Continuing with the battle of good against evil, the most basic of human struggles for meaning and purpose.
If historians like Richard Landes (“Heaven on Earth”) are right that “apocalyptic millennialism” beliefs had a significant influence in driving the Marxist revolutions of last century with the mass-death outcomes that we now know resulted, and if he is right that this same complex of beliefs also drove Nazism with its mass-death totals, and if he is right that these same core themes in Paul’s Christology are driving the apocalyptic crusade of climate alarmism, then apocalyptic millennialism (also known as “salvation through violent destruction”) is, as Arthur Mendel said, the most violent and destructive idea in history. (He referenced specifically “apocalyptic”)
And it is then beyond egregiously irresponsible to continue to cloak this evil as good, as divine, to continue to defend and protect it in our major world religions and in “secular/ideological” variants.
Adding to the sense of egregious irresponsibility is that for two millennia we have had the entirely opposite complex of themes in, for example, the humane message of Historical Jesus. Further, notable public figures have made clear the striking contrasts between the message of Jesus and Paul’s entirely opposite themes. I am referring to public figures like American Founder Thomas Jefferson who bluntly termed the message of Jesus “diamonds” as contrasted with Paul’s Christology as “dung”, or “the product of lesser minds”. Leo Tolstoy added his similarly blunt descriptives of Paul’s contrary message.
Some of you will be highly offended by such blunt language. See the section below on the AI comment on the psychology of true believer rage at challenge to core belief systems like Paul’s Christ myth. We get that religious rage is a survival response. We see this rage in the response of that Jewish audience to Jesus’ first public presentation of his stunning new theology of an unconditional God. Rejection of the long-standing belief in vengeful, retaliatory God incites murderous rage in true believers.
The challenge here is to responsibly acknowledge the proven history of outcomes from the beliefs that we embrace in our narratives. We know now from, for example, the continuing eruption of violence in the contemporary Islamic theocracy crusade (notably Iran) that people do become just like the God that they believe in. We know how dangerous bad ideas/beliefs are because they incite and validate the worst of our inherited impulses to (1) tribalism, (2) defeat and domination of differing others, and (3) vengeful, violent destruction of differing others. These are the “evil triad” impulses inherited from our animal past. (Qualifier: The same violence has stained the histories of all three major Western religious traditions.)
And, though this will be difficult for many to even consider, the “salvation through destruction” that energizes the Iranian theocracy crusade, that same complex of basic themes also motivates the climate apocalypse crusade. Again, check out the research of historians like Richard Landes, Arthur Mendel, David Redles, Arthur Herman, and others who are repeatedly referenced on this site.
This battle against the inherited animal is fought most critically inside each one of us. As Solzhenitsyn wisely stated, the real battle of good against evil is not fought at the societal level of one class against another. The real battle against the real evil in life is an intensely personal battle that takes place inside each one of us. Joseph Campbell also referenced this with his “Hero’s Quest” framework that helpfully outlines our individual life stories.
New material…
“The Real Error is the Error of Living under a Perfectionist God”, Bob Brinsmead
This site repeats a complex of ideas/themes in varied new material posted here. Why?
I often reference the writing of Bob Brinsmead, along with the many others who are quoted in comments/essays on this site (i.e. research sources). I have done extensive homework across past decades drawing on research from, for example, the history of myths/mythologies, the descent of the same complex of fundamental ideas/beliefs down across history, beliefs that have repeatedly shaped subsequent human narratives both religious and secular/ideological.
I have researched specific areas of mythology that dominate human narratives such as the “apocalyptic millennialism” complex of beliefs, also known as “salvation through destruction” (i.e. the Zoroastrian theological framework). I have read widely on the “Search for Historical Jesus” and its latest phase in the “Jesus Seminar”, along with “Q Wisdom Sayings” research (Robinson, Kloppenborg, Patterson, etc.). And aside from probing numerous diverse strains of “theology”, I have also probed research from varied other disciplines such as human progress studies (i.e. Julian Simon’s ground-breaking work in “Ultimate Resource”). Add to research interests- disciplines like economics, politics, social trends and issues, varied areas of science (Who isn’t fascinated, for example, by Quantum mechanics stuff?), and notably “climate science”, etc., etc.
Honing in on the point in this new section…
This site presents an alternative complex of basic ideas/themes as replacements for the primitive themes in the major public narratives that we have inherited. This site explores the entirely opposite insights and ideas of historical sages like iconic Jesus to shape more humane narratives (Note: I am not a “believer” in Jesus but an admirer of his message, like Jefferson and others).
I repeatedly relate these new alternative themes to varied contemporary issues, exploring and discussing different angles of presentation and application.
My commentary is located within the larger framework of the human meta-story of our grand exodus from our animal past and our progress toward a liberal democracy future. Liberal democracy is the best that humanity has discovered for organizing human societies and encouraging truly human existence (helping us to restrain our worst inherited impulses and to promote our common human spirit).
