At the last gathering we fellowshiped on the saying about moral conduct “Bend to a task and strive to do your utmost until your dying day,” and spent some time dissecting and exposing the requirements, expressions, and the ideas and views inherent in this saying, and people have gained a certain understanding of its essence. Of course, in terms of topics to do with this aspect, we also fellowshiped on what exactly God’s intention is, what His attitude is, what truths this entails, and how people should view death. After understanding the truth and God’s intention, whenever people then encounter such things, they should look at such issues according to God’s words and handle them according to the truth, so that they can meet God’s requirements. Furthermore, the saying on moral conduct which we mentioned last time—“The silkworms of spring weave till they die, and candles burn out till their tears run dry”—is too superficial, and its realm of thought is too vulgar, so it is not worth dissecting further. The next saying on moral conduct that we will fellowship on, “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country,” is worth dissecting. Things that are worth dissecting occupy a certain place in people’s thoughts and notions. During a particular period, they will sway people’s thinking, their mode of existence, their path, and of course their choices. This is the consequence that Satan achieves by exploiting traditional culture to corrupt mankind. The saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” occupies a certain place in people’s hearts and minds, that is to say, the kind of issue which this saying refers to is particularly representative. At critical junctures in the fate of their country, people will make choices based on this saying, and it will bind and restrict their thinking and normal thought processes. Therefore, such ideas and views are worth dissecting. Compared with the sayings we mentioned previously, namely “Don’t pocket the money you pick up,” “I’d take a bullet for a friend,” “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” “The kindness of a drop of water should be repaid with a gushing spring,” “Bend to a task and strive to do your utmost until your dying day” and so on, the standard of moral conduct “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” occupies a higher realm in Satan’s world. The sayings on moral conduct that we dissected previously refer to one type of person or one type of minor matter in life, all of which are limited, whereas this saying covers a wider scope. It does not concern things within the scope of the “lesser self,” but rather touches on a number of issues and things to do with the “greater self.” Therefore, it occupies a pivotal position in people’s hearts, and must be dissected to see if it should occupy a certain position in people’s hearts, and to ascertain how people should view this saying on moral conduct in a way that accords with the truth.

The saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” compels people to be mindful of their responsibility for their country’s fate, by suggesting that everyone should be accountable for it. If you fulfill your responsibility for the fate of your country, the government will reward you with high honors and you will be viewed as a person of noble character; whereas, if you don’t concern yourself with the fate of the country, and stand idly by while it flounders, and don’t treat this as a matter of great importance, or you laugh about it, then this is viewed as completely failing to fulfill your responsibility. If you don’t fulfill your duties and responsibilities when your country needs you, then you are not up to much, and you really are an insignificant person. Such people are cast aside and scorned in society, and are held in contempt and looked down upon by their peers. For any citizen of any sovereign state, the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is a saying that meets with people’s approval, a saying that people can accept, and even a saying that is respected by humankind. It is also an idea that is regarded as noble by humankind. A person who is able to worry and be concerned about the fate of their native land, and have a deep sense of responsibility toward it, is a person with greater righteousness. People who worry and are concerned about their families have lesser righteousness, whereas those who care about their country’s fate are people with a spirit of greater righteousness, and they of all people should be praised by the rulers and the people. In short, ideas like this are indisputably recognized as having positive significance for humans and serving to positively guide humankind, and of course they are also recognized as positive things. Do you think the same way too? (Yes.) It is normal for you to think this way. It means that your thinking is no different from normal people, and that you are ordinary people. Ordinary people can accept popularly held ideas, and all the various so-called positive, proactive, upward-looking, and noble ideas and remarks that come from the rest of humankind. These are normal people. Are ideas that are accepted and revered by ordinary people necessarily positive? (No.) Theoretically speaking, they are not positive, because they do not accord with the truth, they do not come from God, and they are not taught by God or spoken by Him to mankind. So what exactly are the facts? How should this matter be explained? I will explain it now in detail, and when I have finished speaking, you will know why