2. Mutual Exposure and Attacks

Some people lack comprehension ability in eating and drinking God’s word and do not know how to fellowship their experiential understanding of God’s word. They only know to link God’s words that expose people to others. And so, whenever they fellowship on the truth in God’s words, they always have personal motives; they always want to take the opportunity to expose and strike at others, which causes unrest in the church. If those who are exposed can treat these situations correctly, understand them as coming from God, and learn submission and patience, there will not be any disputes. However, it’s inevitable that someone may feel defiant when they hear others fellowshipping about and exposing their issues. They think to themselves, “Why is it that after you read God’s words, you don’t share your experiential understandings of them, or talk about knowing yourself, and just exclusively attack and target me instead? Do you find me displeasing? God’s words have already made it clear that I have a corrupt disposition—do you really need to say it? I may have a corrupt disposition, but don’t you have one too? You always target me, calling me deceitful, but you’re not short of craftiness either!” Filled with resentment and defiance, they might exercise patience once or twice, but after time passes, and their grievances have accumulated, they erupt. And once they erupt, it’s disastrous. They say, “When some people act and speak, they pretend to be very honest and open on the surface, but in actuality, they are full of all kinds of schemes, and always plotting against others. Nobody can grasp their thoughts or intentions when they talk to them; they are deceitful people. When we encounter such individuals, we cannot talk or interact with them; they are too scary. If you are not careful, you’ll fall into their trap and be cheated and used by them. Such people are the most evil, the kind God detests and is disgusted by the most. They should be cast into the bottomless pit, into the lake of fire and brimstone!” After hearing this, the other person thinks, “You have corrupt dispositions but you won’t let other people expose you? You’re so arrogant and self-righteous, so I’ll find another passage of God’s words to expose you, and see what you have to say then!” The other person becomes even angrier after being exposed, and thinks: “So, you’re not going to let this lie, are you? You still won’t let this go, huh? You just dislike me, and think I have a corrupt disposition, don’t you? Fine, then I’ll expose you too!” And so they say, “Some people are simply antichrists; they love status and the praise of others, they love lecturing others, using God’s words to expose and condemn others, making other people think they themselves don’t have a corrupt disposition. They’re all high and mighty, and think they have become holy, but aren’t they just filthy demons? Aren’t they just Satans and evil spirits? What are antichrists? Antichrists are Satans!” How many rounds have they fought? Is there a winner? (No.) Have they said anything that might edify others? (No.) So, what are these words? (Judgments, condemnations.) They are judgments. They are speaking recklessly without regard for the actual situation or facts, arbitrarily judging and condemning others, even cursing them. Do they have a factual basis for calling the other person an antichrist? What evil deeds and manifestations of an antichrist did that person exhibit? Does their corrupt disposition reach the level of the essence of an antichrist? When God’s chosen people hear them exposing the other person, will they think it is objective and truthful? Is there any kindness or good intentions in the words spoken by these two people? (No.) Is their purpose to help each other know themselves, and to enable them to cast off their corrupt disposition and enter into the truth reality as quickly as possible? (No.) What are they doing this for then? It’s to vent their personal spite, to strike at and take revenge on the other party, so they arbitrarily accuse them of something that doesn’t match the facts at all. They are not accurately evaluating and characterizing each other based on God’s words and the other person’s revelations and essence, instead they are using God’s words to strike at each other, get revenge, and vent their personal spite; they are not fellowshipping the truth whatsoever. This is a serious issue. They always seize on things about the other person to attack and condemn them for having an arrogant disposition—this attitude is sinister and malicious, and this is definitely not well-intentioned exposure. Consequently it leads only to mutual hostility and hatred. If exposure is carried out with an attitude of helping others out of love, people can sense this and they can treat it correctly. But if someone seizes on another person’s arrogant disposition to condemn and attack them, it is purely to strike at and torment that person. Everyone has an arrogant disposition, so why are they always targeting one person? Why are they always focusing on one person and not letting them go? Constantly exposing that one person’s arrogant disposition—is the purpose of this really to help them cast off that disposition? (No.) Then what is the reason for it? It’s because they find the other person displeasing, so they look for opportunities to strike at them and get even, always wanting to torment them. Therefore, when they say the other person is an antichrist, a Satan, a devil, a deceitful and sinister person, is that factual? It may touch a little on the facts, but their purpose of saying these things is not to help the other person or to fellowship the truth but to vent their personal spite and get revenge. They’ve been