Tag Archives: Freedom

Misrepresentation of God May Be the Greatest Sin

Leave a reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created May 29, 2026

My interpretation of heaven and hell is more of a gradient than a black-and-white situation.

I’m pretty sure that none of my readers fit in the category of needing to read this column. What I’m hoping for is that you all realize what I’m trying to do and agree with the notion that if everyone who sees this column posts a link to it on social media, we could make a positive difference. It will, through going viral on social media, penetrate all the news bubbles and some of the minds that DO need to see this and to correct the error of their ways.

Today, there are most noticeably tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of people who call themselves Christians and yet propagate hate, who call themselves Muslims and do the same thing, and who call themselves Jews or Hindus or many other denominations and yet mirror these unkind behaviors.

This misrepresents what their own religions preach.

In my Theory of Everything, this is going to result in their being “left back” when the rest of their class graduates. What I mean by that is that when they reincarnate, it will be into a remedial classroom situation, as compared to the relatively balanced classroom situation we have here on Earth. Others of us who practice kindness and behaviorally (not just verbally and performatively) seek the good will graduate into a higher classroom, even more like “heaven” than this one.

This is my interpretation of heaven and hell. It is more of a gradient than a black-and-white situation.

Those who refuse to learn will need to be more strictly guided for their own good, and for the good of the Universe.

“Sin” means “missing the mark” – essentially, it means error.

However, stubbornly proceeding with sinful behavior earns the word “evil” if it goes too far. Extreme error. Requiring extreme remedial lessons. What the individual consciousness might consider to be a hellish situation.

Those are my interpretations of reality and meaning.

What does the Bible say in support of the idea that misrepresentation of God may be the most grievous sin?

While the Bible doesn’t explicitly rank a single action as the “number one worst sin” (outside of the theological discussions surrounding the “unforgivable sin” or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit), a powerful scriptural case can be made that misrepresenting God is treated with a unique level of gravity, wrath, and consequence.

When humans distort who God is, they create a false idol, twist His truth, and actively drive people away from salvation. Here is how the Bible supports the idea that misrepresenting God is uniquely grievous:

Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain (The Third Commandment)

In the modern day, people often think the Third Commandment (“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” — Exodus 20:7) just means using God’s name as a curse word. However, in the ancient Near East, to “take” a name meant to carry it or represent it—much like a wife taking a husband’s last name or an ambassador carrying the name of their king.

To take His name “in vain” means to claim to belong to Him or speak for Him, but to do so in a way that is false, empty, or malicious. God explicitly adds a terrifying caveat to this commandment: “for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

God’s Wrath Against Misrepresentation (The Story of Job)

Throughout the Book of Job, Job’s friends spin complex theological arguments to explain Job’s suffering. They confidently claim that God is punishing Job for some secret sin, framing God as a cosmic vending machine of strict, mechanical retribution. They thought they were defending God, but they were actually misrepresenting His justice and counsel.

When God finally speaks at the end of the book, He doesn’t vent His anger at Job’s messy, raw venting. Instead, He turns on the religious friends:

“My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” (Job 42:7)

God required a blood sacrifice and the prayers of Job just to turn His burning anger away from them.

The Severe Penalty for False Prophets

In the Old Testament, sins like theft or property damage required restitution. But misrepresenting God by claiming to speak for Him when He hadn’t spoken carried the ultimate penalty:

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name that I have not commanded him to speak… that prophet must be put to death.” (Deuteronomy 18:20)

God viewed spiritual forgery—signing His name to human opinions or lies—as a capital offense because it poisons the spiritual well-being of an entire community.

Millstones and Severe Judgment for Teachers

In the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles reserve their harshest words not for broken sinners, prostitutes, or tax collectors, but for religious leaders who misrepresent God’s heart.

  • Jesus on Stumbling Blocks: In Matthew 18:6, Jesus warns that if someone misrepresents God and causes a “little one” who believes in Him to stumble, “it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
  • The Condemnation of the Pharisees: In Matthew 23, Jesus hurls a series of “woes” at the teachers of the law because their legalistic misrepresentation of God’s character shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.
  • Strict Judgment for Teachers: James explicitly warns, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” (James 3:1)

Paul’s Curse on Distorting the Gospel

When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, he discovered that false teachers were distorting the true nature of God’s grace, making salvation about human works instead of Christ. Paul’s response is incredibly severe:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a curse!” (Galatians 1:8)

Paul uses the Greek word anathema (devoted to destruction). To warp the message of who God is and how He saves people is to invite an apostolic curse.

