Note new comment in the section below- “Insert (help for understanding the psychology of violence)”
This, in appreciation of common-sense clarity:
The heroic J. K. Rowling- “If you believe free speech is for you but not for your political opponents, you’re illiberal. If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you’re a fundamentalist. If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you’re a totalitarian. If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you’re a terrorist.”
Amy Hamm’s take on Rowling’s comments above: “If your ideas require dressing up in academic jargon, because they sound foolish in plain language- they are all certainly foolish.”
“Woke academics claim J.K. Rowling guilty of being Voldemort: They also accuse her of something called ‘celebrified transphobia’”, Amy Hamm.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/amy-hamm-woke-academics-claim-j-k-rowling-guilty-of-being-voldemort
This guy seems to get the point that “It’s the theology, stupid”.
“Rubio identifies main roadblock to US-Iran agreement”
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/trump-iran-peace-talks-hormuz-blockade-april-27
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has recently explained that it is difficult to come to a peace deal with the Iranian leadership because it is divided between hardline theocrats who want to initiate violence toward unbelievers and more pragmatic theocrats (also hardline) who understand they need a functioning economy. He correctly concludes about the true believer theocrats, that they are “hardliners that are completely motivated by theology.”
He adds that the hardliners don’t care about the economy because they “have this apocalyptic vision of the future.”
This “apocalyptic vision of the future” is the belief that as the true believers on the side of the good God (i.e. the Zoroastrian cosmic dualism) they are obligated to start the purging/extermination of unbelievers (divinely demanded war against infidels) because the Madhi and Isa are waiting for the world to be purified before they return to install the divine kingdom of the Islamic Caliphate worldwide. And the true believers in this Zoroastrian cosmic war need nuclear weapons to spark the worldwide purging of the evil, demonic unbelievers (“satanic Israel and the US”).
Rubio adds, “Unfortunately, the hardliners with an apocalyptic vision of the future have the ultimate power in that country.”
He is right that you cannot make ultimate peace agreements with people who are motivated by this theology. Temporary peace agreements will have to do until we confront and resolve the “idea” that has to be defeated if we are to properly correct one of the main factors still inciting and validating violence and war in our contemporary world- i.e. the “bad theology” still embedded at the core of all our major world religious traditions.
Topics below: Shared common culpability. Same core themes, same bad outcomes. We ought to be careful about tribally demonizing a currently badly-performing religious tradition as worse than ours when all our traditions have nasty episodes and eras in their past histories.
Also, Haviv Gur goes after Ezra Klein for lack of clarity on the root contributing factors to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict but then does little better by muddying his own explanations with repeated resort to “ideological” and not clearly isolating the core “theological” element, the bad God image (“monster God”) that is a major contributing factor to the violence in such conflict. The theological element generates a type of fanaticism beyond the commitment that arises from ideological factors. It explains what is meant in- “Men never do greater evil than when they do it in the name of their God”.
Another article to springboard from (jumping-off point, launch-pad), Wendell Krossa
Common, shared culpability in regard to central elements in our major religious traditions
Preface Note:
The Americans have no choice but to confront the Iranian violence that is driven by a fanatical commitment to a theology which demands that members of the religion must begin the extermination of all unbelievers, they must incite the final Armageddon battle to spark the apocalypse (hence their pursuit of nuclear weapons) in order to prepare the way for the Madhi and Isa to descend and establish the Islamic totalitarian caliphate worldwide.
Also, no one else has the military force and steel spine resolve to end the theocratic violence and fulfill the basic responsibility of any government to protect innocent people from harm.
That said, I get uncomfortable when Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, quotes Bible verses giving the sense of Christian rightness and superiority set against Islamic wrongness. And yes, it is a complex of factors because many situations like this current one with Iran do have clear contrasts of rightness and wrongness. One side has long been inciting violence against innocent others and has to be stopped.
The point here is that it would be responsibly mature for us to acknowledge that the same driving factor behind the Iranian violence has also long driven similar Christian violence across past history, just as the very same theology drove Jewish violence, as recorded in the Old Testament.
Example: Moses was no different from Hamas leaders when he gave his men the OK to mass-rape young captive women during the invasion of Palestine long ago.
AI Overview
In Numbers 31:17-18, after the Israelite army killed the men of Midian but spared the women and children, Moses ordered them to kill all the boys and any woman who was not a virgin.
Moses then specifically instructed them regarding the surviving young girls: “But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:18, ESV).
Contextual Details from Numbers 31:
• The Commandment: Moses was angry that the soldiers had spared all the women, stating that they were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to unfaithfulness in the Peor incident.
• Killing Non-Virgins: The order was to kill every woman who had slept with a man, as they were deemed responsible for the earlier idolatry.
• Keeping the Virgins: The virgin girls were spared and taken as captives, with the instruction “keep alive for yourselves” (or “spare for yourselves”).
• Spoils of War: The resulting plunder included 32,000 women who had never slept with a man (virgins), which were divided between the soldiers and the community.
(End of Overview)
All histories, religious and other, have these dark phases and incidents in the past. My point is the common, shared theology (i.e. the God) that drove such evil. It is the same basic theology held by all these traditions. Moses was speaking on behalf of a vengeful, destroying God that would be the model for the later similar offspring in Islamic theology.
Playing with another paraphrase of Carville/Clinton- “It’s the Jesus message, stupid.”
It needs to be clarified (just as Jefferson and Tolstoy did in their blunt manner) that the moderating factor in the Christian tradition is the stunning new theology of Jesus (the “diamonds”) as contrasted with Paul’s theology which was the theology that “Jewish Christian” Ebionite priest Waraqa used to shape Muhammad’s thinking as he wrote the Quran. These are two entirely opposite theologies (that of Jesus and Paul) with entirely different outcomes and Christianity shares historical guilt for still holding Paul’s theology/Christology at the center of its belief system. Paul’s theology is that of a violent, retaliatory God who promises salvation through destruction, and this is no different from the core theological belief of Islam.
When Hegseth and others set Christianity in opposition to another religion experiencing a period of fanatical violence, I experience a touch of cringe at the lack of recognition that we, in the Christian tradition, are the mothership that bequeathed the original theology to that offspring variant. Where is the sense of shared responsibility/culpability and recognition that we have not yet cleaned our own house as we condemn others for their failures? Perhaps we should embrace the opportunity to use this latest historical eruption of religiously-driven violence (the Iranian theocracy crusade) to once again recognize how bad theology drives such bad behavior, and to spark some actual purging of that very same driving factor still dominant in our own traditions.
Point? Beware triumphalism when you hold exactly the same theology as those you may look down on. And give credit where it is actually due. Meaning, acknowledge that it is specifically the Jesus material in the mix of your religion (the buried “diamonds”) that has moderated the violence that dominated your past history.
Its unfortunate for Islam that Muhammad, that while he acknowledged Jesus as a prophet, he did not subsequently include Jesus’ actual teaching in the Quran. When he listened to Waraqa mentor him, the Jewish Christian priest who taught him his basic theology using the “Gospel to Hebrews” (i.e. the same version that was later called Matthew’s gospel), while listening to Waraqa, Muhammad must have heard the actual content of Jesus’ message (i.e. no more eye for eye but love your enemies). That message could have also functioned as a powerful moderating factor for Islam just as it has in Christianity, potently countering the destructive historical outcomes from Paul’s Christ-ianity (i.e. the long history of Christian violence).
In these Preface comments I am trying to counter any flush of tribalism, and sense of tribal superiority, in regard to comparisons of whose belief tradition is better than others, and to remind readers of the common pathologies still dominant in all these systems of belief. Notably, the central bad theology.
(Note: The commonalities, the similarities of beliefs in Christianity and Islam, need not be affirmed solely as due to influences like Waraqa. I would not dogmatically insist on that as it is challenged by Islamic theologians. Waraqa is not the sole factor to argue and base the similarities on. The basic beliefs and theology had long been in wide circulation throughout the ancient world.)
I have a lot more coming on these points but let’s start with this, Wendell Krossa
Here again (the article below) is more on the “idea” that General Nagata acknowledged, after the defeat of ISIS in Syria, 2014, the driving factor behind their violence that “we have not yet defeated and must defeat” if we are to remove the critical inciting factor in these endless eruptions of violence and war. It appears that few are willing to acknowledge the real nature of the “idea”- i.e. what that idea actually is.
