The problem of **theodicy** is the answer to the question of God's justice posed by the evil plainly observable in the world: If God is all-powerful, he has the power to prevent evil. If God is all-knowing, he knows that evil is happening and how to prevent. How, then, can God be just if he does not prevent evil when he could? It's very popular to answer this with the idea of of **free will**. God could prevent evil, but he allows people to do evil because our free choice to do or not do evil is necessary in order for us to genuinely do good. In particular for us to have genuine love for God we must have a free choice with the possibility of not loving him. I'm surprised by how commonly people find this an emotionally satisfying answer to the theodicy problem; to me it doesn't help at all. When I first heard it, it seemed strikingly hollow to me. And it still does today. (Please note I'm only talking here about the emotional appeal, not the intellectual appeal.) First of all, it doesn't seem relevant to the theodicy problem. "People have free will, therefore God is justified in not stopping evil" seems like an obvious non sequitur. Free will doesn't generally justify non-intervention in our day-to-day lives. For instance, a police officer who failed to stop an active shooter could not make the excuse that doing so would have interfered with the shooter's free will, nor could the officer defend his own justice by saying that the only way for people to freely obey the law is if they also have the free uncoerced option not too. While it's certainly desirable for people to freely choose to follow the law, I don't see why one would infer from that that it's better not to enforce the law. In the same vein, I note that loving parents regularly interfere with their children's free choice in order to protect them from harm. A father who allowed his child to walk off a cliff when he could have prevented it would be arrested, and couldn't defend himself by saying that he was respecting his child's free choice. Secondly, the claim that genuine love requires the real possibility of not loving seems artificial to me. I don't think I've heard love defined that way outside of this specific context, and it does not seem to apply anywhere else in Christian theology. For instance, we believe that the persons of the Holy Trinity are all mutually loving one another. We would surely never say that the Father's love for the Son is not genuine, nor would we say that the Father might possibly not love the Son. But if neither of those is true, then it cannot be the case that genuine love requires the genuine possibility of not loving. Similarly, isn't the future we look forward to in the Resurrection a future wherein we no longer have the possibility of sinning? But surely we cannot say that in the New Heavens and New Earth we will no longer have free will. And even in popular usage, we often talk about "love" without thinking about whether there is the possibility of not loving. E.g. when I tell my mom I love her, neither of us are thinking that it necessarily entails the possibility it could have been otherwise. I'm sure free will theodicists would say that that is implicit, but it certainly isn't close to the top of mind in most situations. It's not how I *normally* think about love. I am certainly aware that it's possible to philosophize your way out of those problems. This is not intended to be a refutation of free will theodicy, I am simply explaining why it's counterintuitive to me. The solutions to these problems require complex, sophisticated arguments which sacrifice the simple satisfaction that so many people find in free will theodicy. **My question is primarily psychological:** I want to understand why the free will theodicy is appealing. Is it that people generally don't consider these objections, which appear to me to be both obvious and catastrophic? I'm skeptical of that because I don't believe I'm that much smarter than average. Or are the philosophical answers to them actually obvious and straightforward? I'm skeptical of that too because I don't think I'm that much stupider than average. I'd like to believe there is some other explanation which I'm not thinking of. For instance, perhaps there is a better framing of free will theodicy which shifts the intuition such that my objections don't seem so severe. I could imagine that might be possible without requiring too much complexity to be easily understood. **I'm not asking for an explanation that is both airtight and simple**. That's too much to ask from any theological idea. Rather, I'd like to see a simple explanation that doesn't have *obvious* holes. Or if that's not possible, then I'd like to understand the psychology a little better of those who are satisfied by free will theodicy. Perhaps the objections that seem natural to me appear forced? Or perhaps they really do find the sophisticated philosophical defenses of free will theodicy emotionally compelling even though the simple explanation isn't (except as a summary of something more complex)? ---- I apologize if this sounds like a "gotcha" question, but it is a genuine concern for me. Many people I meet put a lot of stake in free will theodicy and I'd like to understand why a little better. Also, to be perfectly clear, I don't believe free will theodicy is a useless or anti-Biblical idea. But I see it as a minor plank or supplementary to a broader theodicy, not as the primary defense of God's justice.

