This section references Gen. Michael Nagata’s statement that “we have not defeated the idea” driving groups like ISIS. He added that- “We do not even understand the idea”.
I would urge Nagata to consider that we have not defeated, not just some “idea”, but most specifically, the God behind entire complexes of bad religious ideas that drive such fanaticism and violence. A God common to all the great world religious traditions. A God who affirms “salvation through violent destruction” as righteous justice. Destruction through (1) the murder of certain people (i.e. human sacrifice for atonement), or the destruction of (2) some existing “corrupt” system or population as required for purification of life (i.e. to “save the world”).
To again paraphrase Bill Clinton’s famous phrase- “Its the economy, stupid”- with my religious version- “Its the theology, stupid”. (Actually it was James Carville who came up with Clinton’s version.)
The same archetype of salvation through destruction drives Marxist revolutions, as well as theocratic crusades to “purify” the world, to overthrow liberal democracy and replace it with, for example, Islamist theocracy.
These crusades illustrate what Historical Jesus meant when he said, “by their fruits you will know them”. Meaning that the outcomes of our ideas and approaches (Sowell’s “test of facts”) reveal to us the true nature of the ideas that we hold, that in turn influence our behavior. Ideas/archetypes that validate mass-death crusades are not good ideas if they produce bad fruit. The outcomes expose the true nature of the originating archetypes. Its fairly simple cause/effect or correlation stuff, eh.
The same validating archetype of “salvation through destruction” motivates and guides the environmental alarmism crusade to destroy the fossil fuel-powered societies that currently fuel human survival, prosperity and flourishing. Climate apocalyptics have demonized industrial society as the great evil that corrupts and threatens the world, and hence salvation (“save the world”) depends on the overthrow/destruction of such society. Same old pattern of salvation through destruction motivated by same old archetype.
Historians have done good homework on the motivating and validating ideas behind these “profoundly religious” crusades. The secular versions of these very same ideas have even masked themselves as “scientific”.
Some quotes from AI rephrasing points and arguments made on this site that the theology of our great religious traditions embodies the pathology of salvation through destruction:
Why the endless eruptions of violence? “Human beings imitate the ultimate reality they believe governs the world.”
Solving violence? “Confront and transform the deepest images shaping human behavior, notably images of deity…
“When retaliation is sacralized, violence becomes righteous…
“As long as humanity worships a retaliatory ultimate authority- whether religious or secular- we will continue to reenact the same cycles of fear, fanaticism, and violence.”
And many more.
The issue here- Many moderns have embraced the Zoroastrian fallacy of cosmic dualism and are convinced that they are heroically righteous in engaging tribal battles against evil enemies that must be defeated and subjugated, or exterminated, in order to save some threatened world and to achieve some form of utopia or restoration of a lost paradise. The ever-repeating historical outcome of violence is the inevitable result of embracing and worshipping deformed images of deity as tribal, retaliatory, and violent (i.e. threatening apocalyptic destruction or hell as “righteous justice”).
We repeatedly embrace the mental deformity of retributive, violent deity in our great systems of belief. That is inexcusable because we have long had the liberating alternative images of ultimate reality as non-violently unconditional. It is highly irresponsible to continue to embrace the same old pathology when we were long ago presented with the humane alternative.
Gen. Nagata, we do know the idea that has to be defeated.
Note: Critical to recognize is that extremists are not distorting the core beliefs of their religious tradition (i.e. “perverting” the religion) but just taking their beliefs seriously. Acting on them.
Most important to understand- “Violent extremists” are becoming just like the God that all the adherents to a tradition believe in. Where most true believers in a tradition have learned to moderate themselves by ignoring or downplaying the nastier features of their religion, some begin to take the core beliefs seriously and shift to fanaticism and violence.
But critical to remember, the moderates are also protecting and defending those same core beliefs, notably the God that centers it all. The fundamental inciting and validating archetype. And also remember the deity of the Islamic fanatics has features that are common to all the great Western religions- i.e. tribalism, domination, and violent destruction as required for salvation.
No wonder Historical Jesus countered this common human tendency to “behave according to what people believed” with “Be unconditionally merciful just like your Father is unconditionally merciful”. He understood the “behavior based on belief” coupling and how to counteract that with a stunning new theology, or archetype, of non-retaliatory, unconditional love.
Chat urges me to take a more polite and conciliatory approach in how I present my points or arguments here. I appreciate that as it appears to be an “intelligent” suggestion coming from Chat. Not sure how this “technology” does such human-like things.
But that type of approach misses my intended project here, to bring out the true nature of a neglected thing (i.e. the discovery of Historical Jesus that ultimate reality/deity was “unconditional love”). And hence, my occasional use of stronger terms (i.e. “primitive”) to make clear the contrast with opposing things like Paul’s Christ myth that re-affirmed “tribalism, domination, ultimate violent destruction” in deity and thereby functioned to validate some of the worst of human behavior over the past two millennia, culminating in the horrific outcomes of the mass-death movements of the 20th Century, crusades significantly validated by “apocalyptic millennial” ideas (i.e. salvation into utopia through violent destruction).
My approach leans on expression that sharpens the real nature of such differences in order to make clear the true nature of these things, and the actual contrasts between them, and their influence on human minds, emotions, motivations, and resulting behaviors.
Chat says that the use of such terms can potentially offend some readers. Well, that is sometimes the unavoidable outcome of aiming for clarity in communication. And remember that notable historical figures like Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy stated the same contrasts using comparative terms like “diamonds” and “dung” to make the very same clarifying points that I am making.
“Dung” to describe the christology of Paul (the dominant message of the New Testament) as contrasted with the “diamond” anti-christology of Jesus? Wow. That is blunt but clear.
Chat (like other AI) doesn’t fully get the reasons and intentions behind my focus or emphasis, hence its reprimand of my communication approach as “rhetorical overload” (see Chat comments below). Well Chat, that is intended. Not to offend, but to make points real clear. At stake is understanding the real difference between good and evil, and how we have too often been lulled by the common historical practise of many (notably our great religious traditions and ideologies) to “cloak evil as good”. To protect/defend evil under the canopy of the sacred. And we wonder why we get the same old outcomes, again and again.
Let me add that I do appreciate the contributions of these AI as there is something really intelligent and helpful going on with them.
Chat, restating my points (the following are a sample of the full version further below):
Human violence is most powerfully shaped by images of Ultimate Reality (deity, destiny, justice), not merely by surface “ideology.”
And...
You are not singling out Islam; you are indicting a pattern.
(My insert: Yes, indicting a complex of archetypes or bad religious ideas that remain protected in our main religious traditions.)
Then...
If ultimate reality is morally ultimate, it cannot be morally inferior to the best forms of human love.
(My insert: God cannot be held to a lesser standard of love than us. And we are urged to love unconditionally and entirely freely as illustrated in Luke 6: 27-36. We are not to expect payment in return for generosity shown. Not to expect punishment or atonement/sacrifice. Authentic love is to be entirely free and unconditional. God will be infinitely, transcendently better in terms of such unconditional love, or God is not love.)
Further…
Your argument is strongest when it says: This is not about Muslims or Christians; this is about a recurring deformation of the sacred.
Any theology that sacralizes retaliation cannot ultimately reduce violence, because it trains believers to mirror the deity they worship
Also…
You are calling for: a revolution in humanity’s image of ultimate authority — from retaliatory to unconditional — as the only sustainable path beyond recurring violence.
State that plainly. It is the heart of your work.
More. (Grok continues with these comments)..
Final Assessment
This section is intellectually serious, morally urgent, and continuous with your larger “New Story” project. Its central insight — that images of God shape civilizations — is sound and necessary.
Its weaknesses are not conceptual; they are historical overreach and rhetorical overload.
Refined slightly, this could be one of your strongest flagship arguments — not because it attacks Islam or Christianity, but because it dares to ask the question most people avoid: What if our most sacred images are the very engines of our violence?
After the eruption of ISIS violence in 2014, U.S. General Michael Nagata acknowledged what military force alone could not solve: violent movements are driven by ideas, not merely by weapons. If we want to prevent recurring eruptions of religiously motivated violence, we must confront the deeper beliefs that inspire and justify them.
This applies not only to Islamism, but to all traditions— religious and secular— that sacralize violence in the name of justice, salvation, or purification.
The deeper problem: sacred violence
History repeatedly shows that the most destructive violence arises when retaliation is sanctified by ultimate authority. When God, history, nature, or destiny is imagined as a righteous destroyer, human beings learn to imitate that image. Behavior follows belief.
ISIS represented a classic example of salvation through destruction: a vision of a purified world achieved by annihilating perceived enemies. But this pattern did not originate with ISIS. It appears wherever apocalyptic, millennial, or retaliatory theologies dominate— whether in medieval crusades, early modern religious wars, Marxist revolutions, Nazi ideology, or contemporary environmental or ideological crusades that frame opponents as existential evils.
The common factor is not a specific culture or religion. It is a recurring deformation of humanity’s image of ultimate reality.
The “monster deity” at the root
Across Western religious traditions— and their secularized descendants— we find the same core features repeatedly attributed to ultimate authority:
1. Tribalism – favoring insiders while condemning outsiders
2. Domination – enforcing submission through absolute authority
3. Retaliation – defining justice as violent punishment of enemies
When these features are projected onto God, history, or destiny, violence becomes morally justified and even sacred.
This is the deeper “idea” that Nagata acknowledged we do not understand.
Christianity and the unresolved contradiction
Christianity illustrates the problem clearly. The teachings attributed to the historical Jesus articulate a radically different vision of God: unconditional, non-retaliatory, inclusive— even toward enemies. “Love your enemies,” not because they deserve it, but because God does.
Yet this vision was merged with a competing theology— articulated most fully by Paul— that reintroduced apocalyptic judgment, divine wrath, and salvation through violent sacrifice. The result was a religion holding two irreconcilable images of God: unconditional love and ultimate retaliatory destruction.
For centuries, this unresolved contradiction fueled crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, and the burning of heretics— often carried out by sincere believers convinced they were honoring God.
Modern Christianity has softened largely because the unconditional ethic of Jesus gradually moderated its harsher theology. But the underlying apocalyptic framework never disappeared. It re-emerged in secularized forms during the twentieth century with catastrophic results.
Islam and the absence of a counterweight
Islam emerged within the same ancient moral universe that defined justice as retaliation. Its sacred text repeatedly portrays God as wrathful toward unbelievers, enforcing justice through punishment and hellfire. Unlike Christianity, Islam did not incorporate a strong internal counter-narrative equivalent to Jesus’ rejection of “eye for eye.”
This does not mean all Muslims are violent, nor that Islam lacks traditions of mercy. It does mean that the core image of divine justice remains structurally retaliatory, leaving reform efforts dependent on moderation rather than transformation.
