TOPICS: All wars are just—to the people who start them – in duality one can justify anything – no absolute standard – thus all evil acts the result of ignorance – in God’s eyes no wars are justified – Old Testament wars – thou shalt not kill – no holy wars – self-defense – understanding karma – people will not accept personal responsibility – the law is impersonal and no conditions justify killing – lifestreams prone to violence – self-defense sometimes unavoidable – self-defense will not lessen spiral of violence – individual karmic considerations – sometimes better to let others kill you – unavoidable wars – war can be lesser of two evils – the risk of war – the slippery slope of war – the U. S. not above self-interest – becoming worse than the enemy you are fighting – the illusion that God sees things as you do – power, control and money of elite behind most wars – American people must restrain their government –
Question from Kim: Jesus, is the war with Iraq a just war as the American government and even some high-profile Christian minsters claim?
Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels:
There has never been a war on this planet that was not a just war. That is, if you define just by a human standard. All of the people who started a war felt that their war was justified. Many of them even felt that their war was justified by some form of divine authority. However, I must tell you that it was a “divine authority” defined by human beings.
One of the central messages on this website is that human beings have fallen into a lower state of consciousness, what I call the dualistic mind, which is dominated by relativity and conditionality. When people are caught in this state of consciousness, all of their viewpoints are relative and therefore they can justify absolutely anything.
People will often attempt to use a higher authority, even a divine authority, to justify their beliefs. Another common occurrence is that people will define someone as the enemy or scapegoat. By portraying the enemy as being evil, even as belonging to an “Axis of Evil,” it suddenly seems justified that people violate the laws of God to combat evil.
I have stated elsewhere on this website that no evil act was ever committed on planet earth. Seemingly evil acts were always committed out of ignorance. This ignorance is always caused by the fact that people are caught in the relativity of the dualistic mind and therefore have no absolute standard for evaluating their actions.
If you look at the rhetoric surrounding the war with Iraq, especially the rhetoric that comes from the American government, you will see that the decision makers in this government actually believe that this is a just war. It even seems that the president himself, and some of his close advisers, feel that they have some kind of divine authority for this war. Even some Christian ministers in the United States have declared their support for the war and their belief that this is a just war in the eyes of God.
If you are willing to reach beyond the relativity of the dualistic mind, the real question should be, “Is the war with Iraq a just war seen with God’s eyes?” The answer to that question is a clear no. When you see things with God’s eyes, there has never been a just war on this planet. When you see things with God’s eyes, the killing of other human beings is never justified. When you see things with God’s eyes, you clearly realize that the ends cannot justify the means and that no representative of God ever spoke the words, “Let us do evil that good may come.”
I know these statements will seem shocking to both Jews, Christians and Muslims who believe that the Old Testament is the infallible word of God. After all, the Old Testament contains several examples of wars that were supposedly fought with God’s help and with God’s authority. My comment on the Old Testament wars is that there are several possible explanations why it seems like the Old Testament has God justifying the act of war:
- Not every part of the Old Testament is the infallible word of God. Some parts have been influenced by the relative interests and beliefs of human beings who attempted to claim divine authority for their own self-interest. I have explained this in greater detail elsewhere.
- The God that supposedly authorized the Old Testament wars is not the God that I recognize as my Father in heaven. My God is a God of unconditional love. Do you seriously believe that a God of love would ever authorize war? If you believe that, then I must tell you frankly that you are caught in a relative state of consciousness and you need to make a sincere effort to reach beyond that state of consciousness.
- The people who claimed that their wars were justified by God made incorrect claims. They either made these claims in good faith because they were misled (by the relativity of the dualistic mind and by dark forces) into thinking that God had justified their war. Or they made these claims deliberately in an attempt to mislead the people into fighting their wars of relative self interest.
- The war fits in the category of unavoidable wars that I will describe in the following sections.
Let me make it very clear that God does not authorize war. God never has authorized a war on planet earth and God will never do so. His eyes cannot behold the iniquity of the relative state of consciousness that causes people to engage in wars. Therefore, God will never take sides in a relative conflict, and there is no other type of conflict on this planet.
There is no such thing as a holy war. A person who claims to be fighting a holy war has demonstrated that he does not understand the nature of God, and therefore he cannot rightfully claim to have divine authority.
