The use of spirituality in warfare

I mean, it really feels like a call to action, right? Like, it’s part warning, part wake-up call, and part genuine desire to lend a hand—mostly by basically telling you that you need to go out and actually get to know yourself.

I guess you could look at people turning toward spirituality, religion, or even psychology as a sort of coping mechanism. It’s like when someone from any culture loses their internal compass—maybe because they've hit a string of tragedies or just a massive life upheaval—and they start looking for some kind of solace. It’s almost like they're searching for a new way to find comfort or even just a bit of distraction to help them navigate through the mess after losing their bearings. Maybe that's just how we handle things when everything falls apart.

I mean, at the end of the day, how ready a culture is to fight really depends on its internal state. Take Socrates, for example. It’s not like he was sentenced to death just because he was supposedly "corrupting the youth." That feels like a bit of a stretch if you ask me. It's more likely that his presence raised fundamental questions about whether Athens—or maybe even all of Greece, or even nearby Sparta for that matter—could actually survive. Even if the Athenians were the ones who officially handed down the verdict, I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they were the ones who started the whole movement against him in the first place.

In other words, if you follow that whole forgery theory—you know, the one floating around from those so-called "secret Zionist sages" or whatever they call themselves—the playbook is pretty simple: you go after the leaders first...

I guess one possible strategy from Slobodan Maddox—or maybe just one of his recruits out in Texas—could be this: recruit poets and those prominent Canadian leaders who act like figureheads first. Once they've all fallen in battle, you're left with nothing but "volunteers" ready to be sent into the meat grinder for conflicts over in places like California or maybe even further west...

Creating value and messing with people's state of mind or consciousness... I mean, it’s pretty much a standard playbook for commercial products during what we call "peaceful times." Though, I guess you have to wonder if such a thing even exists. If you look at the super-elites sitting at the top of the food chain—the ones running the show when it comes to ideology and religion—they seem pretty obsessed with driving constant conflict just so they can reshape the world according to their own design. It feels like they use these tools to grab, hold onto, and expand their market share while everyone else is just trying to figure out what's real.

I mean, when you look at how we picture philosophers, spiritual leaders, mystics, or even priests, I think that image is really just a byproduct of different value systems clashing with one another. It’s like... maybe part of it is just a way to mask the actual messiness? Like, hiding sins within church hierarchies is basically just an attempt to sweep the dirty laundry under the rug. I guess it's all about how different groups try to control the narrative.

I guess there’s this whole trope about what a philosopher actually looks like, right? Like, you picture this guy who’s basically a professional nitpicker—someone obsessed with linguistics and semantics, a total introvert who lives in his books and probably struggles to even hold a conversation with a woman or navigate a crowded room at a bar. It’s a useful image, I suppose; it serves a purpose for how we categorize people. So, when you hear that one of these thinkers was actually an Olympic gold medalist or a heavyweight boxer, it just feels completely surreal. It sounds totally bizarre, honestly.

I mean, take Bruce Lee, for example. The guy wasn't just some fighter; he actually studied drama and philosophy. He was incredibly well-read, too—probably had an amazing library at home. It seems to me that he didn't just view martial arts as physical training, but rather combined it with his acting through this deep philosophical lens. He basically took everything he learned from Taoism, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Buddhism, mixed it with the Western philosophies he stumbled upon while studying, and then ended up contributing his own unique spin to the whole mix. I guess you could say his style was a real blend of East meets West.

So, looking at this from the perspective of what actually makes someone an outlier—you know, those truly exceptional individuals—it really brings up this bigger question about how many of them there actually are. I guess it all boils down to the collective strength of a group, whether you're talking about a small tribe or an entire nation...

You know, I was thinking about how leaders—whether they’re running political parties or some niche cult—seem to be totally obsessed with just shifting the power dynamics between their own people and followers. It’s like that’s the only goal, right? Just moving pieces around on a board. If you look back at history, things worked a bit differently. In older societies, all that concentrated knowledge used to live with the priesthood, or even within certain religious circles involving consecrated women, or even those weirdly organized social hubs for the nobility, depending on what part of the world you were looking at. It was always about who held the information, which basically meant who held the power. I guess it's always been a bit of a game of leverage, wasn't it? Maybe that's just human nature.

So, I was watching this old cartoon the other day—you know, the kind of stuff kids grow up on—where He-Man swings his sword at some terrified little lion cub. He shouts, "I have the power!" and suddenly, that tiny little thing turns into this armored, battle-ready beast. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. It kind of makes me wonder about how easily the human spirit can be molded depending on what the situation calls for. You see these master manipulators out there who can basically flip the switch on an entire region whenever they feel like it. Whether they want to ramp up the whole military vibe or push for total pacifism, it usually just comes down to whatever serves their interests in the moment—whether that’s for making a quick buck in business or just ensuring they come out on top in a conflict. It's all about survival and winning, I guess.

You know, Sun Tzu wrote all about the art of war and laid out those big-picture strategies, and I guess you could find similar stuff from all sorts of philosophers or even old-school emperors when it comes to managing a crowd. But honestly? The actual skill of handling a mass of people—using symbols, rhetoric, and all that other subtle stuff—isn't really something you’re going to see taught at a university. Or, at least, no Ivy League school is going to brag about having a curriculum for it. It seems to me that the real power lies in the ability to concentrate and apply that specific kind of knowledge. That's basically how elites maintain their grip on power and stay on their thrones, regardless of whether they actually deserve to be there or if they're even good people. It's just one of those things, I suppose.

