“The old theologies of the world religions perpetuate violence”, my buddy Grok commenting on my argument that bad religious ideas continue to be critical contributing factors to eruptions of tribal hatred among people and the horrific violence of war. And the egregious shame- We have had the brilliant and liberating alternative for two millennia, almost buried by Paul’s Christ myth, but still clearly discernable in the “Q Wisdom Sayings” material of Historical Jesus. The stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God.
This site presents material from a generally independent viewpoint, not left or right, but as with Goldilocks finally tasting baby bear’s porridge… “Just right”. I kid. But I recognize that “far-left Woke Progressivism” has permeated throughout our liberal democracies and dominates many of our institutions (i.e. mainstream news media, government bureaucracies, educational systems, political parties, and even intelligence agencies). Because of its societal dominance today, I focus more on that great “threat to democracy”- a smear that the left throws at all who disagree with its narratives, including even those still on the left but who do not affirm the crazier elements of woke extremism.
The focus here on leftist lunacy explains some of the links provided here on varied issues….
Note below, Grok’s responses to the Israeli man (Bari Weiss of Free Press interview) who argued that you can defeat bad ideas with military force. I pushed Grok on that fallacy. The man confused the Pan-Arabism movement (a coalition of Arab countries sharing some joint narrative and project) with the more fundamental ideas/beliefs in all three Western religions that have long incited, guided, and validated violence toward hated others (tribalism gone extreme). Yes, Israeli military force defeated the “idea” of Pan-Arabism but not the core narrative themes that drove that experiment, themes that frame our great world religions and have been embraced in varied “secular/ideological” versions also, like climate apocalyptic.
Some further Grok quotes from below:
I pushed Grok to see that bad religious ideas have a history of inciting and validating bad behavior in people. Often seriously bad behavior as in mass-death crusades and wars.
Grok offered the following comments on my push for his insights on this:
“Your argument about the shared core themes across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— tribal gods, cosmic dualism, apocalyptic myths, and salvation through destruction— holds weight. These ideas, embedded in sacred texts and traditions, can indeed fuel eruptions of violence when interpreted literally or exploited by extremists…
“You’re correct that the major Western religions, including Judaism, preserve ideas that can be weaponized.”
I told Grok of the military commander who, after the defeat of ISIS in Syria (2014), stated that you can crush such eruptions of religious violence with military force, but they will only continue recurring until you go after the root ideas that drive them.
Grok responded:
“Military force can suppress violent outbreaks, but only confronting the ideas— tribal gods, dualism, apocalyptic salvation— can prevent their recurrence…”
I then noted specific and dominant religious ideas- notably “threat theology” (i.e. punitive, destroying God)- that center human narratives and have been behind repeated eruptions of violence across history. I added that Historical Jesus had rejected such theology and offered a stunning new alternative image of God as non-retaliatory, non-destroying. A stunning new ultimate ideal to inspire, guide, and validate better human behavior.
Grok acknowledged this new theology of Jesus and my point that Paul had rejected that new theology and retreated to punitive, destroying deity in his Christ myth. Grok agreed that such theological beliefs can fuel violence.
Grok said,
“The Historical Jesus, as reconstructed by scholars like James Robinson, presents a theology that breaks sharply with the punitive, tribal deities of earlier traditions…
“Paul’s theology, by embedding Christ in a narrative of divine wrath and ultimate triumph, restores the threat theology Jesus subverted, creating a tension that Jefferson and Tolstoy recognized as burying Jesus’s “diamonds” in a punitive framework.
“This Pauline retreat has shaped Christianity’s dominant narrative, reinforcing ideas of divine favor, exclusion of unbelievers, and apocalyptic salvation— ideas shared with Judaism and Islam, as you noted. These ideas, when taken literally, can fuel violence, as seen historically in Crusades or modernly in Christian nationalist movements.”
I finally pushed Grok to see my argument for radical transformation of our narratives/belief systems as critical to confronting and resolving the problem of recurring violence and war. We are motivated to act in certain ways (incited, guided, validated) by the ideas/beliefs/ideals we hold in our narratives, our belief systems, our worldviews. “Behavior based on belief”.
Grok responded:
“I understand your core argument: the Historical Jesus, as revealed through modern scholarship (e.g., the Search for the Historical Jesus), taught a radically different theology— centered on a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God— compared to Paul’s Christ myth, which reintroduced a punitive, apocalyptic deity. This creates a profound oxymoron, as you put it, where Paul’s merging of Jesus into his Christology distorts and undermines the wisdom teachings of Jesus, particularly those in the Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel. You’re tying this to the broader issue of religious violence, including in Judaism, suggesting that clinging to old threat theologies (like Paul’s) perpetuates problematic ideas, while Jesus’s vision offers a transformative alternative.”
Grok summarized this latest discussion:
“Final Thoughts
“The Historical Jesus’s theology of a non-retaliatory, loving God, as seen in Q, offers a radical alternative to Paul’s Christ myth, which reverts to threat theology. This oxymoron— merging two incompatible deities— distorts Jesus’s vision and mirrors Judaism’s own tensions between universalism and exclusivism. Reframing Jewish narratives around a Jesus-like God could counter violent ideas, but it faces textual, political, and cultural hurdles. Your point about the diamonds of Jesus’s teachings being buried by Paul underscores the need to unearth similar ethical gems in Judaism to prevent violence. Military force can’t erase these ideas; only new narratives, rooted in love and restoration, can.” (End of Grok quotes)
And contrary to the argument of the Israeli man interviewed by Bari Weiss (see below), Grok appears to agree that military force alone cannot erase the dogmatically-held beliefs of people. That man’s muddled explanation of Israeli force defeating Pan-Arabism, misses the critical point that better alternative ideas/beliefs are needed to replace the bad ones that still frame the narratives that we have inherited in our dominant religious traditions. The defeat of the Pan-Arabism coalition was not a defeat of the fundamental beliefs of the Islamic religion and certainly did not stop subsequent eruptions of violent extremism fueled by such beliefs.
And to balance this point lest some are triggered to shout “Islamophobia”, the same core beliefs of Islam have also shaped Judaism and Christianity, and the potential for abuse by extremist spirits in all such traditions remains. The old theologies, and related complexes of beliefs, will continue to incite and validate tribalism, domination of others, and punitive destruction.
And then this from Rubin Report…
“The end of legacy media and what replaces it”, Dave Rubin of Rubin Report, April, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue1IG7JGnsQ
Here in first 10 minutes or so, Dave Rubin, one of first alternative news podcasters and comparable to Joe Rogan and others, talks about what has happened to mainstream news media, notably that those outlets have collapsed, having now been exposed for lying about almost everything over past years- i.e. Russiagate, Covid, Charlottesville, Hunter Biden laptop, Joe Biden’s mental decline and incompetence, etc. Mainstream media have been exposed for operating as the propaganda arm of the Democratic party that has shifted far left toward extremist Woke Progressivism.
Rubin notes what is happening to the mainstream media as “Independents” now dominate and the new independent media emerged out of the freedom that has prevailed with the opening up of the Internet for all to speak. However, independents still face censorship through social media forums that deplatform, shadow-ban, and demonetize (i.e. campaigns to get advertisers to not support independents).
Rubin makes a good point on the divides in our societies where people look at the same reality but see entirely opposite things. People hold entirely opposite views on varied realities according to the ideology or belief system that they embrace.
He adds that, in the past, when he would visit colleges all over the US to give presentations on classic liberalism and individual freedom and rights, protesters would try to shut him down. He was even assaulted. Students were protesting the freedom that he was advocating, and even professors joined them. That illustrates the core pathology of collectivist leftism- its hatred of individual freedom and rights.
Universities are graduating students who, at the level of 51% (according to surveys), now believe that socialism is the best way to organize our societies. These students go forth to populate the institutions and agencies of our societies and that, in part, explains the intolerant totalitarianism over past decades- i.e. the censorship of diverse opinion, the severe punishment of any disagreement with the dominant Woke Progressive narratives, punishment through demonizing, vilifying, destroying careers and jobs, even outright cancelling.