Summary

Why is this sin treated so grievously? Because we cannot love a God we do not accurately know. When people misrepresent God—portraying Him as a cruel tyrant, a weak and passive bystander, or a transactional judge—they paint a monstrous caricature of the Creator. This drives hurting people away from the only source of true life, which is why Scripture guards the truth of God’s character with such fierce jealousy.

What about people who properly quote the bible but nevertheless do not act in the ways that the bible advises?

When people perfectly quote Scripture but fail to live by it, the Bible doesn’t just call it a minor lapse in consistency—it addresses it as a dangerous spiritual delusion and a severe misrepresentation of God’s character.

Scripture has a lot to say about this exact gap between theological literacy and moral obedience. Here is how the Bible frames it:

Deceiving Oneself (The “Mirror” Metaphor)

The Apostle James addresses this head-on, arguing that knowing the Word without doing it is a form of self-delusion.

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.” (James 1:22–24)

In this view, using the Bible merely as information to repeat—rather than a truth that transforms your behavior—makes your faith completely useless.

Causing Others to Blaspheme God

When someone claims to speak for God or know His law, but acts wickedly, the outside world doesn’t just blame the individual; they blame the God that individual claims to serve. The Apostle Paul fiercely confronted the religious elite of his day for this exact hypocrisy:

“You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?… As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'” (Romans 2:21–24)

By quoting the law but breaking it, they became walking anti-advertisements for the Kingdom of God, driving people away from the truth.

The Danger of “Demonic” Faith

James takes the critique a step further by pointing out that even the forces of evil possess flawless theology. Merely intellectualizing or reciting biblical truths doesn’t make someone holy.

“You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:19)

The implication is stark: if someone’s “faith” consists entirely of correct information and zero obedience, their spiritual state is no better than that of a demon.

Christ’s Most Terrifying Warning

Perhaps the most sobering passage in the entire New Testament deals with people who perform religious acts and speak the right spiritual language, but do not actually submit to God’s will. Jesus warns:

“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 who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” (Matthew 7:21–23)

Notice that Jesus doesn’t dispute their credentials or their correct vocabulary. They called Him “Lord.” But because their hearts were far from Him and their actions were lawless, He rejects them entirely.

The Biblical Verdict

In the biblical narrative, Satan himself perfectly quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptations in the wilderness (Matthew 4). Therefore, accurately quoting the Bible is never treated as a badge of righteousness.

Without love, humility, and obedience, quoting the Bible is viewed as a form of religious weaponization—using God’s own words to hide a heart that refuses to submit to Him.

What does the Koran say about this subject? And what do the scriptures of India say about it? The full white paper containing all this is available free here.

The Ultimate Point of Agreement

If you distill all of these scriptures down to a single behavioral thesis, it is this: True spirituality cannot be separated from morality. All of these traditions agree that God is not impressed by empty rituals, loud prayers, or flawless scriptural recitation if the person performing them is cruel, dishonest, or unjust. In the eyes of the Divine, the ultimate validation of your faith is how you treat your fellow human beings.

Love to all,
Bill

 

Live chat with my avatar

How Do We Protect Our Elections and Voting Rights At The Same Time?

1 Reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created May 21, 2026

The question of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections is a major point of public discussion. Extensive data, recent state-level audits, and nonpartisan research show that verified cases of non-citizen voting are vanishingly rare, representing a minute fraction of a percent of overall votes cast.

When state election officials conduct extensive audits using federal immigration databases (like SAVE) and Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records, the initial lists of “suspected” non-citizens routinely shrink drastically upon investigation. This is usually because the data relies on outdated status reports (e.g., individuals who were green card holders when they got their driver’s license but have since become naturalized U.S. citizens).

The Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR) and recent state reports provide the following official figures:

Note: “Potential” or “Suspected” means the individuals were flagged for review; subsequent checks usually reveal many are actually naturalized citizens who simply haven’t updated their DMV profile.

