Do Healers Believe?

[Curnir]

The difference is that the second is probably legal. If everyone knows they are M&M's, and that the other claims are religious belief, it's just another goofy religious sect.

If their preacher tells them that the pill no longer are candy, but by the grace of god they have been tranformed into *insert medicin*.
The people now KNOW that it is no longer candy, that it is in fact *insert medicin*

even though it still is candy, and will not help them, except give them slightly higher sugar levels in the blood for a few minutes, and some effects from the tebromin

We allow religions where people handle poisonous snakes, and drink strychnine, believing that God will prevent them from being harmed.

Surprise, adults in a free society have the right to make bad decisions.

Yeah that's right blame the victim.

Religious claims, like professional wrestling claims, sometimes consist of some stretching of the truth.

Some stretching of the truth? You got to be glavin kidding me.

He doesn't claim everyone he touches gets healed. He just claims he will ask God to heal people,

And I suppose you have some of his shows?

and based on the processing of large numbers of people in such a fashion, he believes he can identify some examples of such healing taking place.

oooh would be great to see some of his evidence.

Maybe he's right. Probably he's mistaken. Again, these are adults. The risk of harm times the length of exposure doesn't rise to the level where it justifies pre-empting their abililty to make their own choices.

For the occasional person where it does, there's legal guardianship, and the invisible fence.

As I said blame the victim. I prefer to blame the charlatan.

From my charged magic crystal, of course.

There were two question lillgrabben.

 

[SezMe]

Surprise, adults in a free society have the right to make bad decisions.

This is a consistent attempt on your part in this thread to change the subject. Yes, yes, yes, adults have the right to make mistakes. That is not the issue. We are focusing on faith healers (see the title of this thread).

Focus, Cyphermage: Do adult faith healers have the right to fraudulently take money from other adults?

 

[Cyphermage]

Yeah that's right blame the victim.

There is a huge difference between rendering assistance to someone who comes to you and represents that they have been victimized; versus declaring someone to be a victim, because you have decided to substitute your judgment about their feelings and experiences for theirs.

Those who believe their world view is superior, and that they must inflict it on those who disagree, are the first to invoke the "blame the victim" cliche when they are criticized.

The world of full of do-gooders who feel it is their job to save others from themselves, because they think they know better. The Legion of Decency providing LD-imprinted boxer shorts to naked native peoples comes to mind here.

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn. Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him? No. Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.

I think that covers everything.

 

[Cyphermage]

This is a consistent attempt on your part in this thread to change the subject. Yes, yes, yes, adults have the right to make mistakes. That is not the issue. We are focusing on faith healers (see the title of this thread).

That is misdirection. The faith healers and their clients are coupled. You can't interfere with one, without interfering with the other.

It's like applying an absolute age-of-consent law to a 17 year old 364 day old minor in a jurisdiction where the legally mandated age is 18, and then saying you're not doing anything to him, and he has no standing to complain, because the law only punishes his 19 year old "child molester" girlfriend, and anyone who differs with that interpretation is "blaming the poor victim of sexual abuse."

It makes no difference whether you tell people they are not allowed to visit Benny Hinn, or you put Benny Hinn out of business. You're still meddling in the lives of people who haven't invited you.

Focus, Cyphermage: Do adult faith healers have the right to fraudulently take money from other adults?

Absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific identified person, or a complaint by a person claiming to have been defrauded, yes. Unless you think you get to run around defining "fraudulently" for everyone else, which I doubt would be a good idea.

 

[Gravy]

I think that covers everything.

Not quite. I've seen Hinn and Roberts use "plants" or "shills" or whatever you want to call them: people who are not terribly ill or disabled who act terribly ill or disabled until they are "healed."

Below is a snippet about Roberts. It doesn't give sources (except for the part about Randi), so I take it with a small grain of salt. But it does raise the question of what happens to these "healed " people when they leave the auditorium. How long is this "healing" supposed to last, just as long as the money keeps flowing? It's too bad we can't see a tally of the people who died within a month of being "healed."

Some of Oral's "successes" were in fact failures. In 1956, a woman appeared in Oral's TV show testifying that she had been miraculously healed, with the evangelist’s prayers, of cancer. Twelve hours after the show was taped, the woman was dead. In the same year another woman appeared in his show, giving an enthusiastic testimonial about her miraculous cure of spinal cancer. She succumbed to the disease three days later. Oral once even claimed that he had actually resurrected the dead! When James Randi, in June 1987, wrote to him asking him for more information on this alleged resurrection, Oral, perhaps wisely, never responded to the request. [2] Mindless, baseless and outright erroneous claims are still being made and are still being swallowed wholesale by credulous believers.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/faithheal.html

Harmless my ass.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I recall hearing something about a different spinal cancer victim who was "healed" and painfully died months later as a result of her spine collapsing after she did some jumping around on stage.

 

[Cyphermage]

Not quite. I've seen Hinn and Roberts use "plants" or "shills" or whatever you want to call them: people who are not terribly ill or disabled who act terribly ill or disabled until they are "healed."

Below is a snippet about Roberts. It doesn't give sources (except for the part about Randi), so I take it with a small grain of salt. But it does raise the question of what happens to these "healed " people when they leave the auditorium. How long is this "healing" supposed to last, just as long as the money keeps flowing? It's too bad we can't see a tally of the people who died within a month of being "healed."


Harmless my ass.

Sledding is mostly harmless. We let kids sled down snow-covered streets. Touching stories about decapitations from sledding under parked cars are not a counterexample to this, nor a reason to collect all sleds and burn them.

Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts are also mostly harmless, as is the planet Earth, according to Douglas Adams.

 

[SezMe]

Absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific identified person, or a complaint by a person claiming to have been defrauded, yes. Unless you think you get to run around defining "fraudulently" for everyone else, which I doubt would be a good idea.

First, "absent" is, in fact, not absent. As cited above, these people do real harm.

Second, worrying about me defining fraud is another attempt at changing the issue. The law defines fraud - my assistance is not necessary.

 

[Gravy]

Sledding is mostly harmless. We let kids sled down snow-covered streets. Touching stories about decapitations from sledding under parked cars are not a counterexample to this, nor a reason to collect all sleds and burn them.

Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts are also mostly harmless.

Do you believe that a drug manufacturer should be required to prove that a product has specific curative effects, and should also post information about possible side effects and contraindications?

 

[Curnir]

There is a huge difference between rendering assistance to someone who comes to you and represents that they have been victimized; versus declaring someone to be a victim, because you have decided to substitute your judgment about their feelings and experiences for theirs.

Is a person only a vicitm fi he/she goes to someone and represents that they have been victimized?

What if they're DEAD, for instance due to them ceasing their INSULIN treatment because reverend wossname told them that their diabetes is cured?
Who is this DEAD person going to talk to? Syliva Brown?

Those who believe their world view is superior, and that they must inflict it on those who disagree,

Yupp that sounds just like me.

are the first to invoke the "blame the victim" cliche when they are criticized.

Ohh dear... Go on tell me how you REALLY feel pojkvasker

The world of full of do-gooders who feel it is their job to save others from themselves, because they think they know better.

hmm yeah Law enforcement is a bitch.

Seriously though.

What do you, Cyphermage, think we should do with hucksters, quacks and charlatans who make a living of tricking people to give them money?

The Legion of Decency providing LD-imprinted boxer shorts to naked native peoples comes to mind here.

Never heard of them.

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn.

Good for you.

Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him?

I'm sorry can you state that in a diffrent way... it made no sense when I read it

Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.

I'm sorry. Are you saying that the folks who go to Benny Hinn's shows only go there to be entertained?

I think that covers everything.

Yeeeeeees well see that's where you're wrong.

You have "forgotten" to answer couple of questions.

 

[Cyphermage]

Second, worrying about me defining fraud is another attempt at changing the issue. The law defines fraud - my assistance is not necessary.

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.

Want to bet who'll win?

It is absurd to suggest that religious beliefs, based on myth and metaphor, are fradulent if they don't conform to testable facts using the scientific method.

I'll settle for keeping Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts out of science classes. I'm not going to waste time trying to regulate what they can say and do in church, absent, as I said before, iminent danger of death or serious injury to an identified individual.

 

[Cyphermage]

Do you believe that a drug manufacturer should be required to prove that a product has specific curative effects, and should also post information about possible side effects and contraindications?

Yes, because the pharmacutical business is a scientific enterprise, and it should be regulated by those standards.

On the other hand, I don't believe the local priest should be required to prove that Jesus walked on water, and rose from the dead, or be prevented from practicing his profession.

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.

 

[Bronze Dog]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.

Until they die and become victims. And who says religion has anything to do with it? Sorry, but changing the subject doesn't work on people like us. He tells lies that put people at risk of death. Are you saying that lying is okay?

Want to bet who'll win?

The con artists.

It is absurd to suggest that religious beliefs, based on myth and metaphor, are fradulent if they don't conform to testable facts using the scientific method.

Why?

I'll settle for keeping Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts out of science classes. I'm not going to waste time trying to regulate what they can say and do in church, absent, as I said before, iminent danger of death or serious injury to an identified individual.

In other words, lying is okay by you as long as it doesn't kill someone right away.

 

[Cyphermage]

Until they die and become victims. And who says religion has anything to do with it? Sorry, but changing the subject doesn't work on people like us. He tells lies that put people at risk of death. Are you saying that lying is okay?

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?

 

[Bronze Dog]

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.

Does he claim that some small fraction experiences benefits? If a person makes a claim, he should be able to back it up.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?

I never said anything about the government.

 

[blutoski]

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?

I think most skeptics agree that the reason these guys get away with it is that they claim they are merely a conduit for a greater power, over which they have no control. In other words: the contract is for effort, not for efficacy.

However, we know from candid observation of these people that they don't personally believe they are such a conduit, and this is what consitutes fraud.

If you're in Florida, stop by the JREF, and ask to see the Popoff footage. In particular, where Popoff calls this one woman who donated her last dollar a "...fat, stupid, ****** who thinks we can actually help her." That's when it clicks, and you go: "Ah. I see. He *is* a fraud. How come he's not in jail?"


I used to be pretty slack on this, since I come from a very religious background and appreciate that most people involved in the profession are sincere. However, these jackasses are a cancer, and religion is better off without them.


Oh, recently, Randi has some good footage from a Hinn visit to Maple Leaf Garden in Canada, with interviews of the money-counters and their pre-show audience data-collectin. There's also footage of them literally throwing a retarded kid down a flight of stairs and locking him out, because his parents were critical of Hinn.


ETA: Due to the way the forum edits profanity, a naughty word was asterisked out in a quotation above. It was "the n-word".

 

[Bronze Dog]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.

Translation: It's only cheating if they get caught specifically by their victims, if they notice they've been cheated.

 

[Cyphermage]

I think most skeptics agree that the reason these guys get away with it is that they claim they are merely a conduit for a greater power, over which they have no control. In other words: the contract is for effort, not for efficacy.

However, we know from candid observation of these people that they don't personally believe they are such a conduit, and this is what consitutes fraud.

If you're in Florida, stop by the JREF, and ask to see the Popoff footage. In particular, where Popoff calls this one woman who donated her last dollar a "...fat, stupid, ****** who thinks we can actually help her." That's when it clicks, and you go: "Ah. I see. He *is* a fraud. How come he's not in jail?"

I've previously identified Tilton and Popoff as hucksters who don't believe a single word of what they are saying.

I used to be pretty slack on this, since I come from a very religious background and appreciate that most people involved in the profession are sincere. However, these jackasses are a cancer, and religion is better off without them.

By "these jackasses" do you mean all healers, or all healers who aren't sincere? I really don't disagree that someone who runs the thing as a carnival game, and regards the clients as marks, deserves to have his head handed to him. The real problem is how to weed just those people out without interfering with the free choice of adults to visit people who are only sincere but misguided

 

[blutoski]

The real problem is how to weed just those people out without interfering with the free choice of adults to visit people who are only sincere but misguided

I don't think it can be done. That's why they're still in business.

 

[Bronze Dog]

The knowing hucksters should be exposed. The sincere believers who can't really heal should be exposed.

The way you weed them out is to test them:

Those who can heal, aside from gaining a million dollars, will be shown to be authentic.

Those who can't, regardless of intention, should have their inability exposed to the world.