Exodus

This show is Great fun for bible readers and those interested in learning various perspectives of interpreting sacred texts.

The various scholars around the table discuss the text from their particular viewpoints. Psychological, narrative, Jewish orthodox, Christian, symbology.

Dr. Peterson somewhat monopolized the conversation through the first and part of the second episodes but thankfully he reigned himself in after that.

I do think the panel could use someone who is a more literal interpreter of the bible while also being intellectually as strong as the other members of the panel. There are people like this.

The reviewer who goes on a rant about "Republican, white, male, blah blah blah" ironically betrays that his own worldview hopelessly interprets everything he encounters. Many different viewpoints interact in this series. I very much disagree with some takes, agree with others, but for the most part just find the whole discussing very thought provoking and exciting.

For those who have made up their minds, who see the world through a narrow ideology, content is either good or evil, Republican or Democrat, etc. There is no nuance, no interesting dialogue, nothing of value to glean. Just the tyrannical judgements of a narcissistic made up mind.

This series is for the open-minded, the person who misses great dialogue about the great, lasting questions we have been asking for thousands of years; questions of human nature, the roles of the sexes, conscience, structure, freedom, God, the devil, etc... The only flaw I see is JP can sometimes interrupt a bit too much. But he has the complicated task of moderating, moving things along, keeping the discussion on track. I really love the group dynamic and diverse voices.

I'm sorry the earlier commenter can't get past their bigotry toward "white males" to appreciate an amazing discussion.

Nothing of value here to add to any great theological or philosophical debate. Peterson used to base his arguments in reality but now is nothing more than a pseudo intellectual and grifter.

Anyone with any modicum of intelligence can see right through these straw man arguments An extension of Prager U's halfwittery for the indoctrinated and the non thinker You can slap lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig

If you had seen the recent series of discussions between Peterson and Sam Harris you will see what an actual intellectual sounds like (and I don't always agree with Harris)

Don't bother watching - will make the viewer more stupid.

I was never a fan of Jordan Peterson's fields of study so I've never given him much credence, but I've always considered him intelligent at the very least. I love religious history and philosophy, so I figured this would be a good chance to kill two birds with one stone.

I guess it's time to reevaluate some things because there wasn't a functioning brain cell in the room from start to finish. This was nothing more than a politically motivated propaganda piece disguised as a pseudo-intellectual discussion.

The statements on atheism were especially bad, and the worst came from a top-shelf religious academic. How maddening. I was baffled that he made such assertions with a straight face. I hope he gets some backlash for misstating something so central to his field.

Utter atrocity.

Jordan Peterson is a wonderful host for a deep think on this book, so integrally important to two world religions, Judaism and Christianity. And since Western Civilization is based upon Middle Eastern religious philosophies, it is integral to our own understanding of our lives, laws, and culture.

All of the scholars had some personal religious affiliation, I believe, although I don't think Jordan Peterson has yet cast his hat into a particular ring. I appreciate his secular and theological experience and thoughtfulness. He respects the text, its purpose, and what is trying to be said, and the invited scholars were amazing for the aspects and perspectives they were able to shed light on based on their varying backgrounds. I was surprised at Dennis Prager's scholarship. I have never looked into his background. There were several scholars, yes, and there were artists. All of them were accomplished in their arenas. I appreciate that there was/were no people there that had me asking, what are his/her credentials. There was no driftwood, and there was no unnecessarily pugilistic or antagonistic point of view, which would have simply bogged down the already lengthy process. There were some disagreements, though. All disagreements were respectfully made and well supported. Sometimes it was simply, agree to disagree and we have our reasons.

The people reviewing this from a political point have simply missed the point of the series. It was not actually conceived and actualized to back up political points of view. I don't believe they even watched it all the way through, but I don't particularly care. It was observational of our current culture, but the nature of the text will more naturally lend to supporting a conservative point of view in the long run. Jordan Peterson himself said, however, that both the liberal and the conservative points of view in our culture have their place. One balances the other, pulling each other towards the center, always changing as it always must, marxism vs. Tyranny, so open your brains have fallen out vs. So closed you've cut off all creativity and compassion.

It's a wonderful discussion. You should treat yourself to the discussion and you'll be discussing with yourself and others, discovering more about who and where we all are.