“Natural Man” vs Human Nature

[Pazooka]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Modern Culture is Traumatizing and NOT Normal

[Jashon]

Don't think it's either/or. Probably a spectrum. And very complex. Maybe irreducibly complex.

[Pazooka]

Don't think it's either/or. Probably a spectrum. And very complex. Maybe irreducibly complex.

It’s difficult to be sure, since we are submerged in the toxic culture.

But it’s been life-changing to shift away from a paradigm where conditions such as addiction and cancer are viewed as moral weakness and the inevitable sufferings of a fallen world to the human being’s response to dealing with pain and the chronic repression of anger out of a false sense of what’s good and right.

But it’s not like we can’t know *anything* about essential human nature. It’s being constantly studied.

[Pazooka]

One of the things he shares is the practice described to him by a physician with a Lakota/Sioux background that when a member of the community becomes ill the community says, “thank you - your illness manifests the dysfunction of our community. You’re the canary in the mine. And so your healing is our healing and our healing is your healing.”

I really do question the BofM portrayal of the human condition. “Carnal” or “natural” things are referred to in the sense that they are the enemy and need to be “put off.” What does that translate to, in essence? To suppress, repress and depress emotions, which are the language of the body. We moralize emotions such as anger, when anger is an incredibly necessary part of maintaining things like healthy boundaries.

The body and its emotions cannot be separated from the supernatural (for lack of a better term) energies involved, yet we explain to children and investigators that the spirit is like a hand that comes and goes inside of a completely separate thing called a glove. What if the glove is merely the manifestation of the hand?

[fractal_light_harvest]

One of the things he shares is the practice described to him by a physician with a Lakota/Sioux background that when a member of the community becomes ill the community says, “thank you - your illness manifests the dysfunction of our community. You’re the canary in the mine. And so your healing is our healing and our healing is your healing.”

I really do question the BofM portrayal of the human condition. “Carnal” or “natural” things are referred to in the sense that they are the enemy and need to be “put off.” What does that translate to, in essence? To suppress, repress and depress emotions, which are the language of the body. We moralize emotions such as anger, when anger is an incredibly necessary part of maintaining things like healthy boundaries.

The body and its emotions cannot be separated from the supernatural (for lack of a better term) energies involved, yet we explain to children and investigators that the spirit is like a hand that comes and goes inside of a completely separate thing called a glove. What if the glove is merely the manifestation of the hand?

Very interesting ideas. I think personally some of the doctrine about this in the scriptures has been misunderstood or misapplied especially in many churches where an individual is assumed to be default “broken” and even reprehensible or degenerate unless they yield to the policies of the church or prevailing culture. This gives the church a nice pretense to come into that person’s life with a sledgehammer and “renovate” it to a state that benefits the agendas of the church but not necessarily the individual.

This misses the point of the book of mormon completely imo.

[Pazooka]

One of the things he shares is the practice described to him by a physician with a Lakota/Sioux background that when a member of the community becomes ill the community says, “thank you - your illness manifests the dysfunction of our community. You’re the canary in the mine. And so your healing is our healing and our healing is your healing.”

I really do question the BofM portrayal of the human condition. “Carnal” or “natural” things are referred to in the sense that they are the enemy and need to be “put off.” What does that translate to, in essence? To suppress, repress and depress emotions, which are the language of the body. We moralize emotions such as anger, when anger is an incredibly necessary part of maintaining things like healthy boundaries.

The body and its emotions cannot be separated from the supernatural (for lack of a better term) energies involved, yet we explain to children and investigators that the spirit is like a hand that comes and goes inside of a completely separate thing called a glove. What if the glove is merely the manifestation of the hand?

Very interesting ideas. I think personally some of the doctrine about this in the scriptures has been misunderstood or misapplied especially in many churches where an individual is assumed to be default “broken” and even reprehensible or degenerate unless they yield to the policies of the church or prevailing culture. This gives the church a nice pretense to come into that person’s life with a sledgehammer and “renovate” it to a state that benefits the agendas of the church but not necessarily the individual.

This misses the point of the book of mormon completely imo.

Yes, in the same way that “to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God” where “the counsels of God” actually translated into the policies of the church “or prevailing culture.” You teach a person to not trust their own intuition.

But your comment also begs the question: what is the point of the BofM?

[ransomme]

We need more masculinity. The tyrannical feminine is about to take over.

[fractal_light_harvest]

One of the things he shares is the practice described to him by a physician with a Lakota/Sioux background that when a member of the community becomes ill the community says, “thank you - your illness manifests the dysfunction of our community. You’re the canary in the mine. And so your healing is our healing and our healing is your healing.”

I really do question the BofM portrayal of the human condition. “Carnal” or “natural” things are referred to in the sense that they are the enemy and need to be “put off.” What does that translate to, in essence? To suppress, repress and depress emotions, which are the language of the body. We moralize emotions such as anger, when anger is an incredibly necessary part of maintaining things like healthy boundaries.

The body and its emotions cannot be separated from the supernatural (for lack of a better term) energies involved, yet we explain to children and investigators that the spirit is like a hand that comes and goes inside of a completely separate thing called a glove. What if the glove is merely the manifestation of the hand?

Very interesting ideas. I think personally some of the doctrine about this in the scriptures has been misunderstood or misapplied especially in many churches where an individual is assumed to be default “broken” and even reprehensible or degenerate unless they yield to the policies of the church or prevailing culture. This gives the church a nice pretense to come into that person’s life with a sledgehammer and “renovate” it to a state that benefits the agendas of the church but not necessarily the individual.

This misses the point of the book of mormon completely imo.

Yes, in the same way that “to be learned is good, if they hearken unto the counsels of God” where “the counsels of God” actually translated into the policies of the church “or prevailing culture.” You teach a person to not trust their own intuition.

But your comment also begs the question: what is the point of the BofM?

Yes exactly imo. One of Satan’s main approaches is to de-contextualize or subvert the meaning of legitimate truth or scripture. This misunderstood truth is then often used as a pretense or smokescreen to do shady stuff, like Satan did in the garden with eve and adam.

One purpose of the book or Mormon was a way to package all necessary truth in one book or location that is needed for someone to connect with god. It’s communicated in such a way/at a certain time that the whore of all the earth wouldn’t be able to tamper with it sufficiently or subvert its core meaning or instructions imo. But people, mostly men, have mostly misunderstood or ignored it/used it as nothing more than a missionary “tract”.

[FrankOne]

Human - "A Son of God pretending that he is an animal"

The orthodox human uses the mind to control the animal nature.

The new age human permits the animal to run free.

Both have their outcomes as desired.

[Pazooka]

We need more masculinity. The tyrannical feminine is about to take over.

Well, I’m pretty sure I recognize bait when I see it

But what if…decreased “masculinity” is the system’s response to chronic toxic patriarchy, while seeking balance?

[FrankOne]

We need more masculinity. The tyrannical feminine is about to take over.

i just watch it like a B movie.

it will collapse.

[Pazooka]

We need more masculinity. The tyrannical feminine is about to take over.

i just watch it like a B movie.

it will collapse.

These comments suggest that life is viewed through the lens that male and female are in competition, accompanied by belittling rather than empowering. This is a manifestation of what’s happening inside the person. There is hatred of self - an unfortunate culturally programmed default. This mindset hurts men just as much as it hurts women.

[FrankOne]

We need more masculinity. The tyrannical feminine is about to take over.

i just watch it like a B movie.

it will collapse.

These comments suggest that life is viewed through the lens that male and female are in competition, accompanied by belittling rather than empowering. This is a manifestation of what’s happening inside the person. There is hatred of self - an unfortunate culturally programmed default. This mindset hurts men just as much as it hurts women.

I am not suggesting that.

I am making an observation that is very simple. The trend will collapse on itself. What has "evolved" will destroy itself.

[Pazooka]

i just watch it like a B movie.

it will collapse.

These comments suggest that life is viewed through the lens that male and female are in competition, accompanied by belittling rather than empowering. This is a manifestation of what’s happening inside the person. There is hatred of self - an unfortunate culturally programmed default. This mindset hurts men just as much as it hurts women.

I am not suggesting that.

I am making an observation that is very simple. The trend will collapse on itself. What has "evolved" will destroy itself.

With your bad knee, Frank, you shouldn’t throw anybody

[FrankOne]

These comments suggest that life is viewed through the lens that male and female are in competition, accompanied by belittling rather than empowering. This is a manifestation of what’s happening inside the person. There is hatred of self - an unfortunate culturally programmed default. This mindset hurts men just as much as it hurts women.

I am not suggesting that.

I am making an observation that is very simple. The trend will collapse on itself. What has "evolved" will destroy itself.

With your bad knee, Frank, you shouldn’t throw anybody

?

[Pazooka]

I am not suggesting that.

I am making an observation that is very simple. The trend will collapse on itself. What has "evolved" will destroy itself.

With your bad knee, Frank, you shouldn’t throw anybody

?

Exactly

[FrankOne]

With your bad knee, Frank, you shouldn’t throw anybody

?

Exactly

[Serragon]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

[4Joshua8]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

Amen.
Fallen man is God's enemy and will be until one becomes like Christ: obedient to God in all things. Becoming like Christ changes the man from a carnal nature to something higher and nobler.

[fractal_light_harvest]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

Amen.
Fallen man is God's enemy and will be until one becomes like Christ: obedient to God in all things. Becoming like Christ changes the man from a carnal nature to something higher and nobler.

I agree whole heatedly. But this doesn’t mean that those of us who are down here in the flesh need to pretend like we’re not or that we’re responsible for Adam’s transgression.

[FrankOne]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

^
humanity is a condition. A conditional existence. Animal mind against a spiritual child of God. When the spiritual child ceases to choose against the animal self, it becomes completely lost to it.

[Pazooka]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

And yet little children are whole and incapable of committing sin (Moroni 8).

“…He that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.”

So…would a person be going to hell for thinking little children are bad by nature? Or would they be going to hell for “setting at naught” the authorized procedure for getting into heaven, which is the atonement of Christ and, by extension, submission to the rites and policies of a human priesthood?

Are children good or bad? And if good, at eight years of age do they switch from being “whole” and “incapable of committing sin” to being “carnal, sensual and devilish”?

And perhaps you haven’t heard of ancient eastern philosophy dealing with human nature being innately good that is at least as old as Confucius and Mencius?

[Serragon]

We bandy about the term “natural man” as if humans are inherently selfish and low-life by nature. Gabor Mate posits that this is a totally erroneous assumption. We are communal by nature and co-creative with one another every day. The selfishness and narcissism, etc, are results of *unnatural* culture. Nature is trying to get us back to wholeness.

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

And yet little children are whole and incapable of committing sin (Moroni 8).

“…He that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.”

So…would a person be going to hell for thinking little children are bad by nature? Or would they be going to hell for “setting at naught” the authorized procedure for getting into heaven, which is the atonement of Christ and, by extension, submission to the rites and policies of a human priesthood?

Are children good or bad? And if good, at eight years of age do they switch from being “whole” and “incapable of committing sin” to being “carnal, sensual and devilish”?

And perhaps you haven’t heard of ancient eastern philosophy dealing with human nature being innately good that is at least as old as Confucius and Mencius?

The fact that children are not accountable has no bearing on what their natures are. And the existence of an ancient philosophy doesn't mean anything except that it should be tested against real life to see if it actually fits.

Unfortunately, the objective track record for these philosophies are dismal because they don't actually model true human nature. We are waist deep in the fruits of these incorrect philosophies today. People have been spending the last 50 years in the US attempting to remove the oppression and forces preventing this innate goodness from coming to the forefront, but all these efforts actually do is to remove the limits that prevented people from completely indulging their selfishness and tribalism and destroying any sort of society that once existed.

And the reason we have seen the greatest period of human flourishing over the last few hundred years in history is because western civ was able to model societies around the correct understanding of human nature. It is those who oppose this correct understanding that are destroying this flourishing in the name of "progress", AKA trying to force people into behaving as they fantasize people should be instead of as they really are.

 

[nightlight]

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

And yet little children are whole and incapable of committing sin (Moroni 8).

“…He that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.”

So…would a person be going to hell for thinking little children are bad by nature? Or would they be going to hell for “setting at naught” the authorized procedure for getting into heaven, which is the atonement of Christ and, by extension, submission to the rites and policies of a human priesthood?

Are children good or bad? And if good, at eight years of age do they switch from being “whole” and “incapable of committing sin” to being “carnal, sensual and devilish”?

And perhaps you haven’t heard of ancient eastern philosophy dealing with human nature being innately good that is at least as old as Confucius and Mencius?

The fact that children are not accountable has no bearing on what their natures are. And the existence of an ancient philosophy doesn't mean anything except that it should be tested against real life to see if it actually fits.

Unfortunately, the objective track record for these philosophies are dismal because they don't actually model true human nature. We are waist deep in the fruits of these incorrect philosophies today. People have been spending the last 50 years in the US attempting to remove the oppression and forces preventing this innate goodness from coming to the forefront, but all these efforts actually do is to remove the limits that prevented people from completely indulging their selfishness and tribalism and destroying any sort of society that once existed.

And the reason we have seen the greatest period of human flourishing over the last few hundred years in history is because western civ was able to model societies around the correct understanding of human nature. It is those who oppose this correct understanding that are destroying this flourishing in the name of "progress", AKA trying to force people into behaving as they fantasize people should be instead of as they really are.

 

Agree

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are documents to oppose the natural man

[Pazooka]

Humans are selfish and tribal. I don't see any objective basis for believing otherwise, and it seems that this constant projection of fantasy that humans are inherently good and cooperative has been one of the most damaging ideas to come out of western philosophy.

And yet little children are whole and incapable of committing sin (Moroni 8).

“…He that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.”

So…would a person be going to hell for thinking little children are bad by nature? Or would they be going to hell for “setting at naught” the authorized procedure for getting into heaven, which is the atonement of Christ and, by extension, submission to the rites and policies of a human priesthood?

Are children good or bad? And if good, at eight years of age do they switch from being “whole” and “incapable of committing sin” to being “carnal, sensual and devilish”?

And perhaps you haven’t heard of ancient eastern philosophy dealing with human nature being innately good that is at least as old as Confucius and Mencius?

The fact that children are not accountable has no bearing on what their natures are. And the existence of an ancient philosophy doesn't mean anything except that it should be tested against real life to see if it actually fits.

Unfortunately, the objective track record for these philosophies are dismal because they don't actually model true human nature. We are waist deep in the fruits of these incorrect philosophies today. People have been spending the last 50 years in the US attempting to remove the oppression and forces preventing this innate goodness from coming to the forefront, but all these efforts actually do is to remove the limits that prevented people from completely indulging their selfishness and tribalism and destroying any sort of society that once existed.

And the reason we have seen the greatest period of human flourishing over the last few hundred years in history is because western civ was able to model societies around the correct understanding of human nature. It is those who oppose this correct understanding that are destroying this flourishing in the name of "progress", AKA trying to force people into behaving as they fantasize people should be instead of as they really are.

 

Human nature has been contested in both eastern and western philosophy for most of recorded history.

You keep saying “tribalism” and even pair it with “selfishness.” The existence of a tribe implies communal behavior which is not selfishness - it’s actually a far cry from Western individualism. Given the supposed Israelite origins of the BofM…12 tribes, anyone?

And I think a study of the nature of children cannot be dismissed as easily as you would like. At what point does a creature become “devilish”? (A word with which “carnal” and “sensual” are always intimately associated)

To be “carnal” (of flesh) and “sensual” (gratification of the physical senses)…

A person, in order to be accepted by the group who teaches this, has got to suppress their authenticity - the beauty of being an actual, physical human being. The trade-off is a lot of guilt and shame. How has that served us, thus far?

We need more balance than that. I don’t think NATURE is the enemy.