@@JayWest14 Well I'd guess he's going on 50 and he doesn't make music for a living. If both of those things are true, then the only other possible reason not to get a haircut is for the Dave Grohl references.
"I won. I just won. Come on, just admit that I won, because I did. I don't care about anything you say, because I won..." This guy's argument in a nutshell. His devotion to truth over personal opinion is just stunning.
This guy is just another Shmuel Pollen, loudly declaring that he "won" every debate he was ever in. How did he determine that he won? He carefully evaluated the arguments presented on both sides against what he already believed to be true. The arguments closest to his firmly-held beliefs were clearly the right ones, and those were always the ones his own brain created, so he clearly won. Reminds me of the old Jack Handey Deep Thought. "Sometimes I think that the brain is the most important part of the body, but then I think, 'Look who's telling me that.'"
I am reminded of the adage of playing chess with a pigeon, wherein said pigeon will just knock the pieces over and shit all over the board. That being said, despite the Sisyphean nature of the task you have decided to embark on in countering the spread of biblical misinformation, I am deeply glad you persevere! Not only is the actual history, as currently understood based on the data we have access to, significantly more interesting, you're also really funny lol
Yeah the pidgeon playing chess has sadly become the state of discourse in the west. We discuss an issue or idea and have to try to "W" as the kids say now at all costs.
Oh man! Dude is not going to let this go. I look forward to some more of this dude Dan. I predict The presupposition death spiral will hit with "Well you are presupposing the Bible isn't inerrant...so...yeah I win."
Oh, it's much simpler. "You won't concede you lost, therefore I win." Done. I'd describe it as "Tell me you're not arguing honestly without telling me you're not arguing honestly".
I think it's pretty much the difference of someone who learns about a topic and presents their findings to prove a thing to do with that topic, and someone who learns about a topic and presents their findings because they just want to know the truth, either way. Always trust the person that just wants to know the truth.
@@MattMaurice Fair, the specific distinction I learned about from scholars is much more straightforward than that. One is open minded while presenting their argument, the other is just waiting for their opportunity to talk and not really listening. They are not interested in learning, just winning.
Dan, continue to be patient and gentle because I used to be like him, until after several years of interacting with kind but relentlessly thorough opponents/Scholars , I accepted reality about what the Bible is.
@@izregistered You need to review the definition of arrogance and review the application of it. Same for others who love to make accusations of condescension but clearly do not know how to apply condescension appropriately. And reading the potential definitions of a word is not the end of the means of interpretation and application, but only the initiation.
I just have to keep reminding myself that this can happen, that people can, eventually, join reality even when they are starting very far away from it.
If the series of books of serious scholarship called "Casca" is true, then that prophecy didn't fail yet because Casca is still alive and is around 2000 years old now. (These books only look like pulp fiction. They are historical documents, just like GalaxyQuest.)
@tim57243 not forgetting claims of Caiaphas being cursed to wander, who was supposed to witness the second coming . They found his ossuary so he hasn't been wandering about as some had claimed (until the ossuary turned up and spoiled the ruse.)
This channel is not about religion or politics but about what it means to do scholarship, which, to a large degree is about humility, vulnerability and honesty.
