That's not what schizophrenia means Kirth, I expected someone as educated as you to know better.Yeah, I should have specified "conventional misconception as most commonly-used," vs. "clinical definition, which is a lot different." But somehow saying "The Muslim world is DID about this" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
"Of two minds" might work, since that's basically the general misconception of the word.
BTW, questioning someone's crap isn't "attacking" them except if you're intentionally trying to be sensational, hyperbolic, and soap-box-y. Otherwise, it's just "questioning," or "disagreement."
Like when I get called a "militant atheist" because I freely admit I don't believe in God, instead of hiding it. That's not militant. Blowing up buildings is "militant." I don't do that.
But, but, you're questioning the status quo, that's surely militant! ;-)
"Of two minds" might work, since that's basically the general misconception of the word.
Sure, but I wanted something that implied, "of two minds, in a manner many people would recognize as insane, even if they couldn't quite define it."
"Of two minds" might work, since that's basically the general misconception of the word.Sure, but I wanted something that implied, "of two minds, in a manner reminiscent of insanity."
So, "political"? Nah, that might confuse people even more. ;-)
Language can be used as a scalpel, rather than as a bludgeon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not the medical jargon definition. It's common usage derives from a misunderstanding (or an outdated understanding? I'm not sure) of the technical term, but English is a living language and his usage is correct.
It's also metaphorical. I can describe US economic growth as anemic, without actually diagnosing the population with anemia.
That's not what schizophrenia means Kirth, I expected someone as educated as you to know better.For instance, the US is probably the only place in the world where things like Creationism vs Evolution or Religion vs Science is any sort of issue.The entire Muslim world also seems to be in various stages of schiziphrenia regarding that (link).Actually, that's exactly what schizophrenia means in common English usage. Sorry.
It's not the medical jargon definition. It's common usage derives from a misunderstanding (or an outdated understanding? I'm not sure) of the technical term, but English is a living language and his usage is correct.
Well, it's still wrong, as you say it's a misunderstanding, not an outdated understanding. It's most likely a misunderstanding based on the etymology of the word:
Despite the etymology of the term from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind"), schizophrenia does not imply a "split mind" and it is not the same as dissociative identity disorder—also known as "multiple personality disorder" or "split personality"—a condition with which it is often confused in public perception
Sorry, as someone diagnosed with Simple Schizophrenia, it bothers me that this mischaracterization continues and is being accepted as common usage. Living language or not, such a precise medical term and often stigmatizing label shouldn't be bandied about with no care for its actual meaning and effects of its characterization.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is indeed one of those subjects we have to try be careful with using the correct terminology about if we are trying to be sensitive seeing as the social stigma against mental illness is basically just as strong as it is against LGBTQ people, if a great deal quieter. It’s just something to pay closer attention to in the future if we value not making marginalized people feel even more misunderstood or made fun of then they already are. No harm intended I'm sure, just something to watch out for.
This is indeed one of those subjects we have to try be careful with using the correct terminology about if we are trying to be sensitive seeing as the social stigma against mental illness is basically just as strong as it is against LGBTQ people, if a great deal quieter. It’s just something to pay closer attention to in the future if we value not making marginalized people feel even more misunderstood or made fun of then they already are. No harm intended I'm sure, just something to watch out for.
WE can agree on that!
This is indeed one of those subjects we have to try be careful with using the correct terminology about if we are trying to be sensitive seeing as the social stigma against mental illness is basically just as strong as it is against LGBTQ people, if a great deal quieter. It’s just something to pay closer attention to in the future if we value not making marginalized people feel even more misunderstood or made fun of then they already are. No harm intended I'm sure, just something to watch out for.WE can agree on that!
Yes, the "we" I was referring to is anyone who cares not specifically LGBTQ people.
All of those groups handle such issues extremely differently much in the way Islam and Jeudaism are different from Christinity even though one could say they all use the same book.
Other than the Torrah being shared between Christianity and Judaism, not really no.
Sorry, as someone diagnosed with Simple Schizophrenia, it bothers me that this mischaracterization continues and is being accepted as common usage.
Oops. Let me apologize, then. I had no idea. I'm just a casual observer, but for what it's worth, your nonverbal communication is obviously good, you come across as quite social, and you seem to demonstrate a normal degree of affect in your posts -- good for you.
The explanation I got was that "schizo" actually does not precisely mean "split", but rather "different" as in "set apart". I.e. "different soul". Bleuler did not choose his term well. But hey, it's better than "dementia praecox", as suggested by Kraepelin.
|
If it helps, this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Number 2358, says regarding homosexuality:
“They [homosexuals] do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
So homosexuals will indeed go to Heaven, at least according to Holy Mother Church.
The "Catechism" is just human opinion. The Bible is the only authority in all religious matters. We shouldn't persecute them, but we shouldn't also perpetuate the lie that their "lifestyle choice" is okay or acceptable to God.
Seeing that the vast majority of religious people do not care about how you or the LGBTQ (whats Q now?) community lead your personal lives, I see and hear the bigotry coming from your side of the street.
Frankly, in this regard, I don't really care what the Bible, or the Catechism for that matter, say. I care what people who call themselves Christians do and teach.
It's also worth considering how vocal a minority is when their agenda is so intolerant.
I applaud the TV spots I've seen by the Unitarian Universalists (I think) saying "We take everyone," as I do the Episcopal Church's election of an openly gay bishop, but until they're more outspoken in their opposition of intolerance, it falls to us atheist douche bags.
Edit: Indeed, Duck, but convincing people they're misinterpreting the scripture is not easy.
The "Catechism" is just human opinion. The Bible is the only authority in all religious matters. We shouldn't persecute them, but we shouldn't also perpetuate the lie that their "lifestyle choice" is okay or acceptable to God.
Keep in mind the Catechism isn't just some random opinion; it is the official stance of the Church at a particular moment in time, pronounced, or at least backed, ex cathedra by the Pope himself (though it can and does change over time as the Holy Scriptures are better understood or the Church comes to the conclussion it has been missunderstanding something. For as monolithical as it is, it does have a perpetual process of change, research, and evolution).
So my point is, if we have to dig down to the official view of the Church, that's the Catechism. It may or may not be biblically correct (personally, I think it needs refinement. I'll explain below), but it is the version the Church is currently sticking to.
Frankly, in this regard, I don't really care what the Bible, or the Catechism for that matter, say. I care what people who call themselves Christians do and teach.
Well, at least in the Catholic case, the Catechism is precisely what it is taught
Onto my explanation, quoting myself from an older post:
Contextual Note: I'm a Catholic, and I'm only able to properly give a Catholic interpretation. Other Christian denominations might have a different understanding.
A lot of people, many Catholics included, have a pretty wrong understanding of how the Church actually sees homosexuals. Some thing it is okay to hide them, to ignore them, or even to mistreat them. They think homosexuality is a sin.
However, homosexuality is not a sin, at least not to the Catholic Church.
Only a homosexual sexual act, defined as Sodomy within the Catechism, is deemed sinful.
Now, the question remains as to why is sodomy considered a sin? After all, Christ never said anything about homosexuality being bad.
The interpretation of sodomy as a sin comes from the following theological exegesis:
Paramount to Catholicism is the notion that all men are to be weighted equally", that regardless of what we look like, what we do or what our name is, we are all the same (a concept that now might sound rather obvious, but that didn't really exist proper until the First Council of Ephesus, which in my opinion was one of the most trascendental steps in the shaping of modern civilization, even though most people likely have never heard of it).
Now, this coupled with the other Christian notion that all men are worthy of dignity thanks to the grace of God, we get to another fundamental principle within Catholicism: Never a man can be a mean, he must always be an end.
So, going back to sodomy: A careful reading of the Bible shows us that sodomy is grouped under the category of "Paraphilias", that's it, sexual acts that deviate from the loving act of fertility.
But the problem with sodomy in the Bible is not the lack of fertility, but the way it was employed, with a lack of love. Keep in mind that these are lessons written at a time when homosexual intercourse was widespread in Greco-Roman Culture, not as an act of love, but as an act of submission. It was, in fact, socially acceptable for a man to have sex with another man, so long as he remained on top and the other man was a slave.
In other words, back then sodomy was interpreted as an act that only used the other person for pleasure, not as an act born out of love. That's where the whole concept of "Paraphilias" came from: Sexual acts that objectified the other person, turning it into a mere mean to an end.
