Jesse Lee Peterson thread

Enok

Newbie
I'm curious what others take from Jesse Lee Peterson's ideas on Christianity. I am most impressed by the fact that he has remained fixated for decades on the same basic message, mainly that your faith must cause you to turn inward to be reborn and grow and so he is militant in avoiding the pitfalls of standard religious orders and practices to accomplish this. If I understand him correctly, he argues that to have the Holy Spirit actually guide you you have to allow that to be the case and not confuse it with your own will or the ideas and understanding of others. For example, if you use something external (a pastor, a drug, Church doctrine), you then become dependent on that as a source for your truth and you will surely need that in perpetuity. In effect, are you not submitting to that rather than what the Spirit inside of you can surely reveal? If you haven't repented of your intellect, how have you been Born Again of Christ, and not dead in Adam?

The more I've done his silent prayer, the more I am aware of my thoughts. And I notice even hearing/reading people recite doctrine/theology or when I listen to sermons online, I can sense I am being dependent on the knowledge of others, but I haven't gone first to the true source. I haven't allowed God to reveal a truth to me so that I can actually know it. In this light, it makes me sad to see how many Christians push a Church or Biblical interpretation as a means for people's salvation because it makes them dependent on something outside of themself rather than putting real faith in The Spirit. You will hear serious theologians/pastors actually argue straight-faced that their proper belief in the Bible or dedication to conserving the Church was the reason Christianity has survived. I don't mean to be cute, but that seems heretical on its face. God could raise up stones. Maybe that is cute, but the idea that men abided or that the Bible is such a powerful text that God has remained present in the world seems absurd.

Since being challenged by Peterson's message, I also have observed that I often seek wisdom and sources of opinions so that I can judge people/tribes I dislike, so even in my quest for knowledge, much of it is actually to judge or hate others, or provide a sense that I have consciousness over a topic. Do I really know the bible or my views on social issues, do I really have an opinion... has God really revealed anything to me truly? or do I simply collect the best and most persuasive arguments that I can utilize in some war of intellect, thus worshipping my own intellect. I believe Jesse calls out this thinking, connecting it to Adam and Eve, stating that is simply the fall of man repeated, that one makes the error in believing they can know both GOOD and evil. "Playing God" as he says, which leads to the resentment, the recessing into one's imagination, and not living in the present, where God is.

Fundamentally, when I started taking what Peterson said seriously, I saw the major flaw in believing I had been born again as a young person and yet somehow I believed I had a right to resent people for years, even my own father for his failings. I did not understand my father's sins, and thus I did not understand my own. It was in returning to him and forgiving him that I took the first real step in doing the word, so to speak. If you can't go and forgive your own father, telling him that he is forgiven with a fixed eye and in total love, how can you say you are of Christ or that you are born again? But so many Christians seem hard pressed to even imagine giving up their right to resent, believing its a long journey to being a more well-rounded spirit, and yet we wonder why it's so hard for people to actually submit to what the Bible tells them to do in ordering themselves in relationship to God. Is it not that most people, even Christians, have yet to be truly born again, as Peterson argues because they tricked themselves into thinking they had a renewed mind?

Side note: He seems to get many Biblically-based Christians upset when he says Christ is the Son of God, but he is not God. I don't know if that is a pragmatic and semantic argument--meaning he doesn't want you to think you've found Christ simply by saying he's lord rather than knowing he is The Only Way to know God.

This is my first post, thank you for your feedback.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
Fundamentally, when I started taking what Peterson said seriously, I saw the major flaw in believing I had been born again as a young person and yet somehow I believed I had a right to resent people for years, even my own father for his failings.
I think this is the key point.

When I was young and encountered Christians, I found their character lacking. I knew one family who I saw and still see as a good model (in comparison to everyone else). However, they were quite deeply imbibed with pride in that and as a result had a habit of talking down to others. Later I worked for a short time at a company where all the employees were members of an evangelical church. There was one in particular who was quite pure, but when he gave me a lift one day I asked him why he had a 50 Cent album and said it didn't seem very in line with Evangelical Christians. The owner of the company was physically and mentally a fat pig. I saw him do two hours of work over several months, he spent all day listening to trash radio and sponging off a contract he got as a special favour. He would regularly belch as if a pig and blame it on me. He was 6ftt 6in and though he was the bees knees, and so often strutted about. This facade hid the fact he was a mess, mentally, and obese.

I always though of myself as more Christian than these people, even though I was not one.

One aspect is that they surrender to the motions of their church and think that they don't have to do much if any self-work. It's more like keeping up appearances. JLP does not have this approach.

I have for many years been acutely aware of inconsistencies in people's behaviour and speech. When there is a disconnect between one's being and one's outward communication there is a jarring effect, which caused me to reflect on myself and others. When I was sixteen I came up with a similar concept to JLP's removal of anger from your life. I have not used the word 'hate' since. Its use and the attached emotion comes from limited place. Anger/hate/wrath clouds your mind and being. You cannot love in this state. And if you have anger you are always ready to turn on people if they go against you, disagree with you etc. But I had a similar concept from a psychological position; meaning it was detached from anything larger and essentially floating about.

JLP has reinforced and reinvigorated this position in me. Before it was kind-of lifeless and faceless, but now it is deeper and brings a sense of peace. JLP is probably the most influential person for me. He has definitely helped me espress my self and not have care for the slings and arrows it may bring. I'm just growing with it. One little step at a time.

On his heretical nature. I have heard of this - that he might be a mason or a Jewish asset. Though I've seen little presented regarding this. There are all sorts of heretical practices of sects of individuals. There are many questions with no specific answer. Answers and philosophies have been constructed on the back of The Bible for ~1,900 years. Many teachings have little or no basis in The Bible. Yet going against them may be cast by some as heretical.

Personally I don't care about most practices one may have. For me their are two things that important:

1) in this life you strive to adhere to traditional European family values
2) you strive to remain free of sin

1) has very little to do with The Bible and is much more from a Roman, Greek and Hebrew origin in Europe. You can look at this is numerous ways. 1) became firmly established in Europe after 2) became an aspect of society. The two go hand in hand and I don't think one can thrive without the other.

I would much prefer to be your friend is you encompass 1) and 2) than if you kind of muddle through it blindly clinging to weekly attendance, your rosary beads and saying the same prayer over and over.

@NickK it's mens' history month. Espress yourself.
 

NickK

Sparrow
Interesting, can you expand with examples of why you've come to this conclusion?
He said so himself numerous times. I can't find specific videos, as I 've watched countless videos of his.
He is entertaining, I respect him as a man, but not as a source of theology.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
He said so himself numerous times. I can't find specific videos, as I 've watched countless videos of his.
He is entertaining, I respect him as a man, but not as a source of theology.
I have heard him say he is either without sin, or close to it. I can't remember if it was either one or the other or both.

Can you lay out some of what he says that's heretical?
 

NickK

Sparrow
I have heard him say he is either without sin, or close to it. I can't remember if it was either one or the other or both.

Can you lay out some of what he says that's heretical?
There are many things, I just gave you one example, calling himself sinless.
Other than that, I don't wish to quarrel with Protestands about theology.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
There are many things, I just gave you one example, calling himself sinless.
Other than that, I don't wish to quarrel with Protestands about theology.
This isn't a quarrel. I am genuinely interested in hearing criticism of him.
 

NickK

Sparrow
That's your word, not an example.
If you come into a thread about a public figure and voice criticism, fine. But at least be able too substantiate your criticism with evidence
I'm not going to rewatch countless one hour long videos just to find instances of him saying he is sinless, in order to satisfy your need for "evidence".

He said it many times, end of story. If you actually followed the guy, this "debate" wouldn't exist.
 

CJS

Newbie
I happened to come across this guy the other day and was listening to some clips and there was definitely one interview where he asked someone if they sinned and they came back with 'do you ever sin' and he said 'no'. I remember being struck by it and wishing the guest had followed up.
 
My take is that his ideas are mostly heretical. On a superficial moral level, his advice is good for the damaged people of this deranged society. But his theology is heretical and dangerous. He thinks he has become sinless.
I’m of the same opinion. I find him tremendously entertaining and I’m genuinely happy that the black community has someone like him to call them out and point them in the right direction. He obviously means well and he’s great at what he does, but theologically he’s way off and would be considered an Arian (at least) in terms of which heresy he promotes. I’m sure there are more as well. Either way he’s a net positive on our society and I watch him a lot.
 
I'm curious what others take from Jesse Lee Peterson's ideas on Christianity. I am most impressed by the fact that he has remained fixated for decades on the same basic message, mainly that your faith must cause you to turn inward to be reborn and grow and so he is militant in avoiding the pitfalls of standard religious orders and practices to accomplish this. If I understand him correctly, he argues that to have the Holy Spirit actually guide you you have to allow that to be the case and not confuse it with your own will or the ideas and understanding of others. For example, if you use something external (a pastor, a drug, Church doctrine), you then become dependent on that as a source for your truth and you will surely need that in perpetuity. In effect, are you not submitting to that rather than what the Spirit inside of you can surely reveal? If you haven't repented of your intellect, how have you been Born Again of Christ, and not dead in Adam?

The more I've done his silent prayer, the more I am aware of my thoughts. And I notice even hearing/reading people recite doctrine/theology or when I listen to sermons online, I can sense I am being dependent on the knowledge of others, but I haven't gone first to the true source. I haven't allowed God to reveal a truth to me so that I can actually know it. In this light, it makes me sad to see how many Christians push a Church or Biblical interpretation as a means for people's salvation because it makes them dependent on something outside of themself rather than putting real faith in The Spirit. You will hear serious theologians/pastors actually argue straight-faced that their proper belief in the Bible or dedication to conserving the Church was the reason Christianity has survived. I don't mean to be cute, but that seems heretical on its face. God could raise up stones. Maybe that is cute, but the idea that men abided or that the Bible is such a powerful text that God has remained present in the world seems absurd.

Since being challenged by Peterson's message, I also have observed that I often seek wisdom and sources of opinions so that I can judge people/tribes I dislike, so even in my quest for knowledge, much of it is actually to judge or hate others, or provide a sense that I have consciousness over a topic. Do I really know the bible or my views on social issues, do I really have an opinion... has God really revealed anything to me truly? or do I simply collect the best and most persuasive arguments that I can utilize in some war of intellect, thus worshipping my own intellect. I believe Jesse calls out this thinking, connecting it to Adam and Eve, stating that is simply the fall of man repeated, that one makes the error in believing they can know both GOOD and evil. "Playing God" as he says, which leads to the resentment, the recessing into one's imagination, and not living in the present, where God is.

Fundamentally, when I started taking what Peterson said seriously, I saw the major flaw in believing I had been born again as a young person and yet somehow I believed I had a right to resent people for years, even my own father for his failings. I did not understand my father's sins, and thus I did not understand my own. It was in returning to him and forgiving him that I took the first real step in doing the word, so to speak. If you can't go and forgive your own father, telling him that he is forgiven with a fixed eye and in total love, how can you say you are of Christ or that you are born again? But so many Christians seem hard pressed to even imagine giving up their right to resent, believing its a long journey to being a more well-rounded spirit, and yet we wonder why it's so hard for people to actually submit to what the Bible tells them to do in ordering themselves in relationship to God. Is it not that most people, even Christians, have yet to be truly born again, as Peterson argues because they tricked themselves into thinking they had a renewed mind?

Side note: He seems to get many Biblically-based Christians upset when he says Christ is the Son of God, but he is not God. I don't know if that is a pragmatic and semantic argument--meaning he doesn't want you to think you've found Christ simply by saying he's lord rather than knowing he is The Only Way to know God.

This is my first post, thank you for your feedback.
Jesus is God
 
For a reference for one of the above comments, he did a interview with pastor Steven Anderson, and he mentioned how because hes born again it means he will never sin again. I think this is what's called a deliverance doctrine which I see as false since no one but Christ can be without sin.
 
My issue with the folks swearing that Jesse is preaching false doctrine is that, all the evidence I've seen showing that, is usually from a one line quote that could be interpreted different ways. He never elaborates. Jesse is a troll extraordinaire who specializes in inverting common vocabulary, his number one troll is asking the seemingly easy question "What is a man?" to break the guest's literalist approach and shift the discussion spiritually. Similarly, Xian's use "Do you sin?" as some kind of spiritual dogwhistle that seems obvious and easy on the surface, but could possibly be an incredibly monumental philosophical inquiry that most surface dwellers have never really dived in to. I'm nowhere near as scholarly or educated on this topic as most of you guys, but I do know that any time I do read some dissertation on a seemingly simple spiritual question authored by a monk a thousand years in the past, I am always shocked by how little I always seem to know.

I'm probably giving him too much credit... but I've been on the lookout for some definitive evidence of this irredeemable sin for over a year now, and every time I find something I am left disappointed that it's not as conclusive as the author suggests.

That being said, Jesse probably is some kind of top-ranking Freemason, or at least very intimately familiar with them, and there's no shortage of wacky shit coming from that crowd, so I personally don't think these heresy theories are that farfetched, I just think there's not any conclusive proof of it. Maybe by design, because he's probably a Freemason.
 
Top