It seems that those who attack the veracity of the Christian faith also dislike the faith on a qualitative level. They dislike what it fundamentally is about. Similarly, it seems that those who support the veracity of the Christian faith value the faith on a qualitative level. They cherish what it fundamentally is about. I am very curious to learn of any exceptions to this. I think someone who sees the faith as so good that it is worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to belief. Someone who sees the faith as essentially bad and not worth believing in would probably not need extensive evidentialist support as a precursor to disbelief. (This is not to undermine the value of evidence.) A quote by Thomas Nagel comes to mind: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."

I was reading a while back and wanted to piece together these two ideas in my head. But as I think more about it the cognitive dissonance only increases. Non-Christians can experience "ego death" (see this [*Wikipedia* section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death#Jungian_psychology)) , but "death to sin" happens *after* salvation, which means the two concepts don't fully overlap. But then, how can these two seemingly identical processes be justified to occur at different "stages of development" for different people? I hope this is clear enough of an inquiry. A passage that comes to mind is Romans 6:11 (and a few other verses in the same chapter, as well): >"So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" - Romans 6:11 (NET)

I'm referring to T.M. Luhrmann's book *[When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275)* . The book's synopsis states: > A bold approach to understanding the American evangelical experience from an anthropological and psychological perspective by one of the country's most prominent anthropologists. > > Through a series of intimate, illuminating interviews with various members of the Vineyard, an evangelical church with hundreds of congregations across the country, Tanya Luhrmann leaps into the heart of evangelical faith. Combined with scientific research that studies the effect that intensely practiced prayer can have on the mind, When God Talks Back examines how normal, sensible people—from college students to accountants to housewives, all functioning perfectly well within our society—can attest to having the signs and wonders of the supernatural become as quotidian and as ordinary as laundry. Astute, sensitive, and extraordinarily measured in its approach to the interface between science and religion, Luhrmann's book is sure to generate as much conversation as it will praise. Have Evangelical Christians published reviews of this book? If so, how do they respond to the way Luhrmann describes and theorizes about their relationship with God? --- **Appendix - A big quote from *When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*, Kindle Edition** > I grew up among all these good people whom I loved, and I saw that some of them took there to be something in the world that the others did not see, and their mutual incomprehension seemed deeper and more powerful than just knowing different information about the world. Later on, when I became a professor and taught a seminar on divinity and spirituality, I saw again the blank incomprehension that had startled me when I was young—decent, smart, empathic people who seemed to stare at each other across an abyss. **The skeptics did not understand the believers, and the believers did not understand the skeptics. They did not even know how to get from here to there.** > > **I set out many years ago to understand how God becomes real for modern people. I chose an example of the style of Christianity that would seem to make the cognitive burden of belief most difficult: the evangelical Christianity in which God is thought to be present as a person in someone’s everyday life, and in which God’s supernatural power is thought to be immediately accessible by that person**. The Vineyard Christian Fellowship is a new denomination, a few decades old, and it represents this shift in the American imagination of God. These Christians speak as if God interacts with them like a friend. He speaks to them. He listens to them. He acts when they pray to him about little mundane things, because he cares. **This kind of Christianity seems almost absurdly vivid to someone who grew up in a mainstream Protestant church**; when I first encountered it, I imagined that people thought of God as if he were a supernatural buddy with a thunderbolt. > > The Americans in this church are ordinary Americans. They are typically middle class, but one finds very wealthy and very poor people in the congregations. They are typically white, but the congregations include many minorities. Most participants are college-educated. The church took form in California, but there are now more than six hundred churches across the country and as many as fifteen hundred around the world. The Vineyard is arguably the most successful example of what one sociologist has called new paradigm Protestantism, the infusion of a more intensely expressive spirituality into white, middle-class Christianity. **This style of spirituality has also been called neo-Pentecostal because it represents the adoption of a Pentecostal ethos, and its flamboyant emphasis on the direct experience of God, into a form acceptable to the white mainstream**. Another name is renewalist. According to a recent survey, nearly one-quarter of all Americans embrace a Christian spirituality in which congregants experience God immediately, directly, and personally. The Vineyard typifies this powerful new impulse in American spirituality. > > For over two years, I went to weekly services at a Vineyard in Chicago, attended local conferences and special worship sessions, joined a weekly house group for a year, and formally interviewed more than thirty members of the church about their experience of God. That is the anthropological method: we anthropologists learn, or at least we try to learn, from the inside out. We observe, we participate, and we converse, for hours and hours on end. After several years in Chicago, I moved to California and found another Vineyard to join. Again I joined a small group that met weekly, and again I went to conferences and retreats, and I interviewed congregants willing to talk to me about God. I was there for over two years. Members of these churches became my friends and confidants. I liked them. I thought they liked me. They knew I was an anthropologist, and as they came to know me, they became comfortable talking with me at length about God. I have sought to understand what they said. > > **What I have to offer is an account of how you get from here to there**. The tool of an anthropologist’s trade is careful observation—participant observation, a kind of naturalist’s craft in which one watches what people do and listens to what they say and infers from that how they come to see and know their world. I am, more precisely, a psychological anthropologist: I add to my toolkit the experimental method of the psychologist, which I use to explore the constraints on the way people make meaning. At one point I ran a psychological experiment, to test whether my hunch that spiritual practice had an impact on the mind’s process was true. (It was.) But mostly I watched and I listened, and I tried to understand as an outsider how an insider to this evangelical world was able to experience God as real. > > It didn’t have much to do with belief per se. Skeptics sometimes imagine that becoming a religious believer means acquiring a belief the way you acquire a new piece of furniture. You decide you need a table for the living room, so you purchase it and get it delivered and then you have to rearrange everything, but once it’s done, it’s done. **I did not find that being or becoming a Christian was very much like that. The propositional commitment that there is a God—the belief itself—is of course important. In some ways it changes everything, and the furniture of the mind is indeed distinctively rearranged. But for the people I spent time with, learning to know God as real was a slow process, stumbling and gradual, like learning to speak a foreign language in an unfamiliar country, with new and different social cues.** > > **In fact, what I saw was that coming to a committed belief in God was more like learning to do something than to think something. I would describe what I saw as a theory of attentional learning—that the way you learn to pay attention determines your experience of God. More precisely, I will argue that people learn specific ways of attending to their minds and their emotions to find evidence of God, and that both what they attend to and how they attend changes their experience of their minds, and that as a result, they begin to experience a real, external, interacting living presence**. > > **In effect, people train the mind in such a way that they experience part of their mind as the presence of God**. **They learn to reinterpret the familiar experiences of their own minds and bodies as not being their own at all—but God’s. They learn to identify some thoughts as God’s voice, some images as God’s suggestions, some sensations as God’s touch or the response to his nearness. They construct God’s interactions out of these personal mental events, mapping the abstract concept “God” out of their mental awareness into a being they imagine and reimagine in ways shaped by the Bible and encouraged by their church community**. **They learn to shift the way they scan their worlds, always searching for a mark of God’s presence, chastening the unruly mind if it stubbornly insists that there is nothing there. Then they turn around and allow this sense of God—an external being they find internally in their minds—to discipline their thoughts and emotions. They allow the God they learn to experience in their minds to persuade them that an external God looks after them and loves them unconditionally.** > > **To do this, they need to develop a new theory of mind**. That phrase—theory of mind—has been used to describe the way a child learns to understand that other people have different beliefs and goals and intentions. The child learns that people have minds, and that not everything the child knows in his or her mind is known by other people. Christians must also learn new things about their minds. **After all, to become a committed Christian one must learn to override three basic features of human psychology: that minds are private, that persons are visible, and that love is conditional and contingent upon right behavior.** These psychological expectations are fundamental. To override them without going mad, people must develop a way of being in the world that is able to sustain the violations in relation to God—but not other humans. They do it by paying attention to their minds in new ways. They imagine their minds differently, and they give significance to thoughts and feelings in new ways. > > **These practices work. They change people. That is, they change mental experience, and those changes help people to experience God as more real. The practices don’t work for everyone, and they do not work for each person to the same extent, but there are real skills involved here, skills that develop a psychological capacity called *absorption* that perhaps evolved for unrelated reasons, but that helps the Christian to experience that which is not materially present. These skills and practices make what is absent to the senses present in the mind**. > > To say this is not to say that God is an illusion. I am pointing out the obvious: that the supernatural has no natural body to see, hear, or smell. To know God, these Christians school their minds and senses so that they are able to experience the supernatural in ways that give them more confidence that what their sacred books say is really true. > > *Luhrmann, T.M.. When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.*

