I am a 54 year old Serb atheist from Belgrade. I do not for the world of me understand why would understanding religions better be dangerous for my atheism. I am glad more than I can say that I could learn from the learned people who know what they are talking about. And I can change my views in relation to the new stuff that I can learn without actually changing my world view. For example when I was 20 my answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?" would have been "No I do not". When I was 40 it would have been "Let us first define the words "God", "belief" and "existence"". Now at 54 I am very close to consider God as ideal which we should strive towards. I do not think that those changes changed my world view, but that I have learned to look at a very important notion (that of God) from different perspectives.
So you ask me to let you know just how I find this helpful. It's like this: you help me, encourage me, inspire me, and even force me, to put names and faces to the cloud of witnesses that swirl about inside my head. Thank you!
Paul I am enjoying your videos. It is helpful for me to hear someone with some theological knowledge add to what JP is saying. I will continue to listen. Thanks
It's helpful for us non-Christians to learn that just as Catholicism has Aquinas and Luther has Hegel, Calvin has the insights you have gleaned by attending to Peterson. We can no longer dismiss you all as unreflective fundamentalists.
regard them all as lost, though. if a man can change how you read the bible, you probably don't use the kjv bible, and you don't believe it. it isn't metaphor, although it does contain metaphors and 200 other literary devices, it is mostly literal. all of it. if you have fallen for evolutionsim, as psychology has, you're unsaved and need the gospel. the gospel that saves us today given by Jesus, via paul. let me test you, as all spirits should be, what is our gospel today???
Stephen Zevetchin Are you serious? If you can say, with assurance that a person is not saved, apart from their belief of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, you are on dangerous ground. And if my experience is serving me well, you are likely a Baptist. And while I find many common doctrines, particularly similiar culture, and political positions with the Baptist, and most likely the highest correlation with them and my certain denomination, I always found it funny...Baptists are so quick to call anyone who doesn't believe in "once saved, always saved" no sanctification, saved with one prayer, the end: UNSAVED. Yet they turn around and have never ending reasons to say why a person is displaying the fact they aren't saved. And it's usually some Christian with different doctrines then them, minor or not. Even if that doctrine is absolutely defended by said person with scripture, and likely with all honesty of intention. Whether or not the doctrine is correct. And so they are not saved. It's absolutely backward. And seems to be some psychological lack of faith driving it.
Thank you for this! I am a Christian, though it has been some time since I've been a church-goer. Hearing a Christian perspective on Dr. Peterson's work on the Bible - something that isn't automatically dismissive, but engages with his work critically - is incredibly valuable. The insights you're adding on top of his lectures increase my understanding - and also leave my brain spinning with the awesome amount of depth and wisdom that is hidden beneath the surface of the scripture, which I had always looked at through my modern protestant lens before. To me, looking at the Bible as literature, trying to see it from the point of view of the ancients, getting clued in however dimly to the deep archetypal truths that resonate from the narrative in the most primal parts of the human brain, is strengthening my faith and helping me know God. I've bookmarked many of the resources you talk about in this video, and look forward to exploring them. So - please keep going. This is so helpful.
Paul, if you made a commentary on the entire Bible, in this format, I think it would be the most successful Bible commentary of all time. I'd certainly go through the entire Bible with you. This is great stuff.
@@PaulVanderKlay True. A herculean task. Ok. Pick some of your favorite passages & make a few. I'll join your Patreon or other subscription, or give to your church to have something like that available. I guess what I'm saying is the way you handled the material in this video was extremely meaningful to me, and I'd love to see more like it. It came alive for me. I appreciate that you're very busy, however. If you've ever thought of doing something like that, though, I think there's a market for it.
You are mediating Jordan Peterson in a way that is very helpful. I love the multiple connections with other theologians and writers -- in finding and extending the patterns that JBP has introduced pushes back a variety of chaos!
As an ex-fundamentalist (who still loves Jesus) I can certainly relate with the pressure you felt from the literalist camp. It’s a challenging transition to be sure.
I've watched a couple of your videos now. I bit because I wanted to hear (more) actual Christians comment on JBP's biblical lectures. On the same subject different people express themselves in various ways and some voices get those bells ringing more than others. Also, you source well and give me some idea how Peterson might be doing his research. Oh boy, are you right one one thing though ... I can hardly talk to the "average atheist" out there anymore. Used to be one, but JBP really rescued the baby from the bathwater and it's like I get it now. I loved the precursor to the biblical series called The Resurrection of Logos. If you promise not to tell... in my more crazy moments I think that Peterson might just be doing that and if ANY of this takes of in an exponential way he could be the spark that reignites the breath of a modern Christianity across our entire Western civilization. And I'm beginning to think that might save us in the upcoming storm. Or there won't be a storm as our spiritual lifeblood begins to flow through our veins again. Honestly, three years ago I was looking at the world and hearing the various explanations as to why things are as they are (what's with the terrorism ?). The media and pc politicians just came up short, and I turned to other sources and they slowly but surely lead me to more and more Christian youtubers. That's when I began to See again, my Horus vision restored (if you get the reference?). Maybe a year ago I made peace with Christianity.
The crazy thing about being a human being is that we sit on a time line and can't see into the future. That lack of vision both frustrates and energizes. Watching JBP is like watching a real live Truman show. "How will it end?" I think about CS Lewis in this because Lewis in England wasn't CS Lewis of today. Most of the royalties he gave away. He worked feverishly with his brother Warnie to write back to all who wrote him. He died before his fame or impact really hit. We never know who will be consequential. In a way asking such questions is an indulgence of the ego. I think he's important because he's helping me piece together my world. I get excited and want to talk about other people with him. That's pretty normal human behavior. How large will his "cult" get? I have no idea at this point.
Neither do I, and I'm pretty sure JBP wouldn't want a cult for himself :) But like you state so well he helps by giving us some tools/perspective that can help us piece our world together. I'm happy for exactly that and I do my best to discuss his ideas when there's a chance. My particular problem with getting these ideas out there is that it's not going to be via the "religious route" ... at least I don't think so. Dunno if you've heard about those godless vikings from Denmark. Well, I'm kinda one and there's far between self-titled Christians around here ... though most Danes still largely act it out. What I like is that JBP explains the pragmatic, action oriented side of things and we don't have to quarrel with anyone over "the existence of God" and all that.
Thanks Paul, another great video. I am really valuing being reminded of the reformed tradition which profoundly shaped my thinking in the early 80s - not a usual theological source for an ordained Anglican in UK.
I love when biblical scholars help us understand the different translations of scripture, and also help us understand the culture of the time. This lecture was so much fun. It's just delicious! Thank you! I'm making my way through all of your lectures!
You keep mentioning that some of your friends are expressing concerns regarding your fascination with Peterson’s psychological significance of the Bible. Your exceptional insight that Peterson is engaging so many people because he is inadvertently straddling the atheist, naturalist and supernaturalist perspectives. In my mind, what you are doing is placing Peterson’s perspective decidedly within the Christian ethos. In other words, you seem to be presenting Peterson’s perspective as if he were Christian. Regardless of where Peterson ultimately falls, you are giving us his insights within the Christian perspective. With that in mind, I think your Christian friends should be thanking you for taking Peterson’s thoughts fully into the Christian realm. I would say that is why I appreciate your reinterpretation of Peterson. It gives me insights into their meaning from a theologically sound Christian perspective.
Great Job PVK. I grew up in a CRC here in Edmonton Alberta Canada. Have since drifted around through denominations just because. I'm not a theologian or pastor or anything. I think I came upon JBP about the same time as you and was enthralled with the Bible series and Maps of Meaning. I am finding it great to have someone with a Christian background talk on his lectures, I am excited to get to some of the areas you disagree with him or think he missed stuff, not because I disagree with him, but because I don't have the hard knowledge to catch that which he may have missed or got wrong. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Jeff. A number of other people too want me to get more contrastive with JBP. I'm still in the appropriation phase of my learning curve. I think I've got a handle on what the Bible is to him, which was why I could make a short video on it rather than another long one. JBP is playing around with a lot of elements in a lot of cultural/religious nexi in our current cultural landscape. One thing hooks into another. It's going to take a while for me to gain sufficient perspective. Thanks for your comment.
From a practicing catholic perspective, Dr Peterson supports and fills in what i believe as a catholic. Catholics have a well defined and ancient cosmology with god’s kingdom on earth in the middle (as envisioned in Middle Ages). Also, with a catholic understanding that one’s baptism and faith is not for oneself alone but for the benefit of others and for the greater Glory of God the father. This stems directly from the jews covenant with God the father and the community that newborns are circumcised into the people of God. So humans are baptized into the church as the people of God and are Christians. There is direct continuity from the jews before AD into orthodox and catholic and Coptic and Armenian churches. So, Dr Peterson fits very nicely into the overall understanding of God’s salvation history on earth.
Thanks for going through this. Your videos definitely scratches an itch for me. For the past several years I've been going through the book of Job over and over again and reading lots of commentaries and opinions. It has both baffled me and inspired me. Once I was able to get my head around the idea of chaos, thanks to Peterson and Jonathan Pageau, many things started to connect for me. Like the Leviathan at the end of Job to the watery chaos in Genesis 1. It's funny because I just recently have been going through and reading all the parts of the Bible that include dragons, monsters and sea serpents. Now I can broaden my reading to include snakes and jackals. What was also new to me in this video was the idea that when Moses threw down his staff it became a chaos monster. And that it ate the other chaos monsters!! Anyway, it's good to hear your insight in to all of this. So thank you. I'll be watching. :)
Glad it was helpful. Job is a difficult and fascinating book. The Bible is an outrageously honest book, something people who don't actually read it often don't understand. Preachers and teachers are in a way always trying to lower the resolution so that people can begin to grasp it. The low resolution representations are supposed to lead us into higher resolutions. (This resolution metaphor is another thing I got from JBP that I find amazingly useful). Keep at it. The Bible is inexhaustible. As I said it is THE MOST studied, dissected, debated book in all of human history and it still stands. JBP's treatment of it is a function of his honesty.
Absolutely. When I stumbled across JBP a bunch of things came together for me, one being the depth to his "secular" analysis. My parents became Christians when I was young, so I grew up as an Evangelical through the culture wars. The dividing line between the secular world and the sacred church was preached fervently to me, but I could never buy into it totally. If God was God, he needed to be God over the whole world, not just the church. So when I stumbled upon JBP on the Joe Rogan podcast, I immediately stared watching his lectures like a man dying of thirst drinks water. He was unifying the sacred and secular and he wasn't doing it as a "Christian" but as a professor! It's been brilliant to watch. Both the Christians and the Athiests have consistently been unable to do what JBP has done. Generally speaking, the Christians never took science seriously and dismissed it, and the Atheists never took religion seriously and dismissed it. Both sides had good points, but no one was bridging the gap. Now I feel like Peterson has made some serious inroads that will enable conversations like the ones in your videos.
I think what you are doing is great and please continue to do so. I'm am a person without any religious background and also found JBP and it has really turned my interested toward these ancient stories and their value throughout time. Scalable to even my individual life. I think connecting JBP's knowledge and understanding of the human mind and our psychology it really helps bridge that gap in time between understanding their culture and how it these texts can be applied to our modern day lives. As well, your theological knowledge of the texts, using JBP's lens to the modern mind, there is something quite captivating and compelling listening to you and learning about an ancient book I have much interest in, but have a difficult time reading and absorbing what it has to offer.
Just wanted to say that I really appreciate you doing this. I have been deep into JP’s work since his appearance on Rogan last November. I’ve been wishing I could speak with a pastor I trust at our church (MB community church outside Vancouver) about JP’s work as I’ve found it a gift from God but haven’t had s chance to speak with anyone who has closely followed his work. Please keep up the good work!
Most pastors in my experience are initially suspicious. Not all. Some of us are high in openness. I don't find that where a pastor is on the theological spectrum (liberal/conservative) necessarily governs how open they might be. As I mention in earlier videos Peterson cuts against the grain. He likes Darwin so he turns off those on the fundamentalists side. He isn't lining up with the ascendant morality so he is reviled by the religious liberals many of whom have bought lock, stock and barrel into progressive liberationism. He's been labeled as "alt-right" which is absolutely preposterous if someone would pay attention to what he says and does. Because of this there are real reasons pastors will be slow to adopt him. Associating with him would give many of them something to lose. Conservative pastors may like his stance against pronouns, and now freedom of speech is aligning with the cause of religious liberty but for many of them his association with evolution is a poison pill. The Christian Reformed Church is an outlier in some respects and since my church is small and used to diversity I probably have more liberty than most. I like Peterson am kind of an outlier too in that I've always been able to get along with both the left wing of my denomination because of my family's reputation on racial justice and the right because of my challenging progressive liberationism. So a lot of pastors are weary of JBP but as I continue my work on him I'm noticing a few beginning to warm. I also know that the possibility of making new relationships with people "seeking" is a big motivation for pastors. When I tell them that there are thousands of people with a renewed interest in the Bible their ears perk up. The Christian Reformed Church has a great history of holding the tensions between "the two books" of general and special revelation so there is a foundation for a pastor like me to build on and to appeal to.
Very interesting new look at the Bible. This discussion that includes a deeper look into human nature and the nexus of religion and psychology is really fruitful, to my way of seeing things. I had a smattering of Jung years ago, and remember his saying something about how Christianity(well this is my own very flawed memory and paraphrasing) was really not looking into tge dark side of human nature, and therefore not integrating the shadow. And, somewhere along tge line(i think Joseph Cambell) was talking about how religion needs to take whatever is new in society and fit it into a working mythology..something roughly like that. Well, this work of Jordan Peterson seems to be a great flashpoint for people trying to understand more and work on forming such a thing. This piece, from a christian theologian, brings in an important part. So, thank you.
As a Historian who always loved Mythology, you and Jordan peterson are helping me to unpack why I always felt this deep connection with the Bible and the Myths of old.
Thank you for drawing attention to ideas that are providing new insights into my own studies of ancient Near Eastern religious texts. In the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic, the chief god Marduk battles and defeats Tiamat, the great monster from the deep. Marduk takes her carcass apart and uses it to fashion the heavens and earth, creating order, purpose, and beauty from that raw material. The idea of intelligence produced from defeated and reordered chaos is powerful ... very interesting to consider the older material in relation to Ezekiel and the other OT writers who were priests in Babylon.
The vast majority of your comments are from listeners who welcome your reflections and seek more. Your gracious and informed manner has unwittingly gathered a youtube flock to shepherd, if you choose to shepherd us. I'm nervous that this will be a holiday fad, and other priorities will begin to push your ad hoc postings out of the way. I hope you are envisioning a regular Peterson commentary (once/twice a wk/month/x days), and perhaps draw us into ancillary texts that we can access in manageable intervals. I can't read Augustine, Postman, Haidt, Willard, etc in the instants you reference them -- but I trust your recommended materials and invite your guidance in grasping them.
Right now my mental "to-do" list on JBP continues to grow so I don't expect to disappear any time soon. I will not exclusively do JBP stuff as you maybe can tell already. I've got other interests. The YT experiment for me has been a success in that I'm learning the medium and finding it useful. I wouldn't have found or attached onto the JBP material if I hadn't already been interested in these topics before hand. I've long been trying to work on issues like these, the Bible and science, what is "belief", philosophy, history, etc. so my interests go far deeper than JBP. At the same time JBP came along and has proven to be such a fun "conversation partner". He, like many of you apparently, opened up a world of new ideas. I never imagined approaching these things like he has. There is a great quote by a former scientist in Bell labs who said something to the effect of "don't worry that someone will steal your new idea. If you actually come up with a new idea you'll have to beat people over the head with it for them to pay attention to you. I think about that a lot with JBP. He's got the right mix of smarts, education and stubborn (blue collar) obstinacy to not finally just receive a pat on the head. He is in some ways a religious zealot in that there is something driving him besides just normal sociology and socialization. He is a convert to his own religious perspective and as was said of Calvinists often he won't turn to the right or the left when he believes he's doing the will of "god". He's becomes a stumbling stone and he won't go away. I share your concerns about my capacity to keep this up. I've got a day job. In my experience stamina is directly related to the degree I can integrate my JBP videos with the needs of my local ministry. I also believe (and this is on my video to-do list) that at some point this movement will need to think about institutionalization. As I mentioned before, nothing changes without the individual, nothing lasts without institutions. Institutions create their own problems though because of the tension between dogma and openness. there are political institutions and academic institutions that Peterson is trying to change. In the wake of his work we are seeing a religious movement but there is no obvious institutional expression to that. Right now you might find it on reddit or FB groups, etc., or his "biblical series" lectures, but I am concerned for those lectures just as you are concerned for my videos. He's fighting a war on three fronts and as he's mentioned his health isn't good. When he said he'd try to do the Bible in 12 lectures I rolled my eyes. He didn't get out of Genesis and even that he just touched on lightly. The Bible is inexhaustible. It is THE most studied book in human history and that effort shows no signs of letting up. The oldest institutions in the world are the church. At some point if JBP's contributions are going to defy the age of decay his fans will need to grapple with this point. He's not going to be able to fight the legal fight, the academic fight and the religious fight all by himself and sustain it. So yes, your concerns not only about me but about the movement are warranted. My calling to my local church comes first for religious and economic reasons. Some have suggested I go the route of Patreon. Maybe, but I have issues with that. My channel is small so given the metrics I've seen from other channels I have doubts it could meaningfully compensate me compared to the church which is already institutionalized. Money and religious don't mix well often. Money sullies motivation too often for too many. In the church we have rules about this and they are important. In my tradition I am paid by my council. I don't own the church. I don't write checks. I don't make money decisions at church. That separation keeps me honest and helps the church feel their pastor isn't in it for the money. There are plenty of places in the religious would where things are bad because money practice is poor. A colleague looked at this and said "you could do this full time..." Well there is certainly enough work, but right now the numbers on YT aren't really there to support it. So for now it will likely have to stay a hobby with some ministry overlap. Long term? as JBP often says "only God knows..." :) thanks for your concern.