As a Christian, I will approach this topic from both sides: one arguing that scholarship is not inherently about religion, and the other arguing that there is a valid place for religious scholars in academia. Argument 1: Scholarship is not inherently about religion - The primary aim of scholarship is to study and analyze information in a systematic and unbiased manner, seeking knowledge and understanding of various subjects. - Academic disciplines such as math, science, literature, and history are based on evidence, research, and critical thinking rather than religious beliefs. - Some scholars may choose to separate their personal religious beliefs from their academic work in order to maintain objectivity and rigor in their research. Refutation: - While scholarship in many academic disciplines may not be inherently about religion, it's important to acknowledge that religion has played a significant role in shaping history, culture, philosophy, and other areas of study. Religious beliefs have influenced various aspects of human civilization and can be studied objectively by scholars. Argument 2: There is a valid place for religious scholars in academia - Religious scholars provide valuable insights into the beliefs, practices, and texts of various religions, contributing to the field of religious studies and promoting cross-cultural understanding. - Bible scholars, Muslim scholars, and scholars of other religious traditions bring expertise in interpreting sacred texts, understanding religious practices, and analyzing the impact of religion on society. - By studying religion academically, scholars can engage in meaningful dialogue, promote religious literacy, and cultivate a deeper appreciation for diverse perspectives. Refutation: - Critics may argue that religious scholars could potentially be biased in their research, favoring their own beliefs or interpretations and limiting objectivity. - There may be concerns about the separation of church and state in academic institutions, particularly in religious studies programs where there is a fine line between studying religions academically and promoting specific religious doctrines. In conclusion, while scholarship is not inherently about religion, there is a valid place for religious scholars in academia to study, analyze, and contribute to the understanding of various religious traditions. By approaching the study of religion academically, scholars can enrich our knowledge and foster dialogue and cultural exchange.
Dan, love your content. People such as this demonstrate the following adage to be true. Some people choose not to believe the truth as it destroys the lies their life is built upon. Just sayin...
@@Cravatron I think it would be more accurate to say that they extended the sentiment of that phrase to not just be about salary, but other foundational things in one's life.
@@digitaljanus Its not a choice, its what a person is convinced of. I cant just chose to believe the statue of liberty is in iran, not can I chose to believe when I release something it will fly into the air. I agree with you about defending the irrational. An all loving god that said is ok to beat your slave as long as they are ok in a day or 2 and designed parasites that eat our eyes and blind us and sickle cell anemia. So irrational.
As an actual theologian, I resent his bad theology. As someone who does a considerable amount of philosophical theology, I resent his ad hominem fallacy, lack of actual response to Dr. McClellan’s refutation, and the complete lack of logic present in articulating and defending his position.
My position on eschatology and specifically Jesus’s return (which the creator Dr. McClellan responds to is discussing) is that Jesus’s return was expected immediately, but that didn’t happen and we see the early writers of the NT ‘theologizing’ in that they were attempting to discern/understand who Jesus was/is and what God was trying to do through Jesus. Paul and much of the NT writers have an already/not yet eschatological view. That the kingdom of God has come in part, but not fully (that will happen when Jesus returns) and they live out the kingdom way of life in the present despite that tension. As far as Jesus’s still pending return, I don’t have anything to say about that. The Bible is not inerrant. The Bible did not fall out of the sky as a complete document, but took shape over many centuries. It was not written in a vacuum sealed off from cultural influences of the writers/editors social locations and their own intellectual biases. I think Jesus fits into the biblical mold of a prophet and engages in prophetic activity. Future predictions are one part of prophetic activity and in scripture are often related to God’s future restoration of Israel (especially in relation to exile) or Israel’s failure to maintain their covenant allegiance and the consequences of that failure (i.e. exile). So, false prophet? No, but that’s because a fuller sense of what biblical prophecy is needed to understand prophecy more fully (a good book is the The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann and Dr. McClellan’s video on prophets in the Hebrew Bible from a few weeks ago) Now, this is where (based on past comments from Dr. M) Dr. McClellan and I diverge considerably. I think Jesus was/is the davidic messiah and God incarnate (I am confessing Christian and those claims are doctrinal and not without historical questions/issues, but there is not time or space to lay those out). But, Dr. McClellan is an excellent scholar and human being.
All the Bible (both old and new testament) is one big ol allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. One must decipher it through the use of Kabbalah (Qabalah).
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy What's your view on YHWH originally starting out as one of many tribal gods and patron deities before evolving over time to become God of the universe and originally being a son of the obviously fictional Canaanite god El?
During my Christian days, I was shocked to learn that Hank Hannegraph, the Bible answer man, believed that Jesus had already returned. What? It was due to verses this creator is sharing. It opened my eyes to the dogmatic insanity that so many have adopted.
There is an eschatological view called "Preterism" that believes that most or all of Jesus's end-times prophecies were fulfilled by A.D. 70. Nowadays, most preterists seem to be in the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition.
The fixation on "winning" among other telltale indicators of ego obsession demonstrate quite clearly that reliable true and false are not their primary concern.
I like to imagine when someone sees Dan respond to one of their videos, they immediately grab their phone and start recording. Watching a couple of his videos would spare them extra embarrassment.
The stars falling from the sky. Now that'd be astounding. Imagine all other galaxies failing and their suns hurtling to Earth...at the same time... coordinated. Mayhaps scheduling is an issue. Hope this brought a giggle. Be well
This highlights the reason why it is next to impossible to debate a fundamentalist or inerrantist. They beleive so firmly in the bible that they genuinely think simply quoting scripture is enough. When you point out that they must first prove the bible to be 100% true before it may used as evidence, it just flies over their heads. I have many times been told by Christians, 'there are none so blind as he who will not see' and, ironically, they refuse to understand it goes both ways.
Another thing they do is quote an apologist well-regarded in their tradition or community - to "prove" that their argument is true. There are a few apologists who follow Dan's channels who are notorious for this.
@@Noneya5555 Yes. It's the argument from authority fallacy again. They are forced into such poor positions by the complete lack of evidence supporting their assertions.
@@Pauliex33 Yes, indeed. There are plenty of non-beleivers who are ready to state God does not exist without enaging with the subject in any way. Such opinions may be noted but not debated. I do think, however, that Christian fundamentlaists are more than just blinded by their faith, they are dishonest. So much of the modern world would be impossible if the bible''s explanation of the world were true. We would have no satellites, internet, cell phones, GPS, and much more. They know this but refuse to discuss it because it actually proves them wrong. I have no problem with whatever people wish to belive but I expect them to able to prove the things they assert as facts.
Oh no I was really holding out hope that this guy would actually respond to your points instead of just keep on asserting things and claiming victory. This is the only difference between apologists and critical scholars: apologists are in a battle that they need to win, scholars assess data.
Here are two Messianic requirements that haven't been fulfilled: - He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. - The Messiah will liberate the entire Biblical land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates (or at least from Wadi El Arish in Sinai to the Euphrates).
@@JopJio Genesis 15:18: "On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river."
Yeah, side-stepping the issue is a standard tactic of apologists, as I've learned from those I've attempted to engage in logical debate in the comment sections of Dan's videos.
Interresting point, Dan. Nevertheless, full preterism is the only dogma I accept if we take the text has it is regardless the absence of any data about ex-ventus or real prophecies.
Thats what I believe too. If any of Christianity is real, it's preterism. The text in the Bible literally back up what the preterist says. If we go by text alone, the Preterist did "win" If you believe in mental gymnastics and word salad of jumping thru loopholes, then Dan wins.. I've seen top Preterist debate the top mainstream believers and just crush them.. The mainstream believers never seem to win anything if I'm being honest.
I think you dropped the ball here, Dan. Your response was good, but the perfect response for this guy is “Well, that’s just your opinion man.” Optional flourish: “No, you’re Lebowski. I’m the Dude, man. ”
That feel when Jesus comes in glory and everyone witnesses it... but in secret. Also... his argument necessarily requires that the world is perfect now, 'cause God remade it - a new heaven and a new earth, right? So, I guess it doesn't matter?
Also there is NO mention of "Jesus" or" Miracles" found anywhere in historical record from that era. Pliny the elder makes no mention. Josephus was born long after Jesus died and no one has his original Aramaic. Tactius was also born long after Jesus died. All second hand data.
@@MitzvosGolem1 Yeah, you said he “was born long after Jesus died.” That’s not true. He also grew up in Palestine and was aware of the various Jewish sects as a Pharisee for part of his life before being paid to writing his Jewish history, including what we now call christianity.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy All true. But I think the point still stands that there are no records of Jesus or his miracles outside the Bible, right? Unless I'm wrong.
@@epicofgilgamesh9964 so, that’s tricky. The Talmud has a reference to Jesus who they accuse of sorcery. It’s not without debate and historical questions/issues hence why it’s tricky.
