• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Jordan Peterson’s Exodus Series

DustinM said:
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.

No different than I just Christian teachers or pastors who do the same, or anyone really. Everyone is fair game for critique who takes the inspired word of G-d and royally screws it up and teaches falsely on it.
Click to expand...
There's no need to patronize. Where is his understanding of Scripture on adultery incorrect from an Orthodox Jewish perspective?

Did David sin on seeing Bathsheba, or in the actions he took after seeing her? I think it's pretty clear it's only the latter from an OT perspective.
 
southernphotini said:
There's no need to patronize. Where is his understanding of Scripture on adultery incorrect from an Orthodox Jewish perspective?

Did David sin on seeing Bathsheba, or in the actions he took after seeing her? I think it's pretty clear it's only the latter from an OT perspective.
Click to expand...

Wrong, he's guilty on both counts. 1) David coveted his neighbors wife, 2) David had sex with his neighbors wife.

Exodus 20
14 “You shall not commit adultery. (taking another man's wife)

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

What is not adultery? A married man coveting a single woman to be his 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 10th wife.

Which is why David was not guilty of adultery until Bathsheba, while he had some 17 other wives prior to her.

Also, I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing, I'm genuinely trying to help you.
 
DustinM said:
Also, I don't know why you think I'm being patronizing, I'm genuinely trying to help you.
Click to expand...
You just demonstrated it.

Coveting is a sin if it leads to bad action, such as stealing or killing. Otherwise every second wife is guilty of the sin of coveting. Polygyny is then promoting sin.
 
southernphotini said:
You just demonstrated it.

Coveting is a sin if it leads to bad action, such as stealing or killing. Otherwise every second wife is guilty of the sin of coveting. Polygyny is then promoting sin.
Click to expand...

What are you even saying at this point?

A woman desiring(coveting) to join a man's family as a 2nd wife is not guilty of any sin because she can join his family as a wife and belong to him. A husband does not belong to his wife. She belongs to him, a woman desiring to "belong to" a man whether he has 1 or 4 wives is not sinning in doing so.

A man cannot set his desire on/covet another man's wife because she cannot and does not belong to him.
A man can set his desire on/covet a single woman to be his wife because she can belong to him.

David was guilty of coveting his neighbors wife, then David was guilty of sleeping with his neighbors wife.
 
southernphotini said:
Where is his understanding of Scripture on adultery incorrect from an Orthodox Jewish perspective?
Click to expand...
Prager saying a man watching porn to avoid "adultery" is "not awful", suggests a married man watching porn to stop from having extra marital affairs or sleeping around on the "side". My point is simply that if a man were to do that, it's not adultery unless his "other woman" is married. It's always adultery if the wife sleeps with another man. But let me also say, no man should be taking any other woman sexually unless he intends to take her as a wife.

I can confidently say he's suggesting that because he quite literally spells that out here
"And why does adultery threaten the family? The most obvious reason is that sex with someone other than one's spouse can all too easily lead to either or both spouses leaving the marriage."
Click to expand...
He defines "adultery" as sex with anyone other than "one's spouse". Which is not a biblical definition, but a websters definition.
 
The daily wire is a gatekeeping controlled operation. Prager, Shapero, and Peterson are all controlled opposition. I don't know much about Pageau but I am not impressed by the company he keeps. Peterson is a snake. Classic truth mixed with lies and I've never been impressed with his attempts at theology (ok when he's aping others good ideas, horrendous when it's his own).
 
southernphotini said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well where we can agree is that Peterson is an amazing intellect on an exciting journey. I like Shapiro and Candace a lot too. I don’t think the institution is bad. I think they got the his one issue wrong.

