Psychology of Redemption in Christianity

May 31, 2019 - Comment

SoundCloud Podcast Link: iTunes Podcast Link: This is a TVO Big Ideas Lecture from 2012, presented at INPM’s Conference on Personal Meaning. It discusses the idea of redemption in Christianity from a psychological perspective, comparing in part to ideas of transformation in psychotherapy. — SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL — Direct Support: Merchandise:

SoundCloud Podcast Link:
iTunes Podcast Link:

This is a TVO Big Ideas Lecture from 2012, presented at INPM’s Conference on Personal Meaning. It discusses the idea of redemption in Christianity from a psychological perspective, comparing in part to ideas of transformation in psychotherapy.


Direct Support:


12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos:
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief:


12 Rules for Life Tour:
Reading List:


Self Authoring Suite:
Understand Myself personality test:

Looks like you have blocked notifications!


Matthew Arnerich says:

I've returned to this talk more than all his others, full of revelations one after another.

Anna Abrante says:

As usual, ignoring Lilith, Adam's first wife. It's all myth. The question is why did Hebrews write stories like this? Answer, to compete with the GREAT stories of the Greeks. I'd love to hear the analyses of older myths like Gilgamesh and the Greek ones. Now THAT would be freaking amazing.

sh3rv says:

Kind of makes Dawkin's view of the bible and his mindless arguments for the 'New Atheists' movement seem like the chatter of a Chimpanzee…. huh…. ironic.

paperchasin23 says:

Good talk but that suit gotta go Dawg. 😂😂😂😂

_ L says:

This is the best one I've seen, he covers so much more than redemption, he covers really Christianity beginning to end in this one talk, sure there's more nuance to be added, but the summary here is really very good quality.

Dylan Miller says:

14:36 aren't there Christian totallitarians?

RubenPieterMark says:

You can see the psychological goosebumps on the faces of the audience.

Christoper Noyes says:

That sports coat is magical.

Christopher Hezakiah says:

Pay attention and listen on the off chance they say something that you might not know.

Corno di Bassetto says:

Much of this is pure doctrinal nonsense. I stopped viewing after 11:00. The issue in Genesis is not being naked. That's absurd. The issue is BEING LIKE. Those are the operative words, not God, as most theologians assert. True, the couple wanted to be LIKE GOD (or "like one of us" knowing the bad from the good" in Hebrew), b/c God was the only Jones at the time ("being like the Joneses" is the root of capitalism and competition). The shame in being naked has absolutely nothing to do with seeing "frailities." People in tribal cultures have no shame in being naked, so that claim is clearly false and doctrinal, based on Xn views. (This is NOT a critique of Xnty for which I have high regard, but it has nothing to do with the profound existential issues raised in Genesis.)

In trying to "be like others," men and women FALL INTO GENDER (masculine and feminine.) They now know good and bad (apparrently, the correct Hebrew word means "bad," not "evil," hence means COMPARATIVE: this is "bad," not "evil," because my neighbor has the latest model).

Notice, the comparative motif is introduced at the beginning of chapter 3:

"Now the serpent was MORE CRAFTY. He tempts Eve with a comparative between what God said or might have said:

“Did God REALLY say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

This confuses Eve who puts words in God's mouth:

"God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

God did NOT say not to TOUCH the fruit. Here we get another variation of the comparative meaning of words. The serpent continues this lexical confusion with: “You will not certainly die."

What is that supposed to mean? It's equivocation, the root of all semantic problems.

Then, "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Again, what does it mean "your eyes will be opened." For surely Eve's eyes are already opened. So we have the comparative again: more open.

The comparative is clinched in "be like God." Now, as I said, theologians read that by its surface meaning: hubris, pride goeth before the fall.

But I think a more profound, and contemporaneously relevant reading is, "BE LIKE," period.

It has to be "God" b/c there's no one else around. But the Fall is to "be like" anyone else.

How do we know "good and bad" EXCEPT by our neighbors. The husband sees the young co-ed and knows his wife is "bad" on that basis.

The wife sees a young stud with more money than her husband, and suddenly the husband seems "bad." Clint Eastwood's "Bridges of Madison County" is a superb example, precisely b/c the husand is portrayed as a decent human being. Compare the absurd "Titanic" where the "bad guy" has to be really bad, almost melodramatically bad, to make a point that Leo is this goregous hero.

Notice, how value system, as in capitalism, is based on soft sells and hard cells.

Thus it is only when the Serpent delivers his sales pitch that we read, "the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

Now we get to the key biblical text of hominism, depicting the Fall from male and female ("male and female he created them") to GENDER (masculine and feminine):

"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."

What does that text mean in terms of a hominist critique of gender? What does it mean that "the eyes of both of them were opened," a refrain of the Serpent's words?

We must contextualize it in terms of "be like" as discussed above. For clearly their eyes were open before, so "opened" is a comparative concept and means to "be like" the other sex.

But neither sex cannot "be like" the other sex. A man cannot bear babies and a woman cannot force a man to have sex. Thus both sexes are alienated from their bodies. They no longer comport, but compete.

This is admittedly an abstraction. Yet all the sexual miseries today can be traced to Genesis, with each man (as in the notorious Access Hollywood tape), trying to "be like" the more aggressive male, and each women trying to "be like" the woman with the more steatopygic butt or the firmer or larger breasts, etc.

Each man competes against another to see who can "score" with more women, and each women competes against another to see who can catch the richer Mr. Right.

God's curse is the curse of capitalism, or "being like" (keeping up with) the Joneses. Thus, "by the sweat of your brow you will eat your food.

God sums up the Fall: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil [bad]."

Ro Jaha says:

well Mr Peterson if your granny was a monkey, and has "evolved" for millions and millions of years, seems though none of these fears, snakes, order"the garden" chaos,  should apply to us, yall should have evolved out of them "monkey" fears, because according to the religious the world isn't but 6-8000 years old….you're referencing a 6000 year old book and applying millions and millions of years analysis

Chibi says:

I love both Jordan and Jordan's evil brother's vids.

Brian Kelley says:

Christ died for our sins and rose again. (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

George Hartwell says:

Pride means and is defined by the belief that you know enough to do without the transcendent.

DB Cisco says:

Thank you, Dr. Peterson ! You are one of the few people that knows what "Logos" is. I am so sick of the claim that Logos is "The Word" > "Bible" > "Jesus".

realitycheck1231 says:

Brilliant. But (we, God's Son) is not awake, he is asleep. There were other characters or entities in the Son's dream who were awake to varying degrees. But Jesus was one character or entity in the dream that was fully awake. He willingly left the dream for good by sacrificing his body, which was no longer needed. The sacrifice of his body was a teaching devise to show that the spirit was master.

João Pegoraro says:

Nice suit, Doc.

Write a comment