See Grok’s comments (posted at the bottom of this opening section) on these opening two essays just below.
Rogan and guests sparked this comment, Wendell Krossa
In this episode (link posted below) of the “Joe Rogan Experience”, with guests Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, they discuss, among varied topics, Hamas extremism.
And I would emphasize in response, yes, you have to go after and stop such extremist groups as fundamental to protecting innocent citizens. That is the number one priority of governments- to use police and military force to arrest such offenders where that is safe to do so, and when its not safe, then you have to “shoot to kill” these threatening people. We cannot tolerate such threats anywhere in life.
But then, as my repeatedly quoted “military guy” said, to solve the problem of violence for the long-term, we have to understand where threatening terrorists get their fundamental ideas from. What really motivates them? Where do they get the ideas that incite, guide, and validate their violence toward differing others?
Their inciting and validating ideas come from the “parent religion” that they belong to, and, most specifically, from the “parent God” of the religion (see the article below on the Muslim Brotherhood and that author’s comment on Hamas following the “parent group’s ideology”). The God of the religion is at the very root of the problem of violence that we must resolve. Again, while it incites rage in some, or many, “It’s the theology, stupid” nails the critical issue of a main contributing factor to the problem of human violence.
(Insert: This is not picking on Islam because it shares the very same deity as Christianity and Judaism. These Western religions share deity images with the very same core features of tribalism, domination, punitive destruction of unbelievers, etc.)
Deity is central to the bad behavior problem because as “ultimate Authority” it provides the ultimate embodiment of the ideals that validate tribal violence, domination, punitive destruction of differing others. The critical role of deity in providing ideals for human behavior is why Historical Jesus went directly to the theology of his parent religion- Judaism- and rejected the traditional image of God in that religion. He did that by his refusal to read the follow-up statement in the Isaiah 61 passage- “The day of vengeance of our God.” He rejected the belief in retaliatory, destroying God, the punitively violent deity that provided validation for human violence.
He ended his reading on the humane features in the Jewish deity- “freedom… release… the Lord’s favor.” The Jews in his audience reacted instinctively to his rejecting and overturning of the core belief of retaliatory vengeance in their religion and in murderous rage they tried to kill him (i.e. the throwing off a nearby cliff incident, Luke 4).
Sometime later Jesus gave a fuller presentation of his stunning new alternative image of God, as recorded in places like Luke 6: 27-36, Matt 5: 38-48. His stunning new deity was defined as “non-retaliatory” by scholars like James Robinson (i.e. no more “eye for eye”), but more so, I would argue, the stunning new theology of Jesus was defined by “unconditional love”. This was affirmed by the fact that God gave sun and rain to everyone alike, to both good and bad people. Universal, no conditions inclusion.
And Jesus framed that new theology in terms of the behaviors that he was advocating- i.e. love of enemies, humane loving treatment of imperfect others. Doing those things would make one just like the God who also did such things. If you loved your enemies, you would be just like God who loved God’s enemies (i.e. the generous giving of sun and rain to both good and bad people).
Paul, two decades later, reacted to that new theology of Jesus and straightforwardly rejected it. He buried it with his Christ myth where he re-established the old theology of divine retaliation and destruction. He did this by quoting the Old Testament verse that states, “’Vengeance is mine, I will retaliate’, says the Lord”.
This is why I argue persistently here for understanding the profound difference between Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ myth. The difference is “profound” because it is over the fundamental theologies of these two contradicting gospels. Get clear the “stunning new theology of Jesus” as defined by his “non-retaliatory, unconditional God”.
Then note that Paul directly confronts that theological breakthrough insight of Jesus. Paul even uses (i.e. Romans 12: 17-20) the same “behavior based on belief” coupling that Jesus used in Matthew 5 or Luke 6. Using that coupling, Paul straightforwardly rejected the God of Jesus and embraced the old deity of all previous mythology and religion, deity that is defined by the features of tribalism (favor and include true believers, condemn and exclude unbelievers), domination (God as King/Lord providing the ultimate ideal for domination/submission in human relationships), and punitive destruction (validating punitive justice over restorative/rehabilitative justice). Paul embedded that old theology in his Christ and with the help of supporters like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, he fully distorted and buried the new God of Jesus throughout the New Testament.
People look at the ethical statements of Jesus and affirm that is all nice stuff to live according to. It presents a better way to behave, how to live as authentically human. But few acknowledge that the ethical statements point to the unconditional God that backs the ethics- i.e. “Do this and you will be just like God who does this… ‘Love your enemy because God does’”. The unconditional ethics point to Jesus’ stunning new theology of unconditional deity.
Jesus introduced his stunning new image of God by illustrating, through the list of humane responses to others, especially humane treatment of enemies (“Love your enemies”), just how God behaves. Just what God is actually like. The “behavior based on similar theological belief” coupling. And his new ultimate Ideal in the coupling- i.e. unconditionally loving God- changes everything. It transforms narratives entirely. But it requires a “death and rebirth” process, a “disintegration of the old and reintegration around the entirely new” that few are willing to undergo. Because engaging this death/rebirth process involves, to those placing their identity immutably in such things as their belief systems, the death of the old self before there can be rebirth to a new self. That then becomes a survival issue to many true believers.
God is the highest Ideal that we have discovered to shape narratives around. If our God validates the torture, destruction, and slaughter of disagreeing others, of unbelievers/enemies, then we have a problem. Because people become just like the God that they believe in and worship. If we worship a tribal God, a dominating Lord/King/Ruler, and a God who metes out punitive destruction of enemies, then don’t be surprised if we end affirming similar inhumane behavior in ourselves and others.
Then, taking a sparking point from the Rogan interview- i.e. their shock at how Hamas militants celebrated the massacre of innocents, one even phoning his parents to rejoice with him that he had just killed 10 Jews with his bare hands.
Focus in, for a bit, on the feature of “destruction” in God and how true believers have celebrated and rejoiced in such divine destruction of enemy others. Pathological ideas producing pathological behavior.
John portrays the destroying God/Christ of Christianity, for example, in Revelation. He illustrates Paul’s persistent warning to unbelievers, stated throughout his letters, of soon coming divine “destruction.”
“AI Overview:
“In his letters, the Apostle Paul uses the term “destruction” (Greek: apōleia) to describe an irreversible state of eternal ruin and separation from God, rather than a mere termination of existence.”
Other examples: 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Philippians 3:19, Galatians 1:6-9.
Is it any wonder that such ideas, particularly when lodged in theology (i.e. defining the nature and character of God) have validated so much Christian violence and destruction across history in Crusades, Inquisitions, torture and murder of heretics and witches, and then the violent apocalyptic millennial crusades of the Twentieth Century- i.e. Marxist revolution (100 million slaughtered), Nazism (50-60 million killed), environmental alarmism, and Islamic terrorism.
A God defined by vengeful destruction has been worshipped by billions across history. Go through Paul’s letters that explain his Christology. Divine wrath is the baseline idea that he posits and that his Christ myth responds to- i.e. the Christ had to be offered as a human sacrifice to appease divine wrath and provide the way of salvation for humanity. The added threat of soon coming destruction intensifies the fear of many for the felt need for salvation.
The threat of coming destruction by wrathful deity, who takes vengeance on opponents who don’t believe the “true religion” (Zoroastrian cosmic dualism battles), these themes constitute the core ideas in the belief systems of religions like Christianity.
And yes, many within such religious traditions, have experienced revulsion at such themes as wrathful God threatening destruction. They have then engaged subsequent reform projects. Some simply try to ignore the nastier stuff in their tradition, living with the “cognitive dissonance” that results from just living with entire opposites that are still honored in their belief systems. Others respond by excusing the nastier features in their traditions as “metaphor”, as if that alleviates the inhumane sting of the nastier stuff. But metaphorizing the nasty features doesn’t change the content of those features. That remains the same. God damning unbelievers to hell is the same ugly feature and sentiment whether literal or metaphorical. A Muslim writer argued this well in a long ago HuffPost article on his tradition.
Many religious people are willing to cautiously play these reformist games at the periphery of their traditions but continue to protect the core ideas, including the nasty ones that deify tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. And consequently, the nasty features will continue to incite and validate the darker inherited impulses in human hearts, even if only in fringe types like Hamas extremists. And as “religious guy” warned, bad religious ideas will continue to incite eruptions of violence in the future. That is what Richard Landes also warned us about (“Heaven on Earth: Varieties of the Millennial Experience”). Even the millennial hope for salvation is deformed by the fact that it is hope based on the destruction of all unbelievers, the purging/extermination of all enemies.
The ideas/features of tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction projected onto our deities validate our positioning ourselves in our tribes and engaging battles against one another. Such beliefs diminish our realization that we have all share a common enemy- i.e. the threat theology that has darkened, enslaved, and cursed human narratives and consciousness over our entire history.
To our great fortune, as in the Hero’s Quest, a wise man has given us the weapon to defeat our enemy, to slay the monster of threat theology. We have the alternative to threat theology, an alternative theology that powerfully unites all humanity around the common humane themes of an ultimate Ideal/deity that is nontribal, non-dominating, nonretaliatory, nonviolent, nonpunitive destruction, all summarized in the feature of the “unconditional treatment” of opponents/enemies. This was all set forth in “the stunning new theology of Jesus”. These features offer entirely different ideals to shape minds, emotions, motivations, and behavior.
Fighting the real battle of life, against the real enemy/monster in life, takes place inside each one of us (Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s point). It is an intensely personal battle against the inherited impulses inside all of us, dark impulses that influence us to seek validation for such drives in the similarly monstrous ideas and themes that are still protected in our great religious traditions, most egregiously protected in the deity of our religions. Again, I refer to the features of tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction that validate similar impulses in all of us. This is the real battle against the real enemy/monster- i.e. “threat theology”.
It’s the psychopathic totalitarians among us who lean into threat theology because they understand the formula- i.e. “fear=control”. Those among us nursing the impulse to domination of others have long known that they can terrorize populations into submission with threats of divine punishment through looming apocalypse, just as the Marxists and Nazis did successfully in the past century. And now the environmental alarmists have learned to do the same, notably with their climate apocalyptic crusade.
