No. The best self- own is that Petersen had the arrogance to presume he understood the context of the Biblical verses as they would have been understood to the Jewish audience of roughly 1-100 CE. Ever noticed how Petersen dances with his "What does this word mean?" and his authoritative seeming pronouncements on some magic story in a magic book? I'm surprised he didn't see magic chaos dragons in the text because we all know he loves demeaning and demonizing women. (I mean, it would be a fun book. A trickster goddess who messes with Petersen's twitter account for fun just to see what his next excuse will be. I would say brain but Petersen lost his a while back when he couldn't handle pronouns.)
Hmm, I believe his thinking is similar to C.S. Lewis's argument (in Mere Christianity?) that God values actions by the degree of effort. A small genuinely _good_ act by an ordinarily "bad" person is more valued than a small _good_ act by someone accustomed to the behavior already (and may be pained to NOT do it!); likewise, a small _bad_ act by someone accustomed to "good" may be more harshly judged than a "bad" person who barely notices it. In this thinking, someone who is "meek" because they have _no option_ to be other than meek is difficult to praise. However, someone who _chooses_ meekness is making a moral decision, reflecting moral character, and is thus open to moral judgment. With this, the paraphrase would be: "Being nice to people (when you can _only be_ nice) doesn't seem virtuous." Either way, I think it still misses the point of the Beatitudes!
@@AurorXZ I agree. If you are not capable of being anything other than meek, it isn't a choice. If you are capable of being "monstrous", as Peterson puts it, you are only then capable of "choosing" to be meek. Jesus was capable of anything, but he "chose" to be meek.
"I think that being meek is bad so I'm going to look for alternative translations that no scholar takes seriously and use that to reinterpret this passage to mean what I want it to mean." Classic JBP, if the facts don't align with your beliefs just keep hitting the facts with a hammer until they do. Also even if this translation was reasonable it still wouldn't mean that you should, "be a monster" it would mean that you should learn how to use a sword and then keep it sheathed
Despite his whinging about postmodernism JP is a relativist. That’s how he can invent whatever meaning he wants to suit his reactionary, elitist politics.
That is, until something that he feels challenges his identity politics shows up. Then he's all about definitions and "precise" language. New conservative, same tricks.
Despite post modern christians criticizing Peterson on post modernism they still think women working and having sexual selection in marrige is biblical and women shouldnt have to be obedient to men yet they criticize post modernism claiming they are traditional or biblical
Meh, he lost me when he defined his boogeyman as Postmodern Neomarxism. Those who have studied social theory know that Marxism falls squarely into the Modernist paradigm, which is the opposite of postmodernism. He isn't being clever by adding the prefix neo. He's just trying to gloss over the fact that he's using terms to say the opposite of the things they actually mean, just so he can poison the well by associating his boogeyman with COMMUNISM.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people think Jordan Peterson is a worthwhile person to listen to on anything. His callous disregard for the wellbeing of others, and his pseudo-intellectual word-salad style of justifying it, are both insane to me. And beyond that, the fact that people *do* think he's got something worthile to listen to is even more insane.
@@naysneedle5707 Thank you. I wasn't trying to make a full case, just offer a more humanizing angle-so often I see the lives of all those he helps just get mocked, forgotten, or dismissed. That's part of why he's had such an appeal (which is important to know if anyone wants to provide better alternatives, which I fully support).
I'll share why, not that you really asked but it seems like an opportunity to share perspective because I did listen to him and he actually helped me fix my life up when he was coming to fame in early 2018. He is one the the pivital positive figures in my life, I was an utter mess before i found his youtube videos, and then watching them gave me a sense of understanding the world and helped me be confident and set goals for myself. But now I have a perspective on what he says much like your own. It's satisfying watching Dan obliterate crap Jordan says becasuse it feels like ive graduated the time when Jordan was my mentor. For me, jordan spoke very deeply (and even though his conclusions are nuts lately, he certainly is deep) about the worldview that I actually had. He explained concepts of bravery and being emotionally prepared to disagree with or upset people, in a time where I was growing my self confidence and desperately needed to learn that, and in a way that satisfied my analytical brain. When he was still a uni lecturer, his lectures seemed like very sincere reflections of the self and his psychlogy work, and not like he was trying to manipulate your policital worldview. His lectures rarely appear in content critisising him and that might be because they're actually good. I watched 40 hours of them in 2 weeks and it was the beginning of my feeling like myself as an adult. If we want to say something simple, saying he's 'the dumb persons idea of a smart person' is slightly too simple. I would say he talks deeply within the domain of ideas that western people are already prepared to accept, even coming across as centerist because his ideas are so normalised. He's the only public figure that's really good at sounding passionate about everyday ideals we already kinda hold subconsciously (protestant work ethic etc.) as people existing in capitalism, and defending them in debate. His verboseness and confidence really makes these ideas that alot of us already believe sound really fleshed out.
Because he gives young men who didnt get the privilege of having good father-figures a set of values and tenats to follow that actually work in the real world for people who want to be less miserable. Which is appreciated by many men since we make up like 80ish % of all suicides.
What do you think of W. Domeris's paper, "Meek or oppressed? Reading Matthew 5:5 in context" which argues that rather than look at the greek prais, we should consider this a paraphrase of Psalm 37:11 ("But the humble will inherit the land") and instead look at the Hebrew of Psalm 37:11 ("עֲנוָיִם") as the source of original meaning? Based on this they propose "The oppressed/ humiliated will take possession of the land" as a good translation, which sounds an awful lot like "the workers shall seize the means of production" and would grind Peterson's gears even more.
@JESUS is our Savior that’s because this is not an problem with Jordan’s understanding, it’s a problem with his morality. It’s not an education problem, it’s a virtue problem. JP doesn’t like this because it points out a major inconsistency in his own thinking. Two of his major talking points is that Western society value systems are based upon Christian theology, and that Western society is rightly based upon a hierarchy of dominance. To be clear, this is not just descriptive it’s normative. He thinks it’s good the West is based on Christianity and that it’s good that the West is hierarchical and dominant. But those two notions are incompatible, so he just perverts the former to fit the latter. This is the same move as Christian Nationals or prosperity gospel preachers.
@@AurorXZ first, he said “it doesn’t make sense TO ME” which a different statement than just it doesn’t make sense. Adding the “to me” makes it subjective. It doesn’t make sense to his sensibilities…to his feelings. Second, what doesn’t make sense to Jordan is 2+2=4. The straightforward logical interpretation of “the meek shall inherit the earth” is just that, that the humble and downtrodden of this world are God’s people and will ultimately prevail. That’s what actually, logically, fits within Christ’s beatitudes and other teachings. Jordan doesn’t like that (by his own admission), he doesn’t want 2+2=4. So he says, no the answer is 9 and it isn’t 2+2, it’s actually 7+2. Where did he get that 7? Not from Christ but from his own thoughts and feelings. Meek must mean a constrained monster is a definition straight out of Jordan’s own psyche. This is as far away from logic as we can get.
@@bradleythornock8627 2+2 = 9 doesn't make sense "to me" either-and because it doesn't make sense "to me," "I" would investigate it. That's _exactly_ how I'd say this if I was telling a personal narrative, so this seems mostly like a semantic issue. If he's wrong about his conclusions, great. I also think he's incorrect. (In fairness, however, I do understand his C.S. Lewis-echoing framing of moral evaluation: moral value-and thus praiseworthiness-is assessed by the range of options and the degree of effort, not baseline temperament.)
@@AurorXZ for me this is not semantics. Again, it’s was never 2+2=9. The meek shall inherent the earth is simple and clear. This is 2+2=4. Jordan is the one muddying it up for his own purposes. That’s exactly the problem. That move is not only disingenuous it’s dangerous. Jordan is using pedantic rhetoric to obscure and change the meaning of Christ’s teaching because it better fit his whole dominate hierarchy BS.
I don't even think of him as a proper intellectual, more of what I'd call a vocabularist. And because the bottom 80% or so of people only use/know maybe 20% of the words in the English language, people like JP or Ben Shapiro (or almost everyone in the "intellectual dark web") are misunderstood by large audiences as being "thinkers" because they can easily dazzle most audiences into not noticing the dearth of coherent content by leveraging their above-average vocabularies. I'm something of a "vocabularist" myself, so I ought to know lol
@@BB-tm3sx Pretty much! He basically puts the dictionary on shuffle and hopes that no one notices, interups people in their train of thought by agressively speaking over them.
Amazing how Dan not only concisely laid out the intended meaning in plain words but did it while simultaneously burning JP and exposing the actual reason he’s uncomfortable with it
@@joshuacromley7439 nobody said meek = weak nice strawman The definition DOES disprove what Peterson said, because Peterson is using a bizarre definition of meekness that means repression of strength. That is NOT the definition of meekness. Is English your third language?
@@joshuacromley7439 "Is English your third language?" Is this supposed to be an "appeal to ridicule?" Yes. I was trying to get you to write better. It worked. Your arguments are still bunk, but now they are intelligible. "Now, YOUR error is in associating "sheathing one's weapons" with "repression of strength," which is erroneous." No that is exactly what Peterson said. Watch it again. ""That is NOT the definition of meekness." Nor did anyone use such definition." No that is exactly what Peterson said. Watch it again.
I think the pure and utter nonsense is a guy who has probably never been in a fight in his life constantly telling people, especially men, they need to be monsters.
Jordan Peterson's problem is that he refuses to stay in his own lane of expertise. That is, the field of psychology. I much preferred his pre- 2016 days, watching his classroom lectures. I think he became too big for his own good.
Yes I agree with this. People dog on him so much, and for good reason. But he actually has some fantastic things to say when he stays in his lane. Great insight and comment
Even within psychology he subscribes to a very dogmatic approach that says that men have to be dominant and women need to be submissive because of their biology
Even lecturing before his fame he was outside his lane and saying abusrd and contradictory things. In this video he says Darwinists are wrong to characterise the environment as random and one minute later he says "the way you can beat a random environment..." th-cam.com/video/zRW6GTg0FzE/w-d-xo.html He told another university audience in London, Ontario that human embryos are female until acted upon by testosterone in male embryos which is incorrect. Human embryos are neither morphologically male or female at an early stage but rather what embryologists called undifferentiated i.e. the primordial sex tissue has not yet diferentiated (specialised) into being male or female. Also it's not just simply testosterone but also the hormone Anti-Mullerian Hormone which is important in developing a male or female urogenital tract. Everyone in the world including peterson have at least heard the word testosterone but peterson certainly has never heard of AMH. His university lectures on children manipulating their mothers is also bizarre in that he attributes to young children thoughts and actions one might imagine in some adults. Children for him are adults with the full complement of adult emotions but simply in a smaller package.
Correcting him in biology, neuroscience, history, law and now biblical scholarship. Anything alse? How much proof do people need to realise that he just spreads missinformation. Nonsense filled with articulation.
I applaud your attempts to right the wrongs of the committed right to reinterpret the Bible to suit the wounded white man. Jesus is just too liberal for today is their message.
What does he even mean when he says meekness isn't a moral virtue? There is no objective list of moral virtues, what people consider to be moral virtues just depends mostly on the moral frameworks of their cultures and subcultures. Countless people from various cultures across the globe, both now and in the past, would disagree with Peterson and agree with the author of Matthew that meekness is a moral virtue. Does he think they all also "actually" mean that you should be a monster and then learn to control it? Or is he simply making the author of Matthew a special case on the basis that he cannot imagine the possibility that a Biblical passage written around 1,900 years ago would reflect a worldview or moral framework which does not align with his own? I shouldn't be surprised. He tells us right at the start why he is doing these gymnastics with the definition of meek. He is just stumped by the idea that someone would endorse meekness as a value. Can't imagine it. It doesn't make sense to him. Perhaps he just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to imagine or make sense of that possibility.
Fair point, though I'd say in reality he isn't stumped by at all, and instead he was just blatantly catering to his Right-Wing "Might Makes Right" Christian Male audience. They can't imagine themselves as 'weak', or 'cowardly', or lacking in 'might'. Nor can they imagine Jesus' words being Against their very own views and ideals. So he re-interpreted that "meek" trigger-word for them, because it bothers their delicate sensibilities, and because they keep giving him money to say stuff just like that.
IIRC he believes that there is some list of objective moral virtues, (or at the very least he understands he has to maintain that position in his current dogma) something about his book maps of meaning where things like feminism are chaos and his patriarchal view is order
Some people go to great lengths to justify their hate and hostility just bubbling beneath the surface. He sounds very much like so one who is a monster just barely keeping that hidden behind pseudo-academic claptrap. Thank God for true scholars.
@@spawniscariot9756 yeah :). Unfortunately adding all the things (chalartan, grifter, bigot, incel, bad kermit impersonator, tde, etc.) is just too clunky to be pithy. Oh well. Incel Kermit and/or Kermit the Bigot (and/or maybe Incel Kermit, the Bigot) may just have to do.
I had read 📚 that the Attic Greek word meant meek, but that in Koine, the word meant something like being unconcerned with social standing. This latter meaning makes sense in an apocalyptic preaching. 🤔
It's interesting...there are schools of Christian theology that teach something quite similar to JP's interpretation here: I remember years ago hearing conservative evangelical sermons explaining that the Greek word translated as "meek" originally connoted an image like a powerful racehorse that simply chose to subjugate its raw power to the will and guidance of the jockey. The preacher's intent was to dispel any notion that the proper Christian attitude was incompatible with a macho male supremacist mindset, to avoid alienating some segment of his congregation. JP seems to be building on that tradition.
Read Segall. He's mean spirited. Some people are more transparent than others. Also, this attitude of the justification of meanness is not new, but it is obviously strong today. Even so called meek "Christians" defend it. It is the peak of hypocrisy, which was a focus of " jesus"
@@aymanerbaati6284right, nothing says “culture” like being a rapist and spousal abuser, has lied about every aspect of his life, and is a big fan of Eastern European tyrants.
I just saw a completely different version of the post used in the video. It said nothing about becoming a monster at all. It said those that know how to use their swords but do not shall inherit the earth. It’s so hard to find the truth these days.😊
Hey! This is great! As a hobby, I love studying religion. From the Hermetics to the Lotus sutra, I’ve read texts from most of the major religions. Almost all of them have a similar message. I’ve never seen someone misinterpret ideas with impunity like Jordan. He is a con man out to take advantage of lost souls.
Simultaneously fascinating and disgusting how these anti-christians constantly try to "reimagine" Christ as the exact opposite of who and what He actually was. And then accuse everyone ELSE of cherry-picking and ignoring scriptures that are inconvenient to their agenda.
Was Christ meek? Was He powerless? Again, I’d be curious about the greater context here but in your view could you explain how cowardice is different than meekness and if cowardice is or is not a virtue
@@lafamigliabazzani499 Did you bother to actually listen to what Dan said? As far as Christ Himself being meek or powerless, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Christ makes it quite clear that one of our priorities should be concern for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized (who are certainly among "the meek", Matthew 25:32-46), and NOT for the powerful or rich (who He spoke against on several occasions). Christ NEVER even remotely suggested to His disciples that they should seek to be "powerful" or have dominion over others, but rather that they should seek peace and not seek to be greater than each other. Meek is clearly another word for those who do not seek power over their neighbors, and who seek peace, and to love their neighbor as themselves, rejecting hate and a lust for power. The very idea of trying to twist "meek" into what is pretty much the opposite of meek is vile and obscene.
@@Dalekzilla So is there inherent virtue and righteousness in being poor? And if one has the “privilege” of being able to be competent, or making a good earning at work, etc - is it not virtuous for them to use that for the good of others? Would it be more virtuous for the strong man to cripple himself, or to use his strength to bear the burdens of others? I tend to think the point of the Beatitudes is lost on this whole discussion but maybe that’s a discussion for another time
@@Dalekzilla I think you think I’m arguing for something I have no intention of saying (and again also, I think, a strawman of what Peterson argued in context if we could see it) but maybe as a first thing I’d like to clarify something because I suspect, but don’t want to strawman you: If being poor is inherently virtuous and righteous is being comparatively rich inherently evil and unrighteous? I ask this in part because you quote Mark 10:25 but don’t keep going through v27, and this is a common enough reading to where I’ve seen it a lot. In that case maybe Zacchaeus and Lydia didn’t inherit the kingdom after all - we have no record of them liquidating their estates, while Lydia at least clearly used her estate and business to serve the church But on that last bit I tend to think this is an important passage: “But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles ilord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”” You seem to be assuming that possession of [wealth/power/influence/competence] necessarily means the misuse/abuse of it. And I think even on this clipped bit Peterson talks about not using said monstrous power and in that restraint to turn the other cheek there is a virtuous meekness that is to be commended. And even some of the most social Justice minded Christians I know would say that it’s not the privilege/power per se that is evil, but the evil lies in not using it for others
@@Dalekzilla (apologies in advance for the wall of text) Maybe to start, the point of agreement: we do well to take those passages that you referenced very seriously. There is an issue with wealth, esteem, authority privilege, or however we want to articulate the other side of the beatitudes (note: in Luke these are accompanied by corresponding woes). And it certainly is the case that those who “are full” are in a very dangerous position. But like many things, there is more than one way for us to go wrong. There are a few places in Proverbs where the point is made that’s both wealth and lack are a sort of trial or temptation. I think Agur makes the point most succinctly in his prayer in Proverbs 30: “give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the LORD?” or lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.” Psalm 73 is also very profound when it comes to the trial of seeing the prosperity of the wicked and how it nearly caused the author to stumble. But I think also we tend to mistake [the thjng] for [the idolatry of the thing]. Notice how we’ll shorthand: “money is the root of all evil] for [the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil]. If money itself was simply the problem, then the finding a job to feed yourself and your family, contribute to the church, etc would be wrong - and it’s not spoken of that way (to the contrary Paul says that someone who refuses to provide for their family is “worse than an unbeliever” In a number of places ‘the rich’ are condemned for putting their trust in their possessions instead of God - and I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider that as a parallelism to idolatr and worship. But what is envy other than the idolatry of someone else’s possessions? So both rich and poor in my view would be succeptible to the love of money, but it looks different depending on where you sit. And out of the two, ‘the prostitutes and tax collectors [and poor?] ar closer to the kingdom” than the full, the self-righteous, etc - and in that way (which of course would be shocking to the audience) it is those who are least at home and in comfort in the world that are the most favored (which is an alternate rendering of blessed) by God Regarding Peterson, I do wonder if he walked it back some outside of the clipped part we saw. He seemed to be making a point I did hear him make somewhere else - not that we should carry swords around, but (in a sort of pop psychology sort of way) that sort of thing where we would say that maybe someone like Jocko Wilink (who as far as I know is an incredibly kind person IRL) has a particular sort of virtue to his kindness and gentleness that a person unsure of themselves wouldn’t be able to attain. But the way it was clipped, and Peterson having the penchant for overstating things… I can completely understand the reaction to the clip as presented
So what does The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth actually mean? Because the most realistic is the meek end up in the ground because the strong will take advantage of the meek!
