# Problematic Prophecy  ## Episode metadata - Episode title: Problematic Prophecy - Show: Data Over Dogma - Owner / Host: Daniel McClellan and Daniel Beecher - Episode publish date: 2025-07-14 - Episode AI description: The discussion dives into the intriguing concept of preterism, suggesting many biblical prophecies were actually fulfilled in the past. It sheds light on the complexities of the Book of Revelation and its controversial inclusion in the Christian canon. The hosts explore the fears and anxieties generated by apocalyptic teachings, especially regarding childhood development. Humorously, they juxtapose traditional asceticism with modern materialism, enriching the theological debates within Christianity. - Mentioned books: [Ecclesiastical History](https://share.snipd.com/book/fb7b9fc6-e8b8-4725-a119-731c4cf33e56) by [Eusebius](https://share.snipd.com/person/e79f0f50-065d-4551-bf36-790bf8900495), [Revelation](https://share.snipd.com/book/789c7b30-9cf4-45f4-a545-baff49d07773) by [Jen Wilkin](https://share.snipd.com/person/be4b0e18-ad0a-4477-b0f6-eeaaa32252f4), [Daniel](https://share.snipd.com/book/efb27bb6-5fc1-4b50-bd4b-fcfa79698c2e) by [Daniel Boulud](https://share.snipd.com/person/60fc46ab-7cfb-4beb-911f-1d33ee9dab6b) - Duration: 58:30 - Episode URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/episode/95188a82-ed50-4220-97b4-dc8dee44b8af) - Show URL: [Open in Snipd](https://share.snipd.com/show/8153b1cc-d781-49fd-92d5-a4bef70d1be5) - Export date: 2026-02-17T23:31:33 ## Snips ### [Preterism Explained](https://share.snipd.com/snip/63e72940-48aa-47ab-a554-cffab982317e) 🎧 05:38 - 10:18 (04:40) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/0c30d097-c059-4ad2-9a4e-726c663dbea6" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Preterism asserts New Testament prophecies about the end times were fulfilled by 70 CE events like the destruction of Jerusalem. - This view contrasts with futurism which sees these prophecies as yet to happen. #### 💬 Quote > The basic idea of preterism is that the prophecies about the end times in the New Testament and even in the Hebrew Bible have already been fulfilled, either in part or in full. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on defining preterism #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** Okay, so let's **Dan McClellan:** just start with what is that? What does the word mean? It's an unusual word, but if you're familiar with linguistics, you might have heard the term preterite. A preterite is a past tense thing. And preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which means past. And so the idea is that this is talking about things that happened in the past. And that's not very detailed. That's not giving you an awful lot of information. We're building to something here. We're making it. We've got to go brick by brick. Yeah, exactly. The basic idea of preterism is that the prophecies about the end times in the New Testament and even in the Hebrew Bible have already been fulfilled, either in part or in full. So generally you divide preterism into partial preterism or full preterism. Wow. And you got, yeah, you're usually one or the other or neither if you don't accept preterism at all. I get accused of being a preterist frequently, and we'll talk about why that doesn't really work. Okay, well, I was going to say, **Dan Beecher:** I would almost accuse you of being a preterist based on a few things that you've said. But let's not get the cart before the horse here. Let's dive in and figure out what we're talking about. **Dan McClellan:** Because we have, you know, when we hear people on social media today talk about the fulfillment of end times prophecies, there are a handful of places they'll turn to. And two popular ones are Daniel and Revelation. Daniel talks about the abomination of desolation and all this kind of stuff, and you got the 70 weeks, and every time somebody's about to make some kind of peace treaty associated with Israel, suddenly it's about this peace that is going to last for a week, aka seven years, and then all this stuff. This is in Daniel 9. And then we also have Revelation. We've got a lot of stuff what's going to happen before the end times. And also in the Gospels. We have in Mark, we have in Matthew, and particularly Matthew, that's, I think, probably the most famous example of these prophecies about the coming of the Son of Man, where the Son will be blackened and the moon will turn to blood and all this kind of stuff. This is the Olivet Discourse. The Olivet Discourse, right. And we've talked in the past about how the Olivet Discourse makes it sound like the Second Coming is going to happen immediately after the events that are being described. had been laying siege to Judea for a while and destroyed Jerusalem, destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, ran off the Jewish rebels. So it sounds like that already happened. And so according to preterism, if you're a partial preterist, you would say, okay, so that part of the Olivet discourse has already been fulfilled. The rest of it, where the Son of Man comes in clouds of great glory and all that kind of stuff, hasn't been fulfilled yet. We're still waiting on that. God is slow playing their hand regarding the fulfillment of the next part. If you're a full preterist, then you say, no, it was all the second coming, the resurrection, it was all fulfilled by 70 CE. And we're just in some kind of post, I won't say coital, but some kind of post-apocalyptic waiting period, I guess. There are a bunch of different ways that it's rationalized. but it all stems from the fact that the book of Revelation, the Gospels, even Daniel, a lot of the most likely ways to interpret that is the events that happened in 70 CE. And so a lot of this requires that Revelation be written prior to 70 CE, if **Dan Beecher:** these are all prophecies about what's **Dan McClellan:** going to happen. **Dan Beecher:** Right. I mean, this is, this is assuming that this is not someone writing after the fact as though they're writing before the fact to give, to, to, to give credence to their, to their revelatory power or whatever. Right. And, and the folks who argue that funny **Dan McClellan:** enough, will argue that the beast is supposed to be Nero. Right. They will say 666 is Gematria. It's a reference to Nero. --- ### [End Times Anxiety Through History](https://share.snipd.com/snip/073d45ad-e00c-4e6d-a985-26d4fb8e0bc5) 🎧 26:25 - 31:53 (05:27) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/0f2674b7-80cf-45b9-a4f0-a234cdb735cb" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The perpetual watchfulness for apocalyptic signs has existed for centuries, often without fulfillment. - Many generations misinterpreted events as signs of the end times, causing ongoing anxiety. #### 💬 Quote > Every generation over the last 2,000 years has had the ability to point to stuff and say, it's the sign of the times. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on apocalyptic anxieties throughout history #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** it means if you are a futurist I understand that it means that there's a whole bunch of stuff that's coming down the pikes at some point and we all need to prep for it and we all need to be ready for it when it happens, Oh, this is all the stuff that's going to happen. But like, I guess I, I've never put myself in the shoes of, of someone who doesn't come from that perspective. So I don't know. So I don't know what it means. What, like what, you know, I see all of these, these right wing preachers talking about it's coming any day. Oh, this means, you know, look this. Look at what's happening in Israel. This proves that it's right around the corner, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. I guess that perpetual anticipation, that perpetual like we've got to be on guard, which goes back all the way to when these books were written. I mean, I remember I've read about, I've read historical accounts about, you know, the great London fire in 1666 and like, everybody's just like, there it is. It's happening. We got it. And so this is not a new phenomenon. But without that, it does seem like it's a very different approach to theology and to how one lives one's life. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** And I think most folks these days, most Christians these days have spent all their time swimming in the waters of an expectation of a second coming, if not the rapture, at least resurrection, all this kind of stuff. And that's rather undermined, at least by full preterism. I think partial preterism basically says, eh, that happened. We're still looking forward to Jesus's second coming. We're still looking forward to the rapture. We're still looking forward to a resurrection from the dead. But with full preterism, you've got to kind of reshuffle the deck and you've got to figure out a way to understand how the last 1900 years have carried on following all of those things, as if Jesus has already come and the resurrection of the dead has already taken place, which is why a lot of folks would argue that full preterism requires that the resurrection be something more symbolic, something more metaphorical, that not be the literal resurrection from the dead. And there are groups that understand it that way, that this is not about everybody coming back from the dead, but it is something else, whether related to the Spirit or something like that. It's a very different way of understanding Christian history and Christian eschatology. And yeah, you can find in the book of Matthew, it says when Jesus died, a bunch of people came back from the dead and appeared to their loved ones and things like that. And so people say, ah, there's the resurrection. It happened right there. And so now we've had a resurrection. We need no more resurrection. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, I guess it ruins phrases like the end of days or any of that sort of thing but it does kind of it it kind of frees you from this uh the from the anxiety that uh that a coming apocalypse somewhere looming on the horizon has given i mean there are i i can't tell you how many people i've talked to who had or or still have intense apocalyptic anxiety oh yeah big time uh and then there's just i guess you're just left with sort of a different anxiety which is just like what do we do now i don't know i guess we just live our lives well or something yeah **Dan McClellan:** oh. Oh, I was listening to a video. was in my kitchen and I was on, um, TikTok listening to a video and my wife walked by and the, and the person was like, all those people who say that these are actual, we're not in the end times. You know, they had to deal with the same thing back when first Peter was written. And my wife was like, and it didn't happen then. Like it's been 2000 years. They were right. Back then when they criticized the notion that they were in the end times. And yeah, there are a lot of folks who would still consider themselves Bible believers and Christians looking forward to something, but not what the majority of Christians these days are looking forward to. I don't think they anticipate that Iran and Turkey and Russia are going to form a coalition and then attack Israel from the north and from the south, and then that's going to bring on Armageddon. The people who see this as some kind of paint-by where you're trying to divine what's happening in the future. It makes for a puzzle to be solved, and I get that that is meaningful. I get that that has value to folks, but it's so ridiculous. The notion that this is a Ouija board and we're trying to divine the future and we're keeping a lookout for all the signs. Because every generation over the last 2,000 years has had the ability to point to stuff and say, it's the sign of the times. --- ### [Full Preterism's Theological Shift](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ae82b0ae-71e9-41ee-9803-0f333cd959da) 🎧 27:41 - 30:16 (02:35) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/fc681c44-9a03-4cab-85c1-2599895b4f69" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Full preterism challenges traditional Christian eschatology by claiming resurrection and second coming occurred in the past. - This view requires symbolic interpretations of resurrection and affects how believers perceive their faith today. #### 💬 Quote > Full preterism requires that the resurrection be something more symbolic, something more metaphorical, that it not be the literal resurrection from the dead. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan explaining theological implications of full preterism #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** to theology and to how one lives one's life. Yeah. **Dan McClellan:** And I think most folks these days, most Christians these days have spent all their time swimming in the waters of an expectation of a second coming, if not the rapture, at least resurrection, all this kind of stuff. And that's rather undermined, at least by full preterism. I think partial preterism basically says, eh, that happened. We're still looking forward to Jesus's second coming. We're still looking forward to the rapture. We're still looking forward to a resurrection from the dead. But with full preterism, you've got to kind of reshuffle the deck and you've got to figure out a way to understand how the last 1900 years have carried on following all of those things, as if Jesus has already come and the resurrection of the dead has already taken place, which is why a lot of folks would argue that full preterism requires that the resurrection be something more symbolic, something more metaphorical, that not be the literal resurrection from the dead. And there are groups that understand it that way, that this is not about everybody coming back from the dead, but it is something else, whether related to the Spirit or something like that. It's a very different way of understanding Christian history and Christian eschatology. And yeah, you can find in the book of Matthew, it says when Jesus died, a bunch of people came back from the dead and appeared to their loved ones and things like that. And so people say, ah, there's the resurrection. It happened right there. And so now we've had a resurrection. We need no more resurrection. **Dan Beecher:** Yeah, I guess it ruins phrases like the end of days or any of that sort of thing but it does kind of it it kind of frees you from this uh the from the anxiety that uh that a coming apocalypse somewhere looming on the horizon has given i mean there are i i can't tell you how many people i've talked to who had or or still have intense apocalyptic anxiety oh yeah big time uh and then there's just i guess you're just left with sort of a different anxiety which is just like what do we do now i don't know i guess we just live our lives well or something yeah **Dan McClellan:** oh. Oh, I was listening --- ### [TikTok Insight on End Times](https://share.snipd.com/snip/01a5329e-7a4d-4853-a2cc-3f84571d88c3) 🎧 30:57 - 32:02 (01:05) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/6968a4a3-32e6-4c5f-8b24-00bedb157a67" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Dan McClellan recounts overhearing a TikTok conversation about first-century Christians' apocalyptic hopes. - His wife humorously remarks on the 2000-year delay in fulfilling end times predictions. #### 💬 Quote > And my wife was like, and it didn't happen then. Like it's been 2000 years. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on a TikTok video about early Christians and end times #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** I don't think they anticipate that Iran and Turkey and Russia are going to form a coalition and then attack Israel from the north and from the south, and then that's going to bring on Armageddon. The people who see this as some kind of paint-by where you're trying to divine what's happening in the future. It makes for a puzzle to be solved, and I get that that is meaningful. I get that that has value to folks, but it's so ridiculous. The notion that this is a Ouija board and we're trying to divine the future and we're keeping a lookout for all the signs. Because every generation over the last 2,000 years has had the ability to point to stuff and say, it's the sign of the times. But not every generation, I think, understood the Bible to be pointing them in that direction. I think there were a lot of generations that didn't worry about that. --- ### [Revelation's Contested Canon](https://share.snipd.com/snip/4bd82539-e665-4691-938f-df7bd1c2177c) 🎧 33:36 - 38:21 (04:45) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/e595976e-2d0a-4138-a1a3-261e7cc0a598" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - The early Christian canon developed over centuries through community consensus, not formal voting. - The Book of Revelation faced heavy skepticism over authorship and content before eventual inclusion. #### 💬 Quote > The book of Revelation for quite some time was not really that popular. It was something that was dismissed as a rather grotesque misrepresentation... > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan on the early disputes about Revelation #### 📚 Transcript **Dan Beecher:** good? No, that's not the issue. It actually was always meant to be in the canon of Christian books. **Dan McClellan:** Of the New Testament, yes. We're going to talk about the Christians who challenged that. A lot of people don't know this, but it's not like the earliest Christians were like, ah, we're Christians now, and here is our collection of books that everybody agrees on. No, not only did it take a long time for these books to be written, and most critical scholars would say there are multiple books of the New Testament, perhaps even at least one of the Gospels that weren't even written until probably the beginning of the second century CE. So it's probably over a century after Jesus's death that the final books are being wound up, being completed. So taken a long time to do that. And then you have these, you know, you couldn't just get on Amazon and order a book and be like, I have to wait until five in the morning to get this book. These things had to be copied by hand, which meant they didn't just immediately go and get out there. They, you know, they had a biography. These things had to be passed along, and somebody would have multiple copies made by hand, and then they would pass the original copy on. And so different congregations had different sets of books, and the canon came together slowly. And it was not that people sat around a desk and went, I vote for this one in the canon and this one out. What happened is mainly people went around and found out what books were being read in the services, what books were being considered authoritative and inspired, and which were not. And so a lot of the early discussions of canon would say, well, these are the books that the majority of churches treat as authoritative, as inspired, as doctrinally binding. These are the books that they read, but they don't really consider doctrinally binding. These are the spurious books. These are the ones that we know were not written by the people they claim to have been written by and all that. So you had different levels of proximity to this notion of canon. And ultimately, it was basically a boundary firmed up around the books that the majority of people were using. And then they came up with rationalizations for why it's those books that are in and everything else is out. **Dan Beecher:** Objection. I don't think any human... Overruled. Oh, okay. No, you're correct. It does seem that is a very human way of doing things. You figure out what you like and then you prove why it's good, why it's real or why everyone else should care about it or whatever. **Dan McClellan:** 100% that is how it works. And this is how it works. Even today when a politician gets up there and says something, the person intuitively decides whether they like it or not and then goes about rationalizing why their feelings are correct. And it's the same for the development of the canon. It just kind of worked its way into, okay, these are the things that everybody likes. Now let's come up with criteria for why they were right all along. an apostolic source. You had the authority of the text within early Christian churches and all these things. And so all the