I am very excited to watch the exodus series.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I don’t think her heart is in it anymore. It seems like she’s rightly very focused on motherhood.
Click to expand...
I think she doesn’t feel like she fits in at DW. The 2022 election coverage she looked very awkward and uncomfortable.
 
southernphotini said:
Coveting is a sin if it leads to bad action, such as stealing or killing. Otherwise every second wife is guilty of the sin of coveting. Polygyny is then promoting sin.
Click to expand...
Slight correction - coveting something unlawful is sinful. Even if it does not lead to sin, the coveting itself, the desire to have the unlawful thing, is itself sinful.
While coveting good things is good.
1 Cor 12:31: But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

A second wife who covets her husband is coveting something she can lawfully have, and is therefore not sinning at all.

David sinned when he coveted Bathsheba, because it would be unlawful for him to take her. Even if he had not actually taken her, the coveting itself was a sin.
Then he took her and committed a second sin. And then a third (murder).

Pornography is also coveting a woman you cannot have - either someone who is married (if we take her sexual activities to constitute marriage), or a prostitute whom we are forbidden to sleep with either. It is therefore wrong from a plain reading of Exodus whether you're Jewish or Christian.

Having said that, whether Jewish or Christian, if you strictly interpret coveting as only a desire to actually take for yourself, and you argue "I don't actually want to take that woman, I'm just enjoying looking at her body", then you could theoretically argue that pornography is not covetous and is therefore ok. I don't think that is a wise position to take, it's a deliberate reinterpretation of scripture to justify foolishness - but again you can theoretically take that position again whether Jewish or Christian. The fact he is Jewish shouldn't make a difference on it.
 
rockfox said:
The daily wire is a gatekeeping controlled operation. Prager, Shapero, and Peterson are all controlled opposition. I don't know much about Pageau but I am not impressed by the company he keeps. Peterson is a snake. Classic truth mixed with lies and I've never been impressed with his attempts at theology (ok when he's aping others good ideas, horrendous when it's his own).
Click to expand...
I think that Peterson has been a very important voice in the secular culture, but I think Christians need to remember he is a secular voice. His interpretation of scripture is very strange sometimes, and his ideas regarding marriage are very strange. I'm specifically thinking of something I remember him saying about monogamy being part of equality and fairness so that even the ugly/stupid men and women get spouses.

@rockfox by calling Peterson a snake do you mean you believe he is knowingly deceiving people? Or do you just think he's mistaken?
 
StudentofHim said:
I think that Peterson has been a very important voice in the secular culture, but I think Christians need to remember he is a secular voice. His interpretation of scripture is very strange sometimes, and his ideas regarding marriage are very strange. I'm specifically thinking of something I remember him saying about monogamy being part of equality and fairness so that even the ugly/stupid men and women get spouses.

@rockfox by calling Peterson a snake do you mean you believe he is knowingly deceiving people? Or do you just think he's mistaken?
Click to expand...
I think Peterson is mistaken because he isn't Christian.
 
I like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson's commentaries. Not Christians, but solid conservative voices in a depraved world.

Question, is pornography a sin biblically. Support your answer with scripture. My thoughts are that it is, because you are lusting after and coveting quite possibly another man's wife (I assume some of the "actors" are married). I just feel it's best to stay as far away from it as possible.
 
DustinM said:
Prager saying a man watching porn to avoid "adultery" is "not awful", suggests a married man watching porn to stop from having extra marital affairs or sleeping around on the "side". My point is simply that if a man were to do that, it's not adultery unless his "other woman" is married. It's always adultery if the wife sleeps with another man. But let me also say, no man should be taking any other woman sexually unless he intends to take her as a wife.

I can confidently say he's suggesting that because he quite literally spells that out here

He defines "adultery" as sex with anyone other than "one's spouse". Which is not a biblical definition, but a websters definition.
Click to expand...
Prager got his definition from webster's dictionary and society. As do 99 percent of society and church people in general. Most put no thought whatsoever into biblical definitions.
 
StudentofHim said:
@rockfox by calling Peterson a snake do you mean you believe he is knowingly deceiving people? Or do you just think he's mistaken?
Click to expand...

He is a deceiver. He spent a long time trying to come off as a Christian without actually saying he's one, then later right out saying he is a Christian but when actual Christians asked him Christian confessional questions he immediately went into forked tongue mode avoiding the question. On multiple occasions.

He is a good speaker no doubt, and has had some good rhetoric. But the effected controlled types usually do. He is yet another astroturfed talking head fronted specifically to halt the movement of men towards the right and towards traditionalism and Christianity. He was actually quite open about parts of that. It's only gotten worse with time.

Realize, Peterson's growth was fueled by Youtube algorithm favoritism and controlled media attention. Just like neverTrumper Shapiro was getting pumped by Facebook at a time all legitimate voices on the non-controlled right were getting suppressed or outright banned. I remember when Shapiro first got his start, way before he got popular, back when he was still a pimply faced teenager on WND; he's been a talking pointer for decades.

All these types are designed to funnel your time, attention and money towards talking heads the system controls, who can keep the 'loyal opposition' focused where is should and not where it shouldn't and safely on the reservation. At least those it doesn't repulse. I mean, have you actually tried to listen to Shapiro for long periods of time? My ears! Look at the 3 individuals spoke of here, none of these are the charismatic leaders of men type. That would be too dangerous.
 
rockfox said:
He is a deceiver. He spent a long time trying to come off as a Christian without actually saying he's one, then later right out saying he is a Christian but when actual Christians asked him Christian confessional questions he immediately went into forked tongue mode avoiding the question. On multiple occasions.

He is a good speaker no doubt, and has had some good rhetoric. But the effected controlled types usually do. He is yet another astroturfed talking head fronted specifically to halt the movement of men towards the right and towards traditionalism and Christianity. He was actually quite open about parts of that. It's only gotten worse with time.

Realize, Peterson's growth was fueled by Youtube algorithm favoritism and controlled media attention. Just like neverTrumper Shapiro was getting pumped by Facebook at a time all legitimate voices on the non-controlled right were getting suppressed or outright banned. I remember when Shapiro first got his start, way before he got popular, back when he was still a pimply faced teenager on WND; he's been a talking pointer for decades.

All these types are designed to funnel your time, attention and money towards talking heads the system controls, who can keep the 'loyal opposition' focused where is should and not where it shouldn't and safely on the reservation. At least those it doesn't repulse. I mean, have you actually tried to listen to Shapiro for long periods of time? My ears! Look at the 3 individuals spoke of here, none of these are the charismatic leaders of men type. That would be too dangerous.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between being a deceiver and not being right about everything.
 
Peterson definitly has Christian leanings. He is classical liberal with all/most of their morality. Since classical liberalism was born in Christian society, he has picked up a lot of Christian morality.

I don't think he is a true believer.
 
The Revolting Man said:
There’s a difference between being a deceiver and not being right about everything.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference and Peterson is on the side of evil.

According to Scripture, Peterson is an antichrist, a deceiver, and a false teacher.

I am horrified that anyone here takes Peterson, Prager, or Shapiro seriously (FWIW I'm not impressed with Crowder or Candace either).

Peterson does not confess the Lord Jesus Christ as the actual, unique, only begotten Son of God, come in the flesh, crucified, dead, buried, bodily raised from the dead, ascended to the right hand of the Father, and literally returning to judge the world and save His people.

That is the definition of antichrist, and it fits Peterson.

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward.

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." (2nd John verses 7-11 NKJV).

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1st John 2:22-23, NKJV)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1st John 4:1-6).

Prager and Shapiro also fit this category.

I do think Peterson is worse. He really strikes me as a dedicated occultist-promethian-luciferian with the way he twists things.

Remember that occultists have both light and dark sides (the black and white squares of the Masonic "checkerboard").

Men like Aleister Crowley and Anton Lavay might serve the prince of darkness, while men like Peterson might serve the one that masquerades as an angel of light.

I think the latter are probably the more dangerous.

Crowder and Candace seem more like gatekeepers, and shills, for the establishment, making a few bucks off of scamming and distracting naive conservatives.

I also get the impression that Crowder might be a barely closeted homosexual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top