Was Jesus just a nice guy? Jordan Peterson

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMartyr73340
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMartyr73340

Guest


0:32

“…I don’t think the Bible describes a mode of being that is associated with nice-guy-traits. That may be how it is classically taught. Christ is often presented in the gospel, especially in more simpleminded variants, as the ultimate in “nice guys”. But I don’t think that is true at all. If you read the gospel accounts, he was someone who was certainly capable of saying very, very harsh things. He was also identified very strongly as a figure who was capable of using judgment; and distinguishing between what was positive and what was negative.

And the capacity for judgment is something quite different from the mere nice-guy-compassion which is associated with high levels of agreeableness. This idea that the ideal, which is put forward in the biblical writings, is something like “be harmless” is wrong. It is a real misreading of the text. It is wrong because harmless and good are not the same things.

In fact, one of the best ways of characterizing a higher-order-morality is someone whose morals have the capability for violence and the capability for aggression at hand; but who is also perfectly capable of controlling that in a civilized manner. One of the things that men should do, as they mature, is transform themselves into monsters but also become civilized at the same time. In stories, the ideal man starts out as a beast and becomes civilized. He doesn’t start out as a milksop wimp and then become a hero. That doesn’t work."

opinions?
 
Last edited:
It looks like the video was yanked off YouTube. Does it exist anywhere else?
 
Last edited:
Click the link below the video. I think the person who posted the video is not allowing it to be uploaded to other websites.
 
I agree, I’ve never seen Jesus as the ultimate nonjudgmental anything-goes, type of person that so many modern Christians see Him portrayed as. He IS the ultimate good guy but personality wise I think “intense” would be the best descriptor. He was very passionate about what was right and what wasn’t. Your run-of -the-mill “nice guys” don’t flip tables in temples!
 
I didn’t watch the video.
Based on the quote you typed out, for a non-believer, Peterson remarkably does a good job (not perfect though).
JMartyr73340 said:
If you read the gospel accounts, he was someone who was certainly capable of saying very, very harsh things. He was also identified very strongly as a figure who was capable of using judgment; and distinguishing between what was positive and what was negative.
Click to expand...
This is true. You see it throughout the Bible.
JMartyr73340 said:
And the capacity for judgment is something quite different from the mere nice-guy-compassion which is associated with high levels of agreeableness. This idea that the ideal, which is put forward in the biblical writings, is something like “be harmless” is wrong. It is a real misreading of the text. It is wrong because harmless and good are not the same things.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what he means by “harmless”. I think he’s equating that with doormat. If so, then yes, certainly Christians shouldn’t be doormats especially those who are supposed to be positions of leadership like Archbishop or President (Baptist polity not the political office). If you are in such an office, you will need to say things that aren’t popular because the ways of humans differ from God’s.
JMartyr73340 said:
In fact, one of the best ways of characterizing a higher-order-morality is someone whose morals have the capability for violence and the capability for aggression at hand; but who is also perfectly capable of controlling that in a civilized manner.
Click to expand...
Christians aren’t supposed to be violent. Self-defence is permitted but acting out because things don’t work the way we want them i.e. to use violence to force things to conform to Christian teachings is simply wrong.
JMartyr73340 said:
One of the things that men should do, as they mature, is transform themselves into monsters but also become civilized at the same time. In stories, the ideal man starts out as a beast and becomes civilized. He doesn’t start out as a milksop wimp and then become a hero. That doesn’t work."
Click to expand...
This is terrible but again, Peterson isn’t a Christian.
 
Last edited:
I would watch the video in its entirety. I don’t think Peterson means a literal monster. He’s talking metaphorically.
 
Iustinus1 said:
Most nice guys at a wedding don’t say “what is that to you woman?” To their mother.
Click to expand...
It sounds disrespectful in English and possibly other languages. Apparently, not so much in Aramaic or Greek at the time according to my study Bible.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
…acting out because things don’t work the way we want them i.e. to use violence to force things to conform to Christian teachings is simply wrong.
Click to expand...
He never said this.
ATraveller said:
I’m not sure what he means by “harmless”. I think he’s equating that with doormat.
Click to expand...
He’s saying that aggression and violence are not intrinsically evil. The typical portrayal of Christ as a strict pacifist who never offended anyone is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
JMartyr73340 said:
He never said this.
Click to expand...
I didn’t claim he was inciting violence in anyway. I was just expanding on that point about the capability for violence and aggression and how it also needs to be controlled.
JMartyr73340 said:
He’s saying that aggression and violence are not intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
That makes a bit more sense.
JMartyr73340 said:
The typical portrayal of Christ as a strict pacifist who never offended anyone is incorrect.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with the fact Christ isn’t a hippie who lets people do whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
Being niice and the truth aren’t incompatible and it is usually the most effective thing to do. Agression doesn’t get anywhere these days at least.
 
Also, Jesus goes on to say “My time is not yet come”, but on spite all that, He does what His mother asks 🙂
 
That would be correct.

The passage is known as the Proto-Evangelium.

“I will put enmity between you and the woman; and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15).

By referencing his mother as "woman’ some scholars believe Jesus was signalling that the enmity between the woman and her offspring (Jesus) and Satan, alluded to in Genesis was about to be fulfilled in specific terms. The Wedding at Cana was at the very beginning of his ministry and nothing Jesus said or did was without a great deal of significance to events in the OT and to the future of the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top