JORDAN B PETERSON AND THE COAT OF MANY ICONS!!!! Talk about the Defense Against the Dark Arts....this guy keeps giving us a masterclass in spiritual warfare.
Maybe I’m the odd one out but when someone says gosh darn it actually bothers me more. At least have the courage to say what you mean. On Cultural Christianity I see something similar to the “I’m spiritual but not religious”. Both are saying something like “ I like apples but don’t like trees”.
Being a very regular watcher of PWA, when I see this I think they’re being partially meme-y, partially sincere. This feels like the kinda edgy zoomer thing Thursday would do. On the locals vid, they didn’t have that actually
I haven’t gotten around to listening to that PWA episode yet, but also being a longtime listener from the first episode, and being one of the show’s first patrons (I really should switch over to locals already), I took the whole “blasphemy“ thing in a more lighthearted, jokey manner. I look forward to a “randos” episode with Fradd, not to mention also with Fr. Damick, if for no other reason than to get the pronunciation right (“Day-mick”, not “Dah-mick”).
6:05 That analogy of the move from assuming materialism as a methodology to assuming it as an ontological reality using trying to describe where Shakespeare's writings came from by studying his writings...that's brilliant thinking and the perfect analogy. It's the same one PVK uses when he talks about the relationship of Tolkien to the characters and world in Lord of the Rings.
The Pints interview was strange. I'm surprised you found JP relaxed. I thought he was wound up with a sort of performative anger. There were a few times it seemed the host could have left the room and Jordan would've kept on going. Also, I think the Blasphemy tags are an example of un-funny humor the Pints guys tend to use with each other.
10:25 Pascal also resonates with St John of the Cross when he said these things are not understood when sought, but understood when practised, and found...
But for the investigation and true knowledge of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and a pure soul and Christian virtue, in order that the mind, guiding its path by means of it, may be able to attain what it grasps at, and comprehend it as far as it is within the reach of human nature to learn concerning God the Word. For without a pure mind and the imitation of the life led by the saints one could not apprehend the words of the saints. - Saint Athanasius: On the Incarnation LVII
Diogenes Allen wrote a fantastic book on Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Simone Weil called, Three Outsiders. In it, he claimed that all three were more effective witnesses by remaining on the fringes of their respective faith communities (Pascal took up with the Jansenists, Kierkegaard attacked posh 19c Danish Christendom, and Weil refused to be baptised, thought she identified Catholic. I like to think of JBP as possibly a 4th outsider. Whatever he is according to this or that theology, he is wrestling with the central themes of Scripture and 7,000 plus came to listen with rapt attn. in Moody theatre at UT Austin last month. As Frida sang in 1982, "There's Something Going On."
Me and my family flew to SLC to listen to JBP along with 6k+ Mormons!!! It was pretty interesting to go see him there. Clearly he has tendrils in every nook of culture. I hear his name in the diet conversations on UA-cam daily as well. His influence cannot be over exaggerated at this point. He is a legitimate phenomenon.
BINGO!!! I've not heard more quotes from those three in my entire life than I've heard in the past year, all due to JBP. Outstanding observation, and very true. I need to get that book ASAP. And I seriously doubt anyone would be so wise as to name their child Diogenes, but ya' never know.....
@@mthoodstyle I really appreciate your comment. I recently thought about the relationship between JBP and Mormonism. It seems plausible that Mormons would readily resonate. I like JBP. AND I simultaneously insist that he is yet to take the leap of Grace: MERE AUGUSTINIANISM!
@@brycecarlisle5749 -- The funny thing is, I don't find them "fringe" at all, all though they are certainly fringe when compared to the established institutions of Western Civ. All three have stated plainly that they don't want to be apart of the "insider's club". The Inner Sanctum holds no attraction for them. Rather, all three were far more concerned by those who were marginalized by Big Institutes, especially Simone Weil. Reminds me of someone else who had no love for the attraction of the worldly Inner Sanctum: Jesus.
It will be interesting to watch the Gospel seminar because this will have to come out at that point. In some ways we are revisiting a number of key elements of the Protestant Reformation, like the Solas. There is going to be a lot of sifting moving forward.
In the UK blasphemy laws (against Christianity) were abolished in 1997. However we do now have a unofficial blasphemy law regarding Islam. One recent example being a teacher in the North of England who showed pictures of Muhammad to his class. As a consequence he has been in hiding for over a year due to death threats, there were mass protests outside the school, his union refused to support him, while local politians apologised for the offence caused. There are other examples. I would say that this now constitutes a defacto blasphemy law in the UK, even if Parliament didn't vote for it.
@32:10 - "I'm really afraid of Hell; third commandment? Not so much." What is commonly translated into English as "take" in this Commandment (traditionally, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain") is translated as "take" only in this one instance. In all other circumstances, it is understood in the sense of "take up", "bear" or "carry". Thus, "Do not bear the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is much more likely to be in keeping with the sense of the word. Compare to the Great High Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6, where the blessing is bracketed by: "Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them..."; and "...So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them". (N.B. This is a lovely example of Hebrew literary parallelism; I have most aptly heard this pattern described as "thinking in stereo".) It seems to me that this Commandment is far more expansive than mere speech. It has the same sense (writ small) as the old fashioned notion of not bringing dishonor on your family/parents by engaging in publicly notorious bad behavior. [Edit - repaired fat-fingered time stamp]
29:00 taking anything in 'vain'... I experienced this yesterday. I was on my way to the local church, and said to myself that I must decrease this tendency to take names in vain, and increase my openness to experience... Than I dropped my bluetooth ear piece, picked it up and dropped the rubber ear piece.. and proceeded to blaspheme...(at the very entryway to the church building, not inside thankfully). The lesson for me was not just intention, but being open to how anything we say can be taken by others. I liken it to the Hebrew word Shalom. Can be a greeting, but not in the bathroom as Shalom is also another name for HaShem: so using it in an unclean place is wrong... I think it is purely an attempt for us to have more reverence for providence in all our daily activities... In Sanskrit they call this Sati Sampajanna.. To remember the tenets of your faith(not dissimilar to Love G-D with all your body mind and soul, and love thy neighbour as thyself) and to apply these commitments of faith, infuse all we do with our compassion and passion for our fellow being as ourselves, as our environment and community - Ekklesia... Koinonia...
The issue with getting upset about dropping an earbud is the expectation and demand on yourself and the earbud to do things you expect. What if you dropped an earbud but it helped you dodge something coming at your head? Then you’d be glad it dropped. I don’t think the issue really is about taking God’s name in vain per se but demanding that your reality be the one to exist and expecting you to be perfect. Much of dropping an earbud is you being annoyed with yourself. Learning to give yourself some grace and forgiveness is one of those super hard but necessary lessons in life.
Yep. he’s a wonderful deconstructionist but when he opens his mouth about Christianity I just hear gobbledygook. His secularist ego just monster trucks over everything.😊
The question revolves around bounded set thinking versus centered set. If bounded, then “in” vs “ out “ is decisive. If centered, then the real question is towards what destination and pathway are you tending?
I get a kick out of these English intellectuals. They chase down all kinds of rabbit holes. They MAYBE sound smart but in the Bible God uses the meek to humble the proud. It is very clear judging by the reverence or respect to God is displayed here. J Vernon McGee used to say that the Church is full of unbelievers. Thats exactly what i see. People try to reason things out instead of ASKING God for discernment. People want to do it on their own. In my 62 years on this planet Ive figured out that the more i want to control my destiny the actual less control i have.
I think you are over thinking the blasphemy censorship of Pints of Aquinas. The producer is a Zoomer, and all Zoomers have integrated (in degrees) absurdism. To be henpicking words spoken as a young person is absurdist, and therefore humorous.
@@esterhudson5104 I thought he said some good things, but I agree that he is coming off very extra angry recently. Still excited to see him live in a few weeks.
Yeah he was literally doing climate change denial grift on behalf of his Conservative donors, it was cringe but is the usual fair for Jordan now and why I've moved away from Dr. "Give 'em Hell Netanyahu" Peterson.
1:06:00 Hot take It was Abraham instead of the guy on the tenth next door because Abraham was the only one that said yes. I think God calls everyone but is always our choice to follow him. Then we get grace.
