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

glorydaz

Well-known member
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.

Watch them closely, then.
And you might get yourself a mind reader to boot.

Sin is not always hard to see, so you might need to come up with some backup method for detecting false prophets.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Watch them closely, then.
And you might get yourself a mind reader to boot.

Sin is not always hard to see, so you might need to come up with some backup method for detecting false prophets.
Are you playing both sides of the fence?
At least, your post will cause some confusion...
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Rats are all dirty. A "dirty rat" is an insult. So when a rat comes along telling you how clean he is, you sound the "cleaner rat" alarm. @john w taught us that.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Rats are all dirty. A "dirty rat" is an insult. So when a rat comes along telling you how clean he is, you sound the "cleaner rat" alarm. @john w taught us that.
OK, thanks.
It is a fact that dirt, (or sin), cannot be hid for very long.
The light manifests it.
"But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light." (Eph 5:13)
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
OK, thanks.
It is a fact that dirt, (or sin), cannot be hid for very long.
It's also a fact that rats are all dirty!!!!

I don't think you're hearing that.
The light manifests it.
"But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light." (Eph 5:13)
So here's a way to think of the point that all rats are dirty. "All 'dirty rats' are made manifest by the light," which means when you are exposed to the light the light is going to reveal that you are a dirty rat just like all the rest of us.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
It's also a fact that rats are all dirty!!!!
I'll bet that if you polled pet rat owners, they might not agree.
I don't think you're hearing that.
I can agree that wild rats are more than likely dirty, but I really couldn't say it under oath
So here's a way to think of the point that all rats are dirty. "All 'dirty rats' are made manifest by the light," which means when you are exposed to the light the light is going to reveal that you are a dirty rat just like all the rest of us.
If the dirt in question is a manifestation of a false prophet, I agree.
The light that does the revealing is the word of God.
If you are admitting to being "dirty", God has in place everything you need to correct that situation.
Men and women don't have to remain "dirty" since Jesus was raised from the dead...thanks be to God.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I'll bet that if you polled pet rat owners, they might not agree.

I can agree that wild rats are more than likely dirty, but I really couldn't say it under oath

If the dirt in question is a manifestation of a false prophet, I agree.
The light that does the revealing is the word of God.
If you are admitting to being "dirty"
I'm admitting that you're dirty.
, God has in place everything you need to correct that situation.
Men and women don't have to remain "dirty" since Jesus was raised from the dead...thanks be to God.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
I'll wait for the proof, thank you.
"Admit" is quite different from "accuse".
You've already provided the proof, I told you, you're passive aggressive. And if you aren't doing it with informed consent, then you're not guilty but you're still sinning, and so you're still dirty, just like all of us rats are dirty.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
You've already provided the proof, I told you, you're passive aggressive. And if you aren't doing it with informed consent, then you're not guilty but you're still sinning, and so you're still dirty, just like all of us rats are dirty.
Why don't you quote the passive aggressiveness, so I can see what you are talking about?
 

nikolai_42

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.

My opinion - for whatever bit that might be worth - is that he's one of the best examples of a modern day Stoic that we have. Most of popular psychology comes across to me as Stoicism-lite that uses a rather convenient understanding of destiny ("favorable fatalism" is what it looks like to me) that only serves to build up the ego. Be the best you you can and beat the odds. You were meant to succeed. Peterson is too smart to fall for that and so has really wrestled with the problem of good and evil. Unfortunately, he still sees it in Jungian terms (types and archetypes). Seen through that lens, you get so lost in gnostic and literary meanderings that good and evil become difficult constructs more than sobering realities. My impression is that the reality of Christ is putting a crack in his theories and he's trying to rationalize where it leads. The cross only leads one direction and without the Spirit of God, he will fight it all the way. The natural man doesn't want to give up his "life".
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
My opinion - for whatever bit that might be worth
Thank you for offering it.
- is that he's one of the best examples of a modern day Stoic that we have. Most of popular psychology comes across to me as Stoicism-lite that uses a rather convenient understanding of destiny ("favorable fatalism" is what it looks like to me) that only serves to build up the ego.
Psychology doesn't impress me as more important than ethics all things considered. And where PhD psychologists do wax eloquent about the practical application of their psychological knowledge, it is ethical in character, and so none of them are as qualified as they might appear to the average person. Dr. Phil is another example besides Mr. Peterson, and Dr. Oz, weighing in on ethical matters outside their discipline. (I call them "Dr." only to immediately identify them. Otherwise I would call them "Mr.")
Be the best you you can and beat the odds. You were meant to succeed. Peterson is too smart to fall for that and so has really wrestled with the problem of good and evil.
That's ethics. Or morals. I'm basically using them as synonyms. Basically, attempting to acquire the knowledge of good and evil.
Unfortunately, he still sees it in Jungian terms (types and archetypes). Seen through that lens, you get so lost in gnostic and literary meanderings that good and evil become difficult constructs more than sobering realities.
It seemed to me that he began this investigation from his behaviorism's first principles, which is why the ethical element of Christianity appealed to him. He didn't appear to me to be drawn to Christianity (at least, ancient, traditional Christianity) because of its tenets but because of its ethics. And now it appears to me that he's now just honestly beginning to face its tenets. Like, ethics got him in the door, and now he's taking a look around.
My impression is that the reality of Christ is putting a crack in his theories and he's trying to rationalize where it leads.
Either that, or the reality of Christ has already destroyed his theories, and so now he's trying to find the real truth of the matter.
The cross only leads one direction and without the Spirit of God, he will fight it all the way. The natural man doesn't want to give up his "life".
He has already found Christ. Now he needs to make a choice.
 

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Psychology doesn't impress me as more important than ethics all things considered. And where PhD psychologists do wax eloquent about the practical application of their psychological knowledge, it is ethical in character, and so none of them are as qualified as they might appear to the average person. Dr. Phil is another example besides Mr. Peterson, and Dr. Oz, weighing in on ethical matters outside their discipline. (I call them "Dr." only to immediately identify them. Otherwise I would call them "Mr.")
I think much of their authority comes from their supposed understanding of the self. If they are recognized as superiors in that realm, the individual doesn't take much convincing that the Psychologist understands you and what is best for you. So if they understand (more or less) all the "you"s out there, then they must be able to figure out how to mediate between them optimally. Not a big leap to ethics.

That's ethics. Or morals. I'm basically using them as synonyms. Basically, attempting to acquire the knowledge of good and evil.

I would disagree that morals and ethics are equivalent. Morality is absolute. Ethics are specific to situation and application. Morality implies Moral government. Ethics imply "best suited to maintain order and right action". So Peterson is, I think, trying to get at the reality. Jung called archetypes "living psychic forces" so he wasn't just dealing in the abstract. I think Jungians take on a metaphysical air because of that.
It seemed to me that he began this investigation from his behaviorism's first principles, which is why the ethical element of Christianity appealed to him.
That's funny you should say that. I almost said the exact same thing (then deleted it)!
He didn't appear to me to be drawn to Christianity (at least, ancient, traditional Christianity) because of its tenets but because of its ethics. And now it appears to me that he's now just honestly beginning to face its tenets. Like, ethics got him in the door, and now he's taking a look around.

Either that, or the reality of Christ has already destroyed his theories, and so now he's trying to find the real truth of the matter.

He has already found Christ. Now he needs to make a choice.

I'm more cautious. Because Jung got fairly involved in spiritism, I think he probably took on something that had an air of appeal and reality to it. The closer that is to the truth, the more dangerous it can be. Some good quotes of Jung on Christ here:

Jung on the Antichrist Archetype
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
It wasn't really a dilemma, more like "Is he a false prophet or ravenous wolf . . . or not?"
Then you should have taken the three seconds to type, " . . . or not?"" instead of typing only two options.
He is a clinical psychologist who has studied human behavior and has arrived at some Biblical solutions for man's challenges.

For instance, before trying to change the world, learn to make your own bed. Ie,

Luk 16:10
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
 
Top