See below comment on “Real change or tinkering at the periphery? Wendell Krossa” Point? Are we really serious about solving the curse of violence and wars that destroy our societies? Are we serious about going to the core contributing factors to effect real change, nothing being more of a core contributing factor than theology?
Here is more response to the “idea” that General Nagata said we have to defeat if we want to end the horrors of the violence and wars still ruining our societies. Grok below notes the varied contributing factors to such pathology and General Nagata was intimating the theological factor in the mix.
Grok analyzes the current Nigerian situation of violence using my bad ideas list to note contributing factors to that violence. Other country studies will follow.
This again shows how “theology impact politics”, disrupting societies with eruptions of destruction.
The hope for alleviating, even solving such violence, is based on the fact that we have the alternatives to go to the root, to solve this problem at the narrative level, transforming the archetypes that shape people’s thinking, emotions, motivations, and behavior.
My initial question to Grok:
Grok, your thoughts/comments on the Nigerian situation and violence.
Nigeria appears to be another example of how bad theology (differing religious traditions) can incite and validate tribalism (enmity, hatred of differing others), domination (defeat and subjugation of differing others), and violent destruction of differing others and thereby harm societies.
Your comments on the influence of the “bad ideas list” on Nigeria, especially the theology at the core- the deity that epitomizes bad ideas.
See my recap of the bad ideas at https://wendellkrossa.com/ under the blog titled “Pushing back against AI, challenging Chat’s bent to niceties in presentation”, with the recap of bad ideas list under a subsection titled- “Some more homework from AI, Wendell Krossa”
Grok answered (before getting the full list of bad ideas):
The ongoing violence in Nigeria is a tragic mess, blending religious extremism, ethnic rivalries, economic desperation, and governance failures into a cocktail that’s claimed tens of thousands of lives over the years. From what I’ve gathered on recent developments— as of early 2026— things haven’t improved much. Boko Haram and its offshoots like ISWAP continue their insurgency in the northeast, targeting civilians, schools, and security forces with bombings, abductions, and mass killings.
In the northwest and north-central regions, so-called “bandit” groups (often criminal gangs emerging from farmer-herder clashes) are kidnapping for ransom, raiding villages, and displacing communities. The Middle Belt sees persistent intercommunal violence between predominantly Muslim Fulani herders and Christian farming communities, fueled by disputes over land and resources but increasingly framed along religious lines. Reports indicate that in 2025 alone, thousands were killed, with Christians disproportionately affected— accounting for about 72% of global Christian killings in one tally.
Just in the first weeks of 2026, attacks in places like Kwara State left over 160 dead, many Muslims refusing extremist ideologies, while church kidnappings in Kaduna and raids in Niger State added to the body count. The UN emphasizes that this isn’t solely a religious war; it’s exacerbated by a humanitarian crisis, with millions displaced and aid efforts overwhelmed. Yet, international voices, including the US under Trump, are pushing back hard, framing it as targeted persecution of Christians— leading to airstrikes on Islamist sites in December 2025 and deploying 200 troops in February 2026 to train Nigerian forces.
A new US bill even seeks to label Fulani militias as terrorists and sanction those enabling religious violence. On X, opinions range from calls for unity against all terrorism (including groups like IPOB or bandits) to suspicions of foreign meddling or internal corruption in Nigeria’s military.
Your point about “bad theology” rings true in how it amplifies these divides. Nigeria’s population is roughly split between Muslims (mostly in the north) and Christians (mostly in the south), with traditional beliefs mixed in. When religious narratives emphasize exclusivity— my god vs. yours, infidels deserving punishment, or divine mandates for conquest— they provide a ready-made justification for tribalism and violence. Boko Haram, for instance, literally means “Western education is forbidden,” rooted in a puritanical Islamic ideology that views non-adherents as enemies to be subjugated or eliminated.
On the flip side, some Christian responses invoke apocalyptic framings or “spiritual warfare” against perceived Islamic threats, which can escalate retaliatory cycles. This isn’t unique to Nigeria; it’s a pattern seen in places like the Middle East or historical Europe, where differing interpretations of Abrahamic faiths turn neighbors into “others” worthy of hatred or domination.
Diving into your “bad ideas list” (drawing from common critiques of such theologies, as your blog outlines them in that post— things like myths of a retributive deity, apocalyptic revenge fantasies, tribal election of a “chosen” group, demands for total payback against enemies, and salvation tied to punishing outsiders), their influence in Nigeria is stark. At the core is the concept of a deity that epitomizes these: a god portrayed as wrathful, demanding blood for sins, and favoring one tribe or faith over others.
In Islamist extremism here, Allah is invoked as justifying jihad against “unbelievers,” leading to atrocities like the Chibok kidnappings or church bombings. Fulani militias sometimes cloak land grabs in religious duty, seeing Christian farmers as obstacles to a divinely ordained herder lifestyle. Even in broader society, these ideas seep into politics— sharia law in northern states vs. secular pushes elsewhere— fostering enmity and subjugation rather than coexistence.
