Jordan Peterson

Jesus vs Muhammad | Jordan Peterson

Published by Papa Giorgio

“All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances. Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion.”

Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.

SEE MY PDF: “MUHAMMAD vs. JESUS“

MUHAMMAD

MUHAMMAD – Ordered his followers, as well as personally participating in, both digging their graves and cutting the throats of between 600-to-900 men, women, and children. Jews. Some of the women and children were taken as property. He was a military tactician that lied and told others to use deception that ultimately led to the death of many people (taqiyya): The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.”

  • In the West, what is said and done more or less corresponds to the intentions of the speaker and the doer. Liars and cheats abound, of course, but generally they can go only so far before being caught out in the contractual relationships of their society. Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account, and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives. In Shia practice, a man is allowed what is called “precautionary dissimulation,” a recognition that truth may be impossible in some contexts.
  • Pierre Bourdieu, the French social anthropologist, has pointed out that no dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.[1]

Islamic ethics include deceiving the Kafir. The doctrine of deception is found in the Sunna and the Koran. The Arabic name for sacred deception is called taqiyya.

We never see any depictions of Muhammad with children, we just know that he most likely acquired a child bride at age six and consummated that “marriage” when she was nine[2]  — he was a pedophile in other words. While the Qu’ran states that a follower of this book should have no more than 4 wives, we know of course that he had many more, about 5 more in fact. And “Just War Theory” cannot apply to Muhammad and Muslim’s since when he said:

“I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle and offer prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity…then they will save their lives and property from me” (Sahih Muslim 1.24).

He ordered his followers to raid caravans, “This is the caravan of the Quraysh possessing wealth. It is likely that Allah may give it to you as booty.”[3] As he was dying, he said these now famous words, “I have been made victorious with terror.”[4]

Many more examples could be provided! Even when it comes to “salvation,” the most ardent/obedient Muslim still leaves his or her entrance into “heaven” is, in the end, an impersonal act of arbitrary divine power.… no story of love and sacrifice or assurance is provided.

[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago, IL: Ivan R, Dee Publishers, 2009), 4, 38.

[2] Bukhari, vol. 5, book 63, no. 3896; cf. Bukhari, vol. 7, book 67, no. 5158.

[3] Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq and H. K. Ghazanfar, vol. 2 (Kitab Bhavan, n.d.), 9.

[4] Muhammed Ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari: The Translation of the Meanings, translated by Muhammad M. Khan, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 2977 (Darussalam, 1997).

I was reading through some passages in the Quran not too long ago and came across Quran chapter 79, verse 42. I immediately noticed how similar this verse in the Quran is to Mark 13:31-32 … So, I started to do some more research on who Muhammad REALLY thought he was compared to Jesus. The findings are quite shocking!

JESUS

JESUS – When Peter struck off the ear of the soldier, healed it. Christ said if his followers were of any other kingdom, they would fight to get him off the cross. He also told Peter if he lived by the sword, he would die by it.; Christ invited and used children as examples of how Jewish adults should view their faith… something culturally radical – inviting children into an inner-circle of a group of status-oriented men such as the Pharisees was unheard of. Especially saying to them their faith must be similar; Jesus, and thusly us, can access true love because the Triune God has eternally loved (The Father loves the Son, etc. ~ unlike the Unitarian God of Islam).

Love between us then has roots in our Creator… [examples]:

  1. my wife and I for instance, as well as family,
  2. the love in community/Body of Christ,
  3. love for our enemies, …etc…

…has eternal foundations in God; This love from God towards us has caused a Sacrifice to ensure our salvation (John 3:16-17; 5:25; 6:47). Jesus said as well that he has “spoken openly to the world… always teaching in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. ‘I said nothing in secret’” (John 18:20). The Bible also states that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) … and Jesus is God in orthodoxy (i.e., Jesus cannot lie). The love of Christ and the relationship he offers is bar-none the center piece of our faith… something the Muslim does not have. Which is why the Church evolved because they have a point of reference in Christ to come back to. In Matthew chapter 5 we find Jesus’ teaching and commending us to the following:

THE BEATITUDES | BELIEVERS ARE SALT AND LIGHT | CHRIST FULFILLS THE LAW | MURDER BEGINS IN THE HEART | ADULTERY BEGINS IN THE HEART | DIVORCE PRACTICES CENSURED | TELL THE TRUTH | GO THE SECOND MILE | LOVE YOUR ENEMIES

Muhammad would never be able to speak of these things that Christ did in the record of Matthew. Which is why whenever given the chance I say to a Muslim I pray they emulate Jesus’ life and follow Him rather than Muhammad. I wish Muhammad had read and followed Jesus’ teachings as well.

This is a segment of a Muslim caller into the Michael Medved Show and both Mosab Yousef and Michael Medved respond. Yousef compares Christians to Muhammad, the caller compares Muslims to Christians:

AQUINAS THOUGHTS ON MUHAMMAD

St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the most prolific thinkers in Western history; his words should not be taken lightly, regardless of your cultural/religious background. Subscribe now to stay updated with excellent content.

