Responding a video recently posted by Jordan Peterson that relates how we conceptualize sin to subconscious ways we participate in “worship” at sporting events.
It's interesting that Dr. Peterson is such a hero to young males. They feel he is vastly intelligent with profound thoughts and ideas. As a much older man I see something very different. I have seen Dr. Peterson's type before.
It's because the right is the only people that will actually talk to young men, and validate their experiences. The left does nothing but ignore and vilify men and try to convince us that we're the problem. Every time we voice our opinion or try to spread awareness about the social issues affecting men in this country, a crushing wave of feminist hate preachers comes crashing down to bully and deplatform anyone who doesn't kowtow to the narrative that men are privileged snowflakes with all the power, and we couldn't possibly have any opinions worth listening to. In my opinion, the overwhelming dominance of feminist ideology is the most crippling flaw in the politics of the left, which I otherwise am generally in support of.
I think you have correctly pointed out that receptivity of Peterson’s word salad by young males has a lot to do with that intangible quality we call “maturity.” Or, in his followers’ case, immaturity. I am older, and when I can force myself to watch a Peterson video, all I hear is a collage of words strung together to try to sound intellectual and impress people with underdeveloped critical mental faculties, i.e., a collection of shiny objects floating in a sea of very shallow water.
@@ronaldflint681men believe in meritocracy so he may be wrong but also have some correct ideas to spread. I just like his philosophy, NOT ON RELIGION since Idc about Christianity. Religion is cool since it’s natural.
I agree whole heartedly, do not take Jordan Peterson seriously in any field outside of his own Jungian psychology (and even then he’s many times far a field). I teach ethics and philosophy at the graduate level and Peterson’s takes on especially post modern philosophy are not only ridiculously wrong (like literally the opposite of what they say) but dangerous. Peterson’s speciality is weaponizing ignorance by using rhetorical frames of pedantic wordplay. So much so that I’ve had to basically deprogram students-particularly young men-who are Peterson’s acolytes and have become radically naive
Jordan Peterson folded his own professorial carreer but gets to keep his high rank title??? Can't we move on too, & only respectfully refer to him by his new self-chosen specialty: 'Grifter'!
@@christendumb9371 show your kid a picture of yourself somewhere with stunning nature to compare with waiting in line for j.p. selfie. To rub it in - remind child that one led to hooking-up while the other will never!!!
It seems to me that more than anything his specialties are oratory and rhetoric which have little to do with being right. He wraps up prejudices in fine words in a way that gives those who already share his world view license to believe they are backed by intellectual rigour.
@@goodtoGoNow1956, he likened the transgender movement to a Satanic cult on the Joe Rogan show, so I'd say that's not very trans affirming. But feel free to hand me another one of your semantic pretzels, buddy. They're more hallucinogenic than magic mushrooms.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 figured you would say that, given you can't counter the obvious hate speech by Peterson. His dead naming of Elliot Page also broke Twitter's hate speech guidelines. Peterson referred to Page, who is transgender, by his deadname, writing: "Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician." So you think it isn't prejudice to attack Page violating TOS effectively saying it is) and also attacking a surgeon carrying out the wishes of an autonomous adult in line with the guidelines in ICD-11 and DSM-5? I'm only continuing this now out of morbid curiosity to see how deep your cognitive dissonance runs in support of Peterson. Over to you, buddy.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 dead naming is literally hate speech. Look under Twiiter TOS Incitement against protected categories: "We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. ****This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals****." The fact that there's now an idiot in charge of Twitter who allows opportunistic charlatan populists on the platform does not dissolve their TOS where dead naming is explicitly referred to. It is prejudice, look at the definition. " a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived political affiliation, sex, ***gender, gender identity**** beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality," Again, morbid curiosity...keep it coming.
@@goodtoGoNow1956, by the way prejudice can't be an act? You've never heard the term "act of prejudice"? If Peterson makes a post deadnaming, terms explained above that it is literally prejudice, he is acting on his opinion. Ergo, act of prejudice. I can't believe I need to explain this to you. And yet, here we are...
