a 'sign' or pure 'coincidence'

[Russ]

Originally posted by Stuart W
'twas a high anglican Church of England (as I remember) nowt to do with catholics.

I went to confirmation classes for 3 yrs, then got a "little black book" and was alowed to take communion.

OK, the collection of monies on JC's beehalf was a bit strong, but....
Take a good hard look at the sheer capital the C of E has... not just real estate (it's not all churches & graveyards!) but the valuables within the establishment.....
Would God realy be pleased with this collection of wealth?
I would have thought he'd be happier if there were no / few churches and they all ran with no profit by voulanteers.

Don't want to argue over this, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I fully respect anyones beliefs in any religion

I need to explain that not all faiths are the same. You refer to C of E. I certainly disagree with the way they appear to collect such wealth, this is something that Catholics appear to do also. We may all follow the same God but I disagree with the ways that some faiths go about it, C of E being one, although I respect the good work they do.

yes but russ you dont believe fact really do you you seem to pick and choose when you want to believe a fact but dont you follow your religion based on belief

You#re missing the point - he was presenting an opinion AS a fact.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Russ D
But your last line is an opinion, not a fact.

Hmmmm...no, I think it is a statement of fact. If a non religious person can (in a laboratory) be made to have a 'religous experience' and it is shown that the experience was due to dye in the coronary arteries or by having a current (remotely) induced in a part of the brain(with an induction coil), then either we are getting God to perform on cue for our whim or we are demonstrating that there is more than one reason for a 'religious experience'.

[Russ]

Originally posted by Ramrod
Hmmmm...no, I think it is a statement of fact. If a non religious person can (in a laboratory) be made to have a 'religous experience' and it is shown that the experience was due to dye in the coronary arteries or by having a current (remotely) induced in a part of the brain(with an induction coil), then either we are getting God to perform on cue for our whim or we are demonstrating that there is more than one reason for a 'religious experience'.

But seeing as this has never been done, you cannot call it 'fact'.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Russ D
But seeing as this has never been done, you cannot call it 'fact'.

But it has. It happened to my father.

[Russ]

Originally posted by Ramrod
But it has. It happened to my father.

Did he have what was considered a 'religious experience'? How could you be sure that is what it was? If that's all you are using to form your opinion then good on you but for the benefit of all of us who have experienced the very real power of God, we'll stick with what we know.

[Ramrod]

Also, I have been experimented on with an induction coil. The coil induced a current in various parts of my brain. Time was limited but we did manage to get my leg to move on it's own accord. I am sure that given enough time and patience we could have 'hit' the 'religious centre' of my brain and stimulated it. That would have been interesting.....

[danielf]

Originally posted by Ramrod
But it has. It happened to my father.

Scientifically, I would have to call that contentious

(haven't read whole thread though)

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Russ D
Did he have what was considered a 'religious experience'? How could you be sure that is what it was? If that's all you are using to form your opinion then good on you but for the benefit of all of us who have experienced the very real power of God, we'll stick with what we know.

He felt a benign, loving presence in the room. When the dye was fully in, the feeling dissapated.

[Russ]

Originally posted by Ramrod
Also, I have been experimented on with an induction coil. The coil induced a current in various parts of my brain. Time was limited but we did manage to get my leg to move on it's own accord. I am sure that given enough time and patience we could have 'hit' the 'religious centre' of my brain and stimulated it.

OK well as it's getting late and I'm in work early I'll leave you with your 'coil' et al.

I have experienced Godly things (and continue to 'see' things) which I have not asked for, and was not set out to look for, thus eliminating the worn-out argument of "well that's the way your brain works, if you want it to be from God then your brain will tell you it is".

You don't have to believe, everyone knows I'm not looking for convertees, merely respect for what I believe in.

He felt a benign, loving presence in the room. When the dye was fully in, the feeling dissapated.

With respect, unless he had studied experiences from God then just based on that I'd say he wouldn't be in a good position to say it was 'Godly'.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by danielf
Scientifically, I would have to call that contentious

(haven't read whole thread though)

I know, but Russ said that it had never been done.
It has happened to thousands of people. Either God is manifesting his presence on que, or there is more than one explanation for the phenomenon.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by Russ D
OK well as it's getting late and I'm in work early I'll leave you with your 'coil' et al.

I have experienced Godly things (and continue to 'see' things) which I have not asked for, and was not set out to look for, thus eliminating the worn-out argument of "well that's the way your brain works, if you want it to be from God then your brain will tell you it is".

I am sure you have, and I am not using that arguament.

You don't have to believe, everyone knows I'm not looking for convertees, merely respect for what I believe in.

I do respect it, it is too prevalent to ignore/disrespect

With respect, unless he had studied experiences from God then just based on that I'd say he wouldn't be in a good position to say it was 'Godly'.

Why would you have to study other experiences? It is common knowledge that religious experiences can vary from person to person and time to time.
His 'religious experience' feeling is just as valid as the next persons.

[danielf]

Originally posted by Ramrod
I know, but Russ said that it had never been done.
It has happened to thousands of people. Either God is manifesting his presence on que, or there is more than one explanation for the phenomenon.

Moving legs are easy. Stimulate the motor cortex in the left hemisphere, and something will move on the right part of your body. This is also quite easy to establish objectively. Plus we understand the motor system fairly well, so behaviour is as predicted.

When it comes to religious experiences, how do you objectively establish that someone has a 'religious experience'.

Then there is the issue of cause and effect, which is quite thorny.

I don't think enough is known about emotion (let alone religion) with respect to the brain's workings, to draw any meaningful conclusions from these experiments.

[Ramrod]

Originally posted by danielf
When it comes to religious experiences, how do you objectively establish that someone has a 'religious experience'.

you could use that as an arguament to question the validity of any 'religious experience'

Then there is the issue of cause and effect, which is quite thorny.

It is a thorny one if you are prepared to accept that we can ask God to manifest his presence on the whim of a medic/scientist, at a given time and place. If you feel that the above is either ludicrous or beneath God, then you must accept that the phenomenon is (at least sometimes) man made and not divinely inspired.

I don't think enough is known about emotion (let alone religion) with respect to the brain's workings, to draw any meaningful conclusions from these experiments.

Why? If you have stimulated in a subject a feeling/sensation that is also commonly associated with reported 'religious experiences', we can draw some sort of conclusions at least.


and now I'm off to bed as well, goodnight all

[danielf]

Originally posted by Ramrod
you could use that as an arguament to question the validity of any 'religious experience'

I'd say that's a fair point, though 'validity' is an odd word in this context.

It is a thorny one if you are prepared to accept that we can ask God to manifest his presence on the whim of a medic/scientist, at a given time and place. If you feel that the above is either ludicrous or beneath God, then you must accept that the phenomenon is (at least sometimes) man made and not divinely inspired.

The same would apply if personal memories could be triggered through 'induction'. I.e. is there a 'religious centre', or is someone reminded of religious experiences, or are you messing about with a poorly understood 'emotional centre'.

Why? If you have stimulated in a subject a feeling/sensation that is also commonly associated with reported 'religious experiences', we can draw some sort of conclusions at least.

Let's just say that you'd have difficulty publishing these results in peer reviewed journals whith 'religious experiences' in the title of the paper.

and now I'm off to bed as well, goodnight all

Pleasant dreams

[El Diablo]

Originally posted by Russ D


Wow, sounds like someone is trying to impose their beliefs on me....and we can't be having that now can we?

...And we can't be having that now, can we?!!