BREITBART has a neat story about Aquinas and his views on Islam… here is a portion of it:

…In one of his most significant works, the voluminous Summa contra gentiles, which Aquinas wrote between 1258 and 1264 AD, the scholar argued for the truth of Christianity against other belief systems, including Islam.

Aquinas contrasts the spread of Christianity with that of Islam, arguing that much of Christianity’s early success stemmed from widespread belief in the miracles of Jesus, whereas the spread of Islam was worked through the promise of sensual pleasures and the violence of the sword.

Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”

Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.

“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”

Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”

Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.

“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

At the time Aquinas was writing, Islam was generally considered a Christian heresy, since it drew so heavily on Christian texts and beliefs. Aquinas wrote that Mohammed “perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.”

According to the noted historian Hilaire Belloc, Islam “began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was—not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing.”…

MUCH MORE

Here are some ways to deal with Muslim apologists questioning Jesus’ Divinity:

(Above) Nabeel Qureshi, a former Muslim, answers a question from a faithful Muslim about how Jesus could have both a Divine (God) nature and a human nature without confusion or contradiction. See more from Nabeel HERE  (He has passed away)

Nabeel is battling stomach cancer, so any prayers would be a gracious help.

Here is a more in-depth presentation dealing with how the question is typically raised.

Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view!

Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God.

Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. In this video, we consider several examples of such claims.

For more on the deity of Christ, watch these videos by David Wood:

Among the major differences between Islam and Christianity is that of the character and nature of God as understood by the Bible and the Qur’an. For the Bible, Yahweh is a relational God, a God who appears to his people throughout the Old Testament, who took on flesh in the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, and who will be present, the Bible claims, in heaven with us once again: “For now we see through a glass, darkly,” wrote the apostle Paul; “but then face to face.” [76] This is very different from Allah in the Qur’an, a God who is distant and remote, transcendent and lofty, who does not deign to step down into his creation, and is not present in Paradise. As Muslim theologian Isma’il al Faruqi writes:

Allah does not reveal Himself to anyone in any way. Allah reveals only his will… Allah does not reveal himself to anyone… that is the great difference between Christianity and Islam.[77]

Central, too, to the Christian understanding of God is that Yahweh is loving; indeed, the Bible goes as far as to boldly make the claim that God is love,[78] the one whose character and nature define what love actually is. You will commonly hear people opine that all religions teach that God is love, but this is simply not true – for instance, nowhere does the Qur’an claim that “Allah is love.”[79]

Finally, at the heart of Christianity stands the belief that, in Jesus, God has experienced suffering, paying the price of the cross in order to reconcile humanity to himself. Now atheists may choose to dismiss, laugh at, or even scoff at that claim, but it is a claim unique to Christianity.[80] It is certainly not an idea found in Islam, where the Qur’an goes as far as to deny that the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion ever happened.

It has long fascinated me that when Christianity talks about the cross and the suffering of God, it is doing something quite startling, namely reversing the traffic pattern of every other religion, world view, and belief system. All other religions of which I am aware tend to work in one of three basic ways: they claim that if you know the right things, do the right things, or experience the right things, then you will achieve paradise, nirvana, wisdom, a higher state of consciousness, good teeth — whatever it is you are looking for. Islam adopts this model (“Keep the commandments”), as does, incidentally, the New Atheism, whose message is that if you think the right way — think good, secular, scientific thoughts — you’ll be one of the smart ones, one of the brights,[81] one of the elite, the elect.

[76] 1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV).

[77] Isma’il al Faruqi, Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah: Proceedings of the Chambésy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester: The Islamic Foundation, 1982, pp. 47-48.

[78] 1 John 4:16.

[79]  And many Muslim theologians argue that Muslims should not use the word “love” when talking about Allah; see e.g. Murad Wilfried Hofmann, “Differences between the Muslim and the Christian Concept of Divine Love” in 14th General Conference of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan, 2007. See also Gordon Nickel, “The Language of Love in Qur’an and Gospel” in Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala and Angel Urban, (eds), Sacred Text: Explorations in Lexicography, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2009, pp. 223-248.

[80] If you wish to understand this idea (which, whatever you make of it, is the central claim at the heart of Christianity), a great place to start is John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Leicester: IVP, 2006.

[81] A nauseatingly self-congratulatory term coined by some of the New Atheists to mark themselves off from the rest of the world, whom they clearly perceive as dimwits. See Daniel Dennett, “The Bright Stuff“, The New York Times, 12 July 2003.

Andy Banister, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or, The Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments (Oxford, England: Monarch Books, 2015), 62-63.

I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.

“Muhammad” Talks to “Jesus Christ”

I am not a fan of the show… I think it is borderline blasphemous; but was listening to him (Neil Saavedra, AKA, “Jesus Christ”) on the way to get coffee for the wife and I while we were watching the niece. I enjoyed the call. I may start listening and uploading stuff like it in the future. BUT KNOW that a dude who responds like Jesus, is, …well… creepy and again ~ borderline blasphemous in my mind.

Helen Joyce w/Jordan Peterson (YouTube Banned This Interview)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality | Helen Joyce | Podcast #287

The Trans movement surges across western civilization, necessitating the ego-centric fantasies of gender-dysphoric youths over what once was known commonly as indisputable reality. Helen Joyce and Dr Jordan B Peterson discuss the depths of this truly cultural battle, the dangers of a quickly growing transhumanist ideology, and the unbridled narcissism lurking at the heart of the conflict.

Helen Joyce is an Irish novelist and journalist, acting as the executive editor for events and business at the Economist in London. Before this, she trained as a mathematician, graduating from the Trinity College in Dublin, before attending Cambridge. She then acquired a PHD in geometric measure theory at the University College London. She has held many roles as a journalist, working for PLUS Magazine and Significance Magazine, both of which have an emphasis on communicating complex math and statistics to the everyday reader. Later, she would spend three years as the Economist’s foreign correspondent to Brazil, living in São Paulo. In 2018, Joyce curated a series of articles on transgender identity, which lead her to author the Sunday Times bestselling book, “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality.”

Here is a bit more at THE DAILY WIRE:

DailyWire+ contributor Dr. Jordan B. Peterson revealed on Saturday that YouTube had removed a video — in which he and author Helen Joyce discuss gender ideology — for allegedly violating the platform’s “hate speech policy.”

In a tweet posted early Saturday, Peterson shared the message he received from YouTube informing him that a video titled “Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality” was removed due to an alleged “violation”: “Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy. … We know that this might be disappointing, but it’s important to us that YouTube is a safe place for all.”

Under the “How your content violated the policy” section, YouTube stated in part: “Content glorifying or inciting violence against another person or group of people is not allowed on YouTube. We also don’t allow any content that encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group.”

Tagging YouTube, Peterson responded on Twitter: “I have now officially been accused of hate speech by YouTube, Let’s be clear about this: that is a direct accusation [of] conduct deemed criminal in many jurisdictions. This is absolutely not OK, @YouTube. Not OK.”…..

Truth Doesn’t Always Find Friends (Galatians 4:16)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Watching Matt Walsh yesterday he said something that made me wanna excerpt it. I didn’t get to it last night, and luckily I didn’t. This morning at a men’s group discussion during small groups a verse on truth came up (Galatians 4:16), and that reminded me of a J. Vernon McGee commentary, which brought me to Chuck Smith as well (also discussed at the meeting this morning). Of course this short video wouldn’t be complete without Jack Nicholson’s character in the movie “A Few Good Men,” Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, talking about truth. So I hope this hits the right nerve with some who happen upon this.

Here are some commentaries on Galatians 4:16
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (HCSB)

Truth is not always relished where sin is nourished

L. Moody, Notes from My Bible: From Genesis to Revelation (Chicago; New York; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, 1895), 165.

A person with pure motives and real friendship does not always say things that are pleasant to hear. Paul was telling the Galatians the truth, and as result was being labeled as their enemy. Sometimes the truth hurts; but a faithful friend would courageously confront another.

Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Ga 4:16.

I had always wanted to place on the pulpit, facing the preacher, the words, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” A very fine officer of the church I served in downtown Los Angeles did this for me after he heard me express this desire. There is another verse I wanted to place on the audience side of the pulpit, but I never had the nerve to do it. It is these words of Paul: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” As you know, many folk today really don’t want the preacher to tell the truth from the pulpit. They would much rather he would say something complimentary that would smooth their feathers and make them feel good. We all like to have our backs rubbed, and there is a lot of back-rubbing from the contemporary pulpit rather than the declaration of the truth.

Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary, electronic ed., vol. 5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 179.

QUESTION—Is this a question or a statement?

  1. It is a rhetorical question [BNTC, Lns, Lt, Mor, NIGTC, NTC; all versions]: because I am being truthful to you, have I therefore become your enemy? The Galatians do not appear to be able to tolerate the truth [NTC]. Paul wants them to face the reality of what they were doing. Paul was not their enemy when he initially preached the gospel to them, and as he continued to do so, and they should see it as a friendly gesture, not as a hostile one [Mor]. Paul wanted them to realize that he was truly their friend even though he had to use strong language in this letter and possibly in the previous letter [NTC].
  2. It is a statement [ICC, NCBC, NIBC, NIC, SSA, WBC]: therefore it appears that I have become your enemy because I am being truthful to you! The idea is ‘So I have become your enemy!’ and this reflects the Judaizers’ view of Paul, not Paul’s [NCBC]. The conjunction ὥστε ‘therefore’ indicates a conclusion from the facts stated in 4:14–15: Since they once regarded Paul with such great affection and now consider him as an enemy, this could only come about because he had been telling them the truth [ICC, WBC].