This is great. Chaos really opened up the Bible to me. Rather than putting everything down to good and evil having chaos as well really helps. What would be really useful is to hear about Jesus and water. Water to wine, walking on water, calming the storm etc. Is this all about Jesus teaching people to deal with chaos?
Finally there appears another voice calling out in the wilderness...besides JP...who seems to understand that God is bigger and more expansive than the small rooms (churches) he is traditionally assigned to. Great pleasure in the intellectual exercise of exploring psychosocial, and archetypal foundations, but it seems to me our spiritual essence, in its' final discovery, may be our most primal and important experience. In my understanding of who we are in the universe, it defines us and God.
Proverbs 23:23, veratas is not easy to come by, one must buy or haggle and work to obtain truth. But it can be recognized by the humble heart; one not prevented by ideology and hubris.
I've really been enjoying your videos. Dr Peterson has a donation tier on his Patreon where you can have a 45 min skype talk with him. There are a few questions i'd like to ask him, but I figured gifting it to you would be better for the overall cause. Please let me know if you'd like to have a chat with him. Thank you for your hard work.
that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of that. Hmmm. A number of people have mentioned a conversation. I'd certainly love a skype or a sit down with him but I don't know if I feel that my grasp of his whole religious agenda (I'm intentionally trying to keep to his religious meanderings, not so much the political or university side) is sufficient to make optimal use of that time. He's a busy guy so I'd want to have things super clear and my questions super "killer' if you will. I don't know that I'm there yet. This journey started partly because I was desperate to get CS Lewis into this conversation. This is something I still haven't done sufficiently but it's getting closer. I actually am working a plan, it's just that I've got a day job, a large family and a life that didn't afford this rather large 20+ hour a week "hobby". :)
Well, I can certainly understand all of that. I suppose it is a hobby if you're not making money from it...maybe ask the community, start a Patreon account...idk. You can see this conversation is resonating with many people. I really appreciate how open to discussion you are. I'm from the South, land of the literalists...Communication with a lot of these people is out of the question, but that's ok too I guess. I was reading Galations 1 about "am I trying to win the approval of human beings or God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of God." Anyways, when you were talking about who'd you like to speak with Jordan, I was thinking "I'd like you to, and I can make it happen!" lol no rush on anything and I wouldn't even make it super structured. Organic conversations are the best and both of you could talk for days...
I'm from the Sam Harris camp and it's true that there were some Harris fans who were pretty nasty to dr. Peterson, or those who defended him. Especially after their "debates", which didn't go too well. Mostly due to that first one, which was an epistemological torture, lol! It went so far that Sam Harris himself posted a video in which he argued against such dismissive attitudes. But, it's just inevitable, I guess, when people have large following. It was way, WAY worse when a subset of Harris fans discovered that not only does he not support Trump, but that he despises everything Trump stands for, ha ha! I think Harris and Peterson mostly had a failure of communication and are in fact much closer to each other's position than even they think. For me personally...an open-minded Christian like you, is actually a far more valuable discovery, than Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson. I've been surrounded by those kinds of characters all of my life. They only reinforce my biases. I know my Jung and Nietzsche. I have a decent handle on Physics and neuroscience. But listening to you has been something different. Unexpected. Fascinating, really! Hope your channel continues to grow, whatever the subject!
Hello, I am kinda surprised to hear Harris's supporters being upset for him not supporting Trump (or even being against him)... perhaps it has to do with what I saw in the comments below his Rubin Report video: namely, a disdain for his support of Hillary. (I didn't see the video yet, but it is in my "watch later" playlist and I read some of the comments before.) I'm a "fan" of Peterson, but I kinda didn't like the non-standard definitions of "true" and the such. Having thought deeply about it, it seems to me that it is about the axiomatic foundation... anyway... Funny story. I was listening to TH-cam in bed on my laptop when I fell asleep. I then woke up listening to a conversation between a guy (who I might have identified... I am not sure) and some guy railing on Russia. I eventually got up to see that it was Kasparov on Harris's podcast, "Waking up with Sam Harris". I thought that was funny.
David Herrera Yes, with some the issue was support to Hillary, even though Harris was perfectly clear on why he supported her. He had estimated (correctly so in my opinion) that Trump would be such a negative, divisive and destabilizing force that it justified the 'lesser of two evils' choice. That's a legitimate position, in practical terms, regardless of what one thinks of either Hillary, or Trump. Or of that position itself. Some, I think, were people who were new to Sam Harris, they were Trump supporters to begin with, and probably liked Sam's scathing criticism of Islam and the liberal identity politics, but they otherwise knew very little about his moral and political positions. Maybe they were far right contrarians who bought into the mainstream narrative, which still largely labels Harris as a Muslim hater, Islamophobe...etc. And then they were disappointed to find out that he's just a sane, moderate, liberal guy essentially. Not radical Left, but definitely not radical Right either. And definitely not anywhere near Trump. Anyway... that's the US politics and I'm not from the US, nor am I particularly interested in that sort of populist, day-to-day politics, and in the end, turns out that they were a loud minority. As for Jordan Peterson...I give him way more credit than Sam Harris does. I think he made some excellent points. Of course the truth issue that you mentioned bothers me as well. I find it preposterous and agenda-driven. The classic division between *is* and *ought* works fine and there is no need to confuse the issue. I also disagree with the importance Peterson gives to religion as such. I think he's being way too simplistic in describing what happened in the 20th century as the consequence of "the death of God". On one hand, the economy, the great depression, the collapse of the old world order resulting from WW1...etc. all played a much greater role and he completely fails to mention those factors. On the other hand, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism were largely intertwined with religion. Peterson completely ignores that as well. Regardless, he has rediscovered (mainly via Jung) the importance of wisdom contained in ancient myths. And he was making some great points in the second discussion with Harris. He also showed more willingness to compromise and respect the other side's arguments. Harris was too dismissive there. I felt he was too closed off to even consider Peterson's points and was mostly mocking around. Now, he's effective at that because he's so incredibly eloquent and expresses himself way more coherently than Peterson. Peterson is more on the stream of consciousness side. I didn't like that though, because it seems to me that they agree on so many things. I guess Sam just couldn't get over the epistemology and semantics. Not that those aren't important, but still...he was being too rigid about it, while there is value in what Peterson has to say. Happy New Year!! 😀
Happy new year to you as well. About the, "Maybe they were far right contrarians who bought into the mainstream narrative, which still largely labels Harris as a Muslim hater, Islamophobe" I don't think that even those who most people describe as such identify themselves as "Muslim haters". Maybe you were saying something else, but I think that those who would be inclined to like his position on Islam would have their gut feeling to be to take the mainstream opinion of Harris "hating Muslims" to mean that he had a reasonable position on the perceived problem of Islam. I might comment that I think that there would probably be a lot of people near the center who support Harris, with maybe a slant to the right because the Left has gone so far left recently. I find that the religious right would not support him (for obvious reasons) and the religious left would not support him because he calls out Islam and (I think that) he is not the biggest fan of the identity politics. Maybe I am misunderstood (because I spend very little time listening to him), but I think that his opinions go along the line of: Let's think of things reasonably and rationally (of course assuming humanism) and say religion is ridiculous wherever we find it. As for Peterson, I do not know why he does not interact with Italian fascism much. I am not too aware of the religious aspects of it, but I am sorta aware of some of the religious aspects of the Nazi movement. In particular, a distortion of the Christianity that was in Germany that was built by layers over years. There are Christian scholars whose name has been utterly soiled by antisemitism in Germany and the main example that I know of is the push to de-judi-ize the New Testament, by making it seem like Jesus was rejecting the Jews because of how evil the Jews were and even to try to ignore Paul (because Paul was really open about his past work as a devoted Jew and the like and how Christ came to fulfill everything that the Old Testament had said about Him. E.g. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,") and also using some of the condemnations of "the Jews" in the New Testament not as what it was intended, but as an attack on the Jewish people... which completely ignores the calls to humility and perseverance in the faith 'lest you also fall' in the face of 'the Jews' not following the Messiah in Romans 11 addressing the believers in Rome: "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree." In short, with any belief system it is easy to have as a foundation then to build resentment and hate upon.
About Peterson's views on true and real, I suppose that it is really the pragmatism that is the problem for me. I was telling a friend (who is an atheist interested in psychoanalysis that I introduced to Peterson because of the psychology) about Peterson's views on "true" and so at some point later, as I do with most of my conversations about that, I thought about it deeply and came to understand, I think, how the thinking works and it has to do with how pastor VanderKlay talks about the "top stack": For Peterson, it seems to me, he views story as the "top stack" and, as he has said, he talks about embracing the "logos" (the thinking, reason, person-aspect of us that goes into the chaos and makes order of it) [1] [2] and at the core of reality is this. So, if we happened to discover Science™ and it destroyed us, then it was not the correct view of the world. Upon writing this, I think that I found a problem with it and it comes back to free will. I think that having knowledge, even as a tool, does not determine what one does with that knowledge. This is emphatically the point that he says Nietzsche makes with respect to Nihilism. See [3] for some explanations of this idea and pay close attention to two things that happens to a person (who we can think of as the observer of the universe): The actual things/experiences that a person sees/experiences and what that person takes away from it. In particular, if we took the tools of science and we learn to manipulate the universe, then that does not mean that it is not true, in Peterson's sense or Harris's sense. It is how we interact with it that bears the burden of being judged as true, in Peterson's sense or Harris's sense. In particular, Harris's sense fits nicely in the first scenario and Peterson's scenario fits nicely in the second and the reason for this is, as Peterson discusses himself in [4], that spirituality/religion and science are essentially in different domains. And the reason that I think this is so is because of what he said about Nihilism: having a tool does not tell you how to use it. Just as "nuclear science" could be "not true" for destroying the world if it was a "cause" for it, does that mean that all necessary causes are to blame and to what degree do we blame them? I suppose that this opens the question of consequentialism [5] because there are necessarily multiple necessary causes that would lead to a nuclear apocalypse. For instance to consider the following line of actions that are each dependent upon each other: there is the development of distribution of labor, there is the development of civilization,there is the development of the Scientific Method, there is the formulation of various models of the atom, there is the development of Modern Physics, there is the focusing of Modern Physics on creating the atomic bomb, there is the actual production of the atomic bomb, there is the decision to use the atomic bomb, there is the decision of the individuals involved to undertake the use of the atomic bomb, there is the decision to react to dropping of the atomic bomb, and so forth until Kingdom Come. Now, the question is... why should any one of these stages be "untrue"? Because of the actions that they brought forth, when at the time that they are made them it was not foreseeable, necessary, or even probable that the end of our being will become of it? Is it not the understanding of Science that has led to the development of the modern world that Peterson is so happy about that raises hundreds of thousands of people above the poverty-line every year [6] , but yet if Science led to the destruction of the world that it would be untrue? I think that this view is technically defensible, because, axiomatically speaking, is a metaphysical assumption about the world: that what is "true" will bring about what is good, but I think that this ignores that with this knowledge, us destroying it might indicate that part of human beings are untrue. Peterson believes that Good is stronger than Evil [7](which I believe as well, but because I am leaning-Christian and God is absolutely stronger than anything evil done) and Good vs. Evil being the crucial way of looking at the world [8] and I suppose that this might be related to his beliefs, because if in fact Evil were comparable to Good or at times stronger, then why could it not destroy all our being and would not being or evil be the cause of its end? Maybe it's more complicated than just that Nuclear Physics is not "true"... I don't want to be dismissive. Another point that I have heard Peterson make is about the meaning of the word "true" is that he brings up that a sword can be described as "true", ... I don't like this. Saying that Peterson's perspective on what is "true" might just mean that he has different categories of meaning for his words and has something different at the center of reality, but that does not mean that he should use the word "true" for it... although for him that is what is indeed True (because of his foundations), but for most people today in the West, True is not that. I think Peterson should give a good argument for why his understanding of the word (pragmatic version, I suppose) should be the correct one.. Perhaps this is argued somewhere in pragmaticist writings, but I suppose that he could argue that although it is not a standard understanding of the term, it is the best way to understand that past with its traditions and great writers. Perhaps some of the traditions can be understood that way, e.g. Walton apparently argues that that is how the Bible was conceived and perhaps something like that is what is meant when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes unto the Father, except by me.", but I am skeptical of people bringing in definitions of words that are, let's say, non-standard for us today... if they do not make a good argument for why they should be used that way. Even if the word in time-past used to be understood that way or could have been understood that way, it is not now understood that way except in very few situations... since language is how we understand the world... perhaps Peterson was trying to argue for why it should be changed, which might be defensible. I think that Peterson argues for this with respect to "made up words"... but perhaps he has a different understanding than I do of this idea. I am planning on reading Orwell's article on how words are manipulated in politics and another link that Peterson linked to on his Twitter [9]. [1] A description of Logos: th-cam.com/video/i1e2DfwN5oQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MCzerna I haven't seen: th-cam.com/video/KVo5hq64B2M/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson yet, but I would guess that he spends a lot more time flushing out his idea of Logos. [2] The question at 57:37 - End of th-cam.com/video/_UL-SdOhwek/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson [3] th-cam.com/video/XW-2D9d-Rlw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheArchangel911 th-cam.com/video/lCYxSenyjQg/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Bite-sizedPhilosophy [4] See 1:13:53 of th-cam.com/video/gqVopVh8hWQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson [5] th-cam.com/video/POw5xCFveD8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MissingTheMark [6] twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/853019946250510336?lang=en [7] th-cam.com/video/IQyDW0y-KiI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=picc1001 [8] th-cam.com/video/oFxyS6rqeoo/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=DoseofTruth th-cam.com/video/nepSpemqGvg/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ManOfAllCreation [9] www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/ quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/ Have you seen the video of Peterson with Jonathan Haidt: th-cam.com/video/4IBegL_V6AA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson ? I think that it discusses the role that religious behavior (religious meaning primal religious, not complicated and complex religions like what is often meant by "religion", but the natural and foundational structures that those religions are built upon.) play in seemingly non-religious people. One might include also even the experiences that even atheists and the like would include as "religious", but without calling it that (Like how Hitchens talks about looking at the universe in awe). I think that Peterson's opinion about religion is interesting. I agree with pastor VanderKlay in how Peterson views Scripture. Also, I tend to write/think in stream-of-consciousness.... which might be partly why I like Peterson. I suppose that in that case it would be a preference... or maybe I am just unaware of my preferences and like Peterson for other reasons (and I have other reasons for liking him as well).
David Herrera Yes, see this is exactly the thing, all of this which bothers you and throws you for a spin is precisely because he's assumed the Praagmatis position. And it is not even the position of all Pragmatists. That's why I said that it was agenda-driven - Peterson himself says that scientific (objective) truths and moral truths are NOT the same. Then he proceeds to merge those two as if they WERE the same. And I feel he honestly wants to merry the two. But with that move, he paints himself into a corner, because he assumes a contradiction. That might work in Metaphysics. But it doesn't work in Physics. And since Physics is obviously more fundamental - it comes first, the Metaphysics must follow it. Right? In other words a metaphysical claim must be true for the Physics...and then some. Beyond that. That's where his argument falls apart unfortunately. Everything up until that point is fine. I understand that he must be emotionally attached to his maps of meaning, I mean he's been working on it for 30 years. But, man...if it ain't so, you can't just wish it to be. He's going to have to give some ground there. Actually I think he's already doing just that, from what I can tell. What IS and what OUGHT to be are not the same thing. Potential and realized potential are both real in a sense. But they are not the same. Also realized potential is "more real", let's say. Another thing. My degree is in Physics and Math. I heard him say that some Physicists still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation. In short...that is simply not true. In fact, even back when it was a "thing", it never really meant what he believes it meant. Consciousness was never part of the act of observation. Not even Bohr and Heisenberg believed that. And we've come a long way since them.
I'm late to the party but this is great video. What is the software you use to compare the Bible in your various videos? Seems very useful. Also, how long would you say it takes to learn Hebrew? I learned Greek bible and Latin, but Hebrew seems to be a totally different thing. Thanks.
The term 'naked' means acting without God, ignoring God, acting contrary to God. It applies to Adam and Eve but mostly it applies to Noah's ungodly conduct after the Flood. If you want the Hebrew sermon that explains this I will provide the citation. Naked does not mean physically naked or nude. Tohu and Bohu refers to the unformed nascent world, the unperfected world. Our world (now) is still being created, perfected and revealed according to the Hebrews. Tohu Bohu also applies to the the term Tikkun, or Final Tikkun, the final perfection, or repairing of the world because we are still in Tohu Bohu - an imperfect world being formed - fashioned - by the Jews. Again, I can provide the citation to explain the Hebrew which is not taught at any Christian seminary just like the 4 Hebrew metaphorical meanings are not taught to the Gentile. -- Great video.
I fell like you let all several question open. What does it mean god create the see-monster? Can god create Chaos? Wasn't chaos already there in the beginning? And what is a about the serpent-devil connection? So many question, so few answers!
