posted July 24, 2004 03:59 PM              

I shudder to think what would have happened to the world had the Europeans possessed WMD during their fanatical years. There was a time when the Muslims thought we were barbaric and bloodthirsty and fanatical. They were right. There was a time when our religion called for a jihad. My point is not to dismiss their insanity by pointing out ours. Rather to state my suspicion that all religions seem to go through this fanatical phase.

26 ~ I respect your love of peace. However, I would submit that there is real evil in the world. And it must be fought and stopped. Hitler had to be stopped. There was no negotiating with the man. Napolean had to be stopped. Speaking of Napolean, here's a good story.
One upon a time there was a man named Friedrich Staps, a German living during the reign of Napolean. He was a member of the Germanenorden, an elite group who understood the both the physical and spirtual dangers Napolean presented. One day Friedrich learned that Napolean would be inspecting his troops at Schonbrunn and he decided to confront the tyrant. Staps stepped forward to hand Napolean a petition and was stopped by the guards. He was searched and found to be carrying along knife (no WMDS in those days ) With a translator, the curious Napolean questioned Staps himself:

"Why did you want to kill me?"

"Because you brought misfortune to my country."

"Have I harmed you in anyway?"

"As much as you have harmed everyone in Germany."

"Who incited you to this crime?"

"No one. I armed myself because I was firmly convinced that by killing you I would render the greatest service to my country and to Europe."

"You are mad or else ill."

"I am neither."

Surprisingly, Napolean then offered to pardon him.

" I do not wish to be pardoned. I regret I did not succeed."

"But tell me, if I pardoned you, would you be grateful?"

"I would still want to kill you just as much."

Of course he was killed. His last words were, "Long live liberty"

My point is this 26, sometimes there are monsters. And sometimes the monsters need to be stopped -provided that all consequences are accepted. (Staps did not run. He accepted his fate.) Hitler needed to be stopped. The sadness lies in the deaths of all those Germans who were infected with his poison and hardly knew it.

posted July 24, 2004 04:05 PM            

With regards to my question:

quote:

---

Why won't some consider the impediments to peace, which are certainly relevant to any discussion of peace itself?

---

quote:

---

Great question.
Why don't you start? I'd like to know.

---

I will try to not get frustrated, but I don't believe you are processing my words in the way I intended them. However, they are so direct that I'm at somewhat of a loss as to how to restate it so that you may comprehend my intended meaning.

You state that peace is possible, and post some flowering quotes - great. In response, someone brings up things that get in the way of peace, not to be a burr under your saddle, but to say, "what about this?". When someone brings up impediments to peace, such as Jwhop did, you tend to ignore them entirely. However if peace is to ever be possible, those things that get in the way of peace must be considered, yet some (such as yourself, Rain, etc) tend to adopt what appears to me to be a blinders-on attitude to any and every impediment to peace.

The conservatives try to say, "yes, we want peace too, but ___________________ (fill in relevant impediment), and what would you have us do about that". When we do so, your response varies from facetiousness to downright militant, none of which includes actually adressing said impediment. So that question should perhaps have been stated, "why do you and those who are like-minded, refuse consider impediments to peace and discuss them?"

posted July 24, 2004 04:28 PM              

Thank you for the bedtime story mommy! You said your point was that there are monsters in the world. WoooooW!!!! Boogie men too??? Oooooohhhh!!! And we have to stop them. Indeed we do. I go about it in a different way.

I have to go to work but will be back.......
LingOL

posted July 25, 2004 01:05 AM              

No, if I was resorting to calling you names they wouldnt be "Tinkle". You two are smarter than that! Nice try though. I don't have any bad names I wish to call you either.

I DO love you Tink. I just logged on quickly, before I went to work earlier, and read your post and it made me laugh at the way you worded it towards me, like I am a child, and don't understand anything. It was cute. I found humor in it as I do most things. That's all.

I never thought "Tinkle" would come off as an insult. It was just the moment I was in, like how I call Philbird - "Philbirdie".
No harm meant!!!

I like to have a little fun sometimes, you know, lighten things up a bit.

posted July 25, 2004 02:40 AM              

It reminds me of a fountain...

posted July 25, 2004 08:27 AM              

Still that didn't fall in line with the beliefs of some of you here, doesn't jibe with your way of seeing the world.

Just as we have systematically been divided throughout the world by differing belief systems, so too have we been divided HERE. Not by embracing different beliefs, it is NATURAL and each man's right to believe what he will.

No, the division comes about because we spend so much time looking for points within another's words that we can quote and argue against, that we've forgotten to listen, shut our mouths and consider.

Tell me your perspective jwhop! Tell me what you think and how you feel! Is it absolutely necessary that your opinions be presented as a counterpoint to my own? Is it absolutely necessary that one point out what's wrong with another's position in order to bolster what it is that they believe in, people?

There must have been SOMETHING that you found appealing about your point of view! By all means, show me what's good about it. Show me what's beneficial about it and how it goes about making life a better thing to live. I wasn't around when you formed it, so why must MY opinions be sullied and belittled in order for yours to be valid?

THAT is what creates the divisiveness that you sensed on the other thread, and THAT is what creates negative feelings and petty bickering around here.

We all have something to say, but if what we have to say stops being a pen, and becomes only a sword with which we can dominate another's beliefs, then we achieve NOTHING with those words. A man will not listen to one who attacks his beliefs. The pen IS mightier than the sword for this reason...it is passive and allows each person to take from its offerings what he will, and leave what he does not care to take with him.

That's my piece...

posted July 25, 2004 12:54 PM              

My question is, how can your personal ideal (ie- not taking a life) be effectively applied in a country where our leaders are charged with protecting the mass population from harmful aggression? It might be ok for you (and when I say "you", I mean "you" specifically, not just a general term) to lay down and die but what about the family next to you? They most likely do not believe what you believe and would be outraged if our national leaders explained to them that they would no longer be afforded any protection from possible invading forces because the government believes that killing is wrong. I for one, would be extremely alarmed. Our government has the sometimes unfortunate and thankless task of protecting the people, which involves potentially defending their lives, which involves the act of killing. I understand if you personally decide to forego and type of defense and choose instead to have your present physical life come to an end at the hands of whomever. This is your choice and yours alone. And as I said, I do see a lot of merit in standing by your convictions. However, your own personal belief is not one that the people at large share - and for better or for worse, this is what the government (at its best) must take into account when deciding upon an appropriate course of action. They have a responsibility to protect us. I for one would not live in a country where this was not the case. So while your belief does have its own personal merit, I do not at this time see how it can really be applied on a global basis. I've thought about it at length and I still cannot come up with any reasonable answer.
So maybe I should rephrase the question to you..... Do you believe that the United States government should annihilate their military forces, thereby renouncing the act of murder, but by extension, placing all of our lives at risk? Do you think this would be right and if you could snap your fingers and make it happen, would you? And if so, would it not be a kind of dictatorship, given that most people WOULD defend their own lives if they could and that democracy is based on a "majority rules" concept? I say dictatorship in the sense that you would be making a decision based on what you alone think is right and not what the majority thinks is right.

I realize I am taking this line of thinking to a whole new level but my motivation in doing so is to try to understand where you are coming from. In other words, are you views strictly personal, and is there a contentedness to leave them at that? Or would you see fit to apply these views on a global level (the majority of which does not see eye to eye with you) and if so, then why? Furthermore, if so, would you be admitting that the idea of a democracy is flawed?

And one last statement before I go:
To turn the tables a bit, if I were the leader of a country where the majority preferred NO military force whatsoever, I WOULD act in the interest of these people and disband. Mind you, on a personal level, I would disagree with this action. But given my role as a leader and abiding by the laws of democracy, I would act in manner consistent with these beliefs. Since I have put forth my views in this imaginary scenario I just created, it is clear that I think that there is a right answer and a wrong one. In that sense, I am biased. But I am not so biased that I would not consider changing my mind after analyzing an alternate solution - one which I may not have thought of as yet. So, I am interested in what you have to say and am not trying to set up a "trap". I am just trying to understand to the best of my ability and would very much appreciate your in depth views on the matter.......

posted July 25, 2004 09:21 PM              

People respond to respect. They respond to affirmation, and they respond positively to positive responses, EVEN if those responses may contradict their own views.

Thank you, you two. This is the first time I haven't felt like leaving this forum in a long time.

Love,

posted July 26, 2004 01:34 AM              

I want to address these questions - and will. But not tonight, I had a long night at work and I'm really tired. Just wanted to pop back in and see what's been going on.

posted July 26, 2004 05:42 PM            

I "think" you got off far, far more lightly than your comments deserved, so I "think" you're still somewhat ahead of the game.

I "think" you have delivered the single most insulting remark that could be made on a site devoted to spirituality, namely that some here are possessed by or actively working with demonic forces of darkness. Nothing you could say on a site like this could be more outrageous or insulting.

I "think" I've expressed my opinion clearly on your unfortunate thread and I "think" It's a subject better left to die a quick death and that's what I suggest. Up to you though.

