Homeopathy

[chloeaustyn]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1721118' date='Dec 6 2008, 09:14 PM']Medical food... I'm not sure I heard of this...


I concur.


Amen... actually, after reading wikipedia on this... I'm starting to be quite sceptical about Homeopathy. There is no scientific backing on the dilution process, but I suppose that doesn't mean it doesn't work (because there could be something about physics we just don't know yet). But, as for conscience, I dunno if I really think it's wrong, unless you really think homeopathy is not working, and you're putting your life in danger because of it. And obviously there is the point about superstition.[/quote]

Oh please- it works! You have to TALK to people who have experience. It [i]works[/i]. And the great thing is, it's diluted so much that even if you didn't believe it worked, you can't possibly argue that it would hurt you- it doesn't have anything left in it! You're taking a sugar pellet.



First there's a thread about how Yoga is effectively dancing with the devil and making us bad Catholics, and now we're afraid of being cured from our illnesses? Heaven forbid we embrace the gifts God has given us through fellow man rather than throw our money at pharmaceutical companies that are slowly killing us through "medication".

We believe in the Great Physician. Let's give some credit that He'll work through His creation to heal His creation and stop with the conspiracy theories! They're annoying!

[Innocent]

Hi. Glad to see someone resurrected this discussion. Nice macro shot of that flower in your avatar pic, by the way! And welcome to Phatmass!


Please, do understand I'm not attacking naturopathy in general. There's a lot of difference between Homeopathy and Naturopathy, from what I have learned.

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:27 PM']Oh please- it works! You have to TALK to people who have experience. It [i]works[/i]. And the great thing is, it's diluted so much that even if you didn't believe it worked, you can't possibly argue that it would hurt you- it doesn't have anything left in it! You're taking a sugar pellet.[/quote]

As said in the Original post, there is a large body of anecdotal evidence for Homeopathy's efficacy. However, it would be difficult to maintain a discussion of Homeopathy over the internet purely based on such evidence. My point was to try to find out if there's any objectively verifiable method of showing that Homeopathy works.

I am also aware that several illustrious personages like the British Royal Family, Mahatma Gandhi, have used Homeopathy and that Homeopathic remedies are even offered in clinics run under Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity.

I am not denying this large body of anecdotal evidence. I am only searching for an objectively rational explanation of the underlying principles of Homeopathy.

I was reading today morning that in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Prof. Peter Kreeft says that some things we can know through reason alone, some things, through a combination of Divine revelation and reason, and some things only through Divine revelation. Now, I am assuming that Homeopathy is a natural science, and am trying to understand how it works using reason, and I am running into difficulties in the process. That's why I started this thread.

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:27 PM']First there's a thread about how Yoga is effectively dancing with the devil and making us bad Catholics, and now we're afraid of being cured from our illnesses?[/quote]

Well, this [i]is[/i] the Debate Table, and certainly, you don't object to the fact that debate takes place between persons who honestly think they have reasons to hold the positions they do?



I didn't participate in the Yoga debates, but I have read a few of them, and there was a lot of honest debate going on and many were able to explain their positions quite well.

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:27 PM']Heaven forbid we embrace the gifts God has given us through fellow man rather than throw our money at pharmaceutical companies that are slowly killing us through "medication".[/quote]

I beg to differ, but I honestly am not convinced that such a stark dichotomy as you have described exists.

Surely, just because I am having difficulty in gaining a conceptual perception of how Homeopathy works based on the (admittedly quite feeble, but still not non-existent) elementary physics and chemistry I studied at school, it does not logically that therefore I am an enthusiastic supporter of any and all the activities of Pharmaceutical MNCs.

As I said above this is the Debate table. That means that you also are free to create a thread that discusses how pharmaceutical companies are killing us through medication.

I also think that it is incorrect to induce from my reluctance to unconditionally affirm the efficacy of Homeopathy, that I am proposing the general thesis that we ought not to embrace the gifts God has given us through fellow men.

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:27 PM']We believe in the Great Physician. Let's give some credit that He'll work through His creation to heal His creation and stop with the conspiracy theories! They're annoying![/quote]
I too believe in the Great Physician. All I'm saying is that I'm not able to understand rationally how Homeopathy works, and I wish to have some objective basis for my faith in the system of Homoepathy other than the large pool of anecdotal evidence.

My problem is simple:

First I assume that Homeopathy is a natural science.

