Recently, I have provided fellowship on all kinds of sayings from traditional culture about moral conduct. Regarding certain specific sayings, I have fellowshiped a great deal. Now, does this subject and content have anything to do with the truth? (Yes.) Does anyone think that this subject and content seem unrelated to the truth? If they think that, then they are of truly poor caliber and lack even the slightest discernment. Has My fellowship on this subject been easy to understand? (Yes.) If I had not fellowshiped and dissected in this way, would you have mistaken these sayings about moral conduct that people regard as relatively positive for the truth and continued to uphold them? Firstly, I can say for certain that most people regard these sayings as positive things, as things that accord with humanity and ought to be abided by, and as being in keeping with conscience, reason, demands, notions and other such things relating to humanity. It can be said that prior to My fellowshiping on this topic, almost everyone regarded these various sayings about moral conduct as being positive and in keeping with the truth. After hearing My fellowship and dissection, are you now able to distinguish between these sayings on moral conduct and the truth? Do you possess this kind of discernment? Some will say: “I’m unable to distinguish between them, but in any case, hearing God’s fellowship, I now see that there is a difference between these things and the truth. They cannot take the place of the truth, much less can they be said to be positive or be the truth. Of course, it would be out of the question to consider them as being in keeping with God’s words and demands or criteria of the truth. They do not have any relation to God’s words, God’s demands or criteria of the truth. All told, regardless of whether they conform to the conscience and reason of humanity, I no longer worship these things in my heart and no longer consider them to be the truth.” This shows that these aspects of traditional culture no longer serve a guiding role in people’s hearts. When people hear these sayings about moral conduct, they will subconsciously distinguish them from the truth and will, at most, take them to be something that people approve of in their conscience. However, they know that these sayings are still different from the truth and absolutely cannot replace the truth. Once people grasp the essence of these sayings on moral conduct, they will stop regarding them as truth and abiding by, worshiping, or seeking them as such—this is the baseline effect achieved. Now what positive effects does understanding all of this have on people’s pursuit of the truth? It will certainly have a positive effect, but the magnitude of that effect will depend upon the degree to which you understand the truth or how much truth you know. Considering these points, it is clearly quite necessary to dissect these aspects of traditional culture that people uphold and which conform with their notions. At the very least, this dissection will have the effect of helping people attain a pure understanding of the truth and preventing them from being fruitless in their efforts or walking the wrong path in their pursuit of the truth. These are effects that can be achieved.

Last time we fellowshiped on and dissected four sayings about moral conduct, namely, “Don’t pocket the money you pick up,” “Derive pleasure from helping others,” “Be strict with yourself and tolerant of others,” and “Requite evil with good.” Today, we will continue by fellowshiping on other sayings. Chinese traditional culture has put forward many explicit claims about moral conduct—no matter during which era or period of history these claims were originally advanced, they have all been passed down to the present and have firmly taken root in people’s hearts. As time has passed and new things have gradually arisen, man has proposed many new and different claims about moral conduct. These claims are basically demands made on people’s moral character and behavior. Are you all more or less clear on the four sayings about moral conduct we fellowshiped on last time? (Yes.) Now let us continue by fellowshiping on the next saying: “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid.” The idea that a kindness received should be gratefully repaid is one of the classic criteria in Chinese traditional culture for judging whether a person’s conduct is moral or immoral. When evaluating whether someone’s humanity is good or bad, and how moral their conduct is, one of the benchmarks is whether they return the favors or help that they receive—whether or not they are someone who gratefully repays the kindness they receive. Within Chinese traditional culture, and within the traditional culture of mankind, people treat this as an important measure of moral conduct. If someone does not understand that a kindness received should be gratefully repaid, and they are ungrateful, then they are considered to be devoid of conscience and unworthy of associating with, and should be despised, spurned or rejected by all. On the other hand, if someone does understand that a kindness received should be gratefully repaid—if they are grateful and return the favors and help they receive with every means at their disposal—they are deemed a person of conscience and humanity. If somebody receives benefits or help from another person, but does not repay them, or just expresses a little gratitude to them with a simple “thank you” and nothing more, what will the other person think? Might they feel uneasy about it? Might they think, “That guy doesn’t deserve to be helped, he’s not a good person. If that’s how he responds when I’ve helped him so much, then he has no conscience or humanity, and isn’t worth associating with”? If they ran into this kind of person again, would they still help them? They wouldn’t wish to, at least. Wouldn’t you, in similar circumstances, wonder whether you really ought to help or not? The lesson you would have learned from your previous experience would be, “I can’t help just anybody out—they have to understand that a kindness received should be gratefully repaid. If they’re the ungrateful type who won’t repay me for the help I’ve given them, then I’m better off not helping.” Wouldn’t that be your view on the matter? (Yes.) Generally, when people help others, what exactly do they think about their act of assistance? Do they have certain expectations or demands of the person they help? Does anyone say, “I’m helping you with no expectation of being compensated. I don’t wish to gain anything