Sunday, December 25, 2016

Alanna Ketler — Pope Francis: Capitalism is “Terrorism Against All Of Humanity”


Pope Francis doubles down for Christmas.
Once again, Pope Francis has made global headlines, shocking reporters late Sunday after blaming the “god of money” for the extremist violence that is taking place in Europe and the Middle East. A ruthless global economy, he argues, leads disenfranchised people to violence.
Responding to a question from a journalist about whether or not there is a link between Islam and terrorism, more specifically addressing the fatal attack on a priest by a Muslim extremist in France last week, Pope Francis said, “Terrorism grows when there is no other option, and as long as the world economy has at its center the god of money and not the person.” “This is fundamental terrorism, against all humanity,” he continued.
“I ask myself how many young people that we Europeans have left devoid of ideals, who do not have work. Then they turn to drugs and alcohol or enlist in [the Islamic State, or ISIS],” he said....
Collective Evolution
Pope Francis: Capitalism is “Terrorism Against All Of Humanity”
Alanna Ketler

13 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"after blaming the “god of money”

Yeah and here she is:

https://goo.gl/images/knyLP4

She's been keeping true numismatic authority covered for over 2,000 years and still counting ...

Noah Way said...

Fundamentalist capitalism, the scourge of mankind.

John said...

This Pope seems to take the Gospels seriously. That makes him dangerous, and thus deserving of our support. Personally, I like him a lot. I might get a picture of his face on a t-shirt or a mug. He's a much more serious and interesting figure than what passes for intelligence and insight from the leaders of the church I grew up in, the Church of England, who are completely obsessed with identity politics and the role of a gay clergy (vicars but not bishops and similar stupidities).

Previous Popes in the modern age were pretty much capitalist stooges, especially the "saintly" John Paul II, who thought everything about neoliberalism and imperialism was great. All this Pope has to do is relax the Church's attitude on abortion, contraception and rid itself of the Pauline trinity and it'll have about five billion followers! If Jorge/Francis wants to offer me a job as his personal consiglieri, I'm open to offers, Jorge! I like the cassocks, so I'm happy to relax considerably any remuneration, although he'll have to relent to my demand for the crucifixion of the thousands of paedophile priests.

Matt Franko said...

What is the "Pauline trinity ". ?????

Paul never used the word "trinity" ....

John said...

Matt, strictly speaking that is true: he never used it and it isn't called that. My apologies, and I should know better. Nevertheless, Paul's allusions to a trinity are difficult to miss.

Moreover, the trinity as a concept, however, couldn't exist, or at least wouldn't have the foundations it has, without Paul. Nowhere in the Old and New Testaments can you find such a concept. It was made concrete later, much, much later, but without Paul it would, I think, have been difficult to argue.

You can say that I shouldn't call it Pauline. In that case, I apologise, but Paul must have known what he was doing in the way he alluded to a trinity. You can say, well, you shouldn't blame others for distorting Paul's message, as some argue was done to Paul. There, I think, is where they start to skate on thin ice. Paul initiated some really serious theological issues. He wasn't a fool. He knew what he was doing. Later, the Church (and other Churches) took advantage of the highly dubious theology initiated by Paul: the move away from Mosaic Law and its strict monotheism.

In one of his letters, if I remember correctly, he introduces a duality of God and Jesus, which of course Moses would have had him put to death for. In others there is the repetition of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in various permutations. It's impossible not to conclude that there is a much deeper relationship between the three than can be said to exist in the Gospels.


Matt Franko said...

Ok I see sorry... I guess it depends on what you mean by duality...

Paul said that Jesus was the Iirc 'one in whom the entire complement of the Diety delights to dwell bodily" so complement is from set theory in math it means the part that remains... like in the set of 5, 3 is he complement of 2, 2 is the complement of 3, 4 is the complement of 1, etc...

So you could say Jesus was "the one in whom the entire part that remains in God delighted to dwell bodily...." it's ONLY THE PART THAT REMAINS in God not God... Paul taught that " ALL is OUT of God".... so He put all (panta) out of Him and only a part or complement of that which is God remains in God... how do we know what is remaining in God in human terms? We have to look at Christ Jesus to know in human terms he only got that part which is remaining...

Paul taught that MAN is created in the image of ALL that is of God.... so that is why Jesus mother as she said "never knowest a man" before she bore him, otherwise he could never have represented only the complement of the Diety he would have been just like any other of we of mankind that come thru the female ..... and his mother was just a normal female of mankind because she went on to bear other male and female children by her normal male human husband...

So Jesus is NOT God... "He shall be called the Son of God...." is the scripture....

So it sets up a contrast... which we can learn from by comparing man/mankind which is the image of what is God vs. Jesus which is the image of ONLY that which is remaining in God...

Unscriptural "trinity" doctrine fucks all of this up.... Paul criticized others to Timothy for being astocheon or "un - in a row" .. a triangle is about as "un in a row" as you can get.... its planar geometry Paul was linear....

John said...

Matt, you're quite right in saying that in Paul there is a contrast. That is clearly true. But it is also true that there are deliberate allusions to a new concept of a trinity. Paul is deliberately muddying and overlapping the three different figures of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, such that it leaves you at the very best more than a little confused in separating the contrast from the new allusion of trinity.

Again, Paul's a very smart man (beautiful writer with the most gripping turns of phrase, it must be said) and knows that he's introducing something new, something confusing, something that can only work as a trinity but even then leaving people scratching their heads as to how to make it fit together, and ultimately something blasphemous to the Jews who heard it, hence their ultimate rejection of it. But Paul had wider aims: the rest of the world - the pagan world - who perhaps would not react as negatively as the Jews who heard Paul.

