"It is about strength, courage, responsibility, and suffering, but it is deep and difficult, and it is not easy to pigeonhole. In a sense, 12 Rules contains a number of hidden structures and hidden processes, and confusingly, these are not always made explicit in the text. The first of these is Deep Time. We are biological creatures, evolved beings who can only be truly understood through a model that encapsulates the notion of geological time.... Quite apart from the immensity of Deep Time, our story must take into account indescribable spans of historical time... His message is far from a 'Christian' one: it is a Jungian one... Like Jung, Peterson senses a secret unrest that gnaws at the roots of our being, because we have forgotten too much from our long and dangerous journey. We must listen to our myths, understand them, and learn from them.... This leads to a second hidden concept: the Unconscious. Here Peterson recaptures ground that’s become unfashionable in modern psychology. His model is heavily influenced by Freud and Jung. 'You don’t know yourself,' he says. We are not who we thought we were. We carry secret, shameful knowledge that’s scarcely accessible to conscious exploration (Freud). We also carry elements of a Collective Unconscious (Jung) that’s glimpsed via our myths and creation narratives. If you think you are an atheist you are wrong, says Peterson, because your mind has been bent and shaped and molded by a god-fearing past stretching back into the unfathomable abysm of time."
From "Jordan Peterson and the Return of the Stoics/His book in part is about accepting the ubiquity of human suffering. No wonder reviewers don't get it" by Tim Rogers in The American Conservative.
You can buy the book at Amazon, here.
And here's Jordan Peterson doing a nice job on Bill Maher's show last Friday:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
६७ टिप्पण्या:
I find him insufferable, a dogmatist uncurious about where dogma comes from.
The enlightenment really starts with the invention of Morse code.
I enjoyed the dialogue. It's pure common sense. Stop all the safe-space nonsense, and raise your kids with love, discipline and instruction.
It's not too complicated.
Religious systems have always had to grapple with the problem of human suffering, whether it's a Christian notion of man's fallen nature of Hindu notions of karma. While I have a lot of respect for secular humanism, it's attempts over the last half century or so to sell humans and endless list of individual rights and freedoms has not been very successful. Self-esteem is a byproduct of achievement, and in the end people tend to derive longstanding happiness from their responsibilities and obligations and not their freedoms and liberties.
All that said, I do not take Peterson's Jungianism or Freudianism that much seriously. Jung, in particular, was too wrapped up in the whole comparative myth crazed typified by folks like James George Frazer and later Joseph Campbell. Inspiring on a literary level, but I don't think ever offered much to anthropology or psychology.
I'm reading his Maps of Meaning from back to front and frankly don't quite know what to make of it. The best part is a long letter he wrote to his father trying to explain the truth he is groping for, at the end of which he thanks him for doing his income taxes for him. That part was precious.
Evolution is a chaotic process. The ubiquity of human suffering occurs throughout our life, from conception until a natural or Planned death.
Russ Roberts (EconTalk) has an insightful piece on his reaction to interviewing Peterson. Well worth you 5 minutes
https://medium.com/@russroberts/what-ive-learned-from-jordan-peterson-ce14e7472702
Proverbs 22:6. Not a new concept.
How much we have (intentionally) forgotten.
A big part of the microaggressions / PC industry is the jujitsu move of making your pet peeve my problem. And that is spreading to social media, and the workplace. It sucks.
I'm reading his Maps of Meaning from back to front and frankly don't quite know what to make of it.
Umm, would reading it front to back help with comprehension? ;)
Peterson seems to think about what many of us know is part of the truth but are afraid to discuss with others. Peterson is a carefully measured confrontationalist.
As for missing knowing about our ancient heritage, he is right again. A U. Wisconsin Green Bay Professor ( Gregory Aldrete) has a highly interesting lecture series on Audible Great Courses called History of the Ancient World: A Global Perspective. The 4 original settlements that became Cities of western civilization are fascinating because of the intelligence these people showed. The Mesopotamian flood plain, The Indus River Valley, Egypt (which is a Nile River flood plain) and another one in the Amu Darya River flood plain In Afghanistan.
That should be boring and dull. But it's not. We are in need of understanding them to appreciate ourselves. And my wife, who is not a history buff, really liked hearing about the ancient settlements.
