Π. Παύλος – Γ. Σαχίνης: Η αντιμετώπιση του Ιράν από ΗΠΑ – Ισραήλ ως «δαίμονα» της ανθρωπότητας και η Ελλάδα

Σε αυτήν την ωριαία ραδιοφωνική συζήτηση με τον Γιώργο Σαχίνη, στο Ράδιο 98.4, τη Δευτέρα 23 Μαρτίου 2026, ο Παναγιώτης Παύλος, ερευνητής Φιλοσοφίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Όσλο, προβαίνει σε μια διαφορετική ανάγνωση των εξελίξεων στον πόλεμο ΗΠΑ-Ισραήλ εναντίον του Ιράν.

Αναφερόμενος στη γενικότερη ανάφλεξη στη Μέση Ανατολή και τη Δυτική Ασία, εξηγεί γιατί είναι εξίσου σημαντική στην ανάλυση και η “θεολογία” της ισχύος, όταν μάλιστα εμφανίζεται απέναντι στο σύστημα του Ιράν με τις θεοκρατικές αντιλήψεις αυτό που ο Π. Παύλος αποκαλεί «δυτική εκδοχή τζιχάντ», κατά την οποία οι ΗΠΑ αντιμετωπίζουν το Ιράν ως “δαίμονα” της ανθρωπότητας. Ενώ αίσθηση προκαλούν και όσα επισημαίνει σε αυτές τις συνθήκες για την Ελλάδα.

Ακούστε τη συνέντευξη εδώ:

https://youtu.be/DFrGFArDF10?is=FR3Zn_I5QDYrOAoT

Πηγή:

https://www.neakriti.gr/kosmos/2169337_p-paylos-i-antimetopisi-toy-iran-apo-tis-ipa-israil-os-daimona-tis-anthropotitas-kai

Δυτική εκδοχή Τζιχάντ η αντιμετώπιση του Ιράν από τις ΗΠΑ ως δαίμονα της ανθρωπότητας

Στιγμιότυπο από την εκπομπή REVIEW με την Ιρένα Αργύρη, στην τηλεόραση της ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗ, Σάββατο 21 Μαρτίου 2026.

Το Σάββατο 21 Μαρτίου 2026, είχα τη χαρά και την τιμή να είμαι προσκεκλημένος να συζητήσουμε με την οικοδέσποινα της εκπομπής REVIEW, στην τηλεόραση της ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗΣ, Ιρένα Αργύρη, τον πόλεμο στο Ιράν.

Ειδικότερα, εστιάσαμε σε μια σειρά κρίσιμων θεμάτων και παραμέτρων:

1. Το πολιτισμικό υπόβαθρο της κρίσης στη Μέση Ανατολή και τη Μεσοποταμία.

2. Οι κοσμοαντιλήψεις και ανθρωπότυποι Δύσης και Ανατολής που συγκρούονται στο πεδίο του Ιράν.

3. Η έννοια της θρησκείας στην Ανατολή και Δύση και η εναωμάτωσή της στην πολιτική.

4. Η επίθεση στο Ιράν ως νέα εκδοχή Σταυροφοριών.

5. Η έννοια του χρόνου σε Ανατολή και Δύση και η επίδρασή της στη χάραξη στρατηγικής των “παικτών”.

6. Ο Δυτικός Ορθολογισμός στη γεωπολιτική και οι δυνατότητες επίλυσης της σύγκρουσης μεταξύ Δύσης και Ανατολής.

7. Ο ρόλος της Ελλάδος: τί είναι η Ελλάδα για τους γείτονες, τον πολιτισμό, τη δύση και για την ανατολή, και κυρίως τους ίδιους τους Έλληνες. Τι είμαστε, τι νομίζουμε ότι είμαστε, τι πρέπει να είμαστε, πώς πρέπει να αντιλαμβανόμαστε τον εαυτό μας και συνεπώς πώς πρέπει να πορευθεί ο Ελληνισμός.

Μπορείτε να παρακολουθήσετε τη συνέντευξη από αυτόν τον σύνδεσμο:

https://youtu.be/ZsSjWZioNNU?is=G3zsuH4BANqLa-8J

Interview at Document TV in Oslo with Hans Rustad – English transcript

Panagiotis Pavlos hosted on Document.no Doc-TV’s Dagsorden television show by Hans Rustad, Oslo, Wednesday, October 15, 2025.