tormented, and so they want to retaliate. How do they retaliate? By exposing the other person, condemning them, calling them a devil, a Satan, an evil spirit, an antichrist—sticking them with whichever label is the most egregious, and whichever accusation is most severe. Is this not arbitrary judgment and condemnation? The intention, purpose, and motivation of both parties in saying these things is not to help the other person know themselves and resolve their corrupt dispositions, much less is it to help them enter into the reality of God’s word or understand the truth principles. Instead, they are trying to attack and strike at the other person, to expose them so that they can achieve their aim of venting their personal spite and getting revenge. This is engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats. Although this method of attacking others might seem to have more of a basis to it than the mutual exposure of shortcomings, and it’s linking God’s words to the other person to say that they have a corrupt disposition and that they are a devil and a Satan, and superficially it appears quite spiritual, the nature of these two methods is the same. Neither of these methods is about fellowshipping God’s word and the truth within normal humanity, instead they are about irresponsibly and arbitrarily judging, condemning, and cursing the other person based on personal preferences, and engaging in personal attacks. Dialogues of this nature also cause disruptions and disturbances in church life, and they interfere with and damage the life entry of God’s chosen ones.

What should you do when you encounter two people engaging in mutual attacks by exposing each other’s corrupt dispositions? Is it necessary to slam the table and lecture them? Is it necessary to dump a bucket of cold water on them to cool them down, and get them to realize they are incorrect and apologize to each other? Can these methods solve the problem? (No.) These two individuals always have a fight at every gathering, and after each gathering ends, they get ready for the next fight. At home, they look for God’s words and bases to use in their attacks, they even write drafts, and figure out how to attack the other party, which aspects of them to attack, how to judge and condemn them, what tone to use, and which words of God to employ in order to launch the most convincing attack and condemnation. They also look for various spiritual terms and use different methods of expression to condemn and strike at the other party, preventing them from turning the situation around, and they strive to take them down in the next fight, and make it impossible for them to rise again. These behaviors all belong to engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats. Are such issues easy to resolve? If, after receiving advice, help, and fellowship on the truth from the majority of people, they still do not repent or reverse their course—that is, they argue and curse at each other upon meeting, do not listen to anyone’s advice, and do not accept it when anyone fellowships on the truth or prunes them—what should be done? This is easy to handle: They should be cleansed away. Wouldn’t that solve the problem? Isn’t that easy? Is it necessary to continue fellowshipping with them? Is it necessary to lovingly help them anymore? Tell Me, is it appropriate to lovingly show tolerance and patience to such people? (It is not appropriate.) Why is it not appropriate? (They do not accept the truth—there’s no use in fellowshipping with them.) Correct, they do not accept the truth. They only participate in gatherings to engage in verbal spats. They do not believe in God to pursue the truth, and they just like engaging in verbal spats. Is this a revelation and manifestation of normal humanity? Do they have the rationality that normal humanity should possess? (No.) They lack the rationality of normal humanity. During gatherings, people like this do not read God’s words in a focused and proper manner so that they can understand and obtain the truth from God’s words, and thereby resolve their corrupt dispositions and their problems. Instead, they always want to resolve other people’s problems. Their focus is constantly honed on others, looking for faults in them; they always aim to find other people’s problems in God’s words. They use the opportunity of reading and fellowshipping God’s words to expose and attack others, and they use God’s words to judge, belittle, and condemn others. And yet they place themselves as separate to God’s words. What kind of person are they? Are these people who accept the truth? (No.) They are particularly good at and keen on one thing: After reading God’s words, they frequently identify in others the various problems, states, and manifestations that His words expose. The more they identify these problems, the more they feel that they shoulder a significant responsibility and believe that there’s a lot they can do, thinking they should expose these issues. They won’t let a single person who has these issues off the hook. What kind of person are they? Do such people possess reason? Do they have the ability to comprehend the truth? (No.) In the church, if such people do not speak up or cause disturbances, there’s no need to handle them. However, if they consistently act in this manner, always attacking, judging, and condemning others, then the church should take corresponding action to handle them, cleansing them away. As for those who have been exposed by people, and then attack, judge, and condemn them using the same methods and means, if the circumstances are severe and they have disrupted and disturbed church life, they should likewise be cleansed away and isolated from God’s chosen people—they cannot be shown any leniency.

