What is the difference between a faith healer, and a energy worker (such as qigong) practitioner?...other than the way they address their method?
Could they be the same? Qigong seems more practical in usage, and faith healing is a religious concept, narrowed down to the help of God "deity."
I won't ramble anymore on the matter, but because of SFQ I am open to many more possibilities in the world than I once was.
You are perfection.
Iam2 
My take it this. It is much more then that. Watch the movie "what the bleep do we know." it helps this make much more sense. We are all connected and and the universe is all energy no matter if you or anyone wants to think, it is a fact. This has nothing to do with faith healing. It has everything to do with energy, your mind and the direction of energy.
Jimmy P
quote:
Originally posted by the_human_psyche:
HmmmmmMy take it this. It is much more then that. Watch the movie "what the bleep do we know." it helps this make much more sense. We are all connected and and the universe is all energy no matter if you or anyone wants to think, it is a fact. This has nothing to do with faith healing. It has everything to do with energy, your mind and the direction of energy.
Jimmy P
Where can I watch this movie? I've heard of it before, sounds interesting.
Love
Etoile
As to the 'faith healer' portion of this thread consider how it is done. The 'laying on of hands' etc. I think that they are mimicking(sp?)what has been written without any understanding of what they are really doing, the energy involved, and even the science involved. Also to be considered is why 'sometimes' it works(the faith healers)and other times it does not. Most of the time 'not'.
My undergraduate studies was in Physics, and I still see myself in that context. So I just love seeing science, but most often theoretical mathematics, providing these unifying ideas. However, often these media presentations can be more hype than science. I really like some of the material I've seen on super strings and higher dimensions of reality which would describe all matter as being more intimately connected than current science would describe.
Science typically likes external and mechanically derived observations. Objective observation is the phrase, but what is generally accepted as valid observations are restricted to the non-personal observations. I can appreciate the prudence of this behaviour, but I can't help thinking that I would be foolish if I ignored my own observations.
I do scrutinize my observations, and do work to create a comprehensive model of the world based on my knowledge and my experience. I don't always let my model be limited by the current state of working science knowledge. I am often encourages by some of the emerging ideas in the science community.
To comment on these models, I do not see them as being in conflict with SFQ or many of the religously based ideas. I don't think any of them are completely accurate. They are just the models developed by different bodies / disciplines, which are each trying to understand and work with the universe. I tend to work with the idea that there is one so-called reality, and so I look for the commonalities in the different models, as well as the differences. Both the commonalities and differences provide understanding.
None of this, is necessary to progress with SFQ. However, ideas are energy and they influence one's thought patterns. So allowing ideas to develop and changes is a natural part of the SFQ process of creating balance and flow. At least that is the way I see things.
You are perfection.
Iam2
But you should watch that dvd. What the bleep do we know" I am a science, and medical junkie. Anyone want to read a good book? read cracking creativity.
I hope I am not breaking any rules telling people about that book. It is a great way to learn how the great thinkers solved and looked at the world and problems. But I beg anyone doing Qi-gong to watch that dvd.
Jimmy P