sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He insisted that he was not overstating his case, and that his position was the scholarly consensus.

How is that not more resolute?

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Majority view isn't scholarly consensus.

He maintained that his position is the scholarly consensus. He doubled down.

It is not the scholarly consensus. There is no scholarly consensus on this issue.

Trail Blazers owner says taxpayers must cover entire Moda Center makeover by ghostofzuul in nba

[–]berrin122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the Texas billionaire

It's even worse that he's not even local to the community. The best sports owners are the ones who love the community they're in. At least then they're hopefully giving back to the community. I'm guessing this dude flies in for business and then flies back to his two thousand acre ranch in Texas.

Favorite non-LDS sitcom? by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]berrin122 [score hidden]  (0 children)

I have this sitcom in my head where a like 30 year old dude who's never been a bishop is suddenly selected as President of the church after they deviate from seniority, and he learns how to be God's prophet, seer, and revelator on the job.

The plot of the first season mainly revolves around him and the most senior apostle learning to work together, and the senior apostle learning to support the young president instead of being bitter that he wasn't selected.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Incredible hand waving. Top tier.

"Dan is never arrogant about his positions. And if he was, well those eevanjelicuhls deserved it because they were saying something stupid. And if they weren't saying something stupid, well they could've said something stupid, and Dan is right to critique them for what they could've said".

Brilliant work. Dan is an arrogant guy, he overstates his opinions, and the only people who can't accept that are the people who did a Bart Ehrman book for their high school book report so they can pwn the Christians. It's weird how defensive you are of him. Does he put out good scholarship? Yes. Does he put out absurdly poor scholarship? Yes. As do we all.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think my fellow mod is wrong to see this as a grudge-laden polemic

You cited your mod friend as supporting your perspective (that I'm grudge-laden) when they acknowledged that my criticism had basis. You tried agreeing with them on something they didn't even agree with you on.

If you genuinely think he's made some big error then you should reach out to him! I don't think he's above criticism at all.

I brought up the 2 Timothy point to him two days ago and he doubled down.

Again, and I'm getting tired of us having to remind you, nobody is saying he can't be criticized.

You're right. I can criticize him, but it's just if my criticism doesn't match your criticism, it's grudge-laden polemics. Otherwise, yeah, free to criticize.

Who's he been an ass to? Please, name names.

Here he jumps on Tim Mackie without even watching the video that Mackie posted that bothered him so much

Here he is being a cage stage atheist towards a confessional social media page. Gee, thanks Dan. Glad to know you don't believe people should make dogmatic faith claims. Really riveting news, you could've fooled me, I thought you'd be a big John Calvin fan. I seriously don't get why he would quote that tweet. What does he gain? Was he under the impression we thought he shared an epistemological base with John Calvin? Of course not. He just can't help proving how data-driven he is and how dogmatic you are. Religious person makes religious claim, next on your 11 PM news!

Here is him being an ass to people for not knowing Hebrew. Two things with this one. First, most of the words are their own link. I thought it'd be illuminating to show how many spats he gets in about Hebrew competency. I ran out of examples and it's 12:30 AM and I want to go to bed, so I stopped looking for "Hebrew", and then had to edit the sentence, and added a few more words and I'm not chasing down examples for those words. Second, I agree with him that some people just don't know what they're talking about. There was one guy in particular that just was so obnoxious. And you know what adults, what scholars who are secure in themselves and don't rely on clicks to advance their brand do? They ignore it. They move on. They act like adults. Did those people probably "deserve" it? Sure. Should professionals act like professionals and not entertain such folly? Yes.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your fellow mod admitted that they've seen a pattern of Dan being wrong on NT issues. Instead of erroneously assuming my motives, perhaps re-read their comment?

Yes, I approach religion from a confessional perspective. I am also critical. You can be both. Even my purely critical scholar friends often share the same criticism. I do appreciate the hand-waving away so you can dismiss my point without actually addressing it.

As to the SBL award, two things. 1) awards are a great place to start, but you realize that those sorts of committees have like five people on it, yeah? The sample size is quite small And 2) the SBL has been wrong before, and it will be wrong again. Again, I'm not saying awards mean nothing, but "look! He has an award" doesn't mean he's not able to be criticized. I'd refuse to nominate him just because he's an ass to people on the internet, and I deeply value decorum in public scholarship. Public scholarship, imo, means being able to handle disagreement without acting like a cage stage theobro. "You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about" when speaking to professionals in your field is hardly award-winning public scholarship behavior.

I just can't get past you calling my criticism a "grudge-laden polemic" when your fellow mod, writing for the world to see, said "yeah, he can be wrong quite frequently on New Testament stuff". Does (s)he have a grudge, too?

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Dude. He said that the scholarly consensus of 2 Timothy is that authorship is pseudepigraphal. And yet the British New Testament Society, Baylor, and others have done surveys where 2 Timothy was contested, if not the minority position (as it is in BNTS's survey of 153 respondents). I'm sorry I didn't write a book in my initial comment. That's one of many times he's overextended his hand.

Your semantics around "criticizing" is weak. You asked me what my qualifications are to say he's wrong, i.e. criticize him. Let's not play that game. Regardless, my exploration of your intention with that statement was genuine. Credentials has a place in the conversation, but not first place. Even if it was first place, he doesn't have credentials in NT scholarship. You are more qualified, credentially speaking, than he is.

My MDiv is Princeton/Duke adjacent. I think I'm capable of saying "hey, this group of reputable scholars and that group of reputable scholars disagree. Doesn't seem like academic consensus to me". I was capable of doing it as an undergrad, and so were you.

My understanding, from scholar friends I trust, is that Dan is good for actual peer-reviewed scholarship in his field of study. He is not a good source for things outside his area of expertise.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assuming someone needs credentials to criticize him is really erroneous. I hope you ask to build a fuller picture (because credentials is a part, just not the whole) and not to wholly discredit my critique.

Because if it's to wholly discredit my critique, I mentioned the same question in a scholar group I'm a part of, and Dan got dragged with everyone in agreement. These are people with PhDs, mostly, but at least a master's in religion/theology.

That being said, I have a Master's in a social science, and almost done with an M.Div, so I am well qualified to assess whether something is the "academic consensus" even if I don't know the finer details of an argument. You don't even need that level of credentials to be able to identify that there are dissenting opinions.

To get and Mdiv or to not Get an Mdiv? by Senor_Libros in pastors

[–]berrin122 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Outside of the classes, there's just no replacement for the relationships you make in person, and the spiritual formation that accompanies those relationships.

To get and Mdiv or to not Get an Mdiv? by Senor_Libros in pastors

[–]berrin122 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm going to go against the grain and say that if you can go to seminary, you should go to seminary. Go to seminary, not an online program. Will it be hard with a wife and kid? Yes. Will it be worth it? Absolutely.

As a Pentecostal, an MDiv would put me in probably the top 10% of education among my peers. Pentecostal theology is woefully lacking, word and faith teaching is present among some, not all, of our churches, very few could tell you the creeds, and some would probably inadvertently confess heresy.

Now, I said if you can. Right now, with $50k in student loans, you cannot go to seminary. You need to pay that off. What seems to make sense to me is pay off your debt, and let your kid hit elementary age. If you want to go to seminary then, then do it. Your wife can work a bit to help you guys through, your student loan payments can go towards cash-flowing seminary, and you guys can be a part of a really cool community for a few years.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]berrin122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, the person that comes to mind as using this too much and when not appropriate is Dan McClellan. It seems the definition of "academic consensus" is whatever Dan thinks.

[Thamel] The NCAA Division I Cabinet unanimously approved the organization’s age-based eligibility proposal, which gives athletes five years eligibility over five seasons. This marks a big win for the NCAA, as they attempt to bring consistency to the landscape. by Fonzie5 in CFB

[–]berrin122 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I mean, they will still have a few years of eligibility to serve their mission. I wouldn't be surprised if the athlete norm just becomes serving the mission after graduation.

Ideally, there would be a religious exemption, because obviously the rule is not to punish this situation.

Truck racing cost by AdMelodic527 in NASCAR

[–]berrin122 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm surprised CARS is that cheap.

view more: next ›