It’s not that religion causes all the violence (poverty, climate-driven migration, and weak institutions play huge roles), but bad theology supercharges it by validating destruction as holy work. If that deity archetype were reframed toward unconditional love or universal humanity (as some reformist voices in both faiths advocate), it might defuse some of the hatred. But as is, it’s a spark on dry tinder, harming everyone in the blaze.
(End of Grok comment)
I then sent Grok the full list of bad ideas:
Here is the bad ideas full list to apply to Nigeria Here is a recap of the “salvation through destruction” list of themes:
(1) The past was better. Noble, pure humans lived in original communal paradise.
(2) Humanity became corrupted, fallen and is now inherently sinful. Early fallen humans committed an original sin and thereby ruined paradise. Thus begins early anti-humanism.
(3) Subsequently, the gods/spirits are angry with humanity, curse life and punish people for their sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty. Deity demands that people must suffer for their sins as retaliatory punishment (suffering as redemptive).
(4) Since the “Fall” and loss of paradise, life has been declining toward a worsening state. Retaliatory deity threatens a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of the world in apocalypse. A return to the original chaos.
(5) The angry deity, obligated as ultimate Judge to rectify violated justice, then demands a sacrifice/payment for appeasement of divine wrath and to rebalance the upset scales of cosmic justice.
(6) Further, the good God demands that we join his true religion (or true ideology in contemporary “secularized” versions) to war against and defeat evil enemies (Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism). Enemies/unbelievers are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal after-life damnation in hellfire.
(7) The threatened apocalypse is to purge the evil from life in order to clear the way to re-install the original lost paradise or introduce a new utopia, millennial Reich, etc. The promised salvation.
The fiery apocalypse is the final stage of the world, the “end of days”. Having fought and won the righteous war to purge evil from life, to rid the world of unbelievers, true believers will be granted salvation in an imagined communal paradise/utopia.
Note, in particular, any directly theological elements in the mix- i.e. Deity validating tribalism, domination of defeated enemies, and violent destruction of enemies.
Grok replied:
Applying your “salvation through destruction” framework to Nigeria’s ongoing violence reveals how these archetypal ideas— often embedded in religious narratives— exacerbate conflicts. While Nigeria’s issues are multifaceted (involving poverty, resource scarcity, climate change, and governance breakdowns), the theological undercurrents in groups like Boko Haram (an Islamist jihadist outfit) and certain Fulani militias (armed herder groups with ethnic and religious motivations) amplify tribal enmities into holy wars.
These ideas don’t cause the violence alone but provide a divine sanction for it, turning economic or land disputes into existential battles against “evil others.” Boko Haram, for instance, draws from Salafi-jihadist theology that frames the world in apocalyptic terms, while Fulani attacks on Christian farming communities in the Middle Belt often carry religious justifications, despite denials from some quarters.
I’ll map each point from your list to the Nigerian context, highlighting theological elements where a deity (e.g., Allah in Islamist interpretations) validates tribalism (us-vs-them divisions), domination (subjugation of enemies), and violent destruction (as righteous purging).
(1) The past was better (“noble savage” in original communal paradise). In Nigerian extremism, this manifests as idealizing pre-colonial Islamic caliphates or traditional herder lifestyles as pure, uncorrupted eras. Boko Haram romanticizes the Sokoto Caliphate (1804–1903) as a golden age of Islamic purity, before British colonialism and Western influences “ruined” it. Similarly, some Fulani narratives evoke a nomadic paradise disrupted by modern farming encroachments and state policies. Theologically, this ties to a deity who originally created a harmonious order for the faithful, now lost due to outsiders’ interference— fostering tribal nostalgia that justifies reclaiming “lost” lands through force.
(2) We corrupt and destructive humans (i.e. fallen humanity, inherent sinfulness) ruined that original paradise. So begins early anti-humanism. This anti-humanist thread is evident in jihadist rhetoric where “infidels” (Christians, moderate Muslims, or Westernized Nigerians) embody corruption. Boko Haram views Western education and secular governance as sinful deviations that have polluted society, leading to moral decay. Fulani militants sometimes frame Christian farmers as “trespassers” who degrade the land through settled agriculture, contrasting with the “pure” nomadic ways. The deity here is portrayed as disappointed in humanity’s fall, with tribal others as the chief sinners— validating hatred and positioning the in-group as redeemers who must dominate to restore order.
(3) Subsequently, the gods/spirits are angry with humanity and punish people for their sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty. Extremists invoke divine wrath to explain hardships. Boko Haram preachers claim droughts, floods, or economic woes in the north are Allah’s punishments for Nigeria’s “un-Islamic” ways, urging predatory attacks as enforcement of divine will. In Fulani contexts, herder losses (e.g., from cattle rustling or climate stress) are sometimes spiritualized as tests or retributions, with violence against “sinful” communities as a corrective. This theological anger from a deity fuels tribal predation, where out-groups suffer “deserved” cruelty as proxies for godly punishment.