the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is not a positive thing. Before I reveal the answer, first have a think about the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country”: Is it really a positive thing? Is it wrong to make people love their country? Some people say: “The fate of our native land has a bearing on our survival, our happiness, and our future. Doesn’t God tell people to be dutiful to their parents, to raise their children well, and to fulfill their social responsibilities? What’s wrong with us fulfilling a few responsibilities in our country? Isn’t this a positive thing? Although it doesn’t rise to the level of a truth, it ought to be a correct idea, right?” As far as people are concerned, these reasons are valid, are they not? People use these claims, these reasons, and even these justifications to argue the correctness of the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country.” So is this saying actually right or not? If it’s right, what’s right about it? If it’s not right, what’s wrong with it? If you can answer these two questions clearly, then you will really understand this aspect of the truth. There are others who say: “The saying ‘Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country’ is not true. Countries are ruled by rulers, and governed by political systems. Whenever politics are concerned, we have no responsibility, because God doesn’t get involved in human politics. Therefore, we don’t get involved in politics either, so this saying is of no concern to us; whatever relates to politics has nothing to do with us. Whoever gets involved in politics, and likes politics, is responsible for the fate of the country. We don’t accept this saying, it is not a positive thing from our point of view.” Is this explanation right or wrong? (Wrong.) Why is it wrong? You know theoretically that this explanation doesn’t add up, it doesn’t address the root of the problem, and it is insufficient to explain the essence of the problem. It is only a theoretical explanation, but doesn’t clarify the essence of this matter. No matter what kind of explanation it is, as long as it fails to touch on the specific essence of this issue, it is not a real explanation, it is not an accurate answer, and it is not the truth. So, what is wrong with the saying on moral conduct “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country”? What truth does this issue relate to? The truth in this regard cannot be explained clearly in one or two sentences. It would take a lot of explaining to make you understand the truth contained within. So let’s fellowship on it in simple terms.

How should the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” be viewed and discerned? Is it a positive thing? In order to explain this saying, let’s first look at what a country is. What is the concept of a country in people’s minds? Is the concept of a country that it is very big? Theoretically speaking, a country is the expanse of territory comprising all homes that are ruled by the same ruler and governed by the same social system. That is to say, a multitude of homes forms a country. Is that how society defines it? (Yes.) Only when there are small homes can there be a big home, and a big home denotes a country—this is the definition of a country. So is this definition acceptable? Do you inwardly identify with it? Whose tastes and interests is this definition best suited to? (The rulers.) That’s right, it should be the rulers first and foremost. Because by having all households under their dominion, they have the power in their hands. So, as far as the rulers are concerned, this definition is a valid one, and they identify with it. No matter what the rulers’ definition of a country is, for any common person, there is a distance between the country and every person in it. For common people, that is, the individual people in each country, their definition of a country is completely different to the definition espoused by the rulers or the ruling class. The way that the ruling class defines a country is based on their dominion and their vested interests. They stand on high and use their lofty vantage point and broad perspective laced with ambition and desire to define what a country is. For example, the rulers regard the country as their own home, their own land, and think that it is provided for their own enjoyment, and that every inch of the country, and every resource and even every person in it should belong to them and be under their control, and that they should be able to enjoy all this and lord it over people as they please. But common people do not have such desires, nor do they have such conditions, and of course they certainly don’t have such a broad perspective for defining what a country is. So for common people, for any independent person, what is their definition of a country? If they are well educated and can read maps, they only know the size of their country’s territory, and which neighboring countries surround it, and how many rivers and lakes it has, and how many mountains, how many forests, how much land, and how many people there are in their country…. Their concept of a country is nothing more than map-based and literal, just a theoretical concept in writing, and is totally inconsistent with the country that exists in reality. For a person who is fairly well educated and has a certain social status, their concept of a country is something like that. So, how about the common people at the bottom of society? What is their definition of a country? In