Contents: Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington – President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe – Left, Right and Far Right – Norway and Christianity – Left and the Aversion of God – Christ as the True God – The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence – Sin and Death – The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Hieromonk from Mount Athos

Hans Rustad: Welcome to Dagsorden! It is Wednesday, October 15, 2025, and I have Panagiotis Pavlos with me. Welcome!

Panagiotis Pavlos: Thank you for inviting me, thank you Hans!

Rustad: We have already met once, and then I realized that you have a lot of knowledge about something that concerns us in particular: Late Antiquity and the origins of Christianity. And you are Greek. That means you have a long history that we can draw from. You also traveled to Washington to interview Matthew Boyle, who is one of the important editors of Breitbart News.

Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington

Pavlos: That’s right. It was this May when I was in the United States for a conference in Chicago, and on the occasion of my presence there, we arranged to meet and talk with Matthew Boyle. It was then four months into President Trump’s new term in the White House. We had a thorough and detailed discussion regarding this first period in President Trump’s new term, and of course about Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe. As well as what Matthew Boyle says is President Trump’s big goal, namely dealing with China.

We spoke in detail, and I must say that he himself is a very enthusiastic supporter of Trump. He is, as you know, the chief of the Breitbart Bureau in Washington, and one of the journalists who is very close to the US President. They have a very good relationship.

Rustad: They are very close.

Pavlos: Indeed, they are very close and very good friends.

Rustad: I have read most of the interview and it is interesting to hear your impression of Boyle and what he said. Because the Norwegian public is unaware of the fact that in the United States a completely new media has emerged in the last ten years. Exactly, as you said, MAGA predates President Trump. It started under Obama. So it is a river with many supply streams, which has now turned into a flood. The hate propaganda of the Norwegian media is like speaking against the weather. It is an historical natural phenomenon, but these media think they can exorcise it. And that is very promising.

Pavlos: It is true. Before we talk a bit more about that, I would like to say that the work that you are doing here at Document.no is very important. We are living under times where we are experiencing a whole new level of complexity, both nationally and internationally. We see, for example, how difficult it is to resolve the situation in Gaza. We can talk more about it. There was the Peace Agreement the day before yesterday, very important, but it is still early. So I think we are living in times where things are very complicated. And it is not enough to just have the systemic media that only communicate a certain kind of narrative that often does not correspond to the truth at all. It simply serves interests. I think the same is true for the US, not only for Norway, not only for Greece, but also for the US. And that is perhaps why there are media outlets there like Breitbart you mentioned. Charlie Kirk also did a tremendous job, and it is a very sad and tragic story. But what I saw with Matthew Boyle, besides being a very experienced journalist and a person who deeply understands what President Trump’s vision is…

Rustad: …and down to earth.

Pavlos: Absolutely. He is very down to earth. It was also very easy to talk together, he was very friendly. We were in a cafe right next to the White House for two and a half hours, and then we prepared a TV interview. So I saw a very down to earth person, as you said, even though he is one of the closest people to the American President and has access to the White House whenever he wants. But what impressed me the most was that he had a complete overview. And despite the fact, as he characteristically told me, that “I am not a member of President Trump’s staff,” he was nevertheless perfectly capable of understanding his vision, and of analyzing in detail how the American President thinks or acts. This is interesting, because yesterday and today, for example, I was reading about President Trump’s friendly relations with Turkish President Erdogan. There are people who are concerned that we have a situation and a relationship here that could be quite dangerous.

President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe

But you would hear from Matthew Boyle that President Trump is a man who can say good things about various people, but in his strategic thinking he remains unaffected, despite what he says. His words are part of his strategy. And it is important to hear this from a man who is so close to the US President, who has experienced him in everyday life, and in real situations. This is very interesting, I think.

Rustad: So Trump reads the situation and understands how to handle people and then brings them to this point that he wants. We have seen that many times. He does things in a very different way than professional politicians who deal with the wind and the weather. They are opportunists, unlike Trump who thinks long-term.