32:38 “What kind of Christian do you want Jordan to become?” And usually the answer is “the same kind as me”. What’s in a name? A label? Everything? Nothing? This is related to proselytization & evangelism & conversionism. Livestream comin…
100%. People use theological views like a team sport and JBP would be the biggest star on whichever team he joined. He’s extremely savvy to not state any team to join and just do the stuff ppl haven’t been doing for decades.
As for me, he's already _exactly_ the kind of Christian I want him to become: a nondenominational Protestant with slightly heretical views, just like me. Since nondenominational Christianity has no systematic theology (thank GOD), no catechism, no initiation ceremony, no creed and no confession, he's already there. All you need is a desire to do endless bible studies, and he's already a master of that.
"your actions echo in eternity". 100% agree. If you throw a pebble into the ocean it creates ripples, which slowly reduce over time and expansion but, NEVER reach zero. It echos throughout the oceans for eternity. OK, we can't see or measure it below a certain point but this doesn't change the fact.
“What We Do In Life Echoes In Eternity” - Marcus Aurelius’ The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot. Proverbs 10:7 Surely he shall not be moved for ever: the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. Psalm 112:6
This is going to sound cynical but... As far as I can tell, the idea of abolishing slavery, which was not a new idea, only gained traction because of the industrial revolution. It became cheaper to use machines. I'm refering to UK abolition here. Plus, the UK could export industrial machinery hence the value of enforcement across the empire. It was not without profit. Without industrialisation slavery was a fact of life across the world. The idea, therefore, that some people needed to be taught how to be a good slave owner is not without merit, as appalling as this sounds today. The bible was not wrong in trying to teach this. That was the situation at the time. Hence, Alex did not make a good point.
Yes i have heard the CRT crowd say this. We had no slaves in England for a 1000 years before we stopped it around the world. In fact it cost the UK 200 years of dedt repayments to the banks. We only just payed of the dedts to free the slaves 10 years ago.
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq Hmm, that made me think. The abolition of slavery and the invention of race seem to have happened at about the same time. Is this a co-incidence?
Funnily enough I had a conversation with my (quite elderly) priest today where he was getting wistful about blasphemy laws in reaction to Richard Dawkins... I think Jacob Faturechi's maxim to never take offense where none was intended but always take offense where it was is a good path through social policing of blasphemy. Blasphemy laws with fines and jail sentences are probably not a good idea, precisely because getting at intent is so hard.
People don't realize that separation of church and state was for the benefit of the functioning of both the state and the church. The Founders took a market approach to religion and argued that voluntary participation in religious groups would result in more dynamic religious groups as opposed to the rigid and empty (on multiple levels) state churches of Europe.
The shift from methodological scientist to an ontological scientist ... happened decades earlier. No atheist I have known, was methodological but ontological ... were based in scientism. This was connected to the fall of Christianity 100 years ago and the Scopes Trial.
ontological materialism = modernism & post-modernism. This is why I reject and renounce those mindsets with absolute prejudice. The road to hell is paved by modernism.
It is always a “Jewish dream of a golden age” to constantly seek a day when Christianity is on top, when it becomes supreme in culture. It’s when Christianity gets to the top when it becomes its worst expression! Brothers we are and always will be in the wilderness until the King returns.
Jewish world conquest? Put that wine down. Christianity and Islam had a chance and both failed. If there is an eschaton, all the religious will fall to their blasphemies ;-(
Yeah except that if we’re supposed to “seek the welfare of the city” like God’s LAST exiled people, then the more people shaping society the better for said society. And brother, “what you do for the least of these, you do for me” and “the greatest commandments of all are to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbor as yourself”. So just there we can see why it’s better for even an exiled Christianity to be a loud voice in the culture, even the defining one.
Jordan Peterson: "Why are you stuck with belief? Why are you stuck with faith? Because what the hell do you know? You are confronted constantly by your own ignorance. You move forward on principle, you have to. You move forward in faith. Faith in what? Well, the biblical injunction is: the highest form of faith is represented by the spirit that's characterized in the Biblical stories. Here is another example. Jacob has a vision of the ladder. It's an ancient vision. It's the rod of tradition, and the serpent. It’s the same thing. It’s Jack and the Bean stalk's pole. It's the cosmic axis that points to the North Star. It’s the manner in which we orient ourselves. It’s all of that. Jacob’s ladder. Jacob decides when he leaves his state of juvenile deception and machination and manipulation that he is going to aim upward. He has the dream of the spiral upward. And at the pinnacle of the spiral is God. Well, what is that? That's the ever-receding spirit that calls you forward. So, imagine that as you mature--you’re a child and you’re an adult-things beckon to you. Okay, but they change, but the fact of the beckoning remains constant. What beckons? It’s a definition. God. And what is it? Well, it’s the same thing that broods over the water; it’s the same thing that brings the prideful to their knees; it’s the same thing that produces the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; it’s the same thing as the call to adventure; it’s the same thing as the crucifixion of Christ." David Torkington (Catholic mystical theologian): "That’s why [God] created the world in the first place, put us in it, and sent Christ to lead us on-wards from within, from within himself. This journey goes on and on into infinite loving. There is no end to this journey because God is infinite love. The reward of the traveler is to go on traveling. The solace of the searcher is to go on searching. For this journey never comes to an end and we make this journey not just on our own but in and with and through Christ and with all who are in Him…we go out continually towards what St. Augustine called a continual ecstasy." Blessed are those who've said 'yes' to the beckoning, picked up their cross, and begun their journey (however falteringly and badly). Through His grace, we already have one foot in Heaven. Amen.
About 27 minutes in: really? Peterson relaxed? He came across as irritated and pissed off to me. He didn’t litera -{checks notes}- actually relax until about the 2 hour mark.
Dang! As a Catholic who sometimes watches Pints I am amazed at how incisive your analysis was. There is something warped at Pints, and it is captured by this "profilicity" and the exchanges you highlighted. It's hard to know how to name it. In Catholic circles it isn't traditionalism per se. I would call it a kind of Catholic or conservative ideology. I think it raises the broader question of the proper role of a Rogan or a Fradd. (To be fair, when Pints got their new videographer/editor things got worse)
1:02:37 - I think with RC the trad movement is the logical endpoint of two accurate observations that A) Vatican II seems like an inflection point where things start going wrong (of course, the degree to which one thinks this is causation or correlation highly dictates where one lands in the tradosphere), and B) that the Church's greatest enemy in the last ~60 years has been its own clergymen who use fudging, spirit of the law, and reading between the lines to abuse Church teachings for their own end. I think many Catholics, like PwA, who lean trad try to look back and find a "year zero" where, if you just followed those rules as they were laid out, you would have a pure form of Christianity (quite ironic given the resistance to Protestantism). This produces what a lot of people don't like about RC, which is the legalism and dogmatism and a certain formulaic "if X then Y" behavioral pattern. It does not surprise me at all that PwA would censor his speech (but not actually ask Jordan to stop using the offensive language). I would love to know what Jordan feels about that, and if he would feel the same way if a left-leaning interviewer censored dead-naming or "wrong" pronouns.
Lol that’s a great point, that the trad movements are often a form of Protestantism. It does seem to me that the Orthobros are all essentially Protestant, so I imagine it’s the same with RC.
@@esterhudson5104 Roman Catholicism is not Protestant, but it is hard to argue that at least American Catholicism hasn't become extremely Protestantized. Take a look at the response to the Vatican's statement on blessings for same-sex couples. Why did such a large contingent of the Church not just accept the proclamation and move on? Why does the Church at all levels feel the need to comment on and criticize what the Vatican, the head of the Church, is doing? Why is there FSSP, SSPX, Ultramontanism, etc.?
Kale Zelden recently did a video talking about the difference between the text of Vatican II and the "spirit" of Vatican II in the way that it played out over time. Interesting observations.
I was still in church when New Atheism hit and spent time with atheists on-line since then. But it was clear to me the limits, fear and anger of their position. As an older person, I didn't lose faith 2020-2023, I lost hope. Gen X seems to have come off Christian Evangelicalism and younger people are somewhat more confused than I was at their age.
What do you mean? I saw those redditors as people who were Pascal's Wagered as kids by the crappiest members of the God Squad. How would they not be resentful?
@@skylinefeveryep. In college I had friends get disowned by their own family over this stuff and got my own share of it too. We were evangelicals at the time, of course.
