Just brilliant. Thank you so much for this. I am SO thankful to speak life for not flinching and dealing with all this stuff head on. This touches on so many complex issues in our day which are hard to sit across but they are examined and then your response communicated so well. Well done Glen.
At the end of the day rape is an extremely disrespectful, brutal, savage, callous and violent thing to do. Physically or psychologically dominating someone into doing something horrific to them against their will.... its just creepy and heinous
It is high time we as a society have an adult conversation about this, we must talk about these things honestly and freely.. Bravo to Jordan and Louise for their honest and forthright comments and conversation. Thank you for your commentary, Glen. Jesus is the way the truth and the light, life. God bless.
@@daviding6963 Upon what do you base this confidence? You don't know much about Roman society, do you? In Jesus' parent society (1st century Judaism) he didn't have to INNOVATE a rape taboo, the Old Testament law made rape a stoning (execution) offense. In the Roman world there was no question of legality of rape from master to slave, from household head to junior members, including relatives. Rape was only a crime if the victim wasn't under the perpetrator's authority. Extending the (I hold) more enlightened view to the Roman world is fairly described by the phrase "building an anti-rape culture" (among other things). Feminism (first wave, anyway), derives from such concepts as Col 3:9-11 "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." and Gal 3:28 "There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is no male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This being radical sexual and racial egalitarianism by pagan standards, then and now. Christianity created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” If you are saying that Christianity the way it turned out was far from the aim of Jesus of Nazareth, well I don't think that opinion is well founded, but really it is useless as a criticism of Christianity as we find it, even if you don't believe Christianity is true. If Christianity is true then it IS what Jesus intended and if it is false then whether it's what Jesus intended doesn't carry the same weight as a criticism.
I clicked on this video and when I heard in the beginning about the Christian perspective, I thought it's not for me. I immediately told myself to be less prejuciced, watched the whole video and found some very interesting perspectives. So thank you!
Well spoken, thanks for hashing that out and sharing your thoughts. Peterson speaks wonderfully to a lot of truths or at least attempts to, but he, too is human and has his faults or can overlook areas of thought, which he has admitted to (including his proclivity to speak over his guests). And his openness to have discussions like that shows that he is still exploring it collectively with others, inviting ideas in, after which I imagine he reflects on further, or would do the same if he had this conversation with you. I appreciate your constructive approach about it from a place of understanding, rather than many others who jump at any chance to tear him down. We're all in this together, figuring it out; no individual human has all the answers.
It’s called a discussion. He is not just stating a viewpoint. He is exploring ideas around a difficult conversation. That is what happens when you don’t assume you know the answer.
100% He literally agreed w her but also was interested in exploring the trad view and its origins, he wasnt saying he thought that way but was just exploring an idea
Yeah, when JBP said marriage is consent, he didn’t mean in the small situational context and you can take whenever you want. He meant it as something like meta-consent. This criticism falls quite flat.
I’m glad Speak Life responds to cultural issues. Glen showed not only is Christianity “the air that we breathe,” but also it is superior to other worldviews such as Jordan Peterson’s evolutionary biology. Speak Life has different projects in video and I hope you all keep this project of cultural issues. In the USA I listen to Breakpoint, John Stonestreet, and The Briefing, Albert Mohler, and it helps me to see current issues from a Christian perspective. Glen now has a few of these videos and does a great job.
Listening to this all the way through. All three of you are correct in your own sphere. This is the complexity of living in two kingdoms at once. When Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire all types of complexity came into the Christian Faith trying to live in both at the same time and to Christianize the Kingdom of Man. Rapid technological progress broke down traditional culture too fast to deal with creating Rape Culture. Yes, coming to Jesus and living for the thru Him is the ultimate answer for individuals and of course the Church. However, the greater society still needs to base law on the practical realities of the Kingdom of Man, as well as the morality that Christianity informs and supports.
Being married is NOT giving consent!! Wtf?! So each time your husband wants s3× you have to give it to him, because you have a contract with him? Marriage does nothing to protect a woman from r4pe. A woman does NOT have to have s3× with her husband every time he demands it. Husbands can still r4p3 their wives. A married woman is able to say no, to each and ANY time she chooses. A man does NOT own a woman's body and get exclusive and entitled s3×ual rights over it!! I like how you use the term "lenses" to describe to us how we look out and "see" the world. This concept of humans using lenses with which to view the world is the fundamental problem we have between the progressive lefts and traditional rights. We both have our lenses on and we see the world accordingly. We cannot perceive what the other side sees. What we both need is a "paradigm shift." I use this term and mental action to help people start the process of seeing things from the "other side". You will have to look up the "Necker Cube" illusion. Once you understand what a paradigm shift is, you will be well on your way to change your mental perspective "lens" with a brand new one, and can start to think about throwing the old "woke" lens out.
@@dante19890 yes, I absolutely agree with you. But you also seem to think that a woman having sex against her will is the exact as a man repairing a drywall against his will, and it’s nowhere near the same thing.
Please provide Scriptures for "D". Again, I Cor 7:3-5 seems to directly contradict your assertion that in Marriage, sex requires Consent, Love, and Marriage. While this might be ideal as mature spirituality and to be strived for. It is clear that a Wife could be guilty of sin to deny their husbands and put a stumbling block to sin via lust in front of him. This is certainly what the I Cor passage is stating.
I think when Jordan talks about the crime being serious enough to "enrage a woman's protectors" he doesn't mean that a woman's personhood is in men's hands. It's that ultimately the enforcement of justice and laws in the society is in men's hands, as they have the monopoly on force because they are bigger and stronger. Women are smaller and weaker (which is one reason why rape is possible to begin with, why a woman can't protect herself from rape in the moment), so to enforce justice on a male violator, there will be male force required. To mobilize this just male force (and the execution of justice will require conflict, danger to some extent) against the male perpetrator, justice bearers would need to have a compelling reason. I don't know if agree with this or not, but I think it's a fair argument
Hi Glen Thank you and Louise and JP. It is a fair discussion and thought provoking. I have now subscribed and shared as a result. However, I have two observations and a question. First, the legal history of spousal/ marital rape is important to state. In 1736, England's Chief Justice, Lord Hale ruled that spousal rape was impossible on the basis that marriage was the required consent; this was reiterated in 1822 by John Frederick Archbold's huge legal tome called 'Pleading and Evidence in Criminal Cases'. It was only overturned in a landmark court judgement in 1991 and made explicit in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (Overview from online article in The Week 6 Dec 2018). The current law is thus not JP's tradionalist position and wants a different consent, but sadly not an 'additional' consent. Second, your conclusion is wonderfully true that Jesus is the Great Protector of the vulnerable 'daughters of the King', however, ironically, it is more akin to the traditional biblical argument than that of autonomous rights of equal personhood; being the Judge of all, would be more akin to upholding the rights of all. (I also note, that, though not politically correct, nonetheless the Bible is not afraid to say we 'belong' to our 'Lord', bought at a price, 1 Cor. 6:20, which is more in line with the traditional argument). Which leads me to my question. The law in Exodus 22:16-17 is good and technically part of property law, as well as shaping social responsibility before the age of the state, so: In the current discussion, is the long tradition of Hale et al (based on that text) to be totally thrown out or does it still offer us some wisdom that has been lost? (And related, is lack of additional consent within a marriage, 'necessarily ''criminal''' even if, we agree, it is not loving?)
The Apostle Paul does NOT say that marital sex only occurs by mutual consent. What he says instead is that your body is not your own, in marriage. The wife has rights to her husband. And the husband has rights to his wife. This is only true if Peterson's view is correct: that marriage constitutes consent. Yes, then, mutual consent. But consent agreed upon beforehand. And self-sacrificial love also agreed upon beforehand, as is fitting.
There are many interesting points which I agree with here, thanks. I would say that Peterson is very aware of the verity of the woman's rights motivation but does not want dismissal of the property angle. There is a very Christian sense that the woman's body is the man's body, as the man's body is the woman's body. The spouses are no longer two, but one flesh and they nourish each other. The jealous man retaliates not just for the sake of the woman's rights, but because something precious has been abused and taken from him, his own flesh. Do you think that the term rape should be used within the confines of marriage? Forcing sex upon a spouse would clearly be a form of sexual abuse, but I don't think the term rape applies for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the nature of marriage makes the assumption of sexual activity between two specific people. The assumption is not for any particular time or place, so consent still must be present, or abuse applies. However, to put it in the same category as raping a person, where there is no assumed sexual bond, but in fact the opposite, sexual separation, to me is not correct. Secondly, there is an analogous case. If one spouse withholds and then offers sex specifically for the sake of getting something from the other, this is not prostitution, but another form of spousal abuse. This is because with marriage, there is an assumption of mutual support, but not for a specific item or time. The terms rapist or whore do not apply, but instead abusers.
23:03 That doesn't make any sense. Feminism in no way relies on meekness. It is in fact one of its complaints, that Patriarchy asks that of women. Literally 2 days ago I found a poster shared in a Feminist space claiming "Women who behave rarely make history". That is consistent with Feminism, not this.
• Okay but talk of complicit consent within a marriage makes sense when juxtaposing it with the fuzzy scenarios in which either party hasn't made an explicit commitment to one another which says: "out of everyone, this is who I'm reserving myself for in a sexual relationship." That's THE POINT of bringing up the example of college parties in which alcohol is involved with people looking to hookup without the confounds of even a basic relationship. • Peterson is alluding to the fact that 'rape' NEEDS to have always have men-in general-want to seek justice as with ANY crime. Otherwise, who will be there to enforce rape as a crime?? • Whenever I hear this weird new notion of Christians claiming Jesus declared total equality of the sexes, I'm always reminded of 1 Timothy 2 11-14.
one thing i would like to know is why consent is not enough, even with love between married couple, the husband can still be drunk and misread signals which even with love and marriage and importantly consent, still doesn't suffice, what perhaps is more precise is that both parties would have to be not be influenced (perhaps to some degree) by alcohol or drugs & to give consent without being coerced into giving consent, which can already achieved outside of marriage, and even without love (which i suppose is subjective to individuals, coz how would you qualify if the love is sufficient enough to be considered love and that it matches with the ideal qualities of love), and we could also take each individual of the 3 pillars (consent, love, marriage) and dissect what each contributes to basically sex that one wouldn't rergret having (assuming no pregnancy is involved as a result), but i'm gonna stop here, coz people can add as many values, some cultures would say even the 3 pillarrs wouldn't suffice, the woman would have to be of certain level of intelligence to be worthy of being a wife and hence to be of marriage value, which by just marriage alone as talked about, is not enough, getting married doesn't make a man a good husband, likewise, having love doesn't qualify sexual partner material, and if we loosely put these 3 pillars together, it would still create loopholes and dissatisfied women who may get harmed, we need to raise the bar beyond just these 3 qualities/ contracts
I was extremely disappointed when I looked up the Louise Perry interview and just heard Peterson talking over her. And she is such a strong voice with great insights. Extremely disappointed in him. Especially when he was interrupting her just to speculate some pretty outrageous and socially regressive solutions to rape. Edit: After hearing the nuance to Peterson’s conversation, I am more inclined to agree with pieces of his arguments. Went back to watch the full interview, and while I’m still disappointed Louise didn’t get to speak more, I realize now how the interviews I saw about the conversation completely detached his words from their context and made him sound like a monster. I still disagree with his opinions on this particular subject, but I can’t pretend it makes him a misogynist monster like the media was trying to sell to me.
Agree that this video totally misrepresents him He literally agreed w her but also was interested in exploring the trad view and its origins, he wasnt saying he thought that way but was just exploring an idea as one does when theyre not taking anything for granted and interested in exploring ideas This video misrepresents jordan frankly
While the moral standard raised from the Christian perspective is admirable, which we should all aspire to, it's one froth with danger from abuse. If the judicial system should accept this as the tenet what's to keep a disgruntled spouse from using it against her mate. It's too slippery a slope. The question has to be made more pragmatic to avoid this potential. If when the abuse occurs, which is an obvious possibility, other disseminations of its criminality have to be weighed and parsed within a broader context. I believe what Jordan is trying to do by limiting the Christian perspective is to numb what can transpire. We all should aspire to be like Christ. But all will fall short in the end
JP is very wrong there and yet... The kneeling to feminism, feminist terminology and values in this video is saddening and shocking. What in "rape cultire", "Patriarchy", "male gaze", "Duluth model" and the plethora of whatever feminism brought to the culture does not scream hate and perversion of the most sane values? The blindness here is apalling. Feminism is not an outgrowth of Christianism at all, not more, no less than communism, or socialism, is; feminism is a distortion, it is more accurately an outgrowth of Potifar's wife syndrome, or Jezebel's politics.
Are you sure that marriage does not equal consent? I Corinthians 7:3 to 5 strongly implies otherwise and the reason is to prevent immorality. Not to mention, to be Fruitful and Multiply, the first and most foundational commandment given to all Mankind, which the Evil now has Mankind violating wholesale.
First you have to prove that a personal God exists, and then you have to prove that Christianity is the one true religion, before you start using Christian teachings to change people's behaviour.
I think there is a misunderstanding of what JBP is saying regarding women and male property rights, which comes from extremely modern technological assumptions. The problem is that women are not able to stand and fight their own corner. Women need men to stand up for them, but you can't effectively and productively split power from responsibility. If a father or husband is being asked to put his life on the line, he needs to be able to exert control over person who can put him in that position. DNA testing and rape-kits are very recent and not available in most of the world. And the last few years have driven home the point that the police are not going to protect you. Innocent unless proven guilty means she has an impossible task to prove rape. The biblical approach appears to be, "all you people with power, remember that you will be judged by God and he'll show no deference to your status." Both Perry and Peterson seem to be coming from the same place - "Christianity appears to work from a pragmatic pov." Perry seems to be happy without an explanation. Peterson wants to uncover the reasons why it works.
Sir, you are cherry picking Dawkins. A 10 second audio clip of him saying that "you might say that" doesn't really demonstrate the complexity of his opinions. It would do you good to read The Selfish Gene, and come to understand what Dawkins and his fellow biologists discovered about the biological underpinnings of Altruism in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Altruism being the start of moral sentiment and ethical behavior towards other living beings. It would probably pain Dawkins to read me write I that the discovery of this biological basis to morality helps to convince me that there is a moral order to the Universe.
You say rape is not a thing in the animal kingdom, yet many species have developed defenses against unwanted mating. For humans, morality is such a defense. That does not necessarily fall outside of evolution.
Yeah. This is the first principles issue. Women as “Property”. Even simply to “afford” basic protection. Yes, what of the women and girls born to those who don’t protect her - what then? Marry the government? Yikes
I think you are over-simplifying important differences between non-marital and marital rape. They're both egregious. Neither should be minimized, but by equating the two simpliciter you are failing to acknowledge some very important things about a Christian view of marriage. The bible clearly does talk about marital sexuality in terms of property. When a man and a woman marry, each gives ownership of him/herself to the other. They become one flesh and legal concepts such as community property are based on precisely this understanding of the union and the idea of corporate or covenantal personhood. A spouse (in most of the US, for example) can't legally own property in his or her own name as a "natural person." That's why even if the vast majority of family wealth, even when acquired through the man's personal work, if they divorce, half of it belongs to the wife. The nature of the marital bond and covenantal personhood means that the property was never simply his. You implicitly recognized this when you used the word "mutual-belongingness". The two become one flesh and in very important senses they become one legal person before the law (and before God). In terms specifically of sexuality, St. Paul quite clearly says that neither husband nor wife has authority over their own body. The body of each belongs to the other. That doesn't mean that one partner can simply take what is his or her right whenever and however they please. If you sold me some item of property, and I hold the bill of sale, that still doesn't give me the right to forcefully enter your home to take it. I do have a right to it but I don't have the right to take possession of my property in any way I please. In the same way, St. Paul says, legitimate marriage conveys a right to sexual access, but that in no way implies that the right can be claimed through violence. Your position was confusing also in the way you argued against Peterson's idea that marriage is consent. You acknowledged that marriage implies both consent and love, but then reversed course and went on to argue that it is something distinct from both. Right to sex, you said, includes all three (consent, love, and marriage) and not just marriage. You later clarified that it involves "ongoing consent." Does it also include ongoing love? Imagine that a wife ceases to love her husband but agrees to have sex with him because she doesn't want to divorce him and wants to hold the marriage together in spite of her lack of love. Is he wrong to engage in sex with her under such conditions? Is he guilty of marital rape? It seems that you don't really want to put all three on exactly the same level. I think this involves confusion over the nature of marriage and leads you to too easily accept enlightenment (and sub-Christian) assumptions about personhood, rights, and marriage itself. I would suggest that what you are getting at can be clarified by the standard analysis of "intentions" and "intentionality" in the philosophy of mind. "Prospective intentions" involve forming a goal with a commitment to the future actions required for achieving that goal (e.g. "first thing tomorrow I will go to the store to buy milk"). "Intention-in-action" on the other hand is the state of mind required to perform each of the steps toward that goal (e.g., "I intend to start the car; I will drive down 3rd street; I will go into the store; I will pay the cashier," etc). We frequently form prospective even promissory intentions that do not necessarily oblige us to follow through toward the goal with intentions-in-action, in just any way someone else might wish for us to. Marriage--in and of itself--involves consent in the sense of a "prospective intention" (and promise of) of sexual intercourse. But it doesn't necessarily imply that the requisite "intentions-in-action" (immediate consent) for sexual intercourse at the moment and in the manner that the partner might insist upon. So let's apply all this to the issue of marital and non-marital rape. Non-marital rape involves someone taking from the woman something that he has no right to in any sense. There is not even the commitment or promise of "prospective intentionality" or "prospective consent." It's like someone breaking into another person's house to steal their property. But marital rape is not rape in this sense. In marital rape because one partner married the other, that partner promised and committed to give his or her body to the other. As St. Paul says, her body is his property and his body is her property. But like the case mentioned earlier, just because you hold my property in your home does not give me the right to break into your home and take it. It requires your intention-in-action (immediate consent) to allow me to take possession of my property. And if you refuse to ever fulfill your prospective intention of handing my property over to me then I can get a court order requiring you to provide restitution or satisfaction for what you owe me. Likewise, if a spouse refuses to have sex with his or her partner, the partner can sue for divorce for abandonment and be freed from all other obligations to the spouse. Simplistic discussions of marital rape set aside important aspects of Christian marriage all under the spell of enlightenment notions of personhood, rights, and marriage. That is not at all to condone what you're calling marital rape. Nor is it to suggest that it is less egregious than non-marital rape, but I would urge Christians to be a bit more reflective about the assumptions they implicitly adopt when thinking about these issues.
Why the F does JP think this one single crime only counts if non-victims are enraged? Why does no other crime need that? Saying a group of people must feel harmed and not just the individual seems a bit communist really. Does he not respect the individual as having any right?
I'm just 7 minutes in to your video (watching this again, seven months after the first viewing) but have to say you are confusing description and prescription, the is and the ought, what is and what should be in discussing "from a purely evolutionary point of view." It is not because rape is "natural," that it is good. Those who believe or acknowledge there is an evolutionary explanation for it are not necessarily justifying it. We can't realistically deal with ourselves and human culture unless we are able to begin by looking at it squarely without blinking or shying away from it. It is only after seeing it and describing it that we can move on to moral considerations about it. Is it good? Bad? To be encouraged or discouraged? Why and how? If you fail to understand and describe a given human behaviour correctly or correctly enough, you will also fail in dealing with it. Also, the analysis has to be multi-layered. As concerns the evolutionary advantages of rape for a given individual, you have to analyse the advantages for the group. Does rape make the group, the species more viable? I would wager it does not and that these contrary evolutionary pressures must also be taken into account. Little does it profit an individual to behave in such a way as to advantage itself at the expense of the group for an animal alone in the world will not survive either. 15 minutes in. Yes, Louise's point that marriage does not equal consent to sex is a good one. It doesn't in legal terms today and it certainly doesn't if rape is regarded as a violation of the woman herself rather than a violation of the property rights of her male kin.
You really don't understand what he was arguing for, do you? He didn't argue for "unpopular traditional views". He simply takes ideas seriously. He wants to explore and extract the values within them. That's what he's doing there as well, he was arguing for an ancient idea of rape, not to promote it, but to explore it. To understand it. Louise is a very competent, smart woman, one of the best partner to do this with! There is a difference between exploring ideas and endorsing them. Now sometimes he does this (exploring ideas) to his detrement, partly thanks to shallow listeners like you - quite ironious for you demanding the same thing from him - or because he is not careful enough with his words. I agree. But this arrogant, condenending positionthat you take, that he should "reject the rape culture", implying very heavily that he would EVER argue for that morally... I'm not sure you listen to yourself.
I saw Peterson do something similar with Helen Pluckrose interrupting with something like, 'let me be clear about this..' prior to re-iterating what she said clearly, less clearly but as if it came from him, i.e. borderline unintelligible.
You have disastrously misunderstood 1 Corinthians 7. If you have to have your wife's permission to ABSTAIN from sex, then without that permission you cannot deprive your wife of sex. Another way of saying that is choosing to enter into marriage is to give your wife permanent consent. The passage literally states "Do not deprive one another."
I think you're missing the trees in the forest, Jordan did this interview this way because he is enamored with Louise. Jordan is afterall a man, and while it was one of his worst interviews, I know exactly why it came about. This was his attempt to cover for his attraction to her imho. He quite literally states women that fit Louise's description are super attractive. It was more awkward than wrong, and I think it was less 'wrong' than 'incomplete'. Primarily you're missing the other issue as well, it's not that the traditional values are the only functional model, it's that they're the only time-tested model FOR HUGE CAVEAT HERE those that actually follow time tested cultural models that work. And it's really the lack of clarification here that's the problem. It's sort of the difference between confusion 'religious marriage' with 'state marriage' but far far more importantly 'culturally implicit religious marriage' and the stats bear this out. Without the grounding of large familial, mono culturally religious, values marriage becomes a showboat game. because the things necessary for marriage is primarily the village, secondarily honoring the woman and third the implicit function of producing children. Without a healthy helping of all 3 you erode marriage into nothing more than a breakable contract. this is why State marriage Does. Not. Work. this is why homosexual embrace Does. Not. Work. this is why marriage without religion, specifically, CONSEQUENTIAL religion. Does. Not. Work. and this has played out across the board in every culture that has ever existed on planet earth. You are either bound, heart and soul by the rules/law. or you are going to be spread to the four winds. there's no current biological alternative.
This is so divisive and everything ARC is attempting to work against. Why not simply ask Louise Perry what she thought about the interview? I’m guessing she would have a more generous stance. This is egregious nitpicking at best.
Oh man. You know, sometimes Jordan is only speaking about a subject, not necessarily agreeing with it. As in, he'll entertain an idea in public to see if there's anything of value to be fleshed out from it. I do not believe he's advocating and saying "this is the way it needs to be" and puts his foot down. He doesn't immediately dispense with an idea because of it's surface level inadequacies like I've seen others, cough cough, do.
This is what I would suspect. It definitely took an intellectual like Perry to voice so eloquently another perspective to view possible meaning where this aspect of marriage, where conflict may exist and love is strained, does not present 'consent'.. Peterson's description of traditional marriage is accurate as described between many men - I heard it told by leaders within a Christian Church to me (51 yo) as a teenager... It did not sit well with me then either, but as a youth, I let it go.
I just have to say it. Jordan Peterson’s growth in understanding has and will be stunted if he stays under the thumb of those that cut him a paycheck and also if he continues to speak as some sort of authority figure or great thinker as far as his Christian belief system is concerned. He basically isn’t growing as a baby Christian if that’s what he is. He needs to sever the cord and focus on himself and his relationship with Jesus if there is one. He can’t continue in this role and it be good for him or his viewers if we are strictly talking Bible. Maybe I could have said that better but I hope I got my point across. I couldn’t have grown if people fawned over me and I became a right wing super star.
Not everyone can make that magic connection. Have you ever seen anyone only do God stuff because they were given Pascal's Wager and hellfire sermons? That's about all some people are capable of. They don't experience whatever Jesus magic that some of God's people get. I never felt any a single day in my life, and I wasted 6 years trying. I hate Lakeside Christian School of Clearwater Flroida and my mom for doing that to me.
Interesting. yes the darwinist pychologicy would make man into an ape, and then comes all the this but that and that is how instead of a strict code of ruler dictating, we now have the political class, doing the this but that. Christ elevated consciousness to be above the animal kingdom for the masses, as rulers before this time created a split two tiered system. the creators of the rules, is not punished for breaking them, a do as i say but not as i do,, attitude. Christ elevated consciousness to be above this by giving the clear undrstanding how sovereignty is achieved for the self. Nepotism has always been around since kain kille his brother abel, and seth the third briother created the system to help others understand the division between mind and body. Colossians 2,20 will give understanding as well as the difference between aphrodite urania and aphrodite pandemos. If you view democrasy and the start of the legal system having written laws, then look towards Draco the lawgiver, this very entity is a constellation in the heavens. So to understand why we are in such a position to be debating about issues that have their roots woven deeply into our establishment and way of life, does not become one of one or the other, but a revealing of how our civilization stands upon principles that have been hidden for reasons to actually come to where we now are. Whether or not the blueprint from which it all originates will become common knowledge depends upon the individual to seek that knowlege that is freely available upon the greatest library mankind has ever known, the world wide web, and put all the pieces together so as to rebuuild the temple for the kingdom within to be a part of human consciousness.
Jordan is such a Trojan horse…he often confuses me and appears to confuse himself. When he says he acts as IF there were a God, I wonder how to take him seriously.
Listening to your close. You just do not get it. Jesus is Lord and will return soon and set up his Kingdom in person. Until then, we live in the Kingdom of Man and that is what Jordan is speaking to.
Watching this is so weird. The daily life I live and all my friends live does not shout at me that I live in a rape culture and that sexual ethics is based on some really weird language arguments. If this is really all true, that the world is now a rape culture and the world has this zip line called 'consent' then it must be underground. And it shows how depraved the morals of this underground are. Our conscience tells us what is right and wrong. If they are now at a state where we use gymnastic language we have lost all touch of our conscience and created a pseudo world in our minds thinking this pseudo world is better than our conscience. Such an odd way to talk about rape and marriage and sexual morality. My prayer is that in time we talk about such subjects with God's lexicon and not the world's lexicon. The world is our enemy and so we should not challenge it on its terms but on our LORD's, and that includes the lexicon.
Have you ever been to a college frat party? I’ve literally seen frat guys pick out girls they wanted and then organize to get her drunk and then isolate her. They tired doing it to my friend. I watched and pretended to be drunk as well and when they tried to usher her alone with the one who had pointed her out to begin with I let him know I knew what he was doing and got her out of that house. The same was almost done to me. I want to a concert in a city with a friend and we stayed at a mutual friends house whom I thought I could trust but as I passed out drunk he tried to get his friends to undress me and said “now is our chance” to them. Thankfully my friend was sober enough to stay awake and watchful and their retreated to their rooms while we (well me- slept in the living room) she told me the next day and I felt sick. I thought I could trust them and I was wrong. That’s the reality that lies underneath many interactions with godless men. Unfortunately their consciences don’t function if they do not see us a humans but as sex objects. They are conditioned by social media and Hollywood to see us that way. And our leaders! Don’t forget mr. Grab me by the pussy. Watch the movie promising young woman.
@@Linalinalane Do not get drunk. Do not go to such parties. I have 3 children and we never brought them up to behave like that . That is a good way of keeping away and separate from this underground dark world . I'm glad your friend stayed sober. More or us should be like your friend. Bless you Laura. PS No need for such foul language. Please do not be part of this dark world.
@@soniawilliams9159 If you honestly believe being drunk is a good thing of itself, and if you converse in a world where all such people believe being drunk is a good thing of itself, but such a world needs sober people to give your world a helping hand once in a while, then no wonder this world deemed good is so debauched . I do not belong to such a world and never will. Such a world has weird questions like the one you just gave me, which relies on the premise that being in a world on drunkenness is perfectly fine of itself. I have seen the deleterious effects of alcohol on the human mind individually and we see it every day across the world. If you continue in this vein you will be one of its casualties, for reasons beyond reasonable comprehension. Get out now and begin a life sober for the rest of your life and let your mind become healthy and enjoy a different way of living.
I never said it was a good thing. My response to you was based on your post appearing to put the onus on the woman. Any sort of vulnerability doesn’t give another human being the right to abuse you. I choose not to drink but for those who do, they still have rights even if they get drunk.
Jesus isn't at the centre of feminism, the desire for power is. We can know this because feminism is an ideology, albeit with some good bits to it. I suppose it depends on which form of feminism is being discussed.
Here in Australia new s3× laws were introduced in June 22. From now on the man must prove he asked for AND was given consent, either verbally or with something in the environment that told him yes. It is no longer the woman's burden of proof to show evidence that she said no. They no longer have to be the one speaking up. There are certain conditions where it will ALWAYS be an automatic "No!", even if not verbally given: 1) if the woman had ANYTHING to drink, 2) if coercion was used causing the woman to be in fear of her life and comply, 3) saying "Maybe", "I'm not durw" , "I don't know", "Let me think about it" The man must ask for AND be given explicit consent for each and every s3×ual encounter/contact. A "Yes" to the question "Can I hold your hand?" is consent to that act only. Should the man wish to now place his arm around her waist, he will require a new consent by asking a question related to that:"Can I place my arm around your waist?" Consent is the responsibility of the male partner and even though given for a single encounter/contact, can be withdrawn without a reason. Consent is not absolute nor is it for the entire situation/encounter. 4) Under-age woman 5) Mental impairment, intellectual impairment, physical impairment 6) foreigner not speaking English 7) any situation covered under a legal duty of care. Being married is NOT giving consent!! Wtf?! So each time your husband wants s3× you have to give it to him, because you have a contract with him? Marriage does nothing to protect a woman from r4pe. A woman does NOT have to have s3× with her husband every time he demands it. Husbands can still r4p3 their wives. A married woman is able to say no, to each and ANY time she chooses. A man does NOT own a woman's body and get exclusive and entitled s3×ual rights over it!! I like how you use the term "lenses" to describe to us how we look out and "see" the world. This concept of humans using lenses with which to view the world is the fundamental problem we have between the progressive lefts and traditional rights. We both have our lenses on and we see the world accordingly. We cannot perceive what the other side sees. What we both need is a "paradigm shift." I use this term and mental action to help people start the process of seeing things from the "other side". You will have to look up the "Necker Cube" illusion. Once you understand what a paradigm shift is, you will be well on your way to change your mental perspective "lens" with a brand new one, and can start to think about throwing the old "woke" lens out.
