Speaker 1: The Jordan Peterson meltdown continues.
Speaker 2: Well, and I'm Asian or you if you're a smarter Oh,
Speaker 2: either you're a Christian or you're not.
Speaker 1: Which one is it?
Speaker 3: I could be either of them.
Speaker 1: But I don't have to take you.
Speaker 2: You don't have to tell me. I was under the
Speaker 2: impression I was invited to talk to a Christian? Am
Speaker 2: I not talking to a Christian?
Speaker 3: No, you were invited to.
Speaker 2: I think everyone should look at the title of the
Speaker 2: YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.
Speaker 3: You're really quite something. You are, aren't I But.
Speaker 2: You're really quite nothing right, You're not as.
Speaker 3: Share I'm done with him.
Speaker 1: I repeat, I take no glee in this whatsoever. I
Speaker 1: still have a tremendous amount of respect for Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 1: and I probably always will, though he's making it harder
Speaker 1: and harder. Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell.
Speaker 1: Thank you for tuning in once again. The clip that's
Speaker 1: from which is going very viral is Jordan Peterson versus
Speaker 1: twenty Atheists. It happened on Jubilee just yesterday. Needless to say,
Speaker 1: that clip is going very viral, and I want to
Speaker 1: be very very clear. I take no pleasure in agreeing
Speaker 1: with a wild eyed COMI, which is almost certainly what
Speaker 1: that kid is, the phenotype of disaster, the eyes that
Speaker 1: are bulging out of his head, and he's obviously trying
Speaker 1: to ruin Jordan's life and career. And I'm sure I
Speaker 1: don't agree with him on anything politically whatsoever. However, he
Speaker 1: pinned Jordan into the corner and just beat the hell
Speaker 1: out of him. Got to be honest about what I
Speaker 1: saw there, and that's what happened. What I find most
Speaker 1: odd is that I, as a non Christian, I would
Speaker 1: still say I'm not a Christian. I don't know, I'm
Speaker 1: working on it. I felt as if many of these
Speaker 1: instances of challenges from these twenty atheists, I would have
Speaker 1: done a better job at contending with the arguments than
Speaker 1: Jordan did. He continues to duck and dodge, and every
Speaker 1: time he's kind of pinned into a corner, he relents
Speaker 1: to demanding further clarification on definitions, some of which he
Speaker 1: has already asked for before, some of which he has
Speaker 1: already said what he is defining things as. And then
Speaker 1: he's asking for another variant by which he can kind
Speaker 1: of weasel his way out of the corner. What's most
Speaker 1: weird about all of it is that he's in the
Speaker 1: position of arguing against twenty atheists and arguing that the
Speaker 1: atheists are wrong, but he's still unwilling to take a
Speaker 1: firm position as to his own belief system. And I
Speaker 1: just don't understand this middle ground that he's trying to walk,
Speaker 1: and I find myself being sympathetic to it because I
Speaker 1: am kind of in that position of being someone who
Speaker 1: probably leans towards Christianity but is not a full on
Speaker 1: believer just because of challenges of faith. And I think
Speaker 1: that's where Jordan's at. Except he's just much more studious
Speaker 1: in this arena, and it should not be such a
Speaker 1: point of contention, and it ought to be something that
Speaker 1: he's very open about if he's going to be putting
Speaker 1: himself in a position of being a spokesman in defense
Speaker 1: of Christianity as opposed to atheism, which is essentially what
Speaker 1: this twenty person Blitzkraig was. So it seems to me
Speaker 1: that Jordan wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Speaker 1: He essentially does not want to be held to the
Speaker 1: standards of a Christian but he wants to still have
Speaker 1: a largely Christian audience that listens to him day in
Speaker 1: and day out, but he doesn't take a declaratory stance
Speaker 1: one way or the other. And I just don't understand it.
Speaker 1: I can understand why, especially with that kid, why you
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to answer him directly. I wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: talk to that kid at all. But I've seen Jordan
Speaker 1: do this in other settings that were much less contentious,
Speaker 1: and he still continues to refuse to give a straight
Speaker 1: answer as to whether or not he is a believer.
