[aruanan]

You are an idiot faith healer who personally denies medical immaging [sic] technology. Next time you are ill don’t be a hypocrit [sic] and be consistant in what YOU ADVOCATE FOR OTHERS. The effects of PTSD can be physically seen [sic] in the brain with MRI scans. Since you personally are denying the validity of MRI technology, hold fast to your claimed faith and don’t use them when it is you. MRI is probably of the devil since it contradicts your position anyway.

The above is an example of reactive reading. You see a few phrases and react to them based on your own unique experiences and limited understanding and then incorrectly assume that your reactions were intended by the author. Specifically, you make ridiculous extrapolations ("you personally are denying the validity of MRI technology...") or misinterpretations ("The effects of PTSD can be physically seen in the brain with MRI scans..."*) or flat-out confabulations ("...be consistant in what YOU ADVOCATE FOR OTHERS...) or irrelevant and irrational conclusions ("MRI is probably of the devil since it contradicts your position anyway") and then incorrectly assume those were intended or disputed by or had their origin in the author. Additionally you seem to equate "faith" with "faith healing," a distinction that nowhere exists in the text.

You, like the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade, and the Constitution, are projecting your own beliefs and prejudices into written material where they don't exist and attributing them to the author. The answer is to stick to what is actually written (and to use spell check).

*You can observe a person's brain via MRI while sticking a knife in him or while he's hallucinating bugs crawling under his skin and see distinctive activity. But you would be incorrect to conclude that the bug hallucinations are real in the same way the knife is real because both produce MRI readings. And you would be incorrect (in a Mary Baker Eddy way) to conclude that the knife is no more real than the hallucinations because both produce MRI readings.

[MrEdd]

It takes a true idiot, to conclude that areas of the brain which die and physically atrophy still function.

MRI technology reveals that cells in the brain areas related to the processing of memory actually die off under prolonged trauma. They aren't simply reacting differently...they aren't there.

Your retort proved everything I asserted. You are one with the name it and claim it crowd who denies empirical evidences.

Dead cells cease to function.
Contrary to your assertions.

So your assertion that the PTSD can be cured by prayer and seeking God absent a miraculous regeneration of cells coming from God requires...denying that the cells MRI scans show to die off can't still function despite not being there.

You popped off on this thread making assertions that are no longer tenable unless you deny MRI images. Or deny that brain cells are needed for brain functioning. Those are the only two choices, other than a mea culpa on your part that you haven't kept up with medical science.

But if you haven't kept up with the science, and did not bother to check before your retort...then that pretty much validates my assertion that you advocate ignorance for others, now doesn't it?

I am projecting my belief that dead braincells are a physical problem that needs extensive work to function around and don't go away by wishful thinking or a positive attitude.