Pavlos: That’s right. And of course, it is still early, it hasn’t even been a year since January 2025, but I think we already have some indications. For example, the fact that Trump has already served as President of the United States before; there is nothing he needs to achieve now, he has done everything in his life. In this sense, it is reasonable to think and believe that he is simply trying for the best, both for his country and for the world, what he himself considers best.

Furthermore, and equally important, I do not recall anyone in our days who has experienced two assassination attempts. He did. But he did not lose his drive, his conviction and his strength; on the contrary. I think that says a lot. Yet, something that I find impressive and very important – and I think we will all agree on this – it is the first time in many years that the US has a President who leaves no doubt that he is in control of things. Whereas with the previous Biden administration there was a President, but at the same time there was a feeling that behind him there was a multitude of invisible factors that defined and determined US policy. Now, we see that Trump is taking the lead. Of course, this can have certain negative consequences; for instance, the fact that he is unpredictable, or that he does whatever he wants, or that he can suddenly cause certain situations that are difficult to manage. I remember, for example, a relatively recent interview of the Norwegian Prime Minister Støre, when he somehow pointed out the unpredictable nature of Trump and the question of how to interpret situations. But overall, I think that if one tries to understand what President Trump is trying to achieve, then it is not too difficult to adapt and get into a good understanding and agreement.

Rustad: However, with regard to what you are referring to, the Støre case, European politicians and the media alike, are talking about a straw man that they themselves have created. And the more they insist on it, the lower they fall. While Trump is constantly rising and advancing. We have not seen Trump in a fall like other politicians.

Pavlos: That is true. And the best example is what took place the day before yesterday [on Monday, October 13, 2025] in Sharm El Sheikh. That is, he, together with Sisi of Egypt, invited twenty countries to participate in this agreement. One would say, okay, he did it deliberately with the expectation that all of them would offer to contribute large sums of money and other resources to Gaza. That is one thing.

The other thing is that he shows an openness and dedication. He sees that Europe is basically going through a political crisis. It is not a lie to say that today’s European leaders do not demonstrate independence. They do not have the resilience that, one might say, Trump expects them to have. He said it yesterday on the flight back to the US, that “I do not come along well with weak guys”, “I come along with tough guys”. This means, therefore, that he himself would like to have interlocutors who want the best for their country and in an independent manner, not as satellites. Unfortunately, today Europe is a satellite, on many levels. This is not good for the population, for the peoples of Europe. This may also be partly true for Norway, to the extent that here we have a systemic approach to a new reality. By “systemic approach” I mean that we do not directly see what is happening and is in progress, but we live in a situation like what someone once told me, that, okay, what we are living in is a parenthesis now, in 2028 we will have the Democrats back into power.

But that’s not the point. The point is that one should respect the reality in which Donald Trump is the President of the United States. And so it is reasonable and prudent to adjust your policy, to adjust your political goals and so on, and to try to respond to that reality, without seeking to create a reality that does not exist.

Left, Right and Far Right

Rustad: As you know, Europe is ruled by the Left, which cannot understand America. They do not want to understand because they only see Obama’s United States, that is their America. But it is not the real United States, the historical one. So they invent this old word, the Right, the Far Right. And so, a parallel is increasingly created with the 1930s, in a completely different way, however, from what the Left claims. Because it is the Left that has now given itself the mandate to use violence.

Pavlos: The story with the “far right” is funny. Because what is actually happening is that we observe the Center, for example, or the Left shifting more radically to the limits of the political framework, towards the corner. And they say that those who are on the Right, who remain conservative, are far right! However, it is not that the latter shifted to the far right, but that the former shifted in the opposite direction.

Things are therefore relative. If I move away from you, and if I am not honest, I will say “ah, you are standing far away on the edge!”. But this does not reveal the truth that I have moved away, I have withdrawn, I am the one who has not maintained my original positions and values.

Norway and Christianity

Rustad: Let me tell you, you are Greek. You Greeks have a long history of 2,500 years and more. We have a much younger history, 1,000–1,500 years. But we have now cut our roots from our own history. We are sitting on a branch that is breaking, as we have no knowledge of the first Viking period [Norrøn times, 800–1350 AD] and the old deities. We also have no knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are throwing Jesus Christ out the window. While in five years from now we will celebrate in Stikkestad the thousand years of Christianity in Norway, they have de-Christianized the country! So what have we left? Nothing.

Pavlos: That is true. There is a crisis. And I don’t know to what extent Norwegians are aware of the fact that Norway is a Christian country. Saint Olav died, or rather was killed, in 1030 AD. That means, 24 years before the Schism. At that time the Christian Church was One, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church. That was before the separation between East and West. Isn’t that right? Therefore, I, as a Greek and as an Orthodox Christian, know that St Olav is celebrated in the Greek Church, he is one of the Saints of the Church. This is very important. Lutheranism and Protestantism come much later, after 1500 AD.

Rustad: Yes!

Pavlos: So what is happening today, which I find very unfortunate, is that in Norway there is a gap in the consciousness of Christian identity. This is because Christianity is no longer seen as part of our being, of our existence. It is seen as a cultural value, or as a hobby, a religious subject that we may or may not be interested in.

But, to put it this way, what is missing today –we see that in the society- is the ontological connection, understanding and knowledge that man is created by God. What does that mean? And not just created by God, but created in the image of God. And not just in the image of God, but also in his likeness. This implies that we have a teleology here. That man has a purpose, an end, which is to become like God. If we understand this deeply, it is something explosive! It opens up to completely new horizons. Because all what we are discussing, politics, geopolitics, everything, it concerns the present of the world which we live in.

But here is the question. Okay, here we have war – Heraclitus the Presocratic says “war is the father of all things” and we see this every day. But the question is: are we interested in solving problems for sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety – as Norwegians live quite a long time – a hundred years? And then what? Zero? Nothing? Christianity carries a very valuable truth, precious for all people. A Christianity that does not recognize this truth ends up being just a “religion”. I think, therefore, that we should reflect on this and realize that we have escaped and distanced ourselves from our roots and sources.

Rustad: “We threw the baby out with the bathwater!”, we say in Norwegian.

Pavlos: Exactly! That’s a very apt phrase.

Rustad: And I believe that in this spiritual crisis of Europe, which is also a political crisis, Europeans will return to history to rediscover their roots and share them with new inhabitants who want to become Europeans…

Pavlos: …Let’s hope so!

The Left and the aversion of God

Rustad: Well, I am convinced of that, because we have such a rich heritage, don’t we? I mean the Greek heritage, the Roman, and of course the Jewish, Israel; these are the great stories.

The Left, however, aversions God. That’s what they do! If we wanted to put it into words, the central point is that Netanyahu bows down to God, just like Trump, in contrast to European politicians.

Pavlos: Perhaps there is an explanation, I think, for this. One can interpret it as a reaction to an untrue belief in God. For example, if you say that “I believe in God” and at the same time do all the opposites to this belief – after all, Christ says that if you do this and this and that, by these the world will know that you are my disciples. What does this mean?

It means that it is not enough for me to say that I am a Christian. I must also act as a Christian. And what does it mean to act as a Christian? It means to act as a person who sees the image of God in the persons of all other people. If I do this, then I move on to a level that is “beyond” being “left” or “right”. This is something beyond being or being named in a certain way.

Christ as the true God

If we read the New Testament, we see that Christ shattered all the frameworks, all the ways of understanding the people of that time had, and introduced a completely new reality. Sometimes this reality seems contradictory, but it is not. Because what happens with Christianity and Christian epistemology, if one may say so, is that truth is not defined on the basis of principles that are independent of God. Rather the principle is Christ himself. So if a true Christian attempts to establish principles, he must do so through a personal relationship, a personal connection, with Christ.

Today, I sadly recognize that we are losing this reality. We often create a Christianity that is an ideology. That is why Christ says, I do not know when I return to earth whether I shall find true faith. This is how I understand it. That Christ, as the true God who knows what is happening within man, sees all the situations and challenges that take place in the human soul, all the crises and all the stakes. That is why he “wonders” whether he will find faith again in people, at the Second Coming, and so on.

Therefore, it is not very easy to put aside our opinions, to abandon our thoughts, right or wrong, what we consider to be either true or false, in general, to abandon everything and meet in a personal way with Christ. And from this meeting and relationship to receive our direction. That is, how will we function politically, whether shall we do this or that. To put it this way, if a person truly believes in Christ, it does not harm whether he is a left-wing or a right-wing. Whereas, you can have someone who is either right-wing or left-wing but who does not believe in Christ; then he harms everything.

