Peterson hosts a beautiful dialog on Meaning between a very broad group of intellectuals. A profound 2 hours of discussion. Enjoy - Meaning, Epistemology, Religion, Spirit, Faith, Logic, Rationality, Mental Health
Interesting follow up by the two explicit Christians. First 10 minutes paints Christianity in perspective with post modernism. Remaining is primarily Christian discussion.
I do want to highlight that Barron and Pageau are active practicing Christians that would very likely be seen as active practicing Christians by those in their chosen faiths. Not someone standing outside, looking into.
It’s great to see progress among some in the Christian community.
It seems that what they are describing is “New Atheists” have prodded the more Conservative factions of Christianity to re-think some of it’s Literal Mythic concepts and move into a more Rational Tier. Their selling point still seems to be “meaning” - so yeah clearly focused on rational concepts.
I still hear a lot of Green Tier Shadows, though - as they still have an axe to grind with Postmodernism.
Funnily enough, Jesus was the OG liberal postmodern Hippy GOAT. It’s interesting to observe these Christians struggle with Green Jesus as they edge out of Conservativism and NeoConservativism, but still try to keep one foot in that circle by still being against Postmodernist Green ideologies.
It sees to me that this is a growing trend on the “Right” - that they are just now “discovering” Green Tier concepts 50 years later but also schizophrenically trying to deny it at the same time - creating a lot of incongruency.
What I am observing is that this becomes a kind of self revulsion directed outward.
Reminds me of Al Franken’s Supply Side Jesus
Al Franken wrote that? lol
I guess I read it before Al Franken hit national awareness.
Did you listen to the discussion, or just sayin’?
With things like this, there is no way I’m going to sit through all of both videos. I really find Jordan Peterson tiresome and has a bit of a bit whiney voice. But I did listen to selected portions of the second one.
Why - was anything I said incorrect: