Why Jonathan Pageau May Have Convinced Dawkins - Jordan Peterson

[@VictoriaKlippy]

Pageau is such a wonderful gift from God just as Peterson is, I love listening to them both speak

[@oekmama]

It’s no coincidence that they both arose at roughly the same time to be able to have these conversations.

[@lulumoon6942]

Never would've imagined or hoped for such thinkers embracing faith in Christ so openly, & to welcome it myself! God it great! 🙏🕊️

[@Martin-hd2tr]

First of all: poor JBP trying to interpret those stories using his intellect, like he's trying to figure out Christianity. Christianity already exists. Go to Church. You don't have to make it up by yourself. Second of all, no, nothing Jonathan said would have convinced Dawkins, Dawkins is not interested in any of this.

[@FloridaManMatty]

Church won’t quench Petersen’s thirst. He isn’t after a canned, rehearsed response. As a hyper-intelligent and pathologically curious man, he is going straight to the source to challenge his own understanding. The Bible we have today is already slightly watered down. Between the not always great translations to the exclusion of many contemporary gospels and narratives, THE Word of God we read today is not entirely what it was meant to be and the Church is largely responsible for this. While it IS easier to take someone else’s word, usually it really is best to go back to the source and try to understand it for oneself

[@therealbs2000]

​@@FloridaManMatty doing your own research huh

[@AidanRKelly]

The Church precedes the Bible. The Church deliberately excluded many books from its canon because they were either determined to be unsubstantiated/false or simply not divinely inspired. This isn’t some secret that you stumbled on, it’s basic history. The first Christians were VERY much concerned with being part of the Church, engaging in the sacraments, etc. It wasn’t merely some intellectual activity for them.

[@danlc95]

​@@therealbs2000- It's always the best method. No middle man.

[@Hoi4o]

Nothing can convince Dawkins, he has admitted that publicly multiple times.

[@rodangus4489]

He is, however, convinced that the first mammals, shrews, over a period of several gazillion years, morphed themselves into human persons. He has an amazing belief system.

[@yuvanraj2271]

@@rodangus4489 One has evidence while other does not. Evolution is going nowhere.

[@rodangus4489]

@@yuvanraj2271 Evidence other than empty rhetoric? There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the genome of the shrew can gain even an iota of new genetic information. 'Reductionist materialism' (as quoted in the video by JP) is a gross, nihilistic fabricated narrative superimposed on reality. It is nothing but a vacuous mist cast over the minds of men.

[@joshuatrott193]

​@@yuvanraj2271There are Christians who believe in Evolution

[@bigol9223]

​@@yuvanraj2271 I couldn't agree more. Evolution is going nowhere.

[@MS-od7je]

As a scientist we understand how the resurrection happened and will happen. Fact: The Mandelbrot set begins at 0.25 and ends at (-2). Fact: The Mandelbrot set has limited area while simultaneously having infinite borders ( simultaneously infinite and finite)

[@Dee-nonamnamrson8718]

Can you explain a bit further? I just looked up Mandlebrot sets, and they are mesmerizing, but I don't see how it is related.

[@MS-od7je]

@ The Mandelbrot set is the pattern in which your brain is created. The coronal cross Section of the brain is the morphology of the Mandelbrot set and the caudal cross section is the connected Julia sets. No hypothesis explains to all satisfaction why there is both ipsilateral and contralateral neural pathways in the central nervous system. The Mandelbrot set, has both ipsilateral and contralateral pathways from the main cardioid to the main bulb. In fact, there are correspondences in the main cardioid to all the bulbs. It can be shown that all geometry of the universe from the Bose Einstein, condensate to the greatest structures of the universe are transformations from a polar grid circle to a polar grid Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set not only has a beginning and end and is simultaneously infinite and finite, but it is also the imaging which you are made, and it is in everything everywhere. As such it is omnipresent. And that it is the structure which creates everything it is omnipotent understanding that math has no positive powers. It is the spirit of God that generates this.. Form structure. By being everywhere and all powerful it is also thereby a structure which gives understanding to omniscience. I cannot show you pictures here, but you can look at my identifying picture in which I have the Mandelbrot set in the Julie sets . Or you can just look it up yourself bring up a picture of the Mandelbrot set and compare it to an image of the coronal cross-section of the brain. Fold in the bulbs to match the fissures and the sulci of the brain. The mathematics God uses to create the universe and thereby us, is a description of God. God is spirit. There are kinds of things. Things have images. Things have likenesses ( what is it like to be a bat?)

[@irodjetson]

The fisrt sin is also distrust, or a failure to trust.

[@GnomaticMime-lz9js]

I loved what my theology teacher taught me. Either Jesus is the biggest liar and manipulator in human history or.. he’s the son of the god.

[@gamingthisera6339]

Poor old dawkins having a hard time swallowing his pride by admitting he prefer living in a Christian dominant society 😔

[@edbradley6815]

He knows how Christians behave absent of secular law

[@serenasztein5065]

Yes, the resurrection is real

[@n2185x]

Peterson and Pagaeu seem to be steering towards the right answer but they don't quite get there in this segment, at least. Maybe they do elsewhere in the discussion that isn't presented here. Starting at 6:19 they talk about the implications of the notion that the Resurrection is false is that western civilization is based on a lie. But they don't really go much further than that, and they should. In particular, something that has a fundamental lie at its foundation is something that cannot function well for long periods of time. Such things can function for short periods of time due to happenstance, but probability always catches up with you eventually. And the plain fact of the matter is that western civilization is the most powerful force for prosperity the world has ever seen, by orders of magnitude. No other civilization has come anywhere close to yielding the wealth and capability that western civilization has. And western civilization has Christianity at its foundation, by way of the principles of Christianity. I'm of the belief that it is the doctrine of forgiveness and the elevation of truth that has enabled western civilization to function as well as it has. Forgiveness as a fundamental principle gets you built-in fault tolerance in the system, making the system resilient. And what is a civilization but a complex dynamic system? This is how I came to believe that Christian principles are correct. And if that's the case then all that's left is to answer how it is that Christianity spread as it did. People today aren't *smarter* than they were back then. Someone back then would be just as apt to be skeptical of the claim of resurrection as a nonbeliever would be today. But *something* convinced them of its truth. What could possibly do that if it was, in fact, a lie? Look at how difficult it is to convince someone today of anything that isn't actually true. The moral demands that Christianity places on people who adopt it (who is inclined to forgive others? Who is inclined to love their enemies?) are powerful incentive for people to *not* adopt it, and that is even more true back then than it is now, because we now have experience that shows how well it works in practice. They didn't have that back then. That means that adoption of it back then essentially required belief in the Resurrection first, because there was no other real reason for that. I don't see how that could have happened if it were false, particularly given the social and religious context (the Roman Empire). And so, I am a believer because western civilization proves that the principles of Christianity are true, and the situation surrounding the birth of Christianity is such that its spiritual claims must also be true for it to have been adopted in the first place.

[@BigBunnyLove]

There is no right answer. Avoid those certain of anything, they are fools.

[@n2185x]

@@BigBunnyLove If there is no right answer then there is no functioning morality. Observation clearly shows otherwise. The real world is the litmus test of truth. The real would wouldn't be that if there was no right answer. There is a difference between there being a right answer and someone actually possessing it. I always admit the possibility of being incorrect, but I see no flaw in the logic I supplied. If the logic is sound and the stipulations that went into it are correct then the conclusion must likewise be correct. That's as "right" as anyone can hope for.

[@BigBunnyLove]

@ I’m sorry, I don’t speak your language. There are no right or wrong answers or answers of any kind. You can't work this out in your head or speak it. It's in the heart. Real love, as real philosophy, is lived. These two men are clueless and obviously don't know themselves at all. They didn't say love once, Jesus' gospel. And there is definitely no hope, you and I are walking dead. There is no god like Christianity thinks there is, not in the least. You are god, I am. We don’t need morality, awake, we know what do and we always do the best thing we can. We don’t constrain ourselves with the authority of books or gods or other persons. That’s real freedom, try it maybe. Memento Mori.

[@n2185x]

​@@BigBunnyLove I agree that real love, real philosophy, is lived. That does not mean that it cannot be discerned, described, or deduced. You throw away the works of the mind when what we really want is for heart and mind to act in concert. You essentially imply that we cannot make any real choices ("we always do the best thing we can"). Our own internal and external experiences say otherwise. People constantly, and automatically, second guess the choices they've made, which clearly cannot mean anything other than they have the power of choice in the first place. Such second guessing has no use in the absence of the availability of meaningful choice. But if meaningful choice is available, then that means that our choices actually matter. And if they matter then that means that some options are better than others. And if some options are better than others *and* we have the ability to choose something other than the best options, then it follows that we need something to guide us towards those best options. That something *is* morality. Peterson and Pageau are discussing specific things in specific ways. That they do not mention love during the conversation does not mean they are unaware of love's significance in all this, and it is a monumental mistake to think it does. There is always hope. That hope may be for things temporary, or for things permanent. It may sometimes be unjustifiable, and it may sometimes be justifiable. If we are "god" (an assertion I clearly contest) then explain how it is we have limitations that are not of our own choosing. We live under *external* constraints. If we did not create those constraints ourselves then something else did, and because they are constraints on us it follows that whatever it is that created those constraints is more powerful than us, more deserving of the title "god" than we are. It is from iterating that argument to its logical conclusion that I conclude that God really is omnipotent as Christianity asserts.

[@BigBunnyLove]

@@n2185x well, we profoundly disagree, my views are not informed by books or people, but through experience. I know myself and what I am capable of. What a monster I can be. I’ll leave you with your hope. Who am I to take candy from a baby. Until you have lived with no net, you haven’t even begun to. Until one has shattered their certainty, they are asleep and cannot be trusted. The slumbering will come up with every excuse not to awaken to the cold hard realities of being. To living in the middle of maximum uncertainty. To accepting we know next to nothing. No angel or demon makes our choices, we do. What I am talking about is taking responsibility for oneself, being brutally honest with oneself about what one thinks they know. And we always have to be turning over the soil. People certain, have stopped, good as dead. We make our own meaning. If you have not love for yourself, the other, and the world, you are asleep. Jesus tried to wake them up and they made a religion out of him. Fools all. Liars. Pretenders. Jesus said, this way costs you your life. I look at America’s Christians and I want to 🤮 the men in this video are the worst kind of charlatan. Money changers in the temple. Selling dispensations. They know better. Evangelicals particularly have no love for the other on the whole. They dream of war. They are monsters. Open every border. Send all your missionaries there. Hypocrites. Their own book condemns them as they now surround themselves with those who tell them what their itching ears want to hear. They make a hell of the earth. No thanks. No thanks, don’t join. They are the truly lost. They can have their orange pumpkin headed antichrist. Pathetic. Jordan is an insane drug addict working for the Russians. Go live there. Leave us alone I say. All you who embrace Putin, leave. This is a matter of the heart, not the head. You all are profoundly wrong and misguided and throwing your tantrums. Give me an Fin break. You think god is sane? Hahahahaha! Obviously not. Adieu!

[@Tom30ad]

What is the red lapel pin they are wearing?

[@ICallitTheWeave]

Remembrance Day Poppy. Worn in early November in Canada to honour veterans.

[@kangarooninja2594]

But even if they didn't lie for power and wealth, and even if they knew they would likely be killed for claiming the resurrection, they still might've lied anyway. People lie for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is because of how painful the truth might be. I'm not saying they lied, but the argument that it's unlikely because of the outcome seems weak.

