Talk:Faith healing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Faith Healing in the Gospels

One thing I noticed in going through the acts of healing in the Gospel, such as the laying of hands to cure blindness, palsy, etc, is that there may actually a physiological basis to this. In all cases I examined, the acupuncture meridian for the symptomology presented was used, even by Jesus in many cases, as it describes fairly specifically how he touched them. It was not simply "laying of hands". Querying PubMed showed evidence and studies on the use of acupuncture, and acupressure, in treating or relieving symptoms in these cases. It's quite obvious "qi" and the meridian model is fundamentally flawed, but it is a crude approximation of physiological systems that's mostly accurate and reproducable.

The incidents in the gospel are generally more striking, but I don't think that necessarily makes *all* of them beyond the laws of physics, though some of them, such as Jesus's healing of a mother's possessed child over distance seem to be.

They may have been beyond our understanding of things for a long time, but the fact is this: touch can heal. Many of the physiological mechanisms responsible for acupressure/acupuncture have been found but it's not a full understanding.

I'm not saying this makes all the faith healing incidents mention on this page true. Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind.

But perhaps while some of the "faith healing" so famously noted in the gospel was of the "miracle" type, perhaps others simply reflected a greater understanding than our own in some areas of human physiology we have only begun to study in recent years.

" Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind."

I'd have to disagree, since the accounts in the Bible have been repeatedly demonstrated as unreliable or entirely fabricated by scientists, including archaeologists, biologists, etc. When presented with the overwhelming scientific consensus, most religious people cling to their own ideas despite their merit or lack thereof. To pretend that storied written decades and centuries after the fact with no collaborating evidence or reports supporting they occured are valid in determining anything about the medical/physiological knowledge of the period is to go completely on faith without anything validating the claims. It's like making stories about Atlantis or Big foot. 16:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Fathermithras

"Christian faith is based on merit; ie, evidence. It is not blind." It is not based on evidence. It is, as you say, faith. You could have faith that a tomato is god, that doesn't make it so. I believe that the article is as neutral as possible - you won't be able to please both sides.

This article seems to be NPOV. Why is it tagged? Please remove the tag or post here what you believe needs to be corrected.--81.157.100.112 16:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate Christian faith healing from other types?

I think that 'Christian faith healing' should be a separate topic from secular views. CowboyWisdom 00:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, since there is so much material, both biblical and related to modern healing in the charismatic movement etc. David L Rattigan 09:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be such an article on Christian divine healing. Good places to start in researching the History of this phenomenon would be Ronald Kydd's book as well the The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements published by Zondervan. The next issue would relate to various theologies of Christian healing. Its a much needed article!--Loudguy 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree - there should be a divine healing section. 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.254 (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit and NPOV

The logic of my edit was 1) The word famous doesn't add anything and is very arguable 2) Saying the person "had the gift of healing"presumes that such a gift exists and so is not NPOV as opposed to stating the person was reported to have the gift which is NPV 3) Regarding Holos- Holos isn't a well known example at all and I don't see what having that sentence there really accomplishes. JoshuaZ 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I failed at reading the diff correctly. My apologies. I've undone my change. -- BillWeiss | Talk 22:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faithhealers.gif

Image:Faithhealers.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Do statements like "It's a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological" really belong in an encyclopaedia? I'm sure the proponents of "faith healing" believe that statement and it is perfectly reasonable to mention that. However it would be absurd to consider neutrality nothing more than the average view of the interested parties. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that many people believe in all sorts of ideas that are demonstrably false or not disprovable. To state _demonstrable fallacies_ or statements that are not disprovable as fact in an encyclopaedia purely because some people believe them is clearly absurd.

I have accordingly modified the sentence in question to "It is _purportedly_ a supernatural manifestation that brings healing and deliverance from all kinds of diseases whether organic, functional, or psychological."

41.241.44.16 09:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a number of lines in the criticism section that seemed to serve no other purpose than to deflect criticism from the New Thought movement. The lines feel like they're pushing an agenda: "It's ok to have a go at christian religious healers - but not new thought ones." I will make some small changes to the paragraphs to make the criticisms sound less "all-encompassing". As not every criticism is true in every instance across different belief systems anyway.Petemyers (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New Thought (mental healing)

Maybe this should have its own artical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.67.165 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Added cleanup template. Lots of grammatical and agreement errors. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.119.127 (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to clean up, not just grammar but formatting and POV, but I think I give up, because the structure is so terrible. People seem to have been adding their favorite sections without any regard at all for the overall Table of Contents. An "In the United States" here, a "Theology" there... a bit about how New Thought Healing differs from faith healing in Christian Science, before Christian Science itself is introduced... The topic is very well-deserving of an article, but this article is quite incoherent. Bishonen | talk 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

New Thought to be separated from Chistian?

I belive Spiritual Mind Treatment should have it own artical. It fits here to a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the grammar in the New Thought section and added one reference. I have also moved the entire Christian section (formerly titled "Backhround") under "Belief Systems", with sub-sub-heads for denominational variations.

I also agree with JGG59 that Spiritual Mind Treatment should get its own artcle, retaining the use of the word here too, of course.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 00:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did a lot of cleaning up. Unless someone can cite the material, I'll eliminate most of the rest of the uncited parts of the article (in a few days), and just leave the headings. The article needs a new lead, but before I know if someone is going to cite the material, there is no reason to write it. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Took out the rest of the the uncited material, except that which another user is edit warring to keep in. Seems to be a COI problem there. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've continued doing a lot of cleaning up in this article, it seems riddled with POV: christian; new age; and skeptic... and also includes nonsense sentences like: "In both cases the patient experiences a real reduction in perceived symptomatology, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred." Symptomatology is the study of symptoms, I will look through the article and try and clean up further errors like this.Petemyers (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Leroy Jenkins

Yes, it's the name of a World of Warcraft meme. He was also a faith healer. A google search shows several hits about him. While I know that's not a proper reference, I'm fairly sure that Randi's book The Faith Healers mentions him. If I can find my copy, I'll add a reference.

Ok, it's better than nothing: Amazon.com: The Faith Healers lists "Leroy Jenkins" as a key capitalized phrase. The book came out before the WoW thing. -- BillWeiss | Talk 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Having lived in South Carolina at the time, I can attest that the LeRoy Jenkins scandal saturated the local news media for months. Now, three decades later, there unfortunately seems to be very little information on this subject available online, other than perhaps informal bulletin board discussions posted by people who presumably lived during that era.

If a historical news event is not "sufficiently" sourced -- I've noticed that online content containing news events that occurred prior to about 1985-1990 tends to be rare -- does that mean that the information needs to be deleted (even if possibly thousands or millions of television viewers who personally witnessed the story unfold on the evening news can vouch for it's accuracy)? I would hope not.

