Famous Fans on the Friday Political Open Thread

[Mike]

Guide, you’re into Jordan Peterson. What does Peterson say about women and their exposure of flesh? About propagating ‘Christian’ values in public? About confronting in public those who do not live by your values?

oh man, I was I was a bigger fan. This is from his book 12 Rules for Life. it's the 11th rule, while not exact, I think it answers his view on this situation....

"Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding."

Yes, he says that. Yet he also insists that there must be ‘virtue’ and morals, and strongly hints that while these things may not necessarily be codified in law they should be enforceable in society. By the patriarchy. Even by agents of the law.

So then. Were those girls merely skateboarding children? Or were they committing infractions of the moral/virtue code, and therefore in need of a big man full of the righteous anger of the Holy Spirit to set them straight?

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

So then. Were those girls merely skateboarding children? Or were they committing infractions of the moral/virtue code, and therefore in need of a big man full of the righteous anger of the Holy Spirit to set them straight?

Since Peterson is Agnostic I doubt he would think they sinned against the holly spirit.

You want your morals and virtues codified by law it's interesting that you take such a tone when others do the same...

[Mike]

So then. Were those girls merely skateboarding children? Or were they committing infractions of the moral/virtue code, and therefore in need of a big man full of the righteous anger of the Holy Spirit to set them straight?

Since Peterson is Agnostic I doubt he would think they sinned against the holly spirit.

You want your morals and virtues codified by law it's interesting that you take such a tone when others do the same...

Peterson is not agnostic. I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but it argues against your statement so look again: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ristianity

Apparently, a long illness put him into ‘foxhole’ territory and he now believes. As for your statement about what I want concerning morals and virtues, as usual you are off the mark. For example, I do not like abortion. I think it’s an horrendous choice. Yet I support the concept of a woman’s legal right to choose it.

Try again.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Peterson is not agnostic. I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but it argues against your statement so look again: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ristianity

You would have to show my what in that article you think disproves he is agnostic. He talks about his belief that Jesus is both myth and a real person. Which seems like an agnostic position to me.

What you have in the figure of Christ is an actual person who actually lived, plus a myth, and, in some sense, Christ is the union of those two things. The problem is I probably believe that, but I’m amazed at my own belief and I don’t understand it.

[Mike]

Peterson is not agnostic. I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but it argues against your statement so look again: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ristianity

You would have to show my what in that article you think disproves he is agnostic. He talks about his belief that Jesus is both myth and a real person. Which seems like an agnostic position to me.

What you have in the figure of Christ is an actual person who actually lived, plus a myth, and, in some sense, Christ is the union of those two things. The problem is I probably believe that, but I’m amazed at my own belief and I don’t understand it.

George Washington is an actual person who actually lived, plus a myth. So Peterson saying that about Jesus is in no way a statement of doubt, of agnosticism. The closest your quote of him comes to agnosticism is “probably believe”, but even that is not a statement of agnostic-level doubt. It is a statement of lack of comprehension of his own belief.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

George Washington is an actual person who actually lived, plus a myth. So Peterson saying that about Jesus is in no way a statement of doubt, of agnosticism. The closest your quote of him comes to agnosticism is “probably believe”, but even that is not a statement of agnostic-level doubt. It is a statement of lack of comprehension of his own belief.

My point is no where does he say he believes in God. Or in Jesus a savior. He says he believes in Jesus as a man who lived and a myth. And that he can't explain that belief. That doesn't show any level a belief in God. To me, the fact that he recognize Jesus exists as myth on some level shows doubt in the metaphysical aspects of the story.

[Mike]

Peterson says he believes god does not exist, yet is afraid god does exist. The latter clause undermines the former. Especially since he states that he acts in this world as if god does exist.

It’s almost as if he is being coy, as if he’s publicly playing at not believing in order to achieve a particular “intellectual credibility” that would be lost if he just outright admitted to belief. To me he’s little more than a rehash of CS Lewis, wrapped in a patriarchy champion. I don’t see him so much intellectual as merely loquacious. And as a man who navigates VERY well in the new feminist reality, I don’t buy his relentless espousal of the patriarchy. Though I can see why insecure men, from control freaks to MGTOWs to incels, do buy it.