Is it natural to want to kill somebody out of jealousy, according to our modern scientific paradigm?

[XIII-Legion]

There are numerous behaviors that might afford one a reproductive advantage which are, nevertheless, not the wisest behaviors in the grand scheme of things.

But reproductive advantage is a personal matter and non-negotiable in this case.

Or do you presume to know God's will, His purpose, and sovereignty better than Jesus? (John 14:6-7).

Or do you presume to be better judge of what is in God's (Jesus) interest?

Nevertheless, it seems that according to Darwin's theory behaviours which might render reproductive advantage will tend to override other behaviours; such as for instance, success in American politics and the most exalted political office would be far less important than one's reproductive advantage from a longer term (and aeonic) perspective.

But of course, you already know this is true; yet, you've deliberately gone out of your way to make such a remark to uphold the status quo of white supremacy in American politics.

However, that's not to say I am 'against' white supremacy; but such ideology doesn't have to be made manifest in the way that you're thinking, which is specific only to the context of American politics. But I'm sure that Russians -- and other Europeans -- wouldn't have beef as you seem to have in America, given that America is one of few countries to have such laws in recent memory.

So why would anybody want to get involved in American politics, when we know that Russia is a far better country than the United States (Matthew 21:43)?

However, I think your big mistake and fundamental error was to assume America is the only country which could ever be platform to the Second Coming of Christ.

However, anybody with knowledge of the New Testament, or the life and times of Jesus would know that the Israelite nation have effectively forfeited Abraham's covenant by rejection, crucifixion, and death of Jesus who is the Christ.

Despite the covenant, God had foreknowledge that rejection would be part of His plan of salvation -- knowing that rebellion and opposition of the Sanhedrin would ultimately lead to the death of Jesus -- and His purpose was expressly to send Jesus to die on the cross for remission of the sins of Man.

So despite the covenant, God preordained that Israel would lose its right to embody the new Jewish faith of Christ; and God's "kingdom" (Christendom) would be taken from them, and given to another nation bearing its fruit.

Since the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, God had foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would fall -- and sin would enter the world because of it -- and it was preordained that He would send His Son Jesus to die on the cross for remission of the sins of Man (Revelation 13:8).

Therefore, God had foreknowledge that Israel would rebel and reject Jesus, which would ultimately lead to the crucifixion.

Consequently, God had foreknowledge that Israel would inadvertently forfeit the covenant, and its right to embody the new Jewish faith of Christ; which God would give to a pagan empire such as the Romans instead of His own people.

Likewise, America which is arguably the most pious nation throughout Christendom can go the same way as Israel did in the 1st century CE.

Despite the New Covenant, and the fact America seems to embody the New Testament there is no reason why it shouldn't go the same way as Israel did in the 1st century CE.

Due to crucifixion and death of Jesus by modern Sanhedrin, America must forfeit the NT covenant and its right to embody the new covenant of Christ at the time of the Second Coming.

Despite the piety of American christians, God has foreordained that America would rebel and reject Jesus which is the bread of life from heaven (John 6:53-56).

By virtue of ignorance, whosoever will be opposed to God's will, establishment of His kingdom, and the lineage of Christ will be Anti-christ or enemy of Christ.

And, whosoever will blaspheme against God, His family, and the body of Christ will be Anti-christ or God's enemy.

Hence, God has preordained that His kingdom would be taken from America and given to a nation similar to the Romans in the 1st century CE.

Or do you presume to know God's will, His purpose, and sovereignty better than Jesus? (John 14:6-7).

However, those who oppose God's will, establishment of His sovereign reign, and the lineage of Christ will be judged, condemned, and executed on the great day of judgement (Revelation 13:8).

As indeed, the enemies of Christ and those who've pierced Him are preordained from the foundation of the earth; "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain".

The enemies of Christ are preordained to "self destruct" -- by virtue of their own 'volition' or inadvertent behaviour of which they have no control -- and to die the second death from the foundation of the world.

Or does the potter not have power over the clay to exalt one person, and destroy another; which was preordained long before God created the universe? (Romans 9:21).

 

[XIII-Legion]

A behavorialist studies individuals and small populations.
So they might ask:
Do jealous people beget jealous babies? (you have to pass your adaptions on).

Not necessarily.

Although adaptations are hereditary, how they are expressed will depend largely on the environment. But jealousy may not be so apparent in future generations, if the parent and child don't have the same phenotype; especially, if future generations will diverge from the 'original' source.

 

[XIII-Legion]

If you had thought about my question a little more, I was hoping you would have answered with the word "mind"...as in...it is the mind that is evolving.

Right. I think the mind is constantly evolving; but there are certain base instincts which will always remain, and will never change; such as anger, fear, hate, love, and the will to power etc.

Thus, the mind has continuity despite the fact it's constantly changing and evolving.

Also, we need to remind ourselves that 'evolution' is not always 'progressive'. Look at the whale and dolphin, and you will see that mammals which have evolved have not necessarily done so in their best interest; since our concept of progress is not coterminous with evolution.

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. How about healthy competition in good works. Root was to vie each other. Negative side was bitter behavior of jealousy. Till today, better products survive.

 

[chlotilde]

Or do you presume to know God's will, His purpose, and sovereignty better than Jesus? (John 14:6-7).

Just saw this...and I know Mr. 13th Legion is in the wrong forum for his "God invoking" statements.....but I don't want this thread to be deleted! So before some RF God hits the delete button...can you move it to the right place (some religious debate area perhaps, and let me know).
I want to discuss his points, cuz I think he is onto something, just not quite in the right way that I see them (his statements originally involved a story from Genesis) and his thread in a previous Christian DIR were deleted because he questioned my proof of God.

and a note to Mr. Legion, before I can get the time to respond (I got kids to feed at the moment)...I read your initial comment in that Christianity DIR before you changed it to something more antagonistic to delete it from the Christian DIR...I wish you had left your original comment before editing it to something else.

 

[XIII-Legion]

his thread in a previous Christian DIR were deleted because he questioned my proof of God.

No, that's patently false. The thread was deleted because there were several of them which were identical, and exactly the same; but posted onto different sections of the forum. They were deleted because the moderator didn't think it was appropriate to spam RF, and because they thought our converation didn't merit further attention -- but you're not party to private communications I've had with RF moderators. However, the reason wasn't because I questioned your 'proof' of God, of which there was none.

You've simply made various assertions about God with no evidence whatsover to support what you have said; but this is not 'proof' as far as I'm concerned.

I read your initial comment in that Christianity DIR before you changed it to something more antagonistic to delete it from the Christian DIR

Antagonistic?

But who's antagonistic?

You or me?

However, I think you were the one who started this exchange by asserting that "we either choose to follow God's will or follow our own will instead".

Nevertheless, I'm not going to beat about the bush; nor do I respect your rules of 'etiquette' in this conversation, which aren't necessarily the rules of the forum.

But I'm simply going to spell it to you in plain words; and this is how I will respond to your asssertion about God:-

1. Where, in the Bible, does it say that it would be "contrary to God's will" to refuse President Obama's invite to run for office in America?
2. And, where does it say that one would be "contrary to God's will" if you refused to marry the same race as your own, but choose to marry a different race instead?

But instead, what you have said is contrary to God's commandment to "love thy neighbour" (Luke 10:27); plus the fact, there is no theology which says you have to run for office in America; nor is there any biblical verse which says you have to stick to your own race, so it would be "contrary to God's will" to marry a white person instead -- which is an expression of hate instead of love, and contrary to God's will.

Suffice to say, there is no mention of America anywhere at all in the Bible!

So, although you profess Christianity to be your religion, you are not a Christian at all; but instead, you're just an unscrupulous person with an agenda, which is downright evil and wicked as far as I'm concerned.

Whereas, you pay lip service to Christianity you are not a Christian at all; which is evidenced by what you have said.

Besides, your God is a false god; and Christianity is a false religion; since your God would allow people to commit premeditated crimes, such as murder, rape, violence, adultery, theft, lies and blasphemy etc. and to get away with it, for as long as they "repent of their sins with true contrition" before the great day of judgement.

So your God would allow people to take the p!ss and still go to heaven; which is a serious loophole in Christian dogma don't you think?

What kind of rubbish religion do you call this?

Edit > Although you didn't specifically mention points 1 & 2, and you might use it as a disclaimer it won't do any harm to have it mentioned. For if I am wrong, and such allegations are fabricated, then there is no harm done; as you would automatically be vindicated. But if I am right, then it would serve to null and void what you have said; plus the fact, you yourself would know this is untrue, as your assertion wouldn't amount to Biblical Christianity by any stretch of the English language.

Thus, whatever you might 'believe' would not be based on the Bible; but your agenda would be purely a political one, which is a secular agenda and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. Therefore, you would know that whatever you 'believe' cannot be justifiable in political terms; nor would it be politically correct to single one person from the crowd in the first place; nor target such a person for discrimination for no other reason than to further your agenda.

This is not Christianity at all; and it's not politically correct either, and you know it; which means you don't have a leg to stand on, as far as your "argument" goes.

Like it or not, people are free to do whatever they want; and who they marry is none of your damned business.

 

[chlotilde]

However, the reason wasn't because I questioned your 'proof' of God, of which there was none.

You've simply made various assertions about God with no evidence whatsover to support what you have said; but this is not 'proof' as far as I'm concerned.]

agreed...but you were in a Christian forum...hence my comment on faith. I don't make the rules, but I do try to follow them (regardless of my personal opinion on rules)

Antagonistic?

But who's antagonistic?

Eye of the beholder..yes I know I may be seen as antagonistic, but really, I like some of what you say and might be thinking.

[However, I think you were the one who started this exchange by asserting that "we either choose to follow God's will or follow our own will instead".

agreed..we were talking about Cain.

[Where, in the Bible, does it say that it would be "contrary to God's will" to refuse President Obama's invite to run for office in America?
<snip>
What kind of rubbish religion do you call this?[/FONT]
<snip>

Like it or not, people are free to do whatever they want; and who they marry is none of your damned business

yikes! where did all that come from. I'm sorry I don't have the time to respond now...busy weekend ahead. just wanted you to know I haven't gone yet.

 

[chlotilde]

Not necessarily.

Although adaptations are hereditary, how they are expressed will depend largely on the environment. But jealousy may not be so apparent in future generations, if the parent and child don't have the same phenotype; especially, if future generations will diverge from the 'original' source.

Agreed. That is why I don’t see “jealousy” as consistent with biological evolution. But more than that, I think jealousy is a fancy word our ever evolving minds have invented to describe another behavior that is not only innate in we humans, but also innate in every other living thing on this planet…and that includes plants which don’t even have a brain with an evolving mind. And that behavior plays a very important role in evolution, but it itself never changes.

Right. I think the mind is constantly evolving; but there are certain base instincts which will always remain, and will never change; such as anger, fear, hate, love, and the will to power etc.

Thus, the mind has continuity despite the fact it's constantly changing and evolving.

You didn’t mention the one behavior I was thinking of…that innate gut feeling that is a driver to evolution…called territorialism. You have some territory that I want and my ever brilliant mind says…”Oh I must be jealous”. It could be a mercedes benz, or a fine mating partner, or a watering hole…all I know is that you have it, and I want it.

and to explain my plant comment, there are several types of plants who can release herbicides into the soil to kill neighboring plants when they feel their territory is being invaded.

 

[XIII-Legion]

You didn’t mention the one behavior I was thinking of…that innate gut feeling that is a driver to evolution…called territorialism. You have some territory that I want and my ever brilliant mind says…”Oh I must be jealous”. It could be a mercedes benz, or a fine mating partner, or a watering hole…all I know is that you have it, and I want it.

But surely, the idea of territory can be transnational; and doesn't have to be confined to one's geographical proximity?

Nations have artificial boundaries which are social constructions; but the concept of geographical populations are scientifically valid, real taxanomic classes according to Dawkins.

So are you saying that "race" as a taxanomic class is a transnational territory, which would be protected by key individuals of a geographical population?

Also, do you say that key individuals would claim to have transnational jurisdiction in the process of protecting their territory -- territory which is defined by their respective genetic pool?

and to explain my plant comment, there are several types of plants who can release herbicides into the soil to kill neighboring plants when they feel their territory is being invaded.

Obviously, what applies to the plant kingdom doesn't necessarily apply to humans; as human societies will be governed by social norms and rules, which usually prohibits extermination of outsiders which threaten to invade one's territory; but instead, key individuals would usually try to find alternative ways to protect their territory.

So are you suggesting that key individuals will usually try to stop outsiders invading their territory by virtue of trying to mate with other individuals who belong to such territory (i.e. a given genetic population would define the concept of 'territory' in this case)?

