There is no evidence for this. The evidence we have for the causes of illnesses, mental and physical, are easily verified. Unless you're suggesting "sin" is a kind of virus or bacteria or gut fauna or chemical reaction, your premise makes no sense. Your personal belief that it's true despite the evidence to the contrary is simply awkward. I don't know what to do with it. It's no different from having a discussion with a Scientologist who assures me mental health illnesses are due to untapped past experiences, influenced by thetans that are wreaking havoc with our minds. Or a Buddhist assuring me mental health illness is a matter of karma due to offenses made in past lives. I honestly don't know what to do with this. It's awfully weird. From my perspective, you've announced that you disregard information and reason and any rational approach to understanding anything insofar as it disagrees with what you want to be true. What am I supposed to do with this? By the logic of your claim "physical problem is a result of sin," we must conclude sin causes chemical imbalances, (including, like you said, those that create mental health challenges). That would be unbelievably easy to confirm. A 5th grade science fair project could set up a control group for sin with regard to chemical reactions. The entire laws of physics would be illuminated as mistakes, illusions at best. Chemistry, physics, goodness, even the mathematical explanation for all science would need to be scrapped, as "sin" would become the Most Important Variable, with the ability to negate the laws of physics at any given moment. Certain passages in the bible would be interpreted without question, there would be an end to all denominations, and One True Xian Religion would survive. Passages that state the one who is born again is impervious to temptation and does not sin, would be the criteria for all medical staff all over the world. It would be a means by which medical science would be rendered nothing more than an interesting hobby, for controlling sin (which the bible says is possible), would be the solution to problems. That is, if we took this claim seriously and actually applied the logic. But again, this is just plain awkward. Is this really the conversation you're proposing? Narcissism is a direct result of sin? If that's the case, why not simply exorcise the demons who negatively influence the individual with NPD, and persuade him or her to repent and be born again. Again and again, if necessary? I do know it. I also know xians increasingly reject certain parts of the bible as they are increasingly understood to advocate treating people in an immoral and socially unacceptable way. Some examples include human trafficking, slavery, beating children, systematic oppression of women and LGBTQ. This shows xians have a moral code that not only develops apart from the faith, but actually affects the faith. Religion claims to extract new information via divine revelation. Science, on the other hand, is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work [more here]. One claims divine revelation (god says so), the other is a systematic approach that relies on objective observation, formulating hypotheses, experimentation, collection and analysis of data, peer review of conclusions of experimentation, etc. The first is a matter of belief, the second is a matter of information. They are not compatible. In the event they are both accepted, one capitulates to the other. In time, xians generally continue to accept science by demoting divine revelation to allegory. The age of the earth is an example. Understanding mental illness is another. I'm not being obtuse, I'm simply not pretending that a religious person accepting a scientific claim means the two are compatible methods of understanding the world. One has to be silenced for the other to be accepted. For the sake of clarification, I didn't suggest science "tell you stuff is morally acceptable." I am saying science tells you stuff, a moral code (I guess philosophy?) tells you if it's acceptable to apply this stuff in that way. I'm saying that moral code exists outside of, and despite, the bible (or any religion or its documents). I would be interested in knowing specific groups of people that exist right now in the world that lack empathy or social bonds (simplified as "helping the well-being of others"). Empathy is a natural product of our evolution, and while some people may lack these elements (ie, psychopaths), entire societies do not. It would be like suggesting entire societies lack the ability to walk because some people are paralyzed. This "selfish gene" of ours is as natural as walking on two legs, or communication through speech, and refers to protecting the interests of our kin and community with the same effort with which we protect our own interests. I suspect if you provide such a group, you will attribute their behavior as immoral, and conclude they do not have morality, rather than concluding their moral code looks differently from yours. But it's quite a claim to make, an entire society lacks morality. I'd be interested in hearing who you think lacks morality, empathy, and a desire to protect the self interests of their group. As far as your other questions, some people refer to a net sum approach. Some may include individuals, some include the needs of the community, some exclude emotional consideration, some assume an eternal time frame, assuming a mind that is cognizant of it's well-being long after its body dies. We all do the same thing, more or less, but apply different variables in place. We see may identify different people as victims, or pain as being justified or not, but we approach this in the same way. Your bible didn't invent morality, it simply gave it new vocabulary (such as, "love thy neighbor as thyself" which is the selfish gene, only translated through ancient Hebrew). Your religious community moved on and evolved its moral code over the years, which is why your church community looks very different from a church community 1000 years ago on a different continent altogether, and why it looks different from other church communities today, within 100 miles of your home. I've shared it before, but I think it's always worth reviewing. Sam Harris, neurologist and philosopher, addresses the question about science and morality here: Thus far there is no evidence for anything "outside the physical." Actually, how could there be? All our methods of exploring the world rely on observing and measuring and analyzing information through physical tools. If there's something "outside the physical," we wouldn't know. We might speculate, but then any speculation would be held accountable to reality anyway, which requires physical tools. I disagree that it's "clear" that I've appealed to something "outside the physical." If you're talking more demons, then what can I do at this point but shrug my shoulders and say, "huh"? Surely I'm not appealing to the god of your bible. I find that character to be wholly devoid of moral fiber. I'm not suggesting I've performed a scientific study to conclude religion is immoral. That's an odd turn of a phrase anyway. Religion is a means by which one tries to understand the world. Its claims have been notoriously discredited throughout time, from the idea that tsunamis and hurricanes are the product of an angry Neptune, to lightning being cast down by the Mighty Hammer of Thor, to the idea Jews made a grand exodus out of Egypt, these ideas have been replaced with factual information that renders these claims to be nothing more than insightful allegories, when convenient. Scientific explanations render religious claims useless, and I think logic and reason render them immoral. The argument that science inspired lobotomies and other bad practices isn't an argument against science, and it certainly isn't an argument for religion. It's a logical fallacy, actually, but it is an illustration of practical application of knowledge, good or bad, and shows the value of increasing knowledge, as well as the value of making sure we apply knowledge carefully and considerately. But again, we agree that science doesn't make any claims to morality, so this is another awkward example. How do I suggest I am more than simply matter reacting with and upon itself? Can you give me some examples? Things are as significant as we determent them to be. A burqa is significant to a woman who genuinely desires to express her faith in a public manner, but it is of a different significance to me. There is no external source that defines the significance of things, like it's our job to find it out. Or, if there is, it certainly cannot be found with any reliability, and so anyone's guess is as good as anthers', only so far as it confirms with reality. Once a claim loses credibility by denying reality, then there's no need to continue promoting it. I believe there is utmost significance in humanity, I guess. I think the human experience is simply too awesome (as in, creates a feeling of awe) and is such a spectacular lottery of chance to be taken for granted, oppressed, or denied unjustly. I think there are certain ideas that support humanity more than others, such as free speech, free education, freedom to participate in government, and freedom from religious indoctrination, to name a few. These are ideas, open to criticism and change as benefits humanity (individually and collectively). I suppose that's the "greater scheme of things" for me, insofar as it extends beyond me and my family and immediate access. I don't think that's indicative of intelligent design though, as these concepts have been developed through the process of logical and reasonable arguments, rational thinking, and information.

