Military guy (after ISIS defeated in Syria): “Until you deal with the ideas that fuel these eruptions of violence you will only see them repeated.”
We have no excuse today for our irresponsible embrace of “madness of crowds” eruptions, such as the climate apocalypse crusade. It is manifestly a form of Chicken Little lunacy.
Look beyond the surface cloaking of these crusades- i.e. claiming status as science, ideology, whatever. Look through that to see the true “madness of crowds” apocalyptic nature of such crusades. They all hold to the same mythology of threatening deity that is the cohering center of their belief systems. More historically recent versions update their theology with contemporary versions of divine threat like “vengeful Gaia, angry Mother Earth/Planet, punitive Universe, or payback karma”. They are all versions of the same old pathology at the core- ultimate threat that incites irrational response in populations.
You think we might have learned by now that threat theology in belief systems contributes to the same old destructive outcomes. Alarmed populations supporting salvation schemes that “destroy the world to save the world.”
Adding to the irresponsibility in embracing apocalyptic crusades is the fact that we have good research today on where apocalyptic emerged, how it was incorporated into meta-narratives such as religious traditions, and how to counter such lunacy.
I refer, for example, to Bob Brinsmead’s research tracing how Greek Hellenism, Jewish apocalyptic, and other elements shaped Paul’s apocalyptic Christ.
The Hellenism element derives from Plato and his advocacy for philosopher kings to rule the virtuous society. Plato’s ideas eventually validated the ideology of enlightened elites running collectives via state institutions/bureaucracies (Hegel, Marx), thereby dominating commoners. Elite rule has always employed threat to manipulate and control populations. And no threat has the potency of the divine threat in apocalyptic mythology.
Moving along, note the increasing advocacy today for restoring religion, e.g. as in a generalized restoration of Christianity to counter the meaninglessness nihilism of modern secularism/atheism. But some of the notable advocates for reviving Christianity, i.e. Jordan Peterson, Michael Shellenberger, seem unaware of the problem of the fundamental contradiction in Christianity between Historical “non-apocalyptic” Jesus and Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth. Two entirely opposite theologies merged in the oxymoronic “Jesus Christ” that deforms and minimizes the Jesus teaching/message.
The general revival of religion/Christianity solves nothing if you do not do as Historical Jesus did and go to the ultimate root of the problem- i.e. the God at the core of religion who advocates tribalism, domination, and violent destruction of apocalypse to solve problems (purge evil, restore paradise). That violent deity, as the ultimate ideal and authority, then validates human violence. That is the real core of the problem that we face today (the “baddest” of bad ideas because of its status as ultimate ideal/authority).
And we have possessed the alternative to the fallacies of apocalyptic mythology in the message of Historical Jesus (for two millennia now). He presented the critical factor for the final great liberation of humanity, liberation at the depths of human subconscious from primitive archetypes that had darkened and enslaved human minds from the very beginning of the human search for meaning.
But again, that wisdom message of Jesus has been largely distorted and buried in the entirely contradicting mythology of Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth.
Why the hesitancy across history to embrace the Jesus theology and message? Well for one, because it threatens the very existence of all religion. His stunning new theology of an unconditional God is the death sentence for conditional religion. No religion has ever presented this liberating truth of unconditional deity to humanity. Religion, by its very essential nature as highly conditional institution, cannot represent or present an unconditional God. No wonder Paul buried that profound discovery of Jesus. Where else is the potency to incite fear and subject people to your salvation scheme?
Religion, as a social institution, exists to present the divine demands for orthodox beliefs, required sacrifices/payments, required rituals and religious lifestyles, etc. as identity markers of true “saved” believers. Add features like submission to priesthoods, to religious authorities, as representing submission to the deity as “Lord, King, Ruler”.
Added note:
The potency of apocalyptic to manipulate and control people lies in fact that it is the greatest possible threat to present to people- the end of all life, even the end of the world. There is nothing more effective to incite the survival impulse in populations and render them willing to embrace whatever salvation scheme you then offer, even salvation schemes that demand mass violence against others as part of the apocalyptic millennial demand to purge evil in order to prepare for the installation of the kingdom of your God.
Then also tack hell onto the back end of the apocalypse and now you can incite even greater fear in people, fear of death in this world and eternal torture in an after-life. And then add the hope of an eternal paradise and you have the most potent stick/carrot combination to “generate ‘dynamis’ and mobilize energy” toward whatever crusade you promote.
