Jordan Peterson's definition of "God"

@galveston75 said
My position or what the Old Testament says? Do you mean does the New Testament back up those statements?

Does a version of the Bible not edited by the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to the necessity of using the name Jehovah in the New Testament? You made one reference to Romans, but underneath it you admitted that that was the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the Bible. So I wonder if the Authorized King James Version, for example, specifies this in the New Testament.

The Old Testament specifies things like stoning adulterers to death, do that and there'll hardly be anyone left, so most Christians tend to focus on the New Testament.

@deepthought said
Does a version of the Bible not edited by the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to the necessity of using the name Jehovah in the New Testament? You made one reference to Romans, but underneath it you admitted that that was the Jehovah's Witnesses version of the Bible. So I wonder if the Authorized King James Version, for example, specifies this in the New Testament.

The Old ...[text shortened]... , do that and there'll hardly be anyone left, so most Christians tend to focus on the New Testament.

Former high-ranking Watch Tower staff have identified various members of the [NWT Bible] translation team. Former governing body member Raymond Franz listed Nathan H. Knorr, Fredrick W. Franz, Albert D. Schroeder, George D. Gangas, and Milton G. Henschel as members of the translation team, adding that only Frederick Franz had sufficient knowledge in biblical languages.

Referring to the identified members, evangelical minister Walter Ralston Martin said, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree." [wiki]

@fmf said
Referring to the identified members, evangelical minister Walter Ralston Martin said, "The New World Bible translation committee had no known translators with recognized degrees in Greek or Hebrew exegesis or translation... None of these men had any university education except Franz, who left school after two years, never completing even an undergraduate degree." [wiki]

This is unsurprising considering how anti-educationalist the Watchtower culture is.

@divegeester said
This is unsurprising considering how anti-educationalist the Watchtower culture is.

Recruiting a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing and ONE person who knows what the corporation wants is the bog standard way to create a bogus deliberative process to come up with a desired result.

@fmf said
Recruiting a bunch of people who don't know what they are doing and ONE person who knows what the corporation wants is the bog standard way to create a bogus deliberative process to come up with a desired result.

And why the unfortunate members have to try to defend a theology with presents:

- 2 saviours, one of which is an angel
- 2 Gods, “Almighty” and “Mighty”, the latter one of which is an angel. And a human being of course.
- God 2, the “Mighty God” who is also a human, cannot receive worship as he is the angel
- 2 Fathers “Eternal” and “Everlasting”, the latter Father is also the angel and the “Mighty God” and the human being.
- God 1, “Almighty God” demands child sacrifice rather than blood transfusions. It is not clear/unspecified wether God 2, “Mighty God” also requires this.
- God 2 did once say that he and Father 1 were ONE, however this is hotly disputed by JWs who maintain that Eternal Father 1 and Everlasting Father 2 are completely separate beings.

Confused...? You will be added the next episode of SOAP!

@fmf said
'Public intellectual' Jordan Peterson - whose field of expertise is psychology - does not believe in God but he admires the power of religion ~ indeed, he often talks about how religion is essential for a functioning society.

Jordan Peterson is an interesting study in and of himself. For a while I was fascinated with youtube videos of various debates and conversations of which he has partaken, since I find his own psychology to be fascinating. He is extraordinarily intelligent, as well as competently versed in human psychology and anthropology. The interesting observation is that he morphs into an insufferable blowhard who gives 20-minute circuitous non-answers rife with obfuscation to simple questions outside of those disciplines.

In short, he thinks theistic belief functions as a useful fiction in providing a collective logos and complex narrative technology that serves as the “metaphysical substrate of our ethos”. He thinks humans have a deeply infixed psychological dependence on shared narratives and archetypical personalities to serve as an integrated interpretive framework that mediates between facts and values. He’s deeply terrified of what would happen if such a framework were disturbed (and he conflates this framework with the term ‘God’ selectively as it suits him, whence comes his bloated definition of the term, which is sometimes in play, sometimes not). He imagines horrors that would follow if such a framework were somehow vaporized and humans were left having to weave their own blankets of meaning from just the bare factual threads of their existence. Likewise, he’s deeply risk-averse towards voiding a framework based on God-narratives, since he is uncertain what exactly would rush in to fill the void.

Jordan Peterson has nothing interesting to say regarding the factual question of God’s existence and the historical veracity of religious narratives, such as would typify theist/atheist debates for centuries. For someone who has a deep understanding of the symptoms of religious dogmatism (which he acknowledges as an unfortunate byproduct of the ethos), he also has remarkably little to say of interest on containment measures moving forward. On the other hand, he has interesting things to say on human psychology and the evolution of its dependence on religious narratives, as it relates to his bloated definition of ‘God’. For that I would consider his thoughts as worth a study. Furthermore, I think he has some fantastic ideas regarding exegesis.

Where I would consider him an interesting study in and of himself is in the context of a victim of the absurd (see my previous thread Thread 169581 for more context). In particular, regarding all the ensuing horrors from voiding the religious ethos, Peterson's fears are steeped in irrational hysterics. As discussed in the linked thread, victims of the absurd often fail dramatically at perspective-taking, and it causes them to hew to ridiculous programs of justification. Just like it is absurd to imagine arriving at atheism by simply vaporizing God from within a theistic perspective; it is likewise absurd to imagine arriving at a collective ethos by simply vaporizing the preceding generation’s ethos. That’s not how it works. It is a slow complex process of erosion and supplanting from many sources. Where it has been taking place, we seem to be doing okay. I think he should study the actual empirical data: lower levels of religiosity correlate with stronger measures of societal health, across the board.

Chaney3; this is how you do it.


Edit: jizz off on the internet I mean...