Belief in God, is it childish? Or worse, is it a sickness, a sign of immaturity, a lack of mental, emotional, and psychological growth, a failure to grow up?
Yes! It is a failure to grow up, if our belief in God is to avoid personal responsibility for living our lives. It is childish, if we prefer a god to master us and control us and make all the hard decisions of life for us so that we can avoid blame when things go wrong. It is immature, if one’s belief in God is really nothing more than a second-hand faith, handed down from one’s parents (or some other trusted authority figure) without ever questioning God and/or wrestling with God directly so as to truly own one’s faith as a real personal experience. (See Genesis 32:22-32.)
Many scientific rationalist types view religion as a kind of neurosis (as did Freud, for example). They view religion as a kind of mental prison for people, shackles on the mind, stultifying their mental and emotional development, a delusion. Of course religious belief can be quite irrational, authoritarian, and full of superstitious nonsense. This is true. But even gold when first discovered is mixed with dirt, dross, and other impurities; that’s why it is purified by molten fire. That is to say, it is not religion as such that is bad, but the many contaminates that may come mixed-in with it that have its bad effects on it—hand-me-down faith, authoritarian faith, superstitious faith, fear based faith, and so-on and so-forth.
Indeed, church doctrine can be “over taught, unrealistically rigid or subject to misuse or misapplication.” (See M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled.) Belief in God is not to be handed down and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker. It must be challenged, fought for, wrestled with, thought through, and then freely chosen. Thus, whether or not one believes in God is not in its self what makes a person childish or immature; rather, it is how one comes to such a belief. Is one able to challenge and to question and to think for one’s self in the believing? Is one able to wrestle with God directly?
Actually, when one wrestles with God and comes out on the other side of the wrestling match with the firm conviction that God truly IS, Life may suddenly blossom for that person. The wrestling believer may begin to feel alive for the first time ever, in a way never quite experienced before. New vistas of depth and scope and width may begin to open up as to Life’s meaning, purpose, and direction. There may even be a newfound ability to truly come to terms with end-of-life questions and issues. There may be new developments of internal, emotional and spiritual and mental empowerment along with a new sense of courage and peace. This is psychologically good stuff, not bad, and certainly not a neurosis.
The fact is that there are mysteries in the world, mysteries that science can neither explain nor study by simply applying the traditional scientific method. Not everything in this world can be examined or proven or scientifically observed and verified. There is indeed a place for mystery, faith, belief, and wonder. Thus, maintaining an open mind to possibilities of a reality (or realities) beyond what we learn and know by the scientific extension of our five senses may itself be a sign of wisdom and maturity.
It is true that religious people can be dogmatic, closed minded, and suffer from self-imposed blindness or narrow minded tunnel vision, unable to see things beyond what their own ideology tells them they ought to see. But such stubborn and willful blindness can also exist among scientific rationalist types as well. Immaturity and the more base elements of human nature can be seen in all types of people, in the wealthy and the poor or among simpletons as well as the highly educated. That is to say that sterile dogmatism and stubborn willful ignorance and closed mindedness are found among all social classes and in people from all walks of life and across the full spectrum of higher and/or formal education or the lack thereof.
And so, yes, for some, belief in God may be a sign of immaturity and lack of development—given the kind of God they believe in or the reason why they believe in the first place. Yet, for others, belief in God may be evidence of great mental, emotional, and spiritual development, reflecting the kind of person within which may be found much wisdom and depth of knowledge.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
The Pope, Donald Trump, and President Obama: are all three Christian?
The Pope created quite a stir by apparently questioning Trump’s Christianity.
Trump supporters say the Pope has no right to judge.
Yet, how often have many of the same people brazenly questioned Obama’s Christian faith to the point that even to this day many believe Obama is not a Christian but a Muslim? And this, despite the fact that Obama as asserted his Christian faith both verbally and in writing.
It would seem that, for many, one’s political views are more important than one’s faith in Christ.
Why did the powers of Imperial Rome have Jesus crucified? Jesus was a perceived threat to the stability and power of Rome, that’s why. Not only was he a perceived threat, he was an actual threat. Jesus was an actual threat because he had followers—people who believed in him and trusted his leadership and thus willingly submitted to his authority, people ready and eager to learn from him, follow him, and put into practice his guiding principles.
Followers of Jesus Christ know Jesus to be superior to any human leader, or magistrate, or judge, politician, king, prince, president, or dictator.
And so, even today Jesus continues to be a threat to the powers that be.
Thus, serious followers of Christ Jesus tend to measure all other followers of Christ by their faithful adherence to Christ’s teachings, values, and practices. Indeed, it was Jesus Himself who said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” (See Luke 6:46.)
Jesus continued this thought by drawing an illustration from construction work: “I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation [on sand]. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.” (See Luke 6:47-49.) In short, Jesus says, we must be doers of His Word, not simply hearers or speakers of His Word.
To say I am a follower of Christ while teaching, acting, practicing, or living a life that is at odds with His leadership, guidance, values, practices and/or principles does in fact put into question my so-called status as a TRUE (living, practicing, obedient, submissive) disciple of Christ.
Still, it is also true that Jesus himself will be the judge of that. Note what Jesus says in John 5:22. “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father who sent him.”
But again, it was Jesus who also said, “The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of the evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” (See Luke 6:43-45.) Jesus then follows-up this thought with the words I already quoted earlier from Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?”
The trajectory is obvious, isn’t it? It is not enough to say we are Christian. It is not enough to speak kindly of his name or to declare one’s self a believer of his ways. One must do, live, and act in obedience to His Call—in spirit, attitude, character, values, principles, and practices.
To put it even more bluntly I can only yet repeat what Jesus Himself said on this master: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew 7:21-23.)
Trump supporters say the Pope has no right to judge.
Yet, how often have many of the same people brazenly questioned Obama’s Christian faith to the point that even to this day many believe Obama is not a Christian but a Muslim? And this, despite the fact that Obama as asserted his Christian faith both verbally and in writing.
It would seem that, for many, one’s political views are more important than one’s faith in Christ.
Why did the powers of Imperial Rome have Jesus crucified? Jesus was a perceived threat to the stability and power of Rome, that’s why. Not only was he a perceived threat, he was an actual threat. Jesus was an actual threat because he had followers—people who believed in him and trusted his leadership and thus willingly submitted to his authority, people ready and eager to learn from him, follow him, and put into practice his guiding principles.
Followers of Jesus Christ know Jesus to be superior to any human leader, or magistrate, or judge, politician, king, prince, president, or dictator.
And so, even today Jesus continues to be a threat to the powers that be.
Thus, serious followers of Christ Jesus tend to measure all other followers of Christ by their faithful adherence to Christ’s teachings, values, and practices. Indeed, it was Jesus Himself who said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” (See Luke 6:46.)
Jesus continued this thought by drawing an illustration from construction work: “I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation [on sand]. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.” (See Luke 6:47-49.) In short, Jesus says, we must be doers of His Word, not simply hearers or speakers of His Word.
To say I am a follower of Christ while teaching, acting, practicing, or living a life that is at odds with His leadership, guidance, values, practices and/or principles does in fact put into question my so-called status as a TRUE (living, practicing, obedient, submissive) disciple of Christ.
Still, it is also true that Jesus himself will be the judge of that. Note what Jesus says in John 5:22. “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father who sent him.”
But again, it was Jesus who also said, “The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of the evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.” (See Luke 6:43-45.) Jesus then follows-up this thought with the words I already quoted earlier from Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?”
The trajectory is obvious, isn’t it? It is not enough to say we are Christian. It is not enough to speak kindly of his name or to declare one’s self a believer of his ways. One must do, live, and act in obedience to His Call—in spirit, attitude, character, values, principles, and practices.
To put it even more bluntly I can only yet repeat what Jesus Himself said on this master: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew 7:21-23.)
Monday, February 15, 2016
Imagine a Presidential Race between Trump and Sanders
What if our choice for this year’s presidential office is that between a Donald Trump and a Bernie Sanders? At this rate, it seems as if it could happen. But what would it mean for us?
Trump and Sanders appear to be gaining momentum. People like what they’re saying. That is, at their respective ends of the political spectrum, both Trump and Sanders are striking a nerve on Main Street, USA. Ironically Trump and Sanders are popular for the same reasons, though they have a different take and draw different conclusions as to how to respond to the given reasons. The common denominator is that their audiences are equally mad at and disgusted with politics as usual, and are therefore attracted to the Trump/Sander’s in-your-face, tell-it-like-it-is, to hell with soft-peddling political correctness. “He speaks my language,” might be the common praise given to a Sanders or a Trump by their respective supporters.
Yes, Trump and Sanders are speaking the language of the common folk—your average hard working American citizen who are tired of the bull that most slick politicians dish out. So far, so good! Nevertheless, given what Sanders and Trump are actually saying, and given what they hope to accomplish, if elected, the question is this: How could either one of them possibly succeed in office? To accomplish what they say they’d like to, if elected to office, they’d essentially have to become dictators. That’s the only way they’d be able to actually enact their agendas.
You see, the problem is the System. Whether the newly elected president is Right or Left or even dead Center, the problem he or she will face is the whole political System, as it now operates. The System has become the enemy. Of course, that is exactly what both Trump and Sanders have been saying? And that’s why a Trump or Sanders is sure to also fail in his stated goals as president, if elected.
In that sense, Bernie Sanders is right, we do need a kind of revolution. The System no longer works for the common citizen. It’s rigged against us. So, Bernie Sanders rightly speaks of a needed “revolution.” But what does that exactly mean—realistically speaking? How is this so called revolution going to happen? Does Sanders have a secret recipe for changing the System overnight? What part of the System will he actually be able to change or revolutionize? Simply being elected as our next president does not mean a revolution has begun. First of all, as a newly elected president, Sanders will immediately come up against the structural powers of the System, which will quickly block any attempt Bernie might make to revolutionize things? It goes without saying that those who benefit the most from the System, as is, will undercut and/or sabotage his every move? Mind you, I like a lot of what Sanders says; but is he being realistic about starting a revolution? I don’t think so. The System is big and massive and is a kind of controlling Matrix in its own right. The System owns the political process, and therefore quite easily crushes anyone that challenges it. And we the people are too lethargic and are too easily blindsided by the hidden complexities of this Political Matrix, “The System.”
On the other hand, Donald Trump speaks of making America great again. Okay, but what exactly does that mean in day-to-day local and global politics? What does it mean respecting the instability in the Middle East, for example (Palestine, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq)? And, what exactly does that mean with regard to North Korea and its recent actions or with respect to China’s growing naval power rippling through the South China Sea region, for example? Or, with regard to monetary might, in terms of “making America great again,” what about our economic trade ties with China, Latin America, Europe, Africa, etc.? Exactly how does a man like Trump plan to sustain American wealth in a context of shrinking global resources without getting us into trouble with our trading partners or causing new tensions in various global fronts? Sure, it’s easy to talk big, but is Donald Trump truly capable in dealing with global geopolitical and economic realities? In short, given Trump’s attitude and posturing and arrogant big talk, is Donald Trump the kind of Head of State we Americans want to present to the world, representing U. S. interests? Is he really the kind of character America wants to hire as a means to “make friends and influence people” around the world?
In a way, both Trump and Sanders are right. We do have a problem and the problem has to do with politics as usual. The problem is with our present political System as it now stands. The System needs to work for us, not against us—the average American citizen on the street. Presently the System works fine for the rich and powerful, for the elite and privileged—but at our expense! Thus, we do need a kind of revolution. We need big changes, fundamental changes, positive, constructive, and effective changes—in the System. But neither a Republican nor a Democrat on his or her own can make that kind of difference, and so we are kidding ourselves if we think that electing a Sanders or a Trump will revolutionize things or make America great again. It will take more than a mere presidential election to fix what’s wrong with America. But, just what that “more” is? My guess is that we haven’t got a clue.
Trump and Sanders appear to be gaining momentum. People like what they’re saying. That is, at their respective ends of the political spectrum, both Trump and Sanders are striking a nerve on Main Street, USA. Ironically Trump and Sanders are popular for the same reasons, though they have a different take and draw different conclusions as to how to respond to the given reasons. The common denominator is that their audiences are equally mad at and disgusted with politics as usual, and are therefore attracted to the Trump/Sander’s in-your-face, tell-it-like-it-is, to hell with soft-peddling political correctness. “He speaks my language,” might be the common praise given to a Sanders or a Trump by their respective supporters.
Yes, Trump and Sanders are speaking the language of the common folk—your average hard working American citizen who are tired of the bull that most slick politicians dish out. So far, so good! Nevertheless, given what Sanders and Trump are actually saying, and given what they hope to accomplish, if elected, the question is this: How could either one of them possibly succeed in office? To accomplish what they say they’d like to, if elected to office, they’d essentially have to become dictators. That’s the only way they’d be able to actually enact their agendas.