I'm not talking about the biological aspects of mental illness. The founding documents of the xian religion don't mention mental health at all. Instead, it mentions "sin" and "demons" as causes to inappropriate behavior. There is zero evidence either of these are actual things. It didn't just miss the mark here, it steered it in a completely useless direction. One does negate the other. The both are competing forms of discovery and knowledge. One has a track record of being increasingly relegated to philosophy while the other has a track record of producing reliable information that can be used in practical ways. Medical science doesn't provide moral standards of any kind, but it does provide information. I maintain that our society develops its moral code increasingly outside the parameters of religion precisely because information is more appropriate than religion, and it gives us the opportunity to extend our desired, natural sympathy more. Science tells us a person's behavior is due to a specific condition, a condition that precludes the application of any demonology. Condition treated, behavior reduced. Demons exorcised, behavior unchanged. This is the basis of our moral code - what helps the well-being of others? What decreases unjustified and avoidable pain and suffering? Religious texts are not only unnecessary, they're increasingly rejected as being immoral. For example, we don't generally encourage parents to exorcise children with behavioral problems. Instead we encourage them to take their children to scientists for advice. Consequently, we are decreasingly supportive of physical means to "encourage" a child to "make a better choice," even as the bible promotes the idea that behavior is inspired by the strength of righteousness or sin inspiring the "will," and claims physical punishment may spare the child's eternal soul (which in turn results in more compliant child). Science not only dismisses this as stuff and nonsense, it offers alternatives that provide a more practical, consistent, morally acceptable approach.