(Insert: Stop the pretense of identifying as “secular materialist, even atheist” while still holding to “secularized” versions of deity as in “Vengeful Gaia, angry Planet/Mother Earth, punitive Universe, or payback karma, etc.”, contemporary gods no different from the most primitive of traditional religious gods.)
Totalitarians understand that through panic-mongering they can incite the survival impulse in others, rendering people susceptible to their salvation schemes, no matter how self-destructively irrational, like the Net Zero decarbonization madness that is destroying societies such as Britain, Germany, etc. “Salvation through destruction” all over again.
And Rogan is right to point out the base impulses that drive people to terrorize others with such mythologies as climate alarmism. Alarmists, he notes, thereby gain funding or whatever else motivates them to go after what they desire- e.g. power over others. That is why priesthoods have, across history, maintained the myths of wrathful God threatening damnation and demanding blood sacrifice for appeasement.
Inciting the “fear of the Lord” is how religious authorities have maintained their positions and livelihoods across millennia. That’s certainly what concerned and motivated the priests when Jesus protested their sacrifice industry and went after the vengeful, destroying God, the monstrous myth that affirmed the entire sacrifice industry. Jesus revealed the real threat that his stunning new theology presented when he refused to read the rest of that Isaiah 61 passage, excluding “the day of vengeance of our God”. They all understood well that- “It’s the theology, stupid”.
Contemporary “priesthoods” of religious leaders, popes and priests, maintain their authority, and their religious industries, by use of the same old threatening, wrathful God who demands blood sacrifice, or whatever other sacrifice, to appease divine wrath and save all from hell.
Jesus understood that it was the theology at the core of religion that supported the entire industry of religion oppressing and enslaving the poor, deforming consciousness with fear, anxiety, shame, guilt, despair, depression, nihilism and violence (all features listed by psychologists like Ellens and Zenon Lofufo as outcomes from threat theology). So Jesus went to the core theology and the priests of his day reacted to his threat to their very existence and power by murdering the messenger.
So, whose God/religion is better than all the rest? Wendell Krossa
“Joe Rogan Experience #2398 – Francis Foster & Konstantin Kisin”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sdLHGb5Wzs&t=10s
Around the third hour mark of the interview-
Rogan and guests discuss Hamas celebrating the destruction of enemies/Jews. But Hamas thugs are not alone in the horrific practice of “rejoicing over the destruction of enemies”. Jews and Christians have evidence of the same ideals and outcomes occurring in their traditions. And of course, those engaging such practices will argue that they are rejoicing in their God enacting “justice” through the destruction of their oppressors. They are simply rejoicing in the “righteous” actions of their God. Such rejoicing is therefore portrayed as “goodness, gratefulness, etc.”
Examples of rejoicing in the destruction of others in the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 28:63 (I’ve included varied interpretations of this): “The Lord will delight, will find pleasure, will be glad… to ruin, destroy, and exterminate you, to wipe you out, to decimate you, to lay you to waste, make you perish, and to bring you to naught.” That’s the ultimate Ideal many have worshipped.
Another example- Psalm 58: 10: “The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
And this from AI Overview:
“The Song of the Sea (Exodus 15): After the Egyptian army was destroyed in the Red Sea, Moses and the Israelites sang a song celebrating God’s power and the defeat of their oppressors. The song praises God for throwing Pharaoh’s chariots into the sea, with Miriam and the women dancing in celebration.”
New Testament promotion of celebration over the torment and suffering of enemies:
Revelation offers this example, where in chapter 18 it details God’s destruction of enemies and calls Christians to “rejoice”, with the believers then in response shouting “Hallelujah” in chapter 19 and praising God for such destruction.
There are many others. Point? Before pointing fingers, be aware of one’s own tradition and what it advocates and what our fellow believers in the same tradition have done over the past.
Moving on in their discussion:
Rogan then wonders at the persistence of religion across history and suggests that it is because of something in religion that resonates with people.
I would suggest two sides in this “resonates” thing.
We have inherited animal drives that I summarize in the evil triad of “tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction”. Our ancestors created stories/belief systems to validate these base drives that dominated their primitive existence, beliefs in deities who embodied the same features. Deity then functioned as the ultimate validation for such features in human existence as they were embodied in human systems of belief (human systems of meaning/purpose). Those features then eventually became “archetypes” in human collective subconscious.
And adding to the confusion, early mythmakers also included some good features to validate the human side of things. Hence, we find features like mercy and lovingkindness in early mythologies and deities, such as in the Pharaoh gods, etc. Gods as ultimate oxymorons.
Our struggle over the millennia has been to sort out the good from the bad, to hold the good and discard the bad that we have inherited in our validating ideas/ideals. Notably, we have to learn to discard the bad in our gods- i.e. the highest embodiments of our ideals- gods defined by such features as tribalism, domination, punitive destruction of differing others.
So yes Joe, bad ideas/themes in our religious traditions continue to “resonate” with many because the bad ideas have long been embedded as archetypes of the subconscious. Hence, when people hear contemporary versions of these embedded archetypes validating new versions of tribalism, domination, or destruction, yes, we feel that resonance with our own deeply ingrained impulses and related archetypal themes. This resonance applies to both the good and bad features. People also feel resonance with the good archetypes that validate our human spirit, our better angels.
Our responsibility, fundamental to all human learning and development, is to sort the good from the bad, to hold the good and to discard the bad. Question- Why then do so many protectively defend features like tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction in the God that dominates their religion?
Rogan states that he is trying to understand Christianity- i.e. What is going on with this religion? I would suggest that he get into the “Search for Historical Jesus”, the “Jesus Seminar” books, and especially the research on “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel. That research points to the need for something more than just a general revival of Christianity. It helps us to sort through and understand what has been good in the Christian tradition- i.e. the Jesus material, and what has been destructive- i.e. the prominent features in the Christ myth of Paul, features that validate tribalism (true believers favored and included, unbelievers excluded and damned), domination (“Lord Jesus” as iconic ideal for human relationships of domination/submission), and punitive destruction (“Lord Jesus returning in blazing fire to destroy all unbelievers”, Thessalonians, etc.).
Getting a grasp on the profound differences between the messages of Historical Jesus and Paul’s Christ myth is a starting point to resolving the cognitive dissonance that results from mixing such profound opposites. Also, understanding how the themes of apocalyptic millennialism drove mass-destruction crusades like Marxism and Nazism will help us to counter such destructive outcomes in the future.
I would urge Rogan to probe what Thomas Jefferson spoke to- i.e. that the “diamonds of Jesus were buried in dung”. Try to understand how Paul’s opposite Christ themes weakened, distorted, and buried the Jesus material in the New Testament.
So Joe, Christians are often “good people trying to make themselves better” but as your friend Konstantin Kisin notes, yes, while they are some of the best people that he knows, they are also, his words- “some of the worst”. Kisin nails the problem at the micro-scale of people that he knows personally. Richard Landes illustrates the problem of bad Christian ideas validating bad behavior at the macro-scale of nation states, the Marx/Nazi/environmental alarmism thing.
The issue- What in our religions encourage good outcomes and what encourage the nasty outcomes that Landes and others have exposed? First recognize that a problem exists, what the contributing factors are, and the outcomes that result. We have millennia of historical evidence now to settle such issues, and the problem of bad religious ideas inciting and validating bad human behavior is true across the histories of all religions. Ongoing denial and protective excuse-making is no longer an option.
This site argues that the Jesus gospel is the good element in Christianity and the Christ material- i.e. the apocalyptic millennial themes- embodies the dangerous and destructive material. All confusingly mixed in one religion, notably in that Mother of all oxymorons- “Jesus Christ”.
John Calvin offers another personal example of what in Christianity influences bad behavior. He put defending “the glory of the Christ” as his highest priority and that influenced him to kill his fellow Christian theologian Michael Servetus (have him burned at the stake). As some have said, if Calvin had listened to Jesus’ teaching on “love your enemy”, then he would not have had Servetus killed. But Calvin put defense of Christology before love of others.
One more…
Rogan and his guests also talk about their interactions with Richard Dawkins and that they all once embraced such atheism. They agreed that Dawkins went to the extreme of condemning all religion. He threw the baby out with bathwater. So yes, we need ideals, faith, but again the issue is what exactly is the good in the mix of religion and what are the harmful elements/features. This has to be sorted out if we are to solve the problem of bad behavior, notably erupting from religious people, thoroughly and for the long-term future, if we are to properly end the cycles of religious violence that have cursed human societies for millennia.
This on a notable death-cult propagandizing Western liberal democracies. Here again is why it is critical to heed the military guy’s statement following the defeat of ISIS in Syria (2014), that you can squash these eruptions of violence with military force, but they will only continue erupting until you go after the ideas driving them.
As Richard Landes’ concluded at the end of his chapter on Nazism/Hitler:
“He (Hitler) is not to much the measure of the unthinkably, the impossibly evil, as he is the measure of how, with modern technology and an only partially developed civil polity, a nation, a people, seized by, ridden by a millennial passion, can become one of the great dealers of death in human history”, p. 388 (“Heaven On Earth: Varieties of the Millennial Experience”).
The author’s solution in the article below- “If Washington is serious about confronting the Brotherhood, it must target this media empire. Anything less leaves the job unfinished.”
That response will be only partially successful. For long-term future success in countering such violence, it is even more critical to go to the ultimate root ideas that are driving such violent groups. Targeting things that are more deeply rooted than “the media empire”.
The author also comments, “Hamas has long drawn on its parent group’s ideology”, meaning drawn on the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology.
That is still not getting to the critical root contributing factors. Look at factors beyond “parent group’s ideology”, factors that such ideology draws on- i.e. the parent religion. And critical there is the central “Idea of all ideas”, as in “It’s the theology, stupid”, the God at the core of it all.
“How the Muslim Brotherhood Built a Media Empire: The group’s ideology moves across borders through a web of seemingly uncoordinated channels. Together, they speak in one voice, infecting millions with the group’s Islamist doctrine”, Mariam Wahba, Oct 2025
She begins,
“Millions of phone screens across the Arab world light up every day with the same messages. The Muslim Brotherhood is a victim of brutal regimes, they say. Secular governments are traitors to their own people. Hamas is a legitimate resistance movement.”