The emergence and spread of the intolerant and totalitarian left in our liberal democracies over past years is very much the result of elements like the Chinese program to engage “the long march of socialism through the institutions of the West.”
Others have noted that Marxists decided that it would be a more successful strategy to go in through the back door of Western liberal democracies after they failed to gain public support to go in through the front door via democratic processes in the 60s. And those same leftists also found climate alarmism would be useful to facilitate their overall project to destroy Western industrial/capitalist civilization. They could shut down industrial society by going after the fuel of this civilization that has liberated and lifted billions out of poverty.
Overall, Rubin is Libertarianish, centrist moderate, not right-wing.
Another:
This from independent news podcaster Dave Rubin…
“Blue Cities Are Finally Scared After Trump’s Latest Brutal Threat”, Rubin Report, June 20, 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrfZvgFYXOg
Around the 32-minute mark Rubin plays a video clip of Jake Tapper quoting George Orwell where Orwell warns about denying reality that is right in front of you. Tapper did exactly that in playing a major role in the coverup of Joe Biden’s mental decline.
As Rubin says, here Tapper quotes Orwell after doing the Orwellian thing himself and now pretending that he had nothing to do with it.
Tapper (quoting Orwell): “We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue and then when we are finally proven wrong, we imprudently twist the facts to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against a solid reality…”.
Tapper then adds from Orwell- “Facts that are plain to any dispassionate eye… to see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle…”. Tapper then applies that to himself, stating, “And that’s the lesson for me. We all saw it happening and we all refused to see it.”
“Keep it simple, stupid.” Ok, advice taken. This site is, most simply, about what is good and what is bad. Or better, what is human and what is inhuman. Thats it. Nothing more complicated. Just what humans have been trying to figure out since the beginning. That curiosity to know what is good and bad is why the religious God kicked Adam out of Eden. Just for trying to figure good and bad out by eating the prohibited apple, or whatever it was. People just trying to be like God, our natural right and obligation.
I mean, what kind of pathological God would try to prevent people from knowing what is right and what is wrong? Prohibiting curiosity. Sheesh, eh. As they say in Britain, “What the fook, man?”
And that was a setup for what follows… Wendell Krossa
A persistent, repeated point that is made here is for visitors to get the fundamental issue of the difference between Jesus and Christ, two profoundly opposite persons, messages, belief systems. They cannot be merged in one entity (i.e. “Jesus Christ”) without weakening, distorting, undermining, and even burying the good in the mix- the Jesus element. That mixing/merging of two profound opposites is the core of the problem with all such admixtures that are like oil and water.
The “Jesus Christ” oxymoron most iconically represents many such human efforts at construction of belief systems and the problem of merging bad ideas with good ones in our narratives.
It started when the ancients (our earliest ancestors) responded to their sense of awe at life (i.e. the “numinous”, or better- the primal impulse to meaning as our most basic motivating urge). They began the history-long process of explaining all things in their world with ideas/myths/stories. And unfortunately, they framed many things in their world in terms of threat theology- i.e. the overarching theme of angry gods punishing bad people through the nasty elements of the natural world. The result has been horrifically deformed mythologies centered around monster gods.
Their explanations buried the human sense of awe with those early deformities that have continued as dominant narrative themes into the present, in both religious and secular versions. Belief systems of the modern era still retain the bad ideas/themes from the past, such as the threat theology elements, the “monster God” features.
And too many people, fearing the mythical bogeyman of divine wrath, as messaged through their religious traditions, refuse to confront or purge the psychopathologies in their belief systems. The religious authorities maintain that fear in their membership with threats of “blasphemy, heresy, unbelief, etc. that result in eventual hellfire.”
Many also fear the transformation that is involved in the death to the old and rebirth to something new, in the disintegration of the old and reintegration around something entirely new. Such processes of profound change are necessary to human development and progress but can be traumatizing as they often involve the complete transformation of our worldviews. And that sometimes involves the revolutionizing our very identity as human persons.
I view the Jesus/Christ merger of good ideas with bad ideas as iconically embodying the basic differences in all human narratives across history, whether religious or secular. The Jesus/Christ coupling has embodied these fundamental differences most notably for the Western tradition, for our civilization and its dominant narratives.
The more humane ideals in the Jesus/Christ mixture are located in the Jesus message and not in the general features of the Christ myth. Many however, confused by the merger, will reference the Christ in positive terms when they are actually alluding to the better features in the Jesus material. This confusion permits the ignoring or downplaying of the more damaging features in the Christ material, because the darker features are then viewed as less harmful then they really are, as just differing aspects of one unified whole. Bad is therefore interpreted as also good in some manner. After all, it’s the unquestionable Christ that has been softened for public consumption by the Jesus teaching. As defenders of religious beliefs have argued across history- “How dare you challenge truth from God?”
The critical issue with the merger of bad and good in highly revered religious icons- the bad ideas influence bad impulses and bad behavior in people, both at the personal and societal levels. Our ideas shape how we think and feel, how we are motivated, and how we respond/behave in life.
And the outcomes of bad ideas have profoundly impactful consequences, both personally and at societal scale. So, maintaining my effort to “Keep it simple” in regard to outcomes of this topic- the Jesus material led (fed into) to the humane approach of liberal democracy in our modern world. The darker ideas of the Christ myth- i.e. “apocalyptic millennialism”- led to the totalitarianism of Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism. I have repeatedly posted the research on this from historians Arthur Herman, Richard Landes, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, and others.
Historian Arthur Herman, in “The Cave and The Light: Plato versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization”, traced the two-track evolution of our dominant narratives, the one track descending down from Plato through to Hegel and then to Marxist collectivism and totalitarianism. He also traced the other track of descent of our most impactful “society shaping ideas” from Aristotle down to liberal democracy or Classic Liberalism, with its emphasis on individual freedom and rights.
Paul’s Christ was prominently in the line of descent from Plato to contemporary collectivism. Paul’s Christ became a major re-enforcement factor in that line of thinking, especially in the Western tradition. Bob Brinsmead has also detailed the Plato/Hellenism influence on Paul (see links to his essays below).
If nothing else, get this point that the some of the most violent and destructive ideas/themes ever constructed by primitive minds are embodied in Paul’s Christ- i.e. salvation through destruction/murder (crucifixion), the threat of the apocalyptic ending of the world if you don’t believe and embrace such salvation, the promise of utopian collectivism if you heroically and nobly join the crusade to fight and exterminate some evil enemy that opposes your salvation narrative and scheme, etc. These themes have incited, guided, and validated horrific mass-death crusades, including over the 20th Century.
The evidence marshalled by historians should stun us into some kind of awakening over the irrefutable consequences of these bad ideas.
The counter to such madness…
The point of my repeated lasering in on understanding the stunning new theology of Historical Jesus, the nonreligious wisdom sage, is to present that as a supreme example of a truly humane ideal to center our narratives and function as a standard for all related ideas/features in narratives (i.e. a guiding light for what is most truly human in terms of worldviews, ethics/behavior, justice, etc., what guides us to doing the least harm and the most good in life).
The fundamental point of difference between Jesus and Paul’s Christ is their theology, their entirely opposite views of God. As stated often here, Jesus presented his stunning new theology framed in the ancient “behavior based on similar belief” relationship. He said there must be no more eye for eye, but instead- “Love your enemy because God does.” How so? He illustrated the non-tribal, inclusive, unconditional love of God in that God gives rain and sun to all equally without exclusion or discrimination between good and bad. God freely loves all. Do the same and you will be just like God.
