Jordan Peterson’s Exodus Series

[southernphotini]

Just curious if anyone else is watching this?

I watched the first part and I am starting the second part today. I have found it interesting, especially because there are so many different voices and views.

Plus, I always enjoy Pageau and Prager’s perspectives, even when I disagree with them.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I Really want to. I haven’t sprung for a Daily Wire subscription yet.

 

[southernphotini]

I Really want to. I haven’t sprung for a Daily Wire subscription yet.

It’s worth it. The Exodus series will be released for free this Spring but the subscription is worthwhile.

Just the What Is A Woman? documentary is worth the subscription.

 

[phaedrus]

I haven't but I will eventually.

 

[DustinM]

I saw one clip, where Prager recommended a man who's wife couldn't have sex with him watch porn to take care of his needs, rather than suggest the obvious biblical solution, which would be to add a wife who could fulfill that and help him take care of the 1st wife.

Then they all botched Matt 5 regarding lust... So I didn't come away from it with too much of value. But I haven't watched the whole series, either way I do appreciate that the roundtable discussion is even happening, though it would be helpful if at least one patriarchal / biblical marriage advocate was involved, which I haven't seen to be the case.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It’s worth it. The Exodus series will be released for free this Spring but the subscription is worthwhile.

Just the What Is A Woman? documentary is worth the subscription.

I came down on the Crowder side of the recent drama. I’m nursing a grudge still. Although it does seem like Daily Wire will return more value for the subscription price.

 

[southernphotini]

I saw one clip, where Prager recommended a man who's wife couldn't have sex with him watch porn to take care of his needs, rather than suggest the obvious biblical solution, which would be to add a wife who could fulfill that and help him take care of the 1st wife.

Then they all botched Matt 5 regarding lust... So I didn't come away from it with too much of value. But I haven't watched the whole series, either way I do appreciate that the roundtable discussion is even happening, though it would be helpful if at least one patriarchal / biblical marriage advocate was involved, which I haven't seen to be the case.

I don’t recall that, and it may have been a jest. The series has more value than a single soundbite.

Representation is overrated. Pageau is Orthodox and so the most patriarchal but even he doesn’t worship hierarchy.

 

[southernphotini]

I came down on the Crowder side of the recent drama. I’m nursing a grudge still. Although it does seem like Daily Wire will return more value for the subscription price.

Crowder has always been immature. You decline an offer you don’t like and move on. You don’t record private conversations with friends with the intention of publishing it. You don’t tear down your friends in order to make money. He manufactured a controversy and burned bridges in order to look more hardcore, when he literally has the same business model as Daily Wire.

I was done with him when he whined that Megyn Kelly didn’t recognize him once. He’s a narcissist.

 

[DustinM]

I don’t recall that, and it may have been a jest. The series has more value than a single soundbite.

Representation is overrated. Pageau is Orthodox and so the most patriarchal but even he doesn’t worship hierarchy.

It was not in jest at all, he was quite serious in his recommendation and he's gotten a lot of flack online for it. Not because Christians are recommending another wife should be taken, but because he recommended watching porn.

Representation is overrated? It's a roundtable discussing the scriptures by a group of "experts", if there's not one man at that table with the understanding and stones to properly interpret Exodus 21:10 and it's implications for plural marriage, or explain why Matt 5 is not about "any man" looking at "any woman" with sexual attraction ... I do think that matters quite a bit.

 

[southernphotini]

Representation is overrated? It's a roundtable discussing the scriptures by a group of "experts", if there's not one man at that table with the understanding and stones…

Yeah, you want the tail to wag the dog. There’s more to the book of Exodus than marriage.

 

[DustinM]

Yeah, you want the tail to wag the dog. There’s more to the book of Exodus than marriage.

No quite clearly I said I would like to see someone on the panel who understood and could/would defend biblical marriage, should the topic come up as they are walking through Exodus. Considering this is a biblical marriage forum, that seems to me to be a fair critique of the series thus far.

These men were talking about lust and marriage, in a series about Exodus... So obviously, it came up.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Crowder has always been immature. You decline an offer you don’t like and move on. You don’t record private conversations with friends with the intention of publishing it. You don’t tear down your friends in order to make money. He manufactured a controversy and burned bridges in order to look more hardcore, when he literally has the same business model as Daily Wire.

I was done with him when he whined that Megyn Kelly didn’t recognize him once. He’s a narcissist.

There certainly was a performative aspect to the whole event. His core argument was correct though. You can’t claim to be the alternative to big tech censorship and cancel culture and then penalize your talent for being censored and canceled by bi go tech.

If their business model depends on not getting canceled by big tech then they don’t have a business model. They are going to get canceled. They will have to compromise or they will have to find away to exist without the big platforms.

 

[southernphotini]

If their business model depends on not getting canceled by big tech then they don’t have a business model. They are going to get canceled. They will have to compromise or they will have to find away to exist without the big platforms.

Mug Club is an identical business model. He hides content that can get him demonetized behind a paywall. He’s a hypocrite.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Mug Club is an identical business model. He hides content that can get him demonetized behind a paywall. He’s a hypocrite.

It’s not quite the same thing. He says publicly that somethings can’t be put on YouTube, go to Rumble to hear them.

Daily Wire is acting like they’re free of big tech and then quietly enforcing big tech’s hegemony on the sly. I’m not saying it’s not a legitimate tactic to use their platforms as long as possible. But to actually have it codified in their contract that a host can’t get canceled by a specific platform is antithetical to who they say they are.

I can see how they got there. I can see the train of logic that made them make a series of aggressive decisions in order to accomplish big goals. I think they lost sight of some things along the way. I love their hosts though and to your original point, I think Peterson my be one of the most important voices of the age.

 

[southernphotini]

It was not in jest at all, he was quite serious in his recommendation and he's gotten a lot of flack online for it. Not because Christians are recommending another wife should be taken, but because he recommended watching porn.

I just saw the clip. You misrepresented what he said. It was about pornography being a lesser offense than adultery. He’s not wrong in that.

 

[southernphotini]

It’s not quite the same thing. He says publicly that somethings can’t be put on YouTube, go to Rumble to hear them.

Ben Shapiro says the same thing every episode.

To say you can’t go and totally nuke your brand and still expect to get paid is reasonable.

 

[DustinM]

I just saw the clip. You misrepresented what he said. It was about pornography being a lesser offense than adultery. He’s not wrong in that.

I absolutely did not misrepresent him, I have no reason to, I don't care a lick about Prager's opinions one way or the other, but what he said was simply contrary to scripture, which I do care a great deal about. There are two parts where he discusses pornography.

"men want variety, if pornography is a substitute for one's wife, it's awful, if it's a substitute for adultery, it's not awful."

First of all, this is not the part I was referencing, but while I'm here... his implication shows a lack of understanding of "adultery" here. He's implying that pornography stops a man from getting that "variety" with another woman, which is not adultery, unless well, she's married already.

That said, the part I referenced was at 6:20 in this clip where he was discussing someone he knew who's wife had Alzheimer's at 50 where he said it was ok that the man look at porn to relieve his sexual needs. My original comment was to simply say, that's not the biblical solution, the solution is to add another wife, not look at porn.

 

[southernphotini]

That said, the part I referenced was at 6:20 in this clip where he was discussing someone he knew who's wife had Alzheimer's at 50 where he said it was ok that the man look at porn to relieve his sexual needs. My original comment was to simply say, that's not the biblical solution, the solution is to add another wife, not look at porn.

You're still misrepresenting. He's speaking from an Orthodox Jewish perspective about relative offensives. He never once advocated. He's discussing lesser evils, but in Judaism lust that isn't acted on as adultery is not a sin. So you're judging him for not being Christian, and I'm not certain that's fair.

From a woman's perspective, I agree with him about these particular lesser evils, but I also don't approve or condone pornography.

 

[DustinM]

You're still misrepresenting. He's speaking from an Orthodox Jewish perspective about relative offensives. He never once advocated. He's discussing lesser evils, but in Judaism lust that isn't acted on as adultery is not a sin. So you're judging him for not being Christian, and I'm not certain that's fair.

From a woman's perspective, I agree with him about these particular lesser evils, but I also don't approve or condone pornography.

Respectfully, slow down, re-read and take down the defenses. I'm judging him solely on his misinterpretation of scripture and his opinions he's basing off of them. The entire discussion is centered on the inspired word of G-d. This isn't just some intellectual debate among people about whether electric cars are good for the planet.

Orthodox Judaism believes that Exodus is the word of G-d. He's not some Scientologist who bases his morality off an entirely different set of standards. Christians believe (well most) that Exodus is the word of G-d.

So he will get the same treatment I will give Christian teachers or pastors who distort the word of G-d. Everyone is fair game for critique who takes the inspired word of G-d and royally screws it up and teaches falsely on it.

 

[PeteR]

I absolutely did not misrepresent him, I have no reason to, I don't care a lick about Prager's opinions one way or the other, but what he said was simply contrary to scripture, which I do care a great deal about. There are two parts where he discusses pornography.

"men want variety, if pornography is a substitute for one's wife, it's awful, if it's a substitute for adultery, it's not awful."

First of all, this is not the part I was referencing, but while I'm here... his implication shows a lack of understanding of "adultery" here. He's implying that pornography stops a man from getting that "variety" with another woman, which is not adultery, unless well, she's married already.

That said, the part I referenced was at 6:20 in this clip where he was discussing someone he knew who's wife had Alzheimer's at 50 where he said it was ok that the man look at porn to relieve his sexual needs. My original comment was to simply say, that's not the biblical solution, the solution is to add another wife, not look at porn.

Classic example of the false, even wicked, fruit of the monogamy-only position. Christendom, through false doctrine, is guilty of great sin.