Desire feedback

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
A guy who I've been following a lot lately (not a a Christian, but still a brilliant man) is Jordan Peterson. He has an excellent analysis of "Notes from Underground" by Dostoevsky, which I admit I have never read. I responded on you tube with the following comment, but please watch the video first for full context (I am not going to provide a link, for board rules reasons, but it is worth your time.) Just look it up using "men are not piano keys jordan peterson."

After watching the video, see if my comment makes any sense. I am especially asking the people who are strong in God's Word.

My comment was:

I'm not saying that I didn't have a few good teachers in college, but I really wished to have studied under this man. I know he was speaking to man's innate incompatibility to be satisfied with all of his desires being provided for, and also the irrationality of communism, but there was also a subtle (intended or not) reference to the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin that exists in all of us. Maybe in our current condition, we aren't ready for paradise, because, for us who aren't sanctified, it would be hell. Just a thought.

Again, this comment will not make sense without the context provided by watching the video, but if you have, I'd love honest feedback from my brothers and sisters in Christ. And no, my request for feedback isn't a rhetorical device to get you to watch a video. It is an honest request for feedback.
 
Last edited:

DaveS

Well-Known Member
Good morning,

Observations...

1. Your comment has enough substance in it to make for an interesting discussion without the context of the video. :)

2. Jonathan quotes: "I know he was speaking to man's innate incompatibility to be satisfied with all of his desires being provided "As I see it, Peterson is also exploring the topic of man's consciousness, and the problem (as often evolutionary naturalists will contrive it) of whether or not man actually possesses a will of his own, or whether man's actions are dictated by natural mechanisms. Evolutionary naturalists, as I have observed... are often deterministic; that is, they lean towards man possessing no real "free will" of his/her own, but rather (simply put, since the topic is way more complex) acts and reacts according to the way in which their evolutionary process has dictated over millions of years. I'm not assuming you haven't already figured this out...

3. Jonathan quotes: "a subtle (intended or not) reference to the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin that exists in all of us. ". This thought (as introduced) in context to the video (especially according to consciousness and the will of man), is a Juggernaut of complexity (as I have observed) that has influenced the premises of (dare I say?) all of the theological interpretations and premises seen in our orthodox and non-orthodox churches, institutions and cults. A Pastor I once had remarked to me that the key to understanding the rest of the bible rested in Genesis 1-3; over the years I've come to realize just how intense that remark probably is, and just how divisive it can be. The fact that atheists and or agnostics mull this over in their brains, or probably better said is in the hearts (according to Eccl. 3:11), only goes to show to this poster, that the passage cited rings true... God has planted in our hearts "eternity"... I theorize that this truth shows why man (even the non-theist) wonders at his own origins and purpose. Accordingly, as I see it, your remark - Jonathan quotes: "Maybe in our current condition, we aren't ready for paradise, because, for us who aren't sanctified, it would be hell." is both a very good and logical point to make (with the addendum of the God given hope and truth of progressive revelation), but also an ambiguous and dangerous topic to broach with a non-theist. This because the non-theist only approaches the issue from the perspective of "our current condition"... and not from the perspective of (Gen. 1:27). In my opinion, this also is what makes the previous quoted passage (Eccl. 3:11) that much more interesting and telling... (according to the greater context of the chapter of Eccl.), in that a man centered solution (or question for that matter) to a God purposed creation will lead man onto a never ending quest of non-answered questions.

God bless your studies and inquiries,
Dave
 
Last edited:

Jonathan

Well-Known Member
Good morning,

Observations...

1. Your comment has enough substance in it to make for an interesting discussion without the context of the video.

2. Jonathan quotes: "I know he was speaking to man's innate incompatibility to be satisfied with all of his desires being provided "As I see it, Peterson is also exploring the topic of man's consciousness, and the problem (as often evolutionary naturalists will contrive it) of whether or not man actually possesses a will of his own, or whether man's actions are dictated by natural mechanisms. Evolutionary naturalists, as I have observed... are often deterministic; that is, they lean towards man possessing no real "free will" of his/her own, but rather (simply put, since the topic is way more complex) acts and reacts according to the way in which their evolutionary process has dictated over millions of years. I'm not assuming you haven't already figured this out...

3. Jonathan quotes: "a subtle (intended or not) reference to the Judeo-Christian concept of original sin that exists in all of us. ". This thought (as introduced) in context to the video (especially according to consciousness and the will of man), is a Juggernaut of complexity (as I have observed) that has influenced the premises of (dare I say?) all of the theological interpretations and premises seen in our orthodox and non-orthodox churches, institutions and cults. A Pastor I once had remarked to me that the key to understanding the rest of the bible rested in Genesis 1-3; over the years I've come to realize just how intense that remark probably is, and just how divisive it can be. The fact that atheists and or agnostics mull this over in their brains, or probably better said is in the hearts (according to Eccl. 3:11), only goes to show to this poster, that the passage cited rings true... God has planted in our hearts "eternity"... I theorize that this truth shows why man (even the non-theist) wonders at his own origins and purpose. Accordingly, as I see it, your remark - Jonathan quotes: "Maybe in our current condition, we aren't ready for paradise, because, for us who aren't sanctified, it would be hell." is both a very good and logical point to make (with the addendum of the God given hope and truth of progressive revelation), but also an ambiguous and dangerous topic to broach with a non-theist. This because the non-theist only approaches the issue from the perspective of "our current condition"... and not from the perspective of (Gen. 1:27). In my opinion, this also is what makes the previous quoted passage (Eccl. 3:11) that much more interesting and telling... (according to the greater context of the chapter of Eccl.), in that a man centered solution (or question for that matter) to a God purposed creation will lead man onto a never ending quest of non-answered questions.

God bless your studies and inquiries,
Dave
Wow, awesome exposition. I just read this, and it is my birthday so we have a little more celebrating to do, but I promise to reply properly over the weekend. But thanks for a truly awesome response.

God Bless.
 

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
Just finished watching. DaveS got it.

Peterson and Dostoevsky were pondering the great questions that all human beings have. Who am I, why am I here, what will become of me.

Peterson expounds on Dostoevsky's book describing it as a brilliant exposition of the condition of man to both desire utopia yet works to destroy it because of his condition and ego.

Your analysis seemed to me to be suitably thought provoking for those people who were able to follow Dostoevsky's argument and DaveS provided a good critique of your response. So I'll comment on another aspect of the video that came into my head as I was watching. It is not a critique of you, Peterson or Dostoevsky, but a critique of Apologists and Apology in general.

The intelligence required to understand both Peterson and Dostoevsky (and by extension, your comment) is pretty big.

Looking at the video I noticed that Peterson seemed to be talking in a college's small auditorium in a college class. I kept waiting for someone to stick up their hand and say "huh?". If Dostoevsky was trying to make a point to his fellow Russians and to history, he should have dumbed down his argument a little. I guarantee you the average Proletariat had no clue what he was talking about. And if the Proletariat does not know what is being said, and only the Intelligentsia will, then the Intelligentsia will either hide the information from the Proletariat or mislead the Proletariat as to what the message is. That is what effectively happened during the Russian revolution that created Communism.

Ditto with Christian Apologetics. Apologists need to explain their concepts about God and Jesus in a way that the average Joe-on-the-street can understand. This is what drives me nuts about Ravi Zacharius most times. I can generally understand the points he is trying to make but I have to cut through a lot of high-falutin' talk first. And generally I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person.

My concern is that there doesn't seem to be an Apologist or an apologetic argument that the average person, we're talking blue collar or tradesman, can understand. I am familiar with most of the other big name Apologists and most of them do a better job in their apologetics but I still don't think that they are describing things that the average person can understand. Of course the issue may be that I have an off kilter impression of the reasoning ability of humans but it must be true that some percentage of people have no capacity to understand much of what Apologists say.

And that bothers me.

God is for everybody. Somehow, someway all people need to come to an understanding and acceptance of God's Grace and the sacrifice that was made through Jesus to provide us with a means of Salvation. A lot of people can accept this simple principle easily. Other people need to have a reasonable and rational argument presented to them so that they can understand. For myself, I fell a little into the first category and a lot into the later category.

The problem is that if you need to go through a reasoned and logical analysis of the existence of God and all that that implies, most people will not take the time or energy to do so.

And that bothers me too.

I am probably fuming over a situation that does not have an easy solution, but having an Engineering background my natural inclination is to look for a solution to a problem and not accept the percentage of people who will not be saved that will occur. It bothers me.

But that is in God's hands, not mine.

As for Peterson, he is hanging on the precipice of understanding the human sin condition, it's cause and it's solution. For Dostoevsky, if he didn't get it, it's too late.

Your comment in reply to the video seemed sufficiently probing in order to open up minds to a different view of Dostoevsky's conundrum without being overly overt to the answer that Christianity provides, which seems to turn people off these days. But I pray that it bears fruit.

 
Top