Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Jordan B Peterson"
channel.
-
@StevenDykstra-u3b
"... but Lucifer tempted Eve into being human."
No, he tempted Eve into disobeying God. God had already created them human.
"Biblically, the knowledge or knack to know and thus choose good or bad/evil was unwanted by God no less,..."
God didn't want man to "know" evil in the sense of having personal experience of it.
"...why would he empower humans (with conscience choice)..."
He didn't. God created them with choice. Else they would not have been able to choose to do what Satan said.
"... which God feared, ..."
What are you referring to there?
"Did Lucifer expect man as ally, or like God, as a competitor?"
Neither, I would say. Lucifer hated man, so tried to destroy him or get God to reject or destroy him.
"Personally, the logic contained within the Penteteuch is hard to (even) misconstrue into being logical."
Huh? Rather, it's hard to misconstrue into being illogical.
"But even Hitchens passed a frontal assault on Biblical logic for its innumerable self-negaying propositions,..."
Christopher Hitchens? Why would you say that "even an atheist" found fault in the Bible? Of course an atheist would try to.
And what "innumerable self-negaying propositions"?
"Yet, I like much of what Jesus reportedly said."
So you pick and choose?
"It was a Buda also touting the Golden rule (as did others)."
Evidence please. Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do to you. I've seen others who have said "do unto others as they do to you", which is not the same thing.
"It ... fails if your ontology is based upon tribalism"
How so?
"For another world, we dump logic and thus intellectual integrity."
Evidence please.
"You think honest textual/logical analysis of religion is held at good ole P.U. : Praeger University?"
What is this "religion" you refer to? Are you of the mistaken view that the various different religions—from pantheistic ones to polytheistic ones to monotheistic ones to atheistic ones—are all different flavours of the same thing? On the contrary, many are very different to each other.
But ignoring that, then yes, PragerU is pretty much on the ball. Why would you imply otherwise?
"I am a Deist who believes a Satan and a God do not dabble in man's affairs."
Ah, okay. You reject the history that God has given us. That explains a lot.
"I read it not "Thy will be done, ", but "Thy will be (extstence). Done.""
When you have to swap words around to change the meaning, why not just reject it outright?
"...given we are biologically evolved beings with endowments for survival."
Provide evidence for being biologically evolved, please. And opinions of scientists based on materialism doesn't count as evidence.
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Telling people that they're wrong and how isn't an attack or scoffing unless you're controlled by pride."
If you're inventing motives or making up things about the person, then yes it is an attack.
"You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding for logic."
You haven't shown that, so that's just more invention.
"You seem to think the impetus to back up a claim is based on whoever goes first,..."
The onus is on the person making the claim, if/when they are challenged.
"...which is a very childlike view of things."
There's more of that scoffing/mockery/insult.
"My negative statements are not claims that can be proven,..."
But they are claims that you are making.
"...they are REJECTION of your unproven claims."
No, they are claims in their own right. Especially given that you either made them before I responded, or they were in response to questions from me.
"You're the one claiming a thing can exist or can happen,..."
Give me an example of where I claimed that, which you then rejected, and which I then challenged you on.
"The burden of proof is on you."
Still wrong.
"As for what I worship, I've made that clear..."
I didn't ask what you worshipped. You told me what I supposedly worshipped, but that was invention.
"Meanwhile, the way you argue is just irrational and unethical, ..."
Says the person who claimed to know what I worshipped, and pretended that I had asked what you worshipped.
"...showing your mind and heart are closed to truth and you just believe what you want."
Or perhaps you are/do. The only basis for your claim seems to be that I believe differently to you. It does not logically follow that I'm the one that is wrong.
"Sometimes I wish I had that ability, it would've saved my life a lot of hardship, but unfortunately I am obsessed with accurate truth."
And yet you seem more obsessed with inventing things about what I believe and why.
"Also, by saying you disagree with the practical wisdom I'm focused on, you're saying you disagree with worshiping Love and treating others accordingly. "
That's a non-sequitur and more invention.
"Look at the evil things your pride makes you say just so you can disagree, argue, and feel superior. Choose your words more carefully, man."
More invention and insult.
"Yeah, anecdotal reports are not enough and shouldn't be enough to convince anyone."
There is a difference between anecdotal reports and eyewitness accounts. Perhaps the stories he mentioned cannot be relied upon, but you haven't shown that (and he hasn't shown that they can be). But when there are enough anecdotal reports, it should be taken more seriously. Many scientific studies are done by means of surveys, which are arguably compilations of anecdotal reports.
"I want hard, concrete, irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence before I go believing anything."
So you reject all of history, do you? Because no history has what you demand, except perhaps some limited recent history that just might qualify.
"You dishonestly twist my words just to put me down. It's clear who your father is (John 8:44)."
More insult and invention. Yes, perhaps he was being dishonest. Or perhaps he just misread your comment and therefore sincerely and inadvertently misunderstood it. But it seems that you choose to put the worst possible spin on it.
"I never said I don't believe in the Spirit,..."
You did actually. That is, you don't believe in the Spirit (the third person of the trinity), instead believing in the spirit (an impersonal force or similar).
"...that's just more dishonest twisting of my words to suit your agenda."
There's that invention of his motive again.
"Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, ..."
True, but the Bible also teaches us that we should take wise counsel and that iron sharpens iron. Which means that if you have a view that is not shared by other intelligent people, perhaps there's something wrong with your view.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Spirit doesn't mean ghost or invisible being, spirit means purpose or intent."
Why do you think that? That is, why do you think it can't be a reference to Satan and his demons?
"Spirit does not mean ghost or invisible being, those are beliefs of the occult."
I agree that it doesn't mean ghost (dead person's spirit), nor does it mean an invisible being, but why can't it refer to a spiritual being without a body, such as Satan and his demons?
"He cast away evil intentions."
He cast evil intention into pigs? How does that work?
"Let's be realistic here: invisible beings do not exist."
Evidence please.
"If they did, and we could interact with them and they can interact with the physical world,..."
Yes. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.
"... then we would have a ton of video or other evidence by now."
What makes you think that we don't? How could we have video evidence of an invisible spirit being?
"But also if they existed, they would be blind, because it's impossible to even see if light just passes through you,..."
What if there is some as-yet-unknown aspect of light that doesn't pass through them? My point is that we have very little in the way of knowledge of how spiritual beings would work.
"The Hebrew word for Spirit means wind."
It can also mean mind or spirit.
"The original belief was that it was the Breath of Life from God animating our beings."
And yet Genesis 2:7 which says that God breathed the breath of life into man does not use rûaḥ the word used for the Spirit of God in Genesis 1.
"Okay but we know people don't just magically speak other languages, that simply doesn't happen."
True, but we are talking about the power of God, not magic.
"Besides, you really think the rulers of this world are actually Christian (Matthew 4:8-9, 1 John 5:19)?"
Those passages are not talking about earthly rulers They don't mean what you're arguing.
"That's rich coming from someone trying to claim that invisible, immaterial beings exist can see, hear, and speak."
It's "rich" for someone who believes that immaterial being exist to claim that immaterial beings exist?
"How do they see without eyes? How do they hear without ears? How do they create sounds without lungs filled with air? How do they control their voice without vocal chords?"
Refer to my comment above about having very little in the way of knowledge of how spiritual beings work. How does the spirit-being Yahweh interact with the world?
"How do they do any of these things without brains to organize and interpret information?"
Because they have minds. Just (in that sense) like the immaterial, invisible God does.
"But I'm the ridiculous one, okay."
Well, when you claim to know things that you don't, I guess that might fit.
"Spirit referring to intentions is even deeper and more complex than supposed invisible beings."
What makes it deeper and more complex? That it helps you justify your distortions of Scripture?
"Maybe instead of taking completely literally a story that describes impossible events,..."
You haven't shown them to be impossible. You've only deemed them to be so.
"... you should focus on the spirit of the story; its meaning, intention, and purpose."
We do. And it's very clear that the Holy Spirit is a real person, one of the three persons of God.
"The lesson of the story, what is teaches, is what is important. This is how stories have always worked, and still do. Movies and TV shows are filled with impossible events that nevertheless serve to teach."
False. Many stories are based on reality; they are not all based on fiction. When God said that we are to work for six days and rest on the seventh because that's what He did in creation, the instruction has no meaning if God didn't work for six days and rest on the seventh. Fictional stories can help us understand things, but they can't be the basis for teaching what we should do (or not do).
"Only children can't differentiate between reality and fiction."
Is that an admission that you're a child because you can't differentiate between your fiction and the reality of spiritual beings?
"It's normal to resist weening off the milk, but it's important you move onto the meat of true understanding in order for us to grow as a species."
True. So why aren't you doing that? Or to put it another way, why do you make such comments solely on the basis of us disagreeing with you?
"Words, their origins, and the concepts they represent matter."
True. Which is why we disagree with your claims of what they mean.
"Just because the modern world has been Deceived to conflate ghost and spirit as one does not mean it is accurate."
Deceived? On the contrary, it's simply a matter of the meaning of the word "ghost" having changed over time. At one time 'ghost' and 'spirit' meant the same thing.
