THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIFE…

via THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIFE…

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The discussion …

“Quarreling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are.” [CS Lewis]

“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone.” [Confucius]

“But logical thinking – Reasoning – has to be the pivot of arguments because, of all the claims which the human mind puts forward, the claim of Reasoning to be valid is the only one which the Naturalist cannot deny without (philosophically speaking) cutting his own throat”. [C S Lewis]

In his book Rhetoric, which is said to be “the most important single work on persuasion ever written”, the Greek philosopher Aristotle divides the art of persuasion into two distinct forms, dialectic and rhetoric …“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.” Rhetoric is much more forgiving of falsehood, and in fact, it’s not even strictly possible to say that a rhetorical statement is a lie. Rhetoric consists of the construction of what Aristotle describes as enthymemes— which are not proper logical syllogisms, but incomplete or invalid arguments that merely take the form of syllogisms—in which all that matters is that persuasion is achieved by means of the “proof” provided, or more accurately, the apparent proof. For the purposes of following this vital philosophical distinction, it might be easier to think in terms of “logically sound” and “not logically sound” rather than in simple terms of true and false. The point is that you can construct a logical syllogism that proves or a pseudo-logical enthymeme that apparently proves, but in either case, they can both be used to correctly point the person with whom you are speaking towards the relevant truth of the matter.(see SJW always lie p572)

Rhetoric – is the theory and the practice of the art of speaking fluently, persuasively and well, it was used primarily in the art of persuasion. In the democracy of Ancient Greece the most “Sophisticated” man with the greatest command of words and language, the one who could successfully persuade and influence the most people, was most respected and most powerful. The main purpose of Greek “Sophist” education therefore, was to teach clear, logical and fluent speech – “rhetoric”. Rhetorical communication was thus the key discipline through which, and at which young Greeks were educated and prepared for their role within the city state democracy.

The speaker or orator needed only a good memory and the ability to imitate and improvise on his predecessors. He had a general idea of what was expected of him, and used platitudes to hold his audience’s attention, all his speaking was “off the cuff”, not prepared but spontaneous at the moment for the moment. His emphasis was on the communication feature of the communication process, not the Truth in the message content. What he did not do was theorise deeply about or personally experience the content of what his art communicated. The innovation of rhetoric, as used by the Ancient Greek Sophists (and which similar traces may be found also in Ancient Indian and Ancient Chinese traditions (see Difficulties in the way of Persuasion by Han fei Tzu 300 BC) ) succeeded in not only shifting the focus of competence in thinking onto the competence of verbalizing thoughts, but also in smothering the dialectic of arriving at Truth. ] [WHAT IS COMMUNICATION by M van SCHOOR]

Greek thinkers moved the complete intellectual communication process, and hence the discipline of reasoning and philosophy, off the absolute foundations of objective Truth, cause and effect or the dialectic argument, onto the expedient, shifting sands of rhetoric or human relative ability and potential. Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher was going around teaching that the only things that are real are the things that never change, and Heraclitus, also a pre-Socratic philosopher, was teaching that everything changes. The reality and truth that the great intellects of the day were teaching their disciples was in fact, if you superimpose their teachings – nothing is real. Obviously some things are real, so the enormous intellects which founded the art of reasoning and philosophy must have thrown logical rational thought processes out of the window somewhere along the line. Socrates perceived the irrationality in their thought processes, understood its causes and developed a system to ensure it would not be reintroduced – “dialectic” dialogue or “Cause and effect”

The Socratic method of arriving at truth and then communicating it is demonstrated by Socrates himself, in dialogue with the Sophist Georgias, he explains…
“Socrates: Let me explain the point which surprised me in what you said, Gorgias – it may be that you were right and I didn’t understand you properly. You say that you can make an orator of anyone who likes to learn from you?
Gorgias: Yes.
Socrates: And consequently he will be able to get his way before a popular audience not by instructing but by convincing?
Gorgias: Certainly.
Socrates: You said just now that even on matters of health the orator will be more convincing than the doctor?
Gorgias: Before a popular audience – yes, I did.
Socrates: A popular audience means an ignorant audience, doesn’t it? He won’t be more convincing than the doctor before experts I presume.
Gorgias: True.
Socrates: Now, if he is more convincing than the doctor he is more convincing than the expert?
Gorgias: Naturally.
Socrates: Not being a doctor, of course?
Gorgias: Of course not.
Socrates: And the non-doctor, presumably, is ignorant of what the doctor knows?
Gorgias: Obviously.
Socrates: So when the orator is more convincing than the doctor, what happens is that an ignorant person is more convincing than the expert before an equally ignorant audience. Am I right?
Gorgias: That is what happens in that case, no doubt.
Socrates: And the same will be true of the orator in relation to all the other arts. The orator need have no knowledge of the truth about things – it is enough for him to have discovered a knack of convincing the ignorant that he knows more than the experts.” [58]

Socrates challenged the Sophists by challenging Gorgias on the fact that, “Sophistic rhetoric emphasises the role of the communicator.” [59] rather than, and to the detriment of, the Truth content of the message being communicated. Socrates had good reason to be concerned about what was happening to Truth. The Sophists were teachers in the art of succeeding in public office, they were known for their dramatisation of contrasts and their controversial moral judgements and overall were not particularly concerned about grounding their arguments in consideration of reason or Truth.

“Propositions arrived at purely by logical means are completely empty as regards reality” [Albert Eienstein]

“They preferred instead to exaggerate the credibility of their viewpoints with emotional appeals and self-aggrandisement. According to Plato the Sophists preferred to advocate the appearance of truth rather than the truth itself; they were men who saw that probability is to be rated higher than truth, and who could make trivial matters appear great and great matters trivial simply by the forcefulness of their speech” [58]

Probability, when it is rated higher than Truth, is deception. Deception is the first phase of a pattern used since the beginning of time that leads people from reality to destruction. The pattern is plain and simple to understand. The phases or stages are:-

DECEPTION – IGNORANCE – DOMINATION – DESTRUCTION

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

thoughts about “The WAY” …

Logic insists that a finite point is absurd if it has no infinite reference point. If there is no universal, absolute moral standard then one can not say in a final sense that anything is “right” or “wrong”, so there is no point in debating with people who do not respect a universal moral absolute because they will always be “right” or “wrong” under their own terms of reference.“Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are.” [CS Lewis]

Maturity is being an individual with certain intellectual qualities, someone of independent judgement who respects the individualities of others and therefore is tolerant of opinions in conflict with their own; they must prefer methods of discussion and persuasion to methods of force. It is not enough for them to “love the truth” they must learn how to find it. It is easy to teach students to reason correctly in the physical sciences: it is much more difficult to reason correctly in the social sciences where your own prejudices and passions are involved. They must be taught the habits of clear thinking in order that they may acquire the power of recognizing their own prejudices, and of discussing with calm, and with the same desire the other person’s position, with the same precision and absence of emotion, that they would bring to the discussion of a problem in mathematics.

============================================================

When C S Lewis says, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” he is saying something much more than, and profoundly deeper than, “my belief in Christianity is as certain and true as the sunrise”. He is saying “Should the Christian faith ever become one of many co-equal pensioners of a government, it will be proof that subjective religion has again lost its God-given hold on objective reality … travelling back again from the region to which the Gospel brought us, towards that in which it found us” [W E Gladstone] – a pagan society. Lewis is saying we should be asking ourselves – “How can we move from the place where we explain the Gospel in the terms of our post-modern society world-view to the place where we explain our post-modern society world-view from the point of the Gospel’s world-view.?” [Lesslie Newbigin] “Explanation” puts a strange thing into a place where it fits and is no longer strange, and as C S Lewis says, “What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of person you are” [C S Lewis]
So, Lewis is saying – “Beliefs must come to terms with facts, not facts with beliefs.” [Dallas Willard] and whether you accept the explanation or not depends on the way in which you understand Reality, and if you are not standing “in Christ/in the Kingdom of God” your limited world-view (one without the dimension of Holy Spiritual Reality) restricts you to being unable to, have not been empowered to, can not hear/understand, see/perceive, or receive the Reality of the Son Of Righteousness being God. We are not able to do do this in our ‘self’. Only the exceedingly great power which raised Jesus Christ Himself from the dead, the Holy Spirit, is able to raise anyone from the dead and set them above all principalities, powers and dominions, and only the Holy Spirit gives us a clear perspective of these power systems (politics is activity in relation to power) and their spiritual, mental and physical capacity.

“It may be that a clear sense of the self can only crystallize around something transcendental in which case, our prospects look poor, for we are rightly committed to the rational” [Robert Bolt] … sums up in one sentence what Nietsche said when he limited the definition of “TRUTH” to reason and rationality and in so doing assumed that Christianity, by elevating “TRUTH” to the highest virtue, created, in the search for “TRUTH”, the undermining of the axioms of Christianity itself. The fact that he saw the “truth” of the Bible as being limted to “wisdom helpful only for the afterlife, and not for life and living today”  limited his view of the scriptures to “eternal insurance”, as opposed to being a Kingdom that is “at hand” [Matthew 4:17]

Jordan Peterson, Pastor Paul VanderKlay and Bolt are all saying – You can think that a clear sense of the individual “self” can only crystalize around something non-transcendental but humanities prospects can then only end in Nihilism, simply because if there is no supra-natural objective view of individuality then the most popular view of subjective conformity must prevail. TRUTH=GOD=reason and rationality because

I am also unsatisfied when JP uses biology or evolutionary psychology to float fuzzily on the infinite translations and meanings of the numinous to avoid his ignorance or to avoid his personal conclusions . But don’t we all ?, including pastors and theologians who at least have sufficient maturity to admit it. Mythology is often born of a mixture between naturalism and spirituality, unless you don’t believe in miracles and you have to believe in miracles to accept a virgin birth, see C S Lewis explaining that he was led to Christ by realizing that the virgin birth was a myth that had really happened in time and space.
I think you may have hastily interpreted JP incorrectly though, he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I think he is a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

============================================================

In C S Lewis the Holy Spirit’s work of “renewing our mind and the very way we use it to think”(see Romans 12:2) is prioritised. Our entire manner of thinking, contemplation, reasoning, imagining and ideation (how our ideas are constructed into suggestions and thoughts) and reflection that Christian sanctification requires is pointing us at Christ’s Way, Truth and Life, in other words at Reality. This imbues the reader with spiritual confidence of – “in thinking right we live right, and if we live right we think right”. This novel notion, so old that it is embarrassing to think about its history, is still surprising to all of us. We are so used to thinking in other categories that we think we can have the Truth without being happy and that we can be happy without having the Truth. To be “inwardly renewed day by day even as outwardly we decay” (see 2Corinthians 4:16) we must “not conform to the pattern of the world” (see Romans 12:2) but focus our minds and our “thinking” – ” on what is unseen, not on what is seen, on the eternal, not on the temporary” (see 2Corinthians 4:18) on the substance of our faith (Jesus Christ), not on the form that the substance takes (religion).(p115 Paul L Holmer)”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE WAY THE TRUTH THE LIFE…

Various quotes I have gathered over the last few years from listening to, about, and reading people who are comparing C S Lewis to Jordan B Peterson.

Peterson

Its just my opinion, but, to reduce Jordan Peterson (who I believe is a sheep in wolve’s clothing (see Mat:10:16)) to just “politics”, or just “religion”, or just “psychology and or philosophy” will ensure you miss the underlying theme linking all his messages.

“The sovereignty of the individual is sacred, and … that the fundamental linkage between the pathology of the state and the psychology of the individual is the individual’s propensity to self-deceive him or herself and adopt an in-authentic mode of being and action.” [Jordan Peterson]

or … “The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie,” [Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]

This message is critical for the individual in all the disciplines mentioned above – in all their personal “politics”, “religion”, “psychology and or philosophy” .

This is also a possible answer to C S Lewis’s question – The Christian is called, not to individualism but to membership in the mystical Body. A consideration of the differences between the secular collective and the mystical Body is therefore the first step to understanding how Christianity without being individualistic can yet counteract collectivism.[C S Lewis]

The following has been taken from the Rev Paul VanderKlay video – Commentary on Jordan Peterson’s Biblical Series 2a

“Is God an idea that we generate or are we beings that God generates?”

Jordan Peterson’s definition of “The Logos” – “God is that collective unconscious that is “supra-natural”, beyond the conscious control product of the collective consciousness that transforms the material world into productive space. – Genesis 1 is not an account of how God made “the stuff”, it’s an account of  how that  “supra-natural consciousness”ordered “the stuff” into a functional Reality or a perfectly functioning cosmos through us and for us.”

“The Word (Christ, the Holy Spirit, God and the Bible) has relevance and has always had relevance, the individual must make his life relevant to the Word (the Logos). If I come into a worship service and find it irrelevant then I have to ask myself one question – “is it because God is irrelevant to me or because I am irrelevant to God? What is the reason for the irrelevance, is it because my life is not measuring up or is it that God doesn’t have a vital place in my life? [Ravi Zacharias]

The word “logos” is the root of “logic” and “dialogue“.

“Blessed [is] the man that trusts in the LORD, and whose hope is the LORD.” [Jeremiah 17:7] – it is not our faith that saves us, it is the faith of Jesus.

If I am relating to Jesus, face to face (this is what faith is) then I will know that I am a sinner. Knowing that I am a sinner and doing something about it are two dimensions to repentance – faith and obedience. The knowledge that I am a sinner is the gift, the obedience requires my full attention to hearing what Jesus says about how I can obey Him. If I can’t hear Him, I can’t obey Him. I can try to hear Him by … “The divine power of God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Jesus and our experiences with Jesus, who called us by being our example of goodness, righteousness and glory. He has given us His precious and great promise so that through them we may escape from the corruption in the world (because of obsessive desires) and become partakers of God’s nature. For this reason you must go on making every effort to re-enforce your discipleship with Jesus (your faith) with:-

goodnessthe righteousness of the Logos (love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, the faith OF Jesus Christ reaching out for me).

knowledgethe philosophy of the Logos (requires my full attention, focus and the act of bringing my gratitude, praise and obedience before my mind).

 self-control the psychology of the Logos (Holy Spirit empowered self-control, not my intellectual efforts in my own strength)

endurancemakrotheumia with the Logos (moment by moment reliance and dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit with His perseverance).

 godliness theology of the Logos (quiet time of inactivity to contemplate and appreciate and apprehend exactly who and what God is).

and affectionLove of the Logos (grace and mercy of Jesus Christ). [2Peter 1:3-7]

“Those who are not genuinely convinced that the only real bargain in life is surrender of ‘self’ to Jesus, abandoning all that they love to Him and for Him, can not learn the other lessons Jesus has to teach, They can not proceed to spiritual transformation, not because Jesus wont let them, but simply because they can not” [Dallas Willard]

The “reality” of this God,  while the product of our supra-natural collective consciousness is :-

  • greater than any individual or any collective of individuals
  • is not and perhaps cannot be fully known by any individual or any collective of individuals
  • cannot be fully articulated by any individual or any collective of individuals
  • had better be respected and be treated as God and if we fail to do so we do so at our own peril
  • we can offer sacrifices to “it”
  • we had better worship “it”
  • we had better submit our behavior to “it”
  • if we don’t do this individually and collectively we do so at our own peril

This is a behavioral question as well as a belief question.

“The same story via Jung is that the sub-conscious sub-personalities, by watching the behavior of other beings for millions of years develop consciousness and through that consciousness change the chaos of the material layer into productive, ordered space in which those beings may inhabit and thrive.”

======================================oOo==================================

Peterson has opened up the Bible to millions of people. Who are any of us to say that this is a bad thing? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Perhaps some of those millions who are doing the hearing might open a Bible and discover faith. Absent Peterson, who was reaching them? Certainly not the laughingstocks that make up most of Sunday morning evangelical television. … Sure, some might get stuck in some bastardized theology or philosophy, but such as these were lost anyway – and it isn’t Peterson’s doing that thousands of theologians and preachers have failed at reaching these individuals. Peterson isn’t leading sheep astray – sheep such as these were already astray.[The Bionic Mosquito]

“If you respect and treat people like they’re the locale of divine speech that casts potential into habitable order they will reciprocate”

“Every time you learn something, you learn because something you did didn’t work. And that exposes you to the part of the world that you don’t understand. Every time you’re exposed to the part of the world you don’t understand, you have the possibility of rebuilding the structures that you use to interpret the world. That’s often why it is more important to notice that you’re wrong than to prove that you’re right. One of the things you’re supposed to learn in the university is precisely that. It might be useful to listen to people that annoy you on the off chance that they know something that, if they tell you, you can use instead of dying. Talking with people who agree with what you say is like walking around in a desert. You already know everything that they say! The reason you’re associating with them in that situation is so that they never say anything that challenges you because you’re afraid that, if you go outside of what you understand, that you won’t be able to tolerate the chaos. But it isn’t the case. People have an unbelievable capacity to face and overcome things they don’t understand. And not only that, that’s essentially what gives life its meaning. The Buddhists say: life is suffering. And you think: well, if that’s the case, why bother with it? And people do ask that question and ask it in ways that result in their own destruction and, worse, in the destruction of others. So, for example, people who become particularly cruel, particularly in a genocidal manner, are more than willing to dispensing with as many human beings as they can possibly train their sights on because they’re so disgusted by the nature of human limitation that they rather eradicate it. And lots of people become suicidal because they can’t bear the conditions of their own existence. And suffering is real and it’s inescapable. So, the question is: what do you do about it? You notice in your own life and you can do this by watching your own life. And I often ask my clients to do this. Say look, watch your life for a week and pretend you don’t know who you are because you don’t know who you are. At all! What you understand most about yourself are the arbitrary presuppositions that you use to hem yourself in. And you act as if those presuppositions are true so that the revelation of the full nature of your character won’t terrified you. People hide in their own boxes and it’s not surprising. But it’s not a good idea because life is too hard to hide in a box. You can’t manage it, if you do that. If you watch yourself for a week, you’ll see certain things, you’ll see some of the time that you’re resentful and annoyed, and those are times that you’re either taking advantage of yourself or you’re thinking improperly. Some of the time you’ll be bored, in which case you’re either undisciplined or you’re probably pursuing something you don’t want to pursue. And some of the time you’ll actually be engaged in life. And the times that you’re engaged in life, you won’t notice that you’re there. Right? The distinction between subject and object disappears when you’re engaged in something that you find meaningful. The purpose of life, as far as I can tell from studying mythology and from studying psychology for decades, is to find a motive of being that’s so meaningful that the fact that life is suffering is no longer relevant. Or even that it is maybe acceptable. And I would say as well that people know when they’re doing that. You know when you’re doing that in part because you’re no longer resentful. You think: Gee, I could do this forever. Right? There is a timelessness that’s associated with that state of being. From a mythological perspective, that’s equivalent to a brief habitation of the Kingdom of God . That’s the place where you are that’s so meaningful that enables you to bear the harsh preconditions of life without becoming resentful, bitter or cruel. And there’s nothing that you could pursue in your life that would be half as useful as that.”

“The known is explored territory, a place of stability and familiarity – is the “city of God,” as profanely realized. It finds metaphorical embodiment in myths and narratives describing the community, the kingdom, or the state. Such myths and narratives guide our ability to understand the particular, bounded motivational significance of the present, experienced in relation to some identifiable desired future, and allow us to construct and interpret appropriate patterns of action, from within the confines of that schema.”… “Behind every particular (that is, historical) adventurer, explorer, creator, revolutionary and peacemaker lurks the image of the “son of god,” who sets his impeccable character against tyranny and the unknown. The archetypic or ultimate example of the saviour is the world redeemer, the Messiah – world-creating-and redeeming hero, social revolutionary and great reconciliator. It is the sum total of the activity of the “Messiah,” accumulated over the course of time, that constitutes culture, the Great Father, order itself – explored territory, the domain of the known. In the “meta-stable” society, however, the Father, though healthy, is subordinate to the Son: all fixed values necessarily remain “subject” to the pattern of being represented by the hero. In the “City of God” – that is, the archetypal human kingdom – the Messiah eternally rules.” [JP – Maps of Meaning]

“I think the idea that the most godly thing you can do is to accept the reality of your crucifixion [taking up your cross] is true! I think that’s true! It’s never been presented better than that. I think that Western civilisation’s emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual [in the image of God] … is right. So to the degree that our culture – and what is right and useful about it – maintains itself and moves forward, it’s going to have to reunite itself to its symbolic foundation, with its underlying story. I don’t see another alternative. Do I think that will be a Christian revival, so to speak, a renaissance? Yeah I do.”

“It’s because the bloody intellectual Leftists have never apologized for their complicity in the catastrophe’s of the 20th century.The Germans apologized, “Sorry for the  Nazi’s”, but the Left wing intellectuals say, “Oh, that wasn’t real Marxism”. Ok!, so how many corpses have to pile up around you before you’re willing to question your beloved ideological presuppositions and face your resentment, your narcism and desire for destruction” [Jordan Peterson]

The Left are now beginning to experience the victim side of their own “political correctness”.

The gap between Peterson’s obvious intelligence and the Left’s scathing denunciation of him as an alt-right idiot is simply too large for many on the left to ignore. The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work ad/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it. We don’t want to alienate our friends, damage our professional reputations, or attract the attention of fire-breathing activists.

The problem here is not simply that this is unpleasant for people like me. More importantly, our silence further impoverishes everyday political discourse by eliminating more nuanced left-of-centre voices. This, in turn, reinforces the already powerful trend toward weaponized hashtag ideology instead of serious political thought.

Peterson is just one example of this larger trend.  Viewed as such, the situation he represents is extremely concerning, and even dangerous. We desperately need a revitalized Left  that’s capable of speaking to today’s pressing issues of socio-economic inequality, environmental devastation, and spiritual malaise in informed, intelligent, and inspiring ways. Instead, we’re inundated by shallow ideological crusades dedicated to demonizing thoughtful conservatives like Peterson, who actually have something important to offer – just not on the issues that properly concern the Left.

Given my life-long identification with the social democratic (or, in U.S. terms, left-liberal) side of the political spectrum, I’ve reflected quite a bit on why my response to Peterson seems so out of step with dominant left-of-center discourse. It may be that I’m actually not as alone as it seems. Although I can’t prove it, I suspect that there are many others who feel as I do but are keeping quiet, as they don’t want to risk the blowback that comes with countering the often frightening force of today’s ideological tides.”

[Carol Horton]

The “political correctness” itself, and the intellectual suicide of the author is in the  sentence – “like Peterson, who actually have something important to offer – just not on the issues that properly concern the Left”. Unless the Left do concern themselves with the important, intelligent, and inspiring issues that Peterson is raising, and purposefully make them issues of the Left, then the Left will sink further and further into the mendacious swamp of irrelevance. “The Roman god’s became ridiculous when the Roman emperor’s did. Political Correctness is the equivalent of Caligula’s horse” [unknown source]

The “rider” = the individual and the “elephant” = the group or the “ideological possession.” The movement of an individual from “rider” to “elephant” is an attempt to deflect or deceive. Peterson’s point was that you can hold individual’s responsible but you cannot hold groups responsible, simply because you can’t enforce the relationship between rights and responsibilities in groups without an elite group being introduced to do the enforcing. Terms like “white cultural hegemony” are used by individuals who want to avoid responsibility for their thoughts and actions by jumping across and into a group.

“I have been watching and listening to Dr Peterson’s posted lectures and videos for over a year now — they are addictive – because his profound depth of insight and articulate expression of the wisdom he has learned motivate and initiate personal introspection as well as an external search for “truth” in all the physical, intellectual and spiritual dimensions of living for anyone interested in examining their life and its meaning.
I have come to the conclusion that I am probably watching one of the most important and competently learned intellects of our time in his personal quest to understand and relate the physical, mental and spiritual dimensions of individual physiology in an effort to prevent Western Civilizations descent into the Marxist maelstrom he knows will be the inevitable result if he does not. ”[Tim Lott]

“In particular, much of my work over the last few years—the subject of my PhD research and also of my recently released book—has been concerned with biblical typology, with the ways in which biblical stories manifest deeper and meaningful patterns, patterns which give order to our lives in the present. Peterson’s interest in the psychological significance of Bible stories is addressing a similar issue from a different angle. He too recognizes that the meaning of the biblical narratives is deeper than their surfaces and that their patterns are worthy of close attention. Yet he attends to them in quite different ways from those in which I would usually do. This difference makes for stimulating interaction.

Peterson’s work raises many fundamentally religious questions. As I have argued, Peterson is seeking to articulate a post-nihilist and post-materialist view of reality that recovers existential meaning. We will fall short of appreciating his ability to speak with such power and passion into the contemporary situation if we do not grasp this. For Christians, we share a belief in a reality that sustains deep meaning. Yet we have often become lazy in interacting with atheists who lacked a strong belief in the meaningfulness of reality, so have failed to sharpen our account of this and to press it home well in our message. This is one area where I believe that we can fruitfully engage with.”

[Alastair Roberts]

“Dr. Peterson, over the last few years, has become the most articulate conservative intellectual on YouTube. I don’t mean merely that he has the largest audience, which he undoubtedly has. I mean that, intellectually speaking, he has a rapier mind. He is also as fearless as anybody I have ever seen in front of a camera. In the phrase I have loved for many years, he takes no prisoners.

What Dr. Peterson did to her will become a model in how to respond to a liberal who has not thought through his or her opinions, and who nonetheless goes on the offensive. This video has been seen all over the world. At present, there have been over 5 million viewers. This is not what Ms. Newman and her producer had expected. Most of the people viewing this video are her mortal ideological enemies. They are seeing what they have dreamed of, possibly for their whole adult lives: an articulate conservative verbally eviscerating a feminist in full public view.”

[Gary North]

“To me, who first approached Christianity from a delighted interest in, and reverence for, the best pagan imagination, who loved Balder before Christ, and Plato before Augustine, the anthropological argument against Christianity has never been formidable. On the contrary, I could not believe Christianity if I were forced to say that there were a thousand religions in the world of which nine hundred and ninety nine were pure nonsense and the thousandth (fortunately) true. My conversion, very largely, depended on recognizing Christianity as the completion, the actualization, the entelechy, of something that had never been wholly absent from the mind of man” [C S Lewis] and … “In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? “

[C S Lewis]

compare this to …

“Whether one believes these stories and events are the Word of God, infallible and literal history, or whether one believes these stories and events capture an oral tradition going back countless millennia…in either case, it was kind of stupid of me to believe that there weren’t some tremendously important meanings in these stories beyond the surface.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“You can tell, if your’re listening, whether the ideas you are hearing are merely being passed through a person, as if they are being memorized or if they are part of the dynamic core of the person. If they are part of the dynamic core of the person then they are almost always engaging and gripping.” [Jordan Peterson]

“Evil is the production of suffering for its own sake” [Jordan Peterson]

“First question the frame of reference before you question what is derived from it.” [Jordan Peterson]

“There is intense pleasure in momentary domination, that’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for long term reciprocal relationships.” [JP]

“In a sense what we’re doing is, we’re participating in the process of ‘articulating each other’s spirits’ and I mean that most technically…”[JP]

“People who believe that there is no reality outside of individual interpretation …the only point of human characterization is power … discrimination on the basis of competence is “fair discrimination, as opposed to “unfair discrimination” … It takes hard work and focus to build your model of the reality of anything into a high resolution, detailed picture that’s why ideologies are so dangerous, they look like the complete picture but they are not… We like things to be simple but distinguishing between simple and too simple is no easy matter… The unthinking adherence to compassion is not a virtue.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“Life isn’t a game. Life is a set of games. The rule is – never sacrifice victory across “the set of games” for victory in the one game. The winner is the one who gets invited to participate in the most games in most people’s lives over the longest time.”[JP]

“The person who has the most authority is the one who has voluntarily accepted the most suffering which is part of being”. [JP]

“The Kingdom of God” is the state which would be created by default if everyone were devoted to their individual state of “being in Christ”. [Dr Jordan Peterson]

“If you can posit an ideal, why can’t you posit the ultimate ideal?  Well if you can, then instantly you’ve got a religious sensibility.  Why have we got a religious instinct?  Because the idea that it’s mere superstition – we can just dispense with that – that’s just wrong.  There is some reason why that religious instinct exists.”[Jordan B Peterson]

“The difference between legislating what “I cannot say” and what “I must say” is critical.” [Jordan B Peterson]

