But Did It "Really" Happen? | Alex O'Connor 

Lol

Maybe an example that is illuminating would be a psychological trip in psychedelics whereby a person sees a snake squishing a person and removing what is symbolic "dark energy", and then the person being free of addiction. Did that really happen? Yesn't. One doesn't need to say that in the everyday sense there was a snake who did that or provide scientific compatibility with literal snakes in our everyday sense, and yet it wasn't merely a symbolic representation of a nothingness, it was the symbolic representation of an actuality which as lived in and had "real" effects. It would be odd to say nothing happened(lack of reality), or that because the snake was not like the biological snakes that it either wasn't a snake, or it wasn't. If asked, the person would probably say it did happen but not in the sense you are asking. Peterson probably sees the burning bush in such a matter.

@Phantom_madman Hahaha😂

As a lobster what do you mean by 'jordan'?

😅😅😅

This was so damn good. I was blown away

lol

"It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is" - Bill Clinton

Technically?

He said it already in some interview

Was looking for this comment lol

Philosoraptor memes are S tier

The ones on the top are Cat Memes.

I think it's called a "Tierlist"

@someguy4405/// yes indeed.

Exactly what I was thinking

"I have... things to do...." Puts hand in pocket.

@@Isabelle64449 can you explain that expression to my below 70 IQ brain

@@Frodo1000000 Peterson doesn't know Dawkins as much as he would like, but the little bit Peterson does know about Dawkins, Peterson (sort of) likes more than Dawkins deserves. Not sure if that is what Peterson was trying to say there. I believe he's pointing out that he's more aware of Dawkins knowing things that he doesn't than the other way around. In other, blunter words, Dawkins could use some more humility.

@@MrD3000 Peterson knows about, how little he knows about Dawkins, more than how little Dawkins knows, how little he knows about Peterson. And so Dawkins assumes he knows everything about Peterson, while Peterson understands, he knows only a fraction of the underlying thought processes that Dawkins has, to accumulate his knowledge and worldviews. Which is not a good basis for an open conversation.

I agree. By far the most important utterance of the video...

In the full interview, that line of think doesn’t go any further. The point is merely that the Christians who are saying such things are not actually operating on Christian metaphysics when they do.

Don't worry, it didn't get any better. He basically just throws Christians under the bus for a minute and then word salads back to lobster town.

Just for clarification, I think Peterson says: "Christians **who ask that** have a metaphysics that's not Christian." But yes....point still stands. You are correct.

Oh you mean bcs it is intrinsically of greco-roman origin? or avestan? or even vedic? or sumerian pagan? and on and on until we realize they all were just products of human imaginations.

He’s a great RU-vidr

Nope. He's an artificially propped up atheist activist. No different than most "famous" people who push ideas most people dont buy

Uh, how so?.. He spews the same lazy technocratic, materialistic and fatalistic BS Dawkins and others do. He wants to be the next big smug atheist bullshitter that just says: "No," "No" "No" and "No some more."

@@whynot1548 I was watching him before this

He’s one of the only ones who is genuinely willing to get JP to answer the question clearly and not mask it in the vague mystery that he has in the past

I'd appreciate it more if Jordan gave him a straight answer

@@sametheremuircroft5975 It doesn't matter what answer he gives. That atheist doesn't want to hear the answers to his questions. "Professing to be wise they became fools."

@@romulus3345 but he hasn't really answered the question. As a Christian, I can at least tell people what I believe without resorting to semantics, did it happen or not?

@@sametheremuircroft5975why? why would you assume Peterson should answer the way you do?

why? its a dumb question

Myth became fact.

So you went from “im a sinner” to “im not a sinner”… i wonder why? It’s obvious why people deconstruct their faith, one is you never had the Holy Spirit and knew Jesus rose from the dead because if you did.. that doesnt change yesterday today and forever. So it’s completely fair to say you never knew Jesus was risen 100% as a real believer. I hope you do..

@@jakeschwartz2514 It's certainly not fair to say that if you read what this man said, On the other hand, it's perfectly fair to say that you're just stuck in a delusion.

