu Allahovog Poslanika, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, bijaše Ebu Bekr, neka je Allah zadovoljan njime. Upravo ova potjera bijaše uzrok događanja jedne od Poslanikovih, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, mudžiza, ali i divne priče, koju ne mogu a da ne prenesem, poštovani čitaoče.

Suraka ibn Malik, bijaše jedan od najhrabrijih i najsposobnijih ratnika među Kurejšijama. Posebno se odlikovao gađanjem lukom i strijelom. On, za vrijeme hidžre Allahovog Poslanika, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, nije bio musliman, zbog toga odluči da uhvati bjegunce i tako osvoji vrijednu nagradu, koju osiguraše kurejševićki prvaci, a pored toga, da podigne svoj ugled u narodu. Suraka krenu u lov, ali nije mogao pretpostavljati da će taj događaj biti prepričavan do Sudnjega Dana.

Obzirom da je svu slavu želio za sebe, on izbjegnu ostale lovce i krenu sam. Slavu i blago je želio samo za sebe. Vrlo brzo otkri tragove dvojice muhadžira i krenu za njima. Ne prođe mnogo vremena, a Sureka ugleda dva jahača u daljini ispred sebe. Znao je da su to Muhammed, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, i njegov drug. Odmorniji i svježiji, Surekin konj je lahko sustigao umorne putnike. Njegova slava je stajala tu pred njim. Ništa nije moglo da zaustavi snažnog ratnika da dođe do svoga cilja. Ili ipak jeste!!!
„Stigao nas je, o Allahov Poslaniče…“, uzviknu Ebu Bekr, posmatrajući ponosnog pustinjskog sina kako odapinje strijelu upozorenja. „To je Suraka! Precizni strijelac!“
Allahov Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, pogleda u lovca. Mnogo puta za vrijeme svoje poslaničke misije je padao u teške i opasne situacije. Ovo je bila jedna od njih. Allahovo najodabranije biće biva napadnuto i progonjeno. Dajući nam vječiti primjer u svakoj situaciji, on okreće svoje lice prema nebu, tražeći zaštitu od svoga Gospodara.
„Allahu moj, zaštiti me od njih čime želiš i kako želiš! Ti si svemoguć!“, uzviknu Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, pun samopouzdanja i smirenosti.

Kada neko zatraži pomoć od Allaha, a uz to je siguran da će mu On uslišiti njegove zahtjeve, onda ga Milostivi ne ostavlja na cjedilu. Kakva je tek situacija kada pomoć traži plemeniti Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem?

Sureka nije imao šanse protiv čovjeka koga je Allah odabrao da bude uputa čovječanstvu. I on sam je to uvidio nakon što je dova krenula ka nebesima. Samo što je Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, zatražio spas od svoga Gospodara, Sureka pade sa konja. On ponovo uzjaha i samo što se približio muhadžirima, ponovo pade kao pokošen. Pokuša lovac i treći put, ali sve je bilo uzalud. Njegov konj, a ni on sam, nisu mogli da se drže na nogama. Za njih tada nisu važili ovosvjetski zakoni.

Sureka priča svoju priču: „Shvatio sam da je taj čovjek nedodirljiv“, pa sam rekao: „Muhammede, daj mi nešto…“. Očekivao je veliku nagradu za hvatanje Alejhisselama, ali sada kada je vidio da od toga neće biti ništa, tražio ju je od Muhammeda sallallahu alejhi ve sellem.

Nadao se Sureka da će dobiti nešto od Allahovog Poslanika sallallahu alejhi ve sellem Tražio je, jer je znao koliko je pošten i dobroćudan taj čovjek. Svi oko njega su to svjedočili. Nikada Muhammed, ssallallahu alejhi ve sellem, nije ostao dužan, niti je nekome nažao učinio. Svakog trenutka je koristio da učini pravu stvar. Nikada se nije svetio, neka je Allahova milost na njega. U svakom čovjeku je vidio potencijalnog prijatelja i onoga koji će sutra biti u njegovim redovima. Sa Surekom, kao i sa većinom onih koji su ga upoznali, je uspio, ispostaviti će se kasnije.

„Obećavam ti Kisrine narukvice!“, reče Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem Sureka upita: „Kojeg Kisre??? Kralja Perzije?“

„Da, Kisre, kralja Perzije!“, odgovori plemeniti Poslanik.