One of the things I see all the time in arguments, especially about religion, is people telling you what you believe and then telling you why that is wrong. I don't get into those types of discussion as often as I do, but one that used to come up and be funny almost every time was when someone told me that the bible was wrong because you couldn't fit two of every animal into the ark. I'd explain that I didn't actually believe that the flood literally happened and they'd get confused because it had never occurred to them that there might be anything but a literal interpretation. These are people who don't even believe in the bible who are making assertions about how it has to be interpreted and some even got angry when you didn't go along with the script in their head.
It really seems like so much of counter-Christian speaking is based on a literalist and fundamentalist understanding of Christianity. Most religions do not rely on strict and literal interpretations of whatever holy books they may have. The religion forms from sets of teachings passed down, and the sets of books are guides and information which helps to clarify or focus that teaching. Literalism regarding the documents which form what we now call the Bible is a thing which developed after Christianity did, over a long period of time. Modern Fundamentalist Evangelicalism is basically 100 to 200 years old, with the Protestant version of Biblical literalism being around 400 years old.
It seems to me that the conversation itself is broken. Religious people think in terms of persuasion and argument; they don’t have data, they only have interpretation, or as Dr Dan says, dogma. They judge on whether an argument seems plausible enough, not on the strength of evidence. That guy thinks he won because he thinks his argument trumps the data. It’s weird how they never notice that some other Christian will tell them they’re wrong, weirder still that the other Christian could use that guy’s exact words on him to “demonstrate” that he’s “wrong”
*Prophecy vs repeating history* As the apologist described it, the prophecies sound like a repeat of the Assyrian conquest. It doesn’t take a god to prophesy that history will repeat itself. Conquering nations tended to destroy cities and carry away captives. It didn’t take a god to guess that that would happen again.
This is just so with the prophecy about the overthrow of Babylon. Babylon was overthrown so many times throughout history it would have been more impressive to predict it _wouldn’t_ be overthrown.
As a Christian, I will present arguments from both sides of the debate on whether theologians must and can be defeated. Arguments for defeating theologians: 1. Lack of empirical evidence: Theology is often criticized for being based on faith rather than concrete evidence. Critics argue that theologians make claims about the existence of a higher power or supernatural beings without providing tangible proof. In a world increasingly driven by science and reason, this lack of empirical evidence can be seen as a weakness that can be challenged and potentially defeated. 2. Ethical implications: Some critics of theology argue that religious beliefs can lead to harmful or divisive behaviors. Throughout history, religious differences have been a driving force behind conflict and violence. By defeating theologians and promoting a more secular worldview, society may be able to reduce these conflicts and foster greater unity and understanding among different groups. 3. Incompatibility with modern knowledge: As our understanding of the natural world has grown through scientific advancements, some argue that the claims made by theologians are increasingly at odds with empirical facts. The conflict between religious beliefs and scientific knowledge can lead to confusion and resistance to progress. By challenging and defeating theologians, society can promote a more harmonious relationship between faith and reason. Arguments against defeating theologians: 1. Freedom of thought and expression: The defeat of theologians could be seen as an attack on freedom of thought and expression. While it is important to question and challenge beliefs, forcing theologians to abandon their ideas could be seen as censorship and a violation of their rights to religious expression. 2. Cultural and historical significance: The study of theology has played a significant role in shaping cultures and societies around the world. The defeat of theologians could erase important aspects of history and tradition that are valuable for understanding our shared past. Preserving the diversity of belief systems can enrich our understanding of human experience. 3. Personal meaning and purpose: For many individuals, theology provides a sense of meaning, purpose, and comfort in the face of life's uncertainties. The defeat of theologians could take away a source of solace and guidance for those who rely on religious beliefs for support and guidance. In conclusion, the question of whether theologians must and can be defeated is a complex and contentious issue. While there are valid arguments for challenging theological beliefs based on lack of evidence, ethical concerns, and compatibility with modern knowledge, it is also important to consider the principles of freedom of thought, cultural significance, and personal meaning. Ultimately, the debate should be approached with sensitivity and an understanding of the diverse perspectives on the role of theology in society.
