You evidently haven't seen the interview where he said that because if you had you'd know he had no need to "swallow his pride". Nor did he have a "hard time". He had no problem saying what he said, he said it without hesitation and it didn't bother him in the slightest. Also, he said a "culturally Christian" society, not a "Christian dominant" society. And he explained exactly why he thinks that way - because it's the society he was brought up in.
From an evolutionary standpoint, one could argue that all Christians have developed their current beliefs as a product of their evolutionary history. Consequently, it becomes problematic to assert that their beliefs are erroneous when viewed through the lens of this flawed biological determinism.
I hope some day JP catches up. I think he has given himself the task to take as many people with him. But since I listen to P I just can’t listen to JP that often anymore… Christ is risen!
C. S. Lewis's three choices, also known as the Trilemma or the Lord, liar, or lunatic argument, are the following: 1. Jesus was a liar 2. Jesus was insane 3 . Jesus was God
A very convenient formulation for apologetics There are multiple other options if you use your imagination. Chiefly that we don’t know the “real” Jesus because the Gospels are not reliable
@GiantsHunt This only moves the issue one layer further back, you still have to decide which of the three options Jesus Christ is after you certify the text as reliable. The Reliability of the source text has been tested by mainstream scholars.
@@GiantsHuntConsidering the Gospels were written and accepted while some of Jesus' original followers, and the churches they planted, were still around, we can assume they found them reliable.
Peterson and Pagaeu seem to be steering towards the right answer but they don't quite get there in this segment, at least. Maybe they do elsewhere in the discussion that isn't presented here. Starting at 6:19 they talk about the implications of the notion that the Resurrection is false is that western civilization is based on a lie. But they don't really go much further than that, and they should. In particular, something that has a fundamental lie at its foundation is something that cannot function well for long periods of time. Such things can function for short periods of time due to happenstance, but probability always catches up with you eventually. And the plain fact of the matter is that western civilization is the most powerful force for prosperity the world has ever seen, by orders of magnitude. No other civilization has come anywhere close to yielding the wealth and capability that western civilization has. And western civilization has Christianity at its foundation, by way of the principles of Christianity. I'm of the belief that it is the doctrine of forgiveness and the elevation of truth that has enabled western civilization to function as well as it has. Forgiveness as a fundamental principle gets you built-in fault tolerance in the system, making the system resilient. And what is a civilization but a complex dynamic system? This is how I came to believe that Christian principles are correct. And if that's the case then all that's left is to answer how it is that Christianity spread as it did. People today aren't *smarter* than they were back then. Someone back then would be just as apt to be skeptical of the claim of resurrection as a nonbeliever would be today. But *something* convinced them of its truth. What could possibly do that if it was, in fact, a lie? Look at how difficult it is to convince someone today of anything that isn't actually true. The moral demands that Christianity places on people who adopt it (who is inclined to forgive others? Who is inclined to love their enemies?) are powerful incentive for people to *not* adopt it, and that is even more true back then than it is now, because we now have experience that shows how well it works in practice. They didn't have that back then. That means that adoption of it back then essentially required belief in the Resurrection first, because there was no other real reason for that. I don't see how that could have happened if it were false, particularly given the social and religious context (the Roman Empire). And so, I am a believer because western civilization proves that the principles of Christianity are true, and the situation surrounding the birth of Christianity is such that its spiritual claims must also be true for it to have been adopted in the first place.
@@BigBunnyLove If there is no right answer then there is no functioning morality. Observation clearly shows otherwise. The real world is the litmus test of truth. The real would wouldn't be that if there was no right answer. There is a difference between there being a right answer and someone actually possessing it. I always admit the possibility of being incorrect, but I see no flaw in the logic I supplied. If the logic is sound and the stipulations that went into it are correct then the conclusion must likewise be correct. That's as "right" as anyone can hope for.
@ I’m sorry, I don’t speak your language. There are no right or wrong answers or answers of any kind. You can't work this out in your head or speak it. It's in the heart. Real love, as real philosophy, is lived. These two men are clueless and obviously don't know themselves at all. They didn't say love once, Jesus' gospel. And there is definitely no hope, you and I are walking dead. There is no god like Christianity thinks there is, not in the least. You are god, I am. We don’t need morality, awake, we know what do and we always do the best thing we can. We don’t constrain ourselves with the authority of books or gods or other persons. That’s real freedom, try it maybe. Memento Mori.
@@BigBunnyLove I agree that real love, real philosophy, is lived. That does not mean that it cannot be discerned, described, or deduced. You throw away the works of the mind when what we really want is for heart and mind to act in concert. You essentially imply that we cannot make any real choices ("we always do the best thing we can"). Our own internal and external experiences say otherwise. People constantly, and automatically, second guess the choices they've made, which clearly cannot mean anything other than they have the power of choice in the first place. Such second guessing has no use in the absence of the availability of meaningful choice. But if meaningful choice is available, then that means that our choices actually matter. And if they matter then that means that some options are better than others. And if some options are better than others *and* we have the ability to choose something other than the best options, then it follows that we need something to guide us towards those best options. That something *is* morality. Peterson and Pageau are discussing specific things in specific ways. That they do not mention love during the conversation does not mean they are unaware of love's significance in all this, and it is a monumental mistake to think it does. There is always hope. That hope may be for things temporary, or for things permanent. It may sometimes be unjustifiable, and it may sometimes be justifiable. If we are "god" (an assertion I clearly contest) then explain how it is we have limitations that are not of our own choosing. We live under *external* constraints. If we did not create those constraints ourselves then something else did, and because they are constraints on us it follows that whatever it is that created those constraints is more powerful than us, more deserving of the title "god" than we are. It is from iterating that argument to its logical conclusion that I conclude that God really is omnipotent as Christianity asserts.
@@n2185x well, we profoundly disagree, my views are not informed by books or people, but through experience. I know myself and what I am capable of. What a monster I can be. I’ll leave you with your hope. Who am I to take candy from a baby. Until you have lived with no net, you haven’t even begun to. Until one has shattered their certainty, they are asleep and cannot be trusted. The slumbering will come up with every excuse not to awaken to the cold hard realities of being. To living in the middle of maximum uncertainty. To accepting we know next to nothing. No angel or demon makes our choices, we do. What I am talking about is taking responsibility for oneself, being brutally honest with oneself about what one thinks they know. And we always have to be turning over the soil. People certain, have stopped, good as dead. We make our own meaning. If you have not love for yourself, the other, and the world, you are asleep. Jesus tried to wake them up and they made a religion out of him. Fools all. Liars. Pretenders. Jesus said, this way costs you your life. I look at America’s Christians and I want to 🤮 the men in this video are the worst kind of charlatan. Money changers in the temple. Selling dispensations. They know better. Evangelicals particularly have no love for the other on the whole. They dream of war. They are monsters. Open every border. Send all your missionaries there. Hypocrites. Their own book condemns them as they now surround themselves with those who tell them what their itching ears want to hear. They make a hell of the earth. No thanks. No thanks, don’t join. They are the truly lost. They can have their orange pumpkin headed antichrist. Pathetic. Jordan is an insane drug addict working for the Russians. Go live there. Leave us alone I say. All you who embrace Putin, leave. This is a matter of the heart, not the head. You all are profoundly wrong and misguided and throwing your tantrums. Give me an Fin break. You think god is sane? Hahahahaha! Obviously not. Adieu!
He is, however, convinced that the first mammals, shrews, over a period of several gazillion years, morphed themselves into human persons. He has an amazing belief system.
@@yuvanraj2271 Evidence other than empty rhetoric? There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the genome of the shrew can gain even an iota of new genetic information. 'Reductionist materialism' (as quoted in the video by JP) is a gross, nihilistic fabricated narrative superimposed on reality. It is nothing but a vacuous mist cast over the minds of men.
This reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Morphology is iteratively specific, rotationally specific and vibrationally specific. The morphology of a passion flower is the same pattern as the middle C note played to an oscilloscope. The pattern is at mid resonance ( dissipating tone); it is not only a specific note but a specific timescale after the note is struck. Note that when you speak the structure of the sounds is toroidal ( a physical characteristic resulting from a thought).
@@zarbinsyou clearly are searching for it, no reason why else you would be here commenting. Keep searching but maybe not in the places you already have.
I wish someone could just tell Dr. Peterson about the criteria that go into forming an inference to the best explanation for historical matters. You don't have to go to Christians, or even Theists, in order to get these criteria; however, and here is the rub, when you run The Resurrection through these criteria, then you see that it is the best explanation that one can infer--and others aren't even close. Now, yes, one can choose to withhold judgement, but why ought one do so in this particular case? There really is decent evidence, competing explanations all fail horribly, and--as these gentlemen are pointing out--the fundamental, archetypal, principles that we see as constituting most of human reality all point to something like the sacrificial offering of the sinless god-man.
@@rcmysm9123 Lol! Okay. Even atheist historians and biblical scholars disagree with you there. I'll side with the consensus of scholarship on this one.
In wrestling with the real meaning of Christianity and metaphysical truth, laboring to distill their implications, what I hear Peterson articulating is frankly a bunch of sophisticated anthropocentric psychobabble. I honestly don’t think he possesses any serious sense of theology, I don’t think he has a clue what Jesus, the Gospel, or the Bible are really all about. He is simply content (perhaps arrogantly content) to domesticate Christian ideas within the terra firma categories of his own psychological purview
Interestingly put but he does illustrate the vapidity of much of what passes for Theology in those who present themselves as authentic. His lectures on topics in the Bible do make me think more deeply about the things of my Faith than the sermons I hear in so many churches.
