Short answer: How this applies to the topic:
The people/researchers with KNOWLEDGE of spiritual healing will arrive at different research conclusions than people/researchers who exclude this field of experience.
A. People replying on here, including OP, might even change their entire opinion/perception if they added this field of research and practice
B. the APA and other Professional/Medical sources cited as "proof" would also have to change their reports and stats if cases of spiritual healing were included in their studies
Since this field is NOT being included or even considered,
then ALL the answers on this thread will be SKEWED.
That is like basing a study on numbers by only studying the negative numbers
and leaving out the positive side of the scale. So of course your research and
answers all come out negative, because that was the ONLY pool included in the set.
[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION]You are carrying on about sexual abuse. That is not what this thread is about. Why do you bring this up in every single post? This isn't the topic it isn't even in the right forum. Ifyouwant to talk about faith healing start a thread in health and lifestyle.
Hi Inevitable Sorry
I understand people better on this subject
if I see their understanding, perception or misperception of the healing process.
If they
1. have no knowledge of this, but are open minded it COULD be true
2. if they have their minds made up and won't consider anything otherwise
3. are willing to look into it because they understand the impact it would have
The degree of resistance or rejection to the process, tells me how biased and closed someone is, or how open they are to new information and change.
For example, when you first posted very open questions, and very clear corrections.
I thought you might be more objective, one of the types who can handle all sides.
But when you immediately "assumed and accused" ANY and ALL reports of healing to be FRAUD (without proof); but then you insisted that "I show proof" but didn't require proof of your assertions, that told me you would project your judgment without proof, while expecting others to show proof. This indicates a slight bias, but not major. You seem to stay objective about corrections, so I trust you to check yourself as well against biases that could be adjusted for.
I found both sides of the natural/unnatural debate cite "personal testimony" to justify their views; yet you struck this down as not viable proof, but that is what people use, even my own boyfriend, to understand that some are that way and cannot change. How can you prove someone "can never change"? It is based
on people knowing someone that was naturally that way; I even know Christians who completely changed their minds when they met such people. So it is based on personal testimony, that people even have their opinions on here, which shapes what data we will consider and how we interpret it.
Inevitable, I applaud and agree with your approach to stick to logical terms and arguments. It makes sense that if something is not a pathology or disease/illness to be cured then how can it be healed?
a. what I would clarify:
Unforgiveness and the conditions attached to it can be healed and it is not a disease.
Unforgiveness causes "racism" and "projection" and "unresolved conflicts" which can be changed, and that's not a disease.
Relationships can be healed of discord and misunderstanding, and that is not a disease.
Just because something can be healed or changed does not require it to be a disease.
b. if people do not understand the depth of the forgiveness and healing process,
even what we perceive with medical studies is going to be SKEWED.
We "project" our personal biases even when interpreting scientific data.
So THAT is why researchers will not include spiritual healing that works
in their data - If they DON'T have any notion that this could be real or valid.
Like you, they just EXCLUDE it "unless it is proven already"
Well, how do you expect ANY researchers to PROVE it, if they keep waiting for
someone else to prove it?
Inevitable, I still believe you are openminded and objective about this.
Thank you for that, and sorry if I push too hard to try to get this research added in.
Because it changes the whole debate, I see it as a shortcut to resolving many issues.
Last Note: If we DON'T address this issue of personal biases and perception, we will keep running into problems with interpreting data.
For example QW keeps posting research on genetics showing there is not 100% matching orientation with identical twins.
But people will continue interpreting that data as showing genetic connection. Why? Because we keep projecting our personal understanding
that some people are born that way. So this TRUMPS the scientific stats and research. We are human and will put our personal experiences and beliefs first.
So I am saying we need to address this level first, or all the other data we discuss will still get blocked by projection and not be perfectly objective.
Sorry for the long response, and thank you for your objective approach which is sorely needed here!
