Is government a byproduct of our sinful nature?

[Sheldon]

That is putting it extremely mildly.

Yes in some cases I agree, but I thought brevity was necessary.

But yes, there is room of improvement, so the question is not whether should, in principle, replace our modern form of government with something better, but how, and with what.

Which was why I have from the OP asked what we're going to replace government with. Also we could continue to try and improve it, rather than replace it, just a thought. Some democracies are doing quite well by their people, and most are underappreciated, I think Orwell's 1984 should be mandatory reading in all schools, scared the life out of me.

 

[Sheldon]

I think one must be fortunate to be able to take that position. Many governments throughout human history have persecuted and oppressed people based on race, sex, religion nationality of birth, and so on. Not caring about government seems like it would be reserved to those not oppressed. Our perhaps you mean something else by caring less and less about government?

I agree, there is an old adage that people get the government they deserve, but sadly I don't think it is always the case, and many people have never known anything approaching free elections, or accountable government. The more you ignore government, the more freedom they have to behave out of nefarious self interest.

 

[Bree]

Ah that's much better, if it influences the physical world, it is no longer an unfalsifiable claim, and it's effects could be scrutinised and the data examined by science. So given you've 6 millennium, what have you got?

the history of the world is marred by corruption, war, hatred, division of the human family

When we say that something is 'inhumane', it means the action goes against human nature. What animal on this earth behaves contrary to its own nature?
If we are not living according to our true nature, then who's nature are we displaying?

 

[Valjean]

the history of the world is marred by corruption, war, hatred, division of the human family

When we say that something is 'inhumane', it means the action goes against human nature. What animal on this earth behaves contrary to its own nature?
If we are not living according to our true nature, then who's nature are we displaying?

Human nature is inhumane, that's why we have these tribal disputes.
Our psychology evolved to suit the lifestyle of small bands of hunter-gatherers, and it hasn't caught up with our recent experiments in other cultural arrangements.
We're still competitive with, if not hostile to, those outside our own tribe. We don't naturally extend moral consideration to The Other.

 

[Bree]

Human nature is inhumane, that's why we have these tribal disputes.
Our psychology evolved to suit the lifestyle of small bands of hunter-gatherers, and it hasn't caught up with our recent experiments in other cultural arrangements.
We're still competitive with, if not hostile to, those outside our own tribe. We don't naturally extend moral consideration to The Other.

and yet the 'other' nations all have the same morals that we do. \All humans have universal moral laws that applies no matter what nation or tribe they are from. Murder of another human is universally accepted as morally wrong. Sexual morals are universally accepted, for example incest is wrong in all cultures even though it happens. Rape is wrong in all cultures even thought it happens. Peodoophilia/homosexuality/lesbianism/adultery/beastiality these are all universally wrong in all cultures and yet there is a push by many to make them all acceptable. Mankind is not living according to its true nature.

Something other then mankind is driving this change.

 

[GardenLady]

homosexuality/lesbianism/

I'm not sure this is universally true. In any case, judging minority groups by the standards of dominant groups reflect only prejudice, not fact.

 

[Bree]

I'm not sure this is universally true. In any case, judging minority groups by the standards of dominant groups reflect only prejudice, not fact.

it is universally true and even up until recent times these practices were shunned by most people in all societies.

Sure there has been a change in peoples attitude in the last 20 years, but we have at least 6,000 years of human history where it was not acceptable even if it was happening.

 

[Sheldon]

Ah that's much better, if it influences the physical world, it is no longer an unfalsifiable claim, and it's effects could be scrutinised and the data examined by science. So given you've 6 millennium, what have you got?

the history of the world is marred by corruption, war, hatred, division of the human family

So what? None of that evidences your claim, HERE:

The world we live in today is one that has been devised and manipulated by these ruling anarchists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When we say that something is 'inhumane', it means the action goes against human nature.

Not even close to what inhumane means???
inhumane
adjective

1. without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What animal on this earth behaves contrary to its own nature?

I give up which?

If we are not living according to our true nature, then who's nature are we displaying?

I give up who's?

 

[Sheldon]

Peodoophilia/homosexuality/lesbianism/adultery/beastiality these are all universally wrong in all cultures and yet there is a push by many to make them all acceptable.

Being gay is most certainly not "universally wrong in all cultures" that is demonstrably false. Equally false is your claim that "there is a push by many to make paedophilia, adultery and bestiality acceptable."

