God Healing Leaflets

www.bbc.co.uk...

"The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has stepped in after a Nottingham church claimed in a leaflet God could heal a range of named illnesses.

It followed a complaint from the head of Nottingham's Secular Society who was handed a flyer while shopping.

The leaflet, distributed by St Mark's Church in Woodthorpe, said God could heal back pain and cancer.

The ASA said "robust evidence" was needed to support such claims".

I wish I could make a comment, but words fail me.

reply to post by DB340


i agree with the ASA

there is no proof that the sky wizard can eliminate anything other than rational thinking.

reply to post by DB340


I don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US, you can't make medical claims without proving it. It's false advertizing otherwise. I agree with the ASA.

Curious why this renders you speechless.

Does the leaflet have to be read in English to work? Is the braille version not as effective?

I'm wondering if the "robust evidence" needed is the same robust evidence substantiated by science for the "cures" of these same ailments?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


...because a group of people got together to work out wording for this leaflet, agree on it after reflection and send it off to the printers.

It is incomprehensible to me how a group of people living in a relatively modern world and in an ever-decreasing religiously-orientated country (the UK - sources available online - not my opinion), would go to such efforts to print this and hand it out in the streets.

The most ludicrous claims need unbelievable proof, yes, so thank God (oh the irony) that these individuals have been ordered to change the wording.

It takes all to make a world.

reply to post by micmerci


Are you suggesting that medical experiments which are studied in great detail all over the world, are less able to cure aforementioned ailment than God?

I see a spark growing for a rather lengthy discussion if you are indeed suggesting thus.

extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. Silly outrageous claims such as invisible magic curatives require evidence, not anecdotal in nature, that back the claims made.

The fact of the matter is, that unless there is 100% undeniable, concrete, water-tight proof of something, then you are placing your faith in that remedy. Some choose to place their faith in natural remedies for their maladies, others place their faith in the hands of traditional medical professionals, and still others place their faith in God. To say that all of these methods are in opposition to each other is an understatement. The debates have existed for as long as the methods have existed. People should just allow others to pursue their own methods if it works for them. Suggesting that praying for someones ailment is not causing any harm. They should not try to force someone into ruling out other methods (that would be wrong). But in my opinion, asking someone to pray for healing is similar to suggesting that someone take an herb for the possible natural healing effect.

reply to post by micmerci


it is not faith when there is a huge mountain of proof that certain remedies have in the past effectively cured or lessened certain diseases...is it faith to believe that penicillin will kill bacterial infections? no it is belief based on evidence, and verifiable research.

faith requires ignoring reason and making huge leaps of logic to sustain the flawed belief.

such as...we exist therefore we where created...huge humongous titanic leap of logic.

reply to post by DB340


No, I am saying that there are many schools of thought when it comes to healing. I have not seen a traditional medical cure for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, arthritis, the common cold, etc. What I have seen is the medical field has become expert at treating the symptoms of disease and not the cause. (IMO- this is what keeps the grant money coming. But that's a whole different thread.) Natural medicine has its merits but falls short as well. Faith in God has documented cases of people being miraculously healed but as we all have seen, not everyone who says a prayer is healed- people die every day. My only point is that while none of the methods have a 100% success rate, all can work for some.

reply to post by micmerci


I understand your words.

I present to you the word: Placebo.

I agree with the premise that not all medication works for all and that, sometimes, a non-medical healing can be perceived as a God-sent healing. Discussion of God's existance is beyond the scope of this thread so, with feet firmly on ground, I will propose a stale-mate on that matter.

For point of dicussion, however, healing comes in many forms and I believe that not all methods work for everyone. This is a joyous fact about life; variety. Faith in anything warms the heart, but faith in facts is no longer faith, it is knowledge.

Perhaps you see the difference?

Originally posted by DB340
reply to post by micmerci

 

I understand your words.

I present to you the word: Placebo.

I agree with the premise that not all medication works for all and that, sometimes, a non-medical healing can be perceived as a God-sent healing. Discussion of God's existance is beyond the scope of this thread so, with feet firmly on ground, I will propose a stale-mate on that matter.

For point of dicussion, however, healing comes in many forms and I believe that not all methods work for everyone. This is a joyous fact about life; variety. Faith in anything warms the heart, but faith in facts is no longer faith, it is knowledge.

Perhaps you see the difference?

I do agree with you that all forms of healing are not 100% effective. I also agree that the discussion of the existence of God is beyond the scope of this thread. I agree that either side on that topic will never prove their position. However, the OPS post did specifically mention God, hence the reason I replied in kind.
My problem with the whole ordeal is not whether or not people believe in Divine healing, My problem is that all sides of the argument gravitate towards exclusion rather than inclusion.Toward dis-allowance rather than allowance. Why is the great burden of proof so necessary when these people are just offering an alternative? Is it the same reason that the FDA doesn't "approve the use of " herbal supplements and vitamins? I think the strict regulation and demand for evidence has nothing to do with the safety of people and everything to do with $$$. Just my opinion.
Truth is we do not know how a tumor can disappear without any treatment but if the person believes that God did it, who is getting hurt?
?

reply to post by micmerci


I don't think the problem is that people have a belief and are offering an alternative; rather that what they are offering is rather outlandish.

They had the chance to use lesser words, such as 'See if God can heal your ailments' or 'God can be your doctor'. The direct guarantee (almost) that God will cure cancer is so absurd that to have it printed on flyers and handed out to the public is bordering on insanity.

People die when they put trust in God to save them, choosing to avoid all conventional treatments. Naturally, one may argue that people die when putting faith in medical treatments but the crux of the matter is that medical treatments are studied physically, really, visually, observably and are tested physically, really, visually and observably on humans (and animals, yes) to witness their success rate. The same cannot be said for God's impact, and herein lies the mismatch.

I have a cat. I obtained him when he was 3 months old from a lady who told me that he had never been to the vet because she was healing him with her hands.

2 days later, I took him to the vet, who cried at his state of fear and body condition. She treated him for a double-eye infection, worms, hair loss, malnutrition and something I can't pronounce, let alone spell. He had various injections and oral bits and bobs shoved down him. At 6 months, he was neutered.

If he had continued in this witches house, he would have died before 6 months. Medical advances had proven that such-and-such would help him. Her hands (of God) did not.

I think that's the issue I, and others, have with this leafleting.

If, after 2000 years, Christianity/God was able to cure cancer, surely we would have seen some evidence of it by now? There would be no cancer because we would all just ask God to deal with it for us.
I guess this would be the same God who gave us the cancer in the first place?

Yes, well done ASA, without proof you may not make such claims. Double blind studdy into faith healing anyone?

reply to post by Shamatt


I'm quite astonished by the inaccuracy of your response. So much so, that I don't quite know how to formulate an appropriate response.

Did I misunderstand? Are you being sarcastic with your final sentence?