That all sounds horrible. Is that how humans interact in Australia? How do you do anything romantic? As a man , why even get married or mess with a random woman?
You say Peterson did not listen to Louise Perry and then, at least in the first 12 minutes, only show videos of him talking and none of her. You claim, more or less, that Christianity invented monogamy which, I believe, is simply untrue. Edit: Ok, I concede that you do start to show her talking a bit later on. You are very right about Peterson's strategy of explaining the traditional in biological terms. Putting it that succinctly is enlightening, thank you. Oh yes, and you can get an AMEN from me on Louise's explanation about Christianity and feminism! But your understanding of evolution is very incomplete: it is NOT the survival of the fittest, it is survival of the most adaptable. What you are calling "evolution" is what should properly be termed "social Darwinism" and that is a social ideology, not science. As for the essential equality of all people, I believe as you do that this is a specifically Christian ethos but I have yet to find proof of this or counterarguments. I can not in good faith affirm that this is true. Tell me, is your book scholarly? Might it help me with this question? Wow, your Christian apologetics toward the end of the video are among the best I've ever heard. "The weakest, the least, the last, the lost..." ❤
i was with you until you said that feminism was an outgrowth of Christianity. Could not be more wrong. God created men and women different, to fulfill different rolls which compliment each other. and all feminism does is try to turn women into men. or give women an advantage over men (modern feminism).
It's opposed to Christianity. And Christianity does not endorse it. But feminists stole from Christianity a belief that women have value and the idea that it is not ok to abuse them. Call feminism a heresy, call it a perversion of the truth. But science and evolution do not provide a reason why we should care about the dignity and rights of women. That idea was first championed by Christianity. Feminist added in a lot of sinful ideas--but if they were honest, they'd have to admit their philosophy borrowed ideas from Christianity.
There are many different kinds of feminism. You’re perhaps thinking of radical feminism or progressive feminism. But that is not where feminism began nor where many modern feminists are today (despite what noisy radicals/progressives claim). I highly recommend you read Louise Perry (or watch our interview together). Her “Case Against The Sexual Revolution” is making points completely in line with Christian thinking.
Oh, here's the study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/ The rest of the podcast is good, but I'm so tired of clueless Western people wailing on Steppe Peoples!!!
I'm "tapping out" because you mischaracterized the conversation and its participants from the start. Try being honest next time. You will not get a 3rd chance.
"You will not get a 3rd chance." I'm sure he's shaking in his boots at the mere thought of losing your view. What an incredibly weak-minded response to someone else's difference in opinion. He's viewing the conversation from a different perspective rather than intentionally mischaracterizing how the convo went.
@@1984isnotamanual Not so sure. I was listening to Peterson back in the days of audio only podcasts ( CBC 'Ideas' for example), before RU-vid. My point, as a longterm fan I often wish he gave the other person more airplay because I can predict what he will say, nothing new here. This was most evident in the Elon Musk interview. That said, I'm cognizant there are listeners encountering him for the first time. He needs to insert himself enough so they get a feel for the terrain he inhabits. Also, his ramblings often trigger new ideas from his guests. A recent example is his interview with Mary Harrington. Despite twiddling her thumbs at points, suddenly she takes off on a new trajectory to the delight of all.
You are a complete fraud - you're cutting soundbites completely out of context. Even the premise that it was Jordan "versus" Louise is completely disingenuous - they had broad consensus on virtually every topic!
This vid appears to be pressing in on the points that were made in order to show that, fundamentally their perspectives were at odds, even if they appear to have a ‘broad’ consensus on topics discussed. What’s disingenuous about that?
I wouldn't go as far as you have, but some of the ways that videos are presented (at least recently) and the thumbnails that are used are fairly "clickbaity". I thought this was a good video overall, but I do feel that it misrepresented Peterson to a certain extent. Ironically, I think that part of the reason for that is not listening carefully enough to what Peterson was actually saying. I would prefer content that doesn't focus on differences (many of which I found to be mainly semantic) or look to "correct" others. I liked and agreed with what Perry had to say, but it was the comments from Peterson that helped me further understand the fundamental issues with our current society.
I am so disappointed in Jordan for this.... women are not just an extension of our male relatives. That is a very dangerous slope to go down. Some women do not HAVE male relatives to come to their rescue. So by what Jordan is saying those women would be deemed intrinsically worthless and fair game to anyone. Not okay.
The exception dont undo the rule. Peterson is spot on its just a politically incirrect truth that is not inline with modern western values. Women still benefit from the social benefits of this old belief that women are property but when that goes away completely, you will be treated exactly like men.
So, hopefully you’ve now discovered that Peterson is basically a misogynist. He who said “women were happier in the 1950’s”, he who said, “ the masculine is order, the feminine is chaos”, he who said that “contraception shall be the downfall of the west”, he who said that “ women who don’t have children are destined to forever remain lonely”. And many many other things - from over 20 videos I have looked at on RU-vid. Jordan Peterson would be right at home as one of the commanders in the fictional tv series The Handmaid’s Tale.