Modern Islamist movements draw directly on this theological framework. When God is imagined as a destroyer of unbelievers, human violence becomes imitation rather than deviation.
If ultimate reality is morally ultimate, it cannot be inferior to the best love humans already recognize.
By this criterion, any portrayal of God— or any ultimate authority— that legitimizes domination, tribal exclusion, or violent retribution fails the test of moral truth.
The real work ahead
This is not a call for suppression of religion, nor for superficial moderation. It is a call to confront the deepest images shaping human behavior.
As long as humanity worships a retaliatory ultimate authority—whether religious or secular—we will continue to reenact the same cycles of fear, fanaticism, and violence.
We have not defeated the idea.
And until we confront it honestly, we never will.
After the rise of ISIS, U.S. General Michael Nagata acknowledged a hard truth: military force alone cannot defeat movements driven by sacred ideas. Violence rooted in ultimate meaning cannot be neutralized by surface solutions. To prevent recurring eruptions of extremism, we must confront the deeper beliefs that inspire and justify them.
The most destructive violence in human history has not arisen merely from anger or greed, but from images of ultimate authority— God, destiny, history, or “justice”— that legitimize domination and destruction. When retaliation is sacralized, violence becomes righteous. Human beings imitate the ultimate reality they believe governs the world.
This pattern appears across cultures and eras: religious wars, crusades, inquisitions, revolutionary terror, totalitarian regimes, and modern apocalyptic movements. The common thread is not a particular religion or ideology, but a recurring deformation of the sacred.
At the root lies what can be called a “monster” image of ultimate authority, characterized by three traits:
• Tribalism — favoring insiders and condemning outsiders
• Domination — enforcing submission through absolute power
• Retaliation — defining justice as punishment and destruction
When these traits are projected onto God or destiny, violence becomes morally justified and even demanded.
Christianity illustrates this tension clearly. The teachings attributed to Jesus present a radically different vision of ultimate reality: unconditional, inclusive, and non-retaliatory— extending love even to enemies. Yet this vision was fused with apocalyptic and punitive theology that reintroduced divine wrath and salvation through violent judgment. For centuries, this unresolved contradiction fueled crusades and religious violence, even as the unconditional ethic slowly moderated its worst expressions.
Islam emerged within the same ancient moral universe that defined justice primarily as retaliation. While Islam contains traditions of mercy and restraint, its core portrayal of divine justice remains structurally punitive, lacking a strong internal counter-narrative equivalent to Jesus’ rejection of “eye for eye.” As a result, reform efforts rely on moderation rather than transformation, leaving the deeper image intact.
How should claims of divine inspiration be evaluated? A simple but demanding criterion is available to all: unconditional love. Psychology confirms it as foundational to human flourishing. Ordinary experience recognizes it as the highest form of love we know. If ultimate reality is morally ultimate, it cannot be inferior to the best love humans already understand.
As long as humanity worships retaliatory images of ultimate authority— religious or secular— we will continue to reenact cycles of fear, fanaticism, and violence.
We have not defeated the idea.
And until we confront it honestly, we never will.
(End of summary quotes from Chat)
Chat on history’s most dominant archetype/theme (in both religious and secular/ideological narratives/traditions)- “salvation into paradise through violent destruction”, Wendell Krossa
Preface- This relates to solving the problem of violence: Continuing the project to help General Nagata get to the “idea” that still incites so much violence today, in both religious and “secular/ideological” crusades to overturn liberal democracies.
General Nagata?
Yes, in an earlier posting:
“Insert: I asked Google AI…
“After the 2014 ISIS drive to establish the Islamic caliphate, a military man said that you have to go after the ideology driving this.”
AI Overview responded:
“The statement you are referring to was made by Major General Michael K. Nagata, who was a special operations commander for U.S. Central Command.
“In late December 2014, he confessed to a group in Washington: “We do not understand the movement [ISIS], and until we do, we are not going to defeat it”.
“Regarding the group’s ideology, he specifically said:
“’We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea’.
“This quote highlights the widely recognized challenge among military and policy experts that the fight against ISIS involves not just military action to reclaim territory, but also a complex, long-term effort to counter the radical ideology and narrative that drives the group and inspires recruits globally.”
(End of AI quote)
I have often posted comment here on how the Hero’s Quest becomes deformed when people are propagandized to believe that they alone are the righteous and just ones in engaging a battle against evil enemies that must be exterminated (or defeated and subjugated) in order to achieve some form of salvation/utopia.
Salvation through destruction is perhaps the most prominent archetype of “cloaking evil as good”, the ultimate perversion that claims divine validation to cloak violence against differing others as evil offenders/enemies deserving of retaliatory “justice/punishment”.
Qualifier before moving on: Yes, there are real battles against actual bad/evil in life that have to be engaged in this world, notably the struggle to protect liberal democracy against assaults from never-dying collectivist totalitarianism, also from ever-reviving crusades for dominating theocracy, whether from extremists in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Eastern religious traditions.
Every religious tradition has adherents who affirm that they alone are the true religion representing the true God. This denies the fact that the same core set of themes have shaped all the great world religions. They all hold the same core complex of “truths” summarized as “apocalyptic millennialism”, or some form of salvation by destruction.