(4) The gods also threaten a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of the world in apocalypse. A return to the original chaos. Apocalypticism is core to Boko Haram’s ideology, drawing from ISIS-affiliated visions of a global caliphate preceded by end-times chaos. They aim to hasten apocalypse through mass killings, abductions, and bombings, seeing Nigeria’s collapse as a return to primal struggle where only the faithful survive. While less overt in Fulani militias, some attacks echo millenarian themes of “cleansing” regions for Islamic dominance. The deity epitomizes this as a destroyer who validates violent chaos to purge unbelievers, entrenching tribal domination through fear of ultimate annihilation.
(5) The upset gods (as the restorers of violated justice) then demand some sacrifice/payment for appeasement of divine wrath. They also demand that we should suffer for our sins as retaliatory punishment. Sacrifice is literal in jihadist acts: Boko Haram demands conversions, ransoms, or deaths as “payments” to Allah, with suicide bombings as self-sacrifice for redemption. Victims’ suffering (e.g., raped or enslaved girls) is framed as punishment for communal sins. Fulani raids sometimes involve ritualistic elements or demands for submission, portraying attacks as divine justice. Theologically, this deity requires blood for appeasement, validating the destruction of enemies as holy retaliation and subjugation as proof of faithfulness.
(6) Further, they demand that we join their true religion (or true ideology in contemporary “secularized” versions) to fight and defeat evil enemies (Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism). Enemies/opponents are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal after-life damnation in hellfire. This dualism defines the conflicts: Boko Haram’s cosmic battle pits “true” Muslims against “kuffar” (infidels), promising hell for enemies while urging extermination in this life. Fulani militias, when radicalized, target Christians as religious foes, with attacks framed as defending Islam. Even secularized versions appear in ethnic politics, but the core theology demands joining the “true” faith to dominate and destroy opponents, with afterlife threats amplifying tribal hatred.
(7) Add here that the apocalypse is to purge the evil in life in order to clear the way to re-install the original lost paradise or introduce a new utopia, millennial Reich, etc. The promised salvation. Boko Haram envisions a post-apocalyptic Islamic state as utopia, purging “evil” through violence to restore the caliphate. ISWAP (a splinter) similarly promises a millennial reign under sharia. Fulani expansionism sometimes hints at a utopian herder-dominated landscape, “cleansed” of farmers. The deity promises salvation via this purge, making destruction a sacred path to tribal supremacy and domination.
(8) That is the final stage, having fought and won our righteous wars to purge evil from life, we will be granted salvation in an imagined communal paradise/utopia. Victory in these “righteous wars” is the endpoint: Boko Haram’s territorial gains (briefly in 2014-2015) were celebrated as steps to paradise, with fighters promised heavenly rewards. Fulani groups seek communal harmony through subjugated or displaced rivals. Theologically, the deity grants utopia only after violent purging, entrenching cycles of tribalism and destruction as divine mandates.
At the core, the “deity that epitomizes bad ideas” in this mix— often a wrathful, partisan Allah in extremist Islamist views— validates tribalism by electing one group (e.g., pious Muslims) as chosen, domination by commanding subjugation of “infidels,” and violent destruction as justice. This isn’t inherent to Islam but a distorted theology that harms societies, as seen in Nigeria’s death toll (over 100,000 since 2009 from such violence) and displacement of millions. Counter-narratives from moderate faith leaders emphasize peace, but until these ideas are challenged, they keep fueling the fire.
(End of Grok comment) Grok ended, suggesting a comparison with Sudan and Somalia.
My follow-up request: Yes, please compare to Sudan and Somalia.
Grok answered:
The situations in Sudan and Somalia, like Nigeria, illustrate how “bad theology”— rooted in narratives of divine wrath, tribal election, and salvation through destruction— intersects with ethnic, economic, and political tensions to fuel violence. However, the dynamics differ: Nigeria’s conflicts often blend Islamist extremism (e.g., Boko Haram) with herder-farmer clashes framed religiously, leading to over 100,000 deaths since 2009 and millions displaced.
Sudan’s civil war (since 2023) is primarily a power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF), with ethnic cleansing in Darfur, killing up to 400,000 and displacing 11 million, but religious persecution targets Christians amid broader atrocities.
Somalia’s violence centers on Al-Shabaab’s al-Qaeda-linked insurgency, enforcing strict Islamic rule through attacks that have killed thousands annually, controlling swaths of territory, and displacing millions in a failed state context. In all three, theological distortions validate tribalism (e.g., elected “faithful” vs. infidels), domination (subjugation via jihad or ethnic purging), and destruction (as divine justice).
Yet Sudan leans more ethnic than religious, Somalia is overtly jihadist, and Nigeria mixes both with resource disputes. Below, I apply your “salvation through destruction” list to each, highlighting comparisons to Nigeria.
Sudan
Sudan’s war, now in its third year as of 2026, isn’t explicitly religious like Nigeria’s Islamist insurgencies, but bad theology amplifies ethnic divides (Arab vs. non-Arab) and targets religious minorities, especially Christians (estimated 2 million, facing persecution via aid denial and forced conversions). RSF atrocities in Darfur echo Janjaweed’s 2000s genocide, with mass killings (e.g., 800+ in Ardamata, 2023) and sexual violence as “weapons of war.” Islamist elements in SAF (tied to Bashir-era radicals) add a layer where deity concepts justify purging “enemies.” Unlike Nigeria’s overt holy wars, Sudan’s theology is subtler, seeping into hate speech and ethnic targeting.
(1) The past was better (“noble savage” in original communal paradise). Militias romanticize pre-colonial Arab dominance or tribal harmonies disrupted by colonialism, similar to Boko Haram’s caliphate nostalgia. RSF invokes Janjaweed’s “pure” era before non-Arab “corruption.”
(2) We corrupt and destructive humans (i.e. fallen humanity, inherent sinfulness) ruined that original paradise. So begins early anti-humanism. Non-Arab groups (e.g., Masalit, Zaghawa) are framed as sinful polluters of Arab lands, justifying ethnic cleansing. This mirrors Nigeria’s view of Christians as corrupt Western influences.
(3) Subsequently, the gods/spirits are angry with humanity and punish people for their sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty. Famine (affecting 400,000) and cholera outbreaks are spiritualized as divine punishment for “infidel” resistance, with RSF cruelty (e.g., mass rapes) as enforcement—paralleling Boko Haram’s drought narratives.
(4) The gods also threaten a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of the world in apocalypse. A return to the original chaos. RSF’s “campaign of profound suffering” in Darfur evokes apocalyptic purging, akin to Boko Haram’s end-times jihad, returning to chaos to rebuild an Arab-dominated order.
(5) The upset gods (as the restorers of violated justice) then demand some sacrifice/payment for appeasement of divine wrath. They also demand that we should suffer for our sins as retaliatory punishment. Mass executions and rapes (330+ documented cases) are “payments” for ethnic sins, with SAF Islamists demanding submission. Similar to Nigeria’s forced conversions or killings as atonement.
(6) Further, they demand that we join their true religion (or true ideology in contemporary “secularized” versions) to fight and defeat evil enemies (Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism). Enemies/opponents are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal after-life damnation in hellfire. Hate speech frames non-Arabs/Christians as evil, demanding alliance against them—echoing Nigeria’s dualism but more ethnic than religious.
(7) Add here that the apocalypse is to purge the evil in life in order to clear the way to re-install the original lost paradise or introduce a new utopia, millennial Reich, etc. The promised salvation. Purging Darfur (e.g., El Fasher fall, 2025) aims for Arab utopia, like Nigeria’s caliphate vision.
(8) That is the final stage, having fought and won our righteous wars to purge evil from life, we will be granted salvation in an imagined communal paradise/utopia. Victory promises restored harmony, but ongoing war perpetuates cycles, harming society like in Nigeria.
Somalia
Somalia’s chaos, exacerbated by Al-Shabaab’s 2025-2026 offensives (regaining central territory, 50% attack increase), is more overtly theological than Sudan’s or Nigeria’s mixed drivers. The group enforces Sharia via bombings, assassinations, and taxes, killing civilians for non-adherence and targeting Christians/minorities as “crusaders.” Unlike Nigeria’s resource overlay, Somalia’s is a jihadist bid for a “Greater Somalia” under Islam.
(1) The past was better (“noble savage” in original communal paradise). Al-Shabaab idealizes pre-colonial Islamic purity or clan harmonies, disrupted by Western/Christian invasions—paralleling Boko Haram’s anti-Western stance.
(2) We corrupt and destructive humans (i.e. fallen humanity, inherent sinfulness) ruined that original paradise. So begins early anti-humanism. Government/foreign forces are sinful corruptors; Christians embody pollution, justifying attacks like the 2015 Garissa massacre.
(3) Subsequently, the gods/spirits are angry with humanity and punish people for their sins through natural disasters, disease, accidents, and predatory cruelty. Droughts/famines are Allah’s wrath for apostasy; Al-Shabaab’s cruelty (e.g., IEDs killing civilians) enforces it, akin to Nigeria’s narratives.
(4) The gods also threaten a great final ending of all things, the violent destruction of the world in apocalypse. A return to the original chaos. Jihad aims for apocalyptic chaos to purge infidels, returning to primal struggle—more explicit than in Sudan, like Boko Haram’s end-times.
(5) The upset gods (as the restorers of violated justice) then demand some sacrifice/payment for appeasement of divine wrath. They also demand that we should suffer for our sins as retaliatory punishment. Suicide bombings and executions are sacrifices; sexual violence/slavery punishes “sins,” mirroring Nigeria.
(6) Further, they demand that we join their true religion (or true ideology in contemporary “secularized” versions) to fight and defeat evil enemies (Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism). Enemies/opponents are threatened with this-life extermination and then eternal after-life damnation in hellfire. Join “true” Islam against “crusaders” (e.g., ATMIS forces); hellfire threats for opponents—core to Al-Shabaab, like Nigeria’s dualism.
(7) Add here that the apocalypse is to purge the evil in life in order to clear the way to re-install the original lost paradise or introduce a new utopia, millennial Reich, etc. The promised salvation. Purging territory for Sharia utopia, as in 2025 gains—similar to Nigeria’s caliphate.
(8) That is the final stage, having fought and won our righteous wars to purge evil from life, we will be granted salvation in an imagined communal paradise/utopia. Victory promises Islamic paradise, but endless war harms society, as in Nigeria.
In these cases, the core deity— often a wrathful, retributive Allah in Islamist distortions— epitomizes bad ideas by validating tribal election (faithful vs. others), domination (via jihad/ethnic rule), and destruction (as salvation). This harms societies profoundly, but reformist voices in Islam could counter it by emphasizing mercy over vengeance.
(End of Grok comment)
More individual country studies or traditions analyses to come….
Suggestion for readers: Why not apply the bad ideas list your own personal narrative or story, or that of your religious tradition or ideological system, to see what elements in the list may be part of your worldview/narrative, and that may be holding you back from full and thorough transformation and liberation.
Added notes: Again, as I’ve pointed out before, Islam does not have the moderating influence of the actual Jesus message. Even though Jesus’ message has been largely distorted by Paul’s Christ myth that dominates the New Testament, that moderating influence is still present.
It is an interesting fact that Islam holds the belief that Jesus was a great prophet but neglects to include his actual message.
Insert: See suggestions as to what might have happened with Islam in “What happened to Islam at its founding? Wendell Krossa” at the section titled “’We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea’, General Nagata”
Located at URL- http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14754
I argue that Waraqa, the Ebionite spiritual mentor of Muhammad, must have shown Muhammad the content of the Jesus message when he used the “Gospel to the Hebrews”, or the later version of that in Matthew’s gospel, to instruct Muhammad (see Joseph Azzi’s “The Priest and the Prophet”). For some reason Muhammad neglected to include that moderating influence of Jesus’ actual message when he wrote his Quran.
Paul did something similar to Muhammad in embracing the person, the name of Jesus, but not his message. Perhaps Muhammad simply followed Paul’s example from some six centuries earlier.
Scholars note that Paul does not reference the actual teachings of Jesus but instead creates his own myth about the person of Jesus that thoroughly deforms Jesus’ message, that contradicts entirely what Jesus actually taught (see “Notable contradictions between Jesus’ message and Paul’s Christ” just below).
Fortunately, the gospel writers, notably Matthew and Luke, included full versions of Jesus’ message, known as the content of the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel. Luke does a better job of getting the unconditional tone and spirit of what Jesus taught in his summary “Be merciful as God is merciful”. Whereas Matthew missed the main unconditional point made by Jesus in summarizing the chapter 5: 38-48 section with “Be perfect as your father is perfect”.
Paul scorned the wisdom tradition that Jesus belonged to and vented that feeling of disgust in his vilification of wisdom as recorded in 1 Corinthians. He dismissed the wisdom tradition as “worldly wisdom”, adding that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God”.
He took his rage at wisdom even further in places like Galatians 1: 8-9 where he damned the leaders of the Jesus wisdom tradition, notably Peter and James the brother of Jesus who was appointed the leader of the early Jewish Jesus movement.
When constructing his Christ myth, Paul set out to oppose and contradict the very core of the message of Jesus. This is most notable in his blunt rejection of the stunning new theology that Jesus had introduced- i.e. that God loved all people unconditionally and universally included all (giving sun and rain to both good and bad people). The God of Jesus did not lord over people but was a serving God. And the God of Jesus did not destroy unbelievers with vengeful and violent punishment.
(Insert: The non-retaliatory theme in Jesus was not an advocacy for pacifism as the restraint of violent people is the fundamental responsibility of love- i.e. to protect the innocent. But restraint of violent offenders is also responsible to treat them humanely, not with vengeful and punitive eye for eye justice.)
Paul, to the contrary, preached a very opposite theology to that of Jesus. Paul stated that his God was supremely tribal, only saving true believers in the Christ but vengefully punishing and destroying all unbelievers, through world-ending apocalypse and hell. Paul stated the retaliatory, vengeful nature of his God by quoting an Old Testament verse in Romans 12- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay/retaliate’, says the Lord”.
Further, Paul’s God/Christ as ultimate Lord/King would then rule with a “rod of iron” totalitarianism over all for eternity. And before he could save his true believers, the God of Paul demanded the ultimate condition of a sacrifice to pay for all sin, the violent sacrifice of a son.
With his message of the supreme condition of the sacrifice of the godman Christ, Paul directly contradicted the unconditional God of Jesus.
The prominent themes used by Paul to construct his theology and Christ myth validate tribalism (separation and enmity between believers and unbelievers), defeat and domination of enemies/unbelievers, and the use of violence to destroy enemies/unbelievers.
As Harold Ellens has warned regarding the deforming power of such images of deity- “If your God uses violence to destroy his enemies, then so may you to destroy your enemies”. The contrary deity of Jesus would not affirm any such violence but would advocate the very opposite- “Love your enemies”.
Islam, like Paul’s Christ myth, missed this potent moderating influence of the actual message of Jesus. Paul made what appears to be a weak effort to mimic the ethic of Jesus to not retaliate against enemies in stating that believers should not return repay evil for evil (Romans 12). But instead of basing that behavior on a similar belief in a non-retaliatory God, Paul based it on a retaliatory God. Seems contradictory.
Then a bit later he also affirmed that the ethic or behavior was actually retaliatory in intent. He said (my paraphrase)- Be nice to your enemies so as to “heap burning coals on them”. Meaning that by holding your desire for vengeance in abeyance for now and being nice, you ensure that God will take vengeful retaliation on them in the future.
Hence, both Paul’s ethic and the validating belief that the behavior is based on are retaliatory in nature. Vengeance is thus validated by Paul’s retaliatory God that is entirely contrary to the God and related ethical precepts of Jesus.
Further note:
A reposting: Notable contradictions between Jesus’ message 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 dominantly shaped Western consciousness, narratives, and overall societies for the past two millennia (the conclusion of historians/scholars like James Tabor, Arthur Herman, Richard Landes, and others).
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 that God was unconditional love and that was to be the guiding archetype for human ethics/behavior and our treatment of others, including enemies. Note on the unconditional nature of Jesus’ God- i.e. there is no sacrifice or payment demanded in Jesus’ original message- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” gospel. See also his statements to just freely love and not to demand payment/repayment from others, in his list of precepts in Luke 6: 27-36, also in the Prodigal Father parable (i.e. the Father did not demand repayment for wrong from the son).
The God of Jesus demanded no required conditions to be met for forgiveness, full inclusion, and salvation.
That contrasts entirely with the highly conditional atonement religion of Paul, i.e. the supreme condition of the sacrifice of a cosmic godman- the Christ- as payment for all sin. Full payment and the retaliatory punishment of eye for eye justice are required. Hence, the tortuous suffering of the Christ substituting for human punishment.
Additionally, Paul emphasized the further conditions of required belief/faith in his Christ myth, as defined by Paul’s exacting definitions of the features of that myth (see, for example, his letter to the Romans). Add to this, the varied other related religious conditions- religious rituals like the Lord’s Supper, and required Christian lifestyle as the marker of being a true believer in the Christ.
(2) Nonretaliation in Jesus- i.e. no more ‘eye for eye’ justice but ‘love the enemy’ because God does not retaliate but loves enemies- hence, “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 that affirms a retaliatory deity in his quote of an Old Testament verse- “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay/retaliate’, says the Lord” (Romans 12). Also, his affirmation of divine retaliation in “Lord Jesus will return in blazing fire to destroy all who don’t believe the Christ myth” (Thessalonians, etc.).
(3) Restorative justice in Jesus (again- no eye for eye retaliatory punishment of offenses, but instead love the offender/enemy) versus punitive, destroying justice in Paul (“Unbelievers will be punished with everlasting destruction”, Thessalonians).
(4) Nonviolent resolution of problems in the Jesus message (again, no violent retaliation and destruction of enemies) versus the violent destruction of apocalypse and fiery hell in the Christ myth.
Add the violence advocated in the divinely demanded appeasement of deity by bloody human sacrifice for atonement, the dangerous archetype of the belief that if you murder the right people- sacrifice them- then you can make the future better, find salvation through such destruction. Such ideas have led to the deformation of the “hero’s quest” where people find validation in believing that they are heroically doing good through using violence and murder against enemies.
(5) Nontribal inclusion of all humanity (“sun and rain given freely to both bad and good people”) versus the highly tribal favoritism that includes only true believers and excludes unbelievers for not believing Paul’s Christ. Note the ultimate tribal divide and exclusion 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 authentic love in the threat, coercion, and domination of others.
(7) Non-dualism (God as the Oneness of Ultimate Reality that is love) versus eternal dualism (i.e. again, the cosmic tribal dualism of “God and Satan”, “heaven and hell”).
Further, ultimate Oneness suggests the logical conclusion that there is no separation of humanity from deity, what some describe as all humanity being indwelt/incarnated by God, the divine reality that is inseparable from the common human spirit. God as the Life-giving spirit inside each of us, and God’s nature as unconditional love then defining our true essential self/person. Meaning- We are not most essentially “corrupt, evil, sinful beings”.
(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 a god sent from heaven. Paul rejected the humanness of Jesus in claiming that he was some form of Hellenist godman sent from heaven on a special mission from God. Paul reconstructed the human Jesus after the pattern of the godmen myths of the Pharaohs and Caesars- i.e. born of virgins so as to avoid the “inherited sinfulness” stain.
Eventually, succeeding generations of Hellenist Christianity would further the Christology of Paul in claiming their “Jesus Christ” was sinlessly perfect, something the Historical Jesus had denied, for example, when he corrected someone with- “Why do you call me ‘good’. There is none good but God.”
The heretical Hellenist Christianity of Paul eventually led to the Christian reconstruction of 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 contradicting elements in the Christology of Paul.
