“What do you MEAN by Panasonic?”

@SpeakLifeMedia

28 күн бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@tristanloveday5240

28 күн бұрын

"What do you mean by MEAN?"

@MG77740

28 күн бұрын

God of high quality, solid state electronics.

@davidblack1353

26 күн бұрын

🤣

It really does feel like Aslan is on the move

@Karla-rf4nn

28 күн бұрын

W reference, and it perfectly describes what seems to be happening in the God conversation.

Please do a short of those first 5 seconds and your ‘woah!’ 😂😂 my reaction exactly!

Thankyou for your intellectual wrestling with these people, God is moving

@CMA418

27 күн бұрын

God has always been moving.

I was waiting for your take on this!

9:22 - Important observation. Worth thinking about and self-evaluating.

He’s there, or almost there. He’s like CS Lewis, too “smart” to come easily.

You know, it doesn't seem to me like either one of these men are anti theist in the way the annoying new atheists were - "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God", after all. It is a struggle to put yourself aside (or at least it was for me). It is an interesting time to be alive indeed!

You make important videos thanks

@johnwheeler3071

27 күн бұрын

I agree. Glen clarifies the meaning of others very well. One of the best commentators on Peterson for sure. He shows Peterson respect but not too much. Alex O'Connor is the same in that regard.

I found it sad that Peterson showed some contempt towards some of his Christian followers...almost revelling in annoying them by his deliberate obfuscation. Perculiar, given Peterson himself may have lead those persons to a deeper faith journey....and who in turn wish in good faith to seek Petersons own views..I doubt many such folk are trying to trap him, rather they may be like Alex simply exploring his worldview

@johnwheeler3071

27 күн бұрын

Exactly! And to emphasis one of your points, "trying to trap him" is a myth of Petersons own making.

The metaphysical and physical touched at Jesus's birth too. 😊

Certainly, the devil believes in the resurrection too. Knowing that it happened, and responding in faith and obedience are two different things.

Let's all get Peterson with the "Panasonic Theist Test" LOL 😆 Next question for Peterson? Matthew 14:25: Did Jesus walk on water? Answer: It depends on what you *_mean?_* Retort: But what if there was a Panasonic recorder on board. Would it show on the LCD screen, a physical man literally walking 🚶 on water? Ans: hmmm? I suspect it *_would_* , but I'm not sure what I'd make of it... LMAO 😄

Once people begin to realize how heavily influenced Jordan Peterson is by Carl Jung and how thoroughly he views everything, especially ideas and narrative, in terms of Darwinian evolution and is a utilitarian to the core - he will come across as a lot more predictable and make sense.

@mbmurphy777

28 күн бұрын

I think he is attempting to use utilitarian arguments to make a case for Judeo Christian duty-based ethics. I think this is because most atheists and agnostic seem to be utilitarians, and so if he’s attempting to speak to them, this format makes senses. This gets people to at least consider taking the JudeoChristian tradition seriously.

@vngelicath1580

28 күн бұрын

Here's the kicker, people need to realize that CS Lewis wasn't all that different than Peterson on this point, even down to the Jungian psychology and Darwinism. Lewis just took the existential plunge out of materialism and into theism at the edge of his exploration, Peterson is still flirting with staying at the edge of materialism; but they are absolutely of the same mind -- an approach no contemporary Christian is all that comfortable or used when you come down to it.

@cole141000

28 күн бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 except for Lewis Darwinism was a tool, for Peterson it’s the blood and very fabric of his philosophy And agreed, to me it’s like Peterson has a materialist epistemology, though he seems unaware of it while at heart, he’s closer to a classical theist than anything else.

@cole141000

28 күн бұрын

@@mbmurphy777 I think he is genuinely a utilitarian, as far back as his Harvard lectures you can see it.

@cole141000

28 күн бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 I slightly disagree, while Lewis used these things as tools - they are the blood and fabric of Petersons philosophy. And I think Peterson has something of a materialist epistemology while more than anything he’s a classical theist at heart. While Lewis might share some similarities with Peterson they are quite far apart in many ways

🙄Just answer the question JP. He's dodged more questions than Neo has dodged bullets. Glad to see more more people talking about our faith though

It's interesting that believing in the event of the resurrection, but also then not knowing what that means, seems to still be a barrier to faith. It's almost like he needs to be able to understand something in order to believe in it. But reality, including God, including the resurrection, is of course much more than he or anyone would be able to comprehensively understand. Faith isn't limited by understanding.

Great piece. (We're struggling to get access to the course however.)

@SpeakLifeMedia

28 күн бұрын

Oh is 321course.com not working? Ask for help at info@speaklife.org

Kudos. (:

Peterson knows exactly what he is doing. It was like watching a political debate. By Peterson standards no words mean anything and human communication is not possible. He believes only the actual utility as much a the hindu believe in the utility of the Vedas. Peterson should read the scriptures not try to psychoanalysis Christ. “He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’”

As always great work and I would say a bit of a cultural moment for sure

More of this! Also curious if Glen would interview Peterson, what types of questions would you ask?

Well, it depends what you mean by lobster...

@Reclaimer77

28 күн бұрын

"It depends what the definition of "is" is...."

To be precise, Jordan said that he thought it likely that Jesus did leave the tomb. That’s not the same thing as saying that Jesus died and was resurrected.

@vngelicath1580

28 күн бұрын

But even if he did affirm that as a historical fact, that means nothing because for the entire conversation, they were going round and round in circles about the definition of faith. For Alex o'connor, faith is just belief in fact, whereas Peterson isn't so sure that's what Christians mean by faith, and he's absolutely right and what the Christian apologists (and their atheist interlocutors) get so horribly wrong.

@magnobraga4619

28 күн бұрын

@@vngelicath1580 JP is full of BS.

@mbmurphy777

28 күн бұрын

@@magnobraga4619 hundreds of thousands of people would disagree with you

@dajusta87

27 күн бұрын

If my great grandfather walked the earth, I don’t think he’s resurrected, it’s just dead man walking, TOTALLY DIFFERENT RIGHT

@mbmurphy777

27 күн бұрын

One of the things that atheists say is that Jesus wasn’t dead when they put him in the tomb. I don’t think that Peterson is saying that here, but it’s important to be precise with your words.

He's worshipping in the hallway?

While trusting in the resurrected and ascended Jesus, I actually don’t think the hypothetical Panasonic would show him walking out of the front door of the tomb after the stone was rolled away. I think if left in the right position it would show the women, Peter and the other disciple arriving in awe and surprise, and would even show the supposed gardener speaking to Mary, perhaps the messengers as well, if it had the right viewing angle. After all, Jesus was about his Father’s business and the primary reason for the open tomb was for human witness.

Alex, son of Connor. One thing you and I and Alex have in common Glen, is that our names were in use long before Christianity came on the scene. You can spin it as a convention, the same as 2024 is a convention, and the Pagan days of the week and months of the year are a convention. Maybe Alex was baptised, but so what. The socio-political reality is that our names are part of our cultural Pagan heritage, his Greek, ours Scottish. We build on our ancestors of various cultures taking the good ideas and rejecting the bad ideas though some of the bad ones are hard to shift when they become conventions. Naming months of the year after totalitarian military dictators is not a good idea. My favourite Glen is Glenmorangie. Cheers

Why do you think that God would be unknowable except for the father is made known in the son? Why should that be the only possibility? Could you please explain this in more detail? Thank you.

The simple answer is: we can't go back in time. Alex asked an utterly pointless question and it was utterly pointless to answer it, given that the Panasonic camera drags you back into that physicalist, materialist ontology that you're desperately trying to avoid. We travel in time through Imagination, not through technological proofs. And what if that miraculous Panasaonic camera was filming at the empty tomb scene from the Gospel of Mark? It wouldn't have seen very much... and the time-travelling camera operator might feel they'd had a wasted journey...

I actually find Jordan to be evasive and not honestly answering the question. He tries to get into a semantic argument. He does not accept Jesus sacrifice. He is not a Christian.

Whoa😮 i thought JP had become a bit predictable after he has taken a lot more on. Clearly not i wasn't expecting that

I didn't realise Alex was anti-atheist from these clips 😂

@SpeakLifeMedia

27 күн бұрын

/was/! He’s on a journey!