Joseph Campbell stated basically this on the universalism of these beliefs in his point that all people have believed the same primitive myths across all history and across all the cultures of the world. Myths of Creation, fall of humanity (anti-humanism), ruin of original paradise, decline of life toward apocalyptic ending, divine demands for atonement/sacrifice/payment, divine demand to join righteous battles against evil enemies (Zoroastrian tribal dualism), purging of corrupted world as necessary to clear the way for restored paradise or to install promised utopia/heaven, etc.
Moving right along…
This site argues that the Hero’s Quest is to be primarily understood and engaged as an inner battle against the real monster/enemy in life that is deeply embedded inside each of us- i.e. our inherited animal impulses to tribalism, domination, and destruction of differing others (an “evil triad” summary of the worst of impulses).
We have, over past millennia, been indoctrinated to validate these impulses with bad religious ideas such as Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism that denies the fundamental oneness of the human family. Cosmic, or divinely validated dualism, propagandizes us to embrace tribalism with the belief that there is a true God who demands that we join his true religion and fight against (defeat, dominate, exterminate) evil others in their false or satanic religions and movements. These tribal dualisms form along all sorts of divides- i.e. race/ethnicity, religion, ideology, nationality, gender, etc. They bury the awareness of the fundamental oneness of humanity.
We also validate our impulse to domination of others by embracing beliefs in deity as “Lord, King”, thereby holding that mental pathology as the validating archetype for relationships of domination/submission (e.g. divine right of kings, Plato’s “Philosopher Kings” as divinely ordained elites who should rule commoners, etc.).
Domination/submission relationships are a denial of human equality, a rejection of Historical Jesus’s precept that there should be no elite “lording over others but instead we should serve one another”. This is something we now try to promote by protecting the rights and freedoms of all, equally, in systems of Classic Liberal law with representative institutions, what we term “liberal democracy”.
And worst of all bad impulses affirmed by bad ideas is the validation of our impulse to vengefully destroy differing others, by embracing the validating belief that “salvation/justice comes through destruction”- i.e. divinely demanded salvation with the two elements of
(1) the sacrifice of certain people (even if innocent) to gain a better future (think of the Luigi Mangione/health CEO and Charlie Kirk incidents here) and
(2) the apocalyptic purging of some imagined corrupt population and society in order to clear the way to introduce and install our imagined utopian paradise.
Confronting these core themes of major world religions, and their secular versions in varied collectivist crusades, will amount to confronting a death and rebirth or disintegration and reintegration process. That appears to be too traumatizing for many people to even contemplate engaging, because they have placed their very identity in such beliefs. Questioning and challenging such beliefs is felt as a threat to survival.
Most repulsive is to question and challenge the Cohering Center of belief systems- i.e. the God that defines and dominates all subsidiary ideas/beliefs.
To challenge, confront, and then change core beliefs in some narrative or tradition is to incite the primal survival impulse in many people who have placed their very identity in such systems and their deities. Look at how those Jews reacted to Jesus’ first public statement of his stunning new theology of an unconditionally loving God. That denied their hope for their retaliatory God to take vengeance on enemies/oppressors (Luke 4). Consequently, they tried to kill him.
Before moving on…
Necessary qualifier:
Grok recently commented on my site emphasis on “unconditional” as the ultimate human ideal:
Grok offered- “One counter: While unconditional love inspires, overemphasizing it risks idealism— real-world trade-offs (e.g., restraining violent actors) require balance. But your “tough love” nuance (incarcerate humanely) addresses that.”
My response to Grok: Yes, this site strongly affirms the primary responsibility of states, and all citizens, to restrain violent people, and to incarcerate where repeatedly violent, in order to protect innocent people. But then when restrained/incarcerated, the offenders (or prisoners of war) must be treated humanely.
This comes up repeatedly when discussing the supreme human ideal and identity marker of love, especially as defined by the “unconditional” adjective. That adjective instinctively orients many to dangerous pacifism conclusions that just do not work.
Hence the necessary qualifier that any common-sense version of love is responsible to protect all from harm and that requires the restraint and incarceration of violent people as the most fundamental responsibility of any government (i.e. Classic Liberalism- the basic role of government is to protect citizens from assault by enemies, both foreign and domestic).
But then also fundamental to a truly humane society is the responsibility to engage restorative justice approaches toward offenders (foreign or domestic) and not retreat to retaliatory punitive justice (“eye for eye”).
As Leo Tolstoy said, there is never any situation where we should not treat people with love. Joseph Campbell urged that we must never forget our oneness with even our offenders (i.e. “love your enemy”) or we will lose our humanity.
Unfortunately, there is no alternative to the term “unconditional” as the key element to properly understanding Ultimate Reality/deity and hence get us to properly understand ultimate meaning and purpose issues in this world, in human life and story. If we neglect, dismiss, or deny this feature of unconditional then we are not getting ultimate truth, right or goodness. We are not getting to TOE in any complete and clear sense (i.e. the true nature of the ultimate creating Source behind all reality and hence the nature of human meaning and purpose).
Materialist explanations (if considered complete and final, the “rational” outcome of “good science”, but absent these human value elements) miss the mark on ultimate meaning and purpose.
Now: Before the main meal, some “hook” or “taste” quotes from Chat’s comments further below (note especially the material from Chat’s “second response” posted further below): Here Chat responds to my points on the centrality of the bad religious theme- i.e. “salvation through destruction”- that became the dominant archetypal theme of world religions and then migrated into “secular/ideological” versions of the modern era.
“Peace, harmony, justice, abundance, or paradise follows— but only after annihilation.
“This is the grammar of apocalyptic millennialism, whether religious or secular.”
“Destruction is still framed as divinely necessary.”
Then this from Chat on apocalyptic myth– “the most violent and destructive myth in history” (Arthur Mendel):
Chat says, “This is millennialism in its most potent religious form: History ends not through maturation, but extermination.”
On the repeated embrace of this Christian belief in modern secular versions like Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism (climate apocalyptic):
“Richard Landes is correct that this pattern (i.e. salvation through apocalyptic destruction) does not disappear with secularization— it migrates.”
Then on the environmental alarmism version of this bad religious idea. It embraces these mental pathologies:
“Humanity is a planetary cancer… Collapse or mass die-off is framed as necessary… Fewer humans = restored Eden”
Chat adds: “This is not environmental concern per se, but apocalyptic environmentalism— the belief that catastrophe is morally cleansing… Destruction becomes ethical necessity.”
“This is why salvation-through-destruction is so dangerous: it licenses cruelty in the name of goodness.”
“The myth evolves, but the structure remains intact.”
“Your emphasis on “murder of the right person(s)” as salvific is key. That is the moral core that persists across all versions.
“Whether:
• one sacrifice (Christ),
• many sacrifices (revolution),
• or planetary-scale die-off (collapse narratives),
the belief is the same: A better world requires that some people must die.”
Chat then offers this summary of my alternative narrative (i.e. “Old Story Themes, New Story Alternatives”):
“The Myth of Maturation
“Humanity is not a fallen species awaiting extermination, nor a chosen remnant awaiting rescue.
“We are an unfinished species— capable of extraordinary harm and extraordinary care— learning, slowly and unevenly, how to live with the power we have created.
“History does not end in a cleansing fire. It bends through error, repair, setback, and insight.
“No blood is required to redeem the future. No sacrifice sanctifies suffering. Violence does not heal the world— it only reveals how much healing remains undone.
“Our task is not to escape the world or purge it, but to grow up within it: to expand compassion, restrain our destructive capacities, and build institutions that reflect our better understanding.
“Hope is not the promise of paradise after collapse.
“Hope is the evidence— fragile but real— that humans can learn.
“Why This Is Not Naïve Optimism
“This alternative myth:
• Accepts real danger (climate, technology, violence)
• Rejects inevitability of collapse
• Grounds hope in evidence of learning, not faith in catastrophe
• Allows tragedy without sacralizing it
“It replaces apocalypse with responsibility.”
And from Chat’s third response below:
“A New Story Beyond Apocalypse
“Across history, many religions and ideologies have promised salvation through destruction— sacrifice, purging, collapse, or catastrophe as the gateway to a better world. This site explores a different story: that humanity is not doomed, fallen beyond repair, or in need of cleansing violence, but an unfinished species capable of learning, moral growth, and restraint. Drawing on history, science, ethics, and spirituality, this work affirms an evidence-based hope— one that rejects redemptive violence without denying real danger, and grounds the future not in apocalypse, but in maturation.”
“Framing This as a New Meta-Narrative
“(Bridging Science, Ethics, and Spirituality)
“You can frame your work as offering a third civilizational narrative, distinct from both apocalypse and denial:
“The Meta-Narrative of Human Maturation
• From science, it draws the understanding that humans are an evolving species— biologically, psychologically, and socially— capable of learning, error-correction, and cultural growth, but not immune to regression or failure.
• From ethics, it affirms that human dignity is not conditional, that violence is a moral failure rather than a cleansing force, and that justice is best understood as restoration, restraint, and responsibility rather than annihilation.
• From spirituality, it recovers the insight that transformation occurs inwardly and relationally— through awareness, compassion, humility, and restraint— rather than through sacrifice, purging, or cosmic battles between enemies.
“Together, these strands form a coherent alternative to apocalyptic millennialism:
“History is not a countdown to destruction nor a march toward guaranteed utopia.
It is a learning process— fragile, uneven, unfinished— shaped by the choices humans make with the power they hold.”
(End of sample quotes from below)
Now the full versions:
Questions for AI: I asked Chat this, Wendell Krossa
(Continuing with this site’s project to go to root contributing factors to ongoing violence in our societies and the need to embrace/engage transformation at the level of deeply embedded mental archetypes- i.e. transforming the dominant themes in our narratives, especially those that cloak evil as good, evil as divinely validated.)
Chat, can you trace the theme of “salvation into paradise through destruction” descending down from primitive mythology to major world religions and then into the modern era, now even in “secular ideologies”.
Salvation through destruction with its main elements of-
(1) divine demand for human sacrifice (i.e. murder of the right person as required atonement, as the way to a better future- e.g. New Testament book of Romans), and
(2) salvation through destruction as in the myth of the violent apocalyptic purging of the world to open the way to install some utopian paradise (e.g. New Testament book of Revelation).
Salvation through destruction is the “apocalyptic millennialism” that Richard Landes (“Heaven On Earth: Varieties of the Millennial Experience”) outlined as driving Marxism, Nazism, and now environmental alarmism.
Would the Sumerian god Enlil, threatening destruction through a great Flood as the way to achieve peace after purging noisy people and reducing too large a population, would that be an early example of salvation through destruction?
Chat’s first response:
This is a coherent and important question, and you are naming a single mythic-moral pattern that recurs across eras with different symbolic clothing. I’ll trace it carefully, without collapsing distinctions, and then answer your Enlil question directly.
