Charity

Below is a quote from the article linked below where McClellan is responding to a book written by Sam Harris titled "The End of Faith." Although I sincerely wonder whether I fit in with those McClellan speaks of in his two last sentences, he does seem to be saying that criticizing fundamentalist dogma (which is based on the inerrant accuracy of the bible) is making "much ado about nothing" since the concept itself is erroneous/illogical and therefore should not have to necessarily cause the end of someone's faith. "The irony of Harris’ claim is that he has to adopt a fundamentalist dogma in order to serve his own ideology (“Religion bad!”). This is a habit with a long and storied history in ideological bickering. It’s a lot easier to criticize religious traditions if you adopt the fragile and brittle worldviews of the most fundamentalist and uncritical groups within that tradition. Then the more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives can be dismissed before they complicate your arguments and make you think too hard. This is a tactic employed frequently by apologists of all kinds, including, evidently, the dogmatic and belligerent apologists from the New Atheist movement. Dogmas, whether religious or anti-religious, are a lot easier to proliferate when they’re black and white and reducible to small conceptual chunks that are easily digestible for young white males in trilbies who are infatuated with the transcendence of their own genius." Since McClellan believes the bible has no inherent authority or inherent meaning and that it is thoroughly inconsistent, what matters are the "more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives" concerning it. I'm assuming that through these perspectives, one is able to still believe in God and have a subjective, but authentic, relationship with him and Jesus Christ. This appears to be similar to perspectives shared by some posters on this forum. I still don't get the practical application of this, but I am continuing to find out more about McClellan's scholarly viewpoints on a variety of topics. On the Myth of Scriptural Literalism

My "test" link I just posted didn't work so I've edited out the whole post.

He gives a lot of info/data in this video and from the others that I've watched so far - it's all new to my ears and a lot to consider. I very much appreciate his response to people who see the suffering going on in the world today as joyful signs of the imminent rapture of the church (@ the 6:30 point).

It didn't get traction at the time, but the seed was planted in Raf's mind - thank you for that. I'm curious to know more about McClellan's faith as a believer given his scholarly positions on parts of the Old Testament. I'm searching now for some videos he's done on the New Testament.

I understand how you might remember him as being "refreshingly honest about his approach to the evidence he has." His premise concerning the study of the bible is "data over dogma." McClellan thinks it's normal that there should be actual contradictions in the bible and the problem with accepting this is because so many Christians are stuck on the mistaken concept of "univocality." This minute-long video is about his viewpoint on the book of Mormon. It's noteworthy since according to his "About Me" web page, he "worked as a scripture translation supervisor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City from 2013–2023 and have occasionally taught courses at Brigham Young University as an adjunct instructor." Is the Book of Mormon historical? - Dan McClellan On one of McClellan's podcast called "The Genesis of Genesis" with David Carr, they talk about the creation story in Genesis 2 being written before the one in Genesis 1. Each one was composed by a separate group of people (non-priestly and priestly respectively) who had their own perception of God. Possible explanation(s) for why both stories ended up being in the bible instead of one winning over the other is also given. Thanks for bringing up his name Raf.

BTW, here's McClellan's website: Daniel McClellan

The name is new to me. I've picked one of his podcasts to watch (Episode 6 of the Data Over Dogma Podcast, “God Breathed?”). Any specific evidence you'd like to bring up here?

I started to write a post on the "About the Way of Jesus" thread about hell when I thought to search GSC first and found this thread. I have the book out on Hoopla's website through my library but it froze when I tried to download it. I'll have to walk to the library on Monday and Tuesday to read it there. Thanks for bringing the book up. I may read all the posts on this site but only after I've read it.

That's cool with me Rocky. As you know, I can come across as being too controlling, especially about small details, because that's what I am at times . If you want to share some of the other choices you see that are available, I'd be happy to read them.

Thank you for posting the Overview as I still can't bring it up on my computer. I think it explains the AI Overview given when I googled how many denominations in the world there are. Its answer was "There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations in the world." I think most church goers find acceptable doctrines in the church they decide to attend and for the most part they are not too overly concerned with what other denominations teach. However, it's when a skeptic attempts to compare the different doctrines of even a handful of them that you will find confusion, contention and scriptures being cherry picked. And as this reality goes against scriptures which teach about knowing "the truth," I have to wonder about the existence of a God who chose to communicate his will in this way. Clearing God of any responsibility for what goes on down here because people have "free will" and/or Satan is the "god of this world" only turns this God into being a myth imo.

Please do tell, exactly what kind of "witch hunt" do you believe was happening?

Thank you for clarifying - it's much appreciated. I’m assuming this is how you believe Hampson uses the word "original" as well.

Your link above did not bring up an AI overview. It brought up videos about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life as well as some websites about "truth." I wrote to Rocky earlier that the question was more of a rhetorical one, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you'd like to share those.

In my last reply to you on this topic, I wrote, "However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb." So, I am in agreement with what you say above about Nicodemus. Concerning "anothen," I began with accepting Thayer's Lexicon specific definition for this word in John 3:3 as being "anew/again" just as it was correctly translated "again" in Gal 4:9. Now, although I don't completely understand John 3:7-8, I do think the way Jesus compares the movement of the wind with being born of the spirit can support the "born from above" definition. So, in the end, I am not in disagreement with your conclusion. Thank you for all your posts on this matter.

I've shared a few times before on threads that I want to get better at expressing my atheism in a respectful, unheated manner while also being able to ask about certain Christian doctrines which I once accepted but now question. I call it the "practice makes progress" concept and it is why I appreciate all feedback. It was helpful when you gave me a reason for why my question about God's choice of how to communicate his will should not be on this thread, and I agreed, deleted it and later moved it to the "Deconversion" thread. You did not explain though how my tone was off putting. If it was the underlined portions in the question, I explained in a post why I used that option. If it wasn't that then I won't know what you found wrong with the tone unless you tell me (like Nathan_Jr specifically did in his first post on this thread). Finally, I'm grateful for all your posts WordWolf on this thread.

Thank you for sharing the passage - I'm going to pass on it for myself. I'd like to ask for clarification though on how you take this passage to mean because of things you have said in the past about the bible. Do you follow verse 1 literally; i.e., do you accept all of God's words (which is implied) and store up all his commandments (also implied) within? And do you believe you understand the fear of the Lord and that you have found the (not "a") knowledge of God? I'm asking in a sincere way.

Fine Rocky because I don't believe in the premise either at this time. I'm opened to being proven wrong though if there was some empirical evidence for the existence of God. I'd have to say that it was a rhetorical question in that I wanted to make a biblical point in light of the discussion around the difficulty with translating languages. Also, it's obvious that the answer to the question can only come from God himself and what is the probability of that happening other than having to wait until the afterlife. I figure by then, it'll be too late to matter. It may be that the question might be enough for someone to begin asking other questions about the bible and come to a conclusion similar to your inclination stated above.

When I first read your post, I was surprised that the word "original" was being used in this manner. So the term "original" can now apply to all existing manuscripts regardless of when they were written, by whom they were written, where they were found, or how different they might be from one another. And the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition for "original" (that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made) can now include copies of copies of copies. And this has become the acceptable norm among some people in the field of biblical study. Serious question here - is this what is meant by utilizing critical thinking and analysis skills? If so, I just don't get it.

My only response to YOU, Rocky , is that whatever other choices there might be, they should come from the bible as that was the context in which I was speaking. Now would be a good time to ask this question which should not be a problem in this thread. Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?

Was it the underlined sections that made you assume I was angry? I used that option to focus on certain points - not to insinuate I'm absolute right in what I'm saying.

On the Bible Hub website, Thayer's Greek Lexicon is used to attach specific definitions or meanings of a word to specific verses. According to this source, the meaning of "anothen" in John 3:3 is anew or over again, not "from above." I can't always follow their reasoning like in the long list of references given under the (c.) option. I accepted their reasoning based on Nicodemus not directly addressing Jesus' words by asking how one can be born from above but how one can be born from the womb a second time (i.e., again). To me, this makes sense if Jesus had said "born again" or "born anew." However, I can see how being born from above was so "out there" for Nicodemus that he possibly made reference in his reply to the only birth he knew of which is from the womb. Jesus explains it further in the following verses. 7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jesus is telling Nicodemus an earthly truth - you can't see the wind around and above you, but you know it's there because you can hear it. So when one is born of the spirit (i.e., from above), it's the same - you won't see the spirit, but you will know you have it because you hear it? As a master of Israel, what should Nicodemus had understood about this but didn't? Some commentaries say it's referring to when God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life and Adam became alive/a living soul. Maybe it relates to how the spirit was described in the old testament. How do you see the above verses as explaining the meaning of being born from above in a way that Nicodemus should have understood?

You guessed in error what my tone was in asking that question - I am not angry, just bewildered. But you are correct in the point you made. If I can delete or edit the post, I will and will put in in a different thread. My apologies WordWolf.

If you feel like answering, which of the two choices above do you accept as accurate?

I tend to rely heavily on Bible Hub for the meaning of words which I know is limiting. Here is where I got the definition of "anothen." Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 509: ἄνωθεν ἄνωθεν (ἄνω), adverb; a. from above, from a higher place: ἀπό ἄνωθεν (Winer's Grammar, § 50, 7 N. 1), Matthew 27:51 (Tdf. omits ἀπό); Mark 15:38; ἐκ τῶν ἄνωθεν from the upper part, from the top, John 19:23. Often (also in Greek writings) used of things which come from heaven, or from God as dwelling in heaven: John 3:31; John 19:11; James 1:17; James 3:15, 17. b. from the first: Luke 1:3; then, from the beginning on, from the very first: Acts 26:5. Hence, c. anew, over again, indicating repetition (a use somewhat rare, but wrongly denied by many (Meyer among them; cf. his commentary on John and Galatians as below)): John 3:3, 7 ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, where others explain it from above, i. e. from heaven. But, according to this explanation, Nicodemus ought to have wondered how it was possible for anyone to be born from heaven; but this he did not say;...Galatians 4:9 (again, since ye were in bondage once before). You can read the whole answer for (c) in the link below. "Anothen"