Violence is not always evil.
Speech can be evil.
Be impeccable with your word.
Your words can cast spells.
Discussion
If violence is wider it is always related with words. For eg dehumanisation is done by words, later its easier for lets say hundred people murder another thousand, w/o dehumanisation hundred might not murder that thousand or after might need to deal with side effects.
that's deception and fraud
🙏
Oh this is so true
“Remembering it is not what comes in the mouth but that which goes out that pollutes.”
Be mindful of both, but more so of what comes out 🤷🏼♀️
I should have said I’m not in agreement with the “cast spell” part.
😊
Brisket woke up and chose eloquence.
*Be impeccable with your word.
Your words can cast spells.*
You can't just say things like that and not give an example. How would you determine when violence is not evil or speech is?
testing zaps for this note… we made six attempts to⚡zap this note, at cmdrkeen@zaps.lol, over a period of 1 minute. in each case, we found that your lightning address service or server did not respond correctly. if you wanted to fix this... you could try getting a free rizful lightning address -- https://rizful.com ... if u get it set up, pls reply here so we can do this ⚡zap test again.
I think I fixed it, can you try again?
Sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me! I have been practicing this spell for years!
All true statements, but add “don’t shoot people for words you don’t like” could also be added after “watch your mouth” advice.
Take nothing personally is the guidance I'd give on hurtful words.
Kirk probably wasn't killed because he hurt someone's feelings though.
I strongly suspect Kirk was killed to supress what he was saying. To stop him & others like him from sharing their truth. These kinds of truths challenge the control structures by elevating an individual's sovereignty.
Action & speech designed to keep humans living in fear & disconnected from the divine is Evil.
Thanks for your response (and your sats)!
Yes, I'm 100% certain that he was killed for his words, because as far as I know, he was not known to be a violent man. His enemies, however, certainly DID interpret his words as violence, enough so that they felt that killing him was an acceptable solution.
Which brings me to your original post, in which you said that violence is not always evil, and speech sometimes is. Clearly you did not mean to justify Kirk's murder with what you said, but not only is it possible to do so, that IS in fact precisely what his enemies are doing.
Now I'm wondering, between actions and words, which do you think has the greater power to keep humans living in fear and disconnected from the divine? To Charlie's enemies, his words WERE speech intended to keep them living in fear, while to his allies, killing him was an action designed to keep THEM living in fear.
This leads me to the conclusion that either one of them is right and the other is wrong (i.e. one side did greater evil than the other), or BOTH are wrong because both did something the other perceived as evil. Clearly they cannot both be right, because both made the other live in fear.
So, what is the solution to this dilemma? Who was more justified in their approach to what they saw as evil?
I'm not trying to justify Kirk's murder but assume you were a sharp shooter deployed to protect him. You spot the sniper, are denied permission to shoot but decide to take him out anyway. Was that violence evil?
Right or wrong is a subjective judgement of another. Evil is another category entirely.
If Charlie's shooter was a lone gunman with hurt feelings or a misguided sense of right & wrong, I'd argue that he's not necessarily Evil - confused & severely limited but not Evil. He may have inadvertently aided Evil by spreading fear but that in itself isn't Evil. The intention behind the action is the evil part.
If there were people manipulating the gunman to strategically remove a threat to their control objective then their action is evil. It's those people who want to keep us distracted, confused or suppressed that are the greater threat.
I find the celebrating of Charlie's murder disturbing & grotesque. These people are confused, driven by fear & probably deluded.
In my mind Evil is a dark energy that moves through people. People aren't Evil but everyone can allow Evil to flow through them. I'm not religious but I really like the bible quote "forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing".
As individuals & warriors of light & Truth, we must be able to spot even the slightest of Evils for what it is. To not feed the evil with more darkness but to shine our light on it.
We are not here to judge or punish, only to choose what it is that we prefer. Find your frequency, hold your frequency & then shine it out onto the world like Charlie did.
💚🫂
Okay, let's think this through: if there WAS a counter-sniper and he'd taken the attacker out before he made the shot, perhaps he would have prevented a much greater evil, but it still would have been murder, because until the moment the killer actually pulled the trigger, he hadn't murdered anyone yet, and after he did, it was too late to stop him. Had he been shot before, he would have died an innocent man, and you could forever cast doubt on whether he would have actually gone through with it, or hesitated at the last second.
What we have hear is by no means and example of justified violence, because it isn't self-defense to kill someone for merely threatening you, just like it wasn't self-defense for him to shoot Kirk for threatening his ideology. It's just different shades of evil. And even if it WAS self-defense, it still doesn't make it good, but merely less regrettable.
For example, the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot in Kenosha may have been thugs who were indeed determined to kill him (and at least one of them was a known pedophile with a prior conviction for sexually abusing boys as young as 9 years old), but we'll never know if perhaps they'd finally managed to turn their lives around if they'd gotten away with their lives (and perhaps a big scare or a near death experience due to surviving a non-lethal shot). George Floyd was no choir boy either, and people still rightly condemned his death as excessive punishment for his crime.
In other words, it seems to me that there can really never be a situation in which violence somehow isn't evil. At best, it can be the smaller of two evils, and therefore it can certainly be forgivable, but it can never be good.
That leaves the question of whether speech can sometimes be evil, to which I'll cite Matthew 5:21-26:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
According to Jesus, murder begins in the heart, and it does indeed first manifest in your words before it escalates into action. Whether Charlie was guilty of this with some his rhetoric I do not know, but clearly his enemies seem to think so (though of course, that doesn't justify their actions). Therefore, it seems most likely to me that both parties were in the wrong here. Which leads me to the conclusion that you were also wrong with your original post, as was the person you were responding to, and the truth is that violence is never not evil, but speech may or may not be.
What do you think of that?
Occams razor: he was killed because furry and friends were offended and considered him “fascist”