1:30 - When both religious and atheists get anxious about JP that means that JP is onto something. Now, the idea that we are observing the reality in a manner that is affected by what we decide to observe still applies in how we want the reality about interpreting the Bible look like. Meaning that while I do like the new idea of interpreting the Bible from the perspective of human psychology, I do want to keep in mind that it is easy to cross the boundary between symbolism and realism and conflate the two. To me, a symbolic Jesus is much more powerful than a real historical figure. A real historical figure is bound by the laws of reality and be humanly flawed so I cannot muster myself believing the miracles performed in the Bible as being objectively real. Maybe there was such a person or maybe more than one but this should be irrelevant. Once I understood Jesus reality as archetype, I could see myself taking the role of Jesus (following Him) in my own life so that every day and every action and choice I make is a very important one with important consequences, maybe becoming Christian again. And this looks clean, more realistic to me, free of the superstitious mumbo-jumbo (I've been there). So I went to church these past days and ponder about things and what I noticed is that the priests' sermons are still heavily anchored in the belief of real material existence of historical Jesus, which is the conflating of symbolism with reality, and in the context of Biblical reality, it looks as a kind of a materialistic interpretation of the Bible. Maybe the "thou shalt not make yourself an idol" refers to that too.
You're working the same problems I am. I haven't addressed them directly in the videos yet but in many ways I think this is near the core of the JBP puzzle. Where I got with this is CS Lewis (in his quasi Platonism) because when it comes down to it (I think he finally reverses the polarity of Platonism) a real apple is in an important way more real than the form of "apple". In that case isn't a real Jesus, the true myth, who finally both transcends a locked room AND eats fish more real that an idea of Jesus that must only be an idea. This is the crisis of Arwen in (movie version) of LOTR. Will she embrace a physical marriage to a real king who will die or take her love, as her father bids her, over the sea and keep it merely platonic. It is the question of church vs. "in my head Christianity" , the question of porn vs. marriage. JBP keeps saying "act as if it is real". Well, isn't that what all fandoms do? Isn't actually believing it is "real" and physical, even at the risk of delusion, more so than that? Thanks so much for your comment, transparency and probing insights.
Oh this is an interesting find. I'd never heard of this. Fascinating. I'm going to have to look into it. I wish the YT comment engine made it easier to keep up with threads. Too often I run through the comments to respond to things but can't dig back low enough to find replies. This is a gem. Thanks. pvk
John Allen Rayner Hilles and Paul VanderKlay Wikipedia summery of the book says "we must act 'as if' moral laws were laws of nature because of our non-physical consciences". What if conscience is to humanity what wetness is to water? If we are the molecules of water, wetness would be transcendent to the individual water molecule. Water properties are transcendent to the individual water molecules. Life on earth is water based which is many layers beyond the water molecule realm of existence. Transcendence may not necessarily be only non-physical.
John Allen Rayner-Hilles I understand using etymology when translating old texts like the Bible or creating ambiguity of meaning in poetry. But I don't see it useful on accurately describing contemporary concepts. For example the word "conscience" is as contemporary as the word "internet" or "youtuber". Etymology is not a useful tool in this case. Am I missing something?
John Allen Rayner-Hilles That's an awesome concise exposition of development of the notions of Nature/God. At least that's what I understood from it. I went through it all once but I don't think I assimilated everything. It's definitely an interesting type of analysis but I see it only as an analysis of what people believe and not an analysis of what things are. That's why I am not convinced that studying the history of how language and concepts changed over time gives us clearer insight on the reality of consciousness. Here is an example to better illustrate: the word "atom". What we understand by it currently is not the same as what Aristotle did. And it is not even the smallest indivisible fundamental particle of matter either, as the etymology of it suggests. If there was a time machine and somehow Aristotle came by the current descriptions of the atom he'd have a hard time believing it. Yet it is more real than what he could have imagined. If the physical reality below us is much more complex than what our minds can conceive, how are we able to accurately understand transcendent objects? Unless we devise a scientific method to investigate, philosophizing might only be good to devise ways of how to relate to such notions.
As an atheist, Peterson has helped me to see the bible in a different light. I don't understand the comments by people saying that Peterson has led them to Christianity. Peterson does not believe in the Christian god the way Christians do (As as a more or less omnipotent conscious entity with will and agency). He only really argues for the utility of religion. When pressed whether he believes, he won't speak plainly about it, and gives non-committal answers. He is an Atheist in my opinion (does not believe in god).......... I am happy that he is getting recognition. His speech here on YT "Tragedy vs Evil" is a good summation of many of his long winded lectures.
You're working the JBP triangle, the one that's acting like a generator producing the power of this conversation. "what is he? Does he believe in 'God'? Can you say someone "believes" if they use scare quotes?" Oh my. Will Jim and Pam get together??? How about Sam and Diane? What will come of Luke and Laura? th-cam.com/video/6gqoeqOxfO0/w-d-xo.html JBP is devilishly coy! :))) Love it!
Just wanted to comment about your view on the video you posted about the office. "Our sub-personalities watching it play out". It was insightful. Whether Peterson is a deist, theist, or atheist, I have never heard him speak about god in terms of the supernatural. He only seems to get into the psychological and evolutionary underpinnings of god and religion. It's what I think of as god and religion as being "culturally symbiotic" with our biologic evolutionary development. Between that and Jonathan Haidt speaking about moral foundations for conservative vs liberal, I have come to have a deeper appreciation for arguments from both sides, and pity for those who are ideologically possessed. Keep up the good conversation.
It's hard to know if Peterson is holding this line on "the supernatural" because. 1. he's intentionally keeping his comments to the psychological and "rational" as he keeps saying he is, even while he also says he resists reductionism... 2. This is a firm line in his own heart 3. Belief is something he continues to ponder and flirt with. I'm reading Jung and find the same ambiguities in him. JBP channels Jung often in his Bib Ser. this is exactly what JBP says he is and does. I find no duplicity in him. This draws a lot of us to him because we want to know "his he or isn't he..." Will Pam really break up with Roy and get together with Jim? Will Truman break out of Christof's fishbowl? Oh the drama! :)
This idea of chaos in the Bible as separate from evil, combined with JBP’s necessity of chaos is an interesting insight. The same may apply to struggle, suffering, growth, etc. and perhaps how these might be part of the new heaven and earth. OTOH, doesn’t the Bible say there will no longer be a sea, the symbol of chaos?
JBP is a reason why I'm making the effort to get back into Christianity - starting by reading the bible whole (and as I learn more, I assume I'll be reading it sporadically after). I suppose a significant reason behind my lack of faith was due to my church experiences and seeing religion portrayed as a self-serving mechanism, and not in a fulfilling way; the church, to me, became a place that signified people wanting to absolve themselves of responsibility. Not to mention how people take the crude interpretation of religion in general and run with it. Instead of having a penchant for wisdom we're so obsessed to have God fix everything - hoping to be blessed so that we don't have to deal with life. Incidentally, I think religion will eventually have to reconcile with rationalism, and ideas that correspond with evolution are going to be hard to ignore. The innateness of what the bible propounds, as you describe, being something to consider. I think science and religion are probably one of many false dichotomies that we've come to garnish.
Thanks for doing these videos, pastor. Having a multiplicity of points of view on YT about the subjects Prof. Peterson touches on is fantastic. Since you are very interested in the concept of Chaos, I would recommend you watch one of Prof. Peterson's lesser known lectures, although it's one of his best in my opinion, titled: "The Psychology of Redeption in Christianity". He touches on the subject of Chaos in Exodus. You can find it on YT.
Thank you for your insightful break down of Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series. I have been a bible believing Christian for twenty five years and believe the the Bible is at its lowest resolution a very good story of man struggle with the good and evil that resides within all of us. However the Bible is a very complex many layered document that one can spend their entire life studying and very truly never have a complete understanding of. I have looked into a lot of different interpretations from the Genesis story though out the years including Serpent Seed doctrine and Astro-theology and the Mystery Schools. While I can study these ideas without taking then as true gospel, there has always been one part of all these ideas that has haunted me. In Genesis one there are people or some kind of human, but these humans were without consciences or the knowingly good and evil. In Genesis two the Gods do something to these creatures. I believe they mixed their DNA with the humans and created something different maybe a slave race. In Genesis 3:22 after the encounter with the serpent the Gods declare that man has become as one of us, to know good and evil. I’ve always wondered who is “us” that the Gods are referring to. Scientists and scholars say the man lived on the land as nomadic people without complex social order and then suddenly about six thousand years ago these nomadic people created very complex cities and governments starting the Sumerians. Darwin says man evolved from chimpanzees but they have never for any evidence for this. The fossil record should be littered the the record of this but they can’t find anything. However if someone messed with whatever was here and made a change to the DNA and imparted the the necessary knowledge to creat social order where none had existed. To me this makes more sense, that being said I don’t believe in aliens visiting this planet. These so-called aliens are not extraterrestrials but Inter-dimensional or fallen angels. Any thoughts that you have on this would be appreciated. I have enjoyed JPs lectures and have listen to all of them several times and have gained great insight into myself and my relationship with God.
Matt Corriere You may understand the bible to an extent, but you obviously have absolutely no understanding of biology, evolution or the fundamental evidence of both. Please stop trying to drag us back to the 18th century. You can believe the bible all you want, but it doesn't make the realities we have come to recognize any less true. You have to reconcile your book to a geology over 4 billion years old, a biology nearly as old and a cosmology far older than that. Not the other way around.
Thanks for the question. If you google "divine plural in genesis" you'll get a list of explanations from various traditions. The same is true for some of the other very interesting features of the early Genesis stories including the "sons of God" mating with the "daughters of man". Some of your other ideas as you know are pretty far outside the mainstream. Ancient texts are in a sense dislocated by virtue of time and loss of information (see John Walton's comments in the video I link on the Gen 1 conversation) while at the same time they are kept alive by different communities. These texts in a sense stay alive in those communities so it's often good to reference those communities in reading the text. I'm not a scientist when it comes to evolution and DNA but I suspect the discovery that we share a lot of DNA with other species is significant. Far more is known today about our DNA relationship with other creatures. How DNA changes over time is obviously a big part of this story and I'd recommend if you're interested in that question to talk to someone who has some expertise in it or do some reading. Other than that I really don't know much about it.
"Darwin says man evolved from chimpanzees but they have never for any evidence for this." Darwin did not say that but that the humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
You said every translation is an interpretation, but for the most part I don’t see that as true. Peter wrote of how no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (ones own interpretation). In peter’s Day there was private interpretation... even the Pharisees and sadducees privately interpreted the OT. Either a translation is a good one or a bad one. Personally I use KJV a lot bc I’m used to it, but I prefer the NASB for OT, the NWT for the gospels, and the WT for the NT writings. This is not because I want to form the word to my beliefs, but in my experience rightly dividing the Word of truth those are the most valuable translations I’ve found.
There is no substitute for reading the text in an original language. Translations are helpful tools. Different translations illuminate some things and obscure others. The KJV has its benefits but also some liabilities.
I’m only trying to point you to the Word. The word “tohou”:”without form” is used in Isaiah 45:18 and translated as “vain” in the KJV. This is enlightening because Genesis 1:2 says “and the earth WAS without form”, but the word “was” in Hebrew is the word “ hawyaw”:”to be or to become” this gives room for dinosaurs, prehistoric people, ancient civilizations, and the fall of Lucifer and his angels which caused darkness upon the face of the deep. I love you man, I’ve only watched 39 min of your video, but I will Finnish it later.
thank you again Paul!!many Blessing from the South Pacific-------Aotearoa New Zealand.................om a side note, when the Bible came here my people, The Maori, took on the gospel with its story of forgiveness having a major impact as we had lived by an act of UTU/Revenge. There is a lot more to it than that though;)from pre Captain Cook prophecies of a new good God coming(with bad followers lol) to how the Word spread among our nation in the early years prior to the Government turning on us and the treaty we had.
Senor VANDERKLAY let me go ahead and potentially put you in that proverbial box...... Did you believe in the general theory of evolution? What of evolution do you accept as a theory of biology? What, if anything, has changed in your take on the theory? Has JBP changed your stance towards these concepts? What do you think of JBP's take on the theory?(considering he has claimed that Darwin's theory is as solid, or more solid, than Newtonian physics!?)
I quite like the idea that God is not an all powerful being but one who can only operate within certain limits and is trying to reach out to us within the confines of these limits -this would explain a lot of things such as why there is evil in the world -God is trying to minimise this evil and he can only do it with our co-operation and good will.
Paul VanderKlay The debate may be fierce, but I believe the OT and NT is metered in heptameter from Genesis to Revelation. Another believer and I have been doing some amature work on the subject, and we believe we've found some profound and consistent patterns.
I read some of criticism of JP around archetypes. That Because he uses archetypes in his biblical understanding, that he is giving the same value to all religions archetypes. Which i can understand with his constant interjection of Taoism and Buddhism. But i dont see it that way. It is clear to me that some archetypes are valid figures to interpret the world through, And that some archetypes are just not valid, and never will be valid, figures to interpret the world through.
If serpent is a creature of chaos, how would you square that with the Christians equating it with Satan? Is that still the case? I know it was when I was a Christian. I can understand why they would, but in that case, the interpretation of the snake in the garden of Eden as a creature of chaos, seems unattainable to me.
I'm going to get into this in subsequent videos. It's actually very complex in the Bible partly because it's mostly symbolic. There is a lubrication on the symbolic world that there isn't in the physical world or the theological/philosophical/rational world. These are tough transitions to navigate.
Paul VanderKlay Ok, thanks! I'll definitely stay tuned. Peterson is approaching it psychoanalytically and in that sense, the serpent is indeed chaos, which humans are tempted by due to our inquisitive nature. As the result, we learn (the tree), and self-awareness emerges (the fall). With Satan, he goes full on Jungian, with the shadow and our emergent understanding of the malevolence we're capable of. I'm interested in the Christian perspective. The deeper, the better! Can't wait for the next video, and especially the one where you'll be focusing on the disagreements. Once again, you're doing a fantastic job...I'm so glad I found this TH-cam pearl!! 👍👍
Great video, Paul. I've been watching your videos as religiously (pun intended) as I have JBP's. Do you have a Patreon account? I would be more than happy to throw some money your way to compensate you for all the time you put into producing this content. Cheers.
My wife wants me to. I'm still on the fence. I need to talk to my church council first. This YT channel and following was rather unplanned and I don't want to surprise my "boss". :) They are supportive but when it comes to money people get weird.
It's lovely to behold your passion, enthusiasm and sweetness, thank you for making these videos. As an orthodox Jew, I would like to make sure it is understood here (perhaps I misunderstood you, if so, apologies) that it is absolutely axiomatic in Judaism that God created the world ex nihilo, from nothing, that both heaven and earth came into existence through Divine creation. Thinking that there was matter already in existence and God made the best world possible given the material available, is Pagan thinking and it denies the absolute power of God and denies free will of man, which God granted us and hence undermines morality and our purpose of being. In the beginning, created God the heaven and the earth... בראש׳ת ברא אלהים
In the next video in this subseries I'm going to get more deeply into the Gen 1 text. All three of the Abrahamic religions see God as the ultimate source not only of the ordered world but also the physical world. What is interesting is how God speaks through the ancient worldviews to ancient people leading scholars like John Calvin to conclude quite reasonably that if a being as different from us as one capable of creating this world would be, would decide to communicate with us meaningfully then that being would need to do so in a language we would understand which would be within a cultural framework. That's the long answer. The short answer is yes.
I'm going to sneak in here ... this is 2020 Bill Timmons watching a 2017 PVK video. This is after reading Rene Girard, Jung, Walton, Jesus ... and watching Vervaeke videos. The old PVK is just as good as the new PVK. Another sneaky point .. I gave a thumbs up to put the like count at an even 300 ... can't stand 299 likes. The "300" is much better symbolism.
Eph 22.2 refers to the devil as the prince of the power of the air. Bears wouldnt be chaotic if the man never ate of the tree. Infact all that God made and created was very good (Gen 1.31). The man bought the knowledge of evil with his dominion and God's image, thats why he died spiritually the very day he ate of the tree (Gen 2.17). The devil has dominion, and Jesus, knowing God's Word never disputed that according to the gospel records concerning his being tempted in the wilderness.
The Bible is not a jumble of chance accretions, it is a masterpiece of literary design. The genome is not a jumble of junk DNA accreted during blind evolution that is housed in little blobs of jelly, it is an astonishing multilevel code that adaptively directs micro-cities. We find what we expect, until we are overwhelmed by what we didn’t.
Can anyone suggest a critique of Peterson by a Christian conservative? I am interested in a perspective that voices a concern to the Christian, Evangelical type. Want some balance, I have been kind of all praise, despite my convictions that Peterson is way off with his complete idol worship at the Darwinian Stump.
Part of the struggle is figuring out which kind of conservative. Esther O'Reilly is pretty conservative. The Gospel Coalition has done some writing on him. Bishop Baron has a video on him. That's just it. Jonathan Pageau is hardly "liberal" but Orthodox and RC and Protestants will all have their own angles on him and won't agree. CT did a podcast on him on Quick to Listen which I thought really was fair and balanced.
For my grandfather, Sea Monsters were just as real as Kamikaze planes. I did a little research on his ship and his deployment records. The amount of "Real Danger" that ship went through, and he still claimed that 200 foot long sea serpents were also "Real".
25:25 "Why does God let the serpent in the garden?" -Obvious, testing the integrity of character of the Humans whom he warned not to eat of the tree of good and evil. 25:39: "Why does God let a tree in the garden?" ... Because gardens tend to have trees and or shrubs of some sorts? You obviously meant serpent rather than tree, however, I implore you to be more mindful of your words.
