Why can't humans solve the problems facing mankind?

That's a very poor definition of Faith. But it wouldn't be the first time the Bible has been misinterpreted.


What you have described isn't Faith, it's Reasoning and Deduction.

If you want to redefine Faith for your own personal use to mean Reasoning and Deduction that's fine, but it's clearly a different usage than the common usage of the term with regard to religion.

I agree with your point about religion not being the cure but in many cases being the problem. But we have to remember that religion and truth are two different things. And we're not talking about truth from a person's own perspective, but truth based upon a universal standard. Lets examine a particular quarter of religion, Christendom. The primary cause of the confusion that exists in this area has to do primarily with persons picking and choosing what standards and principles they will follow based on their own personal views.

For example, in the Bible at Hebrews 13:18 highlights the value of honesty and integrity in all aspects of a person's life. If you were to conduct a survey of persons who claim to be Christian many would say that they view this as an admirable quality. But when it comes to actually living by this principle, many of these same persons opt for convience at the expense of honesty and integrity. Yes, this Bible principle is sound, and it benefits anyone applying it, but many choose to set it aside if it means that they might miss out on some advantage.

As i've already established to my own satisfcation from reading other posts of yours, you are a convinced christian. It profoundly affects your thinking, that much is obvious.

There is no virtue lauded in scripture which is either original or unique to scripture. You apparently missed entirely my comment to the effect that the want of religion never made a good man bad. People can be virtuous without benefit of clergy or scripture, and the venality and cupidity of the religiously devout make it clear that neither clergy nor scripture are sufficient to assure virtue. The inescapable conclusion is that religion is irrelevant to virtue. Your claims remind me of those who defend their religious faith against the examples of adherents whose behavior is less than sterling by saying that they are not truly christian (or muslim, or jain or whatever). Having read a great deal of history in my life, i long ago came to the conclusion that mankind has prospered and progressed (after a fashion) despite organized religion, and not because of it.

You got me. Yes, I am a Christian. And your right, man has made tremendous progress, I do agree with you. But at the same time, he has fallen behind in his ability to manage his affairs. This is evidenced in country after country where the discord found is at an unprecedented scale. History confirms that man is at a point in his existence where he faces challenges that he finds he cannot solve. It's not that he is not trying, it's just not in him to govern himself.

At fault too is the religious community because of it's hpocrisy. It's no wonder people see religion, and especially many who provess to be Christian, as nothing more than a big joke. It's really sad because it does prevent people from really having a chance to see if the counsel the Bible provides as a viable option. Instead people are forced to make their own way life, hoping that things will workout. But all the evidence we see before us is pointing not to overall success, but that we are on the brink of total failure.

As one man put it after having lived many years, if we had the answer, we would have fixed our problems along time ago. But we haven't. On our own our first impulse is not to be just and fair, but to lookout for one's self first and foremost. It is in this climate that we find ourselves. Left to our own ways, thinking and so called solutions, we can expect nothing more, than more of the same.

I hope from our conversations you see me, not as a religious fanatic, or a person who is acting in a blind, unreasoning manner, but one who, like yourself, cares very much about what's going on today.

I cannot agree with this at all. Many nations in our world are hag-ridden by military kleptocracies. Even as recently as a thousand years ago, that was the rule rather than the exception. Less than two hundred years ago, the Parliament in London was elected by less than 5% of the white male population. Most of Europe was directly in the hands of or under the hegemony of the self-styled Holy Alliance--Austria, Prussia and Russia. All of their leaders were reactionary autocrats. Two hundred years ago, the former Spanish colonies of North and South America were in revolt against Spain. In the case of Mexico, previous attempts at rebellion had been put down ruthlessly by right-wing supporters of the Spanish monarchy. After the final defeat of Napoleon and the settlement of Europe, Spain had a liberal government under Queen Isabella. At that point, the reactionary leaders of Mexico rebelled against that threat to their conservative status quo. In central and South America, the quasi-liberal governments established in the wake of successful rebellions soon were corrupted by or fell outright to right-wing social ascendancies which not only exploited the common men and women of their new nations, but set about attempts to exterminate the aboriginal inhabitants with a ruthlessness which would have made the old Spanish empire blush.

China was in the hands of a reactionary and anti-western dynasty. Japan was controlled by a dynastic shogunate which had exclueded westerners and christianity, and would not change until the United States Navy sailed into Tokyo bay and threatened them in 18t3. There was so little resembling reliable government in the Malaysian penninsula that Eastindiamen, the merchant ships of the East India Company, were as well armed as the frigates of the Royal Navy. Piracy was the biggest individual entrepreneurial industry in the world at that time.

I'm afarid i'm no friend to claims about the decay of society in our modern, degenerate times. People have been singing that song for literally thousands of years. Bucky Fuller quotes an Egyptian inscription from about 6000 years ago: "We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect
their parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently
inhabit taverns and have no self control." Hesiod wrote more than 2500 years ago: "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words . . . When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint." In fact, Hesiod (who lived and wrote about 2700 years ago) makes it a theme of his review of history and society. He was convinced that his socieity was descended from a golden age, but that it's virtues and institutions were decaying.

I continue to consider greed, venality, cupidity and indifference to be the cause of the world's miseries. I don't see that that has changed over the thousands of years of which we have records.

Well stated Setanta, well stated.

Setanta, I'm looking to start another thread that should prove most interesting. It deals with showing people that the fiery Hell that many Christians hear about in their churchs and have been taught to fear, according to the Bible, does not exist.

I hope you can join in.

This is absolutely true and is clearly exhibited in our sporting events. Some are benign (golf), but most are very violent. It is in our nature. Watch parents taking their 10 year olds to the ultimate fighting matches. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I am saying it is a very large part of our nature. It comes from a self preservation motivation. We travel in large packs and develop a strong motivation to vanquish our opponents (enemies). Been to a college football game? Watch the competition on tv reality shows. It shows up there at a personal level. That will not be taken out of our psyche and in fact may be responsible for our position on the food chain.

The sad part is when it exhibits itself at a national level and results in war and so many innocent casualties.

We are a tribal species and the only hope I can see is someday to have a world peace force that can keep the conflict at a reasonable level. But it is also scary to think that any government would have that much power.

Just imagine what could be done if the money spent on aggression and defense was spent on feeding and educating people.

Bottom line is that at a basic level our first instinct is to fight.

Because of selfishness and cruel intentions.
Today's free-markets, not surprisingly, will follow the vicious cycle of greed and endless growth.
Don't look at my horde of gold that way. Go find your own.

Probably because its counter-productive...
Greed drives alot of the advancement you mention, yet greed also causes our biggest problems.

When were ever the words "fucked up" more appropriate...?

I think that there are many reason but I will only list 2 of them.

One reason that we have not advanced in these areas is because many people are not informed of a better way forward and another reason is that different degrees of sociopathy run rapid in the human race.
I think that it might be possible in the future for most people to see a better way forward and even for many sociopaths.

The problem is that, so far in our history, episodes of dominant forces able to maintain periods of relative peace and order have been both relatively short-lived , and controlled by elites who exploited others, thereby sowing the seeds for their own destruction.

A similar tale can be told about our track record in establishing equitable economic systems: they too became corrupted by dominant elites who ran the show for their opwn power and benefit. Worse still, almost all failed to deliver anything but poverty and the loss of freedom & creativity.

Sadly history has amply demonstrated the folly and unrealism of all such Platonic schemes - however well-intended they may have originally been.

Humans crave freedom and independence. Limited competition appears to be the only workable system.

Sir, you had a nice career, since you apparently, in my opinion, had the good sense to side with those competitors that were the winners. Are you biting the proverbial hand that fed you?

Great reply in my opinion.

This is not meant to be an insult but rather an observation.

You seem to have come to a sociopathic conclusion in my opinion. Are you suggesting that the slaves should take sides with the slave masters or they would be biting the hands that feed them?

What do you mean advanced society? Take a look on you tube ,black Friday at Walmart . Kind of looks like animals fighting over a carcass. Has anyone seen the book "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free.

I believe it is in the nature of evolution. Every being, or group or beings has to work for its survival. There will always be threats so there will always be struggles. War is a large scale struggle. Crime is a low scale war on the presumed norms of society and disease is either war with other biological species (bacteria/viruses) or just internal wear and tear.

The keyword is limited. By who? The powerful will always win.

Do you realize this post was over a year old?

I guess the question persists because it will never be answered to the satisfaction of enough people. Why don't more realize that the answer is "greed" and thus conclude that the end of civilization as we know it will inevitably result from that greed?