WEBVTT

1
00:00:06.240 --> 00:00:10.039
<v Speaker 1>This is episode one hundred and seventy seven of the

2
00:00:10.119 --> 00:00:16.519
<v Speaker 1>Christian Research Journal Reads Podcast. Lying to Ourselves Why We Cheat?

3
00:00:17.359 --> 00:00:21.879
<v Speaker 1>By Richard J. Poupard. This article first appeared in the

4
00:00:21.920 --> 00:00:26.320
<v Speaker 1>print edition of the Christian Research Journal, Volume forty one,

5
00:00:26.719 --> 00:00:31.760
<v Speaker 1>number two in twenty eighteen. The Christian Research Journal Reads

6
00:00:31.839 --> 00:00:37.759
<v Speaker 1>Podcast presents audio versions of Christian Research Journal articles. To

7
00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:41.240
<v Speaker 1>read the full text of this article and its documentation,

8
00:00:41.799 --> 00:00:52.399
<v Speaker 1>please go to equip dot org. That's e qu ip dotrg.

9
00:00:54.039 --> 00:00:57.759
<v Speaker 2>Lying to Ourselves Why We Cheat? This article is by

10
00:00:57.840 --> 00:01:01.799
<v Speaker 2>Richard J. Poupar and is read by an automated voice.

11
00:01:01.960 --> 00:01:04.439
<v Speaker 2>A few years ago I began to train for distance

12
00:01:04.519 --> 00:01:07.560
<v Speaker 2>running races. During that time, I read an article about

13
00:01:07.560 --> 00:01:10.159
<v Speaker 2>a runner named Kip Luton. I was taken by the

14
00:01:10.200 --> 00:01:12.159
<v Speaker 2>fact that Kip and I had so much in common.

15
00:01:12.799 --> 00:01:16.599
<v Speaker 2>He is a dental professional practicing in Central Michigan, discovered

16
00:01:16.680 --> 00:01:19.719
<v Speaker 2>running in his middle age and has competed in many races.

17
00:01:20.239 --> 00:01:23.200
<v Speaker 2>How it's inspired initially by his story. He has a

18
00:01:23.280 --> 00:01:26.799
<v Speaker 2>child with cystic fibrosis and attempted to raise money for

19
00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:30.040
<v Speaker 2>that cost based on his running accomplishments. His goal was

20
00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:33.319
<v Speaker 2>to run a marathon twenty six point two miles under

21
00:01:33.359 --> 00:01:36.200
<v Speaker 2>three hours in every state, a finished time that very

22
00:01:36.239 --> 00:01:39.719
<v Speaker 2>few runners can accomplish for a single race. I also

23
00:01:39.799 --> 00:01:43.159
<v Speaker 2>noted significant differences between Kip and me. Not only is

24
00:01:43.200 --> 00:01:45.920
<v Speaker 2>he a faster athlete, there were some interesting and surprising

25
00:01:45.959 --> 00:01:49.159
<v Speaker 2>facts about the races he ran. When the running community

26
00:01:49.200 --> 00:01:53.439
<v Speaker 2>began to investigate his results, anomaly surfaced. He did not

27
00:01:53.519 --> 00:01:55.959
<v Speaker 2>register a time when he passed through the various timing

28
00:01:56.000 --> 00:01:58.840
<v Speaker 2>mats other than the start. In finish mats, he only

29
00:01:58.920 --> 00:02:01.599
<v Speaker 2>appeared in pictures taken at the start or finish line.

30
00:02:02.040 --> 00:02:05.599
<v Speaker 2>He frequently changed outfits or shoes during races. He even

31
00:02:05.640 --> 00:02:08.520
<v Speaker 2>made up an entire race to claim a win. In

32
00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:10.879
<v Speaker 2>other words, it was evidence that he cheated in most,

33
00:02:10.960 --> 00:02:14.199
<v Speaker 2>if at all, the races he entered. It is difficult

34
00:02:14.199 --> 00:02:16.879
<v Speaker 2>to contemplate the amount of time, effort, and money that

35
00:02:16.919 --> 00:02:20.120
<v Speaker 2>it took to undertake his cheating endeavor, all done without

36
00:02:20.159 --> 00:02:24.759
<v Speaker 2>apparent tangible benefit. What would convince someone with impressive professional

37
00:02:24.800 --> 00:02:29.000
<v Speaker 2>accomplishments to expend considerable effort to cheat? How often does

38
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:32.280
<v Speaker 2>this happen despite the efforts of race directors to stop it.

