If you can justify killing in religion by saying your combating evil?

Question

then thats like saying if i think bush and cheny are evil i can go and do battle with them. according to christians muslims were evil during the crusades but evil is in the eye of the beholder. whats to say whats good and whats evil?

pearly gator, then we shouldnt have any christians fighting in iraq then right?

Answer 1

I truly do not know how to answer this question in full. I, personally, am not particularly fond of war, and yet it is a fact that it happens. So, then, what to think and do about it?

Just for example, it would appear that Allied retaliation to the Axis during World War II was justified war. Germany was attempting to take over Europe and parts of Eurasia and spread its hate-centered, anti-Jewish zeitgeist all over the place. It would seem to me that the desire to exterminate an entire people based upon their bloodline--i.e., the Jews in this case--is evil and should be stopped. While there were many other motives involved in that war--Germany's wish for power and resources--it was the anti-Semitism that was most abhorrent, and thereby justified cause for war.

Fast-forward to the modern-day war waged between the U.S. and Iraq. The declaration insists that this is about terrorism and tyranny. But we all know that Hussein was not directly allied with Al-Qaeda, even if he had certain affections for them. That is, Iraq was not the cause for the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11/01...and yet many Americans were led to believe that it was. So the reasoning for the war got changed from anti-terrorism to pro-democracy...which is, in this one case, insufficient cause to go to war. Iraqis--many, at least--did not ask the U.S. for help in liberating itself, and so the U.S. is attempting to force its system of government onto a foreign land when many in that land are opposed to it. So the question of evil is confused here. If many Iraqis had been pleading for the U.S. to help them, that would be another story. If the U.S. just sees that others are oppressed, or whatever, and rides in on the white horses in an attempt to bring liberation, this seems unjustifiable.

Good and evil are not in the eye of the beholder, I don't think. But I do think that "good" and "evil" are ill-defined for political purposes a lot of the time, and that many are led to believe certain others are evil so as a state-sponsored war can be waged...when the true motives for that war are undisclosed to the very people supporting it.

But to give a clear and simple answer to your bigger question, "What's to say what's good and what's evil?"...God is to say what is good and what is evil. It is just a question of whether the people waging and fighting war have sought God's will and guidance before engaging their military machines. And we all know that more naive minds can be manipulated into believing that a war is God's will when really it is the mere will of people who are seeking access to natural resources, strongholds in unstable regions, land, power, and glory.

Answer 2

Tricky subject. There are certainly Christians on both sides of the issue.

The question (at least by Christian standards) is almost 17 centuries old. St. Augustine argued for the cause of a "just war". That might seem like an oxymoron, but - the Bishop made some good points.

In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force (Jus ad bellum):

recapturing things taken

punishing people who have done wrong

(A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said:

"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations")

Comparative justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;

Legitimate authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;

Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success: Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

Answer 3

The Roman Catholic Church started the crusade against Muslims circa 1000 AD. This to end attacks upon pilgrims by Islamic fanatics. Biblical Christians had NOTHING to do with any of it. Prior to that, Muslims were the Crusaders. Google "Battle of Tours", France. The Islamic crusades started in the seventh century and included the invasion of Jerusalem.

Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek and not murder.

Answer 4

All too true,my friend. Evil is a stray bullet in a gun-fight killing a child it was not meant for, evil is when someone burns down my house,but a bullet in the right place can save lives and a fire in the right place can cook my food or keep me from freezing to death,however monotheists will never admit the plain truth that is right in front of their eyes,sometimes a little evil can be good thing.......

Answer 5

yeah you vould say that.... but you are only fooling yourself if you truly believe it. every person has their own perception of evil, and if we allow that perception of evit hold true, and we allow ourselves to kill evil, then everyone would be able to justify every murder they make becaue they thought the person was "evil." a common murderer could argue in court that he killed someone becase that person was evil and he was combating evil, but i doubt the jury would understand. hope that helps.

Answer 6

Religion and war go together like turkey and dressing.

Answer 7

good and evil is only a piont of view. there is no true good or evil

Answer 8

seems to happen a lot, doesn't it...

all through history, and still today, too!!

Answer 9

Non-Retaliation and

"Military Service"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus says, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also…You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate you enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemy, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…" (Matt. 5:38-39, 43-44)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

There are many who label themselves as some type of christian, yet who reject these plain commands of Jesus. They are quick to run to scholars so-called, and others who explain away these plain commands as somehow NOT meaning what they plainly say. They will try and make all kinds of indirect arguments, use the old covenant, and use philosophies of 'duty to state', in order to nullify the Words of Messiah. For the true disciple of Jesus, these methods to explain away the commands of Jesus should be rejected out of hand, and we should live to please our Master. For he does say, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Each true disciple of Jesus understands that the Way Jesus teaches does not include harming those who make themselves our enemies.

Introduction

The disciples of Jesus have had to live in various nations since Jesus formed his Family some 2000 years ago. These nations are, of course, part of the world system, or kingdoms of this world. Jesus has called his disciples to live a very different life than those who are not his. Only in this way, can his disciples fulfill his command to be the salt and light of the earth. His highest commands, include that we love the Father, one another, our neighbor and our enemies. The nations and kingdoms of this world (these terms "nations" and "kingdoms" of this world, as defined by Jesus, mean the people which make up the nations and kingdoms, which people are not part of the Kingdom of God) know nothing of Jesus' holy love (agape). As Jesus says in regard to mankind, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19).

The disciples of Jesus have been born again OUT of the nations and kingdoms of this world, and into Jesus' family - the Kingdom of God. Jesus' disciples, his Family, no longer walk in darkness, but in his light. If we truly love Jesus, then we will obey his commands (John 14:15). And Jesus commands that his disciples are not to fight back when attacked carnally. He says this plainly in Matt. 5:38-45:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person. But whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. And to him desiring to sue you, and to take away your tunic, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and you shall not turn away from him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you, so that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven. For He makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38-45)

Who to Obey? God or Man…

So, what is the disciple of Jesus to do when some authority tells him to disobey Jesus' commands? What is he to do if he is living in a nation which asks him to do something that God commands him not to do? Of course they should obey God's Son Jesus instead of the nation's government.

How are nation's in today's world, giving the same wicked command to disobey Jesus? All muslim country's governments command that a person not preach Jesus the Messiah. And in fact, more and more "christian democratic" nation's are commanding that a person not preach Jesus' truth, particularly his truth of "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life. And no man comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6). They will allow false Jesus' and false gospels to be preached, but not the true Messiah of God, Jesus of Nazareth as revealed BY HIS OWN WORDS in the gospels.

What did Peter and John do when commanded to disobey the Lord Jesus' commands by the nation's government and religious authority in which they were living at the time? You will find the clear answer in Acts 4:19-20, which says, "But Peter and John answered and said the them, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.'"

If Jesus commands are not enough for the reader (and they should be), here you have a perfectly clear approved example in the New Testament which teaches that there are times when the disciple of Jesus must disobey the government of a nation that they are living in, or religious authority that is 'over' them. Specifically, that when a nation's government commands the disciple of Jesus to do, or not do something which is contrary to Jesus' commands, then the disciple of Jesus is to disobey the commands of the nation on that matter, and instead be faithful to carry out the Lord's commands. The same is true regarding "religious" authorities.

Romans 13

Many try to use Roman's chapter thirteen to nullify Jesus' commands to love our enemies. The first matter that ought to be thought about is, is there a contradiction between Jesus' teachings and Paul's? If so, what should the disciple of Jesus do? The answer is obvious, but not if you are in fact a disciple of Paul. Those who use Rom. 13 to nullify Jesus' teachings demonstrate plainly whose voice they are listening to. Let us look at that passage of scripture:

"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."

Paul plainly teaches that "every soul" (we can assume since he is writing to christians, it would include them!) ought to obey the governments. And he even says that all governments are appointed by God, and are even God's minister to execute justice. Given this teachings, it would be easy to see how many christian's use it to nullify Jesus' teachings on the kingdom of God and one's attitude and actions towards one's enemies.

Here are some examples to help the reader understand how to apply Jesus' command to love your enemy over the world's government you find yourself under. If the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'our citizens are to lie to their neighbors', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law? If the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'when driving in your automobile, and seeing someone lying next to the road who appears injured, you are not to stop and help that person under any circumstances', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law? If the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'each married man in our nation must come to the nation's political capital and spend some time with a prostitute at least once every 4 years', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law? If the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'our citizens may never teach what the scripture says about abortion or homosexuality to any other citizen', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law? If the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'every man over 20 must go to the Canadian border on Jan. 1st of every year, and punch those Canadians in the face, who don't like the government of the United States', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law?

Well, dear reader, if the government of the nation where you are an earthly citizen enacts a law that says 'some of our citizen's must sign up with our nation's military and go kill people that the nation's political leader's designate as 'the enemy'', then is the disciple of Jesus going to obey that law? Why is this last example different from the previous examples? Compare the command of the nation to kill others, against Jesus' commands in Matt. 5:38ff. What the disciple of Jesus will do is to agree with the plain truth of Jesus' commands, and reject the commands of Paul (link to Are Paul's Writings Flawless?) and the world political entity.