However, your example of plants wouldn't be a good analogy in this instant, as herbicides are meant to kill ALL neighbouring plants which threaten to invade one's territory; but herbicides will never differentiate between neighbouring plants which present a similar threat.

Therefore, your analogy of plants and herbicide doesn't serve to illustrate territory amongst humans, as key individuals within a genetic population will be naturally inclined to stop ALL outsiders which threaten to invade such territory; but what they shouldn't do is single any one person from the crowd instead of target ALL of those who threaten the territory, as it wouldn't be conducive to the integrity of such a territory.

But surely, key individuals would try their utmost to stop ALL outsiders invading their territory instead of single any one person from the crowd, as the latter case wouldn't be conducive to integrity of such a territory?

However, the very fact that human societies will single one individual who might be construed as a threat, rather than try to stop everyone who is a threat is not consistent with the example of plants and herbicide. Such a theory about territory has a serious loophole, which is clearly illustrated by the anomaly of one individual who is singled from the crowd; whereas in fact, there are a host of other people who pose a far more serious threat to one's territory than any single person can.

Consequently, one must infer that such a theory does not necessarily apply to human societies in the same way it would apply to the animal kingdom.

Hence, there can be no scientific or moral justification to have any one person singled from the crowd on account of perceived threat to one's territory; since the crowd presents are far more serious threat than any one person can.

Why stop one person, but not the rest of them?

For if they all present the same threat to one's territory, then they should all be stopped for the same reason.

Rather than stop one person, why not try and stop all of them -- otherwise, such maneuver won't have any impact whatsoever?

But reality doesn't always concur with what our theory might predict, does it?

 

[XIII-Legion]

But surely, the idea of territory can be transnational; and doesn't have to be confined to one's geographical proximity?

Nations have artificial boundaries which are social constructions; but the concept of geographical populations are scientifically valid, real taxanomic classes according to Dawkins.

So are you saying that "race" as a taxanomic class is a transnational territory, which would be protected by key individuals belonging to a particular genotype?

Also, do you say that key individuals would claim to have transnational jurisdiction in the process of protecting their territory -- territory which is defined by their respective genetic pool?

Obviously, what applies to the animal/plant kingdom doesn't necessarily apply to humans; as human societies will be governed by social norms and rules, which usually prohibits extermination of outsiders that threaten to invade one's territory; but instead, key individuals will usually try to find alternative ways to protect their territory.

So then, are you suggesting that key individuals would be inclined to stop outsiders invading their territory -- by virtue of trying to mate with other individuals who belong to such genotype (i.e. genotype will define our concept of 'territory' in this case) -- by using methods other than violence?

However, your example of plants wouldn't be a good analogy in this instant, as herbicides are meant to kill ALL neighbouring plants which threaten to invade one's territory; but herbicides will never differentiate between neighbouring plants which present a similar threat.

Therefore, your analogy of plants and herbicide doesn't serve to illustrate territory amongst humans, as key individuals belonging to a genotype would be naturally inclined to stop ALL outsiders which threaten to invade such territory; but what they shouldn't do is single any one person from the crowd instead of targetting ALL of those who threaten the territory, because strategically it wouldn't be conducive to integrity of such a territory.

But surely, key individuals would try their utmost to stop ALL outsiders invading their territory instead of single one person from the crowd, as the latter case wouldn't be conducive to integrity of such territory?

However, the very fact that human societies will single one individual who might be construed as a threat, rather than try to stop everyone who is a threat is not consistent with the example of plants and herbicide.

Such a theory about territory has a serious loophole, which is clearly illustrated by the anomaly of one individual who is singled from the crowd; whereas in fact, there are a host of other people who present a far more serious threat to one's territory than any single person can.

Consequently, one must infer that such a theory does not necessarily apply to human societies in the same way it may apply to the animal/plant kingdom.

Hence, there can be no scientific or moral justification to have one person singled from the crowd on account of perceived threat to one's territory; since the crowd presents a far more serious threat than any one person can.

Why stop one person, but not the rest of them?

For if they all present the same threat to one's territory, then they should all be stopped for the same reason.

Rather than stop one person, why not try and stop all of them -- otherwise, such maneuver won't have any impact whatsoever?

But reality doesn't always concur with what our theory may predict, does it?

Edit > You've attempted to use a scientific argument to justify such discrimination against one person, but not the rest of the crowd; and this is meant to "strategically" protect one's territory!

But at best, its a weak argument, which is also a specious argument; as key individuals of the genotype have tried to stop just one person, but not the rest of the crowd; but the crowd, as we know, poses a far greater (strategic) threat to one's territory than any person could.

Consequently, the ulterior motive cannot be to protect one's territory in this case; and such cannot be used as argument to absolve key individuals who are guilty of systematic discrimination against one person, rather than targeting the rest of the crowd.

Hence, the ulterior motive is clearly different to what you have claimed; and such cannot be used as "argument" to absolve key individuals who have been implicated with trial, crucifixion, and death of Jesus.

But the only exception to the supreme penalty would be for one to repudiate one's crime and blasphemy against Jesus; which the majority of key individuals would not be able to afford.

 

[chlotilde]

okay...I gotta admit here, it is hard to follow your train of thought, but I am going out on a limb here.

But surely, the idea of territory can be transnational; and doesn't have to be confined to one's geographical proximity?

Nations have artificial boundaries which are social constructions; but the concept of geographical populations are scientifically valid, real taxanomic classes according to Dawkins.

So are you saying that "race" as a taxanomic class is a transnational territory, which would be protected by key individuals of a geographical population?

No, you are saying that, but that's okay...I think you are using this to lead to your next point.

[However, your example of plants wouldn't be a good analogy in this instant, as herbicides are meant to kill ALL neighbouring plants which threaten to invade one's territory; but herbicides will never differentiate between neighbouring plants which present a similar threat.]

Actually, plants are discriminatory in their actions (why waste energy to produce chemicals you don't need.) They don't produce the herbicide when there are kin in their vicinity. Go ahead, look it up, plant neuroscience or neurobiology...or whatever they call it. My old university friend now studies "feelings" in potato plants (after 20+ years of studying corn and potatoes as a biofuel). Yes plants feel...not in the same sense that humans do though. Tomato plants (which have more genetic code than humans!) "talk" to eachother through chemical aromas. Sure, the scientists call it tomatoes giving warning signals to other tomato plants...but what if the tomatoes just give signals of.."are you out there?"..."Am I alone?" Because somehow, the tomato plant "knows" there are others like it out there. We are not alone.

Hence, there can be no scientific or moral justification to have any one person singled from the crowd on account of perceived threat to one's territory; since the crowd presents are far more serious threat than any one person can.

Why stop one person, but not the rest of them?

Do you feel that you are that lone person being singled out? Really...you are not alone!!! 98% of us feel like we are somehow different and alone, because we humans are genetically different by over 1%.

 

[XIII-Legion]

Actually, plants are discriminatory in their actions (why waste energy to produce chemicals you don't need.) They don't produce the herbicide when there are kin in their vicinity.

Although it may be justifiable to distinguish between the in-group and out-group, it would be inexcusable to single out individuals who belong to the out-group.

Therefore, my question is simple and straightforward: Why should animals distinguish between different members of the out-group, and try to kill one organism instead of the entire class of organisms who belong to the out-group which are in close proximity?

By definition, the out-group as a whole will present a far more serious threat -- both on a macro and strategic level -- compared to individuals who belong to the out-group.

So why target an individual member of the out-group, but not the out-group as a whole; since the out-group as a whole is a far more serious threat -- macro and strategic level -- to survival of your kin?

Or do you really consider one individual to be more dangerous than an entire class of people, given that the group as a whole is still a threat to survival of your kin?

Obviously, the ulterior motive cannot be to protect your kin if you are only concerned about one individual instead of the out-group as a whole.

SUMMARY: You have a right to protect your kin from all outsiders which may threaten the survival of your group, but you don't have a right to distinguish between different members of the out-group; and you most certainly do not have a right to single out individuals who belong to the out-group for any form of differential treatment, as this would not serve to protect your kin on a macro and strategic level.

Your example of plants is meant to infer a general (law) principle of territorialism amongst the animal/plant kingdom -- which includes humans.

 

[chlotilde]

Therefore, my question is simple and straightforward: Why should animals distinguish between different members of the out-group, and try to kill one organism instead of the entire class of organisms who belong to the out-group which are in close proximity?

Perhaps because it is the alpha of the out group. You take out the leader and the others may (or may not) fall.