Rustad: That is so. But in this case you should feel a pull towards the transcendent. And the Left does not feel this! They oppose everything that moves upwards. They only move on a horizontal plane. Besides, that’s why we have the sign of the Cross.

Pavlos: This observation about the Cross is very correct!

Rustad: Isn’t it? And I think about how this tradition has reached us. I was in Rome where Christian Schou showed us around. We went to churches. Caravaggio is a painter who moves a lot of people because his paintings have a lot of power.

This image of Paul, of Saul, who is overcome on the road to Damascus, is in one of these churches. They are the kind of images that you don’t forget because they make you feel something. Caravaggio is, in other words, a power, precisely because of what he depicts. He is the messenger of a message: that Saul became Paul.

Pavlos: This happens because, due to the fact that they are created by God, all people have the spirit of God within them, in some way. So they are, in a sense, divine. And we should not forget that we are in a situation where man has fallen from Paradise. But what is Paradise? It is not a place; it is a way of being. The Fall, therefore, is not a change of location, rather it is precisely the divorce of the relationship between God and man. That man denied God and believed that he himself could become God in the place of God.

If I wanted to somehow try to interpret what you said earlier about people who belong to the Left and deny God, it would not be very difficult, since man has an absolute freedom. He has the freedom to deny God. If man did not have this freedom, then God would not be a true God. He would be a tyrant, and that would make no sense…

Rustad: …Our God is not Allah…

Paul: True. What you are now saying is also important. Because if God is not a person – for example the Greeks, all Greek philosophy understands God as the highest principle, as the One, from which everything comes. This is largely true. But the Greeks of the ancient world did not have the personal experience of God that Paul had on the road to Damascus, which made him completely converted and become the greatest Apostle of Christ while previously he was a murderer. We observe a radical change here.

The pre-Christian Greeks had clearly arrived at a correct understanding of the transcendental but not in a personal way, as is necessarily the case with the Incarnation of Christ. To contemplate that God comes and becomes man is not something that man can fully grasp. To believe this and to recognize it, is a gift. It is a gift, because man will always be a creature. How, then, can I, who am created, and have a beginning – I am not eternal, I have a beginning and I will probably die too – how, then, can I say that I have the ability to find, first of all, God, to recognize him, and then say to the people “hey, here is God!”? This is completely absurd.

Therefore, we are talking about a manifestation, a revelation, just as we have the revelation in the Old Testament with Moses. But now it is not a revelation through signs and symbols; it is precisely God himself who becomes man, so that there is no one who has the excuse to say “and who is God? Show him to me!”.

The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence

Rustad: There is, as you mentioned, Moses and there is also Christ. But there is something third, still, in the eyes of the beholder. Because in Paradise Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. And they became “wise”. They then made clothes to cover their nakedness, and God said to them: “who told you that you were naked?” Because this was a result of their eating from the tree of knowledge.

Today, however, there is AI, artificial intelligence, which offers the great temptation, because you can become omnipotent. There is the temptation to become God, as it happens in Silicon Valley and in these environments where one can become a great destroyer of the world. They can destroy the world.

Pavlos: Artificial intelligence is very interesting, because here we have the greatest challenge. That is, as man has the ability to perform miracles, he can believe that he is God. This is a repetition of the deception that Adam and Eve suffered from the Evil, who convinced them that, if you eat of this you will become God. The problem was not that they simply ate, since – again – God is not a tyrant who wants to prevent man from benefiting from everything. But with the “you will not eat of this fruit, of the apple” he actually told them: “do not try to do anything without me.”

So we can say that the prohibition that God gave to the first man, Adam and Eve, was essentially about telling them: don’t try to do things without me because you will perish. Not because I will make sure that you will pay for it in some way. But because this is how things work since you are created by me, and since you do not have an ontological autonomy, you are not self-sufficient. So it makes perfect sense that,if you decide to separate from me and destroy our relationship, you will lose.

