First of all, to those who still question: Bollywood is Bombay TV. And those subtitles are real. I spent much time transcribing and translating them from their original Klingon.
Now then, on to your thoughts.
Why is it "we" are so quick to point out people's shortcomings, faults and mistakes, but we miss so many opportunities to build each other up?!
I think this goes to our fallen nature and to a understanding of the fallen nature of humanity. What I mean is this: it is due to our fallen nature that we have shortcomings, faults, and mistakes. Christians have generally agreed that because of the fall of humanity, the image of God in us was ruined (how far ruined hasn't been agreed on, but Wesleyans believe that God's image in us was totally destroyed). Still with me? Well, somewhere or other, there has been a shift in the doctrine of the Fall, a shift that says that the image of God hasn't been lost in humans, or that humans are intrinsically good on our own. This means that we humans will usually do what's right. Unfortunately, the Fall really meant that we don't do what's right (what did the Apostle Paul say about that?), even when we know what's right and want to do it.
So then, if we believe that humans are generally good and will generally do good deeds, we are sorely disappointed when said humans continue to have shortcomings, and faults and make mistakes. Then it's time to pick at those faults and bring them to light. After all, if we're generally good, then there's something to talk about. I think that's part of the reason.
Another part of the reason is our fallen nature. I think it's our fallen nature to pick. I really do. True accountability with love runs counter to this, and that's one of the reasons it's so hard.
Finally, I think it runs with our own faults -- if I pick at someone else's faults and keep them in the forefront, it both distracts other people's attention from my faults (who needs to look at my little faults when we're all picking on someone else?) and it keeps me from having to face my own faults (I don't have to admit that I'm not all I want to be when someone else has bigger failings than I have).
Two comments in one: Why do M&M's not melt in your hand? But, melt in your mouth? Aren't they the same temperature? Did you know that saliva is the first step in the digestion process? Also, the M&M technology merely keeps the melted chocolate from seeping out. But have you ever licked an M&M and then held it in your hand? It'll melt. Trust me. It's part of digestion.
AND: Why does God put mouths on fools who spread disention, and seemingly make those with wisdom mute?
The Bible acknowledges and affirms your comments. Just look through the Proverbs for examples. I've listed some below:
- Proverbs 10:14 -- Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
- Proverbs 12:23 -- A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly.
- Proverbs 15:2 -- The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
- Proverbs 15:14 -- The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
- Proverbs 17:28 -- Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.
Why is this true? Those who are fools are necessarily loudmouthed. Why? Because they don't know any better and don't care to know any better. If they have an ear as an audience, they'll tell you all they know. Discernment isn't part of their vocabulary. Unfortunately, many times they are so confident in themselves that they command respect. By command, I mean they carry themselves with confidence and when others see that confidence, they simply believe that said person knows what he or she is talking about. Then people listen to them and give them even more confidence.
The counters to foolish talk are wisdom and discernment, neither of which are extremely prevalent these days. Wisdom is too often a thing of the past, especially in this age of instantaneous information. Knowledge that once required serious work to achieve can now be found immediately with a clever web search. Because some have that sort of knowledge in hand, they also feel like they can (and even have the right and responsibility) to put their own explanation toward it based (often) on their limited experience. For example, I could say that all ______ are _______ (insert any group and any stereotype in the blanks) because I knew someone who was ______ and ______. Then others, who have no experience with _____ believe me, because I said it and I have experience. Then it goes deeper when instead of even knowing someone who has personal experience, now you've only read from a trusted source (it's on the internet; it's gotta be true!). Someone might say, "Chicks dig this website" because they saw it in some (obviously homemade) subtitles on a Bombay TV website...
I think you get the picture. What do you think about what I've said?