As a scientist we understand how the resurrection happened and will happen. Fact: The Mandelbrot set begins at 0.25 and ends at (-2). Fact: The Mandelbrot set has limited area while simultaneously having infinite borders ( simultaneously infinite and finite)
@ The Mandelbrot set is the pattern in which your brain is created. The coronal cross Section of the brain is the morphology of the Mandelbrot set and the caudal cross section is the connected Julia sets. No hypothesis explains to all satisfaction why there is both ipsilateral and contralateral neural pathways in the central nervous system. The Mandelbrot set, has both ipsilateral and contralateral pathways from the main cardioid to the main bulb. In fact, there are correspondences in the main cardioid to all the bulbs. It can be shown that all geometry of the universe from the Bose Einstein, condensate to the greatest structures of the universe are transformations from a polar grid circle to a polar grid Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set not only has a beginning and end and is simultaneously infinite and finite, but it is also the imaging which you are made, and it is in everything everywhere. As such it is omnipresent. And that it is the structure which creates everything it is omnipotent understanding that math has no positive powers. It is the spirit of God that generates this.. Form structure. By being everywhere and all powerful it is also thereby a structure which gives understanding to omniscience. I cannot show you pictures here, but you can look at my identifying picture in which I have the Mandelbrot set in the Julie sets . Or you can just look it up yourself bring up a picture of the Mandelbrot set and compare it to an image of the coronal cross-section of the brain. Fold in the bulbs to match the fissures and the sulci of the brain. The mathematics God uses to create the universe and thereby us, is a description of God. God is spirit. There are kinds of things. Things have images. Things have likenesses ( what is it like to be a bat?)
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 I'm guessing it's something related to Coastline paradox or fractal surface, you can look it up. The gist of it is you can infinitely zoom in on the edges, and you will see more and more complex patterns, and if you try to measure the length of the edge it will be an infinite number. Maybe state in a perhaps more poetic way, the deeper you look the more you'll see
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718The Manderbolt set points to the fact that both infinite and finite qualities can be found in an entity. So it's not a far reach to claim that Jesus Christ embodied is the image of the eternal God. Hence, he possessed both finite (humanity) and infinite (godhood) qualities.
Platonists, who think "god" is the name for a metaphysical first principle necessary to uphold a rationalist worldview. For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
First of all: poor JBP trying to interpret those stories using his intellect, like he's trying to figure out Christianity. Christianity already exists. Go to Church. You don't have to make it up by yourself. Second of all, no, nothing Jonathan said would have convinced Dawkins, Dawkins is not interested in any of this.
Church won’t quench Petersen’s thirst. He isn’t after a canned, rehearsed response. As a hyper-intelligent and pathologically curious man, he is going straight to the source to challenge his own understanding. The Bible we have today is already slightly watered down. Between the not always great translations to the exclusion of many contemporary gospels and narratives, THE Word of God we read today is not entirely what it was meant to be and the Church is largely responsible for this. While it IS easier to take someone else’s word, usually it really is best to go back to the source and try to understand it for oneself
The Church precedes the Bible. The Church deliberately excluded many books from its canon because they were either determined to be unsubstantiated/false or simply not divinely inspired. This isn’t some secret that you stumbled on, it’s basic history. The first Christians were VERY much concerned with being part of the Church, engaging in the sacraments, etc. It wasn’t merely some intellectual activity for them.
I will pass it on as it was shared to me by my ascended master Abel (biological son of Adam and Eve): Jesus died on the cross. But not his soul. And his soul was united to the Spirit. And when that happens, anything is possible. Yes, Jesus was resurrected in body.
Yes in the mind-universe, its structure depends upon belief, whether that belief is valid or not is another question. But as we know its difficult to maintain a belief in the face of its demonstrable failure in the face of physical reality. But as we know if that belief can be maintained then its truth will set you free. And it sets you free because the Almighty God will in the end transcend the perceived evil and make it good!
I wonder if Dawkins would be willing to be tortured and crucified upside down etc for his belief in Atheism? Why don't you guys ask Dawkins that question and see what he says.
Can someone explain what Jonathan is saying in more common terms please? I'm Catholich and deep into metaphysics and patterns myself, but I don't understand what he just said. What's "the most affording story"?
"Affordances are the characteristics or properties of an object that suggest how it can be used. It shows a user that an object can be interacted with." I would assume that he means that the resurrection story (and Jesus story as a whole) best explains an archetype that is useful to us, and that he accepts it as true, even though he cannot explain the mechanics of how the resurrection could have taken place. He also states that because Christianity forms a large part of the foundations of Western culture, that if it is indeed a lie, then the entire culture is built on weak foundations, and asks what the implications of that would be.
@@skaus2184 Okay, I mostly understand that. One problem I have with that is that Islam is the second biggest religion in the world, with obvious differences not only in the facts but also in behaviour. Lying to infidels to gain their trust is considered a virtue for example. From my point of view, the islamic narrative is false, and yet at the same time it is still the second biggest narrative we have. It's not bigger than christianity but I just wonder about the credence of the argument that what survives is truth over the long term. Perhaps the islamic narrative will collapse, but it's already 1400 years old, that's a pretty long time.
@@skaus2184It's a bit more basic than that. Much like how Dawkins was indicating that quantum physics simply affords itself as the correct explanation (aka it works) the story of Christ simply affords itself as the correct answer to the mass of stories and written details of Christ and the outcomes. You see them emphasize that nothing else could have happened by suggesting that Babylon bee's satire is correctly satire. The story "of course" made sense for all the disciples to choose this awesome path of death and torture, all normal people totally would. On the definition of affordance, you're correct in the usage portion, but I would lean it more to "the thing that simply just fits the mould of the expected outcome" much like affordance is used to describe how a chair simply fits the mould of allowing an individual to sit, the story of Christ simply fits the narrative of history and that civilization outcome as it stands.
Your theology teacher left out at least one other possibility: Lord... liar... or legend. Take your pick, and you still have the problem of demonstrating that it's true.
@@GnomaticMime-lz9js Legends can develop around real people. The fact that a rabbi named Jesus may have existed isn't proof that the supernatural events attributed to him actually happened. And in regards to your teacher, he or she wasn't just a THEOLOGY teacher, but a CHRISTIAN teaching theology, which would give him or her an agenda to promote.
@@jimscott9974all identity has agenda but his wasn’t for himself it was for Jesus which was beyond clear, even felt. And legend implies worlds biggest liar because that is the claim. So it’s either liar or son of god. Why are you getting semantical when you knew the essence of what I was saying. Don’t elaborate essence or you go beyond the point and miss what people are talking about
@@GnomaticMime-lz9js The essence of what you were saying is wrong. Legends can form around someone after they are dead, which means they would have never even known about it, and could not, therefore, be liars themselves because they weren't the ones who created the legend. You want your beliefs to be true because they make you feel good, and that's it.
@@cjcRacing in angels is rooted in pride, not in humans, pride is the hardening of the heart and the cause of that is distrust, lack of faith (faith means trust).
I say all the Sins come from one thing. Selfishness. Specifically, selfishness to the detriment of one's self and others. Selfishness, in some capacity, is necessary in this world. Not in the Garden though. Most people hate this. For obvious reasons.
Morphology is not found in the genome. Morphology is form. Form is function. To what degree can form be selected if morphology is not specified in the genome. Things like the hox gene are not specific of the morphology . A spiders web is not determined by genes. A spider can extend its mind via its web.
I would assume that the title of the video is based on a belief that had Peterson (or Pageau) used this line of reasoning, that it may have convinced Dawkins.
It's not formulated as a argument in the video since the title is just slapped on a segment of a conversation. But, I think the core part is around 5:20 when Pageau frames it in terms of accepting the truth of the resurrection not because he can understand it from the ground up, but for its explanatory power from the top down as the epitome of sacrifice. Peterson says that Dawkins uses the same logic to justify his belief in Quantum Mechanics, which similarly can't be fully comprehended but is accepted as true because of its explanatory power. This similarity, if framed into a proper argument, might be able to breach the wall of materialistic skepticism that Dawkins has put up around himself.
From a pragmatic standpoint-though I don't necessarily endorse this view-individuals may hold "incorrect" beliefs that nonetheless result in favorable outcomes. 7:00
Eve was tempted to question God’s goodness and his intent in creating humanity. In a sense she was tempted to stand in judgment of God which could be interpreted as pride I suppose. If God is not fully faithful and loving then that brings Eve’s own sense of value into question also as she has until then understood herself in light of God’s love for her. With her own value in question then she must make her own value otherwise face the meaninglessness of her own existence. Hence the application of fig leaves stands as a reminder that we try to cover our own shame in order to present an image that can be acceptable. Pretty much all human dysfunction can be related back to this point. If we are truly created in God’s image and God loves us unconditionally then our challenge is coming to trust that again. This is why Jesus related His crucifixion to the story of the poisonous snakes. The poison of the snake is a lie that we believe about God and about ourselves. Our value can be tied to what we can achieve which will always be an unreliable and shifting basis or our value can be based on who we are - children of the creator who loves us more than his own self.
The issue with Peterson's thesis (that their fundamental sin is pride) is that pride is a moral category, yet the narrative expressly states they are in a pre-moral posture. They had not yet taken of the tree of good and evil. Peterson's thesis begs the question.
Hmmmmm, it sounded like John was making a pseudo pragmatic argument when he spoke about 'what the story affords us.' I think I disagree. A buddist can simply say the same thing while never hearing about Christs story. 'The story of Buddha affords us xyz.' As it were. I think a person can believe that the Christ and biblical story affords xyz AND totally reject becoming a disciple of Christ. So, if that is the case, the story becomes pointless beyond benefiting humanity. It wouldn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it affords a society with xyz. It's obviously possible that I am misinterpreting what John is saying, and I am open to clarification.
The problem with Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't the pride of becoming like God. The problem was rather the self orientation of making themselves like God; self righteousness. God had already made them in His image, they were already like God. The sin of religion is the self righteous path of building your own tower of Babel, it's the asking for the commandments rather than joining God on the mountain. God certainly does not approve of pride, but eating from the do-it-yourself tree is the identity crisis moment that sent humanity into brokeness that's only restored with Christ. The veil tears from the top down, not the bottom up.
But even if they didn't lie for power and wealth, and even if they knew they would likely be killed for claiming the resurrection, they still might've lied anyway. People lie for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is because of how painful the truth might be. I'm not saying they lied, but the argument that it's unlikely because of the outcome seems weak.
@@rujotheone Personally, I believe in Christ. Not because of any particular testimony or story of miracles, etc., but because Christ fits the human narrative so perfectly. Like the missing puzzle piece that makes our story make sense. But from a purely logical perspective, if we're just talking about testimonials, then no, they're terribly weak. If this were any other story, I wouldn't believe it. And I actually didn't use to believe in the story of Christ because it sounded so absurd on its face. I had to live through a bit of life to gain the perspective necessary for it to dawn on me how much Christ himself is the only thing in life that actually makes any sense. If thousands of people had said a man, who was otherwise without the life and message of Christ, walked on water, preformed healing miracles, died as a result etc., I wouldn't be convinced of their story. I'd assume they were crazy cultists, the man was tricking them somehow, and that there was lying or mental illness, etc. involved. The likelihood of that is simply greater than some random magic man. Without Christ himself, the whole thing sounds like nonsense.
@@kangarooninja2594 Miracles, Christian Supernaturalism, and Naturalism.
What good are miracles?
Superman can do miracles. Superman is a Supernatural Superhero. Spiderman can do miracles. Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero.
Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader can do miracles. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes.
The X-men can do miracles. The X-men are Supernatural Superheroes and Supervillains.
Here is what prevents the Bubonic Plague from killing people, from Wikipedia; (Bubonic plague outbreaks are controlled by pest control and modern sanitation techniques.)
In the years 1347 to 1351, 1/3rd of the population of Europe died to the Bubonic Plague. Parents would have been praying to Jesus of Christianity to protect themselves and their family from harm and children would have prayed to Jesus of Christianity to protect their parents from harm. Did Jesus tell them how to prevent Bubonic Plague when they were praying on how to protect themselves from harm? 1/3rd of the population died. The reason we don't usually have Bubonic Plague around is because of the modern sanitation and pest control. Was that to much for Jesus to explain to the Christians in Europe?
So what did the people of Europe need in the years 1347 to 1351? Did Europe need a Supernatural Superhero? Or did Europe need a Naturalism Hero with knowledge of Nature.
Most people of any age of humanity can write stories of Gods that can do miracles. The harder part is for people to be able to examine Nature successfully.
The Age of Enlightenment writers wrote about ancient Story Gods for the altar and for the throne, rule from both Religion and Government. That is why Age of Enlightenment Philosophers, directed us humans to Nature's God and not human created Story Gods. Thus Thomas Jefferson's "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God.
"Pride?" Why not Covetousness; Eve 'wants what God has?' Or Jealousy; Eve 'can't stand that God has something over her?' Or Rebellion; Eve 'can't stand being told what to do?' Or what about potentially better instincts, like Independence; Adam thought 'maybe God won't always be here when decisions must be made?' Or Aspiration; Adam may have thought 'creatures who know right from wrong are inherently better/more valuable to God than creatures too stupid to know better?' The talking snake surely believes himself to be better than God, be he in no way wants humans to leapfrog him on the totem-pole of power/authority or any other measure, so his motives don't impute to Adam or Eve. (more...) "Resurrection?" Resurrection is commonplace in the Bible. For example, all 200 Genesis6 Son's-of-God resurrected many times during the flood. They drowned, resurrected and drowned again. Over-and-over for a year. Yes secular can dismiss resurrection as fantasy, but within the framework of the narrative, resurrection is commonplace.
“If Jesus didn’t resurrect… then our civilization is built on a lie.” I gotta say, as a Christian- coming from Jonathan Pageau- that’s a weak argument. The Ancient Greeks believed in their gods, yet their society flourished for a time. It didn’t make it real necessarily.
The point isn't what the lie "affords"--in terms of civilizational grandeur, but simply the fact that, hey, everything you know and love and hold dear is a lie. All our talk of helping the helpless, of loving the weak, of striving to love our neighbor (and enemy), our particular way of pursuing truth etc. is based on a a falsehood that also renders our ideals nothing but fictions. Essentially it's a reductio ad absurdem moral argument.
As a Christian I agree, that is a weak argument. Christ didn't come to create a new, separate civilization, but rather to help lead all civilizations to Him.
Order: God -> Man -> Woman -> Rest of creation Serpent (creation) -> deceives Woman -> ropes Man into it -> to become like God The chain of command was reversed at the fall. Everything else is downstream of that. And don't we see it everywhere? Women trying to be like men, men trying to be like women.
This is why the world is a mess because old traditional religious views have oppressed us women for so long and we now can be our true selves and also have jobs and ambitions,those are not unnatural things,but believing in angels and demons ain't natural bud,superstition has poisoned everything
There’s a third possibility beyond the lie or truth of the resurrection - that it was misinterpreted. There is a theory which posits that Jesus was severely wounded and deeply unconscious, not dead although he appeared to be (which is a phenomenon that occurs even today) and subsequently recovered from his wounds. If true, that would make the foundation of civilization not false but mistaken.
Romans didn't allow people to come off a cross alive. This doesn't explain how Jesus, two days later was walking around the countryside talking to people, eating with them, etc. He spent 40 days with the disciples and travelled all over the place. There's simply no possibility a person who endured what he did would be up and about like that. You're being too myopic and looking at a single part of the account in isolation. All those details eliminate the "mistaken" argument entirely. It's definitely between they lied or they were telling the truth. Those are the only two possibilities.
I've seen the "swoon theory" before (I think it was addressed in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ) and my takeaway is that the process of crucifixion - nevermind the scourging beforehand - is such a brutal process that there's no way a human could have survived it. Even if someone could, the resurrected Christ whom the apostles encounter is not like a man who was tortured "almost" to death and then left in a tomb for the best part of three days.
@jonathanhall7903 you are correct about the spear through the heart, water separate from clotted blood came out. That means he'd been dead for several minutes at that point. Also, they sealed the tomb with a large stone and set guards. A critically wounded man couldn't have gotten himself out. The only conclusion is that he was really dead.
Well the person who witnessed jesus rise was partially blind. Doesn't mean it had to be a lie. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though either. You should care enough to pursue the sciences that could perhaps prove it one day.
Don't hold your breath. People have sat around thinking up philosophical arguments to justify a myth for thousands of years now. A person has to shore it up in that manner in order to compartmentalize a story and pretend it is fact. Do you remember all the stunning arguments that prove the sky is blue? Me neither. They're unnecessary. I'm not saying its a bad myth. I like Christians on average. I won't engage in the fantasy of their alleged deity the same way I don't have to tell a man he is a woman.
Christ IS Reality. Reality IS Christ. Christ is the creator of all reality, both material and immaterial. Evil exists as a parasite on God's reality. It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Christ, and therefore Reality. It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Reality, and therefore Christ. Satan, though also dependant upon both, will submit to neither. He therefore says in John Milton's "Paradise Lost"... "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven... " The modern left also rejects Reality and insists it has the right and power to create its own reality, in opposition to both Reality and Christ.
It is not that the ancient writings of the Christian Gospels were witnessed by the writers of the Jesus of Christianity story. It is that someone after some time wrote Christian Gospels, not from eyewitnesses, but from the minds and imaginations of humans creating stories. Is it moral and ethical for a God to have the Roman Empire military torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for a God's torture quest? If humans made up the story, then they would have no power over the Roman Empire military. But for a God to use the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people on purpose for a God's torture quest? How did Jesus of Christianity and God of Christianity know, just know, that the Roman Empire military would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine and then also be there to torture, kill and murder Jesus. So when Jesus was born on planet Earth, Jesus knew, just knew that the Roman Empire would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine 33 years after his birth. 30 years to adulthood, 3 years ministry.
Did the Roman Empire military have Free Will?
Could the Roman Empire military just left Judea/Palestine and left the God of the Universe with no military to torture, kill and murder him? Then there would be no Christianity.
Also, how did the Roman Empire military know just the exact way to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in the way that Christianity needs Jesus to be tortured, killed and murdered? What if the Roman Empire military only stabbed people in the heart to kill them, but not torture them? Then Christianity would not be fulfilled. What if the Roman Empire military only hanged the people of Judea/Palestine or burned them to death. Then Christianity would not be fulfilled because blood would not have been spilled. The torture, killing and murder of the people of Judea/Palestine by the Roman Empire military and the way the Roman Empire military did it, is the most important thing to Christianity.
Jesus must have trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in just the right way, to complete Christianity. Can something like that be left to chance? Did Jesus pay the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea so Jesus of Christianity would have the Roman Empire military available for that Gods torture quest? Jesus is not some hippie, that he thinks he can get the Roman Empire military for free, is he?
source? cause most off the gospels we''re writing within the first century. the synoptic were written arond 40 -70 ad. most were written before the destruction of the temple in 75 ish. Since revelation also predicts the nero's persecution which lead to the deaths of Peter.
@@CanuckNews-fv3qj My comment has more to do with the idea of an actual God that uses the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea on purpose for that Gods torture quest. I have read a lot from the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Just like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the D of I the phrase 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' Jesus of Christianity is a human created story God, not a Nature's God. Thomas Jefferson, and many Philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment, did not think Christianity was/is true.
It wasn't left to chance, God guided the whole thing. The prophecies of Daniel predict an iron power being there when the Messiah comes. A very interesting way to read the Bible is that Satan is trying to prevent Messiah from coming and God is working to preserve the path to Messiah. One example is Satan tries to destroy the whole world with sin, God sends a flood and rescues a remnant.
@@thadofalltrades So your Christian God guided the whole thing. The Christian God intentionally had the Roman Empire military, torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for the Christian God's torture quest? There are other ways of looking at the, so called prophecies, that they were interpreted from the Jewish writings and Jewish scholars will tell you that they were misinterpreted by the writers of the Christian Gospels. It was all a human creation of stories, created from the minds and imaginations of humans.
@@thadofalltrades Jesus of Christianity is not a God or a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Just like Superman is a Supernatural Superhero, just like Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero and Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes and Supernatural Supervillains.
A God would know about Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, Geography, etc.. A God would know about how to make things and economics and tell humans how to increase wealth instead of just telling poor people to give things to other poor people. A God know about natural ways to prevent disease and illnesses rather than heal a very, very few people with Supernatural faith healing. A God would know about the value of sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation, medication, etc. to prevent illnesses and disease. A God would know about inventions like the printing press and the value of books and reading. A real God wouldn't just walk around looking at all these people without the ability to read and write.
Jesus of Christianity is not a God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero created from the mind and imagination of humans creating stories. How is it possible for a God to be able to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again and not tell us about how the body works? A real God would tell us about the natural world. A not real God would be a creation of human stories and would use the Supernatural in their stories.
Remember in Star Wars, when Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star! That was fun. And completely imaginary. Jesus of Christianity is from Supernatural stories.
There's no mention of lucifer anywhere near the story peterson mentions, no mention of anything other than it being a serpent... And , it's the serpent which tells the truth.
The serpent is identified later in the Bible as Lucifer. And he didn’t tell the truth, he told a half truth, which is even more manipulative because it sounds true.
What was written in the Bible was perfectly true "at the time". We have seen on occasion where a person is pronounced dead by those around, but the person wakes up. That is why doctors are used to determine death). When growing up, I remember a young guy accused of impregnating a girl. He swore he didn't do it, but after interrogation, it occurred that he deposited semen in front of the "V", but never penetrated into the "V". This guy swore that he didn't do it. Anyway, it was determined that some of that semen did get through to impregnate the girl. I'm not saying that this is what happened with Jesus, BUT at the time, it'd have been a virgin birth.😇
Well, I see a hole. How could Adam and Eve know that disobeying god is a sin when they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil before biting the fruit?
@justwindowshopping007 right, but god saying "DO NOT" is a communication to Adam and Eve who have no understanding of right and wrong when they are told this commandment. It's sort of like telling your newborn child not to eat this bag of magic mushrooms that I have placed in your crib. The conditions for Adam and Eve to "sin" were created by God in the first place. The serpent, the tree and the 2 human beings were set by the conductor of the play, which is God.
The sin? the sin is Shame. they were naked (sexual) and not what? ashamed. why mention the emotional state of the Adam... if it wasn't very important? and... please read the text and tell me where it mentions lucifer? it doesn't. How can you possibly read something that isn't written?
@ChristopherDwiggins Adam comes from Adama... the living soil. The story is not a story about the fall of mankind. that's all nonsense... literally. No. its a more of a gardening lesson, an answer to the question... where are you Adam.? Because you have done this.... The Earth, will now respond, over Time, like this.... G-d did not curse The Earth, read it again, The Earth is responding to Adams heart frequently. And read on... let me know when you get to... Now The Adam has become like one of Us, having the ability of The Knowledge of Good And Evil. It's all about emotions. The difference between good and evil is.... emotional.
Lucifer was called the devil, the Satan, the serpent, the dragon, the enemy, the ruler of the air, the prince, etc. throughout the rest of scriptures. It does not call him lucifer in genesis but future writers knew who it was.
@mikeschaller9233 I'm sorry but that's not how the sacred texts work. It says serpent for a reason. Please don't be fooled by this deliberate misinterpretation. Adam needed to learn something important... and He did. He got it and was sent out into the world with G-ds blessing to be a fruitful and multiply and fill up The Earth. (are we there yet? 🤔 anyway...) He needed to learn about is "Male side". Up until then, he had only been receiving, female, and had yet to experience doing, male. He was given this and that but not yet done anything until... "What have you done?" He was now feeling very different "inside", in his heart. G-d explains how this change of heart will now influence The Earth and his future.... over Time. Any idea how much electromagnetic energy the heart radiates every millisecond? Compare the electromagnetic difference between shame/fear and Joy/gratitude. The teaching / message is simple. Our hearts affect our futures....
The religion is based on two impossible things: a virgin birth and rising from the grave. Take it or leave it. The two impossible things bookend moralising. That's all.
Jordan won’t humble himself before the Lord, and this is why he is in a constant state of struggle. We can see the state that his soul is in. Jonathan is trying to lead Jordan there through trying to build off of Jordan’s purely symbolic interpretations of Christianity, but Jordan will not arrive there through intellectual workings alone.
One thing I never understood. For an eternity before creating humans, god always knew that one day he would create them, the knew that they would fail in exactly this fashion...and he did it anyway...only to drown all humans and animals in a fit of rage, saving only Noah's family and two of each creature. How does one slaughter almost all living things in a fit of anger, when one always knew the outcome? Anger requires surprise.
It wasn't anger. Anger is never mentioned in the flood account. God sent the flood to preserve the way to Messiah because humanity was on the verge of annihilating itself. The earth was filled with violence and every imagination was only evil continually. Earth was in a very bad way. God rescued Noah from annihilation to ensure the pathway to salvation. Just the act of creating any free moral agent virtually ensures that one is going to fall. Having children myself helped me understand this a lot. I know with 100% certainty, though not specifically, that my child will suffer possibly horribly. Yet we still chose to have a child. The regret God feels for creating man is in empathy for the suffering they are experiencing in a world filled with violence. Just like I would regret having my child if they experienced extreme suffering in their life. The beauty of the plan of salvation is that the result is a universe where suffering and death will never rise again. God could have not created at all, just like I could have not had children, but there's a lot of joy in children. He could have created beings incapable of choice, but that would go against his character. The best option was to create free moral agents and manage the evil that would inevitably arise. The plan of salvation provides a way for it to be eradicated entirely from the universe, never to rise again. We will still be free moral agents, but no one will ever reject God again because the record of the cost is still there on Jesus's body for all eternity.
Is it necessary to take the flood story as a literal "historical" event? There's a great deal of anthropomorphism in the OT about God, which the Holy Fathers insist are metaphors and not to be taken as human passions or defects. Just as God does not have a hand or a mouth or eyes, but these concepts can be applied analogously to God to express certain truths, so too concepts like anger or wrath or regret are used, but they are strictly metaphorical. I can pull up a bunch of sources if need be as they're very interesting.
Peterson is such a goof. Did you know this guy used to make content for TVO, a liberal tv channel in Ontario? You don't like that do you? Yeah, his content was very popular with liberals. I know you really want this strong intellectual, but what you have is a personal constitution that blows in the wind with whatever is popular.
@@MsUpptagetthis content is nothing but lies meant to confuse the stupid and terrified. No love. They don’t know Jesus or themselves. Know thyself! Did they talk about love once? Do they love their neighbors? That’s the god damned gospel! What are these foolish people doing? No. The church in America is a cult. They hate the least. They hate the other. They are such hypocrites. They chose their orange pumpkin god. Their BS is easily seen through for those who know themselves and live in the heart. Join us, the only real religion is love. The oldest one. They want a new Christian fundamentalism to lock in their power. Fools all, utter fools surrounding themselves with people who tell themselves what their itching ears want to hear. There is no such thing as holy books! Our truth is only found in our own hearts. Life is only real, when I AM.
In what way does he simply conform to what’s popular? He seems to have been discussing roughly the same ideas for years, before his popularity and during popularity, as well as throughout harsh criticisms from many sides
It's becoming more preposterous for me to believe that it didn't happen then to believe that it did happen. What a great revelation!
Poor old dawkins having a hard time swallowing his pride by admitting he prefer living in a Christian dominant society 😔
He knows how Christians behave absent of secular law
@@edbradley6815 Yes... torturing and burning "witches," abusing and killing indigenous peoples... the list goes on and on.
@@edbradley6815😂😂😂
You evidently haven't seen the interview where he said that because if you had you'd know he had no need to "swallow his pride". Nor did he have a "hard time". He had no problem saying what he said, he said it without hesitation and it didn't bother him in the slightest. Also, he said a "culturally Christian" society, not a "Christian dominant" society. And he explained exactly why he thinks that way - because it's the society he was brought up in.
From an evolutionary standpoint, one could argue that all Christians have developed their current beliefs as a product of their evolutionary history. Consequently, it becomes problematic to assert that their beliefs are erroneous when viewed through the lens of this flawed biological determinism.
Pageau is such a wonderful gift from God just as Peterson is, I love listening to them both speak
It’s no coincidence that they both arose at roughly the same time to be able to have these conversations.
I hope some day JP catches up. I think he has given himself the task to take as many people with him. But since I listen to P I just can’t listen to JP that often anymore… Christ is risen!
C. S. Lewis's three choices, also known as the Trilemma or the Lord, liar, or lunatic argument, are the following:
1. Jesus was a liar
2. Jesus was insane
3 . Jesus was God
A very convenient formulation for apologetics
There are multiple other options if you use your imagination.
Chiefly that we don’t know the “real” Jesus because the Gospels are not reliable
@GiantsHunt This only moves the issue one layer further back, you still have to decide which of the three options Jesus Christ is after you certify the text as reliable.
The Reliability of the source text has been tested by mainstream scholars.
@@GiantsHuntConsidering the Gospels were written and accepted while some of Jesus' original followers, and the churches they planted, were still around, we can assume they found them reliable.
Peterson and Pagaeu seem to be steering towards the right answer but they don't quite get there in this segment, at least. Maybe they do elsewhere in the discussion that isn't presented here.
Starting at 6:19 they talk about the implications of the notion that the Resurrection is false is that western civilization is based on a lie. But they don't really go much further than that, and they should.
In particular, something that has a fundamental lie at its foundation is something that cannot function well for long periods of time. Such things can function for short periods of time due to happenstance, but probability always catches up with you eventually. And the plain fact of the matter is that western civilization is the most powerful force for prosperity the world has ever seen, by orders of magnitude. No other civilization has come anywhere close to yielding the wealth and capability that western civilization has. And western civilization has Christianity at its foundation, by way of the principles of Christianity. I'm of the belief that it is the doctrine of forgiveness and the elevation of truth that has enabled western civilization to function as well as it has. Forgiveness as a fundamental principle gets you built-in fault tolerance in the system, making the system resilient. And what is a civilization but a complex dynamic system?
This is how I came to believe that Christian principles are correct. And if that's the case then all that's left is to answer how it is that Christianity spread as it did. People today aren't *smarter* than they were back then. Someone back then would be just as apt to be skeptical of the claim of resurrection as a nonbeliever would be today. But *something* convinced them of its truth. What could possibly do that if it was, in fact, a lie? Look at how difficult it is to convince someone today of anything that isn't actually true. The moral demands that Christianity places on people who adopt it (who is inclined to forgive others? Who is inclined to love their enemies?) are powerful incentive for people to *not* adopt it, and that is even more true back then than it is now, because we now have experience that shows how well it works in practice. They didn't have that back then. That means that adoption of it back then essentially required belief in the Resurrection first, because there was no other real reason for that. I don't see how that could have happened if it were false, particularly given the social and religious context (the Roman Empire).
And so, I am a believer because western civilization proves that the principles of Christianity are true, and the situation surrounding the birth of Christianity is such that its spiritual claims must also be true for it to have been adopted in the first place.
There is no right answer. Avoid those certain of anything, they are fools.
@@BigBunnyLove If there is no right answer then there is no functioning morality. Observation clearly shows otherwise.
The real world is the litmus test of truth. The real would wouldn't be that if there was no right answer.
There is a difference between there being a right answer and someone actually possessing it. I always admit the possibility of being incorrect, but I see no flaw in the logic I supplied. If the logic is sound and the stipulations that went into it are correct then the conclusion must likewise be correct. That's as "right" as anyone can hope for.
@ I’m sorry, I don’t speak your language. There are no right or wrong answers or answers of any kind. You can't work this out in your head or speak it. It's in the heart. Real love, as real philosophy, is lived. These two men are clueless and obviously don't know themselves at all. They didn't say love once, Jesus' gospel. And there is definitely no hope, you and I are walking dead. There is no god like Christianity thinks there is, not in the least. You are god, I am. We don’t need morality, awake, we know what do and we always do the best thing we can. We don’t constrain ourselves with the authority of books or gods or other persons. That’s real freedom, try it maybe. Memento Mori.
@@BigBunnyLove I agree that real love, real philosophy, is lived. That does not mean that it cannot be discerned, described, or deduced. You throw away the works of the mind when what we really want is for heart and mind to act in concert.
You essentially imply that we cannot make any real choices ("we always do the best thing we can"). Our own internal and external experiences say otherwise. People constantly, and automatically, second guess the choices they've made, which clearly cannot mean anything other than they have the power of choice in the first place. Such second guessing has no use in the absence of the availability of meaningful choice.
But if meaningful choice is available, then that means that our choices actually matter. And if they matter then that means that some options are better than others. And if some options are better than others *and* we have the ability to choose something other than the best options, then it follows that we need something to guide us towards those best options. That something *is* morality.
Peterson and Pageau are discussing specific things in specific ways. That they do not mention love during the conversation does not mean they are unaware of love's significance in all this, and it is a monumental mistake to think it does.
There is always hope. That hope may be for things temporary, or for things permanent. It may sometimes be unjustifiable, and it may sometimes be justifiable. If we are "god" (an assertion I clearly contest) then explain how it is we have limitations that are not of our own choosing. We live under *external* constraints. If we did not create those constraints ourselves then something else did, and because they are constraints on us it follows that whatever it is that created those constraints is more powerful than us, more deserving of the title "god" than we are. It is from iterating that argument to its logical conclusion that I conclude that God really is omnipotent as Christianity asserts.
@@n2185x well, we profoundly disagree, my views are not informed by books or people, but through experience. I know myself and what I am capable of. What a monster I can be. I’ll leave you with your hope. Who am I to take candy from a baby. Until you have lived with no net, you haven’t even begun to. Until one has shattered their certainty, they are asleep and cannot be trusted. The slumbering will come up with every excuse not to awaken to the cold hard realities of being. To living in the middle of maximum uncertainty. To accepting we know next to nothing. No angel or demon makes our choices, we do. What I am talking about is taking responsibility for oneself, being brutally honest with oneself about what one thinks they know. And we always have to be turning over the soil. People certain, have stopped, good as dead. We make our own meaning. If you have not love for yourself, the other, and the world, you are asleep. Jesus tried to wake them up and they made a religion out of him. Fools all. Liars. Pretenders. Jesus said, this way costs you your life. I look at America’s Christians and I want to 🤮 the men in this video are the worst kind of charlatan. Money changers in the temple. Selling dispensations. They know better. Evangelicals particularly have no love for the other on the whole. They dream of war. They are monsters. Open every border. Send all your missionaries there. Hypocrites. Their own book condemns them as they now surround themselves with those who tell them what their itching ears want to hear. They make a hell of the earth. No thanks. No thanks, don’t join. They are the truly lost. They can have their orange pumpkin headed antichrist. Pathetic. Jordan is an insane drug addict working for the Russians. Go live there. Leave us alone I say. All you who embrace Putin, leave. This is a matter of the heart, not the head. You all are profoundly wrong and misguided and throwing your tantrums. Give me an Fin break. You think god is sane? Hahahahaha! Obviously not. Adieu!
Never would've imagined or hoped for such thinkers embracing faith in Christ so openly, & to welcome it myself! God it great! 🙏🕊️
It is only logical that the smarter a person is, the closer they would be to the truth. Even Newton was a Christian
Nothing can convince Dawkins, he has admitted that publicly multiple times.
He is, however, convinced that the first mammals, shrews, over a period of several gazillion years, morphed themselves into human persons. He has an amazing belief system.
@@rodangus4489 One has evidence while other does not. Evolution is going nowhere.
@@yuvanraj2271 Evidence other than empty rhetoric? There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the genome of the shrew can gain even an iota of new genetic information. 'Reductionist materialism' (as quoted in the video by JP) is a gross, nihilistic fabricated narrative superimposed on reality. It is nothing but a vacuous mist cast over the minds of men.
@@yuvanraj2271There are Christians who believe in Evolution
@@yuvanraj2271 I couldn't agree more. Evolution is going nowhere.
This reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
Morphology is iteratively specific, rotationally specific and vibrationally specific.
The morphology of a passion flower is the same pattern as the middle C note played to an oscilloscope. The pattern is at mid resonance ( dissipating tone); it is not only a specific note but a specific timescale after the note is struck.
Note that when you speak the structure of the sounds is toroidal ( a physical characteristic resulting from a thought).
Yes, the resurrection is real
God is love and love is real.
Proof?
@@zarbinsyou clearly are searching for it, no reason why else you would be here commenting. Keep searching but maybe not in the places you already have.
@@deathfalcon602 Appreciate the reply.
Well that settles that
I wish someone could just tell Dr. Peterson about the criteria that go into forming an inference to the best explanation for historical matters. You don't have to go to Christians, or even Theists, in order to get these criteria; however, and here is the rub, when you run The Resurrection through these criteria, then you see that it is the best explanation that one can infer--and others aren't even close. Now, yes, one can choose to withhold judgement, but why ought one do so in this particular case? There really is decent evidence, competing explanations all fail horribly, and--as these gentlemen are pointing out--the fundamental, archetypal, principles that we see as constituting most of human reality all point to something like the sacrificial offering of the sinless god-man.
Well then, why don't you do it?
@@ShaneChaffin You have his number? I'm not in personal contact with him.
Jesus wasn't crucified
@@rcmysm9123 Lol! Okay. Even atheist historians and biblical scholars disagree with you there. I'll side with the consensus of scholarship on this one.
@Real_LiamOBryan
Reality is not based on a consensus.
What is the red lapel pin they are wearing?
Remembrance Day Poppy. Worn in early November in Canada to honour veterans.
And Australia. New Zeland And United Kindom. Plus some other countrys i cant remember.
@@BeachandHills-hb2pq yes for sure. I didn't mean to exclude, but these two gents are Canadian so my mind went there.
@@ICallitTheWeave No problem. Have a good week.
I love this deep take on the resurrection. Of course, you don’t have to convince me, so very moving.
In wrestling with the real meaning of Christianity and metaphysical truth, laboring to distill their implications, what I hear Peterson articulating is frankly a bunch of sophisticated anthropocentric psychobabble. I honestly don’t think he possesses any serious sense of theology, I don’t think he has a clue what Jesus, the Gospel, or the Bible are really all about. He is simply content (perhaps arrogantly content) to domesticate Christian ideas within the terra firma categories of his own psychological purview
Interestingly put but he does illustrate the vapidity of much of what passes for Theology in those who present themselves as authentic. His lectures on topics in the Bible do make me think more deeply about the things of my Faith than the sermons I hear in so many churches.
Everyone needs a hobby
What is the original video? I havent seen it on Petersons page? Is it on dailywire?
its his podcast titled beyond Dawkins about a month ago on TH-cam
As a scientist we understand how the resurrection happened and will happen.
Fact:
The Mandelbrot set begins at 0.25 and ends at (-2).
Fact:
The Mandelbrot set has limited area while simultaneously having infinite borders ( simultaneously infinite and finite)
Can you explain a bit further? I just looked up Mandlebrot sets, and they are mesmerizing, but I don't see how it is related.
@
The Mandelbrot set is the pattern in which your brain is created.
The coronal cross Section of the brain is the morphology of the Mandelbrot set and the caudal cross section is the connected Julia sets.
No hypothesis explains to all satisfaction why there is both ipsilateral and contralateral neural pathways in the central nervous system. The Mandelbrot set, has both ipsilateral and contralateral pathways from the main cardioid to the main bulb. In fact, there are correspondences in the main cardioid to all the bulbs.
It can be shown that all geometry of the universe from the Bose Einstein, condensate to the greatest structures of the universe are transformations from a polar grid circle to a polar grid Mandelbrot set.
The Mandelbrot set not only has a beginning and end and is simultaneously infinite and finite, but it is also the imaging which you are made, and it is in everything everywhere. As such it is omnipresent. And that it is the structure which creates everything it is omnipotent understanding that math has no positive powers. It is the spirit of God that generates this.. Form structure. By being everywhere and all powerful it is also thereby a structure which gives understanding to omniscience.
I cannot show you pictures here, but you can look at my identifying picture in which I have the Mandelbrot set in the Julie sets .
Or you can just look it up yourself bring up a picture of the Mandelbrot set and compare it to an image of the coronal cross-section of the brain. Fold in the bulbs to match the fissures and the sulci of the brain.
The mathematics God uses to create the universe and thereby us, is a description of God.
God is spirit.
There are kinds of things.
Things have images.
Things have likenesses ( what is it like to be a bat?)
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718 I'm guessing it's something related to Coastline paradox or fractal surface, you can look it up. The gist of it is you can infinitely zoom in on the edges, and you will see more and more complex patterns, and if you try to measure the length of the edge it will be an infinite number. Maybe state in a perhaps more poetic way, the deeper you look the more you'll see
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718The Manderbolt set points to the fact that both infinite and finite qualities can be found in an entity. So it's not a far reach to claim that Jesus Christ embodied is the image of the eternal God. Hence, he possessed both finite (humanity) and infinite (godhood) qualities.
@@d3faulta Wonderful! Will look into it.Thanks
Platonists, who think "god" is the name for a metaphysical first principle necessary to uphold a rationalist worldview.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
First of all: poor JBP trying to interpret those stories using his intellect, like he's trying to figure out Christianity. Christianity already exists. Go to Church. You don't have to make it up by yourself.
Second of all, no, nothing Jonathan said would have convinced Dawkins, Dawkins is not interested in any of this.
Church won’t quench Petersen’s thirst. He isn’t after a canned, rehearsed response. As a hyper-intelligent and pathologically curious man, he is going straight to the source to challenge his own understanding.
The Bible we have today is already slightly watered down. Between the not always great translations to the exclusion of many contemporary gospels and narratives, THE Word of God we read today is not entirely what it was meant to be and the Church is largely responsible for this.
While it IS easier to take someone else’s word, usually it really is best to go back to the source and try to understand it for oneself
@@FloridaManMatty doing your own research huh
The Church precedes the Bible. The Church deliberately excluded many books from its canon because they were either determined to be unsubstantiated/false or simply not divinely inspired. This isn’t some secret that you stumbled on, it’s basic history. The first Christians were VERY much concerned with being part of the Church, engaging in the sacraments, etc. It wasn’t merely some intellectual activity for them.
@@therealbs2000- It's always the best method. No middle man.
@@FloridaManMattyThe Church is the source. You cannot have authentic Christian experience without the one Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church.
I will pass it on as it was shared to me by my ascended master Abel (biological son of Adam and Eve): Jesus died on the cross. But not his soul. And his soul was united to the Spirit. And when that happens, anything is possible. Yes, Jesus was resurrected in body.
Thanks
Minute 2:04 great distinction between natural death, death for survival in nature, and death brought about by conscious (low) moral behavior.
I wonder if Dr Peterson has ever seriously looked into the shroud of Turin and the evidence there of.?
Come on Logos, that’s three thumbnails with typos in as many days. Slow down and proofread lil bro
The disciples that died for Christ did gain something. They gained eternal life.
Yes in the mind-universe, its structure depends upon belief, whether that belief is valid or not is another question. But as we know its difficult to maintain a belief in the face of its demonstrable failure in the face of physical reality. But as we know if that belief can be maintained then its truth will set you free. And it sets you free because the Almighty God will in the end transcend the perceived evil and make it good!
Disciple John died of old age right? This doesn't undermine the good point; just pointing it out not "all" / checking my understanding?
A poppy for veterans?
Or a poppy to sleep?
🤗🙏
I wonder if Dawkins would be willing to be tortured and crucified upside down etc for his belief in Atheism? Why don't you guys ask Dawkins that question and see what he says.
Can someone explain what Jonathan is saying in more common terms please? I'm Catholich and deep into metaphysics and patterns myself, but I don't understand what he just said. What's "the most affording story"?
"Affordances are the characteristics or properties of an object that suggest how it can be used. It shows a user that an object can be interacted with."
I would assume that he means that the resurrection story (and Jesus story as a whole) best explains an archetype that is useful to us, and that he accepts it as true, even though he cannot explain the mechanics of how the resurrection could have taken place. He also states that because Christianity forms a large part of the foundations of Western culture, that if it is indeed a lie, then the entire culture is built on weak foundations, and asks what the implications of that would be.
@@skaus2184 Okay, I mostly understand that. One problem I have with that is that Islam is the second biggest religion in the world, with obvious differences not only in the facts but also in behaviour. Lying to infidels to gain their trust is considered a virtue for example. From my point of view, the islamic narrative is false, and yet at the same time it is still the second biggest narrative we have. It's not bigger than christianity but I just wonder about the credence of the argument that what survives is truth over the long term. Perhaps the islamic narrative will collapse, but it's already 1400 years old, that's a pretty long time.
@@skaus2184It's a bit more basic than that.
Much like how Dawkins was indicating that quantum physics simply affords itself as the correct explanation (aka it works) the story of Christ simply affords itself as the correct answer to the mass of stories and written details of Christ and the outcomes.
You see them emphasize that nothing else could have happened by suggesting that Babylon bee's satire is correctly satire. The story "of course" made sense for all the disciples to choose this awesome path of death and torture, all normal people totally would.
On the definition of affordance, you're correct in the usage portion, but I would lean it more to "the thing that simply just fits the mould of the expected outcome" much like affordance is used to describe how a chair simply fits the mould of allowing an individual to sit, the story of Christ simply fits the narrative of history and that civilization outcome as it stands.
Instead of own knowledge what if acquired God's knowledge of Good and Evil. Certainly reality would be a sure thing.
I loved what my theology teacher taught me. Either Jesus is the biggest liar and manipulator in human history or.. he’s the son of the god.
Your theology teacher left out at least one other possibility: Lord... liar... or legend. Take your pick, and you still have the problem of demonstrating that it's true.
@@jimscott9974he’s a historical fact so not really legend.
@@GnomaticMime-lz9js Legends can develop around real people. The fact that a rabbi named Jesus may have existed isn't proof that the supernatural events attributed to him actually happened. And in regards to your teacher, he or she wasn't just a THEOLOGY teacher, but a CHRISTIAN teaching theology, which would give him or her an agenda to promote.
@@jimscott9974all identity has agenda but his wasn’t for himself it was for Jesus which was beyond clear, even felt. And legend implies worlds biggest liar because that is the claim. So it’s either liar or son of god. Why are you getting semantical when you knew the essence of what I was saying. Don’t elaborate essence or you go beyond the point and miss what people are talking about
@@GnomaticMime-lz9js The essence of what you were saying is wrong. Legends can form around someone after they are dead, which means they would have never even known about it, and could not, therefore, be liars themselves because they weren't the ones who created the legend. You want your beliefs to be true because they make you feel good, and that's it.
The fisrt sin is also distrust, or a failure to trust.
No, it's pride. Distrust can be good, pride not.
That is the first and ultimate sin of not trusting God, rooted in pride.
@ you are mistaken, distrust in God is never good
@@cjcRacing in angels is rooted in pride, not in humans, pride is the hardening of the heart and the cause of that is distrust, lack of faith (faith means trust).
I say all the Sins come from one thing. Selfishness. Specifically, selfishness to the detriment of one's self and others. Selfishness, in some capacity, is necessary in this world. Not in the Garden though. Most people hate this. For obvious reasons.
Morphology is not found in the genome.
Morphology is form.
Form is function.
To what degree can form be selected if morphology is not specified in the genome.
Things like the hox gene are not specific of the morphology .
A spiders web is not determined by genes.
A spider can extend its mind via its web.
7:36 isn’t that exactly what happens when you make a Faustian deal with the devil? Up front gains, eternal damnation?
If it only could convince JBP
Guess all the prophets of all the religions also didn't lie and were telling the truth.
I don't get the argument.
What is the thing that "convinced" Dawkins here? And of what?
I would assume that the title of the video is based on a belief that had Peterson (or Pageau) used this line of reasoning, that it may have convinced Dawkins.
It's not formulated as a argument in the video since the title is just slapped on a segment of a conversation. But, I think the core part is around 5:20 when Pageau frames it in terms of accepting the truth of the resurrection not because he can understand it from the ground up, but for its explanatory power from the top down as the epitome of sacrifice. Peterson says that Dawkins uses the same logic to justify his belief in Quantum Mechanics, which similarly can't be fully comprehended but is accepted as true because of its explanatory power. This similarity, if framed into a proper argument, might be able to breach the wall of materialistic skepticism that Dawkins has put up around himself.
From a pragmatic standpoint-though I don't necessarily endorse this view-individuals may hold "incorrect" beliefs that nonetheless result in favorable outcomes. 7:00
You’ll never grasp the Sistine Chapel living inside a butchery.
You guys need to bring the smartest man in the world today, whom Michael Knowles interviewed recently, into this discussion.
Eve was tempted to question God’s goodness and his intent in creating humanity. In a sense she was tempted to stand in judgment of God which could be interpreted as pride I suppose. If God is not fully faithful and loving then that brings Eve’s own sense of value into question also as she has until then understood herself in light of God’s love for her. With her own value in question then she must make her own value otherwise face the meaninglessness of her own existence. Hence the application of fig leaves stands as a reminder that we try to cover our own shame in order to present an image that can be acceptable. Pretty much all human dysfunction can be related back to this point. If we are truly created in God’s image and God loves us unconditionally then our challenge is coming to trust that again. This is why Jesus related His crucifixion to the story of the poisonous snakes. The poison of the snake is a lie that we believe about God and about ourselves. Our value can be tied to what we can achieve which will always be an unreliable and shifting basis or our value can be based on who we are - children of the creator who loves us more than his own self.
The issue with Peterson's thesis (that their fundamental sin is pride) is that pride is a moral category, yet the narrative expressly states they are in a pre-moral posture. They had not yet taken of the tree of good and evil. Peterson's thesis begs the question.
Hm yes
“Truth is often contradicting”
“Temptation to become as Gods” hm. I have to say I do not know how to be human then if it is not to strive towards the thing of a high power.
I feel that Adam and Eve to a level of 30-20 percent is in me. Temperament and curiosity …
I believe “what would become of suffering” is that they are minimized!
Hmmmmm, it sounded like John was making a pseudo pragmatic argument when he spoke about 'what the story affords us.' I think I disagree. A buddist can simply say the same thing while never hearing about Christs story. 'The story of Buddha affords us xyz.' As it were. I think a person can believe that the Christ and biblical story affords xyz AND totally reject becoming a disciple of Christ. So, if that is the case, the story becomes pointless beyond benefiting humanity. It wouldn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it affords a society with xyz. It's obviously possible that I am misinterpreting what John is saying, and I am open to clarification.
The problem with Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't the pride of becoming like God. The problem was rather the self orientation of making themselves like God; self righteousness. God had already made them in His image, they were already like God. The sin of religion is the self righteous path of building your own tower of Babel, it's the asking for the commandments rather than joining God on the mountain. God certainly does not approve of pride, but eating from the do-it-yourself tree is the identity crisis moment that sent humanity into brokeness that's only restored with Christ. The veil tears from the top down, not the bottom up.
