I meet three out of four of the above standards for “zealothood”. Lets see, I had a visit from God, a documented “medical miracle”, I read the Bible and I can quote scripture. But, I pretty much keep all of this to myself. I do not think God helps me get good parking spaces. So is it talking about these things that make you a zealot or believing them? Am I a closet zealot? Is there such a thing? The point is, there is a huge gap between belief, enthusiasm, zealotry and fanaticism. If your assessment is correct, then Polycarp is not alone. In fact your claims may be more unusual than his and perhaps we should do an online mental health assessment on you?:rolleyes:
But…you seem to view the area of “mental health” as composed of diametric opposites–someone is either “mentally healthy” or “mentally ill”. And you’re willing to slap a label of “mentally ill” on Polycarp, since the antonym of “mental health” is “mental illness”, and if in your opinion he isn’t mentally “healthy”, then therefore he must be mentally “ill”.
I never said there weren’t degrees. And I’ve never used the phrase ‘mentally healthy’ or ‘mentally ill’ in my life.
Again, I never used that phrase. I pointed out that he is exhibiting signs that are consistent with the symptoms of some mental disorders. I even referred to them as ‘warning signs’ and hoped that I was wrong. Polycarp may or may not have a mental illness - who can really know someone throuhg this medium? His posts are starting to posess tendencies that are consistant, to some extent, with some of the symptoms related to certain disorders. I have not, at any time, labeled him as you have implied.
DaLovin’ Dj
quote:
It appears you did. i.e. "similarity of some forms of mental illness
Actually, I’m reminded of something Joe Cool said about a year ago – paraphrased, “While I am a religious person, I tend to speak much more of religion on these boards than in offline conversation, because the topic is brought up much more often.” Add to that the fact that I’m quite well read in matters of Christianity, to the point that I’m one of a dozen or so who informally serve as “resource persons” in the religion threads, providing the factual clarifications that advance the actual debates. And that the topic does, of course, matter to me.
But “obsessive”? While this thread’s been going on, I’ve posted extensively on “standing” in legal terms, addressed topics from British government and Scottish geography to Romance linguistics in GQ, read with interest and I think commented on a couple of Tolkien threads, and hoped someone would post on For Us, the Living, the new Heinlein novel, which I’ve not seen as yet. I’ve spent offline time pricing my ex-boss’s stamp collection with the aid of the Scott catalog, reread several novels and Kenneth Starr’s book on constituional law (quite good, by the way). Over on the Pizza Parlor, which is an explicitly Christian board, I posted ana analysis of the ACLU’s stance on First Amendment issues and why it’s not anti-Christian as was alleged. My wife and I have discussed everything from earthquakes to the nature of double plays to how our “grandkids” are growing up.
I know there are a lot of questions I ought to respond to. Would someone with DSL take the time to make a list of what I’ve left unanswered? – I spent an hour and barely got through three pages of rereading (I’m on dial-up and it’s been fairly slow responding lately).
DDG and others, it was a number of references to his father’s income coupled with a chance reference to Bentonville that led me to the conclusion of who he was; he never made references to the chain. And no single thing led me to the conclusion I arrived at, however you want to phrase it; it was based on a character assessment based on how he at his young age represented himself. “The man he will be is foreshadowed in the boy he is,” to quote someone whose identity I don’t recall.
Kal, despite badchad’s points (which do have limited validity), I believe my belief system to be interiorly consistent, and have posted at length over several years about what it is. I’ll be happy to answer questions – but I trust you’ve already seen from this thread alone that it’s not “Bible-believing” in the evangelical Protestant sense of the term, and I suspect many of your cavils about it were based on the “cherry picking” problem, which I hope I’ve laid to rest.
Can we take it from there?
mental illness
mentally ill
I used one of those phrases and not the other. Any questions?
DaLovin’ Dj
My last post was in response to IWLN. . .
Poly, to clarify a bit, I am not referring to obsessive-compulsive disorder. People who suffer from obsessive disorders do not automatically have compulsive behaviors (however, most people with compulsions also have obsessions). By obsessive I mean an interest which is “excessive in degree or nature”. The literature that I have read indicates that the most common obsessions focus on ‘a fear of hurting others or violating socially acceptable behavior standards’. I don’t think anything you’ve said fits that bill. However, they also ‘can focus on religious or philosophical issues, which the patient never resolves’. I’m seeing hints of this. You say you’re not obsessed? Good. I hope you’re right. But the fact that you have other interests does not automatically mean that you are not be suffering from an obsession.
There is a stronger case here for mania, IMO. Mania is marked by delusions of grandeur and feelings of a special place or mission (among other things). It seems that you have gone from simply sharing your religious views and extensive knowledge, to painting yourself as having a special role therein - a special insight (knowledge of who the second coming is). This is a leap that could be signs of a problem. It may also be nothing. I’m not trying to judge you. The signs are there, however, and perhaps knowing that some people (not just me) see them in your recent posts will help you to avoid the terrible hole that a mental illness can put a person into. There are treatments available and there is no shame in looking for help - even if it is just to be sure.
Stating that you think you know who the second coming is, and that he walks the Earth today implies that you think we may be nearing the end of days. In my experience, most people who think the world is getting ready to end are delusional, and when I see them on the street I label them as crazy (I have to get to work after all), dismiss them, and move on. Having so much respect for you makes it impossible for me to just label you as crazy (which is a non-clinical layman term as used here) and move on. One of these days perhaps some “the end is near” type will be correct and finally get a moment of satisfaction before they are destroyed with the rest of us. It keeps not happening though. Food for thought. Consider it or dismiss it as suits you, naturally. None of this stems from animosity on my part and I hope you can see that.
DaLovin’ Dj
The distinction escapes me. You’ve since then brought up mania and delusion. We could pull out the dictionary, argue about it and still be no closer to the truth. I will leave you to whatever your doing, with a bad taste in my mouth.
Poly, for what it’s worth, I neither believe nor disbelieve you. For all I know, you may be perfectly dead-on in your musings and beliefs. You might also be completely off.
However, that’s not for me to judge. To this outside, you appear to have the same amount of conviction and certainty that you do in any other post of yours I have read, so I deduce that you fully believe what you have said in this thread. This is good enough for me, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, as the saying goes. All I can do is sit and see if later events confirm or refute your beliefs.
One is a clinical term, the other is not. Mentally is an adjective in “mentally ill”. “Mental health” the clinical term is a noun. One is not typically described as “mentally ill” by doctors, but they may very well be diagnosed with a mental illness. Hope you can see the diference.
I brought up mania in my first post, of which delusions of grandeur is one of the symptoms.
That’s your decision. But those definitions would reveal that those conditions tend to go along with certain symptoms, and it is arguable that Polycarp is displaying some of those symptoms. Sorry if the taste doesn’t suit you.
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ, at long last I see your point – I hadn’t equated the “nutcase” aspects of my prediction with the sort of monomania you were portraying. Rest assured, if you see me in a white robe and sandals carrying a sign “The End of the World Is at Hand!”, it will be at Dope-a-Ween or a similar party! 
(I’ve been to two costume parties as Bishop Polycarp, complete with tinfoil mitre – who’s going to be the first to establish a connection? :D)
No, my assumptions are these: I have a strong hunch this kid, being who (I think) he is and having been through what he’s been through, is going to have a strong impact on 21st Century culture à la the historical parallels I’ve drawn, and I have a sense that a significant part of that impact will be religious. (Cf. Valentine Michael Smith for a fictional foreshadowing.) I don’t think that this will be the End Times by anybody’s prophetic standards, and I’m not turning into a eschatological fruitcake about it. I had the opinion that something major would break about a dozen years into the 21st Century back in the '80s, and have not changed my mind on that. (That comes more from Heinleinian extrapolation of social trends than from any mystical or prophetic insight.) I’ve known about the kid for nearly seven years now, and had the sense that he would be instrumental in that something grow on me as I followed his story. And, because I realized that it was pretty far out, I kept my mouth shut about it for something over four years, but had the sense that now was the time to say what I thought. And forgive me the fault, but I phrased it controversially.
Delusions of grandeur? No, I merely was in a position to put two and two together regarding his identity, and to “see” (in the sense of extrapolate) what his adult role might be in a future marked by clashing social trends (which we can see intensifying today). Anyone else might have come to these conclusions; I happened to.
But I will take your long-distance analysis under advisement, as I **do **tend to obsess on issues of importance to me. Honesty with self is, I think you can see, important to me.
I am not going to have the rug pulled out from under my convictions if nothing significant develops as regards “Adam” – if he lives out whatever role he chooses that has nothing to do with what he seemed to hope to accomplish as a kid.
Buit I felt it incumbent on me to share what I thought, to put my credibility on the line to tell the story and what I saw forthcoming.
Now, if you’ll please pass the wild honey; these locusts are disgusting without flavoring… 
Tsk. Poly, I’ve had just about enough of your fanatical devotion to honesty, your zealous pursuit of self improvement and your self-righteous critical analysis of your own convictions.
It’s time you realized, that’s not how Christians are supposed to believe!
I hate soccer, too.
And as he rode off into the distance, his tin-foil hat gently reflecting the setting sun; we all asked “Who was that man?”
John the Baptist ?
I don’t know, but he left this silver locust…
But unlike J the B, I suspect Poly will always keep his head.
Well then, you’re clearly not Messiah material.
And the search continues…
:::sigh:::
I am not a professional therapist either, but the idea that Polycarp is showing signs of obsessiveness, mania or delusions of grandeur is outrageous!
Knowing someone who does fit that diagnosis, I can tell you that Polycarp is nowhere close.
Take a look at this site for a list of symptoms of both mild and severe mania:
http://www.iupui.edu/~bipolar/maniasymp.htm
Delusions of grandeur would fall under the severe mania catagory. Polycarp doesn’t even fit into the mild mania list!
He is a devout – not fanatical. He is scholarly – not obsessive. He is loving and open and hopeful – not delusional.
Good grief. Would that more people displayed the definition of mental health that you quoted as beautifully as Polycarp does.
BTW, you are right that the words I believe are not useful in debate. But they are appropriate when stating one’s relgious viewpoints. And when someone such as yourself admittedly “could be wrong,” then I believe is certainly appropriate in preferencing remarks.
Polycarp, my favorite secular quotation ever is from Emerson: Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.
And you have that in spades.
Re: For Us, The Living: Probably going to wait for paperback. Much as I waaaant it.
Re: 2012 religious… You know, I’m going to disagree. I’m seeing the rabid religious types growing older and older. Not that there aren’t younger ones, but the zeitgeist seems to have changed a bit with the expansion of the world. The New Age is all but dead. I see something happening, certainly, but I don’t know what.