English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

29 answers

A similar question was asked here recently:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As0IPfvVrpzCh7yjM.xPD7bty6IX?qid=20070809121647AAyt6Qt&show=7#profile-info-7caac58bf610905e301ef08d714c2329aa

My reply there reads:

I've studied this question a bit. My PhD is in clinical psychology, and I have master's degrees in contemplative/ mystical spiritual traditions.

Trying to be brief ...

Schizophrenia literally means a "ruptured mind." It's a disease, a brokenness. You sometimes get schizophrenics talking with religious language, but it's readily apparent that they are dealing with illness.

Authentic mystical experiences, on the other hand, are typically among the most sane moments in a person's life.

The psychologist, Abraham Maslow, got interested in mystical experiences -- what he called "peak experiences" -- when studying folks he considered to be operating at the peak of human psychological health (the persons he termed "self-actualizers"). He became intrigued at how many such individuals described having had experiences of unusual clarity and depth, experiences otherwise known as "mystical." He wrote about these in his book, "Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences."

To be a little glib about it, folks who have realized moments of mystical depth, are like persons at the peak of health who have found an unsuspected ability to walk on their hands. Schizophrenics describing "religious" experiences, by contrast, are like persons whose legs are broken, and they are now trying to walk on their hands as a way to cope with their brokenness.
.

2007-08-12 03:20:56 · answer #1 · answered by bodhidave 5 · 2 0

Objectively, the difference is that one comes from God, and the other comes from a disordered mind. But I think what you are really asking is how can we recognise which is which. If so, then the answer is that an experience should be judged by its coherence, and by the fruit it bears. 1. The first test is does a revelation make sense. If it is obviously nonsensical, or if it contradicts something that is firmly known, then it is not from God. For instance, it is fairly safe to ignore somone who says 'God told me that all cats should be dyed purple', or someone who says 'God told me that World War Two never happened 2. The second test is does the experience fit with established religion? If somone comes out with messages that fit with no known religious teachings, it would be improbable in the extreme that those new messages were true, and every previous religious revelation was false. (as a Christian, I would go further than that, and say that a true experience of the divine should fit with Christian teaching. But I hope that the more general principle would be considered a fair one even by atheists). 3. The third test is whether the experience bears good fruit. If the person who had the experience becomes more holy, and grows in virtue, that can be a sign that the experience was genuine. But if (for instance) they descend into confusion, or become enmeshed in the sins of pride, or lead others into sin, then those signs would cast doubt on the validity of their experience. On top of these criteria, you shoulc also consider whether the person is suffering from a medically recognisable mental illness. But this test is only an indicative one, because there is no absolute reason why a mentally ill person couldn't have a genuone religious experience.

2016-04-01 07:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by Jessica 4 · 0 0

The name.

2007-08-12 03:18:55 · answer #3 · answered by eckzl 4 · 1 2

Oh dear heart. As a nurse I can assure that a psychotic break is so painful for the person and their family. While the Christian walk and the love of Christ are wonderful, healing experiences. I hope that straightens things out for you and that one day you find out for yourself what a wonderful life you can have in Christ. I also pray that neither your nor anyone close to you or that you love ever has to experience the pain of a true psychotic break. God bless and keep you and yours.

2007-08-12 03:20:36 · answer #4 · answered by Only hell mama ever raised 6 · 2 0

Many can relate a psychotic trip to a religious experience, but it must be remembered there are much higher levels.

2007-08-12 03:21:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

With a psychotic breakdown you have a mental disorder in which the personality is seriously disorganized and contact with reality is usually impaired.

A religious experience such as receiving the Holy Spirit is being reconnected to God. We were disconnected to God when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. Sin disconnects us from God. Salvation reconnects us. The wages of sin is death. The gift of God is eternal life.

2007-08-12 03:23:23 · answer #6 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 0 0

If the "experience" is truly from God then only good will come from it....

there are those who "think" God is speaking to them but they are defective in the mind in some way. These individuals can, at times, do good things, but there is other evidence that will show it is not truly from God... Then again... Who is to say God can not use even a"psychotic break" to bring a change He wishes to occure

2007-08-12 03:22:45 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 1 0

Inearly had a psychotic breakdown trying too hard to be holy. My religious experience was something else entirely. Whe n I gave up trying to be righteous myself and accepted the work Christ did and decided to let Him lead wherever He wanted me to go the most pure peaceful feeling filled my soul and I had no doubt that I had been reborn. T4

2007-08-12 04:05:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A couple of things: One is perception. Both the person's and those of those around the person. If they are chronic and harmful they will probably be ruled as psychosis.

Especially if it is accompanied by disorganized thinking and other symptoms that usually accompany primary psychosis.

If the person normally acts within the realm of normal behavior, displays no further symptoms, and if their "experience" was uplifting, insightful, or positive to their mental health, -and- -they- say it's a religious experience.

Then it probably is.


But I wonder if your question is sincere.

2007-08-12 03:23:24 · answer #9 · answered by sketch 2 · 0 0

This is a question that I have thought about alot. I believe the answer is the difference is how you act afterwards/ how others view you if they didn't know about it. Meaning if it improves who you are as a person it is a religios experience, if it doesn't it could just be a psychotic break or that you weren't a decent person to begin with.

2007-08-12 03:19:26 · answer #10 · answered by Josh 3 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers