The whole jubilee video got re-themed because he was invited as a christian but his position was that un-christian. And that is not a 8yo interview snippet that already indicates that it isn’t a simple yes for him.
And yes religious belief is important for the topic, which is why I think it is wild to paint him as a christian. His position is not really Christian.
I’m not going to pretend I’m a mind reader. If someone says they’re a Christian, I’m not going to waste time telling them they aren’t.
We don’t know why he claims to be a Christian but refuses to spell out why. Perhaps he had an experience he can’t explain and knows it’s irrational.
Or maybe it’s cosmic fear of the abyss.
Or maybe it’s fear of God’s wrath.
Whatever the case, I agree, he’s not really a Christian. Nor is the overwhelming majority of Americans who identify as such.
Which is why I made the distinction: Christian Traditionalist.
The semantics of what those words mean independently is besides the point; it’s like arguing the Nazi’s (National Socialists) are not really Socialist.
Like, yeah, sure. They’re not socialists, but they are literal Nazi’s lol.
I misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.
An atheist materialist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods and also holds the view that only physical matter exists. (No metaphysical realms, spirits or karma)
This is Sam Harris to a point.
A Christian traditionalist is someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
I call Peterson a traditionalist because he’s self identifies as a traditionalist.
Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”]
I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.
I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.
as you correctly described,
Being a christian traditionalist doesn’t require the person to actually believe in a god.
Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a [“theist”]
I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.
Is therefore a wrong conclusion.
Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
After hearing him speak about his belief, I wouldn’t dare to make any claim about his religious beliefs beyond that he is very careful with saying absolutely nothing about it.
OK. Well I wouldn’t dare contradict how someone chooses to identify.
Are we done here? Because my original point had not a single thing to do with Jordan Peterson and I would really like for him to be irrelevant where possible.
Timothy Lott:
Jordan Peterson:
Interview from 2017
You:
When discussing ethics, morals, virtues, empathy and compassion, they are deeply entwined to religious ideology.
The whole jubilee video got re-themed because he was invited as a christian but his position was that un-christian. And that is not a 8yo interview snippet that already indicates that it isn’t a simple yes for him.
And yes religious belief is important for the topic, which is why I think it is wild to paint him as a christian. His position is not really Christian.
I’m not going to pretend I’m a mind reader. If someone says they’re a Christian, I’m not going to waste time telling them they aren’t.
We don’t know why he claims to be a Christian but refuses to spell out why. Perhaps he had an experience he can’t explain and knows it’s irrational.
Or maybe it’s cosmic fear of the abyss.
Or maybe it’s fear of God’s wrath.
Whatever the case, I agree, he’s not really a Christian. Nor is the overwhelming majority of Americans who identify as such.
Which is why I made the distinction: Christian Traditionalist.
The semantics of what those words mean independently is besides the point; it’s like arguing the Nazi’s (National Socialists) are not really Socialist.
Like, yeah, sure. They’re not socialists, but they are literal Nazi’s lol.
I misunderstood your position then because I didn’t understand it as “christian traditionalist” but “christian” “traditionalist”. I had that impression because you contrasted it to “atheist” “materialist”. Being a “atheist” is not in conflict with being a “christian traditionalist”, neither does being a “materialist”.
An atheist materialist is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods and also holds the view that only physical matter exists. (No metaphysical realms, spirits or karma)
This is Sam Harris to a point.
A Christian traditionalist is someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
I call Peterson a traditionalist because he’s self identifies as a traditionalist.
I think you’ll find that they’re polar opposites.
I don’t care for Harris. So sure, he might is. And I know what it means.
I agree with your definition of christian traditionalist.
as you correctly described,
Being a christian traditionalist doesn’t require the person to actually believe in a god.
Is therefore a wrong conclusion.
Being an “atheist” is not in conflict with being someone who emphasises the importance of historical beliefs, practice’s, and customs within Christianity, often adhering to teachings and rituals that predate modern changes in the faith.
Peterson does though, explicitly (with an annoying amount of nuance)
Peterson is a self ascribed Christian and Christian Traditionalist.
That position is opposite.
I’m really not interested in arguing semantics until we reach the point where I say “when I said Peterson was a Christian traditionalist I meant both”
This conversation is splitting hairs over what?
Is there a point to be made here beyond “Peterson isn’t what he claims to be”?
After hearing him speak about his belief, I wouldn’t dare to make any claim about his religious beliefs beyond that he is very careful with saying absolutely nothing about it.
OK. Well I wouldn’t dare contradict how someone chooses to identify.
Are we done here? Because my original point had not a single thing to do with Jordan Peterson and I would really like for him to be irrelevant where possible.