MSNBC wonders: Christian love for Jesus is kind of homoerotic, huh?

posted at 10:01 am on December 26, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The Phil Robertson/A&E flap has produced some silly commentary, but perhaps none quite so silly as this exchange on MSNBC earlier this week. Joy Reid filled in for Ed Schultz on his show last Monday and invited Michael Eric Dyson to discuss the contretemps over Robertson’s comments on homosexuality and religion.  Dyson argues at the end of this clip that Robertson attempted to “us[e] Jesus in making Jesus co-sign all of this bigotry here,” and then almost in the same breath accused Christian men who profess love of Jesus as being, er … you know (via The Right Scoop and Truth Revolt):

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and the rest of those folks ought to be ashamed of themselves. And gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people ought to speak up and link their own fate to African-American people because ultimately we’re in the thing together.

JOY REID, SUBSTITUTE HOST: But what do you think of this attempt to recruit essentially Rosa Parks?

DYSON: Oh my God.

REID: Because this is something that has been done before on the Right.

DYSON: Right. Right.

REID: Like in anytime that something they say is taking as offensive by African-Americans or taken as offensive by the LGBT community…

DYSON: Right.

REID: …you get, “Well, Martin Luther King, Jr. would’ve been on our side…

DYSON: Right.

REID: . …or Rosa Parks or, you know, Phil Robertson is the next Rosa Parks.” What do you think of that as a tactic?

DYSON: I mean it’s — well, first of all, it’s scurrilous, but it’s the same as using Jesus in making Jesus co-sign all of this bigotry here. Jesus was a Jew who, around whom a religion was made. So the anti-Semitism of many of the Christians is ironic to begin with.
And then secondly, the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual stuff – look through the Bible. There’s a lot of interesting things. The same men who will stand up in the church of all men. “I put my God, Jesus, overall women. I love him more than I love her.”

Hmmm. Do you really? That sounds interestingly homoerotic to people who are outside your religious traditions. I’m not suggesting it is but I’m suggesting that there are some very interesting, subtle, narrative tensions within the Bible itself and within Christianity beyond that.

I tried to get offended by this argument, and ended up laughing every time I tried. I mean, it takes a lot of effort to take this kind of trolling seriously, doesn’t it? According to Dyson’s CV, he’s a professor of sociology at Georgetown University, a Catholic university, but he must be the first professor at Georgetown to have never studied the difference between agape, philos, and eros.  Not all love is sexual, as even most people “outside your religious traditions” understand. Most normal people would scoff at the idea that a son’s love for his father would “sound interestingly homoerotic,” let alone that of sons for The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This is the kind of commentary that only occurs in profoundly unserious circles, with MSNBC among the leading examples. I doubt that Dyson buys this schtick, which is just intended to tweak Christians who believe that Corinthians is scripture by using the “you guys are so gay!” insult, but it’s more an insult to his own audience. It’s the kind of ivory-tower sneering at those hoi polloi in the sticks that reveals more ignorance of the speaker than of anyone else. Exactly who does Dyson think would believe that professing a love of Jesus Christ equates to a homoerotic experience? Christians laugh at this, but perhaps it’s people “outside [our] religious tradition” who should be more insulted at Dyson’s assessment of their intelligence and common sense.

This displays a surprising amount of bigotry in and of itself, but it leads to a better and more subtle point, and one that Dyson should have explored rather than just using the tired “you guys are so gay!” attack. Dyson argued that people are using Jesus to “cosign” bigotry by focusing on homosexuality as the be-all of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and there may be at least a little bit of truth in that. It is important to understand Corinthians and its place in Scripture, especially with Jesus’ teaching on consecrated marriage, and the context of the nature of sin.

After all, 1 Corinthians doesn’t come in a vacuum. Paul wrote the letter because the church in Corinth had fragmented and lost its way, especially on moral issues. Corinth was the Las Vegas of that era, where the leading culture promoted sexual excess and other activities that conflicted with the doctrine of Christianity. In one section of this letter, Paul delivers an acid scolding to the Corinthian church for turning a blind eye to an incestuous relationship involving one of its members, calling for what would be termed now an excommunication for its unrepentant member rather than “tolerance.” He was not at all interested in dumbing down the doctrine in order to expand membership, but urged the Corinthians to live and preach the truth to save souls.

For this reason, Paul spells out the dangers facing Corinthians and all of us in sin — leading off with “the immoral,” which in the original was “fornicators,” and processing through a number of other sinful activities:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral,[b] nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[c][d]10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

“Fornicators” refers to any sexual activity outside of consecrated marriage. And Jesus himself was clear on the definition of consecrated marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, referring back to Genesis and the Creation. Therefore, “fornication” applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual activity outside of that defined structure of marriage, which is intended to serve the purpose of Creation first on the model of the self-sacrificial love of the Trinity. (Paul later gives a definition of the roles of husbands and wives which emphasizes this.) It’s all sinful, because God created sexuality to be expressed within consecrated marriage, as Jesus and Paul teach in the Scriptures.

But that’s not the end-all, be-all of sin either, as the rest of Corinthians makes clear. In 1 Cor 6:10, we get a longer list that have nothing to do with sexual activities, and even in 1 Cor 6:9 we see “idolaters.” Even for the sexual sins, Paul doesn’t make any further distinction. In the passage that immediately follows (1 Cor 6:12-20), Paul asks the Corinthians to consider the fact that they are joined to the Body of Christ when they act immorally against their own bodies, but doesn’t bother to distinguish one form of sexual sin from another. “Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body,” Paul writes, with the “immoral” again translated from “fornicators” of every kind.

Distinguishing one form of deadly sin over all the others is a fool’s errand. It’s akin to arguing whether the Houston Texans or the Washington Redskins are a better football team this year; what’s the point? They’re both terrible. A better analogy would be to think of salvation as a 100-foot leap between cliffs, with deathly rocks hundreds of feet below. Salvation is only possible, in the Christian faith, by the intercession of Jesus Christ as payment of our sins. If two people remain in mortal sin and one leaps 25 feet and the other 50, it’s pointless for the latter to claim primacy over the former all the way down.

Sin is sin, and we all fall short of the glory of God. That should make us humble rather than narrow, Pharisaical readers of 1 Corinthians, and produce love of our fellow sinners in such a way as to preach and live the truth as best we can. (For Dyson’s benefit, that’s philos.) Categorizing sin in order to cast judgment is merely counting beans on the plummet downward. All of us have an inclination to sin, which is why we have Christmas — the gift from God of our salvation through the Easter sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, Merry Christmas. I certainly need it, enough to know that we all do, and hope that as many can be saved as possible while still proclaiming the truth of the Scriptures. We are called, in this season especially, to lift up in truth more than condemning, let alone in categorical scale. Let us love our God and Jesus Christ with that agape love showered down upon us by the Creator, and help others to see it as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11

And care to comment about losing the culture war?

itsspideyman on December 27, 2013 at 7:23 PM

So how old does your scientific mind say the earth is?

Remember, be precise.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 7:08 PM

There is a big difference when dealing with something in the past, that far in the past, and dealing with something in the now. We can be precise with Pi, we can’t when dating things that old.

In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:31 PM

We can be precise with Pi

Okay, please post the precise value of pi.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM

In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years

So you get your panties in a bunch when the Bible uses less than 10 significant digits, but your so-called science can only be bothered to use 4?

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Okay, please post the precise value of pi.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 7:41 PM

I thought I already did, well, to 10 decimal points anyway. The real number runs into infinity.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:45 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Well, since you quoted from the revered WIKI, allow me to quote:

As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior. Gray’s Anatomy

What this boils down to is that the laryngeal nerve is multitasking. Efficiency. What one would expect to see in an intelligent design.

Dawkins recognized the intricacy of the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe when he watched scientists extract one from a giraffe. Richard Owen did this in 1837, which impressed Dawkins, but he was upset with Owen because Owen was a creationist. But Dawkins is a nutcase, so his opinion is suspect.

The laryngeal nerve works with mucous membranes, the heart, the esophagus, and the windpipe.

The embryo develops of necessity in a certain order. It needs a heart early on and when the fetus develops it pulls the nerve bundle with it into the chest cavity.

All that shows teleos. Does this prove design? No. But it gives reason for the nerve’s routing which shows evidence of design.

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 7:46 PM

So you get your panties in a bunch when the Bible uses less than 10 significant digits, but your so-called science can only be bothered to use 4?

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Your logic fails because an error of using Pi at precisely 3 magnifies the larger your diameter grows.

Somebody reading that verse in 1 Kings, trying to see what the circumference of a much large circle would be, would use the imprecise equation intimated in the bible and be way off for a circle with a diameter of say 55 ft.

Let’s see what they would get if they had a diameter of 55 ft and then compare that to what the real number for Pi would be.

55 x Pi@3 = 165 ft (circumference)
55 x Pi@3.141592653 = 172 ft (circumference)
7 ft out of whack

Let’s use a diameter of 2000 ft

2000 x Pi@3 = 6000 ft (circumference)
2000 x Pi@3.131592653 = 6283 ft (circumference)
283 ft out of whack

How about a diameter of… You get the point I’m sure.

At least I hope.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM

In 1999, the oldest known rock on Earth was dated to 4.031 ± 0.003 billion years, and is part of the Acasta Gneiss of the Slave craton in northwestern Canada. SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Huh. So how’d it get there among all those baby rocks?

Akzed on December 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM

2000 x Pi@3 = 6000 ft (circumference)
2000 x Pi@3.131592653 = 6283 ft (circumference)

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Ignoring your error in the value of pi in your second equation, from what I remember of basic high school science, your result is incorrect.

2000 has one sigificant figure.
Therefore, 2000 x 3.141592653 = 6000

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Measure twice; cut once.

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 8:08 PM

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 7:46 PM

David, the laryngeal nerve starts at the aortic arch in all these animals, down in the body cavity of the animal. Why would a designer start the nerve that far away from the part of the body it was supposed to service?

One would think that an intelligent designer would start the nerve branch that services the larynx in the neck of the animal right at the base of the brain instead of running a branch down into the body cavity to service all these other body parts and THEN branch off to come back up out of the body cavity so that it could connect with the larynx.

That is not a sign of an intelligent designer.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.~C.S. Lewis

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Ignoring your error in the value of pi in your second equation, from what I remember of basic high school science, your result is incorrect.

2000 has one sigificant figure.
Therefore, 2000 x 3.141592653 = 6000

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Do you know how to use a calculator? I have to ask because when I type 2000 x 3.141592653 into mine over and over and over the answer is 6283.185306

NOT 6000

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Thank God almighty that panther/bandit13/thejackal/sk537 didn’t have anything to do with creation.

Murphy9 on December 27, 2013 at 8:23 PM

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 8:22 PM

“If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian..”

Guess who?

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Huh. So how’d it get there among all those baby rocks?

Akzed on December 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Geologic forces beyond your comprehension. It’s a force outside space and time.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:26 PM

One would think that when a designing an automobile, the designer would place the engine in the trunk to avoid the bends and twists of the exhaust system

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM

I guess you missed the part about the esophagus. You don’t want to learn; you just want to be right.

May God bless you in your business endeavors.

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Awwww! How cute! An analogy I hadn’t heard yet. I did learn something new from you!

But are you saying we’re better designers than your god, or just saying that some humans are worse?

You don’t want to learn, you just want to be right and think you have the right god in your corner, that you’re “saved”, that you’ll get to see your relatives who died before you and will get to see your relatives left behind when you yourself die.

I get it, it’s an appealing wish.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:35 PM

and thanks for the well wishes. I return them in kind.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM

“If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be–a Christian..”

Guess who?

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:24 PM

You’re right, he would still be Jewish.

RickB on December 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Do you know how to use a calculator? I have to ask because when I type 2000 x 3.141592653 into mine over and over and over the answer is 6283.185306

NOT 6000

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Your calculator is wrong. It is apparently assuming you mean 2000.0000000 when you enter 2000.

Or maybe you just don’t understand science and math.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM

You’re right, he would still be Jewish.

RickB on December 27, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Correct, the difference would be that he was an “inclusive” Jew who would let “goyim” in on his shtick. That’s really why the Pharisee’s had him killed. He was gonna let everyone else in on the game in town… ;-)

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Your calculator is wrong. It is apparently assuming you mean 2000.0000000 when you enter 2000.

Or maybe you just don’t understand science and math.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Maybe I just don’t understand you is more like it… I’ve never heard of 2000 x Pi equaling 6000. I’ve never seen a calculator come up with anything other than 6283.185306…

Are you “Poe”ing me? LOL!

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:54 PM

99%? 98%? 95%?

Only 69 percent of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43 percent of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal alignment conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-evaluating-similarities/

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Ever change a lightbulb in a Acura?

No sign of intelligent design.

HAR HAR HAR

Murphy9 on December 27, 2013 at 9:12 PM

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 9:04 PM

David?

