Philosophy Now Forum

Secularism defines the quality of emotional expression by what a particular society or secularized religion values. If a society as a whole calls an emotional expression good then it is believed to be good. If it is considered bad it is defined as bad. Emotional quality is defined by secular devolutions of objective values.

We can easily define intellectual quality in chess for example because the greater quality over time leads to wins, However no such qualitative emotional discrimination exists by means of our intellect. We live through expressions of our emotions without the awareness of objective emotional value. What to do?

Christianity as distinct from Christendom strives as I know it to transcend emotional expression so as to experience “feelings.” Of course it “feels” much better to emote about a religion but to experience what Christianity offers requires freedom from emotional attachment so as to experience “feelings” which are normal for the objective parts of a human being with the capacity to serve conscious evolution. Where animal emotional energy initiates from the earth, spiritual energy and what allows us to experience “feelings” normal for higher consciousness descends from above which is why it can be “remembered.”

In the following excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s book “Lost Christianity” Prof. Needleman learns of the distinction between emotions and feeling from Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of the Russian Orthodox Church and how difficult it is to experience “feelings” and what they are. Of course the West and its glorification of emotions will oppose abandoning emotional intensity for the knowledge and humility that comes through the experience of “feelings” and what they make us aware of.

Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open."

If a person is unaware of the distinction between emotions and feelings, what can they really know of the purpose and value of Christianity?

I define Christianity and Christians as follows;

• A person is a Christian upon entering into a personal covenant [divine contract] with Jesus in acceptance of the offer within John 3:16, to comply with the terms of the contract as stipulated with the Gospels [and supporting verses from the Bible] of Christianity.

The impulse that drive a person to enter into the contract with Jesus/God is driven subliminally by the primal subconscious fear of death.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27654

Thus Christianity is very superficial in merely soothing the primal existential fears [deep emotions] with a promise of an eternal life by a God which is illusory.

Rather than managing the emotions efficiently, Christianity leveraged on the primal emotion of fear as a threat to keep Christians comfortable within the religion. Example, the Christian is threatened with Hell or punishment if the sin or become an ex-Christians.
Note the primal emotions are worst than the normal emotions.
With Christianity [& Islam] the threat out of primal fears is always there to keep the Christian in check.

Christianity does promote 'love' but this is subjected, leveraged and grounded primarily upon the primal emotion of fear - the subconscious fear of death.

Within the secular, yes there are a whole range of people with emotional issues.
However, at least, the secular is not leveraging on the very terrible primal emotion of fear rather the secular deals with normal emotions.

Without a fear of the threat from a God, the secular has the potential to manage human emotions efficiently and continually improve upon existing methods.
(in contrast, Christianity's approach to emotion is fixed rigidly].
In the past, the secular and theistic religions had already addressed the problems from emotions and had established practices to deal with them. Note Buddhism, the ancient Greeks and others.

Here is Aristotle view on 'anger' which is applicable to the other emotions;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

The Stoics as influenced by Buddhism, developed various practices to modulate the negative sides of human emotions.

Currently, there are tons of research and developments of a range of secular practices for people to deal with their emotions.
With the potential of the Human Connectome Project [mapping the human brain], soon, scientists will be able to target the relevant neurons and neural circuits and recommend more specific efforts to increase efficiency in the management of human emotions.

While Christianity has its pros, its management of emotions is very rigid and too primitive, within the secular there is a high potential for people to improve and make quantum advance in the management of their emotions and feelings.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 am I define Christianity and Christians as follows;

• A person is a Christian upon entering into a personal covenant [divine contract] with Jesus in acceptance of the offer within John 3:16, to comply with the terms of the contract as stipulated with the Gospels [and supporting verses from the Bible] of Christianity.

This is VERY TRUE. This is how 'you' definition these things, and it is 'YOUR' definition alone.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amThe impulse that drive a person to enter into the contract with Jesus/God is driven subliminally by the primal subconscious fear of death.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27654

Thus Christianity is very superficial in merely soothing the primal existential fears [deep emotions] with a promise of an eternal life by a God which is illusory.

Rather than managing the emotions efficiently, Christianity leveraged on the primal emotion of fear as a threat to keep Christians comfortable within the religion. Example, the Christian is threatened with Hell or punishment if the sin or become an ex-Christians.
Note the primal emotions are worst than the normal emotions.
With Christianity [& Islam] the threat out of primal fears is always there to keep the Christian in check.

Christianity does promote 'love' but this is subjected, leveraged and grounded primarily upon the primal emotion of fear - the subconscious fear of death.

