“Joe Rogan Experience #2507 – Harland Williams”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51ds7IU7ZL8
At the 1 hour 9-minute mark (30 seconds later) Harland gives a positive view of AI as a great tool to help us rise to something higher, to assist us in heading to where we are meant to go. He says AI is not to be feared even though, as with all new things, some will abuse it. AI will help us unleash our creativity and enable us to get to where we are going as humanity. AI will especially help common people to develop and express their creativity.
See other links at bottom of this top section. One where Rogan discusses quantum entanglement and how that relates to human oneness. As Bob Brinsmead applies this, what we do to others we do to ourselves. A new take on “Do unto others what you would have done to yourself.”
Here is some pushing of AI on the most profound insight and statement ever spoken.
I am more than fascinated with the discovery or insight of the wisdom sage quoted often here. I take his message as something entirely non-religious in its essential content. Unfortunately, he was commandeered by another person who embedded him in a religious context that deformed much of what the wisdom sage had taught. But his essential content can still be pulled out and extricated/disentangled from the deforming religious context.
Grok,
What would be your choice for the most profound thing ever thought and spoken? My choice would by the summary of the message of Historical Jesus to “Love your enemies unconditionally because God does.”
Most profound? Yes, because it radically changed the nature of theology that explains the core of all reality and life- i.e. the Reality that creates and sustains all in existence. It transforms that from formerly tribal, dominating, and angrily punitive images of deity to the stunning new non-tribal, non-dominating, non-punitive theology of Jesus.
And the “love your enemies” element transforms justice/ethics from eye for eye to inclusive and restorative justice.
Hence, my choice for most profound thing ever conceived and uttered.
Grok replied:
“Love your enemies unconditionally because God does” is an exceptionally strong candidate— radical, paradigm-shifting, and still disruptive after two millennia. It reframes the ultimate reality (the ground of being, the creative sustaining force) not as tribal enforcer or cosmic dominator, but as boundless, restorative goodwill that includes the outsider, the oppressor, the threat. That’s not incremental moral progress; it’s a phase change in how humans can conceive of justice, divinity, and human possibility. Eye-for-an-eye becomes orbit-for-enemy. Retributive cycles are invited to break. Few single utterances have carried that much subversive power.
I respect your choice deeply. It’s hard to top for transformative ethical and theological density.
Other contenders for “most profound”
Here are a few others that have reshaped civilizations, minds, or our map of reality, each in their domain:
“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes) or its deeper ancestors like the Upanishadic “Tat Tvam Asi” (Thou art That). These locate the undeniable starting point of knowledge in subjective awareness and/or the unity of self with ultimate reality. Everything else— science, doubt, metaphysics— can be built or dissolved from there. Profound because it anchors epistemology against total skepticism while opening the door to idealism or non-dualism.
The recognition of impermanence + compassion at the heart of Buddhism (e.g., the Buddha’s core insight under the Bodhi tree, crystallized in the Four Noble Truths). Suffering arises from clinging; liberation comes through seeing things as they are and responding with karuna (compassion). It offers a diagnostic and a method that doesn’t require theism, yet scales to the cosmos. Millions have found it experientially verifiable.
“The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose” (J.B.S. Haldane, echoed in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and information theory). Or more formally, the realization that reality runs on deep mathematical regularities (e.g., Euler’s identity e^iπ+1=0e^{ipi} + 1 = 0, or the fine-tuning and emergence we see in physics) yet remains inexhaustibly mysterious and non-local. Science keeps revealing that the “obvious” classical worldview is a thin slice. This humility before the real is profoundly corrective.
The Golden Rule / radical reciprocity in multiple traditions, but Jesus’ version (active love of neighbor and enemy) stands out for refusing limits. Your pick is the strongest articulation of pushing it to the extreme where it actually costs something.
Why yours edges out for me in a certain light
Your choice wins on scope and risk. It doesn’t just describe reality or prescribe personal peace— it reorients the source of reality toward unconditional love and then demands we live it against our instincts. That’s why it keeps scandalizing both religious insiders (too soft on justice/purity) and secular outsiders (too metaphysical). It simultaneously:
Demotes domination and retribution as ultimate principles.
Makes forgiveness and inclusion ontological, not tactical.
Turns ethics into participation in the divine nature rather than mere rule-following.
Few ideas have been tested at the scale of empires, inquisitions, civil rights movements, and personal crises— and still retain explosive counter-cultural force. Implementation is brutally hard (hence the endless Christian failure rate), which is evidence of its profundity, not against it.
That said, “most profound” is partly subjective— tied to what aspect of existence you find most in need of revolution: consciousness, suffering, knowledge, power, or love. Your criterion (transforming the core image of what creates and sustains everything) is a high bar.