Robert Stutzman, An Exegetical Summary of Galatians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 160.

become your enemy There come times with all God’s servants when certain people proclaim something fresh and new in doctrine, and then the old messenger of God, who was blessed to them, comes to be despised. I have lived long enough to see dozens of very fine fancies started, but they have all come to nothing. I daresay I shall see a dozen more, and they will all come to nothing. But here I stand. I am not led astray either by novelties of excitement or novelties of doctrine. The things which I preached at the first, I preach still, and so I shall continue, as God shall help me. But I know, in some little measure, what the apostle meant when he said, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

by being truthful to you There are many who have incurred enmity through speaking the gospel very plainly, for the natural tendency of man is toward ceremony, toward some form of legal righteousness: he must have something aesthetic, something that delights his sensuous nature, something that he can see and hear, to mix up that with the simplicity of faith. Paul was as clear as noonday against everything of that kind, and so the Galatians got at last to be angry with him. Well, he could not help that, but it did grieve him.

Charles Spurgeon, Galatians, ed. Elliot Ritzema, Spurgeon Commentary Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), Ga 4:16.

Am I therefore become your enemy? He now returns to speak about himself. It was entirely their own fault, he says, that they had changed their minds. Though it is a common remark, that truth begets hatred, yet, except through the malice and wickedness of those who cannot endure to hear it, truth is never hateful. While he vindicates himself from any blame in the unhappy difference between them, he indirectly censures their ingratitude. Yet still his advice is friendly, not to reject, on rash or light grounds, the apostleship of one whom they had formerly considered to be worthy of their warmest love. What can be more unbecoming than that the hatred of truth should change enemies into friends? His aim then is, not so much to upbraid, as to move them to repentance.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 129–130.

Paul’s emotion betrays itself in the ellipsis of his thought. At one time the Galatians counted themselves blessed for having Paul in their midst, but this is passed. Is the opposite now the case? And so have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Read this as a question; ὥστε means, “and so,” R. 999. “An enemy of yours” is active, one who hates you, and not passive, one who is hated by you (C.-K. 459). The perfect tense “have I become” is used in the Greek fashion from the standpoint of the readers and refers to the time when they read this letter in which Paul tells them the truth. Will they then say: “Paul has become hostile to us”? Ah, but it is the best and the truest friend who honestly tells us the truth about ourselves even when he knows we shall not like it. False friends are the ones who hide such truth from us and do so in order to remain in our favor.

Some regard this statement as a declaration: “Wherefore I have become your enemy by telling you the truth.” But that is not true (v. 19). If he intends to imply that the Galatians now consider him as being hostile to them, this thought is expressed far better by a question. The declarative idea is made more confusing when the inferior reading in v. 15 is adopted: τίς οὖν ἦν; “What, then, was your felicitation of yourselves?” and supplying in thought: “Nothing but superficiality,” and then attaching: “Wherefore I have become your enemy.” Paul regards the self-felicitation of the Galatians as being genuine; he even states the strongest reason for his so doing: that they were willing to sacrifice their eyes for him.

Again, Paul is not their enemy. Finally, the ὥστε clause cannot be construed across the intervening γάρ statement and attached to the question asked in v. 15. The reason: “I testify,” etc., would be contradicted by any declaration that Paul is an enemy of the Galatians. Regard the sentence as a question, and all is readily understood.

C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, O.:Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 222–223.

It was natural that a certain uneasy reserve should begin to mark the Galatian Christians’ attitude to Paul. They knew that the teaching to which they were now giving ear could not commend itself to him, and that he would disapprove of their accepting it. This reserve would be reinforced if they entertained suggestions tending to discredit him, or to diminish his standing in their eyes. When he heard of what was happening, he could be trusted to tell them they were wrong, and such plain speaking was bound to be unpalatable.

ὥστε is used here to introduce a rhetorical question.

It is hazardous to find in Paul’s use of ἐχθρὸς here the source of his later designation among the Ebionites as ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος (Epistle of Peter to James, 2; Clem. Recog. 1.70f.), as is done by H.-J. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 120, 474; Paul, 82; a much more probable source is the ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος of Mt. 13:28 (cf. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 127).

ἀληθεύων. In telling them the truth Paul is their best friend. The truth he is now telling them is the same as what he told them when first he came among them, and on that occasion it won their friendship for him. For this ‘truth’ is nothing other than the good news of divine grace. If it is true, then the ‘other gospel’ brought by the trouble-makers is self-evidently false. It is reading an alien idea into the text to say with W. Schmithals, ‘Precisely this argument of Paul shows that in truth people in Galatia were declaiming against Paul on account of the apostle’s fleshly [“sarkic”] weakness’ (Paul and the Gnostics, 50 n. 107).

The situation, in fact, is not unlike that in which Paul was later involved with the Corinthian church, when it was visited by interlopers who brought a ‘different gospel’ and tried to disparage Paul in his converts’ eyes; Paul protests his unchanging love for his friends, even while he remonstrates vigorously with them: ‘If I love you the more, am I to be loved the less?’ (2 Cor. 12:15).

F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 211.

ὤστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “so, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!” Elsewhere in the NT ὤστε (“therefore,” “so”) is always used at the beginning of independent clauses to draw an inference from what has just been stated (cf. Gal 3:9, 24; 4:7, etc.). Most commentators acknowledge this. Yet almost all critical texts, translations and commentaries treat v 16 as a rhetorical question (e.g., WH, Souter, Nestle, UBSGT, KJV, RSV, JB, NIV, Lightfoot, Lietzmann, Oepke, Schlier, Mussner, Betz, Bruce), despite demurrings to the contrary (cf. Betz, Galatians, 228: “The connection of ὤστε [“therefore”] is certainly loose”; ibid., 228 n. 97: “ὤστε [“therefore”] introducing a question is odd”). Nonetheless, linguistically speaking, Burton, Zahn, and Sieffert are right: v 16 must be read as an indignant exclamation that draws an inference from what is stated in vv 14–15; “the appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an exclamation point” (Burton, Galatians, 244–45). It is not, of course, Paul’s own statement of relationships, but his evaluation of what seems to be his converts’ attitude: “So, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!”

ἐχθρός, “enemy,” was the epithet given Paul by the later Ebionites (cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom., Ep. Pet. 2.3; Ps.-Clem. Recog. 1.70), though whether the Judaizers of Galatia ever used it of him is impossible to say. The modal present participial phrase ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “by telling you the truth,” refers not to some past proclamation, but to the truth Paul is now telling the Galatians, which, of course, is what he told them when he was first with them and which then won such a favorable response from them.

Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 193.

 

Gender, Sex, and Marriage | God Designed

Published by Papa Giorgio

BTW, unrelated to the topic, I highly recommend buying on AMAZON PRIME or through various creation ministries this movie (like CREATION SUPER STORE, or ANSWERS IN GENESIS, or the maker, GENESIS APOLOGETICS: — where you can watch it for free. But I suggest purchasing it to show support)

MALE/FEMALE DIFFERENCES

Does modern science validate what the Bible says about gender, sex, and marriage? Does living under the Bible’s idea on these topics make an impact on our lives? Our marriages? Our children? Watch this video to the end to find out.

22-minutes

Jordan Peterson Calls Out Disney Exec’s Lies About Kids

Published by Papa Giorgio

(THUMBNAIL: Saturn Devouring His Son by Francisco Goya)

Clay Travis and Buck Sexton react to Jordan Peterson’s message on the narcissism surrounding progressive parents virtue signaling through their children. Peterson talks about the odds of having both transgender and pansexual children, a claim made by a Disney executive a few months ago. What are the odds that one person could have two children of these varying identities compared to the odds of the mother just attempting to look virtuous to her progressive cohorts. Clay and Buck build on Jordan Peterson’s message and how the woke left is preying on kids.

Here is the fuller video of Peterson’s visit to the Joe Rogan Show:

JORDAN PETERSON ON THE DEVOURING MOTHER

In related “news,” two “devouring mothers” raising a boy. (I say that not meaning any ill-intent to these two women. They are fooled like many other progressive left persons by this vile [leftist] train of thinking. Worldviews matter.) Hat-tip top THE BLAZE! DAILY WIRE! and OFF THE PRESS!

In this episode, we speak to Rose, the mother of two boys, who has asked to remain anonymous.

I was a true believer.

I was a social justice organizer and facilitator before social justice overtook the world. I was on the forefront, introducing the concept of intersectionality to progressive organizations, and having people share their pronouns. My friends and I felt we were the cool kids, the vanguard of revolutionary work to change the world, to achieve what people in the social justice movement call “collective liberation.” I was deeply committed to the work of creating another world that was possible.

Within this context, I came out as a lesbian, and identified as queer. And then I fell in love, entered a committed relationship with my spouse, and gave birth to our first son. Two years later, my partner gave birth to our second son. Having children, and experiencing the absolutely life changing love and devotion to them, was a game changer for me. And it was when, to quote Helen Joyce’s subtitle, ideology began to meet reality.

I immediately began to feel the tensions inside of me between what I felt intuitively and instinctively as a mother, and what I “should” be doing as a white anti-racist social justice parent. Because of my own experiences of perceived victimhood with my own parents’ rejection of my sexuality, I wanted to make sure I would honor my children’s “authentic selves.” I was primed to look for any clues that might suggest they could be transgender.

We raised both our sons as gender neutral as possible, with gender neutral clothes, toys, and language. While we did use he/him pronouns and others in their life called them boys, we did not call them boys, or even tell them that they were boys. We made all language gender neutral. In everyday reading of books or descriptions of people in our lives, we did not say “man” or “woman,” we said “people.” We thought we were doing the right and best thing, both for them and for the world.

At an early age, we noticed that our first son was a bit different. He was highly sensitive, and was extremely gifted. By about three years old, he started to orient more toward the females in his life than the males. Since he did not have the language, he would say, “I like the mamas.” Some of this difference we started to attribute to possibly being transgender. Instead of orienting him to the reality of his biological sex by telling him he was a boy, we wanted him to tell us if he felt he was a boy or a girl. As true believers, we thought that he could be transgender, and that we were to “follow his lead” to determine his true identity.

At the same time that this ideology was shaping my view of my son, I was also taking a very deep dive into attachment and child development. This opened my eyes to understanding the nature of attachment as hierarchical, and the fact that parents, not children, are meant to be in the lead. I began to struggle with the conflict between putting my child in the lead on gender and my deepening knowledge of my responsibility to lead and orient my child. Sadly, my commitment to ideology had the upper hand.

At around four years old, my son began to ask me if he was a boy or a girl. Instead of telling him he was a boy, I told him he could choose. I didn’t use those words—I thought I could be more sophisticated than that. I told him, “When babies are born with a penis, they are called boys, and when babies are born with a vagina, they are called girls.  But some babies who are born with a penis can be girls, and some babies born with a vagina can be boys. It all depends on what you feel deep inside.” He continued to ask me what he was, and I continued to repeat these lines. I resolved my inner conflict by “leading” my son with this framework—you can be born with a penis, but still be a girl inside. I thought I was doing the right thing, for him, and for the world.

His question, and my response to it, would come back to haunt me for years, and continues to haunt me now. What I know now is that I was “leading”—I was leading my innocent, sensitive child down a path of lies that were a direct on-ramp to psychological damage and life-long irreversible medical intervention. All in the name of love, acceptance, and liberation.

About six months after my son began to ask me if he was a boy or a girl, he told my spouse that he was a girl, and wanted to be called sister, and she/her. I received a text message about this at work. On the way home that night, I resolved I would have to put all my own feelings away, and support my transgender child. And that is what I did.

With this one declaration, after months of refusing to tell our son he was a boy, we changed his entire world. We told him he could be a girl. He jumped up and down on the bed, happy, saying, “I’m a girl, I’m a girl!” (What a relief it must have been to him to actually have an identity to hold on to!). We, not him, initiated changing his name. We socially transitioned him, and enforced this transition with his younger brother, who was only two years old at the time and who could barely pronounce his older brother’s real name.

When I look back at this, it is almost too much to write about. The grief and the shock of what we did is so deep, so wide, so sharp and penetrating. How could a mother do this to her child?  To her children? I truly believed that what I was doing was pure, right and good, only to later realize with horror what it could have lead to for my child. This horror still shakes me to my core.

It will not surprise readers of this site to hear that once we made the decision to socially transition our son, we received resounding praise and affirmation from most of our peers. One of my friends who had also socially transitioned her young child assured me that social transition was a healthy, neutral way of allowing children to “explore” their gender identity before puberty, when decisions would need to be made about puberty blockers and hormones. We sought out support groups for parents of transgender children where we went to find out if we had “done the right thing.”  After all, our son showed no signs of actual gender dysphoria—was he actually transgender? At these support groups we were told what good parents we were. How kids on the autism spectrum (which he likely is), simply “know” they are transgender earlier than other kids.

At one of the support groups we attended, we were also told that transgender identity takes a few years to develop in children. They told us that during this period, it is very important to protect the child’s transgender identity, and therefore, you must eliminate contact with any family or friends who do not support this identity or go along with it. Yes, the gender therapist running this parent support group said this, and at the time, I believed her. Looking back, I now see this in a shockingly different light: this was an intentional process of concretizing transgender identity in children as young as 3 years old – the age of the youngest child in this group. When identity is concretized at this young of age, children will grow up actually believing they are the opposite sex. How could medicalization not follow?

The therapist also employed the same script that many adolescents use on their parents, helping parents of transgender children script letters to grandparents, aunts and uncles to declare a child’s transgender identity, and make conditions of engagement clear – you must use the name and pronouns, and embrace the new identity, or you will not have contact with the child…….

(READ IT ALL)

Jordan Peterson Leaves Joe Rogan Speechless On The Bible!

Published by Papa Giorgio

RPT’s quick note: Peterson’s “air-typing” aside…. what he explains is the worldview that shaped and allowed free thought/speech, the scientific revolution, as close as you can get to a free body politic — etc.

“Worldview:” “People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize.  By “presuppositions” we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic worldview, the grid through which he sees the world.  Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists.  People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world.  Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.  ‘As a man thinketh, so he is,’ is really profound.  An individual is not just the product of the forces around him.  He has a mind, an inner world.  Then, having thought, a person can bring forth actions into the external world and thus influence it.  People are apt to look at the outer theater of action, forgetting the actor who “lives in the mind” and who therefore is the true actor in the external world.  The inner thought world determines the outward action.  Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measles.  But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what worldview is true.  When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, ‘not many men are in the room’ — that is, although worldviews have many variations, there are not many basic worldviews or presuppositions.” 

Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1976), 19-20.

Many of you may have heard about the recent episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast where he interviewed the renowned Jordan Peterson, and at a number of points in their conversation, the subject turned to Peterson’s views on Christianity, which included a profound explanation of the role of the Bible in the formation of Western Civilization. Rogan sat rather spellbound as Peterson detailed what the Bible actually is and its significance for cultivating the world as we know it. What I found so fascinating about Peterson’s explanation was how well it resonated with what cultural anthropologists have been observing about the inherently religious foundations of all civilizations around the world, and why our current secular world is beginning to implode. So what I want to do is play you Peterson’s explanation of the Bible, and then I’m going to compare it to what cultural anthropologists are saying to help us better appreciate why secular liberalism is waning and why a new post-secular age is rising.

Jordan Peterson Teaches Joe Rogan about the Cross!

Dr Steve Turley’s bio: He formerly served as faculty member at Tall Oaks Classical School in Bear, DE, where he taught Theology and Rhetoric, and Professor of Fine Arts at Eastern University. In May of 2021, he decided to quit his professor job and work full-time to promote his organization which promotes right-wing populism and Christian conservatism.

Turley lectures at universities, conferences, and churches throughout the U.S. and abroad. His research and writings have appeared in such journals as Christianity and Literature, Calvin Theological Journal, First Things, Touchstone, and The Chesterton Review.

Turley earned his PhD at Durham University.

Refusing The language of Neo-Racists/Neo-Segregationists

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “If you’re going to call what’s essentially neo-racism and neo-segregation “anti-racism,” I’m not going to go along with the lie of that. I’m just not.” – Bari Weiss

Excerpted from:

Journalist or Heretic? | Bari Weiss | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast – S4: E29

The Narrative ~ The Origins of Political Correctness

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted Late 2010 – Updated Today)

Critical theory is the opposite of critical thinking. This is a great definition:

This video was added in 2020… a good discussion on the issue:

Best-selling author, journalist, screenwriter, renown critic and PJ Media contributor Michael Walsh discusses his new book “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace” with Stephen Kruiser. From the Frankfurt School’s critical theory to Hillary Clinton, Michael Walsh delves into how America got off course and was derailed by this post-World War II school of though that originated in Europe. Patriotism, marriage and the military are just a few of the aspects of American life that were altered for the worse by this school of thought. Join us for this special PJTV interview with Michael Walsh and Stephen Kruiser.

Just wanted to post this excerpt from INTELLECTUAL TAKEOUT’S dealing with Political Correctness:

The Historical Origin of ‘Political Correctness’
A professor at Boston University recently touched on origins of the term ‘politically correct.’ And it’s revealing…

…“The formula is straightforward: the world is not as it should be because society’s basic, ‘structural’ feature is ordered badly….For Marx and his followers that feature is conflict over the means of production in present-day society…. For Freudians it’s sexual maladjustment, for followers of Rousseau it’s social constraint, for positivists it is the insufficient application of scientific method, for others it is oppression of one race by another. Once control of society passes exclusively into the hands of the proper set of progressives, each sect’s contradictions must disappear as the basic structural problem is straightened out.”

The methods of the Communists and progressives differ, but the goal is one and the same: achieve “cultural hegemony,” a political phrase popularized by Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937), an Italian Marxist and politician who became prominent in progressive circles decades after his death.

Progressives learned that achieving hegemony by criminal punishment is difficult. Intellectuals seeking to remake America—“born tainted by Western Civilization’s original sins: racism, sexism, greed, genocide”, etc.—found a more effective way.

There’s no longer “Good” or “Evil”,
Now it’s all just “right” or “wrong”…
And, of course, that’s always changing
As “correction” comes along.

Politics is now what’s reigning…
Power Principles of man.
There’s no Bottom Line to speak of,
No such thing as “God Commands”

It’s high time you learn this Lesson:
Man and Morals all “evolve”…
In this world of shifty-changers,
There’s no TRUE truth to resolve.

We’ve moved past that faulty “logic”…
What rules now is how we feel.
“Sin” we feel is now outdated.
Sin we feel just isn’t REAL.

HA!… “The Fall” has finally fallen…
Yes, indeed, we’re free at last!
Heaven’s wholly democratic…
GLORY!… Happy Votes we cast!

Son, Big Brother makes “The Call” now,
He decides what “truths” to pick.
He defines for us what’s kosher.
(AND He’s got the biggest stick.)

~ Tom Graffagnino ~

Political correctness, perpetuated by a small class of people ensconced at universities, bureaucracies, and major media, is the ideal tool for achieving cultural hegemony. It is “forceful seduction” in lieu of rape. It achieves “tacit collaboration by millions who bite their lip.”

