BusterAg said:

---

pollo hermanos said:

---

I've watching a lot of JP's debates with Harris. It seems to me that he thinks there is a possibility that God exists, that he thinks Christianity is the best religion for society and individuals but is not sure at all that it is true. When pressed he admits that he doesnt actually believe it to be true but that it is good for people generally. To me he seems like he is clearly pandering to Christians to boost his audience.

---

I think that the reality is much more nuanced.

Just listen to what he says about the proof of Jesus' divinity. The ethos that Jesus teaches is the definition of the presence of divine in humans.

But, does he believe in the Holy Spirit? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in the Holy Sprit, is he a Christian?

Does he believe in the historicity of the Old Testament? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe that the OT is anywhere close to historically accurate, does that make him a Christian?

Does he believe in confession, or the priesthood, or the divinity of the Virgin Mary? If he doesn't, he can't really argue he is Catholic, right?

Does he believe in angels and / or demons? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in angels or demons, can he still be a Christian?

There are so many questions to answer if you go down that pathway that are tangential to the question, do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, was raised for the dead, and carries the weight of the world's sin through his sacrifice? JP says that he does. But, if he believes the stuff in this paragraph, but none of the stuff in the preceding paragraphs, would you define him as a Christian? I don't think that I would, in the traditional sense.

So, the question of "how do you define Christian" is actually really important. My take is that JP likely doesn't have mainstream beliefs of what we would call a Christian, even if he confesses the divinity of Christ. And, if he does have to call himself a Christian, now he has to defend things that he doesn't want to defend or even really believe.

What he does believe in is the value system taught by Christ, and he believe that it is divine, and that Christ is divine. He is more than happy to defend that.

---

Does he say he actually believes in the divinity of Christ? When I have seen him he will never really say that. I believe I have seen him say multiple times that he doesnt actually believe that stuff to be true, but he believes it to be beneficial to society and that there is something mysterious to it.

Totally possible that I have missed it. The sense I get is that he does think there is something mysterious out there and that the extremely large, dedicated Christian audience will eat it up which allows for a massive audience, book sales, etc. It seems disingenuous to me.

Not a hater of him but I bet he is closer to an atheist in reality than a bible believing Christian.

This thread, starting from the OP, proves spiritual warfare exists........

Lets get back to the fruit of the spirit, specifically Grace and Love!

Farmer_J said:

---

Jp agreed to be the star of a debate called "1 Christian vs 20 atheists" - and when pressed whether he believes in God, he filibusters. Same thing he did in the debates with Harris and Dawkins.

There's no defending this. The first question is why JP is accepting to debate atheists as a christian when he won't even admit he is one? Either he's mentally unstable or he's being used to demoralized Christians at a time when we finally gained political power. If you think this is an outlier with JP go look at what he said about Kavanaugh, and Pence and his teaming up with the ADL and covid censorship group.

During a debate titled "One Christian vs. Twenty Atheists," Jordan Peterson was pressed to identify himself as a Christian but awkwardly refused. pic.twitter.com/H8QoIQvmb1

— YungPut1n (@YungPutin1) May 25, 2025

*** for all the NPCs. I was an early follower of jp. He was the lone voice against forced pronouns. The interview with Kathy Newman ended the gender pay gap nonsense. 12 rules for life is great.

---

Your March of 2024 join date is suspect. Who's sock ate you, or are you a recent grad?

pollo hermanos said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

pollo hermanos said:

---

I've watching a lot of JP's debates with Harris. It seems to me that he thinks there is a possibility that God exists, that he thinks Christianity is the best religion for society and individuals but is not sure at all that it is true. When pressed he admits that he doesnt actually believe it to be true but that it is good for people generally. To me he seems like he is clearly pandering to Christians to boost his audience.

---

I think that the reality is much more nuanced.

Just listen to what he says about the proof of Jesus' divinity. The ethos that Jesus teaches is the definition of the presence of divine in humans.

But, does he believe in the Holy Spirit? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in the Holy Sprit, is he a Christian?

Does he believe in the historicity of the Old Testament? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe that the OT is anywhere close to historically accurate, does that make him a Christian?

Does he believe in confession, or the priesthood, or the divinity of the Virgin Mary? If he doesn't, he can't really argue he is Catholic, right?

Does he believe in angels and / or demons? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in angels or demons, can he still be a Christian?

There are so many questions to answer if you go down that pathway that are tangential to the question, do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, was raised for the dead, and carries the weight of the world's sin through his sacrifice? JP says that he does. But, if he believes the stuff in this paragraph, but none of the stuff in the preceding paragraphs, would you define him as a Christian? I don't think that I would, in the traditional sense.