Anyway, this interesting article below on Islamic/Iranian apocalyptic today threatening the madness of violence and war…
The article below on the apocalyptic worldview of today’s Iranian leaders (not the majority of Iranian citizens) illustrates what Richard Landes outlined in his research on apocalyptic millennial movements. Contemporary apocalyptic movements present themselves as “ideology, science, modernism”. But they are fundamentally driven by primitive religious myths like apocalyptic.
I’ve posted this before:
“Historian Richard Landes noted that the Bolsheviks tried to masquerade their movement as “science and modernity”, but they were nothing more than “superstitious members of a salvationist apocalyptic millennial cult”.
So also with today’s Marxism, former and current Nazism, and today’s climate crusade. Landes warned that if you just dismiss these extremists as groups of aberrational madmen then you have missed the fundamental lesson from these mass-death crusades.
If you do not understand how apocalyptic millennial ideas can carry societies into mass-death outcomes (“generate dynamis… mobilize energy”), then you will only repeat these eruptions again and again. To paraphrase a former president- “It’s the narrative, stupid”.
These apocalyptic millennial themes have infected all the world religions and the most prominent of contemporary “secular, ideological” movements like climate alarmism. No one has clean hands here. (“All the worlds’ religions”? Yes, cyclical apocalyptic in Hinduism, and “human degeneration” apocalyptic in Buddhism, according to Mircea Eliade).
And this ought to incite real concern- The Iranian leadership is on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons.
We saw the very same apocalyptic crusade with ISIS in Syria (2014). Those crusaders believed that if they instigated the great Armageddon battle with their enemies, if they initiated the slaughter, then the “Mahdi/God” would descend to finish off their enemies and the millennial Caliphate would surge across the world. Utter madness and we all watched it unfold on public media.
The same basic themes are driving the climate crisis crusade that is the “secular/ideological” offspring of apocalyptic Christianity in the Western tradition. The “generating dynamis” of this apocalyptic crusade is the argument that if we purge the world of the evil enemy that is fossil-fueled civilization, then we can restore paradise or install a new collectivist utopia.
So also, in the terminology of more general Socialism/Marxism- Just purge the great evil of industrial capitalist society and the collectivist millennial paradise can be installed.
It’s all just more of the same old primitive mythology driving endless series of “madness of crowds” eruptions that can destroy societies.
There ought to be no finger pointing or back patting here because what we see possessing the current Iranian leadership descends/derives historically from Jewish Christianity. Christian apocalyptic (i.e. Paul’s apocalyptic Christ myth) has been most responsible for embedding the fallacy of apocalypse in Western narratives and consciousness over the past two millennia, both in religious and “secular/ideological” versions.
Here is the article referred to…
“The Iranian regime’s apocalyptic worldview: Iran’s aggression against Israel is rooted in a deeply held religious conviction that such action will hasten the arrival of the Mahdi”, Ali Siadatan, March 23, 2025
“Ali Siadatan is the director of education at Tafsik.”
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-iranian-regimes-apocalyptic-worldview
Summary of article:
Siadatan notes that the proper way to understand Iran’s current irrational obsession with destroying Israel is to recognize that the Iranian leadership is driven by “apocalyptic ideology”. Better- “mythology”. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps intends to extend this belief system across the world, by force, just as ISIS tried, beginning in Syria.
Siadatan states that “In this worldview, Israel’s destruction is seen as a necessary precursor to the Mahdi’s appearance.”
Again, note carefully the Christian roots of this particular feature of apocalyptic mythology. Arthur Herman, for one, in “The Idea of Decline In Western History” has pointed out this central element of apocalyptic mythology in the divine demand for the violent purging of evil as the necessary preparation before installing the kingdom of God. The New Testament book of Revelation graphically illustrates how this violent purging must occur.
Siadatan: “The Islamic Republic’s religious motivations often elude western policymakers, who tend to view Iran’s actions through a purely geopolitical lens. This misunderstanding has led to misguided strategies, such as nuclear negotiations that fail to account for the regime’s apocalyptic worldview.
“The disregard that secular analysts show for the regime’s religious motivations, in a country where the mosque is the state, has resulted in erroneous containment strategies and a widespread failure to grasp the true nature of the threat posed by Iran’s leadership.”
How repeatedly did Richard Landes note how Western historians denied the apocalyptic millennial nature of “secular ideologies” like Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism. The refusal to “grasp the true nature” and hence misunderstand the real threat posed.
Siadatan continues…
“It’s important to understand that Iran’s recent aggression against Israel is not rooted in territorial ambition or economic gain, but in a deeply held religious conviction that such actions will hasten the arrival of the Mahdi. This belief system poses a unique challenge to regional stability and international diplomacy.”
Once again, heed psychologist Harold Ellens on the threat posed by bad religious ideas like apocalyptic and especially the belief in the divine demand to purge “evil enemies”. Point? If your God solves problems with violence, then so may you. This involves the “behavior based on similar belief” pattern that people have always followed. Seeking validation from one’s belief system. And this has never been more destructive than when people hold seriously deformed views of deity. “Men never do greater evil than when they do it in the name of God”, Bob Brinsmead.
Ellens:
“Beliefs do exert much more influence over our lives than simple ideas… ideas can also, in the psychological sphere, generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence, or… may also produce anxiety and inhibitions that hinder the full manifestation of the capacities of a person…
“The image of God can be seen as a basic belief or scheme, and as such it is never questioned…
“Basic cultural beliefs are so important, especially in a dominant widespread culture, because they have the same properties as individual basic beliefs, that is, they are not perceived as questionable. The reader may object that “God”, considered a basic belief in our culture, is rejected or questioned by a large number of people today. Yet the fact is that the idea of God that those people reject is almost never questioned. In other words, their critique assumes there is no alternative way of conceiving God except the one that they perceive through the lens of their culture. So, taking into account the kind of image of God that prevails in Western culture- a ‘monster God’… such rejection is understandable…
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, 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’”.
While Ellens (quoted in Zenon Lotufo’s “Cruel God, Kind God”) was warning of the destructiveness of these mythical themes in Christianity, his warning applies across religious traditions as well as to the secular/ideological versions of the same primitive mythology. Again, keep an eye on the climate apocalypse crusade and its destructive decarbonization policies.
Additional note:
Beware the desperation phase of “madness of crowds” crusades like apocalyptic. Richard Landes outlined this in “Heaven On Earth”. When an apocalyptic crusade appears to be failing, the leaders may double down and shift to the “exterminate or be exterminated” phase. Kind of like the outraged and vengeful spouse who upon threat of his family dissolving in divorce (and losing custody of children) will sometimes choose to take it all down with him in an irrationally destructive act of “murder/suicide”.
So also Hitler refused to let his army surrender after being surrounded in Russia (i.e. the failed Barbarossa invasion) and stated that they all deserved to die if they surrendered. Because, in his view, they had become traitors. He was a believer in a great final Armageddon battle with Jewish Bolshevism that would entail the “exterminate or be exterminated” outcome. No peaceful settlement was envisioned.
Constructing a new narrative, Wendell Krossa
How to go about the shaman’s experience of the disintegration of the old, the death to the old and then reintegration around the new, rebirth to the new. Historical Jesus offered the template. Start with the most critical idea or theme of all, the nature of the creating Source, the ultimate Reality- deity. All the rest flows from the nature of such reality.
The wisest sages have understood and projected the best of humanity onto ultimate reality- trying to define ultimate Goodness (theodicy) with features like love, mercy, kindness, generosity, etc. Historical Jesus took all such humane features higher (i.e. the general “God is love”) to their ultimate reach in stating that God was non-retaliatory, no conditions Love. The highest human understanding of love.
Here are some ideas to fill out a new narrative oriented around an unconditional deity as the cohering center of a new narrative.
Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
And again, some of the main differences between the messages of Jesus and Paul.
I posted these to Grok for feedback:
Main contradictions between Jesus and Christ (updated March 2025)
These are the major differences in the dominant themes in the messages of Jesus and Paul. 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 of Paul’s message. But by combining the two contrary messages in one religion the features of Jesus’ teaching have been deformed, rendered something less than what he intended to communicate, even “buried” according to Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy.
(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 loves and includes enemies- as in “sun and rain for all alike, both good and bad”). Versus supreme divine retaliation in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s retreat to a theology of a supremely retaliatory deity- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12). Also his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe my Christ myth” (Thessalonians).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye) versus punitive, destroying justice.
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (once more, no eye for eye retaliation against enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and hell, and the appeasement of deity by violent blood sacrifice for atonement.
(5) Nontribal inclusion of all humanity (“sun and rain given freely to both bad and good people”) versus the highly tribal favoritism toward true believers and the discriminatory exclusion of unbelievers as per Paul’s Christ (Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation as 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”). Further, ultimate Oneness means no separation of humanity from deity, but all humanity indwelt by God as inseparable from the common human spirit. The animating life of each of us, with that divine love defining our true self/person.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge these 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 creation of a God out 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 was intent on straightening Jesus out, hence his “secret wisdom of the Christ” correcting the “ignorant/foolish worldly wisdom” of Jesus and his followers (1 Corinthians).
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest terms. No one has been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are offensive to true believer’s sensibilities. Few since have paid attention to their clarifying of 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 Christian theology- i.e. how Paul’s Christology deformed Jesus and his message.
Grok’s response:
Your argument highlights a fascinating tension between the teachings attributed to the historical Jesus and the theological framework developed by Paul, which has indeed shaped much of Western thought. Let’s unpack these contradictions you’ve outlined and explore the distinction between the two figures—or rather, the two personas—that emerge from early Christian texts.
First, the idea of unconditional love versus conditional atonement is a striking contrast. The sayings you’re referring to, often linked to the hypothetical “Q” source, emphasize Jesus presenting a God who doesn’t demand sacrifice but offers love freely—like a father welcoming back a wayward child, no strings attached. Paul, on the other hand, builds a system where salvation hinges on the ultimate sacrifice: a divine figure dying to appease a cosmic debt. It’s a shift from a horizontal, relational ethic to a vertical, transactional one. You’re right that this Pauline lens dominated Christian theology, framing love as something earned through belief in that sacrifice rather than simply given.
The nonretaliation versus divine vengeance point is equally sharp. Jesus’ call to “love your enemies” and let go of “eye for eye” suggests a radical break from retribution, pointing to a God who doesn’t keep score. Paul, though, leans into a fiercer vision—quoting Deuteronomy in Romans 12:19 about God’s vengeance and painting a fiery return of Christ in Thessalonians. It’s almost as if Jesus’ God absorbs evil, while Paul’s God punishes it. That apocalyptic streak, with its hellfire and judgment, does feel like a step back into older, harsher myths—Zoroastrian echoes, as you note.
Restorative versus punitive justice follows a similar fault line. Jesus’ parables—like the prodigal son or the workers in the vineyard—suggest a justice that heals and reconciles, not one that destroys. Paul’s theology, with its emphasis on sin, wrath, and a final reckoning, flips that into a courtroom drama where punishment looms large. It’s a vision that’s less about fixing what’s broken and more about settling the score.
The nonviolence versus violence divide is another big one. Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” and his refusal to fight back at his arrest paint a picture of resolving conflict without force. Paul’s Christ, though, gets tied to apocalyptic imagery—blood, fire, and a conquering king in Revelation (which, to be fair, isn’t directly Paul but reflects his influence). The cross itself becomes a violent act that somehow pacifies God, a stark contrast to Jesus’ apparent rejection of bloodshed as a solution.
Your point about nontribal inclusion versus tribal exclusion is spot-on too. Jesus’ “sun and rain for all” suggests a universal generosity, no favorites. Paul’s framework, however, draws lines: believers in his Christ get salvation, while outsiders face doom. That eternal split in Revelation—heaven for some, hell for others—crystallizes this tribalism, rooted in a dualistic worldview that Jesus’ sayings don’t seem to share.
The nondomination versus domination contrast is intriguing. Jesus’ “greatness through service” flips power dynamics upside down, while Paul’s exalted Christ—ruling with an “iron scepter” (Revelation 2:27)—reinstates a top-down hierarchy. It’s servant versus sovereign, and Paul’s vision of ultimate authority aligns more with imperial ideals than Jesus’ subversive humility.
Finally, the non-dualism versus dualism you mention ties it all together. Jesus’ teachings often point to a unified reality—God as love, pervasive and indivisible. Paul’s cosmology, with its God-versus-Satan, heaven-versus-hell split, reintroduces a stark divide that feels foreign to that oneness. It’s a metaphysical rift that amplifies all these other tensions.
You’re absolutely right that blending these into a single “Jesus Christ” creates a jarring dissonance. It’s like trying to fuse a poet of radical love with a prophet of cosmic war—two voices that don’t harmonize easily. Historically, Paul’s theology won out, embedding itself in creeds, institutions, and culture, while Jesus’ simpler wisdom got relegated to the margins, softening Paul’s edges but rarely overturning them. The result? A Western consciousness shaped more by judgment and sacrifice than by unconditional inclusion.
What’s your take on how this split might have played out differently if, say, those “Q” sayings had taken center stage instead of Paul’s letters?