My wife implores me more, and she has a lot of clout in my life for obvious reasons and yet it doesn't help. I'll have to tell her to come into the comments to commiserate with you. :) There is a very large debate in the CRC and Calvinism in general between infra-lapsarianism and supra-lapsarianism. It gets into these questions about the position of God with respect to tests and outcomes. Gen 22 is a landmark text for that. What was it about this test. Did God want to know? Did Abraham want to know? "Obvious" lives in keep of a tribe. :)
I think the view you are applying in interpreting the two questions is too much based on a literal meaning of the text. Because God is unknowable and infinite, your attempt at anthropomorphizing God (" ... testing the integrity of character of the Humans") you end up boxing God into a small neat concept that you (us) can comprehend and possibly conflate that image with God. Thus you commit a breach of the 2nd commandment "thou shalt not make any graven image". I'm not saying I'm right but it can definitely be interpreted that way so you could also be wrong. And that is the biggest problem with working with symbolism.
dan pasare, use the individual's name, to address whom you are directing your statement to. Assuming you were trying to aim at me(and not Paul), God testing the integrity of Adam and Eve's character, is not a reflection of him not knowing the result, but one of giving them the option to fail. The opportunity to choose between *eternal life* and painful strife aka *sin* (which we've inherited as result of their choice).
Lin Yen Chin sorry, my "reply" from computer does not add the name automatically as I assumed. Yes it was to you. I still don't think that the literal interpretation gives any deeper insight to what the story tries to convey. I'm trying to compare it with reality and there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not. Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it. Saying that "God tested Adam" is too literal an interpretation, a slippery slope that leads to further view of the Bible that makes atheism correct.
dan pasare: "...I still don't think that the literal interpretation gives any deeper insight to what the story tries to convey."-Woah there speedy, what ya got a.d.d? "literal interpretation" in the context of your statement, it seems to mean what I would call "face value", if so, then know that the *face value* is just the opening layer, a gateway to a contextually dense expression of ancient people(s). It's not a matter of either you take it "literally" or "allegorically," it is both and more. You shouldn't let the impetuous zeal of youth(or this modern age) pressure you to race by and through a thing. Chew your food properly, this is how you extract otherwise indigestible substance, things that would pass through your system without nourishing it's growth. "Saying that "God tested Adam" is too literal an interpretation, a slippery slope that leads to further view of the Bible that makes atheism correct."-Noise of flailing confusion, frantic and misplaced passion, where calm concentration of authentic attention should instead be. dan pasare: "I'm trying to compare it with reality and there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not. Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it." 1: Reality is absolute for reality is the point of no beginning nor ending yet is the beginning and ending to all other points. How much contemplation have you done in regards to the transcendental nature of reality? I fear you do not yet realize that reality is beyond the mind while the mind is well within reality, and yet, every fragment of the mind contains the fullness of reality. Reality is not only indivisible, infinite and one whole, but not subject to the limits of mind aka "consciousness". 2:"there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not"-Then why go to school, why take dance, martial arts, art lessons, study language, learn about nutrition and all the other things that one is naturally curious of, if not to develop consciousness? 3:"Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it."-What is this "us"? What is "Consciousness"? What is this "knowledge"? I fear it is not you but common culture, generic "talking points" that are droning away at me, and perhaps at many other strangers over the net...this mental flailing of your mind of habit aka "subconscious" through the overwhelmed mind of volition or so called "conscious mind" is not without reason. You seek answers to questions you are either too lazy and or confused to form, or too proud to realize you haven't properly contemplated(as the answers would become self evident). Contrary to common newage and even some branches of Yogic culture(fallen to stupidity), consciousness is neither your fundamental being, nor is it infinite, it begins and ends with/within reality aka infinity or truth, also called perfection, or *God,* any term that denotes *absolute* is reference to it. Yes, consciousness is fundamental, but it's only mental, it is the primary pulsation of duality out of which "the myriad things"(that which is finite, that which is falsely referred to as 'reality'...) are made manifest. Consciousness is not merely the narrow band of meaning which is commonly described by most, it is not merely one's sense of self and or identity. It is most certainly not merely an emergent property of matter, even brain matter, in fact the brain and all other material structures are an emergence of consciousness, as I stated before that consciousness is fundamental in manifesting all else that is finite. As reason would tell you, from the diverse array of organisms which dwell within our world, the brain is a recent evolutionary adaptation of the nervous system, both of which exist as mediums of control for the mind over it's materialized form. In a similar way, attention and awareness born of it, are mediums with which the spirit directs the mind. We are of the spirit, the mind and it's materialized form are just products of sequential emergence in the expression of spirit. With my above assertion(s), taken "literally", one can see that it is not: "Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it." but: "Consciousness just happens through and for us, and with it, the knowledge of good and evil arose."
Paul, don't worry about what to do, as you and Calvin know, it's all been set in fate before the foundation of the world. Predestined by that grand chain of gold. Is this not the Presbyterian butter for your Reformed bread, as it were?
So many good things in this world to give our time to. We are richly blessed and live in a marvelous moment on planet earth! :) Thanks for giving me the time you did. You honor me with it.
I listened to every word of this video, and what I can say is that you have not addressed the most important question, "What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?" As a corollary to your quandary, "What was the Goal the Spirit was leading humanity to at each point of the Bible?" In terms of the meaning of the Torah, allow me to refer you to _What's in It for Me?: Finding Ourselves in Biblical Narratives_" by Rabbi Stephen Lewis Fuchs. Rabbi Fuchs was kind enough to allow us to publish his book in its entirety at Jung dot Guru, under the tabs "Morality" "Religion" "Books", where you can find it for free. It is also available as an audible book. Your discussion falls into the same trap that religious discourse has fallen into for centuries (as your discussion demonstrates), which is that it bases itself on rationality. But, as the schisms and schisms for centuries have demonstrated, and you have recounted here, you can slice and dice religion down in too many ways to count, but never reach the essence. Why is that? Dr. Jung explained it succinctly in ¶752 of _Answer to Job_ as follows: "But religious statements without exception have to do with the reality of the psyche and not with the reality of the physis [physical world]." As long as you base your argument on rationality, as a lawyer might, you do not address the first question in this response, which is the only question that matters.
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group What I hear is a person operating within the framework of a religious paradigm attempt to share his journey through the chaos of extra-rationality. Which could be the inexplicit goal of the spirit.
Your comment is fair enough, and the point is well taken. In the sense that The Creator took several hundred million years to develop creatures with consciousness, it is fair enough that theologians have already taken two thousand years to create an infinitely complex matrix of rational arguments, such as Pastor VanderKlay has presented to us. But, since I come from Dr. Jung's environment, I have to point out that all rational arguments do nothing to elucidate the nature of The Living God. To quote from ¶63 of Dr. Jung's _Aion_ (_Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 9ii), "Such criticism [here rational argument about the opinions of historical figures] has as little effect on the object [The Living God] as zoological criticism on a duck-billed platypus." I will point out that biologists in the 21st Century do accept the notion that Evolution occurred by leaps (sometimes), not just pure random accident. Here I am simply trying to help Pastor VanderKlay have the insight that rational argument, regardless of how many editions of the Bible used and scholarly commentaries uncovered from ancient times, do nothing but muddy the water and distract from The Living God. The one thing I will take on Faith is that Pastor VanderKlay himself has had an experience of The Living God, but these arguments have not clarified The Living God's nature here. I hate to have to be so stark in my response, but I have no choice. The time has come for well-meaning theologians like The Reverend VanderKlay to revivify their religions, or their steady decline will simply continue unabated, because they cannot survive in the rational world of science. The Pope understood the peril when he called Galileo up before the Inquisition 600 years ago. Little has changed, and the development of science finally caused Friedrich Nietzsche to opine at the end of the 19th Century that "God is Dead." It took Dr. Jung, himself the Son, GrandSon, and Nephew of a bevy of Reformed Pastors, to actually find The Living God, and point to His actual whereabouts.
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, "Wondrous Prose: Well Oft Spoken!" Given, that you, "come from Dr. Jung's environment" and I don't - would you please elucidate the following terms, in, "Dr. Jung's" worldspeak, and their similarity or dissimilarity to each other: [1] 'The Living God' (taken from, "regardless of how many editions of the Bible used and scholarly commentaries uncovered from ancient times, do nothing but muddy the water and distract from 'The Living God'"), [2] 'The Creator' ("The Creator took several hundred million years to develop creatures with consciousness"), & [3] 'The Holy Spirit' ("What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?"), and if you can, do please answer your own question: "What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?" Namaste, Stuart.
Thank you for your outstanding question! I am only a humble layman, so I can only answer from my personal perspective, and make no claim that I speak either for Dr. Jung's oeuvre, his intentions, or his Living Spirit. These terms do not lend themselves well to rational discourse and definition, because they come from experience, not argument or debate. As a result, we can only talk about them in metaphor and simile, and not define them explicitly, as I might try to do in a legal brief. In order to avoid being burned at the stake, people who have such revelations have long obfuscated what they meant, and some suffered because they refused to obfuscate--I'm thinking of St. Thomas More and St. Jean D'Arc as cases in point. In Jungian Psychology the term "The Living God" is synonymous with many different terms, including: The Self; The God-Image; the Archetype of the Self; the Transpersonal Self; and the Greater Personality, among many others. It finally came to me that Jungians themselves have been obfuscating for a century, in order to allow their profession of psychotherapy to gain traction without running into the buzz saw of theological rationalism (demonstrated in The Reverend VanderKlay's video here) and academic criticism. It was only within the last 18 months, thanks to a comment of Dr. Edward Edinger in a lecture he gave in the 1980s, that I realized that the very objective of Jungian Analysis is to give the Analysand the experience of The Living God (although he didn't call it that precisely, his lecture was called "Encounters with the Greater Personality"). I have had many such experiences, but it is only with the help of Dr. Jung's oeuvre that I have been able to assimilate them and their meaning. Two of these I caught on video, and one you can find on TH-cam under the name "Synchronous & Numinous Event Is Integrated with Meaning". Once you look at what happened, you will agree that no human being could plan and arrange the execution of that event. It would be impossible for me to describe everything about what that event meant to me, but you might get some sense of it, which is why I left it on TH-cam. One point Dr. Jung made was that you don't "think your thoughts." They come to you, and you may articulate them, but they come from an Unconscious place that cannot be defined (at least not yet). Oh, you could say that a certain area of the brain lit up when you thought that thought, if you were attached to electrodes, but that would be about as far as you could go. So, for me, "The Living God" comes from experiences like that. As you see, I can try to explain it at great length, as here, but it cannot be done. You either "get it" or you don't, and you can only "grok" it if you have had the experience. Doctor Jung described "The Self" in Chapter 4 of Aion, and you can find my reading of it here on TH-cam. As for "The Creator," I would analogize that with "The Force," as experienced in the Star Wars series. The Rev. VanderKlay is recently talking a lot about "Chaos," which reminds me about the old joke: A surgeon, an engineer, and a lawyer are at a cocktail party discussing which of their's was the first profession. The surgeon says creating Eve from Adam was clearly a surgical procedure; the engineer says "God" created the universe out of "Chaos"; and the lawyer says, "Who do you think created the Chaos?" That's what rational discourse is, "Chaos," because once you argue anything, it could be sliced and diced. Dr. Jung would tell you that the traditional oldest profession is actually the dark side of "the anima," which is archetypal, and one of the deepest layers of the Unconscious, and therefore older than the other three by quite a margin. As for the "goal of the Holy Spirit," I haven't a clue, although I DO think it would be possible for theologians like The Rev. VanderKlay to elucidate that point at each major and minor juncture of The Holy Bible. That could, indeed, be a contribution to the future of humanity, which from my point of view would be far better than slicing and dicing what any given individual wrote down 1500 years before Christ. I hope this at least gives you some direction.... Did I mention that it's complicated?!
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, Thank you for taking the time to expound upon my request, your quite erudite. I learn from everyone, even if, "only a humble layman" speaks, though your personal experience and self-knowledge abounds beyond the mere simpleminded. Once again, Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, thank you for your perspective on these matters. One - very good point! "These terms do not lend themselves well to rational discourse and definition, because they come from experience, not argument or debate...In Jungian Psychology the term "The Living God" is synonymous with many different terms, including: The Self; The God-Image; the Archetype of the Self; the Transpersonal Self; and the Greater Personality, among many others". Fascination with profundity: "It was only within the last 18 months, thanks to a comment of Dr. Edward Edinger in a lecture he gave in the 1980s, that I realized that the very objective of Jungian Analysis is to give the Analysand the experience of The Living God (although he didn't call it that precisely, his lecture was called "Encounters with the Greater Personality"), found the link: th-cam.com/video/kAlCeJ4LuRk/w-d-xo.html 1:45:56 "Synchronous & Numinous Event Is Integrated with Meaning", th-cam.com/video/VvG2S9wk8PQ/w-d-xo.html Great Virtue in this, "One point Dr. Jung made was that you don't "think your thoughts." They come to you, and you may articulate them, but they come from an Unconscious place that cannot be defined (at least not yet)" - thank you for that, "you don't think your thoughts, they come to you"! This is orphic, "Dr. Jung would tell you that the traditional oldest profession is actually the dark side of "the anima," which is archetypal, and one of the deepest layers of the Unconscious, and therefore older than the other three by quite a margin." Lastly, "As for the "goal of the Holy Spirit," I haven't a clue, although I DO think it would be possible for theologians like The Rev. VanderKlay to elucidate that point at each major and minor juncture of The Holy Bible. That could, indeed, be a contribution to the future of humanity", - and so I will try to offer a, "contribution to humanity", an answer to the, "Goal of The Holy Spirit" - though only after I watch the video's you have mentioned. Methinks The Holy Spirit Guides us to It Self, and for me, it will be through these videos. Time will tell.
How do you know this? You will likely only hear people talking about God. If they are talking with God, and even doing so as the Bible recommends, then they are doing so in secret. I'm not saying you statement is true or untrue.
I love the eloquence of the bible. Like the slaying of the amalacytes and caananites. Or lot offering up his daughters to the rape mob of ghommorha. I enjoy your work so far sir, I really enjoy your analysis even where I disagree. You're rational, a rarity in the discourse.
3:30 Does not look "multiracial" to me, all I saw in that image were Humanoids, I assume all of them being members of the Human race. Tribes aka people~peoples or ethnic groups are not biologically divergent enough from each other to be "different races". True racial divide is one defined by the capacity for successive sexual reproduction. This is because *race* = "specie~species", in that function, it predates "specie~species" by 100 years. *Race* is mid 1400's while *specie~species* only appeared as a synonym in the mid 1500's. It's only because of Charles Darwin(and his ilk) that as of 1859. It is only with publication of his opinions dubbed "Origin of Species" that "specie~species" overshadowed *race* as the popular term to denote distinction between groups of life forms that couldn't generate successive generations of progeny. Almost 200 years of this lie called "racism" and "races of men." Although, I must admit that race was used very ambiguously, as were many other terms in the last half of the previous millennium in English. This is because in it's developmental stages, the language was more nuanced with context as opposed to heavily focused on explicit verbose and phonetically painful noise which it is becoming. It wasn't just a means of prudently managing resources in a time where parchment and ink were extravagant luxuries of the few wealthy educated people. *The Human race is one race,* as all peoples can naturally procreate, intermix and sire successive generations in offspring.-Belief or disbelief is yours to embrace.
*How as a pastor Jordan Peterson changed how I read the Bible* ...!? Paul VanderKlay, is the grammar intentionally atrocious, perhaps because this is a video title? Did you mean: *Jordan Peterson changed how I read the Bible, as a pastor* ?
I am not an expert in grammer, by any means, but, i do believe, when you add a set of words after a comma, those words collectively refer to the closest noun, which in this case would be Bible. But, I do think the Pastor's wording is off as well. Maybe something like" how Jordan Peterson's work changed hiw i as a Pastor read tge Bible.
Good question, I wish I knew. My wife will often ask "why did you do that?" or "why did you say that?" and I am good at post-hoc replies but the truth is I have no idea. I am a mess of course, a well socialized and marginally put together mess but a mess never-the-less. :)
I am a 54 year old Serb atheist from Belgrade. I do not for the world of me understand why would understanding religions better be dangerous for my atheism. I am glad more than I can say that I could learn from the learned people who know what they are talking about. And I can change my views in relation to the new stuff that I can learn without actually changing my world view. For example when I was 20 my answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?" would have been "No I do not". When I was 40 it would have been "Let us first define the words "God", "belief" and "existence"". Now at 54 I am very close to consider God as ideal which we should strive towards. I do not think that those changes changed my world view, but that I have learned to look at a very important notion (that of God) from different perspectives.
Ha! Don’t feel bad. As an atheist he drastically changed the way I read the Bible as well.
Jeremy Spradlin Yey! May you ( and me) continue to seek for the truth. God bless us all🤗
So you ask me to let you know just how I find this helpful. It's like this: you help me, encourage me, inspire me, and even force me, to put names and faces to the cloud of witnesses that swirl about inside my head. Thank you!
Thanks John. :)
Paul I am enjoying your videos. It is helpful for me to hear someone with some theological knowledge add to what JP is saying. I will continue to listen. Thanks
It's helpful for us non-Christians to learn that just as Catholicism has Aquinas and Luther has Hegel, Calvin has the insights you have gleaned by attending to Peterson. We can no longer dismiss you all as unreflective fundamentalists.
Thank you for that. I didn't think I was. :)
regard them all as lost, though. if a man can change how you read the bible, you probably don't use the kjv bible, and you don't believe it.
it isn't metaphor, although it does contain metaphors and 200 other literary devices, it is mostly literal. all of it.
if you have fallen for evolutionsim, as psychology has, you're unsaved and need the gospel. the gospel that saves us today given by Jesus, via paul. let me test you, as all spirits should be, what is our gospel today???
Nice job of combining the archetypical insights of JBP with mainstream exegetical expertise.
@Sylvan Bear Yey!
Stephen Zevetchin
Are you serious? If you can say, with assurance that a person is not saved, apart from their belief of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, you are on dangerous ground.
And if my experience is serving me well, you are likely a Baptist. And while I find many common doctrines, particularly similiar culture, and political positions with the Baptist, and most likely the highest correlation with them and my certain denomination, I always found it funny...Baptists are so quick to call anyone who doesn't believe in "once saved, always saved" no sanctification, saved with one prayer, the end: UNSAVED. Yet they turn around and have never ending reasons to say why a person is displaying the fact they aren't saved.
