I think that this video is worth a listen and there should be more conversations like this, but religious reformation is impossible, including in Islam, because Religions by it’s literal interpretation is contradictory and immoral. I also want to add that I find it odd that Jordan Peterson and Mustafa Akyol talk about Postmodernism on the Left, they don’t seem to be aware that they’re doing the same thing to Christianity and Islam, basically a moral relativism.
They are both right, I think, that the rule of law is better than the rule of a monarch, a dictator, a tyrant.
But what matters is - what law? The rule of sharia is not desirable if we are against cruelty and oppression. Sharia is unjust. Sharia is bad.
British common law, wherever it is in force including America, and American Constitutional Law are good.
Many people, including oddly enough the extremely astute and erudite Dr. Peterson, misunderstand what was meant by “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”. It is reported in the mendacious and tendentious “New Testament” as a saying of Jesus “the Christ”. But it must have been said a great many times by a great many people to explain to enquirers why only the currency of Judea was acceptable for use in the Temple and not the currency of the Roman empire. The Roman coins had the head of the Caesar on it. Jewish law forbids “graven images”. So if a visitor to Jerusalem wanted to make a sacrifice by buying say a pair of birds to hand to a priest to shed their blood on the altar and burn them as a “burnt offering” (bribe) to Jehovah to back up his prayer for something or other, he had to use the approved coin. “Why that coin and not the coin I offered to pay with?” “Let me show you why,” says perhaps the Holy Money-Changer. “See, here on your coin is the head of Caesar … As we say, ‘render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s unto God what is God’s’.” The money-changers were an essential part of the Temple staff. No Jew would ever chase them out. The tale that Jesus chases them out (they are often called “money-lenders” in Christian sermons - an opprobrious term), like most of the gospel narratives, was made up by someone who did not know much or anything about Judaism and its laws and its Temple customs.
This essay here also debunks the “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” as a form of going against the government and also debunks the Western Civilization is based on ‘Judeo-Christian’ values claim.
Thanks for this, Yazmin.
Hmm. Yes, I agree with and applaud much that he says (though not everything).
I too insist that the principles we value - chiefly reason and freedom - date from the Enlightenment. (But he doesn’t note that the Enlightenment is a product of “the West”, or arguably the very development that created “the West”.) I too am irritated by claims for “Judeo-Christian” values. Whenever I’ve asked people who trot out the phrase what those values are, I never get a clear answer. They usually mention “love” because both the Books of Moses and the “New Testament” preach it. But in Leviticus “love they neighbor as thyself” and “love the stranger” means respect them; in the Jesus books it means love everyone - an impossible commandment. Not the same. As for the Ten Commandments, only three of them - Don’t murder, Don’t steal, Don’t bear false witness - are enduringly good, and may be common to both Judaism and its revolutionary opposite Christianity (when finally the Church fathers agreed to accept them against the wishes of Christianity’s author, St Paul), but were enshrined in codes of law long before the time of Moses. And to claim that Christianity respects the individual is painfully false. Christianity for hundred of years persecuted people for their different religions - that is, their group identity.
Speaking of Religious Reformation, here’s an article from Stephen Hicks that disagree and point out the flaws and failures of reforming religion.
And of the so called ‘Islamic Golden Age’, here are theses writing.
Also I would like to add that religious people often make the argument that because of societal woes, the rise in crime, etc, it’s because of loss of religion, but they haven’t taken a look at countries with non-religious majorities like Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.
If there’s any more countries with non-religion majority countries that I’ve missed, please list them.
Yes, very interesting. Even though they are confined by their religious beliefs, they have alot of good insights. But as you point out, they contradict religion itself by trying to re-interpret it in ways that don’t contradict civilized thought.
Peterson even recognizes contradictions in scripture, but would rather torture himself into a pretzel to reconcile them rather than acknowledge the obvious - that scripture isn’t from “God”.