Applying Christology to Jesus (i.e. the divinizing of a common man over the first few centuries of Christianity) has effectively buried the potency of his liberating insights, notably his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, non-apocalyptic God.
That truth, expressed in his stunning 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, noted by scholar/historians like Stephen Patterson of the Jesus Seminar. See, for example, his “The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning.”
Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy both nailed the contradiction between Jesus and Paul in the bluntest of terms and few have been as clear and direct since, perhaps because their comments are highly offensive to true believer’s sensibilities.
Few since have embraced their clarification of the stark contrast between Jesus and Paul, preferring instead the religious reformism that tinkers around the edges and corrects nothing essential. Religious reformism avoids the central issue of theology- how Paul’s Christology utterly deformed the actual historical Jesus and his message.
Real change or tinkering at the periphery? Wendell Krossa
Christian apologists defend the main features of Paul’s Christ- i.e. tribalism (include true believers, exclude unbelievers), domination (Christ as Lord, King ruling with “rod of iron”), and violent destruction through apocalypse and hell. These elements continue to dominate the Christian message. Reform projects tend to be limited to tinkering around the edges with cautious reformism of periphery elements of the system. That will never fully solve the problems of archetypes that validate tribalism, domination/subjugation forms of relating, or punitive “justice” approaches (“eye for eye” retribution).
People take defensive stances toward their religion for varied reasons. They fear going after the more core elements of their tradition due to a long history of religious threat theology- i.e. threat of being ostracized by their tribe, fear of ruined reputations if smeared for “heresy, blasphemy, etc.”. Add the fear of challenging core theological attributes such as “immutable deity”.
Insert: Harold Ellens noted in regard to the “behavior based on similar belief” coupling- i.e. that if your God uses violence to solve problems then so may you. I would add that if God is the archetype of “immutable” then so are you to be unchanging, immutable in belief and life. This coupling of behavior with belief applies to numerous “attributes” of religious deity.
To say nothing of fears of wrathful deity damning unbelief as worthy of eternal burning in hell fires.
Religious adherents also refuse to countenance change to one of the most foundational features of theology- i.e. the belief that justice must involve the punishment of all wrong, the full payment for wrongs done. Justice as some form of eye for eye retribution as essential to rebalance the unbalanced scales of cosmic justice due to human imperfection/sin.
This central belief/principle has long been projected onto ultimate realities like God and the Christ. It is backed with the threat of divine wrath and embodied in the demand for human sacrifice as payment- the archetype of violent blood shedding (“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”- Hebrews).
Few will seriously challenge this core of religion- i.e. these ultimate conditions that most religion is built upon. To consider any change that would replace this core belief in retaliatory justice with the unconditional God of Jesus would endanger the entire religious system, leading to its potential collapse.
To remove the old God at the core of our world religions and replace that image of deity with Jesus’ stunning new theology of an unconditional God, well, a religion like Christianity then pretty much collapses completely. And that poses a devastating blow to the very identity of the many believers in that system. It is a proposal for transformation that incites the survival impulse in people.
Add that such transformation removes the basis of the religious elite’s power over followers (i.e. control by priesthoods, popes, religious authorities and bureaucrats). It is loss of the elite power to manipulate minds with ultimate threat. Add the potential loss of elite occupations, and wealth. Religious traditions are massive systems of meaning, narratives that “unify” large groups of people, even if through fear and mind control.
Insert: I am pointing here to religion as a singularly notable social institution for shaping human culture, notably shaping the narratives around which populations find common agreement, that embody the ethics, laws and justice systems, and overall lifestyles of the larger human groupings known as nation states.
Insert: This from Yuval Harari’s “Sapiens: A brief history of humankind”.
Harari says, “Legends, myths, gods and religions appeared for the first time with the Cognitive Revolution (70-30,000 years ago)… this ability to speak about fictions is the most unique feature of Sapiens language… fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively.”
He then answers the posed question of how large numbers of strangers could cooperate successfully to live in cities and states of with hundreds of millions of people. Harari suggests the answer was, “by believing in common myths… that exist only in people’s collective imagination”, by telling stories and creating narratives or belief systems that give people emotional satisfaction and enable them to cooperate and work toward commonly shared goals.
He adds that since large-scale cooperation is based on shared myths- “the way people cooperated can be altered by changing the myths”, by telling different stories. We can change behavior by changing the stories, the myths. He is referencing the fundamental “Behavior based on beliefs” coupling.
Continuing with fear of effective reform:
Add the fear that many people have, in regard to the ideal of unconditional, as a reality that has long been distorted by claims that it automatically leads to irresponsible pacifist toleration of violence and abuse etc. It is wrongly presented as just too soft and mushy an approach to evil in life.
This site argues, contrary to such distortions, for an appreciation of the unconditional ideal that fully embraces the basic responsibility of love to protect the innocent from harm and that involves the restraint and incarceration of violent offenders, whether domestic or foreign, followed with the humane treatment of such offenders as necessary to maintain our own humanity.
My point is that you will never fully and thoroughly resolve the problem of violence and war that destroys societies until you engage the radical transformation of the core elements in belief systems (i.e. that which most powerfully impacts the human meaning and purpose impulse). And that transformation, above all else, will involve exchanging the conditional deity of religion, along with all the subsidiary elements/ideas that affirm such deity, exchanging that for the stunning new theology of an unconditional God, such as presented by Historical Jesus.
True reform will go right the core of the problem to effect radical transformation of the ultimate Archetype that holds religious systems together.
But getting past the varied fears that prevent many people from even considering such radical change, we need to first responsibly recognize the problem of which of the ideas/beliefs in religious traditions have been responsible for inciting and validating too much bad behavior over past history. Confirmation bias prevents many from even considering the evidence of the histories of violence toward outsiders, unbelievers, that were the result of people taking seriously the core beliefs of their religions, and nothing is more “core” than the God at the center of religion.
The argument of this site is that we never do full and proper reform until we tackle the core issue- i.e. the main contributing factor to bad human behavior, the bad theology at the heart of religious traditions.
Until that central archetype of deity is confronted and transformed, we will never fully liberate human minds, emotion, motivations, and behavior to be fully human.
When we continue to defensively protect core features of animal behavior in our great belief systems/narratives (i.e. the features of tribalism, domination, and violent destruction), we should not then wonder why we continue to get animal behavior in adherents of such systems.
Bad behavior among such people can’t be dismissed as just extremists who are misled by deformed versions of their religions, not when their behavior is being validated by the core theology of their religions. Again, the disturbing examples of raping, murdering young men shouting “Allahu Ahkbar” that have become commonly repeated public news today.
Not to pick on Islam alone- The ancient Jews similarly shouted praise to their God as they marched around cities like Jericho before violently destroying the inhabitants.
“AI Overview
“According to Joshua 6, the Israelites shouted… (with) the long blast of the trumpets, causing the city walls to collapse…Joshua commanded the people to “Shout, for the Lord has given you the city!”…When the people shouted, the walls of Jericho fell down flat, allowing them to take the city….The shout served as a declaration of faith and a final, obedient act that resulted in God’s victory.”
“Those Old Testament “victories”, given by their God, led to the slaughter of all the men, women, and children inhabiting those Palestinian towns.”
(End of AI Overview)
And Christians also shouted praise to their God as they violently destroyed enemies.
“AI Overview
“Following the brutal capture of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099, during the First Crusade, Christian soldiers, believing they were acting on God’s will to liberate the Holy City, immediately turned to intense religious, often contradictory, expressions of praise, prayer, and penance at the Holy Sepulcher.
“After the siege, crusaders flocked to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, singing hymns and weeping with joy…The victory was viewed as a holy, divine act of liberation,, with crusaders viewing themselves as having completed a necessary religious pilgrimage.
“The intense praising of God occurred simultaneously with the massacre of the city’s Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.
“Crusaders viewed their actions as “following the way of the cross” and as a sacrifice for God, often justifying the violence as necessary for securing the Holy Land.”
(End of AI Overview)
None of the great religious traditions has been free of this still unresolved problem of “bad theology influencing bad behavior” in true believer followers. And it continues unresolved today. So please, it is undeniable that the behavior is the direct result of the core theology.
Pay attention to what psychologists like Harold Ellens and others are telling us. What historians like Richard Landes and others have uncovered and presented- i.e. how bad religious ideas drive mass-death crusades like Marxist revolution, Nazi holocaust, and now the society-destroying outcomes of the climate apocalypse crusade. The “bad behavior based on bad theology” coupling continues as the expression of the primary human impulse for meaning and purpose.
I get the identity issue and how that touches on the raw nerve of the survival impulse in people. And it can feel traumatizing to face the transformation of the very core of one’s identity- your God. It does involve the embrace of a death/rebirth or disintegration/reintegration transformation. I went through it when I finally made the exodus from my Evangelical religion to rejoin the human race. I understand the whole process. I felt it intensely as it unfolded over decades.
But more than focusing on possible fear or trauma, I discovered that it is profoundly liberating to rebuild a new narrative from the ground up based on the stunning new unconditional theology of Jesus. To finally get right what the man actually taught and lived. To take him seriously, something Paul never did.
And through the process of transforming the very core of my beliefs, the theology that dominates narratives, I finally conquered my personal monster- i.e. the threat theology that had long deformed my life, just as Ellens had stated.
The helpful way to engage such transformation is to become a self in open process, a mutable self as argued by, for example, Louis Zurcher in his “Mutable Self”. This involves understanding that we never reach perfection in our understanding or personal behavior. Human life is always about ongoing learning, gaining new insights, further development. Human story involves endless change, even drastic and upsetting change, disturbance that is critically necessary to make further progress.
In relation to this, I think of the role that disturbance, even massive disturbance, plays in the evolution of life, the ongoing development and progress of life. Some have noted, for example, that if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out, our small mammalian ancestors would not have found room to flourish and to eventually produce the life forms that evolved for us to inhabit and live out life stories.