DJ said: So, I guess by what you're saying you can think of no circumstance in which you would kill?
No, I haven't said that, it may appear that way, but if you look again I was saying that the natural consequences of killing vs murder are the same - one is dead, one is living with the experience of killing another human being.
What I have also said is that each will do 'whatever' according to their awareness, capacity & willingness, in this moment, and the natural consequences of that will unfold.
What I did ask was -
Is anyone who is killed any less dead than someone who was murdered?
Is anyone's family of someone who was killed, going to grieve and mourn them any less than someone who was murdered?
Is the blood on our hands of someone who was killed, less or more blood than someone who was murdered?
A person who comes into your home & does 'whatever' does so according to their awareness, capacity & willingness. In response others will do 'whatever' in their awareness, capacity & willingness, and then yet others will herald or punish in their awareness, capacity & willingness. All naturally unfolding consequences.
But in the end - in natural consequences of actions --- there is no 'difference' the dead will be dead and the living will be living with the natural consequences of their choices, even if that is holding tightly to the notion that there was no choice.
If violence is our first choice - war on this, war on that, war on everything and everyone else we are choosing to 'maintain' the 'whatever we're at war with' as our enemy or obstacle to our happiness. What we resist, persists.
But planning for 'whatever' making enemy where there is none, that's a whole other layer of insanity. It doesn't have to be that way.
Scotland for instance is having a referendum in September for Independence from the UK. Absolutely there are people whose perspectives align with the for and the against, all within their awareness, capacity & willingness.
This time though (and likely not before time in the Scottish - English differences) it's going to a vote, rather than a war. Regardless of who wins, everybody has already 'won'. If they go to war again, regardless of who wins, everybody loses.
Natural consequences unfold, and even in the asking 'what if' people have begun to share perspectives wisely and peacefully, albeit fear is still being used as well. The dooms-dayers are having a field day, but the clarity of one woman saying you know, so far something like 93 countries have won their independence from 'mother England' and not one of them... not a single one, have asked to come back into the fold. Wonder why?
Only humans get impatient for the natural consequences to unfold and institutionalise 'punishment', or call on fear to impose control over others in 'preparation' for war. This is based not on reconciling differences, but on the love of exerting power over others. In order to maintain this power societies need to keep their citizens in a state of fear, and how better to do that than to call and maintain wars on this, that, the next thing and tell anyone who disagrees with our love of power that they cannot live without us.
E2B said: That war is never a solution because there is always an agenda with war that stems from an unconscious perspective of fear and separation.
And this 'fear and separation' mentality permeates everything.
Eg: In Australia our govts are telling us that the 'age of entitlement' is over - that medical care and welfare support for the disabled, the sick, the unemployed and the retired need to be 'reigned in' because 'we can't afford it' amid an aging population. That job creation or unemployment benefits is not a sure thing any more as it was in the past and that the public purse is stretched to breaking point. That our foreign aid and refugee allowances must also be cut. Bringing down the tightest and cruellest federal budget in our history.
And then, after the Treasurer and his pals have a good suck on their imported cigars, they go into debt to order $12.4 Billion in new war planes, not even being built here and creating jobs, nope, but boosting the coffers of other nation's war industries.
To 'protect' what exactly? This society that promotes these 'values'?
Our govt thinks it's 'value for money' to buy 58 new planes to 'boost' their capacity to what... kill more people, create more refugees, and making sure that its citizens are kept in fear? Oh and just because we have homeless people, men, women, families, returned service personnel, mentally ill, and no room for them in hospitals or shelters, doesn't mean we should spend our public money addressing these issues, don't be silly - it's easier to make 'enemies' of the homeless, the sick, the elderly, the underemployed, the refugees seeking asylum (from wars we participated in and funded), the mentally ill... it's more important to feed and house these new jets.. to the tune of another $1.6 Billion to upgrade two military bases to house them.
And then they say that they're buying these fighter jets in the hope that they don't need to actually use them????
Really??? Excuse me a moment while I go out and buy a tank on credit and build a new wing to my house to garage it ....
....what do you mean the kids want some supper? We don't have money growing on trees you know, and I'll have to put in a new security system to protect the tank, and insure it as well!!
Can you see the ingrained insanity yet?
If we live our lives in fear, making enemy of this and war of that, we'll get to the end of them and realise we haven't lived our lives anyway - what's to protect?
(apart from the new war planes/ tanks that is?)
Hitler would have stayed in power if he was not invaded upon.
Hitler didn't commit all the murders and atrocities himself. In many ways the word as it's used now as a defence for war, the 'label' of Hitler, is used as a scapegoat to continue to allow the abdication of our own awareness, capacity and willingness.
Hitler or any other warmonger has (a lot of) help, with a lot of people buying into, and some even profiting from, the insanity of fear, on both sides, while abdicating their response ability and saying they didn't have a choice. Each responding within their own awareness, capacity and willingness of course, but not looking inward at that, instead reflecting it outward to blame their 'enemy' for 'making them do it'.
E2B said: I was raised part Jewish/part Catholic. So, I have Jewish family who can't understand why I refuse to take a side in the conflict. Maybe because I no longer see the difference between the two sides and only see the fear/belief systems unconsciously at work keeping 'war' alive in the delusion of separation.
There's an interesting poster circulating that says -
if I am horrified at the devastation in Gaza, it doesn't have to mean that I'm anti-Semitic / Israel, or pro Arab / Palestine -
it just means I am human.
DJ said: The prospective that it's not "wrong" to defend the body, against it being killed if one so chooses to defend it.
It's not 'wrong' to do anything. If you feel you have to justify it, you'll just spend your life justifying it whenever you think about it. Spending time and energy and resources justifying it in advance, that's a little crazy (like buying Billions of $$$ worth of war planes you 'might never need', but have them at the ready just in case you do
No choice is wrong, it just brings a different experience.
But, we bring the experiences on our selves. Realising this... just might be 'true enlightenment'.