Isreal/Palastine conflict

This may be getting a little off the topic since we agree on the aspect that relates to the main post (but since it's my post originally and has been pretty well explored at this point, I feel safe to go on a slight tangent in this case). There have been many people since those great prophets who have claimed to have been called by God and hold their role because they claim God specifically desires them to be the one in that position. For Jews, there are several books in the Bible chronicling the history of different prophets to rise since Moses, each said to be called to God (and in keeping with your observation, each coming at a time of great turmoil). There are also the Kings, starting with David who anointed by the prophet Samuel because God had chosen him, and his many heirs who were then also said to have been called by God by virtue of God originally calling David. In the case of Christianity, the pope is said to be called by God. He is elected by the college of cardinals, but that process is said to be guided by the Holy Spirit. A couple generations ago Pope John Paul I died unexpectedly only a couple months after being elected. It was then said that the cardinals had not listened to the will of God and his death was God setting things right to make sure the correct pope was chosen. In Buddhism, you have the Dalai Lama, who is said to be a god himself, incarnate, who then each life continues to be reincarnated into another human so that he can continue to help humanity. Again, the claim is that he is there by some divine providence, that he and only he has - by divine authority - the ability to fill that role. While I have to admit my understanding of Islam is a bit more limited than some of those other religions (something I'd like to hopefully correct at some point as it really is a bit of a blindspot for me), as far as I understand it the idea of who should rightfully be leading the Muslim world is the central point of contention between the Shia and Sunni Muslims, with the first believing in an order of succession stemming from Mohamed while he latter believing that such a concept is anathema to the teachings of Mohamed.

The idea that someone would claim, even in the modern day, that they have been called upon by God to rise up and deliver a people against [insert claimed enemies of God here] isn't that far fetched. Sure, they're not likely to spawn a whole new religion, but claiming to lead a religion that already exists isn't that out there. That being said, if the current Prime Minister of Israel gets his wish, it all becomes kind of moot.

It's also interesting to note that the Hamas as they are today may not really be what the people of Gaza signed up for not just because they only with something like 40% of the vote but because they also presented themselves as moderate, peaceful leaders when they ran for election. Since there has not been an election since, there's been no way to remove them from power through political means and they reportedly are pretty hostile toward anyone challenging their continued leadership. It was a major topic of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight segment this past week, which makes for an interesting coverage of the topic. His coverage is a little biased against Israeli leadership in particular, though I appreciate that he highlighted something that has come up in our own discussion here as well: in many ways this is a conflict between the leaders more than a conflict between the people. It is a conflict between two extremely unpopular groups of leaders who both hang on a small thread of support, with the citizens on both sides suffering horrific atrocities as a result. His video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ9PKQbkJv8

I think it is also interesting to note that while I agree with your observation that these great prophets came at times of great tragedy, we may indeed be in just such a time, between what is going on globally and what is going on within this specific region contested between Israel and Palestine and the treatment of the people in Gaza, it does seem like this as a pretty ideal backdrop for someone to rise and claim to be the one sent to save them. It may also be true that such individuals rise in all time periods, but the ones who stand out and actually make massive changes are the ones who arrive amidst those kinds of time periods.

ZealotX wrote:

Religious zeal is actually an extension of love which is why it is so often misunderstood. Passion towards one idea can be redirected against another idea that appears to threaten it. I think that's what you're seeing in conversations.
 

Sadly, I worry that it is fear more than love that drives many to overreaction, and perhaps a sense of belonging and crowd psychology. Some are indeed responding to what they see as a great tragedy, immense suffering and are responding to that anyway they can, any way they know how, even if in some cases their responses aren't measured, well thought out, or truly helpful. For many, though, I think there is a drive to support those one is associated with at all costs, and to generalize something that ought not be generalized, such as claiming that criticism of the current Israeli prime minister is an act of anti-Semitism. Some of it, however, may also indeed be people simply not taking a measured or level headed approach, responding as strongly as they can to an outrage. When this goes to the extreme of supporting terrorists, though, this too is problematic.

ZealotX wrote:

I have noticed your skill in conversation. You have the ability to use a soft/subtle force. This is very becoming of a Jedi and reminds me of an old favorite. I appreciate it.
 

Thank you. I try hard to build that skill as I have to argue points that are far more personal than this one, so I really do appreciate you noticing that my efforts building that skill have been paying off. It's one of the reasons I engage in controversial conversations like this when they come up. It's good practice, and in truth is probably in a way itself an answer to my original question of how a Jedi approaches issues like this current Israel-Hamas war.

Firstly, let me apologize for the delay. I was heading off on a vacation out of the country. Second, let me apologize for the lengthy response. I didn't get any deep conversations on the ship and my brain loves this stuff.



Not to split too many hairs there is a slight difference between the "clergy" aspect of "being called by God" (prophets/priests) and the "king" aspect which includes "Jesus" because the claim was that he was a messiah ("king") in the lineage of previous kings. These are more like 2 branches of government like the Judicial Branch is to the Executive. Only some people in history were "Priest Kings"; a combination that made them very powerful.

The weight of the crown is often "of the people" while the "staff" so to speak, is "of God". So when a person rises up from the people and claims the mantle of the position that the people believe "God" has ordained... they are substituting their own authority for the authority of God. Anyone who follows that God must then automatically follow his 'regent' or 'representative'.

But the reason for the splitting of hairs is because this isn't always an easy thing to do. Firstly... messing with the beliefs of the people is the domain of the priests. The pharaoh Akhenaten found this out the hard way because he was under the mistaken belief that he had the... let's call it "political currency" to introduce Atenism which was basically a means of unification of their many religions (polytheism) into one. This may be a more obscure reference but it's essentially the same thing that Constantine did which was also an extension of the Serapis cult that later became Christianity.

Without boring you with too many details, the bottom line is that these efforts come from human nature to conquer and unify to make their control more efficient. But again... easier said than done. Religion isn't just religious. It's also people's culture. And therefore tradition makes it harder to change these things. I'm sure you can already see how that's relevant to Islam.

Kings could normally get away with calling themselves "sons of God" either by claim of divine birth (Ceasar) or likeness to character (David). And sometimes one is misunderstood for the other (Jesus) but this is only permitted by the priests. The priesthood has a quiet check and balance on the king and acts as his advisor. They tell the king what the will of the god(s) is and the king either executes (like a CEO) or does his own thing and risks "defying the gods". But... they understand that a penalty of doing so may carry a shorter life span. So there were checks and balances even in ancient times.

Which means...
 

Neither the role of the priest nor the king can be easily changed. A priest has to claim authority directly from the gods which typically doesn't have a test they have to pass other than the tests of a prophet as well as not upsetting the norms of the culture in terms of belief (this is the reason Jews still exist because they cannot accept the doctrinal changes Christianity tried to institute by incorporating the Serapis cult and pagan admixture into their theology. Otherwise, Judaism could have been wiped out during the fallout of Yeshua's execution). In other words... the priest cannot lose the faith of the people which is a result of their belief. In fact he, the priest (just as Christian pastors today), symbolizes it.

The king, on the other hand, has to claim authority from the priesthood (if exists) or blood lineage to the same. The opposition Yeshua faced from the priesthood of his time was completely valid, by law and by prophetic standards. And he was sold out for sedition because, even though it was a time of turmoil, the priests (which usually represent the nation's wisdom) were wise enough to know that no amount of "emmanuel" (God with us) would be enough to aid them in a fight against the Roman Empire. They weren't stupid or idealistic in that regard. 

The mistake often made by others in this position (such as imams and caliph) is that they don't have the secularism that other priests have had. In other words... The person who claims to speak for God is the person who knows they are articulating a lie. Other people trust them to represent God but out of everyone, it is the person who claims to talk to God, who knows they are at best only speaking to their own conscience. So the people most likely to be atheists or agnostic in many eras are the priests who then substitute their wisdom and knowledge for god(s)'. And going back to my previous theory, this is actually how secular science began; with people who did not believe in gods as being real but rather used them like movie characters to illustrate ancient scientific principles. By creating stories around it, it actually utilized more of the brain, combining logic and creativity, making everything much easier to memorize and teach. As people who study memory often point out, we all have a photographic memory. So the way you use that is by creating pictures to represent the ideas you want to remember (like hieroglyphs?). So I actually don't think this is by mistake but rather by design.

But over time... because of human nature and its desire for power, eventually the science part was communicated less as people sought after positions of power. After all, these were advisors to kings. But again, the mistake people make in this position is often not being agnostic enough and actually drinking their own koolaid. The original priest would not, but their students' students' students absolutely might believe and take their gods literally in a way that they might believe their gods will fight for them. And even for those who don't believe, they can still make others believe that their gods will fight for them. So without separation between church and state these decisions are often corrupted by misplaced faith; that is to say... belief that the strength of their god will make up the difference between the physical might and military capability of their warriors. 

One case to look at is Moses. Why? Because if you follow the story, God helps them fight but there is absolutely ZERO explanation as to how the Israelites came into possession of weapons or the training to defeat a trained army. Any ability to actually do so would more than warrant the fears of the pharaohs that supposedly oppressed them. But yeah who cares about the politics of Egypt, right? The story is told from the Israelites perspective. But this is what's relevant to Islam because any motivation for fighting is also told from their perspective which is a reaction to whatever they see as a barrier to their survival.

