>do you believe in the Bible?
>the Bible is a hyperlinked library of wisdom across centuries. It’s not a book you simply “believe in.”
>so you don't take it literally?
>literalism is a modern distortion. Stories operate on multiple planes of reality.
>you're avoiding the question.
>i’m challenging its premises.
>are you saved?
>i think the idea of salvation is psychological, social, and metaphysical.
>so you're not saved?
>i'm working on aligning myself with the Logos.
>is that a yes?
>it's a process, not a status.
>do you believe in Heaven and Hell?
>we live them out psychologically. Every day.
>that’s not what the Bible says.
>well, the Bible isn’t a manual. It’s a narrative architecture of meaning.
>are you afraid of going to Hell?
>i’m more afraid of becoming the kind of person who belongs there.
>do you think atheists can be moral?
>hat depends what you mean by “moral,” and whether they're standing on borrowed ethical capital.
>borrowed from what?
>from Judeo-Christian metaphysics. From millennia of cultural evolution.
>so they’re moral, but for the wrong reasons?
>they’re moral, but they don’t know why.
>so you’re better than them?
>no, but I may be more aware of the foundations.
>so why not just say you're a Christian?
>because I’m not willing to trivialize that claim.
Most misundrestood debate of all time.

I don’t even like Helium Peterson but Piers sounds downright retarded here

>>24552682 (OP)
So, Peterson, in this fictional drama you invented, gives sufficient answers to the questions posed yet he’s the bad guy for not giving dumb “yes” or “no” replies.

>>24552718
>>24552682 (OP)
This never happened. It's a pasta fan fiction shared by a retard any time peterson is mentioned.

>>24552682 (OP)
He's a grifter. He has to tie himself in knots because he can't lose his right wing atheist audience so downplays Christianity as all this, but he also can't deny it too outright or he loses the christkeks. Seeing these tapdances he has to do around it are kinda funny though.

>>24552682 (OP)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMMW2eqND3o

I don't know who either of these old fucks are and don't want to.
The second person in the conversation is right though.
The person asking the questions is trying to fish for a specific answer and the Bible doesn't really work that way.
Sunday School kids can tell you that the seven day creation myth is symbolic.

>>24552682 (OP)
My esteem for Peterson just jumped 10,000%. Is this real?

>>24552953
Who cares this is brilliant

>>24553020
It matters because Peterson never said this yet his retarded shills keep spamming it.

>>24553025
>Peterson never said this
You were just filtered, anon.

>Interviewer: Do you believe in God?
>Memerson: what do you mean "do"? what do you mean "you"? what do you mean "believe"? what do you mean "in"? what do you mean "God"?
>Interviewer: Do you support Israel?
>Memerson: Yes, sir!
>Retards: OMG HE'S SUCH A BRILLIANT GENIUS!!

>>24552682 (OP)
Jesus is the truth

>>24552682 (OP)
Based.

>>24553172
You might as well try converting to judaism atp

>>24552992
There are a lot of good criticisms of Peterson, but that he’s a self-interested grifter seems like a stretch, imho. He’s pretty much wrecked his mental and physical health, hasn’t he? Seems like a glutton for punishment, if anything.
Personally, I think he just argues himself into some pretty indefensible positions and holds a lot of confused and contradictory positions. I think he believes what he says.

>>24553402
Peterson will touch a nerve by simply pointing out something that is blatantly ignored in the way an ideological group frames an issue. He exposes ideological blind spots in a simple and straightforward way; this leads to the fellow travelers of whichever idea is being discussed having a breakdown and exposing themselves. He's valuable as a media personality if even for that reason alone.

>Peterson: it would be productive to involve men in the conversation about violence against women in a way that doesn't label masculinity as inherently negative
>Libtard: so you're saying in order to make men care about rape women have to be returned to the status of men's property
>Peterson: the rise of identitarianism is linked to reactionary politics that sublimate personal resentment into collectivistic extremism
>Chud: so you're saying white people don't have group interests and therefore shouldn't exist
>Peterson: transgender ideology specifically targets a group of people likely to be confused and open to mental pathologies via social contagion--we shouldn't give hormones to children let alone surgically mutilate minors
>Tranny: so you're literal nazi saying we're a disease and we should be exterminated like one
>Peterson: anonymity increases the likelihood of pathological behavior so perhaps one way to alleviate the negative repercussions of its overall influence would be to segregate accounts on these specific widely used social media websites--it's definitely better than secret and selective control of the public narrative as it exists now
>/pol/tard: so you're saying you want everyone everywhere to be tied to whatever they say and do at all times...I'm a freedom fighter [goes to another thread to post about AOC's asshole while writing "nig*er" 50 times]

why the fuck is this even on /lit/?
why won't these mods do their fucking jobs?

>>24553147
This is the funniest shit because he inly pretends to have a problem with definitions when he’s waffling and then the rest of the time he’s making bolds pronouncements about what’s “woke” or “marxist” or if climate change is real (based on his vibes I guess). Just a complete and utter snake speaking with a forked tongue as it suits him.

>>24553432
Because he’s an interesting and culturally significant character and a lot of people’s first exposure to philosophy that isn’t standard-issue Reddit positivism.
>>24553429
Yes, he has some extremely dumb critics. That doesn’t mean that he doesn’t profess dumb or tenuous beliefs himself.

>>24552682 (OP)
This seems pretty - dare i say it? - postmodern

>>24552682 (OP)
>>do you think atheists can be moral?
>>hat depends what you mean by “moral,” and whether they're standing on borrowed ethical capital.
>>borrowed from what?
>>from Judeo-Christian metaphysics. From millennia of cultural evolution.
>>so they’re moral, but for the wrong reasons?
>>they’re moral, but they don’t know why.
>>so you’re better than them?
>>no, but I may be more aware of the foundations.
Most sense he has ever spoken desu
He's still a wolf in sheep's clothing for not acknowledging Jesus existed historically

>>24552682 (OP)
Getting filtered by Peterson is always laughable. Go watch Peterson vs 20 atheists to see how reddit would do in an argument against Peterson

>>24553758
Peterson is like a step between a Christian and an atheist. He acknowledges that such a thing as God exists but he has no relationship with God. It’s as if his purpose is to convert atheists to agnostics so they can make the leap themselves. I think he just got so triggered by the retardation of atheists that he couldn’t be one anymore

>>24553655
Jordan Petersen was my boyfriend for many the years His Penis I need within my mouth, that croaking spew of liquid essence calculating within my horrid nethers- if only this bitch could be bred and used by “I can’t do it”- Solzhenitsyn’s number one scholar save one book, the book we wouldn’t mention

>>24552682 (OP)
I've yet to see a valid defense for the existence of a G/god that differentiates it from a metaphor for the unknown.

>>24552682 (OP)
>the Bible is a hyperlinked library of wisdom across centuries. It’s not a book you simply “believe in.”
True! The Bible authors didn't even believe in the same thing, the belief evolved through time, so The Bible IS a book about what wisdom did some people have through history. You can't believe both in the law and in Paul's letters.
>literalism is a modern distortion. Stories operate on multiple planes of reality.
True! You can read something literary, poetically, symbolically, etc. and The Bible has many differwet books with many different genres. For example, the prophecies are symbolical most of the time, at least those who are completed within the book. Then there are the history books like acts or kings who are supposed to be taken as literal. There are also the songs books. Taking everything literally is retarded.
Not reading the rest.

I agree with that for the most part. I think God is definitional unknowable but Peterson tries to put it into words. He’ll fail every time, but at least it’s closer to the truth than “lol yeah god exists, simple as.”
The question about it being real doesn’t help. God is a metaphysical ideal. But so is love. It’s like asking whether love exists. Materialists would say either “no” or point to it being a process of chemistry. Ironically, a process is metaphysical too so I don’t think I’ll ever understand the materialists. Practically speaking, ideas exist, “exist,” or exist metaphysically.

>>24553432
Seethe

>>24553429
Good stuff.

>>24553795
>Go watch Peterson vs 20 atheists to see how reddit would do in an argument against Peterson
Apparently very well.

>>24553795
> Jordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty
Peterson lost already.

Dropped Peterson when he said "every human society owned slaves". Objectively false, and used to excuse centuries of European exploitation because they "ended" slavery later (they didn't).