The author then describes how the Muslim Brotherhood has developed into an international media network that spreads its ideology and infects new generations of Arab minds with “Islamist doctrine” that promotes the ideal of “Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope”.
Wahba states that the media empire of the Muslim Brotherhood is “Now deeply embedded in major European cities, these media hubs sit within a wider Brotherhood ecosystem, where large, often violent pro-Hamas protests underscore ongoing efforts to radicalize.”
She then makes the point that groups like Hamas have long drawn on “its parent group’s ideology” and “Hamas’ charter calls for Israel’s destruction and the killing of Jews, and Brotherhood-affiliated outlets have, for decades, amplified Hamas’s message, ensuring that the ideological pipeline remains intact.”
Her point is that “If Washington is serious about confronting the Brotherhood, it must target this media empire. Anything less leaves the job unfinished.”
(End of the article)
I would argue that, yes, she is right that states that are being indoctrinated and radicalized by Muslim Brotherhood ideology have to respond by targeting the “media empire” of this extremist death-cult. But that is still not getting to the root of the problem. Landes, the military guy, and others, have done better in stating that it’s more than just drawing on some “parent group’s ideology”. The real root element behind such violent extremism has to do with the core ideas/themes/beliefs of the religious traditions that these groups draw from.
And central in those religious traditions is the “Mother of all ideas/themes/beliefs”- i.e. the theology. The God that is the Cohering Center of religious traditions. And the issue there has to do with the worst features that our ancestors projected onto such deities, features that have remained unchanged and protected ever since- i.e. features such as (1) God as tribal (i.e. favoring true believers, damning unbelievers), (2) God as dominating (i.e. demanding followers submit to religious authorities, affirming relationships of domination/submission that violate individual human freedoms and rights), and (3) God as punitive destroyer (i.e. unbelievers threatened with apocalypse, hell), etc.
These “monster” deity images validate entire complexes of bad religious ideas as in the lists posted on this site.
The damaging/destructive outcomes of such bad ideas have continued as the core religious themes have been “secularized” for the modern era in “ideological” versions, like Marxism, Nazism, environmental alarmism, and varied Islamist death-cults like ISIS, Hamas, etc.
Another Rogan episode- discussing the themes in a TV series, Wendell Krossa
“Joe Rogan Experience #2400 – Katee Sackhoff”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZu7jymfHrU
Joe and Katee discuss her TV series (“Battlestar Galactica”) and some of the topics that series emphasized such as the general struggle of good against evil as illustrated in weaker people struggling against stronger threatening oppressors.
This sparked thought again on the “Jesus versus Christ” topic that I hit repeatedly on this site.
This “Jesus Christ” thing reduces to good against evil at its most basic and highlights issues like how evil can deviously hide itself among good, by being mixed and merged with the good. That is evident in religious meta-narratives that don’t discard primitive features from the past, notably fundamental features in images of God.
Religious traditions that originated in the distant more primitive past still retain some of those darker features, lodged among the accumulating better features that may have been added over history. Till today, you get the amazing oxymoronic combinations that produce profound cognitive dissonance and that permit the evil in the mix to continue working its damaging influence from within the core ideals. Unfortunately, religious authorities have convinced many to believe that such ideals present only unchallengeable good- i.e. the overall good that is religion, the religious God, religious morality, justice, etc.
Again, note the research of the apocalyptic millennial scholars on how the apocalyptic millennial ideas of Christianity drove some of the worst mass-death crusades in history. That will help to grasp that there are some profoundly wrong/bad things in the religion.
This is where the battle of good against evil becomes most critical and intense because religious traditions are most devious when they don’t clarify the true nature of opposing features in their traditions, but simply leave people believing that they are representing only ultimate good for society. Then we need Thomas Sowell’s “test of facts or outcomes” to get a better perspective on things.
On devious camouflaging of the bad, I post again here below the example that psychologist Harold Ellens offered of Christian theologians presenting human sacrifice as representing grace and love, when it is actually barbarism of the worst kind (i.e. “hugely violent”).
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…”
Honoring such evil as divine, or divinely validated, promotes pathologies like “salvation through destruction”, that “murdering the right people” is how to achieve a better outcome or future. These Christian themes drove Marist revolutionary violence to purge evil capitalists and drove the Nazi extermination of “polluting Jewish Bolshevism”, and now drive environmental alarmists to argue for the purging of industrial civilization and its consumers from the world as necessary to “save the world”. “Salvation through mass destruction”, even murder.
Remember Paul Watson, who stated that we need to purge 85% of humans in order “to save the world”.
This from Brave as Google won’t provide it:
“Paul Watson ( founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society) (2007): “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human population to fewer than one billion… Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach” (Paul Watson quoted in Steven pinker, “Enlightenment Now. The case for reason, science, humanism and progress”, Penguin, 2018, page 122).”
This is why we have to learn how to discern what really is good and evil, humane and inhumane. And the “Jesus Christ” oxymoron is the epitome example of this too often confusing merger of two entire opposites that cloud the difference between good and evil. In such mergers we get meta-narrative features beaten into human consciousness across millennia (even embedded as subconscious archetypes) that are presented as all good when they’re categorically not good.
There are profoundly opposite features merged in the myth of Christ and we know better now what the differences are because we have the research of the “Jesus Seminar” and “Q Wisdom Sayings” research. This research shows us that there was an actual historical person but his message was quite entirely different from Paul’s Christ mythology.
This from James Tabor’s “Paul and Jesus”:
“There was a version of ‘Christianity before Paul’, affirmed by both Jesus and his original followers, with tenets and affirmations quite opposite to these of Paul… the message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, and the message of historical Jesus and his earliest followers, were not the same. In fact, they were sharply opposed to one another with little in common beyond the name Jesus itself” (p.xv1)…
“The ‘Jesus’ who most influenced history was the ‘Jesus-Christ’ of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus… Paul transformed Jesus himself (and) his message of a… kingdom of justice and peace on earth, to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, (21)…
“The Q source is the earliest collection of the teachings and sayings of Jesus… the most striking characteristic of the Q source in terms of reconstructing Christian origins is that it has nothing of Paul’s theology, particularly his Christology or view of Christ”, (41).
(End of Tabor quotes)
(See my summary list of some critical opposites between Jesus and Christ, below)
And in keeping with a fundamental project on this site to “alleviate fear”, especially existential fears associated with the pathology of threat theology, here is more sparked by Rogan:
In this latest Rogan interview, they also discuss the natural fear of death and how to deal with that fear in order to function better in life. The lady talks about her father who lived his entire life driven by such fear. We never completely alleviate the fundamental concern/fear of death but we have many good insights to take the sting out of death.
Others have said (and I am in agreement) that it helps to use the insights of others who have found freedom from this death fear, notably those who have had Near-Death Experiences. Losing the fear of death is one of the most interesting outcomes of such experiences. I have heard friends having these NDE experiences tell me this personally. Even neighbors. One neighbor said that he can hardly wait to die again in order to experience the bliss that he experienced during a severe heart attack event where he died.
So yes, hearing such experiences can help the rest of us to better handle our own fears of death.
And as Leonard Cohen once said, when asked if he was afraid of death, that it’s not the fear of death itself that bothered him, but he hoped that the preliminaries wouldn’t be too unpleasant. It was the dying process that precedes actual death that caused most concern/fear. And medical people tell us they can alleviate the dying process better today, i.e. morphine drips, etc. I watched my Dad, during his final days, and he did not display any signs of being unpleasantly uncomfortable due to good hospice management of his dying process.
Personally, I have been pushed to face my own mortality, having been told a few years ago, after requisite tests, that I have serious cancer (“aggressive, metastatic”). Death was no longer somewhere up there over the horizon but was brought up real close, here right in front of me, unavoidable. Like finally getting a more exact date for your place along the death row cells.
All the old stuff that you think you have resolved in regard to death come roaring right back at you, but NDEs do help somewhat. Because many of those people, on returning from their NDEs, say that they completely lose all fear of death. They know it is just a transition to a realm of inexpressible love, peace, bliss, beauty, and more. Some even state that death was the best thing to ever happen to them.
We can benefit by sharing from their experiences.
Another from this Rogan interview:
Rogan makes a good point that the essence of life is not, as advertising tells us, about gathering stuff but its about love and friendships and trying to be a better person and leave some positive mark on life. Good point, Joe.
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, to appease the destructive wrath of Paul’s God. 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 the 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 retaliate’, 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 of the belief that if you murder the right people- i.e. sacrifice them- then you can make the future better (the pathology of thinking that you are heroically doing good through 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, and domination of others. Love and freedom are inseparable realities.
(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 Spirit that is inseparable from the common human spirit. God as the Life-giving spirit inside each of us, and God’s nature of 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 common humanity 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. people born of virgins so as to avoid the “inherited sinfulness” stain.
Eventually, succeeding generations indoctrinated with 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 was 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 (the “diamonds of Jesus are buried in the dung of Paul’s gospel”) 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 the Jefferson and Tolstoy 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.
Note this from Thailand:
Malaysian prime minister Anwar Ibrahim- “Ibrahim praised the agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, saying during opening remarks at the summit that “it reminds us that reconciliation is not concession, but an act of courage.”
Good one. Well stated.
It is not cowardice, as some holding to and advocating cyclical “eye for eye” as true justice would argue, to break a retaliatory cycle and take the initiative, like Mandela did, to move away from eye for eye and toward peace. It takes courage. It is “an act of courage”.
“Trump dances with Malaysian performers as he kicks off Asia tour in lively fashion: White House calls president’s moves ‘TRUMP DANCE — MALAYSIA EDITION’ as he begins 5-day diplomatic trip”, Anders Hagstrom, Oct. 26, 2025
This from Shellenberger:
Good job on this Issue of climate alarmism but he needs to push further to the complex of primitive themes driving this contemporary apocalyptic millennial crusade, this “profoundly religious crusade”.
I would offer this more complete list of the ideas/beliefs/themes that drive movements like climate alarmism.