GOD IS ❤ 😊 LOVE IS ?????
3:21 no
Great argument. XD
No one knows that's the truth 😂
But even if they didn't lie for power and wealth, and even if they knew they would likely be killed for claiming the resurrection, they still might've lied anyway. People lie for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is because of how painful the truth might be. I'm not saying they lied, but the argument that it's unlikely because of the outcome seems weak.
Lie to teach a lesson, to get the last laugh, and both. A lie is only the truth in an individual’s mind.
Lying because they could not handle the truth is a much weaker argument.
@@rujotheone Personally, I believe in Christ. Not because of any particular testimony or story of miracles, etc., but because Christ fits the human narrative so perfectly. Like the missing puzzle piece that makes our story make sense.
But from a purely logical perspective, if we're just talking about testimonials, then no, they're terribly weak. If this were any other story, I wouldn't believe it.
And I actually didn't use to believe in the story of Christ because it sounded so absurd on its face. I had to live through a bit of life to gain the perspective necessary for it to dawn on me how much Christ himself is the only thing in life that actually makes any sense.
If thousands of people had said a man, who was otherwise without the life and message of Christ, walked on water, preformed healing miracles, died as a result etc., I wouldn't be convinced of their story.
I'd assume they were crazy cultists, the man was tricking them somehow, and that there was lying or mental illness, etc. involved. The likelihood of that is simply greater than some random magic man. Without Christ himself, the whole thing sounds like nonsense.
@@kangarooninja2594 Miracles, Christian Supernaturalism, and Naturalism.
What good are miracles?
Superman can do miracles. Superman is a Supernatural Superhero.
Spiderman can do miracles. Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero.
Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader can do miracles. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes.
The X-men can do miracles. The X-men are Supernatural Superheroes and Supervillains.
Here is what prevents the Bubonic Plague from killing people, from Wikipedia;
(Bubonic plague outbreaks are controlled by pest control and modern sanitation techniques.)
In the years 1347 to 1351, 1/3rd of the population of Europe died to the Bubonic Plague.
Parents would have been praying to Jesus of Christianity to protect themselves and their family from harm and children would have prayed to Jesus of Christianity to protect their parents from harm. Did Jesus tell them how to prevent Bubonic Plague when they were praying on how to protect themselves from harm? 1/3rd of the population died. The reason we don't usually have Bubonic Plague around is because of the modern sanitation and pest control. Was that to much for Jesus to explain to the Christians in Europe?
So what did the people of Europe need in the years 1347 to 1351? Did Europe need a Supernatural Superhero? Or did Europe need a Naturalism Hero with knowledge of Nature.
Most people of any age of humanity can write stories of Gods that can do miracles. The harder part is for people to be able to examine Nature successfully.
The Age of Enlightenment writers wrote about ancient Story Gods for the altar and for the throne, rule from both Religion and Government. That is why Age of Enlightenment Philosophers, directed us humans to Nature's God and not human created Story Gods. Thus Thomas Jefferson's "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Jesus of Christianity is never a Nature's God.
@@rujotheone not including the experience of physical death
"Pride?" Why not Covetousness; Eve 'wants what God has?' Or Jealousy; Eve 'can't stand that God has something over her?' Or Rebellion; Eve 'can't stand being told what to do?' Or what about potentially better instincts, like Independence; Adam thought 'maybe God won't always be here when decisions must be made?' Or Aspiration; Adam may have thought 'creatures who know right from wrong are inherently better/more valuable to God than creatures too stupid to know better?' The talking snake surely believes himself to be better than God, be he in no way wants humans to leapfrog him on the totem-pole of power/authority or any other measure, so his motives don't impute to Adam or Eve. (more...)
"Resurrection?" Resurrection is commonplace in the Bible. For example, all 200 Genesis6 Son's-of-God resurrected many times during the flood. They drowned, resurrected and drowned again. Over-and-over for a year. Yes secular can dismiss resurrection as fantasy, but within the framework of the narrative, resurrection is commonplace.
Does “pride” cover all these suggestions or all these are pride based in desire?
OH AH SCIENCE WHY ??? 😅
“If Jesus didn’t resurrect… then our civilization is built on a lie.”
I gotta say, as a Christian- coming from Jonathan Pageau- that’s a weak argument. The Ancient Greeks believed in their gods, yet their society flourished for a time. It didn’t make it real necessarily.
...or did it?
The point isn't what the lie "affords"--in terms of civilizational grandeur, but simply the fact that, hey, everything you know and love and hold dear is a lie. All our talk of helping the helpless, of loving the weak, of striving to love our neighbor (and enemy), our particular way of pursuing truth etc. is based on a a falsehood that also renders our ideals nothing but fictions. Essentially it's a reductio ad absurdem moral argument.
As a Christian I agree, that is a weak argument. Christ didn't come to create a new, separate civilization, but rather to help lead all civilizations to Him.
AI ??? ?? ???? ??????
CHRIST 😂
Order: God -> Man -> Woman -> Rest of creation
Serpent (creation) -> deceives Woman -> ropes Man into it -> to become like God
The chain of command was reversed at the fall. Everything else is downstream of that. And don't we see it everywhere? Women trying to be like men, men trying to be like women.
Misogynistic ahh book defo man made since the bible is written to benefit men
Man and women should be equal idc about your stupid book
Yall men just want to control us that's what the creation of abrahamic religions show that yall just want power over us
This is why the world is a mess because old traditional religious views have oppressed us women for so long and we now can be our true selves and also have jobs and ambitions,those are not unnatural things,but believing in angels and demons ain't natural bud,superstition has poisoned everything
There’s a third possibility beyond the lie or truth of the resurrection - that it was misinterpreted. There is a theory which posits that Jesus was severely wounded and deeply unconscious, not dead although he appeared to be (which is a phenomenon that occurs even today) and subsequently recovered from his wounds. If true, that would make the foundation of civilization not false but mistaken.
The spear through the heart at the end is quite convincing.
Romans didn't allow people to come off a cross alive.
This doesn't explain how Jesus, two days later was walking around the countryside talking to people, eating with them, etc. He spent 40 days with the disciples and travelled all over the place. There's simply no possibility a person who endured what he did would be up and about like that. You're being too myopic and looking at a single part of the account in isolation. All those details eliminate the "mistaken" argument entirely. It's definitely between they lied or they were telling the truth. Those are the only two possibilities.
I've seen the "swoon theory" before (I think it was addressed in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ) and my takeaway is that the process of crucifixion - nevermind the scourging beforehand - is such a brutal process that there's no way a human could have survived it. Even if someone could, the resurrected Christ whom the apostles encounter is not like a man who was tortured "almost" to death and then left in a tomb for the best part of three days.
@jonathanhall7903 you are correct about the spear through the heart, water separate from clotted blood came out. That means he'd been dead for several minutes at that point. Also, they sealed the tomb with a large stone and set guards. A critically wounded man couldn't have gotten himself out. The only conclusion is that he was really dead.
All other evidence aside that would just mean He was a liar lol
That
How many people use to get burried alive, its high.
Not crucifixion victims
Read the gospels, He was dead before they took him down from the cross.
@ryankelly9032 th-cam.com/video/4vaEnWVzuK4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=u4yLf2ZExjSPqlTE
"That would mean our whole civilization is based on a lie." Whatever you do little sheep, dont look over the fence.
Yawn
6:47 yes it is
That thought is too small
@@crystalwaters9059 th-cam.com/video/4vaEnWVzuK4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=u4yLf2ZExjSPqlTE
@@crystalwaters9059 this thought is to small.
Bahaha, even Mr. T knew better than you. I pity the fool.
P.s. you’re the fool 😂 but you’re so foolish you’ll never realize or admit it. BAHAHAHA
LETS HAVE A 400 YEAR TIME OUT TO LETS SCIENCE 🧬 CATCH UP 😊. I ALLOW MY DESENT NOV 24/24 😅😮😊. OK 👍 GOODBYE
Well the person who witnessed jesus rise was partially blind.
Doesn't mean it had to be a lie.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen though either.
You should care enough to pursue the sciences that could perhaps prove it one day.
Don't hold your breath. People have sat around thinking up philosophical arguments to justify a myth for thousands of years now. A person has to shore it up in that manner in order to compartmentalize a story and pretend it is fact.
Do you remember all the stunning arguments that prove the sky is blue? Me neither. They're unnecessary. I'm not saying its a bad myth. I like Christians on average. I won't engage in the fantasy of their alleged deity the same way I don't have to tell a man he is a woman.
the resurrection is a classic Platonic Noble Lie ...
Sin is Beauty that is past itself.
Christ IS Reality. Reality IS Christ.
Christ is the creator of all reality, both material and immaterial.
Evil exists as a parasite on God's reality. It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Christ, and therefore Reality.
It is dependent upon and yet in opposition to Reality, and therefore Christ.
Satan, though also dependant upon both, will submit to neither.
He therefore says in John Milton's "Paradise Lost"... "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven... "
The modern left also rejects Reality and insists it has the right and power to create its own reality, in opposition to both Reality and Christ.
Nope. Love your neighbor. Practice that maybe.
It is not that the ancient writings of the Christian Gospels were witnessed by the writers of the Jesus of Christianity story. It is that someone after some time wrote Christian Gospels, not from eyewitnesses, but from the minds and imaginations of humans creating stories.
Is it moral and ethical for a God to have the Roman Empire military torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for a God's torture quest? If humans made up the story, then they would have no power over the Roman Empire military. But for a God to use the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people on purpose for a God's torture quest?
How did Jesus of Christianity and God of Christianity know, just know, that the Roman Empire military would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine and then also be there to torture, kill and murder Jesus. So when Jesus was born on planet Earth, Jesus knew, just knew that the Roman Empire would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine 33 years after his birth. 30 years to adulthood, 3 years ministry.
Did the Roman Empire military have Free Will?
Could the Roman Empire military just left Judea/Palestine and left the God of the Universe with no military to torture, kill and murder him? Then there would be no Christianity.
