Our biggest problem?

[Hidden In Him]

I just equate the 'beating the body into submission' thing that Paul puts forth as being a teaching tool for monks to place on their charges to endorse self-floggings etc.

Yeah. That actually doesn't help either. If you flog your flesh yet feed it like a pig, all you'll do is submit to fleshly desires while in PAIN, LoL.

Paul didn't want to shadowbox because he realized that the fight was not against flesh and blood but against principalities of the air

The shadowboxing analogy was indeed a teaching on fasting, i.e. that he was actually bringing hits home instead of just play-acting in his battle against the flesh. As for its relation to the war against principalities and powers, that's a pretty long answer, but it does apply indirectly.

 

[Cearbhall]

Wouldn't it be useful to admit it to ourselves as adults then teach our kids early on that this will be their biggest hurdle in life, controlling this selfish nature?

Isn't that already the focus of parenting? Guiding one's children beyond the ego and the pre-conventional stages of moral development?

 

[bhsmte]

Why is the truth so darn obscure that almost everyone lives in ignorance???

With some, it is not that the truth is obscure, it is that well evidenced reality is too painful to acknowledge. So, they manufacture their own reality, that is personally appealing to them.

 

[AirPo]

Is our basic selfish, thoughtless nature our biggest problem? If yes, do enough people recognize it to take steps to address it? Wouldn't it be useful to admit it to ourselves as adults then teach our kids early on that this will be their biggest hurdle in life, controlling this selfish nature? And wouldn't such teaching be some comfort to the lower class kids knowing that their better-off classmates have this nature as well?

Appealing to our 'better angels' hasn't worked so well. Maybe it's time to address our 'demons'. Thoughts?

Yes, no, probably not, and definitely no.

1 and 2 should be obvious. 3 the people that need to do that never will. $, it would take generation for it to filter down to that level and by then it would not be recognizable to the effort that started it in the first place.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is our basic selfish, thoughtless nature our biggest problem? If yes, do enough people recognize it to take steps to address it? Wouldn't it be useful to admit it to ourselves as adults then teach our kids early on that this will be their biggest hurdle in life, controlling this selfish nature? And wouldn't such teaching be some comfort to the lower class kids knowing that their better-off classmates have this nature as well?

Appealing to our 'better angels' hasn't worked so well. Maybe it's time to address our 'demons'. Thoughts?

It depends on what you mean by "problem"...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It depends on what you mean by "problem"...

Our biggest problem is our moral weakness, from which most other problems flow.

The late Adrian Rogers nailed when he said, "Man isn't a thief because he steals, he steals because he is a thief."

 

[jardiniere]

Is our basic selfish, thoughtless nature our biggest problem? If yes, do enough people recognize it to take steps to address it? Wouldn't it be useful to admit it to ourselves as adults then teach our kids early on that this will be their biggest hurdle in life, controlling this selfish nature? And wouldn't such teaching be some comfort to the lower class kids knowing that their better-off classmates have this nature as well?

Appealing to our 'better angels' hasn't worked so well. Maybe it's time to address our 'demons'. Thoughts?

The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.

I long ago came to the conclusion that at base, we are innately helpful, even to strangers. Even though I don't agree with your methods, arguments or solutions, I can see that you are attempting to help strangers.

For a long time, I didn't see anything written by others to support my contention that this is the case. Our society goes to a lot of effort to redirect our instincts with the secondary issues of idividualism, selfishness and tribalism, and to try to address problems by attempting to apply those secondary issues to perceived problems. Which obviously don't always work, even to our selfish advantage.

I think that instead of primarily applauding individualism as a goal in itself, we should also also applaud those that help others just as much. Be more evenhanded in doling out praise for standing up for being an individual, and standing up to help out other people.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I long ago came to the conclusion that at base, we are innately helpful, even to strangers. Even though I don't agree with your methods, arguments or solutions, I can see that you are attempting to help strangers.

For a long time, I didn't see anything written by others to support my contention that this is the case. Our society goes to a lot of effort to redirect our instincts with the secondary issues of idividualism, selfishness and tribalism, and to try to address problems by attempting to apply those secondary issues to perceived problems. Which obviously don't always work, even to our selfish advantage.