One source that I found is a copy of a 1980 Penthouse magazine article -- presumably still under copyright protection until the copyright term (if not renewed) would be set to expire on 31December2008.

http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/pent1.html

I did not post this link in the main article because I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy of allowing linking to seemingly-bootleg webpages of old magazine and newspaper articles. Since I assume that decades-old news stories have near-zero commercial value, I think it's unlikely that the publisher would be very upset if someone scanned and OCR'd an ancient and obscure news article of theirs and posted it online. (I believe that the vast majority of copyrighted material is not renewed for a second term.) Although linking to web pages with copyright-infringing material may be illegal, it's often difficult to know the exact copyright status of many small items.

Perhaps fortunately in this case, a lot of men have a strange habit of keeping old issues of Playboy and Penthouse magazines forever (often tucked away in remote areas of their house where their wives are unlikely to ever look) so any current-events articles appearing in girlie mags could be expected more likely to survive and later re-emerge than something printed in a small-town newspaper.

I reversed "citation cop" Martinphi's edits. I don't mind seeing [citation needed] tags, but I think it's inappropriate to delete half the article -- claiming lack of references. Many Wikipedia articles were written before numbered footnotes were supported or came into common use, and items often were sourced exclusively via the external links instead of numbered footnotes - and these important reference links often tend to vanish through multiple edits. Please, let's add references instead, and try to only delete things that are categorically untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.99.202 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that Martinphi is working against the best interrsts of Wikipedia by deleting low-traffic material simply because it was written before wiki standards changed. I suggest that Martinphi spend time doing some research rather than taking down previously written work. cat Catherineyronwode 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I'm fine leaving it up a while. But it does need to be cited, and I think especially in articles on subjects such as this, we need very firm citation. It's best to add material gradually, with citation. So I'll leave it up for a week or two, and if no one decides it's worth the work, I'll come back and delete it again. I dunno, maybe the rules on citation changed in the past. But we do have a citation requirement now, and articles -especially articles like this- should be re-done if necessary to comply with it:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references.

That's from WP:V, emphasis added. So anyway, I'll give it a little while, and see what evolves. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, i noticed that you took out antagonistic paragraphs that had remained unverified and uncited for one month and two months, respectively. This seems fair to me. Rather than lose them, i have kept them with the article, but "commented out" (invisible except to editors) so that they can be restored if anyone does care to find a verifiable reference source for these statements. I noticed that one of the critical comments had then been moved (duplicated) from the criticism section to the lead paragraph by the editor ScienceApologist; this is not proper editing for any article. Imagine a racist being allowed to add hate-speech in the lead paragraph of an article describing people whose skin colour he disliked, or a Luddite being allowed to post a rant about automobiles being evil in the lead paragraph of an article on cars. This article already has a "Critical opposition" section, and that is sufficient. It is up to those who are critics to write that section in a verifiable and well-sourced manner. They cannot come along and expect to grafitti-tag the lead section with oppositional claims. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can. The lead reflects the article. And all notable points of view should be in the article. So, if it's notable enough for a section in the article, it's notable enough for the lead. But it shouldn't be just copied over. BTW- we aren't interested in anyone's feelings. We just repeat what the sources say, in encyclopedic language. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead reflects the article and the article is about a religious topic. Articles on religion and belief are not to be slagged by religion-haters in the lead. That dos NOT "reflect the article" -- it merely allows haters to steal the lead. I, for one, will not put up with it. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the article is about. The lead has what the article has. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "The lead is what the article has" has little meaning at Wikipedia, where all is flux and change. Earlier you wrote,, "The lead reflects the article." That makes a lot more sense to me, because, since the article is about a religious topic, the lead should reflect that religious topic. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Psychic Surgery links

I have removed all links on the page that led to the article on psychic surgery (and vice versa on the psychic surgey page). The two topics are not related. Psychic surgery is a form of medical fraud that employs sleight of hand to visually convince a patient that a "surgery" has taken place. Faith healing is a religious experience on the part of the patient that does not employ sleight of hand.

The attempt to force psychic surgery to be a subset of faith healing (as was claimed prior to my removal of the link) is an obvious POV-pushing ploy on the part of anti-religious editors who regularly patrol any pages that deal with spirituality and festoon them with Skeptical Inquirer, forteana, Skeptic's Dictionary, James Randi, and other in-text links and see-also tags.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a helpful point Catherine, that's why I've added the section on theological skepticism, as it seems there is a tendency to create a false antithesis in topics like this between the more fantastical and the rational. There are religious people, who don't necessarily buy into the extraordinary, and so for neutrality it's important to reflect that. I know there are some who would like to think that all religious people believe anything that sounds unusual or outlandish.Petemyers (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Skepticism will have to be placed in the article"

As long as there are people practicing faith healing who promote the idea that there are fundamentally observable phenomena unexplained by the scientific method then skepticism will have to be placed in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Skepticism already has found a place in the article, in the section titled "Critical opposiition." There are also several unsourced claims in that section which have been commented out until such time as you or someone who feels strongly about the subject will do the work of finding a source that verifies them. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Rational Skepticism tag from this page. The article is not about Rational Skeptisicim, and in fact, Rational Skepticism is opposed to all that this article describes. Tagging this page for inclusion under Rational Skepticism is akin to tagging The Peace and Freedom Party for inclusion under Libertarianism or tagging the Pacificm article for inclusion under Military History.

It's there because they have an interest in it. I put it back. It's not up to you to decide this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi - it's "not up to you to decide this" either. You can't just assert that they have an interest in it. When I read your comment I had no idea why you made that assertion, and therefore whether it was valid or not. For reference on this, the Rational Skepticism Project states this as part of their project aims: "Dedicated to creating and adding to articles related to science and philosophy, while checking the POV currently present in various Wikipedia articles dealing with such topics as psychics, magick, "alternative" medicines, etc.", and in their goals, they explicitly list adding to criticism sections. So I do think you're right that they have an interest in this article, from their stated goals. But please do remember to cite sources even in talk pages, for the sake of other users :)Petemyers (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also things in this criticism section that need to be sorted out. For example, the placebo effect is not a logical criticism, it is an alternative scientific explanation of faith healing. post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical criticism - because it is suggesting that people feeling better are coincident with the experience of going to the faith healer - and there is no logical consequence from the latter to the former. So the two issues do belong in the criticism section, but not together. The current paragraph is misleading. Petemyers (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading to "Alternative explanations", which seems to deal with my criticism in the paragraph above.Petemyers (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New Thought Movement Reference

I would like to move the information about solo practice to this section, but feel that my familiarity with the subject is insufficient to provide a citation. Rather than fact-tag my own edit, I am proposing that the following sentence, "Spiritual mind treatment connects thoughts and state of mind to physical well being, and may be performed solo or with the aid of a practitioner," be placed in the New Thought subsection between the first and second sentences (as of this writing). Eldereft (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention; i emphatically do not wish to see the information moved and i have added a reference that supports it in its present place, namely the 1902 book "Experiences in Self-Healing" by the famed New Thought author, editor, and publisher Elizabeth Towne, which is currently in print. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I have duplicated the reference into the New Thought subsection, as practices distinguishing its methods from other forms of faith healing should certainly be present in its description.