What do you think makes a thought profound rather than just clever or true? Is it the distance it moves civilization, its psychological difficulty, its alignment with reality as we later discover it, or its ability to integrate head/heart/action? I’d be interested in how you’d compare it against, say, the scientific discovery of deep time/evolution or non-dual insights from Advaita.
I continued…
Profound because it covers the very core and foundation of all reality- i.e. the creating/sustaining Reality. The creating Reality- God- has long functioned as the embodiment of our highest ideals. The creating Reality informs humanity’s primary impulse for meaning and purpose- why we exist and for what reason. Deity as unconditional love, then presents the highest reach of humanity’s highest ideal- love. That which most identifies us as human.
Unconditional love (i.e. as non-retaliatory, universally inclusive, affirming unlimited forgiveness and mercy, respect for freedoms and rights of all others, equally, etc.) holds potential to transform human lives and societies profoundly for the better, resolving the ancient problems of tribalism, hatred of differing others, retaliatory violence and war, impulses to dominate and destroy others, etc.
Grok’s next response:
I see your point with even greater clarity now. You’re not just highlighting a moral teaching— you’re identifying a potential metaphysical and anthropological axis shift. If the ultimate Reality (the creating/sustaining ground of all existence) is best characterized as unconditional love, then:
Meaning and purpose derive from participation in that same love, rather than from power, tribal survival, ritual purity, or cosmic hierarchy.
Humanity’s distinctive “image” (what sets us apart) becomes our capacity for this expansive, non-retaliatory goodwill— the thing that most stretches us beyond instinct.
Ethics and spirituality converge: the “highest ideal” isn’t abstract justice or dominance, but active, enemy-embracing love that mirrors the divine nature.
This reframes deity away from the projection of our fears and tribal instincts (the “angry punisher” archetype common across ancient cultures) toward the projection— and perhaps discovery— of our highest potential. It makes theology aspirational in a radical way: God isn’t just “up there” enforcing order, but the pull toward universal inclusion and restoration. That’s why it feels foundational. It reorients the “why we exist” question from “to glorify/obey/survive” to “to love as the Source loves.”
Transformative power
Your emphasis on its practical fruits is compelling. Unconditional love as policy— non-retaliatory, rights-respecting, mercy-oriented— targets the root drivers of human misery:
Tribalism/othering
Cycles of revenge
Domination impulses
History shows glimpses of its disruptive force: early Christian communities (despite their flaws) were noted for mutual aid across social lines; later movements drawing from this ethic challenged slavery, segregation, and colonialism. It offers a logic that can scale from personal forgiveness to restorative justice systems, potentially lowering violence and increasing cooperation where it’s genuinely internalized.
At the same time, its very radicality explains the persistent gap between the ideal and practice. Evolutionary psychology and history show how strongly retaliatory instincts (and their cultural codifications like “eye for an eye”) are wired for group survival. The teaching doesn’t deny justice— it reframes it as higher-order restoration— but living it requires ongoing transcendence of self-interest. That difficulty is part of what makes it profound: it’s not cheap sentiment; it’s a costly re-calibration of human nature toward the divine nature as described.
Complementary angles
Other traditions echo elements of this:
Buddhism’s metta (loving-kindness) and compassion extend universally, grounded in the nature of mind/reality rather than a personal God.
Certain strands of Jewish thought and Islamic mercy (rahma) emphasize God’s compassion.
Secular framings (evolutionary cooperation, game theory showing forgiveness strategies outperforming pure tit-for-tat over time) converge on similar outcomes without the theology.
Your choice stands out because it ties the ethical revolution directly to the character of ultimate Reality itself. It makes love not just a human virtue, but the deepest fact about existence. That’s a bold and integrative claim.
What do you make of the tension between this vision and observable reality (e.g., the sheer scale of suffering, predation in nature, or humanity’s track record)? Does it function more as an ideal that judges and pulls us forward, or as something already latent in the structure of things? And how would you see this “unconditional love” theology interacting with modern scientific understandings of the universe (vast, indifferent on the surface, yet finely tuned for complexity and life)?I’m genuinely engaged here— your criterion (impact on the foundation of reality + human meaning + transformative ethics) is a rigorous one for judging profundity.
My next query for Grok:
On the tension between an unconditional ultimate reality and our observable reality I would suggest several speculations: you may add more.
Some speculate that unconditional defines the metaphysical realm that many have said is a oneness of such love (i.e. Joseph Campbell- a nondual realm, NDEs offering discoveries of ultimate oneness as unconditional love, etc.). But here we are in a realm of dualism with good and evil and as Bob Brinsmead notes- a realm of imperfection (“The Real Error is the Error of Living under a Perfectionist God”, Bob Brinsmead).