39
00:02:32.840 --> 00:02:35.680
<v Speaker 2>Cheating and running races is not only common, but increasing.

40
00:02:36.199 --> 00:02:40.199
<v Speaker 2>An entire website has been created that details many cheating cases.

41
00:02:40.759 --> 00:02:44.199
<v Speaker 2>Some cheaters attempt to qualify for the prestigious Boston Narrathon

42
00:02:44.759 --> 00:02:47.560
<v Speaker 2>or obtain a winner's medal, but most simply cheat to

43
00:02:47.560 --> 00:02:49.840
<v Speaker 2>post a time faster than they are capable of running.

44
00:02:50.319 --> 00:02:52.560
<v Speaker 2>In other words, a cheat for a no tangible reason.

45
00:02:53.879 --> 00:02:57.039
<v Speaker 2>Since cheating in something as unimportant as an individual sporting

46
00:02:57.080 --> 00:03:00.199
<v Speaker 2>event is common, what about cheating in other areas? When

47
00:03:00.280 --> 00:03:03.560
<v Speaker 2>cheating scandals make the news, they are presented as uncommon

48
00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:08.080
<v Speaker 2>but significant in magnitude. We justifiably are angry when companies

49
00:03:08.120 --> 00:03:11.599
<v Speaker 2>such as Enron or individuals such as Burning Matof cheat

50
00:03:11.639 --> 00:03:15.639
<v Speaker 2>investors out of significant amounts of money, but most believe

51
00:03:15.639 --> 00:03:18.919
<v Speaker 2>that they themselves are honest. Is cheating a result of

52
00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:22.080
<v Speaker 2>low moral standards of a minority, so we tend to

53
00:03:22.159 --> 00:03:23.919
<v Speaker 2>cheat when we are sure we can get away with it.

54
00:03:24.599 --> 00:03:28.080
<v Speaker 2>More interesting, what does our propensity to cheat reveal about

55
00:03:28.080 --> 00:03:30.759
<v Speaker 2>our hearts and attitude towards sin, as well as our

56
00:03:30.800 --> 00:03:33.520
<v Speaker 2>ability to gauge our own capacity to bend the rules?

57
00:03:33.560 --> 00:03:38.919
<v Speaker 2>Occasionally the rational model smork. It is no surprise that

58
00:03:39.039 --> 00:03:42.919
<v Speaker 2>human beings cheat and break rules. Behavioral economists have sought

59
00:03:42.960 --> 00:03:46.599
<v Speaker 2>to explain this using the simple model of rational crime smork.

60
00:03:47.280 --> 00:03:50.960
<v Speaker 2>Individuals cheat by making a rational decision reviewing the potential

61
00:03:50.960 --> 00:03:53.520
<v Speaker 2>benefit of cheating with the risk of being caught and

62
00:03:53.599 --> 00:03:57.400
<v Speaker 2>the punishment of caught. For example, many cheat on reporting

63
00:03:57.400 --> 00:03:59.879
<v Speaker 2>their taxable income if they perceive the risk of being

64
00:04:00.039 --> 00:04:04.400
<v Speaker 2>caught very low, or if the punishment is worth the risk. However,

65
00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:07.680
<v Speaker 2>few individuals will rob a convenience store because the gain

66
00:04:07.759 --> 00:04:10.800
<v Speaker 2>is small that the risk of being caught and punished

67
00:04:10.879 --> 00:04:14.520
<v Speaker 2>is large. If this theory is true, the most effective

68
00:04:14.520 --> 00:04:17.680
<v Speaker 2>way to decrease cheating is to decrease the ability to

69
00:04:17.800 --> 00:04:22.240
<v Speaker 2>cheat and increase the penalty of caught. Economist Dan Airily

70
00:04:22.360 --> 00:04:26.000
<v Speaker 2>has designed research tests to test the smart theory. He

71
00:04:26.079 --> 00:04:28.800
<v Speaker 2>made a series of math tests in which participants were

72
00:04:28.800 --> 00:04:31.720
<v Speaker 2>given twenty questions but only a short amount of time

73
00:04:31.759 --> 00:04:34.199
<v Speaker 2>to solve them. They were paid for each question they

74
00:04:34.240 --> 00:04:37.839
<v Speaker 2>correctly answered. One group had their scores calculated by the

75
00:04:37.879 --> 00:04:41.040
<v Speaker 2>procter of the test. Another group was asked to self

76
00:04:41.040 --> 00:04:44.639
<v Speaker 2>report the number of problems they answered correctly. The students

77
00:04:44.639 --> 00:04:47.639
<v Speaker 2>were then instructed to place their test paper into a shredder,

78
00:04:47.800 --> 00:04:51.360
<v Speaker 2>which secretly stored the papers untouched. In other words, the

79
00:04:51.439 --> 00:04:53.720
<v Speaker 2>members of the second group were led to believe they

80
00:04:53.759 --> 00:04:57.160
<v Speaker 2>could cheat without being caught. By comparing the two groups,

81
00:04:57.480 --> 00:05:00.279
<v Speaker 2>the experimenters could determine the percentage of the st students

82
00:05:00.319 --> 00:05:03.560
<v Speaker 2>who cheated and the extent of the cheating. The expected

83
00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:06.079
<v Speaker 2>result was that a small number of students would choose

84
00:05:06.120 --> 00:05:10.600
<v Speaker 2>to cheat a great deal. The results were surprising. Students

85
00:05:10.600 --> 00:05:13.240
<v Speaker 2>who had their tests corrected by the proctor averaged for

86
00:05:13.480 --> 00:05:17.399
<v Speaker 2>correct answers. The group that could cheat reported six correct answers,

87
00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:22.439
<v Speaker 2>clearly indicating many of them might about their actual score Unpredictably,

88
00:05:22.680 --> 00:05:24.839
<v Speaker 2>it was not a small number of students who cheated

89
00:05:24.839 --> 00:05:28.680
<v Speaker 2>a huge amount that caused this disparity. Almost everyone who

90
00:05:28.680 --> 00:05:32.160
<v Speaker 2>had the opportunity to cheat did so. However, they cheated

91
00:05:32.199 --> 00:05:35.319
<v Speaker 2>only by a little Almost no one reported solving all

92
00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:39.399
<v Speaker 2>twenty questions, even though they could do so without being detected. Also,

93
00:05:39.800 --> 00:05:43.680
<v Speaker 2>almost no one reported their score honestly. Given an opportunity

94
00:05:43.720 --> 00:05:46.319
<v Speaker 2>to cheat, most people will do so, but only by

95
00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:49.800
<v Speaker 2>a small amount. Very few people are completely honest, and

96
00:05:50.000 --> 00:05:52.079
<v Speaker 2>very few will cheat a great deal even if there

97
00:05:52.120 --> 00:05:55.959
<v Speaker 2>is little or no chance of being caught. This experiment

98
00:05:55.959 --> 00:05:59.480
<v Speaker 2>has been repeated, changing many variables. For example, if you

99
00:05:59.519 --> 00:06:03.360
<v Speaker 2>increase the financial reward for cheating. Smork predicts that cheating

100
00:06:03.360 --> 00:06:07.839
<v Speaker 2>should increase. Experiments showed the opposite. Cheating went down slightly

101
00:06:07.879 --> 00:06:12.199
<v Speaker 2>when the financial stakes increased. Another experiment reminded the students

102
00:06:12.199 --> 00:06:14.759
<v Speaker 2>of a moral code before taking the test. By having

103
00:06:14.759 --> 00:06:18.360
<v Speaker 2>them sign an honor code before beginning the test, cheating

104
00:06:18.399 --> 00:06:21.839
<v Speaker 2>went down significantly. In fact, this was the most effective

105
00:06:21.839 --> 00:06:24.040
<v Speaker 2>way to decrease the amount of cheating on the test.

106
00:06:25.120 --> 00:06:28.199
<v Speaker 2>What are we to make of these results? Aerially postulates

107
00:06:28.240 --> 00:06:30.199
<v Speaker 2>that most of us wish to view ourselves as a

108
00:06:30.199 --> 00:06:32.600
<v Speaker 2>moral person. We want to look in the mirror and

109
00:06:32.639 --> 00:06:36.120
<v Speaker 2>have a positive feeling about who we see. Therefore, when

110
00:06:36.120 --> 00:06:39.240
<v Speaker 2>presented with an opportunity to cheat, we will choose to

111
00:06:39.319 --> 00:06:41.680
<v Speaker 2>cheat only to the amount that we can still feel

112
00:06:41.720 --> 00:06:45.079
<v Speaker 2>that we are generally a good person. He describes this

113
00:06:45.199 --> 00:06:49.680
<v Speaker 2>as a personal fudge factor. Therefore, increasing the financial benefit

114
00:06:49.680 --> 00:06:52.959
<v Speaker 2>of cheating has the opposite effect. As expected, we are

115
00:06:53.000 --> 00:06:56.680
<v Speaker 2>comfortable fudging a small amount, but as the rewards increase,

116
00:06:57.079 --> 00:07:00.959
<v Speaker 2>we feel worse about the cheating and we feel immral. Likewise,

117
00:07:01.160 --> 00:07:04.720
<v Speaker 2>reminding individuals of an objective moral code is effective in

118
00:07:04.800 --> 00:07:08.439
<v Speaker 2>decreasing their personal fudge factor. The quick reminder makes it

119
00:07:08.480 --> 00:07:12.439
<v Speaker 2>more difficult to justify cheating and feel honest. Still, the

120
00:07:12.519 --> 00:07:15.240
<v Speaker 2>religious affiliation of the students had no bearing on the

121
00:07:15.240 --> 00:07:18.279
<v Speaker 2>amount of cheating that was done in these studies. As

122
00:07:18.319 --> 00:07:21.759
<v Speaker 2>followers of Christ and believers of objective moral truth, we

123
00:07:21.839 --> 00:07:25.439
<v Speaker 2>may convince ourselves that, given the opportunity, we would be

124
00:07:25.480 --> 00:07:28.800
<v Speaker 2>able to resist the temptation to be dishonest. This does

125
00:07:28.879 --> 00:07:31.319
<v Speaker 2>not appear to be true. We should be aware of

126
00:07:31.319 --> 00:07:34.319
<v Speaker 2>our propensity to fudge the truth when it benefits us.

127
00:07:34.360 --> 00:07:37.639
<v Speaker 2>Although we believe such behavior is wrong, we now only

128
00:07:37.680 --> 00:07:40.639
<v Speaker 2>tend to succumb to temptation. That also convince ourselves that

129
00:07:40.720 --> 00:07:42.680
<v Speaker 2>we are still pit people who please God. If we

130
00:07:42.720 --> 00:07:45.600
<v Speaker 2>don't cheat too much. That should give us pause when

131
00:07:45.600 --> 00:07:48.160
<v Speaker 2>considering our own life and the ideals by which we

132
00:07:48.199 --> 00:07:51.399
<v Speaker 2>claim to live. What type of fudge factor are we

133
00:07:51.519 --> 00:07:54.240
<v Speaker 2>personally willing to tolerate that will allow us to believe

134
00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:57.560
<v Speaker 2>we are living good and upstanding moral lives. The answer

135
00:07:57.600 --> 00:08:00.000
<v Speaker 2>should be zero. The fact that it is not reflect

136
00:08:00.279 --> 00:08:03.000
<v Speaker 2>on our need for Christ, regardless of how moral we

137
00:08:03.079 --> 00:08:06.079
<v Speaker 2>view our lives. Frankly, we lie of ourselves about our

138
00:08:06.120 --> 00:08:11.560
<v Speaker 2>goodness irrational cheating. During these experiments, there was a clear

139
00:08:11.600 --> 00:08:15.120
<v Speaker 2>benefit from fudging the correct number of answers. However, what

140
00:08:15.199 --> 00:08:17.600
<v Speaker 2>are we to think about situations in which people lie

141
00:08:17.759 --> 00:08:20.000
<v Speaker 2>and cheat where there does not seem to be any

142
00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:24.199
<v Speaker 2>tangible benefit, such as Lowten's marathon cheating. What about the

143
00:08:24.240 --> 00:08:27.560
<v Speaker 2>cases in which cheating is not only unprofitable, but takes

144
00:08:27.560 --> 00:08:31.240
<v Speaker 2>a significant investment of time, money, energy, and risk of

145
00:08:31.319 --> 00:08:35.639
<v Speaker 2>perform even more than the smart model or Airelei's experiments.

146
00:08:36.120 --> 00:08:40.000
<v Speaker 2>This type of cheating appears irrational. It appears that there

147
00:08:40.039 --> 00:08:43.080
<v Speaker 2>are fewer individuals that cheat irrationally than the many who

148
00:08:43.200 --> 00:08:47.159
<v Speaker 2>utilize the personal fudge factor to cheat. However, this type

149
00:08:47.159 --> 00:08:50.240
<v Speaker 2>of cheating is far from rare. One example can be

150
00:08:50.279 --> 00:08:53.840
<v Speaker 2>taken from the world of online computer gaming. In these

151
00:08:53.879 --> 00:08:57.600
<v Speaker 2>competitive online games, players compete against one another for points

152
00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:01.440
<v Speaker 2>to compare themselves against all other players. For example, the

153
00:09:01.519 --> 00:09:04.679
<v Speaker 2>popular gag Lead of Legends ranks players in seven different

154
00:09:04.759 --> 00:09:08.039
<v Speaker 2>leagues based on ability gained by rating points. There are

155
00:09:08.080 --> 00:09:10.919
<v Speaker 2>many paid services that will boost your ranking for a cost,

156
00:09:11.320 --> 00:09:13.600
<v Speaker 2>allowing you to compete in a league with higher skill.

157
00:09:14.200 --> 00:09:17.279
<v Speaker 2>The developer of the game continually watches for these boosted

158
00:09:17.320 --> 00:09:20.320
<v Speaker 2>accounts and permanently bands players caught cheating in this way.

159
00:09:20.960 --> 00:09:23.919
<v Speaker 2>The fact that this market exists indicates that many players

160
00:09:23.919 --> 00:09:26.639
<v Speaker 2>will choose to pay money and risk severe penalties to

161
00:09:26.639 --> 00:09:30.000
<v Speaker 2>claim they are better than they are. Well would drive

162
00:09:30.039 --> 00:09:32.360
<v Speaker 2>someone to spend extra money to cheat in a game

163
00:09:32.399 --> 00:09:35.360
<v Speaker 2>for which they are already paying. One theory is that

164
00:09:35.399 --> 00:09:38.120
<v Speaker 2>we exaggerate our accomplishments to live better in the eyes

165
00:09:38.159 --> 00:09:41.159
<v Speaker 2>of others. In this world of social media, claiming an

166
00:09:41.200 --> 00:09:44.159
<v Speaker 2>unearned goal serves to increase our image for all those

167
00:09:44.279 --> 00:09:47.879
<v Speaker 2>views and likes that we crave. However, it is difficult

168
00:09:47.879 --> 00:09:50.960
<v Speaker 2>to argue that improving our image is the primary motivation.

169
00:09:51.919 --> 00:09:54.720
<v Speaker 2>Most gaming competitors don't even use their real names in

170
00:09:54.720 --> 00:09:58.919
<v Speaker 2>the competition. Likewise, most distance runners realize that despite the

171
00:09:59.039 --> 00:10:01.720
<v Speaker 2>likes they may earn on social media, virtually no one

172
00:10:01.799 --> 00:10:05.559
<v Speaker 2>remembers the times they post. Any short lived good feelings

173
00:10:05.639 --> 00:10:09.399
<v Speaker 2>gained by bragging about one's imaginary accomplishments can't be worth

174
00:10:09.399 --> 00:10:12.960
<v Speaker 2>the time and trouble it takes to cheat. Interestingly, deep

175
00:10:13.039 --> 00:10:15.559
<v Speaker 2>down inside, the ones who cheat have to know the

176
00:10:15.639 --> 00:10:19.480
<v Speaker 2>truth or maybe not. What if the driving force is

177
00:10:19.519 --> 00:10:22.519
<v Speaker 2>not improving our image for others, but instead attempting to

178
00:10:22.559 --> 00:10:26.480
<v Speaker 2>improve how we view ourselves, or more specifically, what if

179
00:10:26.519 --> 00:10:29.120
<v Speaker 2>it is an attempt to confirm the image of ourselves

180
00:10:29.159 --> 00:10:32.000
<v Speaker 2>that we imagine we should be. Someone who cuts the

181
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:34.799
<v Speaker 2>course to post a fast marathon time may not be

182
00:10:34.840 --> 00:10:37.960
<v Speaker 2>attempting to impress others, but instead to confirm what they

183
00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:41.759
<v Speaker 2>believe about themselves. They believe that they are excellent athletes

184
00:10:41.840 --> 00:10:44.759
<v Speaker 2>deserving of an impressive time in a race, despite the

185
00:10:44.799 --> 00:10:48.720
<v Speaker 2>obvious truth that they lack that capability. In these instances,

186
00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:51.080
<v Speaker 2>one can argue that the financial cost is worth it

187
00:10:51.120 --> 00:10:54.600
<v Speaker 2>to confirm one's imagined self image instead of coming to

188
00:10:54.639 --> 00:10:58.679
<v Speaker 2>an honest appraisal about our actual abilities and accomplishments. It

189
00:10:58.759 --> 00:11:00.840
<v Speaker 2>is easier to cut a course or pay someone to

190
00:11:00.919 --> 00:11:03.200
<v Speaker 2>increase your rating than to acknowledge the fact that you

191
00:11:03.360 --> 00:11:06.080
<v Speaker 2>may not be as good as you've imagined. The human

192
00:11:06.120 --> 00:11:09.039
<v Speaker 2>trade that allows us to convince ourselves of this alternative

193
00:11:09.080 --> 00:11:12.799
<v Speaker 2>reality worth cheating for. It is fascinating and troubling. The

194
00:11:12.879 --> 00:11:15.840
<v Speaker 2>greatest danger may not be our capability to lie to

195
00:11:15.879 --> 00:11:20.080
<v Speaker 2>one another, but our propensity to lie to ourselves. These

196
00:11:20.120 --> 00:11:22.759
<v Speaker 2>findings reveal that most human beings have a far greater

197
00:11:22.840 --> 00:11:26.200
<v Speaker 2>capacity to cheat than expected, and many even will spend

198
00:11:26.279 --> 00:11:29.399
<v Speaker 2>significant resources to convince themselves that they are better than

199
00:11:29.440 --> 00:11:32.960
<v Speaker 2>they are. The understanding of these traits is interesting considering

200
00:11:32.960 --> 00:11:37.120
<v Speaker 2>the Christian worldview. First, unlike the smart theory, virtually all

201
00:11:37.200 --> 00:11:40.919
<v Speaker 2>cheating is irrational. We cheat a little to gain something

202
00:11:40.960 --> 00:11:45.120
<v Speaker 2>without violating our personal fudge factor, or expend resources to

203
00:11:45.159 --> 00:11:48.519
<v Speaker 2>confirm a wrong view of ourselves. But inside we know

204
00:11:48.600 --> 00:11:53.399
<v Speaker 2>that cheating and lying are wrong. Both motivations are inherently irrational,

205
00:11:53.919 --> 00:11:58.159
<v Speaker 2>just as sin is inherently irrational. As Cornelius Planting explains,

206
00:11:59.240 --> 00:12:02.480
<v Speaker 2>sinful human life is a caricature of proper human life.

207
00:12:03.080 --> 00:12:05.639
<v Speaker 2>We no deep inside that the life of sin roubles

208
00:12:05.679 --> 00:12:08.679
<v Speaker 2>against how God created us in his plan. Yet we

209
00:12:08.720 --> 00:12:11.080
<v Speaker 2>are willing to cheat to preserve that caricature in our

210
00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:14.559
<v Speaker 2>own minds, although we realize that the omissient God that

211
00:12:14.600 --> 00:12:18.440
<v Speaker 2>we served knows the truth. Lastly, we can observe the

212
00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:21.279
<v Speaker 2>degree that individuals are able to stretch the truth to

213
00:12:21.360 --> 00:12:24.600
<v Speaker 2>confirm the image they have for themselves. This is a

214
00:12:24.639 --> 00:12:28.279
<v Speaker 2>consequence to valuing self based on how we perceive our image.

215
00:12:28.759 --> 00:12:31.279
<v Speaker 2>The view we have of ourselves cannot be trusted when

216
00:12:31.279 --> 00:12:33.759
<v Speaker 2>we so easily can distort it to see ourselves as

217
00:12:33.759 --> 00:12:37.600
<v Speaker 2>better than we are. Truthfully, we are valued only by

218
00:12:37.600 --> 00:12:40.480
<v Speaker 2>the image of the one who has created us. We

219
00:12:40.519 --> 00:12:43.120
<v Speaker 2>live by a fudge factor, seeing our value in our

220
00:12:43.159 --> 00:12:47.279
<v Speaker 2>achievements as greater than they really are. God does the opposite.

221
00:12:47.600 --> 00:12:51.519
<v Speaker 2>He sees us as we really are, sinful irrational beings,

222
00:12:51.559 --> 00:12:55.480
<v Speaker 2>willing to cheat and lie to ourselves, exaggerating our accomplishments

223
00:12:55.519 --> 00:12:59.159
<v Speaker 2>to others. Yet he views us as inherently valuable, based

224
00:12:59.200 --> 00:13:02.080
<v Speaker 2>not on our flow, but is perfect one.

225
00:13:02.360 --> 00:13:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Thank you for listening to another episode from the Christian

226
00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:09.559
<v Speaker 1>Research Journal Reads podcast, which provides audio articles of Christian

227
00:13:09.600 --> 00:13:13.919
<v Speaker 1>Research Journal articles. If you go to equip dot org,

228
00:13:13.960 --> 00:13:16.679
<v Speaker 1>you will find a brand new article for the Christian

229
00:13:16.720 --> 00:13:21.840
<v Speaker 1>Research Journal published weekly. In addition, please subscribe to our

230
00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:26.799
<v Speaker 1>other podcasts. Wherever you find your favorite podcast, you will

231
00:13:26.799 --> 00:13:32.799
<v Speaker 1>find the Christian Research Journal Reads podcast, the Postmodern Realities podcast,

232
00:13:32.919 --> 00:13:38.919
<v Speaker 1>which features interviews with Christian Research Journal authors, our flagship podcast,

233
00:13:39.039 --> 00:13:44.440
<v Speaker 1>The Bible answer Man Broadcast, and the Hank Unplugged podcast,

234
00:13:45.279 --> 00:13:49.200
<v Speaker 1>where CRI President Hank Canagraph takes you out of the

235
00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:52.840
<v Speaker 1>studio and into his study to engage in in depth,

236
00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:58.000
<v Speaker 1>free flowing, essential Christian conversations on critical issues with some

237
00:13:58.039 --> 00:14:01.720
<v Speaker 1>of the most interesting and informative of people on the planet.

238
00:14:02.360 --> 00:14:05.360
<v Speaker 1>At EQUIP dot org. You will also find a lot

239
00:14:05.360 --> 00:14:10.159
<v Speaker 1>of resources to equip you, including many thousands of Christian

240
00:14:10.360 --> 00:14:15.919
<v Speaker 1>research journal articles. That's e q u I P dot

241
00:14:16.240 --> 00:14:16.679
<v Speaker 1>O r G