You see, the problem is the System. Whether the newly elected president is Right or Left or even dead Center, the problem he or she will face is the whole political System, as it now operates. The System has become the enemy. Of course, that is exactly what both Trump and Sanders have been saying? And that’s why a Trump or Sanders is sure to also fail in his stated goals as president, if elected.
In that sense, Bernie Sanders is right, we do need a kind of revolution. The System no longer works for the common citizen. It’s rigged against us. So, Bernie Sanders rightly speaks of a needed “revolution.” But what does that exactly mean—realistically speaking? How is this so called revolution going to happen? Does Sanders have a secret recipe for changing the System overnight? What part of the System will he actually be able to change or revolutionize? Simply being elected as our next president does not mean a revolution has begun. First of all, as a newly elected president, Sanders will immediately come up against the structural powers of the System, which will quickly block any attempt Bernie might make to revolutionize things? It goes without saying that those who benefit the most from the System, as is, will undercut and/or sabotage his every move? Mind you, I like a lot of what Sanders says; but is he being realistic about starting a revolution? I don’t think so. The System is big and massive and is a kind of controlling Matrix in its own right. The System owns the political process, and therefore quite easily crushes anyone that challenges it. And we the people are too lethargic and are too easily blindsided by the hidden complexities of this Political Matrix, “The System.”
On the other hand, Donald Trump speaks of making America great again. Okay, but what exactly does that mean in day-to-day local and global politics? What does it mean respecting the instability in the Middle East, for example (Palestine, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq)? And, what exactly does that mean with regard to North Korea and its recent actions or with respect to China’s growing naval power rippling through the South China Sea region, for example? Or, with regard to monetary might, in terms of “making America great again,” what about our economic trade ties with China, Latin America, Europe, Africa, etc.? Exactly how does a man like Trump plan to sustain American wealth in a context of shrinking global resources without getting us into trouble with our trading partners or causing new tensions in various global fronts? Sure, it’s easy to talk big, but is Donald Trump truly capable in dealing with global geopolitical and economic realities? In short, given Trump’s attitude and posturing and arrogant big talk, is Donald Trump the kind of Head of State we Americans want to present to the world, representing U. S. interests? Is he really the kind of character America wants to hire as a means to “make friends and influence people” around the world?
In a way, both Trump and Sanders are right. We do have a problem and the problem has to do with politics as usual. The problem is with our present political System as it now stands. The System needs to work for us, not against us—the average American citizen on the street. Presently the System works fine for the rich and powerful, for the elite and privileged—but at our expense! Thus, we do need a kind of revolution. We need big changes, fundamental changes, positive, constructive, and effective changes—in the System. But neither a Republican nor a Democrat on his or her own can make that kind of difference, and so we are kidding ourselves if we think that electing a Sanders or a Trump will revolutionize things or make America great again. It will take more than a mere presidential election to fix what’s wrong with America. But, just what that “more” is? My guess is that we haven’t got a clue.
Monday, February 8, 2016
True Love and Valentine’s Day
Love! We use the word to express just about anything we like or appreciate: I love pizza! I love her cooking. I Love your dress. I love that color. I love my car. “Thank you for doing this for me; I love you!” So what does it really mean to say, “I love you”?
Many love songs have a line that goes something like this: “I love you so much that I can’t live without you; you’re my all; you’re my everything, I’m nothing without you.” What does that mean really: I need you so much that my life is worthless without you? Is that it? If it is, that’s not real love; its unhealthy neediness and a kind of sick co-dependency. As M. Scott Peck says, “Again and again we [psychotherapists] tell our couples that ‘a good marriage can exist only between two strong and independent people.’”
The desire for someone is often mistaken as love when all it really is, is lust, infatuation, and want of self-gratification. The end goal respecting one’s desire for someone is self-satisfaction. The end goal respecting one’s love for someone is to enhance the wellbeing of that other person—his or her personal growth, spiritual development and/or wellness and wholeness. There is a difference, a big difference between the two end-goals.
Those “I want you; I need you, I can’t live without you; I have to have you” love songs are songs expressing one’s own (unhealthy) neediness. They are not songs that truly express or uplift the value or praise the worthiness of the person that is supposedly the object of one’s loving-passion.
Truth statement: Only mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy persons are able to give real love to another person. (Note: This means that most, if not all of us fail to love others appropriately, since most, if not all of us are less than perfect when it comes to our mental, emotional, and spiritual health or state of being.) For, loving someone else is not about meeting one’s own selfish personal neediness. Rather, loving another is “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing the other’s spiritual growth.” (See M. Scott Peck’s section on love in his book, The Road Less Travelled.)