Speaker 1: And I don't have a dog in that fight. If
Speaker 1: he's not a believer, that's fine. If he is a believer,
Speaker 1: that's also fine. Just tell us why won't you say
Speaker 1: if you are or you aren't. And in fact, it
Speaker 1: reminds me tie into another person that I've been documenting
Speaker 1: their decline or the demise, which is James Lindsay, another
Speaker 1: guy who pretends as if he's a Christian, talks as
Speaker 1: if he's a Christian. Oftentimes we'll make posts where he's
Speaker 1: calling upon Christian sensibilities in Christian morality, but yet doesn't
Speaker 1: appear to actually be a believer himself. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what's most off putting to those that are in
Speaker 1: fact believers is when someone who is not is essentially
Speaker 1: holding them to the moral standards of which they don't
Speaker 1: hold themselves because they're not a believer. It's manipulative at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, and I think people sense that.
Speaker 1: And if you're in a position of arguing the morality
Speaker 1: of Christianity in particular, and you're unwilling to be honest
Speaker 1: about your own belief system, well then I think you've
Speaker 1: already lost the debate. You've already put yourself in a
Speaker 1: no win position, rightfully. So, I mean you're talking about
Speaker 1: and he actually, in another clip on a playe in
Speaker 1: a second, he talks specifically about truth and how that
Speaker 1: is one of the highest Christian values or morals, but
Speaker 1: he's not being truthful because he's withholding his own personal
Speaker 1: position here. And for the life of me, I just
Speaker 1: can't understand why, why withhold it? Just tell us. I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone would be upset if you said I
Speaker 1: struggle with my faith, given what he's gone through in
Speaker 1: his life, that'd be totally explicable. Like, we get it, dude,
Speaker 1: You've had a rough go of it over the past decade.
Speaker 1: You've got launched in the stratosphere of stardom and fame
Speaker 1: and everything else and adoration, and then you had a
Speaker 1: drug addiction which almost destroyed you. You had to go to
Speaker 1: Russia and get put into a coma. From what I've read,
Speaker 1: I allegedly to get off of benzodiazepines. And then you
Speaker 1: come back. You seem to have found your footing again,
Speaker 1: so to speak. You're now trying to walk this line
Speaker 1: of being a spokesman for religion that you will not
Speaker 1: declare your belief in or even your non belief in neither.
Speaker 1: You'll give us neither. I could be either of them.
Speaker 1: But I don't have to take aview.
Speaker 2: You don't have to tell me. I was under the
Speaker 2: impression I was invited to talk to a Christian? Am
Speaker 2: I not talking to a Christian? No, you were invited
Speaker 2: to I think everyone should look at the title of
Speaker 2: the YouTube channel.
Speaker 1: You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.
Speaker 3: You're alreally quite something?
Speaker 1: You are, aren't I? But you're really quite right.
Speaker 2: You're not a question.
Speaker 3: I'm done with him.
Speaker 1: I just can't envision a world in which I, as
Speaker 1: I consider myself an agnostic, I believe that there's probably
Speaker 1: a higher power, but I could I couldn't give you
Speaker 1: a description of it. I struggle with faith. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine a world in which I would get into this
Speaker 1: position of having to defend a religion I don't believe in,
Speaker 1: or at least I can't say that I believe in
Speaker 1: against twenty eightheists when he sounds as if he's dealing
Speaker 1: with the same challenges that many of those people in
Speaker 1: that room are, which is fair, totally fair. I think
Speaker 1: tons of people struggle with faith. They struggle with their
Speaker 1: own belief in religion. That's fair, that's understandable, that's human,
Speaker 1: that's honest. This is not that. Putting yourself up as
Speaker 1: an authoritative figure that's able to argue and debate in
Speaker 1: defense of a religion that you will not take a
Speaker 1: stance one way or the other one is just it's
Speaker 1: a performative contradiction. Why are you doing this? Why are
Speaker 1: you putting yourself up there like that? Worse you, as
Speaker 1: a guy who's extraordinarily capable and very very bright, are
Speaker 1: losing two. He didn't have blue hair, but he's a
Speaker 1: blue hair leftist. We all know the type. And you're
Speaker 1: getting your teeth kicked in by him and going viral
Speaker 1: for the worst reasons possible. Defending a thing that you
Speaker 1: don't even necessarily have a firm position on yourself. Why
Speaker 1: would you even debate something that you don't have a
Speaker 1: firm position on? Why would you put yourself up as
Speaker 1: that role? It seems as if you are a con man,
Speaker 1: and I think a lot of people are suspecting it.