I understand the point that not all faith healers are necessarily the same, and appreciate the current wording which acknowledges that lack of a recipient for "gratitude, confidence and money" obviates only one of the criticisms levied at faith healing in general. However, the sentence under Criticism excepting New Thought faith healing from abuse by charlatans breaks the flow of the section. Moving it after the Randi sentences allows for a complete presentation of the huckster case. Such language might also be appropriate after the public health section if there are other exceptional rebuttals to be made. Eldereft (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Eldereft, for correcting my typos. I am visually impaired and wiki has no spell checker, so i often cannot see the typos until i see the finished page (that's why so many of my edits have the comment "typo patrol). In this case, i was editin and someone came into my office, si i just hit "submit" and let it fly, typos and all. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New Section Added to Criticism of Faith Healing, some edits and suggestions

There are a number of different areas of criticism of faith healing and faith healing movements that the current article does not address. I added one... the theological criticism of Christian faith healers by other Christians.Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Another area of criticism would include the lack of integrity exhibited by some faith healers has put them in bad standing with the Christian church, and therefore raised skepticism (e.g. Leroy Jenkins), and this could *possibly* include information about *alleged* lack of integrity exhibited by some faith healers, for example Benny Hinn... it's worth pointing out, that allegations against him were only *alleged*, and they haven't been proven - however - the fact that the controversy existed has been a cause for disenchantment among some about faith healing, and so might reasonably find a place in this article. Such an edit would require very careful wording so as to avoid criticism of slander.Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This line from the section on criticism is unreferenced: "This objection to faith healing is not applicable to the way the method is used in Spiritualism or the New Thought Movement, for both of those religions encourage patients to combine conventional medicine with faith healing." So I will comment it out until we find one. Especially as, I have some Spiritualist friends who have forgone medical treatment on the basis of their beliefs, and so it doesn't even stand up anecdotally. If someone finds a reference to cite - then stick it back in!Petemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Topics not covered, that could be legitimately in this article

Islamic faith healing; Reiki/Buddhist faith healing; Jewish faith healing; Hindu faith healingPetemyers (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding to the list...
1. the distinction between faith healing and, say, simply advocating that a patient maintain a positive attitude. I wouldn't, but some might argue that the fact that there is such a close connection (apparently) between a positive outlook and a healthy immune system shows evidence of a "spiritual" connection, built-in. That needn't imply the existence of a god, but it does become something of a challenge to explain where faith healing would be distinct from a doctor telling a patient that worrying about symptoms will only make them worse.

2. maybe some reference to the connection between faith healing and "televangelists"? Some fairly high-profile (for better or worse) people on TV include segments where they pray for various people, and even read prayers for healing sent in by others. Heck, some of these people have run for president; whether Pat Robertson's lack of political success is poor evidence of the power of prayer or not, I leave to others to decide. But he and others to engage in what could legitimately be called attempts to marshall spiritual forces for medical purposes.

C d h (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Science

I have reverted non-encyclopedic additions to this section a number of times over the last month or two. I would like to make it clear that this is not due to some perceived unassailably high quality of this section - far from it - but merely an insistence that any additions actually add content. Semantically void promotionalism (of a denomination or a website) and in-sect jargon are not progress towards a better article. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to remove the section altogether, at least until someone can draw up a NPOV draft before re-inserting it. The wording is the the main issue, with improper nouns such as "Him" being capitalized upon. If Christian Science is to be included in the article, then it needs to be a clear, accurate, referenced definition stating what Christian Science is, and not express any opinions or viewpoints straying from the referenced material, nor any subtle POV injections like the aforementioned weasel wording. 74.242.121.18 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be nice. It is mildly embarrassing to have this article lacking one of the most well-established and well known denominations with faith healing as a central tenet. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The section was removed under pretense of Wiki policy. Reverting edits on the basis of personal opinion about the subject itself is POV. 65.6.50.44 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian science isn't part of Christianity and should be under a separate sub-subheading. Same with the Latter-Day Saints btw.76.75.112.185 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Faith Healing Miracles Attributed to Father Damien

There have been some interesting developements in the Father Damien miracle case documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien Current practices and standards. My Personal Savior (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "gaffin" :
  • ''Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit'' by [[Richard Gaffin]], 1979. ISBN 0-87552-269-6
  • {{cite book | last = Gaffin | first = Richard | authorlink = Richard Gaffin | title = Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit | publisher = Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company | date = 1979 | location = Phillipsburg, New Jersey | pages = 113-114 | isbn = 0-87552-269-6}}
  • {{cite book | last = Gaffin | first = Richard | authorlink = Richard Gaffin | title = Perspectives on Pentecost: New Testament Teaching on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit | publisher = Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company | date = 1979 | location = Phillipsburg, New Jersey | pages = 114 | isbn = 0-87552-269-6}}
• "carson" :
  • {{cite book | last = Carson | first = Don | authorlink = Don Carson | title = Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 | publisher = Baker Book House | date = 1987 | location = Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 | pages = 156 | isbn = 0-8010-2521-4}}
  • {{cite book | last = Carson | first = Don | authorlink = Don Carson | title = Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 | publisher = Baker Book House | date = 1987 | location = Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 | pages = 174-175 | isbn = 0-8010-2521-4}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God, Rick Joyner, and Thomas Muthee

Re Wasilla Assembly of God, Thomas Muthee, and Rick Joyner - I have extensively referenced the material (there are over sixty citations I put in the Wasilla Assembly of God article..., for each sentence, one sentence at a time). The information in the short addition I put in is directly from those Wikipedia articles I that I wrote. Linking to the Wikipedia articles provides more information, and takes up less space, than putting it all here again. Thanks.Tautologist (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very good that it is cited at another article, but we also need citations in this article. Please add citations here as well. Thanks, Madman (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... it's so hard to be lazy around here with all the madmen. By the way, which one is pumpkinhead on your user page (and you should delete my comment there). Tautologist (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

: ) Madman (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Was that a smiley face, or a unibrow with a blank expression (i.e., are you left handed, or right handed?). (By the way, I used to teach the clown class for Cirque du Solei.) Cheers. Tautologist (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to take a class like that. I could learn a lot!

Regarding the citations, I think it's a bot overboard now, and there appears to be an error message on one of them. Could you look into that?? Madman (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Wow, this page is one of the most pathetic excuses for "neutrality" I have ever seen. Unfortunately, I do not know how to add the NPOV tag, so I will settle with this comment. 12.157.121.7 (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this needed?

Is the section on US law needed? It is only one country, doesn't really make sense and is not in an encyclopedic style. It also seems to lack relevance Fahrenheit 15:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be significantly better if it covered more countries - that is why we have {{globalize}}. As for relevance, consider it in the same light as Morphine#Legal classification - once the article has established what faith healing is, it explores various aspects of how it has been received by various aspects of society. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But the thing is, it doesn't read well or really give much information on the subject. I can understand why a legal section on the article would be useful, yet this doesn't seem to be Fahrenheit 16:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Then edit the section to improve the readability and/or add more information about the law in other countries, but do not just delete properly sourced information. Andraste8888 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Should "Spiritual Healing redirects here" send users to Shamanism page instead?