Thanks Dan for showing how to graciously disagree with someone by not attacking their character but by pointing out the flaws in their reasoning and giving a well thought out response and citing sources. I appreciate your integrity in this
What the hell are you smoking ?all this video is is this guy trying to discredit someone. The entire video is him insulting Jordan Peterson trying to say that Jordan Does not know what he is talking about. This guy is a nobody and Jordan Peterson is known around the world.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 I think you miss the point that religion often says things like, "You are worshipping football", when you go to a sporting event, rather than worshipping god. Stuff like that and other mischaracterizations by using this errant methodology. It winds up not being trivial to millions.
While I agree Dan's being gracious & civil, if you think he's giving JP's questionable character a pass then I think you're missing a lot of the elegant, vicious subtlety of Dan's pauses & eyebrows & a few other deliberate tells.
@@BarrettVanDyke Four big trends, in no particular order: 1) He's got a back catalogue of self-improvement-for-would-be-Tyler-Durdens stuff that mixes genuine, effective methods, genuine well researched dialectical motivation techniques, and entertaining & passionate snippets & anecdotes from throughout western history that do a perfectly cromulent job of driving home the self-improvement habits. His throughlines of anti-feminism, reactionary passion & semi-secular tradcon fundamentalism are in there but rarely ever blatant. He racks up a lot of loyalty from people who got their shit together via that stuff & feel saved by it & therefore defensive of him... 2) He's really good at presenting himself as a martyr due to his terrific oratory skills + his messianic delusions of grandeur, and that's just the right thing to turn the loyalty into fealty 3) The biggest marketers & monetizers for his kind of reactionary syncretism are (drumroll) the zealots/grifters following in Rushimbaugh's footsteps, spending Koch Bros $, & that's a whole marketing/media ecosystem that sees rigor, honesty, and integrity as threats to the business. 4) Algorithmic amplification. Does that help?
@@goodtoGoNow1956 you weren't on stage giving a lecture that implied you were a French expert, though. JP made an ass of himself rambling about Hebrew he clearly knew 0 about
Jordan Peterson used to work at the University of Toronto, right? He could have asked local Bible scholar Dr. Robert D. Holmstedt, Professor of Hebrew Bible and West Semitic Languages, for help around Biblical interpretation.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 he did work at the University of Toronto till he resigned in 2021. From his interviews he requested the increases in his medication, and I don't fault him at all for that he was going through a difficult time when his wife got diagnosed with cancer. I also don't fault him for becoming addicted. I fault him for trying to go cold turkey against medical advise because the withdrawal is so horrible and may cause relapse which given his profession he should know, which led him to go to Russia to undergo a dangerous treatment to detox because he wasn't willing to do the work to slowly wean himself off as every professional in the states and Canada recommended. He wanted a quick fix something I find contrary to his advice he gives others, he paid some doctors to clean his room cause he didn't want and was unwilling to do it himself. His addiction wasn't the problem, the problem was the treatment that was recommended wasn't something he wanted to spend the time on, to work on himself, so he went doctor shopping until he ended in Russia. I'm not mocking his addiction, I'm mocking his hypocrisy.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 go for you, you did the work to got it from addiction. I'm glad Peterson is out from his, but yes the way he did it against medical advice is totally up for criticism.
I still love the principles of empowerment he advocates but it does feel uncomfortable how often and far he leaves his lane only to ... well ... miss the mark.
Some how I didn’t think of Dan when I first saw that rant, I honestly didn’t watch it because most things by Jordan are highly deceptive and not worth watching but very glad to see Dan address Jordan.
@@BarrettVanDyke JP Fanboy eh? Well, "highly deceptive" kind of speaks for itself, just use that brain of yours. It's a known Fact that Jordan Peterson specifically utilizes terminology, lingo, jargon, and/or otherwise a broad vocabulary a a mechanism by which to deceive his target-audience who aren't so terribly familiar with the exact meanings and proper usages of most-such words; hell, he even disproportionately utilizes specific language Qualifiers (i.e. Most, Many, Some, Sort of, Kind of, a Few, a Lot, Sometimes, Partly, Frequently, Occasionally, Often, Variably, etc etc) in order to insert a Preemptive [Pedantic & Semantic] Defense/Escape-Hatch into his statements (just in case someone tries to call him out on a Literal Falsehood over some specific detail, so he can then say "That's not what I said, you're mishearing me or misinterpreting my words, I specifically said _insert-qualifier_ ." even though in most cases he was implying some factual truth that as inherently supposed to be about More than just the qualified-portion, and thus his target-audience will basically 'agree' that he was correct all along). If you had watched and listened to Dan's video, or used that noggin', or listened to even Half the people you responded to in the comments, then you Likely wouldn't have had to bother 'asking' such a "question"; so maybe you ought to Stop JAQ'ing off in order to dishonestly insert & shoehorn your arbitrary JP-Defensive Apologetic Rhetoric.
@@TechySeven Good afternoon, friend. You have made a few assumptions about me that are incorrect, I’ll name two. 1. You seemed to imply that if I had used my brain, I wouldn’t have acted in the way I did. That’s assuming I’m cognitively capable of doing that. Be careful about giving me too much credit :) 2. I did watch the whole video. I’m genuinely curious, do you think Mr. Peterson has done any good? Or made a positive impact?
It cracks me up that Peterson has gone on at length about how you shouldn't talk about something if you're not an expert in it. Yet he has spent at least a decade speaking with assumed authority on things he's clearly completely unfamiliar with and with which he seems to have no academic credentials. My first experience with him was seeing him give a lecture on Nietzsche, in which he was factually wrong about several things and conceptually wrong about pretty much everything.
I will admit, being as what most would describe as a right wing conservative Southern Baptist, that when I first began listening to JP, some of his talking points caught my attention. The more one listens to him, though, beneath the verbose prose is very little to no substance and highly questionable conclusions.
Talk about overthinking it. Sometimes a football game is just a football game, ya know? You can enjoy a thing a lot without it morphing into “worship.”
@@boomsnoeierke dan doesnt tell anyone not to follow God ...he is simply correcting misinformation ..actually its nice to listen to someone educated enough to know better than to tell others how to live thier lives ...just wants them to be educated and factual when they are teaching others wrongly ....
@@goodtoGoNow1956 i cant testify the videos you speak of only the ones i have seen and all he ever tells ppl to do is to read and educate themselves..and gives references .after he corrects mis information ..and when he is wrong he admits it ..
@@christendumb9371 dan is not telling a single person to repent and give his life to Christ. Not a single Amen in thé comments, not a single King of Kings, Saviour, Shepherd. Only deflecting comments. I am leaving you for i must not fight personal battles...
"it would be an ridiculous ethnological phallacy to assume that our conceptualization and use of the word ~ is guided by the use in another language". THIS. I'm Italian and my whole life I've been told by teachers in liceum that the way we use some words is derived from their use in Latin or Greek (even though their meanings in years has completely shifted). It's a pretty common logical phallacy here...
In this case it seems that the argumentation is borrowed from Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Moral", he uses exactly the same argumentation with exactly the same examples
Ethimological phallacies are frequent from where I'm from (Italy), especially in Philosophy and among Classical Liceum attenders, and are still today a predominant part of Political argumentation
I couldn't quite put my finger on what bothered me so much about Peterson when he talks religion until I came across "Message to the Christian Churches" from a few months ago and as you pointed out in this video, he's more about bending scripture and religion to his preconceived ideals. It doesn't appear he has done a lot of objective study.
2:00 I think this frame gives the game away: this is not the kind of lighting we use in an academic lecture. This lightning is used for drama. Peterson is not giving a lecture, he is entertaining. Thinking he's talking seriously and honestly about religion would be like thinking an episode of _House_ is providing honest and serious medical information.
I just searched up what’s is the origin of the word “sin” and a multitude of sources all said the same thing or something similar to Peterson. One of them says “The principal word in Hebrew translated as sin is the word chatta’ah and its derivatives such as chata and chet. The word chatta’ah means sin, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, and so forth. The sense of the Hebrew word includes both willful going against what one knows is right and accidentally going against the divine order of things.” Also yes Chet is a Hebrew word, but more commonly a letter. I’m compelled as to which person I should believe now haha. Maybe someone can help me fact check? Because I always like to make sure for myself before believing anything.
Are the sources you're finding that agree with JordPet from secular, peer-reviewed research? Or, are they from ( or citing from ) other faith based sermonizers?
@@wasserperson I don’t remember but search it up and find out for yourself mate. Don’t have to take my word for it. Don’t believe anyone without verifying for yourself first, not even the person that might be debunking another.
@thierrytg.3921 "Chet" as Peterson pronounced it is not a word. "Chet" is a transliteration of חטא, which is pronounced with the same constant of the word "chata" as Dan pronounced in 0:58. This constant doesn't exist in English, so you can't write it in a way that tells you how to pronounce it, and so you have people like Peterson make these mistakes. The letter "chet" (ח) is the first letter in the word chet and also pronounced preety much the same. Your definition seems similar to what Dan said about the word, which means missing the way, doing wrong etc.. Dan's main criticism of Peterson in this was that he connected it archery and that he implies that the origin of the word chet has some implications on our conceptualisation of sin.
Jordan Peterson should not be taken seriously in anything outside of his field. Furthermore, his field itself (Jungian psychology/archetypes) should never be taken seriously.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 Empirical evidence is what destroys Jungian psychology. We've learned more about the brain in the past 25 years than all of human history. Jung and Freud were important for getting psychology moving, but let's not worship them.
Your channel is for me the most interesting channel on RU-vid. I love your manner of calm measured delivery and of course the information you are delivering. I watched an earlier video where you said it was difficult to record longer content, so I understand why you don't, but I greedily and selfishly wish you would. I only say that because I enjoy the knowledge you share. Anyway, keep doing what you are doing in a way that is manageable for you. Two minute, five minute, or six minute videos are a treat. Thank you for everything
Love all your works, Dan. But publishing this video as a Philadelphian on Super Bowl LVII Sunday and saying sports is not a religion... I'll pray for your protection.
I realized, since I'm saying this, on the internet, to the "Data > Dogma" king, it's important to clarify to random internet commenters that I am 1000% joking.
Well JP is talking nonesense from the get go. 'Sin' is an Old English (aka Anglo Saxon) word meaning guilt... It has roots in Germanic and other European languages including Latin going back to 3000 bce long before the invention of Judeism. The notion that somehow Greeks and Hebrews invented the notion of guilt seems patently absurd. I'm pretty sure its a universal human notion. JP could do with extending his perspective outside the somewhat archaic and idiosyncratic view of Jung and instead expand his understanding of Bowlby, Klein Ainsworth, Bion, Winnicott and Foulkes... Particularly the notion of and the dynamics around 'merger' Vis a vie like minded mutual engagement... Which is not only the root behind religious and sporting engagement as described but also crowd behaviour and criminal delinquency.
I hope Peterson sees this. That could use a little humility instead acting like he's some cult leader who knows everything about everything. Peterson seems deeply unwell.
Once again, JP is proven to have the shallowest intellect on the talking head circuit. JP wouldn’t know an original thought if it bought him a bowl of borscht. (Subtle reference to JP’s Russian/Soviet obsession. Borscht is Ukrainian in origin, and yummy, so the reference has layers. JP and his followers won’t get that.)
Considering Jordan Petersons level of education he is surprisingly reductive in his opinions and approach to researching facts, yet he seems to consider himself a polymath a trait often most frequently seen in young adolescents, there is barely a subject he doesn't feel he can speak knowledgeably about. I had no idea he was a polyglot. The ageing cynic in me wonders if he is a smart cookie who has figured out that populist apologetics is the most lucrative form of study. Dan, do you want to be accurate or do you want to be rich and famous? Age old questions.
Wow, so what you're saying seems to suggest that Jordy either doesn't know what he's talking about or is being deliberately disingenuous? Shocking, my world no longer makes sense.
I know a sophist when I hear one. If your IQ is high enough to pick through and decipher all the labels and academic jargon, you realize he’s not saying much. It’s way too easy to pick apart the words of another without engaging in debate - that would be too exposing.
I've been thinking along those same lines about why billions of people throughout the course of time need to have religion and the best guess I can come up with is that we really need to use our imaginations most of the time. The amazing illustrations that come from religious texts on what heaven looks like and what hell looks like and what God would look like or act like in any religion is obviously a figment of our imagination but it's brilliant and majestic and other worldy and once you get so.eone else with an imagination to join in to your imaginary world than the experience of the image grows stronger and more vivid and you can take the tale even further.
The problem with Dr Peterson is not that he is wrong about any topic - but that some people are entranced by his rhetoric and eloquence and equate that with truth. He should stick to his area of expertise ! This is something that could apply to a lot of academics !
What I find interesting is how the Peterson video is trying to use music, staging, & rhythm to induce a feeling in the viewer similar to ones gained through social cohesion rituals. Feels like maybe the "sin" of enjoying the super bowl is the fact that it's centered on sports and not Mr Peterson
Is there Origin Sin in the other faiths when Genesis was conceived, then written? Where did the concept come from? Is it the first grift to scare followers to keep donating? I always thought it was bizarre.
Dan, I have a question. Why are some rituals powerful to some members of a group and traumatizing to others? I have LDS friends who love going to the temple. I see Mormon Stories pod testimonies from people who were traumatized by the same thing. It seems you can't wander near anything LDS without finding videos on the trauma of endowment, weddings etc. You don't have to go into LDS stuff if you don't want to if you feel like answering this question, I think it is similar everywhere. My friend was raised Anglican is repelled to the point of panic attacks hearing Christian music, even though she said she had fine experience at church, it's just she's always been repelled and upset by music like Handel's messiah. I went to an olympic hockey game with my kids and while I loved spending time with my kids, I hated the crowd and the experience of watching the game. They thought it was exciting, which is why I took them! I didn't show it, but if I could have run out of there I would. I wanted to throw up I hated it so much. I like playing sports but hate watching them, but I really like religious ritual. Why do you think rituals hit different people differently? Is it just because we're all different or is there another explaination?
“And somebody makes a particularly brilliant play and that leads to an increment in the score” so everyone celebrates the goal. I have news for Peterson….if someone makes a mistake or there is a goal out of sheer good fortune the exact same reaction is engendered. They are celebrating the result; it barely matters how that is achieved because we are tribal and if our tribe is getting one over on the other tribe we back that. Simple.
peterson's schtick is very pastoral - that is, to fixate on some trivia or banality and draw out fakedeep bs from it, all in the service, it often seems, of obscurantism for its own sake.
Dr. Peterson, so far as I have seen, engages with topics outside of his area of expertise in extremely bad faith. Rather than answer simple, clear, questions he will flood the questioner with words and concepts until you have no clear idea what he actually believes. In one sense, you cannot really argue with him - for me because I generally cannot understand what he is saying, and I suspect that what he is saying doesn't have any clear meaning, but is a rhetorical device to make him sound learned but prevent him from being pinned down to a factual statement he can be held account to.
As someone specializing in New Testament Greek harmatia, or ἁμαρτία, can be an action, attitude or behaviour; not simply a single act of a person. A generally connotation to "ingratitude" or "ungratefulness" in some way. The opposite of "blessedness" or "gratitude."
This has been the teaching in Evangelical circles on the meaning of sin for at least 40 years. I heard it as a kid. It’s interesting what words get used in translations that don’t actually reflect the meaning in the original language. PS - It’s hard not to want to say something derogatory about Jordan Peterson. I do not like his rhetoric much at all.
2:00 I think the claim that we are "worshipping" at sports events goes more to the point that the concept of "worship" is such a meaningless concept that it can absorb anything. Seriously, what does it mean to "worship God"? Going to church and cheering? Yeah, I think they would consider that to be worshipping God. And in that respect, going to a sporting event and cheering for a team would also be worship. Not because God and sports are equal in terms of religion, but because "worship" is such a vague term to be ultimately meaningless.
Love you both. My feeling is that Jordan Peterson is not really doing religious studies in music examples but he’s doing religion. He’s recontextualizing words that are used in religious way and reframing them against somewhat legitimate previous definitions of the word sin. And he’s tying a story together that makes it feel New or fresh.
What a dreary life, where enjoying anything other than worshipping God is breaking the 1st (2nd?) Commandment. I used to hear that a lot in my former church. Fortunately, only a few fanatics take it seriously.
I think you need to have Dr. Peterson respond to this first and get him to admit his mistake on the matter. But, I don't think you would have the mental stamina for it especially in a live setting. I think this will only stand until you hear what JBP has to say about it because (I assume) he does not accept any idea, data, information, or interpretation about anything as easy as you think he does. Yes, same as you or everyone, I could be wrong. When he said chet, it was his audible interpretation of a word from an old and different language; with different alphabets and tongues. So, that's a slippery slope right there. You have to have some sort of first hand information, passed down knowledge, or authority to really be a reliable source on that one. For all we know, you both could be wrong on the pronunciation, but I assume it would be the idea behind the word and it's utility that matters. Also, there are many people that seem to say this was mainstream at some point, (preached at churches) that sin word was originally from archery and maybe it's something suppressed to give way for religion or religious texts exclusive interpretations of the word.
