Chris Pratt Affirms God

Comments

Fullauto223cal's picture

Good for him.  I don't agree with him but it takes balls to say what he said in the land of leftism.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey's picture
Beta Tester

i hope he was trying to send a message ot help people believe in themselves.

can't see him as a religious guy for some reason.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Many who follow Pratt and are Christians have known about this for some time, actually. Pratt actually made no religious statements during this speech. All he said was that God is real and each person is an imperfect being with a divine spark inside. What's so religious about that? ;)

 

Btw, Peterson and Harris are about to have four talks over the next 30 days where they will specifically try to argue about and answer the question: What is religion?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Religion is a central authority/authoritative ideology that tells people what to think &/or how to behave. Saved you 4 hours, you're welcome.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

The outcome of the talk could very well be to detach belief in God and the divinity of the individual from the parasitic ideologies/doctrines that convey unwarranted authority that is abused by men of power. Religion could come to mean what you just wrote and only that, and then all of the people that are so focused on "religion" as the root of all evil will have something to torch. In any case the definitions and associations are too confused and vague right now so these talks can only help to bring things into focus.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Which religion teaches that people are divine?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I didn't write "people are divine". I said a spark of divinity, another term for soul. I can't remember which Greek philosopher it was who said humans are suspended between the beasts and the Gods. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

who is the individual in "divinity of the individual"?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You don't know what an individual is?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

yeah I think so but am confused that you deflected my question when I asked "which religion teaches that people are divine?"

 

People are individuals, right?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I didn't deflect - I corrected your mistake. Or are you asking me if I know of a religion that teaches that people are God? The gnostic tradition often elevates beyond the soul to suggest that every individual is also God. Is that what you're asking? I'm sure there are others - most of the crystal-rubbing new age folks in California believe some version of that.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Well I'm wondering why you mentioned it in that context then. It seemed like you were saying that the belief in God & the divinity thing are legit but the other bits are not.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Ah, a common misunderstanding - people often assume I'm defending some picture they have in their heads, often binary, of what's legit or not. My aim is usually to attempt to make a dent in the traumatized Atheist's fear response toward someone merely stating "I believe there's a God". This often triggers some straw-man of "religion" in the Atheists head - the type of atheists that get bothered and attack the idea of "Belief in God" (there are many who don't). 

 

It's pretty clear that atheists who arrange their lives around "not believing in God" and angrily attack people who do are coping with past trauma, either real or perceived, at the hands of "the religious". Perhaps not directly - in many cases all they've done is read one book on how belief in God is the root of all evil (in these books "religion" and "belief in God" are conflated to be the same thing). All I'm doing when I make these arguments is trying to find a way to help damaged atheists let go of their trauma so they can move forward with the rest of us as, at the very least, atheists who base their beliefs on their perception of rationality rather than an emotional perception of "the enemy" that they have been indoctrinated into, or which they have indoctrinated themselves into through cognitive dissonance.

 

Peterson is trying to do the same thing, obviously. The other pole he's trying to roll in are the people who believe in God but can't find him in any Church nearby - which is pretty fucking common. Those people need a place to gather, talk, and develop their emotional and social lives. At the other extreme there are the fundie Bible thumpers, and from what I've seen so far they are the least likely to be swayed out of their delusional ideology by Peterson's ideas. But in the case of atheists the goal is to eliminate all of the things that traumatized and frightened atheists point to when they get really upset about people believing in God. This is a nightmare for those types of atheists, which I really don't think are as commonplace as folks believe, because they lose their strawmen and it quickly becomes obvious that their anger and condemnation have more to do with what's going on inside their psychology that it does with worrying about whether what someone else believes is factual or not.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

I didn't think you were defending some picture I have in my head, just reading what you wrote & trying to interpret what you meant. FYI I've never read any atheist books so you don't need to reference that shit when you talk to me.

 
Sounds like you want to keep your religious views but you don't like it when people call it a religion. You framed your comment in terms of religion vs atheism. You can be non-religious, and even attack religion without being an atheist. It's a strawman to bring atheism into the conversation don't ya think?

 

You realise agnosticism is a thing, right?

 

As far as all that "fear & trauma" & "people who believe in God but can't find him in a church" stuff goes.... do you ever wonder whether it is fear of the unknown that causes people to look for a convenient answer like God?

 

One more question (you're gonna love this) - why is it do you think that Jordan Peterson didn't actually pick up a skateboard when he was watching the skaters?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

None of my comments regarding atheism were directed at you - remember, this thread began with me responding to Nakey. Look above - it's that sentiment that I've been referring to all along. So you're completely misunderstanding me. I don't care how the labels we use are spelled - all I care about is separating the ideological from the archetypal. That's the goal here. There's a patina of parasitic ideological dogma caked on top of the Christian archetypes that underpin our memetic evolution. It's caked up elsewhere as well - in science, amongst secular thinkers. The archetypes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are often comparable to the archetypes found in other religions, and in mythologies, including the primitive forgoten ones that Peterson discusses in his Biblical lectures. 

 

Peterson was talking about watching kids skateboard as an adult, likely well into his career as an educator. He has an interesting background - there's a bio on him on YouTube but I can't remember what channel. 

 

The sentiment that began this thread is what I mean when I talk about people reacting in a traumatized way - or disguted way like Dawkins - to the very idea of someone saying "God is real..." and the rest of what Pratt said. What is the alarm? Why is there an "I hope he was [just]..." as the response to a guy affirming God? Where does that come from - the idea of being judged by some angry guy with a white beard who lives in a cloud is pretty frightning (moreso today the idea that anyone would believe that is terrifying), and a lot of people have been genuinely hurt or seen people hurt by others in religious contexts and for "religious" reasons. There's a phenomenological interpretation of the Gospel of Christ that is very similar to what Peterson is doing - there are many parrarels, but Peterson's is closer to the ground. Peterson is doing a good job of building an argument that affirms the legitimacy of archetypal religious beliefs as vectors for truth, but he doesn't just draw from religion and religious traditions to do that. I have a belief system that is like Peterson's but also includes a metaphysical structure of metaphors that aren't provably factual but are meaningfully true to me, and to many others. When people ask me what it is I just point them to Dallas Willard and his works - it would take pages and pages to explain how the phenomenological approach links in with the metaphorical/metaphysical ideas of God's Kingdom on Earth and in Heaven and all of that. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Why is there an "I hope he was [just]..." as the response to a guy affirming God? 

Why don't you ask Nakey what he meant?

You seem to think you know what he thinks, that his comment is coming from some kind of fear of the god that you believe in.

 

If trauma has anything to do with it, it's more likely trauma from being exposed to Christians, not the religion itself. Christians are hypocrits most of the time & Nakey probably prefers to think of Christ Pratt as just a good dude rather than part of that group of people. I dunno though I didn't ask.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

"Christians are hypocrites most of the time..." that's precisely what I'm referring to. That generates animosity towards the very idea of belief in God and those who profess it. My goal is to destroy false Christianity and convince triggered atheists to get on with their lives. Whether the triggering is from disgust, fear, trauma, whatever - I don't care what set of experiences have produced the thinking pattern. I'm here to destroy the thinking pattern - tall order I know.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

No amount of reform can fix the fundamental problems in Christianity IMO

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I don't think the fundamental problems you're likely to identify have anything to do with the core phenomenon.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

You're claiming that my opinion is invalid before you've even heard the reasoning behind it. You're basically burying your head the sand here Skeptoid.

 

That's an example of one of the fundamental problems I'm talking about.

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You have demonstrated clearly so far that you're struggling with understanding Peterson's argument - I'm trying to find as many ways of explaining this to you as I can: Your labels are outdated and non-specific, and this is the dilemma Peterson is attempting to address. Whatever you identify as "Christian" and "Problematic" are almost certainly a product of your apriori interpretation of what "Christian" means, and Peterson argues, I believe correctly, that your interpretation is likely rife with confusion. What you identify as Christian are likely to be features of the parasitic ideologies that graft themselves to the archetypal substructures. Concurrently, and ironically, you are likely to use terms and ideas that pull from Abrahamic archetypes without realizing it as you point out the "fundamental problems with Christianity". Those "problems" are almost certainly parasitic in nature, and Peterson, you and myself would all agree that they suck. I think that's what you're not getting here.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

The only bit I didn't like is when he pushed the "people bled for your freedom" narrative. It's technically correct if you go back far enough in history but it's not true today & is often exploited to justify all sorts of heinous acts.

+1
+2
-1
Vote comment up/down
trooper_trent's picture

He was talking about Jesus without saying the word Jesus.  Talking about receiving grace because someone has already paid for your freedom with their blood.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I didn't take it that way - I also though the was referring to war veterans.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Go watch it again.  He says the following.

 

You are imperfect, you always will be. (Original sin)

But, there is a powerful force that designed you that way. (God)

And if you are willing to accept that you will have grace.  And that is a gift. (that gift = Jesus dying)

And like the freedom that we enjoy in this country, that grace was paid for by somebody elses blood. (Notice he isn't implying that the soliders paid for it the grace with blood, they paid for the freedom.  The blood payment for grace is clearly inferred to be that of Jesus)

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

No, that's not what he said. Try again - you have paraphrased him and you have added "original sin" when that's not the interpretation or the point he's making. What you have to be willing to accept is that you are not perfect, and that you should always be striving to get better. Grace is when you apologize internally and externally for your imperfect infractions, and grace is also the desire to improve one's self stemming from the acknowledgement that you are imperfect. 

 

The notion that God made you that way (imperfect) actually runs counter to the original sin concept in the book of Genesis - that idea is that God made us perfect and then we fucked it up and became imperfect when we disobeyed Him by eating from the tree of knowledge. "Like the freedom that we enjoy in this country" is a direct reference to those who died to secure it - that's why he says "like". He's drawing a comparison between the example of sacrifice soldiers emulate to secure their family and country's freedom under the rubrick of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, which were developed as the culmination of the evolution of the idea of the divine individual introduced into western culture by a man who was called Yeshua Hamashiach by his followers, and the original sacrifice at the foundation of that idea. 

 

Western soldiers are supposed to fight to protect our concept of freedom - that's not what soldiers have fought and died for through much of human history, although arguments could be made regarding Greece (although I'd argue that was more "sacrifice for the state" than for an ideal). The idea of sacrificing one's self willingly for the ideal of the divine individual is completely new in historical terms, and much taken for granted.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

If God made people and people ate the forbidden fruit, then ultimately it's part of God's design, no? He should have designed a being that would not eat the fruit, if that's what he wanted. Why did he even put the fucking tree there? It was a false flag, my dude. God made people imperfect but there's been a coverup for thousands of years.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Try again - you have paraphrased him and you have added

 

What you see in bold+italics is written VERBATIM from the video.  What you see in parentheses is the meaning as it relates to Christianity.

 

This arguement is stupid.  Of course you didn't take it that way.  I'm not saying you had to take it that way.  His speech was vague enough so that anyone could plug in their own meaning.  What I am simply pointing out is that when you take into account that the guy is a Christian, it's pretty fucking clear what HE MEANT when he was saying those things.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You can't assume what he meant simply because he identifies as Christian - that's the problem today. Saying you're a Christian means a thousand different things to a thousand different people. You left out his opening line - "People will tell you you're perfect just the way you are - you are NOT." and so on. That's a slap at safe-space identity politics horseshit, the antidote to which is to accept your limitations, pick up your suffering, and bear it nobly (with grace). Let me ask you - when it's said in the following manner, is it still obviously Christian and can you still obviously intuit what the speaker "must believe" in terms of metaphysics (he's making the argument here for what makes America, and all the other nations that have benefited from its leading example, strong and indomitable):

 

 

It's not possible to deny the influence of Christian ideas at the root-center of the principles that underpin American freedom. Does that mean you have to believe in God? No - Peterson builds a case for religious archetypes as vectors of truth without ever appealing to the authority or existence of God. When he reaches that point he says "And, here we are...." and leaves it at that. Which is very wise, since I think God should probably be viewed at least partially from the perspective of the Darwinian framework that Jordan talks about.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

You can't assume what he meant simply because he identifies as Christian - that's the problem today.

 

Actually I can and it's not uncommon.  The idea that everyone is suppose to completely ignore his religious faith of a speaker when interpreting the meaning of vague words is retarded.  I'm not saying you aren't free to put your own meaning behind them, but if it is true that Pratt is a Christian, then we he claims speaking of being "made" it is entirely fair to assume that maker is the god of his particular religion.  Likewise, we he speaks of grace being paid for with blood, it's also fair to assume he is speaking of the blood of Christ.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You don't know what the "god of his particular" religion is in his mind. There is no singular template for identifying what "Christian" and "God" mean in the mind of Chris Pratt. You can make assumptions yes, but to know for sure you'd have to talk with the guy for an extended period of time. Living with grace is living as an accountable and sovereign individual, regardless of what hand you've been dealt in life. There are a lot of different ways of saying that - I'm focused on an idea that can be expressed in a myriad of different ways - not the means of expression. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Who exactly he meant isn't my point. Mixing in "freedom" & "blood" with a religious rant in America is fucking stupid. Most of blood spilt for the freedom Americans enjoy was spilt in Europe before the US existed. It's always framed that soldiers fight for America's freedom but in fact it's the opposite most of the time.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

He was talking about Jesus without saying the word Jesus.

