- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
How so? AFAIK they are only trying to constrain to demonstrable reality?
Identity, individuality
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
I really appreciate Matt Baker and love his videos.
Are you using metanormal sort of as a substitute for paranormal - but not quite I think - for supernatural? not quite that either I think, almost but not quite? I looked for a definition but it seems the word is rare. I think I like the word - but I want to be sure what you mean by that word.
??? Aren't there prophets? Leaders? Who wrote the scriptural material? Doesn't the Hindu tradition / various Hindu traditions - have A LOT of scripture? Thousands of pages? Multiple books? Surely some who originated the materials were considered messengers?
People fight, they fight over land and resources and group survival. Religion is more the topic than the cause. Religion can help delineate who is in group and out group "Us vs Them" - and help delineate the rules of a society and who will be considered an enemy, external or internal!
However it is fair enough that some observe that rigid, dogmatic, or even militant stances are baked right into the scriptural material and the traditions of the Abrahamic religions. I don't know the non Abrahamic traditions well enough to confidently assert that those religions DON'T have similar parallels, however. (Dogmatic rigid and militant stances, in group identity, etc)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Anybody can be a prophet. I prophecize that people's psychology is never going to change. In that way, I too, am a prophet. Views about future.
Leaders, yes. But none claimed that they have been sent by a God or Goddess with a message for people.
Sage-poets wrote scriptures. It is easy in Sanskrit to turn prose into verse. Yeah, we have a lot of scriptures, many a times with conflicting views.
That is not a crime in Hinduism.
None of these sage-poets are considered anointed messengers of any God in Abrahamic sense. A Hindu is free to criticize views that differ from his own.
Thanks. I think my main interest is more historical and archaeological than theological. That is usually my focus when I watch Matt Baker / UsefulCharts or Andy Thomson. I am interested in how religious ideas developed over time, how traditions may have influenced each other, and how archaeology, history, oral tradition, and human psychology all seem to play a role.
I am also interested in some of Derren Brown’s work, especially his séance-style demonstrations. What interests me there is not just entertainment, but how easily people can be led to see patterns, messages, or communication where something more ordinary may be happening. For example, something like a Ouija board can appear to be cross-dimensional or spiritual communication, but it may also be explained by suggestion, expectation, group pressure, and people unconsciously moving toward a message.
My own area of study is cybersecurity, so I know how to research and evaluate evidence, but I also know that does not make me an expert in religious studies, archaeology, psychology, or anthropology. Lately I have been questioning myself more and asking whether I might be following certain ideas blindly. That is also why I find pyramid-scheme and persuasion-type videos interesting. They show how easily humans can become convinced of something when the message is framed strongly enough.
That is also why videos about the development of Yahweh, monotheism, and the evolution of religious ideas are interesting to me. They make me think that Aupmanyav may be talking about something that feels foreign to me at first, but may still connect to the broader way religions change and influence each other over time.
So my current approach is cautious. I am not trying to mock religion or say that I have everything figured out. I am trying to explore these subjects without letting them take control of my thinking. Andy Thomson’s approach feels useful to me because it reminds me that my own religious background may be part of a much longer human story involving cognition, culture, fear, meaning, survival, and social development. That feels safer to me than simply accepting every spiritual claim, because I know humans can be convinced of things that are not true, whether that is a religious claim, a pyramid scheme, or even something like essential oils supposedly bringing fortune if someone just believes hard enough.
Well, what is a religion, other than a set of beliefs?
We all have them .. including atheists.
What else can the oppressed do, other than fight to free themselves from it?
God does not like those that start aggression and/or oppress others.
Empires that think they have the right to rule over nations 1000's of miles away and ignore international law have little to do with religion.
That's my point. Empirical determination is the least benchmark of anything, really.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
That is true. The problem starts when one is asked for evidence, "Why do you think your's better than mine?"
Yes. paranormal carries too much baggage.
I'm moving away from super-natural because the implication of 'super' is something of a different category to the 'normal'. Whereas I used 'meta' to infer (to myself, at least) something closer to the totality of nature, I wanted to avoid inferring duality ... in retrospect it's probably not the right prefix, but at the moment I can't think of a suitable alternative.
Suggestions welcome.
I'm not sure we can say that of New Testament scripture, but I'm sure someone'll find a way ...
For sure, but it's when that is put forward as the only explanation that one should step back and ask the obvious question.
The usual response is 'logical explanation', but 'logical' is a human construct and assumes a whole raft of a priori assumptions.
OK, but you have to acknowledge that, taken at face value the 'scholarship', 'information' and 'insight' of YouTube etc., is dubious.
I'm not saying it's wrong, but that there's no process to text if its right. In my degree days, wiki entries, YouTube references and SocMed sources were unacceptable as a source of reference materials, and rightly so.
OTOH I'd watch DB Hart (Classicist) or Andrew Louth (Orthodox theology) videos and treat them as reliable. I'd watch N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman, knowing the viewpoint they're coming from, so take that into consideration. It's a noisy and crowded marketplace and those who post are there for the clicks.
If I happen across an unknown name, I go elsewhere and check credentials.
OK. My only comment is remember he presents one aspect of a picture, and what he presents does not necessarily pass without challenge.
Keep an open mind, is all I'm saying.
You'll never learn to swim if you fear the water.
Or, when one suggests the other's belief is stupidity or superstition
Yeah, I think that is fair. I agree that I should not treat suggestion, expectation, group pressure, or unconscious movement as the only possible explanation before the question has even been asked. I probably should have worded that more carefully. What I meant is that those are explanations I know I need to take seriously because humans are very good at finding patterns, meaning, and messages, even when something more ordinary may be happening.
I also agree with your point about YouTube. I do not treat YouTube, Wikipedia, or social media as the final authority on a subject. I use them more as starting points. They can introduce me to ideas, names, debates, books, or historical questions, but they are not the same thing as doing the deeper work. If I come across a claim that seems important, I should be checking who is making it, what their background is, whether other scholars agree or disagree, and whether the claim is being presented fairly.
That is part of why I tend to lean more toward the physical, historical, and archaeological side of the discussion. With archaeology, I can at least understand where to begin. For example, if researchers find something like the Lion Man figure and discuss whether it may have had symbolic or ritual meaning for early humans, I can follow that kind of argument. There is an object, a place, a time period, and a cultural question being asked.
Where I get lost is when the discussion moves into very broad claims about God, consciousness, tiny parts of matter, number patterns, or the hidden structure of reality. I am not saying those discussions are wrong. I am saying they go well beyond what I can evaluate with confidence. I can understand that patterns exist in nature, but I do not always know how to judge when someone is making a careful argument and when they are reading too much into something.
So I think my own comfort zone is still history, archaeology, anthropology, and human behavior. If there is a text, a dig site, an artifact, a ritual object, or evidence of how a tradition developed over time, I can at least understand the kind of question being asked. But when the conversation becomes about using very abstract ideas to explain or prove spiritual claims, I tend to step back because that is not an area where I can responsibly say much.
So yes, I agree with the need to keep an open mind. I am not trying to avoid the subject. I am just trying to start with the parts I can actually understand and evaluate before getting into the parts that are much harder for me to judge.
@we6jbo
I think that it is the conclusions derived from such information that is problematic.
For example, concluding that Yahweh was one of several gods, and Abrahamic monotheism
only started at that point.
I don't agree with that at all. I see that periods of ignorance existed, where some Abrahamic monotheists
became polytheistic .. it's the lack of education back then, and is a reason why prophets were
sent periodically to revive/remind the generations going astray.
..just saying.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I am not going to enumerate them.
Not, if evidence is not provided.Or, when one suggests the other's belief is stupidity or superstition
I think that is fair, and I respect where you are coming from. I may not be able to follow every reply in real time, but I will be interested to read through the thread again when I can. I also want to say that I respect everyone’s beliefs here, and I think people have brought up some good points.@we6jbo
I think that it is the conclusions derived from such information that is problematic.
For example, concluding that Yahweh was one of several gods, and Abrahamic monotheism
only started at that point.
I don't agree with that at all. I see that periods of ignorance existed, where some Abrahamic monotheists
became polytheistic .. it's the lack of education back then, and is a reason why prophets were
sent periodically to revive/remind the generations going astray.
..just saying.
Personally, I do agree with some of the suggestions that I believe were directed toward me. Because of my academic background, I think it is important for me to keep using the research methods I was taught. That means looking at sources carefully, separating belief claims from historical claims, and being cautious about what conclusions I draw.
I would still lean toward my own view that Homo sapiens’ brains, cognition, culture, and social development helped lead to the religious beliefs we see today. At the same time, I do not think religion has to be analyzed only from that direction. I can understand that someone may look at it from a faith-based direction, where prophets, revelation, and correction over time are part of the explanation. I may not personally approach it that way, but I can respect that this framework is meaningful and coherent within that belief system.
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
I'm quite certain that many statements attributed to Paul can sound that way. Anything in scripture that makes it sound as if people are under a command to spread the faith can be used like this. Any statement that appears to suggest that other religions are bad and or wrong (often enough in the NT or really both testaments are the stern disapprovals of pagans, though I do not recall if pagan as a term is firmly defined) The idea that the end is near which is an idea that people get out of NT material. Right next door to anything in Revelation which is NT material. And on and on.
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
Not necessarily. It's a starting point as someone said. When I listen to someone like Dan McClellan or AB Higashi for long enough to hear them talk about their scholarly experience, and see threads on Reddit or elsewhere pondering their points and credentials, I get a feel for what they are all about and how serious they are. Someone like Colin Connor from The Bible Uncut and Unfiltered, is also good, but doesn't claim to be a scholar as such but more of a very well versed believer who knows his stuff (his academic background is not doctoral level and not in the historical field) I think there's good and bad on YouTube and Reddit and everywhere else, almost as much as there were good and bad books published back in the day when all most of us could get were possibly biased and definitely outdated books in our local libraries)
As to what you can use for publication, it's tight, and is meant to reflect scholarly publications from reputable sources. Sometimes even regular books if they are not considered scholarly won't do.
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
Sadly there's a bit of that in a lot of places - I imagine you were referring to the US and perhaps a region of the US
It's not healthy for any of us here.
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 1,786
- Points
- 108
But sometimes even the nicest request for evidence leads to a hostile response.Or, when one suggests the other's belief is stupidity or superstition
Why not name a few?