I don't understand why sheriff didn't call the feds and army reserve after they stated they were taking over federal land. Why didn't he put that place under siege? No media. No cell phone towers. No power. No water. No one gets in. Everyone who gets out gets a quick ride to jail, on the taxpayers dime. I cannot understand why this thing is allowed to play out so long.

There exists no evidence of any broken state of nature, or the pre-broken state of nature from which to compare. There exists no evidence for living multiple lives, the force called "karma," or the power of the evil eye, yet one of these beliefs is more likely to be held to a standard of excellence that is taken for granted and systematically ignored when proven false by people in this community. For the same reason you might not accept the personal appeals of members on a forum that are sure Karma is a viable force that can affect your next life, I have no reason to accept your personal appeals. It's simply personal belief, and it increasingly goes against what we do know. The more we understand mental illness, the more we see biology, the process of evolution, at work, not a vague, unidentified, undefined sense of "brokenness." We address mental illnesses with information gained from methodical study, not reading ancient texts or ancient scholars explaining their interpretations of the texts. Information gleanebible stories and science are incompatible with each other. The only way to make them seem compatible is to render religious stories to allegories and symbolism. The god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller, and now he's hiding behind synapses in the brain. Churches will no doubt figure out how to keep up, or else they will lose their membership base, but if the bible actually had the answer, mental health would have been addressed two millenia ago. If the ancient texts are what they claim to be - divine revelation - then the information revealed shouldn't be found false when put to the test. As it is, there's not a single claim of divine revelation in those texts that stand up to scrutiny. At best the claims can't be confirmed or denied by science, but logically and historically, they're... problematic at best. As a whole, it's a terribly unreliable source with regard to understanding the human condition. It's off the mark in any way that that can be held accountable to reality.

Not quite. Brain chemistry tells us more about the human condition than any ancient, religious texts. If these ancient religious texts were accurate about the human condition, it wouldn't be so far off the mark with regard to mental health issues.

How do you know what claims of your faith you can trust if something as basic as "sin" can be misunderstood and misrepresented? By asking questions and exploring the answers in a systematic, objective way that works to eliminate superfluous variables and personal bias. Agreed.

No. What is it?

Anyone who speaks to various xians will quickly learn that one theology may be politely (or not) dismissed by another faithful believer. There is no one, unified xianity, but rather many, many xianitites, identified by virtue of communities, which changes according to geography and time. If someone can provide me with the Once and For All Really Right Theology, I'll read up on it. I don't mean to sound as flippant as that does, but really, this advice is logically and practically poor. Ultimately it relies on a No True Scotsman defense of the xian religion, and logical fallacies must be dismissed as being, well, useless. Linked, but not the same thing. They are, ultimately, separate components within the individual. If my arm gets gangrene, dies, and falls off, the essence of who I am is in no danger of immortal damnation, according to any theology I know of anyway. However, if my soul were to reject the god of my faith, the god of the RCC, then I've committed a "moral sin," the kind that essentially ends the "life" giving grace in my soul. Only through the sacraments of reconciliation and the eucharist can I be in communication with the church, according to what I'd learned and believed. Dying in that state means I'm cut off from any hope of salvation. The idea of "no salvation outside the church" has modified over the years to include in modern times those outside the RCC who, through no fault of their own, deny the "real truth" because they've been led to believe erroneous things. If they were to find out the truth and would pledge allegiance to Jesus (conveniently available through the process of purgatory), one may hope they can obtain salvation. Someone like me is lost forever for I have committed the unpardonable sin. There is no christ, there is no god, there is no spirit, holy or otherwise, and I make this declaration of my own free accord. My soul is in perilous danger, according to the faith I once held, but this is not so if my body is damaged. God doesn't reside in my arm, after all. The point being, you said it is untrue the Abrahamic religions do not see the mind/body thing as separate. I maintain they are believed to be separate, even as they are linked and influential towards one another. I should say I'm speaking from the experience of a former xian, and can't speak about Judaism or Islam with this regard, but if memory serves correct, it's similar enough to move on. I'm not suggesting xianity is like the bold, only that when the founding documents of the Abrahamic religions were written, mental health wasn't considered a biological property. It was a matter of the will, a separate, [i won't use the word "dualist" anymore] force that guides the body, mind and soul. For example, the "will" decides what to say, not the tongue. My question is, now that the church knows better, how does theology keep up? Your example isn't one of a spiritual consequence. All these things, finding liberty from prostitution, interpreting other people's actions and intentions, forming relationships, and developing a sense of security, among other things, are all explainable without appealing to a spirit element of any kind. This ability is separate from the physical body, in that the arms and legs don't decide to start an exercise program. However, we now understand this ability to develop intent, to make and carry out decisions come from a biological source. No brain = no decisions. My question is, now that xian community is starting to recognize that some behaviors previously understood to be "sin" are caused by biological impulses beyond the ability of some to override, how does it incorporate this new knowledge into the theology of salvation? Can someone with NPD be "saved" from eternal damnation (whatever that may be)? I maintain that theology evolves to keep up with an ever evolving moral code collectively determined by society in general, influence in no small part to new information. Just as knowledge of the theory of evolution changed the theology of original or ancestral sin by changing the understanding of the story of Adam and Eve, and intimate knowledge of people from other cultures and religions have inspired a more universalistic theology in xendom, new theories of human behavior will inspire the church to change its theology regarding the conditions for obtaining salvation. As the concept of the "will" undergoes changes to accommodate new information, the church will have to change its understanding of "sin" and subsequently, damnation/salvation. Agreed. From what I've experienced, it is generally assumed that one can pull up their bootstraps just enough to have faith. The rest of the story depends on one's religious community. Interestingly, exorcism, physically painful penances, expensive indulgences, and torture are no longer favored by church authority as they once were. This illustrates the changing moral code of the religious community. Mentally ill people are no longer subject to exorcism (at least, not in the same measure, as there are still children who die from xian exorcism). Additionally, we see this same evolution in the secular community. Mentally ill people are no longer thrown into Bedlam like institutions as there exist measurable treatments in cases once thought to be lost. Secular medicine doesn't have an answer to mental health challenges [yet], so I'm not taking this anywhere. Just observing. But secular medicine relies on the observation, collection, analysis, and review of objective data, not ancient texts to reveal information, so I think there is hope in that direction where the other direction simply follows along, changing just enough to maintain a survivable membership base. So for the church, a body that believes an individual may be subject to an eternity of pain and suffering that makes mental health challenges look like child's play in comparison, it would seem there is a desperate need to figure out whether or not a person with NPD can be "saved" from an eternity of damnation. You remind us of an expectation of bodily resurrection, and that's a reminder of the idea that the physical body would undergo eternal punishment - all day and night physical and mental torture that puts any modern, newsworthy terrorist group to shame. For eternity. It seems to be of utmost importance for the church to figure this out, in the best interests of the individual.