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

Lie to teach a lesson, to get the last laugh, and both. A lie is only the truth in an individual’s mind.

[@rujotheone]

Lying because they could not handle the truth is a much weaker argument.

[@kangarooninja2594]

@@rujotheone Personally, I believe in Christ. Not because of any particular testimony or story of miracles, etc., but because Christ fits the human narrative so perfectly. Like the missing puzzle piece that makes our story make sense. But from a purely logical perspective, if we're just talking about testimonials, then no, they're terribly weak. If this were any other story, I wouldn't believe it. And I actually didn't use to believe in the story of Christ because it sounded so absurd on its face. I had to live through a bit of life to gain the perspective necessary for it to dawn on me how much Christ himself is the only thing in life that actually makes any sense. If thousands of people had said a man, who was otherwise without the life and message of Christ, walked on water, preformed healing miracles, died as a result etc., I wouldn't be convinced of their story. I'd assume they were crazy cultists, the man was tricking them somehow, and that there was lying or mental illness, etc. involved. The likelihood of that is simply greater than some random magic man. Without Christ himself, the whole thing sounds like nonsense.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

@@kangarooninja2594 Miracles, Christian Supernaturalism, and Naturalism. What good are miracles? Superman can do miracles. Superman is a Supernatural Superhero. Spiderman can do miracles. Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader can do miracles. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes. The X-men can do miracles. The X-men are Supernatural Superheroes and Supervillains. Here is what prevents the Bubonic Plague from killing people, from Wikipedia; (Bubonic plague outbreaks are controlled by pest control and modern sanitation techniques.) In the years 1347 to 1351, 1/3rd of the population of Europe died to the Bubonic Plague. Parents would have been praying to Jesus of Christianity to protect themselves and their family from harm and children would have prayed to Jesus of Christianity to protect their parents from harm. Did Jesus tell them how to prevent Bubonic Plague when they were praying on how to protect themselves from harm? 1/3rd of the population died. The reason we don't usually have Bubonic Plague around is because of the modern sanitation and pest control. Was that to much for Jesus to explain to the Christians in Europe? So what did the people of Europe need in the years 1347 to 1351? Did Europe need a Supernatural Superhero? Or did Europe need a Naturalism Hero with knowledge of Nature. Most people of any age of humanity can write stories of Gods that can do miracles. The harder part is for people to be able to examine Nature successfully. The Age of Enlightenment writers wrote about ancient Story Gods for the altar and for the throne, rule from both Religion and Government. That is why Age of Enlightenment Philosophers, directed us humans to Nature's God and not human created Story Gods. Thus Thomas Jefferson's "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God.

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

@@rujotheone not including the experience of physical death

[@TimmacTR]

I don't get the argument. What is the thing that "convinced" Dawkins here? And of what?

[@skaus2184]

I would assume that the title of the video is based on a belief that had Peterson (or Pageau) used this line of reasoning, that it may have convinced Dawkins.

[@SeekersTavern...]

Can someone explain what Jonathan is saying in more common terms please? I'm Catholich and deep into metaphysics and patterns myself, but I don't understand what he just said. What's "the most affording story"?

[@skaus2184]

"Affordances are the characteristics or properties of an object that suggest how it can be used. It shows a user that an object can be interacted with." I would assume that he means that the resurrection story (and Jesus story as a whole) best explains an archetype that is useful to us, and that he accepts it as true, even though he cannot explain the mechanics of how the resurrection could have taken place. He also states that because Christianity forms a large part of the foundations of Western culture, that if it is indeed a lie, then the entire culture is built on weak foundations, and asks what the implications of that would be.

[@SeekersTavern...]