criteria are basically like, well, that's because that's what everybody thinks. Right. Look at how many people are reading it. All those guys can't be wrong. Yeah. And the book of Revelation for quite some time was not really that popular. It was something that was dismissed as a rather grotesque misrepresentation of Christian sensitivities and ideologies. There's a guy named Dionysus of Alexandria. He was a bishop and a scholar, and he died in the middle of the third century, around 260s CE. And his argument was really the consensus view for a long time within early Christianity that whatever the nature of the book Revelation, it was not written by the author of the Gospel of John. It was written by somebody else. And this kind of complicates the relationship of the book of Revelation to any kind of apostolic authority. --- ### [Criticism of Revelation's Style](https://share.snipd.com/snip/d8b94b4a-2832-4b0d-a004-226a68f07b14) 🎧 45:02 - 47:29 (02:26) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/f249baf1-d8b6-432d-b4b0-499d012ed2c0" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Early opposition to Revelation cited its obscure language and differing style from the Gospel of John. - Critics felt its apocalyptic imagery clashed with other Christian teachings and ascetic values. #### 💬 Quote > It was not the work of John, nor is it a revelation because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan quoting Dionysus of Alexandria on Revelation #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** about this. It is all shrouded in a lot of mysterious apocalyptic imagery. There are folks who thought it sounded too Jewish. It was Jewish apocalyptic imagery that was not becoming of good Christian literature. There were folks who said that was not really what we're doing anymore. There were folks who said that the ideologies in the book were very exclusionary, exclusivistic, but also very materialistic. We're going to get everything that the bad guys have. And we've talked this a couple times in the past, where the author of the Sermon on the Mount would have wildly disagreed with the book of Revelation's vision of a future where we're just swimming in wine and everybody has all the riches in the world and we're all glutting ourselves on all of the, you know, just the bounty. The cool loot that we get. Yes, yes. And so for a lot of people, this vision of the future just clashed with the asceticism of early Christianity. And a Jesus who was like, deny everything, make yourself a eunuch. We're going to live in basically abject poverty. And then along comes John the Revelator, like, wine for everybody! I can see how each of **Dan Beecher:** those approaches would have their supporters. Yeah. Those approaches both have their supporters now. Yeah, you **Dan McClellan:** can imagine some early Christians, you know, sitting in the Coliseum going, but I kind of like what they have over here. And they're like, no, that. **Dan Beecher:** Have you guys tried having a bunch of money in wine? Because I **Dan McClellan:** like it. I enjoy that. You pretend to enjoy celibacy, but everybody knows you're just lying. So I think that was a big part of it as well. And yeah, just the fact that it doesn't seem to follow in the trend of Christian writings from the time period. And even people today who read it, Revelation is an outlier, linguistically, literarily. --- ### [Athanasius Secures Revelation](https://share.snipd.com/snip/fef3712c-8ed3-43c8-b700-dc9f89c89aea) 🎧 48:50 - 53:15 (04:24) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/6a1813fe-a847-49b7-b0f8-6b1252ac3091" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Athanasius' 367 CE festal letter was pivotal in formally including Revelation in the New Testament canon. - His authority helped settle debates, solidifying the book's place despite earlier opposition. #### 💬 Quote > Athanasius was the first one who said, Revelation is in. That's the last book he includes. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan discussing Athanasius' role in canon formation #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** shake my fist um Athanasius! He was, and what, like, this guy just led what must have been the most bizarre and stressful life. Like, he was exiled, I think, seven or eight times in his life. Like, they were like, we just can't get rid of you. And, um, and mainly because he was, um, he was like the fiercest anti-Aryan that was around. I mean, I'm, I'm sure you had other Christians who were like Athanasius needs to pull it back. **Dan Beecher:** Okay, so Athanasius **Dan McClellan:** was around in 325 CE when we had the Council of Nicaea, which was there to try to resolve the Arian controversy, which is where this presbyter Arius was saying that Jesus was a subordinate being, which was not that controversial in the early church. but he also was saying there was a time when Jesus was not, when he did not exist. He was a creation of God the Father, and that is what set, I think, the most people off. But at Nicaea, they came up with the Nicene Creed. They came up with the idea that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father and with the Holy Ghost, and we have the beginnings of formal, articulated Trinitarianism. But that didn't seal the deal. That didn't fix the problem. There would be another century of back and forth between Arianism and anti-Arianism. And you even had an Arian emperor. One of the Roman emperors was an Arian. And Constantine was even somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the Arians. But Athanasius was one of the torchbearers for the anti-Arian bent. And one of the things that he did was appeal to the book of Revelation as a way not to distinguish Christians from non-Christians, and not as a way to circle the wagons around the followers of Jesus, but as a way to root out inadequately faithful Christians who are in the church. So he took the book of Revelation and he pointed it back at the other Christians and said, you're not good enough. You're an enemy. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing. And this would have been aimed at not only Aryans, but anybody who challenged the power structures that served his interests and that he was trying to advance. And I think we've talked about this before. For instance, you had the monasteries at the time. They were not under the wing of the institutional church. They were the rebels out in the desert living like hippies, going, peace and love and Gnostic literature, man. And Athanasius wanted to put a stop to that and wanted to the monasteries under the control of the institutional church and had his ways of going about doing that. But one of the things that he did was include the book of Revelation in his canon. And his list, his canon list from, I think it was 367, this was his 39th festal letter. And if you don't know what that means, this was kind of the letter celebrating, I think, Easter that went out in the year 367. And in that letter, he lays out the canon, which becomes more or less the first formal articulation of the canon as it exists now. Prior to that, there were debates, and you had some people going, yeah, these are in, these are out, but it hadn't firmed up until Athanasius' letter, and he was the first one who said, Revelation is in. That's the last book he includes, and then he goes on in the next paragraph, these are the fountains of salvation that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. And these alone, the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these, let nothing be taken away from them. Now, readers of the Bible will recognize this. May --- ### [Trauma from Apocalyptic Teachings](https://share.snipd.com/snip/cc566196-8589-4ef4-b88d-7ce32c22462f) 🎧 58:55 - 01:00:40 (01:44) <iframe src="https://share.snipd.com/embed/obsidian-player/snip/33a5de77-9ced-4c7f-8fe6-c9fd70b55bf2" width="100%" height="100" style="border: none; border-radius: 12px;" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-popups allow-clipboard-write" ></iframe> - Apocalyptic teachings in Revelation have caused trauma due to fear-driven interpretations. - Many are taught to be anxious about sin and judgment in an oppressive theological framework. #### 💬 Quote > I can't imagine having parents who would be like, here's all the awful stuff that's going to happen, and you need to be excited about it. > — Dan McClellan Dan McClellan reflecting on the impact of apocalyptic fear on believers #### 📚 Transcript **Dan McClellan:** So I think it causes more harm than good. And that's without even referencing the untold trauma that has been experienced by people raised under, you know, and to quote another great poet, under his watchful eye. Is that what the, that what the, shoot. Is that what the handmaid's tale thing is? Under his eye or something like that? don't know the handmaid's tale. Oh, I'm so, I'm. I'm pretty sure it's under his eye. Yeah. That was the phrase. Under, under his eye, I think is what it is. Yeah. **Dan Beecher:** Okay. **Dan McClellan:** But I think a lot of people have had very traumatic childhoods because of this notion that this is something that is right around the corner and we're all going to be experiencing some nightmarish apocalyptic hellscape that we're supposed to be excited about. Yeah, I'm real thrilled about it. We're And I didn't grow up in that kind of environment, but I can't imagine having parents who would be like, here's all the awful stuff that's going to happen, and you need to be excited about it. Right. If you're not excited about it, that means you don't have enough faith, and you're going to be one of the ones who's going to have their skin worn like a helmet or something. Yeah. I can't imagine what it must be like trying to rationalize that away. Trying to wrap your **Dan Beecher:** head around, okay, well, I guess it's a bunch of bad things, but I'll be okay because as long as I don't sin, oh no. It's a very scary, scary thing. **Dan McClellan:** Yeah, and people are like, you can't sin. You're going to. Everybody. Nobody has a choice but to. can't not sin, but you shouldn't sin. --- Created with [Snipd](https://www.snipd.com) | Highlight & Take Notes from Podcasts