No, but churches are predicated on certain assumptions being true. One such assumption is the existence of an element in human behavior called "sin." This has been a major focus of inappropriate behavior for most of xianity. It turns out, "sin" is completely unprepared to address mental health challenges, and we're learning these challenges are not as uncommon as once thought. Ideally, by referring to information. Schools now recognize and address autism as a neurological issue rather than behavioral. This is one example. Understood. There are also books written about UFOs, so we know people writing about things they believe in doesn't necessarily translate to information. But sometimes they do. I take your point, ultimately. I think the idea that a person with a mental health challenge is unrepentant about their inappropriate behavior is part of the challenge as I see it. If we recognize the possibility that people with genuine NPD are incapable of recognizing their offenses (and comment after comment here attest to this idea), then how can they be expected to repent? It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where a friend is going through the 12 steps of AA and George is waiting for his apology. The friend, when confronted, finally confesses that he doesn't feel any need to apologize because he was in the right all the time, that in fact, George's head would have stretched out his nice cashmere sweater. Silly episode, but the idea is the same - if a "sinner" is incapable of knowing the need to repent, indeed incapable of recognizing "sin," are they culpable for not repenting? Are they, theologically speaking, incapable of receiving god's grace if they cannot repent in the first place? That's not to say they should be given a pass, but if repentance is a necessary part of salvation (whatever that looks like to each xian), are those incapable of repentance guilty and incapable of meeting the conditions of salvation (ie, repentance, which goes hand in hand with belief)? I understand doing the best one can, but theologically speaking, the church is the bride of the christ. It should be prepared for attending the needs of her community. Clearly, not only is it just now learning, but for the last umpteen centuries, it's been as ignorant as unchurched people with regard to recognizing what makes people behave the way in which they do.

Prayer and fasting are understood to benefit the whole person because in some way, the mind/spirit/soul has an influence on the body. If they are not separated, they are one united thing. What then differentiates the mind that prays from say, the stomach gurgling? If it's simply the process of a biological function, then is the soul similarly a function biology?

Not at all. The idea of a dual nature of mind/body encourages such practices as prayer and fasting to the benefit of the body. The idea of a dual nature of mind/body encourages such dogmatic pronouncements as being "born again," and the "mind" surviving death. Many xians believe in angels, a kind of mind that is generally devoid of a physical body. Catholic and Orthodox xians believe Saints are alive and and well and intervene on behalf of those who pray, Mary being the most prolific and popular of the saints. Teresa of Calcutta being the most recent [catholic] example of such a "mind" or "spirit" that survived bodily death, supposedly incurring miracles on behalf of faithful Catholics. Indeed, the question, "where will you go after you die" presumes a separation between mind/spirit/soul and body. What is "they" Can you give an example of a sensible "they" that attacks a person such as to undermine their will, or even render it completely ineffective? And can you define "will" in this context? Can you share an example of a spiritual consequence that is out of one's control? And can you explain how one might reliably discern a spiritual consequence from a non-spiritual consequence? ETA: I think the idea of the "will" (or more specifically, "free will") and mental health are a real stumbling block for churches. Like you say, there are lots of skills that people may simply never acquire, skills that could lessen the negative effects of their impulses. Many people don't have the opportunity to recognize these skills, much less work on them. The idea that a person could simply pull themselves up by their proverbial boot straps is a time-honored, conventional expectation in church and society in general, but we're learning it's not always that simple. Some, through hard work and constant attention, can learn how to navigate the social world in an appropriate way. Most don't have that opportunity, as it is currently extraordinarily costly and time consuming, and for many mental health challenges, unsuccessful regardless of the time and effort put in. So then"will," at the very least, requires a lot of external help that isn't easy to come by. There are so many external influences that make a profound difference, it's almost like there are many potential people inside, but only one gets the prize of being recognized and interacting with the world. How does the church, in general, deal with this? Does it say, "You can access god's grace, but you can't come to our functions because you're presence is damaging"? "Don't call us, we'll call you. Good luck and god bless"? Because that's how it sounds from here, but honestly, I can't imagine another way. How does a church community protect the safety, mental, emotional, and physical, if a member is a constant threat to people?

No. I have never tried to apply evidence to theology. That doesn't exist. I continue to say the two (science and religion) are separate. Always. They are not cooperative. There is no instance in which religion and science have separately and independently come up with the same information. In fact, there if there is information that has ever been confirmed to be accurate that has ever come from a religious revelation, please share. Please be specific. ETA: I think I understand now. Are you suggesting science tells us what's going on and religion tells us what to do about it?

My kids asked for permission, and I increasingly gave it to them. Asking for permission first allowed me to assess whether or not they were avoiding responsibilities. Sometimes they got permission, sometimes they didn't. Eventually, as they got older and I felt confident with their managing time, they would take the initiative and let me know they were playing. It was asking permission, but more like letting me know, and following up with, "Okay?" I liked this because I wanted my kids to learn to take initiative (not knowing what to do when no one tells you what to do was a skill they had to learn after B&M school, so I approved of this). This took years, but not having a set schedule allowed me the flexibility I needed to reign things in if necessary, or give extra when I needed it.

No, for any field of science pertaining to human or animal behavior, neurology, or biology in general. If you have evidence of a "soul" or the condition of "fallenness," please share. If you have a standard definition that can be agreed upon by all xians, not to mention the scientific community, I'd be interested in hearing it. So because you can't resolve it, there must be a "fallen creation"? Do you think science as a methodology is capable of exploring these questions and details? I am not conflating them. I very specifically said they are opposing methods of trying to understand the world. Your next comments illustrates a confusion about what the scientific method does, how it functions, how information derived from it is used. You also mistake assumptions as facts, assumptions that are not agreed upon by other religions, not even agreed upon within the xian religion. Then you share your personal moral code and how your bible interpretation is used to justify it. As interesting as it may be, it's not a fact. As an opinion, it isn't even shared by all xians throughout time and across the globe. I don't mind responding more, but that's way off topic. If you want to start a new thread, I'll respond there.

I agree with your argument that anyone, of any religion, philosophy or any belief system ultimately justifies their own behavior and actions by it. I would add that communities and societies with a shared belief tend to modify those belief systems in order to be compatible with moral codes that evolve as new information comes in. We can see that our nation does not abide by the same religious beliefs it did in Colonial days when women would be arrested for wearing trousers, attempting to vote, or own land. I would also argue that does not negate the existence of an absolute standard, but it does reveal the lack of any absolute standard, or at least any means by which an absolute standard could be reliably identified. It's irrelevant to the study of human behavior, neurology, and biology in general. Regardless of how sincere your personal beliefs are, regardless of how often your experiences seem to confirm those beliefs, there exists no evidence credible enough to plug into any equation for this purpose. Additionally, the explanations we have work elegantly and reliably without any supernatural elements involved. They are simply superfluous at best. The thing about theology is that it changes tune with new information, and mental health is the latest new information to really rock the theological boat. Xians have, for the most part, given up on imposing theological answers to explain adverse weather patterns, tsunamis, droughts, and the like. Similarly, xians have abandoned the theological argument that cutting out your eye as an appropriate response to a problem with overwhelming sexual temptation. It's more difficult to find a xian support slavery today than two hundred years ago. The church has to keep up with information if it's going to maintain a member base. Arguably, the millennials falling away from the religion of their parents in record number is in direct response to the church's slow trudge towards progressing towards a moral code that considers new information, and its insistence on maintaining antiquated explanations and expectations even as they are considered offensive and hurtful to innocent people. Sure, philosophical and religious discussions always accompany modern interpretation of new information, but increasingly, it's dismissed as being hostile towards people in favor of maintaining an outmoded belief promoted by conventional theology. I think this thread is an interesting example of such a discussion. You say the two explanations are compatible, but we're finding people no longer agree. Further, I think there is no evidence for such a claim. It is one accepted in faith only, as science and religion are competing methods of understanding the world. I think that would be an interesting thread topic if this strays too far off topic. It makes sense to me to excommunicate a person who causes pain and suffering. I think Sparkly has a great point - sometimes the only appropriate thing to do is avoid the person who constantly causes pain and suffering of others. But what does that mean for churches? Do they abandon socially difficult people? Is that the expectation? Parents with special needs children take them to church, and I suspect everyone assumes that time, education, and maturity will help the child grow to the point where they won't be disruptive in service. It's one thing to ignore a baby crying, or a child fussing, or even an older child fussing when we know they'll likely grow out of it. I think people ignore them because we know they can't always control their responses to their emotions. What's striking me as being problematic is that we're learning that people with hidden mental challenges are similarly incapable of always controlling their responses to their emotions. So...the child is inconvenient but tolerable because he can't always help it, but the adult is guilty of being "bad," even when we know they can't always help it? But how does a church ensure a safe place for people who need a safe people to gather to recharge their own batteries if unsafe people are not kept separate? I honestly don't know. Theologically speaking, an omniscient god would have this all figured out, but society is just now learning there's a problem. It's an interesting problem. It's all good. :-)

I don't disagree with you, I'm only talking about how this decision influences one's theological beliefs.

Regardless of what people thought when these documents were written, we know more about human behavior than the writers of these thousands of years old texts. We know more than we knew 100 years ago. We have no evidence of a "soul" or soul like element to humans, with the exception of a kind of poetic, philosophical concept that reflects idea that we have a "self" distinct from our physical bodies (definitions may vary). We know for example, that personality isn't influenced by the position of the stars in the heavens, or the sincere prayers uttered by the mother, but by a combination of neurological make up and environmental factors. Speculations about "fallen creation" are irrelevant with regard to understanding human behavior in any reliable, accurate way. It seems to me that the moment a xian feels justified to stop sympathizing with a difficult person, then their god has washed his hands of them as well. There's a very clear correlation between the individual's opinion and the understood theology of the bible. The OP, and any xian really, can no doubt find a theology that is compatible with their own opinion, one that justifies their feelings, regardless of whether or not their actions are interpreted by others to be moral or ethical. From the outside this looks an awful lot like throwing away, or "casting off" difficult people. I wonder how the church avoids that, if the church avoids that, and whether or not they should. Individually, I can understand drawing up boundaries and limiting or eliminating one's time with a difficult person. But if everyone in a church community does that, then the church has essentially turned out a person who may or may not be able to comply with social expectations. Interestingly enough, the rationalization is that they aren't trying hard enough, they aren't really a xian and so don't count, or they are trying to be difficult and people shouldn't fall for their tricks. It's always their fault, in other words, and the church community has no obligation to wrestle with this problem because the responsibility lies directly on the difficult person, whom we've established is in many ways a victim themselves. And I think it is a problem, especially as we are learning to identify more and more behaviors as being part of a pattern of dysfunction and disability. What does this say about a church that turns people away? But how does a church include people who are toxic? Is that even appropriate? I don't know. It's a difficult question. I've never encountered an answer to it, but this question has caught my attention, surely.

I have no problem with establishing healthy boundaries to avoid being manipulated, but this thread is about theology and how mental health fits into that. When the founding documents of the Abrahamic religions were written, mental health wasn't considered a biological property. It was a matter of the will, a detached, dualist force that guides the body, mind and soul. We know better now, so how does theology keep up? How does one say the bible's passages about salvation and damnation apply as written literally when we know certain behavior is out of a person's control? What does that mean about the god of that religion, that it would create a soul that is incapable of receiving its grace, knowing that grace is the only thing preventing eternal pain and suffering? Does one commit to a reading of the bible that goes against modern ethics (such as the problem of creating a cognizant, sentient soul, to live an immortal existence with no chance of salvation, created essentially to suffer in punishment for all eternity for a crime it was created to commit?)? How far can one stretch theology in order to maintain a moral code that incorporates new and incompatible information such as mental health issues, and not fall outside their personal comfort zone? Is a personal comfort zone the appropriate litmus test with which to explore these ideas?

Admittedly, I know nothing about NPD, but I am familiar enough with other mental health challenges to know the bar isn't set at being able to handle a situation socially appropriately, but being able to handle situations socially appropriately consistently. You might think of it like watching a toddler grow up. She may have the ability to sit still in church for an hour, but that doesn't mean she can sit still hour after hour all day long in various environments. Maybe that's a bad example, as mental illness isn't like maturity, but it's the inability to translate a skill across many venues that I'm trying to get at here. In other words, just because you see someone acting polite in one aspect doesn't mean they can hold it together in others. Any parent of a special needs child who has been told the problem is at home because Jr simply doesn't act like reported at school will know how this works. So she's a victim, doing her best to survive in a world that feels unpredictable, insecure, and unjust? What is the church doing for such victims. If treatment doesn't work, and clearly feeling "born again" doesn't work, then what's left for the church to do? Honest question. Logical enough. Kids can still be told to go to bed. Adults not so much.

Certainly no objective means of diagnosis, not yet anyway. Who knows what we'll find in the future. Back to the OP, it used to make me wonder, if a god who supposedly knows all this stuff, knows the thoughts, fears, anxieties, and hopes and of those whose brains are at constant war with itself, would it really sentence that soul to an eternity of torture that would make waterboarding, bamboo under the fingernails, or a lifetime in Gitmo seem like a tropical vacation in comparison knowing it could not be able to comply to certain requirements? If a human can recognize the victim of mental health isn't necessarily "in charge" of their thoughts and actions, surely an omniscient god would know, no?

I hear this sentiment so often from people in the bible belt, I wonder how many people in your area might appreciate a secular homeschool meet up. Secular just means religion isn't a part of the group's dynamic. In my area, we have a secular homeschool group that has xians, jews, hindus, a muslim woman came once when I was there, pagans, and people with no religious affiliation at all. Religion just never came up. We met at parks and each person would offer some kind of field trip at some time during the year. It was very low key, and that worked just great for us. You could start something in your area easy-peasy if there's not already something set up. Just start a meetup group and see who responds. Then talk about meeting at some neutral location (indoor or out, depending on your climate).

Huh. I must not love truth or care about human beings. I'm more evil than I thought! :laugh:

I think these folks camped out in the visitor's center there are clearly inspired by public policies they consider unjust, but the method of rectifying their grievances (this stand off specifically) seems to be taken right out of LDS religious stories. They appeal to people to listen to Jesus "tell" them what to do. They seem to be waiting for the same outcome as Captain Moroni experienced. How is religion no more than a justification here? It seems to be used as a blueprint for a successful revolution? It's disingenuous to allow religion to be the motivator for when things go well, but dismissed when things go poorly. It's a double standard that should be rejected. Having said that, I do think it's a rather unimportant variable in this whole set up, other than to understand the motivations behind the act. With regard to racial and religious prejudice, I think this event is a grand example of both.

If this was a group of muslims, there's no doubt their religion would be a major factor in most news stories, whether or not it's relevant or has the support of religious leaders and local believers. Perhaps this is why AM commented on their religion in the first place. It's another example of a glaring double standard in our society. They seem to be reenacting an event they believe to be divinely orchestrated for the good of mankind. It makes sense now why they are making no demands and are simply calling dibs on an otherwise irrelevant piece of land. If the feds recognize this, they'll likely use this belief in negotiations for a peaceful outcome. How is this any more narcissistic than Mother Teresa thanking god for poverty and suffering. Oh wait...