@@williambranch4283 I hate when people decide that saying shit about Jesus's people is fair game, but don't dare let people say shit about Mohammed's people.
Matt's questioning did jump around a bit... and certainly he didn't drill down on the topics like someone in TLC would have. But, thats very normal for his podcast. I listem to him quite a bit and he is well known for jumping around topically on his podcasts.
Jordan seems to dispense with propositional logic. He says that. "Do you believe in God?" is not the right question. It's about to call to adventure or what you do is your faith. So this would lead me to believe that he thinks many atheist are actually on the right path and Christians or saved however you want to say it. For example someone like Jim Carr the atheist comedian who describes his deconversion like "scales falling from his eyes" might be a Christian in Jordan's view. This seems to be the opposite of mouthing some words and believing a proposition.
Strictly speaking, the RC church forbids the Lord’s name in vain and the use of GD. In Catholic practice, one can understand that somebody as old and unchurched as JP has picked up speech patterns and verbal tics over decades that aren’t going to be resolved overnight and so there has to be a balance between correcting wrong behavior and pouncing on every mistake.
This version of a verse in Mathew struck me just now. I think it describes what JBP is and what he's doing to a tee. Matthew 13:52 Amplified: He said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things that are new and fresh and things that are old and familiar" And hearing JBP wrestle with questions of "belief" it occurs to me he seems to be in that same headspace that the disciples were in while Jesus was still with them, trying to figure out what it all meant. He's not a post Pentecost "Christian" per ser. He's a pre ascension Thomas doubting the resurrection. He's not a believer like we are now, he's a disciple like they were back then. And I'm not sure what to make of that.
10:09 “ make men wish that religion were true and then show them that it is.” This also works for universalism. What you see in here depends a lot of fun where you’re standing. In the kind of person you are. Do you want it to be true? Really true? Or do you just THINK that you SHOULD want it to be true? Different things.
It might also be "Is it a historically or scientific literal truth or some metaphorical truth." I then argue that the 2019 Joker movie is a great metaphorical truth.
I took the beeping out and blasphemy text as just being cheeky. It didnt seem like a serious thing. Also, writing blasphemy lets us all know exactly what was said, instead of bleeping it and letting us guess.
Yes I agree. It lets people speech but show you have standards. Also in my country they would bleep swear words etc but be fined 10.000 for every word not bleeped.
It's nice to see that Paul understands selective enforcement of laws. Where I'm from it's not used against the powerful but against anyone who wants to be a political rabble rouser.
Many Christians grew up to honor the 10 Commandments including the 3rd one. In Romans 14:21 Paul says : It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. You can substitute blasphemy in the same way if it causes distress to a brother or sister if it offends them. Don’t let your freedom and pride cause a weaker person to stumble. If your brother or sister is distressed because of blasphemy and you go ahead and do it anyway , you are no longer acting in love.
The reductio ad absurdum to this is that it basically grants a heckler's veto and allows the most neurotic to establish the standards. There has to be some limit to this doctrine.
1:07:27 “Why Abraham, and not the guy next door to his tent?” “Grace.” Yeeeessss, but. That’s a non-answer. That’s Sunday-School “Jesus!” Exclusion for inclusion. Being. Bodies. All identity (& incarnation) demands exclusion. The question is whether it is a zero-sum, exclusivist exclusion for all time. Or if it’s exclusion for future inclusion. Read Romans 10 & 11 (and the rest of it too) not just chapter 9.
I’m sorry but JP is no more a Christian than Alex or Dawkins. He just adopts the language. It’s painful every time someone asks him a straightforward question (Eg 1:11:00) The guy can’t tell the truth. I’m going to go one step farther and call that dishonest. He knows exactly what the question is. Just doesn’t want to answer. In fact, I don’t know why you’re not angry he hijacks the language of your religion to promote his own ideas.
The Blasphemy thing is interesting. On RuslanKD's channel he does something similar with "p*rnography" and other sexual words. It reveals his worldview, his history, and his audience, but it doesn't actually remove the word. Like the old Louis CK joke about the "N word." "You're just making ME say it, in my own head!"
I really really am blessed by your videos and your perspective. It’s given me a great wealth of ideas to draw upon and apply into life. God bless you Paul 😁
I wonder how Christians are going to deal with floaters. And what I mean by that comments about history where many people know about it and Christians don't have a good response to it. Its always been a thing but know its more wide known. In the discussion alex o connor mentioned that peter probably didn't write 2 peter in the discussion of ordaining women. Justin didn't have time to address and he would be going against the academic consensus. But its there and there are more coming for example with the exodus or lukes census. You cant really rebut these things well and it usually just opens more holes. And they will always exist and only get bigger in time. That's why I think the meta modern project is at least interesting because its asking the question how do we create a religious practice where we don't have pit falls where Christians can fall through. Jared fell through the hole and most do. And all Christians do know is remove the knowledge of the hole and pretend its not there. So what do we do when our project has a bunch of holes that alot of people fall through?
I would point to many thinkers, the lesson is the affect we label religion is an innate part of our being... An author spoke of the theory, as but one example, that we perceive our own gestalt: that we are more than the sum of our parts... Our soul, our consciousness itself: its existence and our perception of something 'else' Hintervelt to Nietzsche... We are metabeings and the perception of 'more' is what leads to our 'religio' way of living within the world...
Is religion supposed to be in every single person's instinct? Reddit is full of people who either never had that so called God shaped hole, or God never showed up. "Just pray harder" is all they ever got. How many people just got Pascal's Wagerered and are just barely hanging on? How many think this is mostly garbage, but are buying fire insurance?
32:50. I thought on this as well, this morning even. I think we must have a greater openness to what a Christian is, or we must be less pedantic with the labels - as Moody, Emerson, and Tolstoy showed us: we can all be brothers in Faith, in Christ even... without the mandatory beliefs. I do not agree with Tom Harpur on most but the change from allegory, or as I say: these truths may not be true but they are not lies. These truth can be a source of faith but cannot be mandatory. As Jesus asked the women if she had faith: in Greek a word meaning 'are you convinced' not have you conceded. More people like Jordan, with the faith stronger than creeds, will stand with Christians and the faithful. If their embrace is conditional or contingent on unnecessary beliefs, maybe they will stand alone? Until we open our minds to a 'shared opinion', rather than argue points in the scholarly camps: we will not bridge this schism...
I disagree, once you increase what qualifies as christian, you lose its essence and ultimately end up losing participants. Even if you make the space the most inclusive you still won't increase participants because there are hundreds of other places those people would rather be than there, if they wanted to be at church, they would have been there to begin with, regardless of whether people reject their radical ideas. A beautiful example of how making things more inclusive fails in the long run is the education system in many western countries. Governments thought lowering grade boundaries would help prevent children being left behind, and encouraging more people to pursue university education would help with socioeconomic movement. There may have been some success early on, but in the long run all it ended up doing was ruining quality of education for all. The system became worse off because so many people qualify. Priorities of institutions, particularly university, have been shifted to exploitation rather than providing the service it was meant to provide. Many university degrees aren't worth what people pay for, and many universities aren't churning out the intellectuals they used to, merely poor carbon copies because people are only there to get the qualification that open up more doors for them, not because they want to learn!
@@Nicole-kc1vx I agree, there must be a balance. To raise all boats without sinking some. A shared option found within the orthodoxy and the modern. A metamodern if you will. A transvaluation of what we value. Without losing what we have. As Marshall McLuhan said: we must be wary of adopting the new, replacing the old, simply because of novelty ... Without vetting for value and benefit....
so what would we say the “bare minimum” is to qualify as a Christian? For me it’s very obviously “Christ saves sinners, and I am a sinner.” It appears to me that Peterson believes in “carrying one’s cross” but nothing about grace.
I just watched both videos Unherd and Pints with Aquinas and will have tons of stuff to think of. Now I trust you Paul, to help me understand a bit more 😅
The idea of the right denomination, is on the way out. One either knows Jesus and tries to keep His commandments, or not. And as someone with a deep distrust of the Catholic Church, we should welcome all followers of the Christ a spiritual home, regardless of their theology, assuming they believe He died for our sins
Why Abraham and not the other guy in the tent beside him? We need to do a character deep dive, and what we find is a man who was willing to sacrifice his wants desires and rights for the benefits of others! Grace is the currency in which the kingdom of God operates
I enjoyed Jordan's tirade against Atheism in the 'pints' video, reminds me a bit of C.S. Lewis in mere Christianity about Atheism, "Atheism is too simple" explains a bit why Jordan and Lewis are such targets for atheists.
