/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7649

Tell him to read the bible. Simply say you should read the bible through and through if you are interested. Eventually he will convert because I tried turning away from the bible on multiple occasions back when I was a non believer but eventually I just stuck to reading it and I eventually converted.

He needs to hear the moral argument for the existence of God. He's already thinking about the topic, and I'm pretty sure Peterson affirms objective morality.

>>7666

>I'm pretty sure Peterson affirms objective morality

I haven't seen everything he's put out there but I've seen a bit and I'm not so sure he does. On the existence of God, which would equally apply to the existence of objective morality (for they're one and the same) he says he 'acts as if it's real' and that pretending or believing or acting as if it's real is necessary to stay sane once you understand the logical conclusion of relatavism. I also saw a more recent vid where he gets emotional at the gravity of the 'claim to believe in God' which should as a result of such a claim, actually follow through with right action on the understanding of the consequences of wrong action, and that as a result of acknowledging God as he is in his nature (including as judge) everyone who affirms his existence should similarly essentially recognise the wieght of that affirmation, wjat it means and theoretically as a result act always in moral perfection. By virtue of JP recognising tjat he isnt morally perfect, he refuses to state he believes in God, on the understanding that moral perfection would follow from a commitment to such a belief. Theoretically I can see where he's coming from, but I guess it escapes him, in this assessment, if not in his wider understanding, that we're in need of the Gospel and the atonement because of the fall.

>>7674

This was a ramble and my point got lost in the ramble, but I meant to point out that I'm not sure he actually does really truly believe in either God or objective morality, only that he recognises the utility of doing so intellectually due to the logical conclusion of the alternative (relatavism).

OP push your friends buttons on the moral argument, this is what got me to look into everything, recognising that anything outside of God leads to insanity and meaninglessness if thought thru. If those conclusions don't scare him into an existential crisis, which I'm absolutely genuinely flabbergasted that it somehow doesn't for many people, then I wouldn't know what else would work. Some people either see it or don't.

>>7666

Why do people make much less post such shitty videos? I already believe in God and that retarded argument didn't convince me. Especially since it contradicts itself by claiming equality is objectively good, despite that being a century old communist idea. So did communists create God 100 years ago? Or was everyone before the 1900s objectively evil?

>>7714

The moral argument is a classic of Christian apologetics. This is just a gimmicky presentation for a facebook audience.

It is perfectly sound if you look past the inclusion of "equality" as a virtue, but you're right about it being commie.

>>7649

I would just put aside all your biases and learn from this pastor, whose managed to help convert many agnostics/atheists via Peterson:

https://www.youtube.com/user/paulvanderklay

The fact is that if you haven't dived deeply into JBP's material, you're more than likely just going to end up annoying anybody that has, based on having negative preconceptions of him alone. I myself officially became Christian this year after discovering JBP's Bible lectures and that pastor's channel last year, and have met others at my parish that took the same JBP route. So I can vouch that whatever worries you might have about him leading people astray are largely unfounded. The best you can do if you really don't like JP, is probably to just forward that pastor's videos to your friend and let the professional take care of it.

>>7738

Thanks, I will check him out. But why on earth would you call my opposition to JP's message a "bias"? That Christianity is a Jungian myth of spiritual (but not factual) truth? We as Christians affirm the historical facts of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, and JP is telling people otherwise. Are you saying I should be okay with my friend falling into that trap?

>>7735

The fact that equality is included can not be looked past. It is proof that the argument is wrong. The entire point is that there is objective morality. If the argument is made both with and without equality as an objective moral good, then it isn't objective, it is subjective, contradicting the entire point of the argument.

>>7760

>But why on earth would you call my opposition to JP's message a "bias"? That Christianity is a Jungian myth of spiritual (but not factual) truth?

You just highlighted your bias right there. That isn't his message at all. He uses Jung to make illustrative points, but it isn't his gospel, so focusong on that is a red herring. Nobody I've seen that's gone from Atheist to Christian via JBP dwells on Jung nearly as much as anti-JBP people do. Jung is a means to an end for JBP, not the end itself.

This is why it's hard to take anybody seriously that isn't familiar with JBP's work. His magnum opus is Maps of Meaning if anything, and that's not very Jungian at all. It isn't something that instantly takes people directly to Christianity, it's a gateway drug that enables people to even consider the possibility. The mainstream world is so secular these days, that it can't even handle something as direct as C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Thus JBP fills a niche as someone who can reintroduce modern people to the Christian path again by reaching down to their level and dragging them out of it, instead of naively hoping that people will willingly climb up out of their holes to find God.

>We as Christians affirm the historical facts of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God,

The key phrase here is as Christians. It might come as a surprise to you if you've never been an Atheist before, but Atheists/Agnostics usually aren't willing to even expose themselves to the evidence of these things, much less consider their authenticity, without having the entire endeavor justified to them from a secular materialist lens first. And that is precisely what Peterson is doing. He isn't baptizing people, he's opening the gates to their stone cold hearts so they can even have a chance to "come and see".

>and JP is telling people otherwise.

No he isn't. He's even received a lot of flack from the secular world for defending the possibility of resurrection. If he were to go full preacher and loudly affirm it 100% however, millions of atheists/agnostics would instantly stop paying attention to him, and it would prevent the Christian message from ever reaching those people. I know because I was one of those people. If he had come out with that kind of assertion the way you're doing now, I would have never become a Christian. Think about that.

>Are you saying I should be okay with my friend falling into that trap?

Stop putting words in people's mouths anon. I already said I was a confessing Christian in the previous post, and I showed you a pastor that affirms all those things, so you know very well this is bearing false witness.

>>7770

Asking a question is not bearing false witness

>>7770

Fair enough, but as you said, he is upholding a secular materialist view and I have to note its incompleteness. That said, I'm not planning to bring up JP again at all.