from you. Helping you when you encounter difficulties is just what I ought to do, and it’s my duty. No matter whether we have some relation to each other and whether you will be able to pay me back in the future or not, I’m just doing my basic duty as an ordinary person and I won’t demand any repayment. It doesn’t matter to me whether you repay me or not”? Do people who say such things exist? Even if there are such people, they are just fabrications and do not match up with the facts. There are so many made-up heroic characters in Chinese historical novels and the heroes fabricated by the country of the great red dragon in modern society are even more fictitious. Although the people existed, the stories about them are invented. Looking at it based on these facts, are you now clear about the origin of the saying “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” this criterion for judging people’s moral conduct, and from whom it derives? Perhaps some people still are not quite clear on this. Within this corrupt human race, people all have a kind of ideal and a certain expectation of human society. What expectation do they have? “If everyone gives a little bit of love, the world will become a wonderful place.” In addition to this expectation, people also hope that they are repaid and compensated for their loving hearts and the price they pay. On the one hand, this may be compensation in the material sense, such as a gift of money or a material reward. On the other hand, it might mean compensation in the spiritual sense—that is, bringing people spiritual fulfillment by giving them a reward to bolster their reputation that bestows a title like “model laborer,” “moral role model,” or “moral exemplar.” In human society, nearly everyone has this kind of expectation of society and the world—they all hope to be good people, walk the right path, and extend a helping hand to those in need, allowing people to gain their assistance and derive certain benefits. They hope that those who receive their assistance will remember who gave it, and the ways they benefited from it. Of course, they also hope that when they themselves are in need, there will be someone there to reach out a helping hand. On the one hand, when someone needs assistance, they hope that some people will show loving hearts to them; on the other hand, they hope that when those who show loving hearts fall upon hard times, they will also get the help they need. People have this kind of expectation of society and the world—actually, their ultimate aim is for mankind to abide in a harmonious, peaceful, and stable society. How has this expectation arisen? This expectation and associated claim have^[a] naturally arisen because people do not feel safe and happy in this kind of social milieu. As such, people began to evaluate an individual’s moral conduct and the nobility of their character based upon whether or not they repaid others for their kindness, and the saying “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” which is a criterion for evaluating people’s moral conduct, arose out of this situation. Is it not quite odd how this saying came into being? (Yes.) In the current era, man does not seek and accept the truth, and he has become fed up with the truth. People are in a chaotic state and, despite living among each other, they are all unclear about what responsibilities they should carry out, what duties they ought to fulfill, and what place they should assume and what vantage point they should adopt when viewing people and things. Additionally, people are unclear about what responsibilities and duties they have to society and are unsure from what stance or perspective they should view and approach society. They lack an accurate explanation and verdict for everything that occurs in the world and they fail to find the right path of practice to dictate how they comport themselves and act. Faced with an increasingly dark, frightening world beset with fighting, revenge killing, war and all manner of unfair treatment, people pine for and expectantly await the coming of the Savior. Yet, they have no interest in the truth and no one actively searches for God or His work. Even if they do hear God’s utterances, they do not seek, much less accept them. People all live in this helpless state and all feel that society is incredibly unjust and even unsafe. Everyone is thoroughly sick of this society and this world and full of enmity toward them, but despite being full of enmity, they still hope that one day society will improve. What does an improved society look like to them? They envision a society in which fighting and revenge killing no longer exist, in which everyone interacts harmoniously, no one is subject to repression, suffering or the fetters of life, all can live a relaxed, unrestrained, comfortable and happy life, interact normally with others, treat them fairly and, of course, be treated fairly by others. Because in this world and among humankind, there has never been fairness. There is only ever fights and revenge killings, but never harmony among people. This has always been the case, no matter in which period of history. Faced with this brutal societal context and conditions, not a single person knows how to resolve these issues, how to resolve the fights and revenge killings among people, or any of the unfair and unjust situations that arise in society. It is precisely due to the fact that these issues exist and people do not know how to resolve them, what vantage or viewpoint they should approach these issues from, or what method they should use to resolve them, that they develop this sort of utopian vision in their minds. In this utopian vision, people are able to live together in harmony, and everyone is treated fairly by society and people around them. Everyone hopes that “people’s respect toward others will be returned tenfold; if you help me, I will repay you; and when you need help, there will be many people in society who can lend a helping hand and fulfill their social responsibilities; and when I need help, those that previously benefited from my assistance will come to my aid. This should be a society in which people help each other.” People believe that only in this way can man live happily, harmoniously and in a stable and peaceful society. Only in this way, they believe, can people’s struggles against each other be thoroughly eradicated and resolved. They think that once these issues are resolved, the expectations and ideals they harbor for human society in the depths of their hearts will be realized.

In the society of unbelievers there is a popular song called “Tomorrow Will Be Better.” People always hope that things will get better in the future—there is nothing wrong with that—but, in reality, will things really be better tomorrow? No, this is impossible; things can only get worse, because humanity is becoming increasingly evil and the world is increasingly dark. Among humankind, not only do fewer and fewer people gratefully repay the kindness they receive, but also, more and more people are ungrateful and bite the hand that feeds them. This, instead, is the reality of the situation now. Is this not a fact? (Yes.) How did things get this way? Why hasn’t the criterion of moral conduct “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” which is promoted by moralists, educators, and sociologists, had a constrictive effect upon men? (Because men have corrupt dispositions.) Because men have corrupt dispositions. But do those moralists, educators, and sociologists know that? (No.) They do not know that the root cause of the revenge killings and struggles between men is not due to a problem with their moral conduct, but rather, it is due to their corrupt dispositions. Men have no sense of the criteria by which they ought to comport themselves. That is to say, they do not know how to comport themselves correctly, and do not know what exactly are the principles and paths of comportment. In addition, men all have corrupt dispositions and satanic natures, live for the sake of profit, and put their own interests before everything. As a result, the problem of revenge killings and struggles between men is becoming increasingly serious. Can such corrupt men abide by criteria of moral conduct such as “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid”? Given that men have lost even the most basic reason and conscience, how can they gratefully repay the kindness they receive? God has always been guiding people, preparing everything they need to survive, supplying them with sunlight, air, food, water, and so on, yet how many among them are thankful to Him? How many among them are able to perceive God’s true love for mankind? There are many believers who, despite enjoying so much of God’s grace, fly into a rage, berate God, and complain about the injustice of Heaven as soon as God does not fulfill their desires one or two times. Is this not the way people are? Even if there are certain individuals who are able to gratefully repay the kindness they receive from some people, what problems will that resolve? Of course, the people who proposed this saying about moral conduct had good intentions—they were motivated only by the hope that men could resolve their enmity, avoid conflict, help each other, live in harmony, have a corrective influence on each other, show warmth to each other, and band together to help each other in times of need. What a wonderful society it would be if mankind could enter into such a state, but alas, such a society will never exist, because society is just the sum total of all the corrupt individuals within it. Due to man’s corruption, society is becoming increasingly dark and evil, and man’s ideal of a harmonious society will never be achieved. Why can this ideal society never be achieved? From a fundamental and theoretical perspective, such a society cannot be achieved due to man’s corrupt dispositions. In reality, momentary good behaviors, one-off acts of good moral conduct, and temporary displays of love, help, support toward others, and so on just cannot resolve man’s corrupt dispositions. Of course, even more importantly, these things cannot resolve the questions of how people ought to comport themselves and how they should walk the correct path in life. Given that these issues cannot be resolved, will it be possible for this society to achieve the harmonious state that people idealize and hope for? It is essentially just an idle dream, and the chances of it happening are remote. By advocating moral scriptures and educating people, these moralists try to encourage them to use good moral conduct to help others and exert a corrective influence over others, with the goal of influencing and improving society. Yet, is this idea, this aspiration of theirs right or wrong? It is certainly wrong and cannot be realized. Why do I say that? Because they only understand people’s behaviors, thoughts and viewpoints, and moral conduct, but are completely oblivious when it comes to more profound issues like man’s essence, man’s corrupt dispositions, the source of man’s corruption and how to resolve man’s corrupt dispositions. As a result, they propose foolish criteria of moral conduct like “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid.” Then, they hope to use this kind of saying, this kind of criterion for moral conduct, to influence mankind, influence generation after generation, transform man’s behavioral criteria, and transform the direction and goals for man’s behaviors, while at the same time gradually transforming the social climate, and transforming relations between men and relations between the rulers and the ruled. They believe that once these relations are transformed, society will stop being so unjust and so rife with fighting, enmity, and slaughter. This will be of some benefit to the common people, who will obtain an equitable social living environment, and lead more contented lives, relatively speaking. But the greatest beneficiary will not be the common people, but rather the rulers, the ruling class, and the aristocrats of every age. These so-called eminent personages and sages who promote moral doctrines continually use these moral doctrines, which are perceived by mankind to be relatively noble and in keeping with humanity and the sense of their conscience, to educate and influence people, and to transform their moral outlooks, so that they will voluntarily live in a social environment that is civilized or has certain moral standards. This benefits the everyday lives of common people in one respect, as it makes the social environment in which they live more harmonious, peaceable, and civilized. In another respect, this also creates more favorable conditions for the rulers to govern over the people. These sayings that convey criteria for moral conduct are in keeping with most people’s ideas and notions, and they also conform to people’s utopian visions of a glorious future. Of course, their main intent in promoting these sayings is to create more favorable conditions for the rulers to govern. Under such conditions, the common people will not cause trouble, will live in harmony and without conflict, and will all be able to willingly abide by the moral criteria that govern social behavior. To put it plainly, the intent of promoting these sayings is to make it so that the ruled subjects of the state, the common masses, act obediently and properly under the constraints of society’s moral criteria, learn to obey rules, and become docile citizens. Would the rulers not then be relatively at ease and reassured? If the rulers didn’t have to worry about the masses rising up against them and usurping their authority, would this not give rise to a so-called harmonious society? Would this not cement the political power of the rulers? This is basically the origin of these moral scriptures and the context in which they have arisen. To put it charitably, it was in order to regulate the behaviors and moral conduct of the masses that some basic criteria for social morality were formulated for them. That is to say, these sayings are for the sake of individuals; in essence they are actually promoted for the sake of the stability of society and the country, and to enable the rulers to govern for a long time, in perpetuity. This is the true aim of so-called moralists in promoting traditional culture. The rulers do not actually care about the well-being of the masses, and even when they do seem to care, they just do so in order to maintain the stability of their political power. They only care about their own happiness, the stability of their power and status, their ability to rule over the masses in perpetuity and the possibility of ruling over even more countries, with the eventual goal of taking over the entire world. These are the motives and intentions of devil kings. For instance, some people say: “We come from a long line of peasants, who toiled as long-term hired farm hands working for landowners and never had any land to call their own. After the establishment of the PRC, the Communist Party brought down the landowners and the capitalists, gave us our own plot of land, and we went from being peasants to owners. We owe everything to the Communist Party, they are the saviors of the Chinese people, and we must gratefully repay their kindness and not be unappreciative. Some people want to rise up against the Communist Party—how ungrateful they are! Are they not biting the hand that feeds them? People should not be so lacking in conscience and forgetful of their roots!” What is implied in this statement is that no matter what kind of living environment you currently reside in, no matter what kind of treatment you have been subjected to, and whether or not your human rights are guaranteed, or your right to exist is under threat or has been stripped away, you must always remember to gratefully repay the kindness you have received and not forget your roots. You should not act like a nasty, ungrateful person and should continually and perpetually repay their kindness with no expectation of remuneration. Aren’t such people still living as slaves? They think that they used to be slaves to landowners and capitalists, but did the capitalists and landowners really exploit the common people? Were peasants actually worse off then compared with people now? No, this is a lie fabricated by the Communist Party. The facts and reality of the situation are now coming to light, little by little. Their claim that the capitalists exploited the sweat and toil of so many common people and the story of the “White-haired Girl” are all fabrications and falsehoods—none of it is true. What is the goal of these fabrications and falsehoods? To make people hate those landowners and capitalists and perpetually sing the praises of the Communist Party and submit to them forever. In the past, many people would sing the song “Without the Communist Party, There Would Be No New China.” This song was sung in every corner of China for several decades, but now no one sings it. There are just too many examples of the Communist Party’s fabrications and falsehoods, all of which run counter to the objective facts. Now some people are exposing the truth publicly to show everyone the reality of the situation. In human society, whatever the era, the criterion of moral conduct “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid” has always had a degree of effectiveness in constraining people’s behaviors and serving as a benchmark for people’s humanity. Of course, a more important effect of such a saying is that it has been used to help rulers bolster their reign over the masses. In a certain sense, this saying can be claimed to serve as a way of constraining people’s behaviors and moral conduct, making people think about and view problems within the framework of this criterion of moral conduct and then make judgments and choices based on this criterion. It does not exhort people to fulfill all the responsibilities that people should fulfill, both to their family and to society at large, but rather, in severe violation of the norms and desires of normal humanity, it forcibly tells people what to think and how to think, what to do and how to do it. This saying acts as a sort of imperceptible method and invisible framework to guide, restrict, and fetter people and inform them what they should and should not do. The goal of this is to use this kind of public opinion and criterion for social morality to influence people’s thoughts, viewpoints, and the ways they comport themselves and act.

Statements on moral conduct like “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid” do not tell people exactly what their responsibilities are within society and among mankind. Instead, they are a way of binding or forcing people to act and think in a certain way, regardless of whether they want to or not, and no matter the circumstances or context in which these acts of kindness befall them. There are plenty of examples from ancient China of kindness being repaid. For example, a starving beggar boy got taken in by a family who fed him, clothed him, trained him in martial arts, and taught him all kinds of knowledge. They waited until he had grown up, and then started using him as a source of income, sending him out to do evil, to kill people, to do things that he didn’t want to do. If you look at his story in light of all the favors he received, then him being saved was a good thing. But if you consider what he was forced to do later, was it really good or bad? (It was bad.) But under the conditioning of traditional culture like “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” people cannot make this distinction. On the surface, it appears that the boy had no choice but to do evil things and hurt people, to become a killer—things that most people would not wish to do. But didn’t the fact that he did these bad things and killed at the behest of his master come, deep down, from a desire to repay him for his kindness? Particularly due to the conditioning of Chinese traditional culture such as “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid,” people can’t help but be influenced and controlled by these ideas. The way that they act, and the intentions and motivations behind these actions are certainly constrained by them. When the boy was put in that situation, what would his first thought have been? “I was saved by this family, and they have been good to me. I can’t be ungrateful, I must repay their kindness. I owe my life to them, so I must devote it to them. I should do whatever they ask of me, even if that means doing evil and killing people. I cannot consider whether it is right or wrong, I must simply repay their kindness. Would I still be worthy of being called human if I didn’t?” As a result, whenever the family wanted him to murder someone or do something bad, he did it without any hesitation or reservations. So weren’t his conduct, actions, and unquestioning obedience all dictated by the idea and view that “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid”? Wasn’t he fulfilling that criterion of moral conduct? (Yes.) What do you see from this example? Is the saying “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid” a good thing, or not? (It’s not, there is no principle to it.) Actually, a person who repays a kindness does have a principle. Namely, that a kindness received should be gratefully repaid. If someone does you a kindness, you must do one in return. If you fail to do so, then you are not human and there is nothing that you can say if you are condemned for it. The saying goes: “The kindness of a drop of water should be repaid with a gushing spring,” but in this case, the boy received not a small act of kindness but a life-saving kindness, so he had all the more reason to repay it with a life in return. He did not know what the limits or principles of repaying kindness were. He believed that his life had been given to him by that family, so he had to devote it to them in return, and do whatever they demanded of him, including murder or other acts of evil. This way of repaying kindness has no principles or limits. He served as an accomplice to evildoers and ruined himself in the process. Was it right for him to repay kindness in this way? Of course not. It was a foolish way of doing things. It is true that this family saved him and allowed him to continue living, but there must be principles, limits, and moderation to one’s repayment of kindness. They saved his life, but the purpose of his life is not to do evil. The meaning and value of life, as well as man’s mission, are not to do evil and commit murder, and he should not live for the sole purpose of repaying kindness. The boy mistakenly believed that the meaning and value of life are to gratefully repay kindness received. This was a grave misunderstanding. Was this not the result of being influenced by this criterion of moral conduct, “A kindness received should be gratefully repaid”? (Yes.) Had he been led astray by the influence of this saying about repaying kindness, or found the correct path and principles of practice? He had quite obviously been led astray—this is as clear as day. If this criterion of moral conduct did not exist, would people be able to make judgments in simple cases of right and wrong? (Yes.) The boy would have thought: “This family might have rescued me, but it seems that they only did so for the sake of their business and their future. I am just a tool they can use to harm or kill anyone that disrupts or impedes their business ventures. This is the real reason they saved me. They pulled me back from the brink of death