"Backing our way forward into history." That's a great one. I hadn't heard that before (so many things still to read). It's interesting to see people's pre-set bias filters play out in their comments on things like the Unherd conversation. We've got "oh, see what a miserable alcoholic Oldfield has become since selling her soul to the patriarchy, " alongside the jerk who can't abide any type of public femaleness online ("can't stand her voice...she's too emotional...waving her arms around...nothing of substance") and all the usual blather. I had a bias filter in place for Alex O'Connor but made a deliberate decision to set it aside and just listen to him fairly. He's an interesting guy.
On the maths stuff, check out the lectures by NORMAN WILDBERGER (a finitist who rejects even irrational numbers) and compare it to someone like JOEL DAVID HAMKINS and his series on the philosophical development of rigor and the Calculus...
1:12:50 - I have tried so hard to get into PwA to no avail, and as best as I can tell, Matt is either not that smart, or he keeps the conversation not-smart-enough for what he thinks his audience will appreciate. He seems like a great guy, and he seems to be a very good Catholic Christian, but that is my honest opinion of the show. It feels like hours of talking with a guest to go absolutely nowhere. I think he's trying to be the Catholic Joe Rogan.
@50:50 I hear a fair deal of GDs myself... been trying to combat it with "God Bless!" because I half wonder if one of the reasons things keep breaking down is because many are constantly calling down curses on just about everything.
Just confusing. I think the blasphemy tag is just for his trad cath audience. "People talk like this, I don't take it seriously enough to correct Peterson publicly, but knowing nod, we know" Fuck Trudeau, fine, totally fine
Dear Paul, my husband is very interessted in the video of Roy Clouser you mention about different worldviews in math. He always thought math is the most objective domaine there is and could not believe this statement. Is there any chance I can get the link? I couldn’t find it, probably I’m not really competent with my research skills 😅 Thank you very much.
To really delve into the argument you should pick up Roy's book "The Myth of Religious Neutrality". It had some influence when published and contains a section on mathematics. Fairly cheap used.
Does anyone know what book from the 1960s PVK brought up that showed people who realize the cultural schism along authenticity vs sincerity go crazy, that “has only gotten worse since”? Maybe I have the dichotomy wrong
PWA is great. I love Matt Fradd, even though he can sometimes adopt the POV of his guests a bit too much and I’d place him on the fundamentalist end of Catholicism. I admit I probably watch more PWA than PVK these days.
Pastor paul, what's your thoughts on why JP was so shouty in his pints for aquinas interview??? Is it residual effect from his date with destiny? Because it seemed odd.
"Date with Destiny". I love it. Many of us have always loved that he's passionate. No real surprise at his passion in many of the areas he spoke on here. That's pretty de jour. Same guy who's on Twitter. It just comes out in Twitter more.
Do these English panelists commune with the Nigerian, other African Protestant, Caribbean, and/or Orthodox European denominations in England? How? Why not? Peoples from those Christianities are more robust, nowhere as impervious to anxieties about the loss of faith among their young.
@@stevemcgee99 Maybe 15 minutes. It was “A group of Orthodox Christians give their thoughts and impressions after attending Dr. Jordan Peterson's live presentation, "We Who Wrestle with God."”
The twitter question had me thinking 🤔. How much is the concept of citizenship adjusted b/w sincerity citizenship and authenticity citizenship? Does the CN question connect here because the CN movement is a type of “one-speed” vision of authentic citizenship?
Why did Jordan Peterson cross the road?
The answer isn't obvious. It's bloody serious. It's no joke, man.
Lobsters
JORDAN B PETERSON AND THE COAT OF MANY ICONS!!!! Talk about the Defense Against the Dark Arts....this guy keeps giving us a masterclass in spiritual warfare.
Maybe I’m the odd one out but when someone says gosh darn it actually bothers me more. At least have the courage to say what you mean. On Cultural Christianity I see something similar to the “I’m spiritual but not religious”. Both are saying something like “ I like apples but don’t like trees”.
You wording it out ,was a great chance to reflect for me; thank you ❤️
"I take back what I just said." Way to go, Paul! That happens to me a lot 😅
Being a very regular watcher of PWA, when I see this I think they’re being partially meme-y, partially sincere. This feels like the kinda edgy zoomer thing Thursday would do. On the locals vid, they didn’t have that actually
I thought precisely the same thing. It’s got Thursday written all over it. (I also watched the Locals video.)
Ditto.
Is your username a reference to stories from the Orthodox church?
@@scythermantis that’s one way to put it
I haven’t gotten around to listening to that PWA episode yet, but also being a longtime listener from the first episode, and being one of the show’s first patrons (I really should switch over to locals already), I took the whole “blasphemy“ thing in a more lighthearted, jokey manner. I look forward to a “randos” episode with Fradd, not to mention also with Fr. Damick, if for no other reason than to get the pronunciation right (“Day-mick”, not “Dah-mick”).
In the words of Gimli, Son of Gloin:
"NOT THE BEARD!"
6:05 That analogy of the move from assuming materialism as a methodology to assuming it as an ontological reality using trying to describe where Shakespeare's writings came from by studying his writings...that's brilliant thinking and the perfect analogy. It's the same one PVK uses when he talks about the relationship of Tolkien to the characters and world in Lord of the Rings.
The Pints interview was strange. I'm surprised you found JP relaxed. I thought he was wound up with a sort of performative anger. There were a few times it seemed the host could have left the room and Jordan would've kept on going.
Also, I think the Blasphemy tags are an example of un-funny humor the Pints guys tend to use with each other.
10:25 Pascal also resonates with St John of the Cross when he said these things are not understood when sought, but understood when practised, and found...
But for the investigation and true knowledge of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and a pure soul and Christian virtue, in order that the mind, guiding its path by means of it, may be able to attain what it grasps at, and comprehend it as far as it is within the reach of human nature to learn concerning God the Word. For without a pure mind and the imitation of the life led by the saints one could not apprehend the words of the saints.
- Saint Athanasius: On the Incarnation LVII
"We use the law to express gratitude for God". 🙏
Diogenes Allen wrote a fantastic book on Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Simone Weil called, Three Outsiders. In it, he claimed that all three were more effective witnesses by remaining on the fringes of their respective faith communities (Pascal took up with the Jansenists, Kierkegaard attacked posh 19c Danish Christendom, and Weil refused to be baptised, thought she identified Catholic. I like to think of JBP as possibly a 4th outsider. Whatever he is according to this or that theology, he is wrestling with the central themes of Scripture and 7,000 plus came to listen with rapt attn. in Moody theatre at UT Austin last month. As Frida sang in 1982, "There's Something Going On."
Me and my family flew to SLC to listen to JBP along with 6k+ Mormons!!! It was pretty interesting to go see him there. Clearly he has tendrils in every nook of culture. I hear his name in the diet conversations on UA-cam daily as well. His influence cannot be over exaggerated at this point. He is a legitimate phenomenon.
BINGO!!! I've not heard more quotes from those three in my entire life than I've heard in the past year, all due to JBP. Outstanding observation, and very true.
I need to get that book ASAP.
And I seriously doubt anyone would be so wise as to name their child Diogenes, but ya' never know.....
@@mthoodstyle I really appreciate your comment. I recently thought about the relationship between JBP and Mormonism. It seems plausible that Mormons would readily resonate. I like JBP. AND I simultaneously insist that he is yet to take the leap of Grace: MERE AUGUSTINIANISM!
@@Pseudo_Boethius these 3 are so fringe and so relevant. Something‘s goin’ on.
@@brycecarlisle5749 -- The funny thing is, I don't find them "fringe" at all, all though they are certainly fringe when compared to the established institutions of Western Civ.
All three have stated plainly that they don't want to be apart of the "insider's club". The Inner Sanctum holds no attraction for them. Rather, all three were far more concerned by those who were marginalized by Big Institutes, especially Simone Weil.
Reminds me of someone else who had no love for the attraction of the worldly Inner Sanctum: Jesus.
