Talk:Spiritual abuse

Proposition for article cleanup

The first three paragraphs added recently to this article are not appropriate nor well written to justify the placement in the article as "characteristics". These are purely opinions which would be better served under a separate category such as spiritual abuse in geopolitics (as a separate page and referenced here).

I also do not believe that the criticism of "fundamentalists" belongs as a "characteristic" of spiritual abuse. The feelings presented are related more to doctrinal dogma. If someone wants to argue over everyone's interpretation of the "holy" writings of religions, then this is not the wikipedia page to do this.

This page was initially based on sociological aspects of spiritual movements relating to individuals and their experiences in spiritually abusive situations. It was completely objective and very helpful. This is why the article beginning with references to the five major items of abuse were clear and objective (and helpful). They are not someones venting their unhappiness from unpleasant experiences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc800 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted two paragraphs in the fundamentalist abuse section today, for reasons described above. Deleted paragraphs are...

The proofs of spiritual abuse are: the testimony of the people who have experienced this and come out of it, and scholars and theologians from liberal arts backgrounds who objectively look at the scriptures of a particular religion and work out the meaning and uses of the texts. The New Interpreters Study Bible is an example of a Bible with notes and essays that report the findings of scholars who have studied and compiled information for their whole lives. Fundamentalist religion devotees, who are most times not educated in mainstream, liberal arts colleges and universities or seminaries[citation needed], will reject such findings in favor of unscientific information and what they call "literal" interpretation of the texts.

People who don't follow the texts in the same way the fundamentalists do also interpret the texts literally, but with extensive information about the context of the texts - period, history of use, linguistics etc. These people recognize that it is impossible to understand texts written 2,000+ years ago in completely different cultures, political circumstances, philosophical traditions, economic conditions and geographic areas than they are used in today[citation needed]. Fundamentalists will say that their scriptures can be understood with the pastors and leaders help, through sermons and bible studies, and the peoples own reading, without any outsider/nonbeliever's assistance. Scholars and theologians from liberal arts backgrounds refer to fundamentalist Christians as Bible worshipers because they worship this book, the Bible, that was written and brought down to us by men, as a god itself rather than applying the contextual facts to their interpretations and realizing it in the world as it truly exists. ELCA Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian Church USA theologians and pastors are examples of Christians who interpret the Bible as saying that the very judgments made by fundamentalists in their interpretations are anti-biblical[citation needed]. These denominations require that individuals wishing to enter into seminary must first complete a BA/BS etc.. from an accredited educational institution with a strong liberal arts program.

-- Harry1717 (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disputed neutrality

Could the person who disputed the article's neutrality please indicate their precise problem with it? Simply reporting a point-of-view does not negate neutrality.

Sorry my slip, I should have left a reason. This article records a number of contravertial accusations, but doesn't attribute them, so they are presented as facts. Further singling out 'conservative Christians' without reference to cults, sects, other religions etc is not ballanced. Also:

"spiritual abuse is most prevalent in some but not all churches related to ..." Says whom? 'some but not all' - is a number, qualified only by saying not 100%, thus it implies a high percentage. Evidence? Alternative views?

'possibly due to the authoritarian nature of their belief in the Bible' this is speculative - and what is meant by 'authoritarian'? Who has suggested this? What other explanations might exist? --Doc (?) 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difference to mental abuse?

What exactly is supposed to be the difference between spiritual and mental abuse ? Since when did spiritual mean religious anyway ? --Eivind 12:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and unsourced POVs

There is a lot of material in this article that is unsourced, or unattributed opinion. As per WP:V that material will be deleted unless sources are forthcoming. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a bunch today. See below for 2 of the deleted paragraphs. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources

All of the sources requested are located in the internal links - such as "Fundamentalist," "Zionist" and "New Interpreters Study Bible" which give descriptions of the issues discussed in "Spiritual Abuse." These provide ample evidence of the statements made. Although there is still some clean up needed, the information is legit if the internal links are utilized and the suggested reading - annotated scholars bibles - are used. The term "spiritual abuse" is used by liberal arts scholars and theologians to define people who are judgmental towards "outsiders," it would not be used by congregations whose traditions are "spiritual abusers" as they are called by the supposed "outsiders" - that might help.

There are too many "citation needed" messages here right now because the sources are given.

Also, I dont know how to add a citation inside Wikipedia. Can someone tell me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StacyBurchill-Yowkem (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations is very simple. See WP:CITE. Internal links, (we call these wikilinks) are not sources, as Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. Wikipedia relies on secondary published sources, as described in our policy of Verifiability. For every claim made that is challenged, the burden to provide a supporting verifiable source is on the editor wanting to keep the material, not on the editor wanting to remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, and in accordance to WP:V, I intend to remove all material that seems to be unverifiable/unattributable due to lack of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Cleanup Needed

The article has a good beginning but includes a lot of opinionated material against fundamentalism and non-Western (particularly Islamic) governments, particularly in the section "Classes of Spiritual Abuse."