Suraka nastavlja: „I ja sam mu povjerovao…“

Ovo je bio prvi znak Surekinog imana. Nakon toliko godina u kojima je osuđivao i vrijeđao tog čovjeka, sada mu počinje vjerovati. Uostalom, vidio je mnoge neobične stvari od tog čovjeka. Čuo je najljepši govor iz njegovih usta. Zašto da ne posluša svoje srce, koje mu je negdje u dubini govorilo da se preda i da se odupre svojim škrtim i sebičnim hirovima. Vjerovatno je Sureka poslije duboko žalio što nije čitav svoj život proveo uz Božijeg Poslanika, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem

Da bi mu se srce smirilo, Sureka zatraži od Poslanika: „Napiši mi to!“ Dva muhadžira pogledaše jedan u drugoga, a Muhammed, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem reče: „Ebu Bekre, napiši mu to!“ Ebu Bekr napisa ugovor na list papira, a Poslanik ga opečati svojim prstenom i dade Sureki.

Ne zna se tačno kada je Sureka ibn Malik prihvatio islam. Za vrijeme ovog događaja nije, ali se pouzdano zna da je postao musliman u godinama nakon hidžre.

Deset ljeta je Allahov Poslanik, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, nakon ovog događaja, hodio po zemlji. Završio je svoju poslaničku misiju i otišao svome Gospodaru zadovoljan, a i Allah njime. Međutim, za vrijeme Alejhisselamovog života, Sureka ne dobi ono što je tražio. Ne samo to, dvije godine nakon Poslanikove, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, smrti, na bolji svijet seli i njegov najbolji prijatelj, Ebu Bekr. Da li će se obistiniti obećanje koje je Sureka dobio?

Poslušajmo šta se dalje desilo!

Starac, duboko ušao u pozne godine, naslanjajući se na svoj štap, kretao se prema Poslanikovoj džamiji u Medini. Krenuo je na namaz. Nije znao šta se dešava u mesdžidu. Tamo je Omer ibn Hattab, neka je Allah zadovoljan njime, dijelio muslimanima ratni plijen. Omer je nastavio tamo gdje su Poslanik,sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, i Ebu Bekr stali. Pravedno je vladao, a granice njegove države su se neprestano širile. Upravo u to vrijeme njegova vojska se vratila iz Perzije sa dobrim vjestima. Medain, prijestolnica tadašnje ogromne Perzijske države je pala pod vlast muslimana. Kisrino carstvo je napokon palo, a ogromno bogatstvo bješe zaplijenjeno.

Starac uđe u džamiju i zaputi se ka Vladaru pravovjernih. Pored mimbera stoji Omer i djeli plijen. Odjednom pred njim zasjaše ogromne, zlatne narukvice. Omer ih uze u svoje ruke čekajući da ih pošteno podjeli kao i sav ostali plijen. Tada starac priđe Omeru i reče: „Daj mi te narukvice, moje su!“ Omer pogleda u čovjeka. Bijaše to Sureka ibn Malik. Omer jedva prepozna njegovo izborano lice. „Ne, ovo je ratni plijen i podjelit ću ga ratnicima. On ne pripada niti meni, niti tebi!“

-„Ali ja imam ugovor i obećanje da su narukvice moje.

-„A ko ti je to obećao?“, upita Omer.

Iz svojih njedara Sureka izvadi stari list papira rekavši: „Obećao mi je Muhammed, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem“, reče, pružajući hartiju Vladaru pravovjernih.

Omer uze papir i prepozna Ebu Bekrov rukopis kao i Poslanikov pečat. Niz njegovo lice potekoše suze. Omer ibn Hattab nikada nije prežalio svoga Poslanika. Ovaj list papira mu probudi emocije i sjećanja. Dade Sureki njegove narukvice i spusti svoj pogled. Ljudi se okupiše oko Omera pitajući šta ga je rasplakalo i rastužilo. Nedugo zatim niko od prisutnih ne mogaše da zaustavi suze. Toliko je vremena prošlo od kada je svome Gospodaru preselio njihov drug. Poslanikovo, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, obećanje se ispuni i Sureka ibn Malik dobi Kisrine narukvice.

Vjerujemo u Tebe i Tvoga Miljenika, o Ti Koji sve možeš. Vjerujemo u svaku riječ koju izgovori Tvoj Poslanik. Samo ono što je potvrdio Vjerovjesnik smatramo ispravnim.

Kao što Sureka dobi svoje narukvice, tako ćemo i mi dobiti sve ono što je Muhammed, sallallahu alejhi ve sellem, obećao. Male i velike predznake Sudnjega dana, konačnu pobjedu istine i pravde na ovome svijetu, kaburska iskušenja, Sudnji dan, Džennet i Džehennem, i u sve ostalo, vjerujem onako kako nam je on prenijeo, neka je Allahova milost i spas na njega.