 

Yep, being a former Christian myself, I caught that too.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Meh. That was silly. The god of the bible also tells us to stone adulterers and Jesus agreed with that.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Why mention the Bible? Chris wasn't reading the Bible to the audience, and Chris doesn't believe there's a God because it is written in a book.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

He knows there's a 'God' because of the holy texts and because he's a cracker it's very reasonable to assume that his concepts of 'God' stem from christianity. Or the bible in other words. Not directly quoting it but parahprasing from it. Also, the bit about 'the soul' implies this.

 

Now if his beliefs are not motivated by christianity then he should really study more about what kind of bullshit his beliefs lead to. Monotheistic religions are not good for humanity. We haven't been children for milennia.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I notice that you seem unable to separate the Bible, Christianity, and God. Christians read the Bible, at least most of them do, but all Christians do not derive their faith from what they read in the Bible. Not in a literal sense anyway. The days of Christians saying that God exists because it's written in the Bible and God wrote the Bible so God must exist are dwindling to the point of vanishing in many locales. It's still a strong belief in the United States for some reason.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Then why use christian terms and claims if one is not christian? Because they're on the level of a condused child?

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

You're the one saying here that if one doesn't derive one's faith from a literal and mindlessly authoritative reading of the Gospels one is not a Christian. That's a false claim. You can't say "Christian" is "X" and therefore "Y". Not possible.

 

That's why the Peterson-Harris discussions are so valuable to folks. Yes, there is a lot of confusion.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

Yeah. Not mindless, whether mindful or mindless doesn't matter. Ideas are like viruses. Doesn't matter whether it's rote learning or 'searching for the truth'. Bad ideas infect the mind with false claims, false words that then spread further when well meaning but confused people spread the virus through their mouths. Because Mormons are the same as Catholics are the same as Protestants are the same as so on and so forth. And all those under the roofterm 'christian' are the same as the dozen or more versions of Islam or Judaism which all claim a single God. That is to say that it's clear that even within the 'God' claiming religions there's differences on what is meant. The terms are confused, muddled, used in the wrong context. Not to enlighten but to enslave.

 

If you use religious terms or metaphors without meaning to be religious then make sure to say so. The world needs more clarity. Not less.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Damn it, you done gone and forced me to defend Christianity now.

 

The god of the bible also tells us to stone adulterers and Jesus agreed with that.

 

Indeed it does, but Jesus did not appear to agree.

 

John 7:53–8:11 in the New Revised Standard Version:

53 Then each of them went home, 1 while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I totally missed that he included Christ in that line - yes that's completely wrong. Only someone completely unfamiliar with even the literal Christian story would say that Jesus supported the stoning of aldulterers. Quite the opposite - even today people often find it very difficult to interpret Christ's actions and words as anything other than an update or replacement for existing laws and rules of men. It was the farthest thing from that. We are left to our devices with regard to our rules and laws - the underlying ethic DOES influence how those rules and laws take shape however. America is often held up as the prime example of this.

 

In just the passage FullAuto has pasted here, can none of you see what Christ is doing there? He's not establishing laws, he's not ripping them down either. He's creating a phenomenon that births a new ethic - an ethic that stands apart from the laws and rules of men, whatever the fuck they might be. If people didn't abide by an ethic over laws, there would be no United States of America.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Ozmen's picture
Beta Tester

From Matthew 5

 

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Meaning being, be sinless, that is live according to the Law. Or else. Which includes the stoning of adulterers which is allowed is you're sinless which you are if you live a life according to the Law.

 

That's all I'm gonna argue about stone age philosophy. You people also have better things to do with your time.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
hellyeah's picture

Gerelateerde afbeelding

+1
+3
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I knew that would be a GIF the moment I saw it in the movie. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
robbby1234's picture

Well then. It's settled. Thanks Chris Pratt! 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Nakey's picture
Beta Tester

soo, think i'm going to have a decent poll question this week.

 

thanks guys

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓███▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▒▒███▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓███▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓███▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓██▒░▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓░▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████████▓▒▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████████▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░. ▓█▓▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████████████████▒▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▒
▒▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒
▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████████████████▒▒
▒▒▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▓█▓▒
▒▒▒▓███▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒██▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒██▓▒
▒▒▒▒▒▓██████████████████████████▒▒▒

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down