And it's usually some Christian with different doctrines then them, minor or not. Even if that doctrine is absolutely defended by said person with scripture, and likely with all honesty of intention. Whether or not the doctrine is correct. And so they are not saved. It's absolutely backward. And seems to be some psychological lack of faith driving it.
Thank you for this! I am a Christian, though it has been some time since I've been a church-goer. Hearing a Christian perspective on Dr. Peterson's work on the Bible - something that isn't automatically dismissive, but engages with his work critically - is incredibly valuable. The insights you're adding on top of his lectures increase my understanding - and also leave my brain spinning with the awesome amount of depth and wisdom that is hidden beneath the surface of the scripture, which I had always looked at through my modern protestant lens before. To me, looking at the Bible as literature, trying to see it from the point of view of the ancients, getting clued in however dimly to the deep archetypal truths that resonate from the narrative in the most primal parts of the human brain, is strengthening my faith and helping me know God. I've bookmarked many of the resources you talk about in this video, and look forward to exploring them. So - please keep going. This is so helpful.
Paul, if you made a commentary on the entire Bible, in this format, I think it would be the most successful Bible commentary of all time. I'd certainly go through the entire Bible with you. This is great stuff.
That would take me a bit of time... :)
@@PaulVanderKlay True. A herculean task. Ok. Pick some of your favorite passages & make a few. I'll join your Patreon or other subscription, or give to your church to have something like that available. I guess what I'm saying is the way you handled the material in this video was extremely meaningful to me, and I'd love to see more like it. It came alive for me. I appreciate that you're very busy, however. If you've ever thought of doing something like that, though, I think there's a market for it.
@@PaulVanderKlay pastor paul has already contributed a great share!
You are mediating Jordan Peterson in a way that is very helpful. I love the multiple connections with other theologians and writers -- in finding and extending the patterns that JBP has introduced pushes back a variety of chaos!
As an ex-fundamentalist (who still loves Jesus) I can certainly relate with the pressure you felt from the literalist camp. It’s a challenging transition to be sure.
Karl Kohlhase
what does "fundamentalist" mean to you?
I am interested in other Christian's perspectives on Jordan Peterson, especially from one as informed and dedicated as you.
I've watched a couple of your videos now. I bit because I wanted to hear (more) actual Christians comment on JBP's biblical lectures. On the same subject different people express themselves in various ways and some voices get those bells ringing more than others. Also, you source well and give me some idea how Peterson might be doing his research.
Oh boy, are you right one one thing though ... I can hardly talk to the "average atheist" out there anymore. Used to be one, but JBP really rescued the baby from the bathwater and it's like I get it now.
I loved the precursor to the biblical series called The Resurrection of Logos. If you promise not to tell... in my more crazy moments I think that Peterson might just be doing that and if ANY of this takes of in an exponential way he could be the spark that reignites the breath of a modern Christianity across our entire Western civilization.
And I'm beginning to think that might save us in the upcoming storm. Or there won't be a storm as our spiritual lifeblood begins to flow through our veins again.
Honestly, three years ago I was looking at the world and hearing the various explanations as to why things are as they are (what's with the terrorism ?). The media and pc politicians just came up short, and I turned to other sources and they slowly but surely lead me to more and more Christian youtubers. That's when I began to See again, my Horus vision restored (if you get the reference?).
Maybe a year ago I made peace with Christianity.
Oh, and btw... Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
The crazy thing about being a human being is that we sit on a time line and can't see into the future. That lack of vision both frustrates and energizes. Watching JBP is like watching a real live Truman show. "How will it end?"
I think about CS Lewis in this because Lewis in England wasn't CS Lewis of today. Most of the royalties he gave away. He worked feverishly with his brother Warnie to write back to all who wrote him. He died before his fame or impact really hit. We never know who will be consequential.
In a way asking such questions is an indulgence of the ego. I think he's important because he's helping me piece together my world. I get excited and want to talk about other people with him. That's pretty normal human behavior. How large will his "cult" get? I have no idea at this point.
Neither do I, and I'm pretty sure JBP wouldn't want a cult for himself :) But like you state so well he helps by giving us some tools/perspective that can help us piece our world together. I'm happy for exactly that and I do my best to discuss his ideas when there's a chance.
My particular problem with getting these ideas out there is that it's not going to be via the "religious route" ... at least I don't think so. Dunno if you've heard about those godless vikings from Denmark. Well, I'm kinda one and there's far between self-titled Christians around here ... though most Danes still largely act it out.
What I like is that JBP explains the pragmatic, action oriented side of things and we don't have to quarrel with anyone over "the existence of God" and all that.
Im glad you are learning about typology and narrative theology, they are the roots of Catholic scriptural theology dating back to the first century.
Thanks Paul, another great video. I am really valuing being reminded of the reformed tradition which profoundly shaped my thinking in the early 80s - not a usual theological source for an ordained Anglican in UK.
I love when biblical scholars help us understand the different translations of scripture, and also help us understand the culture of the time. This lecture was so much fun. It's just delicious! Thank you! I'm making my way through all of your lectures!
Oh my gosh I love this so much! thanks for the videos and keep it up!
I love how the archetypal stories are so universal and that a God would design his message, the Bible, that way
You keep mentioning that some of your friends are expressing concerns regarding your fascination with Peterson’s psychological significance of the Bible. Your exceptional insight that Peterson is engaging so many people because he is inadvertently straddling the atheist, naturalist and supernaturalist perspectives. In my mind, what you are doing is placing Peterson’s perspective decidedly within the Christian ethos. In other words, you seem to be presenting Peterson’s perspective as if he were Christian. Regardless of where Peterson ultimately falls, you are giving us his insights within the Christian perspective. With that in mind, I think your Christian friends should be thanking you for taking Peterson’s thoughts fully into the Christian realm. I would say that is why I appreciate your reinterpretation of Peterson. It gives me insights into their meaning from a theologically sound Christian perspective.
Wow! A Beckmann painting on the cover! That alone is enough to capture my interest.
Great Job PVK. I grew up in a CRC here in Edmonton Alberta Canada. Have since drifted around through denominations just because. I'm not a theologian or pastor or anything. I think I came upon JBP about the same time as you and was enthralled with the Bible series and Maps of Meaning. I am finding it great to have someone with a Christian background talk on his lectures, I am excited to get to some of the areas you disagree with him or think he missed stuff, not because I disagree with him, but because I don't have the hard knowledge to catch that which he may have missed or got wrong. Keep up the good work.
Thanks Jeff. A number of other people too want me to get more contrastive with JBP. I'm still in the appropriation phase of my learning curve. I think I've got a handle on what the Bible is to him, which was why I could make a short video on it rather than another long one. JBP is playing around with a lot of elements in a lot of cultural/religious nexi in our current cultural landscape. One thing hooks into another. It's going to take a while for me to gain sufficient perspective. Thanks for your comment.
this is great, keep doing it.
It's another (and smart) perspective to the world, and that is always helpful.
From a practicing catholic perspective, Dr Peterson supports and fills in what i believe as a catholic. Catholics have a well defined and ancient cosmology with god’s kingdom on earth in the middle (as envisioned in Middle Ages). Also, with a catholic understanding that one’s baptism and faith is not for oneself alone but for the benefit of others and for the greater Glory of God the father. This stems directly from the jews covenant with God the father and the community that newborns are circumcised into the people of God. So humans are baptized into the church as the people of God and are Christians. There is direct continuity from the jews before AD into orthodox and catholic and Coptic and Armenian churches. So, Dr Peterson fits very nicely into the overall understanding of God’s salvation history on earth.
Thanks for going through this. Your videos definitely scratches an itch for me. For the past several years I've been going through the book of Job over and over again and reading lots of commentaries and opinions. It has both baffled me and inspired me. Once I was able to get my head around the idea of chaos, thanks to Peterson and Jonathan Pageau, many things started to connect for me. Like the Leviathan at the end of Job to the watery chaos in Genesis 1. It's funny because I just recently have been going through and reading all the parts of the Bible that include dragons, monsters and sea serpents. Now I can broaden my reading to include snakes and jackals. What was also new to me in this video was the idea that when Moses threw down his staff it became a chaos monster. And that it ate the other chaos monsters!!
Anyway, it's good to hear your insight in to all of this. So thank you. I'll be watching. :)
Glad it was helpful. Job is a difficult and fascinating book. The Bible is an outrageously honest book, something people who don't actually read it often don't understand. Preachers and teachers are in a way always trying to lower the resolution so that people can begin to grasp it. The low resolution representations are supposed to lead us into higher resolutions. (This resolution metaphor is another thing I got from JBP that I find amazingly useful). Keep at it. The Bible is inexhaustible. As I said it is THE MOST studied, dissected, debated book in all of human history and it still stands. JBP's treatment of it is a function of his honesty.
Absolutely. When I stumbled across JBP a bunch of things came together for me, one being the depth to his "secular" analysis. My parents became Christians when I was young, so I grew up as an Evangelical through the culture wars. The dividing line between the secular world and the sacred church was preached fervently to me, but I could never buy into it totally. If God was God, he needed to be God over the whole world, not just the church. So when I stumbled upon JBP on the Joe Rogan podcast, I immediately stared watching his lectures like a man dying of thirst drinks water. He was unifying the sacred and secular and he wasn't doing it as a "Christian" but as a professor! It's been brilliant to watch.
Both the Christians and the Athiests have consistently been unable to do what JBP has done. Generally speaking, the Christians never took science seriously and dismissed it, and the Atheists never took religion seriously and dismissed it. Both sides had good points, but no one was bridging the gap. Now I feel like Peterson has made some serious inroads that will enable conversations like the ones in your videos.
@phlebas9204 Wow. Those are some old comments! It's cool to read them all these years later. Trying to get more "high resolution" on Job. 😁
@@phlebas9204 Thank you.
I love your teaching, Paul.
I think what you are doing is great and please continue to do so. I'm am a person without any religious background and also found JBP and it has really turned my interested toward these ancient stories and their value throughout time. Scalable to even my individual life. I think connecting JBP's knowledge and understanding of the human mind and our psychology it really helps bridge that gap in time between understanding their culture and how it these texts can be applied to our modern day lives. As well, your theological knowledge of the texts, using JBP's lens to the modern mind, there is something quite captivating and compelling listening to you and learning about an ancient book I have much interest in, but have a difficult time reading and absorbing what it has to offer.
Hey this is great, keep doing this
Just wanted to say that I really appreciate you doing this. I have been deep into JP’s work since his appearance on Rogan last November.
I’ve been wishing I could speak with a pastor I trust at our church (MB community church outside Vancouver) about JP’s work as I’ve found it a gift from God but haven’t had s chance to speak with anyone who has closely followed his work. Please keep up the good work!
Most pastors in my experience are initially suspicious. Not all. Some of us are high in openness. I don't find that where a pastor is on the theological spectrum (liberal/conservative) necessarily governs how open they might be. As I mention in earlier videos Peterson cuts against the grain. He likes Darwin so he turns off those on the fundamentalists side. He isn't lining up with the ascendant morality so he is reviled by the religious liberals many of whom have bought lock, stock and barrel into progressive liberationism. He's been labeled as "alt-right" which is absolutely preposterous if someone would pay attention to what he says and does.
Because of this there are real reasons pastors will be slow to adopt him. Associating with him would give many of them something to lose. Conservative pastors may like his stance against pronouns, and now freedom of speech is aligning with the cause of religious liberty but for many of them his association with evolution is a poison pill.
The Christian Reformed Church is an outlier in some respects and since my church is small and used to diversity I probably have more liberty than most. I like Peterson am kind of an outlier too in that I've always been able to get along with both the left wing of my denomination because of my family's reputation on racial justice and the right because of my challenging progressive liberationism. So a lot of pastors are weary of JBP but as I continue my work on him I'm noticing a few beginning to warm. I also know that the possibility of making new relationships with people "seeking" is a big motivation for pastors. When I tell them that there are thousands of people with a renewed interest in the Bible their ears perk up. The Christian Reformed Church has a great history of holding the tensions between "the two books" of general and special revelation so there is a foundation for a pastor like me to build on and to appeal to.
Thanks for the response! I really appreciate the work you are doing. God bless!
Very interesting new look at the Bible. This discussion that includes a deeper look into human nature and the nexus of religion and psychology is really fruitful, to my way of seeing things. I had a smattering of Jung years ago, and remember his saying something about how Christianity(well this is my own very flawed memory and paraphrasing) was really not looking into tge dark side of human nature, and therefore not integrating the shadow. And, somewhere along tge line(i think Joseph Cambell) was talking about how religion needs to take whatever is new in society and fit it into a working mythology..something roughly like that. Well, this work of Jordan Peterson seems to be a great flashpoint for people trying to understand more and work on forming such a thing. This piece, from a christian theologian, brings in an important part. So, thank you.
As a Historian who always loved Mythology, you and Jordan peterson are helping me to unpack why I always felt this deep connection with the Bible and the Myths of old.
Thank you for drawing attention to ideas that are providing new insights into my own studies of ancient Near Eastern religious texts. In the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic, the chief god Marduk battles and defeats Tiamat, the great monster from the deep. Marduk takes her carcass apart and uses it to fashion the heavens and earth, creating order, purpose, and beauty from that raw material. The idea of intelligence produced from defeated and reordered chaos is powerful ... very interesting to consider the older material in relation to Ezekiel and the other OT writers who were priests in Babylon.
More of this to come! :)
The vast majority of your comments are from listeners who welcome your reflections and seek more. Your gracious and informed manner has unwittingly gathered a youtube flock to shepherd, if you choose to shepherd us. I'm nervous that this will be a holiday fad, and other priorities will begin to push your ad hoc postings out of the way. I hope you are envisioning a regular Peterson commentary (once/twice a wk/month/x days), and perhaps draw us into ancillary texts that we can access in manageable intervals. I can't read Augustine, Postman, Haidt, Willard, etc in the instants you reference them -- but I trust your recommended materials and invite your guidance in grasping them.
Right now my mental "to-do" list on JBP continues to grow so I don't expect to disappear any time soon. I will not exclusively do JBP stuff as you maybe can tell already. I've got other interests. The YT experiment for me has been a success in that I'm learning the medium and finding it useful.
I wouldn't have found or attached onto the JBP material if I hadn't already been interested in these topics before hand. I've long been trying to work on issues like these, the Bible and science, what is "belief", philosophy, history, etc. so my interests go far deeper than JBP. At the same time JBP came along and has proven to be such a fun "conversation partner". He, like many of you apparently, opened up a world of new ideas. I never imagined approaching these things like he has. There is a great quote by a former scientist in Bell labs who said something to the effect of "don't worry that someone will steal your new idea. If you actually come up with a new idea you'll have to beat people over the head with it for them to pay attention to you. I think about that a lot with JBP. He's got the right mix of smarts, education and stubborn (blue collar) obstinacy to not finally just receive a pat on the head. He is in some ways a religious zealot in that there is something driving him besides just normal sociology and socialization. He is a convert to his own religious perspective and as was said of Calvinists often he won't turn to the right or the left when he believes he's doing the will of "god". He's becomes a stumbling stone and he won't go away.
I share your concerns about my capacity to keep this up. I've got a day job. In my experience stamina is directly related to the degree I can integrate my JBP videos with the needs of my local ministry.
I also believe (and this is on my video to-do list) that at some point this movement will need to think about institutionalization. As I mentioned before, nothing changes without the individual, nothing lasts without institutions. Institutions create their own problems though because of the tension between dogma and openness.
there are political institutions and academic institutions that Peterson is trying to change. In the wake of his work we are seeing a religious movement but there is no obvious institutional expression to that. Right now you might find it on reddit or FB groups, etc., or his "biblical series" lectures, but I am concerned for those lectures just as you are concerned for my videos. He's fighting a war on three fronts and as he's mentioned his health isn't good. When he said he'd try to do the Bible in 12 lectures I rolled my eyes. He didn't get out of Genesis and even that he just touched on lightly. The Bible is inexhaustible. It is THE most studied book in human history and that effort shows no signs of letting up. The oldest institutions in the world are the church. At some point if JBP's contributions are going to defy the age of decay his fans will need to grapple with this point. He's not going to be able to fight the legal fight, the academic fight and the religious fight all by himself and sustain it.
So yes, your concerns not only about me but about the movement are warranted. My calling to my local church comes first for religious and economic reasons. Some have suggested I go the route of Patreon. Maybe, but I have issues with that. My channel is small so given the metrics I've seen from other channels I have doubts it could meaningfully compensate me compared to the church which is already institutionalized. Money and religious don't mix well often. Money sullies motivation too often for too many. In the church we have rules about this and they are important. In my tradition I am paid by my council. I don't own the church. I don't write checks. I don't make money decisions at church. That separation keeps me honest and helps the church feel their pastor isn't in it for the money. There are plenty of places in the religious would where things are bad because money practice is poor.
A colleague looked at this and said "you could do this full time..." Well there is certainly enough work, but right now the numbers on YT aren't really there to support it. So for now it will likely have to stay a hobby with some ministry overlap. Long term? as JBP often says "only God knows..." :) thanks for your concern.
This is great. Chaos really opened up the Bible to me. Rather than putting everything down to good and evil having chaos as well really helps. What would be really useful is to hear about Jesus and water. Water to wine, walking on water, calming the storm etc. Is this all about Jesus teaching people to deal with chaos?
Finally there appears another voice calling out in the wilderness...besides JP...who seems to understand that God is bigger and more expansive than the small rooms (churches) he is traditionally assigned to. Great pleasure in the intellectual exercise of exploring psychosocial, and archetypal foundations, but it seems to me our spiritual essence, in its' final discovery, may be our most primal and important experience. In my understanding of who we are in the universe, it defines us and God.