The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains a national database tracking verified instances of voter fraud. Going back to the year 2000, their database documents fewer than 100 cases of non-citizen voting across the entire country. Given that hundreds of millions of ballots have been cast in that timeframe, the percentage is statistically close to 0%.

A landmark study by the Brennan Center analyzed 42 jurisdictions during the 2016 presidential election (tabulating 23.5 million votes). Election officials referred only 30 cases of suspected non-citizen voting for investigation—amounting to 0.0001% of the votes.

Why It Happens (When It Does)

Data shows that the microscopic number of non-citizens who do successfully register or vote are almost exclusively Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) rather than undocumented immigrants. These cases are usually driven by administrative errors (such as being automatically prompted to register while getting a driver’s license) or honest confusion about eligibility rules, rather than intentional fraud.

Recent data from major polling operations, including the comprehensive PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll and federal tracking data, outlines where the public stands:

High Bipartisan Support for Specific Stricter Laws

When polled on specific legislative proposals—such as photo voter ID mandates or proof-of-citizenship requirements—supermajorities of Americans consistently voice support.

  • Voter ID Requirements: Between 81% and 84% of Americans support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote. This includes roughly 95%–98% of Republicans, 79%–84% of independents, and 67%–70% of Democrats.
  • Proof of Citizenship: Approximately 75% to 83% of Americans favor requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote for the first time.
  • The SAVE America Act: A White House data release tracking public sentiment on federal election security legislation shows 71% overall support for tighter federal restrictions on voter registration eligibility, including half of rank-and-file Democrats.

Fraud vs. Access: The Public Divide

Despite broad consensus on IDs, the public splits significantly when asked about the core philosophy governing election laws. The Marist Poll reveals a sharp divide over whether the priority should be stopping fraud or maximizing turnout:

  • The Primary Concern: 59% of Americans believe it is more important to ensure that everyone who wants to vote is able to do so. Conversely, 41% say the bigger concern should be ensuring no one votes who is ineligible.
  • Partisan Splits: This question is highly polarized. 70% of Republicans prioritize stopping ineligible voters, while 86% of Democrats and 53% of Independents prioritize maximizing voter access.

Perceived Threats to Elections

When Americans are asked to name the single biggest threat to safe and secure elections, voter fraud ranks high, but it shares the spotlight with other anxieties:

  • 33% cite voter fraud as the top threat.
  • 26% cite misleading information (including concerns about AI-generated misinformation).
  • 24% cite voter suppression (worrying that strict laws will turn away eligible voters).

Notably, 57% of Republicans view voter fraud as the top threat, whereas 41% of Democrats view voter suppression as the primary threat, and a plurality of independents worry most about misinformation.

In summary, the percentage of Americans who want stricter laws depends heavily on how the question is asked. If asked about voter ID and citizenship verification, support sits overwhelmingly at 75% to 84%. However, if asked whether tightening laws to prevent fraud is more important than protecting voter access, only about 41% of the country prioritizes fraud prevention above all else.

When forced to weigh election security against voter access, a clear majority of Americans prioritize ensuring that eligible voters are not locked out of the system.

According to the comprehensive PBS News/NPR/Marist Poll on Election Security:

  • 59% of Americans state that their primary concern is making sure that everyone who wants to vote is able to do so.
  • This concern is heavily driven by partisan lines: 86% of Democrats and 53% of Independents prioritize maximizing voter access over stopping potential fraud.

Fear of Voters Being Turned Away

Anxieties regarding specific voting rights being taken away or restricted at the ballot box have hit a multi-year high:

  • 58% of Americans believe it is likely that people will show up to the polls only to be told they are not eligible to vote.
  • This represents a striking 16-percentage-point jump from when the same question was asked in 2020. Among Democrats, this fear rises to 74%.

Concern Over Gerrymandering and Vote Dilution

While broad polling generally measures “gerrymandering” through the lens of overall trust in the political process, the sentiment that the system is being rigged to minimize the effect of certain votes is incredibly widespread.

  • Threats to Democracy: In the February 2026 Marist Poll, 78% of Americans stated that they believe U.S. democracy is “in jeopardy” or “under serious threat.”
  • The “Voter Suppression” Threat: When asked to isolate the single largest threat to a safe and fair election, 24% of Americans specifically point to voter suppression (the intentional restriction of voting access).
  • Lack of Confidence in Fair Elections: Driven heavily by the ongoing “arms race” of mid-decade redistricting across states like California, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia, public confidence that state/local governments will run fair and accurate elections dropped to two-thirds (66%)—a 10-percentage-point decrease from late 2024.

Data tracking from organizations like the Pew Research Center confirms that large majorities of Americans intuitively favor electoral fairness and believe that extreme partisan gerrymandering actively undermines confidence in whether their individual vote actually matters.

What do these facts tell us? Despite the incidence of voter fraud being close to zero, 41% of us want stricter laws preventing it, outweighing in their minds the risk of citizen voting being made so much more difficult or diluted that “one person, one vote” no longer applies, and minority rule can take over America.

How can we explain this?

Possibility #1: 41% of us are racists.

Possibility #2: 41% of us are unaware of the near-zero factual threat of voter fraud to date.

Possibility #3: 41% of us simply want the Republicans to win, regardless of the issues or consequences.

Possibility #4: 41% of us fear the perceived weakness of the Democrats more than they fear anything else.

Possibility #5: 41% of us fear that the elections are going to be rigged from now on, because of the actions now being taken by the government, and they want stricter anti-fraud laws to protect us against that. (However, the laws that we need to prevent that are not being strengthened, in fact the weakening of voter rights strengthens that.)

Possibility #6: all of the above to varying degrees. This is the likely real answer.

What should we all do?

  1. Take action to make sure the facts about voter fraud statistics are known by as many people as possible. We can all do this in social media. Let’s make social media socially a positive force for a change.
  2. If you do not see yourself as weak, run for office, or help someone you see as strong and wise run for office. Socrates and George Washington agreed that wise and morally strong people must be willing to accept the role of governing, even if they would prefer to do something else with their lives. Unfortunately, the public votes for strong over wise, so if you are in any way involved in politics or are willing to become involved now that our country needs all of us to become more involved, and you are a combat veteran or simply a strong person, hear and take the call now.

Happy Memorial Day Remember and Honor May 25, 2026

Love to all,
Bill

 

Live chat with my avatar

How AI Might Help Shape a Better Future for American Politics

Leave a reply

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Created March 6, 2026

I’ve been asking AI a lot of questions lately about the American Revolution. I can see it like a movie now. Sort of like the original 1960 Ocean’s Eleven, when we see how the gang comes together like iron filings around a magnetic story arc.

In the real his-and-her-story (formerly known as his story, i.e., history), John Adams got religion first, around 1765, PO’ed by the Stamp Act and Taxation Without Representation.

George Washington, always methodical, gradually shifted his attitude over a period of years, 1769–1774, in increasing indignation against the British treatment of Americans as inferior. The major stimuli included trade restrictions and the Coercive Acts. But there was also a personal matter. He had joined the British Army, and because he was American, he was given the rank of Brevet Captain instead of full Captain. Apparently, his mother had rankled him all his young life with put-downs, which made him extra sensitive in his adult life to treatment like that.

Thomas Jefferson was drawn into the revolutionary mindset ~1774 (the turning point year, as we shall see in a moment) by the issues of infringement on natural rights and self-governance.

Alexander Hamilton joined the movement in 1774, spurred by political unrest in New York and the Continental Congress.

Benjamin Franklin was the last of this group to join. He spent decades in London trying to bridge the gap between the colonies and the Crown. He truly believed the British Empire could be saved. The turning point was the “Hutchinson Letters Affair” (1774), where he was publicly humiliated by British officials. He realized reconciliation was impossible and sailed home in March 1775, arriving in Philadelphia just after the battles of Lexington and Concord, ready to serve the rebellion.

Thomas Paine joined the American revolutionary movement upon arriving in Philadelphia from England on November 30, 1774. Recommended by Franklin, Paine quickly immersed himself in colonial politics, publishing his influential, pro-independence pamphlet Common Sense on January 10, 1776, which galvanized support for the revolution.

The American Revolution was primarily influenced by Enlightenment philosophers, most notably John Locke, whose theories on natural rights (life, liberty, property) and the social contract directly shaped the Declaration of Independence. Other key influences included Montesquieu (separation of powers), Rousseau (popular sovereignty), and Thomas Paine (republicanism). Most of the Founders themselves also wrote brilliant philosophical treatises. If we had leaders today who were as creative in thinking about the future, we would probably not be in the current mess.

Enter AI.

The USA is a representative democracy, and this worked for almost 250 years, but it is showing signs of wear. The necessity for representatives was obvious all this time because there was no way for all of us to vote every day on every big and little decision and still get anything else done, like producing goods and services, inventing things, defending the nation, etc.

AI does change this. It would be possible for each of us to tell AI everything we want government to do and not do, every day, as the spirit moves us. AI could combine all this input from ~325 million people, knowing which ones are adults and eligible to vote, which ones are citizens but minors, which ones are immigrants not eligible to vote. AI could provide summaries of what We, The People want continuously to the government at all levels, as well as to the press and to educators and back to all of us.

This would seem to be a highly probable eventuality at some point. It might start very soon as unofficial experimentation and perhaps as a more constructive channeling of the shouting match we call social media.

This would use a lot of computing power and have a high carbon footprint and possibly lead to some breakthroughs in clean energy sources.

Rooting out biases in AI and the need for continuous fact checking would be crucial in such a system.

Bad actors would focus on political cybermanipulation. Good agents of the Justice and Intel systems would work to keep them from ruining a good thing.

But wait! How would this be better than polling? Doesn’t polling serve this function already?

Polling is limited to the ideas which are already on the table. The AI method would pick up creative new ideas even if only one person came up with them. In fact the national governmental AI should not be a single AI but a collegial team of AIs looking at the same data from many viewpoints, some looking for new ideas, some fact checking, some looking for historical precedents, and so on.

Polling has another problem of representativeness. The response rate to polling is typically under 10%, suggesting a very large nonresponse bias. Pew and other sources taken together suggest that something like 87% of Americans use social media, implying a willingness to key in at least a few words every now and then. The AI scenario envisioned here would be voice driven rather than requiring keystrokes, which would also be an option. In order to maximize engagement, the government could offer modest tax rebates based of the degree of contribution to the ideas of the nation.

We would still need representatives and the rest of government at all levels to carry out the wishes of the people. In fact, the mess we are in now is only slightly the result of imperfections in the system the Founders designed, and a much larger factor is the imperfections of the people in that system.

If we elected people who were of good character, devoted to the good of the many, more of us would vote.

“Using data from the University of Florida Election Lab, a new analysis by the Environmental Voter Project shows that 85.9 million eligible voters skipped the 2024 general election, far surpassing the 76.8 million ballots cast for Donald Trump or the 74.3 million for Kamala Harris.

If “Did Not Vote” had been a presidential candidate, they would have beaten Donald Trump by 9.1 million votes, and they would have won 21 states, earning 265 electoral college votes to Trump’s 175 and Harris’s 98.” This quote from the Environmental Voter Project website.

The party system was not included in the U.S. Constitution. It actually started as a result of the greatly differing visions of Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a strong federal government and industrial development in order to make the U.S.A. a major world power. Jefferson wanted more of an agrarian distributed nation. Hamilton’s views spawned the Federalist Party, and Jefferson’s gave birth to the Republican Democratic Party. The two men, although at odds ideologically, were able to work together and make deals such as the one which created the first national bank and led to what is today the Fed.

The Party system today is essential to get Presidential candidates to be known to the public, a costly affair because advertising is not free. In the future, it is conceivable that a different system might emerge in which the media charge nothing for political advertising (which would increase the cost of advertising to all the other categories by less than 3%).

Schools ought to bring back civics classes and inspire some students to become dedicated public servants motivated by non-ego, non-money, and non-power motivations. People who are of that ilk who want to run for office ought to be lifted up by even the small set of early supporters they find. Social media provides a way for the bubble up from grassroots method to be potentially viable. If the product (the candidate) is authentic enough and of high character, a noble human being like the Founders, for all their human flaws, he or she will go viral. The new mayor of New York is an example of what can happen (I do not know enough to say anything pro or con about his character; time will tell, let’s give him a fair chance), but he did rise rather rapidly from obscurity.

Times look dark when creativity has not been fully leveraged yet. There are more possible outcome scenarios than appear to be on the table based on the loud megaphones of the two parties and limited time each day for creative thought and imagination. AI and HI (Human Intelligence) together in harmony can overcome all messes.

Being Real

Leave a reply

Powerful Mind Part 19

Welcome to this week’s Bill Harvey Blog
Updated July 11, 2025. Created July 14, 2023

Read last week’s blog post               |              See all 12 Powerful Mind Keys

In Powerful Mind 18, we talked about the consistency program, one of the elements of your robot (mechanized, oversimplified coping patterns) that constrains your freedom of expansive choice in every situation. There are other constraints on your free will and creativity in every moment, and one of them is social pressures.

We are social animals, we have built huge hives called cities, and we huddle in them together, or if we choose to live closer to nature, we still highly value the ability to go out and mingle. This is a natural form in which love expresses itself as belonging; we belong to each other and with each other, and we enjoy it. This is part of our reality and can have positive and negative outcomes on our ability to express what is in us. It is of more long-lasting positive value to learn how to channel situations so as to be free in every moment to be who you are, even if it does not seem to fit in at an obvious level.

It’s natural to seek rapport by acknowledging the beliefs you have in common with the people around you. It may feel risky and unnecessary to expose your differences. But it need not be risky, if done right. Instead of expressing disagreement, try the Socratic method: ask questions, and consider the answers objectively, temporarily suspending whatever you may believe based upon your accumulated past experiences.

A contrarian is one who has established a fixed script to argue against practically everything said in earshot. This is the robot with its oversimplified and fixated habit patterns.

Being yourself and not glossing over inner secret disagreements you may have while appearing to go along with the crowd is an act of courage. But it need not be risky if carried off with savoir faire, kindness, and respect.

Open-mindedness is an attractive quality and encourages people to be themselves too. Locked-in ideological dogmas are among the more dangerous side effects of allowing enslavement to one’s robot. Enslavement creeps. You start by enslaving yourself to robot reactions in order to avoid the psychic dissonance and feeling of helplessness at the complexity of life. That then becomes enslavement to other people because you are trying simplistically and superficially to become accepted by them.

The trick with being real is that it is not a stand-alone principle; it must be executed simultaneously with a complementary principle, screening out negativity. If you open up yourself without screening out negativity, the results will be undesirable. You will be expressing not only the real you, you will also be letting out the ventings of your robot. The real you does not want negativity, does not want to add more negativity to the world, would far prefer to never experience negativity, ever. So why do we so often express negativity, sometimes without realizing what a negative expression sits there on our face? It is a robotical phenomenon, not coming from our True Will. Call it a chemical reaction or Pavlovian conditioning or anything else you want; it is part of the problem not part of any solution.

When called upon to comment on a subject you know to be important to the people you are with, and you know going in that you differ from them on certain aspects of this subject, reveal your open-mindedness up front, and mention some of the things that have occurred to you about the subject about which you are still sorting things out. Handled this way, you are inviting your friends to discuss the subject open-mindedly, which is more fun for everybody. Everyone might learn something. This method of respectful discourse is the foundation on which great civilizations have been built. When this format of openhearted discussion is lost, these civilizations have crumbled. That’s how important it is to be real and yet positive at the same time. When you disagree, you can still express positivity by the way you do it, with respect and open-mindedness.

One of the best ways to move toward resolution of ideas which are being debated is by setting up experiments and objectively recording and interpreting the outcomes. This is the method of science and deserves to be applied to daily life, including politics and governance. Fact-based decision-making based on empirical observation of test results, safely testing concepts in action. This can be done at the level of small local organizations or on a global scale.

By avoiding giving your usual response, you open up the chances of creativity and learning, you rethink things. By avoiding social pressures to simply pretend to agree, yet maintaining friendliness and respect as you speak your mind, you make the world a better place, you add to the net value of the universe.

Every rule in the Powerful Mind series  (these posts will become the book Powerful Mind) has its exception cases. All 12 Keys work best when balanced together, customized to the current situation you face. This integration is best done intuitively without attachment to outcomes and without fear or anger. Living in this open way rests upon a foundation of courage. Winston Churchill identified courage as the most important virtue because all the other virtues rest upon it.

 See all 12 Powerful Mind Keys

Love to all,
Bill

 

Live chat with my avatar now.