Along with the virgin birth, faith healing is probably the next most controversial point swirling about the concept of Christianity.
There are a number of what have been termed miracles in The Christian Bible. We won't go through all of them here, but consider the parting of the Red Sea with Moses, the fire and ascension with Elijah, the resurrection of the dead with Elisha. Also consider the water into wine, the feeding of the five thousand, walking on water, and the raising of the dead, etc., with Jesus. Consider Jesus's own transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. How difficult is it then to believe a virgin birth?
The virgin birth has become an issue over veracity.
Pontius Pilate rhetorically asked Jesus, "What is truth." Well, the question is profound in the mundane by definition. Pilate was confounded concerning truth. Most people ask a different question that is "what is the truth." Pilate was suggesting that defining the term "truth" is a philosophical paradox. Whereas, the question "what is the truth" is not as deeply intended. It presupposes that the common usage of the term "fact" is "truth," and it seeks the facts. It presupposes that the facts cannot change. However, facts are still faith-based in that they are perception-based and one must have faith in one's perceptions, in not being fooled or tricked, not jumping to unjustified, sweeping conclusions.
People look for stability. Even the total warmongers ultimately want something they think they can depend on. Even Satan wants that and even in his most turbulent fits of confusion and destruction. In looking for this stability, this "reality," consciousness is confined.
Now, consciousness can be confined for the sake of stability but the area of confinement may be highly unstable, which is to say loaded with falsehood by virtue of that very particular confinement.
Science is fact-based. Well, it will work within its area of confinement until it doesn't work, at which time, the scientists will seek to change the boundaries based upon the same methodological rules in order to revalidate their fact-based vision, their version of "fact" and "truth" of their faith. This most scientists like to see as a very clear line of demarcation; however, this entire concept is as fuzzy as is the outer limit of their theoretical speculations, their imaginings.
A miraculous recovery from an always previously fatal disease always has an underlying scientific explanation, meaning there is always an audit trail in matter that leads back to the first change that then cascaded into the correction to health, never mind that the very belief of the individual in God's healing power was the impetus and never mind that the speed of recovery might require infinite scientific audits.
Well, this instantly becomes an issue of semantics. To what is one going to attribute everything? Is one going to maintain that existence is unconscious or is one going to credit a higher consciousness? The real Christian religion and many other religions credit the higher, "living" consciousness.
The bulk of the scientists, however, deeply desire to be on top. Much of that is their libertarian bent, their humanist bent. It isn't that simple, however, because the terms "libertarian" and "humanist" are semantically loaded terms as well.
Therefore, the entire construct of existence comes down to words, sounds, vibrations. The scientists are toying with their string theory, which is fine, but who sounded the strings into being in that case? Oh, the strings have always been in one manifestation or another. Well, are the strings aware? Are they connected to that which is omni-aware in that case? Is that to which they are connected simply (profoundly) just beyond that ever receding boundary (or ever expanding) boundary?
Arrogance is the most dangerous thing there is. It is selfishness that can and does lead to complete disunity from the real underlying reality, which is that omni-aware living being who is God.
It is arrogance that is Big Brother.
How then do we look at faith healing? The scientific facts are fine so long as one realizes that the very act of testing withdraws the cure before it takes place. This is not to say that science cannot verify faith healing. It is to say that faith healing cannot take place at this time on a routine basis for the sake only of scientific confirmation. The reason for that is because the evolution of the species (something the scientist should understand) depends upon the separation of the good (the fit) from the rejected. You see, Jesus was an evolutionist long before Darwin.
The changing environment is demanding this separation. Those who have faith, belief, law, and behavior of a certain kind and to a certain degree or above, will evolve, adapt, to the higher consciousness. They are in the process of separating themselves off to God. They are isolating themselves to God even as their consciousness is converging in this.
People really do "miraculously" recover as a direct result of their belief, meaning that absent that faith, the healing would not have taken place. The underlying scientific explanation in such cases is that people who are materially comprised and configured (disposed) to this kind and degree of faith have what is necessary for natural, scientific healing to take place. You will notice here that there is no difference in what the real Christian says and the scientist other than concerning where the ultimate credit goes. The reason the person is thusly materially comprised and configured is credited to God by the Christian.
Of course, the flipside enters in where people rush to judgment against God since only an evil god could allow things to be so evil. Understand here that there is an evil god and that's the opposite spirit of the healing. That spirit is not God. This is semantical for many, and many religions say that the light and dark are two sides of the one god. This is not Christian.
Christianity is an evolutionary religion. It is not a religion of the status quo, a stasis between good and evil. Christianity is a religion of overcoming evil, of prevailing over evil, of the freewill eradication of evil.
This did not originate with Jesus while he walked the Earth. It originated with God in the beginning. The messianic religion is from the beginning. The Christ is part of God from the beginning. Salvation has always been the plan. The real re-enlightenment of those souls who fell astray has always been the point. This is the knowledge and understanding of love and mercy over the devouring, selfish, arrogant, deceptive, conniving, greedy, covetous, torturing, worldly imperial spirit, the spirit of Satan.
This brings us to the fake faith-healers, the frauds, who give Christianity such a bad reputation with the global population.
A good example is Benny Hinn. Benny Hinn is a slick sideshow barker, a huckster. He comes from a long tradition of this. America has been loaded with such charlatans.
Many will think this is too harsh. Yes, it is harsh; but God's loving, warning truth appears harsh when purgation is not understood.
Where's the proof about Benny Hinn and his televangelist-hoaxer ilk? What are the "facts"?
Hinn is ultra rich. He stays in the presidential or royal suite wherever he goes. He shops in the most expensive stores constantly. He has a private jet. His so-called ministry rakes in hundreds of millions from naÃ¯ve and gullible people led astray into Hinn's utterly harmful selfishness. He is lavished upon by those who cater to the elite, because Hinn gives away the donations he receives from the poor and middle class to those who are already overcompensated.1 He does that to ratchet up his status among the elite. The donations he receives are not targeted at bringing forth to feed the lambs and sheep. He wouldn't get his hands dirty enough to come clean that way.
The real healing cannot take place in the evil stream. That is why Jesus couldn't perform miracles where the faith was deficient. God wouldn't do it. It didn't fit the plan. It didn't fit the separation of good and evil. It didn't fit with the new covenant of separating out those who love and trust and give credit to God without testing-signs.
What about the miracles Moses and Elijah performed in front of the nonbelievers? Oh, those were not nonbelievers in the spirit. They believed. They just didn't believe as strongly and rightly as Moses and Elijah. Many of the people in Jesus's time and place were really atheists or verging on it. That's as it is now in the UK and US. That's what spiritually blind science magnifies.
The pressures of this world are increasing even as consciousness is rising. Things are getting worse even as they are getting better. It is a race to the finish line. Things are speeding up. Change is speeding up. The singularity is waiting. This is paradigmatic flux before enlightenment, before transfiguration.
1 Benny Hinn, a two-part video documentary.
Part one: and
Part two: .
(last accessed: Monday, February 05, 2007). Return to text body.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)