--Vanderboom (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about proper doctrine and practice

Cut from article:

Although some of these points form aspects of a strong and healthy society (e.g. respect for proper authority, loyalty and honor), the basis of spiritual abuse is when these characteristics are overstretched to achieve a desired goal that is neither supported by spiritual reality nor by the human conscience.

Spiritual abuse usually involves control, manipulation and deception by leaders, but is often supported by members. Spiritual abuse is not necessarily deliberate, but may be the outcome of an over-emphasis on a particular doctrine (e.g. the teaching that everyone outside the group will go to hell) or the genuine belief that the will of God is being followed. NOTE: the previous example is not to propose an error in the doctrine of eternal perdition, but to identify using such doctrine to abuse and mentally manipulate members into adhering to abusive delegated authority or to group conformity.

I personally agree with a lot of these opinions, but that is not the point. We need to either assert confidently that these ideas are objectively true, or take the safer path of identifying who believes them and provide proper references.

We might even have to balance the claim of "abuse" with the counterclaim that the doctrine of eternal perdition is of enormous spiritual benefit in that it provides proper warning to people who might otherwise undergo permanent torture of hot lava and pitchforks.

Unless there is a general consensus about the advisability of warning people not to leave a particular church - on the grounds that they'll "go to hell" if they do - then this issue has to be treated like any other viewpoint.

I hope I have managed to describe the e.p. doctrine without giving a clue as to my own feelings about it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for discussion before removing points

Honestly, the claim that something is opinion and removing it from the article without discussion is OPINION.

I am not the original author of the mentioning of the doctrine of eternal perdition as a means of abuse. So this paragraph removal doesn't bother me. Neither does the removal of references to "Fundamentalism" or classes of abuse related to nationalistic feelings if someone feels to do so (with discussion).

The removal of the first paragraph is uncalled for. What is there in this phrase that is "opinion"? If you leave someone to read this page without this phrase, you get the opinion that any form of authority is "abusive", any form of loyalty is "abusive" and any form of "honor" is abusive. There needs to be a proper balance to this section, and the last phrase tries to do this with a quantitative phrase of two points 1 - spiritual reality (subjective and always debatable) 2 - the human conscience (we all have one). It is for the individuals reading this page to decide on these two criteria if they are experiencing abuse or not.

I disagree with the removal of this phrase and therefore put it back into the article until consensus is reached from discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc800 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the removing of them for being opinion is not opinion unless they were referenced. Editors aren't suuposed to add unreferenced ideas, particularly when they are only passingly related t the article. 79.176.140.97 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Arts vs Fundamentalism

This article seems to convey a misunderstanding of the nature of both liberal arts and fundamentalism. It seems to associate theological liberalism with liberal arts, and theological deliberate ignorance with fundamentalism. In reality, liberal arts is a very broad thing, encompassing much more than theological liberalism, or conservatism for that matter. Likewise, there are fundamentalists of all different educational backgrounds.

For this reason, I think that a number of the statements contrasting fundamentalists with those from liberal arts backgrounds are inaccurate and also harbor a non-neutral point of view. I believe that these statements, including the entire "Differences between scholars, theologians and fundamentalists" section, should be removed. Harry1717 (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted this section today, for the reasons above and because it seems to be off-topic. Harry1717 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...that and the obvious mistake in the paragraph. You could have a university called King Jesus And Pastor Bucky Are Infallible University where they taught that and had pictures of Bucky and Jesus in every classroom, and as long as the scope of the curriculum covered the liberal arts it would still be a liberal arts school. 79.176.140.97 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Abuse

The section defines Fundamentalism in an odd way and reads like a 16 year old Richard Dawkins fan wrote it off the top of their head. Is there any way to make it sound less odd? ALso is their a source that such a thing as Fundamentalist Abuse exists outside of the opinon of the article writer? Also, you cannot put Christian Fundamentalism and Islamic Fundamentalism in a list of "fundamentalisms" as the two are not related ideas. Islamic Fundamentalism is a pejorative put on schools of Islamic thought that advocate literal jihad against threats to the Islamic world by those who oppose those schools. No Islamic Fundamentalist would call himself an Islamic Fundamentalist. Christian Fundamentalism is a term for a theology within Christianity that says there are 5 major doctrines which define Christianity and any and every person who ascribes to those doctrines is a believing Christian regardless of style of worship, church attendance, or other beliefs. to show you why this is important, a Pentecostal who believes only Pentacostals go to heaven is by definition NOT a Christian Fundamentalist as he does not believe in Fundamentalist Christian doctrine. Using Christian Fundamentalism to describe intense Christianity is as incorrect as using Killing Vector to mean an angle that will lead to death. 79.176.140.97 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I agree that merging Spiritual abuse and Religious abuse would be a good thing. They seem to be pretty much the same thing, and clearly notable. I'm not sure how a person could tell if a given incident is spiritual abuse or religious abuse. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cool with that. I added most of the psychosocial stuff to religious abuse because I was unaware of this article, but also because "religious abuse" seems to be the term used more often among clinicians and social workers in my experience.Legitimus (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]