Jordan Peterson on Catholicism: ‘That’s as sane as people can get’

LifeSiteNews ^ | May 27, 2019 | John-Henry Westen

[Mrs. Don-o]

May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”

Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.

He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”

“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”

Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:

“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”

See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

(2) May I ask that you to look at this in detail, too, to see if your definition is the same as hers? Anything you would like to add, subtract, or revise?

It may be the same article

(3) What do you mean, "Not a Samaritan?" It says right there that he was a Samaritan.

Yes, but he is the only one who came back to say thank you...

(4) I'm having some cinnamon - and - apple coffeecake with tea. It is not Scriptural, but has its own goodness, truth and beauty nevertheless --- which I would love to share!

I'd take it, if accompanied by coffee, dark as sin and strong enough to float a horseshoe...

[metmom]

Sacred Tradition is unwritten truths about faith and morals. The unwritten infallible truths of Tradition, as they are expressed by God, are not expressed in words, neither written words nor spoken words... the Sacred Magisterium can express a truth drawn from Sacred Tradition with a guarantee of infallibility that proceeds from the charisms of the Sacred Magisterium. However, such infallible statements depend, at least in part, upon the charisms of the Magisterium for their infallibility. And such infallible statements of the Magisterium are not Tradition itself, even when they are firmly based on and drawn from Tradition. Sacred Tradition itself is unwritten and unspoken. -

So the Sacred Magisterium can establish Sacred Tradition, to which they then appeal for their claims to be the Sacred Magisterium tahtthe Sacred Tradition establishes the Sacred Magisterium.

How convenient.

[metmom]

Nailing jello to a wall comes to mind........

[cornelis]

More like beginner tennis. Certainly not Erasmus and Luther.

[Mrs. Don-o]

(3) What do you mean, "Not a Samaritan?" It says right there that he was a Samaritan.--- " Yes, but he is the only one who came back to say thank you..."

Maybe I need a dose of that blackest barbarian kind of coffee. I don't understand how this point (above) fits into the general discussion about Sola Scriptura.

Am I dense? (Don't answer that.)

Send coffee. Stet.

[ealgeone]

It's becoming pretty clear you don't have any examples to post.

If you do, please do so or else this little game is over.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Send coffee. Stet.

.............................................................................

[Aside: we tried many different kinds of coffee until we found our "House" coffee. So good I miss it when I'm traveling...]

.............................................................................

Christ healed 10. As they left, they were healed.

Only one came back to say thank you.

He was the Samaritan (pointed out to Jews, for a reason by Christ)

.............................................................................

When I answered your request, no one came back to thank me for the extra effort.

I guessed you were not a Samaritan...

Like I said before, you really got me again.

[ealgeone]

I notice in your appeal to reject sola scriptura...you appeal to sola scriptura.

The Law of the Lord is not perfect????

Next you'll be saying the precepts of the Lord are not right or that the commandment of the Lord is not pure.

You may want to reconsider your post.

You've already discredited Tradition with your prior post and now you're seemingly discrediting the scriptures as somehow being inadequate.

Isn't the OT what RCs always claim is being pointed to in 2 Tim 3:15-16?

Now, even that isn't sufficient in some way.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Show us where Paul says that tradition trumps Scripture."

`

`

`

"Have you stopped beating your newborn kittens?"

Yours in an unanswerable question because it rests on a prior assertion that is false: that I ever said that tradition (or Tradition) trumps Scripture.

Never said it, never intended to say it, never could have said it, never thought it.

Stuff like this drives me to drink...

Hot coffee.

[ealgeone]

I always like butterscotch or chocolate.

[ealgeone]

Your prior post on this certainly seems to suggest that.

When RC theology is examined, especially the Marian dogmas, one has to come to the conclusion that "Big T" does trump Scripture.

There are more examples that could be offered, but those are for starters.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I notice in your appeal to reject sola scriptura...you appeal to sola scriptura. The Law of the Lord is not perfect????

`

`

`

"Have you stopped beating your newborn kittens?"

If this looks like "Deja vu all over again," it's because it is "deja vu all over again."

Yours in an unanswerable question because it rests on prior assertions that are false: that I appealed to Sola Scriptura in my answer (I did not) and that I said the Law of the Lord is not perfect (I did not.)

Never said it, never intended to say it, never could have said it, never thought it.

Stuff like this drives me to drink...

Hot coffee.

Please read the following plea with the utmost patience: May I ask you to go back and read what I actually did say?

[MHGinTN]

You are so dense still that you don't even realize how what you posted CONTRADICTS what you are teaching others. Thus you are leading people down the broad and wrong road.

It is also noted that you flipped the passages to put the sending out of the seventy (to the Jews ONLY) as if after the Last Supper Discourse. Your inability to discern different focus groups and the particulars of the New Covenant is duly noted, teacher.

[ealgeone]

Those are beautiful and apt: but "perfect" does not mean what you think it means. "Perfect" means doesn't mean "complete," "that's all there is," "no need to look at or consider anything else."

Otherwise,it would be redundant to write the New Testament, since the law and testimony and precepts and commandments of the LORD were (as you interpret "perfect") "complete" right then and there when the Psalms were written, in the OT.

Your post in context on the question at hand.

Perhaps you're not understanding what the Law of the Lord is.

I know Roman Catholics aren't used to Biblical exegesis and this becomes painfully clear in these type of discussions.

[ealgeone]

It is patently clear the vast majority of RCs have no prior training in properly handling the very Scriptures they claim to have given everyone.

I've said it before and will continue to say it again:

CONTEXT IS YOUR KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURES.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"After requesting I do the work of posting a definition of Sola Scriptura, I never heard back from you - surprisingly."

You mean at #515?

I just laid eyes on that for the first time 30 seconds ago. It is (presently) on page 6 of my pings. I never would have seen it at all, if you had not repeatedly called me "Not a Samaritan", and then thoughtfully explained what you meant by "Not a Samaritan."

So now that I see your definition of Sola Scriptura, I thank you. I am going to print it for myself, right along with Metmom's definition of SS, for further study.

Please don't assume I deliberately (or even carelessly) breeze past your kind and helpful posts. I would never have seen #515 at all, if I hadn't done a FR user search with the keyword aMorePerfectUnion. And there it was, a fair scroll down the queue.

So, I appreciate you!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I just laid eyes on that for the first time 30 seconds ago. It is (presently) on page 6 of my pings. I never would have seen it at all, if you had not repeatedly called me "Not a Samaritan", and then thoughtfully explained what you meant by "Not a Samaritan."

You're welcome!

😂

[aMorePerfectUnion]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3753023/posts?page=512#512

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3753023/posts?page=515#515

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know what the Law of the Lord is.

And whatever my personal limitations (which you or I may well note) the Law of the Lord is the biggest thing in the Magisterium and happens to be a hot topic within the Catholic Church right now, because the dubious Argentinian Peronist presently resident at Domus Sanctae Martae seems to have forgotten all he ever knew about it.

This lamentable amnesia on his part has drawn this contemporary and ageless response from an esteemed teacher in the Church who is arguably more Catholic than the Pope.

What's the Koine Greek word for "Sheesh"?

[MHGinTN]

Some on this very thread have exposed their lack of even a familiarity with the Bible. when one was offered 1 Cor 6:19-24, that one not only would not read the passage, he did not recognize that there are no verses past @20 in 1 Cor 6. And when pressed, did not appear to know that Cor is the abbreviation used for Corinthians. Such catholiciism apologists really should remain silent on these threads. Then we have the other extreme, someone who teaches the aspects of Catholicism but has no clue what the Gospel of Grace is about, citing many ‘traditions’ of catholic men to defend unBibical additions to what becomes not Christianity but an ‘other religion’ as Paul defined them.