If someone doesn’t know what positive things are and what negative things are, yet they still say, “I have a conscience, and I’m very upright and kind,” doesn’t this show an absence of self-awareness? Where does your uprightness come from? Your mind is filled with nothing but negative things—what can you use to prove that you’re upright? Where is your proof? On what basis do you say you’re an upright person? And how can you put your so-called kindness into practice? Inside you is nothing but wicked, negative thoughts and views. Can you be kind? You’d be doing well not to entrap or harm people. Some people, to prove that they have humanity and are upright and kind, give themselves names like Zheng Wang, Zheng Zhang, Zheng Zhou, Zheng Gang^[a]—although the names certainly sound “upright,” do they mean that a person is truly upright? Where does true uprightness come from? It comes from humanity. Only when a person’s humanity possesses the ability or the basic conditions to discern right from wrong can they be upright. If you don’t even know what positive things are, or if you simply do not love positive things and have never accepted a single positive thing or positive thought and view, yet you still claim to be upright, is this not shameless? On what basis do you claim to be upright? Some say, “My worldview, values, and outlook on life are all correct.” Does this have anything to do with the truth? Does having a correct worldview, values, and outlook on life mean a person possesses the truth? Others say, “I have ‘positive energy.’ The things I say and do are down-to-earth and edify people. I never say things that tear people down, I never say anything disheartening, and I don’t say things that embarrass people or make them feel negative and weak, or that discourage them. Everything I say encourages, motivates, or inspires people. Does this count as ‘positive energy’? This term, ‘positive energy,’ is very popular in society now. What a magnificent, fashionable, and classy idea ‘being full of positive energy’ is!” Others say, “Look how I brim with a spirit of righteousness. When I stand there, I look like a soldier—my eyes are bright and my gaze is piercing, I’m not flippant. Those local hoodlums, despicable villains, and evil people don’t dare come near me. When they’re before me, their true colors are revealed, they show their cowardice, and they appear lowly. When the average person is around me, they have to behave themselves and they don’t dare to act recklessly. You see, this righteous spirit of mine can suppress wickedness!” Is this being upright? (No.) It’s popular in society to rob the rich to help the poor, to act bravely for a just cause, to be kind and charitable, and to be a hero by rescuing damsels in distress. Some people, after doing these things, consider themselves heroes, and many others bow down before these heroes. Others say, “I never take advantage of people, I’m filled with a spirit of righteousness, I’m resolutely upright and impartial, and I can tell right from wrong. When two people are fighting and ask me to arbitrate the dispute, I give both sides equal punishment and show no bias. Look at this righteous spirit I’m filled with, everyone admires me!” Does this count as being upright? (No.) While the previously mentioned ideas of “correct worldviews, values, and outlook on life” and “positive energy” are popular Chinese sayings, this last one—being kind and charitable, accumulating merit and doing good things, and acting bravely for a just cause—is likely universally revered in all countries and among all peoples. People therefore consider this to be a spirit of righteousness, to be uprightness. Even most believers in God think that this is very upright, saying, “Look at our national hero, So-and-so. He laid down his life for the righteous and great cause of the nation, sacrificing himself to blow up a bunker to protect the nation. He was filled with a spirit of righteousness. Now that’s what it means to have humanity!” Looking at this now, is this viewpoint correct? (No.) How is it incorrect? These kinds of uprightness, which are believed to be so by people or which people revere, are assessed by standards based on a human yearning for things that are good and relatively positive. Due to people’s fleshly notions and imaginings, and because they do not understand what positive things are, they regard those who can sacrifice their own interests for others and engage in good behaviors—or those who do not actively entrap or harm others, pose no threat to others, and have not brought about any bad consequences—as good people, and they revere them and characterize them as upright. This definition of “upright” is based on people’s notions of uprightness, as well as on their hatred for evil trends and wicked humankind, and their yearning for wonderful things. Because the majority of people in the human race suppress, bully, entrap, and harm others, and because this world is so evil, dark, and without a trace of fairness or righteousness to be found, when such heroes or so-called good Samaritans and do-gooders appear, people tend to revere them, defining them with the best terms possible. Are the principles of this definition accurate? (They aren’t.) The very principles and basis of the definition are in themselves inaccurate. For example, there’s someone in a group who gets bullied by most of the others, but there’s a certain individual who doesn’t bully them. The person being bullied says, “The one who doesn’t bully me is a good person.” Is this statement accurate? (No.) Is it logical? (It is not.) Tell Me, what’s wrong with it? (Perhaps the person who doesn’t bully them just doesn’t find them disagreeable, or doesn’t bully them because the objective situation and circumstances are not suitable. It doesn’t mean that this is a good person.) Their view contains a logical error. The idea that people who bully you are bad people, so people who don’t bully you must be good people, is a logical error, isn’t it? (It is.) Most people who bully others are not good people, but your standard for defining what it means to bully others is not necessarily accurate, so your definition that people who bully you are bad people is not necessarily accurate either, and it is also not accurate to say that people who don’t bully you must be good people. There may be several scenarios in which someone doesn’t bully you. Perhaps they don’t want to pay you any mind, so they can’t be bothered to bully you. Perhaps they don’t know you, so they can’t bully you. Perhaps they feel that you’re tougher than them, so they don’t dare to bully you. There are several such possible scenarios. Your basis for defining them as a good person is built on the foundation that they did not bully you, so the basis of this definition is itself erroneous. What is the true basis for defining someone as a good person? If this person loves positive things, treats others fairly and with principles, and also has principles in how they do things, then even if they sometimes speak to you bluntly, with a harsh tone, or criticize you, they are not bullying you. They are acting according to principles and judging matters based on the facts. Thus, they are truly a good person, and they are capable of treating people according to principles. But some people are not like this. When they see that you have status and are tough, they fawn on you. When they see that you have no status and are disadvantaged, they bully you, trample on you, and always hurt you when they speak. If you do something right, they are jealous of you. If you do something wrong, they mock and belittle you. Such people are bad people. If you measure good and bad based on positive things and the truth principles, then your standards by which you measure things and the results of your measurements will be correct. The evaluation or definition of positive and negative things in the world and in society is itself inverted. Most people in society idolize leaders they love, famous people, or stars. No matter what these famous people, stars, and leaders say, they think it is correct, and no one exposes or opposes it. No matter how those people lord it over ordinary folks and ride roughshod over them, discriminate against or extort the poor, or even wantonly destroy human lives as if they were worthless, no one rises up to protest or demonstrate against them. If they do a few good things to score political points, then many will sing their praises and extol them. If a person who fights for justice appears and exposes the satanic regime, or famous people and great figures, then the masses will attack them collectively, hoping desperately to eliminate them and make them disappear. What does this show? That society does everything in an unjust, perverse way; it inverts right and wrong. The standards by which corrupt humankind defines good and evil, and positive and negative, are all wrong, so the conclusions they draw are also unreasonable.

Let’s look at an example. There are those who break into and rob homes—robbing the rich to help the poor. After they rob the wealthy of their possessions, they provide aid to the common people. When the common people benefit and take advantage of this, they are happy, and they praise these people as heroes and upright people of virtue. But if you analyze the things done by these so-called upright people of virtue, are they truly upright? Some wealthy people have acquired their wealth through diligent management and effort, and there are even some who have only accumulated their wealth through several generations of management and effort. By what right do you rob them of their things? You’ve robbed them of their private property—that’s wrong. If you’re capable, go and earn money yourself. Using money you’ve earned to aid the poor—that can be considered being charitable. But you rob the wealthy of their possessions, taking what belongs to others as your own, and then aid the poor. In the eyes of the poor, this is considered upright. Isn’t this an utterly absurd view? The poor and the common people revere such people as heroes, and these “heroes” enjoy this title and this honor as if it were their due. Is this not shameless? Is this not utterly absurd? (It is.) They themselves don’t have what it takes to earn money, and they harbor resentment toward the rich, so they use violence to rob the rich of their wealth and distribute it to the common people, so that the common people praise them. In fact, the things they take are not at all what they’ve earned through their own labor, and what the poor enjoy is not things that belong to these robbers, but things that belong to the rich. So why should it be that, just because these things have passed through their hands, the common people and the poor have to be profoundly grateful to them? And is it right for the common people to enjoy these things with an untroubled conscience? Are these things what you deserve? Did you earn them through your own labor? You enjoy with an untroubled conscience stolen things you did not earn, and you even feel that the rich should be robbed, and that you should enjoy the stolen things. You get these things for free and without paying any price, and you enjoy them with an untroubled conscience. Is this not shameless? (Yes.) These so-called heroes enjoy this admiration from people and this honor. They do these things to satisfy their own vanity. The more people praise and idolize them, the more frenzied they become, and they even rob palaces, steal the treasure within, sell it, and then scatter the money in the courtyards of the poor. The way they aid the poor is by robbing the rich. Is this not utterly absurd? (It is.) To say nothing about whether robbing others of their possessions violates the law, in terms of morality and humanity, it’s unacceptable, and it is not so-called uprightness. Those things they robbed are not at all things that they should own. They are things obtained through base, sordid, shady, illegal, and unorthodox means. They exchange them for some money and then aid those who do not need help in the first place or who they think should be helped, and then they receive acclaim from these people, and they enjoy this honor. Is this not shameless? Yet they are very proud of themselves and call themselves heroes who rob from the rich to help the poor. Such people are particularly popular in society. In ancient times, there were some so-called “heroes” like this, and their stories still circulate to this day. Is this not absurd? (It is.) Among all of humankind, there are very few who truly understand what positive things are and what negative things are. People cannot discern these things. How many days can the common people enjoy the things robbed by the “heroes”? Is that what you deserve? Is it what you’ve earned? It’s neither what you’ve earned nor what you deserve—that’s called accepting undeserved gains. Is it honorable for you to enjoy these things? You are poor because you are lazy or lack capability. A person with conscience and reason should be content with having food and clothing, and they should enjoy only what they can earn. God gives you a means to get by, so you should be content. If you see someone who is rich, who has many things, who is wealthy, and you always want an equal share of what they have, is this reasonable? This idea is, in itself, not rational. Satan controls and holds power over society, so of course there is no fairness. In society, the poor are many while the rich are few—regardless of what caused this, the fact is, some people are rich and some are poor. Society is like this—you might not become rich even if you are capable, and you might actually be able to live the life of a rich person even if you are not capable. No one can explain these things clearly, but no matter what, there is also God’s ordination in this. Things robbed from others do not belong to you, and even if you obtain them, they are not yours, and sooner or later you will lose them. Look at those who, under the pretense of chivalry and justice, break into and rob homes, and rob the rich to help the poor. They do all kinds of bad things behind the scenes, such as engaging in eating, drinking, whoring, and gambling, and taking drugs, with some even committing murder or rape. Then, just for carrying out a few acts of robbing the rich to help the poor, they get revered as heroes by the common people. Isn’t this a case of vile characters prospering? The common people—the despicable types, the lowly masses, and the rabble—feel happy whenever they get a little benefit, and praise whoever provides them with benefits. And what about those “heroes”? The common people give them some honor and reward them, and hold them up as heroes, and so they think that this is a crown of laurels, that they are truly heroes, and that they are peerless. So, they continue to rob, and as a result, they end up shot dead with a single bullet when they rob a royal palace. They really thought that they had great ability and were superhuman, that they were rarefied and above the common, but in fact, they didn’t even have the ability to dodge a bullet, and ended up losing their lives. Wasn’t this deserved? (Yes.) The act of robbing is in itself not honorable. It is low. To rely on robbery to secure the praise of the common people, to secure a good reputation, to secure a little honor—what a despicable thing this is. In the end, they even praise themselves: “The common people can’t get by, and the people are in dire straits, all because of the officials. Look how much of a spirit of righteousness I possess; I have compassion for the lower-class common people!” Are such people upright? (No.) Common people also speak with a crooked tongue, and they smile when they get a little benefit. If they don’t get any kind of advantage from you, no matter what predicament you find yourself in, they won’t pay you any mind. But if you hand out favors to them, allowing them to gain something tangible, they will be happy and say, “You are such a good person! A person of great charity!” They say very nice-sounding things, but not a single word of what they say is true. They can’t even say correct words. How are they upright at all? In fact, everything they say is deceitful.

Some people consider themselves to be filled with a spirit of righteousness, to be people with conscience and humanity. But is this righteous spirit of theirs even worth mentioning? What’s more, it absolutely isn’t a spirit of righteousness at all; it is a kind of uprightness that they’ve fancifully imagined for themselves, which has nothing to do with the positive things God speaks of or with any of the truth principles. This is not uprightness; it is twisted reasoning, heresies, and fallacies. It can be said that the sayings they promote, such as positive energy, a correct worldview, values, and outlook on life, and unique, piercing insight, are seemingly upright and correct, but not truly so. To be precise, they are all pernicious trends and evil influences, twisted reasoning and heresies; they are all negative things, and they are all heresies and fallacies that are the exact opposite of positive things. Therefore, if you agree with these sayings of nonbelievers and always cling to these viewpoints in your heart, it proves that just like nonbelievers you are not an upright person, and that there is no uprightness in your humanity. You want to pass yourself off as an upright person, just as Satan tries to pass itself off as an angel of light. Satan says some pleasant-sounding things, wanting to pass itself off as God, as an upright person of virtue, and as something positive. You’re also passing yourself off as something you’re not; you’re always saying that you have a correct worldview, values, and outlook on life, that you have positive energy and a righteous spirit, that you are a hero, a person with a piercing and unique insight, or that you are upright and have nothing to fear, that wherever you go, you carry a righteous spirit with you as you speak and deal with people—you always style yourself in this manner. Well, I say you are a person without much conscience at all, someone who wants to pass themselves off as having a spirit of righteousness, as being upright, and as having humanity. Since you’re feigning these things, it means you don’t possess them—otherwise, would you need to feign them? If you truly had humanity, you wouldn’t need to feign it, nor could you possibly accept sayings such as so-called “correct worldview, values, and outlook on life,” “positive energy,” “having a spirit of righteousness,” and “having a heroic spirit”; you would not accept these negative things—it goes without saying that after having heard so many sermons up until today, you should have discernment of these things. If you had humanity, you would have long since rejected these negative things. If someone actually put forward these sayings and arguments, even if you had no discernment, you would not accept them from the depths of your heart. You would think that those things are too false, that the things advocated by so-called sociologists, educationists, and thinkers, so-called famous people and great figures, and those demons and devil kings of the world, were all things that tell people to put up a pretense. It’s like a saying that’s popular in society, “If everyone gives a little bit of love, the world will become a wonderful place.” You see, evil devils say that everyone should give a little love, in other words, that the common people should all give love, all love evil devils, all compliantly listen to and obey their party, and not stir the pot or cause trouble for the country and their party, and then the world will be at peace. Actually, when are the common people ever the ones who stir the pot? Clearly, it’s devils who foment turmoil and vie for power and gain. Humankind has been misled and corrupted by Satan; they all follow devils and Satan, and they all shun and oppose God. So, can this society know peace? Tell Me, does the saying “If everyone gives a little bit of love, the world will become a wonderful place” hold water? These are all words to deceive children. If you have no discernment of these words, and you believe, “There is still hope for the world, there are still more good people than bad in this human race, the world will become a wonderful place in the future, and this human race will move toward a beautiful tomorrow,” then your thoughts and viewpoints are no different from those of the general public, and you are simply a non-human. One characteristic of non-humans is that they particularly love to disguise themselves, using pleasant-sounding, flowery, hypocritical sayings to disguise their appearance, while the depths of their hearts are especially filthy and dark, and their despicable, sordid tactics follow one after another. They have no love at all for fairness and righteousness; they just love to use tactics. They say very pleasant-sounding things; they hide daggers behind their smiles and commit every bad deed imaginable. Such people are devoid of humanity. These are precisely the manifestations of those who are devoid of humanity. Is this a manifestation of uprightness? (No.) Since these people are not upright, do you think they could be kind? (No.) Never mind being kind, it would be a cause for celebration if they even committed one less bad deed, a blessing for everyone on earth. And yet they call themselves upright! That’s them just singing their own praises! They don’t even know what positive things are, and even after hearing about positive things, in their hearts they do not like them and are even repulsed and disgusted by them. And yet they still say that they are upright and kind. Who do they think they’re fooling? Humankind’s so-called uprightness, kindness, and reason are not based on positive things, nor are they based on the truth criteria. Thus, the uprightness, kindness, rationality, and conscience and reason of people as defined by humankind are all inaccurate, have no basis in the truth, and are all twisted reasoning and heresies.

If a person has conscience and reason, then, firstly, they are someone who can discern right from wrong. Secondly, they know what’s correct and what’s incorrect. We just fellowshipped about discerning right from wrong. Assess yourself, and then assess your parents and your siblings—are any of you people who can discern right from wrong? Are you such a person? If you are someone who can discern right from wrong, then in the future your acceptance of and submission to the truth will be a matter of course. By applying some effort, enduring some hardship, and paying a bit of a price, you will be able to achieve it—there is hope for your salvation, then. If you are not someone who can discern right from wrong, and in the past you were averse to the truth, couldn’t accept it and were unwilling to practice it, and at the mention of accepting and practicing the truth you became thoroughly annoyed and felt like you’d gotten your head stuck in a vice clamp, anguished and lacking in freedom, then in the future you will have the same feeling about accepting and practicing the truth; you will not accept the truth. Your inability to accept the truth and your aversion to it are not because you have believed in God for a short time, nor because God has not disciplined you or not taken responsibility for you. These are not the true root causes. What is the true root cause? You do not have the ability to discern right from wrong, this basic condition, so in the future you will still be unable to accept the truth, and you will not be able to achieve submission to the truth. Some people say, “If I cannot accept or submit to the truth, can I still gain salvation?” And what do you say—can they? (No.) My answer is, “It’s very difficult to say.” Why is it very difficult to say? With Me having now said so much and listed so many manifestations, it’s not certain whether you can match yourself up to them or recognize them in yourself. Furthermore, it’s also not certain whether you can comprehend these matters and these aspects of the truth that I have spoken of. Therefore, even if I don’t tell you whether you can be saved, each of you can ascertain it based on your attitude toward the truth and toward positive things. There’s no need for Me to tell you so clearly and so candidly; you already know in each of your hearts.

Footnotes:

a. The name “Zheng” has connotations of moral uprightness in the original Chinese text.