Within the secular, yes there are a whole range of people with emotional issues.
However, at least, the secular is not leveraging on the very terrible primal emotion of fear rather the secular deals with normal emotions.

There IS OBVIOUS PROOF that there is a conscious will, drive, desire, or 'WANT to live' that exists within ALL human beings. However, there is absolutely NO obvious proof that there is some supposed subconscious 'fear of death' in ANY human being.

In fact, OBVIOUSLY in EVERY new born infant human being there is a very strong desire, drive, or 'want to live' existing. And just as OBVIOUS is there is absolutely NO "fear of death" at all, thus NO "primal emotion of fear" here either.

Tell us "veritas aequitas" what does a new born human infant have a "primal fear of" exactly?

What did 'you' "deeply fear" when 'you' were born?

So, where is this supposed AND alleged subconscious "fear of death", which 'you', "veritas aequitas", go on about, exactly, and where could it even come from?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amWithout a fear of the threat from a God, the secular has the potential to manage human emotions efficiently and continually improve upon existing methods.
(in contrast, Christianity's approach to emotion is fixed rigidly].

YET thee EXACT OPPOSITE can be, and IS, True.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amIn the past, the secular and theistic religions had already addressed the problems from emotions and had established practices to deal with them. Note Buddhism, the ancient Greeks and others.

IF the, so called, "problems from emotions" have already been addressed, then WHY is it people, just like 'you', religious AND non-religious, who are so emotionally unstable.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amHere is Aristotle view on 'anger' which is applicable to the other emotions;

• Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
  Aristotle

This is a very OLD way of LOOKING AT anger/emotions.

Also, what is purported to NOT be within everybody's power and NOT be easy is ABSOLUTELY NOT true at all.

The POWER IS within EVERY body and using this POWER properly AND correctly is about one of the MOST easiest things to do, that is: Once 'you' discover or learn HOW to use IT properly AND correctly.

KNOWING HOW to use this POWER properly AND correctly is just some thing that 'you' NEED to learn.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amThe Stoics as influenced by Buddhism, developed various practices to modulate the negative sides of human emotions.

This is ANOTHER MISNOMER.

Contrary to popular BELIEF, there is absolutely NO "negative" side of human emotions.

Currently, there are tons of research and developments of a range of secular practices for people to deal with their emotions.

Emotions are NOT some thing, which to be "dealt with".

Emotions are JUST some thing, which exist NATURALLY, and just some thing to be Aware of and to be USED in a way that is conducive and constructive to achieve what it is that is Truly WANTED in Life.

For this to be ACHIEVED one FIRST just NEEDS to LEARN a few things.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amWith the potential of the Human Connectome Project [mapping the human brain], soon, scientists will be able to target the relevant neurons and neural circuits and recommend more specific efforts to increase efficiency in the management of human emotions.

LOL ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of the brain deceiving itself into BELIEVING that "it" is the CURE for ALL of 'its' OWN caused problems.

From the brain it WILL discover and learn HOW to target the, so called, "relevant" neurons and neural circuits within its self, and recommend to its self more specific efforts to increase its efficiency in the management of the non visible human emotions.

The ridiculousness and absurdity of this I find extremely humorous.

What I also always find humorous is just how long human brains have been "mapping the human brain" and saying soon will be able to fix 'ourselves' (the thinking AND emotions). YET here 'you', adult human beings, are in the days of when this is written STILL disagreeing, ridiculing, abusing, fighting, and killing each other, as well as allowing the young to die because 'you' do NOT give them just enough food or medicine, all while 'you' keep polluting to death your one and only home, earth, in the meantime.

'you' could keep mapping the physical human brain for the rest of eternity (if 'you' ever 'live' that long) but just be forewarned 'you' will NEVER discover NOT work out HOW and WHY 'you' ALL do what you do.

The LEARNING and KNOWING of HOW to manage AND controlling emotions AND thoughts, properly AND correctly, will NEVER come about from LOOKING AT and mapping a physical human brain.

I have ALREADY EXPLAINED HOW 'you', human beings, CAN discover AND work out HOW to LEARN what IS Right in Life, and thus gain thee KNOW-HOW of what to do Right in Life, properly AND correctly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amWhile Christianity has its pros, its management of emotions is very rigid and too primitive, within the secular there is a high potential for people to improve and make quantum advance in the management of their emotions and feelings.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY 100% SURE the potential for people to improve is in the "secular" and NOT in "christianity"?

Seems like a very OBVIOUS tiny, narrow, and CLOSED view of things.