I normally just stick to one comment ... Usually made cold based on, either: the title, or a salient point. However this deserves a congratulation since without mentioning the names I would favour, you do seem to have 'hit the mark' here... Pun intended. Particularly re the attempt to appropriate guilt. It seems to me that sporting events, ritual, religion etc do root in human attatchment behaviour as expressed in a group identity. Where this is pathological, expressing a failure in initial mother( or permanent mother substitute) and infant bond, and where it is not pathological a successful or 'secure' attachment. The distinction being able to detach from the group where delinquency occurs.
If humans had not gained the knowledge of good and evil, how would any human be able to discern the difference? Would murder even be a crime without humans understanding it is wrong? If the serpent, instead of coaxing Adam and Eve into eating the fruit, let them continue to be unaware of evil he could have had a lot of fun with humans and people would simply be like, "Meh."
The KJV guy was making conclusions based on these two different translations that i dont see as necessary conclusions. He's making a big deal out of the slight variation. I dont think zeroing in is the best way to read scriptures, but instead to understand Matthew, we should read the entire book of Matthew. Then slight variations dont make such a big difference.
You have to understand Jordan Peterson and reality parted company some time ago largely when he decided to become the worlds foremost authority on everything, sad to watch a once brilliant mind unravel in full view of the internet !
I wish to say that the concept of sin that included goofs and ordinary errors, made it all easier to be humble in the face of judgment. You reminded me about ritual in other facets of society.
Seems to me he was just trying to draw out metaphors and find connections between concepts that we normally think of separately -- for the purpose of helping us to think about them a little differently than we might typically. More of a creative and evaluative project than an analytical one. And you go all super-hyper-analytical on him, which is a lower order type of thinking according to Bloom's taxonomy. Why would you do that? Who cares if he uses the word "derivation" wrong when he's trying to encourage us to be more open-minded and to think differently about a concept we might be taking for granted. I understand reining in incorrect teaching, but there also has to be room to explore and open your mind, especially when considering spirituality.
Is there any clip, from *any* of JP's many many speeches & interviews, where he himself says something like, ~I'm simply doing word association, creative thinking exercises, even if it absolutely sounds like I'm making factual claims about word sources, I'm really just floating new connections & interpretations we could try out~ ?
@clothedinsun1145 Even if what you say were correct, Peterson never admits this, but instead makes claims to be speaking with the authority of academic and analytical rigour, uses these claims to boost his credentials and try and deflect criticism, and regularly criticises his critics for allegedly failing to take a sufficiently intellectually rigorous approach. This is one of several reasons why I, and many others, consider him a charlatan.
That's weird. It seems to me he got everything related to etymology, pronunciation of Hebrew, and religion wrong. He's either extremely misinformed on all of the things he talked about or made it up.
chata (חטא) is a past singular third body version of the verb to sin, if you want to relate to the noun sin like he tries the aleph there is silent and the nikkud is different so it would sound closer to chet, its true that he mispronounced the letter ח, probably because of the somewhat ambiguity the combination of letters 'ch' have in relation to pronunciation, so while not perfect, the combination of these letters like in the English word chrome would resemble the sound of the letter ח. now when he talks about the etymological aspect of these words he doesn't argue that the mere existence of the etymological relations between different words makes an ought statement about how we ought to view the world but rather that these relations are tools to understand and analyze views of these concepts and ponder yourself about how you ought to understand the meaning of these terms. lastly the dude analyzes the bible as a literary piece, and he boils it down to very understandable and practical terms so that even simple people could understand the concepts he talks about, the fact that he doesn't use fancy words like social cohesion doesn't mean he can't, plus social cohesion at the end of the day just describes a phenomenon, the question at hand is what was the experience that lead people to change their hierarchy of priorities to stand up even though it might be more comfortable to sit or to go home, thats a lane that's centered around the human psyche and as a dr of psychology he's more qualified than you to speak on those things.
He is a psychologist who has made himself into one of the latest pop psychology gurus for "young men who needs something to fix their life." He has no formal education the Bible or theology that I'm aware of but sometimes presents himself as an interpreter of the Bible and theology.
@@chuckshingledecker2216 According to James 3:15-16, the practice of slander is demonic. People who engage in slandering other people are being led by demons-not the Spirit of God. The root of slander is a heart that is either wayward or completely unconverted. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour.
@@boomsnoeierke According to common-freaking-sense. Calling or implying someone else to be 'demonic' or a 'demon' or "evil", purely because they disagree with you, is slander. Ergo, you and your Bible are Hypocrites with Double-Standards, as you can't seem to ever apply your own 'reasoning' [albeit Faulty regardless] to your own self and/or your own Bible. The root of hypocrisy such as this, is dogmatic indoctrination into a cultish "us vs them" mindset, from the view of a Black-and-White Binary & Primitive Tribalistic Society trying to sequester those who will follow and obey a Religious [Mortal] Leader apart from those who would not, by way of shaming, guilting, embarrassing, threatening, and/or otherwise Emotionally, Mentally, and Psychologically Manipulating them into Kowtowing, Agreeing, and Obeying out of Fear. A Power-Grab and Control Tactic. Rules "for thee" and Not "for me".
Brother , you have some nice videos , but here again your lack of the Hebrew language is transparent , and I'll explain... When Peterson said ( Chet ) , he tried to say the Hebrew word ( חתה , Cheta ) which means Sin , and ( חת , Chet ) , is short for ( חתה , Cheta... But because you don't have the letter ( ח ) in English or latin , most people would either translate this letter by H alone , or C H..... Like the word ( תנ״ך ) , here again latin and English will translate it in their writings like ( Tanach , or Tanakh , or even Tanack , which are all wrong in reality.. And if someone doesn't know Hebrew , he will read Tanach , like Peterson read Chet , Het , who was also by the way the son of Canann... So Jordan was wright when said that Chet , Het , means Sin , but have wrongly pronounce it , חת , which derives from the word חתה , Cheta , Heta in English .. We say in Hebrew ( Ze mahasey Chet , זה מעשה חת , meaning this is a sinful act )... Here are some of the many different forms to say Sin in Hebrew , each one can different because of different circumstances.. נטיות לַחְתּוֹת, חָתִיתִי, חָתִיתָ, חָתִית, חָתָה, חָתָּה, חת, חָתִינוּ, חֲתִיתֶם, חָתִיתֶם, חֲתִיתֶן, חָתִיתֶן, חָתוּ, חוֹתֶה, חוֹתָה, חוֹתִים, חוֹתוֹת, אֶחְתֶּה, תַּחְתֶּה, תַּחְתִּי, יַחְתֶּה, תַּחְתֶּה, נַחְתֶּה, תַּחְתּוּ, תַּחְתֶּינָה, יַחְתּוּ, חֲתֶה, חֲתִי, חֲתוּ, חֲתֶינָה, חֲתוֹת... Personally are you a believer in the Creator of the world ( Not Humans ) , or you are just providing information
@@goodtoGoNow1956 oh ok, let me change that. I don’t think anyone Who is taken seriously by otherwise reasonable people, is muddying the water quite as much as Peterson. I honestly can’t think of anyone who talks about religion at the same level of extraction as Peterson does. And I can’t think of a fan base quite as blind to it.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 oh sorry, I feel bad for calling you that. I’ve just clicked on your name and seen that you’ve commented 257 times on this channel alone, you’re clearly out of your mind. I hope you find some professional help dude.
@@goodtoGoNow1956 what challenge am I meant to of accepted exactly? To send surveys out to… well… everyone, and find out who talks the most bullocks before I’m allowed to comment on RU-vid without a lunatic turning up in the replies. Yeah nah, surprisingly I’ve not bothered doing that. If you want proof of what I’ve said about Peterson just listen to him talk about religion for 10 minutes. Here’s a challenge for you, GET A JOB YOU DOSSER! stop sitting on RU-vid simping for Peterson 24/7. 257 comments on one channel is completely insane, that’s not normal dude. If I were Dan I’d be worried that you were in the bushes outside my house. Weirdo.
