Jordan Peterson

Thanks, I'll add those to my reading list

I appreciate and sympathize with the blunt responses to that kind of stereotypical self-righteous militant atheist response.

But it makes me wonder, can atheism ever be anything other than that? What is atheism other than an averse reaction to the idea of a literal anthropomorphic god and attempts to answer moral questions through literal interpretations of ancient mythology? Are there not a lot of people who call themselves Christians who do just that?

Can I still call myself an atheist even though I've begun to understand there are very real & extremely important psychological truths hidden within the cryptic pages the Bible?

One of my favorite examples of the difference between a shallow literal interpretation, and a more nuanced one is when Jesus said in response to the question of Roman taxation "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s"

If you take that literally it would seem as if Jesus believed taxation was moral or justified. But a deeper interpretation would suggest that Jesus was giving an ambiguous answer on purpose, as the political climate at the time would have made it impossible for him answer directly without dire consequences (and Jesus believed in picking your battles wisely). So on the contrary, I believe Jesus was subtly implying that taxation was not justified, because of what Dorothy Day said: "If we rendered unto God all the things that belong to God, there would be nothing left for Caesar."

nice strawman. in no way are the events in kings meant to not be a literal history.

I'm not a militant atheist. my intent with that example wasn't to attack Judaism and Christianity, just to demonstrate that you are imposing values on the text that simply aren't there. I don't deny that some passages aren't intended to be literal, but let's base that on a close reading of the text and the historical context, not on a mystic search for hidden truth within the text. as for this example you just gave of Jesus saying giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's, I don't find your explanation too impossible. The text itself implies that Jesus is outwitting the Jews who asked the question. but as for the idea that God is simply an abstract ideal that is intended to stop men from falling into totalitarianism, that idea reflects more on you and Jordan Peterson than it does on the Jews and Christians who wrote the biblical texts.

FYI that quote also stealthily supports the Pharisees, or rather, it supports the Jews.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" is a trick response because ALL things belong to God, even what belongs to Caesar.

>that idea reflects more on you and Jordan Peterson than it does on the Jews and Christians who wrote the biblical texts.

Right but the trail doesn't stop there. The Jews and Christians who wrote those texts reiterated much of what Jesus had said.

It's possible to speak/write truth in a way that's impossible to completely distort unless you yourself understand that truth. It's like when Nietzsche's sister published his manuscripts, she attempted to pervert what he had written for her own purposes but she couldn't really do it because she herself could not even begin to understand what Nietzsche was talking about.

I don't see how I am denying that that those who wrote the texts had an agenda, I'm saying that the truth is still there to be read regardless if you know what to look for.

Yes some parts of the Bible are literal and some parts are figurative. The post I was replying to was making the blanket statement that all of the Bible has to be interpreted literally which is precisely the kind of simplistic thinking that fundies use. I don't thinking it's a coincidence that the most autistic fedora-tier atheists usually come from fundie households who end up ditching the Bible but continue to process information in a fundamentalist way (i.e. without nuance). The YEC bible-thumping crowd and the /r/atheism fedora lords really deserve each other and it gives me hope that God has a good sense of humor.

>I don't see how I am denying that that those who wrote the texts had an agenda, I'm saying that the truth is still there to be read regardless if you know what to look for.
truth hidden beneath the author's intent? That's too much for me, man. As far as I see it the books of the bible are a result of the authors, not something that transcends them. At least the literalist religious people at least try to theorize a mechanism for how the world works, God works and how he inspires the texts, but you mystics just string together pretty words as though the beauty of the words means that it must have some basis in reality. You obviously aren't a believer in christianity. I'm sure that you sample from different religious texts and from philosophy. Why are you so sure that there is some hidden truth in all of these religious texts? The fact that they speak of something that transcends man means that they need to know what the hell they are talking about? Have you ever considered that maybe they don't? Perhaps it's just because religious beliefs are something that develops in essentially every culture and that doesn't necessitate they are specifically all refering to an abstract ideal?