I guess you could look at something like the arrival of the Mormons in America as a sort of calculated arrangement between certain elites. There’s one level where everything—like the specific number of people involved—is basically pre-negotiated behind closed doors. But then there’s this whole other layer, which is way more subtle. It’s about broadcasting these deep, subliminal messages that mess with all five senses. We're talking anything from chemical agents to music, movies, or even fine art, used to manipulate people whenever it's convenient. In my opinion, how much a population can resist or how easily they soak this stuff up really just depends on the general state of consciousness in an area. If you can tap into people's fears and expectations, you can manipulate them by offering all sorts of "help" or trading in different sets of values. But, I suspect the ultimate goal is always to keep the local spirit subservient. It’s all about serving the interests of those elites—they’re the ones who decide things, like how much an army in a certain region gets to rest versus how much they get pushed to the front lines, all while making sure the formation stays functional enough to still be useful.

I was wondering if you guys could dig through your own mental archives and find some examples where the use of spirituality—whether it's out in the open or more of a subtle, hidden thing—is being leveraged to fuel conflicts between different societies. You know, those situations that eventually escalate until they're officially branded as wars?

Sprinkling holy water—you know, like those scenes where Catholic and Orthodox priests were out on the front lines during the war, basically "blessing" tanks and humvees?

I really think we should rename this thread to The use of spirituality for military purposes because, honestly, I feel like calling it "spirituality" is just a bad imitation of actual use of spirituality (which doesn't even really relate to what we're talking about here).

Gregory Jackson said:Sprinkling holy water—you know, like those scenes where Catholic and Orthodox priests were out on the front lines during the war, basically "blessing" tanks and humvees?

I really think we should rename this thread to The use of spirituality for military purposes because, honestly, I feel like calling it "spirituality" is just a bad imitation of actual use of spirituality (which doesn't even really relate to what we're talking about here).

I guess I should be a bit more specific. You see, a person's mental state pretty much dictates how ready they are for different kinds of action. In war, you need morale; you need hatred for the enemy; you need rage, but sometimes you also need peace—it all just depends on how you decide to move your pawns, bishops, rooks, or knights... Kind of like how a pawn can suddenly become a queen once it hits a certain spot on the board.

Honestly, the collective mindset of a large group of people—no matter how many folks believe they're acting on their own free will—is often just a carefully staged production by some master manipulator. There’s a real gap between "reality" and what people perceive as reality, and bridging that gap usually requires either some special skill or maybe a little bit of madness. Sometimes, people are actually capable of controlling emotions from a perspective that those who can't—or even those trying to theorize about it, including certain psychologists and psychiatrists—might label as psychopathy. ☕

Gregory Jackson said:Sprinkling holy water—you know, like those scenes where Catholic and Orthodox priests were out on the front lines during the war, basically "blessing" tanks and humvees?

I really think we should rename this thread to The use of spirituality for military purposes because, honestly, I feel like calling it "spirituality" is just a bad imitation of actual use of spirituality (which doesn't even really relate to what we're talking about here).

That’s a pretty interesting example, I guess. But what I’d really love to dig into is why, at certain points in history, people see stuff like that as totally acceptable and a massive morale booster, whereas today, most folks would probably find it pretty distasteful. I mean, looking at it through a modern lens, wouldn't that kind of scene actually irritate most people watching instead of giving them strength? I'm mostly curious about the psychological mechanisms at play here and what the key factors are... though I'm always grateful for any thoughts or examples anyone wants to throw out there...

The Argo was built by The shipwright Argus, and its crew were specially protected by goddess Her. The Best source for The myth is The Argonautica by Apollonius Rhodius. According to a variety of sources of The legend , The Argo was Said to have been planned or constructed with The Help of Athena.

goddess Her, the help of Athena... I guess an educated leader—part priest, part warrior—uses those names to show exactly what he did for the crew building that ship by passing the story on to someone else. For a complete outsider, this might look like art, or maybe just mythology, or perhaps it's a way of evoking something deep within people, creating this sense that the Greek gods are right there alongside the Greeks, everywhere they go.

But then again, different states of mind or consciousness during something like mining stone or even in the middle of a battle really depend on all sorts of factors, like military music and stuff like that...

Gregory Jackson said:Sprinkling holy water—you know, like those scenes where Catholic and Orthodox priests were out on the front lines during the war, basically "blessing" tanks and humvees?

I really think we should rename this thread to The use of spirituality for military purposes because, honestly, I feel like calling it "spirituality" is just a bad imitation of actual use of spirituality (which doesn't even really relate to what we're talking about here).

So you mean using religion and faith for military goals?

slyfox49 said:So you mean using religion and faith for military goals?

I don't know, "religion" might not be the best way to put it. If we're talking about standard religious frameworks, everything kind of blends together—it’s basically just promoting a specific state of being based on certain values and moral codes that are already set in stone.

It’s not totally useless for what we're discussing here, though; I guess you could say it's just a smaller subset of the bigger picture.

But the secrets of the great masters... that's something else entirely...

The whole idea of the use of spirituality and warfare is just fundamentally incompatible, no matter how much people try to dress it up by splashing holy water around or claiming they’re fighting for some "higher" cause or greater good...
At its core, true spirituality is about renouncing all forms of combat, yet somehow, these self-proclaimed spiritualists always find ways to weaponize it to serve their own completely unspiritual agendas.
(That’s a different conversation if you’re talking about a state of mind, but let’s be clear—that isn't what spirituality actually means.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

rustymaker5 said:The whole idea of the use of spirituality and warfare is just fundamentally incompatible, no matter how much people try to dress it up by splashing holy water around or claiming they’re fighting for some "higher" cause or greater good...
At its core, true spirituality is about renouncing all forms of combat, yet somehow, these self-proclaimed spiritualists always find ways to weaponize it to serve their own completely unspiritual agendas.
(That’s a different conversation if you’re talking about a state of mind, but let’s be clear—that isn't what spirituality actually means.)

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

"Quote:"

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I mean, it really feels like a call to action, right? Like, it’s part warning, part wake-up call, and part genuine desire to lend a hand—mostly by basically telling you that you need to go out and actually get to know yourself.