Paul confronted that very same pattern that Jesus used, employing the same “behavior based on belief” relationship, but to state his entirely contrary theology of a God of eye for eye vengeance and retaliation (Romans 12: 17-20). He urged his followers to hold their lust for vengeance in abeyance because God would take vengeance on their enemies for them. A sort of jumbled version of the same “behavior validated by belief” pattern used by Jesus.
And Paul also expressed his retaliatory theology in his Christ returning in blazing rage to destroy all who refused to believe his Christ myth, punishing them through apocalyptic destruction and hellfire (Thessalonian letters). See also John’s Revelation for detail on Paul’s more general theology of salvation through violent destruction.
These opposing theologies of Jesus and Paul act as the cohering centers of their opposing messages.
Added note:
The egregious nature of what Paul did with his Christ myth (i.e. burying the diamonds of Historical Jesus, denying and overturning his stunning new theology) is most notable in that Paul deformed entirely a man and his message. Paul took a historical person who was murdered for protesting the sacrifice industry (i.e. the Temple incident) and turned that man into the myth of the ultimate cosmic Sacrifice who was predestined to fulfill the ultimate condition.
Paul turned Jesus into something absolutely contrary to what he had actually stood for, protested, and taught. Historical Jesus had stated clearly that God loved inclusively and unconditionally and hence did not demand sacrifice or conditions. Note how Jesus illustrated his new vision of deity in, for example, the Prodigal Father story. According to Jesus, there was no God who demanded conditions for forgiveness or salvation.
Paul’s retreat to highly conditional, retaliatory deity in his Christ myth, and dragging Historical Jesus into that distorting mythology, is the epitome of fraud, distortion, lying. No wonder, as biblical scholars state, Paul (in his letters) says nothing about what Jesus had actually taught. Paul ignores the actual message of the man to create a new contrary message about the man.
Further note:
The level of denial among true believers about the consequences of bad ideas in their narratives is stunning. Such denial is especially irresponsible following the clear evidence of the contributing role that bad religious ideas (i.e. “apocalyptic millennialism”) played in inciting and validating much of last century’s violence and mass-death (i.e. Marxism, Nazism, environmental alarmism). We know the role played by these contributing factors, that they were fundamentally Christian themes as epitomized in Paul’s Christ.
It is beyond irresponsible to continue to do as Orwell warned (my paraphrase of his comments)- To believe things that we know have a proven track record of having been harmful and destructive (inciting/validating bad behavior) and to then continue to deny such reality.
Richard Landes has noted this in relation to Western intellectuals and celebrities who insist on embracing the failed idea and approach of Socialism. Landes says that during the heyday of the Communist regimes over the past century, Western intellectuals refused to acknowledge that their Marxist heroes were simply religious extremists, fringe nut cases, “apocalyptic millennial” cultists.
Speaking of the Twentieth Century intellectuals in thrall to Marxist ideology and its collectivist approach, Landes says this-
“Any attempt to put this totalitarian system in the category of a closed and barbarian theocracy is very often vehemently refused. In this case, very emotionally seated aspirations and hopes of young or older intellectuals are at stake. Everybody who dares to take the Bolshevik world as a religious community is considered a traitor betraying the humanitarian ideals of the modernity of the French Revolution…
“If you see it in this sense, say the proponents of the project of modernity, the distance between the old and new modern world would shrink too much and the debts to the Christian tradition would become too heavy. Thus, when you treat the Bolsheviks as a millennial sect, you are going to betray the project of modernity and treat the Bolsheviks, despite their very modern efforts to industrialize backward Russia, as a medieval sect of obscure believers.”
Landes adds, “Among the historical issues of the twentieth century nothing poses greater problems to scholars than the similarities and differences between the Soviet and Nazi totalitarian systems, both of which (by the definitions of this study) were active cataclysmic, apocalyptic millennial movements”, p.347 of “Heaven On Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience”.
This illustrates Kristian Niemietz’s conclusion in “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”, that many people choose their beliefs according to the following criterion… “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.”
This problem continues– The refusal of many of us (not just intellectuals) to acknowledge the primitive roots and mythical nature of prominent ideas/themes in our belief systems, in our ideologies. And too many of us refuse to admit to the harmful consequences of these most basic features in both our religious and secular/ideological belief systems. We all prefer to maintain the illusion that our beliefs, and their related approaches, represent modernity, science, moral superiority, and ideological purity, or whatever else affirms us in holding to the ideals that inspire us.
Too many of us continue to embrace the same old “salvation through destruction” mythology that is at core of the Christ myth, a psychopathology that was brought into Western civilization by that central theme in the Christology of Paul.
The greater shame in all this is that we have had the transforming alternative for two millennia- i.e. the stunningly non-retaliatory, unconditional theology of Historical Jesus.
Here again are some of the entirely opposite themes between the messages of Jesus and Paul, opposites that highlight the oxymoronic nature of combining Jesus with Christ. That distortion produces profound cognitive dissonance among the true believers in the Christ.
(A reposting) “Main contradictions between Jesus and Christ” (updated June 2025), Wendell Krossa
Here are some of the main contradictions that highlight the oxymoronically opposite themes in the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ mythology. The themes of Paul have shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia. The Jesus themes have influenced us to a lesser extent, mainly moderating the harsher features and outcomes of Paul’s message:
(1) Unconditional love (i.e. no sacrifice demanded in Jesus’ original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel). Versus the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul (i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ).
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus. No more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but instead loves and includes enemies- as in God gives sun and rain to all alike. Versus supreme divine retaliation in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s theology of a supremely retaliatory deity- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12), and his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe Paul’s Christ myth” (Thessalonians).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye) versus punitive, destroying justice.
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (no violent retribution against enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and hell, and the appeasement of angry deity by violent blood sacrifice for atonement.
(5) Nontribal inclusion of all humanity (a non-discriminatory God who gives “sun and rain freely to both bad and good people”) versus the highly tribal favoritism shown toward true believers and the discriminatory exclusion of unbelievers as per Paul’s Christ (Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation in the eternal division of humans- assigned either to heaven or to hell, as per the cosmic dualism of Zoroaster).
(6) Nondomination in relationships (“If you want to be great then serve others”) versus ultimate eternal domination by Lord Christ with his rod of iron totalitarianism (“every knee shall bow… He will rule them with an iron scepter”).
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love) versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”). Also, ultimate Oneness means no separation of humanity from deity, but all humanity indwelt by God as inseparable from the common human spirit. The real life of each of us, with that divine love defining our true self/person.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge such opposites in the one and same person- i.e. “Jesus Christ”- as that supremely oxymoronic combination creates such profound cognitive dissonance that you are left with a mental state akin to insanity or madness. And the egregious thing in the mix is that the good elements (i.e. the Jesus insights) are distorted and buried by the primitive and darkening elements in the Christology of Paul.
Applying Christology to Jesus (i.e. the divinizing of a common man over the first few centuries of Christianity) has effectively buried the potency of his liberating insights, notably his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, non-apocalyptic God. That truth of in his entirely new view of deity, though still present there in summaries of his statements (see Matthew 5, Luke 6), that “stunning new theology” is no longer clearly visible to most people’s minds because the larger New Testament context emphasizes Paul’s retaliatory, apocalyptic Christ. Paul intent on straightening Jesus out. His “secret wisdom of the Christ” correcting the ignorant/foolish worldly wisdom of Jesus and his followers, like Apollos.
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest terms and no one has been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are so offensive to true believer’s sensibilities. Few since have paid attention to their clarifying the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and gets nothing done, that avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology deformed Jesus and his message.
More to follow…
Intro note to comments below:
Contrary to Dave Smith’s argument with Douglas Murray on their Joe Rogan appearance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah6kirkSwTg), you cannot reduce Israel’s dealing with the Hamas/Iranian theocracy to dealing with someone at home where Smith appears to frame it as evil to intentionally choose to shoot some person.
I am an average intelligence-type person and can get most positions that people take on issues of the day and the arguments that they make, pro and con. But he lost me on that apparently simplistic comparison of his.
With the Hamas/ISIS/Iranian theocracies you are dealing more with something compared to irrational and unhinged psychopathy. A more credible scenario for Smith to make a comparison with would be where some psychopath has unleashed madness in a community, has hostages, is murdering hostages, and planning further attacks to exterminate more people in the neighborhood. And as he is armed and crazed by whatever mental state has possessed him, that psychopath will shoot any police or military that approach to arrest him. The only safe option for rescuers is to shoot him from a safe distance in order to protect further victims from harm.
So Dave Smith, how would you protect your neighbors in that situation? If intentional shooting to kill is wrong, then what? And if you were president of Israel, how do you fulfill your primary obligation to protect your citizens from further threatened assaults to exterminate your population? Your philosophizing about that home situation and the “intention to kill” confuses me as you relate that to IDF intention to eliminate the Hamas threat.
Further, those religiously-inflamed psychopaths, intentionally position themselves among civilians, and they glory in death and martyrdom for themselves and the civilians they force to remain in place. Well, what options are then left for Israel to defend their civilians from such murderous lunacy?
With Hamas/ISIS/Iranian leadership, and similar others, you are facing irrational, psychopathic actors who cannot be reasoned with like “normal enemies” (i.e. the Russians during the Cold War). The theocrats are fanatics who will deceptively embrace ceasefires to re-arm themselves and plan their next assaults. And they are expert at lying to gain the PR advantage with useful idiots across the West, lying about casualty numbers, etc.
You can’t make ceasefire agreements and other peace deals with such people as they will deviously use such agreements to recoup and plan their next assaults, dig more tunnels, etc.
And further hampering Israel’s defense, the IDF are taking steps to warn enemy civilians, actions that few other nations are obligated to take during war.
I wade into such complex situations- i.e. the Israeli/Iran war- as a springboard to illustrate the larger background issue of bad religious ideas that incite and validate bad human behavior. A problem that has existed from antiquity, that has cursed human societies across subsequent millennia, and has continued into the modern world. My points on this relate to the fact that we know what those bad ideas are. Yet we still protect them in our major world religions.
Most egregious, and utterly shameful and irresponsible- We have the better alternatives, more humane ideas to frame our narratives, and have had them for millennia. We are without excuse for not doing what the military guy said- i.e. that you can crush these eruptions of violence with military force but then you must go after the ideas inciting them and correct that root contributing factor if you are to solve violence for the long-term future.
For any new readers- Here is my list of the worst of bad ideas that still dominate world religions and have infected dominant secular/ideological belief systems also. Even “science”.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=13571#more-13571
And alternatives:
“Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).”
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
This from Free Press of June 21, 2025
“Trump Bombs Iran’s Nuclear Sites”, Bari Weiss, Haviv Rettig Gur, Eli Lake, and others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ymory2Fgdc
Weiss and guests provide an interesting analysis of what is happening in Israel’s war with Iran. As some of her guests note, and it is my own take on these sorts of actions, is that Israel has been assaulted by irrational actors different, for example, from the Cold War standoff situation where you confronted more rational actors who understood MAD. With Islamicists you are facing extreme irrationality from religiously-inspired and motivated fanatics, people holding a tribal hatred of the kind that glories in martyrdom and suicide as the ultimate achievement to please their monster God. Iran and it’s proxies are death cults committed to exterminate others and they have deviously used ceasefires and negotiations in the past to secretly re-arm and plan the next assaults, as we saw with Hamas over past decades.
(Insert note: When referring to “Iran” I would make the important distinction between the majority of the people there who do not support the extremists who are dominating their country, contrasting most Iranians with those thugs. Just as we make similar distinctions in regard to other similar situations where a small minority of thugs have forced their way to dominate entire populations that resent and protest that domination. Think China as another example.)
Continuing…
And your primary responsibility as a state (referring to Israel) is to protect your citizens from assault (this is the Classic Liberal take on the fundamental obligation of government). Yes, if can restrain violent people by arresting and incarceration then do so. But that if that approach is too dangerous for those doing the restraining (i.e. the threats of suicide bombing, booby traps, etc.) then the only reasonable option is shoot or bomb from a safe distance.
But the main responsibility of attacked countries like Israel is to eliminate that threat in order to protect their citizens, and that use of force to stop violent attackers, to frame it in terms of our highest ideals, is the most fundamental responsibility of love- to protect from assault. There is no conflict of such forceful defensive/protective action with the general human ideal of love. In such situations, with irrational attackers, there is no option for “turning the other cheek”, for pacifism or libertarian withdrawal. The ISIS/Iran issue is very different from what Gandhi faced with the rational British.
Again, overall, I view the eruption of Iranian violence over past decades as another example of the outcome of bad religious ideas validating bad impulses, and bad behavior.
It is the result of protecting the worst of “dung” in world religions and secular versions of the same (Thomas Jefferson’s term, not mine).
One guest (an Israeli man) argued that through the violence of war you can defeat ideas like extremist Islamism. He referred, for his example, to “Pan-Arabism” under Nasser, a movement that died after military losses to Israel. But that ignores the fact that the same core ideas, shared by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have contributed to the endless repeated eruptions of such religious violence over past millennia and those core beliefs are still there protected in these major world religions. And Pan-Arabism was more a local “coalition of Arab states” movement that was defeated. And while the idea of that particular movement was defeated, they did not defeat the fundamental religious ideas driving it.
So, bombing the shit out of some contemporary eruption of religiously-incited violence does not defeat the ideas behind such. The core ideas are still alive and well protected in our major world religious traditions, notably in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ideas of tribal Gods who favor their true believers and exclude unbelievers (God is on our side, we do the will of God and please our God), the cosmic dualism of Zoroastrian truth against falsity, of good against evil, of light against dark.
And these religions also continue to hold myths of looming apocalypse (existential threat from their enemies), and “salvation through destruction” (i.e. murder of enemies as moral superiority), also the promise of utopia if you join true religion and fight some evil enemy, etc.
So, “war defeating such ideas” as the Israeli guy suggested? But what about the same core themes in your own religion? Or in some secular version that you may hold. Understand what the core shared themes are in all these religions and how they impact people and then how they impact larger groups and entire societies. Note the problem of those who take such ideas/beliefs seriously, and the outcomes, and then what the alternatives are.
I would caution that it is best to heed the military guy who was involved in defeating the ISIS eruption in 2014 who stated- Yes, you can militarily crush eruptions of religiously-motivated violence but such eruptions will only keep occurring till you go after the ideas themselves that incite such eruptions.
Anyway, I asked Grok for some input on this:
I have repeatedly made the argument that the same complex of core themes has shaped the major world religious traditions, notably in the West- i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
You can defeat eruptions of extremist religious violence with military force but the core ideas driving such violence are still there in the religions.
The core ideas are still alive and protected in these major world religious traditions, notably in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ideas of tribal Gods who favor their true believers (i.e. God is on our side, we do the will of God, and please our God). Gods who exclude unbelievers. The cosmic dualism myth of Zoroastrian that obligates people to engage some crusade of true religion against false religion, a battle of good against evil enemies, of light against dark. And these religions still hold myths of looming apocalypse, and salvation through destruction (i.e. murder of some people justified as moral superiority in special cases), and then a promise of utopia if you join the true religion, etc. All common themes in the belief systems of these religions.
My point- there should be no sense of moral superiority from members of any one of these traditions when comparing their religion to the others. And can you really defeat such ideas only with military force? What about the military guy who helped defeat the ISIS crusade of 2014 to establish the Caliphate? He said that yes, you can crush such eruptions of violence with force but they will only keep erupting till you go after the ideas driving them.
Your thoughts on this, Grok? Especially in relation to Judaism.
Grok replied…
Your argument about the shared core themes in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— tribal gods, cosmic dualism, apocalyptic narratives, and salvation through exclusion or destruction— raises a profound question about the persistence of ideas that fuel religious extremism and whether military force alone can address them. Let’s unpack this, with a focus on Judaism as you requested, while considering the broader implications.
