Will the human race always be tribal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
The human race is more individualistic.
On the other-hand, more than ever before, we perceive ourselves as one human species.

But we still have countries, we still have borders, and we still have what you might describe as a tribal mentality when groups deal with other groups, whether that be on a smaller social scale or on larger international scales.

Will the human race always be this way, or do you think we might be destined to evolve past the tribal ideology or instinct? Is our current state a sign of humanities immaturity or lack of growth? Or is the current state of things a good thing or even preferable compared to a world without borders or countries for example?
 
Until the Second Coming, yes. Fallen human nature is going to be what it is. Grace will penetrate some and weakness will overcome others
 
PetraG said:
Until the Second Coming, yes. Fallen human nature is going to be what it is. Grace will penetrate some and weakness will overcome others
Click to expand...
Would you say that our fallen nature makes such a change practically impossible?
 
I do not think tribalism, or wanting to live in a hierarchy of communities, is in anyway a result of our fallen nature.
 
Anything is possible with grace. On our own, though, we are powerless to change ourselves.
 
Tribalism is a tendency to unjustly prefer some humans and their rights and needs over others.
 
If we lived in a world without sin, do we actually think society would be flat, ie consist of the individual and the global population? No, we would still live in families, cities, countries, etc. We were created as social beings.
These groups would never fight or go to war. They would cooperate when needed. But groupings of people would likely still exist.
 
PetraG said:
Tribalism is a tendency to unjustly prefer some humans and their rights and needs over others.
Click to expand...
I tend to think that while some kinds of tribal behaviour might not need to be at the expense of what is good, i tend to think that in a world where the dominant idea is love, tribalism would be perceived as archaic and undesirable.
 
???
I looked it up. The normal definition was:

the state or fact of being organized in a tribe or tribes.

A derogatory definition was also given:
the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one’s own tribe or social group.

Even that says nothing against justice.
 
We were designed to be tribal. Man trying to function on his own is very difficult. Trying to make certain that he has shelter, food, security, companionship without others is impossible.

When God created Adam he knew the other animals would not satisfy Adam’s needs, so he created Eve as his companion and told them to multiply. Thus to create the first tribe.

Do we tend to associate with the “tribe” that best suits our needs and best aligns with our thoughts, yes.

The Church which God created could even be considered a tribe. Others have chosen not to join it, others to leave and create their own. Even the Church tribe isn’t borderless. Many American Catholics think differently than Italian Catholics for example.

In the end, I guess the goal is to end up being in God’s tribe. Some will, some will not.
 
Last edited:
farronwolf said:
In the end, I guess the goal is to end up being in God’s tribe. Some will, some will not.
Click to expand...
If God dominated the world there would be only one tribe, or no tribes, just a one world order.
 
Last edited:
Well, why would an extended family who lived in the same community ?
 
tafan2 said:
They would cooperate when needed. But groupings of people would likely still exist.
Click to expand...
Groupings of people, based on geological circumstances is not the same thing as what would usually be meant or is not intended to be implied by tribal mentality. Of course, if everybody is cooperating out of love for one-another then in a sense they are acting as one tribe. Cultural differences could justify thinking of them as a grouping of many tribes. But the word tribe in this context would take on a different meaning.
 
I suppose we have a different definition of tribalism. It doesn’t seem inherently bad to me. I already pointed out there would be peace and cooperation. You seem to think any type of social structure precludes that. I don’t see it at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top