Kelly2363

I didn't write a thesis or a speculative report as some do - I posted three chapters of 2 Corinthians and did so to demonstrate rationally and materially that the Apostle Paul wasn't writing about marriage when he wrote the verse that was being used to demand and require a believing man to dump his chosen wife and be a more holy man. I don't care what the passage means but the simple truth is that Paul himself illuminated it in his own words and chapter 7 makes that abundantly clear. Mind you - I don't see many believers stepping down from their self righteous horses any time soon. Thats just the way of it. And Jesus quoted King Solomon in a somewhat curious way seeing that he had such a lust for women. It was in connection with the Queen of Sheba seeking wisdom from him. No thesis and no intention of bending my neck to abuse from pious Christians who believe they have wisdom. Then again I have been married to just one woman since the day I asked her father for her hand in marriage. Many of the marriages I witnessed have failed spectacularly. If only they had put less confidence in self righteous nonsense and more confidence in just being decent human beings.

Well it took you just four minuets to read my post and to respond - so we are done Josh. There is no godly reason to continue to engage with your comments and if you continue to abuse the OP I will simply leave the forum permanently seeing as you say that the Moderators are approving your posts.

I though I was quoting yourself Josh when you said and I will exploit the problems to be solved and perhaps in some way reflecting on your own claim that every single post you make is being moderated and approved before becoming visible on the forum - because of complaints made about you. I made one complaint myself - but I can hardly think that would be sufficient to determine anything more than drawing attention to how your comments are perceived by me. And I only use the word perceived Josh because you tell me in this OP that I should not perceive you in a negative way. And you tell me that if I do -then I am unbiblical. Whereas, your very first comment in this OP you tell the whole forum: The obvious thing to say is I am the kind of man who would post such dross because I posted the OP and authored it to my use of the term Rhomphaeam in the footer I mentioned earlier. Written by Rhomphaeam in 2009 to answer a question about the validity of social psychology in ministry. As you assert scripturally to make your comment: "As a man thinketh, so he is." "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." So why wouldn't I think that my heart is full of dross Josh - based on your statement? Yet the OP doesn't even mention Scripture or make a biblical argument. Perhaps the best thing to do is withdraw in humility or else post in a semblance of decency that permits others to make their own claims and to be taken to task when they actually make an argument without citing them to having a heart filled with dross. Just a thought Josh. When @Alive posted his comment do you know why he did that Josh? I mean this specific part: "IMO, there is worthy content in this OP." In part at least I do - and so to answer your requirement as expressed in your comment: Let's try this: If the overall theme of the op could be summarized into a single thesis statement (or two) what would that be? If the intent of the op could likewise be summarized into a single statement what would that be? It could be expressed in a single sentence: THE LATENT POWER OF THE SOUL @David1701 alluded to its meaning here in a sense of pointing out that Adam was an essential genius. I won't take a stand on this, since it's impossible to prove, but it does seem quite possible, and would explain why highly intelligent people (Adam named all the animals in one day) only now realised that they were naked (because they were not completely naked before the Fall). And I would say, that genus mind only materialised in a semblance of meaning when iterative processes and measuring devices were capable of reading the physiology of fear as a proven fact and not simply as a theoretical and clinically observable reality. In the occult that precept has been known as an undoubted fact of practise for millennia. Alive knows exactly what it means and @Abrielle expressed a momentary suprise at reading something that gave her a mechanism to connect what was an essentially psychoanalytical precept to a more factual semblance of fear in a biblical meaning. Watchman Nee wrote it all down in 1926. What I did in my book was apply a prophetic insight into this day and see by the grace of God how that latency of the soul was being utilised by Satan - even as Nee did - but Nee expressly thought that this would be through para psychology and didn't reference psychology directly because it hardly even existed as it does now. God Bless you. An extract taken from my book at page 177 of 356 In writing this book I have been keenly aware of the difference that Watchman Nee has emphasised in his teachings, and my own emphasis. The one, that of Nee has to do with the latent power of the soul, manifest in events such as signs and wonders and speaks primarily of the Great Tribulation. The other, that of myself speaks of sorcery arising out of the physical body itself, in the churches today; but points to the Great Tribulation as a final expression of sorcerous activity more generally. I have very good reasons for speaking of the need to understand sorcerous action as firstly arising from the physical body, and only then speaking of its expression through the soul. I may be mistaken in this assessment of Nee, but the difference may be simply a difference of the day these things are being written in. I believe that Nee was primarily concerned with the development of parapsychology and its introduction into general psychology, whereas I am more concerned with physical realities; while being expressed psychologically, are necessarily grounded in the body’s chemistry and neurophysiology. This is not to deny that the heart is wicked and deceitful, rather it is to say that regardless of traditional occult practises, while they are mostly acquired through many years of study by its practitioners; the internal neurophysiological mechanisms that constitute the instrument of expressing the soul, cannot in any real sense be ignored. Curses have to pass through the mind, as do boastings, as must purified self-interest. Even miracles of healing are spoken through the mouth. None of this activity is independent of the nervous system and its various parts. In fact, it can be shown in all cultures that the body itself is essential to the ambition of experiencing sorcerous self-awakening, with its outward and visible practises and supernatural evidence. The way these things are presented varies, but the central characteristic is always the same. It is to make of the man a god in his own estimation, and for this god-man to live a supernatural life expressed in speech, well-being, and good health; both for himself and others if he is also a shamanistic prophet.

The OP tile explicitly and self evidently is Psychology – A Warning The warning is also explicitly stated in the OP comment. It is also explained in the footer of the OP section as to its origination and what question it was answering or addressing. So I have also given multiple ways to see what the OP is about in my intention - and social psychology does have a very large inference to that meaning of a warning. But we haven't even moved from a definition of the physic of fear. There is no possibility of my addressing anything at all. That does seem to be the permitted will of the Moderators - seeing as they are posting your comments. I also raised a point that addresses your more fearful position as expressed in the second paragraph and spoke about Theotherapy as a modality. I also addressed that meaning to my personal position and stated that I do not use that modality myself even though I have studied it. What more can I do Josh? Are you writing the OP are are you going to address the OP and accept my answers as my own without telling me that I am always wrong? Where is the grace of God in that?

And you have an opportunity to desist from endlessly inflecting meanings that are only upheld in your narrative diction. Either stick to the OP or else leave. Trusting emotions based in physical experience is the most common basis for deception. In this scheme, physical means especially the eyes, the ears and the inner physiology of the central nervous system, forming a basis for believing what is seen or heard with no more justification than experiencing the body itself. Deception, is no less profound in its outworking towards others than through the body itself. My assertion is that in this day in which we live Satan is specifically seeking to make the emotional (physical) experience the basis for knowing what truth is. This is not only a matter of pseudo faith as a mechanism for achieving false conversions, but it is a very real danger for the one who is born again if we are not taught to deny ourselves daily. With these things in mind, therefore, we can ask, what physical fear is? A simple physical schematic for describing fear may be as follows. Auditory, visual and olfactory, stimuli are relayed by the Thalamus to the Amygdala and Cerebral Cortex. The Amygdala also receives contextual information from the Hippocampus. After processing of the emotional stimuli, the central nucleus of the Amygdala activates the nucleus of the Pons which triggers a noradrenaline response as well as stimulating the Hypothalamic nuclei. The stria terminalis (brainstem) or the extended Amygdala also acts as a control centre for the noradrenaline uptake response by integrating information from both the Amygdala itself as well as the Hippocampus. The central nucleus of the Amygdala is responsible for activating the Vagus Nerve in the Medulla (characteristically increased heart rate and raised blood pressure), In finality, the Frontal Cortex formulates cognitive responses which serve to modulate ongoing physiological responses. (Fight, Flight or Paralysis). In this physical description of the principle parts of the Nervous System, involved in fear, we may realise very quickly that it is necessary to have a link between that which is physical and that which is psychical (soul). I have no intention of being driven by your participation no matter how you perceive any value in it. If you want to answer @Alive then stick to the TOU and stop driving others with an endless determination to uphold psychology because the underpinning science of the more recent theoretical schools prove the bible (as you claim). I could show you Hindu texts written thousands of years ago in the Indus Valley that uphold these same premises in the bible and in modern psychology. That too is in my book Josh. It is God who proves God - not men unless those men are streams of living waters coming out of their innermost parts. Be blessed Josh and try to stick to the OP.

That may be as it is. But whether that is a reflection of seeing how your manner could prove to uphold a continued exercise of that manner or else give ground to allowing others to write respectful and non personal posts that are only permitted to be personal in as much as those implications to ones claims are biblically implied remains to be stated by a Moderator. So either find the OP directive - and if as you claim you have understood it - be that from the OP itself or else of necessity others comments including my own replies - then utilise that and accept my responses to what you say are OP relevant interventions to represent others.

Yes I know that you are exploitative Josh. I have seen it for nearly 18 months - long before I joined this site. You tell me you are exploitative - I believe you.

What I said was: "My name is Robert Chisholm and I neither practise psychology as clinically or applied science - but I did study psychology at University and attended clinical lectures in order to acquire the necessary theoretical knowledge to be able to write up a simple paragraph on the anatomy of fear. That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam." I did say as a qualification to the above was That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam - and in medicine it has been around since the mid 19th century. What has developed is neurochemistry. What I did NOT say was that [all] knowledge of anatomy hadn't changed. The schemata I wrote is both an accurate account of the neurology and scheme of experiential fear. Hence from the OP itself: And herein lies a serious problem with psychology in general. At its root is a denial of the existence of God, and the whole of its concern is pathological, in the sense that modern psychology is concerned with developmental or learned experience, and not with original causality. In the world of neurology, the concern is with disorders of the nervous system, both central as well as peripheral, including all visceral elements of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, enteric as well muscle systems. The neurologist can opine (give an opinion) on psychiatry, and due to the neurophysiological emphasis of neurology, much of the research that informs psychobiology feeds into generalised psychology and psychoanalytical theories. It is for this reason principally that psychology is limited and eclectic. My points are always qualified linguistically Josh and are rarely a simple matter of the narrative diction. They are almost always connected to a rational and transparent objective. And in this OP that is to do with secular psychological theories whether of the Maslow School or the Freudian School or any other more deterministic model of theorising - that are being imposed on the churches through numerous legislative frameworks - and where the worldy church is vulnerable to the very direction of societies generally that have been driven by social and psychosocial theories which cause unspeakable harm to millions of people - making the embrace of those theories much easier if they are reflective of the law of the land. Stick to the OP Josh.

I wrote the book from which the pathological and neurological schemata was taken. I linked to an extract from the book to make the point. Your prior comment was made somewhat abrasively when this NOW comment and the post reference were already visible in the OP. My name is Robert Chisholm and I neither practise psychology as clinically or applied science - but I did study psychology at University and attended clinical lectures in order to acquire the necessary theoretical knowledge to be able to write up a simple paragraph on the anatomy of fear. That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam - and in medicine it has been around since the mid 19th century. What has developed is neurochemistry. As to the Bobgan issue you raise with myself and @Justin Adams. I spoke with Martin by email in 2017 when I was updating my book and he read some of my work - but he pointed out to me that what I was doing was markedly different to what he was doing. The distinction being that he is addressing the prevalence of psycho heresies in the churches - I am addressing those same heresies in the world coming into the churches through broader social policy directives now expressed in legislative and statutory frameworks - as an effect giving release to occult sorcery amongst believers. I could NOT care less about psychology or any other therapeutic endeavour. People are free to make their own choices and pay whom they wish for whatever they wish. On that note and in defiance of your claim - Martin doesn't charge for his core material and it is freely available in downloadable PDF files through the site linked by Justin. I don't bring my own work into the churches at all. It's far too technical and esoteric to introduce to the flock. I give it to those who are capable of resisting using it to control others. In the churches I just rebuke ungodliness on behalf of the pastors who are keen to feed the sheep. So they say "bad man" about the prophetic behind their hands and "dear brother" to the pastor who then feeds them. That suits me just fine. I was impressed by your point What is described in this post is also a basis for original sin: Adam and Eve were irrevocably changed in that moment of trauma at Genesis 3:6. That is an astute observation because it speaks about the psychological man without attributing a necessary misdirection to imply a changed physiology. Of course that would have to be qualified by epigenetic and other environmental factors - all of which are evident in the occult and in life.

The neurology and pathology were all there when Adam was innocent. And yet after he sinned not only did he suffer the removal of God's glory {to use your perception) that also exposed him to a dependance on physical domains, but he also no longer had a means to settle his mind when he experienced fear. That precept is the precept that the sister alluded to when she posted the comment in which she spoke about The Insanity of Normality by Arno Gruen. His file was psychoanalytical theories and especially Fraud - it was whilst attending clinical lectures that I was astonished by Freudian theories and the demonic character of them. If I had not been personally in ministry evangelising at the time the Lord would not have had a way to teach me about the reality of fear through a spiritual glass in order to apply my own knowledge of how fear had driven me to exceptional ends and even into the occult. It was desiring to be loved that makes you vulnerable to being driven. Gruen's place in the history of psychology can be summarized as follows. According to Sigmund Freud, human beings are born with an innate tendency to destruction and violence; throughout his scholarly and clinical career, Prof. Gruen challenged that assumption, arguing instead that at the root of evil lies self-hatred, a rage originating in a self-betrayal that begins in childhood, when autonomy is surrendered in exchange for the "love" of those who wield power over us. Wikipedia This kind of theorising is of course abstract - and my file was abstract theories in various psychological schools and in sociology. I knew even then that I was not going to find any answers in psychology or sociology that would be helpful for the church. So I set about to write a book trying to explain one simple premise that grounded the anatomical contract with the chemical and the physiological man. One commentator rebukes me and says I am speaking against God and another mocks when they ask if I am weighing one injury against another injury and saying my injury was worse and look at me. Such a mind would be the mind that Arno Gruen spoke about because it would be self loathing. Whereas what I know is that our deliverance is in Christ and a new man. In the end because this took place over a period of several decades it corresponded to the emergence of occult predications in the churches pertaining to the physical man which I had been a part of in Occult Theosophy before I was saved. So I extended my writings to cover that effect also. And here's the very truth - none of it is necessary if we would simply put our confidence in Christ and deny ourselves. What we now call psychology was not invented by God unless we mean the physical man and the natural mind - it was a work of the devil in ruining the mind of Adam so that he became a psychologically vulnerable creature. His son Abel is given to us in his countenance of anger to signal the second most prevalent emotional reality after fear. And the entire Scriptures are filled up with its proof. And not a mention of therapy anywhere. Just obedience unto death. What a God we serve.

Precisely so.

What is called "The Peer Support System"?

Extract: The Darkest Hour Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved An Easy Deception One would be quite justified in asking how it has become possible for the churches to take this apostate route with such ease at this time, compared with the huge struggles that characterised apostasy in the early church of the 3rd and 4th centuries. My own understanding, and a part explanation, presently lies in two primary fields of human endeavour. They are Philosophy and Psychology. Many younger psychologists, psychotherapists and councillors are concerned by the separation which took place in the late 19th century between the original study of the soul (psychology) and Philosophy. The claim is that the study of the soul was broader in the past than it is today. While I agree with the thrust of the statement, those who suffer from this abstract nostalgia have apparently missed the great weight of philosophical knowledge that has informed psychoanalytical thinking, almost from its inception. The scientific model was primarily responsible for this change in emphasis, from fuller questions about the human psyche to the eventual narrower focus on the mind, with the attendant neurology. The need for observable evidence of the soul, as defined by the iterative scientific model was demanded by serious scholars and in the absence of proof, psychology, or the study of the soul, turned to that which could be outwardly measured and therefore proven. This change eventually led to the beginnings of what is today called behavioural psychology. This change of emphasis has never been reconciled with the original broader meaning of the study of the soul in ancient cultures as well as previous generations, where the rational philosophical roots of psychology are said to lie. Nevertheless it has served to facilitate the justification of self as the primary agent of benefit. Over the last 100 years, behaviourism or behavioural psychology developed into a major system of thinking, along with Cognitive Psychology more recently. Both are firmly grounded in the scientific model and have contributed to significant changes in the way societies behave. At the same time (1900-1950) as behaviourism developed into a dominant model, psychotherapy also came to maturity. It has been psychoanalytical models of behaviour, however, that have been responsible for introducing a vast range of Eastern philosophical and occult thinking into the West by synthesising neurological, subjective observational and atheistic thought into theoretical frameworks; thereby giving rise to complex theories of behaviour. In the early years, the application of these ideas were mostly limited experiments on men and women who presented with psychological disturbance, as well as children, and to some extent, they were developed in the treatment of those who could meet the cost privately. Through time, strands of pure subjective theoretical reasoning, laid against known occult as well as philosophical filters, were even incorporated into the most scientific field of behavioural and cognitive psychology, such as in Constructivism with its self-oriented cognitive learned process model. Today this mix of religious deception and scientific observation is scarcely separated in the minds of even trained psychologists themselves. It would take a vast knowledge of ancient Eastern philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, shamanism, anthropology, anatomy and theology to make a meaningful distinction between what is real, and represents deception, and what is real, and accounts for a logical way of understanding behaviour in the context of mental illness. In fact, the distinction is more than likely impossible. It is only in the context of having a genuine and sound conversion, and a living faith in Christ Jesus, as well as a love of the truth, that one would be able to recognise lies and deception when these theories are being taught and presented to new students. Homogeneity Those believers, who so freely embrace the world in which we live, do not necessarily realise that societies have been fundamentally influenced by social as well as public health initiatives, which have been informed by an increasingly competent methodological scientific technique, where many occult and mystical deceptions, which had their roots in ancient societies, are incorporated into the very fabric of the underlying paradigms which form the basis for interpreting the data upon which those psychological and sociopsychological imperatives were written. Sociology, Politics, Philosophy, Anthropology, Finance, Theology, Social Policy, Health Policy, Criminology, Education, Gender, Conflict Theories of labour, and a range of others areas of societal influence on the individual, have all been increasingly informed by psychology, indirectly or else directly, over the last 100 years. Today, we scarcely realise just how much society has changed. In my view while there is no doubt that psychology presents some valid and useful mechanisms for understanding the behaviour of those individuals who have good reason to be thought of as in need of help, that help could have just as easily been given with an exercise in compassion and decency, than by a means which simultaneously excuses sinful and rebellious behaviour, or else robbed the individual of any perception of absolute morality. An essential fuel for the rebellious mind is no longer hunger, or a lack of love by others, or else the cold, but has become the belief that your own rebellious actions are justified in the sight of others. If others justify your rebellion then you yourself are free to embrace the natural heart as a reasonable and desirable inheritance with its wicked and deceitful inclinations. A sorcerous mind is that mind which embraces in its most ruined state. the ambition and hope that at the end of its efforts it will realise a true and full consciousness, and by an existential path arrive at a perfect self. It is a mind that cannot conceive of God as He truly is, yet intuitively knows that such an account exists. In that ruined state the sorcerous mind therefore necessarily rejects God Himself and instead lays hold of creation. It is a mind that cannot know that the soul is not the spirit and thus seeing nothing of spiritual reality, the sorcerous mind lays hold of the only reality that it can conceive of, and therefore lays hold of the body itself. In this wicked and deceived condition the sorcerous mind conceives of spiritual reality as no more than elements scattered to an infinite place wherein that mind presses itself in a false hope. In the end, the sorcerous mind lays hold of itself in an embrace that amounts to the determination and ambition of Satan who makes of men, souls and bodies his commodity. Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved Because you're worth it!

Extract: The Darkest Hour Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved Psychology & Physiology It is important to realise that no study in psychology will of itself produce the necessary understanding that gives rise to a conviction of sin. The purpose here, therefore, is not to replace the working of the Holy Spirit; it is rather to facilitate an understanding that the very physical body is ruined because of sin and death. The mind, which is a function of the soul, is weakened. In this fallen condition the emotions of the mind are experienced in the physical body itself. They are essentially imprisoned by the physical body. Indeed this could be said for the soul itself and not simply the seat of emotion. The genetic material which all men and women share is ruined, and while it is still possible to restrain the outer man by physical means, it is not possible to repair the genetic man by conduct arising from that fallen condition. It took another kind of man altogether, one without sin and death working in Him to answer that profound problem. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body; it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonour it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” (1 Cor 15:42-47) Trusting emotions based in physical experience is the most common basis for deception. In this scheme, physical means especially the eyes, the ears and the inner physiology of the central nervous system, forming a basis for believing what is seen or heard with no more justification than experiencing the body itself. Deception is no less profound in its outworking towards others than through the body itself. My assertion is that in this day in which we live Satan is specifically seeking to make the emotional (physical) experience the basis for knowing what truth is. This is not only a matter of pseudo faith as a mechanism for achieving false conversions, but it is a very real danger for the one who is born again if we are not taught to deny ourselves daily. With these things in mind, therefore, we can ask, what physical fear is? A simple physical schematic for describing fear may be as follows. Auditory, visual and olfactory, stimuli are relayed by the Thalamus to the Amygdala and Cerebral Cortex. The Amygdala also receives contextual information from the Hippocampus. After processing of the emotional stimuli, the central nucleus of the Amygdala activates the nucleus of the Pons which triggers a noradrenaline response as well as stimulating the Hypothalamic nuclei. The stria terminalis (brainstem) or the extended Amygdala also acts as a control centre for the noradrenaline uptake response by integrating information from both the Amygdala itself as well as the Hippocampus. The central nucleus of the Amygdala is responsible for activating the Vagus Nerve in the Medulla (characteristically increased heart rate and raised blood pressure), In finality, the Frontal Cortex formulates cognitive responses which serve to modulate ongoing physiological responses. (Fight, Flight or Paralysis). In this physical description of the principle parts of the Nervous System, involved in fear, we may realise very quickly that it is necessary to have a link between that which is physical and that which is psychical (soul). We cannot ignore the fact that Adam himself knew that he had disobeyed God at the moment he heard God in the garden. This knowledge also forms part of who Adam was. He clearly wasn’t simply a physical man. He was a living soul as well. Clearly, emotions are experienced in the body, yet they are perceived as being of the soul itself in the mind. In fact, the seat of emotion is said to be of the soul. If the seat of emotion is of the soul and yet emotions are experienced in the body, what is the soul? This question is beyond science. In the ordinary iterative model of science fact, there is no possibility of proving that the soul even exists. Yet the very least thing which all men and women comprehend is that they do in fact exist distinct to the body. For those who believe in God and Christ, not only do we know that we exist as sentient beings, but we comprehend that we are eternal souls as well. It is psychology and philosophy which endeavour to answer those questions outside a biblical account.. In looking at the physical explanation of fear, we can rationalise that from seeing, hearing or smelling something, a physical process ensues which in the end results in a behavioural outcome. In the case of Adam, it was hearing God in the garden that produced both psychological and physical fear as well as the corresponding behaviour (flight). “Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”” (Genesis 3:9–10) It is certain that Adam and Eve knew that they had disobeyed God, and therefore even before God called out to them they had this understanding in their minds. In basic psychological parlance this is called anticipation and forms a pre- experiential basis for explaining why fear occurs. It is a blind use of the idea of stimulus and response. In other fields of psychology, Adam and Eve’s fear would be said to be no more than the sum of chemical responses to external stimuli. In this view learned behaviour arises from evolved physiological mechanisms, and amounts to no more than a survival response. Although it may seem implausible, most psychological theories would ignore disobedience, and instead emphasise acquired knowledge, as a positive step forward in evolutionary development. I have to say that such a view is Satanic. And herein lies a serious problem with psychology in general. At its root is a denial of the existence of God, and the whole of its concern is pathological, in the sense that modern psychology is concerned with developmental or learned experience, and not with original causality. In the world of neurology, the concern is with disorders of the nervous system, both central as well as peripheral, including all visceral elements of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, enteric as well muscle systems. The neurologist can opine (give an opinion) on psychiatry, and due to the neurophysiological emphasis of neurology, much of the research that informs psychobiology feeds into generalised psychology and psychoanalytical theories. It is for this reason principally that psychology is limited and eclectic. These two strands of knowledge are always in tension with one another. In Europe the emphasis is still in favour of psychoanalytical models of behaviour and in North America Object Oriented psychology has been embraced in favour of the latter in recent years. So while I have said earlier that psychology is a better medium through which to understand neurophysiology and psychophysiology, there is no direct, simple school of thought in psychology itself which makes this task easy or clear. The best which one can do is to identify that all aberrant behaviour carries consequences, and through those consequences, something is learned. Yet in the case of Adam what he experienced, was that sin itself had made a separation between himself and God. He knew that when he disobeyed God, he was disobeying God. He was under a strict command and disobeyed. He was not deceived at that moment. Adam must have had this in mind, as well as the realisation that he was naked as he spent those few hours in the garden knowing that God would come to fellowship with him in the evening. The profound thing about this account of Adam lies in the fact that there is no explanation given, or attention drawn to his disobedience as a consequence, beyond the knowledge which was acquired through disobedience (chiefly that he was naked and felt ashamed). Until God came into the garden, we know nothing of any other effect in Adam’s mind beyond this knowledge. Only when God called is there an effect that goes beyond the knowledge that was already gained. We know this because Adam was not naked at that moment of hearing God call to him. He had in fact covered his nakedness with an apron of leaves. Nothing is said about whether Adam was anxious (fearful) about his next meeting with God. Yet the moment that opportunity presented itself he experienced in his own body physical fear, and understood this to be connected to his newly acquired knowledge, that he was naked underneath his apron. This knowledge was more than the first realisation of being naked when he sinned. It amounted to a development in his experience, in so far as now in a possible face to face encounter with God, fear races through his body to his mind, and he is compelled to hide. This is the central tenet of learned behaviour. Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved Because you're worth it!

I expected nothing less from you Josh. But as usual you jump the gun and miss what is being said. It's an introduction and it is a qualified introduction not an emphatic statement. It is qualified to an end. But please don't feel any need to reply. I knew you would be offended - that's just the way of it. You said: Many times have I commended an op. This one should be deleted. It is godless from beginning to end. I neither seek your commendation nor do you have authority to delete anything Josh. But you can answer just one pesky question. Was Adam naked when he hid himself from God?