LOOKS, to me, like a not at all managed and a completely uncontrolled individual and separatist view and perspective of things here.

Veritas, Christianity isn’t about entering contracts, its purpose is rebirth. What good is entering into contracts for people asleep in Plato’s cave? It is just words. Rebirth is becoming a higher quality of being. Anyone who can understand the process of the Crucifixion leading to the Resurrection will understand the purpose of Christianity.

Fear is the motive for the earth religions including secularized Christianity or Christendom. The origin of Christianity is from above. Receiving what Christianity offers requires opening to the higher perception of the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope. It is the need of the seed of the soul. When they evolve a person can become consciously capable of rebirth. As we are, our corrupted emotional nature makes it impossible to experience “feelings.” If a person doesn’t appreciate how the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope as they are expressed by Man on earth, can evolve into “feelings” experienced through conscience, then they cannot profit from Christianity for their being.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 am I define Christianity and Christians as follows;

• A person is a Christian upon entering into a personal covenant [divine contract] with Jesus in acceptance of the offer within John 3:16, to comply with the terms of the contract as stipulated with the Gospels [and supporting verses from the Bible] of Christianity.

This is VERY TRUE. This is how 'you' definition these things, and it is 'YOUR' definition alone.

Nope it is not MY definition.
The definition is derived and implied from the holy texts of Christianity, i.e. the Gospels.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amThe impulse that drive a person to enter into the contract with Jesus/God is driven subliminally by the primal subconscious fear of death.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27654

Thus Christianity is very superficial in merely soothing the primal existential fears [deep emotions] with a promise of an eternal life by a God which is illusory.

Rather than managing the emotions efficiently, Christianity leveraged on the primal emotion of fear as a threat to keep Christians comfortable within the religion. Example, the Christian is threatened with Hell or punishment if the sin or become an ex-Christians.
Note the primal emotions are worst than the normal emotions.
With Christianity [& Islam] the threat out of primal fears is always there to keep the Christian in check.

Christianity does promote 'love' but this is subjected, leveraged and grounded primarily upon the primal emotion of fear - the subconscious fear of death.

Within the secular, yes there are a whole range of people with emotional issues.
However, at least, the secular is not leveraging on the very terrible primal emotion of fear rather the secular deals with normal emotions.

There IS OBVIOUS PROOF that there is a conscious will, drive, desire, or 'WANT to live' that exists within ALL human beings. However, there is absolutely NO obvious proof that there is some supposed subconscious 'fear of death' in ANY human being.

In fact, OBVIOUSLY in EVERY new born infant human being there is a very strong desire, drive, or 'want to live' existing. And just as OBVIOUS is there is absolutely NO "fear of death" at all, thus NO "primal emotion of fear" here either.

Tell us "veritas aequitas" what does a new born human infant have a "primal fear of" exactly?

What did 'you' "deeply fear" when 'you' were born?

So, where is this supposed AND alleged subconscious "fear of death", which 'you', "veritas aequitas", go on about, exactly, and where could it even come from?

You are very ignorant of human nature.

There are a tons of research that support the point 'new born babies and babies' do express fears unconsciously.
It is stupid of you to expect a newborn baby to be conscious of fear.

Researchers have studied adults' accuracy in the recognition of the emotion causing babies to cry. Eye movement and the dynamic of the cry play a key role in recognition. It is not easy to know why a newborn cries, especially amongst first-time parents. Although the main reasons are hunger, pain, anger and fear, adults cannot easily recognize which emotion is the cause of the tears.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090649.htm

The Fear-potentiated startle:

Fear-potentiated startle (FPS) is a reflexive physiological reaction to a presented stimulus, and is an indicator of the fear reaction in an organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear-potentiated_startle

The startle reflex indicate fear and the reaction is similar to the Moro Reflex in new-born babies.

The Moro reflex is an important indicator for evaluating integration of the central nervous system, named after its discoverer, pediatrician Ernst Moro. Although this [Moro Reflex] is sometimes referred to as the startle reaction, startle response, startle reflex or embrace reflex, most researchers see it as distinct from the startle reflex,[10] and is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive ... oro_reflex

What is this unlearned fear for?
This primal fear is "programmed" to avoid death, thus the subconscious fear of death.

Re the wiki point, I do not agree the Moro Reflex is the ONLY unlearned fear.
The human system has an underlying system of 'unlearned' fear.

Don't be too arrogant when you are so ignorant of human nature.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:43 am Veritas, Christianity isn’t about entering contracts, its purpose is rebirth. What good is entering into contracts for people asleep in Plato’s cave? It is just words. Rebirth is becoming a higher quality of being. Anyone who can understand the process of the Crucifixion leading to the Resurrection will understand the purpose of Christianity.

I am relying upon the words of Jesus/God as presented in the Gospels.

Re all the words in the Gospels and the behavior of Christians, there is an implied contract re John 3:16 and all the elements of what constituted a contract [covenant] is present.
The contract is for the Christian to obey the words of Jesus/God in exchange for eternal life in heaven.

The contract is critical in the sense, the Christian is contractually [bonded] promised a passage to eternal life in heaven which is definitely better than a casual promise.
If the Christian is promised in a contract [as implied], then the Christian will have greater security.
While the lay-Christian will not view the agreement is term of a contract, there is nevertheless the agreed bond between the Christian and Jesus/God.

Fear is the motive for the earth religions including secularized Christianity or Christendom. The origin of Christianity is from above. Receiving what Christianity offers requires opening to the higher perception of the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope. It is the need of the seed of the soul. When they evolve a person can become consciously capable of rebirth. As we are, our corrupted emotional nature makes it impossible to experience “feelings.” If a person doesn’t appreciate how the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope as they are expressed by Man on earth, can evolve into “feelings” experienced through conscience, then they cannot profit from Christianity for their being.

The fundamental requirement for one to be a Christian has to be entering into a personal contract with Jesus/God to establish a personal relations and the bond.

It is true there are Christians who practiced Christianity in a more sophisticated manner like the Christian-mystics, but the contract [implied] with Jesus/Christ is imperative.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 am I define Christianity and Christians as follows;

• A person is a Christian upon entering into a personal covenant [divine contract] with Jesus in acceptance of the offer within John 3:16, to comply with the terms of the contract as stipulated with the Gospels [and supporting verses from the Bible] of Christianity.

This is VERY TRUE. This is how 'you' definition these things, and it is 'YOUR' definition alone.

Nope it is not MY definition.

So, 'you' wrote; "I define ...", but then 'you' write, "... it is not MY definition".

VERY CONFUSING and CONTRADICTORY.

If it is NOT YOUR definition, then what is YOUR definition?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amThe definition is derived and implied from the holy texts of Christianity, i.e. the Gospels.

LOL

By who?

And any links?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:09 amThe impulse that drive a person to enter into the contract with Jesus/God is driven subliminally by the primal subconscious fear of death.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27654

Thus Christianity is very superficial in merely soothing the primal existential fears [deep emotions] with a promise of an eternal life by a God which is illusory.

Rather than managing the emotions efficiently, Christianity leveraged on the primal emotion of fear as a threat to keep Christians comfortable within the religion. Example, the Christian is threatened with Hell or punishment if the sin or become an ex-Christians.
Note the primal emotions are worst than the normal emotions.
With Christianity [& Islam] the threat out of primal fears is always there to keep the Christian in check.

Christianity does promote 'love' but this is subjected, leveraged and grounded primarily upon the primal emotion of fear - the subconscious fear of death.

Within the secular, yes there are a whole range of people with emotional issues.
However, at least, the secular is not leveraging on the very terrible primal emotion of fear rather the secular deals with normal emotions.

There IS OBVIOUS PROOF that there is a conscious will, drive, desire, or 'WANT to live' that exists within ALL human beings. However, there is absolutely NO obvious proof that there is some supposed subconscious 'fear of death' in ANY human being.

In fact, OBVIOUSLY in EVERY new born infant human being there is a very strong desire, drive, or 'want to live' existing. And just as OBVIOUS is there is absolutely NO "fear of death" at all, thus NO "primal emotion of fear" here either.

Tell us "veritas aequitas" what does a new born human infant have a "primal fear of" exactly?

What did 'you' "deeply fear" when 'you' were born?

Also, where is this supposed AND alleged subconscious "fear of death", which 'you', "veritas aequitas", go on about, exactly, and where could it even come from?

You are very ignorant of human nature.

If 'you' say so, then it MUST BE true, right?

It also noted, ONCE AGAIN, your complete inability to answer clarifying questions, which leads the readers to wonder WHY?

So, WHY are 'you', "veritas aequitas", so incapable of clarifying what 'you' say?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amThere are a tons of research that support the point 'new born babies and babies' do express fears unconsciously.

Will 'you' provide ANY links to ANY of the "tons of research", which 'you' say support the point that babies do have and express fears unconsciously?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amIt is stupid of you to expect a newborn baby to be conscious of fear?

But I have NEVER "expected" a new born baby to be conscious of fear. WHY did 'you' ASSUME and BELIEVE I did?

Also, noted is 'you', ONCE AGAIN, NEVER answered MY clarifying questions posed, to you.

'you' BELIEVE, and INSIST, that 'you' were born with a sub-conscious 'fear of death'. So, what PROOF do you have of this ACTUALLY?

And, what PROOF is there that a new born human baby has a "primal fear" of ANY thing? When I have observed new born human babies I have NOT seen them show a "primal fear" of ANY thing. But I have OBSERVE them show a very strong 'desire to live'.

What did 'you' "deeply fear" when 'you' were born "veritas aequitas"?

IF 'you' EVER tell us this, then I will KNOW what to LOOK OUT FOR.

If, however, 'you' DO NOT EVER tell us, then some might be thinking 'you' have absolutely NO evidence for what 'you' just BELIEVE is true.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

Researchers have studied adults' accuracy in the recognition of the emotion causing babies to cry. Eye movement and the dynamic of the cry play a key role in recognition. It is not easy to know why a newborn cries, especially amongst first-time parents. Although the main reasons are hunger, pain, anger and fear, adults cannot easily recognize which emotion is the cause of the tears.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090649.htm

Adult's accuracy of recognizing emotions in crying babies has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether human beings have a supposed 'subconscious fear of death', which you INSIST is absolutely 100% TRUE.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amThe Fear-potentiated startle:

Fear-potentiated startle (FPS) is a reflexive physiological reaction to a presented stimulus, and is an indicator of the fear reaction in an organism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear-potentiated_startle

The startle reflex indicate fear and the reaction is similar to the Moro Reflex in new-born babies.

How does a startled reflex actually indicate "fear"?

Actually what does "fear" mean to 'you', "veritas aequitas"?

A startled reflex ACTUALLY indicates a reflex when startled.

When 'you' hear a door slam behind 'you', when 'you' are NOT expecting it, is this because of 'your' alleged "subconscious fear of death"? Or, because 'you' are 'startled'?

Is there a reaction from some supposed "fear of death"?

If yes, then what happens next?

How does the "fear of death" show itself from 'you'?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

The Moro reflex is an important indicator for evaluating integration of the central nervous system, named after its discoverer, pediatrician Ernst Moro. Although this [Moro Reflex] is sometimes referred to as the startle reaction, startle response, startle reflex or embrace reflex, most researchers see it as distinct from the startle reflex,[10] and is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive ... oro_reflex

The 'moro reflex' is a response to a sudden loss of support and involves three distinct components:[1]
1. spreading out the arms (abduction)
2. pulling the arms in (adduction)
3. crying (usually)

The 'moro reflex' is likely to occur if the infant's head suddenly shifts position, the temperature changes abruptly, or they are startled by a sudden noise.

The 'moro reflex' is believed to be the "only unlearned fear" in human newborns. HOWEVER, CITATION IS NEEDED.

The sentence, from YOUR sources; "The 'moro reflex' being the 'only unlearned fear' in human newborns" does not even make sense as a sentence.

HOW could any reflex be an "unlearned fear". Any reflex is a reflex. Just like any fear is a fear. A reflex can NOT be a fear, and, a fear is NOT a reflex.

A reflex is a physical body reaction, to an action. A fear is a psychological emotion. Two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amWhat is this unlearned fear for?

NO actual evidence for an alleged "unlearned fear" has even been provided here YET.

WHY JUMP to a conclusion when there is NONE?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amThis primal fear is "programmed" to avoid death, thus the subconscious fear of death.

This is ANOTHER OBVIOUS PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being looking for absolutely ANY thing that could maybe back up, support, and/or substantiate their own ALREADY HELD BELIEF.

Also, let us for one second imagine that this so called, "primal fear" is "programmed" into new born babies "to avoid death", which is supposedly the "subconscious fear of death", which 'you' babble on about. Now. HOW does this "fear" exactly prevent infants and very young children from death?

If all they do is spread out the arms, pull the arms in, and/or cry, usually, which is LIKELY to occur if the infant's head suddenly shifts position, the temperature changes abruptly, or they are startled by a sudden noise, then HOW is this actually going to help them in "avoiding death", exactly?

Also, and the OBVIOUS FACT, NONE of this is has actually been proven to be linked to some "fear", which ANY "fear" has also NOT YET even been proven to exist anyway in new born infant, let alone some made up "subconscious fear of death" in ANY one.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amRe the wiki point, I do not agree the Moro Reflex is the ONLY unlearned fear.

And note that what you agree with or disagree with does NOT make any thing more true nor false.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amThe human system has an underlying system of 'unlearned' fear.

Where is this supposed "underlying system" of "unlearned fear" meant to be laying exactly?

'you' can add as many words like, "underlying", "system", et cetera, which OBVIOUSLY is only making it harder for you to PROVE what you have completely failed to do so far, but adding more words does NOT make 'you' look smarter at all. In fact, to me, this is just making 'you' look more sillier and more stupid.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 amDon't be too arrogant when you are so ignorant of human nature.

What EXACTLY is this 'human nature', of which 'you' speak of here?

Some are SEEING where the actual REAL arrogance IS, and maybe 'you' are recognizing arrogance because it is closer than you imagine.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:47 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:43 am Veritas, Christianity isn’t about entering contracts, its purpose is rebirth. What good is entering into contracts for people asleep in Plato’s cave? It is just words. Rebirth is becoming a higher quality of being. Anyone who can understand the process of the Crucifixion leading to the Resurrection will understand the purpose of Christianity.

I am relying upon the words of Jesus/God as presented in the Gospels.

Re all the words in the Gospels and the behavior of Christians, there is an implied contract re John 3:16 and all the elements of what constituted a contract [covenant] is present.
The contract is for the Christian to obey the words of Jesus/God in exchange for eternal life in heaven.

The contract is critical in the sense, the Christian is contractually [bonded] promised a passage to eternal life in heaven which is definitely better than a casual promise.
If the Christian is promised in a contract [as implied], then the Christian will have greater security.
While the lay-Christian will not view the agreement is term of a contract, there is nevertheless the agreed bond between the Christian and Jesus/God.

Fear is the motive for the earth religions including secularized Christianity or Christendom. The origin of Christianity is from above. Receiving what Christianity offers requires opening to the higher perception of the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope. It is the need of the seed of the soul. When they evolve a person can become consciously capable of rebirth. As we are, our corrupted emotional nature makes it impossible to experience “feelings.” If a person doesn’t appreciate how the sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope as they are expressed by Man on earth, can evolve into “feelings” experienced through conscience, then they cannot profit from Christianity for their being.

The fundamental requirement for one to be a Christian has to be entering into a personal contract with Jesus/God to establish a personal relations and the bond.

It is true there are Christians who practiced Christianity in a more sophisticated manner like the Christian-mystics, but the contract [implied] with Jesus/Christ is imperative.

I've learned that there are three steps in becoming a Christian. First there is the wish to be one or to follow in the precepts of the Christ. Second there is becoming able to be one. The second is the willingness to sacrifice our emotional attachments to imaginary goods as recorded in Matthew 19

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

The need to sacrifice imaginary emotional attachments is what you call a contract. The rich man may want to be Christian but cannot be one. The power of his imaginary emotional attachments which keeps him rich in imagination is too powerful. The person who is able to sacrifice the pleasure and imagined emotional security of their imagination for the sake of reality can become Christian and can enter the final step of practicing Christianity.

A contract implies the ability to live by it. A person who experiences why they cannot and willing to accept the help from above necessary to make it possible can become Christian.

What good is a contract unable to be followed? A person has to become able to become Christian to profit from the practice of becoming Christian. First things first.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:36 am This is VERY TRUE. This is how 'you' definition these things, and it is 'YOUR' definition alone.

Nope it is not MY definition.

So, 'you' wrote; "I define ...", but then 'you' write, "... it is not MY definition".

VERY CONFUSING and CONTRADICTORY.

If it is NOT YOUR definition, then what is YOUR definition?

I agree, I should not have stated "I define" in this particular case.
It should have been, 'Christian' as defined [implied] in the Gospel.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

The Moro reflex is an important indicator for evaluating integration of the central nervous system, named after its discoverer, pediatrician Ernst Moro. Although this [Moro Reflex] is sometimes referred to as the startle reaction, startle response, startle reflex or embrace reflex, most researchers see it as distinct from the startle reflex,[10] and is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive ... oro_reflex

The 'moro reflex' is a response to a sudden loss of support and involves three distinct components:[1]
1. spreading out the arms (abduction)
2. pulling the arms in (adduction)
3. crying (usually)

The 'moro reflex' is likely to occur if the infant's head suddenly shifts position, the temperature changes abruptly, or they are startled by a sudden noise.

The 'moro reflex' is believed to be the "only unlearned fear" in human newborns. HOWEVER, CITATION IS NEEDED.

The sentence, from YOUR sources; "The 'moro reflex' being the 'only unlearned fear' in human newborns" does not even make sense as a sentence.

HOW could any reflex be an "unlearned fear". Any reflex is a reflex. Just like any fear is a fear. A reflex can NOT be a fear, and, a fear is NOT a reflex.

A reflex is a physical body reaction, to an action. A fear is a psychological emotion. Two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
[/quote]
You are ignorant on this.

It is not ANY reflex that is an "unlearned fear."
It is stated specfically, the MORO reflex is an "unlearned fear".

There are many levels of 'fear'.
Fear can be primal or emotional.

THINK! what do human fear of ultimately?
Why do humans instinctively [subconsciously] fear snakes, height, etc?
It is because the fear death to avoid death so they can live.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:34 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:47 am The fundamental requirement for one to be a Christian has to be entering into a personal contract with Jesus/God to establish a personal relations and the bond.

It is true there are Christians who practiced Christianity in a more sophisticated manner like the Christian-mystics, but the contract [implied] with Jesus/Christ is imperative.

I've learned that there are three steps in becoming a Christian. First there is the wish to be one or to follow in the precepts of the Christ. Second there is becoming able to be one. The second is the willingness to sacrifice our emotional attachments to imaginary goods as recorded in Matthew 19

Nah, the above and 'wishing' and to follow are not effective to be a Christian.

Note;

• If you wish to build muscles and maintain fitness, merely wishing and wanting to follow whatever is not going to help at all.
  What you need is you must sign a contract/agreement/covenant with the gym to be a member so that you can use the gym facilities. In that contract, the gym and the member will be contractually bound to comply with the signed contractual terms.
  
  Even if a couple living together for many years without a marriage contract, the court can decide an implied-contract existed between them based on the circumstances.

In the case of becoming a Christian, it is not so obvious as with commercial contracts but there is a contract nevertheless within the heart [intent] of the Christian to accept Jesus/God as savior, then only the Christian can follow the words of Jesus/God effectively.

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Note "17 ..If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."
To keep the commandment on must be contractually bound to keep the commandment.
To ensure the commandment are effective, the person must believe in Jesus/God via John 3:16, thus entering into a contract with Jesus/God.

Nothing in the Gospel is effectively for a person as a Christian until the person has entered into a contract with Jesus/God as the first step.

The need to sacrifice imaginary emotional attachments is what you call a contract. The rich man may want to be Christian but cannot be one. The power of his imaginary emotional attachments which keeps him rich in imagination is too powerful. The person who is able to sacrifice the pleasure and imagined emotional security of their imagination for the sake of reality can become Christian and can enter the final step of practicing Christianity.

A contract implies the ability to live by it. A person who experiences why they cannot and willing to accept the help from above necessary to make it possible can become Christian.

What good is a contract unable to be followed? A person has to become able to become Christian to profit from the practice of becoming Christian. First things first.

To enter into a contract with Jesus/God it very easy, just refer to John 3:16 or the likes and state verbally or in one heart [mental intention] that one will accept Jesus/God as his savior.
This the initiation and signing of the contract with Jesus/God to comply with the contractual terms in the Gospel so as to earn the final salvation on Judgment Day.

The first thing is the signing of the contract.
If you sign a contract with the gym on day one, pay your monthly fees, but did not go to the gym to exercise regularly, the contract is still active and valid.

It is the same with being a Christian.
A person is a basic Christian once he has intentionally accepted Jesus/God as his savior upon the offer in John 3:16.
A basic Christian is only in a position where Jesus/God has promised him eternal life and the Christian had promised to comply with the commandments.
Initially it all about promises from both parties and the Christian will have to do the necessary work, and to work harder than the camel [metaphorically] to earn the full passage to eternal life in heaven.

I believe a Christian who had contracted with Jesus/God but did not do the hard work will still have eternal life as promised but will not be granted 100% of whatever the rewards.

If this hard work involves "sacrifice imaginary emotional attachments" this must be based on a 'signed contract' with Jesus/God via John 3:16.

Note other spiritual aspirants may also claim to "sacrifice imaginary emotional attachments" and other spiritual efforts, but if they did not declare their acceptance of Jesus/God offer via John 3:16, they cannot be officially a Christian.

If a person "sacrifice imaginary emotional attachments" and other spiritual efforts but declared via the Shahada of Islam, he is a Muslim.
In the Quran it is very explicit the person must enter into a contract with Allah to be a Muslim [the novice].
The novice Muslim must obey and perform the necessary effort to graduate higher to be a Mushin [intermediate] and then grounded in Tagwa [highest] where the rewards of eternal life in paradise will be in accordance to the grade they achieved. This is meritocracy?

