@AlBrown I think you yourself would see that "censorious pencil pusher" is an unfair charge to @curiousdannii. He is an elected moderator by the community, and is serving the vision of the site formed through years of trial and error with different scope and rules to make the site functions well. I understand that not all kinds of questions can be discussed here, but the closing reason is NOT because happiness is not important and NOT because Christianity does not have an objective answer.

I encourage you to read some meta articles about the site, which has embedded in it various discussions that led to the current policies. That's what I did 2-3 years ago when I started to participate. The channel to propose changes to the policies are in the meta site, so please do post a question there and let the community and the moderators respond.

I myself consider the question about 'happiness' among the top 3 of my personal research, and I have my own answer now after decades of on and off reading and reflecting. So I am definitely with you how real faith and Christian doctrines need to deal with 'happiness'. I will be the top defender of how every Christian and every theologian and every denomination should have an answer for it. But the site has decided to restrict the scope, NOT because Christianity itself is restricted!

I'm sure there is a way to formulate an answer so that 'happiness' related questions can be asked here. So please take the time to read through the meta articles about how to formulate the question. If at the end, the kind of question you want doesn't work for this site, then maybe Philosophy.SE is the place. Or you can advocate through the meta site to add a new category of questions that Christianity.SE can answer.

(I meant: "I'm sure there is a way to formulate a question so that 'happiness' related questions can be asked here. ...")

My personal opinion about happiness goes along the line of John Piper's notion of Christian hedonism but to me it's not a complete picture, since in my opinion Protestantism has a big philosophical flaw of the theology has a tendency to be infected by nominalism. To me, true happiness needs to have some ontological roots that need to be the core of a healthy theology.

But saying this goes against the grain of Protestant theologizing and I respect John Piper as one who is standing in the line of Reformed theologians with good pedigrees and worthy of consideration in matters that philosophically we cannot find support in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis is defending Christianity philosophically, and NOT having to answer to ecclesiastical authorities he has the freedom to promote a certain theology that is most philosophically satisfying to him and to his followers. At the same time, his Biblical hermeneutics is conservative and aligned with the early church fathers, and he subscribe to Nicene and Chalcedon, so he is definitely orthodox, although not fully Catholic and not fully Protestant. I'm pretty much with him.

That is why I don't plan to raise "happiness" related question in connection with theology in this site, because I don't anticipate getting the kind of answers from the Protestant theologies that I will find satisfying, PLUS there may not be a good enough Biblical basis / creedal basis for an objective answer (according to this site). However, if I scope it to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox, I may have some traction.

@AlBrown To conclude, and to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I understand your frustration, and I hope my response above can help resolve it in a constructive manner. I personally welcome your participation in this site, and hope to read more of your questions and answers as I come across them (because I don't read everything on this site).

(correction to my "But saying this ...") I meant to say: "But saying this goes against the grain of Protestant theologizing, but I respect John Piper as one who is standing in the line of Reformed theologians with good pedigrees and worth of consideration as a dialog partner while I'm constructing a personal theology which include philosophical matters that we cannot find support in the Bible (because John Piper, as a Reformed pastor, is necessarily restricted to Biblical support)"

Or more accurately, because John Piper, as a Reformed pastor, is necessarily restricted to the Reformed way of doing theology.

@AlBrown To clarify my charge that Protestant theology is infected by nominalism, I don't think not all Protestant theologies are affected the same way. Probably Anglican theology is the least affected. But Reformed theology seems to be very much affected (found a good 3 part articles here). Aquinas is a full-strength realist, but C.S. Lewis seems to be halfway so it's a good balance I think.

@GratefulDisciple I only have a second and will read soon. For now I’ll just say is not coming in isolation. That said maybe is only a topic for meta. But i’ll see hwat you said soon

@AlBrown It may very well be that Pentecostalism and the hunger for spiritual gift / spiritual experience (the kind that Pentecostalism / Charismatics espouse, NOT the spiritual experience that Catholic spirituality has offered centuries before) is caused precisely by this nominalism infecting Pentecostal theology (which descended from Wesleyan, which has a Protestant root). They find nominalist theology so barren, so they try to revive the so called "neglected" doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

@AlBrown I understand. I hope my recent meta answer related to philosophical question can help clarify why the policies are what they are now. The happiness question as it's currently formulated is like asking why does a good God lets Godly people suffer while non believers flourish? Of course Christianity has an answer for both, but it's tricky for this site.