“When you are going through a book like the Bible and you come across a phrase that you don’t understand, that actually means you missed something.  It doesn’t mean that that’s not germane to the story…it means you’re stupid.”[Peterson]

“It doesn’t matter what you say you believe, what matters is how you act out what you believe. And if you really want to find out what you believe you don’t ask yourself what you believe, you watch yourself act and you deduce from that what you believe.”[JP]

We should also note, with regard to those who impugn his scientific credibility, that Peterson’s “h-index,” or citation count in peer-reviewed articles and papers, is through the roof, some 8000 to date. This metric, which measures both quality and ubiquity, establishes Peterson as a leader in his field.[David Solway]

“The sense of meaningful engagement is the deepest of cognitive instincts and “meaningful engagement” is a marker that you are where you should be and doing what you should be doing” [JP]

““Life isn’t a game. Life is a set of games. …There is intense pleasure in momentary domination, that’s why people do it all the time, but it’s no formula for long term reciprocal relationships.” [JP]

The rule is – never sacrifice victory across “the set of games” for victory in the one game. The winner is the one who gets invited to participate in the most games in most people’s lives.”[JP]

“The person who has the most authority is the one who has voluntarily accepted the most suffering which is part of being”. [JP]

“The Kingdom of God” is the state which would be created by default if everyone were devoted to their individual state of “being in Christ”. [Dr Jordan Peterson]

“When you are going through a book like the Bible and you come across a phrase that you don’t understand, that actually means you missed something. It doesn’t mean that that’s not germane to the story…it means you’re stupid.”[Peterson]

“It doesn’t matter what you say you believe, what matters is how you act out what you believe. And if you really want to find out what you believe you don’t ask yourself what you believe, you watch yourself act and you deduce from that what you believe.”[JP]

Jordan speaks from his intellect and experience, and we have no way of telling, except from the fruit of his work, if his mind has been touched by the power of God’s Holy Spirit to include the access that Christ’s crucifixion gave us to His spiritual dimension.
Many comments he makes support, or are supported by, scripture, but in interviews he always avoids ceding intellectual authority to the spiritual dimension by psychological or philosophical definitions or theories, so if it is not the Holy Spirit speaking through him he will eventually reach the end of his intellectual potential because that will be all he has to draw from.
For those who do not have Christ and the Holy spirit interpreting his wisdom he is well worth listening to simply because he points people at the existence of the spiritual dimension which he admits has deeper resources to draw on.[me]

“It may be that a clear sense of the self can only crystallize around something transcendental in which case, our prospects look poor, for we are rightly committed to the rational” [Robert Bolt] … sums up in one sentence what Nietsche said when he limited the definition of “TRUTH” to reason and rationality and in so doing assumed that Christianity, by elevating “TRUTH” to the highest virtue, created, in the search for “TRUTH”, the undermining of the axioms of Christianity itself. The fact that he saw the “truth” of the Bible as being limted to “wisdom helpful only for the afterlife, and not for life and living today”  limited his view of the scriptures to “eternal insurance”, as opposed to being a Kingdom that is “at hand” [Matthew 4:17]

Jordan Peterson, Pastor Paul VanderKlay and Bolt are all saying – You can think that a clear sense of the individual “self” can only crystalize around something non-transcendental but humanities prospects can then only end in Nihilism, simply because if there is no supra-natural objective view of individuality then the most popular view of subjective conformity must prevail. TRUTH=GOD=reason and rationality because

I am also unsatisfied when JP uses biology or evolutionary psychology to float fuzzily on the infinite translations and meanings of the numinous to avoid his ignorance or to avoid his personal conclusions . But don’t we all ?, including pastors and theologians who at least have sufficient maturity to admit it. Mythology is often born of a mixture between naturalism and spirituality, unless you don’t believe in miracles and you have to believe in miracles to accept a virgin birth, see C S Lewis explaining that he was led to Christ by realizing that the virgin birth was a myth that had really happened in time and space.
I think you may have hastily interpreted JP incorrectly though, he is not a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I think he is a sheep in wolf’s clothing.

Are you ruling out the possibility that JP can be led to Christ by his biology or evolutionary psychology?

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment