Christian Healing - proof and owness.

teacher

Scholar
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
119
As a Christian, a sceptic and a former Pentecostal in leadership (read my testimony half way down my post in the, ‘who would be more difficult to convert’ (or similarly named?) thread, I am considering a new kind of thorough examination/book of the whole physical healing ‘thing’ and would welcome discussion, experiences, questions, ideas and feedback on this thread.

I shall be using Christian forums and speaking with scholars if you were going to suggest this, thanks.

I have concluded (but fall short of stating categorically) that in my opinion and for many reasons, no physical healing has been demonstrably shown anywhere on earth in the past 100 years…
 
From a mixture of sources, claims, testimonies, statistics, inside knowledge, research and conservative extrapolations I have done, I estimate that many billions of physical healings (of some sort) have occurred within or by the Christian Church during this time.

Even the creative/regenerative healings run to well over 1,000,000, but in a nutshell, the difference between what even the most restrained Pentecostal believes to be true/happening today (and physical healings are actual events revealed in our dimension and testable by scientific means), and what my research, travels and inside knowledge show, could not be further from each other.

Now like paranormal/psychic 'soap bars', healing claims are extremely slippery to get hold of and not easy or clear to refute. For healing, the reasons are: here-say, 'do you doubt my word?!', exaggeration, trying to do God a favour, double bluffing, pressure to live up to others' stories, presure to react, indoctrinational reasons, placebo effects et al.

Pentecostals also clearly claim healings occur and claim evidence for them. But then (like the psychics) the evidence is either a dubious claim/double bluff (“and you can ask the doctors, they’ll tell you”) which no believer would take up as it's doubt – how clever, or evidence of her/his selective choosing –just and only what a fraud would do, and never evidence to be actually investigated.

Now if they just say “we believe but don’t boast or make any claims”, then I have no case to examine. But they DO make claims and they DO begin the challenge by stating or claiming evidence and they DO accept that the results are examinable by science. So it would seem very suspicious not to let an independent exam take place. The glory of proof would be great for them. They can’t say we should not investigate it, otherwise why offer evidence in the first place?! That’s either not fair or suspiciously pointless. They make and instigate the claim, not the sceptic. So if you can’t take the challenge of a claim/bluff then don’t make it, but as you do, I will.

I believe that if my research is correct, then focussing on just the major healings, the evidence and statistics will show, irrefutably that in effect, healings do not happen, or if they have happened, then so infrequently that it still shows that virtually every healing ever claimed is not true. The implications of deception, hope, indoctrination and serious error are huge.

This should be as clear as one person believing that a room (behind a door) is full to the ceiling with marbles and another believing that it is empty. If Pentecostals accept that the opening of the door will conclude the truth, then the room of healings is empty and if the academic scholars can be shown this, and many are reasonable people, then this could filter down through meetings, seminaries, papers, journals, new books and teaching.

It is certainly impossible to do it the other way as is currently being tried - aiming at the laity. That's like attacking a swarm of bees with a single barrelled shotgun - not very affective, nothing daunts them.

It will preferably require the help of other 'insiders' (or recently departed Penties/Charies) who are willing to examine the truth of the beliefs of Pentecostals by way of friendly taped conversations and surveys in various locations. This is hard for most because a Christian argues that by allowing such discussion opens the way for doubt and the devil to creep in and indoctrinate you.

A successful result for me would not disprove God of course, but show that God is not working in a widely believed Pentecostal way today. The reason for the approach is to either prove that God is acting as many Christians claim today, or to stop giving God a bad name and attributing things to Him that He is not doing - a dangerous and heretical thing for a theist holding these beliefs. Neither does it say anything directly of any supernatural spiritual renewal or inner change/conversion/healing. Neither would I in such a task, as this is not verifiable in any real way.

Work would include ‘snopes’ type investigations (a ‘Christian/religious claims’ type snopes site would be a good idea) of healing sources to find the origin and authenticity for the major ones, plus some interviews with claimants, but this is not entirely necessary as the work examines this area from a different angle. As many Christians are gullible and/or overly trusting (especially of other Christians, and why shouldn't they be?) it opens the door for abuse - exaggeration etc.

Given that no-one has been very successful with psychics so far (in terms of convincing people of their true ability or dismounting them from their public pedestals), maybe this will come to nothing, but lets' see. I want something solid, not vague and irrefutably hard hitting, not arguable and light blowing.

Well, sorry so long, but if you want to help, know someone or have anything to add or say, go ahead.
 
I have concluded (but fall short of stating categorically) that in my opinion and for many reasons, no physical healing has been demonstrably shown anywhere on earth in the past 100 years…
Try Judith Orloff. Although it's more about channeling energy and healing yourself in that way.
 
*snip*

I have concluded (but fall short of stating categorically) that in my opinion and for many reasons, no physical healing has been demonstrably shown anywhere on earth in the past 100 years…

(assuming you mean nobody has been physically healed by religious actions)

100 years? Why limit it to 100 years? Nobody has ever demonstratably been healed.

Hans
 
Depends on what you consider a reliable source.

Still, most people would not call any source that contains stories of healing reliable. :D
 
I've always believed that, say for example in Lourdes in France, if you bring 5 million sick / ill people to one place every year, some of them will have 'miraculous' or unexplained recoveries. However, as the only places that attract so many sick / ill people are deemed 'healing' sites then it's really only statistics that make them so. Bring those 5 million people to my front garden and the same number of 'miraculous' recoveries will occur, but that doesn't make my garden a healing site.
 
I myself have been involved in churches that bear resemblance to your own, teacher.

Yes, I saw many healings during that time but none were ever confirmed.

I used to know a man who was cured of homosexuality, or so he claimed. He joyously proclaimed his healing wherever he went and eventually married and had a child. The woman he married was a closet lesbian who was also 'healed'. How they ever got round to having a kid is beyond me!

The story reached its sad and inevitable conclusion years later when the man had a severe breakdown that he never really recovered from. He and his wife lead entirely separate lives now although they are still married. It is obvious to everyone around them that both are still gay, though they themselves would never admit it. They are 2 of the most unhappy people I have ever known, due, IMO, to the suppression of their natural preferences.

The crazy thing is that they are still held up as examples of god's healing power in the church they attend. He regularly gives his testimony in church and the church cheer him on, turning a blind eye to his obvious pain.

It is interesting how believers who have been healed are manipulated into testifying about the healing, even when they know full well that the healing has not occurred. I remember a lady who was 'healed' of an allergy to wheat products boldly eating bread to prove her healing. She was discharged from hospital some days later. She remained sure that the healing failed because of her lack of faith. She doesn't eat bread now but is still sure she has been healed - she's just waiting to acquire the faith needed to 'claim' her healing.

It's the perfect 'out' for the church - blame the person for lack of faith.
 
It's the perfect 'out' for the church - blame the person for lack of faith.


Observation: We can't see God anywhere.

Response: He likes to hide from us and values belief without proof.

O: We test his healing and prayers and never see statistically meaningful results.

R: He refuses to be put to the test.

O: She believed, fully and 100%, and was not healed.

R: Her faith was lacking, or God declined her prayers.


Round and round and round. So many escape routes. Mmmmmmmaybe it doesn't exist.
 
I've always believed that, say for example in Lourdes in France, if you bring 5 million sick / ill people to one place every year, some of them will have 'miraculous' or unexplained recoveries. However, as the only places that attract so many sick / ill people are deemed 'healing' sites then it's really only statistics that make them so. Bring those 5 million people to my front garden and the same number of 'miraculous' recoveries will occur, but that doesn't make my garden a healing site.
I can't understand how Lourdes does so badly. Apparently the church claims about 10 million pilgrims since it all started, and only 66 confirmed `miracles'. But I suppose the odds are not that far removed from those of the national lottery.
 
(assuming you mean nobody has been physically healed by religious actions)

100 years? Why limit it to 100 years? Nobody has ever demonstratably been healed.

Hans

It's just before the wide spread use of cameras and motion pictures. 100 years ago there was no good way to gather evidence. Therefore, there must have been healing before then.
 
Even if you do believe in souls and all that, the priest is for matters of the soul, and the doctor is for matters of the body. You don't call tech support to fix your backed up plumbing just because the house has a computer. It makes no more sense to ask a priest to heal your body. Yet desperate people whose bodies are broken beyond repair, or those who can't afford treatment, are going to do so anyway. Even worse are the ones who will see the priest instead of the doctor because of the example that's been set.
 
Healing

Anti Hypeman - healing dealt and dusted.
I admire your guts and welcome your summary, but it's hardly a 'comprehensive' study/disproof/refutation unless I missed something. I've attended and recorded dozens of healing crusades and even set them up and prayed for people as well as having done theses and years of study and investigation from the inside, but I'm a long way from collating and showing anything yet. But thanks for the info.

Iacchus – proof of healing.
Isn't that natural healing rather than supernatural? A positive attitude, a good laugh and a hot bath all make me feel better. Saying your wife looks great and giving a child a 'kiss better' after a fall does her/him the world of good. Is she bringing or claiming something supernatural and if so, isn't it demonstrable some way? Out of interest, do you think someone could claim a sceptic challenge, e.g. the JREF one?

Hans - why just the past 100 years?
Sceptics only deal with what they can have brought before them. Hence many healers won't offer to be tested because of the motives behind a test or because they only do it on God's terms. Sceptics (the JREF at least) also won't deal with past claims, only what they can independently verify, especially given advanced, modern, fraudulent options available today.

Well I'm not as strict as the JREF or scientists. I put an appropriate amount of weight upon testimony and some areas that strict sceptics would not. My point is different to the JREF too.

I am also a miracle believing theist for a start, and believe in the Christian apostles creed, so my faith is based upon the miracle of Jesus' resurrection. I am also a sceptic and there are lot's of things I don't believe in - like most of the things you and the JREF probably don't believe in. I believe many Christians are doing Christianity a lot of harm and I am not convinced that healing miracles are occurring today, or over the past century. If I’m right, millions are wrong and have been wildly misled at best and I want to help put it right.

King Merv00
There is the aspect of photographic verification too, as noted and testimony alone before the advent of cameras is unlikely (but not impossible) to be sufficient.

Rufo – reliable source.
Good point. I’d be focussing on ‘creative’ (or regenerative) healings. There’d still be loads of such claims to examine, and so presumably still go on today. One African preacher has said that you’re not considered a pastor in Africa if you haven’t raised half a dozen people from the dead.

Even being deaf or blind (and many internal or subjective or untestable illnesses) are not much use to me. Blind AND lacking an eye is better. No leg before/from birth, but has one now. Down’s syndrome healed. Just some everyday things you hear in church. Now with adequate doctor’s notes/experience, family, friend, school testimony, visual evidence (seeing the patient if possible/alive) and evidence of there not being a twin would be strong evidence for me.

Irishman/Asolepius – Lourdes probability.
Agree. People have been on TV every few years having been blind but fell, banged their head and were healed. They don’t necessarily have a religion, medicine can’t always account for it, but no-one claims it is supernatural. With probability, every now and again, something will happen, and it will be variously be interpreted. I’d say that Lourdes has a lower than probability result with 66 from 10,000,000. Maybe God has deemed Lourdes a no-go healing area but people just aren’t listening...
 
Beering – slippery circular reasoning.
They may well try to reason so, but it is not consistent and I think I have shown in post No. 2 how it can be justified. One example is for healing crusades to get a doctor to examine anyone who is ill prior to entering and then afterwards. It has been suggested (by me) and some big evangelists, but to my knowledge, it still hasn’t happened, yet they go on claiming the evidence with bluffs and testimony. Anything but the proof.

C4ts – people fill certain roles.
Several current cases are ongoing with regard to people who stop taking their pills and become ill or die. In fact the Jehovah’s Witnesses no longer insist on not having blood transfusions but put the owness and choice upon the person/family instead of the churches teaching. The church has been libelled by adherents or ex JWs who have previously taken the instruction of the church and had their child die as a result. Some health and wealth (name it and claim it, blab it and grab it) preachers believe medicine is of the devil.

Oleron (you sexy beech, though I've had a few beers, I'll re-check you out in the morning!). Your similar experiences.
Your experiences very closely resemble mine. Once someone (anyone) has been convinced of something and come to that place of acceptance, one feels like one has established the position through careful reason and sound judgement, informed opinion and careful consideration. It's like a point one comes too. Once there and you begin to get involved, you slide the sceptical barriers away and the longer and deeper you go, the harder the chance of return. In a word, brainwashing and indoctrination

If a police officer comes round and says 'your wife has just killed 2 people, it’s been videod', you don't (more logical) assume the level headed law enforcer is telling the truth and curse your wife. You immediately begin to raise excuses or objections. ‘But she wouldn’t do that’, ‘there’s obviously been a mistake’, ‘you must have the wrong person’, etc. This is illogical (given the evidence), but more natural based on your knowledge of her.

I have a gay brother who has ‘backslidden’ from the church because of his sexuality and their non acceptance of it. As a teenager, he shared everything with his pastor about his sexuality. He was told that he would be cured and persuaded to date girls. He married a woman, had 3 kids and they divorced (very amicably) because of his sexuality. This is a common story.

You would not believe what Christians praise God for. They may be riddled with cancer, house burned down, wife left for a woman and have no money, but you should still be grateful for what you have. Many would feel bad for not having faith to claim their healing (which is there in spirit if not yet in the flesh).

KT (Kensington Temple) is a part of London City church, the largest church in Europe and based in London. Their website, www.KT.org, is reflectively modern to appeal to today’s society. They video their meetings and you can see or hear them. They are typical of today’s Pentecostal church. I have worked with some of the preachers here. Watch Kristian’s ‘faith for miracles’ sermon for example. Lot’s of hype, motivation and personal testimony of his miracle experience, (typically and conveniently held overseas), and hardly anyone ever questions anything and everyone feels bad because they aren’t experiencing it, but no-one tells anyone else as it’s their lack of faith, so any here-say story is milked and someone associated with if possible.

On the video I mentioned above, Kristian Lythe also refers to having faith and going into hospitals to cure the sick through prayer. Given that I am not aware of ANYONE who ever done such a thing (with any success – there are lot of ministers assigned to hospitals and pray, and comfort deceased relatives etc.), so he’s being very optimistic, though the lack of results in hospitals and poor countries are strong arguments against healing (or at least faith or focus) today.

For goodness sake, the king has got no clothes on!
 

Back
Top Bottom