Our true nature

[Paladin]

It seems that within most religious models there are basically two ways of seeing into the nature of human beings. One is that humans are basically evil (or amoral at best) and need something outside themselves to offer dicipline and structure lest they fall back into their base nature, the path to their own demise.
The other is that people are still as they were created, ( or came to be) pure, innocent but covered over with layers of wrong thinking, false beliefs, and therefore crude, irreverent, even evil behaviors at times. It is to this belief that people can become self correcting if lead by proper teachings and sound practice untill the dicipline comes from within and looking outside the self becomes an incorrect practice.

What do you think, is it one or the other or is there a third (or beyond) possibility?

Peace

Mark

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

It seems that within most religious models there are basically two ways of seeing into the nature of human beings. One is that humans are basically evil ...other is that people are ... pure, innocent...What do you think, is it one or the other or is there a third (or beyond) possibility?

Yes, I think it is our perception that breeds both. In Christianity original sin is a force to be reckoned with, but not one that all follow...so I see it as perception.

As one with tens of thousands of miles on my thumb having personally been the benificiary of the generosity of hundreds of people, my perception is the newspaper, radio and TV tend to make people fearful and believing both paradigms.

The story comes to mind of the traveler going to the next village...

Traveler to man on side of road, "Pardon me, do you know the people in the next village?"

Man, "Yes, I've been there"

Traveler, "How are the people there?"

Man, "How were the people from where you came?"

Traveler, "They were mean, distrustful, I had to leave"

Man, "I'm afraid you'll find the folks in the next village the same"

Another travelor comes by with similar questions and the man replies, "How were the people from where you came?"

Trav 2, "They were a wonderful, generous sort, truly a fun place to be."

Man, "You'll be happy to know you'll find the next village the same."

[arthra]

Mark:

Yeh.. I think there can be a third possibility...that human beings can progress over time. So recognizing the potential of humanity to progress is an important feature in my Faith. As Abdul-Baha stressed in Paris Talks:

"All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress."

So I think we have the view that humanity can progress and achieve greatness and nobility.

- Art

[cavalier]

I think there could be another possibility, that we are inherently both good and evil, or neither good nor evil.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by cavalier

I think there could be another possibility, that we are inherently both good and evil, or neither good nor evil.

This is actually quite profound Cavalier. If the the essence of what we truly are is divine and beyond dualistic concepts.

Actually all the posts in this thread have been great so far. I guess what I am trying to get at is a quasi spirtual-sociological response.
The religions that man has cultivated over the years seem to view the human race from only one of the two stated premisies.
St. Paul says that "The natural man receiveth not the things of God" Implying that at the heart of things we aren't the sharpest spiritual tool in the shed, and need a little goading to achieve even a modicum of moral development.

The Buddhist idea is that we are the "Gold coin covered in mud" and that by dropping the layers of negativity we can recover our true Buddha nature.

The mystics of many religions (Even the Trappist Monk Thomas Merton) seemed to say that we need to get in touch with our true selves and then trancend even that to reach union with the Divine, similar to what Cavalier has said.
So depending on what view you subscribe to might determine which religion, and what sect of that religion, you are attracted to.

peace

Mark

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Paladin

It seems that within most religious models there are basically two ways of seeing into the nature of human beings. One is that humans are basically evil (or amoral at best) and need something outside themselves to offer dicipline and structure lest they fall back into their base nature, the path to their own demise.
The other is that people are still as they were created, ( or came to be) pure, innocent but covered over with layers of wrong thinking, false beliefs, and therefore crude, irreverent, even evil behaviors at times. It is to this belief that people can become self correcting if lead by proper teachings and sound practice untill the dicipline comes from within and looking outside the self becomes an incorrect practice.

What do you think, is it one or the other or is there a third (or beyond) possibility?

Peace

Mark

Dear Paladin,

I think all of it depends on what is wanted in the final outcome? If we want to "temporarily" change our outward behavior we can "mechanically" do this in our flesh. If we seek long lasting change we need it from "inside-out" by God's Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach that the heart is "desperately wicked". Therefore, we must have a change of heart first before the "outward" fruits from the "inner change" can be seen and long term legitimate. This process is done "apart from ourselves" and has long term benefits. Again, the question must first be asked, "What is the desired results of a change?"

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear Paladin,

I think all of it depends on what is wanted in the final outcome? If we want to "temporarily" change our outward behavior we can "mechanically" do this in our flesh. If we seek long lasting change we need it from "inside-out" by God's Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach that the heart is "desperately wicked". Therefore, we must have a change of heart first before the "outward" fruits from the "inner change" can be seen and long term legitimate. This process is done "apart from ourselves" and has long term benefits. Again, the question must first be asked, "What is the desired results of a change?"

Uh, yes, a valid line of inquiry, but what I would like to know is, a change from what?
I would hazard a guess from your post then that you see Humanity as intrinsically evil?

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Uh, yes, a valid line of inquiry, but what I would like to know is, a change from what?
I would hazard a guess from your post then that you see Humanity as intrinsically evil?

Dear Paladin,

I suppose again that depends on our definition of "Evil"? It also requires understanding of a "Fallen Nature". I see Humanity as people who "want to do right" yet struggle because of "lust-greed-selfishness" end up generally doing wrong. Self attempts to "silence" these inner desires...usually only result in "temporal" behavior changes. How long has mankind through philosophy and self-help methods tried to re-do self with little if any improvements?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear Paladin,

I suppose again that depends on our definition of "Evil"? It also requires understanding of a "Fallen Nature". I see Humanity as people who "want to do right" yet struggle because of "lust-greed-selfishness" end up generally doing wrong. Self attempts to "silence" these inner desires...usually only result in "temporal" behavior changes.

Fair enough, but please define "Fallen Nature"

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Fair enough, but please define "Fallen Nature"

Dear Paladin,

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

Genesis 6:5-6

[wil]

Genesis3:3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." .... 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by wil

Genesis3:3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " 4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." .... 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.

Dear wil,

Boy, I have a Mormon friend who likes to run with that one...

[Paladin]

Okay, from these responses I would be led to think that JBF sees Humanity as "Fallen" as it were, which I take to mean, for lack of a better word, bad.
while Wil on the other hand seems to favor the idea that we choose from moment to moment or perception to perception what we intrisically are, which if true opens up another facinating line of inquiry altogether.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

...we choose from moment to moment or perception to perception what we intrisically are, which if true opens up another facinating line of inquiry altogether.

Don't we?

Take a person who is engaged in premarital sex. Is this evil? Or does it depend on who you ask?

Now couldn't we design a whole list of evils from the minor (common courtesy mistakes) to the major (pick your poison) where anyone on the chart who is currently in that behaviour will always look up and say, oh that isn't bad, or look down and indicate that the items below him are just not acceptable?

And couldn't we always find someone who could add another item to the top or bottom of the list?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wil

Don't we?

Take a person who is engaged in premarital sex. Is this evil? Or does it depend on who you ask?

Now couldn't we design a whole list of evils from the minor (common courtesy mistakes) to the major (pick your poison) where anyone on the chart who is currently in that behaviour will always look up and say, oh that isn't bad, or look down and indicate that the items below him are just not acceptable?

And couldn't we always find someone who could add another item to the top or bottom of the list?

Ah now I see the difficulty! Why didn't I see it before? Could it be my brain is a bit foggy? (Imagine that! )

Anyway, I define what we ARE as distinctly different from what we DO. In other words we are not our behavior. But perhaps Wil this is your belief? Like I said, if this were so it would open up another line of inquiry altogether, not so?