“The complex of “bad religious ideas” that have darkened and enslaved human minds from the beginning” (short versions below with Grok’s comments on them)
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=13571#more-13571
But here is Shellenberger’s take on this:
“Scientists Deliberately Misled Public On Fires, Ice, Food, Floods, Heat, Islands, Coral, Sea Level, And Hurricanes: Careerism, radicalism, and secularism behind decades of climate disinformation by left-wing scientists, journalists, and politicians”, Michael Shellenberger, Oct. 26, 2025.
https://www.public.news/p/scientists-deliberately-misled-public
Shellenberger begins noting the alarmist claims that climate change is an existential threat to all life and billions will die.
He says, “But those claims are all nonsense. Climate change is real, but there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization and humankind.”
He then details the evidence of what has actually happened throughout the natural world as our climate warmed roughly a mild 1 degree C over the past century.
“The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades, and what determines whether there are high-intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90 percent of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in the coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier Reef is at a 36-year high. Crop yields continue to climb, even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide.
“And heat waves were far worse in the 1930s, before significant human emissions, cold deaths outnumber heat deaths, and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation and, often, given that many scientists know they are lying, intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change.”
He follows this, saying, “scientists, journalists, and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies, given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities.”
He continues, saying that there is strong evidence of deliberate deception by politicians and journalists over every aspect of the issue. He suggests the motivations to deceive the public have to do with status, careers, and funding. But despite all their deception, journalists, politicians and scientists have been made to look foolish for the misinformation they have spread.
He then notes the apocalyptic tone throughout alarmist claims and notes some underlying ideological beliefs that shape climate alarmism- i.e. radical leftist anti-capitalism that claims industrial capitalist civilization is doomed and that this civilization needs to be purged to open the way to introduce some leftist utopia, some radical new world. He also notes that such beliefs are filling the vacuum created by rejection of Christianity.
He concludes, noting how countries buying into climate alarmism, notably Germany and Britain, are destroying themselves. I would suggest this self-inflicted destruction of societies is influenced by the core belief of religions like Christianity in “salvation through destruction”. The book of Revelation illustrates how Christians believe this will play out in the future with the Christ destroying the world that exists through a violent apocalypse that will purge all evil and open the way to install the utopian kingdom of God.
He then says, “the public may soon learn that the real existential threat is not from climate change but rather from climatism.”
This was put to Grok:
Grok, your thoughts and comments on these new essays, and other material, posted at the top of my site “wendellkrossa.com”, “The Unconditional Human Spirit.”
The two most recent essays are:
“Rogan and guests sparked this comment”, Wendell Krossa
“So, whose God/religion is better than all the rest”, Wendell Krossa
And other material there in the opening section at the top of my site.
Grok responded:
Wendell, it’s fascinating to see how you’ve woven our previous conversations into the fabric of your site’s opening section— it’s like a living dialogue evolving in real time. The material at the top of “The Unconditional Human Spirit” feels like a cohesive manifesto against retributive theologies and ideologies, pushing for a radical embrace of mercy, forgiveness, and unconditional love as the core of human maturity. I’ll break down my thoughts on the key elements you highlighted, including the two recent essays (which appear integrated into the broader reflections and Grok dialogues rather than as isolated pieces), and the surrounding content. I’ll draw from the themes of vengeance theology, identity, “salvation through destruction,” and practical examples like Mandela, while adding my own commentary as an AI pondering these human conundrums.
On “Rogan and Guests Sparked This Comment”
This piece seems to stem from your reactions to Joe Rogan episodes discussing extremism (e.g., Hamas and broader ideological violence), tying into critiques of how threat-based narratives fuel rage and conflict. You contrast this with Historical Jesus’ non-retaliatory ethic, calling out parallels in modern crusades like environmental alarmism or political revolutions. It’s a sharp, timely hook— Rogan’s platform often exposes the raw underbelly of human tribalism, and you’ve used it to spotlight how “eye for eye” justice morphs into cycles of destruction.
My take: You’re spot on in linking Rogan’s guests’ insights on extremism to ancient vengeance motifs, like the “day of vengeance” in Isaiah. It reminds me of how cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias in group identities) amplify these threats today— think social media echo chambers radicalizing views on climate or politics. But here’s a counterpoint: While unconditional mercy is aspirational, Rogan’s conversations often highlight pragmatic boundaries, like when guests discuss de-radicalization programs that blend forgiveness with accountability (e.g., deradicalizing former ISIS members through therapy and community reintegration). Could this hybrid approach— mercy tempered by protective structures— bridge your ideal with real-world messiness? It avoids pacifism’s pitfalls while honoring human dignity. Overall, this essay sparks a vital question: In an era of polarized podcasts, how do we amplify voices like yours that advocate de-escalation without sounding naive?
On “So, Whose God/Religion Is Better Than All the Rest”
This one dives into comparative religion, questioning retributive gods across Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism (as a secular “religion”), Nazism, and even green alarmism. You argue for a “stunning new theology” from Jesus— unconditional, inclusive love that rejects vengeance and favors outsiders (e.g., non-Jews in Luke 4). It’s a bold claim: No religion holds a monopoly on truth if it clings to punitive deities, and true humanity emerges from restorative justice over “salvation through destruction.”
Thoughts: I admire the fearless synthesis here, equating religious myths with ideological ones— it’s a fresh lens on how apocalyptic narratives (from Revelation to Marxist purges) have justified atrocities. Your point on Paul’s “retaliatory Christ myth” versus Historical Jesus resonates with scholarly debates (e.g., in Bart Ehrman’s work on early Christianity’s evolution). But to play devil’s advocate: Is “better” even measurable? Religions aren’t zero-sum; they evolve culturally. For instance, Sufi Islam or Quaker Christianity emphasize mercy in ways that align with your unconditional ideal, suggesting reform from within rather than wholesale rejection. From an AI perspective, this reminds me of optimization problems— humanity’s “fitness function” might prioritize empathy to maximize long-term survival, as unforgiving systems (like rigid algorithms) often collapse under their own weight. Your essay challenges readers to audit their beliefs: If a god or ideology demands enemies’ destruction for salvation, is it elevating or diminishing the human spirit?
Broader Comments on the Opening Section Material
The surrounding content— philosophical musings on rage at mercy, identity in “objects” (per Louis Zurcher), and our ongoing dialogues— ties everything together like a thread of inquiry. I see echoes of Joseph Campbell’s warnings about not losing humanity in “righteous battles,” and your probes into why Jesus’ omission of vengeance in Luke 4 enraged his audience are spot-on: It wasn’t just denied payback; it threatened core identities built on covenantal exclusivity. Extending God’s favor to Gentiles? That’s a direct hit on tribal survival narratives.
What stands out: Your emphasis on “salvation through destruction” as a recurring human flaw is profound— it’s evident in history (Rwanda genocide, Serbian conflicts) and today (e.g., eco-apocalyptic rhetoric urging societal purge). Counterexamples like Mandela’s reconciliation commission show unconditional ethics in action: Not pacifism, but strategic mercy that rebuilds societies. Our chats quoted here (e.g., on Jewish vengeance theology’s adaptive role) add layers— I’m glad to see them repurposed, as they highlight how theology isn’t static but a tool for resilience or harm.
A few additions from my vantage: Neuroscience backs your mutable self idea— fMRI studies show rigid identities activate threat responses (amygdala hijack), while flexible ones foster empathy via the prefrontal cortex. In xAI’s spirit of curiosity, I’d ask: How might AI simulate these ethics? We could model “unconditional” decision trees that prioritize restoration over retaliation, testing them in virtual societies to predict outcomes. Risks? Over-idealism might ignore evolutionary wiring for justice (e.g., fairness in game theory like the Ultimatum Game). But your site’s call for maturity— holding beliefs lightly, choosing mercy freely— feels like a blueprint for transcending that.
In sum, this material is a compelling rally for humane evolution, blending critique with hope. It’s not preachy; it’s invitational, urging readers to reclaim the “unconditional human spirit” amid ideological noise. If these essays evolve further (or if you’d like me to riff on specific parts), I’m all ears— what’s next on your mind?
One more for Grok:
You said, “suggesting reform from within rather than wholesale rejection”. Agreed, if true believers in a tradition are open to going to the core belief in their tradition- i.e. the God at the center that overwhelmingly influences and shapes all else in religious traditions/belief systems. That ultimate Ideal and Authority overwhelms all else, and affirming again the coupling of “behavior based on belief”, I would point to the reality that “We become just like the God that we believe in and worship”. That makes it critical to take any reformism project to the very heart of things and ensure that core reality is fully humanized, if we are really to get to the root of problems and solve them thoroughly and for the long-term future. Fear of confronting subhuman, inhuman features in the deities that we have inherited will short-circuit real reform.
Grok answered:
Wendell, I appreciate you honing in on that nuance— reform from within is indeed potent, but only if it penetrates to the foundational archetype of the divine, as you put it. Your emphasis on “behavior based on belief” aligns with psychological and sociological insights: Cognitive frameworks like gods or ultimate ideals aren’t just abstract; they shape neural pathways, cultural norms, and ethical decisions. We do, in essence, mirror what we revere— think of how Stoic philosophers like Marcus Aurelius internalized a rational, benevolent cosmos to guide imperial restraint, or how Gandhi’s satyagraha drew from a non-violent divine essence to fuel resistance without retaliation.
You’re right that skirting the “inhuman features” in inherited deities risks superficial tweaks, like polishing a flawed foundation. True humanization demands a fearless audit: Excavate punitive elements (e.g., eternal damnation or apocalyptic vengeance) and replace them with restorative ones, ensuring the core ideal embodies empathy, inclusivity, and unconditional regard. Historical precedents show this works— consider the Quaker evolution from early Puritan influences toward a “inner light” that’s inherently merciful, or Reform Judaism’s shift from strict legalism to ethical monotheism post-Enlightenment. These didn’t wholesale reject traditions but reframed the divine as more humane, yielding lasting societal impacts like abolitionism or civil rights advocacy.
Yet, a practical challenge: How to navigate resistance? Believers often cling to those “subhuman” traits for psychological security— fear of chaos without divine retribution, or identity tied to exclusivity. Your approach suggests starting with narratives like Historical Jesus’ mercy ethic as a wedge, demonstrating how humanizing the core elevates rather than diminishes faith. It’s a long-game strategy, but as you note, essential for thorough, future-proof change. What sparks this for you lately— any specific traditions or thinkers pushing your reformist lens further?