The question naturally follows of exactly what themes/insights/beliefs then function best to shape our meta-narratives to inspire, guide, and energize us to promote that liberal democracy future, as contrasted with what specific themes continue to incite the worst in people to derail our progress? See, for example, my lists of contrasting themes…
“Humanity’s worst ideas, better alternatives (Old story themes, new story alternatives).”
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=9533 ,
“The complex of ‘bad religious ideas’ that have darkened and enslaved human minds from the beginning” (short versions below with Grok’s comments on them)
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=13571#more-13571 ,
“The Christ myth buried the singularly profound insight of Historical Jesus. The project to recover that insight involves ‘separating diamonds from dung’ (Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy)”
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=8664 ,
and
“Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025),” Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14451
The narrative transformation that I am proposing is at the level and scale of a grand “death/rebirth”, a complete “disintegration of the old and reintegration around the entirely new”. This is not a project or process for faint-spirited people.
Note: Bob Brinsmead has a new essay on rethinking/rejecting the traditional image of a perfectionist God. I have posted his essay below, including some AI response to his essay. Brinsmead is one of the best theological minds to have ever graced this planet. And I have read a lot of them from all across history.
More from Bob coming soon…
Now another illustration of how people miss or intentionally avoid confronting the critical issue of “It’s the theology, stupid”. The point is- Are we are really serious about solving the problem of violence and war? Wendell Krossa
This example of reporting below continues to make the mistake of framing the threat as “ideologically” driven. That dodge misses what military force is not defeating- i.e. “the idea” that actually drives so much of this endlessly resurging violence. The persistence of the core “idea” also explains why Marxism/collectivism was not defeated with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yes, Soviet communism “ultimately collapsed under sustained and determined pressure” due in part to opposing Western economic/military force. But “the idea” driving communism was not defeated and today continues to infect and deform minds, even in the US (i.e. the 51% of youth who favor socialism today).
This type of report below does not point to the real nature of “the idea” and therefore does not help readers understand how to properly solve the problem of theocratic violence. The idea is not “ideological”.
Again, this report illustrates our inability, or intentional refusal, to confront and name clearly the core inciting and validating factor of bad religious ideas and particularly bad beliefs/images of God that continue to drive so much tribal hatred and violence just as they have across past history. Why our defensiveness and avoidance with regard to theology?
And yes, the other elements of economics, ideology, etc. are also in the mix of contributing factors but this site argues that the theology is a dominant factor.
The author, trying to explain the persistence of the Iranian theocracy, says, “a radical clerical mafia whose nature was neither fully understood nor seriously examined”. But then he immediately follows by stressing the need to look at “the ideological foundations”. He suggests that the failure to resolve the persisting threat from Iran was because, “Even its core texts were never meaningfully studied”. OK, but then why name those core texts as “ideological”?
He appears to argue, overall, for properly going to the inciting roots of the problem- i.e. the beliefs/ideas that drive the theocrats.
“(Khomeinism) created a vacuum that was filled not by democratic forces, but by a radical clerical mafia whose nature was neither fully understood nor seriously examined. Critical warnings were dismissed. The ideological foundations of Khomeinism were underestimated. Even its core texts were never meaningfully studied by those responsible for shaping policy.”
All good suggestions that appear to take the problem of Iranian violence seriously, suggestions of wanting to “defeat the idea” that drives their crusade.
At varied points in his report he peripherally seems to get close to the real nature of this threat, stating, “(The Iranian theocracy leadership was) effectively a Shia Islamic caliphate centered in Tehran” and “Its ideological foundation… remains unchanged”. But then he repeatedly frames the driving ideas behind Khomeinism as “ideological”, thereby again dodging the opportunity to name its true nature. Also, he later notes the durability/resilience of that theocracy even after suffering pushback from US military and economic pressure, “The system absorbs impact unless something deeper breaks.”
He ends, noting that more than “military/economic pressure” is needed to solve this theocratic threat, pointing to “decisive structural change” and the need for the “beginning of historic change”. But he does not clarify the actual nature of what drives Iranian theocracy, that, again, “It’s the theology, stupid”.
Richard Landes is among the few who have correctly warned us that if we are serious about preventing further repeated eruptions of mass-death from crusades like Marxism and Nazism then we must recognize the true nature of the ideas/beliefs that drive these crusades- i.e. the “apocalyptic millennial” complexes of beliefs that incite, validate, and energize entire societies to embrace such mass-death crusades.
Apocalyptic millennialism is the complex of ideas/beliefs that Paul used to construct his “Christ-ianity”, a complex also known as “salvation through violent destruction”. We are currently suffering ongoing threats to liberal democracy from the main contemporary embodiments of this “theology”- i.e. from resurging Marxist/collectivism, Islamic theocracy, and from environmental alarmism, with the historical source of these offspring crusades- i.e. Christian theocracy- moderated, but still simmering in the background. The Christian version of apocalyptic millennialism remains the dominant source that has validated apocalyptic millennialism across the history of Western civilization.
Let me reframe the real issue here, using the author’s terms- The “ideological source” of the Iranian theocrats is not “ideological”. It is “theological”. And that is why their theocratic crusade is so “durable and resilient”. Why it continues to “absorb impacts and does not break” but resurges repeatedly after military and economic defeats. It has not been subjected to “structural change”. The “something deeper” has not been “broken” and defeated. That being the theology or the God that is the Cohering core/center of apocalyptic millennial narratives.
Notes:
What psychology is operating behind this common avoidance of naming the real nature of the ideas that drive such violence? Why the constant retreat to naming the driving ideas as “ideology” instead of naming the real nature as “theology”, as in the core beliefs of the religion?
Is it fear of being smeared for “Islamophobia”?
To start with a helpful balancing qualifier- Its not just Islam. This is about core beliefs/themes that are common to all religions. While the theology of Islam presents a God who threatens hellfire on almost every page of the Quran, so also there are hundreds of threats of divine violence, vengeful punishment, and destruction in the Christian bible from a similarly wrathful and retaliatory image of God.
And to get the full big picture, go back to the fountainhead of this theology in Zoroastrianism, and then even further back to the earliest human writing (Sumerian) where angry deities like the waterworks god Enlil threatened to destroy all people through the earliest version of apocalypse- i.e. a great flood. And go back even further to prehistory myths of angry spirits behind the imperfections of the natural world punishing bad people and promising salvation through violent sacrifices.
Note that around the same time as the Sumerians, the Egyptians were also promoting their own versions of destroying deity threatening apocalyptic violence in myths such as “Return to chaos”, and “Destruction of mankind”.
These are the ideas that are still dominant in contemporary narratives like climate apocalypse where “vengeful Gaia, angry Planet/Mother Earth, punitive Universe, and payback karma” all threaten human survival, rendering people susceptible to irrational salvation schemes like Net Zero decarbonization that continues to ruin societies with collectivist elites demanding control of every aspect of human life.
(On the irrationality of the salvation schemes of apocalyptic narratives- See, for example, Christian Niemietz’s “Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”.)
So, do you really want to solve the problem that General Nagata pointed to of “the idea” that drives these endless eruptions of episodes of “madness of crowds” hysteria and violent destruction? Then get a grip on- “It’s the theology, stupid”. Nagata did not make this idea clear. He said that “We don’t even know what the idea is”. He was wrong in that conclusion. We do know what the idea is. It has been embedded for millennia right at the heart of our great religions and transferred into the dominant ideologies of the modern era.
Here is a brief reframing of the nature of the problem and its persisting descent across human history…
Ancient people responded to their primary impulse for meaning and purpose. As their consciousness developed across early millennia, they sought to understand and explain the world that they found themselves within, especially to understand and explain their suffering from the imperfections of the natural world (i.e. natural disasters, disease, predatory cruelty). Above all, their fear of death incited their impulse to understand and explain (Joseph Campbell noted that death fear was the impulse that initiated human mythmaking).
The outcome of their early mythmaking was the primitive themes that I have summarized in my “bad ideas” lists (i.e. “Humanity’s Worst Ideas… Bad Religious Ideas”, etc., see links posted above).
Those earliest bad ideas then shaped the deeply embedded archetypes of the collective human subconscious. From there the archetypes have, across subsequent history, influenced succeeding generations of people to repeatedly embrace the same fundamental themes to shape their ongoing creation of new narratives for their eras, rendering new historical narratives mainly religious in content and core nature. This has been true even into the modern era as many have shaped contemporary “secular/ideological” systems of belief with the same fundamental themes from our primitive past. The research of historians like Richard Landes has revealed this.
The line of descent of bad ideas in Western civilization has been from primitive mythologies to the Zoroastrian formalization of the themes of the earlier primitive beliefs that, along with Hellenism, then shaped all three great Western religious traditions (most notably Hellenism shaped Paul’s Christ myth) as well as shaping the secular/ideological offspring of Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism.
And because those primitive ideas/beliefs have been protected by projecting them onto deity (humanity’s highest ideal and authority), they have long enjoyed unquestioning status “under the canopy of the sacred”, making them very difficult to challenge and change.
Stated bluntly, as Jefferson and Tolstoy have done, the evil of bad religious ideas has long been cloaked as good, even as divine. Embedding bad ideas in religious traditions and in theology, makes it very difficult to confront and change such ideas, due to human fear of the sacred, fear of threatening deity. Fortunately, history has always produced some brave spirits who have seen through to the real nature of what religious traditions have long protected. They have seen clearly, for example, the true nature of what was inciting and validating humanity’s inherited impulses to exclusionary tribalism, domination in human relationships/societies, and “justice” as the vengeful destruction of differing others. They understood the core of the problem as the bad theology that was most responsible for inciting and validating bad behavior.