Just like to point out that Mathew 5:6 reads "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition Jesus was talking about those who hungered and thirsted for right action, not necessarily food and drink.
Looking up the etymology of the word you mentioned - seems to refer more like a mountain horse that has been tamed for war. So closer to JBPs description. But im no expert in greek.
"Pure and utter nonsense" is so intense. He's repeating some known lesson on the line of "better be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war", "internally strong, enough to be externally kind", that kind of advice. The intersection between the 2 things is obviously the "gentle" part, but the 2 messages are not related, he basically saw what he wanted to see.
Yes and no… Yes, I’d agree that is *also* a virtue. No, to the suggestion that the translation of the beatitudes is wrong (which is factual mistake, thus “pure and utter nonsense”), and that there’s no virtue in meekness (which is a value assessment, that you might share or not). McCleland is the first to say that when using a multi vocal compilation like the Bible for inspiration, there will many different readings, because there’s not a single message in it, but many. That is quite different from a wrong translation.
I like Dan's knowledge and he is very interesting to listen to and I have learned a lot from him, but much to the bewilderment of many commenters here, I'm sure, I also believe JP has something to say. I don't think that 'gentleness and not being interested in one's own self importance' is contradictory to JP's idea of being a monster that has itself controlled. JP was looking for why the translation 'meek' felt amiss to him. I believe at some point he explained that he had not been aware of the possible meaning of 'meek' which some scholars seem to have found in relation to the breaking of war horses. Now perhaps Dan could clarify and show that this too is wrong at some point, but I'm going by my own understanding here for now. This 'becoming gentle' is not problematic for the position Peterson was arguing for. I too understood the 'meek' translation as the suggestion that the 'weak' or 'timid' would inherit, which I also questioned as odd. Many parts of the Bible talk about things like strength through faith and certainly about strength of will in the face of persecution say and this perhaps less studied reading of the word 'meek' struggles to co-ordinate with those ideas. JP was not calling for people to feel self-important or be rude or belligerent unless necessary. His call to be a monster is, I believe, to only be so when necessary with gentleness as the appropriate default. Now perhaps you'd deny that that is biblical, but I would argue there are various areas of the Bible that would echo this mentality in order to follow God's law. Just my thoughts on it.
Honest question. Why did Christ instruct the apostles to go into the world, and leave behind everything except their swords? I've understood that to mean that people are responsible for their own self defense. Knowing how to draw a weapon and use it does not mean that's how I obtain the things I desire in life. But I choose to only ever draw a weapon in defense of myself and another innocent.
@markoredano9141 Nah. I don't like weddings. The last one I went to was my own 35 years ago. People pretty much know by now not to bother inviting me. But thanks for your way off topic reply so typical of JP simps.
Thank you for this, Dan. Timely and useful. Side question: You pronounce "YHWH" as "Adonai", which in my (very limited) understanding means "my lord". I can appreciate the respectful intent (I hear "Adonai" was popularized during a period when the name of the supreme diety was considered too sacred to utter), but wouldn't that be more of a personal declaration, less appropriate in scholarly discussion than "Yahweh" or some other more direct pronunciation?
He’s said before that he says Adonai out of respect for people he knows who are uncomfortable hearing the divine name, who have asked him not to pronounce it.
In my experience. People tend to twist and distort their religious views to conform with the personal core set of values they already held; rather than ever actually changing anything uncomfortable about themselves. In other words a good person at heart that calls themselves Christian will twist Christianity into something far greater than it actually is. While an evil person that calls themselves Christian will use the bible and God as justification for many of their appalling acts and behaviour. In this way their religion does not really add much that was not already there within them.
Thank-you Dr. McClellan for commenting on Dr. Peterson's personal Christological assertions. I really wish he had been satisfied to remain in the classroom, post his lectures to TH-cam, and continued with his practice as a Clinical Psychologist instead. It's been sad to watch him thrash around in the realm of philosophy, and the Christianity of his own making.
Dan, I think you’d appreciate the message he is trying to convey here. I think what he was saying is that those who have the strength, power or privilege to oppress and still show meekness and kindness to others by refusing to use those monstrous tools to hurt others will be blessed. It does make sense that a person who has no choice but to be meek isn’t showing as much love as one who has the option to oppress. Usually he will preface these ideas with a statement to remind people these are just his ideas mingled with scripture and his expertise in the soft science of Psychology. Remember, he’s a psychologist not a biblical scholar. Keep up the awesome vids!!
If we interpret what Peterson is saying here very charitably then this message might seem somehow kind or even useful but I think we should interrogate the possible reasons why people do the things they do. This is an overt case of a person renegotiating or, we could say, misinterpeting a text--in this case, scripture. The bible list the persecuted as a blessed group. Why might Peterson want you, and himself, to believe that actually the real blessed people are those with the power to cause harm but who don´t? How different is the reading of this scripture if those who shall inheret the Earth or to be blessed aren´t the poor, hungry, persecuted, the meek etc, but instead the cop who doesn´t do police brutality and the president who doesn´t become a dictator? I understand your instinct to say thst being meek isn´t as virtuos as self-control but in this reading those who are blessed for not using their abilites to cause harm have not really done anything either, at least not anything every human on the planet does to some degree all the time. Is it possible, to pull up an analogy: Peterson wants you to think the man with the nuclear launch codes who doesn´t drop the atom bomb is the one who is blessed, or should be, and not those who would die to the atom bomb because he wants to be allowed by his theology to have the nuclear launch codes, to have power? I am not a Christian for many reasons bit if any part of the bible were true, the part about the meek inhereting the Earth should be. I don´t think it is and I think certain biblical interpretations push liberation off to a hypothetical afterlife but one last question: why do you think Peterson didn´t just say "you should be able to protect yourself and others and shouldn´t use that power to cause harm becuase that would be vituos¨; might it be that Peterson instead believes in the accumilation of power for its own sake and can not square that with the scriptures.
@@CDLatin I can see where you’re coming from but disagree that is where Dr Peterson is coming from though. He’s said as much and isn’t saying those who are truly meek aren’t blessed but in your worldview it would be considered much more admirable that a person who could hurt another and doesn’t is doing something admirable?
I'm impressed with your comment. I struggle with the hypocrisy. Probably because Dan's claim is that Jordan Peterson is interpreting something that isn't there, and then Dan does exactly that with JBP. It's frustrating for me when anyone is certain that their world view is the right world view for everyone. I don't like it when religious people do it. I don't like it when Dan does it. I appreciate your admiration of Dan. It helps me realize that Dan is not just the ideas I disagree with him on.
@trapd00rspider he’s definitely not a tik tok style communicator. His lectures on these topics are usually 4 hours long with academic citations and like I say his own biblical takes mingled with that evidence.
Probably the intended meaning of the phrase is the moral of Psalm 37, where "The meek shall inherit the earth" originally appears. It is about waiting for God's justice in humility and patience.
I agree about we should be kind and understanding, but we shouldn't become victims and be defenseless either, in Luke 22:36, the Messiah instructed his disciples “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
That wasn't general advice for all time though, he was speaking to his disciples in the lead up to his capture (during which he surrenders without a fight, thus "becoming a victim"). They end up only having two swords and he tells them that that is enough because the point wasn't actually to be armed and ready to fight, it was a rhetorical device to help fulfill an old testament prophecy
This video is also incorrect but everyone seems too biased to notice. A 2 second google search will give you this, The ancient Greeks had a word to describe this behavior, the behavior of a well-trained horse, it was praus. Praus has been translated in English to meek. The old English often used the term “meeking a horse”. Meeking a horse did not mean to to strip the power from a horse but rather to harness the horse’s power from a state of wild independence to one of loyalty so that the horse could be used as the master of the horse intended.
I suspect too that Dr. Peterson is seeing this through a particular lens of what he considers masculine virtue to be. I am disturbed by how prevalent this view is becoming in the US - that masculinity necessitates being ready to be violent at all times.
Although I percieve Jordan Petereson to stand partly amd well corrected here, I find it ironic and sad, to see the commentary field filled up with all other than meek statements. And the badly hidden hateful comments are also the most upvoted. Most here obviously don't check their own beam. Amazing contradiction. However, the more well thought comments are to be found further down the commentary field, for those who actually cares for a decent discussion.
Reminds me about Peterson talking about how cowards hide behind a fake morality. A morality they don't possess but is a cop out for being terrified of conflict without looking like a coward.
Dan, I love your stuff but I think you missed this one. Peterson is NOT saying that we're to be warlike, violent, belligerent, condescending, all of which are signs of immaturity, stupidity, weakness. He IS saying that "meek" is not synonymous with "be a bunny rabbit." Be a powerful, wise, skilled, mature adult. Keep your sword sheathed. Treat others with gentleness, forbearance, kindness, love. Jesus had the power to "call down 10,000 angels" but voluntarily set it aside. Jesus was a whole man. That's what I think Peterson is driving at here.
I'm afraid that Dr. Peterson has fallen into the trap of thinking that because he is intelligent, well-versed, and experienced in one particular field (psychology), that he is equally intelligent, well-versed, and experienced in every other field. I've seen him speak as though he's an expert in primatology, dietetics and nutrition, biology, history, and now religion.
I've listened to Peterson's argument in its entirety. He's saying that the modern definition of "meek" does not mean what the Greek word it translates meant to the Greeks at the time of writing. I strongly agree with that point. Matthew intended it to mean what he understood it to mean. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament it meant mildness and gentleness, but they only valued it as a virtue as long as there was a compensating strength. Besides, what virtue doesn't contain strength? Merriam-Webster defines meek as "deficient in spirit and courage" and "not violent or strong". The way we look at "meek" today any spineless incompetent can be meek. The Greek word praus is a word of strength. What virtue is required to restrain yourself from fighting if you are incapable of fighting? You should be tough, you should be capable of fighting for when it is necessary, but you control it. You should be able to fight to protect the weak when necessary, but you are gentle even on some occasions when it's not in your own self interest. Also, you should be well equipped to debate your point of view, but in gentleness. 1 Corinthians 4:21 (NASB) 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness? Btw, when directed towards God it means a trust that manifests in peace towards God and His plan. Vine's Expository Dictionary says, " It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting".
He's not using hermeneutical tools for extrapolating the meaning. He's bringing a reader response from the text which he is free to do if it means bringing the best out of it for him and those he intends to help with it.
Yes, meek but with the capacity to take something by force according to Matthew 11:12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force."
I think there’s a difference between being kind and being helpless (which is arguably a connotation of the word ‘meek’). Kindness is virtue only when you have the _capacity_ to do otherwise and _choose_ not to.
Jordan is right, same message in Dante's comedy, u have to go through hell to get to heaven, by increasing ur ability to do evil u increase ur ability to do good
Excellent. Dr Peterson is so invested in utter nonsense of Jung and his "Shadow" or inner monster. Jung suggests that: Whilst your monster is to be liberated, it is also to be tamed and there are ways one can use one inner monster for a greater purpose.
The greatest thing about Jesus Christ is his great compassion, not his supposed miracles or resurrection. This is a poor fit for professed Christians who want a muscular Jesus who fits their image of masculinity.
Not everyone has the gaul to use a sword against another. Some are meek because of injuries which make them less prone to injure others. We lay down our swords 🗡 because the enemy lies within our hearts 💕.
He is a relativist True! This Jordon Peterson thing is becoming kinda boring to me now! He is a Good Teacher of Psychology with a few interesting things to say but more than that - NO !
There's no doubt your assessment is accurate, but I don't get your implied(?) criticism that JP is trying to renegotiate the text to use it for his own ends. You frequently state that everyone has done this with sacred texts since time immemorial. Why is it so obviously pure and utter nonsense when JP does the same thing?
I struggle with how Dan sees everyone that disagrees with him as following dogma, but when he speaks it's just the data. The lack of self awareness or at least admittance that he is in his own world view that is based on the belief that society should be renegotiated so that the oppressed have the power is irritating. It's silly to use "academic consensus" as a basis for being data when it's clear to me that academia is also suspectable to dogma. The horrors of Nazi Germany and past and current communist states are perfect example of how secular state and academic consensus alone is not a good basis for "data". I believe the best way to be sure you are using the scientific method to avoid dogma is to talk to people that disagree with you. When you are actually talking with someone they won't let you misrepresent them like so many do in the "response" clips.
@@123mneil Yeah I have to agree with you here. I love Dan's biblical and historic research, but I often find myself very frustrated at the politically biased videos. I honestly wish we could just leave modern day politics out of it.
So basically he's saying
"Being nice to people doesn't seem virtuous to me"
Which has got to be the best Peterson self-own yet
No. The best self- own is that Petersen had the arrogance to presume he understood the context of the Biblical verses as they would have been understood to the Jewish audience of roughly 1-100 CE.
Ever noticed how Petersen dances with his "What does this word mean?" and his authoritative seeming pronouncements on some magic story in a magic book? I'm surprised he didn't see magic chaos dragons in the text because we all know he loves demeaning and demonizing women.
(I mean, it would be a fun book. A trickster goddess who messes with Petersen's twitter account for fun just to see what his next excuse will be. I would say brain but Petersen lost his a while back when he couldn't handle pronouns.)
Listen, there are far too many self-owns to include. We literally would have to recruit a panel of people to review and judge them.
Hmm, I believe his thinking is similar to C.S. Lewis's argument (in Mere Christianity?) that God values actions by the degree of effort. A small genuinely _good_ act by an ordinarily "bad" person is more valued than a small _good_ act by someone accustomed to the behavior already (and may be pained to NOT do it!); likewise, a small _bad_ act by someone accustomed to "good" may be more harshly judged than a "bad" person who barely notices it.
In this thinking, someone who is "meek" because they have _no option_ to be other than meek is difficult to praise. However, someone who _chooses_ meekness is making a moral decision, reflecting moral character, and is thus open to moral judgment. With this, the paraphrase would be: "Being nice to people (when you can _only be_ nice) doesn't seem virtuous."
Either way, I think it still misses the point of the Beatitudes!
@@AurorXZ jebus wasn't exactly meek. talk about self own.
@@AurorXZ I agree. If you are not capable of being anything other than meek, it isn't a choice. If you are capable of being "monstrous", as Peterson puts it, you are only then capable of "choosing" to be meek. Jesus was capable of anything, but he "chose" to be meek.
"I think that being meek is bad so I'm going to look for alternative translations that no scholar takes seriously and use that to reinterpret this passage to mean what I want it to mean."
Classic JBP, if the facts don't align with your beliefs just keep hitting the facts with a hammer until they do. Also even if this translation was reasonable it still wouldn't mean that you should, "be a monster" it would mean that you should learn how to use a sword and then keep it sheathed
Despite his whinging about postmodernism JP is a relativist. That’s how he can invent whatever meaning he wants to suit his reactionary, elitist politics.
That is, until something that he feels challenges his identity politics shows up. Then he's all about definitions and "precise" language. New conservative, same tricks.
Yep
this point can not be made enough
Despite post modern christians criticizing Peterson on post modernism they still think women working and having sexual selection in marrige is biblical and women shouldnt have to be obedient to men yet they criticize post modernism claiming they are traditional or biblical
Meh, he lost me when he defined his boogeyman as Postmodern Neomarxism. Those who have studied social theory know that Marxism falls squarely into the Modernist paradigm, which is the opposite of postmodernism. He isn't being clever by adding the prefix neo. He's just trying to gloss over the fact that he's using terms to say the opposite of the things they actually mean, just so he can poison the well by associating his boogeyman with COMMUNISM.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people think Jordan Peterson is a worthwhile person to listen to on anything. His callous disregard for the wellbeing of others, and his pseudo-intellectual word-salad style of justifying it, are both insane to me. And beyond that, the fact that people *do* think he's got something worthile to listen to is even more insane.
Haven't you seen him crying over the plight of incels? Lol
@@AurorXZ Respectfully, that's not much of a counter argument. But regardless, I'm glad you're doing better now no matter what path you took.
@@naysneedle5707 Thank you. I wasn't trying to make a full case, just offer a more humanizing angle-so often I see the lives of all those he helps just get mocked, forgotten, or dismissed. That's part of why he's had such an appeal (which is important to know if anyone wants to provide better alternatives, which I fully support).
I'll share why, not that you really asked but it seems like an opportunity to share perspective because I did listen to him and he actually helped me fix my life up when he was coming to fame in early 2018. He is one the the pivital positive figures in my life, I was an utter mess before i found his youtube videos, and then watching them gave me a sense of understanding the world and helped me be confident and set goals for myself.
But now I have a perspective on what he says much like your own. It's satisfying watching Dan obliterate crap Jordan says becasuse it feels like ive graduated the time when Jordan was my mentor.
For me, jordan spoke very deeply (and even though his conclusions are nuts lately, he certainly is deep) about the worldview that I actually had. He explained concepts of bravery and being emotionally prepared to disagree with or upset people, in a time where I was growing my self confidence and desperately needed to learn that, and in a way that satisfied my analytical brain. When he was still a uni lecturer, his lectures seemed like very sincere reflections of the self and his psychlogy work, and not like he was trying to manipulate your policital worldview. His lectures rarely appear in content critisising him and that might be because they're actually good. I watched 40 hours of them in 2 weeks and it was the beginning of my feeling like myself as an adult.
If we want to say something simple, saying he's 'the dumb persons idea of a smart person' is slightly too simple. I would say he talks deeply within the domain of ideas that western people are already prepared to accept, even coming across as centerist because his ideas are so normalised. He's the only public figure that's really good at sounding passionate about everyday ideals we already kinda hold subconsciously (protestant work ethic etc.) as people existing in capitalism, and defending them in debate. His verboseness and confidence really makes these ideas that alot of us already believe sound really fleshed out.
Because he gives young men who didnt get the privilege of having good father-figures a set of values and tenats to follow that actually work in the real world for people who want to be less miserable. Which is appreciated by many men since we make up like 80ish % of all suicides.
What do you think of W. Domeris's paper, "Meek or oppressed? Reading Matthew 5:5 in context" which argues that rather than look at the greek prais, we should consider this a paraphrase of Psalm 37:11 ("But the humble will inherit the land") and instead look at the Hebrew of Psalm 37:11 ("עֲנוָיִם") as the source of original meaning? Based on this they propose "The oppressed/ humiliated will take possession of the land" as a good translation, which sounds an awful lot like "the workers shall seize the means of production" and would grind Peterson's gears even more.
“It just doesn’t make sense to me” facts don’t care about your feelings Jordi P
@JESUS is our Savior that’s because this is not an problem with Jordan’s understanding, it’s a problem with his morality. It’s not an education problem, it’s a virtue problem. JP doesn’t like this because it points out a major inconsistency in his own thinking. Two of his major talking points is that Western society value systems are based upon Christian theology, and that Western society is rightly based upon a hierarchy of dominance. To be clear, this is not just descriptive it’s normative. He thinks it’s good the West is based on Christianity and that it’s good that the West is hierarchical and dominant. But those two notions are incompatible, so he just perverts the former to fit the latter. This is the same move as Christian Nationals or prosperity gospel preachers.
Isn't "doesn't make sense" a statement of logic? 2+2=9 "doesn't make sense," and is thus cause for examination.
@@AurorXZ first, he said “it doesn’t make sense TO ME” which a different statement than just it doesn’t make sense. Adding the “to me” makes it subjective. It doesn’t make sense to his sensibilities…to his feelings. Second, what doesn’t make sense to Jordan is 2+2=4. The straightforward logical interpretation of “the meek shall inherit the earth” is just that, that the humble and downtrodden of this world are God’s people and will ultimately prevail. That’s what actually, logically, fits within Christ’s beatitudes and other teachings. Jordan doesn’t like that (by his own admission), he doesn’t want 2+2=4. So he says, no the answer is 9 and it isn’t 2+2, it’s actually 7+2. Where did he get that 7? Not from Christ but from his own thoughts and feelings. Meek must mean a constrained monster is a definition straight out of Jordan’s own psyche. This is as far away from logic as we can get.
@@bradleythornock8627 2+2 = 9 doesn't make sense "to me" either-and because it doesn't make sense "to me," "I" would investigate it. That's _exactly_ how I'd say this if I was telling a personal narrative, so this seems mostly like a semantic issue. If he's wrong about his conclusions, great. I also think he's incorrect. (In fairness, however, I do understand his C.S. Lewis-echoing framing of moral evaluation: moral value-and thus praiseworthiness-is assessed by the range of options and the degree of effort, not baseline temperament.)
@@AurorXZ for me this is not semantics. Again, it’s was never 2+2=9. The meek shall inherent the earth is simple and clear. This is 2+2=4. Jordan is the one muddying it up for his own purposes. That’s exactly the problem. That move is not only disingenuous it’s dangerous. Jordan is using pedantic rhetoric to obscure and change the meaning of Christ’s teaching because it better fit his whole dominate hierarchy BS.
honestly believing Jordan Peterson makes one less intelligent.
I once heard peterson as "one of the most overrated intellectuals out there"... and it something i could not unsee.
I don't even think of him as a proper intellectual, more of what I'd call a vocabularist. And because the bottom 80% or so of people only use/know maybe 20% of the words in the English language, people like JP or Ben Shapiro (or almost everyone in the "intellectual dark web") are misunderstood by large audiences as being "thinkers" because they can easily dazzle most audiences into not noticing the dearth of coherent content by leveraging their above-average vocabularies. I'm something of a "vocabularist" myself, so I ought to know lol
I prefer to call him "one of the most overrated pseudo-intellectuals in the world."
Same w Elon
He isn't an intellectual, he's just lucky he stumbled into the exact right time to be transphobic.
@@BB-tm3sx Pretty much! He basically puts the dictionary on shuffle and hopes that no one notices, interups people in their train of thought by agressively speaking over them.
Amazing how Dan not only concisely laid out the intended meaning in plain words but did it while simultaneously burning JP and exposing the actual reason he’s uncomfortable with it
A reason he MIGHT be uncomfortable with it. Dan typically attributes negative motives to people. Dan can’t be the only one with “good intentions.”
@@joshuacromley7439 how is that wrong? you have "meekness" literally in the definition lol
@@BriannaWeldon "Dan typically attributes negative motives to people." I haven't noticed that, but YOU just did.
@@joshuacromley7439 nobody said meek = weak nice strawman
The definition DOES disprove what Peterson said, because Peterson is using a bizarre definition of meekness that means repression of strength. That is NOT the definition of meekness.
Is English your third language?
@@joshuacromley7439
"Is English your third language?"
Is this supposed to be an "appeal to ridicule?" Yes. I was trying to get you to write better. It worked. Your arguments are still bunk, but now they are intelligible.
"Now, YOUR error is in associating "sheathing one's weapons" with "repression of strength," which is erroneous." No that is exactly what Peterson said. Watch it again.
""That is NOT the definition of meekness."
Nor did anyone use such definition." No that is exactly what Peterson said. Watch it again.
Thank you very much for this ❤️❤️
I think the pure and utter nonsense is a guy who has probably never been in a fight in his life constantly telling people, especially men, they need to be monsters.
In contrast to Jordan who is consumed with self-importance.
The dictionary definition of "self importance" is just a photo of JBP ....
Holding a photo of himself...
Jordan Peterson speaking nonsense, imagine that.
Well, at least he's consistent, utter nonsense is what I expect from him, regardless the topic.
Jordan Peterson's problem is that he refuses to stay in his own lane of expertise. That is, the field of psychology. I much preferred his pre- 2016 days, watching his classroom lectures. I think he became too big for his own good.
I miss those days too. Becoming a public figure didn't do him at all well. =/
Yes I agree with this. People dog on him so much, and for good reason. But he actually has some fantastic things to say when he stays in his lane. Great insight and comment
Even within psychology he subscribes to a very dogmatic approach that says that men have to be dominant and women need to be submissive because of their biology
Spot on, as someone who really admired Peterson until about 1-2 years ago. He just kept going too far out.
Even lecturing before his fame he was outside his lane and saying abusrd and contradictory things. In this video he says Darwinists are wrong to characterise the environment as random and one minute later he says "the way you can beat a random environment..."
th-cam.com/video/zRW6GTg0FzE/w-d-xo.html
He told another university audience in London, Ontario that human embryos are female until acted upon by testosterone in male embryos which is incorrect. Human embryos are neither morphologically male or female at an early stage but rather what embryologists called undifferentiated i.e. the primordial sex tissue has not yet diferentiated (specialised) into being male or female. Also it's not just simply testosterone but also the hormone Anti-Mullerian Hormone which is important in developing a male or female urogenital tract. Everyone in the world including peterson have at least heard the word testosterone but peterson certainly has never heard of AMH.
His university lectures on children manipulating their mothers is also bizarre in that he attributes to young children thoughts and actions one might imagine in some adults. Children for him are adults with the full complement of adult emotions but simply in a smaller package.
People who can transcend their egos....= Meek. Use gratitude relentlessly.....
Spot on. Love this.
Dan, I think this is my favourite of all your posts, for all the reasons. Thank you for pointing to the real significance of the beatitudes.
Correcting him in biology, neuroscience, history, law and now biblical scholarship. Anything alse? How much proof do people need to realise that he just spreads missinformation. Nonsense filled with articulation.
I applaud your attempts to right the wrongs of the committed right to reinterpret the Bible to suit the wounded white man. Jesus is just too liberal for today is their message.
What does he even mean when he says meekness isn't a moral virtue? There is no objective list of moral virtues, what people consider to be moral virtues just depends mostly on the moral frameworks of their cultures and subcultures. Countless people from various cultures across the globe, both now and in the past, would disagree with Peterson and agree with the author of Matthew that meekness is a moral virtue. Does he think they all also "actually" mean that you should be a monster and then learn to control it? Or is he simply making the author of Matthew a special case on the basis that he cannot imagine the possibility that a Biblical passage written around 1,900 years ago would reflect a worldview or moral framework which does not align with his own?
I shouldn't be surprised. He tells us right at the start why he is doing these gymnastics with the definition of meek. He is just stumped by the idea that someone would endorse meekness as a value. Can't imagine it. It doesn't make sense to him. Perhaps he just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to imagine or make sense of that possibility.
Fair point, though I'd say in reality he isn't stumped by at all, and instead he was just blatantly catering to his Right-Wing "Might Makes Right" Christian Male audience. They can't imagine themselves as 'weak', or 'cowardly', or lacking in 'might'. Nor can they imagine Jesus' words being Against their very own views and ideals. So he re-interpreted that "meek" trigger-word for them, because it bothers their delicate sensibilities, and because they keep giving him money to say stuff just like that.
IIRC he believes that there is some list of objective moral virtues, (or at the very least he understands he has to maintain that position in his current dogma) something about his book maps of meaning where things like feminism are chaos and his patriarchal view is order
@@sillywet4785Even you have a natural morality and through that you can see what is virtuous to you.
Jordan Peterson speaks absolute nonsense??😮
Shocked Pikachu face .....😂😂😂😂
Must be one of those rare days that end in 'y'.
Some people go to great lengths to justify their hate and hostility just bubbling beneath the surface. He sounds very much like so one who is a monster just barely keeping that hidden behind pseudo-academic claptrap. Thank God for true scholars.
Peterson is a charlatan.
Stunning. Thank you
Ahhh yes Incel Kermit.
How is he an Incel ? He isnt some kissless virgin. He has a wife and family. You look more like an Incel than he does.
Incel Kermit feels too generous. i don’t know how to improve it, just saying…
@@aboynam3dblu3 I’ve been using Kermit the Bigot
@@spawniscariot9756 yeah :). Unfortunately adding all the things (chalartan, grifter, bigot, incel, bad kermit impersonator, tde, etc.) is just too clunky to be pithy. Oh well. Incel Kermit and/or Kermit the Bigot (and/or maybe Incel Kermit, the Bigot) may just have to do.
I love the guy but man thats a good decription
I had read 📚 that the Attic Greek word meant meek, but that in Koine, the word meant something like being unconcerned with social standing. This latter meaning makes sense in an apocalyptic preaching. 🤔
Dan, you should name your TH-cam channel, “All Right, Let’s See It “! 🙂
The meek will inherit the earth because they are too afraid to refuse it when its offered.
Interesting perspective
That's so funny
It's interesting...there are schools of Christian theology that teach something quite similar to JP's interpretation here: I remember years ago hearing conservative evangelical sermons explaining that the Greek word translated as "meek" originally connoted an image like a powerful racehorse that simply chose to subjugate its raw power to the will and guidance of the jockey. The preacher's intent was to dispel any notion that the proper Christian attitude was incompatible with a macho male supremacist mindset, to avoid alienating some segment of his congregation. JP seems to be building on that tradition.
He is the Steven Segal of academia.
A man of culture
You don’t know much about aikido do you?
The ultimate master of aikido is Morihei Ueshiba.
After that it is his sons and his students.
Read Segall. He's mean spirited. Some people are more transparent than others.
Also, this attitude of the justification of meanness is not new, but it is obviously strong today. Even so called meek "Christians" defend it. It is the peak of hypocrisy, which was a focus of " jesus"
@@jannetteberends8730ah Akido, the ultimate form of Bull-Shido.
@@aymanerbaati6284right, nothing says “culture” like being a rapist and spousal abuser, has lied about every aspect of his life, and is a big fan of Eastern European tyrants.
I just saw a completely different version of the post used in the video. It said nothing about becoming a monster at all. It said those that know how to use their swords but do not shall inherit the earth. It’s so hard to find the truth these days.😊
You're absolutely right.. and he suffered physically because he refused to be grateful and self loving.... his indignant ego is the problem......
So when is the conversation between you and JP coming up? Would be very interesting!
Some people can't accept that Jesus wasn't a Hegelian, Nietzschean, or Objectivist.
Peterson is clown among clowns😂
Hey! This is great! As a hobby, I love studying religion. From the Hermetics to the Lotus sutra, I’ve read texts from most of the major religions. Almost all of them have a similar message. I’ve never seen someone misinterpret ideas with impunity like Jordan. He is a con man out to take advantage of lost souls.
Simultaneously fascinating and disgusting how these anti-christians constantly try to "reimagine" Christ as the exact opposite of who and what He actually was. And then accuse everyone ELSE of cherry-picking and ignoring scriptures that are inconvenient to their agenda.
Was Christ meek?
Was He powerless?
Again, I’d be curious about the greater context here but in your view could you explain how cowardice is different than meekness and if cowardice is or is not a virtue
@@lafamigliabazzani499 Did you bother to actually listen to what Dan said? As far as Christ Himself being meek or powerless, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Christ makes it quite clear that one of our priorities should be concern for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized (who are certainly among "the meek", Matthew 25:32-46), and NOT for the powerful or rich (who He spoke against on several occasions). Christ NEVER even remotely suggested to His disciples that they should seek to be "powerful" or have dominion over others, but rather that they should seek peace and not seek to be greater than each other. Meek is clearly another word for those who do not seek power over their neighbors, and who seek peace, and to love their neighbor as themselves, rejecting hate and a lust for power. The very idea of trying to twist "meek" into what is pretty much the opposite of meek is vile and obscene.
@@Dalekzilla So is there inherent virtue and righteousness in being poor?
And if one has the “privilege” of being able to be competent, or making a good earning at work, etc - is it not virtuous for them to use that for the good of others?
Would it be more virtuous for the strong man to cripple himself, or to use his strength to bear the burdens of others?
I tend to think the point of the Beatitudes is lost on this whole discussion but maybe that’s a discussion for another time
@@Dalekzilla I think you think I’m arguing for something I have no intention of saying (and again also, I think, a strawman of what Peterson argued in context if we could see it) but maybe as a first thing I’d like to clarify something because I suspect, but don’t want to strawman you:
If being poor is inherently virtuous and righteous is being comparatively rich inherently evil and unrighteous? I ask this in part because you quote Mark 10:25 but don’t keep going through v27, and this is a common enough reading to where I’ve seen it a lot. In that case maybe Zacchaeus and Lydia didn’t inherit the kingdom after all - we have no record of them liquidating their estates, while Lydia at least clearly used her estate and business to serve the church
But on that last bit I tend to think this is an important passage:
“But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles ilord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.””
You seem to be assuming that possession of [wealth/power/influence/competence] necessarily means the misuse/abuse of it. And I think even on this clipped bit Peterson talks about not using said monstrous power and in that restraint to turn the other cheek there is a virtuous meekness that is to be commended. And even some of the most social Justice minded Christians I know would say that it’s not the privilege/power per se that is evil, but the evil lies in not using it for others
@@Dalekzilla (apologies in advance for the wall of text)
Maybe to start, the point of agreement: we do well to take those passages that you referenced very seriously. There is an issue with wealth, esteem, authority privilege, or however we want to articulate the other side of the beatitudes (note: in Luke these are accompanied by corresponding woes). And it certainly is the case that those who “are full” are in a very dangerous position.
But like many things, there is more than one way for us to go wrong. There are a few places in Proverbs where the point is made that’s both wealth and lack are a sort of trial or temptation. I think Agur makes the point most succinctly in his prayer in Proverbs 30:
“give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that is needful for me,
lest I be full and deny you
and say, “Who is the LORD?”
or lest I be poor and steal
and profane the name of my God.”
Psalm 73 is also very profound when it comes to the trial of seeing the prosperity of the wicked and how it nearly caused the author to stumble. But I think also we tend to mistake [the thjng] for [the idolatry of the thing]. Notice how we’ll shorthand: “money is the root of all evil] for [the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil]. If money itself was simply the problem, then the finding a job to feed yourself and your family, contribute to the church, etc would be wrong - and it’s not spoken of that way (to the contrary Paul says that someone who refuses to provide for their family is “worse than an unbeliever”
In a number of places ‘the rich’ are condemned for putting their trust in their possessions instead of God - and I don’t think it’s a stretch to consider that as a parallelism to idolatr and worship. But what is envy other than the idolatry of someone else’s possessions? So both rich and poor in my view would be succeptible to the love of money, but it looks different depending on where you sit. And out of the two, ‘the prostitutes and tax collectors [and poor?] ar closer to the kingdom” than the full, the self-righteous, etc - and in that way (which of course would be shocking to the audience) it is those who are least at home and in comfort in the world that are the most favored (which is an alternate rendering of blessed) by God
Regarding Peterson, I do wonder if he walked it back some outside of the clipped part we saw. He seemed to be making a point I did hear him make somewhere else - not that we should carry swords around, but (in a sort of pop psychology sort of way) that sort of thing where we would say that maybe someone like Jocko Wilink (who as far as I know is an incredibly kind person IRL) has a particular sort of virtue to his kindness and gentleness that a person unsure of themselves wouldn’t be able to attain. But the way it was clipped, and Peterson having the penchant for overstating things… I can completely understand the reaction to the clip as presented
Anyone surprised that this yet another instance where JP doesn't know what he's talking about?
First RED FLAG:
"... And I thought, there's someting wrong with that, that line."
Huh? 😮
First time I'm bang on agreeing with you. Good explanation!
So what does The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth actually mean? Because the most realistic is the meek end up in the ground because the strong will take advantage of the meek!
And on that note am newly subscribed. 💜💜
We all know it’s the cheese makers that inherit the earth.
🤣
I guess Jordan is unwell.
Just like to point out that Mathew 5:6 reads "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled." New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition Jesus was talking about those who hungered and thirsted for right action, not necessarily food and drink.
JP didn’t even give a reasoning or a source. He just said “Doesn’t sound right to me, so I’m deciding how it’s translated.”
Looking up the etymology of the word you mentioned - seems to refer more like a mountain horse that has been tamed for war. So closer to JBPs description. But im no expert in greek.
I need a “alright, let’s see it shirt”
An*
Yes. The true meaning of Jesus is never what this world expects or wants.
Thank you
Moses was described as meek in Numbers. How does the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words stack up against each other? Jordan is a monument unto himself.
"Pure and utter nonsense" is so intense. He's repeating some known lesson on the line of "better be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war", "internally strong, enough to be externally kind", that kind of advice. The intersection between the 2 things is obviously the "gentle" part, but the 2 messages are not related, he basically saw what he wanted to see.
This is a much more fair response than Dan's.
Very well put, thank you.
Which is complete dogshit. To be clear.
Yes and no… Yes, I’d agree that is *also* a virtue.
No, to the suggestion that the translation of the beatitudes is wrong (which is factual mistake, thus “pure and utter nonsense”), and that there’s no virtue in meekness (which is a value assessment, that you might share or not).
McCleland is the first to say that when using a multi vocal compilation like the Bible for inspiration, there will many different readings, because there’s not a single message in it, but many. That is quite different from a wrong translation.
the "pure and utter nonsense" refers to JPs understanding of the biblical text, and it is accurate. wasn't THAT obvious?
Why would the meek want to inherit the earth after the assertive are done with it?
I like Dan's knowledge and he is very interesting to listen to and I have learned a lot from him, but much to the bewilderment of many commenters here, I'm sure, I also believe JP has something to say.
I don't think that 'gentleness and not being interested in one's own self importance' is contradictory to JP's idea of being a monster that has itself controlled. JP was looking for why the translation 'meek' felt amiss to him. I believe at some point he explained that he had not been aware of the possible meaning of 'meek' which some scholars seem to have found in relation to the breaking of war horses. Now perhaps Dan could clarify and show that this too is wrong at some point, but I'm going by my own understanding here for now.
This 'becoming gentle' is not problematic for the position Peterson was arguing for.
I too understood the 'meek' translation as the suggestion that the 'weak' or 'timid' would inherit, which I also questioned as odd. Many parts of the Bible talk about things like strength through faith and certainly about strength of will in the face of persecution say and this perhaps less studied reading of the word 'meek' struggles to co-ordinate with those ideas.
JP was not calling for people to feel self-important or be rude or belligerent unless necessary. His call to be a monster is, I believe, to only be so when necessary with gentleness as the appropriate default. Now perhaps you'd deny that that is biblical, but I would argue there are various areas of the Bible that would echo this mentality in order to follow God's law.
Just my thoughts on it.
Honest question. Why did Christ instruct the apostles to go into the world, and leave behind everything except their swords? I've understood that to mean that people are responsible for their own self defense. Knowing how to draw a weapon and use it does not mean that's how I obtain the things I desire in life. But I choose to only ever draw a weapon in defense of myself and another innocent.
JP is an intellectual lightweight with hilarious alpha male fantasies.
... and a renegotiated “Suffering Servant” complex (Isaiah 53).
Don't you have a gay wedding to approvingly attend?
@markoredano9141 Nah. I don't like weddings. The last one I went to was my own 35 years ago. People pretty much know by now not to bother inviting me. But thanks for your way off topic reply so typical of JP simps.
@@johnrichardson7629 It's obvious you approve, attendance notwithstanding
@markoredano9141 Of course I approve of gay marriage.
I've seen this a few places from other people. They're confusing the word "Praeis" with the word "Proutes"
So, the antonym of “meek” is “Jordan Peterson.”
Thank you for this, Dan. Timely and useful.
Side question:
You pronounce "YHWH" as "Adonai", which in my (very limited) understanding means "my lord".
I can appreciate the respectful intent (I hear "Adonai" was popularized during a period when the name of the supreme diety was considered too sacred to utter), but wouldn't that be more of a personal declaration, less appropriate in scholarly discussion than "Yahweh" or some other more direct pronunciation?
He’s said before that he says Adonai out of respect for people he knows who are uncomfortable hearing the divine name, who have asked him not to pronounce it.
His voice always reminds me of Kermit the Frog.
It's my understanding that Jesus actually said, "A Greek shall inherit the Earth."
"Did anyone catch his name?"
I’m sure it was and the ‘Geek’ shall inherit the earth. 😛
@@CraigBurnett666 😁
@@deviouskris3012 Oh thank God, I actually have a chance
@@AurorXZ You and I both. 😂
In my experience. People tend to twist and distort their religious views to conform with the personal core set of values they already held; rather than ever actually changing anything uncomfortable about themselves.
In other words a good person at heart that calls themselves Christian will twist Christianity into something far greater than it actually is. While an evil person that calls themselves Christian will use the bible and God as justification for many of their appalling acts and behaviour. In this way their religion does not really add much that was not already there within them.
Thank-you Dr. McClellan for commenting on Dr. Peterson's personal Christological assertions. I really wish he had been satisfied to remain in the classroom, post his lectures to TH-cam, and continued with his practice as a Clinical Psychologist instead.
It's been sad to watch him thrash around in the realm of philosophy, and the Christianity of his own making.
Dan, I think you’d appreciate the message he is trying to convey here. I think what he was saying is that those who have the strength, power or privilege to oppress and still show meekness and kindness to others by refusing to use those monstrous tools to hurt others will be blessed. It does make sense that a person who has no choice but to be meek isn’t showing as much love as one who has the option to oppress. Usually he will preface these ideas with a statement to remind people these are just his ideas mingled with scripture and his expertise in the soft science of Psychology. Remember, he’s a psychologist not a biblical scholar. Keep up the awesome vids!!
If we interpret what Peterson is saying here very charitably then this message might seem somehow kind or even useful but I think we should interrogate the possible reasons why people do the things they do. This is an overt case of a person renegotiating or, we could say, misinterpeting a text--in this case, scripture. The bible list the persecuted as a blessed group.
Why might Peterson want you, and himself, to believe that actually the real blessed people are those with the power to cause harm but who don´t? How different is the reading of this scripture if those who shall inheret the Earth or to be blessed aren´t the poor, hungry, persecuted, the meek etc, but instead the cop who doesn´t do police brutality and the president who doesn´t become a dictator?
I understand your instinct to say thst being meek isn´t as virtuos as self-control but in this reading those who are blessed for not using their abilites to cause harm have not really done anything either, at least not anything every human on the planet does to some degree all the time. Is it possible, to pull up an analogy: Peterson wants you to think the man with the nuclear launch codes who doesn´t drop the atom bomb is the one who is blessed, or should be, and not those who would die to the atom bomb because he wants to be allowed by his theology to have the nuclear launch codes, to have power?
I am not a Christian for many reasons bit if any part of the bible were true, the part about the meek inhereting the Earth should be. I don´t think it is and I think certain biblical interpretations push liberation off to a hypothetical afterlife but one last question: why do you think Peterson didn´t just say "you should be able to protect yourself and others and shouldn´t use that power to cause harm becuase that would be vituos¨; might it be that Peterson instead believes in the accumilation of power for its own sake and can not square that with the scriptures.
agreed good take
@@CDLatin I can see where you’re coming from but disagree that is where Dr Peterson is coming from though. He’s said as much and isn’t saying those who are truly meek aren’t blessed but in your worldview it would be considered much more admirable that a person who could hurt another and doesn’t is doing something admirable?
I'm impressed with your comment. I struggle with the hypocrisy. Probably because Dan's claim is that Jordan Peterson is interpreting something that isn't there, and then Dan does exactly that with JBP.
It's frustrating for me when anyone is certain that their world view is the right world view for everyone. I don't like it when religious people do it. I don't like it when Dan does it. I appreciate your admiration of Dan. It helps me realize that Dan is not just the ideas I disagree with him on.
@trapd00rspider he’s definitely not a tik tok style communicator. His lectures on these topics are usually 4 hours long with academic citations and like I say his own biblical takes mingled with that evidence.
Probably the intended meaning of the phrase is the moral of Psalm 37, where "The meek shall inherit the earth" originally appears. It is about waiting for God's justice in humility and patience.
of course the meek would not want to inherit the earth, so it must be a punishment. The bible is such a piece of garbage.
I agree about we should be kind and understanding, but we shouldn't become victims and be defenseless either, in Luke 22:36, the Messiah instructed his disciples “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
That wasn't general advice for all time though, he was speaking to his disciples in the lead up to his capture (during which he surrenders without a fight, thus "becoming a victim"). They end up only having two swords and he tells them that that is enough because the point wasn't actually to be armed and ready to fight, it was a rhetorical device to help fulfill an old testament prophecy
This video is also incorrect but everyone seems too biased to notice. A 2 second google search will give you this,
The ancient Greeks had a word to describe this behavior, the behavior of a well-trained horse, it was praus. Praus has been translated in English to meek. The old English often used the term “meeking a horse”. Meeking a horse did not mean to to strip the power from a horse but rather to harness the horse’s power from a state of wild independence to one of loyalty so that the horse could be used as the master of the horse intended.
Thank you. Will put.
Even Darwin ended up being against his "survival of the fittest"
The Meek shall inherit the Earth. We have democracies like never before in the world. One person one vote is the meek inheriting the Earth.
I suspect too that Dr. Peterson is seeing this through a particular lens of what he considers masculine virtue to be. I am disturbed by how prevalent this view is becoming in the US - that masculinity necessitates being ready to be violent at all times.
Can we not say this about all of JP says, they are utter nonsense
Although I percieve Jordan Petereson to stand partly amd well corrected here, I find it ironic and sad, to see the commentary field filled up with all other than meek statements. And the badly hidden hateful comments are also the most upvoted. Most here obviously don't check their own beam. Amazing contradiction.
However, the more well thought comments are to be found further down the commentary field, for those who actually cares for a decent discussion.
Reminds me about Peterson talking about how cowards hide behind a fake morality. A morality they don't possess but is a cop out for being terrified of conflict without looking like a coward.
That is typical. Name calling others generates more applaud among fools than serious and reasoned discussion.
Dan, I love your stuff but I think you missed this one. Peterson is NOT saying that we're to be warlike, violent, belligerent, condescending, all of which are signs of immaturity, stupidity, weakness. He IS saying that "meek" is not synonymous with "be a bunny rabbit." Be a powerful, wise, skilled, mature adult. Keep your sword sheathed. Treat others with gentleness, forbearance, kindness, love. Jesus had the power to "call down 10,000 angels" but voluntarily set it aside. Jesus was a whole man. That's what I think Peterson is driving at here.
I'm afraid that Dr. Peterson has fallen into the trap of thinking that because he is intelligent, well-versed, and experienced in one particular field (psychology), that he is equally intelligent, well-versed, and experienced in every other field. I've seen him speak as though he's an expert in primatology, dietetics and nutrition, biology, history, and now religion.
I've listened to Peterson's argument in its entirety. He's saying that the modern definition of "meek" does not mean what the Greek word it translates meant to the Greeks at the time of writing. I strongly agree with that point. Matthew intended it to mean what he understood it to mean. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament it meant mildness and gentleness, but they only valued it as a virtue as long as there was a compensating strength. Besides, what virtue doesn't contain strength? Merriam-Webster defines meek as "deficient in spirit and courage" and "not violent or strong". The way we look at "meek" today any spineless incompetent can be meek. The Greek word praus is a word of strength. What virtue is required to restrain yourself from fighting if you are incapable of fighting? You should be tough, you should be capable of fighting for when it is necessary, but you control it. You should be able to fight to protect the weak when necessary, but you are gentle even on some occasions when it's not in your own self interest. Also, you should be well equipped to debate your point of view, but in gentleness.
1 Corinthians 4:21 (NASB) 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?
Btw, when directed towards God it means a trust that manifests in peace towards God and His plan. Vine's Expository Dictionary says, " It is that temper of spirit in which we accept His dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting".
"Besides, what virtue doesn't contain strength?"
Perhaps you should read the Sermon on the Mount again, several of them are described.
You have changed my mind on Dr Peterson
He's not using hermeneutical tools for extrapolating the meaning. He's bringing a reader response from the text which he is free to do if it means bringing the best out of it for him and those he intends to help with it.
It was translated from Hebrew to Greek then eventually English,smart guy. Jordan was expecting his listeners to have some bible history knowledge
I think he is confusing the word meek with weak
Yes, meek but with the capacity to take something by force according to Matthew 11:12 "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force."
You are saying thee great windbag got it wrong?
The Greek means “strength under control”. Don’t know where this guy gets his definition. JP is closer to it than he is
I think there’s a difference between being kind and being helpless (which is arguably a connotation of the word ‘meek’). Kindness is virtue only when you have the _capacity_ to do otherwise and _choose_ not to.
i feel like someone should do a comparison of Jordan Peterson's takes on the Bible and pesher exegesis
"Sell your cloak ...buy two swords."
I’m so glad someone has the wherewithal to take that self-important grifter to task.
Jordan is right, same message in Dante's comedy, u have to go through hell to get to heaven, by increasing ur ability to do evil u increase ur ability to do good
There's a special place in hell being pepared for Jordan B Peterson.
He'll share space with child molesters, and people who talk in the theater (obscure, let's see who gets it)
Excellent. Dr Peterson is so invested in utter nonsense of Jung and his "Shadow" or inner monster. Jung suggests that: Whilst your monster is to be liberated, it is also to be tamed and there are ways one can use one inner monster for a greater purpose.
The greatest thing about Jesus Christ is his great compassion, not his supposed miracles or resurrection. This is a poor fit for professed Christians who want a muscular Jesus who fits their image of masculinity.
I fail to see how poverty imparts gentleness or relates to it at all
great comment. there might be an inverse relationship. jebus was pandering to his audience, just like modern preachers.
And who's to defend the poor the hungry the persecuted??? And so the meek warrior is born..the one to protect the rest.... Here am I...send me...😂
So meek means humble?
Not everyone has the gaul to use a sword against another. Some are meek because of injuries which make them less prone to injure others. We lay down our swords 🗡 because the enemy lies within our hearts 💕.
Be as cunning as serpents and gentle as doves....
He is a relativist True! This Jordon Peterson thing is becoming kinda boring to me now!
He is a Good Teacher of Psychology with a few interesting things to say but more than that - NO !
There's no doubt your assessment is accurate, but I don't get your implied(?) criticism that JP is trying to renegotiate the text to use it for his own ends. You frequently state that everyone has done this with sacred texts since time immemorial. Why is it so obviously pure and utter nonsense when JP does the same thing?
agreed!
I struggle with how Dan sees everyone that disagrees with him as following dogma, but when he speaks it's just the data.
The lack of self awareness or at least admittance that he is in his own world view that is based on the belief that society should be renegotiated so that the oppressed have the power is irritating.
It's silly to use "academic consensus" as a basis for being data when it's clear to me that academia is also suspectable to dogma.
The horrors of Nazi Germany and past and current communist states are perfect example of how secular state and academic consensus alone is not a good basis for "data".
I believe the best way to be sure you are using the scientific method to avoid dogma is to talk to people that disagree with you. When you are actually talking with someone they won't let you misrepresent them like so many do in the "response" clips.
JP is a terrible excuse for a human being. A grifter and pseudo-intellectual, he's the Andrew Tate of ex-college professors.
@@123mneil Yeah I have to agree with you here. I love Dan's biblical and historic research, but I often find myself very frustrated at the politically biased videos. I honestly wish we could just leave modern day politics out of it.
Another fine example of Jordeo Christian values.