Allahu moj učini nas ispravnim i pravim sljedbenicima Tvoga Poslanika. Učini da slijedimo njegovu praksu i običaje. Ne dozvoli da povjerujemo kojekakvim prorocima i gatarima na ovome dunjaluku. Proživi nas sa Tvojim Miljenikom, o Ti koji sve možeš! Amin!

ovo su mojih 5 tacaka koje su dokaz da je Kuran i islam od Boga

1. Kuranska naucna cuda
2. Predkazanja o buducim dogadjajima
3. Brojcana cuda Kurana
4. Ljekovita moc Kurana
5. Lingvisticka cuda Kurana

[fatamorgana]

Šteta truda, niko normalan ne čita ovakve kilometarske postove.

[Chagalj]

vidimo sve stvari oko nas, imaju neku svrhu, kakva je svrha covjeka onda?? zasto smo uopste na planete umjesto da nas nema.

Svrhu covjecanstva ne razdvajam od svrhe, recimo, vrabaca ili delfina. U sustini, mi nemamo neku konkretnu svrhu sa aspekta planete, osim da smo na jednom od krajeva simbioticke interkcije sa ostatkom biosfere. Sa stanovistva individue, svrha ti je stvoriti potomstvo i tako prenijet svoje gene na njih, stvarajuci neki vid besmrtnosti.

A to sto neke nama bitne i nebitne stvari imaju svrhu, to je do naseg shvatanja svijeta kojeg smo formirali kroz istoriju nase vrste. Bas iz tog razloga tezimo tome da gledamo sve oko sebe, pa i nas same kao svrhu necemu, sto ne mora biti istina.

Stari dobri Jay Gould je to izvanredno objasnio kroz Panglossian Paradigm.

U sustini, mi nemamo neku konkretnu svrhu sa aspekta planete, osim da smo na jednom od krajeva simbioticke interkcije sa ostatkom biosfere.

znaci po tebi mi nemamo svrhu, znaci ovako kompleksan covjeka nema svrhu na ovom svijetu, dok jedno drvo ima svrhu, jedno sunce i mjesec ima svrhu, planine imaju svoj usvrhu, voda, vatra, zemlja, zeljezo, zivotinje isto imaju svoju svrhu, biljke imaj usvoju svrhu, samo po ateistima covjek nema svrhe

cak i ekser u stolici ima svrhu, ili pertle u obuci imaj svrhu da drze obucu na nogama a da kompleksan covjek nema

[pussysmoke]

@Chagalj

Hvala na iscrpnom odgovoru. Nastavićemo kada pogledam seriju Omer koju si preporučio.

[NIN]

znaci po tebi mi nemamo svrhu, znaci ovako kompleksan covjeka nema svrhu na ovom svijetu, dok jedno drvo ima svrhu, jedno sunce i mjesec ima svrhu, planine imaju svoj usvrhu, voda, vatra, zemlja, zeljezo, zivotinje isto imaju svoju svrhu, biljke imaj usvoju svrhu, samo po ateistima covjek nema svrhe

cak i ekser u stolici ima svrhu, ili pertle u obuci imaj svrhu da drze obucu na nogama a da kompleksan covjek nema

vidis da i ti, jadan, imas svrhu!

[Chagalj]

evo jedno pitanje za ateiste

Ako dokaze te jednu stvar, dokazali ste masa drugih stvari, a to je ako dokazete da je Kuran od Boga, onda po automatizmu si dokazao postojanje Boga/stvoritelja, postojanje zivota poslije smrti, sudnji dan, Raj i Pakao.

Zato hajmo se koncetrisati na to pitanje, kako dokazati da je Kuran od Boga, sta bi po vama dokaz bio?

[Chagalj]

@Chagalj

Hvala na iscrpnom odgovoru. Nastavićemo kada pogledam seriju Omer koju si preporučio.

ako ti ta serija nepokaze stvarni izvorni islam, ako vec neces da citas Kuran, onda neznam sta ce, jer ima ogromnih detalja iz zivota poslanika i njegovih ashaba(prijatelja).

[NIN]

evo jedno pitanje za ateiste

Ako dokaze te jednu stvar, dokazali ste masa drugih stvari, a to je ako dokazete da je Kuran od Boga, onda po automatizmu si dokazao postojanje Boga/stvoritelja, postojanje zivota poslije smrti, sudnji dan, Raj i Pakao.

Zato hajmo se koncetrisati na to pitanje, kako dokazati da je Kuran od Boga, sta bi po vama dokaz bio?

Ono sto je sigurno je to da si nepismen!

Druga stvar koju pokusavas je smijesna, shodno ovome prvom!

Ako vec hoces, Kuran je supljak, zesci! Biblija isto tako!

[fatamorgana]

evo jedno pitanje za ateiste

Ako dokaze te jednu stvar, dokazali ste masa drugih stvari, a to je ako dokazete da je Kuran od Boga, onda po automatizmu si dokazao postojanje Boga/stvoritelja, postojanje zivota poslije smrti, sudnji dan, Raj i Pakao.

Zato hajmo se koncetrisati na to pitanje, kako dokazati da je Kuran od Boga, sta bi po vama dokaz bio?

S ovim postom si i šampiona prevaziš'o u logici!

[dustaban]

Prije nego legnem samo da kratko odgovorim Chagalju...

Religious delusions
Professor Andrew Sims


Religious delusions are of fundamental significance in forensic psychiatry, and they played an important part in the birth of British psychiatry.

The birth of British psychiatry

In November 2011, BBC1, in ‘Garrow’s Law’, revisited the case of William Hadfield, who shot at George III, intending to miss, on 15th May, 1800 1. Hadfield’s madness was associated with, or precipitated by, severe brain damage from sabre wounds to the head sustained in Flanders in 1794, when he was one of the Duke of York’s bodyguards. He had outbursts of extreme violence, during one of which he had
threatened the life of his own child because, he said, he had been commanded by God to do so. He had a delusion that he must die to save the world but, because of his religious beliefs, this must not be from suicide. Therefore, in order to be hanged, he staged an elaborate mock-assassination attempt on the King at Drury Lane Theatre by firing a pistol at close range; an expert marksman, he missed by 12 inches! He was disarmed, arrested and charged with high treason.

Thomas, later Lord, Erskine defended him, and Dr Crichton of Bethlehem Hospital gave medical evidence; the enlightened Lord Chief Justice ‘stopped the trial and directed the jury to find Hadfield ‘Not Guilty: he being under the influence of Insanity at the time the act was committed’’. The case of Hadfield changed thinking, and hence the law, on criminal responsibility. Later that same year, the law was changed so that Hadfield, as an insane person, and therefore not guilty of murder, could be detained indefinitely at Bethlehem, and so his religious delusion effectively initiated the practice of forensic psychiatry and subsequent framing of the Mental Health Act.

There was renewed interest in mental illness at the end of the 18th century and most historians, asked for a date for the beginning of psychiatry in Britain as a separate discipline, would put it about 1800. I would contend that religious delusion, with the Hadfield case, was the mid-wife for the birth of British psychiatry in 1800. Hadfield died in Bethlehem Hospital in 1841, the year the first antecedent of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was inaugurated.

To come to the present, in the literary world, when Sebastian Faulks, in his novel of
2009, A Week in December, donates schizophrenia to a character, what symptoms does he give him? Yes, that is right, religious delusions 2.



What is delusion?

No definition is perfect. A delusion is a false, unshakeable idea or belief, which is out
of keeping with the patient’s educational, cultural and social background; it is held

with extraordinary conviction and subjective certainty 3. One can argue with each clause, but delusion is a phenomenon that is outside normal experience, not ordinary.

According to Spitzer, delusions make knowledge claims and not belief claims 4. Delusion is experienced as an everyday notion or assumption rather than a belief; in this it is quite unlike a subjective religious experience 5. A deluded person quite matter-of-factly declares herself to be the Virgin Mary in the middle of a conversation about hospital food. It is not a credal statement but merely a comment on how the person views reality.

Delusions are always self-referent: the belief or notion always has something to do with oneself – and, of course, my religion, my spiritual belief is extremely personal. One does not have delusions about remote places or times without it having some reference to me. Delusions have generally been classified according to their content and religious delusions are just one of many, although frequent and often highly significant. Religion often forms the content of other types of delusion, for example, persecutory delusions or delusional misidentification.

The idea of being ‘out of keeping with the cultural and social background’ can cause problems: whose cultural and social background, the patient or the doctor? Obviously, the patient’s: it includes immediate as well as wider culture. So, the designation ‘Muslim’ or ‘Christian’ is not enough to describe the culture: a Christian from Nigeria who attends a Pentecostal church in east London does not share his socio-cultural background with an Egyptian Coptic Christian or a Home Counties Anglican.

A delusion is held on delusional grounds. Even though what is believed is factually correct, it is a delusion if the evidence on which it is believed is delusional.

Delusions are held without insight: If someone wonders if they are deluded or not, they almost certainly are not. A psychiatric colleague, after a long silence over lunch, said, ‘I suppose the difference between delusion and faith is that delusion is held without any doubt, but religious belief is held with some doubts, or at least an understanding that others could have doubts about what I believe.’

Those with religious beliefs accept that some of their phrases are spiritual and not to be taken literally, for example, ‘listening to God’ or ‘giving your heart to the Lord Jesus’. In some serious mental illnesses there are abnormal processes of thinking resulting in concrete thinking, a literalness of expression and understanding.