Peck examples a guy sitting in a bar half-drunk who, with teary eyes, professes great love for his family. Yet his very absence at home where he is really wanted and needed belies his professed love for wife and kids. In short, he has no love for wife and children in terms of actual behavior and deed. His actions speak louder than his words. This man’s professed love for family is mere sentiment, feelings expanded by an imagined ideal of love; and THAT is NOT real LOVE. It is a façade of love, a false love that is unreal for lack of action. Love is an act of the will, a willful choice expressed in deeds, not a mere sentiment or feeling: “Love is as love does.” Which is to say: “Love is NOT, if love DOES not.”
Young adults are marrying later and later in life. They seem to be afraid to marry. So, they test the waters by first living together, possibly for years, before they “tie the knot.” Indeed, over half all marriages in our society end in divorce. What’s up with that?
My guess is that a large part of this dynamic has to do with not having a proper understanding of love, not knowing what love really is. Secondly, it is also a lack of understanding as to what it means to become a mature adult—what it means to become mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy. Many of the major religions have a lot to say about both, including Christianity.
We have grown shallow in our comprehension of love. And we are deaf to the lessons of love as taught by ancient sages. We think we know what love is about, based on our own hormones. And we speak wittily about love by repeating what we’ve picked-up from TV sit-coms and what we’ve seen in movies. Meanwhile we ignore the great wealth of wisdom handed down to us about love and maturity from ages past.
Consider the Apostle Paul’s description of love in the New Testament, found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
“Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.”
Based on this definition of love, are you truly a loving person to spouse, children, and greater family? Or, like me, do you have some maturing to do?
Many love songs have a line that goes something like this: “I love you so much that I can’t live without you; you’re my all; you’re my everything, I’m nothing without you.” What does that mean really: I need you so much that my life is worthless without you? Is that it? If it is, that’s not real love; its unhealthy neediness and a kind of sick co-dependency. As M. Scott Peck says, “Again and again we [psychotherapists] tell our couples that ‘a good marriage can exist only between two strong and independent people.’”
The desire for someone is often mistaken as love when all it really is, is lust, infatuation, and want of self-gratification. The end goal respecting one’s desire for someone is self-satisfaction. The end goal respecting one’s love for someone is to enhance the wellbeing of that other person—his or her personal growth, spiritual development and/or wellness and wholeness. There is a difference, a big difference between the two end-goals.
Those “I want you; I need you, I can’t live without you; I have to have you” love songs are songs expressing one’s own (unhealthy) neediness. They are not songs that truly express or uplift the value or praise the worthiness of the person that is supposedly the object of one’s loving-passion.
Truth statement: Only mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy persons are able to give real love to another person. (Note: This means that most, if not all of us fail to love others appropriately, since most, if not all of us are less than perfect when it comes to our mental, emotional, and spiritual health or state of being.) For, loving someone else is not about meeting one’s own selfish personal neediness. Rather, loving another is “the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing the other’s spiritual growth.” (See M. Scott Peck’s section on love in his book, The Road Less Travelled.)
Peck examples a guy sitting in a bar half-drunk who, with teary eyes, professes great love for his family. Yet his very absence at home where he is really wanted and needed belies his professed love for wife and kids. In short, he has no love for wife and children in terms of actual behavior and deed. His actions speak louder than his words. This man’s professed love for family is mere sentiment, feelings expanded by an imagined ideal of love; and THAT is NOT real LOVE. It is a façade of love, a false love that is unreal for lack of action. Love is an act of the will, a willful choice expressed in deeds, not a mere sentiment or feeling: “Love is as love does.” Which is to say: “Love is NOT, if love DOES not.”
Young adults are marrying later and later in life. They seem to be afraid to marry. So, they test the waters by first living together, possibly for years, before they “tie the knot.” Indeed, over half all marriages in our society end in divorce. What’s up with that?
My guess is that a large part of this dynamic has to do with not having a proper understanding of love, not knowing what love really is. Secondly, it is also a lack of understanding as to what it means to become a mature adult—what it means to become mentally, emotionally, and spiritually healthy. Many of the major religions have a lot to say about both, including Christianity.
We have grown shallow in our comprehension of love. And we are deaf to the lessons of love as taught by ancient sages. We think we know what love is about, based on our own hormones. And we speak wittily about love by repeating what we’ve picked-up from TV sit-coms and what we’ve seen in movies. Meanwhile we ignore the great wealth of wisdom handed down to us about love and maturity from ages past.
Consider the Apostle Paul’s description of love in the New Testament, found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
“Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.”
Based on this definition of love, are you truly a loving person to spouse, children, and greater family? Or, like me, do you have some maturing to do?
Monday, February 1, 2016
To Do Evil, Just Lie
You want the Truth.
If you don’t believe it, just remember the last time you were lied to and how you felt about it: You were angry, disappointed, hurt, offended, humiliated, or all of the above, especially if you had really trusted the person who lied to you.
We expect the truth from people we believe in and trust. We also generally assume that people in official positions of trust will also speak truth to us—for example, teachers, physicians, lawyers, public administrators, law enforcement officers, or clergy persons. And we are outraged when we discover such officials have been lying to us.
According to M. Scott Peck, lying is psychologically unhealthy. “We must always hold truth, as best we can determine it, to be more important, more vital to our self-interest, than our comfort. Conversely, we must always consider our personal discomfort relatively unimportant and indeed, even welcome it in the service of the search for truth. Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.” [See his book, The Road Less Traveled.]
According to Jesus, lying is evil. (M. Scott Peck agrees. See his book, People of the Lie.) Jesus refers to Satan as the Father of Lies: “He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” See the Gospel according to John 8:44.
Hence, we do evil and cause harm to ourselves as well as to one another when we lie. Yet, as a people, the human race, it is safe to say that we lie so easily and so often, with so many “little white lies,” and think nothing of it. Nations lie to nations, governments to governments, national leaders lie to their foreign counter parts, businesses to businesses, and so-on and so-forth. It is one reason why lawyers are so pervasive and legal contracts are so necessary—“Get it in writing!”
Ironically we don’t think of ourselves as evil. And so we don’t think that we are doing evil when we lie. We put EVIL in an altogether different category: Evil is the raping of a young innocent girl. Evil is the cold blooded murder of a woman pregnant with child. Evil is something that only dirty-rotten-scum-of-the-earth type people do. Not So! We do evil every time we tell a lie.
If you find yourself resisting such a statement, ask yourself why. Why do you not want to accept the fact that lying is a form of evil? How often do you lie? When and for what reason do you find yourself telling a lie: to cover up, to protect yourself, to deflect trouble, to side-step hard questions, to avoid accountability, to avert personal scrutiny?
Lying is seldom, if ever, done with truly honorable and good intentions. And if and when it is, there is often a troubling inner battle as to whether or not telling the lie is in fact better than simply speaking the truth. Fact is: We often short-change others because we presume that they “can’t take the truth.” Yet, who are we that we should determine whether or not the other can take the truth? So, we give them a lie, in the name of protecting them. Are we; that is, do we really protect others when we lie to them rather than speak the truth to them? I doubt it very much. Re-read M. Scott Peck’s quote above and think about it. He categorically disagrees with the belief that we protect people by lying to them.
Sure, sometimes we get things wrong; we think that we are speaking the truth when we are in fact only spreading misinformation. That happens to the best of us. But that’s not the same as deliberately telling a lie, saying something that we know as a fact is NOT true. Being mistaken is forgivable, sometimes even laughable. Being a deliberate liar is neither funny nor innocent in its effect.
Lying does harm. Lying therefore is destructive. It tears down rather than builds up. It weakens rather than strengthens. It avoids responsibility rather than embraces it. It cheats, steals, and robs from others rather than produces, enhances, and advances the well-being of others. There is no integrity in lying.
This is why certain kinds of anonymity can be a form of lying. Consider extremely wealthy and powerful political backers that remain hidden, donating huge amounts of money to affect an election’s outcome, all the while avoiding public scrutiny as to who he or she or they may be. This is why telling little white lies, or misleading and/or misdirecting, or allowing others to draw the wrong conclusion based on half-truths one has spoken, is also a form of lying and therefore a form of evil. When one hides the truth, or tries to escape detection from view, or evades the light of careful scrutiny one is often moving in the realm of deceit, which is a form of evil.
We no longer speak of EVIL, as such, in our society. Or rather we have simplified it into extreme acts—such as acts of terrorism. And for that reason we are lying to ourselves, thinking that we really aren’t bad people. Most of us believe ourselves to be quite innocent, even very good people. Is that so? When was the last time you lied or allowed people to draw false conclusions based on half-truths you conveyed? And how often do you do so? How would you defend yourself in asserting that you were doing nothing wrong, that it was not in fact a form of evil?
If you don’t believe it, just remember the last time you were lied to and how you felt about it: You were angry, disappointed, hurt, offended, humiliated, or all of the above, especially if you had really trusted the person who lied to you.
We expect the truth from people we believe in and trust. We also generally assume that people in official positions of trust will also speak truth to us—for example, teachers, physicians, lawyers, public administrators, law enforcement officers, or clergy persons. And we are outraged when we discover such officials have been lying to us.
According to M. Scott Peck, lying is psychologically unhealthy. “We must always hold truth, as best we can determine it, to be more important, more vital to our self-interest, than our comfort. Conversely, we must always consider our personal discomfort relatively unimportant and indeed, even welcome it in the service of the search for truth. Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.” [See his book, The Road Less Traveled.]
According to Jesus, lying is evil. (M. Scott Peck agrees. See his book, People of the Lie.) Jesus refers to Satan as the Father of Lies: “He [the devil] was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” See the Gospel according to John 8:44.
Hence, we do evil and cause harm to ourselves as well as to one another when we lie. Yet, as a people, the human race, it is safe to say that we lie so easily and so often, with so many “little white lies,” and think nothing of it. Nations lie to nations, governments to governments, national leaders lie to their foreign counter parts, businesses to businesses, and so-on and so-forth. It is one reason why lawyers are so pervasive and legal contracts are so necessary—“Get it in writing!”
Ironically we don’t think of ourselves as evil. And so we don’t think that we are doing evil when we lie. We put EVIL in an altogether different category: Evil is the raping of a young innocent girl. Evil is the cold blooded murder of a woman pregnant with child. Evil is something that only dirty-rotten-scum-of-the-earth type people do. Not So! We do evil every time we tell a lie.
If you find yourself resisting such a statement, ask yourself why. Why do you not want to accept the fact that lying is a form of evil? How often do you lie? When and for what reason do you find yourself telling a lie: to cover up, to protect yourself, to deflect trouble, to side-step hard questions, to avoid accountability, to avert personal scrutiny?
Lying is seldom, if ever, done with truly honorable and good intentions. And if and when it is, there is often a troubling inner battle as to whether or not telling the lie is in fact better than simply speaking the truth. Fact is: We often short-change others because we presume that they “can’t take the truth.” Yet, who are we that we should determine whether or not the other can take the truth? So, we give them a lie, in the name of protecting them. Are we; that is, do we really protect others when we lie to them rather than speak the truth to them? I doubt it very much. Re-read M. Scott Peck’s quote above and think about it. He categorically disagrees with the belief that we protect people by lying to them.
Sure, sometimes we get things wrong; we think that we are speaking the truth when we are in fact only spreading misinformation. That happens to the best of us. But that’s not the same as deliberately telling a lie, saying something that we know as a fact is NOT true. Being mistaken is forgivable, sometimes even laughable. Being a deliberate liar is neither funny nor innocent in its effect.
Lying does harm. Lying therefore is destructive. It tears down rather than builds up. It weakens rather than strengthens. It avoids responsibility rather than embraces it. It cheats, steals, and robs from others rather than produces, enhances, and advances the well-being of others. There is no integrity in lying.
This is why certain kinds of anonymity can be a form of lying. Consider extremely wealthy and powerful political backers that remain hidden, donating huge amounts of money to affect an election’s outcome, all the while avoiding public scrutiny as to who he or she or they may be. This is why telling little white lies, or misleading and/or misdirecting, or allowing others to draw the wrong conclusion based on half-truths one has spoken, is also a form of lying and therefore a form of evil. When one hides the truth, or tries to escape detection from view, or evades the light of careful scrutiny one is often moving in the realm of deceit, which is a form of evil.
We no longer speak of EVIL, as such, in our society. Or rather we have simplified it into extreme acts—such as acts of terrorism. And for that reason we are lying to ourselves, thinking that we really aren’t bad people. Most of us believe ourselves to be quite innocent, even very good people. Is that so? When was the last time you lied or allowed people to draw false conclusions based on half-truths you conveyed? And how often do you do so? How would you defend yourself in asserting that you were doing nothing wrong, that it was not in fact a form of evil?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)