I think he meant to say that the bible is not inerrant. his argument IS a valid argument against the assumption that the bible is inerrant. and thus, that the christian religion has no basis for their belief in the physical world and therefore cannot prove it's existance, or even what the true word of god is(what parts of it are and are not to be followed?) is this true? or am I dumb?
That's a neofundamentalist understanding of the importance of inerrancy. But Christians up until the 1700s or 1800s used different tests for what was true/false, like many Catholics still do. Inerrantists want to make inerrancy super important just like YECs want to make a historical Genesis super important and preterists want to make preterism super important. It's all just rhetoric that reasserts one's own presuppositions as dogmas
The creator's resistance to reason is a common characteristic of aging. The condition is progressive. Prognosis poor. Dan is being respectful by engagement. I wonder if the creator has tried Prevagen.
"Hey, guys! I was digging in my backyard and I found these scrolls locked in a box. The scrolls, which I didn't write, I have to emphasize, foretold that Jesus was going to be crucified and that the entire Rome was going to become Catholic! It also predicted the invention of the car and the airplane as well as how people would be arguing if Die Hard was a Christmas movie or not! Crazy, huh?"
This guy is trying to beat a brick wall in ping pong. You can't slyly wheel and deal in slippery "truths" against someone that is aggressively objective.
The "this generation shall not pass" wording has itself been debated. This is in part due to the Syriac reading, if memory serves. In that scenario, we'd need to translate the word normally translated as "generation" differently. But there's also the question about what "this" refers to. Most assume it is the 1st century C.E. generation to which Jesus spoke. But what if it's forward-looking rather than rear-looking? In that case, it would be better to translate it as "Such a generation shall not pass." Food for thought.
I don’t have a problem with Jesus saying something like “ if the current state of relations between Rome and the nation of Israel doesn’t change, Rome will not be patient forever and bad things will happen.” It’s not prophecy, just a good grip on reality IMO.
🍒 *cherry-picked prophecies* The apologist focused on prophecies that he thought came true. He didn’t mention Matthew’s Jesus telling Caiaphas that C would see the Son of man coming on a cloud. Caiaphas died about 36 CE. I am skeptical that he saw anyone coming on a cloud. Paul wrote a couple times that HE would see Jesus return. Paul supposedly died about 64 CE.
And according to the Hebrew messianic prophecies, when messiah comes there'll be peace among the nations, sickness and death will be no more, the world will acknowledge Yahweh as the one true god... but that didn't happen with Jesus the first time, which led Christians to believe in a second coming. Now this guy says the second coming already happened? Then that's two fails.
Another way of looking at it is if Jesus’ words about the sun, the moon, and the stars, and his coming in the clouds, were euphemistic or symbolic language for the fall of Jerusalem, and the judgment that came upon it.
Ohhh, he appears to be an Isreal-Only Full Preterist. Hence the "Christianity Ended in AD70." I was a Full Preterist for a couple years back in the day, but didn't get into Israel Only. I embraced Preterism, but never thought Christianity ended. Full Preterism, while having a very different eschatology, is still a very fundamentalist mindset. It's tied to inerrancy and all of that. I ended up coming across real biblical scholarship which got me out of that. Esp when I started studying source texts and manuscript transmission....how we even got the Bible. Preterists fight with each other all the time online, and with other Christians, about theology and eschatology. They argue and insult all day long. I was in a bunch of FB groups back in 2015 - 2017 and it got nasty. Most, if not all of them, have never seen real biblical scholarship. But just like other fundamentalists, they dismiss "scholars" before they have even studied them.
I read that Jewish deaths from the Roman campaign outside Jerusalem dwarfed those inside. If that is the case, fleeing outside the city might not have been the wisest course of action? Where was the warning for those outside the city to flee to safety? At an absolute minimum this shows these accounts to be a bit myopic and Jerusalem centric.