Speaker 1: They're feeling it instinctually, and not just instinctually, but with evidence.
Speaker 4: Someone like threatened my life, Right, I would lie in
Speaker 4: order to be able to save my life, right like?
Speaker 4: I think you would do that too. You wouldn't lie
Speaker 4: to save your life. You're so sure you wouldn't lie
Speaker 4: to save your life?
Speaker 3: How much do you know about me? I didn't lie
Speaker 3: to save my career. I didn't lie to save my
Speaker 3: clinical practice.
Speaker 4: Would you lie to save your children and your mom?
Speaker 4: Your dad?
Speaker 3: I don't think lying would save.
Speaker 4: The Can there ever be a circumstance logically that lying
Speaker 4: could save something?
Speaker 3: Yeah, And if you're steeped in sin, you're likely to
Speaker 3: live in circumstances like that.
Speaker 1: There's something very odd about how he tightens his jaw,
Speaker 1: his chin and he juts it out like he's lecturing him.
Speaker 1: He's lecturing him from a position of seeming authority. What
Speaker 1: do you know about me? Do you know what I've
Speaker 1: gone through? Do you know what I've done? The claim
Speaker 1: being that he sacrificed his career, and he did, and
Speaker 1: to a certain extent, he did sacrifice his medical license
Speaker 1: in Canada for the stand that he took, and there
Speaker 1: is courageous aspects of that. He also landed very much
Speaker 1: on his feet and became more wealthy and more famous,
Speaker 1: and more popular and more listened to than he had
Speaker 1: ever been before. But what's particularly odd about it is
Speaker 1: that he's defending a position very fiercely that really no
Speaker 1: one can, that no one actually lives out aside from
Speaker 1: maybe Jesus. I mean, who doesn't tell a lie if
Speaker 1: it's necessary to save their child? And to then argue
Speaker 1: when an obvious counterpoint has been levied against your position
Speaker 1: that telling the truth is paramount, which is obviously a
Speaker 1: good lesson, certainly in alignment with Christian morals and Christian values.
Speaker 1: Why not just acknowledge the fact that there are levels
Speaker 1: to your principles, and a higher level of principle than
Speaker 1: telling the truth is the protection and defense of your children,
Speaker 1: of your wife makes perfect sense, a totally reasonable stance
Speaker 1: to take, that is, when explained, completely understood by anybody
Speaker 1: who's being reasonable. But you would rather put your feet
Speaker 1: in the ground and defend a position that is not defensible.
Speaker 1: Most people rightfully will tell a white lie if put
Speaker 1: in a dire circumstance where it's necessitated, and it is.
Speaker 4: The case that there's like Jewish people in your attic
Speaker 4: and your time, would you lie to like the Nazis.
Speaker 3: I would have done everything I bloody well could, so
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. It's
Speaker 3: a hypothetical, and it's no. I can't answer a hypothetical
Speaker 3: like that, because it's look that you don't play games.
Speaker 3: If you present me with an intro practable moral choice
Speaker 3: that's stripped of context and you backed me into a corner,
Speaker 3: you're playing game.
Speaker 1: I just told youpathetic.
Speaker 3: I would do everything that I could to make sure
Speaker 3: that I'm never in that situation. By the time you've
Speaker 3: got there, you've made so many mistakes that there's nothing
Speaker 3: you can do that isn't a sin.
Speaker 4: Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people
Speaker 4: that you care about, Like there could be a Jewish
Speaker 4: friend that you have and you want to protect them
Speaker 4: that line of question, give up on just like trying
Speaker 4: to clarify your position because I don't like Claire, are
Speaker 4: you like uncomfortable with me asking this question? It's just
Speaker 4: a basic hypothetical, like I could ask. It's just a
Speaker 4: basic apathetical where you're like.
Speaker 3: What Jews life's at stake in Nazi Germany?
Speaker 1: That's just a basic.
Speaker 4: Obviously you would lie in that scenario to save their life.
Speaker 4: But you're like not trying to answer this question. What's
Speaker 4: for some reason?
Speaker 1: Again, I'm put in the position of having to defend
Speaker 1: some college kid, which I probably despise politically, but he's right,
Speaker 1: This is a totally fair question to ask. Would you
Speaker 1: lie to defend your children in the position of having
Speaker 1: Jewish friends or family that are in Nazi Germany in
Speaker 1: the nineteen forties, would you lie to protect them? The
Speaker 1: answer is yes, say yes. No one's going to say, oh,
Speaker 1: you're not a Christian, Oh, telling the truth is not important.
Speaker 1: Just be honest. In fact, you aren't being honest by
Speaker 1: lying about being honest in a moment that you wouldn't
Speaker 1: be if that makes sense. I know I put a
Speaker 1: lot of thoughts together in one line of explanation, but
Speaker 1: that's the truth. We would all lie, and everyone would
Speaker 1: understand why you would lie. Well, excuse me, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: all lie to protect a friend during that circumstance. Many
Speaker 1: people write it out their friends and their family during
Speaker 1: periods like that. We learned that during twenty twenty what
Speaker 1: a lot of your friends and family righted you out
Speaker 1: for not getting the jab or whatever, not wearing a mask,
Speaker 1: not social distancing. They didn't invite you to Thanksgiving or
Speaker 1: Christmas or whatever holidays you celebrate. It was insane. So
Speaker 1: a lot of people put in the position of dealing
Speaker 1: with this hypothetical would just answer it truthfully, which Jordan
Speaker 1: refuses to do. What I took away from that is
Speaker 1: that I think because Jordan has been put in such
Speaker 1: a position of authority and kind of cloistered off from
Speaker 1: the rest of the world, or at least not challenged
Speaker 1: very much over the past few years, his ability to
Speaker 1: contend with legitimate arguments to counter his own beliefs has weakened.
Speaker 1: He's gotten very very fragile, very weak at defending these arguments,
Speaker 1: and I think that's a product of his own success
Speaker 1: in a tragic way. That because he's surrounded by people
Speaker 1: that respect him so much, including myself. If I was
Speaker 1: sitting across the table from Jordan Peterson, I would struggle
Speaker 1: to be as antagonistic as these kids were to him.
Speaker 1: But these kids are thinking of themselves. I'm gonna go viral,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna dunk on this old guy. That's gonna be great.
Speaker 1: And many of them got their wish. But it didn't
Speaker 1: have to go this way because Jordan, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is capable of defending these positions. He is capable of
Speaker 1: defending Christianity if he is honest with himself, and I
Speaker 1: think that is the crux of the issue. That is
Speaker 1: the key problem that he's dealing with, is that he's
Speaker 1: not being honest with himself. And for the life of me,
Speaker 1: I cannot understand why he would argue in defense of
Speaker 1: a religion that he is still challenged by, that he
Speaker 1: is struggling with, that he is attempting to become a
Speaker 1: believer in. I believe that I don't believe that he
Speaker 1: is a believer at this point, because if he were,
Speaker 1: many of these gotcha moments go bye. Bye.
Speaker 4: Do you believe in the all knowing, all powerful, all
Speaker 4: good notion of God?
Speaker 3: What do you mean by believe?
Speaker 4: Do you think it's be true?
Speaker 3: That's the circular definition. What do you mean believe?
Speaker 1: How is that circular?
Speaker 3: Because you added no content to the answer by substituting
Speaker 3: the word true and believe.
Speaker 4: I said think it to be true?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: So if to believe something you stake your life on it.
Speaker 1: I gotta stop it there. Because he says, do you
Speaker 1: believe in the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent God. He
Speaker 1: asked for a clarification as to what does What does
Speaker 1: he mean as do you believe? He says, do you
Speaker 1: think it to be true? That is a definition that
Speaker 1: is not circular reasoning. Do you think it's true? I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really what he's asking it once again, instead of
Speaker 1: just answering honestly, is that I'm not sure? I don't know.
Speaker 1: That would be an honest answer from doctor Peterson. Instead,
Speaker 1: he gets into semantics and definition bargaining. It's stupid. It
Speaker 1: comes across as totally disingenuous because it is because he's
Speaker 1: not being honest with the audience. He's not being honest
Speaker 1: with the panelists, and he's not being honest with himself.
Speaker 3: If you believe something, you stake your life on it,
Speaker 3: what do you mean by that you live for it
Speaker 3: and you die for it?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 4: So you're saying that you don't believe something if you
Speaker 4: wouldn't die for it.
Speaker 1: Not really no, okay?
Speaker 3: So now would you define belief something you say?
Speaker 4: I guess why. I explained, like, I could believe it
Speaker 4: is the case that this pen exists. But if someone
Speaker 4: like threatened my life, right, I would lie in order
Speaker 4: to be able to save my life. Right, Like I
Speaker 4: think you would do that too. You wouldn't lie to
Speaker 4: save your life. You's so sure you wouldn't lie to
Speaker 4: save your life.
Speaker 1: How much do you know about me? So here's one
Speaker 1: of the most interesting parts of this entire conversation is
Speaker 1: that he's being challenged on what belief means. I think
Speaker 1: because of his experience saying profundities, saying things that sound
Speaker 1: very lofty, very high order ideals of like, you don't
Speaker 1: believe in something unless you're living for it and willing
Speaker 1: to die for it. That's something that you might say
Speaker 1: to motivate a young man, but it's not actually the
Speaker 1: honest answer belief in things like I believe in gravity,
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not prepared to die for it. What I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just nonsense. And I think because he's been
Speaker 1: cloistered off from Normi's he's not or he hasn't at
Speaker 1: least been challenged on these kind of profundities that he
Speaker 1: creates that he concox to sound very intelligent and interesting,
Speaker 1: which he is. He just hasn't had to contend with pushback.
Speaker 1: And he's like, he's saying these catch phrases, you don't
Speaker 1: actually believe unless you are living for it and willing
Speaker 1: to die for it. Well, that's nonsense. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: basically talking about faith in religion, not the broad definition
Speaker 1: of belief, which is separate from that. And you can
Speaker 1: believe in lots of things and not be willing to
Speaker 1: die for them. I believe that my name's Clint. If
Speaker 1: someone calls me something else, I'm okay, not not fighting
Speaker 1: over it. I'll let that go, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just weird. It's just a weird stance to take,
Speaker 1: and it's I think it's really a product of just
Speaker 1: not having to deal with challengers when you're going off,
Speaker 1: you know, in your superfluous, flowery diatribes, which I love.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not not trying to be a hater.
Speaker 1: It falls flat when you're actually dealing with genuine counter points,
Speaker 1: which he was.
Speaker 3: By the time you've got there, you've made so many
Speaker 3: mistakes that there's nothing you can do that isn't a sin.
Speaker 4: Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people
Speaker 4: they care about, Like there could be a Jewish friend
Speaker 4: that you have and you want.
Speaker 1: To protect them.
Speaker 3: That line of questions.
Speaker 4: But like, again, you're not answering this hypothetical because you
Speaker 4: know it shows that you clearly would.
Speaker 3: Answers find acceptable. Obviously, I wouldn't be in that scenario.
Speaker 1: I mean, this kid just eats his lunch. It couldn't
Speaker 1: be more obvious. I mean to say that, oh, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be in that scenario, or that because you've been
Speaker 1: painted into this corner and this hypothetical that you're not
Speaker 1: willing to engage in, you're now pleading with your competitor
Speaker 1: by saying I think you should just abandon this line
Speaker 1: of questioning. He says that verbatim, I mean that is
Speaker 1: at such an act of desperation as a posed to
Speaker 1: just telling the fucking truth. And I think I've said
Speaker 1: this in prior episodes, but this is what makes Dave
Speaker 1: Smith so good at debating. He doesn't have to lie
Speaker 1: about any of these things because he just tells you
Speaker 1: what he genuinely believes, and his ideas happen to be right,
Speaker 1: so it's very easy to defend them. So he can
Speaker 1: do so publicly time and time again without ever getting
Speaker 1: caught up in a lie because he's not lying. Now.
Speaker 1: He might be wrong about some things, and I might
Speaker 1: be wrong about some things too, but I never have
Speaker 1: to intentionally obfuscate my beliefs because I just get to
Speaker 1: tell the truth as I see it. And I think
Speaker 1: Jordan is in a position where he's not able to
Speaker 1: do that, and I don't know why. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's a laye that he's decided that he needs
Speaker 1: to fill, that he's got some agent or something, some
Speaker 1: pr person who's telling him, hey, we think you're best
Speaker 1: at this, you need to stay here, or because he
Speaker 1: works for the Daily Wire, if they're telling him, look,
Speaker 1: we're losing a lot of Christians over this whole Israel stuff,
Speaker 1: and you're our guy, so you Matt Walsh, the other, dude,
Speaker 1: we need you guys to be go harden the paint
Speaker 1: in defensive Christian values, because then we get to say, look,
Speaker 1: daily Wire employs all of these very loud and proud
Speaker 1: Christians when he's not one. I mean, he's a loud one,
Speaker 1: but he's not a Christian apparently, because he's not willing
Speaker 1: to say if he is or he isn't, so I
Speaker 1: have to assume that he's not. Now, I don't want
Speaker 1: to pretend as if every single contender that sat up
Speaker 1: there and hammered him with questions just destroyed him. Many
Speaker 1: of them were amicable, and some of the answers that
Speaker 1: he gave were insightful, so it's not as if he's
Speaker 1: completely in shambles. I'm taking the segments that are the
Speaker 1: most worthy of being discussed further. But there are some
Speaker 1: good moments. And in fact, there's this one girl who
Speaker 1: apparently he liked the most in terms of her questioning
Speaker 1: of him, and he invited her to do a length
Speaker 1: the year five minute segment at the end, and I'm
Speaker 1: just going to show you one segment of that so
Speaker 1: we can break it down.
Speaker 5: So we look at again the story of canaan Abel
Speaker 5: and we say yeah, So I believe this is a metatruth.
Speaker 5: I believe that this story is resident throughout cultures that
Speaker 5: is all trendani, and I'm sure that there is some
Speaker 5: in some way. The story was put in here for
Speaker 5: the reason right to tell us about, you know, fights
Speaker 5: between brothers. But also you can't say I do know
Speaker 5: or I don't know that this story is false or
Speaker 5: truth in an ontological historical sense. As a historical fact,
Speaker 5: were there two people like that we're specifically referenced.
Speaker 3: Okay, I don't think that's knowable, but I'm not sure
Speaker 3: why it matters.
Speaker 1: Now, setting aside the fact that she looks just like
Speaker 1: his daughter, a black version of Mikhaela Peterson, and maybe
Speaker 1: that's why he had a soft spot for But I
Speaker 1: do I think that, you know, she brings up the
Speaker 1: obvious questions and the questions that I have personally.
Speaker 5: Belief in God, specifically as someone who resurrected or as
Speaker 5: someone who died for our sins is important, right, But
Speaker 5: we have to look at if we can interpret that.
Speaker 5: It's just like you to believe that God is a
Speaker 5: symbol of sacrifice. That is different from believing that there
Speaker 5: is an actual person named Jesus Christ who died on
Speaker 5: the cross. So if you believe one and not the other,
Speaker 5: that can be the difference between you going to Hell
Speaker 5: and you're going to Heaven. So if we cannot make like,
Speaker 5: we cannot say that we know whether or not certain
Speaker 5: historical facts in the Bible happen, like even as just
Speaker 5: like events, like does the events matter? Because again, God
Speaker 5: dying for our sins on the cross was an event.
Speaker 5: If we can't say that we know these things happened,
Speaker 5: these things did or didn't happen, this then leads us
Speaker 5: to kind of like the conundrum of how do we
Speaker 5: know what we are meant to believe, what the Bible
Speaker 5: intended for us to believe. And this can be very
Speaker 5: very important to like our fate.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've got no disagreement with any of that. What
Speaker 3: sort of response do you want from that? She pushed
Speaker 3: me beyond the limits of my knowledge?
Speaker 4: Really?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's.
Speaker 3: There's so many things you can't know. I'm struggling. I
Speaker 3: don't know the answer to the questions that you're asking.
