Playing God with Vices and Virtues

As long as mankind has had standards, rules or laws as it relates to behaviors and actions, we will have had people who press hard on others to follow them, while they secretly break them.  There are many ways to describe this behavior.  How we describe this behavior goes by many names (below of which are but just a few):

• Duplicity
• Hypocrisy 
• Sanctimoniousness
• Cognitive dissonance

--

For the sake of discussion, let's just call out a few examples of this behavior:

• Publicly preaching tolerance (religious, racial, sexual...), while privately condemning or discriminating those whom they preach tolerance about.
• Railing about the depravity of gambling, while going in the gas station and picking up a handful of lottery tickets.
• Lifting oneself up as a champion and protector of kids, while engaging in inappropriate behavior with kids on the side.
• Calling for others to conserve energy or water while extravagantly using them.

--

Most people see this behavior as hypocritical, which it is.  I believe many see this type of behavior as being contemptful towards perceived 'lessors', which it can be.  While this behavior can fit both of those perceptions, it can also be an indication of deeper psychological or spiritual problems.  I believe a person who engages in what we see as hypocritical behavior--do as I say and not do--can get to a point where they are so far passed the appreciation of their hypocrisy and consideration of contempt.  They can get to a point where what we are seeing is a spiritual or psychological battle played out before us.  From my observations, I see this play out in one of two ways:

1. Feeling like they are pushing so hard to help others or society at large that are entitled to not having to fight the struggle.  Mindset includes such thoughts as:
• My fight against the ill is so draining or taxing that I simply don't have the energy to fit the temptation in my own life.
• As someone who is heavily involved in fighting the ill or vice, I am familiar with how not to take it to an extreme, but the public or groups I'm talking to not so much.
2. Feeling guilty for having that vice or behavior rule their life that they have to 'atone' for it somehow.  Mindset includes such thoughts as:
• I know I am a bad person for engaging this vice, but if I prevent others from doing so, then on the moral/spiritual scale, I will have done more good than bad.   Therefore, will have atoned for my own behavior/failings re: this vice.
• I'm not such a bad person.  Sure I may have this problem--deviancy, for example--but when you consider what good I've done for society in helping others, why its small in comparison.
• How could I be that kind of person--bigoted or intolerant, for example--after all look at who I associate with, treat well or champion.

--

In AA, such behavior is referred to as "stinking thinking".  The way I see it, in essence a person who engages in this behavior or thinking is effectively playing God with their vices and virtues, hence the title of the blog post.  Effectively, they are engaging in one or more of judgments in their own life that we normally think it is the role of one's Higher Power to determine:

• Judging their own inherent goodness and therefore what they are 'entitled' to.
• Judging, by themselves, their own strengths and weakness rather than including or being open to their HP for wisdom.
• Judging what 'sins' they need to atone for and how to do it on their own terms rather than on their Higher Power's.
• Judging or determining what is a 'real' sin and what is a big deal.

Anyway, just my thoughts for the day and what I feel I have been led to say.  While we may be right in determining a person to be a hypocrite and maybe contemptful based on their 'do as I say, not do behavior', as I spelled out above, I really do believe sometimes the psychology of 'hypocritical' behavior shows a deeper spiritual problem.  Namely, playing the role of God with virtues and vices and the associated rationalizations and thinking that goes along with that.

Whether you agree, disagree or are somewhere in between on this point, I appreciate you taking your time to read my thoughts and analysis on this subject matter.  My goal with the analysis in my posts isn't to be 'always right', bur rather to perhaps give an alternative or less considered perspective.

Thanks for reading,

Rich

Strays: Thoughts on those who don't conform or fit in.

I am leading this blog post with part of my story, not for attention, to gain sympathy or empathy or anything like that, but instead to establish my credentials for personally understanding the subject of what I call 'strays'.

So, those of you who know me pretty well know that I grew up in a pretty dysfunctional family.   I'm not going to get great detail about how or why I say it was dysfunctional as that is not the point of this post.  I will say however that there was anger and alcoholism present.  Let's just say the dysfunction hampered mine and my siblings 'socialization'--whatever that means.  We went to school looking like the poor family in a middle class school.  A telling time for me was when this kid ripped my shirt after picking on me and was told to bring a replacement shirt for me.  The next day he brought a couple of beat-up old looking shirts and when I complained about their condition, he noted he was just replacing what he tore.   Suffice to say, I was humiliated.  Our home life had that poor look too.  Additionally, we were taught that it was more important not to bring trouble or grief home than to stand up for ourselves.  In other words, not to bring unwanted attention from school or wherever.  I know for myself that led to me avoiding fights (or at least defending myself) most of the time during elementary school.  I was more afraid of getting in trouble for getting into a fight than defending myself.  Furthermore, I never got to know any of my relatives like aunts, uncles, cousins or Grandparents and due to our dysfunction at home, my opportunities for socializing were tremendously limited.  Given all of the above as well as sexual abuse, I never had a chance to socialize properly into or to be the 'popular' or 'cool' kid.  Instead, I was going to be the awkward, low-esteem kid, who didn't know how to relate, who was intense at times, who painfully craved approval and was focused on survival.

I was more likely to be picked on than to be appreciated. Honestly, at times I would have been grateful to be invisible.    In any case, due to all these circumstances, I developed a strong tendency to view myself as an outsider and to be very introspective.  As I have reached my mid to late 40s, I realize that far from being unique, that there are many who for various reasons did not fit the mold of the in-crowd or those who could at least blend in enough to fake it.   When we use the word 'stray', we think of an animal who could be a beloved pet, but instead of having a home is forced to survive out in the 'wilderness' for a while, if not forever.  As I see it relates to people by denoting someone who may have a place to live, but doesn't quite have a home, at least in terms of an accepted group.  But, like a stray animal, often times such a person below their unpolished and maybe awkward exterior, has hidden value and the potential to thrive in the right setting.

Back to my story.  I felt I would never 'fit in' and maybe didn't deserve to.  Perhaps, I never truly never will totally 'fit in'.  I used to view that as a curse, but, as time has gone by, as I've gotten older and had more time to consider things.  In some ways, this is a blessing.  Instead of being a 'cog' whose credentials entitled me to roam among a group of 'surface' friends, I know those who count me as friends do not require me to offer my credentials as the price of admission.   In short, I know that I can be who I am and will be accepted (and even loved) for that.  To me, this is better than trying to be a "Jones".  Had I 'fit in' from early on, I may have never had the richness of meeting and getting to know others who didn't grow up 'credentialed' either.  In other words, 'strays' who are beautiful, individual, non-pretentious souls who value people and relationships over being a 'Jones'.

Suffice to say, I've had the opportunity to get to know people of many stripes.  Many of them, for various reasons don't fit any particular 'mold'.   In other words, they are good people, but don't necessarily fit in the nice cozy, comfortable, 'corporate' and (sometimes) counterfeit cliches.  They won't necessarily have a huge circle of friends, but the ones they have are legitimate.   As I mentioned, I refer to them lovingly as 'strays'.  I'm a proud stray.  Sure, like everyone else I want to fit in.  I don't want to feel like an outcast in a cold unfeeling world, but I don't want my relationships to be defined by me being accepted because I am 'socialized' in the 'approved' way.   So, whom and what do I view as 'strays'.   Not all points will apply to those people I see as strays.  But, I digress.

WHO IS A STRAY (AS I SEE IT) AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE ONE?

• A stray is someone who doesn't fit into the usual social structure.
• They may not be widely accepted in church.
• They may not be widely accepted in school.
• They may not be widely accepted in corporate.
• The don't necessarily comfortably fit into any cliches or group.  

•  A stray is someone who for some reason (often beyond their control) cannot easily fit in well.
• Their family of origin had limited means in an environment which was littered by family with means.
• They have or had physical or other limitations in an environment where others don't.
• They have a dysfunctional family in an environment in which all others seem to have a 'normal' family.
• They do not have the 'approved' or 'normal' interests for those whom they are surrounded by.

• A stray is someone who doesn't necessarily follow 'the way' of groups they are around.
• They value their independence over being accepted.
• They can and do engage others and will try new things, but will not (and often times are incapable of) being something or someone they aren't.
• Their interests do not necessarily fit into any specific group.
• They can't necessarily strongly relate to groups that they are considered part of or that happen to share a circle with.  Though, they can appreciate them.  Examples below:
• They are around hunters, but do not hunt.
• They are around bikers, but do not bike.
• They are around cooks or bakers, but do not cook.
• They are around devote people of their faith who like 'Christian' or 'gospel' music, but they aren't in love with such music. 
• They are around those who are public speakers, but struggle to speak in front of large groups.
• They are technical types, but they don't feel like identifying as a 'techie'.
• They are around those who drink socially, but they don't feel a strong desire to.

• A stray values truth or authenticity vs. just trying to fit in.
• It doesn't mean they don't any effort to relate, it just means they aren't willing to sacrifice who they are in the process.  They'd rather have truthful, authentic and deeper relationships than 'friendships' of convenience.
• Even if they don't necessarily realize it, they do have their own unique identity.  It is a matter of realizing or finding it.
• Trying to be someone who they aren't to fit in doesn't feel comfortable to them. 
• At one point, they may have tried to fit into a group or groups, but either were not welcomed or didn't feel the same of being in place.
• They tend to relate best to others with a similar sense of 'being out of the mainstream'.

History is littered with examples of people that were viewed as different, odd or who just didn't fit in but later grew to be accomplished.   Andrew Jackson started out as a humbly in the Waxhaws region of NC.  He was an outsider to the political class, but became a hero in the War of 1812 and later became the Seventh President of the United States.  But, perhaps the most famous 'stray' in history was Jesus.  He was born of humble virgin birth with His earthly father being a carpenter.  He could have 'fit in', but he challenged the orthodox views of the day.  Jesus, by choice and obeying the Father, chose not to identify with prestigious and powerful, but instead chose to relate to the modest.  With His authority He could have been a rich and powerful ruler, but instead He choose to be a stray.  He walked a path in obedience of His Father, sacrificing His life for ours.   He could have had it all, but instead He focused on what was important, being there for us, shunning the comfortable life and a set home.  He truly was the ultimate 'stray'.  Know who He was and how He viewed 'strays' aka 'the meek', make me realize that if He can see value in those who are forgotten or overlooked, then perhaps I'm not too important to do the same.

Just some thoughts.

I Want To See You Be Brave: Foolish courage versus legitimate bravery.

Due to a just completed Washington, D.C. trip, I took a bit over a week away from my blog. However, given that part of my D.C. trip consisted of visiting heroes of the American Revolution as well as those who died in the service of our country, I think the topic matter of bravery is appropriate at this time.

Anyway, I think that I like most people, have some areas of life in which I'm brave in and some areas in which I am not so brave in.  I can be very brave in tolerating pain, but I've been known to avoid making necessary calls to deal with a creditor.  Sometimes, my bravery (or lack thereof) will be based on whom I'm having to deal with.  Sometimes, however it can be dependent on how I am feeling at the moment--anxious, carefree, etc...

I thought I'd take the opportunity to make a few observations on bravery, specifically when it is legitimate and when it is what I call 'foolish courage'.  I tend to be a realist by nature, so I don't expect 100% agreement on my take from someone who is more of a dream, but I digress.  Below are some examples.

Legitimate Bravery 

• Handling an illness, especially where pain or discomfort is involved, with grace and dignity.
• Facing (legitimate) and certain discipline without complaining, making excuses or trying to justify the actions or behavior which led to it.
• Facing an unexpected loss (personal or financial) and focusing on what needs to be done rather than being paralyzed
• Making burial arrangements
• Making payment arrangements when unexpected expenses show up.
• Risking your own safety and health to protect others
• Fighting fires as a fireman
• Protecting lives as a police officer, especially in dangerous situations.
• Stepping up and protecting loved ones (or strangers) when threatened
• Saying no to peer pressure especially where there is a high risk of being berated or worse.
• Standing up for your beliefs when there is a cost to it.

Foolish Courage

• Building up the 'courage' to do something reckless, stupid or wrong.
• Drag racing or a reckless stunt where you aren't trained at either in an attempt to prove how 'brave' you are.
• Purposely confronting and being antagonistic toward an aggressive person or group.
• Seeking to get illegal drugs or in illicit behavior where there is a high cost to getting 'caught'.
• Trying to do a dangerous task by yourself, when you have readily available help.
• Not avoiding a troubled area of town just to show how 'brave' you are, when there is a perfectly legitimate alternative route.
• Taking on an assignment which you are hopelessly unqualified and will likely fail rather than taking on a challenging but more realistic task, especially where the motivation is greed or to prove something.

Sometimes it is clear whether one is engaging what I call 'foolish courage' or 'legitimate bravery' and sometimes the lines are blurred.  Sometimes, I believe the two can overlap.  For example, when you try to rescue someone you clearly aren't qualified or able to and put your own life in danger.  On the one hand that is brave, but on the other hand that can be foolish.  For me the biggest determining factor is what is the individual's motivation.  That is, is he or she being 'brave' because it is the right thing to do, or because it is designed to gain them validation or fill a selfish desire. If the behavior is done because it is the right thing to do, it is more likely to be done with legitimate bravery.  If it is because of wrong or faulty motivation, it is likely done with foolish courage.

A good way to wrap this blog up is by asking a few questions when considering whether you are being brave or being foolish (some of which I have already alluded to):

• Are your actions based on the need for validation?
• Are your actions based on seeking some selfish gain?
• Are your actions putting your own interests over that of another?
• Are your actions based on desiring to the the right thing? And do you think about them or just do them/
• If your actions have mixed motivations, would you engage in the 'brave' behavior if there was no chance of gain or validation for you out of it.  
• If only your Higher Power (God) knew of your good deed, would you still do it?
• Or do you feel the need to have your good deed noticed?
• Are your actions based on trying to satisfy an addictive 'need'?
• Is there a safer (and effective) way to accomplish what you are considering doing?
• Has the opportunity to be 'brave' presented itself or is it something that is being forced?  

In many cases, it is clear to all whether we are engaging in foolish courage or actual bravery.  However, in many cases, only we and our Higher Power (God) truly know.  In those situations, if we are honest with ourselves, I believe we will know the difference.  My takeaway: There will always opportunities to be brave should you desire to do so.  When the opportunity appears to present itself, put your motivations second and see if it is the right time to be brave or if you are likely just going to engage in 'foolish courage'.  I believe at those times we know in our heart what is the right thing to do and if we don't get in our own way will do it.

Just some thoughts...

I will survive: Survivors vs. victims

I was visiting my brother's grave-site today and realized that he'd tough circumstances and obviously he didn't make it.  Yet, I had faced some of the circumstances or demons that he had, yet with God's help and grace, I managed to pull through, though not unscathed.  We were very close in age and had similar personalities.  So, I've wondered to myself why him and why not me?  But,  I digress.

Long before the reality TV show Survivor started its run, people actually did have to emotionally and physically survive trying circumstances.  Survivor has people artificially "marooned" in various remote locations and they must seek out food, water and shelter.  To me, it seems like a little extreme version of roughing it to try to win a huge cash prize than an actual situation or circumstance to survive.  I mean really are they going to let the contestants get anywhere close to dying or allow them to be risk deep trauma?   When we think of survivors, we think of those who have had to endure the horrors of war and being subjected to daily risk of not coming home, the trials of sexual and other types of abuse, the devastating effects of illness or the stress of not knowing where their next meal will come from and other similar extreme circumstances.

When we discuss people who have gone through rough circumstances, we generally put them into two main categories: survivors and victims.  Being a survivor doesn't mean you go through life unscathed, just like being a victim doesn't mean you end up dead or permanently maimed.  A survivor is thought of as a person who has made it through trying circumstances and come out alive, if not mostly physically and/or emotionally intact.  A victim is thought of as a person who faces trying circumstances and dies or is significantly physically and/or emotionally damaged or destroyed.  In some instances, however, whether a person is deemed a survivor or victim depends on perspective.
For example, a recovering drug addict can be emotionally intact but physically debilitated, but yet we might view them as a survivor if we focus on their emotional well-being or spirit.  But, we might view them as a victim if we focus on their deeply compromised physical health.  But, I digress, why do some people face rough circumstances and "live to tell" about it, whereas others are destroyed physically and/or mentally if they even live after them?   As they say, "That's the $64,000 question."  Anyway, the purpose of this blog post is ponder the characteristics of each and what leads to or is behind those who fall in those categories.

First characteristics of "victims" as I see it:

Victims

• If they don't die or give up immediately, they tend to break down over time.  Either way, they tend to be heavily physically and/or mentally damaged if not destroyed (either figuratively or literally as in death).
• They have stopped being able to recover from bad breaks or circumstances in life.  They've had one too many bad circumstance or too large a circumstance for them to recover from.
• For example, an addict who loses custody of their child and that is an psychological bridge too far for them and as a result they lose the will to live or have a death-wish.
• An childhood abuse victim who seems to "make it", but really have just been hanging on and finally a bad break destroys their will to live.
• They have lost their hope or faith (and often feel the loss of support)
• They might doubt the existence of a Higher Power (God) to help them along.
• They might doubt this type of step: AA Step 2:  “Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” 
• They might doubt that a Higher Power (God) will "restore" them.
• They may feel that they have no one who really cares about them or "has their back".
• They tend to live a glass half-empty type life. They may be:
• Afraid of living.
• Afraid of failing. (paralyzed by it)
• Afraid of trying.
• Afraid of dying.
• They lose their ability to 'scramble' or 'cope' when adversity hits.
• They may fold under adversity, expecting that there is no immediate hope or that it will all end up bad anyways.
• They tend to be more paralyzed by fear rather than more motivated to find a way past it, when adversity hits.
• They may end up 'requiring' someone to 'save' them.  But as we know ultimately, there is so much 'rescuing' that others can do before that option is exhausted. 
• They may not be blessed with the same level of survival skills as others.  I believe that while survival is based largely on spiritual and environment factors, I don't discount that DNA plays a role in our ability to survive.  After all, some people from a family with a history of mental illness for example.  (In short, they may have some Humpty Dumpty built into them).

In short, victims tend to get stuck, lose faith, ultimately expect failure, may be fragile, tend to fall apart rather than recover and fold when their support system fails them.

Now characteristics of "survivors" as see it:

Survivors

• They tend to find a way to make it through rough times (even the roughest).  The find the resources to either limit 'breaking down' if not halt it or to recover from when they break down.
• Their hope and faith may not be perfect, but deep down inside they know they have support from their Higher Power (God).
• Their Higher Power (God) may allow them to face adverse circumstances, but they sense that He is with them and will help them through the bad circumstances.
• They know someone has their back (their Higher Power, family and/or friends)
• Their Higher Power (God) may have blessed them with the constitution & mental toughness to withstand even the worst pressured.
• They tend to see the glass as half-full and even when they don't, they are aware that more often than not, the glass has enough in to allow them to get what and where they need. 
• Afraid of not having tried (will take chances or try)
• Motivated not to fail,
• Determine not to give up or in (to live).
• Not paralyzed by the fear of dying.
• When adversity hits, they go into "assess and survive" mode.
• Determine what they need to do to survive.
• Determine what is extraneous to the need to survive.
• May ask or be willing to ask for help.
• They don't sit around and wait for it, but plan for the possibility that they may not get it to the extent they could use it.
• Though they may be able to count on others, they understand that ultimately it is up to them and their Higher Power 
• They are willing to do what it takes to pull through, even when the price is steep or level of effort is extreme.
• Their Higher Power has blessed them with an inner fortitude.  They may not always thrive, but they have been blessed with the fortitude to make it through or hold on even in the toughest scrapes.  In short, they are like a blessed with a spine of steel.  That is they may bend in the storm, but they will not break.

In short, survivors find a way, find hope and faith, have enough optimism, have the ability to scramble and they have a strong enough spine to endure, if not thrive.

Now, this covers the two extremes: survivor and victims, but I believe there are many people who've faced trauma(s) and are hovering between "life" (survivor) and "death" (victim).  Granted if you are not completely a victim, then one could actually argue that you are a survivor (at least at that point).  Ultimately, we all will be a 'victim' of human mortality and pass on one day, the real question is will we live (and die eventually) as a victim or survivor'.  Ultimately, though we may have support of others, this is really a question that we have to resolve with our Higher Power.

Thanks and I hope this sees everyone who reads this hanging in there, even in the roughest moments.

-- Rich

Boxing others into our expectations

I'm not sure if I wrote on this previously.  If I have, please forgive me.  But, a number of years ago, I was upset and even angry with a family member.  I expected this person to empathize with me or take my side as it related to the end of a relationship.  In other words, "be family" as I saw it.   As often is the case, in hindsight, my side of the (relationship) story was just that--my side.  In other words, I wasn't completely in the right, but wasn't completely in the wrong either.  In any case, at the time I didn't need a pious lecture from family, but instead a supportive ear.  That is to say, I wasn't in the best place at the time.   I could have used the support (or at least lack of explicit criticism).  Just a weak "I hear you" would have been sufficient.  However, the family member was too obtuse to what I needed or was still too sore at a bad interaction that we'd had previously to "be family".

I believe when we are open to it, time and life experience can give us a better perspective on people and relationships.  The situation I described above is an example of that.  I realized that I had expectations of "how family should be" and realized that I was boxing the family member into that expectation.   In other words, expecting the family member to show a side to personality which had never evidenced itself or been implied.   In short, based on previous interactions with the member,  I had an unrealistic expectation for what I saw to be 'support'.  In a way, it didn't matter if it was fair or not for the family member to have not provided 'support'.  What mattered was my expectations.  My expectations were inconsistent with the personality of the family member.

Instead of getting angry and 'punishing' the family member for not meeting my (unrealistic) expectations, I came to understand that I needed to get my expectations more in line with reality.  Once I accepted the nature of the person, I could decide how to proceed with them without being let down, disappointed, upset or angered.  My expectations were getting in the way of how the relationship could or should be.  Anyway, after consideration, I decided to exercise caution when engaging that family member.  In other words, put myself out there or open up to that person to the extent that would be safe given the limitations of our relationship.  This allowed me to continue the relationship free of anger or resentment.  Now perhaps I was disappointed in realizing the limitations of the relationship, but I was also happy to realize serenity to in the matter.

Essentially, I stopped trying to box the family member into my expectations, but chose instead to let the relationship flow naturally.

I call the concept: "Boxing others into our expectations." because the way I see it, when we have expectations of people that don't match the reality of our interaction, there is a tendency to want to fit the person into a box called "Expectations".  This can take two forms:

• Manipulation
• This is where we try to force, cajole, bribe, pressure or otherwise squeeze another person into meeting our expectations.
• Figuratively we are trying to squeeze another person into our box.  
• We may find a way to force them into our expectations box with enough pressure, but if it is an unnatural fit, the expectations box will not contain them.
• The relationship will be forced and may be a fraud.
• The relationship in all likelihood will not withstand too many bumps and when a big enough bump is hit, the relationship will explode out of the box.  When it does explode out of the box it will not be pretty either.
• The person may not fit into our expectations box.
• In the process of trying to force them into it we will damage the relationship with them (sometimes permanently).
• When they we can't put them in our expectations box, we will be subject to disappointment, resentment, anger and possibly despair.

• Delusion/Denial
• This is where an objective look at situation would reflect that the other party is NOT meeting our expectations of our relationship.
• Instead of accepting that the other isn't meeting our expectations, we imagine that they are meeting our expectations.  That is to say, we see our relationship to another as fitting into the expectations box, when in reality it is at best just partially in the box.
• We see our expectations being met when they aren't or we deny that they aren't being met, when they aren't.
• An example is when we see someone as a friend because we believe "we have so much in common".  In reality, they might be more of an acquaintance or a 'friend of a friend'.  Due to circumstances we may tend to run into this person a lot and they may be openly 'polite' to or even spend time around us for the sake of the group or circumstance.  However, when outside the group, the person may badmouth us.  We may choose to 'believe' they are our friend if we don't have many friends or if we have a tendency to want to seek approval.
• One risk here is the other person may use the situation to take advantage of us.  For example, if they see us longing for a friendship where one doesn't exist, they may take advantage of us financially or otherwise in return for declaring to be our friend.
• Another risk is of humiliation.  We may ultimately find ourselves humiliated by the one taking advantage of us or among others who are observing the one-sided relationship.

So how do we avoid boxing others into our expectations.

• We make an honest assessment of others.  That is of their personality, of their strengths, of their shortcomings.  We don't to build others into something that they aren't or something that they aren't capable of.
• We make an honest assessment of ourselves.  That is of our wants, desires and biases.  We don't want any of these getting in the way of assessing our relationship with another. 
• We realize that our relationship with others is not fully in our control.  While we have some control over what we say, think or do (our side of the street), we ultimately don't have control over what others say, think or do (their side of the street).

So what is the takeaway:

• It is reasonable to know what you want in a relationship with another.
• It is reasonable to know your bottom line in a relationship with another.
• What is healthy for you.
• What you are willing to 'accept' in return for your participation.
• Just because you want certain 'benefits' in that relationship, doesn't mean that they will be present.
• The other party may not know be capable of meeting that 'expectation'.
• Something in their background makes them deficient--for example, they can't relate to your struggling financially as they never have.
• They have never learned how to be a 'good friend', 'good parent' or 'good sibling' as they never had a good model/circumstance to learn that.
• The other party may not be willing to meet that 'expectation'.
• They may have made a perfectly reasonable assessment and determined that the cost of meeting the expectation is too high.
• They may be too selfish and be one who looks to take from relationships without giving in return.
• Be honest about what they can give and what you can give.  Just like you would or should only take what you are comfortable with losing when gambling, it may be wise to have a similar strategy with regard to relationships.
• Do not try to expect something of another that they can't or won't give.
• Be willing to give what you are comfortable giving in a relationship with little or no expectations in return.
• Be willing to give what you are honestly capable of giving with little or no expectation in return.

These are just a few of the principles I've learned and while they may not work for everyone, they work for me.  So, take note of them and use them (or not) as you find beneficial.  The way I see it:

2 Corinthians 9:7English Standard Version (ESV)

 7 Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

If that philosophy or way of life is good enough for my higher power, it is good enough for me in how I handle all my affairs, including relationships.

Faith-based expectations: Hope meets Entitlement

I was talking to a friend today about faith and expectations we have for our lives.  His thoughts were that in approaching our faith and our Higher Power (God), we should be modest in our expectations but be prayerful for what we'd like.  As I thought about for a minute it and occurred to me what he meant:  Entitlement vs. Hope.  That is to say, we should be modest and not be demanding or feel 'deserving' of an excessive amount from our Higher Power--entitlement.  However, it is reasonable for us to hope that we are blessed with good fortune in our lives.  Without even thinking about it, I believe we can take some of the following as entitlements to expect of our higher power:

• Good or excellent health.
• Good or problem-free childhood/adulthood.
• Good job.
• Good transportation.
• Good friends/relationships.
• Good entertainment/times.
• Good place to live.
• Good things.

--

I could summarize all of these things into one phrase: A good life.  Now, in most cases, there is nothing wrong with wanting these things.  That is provided that they DON'T get in the way of our faith (as we understand it) and our civil and moral responsibilities.  In fact, is quite reasonable to want each of these.  Anyway, my friend was saying, inherently there is nothing necessarily wrong with wanting, wishing for, or praying for things we'd like or want or want to happen.  However, we should be careful to avoid slipping into an attitude of 'entitlement'.  When we slip into that attitude we risk the following:

• Loss of motivation (laziness)
• If we are feel like we are entitled, I believe we are less likely to put in the work for that which we feel entitled to.
• This speaks to the old saying that "God helps those who help themselves".
• Loss of faith
• If we feel entitled to some or all of the above list just by virtue of being, when we don't get them to the extent that we feel we should, we will tend to feel our faith drained.  In other words, we will tend feel like "He doesn't care" or "He let us down".
• In a sense we are playing the role of 'God'.  That is to say, behaving as if we know more than our Creator what is best for us or care more than he does.
• Unfortunately, when our life doesn't go the way we think it should, i.e., "He hasn't provided", we are more likely to decide that we can't count on Him.  
• This creates a vicious cycle were we tend to exclude our Higher Power and "Lean on our own understanding", resulting typically in less good fortune.  This tends to cause us to blame Him and further exclude Him and the negative cycle continues.
• (Unhealthy or improper) anger
• When things don't go the way, we may ask "why He failed us", instead of realizing that we--humanity-have played a role in our own individual and societal failings.  
• These feelings can lead to poisonous resentment and anger.
• We need to realize, not everything is going to go 'according to script', but that He usually helps us get what we need.  
• We need to realize that there are many much less fortunate.

--

Now let's talk about Hope.  What exactly is hope as I see it.

Hope 

• Is usually a health attitude.  
• Is typically an understanding that we won't always get what we want, but that we will likely get what we need.  
• Is something that when exercised right is followed by proactive steps in working towards what we want or need.  
• Is an understanding that both we and our Higher Power play a role in working towards what we want or need.  
• Is a something that when exercised right is a sense that we aren't 'owed' things, but instead 'blessed' with things.

Ultimately, I guess my takeaway from our conversation was that we need to focus less on what we think we should have, more on what we do have and understand He will provide what we need.  That is to realize that it is not our role to 'expect' or 'demand' of our Higher Power, but instead work along side Him with His guidance to help us meet our needs.  Unfortunately, as I write this, I realize it, like most good advice in life, is easier given than followed.  But, nonetheless...

--  Rich

Lies, damn lies,sweet little lies and the policy of truth

I was listening to Depeche Mode: Policy of Truth today.  I'm not sure I totally agree with the message, but it was an interesting take.  There are consequences associated with telling the truth.  Specifically, we live with the consequences of what we reveal, whether it is a truth or a lie.  So, just because you are speaking a truth doesn't mean it needs to be revealed.  As we know some things are better left unspoken.

So, it occurs to me what is lying, what is telling the truth, when is not telling a truth lying--a lie of omission--and when is it just overthinking a situation. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have some ideas.



Some thoughts on "Lies"

• Typically people know in their heart when they are being dishonest.  Sometimes it is only to themselves.  Sometimes it is to others.
• Lies can harm your relationship with others.  
• Lies typically harm your relationship with yourself (and your Higher Power) as you damage your character and self-respect, even if you are too conceited to realize it.  
• Lying breeds more lying and being caught up in a destructive cycle.
• Lying can spiritually destroy us as it effectively separates us from our Higher Power (God) who knows better.

• A lie can be a lie, even if what is spoken ends up being the truth.
• If you mistakenly believe what you are saying is a lie and knowingly push it to deceive others, then in your heart you have lied.
• Even if you tell others a truth and they know its a truth, but they also know that you mistakenly believe what you are saying to be a lie, from how I see it, it has the effect of a lie,  That is, they know that your intent was to deceive them. 

• If what you are saying is truthful, but you get something wrong, then even if it ends up being not the truth, then it functionally isn't a lie.  It is a mistake.
• Unfortunately, if your audience doesn't know your intent, they can believe you to be lying.
• It is important to set a good track record of honesty so that your audience will give you the benefit of the doubt when you make a mistake.

• In my humble opinion, a little white lie is still a lie--an outfit looks bad but you say it looks good.  Similarly, a socially accepted lie is still a lie such as Easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc.
• We typically cut people slack with these because usually we know they are trying to do the right thing.
• We typically cut people slack with these because we don't consider them a 'big deal'.
• If you have a history of lying, once again, you are less likely to be cut slack on little white or socially accepted lies.

• Being unrealistic to yourself and others can actually be a lie.  
• If you know in your heart that their is probably no way you can keep a commitment, even if it isn't a 'true lie' can have the same damaging effect of a lie.
• At best, you can expect to be considered unreliable.  (not dependable)
• You may be considered delusional or unrealistic.      (dishonest to self)
• At worst, you can be considered insincere, if not downright dishonest. (dishonest to others)
• If you make a commitment to others that you should know you can't keep (grandiosity) it has much the same damaging effect (lie).
• Once again, unreliable.
• Once again, delusional/unrealistic.
• Once again insincere, if not downright dishonest.
• In a way, though you may know your intentions are decent, that isn't always obvious to others.  That's where your history can help (or hurt) you.

Some thoughts on "Truths"

• People in their heart also tend to know when they are being truthful.  
• Being truthful can help your relationship with others as they know that your word means something.
• Being truthful can help your spiritual life.
• You don't have to spend negative energy dealing with the consequence of lying--the need to cover for the lies with more lies.
• You can face your Higher Power (God) in good conscience.  That is, you don't have to worry about the 800lb gorilla in the room in dealing with your HP.

• Just because something is true, doesn't mean it needs to be spoken.  You have to look under the surface sometimes to determine if it should. Examples...
• Does it clear the air where it needs to be cleared.  For example, you run into an old 'friend' and talk.    
• It may be wise just to speak on it just to avoid any appearance of hiding anything.
• If you speak on it, and your significant other hears about it from a common friend later, they have context.
• Sometimes expressing a truth is helpful just to let your significant other know you care.  While something may some unimportant to you, sometimes it is nice for them to know that you care and are paying attention.  Such as giving helpful but not controlling advice.
• Is it extraneous or background noise.  Something that could be distracting to the more important things or conversations in life.  For example, if you don't like an outfit your significant other is packing or wearing, but they like it, unless there is something really wrong with it, expressing your truth could be construed as rude.

• If you believe something to be true and in good faith act on that truth, it can have the effect of confirming your honesty, even if it ends up not being true.
• If you can show it mistake and an honest one, you can still come out looking like you had good intentions.
• If they see that you were trying to be helpful, even if the help is in the wrong direction, people can still observe your desire to be helpful (but perhaps a little mistaken).
• Your history and the harmlessness of what you believe to true can make the difference on how your mistake is taken.

• While truthfulness is a good thing, I believe there are times when it can be overdone.  I don't mean lying so much as revealing everything without filter.
• When it is done for show or to gain support or empathy.
• I believe revealing should be organic and spiritually sound.
• It should not be done to show your 'holiness' or 'better than thou'.
• It should not be done out of a craven need for attention (unless it is a cry for help)
• When it is done to verbally vomit in the case of a guilty conscience.
• When making amends, it is not necessarily fair to just dump on the aggrieved party just to clear your conscience, especially if they are not open to it.  In your desire to 'come clean', you can injure another.
• If it is done to just clear your conscience and not as a step in helping others and/or healing, it can be very selfish.  An analogy is irresponsibly spending money and having someone bail you out, just so you can go back to recklessly spending again.

Lies of Omission vs. Overthinking

• Most people think a lie of omission to have some or all of the following characteristics:
• Intention to mislead another by withholding some or all information on a subject matter.
• It is driven by a fear or 'guilt' in revealing something, even if the subject of  reveal shouldn't be big deal.
• There are or have been multiple opportunities to reveal the subject matter with little or nothing being said on it. 
• In other words, it is not forgetfulness.
• In other words, it is something that should have been eventually revealed but hasn't been.
• When the subject matter (or something close to it) is brought up, the subject is changed by the person who is omitting. 
• An example is if you ran into an old flame at the mall and sat down and got a quick bite and talked for 30 minutes, not really thinking too much of it.  If you failed to tell your significant other initially and in subsequent conversations on dating, you failed to mention it, this could be considered a lie of omission.

• Ultimately a lie of omission is withholding something that you should probably say.  But, like anything you can overthink this too.  Examples:
• If you ran into a friend of the opposite gender from third grade (that they never developed a relationship with) and completely blanked on mentioning it, there is a good change that it wasn't a lie of omission.
• If you are fixing something around the house, but fail to mention details about your work on it to your significant other, it's probably not a lie of omission.  Chances are that you probably are just feeling like you are leaving out unimportant details.

---

In all this discussion, for me the most important factor lying/truth-telling is intent.  If you believe something to be lie and intend to deceive, it really doesn't matter if it is or not.  You've shown your hand.  If you believe something to be true and defend it as if it were, I can overlook if it is false, if it appears to be an honest misunderstanding or mistake.  If you don't want to break your child's imagination or spirit, perhaps not saying what you actually believe on Santa or the Easter Bunny is 'forgivable'.  If you don't want to come across as rude over some small matter to a friend or a loved one, perhaps keeping a thought or 'truth' to yourself isn't a bad thing.  If it is clear that you are hiding something that should be said--even if it just for clarity and shouldn't be a big deal--I'm going to be concerned and possibly annoyed or irate.  If you clearly withholding to mislead me, I will be upset and/or mad.  If it is an unnecessary detail or is obvious case of forgetfulness, then I probably won't think too much of it.  You don't have to reveal all the details of everything in your past or present life.  Just be open with me on the important stuff, don't leave me with the sense that you are tying to hide things (whether or not you should have 'guilt' on them or not), and if you don't feel like talking about something at the moment, but just honest about it.  

All that being said, I've had people in my life who weren't in the best place and couldn't find it in themselves to be open with me.  I understand people have demons and I try not to take it personally.  I'm far from perfect on that score so as long as they eventually 'come around', I can usually find a place for them in my life,  It is when they continue in that mode long after it is time to just talk to me that I find it hard to deal with them.  My Higher Power (God) offers me forgiveness when I have no right to expect it, so who am I to deny to it others.  However, my understanding is He doesn't like to be mocked either.  To me that means that while you can forgive someone who won't 'come around' with you, it is hard to have a relationship with that person.