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.
I contrasted them because someone else brought Peterson into the conversation and said they’re comparable, as far as to say Harris could potentially ‘go fascist’.
My point was so say they couldn’t be more different in terms of ideology.
I’m guessing Peterson is pro-Trump? (I dont know I dont give a shit about Peterson lol)
Meanwhile, Sam spends half his podcasts shrugging off claims of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, while making it abundantly clear that Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the world.
Sam could never be a fascist, and I think the assertion that he ‘could be’ is laughable.
Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Sam (though I don’t agree on everything he says)
You might be right but I think your chosen contrast is bad.
I could easily be a christian traditionalist, materialist and atheist. (I am not! But I could)
Whatever reason there is to oppose the claim that Harris is like peterson, whatever reason there is why Harris could never be a fascist, you aren’t highlighting it with that contrast.
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.
You contrasted Harris to peterson based on their religious beliefs. I find that questionable. I don’t know what you are doing.
I contrasted them because someone else brought Peterson into the conversation and said they’re comparable, as far as to say Harris could potentially ‘go fascist’.
My point was so say they couldn’t be more different in terms of ideology.
I’m guessing Peterson is pro-Trump? (I dont know I dont give a shit about Peterson lol)
Meanwhile, Sam spends half his podcasts shrugging off claims of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, while making it abundantly clear that Trump is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the world.
Sam could never be a fascist, and I think the assertion that he ‘could be’ is laughable.
Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Sam (though I don’t agree on everything he says)
You might be right but I think your chosen contrast is bad.
I could easily be a christian traditionalist, materialist and atheist. (I am not! But I could)
Whatever reason there is to oppose the claim that Harris is like peterson, whatever reason there is why Harris could never be a fascist, you aren’t highlighting it with that contrast.