Notable among history’s courageous spirits was Historical Jesus, who in response to the bad theology that dominated his own Jewish religion, presented his stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditionally loving God. The religious authorities of his time then reacted out of defensive survival instinct and had him murdered. It can be a very dangerous thing to challenge the sacred, the divine. Note again that first audience of Jews (the Luke 4 incident) who eventually cottoned on to what he was actually presenting. Then, kaboom as the mental grenade exploded in their minds.
Jesus’ rejection of retaliatory, vengeful theology and presentation of the opposite- i.e. non-retaliatory, unconditional deity- incited murderous rage in them. He had threatened the core of their identity, what validated their deepest impulses/desires (i.e. the inherited animal in them).
The Jewish leadership of Jesus’ time knew that his protest was not just against the sacrifice industry in general but that he was rejecting their fundamental theology, the threatening, retaliatory God who they claimed demanded sacrifice and appointed them as mediating authorities in charge of that brutal industry. The religious leaders got his point (i.e. his rejection of their deity) and resorted to “exterminate or be exterminated”.
It is dangerous stuff to name and expose the real nature of core religious beliefs for the evil that they really are. Jesus did that by presenting an entirely contrary image of deity and that exposed the deity of all previous historical religious traditions for the monstrous mental deformity that it was.
He exposed the age-old pathology of cloaking evil as good, as divine.
Bringing this right into the present… Even confused people like General Nagata (“We don’t even know what the ‘idea’ is”) have recognized that, along with military force, “the idea” has to also be defeated if we are to properly solve the problem of never-ending violence and war.
This site recognizes that what Historical Jesus did amounted to a solution that involves a complete death/rebirth transformation in human thinking, the entire disintegration of something old and reintegration around something entirely new. Necessary to properly and thoroughly solve the problem of “the idea”.
The radical and fundamental nature of the transformation is that of death/rebirth because it deals with the most fundamental element in human narratives- the theology or ultimate reality, ultimate Ideal/Idea.
Solving this problem of dominant inciting factors that drive violence and war requires first recognizing the true nature of what we are dealing with- the actual “evil” in the mix as contrasted with what are the true “good” elements. Don’t fear, as many still do, to name the actual nature of what we need to deal with and change. “It’s the theology, stupid”. The God at the core of it all. Jesus understood this and made it the central element in his teaching/message.
You’d think that most of us would now understand this point that it’s the “theology”. After all, we are all intensely aware that those pilots who flew the planes into the Trade center were screaming “God is great”. Their image of deity was the most basic energizing belief at the moment they were to commit horrific violence toward innocent others. So also, an image of God energized the Hamas militants as they raped and murdered innocent young people and babies. So also, a certain image of God motivated those Christian Crusaders in Jerusalem who prayed and praised that God that they could take part in the slaughter of Muslim men, women, and children, cutting up bodies till the blood ran ankle deep.
And the same theology moved Calvin who stated that he felt obligated to uphold and defend the glory of his God and his Christ hence he could not show “love your enemy” mercy to his fellow Christian theologian Servetus (as other Geneva Christians had urged him). His beliefs obligated him to have Servetus burned at the stake for not moving an adjective over three words in a sentence and thereby affirm Calvin’s esoteric theology on a Trinitarian point in the Christ myth.
As psychologist Harold Ellens has said, speaking particularly about God images (i.e. vengeful, retaliatory God), “Beliefs do exert much more influence over our lives… (they) in the psychological sphere, generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence.”
Here is the link to the full article that illustrates the avoidance of the core of the problem by retreating to the safety of peripheral contributing factors like “ideological”:
“Iran is gambling that Trump will cave. It hasn’t gone well for them so far: Decades of half-measures have failed and the regime survives on time, ambiguity and Western hesitation”, Erfan Fard, May 20, 2026
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/iran-gambling-trump-cave-hasnt-gone-well-far
Here are a few more quotes from the article:
“As reports emerge of a possible new phase of confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic, one reality is becoming increasingly clear: the ruling system in Tehran still does not fully believe President Donald Trump is prepared to go beyond pressure and fundamentally alter the balance of power.
“History does not remember those who merely manage crises. It remembers those who confront — and dismantle — the ideologies that produce them. The 20th century proved this decisively: Nazism, fascism and communism once appeared immovable, yet each ultimately collapsed under sustained and determined pressure.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran belongs in that same category. It is not a state that evolves toward moderation. It is an ideological system that sustains itself through repression, deception and expansion.
“The roots of this challenge trace back to 1979’s revolt, when a profound failure of judgment in Washington reshaped the Middle East. The removal of the late Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi — America’s most reliable regional ally during the Cold War — created a vacuum that was filled not by democratic forces, but by a radical clerical mafia whose nature was neither fully understood nor seriously examined. Critical warnings were dismissed. The ideological foundations of Khomeinism were underestimated. Even its core texts were never meaningfully studied by those responsible for shaping policy.”