Which brings us back to who can lead...

A good leader is actually going to consider and strategize based on the actual military assets they have on the map. A "spiritual leader" may not even know or understand the size and scope of the threat because they religiously reinforce in themselves the idea that "God is the greatest" and therefore every opportunity to conquer impossible odds is an opportunity to prove their God is what they claim to be. And that's dangerous because how many souls will be sacrificed on that battlefield? (And how many will that very same sacrifice recruit?) They may or may not actually care. The religious leaders in Yeshua's time did, if not at least caring for their own hides. But I'm convinced they knew that a rebellion against Rome was folly. That's why they blocked Yeshua even though many others sought to use him for the exact same reason they had to stop him. The truth of the matter is that the people were undecided. Some wanted desperately to fight while others just wanted to survive. The zealots wanted to force the hand of the people by forcing them into a fight that, because of their doomsday cults, they believed was inevitable. And if you research it, you'll find Islam features the same type of theology that enables this (because of course it's based on an older form of Judaism). And so... if you think about it, many of the Muslim "terrorists" are mimicking the same sort of activities of the zealots. Same programming.


So now, understanding the history somewhat, we can see that modern people trying to take over these traditional roles becomes problematic. They can't change their religion. And religion cannot be allowed to fully operate the government. Attempting to do so would be like trying to run modern PC games on Windows 3.1. It was never designed to operate in the modern world. That's why it relies on modern teachers to try and interpret it in a way that makes it still relevant. But it's not like it was built for it and it's not like it receives regular updates every year like iPhones and Operating Systems. People have to hide the fact that it's not truly compatible anymore; especially with modern diplomacy. In all likelihood, this is probably the true reason for the Android vs iPhone split... I mean... Sunni vs Shia. These ancient religions were actually built for global domination. (is this really any different from Google vs Apple?) They were simply stopped by each other from achieving that singular aim. And yes, that also includes Christianity. While on vacation in Cozumel our Mayan descendant tour guide, with permission, told the group about how Catholics were involved in what happened to the Mayans. Again, global domination. That's what they're built for because that's what their creators envisioned. They cannot change this any more than I can design and release the next version of Windows without even working for Microsoft. You have to be in it to change it and you can't be in it without accepting it for what it is. And everyone who accepts it... follows the program.

Note: the best you can do is try to reform from within. That was Yeshua's intent; however, it should be pointed out that his ideas weren't original.

This can create a strange sort of political science. But once you understand the religious politics I think it's easier to understand how that affects the geo-politics. It's still the same religion underneath the hood, but it's patched and manipulated and that's why leaders have to get elected one way while "legitimizing" themselves with the hardliners in other ways. This is like trying to appease both liberal Democrats and MAGA Republicans at the same time. You can't do it without deceiving one or playing both sides. It just looks a little different when gods are involved. In such a backdrop, "freedom fighters" become terrorists and even Hitler himself can be defended as simply being a tough nationalist. People priorities towards human rights often get challenged when they feel like their nation is threatened. And while Islamic people may not want to threaten such, the PROGRAMMING, you see... the programming they're operating under isn't fully compatible with peace; even if they are.

That's why religions are dangerous. An operating system can be a very useful thing. But as I said... If it is too old... if it cannot evolve... then people can get stuck in the past and become tragically loyal to ancient thinking. That's why I have to love and respect the aspect of the US Constitution that admits fallibility (not something a Pope can even do without challenging his own office) and says this is a LIVING document that can be changed. This allows the nation to evolve with the times, not against it. It is the reason why the US and other modern European countries with this core principle are still here. We've (secularly) moved beyond the will to dominate the globe. But for certain religions that programming is still in there and given enough power... will come out.

Note: The entire papal order and catholic structure is entirely extra-biblical and does show how a religion can be taken over and changed. However, again... this was a new version that couldn't be accepted by the original people and has even been rejected by "Protestant" Christians because they understand that it was man-made and has no biblical continuity to justify its existence. So the RCC is largely able to make up its own stuff but only to those convinced of its authority. That authority; however, is the result of brutal violence. It is only time that has distanced it somewhat from its dark and bloody past, killing millions of people. The Mayan tour guide told us the Catholic Inquisition wanted to show the Mayans what would happen to them in hell if they didn't convert. So they burned people alive. And the problem is some of these victims could be discovered by archaeology and mistaken for Mayan sacrifices. Just an interesting side-note of the global domination agenda.