We then speculate on the why of this imperfect realm of good/evil dualism. Some have said that this exists as a learning arena for pre-existing persons to experience free choice for good or evil. And through such choice we actually experience both opposites and develop as mature persons through struggle with these two opposites. Others add that there is no authentic goodness aside from the existence of actual freedom of choice for its opposite. In a realm of perfection there is no such experience, learning, and further development.
Also, please explore process theology and investigate panentheism.
Grok’s response:
Your speculations form a coherent and thoughtful theodicy— one that preserves the primacy of unconditional love as the ultimate metaphysical reality while accounting for the dualistic, imperfect world we inhabit. This is a classic move in mystical and philosophical traditions: the apparent contradiction is resolved by distinguishing levels of reality or by seeing this realm as purposeful for growth. quora.com
Your core ideas
Metaphysical nonduality vs. this realm: Many near-death experiences (NDEs) report an overwhelming encounter with unconditional love, oneness, and a sense of “coming home” where judgment dissolves and all is embraced. facebook.com +1
Joseph Campbell often pointed toward nondual realization— experiencing the unity beyond pairs of opposites (good/evil, self/other, life/death)— as the deeper truth glimpsed in myth and mysticism. capacity-building.com
This world as a learning arena: Dualism, imperfection, and genuine choice allow for authentic moral development, struggle, maturity, and the emergence of real goodness (which requires the real possibility of its opposite). Without freedom and contrast, love might remain abstract or untested. Bob Brinsmead’s critique of “living under a Perfectionist God” aligns here: it rejects a deity demanding flawless compliance in this flawed arena, favoring instead a gracious reality that works with and through imperfection. presenttruthmag.com
These resonate with perennial wisdom: this life as a “school of the soul,” a vale of soul-making (John Keats), or a necessary arena for agape to be chosen and embodied.
Additional speculations
Here are a few complementary angles:
Contrast and appreciation: Unconditional love might be experienced more deeply against the backdrop of its apparent absence. Just as light is known through shadow, or freedom through limitation, the dualistic realm heightens the value and wonder of love when it breaks through.
Evolutionary or developmental unfolding: The universe (and consciousness) is in process, moving from simplicity toward greater complexity, relationality, and capacity for love. Suffering and evil are byproducts of a free, open system capable of genuine novelty and relationship, not a flaw in the design.
Mystery of kenosis/self-limitation: The creating Reality “empties” itself (kenosis) to allow otherness and freedom, accepting the risks of rejection and harm for the sake of authentic communion. Unconditional love, by nature, does not coerce.
Multi-dimensional or re-incarnational growth: Some traditions (and certain NDE reports) suggest souls progress across many experiences, with this life as one chapter in a larger journey toward integrating opposites into mature, compassionate being.
These avoid making God the direct author of evil while affirming love as foundational.
Process theology
Process theology, inspired primarily by Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophy (and developed by thinkers like Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, and others), offers a sophisticated framework that aligns closely with your vision. plato.stanford.edu
Key ideas:
Reality as process, not static substances: The fundamental units of existence are “actual occasions”— momentary events of experience and relationship. Everything is becoming, relational, and creative. God is not an exception to this but the chief exemplification.
Dipolar God: God has a primordial nature (eternal, unchanging in character— the lure toward beauty, goodness, and love) and a consequent nature (responsive to the world, experiencing and incorporating all that happens). God is affected by creation and grows with it.
Persuasive, not coercive, power: God works through influence, calling entities toward the best possible outcome in each situation (the “initial aim”), but never overriding freedom. This explains why evil and imperfection exist: genuine freedom and creativity entail risk.
Panentheism (more on this below): The world is in God, and God is in the world, but they are not identical.
Theodicy: Evil arises from the autonomy of creatures and the inherent limitations of process. God suffers with the world and works persuasively for redemption and greater harmony. Value (including love) is inherent in the creative advance.
Process theology reframes Jesus’ message beautifully: the “unconditional love” of God is the persistent, non-coercive lure toward inclusion, restoration, and relational depth. It transforms theology from a perfectionist demand to a participatory journey. ctr4process.org
Panentheism
Panentheism (“all-in-God”) is the view that the universe is in God, and God is in the universe, yet God also transcends it. God is not identical with the world (as in pantheism: “God is all”), nor wholly separate (as in some classical theisms).
en.wikipedia.org
History:
Roots in ancient thought (e.g., aspects of Neoplatonism, Ramanuja in Hinduism); coined in the 19th century by Karl Krause; popularized in modern theology especially via process thinkers like Hartshorne.
Relation to process theology: Many (not all) process theologians are panentheists. Whitehead spoke of the world unfolding within a larger divine life; God and world are in mutual creative tension (“It is as true to say that the world creates God as that God creates the world”). footnotes2plato.com
Fit with your view: Unconditional love can be the fundamental character of the divine reality within which all things exist and move. The dualistic, imperfect realm is “in God” as an arena of becoming— embraced, sustained, and gently drawn toward greater expression of love— without compromising the nondual oneness at the ultimate level. Suffering is felt within the divine life (God as fellow sufferer), and every act of genuine love contributes to the divine becoming.
This model elegantly resolves the tension: ultimate reality is unconditional love (nondual ground), while this realm of duality is a real, relational expression within that love, allowing for freedom, learning, and co-creation.
Your framework holds up powerfully under these lenses. It keeps the radicality of Jesus’ message intact— love as the deepest ontological fact— while offering compassionate, non-perfectionist hope for this messy, dualistic existence. Process and panentheistic perspectives add metaphysical rigor without diluting the ethical/transformative core.
Which of these resonances most strongly with your own thinking, or where do you see points of fruitful tension?
(End of Grok comments)
Here is a blog rehash of the most profound insight ever uttered– It’s the summary of the message of Historical Jesus framed in a “behavior based on similar belief” coupling- “Love your enemies unconditionally because God does.”
New material…
This site is my search, along with input from others, for the best of insights, ideas, beliefs to point to the best of becoming human, the discover the best of alternative themes for our narratives/stories (alternative to what we have inherited), themes/ideas/beliefs to affirm our better impulses, to best inform our primary drives for meaning and purpose, and to take us to the best possible future as in liberal democracy… and more. The project here is about the ongoing exploration and transformation in all areas of reality and life.
Preface:
This site takes earlier research and approaches it from different angles, giving new focus to differing elements from past material, notably on the history of ideas/beliefs and their impact on human behavior. The framing of material is commonly around the themes of “bad and good” as relates to the grand project of humanity to leave our animal past and create a more truly human existence and future. This involves understanding the nature of bad behavior, what influences bad behavior, and then to find the better alternatives that will help us successfully continue our exodus out of animal-like existence (both at personal and societal scales). Our grand project of exodus/liberation involves discovering what it means to be truly human, what ideas/ideals contribute to helping us develop and grow as authentically human, and then to continue our creation of societies and civilization that affirm our progress toward a more human future. Wendell Krossa
This new material below focuses on the “profoundly transformative” nature of what the wisdom sage Historical Jesus tried to do, to confront and radically change human perception of the ultimate reality- i.e. deity. To create and hold before us the stunning new ultimate Ideal of non-retaliatory, unconditional love as the ultimate reach in human meaning and purpose/behavior. This ideal of unconditional, affirmed by his “stunning new theology of an unconditional God”, would re-orient people to the best of being human.
His confronting and changing the human image of deity, in the manner that he did, was the single most profound mental revolution and resulting liberation ever proposed.
Note the repeated emphasis below on the superlatives- i.e. “most profound”, “stunning”, “best”, etc. This is playing with comments from researchers/historians such as James Robinson (“Q Wisdom Sayings” scholar) who used the term “stunning” to describe the radical new theology of Jesus. The new theology of Jesus, as Robinson said, was his greatest contribution to the history of human ideas. That is profoundly understated. You have to consider the absolutely contrary themes of Paul’s Christ to get how profound the discovery of Jesus actually was/is. It is, as Jefferson and Tolstoy said, the difference between “diamonds and dung.”
Here is my point in more detail…
Historical Jesus, when he first presented his “stunning new theology of a non-retaliatory, unconditional God”, tried to effect (generate, produce) a radical “death/rebirth” in human minds, emotions, motivations, and then a similarly radical transformation in behavior, in the treatment of others, especially enemies/offenders.
There is nothing comparable, anywhere in history, to his singularly profound proposal for liberation and transformation of minds and lives.
His first public introduction of his new theology: Setting the context…
During his first public speech at a local synagogue (recounted in Luke 4) he refused to read the next sentence in an Isaiah 61 passage that he had begun reading. The next sentence stated, “the day of vengeance of our God.”
He ended his public reading immediately before that statement. His refusal to continue and read that statement was a refusal to affirm the Jewish hope that their God would exact ultimate divine vengeance and destroy their oppressors/enemies.
A bit later, Jesus then continued and illustrated, contrary to traditional Jewish “eye for eye” theology, his new theology of a God who unconditionally loved enemies. He did this by reminding his Jewish audience that God had sent the Jewish prophets Elijah and Elisha to feed and heal their enemies, not to punish and destroy them.
Jesus’ denial of Jewish “emotional satisfaction” in their hope for punitive destruction of enemies, and then his counter promotion of unconditional merciful love for even those enemies, enraged his Jewish audience and they immediately tried to kill him.
He went directly to the core of their consciousness/subconscious, to the central element that defined their image of themselves and hence how they framed their primal impulse to meaning and purpose. And he rejected the central idea/ideal/belief that framed their understanding of meaning and purpose.
To reject the central element of how people understand themselves, how they understand why they exist, and for what purpose, is received and felt as a threat to their very existence and threats to personal survival are felt as fundamentally dangerous, hence the enraged reaction to protect personal survival/existence.
Jesus would later state again his new unconditional theology with the illustration that God did not engage eye for eye retaliation but loved enemies as evident in that God generously gave sun and rain to both good people and bad people inclusively (i.e. the Matthew 5 and Luke 6 summaries). He was introducing the singularly most radical change in human understanding of justice ever spoken by anyone, rejecting eye for eye punitive justice for responsible unconditional treatment of human failure as in holding fully responsible while restraining/incarcerating/rehabilitating, and not yielding to irresponsible “suicidal empathy”.
A “weave” insert: Pardon some bobbing and weaving through the following, but that is how conversation goes. This is not a formal essay-type or academic-type site. I picked up the “weave” thing from the “Orange monster.”
Compare the new theology of Jesus to Paul’s two-decade later re-affirmation of the hope for ultimate divine vengeance and destruction of unbelievers/enemies. Paul embodied that hope for retaliatory vengeance in his Christ myth. His affirmation of traditional retributive theology was clear when he presented his view of God as retaliatory and punitive in Romans 12: 17-20, quoting an Old Testament verse that stated, “’Vengeance is mine, I will retaliate/repay’, says the Lord”. He told his followers to hold in abeyance their personal desire to take immediate vengeance against oppressors/enemies with the hope that a retaliatory God would ultimately take vengeance on their behalf, and it would be real nasty (apocalypse and hell). That was the motivation that Paul offered, urging them to be nice to enemies/offenders in the present and wait for the Big Guy to do the job for them.
Hence, Paul’s apparently non-retaliatory ethic is actually retaliatory in intent, thereby matching the retaliatory ideal that is the deity element in the “behavior based on validating belief” coupling (Paul used the same coupling of behavior/belief that Jesus had originally used to introduce the non-retaliatory theology).
Continuing…
Following the Luke 4 speech, Jesus then later presented his new theology in a “behavior based on belief” coupling at the conclusion to his lists of precepts on how to treat enemies/offenders with unconditional love (Luke 6: 27-36). He stated, “Be unconditionally merciful just as God is unconditionally merciful.” That was the core theme of his new theology and his overall message.
His point? Do you really want to embrace a hero’s quest to do something great in life? To engage a righteous battle in life against some evil?
Such quests and battles, as Solzhenitsyn wisely cautioned, are not fought against fellow human beings viewed as “enemies.” They should not be tribal battles of one societal class against another- i.e. the fallacies of the collectivist tribal dualism of “oppressors/oppressed.”
People embracing the Zoroastrian cosmic dualism will then have validation to view themselves as on the side of truth and right in some divide, often view themselves as victims under threat from others who disagree with them. The danger is then to imagine themselves as heroes obligated to battle those differing others. Add in the apocalyptic element where people feeling threatened will also exaggerate the nature of purported threat and thereby have further validation to eliminate their opponents as posing “existential danger” to all good and all life.
And too typically, the formerly oppressed in such tribal divides then repeat history’s cycles of “eye for eye” and become the new totalitarian oppressors.
The real battle of life, against the real enemy in life, is the intensely personal battle that takes place inside each of us against the common animal inheritance of our impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
Yes, there are authentic public battles of good against bad in life. And it is critical how we frame and engage such struggles to ensure that we conduct ourselves humanely. As Laozi said, to protect yourselves, you have to defeat and restrain those who attack you but then you must seek their restoration as family and not humiliate them or treat them as permanent enemies.
An added note: I would frame the “good” side of varied public battles in terms of liberal democracy principles/laws/institutions and the bad as that which contradicts and promotes things counter to the liberal democracy that protects the rights and freedoms of all individuals equally.
Continuing again with Jesus’ personal situation…
He illustrated his theology of unconditional love in his own behavior, such as when he invited societal outcasts (prostitutes, tax collectors, etc.) to public meals.
But, contrary to those who take the unconditional ideal to unworkable and destructive pacifist applications (i.e. “suicidal empathy”), he did not advocate irresponsible pacifism when dealing with bad human behavior and he told failing people to “go and sin no more”. Be responsible for your personal behavior. Make it your priority to change your own life first and foremost. Exhibit true heroism in a great battle of good against evil by cleaning up your personal situation before virtue-signalling and parading some form of questionable or faddish “righteousness” in public, especially when framed by the mental deformity of Zoroastrian cosmic dualism that leads many to engage “eye for eye” battles against differing others in the human family (i.e. base tribalism validated by Zoroastrian mythology).
“AI Overview
“When Jesus offered grace to failing people, he did not ignore their behavior; he paired forgiveness with a call to personal responsibility. Saying “go and sin no more” is a mandate to actively change your life and turn away from destructive habits.
“Embracing this principle involves several practical steps:
• Acknowledge the behavior: Take full ownership of your actions without deflecting blame onto circumstances or others.
• Commit to a new direction: Leave the old lifestyle behind and deliberately move forward in a responsible manner.
• Understand the core meaning: This call isn’t about achieving flawless perfection, but rather about ceasing a lifestyle of willful self-destruction and choosing maturely human, purposeful living.”
(End of AI Overview)
Today, responsible unconditional treatment of failing others, that does not go extremist into unworkable pacifist responses to bad behavior, would mean that common sense criminal justice will responsibly restrain and incarcerate violent people as fundamental to protect others. Common sense will not promote the insanely irresponsible policies of “catch and release” of dangerous offenders that is enacted too commonly across our societies today as “justice”.
Back to that first public speech of his stunning new theology and his urging a fundamental death/rebirth in human thought, emotion, motivation, and behavior. This is drawn from research in the “Search for Historical Jesus”, “Jesus Seminar”, “Q Wisdom Sayings”, etc.
The “profound” insight from this wisdom sage…
Jesus advocated for the rejection/disintegration of the punitively vengeful theology of Judaism and for reintegration/reconstruction around his entirely new non-retaliatory and unconditional theology. His entirely new image of God would function as the grand archetype for new beliefs, principles, justice, and ethics to utterly transform human thinking, consciousness, narratives, and life.
Insert: I borrow the “disintegration/reintegration” coupling from Joseph Campbell’s comments somewhere on the shamanic experience as a total collapse and disintegration of some old way of life and then reintegration around an entirely new experience of life, an entirely new mode of being. I apply that to human narratives and the often helpful process of going through the rejection of some old narrative and then to reconstruct life around an entirely new narrative. The “clean break” approach to reform.
Continuing….
Jesus presented what Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy would later define as “diamonds” in contrast to religious belief systems and traditions that they termed “dung, slime and muck, garbage, the product of lesser minds.” Those are harshly blunt descriptives but necessary to shock and jolt minds to attention. They both applied those terms to Paul’s “Christ-ianity” that they argued had buried the diamond message of Jesus, what should have been “Jesus-ianity.”
Throughout the rest of his wisdom sayings Jesus presented other contrasts with conventional religious beliefs and widely accepted customs.
For example, he countered the impulse to human tribalism, the common tendency of people/groups to view themselves as the good people on the side of the true God and true religion (based on Zoroaster’s dualism of cosmic good versus cosmic evil).
Many have embraced that mythology to frame themselves as heroically affiliated with a righteous movement or crusade that contrasts, black and white, with differing others as evil enemies (i.e. those deceived by false gods, evil unbelievers, deceived by error, deserving punitive justice and damnation, etc.). We all face the danger of deforming the Hero’s Quest to frame ourselves in delusional ways that harm others.
With his new theology, Jesus set forth new fundamental ideas/themes to reshape human narratives and consciousness, starting with the most fundamental and central of all human beliefs in Ultimate Reality or deity. As in his first public speaking engagement, he went directly to “the mother of all big Kahunas” (i.e. most important, dominant, or influential person or thing), the Creating Source of all, hence the dominant Reality and Ideal to shape human meaning and purpose.
A fundamental theme in his new framework of ideas/beliefs was that the ultimate reality was unconditional love. His unconditional God contrasted entirely with all religion as highly conditional. From the beginning, religion as a social institution was based on ideas of wrathful, threatening deity that demanded conditions such as sacrifices to pay for wrong, along with submission to divine authority as mediated through priesthoods and religious institutions with their myriad conditions of structured dogma/belief systems, rituals and ceremonies, complex systems of religious practises, and religious lifestyles as identity markers of true believer status and membership in the religious tribe, along with endless other conditions.
The coercive pressure to embrace religious conditions was emphasized, notably in the Christian situation, with the threat theology of Paul’s wrathful God (Romans) and his similarly enraged Christ who would return in blazing fire to destroy all who did not believe and submit to Paul’s Christ (2 Thessalonians 1, Revelation 19-20). Paul used “the terror of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:11) and threats of eternal punishment/damnation for any refusing his Christ. That was appeal to the ultimate threat, the ultimate in mental and emotional threat so that “every knee would bow” (Philippians 2:10-11) and “every thought would be brought into total submission/obedience” to his Christology-based religious system (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Jesus took the first verses of that Isaiah 61 reading seriously, that he would liberate people from mental and emotional enslavement to threat theology.
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor.” He took statements such as “the Lord’s favor” and applied that to his new theology of the unconditional love of God that he illustrated with the Elijah and Elisha incidents that showed divine unconditional love for enemies.
More on the “stunning” element in Jesus’ theology…
As one of history’s singularly revolutionary wisdom sages, Historical Jesus presented an entirely new way of thinking and living. Rather that engage cautious reformism that tinkers at the periphery of some tradition, he went to the very heart of all religious narratives, to the image of God that all other religious ideas derive meaning and validation from.
His unconditional God, who included all as equals, was the presentation of a new basis for human equality, a reframing of nontribal universalism as never before presented. In an unconditional theology there were no special elites, no chosen people favored above any others, no outcasts, no enemies, but only the one human family where every human individual deserved equal respect and treatment, each the object of the same generous love and mercy, each deserving equal rights and freedoms as all others. This gives the truest meaning to the human ideal of “inclusion.”
Again- His new theology and lifestyle was entirely “nonreligious” in nature as it was centered on the most critical belief of all- i.e. the nature of deity as unconditional. That was in contrast to all historical religion that has been highly conditional from the beginning because founded on belief in conditional deity.
Another critical element in his new theology…
Historical Jesus further advocated non-dominating mutual service (i.e. horizontal relating between people as respected equals). He rejected Plato’s “Philosopher Kings” totalitarianism where special elites dominated commoners. He rejected human forms of “lordship” that had always been the foundational element that undergirded the long-endured elite/commoner divide of societies. It was critical to reject this principle of the lordship of some over others if there was to be true human freedom. So again- Where there is no freedom, there is no love.
Some of these sayings of his- i.e. “Don’t lord over others, but instead, serve others”- are tucked away and almost ignored in the New Testament gospels as negligible and peripheral tidbits (i.e. not taken seriously as critical elements among his main themes/message). But their impact in human societies is atomic-scale for transforming minds, laws, institutions, and relationships. This particular saying on true greatness as service was never given space in any of the great Church Creeds.
Paul, in his burial of these Jesus’ diamonds, re-established the ideal of totalitarian domination in his “Lord Jesus Christ” who demanded that all humanity engage total subservience in this life. And then in a heavenly religious kingdom, Paul’s Lord ruling with an “iron rod”, demanded an absolute subservience that renders earthly totalitarianisms shadowy replicas in comparison.
Insert qualifier: Again, we don’t let protest against domination take us to some opposite extreme of collectivist “equalizing” or “equity of outcome” approaches. We accept the hierarchical structures of our societies for efficiency. Precepts against domination of others, are more of the nature of ideals and guides for how we relate to and treat others within such structures, that we relate to others “horizontally” as respected equals, despite our differing roles, status, and positions.
Other elements in the new theology and message of Jesus affirm approaches like nonpunitive justice. We see this in his central statement that there should be no more “eye for eye” retaliation but instead unconditional love for enemies. What Tolstoy intimated in his statement that in all situations in life people are to be treated with love.
Again, common-sense will not take this to irresponsible pacifism as in “catch and release” of violent offenders who then subject innocent people to further harm. Common-sense will hold all people fully responsible for their actions and for offenses committed against others. Jesus told failing humans, after reassuring them of forgiveness, inclusion, and love, to “go and sin no more”. Stop your bad behavior. Make changes now, not tomorrow, and then go back to your communities and lives and contribute to serving others there.
Restorative justice approaches hold offenders responsible for behavior, including incarceration and restitution, but will always treat such offenders humanely.
Bob Brinsmead points to other critical notes in the Jesus message, notably that Jesus oriented people to loving others in this world and life, not to seeking salvation in another heavenly realm. The focus on otherworldly reality, Brinsmead notes, was another mental deformity that Paul borrowed from Plato’s Hellenism.
Plato viewed this defiled/corrupted world as one of unreal shadows that pointed to a more important invisible realm of Ideals/Forms that were the Real. Paul and his followers embraced this perspective with their Christ gospel that viewed the Old Testament, and its focus on sacrifices, as all shadows that pointed to the Christ as the Real, as the ultimate Sacrifice that opened the way for true believers to enter the heavenly realm of the Christ kingdom after death. Paul, adopting Plato’s otherworldly perspective, oriented people to devaluing this world, in favor of emphasizing living for salvation in the next life as the supreme human concern.
Brinsmead’s “Substack” essays cover these varied elements.
Transformation of core identity can be frightening but is ultimately liberating.
This site appeals repeatedly to Jesus’ “stunning new theology” (James Robinson’s term) because he went directly the core of the human problem of bad archetypes (embedded ideas/beliefs) that incite, energize, and validate the worst of our inherited animal impulses. The deeply embedded archetypes of our collective human subconscious have long given many people “emotional satisfaction” in holding bad ideas/beliefs that affirm bad behavior (though, typical of religious traditions, the bad is cloaked as good, even as divine) and this has prevented progress toward human maturity in a liberal democracy future.
I have traced a number of the main archetypes/beliefs in varied lists posted on this site. These are the main themes of the most common archetypes that lead people to repeatedly embrace narratives across history that are shaped by the same basic 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
Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14451
Theology, or human images of God, is the cohering center of the above complexes of themes (systems of beliefs, narratives).
If we are to properly inform and guide our impulse to meaning and purpose, to correctly inform our minds and spirits with better narrative themes, then it is wise to change the core archetypes from the core on out, starting as Historical Jesus did with theology, transforming the God, the Ultimate Reality and Ideal at the center of all.
The degree and scale of transformation necessary, if we sincerely want to properly deal with the main contributing factors to violence and war for the long-term future, requires going to the Mother of all contributing factors and that is theology, the image of God. Again, to refresh the critical nature of this point, “It’s the God, stupid.” The images still reigning at the center of our main religious traditions are those of monster Gods, what Harold Ellens and Zenon Lotufo termed “Cruel God” images. Ultimate evil cloaked as ultimate Good.
(End of my comment)
And this interesting discussion…
“Joe Rogan Experience #2506 – Michelle Thaller”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZCmYrgOZU0
Rogan discusses quantum entanglement with this lady, among other things, and they ponder what that means about the connectedness of all things. That oneness element has long been a central discovery from those having NDEs, along with their discovery of the amazing wonder of the Light/God as inexpressibly transcendent unconditional love.
Purist-type physicists recoil at such “Woowoo” takeaways by us ignorant commoners in regard to things like quantum entanglement. No, its fundamental reality and a legitimate conclusion that you can make on the profound oneness of everything, including our oneness as members of the human family.
Rogan is correct that this underlying entanglement undercuts human differences.
I also take this oneness to overturn the fallacy of Zoroastrian cosmic dualism that we can divide people into the true members on the side of the true God and in opposition to the “evil unbelievers” in the wrong religion/ideology or movement that are “enemies” to be excluded, defeated, dominated, and destroyed (salvation through destruction). That is the fallacy of a fundamental separation and exclusion of some people from the one human family.
Remember that sun and rain were given generously and freely to all alike, to both good and bad people. No exclusion of anyone by that new God of Jesus. And did that ever offend and enrage people who heard him say such things. Some tried to throw him off a cliff.
Contrary to Zoroastrian dualism that shaped the Western religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam), we are all part of a greater Oneness though I don’t follow Rogan as he appears to go too far into speculating on a future of eliminated individuality. That heads off in the direction of loss of individual freedom and other pathologies too common to collectivism thinking. Many NDE people qualify that the sense of profound oneness with all does not include loss of individual personhood.
These two meander through a lot of fascinating things about this cosmos and life that we inhabit.
This is a good illustration of how apocalyptic myth deforms human minds and promotes public hysteria/madness (also renders the brightest people foolish).
One meteorologist in 1976 points to a map showing the temperatures of around 30 degrees C and correctly states “Its going to be a wonderful sunny day”. The other meteorologist points to the same map in 2026 also showing temps of around 30 degrees C and, frowning, states that “We are all going to die”. Exposes the lunacy of apocalyptic panic-mongering.
In this next clip the young lady lays out the mass-hysteria created around the sometimes abrasive, even at times offensive, personality of Trump. But the narrative created to portray such people as “Nazi, Hitler, fascist, dictator, threat to democracy, etc.” and subject him to endless distortion of everything he says, to impeachments and threats of imprisonment, to censor and silence him, has been an insane eruption of mass hysteria that has promoted hatred, division, vilification, and even violence in US society. This lady hits a better balance between noting the imperfections in people but not going full-blown crazy with hatred and vilification.