@@skaus2184 Okay, I mostly understand that. One problem I have with that is that Islam is the second biggest religion in the world, with obvious differences not only in the facts but also in behaviour. Lying to infidels to gain their trust is considered a virtue for example. From my point of view, the islamic narrative is false, and yet at the same time it is still the second biggest narrative we have. It's not bigger than christianity but I just wonder about the credence of the argument that what survives is truth over the long term. Perhaps the islamic narrative will collapse, but it's already 1400 years old, that's a pretty long time.

[@j.benjamin3782]

There’s a third possibility beyond the lie or truth of the resurrection - that it was misinterpreted. There is a theory which posits that Jesus was severely wounded and deeply unconscious, not dead although he appeared to be (which is a phenomenon that occurs even today) and subsequently recovered from his wounds. If true, that would make the foundation of civilization not false but mistaken.

[@jonathanhall7903]

The spear through the heart at the end is quite convincing.

[@thadofalltrades]

Romans didn't allow people to come off a cross alive. This doesn't explain how Jesus, two days later was walking around the countryside talking to people, eating with them, etc. He spent 40 days with the disciples and travelled all over the place. There's simply no possibility a person who endured what he did would be up and about like that. You're being too myopic and looking at a single part of the account in isolation. All those details eliminate the "mistaken" argument entirely. It's definitely between they lied or they were telling the truth. Those are the only two possibilities.

[@Crime_Mime]

I've seen the "swoon theory" before (I think it was addressed in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ) and my takeaway is that the process of crucifixion - nevermind the scourging beforehand - is such a brutal process that there's no way a human could have survived it. Even if someone could, the resurrected Christ whom the apostles encounter is not like a man who was tortured "almost" to death and then left in a tomb for the best part of three days.

[@jules1896]

​@jonathanhall7903 you are correct about the spear through the heart, water separate from clotted blood came out. That means he'd been dead for several minutes at that point. Also, they sealed the tomb with a large stone and set guards. A critically wounded man couldn't have gotten himself out. The only conclusion is that he was really dead.

[@bigol9223]

All other evidence aside that would just mean He was a liar lol

[@robsmith4434]

6:47 yes it is

[@robsmith4434]

How many people use to get burried alive, its high.

[@thadofalltrades]

Not crucifixion victims

[@ryankelly9032]

Read the gospels, He was dead before they took him down from the cross.

[@jonah9861]

You’ll never grasp the Sistine Chapel living inside a butchery.

[@S0LIDSNEK]

Come on Logos, that’s three thumbnails with typos in as many days. Slow down and proofread lil bro

[@ChristopherDwiggins]

Well the person who witnessed jesus rise was partially blind. Doesn't mean it had to be a lie. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though either. You should care enough to pursue the sciences that could perhaps prove it one day.

[@Mr._Anderpson]

Don't hold your breath. People have sat around thinking up philosophical arguments to justify a myth for thousands of years now. A person has to shore it up in that manner in order to compartmentalize a story and pretend it is fact. Do you remember all the stunning arguments that prove the sky is blue? Me neither. They're unnecessary. I'm not saying its a bad myth. I like Christians on average. I won't engage in the fantasy of their alleged deity the same way I don't have to tell a man he is a woman.

[@braddersfam1754]

There's no mention of lucifer anywhere near the story peterson mentions, no mention of anything other than it being a serpent... And , it's the serpent which tells the truth.

[@ryankelly9032]

The serpent is identified later in the Bible as Lucifer. And he didn’t tell the truth, he told a half truth, which is even more manipulative because it sounds true.

[@davidryan8547]

Is it? Did we become God?

[@ryankelly9032]

@@davidryan8547 the answer to your first question is Revelation 12:9. I’m not sure I understand your second question in the context of this thread.

[@davidryan8547]

@@ryankelly9032 I was responding to the other guy not you.

[@ryankelly9032]

@@davidryan8547 ok. Couldn’t tell based on the username reference. It usually gives the full name, but has lately been only showing the “@“ sign.

