Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "John Anderson Media" channel.

@sandyh5873 The assertion, that you made about Joan of Arc, isn't true. She was arrested for heresy, claiming that she heard voices from Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine. The English dominated tribunal, the English were the ENEMY, claimed that this was heretical and burned her at the stake. Why would the French rally around her when she was wearing men's clothing? It didn't seem to matter then. It was only when the English got involved that her life was in jeopardy and the reason is obvious. The English didn't want her to inspire the French into strengthening their resolve against the English. Also, you treat the Indigenous people of the Americas as one big monolith, all believing the same thing. "Acceptance varied from tribe to tribe, however; while some gender-variant individuals were culturally integrated and held roles that contributed to their communities, others were rejected and ostracized." Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/berdache In fact, I find the idea that ALL native Americans were all the same to be rather offensive. They had different beliefs, customs, languages and even HATED each other. The Iroquois committed genocide against the Huron of southern Ontario in 1649. Don't lump them all into one group. It takes away from the richness of their separate cultures and heritage.
77
@jamesmason2228 That's another problem that we have in the west. Don't agree with me, I'll call you names like homophobes and transphobes. That's the tactic to smear those who would add different perspectives to issues so they can be dismissed. It's not dialogue or coming together to find common ground. It's designating people as less than and evil and deserving of disdain. You are doing EXACTLY what you're accusing others of doing. When you're ready to discuss without the name calling and smearing, I'll talk to you. Otherwise, stay away.
68
@majuli8420 " yet seems woefully inept to run his own private life" So we don't take advice from anyone until you meet the perfect human? Do you know such a creature? Maybe we should be looking to the skies for the return of Jesus. He's been described as the perfect human. Maybe he's to be listened to BECAUSE he IS human...that's he's just like the rest of us (except you, I suspect) bumbling along, screwing things up and trying our best to work out from under our mistakes. Working towards, usually quite inadequately, becoming a better person as we grow up, which never stops. It's funny how some people aren't listening to what he's saying and just seek to smear and destroy the man and then believe that this is an intellectual endeavour. If you want perfection....trying talking to God. If you want to solve your problems....have discussions and try to understand the human condition. That's what Peterson is doing. All you're doing is tearing him down by pointing out his humanity and ignoring the discussion. That's a really easy game to play and a rather mediocre way of discussing ANY topic.
33
@Torres-tw3ic Maybe we should be taking the splinter out of our own eye before attempting to take the splinter out of someone else's. Being blind to our own faults would also make one blind to their neighbour's.
26
@PEPSEP So you're the guy that Peterson was talking about. The guy that throws out Nietzsche's book because he disagrees with one or two things written in it. Quite the small perspective. Always looking for the imperfection and then judging the world or people on that. No wonder people want to tear their own country down. They expect perfection and when they don't find it.....DESTROY. "Let he who is perfect, let him throw the first stone". It would appear that you have a pocket full of stones, all ready to be thrown from your perfect little hand.
11
@stueyapstuey4235 So there's no one that believes that gender is a social construct? That's news to me. News to my dog, too. To my grand daughter too. She wanted to name my dog, Cindy, but I told her it was a "boy dog". She told me that she wanted it to be a girl and that she hates boys and stuck her tongue at her older brother. Watch this video. Tell me none of this stuff isn't real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-mV2pANrmk This is all nutty stuff based on post modern and intersectional ideologies, which evolved from Marxism. A woman was shot in the head and killed in Indianapolis because she had the temerity to say "All lives matter" to a BLM activist. The book "White Fragility" is a blueprint for this racist nonsense, advancing purity tests that no one could pass. The author has been giving seminars at "woke" companies to white folk so they will admit their unconscious bias and the company is forcing you to attend. It's nuts. There definitely is a radical left wing that has wild ideas. You're either too brainwashed to see it or you support it and are as crazy as they are.
6
@Pep No....the only way to fight it is through a firm belief in truth as the ultimate guide in life. Ethno nationalism is just another ideology and is EXACTLY what the post modernist left believes. Group identity struggling for power. YOU are what we're trying to fight.
3
@ronxlii I hate that argument. I'm Canadian and I NEVER voted for Trudeau. Others did and now I'm living with the consequences of THEIR vote....not mine.
3
@Buddhamaniac 2+2=5 only works for them until they approach the cash register to pay for the goods they want to buy. That's when they'll insist that it does equal 4 after all. They're not as smart as they think they are.
3
@MissRuthless4U Do you really think that your childish sarcasm would enhance any point that you have to make? If sarcasm is all that you have, you don't have much. Learn to respond like an adult.
2
@SeraphsWitness "That's CCP style tyranny." That's from my comment. Which means that I recognise that China has issues with tyranny but it's hypocritical to call them out when we're doing the same thing. People use it as a deflection like children do. "Well, Johnnie's doing it too." As if that makes it all okay. THAT'S my point. Don't call out China when you won't even admit that you're just as guilty or worse, pretend that your tyranny is justified, somehow. If you're willing to admit, that's the log, and are fighting like mad to fix it, it's not hypocritical to call out someone else who doing the same thing. That Biblical injunction goes hand in hand with hypocrisy. You've recognised the severe issues with our hate speech laws. You're working, I hope through your voting practices anyway, to fix it and that means that metaphorically you ARE taking the mote of your own eye. You recognise the mote or beam and because of it, you CAN mention that someone else might also have problems. It's when you're actively doing it, you can't recognise the mote to even honestly criticise others. That's what I'm trying to say.
2
They refuse dialogue because, to them, it doesn't matter whether their beliefs stand up to scrutiny. It's what they want and they know that the only way to achieve it is through force. As far as they're concerned, dialogue is superfluous and means nothing. There is to be only one outcome, in their minds, and they'll do ANYTHING to get to that outcome. All discussion does is point out who their enemies are. If they get real power, expect a Chinese Cultural Revolution type purge. Your past words will be used against you as evidence of your "bigotry and guilt".
1
@37Dionysos Why do you think people are coming, by the millions, from all over the world, to the West? Is it because the west is a horrible place to live? Or is it because, relatively speaking, the west is STILL better than anywhere else in the world? Your ideology of negativity will of course find fault in the west no matter how good it is. Since nothing is ever perfect, you will find fault. These migrants prove that the west is still the best place for the average person to live. If it wasn't so, this huge flow would be going the other way....and you know it.
1
"Leftism makes you indecent". On the surface, that sounds as hateful as what Biden said in his speech, but you have to look at it a little closer. What makes this statement true is the leftist idea that they are striving for that socialist Utopia on earth. This means that anyone that disagrees with that path to Utopia, is striving to prevent that Utopia, probably for personal gain. In effect, their enemies are willing to destroy the planet, to stop their Utopia from ever coming to fruition. Case in point....climate change and environmental catastrophes. Conservatives have a difficult time falling in line with the view that the socialists have on those subjects. Conservatives believe, for the most part, that Utopia is unachievable, in this life. "My Kingdom is not of this earth" which describes the religious Utopia, that we know as heaven, will never be a part of human existence as we know it. Instead, being the flawed creatures that we are, we are to find redemption, in order to find achieve that Utopia, in the spiritual realm and after we die. We have to hope, through our faith and how we live, that we can find the grace that gets us to that Utopian perfection after our life is over. That makes it a personal journey which smacks of selfishness and greed to the socialist which, to them, negates their socialist Utopia on earth. We're both striving for the same thing but the socialists have a deeper commitment to a heaven on earth and any deviation from that goal must be met with force and hostility. Of course it's a lot more complex than that but that's how I see it, anyway.
1
@johnburns8660 He spends a lot of his time in the US and other countries. He's out of reach of those grasping stifling arms of the progressives when he's not in Canada. He's become too big for the Canadian authorities to control.
1
@mohamedali2858 No one was occupying Gaza when the pogrom was launched on Oct 7/23. There were only Arab Muslims in Gaza. This, and you know this to be true, is about the Islamic belief that the Jews are evil and must be destroyed before the end times come to be. That's not just the Jews in Israel but EVERY Jew around the world.
1
No system is perfect and I very much doubt that it ever will be. We should try to implement the system that works the best and limit the tendencies for corruption, the kind or corruption that companies like Blackrock or individuals like Soros or Klaus Schwab would impose. History has shown that if given the chance, humans will take advantage of any given situation and it's up to us to fight for the freedom and strength to fight that type of social rot.
1
"My Kingdom is not of this world" John 18:36. Most Christians know that since God's Kingdom doesn't exist here, it must exist elsewhere, which means that a theocracy is impossible. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" Mark 12:17 Another example of how heaven and earth are 2 separate entities. In fact, the biggest part, of the Old Testament relates how the Jewish Theocracy didn't and couldn't work. Humans are too imperfect to allow it to happen effectively over any significant length of time. That's not to say that Republicans, better yet Christians, don't get overbearing and demanding, but the things that I've just mentioned, are at the heart of their religion. Before you start calling me a religious kook, I'm not a Christian. However, I do know the faith quite well and have an insight into what Christianity teaches.
1
@rogermetzger7335 Iran is a theocracy, today. They have an elected government but they're under the thumb of the Ayatollah. Yes....the Hebrews were under a theocracy. My point is that even though they were expected to obey God's law, they failed to do so and miserably on any consistent level. They failed and they were punished for it. Punished quite severely with invasion, death and slavery in foreign lands. That was my point. They were theocracies just like Iran is now a theocracy. The only true theocracy is the one in heaven. All those attempted on earth, in the past AND in the future, are doomed to failure because we humans are imperfect, "born in sin" if you will. Your examples of the attempts in New England are evidence of this. Also...yes...the monarchs that swore fealty to the pope placed themselves and their people in theocracies. They put themselves in a position so that their political state was under the direct control of a religious leader and could be over ruled at any time for any reason BY that religious leader, the Pope. theocracy definition: "government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided" Encyclopaedia Britannica The Pope represents Christ on earth, according to the Catholic faith. That's as "divinely guided" as it gets.
1
@rogermetzger7335 I'll have to add this. Your example of Henry VIII doesn't wash either. Henry wanted a divorce but he couldn't because it went against the Catholic Church and the Pope refused to dissolve the marriage. THAT was the power that the Church had over the monarchs. That's why he separated and formed his own church. Also, you might look into the "Humiliation of Canossa" if you want to see how much power the church had over monarchs in the Middle Ages. It's as close to a theocracy as we can get on earth.
1
@rogermetzger7335 I'm going to say that you could apply a bit of all those methods of interpretation. However, a big influence was my upbringing in the Christian Reformed Church which is a Calvinist branch of Christianity. However, I'm looking at it now as an outsider and applying my own subsequent reading on the subject, as well. From everything that I've been able to understand, as an objective outsider, is that Christianity sees the return of Jesus as a Kingdom that stands outside of the world as we know it. A complete transformation from the world of Satan to the world of God. This implies that perfection will not and cannot be achieved without God and his transformation. I will say that the early church is different than the church that it became. They early Christians believed that the return of Jesus and the Kingdom of Heaven was imminent, coming at any moment. That didn't turn out to be the case and Christians had to revise the timeline of his return, which would increase the importance of how one should live their life. Instead of being here when Jesus returns, Christians have been forced to feel that it will happen AFTER they die. That has a 2 pronged effect on how they see their faith. The importance of faith becomes more nebulous as they can't claim to know someone who's grandfather had a cousin who knew Saint Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. Their faith has to come more from within than through evidence, although that is discussed in Hebrew 11:1. Second, it means that the day to day activities of a lifetime have greater relevance as a part of how one finds redemption. Your faith must manifest itself in your works, to a certain degree, to use a religious concept. I guess maybe I looked at your comment as an argument rather than a discussion and that may not have been the best way to approach it. However, in my defence, there is a lot of negativity on the internet and I probably responded ready to do battle. I'm sorry about that.
1
@yourneologism I went to a fundamentalist Christian school and we learned about the concept of theocracy. We spent quite a bit of time on it. The Reformation was a driving force away from the attempted Theocracy of the Catholic Church. It led to the ideas of that became manifested in the American Constitution in which individual rights are written down as a basis of governance. It's also why the freedom of religion is so important in the Bill of Rights. Seek redemption the best way that you know how and it can only be done on the individual level. No one can do it for you. It also recognises, through implication, that we're just not capable of knowing what is the correct religious dogma could be which would make our religious freedom even more important to those who believe in God. It is also a rejection of forming a Theocracy to govern the nation.
1
@SeraphsWitness And I just gave a long winded reply which basically says that if you're willing to admit that you're doing wrong, in your country, then you're not being hypocritical. It's those who are doing wrong and then deflecting by pointing at someone else that's refusing to even TRY to take the mote out of their own eye. They're trying to solve another country's problems and they can't or refuse to see the problems in their own backyard. If they refuse to acknowledge and fix their own problems, who are they to bark at someone else. Although I'm not conflating the 2, hate speech laws are quite enslaving too. It makes us slaves to the state, telling us what we can't say or write. China's slavery may be worse but hate speech is a type of slavery too.
1
I worked at a large shoe factory, that employed around 800 people, in the late sixties and early seventies. Our personnel manager hired people and also did payroll. That's it. He had no helper. Things became more complicated as we started to get health plans, dental plans, pensions, investment options. Then he was asked to settle disputes between employees and employees and management. It turned into the mess that all administrative jobs seem to go.
1