I am that poster. Perhaps I was unclear. I wasn't saying that every passage in the bible should be taken literally, but for God's sake kings is intended to be history. I was arguing against adding meaning to the texts that isn't there and allegorizing passages that weren't intended to be. No writer in the bible saw God as an abstract ideal men should strive towards to avoid totalitarianism.

>No writer in the bible saw God as an abstract ideal men should strive towards to avoid totalitarianism.

That is literally what Jesus is except for the abstract part. The word "Christian" means "to be like Christ" and the goal of Christian living is to be made into the image of Christ. It's why "what would Jesus do" is such a popular catchphrase in the church; Jesus is the ideal man AKA the Son of Man.

that isn't reducing God to simple an abstract ideal, just that Jesus is a perfect example for us to follow. what really gets me is the totalitarianism part. nothing in christianity is fundamentally against totalitarianism. In fact God is the head of a totalitarian regime. I've already shown this with the example in kings. When Christians first gained political power you don't see a sudden shift towards democracy or self-limiting government that respects certain human rights, and it's not because these weren't true christians. It was easy for Ambrose to call for Theodosius to outlaw pagan practices when he had the book of kings giving the example of King Josiah as a (nearly) perfect king, who tried to protect his realm from divine wrath by destroying pagan idols, shrines, even killing priests. I know you love this word so much so I'll use it: Josiah was presented as the ideal ruler.

> truth hidden beneath the author's intent? That's too much for me, man. As far as I see it the books of the bible are a result of the authors, not something that transcends them.

But what better way to pass on truth then to encrypt it within mythology? That's what I'm saying Jesus did, he spoke in a way that made it virtually impossible for his meaning to be eroded by time.

> Why are you so sure that there is some hidden truth in all of these religious texts?

Because Peterson's "decryptions" if you will, perfectly align with the rest of my world view, a worldview that — although incomplete — had already begun to change my life dramatically for the better. I was literally in my own personal hell before I began to study the philosophy of classical liberals like Bastiat, and modern libertarians like Mises. Basically, that's when I began to stop viewing myself as a helpless victim, and it's when I began to realize the disasters life was continuously throwing at me were actually a product of my attempts to avoid having to overcome and persevere through the ones I was born into.

>Because Peterson's "decryptions" if you will, perfectly align with the rest of my world view, a worldview that — although incomplete — had already begun to change my life dramatically for the better.
that's the thing though. you are arguing based on feeling. this particular meaning you assign, especially the hidden aspect of it, makes you feel good. If this makes your life better, that's great. but it doesn't prove that the ideas that help you feel good align with reality or simply the actual views of those who wrote these texts. This is exactly my issue with this kind of mysticism: it's an argument largely of subjective aesthetics

The fact that you're calling Josiah an ideal anything shows that you've fundamentally misunderstood what the Bible teaches about human nature. In Romans Paul explains that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we're going to talk about "ideal" kings, David would be a better example and even he has some serious blemishes on his record (the Bathsheba debacle is probably the most famous). Only Jesus can be said to ideal in the true sense of that word because only Jesus is without sin.

As to your other point, Christianity is fundamentally anti-totalitarian because it teaches that all human lives are intrinsically valuable (being made in the image of God) and that God and only God is worthy of worship. Every totalitarian movement has attempted to make the state or the leader an object of worship which is why it is fundamentally an idolatrous ideology. As to your point about God being totalitarian, that also doesn't add up because God neither censors people nor compels them to obedience. You can criticize God all you want and He won't prevent you from disobeying Him. You are free to do as you please.

>but if I reject God I'll go to hell!

True but you still are able to freely make that choice. God doesn't send you to reeducation facilities until you agree with Him as is common practice in a totalitarian system.

> that's the thing though. you are arguing based on feeling. this particular meaning you assign, especially the hidden aspect of it, makes you feel good.

If I live life acting on a belief that 1 + 3 = 5, then my life would be complete chaos. If I then change my perception to believing 1 + 3 = 4, and my life becomes better... That's evidence, circumstantial evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Do I then immediately know FOR SURE that 1 + 3 = 4 is TRUTH? No, I would have to continue to test it over and over again... and the more it works out, closer I get to a point beyond reasonable doubt.

I have built up A LOT of circumstantial evidence that leads me to believe Peterson's decryption of this mythology are correct.

Honestly, did you even watch the video I linked in the OP "The Psychology of Redemption in Christianity"? You have to, or else you're just going into this conversation blind.

Sageing this thread desu.

Stop posting your shit here Jordan, you're the new molymeme

>The fact that you're calling Josiah an ideal anything shows that you've fundamentally misunderstood what the Bible teaches about human nature.
The fact you are challenging that shows you haven't read kings, or at least not closely. Arguably, yes, David is seen as a greater king than Josiah. What I mean is that Kings is arguing that what Josiah did is what every one of the kings before him should have done and what any future king should do, namely destroying pagan idols, shrines and killing pagan priests. There's no way around this. This overreach of state power is what I would call totalitarian, and certainly any regime that did this today would be called totalitarian.

> Every totalitarian movement has attempted to make the state or the leader an object of worship which is why it is fundamentally an idolatrous ideology. As to your point about God being totalitarian, that also doesn't add up because God neither censors people nor compels them to obedience. You can criticize God all you want and He won't prevent you from disobeying Him. You are free to do as you please.
Totalitarian regimes don't tape your mouth shut to prevent you from speaking, you will be punished for opening your mouth. this is the same thing that God does through hell.

The thing is lots of things make people feel good. many other perspectives could be validated on this same circumstantial evidence. my point of view certainly makes me feel good. analyzing the bible and trying to understand it historically gives me a rush of adrenaline. No I haven't watched the video but I have good idea of what it will say from what you've said and how you've tried to justify it. The issue is it's nearly an hour l'm currently in the middle of writing an essay. I'm just checking up on this thread while I'm writing

>The thing is lots of things make people feel good. analyzing the bible and trying to understand it historically gives me a rush of adrenaline

Ok now I know you're just stroking your own ego and running your mouth. A rush of adrenaline? Wtf are you talking about? I'm not talking about "feeling good". I'm talking about real tangible dramatic improvements in my life. Wealth, friends, meaningful relationships, etc.

> No I haven't watched the video but I have good idea of what it will say from what you've said and how you've tried to justify it.

Well there you go, you're just running your mouth.

Let me guess, you lean left?

Destroying idols is the correct action yes but it does not follow that it makes Josiah an "ideal king." Furthermore there may have been other ways that a king could destroy idols in a manner that would be superior to how Josiah went about it (for example by convincing the people to willingly give up on idolatry and have them freely destroy their idols themselves). Suffice it to say that while Josiah's actions were commendable, it would be a misuse of the word to say they were ideal.

Also, totalitarian regimes do in fact prevent you from speaking. You cannot publish an anti-government polemic in a totalitarian system because the regime will not allow it. By contrast, God controls everything but still allows people to say whatever they want about Him. If you hate God, God will allow you to get that message out but if you hate a totalitarian state the regime will not allow you to promulgate that message and therein lies the difference.

fine, I'll match you on "tangible benefits". This world view has improved my psychological health, gives my life a sense of purpose, it has actually improved my relationships and made them more meaningful, since I have been able to actually have real, meaningful discussions about reality and not just what mystic ideology makes me feel good. wealth, you got me beat there. Please do a study on how these tangible benefits can't be gained from any religion, any other philosophy, any other world view. then perhaps you'll have a real case

There's nothing mystical about what Peterson is talking about, he's a psychologist, not a priest.

You're just acting like a typical triggered atheist and spouting off about how everything about mythology is worthless culty mysticism that has no relationship to reality.

>I feel Peterson has translated the mythology in the Bible into something everyone can understand. I can really get behind the idea that God is "the ideal that all men strive for", something greater than all of us, and something to give us a sense humility so that we don't fall into totalitarianism.
You do realize that the great other is exactly what all totalitarian regimes strive for, right? Call it God, Volk, necessity for historical change, it's all a trap to keep the individual subjugated to the national project of the totalitarian regime. In such sense, the individual can never reach a truly personal connection with divinity, since it is diluted among the community. There is nothing liberating in such narrow understanding of spirituality and divinity.