[@robertcalleja2348]

No one knows that's the truth 😂

[@robsmith4434]

3:21 no

[@wilder11]

Great argument. XD

[@brianthomassen2209]

The issue with Peterson's thesis (that their fundamental sin is pride) is that pride is a moral category, yet the narrative expressly states they are in a pre-moral posture. They had not yet taken of the tree of good and evil. Peterson's thesis begs the question.

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

Hm yes

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

“Truth is often contradicting”

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

“Temptation to become as Gods” hm. I have to say I do not know how to be human then if it is not to strive towards the thing of a high power.

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

I feel that Adam and Eve to a level of 30-20 percent is in me. Temperament and curiosity …

[@TheDragonFoodKing]

I believe “what would become of suffering” is that they are minimized!

[@upsidedowndreamer8724]

In wrestling with the real meaning of Christianity and metaphysical truth, laboring to distill their implications, what I hear Peterson articulating is frankly a bunch of sophisticated anthropocentric psychobabble. I honestly don’t think he possesses any serious sense of theology, I don’t think he has a clue what Jesus, the Gospel, or the Bible are really all about. He is simply content (perhaps arrogantly content) to domesticate Christian ideas within the terra firma categories of his own psychological purview

[@Neon_White]

"That would mean our whole civilization is based on a lie." Whatever you do little sheep, dont look over the fence.

[@truepremise2053]

Sin is Beauty that is past itself.

[@simonvalente2187]

The sin? the sin is Shame. they were naked (sexual) and not what? ashamed. why mention the emotional state of the Adam... if it wasn't very important? and... please read the text and tell me where it mentions lucifer? it doesn't. How can you possibly read something that isn't written?

[@ChristopherDwiggins]

Adam means mankind.

[@simonvalente2187]

@ChristopherDwiggins Adam comes from Adama... the living soil. The story is not a story about the fall of mankind. that's all nonsense... literally. No. its a more of a gardening lesson, an answer to the question... where are you Adam.? Because you have done this.... The Earth, will now respond, over Time, like this.... G-d did not curse The Earth, read it again, The Earth is responding to Adams heart frequently. And read on... let me know when you get to... Now The Adam has become like one of Us, having the ability of The Knowledge of Good And Evil. It's all about emotions. The difference between good and evil is.... emotional.

[@skaus2184]

Michael Heiser on this subject - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJ3QlZt8lJxlnKc

[@mikeschaller9233]

Lucifer was called the devil, the Satan, the serpent, the dragon, the enemy, the ruler of the air, the prince, etc. throughout the rest of scriptures. It does not call him lucifer in genesis but future writers knew who it was.

[@simonvalente2187]

@mikeschaller9233 I'm sorry but that's not how the sacred texts work. It says serpent for a reason. Please don't be fooled by this deliberate misinterpretation. Adam needed to learn something important... and He did. He got it and was sent out into the world with G-ds blessing to be a fruitful and multiply and fill up The Earth. (are we there yet? 🤔 anyway...) He needed to learn about is "Male side". Up until then, he had only been receiving, female, and had yet to experience doing, male. He was given this and that but not yet done anything until... "What have you done?" He was now feeling very different "inside", in his heart. G-d explains how this change of heart will now influence The Earth and his future.... over Time. Any idea how much electromagnetic energy the heart radiates every millisecond? Compare the electromagnetic difference between shame/fear and Joy/gratitude. The teaching / message is simple. Our hearts affect our futures....

[@mokeboi3328]

Yawn

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

It is not that the ancient writings of the Christian Gospels were witnessed by the writers of the Jesus of Christianity story. It is that someone after some time wrote Christian Gospels, not from eyewitnesses, but from the minds and imaginations of humans creating stories. Is it moral and ethical for a God to have the Roman Empire military torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for a God's torture quest? If humans made up the story, then they would have no power over the Roman Empire military. But for a God to use the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people on purpose for a God's torture quest? How did Jesus of Christianity and God of Christianity know, just know, that the Roman Empire military would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine and then also be there to torture, kill and murder Jesus. So when Jesus was born on planet Earth, Jesus knew, just knew that the Roman Empire would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine 33 years after his birth. 30 years to adulthood, 3 years ministry. Did the Roman Empire military have Free Will? Could the Roman Empire military just left Judea/Palestine and left the God of the Universe with no military to torture, kill and murder him? Then there would be no Christianity. Also, how did the Roman Empire military know just the exact way to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in the way that Christianity needs Jesus to be tortured, killed and murdered? What if the Roman Empire military only stabbed people in the heart to kill them, but not torture them? Then Christianity would not be fulfilled. What if the Roman Empire military only hanged the people of Judea/Palestine or burned them to death. Then Christianity would not be fulfilled because blood would not have been spilled. The torture, killing and murder of the people of Judea/Palestine by the Roman Empire military and the way the Roman Empire military did it, is the most important thing to Christianity. Jesus must have trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in just the right way, to complete Christianity. Can something like that be left to chance? Did Jesus pay the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea so Jesus of Christianity would have the Roman Empire military available for that Gods torture quest? Jesus is not some hippie, that he thinks he can get the Roman Empire military for free, is he?

[@CanuckNews-fv3qj]

source? cause most off the gospels we''re writing within the first century. the synoptic were written arond 40 -70 ad. most were written before the destruction of the temple in 75 ish. Since revelation also predicts the nero's persecution which lead to the deaths of Peter.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

@@CanuckNews-fv3qj My comment has more to do with the idea of an actual God that uses the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea on purpose for that Gods torture quest. I have read a lot from the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Just like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the D of I the phrase 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' Jesus of Christianity is a human created story God, not a Nature's God. Thomas Jefferson, and many Philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment, did not think Christianity was/is true.

[@thadofalltrades]

It wasn't left to chance, God guided the whole thing. The prophecies of Daniel predict an iron power being there when the Messiah comes. A very interesting way to read the Bible is that Satan is trying to prevent Messiah from coming and God is working to preserve the path to Messiah. One example is Satan tries to destroy the whole world with sin, God sends a flood and rescues a remnant.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

@@thadofalltrades So your Christian God guided the whole thing. The Christian God intentionally had the Roman Empire military, torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for the Christian God's torture quest? There are other ways of looking at the, so called prophecies, that they were interpreted from the Jewish writings and Jewish scholars will tell you that they were misinterpreted by the writers of the Christian Gospels. It was all a human creation of stories, created from the minds and imaginations of humans.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

@@thadofalltrades Jesus of Christianity is not a God or a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Just like Superman is a Supernatural Superhero, just like Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero and Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes and Supernatural Supervillains. A God would know about Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, Geography, etc.. A God would know about how to make things and economics and tell humans how to increase wealth instead of just telling poor people to give things to other poor people. A God know about natural ways to prevent disease and illnesses rather than heal a very, very few people with Supernatural faith healing. A God would know about the value of sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation, medication, etc. to prevent illnesses and disease. A God would know about inventions like the printing press and the value of books and reading. A real God wouldn't just walk around looking at all these people without the ability to read and write. Jesus of Christianity is not a God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero created from the mind and imagination of humans creating stories. How is it possible for a God to be able to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again and not tell us about how the body works? A real God would tell us about the natural world. A not real God would be a creation of human stories and would use the Supernatural in their stories. Remember in Star Wars, when Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star! That was fun. And completely imaginary. Jesus of Christianity is from Supernatural stories.

[@CharlesHillier]

Christ IS Reality. Reality IS Christ. Christ is the creator of all reality, both material and immaterial. Evil exists as a parasite on God's reality. It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Christ, and therefore Reality. It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Reality, and therefore Christ. Satan, though also dependant upon both, will submit to neither. He therefore says in John Milton's "Paradise Lost"... "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven... " The modern left also rejects Reality and insists it has the right and power to create its own reality, in opposition to both Reality and Christ.

