The Mopologists Attack Daniel McClellan

[Tapir Rodeo]

It's the unfortunate reality of modern social media that shorts get eyeballs. Especially among younger viewers. The shorter the better, because most people are just flicking through hundreds of shorts at a time.

Seriously? I’m in my 60s. You’re condemning yourselves. You “intellectuals” make all these presumptions about others then claim you’re intelligent.

That fact is is that McClellan is repeating what both the Bible and The Book of Mormon state, that faith is belief in things unseen. People receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost. You all have at one time. But now you’re hung up on some historicity issue because you can’t find bones or whatever it is that you claim will provide proof.

It's not just bones, it's the complete lack of any evidence at all. If someone asks where Jesus was born you can at least point to a place on a map. If someone asks about the people, groups, and nations spoken of in the Bible there are other sources to say they existed. But the Book of Mormon fails even this simple test and therefore is no better as a historical record than something like Harry Potter.

[Philo Sofee]

I would host that debate on my channel.

I wonder if Dan might wish to avoid direct debate over church positions or beliefs. I watched through to the end of his interview with Mr. Dehlin. Dan was careful to draw lines separating his professional scripture study wherein he follows professional standards of following the data from his church participation. He notes faith can stand alone without data support. He stated he will not express his personal belief or faith outside of some church contexts where it is appropriate. In the same way it appears he wants to be very careful not to criticize church leaders or directly confront church positions.

I suppose with those constraints there may still be some subjects of debate he would be willing to engage in but it sounds like they would have to be carefully chosen.

Yes, I remember when I was able to compartmentalize my own views as well. It can only work for so long... He is right though, faith stands alone without data support. That is exactly why it is ever invoked... That is precisely why it can do nothing to change the probability of something being correct or not. It has no value other than as a placeholder. If we have no justification believing something, then faith cannot change that for reality. One is entirely justified in not believing something if there is no evidence. It isn't an act of wickedness as religion so wrongly concludes, it is a matter of lack of evidence. But religion wishes to have power over people, so it warps what is really occurring, and makes one feel guilty to boot. Once one can grasp enough to take off those rose colored glasses, life begins to be much more fulfilling and enjoyable. At least it has for me.

[Canadiandude2]

If more members were like Dan, there’d be fewer angry post- and exmo’s. Not saying there’d be fewer post- or exmo’s- but rather fewer angry ones.

The church set itself up for failure earlier on by promulgating a strict digital/binary framework for understanding its religious theology, scripture, the nature of ‘prophetic’ truth-claims, and religious authority, and societal pluralism themselves .

Dan is pragmatic. The church throughout its history has not been so- at least not to the degree necessary to evade the flaws of its empirical and logical foundations. Y’know who doesn’t tend to produce ‘bitter apostates’ (like myself occasionally) obsessed with bringing it to justice?

The United Church of Canada.

[Canadiandude2]

And for anyone who wishes to smugly wonder “Does the United Church of Canada even have apostates given their degree of acceptance??”

Sure they do. They understand Popper’s dilemma quite well, which is that a society tolerant of everything equally will eventually become an intolerant society. Someone who merely stops attending the church is no apostate in their eye. An avowed disbeliever or even an atheist can still be a member in good standing.

But known racists, queerphobes, sexists and other abusive individuals aren’t likely invited to many church potlucks nor elevated positions of authority and respect.

Furthermore, having a looser and wider, as opposed to a tighter, more rigid set of expected parameters of religious belief/expression naturally isn’t going to perceive a person’s falling out with the church as apostasy per se, nor is the estranged’s dire opposition to their old faith as likely of an outcome of more ‘liberal’ churches.

There are admittedly some studies that suggests stricter churches tend to have a more ‘robust’ membership- but I’d call into question the concept validity of what’s actually happening, as well as the supposed explanations behind them. Is it that more orthodox churches have more faithful members and more devoted followings- or is devotion merely understood differently between these churches?

Another potential explanation is that the people attracted to or socialized towards the more exclusionary churches might have as the basis of their attraction/socialization, the express value of creating exclusionary systems of hierarchy/oppression, and the marginalization of others in pursuit of narrower group interests relative to other groups.

[The Stig]

Now the DezNat types are even using violent imagery about Dan - https://Twitter.com/EphraimOnline/statu ... 8000300425

[Canadiandude2]

Now the DezNat types are even using violent imagery about Dan - https://Twitter.com/EphraimOnline/statu ... 8000300425

Jesus Christ!

[Dr. Shades]

Now the DezNat types are even using violent imagery about Dan - https://Twitter.com/EphraimOnline/statu ... 8000300425

Jesus Christ!

No, Daniel McClellan.

[drumdude]

Now the DezNat types are even using violent imagery about Dan - https://Twitter.com/EphraimOnline/statu ... 8000300425

Wow…

[Marcus]

Now the DezNat types are even using violent imagery about Dan - https://Twitter.com/EphraimOnline/statu ... 8000300425

One response was apparently that it's ok to post threatening pics because it's based on biblical verse. Wow these people give religion a bad name.

[Canadiandude2]

Jesus Christ!

No, Daniel McClellan.

I can only imagine the dad jokes at your house hahaha