Thus the basic contract is critical for one to be a Christian and will remain a Christian until the person convert out of Christianity or had committed an unforgivable sin [e.g. multiple genocides].

I suggest you update yourself with the Principles of Contract, Agreement and Covenants.
There must be some kind of strong bond, personal relationship between the Christian and Jesus/God otherwise the fellowship is not effective.
To be effective and special, a contract, agreement or covenant is necessary to be 'signed' between the Christian and Jesus/God via John 3:16 [& likes].

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am
Nope it is not MY definition.

So, 'you' wrote; "I define ...", but then 'you' write, "... it is not MY definition".

VERY CONFUSING and CONTRADICTORY.

If it is NOT YOUR definition, then what is YOUR definition?

I agree, I should not have stated "I define" in this particular case.
It should have been, 'Christian' as defined [implied] in the Gospel.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:52 am

The Moro reflex is an important indicator for evaluating integration of the central nervous system, named after its discoverer, pediatrician Ernst Moro. Although this [Moro Reflex] is sometimes referred to as the startle reaction, startle response, startle reflex or embrace reflex, most researchers see it as distinct from the startle reflex,[10] and is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive ... oro_reflex

The 'moro reflex' is a response to a sudden loss of support and involves three distinct components:[1]
1. spreading out the arms (abduction)
2. pulling the arms in (adduction)
3. crying (usually)

The 'moro reflex' is likely to occur if the infant's head suddenly shifts position, the temperature changes abruptly, or they are startled by a sudden noise.

The 'moro reflex' is believed to be the "only unlearned fear" in human newborns. HOWEVER, CITATION IS NEEDED.

The sentence, from YOUR sources; "The 'moro reflex' being the 'only unlearned fear' in human newborns" does not even make sense as a sentence.

HOW could any reflex be an "unlearned fear". Any reflex is a reflex. Just like any fear is a fear. A reflex can NOT be a fear, and, a fear is NOT a reflex.

A reflex is a physical body reaction, to an action. A fear is a psychological emotion. Two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

You are ignorant on this.[/quote]

There is NO need to remind each time.

I KNOW, from your perspective, that I am supposedly "ignorant" EVERY time I say ANY thing, which disagrees with or counters you strongly held BELIEFS.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amIt is not ANY reflex that is an "unlearned fear."
It is stated specfically, the MORO reflex is an "unlearned fear".

AND I have already, literally, put into question, HOW can a reflex be a "fear"?

As I acknowledged earlier a 'reflex' is just a physical reaction. Whereas, a 'fear' is just an non visible emotion. So, HOW could the moro reflex, which is just the placement of the arms of new born human body in particular positions and some times crying associated with that reaction, be a 'fear', and worse still a 'fear of death', exactly?

I also put in question, How could such a reflex as the more reflex ACTUALLY prevent that new born human baby from what you would call "dying"?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amThere are many levels of 'fear'.

If you say so.

Will you provide ANY examples to back up and support this claim?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amFear can be primal or emotional.

If you say so.

Will you provide ANY examples to back up and support this claim?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amTHINK! what do human fear of ultimately?

What do you actually mean with the use of the 'ultimately' word?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amWhy do humans instinctively [subconsciously] fear snakes, height, etc?

Do they?

Place any new born human baby with a snake and at a height, and then SEE what actually happens?

Do ANY of these humans actually SHOW any actual signs of so called "instinctive" (subconscious) fear, of these things?

If your answer is Yes, then what were these actual signs?

If, however, No, then what does this actually point towards?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:29 amIt is because the fear death to avoid death so they can live.

Lol
Lol
Lol

Very PRESUMPTIVE of you.

Matthew 15

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”

16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

One of the most harmful mistakes of Christendom or man made Christianity is the dominant concern for what we do along with unconcern for the emotional quality by which it is done.

Sexual issues are the major culprit in this IMO. Find one in a hundred who can explain the Christian concern for sexual expression and it will be fortunate. It seems normal to associate sex with so much negative emotion both in support and denial of this most basic human function. But Christendom and its reliance on blind morality contaminates the value of sex with all sorts of negativity.

A person feeling the value of Christianity is faced with this problem of the corrupted emotions. If an average young girl can ever find an experienced person in normality who can show what it means to graduate from emotions into feelings so as to be able to acquire the understanding of a mature woman, she will be extremely lucky.