(End of article quotes)
And I will end the quotes there as copyright protocols prohibit too much quoting.
Bob Brinsmead’s essay on perfectionist deity:
Cautionary note on the AI responses to Bob’s essay- Always, when using AI, do not take all their responses too seriously as “They learn off all the bullshit on the Internet and are infected with the Woke virus”, according to Elon Musk. Use them for where they offer some help but cautiously as they are not final authorities on anything. Like my chiding Chat for always falling back on “the scientific consensus” in our tussles over climate issues.
“The Real Error is the Error of Living under a Perfectionist God.”, Robert Brinsmead, May 19, 2026
When I changed my “Awakening” theology of the 60’s for the Reformation theology of the 70’s I thought I had given up perfectionism, but it took me some time to realize that Reformation theology was based on a demand of a perfectionism that could be accessed in this life only by faith in the Substitute death and a Substitute righteousness of the Christ. (I won’t go into the dangers of a substitute life here, but it does have some things in common with fans and a celebrity in which people whose lives are impoverished and deprived find a lot of inspiration by adoring a celebrity who becomes their substitute life). The real error is the error of living under the reign of a perfectionistic God.
It was Calvin who argued with this view of the perfectionism of God that would make even the angels tremble. He laid this infinite righteousness of God out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion to highlight the need for an imputed, not-in-me kind of righteousness to stand before God rather than any infused transformation as in the RC theology of Trent. Religion’s real error is the error of living under the reign of a perfectionistic God.
It was Calvin who argued with this view of the perfectionism of God that would make even the angels tremble. He laid this infinite righteousness of God out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion to highlight the need for an imputed, not-in-me kind of righteousness to stand before God rather than any infused transformation as in the RC theology of Trent.
What really undermined this view of God and the universe was the telescope of Galileo which found black spots appearing on the sun. The pope was appalled at the suggestion of any such imperfection in God’s universe other than this earth which was in his view the only place infected by sin and therefore affected by imperfection. We now know who was right in this controversy, but it made no change really in the church’s theology to find how imperfect things are throughout the universe – supernova, black holes, collisions, meteors hitting planets, as well as signs of death and decay preceding the so-called Fall in Eden by billions of years, and the existence of a system of things which depended on a cycle of life and death and with it the carbon cycle which is fed by things which die and are then recycled to benefit the living.
In a sense God must love this kind of imperfection in the sense that the universe is full of it, yet like the earth, it is fit for purpose. A rigidly perfect universe would not work – it is better for the circuit of the earth round the sun to be imperfectly elliptic.
The idea of a God making a rigidly perfectionistic universe would not work because one microscopic misfunction would destroy the whole system, and if there were to be intelligent beings who needed to learn to grow and mature it is inconceivable there would be no mistakes just as a child will often fall when learning to walk. Did Jesus ever bump his toe as a child? Silly question.
The story of the Fall of man as we have recognized is a very misleading story of reality on many fronts. Among other things, it projects a perfectionistic God who goes nuts as soon as the first mistake is made by an immature couple. He locks the gate and locks them out, almost impossible to get through to this very offended and perfectionistic God. You now need a lot of priests, a lot of sacrifices and even that is not enough until there is a daddy of all sacrifices, eh?
We now know that the history of mankind began among the animals in Africa, and more than that, humankind was part of the animal kingdom as a mammal.
This is another creation story which includes the great human exodus story out of Africa which was, in principle, more like the Exodus of the very poor and rather ignorant slaves delivered from Egypt, all adding up to a very inauspicious beginning to human history. It assures us that there will be plenty of human mistakes learning to be truly human. The most amazing thing about this human history from primitive animal-like existence in Africa to civilized humanity is not that humans have fallen so far, but rather how astonishing has been the trajectory of improvement of the human condition from our primitive animal-like beginnings.
This story to start with, demands that we abandon the doctrine of original sin because with knowledge of our animal inheritance we have no need to wonder how the flawed state or the challenged state of all human beings originated. We have to accept that the formation of the earth with its long history in geology and human history was the mix which God found to be fit for purpose. It was not a mistake on God’s part to create a universe or earth like this and it was not something that God had to rectify with a Plan of Salvation. God’s original plan still is and always will be intact. There is no need for an apocalyptic destruction of this world to save it.
The prophets such as Hosea used the imagery of God as a gentle father calling Israel his son out of Egypt, teaching him how to walk , dealing patiently and forgivingly with him when the growing child stumbled again and again. Ezekial too uses the image of God finding Israel like an unclean newborn infant in the wilderness, navel not cut, etc., so God takes her into his care, washes her, nurtures her to grow up.
This is not the perfectionistic God who utterly separated from humanity at the Fall, not the “one strike and you are out” kind of perfectionistic God. See Psalm 103 for the right context: “He has not dealt with us after our sins nor rewarded us according to our iniquity…he remembers that we are dust…” This is the God who is the kind of Love that keeps no score of wrongs (1 Cor. 13), but keeps his “covenant of hesed [faithfulness, loving kindness]” to remain true to his commitment to his children: “I will forgive their iniquities and remember their sins no more.”
There are two streams in the OT – the priestly and the prophetic. The priestly stream of thought functions on “and eye for an eye” retaliatory God who requires atonement by blood sacrifice and demands payment of the debt to keep the scales of justice balanced with retaliatory justice, etc., and then there is the prophetic stream of thought based on the covenant of faithfulness and love. It is decidedly against the temple sacrifices of the priesthood. Love has committed God who is the greatest to be the servant of mankind. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love does not demand a sacrifice to pay the unpayable debt because in a very real sense God’s love is the sacrifice of himself to the service of humanity which is not the same as the dictatorial monarchical Sky-god because Love is the oxygen of human freedom. The prophets rejected retributive justice, the temple system of atonement and in this were the forerunners of Jesus who proclaimed that God “wants mercy (hesed) and not sacrifice.” (Hosea 6:6) He cited that scripture repeatedly.
Those same two opposing streams – the priestly and the prophetic – run through the NT. One demands a mediator to have communication with God because he can only relate to or have followship with the perfect; the other relates to a God who is with us and in us and in every way approachable apart from a mediator. See the so-called Lord’s prayer which is very unchristian in this respect of needing no broker to approach the Father.
This prophetic God does not need an Apocalyptic event to destroy this world but finds this world fit for purpose. There is no original sin, but it was in God’s plan that we all inherit an animal nature as well as the divine gift of being human in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). The Creator is perfect, but is not a perfectionistic Creator. It is the kind of world that is fit for us too to grow, develop and learn the things we need to learn. RDB
(End of Brinsmead essay)
I then asked Claude- Claude, your analysis and summary of this Brinsmead essay.
Again, a qualifier on AI qualifiers:
Don’t accept all that Claude and Chat say below because they are programed with the principles and views/biases of their engineers and also learn off “all the bullshit on the Internet”, including the woke progressivism that dominates so much public space and discourse across our societies.
They also tend to miss the motivations and intentions of writers like Bob, being unfamiliar with where he came from (his personal story and journey), what he has learned and now what exact point that he is trying to make.
Bob in the essay is countering an error in theology/religion that has long been a dominant element in human images of deity. He does not present and counter that error by then weakening and nullifying his point with all sorts of qualifiers as illustrated in the quotes from Claude and Chat.
Bob is writing a short presentation to make his point and it is important to focus on that as set against the dominant opposite that is the error he is highlighting.
Chat acknowledges the error Bob is presenting but then resorts, as is its custom, to qualify the issue and thereby sort of nullify Bob’s point by weakening it with this common AI “balancing” thing. So read these AI critically, aware of their tendencies and that they are infected with what they are infected with- noted biases and what not.
Example from Chat:
Chat: “His ‘priestly vs prophetic’ split can become too binary.” But that is a critical point that Bob is highlighting that there are notable differences in emphasis between those two traditions in Old Testament Judaism.
Claude responded:
Analysis of Brinsmead’s Essay on Perfectionism and God
Central Argument
Brinsmead’s core thesis is that religion’s fundamental error lies in conceiving of God as perfectionist—a deity who demands flawless adherence and reacts with alienation at the first transgression. He traces his own theological journey from “Awakening” theology through Reformed theology, ultimately concluding that both share this underlying perfectionism, differing only in mechanism (achieved righteousness vs. imputed righteousness via Christ’s substitutionary work).
Key Moves in the Argument
The Scientific Challenge to Perfection
Brinsmead uses Galileo’s discovery of sunspots as a pivot point. The Church’s horror at imperfection in the cosmos reveals how deeply perfectionism had infected theological thinking. Modern astronomy—supernovae, black holes, cosmic collisions—demonstrates that imperfection is woven into the fabric of existence. More radically, the fossil record shows death and decay predating any possible “Fall” by billions of years.
Functional Imperfection
He argues that imperfection isn’t a bug but a feature: Earth’s elliptical orbit works because it isn’t rigidly circular. A perfectly rigid system would shatter at the first microscopic deviation. Growth and learning require the possibility of error—a child learning to walk will fall.
Reimagining Human Origins
Rather than a Fall from perfection, Brinsmead substitutes an evolutionary ascent from animal origins in Africa. This reframes human history not as degradation but as “astonishing trajectory of improvement.” Original sin becomes unnecessary as an explanatory category—our “animal inheritance” sufficiently accounts for human moral struggle without requiring a primordial catastrophe.
Two Theological Streams
Brinsmead identifies opposing currents running through both testaments:
Priestly Stream Prophetic Stream
Retributive, eye-for-an-eye justice Covenant faithfulness (hesed)
Blood sacrifice and atonement “Mercy, not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6)
Mediators required Direct access to God
God separated by human sin God present, approachable, forgiving
He aligns Jesus firmly with the prophetic tradition, citing his repeated invocation of Hosea.