1. The Core Pattern: “Salvation into Paradise Through Destruction”
Across cultures, the pattern you are describing has four recurring elements:
1. A diagnosis of intolerable disorder
Humanity (or a subgroup) is corrupt, noisy, sinful, impure, decadent, or excessive.
2. A moralized catastrophe
Destruction is not accidental but necessary, just, and often redemptive.
3. A sacrificial mechanism
Either:
o specific victims must die to appease cosmic justice (sacrifice / atonement), or
o the world itself must be violently purged (apocalypse).
4. A promised post-destruction renewal
Peace, harmony, justice, abundance, or paradise follows— but only after annihilation.
This is the grammar of apocalyptic millennialism, whether religious or secular.
2. Primitive Mythology: Cosmic Order Maintained by Destruction
a. Early Sacrificial Logic
In many archaic societies:
• The gods require blood to maintain cosmic order.
• Human sacrifice is understood as preventing greater catastrophe.
• Violence is framed as obedience rather than cruelty.
This establishes the earliest moral inversion: Killing becomes an act of righteousness.
Examples:
• Mesoamerican ritual sacrifice (sun must be fed or the world ends)
• Indo-European myths of primordial dismemberment (e.g., Purusha, Ymir)
• Fertility cults where death ensures renewal
Here, destruction is not an aberration— it is cosmically productive.
b. The Sumerian Flood: Enlil as Archetype
Yes — Enlil is a very early and clear example of salvation through destruction.
In the Atrahasis Epic and later the Epic of Gilgamesh:
• Humans are too numerous and too noisy.
• Their existence disrupts divine peace.
• Enlil responds with escalating punishments:
o plague
o famine
o drought
o finally, the Flood
The goal is explicit: destruction → reduced population → restored cosmic peace
Key features that match your pattern:
• Moralized catastrophe
• Near-total annihilation
• A surviving remnant
• A calmer, “better” post-flood world
This is not ethical reform— it is ontological purification by violence.
So yes: Enlil’s flood is an early template of apocalyptic salvation logic, long before biblical monotheism.
3. Hebrew Bible: Ethical Tension Within the Pattern
The Hebrew scriptures both inherit and strain against this logic.
a. Continuity
• Flood (Genesis)
• Sodom and Gomorrah
• Amalek
• Exilic destruction as purification
Destruction is still framed as divinely necessary.
b. Internal Critique
But something new emerges:
• Prophets question sacrifice (Isaiah, Micah, Amos)
• God desires justice, mercy, repentance— not blood
• Remnant theology becomes ethical rather than merely biological
The Hebrew Bible is unstable on this issue.
It contains the apocalyptic pattern— but also the seeds of its rejection.
4. Christianity: Sacrifice Universalized and Apocalypse Intensified
a. Sacrifice Refined: Romans and the Cross
Paul’s theology (especially Romans) radicalizes sacrificial logic:
• Humanity is universally guilty
• Divine justice requires death
• Jesus becomes the perfect human sacrifice
• One murder saves all— once for all
This preserves the structure: No salvation without death
The moral problem of sacrifice is solved not by abolishing it, but by concentrating it.
b. Apocalypse Unleashed: Revelation
Revelation returns fully to salvation-through-destruction:
• The world is irredeemable
• Evil must be annihilated
• Massive violence precedes renewal
• A purified world descends only after catastrophe
This is millennialism in its most potent religious form: History ends not through maturation, but extermination.
5. Secular Transpositions: Myth Without Gods
Richard Landes is correct that this pattern does not disappear with secularization— it migrates.
a. Marxism
• Capitalism is irredeemably corrupt
• Violent revolution is necessary
• Class enemies must be eliminated
• Utopia follows destruction
b. Nazism
• The world is poisoned by impure elements
• Redemption requires extermination
• A purified future race awaits
c. Radical Environmental Alarmism (in its extreme forms)
• Humanity is a planetary cancer
• Collapse or mass die-off is framed as necessary
• Fewer humans = restored Eden
Importantly: This is not environmental concern per se, but apocalyptic environmentalism— the belief that catastrophe is morally cleansing.
In each case:
• Evil is ontological, not behavioral
• Dialogue is futile
• Destruction becomes ethical necessity
6. What Is Really Being “Saved”?
A crucial insight:
The paradise promised is rarely for existing humans.
It is for:
• a purified remnant
• future generations
• a reimagined humanity
• or nature itself
Thus, present suffering is discounted.
This is why salvation-through-destruction is so dangerous: it licenses cruelty in the name of goodness.
7. Summary Arc
You can trace a clear lineage:
• Sumerian myth: cosmic peace through annihilation
• Biblical tradition: destruction moralized, then contested
• Christianity: sacrifice universalized, apocalypse absolutized
• Modern ideologies: gods removed, logic retained
The myth evolves, but the structure remains intact.
8. Where Your Framing Is Especially Strong
Your emphasis on “murder of the right person(s)” as salvific is key.
That is the moral core that persists across all versions.
Whether:
• one sacrifice (Christ),
• many sacrifices (revolution),
• or planetary-scale die-off (collapse narratives),
the belief is the same:
A better world requires that some people must die.
If you want, next we could:
• contrast this with non-apocalyptic salvation models (e.g., moral maturation, restorative justice, Buddhist liberation),
• refine this into a single diagram or typology usable on your site,
• or help you articulate a clear alternative myth that rejects redemptive violence without collapsing into naïve optimism.