I "think" you "feel" I have the need to be a counter to your positions. I "think" you should "rethink" that because your positions in no way threaten my self image, my perceptions of America, the world or the Universe. In short, I know what I "think" and why I "think" what I "think", at least to the degree one can actually know the will and purpose of the Universe.

Lashing out with your accusation of demons on LL is more an indication your image of yourself, your value system and/or your perceptions, which are probably all tied up together in a nice red ribbon, are in jeopardy by concepts posted here, or you "feel" they are.

Now, let me don my demon's cloak of invisibility again and say I actually had a good laugh when you self appointed yourself to the status of a Moses like character and offered to lead all the children of Linda Land out of the wilderness....to the Promised Land, Ho.

I "think" I may have misjudged you though because I also saw where you would not be leaving our sides and thought immediately of Hebrews 13:5, "for He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." I then thought you might be angling for an even higher office.

When you had your epiphany and the scales were miraculously lifted from your eyes so you could see those demons of the dark forces at work here at LL, are you sure it was the heart or mind of God you brushed up against? I must ask because I've read what you said here: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000472.html
and I recognize an agitated and angry spirit when I see it.

posted July 26, 2004 07:42 PM            

That it is impossible to achieve on a wholesale level because of human nature - specifically, human psychology. Do I want to see Peace take over the world? Of course. I would love to see love light and kindness everywhere. But the few screw it up for the many, and I think no matter how much we might want it, and we may live it ourselves, there will never be global peace - not for many lifetimes, and if we DO achieve it, I believe that someone will inevitably come along and screw it up.

These bodies of ours carry so much BS, that only in a kingdom of heaven, or a transcendental plane, can we achieve true lasting Peace.

Those are my thoughts on peace. I will inevitably be demonized as a force of darkenss for this perception. I would argue that I live in reality and hope for idealism to reign. To bring peace about forcibly by insistence defeats the very concept itself - just as there are forces of light, there are forces of darkness (although I don't see it on this site, but whatever) - and one can convert true darkness to light no more than one can sully true light with darkness.

posted July 26, 2004 09:53 PM              

First, daf. I appreciate that you recognized the fact that 26 taurus and I are in fact truly trying to understand each other and not mindlessly perpetuating the "who is a better defender of their beliefs" game, which serves little purpose in terms of getting at the heart of any matter. In recent times, I admit without any pride that I fell victim to these types of games. Hopefully I have learned once and for all that this is not really the way.

Having said all this, jwhop:
I find myself silently cheering in the sidelines when you rush to bring forth all of your well researched ideas and opinions (not in small part because they happen for the most part to jive with my own). So I feel like a total hypocrite because on the one hand I no longer take that type of passionate approach but I love to see it in others. Very strange and not sure why this is, so I will have to figure out what the discrepancy is. No one can be whole if he or she is at conflict within. And the issue I just raised can definitely be classified as a conflict of sorts. Now, even after saying all this, I still think that all the passion in the world will not necessarily bring about understanding, specifically - the meeting of two opposite minds. And as much as I enjoy (even if only vicariously now) the battle of words and wit, I have decided that it doesn't work for me. Not in the sense that I really get to the bottom of anything, that is. Now, if someone is agggressively threatening my life, I would not be concerned with any meeting of the minds but as I have said elsewhere on other threads, we are not at physical risk here on this form. We are simply trying to understand one another. Or at least we should be. Which brings me to my next point:

Isis, there may never be wholesale peace or it may be a long time coming. Or it could happen tomorrow. (Unlikely, but it could). One of the issues I was trying to get at in my post to 26 taurus has to do with the idea of personal peace versus universal peace. In other words, how important is it that the population at large (or even anyone for that matter) agree with one's own personal view of peace? Is your own personal view and application of that view enough? And if it is enough, then isn't their an end to the whole debate?
For example, 26T has made it clear that as far as she believes, she would not bring harm to anyone - either as an aggressor or a defender. Even if her life depended on it. Now, if she is at peace with her views and at peace with this way of being, why does it matter that the world at large disagrees? There may never be wholesale peace but in the world of 26T, there WILL be peace because if ever taken to the brink, she would die having lived a life of non violence. So 26T is peaceful, and does it matter that the rest of the world is not? Personally, I think one should stand by one's beliefs for as long as they truly believe there is honor in those beliefs. There is a slight problem though, come to think of it (and the idea just occurred to me just now), in that some of us are charged with protecting the lives of children. Is it just to let them die if they are not old enough to consciously make their own decision in this regard?

posted July 26, 2004 11:20 PM              

Since I never used the words "demon" nor did the words "Moses" or "Lead them" or most of the phrases you mention originate with me, I can only assume that they represent your perception of my intentions.

That being the case, I will also have to assume that the disdain which you seem to have for me, and my actions could only have originated, like these ideas and phrases with something inside of you, an area over which I have no control.

That saddens me, because it takes us years away from days of clever reparte' and fun paging cherished friends on another thread.

I do hope that whatever issues we have between us will eventually be resolved and when that day comes, the anger which you are projecting my way will have subsided. Perhaps along the way, my ability to communicate my intentions will have improved, so that in the future they won't be so easily misconstrued.

You are in my thoughts, old bean.

Love,

posted July 27, 2004 12:42 AM            

quote:

---

There are individuals on this site who have just been hanging around with the wrong sorts of people or dabbling with the wrong sorts of secrets. Their confusion, curiosity or ignorance has led them to become "tools" if you will. Puppets of forces that have no power except the ability to manipulate the human mind using confusion and misinformation. This sort of "infection" is contagious.

---

quote:

---

These forces that I'm speaking of are spiritual, but they DO have an organized human group doing their work here in the physical realms. I don't believe any of the people we've identified are THAT sort of "tool", just unwitting pawns mostly.

---

quote:

---

There are folks who do their dirty work willingly, and there are others who think they're just doing "what they want to" when in fact they're also doing what these entities want them to.

---

You were talking about the djinn Dafremen, evil spirits, demons and demon possession. Your word, djinn, not mine.

It was also you who introduced your ego into the mix and megalomania, not me, though I'm prepared to take your word for it.

Words have definite meanings and you've made it perfectly clear what you meant. You also made known your intentions........to drive those who disagree with you off the site or shut them up.

Demonization is an old, old tactic, a tactic with which I'm very familiar along with the motives behind it.

Everyone gets off the beam once in a while Dafremen. Mostly, we apologize and get it behind us. We usually don't continue to defend the indefensible or claim the real problem lies within another.

My problem with what you said has nothing whatsoever to do with any internal conflict within myself. I'm almost never internally conflicted. All my personal planets are in their natural signs...except my Leo Moon which is in perfect harmony with my Leo Sun.

Note, my problem is with what you said, not the essence of who or what you are. We will agree on some things and disagree on other issues. I'm ready to move on. I've had my say and I don't hold grudges nor disdain for individuals here, so perhaps we will have discussions under different circumstances, on other issues.

posted July 27, 2004 05:41 AM              

I don't think that my personal viewpoint of not wanting to harm or kill another human being is "noble" at all. I actually think it is "normal". But as a majority, we are not normal, we are extremely dysfunctional. And for the most part, very far from our centers. I do not believe human beings as a whole want to harm other human beings. It is not in our true nature. At our true core, we are not maliciously harmful creatures. We have all strayed so far from our "true selves", that we have completely forgotten what normal is.

We have no idea of who we really are. Man has borrowed his personality from many sources. He is his parents, his church, his politics, his university. The list goes on. But who are we really? I say "we" because there is no I, no you, no me - only we (don't want to go too much into this - it would take too long). Man is not allowed to be who he was truely born to be. He is born into expectations, intentions - intentions of what the world wants him to be. We must do as we are told, work a 9 to 5, follow the rules, and fight just to survive. Naturally man does not like this. Deep down he wants to be himself (even if he doesnt remember what that is) - he feels it. And the world and society does not allow man to be by nature what he is supposed to be. It molds us to be the efficient robot's it needs us to be. Okay I'm going off track here........

You asked:

quote:

---

My question is, how can your personal ideal (ie- not taking a life) be effectively applied in a country where our leaders are charged with protecting the mass population from harmful aggression?

---

We shouldnt need anyone or government to defend us. (I know what you are thinking "But we do!" I'll get to that after) "They have the responsibilty to protect us." .. ? ..Only because we have given them that power - at the same time they have TAKEN more of it than we have asked them to! WE, actually need to take the responsibility of protecting ourselves! But we are lazy - in my opinion. Lazy, confused, brainwashed, liars - to ourselves. We lie to ourselves and let them lie to us. We believe we cannot make it on our own - we need a government or we won't survive. Yeah right! No way! We need to grow some back bones people! We need to WAKE UP out of our stupid slumbers.

Like I said before I don't know it all. I don't know how to make the terrorists change and become peace loving freaks like myself. I don't think they can be talked into it, nor should they be. Like I said before I don't ever want to change anyone - not even a terrorist!! ("Oh my! She's really lost it now!" ) The terrorist is also my brother - but he is SICK. The world is SICK. We need HELP! Where do we get it? Who do we turn to? NO ONE except ourself. Change starts within, and will inevitably spread without. The only way I see this crazy train we are on - that is heading to it's destruction - coming to a halt, is by each of us transforming ourselves. Stop worring about changing your brother! God!! Change yourself. We are all connected whether you think so or not. Threads in a cloth, woven together - when you damage one thread it affects the whole cloth. Blah, blah, you've heard it all before. You get the point. It is simple but TRUE.