Religion cannot be a shared delusion. Psychopathologically speaking, delusion cannot be shared. Jaspers puts this: ‘Schizophrenics are not surrounded by a single schizophrenic world, but by a number of such worlds. If there were a single world- formation schizophrenics would understand each other and form their own community. But we find just the opposite. They hardly ever understand each other; if
anything, a healthy person understands them better.’ 6 When there were long-stay patients who believed that they were Jesus Christ, this was not a shared delusion. Joseph Smith believed that Joseph Smith was Jesus Christ and Thomas Brown believed that Thomas Brown was. Thomas Brown never believed that Joseph Smith
was Jesus Christ, nor vice versa.

Delusion is, in Jaspers’ expression, ultimately un-understandable. This means that, even putting oneself in that person’s position and seeing the world from their point of view, one is still unable to understand how they could hold that notion with delusional intensity. 7

It has been stated that there is no difference between delusion and religious experience. This is to ignore the psychopathology; in some cases it may be difficult to distinguish, but these are the rare exceptions.

Why are delusions not infrequently religious?

I do not know the answer to that question and in that I do not seem to be alone. The psychiatric literature does not appear to answer the question, perhaps because the question is not asked. Having failed to find out from recent publications I returned to Jaspers, and his wise comment is: ‘we may go beyond the empirical field and ask how there could be any meaning in the coincidence of religion and madness; could we interpret it that where the individual himself is in extremity, the extremity of his
existing vital state provides a basis for meaningful experience.’ 8 The implication here is that there is nothing more fundamental to ‘who I am’ and ‘where I am’ than my religious and spiritual beliefs.

Now a digression to discuss form and content: that it has a religious nature is always a comment on the content of a delusion; that it is delusion at all is comment on psychopathological form. The patient is only concerned with the content of an experience: content reflects the predominant thinking of the patient, for example, a person whose life has centred on money and fears of poverty, may well believe that she is being robbed. The form indicates the type of abnormality of mental experience; that is, the nature of the descriptive psychopathology. It does matter whether the religious belief that the patient holds is a delusion or not, as, if it is, it implies the presence of a serious mental illness.

Religious delusions do not only occur in people who are regarded as religious, involved in organised religion, church or mosque attenders and so on. For all of us our religion, our spirituality, even our absence of belief, is something fundamental to us, and it is the nature of delusion that the content is of great personal significance to the deluded person. This is true even for bizarre or apparently meaningless false beliefs. Revisiting Mellor’s classical description of schizophrenic first-rank symptoms, here is one of his cases, delusional percept, chosen for its religiosity: ‘A young Irishman was at breakfast with two fellow-lodgers. He felt a sense of unease, that something frightening was going to happen. One of the lodgers pushed the salt cellar towards him … Almost before the salt cellar reached him he knew he must return home, ‘to greet the Pope, who is visiting Ireland to see his family and to reward them. . . because Our Lord is going to be born again to one of the women. . . And because of this they (all the women) are all born different with their private parts
back to front’.’ 9

Delusions also reflect the background personal preoccupations of the patient – not necessarily the same as having significance. The delusion, and its content, has meaning for the sufferer, now. Glenn Roberts (1991) writes that delusions, in the context of schizophrenic illness, may be an adaptive response to whatever initiates

the psychotic break. A group of chronically deluded subjects was compared with previously deluded patients now in remission and with two non-patient groups. The chronically deluded group scored much higher than the remitted patients for positive meaning in life, and much lower for depression and suicidal intention. For some the formation of delusions is adaptive in combatting purposelessness and hopelessness and provides a new sense of identity and a change from fear, worry, depression and boredom towards feeling lively, enthusiastic, interested and peaceful. One patient described this: ‘I’ve had a great time. I’ve got this one great thought in my mind that I
am Jesus – that’s enough . . . nothing hurts me now, I need nothing now . . .’ 10

Do religious delusions invalidate religious belief?

What comment do religious delusions make on the nature and validity of religious belief? Very little, except that spirituality is a core belief for most people. This is dealt with more fully in my book, Is Faith Delusion? 11 Is all belief delusional as Dawkins, without defining delusion, would contend? 12

Some people hold beliefs that others find false or even repugnant, but this does not necessarily make them delusional. Even for very bizarre and socially unacceptable beliefs there are reasons why they cannot be delusions:

1) They are not out of keeping with that individual’s cultural and social background.

2) They are not necessarily held on delusional grounds.

3) Religious beliefs are spiritual, abstract, and not concrete, physical.

4) Religious beliefs are held with insight; the believer can understand others not believing, and he or she may have doubts.

5) For religious people without mental illness, bizarre thoughts and actions do not occur in other areas of life, not connected with religion.

6) Religious ideation and predominant thinking is a description of content and therefore, from the psychopathological point of view, irrelevant for form.