You link us to the Institution of Creationist Research website with an article speaking out against evolution and expect me to believe you’re trying to be unbiased about this discussion? The only places these arguments are being made in the, “scientific community”, are in creationist venues, in religiously biased institutions that are fervently against the ToE based on religious grounds. On the grounds that it paints a picture of “our place in this universe”, and “how we came to be”, differently than their holy books. And I do mean books. There are christian creationists, islamic creationists (Harun Yahya), etc…

In the past, you’ve linked me to other articles and research that also was of the creationist kind…

Do you have something better?

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Maybe I just don’t understand you is more like it… I’ve never heard of 2000 x Pi equaling 6000.

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 8:54 PM

I’ll try to make this simple.

You are trying to make a point regarding precision.

When multiplying numbers, the product has only as many significant figures as the factor with the least number of significant figures.

Since the number 2000 as you wrote it only has one significant figure, the product can only have one significant figure.

Maybe you should try to find a math or science teacher to explain this to you after you go back to school.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Murphy9 on December 27, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Good one!

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:26 PM

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 9:22 PM

So teach me oh wise one! Show me how 2000 x Pi = 6000? Surely you can find the proof for me and post it here for us all to look at and study it, right?

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:27 PM

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.:

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 9:30 PM

אלוהים של התנ”ך הוא לא אמיתי

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:32 PM

So teach me oh wise one! Show me how 2000 x Pi = 6000? Surely you can find the proof for me and post it here for us all to look at and study it, right?

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:27 PM

Already done.

You said you put the numbers into your calculator. Start with that, and then report the answer with one significant figure.

6283 the number you initially gave, with one significant figure is… 6000

But like I said, maybeyou should talk to a teacher when you head back to school. It’s not really my job to teach you basic stuff like this.

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 9:37 PM

malclave on December 27, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Man! You’re a hoot! You had me going there for a second. I thought I was speaking with a mental midget.

Read a book

SauerKraut537 on December 27, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Atheists are not the biggest threat to society physically, that would be Islamic extremists and unbalanced Communist dictators with nuclear armaments.

However, I consider the four forms of philosophy we tend to lump together into Atheism is the biggest philosophical threat to society and certainly the biggest drag on scientific research we observe. Allow me to present evidence of this:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/12/logical-arguments-for-existence-of-god.html

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Bad web design?

Proof that intelligent design isn’t true!

Murphy9 on December 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Bad web design?

Proof that intelligent design isn’t true!

Murphy9 on December 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM

Exactly right.

I forget which atheopath it was, but he claim the design of the eye was awful and he would have certainly done a better job.

The example I discussed earlier showed that the laryngeal nerve does more than first thought.

Now we have recently learned that not only is there information we know about being communicated amongst the genes there is more information transfer going on top of the first. Will we discover a third or more?

The eye, the nervous system, genetic code are all extremely complex and we keep finding new and exciting things about us and the world around us.

But when new stuff pops up, the atheopaths keep explaining it with their Darwin of the gaps. Evolution on a stick.

davidk on December 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM

davidk, you are amazing. A fount of information. Enjoy reading your posts on this subject.

What is your career?

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 11:01 AM

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I am retired. I was a professional driver. I drove school buses for about 15 years and big rigs around 3 years.

I love learning and sharing what I learn. I should have been a teacher, I guess. I have ADD, so going through traditional channels is, for some reason, not easy for me.

Thank you for your comments. You are very kind.

I enjoy your posts as well. I especially enjoyed the verses you cited that showed the scientific understanding of Biblical writers.

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

If someone starts to belittle your comments by saying you need to disregard what you’ve been indoctrinated with or they claim that churches and parents should quit their indoctrination and let children think for themselves, show them this:

As usual with atheistic scientists, Hawking’s atheopathy long predated his science. His influential mother Isabel was a Communist, and in his teen years he admired the strongly anti-Christian mathematical philosopher Bertrand Russell.

http://creation.com/stephen-hawking-god#txtRef4

The story of his marriage is heart rending. It is just past the above quote.

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Bandit told me to read evolutionary textbooks.

I’m not much interested in a textbook format, but if anyone knows of a good book(s) on evolution … .

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM

I’m not much interested in a textbook format, but if anyone knows of a good book(s) on evolution … .

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Life, by Richard Fortey, and The Book of Life, edited by Stephen J. Gould, are both pretty good reads and not at all textbook-like. In addition, Stephen J. Gould wrote an interesting column for the magazine Natural History for 25 years, and those articles were periodically collected and released in book form, some examples of that being Hens Teeth and Horses Toes, The Panda’s Thumb and Bully for Brotosaurus.

