If God exists, they defy definition & Paradoxes throughout time

Forward: The Unknowable Divine

Across millennia, humanity has painted the divine in countless hues: vengeful storm gods, compassionate saviors, impersonal cosmic forces. From the intricate pantheons of ancient Mesopotamia to the monotheisms that dominate today, our species has sought to name, codify, and claim the ineffable. But what if every scripture, ritual, and creed – no matter how profound – is merely a flickering candle held up to the sun?

My belief is this: If a higher power exists, it bears little resemblance to the deities we’ve fashioned. Religions are not wrong; they are human. They reflect our fears, hopes, and limitations – not the essence of the divine. Imagine a child sketching the ocean with a crayon: the waxy blue swirls capture neither the depth, nor the currents, nor the teeming life beneath. So too, perhaps, our theologies reduce the infinite to the comprehensible.

This is not a dismissal of faith. Rather, it is an invitation to wonder. If God transcends our dogmas, what might that mean for our claims of salvation, sin, or supremacy? Could it be that every religion – even the ones we cling to most fiercely – is but a fractured glimpse of something beyond language, beyond doctrine, beyond time?

In the paragraphs ahead, we’ll explore the chasm between human invention and divine possibility. To do so demands humility: the recognition that our grandest temples and holiest books may be no more than whispers in the dark. Yet in that uncertainty lies liberation – a chance to seek not answers, but awe.

Note: This article is not an attack on belief, but a plea for curiosity. Let us dare to imagine a God unbound by our projections.

Two ideas

1. Would the Spanish inquisition have turned Jesus at the stake for heresy? (There’s certainly a difference between the created myth of Christ and the reports in history of Jesus).
2. Is there a modern day paradox?

The question of whether the Spanish Inquisition would have accused Jesus of heresy and condemned him to the stake is a profound historical and theological paradox. Here’s a structured analysis:

If God exists, they defy definition

Theological Irony

The Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834) was a tool of the Catholic Church to enforce orthodoxy, rooted in the belief that the Church was the ultimate authority on Christian truth. Since Catholicism venerates Jesus as the divine Son of God and the foundation of its faith, accusing Jesus himself of heresy would be nonsensical within Church doctrine. The Inquisition’s mandate derived from defending the Church’s teachings – teachings that originated with Jesus. To condemn Jesus would undermine the Inquisition’s entire theological basis.

Historical Context of the Inquisition’s Targets

The Inquisition primarily targeted:

• Converts (Conversos and Moriscos): Jews and Muslims accused of secretly practicing their original faiths.
• Protestants: During the Reformation, those rejecting Catholic doctrine.
• “Heretics”: Individuals whose beliefs or practices deviated from Church orthodoxy (e.g., mystics, critics of clerical corruption).

Jesus, as the central figure of Christianity, would not fit these categories. However, his actions and teachings in a 15th-century context might have clashed with Inquisitorial priorities:

• Criticism of Religious Authorities: Jesus condemned hypocrisy among religious leaders (e.g., Matthew 23), much like reformers later criticised the Church’s corruption. The Inquisition often silenced dissenters, even pious ones.
• Radical Teachings: Jesus’ emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, and inclusion (e.g., the Good Samaritan, dining with outcasts) could conflict with the Inquisition’s punitive, exclusionary tactics.

Would Jesus Be Seen as a Threat?

Challenge to Institutional Power: Jesus overturned money-changers’ tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17), a direct confrontation with religious authority. The Inquisition protected the Church’s political and economic power, so such defiance might provoke suspicion.

Unorthodox Practices: Jesus’ association with marginalised groups (tax collectors, sinners) and his rejection of strict legalism (e.g., healing on the Sabbath) could be labeled “heretical” by a rigid institution.

Mystical Claims: Asserting divinity (“I and the Father are one,” John 10:30) might align with charges of blasphemy, similar to those used against mystics like St. John of the Cross (who was briefly imprisoned).

Theological Contradictions

The Inquisition’s Logic: The Church viewed itself as the guardian of Jesus’ teachings. To condemn Jesus would require denying his divinity – a position incompatible with Catholicism.

Selective Interpretation: The Inquisition often weaponised scripture to justify its actions (e.g., John 15:6, “If anyone does not abide in me, he is thrown away like a branch and burned”). Yet applying this to Jesus himself would invert the Church’s identity.

Modern Parallels and Philosophical Implications

This question highlights a recurring tension: institutions founded on revolutionary ideals often ossify and oppose their original spirit. Examples include:

• The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror betraying Enlightenment values.
• Communist regimes suppressing dissent despite Marxist ideals of liberation.

Similarly, the Inquisition’s methods (torture, execution) starkly contrasted Jesus’ message of love and redemption. If Jesus had appeared in 15th-century Spain preaching radical mercy, the Church might have labeled him a heretic – not because of theology, but because his teachings threatened institutional control.

Conclusion

While the Inquisition would not have accused the divine Christ of heresy, the historical Jesus – a radical, anti-establishment figure – might have clashed with the Church’s political machinery. The paradox underscores how institutions can distort foundational teachings to maintain power. As Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno wrote:

“Those who burn others for the love of Christ are often those who would have burned Christ himself.”

In this light, the question is less about history and more a critique of how authority corrupts spiritual ideals.

When Ideals Betray Their Founders: From the Spanish Inquisition to Modern Hypocrisies

The Paradox of Power: A Historical Prelude

In 15th-century Spain, the Catholic Church launched the Inquisition to root out heresy and protect the faith. Yet, as explored earlier, the radical teachings of Jesus – mercy for the marginalised, defiance of religious hypocrisy, and critique of institutional corruption – might have made him a target of the very institution built in his name. This irony reveals a timeless truth: organisations created to uphold ideals often distort them to preserve power.

Miguel de Unamuno captured this chillingly: “Those who burn others for the love of Christ are often those who would have burned Christ himself.”

Today, this paradox lives on. Institutions founded on liberation, progress, and justice now routinely betray their founding principles. Let’s examine how.

Modern Parallels: Institutions vs. Ideals

Tech Giants: From Connection to Control

Founding Ideal: Innovate to democratise information and connect humanity.

Modern Reality:

Platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X), once hailed as tools for free speech, now amplify misinformation, hate speech, and algorithmic polarisation.

Monopolistic Practices: Apple and Google face global antitrust lawsuits for stifling competition, contradicting Silicon Valley’s “open access” ethos.

Surveillance Capitalism: User data is harvested and sold, turning privacy into a commodity.

The Paradox: Tech companies built to empower individuals now exploit and manipulate them.

Environmental Movements: Greenwashing vs. Grassroots

Founding Ideal: Protect the planet and prioritise sustainability.

Modern Reality:

Corporate Greenwashing: Oil giants like Shell and BP rebrand as “green” while expanding fossil fuel extraction.

Marginalised Voices Ignored: Climate policies often exclude Indigenous communities, despite their role as environmental stewards.

Elitism: Some NGOs prioritise donor interests over frontline communities, replicating colonial power dynamics.

The Paradox: Movements meant to save the Earth risk becoming tools of the systems destroying it.

Democratic Governments: Security vs. Suppression

Founding Ideal: Govern by consent, protect civil liberties.

Modern Reality:

Patriot Act to Pegasus: Laws and tech tools designed for “security” routinely spy on activists, journalists, and dissenters.

Erosion of Rights: In India, anti-terror laws target farmers’ protests; in the U.S., voting rights are curtailed under the guise of “election integrity.”

Militarised Policing: Cities fund police over social services, despite evidence linking investment in communities to reduced crime.

The Paradox: States founded on liberty now weaponise fear to justify authoritarianism.

Social Justice Movements: Performative Allyship

Founding Ideal: Dismantle systemic inequality.

Modern Reality:

Corporate “Wokeness: Brands co-opt movements like BLM for marketing while underpaying workers of colour.

NGO Bureaucracy: Funds meant for grassroots efforts get funneled into executive salaries and overhead.

Cancel Culture: Calls for accountability devolve into punitive mobs, mirroring the exclusion they seek to combat.

The Paradox: Movements fighting oppression risk becoming oppressors in new guises.

Why Does This Happen? The Cycle of Institutional Corruption

1. Power Consolidation: Institutions prioritise self-preservation over mission.
2. Fear of Change: Radical ideals are diluted to appease elites or avoid backlash.
3. Co-Option: Oppressive systems absorb dissent (e.g., “diversity” initiatives without equity).

Breaking the Cycle: Lessons from the Radicals

To avoid becoming the Inquisition, modern institutions must:

Centre Marginalised Voices: Like Jesus elevating the poor, let those most impacted lead.

Reject Complacency: Tech workers demanding ethical AI, activists refusing corporate donations.

Embrace Accountability: Transparency in decision-making, as seen in mutual aid networks.

Conclusion: Who Would We Crucify Today?

The Spanish Inquisition’s shadow lingers wherever power stifles its founders’ ideals. Whether it’s a climate activist jailed for protesting or a whistleblower prosecuted for exposing corruption, society still silences its moral visionaries. To honor their legacies, we must confront the hypocrisy of our systems—and dare to align practice with principle.

Final Question: If Jesus returned today, would we call him a socialist, a radical, or a heretic? And would we listen – or nail his message to a feed algorithm?

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes. The choice is ours: perpetuate the paradox or break the cycle.

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969