This was a wonderful video, but I find it ridiculous how peterson fans in the comments section believe he should never be called out or he can never have a wrong opinion.
I thought I was the only one who noticed that peterson was literally not letting louise perry speak. It was as if she was interviewing him not the other way around.
I hope and pray that this channel has a bigger impact on RU-vid and beyond than the Jordan Peterson’s and the Blaze and the wire and the list goes on. I’m glad you keep your finger in the pulse of this fairly new alternative media that seems to gobble up so many of us and distracts us from where our focus should be and you bring it back to a sound Biblical Christian way of digesting what they are putting out in the ether web.
I don't know anything about your educational background but you are way out of your league with this. Please stick to things that you can intelligently discuss.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. When I first listened to the episode with Jordan, I felt a bit confused as if I didn’t understand all what was being said. Now, I better understand why I felt things were a bit off track. Blessings!
Glen, if government social safety nets and technologies like plan B, STD treatments, etc. are removed the interests of the family emerge. Most feminist critiques are a luxury of living in a prosperous society. I would not rush to baptize them.
I have listened to numerous interviews of JP and I will say he is one of the most misunderstood people I have ever heard. I will concede that when JP is conducting an interview, he should talk less. However, I did NOT hear JP support the claim that women are property. I heard the opposite! He wanted to entertain the notion of women as property rights because, in his words, "it isn't obvious to me that is enough," as in an adequate defense. He then proceeds to provide "the counterargument" in which "all of her male protectors" come to her aid. That is what creates a "barrier." I see no issue here. In a world where a small percentage of men lean towards physical aggression, it is by default the duty of other powerful men to protect women from a small sexually aggressive subset of the population composed of those other men. When power is at stake, who will protect those women, other women? I don't think so. I also thought Perry's argument was complimentary and not on the defensive.
Unfortunately, many victims have no sympathetic male figures. Obviously its helpful to have the men be protective and support women who are assaulted, but society must respect women's safety and punish male exploitation and assaults. Too many women want so much independence that they can't see the value of the protective role of the spouse, family and men in the community. In the past, young women were carefully guarded and thought to have poor judgment. Today's women need to be honest about their own vulnerability and stop high risk behavior.
Yep, women were guarded by their fathers, elder brothers and also grandmothers, and that also created a healthy situation for dating. A young man who wanted to marry a woman had to jump through the loops to get her, showing his consistancy, bravery etc. When he was allowed to have her, she validated her, she was a real trophy for him. And of course the bride´s family took of her so that she was actually worthy to have. Today´s dating market... Not so well functioning, right? If the woman tries to do her caretakers job herself, making the man jumping through those hoops, she will just come out as a craving bitch. Something about female security: There is let´s say contradiction there. Young women wants to go out to dangerous places. They are often attracted to the most dangerous men. The healthy, good, nice ones are frequently rejected. Men notice this and are honestly starting to wonder why society should put any effort into the protection of women who seem to do everything to get into dangerous situations. Virtuos women are worthy of men´s protected. 304s - I apologize for the use of that term - not so much.
Jordan P frequently talks over female interviewees in a way he doesn't with men. I dibt think he's aware if it. He's not a bad guy but he's made the error people make when they get famous, they can end up thi king they know all. Eg he talks about people getting on due to competence and yet his wife and daughter get so much airtime due to nepotism. He talks about marriage, women taking home to bring up their kids and step parents being wrong yet his daughter had her kid looked after by someone else whilst she did work for Jordan, she has been married twice (by 30) and is bringing up her daughter with a step-dad. He should really say why rules don't apply to his family.
how does it feel to lie and decieve a entire group of people like this??i mean...1 corintians 7 is as far as it can be from the idea of "consent" its precisely about how we MUST have sex with our partner because our body BELONGS to then...this is totally far from consent that is only have sex if i want, if sex is a must, something that i OWN my husband it is not consensual
Without defining the term Rape, I'm unsure how you can claim it is unique to humans. If this is confined to narrow legal terms, you might get away with this. But in a broader sense, when defined as unwanted sexual activity by force put upon one by another, Rape does happen in the animal kingdom. Not just mating, it happens by force and between species where there is no possibility of procreation to justify the action.
Interesting but strictly abstract & hypothetical. Also, it accepts & even advocates for patriarchy & agreeing that women & children are the property of the males who shared in their biological creation. Accepting Xity is accepting chattel slavery. All theocrats are the same in that respect: They all desire power & control over everyone not them.
Yes, I often joke that they just keep pushing the "Go forth and multiply" to get more choir boys in the pews and change in more offering plates. Keep the pyramid scheme going!
BTW - I love your analysis of how Jordan always takes Morality and Ethical consideration to Evolutionary foundations. This bugs me on the one hand and yet demonstrates that there is an unreducible reality that even faulty explanations cannot deny.
Thanks, Glen. I like a lot of what Peterson has to say, but this troubled me. Thanks for talking about this interview and helping to clarify my thinking in this. Keep putting out more of this kind of content - it’s brilliant.
He literally agreed w her but also was interested in exploring the trad view and its origins, he wasnt saying he thought that way but was just exploring an idea as one does when theyre not taking anything for granted and interested in exploring ideas This video misrepresents jordan frankly
