Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skye
My personal thoughts are, spiritual healing does always work. There's not one person who does not benefit from the healing process.
Where I think mis- understandings come from is; when a person has a disease or a sickness that affects there quality of life, the healing they do receive whether it's hands on or through absent healing appears not to show any physical improvement, so people may often say spiritual healing has failed to work.
What they may not realise is the healing has worked, just not in the way they had wanted it to. Spiritual healing has an affect on the whole person not just their physical problems. The healing a person may actually be in need of is to possible help them come to terms in accepting their condition so they won't overly suffer. Our thoughts do have an impact on how we interpret pain so what better place for the healing to begin.
|
I am grateful to my friend, skye, for opening this up a little.
As so often we find terms or words being used which may be misleading. When we speak of 'healing' in the conventional sense, we mean that a process has taken place with an expected and recognisable end point.
We cut our finger and 'healing' has occurred when it's seen and felt that way. We break a limb and 'healing' is seen and felt to have taken place. We get an infection, it runs its course or we are prescribed treatment etc. and there is an identifiable outcome we see as 'healing'.
But when 'spiritual healing' is requested, or claimed to have happened, we then may be expected to accept that the 'healing' has been in a form we neither recognise nor can identify with as 'healing'.
Now I'm not knocking spiritual healing but the problem lies with the process description.
Is it right that the word 'healing' should still be used when the outcome may be very different from what we recognise as 'healing' in our everyday lives?