Jim in Seattle wrote to me:
"I noticed a blog comment about giving an "assist" to an injured person* and intended to post but got distracted. I've experienced the phenomenon from both sides and can attest to its effectiveness.
Once while building a rockery at our spiritual Group center my helper prematurely let loose of a large boulder we were placing in the wall, crushing my left ring finger at the last joint. As a classical guitar player it was distressing to say the least. I went straight to our teacher, a true spiritual master, and he simply grasped it tightly for about 20 minutes. Within a couple of days it was completely healed including the mangled fingernail, miraculously so, as if nothing had happened.
I had an ability to heal wounds after that, especially burns to children (I was nearly fatally burned as an infant).
It seems that the person receiving the assist has to believe in its effectiveness or be "open" to receiving it in some way for it to be effective, although I don't know really. Children are very open to the reality of miracles and seem to be better receivers of the healing touch."
* What I wrote about was not in fact healing, but just a way to direct the injured/sick person's attention around in his own body so he'll heal himself.
This guy needs to be admitted to a psychiatric facility. He may be a danger to himself and probably is to others. His belief in his ability to heal might keep him from calling for help, thinking that he can simply heal a person.
ReplyDeleteIt's about as plausible as Mr. Miyagi's healing touch in The Karate Kid. Actually that's not fair - Miyagi's technique would probably work for a mildly sore muscle, but this guy is just nuts. He should try calling into Coast to Coast With Art Bell. He'd fit right in with those UFO nuts and the-moon-landing-was-a-hoax guys.
ReplyDeleteWow, it's been awhile since "this guy" been on the receiving end of that kind of hostility, the reason why for decades I have kept my mouth shut about such things. I doubt that I would benefit much from being locked up a psychiatric facility where I would be dosed into a chemical stupor with psychoactive drugs, and it certainly wouldn't change the experiences I've had with the healing phenomenon. I've never relied on or advocated touch as a substitute for professional medical care when it is required, but when we are in the presence of someone who is wounded we instinctually try to soothe them through touch. It's been only a few years since doctors killed my healthy father by administering toxins to him that were unnecessary and merely palliative, something which has renewed my skepticism toward practitioners of commercial medicine. I was once prescribed heart-damaging Vioxx but fortunately didn't take it and went to a massage therapist instead...and got healed. In the USA drugs and medical errors kill over 100,000 people a year, hardly a basis for absolute trust in practitioners of that approach to healing. Orthodoxies always have their raging stone throwers when someone attests to an alternative, as evidenced by "anonymous" and Mr Dick, to whom I respon, rest assured I would not try to convince you of anything because based on your comments I doubt you have ever changed your mind about anything.
ReplyDeleteand Mr Dick, to whom I respon, rest assured I would not try to convince you of anything because based on your comments I doubt you have ever changed your mind about anything.
ReplyDeleteJimbo, you feel free to believe that if it gets you through the day and helps you to sleep at night.
It must be wonderful to have such a certainty in your world-view that when somebody has an experience which does not fit into it, you can feel free to call him crazy.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with having certainty in my world-view. My world-view, after all, is based on what we have learned through science - and is therefore by its nature uncertain (in a way).
ReplyDeleteIt is always people interested in "spiritual" things who are inflexible and unwilling to modify their views - that's why people like you don't like science. You especially don't like the idea of having to prove the existence of things like faith healing (which this is). Usually people like you will dismiss such a need, saying something all the lines of "If you believe it, it's true" or "Some things you just have accept on faith". There are numerous variations, but they amount to the same thing.
Some like to reject orthodox religion and embrace "spirituality" as though it is some kind of improvement. People like you believe that nonsense like healing with a touch is possible when there isn't a shred of evidence to support. I didn't say that is impossible (science teaches us never to talk in absolutes like that) but it is highly improbable.
Anyway there is no reason to believe that it happened on someone's word - especially someone you've never met.
One thing I can count on, I guess, is for you to react emotionally and irrationally.
One thing science has shown though is there's a link between the mind and body that's capable of some pretty nifty stuff.
ReplyDelete"Some like to reject orthodox religion and embrace "spirituality" as though it is some kind of improvement. People like you believe that nonsense like healing with a touch is possible when there isn't a shred of evidence to support. I didn't say that is impossible (science teaches us never to talk in absolutes like that) but it is highly improbable."
ReplyDeleteI don't see where you're getting that. Being willing to change your perspective doesn't mean you automatically do just as soon as you're questioned. At this point in time, there's either no way to prove these phenomena exist or it is so difficult to do it that it hasn't yet been done.
Spirituality is an improvement over dogma. At this stage there's room for individual, faith based belief. In the same way no one can change your perspective by telling you about their personal views and experience, you can't really expect them to change their perspective because you disagree with it regardless of what you use as the basis for your disagreement.
Of course, it depends on what you're challenging. If you're challenging the existence of the biblical god, you can make a fairly solid case against it by pure logic. There's so many inconsistencies that it's safe to conclude this god either doesn't exist or he's so incompetent or evil that he couldn't get his message straight. If you assume it exists for the sake of argument, then the most logical conclusion would be that if this god got his message across the men he entrusted with it have defaced it in the centuries that followed.
I believe in a lot of things based on personal experience. I don't expect anybody else to believe the same things I do. I can give you my reasons but none of my reasons are good enough to convert anybody. I tell people, "make up your own damn mind." I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong and when I see that there's an error in my logic or a particular experience is probably better explained by more mundane means, then that's the explanation I go with. There's simply not enough reason, from my perspective, to stick with a strict scientific point of view.
Would I give up spirituality if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's all a bunch of nonsense? I don't know, honestly. It would be very compelling. On the other hand, I'd know this is the only life I'd got and I'd want it to be as interesting and mystifying as it could be. I might just as well adopt an absurd perspective on purpose to enhance the joy I get out of life. I'd be even less inclined to get anybody to see it my way and I'd freely admit it's all pretend. For me, beliefs are tools and little else. My brain is too small to make sense of the grander questions it wants to ask. So long as I don't go out hurting and killing and stealing then I don't see how it's anybody's business what I believe and vice versa. Of course I'll gladly share my perspective when given an opportunity. Everybody has the right to do that, even good ole' Christian racists. It's up to those in hearing distance to decide how to react to what they've heard.
Joe, I know what you say and I'm sure you've been burned in many discussions with spiritual people, but you're not living up to your own words. You seem like you become immediately defensive when stuff like this is talked about and you assume the spiritually inclined are irrational ass suckers who care more about preserving their fragile state of mind than they do about the truth. This isn't the case. It's possible to be reasonable, hear somebody else's reasonable case, and still disagree. This is especially true on these matters since only the rookies take on such challenges without a well-thought out world view already in their heads.
If this is all there is it doesn't matter one iota what anybody believes. The only priority is to keep the crazy people from killing us. If there's more, I doubt god (or whatever exists) gives a damn what we believe, otherwise things would (should) be spelled out more clearly. I'm going AWOL if I'm offered a ticket to heaven and it turns out god is the type of chap that cares about specific beliefs and sees fit to damn anyone that thought a purely scientific perspective was the best choice while living on earth. That's like giving a monkey a buzzer and sending 120volts of electricity through its testicles every time it uses it. Why do we have brains if we're not supposed to use them? Why can we make choices if we're not free to do and believe whatever we want? You may as well start walking on your hands at that point since nothing would make any bloody sense.
Note: I know the quote I used may not have made the most sense in the context of what followed, but I was lazy and I merely wanted to make it known I was addressing Joe, and any quote looks a little more professional than just typing, "Joe:". Except not really... Oh well.
ReplyDeletethere's more than one answer to these questions
ReplyDeletepointing me in a crooked line
the less I seek my source for some definitive
the closer I am to fine