Jesus commands his disciples to "love their enemies" and to "not resist an evil person". If a nation commands a disciple to hate their enemy (other people in neighboring nations), which command is epitomized by being commanded to kill them, then the disciple must obey Jesus' commands, and not the nation's command. For Jesus says, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other." (Matt. 6:24) When two conflicting commands are issued between Jesus and any other authority including the alleged authority of a man named Paul (link to Are Paul's Writings Flawless?), the true disciple of Jesus will always obey Jesus' commands over the other's, no matter what the ramification. What do you think was the primary reason that millions of martyr's over the centuries died by the hand's of world's governments and religious kingdoms? The primary reason was for disobeying the commands of the nation's or religious kingdoms in which they were living - which commands contradicted Jesus' commands.

Centurion Arguments

Those wishing to justify hating one's enemy - which hatred is epitomized by war and the killing of others - and thus looking to nullify Jesus' commands in Matt. 5:38ff, will often turn to the examples of the centurions in the New Testament. The argument goes something like this: "since John the baptist, and Jesus spoke to these men, and the centurions (roman soldiers) were either commended for their faith, and/or they were not told to forsake their jobs, then hating and thereby killing others by serving in a military is justified." The argument might come in slightly different forms, but this is the central thrust of it. Let's take a look at this argument.

First, and foremost, as the argument is put forth above, it is an invalid argument, because the premises do not support the conclusion. The first premise, John the baptist and Jesus commending men for their faith in Jesus, does not mean they approved of all of the men's works, including their sinful works. For example, God clearly approved of King David, and that in spite of King David's sin - the taking of multiple wives (2 Sam. 5:13 in light of Deut. 17:17); the murdering of women and children (1 Sam. 27:9-12); lying (1 Sam. 27:10); the unnecessary torture of captives (1 Chron. 20:3); the adultery with Bathsheba, and the murder of Uriah. Yet God STILL characterizes David as, "a man after My own heart" (Acts 13:22) and that in spite of David's sin. Why, because of God's mercy due to David's faith, and the humble and contrite heart it produced.

The second premise, that because John the Baptist and Jesus did not command the centurions to leave their jobs, again does not mean they approved of the centurion's hating (and thereby hurting) those who made themselves their enemies. In regard to John the Baptist, he was not a disciple of Jesus - he was not a partaker in the new covenant - and thus he was ignorant of some of the teachings of Messiah (Matt. 11:2, 3, 11). John was the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, since he had the privilege of introducing Israel to her Messiah (Matt. 11:11). So, when John was speaking to Centurions, he was speaking as a prophet under the old covenant, not as a disciple of Jesus. John knew the Lord was using the Romans to prepare his people Israel to receive the Messiah, and thus he did not spend his time rebuking gentiles, but rather rebuking and exhorting Israel in order to get her ready to receive Messiah. Under the Old Covenant, the Lord regularly used pagan nations to chastise Israel, so why would John have had a problem with the centurion being used in that way? Again, John was not speaking as a disciple of Jesus to the centurions, but rather as an old covenant prophet.

In regard to Jesus, it is noteworthy that nowhere in the gospels do you see Jesus individually commanding a disciple to leave specific sins. He universally and generically commands all his disciples not to sin, but He did not, during his earthly ministry, point out the specific sins of his disciples or the specific sins of those responding to his grace. Even the adulterous woman at the well in John 4 is not told to leave or to marry the current man she is living with (John 4:16-21). One could infer that from his question, but He certainly did not plainly command her. Thus we can see the invalidity of the 'because they did not command the centurions to leave their jobs' argument. Let's apply that argument to the woman at the well in John 4. Since Jesus did not tell her to stop fornicating (akin to Jesus not telling the centurion to leave his job), this means that Jesus condones fornication or adultery (akin to Jesus approving of the centurions using force against their enemies). The error of this argument should be obvious. The Lord is gracious and merciful, and He speaks to people at the level they can receive (John 16:12). Jesus commended the centurions for their faith, but this does not mean that He either approved of all their works, or He approved of their being centurions.

Again, just because Jesus didn't tell them at the point the scripture records the discourse, that they should love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, does not mean Jesus condones the hating of one's enemies. Thus, as we have seen, the principle of 'because Jesus did not tell the centurions to stop a particular behavior, then Jesus approves of the behavior', is shown to be a faulty principle of interpretation. If the centurion's "job" (after he became a disciple of Jesus, and was no longer ignorant of all of Jesus' commands) would lead him to break Jesus' commands in Matt. 5, then he would forsake that "job" and follow Jesus in the way of the cross (1 Pet. 2:20-23). After all, Jesus does command his disciples to "pick up your cross and follow Me." (Matt. 16:24). And He also commands that his disciples not use the sword to advance his kingdom (Matt. 26:51-52). To be in a position of being in a nation's military for the purpose of coercively ruling over them by use of, or threat of , the sword, is NOT a position a disciple of Jesus could hold in good conscience, since his Master command's otherwise (Matt 5:38ff).