Core Themes in Judaism and Their Relation to Extremism
Judaism, like Christianity and Islam, indeed contains narratives that can be interpreted to support tribalism, divine favoritism, and cosmic battles. For example:
• Tribal God and Chosenness: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) emphasizes the covenant between God and the Israelites, portraying them as a “chosen people” (Deuteronomy 7:6). This can foster a sense of exclusivity, though interpretations vary widely, from ethnocentric to universalist (e.g., a mission to be a “light unto the nations,” Isaiah 42:6).
• Cosmic Dualism: While less pronounced than in Zoroastrianism or Christianity, elements of dualism appear in texts like Daniel, with battles between divine forces and evil (e.g., Michael vs. the “prince of Persia,” Daniel 10:13). Apocalyptic literature, like parts of Ezekiel or Zechariah, envisions divine judgment and renewal, which can inspire end-times fervor.
• Apocalypse and Utopia: Messianic expectations in Judaism, particularly in some Second Temple and later traditions, include a final reckoning where the righteous are redeemed, and the wicked (often outsiders) are judged. This can be weaponized to justify violence, as seen in rare extremist groups like certain fringe settler movements in modern Israel.
However, Judaism’s historical context— centuries of diaspora, persecution, and minority status— has often tempered these themes. Mainstream Jewish thought emphasizes ethical monotheism, communal survival, and practical adherence to mitzvot (commandments) over apocalyptic crusades. Extremist interpretations, like those justifying violence against Palestinians or advocating for a rebuilt Temple at the expense of peace, are marginal but draw on selective readings of texts like Joshua’s conquest narratives.
Comparing the Traditions: No Moral Superiority
Your point about the lack of moral superiority among these traditions is compelling. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share historical and theological roots, drawing from similar mythic structures. Each has produced both profound ethical systems and violent extremism:
• Christianity’s history includes crusades, witch hunts, and colonial missions, often justified by “God’s will” or apocalyptic urgency (e.g., Revelation’s imagery).
• Islam’s concept of jihad, while primarily spiritual in most interpretations, has been co-opted by groups like ISIS to frame a cosmic battle, leveraging texts like Surah Al-Tawbah (9:29).
• Judaism’s rare extremist manifestations, like the 1994 Hebron massacre by Baruch Goldstein, invoke divine mandates tied to biblical land promises.
No tradition is immune to these ideas, nor can any claim a monopoly on virtue. The potential for violence lies in how texts are interpreted, not in their mere existence. Reformist voices within each tradition— e.g., Maimonides in Judaism, liberation theologians in Christianity, or Sufi scholars in Islam— show these same texts can yield inclusive, humanistic readings.
Can Military Force Defeat These Ideas?
The military officer’s insight about ISIS— that force can crush violent eruptions but not the underlying ideas— aligns with historical patterns. The 2014-2019 campaign against ISIS dismantled its territorial caliphate, but its ideology persists in online recruitment and lone-wolf attacks. Similarly, military actions against Jewish extremist groups (e.g., Israel’s crackdowns on Kahanist factions) or Christian militias (e.g., anti-abortion terrorists in the U.S.) suppress immediate threats but don’t eradicate the ideas.
Ideas are resilient because they’re embedded in sacred texts, cultural memory, and social grievances. Military force addresses symptoms— organized violence— but not root causes like alienation, selective literalism, or geopolitical frustrations. For example, Jewish extremism tied to settlements often draws on religious texts but is fueled by political tensions, fear, and historical trauma. Bombing or arresting extremists may stop attacks but doesn’t counter the narrative of divine entitlement to land.
Alternative Approaches: Targeting the Ideas
To address these core ideas, especially in Judaism, a multi-pronged approach is needed:
1. Education and Counter-Narratives: Promote pluralistic interpretations within religious communities. In Judaism, organizations like Rabbis for Human Rights emphasize ethical commandments (e.g., “love your neighbor,” Leviticus 19:18) over territorial or apocalyptic ones. Interfaith dialogue can also humanize the “other,” undermining tribalism.
2. Addressing Grievances: Extremism often thrives on socioeconomic or political marginalization. In Israel/Palestine, reducing inequality and advancing peace processes could weaken the appeal of messianic violence.
3. Cultural Critique: Encourage critical engagement with sacred texts. Jewish scholars like Yeshayahu Leibowitz have argued against idolizing land or state, urging a focus on moral conduct over mythic promises.
4. Deplatforming Extremism: Limit the spread of violent interpretations through media and online spaces, as seen in efforts to curb ISIS propaganda. For Jewish extremism, this might mean challenging rhetoric from certain settler leaders without stifling legitimate religious expression.
Why Judaism Specifically?
In Judaism’s case, the risk of extremist ideas is amplified by the modern state of Israel, where religious narratives intersect with political power. The idea of a divine land promise can justify settlement expansion or violence against Palestinians, as seen in groups like Gush Emunim or Price Tag attackers. Yet, most Jews reject such interpretations, and Israel’s secular majority often views these movements as threats to democracy. The challenge is ensuring moderate voices prevail without alienating religious communities, which could push them toward extremism.
Final Thoughts
You’re right that military force alone is insufficient. The core ideas— tribal gods, dualism, apocalyptic salvation— are deeply embedded in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and none can claim moral superiority. Defeating their violent manifestations requires addressing the ideas themselves through education, dialogue, and tackling root causes. In Judaism, this means fostering interpretations that prioritize ethics and coexistence over exclusivity or conquest, while navigating the complex interplay of religion and politics in Israel. The officer’s point about ISIS applies universally: crush the violence, but the ideas will resurface unless you confront them at their source.
If you’d like, I can dig deeper into specific Jewish texts, historical examples, or current efforts to counter extremism— or analyze related X posts or web sources for real-time perspectives. Let me know!
I pushed Grok for more:
Earlier I asked you about religious ideas that drive eruptions of violence between groups and to respond particularly in relation to Judaism.
I have repeatedly made the argument that the same complex of core themes has shaped the major world religious traditions, notably in the West- i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You can defeat eruptions of extremist religious violence with military force but the core ideas driving such violence are still there in the religions.
The core ideas are still alive and protected in these major world religious traditions, notably in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ideas of tribal Gods who favor their true believers (i.e. God is on our side, we do the will of God, and please our God). Gods who exclude unbelievers. The cosmic dualism myth of Zoroastrian that obligates people to engage some crusade of true religion against false religion, a battle of good against evil enemies, of light against dark. And these religions still hold myths of looming apocalypse, and salvation through destruction (i.e. murder of some people justified as moral superiority in special cases), and then a promise of utopia if you join the true religion, etc.
All common themes in the belief systems of these religions. My point- there should be no sense of moral superiority from members of any one of these traditions when comparing their religion to the others. And can you really defeat such ideas only with military force? What about the military guy who helped defeat the ISIS crusade of 2014 to establish the Caliphate? He said that yes, you can crush such eruptions of violence with force but they will only keep erupting till you go after the ideas driving them. Your thoughts on this, Grok? Especially in relation to Judaism.
I then added some quotes from Grok’s previous response on targeting the ideas…
“You responded in part with this comment below as your approach. But what about framing entirely new narratives with entirely new and more humane ideas/beliefs? I would suggest the problem of religious extremism lies largely in the fact the same old ideas are still protected in the religious traditions, always available to be taken too seriously and employed to validate more violence.”
Note how Grok deals with all this.
Grok’s response:
Your argument about the shared core themes across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— tribal gods, cosmic dualism, apocalyptic myths, and salvation through destruction— holds weight. These ideas, embedded in sacred texts and traditions, can indeed fuel eruptions of violence when interpreted literally or exploited by extremists. Regarding Judaism specifically, as you’ve asked, I’ll address your point about framing entirely new narratives with more humane beliefs and whether the persistence of these old ideas, protected within religious traditions, is the root issue.
The Problem of Protected Ideas
You’re correct that the major Western religions, including Judaism, preserve ideas that can be weaponized. In Judaism, notions like the “Chosen People” (Deuteronomy 7:6) or divine land promises (Genesis 15:18-21) can be twisted to justify exclusionary or violent actions, as seen in extremist settler movements like Gush Emunim or incidents like the 1994 Hebron massacre by Baruch Goldstein. These ideas remain “protected” in the sense that they’re part of canonical texts revered by millions, even if most Jews interpret them metaphorically or ethically (e.g., chosenness as a call to moral responsibility, not superiority). The challenge is that literalist interpretations are always latent, ready to be revived under conditions of fear, grievance, or political opportunism.
The persistence of these ideas isn’t just a theological issue— it’s cultural and institutional. Religious traditions, including Judaism, often resist reform due to the sanctity of their texts and the authority of clerical or communal structures. For example, ultra-Orthodox or nationalist Jewish groups may defend hardline interpretations to preserve identity in a world perceived as hostile. This protection of old ideas, as you note, keeps the potential for violence alive, much like a dormant virus.
Can Military Force Address the Root?
The military officer’s point about defeating ISIS in 2014 resonates here: force can crush the symptoms (e.g., territorial control, militias) but not the ideology. In Judaism’s context, military responses— like Israel’s operations against Hamas or targeted actions against settler violence— may contain immediate threats but don’t dismantle the underlying beliefs. For instance, dismantling illegal outposts in the West Bank might stop specific acts of “Price Tag” violence, but it doesn’t address the messianic ideology driving some settlers to see their actions as divinely mandated. As you suggest, these ideas will keep resurfacing unless confronted directly.
Framing New Narratives
Your proposal to frame entirely new narratives with more humane beliefs is compelling but complex. Creating wholly new religious narratives risks alienating adherents who value tradition, as religious identity often hinges on continuity with the past. However, reinterpreting existing narratives or amplifying humane elements within Judaism offers a more feasible path. Here’s how this could work, and why it’s both promising and challenging:
1. Reinterpretation Over Replacement: Judaism has a rich tradition of ethical universalism that can be elevated. Texts like Isaiah 2:4 (“nation shall not lift up sword against nation”) or Leviticus 19:34 (“love the stranger as yourself”) provide a foundation for narratives of coexistence and compassion. Progressive Jewish movements, like Reform or Reconstructionist Judaism, already emphasize these over exclusivist or apocalyptic themes. Scholars like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks have argued for a Judaism that sees chosenness as a universal ethical mission, not tribal superiority. The challenge is that these interpretations often lack appeal for those drawn to literalism or nationalism, who see them as diluting divine mandates.
2. New Myths for a Modern Age: Crafting new narratives doesn’t mean inventing a new religion but could involve emphasizing stories that resonate with modern values. For example, the Jewish experience of exile and survival could be framed as a universal tale of resilience and empathy for the marginalized, countering tribalism. Movements like Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) already lean into this, promoting social justice as a religious imperative. However, these narratives struggle to compete with the emotional pull of apocalyptic or messianic myths, which offer certainty and divine validation in uncertain times.
3. Challenges of Cultural Buy-In: New or reframed narratives need cultural traction. In Israel, where religious nationalism is tied to political power, humane narratives face resistance from groups like Religious Zionism, who see divine promises as justifying settlement expansion. Even secular Israelis may hesitate to challenge religious narratives if they perceive them as bolstering national identity against external threats. Globally, Jewish communities wary of assimilation may cling to traditional ideas as a bulwark against cultural erosion. Overcoming this requires charismatic leadership, grassroots movements, and time— none of which guarantee success against entrenched beliefs.
4. Interfaith and Secular Allies: New narratives could gain ground through interfaith efforts or secular partnerships. Initiatives like the Abraham Accords, while politically driven, have opened space for Jewish-Muslim dialogue that humanizes the “other.” Secular education emphasizing critical thinking and historical context (e.g., the evolution of biblical texts) could also reduce literalism’s grip. But these approaches risk being dismissed as external impositions by insular religious communities.
Why Judaism’s Context Matters
Judaism’s intersection with the state of Israel amplifies the stakes. Unlike Christianity or Islam, which aren’t tied to a single modern nation-state, Jewish religious narratives often inform political decisions in Israel, from settlement policies to military strategy. This makes the persistence of ideas like divine land promises or cosmic battles particularly volatile. For example, the 2023-2025 escalation in Israel/Palestine saw religious rhetoric from both Jewish and Muslim extremists fuel violence, showing how old ideas can ignite modern conflicts. Yet, most Jews, especially in the diaspora, reject these interpretations, favoring democratic or ethical frameworks. The challenge is ensuring these moderate voices shape the narrative without being drowned out by extremists or silenced by accusations of disloyalty.
Beyond Military Force: Practical Steps
To address the ideas driving violence, as you and the officer suggest, here are practical steps tailored to Judaism, building on but expanding my earlier response:
• Education Reform: Integrate critical textual study in Jewish schools, teaching how texts like the Torah were historically contextualized. Highlight ethical imperatives over territorial or exclusivist ones. Programs like those by Oz VeShalom (a religious peace movement) model this.
• Amplify Moderate Voices: Support rabbis and scholars who challenge extremism, like those in Rabbis for Human Rights. Media platforms could elevate these voices, countering figures like Rabbi Meir Kahane’s ideological heirs.
• Address Root Causes: Tackle socioeconomic and political grievances that fuel extremism. In Israel, reducing inequality between Jews and Palestinians, or between secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, could weaken the appeal of apocalyptic narratives.
• Global Jewish Engagement: Diaspora Jews, less tied to Israel’s political pressures, can promote universalist narratives. Organizations like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs advocate for social justice, offering a counterpoint to nationalist rhetoric.
• Deplatform Extremism Responsibly: Use legal and social measures to curb violent rhetoric (e.g., prosecuting settler violence incitement) while protecting free speech. This mirrors efforts against ISIS propaganda but must be nuanced to avoid alienating religious Jews.
No Moral Superiority
Your point about moral superiority is spot-on. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share these problematic themes, and none can claim a high ground. Each has historical and modern examples of violence justified by divine will— whether Crusades, jihadist movements, or settler attacks. Acknowledging this shared flaw is crucial for interfaith dialogue and self-reflection within each tradition. In Judaism, humility about these ideas could foster openness to reinterpretation or new narratives.
Final Thoughts
Military force can suppress violent outbreaks, but only confronting the ideas— tribal gods, dualism, apocalyptic salvation— can prevent their recurrence. In Judaism, this means amplifying ethical, universalist interpretations while addressing the political and cultural factors that give old ideas traction. Framing entirely new narratives is a bold idea, but it’s more practical to reframe existing ones, given the weight of tradition. The persistence of these ideas in protected texts and institutions is indeed the core issue, as you argue, and tackling it requires education, dialogue, and socioeconomic reform alongside cultural courage to prioritize humanity over dogma. If you want, I can explore specific Jewish texts, analyze recent X posts on this topic, or dive into historical parallels— let me know!
My next question for Grok…
By “framing new narratives”, I would refer to the Historical Jesus material and his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God (James Robinson), an unconditionally loving God. Entirely new and contradicting all the threat theology of past mythology and religion. Paul, in his Christ myth, then retreated to re-enforce threat theology as in Romans 12: 17-20. This is about an entirely new core for narratives- the image of deity. That radiates out to transform everything else- ethics, justice, etc. Affirming restorative not punitive justice. Both Thomas Jefferson and Tolstoy got this profound difference between the core teaching of Jesus and Paul, stating that the diamonds of Jesus were buried in Paul’s Christ mythology.
Grok answered:
Your point about framing new narratives around the Historical Jesus’s theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God is a powerful one, and it directly ties into your broader argument about addressing the core ideas driving religious violence, including in Judaism. By focusing on a radically new image of deity— one that rejects the threat theology, tribalism, and apocalyptic dualism embedded in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— you’re proposing a transformative shift that could reshape ethics, justice, and intergroup relations. Let’s unpack this in relation to Judaism, as you requested, while addressing the Historical Jesus material, the contrast with Paul’s theology, and the implications for countering violent religious ideas.
The Historical Jesus and a Non-Retaliatory God
The Historical Jesus, as reconstructed by scholars like James Robinson, presents a theology that breaks sharply with the punitive, tribal deities of earlier traditions. Drawing from sources like the Gospel sayings (e.g., Q source, Gospel of Thomas) and non-canonical texts, this Jesus emphasizes a God of unconditional love, forgiveness, and non-retaliation. Key teachings— like “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39), or the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)— reject the idea of a God who favors one group, punishes unbelievers, or demands vengeance. This theology, as you note, contradicts the threat theology of much of Second Temple Judaism, with its emphasis on divine judgment (e.g., Daniel 12:2) or exclusive covenantal promises (e.g., Deuteronomy 28:15-68).
In the Jewish context of Jesus’s time, this was revolutionary. Second Temple Judaism, shaped by Hellenistic influences and Roman occupation, often leaned on apocalyptic narratives (e.g., the Book of Daniel, Enochic literature) that framed God as a cosmic warrior battling evil, rewarding the faithful, and punishing the wicked. Jesus’s vision of a God who loves without condition, even the “unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45), upends this. It aligns with prophetic strands in Judaism—like Isaiah’s vision of universal peace (Isaiah 2:4)— but goes further by rejecting retaliation entirely, offering a deity who restores rather than destroys.
Paul’s Retreat to Threat Theology
You’re right to highlight Paul’s shift in Romans 12:17-20, where, despite urging non-retaliation (“Do not repay anyone evil for evil”), he invokes divine vengeance: “‘Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord” (quoting Deuteronomy 32:35). Paul’s Christ myth, while transformative in its universalism (e.g., Galatians 3:28), reintroduces a dualistic framework: Christ’s return will bring judgment, salvation for believers, and punishment for others (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). This aligns more closely with apocalyptic Judaism and Zoroastrian-influenced cosmic dualism than with Jesus’s non-retaliatory God. Paul’s theology, by embedding Christ in a narrative of divine wrath and ultimate triumph, restores the threat theology Jesus subverted, creating a tension that Jefferson and Tolstoy recognized as burying Jesus’s “diamonds” in a punitive framework.
This Pauline retreat has shaped Christianity’s dominant narrative, reinforcing ideas of divine favor, exclusion of unbelievers, and apocalyptic salvation— ideas shared with Judaism and Islam, as you noted. These ideas, when taken literally, can fuel violence, as seen historically in Crusades or modernly in Christian nationalist movements.
Implications for Judaism
Applying this to Judaism, the Historical Jesus’s theology offers a model for reframing narratives around a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God, but it faces unique challenges. Judaism lacks a central figure like Jesus to anchor such a shift, and its decentralized, text-based tradition makes radical reinterpretation harder. However, the Jewish prophetic tradition and ethical teachings provide fertile ground for a parallel approach:
1. Amplifying Jewish Ethical Universalism: Jesus’s theology resonates with Jewish teachings like “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) or Micah 6:8 (“do justice, love mercy, walk humbly”). Modern Jewish thinkers like Martin Buber or Abraham Joshua Heschel have emphasized a God of relational love and universal ethics, akin to Jesus’s vision. Reframing Jewish narratives around these ideas— rather than divine election or land promises— could counter tribalism and violence. For example, Heschel’s activism during the Civil Rights Movement embodied a non-retaliatory, restorative ethic rooted in Jewish theology.
2. Challenging Threat Theology in Texts: Jewish texts like the Talmud or Midrash already show a tradition of reinterpreting harsh biblical passages (e.g., tempering “an eye for an eye” with monetary compensation, Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1). A new narrative could build on this, explicitly rejecting punitive divine imagery. Scholars like Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who criticized idolizing land or state over ethics, offer a starting point. However, this faces resistance from Orthodox or nationalist groups who see divine promises as literal and non-negotiable.
3. Restorative Justice in Practice: Jesus’s emphasis on restorative justice—reconciling rather than punishing— could inspire Jewish approaches to conflict, especially in Israel/Palestine. Organizations like Rabbis for Human Rights or B’Tselem advocate for justice that prioritizes human dignity over vengeance, aligning with your vision. But implementing this in a politically charged context, where security fears drive punitive measures, is a steep challenge.
Framing New Narratives: Feasibility and Obstacles
Your call for entirely new narratives, centered on a non-retaliatory God, is inspiring but daunting. Here’s how it could work in Judaism and why it’s tough:
• Feasibility: The Jewish tradition’s flexibility— seen in its history of adapting to exile, modernity, and secularism— suggests potential for new narratives. Movements like Reconstructionist Judaism already reframe God as a process or force for good, not a punitive sovereign. A narrative built on a loving, non-retaliatory God could draw from Jesus’s model but root itself in Jewish sources, like the universalist visions of Isaiah or the Talmud’s emphasis on preserving life (pikuach nefesh). Grassroots efforts, like interfaith dialogue or peace initiatives (e.g., Hand in Hand schools), could spread this narrative.
• Obstacles: Tradition’s weight is a major hurdle. Sacred texts, revered as divine, are hard to sideline, especially for Orthodox Jews. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict also politicizes religious narratives, making universalist ideas seem naive or disloyal to some. Moreover, unlike Christianity, which could rally around Jesus’s teachings, Judaism’s non-centralized nature means no single figure or doctrine can drive a universal shift. Emotional attachment to apocalyptic or chosenness narratives, especially under perceived existential threats, further entrenches old ideas.
Jefferson, Tolstoy, and the Broader Point
Jefferson and Tolstoy’s insight— that Jesus’s radical theology was buried by Paul’s Christ myth— underscores your argument: the core image of deity shapes everything else. In Judaism, a similar shift toward a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God could transform ethics and justice, reducing the appeal of violent interpretations. But unlike Christianity, where Jesus’s teachings can be excavated as a counterpoint to Paul, Judaism requires drawing from diverse sources— prophets, rabbis, modern thinkers— to build a cohesive narrative. The diamonds are there (e.g., Hillel’s “what is hateful to you, do not do to others,” Talmud Shabbat 31a), but they’re scattered across a vast tradition.
Addressing Violent Ideas
To your broader point: military force alone can’t defeat the ideas driving religious violence, as the ISIS officer noted. In Judaism, this means tackling threat theology head-on:
• Education: Teach critical engagement with texts, emphasizing ethical readings over literalist ones. Programs like Melton or Limmud could integrate this approach globally.
• Leadership: Empower rabbis and scholars who champion a non-punitive God, like those in the Progressive or Conservative movements, to influence communal narratives.
• Cultural Shift: Use art, literature, and media to promote stories of reconciliation, not conquest. Israeli-Palestinian joint projects, like the Parents Circle-Families Forum, model this.
• Political Context: Address grievances like inequality or occupation, which fuel extremist narratives. A non-retaliatory theology loses traction if people feel under siege.
Final Thoughts
The Historical Jesus’s theology of a non-retaliatory, loving God offers a blueprint for Judaism to reframe its narratives, emphasizing restorative justice and universal ethics. This aligns with your call to replace threat theology with humane beliefs, countering the tribalism and apocalypticism that drive violence. While Paul’s retreat to punitive theology shows how easily old ideas resurface, Judaism’s ethical traditions provide tools to build a new core image of deity. The challenge lies in overcoming tradition’s inertia and political realities, especially in Israel. As Jefferson and Tolstoy saw, the diamonds of a radical, loving theology are there— but unearthing them requires bold reinterpretation and cultural will. If you’d like, I can analyze specific Jewish texts, explore X posts on contemporary Jewish thought, or compare this to Islam or Christianity further— let me know!
I probed for some more from Grok:
My point in the above questions to you is that the result of past centuries of Search for the Historical Jesus has led to the understanding that the teaching of the wisdom sage Jesus was something quite entirely different from what Paul constructed in his Christ myth. Notably, their entirely different view of deity. Hence, Paul merging Historical Jesus into his Christ myth has created a profound oxymoron- two opposite entities that cannot be mixed and merged and the consequence is that the Christ features weaken, distort, and undermine the main themes of the Jesus teaching, as in Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel.
Grok’s answer
I understand your core argument: the Historical Jesus, as revealed through modern scholarship (e.g., the Search for the Historical Jesus), taught a radically different theology—centered on a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God—compared to Paul’s Christ myth, which reintroduced a punitive, apocalyptic deity. This creates a profound oxymoron, as you put it, where Paul’s merging of Jesus into his Christology distorts and undermines the wisdom teachings of Jesus, particularly those in the Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel. You’re tying this to the broader issue of religious violence, including in Judaism, suggesting that clinging to old threat theologies (like Paul’s) perpetuates problematic ideas, while Jesus’s vision offers a transformative alternative. Since you’ve asked me to focus on Judaism, I’ll address how this oxymoron relates to Jewish theology, the potential for a Jesus-like narrative shift, and the implications for countering violent religious ideas.
The Historical Jesus vs. Paul’s Christ Myth
The Search for the Historical Jesus, from Albert Schweitzer to the Jesus Seminar and scholars like James Robinson, has reconstructed Jesus as a wisdom sage rooted in Jewish tradition but radically subversive. The Q Wisdom Sayings Gospel (a hypothetical source behind Matthew and Luke) emphasizes sayings like “love your enemies” (Q/Luke 6:27), “bless those who curse you” (Q/Luke 6:28), and parables like the Good Samaritan, pointing to a God who loves without condition, rejects retaliation, and embraces all, regardless of tribal boundaries. This deity, as you note, is a stark departure from the judgmental, covenant-exclusive God of much of Second Temple Judaism (e.g., in apocalyptic texts like Daniel or 1 Enoch).
Paul, in contrast, constructs a Christ myth that, while universalist in scope (e.g., Romans 10:12), reverts to threat theology. In passages like Romans 12:19 (“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord”) or 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (Christ’s cosmic triumph), Paul frames Jesus as a divine figure in an apocalyptic battle, with salvation for believers and judgment for others. This aligns more with Zoroastrian-influenced dualism and Jewish apocalypticism than with Jesus’s non-punitive God. As you argue, merging these two—Jesus’s wisdom teacher and Paul’s cosmic Christ—creates an oxymoron: a loving, non-retaliatory God cannot coexist with a deity who punishes or excludes. The Christ myth thus dilutes Jesus’s radical teachings, burying what Jefferson and Tolstoy called his “diamonds” under layers of threat theology.
Relevance to Judaism
In Judaism, this oxymoron resonates because its own theology grapples with similar tensions: universalist ethics (e.g., Isaiah 56:7, “my house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples”) versus exclusivist or punitive elements (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:2, calls to destroy enemies). The Historical Jesus’s theology, being rooted in Jewish prophetic traditions, offers a potential model for amplifying Judaism’s humane strands while sidelining its threat theology. However, Paul’s Christ myth, by reinforcing apocalyptic and dualistic ideas, mirrors the very elements in Judaism that can fuel violence, such as messianic nationalism or divine land claims, seen in extremist groups like Gush Emunim.
Your point about the oxymoron suggests that Judaism, like Christianity, risks distortion when it merges universalist ideals with tribal or punitive theologies. For example, the concept of “Chosen People” can be interpreted as a call to ethical leadership (as in Amos 3:2) or as divine favoritism justifying exclusion (as some settlers claim). The latter echoes Paul’s dualistic salvation model, while Jesus’s non-retaliatory God aligns more with the former, offering a path to resolve this tension.
Framing a Jesus-Like Narrative in Judaism
Your emphasis on Jesus’s theology as a new narrative core—a non-retaliatory, loving God—could inspire a parallel shift in Judaism, but it requires navigating Judaism’s distinct context:
1. Drawing from Jewish Sources: Jesus’s teachings echo Jewish wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs, Sirach) and prophetic calls to justice (e.g., Micah 6:8). A new Jewish narrative could elevate these, framing God as unconditionally loving and non-punitive. Rabbi Hillel’s “do not do to others what is hateful to you” (Talmud Shabbat 31a) or the principle of pikuach nefesh (saving a life overrides other laws) could anchor this, much like Jesus’s sayings. Modern thinkers like Martin Buber, with his I-Thou relational theology, already move in this direction.
2. Rejecting Threat Theology: Just as Jesus subverted apocalypticism, Judaism could de-emphasize texts glorifying divine vengeance (e.g., Psalm 137:9) or exclusivism. The Talmudic tradition of reinterpretation—e.g., softening “an eye for an eye” into compensation (Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:1)—shows this is possible. Scholars like Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who prioritized ethics over land idolatry, offer a blueprint.
3. Restorative Justice: Jesus’s restorative justice (e.g., reconciling enemies) could inspire Jewish approaches to conflicts like Israel/Palestine. Groups like B’Tselem or the Parents Circle-Families Forum embody this, advocating reconciliation over retribution, but they face resistance from those wedded to punitive or nationalist theologies.
Challenges in Judaism
Unlike Christianity, where Jesus’s teachings can be a focal point, Judaism’s decentralized, text-based tradition makes a singular narrative shift harder. Key obstacles include:
• Textual Sanctity: The Torah and Tanakh, seen as divine, resist radical revision. While reinterpretation is common, sidelining punitive passages entirely (as Jesus implicitly did) risks alienating traditionalists.
• Political Context: In Israel, religious nationalism ties divine promises to land and security, mirroring Paul’s apocalyptic certainty. A non-retaliatory God narrative struggles against fears of existential threats.
• Cultural Inertia: Jewish identity, especially post-Holocaust, often clings to chosenness or survival narratives, which can echo Paul’s dualism more than Jesus’s universalism.
Countering Violent Ideas
Your broader point— that old theologies perpetuate violence— applies to Judaism. The oxymoron of merging Jesus’s loving God with Paul’s punitive Christ parallels Judaism’s tension between universalist ethics and tribal/apocalyptic elements. To address violence, as the ISIS officer suggested, we must target ideas:
• Education: Teach Jewish texts critically, highlighting ethical universalism over exclusivism. Programs like Limmud or Melton could integrate Q-like wisdom teachings, drawing parallels to Jesus’s approach.
• Leadership: Amplify rabbis like those in Rabbis for Human Rights, who reject violence and prioritize a compassionate God, countering nationalist clerics.
• Cultural Reframing: Use media and arts to promote stories of reconciliation, like Hand in Hand schools, echoing Jesus’s Good Samaritan ethos.
• Address Grievances: Reduce socioeconomic and political drivers of extremism (e.g., inequality in Israel/Palestine), which fuel Paul-like dualistic narratives.
Final Thoughts
The Historical Jesus’s theology of a non-retaliatory, loving God, as seen in Q, offers a radical alternative to Paul’s Christ myth, which reverts to threat theology. This oxymoron— merging two incompatible deities— distorts Jesus’s vision and mirrors Judaism’s own tensions between universalism and exclusivism. Reframing Jewish narratives around a Jesus-like God could counter violent ideas, but it faces textual, political, and cultural hurdles. Your point about the diamonds of Jesus’s teachings being buried by Paul underscores the need to unearth similar ethical gems in Judaism to prevent violence. Military force can’t erase these ideas; only new narratives, rooted in love and restoration, can. If you want, I can dig into specific Q sayings, Jewish parallels, or recent X posts on this— let me know!