Below: Carefully approaching “the idea that has to be defeated” if we are to solve the persisting problem of violence and war in our modern era. Spreading the blame around to all major religious traditions and their secular/ideological counterparts.
Comment on the Tim Sheehy interview, Coleman Hughes interviewing Douglas Murray, Rogan interview of former ACLU director Ira Glasser on protecting free speech, and getting Grok’s take on the unconditional ideal, etc. Also, AI summary of site project and main themes/points.
See also below the varied AI summaries of the violence in the histories of the three major Western religions, the evidence that bad religious ideas produce bad human behavior. And how the woke virus in AI results in their defensive dismissal of the root causes of such violence. “Its the theology, stupid”.
This man Sheehy gets the nature of the threat from these theocrats who are committed to their version of “salvation through violent destruction of enemies”.
A clear-headed view of the Iranian theocratic threat to western civilization, Wendell Krossa
“Two Drinks with . . . the Senator Warning Trump That Iran ‘Cannot Be Trusted’: Tim Sheehy knows the threat of terrorism firsthand. He explains why U.S. negotiators must remain skeptical of their Iranian counterparts”, Audrey Fahlberg, Free Press
https://www.thefp.com/p/two-drinks-tim-sheehy?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
“I DON’T CARE WHO’S AT THE TABLE, I DON’T CARE WHAT KIND OF SUIT HE’S WEARING,” TIM SHEEHY TELLS AUDREY FAHLBERG. “IF THEY’RE REPRESENTING THE IRANIAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, THEY HAVEN’T CHANGED THEIR WORLDVIEW.” (COURTESY OF TIM SHEEHY)
I would affirm Sheehy’s comments that the Iranian theocrats have not changed their worldview, more specifically they have not changed their theology, their view of a God who demands that they eliminate unbelievers/enemies. The Iranian theocrat’s theology states that their promised salvation comes through the violent destruction of enemies. According to that theology, they are divinely obligated (under the carrot promise of a virgin-glutted heaven and the stick threat of hellfire for refusal to join jihad) to purge the evil of western liberal democracies that are defiling and corrupting the world that should be dominated by the world-purifying impact of an Islamic caliphate.
Again- Pay attention to the cohering center of such beliefs- i.e. the tribal, dominating, and punitively destroying God that holds such complexes of themes together in the common “salvation through destruction” approach to life. And as this site repeatedly qualifies/balances, this theology was largely inherited from Zoroaster, coming down via Judaism and Christianity. It is a line of historical descent that has been traced by historians of mythology/religion.
This historical evidence counters any tendency to tribally condemn Islam as “worse than our religions”. No, all religious traditions across history have embraced similar core complexes of ideas/beliefs (see my lists of “Bad ideas”). And this common practise of borrowing the “same old” has continued in our modern-era “secular/ideological” traditions. Why? Well, take note of those deeply buried archetypes of the human subconscious that influence us to choose the same basic beliefs that endlessly grant us “emotional satisfaction” even against rational evidence of the harmful outcomes they repeatedly produce.
Quotes:
Sheehy responds to Fahlberg’s question re “the administration’s suggestion that Iran’s leaders have turned over a new leaf and are less radical than their predecessors”, something that Trump has repeated in public. Sheehy shares his own experience of friends brutally killed by Shiite IEDs (funded by Iran) when they served in Iraq.
Hence, “he wants to remind the administration that the Iranian regime hasn’t crossed an ideological Rubicon simply because its former leaders were whacked. This is a regime that wants us to ‘die in brutal, disgusting ways’ and wants ‘to videotape us being raped and burned alive’.”
Sheehy says of the Iranian negotiators. “If they’re representing the Iranian Islamic Republic, they haven’t changed their worldview. Now, some may be more moderate than others, but at the end of the day, they still hate us, and they still want us dead.”
He insists that “the regime’s leaders must be treated with extreme suspicion amid U.S. negotiations.”
Commenting on the previous Obama deal with Iran, he warns about releasing funds to the Iranians that they will then use to fund more terrorism.
“We just need to be absolutely sure that our deal, whatever deal this is, structurally we do not fund the very beast that wishes to destroy us.”
He adds that he “believes there’s no reason to think that the Iranians will act differently than they have in the past unless we ‘keep holding them by the throat’.”
He further notes that he gets “the millions of Americans who are tuning out the Iranian threat and are tired of sending troops to the Middle East…. But he thinks public frustration and disinterest are no reason for the administration to let up. ‘Well, we may be done with them, but they are not done with us, and their desire is that our civilization gets wiped off the map’.”
My additions to the above– The same salvation through destruction approach of the Iranian theocrats also dominates today’s socialism/collectivism that has not changed its worldview over the past century or so, hence it repeatedly returns in fresh new variants like the “woke progressivism” variant that has taken over and shifted the US Democratic Party far-left. The same shift toward woke progressive collectivism has occurred across western liberal democracies, notably on the left side of these societies. Many on the formerly liberal side of our societies have become highly illiberal, even anti-liberal.
Just as advocated by the original Marxist crusade, salvation into a restored communalism paradise demands the overthrow, destruction, and purging of the “evil” western liberal democracy, the capitalism that protects individual private property, especially the property of the most successful people. Private property was Marx’s number one evil to exterminate, to remove in order to liberate people to flourish as true “communal humans” (i.e. original “noble savages” before their fall into civilizations like liberal democracy with individual rights and freedoms). Marxist collectivism is liberation to “You will own nothing and you will be happy” (former WEF slogan).
Read Kristian Niemietz’s history of the 24 past socialist experiments to get that this beast never dies even after repeated failures and defeats because its core driving idea has not been defeated (“Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies”).
The two major threats to liberal democracy today are embodied in the collectivism of China and the theocracy of the Iranian leaders. Neither of these two salvation through destruction movements have changed their core worldview and even after military defeats they will keep coming at our societies in varied ways, through varied fronts, with a shared intention to undermine liberal democracies, to stir division among citizens, to promote hatred for liberal democracy society as the evil in the world, to incite enmity between societal divides, and eventually to overthrow western democracies.
These two variants on salvation through destruction will even cooperate as noted in their shared participation in public demonstrations across the West (i.e. demonstrators with Palestinian and Marxist flags). Their cooperation in the shared ultimate goal of the overthrow of liberal democracies is temporary till one or the other dominates and that winner will then eliminate the “useful idiots” on the other side. Just as the Iranian theocrats eliminated their socialist colleagues who assisted them in the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.
General Nagata was right that we will get endless ongoing resurgences of ISIS-type violence, endless eruptions of the same old destruction, because we have not defeated “the idea” driving these crusades. This site is devoted to going to the core of “the idea”, to the complexes of bad ideas that have driven this bad behavior across history. It has always been the same core complex of themes that form the “salvation through destruction” approach that is endlessly revived and promoted.
My lists of the full complexes of themes in apocalyptic millennial or salvation through destruction traditions:
“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
“Notable contradictions between Jesus and Paul’s Christ” (updated 2025), Wendell Krossa
http://www.wendellkrossa.com/?p=14451
Richard Landes similarly warned that we will get ongoing repeats of mass-death if we don’t understand “the idea” that he framed as the “apocalyptic millennialism” of Paul’s Christ. His research revealed how apocalyptic millennialism can carry societies of good people into mass destruction, even of their own societies as in the case of the Nazis who led Germany to total ruin, along with tens of millions of related war deaths. The Nazis intentionally sought to engage apocalyptic-scale destruction (i.e. the final Armageddon battle with Russian Jewish Bolsheviks) as necessary to achieve Reich salvation.
The same basic complex of themes drives Marxism, environmental alarmism, and the theocrats of Iran just as it drove Nazism. We get endless new differing manifestations, variants on the same basic complex of apocalyptic millennial ideas/beliefs/themes. This site relentlessly goes after these ideas because it is a slow process of changing minds. As Charles Mackey said,
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
AI Overview
The quote you are thinking of is by Scottish journalist and author Charles Mackay. It perfectly captures human psychology during manias and market bubbles.
The Exact Quote
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
Context & Book
This famous line comes from his 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The book explores how communities and entire nations can suddenly lose their rationality, diving into mass hysteria, financial bubbles, and societal fads.
Because of its deep look into mob mentality, it is widely considered a foundational, must-read text on both crowd psychology and investing.
(End of AI Overview)
Take note of the full complex of themes that constitute salvation through destruction narratives, their origin in primitive mythologies (Sumerian/Akkadian, Babylonian, Zoroastrian, etc.), their embrace by world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and their absorption into modern-era secular/ideological variants.
Why do the mental deformities/pathologies in the lists above continue? Because long ago they were deeply embedded as archetypes of the collective human subconscious. And most critical to note, they were projected onto humanity’s ultimate reality and ideal- God. Hence, as always, “It’s the theology, stupid”.
Theology is the core idea to go after and transform if we are to properly confront and solve “the idea” that drives bad human behavior (General Nagata’s term). Theology, as the ultimate human guiding ideal, is the Mother root of all “root contributing factors” to bad behavior. The nature and characteristics of that ultimate embodiment of human ideals then incites and validates our worst impulses to vent tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others framed as enemies, as threats to our world. We do become just like the God (or whatever our ultimate reality/ideal) that we believe in.
As repeated before on this site, I am not picking on Islam that inherited its theology from Christianity (via the Ebionite priest, Waraqa, who mentored Muhammad). And Christianity, in turn, got its main themes from Judaism and Hellenism, that in turn inherited the core ideas in salvation through destruction from Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster formalized the scattered themes of the earliest primitive mythologies- i.e. enraged deity threatening to punish and destroy corrupted/fallen humanity. God as tribal (true believers set against unbelievers in cosmic war of good against evil), God as dominating lord/king (modelling relationships of domination/submission), God demanding the purging of evil from the world (Sumerian flood, Zoroastrian purging by fire).
These themes were eventually given epitome expression in Paul’s Christ that has dominated western civilization till the present (James Tabor in “Paul and Jesus”). The salvation through destruction complex is still protected in our major world religions and has spread to infect most secular/ideological variants now (Marxism, environmental alarmism, woke progressivism, etc.).
How did Historical Jesus defeat these “salvation through destruction” ideas that have long driven bad human behavior? He went to the core of the idea, to the God that had dominated human narratives and consciousness across all previous history and across all cultures. He then rejected outright that retaliatory, destroying deity as illustrated in his first public speaking engagement in a synagogue (i.e. the Luke 4 incident). He refused to read a key Isaiah 61 statement that would have affirmed to his Jewish audience their hope that their retaliatory, destroying, tribal God would punish and eliminate their enemies- i.e. “the day of vengeance of our God”.
He then presented his entirely opposite theology of an unconditionally loving God, illustrating that stunning new theology with the Elijah and Elisha incidents of God helping the enemies of Jews.
Sometime later, when he spoke to larger groups (i.e. the Matt 5 and Luke 6 “sermons”) he presented a list of precepts that illustrated how to love enemies unconditionally. He concluded that list with the statement that such unconditional response and behavior shows exactly what his new God was like- i.e. “Do this and you be just God”. This is how God treats enemies. The behavior that illustrates the theology- “Be unconditionally merciful just as God is unconditionally merciful”.
His framing of the nature of mature heroic humanity, pointed to the highest possible human achievement in this life and revealed how we ultimately defeat evil in this life (i.e. ending the “eye for eye” cycles of retaliatory violence that often end in the futility and mass destruction of wars).
The sense of egregious irresponsibility that we should feel is that we have long had the liberating alternative, the “new idea” to center our narratives, consciousness, emotions, motivations, and then shape our ethics justice systems, behavior, relationships, and transform our societies at scale. We are without excuse. (“new idea”? Yes, General Nagata. It’s more that just “defeating the bad idea” driving violence and war. We need a new alternative idea to replace the bad idea.)
What are issues of human courage and cowardice, given such information? Courage to engage the death/rebirth of human narratives framed around “bad religious ideas” that we have inherited from our ancestors, ideas still protected in our major world religions. Replacing the old theologies of angry, retaliatory, destroying God with the stunning new theology of Historical Jesus requires engaging the complete disintegration of the old and reintegration around the entirely new. Embracing fundamental transformation of core beliefs/archetypes. Not a project for cautious or cowardly spirits.
And again, the real battle against the real enemy in life takes place inside each of us where we confront and defeat the bad ideas/archetypes that affirm our worst impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others. That is, as Solzhenitsyn stated, the real battle of good against evil in life. Its not about the outer societal battles of one class of people against another.
Success in this real battle of life is available to all equally. It is about human achievement that does not depend on level of education, wealth, social status, skills, or whatever other privileges and advantages some people have over others. Everyone gets the same equal opportunity to achieve the ultimate in human greatness by engaging nontribal love that treats all others as human equals (i.e. universal inclusion in the same basic rights and freedoms, viewing all as members of one human family). We can all achieve the ultimate in human greatness by refusing to lord over others and instead serve others and respond to human imperfection and failure with non-punitive, non-destroying forms of restorative justice while still holding all fully responsible for bad behavior (i.e. the common-sense forms of justice as Grok noted below in response to the unconditional ideal).
Insert: We individually win the inner battle against our inner impulses to tribalism (our group versus other differing groups), to dominate and control differing others, and to destroy differing others and if we initiate and carry through this approach in our relationships with our family, friends, neighbors, and larger social situation. That’s how we eventually at-scale transform our societies for the better. Individual success in this real battle of good against evil is our most effective contribution to spreading the Jesus approach to enemies, or in contemporary terms, the liberal democracy approach of respecting the freedoms and rights of all others, the “live and let live” approach to differing others with the only obligation to intervene and restrain others if they threaten physical assault and violence. But other than that, to leave one another alone, and to not just tolerate their differences but to celebrate such difference even if we don’t like it.
This is about the former advocacy of classic liberals to protect the freedom and diversity of all citizens with our lives, to protect others self-determination and right to create unique life stories, even if offensive to us, as long as they do not physically harm others. Hence, the ACLU defense of reprehensible neo-Nazis in southern states demonstrating in Jewish neighborhoods (see AI Overview below).
Our intensely personal victory over these inner monsters/enemies of the impulses to tribalism, domination, and destruction, is our greatest achievement and our most important contribution to the larger story of the human exodus from our animal past. This is the story of liberation from an animal inheritance to become maturely human in liberal democracy civilization. Our personal victory is our most critical personal contribution to the greater quest of all humanity.
Our personal example and model is our most important contribution to benefit others, what Joseph Campbell called the “boon” that we bring home to others after defeating our personal monster/enemy in our own hero’s quest.
AI Overview
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defends the First Amendment rights of all groups— including neo-Nazis and white supremacists demonstrating in Jewish or marginalized neighborhoods— to prevent the government from establishing censorship powers that could be used to suppress progressive or minority speech.
The Skokie Case (1977)
The most infamous instance of this occurred in 1977 when the National Socialist Party of America (a neo-Nazi group) announced plans to march in Skokie, Illinois.
• The Context: Skokie was a Chicago suburb where over 40,000 Jewish residents lived, including thousands of Holocaust survivors.
• The Legal Battle: The village of Skokie quickly enacted ordinances and sought court injunctions to block the demonstration. The ACLU took the case on behalf of the neo-Nazis, arguing that Skokie’s bans violated the First Amendment. The ACLU successfully overturned the injunctions, establishing that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is deeply offensive.
• The Fallout: While the courts ruled in favor of the right to free speech, the controversy caused massive public backlash, resulting in the resignation of approximately 30,000 ACLU members. Ironically, the neo-Nazis never actually marched in Skokie, eventually agreeing to rally in Chicago instead.
Recent Demonstrations
In recent years, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups have targeted neighborhoods and temples across various states, including recent highly publicized demonstrations in Georgia.
• The ACLU Stance: Defending these groups continues to cause internal debate and public outcry. However, the ACLU maintains that “freedom of speech is a universal right”.
• The Strategy: The organization argues that if the government can suppress the rights of Nazis, it can similarly suppress the rights of minority groups and civil rights protesters. The ACLU frequently mitigates this by aggressively condemning the speakers’ views publicly, funding counter-protests, and advocating for causes opposing the hate groups.
(End of AI Overview)
My query:
Apparently, the ACLU has abandoned that former authentically liberal position (e.g. Ira Glasser era) and shifted now toward woke progressivism positions that are highly illiberal.
AI Overview response:
The ACLU has faced widespread criticism from legal scholars, journalists, and its own former leadership for shifting away from its traditional, content-neutral defense of free speech toward a progressive, advocacy-driven model. Critics argue that this evolution compromises the organization’s foundational mission, while the current ACLU leadership maintains that the shift is a necessary modernization to balance free speech with civil rights.
The Core of the Criticism
Critics, including former executive director Ira Glasser (who led the organization from 1978 to 2001), argue that the ACLU has abandoned its original, non-partisan stance.
• The Glasser Era Ideal: Under Glasser, the ACLU operated on the principle that defending the free speech of abhorrent groups (like neo-Nazis in Skokie) was structurally necessary to prevent the government from gaining the power to censor anyone else.
• The “Woke” Pivot: Critics state that the modern ACLU has increasingly prioritized progressive social justice outcomes over universal liberties. They point to instances where the organization has remained silent on or actively supported the restriction of speech deemed harmful to marginalized communities.
• Electoral Politics: In a departure from its historical refusal to participate in partisan elections, the ACLU began spending millions of dollars directly on political advertisements for specific candidates starting around the 2018 midterm elections.
The Turning Point: Charlottesville (2017)
The internal ideological fracture escalated dramatically following the August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The ACLU of Virginia successfully went to court to defend the white nationalists’ right to hold their protest downtown. When the rally descended into violence and resulted in the death of a counterprotester, the organization faced intense internal and external backlash.
In response, the national ACLU drafted new case-selection guidelines. The leaked internal memo revealed that before taking a free speech case, lawyers must now weigh whether the speech:
• Inflicts “potential effect on marginalized communities”.
• Assists in “advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to [ACLU] values”.
• Impedes progress toward racial and social equality.
The Internal Debate
This shift has created a stark divide between the “old guard” civil libertarians and the modern “new guard” progressive advocates.
Perspective Core Argument
Traditionalist (The Old Guard): Core argument- Speech defense must be completely content-neutral. If the ACLU judges a client’s message before defending them, it functions as a political entity rather than a civil liberties defender.
Key figures/rationale
Ira Glasser, Floyd Abrams, Nadine Strossen. They argue that giving government or organizations the power to define “hate speech” historically results in the suppression of minorities.
Progressive (The New Guard): Core argument-
The First Amendment is disproportionately weaponized by groups holding systemic power and privilege to inflict harm. Free speech must not be defended at the absolute expense of civil rights and safety.
Key figures/rationale
Current leadership and newer staff. They contend that the organization can simultaneously defend the legal right to speak while actively using its own speech to condemn white supremacy and advocate for marginalized communities.
The Modern ACLU’s Defense
The current leadership, including National Legal Director David Cole, objects to the narrative that they have abandoned free speech. They point out that the ACLU continues to take on highly unpopular cases across the political spectrum— including defending the National Rifle Association (NRA), anti-abortion protesters, and Donald Trump’s right to speak— asserting that they still defend the law while refusing to remain morally neutral about the message.
Watch former executive director Ira Glasser break down the structural dangers of changing free speech defense rules and why allowing the government or institutions to choose what is “hateful” backfires on marginalized groups:
Former ACLU Head Ira Glasser on Why You Can’t Ban Hate Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kypokn111hU
And then in a similar vein, this from Coleman Hughes interviewing Douglas Murray…
Douglas Murray: The Iranian Regime Means What It Says, JUNE 25, 2026, COLEMAN HUGHES
https://www.thefp.com/p/douglas-murray-coleman-hughes
In this interview Murray discusses the problem of the Starmer government’s cowardly response to the stabbing murder of young girls at a party in England and the refusal of politicians to name the nationality and religion of the man who committed those brutal murders.
My interest in Murray’s comments has to do with facts such as the murderer had contacted al Queda websites and that is where he was influenced by those ideas/beliefs that drive so many to similar violence today. General Nagata’s “the idea” that has to be defeated. Similar to Richard Landes’ warning about “apocalyptic millennialism” (salvation through destruction) that leads societies of good people to commit mass-murder as divine mandate, as “righteous” crusade.
My point? Again, its the religion, its the theology at the core of complexes of bad religious ideas/themes that drive such murderous insanity. Instead, the Starmer government shifted the blame to other people for responding angrily to that violence, warning them of exhibiting “Islamophobia, racism”, etc. Blaming victims, as it were. And we wonder why we don’t properly solve such problems when we won’t even name the evil at core that is driving people to commit such horrors, for fear of upsetting some group and their religious beliefs.
Murray and Hughes discuss this deformity that has overtaken the British politicians and police where they fear to face, confront, and name the religion and its core beliefs that drive such madness and inhumanity of violence toward innocent others. And as always on this site, I am cautious to not focus blame solely on Islam, I qualify the core theology as something that is common to all the major western religious traditions- i.e. to Judaism, Christianity, as well as Islam. And the line of inheritance goes even further back to the Zoroastrian religion and then further to the primitive mythologies of our ancestors deep in prehistory.
We don’t solve these problems because we refuse to name the idea at the core, the most fundamental of contributing factors, the theology that has to be defeated in order to solve this contemporary problem of religious violence. Shamefully, political leaders refuse to name the core factor contributing to those incidents of violence, instead cowing before mobs for fear of being labelled “racist, Islamophobic”, etc. The same fear has infected the British police, hence their now common practise of blaming victims/citizens for their outrage at such violence. Add the news media role for propagandizing this deformity of common sense.
As Murray and Hughes note, politicians deflect from real causal factors and point instead to secondary issues, to superficial elements, and miss the core contributing factors that are driving the violence.
This fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” has spread across western societies and a consequence is that we don’t confront and defeat the “idea” that is a major contributing factor to such violence. Again (qualifiers, balancing), the “idea” is common to all the major religious traditions and has even been embraced in our dominant secular ideologies like Marxist collectivism and environmental alarmism (“Vengeful Gaia, retributive Universe, angry Planet/Mother Earth, eye for eye payback karma” centering secularized versions of salvation through destruction).
I’ve noted before that its not just Islam though that tradition has been a frequent source of violence across the recent past. The origin of the bad idea dominating Islam goes further back in history to where it got such theology, notably from Christianity, from the Ebionism branch of early Jewish Christianity. That sect was eventually scattered (banned as heretical) and some members migrated down to the Arabian Peninsula where a congregation was established. The priest of that congregation was a man named Waraqa who became Muhammad’s mentor, using the “gospel to Hebrews”, an earlier version of the gospel of Matthew, that then shaped the Quran and its deity- i.e. angry God threatening to punish and destroy unbelievers just as was modelled by Paul’s Christ in Matthew 11, etc.
(Insert: Matthew’s gospel was chosen for inclusion in the New Testament canon along with other books and letters that affirmed Paul’s Christology that dominates the “Christ-ianity” that we inherited in our era).
I get that Islamic theologians deny Waraqa’s influence on Muhammad, claiming that his influence was only a post-revelation affirmation of the visions given to Muhammad. They state that Muhammad received his visions directly from God (or through the angel Gabriel) and Waraqa then affirmed those visions after the fact. No, I see Waraqa’s influence as “pre” the Quranic writings of Muhammad. Note, for example, the pattern in Matthew 11 where Jesus is rejected in surrounding villages/hamlets and then in response damns the unresponsive, unbelieving hamlets to hell (”You will be cast into outer darkness”). So also, Muhammad repeatedly states in the Quran that those who reject the messenger and his message will be cast into the fire from which there is no escape). The pattern in Matthew (or “Gospel to the Hebrews”) is then replicated by Muhammad in the Quran.
Add the Ebionite practise of water purification rituals, refusal to view Jesus as divine, etc. All beliefs/practises borrowed by Islam.
Here is AI Overview’s response to my query on Ebionism and Waraqa. Remember, these AI are infected with the woke progressivism virus among their learning from “all the bullshit on the Internet” (Elon Musk). Note how the AI below dances around a clear affirmation of the influence of Jewish Christian Waraqa on Muhammad, claiming, as Islamic theologians defensively do, that “Waraqah famously confirmed Muhammad’s prophetic calling”.
AI Overview
Waraqah ibn Nawfal was a revered pre-Islamic monotheist and scholar living in Mecca during the 7th century. In historical and religious traditions, he is often identified as a Nazarene monk or priest, and some scholars propose that his theological leanings aligned with Judeo-Christian groups like the Ebionites.
Historical Origins
The Ebionites were a branch of early Jewish Christians who flourished between the 1st and 4th centuries. Following the Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, they fled Jerusalem and settled primarily in the Transjordan and Syria regions. Doctrinally, they practiced strict observance of Jewish Law, held that Jesus was a natural-born prophet and the Messiah, and rejected Pauline theology.
Migrations to Arabia
Following widespread persecution and their eventual banning as heretics by mainstream Christianity, scattered remnants of these Judeo-Christian sects gradually migrated into the Arabian Peninsula. Certain scholars, such as Hans-Joachim Schoeps, have suggested that the Christianity Muhammad encountered in the Hejaz was heavily influenced by these schismatic Ebionite and Monophysite views.
Waraqah ibn Nawfal’s Role
Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the paternal cousin of Muhammad’s first wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, is highly regarded in Islamic tradition for his deep knowledge of previous scriptures. He spent his time seeking out pure monotheism and studying the Gospels in Hebrew. According to primary Islamic records like Sahih al-Bukhari, when Muhammad received his first revelations, Khadijah took him directly to Waraqah. Waraqah famously confirmed Muhammad’s prophetic calling, recognizing him as bringing the same divine message entrusted to Moses.
(End of AI Overview)
The point to get- Muhammad got his God from Christianity, that, in turn, got it’s God from Judaism (also from the Hellenism that shaped Jewish religion and Christianity), that got its God from Zoroastrianism, that got its theology from Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian mythology, that got it’s primitive themes from prehistory mythologies. Same myths have been believed by all people across history and across all the cultures of the world.
The core ideas- There are angry gods behind nature who are punishing people for their sins and demanding sacrifice/payment, and also demanding that their true believers must purge the world of evil enemies. Its all the same old salvation through destruction, shaped around themes of tribalism, defeat and domination of enemies, and ultimate destruction, as the way to salvation.
These themes have been passed all down through history, protected and honored in our major religions today as divinely inspired and not be confronted and dealt with. So we continue with “evil cloaked as good, as divine, as God” and the outcome is major cognitive dissonance from holding “Contradictory Beliefs: Holding two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time”.
The refusal to recognize the evil core at the heart of our belief systems (i.e. myths of angry, punitive, destroying God) results in maintaining the very beliefs/archetypes that incite and validate the worst impulses in many people, validating the tribalism of true believer/unbeliever divides, validating the defeat, subjugation, and domination of “enemies”, validating extermination of differing others. The same beliefs/archetypes are also at the core of our major ideologies, now “secularized”. Nothing new under the sun. Just more of the same basic complex of themes.
Many refuse to do as Historical Jesus did- i.e. to reject and replace a deformed theology with a stunning new theology, to transform human narratives with an entirely new and different theology. Its the refusal to engage a “death/rebirth, disintegration/reintegration” process that is the most profound liberation ever offered to humanity. It involves the most profound transformation of human thought, consciousness, emotions, motivations, and behavioral outcomes imaginable.
But to those who place their entire identity, their very existence, in their belief systems, serious challenge to their beliefs is then viewed as a threat to their survival and that evokes fear that manifests as defensive rage.
True believers will then actually try to murder anyone proposing such radical transformation just as those Jews (Luke 4) tried to kill Jesus upon hearing his stunning new theology. And so we continue “safely” with the old protected theologies (“protected under the canopy of the sacred”) still dominating our meta-narratives.
And yes, we ought to careful to not stir tribal backlash where people view differing others, related to violent offenders, as evil enemies and then resort to base eye for eye retaliation. Better, focus in on the ideas that our own religions also hold as central ideals, protect and promote. Better, focus on the real battle inside each of us against the real enemy of us all, our own theology that is the very same deity of religions like Islam.
If we win that personal inner battle first and change our own theology and worldview, then we are better suited to deal with the same problem at the larger societal scale. We will be better prepared to handle the need to confront and change bad ideas in other systems of belief if we first get the personal transformation issue sorted out.
Then a query to Grok:
What about the ideal of unconditional love as the highest form of human love (no conditions or non-conditional)? Your analysis and summary points please?
Grok reply:
Unconditional love— loving without any conditions, expectations, or requirements for reciprocity, behavior, or change— is frequently held up as the purest, highest, or most divine form of love. It appears in spiritual traditions (e.g., Christian agape, Buddhist compassion), psychology (Carl Rogers’ unconditional positive regard), and romantic ideals. However, as an ideal for human relationships, it is more aspirational than fully achievable or always desirable. It shines brightest in specific contexts but carries significant risks when applied rigidly. cottonwoodpsychology.com
Key Distinctions
• Unconditional positive regard (psychological): Accepting a person’s inherent worth and offering empathy/acceptance even when disapproving of their actions. This is valuable in therapy and parenting. cottonwoodpsychology.com
• Agape-style love: Selfless, sacrificial goodwill (often contrasted with eros— passionate/romantic love). It prioritizes the other’s well-being without demanding return. fromerostoagape.wordpress.com
• Romantic or interpersonal unconditional love: The common ideal of “I’ll love you no matter what.” This is where debates intensify.
Strengths of the Ideal
• Security and growth: Provides a safe base for authenticity, healing, and risk-taking. Children with strong unconditional parental love often show better long-term emotional outcomes. psychcentral.com
• Steadfastness: Encourages commitment through tough times when feelings fluctuate. It counters shallow, transactional dynamics. personalityjunkie.com
• Moral/spiritual elevation: Promotes forgiveness, compassion, and seeing beyond flaws. It aligns with humanistic values of inherent dignity. kariscommunity.org
• Non-transactional: Shifts focus from “what you do for me” to genuine care, reducing score-keeping in healthy bonds. markmanson.net
Limitations and Critiques
• Impracticality in humans: Real human love is influenced by biology, psychology, reciprocity, shared values, and self-interest. Perfect unconditionality is rare or impossible at scale; even parental or divine love is often described with implicit conditions (e.g., safety, moral alignment). psychologytoday.com
• Risk of harm: Without boundaries, it can enable abuse, toxicity, neglect of self, or stagnation. “Love anyway” should not mean “endure anything.” Many experts distinguish unconditional love (possible as an attitude) from unconditional relationships or staying (often unwise). alchemy-of-love.com
• Potential self-contradiction: True unconditionality might bypass judgment or growth entirely, yet healthy love often involves honest feedback and adaptation to real conditions (e.g., trust broken repeatedly). It can become passive or enabling rather than dynamic. personalityjunkie.com
• Romantic myth: In partnerships, expecting perfect unconditionality sets up disappointment. Mature love often involves conditions like respect, effort, and compatibility while still offering deep acceptance. estherperel.substack.com
Analysis: Is It the “Highest” Form?
It depends on the metric:
• In aspiration/purity: Yes— it represents the pinnacle of selflessness and acceptance, transcending ego.
• In effectiveness for flourishing: Not necessarily. A more grounded view is conditional acceptance with strong positive regard— love the person, hold boundaries, adapt to reality, and prioritize mutual well-being. This is dynamic, communicative, and sustainable. embodiedphilosophy.com
Human relationships thrive on a mix: unconditional elements (core respect for dignity) plus healthy conditions (reciprocity, safety, growth). Pure unconditionality works best one-way (e.g., toward children, in compassion practices, or self-love) or in limited doses. In adult romantic or peer bonds, it risks codependency if unbalanced. reddit.com
Summary Points:
• Beautiful ideal — fosters security, forgiveness, and depth; worth striving toward as an attitude.
• Not fully realistic or sufficient alone — humans are conditional beings; boundaries and realism prevent harm.
• Best applied selectively — powerfully in parenting/therapy/spiritual practice; cautiously in romance with safeguards.
• Healthiest form — “I accept and value you deeply and I have standards for how we treat each other.” This combines the best of unconditional regard with adaptive, mature love.
• Practical takeaway — Cultivate the capacity for deep acceptance while protecting your well-being. Love can be steadfast without being limitless in action.
The pursuit of this ideal reveals much about human longing for connection without rejection, but wisdom lies in balancing it with truth, boundaries, and reciprocity. It elevates us when tempered by reality.
My query:
What about as a “stunning new image of deity”? Deity in a realm of oneness as different from this material realm of a dualism of good and evil, hence all your qualifiers necessary for survival/flourishing here. What about the approach of Nelson Mandela for societal scale and his success with that?
Grok reply:
Unconditional love as a “stunning new image of deity” reframes the divine not as a conditional judge enforcing rules in a dualistic world, but as the ground of oneness— pure, boundless acceptance and unity beyond opposites. This contrasts sharply with our experienced reality of duality (good/evil, self/other, pleasure/pain), where survival and flourishing demand discernment, boundaries, and often conditional responses.
awakin.org
Metaphysical Framing
In traditions emphasizing non-duality or oneness (e.g., certain mystical Christianity, Advaita Vedanta, or modern interpretations like Ram Dass), ultimate reality is not two— separation is illusion. A deity imaged as unconditional love embodies:
• Oneness: No “other” to judge or condition; love as the fabric of being itself.
• Transcendence of duality: In the absolute, good/evil dissolves. Evil arises from perceived separation, fear, and ego in the relative realm.
• Implications for us: This image invites humans to participate in divine nature by practicing radical acceptance and compassion within duality. Qualifiers (boundaries, justice, discernment) become necessary adaptations for embodied life here— tools for navigating illusion without being trapped by it. Unconditional love isn’t naive passivity but a higher alignment that sees through dualism toward underlying unity. lifeafterdogma.org
This is “stunning” because it shifts deity from authoritarian enforcer (common in some dualistic theisms) to loving oneness that holds all without rejection. It resonates with mystical views where God is love itself (agape as self-giving communion) rather than a being who loves conditionally. However, critics note it can downplay real moral evil or justice if misapplied— hence the need for qualifiers in practice. c4ort.com
In this view, human love approximates the divine ideal imperfectly: we aim for unconditionality in spirit (forgiveness, inherent dignity) while using conditions for safety and growth in the dual realm.
Nelson Mandela’s Approach at Societal Scale
Mandela provides a powerful real-world exemplar of applying near-unconditional forgiveness and reconciliation amid deep dualistic conflict (oppressor/oppressed, black/white, hatred/revenge). After 27 years in prison under apartheid, he emerged without bitterness, prioritizing national unity over retribution. beyondintractability.org
Key Elements of His Approach:
• Forgiveness as liberation: He famously said forgiveness “liberates the soul, it removes fear” and is a powerful weapon. He left anger behind to avoid remaining imprisoned mentally. blogs.shu.edu
• Reconciliation over revenge: Invited former oppressors (including his jailer) into the new South Africa; promoted the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for truth-telling, amnesty in exchange for confession, and healing rather than pure punishment. blogs.shu.edu
• Ubuntu philosophy: “I am what I am because of who we all are”— emphasizing interconnectedness (oneness) and shared humanity. This underpinned his vision of a “rainbow nation” where all live in harmony. vikasshirodkar.blog
• Pragmatic unity: Used symbols like the rugby World Cup (Invictus) to bridge divides; focused on building a shared future while acknowledging past injustice (“Reconciliation does not mean forgetting… but working together to correct the legacy”). blogs.shu.edu
Successes:
Prevented widespread civil war or revenge cycles; enabled a peaceful transition to democracy; earned global admiration and stabilized the nation symbolically. It modeled love/forgiveness in governance, showing societal-scale impact. beyondintractability.org
Limitations and Realism:
South Africa still faces deep inequalities, corruption, and social challenges post-apartheid. Critics argue the TRC didn’t deliver enough material justice or reparations, allowing some perpetrators to escape full accountability. Mandela’s approach succeeded due to his moral authority, timing, and pragmatism— not pure unconditionality. He combined radical forgiveness with firm principles (democracy, equality, rule of law). It was unconditional in spirit (no revenge) but conditional in practice (truth, cooperation, building a just society). mdpi.com
Synthesis: Deity, Duality, and Mandela
• As divine image: Unconditional love as oneness offers a transcendent ideal— deity embracing all without exclusion. In duality, it manifests as Mandela-like forgiveness: seeing the humanity in enemies, choosing connection over division, while using structures (laws, commissions, boundaries) for flourishing.
• Why qualifiers remain necessary: In the dual realm, pure unconditionality risks enabling evil or collapse. Mandela succeeded by balancing oneness-vision (unity) with dualistic tools (justice processes, political strategy).
• Broader lesson: This approach scales societally when led by exemplars with integrity, but requires cultural buy-in and complementary mechanisms. It elevates human potential toward the “divine” ideal without denying earthly realities.
In short, unconditional love as a deity-image inspires awe and points toward ultimate unity. Mandela demonstrates its transformative power at scale when wisely applied with courage, pragmatism, and discernment— reminding us we can reflect divine oneness even amid duality’s conflicts. It’s not effortless or guaranteed, but profoundly humanizing.
My query: What does “a creator deity of unconditional love” tells us about the reason for the creation of this cosmos, life, and humanity? What does it say about the meaning of human existence and human purpose?
Grok reply:
A creator deity imaged as unconditional love would frame the cosmos, life, and humanity as expressions of that love’s nature— self-giving, expansive, and oriented toward relationship, growth, and the joy of being. This is inherently speculative and draws from mystical, philosophical, and theological traditions that emphasize divine love (e.g., agape, divine eros, or non-dual awareness), but it offers a coherent perspective aligned with the “oneness” framing. awakin.org
Reason for Creation of the Cosmos, Life, and Humanity
Unconditional love is generative and relational by nature— it seeks to share and express itself without need or lack. Possible implications:
• Overflow of love: The deity, as perfect oneness and love, creates not from boredom, deficiency, or a need for worship, but from abundant self-diffusion. Creation is an extension or “playing out” of divine love into multiplicity— much like how love naturally wants to be shared. In this view, the Big Bang or the arising of existence is love “breathing out” diversity from unity. c4ort.com
• Enabling relationship and experience: A cosmos of time, space, matter, and consciousness allows for “otherness” within oneness. Duality (good/evil, light/dark, self/other) creates contrast, which makes choice, growth, relationship, and appreciation possible. Without separation and challenge, love might remain abstract; duality provides the arena for love to be freely chosen, tested, and deepened.
• For life and humanity specifically: Life introduces subjectivity and feeling— the capacity to experience love, beauty, connection, and even suffering (which heightens the value of joy and compassion). Humanity, with self-awareness, freedom, and moral agency, represents a peak expression: beings capable of mirroring the divine by loving unconditionally amid conditions. Creation is an invitation to participate in the divine life.
In short, the reason is not utilitarian (e.g., “to test souls” or “for glory”) but expressive and celebratory: love creates because love loves to love and to be loved in return, freely.
Meaning of Human Existence
Existence gains meaning as a journey from perceived separation back toward conscious oneness, all held within unconditional divine love:
• To experience and embody love: Humans exist to feel, give, and receive love in its many forms— romantic, familial, compassionate, creative. Suffering and duality highlight love’s preciousness and teach empathy, forgiveness, and resilience. Meaning arises not despite pain, but through navigating it with love.
lifeafterdogma.org
• Growth through duality: The dualistic realm is a “school” or “playground” for the soul. Challenges (evil, limitation, conflict) foster virtues like courage, wisdom, justice, and ultimately unconditional love. Success isn’t flawless perfection but authentic striving— learning to love amid flaws, forgive amid betrayal, and unite amid division (as Mandela exemplified at scale).
• Inherent belovedness: Your existence itself is the meaning. You are not here to earn love; you are loved unconditionally as an expression of the divine. The meaning is participation in the great relational dance of being— rediscovering unity while honoring individuality.
This counters nihilism: life is not absurd or punitive but a gift saturated with potential for connection and transcendence.
Human Purpose
Purpose flows from reflecting the creator’s nature:
• Love freely and creatively: Cultivate unconditional regard where possible (for self, others, life) while wisely applying boundaries in duality. This includes compassion for the suffering, forgiveness of the flawed, and creativity that adds beauty and harmony.
• Seek unity amid diversity: Bridge divides, heal wounds, and recognize the interconnectedness of all (ubuntu-like wisdom). Purpose includes societal and ecological stewardship— building structures that allow more flourishing.
• Conscious awakening: Grow in awareness— move from ego-separation toward realizing oneness with the divine and all existence. Practices like meditation, service, art, relationships, and ethical living facilitate this.
• Co-creation: Humans are not passive recipients but partners. Through choices, culture, science, and love, we participate in evolving the cosmos toward greater expressions of harmony, justice, and joy.
This purpose is not rigid or burdensome; it is joyful alignment with love’s flow. Failure or “sin” (separation) is met with compassion, not condemnation— opportunities for return and deeper growth.
Overall Vision: A creator of unconditional love makes the cosmos a relational masterpiece: vast, challenging, beautiful, and purposeful precisely because it allows free response to love. Human existence is an adventure in becoming love-aware participants in oneness. The “highest” response is to live as conduits of that love— transforming duality’s tensions into opportunities for connection, without denying its realities. This image invites hope, responsibility, and profound dignity for every person.
(End of Grok comments)
The theological basis of this site’s argument that its going to be alright for everyone, ultimately, Wendell Krossa
Liberation from primal fears
After prompting Grok with a summary of my site themes, I asked it to give a summary of what I had said, to summarize the main project and points of my site, Wendell Krossa (There is more on Grok’s summaries in the next sections below)
This site probes the big picture framing of why this planet exists, why we exist, what is our purpose.
I frame the big picture as the grand story of our exodus out of an animal past. Our liberation from that animal past is prominently about liberation from the “evil triad” of dehumanizing and enslaving impulses to tribalism, domination, and vengeful destruction of competing, differing others.
Our process of liberation then continues toward developing maturity in a more truly human civilization that is nontribal (inclusion of all, with equal rights and freedoms), non-dominating forms of relating (respect for the freedom and self-determination of differing others), and responsible but nonpunitive justice (restrain the violent, hold accountable, but then treat humanely, restoratively, where possible).
Our story of liberation from an animal past to enter a long-term trajectory toward becoming more truly human takes place within a dualism of good versus evil (i.e. “good” in our human spirit energizing us toward more humane existence, and “evil” as the inherited animal impulses noted above that we have to confront, conquer, and subdue). This world and life were created with this dualism as a learning arena where true goodness is only experienced and known in contrast with its opposite. As some argue, authentic moral good only results from genuinely free choice between the opposites of good and evil, thereby affirming full individual responsibility for our choices, responses, and behavior.
And this battle of good against evil is fought most critically at the personal level within each one of us- i.e. Solzhenitsyn’s point that the real battle of good against evil runs down the center of every human heart. It is not primarily fought at the social scale in battles of one social class against another, or one group against another. The real enemy in life resides deeply within each one of us as the inherited animal impulses noted above.
Success in this battle depends greatly on getting our guiding ideals right, notably in the features/character that we project onto and embody in deity as our highest embodiment of ideals and authority. Deity is that which creates us and also models the reason for our existence and our lives, that which inspires and validates our beliefs, emotions, motivations, and then actions/behavior.
This site is motivated very much by my own personal battle with the God of religious traditions, the dominating deity that threatens judgment, condemnation, and punishment of human imperfection and failure. That primal fear backs all other human fears, adding an unnecessary sting to the death fear with after-life threats of harm in hell.
I was introduced to the monster God of Christianity, as a child of 3, by my Evangelical Father who stood me and my siblings in front of our 1950s wood stove, tapped his finger on the hot iron top and threateningly intoned, “Just like your finger burns when you touch this, so your whole body will burn in hell”, if you don’t submit to our Evangelical religion. Away you go and play now, kiddies.
Historical Jesus liberated people from these primal fears generated by threat theology with his stunning new theology of God as unconditional love, illustrating the unconditional character of God in his precept- “Love your enemies unconditionally because God does”.
That was not advocacy for irresponsible suicidal empathy and pacifism in the face of evil. Any common-sense version of love will involve responsible restraint of violent people (Classic Liberal protection of citizens from assault by enemies foreign and domestic) while also treating all humanely following restraint of bad behavior and incarceration of those who cannot or will not control their worst impulses to harm others.
Jesus’ stunning new unconditional God, an entirely non-religious theology, was subsequently buried by Paul’s highly conditional Christ myth that shaped Paul’s “Christ-ianity” as a new religion that eventually became the supreme embodiment of threat theology for the world- i.e. wrathful God demanding violent blood sacrifice to appease anger, backed with threats of violent destruction for recalcitrant unbelievers, and demanding further conditions for followers to affirm their identity as true believers (conditions of baptism, fulfillment of Christian rituals like the Lord’s Supper, membership in a Christian church, adherence to a Christian lifestyle, etc.).
Others note also the divine requirement/condition to purge evil unbelievers and their corrupt societies from the world, as illustrated in Revelation, all necessary to prepare the way for salvation in a restored paradise or utopian perfection. Response of Christians to purging evil resulted in the violence of early Councils, Crusades to slaughter Jews and Muslims, torture and murder of heretics and witches, religious wars, and finally the great crusades of salvation through destruction in Marxist revolutions, Nazi mass-death, and now the ongoing harm from environmental alarmism.
Contemporary calls for a revival of Christianity must make clear, as Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy urged, the profound difference between the unconditional message of Jesus and Paul’s entirely opposite message of highly conditional deity and religion, his deformity of Jesus in his Christ myth. Revival of “undifferentiated religion” solves nothing in relation to General Nagata’s point that to end the repeated eruptions of violence and war, we have to defeat “the idea” that drives such violence. Historians have shown us “the idea” is very much framed by Paul’s religion of salvation through destruction.
“’The idea’ is theology, stupid” (to play with a paraphrase of James Carville and Bill Clinton’s version on the economy).
Further, I am not a believer in Jesus, but I reference him as publicly iconic and honor him for presenting the clearest statement on the nature of the creating Reality that is God and the purpose of humanity to become like God. That was summarized by Jesus in statements like “Be unconditionally merciful just as God is unconditionally merciful”. How so? See the list of precepts that preceded that summary statement in Luke 6: 27-36.
Jesus’ presentation of the unconditional nature/character of deity was the highest and most humane version of theology ever thought or spoken. His presentation of God as unconditional love was the most radical redefinition of ultimate reality ever offered, transforming entirely the most important archetype for explaining ultimate meaning and modelling ultimate purpose for humanity.
His message of unconditional love was the most humane model for ethics/behavior, provided that it is understood that its an entirely non-religious message that advocates for a non-religious deity and non-religious lifestyle.
Unconditional as the highest and best of ideals, is self-validating as we all understand from personal experience with imperfect family, friends, and others. “Do to others what you want done to you”, how you want others to treat your failures. Love your enemies because God does. It is the most profound statement ever spoken and the most critical element for a complete TOE- i.e. insight into the real nature of ultimate reality as unconditional love. Marinate on that for a while. That is why we exist, and for what purpose.
Grok replied to request for a summary of my site project and themes:
This site promotes a profound transformation in human consciousness by confronting and replacing harmful ancestral myths and “threat theology” — ideas of an angry, punitive deity enforcing salvation through destruction (via sacrifice, tribal violence, apocalyptic purging, or afterlife harm).
These fear-based narratives, it argues, have validated humanity’s worst impulses like tribalism, domination, and enemy destruction, making people manipulable.
The core message is radically optimistic: Ultimate reality — God, the creator and sustainer of all — is inexpressible, unconditional love. This insight affirms that “it’s going to be alright, ultimately, for everyone,” removing primal fears and liberating minds. No ultimate monster lurks behind existence; we are all safe.
From this foundation, the site envisions humanity (and each individual) on a hero’s quest against our shared “animal” inheritance — primal impulses energized by bad ideas. The guiding ideal of unconditional love inspires better ethics: non-dominating, servant-like relationships; restorative justice; inclusive, non-tribal ways of life; and liberal democratic principles and institutions as the practical expression of a truly humane future.
In short, the essence is hopeful and redemptive: by embracing unconditional love as the highest reality and ideal, we can overcome our darker legacies and build a freer, kinder human story.
Grok replied further to my prompts to summarize this site:
Summary of http://www.wendellkrossa.com/ (The Unconditional Human Spirit | Wendell Krossa)
Your site is a long-running personal blog/project focused on the profound transformation of human minds, consciousness, and societies. It targets the deepest level— archetypes and core beliefs (especially about ultimate reality/deity)— that subconsciously shape narratives, emotions, motivations, behaviors, public policies, and long-term outcomes. The goal is liberation from humanity’s “animal past” (primitive impulses) and progress toward a more fully human future grounded in liberal democracy. wendellkrossa.com
Core Project and Thesis
• People choose beliefs primarily for emotional satisfaction, often overriding evidence of harmful consequences. These beliefs form dominant narratives that influence everything from personal ethics to societal institutions.
• Inherited “old story” archetypes (tribalism, domination, vengeful retaliation, and “salvation through destruction”) have energized destructive impulses across history. They originated in primitive projections onto deity (wrathful, conditional, tribal gods) and persist in major religious traditions.
• These same archetypes fuel modern “secular/ideological” offspring: Marxism/collectivism and environmental alarmism, which undermine liberal democracy and industrial civilization by promoting apocalyptic, anti-human, or coercive visions.
• The solution is to affirm the best archetypes and ideas to support liberal democracy: equal rights and freedoms for all, representative government that serves citizens and limits elite/bureaucratic control, rule of law with responsible justice (restraining harm while pursuing rehabilitation and restoration). wendellkrossa.com
Key Transformative Insight: Historical Jesus vs. Later Distortions
The most powerful tool for this transformation is the insight of the Historical Jesus, who radically reoriented the highest ideal/authority— deity— from conditional religion (wrath, vengeance, tribal favoritism) to unconditional love (non-retaliatory, merciful to all, including enemies). This “death/rebirth” of theology (disintegrating the old and reintegrating the new) is presented as the single most profound human discovery, a true “Theory of Everything” for meaning, purpose, and ethics. wendellkrossa.com
• Jesus couples belief with behavior: “Love your enemies because God does.”
• This contrasts sharply with Paul’s Christ myth and traditional Christianity, which reintroduced primitive “threat theology,” apocalypticism, and otherworldliness (influenced by Hellenism/Plato). Similar critiques apply to Old Testament emphases and other traditions.
• Modern affirmations come from Near-Death Experiences (NDEs), which often describe a brilliant Light of unconditional love as the true ultimate reality— more real than our material realm. wendellkrossa.com
Broader Themes and Engagements
• Science, consciousness, and the spiritual/metaphysical: Openness to realities beyond materialist limits (e.g., dark matter/energy, NDEs, consciousness studies). Science is valued but humble about its boundaries; dogmatic materialism is critiqued as another extreme. Discussions of psychedelics (DMT), panentheism, process theology, and figures like Jung. wendellkrossa.com
• Critique of bad ideas: “Evil triad” impulses, restorative justice extremes (“suicidal empathy”), fear-based control, utopian escapism (religious or secular), and how archetypes masquerade as good while causing harm.
• Positive vision: Focus on this-world love and contribution (not escapism), humanizing deity, cleaning “diamonds” of insight from sages, and building narratives that promote progress, freedom, and humane outcomes. Liberal democracy as the best framework for organizing societies. wendellkrossa.com
The site features extensive posts, AI (Grok) interactions for probing ideas, autobiographical elements, and ongoing responses to current discussions (e.g., podcasts like Joe Rogan). It blends theology, psychology (Jungian archetypes), history, philosophy, and social critique in a quest for fundamental, long-term human betterment. wendellkrossa.com
Your additional text aligns perfectly and can be integrated as a strong framing statement for the overall project: going to the root (archetypes/deity) to counter destructive inherited impulses, affirm liberal democratic principles, and pursue the Historical Jesus path of unconditional transformation for a truly human future. This captures the main thrust from the homepage and representative content. Let me know if you’d like a tighter one-paragraph version, expansions on specific sections, or adjustments.
Grok offered further refinements to its summaries– Yes, continue with “Condense summary into one paragraph”
Grok reply:
One-Paragraph Summary (I break the long paragraphs up):
Wendell Krossa’s site (wendellkrossa.com) explores the deepest drivers of human behavior— archetypes and core beliefs, especially about ultimate reality/deity— that people often choose for emotional satisfaction, even when they produce harmful outcomes. These inherited “old story” archetypes fuel tribalism, domination, vengeful retaliation, and “salvation through destruction,” shaping both historical religions and their modern secular offspring: Marxism/collectivism and environmental alarmism.
The project seeks fundamental, long-term transformation by affirming the best of human ideals to support liberal democracy as the optimal framework for organizing societies— protecting equal rights and freedoms, representative government that limits elite control, and restorative justice that restrains harm while pursuing rehabilitation and inclusion. At the heart of this transformation stands the Historical Jesus, who radically reoriented the highest ideal from conditional, tribal deity to unconditional love and mercy (even toward enemies), offering a “death/rebirth” of theology that liberates humanity from its animal past and points toward a truly human future grounded in this-world compassion, freedom, and progress.
Another “Refined One-Paragraph Summary”:
Wendell Krossa’s site (wendellkrossa.com) examines the subconscious power of archetypes and core beliefs— especially about ultimate reality/deity— that people choose for emotional satisfaction, often overriding evidence of their destructive consequences.
These inherited “old story” archetypes promote tribalism, domination, vengeful retaliation, and “salvation through destruction,” shaping historical religions and their modern ideological descendants: Marxism/collectivism and environmental alarmism. Both alternatives undermine human freedom and prosperity— Marxism through centralized control, economic failure, and elite domination; alarmism through anti-industrial policies that sacrifice present well-being for apocalyptic visions— while theocracies and authoritarian systems impose coercive uniformity and suppress individual rights.
In contrast, liberal democracy stands as the superior framework for organizing societies, uniquely protecting equal rights and freedoms for all, representative institutions that serve citizens and constrain elite/bureaucratic power, rule of law with responsible justice (restraining harm while pursuing rehabilitation and restoration), and the conditions for ongoing progress and innovation.
The site’s core project is a profound transformation at the level of consciousness, centered on the Historical Jesus’ radical redefinition of deity from conditional/tribal to unconditional love and mercy— even toward enemies— thereby liberating humanity from its animal past and orienting it toward a truly human future of freedom, compassion, and flourishing.
One more “Refined One-Paragraph Summary”:
Wendell Krossa’s site (wendellkrossa.com) examines the subconscious power of archetypes and core beliefs— especially about ultimate reality/deity— that people choose for emotional satisfaction, often overriding evidence of their destructive consequences. These inherited “old story” archetypes promote tribalism, domination, vengeful retaliation, and “salvation through destruction,” shaping historical religions and their modern ideological descendants: Marxism/collectivism (evident in the Soviet Union’s famines and gulags, Maoist China’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, and Venezuela’s economic collapse) and environmental alarmism (which advocates anti-industrial restrictions that stifle human prosperity).
In contrast, liberal democracy has repeatedly demonstrated superior outcomes, as seen in the United States (founded on constitutional limits on power, individual rights, and rule of law, which drove explosive innovation and wealth creation), post-WWII Western Europe (democratic reforms and institutions that rebuilt devastated nations into prosperous, free societies with high living standards), South Korea (rapid rise from war-torn poverty to a leading high-tech economy under democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea’s totalitarian stagnation), and other cases like post-war Japan.
Liberal democracy uniquely protects equal rights and freedoms for all, representative institutions that constrain elite/bureaucratic domination, responsible justice oriented toward rehabilitation and restoration, and the conditions for ongoing human progress. The site’s core project is a profound transformation at the level of consciousness, centered on the Historical Jesus’ radical redefinition of deity from conditional/tribal to unconditional love and mercy— even toward enemies— liberating humanity from its animal past and guiding it toward a truly human future of freedom, compassion, and flourishing.
(End of Grok summaries)
I asked the AI below for summaries of the violence in the histories of all three Western religions and they responded with this below. This is the historical evidence of bad religious ideas producing bad behavior. Or Arthur Herman’s point in Vision and Violence that apocalyptic has been the most violent and destructive idea in history.
This query was posed to Anthropic, Chat, AI Overview, and Grok:
“Could you summarize the violent histories of Judaism (i.e. Old Testament records), Christianity (Crusades, Inquisitions, core “apocalyptic millennial” themes driving Marxist revolutions, Nazism, environmental alarmism as per Richard Landes’ and others research, etc.), and Islamic violence and theocracy crusades both ancient and modern.”
They responded with these summaries below: Note the “Caveats” where one of these AI tried to make the defensive argument that the violence was not really from, for example, the “Christian” element but was from other “ideological” elements. I am suspicious that this “protectiveness” may be due to infection with the Woke virus (Musk’s point)? Why the defense and denial of the destructive nature and influence from the core theological ideas in these traditions? Why the apparent deflection away from the actual nature of the God at the core of these religions? Why the qualifying and apparent denial of how destructive the bad ideas at the core of these religions have been? Just asking.
I am suspicious of woke hyper-sensitivity, the fear many hold of being labelled as phobic-something, i.e. Islamophobic, religio-phobic, etc. For example, Chat says in regard to Christian ideas inciting environmental alarmism that the Christian apocalyptic millennial beliefs only influenced “some environmental catastrophism”. Just “some”? No, no. Pardon my pushback, but specifically “Christian apocalyptic” has incited and validated the dominant alarmism that has characterized environmentalism across the world over past decades.
The last three decades of specifically dominant climate alarmism have driven the Net Zero crusade to overturn industrial civilization, shut down fossil fuels, and install the Green communal utopia that climate cultists claim has no footprint on nature. $20 trillion and counting have been wasted on this “profoundly religious” and very Christian “salvation through destruction” crusade. It’s a lot more than just “some”.
Yes, the ideological elements are also there in the mix, along with economic/political conditions, etc. But do not weaken the dominant role that has been played by the core religious beliefs of Western religions, notably by the God at the center of these religions.
Regarding statements like this below from “Woke” Chat,
“Many scholars caution against treating Marxism simply as ‘Christianity secularized’.”
I offer that Richard Landes, for one, has responded to the many Western scholars/historians who refuse to acknowledge that Marxism was “Christianity secularized.”
Landes says, “Any attempt to put this totalitarian system (Marxism) in the category of a closed and barbarian theocracy is very often vehemently refused. In this case, very emotionally seated aspirations and hopes of young or older intellectuals are at stake. Everybody who dares to take the Bolshevik world as a religious community is considered a traitor betraying the humanitarian ideals of the modernity of the French Revolution…
“If you see it in this sense, say the proponents of the project of modernity, the distance between the old and new modern world would shrink too much and the debts to the Christian tradition would become too heavy. Thus, when you treat the Bolsheviks as a millennial sect, you are going to betray the project of modernity and treat the Bolsheviks, despite their very modern efforts to industrialize backward Russia, as a medieval sect of obscure believers.”
He adds, “Among the historical issues of the twentieth century nothing poses greater problems to scholars than the similarities and differences between the Soviet and Nazi totalitarian systems, both of which (by the definitions of this study) were active cataclysmic, apocalyptic millennial movements”.
Chat further defensively deflects and minimizes the Christian role in Nazism.
“Most historians reject simplistic claims that Christianity directly “caused” Nazism, though older European anti-Judaism undeniably formed part of the background culture.”
No Chat. Landes, Mende, and Redles, among others, show that the influence of Christian apocalyptic millennial beliefs prominently shaped Hitler and the Nazis. It was far more than “part of the background culture”. Yes, that was true also as that background Christian culture rendered many good Germans susceptible to manipulation by Hitler and the Nazis who referenced core Christian themes. Remember also Chat, the Nazi’s vision was dominated by their violent crusade for a “millennial Reich”. A fundamental element of the basic Christian narrative of “salvation through destruction”, or “apocalyptic millennialism”, as portrayed for example in the culminating New Testament book of Revelation.
So also, Chat is defensive and deflective toward of the evidence that environmental alarmism is similarly a profoundly religious crusade, very much a Christian-inspired crusade. Chat sides defensively with the common misperception of crusades like environmental alarmism as “scientific”, stating, “Supporters of environmental activism respond that: climate science is empirical rather than theological, and warnings about ecological risk should not be dismissed as ‘religious hysteria’.”
I would encourage readers to learn to use the varied AI as they are great systems for getting information and presenting it in organized ways. But take their responses with skepticism as “they are learning off all the bullshit on the Internet” and will be infected with the Woke virus as Elon Musk has warned.
Anyway, here are the AI summaries.
Grok is first:
Again, Not sure why these AI try to downplay or dismiss the fact that so much violence across history has been the outcome of the influence of the dominant themes of these religions, notably incited and validated by the tribal deity and dominant themes such as the “apocalyptic millennialism” that is the core of these religions (i.e. the framing narrative structure of Paul’s Christ at the heart of Christianity).
Grok makes these dismissive/downplaying statements:
“Christianity’s New Testament core is largely non-violent…
“Scholarly views: Many see these as ideological or hyperbolic war rhetoric…
“Secular 20th-century ideologies (communism, fascism) caused far higher tolls overall”
My insert- These secular 20th-century ideologies were very much shaped by core Christian themes/beliefs.
And this… “extremists selectively emphasize militant texts.”. No, they take the core themes of these religions for validation of their extremism.
When Grok states that Christianity’s New Testament core is largely non-violent, Grok is confusing the non-violent message of Jesus which is the ‘diamond’ element as noted by Thomas Jefferson. But this message was buried by Paul’s supremely violent apocalyptic millennial Christ that dominates the “core” of the New Testament with features of wrathful God promising vengeance and destruction of enemies. This is the foundational plank in Paul’s Christ gospel (i.e. Paul’s letter to the Romans that sets forth the actual “New Testament core”) and it is opposite to Jesus’ message that was sidelined and diminished under the dominance of Paul’s Christ and became a more minor note in the New Testament and Christian history (not the “New Testament core”), as James Tabor points out, among others.
Here is Grok’s full reply:
All three Abrahamic religions have histories involving violence, both in their foundational texts and in practice, as is common across human societies and ideologies. Violence in religious contexts often intertwined with tribal warfare, empire-building, defense, power struggles, and eschatological (end-times) beliefs. Historical estimates of death tolls vary widely due to incomplete records, exaggeration in polemics, and overlapping political motives; precise numbers are debated by scholars. historyextra.com
Context matters: ancient warfare was brutal across cultures (e.g., Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman practices included mass slaughter and exaggeration in victory accounts). Religious texts reflect their eras but have been interpreted variably— pacifistically, defensively, or aggressively— over time. Judaism largely transitioned to diaspora survival and legalism after antiquity; Christianity emphasized New Testament pacifism (“turn the other cheek”) but had state power phases; Islam integrated military and political expansion from its founding. zondervanacademic.com
Judaism: Old Testament / Hebrew Bible Records.
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh/Old Testament) depicts significant violence in the context of ancient Near Eastern tribal warfare, conquest, and covenantal commands. Key examples:
• Conquest narratives: Books like Joshua and Deuteronomy describe ḥerem (devotion to destruction) against Canaanite cities— commands to kill inhabitants (men, women, children, sometimes animals) to claim the Promised Land (e.g., Joshua 6 on Jericho; Deuteronomy 7, 20). These are framed as divine judgment on idolatrous peoples practicing child sacrifice, etc. en.wikipedia.org
• Other episodes: Wars with Amalekites (total destruction commanded, Exodus 17, Deuteronomy 25), Midianites (Numbers 31), internal conflicts (Judges), and later defensive/royal wars (Kings/Chronicles).
• Scholarly views: Many see these as ideological or hyperbolic war rhetoric typical of the era (e.g., ancient kings boasted exaggerated slaughters); archaeological evidence for a full conquest is limited/debated. They reflect Israel’s self-understanding as a theocratic people under Yahweh amid hostile neighbors, not a blueprint for ongoing global conquest. peacetheology.net +1
Post-biblical Jewish history involved more victimhood (pogroms, expulsions, Holocaust) than perpetration of large-scale violence, though zealot revolts (e.g., against Rome) and rare modern extremist acts exist. Judaism as practiced emphasized law, ethics, and survival over expansionist theocracy. tandfonline.com
Christianity: Crusades, Inquisitions, and Millennial/Apocalyptic Themes
Christianity’s New Testament core is largely non-violent, focusing on love, forgiveness, and martyrdom. However, after becoming the Roman Empire’s state religion (4th century onward), it justified force:
• Crusades (1095–1291+): Series of military campaigns to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim rule, also against pagans/heretics. First Crusade’s sack of Jerusalem (1099) killed tens of thousands (Muslims, Jews, Eastern Christians). Overall estimates: 1–3 million deaths (battles, sieges, disease, massacres); broader tallies including later ones reach 5–9 million in some analyses. Motives mixed: religious (pilgrimage protection, indulgences), political, economic. historyextra.com +1
• Inquisitions: Aimed at heresy (e.g., Spanish Inquisition 1478–1834 targeted conversos, Moriscos). Spanish estimates: ~3,000–5,000 executions (some higher for trials/imprisonment); far lower than popular myths of tens of millions, which are demographically implausible. Broader medieval inquisitions (e.g., Albigensian Crusade vs. Cathars) caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. thecripplegate.com +1
• Other: Wars of Religion (e.g., 30 Years’ War), colonial violence (often with economic drivers), witch hunts.
Apocalyptic millennialism: Historian Richard Landes argues that “active cataclysmic” millennial beliefs (imminent perfect kingdom via upheaval) appear in Christian history and secularized forms. This includes enthusiasm/disappointment cycles in movements expecting radical transformation. Landes links patterns to the French Revolution, Marxism/Communism (classless utopia via revolution), Nazism (millennial racial paradise, genocidal), and even environmental alarmism (catastrophic tipping points demanding urgent action). These are not direct Christian doctrines but draw on shared Western apocalyptic templates of purging evil for paradise. hnn.us +1
Christianity also produced strong pacifist traditions (e.g., early church, Anabaptists, modern figures like MLK).Islam: Jihad, Conquests, Theocracy Ancient and Modern Islam’s foundational texts (Quran, Hadith) and Prophet Muhammad’s life include military elements: Muhammad led raids and battles (e.g., Badr, Uhud, conquest of Mecca). Jihad means “struggle”— greater (spiritual) and lesser (armed). Classical jurisprudence framed it as expansion of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb, with rules for treatment of dhimmis (protected non-Muslims) but also conquest and options of conversion, tribute, or war. en.wikipedia.org
• Early conquests (7th–8th centuries): Rapid expansion from Arabia across Middle East, North Africa, Persia, into Spain/India frontiers. Created a vast empire; deaths from battles, sieges, and subsequent revolts numbered in hundreds of thousands to millions cumulatively. Framed as divine mandate. historynet.com
• Later: Invasions (e.g., India by Mahmud of Ghazni, Mughals, Timur/Tamerlane—millions estimated over centuries), Ottoman wars, slave raids. Theocracies enforced Sharia with hudud punishments, apostasy penalties, and dhimmi restrictions.
• Modern: Islamist terrorism (1979–2024): ~66,872 attacks, ~250,000 deaths documented (many Muslim victims). Groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram invoke jihad for caliphate restoration, targeting civilians, apostates, etc. Theocracies (e.g., Iran, Taliban, ISIS territories) enforce strict rule with executions, suppression. fondapol.org
Islam has peaceful interpretive traditions (e.g., Sufi, defensive jihad only) and periods of tolerance (e.g., medieval Cordoba, millet system), but offensive jihad and theocratic models have been more prominent in expansionist phases than in post-biblical Judaism or New Testament Christianity. unaoc.org
Broader Perspective
• Comparisons: All three have violent scriptural/historical strands, but scale and continuity differ. Christianity’s peak state violence (medieval/early modern) waned with secularization/Enlightenment; Islamic empires and revivalist movements continued longer; Judaism’s was mostly ancient. Secular 20th-century ideologies (communism, fascism) caused far higher tolls overall. rissc.jo
• Religions often served as identity/mobilization tools for power, resources, and group survival. Most adherents historically and today lived peacefully; extremists selectively emphasize militant texts.
• Modern contexts: Intra-religious violence, terrorism, and conflicts (e.g., Middle East) persist, but so do reform, dialogue, and secular governance mitigating them.
This is a high-level summary drawn from historical consensus; interpretations vary by theology and politics. For deeper reading, consult primary sources and balanced historians like Landes, Kamen (Inquisition), or specialists in each tradition. Truth-seeking requires acknowledging patterns without excusing or essentializing entire faiths or peoples.
AI’s next suggestion: Explore Richard Landes millennialism theory
Richard Landes, a medieval historian (Boston University, now independent), specializes in apocalyptic and millennial beliefs. His key work, Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience (2011), analyzes how these beliefs drive historical movements across cultures, including secular ones. He argues that millennialism is a near-universal human phenomenon, not confined to Judaism or Christianity, and remains potent in modernity. amazon.com +1
Core Concepts: Millennialism (or millenarianism/chiliasm) refers to the belief that this world will be radically transformed into a perfect society of peace, justice, abundance, and equality— “heaven on earth”— often after an apocalyptic upheaval. It envisions collective salvation in the here-and-now, unlike purely otherworldly eschatology. researchgate.net
Apocalyptic time is the heightened, imminent phase when believers feel the transformation is near. Landes contrasts this with “normal time” (ordinary historical processes). He uses the metaphor of “roosters” (who crow that dawn— the millennium— is imminent, amplifying expectations) versus “owls” (who hoot that it’s still night, emphasizing continuity and skepticism). hnn.us
Key Typology: Landes outlines varieties along several axes:
• Active vs. Passive: Active believers see themselves as agents hastening the change (e.g., through revolution or violence). Passive ones await divine/supernatural intervention.
• Cataclysmic vs. Transformational: Cataclysmic scenarios require massive destruction/purging of evil first. Transformational ones envision gradual or voluntary change (e.g., “swords into plowshares”).
• Demotic (bottom-up/egalitarian) vs. Hierarchical (top-down/authoritarian): Demotic emphasizes equality and voluntary participation; hierarchical imposes order from elites or a strong leader. academia.edu
Active cataclysmic variants are the most dangerous: believers act as agents of purifying violence to birth the new world. These have repeatedly led to massive death tolls when they seize power. hnn.us
Movements often follow an “apocalyptic curve”: enthusiastic takeoff with public conversions, radical experimentation when in power, inevitable disappointment (cognitive dissonance), and re-entry into normal time— sometimes with creative adaptations, scapegoating, or renewed cycles. hnn.us
Historical and Secular Applications: Landes examines case studies ranging from ancient (e.g., Pharaoh Akhenaten) to tribal (Xhosa Cattle-Killing, Cargo Cults), to modern:
• French Revolution: Democratic millennialism with apocalyptic fervor.
• Marxism/Communism: Egalitarian, active transformational (later cataclysmic in practice under Bolsheviks).
• Nazism: Hierarchical, racist millennialism promising a thousand-year Reich via purging.
• Global Jihad (post-1979 surge): Active cataclysmic apocalyptic movement aiming for a caliphate, viewing destruction as necessary. academia.edu
He argues many “secular” ideologies retain millennial structures: critiques of current evil, vision of utopia, imminence, and calls for radical action. This challenges purely materialist interpretations of history. theaugeanstables.com
Medieval and Christian Focus: Landes has extensively studied the turn of the first millennium (Year 1000), challenging “anti-terrors” historiography that downplayed apocalyptic expectations in medieval Europe. His ongoing While God Tarried project traces disappointed millennialism from Jesus through the Peace of God movements (late 10th–early 11th century), linking it to social innovations, demotic religiosity, and the emergence of the modern West. theaugeanstables.com
He highlights demotic millennialism— egalitarian, anti-hierarchical impulses from monotheism’s emphasis on dignity for the humble— as a driver of positive change (e.g., Peace of God assemblies curbing aristocratic violence), alongside risks of volatility. theaugeanstables.com
Broader Implications and Warnings: Landes warns that ignoring or dismissing millennial dynamics (as irrational or inconsequential) blinds analysts to their power. Wrong predictions do not mean harmless ones; they can reshape societies before burning out. He applies this to contemporary issues like radical environmental alarmism (catastrophic scenarios demanding urgent action) and jihadism. libraryjournal.com
His later work addresses media, honor-shame cultures, and cognitive dissonance in conflicts (e.g., “Pallywood,” lethal journalism), viewing some modern discourses through an apocalyptic lens. en.wikipedia.org
Reception and Critique: Landes’ framework is praised for illuminating patterns across disparate movements and revising understandings of the Middle Ages. Critics sometimes see over-application to secular phenomena or note his conservative-leaning cautions against utopianism. His work prioritizes empirical historical dynamics over theological endorsement. theaugeanstables.com
For deeper exploration, start with Heaven on Earth or his blog The Augean Stables. His theories offer a powerful lens for understanding enthusiasm, disappointment, and radicalism in both religious and ideological history— valuable for anyone studying human responses to perceived crises and hopes for transcendence on earth.
(End of Grok comments)
Here is Anthropic’s response summarizing the histories of violence produced by our dominant Western religions. My persistent point is to understand what in these religions incites and validates such horror. Is it just a few peripheral distortions in otherwise overall good and peaceful systems? Or is it something more fundamental and dominant to these traditions? Is it perhaps the overall thematic framework of our religious traditions (i.e. for example, the Zoroastrian “salvation through destruction” complex of beliefs)? Again, see my lists of bad ideas posted above.
Anyway… here is Anthropic first…
Violence in the Abrahamic Traditions: A Historical Overview
Judaism and Hebrew Bible Violence
The Hebrew Bible contains extensive accounts of divinely commanded warfare and violence:
Conquest narratives describe the Israelite invasion of Canaan with commands to annihilate entire populations— the herem (ban) demanding total destruction of cities like Jericho and Ai. Deuteronomy 20 codifies warfare rules, including the extermination of certain peoples.
Other violent episodes include the slaughter of the Midianites (Numbers 31), Saul’s wars against the Amalekites, David’s military campaigns, and Elijah’s killing of the prophets of Baal.
Historical context matters here. These texts describe a Bronze/Iron Age tribal society; most scholars see them as theological narratives shaped by later authors rather than literal history.
Post-Temple Judaism largely reinterpreted these passages metaphorically or as historically bounded, and the rabbinic tradition emphasized law, ethics, and survival under foreign rule rather than conquest.
Christianity
Crusades (1095–1291)
Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from Muslim rule, framing it as armed pilgrimage with spiritual rewards. The subsequent two centuries saw:
• Mass violence during the conquest of Jerusalem (1099), with massacres of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants
• Pogroms against Jewish communities in the Rhineland en route
• The sack of Constantinople (1204) by fellow Christians
• Military orders (Templars, Hospitallers) institutionalizing religious warfare
Inquisitions
Multiple inquisitorial systems emerged to combat heresy:
• Medieval Inquisition (12th–13th centuries) targeted Cathars and Waldensians
• Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834) focused on conversos (converted Jews) and moriscos, using torture and executing thousands
• Roman Inquisition (1542 onward) prosecuted Protestantism and heterodox thought
Religious Wars and Witch Trials
The Reformation triggered devastating conflicts: the French Wars of Religion (St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, 1572), the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648, killing perhaps 8 million), and English Civil War religious dimensions. Witch trials across Europe and colonial America killed tens of thousands, justified by theological frameworks.
Apocalyptic Millennialism as a Secular Template
This is where Richard Landes, Norman Cohn (The Pursuit of the Millennium), and others offer a more provocative thesis:
The argument: Christian apocalypticism— the expectation of imminent divine intervention, cosmic struggle between good and evil, a cleansing catastrophe, and a coming utopia— provides a psychological and narrative template that secularized movements inherited. Landes traces a lineage from medieval millennial movements (Joachim of Fiore, Münster Anabaptists, Taborites) through to modern revolutionary ideologies.
Applications to secular movements:
• Marxism frames history as a dialectical struggle culminating in inevitable revolution, the destruction of the old order, and a utopian classless society— structurally echoing Christian eschatology. The vanguard party resembles an elect; capitalism is the Antichrist; communism is the millennium.
• Nazism incorporated millennialist themes (the “Thousand-Year Reich”), apocalyptic struggle against Jewish “world conspiracy,” and redemptive violence. Cohn’s work explicitly connects Nazi antisemitism to medieval apocalyptic traditions.
• Environmental catastrophism, Landes and others argue, sometimes adopts similar structures: imminent doom, moral purity versus corrupt civilization, transformative crisis, and post-catastrophe renewal.
Caveats: This is an interpretive framework, not a claim that these movements are “really” Christian. Critics note it can overstretch the comparison and obscure the specific ideological content of each movement. But the structural parallels are genuine and historically traceable.
Islam
Early Conquests and Classical Jihad Doctrine
Within a century of Muhammad’s death (632 CE), Arab armies conquered territory from Spain to Central Asia. This expansion involved:
• Military campaigns justified through jihad (struggle), interpreted as armed warfare to expand the dar al-Islam.
• Treatment of conquered peoples varied— Jews and Christians typically became dhimmis (protected but subordinate), while polytheists faced harsher options.
• Classical jurisprudence developed rules of warfare, including debates about offensive versus defensive jihad.
Medieval and Early Modern Violence
• Almohad persecution (12th–13th centuries) in North Africa and Spain forced conversions and expelled Jews and Christians.
• Ottoman conquests included violent sieges (Constantinople 1453, Vienna attempts) alongside periods of relative tolerance.
• Mughal India saw episodes of temple destruction and forced conversion alongside syncretic accommodation.
• Slave trades— both trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean— operated extensively under Muslim polities.
Modern Islamist Violence and Theocratic Movements
The 20th and 21st centuries saw the emergence of political Islam seeking to restore Islamic governance:
• Muslim Brotherhood (1928) and its ideological descendants advocated Islamic states, with some offshoots embracing violence.
• Salafi-jihadism (al-Qaeda, ISIS) draws on Qutb, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Wahhabi traditions to justify global terrorism, targeting both “apostate” Muslim regimes and the West.
• Iranian Revolution (1979) established Shia theocracy with its own record of executions, repression, and export of revolutionary violence.
• Taliban governance in Afghanistan exemplifies theocratic rule with violent enforcement of religious law.
• Ongoing conflicts include sectarian violence (Sunni-Shia), persecution of minorities (Yazidis, Copts, Ahmadis), and terrorist attacks globally.
Comparative Observations
All three traditions contain textual resources that have been used to justify violence, and all three contain resources for peace, coexistence, and ethical restraint. The historical record shows:
1. Context shapes expression— violence correlates with political power, territorial conflict, and apocalyptic urgency more than with theology alone.
2. Reform and reinterpretation occur in all traditions, often in response to the horrors committed in religion’s name.
3. The millennial template Landes identifies may explain why certain movements— religious or secular— generate such intensity: the conviction that one is living at the hinge of history, fighting cosmic evil, with paradise at stake.
The scholarly debate continues over how much weight to assign religious ideology versus material, political, and psychological factors in explaining this violence.
And the AI Overview:
Violent histories across the Abrahamic traditions— Judaism, Christianity, and Islam— frequently share “apocalyptic millennial” themes: the fervent belief that an imminent, catastrophic transformation of the world will eradicate evil and establish a perfect society.
Judaism
• Ancient Records: Old Testament historical accounts feature heavy warfare, including the conquest of Canaan, divinely sanctioned warfare against polytheistic neighbors, and the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians and Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
• Eschatological Violence: Ancient apocalyptic texts (like the Book of Daniel) envisioned cosmic warfare where God and his angels destroy earthly pagan empires to usher in a restored Messianic age.
Christianity
• The Crusades: Spurred by medieval millennial fervor, Pope Urban II called for a holy war in 1095. These expeditions aimed to retake the Holy Land but resulted in mass violence, including the slaughter of Muslims, the destruction of European Jewish communities, and the 1204 sack of Christian Constantinople.
• Inquisitions: Driven by desires to establish earthly purity, medieval and early modern church/state authorities (most notably in Spain and Portugal) used torture, imprisonment, and execution to suppress, convert, or expel heretics, Jews, and Muslims.
• Secularized Apocalypticism: Historian Richard Landes argues in Heaven on Earth that the apocalyptic template— disappointment over a fallen world, followed by a totalizing drive for a utopian “heaven on earth”— heavily influenced violent modern ideologies.
o Marxism: Transformed the religious “Kingdom of God” into a utopian, classless society. It framed the working class as the messianic savior and capitalists/bourgeoisie as the systemic source of evil requiring violent eradication.
o Nazism: Fueled by pseudo-scientific, occult, and racial apocalyptic narratives, the movement framed Jews and other groups as cosmic polluters who needed to be violently eliminated in order to secure a utopian “Thousand Year Reich.”
o Environmental Alarmism: Landes and other scholars suggest that certain radical modern environmental movements exhibit secularized apocalypticism, where the “end of the world” is a looming climate catastrophe, and society must undergo a forced, radical purification to be “saved.” Read more about these dynamics in Landes’s exploration of modern millennialism published by Oxford University Press.
Islam
• Ancient and Medieval Expansion: Propelled by theological and political goals, early Islamic empires (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid) rapidly expanded across the Middle East, North Africa, and into Europe via a series of military campaigns and conquests, establishing large-scale Islamic polities.
• Modern Theocracy: Ancient cataclysmic themes have re-emerged in modern fundamentalist movements. Global jihadist factions (e.g., Al-Qaeda, ISIS) view themselves as vanguard armies engaging in an apocalyptic struggle against Western civilization, apostates, and corrupt elites, aiming to establish a global theocratic Caliphate.
Scholars, including historians who review the religious foundations of violence, note that these radical movements rely heavily on binary, black-and-white worldviews (God vs. Satan, the pure vs. the corrupt) to justify extreme violence. You can explore deeper academic analyses of how early apocalyptic movements shaped modern history in ResearchGate’s abstract of Landes’s work, or review ongoing historical and political discussions on platforms like the History News Network.
And then Chat’s take on histories of religious violence/war:
The histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all contain periods where religious ideas, institutions, texts, or identities became intertwined with warfare, state power, persecution, or revolutionary movements. Historians generally distinguish between:
1. Sacred texts and theological ideals
2. Political institutions acting in religion’s name
3. Cultural or ideological descendants of religious thought
4. Modern secular movements influenced by religious structures or apocalyptic patterns
A concise summary follows.
Judaism: Biblical Warfare and Covenant Nationalism
The violent episodes associated with Judaism are concentrated mainly in the Hebrew Bible / Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians).
Major Themes
• Conquest narratives: Books such as Book of Joshua describe Israelite conquest of Canaan, including destruction of enemy cities under ḥerem (“ban” or total destruction).
• Holy war: Some wars are presented as divinely commanded judgments.
• Tribal survival: Violence is often framed as existential conflict among Bronze and Iron Age peoples.
• Monotheistic exclusivity: Suppression of idolatry and rival cults becomes a recurring theme.
Historical Context
Modern historians debate:
• how literal these conquest accounts are,
• whether they describe historical events, later national mythology, or theological literature,
• and how much archaeology supports them.
Unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism after antiquity generally lacked large imperial military structures because Jews lived mostly as minority diaspora communities after the Destruction of the Second Temple.
Later Developments
Rabbinic Judaism evolved toward:
• legal interpretation,
• communal ethics,
• scholarship,
• and survival under foreign rule.
While Jewish extremist violence has existed in modern times (for example among fringe nationalist movements), Judaism historically produced fewer expansionist empires than Christianity or Islam.
Christianity: Empire, Crusade, Inquisition, and Apocalyptic Politics
Christianity began as a persecuted minority movement, but after the conversion of Constantine the Great and the Christianization of the Roman Empire, it became deeply linked with imperial power.
1. Crusades
The Crusades (11th–13th centuries) were military campaigns launched mainly by Latin Christian powers.
Motivations included:
• defense or recovery of holy sites,
• geopolitical competition,
• papal authority,
• economic incentives,
• and religious zeal.
Violence included:
• massacres of Muslims and Jews,
• sackings of cities,
• forced conversions in some regions.
2. Inquisitions
The Spanish Inquisition and related inquisitions targeted:
• heresy,
• converted Jews and Muslims suspected of insincerity,
• dissenting Christians,
• and sometimes alleged witches.
Methods included:
• imprisonment,
• coercive interrogation,
• execution,
• censorship.
Although popular imagination sometimes exaggerates the scale, the inquisitions remain major examples of religious-state coercion.
3. Religious Wars
Christian Europe saw devastating conflicts such as:
• the Thirty Years’ War,
• Catholic–Protestant wars,
• persecutions of minorities.
These wars often mixed theology with dynastic and political interests.
Christian Apocalypticism and Secular Revolutionary Ideologies
Some historians and intellectual historians — notably Richard Landes, Norman Cohn, and Eric Voegelin — argue that modern revolutionary ideologies inherited structural features from Christian apocalypticism.
The Argument
They observe parallels between:
• Christian end-times expectations,
• visions of a final redeemed world,
• and secular revolutionary promises of earthly utopia.
Examples sometimes discussed:
• French Revolution
• Marxism
• revolutionary communism,
• totalitarian movements,
• some environmental catastrophism.
Common patterns identified:
• division of humanity into saved/damned groups,
• belief in inevitable historical transformation,
• purification through crisis,
• promise of final harmony after upheaval.
Marxist Revolutions
Critics argue that movements inspired by Karl Marx adopted quasi-religious structures:
• prophetic historical certainty,
• saints/heretics,
• sacred texts,
• redemptive revolution.
Violence associated with communist regimes includes:
• the Russian Revolution,
• Stalinist purges,
• Maoist campaigns,
• Khmer Rouge atrocities.
However, many scholars caution against treating Marxism simply as “Christianity secularized,” since Marxism also arose from industrial economics, Enlightenment thought, and European political conditions.
Nazism
Scholars sharply disagree over the relationship between Christianity and Nazism.
Some argue Nazism:
• borrowed Christian anti-Jewish traditions,
• inherited apocalyptic motifs,
• and used quasi-religious mass politics.
Others stress that Nazism was:
• fundamentally racial,
• neopagan or anti-Christian in important respects,
• and hostile to core Christian ethics.
Most historians reject simplistic claims that Christianity directly “caused” Nazism, though older European anti-Judaism undeniably formed part of the background culture.
Environmental Apocalypticism
Richard Landes and others compare some forms of environmental catastrophe rhetoric to millennial movements:
• imminent doom,
• moral purification,
• salvation narratives,
• urgency overriding normal politics.
Critics of environmental alarmism see religious-style apocalyptic psychology at work.
Supporters of environmental activism respond that:
• climate science is empirical rather than theological,
• and warnings about ecological risk should not be dismissed as “religious hysteria.”
Islam: Conquest, Caliphate, Jihad, and Modern Islamism
Islam emerged in the 7th century in Arabia under Muhammad, who functioned as both religious and political leader.
Early Expansion
Following Muhammad’s death:
• Muslim armies rapidly expanded across the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, and beyond.
• The Rashidun Caliphate and later caliphates built major empires.
Jihad
The concept of jihad has multiple meanings:
• inner spiritual struggle,
• defense of the Muslim community,
• and, historically, armed struggle under certain conditions.
Islamic empires often divided the world conceptually between:
• lands under Islamic rule,
• and lands outside it.
Theocracy and Law
Classical Islamic civilization integrated:
• religion,
• governance,
• and law more thoroughly than post-Enlightenment Western societies.
Sharia historically governed:
• family law,
• criminal law,
• public morality,
• political authority.
Treatment of non-Muslims varied widely:
• some periods were relatively pluralistic,
• others imposed discrimination, coercion, or persecution.
Violence and Sectarianism
Islamic history includes:
• Sunni–Shia conflicts,
• dynastic wars,
• forced conversions in some regions,
• militant revivalist movements.
Modern Islamism and Jihadism
In the modern era, movements such as:
• Muslim Brotherhood,
• Al-Qaeda,
• Islamic State
have sought restoration of Islamic governance or global religious struggle.
Characteristics often include:
• fusion of religion and state,
• anti-secularism,
• revolutionary ideology,
• martyrdom culture,
• apocalyptic expectations.
Groups like ISIS explicitly used end-times prophecies to recruit followers and justify extreme violence.
At the same time, many Muslims reject jihadist interpretations and argue that:
• terrorism violates Islamic principles,
• and Islam historically contains strong traditions of jurisprudence, restraint, and coexistence.
Comparative Patterns Across the Three Traditions
Historians often identify recurring dynamics across all major civilizations and religions:
Pattern: Judaism, Christianity, Islam
Sacred war traditions: Judaism- Present in Hebrew Bible, Christianity- Crusades, holy wars, Islam- Jihad traditions
Religious-state fusion: Judaism- Ancient Israel, Christianity- Medieval Christendom, Islam- Caliphates/Sharia
Apocalyptic themes: Judaism- Prophetic literature, Christianity- Strongly developed, Islam- Present in eschatology
Persecution of dissent: Judaism- Biblical/religious episodes, Christianity- Inquisitions/heresy suppression, Islam- Apostasy/blasphemy enforcement
Universal mission: Judaism- Limited, Christianity- Strong, Islam- Strong
Modern secular descendants debated: Judaism- Less so, Christianity- Frequently argued, Islam- Sometimes argued
Important Historical Cautions
Most serious historians emphasize several cautions:
• Religions are not static; they evolve over centuries.
• Violence often arises from combinations of:
o theology,
o political power,
o economics,
o ethnicity,
o empire,
o and social crisis.
• The same traditions that inspired violence also inspired:
o charity,
o law,
o philosophy,
o abolitionism,
o scholarship,
o peacemaking,
o and human rights movements.
• Selective reading of scriptures can exaggerate violent dimensions while ignoring interpretive traditions that constrained violence.
In other words, none of these religions can be reduced solely to violence, but all have historical records where sacred authority became linked with coercion, conquest, or revolutionary zeal.
(End of AI comments)
My point? We know “the idea” that General Nagata argued we must defeat if we wish to end the endless historical pattern of eruptions of religious (and other) violence and war. “The idea” is a complex of ideas/beliefs/themes that still, yes still, dominate religious traditions along with secular/ideological offspring variants that are as “profoundly religious” as their mother systems. Idea/belief/themes that must be defined for the evil that they are and for the destruction that they incite and validate in human existence.
Until we take seriously the actual nature of the core themes that are driving such violence and war, we will not solve the problem of “the idea that has to be defeated” in order to end violence and war. Most critical to recognize and admit is that “the idea” is primarily “theological”. It is the ultimate Reality/Ideal that centers religious belief systems, the Cohering Center that holds all the rest together, validating entire complexes of bad ideas.
The need to recognize the core “idea” has been wisely stated in this- “It’s the God, stupid.”
Varied public figures (e.g. Free Press writers, Michael Shellenberger, etc.) have been advocating for the revival of the same old religious Judeo-Christian tradition. They have not grappled with the elements in the mix that have been primarily responsible for so much horror across human history, perhaps because the destructive elements are dominant to the very core structure of these religions (i.e. “salvation through violent destruction”).
There is ongoing refusal to make clear the separation and contrast between the good elements and the bad ones in religious traditions. The outcome of this is that we get the continued protection and defense of evil as good because it has long been embodied in the divine as immutable, as ultimate Good and Love.
We need more of the slap-up-the-side-of-the-head statements from people like Christian psychologist Harold Ellens to clear the fog in our heads as to the true nature of fundamental Christian/religious ideas. He said,
“The crucifixion, a hugely violent act of infanticide or child sacrifice, has been disguised by Christian conservative theologians as a ‘remarkable act of grace’.”
Or Billy Graham’s colleague, Charles Templeton, who said that the biblical God who demands to be the constant center of attention and demands endless praise of his greatness on pain of death for refusal, this God is an Idi Amin-like tyrant. Or Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy calling the Christology of Paul- “dung, slime and muck, garbage, the product of lesser minds”. They were speaking of Paul’s Christ myth as a reality entirely separate from and contrasted with the “diamonds” of Jesus’ teaching- i.e. the “Q Wisdom Sayings” material.
Heed also Richard Landes’ warning on apocalyptic millennialism- i.e. that if we don’t realize how millennial passions can carry a society of good people into mass-death crusades then we are not recognizing how dangerous apocalyptic millennialism is. This complex of beliefs is the Core of the Christ myth, the structure of Christianity- i.e. “salvation through violent destruction”. Arthur Mendel expressed it correctly in stating that apocalyptic has been “the most violent and destructive idea in history”.
AI, like Chat, continue to dismiss the centrality of themes like apocalyptic to our religious traditions and defensively dismiss the dominance of the apocalyptic in modern era crusades like climate alarmism.
My point here is that the worst of ideas/beliefs have been given prominence in human narratives because they have long been cloaked as ultimate good in religious traditions. While at same time the “diamonds” of non-tribal universalism, the non-domination of mutual service, and the non-retaliatory mercy of restorative justice toward differing and failing others, these core liberal democracy themes have long been hidden, buried, and distorted in larger contexts of bad ideas. Just as the good themes of Historical Jesus were weakened by being merged with the more dominant themes of Paul’s apocalyptic retaliatory Christology. The Jesus themes were not enabled to potently liberate human minds as they could of, if they had been properly and prominently presented in the New Testament without the overwhelming distortion from Paul’s Christology.
Hence, the critical need to differentiate properly what Jesus actually taught from the opposite themes that dominate Paul’s “Christ-ianity”.
This is how we defeat “the idea” as in the complexes of bad ideas that incite the worst of our inherited animal impulses to (1) tribalism, (2) the impulse to defeat, dominate, and subjugate differing others, the (3) impulse to punitively destroy the “enemy” other. Ultimate liberation must include liberation from the deepest and worst forms of human enslavement, the enslavement of the human subconscious to inherited archetypes that then shape our meta-narratives (both religious and secular/ideological) that consequently shape human minds, emotions, motivations, and subsequent behavior/lives/societies. We have to defeat the inherited bad ideas from our past if we are to finally fulfill the grand exodus from our animal past and continue our great adventure into the future in liberal democracy civilization.
The issues this site wrestles with are as basic as freedom versus enslavement. Enslavement of mind being the worst from of slavery and the validating basis of all other slaveries. The issues are as basic as choosing the inclusion of all as equals or opting for the discriminatory favoring of some while excluding and dehumanizing the disagreeing/different others. As basic as embracing fundamental mercy and generosity of spirit toward the imperfections and failure of others while responsibly restraining the violent to protect innocent people. Or opting for harshly punitive and destructive treatment of human failure.