During the first few Biblical Lectures, I would see some atheists commenting how they were glad Peterson was destroying Christianity. It's funny how people can choose to interpret things to validate whatever they want.

Now, because he makes it clear he's making a case for religion (not the theological side, just the practical side), it seems they all turned against him.

I can see why as refusing God is a Cardinal sin, and as they see it Jordan is demonstrating that the rules God have given man work not because of a higher wisdom but because, of the human animal or machine had all along an instruction manual he had to discover, also people being tribal and shit

the thing Jordan is doing tho is 2 fold such it can attract atheists to religion practices and finally religion

Peterson wants to point out that the stories have a meaning. It's not just "stupid nonsense"; if you brush them off with that argument, you're being willfully ignorant.

He draws between atheism and pragmatically interpreting religion. If his talks bring atheists into religion, they have to take a step further to get beyond the Gnosticism hurdle

He doesn't focus on the existence of God. He focuses on whether people act as if there was a God, or not.

And the God they based their acts on, what it's like.

For instance, the fact that God can't be of the realm of men. Not a God King, God Emperor, God Pharaoh. There's a meaning behind this particular decision, on how to depict God. And it's most certainly not a universal trait of all religions.

The very concept that a King owes something to a greater entity, greater purpose, greater good.

if it was directed at me I wasn't brushing off stories in religious texts as nonsense , nor did I say so

Not you, but the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens.

k cool

I d like to see Peterson start a media network like brietbart

The Chinese emperors being buried with their armies, concubines, servants. Just so they could continue having power, sex and comfort in the afterlife. The Judeo-Christian God is a symbol that's directly against it. Why didn't the Chinese come up with that idea? They certainly had a very long history to figure it out.

also tho the story where Jesus was cursing the Figg tree for not producing fruit has a funny connotation .

And boy, do we have Figg trees today...

me idk about that , if you ask an archeologist , what we know about the past is really mixed up and very vague to say the least

We call them faggots though.

The education systen needs to be fixed tbh
https://youtu.be/zDZFcDGpL4U

nah, the Starship Troopers film sucks monkey balls, the book is what Sargon is going to be doing a video on

and ffs is he taking his time on it

would be funny if Peterson ends up turning the online atheists into a new crusade though =p

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1001305267768770561

TULSI <:covfefe:440543908846632980>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKqMNQdo6Kw

https://twitter.com/Amish_DB_lives/status/1001163920114003968

Dayum

HAIL ELON

also escaped South Africa, the ultimate redpill

You mean new Zimbabwe ?

In Tommy's case, the defense attorney can rightfully argue that the jury didn't evaluate the case on its merits, but on how the media presented it to them, and ask for the sentence to be overturned. So it makes sense the judge wouldn't want media bias interfering. Tommy should not have done that reporting, in both instances.

Now, the gag order about Tommy himself, that was overstepping reason.

firstly, i got into a bit of a debate with a person who claims that (after some reasonable debate) count dankulas case should not be given the same considerations as the trial tommy robinson was attempting to cover. it was my consideration that as a matter of principle, both cases should have been givven the very same considerations one way or the other universally. however they believe i am wrong. what say you well reasoned and not entirely trollish group of pepe's? (post above is reply to this one)

I think both should have been given the same treatment, because both cases ruins reputation

The gag order should relate to the grooming gang case.

and i agree. i see it more as a matter of principle that one way or the other both cases (and to be more general, ALL cases) should be afforded the same fundamental protections by law to prevent undue influence, or none at all should. there should be no in-between

How they decide what to blank out and not I have no idea

Dankula's case had no jury.

true, however they had one person judging the case

and one is just as easily influenced as 12 or however many jurors there are in a british trial

what science do they use to determine what, when and who can film what where and when?

Dankula should have had a right to a jury, and receive the same protection against smearing by the media.