So, the question of "how do you define Christian" is actually really important. My take is that JP likely doesn't have mainstream beliefs of what we would call a Christian, even if he confesses the divinity of Christ. And, if he does have to call himself a Christian, now he has to defend things that he doesn't want to defend or even really believe.

What he does believe in is the value system taught by Christ, and he believe that it is divine, and that Christ is divine. He is more than happy to defend that.

---

Does he say he actually believes in the divinity of Christ? When I have seen him he will never really say that. I believe I have seen him say multiple times that he doesnt actually believe that stuff to be true, but he believes it to be beneficial to society and that there is something mysterious to it.

Totally possible that I have missed it. The sense I get is that he does think there is something mysterious out there and that the extremely large, dedicated Christian audience will eat it up which allows for a massive audience, book sales, etc. It seems disingenuous to me.

Not a hater of him but I bet he is closer to an atheist in reality than a bible believing Christian.

---

Well, he says that he believed that Jesus Christ walked out of the tomb. Check out my video from earlier in the thread.

He also says that Christ's teaching is the very definition of divinity in the human spirit.

So, I would take that as a "Yes"

Jordan Peterson isn't a Christian.

Farmer_J said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

these style debates are always semantic

you got 3 min or less move your point forward or it moves nowhere and they are on to the next point

---

Sometimes, sure but JP's entire debate schtick is 'what do you mean by (x)?"

On any subject, he pretends to be ignorant of the intended meaning of a word and ask his opponent to define it for him and then he'll debate the 'flaw' of their definition rather than the actual point they were trying to convey. That's why i loved the "moving Mona Lisa" argument.

---

JP in a debate with sam harris can't answer what he believes. Why is he the one debating sam harris, then?

"I have never heard so many people applaud the evasion of a simple question"

This is great. Jordan Peterson has a mini-tantrum with the audience when Sam Harris presses him on his religious proclamations. pic.twitter.com/Wzc0mFfyKE

— Stephen Knight 🎙️ (@GSpellchecker) September 16, 2018

---

Is it possible that JBP in this clip, and many other instances, recognizes his own flaws enough, that he is attempting to not be like Simon Peter, and for that matter all other 11 at the time of Jesus greatest need? Yet a common criminal on the cross did!

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

FWAppraiser said:

---

Given his responses in the video, that's not the premise JP agreed to. He agreed to debate atheists. There is zero chance he agreed to be the "1" in a "1 Christian" debate.

---

The video was published as "1 Christian vs 20 Atheists (Ft. Jordan Peterson)" and was edited a couple hours after it was posted. EVERY participant was invited on the premise of Atheists debating a Christian.

---

Prove it.

---

---

That doesn't prove your statement "EVERY participant was invited on the premise of Atheists debating a Christian"

Knowing JP, there's zero chance that's the premise he agreed on.

So until you can prove otherwise, you could be man enough to admit you were lying.

---

I follow 1 of the participants on social media who stated that was the premise he was invited on to discuss. I don't know what discussion Peterson 'thought' he was signing up for but like come on man...don't be obtuse.

And this whole thing is so embarrassing for JP who has already publicly stated he believes Jesus Christ was the son of god who died for the sins of man and PHYSICALLY rose from the dead (go watch his debate with Alex O'Connor where he explicitly states he believes not just the metaphorical teachings of the bible, but believes the events as historical fact). This whole "I wont tell you I'm a Christian, I'll just debate every religious topic as a Christian proxy as long as it serves me to do so" is so intellectually dishonest and bad faith. JP is the liar here, not me. The question is, is he lying to everyone else? or just himself?

---

He was probably invited to debate 20 Atheists and agreed. Full stop. Everything else is your own personal projections because you hate the guy so much.

---

Which of us is projecting?

---

How am I projecting when you literally just said you don't like the guy. I'm taking you at your word that you don't like the guy.

What a bizarre retort.

---

Because instead of responding to my actual substantive critique of Peterson, you choose instead to comment with your perception of my emotional state about someone I said I don't 'like' (not 'hate'). I don't like JP because I don't think he engages in debate honestly, not because I possess a level of personal hatred towards him.

The fact you used the word 'hate' when I said 'not like' implies your own projection.

---

You presumed knowledge you do not actually possess that painted JP in the worst light possible.

Call it what you will.

---

Peterson has stated he believes in the physical resurrection of Christ as historical fact. Despite that public admission (and many others that align precisely with Christian beliefs), he refuses to categorize himself as a Christian for reasons I can't fathom other than because he knows it provides a convenient out with these debates he loves to engage in (my presumption). If I wanted to 'paint Peterson in the worst light possible', I could attack his ego and drug addiction but I'm sticking to his bad faith debate tactics.

BusterAg said:

---

pollo hermanos said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

pollo hermanos said:

---

I've watching a lot of JP's debates with Harris. It seems to me that he thinks there is a possibility that God exists, that he thinks Christianity is the best religion for society and individuals but is not sure at all that it is true. When pressed he admits that he doesnt actually believe it to be true but that it is good for people generally. To me he seems like he is clearly pandering to Christians to boost his audience.

---

I think that the reality is much more nuanced.

Just listen to what he says about the proof of Jesus' divinity. The ethos that Jesus teaches is the definition of the presence of divine in humans.

But, does he believe in the Holy Spirit? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in the Holy Sprit, is he a Christian?

Does he believe in the historicity of the Old Testament? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe that the OT is anywhere close to historically accurate, does that make him a Christian?

Does he believe in confession, or the priesthood, or the divinity of the Virgin Mary? If he doesn't, he can't really argue he is Catholic, right?

Does he believe in angels and / or demons? Maybe, maybe not. If he doesn't believe in angels or demons, can he still be a Christian?

There are so many questions to answer if you go down that pathway that are tangential to the question, do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God, was raised for the dead, and carries the weight of the world's sin through his sacrifice? JP says that he does. But, if he believes the stuff in this paragraph, but none of the stuff in the preceding paragraphs, would you define him as a Christian? I don't think that I would, in the traditional sense.

So, the question of "how do you define Christian" is actually really important. My take is that JP likely doesn't have mainstream beliefs of what we would call a Christian, even if he confesses the divinity of Christ. And, if he does have to call himself a Christian, now he has to defend things that he doesn't want to defend or even really believe.

What he does believe in is the value system taught by Christ, and he believe that it is divine, and that Christ is divine. He is more than happy to defend that.

---

Does he say he actually believes in the divinity of Christ? When I have seen him he will never really say that. I believe I have seen him say multiple times that he doesnt actually believe that stuff to be true, but he believes it to be beneficial to society and that there is something mysterious to it.

Totally possible that I have missed it. The sense I get is that he does think there is something mysterious out there and that the extremely large, dedicated Christian audience will eat it up which allows for a massive audience, book sales, etc. It seems disingenuous to me.

Not a hater of him but I bet he is closer to an atheist in reality than a bible believing Christian.

---

Well, he says that he believed that Jesus Christ walked out of the tomb. Check out my video from earlier in the thread.

He also says that Christ's teaching is the very definition of divinity in the human spirit.

So, I would take that as a "Yes"

---

Cool - I will check it out. I've watched hours of him debating atheists and if he was a believer i feel like he could say it easily. But it is hard for him to say anything directly or clearly ha. will revert back once I have watched.

Tramp96 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Why does it bother you so much?

Do you really think Christ cares on what whether or not His followers use a word that was originated as a pejorative of His followers?

---

What bothers me is you stating that Christ never commanded us to be Christians.

There is an accepted definition of what the term "Christian" is, and by that definition, Christ has most certainly commanded us to be exactly that.

What bothers me is yours and this "respected minister's" motivation for claiming such a thing, and not acknowledging that you are essentially attacking Christianity whether you mean to or not.

In other words, you seem to be ashamed of the name "Christian" and have come up with this "Christ didn't command us to be Christians" to justify your being ashamed of it. You are, in a sense, justifying the world's (and Satan's) attack on the name given to those who profess in and follow Jesus Christ.

---

You are making a truck ton of assumptions here that aren't even remotely true.

Watched that episode. They've changed the title from 1 Christian…. to just be Jordan Peterson vs…..

I'm not seeing an issue. JP has always argued from a scientific psychology analysis perspective. This is how he's arguing in that video.

My two cents is that he doesn't want to lose or gain points based on what label he gets. He might still be in the midst of his walk. And his prompts were more about the illogical nature of atheism, rather than a full pro-Christian advocacy.

I would have rather seen Wes Huff in that video for a pro-Christian point of view.

lol, rookie

its a damn shame he couldnt find Jesus in that medically induced coma he cheated his way into

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

---

Charlie Kirk is a literal moron that is incapable of debating anyone of drinking age.

And low IQ NPC's lap up everything that moron does.

Good response video from Trent Horn on this debate.

Butcher of Bakersfield said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Yep, in any other era, that kid would have gotten smacked around and it would have done him some good.

I cannot stand the condescending atheists. Agnostics are one thing, but the super confident and arrogant atheists (who are some of the most blindly faithful people the world has ever seen) are just far too abrasive.

They believe the entire universe and all of existence just magically came into being from absolute nothingness, without the help of a creator, while we believe that is impossible, that some higher power or force which we cannot understand as humans must have been involved in creating something from absolutely nothing. And they think we are psycho for believing something can't come from nothing without the help of something almighty.

---

'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest.'
-TM-

Wyoming Aggie said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

The only thing I took away from the clip you posted is that someone really needs to punch that kid in the face.

Nothing is more annoying to me than effeminate men who use the condescending vocal/facial mannerisms that women often do in arguments.

---

Charlie Kirk could handle those 20 atheists without breaking a sweat. Ask yourself why they picked jordan peterson? Or why jordan peterson accepted?

---

Charlie Kirk is a literal moron that is incapable of debating anyone of drinking age.

And low IQ NPC's lap up everything that moron does.

---

He debated the students at Cambridge, some of the smartest people on earth, quite admirably.

You are free to disagree with him all you want, but he's objectively not a moron.

Moronic gender pronouns WERE government forced speech. The majority of Americans recognize the idiocy of bald dudes with beards who put "he/him" after their name. It's a tool of identity politics that Democrats invented to divide Americans. But I won't even interview job candidates who use gender pronouns. It's an easy mechanism to screen out the lazy, entitled, and socially unaware.

AgGrad99 said:

---

A. One bad or ill-advised debate isn't the 'fall' of JP.

B. His wife and daughter have become believers.

C. Jordan isn't a Christian, but because of his family, he has an intrigue and studies the Bible regularly. He tends to defend the faith, an intertwines Biblical stories into his discussions.

D. The guy likes to have intellectual debates on various subjects. Makes sense he'd have one on this.


That smug turd is pretty incredible. JP has never claimed to be a believer. He's very open about his investigation and continual journey about Faith. They invited him, and that kid ambushes the guest, based on their title, knowing full well what he believes (or should know).

I also think it's funny, an atheist who subscribes to the belief of 'nothingness', attacks JP and calls him 'nothing'. That kid's brought no intellect to the discussion...only a weird nerdy bullying attempt.

---

He is a great historian of the bible, but I think I heard him say that Jesus was a figurative symbol and not sure he actually existed which was very strange to me. I would love to here Wesley Huff and him discuss the bible.

I think you misheard him or are misremembering.

He's on record as saying he think Jesus rose from the dead.

That was like 20 minutes of unneeded banter to drive home a really good point:

Quote:

---

I think part of this comes from Jordan Peterson's self-doubt and thinking that in order to be a freethinker who questions paradigms and seeks out the truth that he himself cannot be put in any neat and tidy boxes.

---

If he confesses to be, for instance, Catholic, all of the sudden JP has to decide to believe what the Pope tells him to believe, and that is just unacceptable.

But, you can really extrapolate that to all denominations.

JP would rather defend the beliefs that he has fought hard to reach, and say he is not so sure about everything else. That is a better approach for JP than to say that since I believe these three things, then these additional things make sense to believe. That would be an easy way out.

JP is trying to demonstrate that you can be an objective, scientifically based thinker and believe that Jesus is God. But in the end, it all just seems like too much hubris from JP.

I think that the idea that you can scientifically or logically prove the existence of God is folly. There is just too much there. I still hold to Kierkegaard's explanation that there is an infinite qualitative difference between an infinite God and a temporal man, and that obstacle makes the true understanding of God physically impossible for the limited human mind.

All that said, to say that JP is not a Christian is a kind of judgement. Does Jesus believe that JP is a Christian? Who would dare to claim to know that one way or another? Does anyone else's opinion besides Jesus' really matter?

JP does good work. He's anathema to the left because he focuses in on personal responsibility so strongly, and that is just not OK to them.

The Lord is dealing with guys like Jordan Peterson Joe Rogan

Sometimes it takes humbleness and it's hard to be humble when you're so damn smart

I don't need Jordan Peterson to sell me on Christianity I know Jesus in my heart and it's the best decision you could ever make because without him you have no peace

Fair enough - I'm pretty much with you on all your points here.

RAB87 said:

---

Moronic gender pronouns WERE government forced speech. The majority of Americans recognize the idiocy of bald dudes with beards who put "he/him" after their name. It's a tool of identity politics that Democrats invented to divide Americans. But I won't even interview job candidates who use gender pronouns. It's an easy mechanism to screen out the lazy, entitled, and socially unaware.

---

Okay but this was in Canada.