Faith healing vs. modern medicine? (Moved from "Bible in a year" thread)

[Bilateral Entry]

Faith-healing or alternative healing is kind of hard to measure. It's almost always in conjunction with evidence based treatment and it's not all that uncommon for people to pull through even if their doctors are skeptical. Thus, it's hard to make a case that it was the prayer or alternative medicine aspect that cured the patient or whether it was natural with conventional healing. A true test would be the case of an amputee. If somebody's limb grew back miraculously due to prayer then that would be a very strong case for faith-based healing having some real world curative value. Faith does , however, offer patients some psychological positivity in a bad situation. It's been shown that having an optimistic state of mind does have some effect on accelerating the healing process ( but it doesn't cure cancer).

The term "faith" necessarily refers to the unproveable. If it was observable through evidence it wouldn't be called "faith" it would be called "science".

 

[Bilateral Entry]

Also, in my unabashed opinion, if you're looking for evidence to believe in God, you won't find it. Religion or spirituality starts where science stops. Faith is necessarily blind.

Having said all that, I believe in God. I have very spotty and far from convincing evidence that God (or my idea of what God is) exists, and that's enough for me. A little insane? Sure, but so what? I don't think we exist to be sane, I think we exist to be human. Our emotions are all pretty insane, if you think about it.

 

[Mole]

So children and trance have been correlated and therfore we define what the Bible means because we have found 2 things that are similiar. Maybe we should go back to school and relearn the difference between equals and similiar.

I don't get anything from that quote like you explained.

Chacun à son goût, or everyone to their taste.

The prefrontal cortex of children is not full grown so children are in a trance most of the time. This is why irrational religious beliefs are assiduously taught to children, because being in a trance, children believe what they are told.

And so the Jesuits tell us quite openly, Give me the child till the age of seven and I will show you the man.

 

[Lark]

Also, in my unabashed opinion, if you're looking for evidence to believe in God, you won't find it. Religion or spirituality starts where science stops. Faith is necessarily blind.

Having said all that, I believe in God. I have very spotty and far from convincing evidence that God (or my idea of what God is) exists, and that's enough for me. A little insane? Sure, but so what? I don't think we exist to be sane, I think we exist to be human. Our emotions are all pretty insane, if you think about it.

Any God that can be positively proven is no God, you need no more than the Geek Wisdom of Futurama, Hitchhikers Guide and that Star Trek in which they break through some cosmic barrier and meet a celestial being who wants a lift back into our dimension to know that.

I think there are proofs of God's existence, plural, and they change from time to time or are valid or invalidated but I think that's a seperate question to the existence of God per se.

There are secular and worldly versions of God, as a perrenial idea or universal ideal, collective unconscious, memetic idea, sociological construct or ancestral/species memory/chain of being and all those versions of God, none of them negative, are factual and do exist but for anyone believing in the supernatural will be too naturalistic an explanation of God.

 

[1487610420]

C'mon. That was asking questions in the same way Glenn Beck "just asks questions."


oh fuck, beat me to it

Wait... are you saying...

one shouldn't ask AGA whether or not she is a deranged sociopath using faith/god/religion as a bandage/crutch to cope with the distaste of shortsighted life choices and preaching that around the forum in a self-centered way to simply reinforce those self-serving beliefs, because that would be messed up?

Or ask/wonder why ANY religious debate is still allowed/endorsed on the forum?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Wait... are you saying...

one shouldn't ask AGA whether or not she is a deranged sociopath using faith/god/religion as a bandage/crutch to cope with the distaste of shortsighted life choices and preaching that around the forum in a self-centered way to simply reinforce those self-serving beliefs, because that would be messed up?

Or ask/wonder why ANY religious debate is still allowed/endorsed on the forum?

I am not a sociopath or deranged. I am quite healthy (comparatively ) and loving.

Mainly I wanted to say that I am not short-sighted. It's just that my vision often sees great possibilities which unfortunately, this world is not ready for.

Maybe it is failure on my part. Or maybe it is failure on their part.

No matter. I am happy in my own little corner of this universe. And if God is what makes and keeps me happy, why should I not have the right to speak that from my heart? After all, it is what we are commanded to do when we love God. And,

Those who are forgiven much, love much. And we want to spread the Good News.

 

[Poki]

As un religious as I am, I have a cross in the door of one car and a angel hanging from the rear view of another. It helps a couple people I know feel safe and sleep better at night because it means god is watching over me and will take care of me if something happens. I won't refuse an ambulance or any modern medicine or technology just as I won't refuse the idea that it is possible God may be up there helping heal me unknowingly as I walk through life. Healing me at times do to people in my life. The only thing I refuse is that God is not in control of my life, I am. I take responsibility for my actions just as I take credit. I may get help from others and god, but I work way to damn hard to give credit away like that. The only times I give credit away is to help build others confidence. It r7bs me the wrong way when someone tries realy hard and gives all the credit to god as if they are nothing. I dont like the thought of sokeone seeing themself as nothing. With that being said I don't take credit when it is not my doing, like miracles or coincidences. I have no issues with the "unknown".

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

From my experiences in non-traditional healing modalities, I think that there is a healing aspect to having an entire community believe a person is going to get better, and there is an important aspect of positive thinking in the individual that helps the healing process. Negativity and hopelessness are hard on the physical body.

There are also serious problems with the medical industry. I know someone who has had surgeries on his lungs after being assaulted. One side-effect has been excruciating pain and doctors were going to give him 100 injections to kill the nerve sensitivity around his ribs. He worked with an Alexander Technique body expert who realized he had muscles stuck between a couple of ribs. She popped them out, the pain has gone away, and he doesn't have to kill all of his nerves. There is a level of idiocy in the medical field that goes directly to pharmaceuticals and surgery.

The body can naturally heal itself on many levels, but it needs to be taken for what it is and not assumed to be the entire cure. Faith healing can become unethical when it makes assumptions about absolute cures based on a ritual or an idea without any accountability or measurements to verify its success. I support positive thinking about healing, support from one's family and community, but reject the arrogance of assuming a word or a ritual from someone can heal anything.

Taking a wholistic, comprehensive approach that leaves no stone unturned, while maintaining humility of thought and assumption, is the best philosophy I know to approach healing.

 

[1487610420]

I am not a sociopath or deranged. I am quite healthy (comparatively ) and loving.

Mainly I wanted to say that I am not short-sighted. It's just that my vision often sees great possibilities which unfortunately, this world is not ready for.

Maybe it is failure on my part. Or maybe it is failure on their part.

No matter. I am happy in my own little corner of this universe. And if God is what makes and keeps me happy, why should I not have the right to speak that from my heart? After all, it is what we are commanded to do when we love God. And,

Those who are forgiven much, love much. And we want to spread the Good News.

Great story, good for you.
The problem is when the corner is not enough, and the preaching turns into a pox. Example:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-and-current-events/80224-paris-shootings-city-centre-explosion-stade-de-france-post2560458.html#post2560458

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Great story, good for you.
The problem is when the corner is not enough, and the preaching turns into a pox. Example:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/politics-history-and-current-events/80224-paris-shootings-city-centre-explosion-stade-de-france-post2560458.html#post2560458

You are comparing my words here to a terrorist?

 

[Poki]

From my experiences in non-traditional healing modalities, I think that there is a healing aspect to having an entire community believe a person is going to get better, and there is an important aspect of positive thinking in the individual that helps the healing process. Negativity and hopelessness are hard on the physical body.

There are also serious problems with the medical industry. I know someone who has had surgeries on his lungs after being assaulted. One side-effect has been excruciating pain and doctors were going to give him 100 injections to kill the nerve sensitivity around his ribs. He worked with an Alexander Technique body expert who realized he had muscles stuck between a couple of ribs. She popped them out, the pain has gone away, and he doesn't have to kill all of his nerves. There is a level of idiocy in the medical field that goes directly to pharmaceuticals and surgery.

The body can naturally heal itself on many levels, but it needs to be taken for what it is and not assumed to be the entire cure. Faith healing can become unethical when it makes assumptions about absolute cures based on a ritual or an idea without any accountability or measurements to verify its success. I support positive thinking about healing, support from one's family and community, but reject the arrogance of assuming a word or a ritual from someone can heal anything.

Taking a wholistic, comprehensive approach that leaves no stone unturned, while maintaining humility of thought and assumption, is the best philosophy I know to approach healing.

Doctors like most other fields that require analysis and problem solving are out of reach price wise for the common person. A plumber in my area charges $167 an hour to find and diagnose an issue and that's cheap compared of a doctor. So we have "cheap solutions" that do nothing but fix the symptom.

I do know a chiropractor who has completely removed themself from insurance and takes standard $45 charge and for those who don't have money accepts food and other home made items. She lives in a normal house, drives a normal car, lives a normal life. Not some I a want a huge house, a fancy car, etc. She got into it to help people.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Doctors practice atheistic medicine, for the most part.

The treatments they use are lethal (x-rays, man-made chemicals, and cutting out body parts) while at the same time paying little time or respect to natural remedies God gives us to use, and commands us to use often.

Furthermore, doctors are condescending if you disagree with them. And they are usually only interested in becoming and staying rich.

All of these are reasons to not trust doctors, especially when you are fighting for your life.

Prayer is wonderful. But along with prayer is meditation and obedience. It takes all of these to manifest the Holy Spirit in a healing way.

There are a lot of blanket generalizations in that post.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There are a lot of blanket generalizations in that post.

If something happens most of the time, I write it as a statement.

Could I use qualifying terms like 'usually', 'often', or 'largely'? Yes, but that is unnecessary for the purpose of what my message was, which generally states that man-made medicine is bad and natural medicine is good.

Is that true 100% of the time? No. But I assume the cognition of my audience here understands that, and assumes it as a premise.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

When my patients follow my words and advice, they tend to do better than when they do not.

What I am seeing is very sad though. It is an evil epidemic of life being sabotaged because of what is becoming an insurmountable propaganda campaign against living life as God has proscribed for us. We as an nation (and it is becoming international because we influence so many other nations) are buying into the lies the false prophets of our time are telling us, and practically forcing down our throats in our own governments.

It is not me, Ivy, that is causing death. I am a mere reluctant witness to all that is unfolding before mine sad eyes.

This is irrelevant. The USA wasn't founded solely as a Christian nation, and please don't cite the mention of God in the Constitution as a counter-argument, because there was no common consensus or shared religion among the founders (some were Christian, some Unitarian, some Naturalists, et al.). If the USA were intended to be governed and built solely on narrow Christian ideals or dogma, then I think they would have made that more explicit in the founding documents; rather they left it vague to encompass multiple faiths and belief systems.

Also, I think your statement that the USA is influencing other nations to move toward secularism is backwards. If anything, I'd say we're one of the last industrialized/first world nations where such a debate still takes center-stage in politics. It seems the trend among many nations has been toward secularism, and we have followed suit, rather than influencing the rest of the world to embrace secularism.

 

[1487610420]

You are comparing my words here to a terrorist?

What are you talking about? It's a GOD LOVING human being, openly spreading his beliefs.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Also, I think your statement that the USA is influencing other nations to move toward secularism is backwards. If anything, I'd say we're one of the last industrialized/first world nations where such a debate still takes center-stage in politics. It seems the trend among many nations has been toward secularism, and we have followed suit, rather than influencing the rest of the world to embrace secularism.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was vague on purpose. I was not referring to secularism, per se. I speaking about something more specific, which I do not care to go into right now. But it falls under the umbrella of westernization and the *false* belief that America and the West have it all figured out, so the rest of the world better jump on board, or fail.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I do know an extremely successful ENTJ that was diagnosed with an illness where he was given less than a year to live. He had become religious in middle age and prayed about what to do. He engaged his physicians normally, but had the inspiration that a few common plants would be useful. He started a garden and mixed up a mixture daily to ingest. Within two years, he was completely healed, the doctors flabbergasted. That was 30 years ago.

I am not saying that modern medicine is wrong. I have seen great successes with it. But I wouldn't dismiss other possibilities. I have had too many doctors admit that they are mostly making educated guesses.

I feel it would be extremely arrogant to claim that modern medicine still has mountains of advances in the front and one day people will look back at many practices and think they were as crazy as using leeches......

I agree to an extent. I think there are people in the institution of modern medicine who have a tendency to automatically reject anything that can be perceived as "kooky" or "new age"

I think that ideally, doctors should look skeptically on any "alternative" treatment, but should not dismiss them without examination or consideration.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I was vague on purpose. I was not referring to secularism, per se. I speaking about something more specific, which I do not care to go into right now. But it falls under the umbrella of westernization and the *false* belief that America and the West have it all figured out, so the rest of the world better jump on board, or fail.

I didn't say you were vague, I was saying that the founders of the USA were intentionally vague when they made mention of God in founding documents. They didn't want to pigeonhole their new nation into a specific sect or denomination. This was necessary in a nation where catholics, quakers, jews, methodists, etc were going to be cooperating in the government.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I agree to an extent. I think there are people in the institution of modern medicine who have a tendency to automatically reject anything that can be perceived as "kooky" or "new age"

I think that ideally, doctors should look skeptically on any "alternative" treatment, but should not dismiss them without examination or consideration.

It is interesting though, that 'alternative' is not really an apt statement for what many of us on the fringes believe. Believing in natural medicine is more 'traditional'. If anything, 'alternative' it is the new, man-made medicine created within the last century, and even last half century. Allopathic is another word that can be used to describe modern man-made medicine.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

If something happens most of the time, I write it as a statement.

Could I use qualifying terms like 'usually', 'often', or 'largely'? Yes, but that is unnecessary for the purpose of what my message was, which generally states that man-made medicine is bad and natural medicine is good.

Is that true 100% of the time? No. But I assume the cognition of my audience here understands that, and assumes it as a premise.

There really is no distinction between "man-made" and "natural" except what distinction we make. All things come from nature in some form and at some level.

Yes, I agree that a good deal of prescription drugs may do more bad than good in the long run, but many "man-made" treatments and innovations have greatly increased both our lifespans and quality of living. Vaacination, pasteurization, sterilization techniques, and many more innovations that another more qualified person could probably list have arguably done more good than harm to society as a whole.

I understand you're not saying it's true 100% of the time, but you seem to be implying that natural > man-made more often than not. I'm not so sure of that.