Jordan Peterson

[Carl Emerson]

And I'll say, this thread judges him in the worst possible way, the very way Jesus warns against.

What's being judged here is whether Peterson is or will ever be a Christian...and whether he will be a "real" Christian even if he professes.

Who is doing that... quote please.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, but it’s a thread that’s judging him. There’s only one judge and you should know that.

I don't make definitive statements about a persons salvation - you should know that.

I do however highlight the source of philosophical argument that drives their dialogue and may stumble others.

Jung was not a known for honouring Christ - his angle was to reduce human aspirations for truth as nothing more than that.

This thinking stumbles many.

If my journey out of such philosophical lies is anything to go by - Jordan will need to renounce the spiritual entities behind these lies that keep folk from responding to the Gospel.

Jesus said He is the Way the Truth and the Life and that the Gospel stumbles the clever.

We either worship Jesus or worship our own thoughts and their source.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Its hard to say. As far as Christian belief in Christ he has said he thinks that actions express a persons belief and not just words. I think thats his conflict that he finds it hard to accept that faith alone is enough. But I think he expresses faith in his life as in upholding Christs truth which he interprets as the key to becoming more Christ like.

Yes the essential ingredients that characterise a true belieber are confession, repentance and worship followed by witness and testimony.

It is not just about how we live.

Focusing on action keeps the true honour of Jesus at arms length.

You cant become more Christ-like without Christ within.

However Jordan is on a journey and we will all have to watch this space.

Meantime I thought it timely to alert folks to the subtle deceit associated with his mentor Jung.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Ultimately Peterson traces this all back to the Bible and Christ as the ultimate archetype to live by. That is why much of his lectures are on the Bible seen through Psychology which is really trying to describe the mind set of how the teachings of Christ are the best way to achieve some stablity in the chaos of life.

The problem with this is that it encourages folks to 'christianise' their lives without bowing to the King.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Only God knows what’s in his heart

Luke 6:45
The good person out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil person out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.

This insight would indicate that our speech and actions do indeed reflect what is going on in our heart.

 

[Danny&Annie&theChristmas]

And I'll say, this thread judges him in the worst possible way, the very way Jesus warns against.

What's being judged here is whether Peterson is or will ever be a Christian...and whether he will be a "real" Christian even if he professes.

This thread reminds me of the council Job received. People love to place themselves between others and God. I am so very thankful Christ is my High Priest and I have no need for any human intermediary. If I could advise Mr Jordan, it would be to avoid any audience to a private screening of his faith here. His journey is HIS and no one else's.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This thread reminds me of the council Job received. People love to place themselves between others and God. I am so very thankful Christ is my High Priest and I have no need for any human intermediary. If I could advise Mr Jordan, it would be to avoid any audience to a private screening of his faith here. His journey is HIS and no one else's.

Really...

I wish others had taken that patience to work through matters with me, it may have saved years of unnecessary suffering.

Some did and I am ever grateful for them....

 

[linux.poet]

As far as I'm aware, Jordan Peterson is a high humanities intellectual with a constant reading appetite. The more one ventures into the realms of the humanities, most namely the realms of literature, philosophy, history and politics, and psychology, you'll start to notice them all weaving together in an interconnected mass. Studying a literary idea will lead you to a psychological idea, and if you dive into the depths of that psychological principle you'll get some historical examples which then go back to philosophical principles that political leader adopted. If you run that treadmill for long enough, you'll start to notice two psychological "threads" start to emerge. The first, a dark, sinful and destructive thread that leads from Rousseau and Freud and Marx through many negative and destructive movements and events as the sin nature has expanded its influence, and then the impact of Christian thinkers with the same intellectual gifts, such as C.S. Lewis (most notable), Tolkien, Spurgeon, the author of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", John Calvin, etc.

The problem with the arena of ideas is that unbelievers can have good, Christian-conforming ideas, and Christians can have bad ideas that still emerge from our sin natures that cause problems nonetheless. But the 5 disciplines of the humanities exist in Christ's shadow, as we groan with the Creation as we wait for Christ's return. It's basically "how do we deal with the ideas that the Holy Spirit and the Bible are giving us and use them to solve our problems? How do we psychologically survive our wait for Christ's return? What are the best methods to spread the Gospel and how can we get human beings to accept it? (on the Christian end of things) How do we exploit Christian ideas and twist them to the sin nature's advantage? What is the best psychological state to be in to earn God's favor? What is the best psychological state to be in to overcome God?" (on the sin nature end of things)

To live in the post-cross age is to live in an era of constant psychological assault. The 5 disciplines of the humanities are basically the 5 disciplines of copium. They shift the sands of this psychological assault to examine it, the psychological assault from without that unbelievers experience from Christian ideas, and the psychological assault from within that Christians as they struggle to obey Christ's commands.

Such an entrance to the arena of ideas is not what I wanted when I signed up to get an English degree - I simply wanted the expertise for production writing, not being forced to examine my own areas of psychological assault in order to make slow and grinding progress. Holding money hostage behind psychological development is an act of utmost cruelty for children of abuse. But I have diverted.

Based on this discovery, I believe that Jordan Peterson has formed his identity and expertise around his knowledge of the 5 disciplines of the humanities. He seems to be very gifted in those areas if his writings and YouTube videos are any indication. His intellectual ideas help his followers and adherents cope with their suffering. But the more that Jordan Peterson continues his examinations, the closer he moves toward the Cross, for the easiest passage through life is submitting to this world's rightful authority (Jesus Christ) and thus embracing suffering on His behalf.

Thus, Jordan Peterson is in agony. His identity is about reducing the pain and suffering of others, and to do so he must accept the teachings and ideas of God. Human beings were designed to live in communion with God and to believe and live the truth of God's Word. On the other hand, at the Cross his entire purpose is obliterated. He wants to help people live their best lives, but in Christ we are called to give that up and sacrifice our comfort and achievements on behalf of God's purposes. He is a master of an interconnected web of ideas, and yet Christ calls him to accept simple truths. And yet he cannot escape it, because the arena of ideas always leads back to the cross. Christ's salvation moved the battle lines from God battling everyone to between our ears, and so we groan with the weight.

The solution is to stop studying the humanities and start living our lives and praying, letting God in on what He is putting us through, submitting to the cross and its simple answers. But Peterson is handcuffed by the chains of fame and reputation, and perhaps even his own intellectual ingenuity. Joy is not truly found through study and examination, but by submission and simplicity, and subjecting your emotional stability to the power of your finite mind can only lead to misery. Your mind will not be enough to satisfy your emotional needs, only good relationships with God and others can do that.

If this man can somehow overcome these obstacles, I believe the Lord may use his intellectual abilities for profitable theological examinations.

11 The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings that are given by one shepherd. 12 Of anything beyond these, my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

13 The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments, for that is the whole duty of everyone.

He "was not following us," and was therefore not a follower of Christ. This is precisely Peterson, who has done "mighty works" in Christ's name. Even the sheer number of young people who have turned from nihilism and suicide on account of Peterson is sufficient.

Has Peterson ever claimed the name of Christ? To my knowledge, he has not. He is a brutal humanist that speaks on his own authority.

I think comparing Peterson's work with C.S. Lewis's work (who did claim the name of Christ, multiple times) and Terry Eagleton's body of work could be a productive exercise. Most specifically, I'm thinking of Reason, Faith, and Revolution for Eagleton and Mere Christianity for Lewis. Lewis was the "most unhappy convert in all of England" when he came to accept the Gospel, but he turned his intellectual prowess to examining Christianity and theology, and using the Bible's cache of answers to provide insight into the problems of his day.

Conversely, Eagleton is a Catholic Marxist who doesn't claim the name of Christ to back his writings. Catholicism is easier to accept for high intellectuals because it promises works-based salvation, or gives credence to works, which is easier for them to swallow. This allows the high intellectual to believe that their teachings benefit others and thus they contribute toward their salvation. It's understandable why this belief system has an appeal for Peterson and his family. In addition, modern intellectualism will frequently deny the Reformation and equate Christianity with Catholicism in order to blame Christians for the Crusades.

Invite him on here, to CF? That is the last place I'd invite someone who isn't sure of their faith. There's far too much here that would give people plenty of good reason to walk away.

This is a problem that needs to be fixed. If this site doesn't provide information that allows people to settle issues of faith and come to believe the Gospel, we have basically failed in our mission and should close down this site right away.

What here, in your view, would cause people to walk away from the Gospel? I've dedicated years of college study and years of my life posting in order to solve online forum problems. I'd appreciate it if you'd allow me to know what's going on so I can give it a shot.

That’s true, although @Paidiske is right in that CF.com is a bit of a place of mixed messages, and there are even atheists on the forums who subtly critique Christianity. I love ChristianForums but its not ideal for someone who is in the position of needing to see authentic Christianity in all of its beauty, in order to free themselves from the religious embrace of Jungian philosophy.

I'm not sure why the Jungian doctrine of the shadow is opposed to Christian teachings. In fact it's a useful tool: we must accept harsh truths about ourselves, bring the sin nature out into the light so it can be exterminated. We must accept the sin nature inside of ourselves instead of suppressing it. There's also the pattern of the hero's journey, which can be shortcut by just believing the truth.

Earlier someone mentioned the idea of believing something because it's useful, not because it's true. The Gospel is not useful for anyone. It is counterproductive to usefulness, and that is also true for Peterson. It is not useful for him to confess faith in Christ.

Actually you raise a valid point. I would be satisfied if he confessed the Nicene Creed (since merely affirming the Resurrection does not exclude certain heresies such as Arianism; in that a Mormon and a Jehovah’s Witness could both say the Resurrection happened, yet they are not Christians. For full Christianity, one really needs to agree with the Nicene Creed - it is after all the Symbol of the Faith and is also part of this website’s Statement of Faith

I agree that would be satisfying to remove all doubt, because intellectuals like Peterson mealy-talk a lot to throw ideas around and try on beliefs for size as thought experiments.

He claims he is a Christian and then he gets all emotional when people press him on if he believes in God (which is not even as big of a claim as believing in the resurrection of Christ). One time when he was on the Joe Rogan podcast he said he was agnostic about the resurrection and that's about as close as I have seen him get to saying he believes in the resurrection of Christ. Agnosticism does not save anyone. In fact, it's possible to believe in the resurrection and not be saved. Satan believes that, but he is described as the evil one.

Intellectuals don't like to be pressed about their personal beliefs. They just want to throw ideas and information for intellectual exercises to improve their mental performance. Beliefs seem to be a hinderance to them because they lock them into prejudices about the thought experiments they are presenting. I've pressed a lot of professors about what their personal beliefs are and angered about as many.

In doing so, they have missed the point of information: it's not just to spin your mental wheels for the sake of spinning them or for your own amusement, it's to decide on the correct nature of beliefs based on the nature of reality, then to decide how to feel based on those beliefs, and then allow those feelings to inspire action. Thus intellectual training can be a hinderance to proper personal growth.

Peterson's popularity is ironically because he bucked that trend and actually developed a lot of his beliefs, which he then turned into emotions and actions. The agony is that he hasn't developed his spiritual beliefs, and his failure to develop those has led to his intellectual power in other areas, so now he has a walking contradiction going on, and the human mind isn't designed to handle contradictions, and so on. Also, a podcast is an intellectual environment and so he would expect to be treated like an intellectual.

Only God knows what’s in his heart

This is true. It is possible that Peterson believes the Gospel, but that he is afraid to confess it because it could alienate his followers. He probably doesn't want to emotionally hurt them in any way. However, Peterson's dedication to honesty and his willingness to buck public opinion for the sake of it before suggests that he is still struggling and being very honest about it.

Anyway, I don't know why this got so long, but I'm sorry that it did. Wasn't what I intended lol.

 

[The Liturgist]

. It is not useful for him to confess faith in Christ.

It’s always useful for us to confess faith in Christ, for our Lord promised to confess before the Father those of us who confess Him before men. Indeed on this promise we can be assured that all Christian martyrs are numbered among the saints of the church triumphant; martyrdom is an instant pathway to spiritual success.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It’s always useful for us to confess faith in Christ, for our Lord promised to confess before the Father those of us who confess Him before men. Indeed on this promise we can be assured that all Christian martyrs are numbered among the saints of the church triumphant; martyrdom is an instant pathway to spiritual success.

Hey... aren't all true believers martyrs in that they die daily ?

I remember sharing the gospel with an unbeliever who suddenly said 'does what you are saying mean I have to die'?

To which I responded yep you got it !!!

 

[linux.poet]

martyrdom is an instant pathway to spiritual success.

As far as I am aware, that is a teaching of Islam and not Christianity. The goal of the Christian is to remain alive until Christ's return so that he or she may proclaim the Gospel further. By all means escape the tyrannical governments, hide and proclaim the Gospel underground, live to fight another day.

However, it is better to die than to renounce the name of Christ, because that confuses the unbelievers and is unproductive. The willingness to die for the faith is a witness to the truth.

It’s always useful for us to confess faith in Christ, for our Lord promised to confess before the Father those of us who confess Him before men.

I'm pretty sure the Jungian philosophers were more interested in worldly achievements and worldly usefulness, which includes the freedom from emotional and physical pain, over any spiritual gains.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm not sure why the Jungian doctrine of the shadow is opposed to Christian teachings. In fact it's a useful tool: we must accept harsh truths about ourselves, bring the sin nature out into the light so it can be exterminated. We must accept the sin nature inside of ourselves instead of suppressing it. There's also the pattern of the hero's journey, which can be shortcut by just believing the truth.

Jungian doctrines are based upon the Gnostic heresy, which stands in opposition to twenty centuries of Holy Orthodoxy. Indeed Gnosticism was the first heresy, dating back to Simon Magus with another early proponent being Nicolas the Deacon (who unlike his colleagues St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr and St. Philip the Deacon, decided to embrace evil and became founder of the Nicolaitan Gnostic sect which is unique among heresies in that it was so pernicious that Christ our True God declared hate for it in canonical scripture). And we have fairly substantial details about these two heresies preserved thanks to St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

Specifically I would criticize the doctrine of the shadow for its similarities to the occult practice of tulpamancy, and the “Hero’s Journey” archetype as being a trite literary theory which, if used as the basis for religious thought, becomes a dangerous fantasia which encourages pride, the most dangerous of the passions, and spiritual delusion.

There is a lack of emphasis on the importance of humility, repentance and prayer without ceasing, and also the life-giving sacraments, within Jungian thought; thus they are incompatible with Orthodox Christianity - at the same time, his thought also stresses, like all forms of Gnosticism, a kind of intellectual Pelagianism and so contradicts the Protestant soteriological model of Sola Fide.

 

[The Liturgist]

Hey... aren't all true believers martyrs in that they die daily ?

I remember sharing the gospel with an unbeliever who suddenly said 'does what you are saying mean I have to die'?

To which I responded yep you got it !!!

Basically, yes.

Now, to be clear, the crown of what Orthodox writers call the “red martyrdom” is won only if you are intentionally and deliberately put to death specifically for expressing without violence a faith in Christ. This is why soldiers for Christian nations who die on the battlefield, while extremely honorable, are not considered martyrs, for in this respect we differ from Islam (likewise if someone committed a suicide bombing they would never be accepted as a martyr in the Orthodox Church or any other reputable Christian denomination). Rather, to be a martyr in this sense, you must confess Christ without committing a violent act (although you might be falsely accused of violence) and be executed for it by members of a heresy or a non-Christian religion such as Arianism, Islam, Communism (which is an atheist religion), Roman Paganism, and so on.

However, there is also the “white martyrdom” of monks and nuns and other ascetics and holy celibates and virgins, who die to the world, and the “green martyrdom” of married Christians such as yourself, who put their passions to death for the sake of Holy Matrimony and procreation and of their children, living in the world but not of the world in order to raise children, which ensures the continuation of the faith.

In Orthodoxy, the color red symbolizes the Apostles and the martyrs (who were put to death, and all Apostles except St. John the Beloved Disciple were martyred), and is also commonly used during the Nativity Fast (Advent) and the Apostle’s Fast (before the Feast of St. Peter and Paul in July). The color white is used on feasts of our Lord and symbolizes purity. The color green symbolizes new life, and the Holy Trinity, and is used on Palm Sunday, Pentecost and All Saints Day, and sometimes on those Sundays in the summer following All Saints Day. All Saints Day is of particular relevance because the majority of quietly married Christians who become saints are not known by name to the church but their feast day is nonetheless celebrated on All Saints Day, which is the Sunday following Pentecost in the Byzantine calendar, and which is a particularly happy occasion. It is also the name day for anyone who does not take the name of an existing Orthodox saint, while in Greece there is a rather lovely tradition that any women who are named after flowers have their name day on Pentecost.

So, for those who are not blessed with an opportunity to obtain the red martyrdom and to be put to death for Christ, they can still obtain the white martyrdom of monasticism or holy celibacy by putting to death the world, or the green martyrdom of Holy Matrimony by putting to death their passions for the sake of their spouse and children, and these are extremely honorable courses of action. They may not be as high-profile as having your head cut off by an ISIS terrorist, or being shot by a Bolshevik Chekist, or in the case of St. Thomas the Apostle being pierced by a javelin thrown by an enraged maharaja, but very few people have the vocation to actually be executed for Christ. For the majority of Christians, for now, God needs us to live out our lives either in Holy Celibacy or Holy Matrimony.

 

[The Liturgist]

As far as I am aware, that is a teaching of Islam and not Christianity. The goal of the Christian is to remain alive until Christ's return so that he or she may proclaim the Gospel further. By all means escape the tyrannical governments, hide and proclaim the Gospel underground, live to fight another day.

With all due respect you haven’t studied the early Church sufficiently. Also Christianity has a different definition of martyrdom than Islam, a very different definition (see my post to Carl Emerson on the subject of martyrdom).

Indeed so many Christians were martyred during the Roman Empire that it became a requirement of the early church that the Eucharist could only be celebrated on their graves, which is why the altars of the churches in Rome, Constantinople and elsewhere in the ancient world are built atop the burial places of the martyrs, and this is also why to this day the altars of Catholic and Orthodox churches contain relics of the saints (not all of whom are martyrs, but all martyrs are saints).

Indeed the Roman Catholic synaxarion, or book enumerating the saints they venerate, is called the Martyrology. In the Eastern churches it is called the synaxarion, which is useful because not everyone who is venerated is a martyr, at least not in the sense of the red martyrdom.

I strongly reccommend you read the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, which were written to various churches while he was being transported from Antioch, where he was the bishop, to Rome, to be fed to lions in the Coliseum. In particular, his letter to the Church of Rome, in which he begged them not to try and interfere with or prevent him from being martyred. “Birth pangs are upon me … suffer me to become human.”

 

[linux.poet]

Jungian doctrines are based upon the Gnostic heresy, which stands in opposition to twenty centuries of Holy Orthodoxy.

As much as I respect you and the knowledge and expertise you bring to this forum, I unfortunately come from a evangelical/Protestant/Baptist background. Therefore, I don't speak Christian Orthodox and I only speak English. This is my own intellectual deficiency, which I hope you will forgive me for in time.

My current understanding of Gnosticism is that it is the belief that Jesus Christ was not fully man, which is against the Nicene creed and all Protestant doctrine. Gnosticism also includes the idea that God created "gods" out of his own essence, and variations suggest that human beings can become God through belief and following Christ. The latter is obviously a Satanic doctrine.

Another way of putting it could be that since Rousseau, Freud, and Jung (who was a student of Freud) believed that humans were "basically good" and could beat God through psychological development, it parallels the Gnostic beliefs of self-improvement leading to god status. Maybe?

like all forms of Gnosticism, a kind of intellectual Pelagianism and so contradicts the Protestant soteriological model of Sola Fide.

Pelagianism is the belief that human beings do not have a sin nature, which is a parallel to Rousseau, Freud, and Jung. Sola Fide, "faith alone", which is the belief that only faith in Christ's sacrifice can save humanity. This makes sense.

Guilt by association.

Specifically I would criticize the doctrine of the shadow for its similarities to the occult practice of tulpamancy

Tulpamancy is from Buddhist thought. I think that is a stretch to relate that either to Gnosticism or Jung. You would need a series of historical proofs to establish that connection.

I also do not think Jung would call the shadow a friend. All of my readings around that theory suggest the term "shadow" is just a term Jung uses to refer to a dark, sinful, violent, or neurotic part of the mind that is suppressed and appears in various unwanted ways.

the “Hero’s Journey” archetype as being a trite literary theory which, if used as the basis for religious thought, becomes a dangerous fantasia which encourages pride, the most dangerous of the passions, and spiritual delusion.

I've never seen it used as the basis for religious thought in any modern context, rather as a practical tool to consider for fictional story construction. It's probably a breakdown of what stories appeal to the sin nature of mankind. The unfortunate necessity of making such appeals to the sin nature of mankind in order to make novel sales sufficient to sustain my expenses led me to abandon the practice of novel writing altogether.

Thank you for clarifying. My knowledge of this is probably still atrociously incomplete from your perspective, but at least I have some research paths to explore this in more detail.

With all due respect you haven’t studied the early Church sufficiently.

I haven't studied it at all. My faith group does not view studying the listings of church fathers as a priority.

I appreciate the information you have given about what you believe, and I may look into it in time.

 

[The Liturgist]

As much as I respect you and the knowledge and expertise you bring to this forum, I unfortunately come from a evangelical/Protestant/Baptist background. Therefore, I don't speak Christian Orthodox and I only speak English. This is my own intellectual deficiency, which I hope you will forgive me for in time.

My current understanding of Gnosticism is that it is the belief that Jesus Christ was not fully man, which is against the Nicene creed and all Protestant doctrine. Gnosticism also includes the idea that God created "gods" out of his own essence, and variations suggest that human beings can become God through belief and following Christ. The latter is obviously a Satanic doctrine.

Another way of putting it could be that since Rousseau, Freud, and Jung (who was a student of Freud) believed that humans were "basically good" and could beat God through psychological development, it parallels the Gnostic beliefs of self-improvement leading to god status. Maybe?


Pelagianism is the belief that human beings do not have a sin nature, which is a parallel to Rousseau, Freud, and Jung. Sola Fide, "faith alone", which is the belief that only faith in Christ's sacrifice can save humanity. This makes sense.

Guilt by association.


Tulpamancy is from Buddhist thought. I think that is a stretch to relate that either to Gnosticism or Jung. You would need a series of historical proofs to establish that connection.

I also do not think Jung would call the shadow a friend. All of my readings around that theory suggest the term "shadow" is just a term Jung uses to refer to a dark, sinful, violent, or neurotic part of the mind that is suppressed and appears in various unwanted ways.

I've never seen it used as the basis for religious thought in any modern context, rather as a practical tool to consider for fictional story construction. It's probably a breakdown of what stories appeal to the sin nature of mankind. The unfortunate necessity of making such appeals to the sin nature of mankind in order to make novel sales sufficient to sustain my expenses led me to abandon the practice of novel writing altogether.

Thank you for clarifying. My knowledge of this is probably still atrociously incomplete from your perspective, but at least I have some research paths to explore this in more detail.


I haven't studied it at all. My faith group does not view studying the listings of church fathers as a priority.

I appreciate the information you have given about what you believe, and I may look into it in time.

Forgive me, I was under the impression that Christian Orthodoxy was an ancient form of the Christian faith and not a language…I myself primarily speak English, although like most people with an MDiv I know enough Greek theological terminology to get around, and I also know some Syriac, and some Latin, but unfortunately I don’t know the Ge’ez language of the ancient Ethiopian church, which is a pity, because the libraries of the Ethiopian monasteries represent the most exciting venue for Patristics, Liturgiology and Biblical scholarship. So much material, of such high quality, and only a tiny fraction translated into English… Coptic would also be good to know; I have tried to pick it up, but it is hard. Ge’ez in theory should be easier, since like Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic it is a Semitic language that uses triconsonantal stems which are mostly the same as in other Semitic languages. For example, SLM for “peace”, QDS for “Holy” and so on (compare Selam with Shalom, Shlomo and Salaam in Hebrew, West Syriac Aramaic and Arabic respectively).

The problem with not studying early church history is without it, you don’t get the opportunity to learn what the early church thought about different subjects, or for that matter learn about the great heresies in any detail, since most information we have on them comes from Patristic sources like Saints Irenaeus, Epiphanius, John of Damascus, and of course St. Athanasius the Pillar of Orthodoxy and St. Cyril of Alexandria, just to name a few champions of Orthodoxy. And by Orthodoxy in this case, I am not just talking about Eastern Orthodoxy, but also

Firstly, Gnosticism is not just the denial that Jesus Christ was human. Actually, denying his humanity is associated with Docetism, a related heresy, one you could say was comorbid with Gnosticism, but while most Gnostics were Docetic, not all Docetae were Gnostic. The core of Gnosticism is salvation through knowledge, usually esoteric and secret knowledge, but Gnosticism also contains Docetic and Emanationist elements, usually, and also, like Marcionism, usually claims that the Father of our Lord is not the same as the deity worshipped in the Old Testament. So there are multiple blasphemies going on.

Pelagianism is at its core the belief that we can save ourselves. So while it is refuted by the doctrine of original sin, Pelagianism was not about original sin, but rather about the idea of attaining salvation through one’s own merit rather than through synergy with God (the Orthodox, Catholic and Arminian view) or as a result of unilateral action on the part of God (Monergism, a viewpoint revived by Calvinism).

Buddhism is actually extremely similar to Gnosticism on a conceptual level, which is why I am likening the idea of the shadow to Tulpamancy, which is really an occult practice vaguely based on some aspects of Buddhism, but which really represents an open invitation for demonic posession. There is also a direct conceptual link between the idea of a tulpa and a familiar spirit.

 

[linux.poet]

Forgive me, I was under the impression that Christian Orthodoxy was an ancient form of the Christian faith and not a language…I myself primarily speak English, although like most people with an MDiv I know enough Greek theological terminology to get around,

That was a bit of a joke. Right now these messages contain a bunch of theological terms and names that I don't understand, and perhaps the average internet user, even someone who has grown up in the church in America, may not be able to follow. Unfortunately, when one is using advanced terms from church history like this among those who haven't studied it, they need to be defined. I honestly had no clue what Tulpamancy and Pelagianism were until I googled them (and then I came up with the wrong definition, which you then had to correct me on). It's like looking at a foreign language.

The average believer in Christ in America is just given an English translation of the Bible, told to come to church every Sunday and Bible Study and small group, and read through said English translation and given the impression that's good enough and you'll be going to heaven, so don't worry about the rest. I was fortunate enough to be given Biblical memorization training. College degrees in theology are for the few who realize that they need them, and that's where the "church father studying" information that you rattle off is located, if it is located in any easy location in the reality that I live.

Thus, many of us do not have theology degrees, and at the moment that unfortunately includes myself, although I fully intend to start a masters' program soon and get a "MDiv" of my own, if you will. I accept full responsibility for all of my intellectual deficiencies. My intention was to make an inquiry. I was under the impression that we were discussing Jordan Peterson and Jungian philosophy, which seemed to be under my undergraduate purview as an English major.

I do not wish to further impose upon you, but you may find it to your benefit to compile a set of links as to where these books by the church fathers that you are recommending are located. Since these are ancient works, I imagine that they may be in the public domain and thus freely accessible. Linking to what you want people to read may encourage people to actually read it and reduce the odds of further misunderstandings by the incompetent, if you would stoop so low as to help a dead dog such as I.

In time I will perform such legwork myself anyway, but at the moment you may be better equipped to do so and I do not know the extent of the research I will need to undertake so we may discuss this subject without further inconveniencing you with incompetence.

 

[The Liturgist]

That was a bit of a joke. Right now these messages contain a bunch of theological terms and names that I don't understand, and perhaps the average internet user, even someone who has grown up in the church in America, may not be able to follow. Unfortunately, when one is using advanced terms from church history like this among those who haven't studied it, they need to be defined. I honestly had no clue what Tulpamancy and Pelagianism were until I googled them (and then I came up with the wrong definition, which you then had to correct me on). It's like looking at a foreign language.

The average believer in Christ in America is just given an English translation of the Bible, told to come to church every Sunday and Bible Study and small group, and read through said English translation and given the impression that's good enough and you'll be going to heaven, so don't worry about the rest. I was fortunate enough to be given Biblical memorization training. College degrees in theology are for the few who realize that they need them, and that's where the "church father studying" information that you rattle off is located, if it is located in any easy location in the reality that I live.

Thus, many of us do not have theology degrees, and at the moment that unfortunately includes myself, although I fully intend to start a masters' program soon and get a "MDiv" of my own, if you will. I accept full responsibility for all of my intellectual deficiencies. My intention was to make an inquiry. I was under the impression that we were discussing Jordan Peterson and Jungian philosophy, which seemed to be under my undergraduate purview as an English major.

I do not wish to further impose upon you, but you may find it to your benefit to compile a set of links as to where these books by the church fathers that you are recommending are located. Since these are ancient works, I imagine that they may be in the public domain and thus freely accessible. Linking to what you want people to read may encourage people to actually read it and reduce the odds of further misunderstandings by the incompetent, if you would stoop so low as to help a dead dog such as I.

In time I will perform such legwork myself anyway, but at the moment you may be better equipped to do so and I do not know the extent of the research I will need to undertake so we may discuss this subject without further inconveniencing you with incompetence.

Oh forgive me I should have helped you with that. I actually started a blog on CF.com of such terms and definitions and I reckon I need to expand on it.

By the way, i have a vast library of ebooks in the public domain which I have downloaded, which consist of Patristic material and so on, which I would be happy to share.

I am also involved in a non-profit called LiturgyWorks which is producing non-profit liturgical material (prayer books and service books) for use by churches in different traditions including Anglicans, Congregationalists, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Methodists, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

If ever i use a word you don’t understand I should explain it, and I will explain it if you highlight it. I tend to expect people to google or use wikipedia too much I fear…and I don’t want to be that guy…

I guess I am exhausted from having to screen all of the theological terms of art out of my sermons, to the point that in other contexts I am simply without the energy to figure out simpler ways of explaining things. Once you get used to Greek theological terminology, it just makes everything so much easier.

 

[stevevw]

Yes the essential ingredients that characterise a true belieber are confession, repentance and worship followed by witness and testimony.

It is not just about how we live.

Focusing on action keeps the true honour of Jesus at arms length.

You cant become more Christ-like without Christ within.

However Jordan is on a journey and we will all have to watch this space.

Meantime I thought it timely to alert folks to the subtle deceit associated with his mentor Jung.

Fair enough. But I don't think Peterson uses any idea as though its the only way to understand human behaviour. He sees somethink to like in Nietzsche in that he explains and predicted nihilistic thinking which we have seen emerge throughout our history through breakdowns in societies and the rise of Totalitarianism.

But he disagrees with Nietzsche that these are the only options, that this explains our human condition. From a psychological point of view we find it near impossible to live with negative emotions so we also have the capacity to seek positive meaning and value no matter what the situation.

Nietzsche devalued the human condition as being a slave to our feelings whereas we know from modern understanding that meaning and value are what we primarily seek to even exist. Its been our driving force since day 1.

Peterson is good at using the insights other great philosophers had taking their basic assumptions and testing them against what we know today. But more important he is able to then take all that and apply it the role religious belief and particulary Judeo Christian belief and show how this is the fundemental truth at the foundation of the human condition.

 

[stevevw]

The problem with this is that it encourages folks to 'christianise' their lives without bowing to the King.

I guess maybe for some. But I also think that it can lead to a realization of God and Christ being the way, truth and life. The realization that all paths lead to Christ. I think many of the people Peterson speaks to are young males searching for something in life. I mean if they are atheists and they follow Petersons lectures they will definitely be pointed in the direction of Christ as this seems to be the ultimate basis for a lot of his lectures.

But I also think its good for current Christians as it helps understanding our struggles in the context of the chaos we sometimes experience giving perspective of the greater fight we have with the human condition. How we are not capable on our own to be worthy and to overcome sin.