posted July 27, 2004 03:17 PM            

I accept you had good intentions.

So, now we can get back to the reasons we're here on LL.

Best regards,

posted July 27, 2004 04:08 PM              

Your friend,

posted July 27, 2004 08:20 PM              

Peace IS possible.

Love,

posted July 28, 2004 12:47 AM              

KIDDING! ....kidding everone. Yes as jwhop has demonstrated, it is possible. Well done.
(are we rubbing off on you jwhop???? hmmm? )

posted July 28, 2004 10:10 PM              

I've thoroughly read your last posting and like you, am going to take some time to digest it, to fully understand what you are trying to get across. I think I know but I want to be sure before responding. The other thing I am having difficulty with is the matter of "what is" and "what should be". When we live in a world of "what is" and primarily you are coming from a "what should be" point of view. Now, even if you are "right" (I use this term so loosely because it seems it is becoming more and more of a relative classification), the next issue to tackle is the "how" of it, which you partly addressed. And the struggles of living according to your standards in the type of world in which we now live. One other thing I wanted to point out is that when I referred to your way as "noble", I meant so more in the sense that you would go to the extreme. ie- you would willingly give up your life even in the face of an adversary with intentions of killing you. THAT is conviction and that is what I think is of noble character. I was not referring to it as noble in the sense that you simply do not wish to take another's life. Most people would not want to do so unless they perceived an immediate threat to their lives. So I happen to agree with you on this point. In terms of dismantling government, if that is what you believe, you should take steps to act on this (maybe you have). Maybe organize some sort of group to promote a certain level of awareness? I think that could be a start to an answer. Now, mind you, I am still having difficulty in fully embracing what you are really getting at because it is foreign to me. In my heart, I feel it is a better ideal but my problem, as I said, is the "what is" versus the "what should be" issue. And this is what I need to think about further before writing any more. I will try to respond within the next few days as soon as work calms down!!!

posted July 31, 2004 01:47 PM              

******************************************
"The sad truth IS, is that we have leaders that are "charged with protecting the mass population from harmful agression", when if we were living the way we should be we would not need this."
******************************************

Yes, you are right. This is part of the "what is" versus the "what should be" scenario I was talking about. We shouldn't but we do, so now what?

Something else you wrote which I would like to respond to:

*******************************************
"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!"
*******************************************

I agree with you to some extent here. We have given the government that power. We would have to take the responsibility for protecting ourselves if this were not the case. That is, if there were no military and if there was ever a need to protect ourselves from threat, then yes - it would be up to us. But I am a little bit unclear on where this idea fits into your beliefs.
I am unclear because according to your own philosophy, you would NOT protect yourself, right? You would allow yourself to die because of your belief that killing is wrong. So actually, from what I am understanding, based on what you said before, why is there a need to protect ourselves (based on your line of thinking?) There is no protecting. There is just dying. Or is that not what you're saying? I just want to be sure..... Also, I noticed that you mentioned nothing about protecting "others", just ourselves. Were you including "others" in the category of "ourselves"? The reason why I am asking is because it brings me to my next point, which is: What do we do about the problem of protecting children who are too young to really decide for themselves whether or not they want to live or die/kill or be killed? What I am asking is: It may be ok for you to exercise your beliefs in non-violence where only you are concerned, but what about if there were children in the picture? Would you sacrifice your children in a similar way to sacrificing yourself for this belief that you have? I am not implying anything is right or wrong. I just want to know how this fits into the picture from your viewpoint......

And one last comment on another one of your thoughts on disarming....

*******************************************
"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. It would be pointless, if we all didnt truly understand it from within."
*******************************************

On the face of it, what you said above makes sense to me. But given the emphasis you've placed on transforming ourselves as individuals and not worrying about transforming our brothers and sisters, why is there a need to wait until others also feel this within their own hearts? As you said, we place too much energy on "the other" and not enough on "ourselves". If we waited until everyone was in unison on this point, we might be waiting a very long time. Right? That would be sort of like saying, let's wait until government thinks there is a need for a different way, because the people elect the governmment....