I like Peterson, but he is hit or miss in interviews. I wanted that one with Maher to keep going. I love Russ Roberts and EconTalk, but thought Peterson was really off (I only listened to maybe half of it, and need to finish). I think if Roberts had been in the same room with Maher (instead of doing the remote interview) it might have gone better.
It was an interesting conversation until the obligatory 'but Trump'.
From the Medium reflection on Peterson referenced above:
"There are things I don’t like about Peterson. He’s not a real prophet, just a flawed human being. He’s awfully grim. I wish he smiled more."
I have been trying to read Maps of Meaning also. But I haven't been particularly diligent about it. I'm just not the obsessive reader I used to be.
Like Luke I quickly found myself wanting to read it out of order, and in my case, just try to try dive into it at random and see if I can make sense of little pieces of it at a time. Like Luke, I frankly don't quite know what to make of it.
I share, I think, some of Peterson's intuitions. I do think we are constantly ignoring most of what is going on around us. We live in a sea of possibilities that we are barely aware of.
We exist by creating a narrow order which we impose on the world, and we ignore everything that doesn't fit. That is we aren't paying attention to a huge number of things. It may even be that there's a great deal we actually can't perceive because our minds aren't so constructed so as to allow us to perceive them.
I share all of that, but then, here I'll dive in at random. Page 168:
The terrible unknown compels representation; likewise, the beneficial unknown. We are driven to represent the fact that possibility resides in every uncertain event, that promise beckons from the depths of every mystery. Transformation, attendant upon the emergence of change, means the death of everything old and decayed -- means the death of everything whose continued existence would merely mean additional suffering on the part of those still striving to survive. The terrible unknown, which paralyzes when it appears, is also succour for the suffering, calm for the troubled, peace for the warrior, insight and discovery for the perplexed and curious -- is the redemptive jewel in the head of the toad or in the lair of the fire-belching dragon. The unknown is the fire that burns and protects, the endlessly mysterious transcendent object that simultaneously gives and takes away. The positive aspect of the unknown, incarnated as the many-breasted Greco-Roman Goddess Diana or Artemis, mistress of the animals, is portrayed in Figure 35: Unexplored Territory as Creative Mother.
What does this mean? What is going on here? I know this is unfair because I haven't read most of the 167 pages that came before it, but still.
Not sure they were the best tags. How about adding children or parenting.
"If you think you are an atheist you are wrong, says Peterson [an atheist], because your mind has been bent and shaped and molded by a god-fearing past stretching back into the unfathomable abys[s] of time."
Load o' tripe.
Derbyshire, who isn't selling woo, has a far better description:
"The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b. who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list."
But that doesn't mean it's "way down the list" for all people.
I, for one, am pleased to submit that nobody would ever think rhhardin is insufferable.
/sarc
Peterson completely derailed the Overtime segment of the show - you Trump supporters should find it on YouTube - you'll like it, I think.
In a sense, 12 Rules contains a number of hidden structures and hidden processes, and confusingly, these are not always made explicit in the text.
So you're saying Peterson is a Straussian?
"There are things I don’t like about Peterson. He’s not a real prophet, just a flawed human being."
Uh, prophets are flawed human beings, not demigods (unless you're Muslim, I guess).
I don't consider Peterson a prophet, just an interesting thinker.
Nowadays, it often seems like any opinion you express about public figures, no matter how you qualify them, puts you in one camp or another. It's not possible to find many things about Trump distasteful and still approve most of what he does - oh, no, that means you're a "Trumpist." You can't just say, "While I have always taken Jungian psychology with a bush basket full of salt, I still think Peterson is a refreshing change from the dull PC claptrap that characterizes most academic thinking today." That makes you a Jordan Peterson "follower" and somehow, an ally of the alt-right.
Maher seems to think being stupidly pc and over-sensitive is an exclusively American trait. He apparently hasn't heard about the hysteria Peterson has inspired on Canadian campuses or what Peterson has had to say about PM Zoolander.
I have not heard Peterson say of himself that he is an atheist. Can someone who is claiming that he is an atheist point me to some evidence of that?
"But that doesn't mean it's "way down the list" for all people."
Its "way down the list" for all people, just in different ways and to different degrees.
We are awfully good at compartmentalizing. We are also very good at rationalizing.
mandrewa said...
I share all of that, but then, here I'll dive in at random. Page 168:
"The terrible unknown compels representation..."
What does this mean? What is going on here?
Diarrhea of the keyboard.
A Terrible Unknown walks into a bar and the bartender says "Why the long face on your compelled representation?"
And the TU answers "Hey, aren't you supposed to be paralyzed when I appear?"
One way Peterson is right - the expressions of mental illness change according to culture. Mad people are affected by their culture just as anyone else is. They may be primed to be obsessed or deluded about something, but what that thing is tends to be culturally determined, that is, there are fashions in madness.
Maher's arms seem too short even for his small frame. He looks like a child wearing a suit with a gray wig
Alex Wagner and Jay Inslee are the insufferable ones.
Watch the entire interview. Wagner twists Jordan Peterson's proposition that birth control might have led to some unforeseen outcomes. She immediately and sarcastically responds that 'maybe we should outlaw birth control!'
Inslee, rather than engaging with Peterson, promotes his political agenda using the current popular canard that our youth are more intelligent than we are.
The left believes that "facts determine policy". Thus, they will always fight to bury facts that undermine their policies...
Maybe Peterson is loosely on to something here. It seems our minds might be shaped by epigenetic memories.
“We also carry elements of a Collective Unconscious (Jung) that’s glimpsed via our myths and creation narratives. If you think you are an atheist you are wrong, says Peterson, because your mind has been bent and shaped and molded by a god-fearing past stretching back into the unfathomable abysm of time."
Scientists have observed epigenetic memories being passed down for 14 generations.
It occurs to that there may be a certain similarity to Jean Piaget here.
When I was 18 I went through a period where I was fascinated by Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget started off as an evolutionary biologist and he wrote about ten books exploring his intuition that Darwinian evolution is inadequate to explain the evolution of life. He was taking single-celled organisms as his starting point and asking the question of whether iterative random mutation followed by mindless natural selection is really sufficient to explain what we see around us. I understood what he was getting at. Six hundred million years sounds like a long time but is it really enough for Darwinian selection to give us something like a dog?
Piaget believed that there must be other mechanisms that have developed to accelerate evolution or else we couldn't be where we are now. Sex is clearly one such thing, but Piaget wasn't talking about that. He understood the mechanism of sex and it's impact on evolution but he was also assuming it and assuming that his starting point, single-celled organisms, already had this, but that still isn't, by his intuition, enough.
So Piaget was trying to imagine a mechanism, any mechanism, by which life could theoretically accelerate evolution beyond the pace that Darwinian selection and sex set. If he could imagine such a thing, then he could look to see if living organisms actually had that. But the first step is to imagine such a thing, and it turns out to be very difficult to conceive of these mechanisms.
The possible likeness with Peterson is how Piaget tried to solve this problem. The ten or so books that Piaget wrote on the subject are really a record of Piaget's thinking as he tried to solve this problem. That is his books are in a sense stream of consciousness. They are not rewritten or are only lightly rewritten.
They are also written positively, as if he had succeeded at his goal. That is Piaget writes as if he has solved the problem, even though he hasn't. He has an intuition that he is trying to make real, and each day he strives to make the thoughts real and sensible. And along the way, he does have some success. Some things that were not clear, do become clear, which justifies the method, although he never in the end succeeded in finding such a mechanism.
So it could be that as with Piaget, Peterson's Maps of Meanings is really a record of his daily attempts, over 15 years, to make some of his intuitions real.
Insufferable succotash is what Daffy Duck says about Bill Maher.
I enjoyed Peterson's "12 Rules For Life: An Antidote to Chaos"--some parts more than others. I,too, liked Rule 5: Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. But my favorite was the last rule--Rule 12: Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street. Within that chapter was the following: "Being of any reasonable sort appears to require limitation. Perhaps this is because Being requires Becoming, as well as mere static existence--and to become is to become something more, or at least something different. That is only possible for something limited."
Is it wrong for conservatives to like Bill Maher?
They guy is spot on on so many issues (threat of Islam, political correctness). And he gives off a vibe that at least he would debate you on the other stuff.
I like Bill Maher!
Wagner blaming Trump for why she finds it hard to raise a kid reminded me of Forrest Gump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsBuSCwn7h4
J. Farmer said ... "All that said, I do not take Peterson's Jungianism or Freudianism that much seriously. Jung, in particular, was too wrapped up in the whole comparative myth crazed typified by folks like James George Frazer and later Joseph Campbell. Inspiring on a literary level, but I don't think ever offered much to anthropology or psychology."
As a scientifically trained psychologist, I agree. I think that Peterson's use of Jung is his idiosyncratic way of explaining things he doesn't fully understand. I like that he is very open about what he doesn't understand and the knowledge we (as a field) lack.
I think quite poorly of modern psychologists who follow the Freudian model or some version thereof. However, some of his terms are still quite useful in explaining human peculiarities. They have no value in scientific inquiry because they are not generally formulated as falsifiable hypotheses subject to empirical evaluation..
Francisco,
One interesting test would be the incidence rate of some categories of psychological problems, and their correlation with press coverage/mention of the problem.
A good one I think would be anorexia/bulemia. It had run of notoriety, and then faded away. I understand that the diagnoses spiked along with the press coverage. It would be interesting to know if the incidence also faded away with the loss of interest. I understand that reliable statistics are a problem.
Also, international comparisons are interesting. Comparable numbers are also quite a problem, but there probably are a lot of interesting observations there.
Wow, that girl is really cute on the clip. She has to be to get away with saying so much stupid shit.
And watching a longer clip, she just gets worse.
And since hair is such a huge issue in this blog, yes, her face is rocking that short hair cut. Most girls...not so much. But I can easily imagine her with a wealth of hair as well. Those cheekbones, like black, go with everything.
But boy, has she taken her attractiveness privilege to have people fail to disagree with her on SO many topics...just because they want to sleep with her.
And she's drunk the Kool Aid.
Sorry but Maher is a bag of smug and I don't watch smug.
I am shocked they are giving him that much air time.
His statements obviously resonated with the audience and his statements challenged and attacked the Academy and got applause.
If the Left starts asking strong questions of the Academy, who is left to defend their tripe and excesses?
Well, the Left probably won't attack the Academy, but they will hold the Right's coat when they do it.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+maher+jordan+peterson+&&view=detail&mid=BBA93FF807C7EDEC445FBBA93FF807C7EDEC445F&rvsmid=5F83B78E945E4697045A5F83B78E945E4697045A&FORM=VDQVAP
Longer clip.
Here is a clip where Jordan speaking a bit about Trump Bashing.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+maher+jordan+peterson++defends+trump&&view=detail&mid=E4922F33B43EAFE29533E4922F33B43EAFE29533&&FORM=VDRVRV
@FIDO:
I am shocked they are giving him that much air time.
Maher's transformation into a conventional social democratic liberal is incomplete on a few rounds. One is Maher's unequivocal support forfree speech and opposition to SJW efforts to delist speakers on campuses. Maher still often spouts the party line on racism towards blacks but is more willing to mix it up on gender issues. Among the true believers on the left, though, Maher is a racist, Islamophobic, transphobic sexist. All insults he would wear with a badge of honor I presume.
"Is it wrong for conservatives to like Bill Maher?"
I can't say I like him, but he's right on enough issues that I'm willing to listen to what he says and wrestle with his ideas even when I disagree with him.
I wonder if they have a timer available to the panelists to ensure that no segment goes longer than 10 minutes without the gratuitous Trump bashing.
-------------
"And our next guest has made remarkable discoveries about the cause of earthquakes ..."
(9 minutes of science talk ensue ...)
tick ... tick ... tick ... ding!!!
"That's fascinating. So now we can predict earthquakes. Do you think you could have the predicted the earth quake that ensued when TRUMP was elected? Talk about natural disasters!"
(audience applauds like trained seals)
@JaimeRoberto:
I can't say I like him, but he's right on enough issues that I'm willing to listen to what he says and wrestle with his ideas even when I disagree with him.
Maher is basically a libertine who wants to be able to smoke weed and sleep with bimbos. And I don't begrudge him those desires, but a lot of Maher's political views have an adolescent, arrested development quality to them. Then again, Maher was a comedian who sort of backed into politics.
@PackerBronco:
(audience applauds like trained seals)
Oh yes. By far the most obnoxious component of Maher's show is his obsequious audience.
"That's not facetious. Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything, is frivolous.”
-Christoper Hitchens to Bill Maher before giving his audience the finger and shouting "fuck you."
Blogger LarsPorsena said...”It was an interesting conversation until the obligatory 'but Trump'.”
My thought too. It’s just so lazy, intellectually.
Is there a “Jordan Peterson on Trump” clip out there?
Maher praised Peterson for "not being an American" in the same way a previous generation would have praised someone for being French instead of American, and a generation previous to that for being English, and if you go back far enough for being Greek.
But Jordan Peterson is Canadian. Canadian! Are Canadians now the Ubermenschen? That's pretty sad.
See my second link for the Trump talk by Peterson.
Most of it is behind a fire wall.
But essentially JP asks 'what are you going to say to Trump supporters as you try to negate their votes?'
Bill Maher dismisses this "Trump is special and different."
One (1) of his speakers say "Well, we should probably speak nicer to them as we void their votes."
I am putting a bit of bias on it, but that is essentially all they will concede.
I can't see what Trump is doing illegally. Things they don't like, sure. Illegal? Compared to what Obama did?
Feh.
1. The 12 Rules book is pretty clear; it's easier to understand Jordan Peterson from the 12 Rules than from Maps of Meaning (based on the quote)
2.But you can't race through the book.
I think Peterson is saying that in throwing overboard religion and society's traditions, we have thrown overboard guides that we need to handle profound difficulties which we all encounter. He is saying that PC social media culture makes light of these difficulties - such as the evil of hating your children because you raised them badly - whereas through time all cultures have lasted by developing a religious response to the presence of evil, selfishness and brutality. The PC culture is caused by the need of many to run from evil and hide because for many secular culture hasn't equipped them to handle what happens to them. A religious response, according to Peterson means being able to acknowledge what's in front of you or even in you, even when that is evil. That's what religion has always done and secularism is failing at that for many just as some parents fail their children and then hate them.
Though Peterson is an atheist, religious believers often understand him quite well. They see that he uses anthropological and psychological imagery of a certain kind to say something that religion says another way.
And also Peterson knows how to be outrageous and be a good showman.
FIDO, thanks for that clip, although I didn't see Maher's or the other guest's response.
Peterson asks Maher and his audience to have respect for Trump voters. Silly Jordan. Maher would lose his audience if that happened.
I'm halfway through it and its quite good. Of course, I have supped from the same tables he has and he reflects my personal views quite closely. My admiration for his keeps growing.
"Then again, Maher was a comedian who sort of backed into politics."
What is worrisome is that a lot of his audience get their news from him.
If you read an 1860 newspaper, you can see how far we have fallen.
IQ is slowly falling, a point every few years.
Michael K
You can see it from a 1960 paper. In fact I read part of an 1860 paper in a print museum Sunday. Right you are, except that fewer were literate then.
He has the listening skills of a good therapist and the expository skills of a gifted teacher. It's a formidable combination. I don't know if he's an impressive intellectual, but he sure knows how to play one on television........The worm of Ourbouros. You end up chasing your own tail if you seek the ultimate, final meaning of life, but you've got to admire the sincerity and effort with which he pursues deep thoughts along those lines. I hope he becomes our go-to intellectual.......I used to admire Bertrand Russell when I was of an age to admire deep thinkers. He called WWI and Bolshevism right in real time. So it's possible to be a deep thinker and understand stupidity. . In his dotage Russell feel under the sway of some Marxist Svengali, so it's possible to be a deep thinker and a damn fool.
I saw a video of Peterson addressing a class of sharp undergraduates. He was in his element. The students were asking challenging questions, and he was fully engaged in the discussion. "Gladly learn and gladly teach ." He's a true scholar, and you can see how he would engender an enthusiasm for learning in his students.
I was surprised and sorry to hear the rhhradin finds Trump insufferable. For a Derrida guy, surely he can find one reading he likes. Me, I like Peterson's approach to finding meaning in the lives that we live. It has to do with the stories we tell ourselves about the lives we are leading, that cause us to make the choices that we do, and the fact that these stories are not made up out of whole cloth, but come down to us in traditions. It's not science, but then, another of Peterson's points, science is about understanding things and how they work, it is useful, but it does not create meaning, except perhaps for the scientists themselves, who are not ordinary people. (I hope that is a sentence.)
rhhardin said...I find him insufferable, a dogmatist uncurious about where dogma comes from.
Does your derision derive from Peterson's deriding Derrida -- just that once?
There's an obvious echo in this chamber.
”IQ is slowly falling, a point every few years.”
Mine sure has.
Does your derision derive from Peterson's deriding Derrida -- just that once?
That's a sign he's not intellectually serious. In postmodernism there's crap and there's good stuff. He can't distinguish.
He's more into psychology but doesn't notice the guardrails that puts him between, which, in analyzing stuff, allows no analysis of the guardrail effect. His analysis always seeks to hide it.
That matters if your schtick is insight.
I saw one Peterson video I thought was good but have been unable to find it again.
It was a class, and he was arguing with a student who thought you ought to be able to choose your reputation. Peterson was arguing correctly about what a reputation is and who chooses it. It wasn't based on psychology or myth but just noticing where language goes with what a reputation is.
That was a good analysis from zero, not from his field or his authority.
IQ is actually going up, the Lynn-Flynn effect, or the Flynn effect.
Lynn was just punished for it. He also said that men are smarter than women, and East Asians are smarter than whites. The students objected.
I watched FIDO's link to the discussion about Trump voters and the polarization of the country. Boy, that was depressing. Only Bruni seemed to understand his point, and all of them assumed that why Trump is bad requires no explanation. One person said the tax cuts are harmful. Do we know that yet? And if you disagree on the tax policy of a president, does that make it right to try to destroy him? Bill Maher said he was a disaster for the environment because of who he picked for the EPA and because they changed some of the laws. Do we know that these changes have harmed the environment? And is it worth ripping the country apart by destroying a president because you disagree with his environmental policy? I don't remember what Stormy Daniels' lawyer said or the Washington state politician - they didn't have any concrete examples, nor did the CBS "news analyst." Listening to them, I felt as if I live in a completely different world than they do. I'm not sure they're living in reality. But I'm pretty sure their opinions are formed by their social network which is likely to be more "elite" than mine.
A larger pie lifts all boats.
I’ve wondered how you get from the stereotypical Canadian, polite and unassuming, to hockey. Jordan Peterson may be that connecting dot.
Yes, Jordan did a nice job of asking a subversive question. What was fascinating, assuming Bill saw it, none of them could get themselves to answer without cussing the Trump voters or Bill’s schitk “It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson” sorry Trump imprisioning journalists, wanting to be a dictator.
Price,ess
Chapter 1 is excellent.
Chapter 2 is excellent. What a good book!
Chapter 3 is awful.
Chapter 4 is bad, too. I quit reading after Chapter 4. I might pick it up again at some point. Right now I am too aggravated with this damn thing.
In Chapter 3 Peterson starts to challenge Christ on the nature of the good. Peterson is on board with the Old Testament. It speaks to him. But Christ is beyond him and he’s not sure what to say about Jesus. Jesus says things like, “Sell everything you have and give to the poor.” Peterson tries to argue against this philosophy. “Christ was the archetypal perfect man. And you’re you.” Meaning, nobody can follow Christ, so why try?
And yet, Peter the simple ignorant fisherman who denied Christ three times, successfully followed Christ. Which is why you and I and everybody reading this blog have very likely heard of Jesus Christ. And that is because people followed Christ, successfully, and spread the word.
Boy, I am so glad, when Peter was having a bad day, he did not have a sit-down with Mr. Psychologist, who would have told him that following Christ is impossible, so why even try.
I was very irritated with Chapter 3. And Chapter 4 is worse. Peterson decides that he “will start treating Old Testament God, with all His terrible and oft-arbitrary-seeming power, as if He could also be New Testament God.” Well, except for “the many ways in which that is absurd.” What are some of these ways that the divinity of Christ is “absurd”? Peterson doesn’t go into that. He dismisses the miracles as a “childish belief in magic.” And so he feels confident in dismissing what Christ has to say.
Why is Jesus Christ so well known today? Why did Peter and the rest of the disciples die for him?
Mr. Peterson--or “son of Peter”--I ask that you forgive your spiritual father, Peter the fisherman, for leaving you in the hellhole of academia while he went off and spread the good news. Do not dismiss his reports about Christ out of this anger. Open your heart to the truth.
And those first two chapters are excellent and inspiring. There is hope for you yet.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा