The nature of human being

[fccool]

Here's a short poll that I hope will help the ball rolling on the discussion. These questions essentially relate to view of religion and what place it holds among humans.

Some may ascribe to the view that that humans are unable to do anything good unless they subscribe and submit themselves to certain religious practices.

Yet other may think that religion only amplifies what's already present in human beings. I.E. , if humans may desire good, then religion would amplify it and channel it in a proper direction. If they desire evil and self-aggrandizement, then religion will likewise aid in that.

I'd like to see what your thoughts on this issue. Forgive the spelling.

[John317]

Your poll doesn't give an option that I would choose, which is that humans are born with fallen natures, yet they are capable of doing beneficial, loving acts before accepting Christ because of the Holy Spirit. I believe that apart from the Holy Spirit, humans would be completely evil. Every good, loving motive is due to the work of the Holy Spirit on human hearts.

[fccool]

John,

I appreciate the addition. Before proceeding with this discussion ... I'd like you to define the term "fallen nature". I'd would likewise for you to explain in which way does the Holy Spirit enable humans to do good things. I.E. Explain it in context of mechanics of the action and personal free will.

[SivartM]

I don't see how you can make moral judgments about a person who hasn't done anything.

[John317]

By fallen natures, I mean that humans are born with predispositions, or leanings, to disobey God and want their own will as opposed to seeking God's will. This is sometimes expressed by people saying "# 1" when referencing themselves, and saying "it's my thing" or "do your own thing," instead of putting God as #1 and doing "God's thing."

The Holy Spirit gives us desires to be kind and loving towards others, and He gives these desires to all people, not just Christians. In doing this, the Spirit doesn't violate our freedom because in the end, it is our choice if we act on those desire that He places in our hearts and minds. Many people choose to act against those desires. For instance, the Holy Spirit gives me a desire to do God's will and to love Christ, but I am free at any time to reject those desires. I am also free to foster those desires by doing God's will and by seeking to build my relationship with Christ. But I can also reject it by doing things I know that God doesn't want me to do.

[John317]

Not sure if your question is for me or for fccool.

But in the context of the questions in the poll, I think the answer is that we can make a judgment about human nature on the basis of what the Bible teaches.

[fccool]

Quote:

By fallen natures, I mean that humans are born with predispositions, or leanings, to disobey God and want their own will as opposed to seeking God's will. This is sometimes expressed by people saying "# 1" when referencing themselves, and saying "it's my thing" or "do your own thing," instead of putting God as #1 and doing "God's thing."

But, in saying so you imply that the "original programming" of humans is essentially evil. It's not much different than saying that humans are naturally evil.

Quote:

The Holy Spirit gives us desires to be kind and loving towards others, and He gives these desires to all people, not just Christians. In doing this, the Spirit doesn't violate our freedom because in the end, it is our choice if we act on those desire that He places in our hearts and minds.

By definition, desire is something that's a product of a will of a person. You can't separate desire from the person. If I desire a juicy sausage, where does the desire originate? Can the desire logically originate from anywhere else but your self?

So, what you are saying is that naturally humans WILL AGAINST GOOD. BUT, Holy Spirit injects an unnatural for humans desire that they have a choice to follow.

I don't understand how you can reconcile such view with the idea of free will, which is ability of a person to act out HIS OWN desires. Not desires of Government, Church, God. Sure, these may overlap at certain point... but the idea of "desire injection" can only take you so far.

Quote:

Many people choose to act against those desires. For instance, the Holy Spirit gives me a desire to do God's will and to love Christ, but I am free at any time to reject those desires. I am also free to foster those desires by doing God's will and by seeking to build my relationship with Christ. But I can also reject it by doing things I know that God doesn't want me to do.

There's a little tiny hole in your view that sort of tears the entire logic of the argument apart. Let me demonstrate.

1) Humans have propensity to seek self and thus evil

2) Holy Spirit injects in them desire to do good, which they can either ignore or act upon

3) They now have to choose to either act selfishly or on that injected good desire.

I'm not even going to touch the implications of free will. I simply point your attention to the human choice, which has to originate from fallen "self". How can "fallen self" choose to act on a good desire which is unnatural to it? If self always acts selfishly, then why would it act upon unselfish injected desire? If it is able to do that, then it's able to will that desire in the first place.

On logical level, your assumption does not even makes sense in context of free will.

If people are predisposed to do bad unless injected good desires, then the idea of free will goes out the window. It's only free to the point that the choice is made by the agent... i.e. it's as much free as a choice of a robot to only choose #1 when presented with variety of choices, then then able to randomly choose either #1 or #2 when new option is injected.

That's not what free will is.

[fccool]

I guess the question is... can we desire something that we are ignorant of? Can you desire candy if you've never seen or hear of one? Can you desire something that's outside of the scope of your self-awareness?

[Light Fox]

I think part of the difficulty comes in the definitions used, particularly option #1. How is "anything good" defined? What are we considering a "good" action to be?

There is a difference between moral good and righteousness. People are entirely capable of performing "good" actions without accepting - or even hearing of - Christ. Atheists may (and often enough do) feed the poor, perform acts of charity, etc.

By nature, however, humanity is corrupt and without God - evil, essentially. The Scriptures speak of this clearly enough in places such as Romans 3:10-18. "Good" actions, if they do not come consistently from a regenerate heart, are not "righteous" actions - they are not fruit brought forth from a right(eous) heart, but rather actions taken against one's basic nature due to the facilitation of the Spirit of God. (Matt. 7:18)

Now, you've asked how this take place; what is the mechanism. Essentially, it is grace that allows us to even make a choice to begin with, and gives us the ability to choose. It is the intervention of the Spirit that enables us to recognize that choice, and desire the good instead of the evil. The ultimate purpose of this is to bring us to Christ that the entire heart may be changed to a righteous one, and the life's actions accordingly - until that point, or until the Spirit ceases to strive with an individual, it still manifests itself in occasional choices to perform "good" actions.

Romans 7 has Paul speaking of the state of himself as an unconverted man; "when we were in the flesh," as he sets the tense in verse 5. Wishing to do right, being unable to do it, finding himself brought into bondage, a slave to sin, overcome by his flesh... this is the state of the natural man. No, Paul was not a "free" individual - the Scriptures are clear that a man in sin is not free in the least, but under the oppressive rule of sin and self.

Free will was what he exercised to get to Romans 8:1; by accepting the gift of Christ, the death of the old man and a new heart, he could say "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The Spirit, through his conscience, is what condemned Paul for his wrong actions. It is what made him aware of the righteousness he was incapable of performing, despite his tremendously "good" actions as a Jew. And it is what enabled him to even wish to use his free will enough to turn away from his predisposition to evil and be created a new creature.

[phkrause]

I think part of the difficulty comes in the definitions used, particularly option #1. How is "anything good" defined? What are we considering a "good" action to be?

There is a difference between moral good and righteousness. People are entirely capable of performing "good" actions without accepting - or even hearing of - Christ. Atheists may (and often enough do) feed the poor, perform acts of charity, etc.

By nature, however, humanity is corrupt and without God - evil, essentially. The Scriptures speak of this clearly enough in places such as Romans 3:10-18. "Good" actions, if they do not come consistently from a regenerate heart, are not "righteous" actions - they are not fruit brought forth from a right(eous) heart, but rather actions taken against one's basic nature due to the facilitation of the Spirit of God. (Matt. 7:18)

Now, you've asked how this take place; what is the mechanism. Essentially, it is grace that allows us to even make a choice to begin with, and gives us the ability to choose. It is the intervention of the Spirit that enables us to recognize that choice, and desire the good instead of the evil. The ultimate purpose of this is to bring us to Christ that the entire heart may be changed to a righteous one, and the life's actions accordingly - until that point, or until the Spirit ceases to strive with an individual, it still manifests itself in occasional choices to perform "good" actions.

Romans 7 has Paul speaking of the state of himself as an unconverted man; "when we were in the flesh," as he sets the tense in verse 5. Wishing to do right, being unable to do it, finding himself brought into bondage, a slave to sin, overcome by his flesh... this is the state of the natural man. No, Paul was not a "free" individual - the Scriptures are clear that a man in sin is not free in the least, but under the oppressive rule of sin and self.

Free will was what he exercised to get to Romans 8:1; by accepting the gift of Christ, the death of the old man and a new heart, he could say "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

The Spirit, through his conscience, is what condemned Paul for his wrong actions. It is what made him aware of the righteousness he was incapable of performing, despite his tremendously "good" actions as a Jew. And it is what enabled him to even wish to use his free will enough to turn away from his predisposition to evil and be created a new creature.

Some excellent thoughts Qinael, and welcome to the forum.

[fccool]

There is a difference between moral good and righteousness. People are entirely capable of performing "good" actions without accepting - or even hearing of - Christ. Atheists may (and often enough do) feed the poor, perform acts of charity, etc.

[SivartM]

In fact you are not your body. You are your mind.

I agree with most of your post but I think that this is a bit drastic. Your mind is a function of your body; it's not separate in some way from the rest of you. If you were not your body, you wouldn't care if your body died, or if your leg fell off, or if you got malaria.

[fccool]

I did not mean it in terms of "mind can exist without the body". Of course, body has a function... but that's it. It's a functional extension of "us".

If your body is "yours" then who are "you"?

I mean, even if "your brain" is "yours" ... then who are "you"?

You are obviously not your brain. You are a self-aware person. You experience the world through your body, but you reside in your mind.

[LifeHiscost]

Here's a short poll that I hope will help the ball rolling on the discussion. These questions essentially relate to view of religion and what place it holds among humans.

Some may ascribe to the view that that humans are unable to do anything good unless they subscribe and submit themselves to certain religious practices.

Yet other may think that religion only amplifies what's already present in human beings. I.E. , if humans may desire good, then religion would amplify it and channel it in a proper direction. If they desire evil and self-aggrandizement, then religion will likewise aid in that.

I'd like to see what your thoughts on this issue. Forgive the spelling.

None of the above.

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Your poll doesn't give an option that I would choose, which is that humans are born with fallen natures, yet they are capable of doing beneficial, loving acts before accepting Christ because of the Holy Spirit. I believe that apart from the Holy Spirit, humans would be completely evil. Every good, loving motive is due to the work of the Holy Spirit on human hearts.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."James 1:17 NKJV

God blesses!

[John317]

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."James 1:17 NKJV

God blesses!

A great and most relevant verse, Life. :-)

[Gerr]

Humans are naturally evil at birth and are unable to do anything good until they accept Christ

First part is True & the second, False. The Spirit of God works even among pagans, and are therefore capable of doing good.

Humans are naturally good at birth and are corrupted by the environment and lack of proper guidance

False on both counts.

Humans are naturally nutral at birth, and capable of both good and evil

First part is False; the second is True.