[@BigBunnyLove]

Nope. Love your neighbor. Practice that maybe.

[@RickMcCargar]

One thing I never understood. For an eternity before creating humans, god always knew that one day he would create them, the knew that they would fail in exactly this fashion...and he did it anyway...only to drown all humans and animals in a fit of rage, saving only Noah's family and two of each creature. How does one slaughter almost all living things in a fit of anger, when one always knew the outcome? Anger requires surprise.

[@BigBunnyLove]

Nonsense, no one can know anything but themselves. These stories are fairytales for scared muppets who don’t want to die.

[@thadofalltrades]

It wasn't anger. Anger is never mentioned in the flood account. God sent the flood to preserve the way to Messiah because humanity was on the verge of annihilating itself. The earth was filled with violence and every imagination was only evil continually. Earth was in a very bad way. God rescued Noah from annihilation to ensure the pathway to salvation. Just the act of creating any free moral agent virtually ensures that one is going to fall. Having children myself helped me understand this a lot. I know with 100% certainty, though not specifically, that my child will suffer possibly horribly. Yet we still chose to have a child. The regret God feels for creating man is in empathy for the suffering they are experiencing in a world filled with violence. Just like I would regret having my child if they experienced extreme suffering in their life. The beauty of the plan of salvation is that the result is a universe where suffering and death will never rise again. God could have not created at all, just like I could have not had children, but there's a lot of joy in children. He could have created beings incapable of choice, but that would go against his character. The best option was to create free moral agents and manage the evil that would inevitably arise. The plan of salvation provides a way for it to be eradicated entirely from the universe, never to rise again. We will still be free moral agents, but no one will ever reject God again because the record of the cost is still there on Jesus's body for all eternity.

[@thadofalltrades]

Go back and read Genesis 6, there isn't any anger mentioned.

[@Crime_Mime]

Is it necessary to take the flood story as a literal "historical" event? There's a great deal of anthropomorphism in the OT about God, which the Holy Fathers insist are metaphors and not to be taken as human passions or defects. Just as God does not have a hand or a mouth or eyes, but these concepts can be applied analogously to God to express certain truths, so too concepts like anger or wrath or regret are used, but they are strictly metaphorical. I can pull up a bunch of sources if need be as they're very interesting.

[@thadofalltrades]

@@Crime_Mime Jesus seems to indicate it happened. Peter too.

[@NicodemusT]

Peterson is such a goof. Did you know this guy used to make content for TVO, a liberal tv channel in Ontario? You don't like that do you? Yeah, his content was very popular with liberals. I know you really want this strong intellectual, but what you have is a personal constitution that blows in the wind with whatever is popular.

[@MsUpptaget]

The content mathers not where the content is. What is your point?

[@huntz0r]

Are you suggesting Jordan Peterson is not actually a right-wing extremist Nazi?

[@BigBunnyLove]

@@MsUpptagetthis content is nothing but lies meant to confuse the stupid and terrified. No love. They don’t know Jesus or themselves. Know thyself! Did they talk about love once? Do they love their neighbors? That’s the god damned gospel! What are these foolish people doing? No. The church in America is a cult. They hate the least. They hate the other. They are such hypocrites. They chose their orange pumpkin god. Their BS is easily seen through for those who know themselves and live in the heart. Join us, the only real religion is love. The oldest one. They want a new Christian fundamentalism to lock in their power. Fools all, utter fools surrounding themselves with people who tell themselves what their itching ears want to hear. There is no such thing as holy books! Our truth is only found in our own hearts. Life is only real, when I AM.

[@AidanRKelly]

It’s not liberal versus conservative it’s truth versus falsehood. Who cares what tv channel he was on

[@AidanRKelly]

In what way does he simply conform to what’s popular? He seems to have been discussing roughly the same ideas for years, before his popularity and during popularity, as well as throughout harsh criticisms from many sides