I've heard the expression "to be on fire for God/Jesus/Christ" several times. A quick search can turn up many examples, for instance: > "Please help. I'm so confused, Pastor Tim. I made a profession of faith several years ago. **I was on fire for Jesus**, loved Him, felt His presence with me... I think. Over several years, the zeal lessened and the harder days of Christian life came. I battled with pornography, pride, and doubting. I was in the fight of faith and glad to be. But then discouragement set in, and I slowly neglected prayer and Scripture reading and the battles became harder." > > Source: https://illbehonest.com/was-i-deceived-by-a-false-profession > Pray with me, please. Breathe on me, breath of God, and **set my soul on fire**. Amen. > > I choose to call this sermon “Spiritual Arson: **Setting the World on Fire for Christ**.” God willing, as the sermon unfolds, you will come to understand the reason for the title. > > Source: https://thewordmadefresh.org/sermons/spiritual-arson-setting-the-world-on-fire-for-christ/ > 5 ways to **get on fire for God** > > **Have you lost your fire**? Did you once **burn brightly for Jesus** where you would have done anything for Him, and yet now going to church once a week seems a rather difficult commitment? Do you ever think perhaps one day I’ll **get my fire back** and really serve God but right now I’m happy to just go through the motions of nominal Christianity? If so does it bother you that you’ve settled into this lifestyle? In first world suburbia it’s quite easy to fall into this rut, but I want to tell you how you can get out of it, and **get back to burning hot for Jesus** all the days of your life. > > Source: https://www.newnatureministries.org/blog-post/5-ways-to-get-on-fire-for-god/ What do Christians who use this expression normally mean by it? Is it merely a statement about their personal psychological state (emotions), or does it carry a deeper theological/spiritual significance, denoting some kind of profound spiritual state that every Christian should strive to attain? Lastly, is there a Biblical basis for this concept?

The responses and reactions elicited by the question [Is Christianity testable?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/105659/66156) on Philosophy Stack Exchange have been quite insightful. In particular, I would like to bring the reader's attention to two highly upvoted comments: > Plenty of such anecdotes can be found about other religions too. Even straight up cults like scientology. Are those also true? What is more even if we granted the fact that belief in Christianity or reading the new testament helps people put their life together, it is no proof of divine origin as such thing can be obtained by mundane means too. This is highly unserious on the part of Lennox. (41 upvotes) > So, Lennox has discovered the Placebo effect? Congratulations to him for this discovery. (9 upvotes) On a more serious note, the comment about the placebo effect prompted me to conduct a cursory search for scientific articles to determine if this view has any merits from a scientific standpoint. That's how I came across this [paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130399/) , titled *Spirituality: an overlooked predictor of placebo effects?*, published in the *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* journal. The abstract asserts the following: > Empirical findings have identified spirituality as a potential health > resource. Whereas older research has associated such effects with the > social component of religion, newer conceptualizations propose that > spiritual experiences and the intrapersonal effects that are > facilitated by regular spiritual practice might be pivotal to > understanding potential salutogenesis. **Ongoing studies suggest that** > **spiritual experiences and practices involve a variety of neural** > **systems that may facilitate neural ‘top-down’ effects that are** > **comparable if not identical to those engaged in placebo responses**. **As** > **meaningfulness seems to be both a hallmark of spirituality and placebo** > **reactions**, it may be regarded as an overarching psychological concept > that is important to engaging and facilitating psychophysiological > mechanisms that are involved in health-related effects. **Empirical** > **evidence suggests that spirituality may under certain conditions be a** > **predictor of placebo response and effects**. Assessment of patients' > spirituality and making use of various resources to accommodate > patients' spiritual needs reflect our most current understanding of > the physiological, psychological and socio-cultural aspects of > spirituality, and may also increase the likelihood of eliciting > self-healing processes. We advocate the position that a research > agenda addressing **responses and effects of both placebo and** > **spirituality** could therefore be (i) synergistic, (ii) valuable to each > phenomenon on its own, and (iii) contributory to an extended placebo > paradigm that is centred around the concept of meaningfulness. > > Keywords: spirituality, spiritual practice, salutogenetic effects, > meaningfulness, placebo, neuronal top-down effects How can a case be made against the view that the Christian experience is nothing but the Placebo effect?

After reading the answers to the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/97715/61679 , I am intrigued by the observation that not all Christians report 'spiritual experiences' with God, or at least not with much regularity. For example, the author of this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/97760/61679) attests to only *rarely* having had experiences of this kind: > I became a Christian in August 1979. Since then, **I have rarely 'experienced' anything 'spiritual' in the sense you seem to mean**. For example, only this afternoon, visiting a Christian friend, we concluded with a time of open prayer in her house. At the end she said, "Oh, I really felt the presence of the Lord in the room as we prayed. It gave me the shivers" (in a nice way). I said, **"Well, I didn't sense anything, but - then - I rarely do! I can walk into a room of people where (they say) you could cut the air with a knife, but I'm oblivious to all of that."** She added that God gives people different gifts, and that somewhat explains the difference between us. She is sensitive to things I am not. Similarly, this other [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/97721/61679) states: > **Not every individual, neurotypical or not, feels metaphysical elements** > **to any appreciable degree while living out their faith in Jesus** > **Christ**. The Holy Spirit of God, which indwells those who have > received Christ Jesus and believe on his name, operates thus: > > > The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so > is every one that is born of the Spirit. - John 3:8 > > **Some are enabled by the Spirit to live out a very practical,** > **'non-mystical' life of faith wherein the fruit of the Spirit (love,** > **joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness** > **and self-control) is manifest apart from any notable "spiritual** > **experience".** Often it is others who are more aware of a special > quality within such a one than that one herself. In contrast, [Tanya Luhrmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Luhrmann) conducted an ethnographic study of American Evangelical Christians that she details in her book [*When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275) : > A bold approach to understanding the American evangelical experience > from an anthropological and psychological perspective by one of the > country's most prominent anthropologists. Through a series of > intimate, illuminating interviews with various members of the > Vineyard, an evangelical church with hundreds of congregations across > the country, Tanya Luhrmann leaps into the heart of evangelical faith. > Combined with scientific research that studies the effect that > intensely practiced prayer can have on the mind, When God Talks Back > examines **how normal, sensible people—from college students to** > **accountants to housewives, all functioning perfectly well within our** > **society—can attest to having the signs and wonders of the supernatural** > **become as quotidian and as ordinary as laundry**. Astute, sensitive, and > extraordinarily measured in its approach to the interface between > science and religion, Luhrmann's book is sure to generate as much > conversation as it will praise. Is there a theory within Christianity that explains this striking diversity in 'spiritual experiences' (or lack thereof) among Christians? --- Note: I have been told in the comments that this question can lead to highly polarized answers. Considering this, I would like to receive answers written in an objective, neutral tone presenting an overview of the main theories in dispute, in an attempt to cover the main views in this contentious topic (which I've been told has a high overlap with the cessationism/continuationism debate).

I'm currently interested in learning what American psychological anthropologist [Tanya Marie Luhrmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Luhrmann) has to say on the topic of [religious experiences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_experience) . Specifically, I'm planning on reading two of her books: [*How God Becomes Real: Kindling the Presence of Invisible Others*](https://www.amazon.com/How-God-Becomes-Real-Invisible/dp/0691164460) and [*When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*](https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Talks-Back-Understanding/dp/0307277275) . Here are the book descriptions: > ***How God Becomes Real: Kindling the Presence of Invisible Others*** > How do gods and spirits come to feel vividly real to people―as if they > were standing right next to them? Humans tend to see supernatural > agents everywhere, as the cognitive science of religion has shown. But > it isn’t easy to maintain a sense that there are invisible spirits who > care about you. In How God Becomes Real, acclaimed anthropologist and > scholar of religion T. M. Luhrmann argues that people must work > incredibly hard to make gods real and that this effort―by changing the > people who do it and giving them the benefits they seek from invisible > others―helps to explain the enduring power of faith. > > Drawing on ethnographic studies of evangelical Christians, pagans, > magicians, Zoroastrians, Black Catholics, Santeria initiates, and > newly orthodox Jews, Luhrmann notes that none of these people behave > as if gods and spirits are simply there. Rather, these worshippers > make strenuous efforts to create a world in which invisible others > matter and can become intensely present and real. The faithful > accomplish this through detailed stories, absorption, the cultivation > of inner senses, belief in a porous mind, strong sensory experiences, > prayer, and other practices. Along the way, Luhrmann shows why faith > is harder than belief, why prayer is a metacognitive activity like > therapy, why becoming religious is like getting engrossed in a book, > and much more. > > A fascinating account of why religious practices are more powerful > than religious beliefs, How God Becomes Real suggests that faith is > resilient not because it provides intuitions about gods and > spirits―but because it changes the faithful in profound ways. > ***When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God*** > A bold approach to understanding the American evangelical experience > from an anthropological and psychological perspective by one of the > country's most prominent anthropologists. Through a series of > intimate, illuminating interviews with various members of the > Vineyard, an evangelical church with hundreds of congregations across > the country, Tanya Luhrmann leaps into the heart of evangelical faith. > Combined with scientific research that studies the effect that > intensely practiced prayer can have on the mind, When God Talks Back > examines how normal, sensible people—from college students to > accountants to housewives, all functioning perfectly well within our > society—can attest to having the signs and wonders of the supernatural > become as quotidian and as ordinary as laundry. Astute, sensitive, and > extraordinarily measured in its approach to the interface between > science and religion, Luhrmann's book is sure to generate as much > conversation as it will praise. Before delving into these two books, I'm curious to hear other perspectives on the concept of engaging in spiritual practices that lead to experiencing the divine in everyday life. Is this idea commonly encouraged in most branches of Christianity, and to what extent? Does it differ among denominations?

When believers appeal to their private spiritual experiences to argue for their faith, skeptics typically respond by dismissing their stories entirely, conjecturing that these are more likely cases of hallucinations, some form of mental illness, or just mundane feelings or emotions that are being incorrectly interpreted as spiritual experiences. How do Christians make sure this is not the case? How do Christians discern genuine spiritual experiences from mundane hallucinations, emotions or other psychological phenomena with natural explanations? ____ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86467/50422

In the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus repeatedly casts out demons , speaks to them , etc. He tells his disciples to do the same. There are so many references it would be difficult to put them all here. This is not a topic that is very frequently mentioned (if at all) in my experience in the modern church (here in the USA at least). But reading the New Testament it cannot be easily glossed over. What is the church's view on demonic possession today, especially in light of modern psychology and drug therapy? Where people possessed by demons in ancient times but not today? Are people with certain types of psychological disorders (or in certain times/cases) actually possessed?

There's this article about narcissists, written from a Christian perspective, ending with claims about how ACONS can honor their nparents . One is: > We honor them by insisting that they get the professional help that they need, before they have anymore contact with us & our family members. **Question: Would the Catholic Church agree with that?** What I tried: Google shows a lot of articles about Catholicism/Christianity and narcissism, but I don't know which ones are (Catholic and) official/officially endorsed. Note: This may extends to abusive parents in general, whether or not they are narcissists. I think it would be a good partial answer to answer in the general case. Maybe it's not really different from the specific case of narcissists, hehe. --- **ETA 1**: Based on the now deleted Mormon answer provided (by JBH, iirc), it seems the answer is likely. (**Update**: See the Mormon answer .) > In general, yes, but the precise actions to be taken during estrangement or steps to be taken to become estranged or, in the first place, whether or not to become estranged must be decided with advice from a religious or mental health professional/s such as priests, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Or simply > Probably yes, but definitely seek professional advice. My guess then is that this question instead falls under a broader range of questions to which the answer is either of the above. What range of questions could this be? I'm thinking now of some church document or section entitled 'On matters pertaining to mental health, etc' --- **ETA 2**: Guess we're not ready for Catholicism SE (unlike how we've been ready for statistics SE and how we might be ready for operations research SE ) > I'm disappointed that none of our Catholic participants have been able to contribute an answer. Even a link to a Catholic social services organization would have helped.

This question is a nuanced version of my recently asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422 , this time aiming to address the 'dark side'. A very insightful [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/86135/50422) to the aforementioned question brought up an important point: > However, **if the spiritual experience is not an hallucination but a demonic trick**, then the person is in deep spiritual trouble and will need help from mature Christians. I know of such instances, but not personally. Christians should know that they are warned in the Bible that a satanic influence can appear as an 'angel of light' (2 Cor.11:14; Gal.1:8; Rev.13:13-14). A Christian's safeguard from that is to utilise the full symbolic 'armour of God' as detailed in Eph.6:10-18. **Question**: What is an overview of how Christians discern genuine instances of demonic influence (ranging from counterfeit spiritual experiences to full-blown demonic possession) from mundane mental health problems? What follows is not mandatory, but a particular case I'd like answerers to think about is that of individuals locked up in psych wards. Is it possible that people locked up in psych wards may actually be suffering from a demonic problem rather than a psychiatric one? If so, would it be possible in principle for people in psych wards to recover their soundness of mind through a process of demonic deliverance carried out by a mature Christian? _________ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/34332/50422

What do Swedenborgian Christian psychologists say about prolonged depression, Complex PTSD due to severe childhood trauma by a malicious parent, and complicated grieving?

Short version: In the context of Christianity and in particular the New Testament, is it possible to pray for something that one perceives as "bad" for oneself, and receive it? Long version: The New Testament states that "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14). Assuming "in my Name" and "Father glorified in the Son" as the two sufficient precondition for a prayer's success, is it possible to intentionally pray for something that one (initially) considers something bad (because one does not see any benefit in its execution), **and receive it?** Most prayers that I've come across have a "good" intention, i.e. the issuer of the prayer hopes a benefit of some sort (healing, wealth etc.) Then there's outright evil prayers (death upon someone else etc.). As an example for the kind of prayer I'm talking about, consider the following situation: A person desires to participate in a regular event. However, due to the nature and schedule of his work, he won't be able to do so because when the events are on, he's at work. Apart from making it somehow possible to reconcile both job and attending the events, one alternative is to accept the futility of reconciling both, and instead asking God to just remove the desire to attend those events. The only benefit lies in the fact that he doesn't struggle any longer with those desires, but that's a rather self-fulfilling benefit. On the flip side, losing an interest is something I consider something "bad" if it is not replaced with something else meaningful. I have seen many such prayers to be *seemingly* fulfilled (rather easily, with very little effort, almost immediately, universally whatever the prayer was), which is somewhat concerning, as the Father's glorification is not really clear in these cases. It seems like God opened a prayer trap, as it appears that it is easier to just pray for an increasingly empty life and receive it, rather than have it fulfilled with the joys God can give through his mercy. To draw a comparison: Rather than asking your parents for allowing to stay over at someone else's house, you give up and just never ask and never do a stay over, and accept that as normality. Rather than asking your parents to have some chocolate, you give up and just never ask, and never eat chocolate, and accept that as normality. **Where is the benefit in this?** While a single such occurrence is certainly ok in everyone's life (there *are* people who never eat chocolate), all taken together, this seems to lead to lifes not lived to their maximum capacity. **How is this reconcilable to the gift of salvation that declares Christians as the Children of God, and the mercy of God that wants to give, not take away?**