You seem to be just making up claims based on naught but hyperbole?

 

[Bree]

So what? None of that evidences your claim, HERE:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not even close to what inhumane means???
inhumane
adjective

1. without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I give up which?



I give up who's?

so committing acts of war on a fellow human is not inhumane? You think the soldiers feel compassion before blowing up the home of a defenseless family? Before they shoot someone execution style, they feel compassion?

What is not inhuman about what is happening in Ukraine for example?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Government seems inevitable. Every time a group of humans are offered a choice between government and no government, it seems that a government is formed.
I am of the opinion that government is inherently evil and sinful. From my Christian perspective, it seems that the Bible is anti government rather than pro government. I think the book of Judges is a demonstration of this thematic material, as well as some parts of Samuel.
Is the Bible Anarchist?
from a Christian perspective, humanity is sinful. Society is sinful. Do you suppose if Adam and Eve never sinned, that they would’ve made a government? I don’t think so. I think sin is a prerequisite for government. What is government? Is it not just a group of individuals exerting sinful control over others lives and resources? I don’t consent to a government dictating my life, I believe the individuals in government who are dictating my life are in sin because they do not have my consent.
Is government a byproduct of our sinful nature?

That's pretty much as I understand it. God meant for us to "walk with Him" and be with Him directly, as in the garden, as I understand it. In 1 Samuel, God didn't want Israel to have a human king either, but to be ruled directly by Him, but the people clamored for a king like the other nations. God relented and let them have what they want, but warned them that it wouldn't end well for them, and that they have rejected Him as their King.

I don't believe that humans were meant to rule over others.

 

[Valjean]

it is universally true and even up until recent times these practices were shunned by most people in all societies.

You really need to take some anthropology courses. They were not shunned by most people in all societies. They were shunned by people in the society you're familiar with, and you're extrapolating.

Sure there has been a change in peoples attitude in the last 20 years, but we have at least 6,000 years of human history where it was not acceptable even if it was happening.

If God disapproves of homosexuals, why does he create so many of them?

 

[Bree]

You really need to take some anthropology courses. They were not shunned by most people in all societies. They were shunned by people in the society you're familiar with, and you're extrapolating.

If God disapproves of homosexuals, why does he create so many of them?

are there any sexual acts that you think are wrong?

or do you accept all forms of sexual behavior as normal?

 

[Valjean]

That's pretty much as I understand it. God meant for us to "walk with Him" and be with Him directly, as in the garden, as I understand it. In 1 Samuel, God didn't want Israel to have a human king either, but to be ruled directly by Him, but the people clamored for a king like the other nations. God relented and let them have what they want, but warned them that it wouldn't end well for them, and that they have rejected Him as their King.

I don't believe that humans were meant to rule over others.

So how are we to maintain a safe and orderly society larger than a handful of people who all know one another?
History has clearly demonstrated that there exist quite a few people who would rob, cheat, exploit, and even kill, given the chance. How are we to avoid chaos, if not by commonly agreed upon rules and a system of coercion?

You speak of the Bible, but what other book is so replete with rules, regulations and propriety? Is this not as repressive as any government?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So how are we to maintain a safe and orderly society larger than a handful of people who all know one another?
History has clearly demonstrated that there exist quite a few people who would rob, cheat, exploit, and even kill, given the chance. How are we to avoid chaos, if not by commonly agreed upon rules and a system of coercion?

You speak of the Bible, but what other book is so replete with rules, regulations and propriety? Is this not as repressive as any government?

I'm speaking of hierarchical government. Sure, there needs to be order in society. There's many forms of direct democracy and different types of anarchism, neotribalism and libertarianism to choose from. However, I wouldn't say I'm an anarchist and I think we're stuck with government as we know it until God brings things to their conclusion.

I don't find the Bible to have that many "rules" in it. The NT focuses on moral instruction. Even so, no one is proposing a free for all. Of course there's moral law, regardless of government.

 

[Valjean]

are there any sexual acts that you think are wrong?

Those which cause harm, distress or suffering. Those which are forced.
Pretty much my guideline for any act.

or do you accept all forms of sexual behavior as normal?

Normal is a statistical percentage. Red hair or green eyes are less common than homosexuality. Are they abnormal? What's the defining percentage?
...and what should we do about these green eyed, red haired freaks?


Me, I have no problem with abnormal. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," as Jefferson might say.
My problem is with harmful.