My view, these people’s definition of a country is nothing more than their family’s modest patch of land, the big willow tree at the eastern end of the village, the mountain at the western end, the road at the entrance to the village and the cars that often pass along the road, as well as some relatively sensational incidents that have happened in the village, and even some trivial tittle-tattle. For common people, the concept of a country is something like that. Although the boundaries of this definition are very small and its scope very narrow, as far as common people living in such a social context are concerned, it is very realistic and practical—to them, a country is no more than this. No matter what happens in the outside world, no matter what happens in the country, to them it is just some moderately important item of news that they can choose to listen to or not. So, what relates to their immediate interests? It is whether the cereal crop they planted this year will produce a bumper harvest, whether it will be enough to feed their family, what to plant next year, whether their land will be flooded, whether it will be invaded and occupied by bullies, and other such matters and things that relate closely to life, right down to things such as a building in the village, a stream, a trail, and so on. What they care about and talk about, as well as that which leaves a deep impression on their minds, is nothing but the people, matters, and things around them that are closely related to their lives. They have no concept of how big the scope of a country is, nor do they have any concept of a country’s prosperity or decline. The more newfangled things are, and the more important the country’s affairs, the further removed they are from such people. For these common people, the concept of a country is only the people, matters, and things that they can fit in their minds, and the people, matters, and things that they come into contact with in their lives. Even if they get information about the fate of the country, it is so far removed from them. Being far removed from them means that it does not occupy any place in their hearts, and will not affect their lives, so the prosperity and decline of the country has nothing to do with them. In their hearts, what is the fate of their country? It is whether the crops they planted this year are blessed by Heaven, whether the harvest is plentiful, how their family is getting by, and other minutiae of everyday life, whereas national affairs are of no relation to them. Matters of national importance, politics, the economy, education, science and technology, whether the country’s territory has expanded or shrunk, places the rulers have visited, and what things have happened within the ruling class—these things are simply beyond the grasp of common people. Even if they could grasp them, what purpose would it serve? Even if, after dinner, they talked about what is happening to the ruling class, what could they do about it? After putting down their bowl and chopsticks, they still have to eke out an existence and go to work in the fields. Nothing seems as real as the crops in their fields that can yield a good harvest. What a person cares about is what they hold in their heart. A person’s horizons are only as broad as the things they fit into their heart. The horizons of ordinary people only stretch as far as the places they can see around them and the places they can go. As for the fate of their country and matters of national importance, they are so remote and out of reach. Therefore, when the fate of the country is at stake, or the country is facing invasion by a powerful enemy, they immediately think, “Will my crops end up getting seized by the invaders? This year, we are counting on selling those cereals to pay for our children to go to college!” These are the things that are of most practical relevance to common people, the things that they can grasp, and the things that their mind and spirit can bear. For ordinary people, the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is too onerous. They don’t know how to go about doing it, and they don’t want to bear this heavy burden and onerous responsibility. Common people’s concept of a country is something like that. Therefore, the ambit of their lives, and the things that their thoughts and spirits dwell on, are nothing more than the soil and water of their hometown that provide them with three meals a day and give them all they need to grow, as well as the air and environment of their hometown. What else can there be besides these things? Even if some people go beyond the familiar surrounds of their hometown where they were born and raised, whenever the country is floundering and needs them to fulfill their responsibilities to the nation, no one thinks about protecting the whole country. What do people think about instead? All they can think about is fulfilling their responsibilities to protect their hometown and safeguard that plot of land they hold in their hearts, and even sacrificing their own lives to this end. No matter where people go, to them the word “country” is just a pronoun, a marker and a symbol. What really takes up considerable room in their hearts is not the country’s territory, and much less the rulers’ reign, but rather the mountain, the plot of land, the river, and the well that provide them with three meals a day, give them life, and help to sustain their life; that is all. This is the concept of a country in people’s minds—it is so real, so concrete, and of course so precise.

Why is the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” always advocated in traditional culture, especially in thinking about moral conduct? This concerns both the reign of the ruler, and the intentions and aims of the people who champion this idea. If the definition of a country in every individual’s mind was so insignificant, so concrete, and so real, who would protect the country? Who would uphold the reign of the ruler? Are there not problems here? There are indeed problems arising here. If everyone’s concept of a country was like this, wouldn’t the ruler be turned into a mere figurehead? If a ruler’s country faced invasion by a powerful enemy and its defense just relied on the ruler alone, or on the ruling clique, would they not appear to be struggling, helpless, isolated, and weak? Thinkers responded to these problems by using their brains. They believed that in order to protect the country and uphold the reign of the ruler, it wasn’t possible to rely solely on a small number of people to make contributions, but rather, it was necessary to stir up the entire population into serving the country’s ruler. If these thinkers directly told people to serve the ruler and protect the country, would the people be willing to do it? (No, they wouldn’t.) People definitely wouldn’t be willing, because the aim behind the request would be too blatant, and they wouldn’t agree to it. Those thinkers knew that they must instill in people a pleasant-sounding, noble, and superficially grandiose expression, and tell them that whoever thinks this way is of noble moral conduct. That way, people would easily accept this idea, and even make sacrifices and contributions for the sake of this idea. Their aim would then be achieved, would it not? It was within this social context, and in response to the needs of rulers, that this saying and idea “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” came about. Human nature is such that no matter what idea emerges, there will always be some people who regard it as fashionable and avant-garde, and accept it on that basis. Does it not benefit the ruler that some people accept the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country”? It means that there will be people making sacrifices and contributions for the ruler’s regime. Thus, the ruler has hope of reigning for a long time, do they not? And won’t their reign then be more stable, relatively speaking? (Yes.) Therefore, when the ruler’s reign comes under challenge or faces destruction, or their country is confronted with invasion by a powerful enemy, those who accept the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” will bravely and dauntlessly step forward to make a contribution or sacrifice their lives for the sake of protecting the country. Who is the ultimate beneficiary of this? (The ruler.) The ultimate beneficiary is the ruler. What becomes of those people who accept the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” and who are willing to give up their precious lives for it? They become stepping stones and expendable pawns of the ruler, they become victims of this idea. The common people living at the bottom of society do not have a definite, clear concept or a clear definition of what a country is. They don’t know what a country is, nor how big a country is, and they know even less about the important matters about a country’s fate. Because people’s definition and concept of a country are vague, the ruling class uses the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” to delude them and instill this idea into their minds, so that everyone will stand up to defend the country and put their lives on the line for the ruling class, and thus their aim will be achieved. In fact, as far as common people are concerned, no matter who rules the country, or whether the intruders are better or worse than the current rulers, in the end, their family’s meager plot of land still has to be planted every year, and the tree at the eastern end of their village hasn’t changed, the mountain at the western end of the village hasn’t changed, the well in the center of the village hasn’t changed either, and that’s all that matters. As for what happens outside the village, how many rulers come and go, or how they rule the country, all this has no relation whatsoever to them. Such is the life of common people. Their life is so real and simple, and their concept of the country is as concrete as their concept of the family, only that it’s bigger in scope than the family. Whereas, when the country is invaded by a powerful enemy and its existence and survival are in the balance, and the ruler’s reign is disturbed and destabilized, those people who accept that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” are dominated by this idea, and all they want to do is utilize their personal strengths to change these things that are affecting the country’s fate and interfering with the ruler’s reign. And what happens in the end? What do they actually change? Even if they manage to keep the ruler in power, does this mean that they did a righteous thing? Does it mean that their sacrifice was positive? Is it worthy of being remembered? Those people in a certain period of history, who set great store by the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country,” also vigorously upheld the spirit of this idea in defending the country and keeping the rulers in power, but the reign of the rulers they kept in power was backward-looking, bloody, and had no meaning or value for humankind. From this point of view, was the so-called responsibility fulfilled by these people positive or negative? (Negative.) One could say that it was negative, not worthy of being remembered, and was despised by people. On the contrary, common people do not identify deeply with the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country,” which is advocated by those scheming thinkers, nor do they actually accept and implement it. Therefore, their lives are relatively stable. Although their lifelong achievements aren’t as impressive as those of people who give up their lives for the fate of their country, they have done a meaningful thing. What is this meaningful thing? Namely, that they don’t artificially interfere with the fate of a country, nor with the process of determining who the country’s rulers are. Instead, all they ask is to live a good life, work the land, defend their hometown, have food to eat all year round, and live a plentiful, comfortable, peaceful, and healthy life, without causing any trouble to their country, without asking their country for food or money, and paying the normal taxes when they fall due—this is fulfilling the responsibility that a citizen should fulfill. If you can be free from any interference from the ideas of thinkers, and live your own life as a common person in a down-to-earth manner according to your station, and be self-sufficient, then that is enough, and you have fulfilled your responsibility. This is the most important thing and the greatest responsibility that a person living on this earth should fulfill. Looking after one’s own survival and one’s own basic needs are the issues that should be resolved by oneself, whereas for important matters to do with the country’s fate, and to do with how the rulers govern the country, common people have no ability to interfere or do anything about them. They can only leave all these matters to destiny, and let nature take its course. Whatever Heaven wills, so will it come to pass. Common people know very little, and besides, Heaven has not entrusted people with this kind of responsibility toward their country. Common people only have their own home in their hearts, and as long as they maintain their own home, that is enough, and they have fulfilled their responsibility.

Just like other sayings on moral conduct, “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is an idea and view put forward by thinkers in order to keep rulers in power, and of course it is also an idea and view advocated so that more people support the rulers. In fact, no matter what social class people live in, if they don’t have any ambitions, desires, and don’t want to get into politics or have anything to do with the ruling class, people’s definition of a country from the perspective of humanity is nothing more than the places they can see in their line of sight, or the land that they can measure on foot, or a sphere within which they can live happily, freely, and lawfully. For anyone who has such a concept of a country, the land where they live and their sphere of life can give them a stable, happy, and free life, which is a basic need in their life. This basic need is also a direction and a goal that people strive to defend. As soon as this basic need is challenged, disturbed, or infringed on, people will definitely stand up and defend it spontaneously. This defense is justified, and it stems from the needs of humanity, and also the needs of survival. No one needs to tell people, “When your hometown and your habitat face invasion by a foreign enemy, you must stand up and defend them, stand up and fight the invaders.” They will stand up and defend them automatically. This is human instinct, but also the need of human survival. So when it comes to a normal person, you don’t need to use ideas such as “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” to encourage them to protect their homeland and their habitat. If someone really wants to instill such ideas in people, then their aim is not so simple. Their aim is not for people to defend their habitat, ensure their basic living needs, or so that people lead better lives. They have another aim, which is none other than to keep the rulers in power. People will instinctively make any sacrifice to protect their own habitat, and will consciously protect their own habitat and living environment to ensure that their basic survival needs are met, without need for others to use any bombastic expressions to tell them what to do, or how to stand up and protect their own homes. This instinct, this basic consciousness, is possessed even by animals, and is absolutely possessed by humans, who are created beings higher than any animal. Even animals will protect their habitat and range, their home, and their community from invasion by foreign enemies. And if animals have this kind of consciousness, then humans certainly do! Therefore, the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country,” which those thinkers proposed, is redundant to all members of the human race. And when it comes to the definition of a country deep within people’s hearts, this idea is basically also redundant. But why did those thinkers still propose it? Because they wanted to achieve another aim. Their real aim was not to enable people to live better in their current habitat, nor to enable them to have a more stable, joyful, and happier living environment. They didn’t set out from the perspective of protecting people, nor from the perspective of defending people’s habitats, but from the perspective and standpoint of rulers, to instill people with the idea “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” and instigate them to possess this idea. If you don’t possess such an idea, then your realm of thinking is regarded as inferior, and you will be ridiculed by everyone and looked down upon by any ethnic group; if you don’t possess such an idea, if you don’t have this greater righteousness and this mindset, then you will be regarded as a person of inferior moral character, a selfish and contemptible lowlife. These so-called lowlifes are people despised in society, and who are discriminated against and despised by society.

In this world, in society, anyone born in a poor or backward country, or who comes from a low-status nation, no matter where they go, as soon as they declare their nationality, their status will immediately be determined and they will be regarded as inferior to others, looked down upon and discriminated against. If your nationality is that of a powerful country, you will have a very high status among any ethnic group, and will be regarded as superior to others. So, this idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” has an important place in people’s hearts. People have a very finite and concrete concept of a country, but because the way that the entire human race treats any ethnic group and anyone from a different country, and also the method and criteria by which it determines their status have much to do with their country’s fate, everyone is inwardly influenced to varying degrees by the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country.” So how should people shake off the influence of this idea? Let’s first look at how this idea influences people. Although people’s definition of a country extends no further than the specific environment in which they live, and people only want to maintain their basic right to live and their survival needs so that they can lead a better existence, nowadays the whole human race is constantly moving and circulating, and human beings are unconsciously accepting the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country.” That is to say, from the perspective of humanity, people do not want to accept those hollow and grand definitions of a country, such as “a great nation,” “a prosperous dynasty,” “a superpower,” “a tech power,” “a military power,” and so on. There are no such concepts in normal humanity, and people don’t want to be preoccupied by these things in their daily lives. But at the same time, when mixing with the rest of humankind, people nevertheless hope to have the nationality of a powerful country. In particular, when you travel overseas and are among people of other ethnicities, you will feel strongly that your country’s fate has a bearing on your vital interests. If your country is powerful, wealthy, and has a high status in the world, then your status among people