Talk:Christian Medical Fellowship

Evangelical Christianity Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Links / References?

how can we sort out the references? I didn't want to remove links that others had put in for good reason, but numbers 1, 2 and 6 no longer function Sarah the poet (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic possession, and other lunacies

The links all are not good.

"More controversially, the CMF website contains articles on demonic possession [1], the occult [2], masturbation [3], and the role of miracle healing [4] in modern-day medicine."'

I feel it is highly relevant that 5,000 UK doctors (that's 12% of UK doctors) are signed up to an organisation that believes that demonic possession and the occult, among other things, are relevant concepts for discussion in 21st-century medicine. I think people will want to know that—please do not remove this sentence.

—Laurence Boyce 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it is "controversial" (who thinks it is controversial exactly), for organisation of medics to even talk about things that can be found in academic journals [5], [6], [7] , [8], [9]. -- BenStevenson 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most people would regard it is controversial. However, the sentence is undeniably factual, which I think is the real reason you didn't like it. Listen to this gem from one of the daily "devotions" off the CMF website:

"On another occasion I accompanied one of the leaders of my local church on a visit to see an Indian girl, who had been heavily involved in occult practices and whose father had contacted us, desperate for help, as the girl's mental condition was rapidly deteriorating. When we arrived, she was in a very agitated state. She could hardly speak. Her face was periodically contorted by violent grimaces, and she was throwing her arms into bizarre postures and freezing in these strange positions for several minutes at a time. She had already been seen by the family doctor earlier that same day, and I would readily have agreed with his opinion that this girl was having an acute psychotic episode and was in urgent need of hospitalisation. However, my companion, after asking a few questions of the parents, was sure that this was a case of demonic possession. After a word of explanation to the family, he gently prayed over her and spoke to the demonic power in the name of Jesus. If I had not personally witnessed the transformation that took place, I would have had difficulty in believing it. Five minutes later that girl was sitting normally and able to hold a rational conversation as we shared the way of salvation with her." [10]

Question—why bother with years of medical training, when you can just do it all through prayer? Happy Easter!

—Laurence Boyce 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that CMF has articles on topics such as demon possession. It is your POV that this is controversial. Where is the evidence that this has created controversy? -- BenStevenson 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's controversial, dumbass, is because the views expressed on the CMF website are at complete variance with mainstream medical practice. I am not aware, for instance, of anyone having been diagnosed by a qualified doctor in the UK of occult or demonic possession. Indeed the Wikipedia article states that "demonic possession is not a valid psychiatric or medical diagnosis recognised by either the DSM-IV or the ICD-10." Likewise, I am not aware that masturbation is bad for one's health. I thought that was more of a Victorian obsession. How often do you do it as a matter of interest? As for miracle healing, why don't we just close down the NHS and fix everyone through prayer and fasting? It would save a pile of money which could be put to much better use, like evangelising or something.

I think you know full well that this stuff is profoundly embarrassing which is why you want it excised from the article. You and your fuckwitted CMF friends are a disgrace to your profession. Your ignorance is beneath contempt.

Laurence Boyce 09:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even referring to the content of the articles, but simply to their existence. Since when is talking about a subject controversial? Where does CMF advocate getting rid of medicine, and solving problems through prayer alone? Where does CMF say that masturbation is bad for your health? Wikipedia is not the place for you to state what is controversial. If CMF is such a disgrace to the medical profession, show me examples of CMF members who have been struck off for malpractice. -- BenStevenson 12:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you a disgrace? Your website and literature is simply a marvel of duplicity and betrayal, stuffed full as it is with medieval theology masquerading as science. Still, it's no surprise really. Anyone who can survive medical training while retaining belief in a loving God, must be a religious kook of the highest order. And if demonic possession is not controversial, then why does the example I cited above take place in India? Why can't we have an example from Leeds, say? The truth is that you shamelessly export your baleful ignorance to parts of the world already burdened by the most ghastly superstitions, where doubtless you feel your message will be better received. I have reworked the paragraph to concentrate on this sole issue. Laurence Boyce 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian Medical Fellowship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030918183909/http://www.hvk.org/articles/0703/181.html to http://www.hvk.org/articles/0703/181.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]