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?

Does the Christian God experience any other emotion than the love of his creation and its creatures? If God experienced anger, for example, would that be a character flaw?

So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this. I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine. I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss. Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief." When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer. While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – *not* just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?"

The *Summa Theologica* contains the following quote when considering "Whether God is composed of matter and form?": > Objection 2. Further, anger, joy and the like are passions of the composite. But these are attributed to God in Scripture: "The Lord was exceeding angry with His people" (Ps. 105:40). Therefore God is composed of matter and form. Aquinas rejects this view by saying that the team's description of God's emotions are anthropomorphic (it's referred to as anger because it has a similar effect to anger, for example). However, I do notice that he did not argue that something which has emotions is not necessarily composite, which suggests that he may not disagree with that statement. I'm somewhat baffled by it, though; why are emotions only characteristic of composite entities?

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 question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/12029/50422 , the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/12034/50422) affirms: > But the witness of the Holy Ghost is testimony from God's spirit directly to yours. It's a very personal affair, and it didn't happen to someone else. It happened to you, and you know what you received from the Lord, and no alternate interpretation from some other person who hasn't experienced it can change the reality of that witness. Simply put, it's the only truly trustworthy evidence there is, because it comes directly from the only perfectly trustworthy source there is. > > As to how one is supposed to recognize the answer, this will probably sound like a cop-out, but the best answer is "you'll know it when it happens." The problem is that any description requires a common frame of reference, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is a unique experience that isn't like anything that would be familiar to anyone who doesn't already have experience with it. **It's often described as a strong feeling of peace, and a sensation of warmth, a "burning in your bosom" to use the scriptural language, but it's not the same as physical heat**. But once one has experienced it, they truly know that they have received a testimony from the Lord. Seconding the answer above, [mormonwiki](http://www.mormonwiki.org/Burning_in_the_bosom.html) affirms the following: > One of the foundations of Mormonism is its insistence that a person seek the truth by praying for a private, special revelation from the Holy Spirit > >> "In answer to our prayers, the Holy Ghost will teach us through our feelings and thoughts... Heavenly Father will answer their prayers, typically through feelings of their hearts and thoughts in their minds." (Preach the Gospel, p. 39; this is the "2004 handbook utilized by the Mormon missionaries") > > **What they receive is sometimes called a burning in the bosom as a confirmation of truth**. Mormons frequently appeal to James 1:5 for this, especially given that their founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that this was the verse and method he used for finding the truth. This is often accompanied by the insistence that one suspend judgment of his or her religion (even in the face of its historical and theological problems) **until he or she has read the Book of Mormon and received, by prayer, a special revelation from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness**. (*) All emphasis mine. **Question**: Do other Christian denominations/groups have an equivalent concept to Mormonism's *burning in the bosom*, or at least acknowledge that similar experiences are legitimate and truly happen from time to time?

My question is motivated a recent realization of a concrete example. In Tibetan Buddhism there is a spiritual practice known as *Tummo*. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tummo) : > Tummo is also a tantric practice for inner heat, developed around the concept of the female deity. It is found in the Six Dharmas of Naropa, Lamdre, Kalachakra. and Anuyoga teachings of Vajrayana. The purpose of tummo is to gain control over body processes during the completion stage of 'highest yoga tantra' (Anuttarayoga Tantra) or Anuyoga. > ### Practice > Inner heat (gtum mo, skt. \chandali, literally meaning "fierce, hot or savage woman") practice is the foundation for the rest of the six dharmas and is the first of the six dharmas. This practice works with the subtle body (also known as the vajra-body) system of channels (nadis), winds (lung, vayu), drops (bindus) and chakras. Through inner heat, the vital winds are caused to enter into the central channel (avadhuti), causing the four blisses or joys which is then unified with the wisdom that understands emptiness. > > This practice is a kind of pranayama, that generally involves sitting with a straight back, visualizing the channels, holding the breath deep in the abdomen for extended periods (called "vase breath", kumbhaka), then applying visualization of a fiery short stroke AH syllable on the navel. This practice leads the vitals winds into the central channel, where they are said to melt the drops (bindus, which are tiny spheres of subtle energy) causing great bliss. This powerful bliss experience "is said to constitute a similitude of the actual bliss experienced in spiritual awakening (byang chub, bodhi)." > > According to Glenn Mullin, tantric scriptures state that the tantric bliss experienced in this practice is "a hundred times more intense than ordinary sexual orgasm, [and] gives rise to a special state of consciousness." This ecstatic state of mind is then used to contemplate emptiness. This "ecstasy conjoined with (the wisdom of) emptiness" is what is referred to as Mahamudra ('Great Seal'). > Tilopa's verses of the six dharmas briefly outlines the practice as follows: > >> The yogic body, a collection of energy channels, coarse and subtle, possessing the energy fields, is to be brought under control. The method begins with the physical exercises. The vital airs [i.e., energies] are drawn in, filled, retained and dissolved. There are the two side channels, the central channel avadhuti, and the four chakras. Flames rise from the chandali fire at the navel. **A stream of nectar drips down from the syllable HAM at the crown, invoking the four joys**. There are four results, like that similar to the cause, and six exercises that expand them. Notice the emphasized sentence: *A stream of nectar drips down from the syllable HAM at the crown, invoking the four joys*. I couldn't help but notice a striking similarity between this description and the way some Christians describe the ecstatic experience of "the anointing of the Holy Spirit" being poured over their heads. Below some examples: > [blog post extract] > > Now I know some people reading this may not have experienced one of those beautifully sweet times when the Holy Spirit broods over worship. He’s light permeating the darkest recesses of your soul, **warm oil anointing your head, and love overflowing your heart. No words fully describe the naked encounter of your person with the person of the Holy Spirit**. > > [comment by one of the readers] > > STEVE MILLER > Dan, Thank you for all you have written here. I teach Bible students, and have been sharing some written testimonies with them of moments when the anointing or presence of **the Holy Spirit has been experienced by believers as like warm oil or honey falling on the head physically**. So I am engaged with your phrase **“warm oil anointing your head”**. May I ask: **Are you saying you have felt the Holy Spirit as if like oil poured physically on your head**? Do you know others who speak this way about feeling the Holy Spirit as if He can sometimes be physically felt like warm oil? It would help me in my work to learn more about what you write here. Best, Steve Miller, Canterbury, UK > > ([source](http://ceruleansanctum.com/2007/02/when-the-spirit-falls.html)) (blog post + comments) > [...] and **I felt the anointing**, I felt like **warm oil that just went from my head all the way down to my body, all the way down my legs, it was just like warm oil, and all of a sudden I had waves and waves of pure joy just bubbling out of me** [...] > ([source](https://youtu.be/J9UKjLzaqzw?t=153)) (video + timestamp) > [...] as soon as I said it I got the most amazing feeling [...] **it was like someone pouring oil or warm honey from the top of my head and it just sort of slowly moved down my body**, **and as it was going down I just felt the warmth, just pure love, pure joy, pure peace**. I'd never felt it [...] > ([source](https://youtu.be/4bRh9ETHGx4?t=868)) (video + timestamp) > [...] when I felt that sun on the back of my head it was **nothing but joy**, [...] **and I felt the oil all over the top of my head and going down my neck and my shoulders**, and I literally remember taking my hand and, like, feeling, like making sure ... **it literally felt like there was physical oil on me**, that's how it felt, **so warm, and it was like it was pouring all over the top of my head**, and I kid you guys not, in my whole 31 years of life, I never experienced anything like that. And, I just get emotional thinking about it [...] > ([source](https://youtu.be/NaP46VivN0g?t=411)) (video + timestamp) #### Question How do Christians view and explain these similarities? I see some possibilities: - Tibetan Buddhism's interpretation is right, and Christians who have reported the "anointing" experience were unknowingly tapping into their *subtle body (also known as the vajra-body) system of channels (nadis), winds (lung, vayu), drops (bindus) and chakras*. - Christianity's interpretation is right, and Tibetan Buddhists have been unknowingly experiencing the anointing of the Holy Spirit. - Both interpretations are wrong, and there is a common neurophysiological explanation for these similar experiences across different religions. - Some other explanation. Of course, one could generalize this discussion to any other spiritual experiences that are similarly described across different religions (experiences of joy, love, etc.) ____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84362/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84545/50422

The [brahmaviharas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara) are four sublime mental states recognized by Buddhism and for which there exist different meditative practices designed to cultivate them. Concretely, the brahmaviharas are: 1. [Metta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitr%C4%AB) (*loving kindness*): wishing the happiness / well-being of all conscious beings. 2. [Karuna](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karu%E1%B9%87%C4%81) (*compassion*): wishing the end of suffering for all conscious beings. 3. [Mudita](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudita) (*sympathetic joy*): rejoicing when a conscious being (oneself or other) is experiencing well-being (the opposite of envy). 4. [Upekkha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upek%E1%B9%A3%C4%81) (*equanimity*): *"To practice upekkha is to be unwavering or to stay neutral in the face of the eight vicissitudes of life—which are otherwise known as the eight worldly winds or eight worldly conditions: loss and gain, good-repute and ill-repute, praise and censure, and sorrow and happiness"*. I understand that it is also associated with the ability to stay in the present moment, in a state of serene mindfulness. **Question**: Are there equivalent concepts in Christianity for the four brahmaviharas? My own educated guess would be that *metta* and *karuna* have probably a lot of overlap with the concept of *love* in Christianity, but I'm not really sure if we can call that a perfect equivalence. Likewise, I'm not quite sure if we can find perfect equivalences for *mudita* and *upekkha*. I know that *joy* exists as a virtue in Christianity, it is in fact explicitly mentioned as part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), but can we really say that the Christian concept of *joy* is similar to Buddhism's *sympathetic joy*? Perhaps praising God could be seen as a form of sympathetic joy towards God, as one rejoices about God's good qualities? And what about the sublime state of *equanimity*, and all this present moment awareness and mindfulness that are so popular nowadays? What would be its equivalent in Christianity?

Can God for example sigh? Can He grieve? Can He burn with anger? All of these examples in some form have Bible backing. Or are these merely metonymic figures of speech, metaphors?

Romans 8:26-27 (ESV): > 26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, **but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words**. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is **the mind of the Spirit**, because **the Spirit intercedes for the saints** according to the will of God. This is one of the most commonly cited passages as evidence ***for*** the personhood of the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/44245/50422)) , probably because of the following reasons: - The Holy Spirit is said to be able to intercede (i.e. pray) for the saints. - And not just intercede, but intercede with groanings too deep for words (indicative of emotions?) - Moreover, the Holy Spirit is explicitly said to have a mind (*the mind of the Spirit*, v27). In short, the passage appears to be saying that the Holy Spirit has (1) a mind, (2) emotions and (3) the ability to pray/intercede. **Question**: How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27 and make sense of all this?

A pattern I've noticed after watching many Christian conversion testimonies is that plenty of them report feeling the presence of God in a life-changing manner at the moment of conversion or maybe not long after. For illustrative purposes, I will list below some of the testimonies that in my opinion are the most reliable (i.e. they are very likely being honest and not making up stories) and impressive, along with a short summary/paraphrase of what each testimony says. In case you may want to watch the testimonies yourself, I'm including the links with timestamps so that you can jump directly to the parts where the relevant experiences are narrated. 1. [From model/to New Age witchcraft/To saved by Jesus Christ](https://youtu.be/Ur8fDYKb0ZY?t=1441) : after water baptism, she was lying in bed at night and suddenly was overwhelmed by a feeling of holiness, love, joy. She also had tears of joy and had a vision of the air as gold. For more details, please watch the video. 2. [New Age to Christianity // My Supernatural Experience with God](https://youtu.be/5bgZIBkS9qQ?t=819) : she prayed to Jesus in the bathroom, and suddenly an "atmospheric peace" engulfed her. She describes it as the most supernatural experience she ever had in her life. Afterwards, she reports having both an "inner knowing" and the feeling that the Holy Spirit entered her, and then reports her life completely changing. 3. [From New Age to Jesus - My Unexpected Encounter with God](https://youtu.be/4bRh9ETHGx4?t=827) : she prayed the sinner's prayer, asking God to become the ruler of her life. A minute after the prayer, she says: *"I felt this incredible feeling, coming from the top of my head [...] it was like someone pouring oil or warm honey from the top of my head, and just sort of slowly moved down my body, and as it was going down I felt the warmth, just pure love, pure joy, pure peace [...]"*. She also claims that the feeling was *"a whole nother level"* above anything she had experienced before in the New Age. 4. [Testimony of Andres Bisonni. Daystar Television Network](https://youtu.be/2o6-Jb2Pv14?t=132) : he visited Argentina during a revival and was hungry for having an encounter with the Holy Spirit after hearing encouraging testimonies from fellow Christians in a youth conference. While in a bus, someone prayed for him and suddenly he experienced the following: *"[...] it's almost impossible to describe with words, but I felt this love being poured into my heart, and this like heat that came and surrounded me, this supernatural presence embraced me [...]"*. 5. [Paul Washer- The Presence of God](https://youtu.be/aWDZW0at068?t=186) : simply put, after months of seeking an encounter in a prayer closet, one night he was suddenly visited by the presence of God, which he perceived as glorious and making him vividly aware of his sin initially but then turning into an overwhelming joy that led to spontaneous praises. Some common themes I observe in these and other testimonies: * The experience of peace, joy and love. * Describing the experience as something that surpasses anything experienced before (including people who were previously involved in meditation and other spiritual practices). * Describing the experience as something "atmospheric" or that "surrounds" or "embraces" the individual, as if submerged into something. * Sometimes the feeling of heat or warmth is reported. * Sometimes the feeling of a holy presence (a sense of holiness) is reported. * Most individuals describe the experience as life-changing. Is there any biblical support for this experience? Are there records in the Bible of individuals having encounters with the presence of God who reported feelings or symptoms that resemble the ones reported by these and other testimonies?

Having attended a number of churches, at least one of which claimed to be 'non-denominational,' I have been subjected to listening to this teaching, which I have seen used to try to convince people that they should completely ignore all their feelings, whether they be feelings of physical or emotional pain or of joy, and simply adhere to the teachings of the Bible regardless. At worst, this means someone feeling terrible pain and sickness being told they have been healed by the stripes of Yeshua and just to thank Him for that without changing anything else in their lives. One scripture I've heard quoted to support such a reading is: > For we walk by faith, not by sight. (2 Cor 5.7) I'm just wondering if anyone knows of any others and furthermore, if anyone knows of any examples of the reasoning from the scriptures used by people who claim to believe the Bible and read it in this way.

According to Thomas Aquinas, does "love" towards something ***always*** bring "desire" towards that something?

According to a Doctor of Church (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas), is feeling nostalgic a sin? I think it is, because saints have advocated detachment from the world, and it is a constant theme of even Christ Himself to detach our hearts from all worldly things and keep our conversation in heaven, as St. Paul reiterated.

We read about God's emotions, e.g., anger in Exodus 4:14 or in Exodus 22:23. Does it mean that God's behavior is influenced by those emotions? How is it compatible with his transcendence, i.e., is he independent of the material universe at this point if people can irritate him? Biblical argumentation expected; Catholic position welcome.

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus definition: > Beat your breast/chest
To show how sad or guilty you feel in an obvious or public way I understand what is meant by beating one's breast, but why is this the preferred way to express sadness and/or guilt? Apes beat their breasts also, but not with the same aim. > ## Isaiah 32:12-13 (ESV) ## Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine, for the soil of my people growing up in thorns and briers, yes, for all the joyous houses in the exultant city. > ## Luke 18:13 (ESV) ## But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ > ## Luke 23:48 (ESV) ## And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beat-your-breast-chest

In the Catechism of RCC #2357 is written that homosexuals can't have a true affective sexual relationship: >They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity > > [CCC - 2357](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm) But what is meant by that? I know that it is a sin for them to have sex because there is no sexual complementarity. But why isn't it possible to have genuine affective complementarity? In my understanding affection is often associated with a feeling or type of love. But does RCC says that there can't be love between two persons of the same sex?

I repeatedly hear Western Christians repudiate mysticism. This post is NOT about the merits or dangers of Christian mysticism. Another question addresses that sufficiently. This question deals with whether or not Western Christians are accurately defining mysticism. It seems that what is often called 'mysticism' by Western Christians is actually what might be better called 'emotionalism.' This is evidenced by the fact that mysticism always seems to be presented as the opposite extreme of rationalism (which implies that mysticism must be irrational). It seems that the trend of creating this dichotomy began historically in Western culture in the Romantic period. But is mysticism the same thing as emotionalism or is this a false dichotomy that we have inherited from Romanticism? Why or why not? If not, what definition would you offer for it? Any sources from Christian history (east or west) would also be appreciated when addressing this question.

The book of Proverbs, and several other places in the Bible, mention the "fear of the Lord". > **Proverbs 9:10 ** (ESV) > The **fear of the Lord** is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. In other contexts, such as when God spoke to Abraham, he said "fear not". > **Genesis 15:1 ** (ESV) > After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “**Fear not**, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” In yet other contexts, the "fear of the Lord" is praised as a great thing. > **Isaiah 33:6 ** (ESV) > and he will be the stability of your times, > abundance of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge; > the **fear of the Lord** is Zion's treasure. What is the difference in these context and in what sense are Christians supposed to "fear" the Lord?

I know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we humans would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"? I am asking this because in Catholic church, God's love is "caritas". "caritas" is love that is in will that is not dependent on emotion. And I am having a problem with it. I take "caritas" as love without genuine affection towards its recipients, a.k.a. "cold love". Like, I sometimes hear Christians saying "I love my neighbour, but I don't like them"; they perform various acts of charity for their neighbours, but they don't like their neighbour. They do acts of charity in their commitment to keep the commandments, but if there is no commandments, they would rather not carry out the charity for their neighbours. In terms of "caritas", such Christian do love his neighbour through his action, yet such love is love without genuine affection towards its recipients. I would call it "a cold love"; I also feel that such love is a fake love - love missing its essence. And sometimes I do wonder if God's love for me ("caritas") is, in fact, a cold love. so my question is: ***I do know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"?*** (I know that God doesn't experience emotions like affection, but I am wondering if the nature of God's love for me includes ***what we humans would call*** "a constant, strong, and genuine affection" ) Please answer according to Catholic understanding of God's love.