Neither having a spiritual belief nor experiencing serious mental illness is an uncommon event. So, inevitably, sometimes the two will coincide. That does not mean that one caused the other.

It is possible in the majority of cases to tell religious belief and delusion, as psychiatric symptom, apart 13. Religious belief and psychiatry are different from each other, and their concepts come from different world-views. A consideration of them in relation to each other is helpful and the two different perspectives have much to contribute to each other. Rather than being delusion, faith helps in the understanding of mental health and illness, and enriches psychiatry.





Delusions demonstrate permeability of self, possibly from right hemisphere disturbance

In schizophrenia a case can be made for considering delusion, and other
Schneiderian first-rank symptoms, to be a disorder of the mental state affecting

boundaries of self, that is, a disturbance in knowing where ‘I’ ends and ‘not I’ begins. This occurs in other conditions but in schizophrenia, the sense of invasion of self appears to be fundamental to the nature of the condition as it is experienced; first- rank symptoms have in common permeability of the barrier between the individual
and his environment, loss of ego boundaries 14. There is a merging between self and
not self, but the patient is not aware of the disturbance being one of ego boundaries; he describes a problem only inasmuch as ‘other people are doing things to me; events are taking place outside myself’. The external observer finds a blurring or loss of the boundaries of self which is not apparent to the patient himself. All passivity experiences falsely attribute functions to not self influences from outside, which are actually coming from inside the self.

How about religious delusions? Do they demonstrate any permeability of self? I have already pointed out that the content of these delusions is of great personal significance and reflects background personal preoccupation of the deluded individual. They are personal in a concrete way; they are expressions of knowledge, not of belief, which is why delusional statements are expressed with conviction and
certainty and not subject to discussion and inquiry 15. In religious delusion, eternity and infinity have come within and are under the person’s control. This is unlike the experience with non-psychotic religious beliefs, which are spiritual or metaphorical, usually discussed with others with thoughtful reticence and acknowledgment of our human limitations, and sometimes are held with doubts or at least understanding that others may have doubts.

To leave the certainties of psychopathology for the speculation of science for a bit, what have religious delusions to do with the brain? All mental activity involves both cerebral hemispheres but much of our discussion, above, has an emphasis on the right hemisphere. Our colleague, Iain McGilchrist, writes: ‘The right hemisphere is concerned with finer discriminations between things, whether living or non-living.’ 16 It also has an advantage in dealing with visuo-spatial aspects of life. ‘Most, if not all, of
the ‘functions’ mediated by the right hemisphere fall into the category of what has to
remain outside the focus of awareness – implicit, intuitive, unattended to. And so it looks as though self-consciousness, at least, comes about when the left hemisphere is engaged in inspecting the life of the right.’ 17

Michael Trimble has concluded that there is a slow accumulation of evidence in favour of religious experience being more closely linked with the right hemisphere, especially the temporo-parietal region 18. Peter Fenwick came to a similar conclusion, associating religious experience with right temporal lobe activity 19. Just a cautionary note – that is where religious experience is mediated; it is not the cause of religion. When I look at my beautiful and real, cherry tree in April, my visual experience is mediated through my occipital lobes – but the tree remains a fact.

‘Self-awareness, empathy, identification with others, and more generally inter-
subjective processes, are largely dependent upon…right hemisphere resources.’ 20
All these are functions involved in religious belief and the practice of religion in co- operation with others.

The conclusion of much research is that schizophrenia and related disorders are associated with a disturbance and consequent hypo-functioning of the right cerebral hemisphere – the capacity for seeing the whole has been lost. For example, right hemisphere lesion appears to be associated with delusional misidentification 21, and probably with other delusions.

Put all this disparate information together and the probability is that religious delusion is associated with disturbance in right cerebral hemisphere activity. Not being a believer in the religion of scientism, I hold this explanation lightly and with no emotional conviction.

Religious delusion and who I am

Religious delusions are not just a psychiatric idiosyncrasy, an exotic curiosity; they demonstrate profound disturbance in self-image, in who I am and how I relate to the world. We cannot apprehend this, as an insight of the psychiatrist into the inner life of our patient, without knowing, in empathic detail, about the religious and cultural background of the patient and the shared beliefs of his sub-culture. Bear in mind that, in the phrase religious delusion, religious involves the faculty of belief but delusion implies, as far as the patient is concerned, the mental faculty of knowledge.

Now look again at religious delusion. These are not philosophical or theological notions that concern other people; they are down-to-earth comment or description of things that matter to me, the patient, with religious colouring. The same delusional themes, including religious, are found everywhere, but the way in which they are elaborated depends partly on the patient’s religious background 22.