Preterism is a scholarly held view and fiercely debated. If you think it is such a silly idea I would recommend deconstructing a talk on it given by a theologian who speaks on the matter.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy Dr. Robert M. Price has done talks on it, and Roderick Edwards wrote a book on it. Neither of them fully support it but that’s where I came across it. There two types full and partial preterists. The idea was expounded by Louis de Alcasar during the counter reformation in 1545.
@@steelymcafeeliac1050 So, Price is not a Christian. He might make a historical argument that some early Christians believed Jesus returned in part or in full within the first generation of the church during the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 CE. However, Price would not argue for the doctrinal position of preterism, which the creator Dr. M responds to does. Also, Roderick Edwards’s book is not a scholarly treatment of the subject. It is a doctrinal and apologetic response against preterism for churches and church leaders. Also, Roderick Edwards is not an expert in biblical studies or the ancient world. Thus, I wouldn’t say it is an academically held view. It’s out there and discussions are happening, but not in the academy.
Exactly. Begging the question (ie, circular reasoning) is their standard defense, along with conflating knowledge and belief, and tradition and historicity. They also resort to "What I claim is true because it's what the famous So-And-So [cue quote from an apologist well-regarded in their tradition or community] says!". So much for living in the Age of Reason.
@@lde-m8688 Preach! 😁 Another standard apologist tactic is to side-step issues that they can't logically refute. Not that they place much value in logic, of course.
There seems to be a lot of this "I won. So there, that's all there is to it. I. Won," stuff out in our world these days. I recall there was a politician who actually did win a prestigious office by way of an arcane electoral system, only to lose handily in the next election for the same office. He said he had actually won, and that he could prove it. Long story short, he didn't, he repeatedly couldn't, and yet, he continues to say the same thing. Wild stuff in these latter days, wouldn't you say?
Shouldn't other people be the judge of who won an argument or debate? It really doesn't do anyone or yourself any favors by you simply declaring that you won the argument or debate. That creator would do well to think about that.
"Did "G_d make a mistake and change mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai and instead sends a man God idol human sacrifice to replace Torah laws with a greek new testament then later again changes mind sends Muhammad and Quran then again changes mind and sends Mormons then JWs then..... One must pause..
Indeed, God does seem to adapt through time. Have you ever considered the possible evolutionary path of your own religion from earlier religions in the region? Do you see it as plausible your criticism of later adaptations of your faith could apply equally to your own?
Is funny he thinks you are a theologian when it is he that has theological presuppositions (very questionable ones, like all theological presuppositions are) used to interpret the text.
The bearded man is not much of a theologian. The heavenly signs take place at the end of time before Jesus' return. The disciples asked two questions, the first about the destruction of the temple and the second about the end of the age. Jesus answered both of these questions in a combined answer. The Christian works on the premise that Jesus is real and that the authors of the gospels were contemporaries of Him. Atheists claim later authorship of the gospels.
All religions are opinions, nothing more nothing less. There is not one shred of evidence beyond the first four books of the New Testament that Jesus existed. The Romans were excellent record keepers. Something as important as a trial where three men were put to death would have some documentation beyond the Bible. And don’t hand me Tacitus or St. George - both existed long after the cult - and yes all religions are cults - of Jesus had had time to develop.
On the one hand, preterism makes perfect sense. Paul says the end is coming within a lifetime. The gospel authors reinforce this idea. On the other hand, one would think that the more obvious conclusion to all of these inconsistencies is that the whole thing was made up. Of course, as with most conspiratorial thinking, it can never be the case that the most probable conclusion is the correct one. You can't impress your buddies with how smart and clever you are if you simply take the obvious reading of the situation. You need that validation and that mild sense of superiority at having seen through the veil and arrived at the true truth. Never acknowledging that the whole construct of your belief is built out of tissue paper.
But aren't you just being hyper sceptical of Mark? thats pretty easy, and does not require data to do that. It seems most of this thing you call data is just Critical theory with the presupposition than supernatural can not be true, therefor the bible can never be true, you are not so much pursuing truth, but pursuing correspondence in the world as you see it.
I think there are three or so RU-vid videos with a total length of 15 hours of Dan being interviewed that would let me understand how he can stay Mormon through all of this. Dan, if you could provide some brief explanation and save me the 15 hours, please do. I would really like to know. (Edit: I found the first of the three by asking RU-vid for "dan mcclellan mormon". I didn't bother tracking down the other two. They are from the same interviewer.) On a different topic, it is interesting how the person Dan is interacting with in this video equates being honest with being Christian. Either he is unaware that non-Christians exist, or he can see the dishonesty inherent in other points of view, such as atheism. If atheism is obviously false, I would like to know why instead of having these arguments that presuppose Christianity.
@@MrMortal_Ra I've wondered the same thing. Dan is great and a must watch but I don't know how he can square this circle. I understnad that some people/christians see Jesus as a great teacher and follow him because of that rather than a super natural reason but I don't think that's the stance of the LDS. I really do love his content. Plus he's a comic book fan and that always get you points in my book.
@@MrMortal_Ra easy. Because he is able to separate faith from science. Like many scientists throughout history. You can believe in and gain personal perspective from the book as a religious text, while still approaching it without dogma. My father was a devout, and very observant Jew his entire life, while also being an accomplished and respected physicist. You can separate faith from science and still grow from the practice of both.
@@ericlipton7640 Yes, I'm not religious, but can see how it can give comfort and community to one. Just don't take everything completely literally, there is tons of room for metafore. A god that nudges and then waits and see what happens, perhaps. Nothing like living on a pinball machine. . .
I can answer how the videos are but not his own views. The video where he addresses his beliefs really don’t address. I personally found it slightly aggravating and disappointing, but I understand too his desire to keep that personal…so as far as I know, there’s isn’t an answer to what he believes.
I think he identifies as a Mormon the same way, many Atheist jews identify as a jew. It's his people. He is in no way, shape or form a traditionally believing Mormon. Even if he is not a scholar of the book of Mormon, I am sure he is using some of the same logic on the book of Mormon and D&C. No way he believes in the book of Abraham as the real deal.
Critical Bible scholars aren’t allowed to recognize miracles or divine intervention as even being possibilities in their published works and they have to follow very specific sets of criterion to be taken seriously in their field. These aren’t dogmas per se because their aren’t a religious beliefs, these are field standards, but just like dogmas, these presuppositions create group think and intensify bias. good scholars like David Bokovoy are up front about this just like good theologians are upfront about their own dogmas and biases. The slogan of this channel should be “data filtered down through very specific and often absurd sets of criterion over dogma” this would be much more accurate. I appreciate critical Bible scholars including this channel, their work is invaluable in understanding the text. I also think it is irresponsible to pretend they don’t have biases but everyone else doesn’t. That’s silly.
Theologian - A theologian is someone who studies the nature of God, religion, and religious beliefs. Do you do this or not? ROFLMAO So you are admitting that the gospel writers were not quoting jesus. What good are they then? They obviously make stuff up, so why believe it? You just destroyed yourself. LOL
No, a theologian is someone is engaged in that study as a part of the practice of religion. I study how other people engage in that study, and I do it from outside the practice of religion. The Gospels are some of the most influential literature that's ever been produced, and that's why I study their background, history, and reception. My channel has nothing to do with any personal beliefs about the veracity of anything in the texts.
@@macmac1022 I'm a linguist and I study this stuff for a living. If you're actually trying to suggest that dictionaries adjudicate meaning, up to and including the delineation of my own career and academic specialization, then you're just wasting my time.
@@maklelan >> I'm a linguist and I study this stuff for a living. If you're actually trying to suggest that dictionaries adjudicate meaning, up to and including the delineation of my own career and academic specialization, then you're just wasting my time."" I am not saying dictionaries adjudicate meaning, that is what the people talking do. But when yours does not match other peoples it makes communication harder.
@@macmac1022 Mine matches how the word is used by theologians, scholars of the Bible, and everyone in between. This is my professional field we're talking about here, and I know it and the related fields far, far better than you.
