Coming– How mercy toward opponents/enemies enrages some people. They detest efforts to “normalize” their opponents and demand that all join them in demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents. Hence, their outrage at any mercy, kindness, generous forgiveness and inclusion being shown toward differing others. What is this psychopathology?
See below, Joe Rogan’s interview of Mark Zuckerberg and his pushback against Democratic Party censorship on Facebook.
Also below, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on leftist Progressivism’s decline in Western societies due to excessive authoritarianism.
“Across the West, arrogant woke leaders like Trudeau are in retreat: The poor quality, high expense, and arrogant bossiness of these governments is finally taking its toll”, J. D. Tuccille, National Post, Jan.10, 2025
And… “The societal shift back to rediscovering common sense”, also comment on the hesitancy of the adherents of world religions to recognize that their traditions have borrowed the main ideas of the primitive mythologies and religions that preceded them. That is true of all religions.
Intro note: Western civilization has three great religious traditions- i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three have been influenced and shaped by the Persian/Zoroastrian religion of some 3,500 years ago, Wendell Krossa
Sample source- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/4/11/321915/-
First, right out of the gate- The Zoroastrian beliefs in cosmic dualism and apocalyptic are the two worst of the “bad religious ideas” that it bequeathed to the West and Western religions. These have been among the most destructive ideas ever conceived. Cosmic dualism (God fighting Satan) has validated endless human tribal dualisms, and wars of tribe against tribe. Apocalyptic (as part of a complex of bad ideas) has incited too many mass-destruction and mass-death outcomes across history.
(Insert note: There are legitimate battles of good against evil- e.g. the Nazi/Allies war. But in all battles, we maintain our humanity and avoid any tribalism deformity by remembering that our “enemies”, even though we must defeat them in war, are still our family and deserve humane treatment post-war.)
My brain raises a bit of a flag of caution about engaging this topic below of bad ideas in religious traditions. It’s a bit unsettling to tackle because so many approach such subjects with the pre-intent to misunderstand, to pull comments out of context and twist meanings, and then to revert to smears and vilification- i.e. “Islamophobia”, etc. But the issues at play are about broader concerns than any “religiophobia” smears can dismiss.
I will wade in because the outcomes have been consistently and incalculably destructive and the root contributing factors still dominate human narratives and minds with dangerously inciting and validating ideals. The warning of Richard Landes, and the military guy, were never more critical that if you don’t deal with these inciting/validating ideas behind destructive movements, then you will only repeat them.
“It’s the commonalities, stupid” (paraphrasing James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid”). Wendell Krossa
All of us are facing a common enemy or monster in these monstrous ideas that affirm and validate tribalism, domination of others, and punitive destruction of differing others. I am speaking to the inner battle, the real battle of life, where we face the common monster of all humanity. Our real struggle in life is not against differing others but against our own inherited impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive, destructive response to the failures of others. Our real battle is with the beliefs/ideas/themes in our narratives, especially in our religious narratives, that validate our worst impulses.
Be aware that the monster hides by covering itself with religious robes, and especially likes to hide behind deity.
Psychologist Harold Ellens exposed this element of reframing the worst of features in terms of the best of divinity (i.e. the hiding trick) and what such monstrous features do to human minds…
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God… this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“… the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.” (See the full context of Ellen’s comments in Zenon Lotufo’s “Cruel God, Kind God”)
Continuing…
This inner battle relates also the “commonalities” thing that I am pointing to and commenting on further below.
My basic point and intent below is to emphasize commonalities in terms of our meta-narratives- i.e. that we all make the same mistakes in our narratives, holding the same bad ideas that incite and validate bad impulses. We all face the same enemies, monsters. The real struggle of life (i.e. the real “righteous battle against evil”) is not about us warring against one another over our differences. Those battles sidetrack us from the battle that matters most (Solzhenistyn’s point that the real battle of good versus evil runs down the center of every human heart). Also, our battles with others tend to blur and bury our fundamental human oneness, the oneness of the human family.
A key point below that qualifies the commonalities in all three Western religions- Islam borrowed from Jewish Christianity, including the most appalling features of threat theology, but did not include the “diamond” teachings of Historical Jesus. Under Christian Ebionite Waraqa’s guidance, Muhammad borrowed the more threatening features of primitive theology, features similar to those of Paul’s Christ myth (i.e. the “wrathful” God of Romans, destroying deity of Revelation 19, etc.). But without the moderating influence of Historical Jesus, the outcomes have not been good for religions like Islam. That is one notable difference between Christianity and Islam, among the many shared common themes of both religions.
Significant commonalities in all the great world religions don’t give anyone the escape clause to argue- “My religion is better than yours”. As for the Jesus material in Christianity, that message presents a potent moderating influence on the religion. But Christianity overall, in emphasizing Paul’s Christ myth, has seriously distorted the Jesus material, “buried it” according to Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy. That is as egregious an offense as anything in any other religion, and that discredits the back-patting that Christians might want to engage when comparing their tradition to other religions.
Important intro note: This site repeatedly employs the “evil triad” of “tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction” as a summarization of the most destructive impulses in people, the worst of our inherited animal impulses. Point? These impulses- the worst of the worst- have been incited and validated across history by bad ideas/ideals in human narratives, notably bad religious ideas.
The incitement and validation rises to its most harmful influence when such features are projected onto deity (i.e. God as favoring true believers, damning unbelievers, God as Lord/King validating relationships of domination/submission, God as retaliatory destroyer through apocalypse/hell). These psychopathologies, projected onto deity, have long held dominant place in defining humanity’s highest ideal and authority. Who’s to blame in that? Religious traditions.
Bad ideas inciting and validating bad human behavior operates through the “behavior based on belief” model that people have used across history. This pattern developed from the primal human impulse for meaning and purpose as related to deity. People, motivated by their impulse to live according to the purpose for which they were created, have long appealed to the divine Model for a pat on the back.
This is what Historical Jesus was referring to when he concluded his summary statement of his message (Luke 6:27-36) with “Be merciful as your Father is merciful”. Be like your Creator. Validate your behavior with an appeal to your understanding of what God is like.
This all goes haywire, and hell is unleashed on societies, when the image of deity is corrupted with inhuman features like tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. As Bob Brinsmead has said, “Men never do greater evil than when they do it in the name of God.” And if your God validates the worst in you… well, look out people.
Most of us still feel the tensing of our guts at the nauseating horror of what young Muslim men did in Israel Oct.7, 2023, raping, burning, murdering as they screamed “Allahu Akbar” (“praise/glory to God”). But then stepping back to view the bigger picture, we remember that is exactly what Christians did in Jerusalem roughly a millennium ago as they dismembered Muslim bodies- men, women, and children- till the blood ran ankle-deep, singing hymns and praising God that they could take part in the slaughter of God’s enemies. And that followed the slaughter of Jewish communities as the Crusaders marched across Europe on the way to Israel. And we look at the Jewish Old Testament for those repetitious accounts of early Hebrews slaughtering men, women, and children. All in the name of God. Well, Mircea Eliade recounts that even early Buddhists killed one another in battles over which sect truly represented their founder.
And atheists/materialists- Wipe that smirk off your faces. Look at the bloody crusades your philosophy/ideology has taken part in. 100 million bodies just last century.
The obvious rejoinder here is to make sure that your God (your conception of deity) is fully and authentically humane. This is critical to solving the problem that the military guy pointed to after the 2014 eruption of ISIS violence in Syria- i.e. that if you want to solve eruptions of violence, then go after the ideas that incite and validate such eruptions.
For atheists/materialists, this also applies to the ultimate ideals/authorities that you hold. What features define those ideals? The cold, predatory drives of our primate ancestors as explained through the often too-dogmatic doctrines of evolutionary biology? Like the young rapper who explained the advocacy for violence in his music- “We are, after all, just animals”.
I am repeatedly flabbergasted at hearing young people state their status as “secular, materialist, atheist, etc.”, and then mouthing the themes of- “the past was better (original paradise of a wilderness world), corrupt humans ruined paradise, life is now declining toward something worse, toward apocalyptic ending (e.g. climate apocalypse), we must make a sacrifice for our sins (“de-growth, de-development, decarbonization”- return to the ”morally superior” simple lifestyles of the “noble savages” of the communalism past who were “more connected” to Mother Earth, etc.), and then we must engage a righteous battle against our enemies who threaten life on earth with their embrace of industrial, Classic Liberal civilization, and if we defeat them, then we are promised restored paradise or some new communalism utopia”. Proudly identifying as “secular materialist” but espousing the very same primitive themes of the earliest mythologies and religions from across history. Sheesh, eh.
Ah Joe Campbell, you nailed it, stating that all people across history have believed the same primitive myths, and across all the cultures of the world.
First, some background on the child rape horror in Britian. This relates to my comments in response to the Piers Morgan interview of Jordan Peterson in a link further below:
“Britain’s mass child rape horror and the price of not being called racist: Thanks to Elon Musk, the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal is finally getting the outrage it deserves”, Michael Murphy. Jan.9, 2025
The story of mass child rapes in Britain by Pakistani Muslim men has provoked outrage and contentious discussion about what is happening. Note this interview of Jordan Peterson by Piers Morgan, Wendell Krossa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCB-MhBP7I&t=904s
Some on the Piers Morgan panel argued that Islam has a worse proclivity than Christianity to such horrific behavior. Kind of a tribalism position- We Christians are not as bad as you Muslims. While it is true that over the past few centuries most Christians have moderated the violent behaviors of their past history, Christianity also has a history of really bad behavior and episodes of bloodshed that are unequaled, some argue, by any other religion. I won’t go into the history of the Councils, Crusades, Inquisitions, persecution of heretics and witches, etc.
Other panel members taking the Muslim side, defensively state that Islam is not an inherently violent religion.
Some on the Morgan panel noted that the rape scandal is due more to cultural influences on those Pakistani men, not so much the influences from their religion. That is worth considering in the effort to understand better what happened.
Other larger background points to consider:
Someone once stated that the Christian bible has some 600-plus passages where God advocates or approves the use of violence against others, including Moses affirming the mass rape of captive women. This link lists over 1000 biblical passages pointing to divine approval or advocacy of violence.
https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
The Quran presents the same angry, violent deity as Christianity, with numerous threats from the angry God against unbelievers who will be cast into the fire (Hell) where there is severe eternal torment and from which there is no escape. Such warnings are on almost every page, or other page, of the Quran. That endless repetition gives the sense of an overwhelmingly dominant theme or message being proclaimed, and not just a peripheral “metaphor”.
(Note- A trend in the theology of all major religious traditions is to dismiss the harsher features in their belief systems as just “metaphor”. But, as one Muslim writer noted, that does not alter the “content” of what is being communicated.)
The deities of all three religious traditions share the same primitive features of tribalism (true believers saved, unbelievers damned), domination (submission to the deity and to authorities appointed by the deity), and then the punitive destruction of enemies. This applies also to the third of the great Western religious traditions- Judaism.
All three religions share the same fundamental religious themes that incite and validate bad behavior in members. Defenders of all three traditions must take responsibility for those ideas in their belief systems and for the damage that has been done over past history, damage incited, guided, and validated by those very ideas. This site repeatedly posts the evidence from historians of such damage (i.e. Richard Landes on the Christian ideas that drove Marxism, Nazism, and are now driving environmental alarmism, along with the research of Arthur Herman, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, and others.)
The defensive denial response of true believers in these religions is that- “Our religion is a religion of peace”. And yes, most members of all three traditions have learned to moderate their behavior to become less tribal, less dominating, less violent toward unbelievers. All such moderation is to be sincerely praised.
I would attribute this ‘contemporary era’ moderation more to the influence of the common human spirit in all humanity, the modern increase in human sensitivity to past barbarity, and the emergence, development, and promotion of common human rights in the modern era, etc. This moderation has occurred despite the ongoing influence of bad religious ideas in all three traditions. Stephen Pinker, in his “Better Angels of Our Nature”, comments on how the moderation of religion occurred in the modern era as religious believers experienced revulsion at the past violent history of their traditions.
But the ideas that incite and validate the worst of human impulses are still there in the belief systems, maintaining their potential to again incite and validate some members to bad behavior, as in the past. Those particular ideas in the mix, the ones that hold the most potential to incite bad behavior, need to be cleaned out entirely because of the risk of people seeking inspiration/validation from their religious beliefs, especially validation from the nature of the God at the core of religion, the ultimate ideal and authority of humanity.
Extremist violence associated with all three religions is not due to some aberrational misinterpretation of fringe features of the religious belief systems. It is based on the core beliefs/themes of all three religions. Notably, beliefs/themes that define the deities of the religions.
I would again affirm what the military guy said after the ISIS eruption of violence in Syria in 2014. If you want to prevent future eruptions of such bad behavior, then go after the core ideas in the traditions that incite and validate such violence and other pathology.
What is being advocated here is simply what we have learned to do in all areas of life- i.e. discern between the good and the bad, between the chaff and the wheat, and then toss out the bad stuff. That is what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy urged when they argued for making a clear distinction between the “diamonds/pearls” of Jesus and the Christ mythology of Paul.
While I applaud all religious reformism, too much of it remains tinkering around the periphery and not getting to the real root of the problem… due to fear of committing “blasphemy, heresy”? Well, then its helpful to recognize the “benefits of blasphemy”.
See for example, “Blasphemy has set us free”, Robert Fulford, National Post, Feb. 18, 2006.
https://robertfulford.com/2006-02-18-blasphemy.html
Also…
https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2021/terror-tyranny-blasphemy-laws
Back to this Peterson/Morgan conversation over Islam and Christianity…
To hone my point below- Note that the nature/character of the deity is the ultimate ideal and authority of these Western religions. That reality holds the most potential to incite and validate harm if not fully humane (see the statements of Harold Ellens below).
All three Western religions share a common set of ideas/beliefs that have descended down from the Persian Zoroaster and his religion. Zoroaster has been recognized for assembling the previously scattered themes of primitive mythologies into a formal religion.
Hence, all three Western religions share the same basic views on the nature and character of deity, all embracing the same basic themes that have been passed down from Zoroaster to Judaism to Christianity and then to Islam.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west
Some commentators focus on the cosmic dualism myth as the main influence on the West. The Zoroastrian myth of cosmic dualism states that there is a great battle between good and evil, with the obligation of people to join the true religion in opposition to false religions, to side with the true God against “satanic” other deities and their religions.
True believers are obligated to convert or dominate unbelievers, and also to embrace the punitive destruction of unbelievers to their particular religion, whether by temporal destruction or belief in eternal destruction.
Other scholars state that the theme of Zoroastrian apocalypse by fire was also a notable influence in shaping Western religious thought.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803133541558
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1b9f5v8
Joseph Azzi, and others, offer some stunning information on the influence of Jewish Christianity (i.e. Ebionism) on Islam- “The Priest and Prophet: The Christian Priest, Waraqa Ibn Nawfal’s, Profound Influence Upon Muhammad, The Prophet of Islam”.
Background:
Ebionism was an early Jewish-Christian sect, similar to the Nazarenes, that emerged within the Jewish movement between 30-80 CE. Ebionites were known as the “poor ones” who zealously followed the Jewish law (Torah). They opposed the priests in Jerusalem and the sacrifice industry, as Jesus did. They rejected the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus (i.e. rejecting Christian Trinity myths), viewing Jesus as a great teacher/prophet, but only human.
A source on this:
https://jamestabor.com/ebionites-nazarenes-tracking-the-original-followers-of-jesus/
The Ebionites were eventually persecuted by Paul’s branch of Christianity as a heretical movement and consequently their sect was scattered abroad, with some Ebionites migrating to the Arabian Peninsula and Mecca, where centuries later their Ebionite religion had a significant influence on Muhammad and his authorship of the Quran.
(Historians note that there is much diversity within all the early sects of Jewish Christianity, including within Ebionism.)
The influence of Jewish Christianity on Muhammad was mediated through the ministry of the Ebionite priest Waraqa. Islamic theologians/scholars suggest, defensively, that the influence of Waraqa was more of post-validation of Muhammad’s visions and insights. However, the evidence suggests that Waraqa’s influence was more of preceding and shaping Muhammad’s thought and writing.
Quotes from Joseph Azzi’s book:
“Waraqa… was an Ebionite Christian priest who lived in Mecca at the same time as Muhammad … and was related to Muhammad by marriage… he was the cousin of Muhammad’s first wife Khadija… Muhammad learned Jewish Christianity from Waraqa before he had his first revelations…”
While some Islamic theologians/scholars reject the influence of Waraqa on Muhammad, Azzi urges, “The preeminent contributions of Waraqa should not be rejected… the spiritual impact he had on the future Arab Prophet” was significant.
Azzi notes the development of the Ebionite religion of Waraqa and the fact that Waraqa translated the Gospel of the Hebrews into Arabic. That gospel is an earlier version of the Gospel of Matthew.
Azzi says that the Quran recognizes the Gospel to the Hebrews- “There is widespread agreement between it and the Quran in matters such as duties, prayers and resurrection… the Quran recalls parables similar to those found in the Ebionite Gospel” (p.12).
Azzi then details the increasing involvement of Waraqa with Muhammad and his visions. Waraqa provides theological and spiritual insights to Muhammad from the gospels that he had translated, notably the gospel of the Hebrews and Matthew. Azzi adds the detail that after Waraqa died, Muhammad’s visions ceased.
“Waraqa and Khadijah cooperate together to prepare Muhammad for his mission. This requires a continuous tutelage with a particular spiritual emphasis”, p.21.
Further on the influence of the gospels of the Hebrews and Matthew on Muhammad, “During the forty-four years when Muhammad and Waraqa are closely involved with each other, the book that the priest is translating from Hebrew to Arabic is faithfully studied” p.23.
He adds, “The Hebrew Gospel… will play a significant role in the transfer of… orthodox doctrines into Muslim beliefs and practices” p.43.
Azzi continues, noting that Muhammad admits that another messenger and book informed him about the “right way” and affirms “that the Quran is really an authentication of the Hebrew book”, p.47. Azzi then quotes specific verses from the Quran that state this.
The shared themes of Jewish Christianity and Islam include a strong monotheism, a rejection of the divinity of Jesus, a rejection of his redemptive death on the cross and resurrection, obedience and submission to the deity, and severe threats of hellfire for infidels. Muhammad also embraced Jewish practices such as circumcision (p.92), water purification rituals, and prohibitions on alcohol and pork.
Add to this the Islamic embrace of apocalyptic mythology and other eschatological beliefs such as an end-time judgment followed by severe punishment.
Azzi concludes, “The teachings of Waraqa… are thoroughly embedded in the Quran…”
The author of one article (i.e. “Waraqa’s Influence on Muhammad”) says that Muslims play down Waraqa’s influence because it undermines their preferred belief “that Muhammad had been taught the Quran by Allah”. But the similarities with Ebionite Christianity and its Gospel to the Hebrews are undeniable, hence, “we have a paradox of world-historical proportions… the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church but was preserved in Islam”.
Azzi again, “Waraqa’s… ministry includes his selection of… Muhammad to be his successor as the head of the (Ebionite) church, an offshoot of a Jewish-Christian sect…”, p. 135.
Some further evidence of Muhammad borrowing from Waraqa’s gospel to the Hebrews or Matthew:
“The Quran itself declares that much of its ethical standards were built on previous scriptural systems…” p.107.
Then Azzi notes the varied parables in the Quran that were borrowed from Matthew, such as the Sower and the Seeds, the parable of the Rich man and the beggar Lazarus, the parable of the wise man who builds his house on solid rock, the parable of the fruitful tree and the unfruitful tree, the parable of the mustard seed, the parable of the faithful servant and the evil servant, and the parable of the ten bridesmaids, p.107-111.
“The Quran does not hesitate to recognize that it has borrowed heavily from the earlier scriptures”.
This presents a problem for Islamic believers, to recognize that their scriptures are borrowed from previous religious systems and are not as “divinely inspired” as they have been taught. Christians face the same sobering realization that their scriptures and beliefs are descended from the primitive mythologies of ancient people. All subsequent religious traditions reshape details in what they borrow but the essential content and themes of borrowed material remains the same.
Joseph Campbell summarized this descent of narrative themes across history in stating that people have believed the same primitive myths all across history and across all the cultures of the world. Myths of original paradise, early human sin that ruins paradise, great flood myths, life being cursed and becoming worse, eventually declining toward collapse and apocalyptic ending as punishment for human sin, demand for sacrifice/payment, suffering as redemptive, demand to engage a righteous battle against evil enemies, and the promise of restored paradise for true believers.
Another interesting source…
https://counteringislamism.wordpress.com/waraka/
Moving along, Wendell Krossa
I would add this to Azzi’s points that the Quran borrowed from the Gospel to the Hebrews or Matthew’s Gospel. Note that the Quran makes this distinctly similar and obviously borrowed point from Matthew’s gospel- i.e. people rejecting the messenger and message, are condemned for rejecting the God being presented, and therefore are damned to hell.
In Matthew 11 Jesus rails against the villages that rejected his miracles (i.e. rejected the messenger and his message):
“Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. ‘Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida!… it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you…. You will go down to Hell (“cast into outer darkness… cast into the blazing furnace… where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth”)’”.
Then, affirming Azzi’s evidence of the Quran borrowing from the gospel to the Hebrews (Matthew’s gospel), the Quran repeatedly states that those who reject the prophet and his message, those who do not believe the message and the messenger, those who do not believe the Islamic God, are damned to hell.
The verses stating this in the Quran are too numerous and constant to list. But they are the very same statements as made in the gospels to the Hebrews and Matthew. An endless series of threats of the worst punishment imaginable- i.e. hellfire for refusing to believe the messenger, message, and God that is presented to them.
And yes, mixed among the threats in the Quran are scattered statements on divine mercy, kindness, etc. So also in the other Western religions- scattered “diamonds among d___”, to use Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s colorful language.
Also note that the Quran does not have the moderating influence of the “Q Wisdom Sayings” of Jesus that many Christians have learned to focus on, while they ignore the nastier stuff in their holy book. Many moderate Christians have learned to downplay the darker material in their scriptures, material that contradicts the central themes and message of Historical Jesus.
In all his borrowings from Jewish Christianity, the biggest blunder of Muhammad was to not include the powerful moderating influence of the actual message of Jesus. But Paul’s blunder was, arguably, far worse. Paul took the Palestinian wisdom sage Jesus who had protested the sacrifice industry, and died for that protest, and turned his protest against sacrifice into the Christ myth of a godman who came as the supreme sacrifice for all sin. A distortion and fraud of such scale/degree that it is hard to comprehend how it has survived to this day as truth in the minds of billions of people.
Bob Brinsmead on the anti-sacrifice message and ministry of Historical Jesus:
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
The main guiding ideals/principles of Historical Jesus (i.e. his central teaching that, even while almost buried in the larger New Testament context, has continued to exert a potent moderating influence against the worst beliefs and impulses of the Christian tradition.):
Guiding ideals/principles of Historical Jesus (his central teaching):
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
This can be summarized in this single statement: “Love your enemy because God does”.
(Note: The moderating or humanizing influence of the above Jesus message is evident in the very content- i.e. what is said.)
Example of non-retaliatory, unconditional love: The Prodigal Father story in Luke 15:11-31.
The Father (representing God) did not demand a sacrifice, restitution, payment, apology, punishment, or anything else before forgiving, fully accepting, and loving the wasteful son.
The above statement and illustration by Jesus, overturns the highly conditional Christian religion and Paul’s Christ mythology. Paul, along with the rest of the New Testament, preached a retaliatory God who demanded full payment and punishment of all sin in a blood sacrifice of atonement before he would forgive, accept, and ultimately love anyone.
Weaving back to my larger point of these three Western religions…
The evidence from across history, on all three religions, affirms Harold Ellen’s point that the very same “cruel God” mythology in all three religions deforms human personality with fear, anxiety, shame guilt, despair and depression, nihilism, and violence (see “Cruel God, Kind God” by Zenon Lotufo).
Lotufo quoting Ellens:
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God… this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…
“Hence, in our culture we have a powerful element that impels us to violence, a Cruel God Image… that also contributes to guilt, shame, and the impoverishment of personality…”.
As Harold Ellens says, “If your God uses force, then so may you, to get your way against your ‘enemies’”.
As Bob Brinsmead says, “We become just like the God that we believe in”.
Further, Jordan Peterson in his defense of Christianity as better than Islam, argues that Islam was spread by the sword. Well, balance that with the evidence that Christianity was also spread by the sword under Constantine, and in places like Latin America.
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/interview-converting-by-the-sword
https://brooklynrail.org/2008/04/express/the-church-and-its-sins-constantines-sword/
http://www.belovedspear.org/2014/03/constantines-sword.html
All three Western religions are more similar on fundamental and dominant themes/beliefs than they are different in other areas. This raises the question of why there is such enmity and hatred between members of these religions when they share basic common beliefs?
Notably, they all share the same “core problem”, their inheritance of Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism that validates the human tribalism of a good religion set in obligatory conflict with evil enemies who differ (among the many other tribal dualisms that people construct to separate themselves from differing others in relationships of enmity, hatred, and outright war- i.e. dualisms based on race/ethnicity, nationality, ideology, etc.).
Add the Western religious theologies of the divine ideal of domination/submission relating, and justice as punitive destruction, both temporal and eternal. These core ideals/beliefs shape the very nature of the deity of Western religions, deity as the long-standing ultimate ideal and authority of humanity.
It’s not about a competition for which religion is “better or worse”. All three share the same heritage of bad ideas and all fail by embracing and promoting the same theology of a violent, vengeful God as the cohering center of their complexes of primitive myths. And all have histories of true believers finding validation for bad behavior based on the nature of their deity (using the “behavior validated by belief” relationship).
All three religions have major flaws, so stop the comparative arguments and the defense and blaming the other as worse, when all three share the same common fundamental beliefs. I am reminded here also of Dominic Crossan’s point (Jesus Seminar) that it is unethical to state that another person’s belief is “demonic” in contrast with your belief in the very same thing. He was referring to early Christians claiming that the Roman belief in virgin birth was demonic (i.e. Emperors/Caesars born of virgins) compared to the Christian belief in the very same thing.
Adherents of all three Western religions need to engage the Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy approach of discerning the “diamonds from the dung” in the mix of their beliefs and practices, harsh as that lands on true believer ears. That is the fundamental responsibility of everyone of us- i.e. to discern bad from good in all areas of life.
The project of distinguishing good from bad requires that true believers cease the blind denial of bad elements in the mix of their belief systems and cease defending their entire traditions without exercising responsible re-evaluation of the nasty features in the mix. Recognize what is valuable in your tradition, what affirms authentic humaneness, but then also acknowledge what in your belief system incites and validates the worst of human impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
And most critical to any thorough reformism project- Go to the core of belief systems, the “cohering center” that is the ultimate ideal and authority of deity. We all become just like the God that we believe in. If our God is tribal then so also we will become tribal in our thinking, feeling, motivations, and behavior. And if our God dominates others as iconic “Lord/King” then so we will find validation for the same domination of others. And if our God solves problems with punitive violence then so may we resort to the same inhumane treatment of failing others.
The same prominent themes frame the narratives in the holy books of all three Western religions.
Where to next, then?
Go directly to the “Mother of all roots of a problem, the most influential of contributing root factors.” Replace the core of religious theology- i.e. God theory- with the central Jesus insight on God as universal, unconditional love. His “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God”. A theology that rejected Zoroastrian cosmic dualism and tribal opposition between differing groups of people, meaning the rejection of favoring and only including true believers while excluding unbelievers. A God defined by the “greatness of serving others, not lording over others”. A God who did not engage the punitive destruction of “eye for eye” retaliatory justice as in apocalypse and hell myths.
Then end the struggle for your religion to dominate in society over others that you believe fundamentally differ in adverse/detrimental ways, but actually do not differ in terms of basic beliefs and practices.
Then take the “diamond features” out of religious systems (out of the deforming influence of religious context) and frame them as common features of the human spirit- i.e. the diamonds of common forgiveness, mercy, kindness, love, generosity, and other common human features that are practiced by religious people and atheists alike. The common goodness of the common human spirit.
Or if you choose to remain in a religious tradition, understand that what is good in your system is not due to some mysterious influence from your religion. It is due to the human spirit that exhibits goodness in all sorts of contexts, despite surrounding influences that may undermine or deform the common impulse to good.
Now to the most critical reform of all…
The central breakthrough insight of Historical Jesus, that God was an unconditional reality, is entirely contrary to the conditional beliefs and practices of religious traditions. Or to phrase it negatively as James Robinson did- “Jesus’ stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God… His greatest contribution to the history of human ideas”. I use “unconditional” which is a more encompassing term and includes the feature of “non-retaliatory”.
No conditional religion ever has, or can ever, communicate that liberating unconditional deity to humanity. Unconditional deity is contrary to any and all conditional religion. I don’t know how to state that any more clearly.
The no conditions love of God, as the ultimate human ideal, will remove the central validation used by people across history for bad behavior. God as no conditions love will leave people on their own if they choose to act badly in terms of exhibiting tribalism, domination, or punitive destruction of others. There is no such God of tribalism, domination, or punitive destruction. There never has been any such reality. It was always the construction of similarly structured primitive minds seeking to dominate and control their fellow tribe members with myths of such monstrous deities.
Unconditional deity will also spell the collapse of religious traditions as institutions mediating religious conditions to humanity through controlling religious authorities. Unconditional means “Absolutely no conditions. None”.
Add here, to further combat the human versions of tribalism that find validation in Zoroastrian cosmic dualism, the understanding of fundamental human oneness that is backed by the “Mitochondrial Eve” theory of human origins (i.e. all humans on Earth today are the descendants of a common African mother). Buttress this with quantum entanglement that affirms the fundamental oneness of all reality. And the insights of all-encompassing oneness as revealed in the Near-Death Experiences. In light of these insights, see through or past the divisiveness that religious traditions have long promoted among people.
The unconditional love taught by Historical Jesus is best expressed via Classic Liberalism with its protection of the rights and freedoms of all individual, equally. Rights as enumerated in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, rights as stated in constitutions such as the US Constitution, rights and freedoms as protected by common law systems, and rights and freedoms as protected and promoted by representative institutions staffed with people who truly understand their agencies exist to serve citizens.
And so much more.
The Jesus message is a call to die to the old, and find rebirth in the new, much like the shaman’s experience of complete disintegration and then reintegration around something radically new (my paraphrase of that experience). I would frame the elements of rebirth and re-integration as taking place around insights like the stunning new theology of Jesus. It is a call to embrace a new life of truly human existence framed by the ideal of no conditions love for all. Something like the generosity of spirit and universalism that Nelson Mandela wrestled with and exhibited as a great example for us to follow.
And the Jesus insights function well in any human situation, because they are not religious insights and practices. He was not a religious man and did not intend to start another religion. That adds to the offensive deformity of the man in a world religion.
On the common Muslim hesitancy to recognize the actual origins of Islam in Jewish Christianity. The same hesitancy is felt among Christians, Wendell Krossa
As Christians (myself “former”, I left in late 70s) we were told that our beliefs/ideas came directly from God. They were given to special people (i.e. Paul’s heavenly visions) through divine inspiration with no mistakes. The biblical scriptures, written by the varied specially inspired people (i.e. gospel authors and others), was the authoritative “word of God” to be received, submitted to, and obeyed under threat of eternal damnation. You were never to doubt or question the holy book of our religion as that was sin of the highest order, and “deception by the devil” to boot.
It can be initially disconcerting, but later liberating, to discover that the beliefs that you had embraced are the very same as the beliefs of primitive peoples long before your religion embraced them. The beliefs of all our main world religions are adopted and adapted from the mythologies and religions of primitive people long before our religions were constructed by our founders. Our religions borrowed the same ideas created by others long before, adjusting bits here and there but keeping the main themes intact.
Hence, as Joseph Campbell has said, all people across history have believed the same primitive myths and across all the cultures of the world. Myths of creation, fall, original sin, flood, decline of life toward ending in apocalypse, demand for sacrifice/payment, demand for purging of evil in war of good against evil threat, promise of future paradise. (Sources- Books by Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, and many others on ancient mythologies.)
And note that in Christianity we have the “Christ-ianity” of Paul, not the true “Jesus-ianity” of the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel that is the closest that we get to what Jesus actually taught.
Within Christianity and its bible, there is a profound and irreconcilable contradiction between the message of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Christianity has merged two entirely opposite messages thus creating the epitome of an oxymoronic combination of things, that has resulted in cognitive dissonance unheard of anywhere before in history.
Here again is my complex of basic themes that have influenced all the great religions and still dominate both religious and secular systems of belief, Wendell Krossa
“The apocalyptic millennial complex is better understood when fleshed out as the larger complex of primitive myths that includes-
“(1) The baseline myth of a lost original paradise- i.e. a better past that “corrupt, evil humans” have ruined. That undergirds the sense of the loss of something good and, hence, now unbalanced justice demands that that the lost good must be restored in order to rebalance justice and righteousness in the cosmos and life. To make things right again.
“Consequent to the myth of a better past that has been ruined, primitive mythology pivoted to (2) blame people, to blame humanity as the evil enemy that must be punished and even exterminated in order to restore the lost paradise and to save life. In contemporary terms- today the evil enemy of nature is greedy, consuming humans in industrial civilization (“humanity as ‘virus, cancer’ on the Earth”). And even more specifically today, greedy humans using natural resources like fossil fuels that enables them to enjoy the good life.
“Then to further re-enforce the narrative that evil humans had ruined divine and pure nature (i.e. Earth as goddess), the ancients added the ongoing threat that (3) life was declining toward apocalyptic ending. And to even further re-enforce alarm, apocalyptic prophets repeatedly set “always imminent” dates to raise hysteria levels and validate the use of desperate measures (elites using state coercion) to “save” the world that is always threatened by the looming apocalypse.
“But also, the apocalyptic alarmists introduced “hope” into the mix, the perverse version of hope that was built on the violent destruction of enemies. And they create salvation schemes where specially enlightened elites lecture the ignorant and unenlightened commoners on what they must do to be saved from imminent destruction and death- i.e. (4) demand some sacrifice/payment. Today’s sacrifice- “de-growth, de-development”, as a return to primitivism as in a return to the more pure and strong existence of “noble savage” life as hunter-gathers with no ecological footprint. Add to this sacrifice/payment element, the redistribution programs pushed in the endless annual climate COPs.
“Couch this madness in a deformed version of the hero’s quest where those identifying as true heroes will engage a righteous tribal battle to conquer and (5) violently purge a purported monster/enemy framed as demonized fellow humans.
“And when the enemy is fully purged/exterminated, then (6) salvation is attained in a renewed communal paradise.
“Most critical to understand in this set of primitive themes is- What is the driving Force behind this complex? What is the “cohering center” of this complex that has wreaked so much destruction across history? What validates the rest of the primitive and distorting ideas in the complex?
“The cohering center is none other than the “wrathful” deity of all primitive mythologies, the deity royally pissed at humans for ruining his original perfect paradise. Hence, the subsequent threats of divine retaliation toward humanity by violently destroying the entire world in an apocalypse. The mother of all hissy fits. Followed by divine demands for sacrifice/payment/suffering as required conditions to achieve redemption.
“The cohering center of the apocalyptic millennial complex of myths is the violent, destroying God who threatens people in this life through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty, and also threatens people with after-life harm that adds sting to death. That “monster God” is the central issue to deal with in apocalyptic millennial complexes of myths. This psycho-pathological vision of deity has dominated mythologies and religions across history and has now been transformed into secular/ideological systems of belief to also dominate those. I.e. “Vengeful Gaia, punitive Universe, angry Planet/Mother Earth, payback karma”, etc.
“These deeply embedded themes, long entrenched in human psyches as subconscious archetypes, help explain why emotional satisfaction, not rational evidence is behind our choice in beliefs. Hence, many people simply respond to contemporary apocalyptic millennial narratives, whether Marxist collectivism or climate apocalyptic, because they feel right, good, just, and true. They resonate with deeply embedded archetypes.”
Excellent analysis of our societies and what went wrong….
Leftist elites, desperate to hold onto their power and policies even as they destroy Western societies, are framing the current populist pushback against their authoritarian domination as “far right, extremist right, etc.”. No, it is populist common sense revolting against totalitarianism lunacy. It is “Populism is democracy” as framed by Winston Marshall.
“Across the West, arrogant woke leaders like Trudeau are in retreat: The poor quality, high expense, and arrogant bossiness of these governments is finally taking its toll”, J. D. Tuccille, National Post, Jan.10, 2025
Tuccille starts commenting that “CNN’s Fareed Zakaria noted over the weekend that progressive politicians are in retreat throughout the West.” Zakaria adds that in the recent US election, Americans repudiated the “arrogance and authoritarianism of the left”.
Zakaria continues that, “The crisis of democratic government then, is actually a crisis of progressive government. People seem to feel that they have been taxed, regulated, bossed around and intimidated by left-of-center politicians for decades — but the results are bad and have been getting worse.”
The results are evident in the high tax burdens of Progressive states with worse outcomes than non-Progressive states. Tuccille notes that Zakaria emphasizes that “the arrogant bossiness of the left also alienates voters.”
Then Tuccille comments on “Jonathan Chait, a center-left writer who has been critical of cancel culture, censorship, and the general intolerance of the left” who predicts that the illiberal authoritarianism of the left is now ending with strong pushback from citizenry.
Tuccille moves on to also credit the Covid pandemic for helping to end leftist authoritarianism because it was in mostly leftist Progressive areas of the Western world where the lockdowns were most strict and elite recriminations against dissent were most severe.
Under Covid “the political left enhanced its political power through “authoritarian means: censorship, repression, and public shaming… the left — intruded into people’s lives with lockdowns and censored dissenting views in the name of suppressing “disinformation”, (Muriel Blaive).
The populist pushback against this leftist authoritarianism will be felt next in Canada, says Tuccille, where Trudeau is on his way out: “Trudeau may think of himself as a liberal, and that might even be the name of his party, but his government actually epitomizes illiberal progressivism,” (Bari Weiss of The Free Press).
The leftist regimes in Western democracies have ignored constitutional limits and denied citizens their basic rights. That has rendered democracy and liberty “an empty shell”.
Tuccille rightly concludes that it is critical that new governments restore respect for personal liberty and restrain state power.
I would add that the restoration and promotion of Classic Liberalism will do that, by protecting the freedoms and rights of all individuals, equally, through Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and truly representative state institutions that actually function to serve the people.
And this… As RFK has said, the party that once stood for freedom of speech is now the party of censorship.
“Zuckerberg tells Rogan that the Biden Admin would ‘scream’ and ‘curse’ at this employees, demanding censorship: Zuckerberg joked that the consequences of the political establishment pushing for censorship is that they ‘lost the election’”, Alexander Hall, Fox News, Jan. 10, 2025.
This from Hall, “Meta CEO founder Mark Zuckerberg told podcaster Joe Rogan that members of President Biden’s administration yelled at his employees, demanding they take down content on their behalf.
“Meta announced Tuesday that it would be ending its controversial fact-checking practices and lifting restrictions on speech to “restore free expression” across Facebook, Instagram and Meta platforms, admitting its current content moderation practices have “gone too far.” Zuckerberg spoke about the platform’s struggles to maintain freedom of expression while fending off pressure from the Biden administration amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Hall continues, quoting Zuckerberg as saying, “During the Biden administration, when they were trying to roll out the vaccine program,” the social media CEO said, “while they were trying to push that program they also tried to censor anyone who is basically arguing against it. And they pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly, were true.”…
He adds, “”Who is ‘they’?” Rogan asked. “Who was telling you to take down things that talk about vaccine side effects?”
“”It was people in the Biden administration,” the Meta CEO said.”
Hall says further, “He then spoke further about the “government censorship,” with Zuckerberg saying, “I mean basically these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and like scream at them and curse, and it’s like… these documents are, it’s all kind of out there.”…
Hall ends, concluding: “Podcaster Joe Rogan asked Zuckerberg whether there have been any repercussions to those who demanded censorship of Americans. Zuckerberg joked that those who did lost the 2024 presidential election.”
Joe Rogan episode 2255 on YouTube or Spotify, interview of Mark Zuckerberg
In the first couple of minutes Mark Zuckerberg explains that the censorship movement began about 10 years ago when Trump was elected, and Brexit happened. And then Covid occurred and that is when “content moderation”, that had formerly dealt with actual harmful content (i.e. online bullying), then became more “ideologically driven”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k1ehaE0bdU
Zuckerberg admits that he gave too much deference to people in the media saying that Trump could not have gotten elected without help from the Russians. He initially viewed the media and others as acting in good faith. But it bothered him to be in the position of “decider of truth in the world”. They, at Facebook, had put in place a system to deal with “disinformation” and “extreme hoaxes”, but it veered off as the fact-checkers shifted to political fact-checking and the fact-checking was just too biased.
The societal shift back to rediscovering common sense, Wendell Krossa
In this link below Dave Rubin and guests comment on the shift now of many former US liberals to the right. They frame this as people coming to the “right” side, moving to the conservative side, but they note that some of these shifting liberals/Democrats are not wanting to fully embrace truly conservative positions. I find that a bit clouding/obfuscating of what is happening and what should happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=202mI7qLY9s
The shift back to common sense after the last decade of Woke Progressive extremism is not about becoming conservative. I would clarify more that its about all of us rediscovering and re-enforcing the Classic Liberalism that was bequeathed to us from England over the last few centuries. Classic Liberalism as in the principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions that protect the freedoms and rights of all, equally. That is not something “conservative” or “liberal” as these terms have defined the differing sides of our Western societies over past decades.
Maybe somewhat “Libertarian-ish” but more its own unique reality and to be understood as such. Its own uniquely liberating approach to organizing societies.
Here is a reposting of the basic principles of a humane society, as Classic Liberal: Wendell Krossa
What do I mean when I refer to “Classic Liberalism”?
And as people talk about creating a “safe AI”, why not ensure that safety of AI by programing it with Classic Liberal principles?
Anyway…
Basic principles, systems, institutions of Classic Liberalism, liberal democracy, or Western liberalism.
Daniel Hannan in his Introduction to “Inventing Freedom” provides the following lists and descriptions of the basic features of a truly liberal society or civilization:
“A belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government…
“Three irreducible elements. First, the rule of law…Those rules exist on a higher plane and are interpreted by independent magistrates…
“Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish with your assets, to work for whom you please, and conversely, to hire and fire as you will…
“Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us… the rule of law, democratic government, and individual liberty…
“The idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion… elevate the individual over the state…
“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus (see below), free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials…
“The idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around. The rule of law created security of property and contract…
“Individualism, the rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values…
And this full summary:
“Lawmakers should be directly accountable through the ballot box; the executive should be controlled by the legislature; taxes should not be levied nor laws passed without popular consent; the individual should be free from arbitrary punishment or confiscation; decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affected; power should be dispersed; no one, not even the head of state, should be above the law; property rights should be secure; disputes should be arbitrated by independent magistrates; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should be guaranteed”.
Hannan’s book is invaluable for tracing the historical emergence and development of Western freedom down through the English tradition, from pre-Magna Carta to the present.
Definition of habeas corpus (varied online definitions):
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
One of the best at defining and articulating Classic Liberal ideals and principles, notably in the US version- Full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on Lex Fridman podcast. Vivek for president. Note how Vivek frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right side of US society.