Religions were founded by schizophrenics

Post Reply New Topic

The Holy Roman Empire was called such because Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne augustus on Christmas Day 800 in Rome. Before that the Frankish mayor of the palace Pippin the Short was given the title patrician of the Romans and later made king of the Franks after the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, was deposed.

The Holy Roman Empire contained the Kingdom of Germany but also the Kingdom of Italy, which originally included Rome (later to become part of the Papal Estates). Later emperors and popes would contest each other's temporal authority.

Hypomania is usually considered a pleasant experience as long as the overall mood picture is euphoria and grandiosity. Hypomania alone is not a specific diagnosis in the DSM-IV-TR since prior or subsequent major depressive episodes are required for diagnosis of Bipolar II disorder and minor depressive symptoms are required for a diagnosis of cyclothymic disorder. The ICD-10 provides diagnostic categories for mania without experience of depressive symptomology, including hypomania (ICD-10 diagnostic code F30.0).

Hypomanic episodes can have superimposed subclinical depressive symptoms (mixed mood features), such as irritability, depressed mood, and anxiety, that can make the experience unpleasant; but hypomania is generally boosted self-confidence, boosted sociability, boosted energy level, and boosted sex drive without the more severe loss of self-control and impulsivity, flight of ideas and pressured speech, and psychotic features of a full-blown manic episode.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.

nor an empire?
i think it fits empire to the letter, it was a mish-mashed SOUP of little kingdoms and princehoods and whatnot, under 1 authority.
that = empire, by definition

All right, if one uses a pretty loose definition of 'empire'.

I've read a similar quote in a history textbook... The "Holy Roman Empire" was a main reason for WWI, and about 30 years after they fell, then Hitler came along to louse things up again.

Correct, but note that I said hyper and not hypo. Hyper is a full blown manic episode.

I'm no expert though: I am not bipolar. From what I understand and from what I saw of a client of mine, when it persists too long, it is indeed hellish. She was unable to sleep or relax. She foolishly refused treatment.

I've never heard of hypermania before: just hypomania and mania. There's hyperactivity/hyperkinesis (ADHD symptom) and a hyperthymic temperament (pretty much a permanent state of hypomania—very similar to ADHD actually). I found a few examples on the Internet, but it mostly seems to be people's confusion from the word hypomania.

I dont think its a definite diagnosable thing, but an extreme end of hypo. I know of one person that supposedly had it, and I posted a youtube video of him. So I didnt want to do it twice. As it touches on religion as well, I didnt want to tangle it up in this topic as it would veer the subject badly. If you cannot find it, I can link you in a private message.

The prefix hyper-, meaning "above" would make more sense than hypo-, which means "below".

Hypomania refers to a mood episode that's below mania in severity. It's like minor depression, which is no longer a diagnostic category of its own (it's now under depressive disorder NOS).

That's Voltaire.

I would think hypermania would refer to a very case of mania instead of a case of mania just a little more severe than hypomania. Manic episodes are the sort that require hospitalization, interruption to job/school/family life, or possibly incarceration. Hypomania is not that disruptive. Full-blown manic episodes themselves can run the gamut of severity from disruptive but fairly mild to severe manic episodes with psychotic features (hallucinations, delusions) that have wild, uncontrolled behavior, impulsive violence, ranting in the street, etc.

While the cultish leaders often display grandiose exaggerations of themselves, so did Jesus. He said he was the son of God. I don't know how much more grandiose it gets than that. On one hand I do believe that everyone contains the god particle so to speak. Jesus's followers do take it literally that he was the one and only son of God. So, let's stop cherry picking and start calling things by their real names. Was he schizophrenic or was he the real deal. If he was the real thing then who is to say that more people can't become like him?

I was mainly pointing to the idea that prophets, saints, shamans, high priests and oracles believe the voices in their heads and attribute them to messages from angels, demons, gods and so forth. Joan of Arc would be a schizophrenic today. However, her visions proved to be real so who is to say that the way she thought was good or crazy? If you heard voices that told you things it doesn't mean that you are narcissitic but it does mean that many psychiatrists would prescribe meds for this sort of brain abnormality. Visions are often called hallucinations but in the past they weren't so readily dismissed if in fact these visions proved to have some merit in the outer world. Same goes for auditory hallucinations. By this standard, all the Tibetan monks are schizophrenic because they dedicated their lives to listening to this inner world of voices, visions, and emotional states of ecstasy that are described as oneness with God.

As with everything, there are many roots to belief systems. Politics played a heavy hand in forming religions. Now, the new religion is scientism. Any belief system that causes one to feel smarter or better in any way has dangerous power.

My kitten destroys and then recreates the universe every Thursday.


You do realize you're using a computer, one of the evils of 'scientism', to type this, right?


More like you have no understanding of it, more than that it conflicts with your own worldview, so you try to pull it down to the low level you are on yourself. It's not succeding, to say the least.

I've heard epilepsy mentioned for Joan of Arc and Mohammed.

For Jesus, it's hard to separate what was written about him years later and removed by several degrees from the source (i.e., the New Testament) from the so-called historical Jesus. The man's teachings have been twisted every which way over the millennia.