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"How does a being without a body see, hear, speak, or think?"
I don't know, as I've pointed out.
"It's on you to prove the claim that this is even possible,..."
False. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You made the claim that they couldn't, so you have the burden of proof.
"...as all these functions are dependent on physical body parts."
What's your evidence that they have to be so dependent?
"It's impossible to prove a negative,..."
It's not always impossible, actually.
"You're the one making the claim, it's on YOU to provide the evidence for it."
COMPLETELY FALSE. YOU made the claim that "invisible beings do not exist." Therefore it's on YOU to provide the evidence for it. That it might be impossible to prove only shows that you made a claim that you can't back up.
"Convenient how you ignore the part about the being interacting with the world, which would be easy to capture."
Convenient how you ignore my actual question. What makes you think that occasional, unpredictable, events would be "easy" to capture?
"A mind can exist without a brain? You need to back up that claim with evidence."
Read the Bible. It is evidence.
"And who says Love is immaterial or invisible?"
I didn't, so I don't know why you bring that up.
"Suddenly speaking another language without training is magic, not Love."
Magic is when you invoke some mysterious power by speaking a series of words. God invokes His own power, ergo it's not magic.
"You worship Power (1 John 5:19)..."
No, I worship God, and I don't know what 1 John 5:19 has to do with your argument.
"...and have been Deceived into worshiping the Pretender, like all the rulers of this world."
You have no business inventing things about me.
"Are you going to cast out demons? Are you going to heal the sick with merely a touch? Are you going to turn water into wine, or duplicate bread and fishes? Are you going to walk on water?"
I don't know.
"No, you will never do these things, I promise you."
Evidence please.
"And so those stories teach you nothing..."
Nonsense. They teach me about what God can do, among other things.
"...because you refuse to see their true meaning and instead are seduced into worshiping Power instead of Love, ..."
More fact-free invention.
"I'm focusing on practical wisdom, which is what's actually important and useful, and can be agreed upon by anyone/everyone."
And yet I'm not agreeing. So clearly you are wrong.
"Your comment is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics of a infantile need to cling to belief in fantasy, like a child with Santa."
More abusive ad hominem.
"You want magic powers and beings without bodies to exist, probably simply out of fear for your own mortality."
More invention.
"You don't want the responsibility of having to fix your own problems, and to do work to help others."
Even more invention.
"You don't want to be a conduit for the Most High, you just want to say some special words and have everything be magically fixed for you."
Still more invention. Can you actually make a case, or is making up things about all you have?
"I didn't scoff or look down at anyone."
Utter rubbish. Most of your response to me was that.
"If you feel attacked, it is only because of your pride."
It couldn't possibly be because he was attacked? Why not? Because you're so perfect you're above that?
"You also have no basis to claim I am afraid,..."
Perhaps so, but then you have no basis to make the numerous claims you've made about me.
"...but you need to belittle me in some way, which would also seem to be due to pride."
Is that why you've been belittling me? Your pride in your views being accurate, despite not being able to provide evidence for them?
What sort of being is your deist god? Biological? What?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Now look what your pride has made you do."
More evidence-free insult.
"I never said your mind is closed just because you have a different view..."
You never gave any reason for your invented claim was wrong. The only argument you've made is to insult me and to present your own different view.
"...it's dishonest of you to try and frame my words that way."
It's dishonest of you to make up things about me.
"...shame on you for intentionally resorting to deceit."
Says the person who makes up things about me!
"I've made it clear that it's because you refuse to see reason, which is evidenced simply by (among other things) repeatedly demanding I prove something doesn't exist; an impossible feat."
If it's impossible to prove, then it's intellectually dishonest to claim it in the first place. The fact that you made the claim means that I have a valid reason for expecting you to back it with evidence, and therefore is not evidence of me not seeing reason.
"How can a being exist non-physically?"
How do you know it can't?
"That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence."
What's extraordinary about it? We know of numerous non-physical things that exist, and we also have very good evidence that a non-physical being exists.
"If "invisible beings" interacted with any of the higher or lower EM wavelengths then we could use those to detect them..."
Evidence please. What if they interact in a way that we can't detect?
"...so we can thereby conclude they don't interact with any form of light and would be unable to see."
No, we can't conclude that, because that's an argument from ignorance.
"How would the non-physical even interact with the physical at all?"
I don't know the specifics, but then you don't know that they couldn't.
"Spirit doesn't mean being,..."
According to the Bible, it does (or can). So what's your good evidence to the contrary?
"You don't have a soul, you ARE a soul."
That's your opinion, not something you've been able to demonstrate.
1