Response to a Christian Apologist

I was recently taken aback by a Facebook post quoting a Biblical dictum suggesting that we should not love the world. I found myself deeply disturbed. Day after day I observe how religions of many kinds impose questionable interpretations upon followers — or perhaps, more accurately, how we interpret ancient writings in ways that become detached from reason and compassion. What follows is my response to a Christian apologist who argued that we should not love this world but instead remain focused on what happens after we leave it.

Belief Beyond Labels

I was born Roman Catholic and have read not only the Bible but also Gnostic texts such as the Apocrypha. Beyond this, I have explored Taoism, Buddhism, Kashmir Shaivism, Hinduism, atheism, humanism, and many other philosophical traditions. I consider myself a free thinker and reformist who believes humanity must evolve — and cannot do so when fear-based interpretations dominate culture.

History reminds us to question institutional certainty. The world was officially considered flat by Church authority until 1965. Centuries earlier, Galileo was excommunicated for demonstrating that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Before declaring religious truth, we must first examine how often authority has resisted it. Choosing a broad view of truth does not negate belief in the divine. Perhaps I simply resist the term “God,” a label that has provoked division, violence, and intolerance throughout history.

Not Loving the World — In Practice

What saddens me most is observing outwardly devout individuals — churchgoers, families, community members — carelessly discarding trash in the very environment that sustains them. News of climate crisis is constant; children speak of it; the media warns of planetary decline. Yet behaviour often suggests indifference. The Earth deteriorates environmentally while many continue routine displays of religious devotion without corresponding care for the world they inhabit.

If one is conditioned to believe the world should not be loved, why would one protect it? Why cherish the environment, ecosystems, or shared spaces? Such interpretations risk severing reverence from responsibility. Thoughtful reasoning — that same reasoning many traditions claim is divinely given — must be applied when interpreting ancient religious statements.

Contradictions of Worldly Rejection

Paradoxically, those who claim detachment from the world still enjoy its pleasures: food grown from its soil, technology created from its resources, homes built from its materials, art, cinema, music, clothing, and comfort. Daily life demonstrates attachment to this world in countless ways. We clearly value it — our behaviour reveals this.

Moral inconsistency also appears in attitudes toward the body. Many ignore teachings on moderation while condemning worldly attachment in other forms. Religious culture has often emphasised sin and unworthiness, which can foster shame rather than conscious responsibility.

Hypocrisy and Compassion

Near my rural home lives a Roman Catholic priest who drives a luxury car, while parishioners struggle without reliable water or basic resources. Weekly donations sustain his lifestyle despite widespread poverty. Such disparity raises difficult questions about what it truly means not to love the world — especially when that world includes vulnerable human beings.

Many who profess devotion to heaven and afterlife nonetheless grieve deeply when loved ones die — revealing attachment to this earthly existence they claim to devalue. Our actions expose where our loyalties truly lie. To preach detachment while living in privilege reflects profound contradiction.

An Alternative Example

There are, however, wealthy individuals whose actions demonstrate tangible love for humanity. Warren Buffett, for example, has pledged the vast majority of his fortune to philanthropic causes while maintaining a modest personal lifestyle. He participates in the world yet contributes meaningfully to it. This expresses engagement rather than rejection.

Such examples contrast with passive religiosity that venerates scripture while neglecting active improvement of human and environmental conditions.

People Are the World

Another Biblical idea states that one may be “in the world but not of it.” Yet people themselves are part of the world — and religion also teaches love for one another. How then do we separate lovable from unlovable aspects of existence? Nature, art, music, human creativity, and beauty are all expressions of this world. Would rejecting the world require rejecting these as well?

When we examine what constitutes the world — landscapes, culture, humanity, biodiversity — it becomes difficult to justify wholesale rejection. Even the most devoted practitioners rely daily upon the world they claim should not be loved.

A Thought Experiment: Loving the World as Divine

Consider an alternative philosophy: what if humanity chose to love the world as if it were divine itself? Would we harm one another, devastate ecosystems, or exploit animals and resources without restraint? If reverence extended to all existence, ethical behaviour might naturally follow.

Loving every being, place, and moment as sacred would likely reduce violence, greed, and indifference. It is difficult to imagine such reverence leading humanity astray. Perhaps the opposite of rejecting the world — fully loving it — offers a path toward responsibility, compassion, and collective flourishing.