Proverbs 23:23, veratas is not easy to come by, one must buy or haggle and work to obtain truth. But it can be recognized by the humble heart; one not prevented by ideology and hubris.
Everyone is a little sad they don't know Latin !
Miserere nobis! ;-)
Vero, tristes sunt.
I've really been enjoying your videos. Dr Peterson has a donation tier on his Patreon where you can have a 45 min skype talk with him. There are a few questions i'd like to ask him, but I figured gifting it to you would be better for the overall cause. Please let me know if you'd like to have a chat with him. Thank you for your hard work.
that's a great idea. I hadn't thought of that. Hmmm. A number of people have mentioned a conversation. I'd certainly love a skype or a sit down with him but I don't know if I feel that my grasp of his whole religious agenda (I'm intentionally trying to keep to his religious meanderings, not so much the political or university side) is sufficient to make optimal use of that time. He's a busy guy so I'd want to have things super clear and my questions super "killer' if you will. I don't know that I'm there yet. This journey started partly because I was desperate to get CS Lewis into this conversation. This is something I still haven't done sufficiently but it's getting closer. I actually am working a plan, it's just that I've got a day job, a large family and a life that didn't afford this rather large 20+ hour a week "hobby". :)
Well, I can certainly understand all of that. I suppose it is a hobby if you're not making money from it...maybe ask the community, start a Patreon account...idk. You can see this conversation is resonating with many people. I really appreciate how open to discussion you are. I'm from the South, land of the literalists...Communication with a lot of these people is out of the question, but that's ok too I guess. I was reading Galations 1 about "am I trying to win the approval of human beings or God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of God."
Anyways, when you were talking about who'd you like to speak with Jordan, I was thinking "I'd like you to, and I can make it happen!" lol no rush on anything and I wouldn't even make it super structured. Organic conversations are the best and both of you could talk for days...
Added to favorites
I'm from the Sam Harris camp and it's true that there were some Harris fans who were pretty nasty to dr. Peterson, or those who defended him. Especially after their "debates", which didn't go too well. Mostly due to that first one, which was an epistemological torture, lol!
It went so far that Sam Harris himself posted a video in which he argued against such dismissive attitudes. But, it's just inevitable, I guess, when people have large following. It was way, WAY worse when a subset of Harris fans discovered that not only does he not support Trump, but that he despises everything Trump stands for, ha ha!
I think Harris and Peterson mostly had a failure of communication and are in fact much closer to each other's position than even they think.
For me personally...an open-minded Christian like you, is actually a far more valuable discovery, than Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson. I've been surrounded by those kinds of characters all of my life. They only reinforce my biases. I know my Jung and Nietzsche. I have a decent handle on Physics and neuroscience. But listening to you has been something different. Unexpected. Fascinating, really!
Hope your channel continues to grow, whatever the subject!
Hello,
I am kinda surprised to hear Harris's supporters being upset for him not supporting Trump (or even being against him)... perhaps it has to do with what I saw in the comments below his Rubin Report video: namely, a disdain for his support of Hillary. (I didn't see the video yet, but it is in my "watch later" playlist and I read some of the comments before.)
I'm a "fan" of Peterson, but I kinda didn't like the non-standard definitions of "true" and the such. Having thought deeply about it, it seems to me that it is about the axiomatic foundation... anyway...
Funny story. I was listening to TH-cam in bed on my laptop when I fell asleep. I then woke up listening to a conversation between a guy (who I might have identified... I am not sure) and some guy railing on Russia. I eventually got up to see that it was Kasparov on Harris's podcast, "Waking up with Sam Harris".
I thought that was funny.
David Herrera Yes, with some the issue was support to Hillary, even though Harris was perfectly clear on why he supported her. He had estimated (correctly so in my opinion) that Trump would be such a negative, divisive and destabilizing force that it justified the 'lesser of two evils' choice. That's a legitimate position, in practical terms, regardless of what one thinks of either Hillary, or Trump. Or of that position itself. Some, I think, were people who were new to Sam Harris, they were Trump supporters to begin with, and probably liked Sam's scathing criticism of Islam and the liberal identity politics, but they otherwise knew very little about his moral and political positions. Maybe they were far right contrarians who bought into the mainstream narrative, which still largely labels Harris as a Muslim hater, Islamophobe...etc. And then they were disappointed to find out that he's just a sane, moderate, liberal guy essentially. Not radical Left, but definitely not radical Right either. And definitely not anywhere near Trump.
Anyway... that's the US politics and I'm not from the US, nor am I particularly interested in that sort of populist, day-to-day politics, and in the end, turns out that they were a loud minority.
As for Jordan Peterson...I give him way more credit than Sam Harris does. I think he made some excellent points. Of course the truth issue that you mentioned bothers me as well. I find it preposterous and agenda-driven. The classic division between *is* and *ought* works fine and there is no need to confuse the issue. I also disagree with the importance Peterson gives to religion as such. I think he's being way too simplistic in describing what happened in the 20th century as the consequence of "the death of God". On one hand, the economy, the great depression, the collapse of the old world order resulting from WW1...etc. all played a much greater role and he completely fails to mention those factors. On the other hand, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism were largely intertwined with religion. Peterson completely ignores that as well.
Regardless, he has rediscovered (mainly via Jung) the importance of wisdom contained in ancient myths. And he was making some great points in the second discussion with Harris. He also showed more willingness to compromise and respect the other side's arguments. Harris was too dismissive there. I felt he was too closed off to even consider Peterson's points and was mostly mocking around. Now, he's effective at that because he's so incredibly eloquent and expresses himself way more coherently than Peterson. Peterson is more on the stream of consciousness side. I didn't like that though, because it seems to me that they agree on so many things. I guess Sam just couldn't get over the epistemology and semantics. Not that those aren't important, but still...he was being too rigid about it, while there is value in what Peterson has to say.
Happy New Year!! 😀
Happy new year to you as well.
About the, "Maybe they were far right contrarians who bought into the mainstream narrative, which still largely labels Harris as a Muslim hater, Islamophobe" I don't think that even those who most people describe as such identify themselves as "Muslim haters". Maybe you were saying something else, but I think that those who would be inclined to like his position on Islam would have their gut feeling to be to take the mainstream opinion of Harris "hating Muslims" to mean that he had a reasonable position on the perceived problem of Islam.
I might comment that I think that there would probably be a lot of people near the center who support Harris, with maybe a slant to the right because the Left has gone so far left recently. I find that the religious right would not support him (for obvious reasons) and the religious left would not support him because he calls out Islam and (I think that) he is not the biggest fan of the identity politics.
Maybe I am misunderstood (because I spend very little time listening to him), but I think that his opinions go along the line of: Let's think of things reasonably and rationally (of course assuming humanism) and say religion is ridiculous wherever we find it.
As for Peterson, I do not know why he does not interact with Italian fascism much. I am not too aware of the religious aspects of it, but I am sorta aware of some of the religious aspects of the Nazi movement. In particular, a distortion of the Christianity that was in Germany that was built by layers over years. There are Christian scholars whose name has been utterly soiled by antisemitism in Germany and the main example that I know of is the push to de-judi-ize the New Testament, by making it seem like Jesus was rejecting the Jews because of how evil the Jews were and even to try to ignore Paul (because Paul was really open about his past work as a devoted Jew and the like and how Christ came to fulfill everything that the Old Testament had said about Him. E.g. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,") and also using some of the condemnations of "the Jews" in the New Testament not as what it was intended, but as an attack on the Jewish people... which completely ignores the calls to humility and perseverance in the faith 'lest you also fall' in the face of 'the Jews' not following the Messiah in Romans 11 addressing the believers in Rome:
"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree."
In short, with any belief system it is easy to have as a foundation then to build resentment and hate upon.
About Peterson's views on true and real, I suppose that it is really the pragmatism that is the problem for me. I was telling a friend (who is an atheist interested in psychoanalysis that I introduced to Peterson because of the psychology) about Peterson's views on "true" and so at some point later, as I do with most of my conversations about that, I thought about it deeply and came to understand, I think, how the thinking works and it has to do with how pastor VanderKlay talks about the "top stack":
For Peterson, it seems to me, he views story as the "top stack" and, as he has said, he talks about embracing the "logos" (the thinking, reason, person-aspect of us that goes into the chaos and makes order of it) [1] [2] and at the core of reality is this. So, if we happened to discover Science™ and it destroyed us, then it was not the correct view of the world.
Upon writing this, I think that I found a problem with it and it comes back to free will. I think that having knowledge, even as a tool, does not determine what one does with that knowledge. This is emphatically the point that he says Nietzsche makes with respect to Nihilism. See [3] for some explanations of this idea and pay close attention to two things that happens to a person (who we can think of as the observer of the universe): The actual things/experiences that a person sees/experiences and what that person takes away from it.
In particular, if we took the tools of science and we learn to manipulate the universe, then that does not mean that it is not true, in Peterson's sense or Harris's sense. It is how we interact with it that bears the burden of being judged as true, in Peterson's sense or Harris's sense. In particular, Harris's sense fits nicely in the first scenario and Peterson's scenario fits nicely in the second and the reason for this is, as Peterson discusses himself in [4], that spirituality/religion and science are essentially in different domains. And the reason that I think this is so is because of what he said about Nihilism: having a tool does not tell you how to use it. Just as "nuclear science" could be "not true" for destroying the world if it was a "cause"
for it, does that mean that all necessary causes are to blame and to what degree do we blame them? I suppose that this opens the question of consequentialism [5] because there are necessarily multiple necessary causes that would lead to a nuclear apocalypse. For instance to consider the following line of actions that are each dependent upon each other: there is the development of distribution of labor, there is the development of civilization,there is the development of the Scientific Method, there is the formulation of various models of the atom, there is the development of Modern Physics, there is the focusing of Modern Physics on creating the atomic bomb, there is the actual production of the atomic bomb, there is the decision to use the atomic bomb, there is the decision of the individuals involved to undertake the use of the atomic bomb, there is the decision to react to dropping of the atomic bomb, and so forth until Kingdom Come.
Now, the question is... why should any one of these stages be "untrue"? Because of the actions that they brought forth, when at the time that they are made them it was not foreseeable, necessary, or even probable that the end of our being will become of it? Is it not the understanding of Science that has led to the development of the modern world that Peterson is so happy about that raises hundreds of thousands of people above the poverty-line every year [6] , but yet if Science led to the destruction of the world that it would be untrue?
I think that this view is technically defensible, because, axiomatically speaking, is a metaphysical assumption about the world: that what is "true" will bring about what is good, but I think that this ignores that with this knowledge, us destroying it might indicate that part of human beings are untrue. Peterson believes that Good is stronger than Evil [7](which I believe as well, but because I am leaning-Christian and God is absolutely stronger than anything evil done) and Good vs. Evil being the crucial way of looking at the world [8] and I suppose that this might be related to his beliefs, because if in fact Evil were comparable to Good or at times stronger, then why could it not destroy all our being and would not being or evil be the cause of its end? Maybe it's more complicated than just that Nuclear Physics is not "true"... I don't want to be dismissive.
Another point that I have heard Peterson make is about the meaning of the word "true" is that he brings up that a sword can be described as "true", ... I don't like this. Saying that Peterson's perspective on what is "true" might just mean that he has different categories of meaning for his words and has something different at the center of reality, but that does not mean that he should use the word "true" for it... although for him that is what is indeed True (because of his foundations), but for most people today in the West, True is not that.
I think Peterson should give a good argument for why his understanding of the word (pragmatic version, I suppose) should be the correct one.. Perhaps this is argued somewhere in pragmaticist writings, but I suppose that he could argue that although it is not a standard understanding of the term, it is the best way to understand that past with its traditions and great writers. Perhaps some of the traditions can be understood that way, e.g. Walton apparently argues that that is how the Bible was conceived and perhaps something like that is what is meant when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man goes unto the Father, except by me.", but I am skeptical of people bringing in definitions of words that are, let's say, non-standard for us today... if they do not make a good argument for why they should be used that way. Even if the word in time-past used to be understood that way or could have been understood that way, it is not now understood that way except in very few situations... since language is how we understand the world... perhaps Peterson was trying to argue for why it should be changed, which might be defensible.
I think that Peterson argues for this with respect to "made up words"... but perhaps he has a different understanding than I do of this idea.
I am planning on reading Orwell's article on how words are manipulated in politics and another link that Peterson linked to on his Twitter [9].
[1] A description of Logos: th-cam.com/video/i1e2DfwN5oQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MCzerna
I haven't seen: th-cam.com/video/KVo5hq64B2M/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson yet, but I would guess that he spends a lot more time flushing out his idea of Logos.
[2] The question at 57:37 - End of th-cam.com/video/_UL-SdOhwek/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
[3] th-cam.com/video/XW-2D9d-Rlw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheArchangel911
th-cam.com/video/lCYxSenyjQg/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Bite-sizedPhilosophy
[4] See 1:13:53 of th-cam.com/video/gqVopVh8hWQ/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
[5] th-cam.com/video/POw5xCFveD8/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=MissingTheMark
[6] twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/853019946250510336?lang=en
[7] th-cam.com/video/IQyDW0y-KiI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=picc1001
[8] th-cam.com/video/oFxyS6rqeoo/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=DoseofTruth
th-cam.com/video/nepSpemqGvg/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ManOfAllCreation
[9] www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/
Have you seen the video of Peterson with Jonathan Haidt: th-cam.com/video/4IBegL_V6AA/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson ? I think that it discusses the role that religious behavior (religious meaning primal religious, not complicated and complex religions like what is often meant by "religion", but the natural and foundational structures that those religions are built upon.) play in seemingly non-religious people. One might include also even the experiences that even atheists and the like would include as "religious", but without calling it that (Like how Hitchens talks about looking at the universe in awe).
I think that Peterson's opinion about religion is interesting. I agree with pastor VanderKlay in how Peterson views Scripture.
Also, I tend to write/think in stream-of-consciousness.... which might be partly why I like Peterson. I suppose that in that case it would be a preference... or maybe I am just unaware of my preferences and like Peterson for other reasons (and I have other reasons for liking him as well).
David Herrera Yes, see this is exactly the thing, all of this which bothers you and throws you for a spin is precisely because he's assumed the Praagmatis position. And it is not even the position of all Pragmatists. That's why I said that it was agenda-driven - Peterson himself says that scientific (objective) truths and moral truths are NOT the same. Then he proceeds to merge those two as if they WERE the same. And I feel he honestly wants to merry the two. But with that move, he paints himself into a corner, because he assumes a contradiction. That might work in Metaphysics. But it doesn't work in Physics. And since Physics is obviously more fundamental - it comes first, the Metaphysics must follow it. Right? In other words a metaphysical claim must be true for the Physics...and then some. Beyond that. That's where his argument falls apart unfortunately. Everything up until that point is fine. I understand that he must be emotionally attached to his maps of meaning, I mean he's been working on it for 30 years. But, man...if it ain't so, you can't just wish it to be. He's going to have to give some ground there. Actually I think he's already doing just that, from what I can tell. What IS and what OUGHT to be are not the same thing. Potential and realized potential are both real in a sense. But they are not the same. Also realized potential is "more real", let's say.
Another thing. My degree is in Physics and Math. I heard him say that some Physicists still believe in the Copenhagen interpretation. In short...that is simply not true. In fact, even back when it was a "thing", it never really meant what he believes it meant. Consciousness was never part of the act of observation. Not even Bohr and Heisenberg believed that. And we've come a long way since them.
I'm late to the party but this is great video. What is the software you use to compare the Bible in your various videos? Seems very useful. Also, how long would you say it takes to learn Hebrew? I learned Greek bible and Latin, but Hebrew seems to be a totally different thing. Thanks.
The term 'naked' means acting without God, ignoring God, acting contrary to God. It applies to Adam and Eve but mostly it applies to Noah's ungodly conduct after the Flood. If you want the Hebrew sermon that explains this I will provide the citation. Naked does not mean physically naked or nude. Tohu and Bohu refers to the unformed nascent world, the unperfected world. Our world (now) is still being created, perfected and revealed according to the Hebrews. Tohu Bohu also applies to the the term Tikkun, or Final Tikkun, the final perfection, or repairing of the world because we are still in Tohu Bohu - an imperfect world being formed - fashioned - by the Jews. Again, I can provide the citation to explain the Hebrew which is not taught at any Christian seminary just like the 4 Hebrew metaphorical meanings are not taught to the Gentile. -- Great video.
I fell like you let all several question open. What does it mean god create the see-monster? Can god create Chaos? Wasn't chaos already there in the beginning? And what is a about the serpent-devil connection? So many question, so few answers!
I'm getting into these questions in my next video. Stay tuned.
1:30 - When both religious and atheists get anxious about JP that means that JP is onto something. Now, the idea that we are observing the reality in a manner that is affected by what we decide to observe still applies in how we want the reality about interpreting the Bible look like. Meaning that while I do like the new idea of interpreting the Bible from the perspective of human psychology, I do want to keep in mind that it is easy to cross the boundary between symbolism and realism and conflate the two. To me, a symbolic Jesus is much more powerful than a real historical figure. A real historical figure is bound by the laws of reality and be humanly flawed so I cannot muster myself believing the miracles performed in the Bible as being objectively real. Maybe there was such a person or maybe more than one but this should be irrelevant. Once I understood Jesus reality as archetype, I could see myself taking the role of Jesus (following Him) in my own life so that every day and every action and choice I make is a very important one with important consequences, maybe becoming Christian again. And this looks clean, more realistic to me, free of the superstitious mumbo-jumbo (I've been there). So I went to church these past days and ponder about things and what I noticed is that the priests' sermons are still heavily anchored in the belief of real material existence of historical Jesus, which is the conflating of symbolism with reality, and in the context of Biblical reality, it looks as a kind of a materialistic interpretation of the Bible. Maybe the "thou shalt not make yourself an idol" refers to that too.