Strengths and Tensions
What works:
• The psychological insight is sharp. Perfectionism does generate anxiety, shame, and alienation— whether in religious or secular contexts.
• The appeal to Psalm 103 (“He remembers that we are dust”) and the Hosea/Ezekiel imagery of God as nurturing parent offers a genuinely different register than juridical frameworks.
• The observation that substitutionary theology can function as “celebrity worship”— living vicariously through another’s perfection— is provocative and worth consideration.
Where it strains:
• The dichotomy between “priestly” and “prophetic” streams is somewhat overdrawn. The Hebrew Bible’s own texts interweave these elements rather than segregating them cleanly. Leviticus and Isaiah exist in the same canon, often in dialogue.
• Dismissing original sin by pointing to evolutionary origins doesn’t fully engage the theological concept. Many theologians who accept evolution still find original sin meaningful as a description of universal human solidarity in moral brokenness— not as a historical event but as an existential condition.
• The essay occasionally conflates “perfectionism” (neurotic demand for flawlessness) with “perfection” as a theological attribute (completeness, wholeness). The classical tradition often understood divine perfection as fullness of being, not rigidity.
The Deeper Question
Brinsmead is really asking: What kind of story are we living in? Is it a tragedy of fallen creatures grasping for redemption from an offended deity? Or a bildungsroman of creatures growing toward maturity, guided by a patient presence who expected stumbling from the start?
His answer is clearly the latter. Whether this adequately accounts for the depth of human evil— not just immaturity but genuine malice— remains the unresolved tension in his framework.
Then Chat’s response to same query:
This essay by Robert Brinsmead is a sweeping theological and philosophical critique of what he calls “the perfectionistic God.” It combines autobiographical reflection, biblical reinterpretation, evolutionary history, and moral criticism of traditional Christian doctrines.
At its core, Brinsmead argues that the deepest error in religion is not merely legalism or perfectionism in human behavior, but belief in a God whose nature itself is perfectionistic — a God who demands flawless righteousness, reacts punitively to failure, and structures reality around retributive justice.
Here’s a structured analysis.
Central Thesis
Brinsmead’s main claim is:
The problem is not simply human perfectionism, but the conception of God as a perfectionist.
He argues that this idea shaped:
• Calvinist theology,
• substitutionary atonement,
• original sin,
• apocalypticism,
• priestly religion,
• sacrificial systems,
• and fear-based spirituality.
He proposes replacing this with a non-perfectionistic understanding of God grounded in:
• patience,
• developmental growth,
• evolutionary emergence,
• compassion,
• covenantal love (“hesed”),
• and human freedom.
1. His Autobiographical/Theological Arc
Brinsmead begins by reflecting on his own theological evolution:
Phase 1 — “Awakening theology”
This refers to his earlier perfectionist spirituality in the 1960s, likely connected to holiness and Adventist perfectionism.
Phase 2 — Reformation theology
He then embraced Protestant/Reformation doctrines:
• justification by faith,
• imputed righteousness,
• substitutionary atonement.
But he later concluded: Reformation theology still rests on perfectionism.
The difference is simply:
• Catholicism = infused perfection,
• Protestantism = borrowed perfection.
In both systems, God still requires absolute perfection.
This is one of the essay’s strongest insights: Brinsmead sees Protestant grace theology not as liberation from perfectionism, but as a workaround for impossible divine standards. That is psychologically perceptive.
2. Critique of “Substitute Religion”
His comparison between Christ as “substitute righteousness” and celebrity culture is provocative.
He suggests:
• believers may emotionally “live through” Christ
• instead of becoming fully alive themselves.
This critique resembles:
• existentialist criticism of religion,
• Feuerbach,
• some modern therapeutic spirituality,
• and even Jungian critiques of projection.
He implies: substitution can become psychological dependency.
That’s a radical critique of classical Protestant theology.
3. Science and the Collapse of Cosmic Perfectionism
The Galileo section is important symbolically.
Brinsmead argues:
• ancient theology assumed a perfect cosmos,
• except for fallen Earth,
• but science revealed imperfection everywhere.
Examples he gives:
• sunspots,
• supernovas,
• black holes,
• death before humanity,
• evolutionary struggle,
• geological catastrophe.
His conclusion: imperfection is built into creation itself.
And further: a functioning universe requires flexibility, asymmetry, decay, adaptation, and process.
This becomes one of his major theological pivots:
• imperfection is not a tragic interruption,
• but part of a viable, developmental cosmos.
This echoes:
• process theology,
• evolutionary theology,
• Teilhard de Chardin,
• and some forms of open theism.
4. Rejection of the Fall and Original Sin
This is one of his clearest doctrinal departures from orthodox Christianity.
He rejects:
• a historical Fall,
• original sin,
• inherited guilt,
• and the idea creation “went wrong.”