HTL on December 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

HTL on December 28, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Thanks.

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 2:08 PM

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Vellly interestinkkk. Sad for him, though.

You may not be aware that people with ADD tend to have higher IQ’s than average. 120+ to be exact.

“…All of the 117 kids in this study fully met diagnostic criteria for ADD and all had IQ scores of 120 or more, placing them in the top 9 percent of their age group on basic intelligence…”.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-add/201108/the-mysteries-add-and-high-iq

AND,
https://attentiondeficitoc.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/high-iq-typical-in-children-with-add-dr-stephen-a-ferrari/

Also,…. people tend to get their IQ from the maternal side. My oldest son had undiagnosed ADD until he reached 7th grade (6th actually as one of the many solutions was to hold him back one year) until I found a school principal after we moved to Amarillo, TX that called me into his office and told me what I’d been telling schools since son was in the 2nd grade, and then transferred him to a school across town that dealt with this. He said, “The remedial teachers at this school next year will kill him.”

Son gained something like 3 grades in reading in just one year, etc. and so on.

Long story short, prior to reaching this compassionate and wise principal, I’d been told various things such as in the 3rd grade when the school “psychologist” told me “he’s never going to do much. Teach him a trade. I’d be surprised if he made even 100 on an IQ.” Of course, when this unintelligent master’s level “psychologist” (no such thing…psychologists aren’t master’s level)tested him, he predictably tested at 90. I politely told the guy where to go and continued to work at home with him. When he got to the fabulous school above, he tested at 120+….that was the highest the test went to. Won’t go into all the gyrations this son went through to get through grade school, jr-hi, and high school (and it was heroic)…but he eventually graduated with a PhD in Engineering from UT-A in the mid 1990′s, is currently the head of a design team that has designed some pretty awesome military things that I can’t talk about, now has the equivalent of an MBA so he can go around the country teaching other engineers.

So……you sound like him, minus the degree, of course. You are far smarter than you give yourself credit for. I hope you know that.

Wish you were a teacher…..we need more like you. BTW, I got into counseling (LCSW) mainly to help parents/kids know there IS life beyond school. And,…my (maternal) IQ is 135.;)

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 1:24 PM

.
You may not be aware that people with ADD tend to have higher IQ’s than average. 120+ to be exact.

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM

.
How ’bout Aspergians with OCD and ADD ?

listens2glenn on December 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

How ’bout Aspergians with OCD and ADD ?

listens2glenn on December 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

You got problems.

I’ve heard people with various maladies such as these and they talk about them like they are good things. “Oh, I like my ADD. It makes life so much fun.”

Crap. They ain’t got what I got.

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM

I’ve heard people with various maladies such as these and they talk about them like they are good things. “Oh, I like my ADD. It makes life so much fun.”

Crap. They ain’t got what I got.

davidk on December 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM

.
Or me, either. . . : (
.
There is no up-side to it, that I have been able to discern.

listens2glenn on December 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

.
How ’bout Aspergians with OCD and ADD ?

listens2glenn on December 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM

There are various forms of Asperger’s, which is a form of Autism.

Rainman movie was the real life story about what used to be called Idiot Savants, but the new name is Austistic Savants. They have profound and prodigious capacities or abilities in limited areas far in excess of what would be considered normal, who are prodigies in a particular aspect of art, music, literature or other such skills But d/t their developmental difficulties, their IQ range somewhere between 70 – 80.

I diagnosed one of these Savants while working for MHMR in a West Texas town who had been misdiagnosed as Schizophrenic, which is a common mistake. I snapped to the dx when he told me he could tell me the day of the week that everyone in the waiting room by just knowing their birth date. He could.

OCD is a form of anxiety and anxiety happens to all levels of IQ.

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Left out: However, the ADD could portend a higher IQ, which mixture of all three could result in some huge anxiety = resulting in OCD.

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 5:46 PM

People with Aspergers tend to be shy, difficulties with social skills, preoccupation with rituals (maybe really not OCD…..maybe just a part of Aspergers…..)

I’m sure you know all this:
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/mental-health-aspergers-syndrome

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 5:49 PM

So, you could just have Aspergers, mixed with ADD.

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Here ya go.

Because the level of intelligence often is average or higher than average, many people with Asperger’s syndrome are able to function very well. They may, however, continue to have problems socializing with others through adulthood.

…mixed with ADD……seems above average IQ to me.

avagreen on December 28, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11