Speaker 1: If I can't know what's true from the Bible, how
Speaker 1: am I to establish my belief system? How am I
Speaker 1: to have faith in it, especially when, as Jordan clarifies,
Speaker 1: much of it is poetry, much of it is history,
Speaker 1: much of it is analogy or metaphor. It's like, this
Speaker 1: is very challenging, and I think this is why, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, most Christians rely on faith,
Speaker 1: and when they're put up against the wall with this
Speaker 1: line of questioning, they resort to answering, well, I have faith.
Speaker 1: I have faith that Jesus died for my sins and
Speaker 1: he is the Son of God. For some people that's fine,
Speaker 1: and for other people that's not enough. It's challenging to
Speaker 1: take that leap of faith. And Jordan, without saying it explicitly,
Speaker 1: is telling you everything.
Speaker 3: It's the case that forever when people have been interpreting
Speaker 3: religious stories, they wrestled with exactly the question that you
Speaker 3: just described. When is it fact, When is it poetry,
Speaker 3: When is it music, When is it metaphor? When is
Speaker 3: it ritual? When is it time bound?
Speaker 5: But what I'm saying is that your interpretation of the Bible,
Speaker 5: if you cannot tell us again if these historical vents
Speaker 5: happened or not, that can be deciding factor. And if
Speaker 5: someone is damned to hell for eternity or if they
Speaker 5: go to heaven, right, So that's why I'm.
Speaker 3: I don't concern myself so much with that particular question,
Speaker 3: you know, like that that would be something that would
Speaker 3: stem more from an evangelical viewpoint. And I'm not putting
Speaker 3: that down by the way, I don't. You're asking me
Speaker 3: a question I really can't answer. I'm not claiming even
Speaker 3: that my interpretations are canonically correct.
Speaker 1: He's saying that he feels the same way I do,
Speaker 1: that he struggles with it that you've asked me questions
Speaker 1: that I can't answer, that I don't even feel qualified
Speaker 1: to discuss. But at its core, if you're going to
Speaker 1: be debating against twenty atheists, don't you have to have
Speaker 1: an answer to that? Why would you get up there
Speaker 1: and put yourself in a position like that if you
Speaker 1: can't say yes, it is true if you want to
Speaker 1: argue in defense of there being a creator through the
Speaker 1: complexity of the universe or something to that effect, that
Speaker 1: seems totally recent. But he's really putting himself up there
Speaker 1: as a defender of the Christian faith of Christianity itself,
Speaker 1: and he cannot do so because he is not a believer.
Speaker 1: Because the same question she asked him. He can't answer
Speaker 1: because he is a wash in doubt. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a very human position to be in, one that
Speaker 1: I think people would have sympathy for, especially given what
Speaker 1: he's gone through, if he could just be honest about it.
Speaker 1: But he can't and he won't be and I can't
Speaker 1: help him beyond that, other than to say I wish
Speaker 1: I could help, and I mean that sincerely. He helped
Speaker 1: me with so much as a young man to kind
Speaker 1: of find my footing. I want nothing more than to
Speaker 1: give that favor back, and I can't because I don't
Speaker 1: have the reach to get to him, and I'm not
Speaker 1: sure he would listen even if I did. But I
Speaker 1: hope that he knows that there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: rooting for him, that despite the fact that this this
Speaker 1: episode will be titled something like Jordan Peterson gets flatlined
Speaker 1: in debate, at the end of the day, there's no
Speaker 1: malice here. I'm rooting for the guy. I hope that
Speaker 1: he finds his faith. I hope that he finds that
Speaker 1: source of strength and belief. He seems so desperately in
Speaker 1: need of it, seeking of it even and I think
Speaker 1: we all are some more than others. I'm certainly on
Speaker 1: the path myself, and I think even those that have
Speaker 1: found true belief in their faith, they still are more
Speaker 1: than willing to have patience with those that are struggling,
Speaker 1: those that are trying. And at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I think that's quintessentially a Christian value, a Christian moral even,
Speaker 1: which is something that Jordan ought to embrace. Have grace
Speaker 1: for yourself a little bit and that might help ease
Speaker 1: the concerns the struggle that you're dealing with, and I
Speaker 1: hope it will. Welcome to Liberty Lockdown, Let's come to
Speaker 1: Park Hove, to Liberty and Company.
Speaker 5: That's our hold.
Speaker 1: Where did it come from and where did it