Instead:
• humanity emerged gradually from animal ancestry,
• therefore human flaws are evolutionary inheritances,
• not moral corruption from Adam.
His key reversal is:
Traditional theology: Humans fell from perfection.
Brinsmead: Humans rose from animality toward humanity.
That is probably the essay’s most fundamental reframing.
He sees human history not as degeneration, but as astonishing progress.
5. The “Fit for Purpose” Universe
This phrase appears repeatedly and is central.
Brinsmead argues:
• the world is not perfect,
• but it works for growth and development.
A perfectly rigid universe would:
• collapse from microscopic error,
• leave no room for learning,
• eliminate freedom,
• eliminate maturation.
Thus: God intentionally created a developmental world, not a flawless machine.
This is philosophically sophisticated because it reframes “imperfection” as necessary openness.
6. Reinterpretation of Biblical Theology
Brinsmead contrasts two “streams” in scripture:
A. Priestly Religion
He associates this with:
• sacrifice,
• atonement,
• retributive justice,
• temple systems,
• mediation,
• legalism,
• perfectionism.
This God:
• demands payment,
• requires blood,
• separates from sinners.
B. Prophetic Religion
He associates this with:
• mercy,
• covenant faithfulness (hesed),
• patience,
• compassion,
• relational love.
This God:
• nurtures growth,
• forgives freely,
• remains present with humanity.
He interprets prophets like:
• Hosea,
• Ezekiel,
• and Psalm 103
as opposing sacrificial religion.
Then he places Jesus squarely in the prophetic stream: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
This reading has precedent in modern biblical scholarship, though Brinsmead radicalizes it more than most scholars would.
7. His View of Jesus
Brinsmead’s Jesus is:
• not primarily a sacrificial substitute,
• not satisfying divine wrath,
• but revealing the nonviolent, non-perfectionistic character of God.
In this framework:
• Jesus opposes mediation systems,
• rejects retributive justice,
• abolishes sacrificial religion,
• reveals direct intimacy with God.
This resembles:
• moral influence theory,
• Girardian anti-sacrifice readings,
• liberal Protestantism,
• and progressive Christianity.
8. Philosophical Strengths
The essay has several major strengths.
Psychological insight
His critique of perfectionism is emotionally and spiritually perceptive.
Many religious people do experience:
• shame,
• fear,
• chronic inadequacy,
• anxiety before divine standards.
He identifies a genuine issue.
Integration with science
He attempts to reconcile theology with:
• evolution,
• cosmology,
• geology,
• and developmental psychology.
He avoids anti-scientific defensiveness.
Developmental vision of humanity
His model emphasizes:
• growth,
• process,
• learning,
• maturation.
That can produce a more humane spirituality.
Strong ethical emphasis
His rejection of punitive religion in favor of mercy has moral force.
9. Philosophical and Theological Weaknesses
There are also major weaknesses or tensions.
A. Possible strawman of classical theology
He tends to portray traditional Christianity almost entirely as:
• punitive,
• perfectionistic,
• sacrificial,
• wrath-based.
But many classical theologians also emphasized:
• mercy,
• participation,
• healing,
• transformation,
• divine compassion.
So his contrast can become oversimplified.
B. Reduction of evil
If human brokenness is merely evolutionary inheritance,
then:
• moral evil risks becoming biologically normalized,
• accountability becomes unclear,
• radical evil becomes difficult to explain.
The Holocaust, torture, cruelty, genocide, etc., may require deeper categories than developmental immaturity.
C. Internal tension about divine perfection
He says:
• God is perfect,
• but not perfectionistic.
That distinction is meaningful psychologically, but philosophically underdeveloped.
What does divine perfection mean if:
• suffering,
• death,
• predation,
• and decay
are positively intended features of creation?
The essay raises this issue but does not fully resolve it.
D. Selective biblical reading
His “priestly vs prophetic” split can become too binary.
The Hebrew Bible contains:
• mercy and judgment,
• sacrifice and compassion,
• priestly and prophetic elements intertwined.
Similarly, Jesus himself spoke both:
• radically about mercy,
• and about judgment.
So Brinsmead’s framework may flatten biblical complexity.
10. Overall Interpretation
This essay represents:
• post-orthodox,
• evolutionary,
• anti-sacrificial,
• non-perfectionist Christianity.
It is deeply shaped by:
• modern science,
• developmental psychology,
• existential critique,
• and ethical discomfort with punitive atonement theology.
Its deepest intuition is: A loving God would relate to humanity as a patient parent guiding immature beings through growth — not as a perfectionist judge demanding flawless performance.
That is the emotional and theological center of the essay.
Whether one agrees with Brinsmead or not, the essay is important because it exposes a central tension in Christian theology: Can divine perfection coexist with developmental humanity without producing fear, shame, and alienation?
Brinsmead’s answer is:
• only if we abandon perfectionism at the level of God Himself.
(End of AI comment on Brinsmead)