Finally, and in general, interpreting the scripture by implication from silence, or deduction from inference, is a very weak principle to stand on, especially when we have the clear and plain Words of the Master which contradict the alleged implication or inference (Matt. 5:38ff).

What About Jesus' Command to Buy a Sword?

Some would argue that Luke 22:36-38 justifies joining an organization of the world whose purpose it is to "defend" a nation by killing those which it views as politically opposing it. The verse says the following, "Then He [Jesus] said to them [His disciples], 'But now he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end.' So they said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.' And He said to them; 'It is enough.'"

Let us agree upon what these verses do plainly teach. First, clearly Jesus does say that his disciples could have swords, and in fact He does command them to buy a sword. However Jesus gives us the reason he gave that command. He says, "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.'" So, what Jesus is saying is that he must be numbered with the transgressors, so he says in effect, 'go ahead and buy swords so that you will be considered rebels-insurrectionists-transgressors when the religious leaders come to arrest me'. In this way, Jesus will fulfill the prophesy about Messiah being numbered with the transgressors. It is that simple and this fits the context of that passage the best.

The most important principle in properly interpreting the scripture is context and cross reference with other scripture. The context of this passage is NOT some political statement, nor some statement about defending a nation. Rather, it is a statement about Jesus fulfilling Messianic prophesy about being numbered with transgressors.

We know from Matt. 5:38ff, that Jesus teaches that his disciples are not to resist and evil person. In other words, they are not to resist carnal attacks against their individual person. In addition, Jesus does say, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13). Is there a contradiction between these two commands? The implication in that verse is sacrifice for others, and the phrase, "to lay down one's life", certainly does infer a physical sacrifice. Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus teaches that it is all right to defend those 'innocent' (meaning they did nothing to directly or indirectly cause the attack against them) people around you (friends), against harm. The example frequently given is a child who is attacked as you are walking somewhere. Love would require that you attempt to defend that child from harm, by intervening and putting yourself in between the child and the attacker in order to stop the child from being harmed. As a disciple of Jesus, I am not to retaliate against an attack against myself, and I ought to lay down my life (give it away, not try to take someone else's life) to defend those innocents in my family/community against harm.

In no reasonable way could the Luke 22 passage be interpreted to justify the nullification of Jesus' commands in Matt. 5:38ff. To try to argue that laying down one's life to protect an innocent friend or neighbor from spontaneous aggressors is the same as killing those whom you don't even know, and whose crime entails politically offending a government of the world, is irrational at best.

What About Having A Non-Combat Job In A Nation's Military?

There are some organizations which the disciple of Jesus could not be a part of based upon the stated or recognized purpose of the organization, no matter what function they perform in that organization. For example, a disciple of Jesus could not be a cook at a "nude strip entertainment" establishment, or ever the janitor at such a place. The purpose of the organization is directly contrary to Jesus' commands. As another example, a disciple of Jesus could not be an employee for an abortion "doctor", even if their function had nothing to do with the actual killing of unborn babies e.g. cleaning the bathrooms of the facility. The purpose of the organization is directly contrary to Jesus' commands. One last example would be an employee with some boxing association which promotes boxing. The purpose of the organization is directly contrary to Jesus' commands to love one another.

Well, what about a nation's military? What is the purpose of the organization? Is it to use physical force against people whom a world's government label's as 'the enemy'? Can the disciple of Jesus, in good conscience, agree with, or work to support the purpose of the organization? Does Jesus issue any commands that contradict the purpose of the organization? What about Matthew 5:38ff? Will the military accept a disciple of Jesus telling them, upon joining, that the disciple will only perform job's which do not support combat in any way? Will the military accept a disciple of Jesus telling them, upon joining, that he believes that the purpose of the organization is inherently sinful and against God's law of love? Could the disciple of Jesus be a part of an organization whose purpose is to use force to coerce by force of carnal weapons, the enemy into submission? Would a true disciple of the One who commands that we love our enemies, want to be part of such an organization?

These questions, if answered in light of the Light's Words, will provide the reader with God's will on this issue. And what should be plain is that the disciple of Jesus could not be part of an organization whose core purpose is to use carnal weapons to force/kill and thus subdue a political enemy designated by a world's nation or kingdom.