I think that instead of primarily applauding individualism as a goal in itself, we should also also applaud those that help others just as much. Be more evenhanded in doling out praise for standing up for being an individual, and standing up to help out other people.

I think your biologists should measure our 'goodness' against the problems we cause and determine whether or not there is a reasonable balance. In other words if we are so good, why all the problems?

 

[bhsmte]

I think your biologists should measure our 'goodness' against the problems we cause and determine whether or not there is a reasonable balance. In other words if we are so good, why all the problems?

Why the problems? Because we are human beings, not robots.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why the problems? Because we are human beings, not robots.

That's my point.

 

[bhsmte]

That's my point.

Well, then accept the flaws of humans.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, then accept the flaws of humans.

I accept that others are flawed, but I don't accept their flawed behaviors (neither do the police).

I just removed all the abandoned bikes from our bike rack. I don't accept tenants moving out and leaving their rusty bikes with flat tires locked to the rack; flawed and unacceptable behavior.

 

[bhsmte]

I accept that others are flawed, but I don't accept their flawed behaviors (neither do the police).

I just removed all the abandoned bikes from our bike rack. I don't accept tenants moving out and leaving their rusty bikes with flat tires locked to the rack; flawed and unacceptable behavior.

Cool

 

[jardiniere]

(snip) In other words if we are so good, why all the problems?

It's not "if we are so good", it's that we all have the innate ability to be "good", something often overlooked in our society and in the bible (but not completely). But if we aren't taught that being good is rewarding and important, then other innate behaviors will easily overshadow what good we have.

Jesus didn't go around saying, "Berate the poor for their bad behavior" did he? I think he was trying to get people to understand that good behavior is rewarding in itself, it brings people together, and makes us happy. I know a lot of people that are mean spirited, fearful, angry, and spiteful. And they aren't happy. And unhappy people make others around them unhappy.

You don't have to be a doormat to be a good person, but that's not often portrayed in this society. Our society really emphasizes and often elevates the violent individualist over a mass of people ganged up against them. But masses of people are not always a bad thing-think of all the people coming out to help others get back on their feet after a disaster. We have this ability to come together for something better than just ourselves. We need to remember this more than we now do.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think your biologists should measure our 'goodness' against the problems we cause and determine whether or not there is a reasonable balance. In other words if we are so good, why all the problems?

"Your biologists"? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Our biggest problem is our moral weakness, from which most other problems flow.

The late Adrian Rogers nailed when he said, "Man isn't a thief because he steals, he steals because he is a thief."

"The problem isn't that men are evil, it's that men are good. If all men were evil, who would care?"

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think your biologists should measure our 'goodness' against the problems we cause and determine whether or not there is a reasonable balance. In other words if we are so good, why all the problems?

1. morality is subjective, as is the concept of "good". The closest "good" ever comes to being measurable is the vague definition of "good is whatever benefits society as a whole, and bad is whatever is detrimental to a society as a whole", and even that leaves too much room to interpretation.

2. The majority of humanity doesn't make waves, neither being particularly "good" or "bad", their lives consisting of mostly neutral choices with minor "bad" and "good" things speckled in. For example, choosing between a hotdog and a hamburger doesn't lend either choice to being moral or immoral.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Your biologists"? What is that supposed to mean?

It was a response to this.

"The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1. morality is subjective, as is the concept of "good". The closest "good" ever comes to being measurable is the vague definition of "good is whatever benefits society as a whole, and bad is whatever is detrimental to a society as a whole", and even that leaves too much room to interpretation.

2. The majority of humanity doesn't make waves, neither being particularly "good" or "bad", their lives consisting of mostly neutral choices with minor "bad" and "good" things speckled in. For example, choosing between a hotdog and a hamburger doesn't lend either choice to being moral or immoral.

Well then, we have nothing to worry about.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"The problem isn't that men are evil, it's that men are good. If all men were evil, who would care?"

Mankind is a mixture of good and evil, with the balance constantly changing.