only to make me do evil and commit murder—are they not just sending me on my way to hell? Won’t this make me suffer even more? In that case, I would have been better off if they’d have just let me die. They didn’t really rescue me!” This family did not rescue the beggar boy out of a philanthropic urge and to allow him to live better, they did so just to gain control over him and to make him hurt, harm, and kill others. So were they actually doing good or evil? They were quite clearly doing evil, not good—these benefactors had become evil people. Are evil people worthy of being repaid? Should they be repaid? They should not. So, as soon as you find out that they are evil, what should you do? You should keep your distance from them, avoid them, and find a way to flee from them. This is wisdom. Some might say: “These evil people already have control over me, so it’s not so easy to flee from them. Escape is impossible!” More often than not, these are the consequences of gratefully repaying kindness received. Because there are just too few good people and so many evil people, if you happen upon a good person it is fine to repay their kindness, but if you fall into the hands of an evil person, that is tantamount to falling into the hands of a demon, of Satan. They will scheme against you and toy with you, and no good can come from falling into their hands. There are just too many examples of this throughout history. Now that you know that gratefully repaying kindness received is not a legitimate criterion for how to comport yourself and act, how should you act when someone bestows kindness on you? What are your views on this? (No matter who helps us, we should decide whether or not to accept their help based on the situation. In some cases, it is alright to accept help, but in others we mustn’t blindly accept their help. If we do accept help, we still need to be principled and set limits on how we repay their kindness, to avoid being deceived or taken advantage of by evil people.) This is a principled way of approaching the situation. Additionally, if you cannot see the situation clearly or are at a dead end, you must pray to God and ask Him to open up a path for you. This will allow you to avoid temptation and escape from Satan’s claws. At times, God will use Satan’s services to help people, but we must be sure to thank God in such cases and not repay kindness to Satan—this is a question of principle. When temptation comes in the form of an evil person bestowing kindness, you must first be clear about exactly who is helping you out and providing assistance, what your own situation is, and whether there are other paths you can take. In such cases, you must think on your feet. If God wants to save you, no matter whose services He uses to accomplish it, you should first thank God and accept it from God. You should not direct your gratitude solely toward people, to say nothing of offering up your life to someone in gratitude. This is a grave mistake. The crucial thing is that your heart is grateful to God, and you accept it from Him. If the person who bestows kindness on you, helps you, or rescues you is a good person, then you should repay their kindness, but you should only do what you are capable of given your means. If the person who helped you has the wrong intentions and is looking to scheme against you and use you to achieve their own goals, then there is no need to repay them at any cost. In short, God scrutinizes man’s heart, so as long as you don’t have a guilty conscience and you have the right motivations, it is not an issue. That is, before you come to understand the truth, your actions at least need to be in keeping with human conscience and reason. You should be able to approach this situation reasonably so that you will never be regretful of your actions, at any point in the future. You are all adults and have all been through quite a lot in the country of the great red dragon—has there been any lack of suppression, persecution, abuse, or humiliation in your life? You all clearly see how deeply corrupted humanity has become, so no matter what temptation you encounter, you must approach it with wisdom and not fall for Satan’s treacherous plots. Whatever situation you may face, you must seek the truth and only make decisions after coming to an understanding of the principles through prayer and fellowship. In these past few years, the church has been carrying out the work of cleansing and many evil people, nonbelievers, and antichrists have been exposed and cleared out or expelled. Most people never predicted that this would happen. Given that even within the church there are still so many muddle-headed people, evil people, and nonbelievers, I assume that you are clear on how corrupted and evil unbelievers must be? Without the truth and wisdom, people cannot see anything clearly and will just be deceived and hoodwinked, and toyed with by evil people and Satan. As such, they become Satan’s lackeys. Those who do not understand the truth and lack principles do only foolish things.

Footnotes:

a. The original text reads “This claim has.”