will be elevated in keeping with your country’s status, and you will be highly regarded. If you come from a poor country, a small nation, or some obscure ethnic group, then your status will be lower, in keeping with your nationality and ethnicity. No matter what kind of person you are, or what your nationality is, or which race you belong to, if you only live within a small sphere, the idea “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” will not have any influence on you. But when people from different countries throughout all humankind come together, the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is accepted by more people. This acceptance is not passive, but rather, it is a deeper realization from your subjective will that the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is correct, because your country’s fate is inextricably related to your status, reputation, and worth among people. At which point, you no longer feel that the concept and definition of your country is just the small place where you were born and raised. Instead, you hope that your country will become bigger and stronger. However, when you return to your own country, in your mind it once again becomes so specific to you. This specific place is not a shapeless nation, but rather the path, the stream, and the well in your hometown, and the fields of your home where you grow crops. Therefore, returning to your own country, as far as you are concerned, is more specifically returning to your hometown, returning home. And when you return home, it doesn’t matter if the country exists or not, nor who the ruler is, nor how big the country’s territory is, nor what the country’s economic situation is, nor whether it is poor or rich—none of that matters to you. As long as your home is still there, then when you shoulder your travel bag with the intention of going back, you will have a direction and a goal. As long as you still have a place to hang your hat, and the place where you were born and raised is still there, you will have a sense of belonging and a destination. Even if the country it is located in no longer exists and the ruler has changed, as long as your home is still there, you have a home to go back to all the same. This is a very contradictory and vague concept of country in people’s minds, but also a very concrete concept of home. People are actually not so sure whether the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” is correct or not. But because this idea has a certain impact on their specific social status, people unconsciously develop a strong sense of country, nationality, and race. When people only inhabit the small sphere of their hometown, they have a certain degree of immunity or resistance to the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country.” But whenever they leave their hometown and their homeland, and go beyond their country’s rule, they unconsciously have a certain awareness and acceptance of the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country.” For example, when you go abroad, if someone asks you which country you are from, you will wonder, “If I say I am Singaporean, people will think highly of me; whereas, if I say I am Chinese, people will look down on me.” And so you don’t dare tell them the truth. But one day your nationality is exposed. People find out that you are Chinese, and from then onward, they see you in a different light. You are discriminated against, looked down upon, and even regarded as a second-class citizen. At which point, you unconsciously think: “That saying ‘Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country’ is exactly right! I used to think that I wasn’t responsible for the fate of my country, but now it seems that the fate of one’s country affects everyone. When the country prospers, everyone prospers, but when the country falls, everyone suffers for it. Is our country not poor? Is it not a dictatorship? And do the rulers not have a bad reputation? That is why people look down on me. Look at how well-off and happy people in Western countries are. They have the freedom to go anywhere and believe anything. Whereas under the Communist regime, we are persecuted for believing in God and must flee far and wide, unable to return home. How wonderful it would be if we had been born in a Western country!” At which point, you feel that nationality is extremely important, and the fate of your country becomes important to you. In any case, when people live in such an environment and context, they are unconsciously influenced by the idea that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” and swayed by it to varying degrees. At this point, people’s behaviors and their views, perspectives, and standpoints on people, matters and things will change to varying degrees, and of course this gives rise to consequences and effects of varying magnitude. Therefore, there is a certain amount of concrete evidence regarding the influence of the saying “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” on people’s thinking. Even though people’s concept of a country is not so clear-cut when viewed from the perspective of humanity, nevertheless within certain social contexts, the nationality that comes with belonging to a country still has an influence on people. If people do not understand the truth and do not perceive these issues clearly, they will not be able to rid themselves of the fetters and erosive effects of this idea, which will also affect their mood and attitude toward dealing with things. Whether viewed from the perspective of humanity or in terms of the changes and breakthroughs in people’s thinking when the general environment changes, the idea put forward by Satan that “Every person shares responsibility for the fate of their country” does have a certain influence on people, and does have a certain erosive effect on human thinking. Because people don’t understand how to correctly explain such matters as the fate of a country, and don’t understand the truth involved in this matter, within different environments they are often swayed or corrupted by this idea, or it affects their mood—it’s just not worth it.