Alex O'Connor may be a Christian already if he's quoting the Bible for polemics 😅
I think AOC (not that one) is well within the reach of the Hound of Heaven.
Cosmic Skeptic on the gnostic gospels is a clear example of dunning kruger effect.
Talk about cringe....oh my. I was actually starting to feel sorry for him.
Like Sam Harris evoking Jainism as a better alternative religion. 😂
How so? You got the chops to play? Arrogant Christians are fun.
Really hoping you (or someone) does interview Peterson and really talk about grace/works. It would be very helpful to me and I'm sure many others.
It will be interesting to watch the Gospel seminar because this will have to come out at that point. In some ways we are revisiting a number of key elements of the Protestant Reformation, like the Solas. There is going to be a lot of sifting moving forward.
In the UK blasphemy laws (against Christianity) were abolished in 1997. However we do now have a unofficial blasphemy law regarding Islam. One recent example being a teacher in the North of England who showed pictures of Muhammad to his class. As a consequence he has been in hiding for over a year due to death threats, there were mass protests outside the school, his union refused to support him, while local politians apologised for the offence caused. There are other examples. I would say that this now constitutes a defacto blasphemy law in the UK, even if Parliament didn't vote for it.
@32:10 - "I'm really afraid of Hell; third commandment? Not so much."
What is commonly translated into English as "take" in this Commandment (traditionally, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain") is translated as "take" only in this one instance. In all other circumstances, it is understood in the sense of "take up", "bear" or "carry". Thus, "Do not bear the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is much more likely to be in keeping with the sense of the word.
Compare to the Great High Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6, where the blessing is bracketed by: "Thus you shall bless the people of Israel: you shall say to them..."; and "...So shall they put my name upon the people of Israel, and I will bless them". (N.B. This is a lovely example of Hebrew literary parallelism; I have most aptly heard this pattern described as "thinking in stereo".)
It seems to me that this Commandment is far more expansive than mere speech. It has the same sense (writ small) as the old fashioned notion of not bringing dishonor on your family/parents by engaging in publicly notorious bad behavior.
[Edit - repaired fat-fingered time stamp]
29:00 taking anything in 'vain'... I experienced this yesterday. I was on my way to the local church, and said to myself that I must decrease this tendency to take names in vain, and increase my openness to experience... Than I dropped my bluetooth ear piece, picked it up and dropped the rubber ear piece.. and proceeded to blaspheme...(at the very entryway to the church building, not inside thankfully). The lesson for me was not just intention, but being open to how anything we say can be taken by others. I liken it to the Hebrew word Shalom. Can be a greeting, but not in the bathroom as Shalom is also another name for HaShem: so using it in an unclean place is wrong... I think it is purely an attempt for us to have more reverence for providence in all our daily activities... In Sanskrit they call this Sati Sampajanna.. To remember the tenets of your faith(not dissimilar to Love G-D with all your body mind and soul, and love thy neighbour as thyself) and to apply these commitments of faith, infuse all we do with our compassion and passion for our fellow being as ourselves, as our environment and community - Ekklesia... Koinonia...
The issue with getting upset about dropping an earbud is the expectation and demand on yourself and the earbud to do things you expect. What if you dropped an earbud but it helped you dodge something coming at your head? Then you’d be glad it dropped.
I don’t think the issue really is about taking God’s name in vain per se but demanding that your reality be the one to exist and expecting you to be perfect.
Much of dropping an earbud is you being annoyed with yourself. Learning to give yourself some grace and forgiveness is one of those super hard but necessary lessons in life.
@@francestaylor9156 all of it was my annoyance with myself.. agreed 👍💯
It is so unhelpful to ask Peterson if he is a Christian. The question goes nowhere.
Yep. he’s a wonderful deconstructionist but when he opens his mouth about Christianity I just hear gobbledygook. His secularist ego just monster trucks over everything.😊
Thank God for it! 🏆❤️
Jordan knows enough of how superficial we are, as a society ^^
Why even ask? He's more of a Christian than most of us.
He straight up said "yes" to that question in an interview with Jesse Lee Peterson
The question revolves around bounded set thinking versus centered set. If bounded, then “in” vs “ out “ is decisive. If centered, then the real question is towards what destination and pathway are you tending?
I get a kick out of these English intellectuals. They chase down all kinds of rabbit holes. They MAYBE sound smart but in the Bible God uses the meek to humble the proud.
It is very clear judging by the reverence or respect to God is displayed here. J Vernon McGee used to say that the Church is full of unbelievers. Thats exactly what i see. People try to reason things out instead of ASKING God for discernment. People want to do it on their own. In my 62 years on this planet Ive figured out that the more i want to control my destiny the actual less control i have.
How many people "Ask God" and either got nothing, or only got schizophrenic stuff?
@@skylinefever God will not feed you too much at once. In increments. If a person is actually sincere He will respond
@@skylinefever absolutely a must to study the Bible. Slowly over time it starts to make sense
I hear ya.
@@cowboyssawmillandwoodlot6343 Tried that. It sounded like more schizophrenia.
I think you are over thinking the blasphemy censorship of Pints of Aquinas. The producer is a Zoomer, and all Zoomers have integrated (in degrees) absurdism. To be henpicking words spoken as a young person is absurdist, and therefore humorous.
The pints with Aquinas video was well worth watching. Jordan was powerful.
I didn’t see anything but repetitive regurgitation. He came off as angry and bossy…and oddly, a bit scared of something…
@@esterhudson5104I'm wondering, can jordan get any more ridiculous.
what happened to that sensible, bright man taking about psychology / sociology ??
@@esterhudson5104 I thought he said some good things, but I agree that he is coming off very extra angry recently. Still excited to see him live in a few weeks.
Yeah he was literally doing climate change denial grift on behalf of his Conservative donors, it was cringe but is the usual fair for Jordan now and why I've moved away from Dr. "Give 'em Hell Netanyahu" Peterson.
1:06:00 Hot take It was Abraham instead of the guy on the tenth next door because Abraham was the only one that said yes. I think God calls everyone but is always our choice to follow him. Then we get grace.
32:38 “What kind of Christian do you want Jordan to become?”
And usually the answer is “the same kind as me”.
What’s in a name? A label? Everything? Nothing?
This is related to proselytization & evangelism & conversionism.
Livestream comin…
100%. People use theological views like a team sport and JBP would be the biggest star on whichever team he joined. He’s extremely savvy to not state any team to join and just do the stuff ppl haven’t been doing for decades.
Only God can connect the dots for him. He can’t do it on his own
Nominalism, cant escape it
As for me, he's already _exactly_ the kind of Christian I want him to become: a nondenominational Protestant with slightly heretical views, just like me.
Since nondenominational Christianity has no systematic theology (thank GOD), no catechism, no initiation ceremony, no creed and no confession, he's already there.
All you need is a desire to do endless bible studies, and he's already a master of that.
@@Pseudo_Boethius so you believe just about anything hey?
Hank is still an evangelical in Chicago who attends Catholic mass.
Mark Galli followed HIM! (I got corrected this afternoon by phone...) :)
You can take the boy out of evangelicalism, but not evangelicalism out of the boy.....
"your actions echo in eternity". 100% agree. If you throw a pebble into the ocean it creates ripples, which slowly reduce over time and expansion but, NEVER reach zero. It echos throughout the oceans for eternity. OK, we can't see or measure it below a certain point but this doesn't change the fact.
“Your actions echo in eternity”
JBP getting his theology from the movie “Gladiator”
“What We Do In Life Echoes In Eternity” - Marcus Aurelius’
The memory of the righteous is a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot. Proverbs 10:7
Surely he shall not be moved for ever: the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance. Psalm 112:6
I don’t even like seeing the word ‘blasphemy’ written out.
This is going to sound cynical but...
As far as I can tell, the idea of abolishing slavery, which was not a new idea, only gained traction because of the industrial revolution. It became cheaper to use machines. I'm refering to UK abolition here. Plus, the UK could export industrial machinery hence the value of enforcement across the empire. It was not without profit.
Without industrialisation slavery was a fact of life across the world. The idea, therefore, that some people needed to be taught how to be a good slave owner is not without merit, as appalling as this sounds today. The bible was not wrong in trying to teach this. That was the situation at the time. Hence, Alex did not make a good point.
Yes i have heard the CRT crowd say this. We had no slaves in England for a 1000 years before we stopped it around the world. In fact it cost the UK 200 years of dedt repayments to the banks. We only just payed of the dedts to free the slaves 10 years ago.
Slavery never ended. This is Anglo-American virtue signaling. It was renamed human trafficking, and the US is a big leader.
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq Hmm, that made me think. The abolition of slavery and the invention of race seem to have happened at about the same time. Is this a co-incidence?
@@MarcInTbilisi Why do you think there are still slaves in Shari'a countries and China?
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq That's curious. The idea of race appeared at the same time. Probably not a coincidence.
(44:25) Ram Dass used to say, "Words are birds."
Yes but Elmo said “bird is the word”.
@@esterhudson5104 🐣
And not just any bird, but a red-tailed hawk in hot pursuit of an unwarry squirrel.
Funnily enough I had a conversation with my (quite elderly) priest today where he was getting wistful about blasphemy laws in reaction to Richard Dawkins... I think Jacob Faturechi's maxim to never take offense where none was intended but always take offense where it was is a good path through social policing of blasphemy. Blasphemy laws with fines and jail sentences are probably not a good idea, precisely because getting at intent is so hard.
I am hopeful again, not just for myself. The urban monoculture rises and falls in waves and is ebbing again.
Paganism
Urban monoculture: nice term
urban monoculture is the telos of modernism. Let's hope that's one wave that we never see again.
@@Pseudo_Boethius Like the Saudi Arabian mono-building-city ... the malefactors of wealth seek their own utopia.
People don't realize that separation of church and state was for the benefit of the functioning of both the state and the church. The Founders took a market approach to religion and argued that voluntary participation in religious groups would result in more dynamic religious groups as opposed to the rigid and empty (on multiple levels) state churches of Europe.
Your coverage of JP has evolved over the last 7.5 years, when I first started following you. Times have changed ;-)
TLC is the natural continuation/evolution of wave 1 peterson
One of your best videos, Paul. It was very edifying.
The shift from methodological scientist to an ontological scientist ... happened decades earlier. No atheist I have known, was methodological but ontological ... were based in scientism. This was connected to the fall of Christianity 100 years ago and the Scopes Trial.
ontological materialism = modernism & post-modernism. This is why I reject and renounce those mindsets with absolute prejudice. The road to hell is paved by modernism.
It is always a “Jewish dream of a golden age” to constantly seek a day when Christianity is on top, when it becomes supreme in culture. It’s when Christianity gets to the top when it becomes its worst expression! Brothers we are and always will be in the wilderness until the King returns.
Jewish world conquest? Put that wine down. Christianity and Islam had a chance and both failed. If there is an eschaton, all the religious will fall to their blasphemies ;-(
Yeah except that if we’re supposed to “seek the welfare of the city” like God’s LAST exiled people, then the more people shaping society the better for said society. And brother, “what you do for the least of these, you do for me” and “the greatest commandments of all are to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbor as yourself”. So just there we can see why it’s better for even an exiled Christianity to be a loud voice in the culture, even the defining one.
Jordan Peterson:
"Why are you stuck with belief? Why are you stuck with faith? Because what the hell do you know? You are confronted constantly by your own ignorance. You move forward on principle, you have to. You move forward in faith. Faith in what? Well, the biblical injunction is: the highest form of faith is represented by the spirit that's characterized in the Biblical stories. Here is another example. Jacob has a vision of the ladder. It's an ancient vision. It's the rod of tradition, and the serpent. It’s the same thing. It’s Jack and the Bean stalk's pole. It's the cosmic axis that points to the North Star. It’s the manner in which we orient ourselves. It’s all of that. Jacob’s ladder. Jacob decides when he leaves his state of juvenile deception and machination and manipulation that he is going to aim upward. He has the dream of the spiral upward. And at the pinnacle of the spiral is God. Well, what is that? That's the ever-receding spirit that calls you forward. So, imagine that as you mature--you’re a child and you’re an adult-things beckon to you. Okay, but they change, but the fact of the beckoning remains constant. What beckons? It’s a definition. God. And what is it? Well, it’s the same thing that broods over the water; it’s the same thing that brings the prideful to their knees; it’s the same thing that produces the flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; it’s the same thing as the call to adventure; it’s the same thing as the crucifixion of Christ."
David Torkington (Catholic mystical theologian):
"That’s why [God] created the world in the first place, put us in it, and sent Christ to lead us on-wards from within, from within himself. This journey goes on and on into infinite loving. There is
no end to this journey because God is infinite love. The reward of the traveler is to go on traveling. The solace of the searcher is to go on searching. For this journey never comes to an end and we make this journey not just on our own but in and with and through Christ and with all who are in Him…we go out continually towards what St. Augustine called a continual ecstasy."
Blessed are those who've said 'yes' to the beckoning, picked up their cross, and begun their journey (however falteringly and badly). Through His grace, we already have one foot in Heaven.
Amen.
Through the blesséd algorithm I also watched those 2 videos yesterday.
I enjoyed JBP on Pints with Aquinas.
About 27 minutes in: really? Peterson relaxed? He came across as irritated and pissed off to me. He didn’t litera -{checks notes}- actually relax until about the 2 hour mark.
Dang! As a Catholic who sometimes watches Pints I am amazed at how incisive your analysis was. There is something warped at Pints, and it is captured by this "profilicity" and the exchanges you highlighted. It's hard to know how to name it. In Catholic circles it isn't traditionalism per se. I would call it a kind of Catholic or conservative ideology. I think it raises the broader question of the proper role of a Rogan or a Fradd. (To be fair, when Pints got their new videographer/editor things got worse)
Best video in a while. Congrats 🙌
1:02:37 - I think with RC the trad movement is the logical endpoint of two accurate observations that A) Vatican II seems like an inflection point where things start going wrong (of course, the degree to which one thinks this is causation or correlation highly dictates where one lands in the tradosphere), and B) that the Church's greatest enemy in the last ~60 years has been its own clergymen who use fudging, spirit of the law, and reading between the lines to abuse Church teachings for their own end. I think many Catholics, like PwA, who lean trad try to look back and find a "year zero" where, if you just followed those rules as they were laid out, you would have a pure form of Christianity (quite ironic given the resistance to Protestantism). This produces what a lot of people don't like about RC, which is the legalism and dogmatism and a certain formulaic "if X then Y" behavioral pattern. It does not surprise me at all that PwA would censor his speech (but not actually ask Jordan to stop using the offensive language). I would love to know what Jordan feels about that, and if he would feel the same way if a left-leaning interviewer censored dead-naming or "wrong" pronouns.
Lol that’s a great point, that the trad movements are often a form of Protestantism. It does seem to me that the Orthobros are all essentially Protestant, so I imagine it’s the same with RC.
Nope. RC’s are definitely not Protestant. Or a form of. lol. How funny.
@@esterhudson5104 Roman Catholicism is not Protestant, but it is hard to argue that at least American Catholicism hasn't become extremely Protestantized. Take a look at the response to the Vatican's statement on blessings for same-sex couples. Why did such a large contingent of the Church not just accept the proclamation and move on? Why does the Church at all levels feel the need to comment on and criticize what the Vatican, the head of the Church, is doing? Why is there FSSP, SSPX, Ultramontanism, etc.?
Kale Zelden recently did a video talking about the difference between the text of Vatican II and the "spirit" of Vatican II in the way that it played out over time. Interesting observations.
Excellent observation.
I have my doubts that even Pelagius was pelagian.
I think you are right to doubt that.
Augustine of Hippo was a Manichean crocodile ;-)
I was still in church when New Atheism hit and spent time with atheists on-line since then. But it was clear to me the limits, fear and anger of their position. As an older person, I didn't lose faith 2020-2023, I lost hope. Gen X seems to have come off Christian Evangelicalism and younger people are somewhat more confused than I was at their age.
What do you mean? I saw those redditors as people who were Pascal's Wagered as kids by the crappiest members of the God Squad. How would they not be resentful?
@@skylinefeveryep. In college I had friends get disowned by their own family over this stuff and got my own share of it too. We were evangelicals at the time, of course.
@@skylinefever The Four Horseman and Ms Ali? They were mostly British and mostly fearful of Islam.