Okay, moving on.....

quote:

---

"Do you believe that the United States government should annihilate their military forces, thereby renouncing the act of murder, but by extension, placing all of our lives at risk? Do you think this would be right and if you could snap your fingers and make it happen, would you?"

---

Yes.
Yes and No.

To the last question, my reply is:
Yes to: "do you think it would be right?" For many reasons. We shouldnt be there in the first place and it would just be right, yes.
And no to: "if you could snap your fingers and make it happen would you?" I would want it to happen when it came from within the individuals in the government and within the citizens of the world's hearts and spirits. I would like to see them awake from within to finally see that this isnt the true path that the world should be walking down. It would be pointless, if we all didnt truly understand it from within. We have lost sight of truth and gotten ourselves in a huge mess. And need to start thinking of new paths to cut before we destroy ourselves.

"Is democracy flawed?" Have you read my quoted post entitled "Is Democracy Freedom?" This will help you understand where I stand on this issue.

I really could go on and on, but this will have to do.

So as you can see I have a deeper perspective on the picture at large. (I don't mean deeper than you, just in general) I'm not interested in politics. I don't involve myself in "politics" or "ticions". I feel I also have a clearer view of the picture because I feel I am less "brainwashed" if I may, than alot of people. I say this because I did not grow up going to church, I didnt live in a household where politics were preached, or one where much television was allowed to be watched. I decided to drop out of high school, went to college and had a 4.0 GPA and dropped out of there too, found my own way instead of letting others take the lead. My life started with more of an open path than average and I have found a "way" - for me - and that's all that matters. I have not allowed others make my choices. Oh, life has delt me quite a hand, and I've done alot of work and searching, but I'm proud of who I am and how I've picked myself up after being knocked down hard over and over again. No one can convice me otherwise of the things I have come to learn are true to me and my heart. In 26 years I have come a long way, and no one here will convince me that peace cannot be achieved and war is the only way.

I hope I have answered your questions. Well, I have I guess, they are my answers - so I did.
I'll leave you with this, please read it.

quote:

---

People go on talking about freedom, but they don't want freedom exactly, they want irresponsibility. They ask for freedom, but deep down, unconsciously, they ask for irresponsibility, licence. Freedom is maturity; licence is very childish. Freedom is possible only when you are so integrated that you can take the responsibility of being free. The world is not free because people are not mature.

Revolutionaries have been doing many things down through the centuries, but everything fails. Utopians have been continuously thinking of how to make man free, but nobody bothers -- because man cannot be free unless he is integrated.

Only a Buddha can be free, a Mahavira can be free, a Christ, a Mohammed can be free, a Zarathustra can be free, because freedom means the man now is aware. If you are not aware then the state is needed, the government is needed, the police is needed, the court is needed. Then freedom has to be cut from everywhere. Then freedom exists only in name; in fact it doesn't exist. How can freedom exist when governments exist? -- it is impossible.

So when I say 'freedom', I mean be responsible. The more responsible you become, the more free you become; or, the more free you become, the more responsibility comes on you. Then you have to be very alert to what you are doing, what you are saying. Even about your small unconscious gestures you have to be very alert -- because there is nobody else to control you, it is only you. When I say to you that you are free, I mean that you are a God. It is not licence, it is tremendous discipline.
Osho, The Beloved, volume 2, chapter 10

---

posted July 27, 2004 08:29 AM              

(If you've read ANYTHING that I've written then you KNOW the former to be the case.)

When SEVERAL people had brought this subject up, only to have it swept under the table here at Lindaland, it seemed it was time for a more drastic approach. I took that approach. Apparently it got your attention, and has gotten the attention of others. Did it create division? Well certainly our exchange right now shows that it created animosity directed at ME.

Am I responsible for that animosity? To a certain extent, YES. Still the fact that a large number of Knowflakes were able to see past the rhetoric and podium dramatics to the heart of the communication shows that whatever misinterpretation there was was NOT necessary. That includes your OWN. Could I have gotten everyone's attention in a different manner? Yes and no. I could have, but not with the same effect, that effect being a sincere and emotional response.

I have always held you in the highest esteem and will continue to do so. Your reaction to my actions is not something that I can allow myself to embrace as a reaction to me, you've said yourself that I shouldn't and so I won't. I'm just going to sit and wait for the anger to subside and let your revised perception of me be whatever it is that you'll let it be, my friend. What else can I do?

Love,