So, under this context, sodomy became as unnacceptable for the Church as other forms of objectivization, such as slavery. Yet homosexuality itself was never truly to be considered negative in itself. That was a labbel that got mixed up with the passage of time, and had a lot more cultural things to it than just religion, as homosexuality in general has always had a sketchy interpretation in most cultures.
Now, the question remaining is that, well, what about homosexuals who do love each other and want to have sex as a form of consumation? Well my friends, that's where the next step is.
As a very devout Catholic, I firmly believe in the right of homosexuals to live and have sex and all that stuff together if they love each other; I even think they should be able to get a Catholic marriage, priest and holy water included. Love being the key here. I would take ten bullet for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, but on that specific subject I believe the Holy Mother Church has a theological misconception. After all, Christianity is essentialy about just three simple rules "Love God, love Yourself, and love Others".
However, and despite all the troubles arrising from that particular point of contention, we must give time to time. There is a lot of cultural momentum accumulated within the Church (as one of the priests in my school used to joke about "There is no such thing as tomorrow afternoon in the Holy See; a theological process is considered 'expedite' if it takes less than a century! But what is time for an Eternal Church?"), and it will take a while, but I am quite sure we'll eventually get there and make amends with homosexuals.
I'm not asking you guys to agree with the Catholic view, but I hope these points can help at least shine some light over the fact it is not a whimsical, "LolsGodhatesfags" thing, and that it *does* at its core involve a honest care for one another, even if twenty centuries of history have formed a thick layer of severity around it.
Klaus
You are saying that they don't view homosexuality as a sin, but they also view any way in which homosexuals have sex is. So while likeing other people of the same sex may not be sin, they do not approve of acting on it.
Most people will not see any distinction there because honestly there isn't one. Saying homosexuality is a sin is just as discriminatory and insulting as saying it is only if you express your love physically.
Klaus
You are saying that they don't view homosexuality as a sin, but they also view any way in which homosexuals have sex is. So while likeing other people of the same sex may not be sin, they do not approve of acting on it.
Most people will not see any distinction there because honestly there isn't one. Saying homosexuality is a sin is just as discriminatory and insulting as saying it is only if you express your love physically.
Note: Just to be clear, my personal interpretation is that homsexual sex itself, when truly fundamented in love, is not sinful.
That pointed out, there is a very important difference between deeming homsexuality sinful and only deeming homosexual intercourse sinful, which is choice. Homosexuality is not considered sinful by the Church because it is not a choice, its what the person is. However, based on the explanation I gave before, the Church also thinks homosexuals should remain abstinent.
It should be clarified that the Church does not consider love between men sinful, however.
Thanks, Klaus for explaining that
A question that came up in my mind is how do you define 'sodomy'?
Is frot included? Is it strictly anal? If so, considering that many hetero couples engage in it and many homo couples don't, why is it called the 'homosexual act' instead of 'anal sex'? Is oral included as a sin?
Well, Sodomy is a rather confusing term because it means slightly different things depending on language. For instance, in Castillian, it only means "anal sex", while in English it also includes other forms of non-copulative penetration (such as oral sex).
However, in Biblical terms, Sodomy comes from "The Sin of Sodom", the Peccatum Sodomiticum, in which the central aspect was using the other person merely as an object of carnal pleasure of the sexual kind. So in that case, the English deffinition would be the closest one, although it must be emphasized that Biblical Sodomy is negative because it uses people rather than love them.
That's exactly why I think there is a dissonance in the Catechism that must be amended. And, believe it or not, there are quite a few theologians within the Church working on that exact same subject, because there is a real, widespread internal sense of discomfort with the conflict it causes with homosexual reality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, but the answer to the Church's discrimination is not to nickel and dime the meaning of sodomy until anal is a sin but oral isn't; it's to get the Church hierarchy, Pope included, to a point where they realize two willing people in bed isn't a sin, regardless of what they do there.
Klaus
You are saying that they don't view homosexuality as a sin, but they also view any way in which homosexuals have sex is. So while likeing other people of the same sex may not be sin, they do not approve of acting on it.
Most people will not see any distinction there because honestly there isn't one. Saying homosexuality is a sin is just as discriminatory and insulting as saying it is only if you express your love physically.
Note: Just to be clear, my personal interpretation is that homsexual sex itself, when truly fundamented in love, is not sinful.
That pointed out, there is a very important difference between deeming homsexuality sinful and only deeming homosexual intercourse sinful, which is choice. Homosexuality is not considered sinful by the Church because it is not a choice, its what the person is. However, based on the explanation I gave before, the Church also thinks homosexuals should remain abstinent.
It should be clarified that the Church does not consider love between men sinful, however.
And what I am saying is that distinction that you say is there is not relevant to homosexuals who consider it discriminatory and insulting.
As long as they don't cross the line of expressing it physically.
As long as they don't have sex, yes.
I find it interesting that in response to my comment about responding to what Christians do or teach, you claim that the Catechism is what exactly what Catholics teach and then go into a long explanation of why you think, as a Catholic, that it's wrong.
I don't see the conflict. Catechism is what the Church teaches; if you go to mass, to Sunday School, or pick up the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Catechism is the central pillar.
That, however, does not mean all Catholics think the same way or that disagreement doesn't exist with some aspects of the Catechism. Debates between theologians of the various orders, particularly Jesuit, Franciscans, and Dominicans, are some of the most intense I've ever seen.
I expect there are also some Catholics that think it's wrong in the other direction and that if you and they were teaching about homosexuality, you would at the very least give a different emphasis.
Which is essentially my point. The formal written documents, whether the Bible, the Catechism or whatever, are not as important as what people do with them.
True, but you first need to start from the Catechism if you want to understand what the Catholic perspective is. If you dismiss it and only worry about the output you hear from me, the local bishop or some random theologian on TV, you won't be able to understand where it comes from and why exactly there are differences.
My original post was meant to imply that the Catechism is indeed fundamental in understanding what we Catholics think, not to say that every Catholic will give you the exact same explanation about everything it contains (because we also need to keep things into perspective, and homosexuality, as candent an issue as it is, is not the core nor the main focus of Catholic teachings).
You sort of had my respect (if not agreement) at first, but you're starting to lose it.
Let's see if we can get back to some respect.
I'm simply trying to explain the facts as clearly and objectively as possible. If by that I'm losing your respect, there is not much else I can do.
What is the official Catholic position regarding letting infertile straight couples marry?
I do not know, but I see what you are getting at. And when we get there, my explanation will revert to what I have already said: I believe there is a dissonance in the Catholic Catechism in regards to homosexual couples who engage in sexual intercourse as an extension of their mutual love, and that said dissonance seems to steem from the absolute value being given to sodomy, when said term is only appropriate when sex is born not out of love but out of pleasure.
Somehow I'm the one claiming that religious people are all the same?
You clearly don't have the fruits of the spirit, sir.
HAAAARUMPH!
Sorry, as someone diagnosed with Simple Schizophrenia, it bothers me that this mischaracterization continues and is being accepted as common usage.Oops. Let me apologize, then. I had no idea. I'm just a casual observer, but for what it's worth, your nonverbal communication is obviously good, you come across as quite social, and you seem to demonstrate a normal degree of affect in your posts -- good for you.
Thanks Kirth. Luckily those aren't the areas where I'm hit the worst.
I'm just trying to fight the stigma, just as this thread is a way to fight the stigma of being "different" because of one's sexual orientation. :-)
However, in Biblical terms, Sodomy comes from "The Sin of Sodom", the Peccatum Sodomiticum, in which the central aspect was using the other person merely as an object of carnal pleasure of the sexual kind. So in that case, the English deffinition would be the closest one, although it must be emphasized that Biblical Sodomy is negative because it uses people rather than love them.
That's exactly why I think there is a dissonance in the Catechism that must be amended. And, believe it or not, there are quite a few theologians within the Church working on that exact same subject, because there is a real, widespread internal sense of discomfort with the conflict it causes with homosexual reality.
Interesting anecdote. Is there a citation or link of this? It's just something I'd like to read for my own convenience / curiosity (i.e. the theologians addressing the issue).
I've always argued that the sin was a lack of hospitality and not an act of homosexuality, but we're all well too aware of the mutability of language over the years to obfuscate its initial origins.
[bubble bubble bubble]