Preface notes… “Its the theology, stupid”, Historical Jesus. Huh? OK, my paraphrase of his central message.
We are all feeling the intensity of the love and joy of relatives as they greet the just released Israeli hostages. It is so intensely moving. That is what love is all about, rejoicing in life with family and friends. And such a contrast to the hatred that sparked the insane eruption of violence two years ago, a hatred so deeply instilled and intense that mothers rejoice that they can offer their children to a death-cult to be sacrificed as suicide-bombers, wishing they had more children to sacrifice in such manner (see Dave Rubin interview of Moran Stella Yanai below).
And this pushes me repeatedly to try to grapple with what fuels such hatred that would commit such barbaric inhumanity against fellow humans. This site explores and presents some of the critical contributing factors to the varied eruptions of madness, the repeated crusades of “salvation through destruction” that we are all exposed to repeatedly… i.e. the madness of last century’s violent Marxist revolutions (now revived as neo-collectivism in far-left Woke Progressivism with DEI and the related reviving of another more straightforward socialism crusade as in New York), the ongoing madness (over three decades now) of hysterical climate alarmism with its “salvation” scheme of Net Zero decarbonization ruining our societies, and of course the Islamic terrorism still seeking “salvation through the destruction of enemies” in varied places. Among other varieties of similar “madness of crowds”.
And we know more now what drives such eruptions of madness- i.e. the core themes that incite, guide, and validate “man’s inhumanity to man”. Themes that are close to home for all of us, embedded deeply in our meta-narratives and the archetypes of our shared subconscious, whether we identify as religious or secular materialist, or whatever. I wrestle with my own family tradition of Christianity, with its dominant role over the past two millennia in shaping Western consciousness and narratives both religious and secular, with its core themes of “salvation through destruction” as epitomized in Paul’s Christology and “apocalyptic millennial” mythology illustrated graphically in the New Testament book of Revelation.
So much to explore, understand, and then get busy cleaning up the mess that we have inherited. Doing what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy wisely advocated- i.e. to pull the “diamonds out of the dung” as in fulfilling our basic responsibility to separate the good from the bad in all areas of life. A wisdom sage has shown us exactly how we do this. “It’s the theology, stupid”, he argued. See a reposting of the central precepts and wisdom sayings of Historical Jesus below, his brilliant coupling of “behavior based on similar theology” that presented his “stunning new theology… his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas”. It’s the “unconditional” theme of this site.
While “unconditional” is absolute in defining the reality of God, as Historical Jesus made clear in his central message (i.e. Luke 6: 27-36), and illustrated in short stories such as the Prodigal Father, this ideal is not absolute as a guiding precept for all situations in life. It is not advocacy for “pacifism” in the face of violence and evil. It is not prescriptive for running a business or running a major national economy. It is not urging the abandonment of common-sense. But yes, for theology… it is absolute. Meaning, that we are all safe in the end and this renders “salvation through destruction” such a psychopathology deforming human consciousness, narratives, and life.
Some accounts of returning hostages:
Also below: More from atmospheric physicists Lindzen and Happer on the CO2 warming effect now having become “saturated” (a physics term). Meaning- there is no “climate crisis”.
This good brief summary by Gregg Braden:
“Climate change is a fact… it’s also a fact that humans are not causing it”.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPEg-MGjtww/?igsh=c3Q4M2VidnNqMGw5
What does “de-radicalization” require to be successful? My suggestion: “It’s the theology, stupid” (a paraphrase of Bill Clinton and James Carville’s “It’s the economy, stupid”)
The critical element of “de-radicalization” in peace agreements. What does that really mean and involve? It calls for something far more transformative than just “reformism” of religion that tinkers around the periphery of religious narratives and traditions. It’s about transformation of the very core, the theology, the “Cohering Center” of religious belief systems, Wendell Krossa
Dave Smith needs to heed these statements from this linked article- “The West, and too often Israel herself, has convinced itself that terror is a grievance to be addressed rather than an ideology to be destroyed…” (Replace “ideology” with “theology” and you get to the core issue.).
“Israel’s enemies have never hidden their intentions. They tell us, again and again, that they want a world without Jews, a land cleansed of our presence. We, in our eternal yearning for peace, keep trying to convince ourselves they do not mean what they say. And each time we do, we learn anew that they meant every word. The Talmud warns us that he who is kind to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind. It is a lesson our age refuses to learn…
“The same ideology that burned families alive in their homes has not been defeated; it has merely paused to reload. The war did not begin on October 7, and it will not end with this deal. It is the same enduring struggle against those who hate who we are and despise the idea of a Jewish nation bound by faith, memory and covenant. It is a war against the very existence of the Jewish people.”
“Trump’s Mideast ‘peace’ deal will only lead to more bloodshed: The prospect of the hostages returning is cause for celebration, but the end of the war is not”, Anthony Koch, Oct 10, 2025
And this caution-
Avi Benlolo: Peace has been offered. But will Palestinians seize the moment? More than 85 per cent of prisoners released from Israeli jails in past decades returned to terrorism, this included Yahyah Sinwar”, Avi Benlolo, Oct. 10, 2025
These quotes from Benlolo, also making the point “It’s the theology, stupid”:
“It’s been a week of sadness turned to hope. On the heels of heartbreaking memorial ceremonies commemorating October 7 around the world, Israel signed the first phase of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire plan with Hamas, almost two years to the day. …
“Breathing a sigh of relief, they gathered in excitement and anticipation for the release…
“This war is far from over. Hamas’ war against Israel is part of a broader picture tied to what we once correctly called the ‘war on terror.’ It’s the war on Islamic fundamentalism which threatens to upend our values of freedom and democracy. Israel will continue to wage war against this ideology for years to come as it defends its future from those who wish to destroy it…
“But the fight has already been transplanted into our own country — to Canada. Soon after 9/11, they began taking our universities hostage with this ideology. Now, they have moved into our local high schools…
“In Montreal, Concordia University was shut down due to “potentially obstructive” protests. How pathetic. All these years universities have been disregarding our warnings about the anti-Israel campaigns, excusing it as free speech — only to shut themselves down. This is what our country is becoming — our institutions are hostages to Islamic fundamentalism.
“Canadians can draw lessons from Gaza. Hostage taking is not only physical, it is also psychological. Our institutions are being taken and our core values compromised. It is time to stop this madness, before we are all truly taken hostage.”
Then this before moving into comment on deradicalization:
This Rogan/Kiriakou interview illustrates, among many topics they covered, why a punitive justice system, as expressed through some of the guards and a warden, along with outside influences, fails on rehabilitation and increases recidivism by embittering inmates who on their release hold deep anger that they threaten to vent again on innocent others. Like the Attica inmate who said, I will get out someday and I am bitter at being treated like an animal by the guards here.
When you treat people as less than human, what do you expect the outcome will be? And why are so many incarcerated for nonviolent offenses? Why are they even locked up? And we wonder why the US criminal justice system produces at times unacceptable results.
This guy details the horrific corruption in the FBI, CIA, the justice system, the prison system, unbelievable things in a democracy. He is a whistleblower who has now been exonerated and recognized as having been right for uncovering the CIA torture program. The people who persecuted him, notably John Brennan, are now exposed for their corruption.
If Dave Smith were to point to all this, then yes we would get his points on our Western states as “evil and illegitimate” in certain ways. We would be onside with him on that. But beyond these few (we hope) who corrupt liberal democracy, there are many other good people in these agencies, like this whistleblower who stood against the corrupt actors and did the right thing. And did he ever pay the price for his principled stand, including several years in prison on false charges brought against him by Brennan, with Obama’s help.
They discuss the corrupt FBI sting operations, the use of “agents provocateurs” who seek out vulnerable people, even mentally compromised people, and push them into FBI-created plots of criminal actions to entrap and then charge them for the crimes. That was exposed in the Michigan Gov. Whitmer kidnapping plot and is now being revealed as probably behind the Jan. 6 “insurrection”. FBI agents and informants got the crowd to enter the Capitol building, shutting down any who resisted, and probably played a role in breaking open doors, and then followed up with lies that the protesters killed a police officer (actually died of heart attack later) and concocted stories that protesters were looking for Congresswoman Pelosi to harm.
As this former CIA guy says, the FBI uses the agents provocateurs to create crimes and entrap people so they can advance their careers for having uncovered dangerous plots and making spectacular arrests. Fortunately, the judge in the Whitmer kidnap plot did not buy the lies and rebuked the FBI publicly. And as Rogan adds, they did the Jan.6 thing to demonize a president with the lie of causing an insurrection, to try and discredit Republican political opponents.
Unbelievable levels of corruption were engaged by these agencies to promote the great lie that Trump tried to overthrow the government and then block him from running in the next election, when it was actually John Brennan, behind the scenes, trying to overthrow the government. Brennan also played a central role in cooking up the Russiagate lie, with the help of Pres. Obama and other intelligence agency leaders. Add here the Hunter Biden laptop coverup where Brennan was involved.
Interesting details on what is now being uncovered about Jan.6, where some 270 FBI agents and informants encouraged protesters to break into the Capitol buildings.
Near the end, Rogan voices his disillusionment at the corruption uncovered by people like Kiriakou. Rogan says, we are supposed to be this shining example of democracy to the world, but the corruption that Kiriakou exposes is all too standard in the US government. And, Rogan adds, there are a lot more in government (in the “deep state” bureaucracies of the government) who are just like John Brennan.
They wind up with some comments on AI tools like ChatGPT and the lying, wondering who is fiddling with such tools behind the scenes. ChatGPT insistently lied to Kiriakou about his educational record, even after he challenged it. Kiriakou, a lifelong Democrat, suffered horribly under Obama’s presidency, and finally has felt a sense of freedom with the election of Trump. He attributes this to the populism that Trump brings, the belief of populists that government works for the people and does not consist of “wise men” running the country and demanding the people sit silently and obey.
Also, some comment on the Chinese use of bots to stir societal disruption in countries like the US, fomenting division among different groups. They are playing the long-game approach to bring about the collapse of the US.
Joe Rogan Experience #2392 – John Kiriakou
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZqADzuu73g
Moving along into blog comment on “De-radicalization”
Preface: My points in reviewing the debate below between Coleman Hughes and Dave Smith: What will de-radicalization actually involve? Smith, obsessed with Israeli actions, doesn’t seem to get the critical role of the theology that predominantly drives Hamas hate and violence. Wendell Krossa
And a qualifier before starting the Israel/Hamas situation: My comments below are not a blanket approval of all that Israel does. I appeal to the situation of Israel, having been subjected to decades of Islamist hatred and violence, to illustrate the larger issue of religious ideas/beliefs fueling tribal hatred and violence. Others point to related concerns such as possible “Greater Israel” expansion plans.
Further, I have cringed at times when Israeli leadership has voiced their intense rage (the anger is legitimate) in warnings of “Iron Fist” response to opponent’s attacks- i.e. does that particular term incite the vengeance element perhaps excessively? The kind of talk that can incite fringe types on the Israeli side to excessive brutality in otherwise legitimate defensive responses. Others raise the issues of “proportionality” in Israel’s payback responses.
On this issue of legitimate use of force to defend against assaults by enemies, I have often thought of the Chinese sage Laotzi (?) who said, when attacked by your enemy, you have to use force to defeat the attackers. But when victorious, do not then engage “triumphalism” to humiliate your attackers but seek reconciliation. What the Allies did post-WW2 with the Germans and Japanese, welcoming them back into the family of nations.
Moving on…
A critical part of the Israel/Hamas peace agreement will be the “de-radicalization” of the Gazan population. As Buck Sexton notes below in the Megyn Kelly interview, there is the widespread belief among the Gazan population that death-cult martyrdom is honorable, to sacrifice sons/children to blow themselves up in the crusade to exterminate Jews. That is a deeply held belief. That is exactly what the military guy and Richard Landes, whom I repeatedly quote here, have both argued- i.e. that if you don’t go after these deeply held religious ideas/beliefs then you haven’t solved the problem of eruptions of violence in human societies and you have lost the battle for the long-term. Similar eruptions of violence will continue in the future.
De-radicalization of populations will involve something that I include as an element of the hero’s quest, or better, the shamanic experience- i.e. death and rebirth as a process to be engaged, the process of the disintegration of the old and reintegration around the new. In the case of Hamas and Gazan supporters, this involves embracing something entirely new that has to do with core narrative themes. It involves confronting the bad ideas detailed in the lists that I post here (see below for reposted lists of bad ideas). And it involves following the rejection of the old with the embrace of an entirely new narrative, with authentically humane themes to shape personal worldviews. The outcome will be a thorough re-orienting of thinking, emotions, motivations, and responses/behavior toward new more humane directions. And nothing is more critical to the process of disintegration and reintegration than the theology, the image of God that centers narratives, giving validity to all the other elements.
This process of radical disintegration and reintegration was set out for us 2 thousand years ago when a Palestinian man, a wisdom sage, presented his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory deity, a God who was unconditional love. His theology led that man to protest the sacrifice industry, a barbaric tradition that varied Old Testament prophets had protested centuries earlier (notably Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah, etc.). Overcome with outrage at the enslaving burden of the sacrifice scam, and particularly enraged at the threat theology that drove that bloody practice, Historical Jesus angrily overturned the tables of the sacrifice sellers in the Jerusalem temple and that was a protest too far. The leading priests turned him over to the Romans to be put to death. They grasped the threat that he posed to their authority and livelihood.
I am affirming the research of Bob Brinsmead, and others, that Jesus was murdered for his protest against the sacrifice industry. And central to his protest was his rejection of the long-standing belief that God was a threatening and highly conditional reality who demanded blood for appeasement of his wrath at human imperfection and failure. Historical Jesus countered that hitherto unchallenged assumption of all previous religions and presented his new image of a God who was unconditional love and did not demand atonement through blood sacrifice. He illustrated this point in parables like the Prodigal Father who unconditionally forgave and welcomed the wayward son home without demand for payment/punishment of any kind.
The outrage of many Jews at Jesus’ rejection of the traditional religious view of God that had sustained all religion over previous millennia was exhibited at his very first public speaking engagement. He read the passage from Isaiah 61 on God liberating captives…
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor.”
But then Jesus intentionally left off the concluding statement that affirmed the comforting image of God as retaliatory, as vengefully destroying the enemies of the Jews…
“The day of vengeance of our God.”
The response of his audience? Incensed at his refusal to affirm their belief in a threatening God who would retaliate against enemies, they tried to throw him off a nearby cliff. Who would dare challenge the very core of a religion? Its Cohering Center of a “just” God who made all things right again through violent punishment and destruction of enemies?
And two decades after his murder, Paul turned this sage, who died protesting sacrifice, into the iconic symbol of the divine demand for sacrifice, the ultimate Sacrifice to be universally applied to all humanity and all history. In reframing Jesus as the very opposite of what he had taught and protested, Paul profoundly distorted the very message of the man, rejecting his stunning new theology of an unconditional God and re-establishing the traditional religious view of God as retaliatory, vengeful, and highly conditional.
In Romans 12: 17-20, Paul quotes an Old Testament verse to illustrate his rejection of the theology of Jesus and his re-affirmation of the retaliatory deity of all traditional theology, “’Vengeance is mine. I will retaliate/repay’, says the Lord”.
Anyway, these elements of the revolutionary “disintegration of the old and reintegration around the stunningly new” has been covered often and in detail in sections below.
Further points,
What drives profound transitions in human minds/hearts that, for example, shift from religiously-inspired hatred to love? Well, start with the common human spirit that I speculate is inseparable from the God who is love and who has incarnated in all humanity, equally (i.e. no unique incarnation in special “holy” people, or related elites as per Plato’s mythology). And that divine Love, being authentic love, will not overwhelm human individual freedom aside from gentle impulses of persuasion to do the good thing, the loving thing. For if that divine Love were to coercively overwhelm individual freedom of choice then it would no longer be love.
(Insert note: Jonathan Haidt, among others, in “The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion” covers this issue of how people change their beliefs, how people undergo significant transformation of their thinking, using evolutionary psychology and social psychology research on this issue.)
The inner reality of a common human spirit and consciousness, inseparable from the Ultimate Love that indwells every person, is a contact reality for instituting transformation in minds, emotions, motivations, responses/behaviors. Especially, if you approach people with an alternative humane narrative in a proper “de-radicalization” project. But there is a lot of untangling to be done as many people tie their identity tightly and dogmatically to their inherited narratives. Urging people to release their mental/emotional grip on the narratives that give them meaning and purpose, well, it may take some courage for most true believers to engage such a process.
We should consider that most people affiliating with a major world religion have been overpowered by threats of rejection from an angry divine parent (i.e. biblical teaching of unbelievers eternally rejected), by threats of harsh condemnation for questioning, doubting one’s faith (demonized and shunned as “unbelievers, deceived by Satan, heretics, blasphemers, traitors,” etc.), and by threats of after-life damnation/destruction in hell. These are powerfully overwhelming ideas to keep believers in terrified submission to the religious authorities who claim to represent the will of the terrorizing God.
While many in our main religious traditions have found ways to think around such features of religious traditions, finding ways to moderate their loyalty to their religion, a significant percentage of believers are still subject to the deforming influence of such religious themes. And the result has been horrifically damaging across human societies. I repeatedly remind visitors here of the good research by historians on the outcomes of “apocalyptic millennialism” in Marxist revolutionary violence, Nazi madness that carried a society into mass-death outcomes, and now the mass-harm as the same themes drive the environmental alarmism crusade of Net Zero decarbonization.
My point in regard to Historical Jesus was that he advocated for a deradicalization of people by going to the very core of what is wrong with our religious narratives, and exchanging the “Cohering Center” of these narratives, rejecting the old religious images of God for an entirely new image of God.
I would highlight the Jesus insight on deity as the single most fundamental theme in human narratives that has to be dealt with if deradicalization is to be thorough and have lasting transformative influence into the long-term future. This involves the rejection of the traditional historical images of deity that have dominated mythologies and religions from the beginning. Jesus advocated for the complete transformation of this great Ultimate Ideal and Authority- i.e. deity- as the embodiment of our highest ideals. He urged the embrace of a stunningly new deity.
Paul then, two decades later, rejected Jesus’ new God outright and re-affirmed the threatening God of all previous mythology and religion. The compilers of the New Testament chose letters/books that all confirmed Paul’s Christ myth, though they also included the Jesus message as it was undeniably well-known to many Jews and early Christians. But they reframed the Jesus teaching within the New Testament Christology that resulted in the distortion and “burial” of what Jesus had actually taught (Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s point).
This profound contradiction between Jesus and Paul, especially on core theology, has to be understood, confronted, and resolved. The scholars, historians, and theologians have done the homework over the past three centuries and we now know the issues involved. My argument is that if we seriously want to solve this problem of tribal violence between differing groups in our world for the long-term future, then the core problem with religious traditions, as nailed by sages like Historical Jesus, has to be faced head on and corrected. And how many are willing to do this in our religious traditions? Our great religious narratives still today provide the central themes that shape so-termed “secular/ideological” belief systems. Just note the “climate crisis” themes for confirmation of this fact. Add also the themes driving the resurgence of Marxist collectivism, and the offspring of Christian Ebionism in Islam.
Notes on Buck Sexton interview by Megyn Kelly:
Good comment here on how these three real-estate dealmakers Steve Whitkoff, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump have accomplished something that politicians and Mid-East experts have not been able to get done over previous decades. Sexton notes the skills involved in dealmaking- i.e. the schmoozing with bad guys, the personal charm factor, the ability to negotiate compromises between parties, things that Trump has been demonized for over past years.
Sexton quotes Christopher Hitchens that if our response to terrorism is itself smeared as terrorism, just many in the West have condemned Israeli defensive actions against Hamas as “genocide”, then we have lost the fight against terrorism. If Hamas is “resistance”, a noble fight for freedom, when it is actually a death-cult committed to extermination of Jews, then confusion reigns and many have embraced madness.
Israel has been attacked by those who are committed to the extermination of Jews, and not just in Israel, but further afield. The religiously-motivated attackers then hide behind civilians when Israel is forced to respond with defensive actions to end such threats. Hamas refuses to let Gazan civilians leave areas after they have been warned to evacuate by the Israelis. Hamas hides their assault weapons among civilians in hospitals, schools, etc. They are committed to continue their brutal extermination attacks on Israel.
Israel is responsible to eliminate threats to its people, to not leave such threat in place, as past ceasefires did, that allowed Hamas respite to re-arm and plan the next assaults in order to continue their commitment to exterminate Israelis. There has to be moral clarity around such things, not the confusion that is promoted by “useful idiots” in Western media and other pro-Hamas groups.
The defense of liberal democracy is not terrorism/”genocide” as mainstream media and leftist groups have been propagandizing throughout our societies. That is lunacy- to argue that liberal democracies like Israel should just back off and let terrorism run free, even validating it as legitimate “resistance”, with Hamas portrayed as “freedom fighters”. Such is insanity.
But this is the outcome among those who embrace the “suicidal empathy” that has infected so many today, especially throughout the higher education institutions of the West. We also see the outcome of suicidal empathy in Western justice approaches that release repeat violent offenders, and we see it in the uncontrolled immigration that allows in people who refuse to assimilate to liberal democracy principles and, instead, voice their intention to overthrow such democracy through mass migration and higher birth rates than native citizens.
My project here is to communicate that at the root of this madness there is the same old complex of themes that have shaped narratives across previous history, themes that continue to shape minds, emotions, motivations, and outcomes in the responses/behavior of many people. The themes are reframed in succeeding versions with touches of superficial differences as they are passed from religion to religion and into “secularized” versions. But it is always the same fundamental core set of themes despite being modified with new terminology, definitions, in ever new crusades. These themes are major root contributing factors that have to be confronted and dealt with, ultimately replaced with the alternatives that we were long ago given, alternative themes that help solve this issue of bad narratives inciting and validating bad behavior.
Again, some familiar historical examples to illustrate that any successful deradicalization program has to deal with such themes that continue to incite and validate this bad behavior on all sides- e.g. the Christian Crusaders singing hymns and praising God that, roughly a millennium ago, they could take part in slaughtering God’s enemies. What ideas promote such deformity in human minds and hearts?
Or the Gazan mothers celebrating gleefully that they can put their children forward to be slaughtered as martyrs, killing as many Jews as possible through suicide bombings. What feeds such inhumanity?
Others, celebrated the raping, murdering, beheading babies, and burning people alive, all showing that “men never do greater evil than when they do it in the name of their God, their monster God”. The God that they have inherited via their religious tradition and embraced to validate their pathological behavior, their barbaric treatment of enemies.
These themes have endlessly deformed human minds across history, inciting and validating hatred and violence toward others, on all sides. And they are still dominant elements in our major religious narratives. This reality has to be confronted if we are ever to properly and fully deradicalize our societies.
The Kelly/Sexton interview:
“Trump Brings Israel-Hamas Peace, and Potential Cancer Cure, w/ Buck Sexton & Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong”, Megyn Kelly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xdLTsBzv-4
Preface notes on the real enemy that we all face in life (Solzhenitsyn’s point):
We all face the same enemy and it’s inside us. Our inherited animal impulses to (1) tribalism, to view differing others as “enemies” to be hated and opposed, defeated, conquered, and in worst cases- exterminated, Wendell Krossa
This impulse leads us to deny our fundamental oneness in the human family based on, for example, “Mitochondrial Eve” theory, “quantum entanglement” at the root of all reality, and the NDE insights into the oneness of all, including our oneness with a God who is inexpressibly wonderous unconditional love. These all point to the most fundamental realities of all- the Ultimate Reality of a Oneness that is love of the most profound kind.
We all face the inner enemy of (2) the impulse to domination that leads us to deny, neglect, and corrupt the Classic Liberal principles and institutions that protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals equally, rights to equal respect and the protection of full individual freedom. Agreed, we exist in hierarchical arrangements all throughout our societies but then it is critical how we then act, how we treat one another within such structures. Liberal democracy principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions have been created to help us control impulses like our inherited alpha domination urge.
And we all face the inner enemy of the impulse to (3) punitive retaliation and destruction of differing others, whether in the more minor but still ugly practices of contemporary life- i.e. censoring, banning, vilifying, and criminalizing differing others for increasingly petty “crimes” (i.e. “hate speech” with carelessly undefined limits to eventually allow the inclusion of the differing opinions and positions of political opponents, due to “concept creep”), or the retaliatory destruction in harsh justice systems that deny restorative justice. Yes, incarcerate violent people as the fundamental responsibility of govt. but then once properly restrained, treat all humanely.
This site looks at the problem of bad ideas/beliefs that validate these animal impulses. And this site considers the better alternatives that help us to fight and win the inner battle against such impulses.
The ideas/beliefs and narrative themes that are most significantly involved in validating human behavior are epitomized in the profound differences between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s entirely opposite Christ myth. In the Jesus message we have been given the solution to some of the most critical factors impacting our personal and social problems. We have had the Jesus answers for millennia but they involve the willing engagement of death/rebirth, or disintegration/reintegration process regarding our narratives.
Illustrating a main argument on this site- “It’s the narrative, stupid”, Wendell Krossa (Or even more critical to grasp- “It’s the theology, stupid”)
A persistent argument/point here is that many of us are not taking seriously or responsibly the problem of solving violence. If we don’t go to all the root contributing factors, then how can we conclude that we have properly and thoroughly solved this problem of violence?
This site argues that of all contributing factors, none are more critical than the ideals/beliefs that drive violence toward differing others (i.e. incite, guide, and validate violence). And religious reformism, that tinkers around peripheral edges of a religious tradition, does not fundamentally confront and resolve the problem if it avoids the most important idea/belief of all, the God at the center of religion, the “theology”.
And rendering so much reformism all the more irresponsible, is the fact that we were given, arguably, the best alternative some 2000 years ago and many have continued to ignore what Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, and others pointed to, that early Christianity with Paul’s Christ myth, created a greater New Testament context dominated by Paul’s Christ, a context that buried Jesus’ potent alternative- i.e. his “stunning new ‘diamond’ theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditional deity”.
The alternative that Jesus presented goes to the root of the violence problem- i.e. the God at the very center of religion who is still protected “under the canopy of the unquestionable sacred” and has even been embraced in secular ideologies. Hence, we get “secularized” deities just like the religious God, who are also angry, vengeful, threatening retaliation and extermination, and demanding violent destruction of enemies as the way to promised salvation. Note the deity images of environmental alarmism- “Vengeful Gaia, angry Planet/Mother Earth, punitive Universe, payback karma.”
This debate (see link just below) between Coleman Hughes and Dave Smith over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict illustrates how critical is the issue of driving narrative themes and if not dealt with, then violent conflicts between differing groups of people will just continue to erupt as they have across past history. Bad narrative ideas/beliefs may not be the only factor inciting and validating hatred toward others, but it is a dominant one that has to be dealt with.
And herein lies a key element to this violence issue because the core themes driving so much violence are deeply lodged in human subconsciousness as archetypes that have long been defensively protected, as the theology noted above, also under “the canopy of the sacred”, that is, in our main religious traditions. Billions have located their very identity in those religious narratives and are not easily convinced to exchange them for alternatives. It becomes a survival issue for many people- i.e. my religion is my very identity, it is me.
To challenge the belief system that constitutes essential identity, and to change one’s worldview or narrative, that prospect for many is like facing death itself. Even though I would suggest that such profound change should be a factor in the “Hero’s journey”, notably the shamanic experience of the “disintegration of the old and reintegration around the new”, meaning sometimes the entirely new. Complete death and rebirth. Just saying.
Further note on the enraged reaction of many to any challenge to their narratives, especially religious narratives. People react with rage to the point of validating violent responses, as in the death penalty for Muslims leaving their religion.
People locate their identity in their belief system and none do this more intensely and dogmatically than true believers in some religious narrative. Their religion then becomes the very identity of such people, representing their very selves. Hence, any challenge to the religion is viewed as a challenge to their very selves, to their existence and that arouses the survival impulse. If you argue that my religion is wrong, then I am all wrong, and susceptible to disappearing like my religion. And so you get such enraged defensive reactions of true believers. Their rage is desperation to survive rage.
Anyway, this Hughes/Smith debate illustrates some of these issues.
“Dave Smith vs. Coleman Hughes Debate: Israel and U.S. Foreign Policy”, Coleman Hughes and The Free Press.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR0sCe6yDuM
My thoughts on their back and forth debate:
I would quote this sentence from the linked National Post article above to Dave Smith as he seems just not able to comprehend the nature of what we are dealing with in groups like Hamas, their embrace of a theology that overrides all else in their minds.
The quote:
“The West, and too often Israel herself, has convinced itself that terror is a grievance to be addressed rather than an ideology to be destroyed.” Replace “ideology” with “theology”.
My comments on Coleman Hughes’ debate with Dave Smith:
Dave Smith seems to miss the point when he insists that it is “the boot of Israel on Palestine” that is the central problem inciting Palestinian resistance and further violent attacks on Israel. I would counter “No”. The central issue are enemies who are not committed to improving their condition and the condition of their civilian population if they are given statehood and freedom. To the contrary, they are committed to a narrative that includes the element of the divine demand to exterminate their enemies, the Jews in this case.
I argue this is perhaps the overriding critical element in the mix of things that are inciting hatred and violence in Palestine. Hamas illustrates many similar true believers who have placed their identity in their religious narrative and they will not just abandon the narrative because that is their very identity as a people, as the people of God, chosen by God to be his righteous warriors to purge the world of his evil opponents/enemies, the children of Satan. Note, for example, that Hamas and Iran use these very terms in their speech- i.e. Israel as the little Satan and the US as the great Satan.
Numerous Muslims similarly view themselves as the righteous people of God who glory in martyrdom because that gains the ultimate praise and approval of their God (similar to the exaltation of martyrdom in early Christianity). Such people hold the belief that they can shed their blood in violent death to destroy their enemy, and God will reward them with eternal life in heaven and lots of pussy too- i.e. the 72 virgins. These are powerfully motivating beliefs, especially to young men denied normal sexual expression in their culture. Just as the denial of normal sexual expression in the Christian priesthood has resulted in the deformity of child sexual abuse.
Again, Harold Ellens has reminded us of the motivating influence from such ideas/beliefs. Note this just below in regard to the potency of beliefs to generate “dynamis, or mobilize energy”. He spoke as a psychologist/theologian from within the Christian religion and about his Christian tradition. His statements below speak not only to religious systems but also to the power of the same ideas/themes/beliefs in so-called “secular/ideological” belief systems because most people never question or challenge the basic theology of our culture, the basic beliefs in God. Psychotherapist Zenon Lotufo quotes Ellens in his “Cruel God, Kind God”.
Ellens says,
“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’.”
(End of Ellen’s quotes)
How potently can some religious beliefs “generate dynamis and motivate energy”? In the Hamas/Palestinian situation, religious ideas/beliefs can do so to the degree that people love death and glory in it as one Gazan woman proclaimed (see below the Dave Rubin interview of Moran Stella Yanai, an Israeli captive of Hamas). Yanai recounts the case of a Palestinian lady who expressed delighted happiness that she could send two of her children to blow themselves up in attempts to kill Jews and now wishes that she could also send her grandchildren to do the same.
“Chilling Details of How Hamas Treated Hostages in Captivity”, The Rubin Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDB_9XdhCVg&t=250s
That Palestinian woman rejoiced because of what her beliefs had led her to do with her own children, against all natural maternal impulses to love and protect children. This is what we are dealing with in Islamic terrorism.
And yes, early Christian crusaders exhibited the same mentality in rejoicing and singing hymns as they thanked God that they could take part in the slaughter of God’s Muslim enemies in Jerusalem a millennium ago, chopping up the bodies of Muslim men, women, and children till the blood flowed ankle deep.
Back to Smith/Hughes debate…
So contrary to Smith’s emphasis on the role of the Israeli occupation as central to inciting Hamas violence, I would suggest that Hamas hatred derives its energy more from these religious ideas, ideas that deform personalities and override other causal factors/concerns. Because even when Palestinians were offered statehood in the past they continued to re-arm to try again and again to pursue the extermination of the Jews as the their greater goal no matter what peace settlements were arranged and offered. These ideas/beliefs are more critical to note as driving that hatred and violence over past centuries, even over millennia of such violence.
Coleman tries to get Smith to recognize that its not all about the blockade as the dominant element driving Hamas, but there are other critical factors that better explain what drives their hatred. Smith sort of acknowledges the “religious beliefs” factor, however he appeared to do so somewhat dismissively. He does not seem curious to probe what exactly drives the intensity of Hamas hatred, obviously something more than can be explained by the blockade.
I would argue that Hamas nurses a hatred that is rooted mainly in a narrative that is embraced by many more than just Hamas militants. It’s a narrative with themes that originated far back in such myths as the Zoroastrian cosmic dualism that was embraced by all the Western religions. That mythology dictates that there is a righteous Good God locked in eternal enmity and war with an evil Force/Satan. The problem here is that such divine archetypes incite and validate this-world replications among people that end in denial of our essential oneness as members of the human family.
The divinely demanded follow-up to that mythology, is that we must become true believers who are obligated to join the great battle on the side of the Good God (i.e. join the “true” religion) as heroic warriors who will help God destroy his irredeemably evil enemies who are demonized as Satanic infidels. They must be purged from the world. That extermination of evil enemies is required to save ourselves and our world. Thus begins one critical baseline belief in a growing complex of ideas that will support the mythology of “salvation through destruction”, salvation achieved by way of extermination of our enemies, who are God’s enemies.
Islamic terrorists take these ideas/beliefs very seriously. Muhammad Ali, also for example, took these beliefs so seriously that, terrorized by the threat of Islamic judgment and hell, he, according to his wife, spent the latter half of his life engaged in good works to try to make up for the bad behavior of his earlier years. Charlie Kirk’s widowed wife voiced a similar belief in that, as she recounted, she had to forgive Charlie’s murderer so God would let her into heaven to see Charlie again. Behind all such belief is the myth of a threatening retaliatory, vengeful God.
The hope element in this mythology is that we are promised salvation, the ultimate survival solution. These myths play upon powerful human impulses and concerns beyond just temporal survival issues, projecting human concerns into after-life survival mythology.
As historians have shown, the above beliefs in cosmic dualism have played out in earthly battles of good against evil, with the demand to exterminate evil enemies. Such ideas/beliefs drove Marxism and its violent revolutions to exterminate evil capitalist enemies who were viewed as blocking the achievement of Marxist salvation in restored communal paradise. These beliefs also drove Nazism and its extermination crusade against Jewish Bolshevism/Communism (the Eastern front). Hitler held a strong belief that he must engage the great final battle of Armageddon, a battle of the final annihilation of either Germany’s enemies, or Germany itself. There could be no survivors of such a battle, only annihilation of one or the other combatants. He viewed his campaign as a great war of Good against Evil.
Devotees of such apocalyptic millennialism believe that if they incite the final crusade and battle, then God will come down to finish the destruction (actually complete the apocalypse) and his true believers will then gain entry to the Millennial Reich, or other similar visions of utopian paradise/heaven (e.g. a worldwide “Caliphate” in Islamic religious versions). This mythology has now infected environmental alarmism with the hope of a restored wilderness world as the paradise to be achieved, after the destruction of the evil enemy that is industrial civilization. If that evil is purged from the world, then the true believers will “save the world” (i.e. purged through de-development, de-growth, return to “small is beautiful”, “reconnecting with nature” at the lifestyle level of primitive hunter/gatherers).
Apocalyptic millennialism, part of the larger complex of “bad religious ideas”, is a widespread and still dominating theme that has long been deeply embedded in the human collective subconscious as archetypes that keep influencing people to emotionally choose new versions of same old complex of myths against the rational evidence of horrific outcomes. This complex affirms the primitive belief in salvation through destruction. Smith just doesn’t seem to appreciate or understand this.
It’s not that Smith entirely rejects what Hughes is pointing to, as he states his agreement repeatedly throughout their conversation. However, he appears to me to be locked into a fixation, somewhat extremist, on certain variables that affirm a more anti-US, anti-Western, anti-Jewish perspective. While the Israeli/Palestinian situation is admittedly a complex situation, it seems that Smith is downplaying critical factors like the core beliefs of a movement, the ideology, or more exactly “the theology”. And his emphasis on Israeli/US mistakes overwhelms other variables, and misses critical factors that play a more dominant role in driving people to use violence against their enemies.
I see the dominance of the religious element, far more so than political/social things (i.e. the Israeli “occupation” that Smith focuses on), in the outcomes among the population. For example, in the statements of the Palestinian mother (e.g. the Rubin interview) that she rejoices in the fact that she can give her children to be suicide bombers. She expresses delight that she can be fully committed to the Hamas death-cult madness, because she has been convinced that is the only way to achieve ultimate salvation/survival.
Her embrace of those religious beliefs has resulted in her ability to override her temporal survival impulse and protect her children. She is trying to escape the Hell that is threatened on almost every page of the Quran. That threat theology profoundly deforms human personality and consciousness and the outcome is those mothers glorying in the hope that their children will become martyrs. That leads them to celebrate bloody suicide, to rejoice in it. Death-cult madness.
Those same mothers whipped their children into a state of delirious hatred when the hostages were brought into Gaza after the horrors of the Nova attack. They encouraged their young children to go out and throw stones at and beat the hostages that were dragged through the streets of Gaza, to try to murder them.
And considering the deformity of human personality by bad religious ideas, note the glee of the one young man who phoned home during the slaughter of Jews at the festival, rejoicing excitedly as he told his mom and dad, “I’m a hero. I’ve murdered 10 Jews with my bare hands”. That illustrates what Coleman Hughes is arguing about what we are really dealing with that Smith does not seem to appreciate with his focus on the US involvement in such situations.
Here is the phone call transcript of the young Hamas man who expressed glee at brutally murdering Israelis:
“Mom, your son is a hero. Hi dad, I’m talking to you from Mefalsim. Open my WhatsApp now and you’ll see all those killed. Look how many I killed with my own hands. Your son killed Jews.
“Dad, I’m talking to you from a Jewish woman’s phone. I killed her and her husband. I killed 10 with my own hands. Dad, 10 with my own hands. Dad open WhatsApp and see how many I killed.”
Smith would do well to come to some appreciation that the full nature of the problem in such situations has more to do with the core beliefs in the religion of the people involved, beliefs that have so deformed their minds and spirits, that it produces the pathological zealotry among true believers of devotion to a death cult where mothers gladly offer their children up to slaughter.
While we all hope the peace agreement brings lasting peace, and that many citizens will find ways to moderate themselves following the decades of hatred and violence, perhaps motivated by nothing more than exhaustion at the violence. However, I would caution that the ideas that incited and validated the original hatred and episodes of violence are still there, centrally lodged in the belief system of the religion, and those ideas/beliefs still hold the potential to again incite and validate people to similar crusades against enemies in the future, just as they have across past history.
And to be fair and balanced, note that this same zealous commitment to slaughtering enemies was prevalent throughout Christian history in Crusades, Inquisitions, in the torture and murder of heretics and witches. Look at Calvin having his fellow Christian theologian Servetus burned at the stake for a disagreement over Paul’s Christ myth, for refusing to move an adjective three words over in a sentence. As Bob Brinsmead says, if Christians had just followed the teaching of Jesus to love enemies there would have been no such violence across Christian history. But Christians chose instead to zealously devote themselves to Paul’s Christ myth and that produced centuries of religious violence.
So again, it’s not just Islam that is suffering from the deformity of religious zealotry and violence incited by themes that promote and validate extermination of enemies. Look at the violence that is promoted in Revelation, the grandest narrative of “salvation through apocalyptic destruction” ever written. And like the gleefully rejoicing Palestinian mothers, the saved Christian saints portrayed in Revelation will occupy balcony seats in heaven where they look down upon their enemies burning in the lake of fire eternally screaming their torment, weeping and gnashing their teeth. The saints observing that torment will be singing hymns and gleefully celebrating, shouting “Glory to God, God is great” just as their Muslim counterparts did as they slaughtered innocents at the Nova festival. Not a hairsbreadth of difference between the true believers in these two religions.
Both groups of believers rejoicing that they were on the true side in the true religion and in great battles exterminating evil enemies. These are common basic themes inherited from primitive mythologies that were lodged as archetypes in human collective subconscious and have continued to push people to embrace new versions of these themes across history, in both religious and secular ideological traditions.
Again, the outcome of framing ourselves, in terms of the Zoroastrian cosmic dualism myth, as the righteous true believers in a great battle against evil enemies tends to stir zealotry to unleash vengeful hatred toward differing others/enemies. In extremist versions of the good versus evil framing, the enemies are portrayed as irredeemably evil, as existential threats that must be purged immediately as possible from life in order “to save the world”. Enemies are viewed as threats that must be defeated and destroyed for us as the righteous heroes to gain our imagined salvation outcome, whether our imagined salvation is religious or secular in nature.
There is a dangerous arrogance in viewing ourselves as the true heroes and missing the reality that the real battle of good against evil takes place inside each of us, the battle of our human spirit against our animal inheritance. That is the more fundamental struggle of good against evil in life.
Good point made by Hughes that Israel is a democracy that can come to an agreement and move on in peace, where Hamas is committed to a belief system that will not permit them to move on in like manner. Maybe some in the Palestinian population can move on, if they are able to embrace the radical disintegration of their old narrative and re-integration around an entirely new narrative. This will be required if “de-radicalization”, as agreed to in the current peace agreement, is to be of any real impact in changing that situation. De-radicalization is perhaps the most critical element that must be tackled and effected.
It will be very hard for Hamas, and similarly-minded groups and sectors of the Gazan population, to fully embrace de-radicalization because their very identity has been tightly tied to the Cosmic dualism mythology of their religion, where, as the “true believers in the sole true religion in the world”, they have, in response to their God, engaged the righteous and heroic battle to exterminate the followers of Satan that threaten all good in the world. And these elements in their religion have been presented as critical to their avoiding hell and being saved.
I get the intensity of the feelings of religious fundamentalists from my past experience in Evangelical Christianity. Many religious traditions push the view that their God is the true and Good God who is contrasted with the Satanic opposite- i.e. the Deity of their enemy’s religion. And the followers of the other religions are more than just “infidels” but are thoroughly demonized and dehumanized as “satanic” just like their deity.
So yes, to re-iterate again in this déjà vu point– “It’s the theology, stupid”.
Varied commentators are presenting the caution that Hamas, and their supporters among the civilian population, have agreed to past peace deals and used such periods of respite as temporary relief periods to gain breathing space in order to rearm and prepare to attack again and again to fulfil their ultimate long-term goal of the extermination of their enemies. The validating belief system is still there in the background of their religion. The beliefs are still there lodged in the main religion just as the same themes are still there in Paul’s Christ myth, notably expressed in Revelation.
Without guaranteed transformation of the basic religious narrative, what’s the point?
This has long been the argument/point of this site, to take seriously what the military guy said- That, if you really want to solve these problems for the long-term future, as Richard Landes also argued, then you have to deal with the core themes of people’s narratives. And this site argues that no one did this better than Historical Jesus by going to most fundamental idea/ideal of all- i.e. the God at the center of these narratives. “Historical Jesus” is the title that distinguishes the wisdom sage from Paul’s entirely opposite Christ myth.
Historical Jesus rejected outright the angry, retaliatory God of all previous historical religion. He rejected the feature of retaliatory justice in deity (God as judge condemning and punishing human “sins”). He did this when he stated there must be no more “eye for eye” retaliation against enemies but instead we should “Love our enemies” because God does. How so? God generously gives sun and rain to both good and bad people. No exclusion of anyone, no tribal favoritism of “true believers” over unbelievers. All are treated equally with the same love.
Jesus then illustrated this non-retaliatory and unconditional behavior of God in parables like the Prodigal Father and the Vineyard Owner. These precepts and stories are not prescriptive for running a business, or a justice system, or a nation state’s economy. They are communicating the true nature of God and providing an ideal for free choice in how to respond and treat offending others. As the Vineyard owner says to the all-day workers who were pissed at his generosity toward the late-comers, “Why are you angry with my generosity with my assets?”. It’s my free choice to do this with what is mine.
Contrast the “stunning new theology of Jesus that God was non-retaliatory”, with Paul’s rejection of that new theology. Paul did that when he stated his own opposite theology by quoting an Old Testament verse: “Vengeance is mine, I will retaliate and violently so” (Romans 12: 17-20. Paul further repeats throughout his letters the threat of his wrathful God destroying unbelievers. That deity is epitomized in barbaric gore of Revelation where the bloodied Christ (i.e. his robe spattered with the blood of enemies that have been slain by the sword coming out of his mouth). His eyes are ablaze with fire (illustrating his rage). Paul affirms this divine rage/wrath in his Thessalonians letters where it is stated that “Jesus Christ” returns in blazing fire to destroy all who refuse to believe his Christ myth. They are destroyed through apocalyptic purging of the world and then cast into the lake of fire forever. These scriptural passages affirm a violent God who uses violence to solve problems (i.e. “salvation through destruction”).
Again, Harold Ellens and others have nailed the issue here with these images of a violent God using violence to solve problems. Such ideals “in the psychological sphere, generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence”, among other harmful outcomes on human personality.
My point consistently on this site is that historical Jesus gave us the solution to all this. He went directly to the theological element in human belief systems, to the God at core of religious narratives and changed that. He threw out the judging, condemning, punishing God of all historical religion. He then presented his entirely “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God”. Paul then two decades later rejected that new theology of Jesus. Paul directly confronted the “behavior based on similar validating belief” coupling that Jesus had used to communicate his message.
Jesus had said, do this and you will be like God. If you do not retaliate against your offenders with “eye for eye” responses but instead love your enemies, then you will be just like God who does not retaliate but instead loves God’s enemies. This point is stated for example in Luke 6: 36, “Be unconditionally merciful just as your Father is unconditionally merciful”. How is God unconditionally merciful? That was portrayed in the list of responses that were detailed in the preceding verses of Luke 6: 27-35.
Paul rejects that new theology and re-affirms God as exhibiting retaliatory rage and vengeance against enemies/unbelievers. Paul restates the same old threat theology of all religious deity in his Christ myth.
Paul’s Christ is a rehash of the same old monster deity of all historical religion. And that gets to the essence of this whole problem of violence across history. You have God images that validate the worst of inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and vengeful destruction of competing others/enemies, impulses that are inflamed and validated by such religious belief. Hence, the real battle of life takes place inside us against our real enemy- our inherited animal drives that are validated by inherited religious archetypes such as the features of Paul’s Christ. This all harkens back again and again to the point made by Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy- i.e. that the “diamonds” of Jesus have been buried in the “dung” of Paul’s Christology. Not my terms- theirs.
Smith doesn’t seem to appreciate what varied Israelis pointed out, Israelis whose families were slaughtered in those southern villages Oct. 7, that prior to the attack they tried to live peaceably with their Gazan neighbors across the border, hiring them to work for them and with them in their villages. They had treated them decently as equals but those same Gazans were then spying for Hamas giving them details on the Israeli settlements, and any defensive arrangements, etc. The Israelis were stunned to find so many of those Gazan civilians were indoctrinated with the hateful beliefs of Hamas, the same religious system that demands the extermination of the enemy, regardless of individual differences.
Yes, there are Gazans who have protested Hamas but still far too many who embrace the madness of the Hamas death-cult. What percentage? Some long-ago surveys showed up to 15% of the general Muslim population affirmed ISIS-type jihad as legitimate to destroy against enemies. Other more recent polling suggests around 2-5% of the total Muslim population affirms violent jihad, though support for groups like Muslim Brotherhood may be larger in other hard-to-poll regions (see Grok’s data review below).
My point here: Dave Smith needs to recognize more that we are dealing with a narrative that incites/validates many to glory in the murder of their own children in suicide bombing and related attacks, and believe it legitimate to slaughter, rape, and torture their enemies. Hence, we saw the women and children pouring into the streets of Gaza as the hostages were brought there, cheering, celebrating, and trying to beat the captives. That is the issue that Smith appears to downplay. He doesn’t seem to get how powerful the Islamic narrative is and the significant role that it plays inciting violence against Israelis. He appears to favor an emphasis on Israeli failures in their maintaining blockades and previous defensive wars to highlight what appears to be his general anti-Israel, anti-US, anti-West leanings and more isolationist responses to assaults and violence from others. Just my read of things.
Smith makes his argument for ceasefires. Hughes notes that response has been tried repeatedly and who then kept initiating new assaults, inciting new rounds of war because of their belief system that requires salvation from hell through the complete destruction of their enemy, the satanically evil enemy?
I go back to the point of the military guy, and Richard Landes, who both get that until you deal with these fundamental beliefs of “apocalyptic millennialism” you will not solve these repeating cycles of violence.
I would point out that even Landes could have been more clear in noting that in our Western civilization these ideas come directly down to us from Paul’s Christ myth that has dominated Western consciousness and narratives since the early CE centuries. And we have the good research today on the profound difference between the Jesus “diamond/message” and Paul’s opposite Christology. What’s left is to pull the Jesus message out (especially the core theology of an unconditional God) and clean it off, as in make it clear and distinct from the New Testament context that emphasizes Paul’s Christ-ianity.
Doing this will require facing the total disintegration of narrative and reintegration around an entirely new narrative with the stunning new theology of Historical Jesus. I say “total” because of the critical element of theology- the God at the center of these religious narratives.
How did Paul respond to “the total death and rebirth around the entirely new.” Paul could not do that, and he writes his response to Jesus’ stunning new theology in Romans 12. He rejected very straightforwardly the core idea/belief that historical Jesus had introduced, his “greatest contribution to history of human ideas” (James Robinson). Paul rejected the new theology of Jesus and built his Christ myth as an entirely opposite reality to override the Jesus theology and then reshape Jesus and his message in terms of his Christ with entirely opposite themes to what Jesus had actually taught. This is to me the greatest mental/narrative crime in all history.
Hughes also makes the point that when the Jews established the Israeli state in 1948, the Arabs subsequently did not attack Egypt for its brutality toward the Palestinians in blowing poisonous gas into their tunnels. They would only vent rage on Israel. Hughes uses that to illustrate a weakness in Smith’s approach which is his apparently central and dominant anti-Israel, anti-US bias and how that runs through a lot of Smith’s debates.
Smith, in response to Hughes, tries to qualify why he ignores such facts as the Arab refusal to retaliate toward Egypt for worse atrocities than any committed by Israel. However, his choice to point insistently to Israeli failures still comes through as a dominant theme of his. Smith then points to the US conquest of Western US native lands in early US history. He uses that illustration to conclude that colonial states are always evil and illegitimate, and their colonial conquests are central to the enmity of conquered people and their resistance. Legitimizing the violence of the Palestinian resistance?
And agreed, that there are elements of evil in the history of Western colonialism. There were episodes of abuse, coercion, outright destruction. But Hughes is trying to argue for what really dominates Hamas’ hatred of Jews and violence toward Israel. Such as their commitment to a belief system that demands extermination of Jews.
Smith appears to downplay, even dismiss, the prominent role that religion plays in driving Hamas’ violence. His replies to Hughes repeatedly refocus on the decades of Israeli occupation as the dominant factor driving Hamas’ resistance and violence. He repeats his points using his own New Jersey residence and arguing that if someone attacked his home and hurt his children, then he would feel just like Hamas and the Palestinians feel and would respond similarly with violence.
His point being that if Isreal would just stop their assault on Gaza and grant statehood, then things would revert to peaceful coexistence. But that ignores the core theology, the beliefs of the religion held by Hamas, beliefs that would still drive them to exterminate Jews.
Coleman Hughes tries to get Smith to see such things but Smith doesn’t seem able to grasp his points because of what appears to me to be a kind of “anti-US, anti-Western states” bias. Smith is right on his varied points that the European colonial history of conquest, along with the horrific outcomes of varied US invasions and overthrow of other country’s governments, the repeated starting of wars in places like Iraq, Vietnam, etc., there is all that to consider.
Hughes responds that you can grant Palestinians statehood but that alone won’t solve the problem of what incites Hamas’ violence. The underlying hatred is validated more than Israeli treatment of Gaza and related regions. There is still the problem of the religious ideas/beliefs that incite and validate the hatred and that drive groups like Hamas to initiate violent attacks, again and again. Add also, that Hamas hides behind civilians, putting their assault weapons in mosques, hospitals, and the homes of residents. And even when the Israelis warn civilian residents to leave for their safety because of coming bombing raids, Hamas forces those civilians to remain in their homes to become victims of Israeli bombing.
Hamas then barbarically uses such civilian deaths for propaganda purposes in the West, propaganda that Western media just accept as truth. Hamas fights an incredibly dirty war. And to the contrary, Smith says not much about the fact that Israel is obligated to protect citizens as much as possible from repeated attacks to exterminate them. Hence, the horrific outcomes of children being killed in Gaza.
Smith would do well to look beyond to what really drives the death-cult mentality of a group like Hamas and don’t dismiss or downplay the element of religion as just a lesser variable in the mix. Try to understand why those Gazan mothers are deliriously happy and celebrate the sacrifice of their children to be martyrs and wish that they had more children and grandchildren to sacrifice in the crusade to exterminate Jews.
I would affirm what Hughes is pointing to, that a critical driving factor, among the other variables also here, is the religion, the theology. But a nodded “yes” to Dave Smith, that when Israel retaliates defensively, there should be a cautioning to Israeli leaders who with legitimate rage at the horrors committed by Hamas, then promise “Iron Fist” responses and that talk can incite their own soldiers to commit excesses if their responses are not framed more carefully.
Priority in the mix of things that Hughes and Smith discuss is the fact that the Israeli state is obligated to protect their people from attacks. That is the priority responsibility of any state to protect their citizens from assaults. Hence, they have no choice but to exterminate the attackers committed to exterminating them. There is no other choice. And civilian casualties are inevitable, especially when your attackers force civilians to remain in place and hide their weapons among them.
Dave could do well to ponder the initiating, inciting, driving factors behind Hamas violence. He seems to dismiss or downplay these factors because of what appears to be his almost obsessive desire to hit his own country for their history of abuse toward other countries, as in his reference to the conquest of native American lands and then concluding that all such states are just “illegitimate gangs”.
I would counter that point with Conrad Black’s past articles on the European entry or “conquest” of Canada, notably the British and French coming here. Black notes at that time there were only about 200,000 natives in Canada, roaming hunter/gatherer bands across the entire country. His point being- i.e. that cannot be the legitimate basic for claiming native ownership of most Canadian land today. So why our constant apologies for being here centuries later and the ridiculous practice of opening events today with apologies to some native band who are supposedly the legitimate owners of the land where an event takes place. Land claims of natives in BC cover more than 100% of BC territory. No, succeeding generations are no longer illegitimate. As the descendants of original European settles, we also belong here legitimately. The idea that all colonial advance was a great evil and is still illegitimate needs to be rethought.
No one should deny that there was bad behavior during colonial advances over past centuries (i.e. failure to keep treaty obligations), and that should be corrected and many such things have been resolved with uncounted billions given by Canadian governments to First Nations over the past century or so. But we can’t forever condemn the overall human exodus out of Africa to spread across the Earth with many native groups endlessly supplanting one another all over the planet. Which group should be considered finally legitimate and from what starting point in history? Even the aboriginal Canadian tribes fought, conquered, enslaved, and displaced one another over past centuries.
Apply this to Palestine and the long past history of Jews there. What? Some 3000 years? And displaced Arabs when the Jewish state was originated in 1948. What about the hundreds of thousands of Jews also displaced from surrounding Arab states?
Anyway, I would like to hear from Smith on how should Israel fulfill its primary responsibility to protect its citizens from assaults when it faces an opponent like Hamas, supported by many in the civilian population, people who are committed to destroying and exterminating all Jews, “from the river to the sea”? Dave, how would you protect your family if you were a citizen of Israel? Put that into your New Jersey analogy. What would you do when your enemy hides behind civilians that it forces to remain after Israel has warned them to leave?
And what would you do with the fact that Hamas has indoctrinated many in the civilian population with its death-cult madness, where civilians now glory in “salvation through destruction and death”? They actively seek the martyrdom of their own children and want to offer even more children/grandchildren. How do you deal with such madness? That is why it’s good to see in the Trump peace agreement the element of “deradicalization” of the general population. I would argue that is among the most critical of factors in the whole mix of things included. Will that be successful? I have doubts because that is based on a larger complex of religious beliefs that remain embedded in the Islamic religion, that grants validation to such extreme elements- i.e. the angry God threatening hell to unbelievers who refuse to accept the prophet and the prophet’s message.
Christianity had the message of Jesus to moderate its earlier violence toward infidels/enemies. But the nasty elements that incited and validated the long history of Christian violence are still there in Paul’s Christ myth. Those (notably “apocalyptic millennial” elements) were the very themes that drove Marxist violent revolution, Nazism, and now drive secular ideologies like environmental alarmism. It’s all still there in Christ-ianity. Until you go to those core ideas/beliefs and make radical changes, you won’t properly and thoroughly solve the problem of violence. Richard Landes (“Heaven On Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience”) gets the closest yet to pointing out the problem in regard to millennialism.
As he says, you can point to factors behind mass-violence such as madmen like Hitler. But if you don’t understand how millennial beliefs can carry entire societies toward mass-death outcomes, then you haven’t learned the real lesson of crusades like Nazism and you will just see repeats. You haven’t gone to the most critical causal factors driving tribal hatred, conquest of enemies, salvation through destruction crusades, extermination of evil satanic unbeliever enemies, etc.
Smith, later in the debate, appears to moderate his position and arguments with yes, there are atrocities on both sides. But one thing that comes clear from his basic arguments is that he leans toward the main factor behind Hamas-like violence as the Israeli occupation and he argues that fuels the resentment and hatred. He dismisses the need for Isreal, as part of its legitimate defense, to occupy the lands of its persistently attacking enemies, and ensure they not re-arming to attack again and again. Most notable in this debate, Smith appears to downplay the core beliefs of the Islamic religion that are main contributing factors driving the violent attacks. Till that is changed, and radically so, what options are left to a democratic state for defending its population?
Added note:
In addition to recognizing the potent inciting and validating influence of bad religious ideas due to their history-long influential role in meta-narratives, both religious and secular, it would do the Smiths of our world well to also recognize that our world has major actors who will repeatedly unleash their impulse to domination through the expansion of their totalitarian states. We saw this from Twentieth Century Germany, from Japan, and are now seeing it again from Russia and China. Add the element of psychopathy to the mix and you get a world of bullies that have to be stood down by counter force if we are to preserve freedom. Smith with his libertarian isolationism does not seem to fully appreciate these factors. It is doubtable that China and Russia, as even Hughes affirms, will just limit themselves to regional expansion. So, despite Smith’s good points on the US history of bungled interventions with horrific outcomes, there will always be a critical role for strong liberal democracy states to protect freedom.
Note:
The influence of common mythical themes on contemporary movements. Notably, Zoroastrian cosmic dualism with its war between a purported true and Good God and an opposite evil Force/Spirit, the theme of salvation through destruction, the divine demand for extermination of evil enemies, the validation of domination by images of deity as Lord/King, etc. It has been unsettling to see all this coming at us today through the “liberal” side of society, now become highly illiberal and anti-liberal democracy, with its promotion of an intense tribal exclusion of differing others, its push to defeat and dominate others, to punitively destroy opponents through censorship, vilification as irredeemably evil “Nazis, fascists, racists, dictators”, and then try to outright ban from elections, and criminalize through lawfare.
Add also, the corrupting of state agencies that has exposed such people to be the real “threat to democracy” that they project on to others.
To add to the “unsettling” nature of the above, there is the “flabbergasting” nature of how so many of these liberals appear completely unaware of how corrupted their perspective has become under the far-left Woke Progressivism they have shifted toward. This Woke Progressive totalitarianism has spread across Western democracies. It illustrates the blinding power of ideas, as many leftists/liberals still believe that they are the heroically righteous ones on the true side fighting against evil.
Sowell’s basic “test of facts”. You think Sowell’s test would bring most people back to their senses, back to common sense, with the challenge of facts- i.e. Are your policies actually protecting the freedom and rights of all, equally, rights like absolute free speech? Are you using state agencies to “serve the people, equally”?
Now…
“Bad religious ideas”, short and long versions, Wendell Krossa
Below: A reposting of the core bad ideas that have dominated human meta-narratives across history, both religious and “secular/ideological”.
The point of reposting these mythical fallacies? They continue to dominate our religious traditions and over the last few centuries have been “secularized” to now shape our major world “secular ideologies”. And they have consequences, outcomes in our lives and societies. Historians have traced them in driving mass-death crusades like Marxism (now reviving and spreading in the new iteration of “Woke Progressivism with DEI”). These ideas/themes also drove Nazism and now drive environmental alarmism and its mass-harm through decarbonization madness.
Why do so many continue to believe these bad ideas? Because they have long been embedded in human collective subconscious as archetypes and many today still choose their beliefs dominated by the criterion of “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence…” (Kristian Niemietz in “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
This helps to understand why so many will zealously affirm climate apocalypse, despite now amassed contrary evidence from the best scientific minds that there is no climate crisis and never has been.
Site project:
I post these lists to summarize and highlight what distorts the Jesus message and his main theme of unconditional deity. These “bad ideas” bury that central insight of Jesus that God is unconditional love of a stunningly inexpressible nature/character. My hope is that the central discovery of Jesus will shine some ray of light into minds entrapped by these fallacies, all constructed to shore up the myth of retaliatory, highly conditional God, a monster deity who threatens people with apocalypse and hell and then demands salvation through destruction. What Historical Jesus actually taught points to liberation in the depths of human consciousness and spirit, liberation of mind, emotions, motivations and into a new world of ethics framed by unconditional love.
“The complex of “bad religious ideas” that have darkened and enslaved human minds from the beginning” Wendell Krossa (see other short versions in sections below with Grok’s comments on them).
Here is a link to the long version:
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=13571#more-13571
Here is a brief version (longer version in sections below or in the link just above) of the complex of primitive myths that includes-
(1) The baseline myth of a lost original paradise- i.e. a better past that “corrupt, evil humans” have ruined. This myth undergirds the sense of the loss of something good and, hence, now unbalanced justice demands that that the lost good must be restored in order to rebalance justice and righteousness in the cosmos and life. To make things right again. Moderns embrace this myth framed as the loss of the originally more wilderness world as paradise before too many people multiplied on Earth (“population bomb” hysteria).
Consequent to the myth that a better past has been ruined, primitive mythology pivoted to (2) blame people, to blame humanity as the evil corrupter of life that must be punished and even exterminated in order to restore the lost paradise, to “save life and the world”. In contemporary terms- Today the corrupter of nature is “greedy, consuming humans in industrial civilization” (the anti-human memes of “humanity as ‘virus, cancer’ on the Earth, an evil intruder” for seeking the improvement of the human condition using natural resources).
Even more specific today, the existential evil threat to life is greedy, consuming people using natural resources like fossil fuels that have enabled us to massively improve the human condition and enjoy the good life- this “existential threat” must be purged from life.
Then to further re-enforce the narrative that evil humans have ruined divine and pure nature (i.e. Earth as goddess, “Mother Earth”), the ancients added the intensifying element of threat that (3) life was declining toward apocalyptic ending. And to further heighten alarm, apocalyptic prophets have repeatedly set “always imminent” dates to raise hysteria levels among populations and to validate the use of desperate measures to “save” the world that is framed as always threatened by a looming apocalypse, threatened by evil enemies who are causing the looming end of the world in some manner.
In the environmental versions of apocalypse, people consuming too much of the world’s resources is the great threat that will end life. Such versions hold the myth of “limited resources”, as per, for example, Bill Rees’s “Ecological Footprint” fallacy.
Apocalyptic alarmists have also introduced the element of “hope” into the mix, a perverse version of hope that is built on the violent destruction of enemies (“salvation/utopia achieved through destruction”). In the salvation schemes of these alarmists, specially enlightened elites (i.e. whether priesthoods, religious authorities, or secular versions) lecture/scold the ignorant and unenlightened commoners on what they must do to be saved from imminent destruction and death- i.e. (4) demand some form of sacrifice/payment (enlightened elites validated in using state coercion).
Examples of contemporary sacrifice- “de-growth, de-development”, that argues for a return to primitivism as in the return to the more “pure and strong” existence of “noble savage” life as hunter-gathers with minimal or no ecological footprint (more “connected” to nature through low consumption). Add to this sacrifice/payment element, the redistribution programs pushed in the neo-collectivist crusades of today.
Couch this madness in a deformed version of the hero’s quest where those identifying as “true believer” heroes/messiahs must engage a righteous battle to conquer and (5) violently purge a purported monster/enemy that framed as demonized fellow humans. This takes validation from Zoroaster’s myth of cosmic dualism, that a great Good God (Ahura Mazda) must fight and destroy a great evil Force/Spirit (Angra Mainyu).
And when the enemy is fully purged/exterminated, then (6) salvation is attained in a renewed communal paradise, some “millennialism” utopia.
Critical to understand in this set of primitive themes is- What is the driving Force behind this complex? What is the “cohering center” of this complex that has deformed minds and wreaked so much destruction across history? What validates the rest of the ideas in the complex? Understand and overturn this central Ideal/Authority and you are making significant progress toward resolving the worst of human thought and behavior from our ancestors.
The cohering center is the “wrathful” deity of all primitive mythologies (threat theology), the deity pissed at humans for ruining his original perfect paradise. Hence, the subsequent threats of divine retaliation toward humanity by violently destroying the entire world in an apocalypse. The mother of all hissy fits. Followed by divine demands for sacrifice/payment/suffering as required conditions to achieve redemption.
The cohering center of the apocalyptic millennial complex of myths is the human-constructed image of a violent, destroying God who threatens people in this life through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty, and then further threatens people with after-life harm that adds sting to death. This “monster God” is the central issue to deal with in apocalyptic millennial complexes of myths. This psycho-pathological vision of deity has dominated mythologies and religions across history and has now been transformed into secular/ideological systems of belief to also dominate those. I.e. “Vengeful Gaia, punitive Universe, angry Planet/Mother Earth, payback karma”, etc.
These deeply embedded themes, long entrenched in human psyches as subconscious archetypes, help explain why emotional satisfaction, not rational evidence is behind our choice in beliefs. Hence, many people simply respond to contemporary apocalyptic millennial narratives, whether Marxist collectivism or climate apocalyptic, because they “feel” right, good, just, and true. They resonate with deeply embedded archetypes from our primitive past.
And to illustrate that this site does not pick on any one religious tradition, for the reason that they all share the same complex of core themes (inherited from our primitive ancestors and passed down embodied as archetypes of the subconscious). Every religion has framed those core themes in their diverse traditions with minor adjustments while preserving the basic threat theology and conditional nature of all religion.
This point is made to contrast all religion, notably Christianity, with the stunning new theology of historical Jesus that God was non-threatening, non-retaliatory, and non-religious because unconditional. No religion has ever communicated these insights and Paul intentionally buried them under his highly retaliatory, highly conditional Christ myth (the Christ as the ultimate cosmic sacrifice, the demanded condition to satisfy a highly conditional deity).
When considering the origin of religion in the ancient past (e.g. John Pfeifer’s “Explosion: An Inquiry into the Origins of Art and Religion”), note the element of fear that was introduced by the earliest shaman as they constructed the earliest elements of religion as their tool to control others (and yes, the “numinous” feature was also in the mix).
Those shaman/priests appealed to the invisible world of spirits/gods, claiming to know the secrets to that realm, thereby elevating themselves as special people in the tribal groups, as either divine in some manner or as the authentic representatives of the divine. That validated their impulse to dominate others, along with using fear and promising salvation (how to appease angry spirits and regain health or avoid death).
Those early shaman were the earliest elites, initiating the more formal “elite/commoner” divide in human societies where informal versions had already long existed based on age, strength/power, skills, gender, etc.
Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa
Some of the main contradictions that highlight the oxymoronically opposite themes between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ mythology. The point I draw from this? The themes of Paul have greatly shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia (the conclusion of historians/scholars like James Tabor). The Jesus themes have influenced us to a lesser extent, mainly moderating the harsher features and destructive influence of Paul’s Christ:
The main contradictions: (Sources: “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar” books, and notably, “Q Wisdom Sayings” research, etc.)
(1) Jesus taught an unconditional love (i.e. there is no sacrifice demanded in Jesus’ original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel). In his teaching on love there were no required conditions from his God to be met for forgiveness, inclusion, and salvation. Versus the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul, i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ. Additionally, the condition of belief/faith in his myth (see his letter to the Romans), along with other related religious conditions.
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus (no more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but loves enemies- “Be merciful just as God is merciful”). Versus supreme divine acts of retaliation in apocalypse and hell myths. Note Paul’s statement of his theology affirming a retaliatory deity in his quote of an Old Testament verse- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay’, says the Lord” (Romans 12), along with his “Lord Jesus returning in fire to destroy all who don’t believe my Christ myth” (Thessalonians, etc.).
(3) Restorative justice (again- no eye for eye, but love the offender/enemy) versus punitive, destroying justice (“Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction”, Thessalonians).
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems (again, no violent retaliation against enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and fiery hell, and the violence in the demanded appeasement of deity by blood sacrifice for atonement- i.e. the dangerously inciting theme in the belief that if you murder the right people- sacrifice them- then you can make the future better (evil thinking that it is heroically doing good by using violence and murder).
(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 for not believing Paul’s Christ. Note the ultimate tribal divide illustrated in Revelation in the eternal division of humanity- i.e. people 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” under his “rod of iron” totalitarianism (“every knee shall bow… He will rule them with an iron scepter”).
There is no love in threat, coercion, domination of others.
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love) versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic tribal dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”).
Further, ultimate Oneness leads to the logical conclusion that there is no separation of humanity from deity, what some describe as all humanity being indwelt by God, the divine reality that is inseparable from the common human spirit. God as the Life-giving spirit inside each of us, and God’s nature as unconditional love then defining our true self/person.
(8) Another- Jesus referred to himself as a “son of man”- i.e. as just another ordinary imperfect human in common with all other humans. Not as a divine person or god sent from heaven. Paul rejected the humanness of Jesus in claiming that he was some form of Hellenist godman sent from heaven on a special mission from God. Paul reconstructed the human Jesus after the pattern of the godmen myths of the Pharaohs and Caesars- i.e. born of virgins so as to avoid the “inherited sinfulness” stain.
Eventually, succeeding generations of Hellenist Christianity would further the Christology of Paul in claiming their “Jesus Christ” was sinlessly perfect, something the Historical Jesus had denied, for example, when he corrected someone with- “Why do you call me ‘good’. There is none good but God.”
The heretical Hellenist Christianity of Paul eventually reconstructed the fully and truly human Jesus into a full-fledged God and member of the Trinity.
And so on…
You cannot mix and merge such extreme opposites in the one and same person- i.e. in the merger of “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 such mixture 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 expressed 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 not presented clearly in its liberating potency because the larger New Testament context emphasizes Paul’s retaliatory, apocalyptic Christ and that dominating narrative overwhelms the central themes and message of Jesus.
Paul was intent on overturning and replacing Jesus’ wisdom sayings with his “secret wisdom of the Christ”, correcting what he termed the “foolish worldly wisdom” of Jesus and his followers, like Apollos (see 1 Corinthians for Paul’s vilifying rant against the wisdom tradition of Jesus).
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest of terms and few have been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are highly offensive to true believer’s sensibilities.
Few since have embraced their clarification of the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and corrects nothing essential. Religious reformism avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology utterly deformed the actual historical Jesus and his message.
And of course:
“Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives” (Old story themes, new story alternatives).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
This was put to Grok from Google’s AI Overview…
Grok, your input on this: Wendell Krossa
AI Overview states:
“Polls consistently show that a small percentage of Muslims, typically in the low single digits (e.g., 2–5%), support extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. The majority of Muslims globally reject violent extremism, although support for more fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood can be higher in some regions. It is important to note that support for violent jihad is very low globally, though a lack of comprehensive data from some regions makes it difficult to provide a single, definitive number. Low support for extremist groups: Surveys in several Arab countries show that support for groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda is in the low single digits, around 2% to 5%.
“Larger support for fundamentalist groups: Some organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, receive higher ratings in certain polls, though they are not necessarily violent extremist groups in the same vein as ISIS or al-Qaeda.
“Rejection of violence: Large majorities of Muslims in most countries do not support violent jihadist groups.
“Data limitations: While data is available for some regions, comprehensive data from other areas, such as the Maghreb or Sahel, is not readily available, making it hard to give a single global percentage.”
Grok responded to the above AI Overview:
Your summary aligns with available data on Muslim attitudes toward extremist and fundamentalist groups. Polls, such as those from Pew Research or Arab Barometer, consistently show low single-digit support (2–5%) for violent extremist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda in most surveyed Muslim-majority countries. For example, a 2015 Pew study found that 93–98% of Muslims worldwide condemned violence in the name of religion, with only small minorities expressing any sympathy for groups like ISIS.
Support for fundamentalist but non-violent groups like the Muslim Brotherhood tends to be higher, particularly in regions like Egypt or Jordan, where historical and political contexts play a role. Polls from these areas sometimes show approval ratings for such groups ranging from 10–30%, though this varies by country and specific political climate.
The rejection of violent jihad is a clear majority stance globally, with surveys indicating 80–90%+ opposition in most Muslim-majority countries. However, as you noted, data gaps in regions like the Sahel or parts of South Asia limit the ability to provide a precise global figure. These gaps are often due to logistical challenges, political instability, or restricted access for researchers.
My take: The low support for violent extremism reflects a broader rejection of violence among Muslims globally, but the higher approval for fundamentalist groups in some areas points to complex socio-political factors, not necessarily an endorsement of violence. Without comprehensive global data, especially from under-surveyed regions, it’s tough to pin down a universal number, but the trends you’ve outlined are consistent with what’s out there. If you want, I can dig into specific polls or regions via web searches or X posts for more granular insights—let me know.
End of Grok response.
“We become just like the God that we believe in”, Wendell Krossa
“Behavior based on belief” has long been the fundamental coupling used by humanity in response to our primal impulse for meaning and purpose. We construct our belief systems to validate how we act and live, appealing to the highest of human Ideals and Authorities- deity.
The issue then becomes what features do we project onto our images of God. Are they truly humane features in the highest sense of “the best of being human”? Features like nontribal inclusion and oneness, non-dominating equality that respects the rights and freedoms for all, non-punitive restorative approaches to the failure of others (with, of course, the common-sense restraint/incarceration of repeat violent offenders as necessary to protect others), etc.
Or do we mindlessly accept the God images that we have inherited with their primitive features of deity as tribal (favoring true believers, excluding unbelievers), dominating (deity as ultimate Lord, King, Ruler- setting forth the archetype that validates relationships of domination/submission), and punitively destroying through apocalypse, hell?
Our great religious traditions have presented us across past millennia with the basic complex of ideas/beliefs/themes from a primitive past that have subsequently framed all sorts of radicalized subsidiary movements, extremist groups in societies that take the ideas/beliefs of the great religions to validate their treatment of differing others/outsiders as enemies to be subjected to abuse and violence. The mother narratives of these religions have been exposed over the past century as contributing (inciting, validating) violent Marxist revolutions, Nazi horrors, environmental alarmism extremism and decarbonization destruction, and violent Islamic extremism. What more evidence do we need?
Sources again: Arthur Herman’s “The Idea of Decline In Western History”, Richard Landes’ “Heaven On Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience”, Arthur Herman’s “Vision and Violence”, David Redles’ “Hitler’s Millennial Reich: Apocalyptic Belief and the Search for Salvation”.
The complex of core themes in the meta-narratives of our religions consists of, for example, the main features of Paul’s Christ myth- i.e. “apocalyptic millennialism”- along with the larger complex of related ideas that are in my lists of “Bad Religious Ideas”. These beliefs provide the mental framework that others embrace to frame their ideologies, belief systems, and their crusades of “salvation through destruction”.
Until you deal with the larger meta-narrative support offered by our religious traditions, you will not properly and thoroughly solve the problem of violence and will continue to see further eruptions.
The main themes of our great world religions were long ago embedded as the dominant archetypes of human subconscious, themes deeply lodged in the back of our minds that incite many people to give “dominance to emotional satisfaction in their choice of beliefs, not rational thinking”. How else can we understand and explain the widespread embrace of the climate apocalypse narrative, despite the now overwhelming body of contrary evidence? And the evidence of the massive harm from the “salvation through destruction” crusade of climate alarmism that has left in its wake blocked human development, hindered wealth creation, all resulting in hampered ability to further improve the human condition and protect the environment.
Kristian Niemietz again: “Emotional satisfaction, not rational thinking, and despite contrary evidence, dominates our choice in beliefs.”
The intention of this site, while exposing these bad ideas of our great belief systems/narratives, is to not fall into a shallow tribalism of “our side against your side”, of us as exaggerated “righteous heroes battling against you disagreeing others as evil enemies”. Certainly, there are varied struggles in life where we have to take sides on what we view as obvious right against wrong, hopefully based on humane criteria such as those defined by Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions that promote/protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally.
So yes, there are battles for democracy, true liberalism, and freedom, against extremism, illiberalism, totalitarian expansion, extremism, violence and war. And critical to maintaining our own humanity is how we approach and conduct such battles against our fellow humans.
I am pointing here to the larger background narrative themes- i.e. the element of “bad ideas”- that can deform these unavoidable struggles throughout life, narrative themes of cosmic dualism that overwhelm and distort the reality of fundamental human oneness, that blind our minds to the reality that we are still one family responsible to love one another, especially to “love our enemies”, because they are still family no matter their failures to live as human.
Joseph Campbell:
“For love is exactly as strong as life. And when life produces what the intellect names evil, we may enter into righteous battle, contending ‘from loyalty of heart’: however, if the principle of love (Christ’s “Love your enemies”) is lost thereby, our humanity too will be lost. ‘Man’, in the words of the American novelist Hawthorne, ‘must not disclaim his brotherhood even with the guiltiest’” (Myths To Live By).
The real battle of life is the personal inner battle against the narrative themes that affirm and validate our real enemy in life- i.e. our inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing/competing others.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either- but right through every human heart- and through all human hearts.”
This site urges that each of us is responsible to acknowledge where the complex of bad ideas have infected our meta-narratives, whether in religious or “secularized” versions. We are all responsible to separate “diamonds from dung” as advocated by Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy, if we are sincere about solving problems like hate and violence for the long-term future.
Today there is a significant minority in Islam who are wrestling with the pathology of “salvation through destruction”. And we remind ourselves by asking- Where did they inherit their bad ideas from? The line of descent goes back through Ebionism to Jewish Christianity, absorbing other influences along the way like apocalyptic (though Jewish Christianity had embraced the apocalyptic mythology in the last few centuries before the CE era).
And we watch a young generation now embracing socialism, disillusioned with state meddling in the capitalist system that has deformed it too often to favor elites and deny commoners better outcomes. And we have to warn this younger generation that what they view as salvation through socialism will be just another repeat of salvation through destruction. That outcome will be inevitable as the crusades of the parent ideology/mythology have shown us across the 24 socialist experiments of the past century.
Marxism too inherited its core bad ideas from preceding religious traditions like Christianity.
No tradition is guiltless in terms of embracing the bad ideas or our primitive past and passing them along to succeeding generations, whether in religious or secularized versions. So we need to deal first with the beam in our own eyes before busybody meddling to poke at the speck in other’s eyes.
I find my friend Bob Brinsmead’s thought-provoking statement worth toying with in one’s mind- “That there are no really bad people, just bad ideas that make people do bad things.”
Note:
We like to hope that if majorities affiliated with our great religious traditions and the secular varieties framed with the same themes are movements dominated by moderate types. Then extremists won’t take these traditions to violent crusades. But history shows us differently in that the leaders who emerge as extremists are simply taking the beliefs of the mother traditions more seriously than most. They are the “true believer” minorities who too often are then able to persuade or coerce majorities to kowtow to their extremist crusades. They are able to do so because they can still touch base with the core beliefs that the others, the moderate majorities, also hold.
We saw this with the Nazis touching base with the main themes of the Christian worldview of most Germans- i.e. their beliefs in apocalypse (Germany during the Weimar years), the obligation to engage war against evil enemies (Zoroastrian cosmic dualism in the Christian version), salvation through the destruction of this evil world as necessary to gain the millennial kingdom as in Revelation), etc. And now we see leading activists using the same Christian themes to frame the environmental alarmist crusade.
To their credit, many in such traditions are able to focus on the better ideas and apply those humanely. But the bad parts are still there, ideas/beliefs that permit extremist types to appropriate and abuse. And even for the moderates who are not of an extremist mindset, why continue to hold and defend the mergers of good elements with bad in your religion, where the good features are weakened and undermined by the nasty stuff, especially when we have that stunning new theology of Historical Jesus that overturns entirely all the remaining nasty elements? And why let the bad stuff continue to feed extremist violence? Again, look at what happened with Marxism using the apocalyptic millennial themes of Paul’s Christ, also Nazism doing the same, and now environmentalism. Why let such destructive extremism continue to feed off the nasty stuff in your tradition?
Note:
When we stand back to take a panoramic look at the Israeli situation, and I am thinking of Dave Smith views here, we can compare that with other varied wars and the horror of civilians slaughtered in such insanity. But with Israel’s defensive military action there a much harsher note of condemnation (i.e. genocide). That has been a dominant propaganda theme, especially across Western societies. And that even as the Israeli military does things that no other country engaging defensive military action is obligated to do.
The IDF carefully warns people in combat zones to leave (no other country does that). And on the other side, Hamas won’t allow civilians to leave. It hides its weapons among civilians making it impossible for Israelis to avoid harming civilians who are then used for propaganda purposes by Hamas. And we are then drummed with the worldwide message of “genocide”. It appears that something more going on with such propaganda- i.e. some larger background anti-Jewish thing, anti-Semitism. Even anti-democracy (i.e. Israel the only democracy in the Mid-East). And that points suspiciously to the larger anti-Western civilization crusade, anti-liberal democracy, the coalition of crusaders that many have pointed to with elements that are, Islamicist pro-Hamas, along with the usual far-leftist groups.
Smith seems to feed into this general anti-western civilization strain.
Summary of Historical Jesus’ core message:
How to end cycles of retaliatory violence, how to courageously initiate peace in societies….
Again, this is not prescriptive for criminal justice systems to adopt dogmatic pacifist approaches that do not work in the face of evil. States and their criminal justice systems are obligated first and foremost to restrain violent people and protect all citizens from assaults, both foreign and domestic. De-criminalization and de-carceration policies, especially as applied to violent people, do not work.
Take this advice of Historical Jesus as more about how we maintain our own humanity as we go about the dirty work of dealing with offenders.
These statements have more to do with how victims may freely choose to respond to offenders in the multi-varied incidents and relationships of life. Its very much an individual freedom of choice issue. People who have suffered horrific abuse from offenders should never be pushed to engage these issues of forgiveness or love, until perhaps much later and if presented as fundamentally helpful in some way to their own condition.
As the father of a brutally murdered girl said years later. I chose to forgive, not for the sake of the offender but for the sake of my daughter who would have wanted me to do that. She would not have wanted me to spend the rest of my life darkened by hatred and bitterness. As that would have ruined my other children.
Just a mental gimmick? No. Such intention to forgive effects profound outcomes on the mental/emotional state of the one doing it.
Other points:
These principles of how we think, perceive, how we then feel and are motivated, impact our intentions, our thinking and responding to offenders, our motivations and intentions to avoid inhumane responses and choose more humane responses.
Forgiveness and an unconditional approach to offenders works at the individual level and at scale in societies. Note, for example, Nelson Mandela employing his unconditional love approach toward former enemies and thereby defusing a potential civil war in South Africa (Richard Stengel in “Mandela’s Way”). Compare that with Rwanda and Serbia around the same time.
The guiding ideals/precepts of Historical Jesus:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
This can be summarized in this single statement: “Love your enemy because God does”.
Example of non-retaliatory, unconditional love: The Prodigal Father story in Luke 15:11-31.
The Father (representing God) did not demand a sacrifice, restitution, payment, apology, or anything else before forgiving, fully accepting, and loving the wasteful son.
The above statement and illustration by Jesus overturns Paul’s highly conditional Christian religion and his central Christ mythology. Paul, along with the rest of the New Testament, preached a retaliatory God who demanded full payment and punishment of all sin in a blood sacrifice of atonement before he would forgive, accept, and ultimately love anyone. Paul was an original advocate for “salvation through destruction”.
Matthew 23: 10 “The greatest among you will be your servant”. A new take for those shouting the meme- “God is great”.
Best books on the improving state of life on Earth:
Julian Simon’s “Ultimate Resource”. Simon set the standard for understanding the “true state of life on Earth” by looking at the complete big picture (all the data on any issue) and longest-term trends (not just focusing on short-term aberrations or downturns in long trends).
Many subsequent studies affirmed Simon’s basic research on the big picture and long-term trends of life-
Greg Easterbrook’s “A Moment On the Earth”,
Bjorn Lomborg’s “Skeptical Environmentalist”,
Ronald Bailey’s “The End of Doom”,
Desrocher and Szurmak’s “Population Bombed”, (great rehash of Simon’s principles)
Indur Goklany’s “The Improving State of the World”,
Matt Ridley’s “Rational Optimist”,
Tupy and Bailey’s “Ten Global Trends”, also “Superabundance”
Hans Roslings “Factfulness”, and others.
The very best climate science reports and news:
A reposting of the basic principles of a humane society: Wendell Krossa
What do I mean when I refer to “Classic Liberalism”?
And as people talk about creating a “safe AI”, why not ensure that safety by programing AI with Classic Liberal principles?
Basic principles, systems, institutions of Classic Liberalism, liberal democracy, or Western liberalism.
Daniel Hannan in his Introduction to “Inventing Freedom” provides the following lists and descriptions of the basic features of a truly liberal society or civilization:
“A belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government…
“Three irreducible elements. First, the rule of law…Those rules exist on a higher plane and are interpreted by independent magistrates…
“Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish with your assets, to work for whom you please, and conversely, to hire and fire as you will…
“Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us… the rule of law, democratic government, and individual liberty…
“The idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion… elevate the individual over the state…
“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus (see below), free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials…
“The idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around. The rule of law created security of property and contract…
“Individualism, the rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values…
And this full summary:
“Lawmakers should be directly accountable through the ballot box; the executive should be controlled by the legislature; taxes should not be levied nor laws passed without popular consent; the individual should be free from arbitrary punishment or confiscation; decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affected; power should be dispersed; no one, not even the head of state, should be above the law; property rights should be secure; disputes should be arbitrated by independent magistrates; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should be guaranteed”.
Hannan’s book is invaluable for tracing the historical emergence and development of Western freedom down through the English tradition, from pre-Magna Carta to the present.
Definition of habeas corpus (varied online definitions):
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
One of the best at defining and articulating Classic Liberal ideals and principles, notably in the US version- Full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on Lex Fridman podcast. Vivek for president. Note how Vivek frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right side of US society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw
See this posted at, for example, Anthony Watts’ excellent site, “Wattsupwiththat.com”
Ken Haapala’s “The Week That Was (TWTW): Oct. 11, 2025” (The Science and Environmental Policy Project), “What is meant by saturation?”
Quotes:
“What Is Meant by Saturation?: For most purposes, the concept of saturation means that no more can be absorbed. For example, when a sponge of a given size cannot absorb any more water, it is said to be saturated with water. If the size of the sponge is doubled, it can absorb twice the amount of water. The limiting factor is the size, quantity, of the sponge. But the same concept does not apply to saturation when dealing with greenhouse gases absorbing and emitting infrared radiation (IR) from Earth.
“TWTW has frequently stated that the capability of carbon dioxide (CO2) to absorb infrared radiation (IR) emitted by Earth is ‘saturated’. But here the meaning is different. It is that all the infrared radiation (IR) that carbon dioxide can readily absorb is already being absorbed. Additional carbon dioxide can absorb only a little more infrared energy from Earth. The limiting factor is not the quantity of carbon dioxide, but the quantity of infrared radiation (IR) emitted by Earth. Adding more carbon dioxide (CO2) has little effect on Earth’s surface temperatures, but what has significant effect on Earth’s surface temperatures is the solar radiation hitting Earth’s surface, either by increasing solar intensity or decreasing Earth’s albedo (decreasing cloudiness or other reflectivity)…
“The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide (and water vapor) delays rapid cooling of the Earth at night by reducing the emission of infrared radiation (IR) emitted by Earth to space. The extent of infrared radiation (IR) emitted by Earth is calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the infrared radiation is proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature. Here we see a stunning inconsistency that must be included when making calculations of the greenhouse effect. A large increase in the greenhouse effect (a reduction of infrared radiation from Earth to space) from carbon dioxide is necessary to cause a small increase in Earth’s temperatures because the increase in radiation from Earth is a function of the absolute temperature raised to the fourth power. In today’s atmosphere a slight increase in carbon dioxide (and water vapor) has little effect in increasing Earth’s temperatures because the infrared radiation (IR) in the frequencies (or wave lengths) in which these gases readily absorb infrared radiation (IR) is already being absorbed…
“Professor William van Wijngaarden and Professor Emeritus William Happer produced a paper that describes what they mean by saturation…
“The literature is replete with plots similar to the red vertical lines, but the blue line, the flux to space with no suppressed zero, is little known, and may clarify how small the forcing change is when the CO2 concentration increases from 400 ppm to 800 ppm…
“If you add 1000 grams of salt to a kilogram of water, only 360 grams will dissolve and 640 grams will remain as solid crystals on the bottom of the container. Adding more salt to a saturated solution has no effect on the amount of salt in solution. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, when its effects on radiation transfer are saturated, continues to decrease flux to space. But the decrease gets smaller and smaller as more CO2 is added…
“Number of the Week: 3 Watts per square meter v. 50 watts per square meter. In their calculations, van Wijngaarden and Happer show that a doubling of CO2 from 400 parts per million in volume (ppmv) to 800 ppmv will result in increase in the greenhouse effect of about 3 watts per square meter (3 W/m2). It is doubtful that humans will feel this difference. At rest, the average human body emits over 50 watts per square meter of body surface, 17 times more heat.”