The delusion may be grandiose, particularly during a manic illness, for example, a patient who believed that she had been sent by God as a special person to the Birmingham Housing Department. It may be depressive, as in this patient of Emil Kraepelin: ‘I wish to inform you that I have received the cake. Many thanks, but I am not worthy. You sent it on the anniversary of my child’s death, for I am not worthy of my birthday; I must weep myself to death; I cannot live and I cannot die, because I have failed so much, I shall bring my husband and children to hell. We are all lost; we won’t see each other anymore; I shall go to the convict prison and my two klix as well, if they do not make away with themselves because they were born in my body.’
23

Religious delusion may manifest the distinctive psychopathology of schizophrenia, as in Mellor’s case already quoted. Whatever the form, it is always personal to the patient – ‘I’ feature somewhere within it; it always represents an abnormality of self and self-image, the way I see myself and position myself within my world.


Conclusion

The religious colouring of the delusion is seen as a disorder of content dependent on the patient’s social background, interests and peer group. The form of the delusion is dictated by the nature of the illness. Religious delusions are not caused by excessive religious belief, nor by the wrongdoing which the patient may attribute as cause, but they simply accentuate that when a person becomes mentally ill his delusions reflect, in their content, his predominant interests and concerns.

Sometimes it can be difficult to make the distinction between religious delusion and the experience of an unusual religious belief or practice. Psychiatric morbidity would be suggested by the following:

1. Both the subjective experience and the observed behaviour conform with known psychiatric symptoms; that is, the self-description of this particular

experience is recognizable as being within the symptomatology of a psychiatric illness, for instance, it has the form of delusion. An in-patient believed with complete certainty that everyone coming on to her ward in the hospital nodded in her direction because they knew, in her words, that she was ‘a secret emissary of the Holy Spirit’.

2. There are recognizable symptoms of mental illness in areas of life other than religion; these may be delusions, hallucinations, disturbance of mood, or thought disorder. A person with religious delusions also believed that gas was being pumped through her front door and making her sporadically unconscious.

3. The lifestyle, behaviour and direction of personal goals of the individual, subsequent to the event or religious experience, are consistent with the natural history of a mental disorder rather than with a personally enriching life experience. The manner of life is compatible with the conditions in which delusions occur. An unhappy young man lived on his own without any occupation, in a filthy, chaotic one room flat. His only friends and contacts were in a local church. His life style demonstrated psychiatric disorder, irrespective of his beliefs, and other aspects of his conversation led to a clear diagnosis of schizophrenia being made.

4. As already described, the thoughts, experiences and actions of a person with schizophrenia are often concrete, physical and not abstract or spiritual; beliefs may be acted on literally. If he describes, ‘Christ being in me’, he might well be able to state in which organ of his body Christ could be located.

Historically, religious delusion is intimately involved in the beginnings of psychiatry; psychopathologically, it is essential for diagnosis to unravel form from content; socio- culturally it gives the doctor an introduction into the world of the patient. Yet, it has often been neglected. I would like to see that redressed, and this is a start.

[Bujrum majstore]

Malo popih, halalite...

Elem, hipoteticki, zamislte da se nekim cudom danas u 2014. godini momentalno izbrise svaka ideja u zagrobnom zivotu,
religijama, dogmi, bogu, bozanstvima itd itd.
Sta mislte, dal bi se uprkos svim saznanjima i informacijama sa kojima vladamo danas opet javile neke slicne ideje, filozofije ili religije koje se pozivaju na bozanstva, zagrobni zivot, kaznu, spasenje i tome slicno?

Molim da iz razmatranja iskljucite drustva koja ni dan danas nemaju struje i zive kao i prije par hiljada godina.

Volio bih znati odgovor tj. vjerovati da neko zna.

[nemezis]

Kasa Sureka kaže "ove narukvice su moje", je li logično da Omer kaže "ne one ne pripadaju ni meni ni tebi, one su ratni plijen..."? Zar nije logičnije da kaže "otkud tvoje, kakve ti imaš veze sa ovime"? Drugo, zar nije nelogično da Omer ne zna da je Sureka imao ugovor sa Muhamedom? Ipak je on poslanik, sve se znalo o njemu, znalo se i da ga je Sureka pokušao ubiti. Ne, nego on mora dramatično izvući odnekud ugovor koji je izgleda godinama nosio sa sobom umjesto da ga drži negdje u kući.

[nemezis]

Kojom logikom je Sureka mislio da ce dobiti nešto od čovjek kojeg je upravo pokušao ubiti. Nakon što je osjetio božije djelovanje, nije li bilo logično da odmah prihvati islam? U toj situaciji bi mnogi ateisti povjerovali u boga. Ne, on ne prihvata islam nego kaže "daj mi nesto"? I ima hrabrosti da traži to i napismeno?! Jer je znao da je Muhamed dobar? A pokušao ga ubiti?!

[nemezis]

Omer je pravedno vlada, država mu se sirila a on se vraćao sa ratnim plijenom? Kome je vladao, gdje se država sirila i odakle je ratni plijen?

[nemezis]

vidimo sve stvari oko nas, imaju neku svrhu, kakva je svrha covjeka onda?? zasto smo uopste na planete umjesto da nas nema.

Svrhu covjecanstva ne razdvajam od svrhe, recimo, vrabaca ili delfina. U sustini, mi nemamo neku konkretnu svrhu sa aspekta planete, osim da smo na jednom od krajeva simbioticke interkcije sa ostatkom biosfere. Sa stanovistva individue, svrha ti je stvoriti potomstvo i tako prenijet svoje gene na njih, stvarajuci neki vid besmrtnosti.

A to sto neke nama bitne i nebitne stvari imaju svrhu, to je do naseg shvatanja svijeta kojeg smo formirali kroz istoriju nase vrste. Bas iz tog razloga tezimo tome da gledamo sve oko sebe, pa i nas same kao svrhu necemu, sto ne mora biti istina.

Stari dobri Jay Gould je to izvanredno objasnio kroz Panglossian Paradigm.

U sustini, mi nemamo neku konkretnu svrhu sa aspekta planete, osim da smo na jednom od krajeva simbioticke interkcije sa ostatkom biosfere.

znaci po tebi mi nemamo svrhu, znaci ovako kompleksan covjeka nema svrhu na ovom svijetu, dok jedno drvo ima svrhu, jedno sunce i mjesec ima svrhu, planine imaju svoj usvrhu, voda, vatra, zemlja, zeljezo, zivotinje isto imaju svoju svrhu, biljke imaj usvoju svrhu, samo po ateistima covjek nema svrhe

cak i ekser u stolici ima svrhu, ili pertle u obuci imaj svrhu da drze obucu na nogama a da kompleksan covjek nema

Ekser ima svrhu jer smo ga zakucali u nešto. Sta je sa ekserom koji nikada ne bude zakucan, ima li on svrhu?

[nemezis]

evo jedno pitanje za ateiste

Ako dokaze te jednu stvar, dokazali ste masa drugih stvari, a to je ako dokazete da je Kuran od Boga, onda po automatizmu si dokazao postojanje Boga/stvoritelja, postojanje zivota poslije smrti, sudnji dan, Raj i Pakao.

Zato hajmo se koncetrisati na to pitanje, kako dokazati da je Kuran od Boga, sta bi po vama dokaz bio?

Ako dokažeš da je Kuran od boga, kako si time dokazao masu drugih stvari?

[Chagalj]

evo jedno pitanje za ateiste

Ako dokaze te jednu stvar, dokazali ste masa drugih stvari, a to je ako dokazete da je Kuran od Boga, onda po automatizmu si dokazao postojanje Boga/stvoritelja, postojanje zivota poslije smrti, sudnji dan, Raj i Pakao.

Zato hajmo se koncetrisati na to pitanje, kako dokazati da je Kuran od Boga, sta bi po vama dokaz bio?

Ono sto je sigurno je to da si nepismen!

Druga stvar koju pokusavas je smijesna, shodno ovome prvom!

Ako vec hoces, Kuran je supljak, zesci! Biblija isto tako!

moze li to malo argumentovano, supljak je zato i zato, zbog toga i toga, pa da mogu odbranit to a ovako neznam zbog cega je supljak pa ti i nemogu odgovoriti tacno i precizno.

[dustaban]

Malo popih, halalite...

Elem, hipoteticki, zamislte da se nekim cudom danas u 2014. godini momentalno izbrise svaka ideja u zagrobnom zivotu,
religijama, dogmi, bogu, bozanstvima itd itd.
Sta mislte, dal bi se uprkos svim saznanjima i informacijama sa kojima vladamo danas opet javile neke slicne ideje, filozofije ili religije koje se pozivaju na bozanstva, zagrobni zivot, kaznu, spasenje i tome slicno?

Molim da iz razmatranja iskljucite drustva koja ni dan danas nemaju struje i zive kao i prije par hiljada godina.

Volio bih znati odgovor tj. vjerovati da neko zna.

Pitanje ti je dobro i odgovor se zna - NE BI!

Upravo je odsustvo razmjene informacija bilo glavni preduvjet za sirenje religija, odnosno za pretvaranje ublehe u pokret, kako sam prije par dana objasnio u jednom postu.

Nek si malo popio, sta fali, otrijeznices se. Jebeno je kad te nesto drzi cio zivot!