What do you place your faith in?

Originally posted by whodey
Well lets see. Let's take a stroll down history lane, shall we?

Here are an INCOMPLETE list of wars according to Wiki. A complete list would almost certainly never be compiled.

WW 2 (1939-1945)
Mongol conquests (13th century)
Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616-1662)
Taiping Rebellion (1851-1865)
Second Sino-Japanese War (1931-1945)
WW1 (1914-191 ...[text shortened]... nature is not flawed or you can deal with the reality of the situation. The choice is yours.

I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
Human nature is flawed? What the hell does that even mean? We are who we are. To say that we're flawed presumes some unflawed position. What's that?
Oh right, it's God or Jesus or some other ideal religious nirvana.
Of course people are mean and nasty and violent and oppressive. So is most of the natural world. Why should we be any different?
But that's not all we are. We can also be kind and forgiving and helpful and tolerant.
Where are the flaws in that?
It's who we are.

Originally posted by whodey
Well lets see. Let's take a stroll down history lane, shall we?

Here are an INCOMPLETE list of wars according to Wiki. A complete list would almost certainly never be compiled.

......

Now can you list all the major times of peace in the world throughout history and then well will see which list is longer or has the largest entries.

You have shown that humans go to war, you have not shown that it 'comes naturally', 'is the natural state' or anything of the sort.
In fact your post is equivalent to listing all murders in the past and then claiming that people are 'natural murderers'.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
Human nature is flawed? What the hell does that even mean? We are who we are. To say that we're flawed presumes some unflawed position. What's that?
Oh right, it's God or Jesus or some other ideal religious nirvana.
Of course people are mean and nasty and violent and oppressive. So is most of the natural world ...[text shortened]... nd and forgiving and helpful and tolerant.
Where are the flaws in that?
It's who we are.

I posted this because no1 said that not only are people naturally peace seeking that my "cult" religion somehow skewed the reality of this fact. I would say that this is not only laughible, it flies in the face of the reality of the situation. All my religion does is adress the issue at hand rather than causing the issue or even skewing the issue. I suspect that the wars I have listed are only 0.00000001% of all actual wars fought in the history of mankind and even at that the mere presence of a war does not take into account oppression within a society that does not result in a war.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now can you list all the major times of peace in the world throughout history and then well will see which list is longer or has the largest entries.

You have shown that humans go to war, you have not shown that it 'comes naturally', 'is the natural state' or anything of the sort.
In fact your post is equivalent to listing all murders in the past and then claiming that people are 'natural murderers'.

So you are saying that just because there is a war brewing 24/7 in the world thruoughout all of history that it does not necessarily come naturally? Perhaps breathing does not come naturally as well, eh?

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiosity, what do you place your faith in?

A curious jar.

Originally posted by whodey
I posted this because no1 said that not only are people naturally peace seeking that my "cult" religion somehow skewed the reality of this fact. I would say that this is not only laughible, it flies in the face of the reality of the situation. All my religion does is adress the issue at hand rather than causing the issue or even skewing the issue. I suspec ...[text shortened]... of a war does not take into account oppression within a society that does not result in a war.

So what?? Your comments are asinine; the natural state of social animals is to be cooperative with each other. You can list all the people with cancer, but that does not mean that our natural state is one where we all have cancer.

If humans weren't cooperative and peaceful naturally, they would have never acheived dominance on this planet. I realize that you've never bothered to study anything but the Bible (and that inadequately) but the idea that humans are naturally agressive towards each other is nonsense. Any study of primitive human societies quickly concludes that humans work together naturally for the common good. You really need to get back to basics and get over your cult's self-loathing.

War is as unnatural as you can get to human beings.

Originally posted by menace71
LOL 🙂 Work in retail that alone is enough to prove that humans are not naturally kind and at peace with other human beings. We are naturally rude and obnoxious. That one argument that can't be dismissed is something is wrong with the human race.


Manny

I have worked in retail. The vast majority of people are polite and cooperative.

Originally posted by whodey
Your comment blows me away so much I feel I must continue. There is a great deal of controversy as to the origins of war. Here is what Wiki says.
"There is little agreement about the origins of war. Some believe war has always been with us, others stress the lack of clear evidence for war in our prehistoric past, and the fact that many peaceful, non-milit ...[text shortened]... So I ask you, if you agree with what Ghandi is saying, what society is free of oppression?

Read your own cite:

Some believe war has always been with us, others stress the lack of clear evidence for war in our prehistoric past, and the fact that many peaceful, non-military societies have and still do exist.

The anthropological evidence strongly supports the first part of the statement in bold. And you don't have any explanation for why we aren't all out killing each other every day in Main Street USA or England or India; the vast majority of human interactions are based on peaceful cooperation. If our nature was violent and/or depraved, murder would be the rule not the exception.

Originally posted by whodey
Your comment blows me away so much I feel I must continue. There is a great deal of controversy as to the origins of war. Here is what Wiki says.
"There is little agreement about the origins of war. Some believe war has always been with us, others stress the lack of clear evidence for war in our prehistoric past, and the fact that many peaceful, non-milit So I ask you, if you agree with what Ghandi is saying, what society is free of oppression?

You are truly ignorant to try to use Gandhi to support the idea that human nature is evil and/or violent. He would be appalled.

Please read this:

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/brief_philosophy/brief_philosophy.html

EDIT: A highlight or two:

Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous.

For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the Ultimate Reality. This ultimate truth is God (as God is also Truth) and morality - the moral laws and code - its basis. Ahimsa, far from meaning mere peacefulness or the absence of overt violence, is understood by Gandhi to denote active love - the pole opposite of violence, or "himsa", in every sense. The ultimate station Gandhi assigns nonviolence stems from two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all life is one, then all violence committed towards another is violence towards oneself, towards the collective, whole self, and thus "self"-destructive and counter to the universal law of life, which is love. Second, Gandhi believed that ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. Had himsabeen superior to ahimsa, humankind would long ago have succeeded in destroying itself. The human race certainly could not have progressed as far as it has, even if universal justice remains far off the horizon. From both viewpoints, nonviolence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Read your own cite:

Some believe war has always been with us, [b]others stress the lack of clear evidence for war in our prehistoric past, and the fact that many peaceful, non-military societies have and still do exist.

The anthropological evidence strongly supports the first part of the statement in bold. And you don't have ration. If our nature was violent and/or depraved, murder would be the rule not the exception.[/b]

The article says, "Since the rise of the state some 5000 years ago, military activity has occured over much of the globe." Now lets see, how long ago Biblcially did Adam have his fall? If I recall, it was close to 5000 years ago.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are truly ignorant to try to use Gandhi to support the idea that human nature is evil and/or violent. He would be appalled.

Please read this:

http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/brief_philosophy/brief_philosophy.html

EDIT: A highlight or two:

Human nature is regarded as fundamentally virtuous.

For Gan ...[text shortened]... . From both viewpoints, nonviolence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.[/b]

I was not attempting to relay Ghandi's view of human nature, rather, I was merely pointing out that a war is not an indication of a peaceful society. In fact, he seems to think that the underlying violence that leads to war is human oppression. As for dealing with the reality of the human condition, thats his problem as well as yours. Say what you will but nothing changes the facts of the matter.

Originally posted by whodey
The article says, "Since the rise of the state some 5000 years ago, military activity has occured over much of the globe." Now lets see, how long ago Biblcially did Adam have his fall? If I recall, it was close to 5000 years ago.

What?? You don't actually believe that the Garden of Eden fairy tale is some sort of history lesson?

Rousseau argued that the rise of the "state" took us out of our state of nature and led to many evils, including war.

EDIT: I realize that is an over-simplification of Rousseau's philosophy but I submit it is basically a correct statement of it.

Originally posted by whodey
I was not attempting to relay Ghandi's view of human nature, rather, I was merely pointing out that a war is not an indication of a peaceful society. In fact, he seems to think that the underlying violence that leads to war is human oppression. As for dealing with the reality of the human condition, thats his problem as well as yours. Say what you will but nothing changes the facts of the matter.

Whether a particular society is peaceful is not the same question as whether human nature is basically cooperative and peaceful.

The "facts of the matter" is that human beings lead lives filled with peaceful cooperation and kindness and that is the accepted social norm pretty much everywhere.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What?? You don't actually believe that the Garden of Eden fairy tale is some sort of history lesson?

Rousseau argued that the rise of the "state" took us out of our state of nature and led to many evils, including war.

EDIT: I realize that is an over-simplification of Rousseau's philosophy but I submit it is basically a correct statement of it.

I believe that man underwent a process of evolution overseen by God and then when man physically met God's criterea he then breathed into him the essense of what distiguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom. So yes, I do believe the account in Genesis but I don't interpret it the same way that you and others may.

I don't think blaming the state for mans warlike tendencies is accurate. We must look at oppression within society that leads to war to understand what is occuring. This occurs with or without the state. Granted, the state has a way of oppressing those within societies and outside other societies that often leads to war. Therefore, we must look at mans nature as the reason for such oppression and even why man feels the need to dominate and rule over others via the state.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Whether a particular society is peaceful is not the same question as whether human nature is basically cooperative and peaceful.

The "facts of the matter" is that human beings lead lives filled with peaceful cooperation and kindness and that is the accepted social norm pretty much everywhere.

As a rule human prefer peace, however, human nature also seeks their own selfish pursuits at the same time. Therefore, those that may get in the way are then dealt with accordingly which may include sacrificing the peaceful ideal.

So do you think a man like Hitler was basically cooperative and peaceful? Maybe he was just misunderstood?