Ok yet that leaves us with many Christians who believe not all human life are of equal value or deserve of respect , specially those 'inmoral' or going to hell, like my parents believe
im talking about my mom again :^(
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
It's just not epistemologically sound. There is no inherent Judeo-Christian worldview because it requires interpretation, one that has curiously changed as times has.
This is not historically accurate.
"The Christian understanding of the imago Dei, viewed in the light of the doctrine of the Incarnation, was to have four important consequences for practical ethics that became increasingly apparent as Christianity began to penetrate the world of the Roman Empire. Together they represent a radical departure from the social ethics of classical paganism...Early Christian philanthropy was deeply informed by the theological concept of the imago Dei [i.e., the Image of God], that humans were created in the image of God...The classical world had no religious or ethical impulse for individual charity... In the Graeco-Roman world, beneficence took the form of civic philanthropy on behalf of the community at large. Christianity, on the other hand, insisted that the love of God required the spontaneous manifestation of personal charity towards one's brothers. So, one could not claim to love God without loving one's brother (1 John 4:20-21)... In place of a Stoic doctrine of human brotherhood or a definition of the nature of man, it grounded philanthropy in a theological conception that saw human love as reflecting divine love. But it also went beyond Jewish concepts of charity, which was directed inward to one's own community...The difference in Christian and pagan attitudes towards abortion reflected a difference in how the foetus was perceived. Pagans considered the victims insignificant; Seneca thought that to drown a newborn was an act of reason, not of anger. To Christians, however, the foetus was not only human but an eternal soul. Abortion was regarded by some as worse than murder...A fourth consequence was that the doctrine of the imago Dei led to a redefinition of the poor...No longer repulsive, they bring holiness and healing from spiritual diseases to those who touch them in order to assist them: "By taking the lepers' flesh in hand, those who minister to them participate in the divine immanence of creation that proceeds from the incarnate Son's essential sharing in both deity and cosmos." The new image of the poor did not reflect a Christian romanticizing of their condition. But it did constitute a challenge to the rich and powerful, who had traditionally claimed to merit a special relation with the gods in their role as patrons of the community." (Historian Gary Ferngren)
Thank you for your response. It is true that many Christians dehumanize human beings when they do not see them as beings created in God's Image. Jesus commands His follower's to love their enemies or neighbors more than themselves. This means any Christian that does not love others as Christ loves is living in disobedience and forsaking their moral and ethical duties.
Peterson tends to view humans through a naturalistic lens. This means that evolutionary Darwinism dictates how humans relate to each other. The problem with viewing human beings through this lens is that it views people through a hierarchical lens (i.e., survival of the fittest). Christ's way is much different. Christ's way showed that the path to human flourishing was grounded in the idea that each person must lay their life down for the needs of the other (the opposite of Darwinism). Hope that made sense.
What is it that's not historically accurate? You're being more broad than Peterson here. The Christian belief regarding abortion is a good example that secular humanism isn't purely a product of cherry picking, but a constantly evolving value set informed by acquired scientific knowledge.
It is constantly evolving because the worldview guiding humanism is the metaphysical belief that human beings are constantly becoming some new. The Judeo-Christian claim is not that we are becoming, but grounded in the idea of being what God created humanity to be. However, this still doesn't eliminate the fact that humanism borrows human value and worth from Christianity.
- "Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity – an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance...This may seem self-evident, but it was literally unheard-of at the time, and it turned an entire world-order upside down...We see today how civilizations that have not experienced Christianity have great difficulties in fostering democratic regimes, because the notion of equality is not so deep rooted...Yet virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins…It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God." (Atheist philosopher Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought, pp. 72, 73, 75)
Edited
Last edited:
That's not what's being objected. It's the "why" and "where", not "if" humanism borrows. Jump to 5:10 in the video I posted to find where I find Peterson inconsistent.
Dont let the post modern neo-marxist moderator surpress your god given christian right of free speech. If you want to caller the mod Morg, dont ask, just do it :)
This plus much of Peterson's own thought is dripping with postmodern ideas. Or at least is some kind of twisted hybrid of postmodernism and modernism writhing on the floor of an underground laboratory. Like, try to make sense of his Darwinian approach to truth (ie. whatever is advantageous to believe is true) that came up in that discussion with Sam Harris. What the fuck is that.
I don't think it's clear that modern Christian thought has much to do with historical Christian thought, let alone modern humanism.
The idea that evolution says that people have to be combative with each other to survive is false. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean you survive by having stronger people walk over weaker people. The only thing required is that people are capable of living long enough to procreate. When human beings cooperate with each other, that actually is part of evolution because making the society as a whole better enables people to live longer and grow the species.
Surely you realize quoting one apologetic historian doesn't settle the debate.
Immediately I must question the notion that the West owes its entire Democratic inheritance to Christianity when Democracy as a formally practiced system of government existed hundreds of years before Christ.
Similarly, human rights as a concept have emerged from multiple cultures across the globe, independent of and before the influence of Christianity.
Democracy, invented by those well-known Christians, the Greeks, was created to combat the concept evolutionary Darwinism that pitted everyone against each other in Zeus' Thunderdome with help from Tina Turna to see who was fittest to survive.
Tina Turner is a Buddhist who revoked her US citizenship.
Don't you dare slander her!!
I did not slander Mrs. Turner in any way. You are clearly under the influence of radical-modernist neo-lefist post-Marxists professors who think that the mere semblance of negative criticism levied at what you would call a female, or for all intents and purposes, a woman, slander. What an absurd idea that is! I didn't say that she tricked Mel Gibson into fighting in a gladiator arena reminiscent of the Roman coliseum except, you know, it wasn't built out of stone, but was actually created using discard parts from automobiles. You know, there was that saying: two men enter, one man leaves. This is simply another manifestation of a natural hierarchy being displayed. Sure, the winner might come out tired and covered in blood, but he is standing. And by golly, he's going home. You can't say that much for the other guy. This hierarchy is with us until the end no matter what the post-leftist neo-modernist radical-Marxists might think and don't let them tell you otherwise! From the wise and terrifying lobster hundreds of millions of years ago to the far reaches of the future across the abysm of chaos stretching out into the Mr. Joe's Citadel! You can't get rid of the hierarchy because that is what gives our lives meaning. The meek and thirsty will always strive to get more water and will push over each other to reach the waterfall. War boys will always try to ascend to the gates of valhalla with Immortan Joe acting as St. Paul as a manifestation of the archetypal super ego.
So what you're saying is if she cleaned up her room and slayed her dragon, she wouldn't be an agent of chaos?
Precisely. Instead of posing the question why love has to do with anything, she should put her house in perfect order before she criticizes what she considers a patriarchy which we all know is not real as women have not been historically oppressed.
Found this old video were he explains women porn preferences/fantasies and jesus those comments are something else, so now girls can't like vampires, surgeons or pirates because its their fault they fall for the wrong 'males' Youtube really eats what Peterdon has to say
It feels like kink shaming D:
It feels like kink shaming D:
Last edited:
I didn't know surgeons were such monsters. How are surgeons predatory? He said that the predatory nature of the billionaire is more abstract, but skips over surgeons. And of course he makes a dig at social scientists because they'd be concerned over the ethics, as any scientist fucking should.
That video is basically a primer for incels and other less-violent misogynists. Females want aggressive partners to tame, according to him. Females only want the bad boys, not the nice guys.
It's all complete bullshit.
That video is basically a primer for incels and other less-violent misogynists. Females want aggressive partners to tame, according to him. Females only want the bad boys, not the nice guys.
It's all complete bullshit.
Last edited:
Well to be fair, women certainly don't want "nice guys", I don't know why anyone would though.
And the surgeons bit is typical Peterson really.
Yeah, I saw one that said that if Peterson kept on going, he would've said that eventually the woman would leave the tamed monster because the aggression isn't there anymore.
Of course they are.
Anything to deflect from their pathetic self indulgence
It's actually funny because a lot of the guys making those sorts of comments are monsters and no woman is trying to tame them
Hehehe thats good maybe ill tell them later xD
I wonder if the tamed monsters stay civilized or return to the wilderness when the female influence is no longer available.
Sometimes in violent opposition to it, in the case of the French Revolution.
Yeah that wasn't in any way peaceful, literally tried to uproot everything about it.
From calendars (new Year 1) to anything the Church owned.
It didn't stop there in the least, it ended in 1905 when it was cemented that France was a secular country and religion was just a thing to relegate to private life.
The vestigial remains of conservatism catholicism burned in the 60's with the sexual revolution and other expansion of freedoms.
He's against identity politics*
*except the ones that pass the lobster test
Another reading of this is that toxic masculinity is so bad that women fantasize about taming the monsters and making the world better.
Being a rich white guy living in a bubble completely
disconnected from the real world and having his rich white guy living in a bubble philosophy stroked.
He should have his African American players read some of Peterson's brilliant commentary about how systemic racism doesn't exist. I'm sure they'd love it.
Peterson is 50s America incarnate. He's a walking episode of Leave it to Beaver with bits of Xenosaga thrown in.
- Status