Engaging in High-Sounding Talk

The next manifestation is engaging in high-sounding talk and not doing anything real. Let’s first discuss what kind of problem this is. Such people enjoy speaking lofty doctrines and engaging in high-sounding talk. At gatherings, they often discuss their own aspirations and resolve, their own understanding, and their plans for the work. But when it comes time to do something real, they cannot muster any energy. What kind of problem do such people have? Is it an issue of innate conditions, humanity, or corrupt dispositions? (I think it falls under corrupt dispositions.) Does it fall under corrupt dispositions? There are two problems involved here, aren’t there? One is a defect of humanity—they’re unwilling to do anything real, because they feel it requires them to worry, endure hardship, pay a price, and expend energy. Isn’t there a hint of laziness here? Is laziness a defect of humanity? (Yes.) People who are this lazy do nothing real yet still engage in high-sounding talk. They still like to put themselves on a pedestal and preach lofty doctrines to other people. Does this indicate a bad disposition? Does it also contain elements of a corrupt disposition? (Yes.) What kind of corrupt disposition is it? (Arrogance.) It’s an arrogant corrupt disposition. On top of this, they are lazy, they love ease while hating work, they do not do things in a grounded manner, and they are unwilling to engage in real action, yet they still want to act superior, assert their status, and preach to others—they are only willing to flap their lips but not lift a finger. The flaws in their humanity are significant, and their corrupt disposition is very evident. Aren’t these two very obvious problems? (Yes.) Aren’t there many such people? (Yes.) When discussing work, they engage in high-sounding talk and go on endlessly, but when it comes to doing something real, they cannot take a single step. Let’s not talk about what their caliber is like—just based on the fact that they are all talk and do nothing real, they can be characterized as useless people. They do nothing real yet still want to act superior and enjoy the benefits of status—aren’t they arrogant to the point of lacking reason? They are all talk, they do nothing real whatsoever, and they are both lazy and arrogant—they’re useless people, right? If they are asked to take action and do something real, to organize, plan, and implement work, they are unwilling to do so; they feel resistant toward it in the depths of their hearts. Just how lazy must such people be! These are loafers who do not attend to their proper work. They just enjoy shooting the breeze, they don’t want to do anything, they only want to muddle through life, eat well, dress well, and yet they also want to be highly regarded by others, and enjoy high-level treatment and the kind of treatment afforded to those with status. What is their humanity like? (Bad.) Do you find such people disgusting? (Yes.) When some people see those who are eloquent but do nothing real, they envy them. They think, “They can go on and on, and everything they say is structured and systematic—this shows that they have the truth reality.” All discerning people can tell that the things they often say are all learned from the sermons and fellowships of God’s house and are not derived from their own experiences. Therefore, although their preaching sounds impressive, they cannot resolve any problems at all. Over time, people can clearly see that such individuals were frauds all along. Whatever question you put forward, they cannot answer it, nor can they share any principles or paths of practice, yet they still want you to think highly of them. How do they make you think highly of them? They use their performances and speeches to secure a place in your heart, getting you to envy them, admire them, and look up to them. Aren’t such people shameless? They do no real work, nor are they capable of doing real work, yet they still want others to think highly of them, and they still want to waste other people’s energy and time with their high-sounding talk, but in the end, they cannot resolve any problems at all. People who have believed in God for just one or two years may still be misled by them, but those who have believed in God for many years and understand a bit of the truth reality do not want to listen to their high-sounding talk. Yet if you refuse to listen, they form a negative opinion of you and say that you do not love the truth. Aren’t such people very troublesome? (Yes.) They only have a partial understanding of any aspect of the truth, and when they understand a few doctrines, they cannot explain them clearly, and yet they still want to preach these doctrines to others and have others accept them. If you refuse to listen, they say you do not love the truth and do not respect them. But if you do listen to them, you feel uncomfortable and cannot sit still. Why can’t you sit still? Because you have many problems that need to be resolved and much work that needs to be done, and you do not have time to listen to their high-sounding talk. If someone truly envies those who engage in high-sounding talk, what kind of person are they? They are an idle person, a stupid person, and a person who has nothing better to do. When it comes to doing a duty, such people have no devotion and bear no burden whatsoever; they only want to muddle through life, freeloading and waiting to die. Every day, they listen to some profound doctrines to pass the time, yet they still think that they have gained something and made progress in their belief in God: “The truths they’re preaching are becoming loftier by the day—their preaching will soon reach the level of the third heaven! These are all mysteries from heaven!” They listen to a lot of doctrines spoken by those who engage in high-sounding talk, but they still do not know how to be devoted in doing their duty or what principles should be followed when doing their duty. So is listening to these things useful? (No.) What should you do when you encounter people who engage in high-sounding talk and preach lofty doctrines? Should you follow them closely or reject them? (Reject them.) How do you reject them? You need to know how to reject them and know why you are rejecting them. If you do not know this, then when you reject them, you may still wonder in your heart, “Does rejecting them mean I don’t love the truth?” If you have this thought, then it is problematic—it proves that you have no discernment and do not understand what the truth reality is. If you listen to them speak doctrines and still think they are fellowshipping on the truth, and even approve of them in your heart, then you are utterly stupid. If you have discernment regarding the doctrines spoken by such people who engage in high-sounding talk, then you should reject them. The reason for this is that everything they speak is doctrines and empty words—it is useless. That is like drawing cakes to stave off hunger or gazing at plums to quench thirst—it cannot resolve real problems at all. They speak many doctrines, but these doctrines do not match up with the real problems people encounter while doing their duties, and cannot resolve them at all. Listening to them is no different from not listening. They do not know how to resolve problems that arise in gospel work and church life; they do not know how to implement work arrangements, or what work has flaws and gaps that need to be remedied or followed up on; and they do not know how to resolve or refute distorted notions when others raise them. They do not know any of this, so isn’t listening to their high-sounding talk a waste of time? This is the reason why you should reject them. Therefore, this high-sounding talk should be rejected because what these people speak is not the truth but doctrines. What are doctrines? Doctrines consist of words that align with human notions and imaginings. These people do not fellowship on the truth principles focusing on the essence of the problem. Although their words sound pleasant and are expressed in a clear and logical way, they cannot resolve problems at all. These words, then, are doctrines; no matter how correct they may seem, they are not the truth principles. Some people’s words may seem shallow, but they can strike at the crux of the problem and clearly explain its essence. Even if some of their words sound as unpleasant as insults, they are words that people can accept, and they can resolve real problems. Without a doubt, these words align with the truth principles. Some words may sound pleasant, tactful, refined, and profound, but they cannot resolve real problems at all. They do not pertain to the truth principles in the slightest, nor can they point out a path or direction to people. They are all specious doctrines. These words, then, should be rejected. The reason for rejecting such people is that their high-sounding talk wastes time which you should be using to do your duty, wastes time which you should be using to seek the truth, and wastes your personal energy—thus, you should reject them. How should you reject them? Simply by saying “Goodbye,” you reject them, don’t you? Or you could say, “Stop talking, I understand everything you’re saying. When are you going to answer the question I asked you? If you cannot answer it, then get out of here immediately and stop wasting my time.” Is this way of rejecting them good? (Yes.) It seems quite good to Me—otherwise, how else would you reject them? Rejecting their high-sounding talk, doctrines, and slogans is just like rejecting the Pharisees. People like this cannot do anything real. Their humanity is not up to standard, their caliber is poor, and they are fundamentally incapable of doing real work. Yet, they still use lofty doctrines to try to mislead you. If you do not reject them, then you are utterly stupid. It is right to reject such people when you encounter them. Just say “Bye” and walk away—it’s a very easy thing to resolve, isn’t it? This is exactly how to treat those who engage in high-sounding talk but do not do anything real. People like this are not those who do things in a proper and serious way; they are not those who do things in a down-to-earth manner. What they say lacks credibility, is not worth becoming attached to, and is not worth listening to as though it were effective advice or an effective path. So when it comes to their high-sounding talk, just reject it outright—there’s no need to take notes, and it’s not worth cherishing. This concludes our discussion on the issue of high-sounding talk.

Liking to Discuss Politics

Let’s talk about another manifestation: loving to discuss politics. Some people like to discuss the political situation of their own country or the global political situation, as well as the policies and statements of high-level political figures, their governance agenda and political line, the ways and means by which they implement various policies, and so on. In short, they frequently discuss topics related to politics; whether these topics relate to ancient or modern politics, domestic or international politics, they enjoy bringing them up from time to time. Does loving to discuss politics fall under innate conditions, humanity, or corrupt dispositions? You don’t know, do you? That’s because this topic is somewhat special. What they like to discuss is politics, and in your view, politics is not something positive. You think: “If loving to discuss politics were an interest and hobby within innate conditions, then God would not have given people this kind of interest and hobby; if it were an issue of bad humanity, merely discussing it without doing anything bad should not amount to bad humanity, and even less could it rise to the level of a corrupt disposition. So where should it be classified?” In the end, you do not arrive at a conclusion. Is this the case? (Yes.) So are you correct in thinking this way? Why do you ultimately not arrive at a conclusion? Where are you getting stuck? You’re getting stuck on the word “politics,” aren’t you? (Yes.) If I speak of loving to discuss fine arts, music, dance, design, or economics, where would that be classified? (It would be classified as an interest and hobby within innate conditions.) If I mention loving to discuss history or loving to discuss gourmet food, where should that be classified? (Innate conditions.) When it is said that someone loves to discuss something, loves to research something, or is good at something, it means that they like that area and have an interest in it. So, it is classified as an interest and hobby within innate conditions. But because the subject that these people love to discuss in this case is politics, you do not dare to classify it this way. Why do you not dare to classify it this way? Because politics is a very sensitive topic, and politics is not something particularly positive, right? (Right.) Although politics is not something particularly positive, the activity in loving to discuss politics, as just mentioned, is discussion. Therefore, it should be classified as an interest and hobby within innate conditions. Such a person’s innate interest and hobby is liking, to a relative degree, to follow and discuss politics. But do they participate in politics? We haven’t gotten to that yet; for now, we are just limiting our focus to the act of discussion, so it can only be classified as an interest and hobby within innate conditions. Do you understand now? (Yes.) Saying it this way is objective; it is a fact, is it not? (Yes.) For example, suppose that someone likes to discuss ancient monarchs and often talks about how certain emperors treated their ministers and the common people, how certain rulers governed diligently and cared for the people, and how the nation’s grain reserves were sufficient and what level the populace’s standard of living reached during their reigns. They also talk about which emperors were tyrants and how the people were destitute under their rules while these emperors indulged in extravagant feasts and debauchery and lived in great luxury in their palaces. Then they go on to discuss the problems of contemporary political figures, talking about who does a good job and who does not, and so on. They just like to discuss these things. In other words, innately this person is relatively interested in these kinds of topics and matters. In their daily life, their way of relaxing and entertaining themselves is to discuss these political matters, using it as a means to pass the time—this is a part of their life. If they merely love to discuss politics, then it is just an interest and a hobby. Does this involve their humanity? If you just look at their love of discussing politics, you cannot tell what their character is like, because you can’t see what their attitude and viewpoints toward politics are. They simply enjoy discussing such topics and are interested in these matters; this does not involve their principles for conducting themselves. If someone simply loves to discuss politics and in their daily life treats it as a recreational topic, as conversational material, or as a frequent focus of discussion when interacting with others and dealing with things, then it is an interest and a hobby, and it does not involve that person’s humanity. People with this interest and hobby are the same as those with other hobbies—they are equal. One cannot characterize this person as being ambitious, having bad humanity, or having vile character because they like to discuss politics. Although those who believe in God do not participate in politics, when it comes to politics itself, every person has the right to participate in it. Politics is not something positive, but neither can it be said to be negative—it is simply something that inevitably exists in the course of human societal development. Therefore, merely loving to discuss politics does not indicate what a person’s character is like. It is like someone who enjoys dancing—you cannot say that this person is deviant or does not engage in proper tasks. If someone likes electronic products, you also cannot say that this person is capable of great things or is a positive figure. Would that kind of judgment be correct? (No.) So how should this be evaluated? It depends on what you do with your interests and hobbies. If you engage in a just cause, then your interests and hobbies can create beneficial value. If you use your interests and hobbies to do negative things, things that harm people and damage their interests, it still cannot be said that your interests and hobbies are negative—rather, it means that your humanity is bad and the path you walk is wrong. You may use your interests and hobbies to do bad things, but your interests, hobbies, strengths, and related professional skills, technical skills, and knowledge in themselves are not negative. No matter what interests and hobbies you have, they are for you to utilize. If you walk the right path, then what you do with your interests and hobbies is just. If you do not walk the right path, then what you use your interests and hobbies to do is not just, but evil. For example, a computer is merely a machine—it is a technological tool. You can use a computer for gatherings, sermons, and preaching the gospel, but at the same time, many bad people and evil people can also use computers to do evil things. So, when a computer is used to engage in a just cause, you cannot say that the computer itself is just; likewise, when a computer is used to do evil things, you cannot say that the computer itself is evil. Do you understand? (Yes.) Likewise, for people who love to discuss politics, this manifestation of loving to discuss politics is an interest and a hobby—it does not involve the issues of their humanity essence. Additionally, those who love to discuss politics like political topics. They always love to discuss matters of right and wrong and to argue with others about some topics that relate to political viewpoints. Some are especially interested in topics related to famous people and great figures, while some are particularly interested in topics that expose the dark sides of society. But in any case, those who love to discuss politics do not possess the truth, and God holds no place in their hearts—this is absolutely certain. Alright, that’s pretty much it for our discussion on the issue of loving to discuss politics.

Liking to Participate in Politics

Loving to discuss politics is an interest and a hobby of some people. Next, let’s take this discussion a step further and talk about liking to participate in politics. Liking to participate in politics is not the same as loving to discuss politics—it involves action. Liking to participate in politics is not merely some kind of after-dinner conversation material or entertainment, nor does it merely remain at the level of interests and hobbies, or of caring about politics; rather, it involves the path a person walks. Then what path do those who like to participate in politics walk? Does this involve their humanity? (Yes.) So, what should liking to participate in politics be classified as? This is a difficult question for you all—you cannot see through it. Let’s fellowship about it, then. There are people in all walks of life who love to discuss politics. You see, although farmers live at the bottom rung of society, some of them know a lot about matters related to the upper echelons of politics, and they can express certain viewpoints that involve politics. People who are engaged in business and economics also discuss politics, and even those in the arts and education discuss politics. That is to say, in all kinds of fields, there are people who love to discuss politics and are interested in political topics. No matter what field a person is engaged in, if they love to discuss politics, that is entirely because they have an interest in politics. This interest has a certain relation to their inherent caliber and the height of their perspective. They can grasp matters within the scope of political power, so from time to time, they express their own viewpoints. Their manifestations remain at the level of an interest and hobby within innate conditions. However, participating in politics does not mean being satisfied with this kind of interest and hobby at the level of thought; rather, it means abandoning one’s original field and choosing to engage in political work, stepping onto the political stage, and having dealings with political figures. So what is the problem with such people? This kind of person who likes to participate in politics may not discuss politics much usually, but regardless of what career they choose, as long as they are engaging in work that is not related to politics, they have no interest in it and feel that their prospects are bleak. But when participating in politics comes up, their eyes light up with desire, and their interest is piqued. When they hear that someone is running for mayor, governor, legislator, or president, they feel a sense of loss in their heart and rack their brain thinking of ways to participate themselves. What sort of person are they? Are they not the sort of person who has an immense desire for power? (Yes.) So what extra thing does this kind of person have within their humanity? Are they utterly obsessed with money or utterly obsessed with power? (They are utterly obsessed with power.) They see power as being above all else, viewing it as their very life, regarding it as a goal to pursue for their entire life. So, what sort of person are they exactly? What extra thing do they have within their humanity that common folks do not? (Ambition and desire.) What do they have the ambition and desire to do? (To hold power.) What is the most direct benefit that holding power brings them? (Gaining status and being highly regarded by others.) Those are secondary, not the crucial benefit. (They want to control people.) That is close. If a person likes holding office, but the position they hold is merely an empty title, and they do not have a single subordinate under them, can this be considered as having power? (No.) This cannot be considered as having power. They have no special privileges and cannot enjoy any of the benefits of holding office. In their view, does holding such a position have any actual value? (No.) So this kind of person has one thing that others do not—an extremely intense ambition and desire for power. Since they have this sort of ambition and desire, the goal they wish to achieve is not something as simple as merely being highly regarded, idolized, or envied by others, instead they wish to hold office, call the shots, and lead others. They have this ambition and desire—if they have no status, can they achieve their goal? Will anyone listen to them? Absolutely not. That’s why they are determined to gain status. Once they have status, there will be people who listen to them when they speak, and when they demand others to do something, there will be those who obey and comply—their ambition and desire, what they want to accomplish, can then become reality. Those who like to participate in politics may be described in nice terms as noble and aspiring, but to put it plainly, they are just obsessed with holding office—they simply love holding office. When they are not holding office, they cannot call the shots, and they do not have a few subordinates to lead, and so they become disheartened and feel that life is bleak. But once they hold office, there are people who listen to them when they speak and they have followers, and consequently they feel that life is enjoyable. So, is there a problem with their humanity? (Yes.) Can this be called a defect of their humanity? (No.) It is certainly not that simple. Then what kind of problem is this? (Corrupt dispositions.) In terms of their humanity, is this kind of person reliable? (No.) Then is their character good? (No.) Why is it not good? (They always want to control people, and always want to call the shots.) This kind of person has an especially strong desire for status—they always want to find various opportunities to call the shots, and always want to be in a leadership role and to control others. Such people are unreliable, and their character is also not good. There are quite a few people of this sort in God’s house. If God’s house puts them in charge of an item of work, they believe this means they are holding office and serving in a leadership role. Will they seek the truth principles? Will they implement work arrangements? (No.) If they regard being a supervisor or a leader as holding office, they will certainly not implement work arrangements and they will certainly not do actual work. What will they do? They will engage in their own enterprise, build up their own authority, consolidate their own status, and communicate their own ideas to those below them and get people to listen to them—making the work arrangements, God’s intentions, and the truth null and void. This is precisely the essence of such people. When they have no status, they pursue it with all their might, and once they gain status, to them it means they have found an opportunity. An opportunity to do what? To satisfy their own ambition and consolidate their own status to the greatest extent possible; they use such an opportunity to satisfy their own ambition and their addiction to holding office.

Liking to participate in politics is both a matter of bad character and corrupt dispositions. How many corrupt dispositions are involved here? (Arrogance and viciousness.) Arrogance, viciousness, aversion to the truth, and intransigence—these corrupt dispositions are all present; every single one is there. Then what is the most severe corrupt disposition here? It is viciousness—the typical characteristic that is most prominent is viciousness. For people who like to participate in politics, if they are frustrated and unsuccessful in the world, wishing to participate in politics but not having the opportunity or finding a way to break into political circles, then when they come to God’s house, their ambition does not die—they still want to participate in politics. Therefore, they treat the election of leaders at various levels as if it were an election for government officials. Every time there is such an election, they are raring to go, lobbying people everywhere to vote for them. Once they become leaders, they see it as holding office, holding onto status for themselves, grabbing power, and doing as they please. They act however they want and ignore the work assigned to them by God’s house and the duty they ought to do, caring only about indulging in the benefits of status. They treat doing the duty of a leader like holding office, doing whatever they like and want to do, and acting in whatever way that enables them to build up their own authority, consolidate their own status, make others listen to them, and fully satisfy their addiction to holding office. They do not consider the work of God’s house or the requirements of the work arrangements. People of this kind are very dangerous—even if they have not yet been revealed as antichrists, they are antichrists in the making. Are there any good people among those who like to participate in politics? No, there are no good people. People who have an intense desire for power couldn’t possibly love the truth. Because they have an extremely strong desire for power, their conscience and reason cannot suppress or restrain their desire for and pursuit of power. If a person likes to participate in politics or is extremely obsessed with doing so, and has a strong desire to do so, this means they have a strong ambition for status and power. The intentions, objectives, and basis of their self-conduct and actions entirely depend on whether they can obtain power and whether their ambition can be satisfied, rather than being determined by conscience and reason. This is why the humanity of such people is terrifying. In order to satisfy their desire for power and to obtain power, they are capable of doing anything and sacrificing anything—even sacrificing the people they are closest to and love the most. Judging based on this, do such people have humanity? (No.) For example, suppose that a man likes to participate in politics and has an extremely strong desire for power. When an opportunity arises for him to participate in politics and obtain the status and power he aspires to, if he has to sacrifice the woman he loves to gain the status he pursues, he will not hesitate to do so—he absolutely will not be softhearted. Some people won’t even hesitate to sacrifice their own parents to obtain status—they are capable of sacrificing anyone. The only thing they will never let go of is status. In other words, they may use any person, event, or thing as a bargaining chip and a price to exchange for status. So, judging from the character of such people, do they actually possess conscience and reason? (No.) That is why people of this kind are very terrifying. It could be that their conscience and reason have disappeared, or it could be that they never had conscience or reason to begin with—both are possible. Why do I say that both are possible? When these people have no status and when political affairs are not involved, they may get along very well with others, they may help people, they may never take advantage of others, and they may give charity and be very tolerant. On the surface, they seem to have humanity, and their conscience and reason appear normal. But you do not know what it is they love deep in their bones. When you discover that what they love deep in their bones is status and power, and you observe their humanity again, your viewpoint changes, and your understanding and evaluation of their humanity also change. When status and power are not involved, they behave normally when they interact with others, and they seem like decent people. But once they gain status and power, their behavior is no longer the same as before—you can no longer see where their conscience or reason is. Only then do you realize that such people are really terrifying. It turns out that the humanity they showed was only temporary—it was merely revealed due to the impulsion of a certain environment and certain benefits, under circumstances where their beloved power and status weren’t involved. But once status and power are involved, their true humanity is revealed. When you see their true humanity, you will define them as people who are devoid of humanity. That is, before you see the essential thing in the depths of their hearts, you feel that they can get along reasonably well with others and that they aren’t devoid of humanity. But when you truly understand their inner world and their humanity essence, and see that what they love is status and power, you will realize that such people have no humanity—they are two-faced. What do nonbelievers call this kind of manifestation? Is it not called a split personality? (Yes.) A non-human wears human flesh—when they interact with others, you cannot see what lies deep within their soul, so you think they are a normal person—perhaps you even believe they are a good person. But when you see their other side, you not only stop thinking that they are a good person, but you also find them terrifying. This is what it means to be a non-human. Just what are non-humans? Even if there is a bit of human likeness in what they exhibit, it is not genuine. Because they don’t have the truth reality, their occasional good manifestations do not represent their essence. It is the humanity they exhibit when they truly choose their path that is their essence. Therefore, you must not be misled by the outward appearance of such people—the key is to look at the path they walk and their essence. Have I explained this matter clearly now? (Yes.) What have you understood? If a person likes discussing politics and this remains only at the level of thought, and is merely an interest and a hobby, then it is not a problem. But if they like to participate in politics, then it is no longer an issue of thought—it involves a problem with their self-conduct and the path they walk. Once it involves how they conduct themselves and the path they walk, it involves their character. And when it involves character, in most cases it involves corrupt dispositions. Isn’t this so? (Yes.) Alright, that concludes our discussion on the manifestation of liking to participate in politics.