@@wildomegamusic Yes indeed. For as much as religious conservatives in the US talk about how much they love the Constitution and they love freedom, they often want to take away freedom from others because they can't stand other people "sinning".

@@paulbracken6216 Yes and it took me a long time to see that. I have a banger of a quote from Paul Tillich saved in my notes: "Fundamentalism has demonic aspects, in that it splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents and forces them to repress knowledge of which they are secretly aware. "

It's not so much "simple people" as it is people whom live regular lives and don't have time to set around and contemplating everything. These 2 have too much time on their hands.

@@CarportCarl maybe. Maybe that plus 30-45 iq points. They’re certainly using their time more wisely than me right now.

@@andrewwabik5125 Very possible, but as a 40 year Bible believing Christian you read the Bible as 100% literally until the text indicates a story or symbolism. This eliminates confusion. You also need to understand the Bible was written trying to reach people across all of time. There is a dispensation approach in scripture.

@andrewwabik5125 I literally just said this in another video in a way less articulate way. As much as I love JP he can sometimes seem to over think or analyze things, and there comes a time where things become black and white enough for "you" to make a choice about what you "believe" (put faith in) and "trust" to be true. At some point even the greatest minds, like JP, have glossed over information for ages and came to different conclusions...

Dr Peterson, have you had lunch today? "Well that depends on what you mean by lunch"

They are. It’s just that the candified version is what is happening online and currently.

"Intellectual" is actually an insult, because they were despicable people. Reference "The Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson.

@@3vil3lvis who was despicable?

Me too.

me three.

Citation needed

@@johnjameson6751 APA Style (4th ed.) The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. Сору

the Velveteen Rabbit. Love it

Beautiful 🌿

good god that's profound for a childrens book

Real recognize real

Jesus said that unless you change and become like a child, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. I love how God hides the most beautiful gems in the small, unassuming places. As the saying goes, he uses fools and little children. 🌿🐇

a puzzle for the ages

I mean...it's not a puzzle...it's a tongue twister but makes perfect sense lol @MsElke11

What a sentence, my people... What a sentence...

As a lobster i demand adequate representation in this discussion!

s/that he is/than he is/

But did he get an answer?😂

@@reeb9016 Yes he said "No, I don't believe it was real".

No. Thats wasn't an answer because he was contradicting what is in the word as he doesn't see it as real.

He answered these questions many times. But you don't hear his answer you just want to trap him in his words. If you BELIEVE it's real but do the sins they did in your life, you don't believe it's real. If you take them as an example of what will happen to those who live ungodly and repent then you believe it and you will be blessed. Is it real? You have to answer that for yourself. Jordan knows who he is.

It's a dumb question

Smart guy our Norm.

@@lonergraphics4087 R.I.P.

I would love to have seen a Norm Jordan conversation

@@alancooper5009 Norm has given Jordan Peterson a shoutout on Twitter. That's as far as I know of their interactions.

Oh this one is factual just do a little digging and you'll see.

yes, I Am became man, Hym- expressed outward. hallal u YaH and Ahmyn 💜

Bang on . Couldn't have said it better myself.

Someday dreez28, you might know yourself as the world having become flesh and dwelling amongst us.

@@askmeif Word

Exactly the problem with imprecise language. Anyone gets to create their own "correct" word salad

Really? Alex O'Conner......that's ur guy? 😐

Now you know that you can be much more smart than the GREAT, the GOAT Jordan. Because YOU can feel and believe in Jesus and in your resurrection, and Jordan didn't believe yet. You are more smart than Jordan Peterson, what a beautiful life.

He seems to be very intelligent, polite, open to discussion.... if you're looking for a young person to admire, I can't think of anyone better than Alex.

@@edurodriguesigues if you can recognise that Jordan is really smart, why not stop to question WHY a smart man like him doesn't believe in the historicity of Jesus, or in the idea of resurrection?

The issue is anything occurring thousands of years ago can rarely be considered "true", at least not in the scientific concept of truth. JP obviously cannot say, "yes it definitely happened". It's kinda stupid to even ask the question and it's obviously a gotcha question.

@@johnsmithers8913 No, it is him trying to understand if Jordan Peterson sees the story as something that is helpful and meaningful or if he really believes that the exodus as described in the bible is a true historic event.

or maybe Peterson was patient with Alex’s dumbass pigeon-holing irrelevant question - and was politely trying to love the conversation back to the relevant points he IS making rather than feed into Alex’s distraction

@@Peterdeskater100But Peterson doesnt discuss things for that purpose - so isnt Alex being a bit of a jerk?

I'm getting increasingly frustrated listening to JP as time goes on. I imagine sitting in a room with him when we hear a loud crash in the kitchen. I'd ask him if a dish fell and broke. I imagine he'd go on at length about how it's a pointless question as he tries to deeply analyze my motivation for asking such a thing, eventually terminating in me having no real answer. Dammit, it's MY question. It's not pointless to me or I wouldn't be asking. Why doesn't he understand the question the way I'm asking it? "Did X really happen?" is akin to "did a glass break on the floor just now?" He doesn't seem to process the question properly, a question a kid would understand immediately, which is frustrating. Alex isn't being a jerk. Quite the opposite: He's very patiently trying to illustrate this problem of JPs to him, to get him to answer what just about anyone else would immediately recognize as a very simple yes or no question. JP is just not getting it. It's the very thing Dawkins complains about too. Geeze, JP, just tell me if a glass broke in the kitchen. A kid would instantly know what's really being asked there. Why doesn't JP? If instead you ask me what I mean by "glass" or "floor" or what I mean by "broke" and launch into a several minute long thing about anything other than what I'm asking instead, ugh... Next thing you know he'll be asking what I mean by "mean." It's frustrating.

Why do I feel as if people who enjoy discussing whether there is truth in religion are wildly being taken over by those who are fanatically FOLLOWING their actual RELIGIONS!

What distinction? They were equivocated

Peterson has needed to be called to task on a few things. "Really happened" has definitely been one of those. Hehehe. I thought Fry might've done this when he was on, but I suspect he was being polite to his host. He would be another guest I would love to have back.

Diving down is the only way to be sure that what you are standing upon is unshakable. It must be done fervently, consistently, and openly. Otherwise you build upon shifting sand and could waste your life and the lives of those you lead from some future clarification that destroys all you strive for.

Mr. O'Connor is still a shallow thinker. He's a Left hemisphere powerhouse (which means analysis and then more analysis about details and then some more details!). That IS exhausting and at the end of the day futile. Kierkegaard had done the same but with the philosophical freedom (open mindedness) to arrive to his "leap of faith" conclusion. O'Connor just isn't comfortable with surrendering control. That's a psychopathology I'm quite familiar with.

Alex is the kind of interviewer who always brings out the best in the people that he interviews.

As an enjoyer of his content, I highly recommend you checking him out. He gives excellent views and perspectives on important issues, and he always probe the opposition to give precise answers without coming off as condescending or confrontational. On this topic, you should watch his old critique of JP, a very interesting watch!

I bet u think anyone with an accent is "well spoken."

@@whynot1548 "i BeT u" listen to yourself. Can't even take someone else getting a compliment.

No. I would ask because I want to know what motivates his theology. If he's a believer, I am more likely to take his theological teachings seriously. Since he is not a believer, I take his theological teachings with a grain of salt.

Christians should just read Qur'an then

@@yesenia3816 I would want to know, because if he actually believes in the supernatural, I’d take his lectures about religious matters far less seriously, as I would with anyone who believes Zeus, fairies, Allah, etc..

It was a simple yes or no. Do you think this happened is a pretty simple question.

it's true.

Then why cant he just f*cking say that?

@@bkorodi1797 He literally said it, and he added important context. Wanting short answers to complex questions is shortsided.

The real GadSaadismyDaad?

You can reach their level if you put in the work

Same here.

@@HIMMBelljuvonot me lol. But I appreciate watching people like Alex. He has an amazing way of putting concepts across in a simple way for someone like me to understand!

@@DrenwickificationAnd that’s really dangerous. And treacherous. Read my friend, the most you can, then nobody (not me that’s a fact), will need you to explain you something for you to understand it. And you will need nobody in the same sense.

One of them is not that way above you, trust me. Peterson also had this “phase” and start to telling himself “shut the f up, that’s a lie” and he had to “burn” everything he believed it was true but knowing it wasn’t. 98% “of his thoughts”, he says. Not making this up.

Okay, but what do you mean by “yes”?

Thank you

@@lemasteraustin12 what kinda d*mb question is that?

in what manner?

Jesus died on the cross...? The bible is history regardless of what anyone thinks about it. I rather know the bible then anything because it's a endless story that we need to revisit it often.

He answers the question all the time, even just in this clip. The problem seems to be that it doesn't fit people's binary resolution. It's not either this or that. It's probabilities. Also it depends on the which part of the text you're reffering to. He's just far beyond most people. Must be frustrating for him as well.

or maybe he wants to keep bringing a message or powerful Biblical meaning to a broad and wide audience of people who have abandoned seeing any value in it. And such shallow questions only exist to reduce his message and purpose. Why would he want to be pigeonholed as a Christian author or thinker when that is not his goal for his work? The expectation he should pin this down when it is irrelevant to the points hes making is stupid

@@user-kt7rs4wf6uyeah, you’re a genius. good lord

Agreed

Can't bring a powerful Biblical meaning to anything if he doesn't have a biblical belief.

Yeah These two needs literal miracle to believe that there is God

@@kumagretiredaxer2183 Because it will never happen but I guess that's not the point.

most sane Peterson commenter

I would argue that the “did that really happen” question matters so much to people is because THESE STORIES ARE TOLD TO TINY LITTLE CHILDREN AS IF THEY WERE UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.

To pay the devil his due, the Christians concerned with his salvation are concerned because they already appreciate what he has brought to the table. It's why they pay attention to him at all.

People worship God for their own selfish reasons. Everybody wants to go to Heaven. Humans are selfish by nature. Self preservation is a natural trait in humans.

maybe you dont know what is meant by truth.

And yet JP has answered the question many times. Not understanding his answer doesn't give you ground to accuse him of not answering.

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I can tell you have some obscure esoteric elusive definition of truth.

@@thegrunbeld6876 how so?

@@MegaMerdeux Not directly he hasn't. And as we can see here, in his discussions with Harris, etc...he's almost delighting in not answering directly. He's being deliberately evasive. O'Connor does the best I've ever seen at not getting frustrated w JBP to the point of basically just giving up. JBP is really coming across as a guy who's done way too much acid, experienced way too much different stuff, expanded his brain too much in ways that we mortals just can't understand, etc that it's hard to have a conversation with him. Substitute "acid" with "decades of internalized intellectual rabbit holing", and I think here's where he's ended up. It's quite frustrating to try to follow him nowadays. He's not more brilliant. He doesn't have better insight. He just seemingly refuses to be direct on questions like these, insisting on stunning "so open minded your brain falls out" levels of open-mindedness. Except when he's being the exact opposite...incredibly direct and *closed*-minded. Climate change, Trudeau, and several other topics on which his mind is just made up and the venom is evidence of that. It's a really weird Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy. Too direct on some topics vs, whatever the polar opposite of direct is.

I certainly hope so. This is the first time I think I've ever seen Jordan so apprehensive and defensive. He clearly had 'shields up' during this. I didn't see that kind of respect for who he's being confronted by for anyone else that I can think of. Alex is a very clear, articulate and focused speaker. This was almost like watching a chess match.

O'Connor is still a very shallow thinker and I know his fatal flaw because it is exactly what I studied as a psychologist. It's the inability to surrender control so as to allow anything else besides his already shaped conclusions. It's an insurmountable confirmation bias which points to a very strong Left hemisphere in control. Just like Dawkins and Harris. They are both Left hemispheric dominant which makes them blind to the bigger picture (which Kierkegaard definitely nailed). Harris's case of Left hemispheric pathology is so profound that he stated that he'd preferred Biden over Trump even if the former had chopped children parts in his basement which is bonkers and got ridiculed for that absurd statement - as he should. It was ridiculous.

@@markd3250 Not sure I saw shields up, I genuinely feel like he had loads of fun. Just look at how many times he actually smilled and laughed during the conversation. He was being pushed, pushed to think deeper and explain more clearly, and that is hard, but I think he enjoys that. I felt zero combativeness between both, and Im pretty sure JP will speak to Alex many many times in the future. They will become good friends for sure.

@@silverfox8484 Combat? No. Competitiveness? Yes. It was like a tennis match between two very capable players. Jordan is always 'deep' thinking. What I saw was Alex trying to get him to prioritize meaning into one frame at a time instead of the whole movie. It was very entertaining to watch, and I hope they get together again.

I agree.

All debate subjects are repetitive past a certain point

He might believe the kind of thing where God is the universe itself as such we are all "incarnations" or "avatars" of God seeing as we are made of the matter of the universe, Jesus included, he just happened to be a more enlightened incarnation of God more in tune with some specific aspect of an underlying greater will. Aspects that Jordan Peterson aligns with, greater good, certain morals and that type of jazz.

@@Cobbido Yes, I suspect Peterson is a Pantheist as well. Specifically, a Gnostic.

well, not so sure about the resurrection of Jesus, which is a supernatural event. He suspects that it is a historical event and that it literally was very possible to have happened, go and watch the whole video brother. Alex: "If there was a camera at the Tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would we see a man walk out? JP: I suspect yes" Start at Minute 25 in the interview.

The problem is that people are trying to understand spirituality through materialism because they don't actually know the difference. Supernatural does not mean magic and super powers. Those are Hollywood/materialist depictions of the supernatural.

I'm afraid that I'm starting to think that the problem isn't that he needs to "come down to our level" but that he is being deliberately cagey and refusing to be nailed down to any position, almost to the point of dishonesty. I'm afraid he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

@@tammyschilling5362 This is my assessment as well as someone who has listened to him as well. I believe that he is a man who unwilling to truly take a hard stance on Christianity and truly come to Christ due to the implications (i.e., he can no longer idolize his intellect, he must give up control of his life, he may lose subscribers, etc.)

And then we have the issue where simplyfying the answer causes people to misunderstand. "Peterson declares God isnt real!" "Peterson admits he believes in Jesus!" It solves nothing because then we have to get the clarification we removed in simplifying things.

I'm a Christian and some of the most brutal people are Christian, Peterson doesn't want to take any leap and I get it.

Maybe he just has realized that you aren’t “owed” the kind of simple “hard stance” explanation you seem to want from him, and that no one else is owed that either.

He does seem to be quite an exception in being able to follow through on conversational prompts and queues. As well as following through on clarification.

Also fortunate to discover his talent very early on and refine his verbal skills.

Truth by Definition is not a fact. I can tell the truth and be incorrect at the same time. Truth is based on Understanding. KJB is a book of good and evil, The Word of God etc, nowhere any time did someone say it was a fact. Therefore, Truth shouldn't matter when it comes to the crunch... what's the fact of the matter..

Are there genres of truth? I believe truths are proved evident by fact. Again, defining truth is important. If truth is a mountain we all have a different perspective and position. The absolute truth is that truth is relative 😅 ☯️ a belief, a construct of mind and matter agreed upon by our infinite species of consciousness and stuff 😊

@@MFletch87 The only problem I have with that is it can devolve into relativism or the "my truth isn't your truth" kind of thing. We can see where that leads with some people's "truth" is 2 + 2 does not have to equal 4 because they claim there is no such thing as objective truth.

@@FarOutKiddthe rules of logic are unrelated to facts and yet are true

@@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954truth and fact can be separate things (and are) and still have zero to do with moral relativism. Jesus himself taught truths with parables, which were not facts - they did not happen, they were fictional stories and not facts - but they were truths

It needs to be complicated if you have any hopes of winning large numbers of new converts. JP’s psychological-evolutionary approach to Christianity is far more palatable to modern audiences than “It’s true because the Bible says so”.

@@thylabyrinth The only people who try to convince you of the truth of Christianity because "the Bible says so" alone are modern Protestant denominations. Catholicism is the fullness of the faith, intellectually rich, and the arguments for our faith abound. My point was I believe x simply because it's written, but in light of zero evidence to currently prove the contrary, having faith because the Bible says so - and I have ample reason to trust the Bible - is in fact good enough. What Jordan will bring is a bunch of converts to accept the abstract ideas of Christianity as "sort of" true, while rejecting them at the same time. Did the resurrection ACTUALLY happen, or "sort of" happen, for example? If we make everything into some abstract symbol that can be broken down into a "Jungian archetype" then we lose what God actually did for us behind some faux intellectual nonsense. God really and truly did die on the Cross and rise again for us. There needn't be more to it than that.

He is a public figure. He can't just say yes I believe, because he understands that everyone is out to get a soundbite from him with a gotcha question. Besides, his questioning of the word belief is a legitimate one, since belief requires proof. A statement like I have faith in God, or I know God exist is a better statement than I believe.

It's interesting that I actually agree with all that accept the last sentence. The job of a communicator is to clarify, not confuse. Alex is right here that JP must know what someone means when they ask the question. The bit about going back to that area, would one see a bunch of people in a pilgrimage to the promised land was perfect. The problem is it can be dismissed if the answer feels to dwell too much on the side of obfuscation. JBP is brilliant but when it comes to religion, that is where he lives unfortunately. Which sucks, because I like he was he treats them as stories and the memes and so on he pulls out of it

​@@boxer12350 i completely agree with you bud, especially with the clarify not confuse. I think that is the burden part, he (Jordan) is tying himself up in knots overthinking things, and therefore making it incomprehensible and so pointless (if noone can get it except you what is the point of going on about it)

We have archaeological evidence that corroborates historical accounts. But sure a lot of history, especially ancient history, is just scraps someone wrote down. The difference is I don't base my life on whether or not the Battle of Actium really happened on 31B.C. I don't really care if there was a Richard III (even though I enjoy reading about his life) because he's been dead for 800 years. If it turned out to all be nonsense, oh well. But people absolutely put the Bible and Jesus at the centre of their lives. Their lives revolve around it. The stakes are higher therefore it matters if it is real or not, and how good the supporting evidence is.

Then "they" have a much bigger problem than obfuscation of other people's reality, and that is they are bored out of their own wits.

the only difference is that most other history does not claim anything supernatural happening. we see history repeating itself all the time so we can assume that the things that are reported are plausible. but nobody has ever been dead for 3 days and was resurrected

@@ThePaull3d ... You put a lot of faith in that assumption. Do you know for a FACT that nobody has been dead for 3 days and was resurrected? Were you alive in those times and witnessed anything from that time period? How do you know that we as humans have not lost a lot of knowledge over the centuries and are now dumber today than they were back then? Hell the top engineers still cannot figure out how the pyramids were built yet they were because we see them as structures that were built by somebody. But who and how?

@@ThePaull3dShouldnt that make the other history even easier to prove though?

I want that in a DRESS!!

​@@MsElke11His name is Jordan Peterson. 🤦‍♂️

​@@craighart9278 Nuh uh... it's Alex.

@@gismoogity haha

JBP has the most insane wardrobe

Because the questions are too low in resolution.

the question is designed to pigeon-hole and diminish his discussion. He in not talking about its historicity. So its an irrelevant question. Hes not your pastor

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue The question is designed to learn whether or not JP thinks certain biblical events are literally true or not. That's all. Alex explained that. For some reason this type of question isn't allowed and never gets a simple, straight answer that's comprehensible to simpletons like me. A question like "did Jesus literally come back to life?" shouldn't have to be phrased with any more careful precision than that for the question to be understood properly, and to get a quick, straight answer. That's a "yes" or "no" question when coming from Alex, Dawkins, or a zillion other atheists. Most Christians will also answer it immediately with a yes or no (or maybe an "I don't know"). This is what Alex was trying to explain to JP: JP appears to not understand what's really being asked when these kinds of questions come to him. I'm not the only one who finds it frustrating and off putting. Notice how Alex has to continuously rephrase his questions in more and more detail just to get JP to even understand what's being asked. These are questions any rando off the street would instantly recognize and be able to answer with one word. Not every question is deep or profound or has nuance requiring 15 minutes of analysis and disassembly. "Was there a burglar in the hallway?" A simple yes or no will do, thanks. 🙄 If instead you ask what is meant by the question or what the "real question behind it all" really is, or you launch into a 15 minute lecture about what it means to be a burglar or what it means to be "in" a hallway, or otherwise require several minutes of clarification to make it clear what's even being asked there, there's a problem, and that problem isn't on the end of the person asking about the burglar.

@@toddwasson3355 but nothing in Peterson’s mission or message is about history or historicity of the Bible. So the questions is really designed to be hostile, irrelevant and douchey. There are plenty of reasons to question motivation. 1. Peterson isnt a pastor or teaching history or making any claim of historicity 2. his message is ALWAYS about meaning. 3. He freaking talks about meaning in Pinocchio. Is Alex gonna ask him if he thinks that’s real or not? of course not. Obviously the question is around Alex’s own obsession and mission to strawman the Bible and pigeonhole Christians than it has ANYTHING to do with any point Peterson HAS EVER MADE. 4. Petersons message is about bringing meaning back to the Bible in a low-thought unserious culture that has lost in moral underpinnings - the largest of those underpinnings: Biblical respect, knowledge and meaning. 5. He is not an evangelist and not trying to turn people into believers. He is trying to show the value and meaning of the Biblical text. So what good is the question than to distract from all the things Peterson talks about!!! He doesnt want to be an evangelist. Or a pastor. He doesnt want to be a Christian philosopher. He wants to bring the value of the Bible to the whole culture, even non-Christians. As they too can grow up, mature, and learn a little from the Bible, even without belief in the historical events or even religious importance of it. That Alex wants to be so reducing as to pigeonhole and diminish Petersons purpose by asking him the unrelated - is immaturity and maliciousness on Alexs part. Dude went from mid to low end with this one. And atheists create the largest problem. THEY are the ones that turn any belief in the event actually occurring into “but-God-not-real-doh” or “you-cant-prove-dat-doh.” So why would Peterson want to do the Dillahunty dive into “where-dah-evidence-doh.” Peterson doesnt address such things and never has. He is about MEANING. It is the atheist who say: do you have any non-religious texts that confirm the resurrection. But since they label any text that declares the resurrection happened as religious - they define away the possibility. If anything labeled as “believing” can be disregarded and pigeonholed in such a way - why would Peterson discuss this when that is not his point, his message, his expertise, his goal???? Its just Alex’s goal to fallaciously disqualify him as a “believer.” So screw Alex. Its a dumb question, its stupid concern, its irrelevant to Petersons discussions, and it was douchy to focus on. Alex knows the cheap shot BS trap he was clumsily trying to lay. Which says a lot about the low-value fallacious audience Alex must cater to. Alex gets an F

​@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue In other words, it's a question he won't answer. You said it yourself: Nobody is even allowed to ask the question unless they want to be an evangelist, a pastor, or a Christian philosopher. Look how defensive, hostile, and insulting (a low-value fallacious audience? Really?) your response to that was. The question itself is dumb, a stupid concern, and irrelevant. Alex wasn't being hostile. You are. You're actually angered by the question. 🤷‍♂

…your shallow understanding reflects on you not Peterson

That analogy doesn't work in the slightly

That analogy doesn't work in the slightest

I think he answered. He doesn`t know what historically happened and it actually doesn`t matter, it doesn`t decrease the value of the message.