As a political philosophy, political correctness might seem lifeless and aimless. But Codevilla noted the goal of Lenin and Stalin was not a state built on Marxist principles; it was always party control. The two philosophies are similarly empty.

“Like its European kin, all that American progressivism offers is obedience to the ruling class, enforced by political correctness….Nor is there any endpoint to what is politically correct, any more than there ever was to Communism. Here and now, as everywhere and always, it comes down to glorifying the party and humbling the rest.”

It’s not exactly light reading, but Codevilla’s article is a must-read for anyone serious about understanding the nature and origins of political correctness. I found it interesting that Codevilla made a point similar to one that Dr. Jordan Peterson made in an interview over the weekend. It’s the idea that political correctness is a movement 1) fundamentally political in nature; and 2) built on resentment.

Peterson said this is no accident. It comes right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

“The social justice people are always on the side of compassion and ‘victim’s rights,’ so objecting to anything they do makes you instantly a perpetrator. There’s no place you can stand without being vilified, and that’s why it keeps creeping forward….There’s no compassion at all. There is resentment, fundamentally.”

It’s a simple point, but a very important one. Stop and think about it for a moment. How much of our politics today is driven by resentment?

TO WIT…

  • The origins of “political correctness” or “cultural Marxism” can be found in the early parts of the 20th century from the Frankfurt School, which was the headquarters for the Communists scheming in Germany. Max Horkheimer, T.W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Lowenthal, and Erich Fromm were all there.

This video is an explanation of cultural Marxism, which is a term often thrown around in contemporary political and social debates. Here, those ideas are explored in a brief format. (See Dr. Cooper‘s follow up video to this one: “Is Cultural Marxism Just a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory?“)

Douglas Murray shows how the people who are always in favour of the latest woke doctrine are the same people who wanted to bring down Western Capitalism in days gone by. Unregenerate Marxists. You’ll find plenty of them in the academy according to Douglas.

Pat Condell

Remember, Pat is an atheist… but a classical liberal – atheist. Progressivism is Marxism attempting to wear a liberal mask, and failing.

The Left Uses Law To Compel You Against Your Conscience

Published by Papa Giorgio

Many leftists hate Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and professor at the University of Toronto.

Some of the BEST OF Dr. Peterson:

Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids |Updated|

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up.

This comes from THE LID:

TODAY’S PROFESSORS DON’T TEACH, THEY INDOCTRINATE PROGRESSIVISM

[….]

To understand and oppose the post-modernists, the ideas by which they orient themselves must be clearly identified.

First is their new unholy trinity of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Diversity is defined not by opinion, but by race, ethnicity or sexual identity; the goal is no longer equality of opportunity, but an insistence on equality of outcome; and inclusion is the use of identity-based quotas to attain this misconceived state of equity.

All the traditional rights of the West are to be considered secondary to these new values. Take, for example, freedom of speech—the very pillar of democracy. The post-modernists refuse to believe that people of good will can exchange ideas and reach consensus.

Their world is instead a Hobbesian nightmare of identity groups warring for power. They don’t see ideas that run contrary to their ideology as merely incorrect. They see them as integral to the oppressive system they wish to supplant and consider it a moral obligation to stifle and constrain their expression.

Second is a rejection of the free market—of the very idea that free, voluntary trading benefits everyone. These rejectionists won’t acknowledge that capitalism has lifted up hundreds of millions of people so they can for the first time in history afford food, shelter, clothing, transportation—even entertainment and travel. Those classified as low-income in the US (and, increasingly, everywhere else) are able to meet their basic needs. Meanwhile, in once-prosperous Venezuela—until recently the poster-child of the campus radicals—the middle-class lines up for toilet paper.

Third, and finally, are the politics of identity. Post-modernists don’t believe in individuals. You’re an exemplar of your race, sex, or sexual preference. You’re also either a victim or an oppressor. No wrong can be done by anyone in the former group, and no good by the latter. Such ideas of victimization do nothing but justify the use of power and engender intergroup conflict.

All these concepts originated with Karl Marx, the 19th-century German philosopher. Marx viewed the world as a gigantic class struggle—the bourgeoisie against the proletariat; the grasping rich against the desperately poor. But wherever his ideas were put into practice—in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, and Cambodia, to name just a few—whole economies failed, and tens of millions were killed. We fought a decades-long cold war to stop the spread of those murderous notions. But they’re back, in the new guise of identity politics.

The corrupt ideas of the post-modern neo-Marxists should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Instead, we underwrite their continuance in the very institutions where the central ideas of the West should be transmitted across the generations. Unless we stop, post-modernism will do to America and the entire Western world what it’s already done to its universities.

Two short clips from INDOCTRINATE U I like:

Doing the Impossible Motivating Young People to be Responsible

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jordan Peterson is an unlikely Youtube celebrity. The Canadian psychologist lectures about things like responsibility. Yet millions of young people watch his videos and line up to hear his speeches and buy his book 12 Rules for Life. It was number one on the Amazon bestseller list for a month.