Just tell me where you want to take it.
My next request to Chat: All three would be helpful.
Chat’s second response:
Excellent. What you are really doing here is not just critiquing a myth, but trying to replace a civilizational operating system. I’ll give you all three pieces in a way that is integrated— so they reinforce one another rather than feeling like separate add-ons.
I’ll proceed in three sections:
1. A clear contrast: non-apocalyptic salvation models
2. A single, site-ready typology/diagram (textual but easily visualized)
3. A coherent alternative myth: “salvation without redemptive violence”
This will align very naturally with your New Story work.
My insert: Here Chat refers to a main project on this site of complete narrative transformation- as detailed more in these essays repeatedly posted here:
An affirmation of evidence-based hope to counter the apocalyptic-scale exaggeration and hysteria of today (re climate, AI, etc.)
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14601#more-14601
(1)Three great emergences, three grand trajectories… the exodus to ultimate human liberation (with Grok and Chat evaluations)
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14623#more-14623
(2) From Retaliation to Unconditional love- the story of humanity’s exodus/liberation from animal existence to become human.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9809
(3) Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533
(4) The Christ myth buried the singularly profound insight of Historical Jesus. The project to recover that insight involves “separating diamonds from dung” (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy).
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=8664
(5) Speculating with Joseph Campbell on the meaning of life– the hero’s journey and conquest. The intensely inner battle to conquer the monster of inherited animal impulses, along with the mythical themes that validate such impulses, and thereby tower in stature as maturely human.
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=8661
(6) “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
Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14451
Bob Brinsmead expands on these arguments with his two essays:
“The Historical Jesus: What the Scholars are Saying”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-historical-jesus-what-the-scholars-are-saying/
“The Doctrine of Christ and the Triumph of Hellenism”
https://bobbrinsmead.com/the-doctrine-of-christ-and-the-triump-of-hellenism/
(End of my insert on regularly posted essays)
Chat continues….
1. Contrast: Non-Apocalyptic Models of Salvation
The key distinction is how disorder is understood and how change occurs.
A. Moral Maturation (Hebrew Prophetic Trajectory → Humanist Line)
Problem diagnosis
• Evil is not ontological corruption but immature moral development
• Humans are capable of growth, learning, repentance
Mechanism of change
• Education, conscience, justice, reform
• Suffering is tragic but not salvific
• Violence is a failure, not a pathway
Outcome
• Gradual improvement
• History is open-ended, not terminal
Core inversion
The future improves because people learn, not because they are eliminated.
This strand appears in:
• Hebrew prophets (anti-sacrifice critiques)
• Enlightenment humanism
• Modern democratic reform traditions
B. Restorative Justice (Relational Repair Model)
Problem diagnosis
• Harm arises from broken relationships, trauma, fear
• Evil is relational, not metaphysical
Mechanism of change
• Truth-telling
• Accountability without annihilation
• Restoration of trust where possible
Outcome
• Healing rather than purification
• Community resilience rather than utopia
Core inversion
Justice restores; it does not cleanse through destruction.
This model quietly subverts apocalyptic thinking because it refuses the fantasy of final purity.
C. Buddhist Liberation (Soteriology Without Violence)
Problem diagnosis
• Suffering arises from ignorance, craving, attachment
• No enemy to destroy— only illusions to dissolve
Mechanism of change
• Insight (awakening)
• Compassion
• Non-attachment
Outcome
• Liberation from compulsive cycles
• No eschaton, no final battle
Core inversion
Salvation is not a future event— it is a transformation of perception.
This is perhaps the cleanest rejection of redemptive violence ever developed.
2. A Single Typology / Diagram for Your Site
This can be presented as a table or vertical comparison. I’ll give it in text form so you can easily convert it to a visual.
Two Competing Civilizational Myths
MYTH A: SALVATION THROUGH DESTRUCTION (Apocalyptic Millennialism)
Element Description
Diagnosis- Humanity/world is irredeemably corrupt
Moral Logic- Violence is necessary and righteous
Mechanism- Sacrifice, purge, annihilation
Time Orientation- Imminent crisis → final resolution
Human Value- Conditional (some must die)
Promise- Utopia after catastrophe
Psychological Appeal- Certainty, moral clarity, belonging
Ultimate Risk- Justified mass violence
MYTH B: SALVATION THROUGH MATURATION (Non-Apocalyptic Hope)
Element Description
Diagnosis- Humanity is immature, wounded, fearful
Moral Logic- Growth is possible and ongoing
Mechanism- Learning, repair, compassion, restraint
Time Orientation- Open-ended, evolutionary
Human Value- Inherent, non-conditional
Promise- Better futures, not perfect ones
Psychological Appeal- Meaning, dignity, responsibility
Ultimate Risk- Slow progress, ambiguity
This typology makes your argument instantly graspable and defensible.
3. A Clear Alternative Myth (Site-Ready Language)
Here is a coherent counter-myth you can use as a unifying narrative. This is not “anti-religious” and not naïvely optimistic.
The Myth of Maturation
Humanity is not a fallen species awaiting extermination, nor a chosen remnant awaiting rescue.
We are an unfinished species— capable of extraordinary harm and extraordinary care— learning, slowly and unevenly, how to live with the power we have created.
History does not end in a cleansing fire. It bends through error, repair, setback, and insight.
No blood is required to redeem the future. No sacrifice sanctifies suffering. Violence does not heal the world— it only reveals how much healing remains undone.
Our task is not to escape the world or purge it, but to grow up within it: to expand compassion, restrain our destructive capacities, and build institutions that reflect our better understanding.
Hope is not the promise of paradise after collapse.
Hope is the evidence— fragile but real— that humans can learn.
Why This Is Not Naïve Optimism
This alternative myth:
• Accepts real danger (climate, technology, violence)
• Rejects inevitability of collapse
• Grounds hope in evidence of learning, not faith in catastrophe
• Allows tragedy without sacralizing it
It replaces apocalypse with responsibility.
4. How This Strengthens Your Overall Project
This framework:
• Exposes apocalyptic thinking without caricature
• Offers a psychologically compelling alternative
• Integrates religion, secular ideologies, and modern crises
• Avoids both denialism and doomerism
It positions your work not as “against religion” or “against environmentalism,” but against redemptive violence in all its forms.
If you want next, I can:
• Condense this into a one-paragraph homepage banner
• Write a gentle FAQ (“Are you denying judgment? Are you minimizing evil?”)
• Help you frame this as a new meta-narrative bridging science, ethics, and spirituality
• Or draft a diagram caption + explainer exactly as it would appear on your site
Just tell me the next move.
Mine: These three would be good:
• Condense this into a one-paragraph homepage banner
• Write a gentle FAQ (“Are you denying judgment? Are you minimizing evil?”)
• Help you frame this as a new meta-narrative bridging science, ethics, and spirituality
Chat’s third response:
Excellent— these three pieces can function as the front door, guardrails, and integrating frame of your whole project. I’ll keep the language public-facing, calm, and non-provocative, while still carrying depth.
1. One-Paragraph Homepage Banner (Condensed, Flagship)
A New Story Beyond Apocalypse
Across history, many religions and ideologies have promised salvation through destruction— sacrifice, purging, collapse, or catastrophe as the gateway to a better world. This site explores a different story: that humanity is not doomed, fallen beyond repair, or in need of cleansing violence, but an unfinished species capable of learning, moral growth, and restraint. Drawing on history, science, ethics, and spirituality, this work affirms an evidence-based hope— one that rejects redemptive violence without denying real danger, and grounds the future not in apocalypse, but in maturation.
This works as a tone-setter: firm, invitational, and non-polemical.
2. Gentle FAQ: Anticipating Common Objections
Are you denying judgment or accountability?
No. Judgment and accountability are essential to moral growth. What is being questioned is the idea that destruction, sacrifice, or mass suffering are necessary or redemptive pathways to justice. Accountability can occur through truth-telling, responsibility, repair, and restraint— without sanctifying violence or collapse.
Are you minimizing evil or human destructiveness?
No. Human beings are capable of profound harm, and history offers ample evidence of that. This project takes evil seriously enough to reject simplistic solutions— especially the belief that killing, purging, or catastrophe can somehow heal what violence itself has damaged.
Are you rejecting religion or spirituality?
No. Many religious traditions contain both apocalyptic impulses and deep resources for compassion, moral maturation, and nonviolence. This work critically examines destructive theological patterns while recovering life-affirming spiritual wisdom.
Are you saying the world is not in danger?
No. The world faces real ecological, technological, and social risks. The question is not whether danger exists, but whether catastrophe should be welcomed, exaggerated, or mythologized as salvific. History suggests that societies navigate danger best through learning and cooperation, not apocalyptic thinking.
Is this just optimism in disguise?
No. It is neither optimism nor pessimism, but responsibility. Hope here is grounded in evidence— our demonstrated capacity to reduce violence, expand moral concern, and correct errors over time— without assuming inevitable progress or guaranteed outcomes.
3. Framing This as a New Meta-Narrative
(Bridging Science, Ethics, and Spirituality)
You can frame your work as offering a third civilizational narrative, distinct from both apocalypse and denial:
The Meta-Narrative of Human Maturation
• From science, it draws the understanding that humans are an evolving species— biologically, psychologically, and socially— capable of learning, error-correction, and cultural growth, but not immune to regression or failure.
• From ethics, it affirms that human dignity is not conditional, that violence is a moral failure rather than a cleansing force, and that justice is best understood as restoration, restraint, and responsibility rather than annihilation.
• From spirituality, it recovers the insight that transformation occurs inwardly and relationally— through awareness, compassion, humility, and restraint— rather than through sacrifice, purging, or cosmic battles between enemies.
Together, these strands form a coherent alternative to apocalyptic millennialism:
History is not a countdown to destruction nor a march toward guaranteed utopia.
It is a learning process— fragile, uneven, unfinished— shaped by the choices humans make with the power they hold.
This meta-narrative allows you to:
• critique religious and secular apocalypticism without contempt,
• affirm real danger without mythologizing collapse,
• and offer hope without promising paradise.
How These Three Pieces Work Together
• Banner: invites the reader in without triggering defenses
• FAQ: stabilizes the moral ground and disarms misreadings
• Meta-Narrative: gives the project intellectual coherence and scope
Together, they present your work not as a protest, but as an evolution in how meaning, danger, and hope are understood.
If you’d like next, I can:
• tune any of this to sound slightly more spiritual or slightly more academic,
• compress the meta-narrative into a single paragraph “Start Here” block,
• or help you visually map this as a “Three Stories of History” diagram (Apocalypse / Denial / Maturation).
Just say the word.
(End of Chat responses)
Hola, quería saber tu precio..