A search for Spiritual Healing gives the user this page on Faith Healing. Instead of "Faith healing" it seems more accurate to redirect users to the page on Shamanism which includes similar concepts. In the Spiritualism section there is the text "Spiritualists may combine faith healing with..." but that seems to be misleading as well since it fails to refer to any similarity with Shamanic techniques. Is it better to change the redirect or modify the Spiritualism section? Adrian-from-london (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

actor Dennis Quaid quote

Saw this quote and thought I'd park it here in case anyone wants to use it in the future. The article was about his infant twins twice incorrectly being given 1,000 times the correct dose of the blood-thinner heparin in the hospital. 5Q5 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Though Quaid wanted the crisis kept quiet, news leaked fast. "That may have been a blessing in disguise," he says, "because a lot of people told us later they were praying for our babies. In the end, I believe that the power of prayer from so many is what saved them. It's obvious to me that a higher power in the universe is controlling what's going on."

— AARP: The Magazine, Sep/Oct 2010, "Dennis Quaid's Quest" by Meg Grant, pg 50, AARP, Washington, DC ISSN-1541-9894

Rename this page to "Faith and spiritual healing"?

Now that this page has separate sections for faith and spiritual healing I think it should be renamed. These are different topics (as noted by secondary sources) and I'd like Wikipedia to reflect this - your comments are appreciated.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree I would not support a renaming since Adrian's arguments for a distinction between faith healing and spiritual healing seem to revolve around the fact that spiritual healers don't conform to the major (or any) religion. I'm afraid that doesn't cut much ice with me, since spiritual healers still presumeably have "faith" that their interventions work and are based on belief. I see what you're getting at, but that distinction is far too fine to warrant a separate article or a overly-wordy title. The current format, with a separate section would seem more than appropriate. In addition, your proposed title "faith and spiritual healing" is ambiguously worded. An unambiguous title would be "Faith healing and spiritual healing". Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree

It is disconcerting to search for "Spiritual healing" and find myself at the "Faith healing" article. Were I unfamiliar with the two subjects, my immediate conclusion would be that they are the same. Reading the intro, I would be given a very wrong impression about what is intended by "Spiritual healing."

Famousdog said that, "spiritual healers still presumeably have "faith" that their interventions work and are based on belief." This could as easily be said about a surgeon attempting to remove a cancerous tumor.

Spiritual healing is more properly identified as energy healing or subtle energy healing and "spiritual" is the faith-based vernacular for that. The veracity of spiritual healing is historically based on anecdotal reports, but in more recent times, that understanding is being substantiated by controlled research.

The existence of some form of field is being supported by very well-repeated REG studies in which random processes are influenced by groups of people working in concert. There are a number of techniques developed for detecting changes in psychology of both healer and sitter, and others that show the effect of field influence on matter. There is growing empirical support for the characteristic of nonlocality, as often reported in distant healing.

I do not expect a Wikipedia article to include all of this, but it may be good to look beyond the traditional terminology and let the article reflect current trends in research. One thing that will need to be clear if this article is to be stable is that "spiritual healing" as you are using the term here is not based on faith or divine intervention. If it is described by the practitioner as "you have to have faith," then you are talking about a religion. But if it is described as an exchange of energy, then having faith is just an appeal to the psychic to help the sitter accept the possibility of help. That is the modality you find in most well-informed Spiritualist settings. We are still trying to teach a human to work with an invisible influence and it is regrettably helpful to appear to that sense of wonder. Tom Butler (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I like "Faith healing and spiritual healing"

What I've found during my work on the WP article is that even within the scientific community there may not always be an understanding of the distinction between faith and spiritual healing. Ernsts' "Primer of complementary and alternative medicine" here lists faith healing and intercessory prayer as types of spiritual healing, but at least makes the distinction that "and therapists of one group see themselves as distinct from other groups" - I like the title of "Faith healing and spiritual healing" as it makes a distinction between the two.

Further evidence that spiritual healing is poorly understood can be found in "Spiritual healing as a therapy for pain; Abbot, Harkness (2001)" here where they report that "Subjects in healing groups in both parts I (face-to-face) and II (distant healing) reported significantly more ‘unusual experiences’ during the sessions, but the clinical relevance of this is unclear" - I don't think prayer would have this effect. A more plausible explanation for this may be that the test subjects may have had a degree of psychic ability - highly speculative and difficult to prove using current technology. The implications of this as a cause of experimental bias in trials where "sham healers" are used in the control group seem clear.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding If it is described by the practitioner as "you have to have faith," then you are talking about a religion - not necessarily. It could also refer to the patients belief that the practitioner is competent in being able to provide safe treatment, valid for mainstream medicine as well as spiritual healing and not a religious context.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Faith healing can be tested using virtually the same protocol used for energy healing. What is actually being tested is whether or not subtle energy exists, if it can be directed, if it can cause a health effect and if intentionality plays a part.

The primary difference between faith and energy healing is that faith healing is based on the assumption that God or a saint will intervene on request. The only qualifications required for the person doing the praying is that he or she is sufficiently devout to gain the attention of the religious figure.

The energy healing practitioner is also required to be able to manage the energy. By that, I mean that wanting to heal someone or following the prescribed protocol does not assure success. As in any human endeavor, some people are simply better healers than others. Some people are energy healers and some just try. With that said, an energy healer is a person who prays in the sense that they might ask their inner helpers for help and they intend that their sitter is helped, but a person who just prays is not necessarily an energy healer. He or she is hoping for intervention, but may or may not be trained in energy management. If you think energy management is not a factor here, consider the tradition associated with Qigong and the management of Qi

There is some research indicating that the above is true, but I doubt that very much of it would pass the NPV or reliability standard and much may be original research. With that said, calling it "Faith healing and spiritual healing" is more defensible than just calling it "Faith healing" In fact, knowing that all of the research is going toward energy healing with little movement in support of prayer as an act of faith, it might be smarter to title the article "spiritual healing" and just give prayer a subheading. Your eye should be on a stable article compromise. Tom Butler (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom, a surgeon can point to recovery rates and statistic to demonstrate the effectiveness of his intervention therefore he does not need to have "faith" that it will work. You mention all this "evidence": I'm afraid I don't know what studies you're talking about. Why not add this evidence to the "scientific investigations" section of this page and if there is enough material to warrant a separate article then we'll go from there. How about beefing up the sections as they stand and then if there is enough material, we could create a separate page. However, I don't see how or why this cannot be treated in a subsection of either energy medicine or the current faith healing article. There is already a link to this page under the heading faith and spiritual healing (or something) on the energy (esotericism) page, so its not like anybody will be unable to find the information. Finally, Adrian, I also think your rationalising the results of scientific studies by speculating that the subjects were "psychic" says it all really. Now I'm even less convinced that this warrants a separate article! Famousdog (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Famousdog, your comment that "Now I'm even less convinced that this warrants a separate article!" is why I do not mind making the occasional minor edit in articles and offering a point of view in the talk page, but otherwise, I avoid getting involved. I have spent quite enough of my life attempting to work with the conservative editors in Wikipedia.

Both healing modalities are psych-based processes with intention as a major factor. There are no mainstream studies that have allowed for the influence of these physical factors except for how they pertain to mental disorder. The result is that, should you desire, you can ultimately reject every reference I can produce based on reliable source and original research rules. If you do not decide to, there are many other editors who will eventually come around to take control.

In the study of things paranormal and psi related (read fringe subject in Wiki talk), spiritual healing is a misnomer. It is more correctly identified as a form of psi functioning or intentional influence of subtle energy. It is being studied as a possible product of intention, while mainstream science, and therefore Wikipedia, can only address it as impossible, and therefore adherents must be considered delusional or at best, mislead.

For these reasons, I believe it is best to design the article to describe what these are thought to be without offering evidence that they are real. Once you offer evidence that they are anything more than folk art, then you are claiming they may be real and that is where the skeptics go off the deep end. I just do not have time for that. Tom Butler (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it to the capability of as yet unknown technology to prove that healing works (rather than relying on clinical trials) to then justify any attempt at splitting this article and be able to use the term "psychic" in a scientific discussion.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're waiting for a technology that hasn't been invented yet to prove the existence of something undetectable whose effects cannot be shown with a good old fashioned randomized clinical trial and are happy to put down any failure to find such an effect to psychic phenomena?! Please read Occam's razor before continuing this now completely ludicrous discussion. Note also that science doesn't "prove" (a laudable conservativism that is frequently used as a stick to beat it with). Finally, you don't have to "prove" the existence of healing energy to show that it works. You just have to do a statistical test on an adequately controlled exp and show that people get better. People, not cress seeds fingered by a friend of the authors. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What are the alternatives to a name change

April 2005, there was a vote to delete the article "Spiritual healing." With 12 editors, 5 said Delete, 2 said merge/redirect, 4 keeps/clean up and 1 said clean up but struck out his vote. Obviously, the judge decided to redirect.

User: Svest said Keep but "The article needs a major revision in order to focus on spiritual healing instead of Muslim spiritual healing." I can't find the article, but evidently it did not represent spiritual healing as is being discussed today. Had the article been salvaged rather than scuttled, it may well be what is needed today.

There have been two editors active in this article in recent times. They are Adrian-from-london and Famousdog . 2/0, I see you have been active in the recent past. As I understand it, Adrian made the change suggestion because there is a problem with how the information is able to be reasonably managed under the current title. For instance, he is clearly stating that the into line 1: "...evoke a divine presence and power toward correcting disease and disability." does not address spiritual healing.

Given the rules for these votes, I expect the change will not be accepted. This is at least the second time this issue has come up and it will again if spiritual healing is not more realistically represented. Either the "Spiritual healing" article needs to be reinstated with new content or the "Faith healing article needs to be given two personalities to accommodate the very different perspectives between the two subjects.

It seems that some of you are just dropping by and offering your opinion about what seems right without considering the consequences left to Adrian and Famousdog. Please take a moment to reconsider your votes. The two subjects are sufficiently different that the distinction needs to be made. If not with the name change, then perhaps other constructive suggestions rather than "they are the same." Tom Butler (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your comment about "Faith healing article needs to be given two personalities..." neatly summarises the problems WP: faces. Readers, new to the subject, who may read the article and assume "it's all faith healing", WP: for allowing the convenient use of language to take precedence over an accurate title for the article, and editors who may assume that it's OK to leave articles unfinished (why bother with an accurate title?). As Famousdog commented above:

In addition, your proposed title "faith and spiritual healing" is ambiguously worded. An unambiguous title would be "Faith healing and spiritual healing". Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

By default, spiritual healing is not related to any religion, so the term Areligious spiritual healing (from ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010) illustrates the need for an accurate title.

Creating a new spiritual healing article would be easy but extremely pointless: copy the existing content to a new article and delete all references to intercessory prayer. The result would be a stub article - and probably be deleted really soon afterwards. I would ask people who voted against the name change to review the secondary sourced material provided for spiritual healing looking for the term faith healing - perhaps fewer people will assume it's all faith healing.

A veto of the name change is likely to be as bad for readers who aren't likely to learn that there's a difference between Faith healing and Spiritual healing, as for WP: with the negative precedents for article titles and content.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I know little about faith healing except that it calls on God or a saint and the person asking for help is supposed to be "very religious." If you removed energy/spiritual healing from the article, I would think the Faith healing article would become the stub in some religious practices category.

Spiritual healing is practiced in many different forms that would/should be included in an article about spiritual healing while I would hesitate to include them in a faith healing article. For instance, RoHun therapy is a combination of counseling and energy work and might be legitimately listed in a spiritual healing article but makes no since in a faith healing article.

Spiritual healing has a history that includes such pioneers as Franz Mesmer (animal magnetism), James Braid (hypnotism) and even Dean Radin (Global Consciousness Project). The article should also include references to such peripheral subjects as medical clairvoyance The Girl with X-Ray Eyes and Kirlian photography

This is my point about informed voting on this subject. When compared to energy/spiritual healing, faith healing is pretty much just a kind of prayer. Tom Butler (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that Energy/spiritual healing again become a separate article. Tom's paragraph above provides evidence that the two healing protocols are vastly different. Other than trying to keep the Spiritual healing article from becoming a stub, I cannot see any rationale for combining the articles, much less combining the concepts in the title. Each article should contain a one- or two-liner defining the other protocol and a link to the other article. Energy/spiritual healing has entirely different and unique assumptions, as does Faith healing. Energy/spiritual healing deserves its own article. Trying to force the issue of having one article describing both, and titled that way, is almost like having one article entitled Chocolate flavor and Vanilla flavor. Yes, they're both flavors, but vastly different, almost diametrically. They taste different, are viewed differently by different people (some are even allergic to chocolate), and are made differently. Faith healing is already highly controversial among various groups. Adding in a healthy portion of Energy/spiritual healing, especially calling unusual attention to it via the article's title, can't help but make the pot boil over. There's no need to dilute two valid articles. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Make a page Spiritual healing and link to it from here, Energy medicine and Energy (esotericism). I wouldn't expect an easy ride though! Some of the "energy" crowd are impossible to please. Famousdog (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started a spiritual healing article on a subpage in my user page. It's a draft so I'm not aiming to please anyone yet. Adrian-from-london (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that your draft article should be developed and used for the spiritual healing article. Tom Butler (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your draft looks like a good basis for a separate article, but I would add that when we create the page we really need to remove all of that stuff from the faith healing article to avoid replication, and provide a top link to spiritual healing. Famousdog (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Faith healing → Faith healing and spiritual healing — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC) This page now covers both topics (please see item 27 on the faith healing talk page). Adrian-from-london (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree Spiritual healing is currently redirected to the Faith healing page. Since the Spiritual healing section is substantial and the opening section does not address the differences, both the title and the opening section needs to be designed to accommodate the two perspectives. Tom Butler (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