From a comment early in this video I now understand what Glen wants to do in his channel when he says it is to "share Jesus". In this video he states quite clearly that he starts with the assertion that the Christian God exists. THerefore he's not sharing Jesus with folks who are not convinced of his existence in the Christian sense. He simply wants to share his thoughts about Jesus with those who already believe. Fine, but I'm looking for sound arguments for His existence and so I will look elsewhere ...

@SpeakLifeMedia

27 күн бұрын

Everyone sees the world through some lens. Here we do people the favour of declaring our biases rather than pretending to neutrality. No such thing.

@bobsnead1153

26 күн бұрын

@@SpeakLifeMedia Fair enough. I work to identify my biases, and was looking to your channel to provide sound reasoning I could use to counteract them. I'm thankful you are forthright about yours because doing so makes it clear that your channel will not be of help to me.

@0:46, Alex is a short form for Alexander. It is a Macedonian-Greek name. To be precise, it is Iskander, in Macedonian, meaning protector of mankind, and predates Christianity.

@mariemilycraig

28 күн бұрын

Glen is referencing something Alex himself said. 😊 Alex called it "his Christian name".

@pmaitrasm

28 күн бұрын

@@mariemilycraig, Thank you. 🙂 The etymologist in me could not resist the urge to correct the presenter. 🙂

@mariemilycraig

27 күн бұрын

​@@pmaitrasmI'm the same 😅

Yes, no or don't know from Peterson before an elaboration was all most people were really after. What he actually believes (whatever that means to him) maybe interesting and even valuable but it is only his oppinion. He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy!

Two athiests talking to each other. One of the athiests is patient, gracious and humble. The other athiest presents as bitter, troubled, defensive and evasive.

@infinitelyexhausted

28 күн бұрын

That's not fair - or true.

@mackblack5153

28 күн бұрын

​@@infinitelyexhaustedIt is actually.

@vngelicath1580

28 күн бұрын

One of them is preoccupied with questions of ontology, the other is thinking of God in existential terms, neither are exhaustive or exclusive

@theautodidacticlayman

28 күн бұрын

The ambiguity here makes it hard to figure out who you’re talking about. I’ve always seen Alex as patient and humble, but I wouldn’t say Jordan is bitter and troubled, although he is notoriously evasive on this particular topic…

@vngelicath1580

28 күн бұрын

Peterson is evasive, but he's evasive for a reason. We should not assume we know what we mean by these terms, especially when they've lost basically all meaning in public discourse. He is much more existentialist, and this is a breath of fresh air in a post-rationalist age.

Perhaps you are just describing from different points of viewing God. I suspect what Dr Peterson has in mind is God as the internal "still voice within" (Elijah), but God is also the external necessary reality that all other contingent things own their existence to (we are the add-on, not God, as you say). God has always been the internal "still voice within" for human beings (probably from the moment Adam and Eve came to the scene), and yet God (the creator) is also an external reality which existed long before any humans or other beings at all existed. Meaning God is both to be found internally (a still voice/conscience) and externally (necessary being/creator) who also became human through the incarnation ("and the word became flesh and made his dwelling among us").

@emmajeanhop

18 күн бұрын

Elijah heard an audible, external voice, not a still voice within. A 'still voice within' is not a biblical concept, although having a conscience very much is.

@workinprogress1921

17 күн бұрын

@@emmajeanhop Depends on translation, but the point remains the same; the "voice" that we "hear" not with our ears, but in our conscience. I saw the whole interview Jordan Peterson did with Alex O'Connor and I think Peterson talked about it there as well. In a similar way as he does here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/dGGBq9R9c8zWhLQ.html Others might refer to it as "the inner witness of the Holy Spirit".

@emmajeanhop

16 күн бұрын

@@workinprogress1921 it depends on the Hebrew and reading it in context. It doesn't depend on the translation.

@workinprogress1921

16 күн бұрын

@@emmajeanhop Which results in slightly different translations, so both is kind of correct.

It strikes me that the Lord Jesus taught that entering the kingdom if heaven was about becoming like a little child. The more childlike we become the greater we become in heaven's eyes. It seems to me that the approach by both men is far from childlike.

8:33 The very fact that Jordan is using words to describe who/what God is - “immaterial and outside of time and space…God’s hyper-real” - shows that he has knowledge of the very God he says we can’t know (and therefore we can’t say is real, or that we believe in) and is the reason why he “can’t answer that question” when asked. The bottom line is, Jordan is wrestling with falling on the stone and being broken, because he wants to see, live, and approach his life, and concepts and blah blah, in the way HE WANTS TO, because he falsely believes (by way of the enemy) that it gives him control over his life and therefore somewhat to boast in himself about (whilst feigning humility), instead of surrendering to Christ as Lord, and seeing and doing life from His perspective and way of truth and reality. 18:47 “I have no idea what that means…and neither do the people who saw it.” 👆🏽That’s a lie. The people who saw the resurrection KNEW EXACTLY what they were seeing (and so do we who God has given belief in Him and His Son) - as Christ told them they would in John 8:28-30 KJV,👇🏽: “Then said Jesus unto them, 👉🏽When ye have lifted up the Son of man, 👉🏽then shall ye know that I am he👈🏽, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed on him. And I think it no coincidence, that the very next verses are Jesus saying,👇🏽: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, 👉🏽If ye continue in my word, 👉🏽then are ye my disciples indeed; 👉🏽and ye shall know the truth, 👉🏽and the truth shall make you free.👈🏽” (John‬ ‭8‬:‭31‬-‭32‬ ‭KJV)‬‬ What Jordan said is also antithetical to what Christ said eternally life is, and therefore means that Christ wasn’t successful in His mission of saving us from our sins and giving us eternal life, since Jesus said that “…👉🏽this is life eternal, 👉🏽THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE the only true God, 👉🏽and Jesus Christ, 👉🏽whom thou hast sent.👈🏽” (John‬ ‭17‬:‭3‬ ‭KJV‬‬). May Jordan (and Alex) bow the knee and confess with his tongue that Jesus is Lord, doing John 8:31, to partake of John 8:32, in Jesus’ name! 🙏🏽

This is my first time watching your video and i dont mean to be disrespectful but its seams like you are constantly tweaking 🤣🤲🏾

You are aware that Alex is an atheist right? you made multiple comments as if he is a christian.

Why does everyone think that Jordan Peterson has any of these answers. is he an etymologist and and does he understand ancient Greek , Latin , and Aramaic. Does he even understand the social proprieties and laws of the time. I don’t think so. So why are you even giving any of this a moments thought . History must be understood through the tales that a story is viewed about the viewpoint and what society deemed incorrect or not correct at the time. What bugs me is this Everyone thinks this man is some kind of superhuman person that can answer all these questions. Think for yourselves. Look at the evidence get over this nonsense🇨🇦. .

@rodbfg8357

27 күн бұрын

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by your sentence 'History must be understood...'?

@deborahhebblethwaite1865

27 күн бұрын

@@rodbfg8357 History is always written from a particular perspective. Parts of it will be factual and other parts are written to describe and embellish the story. I believe in the Bible they refer to it as parables . To understand the parable one needs to understand the morality, the society, basically the way people thought at the time. Although Mr. Peterson is well-versed in his field of psychology, I do not believe he’s qualified to pontificate about scripture. This other gentleman certainly seems to want to pin down Mr. Peterson’s beliefs as to what might be factual but Mr. Peterson does not like to be cornered.

The Deist version of the concept of God can beat up the Christian version of the concept of God

@lourdeszurita9244

28 күн бұрын

That sounds very interesting. Can you elaborate?

@bitofwizdomb7266

28 күн бұрын

@@lourdeszurita9244 yes sure. In round one , Deist would throw multiple haymakers onto yaweh . Yaweh would counter with a swift kick to the Deist nuts and then Deist would rise from his knees and do a Superman punch right on yaweh’s nose. Game over in the 1st round . 🏆

I would suspect yes is not what a true Christian would say, The correcr answer is an emphatic yes!