You're working the same problems I am. I haven't addressed them directly in the videos yet but in many ways I think this is near the core of the JBP puzzle. Where I got with this is CS Lewis (in his quasi Platonism) because when it comes down to it (I think he finally reverses the polarity of Platonism) a real apple is in an important way more real than the form of "apple". In that case isn't a real Jesus, the true myth, who finally both transcends a locked room AND eats fish more real that an idea of Jesus that must only be an idea. This is the crisis of Arwen in (movie version) of LOTR. Will she embrace a physical marriage to a real king who will die or take her love, as her father bids her, over the sea and keep it merely platonic. It is the question of church vs. "in my head Christianity" , the question of porn vs. marriage.
JBP keeps saying "act as if it is real". Well, isn't that what all fandoms do? Isn't actually believing it is "real" and physical, even at the risk of delusion, more so than that?
Thanks so much for your comment, transparency and probing insights.
Oh this is an interesting find. I'd never heard of this. Fascinating. I'm going to have to look into it.
I wish the YT comment engine made it easier to keep up with threads. Too often I run through the comments to respond to things but can't dig back low enough to find replies. This is a gem. Thanks. pvk
John Allen Rayner Hilles and Paul VanderKlay Wikipedia summery of the book says "we must act 'as if' moral laws were laws of nature because of our non-physical consciences". What if conscience is to humanity what wetness is to water? If we are the molecules of water, wetness would be transcendent to the individual water molecule. Water properties are transcendent to the individual water molecules. Life on earth is water based which is many layers beyond the water molecule realm of existence. Transcendence may not necessarily be only non-physical.
John Allen Rayner-Hilles I understand using etymology when translating old texts like the Bible or creating ambiguity of meaning in poetry. But I don't see it useful on accurately describing contemporary concepts. For example the word "conscience" is as contemporary as the word "internet" or "youtuber". Etymology is not a useful tool in this case. Am I missing something?
John Allen Rayner-Hilles
That's an awesome concise exposition of development of the notions of Nature/God. At least that's what I understood from it. I went through it all once but I don't think I assimilated everything. It's definitely an interesting type of analysis but I see it only as an analysis of what people believe and not an analysis of what things are. That's why I am not convinced that studying the history of how language and concepts changed over time gives us clearer insight on the reality of consciousness. Here is an example to better illustrate: the word "atom". What we understand by it currently is not the same as what Aristotle did. And it is not even the smallest indivisible fundamental particle of matter either, as the etymology of it suggests. If there was a time machine and somehow Aristotle came by the current descriptions of the atom he'd have a hard time believing it. Yet it is more real than what he could have imagined. If the physical reality below us is much more complex than what our minds can conceive, how are we able to accurately understand transcendent objects? Unless we devise a scientific method to investigate, philosophizing might only be good to devise ways of how to relate to such notions.
I'd love to hear a discussion between Peterson and Dave Talbot. Talbot has spent his life studying the intersections of various cultural mythologies.
As an atheist, Peterson has helped me to see the bible in a different light. I don't understand the comments by people saying that Peterson has led them to Christianity. Peterson does not believe in the Christian god the way Christians do (As as a more or less omnipotent conscious entity with will and agency). He only really argues for the utility of religion. When pressed whether he believes, he won't speak plainly about it, and gives non-committal answers. He is an Atheist in my opinion (does not believe in god).......... I am happy that he is getting recognition. His speech here on YT "Tragedy vs Evil" is a good summation of many of his long winded lectures.
You're working the JBP triangle, the one that's acting like a generator producing the power of this conversation. "what is he? Does he believe in 'God'? Can you say someone "believes" if they use scare quotes?" Oh my. Will Jim and Pam get together??? How about Sam and Diane? What will come of Luke and Laura? th-cam.com/video/6gqoeqOxfO0/w-d-xo.html JBP is devilishly coy! :))) Love it!
Just wanted to comment about your view on the video you posted about the office. "Our sub-personalities watching it play out". It was insightful.
Whether Peterson is a deist, theist, or atheist, I have never heard him speak about god in terms of the supernatural. He only seems to get into the psychological and evolutionary underpinnings of god and religion. It's what I think of as god and religion as being "culturally symbiotic" with our biologic evolutionary development. Between that and Jonathan Haidt speaking about moral foundations for conservative vs liberal, I have come to have a deeper appreciation for arguments from both sides, and pity for those who are ideologically possessed.
Keep up the good conversation.
It's hard to know if Peterson is holding this line on "the supernatural" because. 1. he's intentionally keeping his comments to the psychological and "rational" as he keeps saying he is, even while he also says he resists reductionism... 2. This is a firm line in his own heart 3. Belief is something he continues to ponder and flirt with.
I'm reading Jung and find the same ambiguities in him. JBP channels Jung often in his Bib Ser.
this is exactly what JBP says he is and does. I find no duplicity in him. This draws a lot of us to him because we want to know "his he or isn't he..." Will Pam really break up with Roy and get together with Jim? Will Truman break out of Christof's fishbowl? Oh the drama! :)
Perhaps even stranger than pre-industrialized people everywhere being able to understand the Bible is why we are unable to understand it.
This idea of chaos in the Bible as separate from evil, combined with JBP’s necessity of chaos is an interesting insight. The same may apply to struggle, suffering, growth, etc. and perhaps how these might be part of the new heaven and earth. OTOH, doesn’t the Bible say there will no longer be a sea, the symbol of chaos?
JBP is a reason why I'm making the effort to get back into Christianity - starting by reading the bible whole (and as I learn more, I assume I'll be reading it sporadically after).
I suppose a significant reason behind my lack of faith was due to my church experiences and seeing religion portrayed as a self-serving mechanism, and not in a fulfilling way; the church, to me, became a place that signified people wanting to absolve themselves of responsibility. Not to mention how people take the crude interpretation of religion in general and run with it. Instead of having a penchant for wisdom we're so obsessed to have God fix everything - hoping to be blessed so that we don't have to deal with life.
Incidentally, I think religion will eventually have to reconcile with rationalism, and ideas that correspond with evolution are going to be hard to ignore. The innateness of what the bible propounds, as you describe, being something to consider. I think science and religion are probably one of many false dichotomies that we've come to garnish.
Well that's interesting. So many takes on things. Thanks for sharing it.
Marvellous
Thanks for doing these videos, pastor. Having a multiplicity of points of view on YT about the subjects Prof. Peterson touches on is fantastic. Since you are very interested in the concept of Chaos, I would recommend you watch one of Prof. Peterson's lesser known lectures, although it's one of his best in my opinion, titled: "The Psychology of Redeption in Christianity". He touches on the subject of Chaos in Exodus. You can find it on YT.
Thank you for your insightful break down of Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series. I have been a bible believing Christian for twenty five years and believe the the Bible is at its lowest resolution a very good story of man struggle with the good and evil that resides within all of us. However the Bible is a very complex many layered document that one can spend their entire life studying and very truly never have a complete understanding of.
I have looked into a lot of different interpretations from the Genesis story though out the years including Serpent Seed doctrine and Astro-theology and the Mystery Schools. While I can study these ideas without taking then as true gospel, there has always been one part of all these ideas that has haunted me.
In Genesis one there are people or some kind of human, but these humans were without consciences or the knowingly good and evil. In Genesis two the Gods do something to these creatures. I believe they mixed their DNA with the humans and created something different maybe a slave race. In Genesis 3:22 after the encounter with the serpent the Gods declare that man has become as one of us, to know good and evil. I’ve always wondered who is “us” that the Gods are referring to.
Scientists and scholars say the man lived on the land as nomadic people without complex social order and then suddenly about six thousand years ago these nomadic people created very complex cities and governments starting the Sumerians.
Darwin says man evolved from chimpanzees but they have never for any evidence for this. The fossil record should be littered the the record of this but they can’t find anything.
However if someone messed with whatever was here and made a change to the DNA and imparted the the necessary knowledge to creat social order where none had existed.
To me this makes more sense, that being said I don’t believe in aliens visiting this planet. These so-called aliens are not extraterrestrials but Inter-dimensional or fallen angels. Any thoughts that you have on this would be appreciated.
I have enjoyed JPs lectures and have listen to all of them several times and have gained great insight into myself and my relationship with God.
Matt Corriere You may understand the bible to an extent, but you obviously have absolutely no understanding of biology, evolution or the fundamental evidence of both. Please stop trying to drag us back to the 18th century. You can believe the bible all you want, but it doesn't make the realities we have come to recognize any less true. You have to reconcile your book to a geology over 4 billion years old, a biology nearly as old and a cosmology far older than that. Not the other way around.
Thanks for the question. If you google "divine plural in genesis" you'll get a list of explanations from various traditions. The same is true for some of the other very interesting features of the early Genesis stories including the "sons of God" mating with the "daughters of man". Some of your other ideas as you know are pretty far outside the mainstream. Ancient texts are in a sense dislocated by virtue of time and loss of information (see John Walton's comments in the video I link on the Gen 1 conversation) while at the same time they are kept alive by different communities. These texts in a sense stay alive in those communities so it's often good to reference those communities in reading the text.
I'm not a scientist when it comes to evolution and DNA but I suspect the discovery that we share a lot of DNA with other species is significant. Far more is known today about our DNA relationship with other creatures. How DNA changes over time is obviously a big part of this story and I'd recommend if you're interested in that question to talk to someone who has some expertise in it or do some reading. Other than that I really don't know much about it.
"Darwin says man evolved from chimpanzees but they have never for any evidence for this."
Darwin did not say that but that the humans and chimps had a common ancestor.
You said every translation is an interpretation, but for the most part I don’t see that as true. Peter wrote of how no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (ones own interpretation). In peter’s Day there was private interpretation... even the Pharisees and sadducees privately interpreted the OT.
Either a translation is a good one or a bad one. Personally I use KJV a lot bc I’m used to it, but I prefer the NASB for OT, the NWT for the gospels, and the WT for the NT writings. This is not because I want to form the word to my beliefs, but in my experience rightly dividing the Word of truth those are the most valuable translations I’ve found.
There is no substitute for reading the text in an original language. Translations are helpful tools. Different translations illuminate some things and obscure others. The KJV has its benefits but also some liabilities.
What do you think about Isa 45.18 when looking at the first two verses of Genesis in Hebrew?
I"m not arguing that the Lord didn't make the earth. Gen 1 engages much broader Ancient Near East conversation within its own terms.
I’m only trying to point you to the Word. The word “tohou”:”without form” is used in Isaiah 45:18 and translated as “vain” in the KJV. This is enlightening because Genesis 1:2 says “and the earth WAS without form”, but the word “was” in Hebrew is the word “ hawyaw”:”to be or to become” this gives room for dinosaurs, prehistoric people, ancient civilizations, and the fall of Lucifer and his angels which caused darkness upon the face of the deep.
I love you man, I’ve only watched 39 min of your video, but I will Finnish it later.
thank you again Paul!!many Blessing from the South Pacific-------Aotearoa New Zealand.................om a side note, when the Bible came here my people, The Maori, took on the gospel with its story of forgiveness having a major impact as we had lived by an act of UTU/Revenge. There is a lot more to it than that though;)from pre Captain Cook prophecies of a new good God coming(with bad followers lol) to how the Word spread among our nation in the early years prior to the Government turning on us and the treaty we had.
Senor VANDERKLAY
let me go ahead and potentially put you in that proverbial box......
Did you believe in the general theory of evolution?
What of evolution do you accept as a theory of biology?
What, if anything, has changed in your take on the theory?
Has JBP changed your stance towards these concepts?
What do you think of JBP's take on the theory?(considering he has claimed that Darwin's theory is as solid, or more solid, than Newtonian physics!?)
I quite like the idea that God is not an all powerful being but one who can only operate within certain limits and is trying to reach out to us within the confines of these limits -this would explain a lot of things such as why there is evil in the world -God is trying to minimise this evil and he can only do it with our co-operation and good will.
The Hebrew text of the OT is repetitive because its metered.
If recall the debate about meter in Hebrew poetry is fierce. :)
Paul VanderKlay The debate may be fierce, but I believe the OT and NT is metered in heptameter from Genesis to Revelation. Another believer and I have been doing some amature work on the subject, and we believe we've found some profound and consistent patterns.
Revelations is my favorite.
I read some of criticism of JP around archetypes. That Because he uses archetypes in his biblical understanding, that he is giving the same value to all religions archetypes. Which i can understand with his constant interjection of Taoism and Buddhism. But i dont see it that way. It is clear to me that some archetypes are valid figures to interpret the world through, And that some archetypes are just not valid, and never will be valid, figures to interpret the world through.
If serpent is a creature of chaos, how would you square that with the Christians equating it with Satan? Is that still the case? I know it was when I was a Christian.
I can understand why they would, but in that case, the interpretation of the snake in the garden of Eden as a creature of chaos, seems unattainable to me.
I'm going to get into this in subsequent videos. It's actually very complex in the Bible partly because it's mostly symbolic. There is a lubrication on the symbolic world that there isn't in the physical world or the theological/philosophical/rational world. These are tough transitions to navigate.
Paul VanderKlay Ok, thanks! I'll definitely stay tuned.
Peterson is approaching it psychoanalytically and in that sense, the serpent is indeed chaos, which humans are tempted by due to our inquisitive nature. As the result, we learn (the tree), and self-awareness emerges (the fall). With Satan, he goes full on Jungian, with the shadow and our emergent understanding of the malevolence we're capable of. I'm interested in the Christian perspective. The deeper, the better!
Can't wait for the next video, and especially the one where you'll be focusing on the disagreements.
Once again, you're doing a fantastic job...I'm so glad I found this TH-cam pearl!! 👍👍
Great video, Paul. I've been watching your videos as religiously (pun intended) as I have JBP's. Do you have a Patreon account? I would be more than happy to throw some money your way to compensate you for all the time you put into producing this content. Cheers.
My wife wants me to. I'm still on the fence. I need to talk to my church council first. This YT channel and following was rather unplanned and I don't want to surprise my "boss". :) They are supportive but when it comes to money people get weird.
If JP was a Christian, I think he’d sound a lot like Charles Spurgeon
Yeah, there's something to that. I'm not a student of Spurgeon but he certainly made an impact.
Thought that too but not sure why
It's lovely to behold your passion, enthusiasm and sweetness, thank you for making these videos. As an orthodox Jew, I would like to make sure it is understood here (perhaps I misunderstood you, if so, apologies) that it is absolutely axiomatic in Judaism that God created the world ex nihilo, from nothing, that both heaven and earth came into existence through Divine creation. Thinking that there was matter already in existence and God made the best world possible given the material available, is Pagan thinking and it denies the absolute power of God and denies free will of man, which God granted us and hence undermines morality and our purpose of being. In the beginning, created God the heaven and the earth... בראש׳ת ברא אלהים
In the next video in this subseries I'm going to get more deeply into the Gen 1 text. All three of the Abrahamic religions see God as the ultimate source not only of the ordered world but also the physical world. What is interesting is how God speaks through the ancient worldviews to ancient people leading scholars like John Calvin to conclude quite reasonably that if a being as different from us as one capable of creating this world would be, would decide to communicate with us meaningfully then that being would need to do so in a language we would understand which would be within a cultural framework.
That's the long answer. The short answer is yes.
You should listen to Bill Moyer's interview with Joseph Campbell The Power of the Myth
I'm going to sneak in here ... this is 2020 Bill Timmons watching a 2017 PVK video. This is after reading Rene Girard, Jung, Walton, Jesus ... and watching Vervaeke videos. The old PVK is just as good as the new PVK. Another sneaky point .. I gave a thumbs up to put the like count at an even 300 ... can't stand 299 likes. The "300" is much better symbolism.
Eph 22.2 refers to the devil as the prince of the power of the air. Bears wouldnt be chaotic if the man never ate of the tree. Infact all that God made and created was very good (Gen 1.31). The man bought the knowledge of evil with his dominion and God's image, thats why he died spiritually the very day he ate of the tree (Gen 2.17). The devil has dominion, and Jesus, knowing God's Word never disputed that according to the gospel records concerning his being tempted in the wilderness.
The Bible is not a jumble of chance accretions, it is a masterpiece of literary design. The genome is not a jumble of junk DNA accreted during blind evolution that is housed in little blobs of jelly, it is an astonishing multilevel code that adaptively directs micro-cities.
We find what we expect, until we are overwhelmed by what we didn’t.
Can anyone suggest a critique of Peterson by a Christian conservative? I am interested in a perspective that voices a concern to the Christian, Evangelical type.
Want some balance, I have been kind of all praise, despite my convictions that Peterson is way off with his complete idol worship at the Darwinian Stump.
Part of the struggle is figuring out which kind of conservative. Esther O'Reilly is pretty conservative. The Gospel Coalition has done some writing on him. Bishop Baron has a video on him. That's just it. Jonathan Pageau is hardly "liberal" but Orthodox and RC and Protestants will all have their own angles on him and won't agree. CT did a podcast on him on Quick to Listen which I thought really was fair and balanced.
Why do little boys love Sea Monsters? Why did my 65yo WWII Pacific Ocean Navy Vet grandfather love Sea Monsters?
For my grandfather, Sea Monsters were just as real as Kamikaze planes. I did a little research on his ship and his deployment records. The amount of "Real Danger" that ship went through, and he still claimed that 200 foot long sea serpents were also "Real".
25:25 "Why does God let the serpent in the garden?" -Obvious, testing the integrity of character of the Humans whom he warned not to eat of the tree of good and evil.
25:39: "Why does God let a tree in the garden?" ... Because gardens tend to have trees and or shrubs of some sorts?
You obviously meant serpent rather than tree, however, I implore you to be more mindful of your words.
My wife implores me more, and she has a lot of clout in my life for obvious reasons and yet it doesn't help. I'll have to tell her to come into the comments to commiserate with you. :)
There is a very large debate in the CRC and Calvinism in general between infra-lapsarianism and supra-lapsarianism. It gets into these questions about the position of God with respect to tests and outcomes. Gen 22 is a landmark text for that. What was it about this test. Did God want to know? Did Abraham want to know? "Obvious" lives in keep of a tribe. :)
I think the view you are applying in interpreting the two questions is too much based on a literal meaning of the text. Because God is unknowable and infinite, your attempt at anthropomorphizing God (" ... testing the integrity of character of the Humans") you end up boxing God into a small neat concept that you (us) can comprehend and possibly conflate that image with God. Thus you commit a breach of the 2nd commandment "thou shalt not make any graven image". I'm not saying I'm right but it can definitely be interpreted that way so you could also be wrong. And that is the biggest problem with working with symbolism.
dan pasare, use the individual's name, to address whom you are directing your statement to.
Assuming you were trying to aim at me(and not Paul), God testing the integrity of Adam and Eve's character, is not a reflection of him not knowing the result, but one of giving them the option to fail. The opportunity to choose between *eternal life* and painful strife aka *sin* (which we've inherited as result of their choice).
Lin Yen Chin sorry, my "reply" from computer does not add the name automatically as I assumed. Yes it was to you. I still don't think that the literal interpretation gives any deeper insight to what the story tries to convey. I'm trying to compare it with reality and there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not. Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it. Saying that "God tested Adam" is too literal an interpretation, a slippery slope that leads to further view of the Bible that makes atheism correct.
dan pasare:
"...I still don't think that the literal interpretation gives any deeper insight to what the story tries to convey."-Woah there speedy, what ya got a.d.d?
"literal interpretation" in the context of your statement, it seems to mean what I would call "face value", if so, then know that the *face value* is just the opening layer, a gateway to a contextually dense expression of ancient people(s).
It's not a matter of either you take it "literally" or "allegorically," it is both and more. You shouldn't let the impetuous zeal of youth(or this modern age) pressure you to race by and through a thing.
Chew your food properly, this is how you extract otherwise indigestible substance, things that would pass through your system without nourishing it's growth.
"Saying that "God tested Adam" is too literal an interpretation, a slippery slope that leads to further view of the Bible that makes atheism correct."-Noise of flailing confusion, frantic and misplaced passion, where calm concentration of authentic attention should instead be.
dan pasare:
"I'm trying to compare it with reality and there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not. Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it."
1: Reality is absolute for reality is the point of no beginning nor ending yet is the beginning and ending to all other points. How much contemplation have you done in regards to the transcendental nature of reality?
I fear you do not yet realize that reality is beyond the mind while the mind is well within reality, and yet, every fragment of the mind contains the fullness of reality. Reality is not only indivisible, infinite and one whole, but not subject to the limits of mind aka "consciousness".
2:"there wasn't any point at which people had a choice to develop consciousness or not"-Then why go to school, why take dance, martial arts, art lessons, study language, learn about nutrition and all the other things that one is naturally curious of, if not to develop consciousness?
3:"Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it."-What is this "us"? What is "Consciousness"?
What is this "knowledge"?
I fear it is not you but common culture, generic "talking points" that are droning away at me, and perhaps at many other strangers over the net...this mental flailing of your mind of habit aka "subconscious" through the overwhelmed mind of volition or so called "conscious mind" is not without reason.
You seek answers to questions you are either too lazy and or confused to form, or too proud to realize you haven't properly contemplated(as the answers would become self evident).
Contrary to common newage and even some branches of Yogic culture(fallen to stupidity), consciousness is neither your fundamental being, nor is it infinite, it begins and ends with/within reality aka infinity or truth, also called perfection, or *God,* any term that denotes *absolute* is reference to it. Yes, consciousness is fundamental, but it's only mental, it is the primary pulsation of duality out of which "the myriad things"(that which is finite, that which is falsely referred to as 'reality'...) are made manifest.
Consciousness is not merely the narrow band of meaning which is commonly described by most, it is not merely one's sense of self and or identity. It is most certainly not merely an emergent property of matter, even brain matter, in fact the brain and all other material structures are an emergence of consciousness, as I stated before that consciousness is fundamental in manifesting all else that is finite.
As reason would tell you, from the diverse array of organisms which dwell within our world, the brain is a recent evolutionary adaptation of the nervous system, both of which exist as mediums of control for the mind over it's materialized form. In a similar way, attention and awareness born of it, are mediums with which the spirit directs the mind. We are of the spirit, the mind and it's materialized form are just products of sequential emergence in the expression of spirit.
With my above assertion(s), taken "literally", one can see that it is not:
"Consciousness just happened to us and with it the knowledge of good and evil came with it." but:
"Consciousness just happens through and for us, and with it, the knowledge of good and evil arose."
Paul, don't worry about what to do, as you and Calvin know, it's all been set in fate before the foundation of the world. Predestined by that grand chain of gold.
Is this not the Presbyterian butter for your Reformed bread, as it were?
PS
Is true Chaos possible in a world devoid of the freewill of the created, human agent?
Yhwh tames Leviathan. :)
Hello Paul, I really liked this video. I wish I was going to have more time to watch UTube.
So many good things in this world to give our time to. We are richly blessed and live in a marvelous moment on planet earth! :) Thanks for giving me the time you did. You honor me with it.
I listened to every word of this video, and what I can say is that you have not addressed the most important question, "What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?" As a corollary to your quandary, "What was the Goal the Spirit was leading humanity to at each point of the Bible?" In terms of the meaning of the Torah, allow me to refer you to _What's in It for Me?: Finding Ourselves in Biblical Narratives_" by Rabbi Stephen Lewis Fuchs. Rabbi Fuchs was kind enough to allow us to publish his book in its entirety at Jung dot Guru, under the tabs "Morality" "Religion" "Books", where you can find it for free. It is also available as an audible book. Your discussion falls into the same trap that religious discourse has fallen into for centuries (as your discussion demonstrates), which is that it bases itself on rationality. But, as the schisms and schisms for centuries have demonstrated, and you have recounted here, you can slice and dice religion down in too many ways to count, but never reach the essence. Why is that? Dr. Jung explained it succinctly in ¶752 of _Answer to Job_ as follows: "But religious statements without exception have to do with the reality of the psyche and not with the reality of the physis [physical world]." As long as you base your argument on rationality, as a lawyer might, you do not address the first question in this response, which is the only question that matters.
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group What I hear is a person operating within the framework of a religious paradigm attempt to share his journey through the chaos of extra-rationality. Which could be the inexplicit goal of the spirit.
Your comment is fair enough, and the point is well taken. In the sense that The Creator took several hundred million years to develop creatures with consciousness, it is fair enough that theologians have already taken two thousand years to create an infinitely complex matrix of rational arguments, such as Pastor VanderKlay has presented to us. But, since I come from Dr. Jung's environment, I have to point out that all rational arguments do nothing to elucidate the nature of The Living God. To quote from ¶63 of Dr. Jung's _Aion_ (_Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 9ii), "Such criticism [here rational argument about the opinions of historical figures] has as little effect on the object [The Living God] as zoological criticism on a duck-billed platypus." I will point out that biologists in the 21st Century do accept the notion that Evolution occurred by leaps (sometimes), not just pure random accident. Here I am simply trying to help Pastor VanderKlay have the insight that rational argument, regardless of how many editions of the Bible used and scholarly commentaries uncovered from ancient times, do nothing but muddy the water and distract from The Living God. The one thing I will take on Faith is that Pastor VanderKlay himself has had an experience of The Living God, but these arguments have not clarified The Living God's nature here. I hate to have to be so stark in my response, but I have no choice. The time has come for well-meaning theologians like The Reverend VanderKlay to revivify their religions, or their steady decline will simply continue unabated, because they cannot survive in the rational world of science. The Pope understood the peril when he called Galileo up before the Inquisition 600 years ago. Little has changed, and the development of science finally caused Friedrich Nietzsche to opine at the end of the 19th Century that "God is Dead." It took Dr. Jung, himself the Son, GrandSon, and Nephew of a bevy of Reformed Pastors, to actually find The Living God, and point to His actual whereabouts.
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, "Wondrous Prose: Well Oft Spoken!" Given, that you, "come from Dr. Jung's environment" and I don't - would you please elucidate the following terms, in, "Dr. Jung's" worldspeak, and their similarity or dissimilarity to each other: [1] 'The Living God' (taken from, "regardless of how many editions of the Bible used and scholarly commentaries uncovered from ancient times, do nothing but muddy the water and distract from 'The Living God'"), [2] 'The Creator' ("The Creator took several hundred million years to develop creatures with consciousness"), & [3] 'The Holy Spirit' ("What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?"), and if you can, do please answer your own question: "What is the Goal to which the Holy Spirit is leading us?" Namaste, Stuart.
Thank you for your outstanding question! I am only a humble layman, so I can only answer from my personal perspective, and make no claim that I speak either for Dr. Jung's oeuvre, his intentions, or his Living Spirit. These terms do not lend themselves well to rational discourse and definition, because they come from experience, not argument or debate. As a result, we can only talk about them in metaphor and simile, and not define them explicitly, as I might try to do in a legal brief. In order to avoid being burned at the stake, people who have such revelations have long obfuscated what they meant, and some suffered because they refused to obfuscate--I'm thinking of St. Thomas More and St. Jean D'Arc as cases in point. In Jungian Psychology the term "The Living God" is synonymous with many different terms, including: The Self; The God-Image; the Archetype of the Self; the Transpersonal Self; and the Greater Personality, among many others. It finally came to me that Jungians themselves have been obfuscating for a century, in order to allow their profession of psychotherapy to gain traction without running into the buzz saw of theological rationalism (demonstrated in The Reverend VanderKlay's video here) and academic criticism. It was only within the last 18 months, thanks to a comment of Dr. Edward Edinger in a lecture he gave in the 1980s, that I realized that the very objective of Jungian Analysis is to give the Analysand the experience of The Living God (although he didn't call it that precisely, his lecture was called "Encounters with the Greater Personality"). I have had many such experiences, but it is only with the help of Dr. Jung's oeuvre that I have been able to assimilate them and their meaning. Two of these I caught on video, and one you can find on TH-cam under the name "Synchronous & Numinous Event Is Integrated with Meaning". Once you look at what happened, you will agree that no human being could plan and arrange the execution of that event. It would be impossible for me to describe everything about what that event meant to me, but you might get some sense of it, which is why I left it on TH-cam. One point Dr. Jung made was that you don't "think your thoughts." They come to you, and you may articulate them, but they come from an Unconscious place that cannot be defined (at least not yet). Oh, you could say that a certain area of the brain lit up when you thought that thought, if you were attached to electrodes, but that would be about as far as you could go. So, for me, "The Living God" comes from experiences like that. As you see, I can try to explain it at great length, as here, but it cannot be done. You either "get it" or you don't, and you can only "grok" it if you have had the experience. Doctor Jung described "The Self" in Chapter 4 of Aion, and you can find my reading of it here on TH-cam. As for "The Creator," I would analogize that with "The Force," as experienced in the Star Wars series. The Rev. VanderKlay is recently talking a lot about "Chaos," which reminds me about the old joke: A surgeon, an engineer, and a lawyer are at a cocktail party discussing which of their's was the first profession. The surgeon says creating Eve from Adam was clearly a surgical procedure; the engineer says "God" created the universe out of "Chaos"; and the lawyer says, "Who do you think created the Chaos?" That's what rational discourse is, "Chaos," because once you argue anything, it could be sliced and diced. Dr. Jung would tell you that the traditional oldest profession is actually the dark side of "the anima," which is archetypal, and one of the deepest layers of the Unconscious, and therefore older than the other three by quite a margin. As for the "goal of the Holy Spirit," I haven't a clue, although I DO think it would be possible for theologians like The Rev. VanderKlay to elucidate that point at each major and minor juncture of The Holy Bible. That could, indeed, be a contribution to the future of humanity, which from my point of view would be far better than slicing and dicing what any given individual wrote down 1500 years before Christ. I hope this at least gives you some direction.... Did I mention that it's complicated?!
Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, Thank you for taking the time to expound upon my request, your quite erudite. I learn from everyone, even if, "only a humble layman" speaks, though your personal experience and self-knowledge abounds beyond the mere simpleminded. Once again, Carl Jung Depth Psychology Reading Group, thank you for your perspective on these matters.
One - very good point! "These terms do not lend themselves well to rational discourse and definition, because they come from experience, not argument or debate...In Jungian Psychology the term "The Living God" is synonymous with many different terms, including: The Self; The God-Image; the Archetype of the Self; the Transpersonal Self; and the Greater Personality, among many others".
Fascination with profundity: "It was only within the last 18 months, thanks to a comment of Dr. Edward Edinger in a lecture he gave in the 1980s, that I realized that the very objective of Jungian Analysis is to give the Analysand the experience of The Living God (although he didn't call it that precisely, his lecture was called "Encounters with the Greater Personality"), found the link: th-cam.com/video/kAlCeJ4LuRk/w-d-xo.html 1:45:56
"Synchronous & Numinous Event Is Integrated with Meaning", th-cam.com/video/VvG2S9wk8PQ/w-d-xo.html
Great Virtue in this, "One point Dr. Jung made was that you don't "think your thoughts." They come to you, and you may articulate them, but they come from an Unconscious place that cannot be defined (at least not yet)" - thank you for that, "you don't think your thoughts, they come to you"!
This is orphic, "Dr. Jung would tell you that the traditional oldest profession is actually the dark side of "the anima," which is archetypal, and one of the deepest layers of the Unconscious, and therefore older than the other three by quite a margin."
Lastly, "As for the "goal of the Holy Spirit," I haven't a clue, although I DO think it would be possible for theologians like The Rev. VanderKlay to elucidate that point at each major and minor juncture of The Holy Bible. That could, indeed, be a contribution to the future of humanity", - and so I will try to offer a, "contribution to humanity", an answer to the, "Goal of The Holy Spirit" - though only after I watch the video's you have mentioned. Methinks The Holy Spirit Guides us to It Self, and for me, it will be through these videos. Time will tell.
Everybody talks about God but nobody talks with God.
How do you know this? You will likely only hear people talking about God. If they are talking with God, and even doing so as the Bible recommends, then they are doing so in secret. I'm not saying you statement is true or untrue.
Calm your voice, brother! It's getting tough to listen to and you might hurt your throat like Peterson does when he talks for too long.
yeah, this is a problem. Not that I'm going to hurt my voice. It's more about hurting your ears. My voice seems pretty durable. :)
Haha, great. Keep going as long as you can!
Rev 20.2 shows that the old serpent is the devil
I love the eloquence of the bible. Like the slaying of the amalacytes and caananites. Or lot offering up his daughters to the rape mob of ghommorha. I enjoy your work so far sir, I really enjoy your analysis even where I disagree. You're rational, a rarity in the discourse.
Interesting commentary, I would just like Christ snuck in a little bit more.
All in good fun, brother
Did you ever just read the kjv bible without the poison of philosophy? and pray on it for understanding?
Rather than JP, I recommend this, instead: th-cam.com/play/PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi.html
3:30 Does not look "multiracial" to me, all I saw in that image were Humanoids, I assume all of them being members of the Human race.
Tribes aka people~peoples or ethnic groups are not biologically divergent enough from each other to be "different races".
True racial divide is one defined by the capacity for successive sexual reproduction. This is because *race* = "specie~species", in that function, it predates "specie~species" by 100 years. *Race* is mid 1400's while *specie~species* only appeared as a synonym in the mid 1500's.
It's only because of Charles Darwin(and his ilk) that as of 1859. It is only with publication of his opinions dubbed "Origin of Species" that "specie~species" overshadowed *race* as the popular term to denote distinction between groups of life forms that couldn't generate successive generations of progeny.
Almost 200 years of this lie called "racism" and "races of men."
Although, I must admit that race was used very ambiguously, as were many other terms in the last half of the previous millennium in English.
This is because in it's developmental stages, the language was more nuanced with context as opposed to heavily focused on explicit verbose and phonetically painful noise which it is becoming. It wasn't just a means of prudently managing resources in a time where parchment and ink were extravagant luxuries of the few wealthy educated people.
*The Human race is one race,* as all peoples can naturally procreate, intermix and sire successive generations in offspring.-Belief or disbelief is yours to embrace.
Cody K, quite simple:
th-cam.com/video/Q_4bp8bBNVw/w-d-xo.html
It's frightening how giddy you are and filled with passion, to worship the creations and not The Creator. scary.
Jordan needs to get saved, not you getting further corrupted.
*How as a pastor Jordan Peterson changed how I read the Bible* ...!?
Paul VanderKlay, is the grammar intentionally atrocious, perhaps because this is a video title?
Did you mean:
*Jordan Peterson changed how I read the Bible, as a pastor* ?
I am not an expert in grammer, by any means, but, i do believe, when you add a set of words after a comma, those words collectively refer to the closest noun, which in this case would be Bible. But, I do think the Pastor's wording is off as well. Maybe something like" how Jordan Peterson's work changed hiw i as a Pastor read tge Bible.
Lo Leigh, curious! Thanks for the update
Good question, I wish I knew. My wife will often ask "why did you do that?" or "why did you say that?" and I am good at post-hoc replies but the truth is I have no idea. I am a mess of course, a well socialized and marginally put together mess but a mess never-the-less. :)
you need to stop and examine the NIV's integrity. you're lost...