Christianity: Jews, Judea, Palestine, Israel & Gaza Violence -By Nneka Okumazie

There are varying areas of human weakness – but common quadrangles are religion [or beliefs], race, politics [or ideology], and sexuality [or gender].

An individual can be incredible at whatever they do but belonging or accepting with any of the four in ways others may find objectionable.

Some intelligent people say Christianity is not for them or hold answers. Some Christians also cannot understand how someone would not believe in GOD, a Spirit, if there is no physical evidence.

This applies to other religions or beliefs as well.

Those four factors should not lead in how others are accepted, judged, or decided on, but bias is irreversibly switched around those. The world is often in trouble because they come first – for many.

There are often history, tradition, or common behavior for those associated by the four, who pull together against others. But those are bad leaders in how to achieve peace and progress as a society.

Except when some things are unlawful or illegal, it should be possible to relate, organize, agree on disagree on facts without those.

But that is not what the world – in weakness – does.

Based on those four, people settle their hauling ground for conflict and violence.

Though, this factionalism worked for progress of certain groups, but more than often has ruined much causing unprecedented devastation.

Whenever there is a conflict, protest, violence, disagreement, etc. how is it possible to take out those four weaknesses first, then focus on general factors – fact, social, fairness, harmlessness, future, etc.?

Who is right or who is wrong?

What should determine the kind of response if one side does something by another set of rules?

How should mercy and compassion be understood between sides that won’t budge?

How should those outside the effect judge the situation and lay blames?

If two people have claims to the same thing, do they both truly own it, or should they seek concessions if there are no options?

There were brilliant scientists in the twentieth century who had [outside] sexuality, or who worked on a project but stole information to give to adversaries because they believe in that ideology, or who had [awry] politics, or some strange spirituality. Some rejected others for ethnicity or gender – just because.

In many disagreements, many may think they’re right, but with those four, they’re destructively weak.