@@williambranch4283 I hate when people decide that saying shit about Jesus's people is fair game, but don't dare let people say shit about Mohammed's people.
@@skylinefeverthey also won’t admit that it’s because they’re cowards and will only bully people who turn the other cheek. They are afraid of Muslims.
Matt's questioning did jump around a bit... and certainly he didn't drill down on the topics like someone in TLC would have. But, thats very normal for his podcast. I listem to him quite a bit and he is well known for jumping around topically on his podcasts.
It’s a conversational, shoot the breeze style. He isn’t inciteful or provoking.
Jordan seems to dispense with propositional logic. He says that. "Do you believe in God?" is not the right question. It's about to call to adventure or what you do is your faith.
So this would lead me to believe that he thinks many atheist are actually on the right path and Christians or saved however you want to say it.
For example someone like Jim Carr the atheist comedian who describes his deconversion like "scales falling from his eyes" might be a Christian in Jordan's view.
This seems to be the opposite of mouthing some words and believing a proposition.
Strictly speaking, the RC church forbids the Lord’s name in vain and the use of GD. In Catholic practice, one can understand that somebody as old and unchurched as JP has picked up speech patterns and verbal tics over decades that aren’t going to be resolved overnight and so there has to be a balance between correcting wrong behavior and pouncing on every mistake.
This version of a verse in Mathew struck me just now. I think it describes what JBP is and what he's doing to a tee.
Matthew 13:52 Amplified:
He said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things that are new and fresh and things that are old and familiar"
And hearing JBP wrestle with questions of "belief" it occurs to me he seems to be in that same headspace that the disciples were in while Jesus was still with them, trying to figure out what it all meant.
He's not a post Pentecost "Christian" per ser. He's a pre ascension Thomas doubting the resurrection. He's not a believer like we are now, he's a disciple like they were back then. And I'm not sure what to make of that.
Alex O'Connor literally repeating INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENTS?
*What time frame even is this?*
10:09 “ make men wish that religion were true and then show them that it is.”
This also works for universalism.
What you see in here depends a lot of fun where you’re standing. In the kind of person you are.
Do you want it to be true? Really true? Or do you just THINK that you SHOULD want it to be true? Different things.
I want socialist Santa Clause to be real. Shall I Larp real hard? ;-)
It might also be "Is it a historically or scientific literal truth or some metaphorical truth."
I then argue that the 2019 Joker movie is a great metaphorical truth.
"If wishes were fishes, we'd all swim in riches."
Why JP started his own "I'm the only member of Saint Joachim Church". Very clever on his part in not letting himself become a Theological Football.
If they start sincerely seeking the Being who made them, cos they didn’t make themselves, He will lead them to Himself. It may take a long time…☦️🙏🏻
I try to speak the truth and trust that others will hear.
I listen with some bit of trepidation because what I hear might be a call to change.
Change comes every day, like it or not.
I took the beeping out and blasphemy text as just being cheeky. It didnt seem like a serious thing.
Also, writing blasphemy lets us all know exactly what was said, instead of bleeping it and letting us guess.
Yes I agree. It lets people speech but show you have standards. Also in my country they would bleep swear words etc but be fined 10.000 for every word not bleeped.
It's nice to see that Paul understands selective enforcement of laws. Where I'm from it's not used against the powerful but against anyone who wants to be a political rabble rouser.
Many Christians grew up to honor the 10 Commandments including the 3rd one. In Romans 14:21 Paul says : It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall. You can substitute blasphemy in the same way if it causes distress to a brother or sister if it offends them. Don’t let your freedom and pride cause a weaker person to stumble. If your brother or sister is distressed because of blasphemy and you go ahead and do it anyway , you are no longer acting in love.
The reductio ad absurdum to this is that it basically grants a heckler's veto and allows the most neurotic to establish the standards. There has to be some limit to this doctrine.
1:07:27 “Why Abraham, and not the guy next door to his tent?”
“Grace.”
Yeeeessss, but. That’s a non-answer. That’s Sunday-School “Jesus!”
Exclusion for inclusion. Being. Bodies. All identity (& incarnation) demands exclusion.
The question is whether it is a zero-sum, exclusivist exclusion for all time. Or if it’s exclusion for future inclusion. Read Romans 10 & 11 (and the rest of it too) not just chapter 9.
All are common in Adam, all are condemned to Exile. But not yet judged, not yet damned.
We barely know what Sola Scriptura means, what's the Gracias one you mentioned?
Gratia por favor!
@@anselman3156 is it "only Grace"?
@@GrimGriz Yes the slogan sola gratia by grace alone.
I find the five Solas (alone together?) about as confusing as one God in three people.
I’m sorry but JP is no more a Christian than Alex or Dawkins. He just adopts the language. It’s painful every time someone asks him a straightforward question (Eg 1:11:00) The guy can’t tell the truth. I’m going to go one step farther and call that dishonest. He knows exactly what the question is. Just doesn’t want to answer. In fact, I don’t know why you’re not angry he hijacks the language of your religion to promote his own ideas.
The Blasphemy thing is interesting.
On RuslanKD's channel he does something similar with "p*rnography" and other sexual words.
It reveals his worldview, his history, and his audience, but it doesn't actually remove the word.
Like the old Louis CK joke about the "N word." "You're just making ME say it, in my own head!"
"God, please let me be trad, just not yet" is the best line I've ever heard 🤣🤣
1:11:53 We're not going to stand for eschatological humour around here!
Well, I do have a nice comfy chair....so maybe we could sit for it.
🙂
I really really am blessed by your videos and your perspective. It’s given me a great wealth of ideas to draw upon and apply into life. God bless you Paul 😁
I wonder how Christians are going to deal with floaters. And what I mean by that comments about history where many people know about it and Christians don't have a good response to it. Its always been a thing but know its more wide known. In the discussion alex o connor mentioned that peter probably didn't write 2 peter in the discussion of ordaining women. Justin didn't have time to address and he would be going against the academic consensus. But its there and there are more coming for example with the exodus or lukes census. You cant really rebut these things well and it usually just opens more holes. And they will always exist and only get bigger in time. That's why I think the meta modern project is at least interesting because its asking the question how do we create a religious practice where we don't have pit falls where Christians can fall through. Jared fell through the hole and most do. And all Christians do know is remove the knowledge of the hole and pretend its not there. So what do we do when our project has a bunch of holes that alot of people fall through?
Has anyone started the “Punks with Aquinas” channel yet?
There is a Lagers with Luther
I would point to many thinkers, the lesson is the affect we label religion is an innate part of our being... An author spoke of the theory, as but one example, that we perceive our own gestalt: that we are more than the sum of our parts... Our soul, our consciousness itself: its existence and our perception of something 'else' Hintervelt to Nietzsche... We are metabeings and the perception of 'more' is what leads to our 'religio' way of living within the world...
Is religion supposed to be in every single person's instinct?
Reddit is full of people who either never had that so called God shaped hole, or God never showed up. "Just pray harder" is all they ever got.
How many people just got Pascal's Wagerered and are just barely hanging on? How many think this is mostly garbage, but are buying fire insurance?
@@skylinefever Fire insurance is good, since every house burns down ;-)
1:19:36 Aha! There you have it! "You move Forward In Faith"- Peterson is a secret trad. Anglo Catholic Anglican!
His wife must be rubbing off on him....
I love the comment around 11:55 that Protestantism is “the experimental wing of the Church.”
A failed experiment😆
@@hankkruse4660 Failed experiments are the best kind. RCC can simply define themselves ex cathedra as still Catholic ;-)
@@williambranch4283We do no such thing.
32:50. I thought on this as well, this morning even. I think we must have a greater openness to what a Christian is, or we must be less pedantic with the labels - as Moody, Emerson, and Tolstoy showed us: we can all be brothers in Faith, in Christ even... without the mandatory beliefs. I do not agree with Tom Harpur on most but the change from allegory, or as I say: these truths may not be true but they are not lies. These truth can be a source of faith but cannot be mandatory. As Jesus asked the women if she had faith: in Greek a word meaning 'are you convinced' not have you conceded. More people like Jordan, with the faith stronger than creeds, will stand with Christians and the faithful. If their embrace is conditional or contingent on unnecessary beliefs, maybe they will stand alone? Until we open our minds to a 'shared opinion', rather than argue points in the scholarly camps: we will not bridge this schism...
Completely agree. It’s ridiculous to have a “correct perception test” and to reject anyone who doesn’t pass it.
I disagree, once you increase what qualifies as christian, you lose its essence and ultimately end up losing participants.
Even if you make the space the most inclusive you still won't increase participants because there are hundreds of other places those people would rather be than there, if they wanted to be at church, they would have been there to begin with, regardless of whether people reject their radical ideas.
A beautiful example of how making things more inclusive fails in the long run is the education system in many western countries.
Governments thought lowering grade boundaries would help prevent children being left behind, and encouraging more people to pursue university education would help with socioeconomic movement. There may have been some success early on, but in the long run all it ended up doing was ruining quality of education for all.
The system became worse off because so many people qualify. Priorities of institutions, particularly university, have been shifted to exploitation rather than providing the service it was meant to provide. Many university degrees aren't worth what people pay for, and many universities aren't churning out the intellectuals they used to, merely poor carbon copies because people are only there to get the qualification that open up more doors for them, not because they want to learn!
@@Nicole-kc1vx I agree, there must be a balance. To raise all boats without sinking some. A shared option found within the orthodoxy and the modern. A metamodern if you will. A transvaluation of what we value. Without losing what we have. As Marshall McLuhan said: we must be wary of adopting the new, replacing the old, simply because of novelty ... Without vetting for value and benefit....
so what would we say the “bare minimum” is to qualify as a Christian?
For me it’s very obviously “Christ saves sinners, and I am a sinner.”
It appears to me that Peterson believes in “carrying one’s cross” but nothing about grace.
@@nikitaarsenyev6334 sounds about Right 👍
I just watched both videos Unherd and Pints with Aquinas and will have tons of stuff to think of.
Now I trust you Paul, to help me understand a bit more 😅
The idea of the right denomination, is on the way out. One either knows Jesus and tries to keep His commandments, or not. And as someone with a deep distrust of the Catholic Church, we should welcome all followers of the Christ a spiritual home, regardless of their theology, assuming they believe He died for our sins
I often ask how many WWJD types would ask "WWJD to money changers?"
As a Catholic, I have no wish nor need to join your team. But thanks for asking.☺️
(25:04) Second, Christian Baxter. Elizabeth Oldfield shines...
She was the heart of the conversation. Needed savings throws for "heart".
Third.
Why Abraham and not the other guy in the tent beside him? We need to do a character deep dive, and what we find is a man who was willing to sacrifice his wants desires and rights for the benefits of others! Grace is the currency in which the kingdom of God operates
The gospel of Peterson's right arm
1:16:07 this is his psychological meaning of the Bible. Right into 1% better, clean your room, fake it till you make it.
I enjoyed Jordan's tirade against Atheism in the 'pints' video, reminds me a bit of C.S. Lewis in mere Christianity about Atheism, "Atheism is too simple" explains a bit why Jordan and Lewis are such targets for atheists.
"Backing our way forward into history." That's a great one. I hadn't heard that before (so many things still to read).
It's interesting to see people's pre-set bias filters play out in their comments on things like the Unherd conversation. We've got "oh, see what a miserable alcoholic Oldfield has become since selling her soul to the patriarchy, " alongside the jerk who can't abide any type of public femaleness online ("can't stand her voice...she's too emotional...waving her arms around...nothing of substance") and all the usual blather. I had a bias filter in place for Alex O'Connor but made a deliberate decision to set it aside and just listen to him fairly. He's an interesting guy.
I knew she was going to say something preposterous like "meh sea levels" even before she spoke, just by observing her body language
On the maths stuff, check out the lectures by NORMAN WILDBERGER (a finitist who rejects even irrational numbers) and compare it to someone like JOEL DAVID HAMKINS and his series on the philosophical development of rigor and the Calculus...
1:12:50 - I have tried so hard to get into PwA to no avail, and as best as I can tell, Matt is either not that smart, or he keeps the conversation not-smart-enough for what he thinks his audience will appreciate. He seems like a great guy, and he seems to be a very good Catholic Christian, but that is my honest opinion of the show. It feels like hours of talking with a guest to go absolutely nowhere. I think he's trying to be the Catholic Joe Rogan.
Correct.
There is a revival on both sides of the spiritual war. Battle lines are being drawn more and more.
There can be no ontological surrender ;-)
52:20 Now that is an interesting view of heresy...
Fradd to a some degree sees himself as a "Defender of the Faith" and the "Faith" can take care of itself.
@50:50 I hear a fair deal of GDs myself... been trying to combat it with "God Bless!" because I half wonder if one of the reasons things keep breaking down is because many are constantly calling down curses on just about everything.
F-Bomb at 45.00 in the Pints/Peterson video that was un bleeped
Yep, there is was. No beep, no banner. Good catch!
Just confusing. I think the blasphemy tag is just for his trad cath audience. "People talk like this, I don't take it seriously enough to correct Peterson publicly, but knowing nod, we know"
Fuck Trudeau, fine, totally fine
Dear Paul, my husband is very interessted in the video of Roy Clouser you mention about different worldviews in math. He always thought math is the most objective domaine there is and could not believe this statement.
Is there any chance I can get the link?
I couldn’t find it, probably I’m not really competent with my research skills 😅
Thank you very much.
ua-cam.com/video/zunkQ4o_4uI/v-deo.htmlsi=-nZQEbrJ8ajivc_W
@@PaulVanderKlay Very appreciated, thank you.
To really delve into the argument you should pick up Roy's book "The Myth of Religious Neutrality". It had some influence when published and contains a section on mathematics. Fairly cheap used.
@@Phlebas9202 thank you for the recommendation.
I’m in Switzerland and it turns out even Mere Christianity of CS Lewis is hard to get in german.
Does anyone know what book from the 1960s PVK brought up that showed people who realize the cultural schism along authenticity vs sincerity go crazy, that “has only gotten worse since”? Maybe I have the dichotomy wrong
PWA is great. I love Matt Fradd, even though he can sometimes adopt the POV of his guests a bit too much and I’d place him on the fundamentalist end of Catholicism. I admit I probably watch more PWA than PVK these days.
In order to refer to anything in the universe you have to believe in a meaningful universe. (Heard 9 minutes so far).
The universe has no meaning without sentient beings.
YHWH as “Lord” goes back way beyond the KJV, to the Septuagint itself.
8:25 I was trying to make out what the url was
Pastor paul, what's your thoughts on why JP was so shouty in his pints for aquinas interview??? Is it residual effect from his date with destiny? Because it seemed odd.
"Date with Destiny". I love it. Many of us have always loved that he's passionate. No real surprise at his passion in many of the areas he spoke on here. That's pretty de jour. Same guy who's on Twitter. It just comes out in Twitter more.
Either his inner cranky old man is coming out or he’s starting to come unglued again.
I liked it, he’s getting funnier the more snarky he gets too
Turing is a synthetic organic chemist, He specializes in synthesizing compounds.
Do these English panelists commune with the Nigerian, other African Protestant, Caribbean, and/or Orthodox European denominations in England? How? Why not? Peoples from those Christianities are more robust, nowhere as impervious to anxieties about the loss of faith among their young.
Is Sam the Unitarian also Sam the Universalist, or is different Sam?
The transcriptionist transcripts again!
It’s just a cheeky bleep to cover something their audience would think inappropriate. I wouldn’t overthink it.
It's a tell.
@@PaulVanderKlay A video popped up in my feed by an Ortho channel title “We who wrestle with Jordan Peterson,” which I thought was appropriate.
@@chrishuber9448I haven’t dared watch it because it seems like the kind of thing I don’t want to give my view stat to.
Did you watch it?
@@stevemcgee99 Maybe 15 minutes. It was “A group of Orthodox Christians give their thoughts and impressions after attending Dr. Jordan Peterson's live presentation, "We Who Wrestle with God."”
@@PaulVanderKlayI agree, but I think "cheeky" is the tone you have to read it in order to read it as intended.
The twitter question had me thinking 🤔. How much is the concept of citizenship adjusted b/w sincerity citizenship and authenticity citizenship? Does the CN question connect here because the CN movement is a type of “one-speed” vision of authentic citizenship?
Is baudrillardian hyperspace the source of memetic mutation?