 

[Valjean]

I'm speaking of hierarchical government. Sure, there needs to be order in society. There's many forms of direct democracy and different types of anarchism, neotribalism and libertarianism to choose from. However, I wouldn't say I'm an anarchist and I think we're stuck with government as we know it until God brings things to their conclusion.

Well comrade, as a socialist and advocate of democracy, I, too, have misgivings about a hierarchical, dictatorial or exploitative government.
I'm not so sure about these systems you listed, though:

Anarcho-syndacalism seemed to be working fairly well in Barcelona, for a while, till Franco stepped in -- but would it work in a larger or more culturally diverse society?
Tribalism, neo or other, is what we're psychologically wired for, it's the natural state of humans. But it works only within the tribe; within a Dunbar limit. These internally functional tribes compete with and exploit other tribes. Without some sort of coercive regulatory system (government?), we'd get the widespread skirmishing and exploitation we often see in actual tribal cultures.

If Earth's population were only a few million, we might get along pretty amicably, with little need for pillage or additional Lebensraum. It was, after all, settling into permanent villages and increasing population that led to the specialization and social hierarchies that plague us today. But till we can return to the sparse population density of the original hunter-gatherers, our tribes will need some sort of 'government' oversight or regulation.
Libertarianism I find problematic, as well. We already have pretty high rates of crime and exploitation. Reduce regulation and oversight and I fear we'd have more.

I don't find the Bible to have that many "rules" in it. The NT focuses on moral instruction. Even so, no one is proposing a free for all. Of course there's moral law, regardless of government.

What about the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, to start with? They can be pretty restrictive -- and a lot of them seem senseless. Should we just discard the OT, then?
Maybe "moral law" should be synonymous with government -- but you can see the problems with that.
Moral principles, on the other hand, would be a good thing, IMHO -- but how to enforce them among the anti-social, tribal and sociopathic? -- Government?

 

[Valjean]

and yet the 'other' nations all have the same morals that we do. \All humans have universal moral laws that applies no matter what nation or tribe they are from. Murder of another human is universally accepted as morally wrong. Sexual morals are universally accepted, for example incest is wrong in all cultures even though it happens. Rape is wrong in all cultures even thought it happens. Peodoophilia/homosexuality/lesbianism/adultery/beastiality these are all universally wrong in all cultures and yet there is a push by many to make them all acceptable. Mankind is not living according to its true nature.

No. standards of morality vary widely between cultures. Almost nothing -- including murder -- is held universally.
Moreover, what morality we have is, by our nature, restricted to our own tribes. Extending moral consideration to "The Other" is unnatural and must be enculturated. Even so, it's a thin veneer. Do we not hold the military in high esteem, even though its raison d'être is to kill people and break things?
What is moral outside our borders/tribe seems different from that we apply to our neighbors.

Something other then mankind is driving this change.[/QUOTE]

 

[Valjean]

and yet the 'other' nations all have the same morals that we do. \All humans have universal moral laws that applies no matter what nation or tribe they are from. Murder of another human is universally accepted as morally wrong. Sexual morals are universally accepted, for example incest is wrong in all cultures even though it happens. Rape is wrong in all cultures even thought it happens. Peodoophilia/homosexuality/lesbianism/adultery/beastiality these are all universally wrong in all cultures and yet there is a push by many to make them all acceptable. Mankind is not living according to its true nature.

No. standards of morality vary widely between cultures. Almost nothing -- including murder -- is held universally.
Moreover, what morality we have, is, by our nature, restricted to our own tribes. Extending moral consideration to "The Other" is unnatural and enculturated. "Natural morality" -- the behavior that evolved over millions of years to fit a small-band, hunter-gatherer lifestyle -- does not extend beyond the band or tribe. "The Other" retains the same moral status as ducks or deer.

The learned, 'expanded morality' needed in today's large, multicultural civilizations is a thin veneer, easily stripped away. Destruction and murder are acceptable in the military, for example, yet we hold the military in high esteem, and as morally upright, even though its raison d'être is to kill people and break things.
What is moral outside our borders/tribe seems different from that we apply to our neighbors.

 

[GardenLady]

it is universally true and even up until recent times these practices were shunned by most people in all societies.

Sure there has been a change in peoples attitude in the last 20 years, but we have at least 6,000 years of human history where it was not acceptable even if it was happening.

And we have tens of thousands of years in which women and children were treated as chattel Tens of thousands of years of chattel slavery. Hopefully, we have learned something about treating disenfranchised people better.