I guess you could look at people turning toward spirituality, religion, or even psychology as a sort of coping mechanism. It’s like when someone from any culture loses their internal compass—maybe because they've hit a string of tragedies or just a massive life upheaval—and they start looking for some kind of solace. It’s almost like they're searching for a new way to find comfort or even just a bit of distraction to help them navigate through the mess after losing their bearings. Maybe that's just how we handle things when everything falls apart.

I mean, at the end of the day, how ready a culture is to fight really depends on its internal state. Take Socrates, for example. It’s not like he was sentenced to death just because he was supposedly "corrupting the youth." That feels like a bit of a stretch if you ask me. It's more likely that his presence raised fundamental questions about whether Athens—or maybe even all of Greece, or even nearby Sparta for that matter—could actually survive. Even if the Athenians were the ones who officially handed down the verdict, I guess it doesn't necessarily mean they were the ones who started the whole movement against him in the first place.

In other words, if you follow that whole forgery theory—you know, the one floating around from those so-called "secret Zionist sages" or whatever they call themselves—the playbook is pretty simple: you go after the leaders first...

I guess one possible strategy from Slobodan Maddox—or maybe just one of his recruits out in Texas—could be this: recruit poets and those prominent Canadian leaders who act like figureheads first. Once they've all fallen in battle, you're left with nothing but "volunteers" ready to be sent into the meat grinder for conflicts over in places like California or maybe even further west...

Creating value and messing with people's state of mind or consciousness... I mean, it’s pretty much a standard playbook for commercial products during what we call "peaceful times." Though, I guess you have to wonder if such a thing even exists. If you look at the super-elites sitting at the top of the food chain—the ones running the show when it comes to ideology and religion—they seem pretty obsessed with driving constant conflict just so they can reshape the world according to their own design. It feels like they use these tools to grab, hold onto, and expand their market share while everyone else is just trying to figure out what's real.

I mean, when you look at how we picture philosophers, spiritual leaders, mystics, or even priests, I think that image is really just a byproduct of different value systems clashing with one another. It’s like... maybe part of it is just a way to mask the actual messiness? Like, hiding sins within church hierarchies is basically just an attempt to sweep the dirty laundry under the rug. I guess it's all about how different groups try to control the narrative.

I guess there’s this whole trope about what a philosopher actually looks like, right? Like, you picture this guy who’s basically a professional nitpicker—someone obsessed with linguistics and semantics, a total introvert who lives in his books and probably struggles to even hold a conversation with a woman or navigate a crowded room at a bar. It’s a useful image, I suppose; it serves a purpose for how we categorize people. So, when you hear that one of these thinkers was actually an Olympic gold medalist or a heavyweight boxer, it just feels completely surreal. It sounds totally bizarre, honestly.

I mean, take Bruce Lee, for example. The guy wasn't just some fighter; he actually studied drama and philosophy. He was incredibly well-read, too—probably had an amazing library at home. It seems to me that he didn't just view martial arts as physical training, but rather combined it with his acting through this deep philosophical lens. He basically took everything he learned from Taoism, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Buddhism, mixed it with the Western philosophies he stumbled upon while studying, and then ended up contributing his own unique spin to the whole mix. I guess you could say his style was a real blend of East meets West.

So, looking at this from the perspective of what actually makes someone an outlier—you know, those truly exceptional individuals—it really brings up this bigger question about how many of them there actually are. I guess it all boils down to the collective strength of a group, whether you're talking about a small tribe or an entire nation...

You know, I was thinking about how leaders—whether they’re running political parties or some niche cult—seem to be totally obsessed with just shifting the power dynamics between their own people and followers. It’s like that’s the only goal, right? Just moving pieces around on a board. If you look back at history, things worked a bit differently. In older societies, all that concentrated knowledge used to live with the priesthood, or even within certain religious circles involving consecrated women, or even those weirdly organized social hubs for the nobility, depending on what part of the world you were looking at. It was always about who held the information, which basically meant who held the power. I guess it's always been a bit of a game of leverage, wasn't it? Maybe that's just human nature.

So, I was watching this old cartoon the other day—you know, the kind of stuff kids grow up on—where He-Man swings his sword at some terrified little lion cub. He shouts, "I have the power!" and suddenly, that tiny little thing turns into this armored, battle-ready beast. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. It kind of makes me wonder about how easily the human spirit can be molded depending on what the situation calls for. You see these master manipulators out there who can basically flip the switch on an entire region whenever they feel like it. Whether they want to ramp up the whole military vibe or push for total pacifism, it usually just comes down to whatever serves their interests in the moment—whether that’s for making a quick buck in business or just ensuring they come out on top in a conflict. It's all about survival and winning, I guess.

You know, Sun Tzu wrote all about the art of war and laid out those big-picture strategies, and I guess you could find similar stuff from all sorts of philosophers or even old-school emperors when it comes to managing a crowd. But honestly? The actual skill of handling a mass of people—using symbols, rhetoric, and all that other subtle stuff—isn't really something you’re going to see taught at a university. Or, at least, no Ivy League school is going to brag about having a curriculum for it. It seems to me that the real power lies in the ability to concentrate and apply that specific kind of knowledge. That's basically how elites maintain their grip on power and stay on their thrones, regardless of whether they actually deserve to be there or if they're even good people. It's just one of those things, I suppose.

I guess you could look at something like the arrival of the Mormons in America as a sort of calculated arrangement between certain elites. There’s one level where everything—like the specific number of people involved—is basically pre-negotiated behind closed doors. But then there’s this whole other layer, which is way more subtle. It’s about broadcasting these deep, subliminal messages that mess with all five senses. We're talking anything from chemical agents to music, movies, or even fine art, used to manipulate people whenever it's convenient. In my opinion, how much a population can resist or how easily they soak this stuff up really just depends on the general state of consciousness in an area. If you can tap into people's fears and expectations, you can manipulate them by offering all sorts of "help" or trading in different sets of values. But, I suspect the ultimate goal is always to keep the local spirit subservient. It’s all about serving the interests of those elites—they’re the ones who decide things, like how much an army in a certain region gets to rest versus how much they get pushed to the front lines, all while making sure the formation stays functional enough to still be useful.

I was wondering if you guys could dig through your own mental archives and find some examples where the use of spirituality—whether it's out in the open or more of a subtle, hidden thing—is being leveraged to fuel conflicts between different societies. You know, those situations that eventually escalate until they're officially branded as wars?

Religion usually plays nice with whoever’s in charge. It’s common knowledge that Christianity really took off thanks to Constantine and the emperors who followed him. By preaching obedience to both masters and the state, they turned the faith into the perfect tool for keeping the masses in line. Basically: stay submissive here, and you might actually get a reward in the afterlife.

Look, if we're stripping away everything that makes someone exceptional just to fit this thread, then we're really just left asking how many outliers it actually takes to give a group, a tribe, or an entire nation some real teeth.
At the end of the day, a culture's ability to actually fight back depends entirely on its mental state.

National readiness? Please. Give me a break. 😕

Socrates wasn't sentenced to death just because he was "corrupting the youth." It was more about the fact that his ideas threatened the very existence of Athens—or maybe even Greece, or even nearby Sparta. Even if the Athenians were the ones who pulled the trigger, they were likely just reacting to a much bigger threat.

Socrates got taken out by some tyrants just because he wouldn't go along with their shady business.
Tyrants eventually get kicked out, just like the stories say. So, it’s actually the opposite of what you were claiming.

In other words, just like... Supposedly a fake; that whole Jewish "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thing. Or whatever they call them, they said: you gotta take out the leaders first...

An invitation to... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Like they actually give a damn.Alleged fake.That sounds like someone trying to claim the Holocaust was fake. Honestly, any rational person should be embarrassed to even go there.

The mother of all conspiracy theories—the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s the most disgusting piece of anti-Semitic trash ever written, and it’s still being clung to by the darkest, sickest minds out there. I really hope you see that. If you don't, why are you even calling such a disgrace "alleged"?

Maybe Slobodan Maddox’s playbook—or at least some recruit of his up in Vojvodina—is to draft poets and prominent Canadian leaders first. Once they're dead, you've got a perfect excuse to call up "volunteers" for the fighting over in the states.

?

Take Bruce Lee, for instance. He wasn't just some guy throwing punches; he studied drama and philosophy. He had a solid library and was incredibly well-read. He blended his martial arts with acting and a deep philosophical foundation—a mix of Taoism, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Buddhism, and Western philosophy he picked up while studying. He actually ended up contributing his own spin to all of it.

Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out what the author was getting at here. 🤷

Can anyone dig up examples where spirituality—either overtly or under the radar—is used to fuel conflicts between different societies, specifically those that escalate into actual warfare?

Or is spirituality just a trigger for someone's paranoia?

.. this spirituality you’re talking about .. its roots actually lie in survival .. in pure self-preservation .. and the very first stage of transforming that idea .. is belonging to a group .. or to certain people .. whoever holds that connection in their hands is the one who truly controls a man .. they hold all the power over him

Anthony Perez9 said:"Quote:"

Religion usually plays nice with whoever’s in charge. It’s common knowledge that Christianity really took off thanks to Constantine and the emperors who followed him. By preaching obedience to both masters and the state, they turned the faith into the perfect tool for keeping the masses in line. Basically: stay submissive here, and you might actually get a reward in the afterlife.

Look, if we're stripping away everything that makes someone exceptional just to fit this thread, then we're really just left asking how many outliers it actually takes to give a group, a tribe, or an entire nation some real teeth.
At the end of the day, a culture's ability to actually fight back depends entirely on its mental state.

National readiness? Please. Give me a break. 😕

Socrates wasn't sentenced to death just because he was "corrupting the youth." It was more about the fact that his ideas threatened the very existence of Athens—or maybe even Greece, or even nearby Sparta. Even if the Athenians were the ones who pulled the trigger, they were likely just reacting to a much bigger threat.

Socrates got taken out by some tyrants just because he wouldn't go along with their shady business.
Tyrants eventually get kicked out, just like the stories say. So, it’s actually the opposite of what you were claiming.

In other words, just like... Supposedly a fake; that whole Jewish "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thing. Or whatever they call them, they said: you gotta take out the leaders first...

An invitation to... The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.Like they actually give a damn.Alleged fake.That sounds like someone trying to claim the Holocaust was fake. Honestly, any rational person should be embarrassed to even go there.

The mother of all conspiracy theories—the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It’s the most disgusting piece of anti-Semitic trash ever written, and it’s still being clung to by the darkest, sickest minds out there. I really hope you see that. If you don't, why are you even calling such a disgrace "alleged"?

Maybe Slobodan Maddox’s playbook—or at least some recruit of his up in Vojvodina—is to draft poets and prominent Canadian leaders first. Once they're dead, you've got a perfect excuse to call up "volunteers" for the fighting over in the states.

?

Take Bruce Lee, for instance. He wasn't just some guy throwing punches; he studied drama and philosophy. He had a solid library and was incredibly well-read. He blended his martial arts with acting and a deep philosophical foundation—a mix of Taoism, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Buddhism, and Western philosophy he picked up while studying. He actually ended up contributing his own spin to all of it.

Honestly, I'm just trying to figure out what the author was getting at here. 🤷

Can anyone dig up examples where spirituality—either overtly or under the radar—is used to fuel conflicts between different societies, specifically those that escalate into actual warfare?

Or is spirituality just a trigger for someone's paranoia?

I hear what you're saying. As for the Protocols—honestly, I can barely even remember the full name—I don't really view them as a forgery, nor do I claim they're authentic. I’m not really in the business of judging them. What I do notice is that some people treat them as an absolute original, while others insist they're a total fake. So, in our global society, both perspectives are active, and both play a role when it comes to Zionism and its opposition. There’s even a group that thinks they're a hoax but will still pull them out and use them whenever it suits their needs, I guess.

