What did Saint Peter feel toward his enemies? Love or Hatred?

What did Saint Peter feel toward his enemies? Love or Hatred?█

Contradictions are the traces left behind when texts written by people with opposing wills are mixed together: the will of those who sought justice and the will of those who sought to ensure that their crimes would remain without just punishment.

“How long, O Lord, holy and true, will you refrain from judging and avenging our blood?” (Revelation 6:10)

I do not deny the existence of the saints; I deny the authenticity of everything the Bible attributes to them.

We are told that Saint Peter was killed by his enemies. But isn’t precisely this desire for justice — expressed in Revelation as a cry for vengeance — a screw that does not fit with the supposed “love of enemies,” but rather with rejection of them?

When I began reading the Bible carefully, I found obvious contradictions. On the one hand, Sirach 12:7 states: “Help the good, but not the wicked, because the Most High detests them and in the end will give them what they deserve.” On the other hand, Matthew 5:44–46 commands us to love the wicked, bless them, and do good to them, imitating a supposed universal love of God.

If Sirach says that God detests the wicked, how can Jesus teach that God loves the wicked? Did Rome preach a lying Jesus, or did Rome lie to us about what Jesus really taught? Let us not forget that everything we call the “Bible” today passed through councils directed by Roman emperors, the same empire that executed Jesus. And today, the representative of the church created by that empire claims that “God loves everyone.” To me, this makes no sense.

I have found more clues: the saints never loved their enemies, and the God of the saints does not love the wicked either. That example Matthew attributes to Jesus — God loving good and evil people equally — has no basis either in other scriptures or in moral logic.

Proverbs 29:27 says: “The righteous detest the wicked, and the wicked detest the righteous.” If the Bible presents Jesus as righteous, and the righteous detest the wicked, how could a righteous man give his life to benefit the wicked?

However, another text attributed to a righteous man states the opposite: 1 Peter 3:18 says that “the righteous man died for the unrighteous.” How can it be coherent for a saint who in other messages expresses contempt toward the wicked to speak of a righteous man sacrificing himself for them?

Consider 2 Peter 2:12: “Like irrational animals, born to be captured and destroyed… they will be destroyed.” Would God give the life of his righteous son to save those who are compared to irrational animals? Does Peter contradict the feelings of the righteous, or did the unrighteous people who killed him also falsify his words?

Proverbs 17:15 adds that God detests both the one who condemns the righteous and the one who justifies the wicked. Therefore, claiming that the wicked are “justified by grace” simply by believing in contradictory texts defined by representatives of the Roman Empire — and not by the saints murdered by that empire — makes no sense.

The prophecy in Psalm 5 is also clear: God does not tolerate wickedness, the wicked will not dwell with Him, and God detests those who practice iniquity.

Even so, modern religious leaders oppose the death penalty for murderers, extortionists, rapists, and robbers on the excuse that “God loves everyone.” But we have already seen that this excuse has neither textual nor logical basis.

The Final Thrust Against the Dogma

Let us imagine a tyrannical dictatorship that forces people to bow their heads before a statue of its dictator, and executes by electric chair those who refuse. Centuries later, that same legacy demands that people kneel before images of the electric chair.

That is what I see when dogma demands that people kneel before the cross.

The cross was, for Rome, what the electric chair is for a modern dictatorship: an instrument of execution. There Rome not only killed Spartacus and the slaves who sought freedom, but also Jesus, Peter, and others who — as can be inferred from some texts — refused to bow their heads before the image of the beast.

Their will was on the side of justice and their works were righteous; the will of their persecutors, on the other hand, was guided by attachment to injustice. That difference between the thinking and the actions of each side is the mark on the forehead and on the hand: the mind that makes the decision and the actions that carry out that decision.

If the mark on the forehead is the mark of the beast, hearing righteous words will not make a difference: “the wicked will do wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand” (Daniel 12:10). “Here is wisdom… the number of the beast is the number of a man” (Revelation 13:18).

It did not make a difference before: the Roman persecutors heard the saints, but they killed them anyway.

The martyrs did not love those who killed them. “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will you refrain from judging and avenging our blood?” (Rev. 6:10). That cry does not come from love of the enemy, but from the desire for justice against him.

And when dogma demands that people kneel before the instrument of execution of the enemies of the Roman Empire, it is not honoring the saints: it is honoring the will of those who killed them.

[Roman emperor, the beast] “We did that to them because they refused to bow down before our images.”

[Legionary mosquito] “Glorify the thorn in the flesh, my thorn.”

[The mosquito demands]

“If I bite you on one limb, offer me the other limb.”

[After fumigating it, the man responds]

“Your request was not aligned with human interests.”

The mosquito causes harm; it is its nature and it cannot avoid it. Would you tolerate someone telling you: “You must love them”?

[José Galindo, criticizing Peru’s legal reality in 2026] Our taxes must not be wasted on irrecoverable people who can only harm society, attacking and extorting working people, robbing them, and shedding innocent blood.

If taxes are the blood our society needs to serve good people, why allow those who harm it to suck that blood as well?

That is why I propose the legalization of the death penalty, because taking care of the bad person is protecting him, and protecting him is loving him. That is undeserved love.

Enough of loving the robber and the extortionist. Enough of loving the enemy. Enough of loving the mosquito.

Visit my website: penademuerteya.com.

[Satan to Satan]: Satan accepts our revised gospel:

“Do not resist evil. Turn the other cheek.”

[Satan to Satan]: Exactly. You preach my message, but Michael preaches resisting evil with an eye for an eye.

[The adversary of Satan, the one who justly accuses him] “I will put an end to your deception with the truth. You will be resisted and you will be defeated. Michael preaches resisting evil with an eye for an eye. I am here to defeat you through resistance. I resist evil.”

Do not let yourself be deceived. This is not the image of Saint Michael defeating the dragon. This image belongs to the dragon itself and is used to deceive people into idolatry. A Roman persecutor with wings: the Roman god Mars under another name.

If Deuteronomy 19:21 orders the elimination of evil and Matthew 5:38–39 orders its tolerance, it is not because God sent Jesus to contradict it; it is because Rome contradicted God by adulterating Jesus’ message.

This does not imply validating every ancient law, since even there just laws are found mixed with unjust ones. If Rome had the texts it persecuted in its hands, there is no reason to believe that it preserved either the ancient or the new texts intact.

Michael preaches resisting evil with an eye for an eye. I am here to defeat you through resistance. I resist evil.

After reading Isaiah 63:3–5, Isaiah 11:1–5, and Revelation 19:11–19, the rider on the white horse, faithful and just, appears as a warrior who repays. There, the love of the enemy is not preached, but rather the principle of an eye for an eye.