What other manifestations of engaging in mutual attacks and verbal spats qualify as having a nature of disrupting and disturbing church life to them? The mutual exposure of shortcomings, and exposing each other’s corrupt dispositions to vent personal spite and take revenge on each other, are evident manifestations of disrupting and disturbing church life. Besides these two manifestations, there’s pretending to open up and lay oneself bare and dissect oneself in order to deliberately expose and dissect others—this kind of attack is also a manifestation of disrupting and disturbing church life. So, is something a person says an attack as long as it’s not about their own issues but about other people’s, regardless of whether it’s said in a pointed manner or said indirectly in passing, in a tactful way? (No.) Then, what situations constitute attacks? It depends on the intention and purpose behind what is said. If something is said to strike at and take revenge on people, or to vent personal spite, this is an attack. This is one situation. Moreover, blowing the superficial aspects of a problem out of proportion to judge and condemn people in contradiction of the facts and what is true, irresponsibly jumping to conclusions without looking at all at what the essence of the issue is—this too is venting personal spite and taking revenge, it is judging and condemning, and this kind of situation also constitutes an attack. What else? (Creating baseless rumors about people, is that one?) Creating baseless rumors certainly counts as well, even more so. How many situations constitute attacks? (Three.) Summarize these situations. (The first is striking at others with a specific purpose. The second is judging and condemning others in a way that’s contrary to the facts and what is true, which is arbitrarily characterizing other people in an irresponsible manner. The third is creating baseless rumors about people.) The nature of each of these three situations qualifies them as personal attacks. How do we distinguish which situations qualify as personal attacks and which do not? When it comes to those who are doing the attacking, what actions or words constitute an attack? Suppose that a person’s words have a bit of a leading nature to them, and are capable of misguiding others, and there’s also a quality of rumor-fabricating to them. That person is creating something out of nothing and making up rumors and lies to mislead and misguide people. Their intent and purpose is to make more people acknowledge and believe that what they say is correct, and agree that what they say aligns with the truth. At the same time, they also want to get revenge on someone else, to make them negative and weak. They think, “You have such a vile character—I must expose your actual situation, and stamp down that arrogance of yours, and then we’ll see what you have to flaunt and show off about! How can I possibly stand out next to you? My hatred won’t be relieved until I beat you into negativity and knock you down. I will show everyone that you can be negative and that you have weaknesses too!” If this is their purpose, then their words constitute an attack. But suppose that their intention is simply to clarify the facts and what’s true regarding a matter—after gaining an accurate insight into it and discovering the essence of the issue through a period of experience, they feel it should be fellowshipped so that the majority can understand it and know what kind of comprehension of this matter is pure, that is, their purpose is to correct more people’s distorted or one-sided views on this matter—is this an attack? (No.) They are not forcing someone to accept their personal opinion, and much less do they harbor any intention of personal vengeance. Instead, they only wish to clarify the truth of the facts; they are using love to help the other party understand, and to prevent them from going astray through this understanding. Regardless of whether the other party accepts this, they are able to fulfill their responsibility. And so this behavior, this approach, is not an attack. Through the language, choice of words, and manner, tone, and attitude of speaking in these two different manifestations one can tell what that person’s intention and purpose is. If a person means to attack the other party, their language will certainly be sharp, and their intention and purpose will be obvious in their speaking tone, intonation, choice of words, and attitude. If they are not forcing the other party to accept what they’re saying, and they are certainly not attacking them, then their speech will definitely conform to the manifestations of the conscience and reason of normal humanity. Additionally, their speaking attitude, tone, and choice of words will certainly be rational, falling within the realm of normal humanity.

