//The fact is all humans have a selfish nature//

And selfish genes as well.

Of course we're all a bit selfish, Josephus. Do you know what happens to species that aren't? Extinction.

Your fact - possibly the first ever accurate fact you've ever stated, so well done for that - is the reason that capitalism works and communism doesn't. It is an integral part of the reason we're here having this conversation.

It's healthy, and fine, and I don't see how we could get rid of it even if we wanted to. But like all fine things in life, if it is taken to excess then it becomes a bad thing. An excess of selfishness leads to greed, and worse.

It should be noted that as well as all being a bit selfish, we're all a bit altruistic (well, maybe not socipaths). There's good reasons for that as well: acting in the interests of others can be in the interests of those selfish genes.

//must be supressed and considered dead and supplanted with pure and caring thoughts and actions.//

How very 'utopian', comrade.

But I'm not big fan of crimethink. Maybe people could just carry on with using the age-old tradition of relying on their conscience & altruism to temper their selfishness, thus (hopefully) avoiding the temptations of greed.

//Calling oneself Christian does not cut it with God.//

I should hope not, although your statement is fraught with dodgy assumptions.

//By quoting evil human behaviour by persons calling themselves Christian does not identify what God is like.//

Ahh, my favourite fallacy: No True Scotsman.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

//It is merely an excuse for not accepting the reality of a pure and holy character.//

Jehovah or Jesus? I've been over this before: taking into account detracting views, I consider that on the balance of probabilities Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Who wasn't divine. Jehovah, at least as he is conventionally presented, is nonsense on stilts.

Dear Toni,

If we are completely selfish the species may not survive. If a mother is not willing to take risks for the survival of her offspring her genes may die out. If she takes too many risks she will not survive and her offspring who are not yet capable of fending for themselves will not either. Among animals that have a family structure this applies to the father. In dealing with groups as opposed to other groups a group has a better chance of survival if some individuals will take risks for the group. The relation between selfishness and altruism is complex. Complete selfishness or complete altruism will not work in many cases. My father and mother lived through the depression. It probably would have been a good survival strategy for him to abandon his family. If he had I would be less likely to be here, and his genes would be less likely to be passed on.

The capitalistic societies of Scandinavia are quite prosperous, provide an extensive net of social survival and foster entrepreneurial activity. They have achieved a good balance between selfishness and altruism.

Hi David,

You make an interesting point about family and survival. In my own case I have become a part of my partners Maori family. The family is far greater in number than what us Europeans see as the immediate family of off spring plus a few siblings etc. The extended family is massive, certainly hundreds, if not thousands of members of the tribe.
What I realized early was there is a great dependency on family, those unable to support themselves fully are helped by others without question. Ones social responsibility to whanau (the extended family) is seen as a paramount responsibility. That is not to say the bludger is tolerated, over the years I have not come across many of those within the society. In the past when times were much tougher this inter family support was a necessity as an overall survival technique.
I see this also in village life among our family in Fiji as well.

Toni Lavis, You stated,"I consider that on the balance of probabilities Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Who wasn't divine. Jehovah, at least as he is conventionally presented, is nonsense on stilts". It becomes obvious you do not understand what divine means. The nature / character of the divine is right attitudes, behaviours and words. It is wisdom and righteousness expressed and lived. Christians should express the Spirit of God through their attitudes, actions and speech. This is the divine human character, Jesus as human expressed that character.

//It becomes obvious you do not understand what divine means.//

Of course not, Josephus. After all, you are the ultimate authority on the English language and dictionaries are wrong if they disagree with you. How silly of me to forget. [sarcasm]

Perhaps you could now explain for me why the demi-God Heracles from the Greek pantheon is considered divine, even though he has naught to do with Christianity?

Josephus,

The ‘It’s not God, it’s man’s sin’ argument doesn’t get you around the problem mhaze is currently fumbling with, for many reasons. One of which Toni Lavis has already explained.

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

You can resolve the problem by simply by removing one of the three omnis (e.g. a god could be omnibenevolent, but not be omnipotent and/or omniscient, and that would explain the existence of suffering and evil). But a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is internally contradictory and suffers from many paradoxes (e.g. if a god is omnibenevolent, then that means He cannot let any suffering or evil occur, which means that He cannot therefore be omnipotent because His power is limited by His omnibenevolence (c.f. Can God make a rock so big he can’t carry it?))

<<The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life.>>

Sounds like a bit of a non sequitur, to me. Either way, an omnipotent god could have just simplified things and reduced at least the suffering. There are only two ways in which complexity arises out of design: necessity or sloppiness. Neither of which should be the case where an omnipotent god is concerned. Why, for example, would an omnipotent god create brains that use 20% of our energy, thus requiring us to eat and breath more? Especially if we have souls to do all that for us.

That’s not just a redundancy, that’s an inefficient redundancy.