Comments by "Awesome Avenger" (@awesomeavenger2810) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

Bring an umbrella or you'll get covered in spit
77
The way I see it, Islam's main problem is that unlike Jesus, Mohammed actually existed. And unlike Jesus, Mohammed not only claimed spiritual authority, but also earthly authority. Jesus is an anti-establishment figure. He never held earthly power. He was the rebel. The opposition without power. And the advantage of being in opposition is that you have no responsibilities. Therefore, you can criticize, but as you have no responsibilities, you can't be blamed for anything. By contrast, Mohammed had a great many responsibilities. He was a leader of people and, like all leaders, he had to make decisions based on compromise. He, like all leaders, had to act hypocritically. And there is the problem. How do you justify hypocrisy in man so perfect? You basically have two options. You can yourself (if you are Muslim) be hypocritical about your faith, and condemn Mohammed's bad and less than holy actions, while at the same time holding him up as perfect. Or, you can justify his bad actions as being moral, as, being perfect, Mohammed can be without fault. Seems to me that Islam and Muslim's need more hypocrisy (in the good sense) in their beliefs. After all, Christianity has had to learn hypocrisy regarding the old testament. When people stop justifying immoral and wicked acts on the basis of their supposed divinity, and instead bury those embarrassing parts of their religious texts away out of sight, then you get progress in religion.
12
When a society has invested so much in an ideology, whether that be religious or political, and that ideology collapses under the weight of its own contradictions and hypocrisies, a large number of people will kick the game board into the air and send the pieces flying. If they can't win. Then nobody else should either.
2
Team Colors A guy and his mates were at the bar one night, and one of them had the idea that everyone in the street should paint their house in team colors to show their support for an upcoming game. The guy thought it would be a laugh. He kinda agreed but he didn't take it seriously. But his neighbours did. In a mater of days the whole street was painted in team colors. All except his house. His mates got to together and asked him when he was gonna paint his house. He said he didn't want to. They said they would paint it for him if he liked. He said thanx but no. He didn't want his house painted in team colors. His mates were annoyed. They were taking it more seriously than he was. They fell out with him. His house was the only house on the street not to be painted in team colors. And it undermined the whole point of everyone painting their house. People began to give him the cold shoulder. They wouldn't talk to him. It effected his wife and kids. His kids blamed him for not going along with everyone else and his wife complained that his stubbornness was making them outcasts. But the guy didn't want to paint his house in team colors. He had thought it was a laugh when the idea had first come up. But it wasn't something he really wanted to do. His wife told him that she was leaving and taking the kids with her until he came to his senses. Why couldn't he just do what everyone else was doing? It was only a little thing. All he had to do was agree. It would make everyone's life so much easier. He felt very betrayed. Then one day he came home from work to find his house had been painted in team colors. His mates were standing around waiting for him. They told him to that it was done now. And that everyone should just forget about it and move on. But he didn't want to. He couldn't. He didn't see the other guys as his mates any longer. And when he had needed his wife, she had walked out on him. He realised that, yeah, it was a small thing. It would've been a whole lot easier just to go along with everyone else and paint his house in team colors. But that's not what he wanted to do. And his mates, his wife, and his community should have respected his wishes. And the fact that they didn't said more about his mates, his wife, and his community than his simple refusal to paint his house in team colors.
2
Team Colors A guy and his mates were at the bar one night, and one of them had the idea that everyone in the street should paint their house in team colors to show their support for an upcoming game. The guy thought it would be a laugh. He kinda agreed but he didn't take it seriously. But his mates did. In a matter of days the whole street was painted in team colors. All except his house. His mates got to together and asked him when he was gonna paint his house. He said he didn't want to. They said they would paint it for him if he liked. He said thanx but no. He didn't want his house painted in team colors. His mates were annoyed. They were taking it more seriously than he was. They fell out with him. His house was the only house on the street not to be painted in team colors. And it undermined the whole point of everyone painting their house. People began to give him the cold shoulder. They wouldn't talk to him. It effected his wife and kids. His kids blamed him for not going along with everyone else and his wife complained that his stubbornness was making them outcasts. But the guy didn't want to paint his house in team colors. He had thought it was a laugh when the idea had first come up. But it wasn't something he really wanted to do. His wife told him that she was leaving and taking the kids with her until he came to his senses. Why couldn't he just do what everyone else was doing? It was only a little thing. All he had to do was agree. It would make everyone's life so much easier. He felt very betrayed. Then one day he came home from work to find his house had been painted in team colors. His mates were standing around waiting for him. They told him that it was done now. And that everyone should just forget about it and move on. But he didn't want to. He couldn't. He didn't see the other guys as his mates any longer. And when he had needed his wife, she had walked out on him. He realised that, yeah, it was a small thing. It would've been a whole lot easier just to go along with everyone else and paint his house in team colors. But that's not what he wanted to do. And his mates, his wife, and his community should have respected his wishes. And the fact that they didn't said more about his mates, his wife, and his community than his simple refusal to paint his house in team colors.
2
Hahahahahahaaaa!
1
Hahaha!
1
That's fuckin Awesome.
1
These people become gatekeepers of what is, and is not, acceptable. They take on the roll of professional denouncer. And their careers depend on finding fault. They set themselves up as spokesperson for a specific 'community' (with absolutely no mandate to do so), then use that community as a shield to ram thro their ideology. If you can make skin color or sexuality or gender a political statement, then anyone who disagrees with that statement can be denounced as racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.
1
I guess its down to all of us to take responsibility for what we say and how we say it.
1
In 1994 the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm said that, in his opinion, the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens under Stalin would have been worth it if a genuine Communist society had been the result. But just how many millions of dead would Eric's utopia have been worth? Just a round million? 10 million? 30 million? Why not 40 million? And having paid that price, would he ever have admitted failure? No. Because the old fool didn't realise that his own words were the very reason why communism degenerates into genocidal tyranny. Stalin himself would have made the exact same argument. If you believe that millions of lives are an acceptable price to pay in order to reach a utopia, then your utopia is no longer utopian. Imagine tho if he had said the same about nazism. Would he have received the same honours and awards he was given throughout his career? What is the difference between the millions killed under Hitler and the millions killed under Stalin? Would a nazi utopia have looked any different from Eric's utopia? How could you tell them apart? It is unforgivable that the genocidal horrors of communism are so little know in the west. In China, or Russia, it is perhaps understandable. But not it the west. Eric Hobsbawm should have been disowned and ostracized for his words. But he wasn't. He continued to receive honours and awards long after 1994. If I ever pass near to where he is buried. I'll be sure to piss on the old man's grave.
1
The USA went to war with Hitler's Germany. Were there those who, without the benefit of hindsight, worked with Germans and the German government before the outbreak of war? Of course. It would be utterly amazing had that not happened. Germany was not a pariah state to begin with. Take a look at the USSR. It allowed Germany to circumnavigate the post world war one prohibition on German tank formations by allowing them to hold tank manoeuvers on Russian territory. I guess they should also take the blame for their lack of prescient ability?
1
I have read arguments that Mohammed never actually existed either. But so far as I know, it is far more likely that he did. What you have with Mohammed is basically an earlier version of Joseph Smith. Most 'new' religions build on what is already there. Just like one holy place is built on top of another. You can see why that is, because it far easier to work with what is already there, than to create something entirely new. It's also safer. Better to appear ultra pious to the point you are considered a new prophet of an existing god. Than to risk blasphemy and end up dead. Another example of a earlier Joseph Smith is Hong Xiuquan. As for whether Jesus existed, the best 'evidence' that he did is pretty poor. Most of it simply references early Christians as proof, rather than evidence of Jesus himself. But in my opinion that is actually one of Christianity's strengths. Not a weakness. He's basically a mythical Robin Hood figure. He had no grand palaces or servants or slaves. He is the ideal not the reality. And is therefore untainted with responsibility or hypocrisy.
1
So the spread of a religious belief is proof of the existence of that religion's god? There are numerous different religions around the world and throughout history. They can't all be true. And if one or more are false, then that proves the belief in made up deities can and do spread.
1
Kalo Arepo That would be against the message of the new testament. Which teaches that suffering is morally pure. Victimhood is a virtue. And that violence is never the answer. So clearly leading an army would break his pacifist ideology from the very start. Obviously, in the real world such an ideology would lead only to tyranny of the worst kind. In its purest form, pacifism is the abdication of responsibility, not only for others and those of later generations, but for yourself also. It's unworkable in the real world. But then if your ultimate goal is to move on to the next, you simply see this world as an inconvenience. So why should that matter? You could always ask how it is that such a pacifist ideology could spread so far and last so long? But the reality is that those that spread it were of course not pacifist at all. But again, here Christianity is able to claim that its prophet has clean hands. Can Jesus be held accountable for what those who came after him did? That is the benefit of following someone who never existed and who remains untainted by the needs of reality. It's very different for the followers of Mohammed. Because all heroes have faults. So when you deify your heroes and make them morally perfect, you have to be prepared to justify their every action. You can't have a morally imperfect prophet who is morally perfect.
1
Well, you will be pleased to know that UK journalists who are seen to be overly critical of the (Marxist useful idiot) who leads the mainstream left wing Labour party have also be targeted with threats. And it gets reported.
1
I agree with him on many things. But sometimes, a story about a god drowning millions of people because they have displeased him is just that. It's not a metaphor. It's literal. In the bible, Peterson see's what he wants to see. Not what's there.
1
@afonsodeportugal Nonsense. When some nut pastor proclaims that the latest hurricane is god's punishment for allowing gay marriage or because not enough people go to his church, what 'deeper meaning' does that include?
1
@afonsodeportugal Peterson's interpretation supposes that the bible is a metaphor. Non-literal. Not real. Because although you can interpret real events, real events are not and cannot be metaphors. Foreign backpackers strip off on a sacred mountain in Malaya. A hurricane devastates the area. And that is interpreted as the wrath of the gods. Any additional interpretation layered on top of that initial interpretation is unnecessary. Just as in the biblical flood story, the belief is in god's literal wrath. As God is not meant as a metaphor. Because if he is, he doesn't exist. And those that believe in gods do so literally.
1
@afonsodeportugal While its true that most, if not all, religious people are hypocritical in their faith (as in, not believing everything 100%), its simply not the case than nobody believes in a literal interpretation of Adam & Eve. It may be the case that those who do take such stories literally are in the minority today, but that hasn't always been the case. After all, what other explanations were there thousands of years ago for how we came to be? And that is the point. These stories are old. They existed to explain man's origin at a time when there were no other explanations. And yes, people took them literally. The foundation of religion (imo) is based upon the need to understand the natural world. Things like hurricanes, storms, earthquakes, etc. And it's true that religious people are more likely to attribute agency to natural forces (the storm happened because we did this, the earthquake happened because we didnt do that - assigning natural forces the same thoughts and feelings as we have ourselves - anger, resentment, generosity etc). The ability to appease these things were life and death to people who didnt have the knowledge that we have today - You need a good harvest. You need that rain. You can't afford to have people get ill. Its a kind of OCD, which again, is all about trying to control things around you. So it is important not to upset those forces (a god or gods). Because otherwise your little civilisation gets wiped out. So no. These stories were and are seen as literal. The power of god/or the gods are seen as very real. Noah and the flood is not meant as a metaphor. The bible is not metaphorical.
1
Jordan Peterson interprets the bible stories as metaphorical. He talks of biblical sacrifice as representing the idea that, say, in order to enjoy a secure future we must make sacrifices (investment of work or time) today. But that is not what religious sacrifice is. The Aztecs did not metaphorically sacrifice people to their gods. They did it literally. As an expression of appeasement. Slaves (or non-slaves) were valuable. Food is valuable. These get sacrificed (wasted) not because the gods need them (altho perhaps they do) but because it is evidence of your devotion to them. You need to appease them, and you do so by showing them how devoted you are to them. And you do that by giving away your valuable things. After all, the sacrifice of unwanted or worthless things is no sacrifice at all. But the sacrifice of a son, shows true devotion.
1