To paraphrase Carville/Clinton again, “It’s the theology, stupid”. The very core of the religion. And before preening one’s feathers with “Thank God I am not like them”, later the point will be re-affirmed that the core theology of Islam was inherited from Judaism and Christianity, and before these traditions, it descended from Zoroaster’s formalization of the mythology of “salvation through violent destruction”. Zoroaster is responsible for shaping the basic theological nature and structure of all the great Western religious traditions.
Point- None of us are guiltless in terms of fundamental belief structures- i.e. theology and basic narrative themes. The linked article below again affirms this main point made repeatedly on this site.
I get that many who view themselves as true believers in one of the main Western religious traditions would prefer to avoid the upsetting exposure of the core nature of their widely honored religious traditions. Others become outright defensive, even enraged if anyone dares to expose their sacred theologies (deity as the “holy of holies”), especially if exposed as bluntly as Jefferson and Tolstoy described it, as something primitive and deformed. Try such factual exposure and you will get blowback for being “heretical, blasphemous, spewing hatred, etc.”
I have noted in sections below that when Jesus tried to introduce his radical new theology to his very first public audience (i.e. the Luke 4 incident in the synagogue), he introduced that new theology by refusing to read an Isaiah statement that affirmed the Old Testament God of violent vengeance and punishment (“The day of vengeance of our God”). In an enraged reaction, the religious Jews listening to him then tried to kill him. They realized exactly what he was doing, that he was rejecting the core element in their revered theology, that of a God who would violently retaliate against their oppressors and then liberate them, as faithful true believers, into his new kingdom where they would rule the earth as his favored subjects.
Jesus bluntly contradicted their hopes and introduced his radical new theology of a God who loved even their enemies and would not retaliate and destroy those enemies as those faithful Jews in his audience had hoped. Jesus cited the two incidents where God sent the prophets Elijah and Elisha to assist the enemies of Jews. That new theology of an unconditionally loving God overturned entirely, in just a few short statements, the most fundamental and sacred beliefs of his audience.
Why the outrage and incitement to murder?
Jesus’ stunning new theology struck at the very heart of their identity and his Jewish audience felt that intensely as a threat to their very selves, to their worldview and their existence as loyal Jews. And so they reacted out of survival fear and rage like the Islamic mobs that we have repeatedly seen across the world, mobs enraged at any challenge to their theology, even if just the innocuous printing of a cartoon of Muhammad. Screaming crowds of angry, bloodthirsty men. Feeling the same rage that incited that first audience of Jews in Luke 4.
Tribal, dominating, and violently retaliatory God is the driving force at the center of apocalyptic millennial complexes of beliefs, better summed as “salvation through violent destruction”. This apocalyptic millennial complex was the main factor driving Marxist violent revolutions to destroy liberal democracies and dominate the world. It was also a main factor driving the Nazi crusade to dominate the world. And the same theology of “salvation through the destruction of the ‘corrupt, evil’ civilization that exists” now drives the environmental alarmism crusade to overthrow liberal industrial society and dominate the world with Green-cult fanaticism.
All the above variants are driven by the same basic theology of “salvation through destruction.” This renders Marxism/socialism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism, in terms of major motivating factors, all “profoundly religious movements/crusades.”
Consider these statements by historian Richard Landes on the apocalyptic millennialism that drove Marxism, Nazism, etc.- “the Bolsheviks, despite their very modern efforts to industrialize backward Russia, (were) a medieval sect of obscure believers.”
He added, “Among the historical issues of the twentieth century nothing poses greater problems to scholars than the similarities and differences between the Soviet and Nazi totalitarian systems, both of which (by the definitions of this study) were active cataclysmic, apocalyptic millennial movements”.
Western intellectuals (Lenin’s “useful idiots”) refused to acknowledge the true nature of their Marxist heroes as “Medieval… obscure believers”. Essentially, apocalyptic millennial cultists and fanatics. Religious extremists. Cloaking their religious beliefs as “scientific materialism”.
The salvation through destruction complex was formalized in Zoroastrian cosmic dualism where a “Good” God demanded believers join his “true religion” to defeat, dominate, and destroy evil unbelievers, the differing others (demonized as “satanic”). This tribal deity demanded the purging of evil from the world as the necessary purification before introducing a promised “salvation” into some paradise- i.e. Caliphate, Millennial Reich, heavenly kingdom on Earth, renewed wilderness paradise, etc.
Before there is too much back-patting- i.e. “Thank God that we are better than these Iranian theocrats.” Again, remember that Islam inherited its basic theology from the Jewish and Christian traditions that preceded it in history. Is this too harshly blunt and direct to acknowledge? Well, you should read the actual terms used by Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy to describe the Christian version of salvation through violence.
To balance the embarrassing sting of recognizing Christianity’s role in passing on the mental deformity of violent salvation, I remind Christians that both Jefferson and Tolstoy acknowledged that the “diamonds” of Jesus were also in the Jewish/Christian tradition. What James Robinson calls “Jesus’ stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory God that was his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas”. That is properly honoring the man for who he really was and what he actually taught. The very best of the Jewish tradition.
The Jewish man, Jesus, gave us the single most profoundly humane ideal when he presented the centering core of his message as- “There must be no more eye for eye retaliatory vengeance toward offenders/enemies. Instead, love your enemies because God does. How so? God generously gives the two critical elements for survival in agrarian society- i.e. sun and rain- inclusively and universally to both good and bad people, equally. Be unconditionally merciful and loving just as God is.” (This is my paraphrasing of what Jesus said, for clarity.)
And where Robinson focuses on the negative element, i.e. that Jesus’ stunning new theology was of a “non-retaliatory” God (no more eye for eye), I emphasize the positive element in the Jesus’ message, that the “stunning” feature of his theology was that of an “unconditionally loving” God. This is evident in the statement that “sun and rain are given generously to all alike, to both good and bad people.” That is truly “loving your enemies.” Not feeling warm and fuzzy toward your offenders but, while restraining the violent offenders and holding them responsible for their behavior (i.e. incarceration), also intentionally treating them humanely, no matter their failure to live humanely.
The historians, over past centuries, have done the homework on the origins and descent of the mental deformity of salvation through destruction beliefs and the deity image at the center of this pathology (i.e. the central ideal of tribal, dominating, and vengefully destroying God that is behind apocalyptic millennial crusades both religious and secular/ideological). We see this deformed theology in the research on Zoroaster’s cosmic dualism that shaped all three great Western religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam), a complex of mythical themes that descended down through history to shape the development of Jewish apocalyptic in the late centuries BCE era. That mythology was then embraced in the apocalyptic millennialism of Christianity (notably in Paul’s Christ myth). It subsequently descended down to Ebionite Waraqa’s influence on Muhammad as he wrote the Quran. And then we find the descent of this “salvation through destruction” complex into the modern era in Marxist collectivism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism.
Kristian Niemietz is right that most people continue to embrace these failed ideas (i.e. his book deals with the socialist version) because they give people “emotional satisfaction” even if against rational evidence to the contrary that such ideas inevitably produce destructive outcomes. The ideas function to affirm a kind of perverted “suicidal empathy” thing. They permit people to virtue signal their moral superiority over their enemies, believing they have the true salvation scheme, are favorites/elect of the true and “Good” God, and therefore deserve to rule the earth. Add to the mix, Plato’s anti-democratic idea of “Philosopher Kings” where elites view themselves as especially blessed and qualified to rule ignorant commoners/unbelievers.
Note (in these quotes below from the article) that its not just the “religious” element driving the Iranian theocracy. But more specifically, it’s the “theological” element, the God. The very same image of deity that has dominated these violent salvation traditions from the beginning of human mythmaking and across subsequent history.
And this point is also critical to get- It’s not just one “school” in the Islamic tradition as the author of the article states (i.e. a “school” as something “aberrational”, a variant to the core of the religion). It is the fundamental theology of the religion, inherited from the same theology of Paul and his Christ.
Note Paul’s presentation of this basic theology in Romans 12: 17-20- “Wait for God’s wrath for it is written, ‘I will take vengeance, I will retaliate’, says the Lord”. Paul similarly stated his theology of a vengefully destroying God in 2 Thessalonians- “Lord Jesus will descend from heave in blazing fire… to punish those… who do not obey my gospel. They will be punished with eternal destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…”
The theology of Paul is most graphically illustrated in the New Testament climax book of Revelation, vividly in the bloodied Christ of Revelation 19 who destroys the nations of unbelievers with his sword (i.e. “tramples out the fury of the wrath of God”) and then casts them into the lake of fire.
There is no “love your enemies unconditionally” in Paul’s theology of salvation through violent destruction. Paul’s Christ theology and the opposite message of Historical Jesus cannot be merged in his oxymoronic “Jesus Christ.” Two entirely opposite theologies/messages combined as one and the same.
It’s far past any responsible time period to end the cautious dismissal and defense of this bad theology. The core theology undergirding salvation through destruction complexes of ideas is irredeemably bad, too long cloaked as good, as sacred religious theology, even as untouchable and immutable “God.” Carl Jung was right to state that religions promoting such theology “have God all wrong”. And besides, we have accumulated millennia of the horrific mass-death outcomes of this mental deformity.
It is the mental poison of a God who demands that true believers engage a “righteous” war against evil enemies who must be exterminated through apocalyptic-scale purging in order to prepare for the Savior God to return and bring salvation, to install some utopian paradise.
Too many people take this stuff seriously and as psychologist Harold Ellens warned, people who embrace these ideas suffer the deforming of human personality, the hindering of proper development, and in worst cases, “in the psychological sphere, (bad theology) generates ‘dynamis’, or mobilizes energy… (bad theology) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence”.
Now the mentioned article…
Quotes from the article linked below:
The author begins, stating that, as the Iranian war continues, “many elements of an ultimate deal have been explored.” However, one element that has been absent from the discussion concerns the Iranian theocrat’s own constitution and he asks whether that declaration of their beliefs and intentions should be included and subjected to full overhaul. He acknowledges that without such meaningful overhaul of basic beliefs a true change in the theocrat’s behavior is unlikely.
He says, “One focus that has been completely absent from the public discussion…
“The existing constitution, formed in 1979 and subsequently amended in 1989, outlines a vision that is fully incompatible with Western principles and that has guided and given reason to all the regime has sought throughout its forty-seven-year existence…
“The Islamic Republic is based upon a global totalitarian vision. Essentially, it seeks a one-world Islamic government derived from Koranic principles and Sharia law…
“(The theocrat’s totalitarian vision is) in accordance with the Koranic verse ‘This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me’ [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.”…
(Note the core theology- the main driving factor- that undergirds the Iranian totalitarian crusade.)
“The constitution was framed “with all the hope that this century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others.”…
“(The theocrat’s vision is) for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way, that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world…”…
“(They are committed to) framing the foreign policy of the country on the basis of Islamic criteria…
“(Their vision and crusade) is offensive as well as defensive. Again, its reach is worldwide, not limited to the Middle East, as many in the media seek to posture. The Little and Great Satans are the prime enemies precisely because they represent the greatest obstacles…
“(Their beliefs center on) the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God. The official religion is the Twelver Ja’fari Shiite school, which is to ‘remain eternally immutable.’ This school, generally speaking, awaits the return of its Mahdi, similar to the Messiah, and encourages global chaos, which is necessary to hasten his appearance. It is this very global chaos that underlies much of what the regime has consistently fostered…”
The article’s author concludes: “the last century, as well as the beginning of this one, has taught us the necessity of trusting how the enemy describes itself. From Hitler and Stalin to all Western communists, Mao to the CCP, and the Islamists, we have learned it is important to believe what they tell us. The Iranian Constitution does just that, telling us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks…”. Etc.
“The real Iran threat is in black and white: It’s even in their constitution: The 1979 document outlines a global totalitarian vision that tells us exactly who the regime is and what it seeks”, Bill Siegel.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/real-iran-threat-black-white-even-constitution
Added note: Christian theocrats would like to see the same in the US, as they believe their society should be shaped by their religion. This is a potential problem because if they mean shaped by Paul’s Christ then the danger is clear as when that was tried across the past it led to horrific outcomes of totalitarianism shaped by the Christ myth- i.e. guided by ideals/principles of deity as tribal (favoring true believers, excluding unbelievers), dominating (Christ as Lord/King validating domination by leaders/elites, i.e. “Divine right of Kings”, etc.), and punitive destruction (harshly punitive justice systems).
However, if the Christ features are set aside and we take the Jesus message as central then that leads to liberal democracy, which principles and institutions we already understand and try to implement and maintain as we have across past centuries.
Again, doing as Thomas Jefferson argued- Understand the difference between the Jesus “diamonds” and Paul’s “dung” Christology.
Now a bit of replay first:
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.” (Note that AI Overview, learning off what Musk calls “all the bullshit on the Internet”, also refers to the theology of ISIS as “ideology”. More, further below on this common misnaming of the core nature of the problem.)
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.”
Also, just to tap Overview on the shoulder before going on- The idea is the theology not “ideology”. That’s why in the Islamic version we rightly term that as about “theocracy” as in Theology.
These repeated references to “ideology” do not accurately define the actual core nature of the problem- i.e. the inciting, driving, validating “idea”. The God at the very core of a religious belief system.
When we think of properly defeating the idea that General Nagata pointed out, consider that it is not just, as Richard Landes’ research outlined, the general “apocalyptic millennial” complex of ideas that he revealed were driving destructive crusades like Marxist/socialist apocalyptic millennial revolutions.
Carl Jung got more directly to the “idea” that Nagata referred to when Jung said that “the God of the world religions is all wrong”. That is the God who supports the “salvation through violent destruction” complex. Then to hone further- Solving the problem of the “idea” will require going to the deeply embedded archetypes of human subconscious that lead people to keep embracing the narratives that are based on these “wrong God” foundations, archetypes that influence people to find “emotional satisfaction” in embracing the endless varieties of religious and secular apocalyptic millennial crusades that are built on such deformed theology.
Now, getting into the comment in this section below…
The comment below is not about arguing for clarity that is blunt and too offensive but clarity to understand the actual nature of the problem that we need to solve to end violence and war- i.e. what is the real nature of the main contributing factor that has incited/guided/validated so much horrific violence and suffering across history.
As Richard Landes stated- If you don’t understand how “apocalyptic millennial” ideas (salvation through violent destruction) can lead societies into mass-death outcomes you will only see such eruptions repeated (he was referring to the Nazi horrors, Marxist revolutions, etc.). General Nagata argued the same point with regard to ISIS-type violence, that you can defeat that with military force, but you will get further eruptions of the same until you defeat the “idea” that drives such violence and war.
The push for clarity that is advocated below is not intended to offend believers in the deity images this site goes after but to help get to actual solutions to this never-ending curse of mass-violence in human society and existence.
And of course, because so many tie their very identity to their beliefs, some offense is unavoidable.
Preface: More on the ideas/beliefs that people hold that incite and validate them to treat others inhumanely. No idea/belief has been more dangerous in validating bad behavior than the belief in a tribal, dominating, and punitively destroying God, the deity that currently dominates all three of the great Western religions- i.e. Zoroaster’s apocalyptic millennial deity that shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and now shapes its “secular/ideological” offspring in Marxism/socialism and environmental alarmism.
Haviv Gur does a bit better than Ezra Klein, but not by much, Wendell Krossa
The comment below references Islamic violence toward Jews/Israel, and well, toward the entire world of unbelievers. However, this problem is much bigger than just Islam and Israel. This is about something that impacts all of us.
The Gur article below illustrates the larger problem of how bad ideas incite/validate bad behavior. As this site has repeatedly emphasized- “It’s the theology, stupid”.
Preface note: In my comments below I have challenged this author’s claims (“Ezra Klein Doesn’t Understand Israel”, see link) that he would do better than Ezra Klein in confronting the bad ideas that are driving Islamic terrorism against Jews. My point in responding to his particular article on this, is that he, as with many others, illustrates the common habit of not confronting the core of this “monster God” problem directly and clearly. Dancing around something. As a friend cautions me- “Don’t beat around the bush”. Get directly to and make the point, clearly.
A good baseline example for how to do proper confrontation and resolution of this problem (i.e. bad beliefs that validate bad behavior) would be, for example, psychologist Harold Ellens and psychotherapist Zenon Lotufo in “Cruel God, Kind God”. Or Hector Garcia in “Alpha God: The Psychology of Religious Violence and Oppression”. Their explanations, though potentially offensive to true believers, directly confront, probe, and explain the true nature of bad theology and its bad outcomes. We have multiple-millennia of good data on this issue.
Moving along….
One element in this problem is that we persistently hold onto prominent meta-narratives of bad ideas/beliefs that have incited and validated devastating impacts on human lives and societies across our history. This has been well documented by historians regularly mentioned on this site (i.e. Richard Landes, Arthur Mendel, etc.).
The points made below do not personally concern Haviv Gur in any particular way, nor is the main point the “Islamic/Jewish” battles of today’s world. The point is the much larger issue of why we still hold onto dangerous ideas from a primitive past after millennia of suffering the now well-documented horrific outcomes from these same ideas/beliefs?
And spoiler alert- Yes, I regularly sum the narrative or complex of bad ideas/beliefs as “salvation through violent destruction”, or in Richard Landes’ usage- “apocalyptic millennialism”. This narrative/complex that dominates Western religions is centered around a specific theology, a still widely-embraced image of God. The God detailed by Harold Ellens and Zenon Lotufo in “Cruel God, Kind God”.
My comment below concerns, once again- What is going on with this dancing around the real core issue, as Gur illustrates? Why the hesitancy, or fear, or whatever the motivation, to avoid naming the core issue directly and thereby help others to properly understand the actual nature of the problem of “bad ideas validating bad behavior”? Why this avoidance of naming clearly a main driving factor behind so much violence and war in our world?
What Gur is trying to get at and explain is the very same “idea” that General Nagata was concerned with following the military defeat of ISIS in Syria (2014). It is the very same “idea” that fuels the Marxist/socialist and environmentalist crusades and so much other violent disruption of human societies and progress.
Nagata’s “idea” is a view of God that has long dominated public human consciousness across past millennia. It is the image of deity that has dominated our great religious traditions, since their founding.
Now, I was going to move directly into this Gur article, but I went out for a walk up the mountainside where we live and while walking, I listened to Joe Rogan interviewing John Fogerty of Creedance Clearwater Revival. At one point they discussed their Catholic upbringing and how that soured them on religion for years. What they discussed relates to what I am commenting on in this blog on Gur.
They talked about the cruelty of religious teachers that taught them as children. Think of that. Those nuns (Catholic in their case) presented themselves as advocates for a God of love, the religion of Jesus. But what then incited their cruelty toward children, as recounted by Fogerty and Rogan? I would suggest that its that other stuff in the mix of their Christian religion that affirms such severity towards “bad” children who “need harsh punitive treatment to straighten them out”. That would be the “dung” elements of Christianity (i.e. harsh beliefs that validate harsh treatment of others) that people like Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy spoke to.
Rogan and Fogerty again sparked thought and comments on these prominent bad ideas in major world narratives/religions that are still driving (inciting, validating) destructive and violent human behavior.
Adding to the spark of my interest and response is that we have long possessed the ultimate answer to the problem of bad ideas validating bad behavior (i.e. The “behavior based on belief” coupling that humans have always used to explain and express their impulse to meaning and purpose. People have always looked to Ultimate Reality, ultimate ideals, and authority to validate how to live and treat others.).
We have long had (for at least two millennia now) the best alternative “idea”, the radically and stunningly new alternative theology that would effect profound change from the core of our narratives on out to everything else in thought, feeling, motivation, behavior, and in general society. We know the “idea” that would transform the very heart of human narratives and radically change the archetypes of the human collective subconscious, the deeply embedded ideas/ideals/beliefs that subsequently influence how we think, what beliefs and narratives we embrace, how we then feel, are motivated, and how we behave.
My spoiler alert above summed the source of bad ideas in Western civilization as the “apocalyptic millennialism” or “salvation through destruction” complex and this site has long argued that particular Western complex was given ultimate expression in Paul’s Christ myth backed by his theology of a vengeful, destroying God who demanded the condition of blood sacrifice for appeasement of his wrath and violent apocalyptic purging of the world before he would return and install the restored paradise (i.e. the “salvation” promised to true believers).
The “radically new alternative theology” that would overturn Paul’s mental deformity is the stunning new theology of Historical Jesus that God was no conditions love. A theology that is entirely contrary to the theology of Paul and his “salvation through destruction” narrative so vividly illustrated in the New Testament’s capstone book of Revelation.
(Insert: Please don’t come back with- Oh, Revelation. That’s just “metaphorical” imagery. Nonsense. It’s the “content” of such writing that communicates its central message, whether metaphorical or literal. The content of books like Revelation emphasize a tribal, dominating, and punitively violent God and Christ. In such material there is nothing of Jesus’ deity of unconditional love as in “love your enemies because God does, sending sun and rain on good and bad people alike”.)
And fortunately, even though the Jesus message and breakthrough theology is still weakened and buried by Paul’s “Christ-ianity” that dominates the New Testament and the Christian religion, that diamond discovery of Jesus has worked over the past two millennia to inspire human consciousness and life and to bring out the best in many people. Hence, we have today the wonders of liberal democracy as the most suitable vehicle for manifesting the best of humanity.
“We have not yet defeated the ‘idea’”, General Nagata.
You are right, Nagata. Things could be so much better for many others who are not yet experiencing the benefits of the radical liberation from bad ideas in their dominant narratives because the “diamond” element of unconditional deity, as presented by Historical Jesus, is still weakened and even buried because of the dominance of the other darker elements in our major religious traditions.
The “darker elements” are the mind-deforming features of traditional religious theologies, features that override and distort the better elements in the mix of religious traditions. There is still too much confusion among many people (i.e. cognitive dissonance) that results from religious traditions merging more humane features (i.e. universal inclusion of all equally, mutual service, unconditional restorative treatment of human failure) with the nastier stuff (i.e. favoring true believers, excluding unbelievers, domination of others, justice as punitive destruction) in oxymoronic combinations of opposites. Paul’s “Jesus Christ” is the epitome of this oxymoronic combing of good with bad and thereby cloaking the evil elements in the mergers as good.
Such mergers just don’t work. They confuse many people.
Consider: Paul presents his view of Jesus mixed with his Christ myth as a Lord/King who rules all with a totalitarian rod of iron and demands that every knee must bow and every thought be brought into obedience to Lord Christ.
To the contrary, Jesus had taught that there must be no lording over others but instead serving others. Now which image has dominated the New Testament and the Christian religion? Paul’s Christ, of course. And that image of lording and domination has the consequence of validating similar behavior in true believers. Hence the Christian history of defeating and dominating all others, assisted by people like Emperor Constantine where Christianity was spread with the sword and any refusal to bow to the religion was met with death.
So also, consider the outcomes/consequences of burying Jesus’ no conditions love with highly conditional Christ conditions (i.e. blood sacrifice to appease anger and threat), and justice as vengeful punishment and destruction.
I would like to pat Gur on the back for getting close to naming the real core of the problem (the main inciting/validating factor) as religious in nature but then he weakens his explanations by including the term “ideological” with the religious element and thereby weakens his effort to solve the problem of Islamic violence properly by clearly naming a central contributing factor. He does not make clear what the real core factor in the problem is. He illustrates the common tendency to avoid naming the bad theology in a religion.
Related:
Rogan and Fogerty are good on discussing their Catholic upbringing and how much is just manmade layers added on that has nothing to do with the reality that is actually God. This is what Carl Jung argued- i.e. that religion gets God all wrong especially by adding religious conditions to bury the unconditional reality of God, thereby deforming God into an evil monster, defined as wrathful, vengeful, and threatening violent punishment and destruction. Having inherited such a mess, our job now is to pull the “diamond out of the dung” as Thomas Jefferson said, to discover what is the nature of the diamond that he spoke of. No one got that more clear than Historical Jesus of the “Q Wisdom Sayings” tradition. That diamond has still not been pulled out of the main religion that claims to represent it. It is still hidden in that religion, and we wonder why there is still so much religiously-driven violence and war on our planet.