Also, how did the Roman Empire military know just the exact way to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in the way that Christianity needs Jesus to be tortured, killed and murdered? What if the Roman Empire military only stabbed people in the heart to kill them, but not torture them? Then Christianity would not be fulfilled. What if the Roman Empire military only hanged the people of Judea/Palestine or burned them to death. Then Christianity would not be fulfilled because blood would not have been spilled. The torture, killing and murder of the people of Judea/Palestine by the Roman Empire military and the way the Roman Empire military did it, is the most important thing to Christianity.
Jesus must have trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in just the right way, to complete Christianity. Can something like that be left to chance?
Did Jesus pay the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea so Jesus of Christianity would have the Roman Empire military available for that Gods torture quest? Jesus is not some hippie, that he thinks he can get the Roman Empire military for free, is he?
source? cause most off the gospels we''re writing within the first century. the synoptic were written arond 40 -70 ad.
most were written before the destruction of the temple in 75 ish. Since revelation also predicts the nero's persecution which lead to the deaths of Peter.
@@CanuckNews-fv3qj My comment has more to do with the idea of an actual God that uses the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea on purpose for that Gods torture quest. I have read a lot from the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. Just like Thomas Jefferson wrote in the D of I the phrase 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' Jesus of Christianity is a human created story God, not a Nature's God. Thomas Jefferson, and many Philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment, did not think Christianity was/is true.
It wasn't left to chance, God guided the whole thing. The prophecies of Daniel predict an iron power being there when the Messiah comes. A very interesting way to read the Bible is that Satan is trying to prevent Messiah from coming and God is working to preserve the path to Messiah. One example is Satan tries to destroy the whole world with sin, God sends a flood and rescues a remnant.
@@thadofalltrades So your Christian God guided the whole thing. The Christian God intentionally had the Roman Empire military, torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for the Christian God's torture quest?
There are other ways of looking at the, so called prophecies, that they were interpreted from the Jewish writings and Jewish scholars will tell you that they were misinterpreted by the writers of the Christian Gospels. It was all a human creation of stories, created from the minds and imaginations of humans.
@@thadofalltrades Jesus of Christianity is not a God or a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Just like Superman is a Supernatural Superhero, just like Spiderman is a Supernatural Superhero and Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader are Supernatural Superheroes and Supernatural Supervillains.
A God would know about Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, Geography, etc..
A God would know about how to make things and economics and tell humans how to increase wealth instead of just telling poor people to give things to other poor people.
A God know about natural ways to prevent disease and illnesses rather than heal a very, very few people with Supernatural faith healing. A God would know about the value of sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation, medication, etc. to prevent illnesses and disease.
A God would know about inventions like the printing press and the value of books and reading. A real God wouldn't just walk around looking at all these people without the ability to read and write.
Jesus of Christianity is not a God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero created from the mind and imagination of humans creating stories. How is it possible for a God to be able to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again and not tell us about how the body works? A real God would tell us about the natural world. A not real God would be a creation of human stories and would use the Supernatural in their stories.
Remember in Star Wars, when Luke Skywalker destroyed the Death Star! That was fun. And completely imaginary. Jesus of Christianity is from Supernatural stories.
There's no mention of lucifer anywhere near the story peterson mentions, no mention of anything other than it being a serpent... And , it's the serpent which tells the truth.
The serpent is identified later in the Bible as Lucifer. And he didn’t tell the truth, he told a half truth, which is even more manipulative because it sounds true.
Is it? Did we become God?
@@davidryan8547 the answer to your first question is Revelation 12:9. I’m not sure I understand your second question in the context of this thread.
@@ryankelly9032 I was responding to the other guy not you.
@@davidryan8547 ok. Couldn’t tell based on the username reference. It usually gives the full name, but has lately been only showing the “@“ sign.
What was written in the Bible was perfectly true "at the time". We have seen on occasion where a person is pronounced dead by those around, but the person wakes up. That is why doctors are used to determine death). When growing up, I remember a young guy accused of impregnating a girl. He swore he didn't do it, but after interrogation, it occurred that he deposited semen in front of the "V", but never penetrated into the "V". This guy swore that he didn't do it. Anyway, it was determined that some of that semen did get through to impregnate the girl. I'm not saying that this is what happened with Jesus, BUT at the time, it'd have been a virgin birth.😇
Well, I see a hole. How could Adam and Eve know that disobeying god is a sin when they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil before biting the fruit?
Because they were commanded not to eat from that specific tree.
@justwindowshopping007 right, but god saying "DO NOT" is a communication to Adam and Eve who have no understanding of right and wrong when they are told this commandment. It's sort of like telling your newborn child not to eat this bag of magic mushrooms that I have placed in your crib. The conditions for Adam and Eve to "sin" were created by God in the first place. The serpent, the tree and the 2 human beings were set by the conductor of the play, which is God.
The sin? the sin is Shame. they were naked (sexual) and not what? ashamed. why mention the emotional state of the Adam... if it wasn't very important? and... please read the text and tell me where it mentions lucifer? it doesn't. How can you possibly read something that isn't written?
Adam means mankind.
@ChristopherDwiggins Adam comes from Adama... the living soil. The story is not a story about the fall of mankind. that's all nonsense... literally. No. its a more of a gardening lesson, an answer to the question... where are you Adam.?
Because you have done this.... The Earth, will now respond, over Time, like this.... G-d did not curse The Earth, read it again, The Earth is responding to Adams heart frequently. And read on... let me know when you get to... Now The Adam has become like one of Us, having the ability of The Knowledge of Good And Evil. It's all about emotions. The difference between good and evil is.... emotional.
Michael Heiser on this subject - th-cam.com/video/2lmdhF_72fE/w-d-xo.html
Lucifer was called the devil, the Satan, the serpent, the dragon, the enemy, the ruler of the air, the prince, etc. throughout the rest of scriptures. It does not call him lucifer in genesis but future writers knew who it was.
@mikeschaller9233 I'm sorry but that's not how the sacred texts work. It says serpent for a reason. Please don't be fooled by this deliberate misinterpretation.
Adam needed to learn something important... and He did. He got it and was sent out into the world with G-ds blessing to be a fruitful and multiply and fill up The Earth. (are we there yet? 🤔 anyway...) He needed to learn about is "Male side". Up until then, he had only been receiving, female, and had yet to experience doing, male. He was given this and that but not yet done anything until... "What have you done?" He was now feeling very different "inside", in his heart. G-d explains how this change of heart will now influence The Earth and his future.... over Time. Any idea how much electromagnetic energy the heart radiates every millisecond?
Compare the electromagnetic difference between shame/fear and Joy/gratitude.
The teaching / message is simple. Our hearts affect our futures....
The religion is based on two impossible things: a virgin birth and rising from the grave. Take it or leave it. The two impossible things bookend moralising. That's all.
Jordan won’t humble himself before the Lord, and this is why he is in a constant state of struggle. We can see the state that his soul is in. Jonathan is trying to lead Jordan there through trying to build off of Jordan’s purely symbolic interpretations of Christianity, but Jordan will not arrive there through intellectual workings alone.
One thing I never understood. For an eternity before creating humans, god always knew that one day he would create them, the knew that they would fail in exactly this fashion...and he did it anyway...only to drown all humans and animals in a fit of rage, saving only Noah's family and two of each creature. How does one slaughter almost all living things in a fit of anger, when one always knew the outcome? Anger requires surprise.
Nonsense, no one can know anything but themselves. These stories are fairytales for scared muppets who don’t want to die.
It wasn't anger. Anger is never mentioned in the flood account. God sent the flood to preserve the way to Messiah because humanity was on the verge of annihilating itself. The earth was filled with violence and every imagination was only evil continually. Earth was in a very bad way. God rescued Noah from annihilation to ensure the pathway to salvation.
Just the act of creating any free moral agent virtually ensures that one is going to fall. Having children myself helped me understand this a lot. I know with 100% certainty, though not specifically, that my child will suffer possibly horribly. Yet we still chose to have a child. The regret God feels for creating man is in empathy for the suffering they are experiencing in a world filled with violence. Just like I would regret having my child if they experienced extreme suffering in their life.
The beauty of the plan of salvation is that the result is a universe where suffering and death will never rise again. God could have not created at all, just like I could have not had children, but there's a lot of joy in children. He could have created beings incapable of choice, but that would go against his character. The best option was to create free moral agents and manage the evil that would inevitably arise. The plan of salvation provides a way for it to be eradicated entirely from the universe, never to rise again. We will still be free moral agents, but no one will ever reject God again because the record of the cost is still there on Jesus's body for all eternity.
Go back and read Genesis 6, there isn't any anger mentioned.
Is it necessary to take the flood story as a literal "historical" event? There's a great deal of anthropomorphism in the OT about God, which the Holy Fathers insist are metaphors and not to be taken as human passions or defects. Just as God does not have a hand or a mouth or eyes, but these concepts can be applied analogously to God to express certain truths, so too concepts like anger or wrath or regret are used, but they are strictly metaphorical. I can pull up a bunch of sources if need be as they're very interesting.
@@Crime_Mime Jesus seems to indicate it happened. Peter too.
Peterson is such a goof. Did you know this guy used to make content for TVO, a liberal tv channel in Ontario? You don't like that do you? Yeah, his content was very popular with liberals. I know you really want this strong intellectual, but what you have is a personal constitution that blows in the wind with whatever is popular.
The content mathers not where the content is. What is your point?
Are you suggesting Jordan Peterson is not actually a right-wing extremist Nazi?
@@MsUpptagetthis content is nothing but lies meant to confuse the stupid and terrified. No love. They don’t know Jesus or themselves. Know thyself! Did they talk about love once? Do they love their neighbors? That’s the god damned gospel! What are these foolish people doing? No. The church in America is a cult. They hate the least. They hate the other. They are such hypocrites. They chose their orange pumpkin god. Their BS is easily seen through for those who know themselves and live in the heart. Join us, the only real religion is love. The oldest one. They want a new Christian fundamentalism to lock in their power. Fools all, utter fools surrounding themselves with people who tell themselves what their itching ears want to hear. There is no such thing as holy books! Our truth is only found in our own hearts. Life is only real, when I AM.
It’s not liberal versus conservative it’s truth versus falsehood. Who cares what tv channel he was on
In what way does he simply conform to what’s popular? He seems to have been discussing roughly the same ideas for years, before his popularity and during popularity, as well as throughout harsh criticisms from many sides