What About a Police or "Peace" Officer?

What is the purpose of the police department? It is to enforce the law by means of force or threat of force i.e. using carnal weapons. While God does ordain, in his sovereignty, governments to execute justice to keep the world from destroying itself, this is NOT an endorsement of the disciple of Jesus using carnal weapons. The disciple of Jesus is not of the world, nor is he part of the world's organizations which have as their purpose, using physical force against others. Let us turn to one more example to illustrate the fact that "serving" as a police officer would bring you into conflict with Jesus' commands in Matt. 5:38ff.

If the police officer is commanded by his department that under certain circumstances, he is to draw his gun and shoot someone, how does that command square with Matt. 5:38ff? Essentially, the police officer is trained that "if a 'suspect' does not comply with your commands, then he should be considered hostile to you (i.e. your enemy), and you are to use whatever means of force are necessary to subdue him, including deadly force". What does Jesus say to do to your enemies, in Matt. 5? He commands we love them and thus be kind to them! Again, having an allegiance to a world's organization is no justification for disobeying Jesus' commands. Let the Lord work through the world's governments as He sees fit, but you, disciple of Jesus, come out of the world and it's kingdoms, and serve Jesus and his Kingdom of God - through his Family ONLY.

Conclusions

Again, one will only be able to see these simple truths if one can see a distinction between the two kingdoms - the Kingdom of God, or the kingdom(s) of this world. The disciple of Jesus has only ONE allegiance, and it is NOT to religious leaders, Paul, the world, or the world's nations, governments, kingdoms, organizations or corporations. The disciple of Jesus has only ONE kingdom he/she is commanded to be a part of, that is the kingdom of God - his Family. If the believer must seek employment in the world, he should do so keeping the commands of the Lord near his heart. We should be careful not to be part of the world's organizations which will place us in the position of having to disobey Jesus' commands. And the true disciple of Jesus cannot be part of an organization whose stated purposes run contrary to Jesus' commands.

If you understand the following truth given by Jesus, you will have no problem receiving his commands as given in this article. In regard to kingdoms, Jesus says this, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36). Jesus' kingdom is presently ruled by a King who is seated in heaven, and that King plainly teaches that his Kingdom is manifest in his ekklesia/called out ones, and that his called out ones do not fight to advance or protect his kingdom. If anyone cares to examine ekklesia history, one will see this principle lived out again and again. The true Family of Jesus always grows under persecution and martyrdom. When lost people see disciples of Jesus laying their lives down for their love for the Lord, and willingly being martyred for Jesus, then they are seeing the most powerful witness possible. In fact, in seeing the martyrs, the lost have seen the same, powerful witness of the gospel that one will see when looking at Jesus willingly laying down his physical life in order to go back and be with his Father.

The world, and the worldly "christians" might call Jesus' commands of non-resistance, "cowardly". Of course, if they were going to be rational about it, then they would be forced to label Jesus and his martyrs the same way. In fact, Jesus commands his disciples that when they are persecuted in one place to flee to another to get away from the wicked persecution of those who walk in darkness (Matt. 10:23, 23:34). What the blind cannot see, is that there is no greater faith, nor faith empowered courage, than to believe Jesus' Words and to lay down one's life due to one's love for Him or a friend. As Jesus' disciples, we don't kill others to advance his kingdom, since his kingdom is advanced only by his holy love. And when other's want to kill us for loving the Lord Jesus, then we allow them to send us Home, for to be with our Father is our heart's desire anyway.

The world screams "justice", all the while blind to their own sin. The truth is, if God gave the people who demand justice what they deserve, then God would be forced to send them to hell. Of course, if God gave everyone who ever lived the justice they deserve, then He would be forced to send everyone who ever lived to hell, except his only begotten Son. Fortunately for mankind, the LORD God is merciful, and has made a Way for each person to escape the justice they deserve. That Way is Jesus the Messiah, and by falling down before Him, begging for forgiveness, trusting in Him as Lord and Savior, and following him back to the Father. In this Way, we will be spared the justice we deserve applied to us.

That which calls itself Jesus' church in the USA is currently in active idolatry towards the nation in which they exist. "Service" in the military is looked upon as good and right in God's sight by the vast multitudes shuffling into religious buildings. Their love for their country is greater than their love for Jesus and his plain commands as discussed in this article. Sadly, it can be said of the "church goers" today, what was said long ago about the people of Israel, "So they feared the LORD, and from every class they appointed for themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the shrines of the high places. They feared the LORD, yet served their own gods…" (2 Kings 17:32-33)

May the remnant who still can see the Real Jesus and his commands, follow his and his Way back to the Father. "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." (John 12:25)