And while we're on the subject

Should you be interested in investigating psychic (not supernatural) matters, there are plenty of books available from Libraries etc.

Also from reputable mediums in Spritualst Churches. Always keep an open mind, and do not give information to people as you may be giving info that a genuine psychic would NOT welcome!

I have been a Spiritualist for many tears, having found that what I felt during my childhood, was bourne out by my personal experiences at a much later date!
I emphasise , it is essential to have an open mind. a closed mind learns nothing , whatever the subject!

There are a lot of fraudulent so called mystics / mediums around, so beware, and use your intelligence and gut reaction.
You can find genuine folk!
There are many things in this world which we do not understand.
For some, it may not be right for them to investigate yet.(closed minds -NOT directed at anyone, especially our Athiest friends!)

Now going back to the box to watch QI.

There are many triggers to mystic experiences. I think I may be accused of trivialising spiritual possession, and also great art, but looking at Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St Theresa" my impression is that she is dreaming of being impaled on the implement that the angel is wielding and she finds the experience orgasmic. The angel's expression could be interpreted as enjoying it too.

granny23 well said

If you hear voices that nobody else hears, you are psychotic, unless they are from God, and then you are a saint. I have also heard the theory that some saints who went into trances were, in fact, anorexics who had fasted themselves into madness.

Well, animals don't think about things [at least, I don't think they do] but they respond to things other than just cold or hunger or procreation]. Sometimes perhaps our powers of reasoning get in the way of our instinct [If that makes sense ].

There is a theory that Joan of Arc suffered from a tumour in a specific place in her brain.

I'm off now to watch the box - a few hundred years ago, or less, some people would have seen that as messages from above (or more likely from below)

Makes sense to me, Elegran - except I know my mystical experiences don't come from anything supernatural.

One definition of mystical is the belief that some things affect us through the spirit/unconscious/emotions whilst bypassing the intellect. A lot of psychotherapy is based on this idea. I suppose many people would consider Freud to be a quack.

Not to me, Elegran - it makes sense. Mysticism doesn't have to be connected to a religion.

greatnan Some music does that to me too. There are certain chords and phrases which go directly to the emotions, bypassing the logical part of the brain. They resonate somewhere.

I suspect mysticism is like beauty - it is in the eye (or brain connections) of the beholder. Maybe it is connected with the ability to put oneself into a trance, by self-hypnosis, consciously or unconsciously? Those who practice meditation can go deep into themselves. Perhaps the sensations of mysticism come from within the recesses of the mind? How they came to be there is open to interpretation - some might say they are intimations of an outside power, some that they are caused by our personal experiences (perhaps even in the womb, who knows) I would favour the second explanation.

I hope that does not sound like psychobabble.

I am not clear what 'leaning to the mystical means'. Some pieces of music, and some beautiful views can raise the hairs on the back of my neck. Does that make me mystical? Or just a human being? Are people who believe in clairvoyants, astrologists and other quacks 'mystical' or just gullible?

Your comment makes me think you want things to remain mystical because the great advantage of mystique is that you can believe whatever you want to believe whether it is true or not.

Somwhat is the problem with making things cease to be mystical? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with increasing understanding?

Either you lean towards mystical, or you don't. I think your position is more than clear, Bags. That doesn't make mean your way is the only right way of looking at things. Nor does it mean that people who look at things differently do so because they are not educated.

So what's the problem with making things cease to be mystical? Isn't that what education is for?

I am a rational human being - I can live without mystical! There is still very much we don't know about the universe and ourselves. I wish they had spent as much researching the human mind as they spent on landing a man on the moon. Science is so exciting and mysterious - who needs religion?

Two thousand years ago, people found explanations for what they didn't understand. We do the same today - it's just that we find different things difficult. It is possible to rationalise all the mystical aspects of Christianity and I expect people take that as far as they need to until they feel comfortable with it. But if you rationalise the mystical too far, it ceases to be mystical. Quite a lot of what's in the Gospels relates back to the Old Testament/Jewish Bible in terms of fulfilling prophecies.

With regard to joining some group because we feel the need to belong - I joined Wirral Humanist group on purely practical grounds. We needed an organisation to lobby parliament about schools being forced to offer RE (and only RE before the introduction of the national curriculum.) I thought more could be done in a group than by individuals. The fact that I found many friendly and like-minded people (as I have here) was just a bonus.

Many religious leaders have claimed to be born of virgins - it stems from the total lack of understanding of the process of reproduction. Men, in their egos, thought that the man planted a homunculus, a tiny, complete human being, in the woman and she simply acted as an incubator. Therefore, if he was born of a virgin he had no earthly parentage.
Similarly, the ban on artificial contraception stems from the story of Onan, who 'spilt his seed on the ground' rather than impregnate his dead brother's widow, whose children would then have taken precedence over his existing chidren.
See, all that religious education did me some good (except I learnt all this by studying Christianity after I became an atheist. I thought it would be interesting to nail all the myths the nuns had taught me.)

Absolutely, Elegran!

The virgin birth does not really matter does it, it is not central to his teachings, only to those who codified them for the "organisation" that developed, which needed a coherent doctrine, with all the references to earlier Jewish prophecies in place and fulfilled. Neither does it matter if his earthly begetter was not even Joseph - in fact it would make him an even more remarkable success story. If he was married, his wife would have had to be either extremely long-suffering and patient, or part of his work - as Mary Magdalene was, which makes her a prime candidate.

As for the "Son of God" description, a non-conformist lay preacher who led the group where I went to Sunday School (a "mission" to a poor part of a city) said that we were all the children of God, and that Jesus was the supreme representative example of a Son of God and we should all model ourselves on him. No mystical bullshit, just matter-of-fact practical morality.

Jesus' brothers (and sisters) are referred to in the Gospels although I think the Romans explain this as meaning closest followers. I think many of the interpretations referred to above as being possibly upsetting to Christians would not be news to most churchgoers and would only upset anyone who interprets every word of the Bible literally. And if they can manage that, good luck to them! I can't find any reference to Mary's age either but as she was unmarried, it seems likely that she was in her early teens.

greatnan now we know where you got your sense of humour from.