Paul criticizing others is a bit rich! He really wants to have his cake and eat it. When you contrast Paul with Jesus's apostles, you can see that there is a clear difference in religious attitude. Isn't Paul excommunicated in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and referred to as "the liar" and other derogatory names?

Matthew Franko said...

"When you contrast Paul with Jesus's apostles, you can see that there is a clear difference in religious attitude."

Yes the difference is based on teaching methodology... Jesus had 'disciples' which were active learners while Paul taught via rote... Paul never uses the word 'disciple'...

'apostle' is a special messenger... a 'disciple' is an ACTIVE learner... Paul was a 'teacher of knowledge and truth' ie rote not a "disciple maker".... he told Timothy "use a pattern (stencil) of sound words which you hear from me..." he didnt say "Timothy, make up your own new words like 'trinity!' and confuse people..."

This is one of only two mention of Paul wrt 'disciples' ie active learner in all of the Greek scriptures in Acts:

"Now, on coming along to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples; and all feared him, not believing that he is a disciple.
27 Yet Barnabas, getting hold of him, led him to the apostles and relates to them how he became acquainted with the Lord on the road, and that He speaks to him..."

Paul was taught by the Lord via word only ie rote, not taught via some active methodology like disciples...

The other is here: "And, spending some time, he came away, passing consecutively through the Galatian province and Phrygia, establishing all the disciples"

The word 'establishing' here means to fix or make stand... so it could be said "Paul went thru the provinces fixing the disciples..."

today we still have disciples working in soup kitchens, charity, prayer groups, social justice warriors, etc all active methodologies... they just cant learn it via rote...

Like Paul said "in the flesh there dwells no good thing..." meanwhile all of these people today are studying the genetics and DNA and all of that to try to figure out what Jesus looked like... meanwhile Paul simply said "stand aloof from genealogies...." meanwhile all of these people are going all around studying genealogies trying to obtain knowledge...

Its the same with "money!" today... you tell people today "we're not out of money" via rote and they just cant believe it... they have all of these DSGE things going and wtf... they are like the disciples... no capability for accepting rote teaching of knowledge and truth....

So if we are going to ever be successful teaching these people we are going to have to use other than rote methods... we have to use active methods and that is not being done so we are getting nowhere....

Paying constant mind to teaching methodology is important imo....



John said...

I should have used the more accurate disciple not apostle. They're commonly used as if they're the same thing, but they're not, as Matt has usefully reminded us. Paul was an apostle, not a disciple. A different thing, and thus a different attitude to Jesus, religion, life and truth. All of which underscores the strangeness of how it was Paul who had the most influence!

Ignacio said...

Curiously, original thinking usually comes from 'disciples', not from 'apostles', ie. in classic Greece active learning (disciples) was more common than rote learning...

We have too many apostles nowadays, and too few disciples, but 'industrialisation' and 'mechanization' lends itself towards rote methodologies. Our current education system comes from the XIX century, so a few people set the knowledge base (at academic institutions) and then is spread socially and culturally through repetition (which is the way most people learn things).

When it's set, it requires a majority . there is nothing more 'democratic' than cultural norms and knowledge, the problem is that is painful to take the majority to replace old set 'knowledge' which has been proven false (ie. "not out of money"). When it reaches a critical mass then it is accepted by the majority.

But it may be the case that those that are 'disciples' need to be exposed first, so they can spread to the rest of the 'sheeps' the new acquired knowledge. The 'disciples' are not being exposed, like back in the day romans and jews were not being exposed to the new gospel, so it took a while to reach a critical mass so it became widely spread.

Matt Franko said...

Another thing is what you are trying to teach about... on non material issues I seek to remain 100% rote via Paul but as far as material systems I advocate 99% use of active methodology...

What those outside of our knowledge seem to be doing is using rote on material systems... i don't think this is ideal and lately thinking this may not even be possible...

People who are successful in material systems come from backgrounds where active methods are used i.e. STEM....

Our numismatic system is part of our material system so we should be seeking to develop active methods to teach this system imo...

Matt Franko said...

"Curiously, original thinking usually comes from 'disciples', not from 'apostles', ie. in classic Greece active learning (disciples) was more common than rote learning..."

I would agree but point out they were dealing with material issues and seemingly were doing a good job of it..... aqueducts, bridges, roads, navigation, ships, structures, numismatics, etc... those are material systems...

You look at how He was teaching the disciples he would make them do things like hand out food that didnt run out... dispense wine from the water jugs, go all around healing people, etc.. all activities... even compliance with the Law was an activity or there were many physical activities involved, sacrifices, pilgrimages, sin offerings, casting lots, etc..

He didnt do this with Paul... but he wasnt in fleshly form when he taught Paul like he was when He taught His disciples... so that might be a difference...

In any case this "out of money!" material thing we are up against we should be looking at active methods to get rid of that falsehood... its a material systems issue...

Ignacio said...

They also taught philosophy, maths, and other non-practical matters via discipling too, don't forget that.

on non material issues I seek to remain 100% rote via Paul but as far as material systems I advocate 99% use of active methodology...

Because it's a matter of belief, you don't learn (you can't prove/disprove it), you believe in something, which is different (and usually binary). However this is important distinction: many people (majority) sees monetary system as something you 'give for granted' or have to 'believe in', is something apparently magical to them, non-material. They believe money grows on trees, or is extracted from the ground, or rains from the sky...

Changing the beliefs about "money" and the economic system in general is more akin to changing religion/believes than increasing the knowledge about a material system. It's an ideological issue (for them), not a material issue. Thereby the big mess of economics in the academe, media, etc.

They don't see it as a material issue, is a field for ideological warfare.