The irony is that his answers are probably in the top 0.1% of the most straight answers, but people can't see it because they don't have his high level of resolution.

perhaps you’re demanding he hand you water when thats not the offer to begin with

​@@Jordy_NL No they are not. Why can't to the question "Do you believe resurrection happened?" respond "I don't know but i still think that the bible is the right way to seek patterns to live your life" and instead starts questioning the definition of truth. He just doesn't want admit to the public that he doesn't believe because a lot of his audience is religious

@@chilldude5456 That souds like a fine answer to me if that would be your answer. But dr. Peterson has his own answer. The point was if his answers were straight forward, which in my opinion they are. Wheter you agree or not is a different question.

right. Alex was maliciously trying to reduce Petersons purpose and message. Shameful

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue the dude cannot give a straight answer on whether or not God exists it is absurd

@@S.D.323 Its absurd you think that its part of his message. Its absurd you think he owes you that, at the expense of his message - which is and always has been clearly stated: seeing meaning in the text. Why is that so hard to see?

@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue eh its fine if he doesnt give a straight answer but it takes three seconds to say if God really exists

@@S.D.323 It's because Peterson disagrees with a lot of people about WHAT God is and HOW it exists. Saying "God exists" doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation. By forcing him into this, you're ignoring his actual message and what he really thinks.

And yet people in developed countries are having less and less children....

Too much knowledge is insanity

Ok sheep 🐑

1 Corinthians chapters 1+2

​@@DJeMoexplain more?

Yep

Well yeah, a book that's alleged to be the "infallible word of God" that has drastic consequences for the state of your eternal soul is obviously much higher stakes and is going to be held to a significantly higher standard than some random historical document that doesn't make extraordinary and bombastic claims to truth and has no bearing on your life or afterlife. The level of scrutiny is directly proportional to the dramatic and lofty claims it makes, I mean, come on now.

Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, we know (as well as anyone can) that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the floor of the Roman Senate in March 44 B.C. But we only know this from Suetonius and Tacitus, both of whom were writing about 100 years later. It's really not much to go on. That's actually worse than the NT gospels, which were written about 25 to 65 years after the alleged events. So what gives? Why do I believe Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on the floor of the Senate, but I don't believe in the Resurrection? The answer is simple; the latter is impossible. People do not rise from the grave. Tyrannical leaders get assassinated all the time. I'm perfectly happy to just accept a historical account of a murder, because it's not weird. If you want me to believe that reality itself was violated via supernatural means, I need something more to go on. The burden of evidence scales with the magnitude of the claim. You tell me you have a pet dog? I'll just believe you. You tell me you have a pet anaconda? I'd probably ask for a pic. If you tell me you have a pet dragon like the ones on Game of Thrones, I'm going to dismiss you as a lunatic unless it lands on my front lawn. One is common, the second is rare but not completely implausible, the third is completely absurd. The bigger the claim, the bigger the hurdle.

Oh, you can give the meta physics all the scrutiny that you want, but the Bible is treated as contemptible by a lot of atheists, and even lied about such as Dawkins saying that Jesus didn’t actually exist. It has a lot of historical worth. For a lot smaller settlements in the region, it’s one of the only textual sources we have of their record.

@@jagpro91But if taken as allegory it would still also be considered the infallible Word of God. So the hang up still get ls you nowhere if its still addressing meaning and truth either way.

I literally burst out laughing when I first watched him say that 😂

I had a laugh . But no, then I rewached it and I laught even louder.

The dude who believes that free will doesn't exist and everything is predetermined I doubt he's sharper than a brick.

​@@MegaMerdeuxoh irony

And that’s what they are.. just stories.. not facts

@@Erik-op2hy some of the stories in the bible are based on fact and historians & archaelogist agree that they did happen. While others are fabrication. The bible represents a spectrum and real to not.

Well the problem with that argument is that if they are just stories then there is no substance behind them. If it is just “stories” and not facts, then why should I take them more seriously than any other fiction. Without God and the facts that are presented than all of these stories are just theories and principles that some portion of society thinks is attractive. However, TRUTH is then subjective.

Yes , 100% perfect truth. Every letter , every jot , every tittle

The Whole Bible Is One Big Allegorical Metaphor. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Those Who Take Any Of The Stories Within Quite Literally Will Be Driven To The Edge Of Insanity. Point In Case Most If Not All Bible Thumpers Especially Those Under The Cult Of Christianity.