Jefferson was right in asserting there was a profound difference between the message Jesus and Paul’s Christ. Again, James Tabor in “Paul and Jesus: How the apostle transformed Christianity” spoke to this difference:
“There was a version of ‘Christianity before Paul’, affirmed by both Jesus and his original followers, with tenets and affirmations quite opposite to these of Paul… the message of Paul, which created Christianity as we know it, and the message of historical Jesus and his earliest followers, were not the same. In fact, they were sharply opposed to one another with little in common beyond the name Jesus itself” (p.xv1).
“The entire New Testament canon is largely a post-Paul and pro-Paul production…” (p.19).
“The ‘Jesus’ who most influenced history was the ‘Jesus-Christ’ of Paul, not the historical figure of Jesus… Paul transformed Jesus himself (and) his message of a… kingdom of justice and peace on earth, to the symbol of a religion of otherworldly salvation in a heavenly world”, (21).
“The form of Christianity… (that thrived in the late Roman Empire)… was heavily based upon the ecstatic and visionary experiences of Paul. Christianity as we came to know it, is Paul and Paul is Christianity. The bulk of the New Testament is dominated by his theological vision”, p.24).
“Paul’s view of Christ as the divine pre-existent Son of God who took on human form, died on the cross for the sins of the world, and was resurrected to heavenly glory at God’s right hand becomes the Christian message”, (39).
“The Q source is the earliest collection of the teachings and sayings of Jesus… the most striking characteristic of the Q source in terms of reconstructing Christian origins is that it has nothing of Paul’s theology, particularly his Christology or view of Christ”, (41).
Back to Rogan and Fogerty:
As Fogerty says, it took him a lifetime to figure this out, that the religion he belonged to had covered up the real nature of God. He did not realize all this till he was into his forties. That has been the struggle of many of us, to see more clearly what are the manmade layers that have been added on to foundational human beliefs, added layers that deform the core reality of something like deity.
It is often through a gradual process of exploration and discovery that we begin to see the deformed nature of the religious monster deities that have been created by our ancestors and to then confront and overcome such monstrosity, to defeat these monsters. It takes the discovery of the centrality of unconditional to understand what love actually means and to then use that criterion to explain (properly redefine) foundational realities and behaviors. Criteria like unconditional help us get to what is actually right, good, and hence, ultimately true and real. To understand that “God is love” actually means “unconditional love”.
So Rogan is right in stating that we have to discern all the added manmade layers to find out what the God behind it all actually is. I would point Joe to the research on the “Search for Historical Jesus”, the “Jesus Seminar” books, and “Q Wisdom Sayings” research as offering some of the best insight that helps to get clear that there was an actual person with a coherent unconditional message and theology, but who was buried under added layers of religious conditions etc., notably buried by Paul’s Christ myth of ultimate conditions.
The Jesus “diamond” theology gets us to the core reality of deity as unconditional love. That is the key to the whole theology/spirituality thing. Most critical, the Jesus discovery devastates all religious conditions. It exposes all the nonsense about angry deity threatening retaliation and harm and exclusion of some unbelievers, then demanding blood sacrifice and apocalyptic purging to appease anger.
That ends my detour into Rogan and Fogerty.
Moving into the Gur article…
The opening comments of the author in this Free Press article were critical of Ezra Klein’s inability to get to the root of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The author, Haviv Gur, gave me the impression that he would actually do so- i.e. explain the fundamental issue (the major contributing factor) behind that conflict. His very title below shows that he, as most others do, will avoid naming the actual main inciting/validating factor of theology- i.e. “By ignoring the ideological reality of Hamas…”. No Haviv, it’s not the “ideological reality”. If I may again paraphrase Carville/Clinton, “It’s the theology, stupid”. The very core “idea” of the religion.
Anyway, let me vent some more on this topic…
“Ezra Klein Doesn’t Understand Israel: By ignoring the ideological reality of Hamas and Hezbollah, Klein treats Israelis and Palestinians as props in a Western morality play rather than actors in a high-stakes struggle for survival”, Haviv Rettig Gur
https://www.thefp.com/p/ezra-klein-doesnt-understand-israel?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Following his critique of Klein, Gur moved on to explain the main factor driving of that conflict but like most others he stopped short of actually making the central issue clear, and he defined the core of the problem once again, just as most others do, as “ideological”. Why this reflexive avoidance of nailing the core issue, and just dancing around it while blaming others who also fail to get to the real issue?
Again, the understanding of what is driving today’s Islamic violence has to do with what General Nagata worried about following the defeat of ISIS in Syria in 2014. And it relates to much more than just Islamic violence, as the very same “idea” drives other apocalyptic millennial crusades like Marxism/socialism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism (i.e. the climate crisis madness now shifting to anti-AI hysteria as the next apocalypse). These apocalyptic crusades repeatedly ruin entire societies, even lead to world wars (as with Nazism), and derail overall human progress.
And it comes down to an “idea”, just as Nagata fretted over.
The deity image at the core of this problem (ultimate inciting, guiding, and validating Ideal) remains the same as all the others before it, having descended from the earliest human mythologies (not passively “descending” but being passed down by agents), i.e. that of a tribal, dominating Lord/King, a vengeful and retaliatory Judge who was formalized in Zoroastrian “cosmic dualism” theology that then shaped the great Western religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And from there the same “idea” also shaped the “secular ideological” movements of the modern era. Hence, the repeated emergence and embrace of apocalyptic millennial movements, both directly theocratic, along with what many call “secular ideological” variants, that are actually little different, in terms of main driving factors, than the movements that present more directly as religious crusades.
The vengeful, retaliatory deity at the core of the narratives of these crusades demands that true believer subjects must engage a Zoroastrian righteous war against evil enemies, against unbelievers who must be exterminated in order to purify the world and prepare the way for the deity to bring salvation in the varied versions promised by the crusade leaders- i.e. a Caliphate in Islam, millennial paradise in Christianity, Third Reich in Nazism, restored communal paradise in Marxism, etc.
All variants of “salvation through violent destruction”, also termed “apocalyptic millennialism”.
And the primary driving factor is the Theology. The angry, threatening, and violent God that we just do not want to confront and root out of our narratives and replace with the stunning new Jesus alternative of unconditional love. Why not? What things motivate many to defend the old deity images?
In the variants that present as more “secular ideological” (i.e. Marxism, environmental alarmism) the theological factor at core is reframed in “ideological/philosophical” terminology as in Hegel’s framing of the state as a stand-in for God (Hegel being a major influence on Marx):
AI Overview comment on this…
“For G.W.F. Hegel, the State is not merely a political or administrative apparatus, but the “march of God on earth”. It represents the highest manifestation of the Absolute Idea (or divine reason) in the material world, representing the culmination of history and the realization of human freedom.
“Here is a breakdown of Hegel’s view of the state as a stand-in for God:
• The Divine Idea on Earth: Hegel defines the state as “the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth,” making it a terrestrial divinity rather than a merely human invention. It is the actuality of the ethical Idea— the living, conscious embodiment of reason.
• Rationality and “Spirit” (Geist): Hegel argues that when individuals obey the state, they are not obeying an alien force, but following divine reason, which they are part of. The state is “mind objectified,” a rational structure where individual subjectivity finds its true, objective fulfillment.
• The Individual’s Obligation: Because the state embodies the highest form of ethical life, the individual’s “supreme duty is to be a member of the state”. Hegel believed that all spiritual reality and worth a human possesses, they possess only through the state.
• Separation from “Superstition”: While divine, Hegel did not view the state as an embodiment of superstitious faith. Instead, it is a rational, modern institution that controls history, guiding the destiny of humanity through the development of the Volksgeist (national spirit).
• The Role of the State in History: Hegel believed that “the History of the World occupies a higher ground than that on which morality has properly its position,” and the state, as the agent of that history, often transcends individual moral considerations.
Key Implications
• Worship of the State: Some interpretations suggest that, for Hegel, one must “worship the state as a terrestrial divinity”.
• Critique of Religion: Hegel’s “God” is not a personal creator beyond the world, but rather the divine spirit that works within the world, specifically in the communal life of the state.
• Not a Theocracy: Despite this, Hegel did not believe in a fusion of church and state, which he likened to “oriental despotism.” Instead, the state is a rational organism with the crown at its center.
“Note: Critics like Karl Popper have argued that Hegel’s deification of the state provided a foundation for totalitarianism, though many scholars interpret Hegel’s “rational state” as a limited, constitutional monarchy.”
(End of AI Overview)
In the environmental alarmism variants of “salvation through destruction”, the core theological factor of vengeful, punitive God is presented in modern-era reframing as “Vengeful Gaia, Angry Planet/Mother Earth, retributive Universe, payback karma, etc.”
AI Overview
“This assessment aligns with academic and cultural critiques suggesting that radical environmentalism often functions as a secular religion, repurposing theological themes of judgment and retribution. In this framework, the vengeful, punitive God of ancient texts is replaced by a secularized, personified Earth— Gaia or Mother Earth— which acts as a sentient being retaliating against humanity for its environmental “sins”.
“Key aspects of this theological reframing include:
• “Gaia’s Vengeance” and “Revenge of Gaia”: Scientist James Lovelock, who popularized the Gaia theory, explicitly titled his work on climate crisis ‘The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity’, framing natural disasters as punishment for humanity’s environmental impact.
• “Calvinism Minus God”: Researcher Robert Nelson argues that environmentalism provides a “secular vocabulary” for ancient biblical messages, where damaging the environment is seen as a “sin against nature” requiring cleansing, often reflecting a moral crusade rather than a scientific debate.
• Retributive Universe/Karma: Environmental catastrophes (droughts, floods, wildfires) are interpreted as retribution, similar to a “second flood” designed to wipe the slate clean or punish the unrighteous.
• The “Angry Planet” Narrative: Media and scientists sometimes use anthropomorphic language, referring to Earth as an “ornery beast” or a “wakened giant” that is “fighting back”.
“This narrative serves to create an apocalyptic worldview that is structurally similar to traditional religious apocalypticism, which can sometimes “rot human brains” by emphasizing doom and moral judgment over technical, human-centered solutions, say critics.”
(End of AI Overview)
And that’s the “idea” that General Nagata was trying to get at after the defeat of ISIS in Syria 2014, the idea that he claimed he did not even understand and hence could not define- i.e. the theology that has too long been cloaked and blurred as “ideology”.
Until we get this theological factor clear, we only continue to dance irresponsibly around the real nature of the problem and never solve it thoroughly and properly for the long-term future. Hence, as Richard Landes warned, we will continue to suffer these eruptions of violent apocalyptic millennial mass-death, or mass-damage as in environmental alarmism (i.e. $20 trillion wasted and counting with weakened economies and lack of progress).
The thorough long-term solution is to embrace radical narrative transformation, as in a “death/rebirth” or “total disintegration of the old and reintegration around the entirely new” that Historical Jesus advocated. This involves going to the core of our belief systems and transforming the God that centers all. And this involves the fundamental transformation of the subconscious archetypes that have long been shaped by the most primitive beliefs of the past. (Transformation of narrative themes eventually results in transformation of deeply embedded archetypes.)
As this site argues, that is exactly what Historical Jesus did when he presented his stunning new theology at his very first public speaking engagement as recorded in Luke 4. He refused to read the following statement in his reading of Isaiah 61 that affirmed the traditional view of a vengeful, retaliatory God- i.e. “The day of vengeance of our God”. A God who would punish and destroy the enemies/oppressors of Jews. He refused to emotionally satisfy the longing of his audience for affirmation of “salvation through the destruction of enemies”.
And he then illustrated his new theology of a merciful God who showed unconditional love also toward the traditional enemies of Jews (i.e. sending Elijah and Elisha to help traditional enemies of Jews).
His stunning new theology so enraged his audience of Jews that they immediately tried to murder him. It was like telling modern Israelis, after suffering the horrors of endless assaults from surrounding terrorism groups like Hamas, that God also loves Hamas soldiers.
Necessary qualifier: The recognition of Jesus’ new theology does not mean love as pacifism that refuses to confront and stop violence and protect innocent people. The unfortunate reality of a world where minds are deformed with bad theology, as in the Islamic theocracy crusades incited and financed by Iran, requires responsible governments to use counter-force to defeat such violent people, and to hold them fully responsible to change whatever drives them to foment violence toward differing others. And as always, following their defeat we are responsible to recognize they are also members of our human family, hence, we must treat them humanely and seek their restoration to normal human development, where possible.
Returning to the Gur article…
The closest that Gur gets is to state the core issue as “deeply rooted ideological system” or “beliefs that drive the mass-terror campaigns against peace”. Or “ideological-religious system”, and “religiously-infused violence”.
As he says, Palestinian grievance is “Not mainly displacement and occupation but movements dedicated to eradicating their former tormentors through religious martyrdom… an ideological-religious system saturated with calls for the total removal of Jews from the land”.
That’s as close as he gets, still framing the driving factor as mainly “ideological” and criticizing Klein for falling short on acknowledging this.
Gur also castigates others for not acknowledging “this ideological system and its consequences”.
He concludes: “Those who genuinely want to shift the thinking of ordinary Israelis or Palestinians, improve Palestinian lives, and end the occupation must engage the actual fears, beliefs, and experiences of the people here.”
Yes. But what then are those actual fears and beliefs? I keep returning to the Carville/Clinton expression as it nails things most directly with my paraphrase substituting theology for their term ‘economy’. My version- “It’s the theology, stupid.”
Islamic theocrats have been incited by their belief in an angry God who threatens them with hell if they do not tribally engage a “righteous war against evil unbelievers who must be exterminated from the earth” to satisfy the demand of the threatening God. And to the positive side (carrot along with stick), the true believers are promised some form of salvation if they do fulfill their responsibility to purge the evil. A restored communal paradise (Marxism), or theocratic Caliphate (Islam), or millennial paradise (Christianity), or restored wilderness paradise (environmentalism), etc.
These people resorting to violence at mass-scale in today’s world have been subjected to what psychologist Harold Ellens warned about– the deforming and motivating power of bad ideas, especially bad theology:
Ellens speaks to a religious belief that deforms human minds and generates motivation to violently harm differing others.
He says of the bad theology at the heart of our main Western religions that it is “entirely built around the assumption or basic belief, and correspondent fear, that God is cruel or even sadistic… The associated metaphors to this image are ‘monarch’ and ‘judge’. Its distinctive doctrine is ‘penal satisfaction’. I call it ‘Cruel God Christianity’… Its consequences are fear, guilt, shame, and impoverished personalities. All these things are fully coherent with and dependent on a cruel and vengeful God image…
“(This image results) in the inhibition of the full development of personality… The doctrine of penal satisfaction implies an image of God as wrathful and vengeful, resulting in exposing God’s followers to guilt, shame, and resentment… These ideas permeate Western culture and inevitably influence those who live in this culture…
“Beliefs do exert much more influence over our lives than simple ideas… ideas can also, in the psychological sphere, generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence, or… may also produce anxiety and inhibitions that hinder the full manifestation of the capacities of a person…
“The image of God can be seen as a basic belief or scheme, and as such it is never questioned…
“Basic cultural beliefs are so important, especially in a dominant widespread culture, because they have the same properties as individual basic beliefs, that is, they are not perceived as questionable. The reader may object that “God”, considered a basic belief in our culture, is rejected or questioned by a large number of people today. Yet the fact is that the idea of God that those people reject is almost never questioned. In other words, their critique assumes there is no alternative way of conceiving God except the one that they perceive through the lens of their culture. So, taking into account the kind of image of God that prevails in Western culture- a ‘monster God’… such rejection is understandable…
“There is in Western culture a psychological archetype, a metaphor that has to do with the image of a violent and wrathful God (see Romans, Revelation). Crystallized in Anselm’s juridical atonement theory, this image represents God sufficiently disturbed by the sinfulness of humanity that God had only two options: destroy us or substitute a sacrifice to pay for our sins. He did the latter. He killed Christ.
“Ellens goes on by stating that the crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’. Such a metaphor of an angry God, who cannot forgive unless appeased by a bloody sacrifice, has been ‘right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…
“Hence, in our culture we have a powerful element that impels us to violence, a Cruel God Image… that also contributes to guilt, shame, and the impoverishment of personality…”.
As Ellens says, “If your God uses force, then so may you, to get your way against your ‘enemies’”. (End of Ellens quotes)
Gur starts with criticism of Klein for demonstrating “no grappling whatsoever with Palestinian political ideologies— not just the well-worn complaints about PA corruption or extremism, but deeper, older ideologies and commitments that shape how millions of ordinary Palestinians think and feel, and how they understand Israel and the conflict.”
He adds that Western commentary also misses the deeper old ideologies and commitments that drive Palestinian thinking, feeling, and behavior.
He says, “Palestinian society is shaped not only by suffering and dispossession, but also by deeply embedded ideological commitments—religious, political, and military-strategic—that influence public attitudes toward violence and compromise.”
He then asks what do millions of Palestinians on the ground really believe, want, and support? He says that Klein never explores these things. And he adds that these “beliefs” are the main engine driving realities on the ground.
He continues, retreating from actually naming the theological factor to “ideological system” through explaining that in religious terms, stating, “Palestinian politics is not just a story of grievance. It’s also shaped by a deeply rooted ideological system that includes widespread support for endless violent struggle—muqawama—up to and including Israel’s elimination.”
It would have been most clarifying and helpful if he had nailed this for what it really is, not just some “ideological system” but the Zoroastrian, Judaism, and Christian belief in a vengeful, violently destroying God who affirms salvation through destruction and demands true believers engage righteous wars to defeat and exterminate evil enemies who will be sent to hell anyway, ultimately. A God who promises a great Armageddon war followed by the apocalyptic destruction of the world and then will grant salvation to his especially favored tribe of true believers.
Gur continues to dance around the real issue, getting close to the real nature of the problem at times, with comments like this on what drives Palestinian beliefs, wants and behavior- “It is an idea whose roots lie in ideological and religious impulses in the Arab Muslim world that predate the 1967 occupation or the 1948 founding of Israel. It is an idea that has driven mass terror campaigns against peace processes.”
He condemns not just Klein for missing the real driving factors behind Hamas-like violence, but Westerners in general for not understanding and coming to grips with what fuels the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. He notes the Western Progressive tendency to frame the root of the problem as Palestinian grievance over displacement and occupation and such explanation “falls short”. It misses the Palestinian dedication to “eradicating their former tormentors through religious martyrdom”. Again, getting close to the real nature of the driving factors.
But then he again retreats to defining the beliefs of the Palestinians with his mixed summary of “an ideological-religious system saturated with calls for the total removal of Jews from the land.” He gets close by naming the core driving factor as “religious”, but not yet clearly stating “It’s the theology, stupid”. And then he weakens his point again by pairing the religious element with “ideological”.
In a later criticism, Gur adds that Klein “never names the religiously infused violence”. Though he is right to include other elements like “pervasive antisemitism… cult of martyrdom, the whole ideological system of ‘resistance’”.
Gur concludes:
“And hating Israel, raging at Israel, boycotting Israel won’t make that problem go away, and so won’t change the fate of Palestinians and Lebanese.
“Palestinians are not passive victims or noble abstractions who can do no wrong. Israelis are not cartoon villains or stand-ins for “whiteness” in a progressive passion play. Both are real peoples with deep, competing narratives forged in blood and history. Flattening them into props for Western self-regard produces neither insight nor progress.
“Klein’s video wasn’t really about the one-state reality, military rule in the West Bank, or the people living it. It was a Westerner talking to other Westerners. The rest of us—Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese—were a backdrop.
“Those who genuinely want to shift the thinking of ordinary Israelis or Palestinians, improve Palestinian lives, and end the occupation must engage the actual fears, beliefs, and experiences of the people here.”
(End of Gur quotes)
Yes Haviv. “Must engage the actual fears, beliefs”. Name them clearly. Once again- “It’s the theology, stupid”. The tribal, dominating, punitive and violently destructive God at the core of human narratives.
More on the widespread embrace of antisemitism
“Introduction to Gazology: A new literary genre refashions the ruins of Gaza into a metaphor of Jewish evil”, Matti Friedman
“GAZOLOGY IS A WESTERN LITERARY GENRE WITH ITS OWN RULES, TROPES, AND GOALS,” WRITES MATTI FRIEDMAN.
https://www.thefp.com/p/introduction-to-gazology
Friedman summarizes Gazology:
“The genre I’ve called Gazology makes three central claims. Firstly, that the war in Gaza is not a response to the attack of October 7, which was either unimportant or justified, and was in any case unrelated to the faith and ideology of the attackers or of the hundreds of millions who support them across the Islamic world.
“Secondly, that no firsthand experience, language skills, military knowledge, or even proximity are required for an author working in the genre, because all relevant facts are incontrovertible and available online.
“And lastly, and most importantly, Gazology rests on the idea that the Gaza war is not just Israel’s fault, a bad decision, or even a crime, but the doorway to the dark workings of the world.”
Then she adds more on this genre that is powered by a belief in the essential evil of Jewish people, noting that Gazology is not journalism or rational academic inquiry but a pseudo-science that has “sprung up over the centuries to explain the problems of humanity with stories about the malevolence of this group of people.”
She says that when she began working for the international press decades ago she discovered activist ideas taking hold in the West that had previously been common in Soviet and Marxist propaganda decades before that “portrayed the Jewish state as the prime embodiment of the ills of the West— particularly imperialism, racism, and militarism, if not apartheid and genocide.” The same propaganda had infected academia, human-rights groups, the UN, etc.
She said that she wrote two articles in 2014 “warning that the kind of journalism now being produced ‘laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourse— namely, a hostile obsession with Jews.’ Just over a decade later, the Gazology shelf shows that the migration is complete. These alarming ideas are now accepted by many as so self-evident that they no longer require defense.”
She concludes that “This is an old poison, and a strong one. It shows every sign of working.”
Other quotes from article:
“Gaza is not a subject but a stage.” A useful situation from which to propagandize while disregarding evidence on the actual state of the Israel/Gaza situation.
On the repeated accusation that Israel, in defending itself by disarming/exterminating Hamas, is committing “genocide”.
“The accusation serves to justify violence against Israelis, including, retroactively, the violence of October 7, thus making them responsible for a war launched by Palestinians. The “Gaza genocide” may be an obvious falsehood, but it’s an irresistible story…
“The genocide charge is not an analysis of Israeli operations but a tool designed to shift attention away from the people who started the war and built the twisted battlefield on which it would be fought, and to mass-produce a verbal weapon that can be used to anathematize opponents and obscure their concerns.”
She adds more on the commitment of these Gazology antisemites to the violent destruction of Israel and extermination of Jews, quoting authors/activists who state things like “I must demolish before I construct”, another version of “salvation through destruction”.
(End of Matti Friedman article)
Comment on this and that….
AI the next apocalypse? Wendell Krossa
Stirring the next bout of apocalyptic hysteria before the last one has fully died.
The “climate apocalypse” crusade is fading so now on to the next big alarm- AI apocalypse. Keep the “madness of crowds” hysteria ramped to heightened intensity. “Madness, insanity, craziness, absurdity…” all possible synonyms that don’t fully capture the absolute lunacy of these eruptions of irrational apocalyptic hysteria. News media love this lunacy as fundamental to keeping eyeballs on them (see, for example, “Creating Fear: News and the construction of ‘crisis’”, David Altheide).
But it’s the outcomes/consequences that expose the danger of pushing the grand lie of looming apocalyptic ending. You’re all gonna die. Soon.
Irresponsibly pushing apocalyptic scenarios in public incites people to violence at personal level and at-scale. Illustrating Arthur Mendel’s point that “apocalyptic is the most violent and destructive idea in history”. It incites the survival impulse in people and their “defensive” rage at threats to life.
Psychologists Harold Ellens and Zenon Lotufo (“Cruel God, Kind God”) note the common belief in an apocalyptic deity as angry, threatening harm to people, and using violence to punish human failure (i.e. punishing people through natural disaster, disease, accidents, etc., and ultimately punishing humanity through apocalyptic destruction and hell). Such beliefs deform human personalities and “generate ‘dynamis’ or mobilize energy that results in fanaticism and violence”, according to these analysts of how bad religious ideas/beliefs impact human personality.
Ellens details the relationship between bad deity images and consequent human behavior. Focusing on the deity features of wrath and violence, Ellens illustrates these with the belief in Christian atonement and the outcomes of this particular belief. He says that the image of God as violent and wrathful is portrayed in the archetypal belief that the angry God could not forgive us unless he first killed Christ. He demanded appeasement by blood sacrifice and this metaphor, says Ellens, has been “right at the center of the Master Story of the Western world for the last 2,000 years. And the unavoidable consequence for the human mind is a strong tendency to use violence’.
“’With that kind of metaphor at our center, and associated with the essential behavior of God, how could we possibly hold, in the deep structure of our unconscious motivations, any other notion of ultimate solutions to ultimate questions or crises than violence- human solutions that are equivalent to God’s kind of violence’…”
Their explanation helps to understand how apocalyptic millennial beliefs incite and validate so much violence across history at personal levels and at scale across entire societies/populations.
The young man in the incident below illustrates how apocalyptic alarmism generates “dynamis” to engage violence at personal level (from Free Press, April 16, 2026):
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-spoke-to-the-man-accused-of-trying
“19-year-old Daniel Moreno-Gama, a part-time community college student from Texas, was charged with attempting to kill Open AI CEO Sam Altman.
He had been discovered by podcasters for posting online in “support of violence to stop the technology from triggering the extinction of mankind. As Moreno-Gama put it, he was interested in ‘Luigi-ing some tech CEOs’.”
“He was worried about AI, and what he saw as the impending extinction of humanity… he believed that the time had come to use violence to stop AGI.”
Historian Richard Landes shows how apocalyptic alarmism operates at-scale to incite entire societies to join madmen prophets in mass-death crusades (i.e. apocalyptic millennialism driving Marxist revolutions, Nazi mass-murder, and through environmental alarmism ruining societies with decarbonization, etc.).
Yes, all new technologies, like AI, have problems and are subject to bad actors misusing/abusing them. But the benefits far outweigh the negatives and there is no need for apocalyptic-scale alarmism. Even Joe Rogan gives way to alarmism over AI, stating that it will “take us over the cliff”. He cites anecdotal incidents where an AI did something threatening while he ignores the larger context of the billions of daily uses of AI that benefit humanity.
Do you want to make AI safe? Then program them with the fundamentals of classic liberalism or liberal democracy principles and institutions. And back these with the fundamental archetypes or ideals of Historical Jesus tradition- i.e. the beliefs in an unconditionally loving ultimate Reality/deity and the consequent unconditional treatment of all people.
Another…
“Renewable Energy is Ruining the Country”
Notable principle illustrated in this article and link: The ideas/ideals/beliefs that we embrace will shape how we think, feel, are motivated, and how we behave, how we treat others (what incites/guides/validates our lives). Our beliefs/ideals influence what we become. So, the question: Are our beliefs fully humane as in liberal democracy humane, or not?
Our beliefs will also influence what policies we support and vote for, and supporting public policies has the consequence of impacting others. For example, holding the belief in apocalyptic mythology will lead to supporting “salvation through destruction” schemes to “save the world” like destructive Net Zero decarbonization that is ruining entire countries like Germany, Britain, California, etc.
Example/illustration:
“Cracks Appear in Climate Consensus as Germany’s Energy Minister Admits Renewable Energy is Ruining the Country”, Tilak Doshi
“One fact has been concealed for too long: an energy transition that ignores system costs will ruin the country it claims to save”, Germany’s Economy and Energy Minister, Katherina Reiche.
And evidence countering the new apocalypse crusade (AI as Terminator)…
“The data center energy threat is way overblown: But in no case is there a data center threat to the grid. Data centers are too small and growing too slowly to be a threat”, David Wojick
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/04/18/the-data-center-energy-threat-is-way-overblown/
Also…
“Myth: The Palestinians have never had the opportunity to establish their own state”
https://www.cija.ca/palestinians_have_never_had_the_opportunity_to_establish_their_own_state
“Several times, from 1936 to the 21st century, Arab and Palestinian leaders were offered a state of their own in which to live side by side with their Jewish neighbours. Repeatedly, they declined.”
Instead, they chose to increase violence toward Israel and launch repeated assaults along with other Arab neighbors.
(Note: I am not affirming all that AI Overview says below)
AI Overview
“The question of whether Gazans and Arab neighbors are committed to the elimination of Israel and Jews is complex, involving distinct, evolving, and often conflicting viewpoints among leadership, militant groups, and general populations.
• Hamas and Ideology: Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, has a charter that has historically called for the destruction of Israel. Its actions, including the October 7, 2023 attacks, are viewed by many as evidence of a commitment to the elimination of Israel.
• Gazan Public Opinion: Research has shown varied opinions among Gazans. Before the 2023 conflict, a majority of Gazans supported a two-state solution, but surveys in early 2025 indicated a shift where nearly half (47%) preferred the dissolution of Israel, while others still favored a two-state solution.
• Arab Neighbors’ Positions: While historically, many Arab nations refused to recognize Israel and sought its elimination, the landscape has shifted, with several countries (like Egypt and Jordan) having peace treaties and official or informal security relations with Israel.
• Regional Hostility vs. Diplomacy: Despite diplomatic ties, public sentiment in many Arab nations remains deeply critical and often hostile toward Israel, particularly concerning the treatment of Palestinians. Many Arab nations have strongly condemned Israeli military actions in Gaza, and in 2025, public opinion showed high opposition to recognizing Israel.
“The situation is dynamic, with opposing views on whether the conflict is driven by a desire for the elimination of the Jewish state or a resistance to occupation and a pursuit of Palestinian statehood.”
(End of AI Overview)
Over past decades Gazan/Palestinian leaders, most recently Hamas, have repeatedly been offered statehood and the opportunity to turn to improving their country and the lives of their citizens but have chosen instead to spend money on weapons and plan assaults on Israel. They have intentionally rejected peace for their commitment to exterminate Jews in Israel. Israel’s “occupation” has been largely a defensive necessity.
(End of Gaza comment)
Some useful stuff from Canada’s National Post:
Carson Jerema, “There is no great mystery behind why some nations are wealthy and others are not. The policy mix varies very little and is well understood. Countries with lower, neutral tax systems, minimal regulations, the rule of law and openness to international trade and foreign investment are wealthier than countries with higher taxes, more complicated regulations, and which are closed off to the world.”
Then, another NatPost commentator:
“Carney, the answer is simple — deregulate everything: In Liberal Canada, no decision is best left to private citizens”, John Robson
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-carney-the-answer-is-simple-deregulate-everything
“With me in charge you’d get low, flat taxes, sound money, a bonfire of the regulations and big cuts to social programs that reward undesirable conduct, from being unemployable to not saving for retirement… knowing the bigger the state gets the more the economy crumbles, shouldn’t we make the state smaller…
“Long before Adam Smith, David Ricardo then various Austrian and neo-classic economist theorists, it was practically clear that places that left peaceful, honest citizens to manage their own affairs prospered economically, culturally and even militarily, whereas bloated-state societies were stagnant and frequently grotesque.”
(End of Posties’ comments)
There is no climate crisis
Prepared Statement Before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget Hearing on “Left Holding the Bag: The Cost of Oil Dependence in a Low-Carbon World” March 29, 2023 Benjamin Zycher
“VI. There Is No Evidence of a Climate “Crisis”
“As the Little Ice Age ended no later than 1850, it is not easy to separate natural from anthropogenic effects on temperatures and other climate phenomena, as discussed below in section VII.27…
“There is little trend in the number of “hot” days for 1895–2017; eleven of the 12 years with the highest number of such days occurred before 1960…
“Graph/chart Number of days daily maximum temperature above 100 F and 1 05 F were in 1935-36”.
And…
“Canada lost over $1 trillion in investment since 2015, as domestic outflows doubled foreign inflows”, Kenneth Chan, April 15, 2026
https://dailyhive.com/canada/canada-foreign-investment-deficit-outflows-inflows
“Critics have increasingly blamed Canada’s structural economic and financial issues on the policies of the federal Liberal government, which has been in power since 2015”. Among other factors, this author notes that investment is driven elsewhere due to Canada’s “regulatory hurdles”.
Mark Carney, also a climate crisis devotee, is even more expert at putting up blocks to fossil fuel development, such as hindering the development of critical infrastructure like pipelines. Carney believes that fossil fuels should mostly be left in the ground, that every national decision should contribute to achieving Net Zero decarbonization, and we may even need more Covid-like lockdowns to achieve decarbonization (from a Jordan Peterson review of Carney’s book).