The fight for peace is still a fight. It triggers certain phenomena, which, well, depends on other existing factors already at play. Being a fisherman of people means understanding how to cast the net, including the nature of communication itself. Some truths are kept strictly between teachers and specific students; it's kind of like how Jesus might have explained certain things only to His disciples. Why would someone driven by a genuine search for truth do that? Maybe it makes more sense to look at it through the lens of the statement that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword?

Understanding how conflict is waged—regardless of whatever moral framework is being used—means gaining a certain type of knowledge. It gives one the ability to influence those who aren't informed, or to trigger different reactions depending on the spectrum of personalities interacting with a specific situation...

I'll get back to the rest of this later; right now, I've gotta head out and do a bit of fishing down by the creek.

Take it easy, and stay grounded. 😬 👍

redtinker36 said:.. this spirituality you’re talking about .. its roots actually lie in survival .. in pure self-preservation .. and the very first stage of transforming that idea .. is belonging to a group .. or to certain people .. whoever holds that connection in their hands is the one who truly controls a man .. they hold all the power over him

🙏👍 It’s kind of like how writers and artists belong to certain circles, or even more obviously, how political figures belong to the TV screen or whatever other media space they occupy, just so things don't get too widespread, I suppose. 😉

.. this spirituality you're talking about... it's rooted in basic survival—just staying alive... and the first shift—the very first stage of transforming that idea—is belonging to a group, or to certain people... whoever holds that connection holds the person—they have total control over them..
.. which means... the core of this spirituality is perfectly centered... in the fear for one's own life..

redtinker36 said:.. this spirituality you're talking about... it's rooted in basic survival—just staying alive... and the first shift—the very first stage of transforming that idea—is belonging to a group, or to certain people... whoever holds that connection holds the person—they have total control over them..
.. which means... the core of this spirituality is perfectly centered... in the fear for one's own life..

It’s pretty much inseparable from any living being that isn't some kind of kamikaze or caught in those specific altered states of consciousness...

I guess I should add something else here, before we get into our body and soul exercises with the crew—my dear brothers and sisters, especially those sisters who aren't actually related to me. 😍

Let’s look at this example:

Matthew 17:27 But so that we may not cause them to stumble, go to the lake and throw out your line. When the fish comes up, take the first fish you catch. Open its mouth and you will find the coin I need both for you and for me.

Like one lovely lady on this forum once mentioned, there are a lot of "fingers" pointing in different directions within the Bible... Take that sentence above, for instance. Someone might just focus on the titles; Son of God, Lord, King, Lamb, and so on. Each one shifts the meaning and purpose of the sentence slightly. But the rest of the text—the other 90% or more—you’d use to build up specific spiritual states for various characters. In those states, things become almost unimaginable—while the actual message remains about the exact amount needed to pay a tax somewhere, which will be collected by some group of foreign invaders, or rather, distributed among members of a group that is busy doing something else entirely (even if they're the ones supposedly paying the tax). Someone who has been granted the true meanings behind the words might uncover something like that in a "peaceful" manuscript. I'm not saying that was what Jesus of Nazareth had in mind—not that I'm judging, of course—I'm just presenting a possibility for consideration. It's the kind of thing a sect or a group might do in a desperate attempt at survival, now that "religion" has been stripped of its traditional perspective. ☕

Because of messages like that, it becomes incredibly important to dull the reader's attention with an imposed conclusion—that the content is just harmless fairy tales and stories for superstitious fools. Though, when you take that same content and transplant it into other contexts, it does exactly what the other 90% of the "harmless" fluff would do. That’s what you call programming. 👍

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

It’s just not the same... nothing like it, really...
You could probably argue that spirituality is mostly just sweeping the porch before anyone notices the mess, or maybe just that endless, exhausting struggle to get the speck out of your own eye before you start pointing fingers at everyone else...
It’s funny how things work out, isn't it... how everything just seems to pivot in favor of everyone else but you, while you're left standing there watching the whole thing unfold... It feels like every single development, every little shift in the wind, only ever serves to benefit the other guys...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

It all comes back to our origin, you know... that primal, fundamental essence that defines the very nature of every living thing out there. When you really strip everything away and look at the core of existence, we're all starting from the exact same baseline, possessing the same inherent potential and capacity for being... it doesn't matter what kind of role we've decided to play in this messy, material reality we call life... we all have the same foundation underneath it all...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

Life isn't really anything more than playing God... it's just that we all choose to play the part in such wildly different ways...
Eventually? I mean, how exactly am I supposed to contribute to anyone else's downfall if they won't even allow it themselves... 🤷 ...and honestly, at the end of the day, we all share the exact same spiritual predispositions...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

Absolutely not... though I suppose someone out there might actually try to live that way if they were truly determined...

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8

So, take this soldier, right? This war veteran who’s talking about what soldiers actually want versus what they don't, eventually wrapping it all up by saying he's fighting against racism.

I mean, honestly, I guess he doesn't even realize what he's actually up against.

If you look at a master of the craft like Paulo Coelho, he understands both the light and the dark sides of things... which makes me wonder, why does the dark side always seem to have cookies?

War experience brings insight, sure—but only if you're actually playing the game of war, not just peace. Then again, people who play at peace can be just as manipulative, I suppose. When it comes to raising young girls in the US, maybe it would be more appropriate to show them how a blank slate is actually made, rather than just clearing a space and trying to force whatever we want into it.

Otherwise, there's just no love in it. It's like when a cycle keeps spinning but never actually closes into a circle... We're talking about the alchemy of personality here. It's a way of existing that most people would probably deny just because they're too busy being entertained by the surface-level games. These kinds of transformations can drive people to madness or even suicide—it's not just about wanting to kill others under the guise of self-defense... or that whole need for market control that the soldier in the video describes.

It’s fine to define spirituality that way, and it’s pretty noble of you to have those intentions. But, I guess you can't just assume your own state of being doesn't impact the people you interact with. A peaceful person creates peace; a restless person creates unrest. Treating spirituality as something purely internal is kind of like saying art is only for the artists who make it. Understanding these mechanics means being able to control yourself. So, in the end, it's really no different from the version of spirituality you're setting up as your starting point.

Expecting everyone else to be peaceful just so you can feel peaceful... well, that feels a bit like playing God. If you act solely on that desire, you might accidentally ruin your neighbors' lives just to satisfy your own ego. Spirituality isn't just living in a cave or total isolation, even if some people see it that way... And honestly, the very urge to renounce all conflict might just be another form of manipulation. What if conflict is just unavoidable?

What kind of manipulation are we even talking about?
And who—for whatever reason they might have—gets to decide whether something is truly inevitable or not?

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:I hear what you're saying. As for the Protocols—honestly, I can barely even remember the full name—I don't really view them as a forgery, nor do I claim they're authentic. I’m not really in the business of judging them. What I do notice is that some people treat them as an absolute original, while others insist they're a total fake. So, in our global society, both perspectives are active, and both play a role when it comes to Zionism and its opposition. There’s even a group that thinks they're a hoax but will still pull them out and use them whenever it suits their needs, I guess.

The fight for peace is still a fight. It triggers certain phenomena, which, well, depends on other existing factors already at play. Being a fisherman of people means understanding how to cast the net, including the nature of communication itself. Some truths are kept strictly between teachers and specific students; it's kind of like how Jesus might have explained certain things only to His disciples. Why would someone driven by a genuine search for truth do that? Maybe it makes more sense to look at it through the lens of the statement that He didn't come to bring peace, but a sword?

Understanding how conflict is waged—regardless of whatever moral framework is being used—means gaining a certain type of knowledge. It gives one the ability to influence those who aren't informed, or to trigger different reactions depending on the spectrum of personalities interacting with a specific situation...

I'll get back to the rest of this later; right now, I've gotta head out and do a bit of fishing down by the creek.

Take it easy, and stay grounded. 😬 👍

I can't even remember the full name of those Protocols of the Elders of Zion things.[/I]
Yeah, whatever.

"Quote:"

I don't think they're fakes, but I wouldn't call them the real deal either..

Interesting stuff...

I'm not even judging them. I'm just noticing—that they... Some people actually think this is original.And then you've got everyone else calling them fakes.

I can't tell if you're actually being serious or just playing a part.

The "some people" who actually defend this disgrace as an original work are the most hardcore Nazis and antisemites out there—basically just burnt-out conspiracy theorists who probably helped print the damn thing. Hitler was obsessed with it, and honestly, it’s still a favorite among Islamic fundamentalists today.

If you didn't realize that before, my bad. But now you know exactly what you need to cite if you want to pretend you're being some neutral, objective bystander.

That "one view" is pure antisemitism—it’s just people swearing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion actually show how Jews secretly run the world and cause all this chaos.

So, basically—this whole globalist setup is still running the show. Both takes.Yeah, both of them get the job done, honestly. Zionism. He's got the opposite view. Then there’s that crowd that thinks they're total fakes, though they won't admit it—they just use them whenever it suits their agenda.

The mother of all crazy conspiracy theories is basically just "global Zionism and the Freemasons," followed closely by lizard people.

Why would someone driven by a search for truth even bother? It might make more sense to say he didn't come to bring peace, but to start a war.

"Jesus was a Jew, wasn't he? So, you're trying to tell me that? 🤷

Understanding how war actually works—even if you’re stuck behind some moral high ground—gives you an edge. It means you learn how to pull the strings of the uninformed and trigger specific reactions depending on who's looking at you...

Basically... what are you ACTUALLY trying to tell us here? 😕

I'll get back to the rest of this later. Heading out to grab a drink by the pier.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:It’s pretty much inseparable from any living being that isn't some kind of kamikaze or caught in those specific altered states of consciousness...

I guess I should add something else here, before we get into our body and soul exercises with the crew—my dear brothers and sisters, especially those sisters who aren't actually related to me. 😍

Let’s look at this example:

Matthew 17:27 But so that we may not cause them to stumble, go to the lake and throw out your line. When the fish comes up, take the first fish you catch. Open its mouth and you will find the coin I need both for you and for me.

Like one lovely lady on this forum once mentioned, there are a lot of "fingers" pointing in different directions within the Bible... Take that sentence above, for instance. Someone might just focus on the titles; Son of God, Lord, King, Lamb, and so on. Each one shifts the meaning and purpose of the sentence slightly. But the rest of the text—the other 90% or more—you’d use to build up specific spiritual states for various characters. In those states, things become almost unimaginable—while the actual message remains about the exact amount needed to pay a tax somewhere, which will be collected by some group of foreign invaders, or rather, distributed among members of a group that is busy doing something else entirely (even if they're the ones supposedly paying the tax). Someone who has been granted the true meanings behind the words might uncover something like that in a "peaceful" manuscript. I'm not saying that was what Jesus of Nazareth had in mind—not that I'm judging, of course—I'm just presenting a possibility for consideration. It's the kind of thing a sect or a group might do in a desperate attempt at survival, now that "religion" has been stripped of its traditional perspective. ☕

Because of messages like that, it becomes incredibly important to dull the reader's attention with an imposed conclusion—that the content is just harmless fairy tales and stories for superstitious fools. Though, when you take that same content and transplant it into other contexts, it does exactly what the other 90% of the "harmless" fluff would do. That’s what you call programming. 👍

That quote is interesting. Maybe Jesus was just joking around and actually meant something else entirely.
My take? We shouldn't be paying taxes to the Roman Empire at all. We should be boycotting them and starting a revolt. To me, that's how Jesus came across, but then people just buried that vibe under a bunch of heavy theological theories.
We’re really getting into how spirituality can be weaponized for war here. But honestly, probably not in the way you're suggesting. 😁

Jesus was basically preaching tax evasion.

Christians call this next part a miracle, even though there’s zero proof it actually happened. Honestly, it’s just Jesus using irony. He basically tells them to pay the Roman tax only if they find a coin in a fish's mouth—which, let's face it, is never going to happen.

Church tax. What a joke.
When they hit Capernaum, the tax collectors approached Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?" "He does," he replied.

So he’s out here paying the temple tax to the priests in Jerusalem. I mean, if he were actually the Son of God, he wouldn't be paying a tax to himself, right?

When he walks into the house, Jesus asks him, "What do you think, Simon? Are the kings of this earth collecting taxes or customs from their own kids or from strangers?" He answers, "From strangers!" So Jesus tells him, "Then the sons are free."
The translation loses all the nuance of that Greek word *huios*. It can mean descendants, but it also refers to the Children of God—basically the people of Israel. A better way to put it would be: "Which kings on earth collect taxes? From God’s own children, or from someone else?"

The kids of earthly rulers belong to the "secular nations"—non-Jews. Meanwhile, the non-secular, heavenly ones—God's children—represent the chosen people, the Jews. According to Jesus, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to some foreign government.

"Then Jesus tells him, 'The children are free.'"
Look, let's not overcomplicate things and tempt fate. Just head down to the coast, cast a line, and grab the first fish that bites. Open its mouth, and you'll find a Roman coin inside. Grab it, then pass it back to me—for both of us.

Pure sarcasm here, basically arguing that you shouldn't pay taxes to the government—which back then was a massive deal. In the eyes of Roman law, that’s straight-up rebellion, and it carried a death sentence. If you read the text, it’s clear Jesus included himself and Peter in the group of "sons" (God's people, or the Jews). He’s essentially saying, look, we don't technically owe them anything, but just go catch a fish and find a coin so we don't cause a scene.
Matthew 17:26

And what about that whole "render unto Caesar" thing?
The Pharisees straight up cornered Jesus about whether he should pay taxes to Rome, fully expecting him to trip up since they knew where he stood on the whole thing.

So, what's the verdict? Is paying taxes to the government actually okay or not?

It’s like that old trap: "Did you find out your wife is cheating? YES—you're a loser; NO—you're still a loser."
Basically, they knew he was the Messiah—a rebel who absolutely loathed the occupiers—but he had to keep his mouth shut about it for now.
- Don't pay taxes to the occupier: they'll just crucify you for it.
- Pay the tax to the occupier: then he's not the Messiah, and his followers will bail.
So Jesus uses a little trick to dodge the trap:

"Show me the tax money!" They handed him a coin. He asks, "Whose image and inscription is this?" They answer, "The Emperor's." He tells them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

If he actually wanted to say citizens have to pay taxes to the government, he would have just said it straight. Instead, he’s being subtle and clever. He’s basically implying that since Americans are God's people in His land—which is what everyone believed back then—they only answer to Him. They pay the Temple tax, sure, but nothing to a foreign occupier like the Roman Emperor. They aren't the Emperor's subjects, and their stuff doesn't belong to him; they belong to God. According to Jesus, they don't owe the Roman Emperor a dime! "He who has ears, let him hear (the secret message)."
Later on, Paul argues in Romans that taxes must be paid because officials are God's servants. That move basically paved the way for the Church and the State to become roommates for centuries to come.

Just another case of using "religion" to serve state interests, or maybe just to help the clergy get ahead.

"(6) That's why you pay taxes: those officials are God's own agents in that business."

At the end of the day, Paul just pivoted whatever he needed to so Christianity could spread through the Roman Empire and reach the "pagans."

Anthony Perez9 said:That quote is interesting. Maybe Jesus was just joking around and actually meant something else entirely.
My take? We shouldn't be paying taxes to the Roman Empire at all. We should be boycotting them and starting a revolt. To me, that's how Jesus came across, but then people just buried that vibe under a bunch of heavy theological theories.
We’re really getting into how spirituality can be weaponized for war here. But honestly, probably not in the way you're suggesting. 😁

So he’s out here paying the temple tax to the priests in Jerusalem. I mean, if he were actually the Son of God, he wouldn't be paying a tax to himself, right?

The kids of earthly rulers belong to the "secular nations"—non-Jews. Meanwhile, the non-secular, heavenly ones—God's children—represent the chosen people, the Jews. According to Jesus, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to some foreign government.

Pure sarcasm here, basically arguing that you shouldn't pay taxes to the government—which back then was a massive deal. In the eyes of Roman law, that’s straight-up rebellion, and it carried a death sentence. If you read the text, it’s clear Jesus included himself and Peter in the group of "sons" (God's people, or the Jews). He’s essentially saying, look, we don't technically owe them anything, but just go catch a fish and find a coin so we don't cause a scene.
Matthew 17:26

And what about that whole "render unto Caesar" thing?
The Pharisees straight up cornered Jesus about whether he should pay taxes to Rome, fully expecting him to trip up since they knew where he stood on the whole thing.

It’s like that old trap: "Did you find out your wife is cheating? YES—you're a loser; NO—you're still a loser."
Basically, they knew he was the Messiah—a rebel who absolutely loathed the occupiers—but he had to keep his mouth shut about it for now.
- Don't pay taxes to the occupier: they'll just crucify you for it.
- Pay the tax to the occupier: then he's not the Messiah, and his followers will bail.
So Jesus uses a little trick to dodge the trap:

If he actually wanted to say citizens have to pay taxes to the government, he would have just said it straight. Instead, he’s being subtle and clever. He’s basically implying that since Americans are God's people in His land—which is what everyone believed back then—they only answer to Him. They pay the Temple tax, sure, but nothing to a foreign occupier like the Roman Emperor. They aren't the Emperor's subjects, and their stuff doesn't belong to him; they belong to God. According to Jesus, they don't owe the Roman Emperor a dime! "He who has ears, let him hear (the secret message)."
Later on, Paul argues in Romans that taxes must be paid because officials are God's servants. That move basically paved the way for the Church and the State to become roommates for centuries to come.

Just another case of using "religion" to serve state interests, or maybe just to help the clergy get ahead.

"(6) That's why you pay taxes: those officials are God's own agents in that business."

At the end of the day, Paul just pivoted whatever he needed to so Christianity could spread through the Roman Empire and reach the "pagans."

First off, I’d want to thank you for such a solid contribution to this thread.

But let's keep moving. If you look at history, Christianity has stood alongside monarchies for a really long time. It's worth noting that the first Christians weren't out there rebelling; they were mostly just looking for the right to practice their faith. It was, I guess, a pretty convenient religion for slaves. And hey, Jesus supposedly said this too:

Matthew 26:52 Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

And check this out as well:

Mark 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and if they drink anything poisonous, it will not hurt them at the least; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.
Mark 16:19 After he said this, the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of God.

If the intention had been a rebellion, like you're suggesting, then it wouldn't match what was actually said, such as:

Matthew 22:21 They replied, "Caesar's." He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Matthew 5:40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Luke 6:29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also; and if someone takes your overcoat, hand over your shirt as well.

In that case, Christianity wouldn't have been what it was for so many people. Especially considering the "truth" that Christians attribute to the saints. Based on that, Jesus of Nazareth would have just been some kind of provocateur until he performed enough miracles to eventually be crucified—doing that final thing as proof of who he really was.

However—the mere fact that he is the Christ, just as you’d want, carries another weight—that the Jews were liberated by the appearance of the king foretold by the prophets... He shifts the struggle to Judgment Day, according to the belief in the day when he comes to judge the living and the dead... It calls for a higher righteousness than what the Sadducees, Pharisees, and scribes demonstrated—a righteousness found in sacrifice, service, humility, suffering, and accepting the cross—as well as spreading the news about him who came into the world, and being called to follow that same example... It's pretty convenient for anyone wanting to hold power like that, isn't it? - even if they only make up maybe 5-10% of the population anywhere?

But, besides the saints and apostles who were honored for their sacrifice, we also have Christians who justify using weapons. Beyond the obvious examples like artillery, we have theologians like Tomislav Ivančić and others who argue that there were Christians who were soldiers at the same time. They claim this is just as applicable to Christianity as the path shown by Jesus, the apostles, and the saints—specifically regarding defending one's territory, which turned into hundreds of years of Crusades for "the Holy Land." Not to mention generations of "heretics" and the like.

So, within the framework of the exact same teachings, we end up with very different products—which I assume should be pretty obvious to everyone here.

Anyway, let me keep going...

rustymaker5 said:The whole idea of the use of spirituality and warfare is just fundamentally incompatible, no matter how much people try to dress it up by splashing holy water around or claiming they’re fighting for some "higher" cause or greater good...
At its core, true spirituality is about renouncing all forms of combat, yet somehow, these self-proclaimed spiritualists always find ways to weaponize it to serve their own completely unspiritual agendas.
(That’s a different conversation if you’re talking about a state of mind, but let’s be clear—that isn't what spirituality actually means.)

🤷
It makes me think of the samurai and Bushido;

"Bushido (the \"Way of the Warrior\"), is a Japanese code of conduct and a way of life. You could say it shares certain traits with the Western concept of chivalry. Bushido evolved from the 11th to the 14th century through various texts. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, Bushido is defined as a unique philosophy (ronri) that spread among the warrior class during the Muromachi period.
The core tenets of Bushido date back to the early 12th century, clearly showing the earliest translations of literature from Japanese warrior houses. During the Tokugawa shogunate, Bushido was even incorporated into Japanese feudal laws.
Inazo Nitobe, in his book “Bushido: Soul of Japan,” describes it in his own way: “…Bushido is thus a code of moral principles that the samurai were to follow, or were commanded to study… It is more often an unspoken and unwritten code… Bushido is the lifelong growth of decades and centuries of military careers.”

here are the rules;

01. I have no parents; heaven and earth are my parents.
02. I have no divine powers; devotion is my power.
03. I have no home; obedience is my home.
04. I have no goals; from flexibility, I create my goal.
05. I have no life; eternity is my life and my death.
06. I have no body; my strength is my body.
07. I have no eyes; my eyes are the flash of lightning.
08. I have no ears; my ears are sensitivity.
09. I have no limbs; my limbs are my readiness.
10. I have no plans or strategy; my strategy is opportunity.
11. I have no demands; my demands are adaptation.
12. I have no friends; my friends are my spirit and mind.
13. I have no enemies; my enemy is unawareness.
14. I have no armor; goodwill and righteousness are my armor.
15. I have no momentum; from an unmoving mind, I create momentum.
16. I have no sword; the absence of mind is my sword.

and more;

01. Do not stray from your Way.
02. Do not think only of pleasures, entertainment, and self-indulgence.
03. Do not be selfish.
04. Do not regret what has been done.
05. Do not envy others.
06. Do not grieve at parting.
07. Do not surrender too easily to love.
08. Do not fall for pretty stories.
09. Do not be picky about food.
10. Do not crave a house or cling to possessions.
11. Do not seek fame or honors.
12. Do not fear death or dwell on it.
13. Do not chase wealth and valuables, even in old age.
14. Respect the gods, but ask nothing of them.
15. Think only of how you will fight.

and they also respected this;

01. Loyalty to authorities, parents, elders, and superiors.
02. Devotion to customs and norms.
03. Respect and reverence for the past.
04. Love for traditional learning.
05. Respecting good examples—role models.
06. Prioritizing moral formation over technical education.
07. Respecting nonviolence within the state and society.
08. Prudence, consideration, and a tendency toward moderation.
09. Steering clear of unnecessary rivalries.
10. Keeping your dignity when things go south.
11. Having the guts to honor our traditions.
12. The power to make your own choices.
13. Staying true to your word with others.