Same question as [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/46565) but Mormon instead of Catholic. --- **Edit**: Okay fine I'll try to make this self-contained. There's this article about narcissists, written from a Christian perspective, ending with claims about how ACONS can honor their nparents . One is: > We honor them by insisting that they get the professional help that they need, before they have anymore contact with us & our family members. Would the LDS/Mormon Church agree with that? Google (probably) shows a lot of articles about LDS/Mormon Church and narcissism, but I didn't bother to check because I already checked for Catholicism and narcissism, and someone in the other question has an answer for the LDS/Mormon Church. More context: Based on the deleted Mormon answer provided (by JBH, iirc) [in the other post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/46565) , it seems the answer is likely > In general, yes, but the precise actions to be taken during estrangement (**EDIT**: the estrangement is not necessarily permanently/forever) or steps to be taken to become estranged or, in the first place, whether or not to become estranged must be decided with advice from a religious or mental health professional/s such as priests, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Or simply > Probably yes, but definitely seek professional advice. My guess then is that this question instead falls under a broader range of questions to which the answer is either of the above. What range of questions could this be? I'm thinking now of some church document or section entitled 'On matters pertaining to mental health, etc'

Before I start just want to say I do not intend to offend anyone I just came to look at the Christian perspective on this question. So I was reading about a psychological study about how people believe that with pain and struggling you will end up receiving great rewards. See the article [here](https://www.behaviorist.biz/oh-behave-a-blog/suffering-just-world) . This seems like the basis of a few of the major world religions and I feel like religion may have been used to keep society under control at a time where it was far from it. Also looking at paintings historically you can see that there was a time where they tapped into religiosity and then into monotheistic religiosity which also kind of adds to the fabricated nature. In Christianity do you have any evidence that the religion is man made? Is there any psychological, philosophical or other scientific studies to back it up? What is the Biblical evidence

According to Maslow, the self-realisation is the ultimate happiness of the Man. Man is created according to the God's image. Does God have self-realisation activities? Especially I am interested in Roman Catholic teaching.

Let us say we have a priest, who is a licensed psychiatrist as well. A devout Catholic confesses their sins to said priest. The Catholic person chats with the priest, and priest asks follow-up questions like a doctor would. Priest then determines that the person is suffering from a psychological disorder, in this example, depression. From a professional/moral standpoint the penitent/"patient" should not be obligated to pay the priest for his profession, since they came to confess, not to seek medical help. But as the priest orders penance, is the priest allowed by Church law to disclose to the penitent his diagnosis, offer counseling, and/or suggest to the latter to at least seek another psychiatrist for a second opinion?

What is the Swedenborgian view of such therapies as hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming ? Is the human subconscious off-limits due to the possibility of possession by evil forces, or can it be used to bring us closer to God through meditative states similar to hypnosis?

In particular, how do reformed theologians address these questions: * Is hypnosis Biblically warranted? * Is hypnosis a form of demon possession? * Is hypnosis basically a bad idea? * Is the question of hypnosis orthogonal to Christianity? (i.e. is the question equivalent to "How do Reformed theologians think about Scala vs Clojure?")