Talk:Faith healing

message: My impression is that the other article is about the same topic as this one but has weight issues.  Most of its important material could easily be merged in the existing section of this article about the same topic.  There's also of course the eternal "christian science" issue (which claims to be science but is not), so if not merged perhaps a rename discussion would result (i.e. "Christian science (faith healing)").  Input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 23:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not support this proposal. Since it is about a narrow aspect of the Christian Science subject, it should either be merged into Christian Science article or deleted or left as it is. We already mention Christian Science in this article and I feel it would be WP:UNDUE to merge into this article. I suspect it was originally forked out of the Christian Science article when a section got too big.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

text: I do not support this proposal. It seems best to leave as is, especially considering they don't consider themselves to be faith healers or spiritualists (which the faith healing article is part of a series on.) If any merging is done, it should be back(?) into the Christian Science article; but I think I am against that as well. – Nablais – 13:20, 01 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the clear objections and no support. Klbrain (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Science practitioner merge in Faith healing 

message: I propose removing the "Religious Text Primary" tag from the "New Testament" section on the grounds that the section does not currently do anything that the related policy is intended to prevent.
If someone wrote in a Wikipedia article that "The world was created by the Dao giving birth to the One, which gave birth to the Two, which gave birth to the Three, which created the universe" and cited chapter 42 of the Daodejing as the source for that claim, then of course the "Religious Text Primary" tag would apply to that, because there are much more reliable scientific, secondary, sources that give other explanations of how the universe came into existence.
However, if someone wrote, "The Daoist text Daodejing states that the world was created...(etc.)," then the tag would not apply, because it is an objective fact, undeniable by anyone of any religion or no religion, that the Daodejing does actually state that claim about the origin of the universe. It is no more controversial than saying "Mark Twain wrote such-and-such" and citing one of his novels as the source to support that claim. No religious belief of any kind is necessary to accept either the claim about the Daodejing or the claim about Mark Twain.
The claims about the Christian scriptures that are made in this section appear to be of that second type. The current wording of the article doesn't say that "Jesus supernaturally healed someone"; the claims are that "the New Testament says such-and-such," a literary (not religious or scientific) claim that can be accepted by any person of any faith or none. Therefore the tag in question would seem not to be appropriate. Bruce Tindall (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of "Religious Text Primary" tag from "New Testament" section 

message: I was considering removing the section on "Miracles for Sale" as it doesn't seem to add that much to the article and seems somewhat irrelevant? It definitely would belong in a different section if we were to keep it, perhaps merged into "Fraud." There's not enough there to warrant its own section. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it does not need its own section. I think it deserves a passing mention, perhaps under the fraud heading above. Something like "In 'Miracles for Sale', magician Derren Brown demonstrated some tricks of Faith healers by training a member of the public to perform them." Or something like that? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "miracles for sale" 

message: Since there's been some edit warring over the pseudoscience language lately, this is just a reminder that we had an RfC on this followed by this. There was a lot of consensus building that went into that content, especially the "virtually all scientists . . ." language that is supposed to remain in the lead to illustrate the scientific consensus, and should not be edit warred out. KoA (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Faith healing is definitely not science, but whether it is belong to pseudoscience is debatable.  The term pseudoscience means that it claimed to be scientific but actually not.  There are no any evidence shows faith healing claims itself as a scientific practice.  Actually it just claimed itself as a religious practice or divine intervention. If the community think faith healing is dangerous practice, classify it as a cult or pseudoreligion are more appropriate than pseudoscience. Just cited some source claims "virtually all" does not shows a strong evidence to support the claims "virtually all scientists", so I think it is more appropriate to change the terms from "virtually all" to "many". Cloud29371 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience