Is Mr. Jordan Peterson a false prophet or ravenous wolf?

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"

Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member

Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.

why limit the options to two only?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.
Jesus said we could tell the false prophets by their fruit, (Matt 7:16), so if he commits a sin, we will know.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Or, if he offers you an orange and gives you a scorpion, I guess too.
What if it's a dead scorpion, but he thought it was alive and dangerous, but it's actually harmless? because it's dead?

False prophet? Clown? What do we call him?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
What if it's a dead scorpion, but he thought it was alive and dangerous, but it's actually harmless? because it's dead?

False prophet? Clown? What do we call him?
If he tells you it is an orange, he is a liar...and thus, a false prophet.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
If he tells you it is an orange, he is a liar...and thus, a false prophet.
Why not just a liar. We don't need to invoke the Bible to call a spade a spade here, right? Liars lie. Lies come from liars. Lies and liars are connected.

==
At any rate I don't see where Mr. Peterson's lying.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Why not just a liar. We don't need to invoke the Bible to call a spade a spade here, right? Liars lie. Lies come from liars. Lies and liars are connected.

==
At any rate I don't see where Mr. Peterson's lying.
My initial post was just a reminder of how to tell a false prophet from the real McCoy.
If they commit sin, they are not of God.
 

marke

Well-known member

Philosophically Mr. Peterson comes from materialism, he doesn't believe in God----so when he does think about God (the non-local hidden Person Who made everything) what does he think of? He thinks of ethics; morals. It's because being a materialist he 'gravitates' to the 'salient' things about religion as regards materialism, which basically means, physical, visible, observable things. Not the 'theory' or 'theology' of the thing, but what's obvious and apparent and patent; 'prima facie'.

2000 years ago being a materialist Mr. Peterson would have gravitated not to the ethics of religion but to the 'idolatry' of it; the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities or gods. Since Christians (with arguably some assistance from Muhammadans) have basically extinguished the offering of sacrifices on altars to deities (except for Christians themselves, who do practice the offering of sacrifices on altars to their own deity), Mr. Peterson today gravitates to ethics instead of idolatry, because that's the next materialistic 'layer of the onion' in religion (the 'top layer', idolatry, being 'removed' by Christians).

So morals and or ethics is Mr. Peterson's 'door' to God, coming as he is from materialism. He's safe and confident with materialistic theory so if he can 'wade' into religion through this 'door' then he's going to be more comfortable in his quest.

Yes he does cry in this video, so no surprises.
There are two types of people on earth: 1. those willing to seek God and open to enlightenment and 2. those who hate God and do everything they do without the slightest fear of offending Him.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
My initial post was just a reminder of how to tell a false prophet from the real McCoy.
If they commit sin, they are not of God.
And so that's why I asked you, is being passive aggressive a sin? Yes or nO?
You know what I mean?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I am afraid I see nothing either passive or aggressive here.
Great! So then, let's say hypothetically, a person does not know that a sin is a sin, and engages in that sin, but unknowingly.

False prophet?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Great! So then, let's say hypothetically, a person does not know that a sin is a sin, and engages in that sin, but unknowingly.

False prophet?
No.
Sins can only come about after temptation, enticement, lust, and conception. (James 1:14-15)
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
No.
Sins can only come about after temptation, enticement, lust, and conception. (James 1:14-15)
You said and I quote " If they commit sin, they are not of God. "

When you see someone commit sin, how can you tell whether they were first tempted, then enticed, then lusted for the sin; rather than simply not knowing and not consenting to commit sin, but committing sin in ignorance and or without full volition?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
You said and I quote " If they commit sin, they are not of God. "
Me, from post #6..."Jesus said we could tell the false prophets by their fruit, (Matt 7:16), so if he commits a sin, we will know."
Your summation is right on target.
When you see someone commit sin, how can you tell whether they were first tempted, then enticed, then lusted for the sin; rather than simply not knowing and not consenting to commit sin, but committing sin in ignorance and or without full volition?
I can't.
Though some things are obviously a sin, like murder or theft, there is a lot out there that is up to the "doer" of said action whether or not it is a sin.
If, however, a man says he is a prophet of God, and commits a sin, we know his fruit shows he is not of God...according to Jesus.
That was appropriate to the OP.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Me, from post #6..."Jesus said we could tell the false prophets by their fruit, (Matt 7:16), so if he commits a sin, we will know."
Your summation is right on target.

I can't.
Though some things are obviously a sin, like murder or theft, there is a lot out there that is up to the "doer" of said action whether or not it is a sin.
No all sins are objectively knowable, it has nothing to do with intent or volition whether or not something's a sin. Sins are objective, not subjective.
If, however, a man says he is a prophet of God, and commits a sin, we know his fruit shows he is not of God...according to Jesus.
That was appropriate to the OP.
Mr. Peterson never said he is a prophet, not to my knowledge.
 
Top