How about Faith and spiritual healing since it doesn't use the world healing twice? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Faith and spiritual healing may seem correct from a grammatical point of view, the subjects are separate, as in

faith healing and spiritual healing. In a few words, Faith healing is praying "Dear (God) my friend is ill, please make him better". Spiritual healing is: asking (nobody in particular) for some (healing energy) which I can channel into someone to try and make them better. I'm still supporting Faith healing and spiritual healing.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are so separate that they would require repeating the word they have in common twice, then the article should be split, not renamed. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; it's all "faith healing" to the layman. Powers ^T 17:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the reason Wikipedia exists is to help people understand about things and ideas. If it is all the same to you, then that seems to be an important reason to explain the differences. Tom Butler (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

By all means, but that's a task for the article content, not the title. Titling the article in a way that appears redundant, as the current proposal does to the average reader, will only confuse them. Powers ^T 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title may appear redundant but faith healing and spiritual healing are significantly different and the title should focus on that to avoid confusing the reader. Faith healing is about religion, spiritual healing isn't.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If they're different enough to need both called out in the title, then they should be covered in separate articles. If they can be covered in just one article, then they need only one title. Powers ^T 01:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose.

Ency Britannica, for example, has only one article entitled "Faith Healing" and, like Wiki, redirects Spiritual Healing to Faith Healing. Re: Adrian-from-London's argument. If one has no faith in the possibility of healing, it is highly unlikely that person will try to invoke any kind of spiritual healing. Here is the definition from EB:

"Faith healing: recourse to divine power to cure mental or physical disabilities, either in conjunction with orthodox medical care or in place of it. Often an intermediary is involved, whose intercession may be all-important in effecting the desired cure. Sometimes the faith may reside in a particular place, which then becomes the focus of pilgrimages for the sufferers.

By definition, faith is "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Adrian-from-london, this is why I spoke to you about distinguishing spiritual healing from faith healing by calling spiritual healing "energy healing." The old references like encyclopedias are so far out of date and so conservative that they may never be able to embrace current thought. Take a look at IONS. That is just one group studying possible healing benefits of intentionality. In psi studies, intentionality is thought to be a means with which subtle energy is directed. To make this other than just another form of superstition, one must look at the studies involving psi functioning and field energy as detected with REG studies The Global Consciousness Project and Psi as a multilevel process : Semantic Fields Theory

AFA, you said, "By definition, faith is "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof." I accept that definition for faith healing. The subject here is that there is also what Adrian refers to as spiritual healing, which is a catch-all term for all of the various forms of energy healing, both traditional and clinical.

It is not because these are valid forms of healing. It is because the public is widely aware of these studies and the New Age Community has embraced the concept. The objective would seem to be to address the request for information WIki visitor might have when they search for alternative forms of healing. As did E-Britannica, Wikipedia is telling only part of the story with the current article. Tom Butler (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This works better as one title covering the several aspects of the single topic rather than trying to separate them. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

2over0, your comment (...single topic...) illustrates just how poorly people understand these topics - while faith healing and spiritual healing are both methods of seeking treatment, they are about as related as renal surgery is to psychiatry. From the article: "unlike faith healing, advocates of spiritual healing make no attempt to seek divine intervention."

AFA, you mention: faith is "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something" and indeed faith healing involves a religious belief, something that atheists and those who regard themselves as spiritual but not religious would consider significantly different from spiritual healing.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that we don't have an article called "renal surgery and psychiatry". Powers ^T 22:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

→Adrian-from-london, I think spiritual but not religious is like splitting hairs. The definition of faith includes "belief in...someTHING." Seems that would include atheists, even if their belief is in themselves. Areligious spiritual healing requires a belief that their Spiritual Healing will take place when one learns to control their own internal organs and internal energies to heal themselves from within. Mind over matter or whatever, it still requires faith (belief, trust) that it will work or no one would even try it in the first place. The only difference I see is a matter of attribution: who or what made it work, when it works. Even going to a physician requires faith in medical science, or else no one would go to the trouble and expense to seek it. And then there's all the science of placebos when sometimes they work as well as pharmacology. It's still faith, in this case in the pill. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying it is okay to include internal medicine, cardiology and such in this article? Tom Butler (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

AFA Prof01: spiritual but not religious is used to describe a belief in a lifestyle having the spirituality of a religion using the Ten Commandments strictly as a set of ethical principles while not having a belief in any God. Faith in this context cannot be compared to faith healing since SBNR would only recognise spiritual healing - a phrase used to describe something SBNR would consider as distinctly different from faith healing. The definition of the term areligious spiritual healing isn't even relevant since spiritual healing is believed to work because another person, the healer (without reference to any religion) seeks to channel some form of healing energy into the patient.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I've changed my mind on this one I'm afraid as per the discussion above. Personally, I don't think that the fact that spiritual healers don't consider themselves part of "organised religion" and ask for divine intervention justifies an overly wordy title or a split. Spiritual healers, in the absence of evidence, presumeably have to have "faith" that their ministrations will have beneficial effects. There is nothing here that can't be dealt with in a separate section on "spiritual healing" as is currently the case. To summarise: Myself, AFA_Prof01, Powers, 2over0 and (tentatively) WikiDonn are in opposition. Adrian-from-london and Tom_Butler are supportive. Famousdog (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word faith can be used in both a religious and a secular basis and that's what seems to be happening here. As you say Famousdog, healers...have to have (secular?) "faith" or confidence in their ability. For readers there is the confusing association with (religious) faith as in faith healing.

On 17th September 22:49 I added a reference to Benors' analysis of spiritual healing trials to the Faith healing article. User 2over0 suggested on his talk page on 19th September 7:11 that a replacement article should be used, Intercessory Prayer - a classic misunderstanding (also seen in Ency. Brittanica) of the difference between faith healing and spiritual healing and a good example of why the current title is unsuitable.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be for a separate article, please see the spiritual healing subpage on my user page - your comments are welcome.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Opppose, per Powers above. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New article to replace Spiritual healing redirect on Faith healing page

Hi,

I think my spiritual healing article User:Adrian-from-london/spiritual healing is now suitable for publication - please can I have your comments.

On the faith healing page there's "spiritual healing redirects here" - how do I replace the redirect with my article - there's "(Redirected from Spiritual healing)". Could I just edit that page or is it better to start with a new page and edit history?

(There's also an absent healing page which I've edited and it's now a #redirect to spiritual healing.)

Thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, I think what you've done is quite good. I'm eager to see your Lead. Starting it with "Faith healing" is not a good idea. The first sentence, according to WP:LEAD should include the article title in boldface type. I appreciate the fact that your draft article does not "slam" faith healing. I'm glad you created a separate article. It's better for both perspectives. After you create your lead and get some feedback, I think you're ready to move it to active article status. As has been suggested earlier, please leave no more about spiritual healing in the faith healing article than vice versa. Good job! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would make the current 'Introduction' section the lead (although it needs a comment about the relative paucity of scientific evidence for efficacy) and rename the 'Spiritual healing' section as 'Introduction'. Famousdog (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the sections as Famousdog has suggested. Regarding the comment about "relative lack of scientific evidence for efficacy" - I've quoted the result statistics of Cochrane reviews rather than the summaries in an attempt to eliminate experimenter bias towards efficacy. Edzard Ernst wrote that about half of the trials were effective. It's the emphasis on a specific proportion of test results that I prefer, not a vaguely worded summary which can be open to different interpretations depending on the readers point of view. I've added a comment about concerns about a lack of good quality data which is probably enough for the lead section, considering that there's the scientific investigations section.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement about the proportion of positive results was ambiguously worded, so I've changed it. I also removed a dead link. If you can find that paper again, please add a new url. Famousdog (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, the statement "Unlike faith healing, advocates of spiritual healing make no attempt to seek divine intervention." is a bit abrupt. Please consider something like "Spiritual healing is in many ways similar to faith healing, the major difference being that advocates of spiritual healing make no attempt to seek divine intervention." ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth is all this material suddenly being moved to Biofield energy healing??? Who agreed to that? I thought this was going to be moved to spiritual healing in accordance with the above discussions. Famousdog (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for concord

Oh, what a can of worms we have here ! Please may I inject some simple common sense ? Our major problem is that different people use words like "Faith" and "Spiritual" in enormously different ways, even different brands of "Christians". So it is impossible to manage the current, highly variegated, content of this article in a way that will please everyone. (Or even a majority !)

I am an plain ordinary Christian. I have received major miraculous overnight healing for a steadily worsening medical condition simply by praying the way Jesus taught. (So I think I know something about "Faith" !) But I still have other medical problems for which I have not yet received the answer to prayer. (But Jesus made it clear that some problems require more prayer than others.)

I propose that each "set" of healing beliefs should have its own page, e.g: Christian; Spiritualist; New Thought; New Age; Biofields; Energy healing; etc, all being accessed from a central "Faith/Spiritual Healing" page which gives a brief overview of each system, and a link to each page. (I would even split Catholic from Protestant healing beliefs !) Then each system/movement can have its own page of description and criticisms, and you can all go home and sleep easy instead of all this interminable wrangling ! Darkman101 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to correct you on one point: spiritual healing / biofield energy healing is not related to any religious belief - Christianity, the Spiritualist religion or any other faith. As you've probably noticed there was some debate on this page about changing the page title. As a result of the consensus againt the change I created a separate page which covers that subject. Please feel free to browse that page and compare it with the religious beliefs and way in which faith healing is believed to work. Adrian-from-london (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(I forgot to add) Darkman101 please feel free to write a central "Faith Healing" page but once you've read the spiritual healing page (if I've done that page right) I hope you agree that spiritual healing doesn't belong on any faith healing page. Adrian-from-london (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your response. You have taken the term "spiritual healing", steam-rollered it into the ground, then totally re-interpreted the concept to fit in with your personal belief system of "Biofield energy healing". To which, from the revision history, I see you are the sole contributor ! You try to justify yourself by appealing to the NCCAM, but I have searched their website and the term "spiritual healing" is not even there !

You say," spiritual healing / biofield energy healing is not related to any religious belief", but you have included Shamanisn ! That most certainly is a religious belief system !

You say, "Shamanism can be considered an early form of Biofield energy healing", but where's the research to back that up ? That is nothing but your personal opinion ! I think most people (and most scientists) in the western world would consider Shamanism to be pure superstition !

It the last few decades there has been an explosion of traditional healing systems based on nothing but superstition !

You make yourself out to be oh so scientific, but in fact you are actively trying to support and justify superstition and witchcraft !

How can I say this gently and respectfully ? Isn't that utter hypocrisy ? Darkman101 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment noted, Biofield energy healing page updated to remove association with Shamanism.

Spiritual healing is a documented term for biofield energy healing - not "my personal belief system", as you put it - Macmillan Cancer Research and other publishers including scientists / doctors use this term. I'm not the only person involved in writing this article - please see the talk page. Adrian-from-london (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good reason for separating the two views. Current research for distant healing is showing measurable effects when visualization is employed with the intention to benefit the receiver while the sender is in a deep meditation--a trained healer. This mode of healing is certainly practiced in faith healing by some people, including shamans I expect, but faith healing is most often conducted by the faithful and not necessarily trained healers.

It is important to get past "it's all "faith healing" to the layman." as Powers so eloquently put it above. If I say "pray for him" and it does not work, then faith might be lost. If I say "visualize him, and in a deep meditative state, send him healing thoughts while asking God for help," then I have done due diligence as a teacher. The Faith healing article will likely never get past "pray for him", so it is necessary to separate the two.

Otherwise, your suggestion is a good one as long as faith and science are not confused. But please do not go off with religious indignation. It does not become your more rational opening. Tom Butler (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest a reliable source which documents these "measurable effects"? bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a new article. Biofield energy healing that has a number of such references. I would be interested in your comments. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this interesting discussion. I agree with Darkman that Adrian's definition of spiritual healing (like his definition of "secular") is, frankly, his own and that the scientific gloss that he is giving "biofield energy healing" is simply a cover for a belief system (albeit not a widely-shared one). At the same time I'm amused that Darkman sneers at "superstition" while admitting to being a proponent of a superstition that has simply become institutionalised. A plague on both your houses, I'm afraid. Bob, I've been asking Tom to provide some reliable documentation of these "measurable effects" for a while too. None has been forthcoming. Famousdog (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pantheistic and Pandeistic models

Other theological models offer equally valid accountings of faith healing. Pantheism would account for it as merely a function of the nature of the Universe itself. Pandeism would account for it as persons having whatever faith unwittingly manifesting the underlying unconscious power of the divine. Note that the pandeistic model provides a full accounting for such experiences amongst all faiths (for Christians, including Jesus himself, for Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, etc). DeistCosmos (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Do you have any RS and wordings that can be used in this article? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Firstly, a technicality: the article opens stating the 'Faith healing is the belief...'. However, isn't 'faith healing' the subject of which somebody believes IN, not the actual belief system of said subject? Should it therefore not be 'Faith healing is the process/act/etc which some adherents believe...'? Furthermore, if you are to leave it as 'belief', then 'according to adherents' is superfluous. I'd like to note that I do not believe in faith healing, but feel that this is a little biased against adherents. DanEdmonds (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a point: Divine Retribution, although a similar supernatural event, is not opened by 'is the belief that a deity will punish...'. It merely states the act or process, and then goes on to explain how many cultures/people choose to believe in this process. DanEdmonds (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding External Link to Personal Accounts of Faith Healing

I would like to add a personal link to "Faith Healing" which contains personal accounts of people who claim to have experienced faith healing. Two editors, McSly and JavaWeb, have repeatedly deleted this link claiming that it violates rules relating to links or is attempting to make the page into a yellow pages of sorts. My contention is that the page merely contains videos of people sharing their experiences in a powerful way. It could be very encouraging to someone researching faith healing.RichLindvall (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link: Personal Accounts of Faith Healing RichLindvall (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm against this link as described, I'm afraid. Reliable sources are supposed to be factual, not encouraging. And definitely not personal. Bishonen | talk 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

OK... so it's from iBethelTV, run by the Bethel Church? Are you offering that as a reliable source? Sorry, but I'm even more against it now. Show me a video which contains personal accounts of both successful and unsuccessful healing attempts and then we can talk. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen. WP:EL and WP:RS apply here. Faith healing has no factual base and therefore I don't see we should add a link to an advocacy site basically filled of examples of confirmation bias. --McSly (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser

• I have asked for the RichLindvall and 140.211.8.7 accounts to be compared at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RichLindvall, since the addition of the same external link by the IP is a bit suggestive. Bishonen | talk 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC).
• Connections between IPs and name accounts cannot be discussed here. Blocked per WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Derren Brown Documentary

Perhaps some mention should be made (in the 'fraud' section) about the recent British TV Documentary, where illusionist Derren Brown travel's to the United States with a fake 'faith healer', in an attempt to expose fraudulent 'healers'. The show is called 'Derren Brown: Miracles For Sale', from Channel 4. 82.132.248.134 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New study on spiritual intervention

Published here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21495524

I don't have access to the full text, but I inserted a brief blurb and reference in the scientific investigations section. Can someone with access to the fulltext article and more proficient with working in a wiki please polish up the summary a bit?

This is the most directly relevant study published on this topic in a while, and clearly needs to be included.

Thanks 128.249.1.194 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference Link is not valid

The American Cancer Society Reference #3 link does not contain the referenced quote regarding the claim that the Catholic Church's study of Lourdes mirales cancer cures does not exceed hostorical rate of spontaneous remission. The reference should be removed.

Bmiller1000 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)bmiller1000

This quote: "available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments."[3] "Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses." is found at "Faith Healing." Making Treatment Decisions. American Cancer Society. June 15, 2009. here exactly as the article says. The American Cancer Society is an important, relevant, reliable source, especially when quoting themselves. The reference should stay. --Javaweb (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Looking at Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, the article mentions that the church believes that at least 67 of the 200,000,000 visitors have had what the church claims are miracles. Some subset of these are cancer remissions. As a control, look at people with cancer that have not gone to Lourdes. Some of them get remissions, too. --Javaweb (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I was referring to the quote attributed to the American Cancer Society in the box under the subtitle "Criticism". It also has reference 3 as a link and the article in question does not mention any study by the Catholic Church regarding cancer cures vs historical remission rates. The quote-box is therefore inaccurate. I'm sorry that I was not more explicit earlier. The information in the second response is not present in the quote-box on this Wikipedia site. Bmiller1000 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)bmiller1000

I have made a correction to Faith_healing#Criticism. Thanks for pointing it out. --Javaweb (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

I traced when the Cancer Society quote was added that introduced "Lourdes". Here is the original edit. Note that the current version of the reference says "Last Revised: 07/01/2011" on the bottom of the webpage. The root cause of the problem is the webpage was revised since it was used for the original edit. Regardless, now it matches the Cancer Society quote as of today. --Javaweb (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks for taking quick action to update the quote. Things are constantly changing, but thanks to Wikipedia we don't have to wait for the next edition of a printed encyclopedia. Bmiller1000 (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

very undeveloped page- whats missing

Only discussing Christianity and Spiritualism makes the article pretty much exclusively American. This is supposed to be an international website. All religions belive in the power of prayer to heal and have healing rituals. And they believe that faith heals them. Im a Buddhist and they have the practice of taking suffering and giving happiness which can be done as distant healing or face to face. They also do these practices where the healer that is visualised is a deity then you imagine distance healing where they take the sickness and give pure experiences Eternalricemuncher (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Just remember to use reliable sources. SÆdon^talk 10:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In-universe?

Hi all,
I'm concerned that some parts of the article, particularly the "Some biblical examples" section, may have a slight WP:INUNIVERSE problem; that is, they seem to take text from the bible at face value, and present claims of faith healing and Jesus' miracles and comments as though they're real and definite things. Having a separate criticism section a long way down the article might make it harder to present these claims neutrally. What do you all think? Is this a problem? Should we try to solve it? bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue. Faiths other than Christianity have aspects of faith healing, but only Christianity is mentioned.

Just off the top of my head I know that Imhotep was routinely prayed to when Ancient Egyptian healers/doctors were performing medical treatment, and the intent was a request for him to directly act upon the patient to aid in cure/recovery, as was Thor in Norse mythology. There has to be more examples from other faiths, but this article seems to only focus on Christianity. It would be more appropriately called Christian Faith Healing. - reku68

It certainly occurs in Hinduism. And in Pandeism, faith healing (along with other miracles, revelations, prophecies, scriptures, etc.) is accounted for as the petitioner's own unwitting manipulation of our Universe itself (all things being part of one spiritual force, including those who seek healing through prayer but do not know that they can cause it themselves). DeistCosmos (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Conflation of faith healers (individuals) and healing by faith (belief)

This article (and its associated category) currently conflate two very distinct topics:

• (1) Individuals who claim unique supernatural ability to heal others

• (2) Belief in healing by faith, in the Christian context, as a blessing available to any believer through prayer (either in the historical cessationist or modern continuationist sense)

The result is a very confusing mess that poorly represents both subjects.   — C M B J   12:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, belief in healing by faith available to believers through prayer is shared by a broad swath of religions. I'm sorry, but to use the phrase "in the Christian context" here is every bit as bigoted as claiming that "literacy, in the Aryan context, is the ability to read" or that "courage, in the male context, is overcoming fear" or that "parenting, in the heterosexual context, is caring for one's children." The claim of a context for such a belief is inherent bigotry, and one which must be quashed at the very outset to avoid having a bigoted encyclopedia. DeistCosmos (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on this -- you're not claiming that there exists some special view of faith healing peculiar to Christianity, but are instead contending that the 'faith healing' page errs by presenting information such that it appears such a view exists? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed...

that Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty has a page, FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I full-protected for 24 hours so everyone could take a breath and look at this other page maybe and have a think about how to proceed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Video Testimonials

Anyone have any thoughts about adding some links to this article for videos of people testifying about miraculous healings they have received?  Doctor^G  (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, the ones I was thinking of are all primary sources. Doctor^G  (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Doctorg, depending of what you're thinking about, adding something to the external links section might be doable. Wikipedia:External links has guidance on what is considered ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)