I realize that this message sounds very uncompromising. It is my intention to sound uncompromising, because there truly is no cause which justifies the killing of other human beings. The Ten Commandments state clearly, “Thou shalt not kill.” The Ten Commandments do not specify conditions under which it becomes acceptable to kill. In my sermon on the mount I told people to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. I told people to turn the other cheek. I told people that if someone wants your coat, give him your cloak also. I told people to forgive seventy times seven.
Do you see any room in these statements for an interpretation that justifies the killing of another human being? I can tell you that I see no room for such an interpretation, and I see no circumstance that, in a divine sense, justifies the killing of another human being.
I am aware that many people will immediately raise the question of self-defense. Should a person simply let someone else kill him? Should a nation let another nation conquer it without resisting? I must tell you frankly that the relativity of the dualistic mind makes people prone to respond to attacks with violence. Therefore, they tend to think that it is always justified that you defend yourself when attacked. In reality, this question doesn’t have a black-and-white answer. In some cases, people should resist attacks and defend themselves, but in other cases it would be in people’s own best interest to respond to all attacks with non-violence.
To fully understand these matters, you need to understand and accept the Law of Cause and Effect, the law of karma, as explained elsewhere. The truth of the matter is that when God gave human beings free will, God was fully aware that people might use their free will to go against the laws and principles that God used to create this universe. God was also aware that if people did so, they would immediately set themselves apart from his Presence. God’s eyes cannot behold inequity and imperfection, because whatever God looks upon will be magnified by the immense creative powers of God.
Therefore one might say that there is a horizon beyond which God does not see. When human beings violate the laws of God, they immediately descend or fall below that horizon. They have literally fallen away from the Presence and grace of God; they have fallen from grace.
Because God knew this could happen, God created a completely impersonal law that is designed to teach people who have fallen from grace. This law is the Law of Cause and Effect, also called the law of karma. The simplest, although not the complete, description of this law is that everything people do it is done with God’s energy and the law of karma returns all imperfect energy to the person who generated it.
After the Fall, human beings created a situation on planet earth that is very far removed from the original design and intention of God. The current conditions found on this planet are so far removed from God’s original intention that most people would refuse to accept the differences. For example, how many people would believe that the density of the human consciousness has actually increased the density of physical matter, so that matter on planet earth is denser today than when the earth was created by Elohim?
My point here is that people have created a situation that has set aside or suspended God’s original design for this planet. Therefore, some of God’s original laws have been set aside or replaced by other laws, such as the Law of Cause and Effect. This law will return all misqualified energy to the person who generates it.
I cannot imagine that it would be possible to kill another human being without generating imperfect energy. Therefore, I can assure you that if you kill another human being, you will generate negative energy and you will inevitably reap as you have sown in the form of negative personal karma.
When people are caught in a relative state of mind, they find it virtually impossible to accept personal accountability and responsibility. That is why so many people, in their own minds, have created conditions under which it becomes acceptable to kill or perform acts of violence. Yet the simple fact is that killing another human being will always produce negative karma. There is simply no way to escape this.
I am aware that it is highly unlikely that a fundamentalist or literal Christian will ever read these teachings. Yet I would like to mention that there is an indication of this in Scripture. Consider the situation in the garden of Gethsemane, when the soldiers came to arrest me. One of my disciples drew his sword and cut off the ear of a soldier. I instantly healed the soldier, and I did so because I did not want my disciple to incur the karma of that act of violence. My disciple felt that the cause of defending the Messiah could justify what he saw as an act of self-defense. I knew that this was an incorrect assumption.
The brutal fact is that the law is the law. The law of cause and effect is completely impersonal. Like the law of gravity, it is no respecter of persons or the motives of human beings. Because human beings have created a situation that is very far removed from God’s original design, we now see a situation in which some people have become so unbalanced that they are prone to violence. In many cases such people have managed to attain positions of power as the leaders of nations. In God’s original design, such lifestreams simply could not have embodied on planet earth. Yet because humankind has fallen into such a low state of consciousness, such lifestreams are currently allowed to embody on this planet.
Obviously, such unbalanced lifestreams will commit acts of violence, and therefore it is foreseeable that more balanced people will face the difficult choice between allowing themselves to be killed or defending themselves.
My point of describing the law of cause and effect is to make you realize that everything you do with God’s energy will create an effect that will come back to you. If you kill another human being in self-defense, you will still make karma. However, your karma will not be as severe as if you killed in an act of aggression. Furthermore, the feelings with which you engage in acts of self-defense will also influence the severity of your karma. If you go to war and truly hate your enemy, your karma will be more severe than if you kill the enemy only as a last resort.
My long association with this planet and my knowledge of the dualistic mind has made me somewhat of a practical realist. Therefore, despite my teachings about turning the other cheek, I realize that self-defense is sometimes unavoidable. In certain situations, self-defense can be the lesser of two evils. However, I want to make it very clear that even killing in self-defense is not justified in the eyes of God. Killing in self-defense does not prevent you from making personal karma.
The lesson that humankind needs to learn is that people are ultimately responsible for their use and misuse of God’s energy. Human beings have, over numerous lifetimes, created the current situation on planet earth. This situation leads to violence, and responding with violence will not improve the overall situation. The situation can only be improved by removing the misqualified energy that pulls people into these negative spirals of violence and hatred.
You might be a saint in this lifetime, but there is no guarantee that you have not been a savage in a previous life. When the karma from that lifetime comes due, it might play out in the form of a savage attempting to kill you.
The question then becomes how you should deal with that situation. Should you passively allow the other person to kill you in an attempt to avoid making personal karma? Or should you defend yourself, possibly killing the other person and thereby reinforcing the karmic spiral?
I must tell you frankly that these are questions that cannot be answered in a general way. They can be answered only on an individual basis. In other words, because the current situation on earth is so far removed from God’s original intent, there can actually be situations in which defending your life, even if it involves killing your attacker, would be the lesser of two evils and therefore the practical thing to do. The dilemma of action versus non-action is illustrated in the Bhagavad Gita and in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet.
However, there can also be situations in which it is better for your spiritual growth to respond to any situation with non-violence. What I am showing you here is that because human beings have removed themselves so far from divine law, they have created situations in which none of the available options are in accordance with God’s law. Any option will lead to negative consequences, so the most practical option is the one that creates the lesser consequences. However, the lesser of two evils is still an evil in the eyes of God.
How can you know what is the right thing to do in a given situation? If you approach this question with the relativity of the dualistic mind, you will always come up with a justification for your short-term interest. Therefore, the only way to determine the best course of action is through personal Christhood.
If you have not attained personal Christhood, you would do well to err on the side of caution and respond to all situations by turning the other cheek. My sermon on the mount was designed as a guideline for people who had not attained Christhood and therefore had no way to reach beyond the relativity of the dualistic mind.
I must tell you that there are instances in which human beings have received direction from a higher source which correctly told them that self-defense, even involving the killing of other human beings, was the best course of action in that specific situation. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that this does not mean that the killing of other human beings was justified by God or by God’s law. The killing was merely the lesser of two evils in a situation where the violation of God’s law had made killing unavoidable.
In other words, even though people might have felt that this self-defense was justified according to a standard that was above and beyond self-interest, their actions were still not justified according to God’s law. Therefore, the people made karma for their actions.
I am aware that this distinction will seem contradictory or be difficult to understand for people who are caught in the relativity of the dualistic mind. Yet, the distinction is real. There are situations in which self-defense, even a war in self-defense, is the lesser of two evils and therefore the most practical response to a situation that is outside of God’s law. Yet I must also tell you that these situations are few and far between, and in most cases where people believe they are fighting a just war, they are deceived by the relativity of the dualistic mind.
Some of the Old Testament wars fit into the category as unavoidable wars. In modern times, it was the lesser of two evils that western nations resisted communism instead of allowing this ideology to spread to the entire world. If a person is caught in the relativity of the dualistic mind, that person will reason that these wars were just wars, and the person will not attempt to attain a deeper understanding.
Yet when you look at the situation with the clarity of the Christ mind, you see that no war was ever a just war. Certain wars were unavoidable, certain wars could be considered necessary in order to prevent a greater calamity that would have caused an even greater loss of life. Yet these wars were still not justified, because there is no divine justification for killing a human being.
I must tell you frankly that I do not consider the war with Iraq to be unavoidable or necessary. There are far more constructive ways of dealing with the threat of terrorism.
I am giving this message on March 5, 2003, at a time when the war with Iraq has not officially started, yet is considered unavoidable by most people. I do not consider any war unavoidable, but I realize that if the United States were to stop or even postpone this war, the current leadership of this nation would see it as a loss of credibility, even a loss of face.
I must tell you frankly that this dilemma is a situation that is entirely self-created. The Bush administration has created the current state of tension. It has backed itself into a corner, and if it goes to war out of an unwillingness to reverse course, then I can assure you that there is nothing unavoidable or necessary about such an act. It is an act that is largely caused by arrogance.
I will prophesy that if the administration decides to launch a war against Iraq, it is highly likely that it will later be seen as the greatest mistake of the Bush administration. I will also predict that such a war will not minimize the risk of terrorist attacks on American interests. On the contrary, it is likely to fuel further attacks. Furthermore, a war with Iraq will not help bring about world peace. On the contrary, it will only make many other nations, including Iran and North Korea, feel threatened by what they will inevitably see as American aggression. I will even state that I do not find such viewpoints to be unfounded.
The simple fact is that after the attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States was in the position of being seen as the victim, and therefore it had widespread support and cooperation. A war with Iraq will almost certainly remove the impression that the United States is a victim. Instead, it will be seen as an aggressor and international support and cooperation will begin to evaporate, as is already evident in the United Nations.
I will prophesy that if the Bush administration goes to war against Iraq, this war will have ramifications that will haunt the United States, and indeed the entire planet, for a long time to come. Taken to the extreme, there is a risk, not a high risk but still a risk, that the war with Iraq can escalate into a worldwide conflict. If such a conflict ensues, it is likely to begin with an increase in the number of terrorist attacks. Yet there is a real risk that the situation can escalate into a full-blown war between nation states. Who can tell how far such a conflict might escalate?
The real question concerning the war with Iraq is how far the United States is willing to go down the slippery slope of using its military might in preemptive strikes against nations that are considered to be a threat to American interests or national security.
Considering my teachings on the dualistic mind, I hope many people will see that any definition of American interests or national security will almost certainly be influenced by relative self-interest. The sad fact is that many Americans, leaders and citizens alike, seem to believe that because the United States is a free nation and a democracy, it is somehow above becoming the victim of relative self-interest.
Many people seem to think that the United States could never make any serious mistake or do something really wrong. I have studied the dualistic mind for a long time, and I can assure you that no nation is above becoming the victim of self-interest. In fact, it is precisely the nations that think they are above this that are the most likely victims. Pride does often precede the fall.
I earlier said that the western resistance to communism avoided a greater evil. The United States deserves credit for the fact that it provided the main bastion against the spread of communism without engaging in an all-out war with the Soviet Union. Once again, I am not saying that the methods used during the Cold War were justified according to a divine standard. However, I am saying that the United States did represent the higher of the two sides in the conflict.
Nevertheless, in any conflict there is a real risk that a nation, even though it fights for the greater good, may end up becoming worse than the enemy it is fighting. There are strong forces in the United States who are arguing that after winning the Cold War this nation should use its superior military capacity to further American interests.
Some people actually believe that American interests are synonymous with the interests of freedom and democracy, even with the interests of God. I must tell you quite frankly and openly that this is such a naive and dangerous belief that I can scarcely fathom how anyone can seriously believe this. It is disturbing to me that so many Americans, even though being moral and ethical people, fail to make the distinction between what is truly the interests of God and what is merely the narrow, short-sighted relative interests of people who are ready to use the military power of the United States to further the power elite’s desire for power, control and money.
I am saddened by the fact that while many people outside of the United States can see these hidden forces at work, so few Americans have awakened to the reality that there are many hidden forces preying on their nation. I must tell you frankly that unless the American people wake up and make a determined effort to prevent the United States from becoming the bully of the world-wide neighborhood, there is a high risk that this nation, within a decade, can become a worse tyrant than the Soviet Union ever was.
Obviously, the American people have a greater opportunity to speak out against their nation’s policy than did the citizens of the Soviet Union. Yet it remains to be seen whether a critical mass of Americans will wake up and make use of this opportunity. The American people are today in a similar situation to that encountered by Prince Hamlet. Hamlet knew there were forces inside his own kingdom that were plotting against him, yet he refused to take active measures to stop these forces, and this decision led to a greater calamity.
I am not suggesting that the American people should use violence to prevent their government from using violence. On the contrary, this battle must be fought with information and non-violent measures. What I am saying is that the American people must do something to restrain their own government, because without action from the people, the government will not be able to restrain itself.
Copyright © 2003 by Kim Michaels