This was said with love. That’s why Christ later, when he comes and becomes man, says: “without me you can do nothing” [cf. John 15:5]. This is a repetition of the original prohibition “you shall not eat of this”. Now Christ repeats it in other words and says “without me you can do nothing”. Not because this is an obstacle, but precisely because this is a revelation of a truth. That is, “look, you can do anything with me”!

Sin and Death

Rustad: You are a philosopher and you know ancient Greece. So I would like to invite you, we are going to start a radio podcast about the fact that we do not learn anything in school anymore. There is a logic in the Bible. Just as there is logic in the Greek world. And there is a greatness in that. Because in the Bible, Paradise was lost and so sin entered the world. That has been grounded. It is the primary mythology of our origins, and the consequences of sin are death. But most people do not know that, Panagiotis! They don’t know that sin enters the world and the wages of sin is death.

Pavlos: That is true, and I think we have a duty, first of all, to delve into that truth. That is, to understand that death is not an action of a God who seeks revenge against us. But, as already said, it is an ontological consequence of our own decision. At the same time, again, this is not enough. Because death is an ontological state. It is the most serious state of separation of soul and body. It is truly a catastrophe. It is a decay. We do not have similar experiences before we die, so that we can delve deeper into this truth and reality. So, the question is, how will we talk about death while we are alive?

There are Greek philosophers who said, “I am not concerned with death, since as long as I live I am not dead, and therefore I do not care. And when I die I will not be alive, so, again, I do not worry.” But this way of approaching death is quite sophistical. The truth is that death is a radical destruction of humanity as we know it. And the only way to delve into it, and not just delve into it, but essentially the question is how do we overcome death, how do we defeat it? Is there any way out of death?

If, for instance, you ask me why I like Christ, or why I am a Christian, I shall answer you this: if Christ is not sincere in what he says about the Resurrection, or if Christ has not risen from the dead and does not grant us the Resurrection, then I am not interested in him. Then, he is nothing more than all the gods that have arisen in human history.

If there is value in being a Christian, it is because Christ is the only one who took upon himself all the sin that you spoke about earlier. Which was not his fault, it is we who decided to commit it. And he somehow absorbs everything, becomes the one who goes to the bottom, to the lowest, becomes the humblest being in the history of the world, descends into Hades and resurrects the dead. Thus, Resurrection is the most subversive thing that man can understand, or rather experience. If there is no Resurrection, then Christianity is completely useless.

The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Athonite Hieromonk

Rustad: I heard Kasper Støvring mention a meeting he had with a hospital pastor, who told him something very interesting. That is, on their deathbeds, people struggle against death. They refuse to give up life because they want to live and they believe that science will save them. Because this is the worldview we live with today. To cling to life because science will soon grant us immortality, as some believe. So this priest said: “the most important thing I do is to reconcile people with the fact that they are going to die. Because when they accept it, they calm down. Then they surrender to what is about to happen and thus they gain peace.”

Pavlos: This is a very honest approach. I will tell you a true story, which happened very recently. I was in Greece a month ago. And the reason I was in Greece was that on Athos, on the Holy Mountain, where there are many monasteries, there lived a hieromonk very dear to me, I loved him very much, who died. So it was his burial and I went to his funeral. There I was informed about some of his last words, as well as some moments and images that people who were close to him described to me.

The first is that he himself was very happy and grateful to Christ. Shortly before his passing away he received the Holy Communion, before his death he prayed, and he was so happy and peaceful that he said: “I look forward to the celebration of my funeral.” That’s what he said.

The second is that shortly before he died – I heard this from a person who saw it with his own eyes, and therefore it is true – the room where he was, in the hospital in Thessaloniki, was illuminated with a very special light; only the room in which he himself was. It was not an easily described light, it was indescribable. It was not like the light of these spotlights here in the studio. It was a different kind of light.

And of course, there was his funeral on Athos, where only men and not women can go, as is the case. It was a ceremony where of course people were very sad but at the same time there was a joy that you could feel. A joy that this person who is now lying in the grave, who was a very humble person and who in his last moments said “I am worth nothing, absolutely nothing, I am nothing” and, at the same time, I am very happy because Christ loves me and I will go to Christ.

In this sense, you can say that this man is not reconciled with saying, okay, I embrace death since I have no other choice. Instead, he was very happy that life had reached an end that is not the end but the beginning. Again, this is not easy – as you rightly said before – to do through scientific methods. It is impossible, precisely because we are talking about a reality that is not of this world, so to speak. We do not have the premises and the data, if we want to speak in machine terms, we do not have the necessary data to process it. That is one thing.

The other thing that you mentioned, artificial intelligence: I think it is very good that man has the ability to perform these miracles. The very fact that man can perform them, artificial intelligence, is a confirmation that man is created in the image of God. Because God has transmitted to man, and has enriched him with, all his own capabilities and abilities. So, just as God creates man out of nothing, so too man has the ability to create something so intelligent. Besides, Christ said that people will be able to do more miracles than him, as we read in the Gospel.

So this reality does not surprise us. The question is how will we use this power and ability? Shall we use it for the good, to glorify God? Or shall we use it to replace God, and so we will return to the Fall and the Original Sin…?

Rustad: Or will we serve Evil?

Pavlos: Exactly. Therefore, everything depends on our choice. Everything depends on what we will.

Rustad: Panagiotis, we have now gone through many, and even big issues. But it was very pleasant and I think that our viewers also appreciate it very much. And I would like to be allowed to invite you to come again.

Pavlos: Thank you very much, with pleasure!

Rustad: Thank you for this time, thank you for coming.

YouTube link:

https://youtu.be/jrds4exEtzs?si=pXOAPqtVscmWg-35

Source:

https://www.document.news/editorials/2025/11/an-interview-with-greek-philosopher-panagiotis-pavlos

Doc-TV: «Mennesket lever ikke av brød alene» – Hans Rustad i en TV samtale med Panagiotis Pavlos

Dokument.no

Den omveltningstid vi lever i, har fremkalt en søken etter mening med tilværelsen. Den finnes ikke til salgs på gater og streder. Man må lete, så skal man finne. Vi fant en gresk filosof, Panagiotis Pavlos, hjemmehørende på Universitetet i Oslo.

Foranledningen var et langt intervju han gjorde med en av redaktørene for Breitbart.com i Washington, Matthew Boyle. Pavlos slapp inn i miljøet rundt Steve Bannon, som også Document føler en tilhørighet til.

Europa befinner seg i en krise, dét er det ikke vanskelig å fornemme. Vi har en rik historie, en stor arv, men menneskene er løsrevet fra den.

Med Pavlos var det mulig å føre en samtale om de eksistensielle ting, slik de gamle grekere gjorde.

Disse ordene er som livgivende regn. Slik oppleves det. Mennesket lever ikke av brød alene.

Kilde:

Geopolitics and Theology in the Middle East: Democracy versus Messianism

This aerial photo shows displaced Gazans walking toward Gaza City, after crossing the Netzarim corridor from the southern Gaza Strip. An unending stream of people marched up the coast of Gaza, carrying their belongings in plastic bags and repurposed flour sacks through the central city of Nuseirat after Israel reopened access to the territory’s north. AFP

Geopolitics and international relations are directly related to, if not determined by, theological beliefs and perceptions. This was confirmed once again in the statements of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who on February 4 at the joint press conference with U.S. President Trump at the White House reiterated the Old Testament messianism defining his geopolitical vision of the new Israel: the interpretation of God’s Promise as the establishment of a worldly kingdom of wealthy and chosen people.

Netanyahu᾽s remarks followed President Trump’s statement that “The U.S. will take over the Gaza strip and we will do a job with it too, we will own it, and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, and create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area. Will do a real job, do something different…”

Were it not for the President’s mention of permanently removing Palestinians from Gaza, one would say in principle that this is an excellent idea of international, social, and humanitarian contribution by the United States to the mercilessly destroyed Gaza Strip that has led to the deaths of more than 100,000 Palestinians. According to estimates by the Lancet scientific journal, this number may not be definitive, as it does not include all those who are either missing or wounded and still fighting for their lives.

However, there are two details that a careful listener to the joint statements could possibly discern.

The first fact is that from the outset the President expressed his policy on Gaza straightforwardly and made plain that about 1.7 million Palestinians cannot return and live in Gaza but must move to neighboring countries, such as Egypt and Jordan. In his initial position, however, the Israeli Prime Minister did not seem to explicitly adhere at once to President Trump’s vision, and he continued to talk about simply clearing Hamas and terrorist units in the Gaza Strip. It was only when a journalist asked PM Netanyahu on his view of Trump’s proposal for Gaza that he explicitly and unequivocally agreed with it, praising the President.