After fellowshipping the principles of distinguishing what constitutes a personal attack and what does not, are you able to discern this now? If you still can’t discern this, then you won’t be able to see through to the essence of the issue. No matter how pleasant someone’s fellowship sounds, if they are not practicing according to principles, if they are not aiming to help people understand the truth and do their duties properly, but are instead finding things to use against people to badger them nonstop, doing their utmost to judge and condemn them, and though they appear as if they are discerning people on the surface, actually their intent and purpose is to condemn and attack others, then this situation involves a personal attack. The minor things that go on between people are very simple and obvious; if the truth were fellowshipped regarding these matters, it would take up less than one gathering. Is it necessary then, to occupy the time of the brothers and sisters by speaking a lot about them at every gathering? It’s not necessary. If people always badger others nonstop, that constitutes attacking people and causing disturbances. What is the reason why people cling to one matter and talk endlessly about it? It is that no one is willing to let go of their own intents and purposes, no one tries to know themselves, and no one accepts the truth, or the facts and what’s true, and so they badger others nonstop. What is the nature of badgering others nonstop? It is an attack. It is finding things to use against others, finding fault in other people’s choice of words, and using other people’s shortcomings against them, dwelling endlessly on just one thing and arguing until one is red in the face. If people are fellowshipping from within normal humanity, supporting and helping each other—that is, fulfilling their responsibility—then the relationship between them will get better and better. But if they are engaging in mutual attacks and arguments, entangling themselves with each other to make their own justifications clear, always wanting to have the upper hand, not wanting to admit defeat and not compromising, not letting go of personal grievances, then the relationship between the two of them will ultimately become increasingly tense and get worse and worse; it will not be a normal interpersonal relationship, and it can even get to the point that their eyes will turn red whenever they meet. Think about it, when dogs fight, the eyes of the ferocious one turn red. What’s the deal with its eyes being red? Isn’t it brimming with hatred? Isn’t it the same with people attacking each other? If, when people fellowship the truth, they do not attack each other, but can instead make up for each other’s shortcomings by drawing on each other’s strengths, and support one another, would it be possible for the relationship between them to be bad? Their relationship would definitely become increasingly normal. When two people speak, chat, fellowship, or even debate within the conscience and reason of normal humanity, their relationship will be normal, and they won’t get angry or start fighting as soon as they meet. If hatred and a surge of inexplicable rage arises in people when they haven’t even seen each other, just because the other party is mentioned, then this is not a manifestation of possessing the reason and conscience of normal humanity. People attack one another because they have corrupt dispositions; it is completely unrelated to their environment. It is all because people do not love the truth, cannot accept the truth, and do not practice the truth or handle matters based on the principles when disputes happen, and so it is common for cases of mutual exposure of shortcomings, judgments, and even mutual attacks and condemnation to occur in church life. Because people have corrupt dispositions, and they are often in a state of lacking reason, and they live by their corrupt dispositions, and even if they understand some of the truth, it’s difficult for them to practice it, disputes and various kinds of attacks easily arise between them. If these attacks occur occasionally, they only have a temporary impact on church life, but those who are consistently prone to mutual attacks cause serious disruptions and disturbances to church life, and they also severely affect and interfere with the life entry of God’s chosen people.