The second fact is that, when President Trump spoke of “jobs and housing for the people in the area,” he did not appear to have in mind the indigenous population of the Gaza Strip, whom he said could not remain there. Even the West Bank seemed to be destined to the same fate of population relocation. From the joint statements, it also became clear that Trump envisions an Israeli Mediterranean Riviera in the place where so far Palestinians lived packed together because of long-standing settlement processes.

Destructive military intervention

In the same press conference, President Trump—quite rightly in my view—fairly admitted and confessed the tragic failure of American foreign policy in the Middle East, which, as he emphatically said, cost the American people several trillion dollars and countless human lives. Thus, it is obvious that the President has decided to replace the destructive U.S. military interventions with a novel economic offensive that will be implemented through gigantic investments and reconstruction programs without precedent.

However, here arises the issue related to what we hinted at the beginning as both ethical and humanitarian, as well as theological. For, how sustainably can a model of exchanging the fundamental right to land and homeland with jobs and some economic benefits withstand its implementation without the participation of the indigenous inhabitants of the region? How could the U.S. that shares values such as freedom, liberalism, and the core value of faith in the individual, condescend to and advocate for a de facto expulsion of an indigenous people as equally ancient as the Hebrews?

Besides, the war between Palestinians and Jews is a civil fratricidal war. If one goes back to history and prehistory, and even according to the Jewish tradition and religion, the forefather of today’s Jews and all the tribes in the region is Noah, who leaves three descendants, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who happened to be the three progenitors of the basic races of humanity, Semites, Hamites and Japheths (the European races).

Further, how does it follow that an indigenous people, in this case the people of Israel, one of Noah’s descendants, has the right to enslave others demanding and deserving a homeland more than those, as it were, who are now called upon to forever depart from their ancestral homes where they have lived for many millennia? For, both Palestinians and the Jews are historically indigenous inhabitants of the region sharing the same rights. It was later on that the identification of religion and nation occurred, and ever since, Hebraism was identified with Judaism.

Evidently, these new developments in Washington D.C. testify to a convergence of theological, metaphysical, and eschatological traditions that, however, had a specific historical significance and meaning and cannot be extended forever:

On the one hand stands Jewish messianism of cosmic kingdom and sovereignty that remains committed to the Old Testament and claims justification in terms of identifying a certain race, nation, and people with divinity. On the other, stands American Manichaean (“we are the good, the others are the bad ones”), monophysite (denial of coexistence of different natures: God and man, Greeks and Jews, and so on) Christianity, which after failing to be substantially updated by the New Testament, finds in Netanyahu’s Jewish messianism the justification of individualistic liberalism within postmodern neocolonial capitalism.

It is on the New Testament and the Incarnation of God in the person of Christ that the cultural values of respect for human personality, justice, and equality of people as individuals and persons, and the coexistence of all people in the Republic-city (πόλις), are founded.

President Trump is a man of sincere intentions for peace, and his vision for the Middle East could truly exemplify a brilliant American contribution to democracy in the Middle East, were the Palestinians to find a place and justification as human beings in the new plan for the region. However, he should be careful not to associate himself with a global holocaust that is at risk in the Middle East, should there be no respect for human beings. For it has been prophesied that in the Middle East all peoples will clash, should justice and respect for human rights be abolished; should the barbarity of power and the apotheosis of power return.

President Trump must therefore not be led—in the name of defending democracy for the sake of which he risked his own life in the U.S.—to contribute to abolishing democracy in the Middle East by implementing a fatal policy. A policy that, in fact, would be a repetition of the holocaust of American indigenous population implemented by the Western European colonists, and of the holocaust of the Jewish people, caused by European Nazism.

I wish to extend my special acknowledgements to “Public Orthodoxy”, the online review of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, New York, and its directors, Professors Aristotle Papanikolaou and George Demacopoulos, and the “Public Orthodoxy” Chief Editor, Nathaniel Wood, for immediately welcoming and publishing the essay.

Source:

PublicOrthodoxy.org