I was browsing through Fr. Barron's website today and this quote is from [url="http://www.wordonfire.org/articleDetail.aspx?ArticleNo=2"]one of his articles[/url]:

[quote]In his 1968 book Introduction to Christianity, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, offered this simple but penetrating argument for God’s existence: the universal intelligibility of nature, which is the presupposition of all science, can only be explained through recourse to an infinite and creative mind which has thought the world into being. No scientist, Ratzinger said, could even begin to work unless and until he assumed that the aspect of nature he was investigating was knowable, intelligible, marked by form. But this fundamentally mystical assumption rests upon the conviction that whatever he comes to know through his scientific work is simply an act of re-thinking or re-cognizing what a far greater mind has already conceived. Ratzinger’s elegant proof demonstrates that, at bottom, religion and science ought never to be enemies, since both involve an intuition of God’s existence and intelligence. In fact, many have argued that it is no accident that the modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of the universities of the Christian west, where the idea of creation through the divine word was clearly taught.[/quote]

Therefore, having assumed that Homeopathy is a natural science I try to understand at least in layman's terms how the underlying principles of it work. But I am not able to do so.

Thus I started this thread to express my bewilderment and ask for help. I'm not interested in spreading conspiracy theories. It was my Father's Homeopath who said something about Homeopathy being directly based on philosophy and metaphysics rather than biochemistry. While trying to understand that claim, I read on several Homeopathy sites (sites of Homeopathic associations, not sites that attempt to spread conspiracy theories about Homeopathy) that there could be a basis for Homeopathy in some of the philosophical positions held by Masons. I just reported here what I found. You can find those sites I quoted [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84023&view=findpost&p=1636348"]on page 1 of this thread. [/url]

Please believe me, I'm not interested in spreading conspiracy theories. I am quite prepared to learn from anyone who can explain to me how the principles of Homeopathy work. That's all.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Innocent

[Innocent]

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748089' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:14 PM']Ooo I might just have to get my mom to create an account simply for this thread. She's a naturopath and VERY Catholic. If there was something wrong with it, she'd know, and she'd stop. End of story. But instead she loves it. That's the problem with too little information... we start creating conspiracy theories because we know too much to be ignorant.[/quote]

To the extent of my knowledge, Homeopathy is distinct from Naturopathy. I have no argument against naturopathy and have explicitly reiterated in several locations of this thread that I am not attacking natural remedies in general.

I have found that even Homeopaths wish to clarify that Homeopathy and Naturopathy are not the same thing. An example is this section taken from the website [url="http://www.canadahomeopathy.com/Homeopathy_FAQs/FAQ_Difference/faq_difference.html"]Canada’s One-Stop Homeopathy Network[/url]

[quote]FAQs

What is the difference between Homeopathy and Naturopathy?
by: Karen Jonas, FSHomMed e-mail: naturaldoctor@yahoo.com

Homeopathy is just beginning to get recognition as a natural health care specialty. Some key features of homeopathy are contrasted with naturopathy below:

Homeopathy:
a. A Homeopath uses homeopathic medicine as the primary treatment for illness.
Homeopathy is a complete medicine – it can treat a wide variety of conditions from
nosebleeds, skin conditions, stiff neck muscles, digestive problems and chronic pain
to depression.
b. Homeopathic medicine is different from herbal medicines or mineral supplements.
Homeopathic medicines are made from very small quantities of plant, mineral or
animal substances.
c. Homeopathic medicines are non-toxic and safe for babies and during pregnancy.
d. Full treatment homeopathy looks for one medicine to treat all of the patients’
problems. If you have headaches, constipation, chronic sinusitis, joint pain,
depression and eczema, one homeopathic remedy will be prescribed to treat all of
these problems. The medicine can cost as little as $7 for 1 year of therapy.

Naturopathy:
a. A Naturopath has some knowledge about a lot of natural therapies. Many of the
therapies that a naturopath has a general understanding of (e.g. Western
Herbalism, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nutrition, Acupuncture and Homeopathy)
can also be studied exclusively as specialties for up to 4 years each. To become a
specialist in each of the therapies listed above would require 15-20 years of training
and an equal number of years in practical experience. Naturopaths generally focus
on Western herbalism or botanical medicine.
b. Naturopathic medicine depends on the therapy the naturopath chooses – most often
this includes herbal medicine, botanical medicine and supplements (vitamins,
minerals, enzymes …)
c. Herbal medicines, vitamins, minerals and enzymes are not always safe for children
or during pregnancy. Dosages and quantities need to be closely monitored by a
professional.
d. Western herbalism is similar to Western medicine – you get one or more medicines
for each problem you have. Western herbalism substitutes medicines listed above
for pharmaceutical drugs. For instance, if you have liver problems you may be
given Milk Thistle, if you have joint pain you might get Glucosamine Sulfate, if you
have headaches you may get White Willow Bark. With this approach costs escalate
with the number of health problems that need to be treated. Each bottle costs an
average of $20 per month.[/quote]



[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748089' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:14 PM']The thing about homeopathy is that no one knows why it works. There's nothing in it. There was at some time, but they take everything out. It can't hurt you. But it works. And if you take a strong dose for something you don't have, you'll get that symptom. That's how they test it.[/quote]

Yes, that's what I don't understand. The principles behind it are not clearly understandable by laymen.

I understand that there are studies that Homeopaths use to claim that Homeopathy works. The problem is that there are also studies that detractors of Homeopathy use to claim that it doesn't.

Unless Homeopathy involved supernatural activity, aren't I justified in expecting it to have at least a minimal basis in the understood natural laws, and not merely resting on Hahnemanns theories? Am I wrong or presumptuous in expecting this?

I'm not claiming that Homeopathy hurts anyone physically. Nowhere in this thread have I made such a claim. I am aware that there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that it works. I'm only saying it would be wonderful if there were any way to back up the claims of Homeopathy (or even just a part of it's claims) with the natural laws as we understand them rationally at present.

I am not at present attacking Homeopathy. I'm just saying I don't understand how it works, and I'd be glad if someone could explain how it works.

Edited January 10, 2009 by Innocent

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1734612' date='Dec 23 2008, 10:00 PM'][url="http://drboli.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/advertisement-149/"]
Homeopathic Cure For Thirst[/url][/quote]

[quote name='Wikipedia: Homeopathy']Another example given by a critic of homeopathy states that a 12C solution is equivalent to a "pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans", which is approximately correct.[/quote]



It's water!

[Innocent]

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:27 PM']First there's a thread about how Yoga is effectively dancing with the devil and making us bad Catholics, and now we're afraid of being cured from our illnesses? Heaven forbid we embrace the gifts God has given us through fellow man rather than throw our money at pharmaceutical companies that are slowly killing us through "medication".

We believe in the Great Physician. Let's give some credit that He'll work through His creation to heal His creation and stop with the conspiracy theories! They're annoying![/quote]

I would like to clarify further the purpose of this thread.

It's purpose is NOT to:

a) State that using Homeopathy makes us bad Catholics. Even if support for Homeopathy were objectively sinful, (which I am not yet sure it is) we're all influenced by the drives of our fallen nature, the capital vices, and compared to the since of pride, etc. the sin (if there is one) of supporting Homeopathy would probably be pale in comparison. Therefore, my purpose in starting this thread is not to propose a thesis that support for Homeopathy alone makes one a bad Catholic.

b) say that we should not be cured of our illnesses using medicines. (I am a Catholic, not a Pentecostal Christian!)

c) make a case against the use of natural remedies and alternative medicines in general. In almost all other forms of alternative medicines (for example, the ones in my country: Ayurveda, Siddha, Unnani, etc.,) the medications are given in reasonable concentration and one can at least be convinced that the body has actually absorbed a certain quantity of the substances of medical value that are claimed to be present in the medication.

c.1) But this is not the case in Homeopathy and the Homeopathic Laws are completely incomprehensible to me. Now, in any other science it is possible to gain a layman's understanding of what is going on. One can grasp, at least in a broad outline what is going on inside. But in Homeopathy, unless I accept as true, without the aid of commonly known physics or chemistry, the theories that Homeopathy is based on (which are, to the extent of my knowledge not practically applied in any other unrelated field of science), namely Vitalism, The Law of Similars, The Law of Infinitesimal Dilutions and the practice of Potentisation, I am not able to understand what is going on. This confusion is the main reason that makes me reluctant to wholeheartedly affirm Homeopathy in spite of the large amount of anecdotal evidence available to support the claim that it works.

Therefore, the primary purpose of this thread is not to discover whether Homeopathy is genuine or not. Such discussion is going on elsewhere among medical circles. [b]The purpose of this thread is to find out whether, in the light of the facts known from this discussion about Homeopathy in medical circles, the public support a Catholic gives for Homeopathy would amount to what is known as "giving scandal."[/b]

Edited January 11, 2009 by Innocent

[Innocent]

To add another viewpoint to this discussion, I quote the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia (from NewAdvent.org) on the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10122a.htm"]History of Medicine[/url], along with two other paragraphs on the same period.

[quote][size=5][b]Medical systems in the eighteenth century
[/b][/size]
[size=1]The three great discoveries in the second half of the century (oxygen, galvanism, and irritability), contrary to what one might expect, led scientists astray, and gave rise to systems whose foundations were of a purely hypothetical nature. Especially interesting are the neuro-pathological theories, connected to some extent with irritability. William Cullen (1712-90) accepting irritability as his starting-point, supposes a "tonus" or fluid inherent in the nerves (Newton's ether), whose stronger or weaker motions produce either a spasm or atony. In addition "weakness" of the brain and "vital power" played a great part in his explanation of diseases. Cullen's pupil, John Brown (about 1735-88), modified this doctrine by explaining that all living creatures possess excitability, located in the nerves and muscles, which are excited to activity by external and internal influences (stimuli). Diseases occur according to increase or dimunition of the stimuli causing increased excitability, (sthenia) and weak stimuli diminished excitability (asthenia). Death is caused either by an increase of excitability with a lack of stimuli, or by exhaustion of excitability from too strong stimuli. Brown's theory was little noticed in England and France, but in Germany it was highly lauded. Christoph Girtanner (1760-1800) and Joseph Frank (1771-1842) spread its fame. Out of this Brunonianism Johann Andreas Röschlaub (1768-1835) developed the so-called (theory of excitability which was so energetically opposed by Alexander von Humboldt and Christian Wilhem Hufeland (1762-1836). Giovanni Rasori (1762-1837), building also on Brown's theory, developed his contra-stimulistic system, namely that there are influences which directly diminish excitement (contra-stimuli) or remove existing stimuli (indirect contra-stimuli); he, therefore, distinguishes two groups of diseases -- diathesis of the stimulus and that of the contra-stimulus.

Another group of systematizers, the Vitalists, basing their views upon Stahl's doctrine of the soul (Animism) and Haller's irritability, consider vital energy to be the foundation of all organic processes. The chief representatives of Vitalism, a system developed especially in France and later predominant in Germay, are: Theophile Bordeu (1722-76), Paul Joseph Bartilez (1734-1806), Philippe Pinel (1755-1826), Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) and Johann Christian Reil (1759-1813). But, while these physicians adhered to Hippocratism in practice and (e.g. Reil) were eminently active in developing anatomy and phlysiology, the same may not be said of the three Germans, Mesmer, Hahnemann, and Rademacher, who were the last followers of Paracelsus. The doctrine of animal magnetism (Mesmerism), established by Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1734-1815), is connected with Vitalism in so far as Mesmer presupposes a magnetic power to exist in the body, and accordingly tries, at first by means of magnets and later by touching and stroking the body, to effect an interchange of forces, a transfusion or cure. Mesmer through his manipulations very likely induced real hypnotic sleep in many cases. His doctrine, however, which at first met with a sharp rebuff and was subsequently characterized in many circles as a fraud, was degraded by his immediate followers to somnambulism and clairvoyance, and in later times it became altogether discredited from having fallen into the hands of quacks. Nevertheless, mesmerism forms a basis for hypnotism, which in 1841 was established by James Braid.[/size]

[size=4][b]Homeopathy, founded by Samuel Friedrich Christian Hahnemann, seems to have the promise of a long lease of life. Hahnemann regards disease as a disturbance of vital energy. The latter in itself has no power to heal, for a cure can take place only when a similar set of symptoms. The best way to produce such a disease is to give highly diluted drugs which are capable of producing a similar set of symptoms. The rest of this "drug-disease" is destroyed by the vital energy, which is possible only when the doses are small. As chief principle, therefore, Hahnemann sets up the doctrine that like cures like. Since he denies the possibility of investigating the nature of disease, and completely disregards pathological anatormy, it is necessary to know all simple drugs which produce a set of symptoms similar to those of the existing disease. With his pupils Hahnemann undertook the task of testing the effects of all simple drugs, but the result of this gigantic piece of work could not be absolutely objective, since it is based upon the purely subjective feeling of the experimentalists. Never before had a physician built a system upon so many purely arbitrary hypotheses as Hahnemann. Paracelsus also had declared war upon the old medicine, and had attributed little value to anatomical and physiological investigation, which, however, was still in its initial period of development; but, with his reverence for Hippocrates, he neverthelss ranks higher than Hahnemann, who is the representative of empiricism and the despiser of all the positive successes which medicine had previously attained. Hahnemann's more sensible pupils did not follow their master blindly, but regarded his method as that which under the most favourable circumstances it may be, viz., a purely therapeutical method that does not disregard clinical science. To this rational standpoints together with eclecticism, homeopathy owes its long life and wide dissemination. One service of physicians of this school is that they simplified prescriptions, and appreciatively studied obsolete, but nevertheless valuable vegetable drugs. Hahnemann's pupil, Lux, extended homeopathy to isotherapy, which in modern times celebrated its renascence in organotherapy. Widely removed from scientific progess was the "empirical medical doctrine" of Johann Gottfried Rademacher (1772-1850), which is today completely discredited. Starting from the doctrine of nostrums of Paracelsus, he names the diseases according to the effective drug (e.g. nux-vomica strychina, liver disease), and classifies diseases as universal and organic in accordance with universal and organic drugs. His therapeutics was a purely empirical one, uninfuenced by pathology or clinical diagnosis.
[/b][/size][/quote]

If anyone has access to the newer editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia it would be great if you could post what they have to say on Homeopathy.

[Innocent]

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748089' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:14 PM']Ooo I might just have to get my mom to create an account simply for this thread. She's a naturopath and VERY Catholic. If there was something wrong with it, she'd know, and she'd stop. End of story. But instead she loves it.[/quote]


[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748093' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:19 PM']Her med school was still the typical 4 year, but they learned everything an MD would learn [i]plus [/i]the NMD stuff. It was effectively 8 years of training in 4 years. I wish people would give naturopaths more credit. Most of them really do wear deodorant, even. [/quote]

Please understand me. I am not out on a rampage against naturopaths in general. From what you say, I get the impression that your mother is an intelligent, dedicated, and hard working doctor. I have nothing against naturopaths. I have explicitly stated that several times in this thread. And I certainly have nothing against your mother. Please don't this thread to be a personal attack against all naturopaths, and thus, by extension, on your mother, too. To show you that I really mean what I say, I'm even willing to make an act of faith on the basis of your statement, and affirm that most of them wear deodorant!

Edited January 11, 2009 by Innocent

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1745435' date='Jan 7 2009, 08:25 PM']Garlic is good for any bacterial or viral infection, particularly colds and the flu.[/quote]

That's why I eat hummus. LOADED with garlic. Well, it tastes good, too.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1720640' date='Dec 6 2008, 12:37 AM']I don't know of any connection between Homeopathic Theories and Freemasonry-I'm not aware of anything about this-could you explain? EDIT: NM, already addressed-I think there are people who correlate herbal meds w/ new age philosophy, which is objectionable to a Christian, not to mention ineffective medicinally. I haven't tried anything specifically homeopathic but I am definitely a big believer in "alternative" medicine (I find it funny that it's "alternative", since a lot of it has beginnings far older than modern Western medicine). I think much of it is safer, more effective and more in line with what God intended for us than a lot of standard medicine-I believe He put certain herbs and plants here for our medicinal use. I don't completely disbelieve in modern medicine, and I do take an antidepressant with good effect. However, I believe that a lot of drugs and their uses are questionable. In any case, I see nothing wrong with natural medicine, including homeopathy. -Katie[/quote]

I dunno if this has been mentioned, but incense and essential oils (what is often referred to as "aromatherapy") have been scientifically proven to calm one down and elevate the mood. Including frankincense and myrrh. Imagine that... I recently ordered some. I have some incense and it seemed to have a sedating effect on me instantly.

If something's used for medicinal purpose and it works for that person, and it's not used to channel spirits or oppose a Catholic belief, I don't see what the problem would be with it.

Edited January 11, 2009 by lilac_angel

[Innocent]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1745147' date='Jan 7 2009, 04:25 PM']I have yet to see results from HP medicine. Besides the "flu solution"[/quote]

Is this the Homeopathic flu medicine you are referring to? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum"]Wikipedia: Oscillococcinum[/url]

[Innocent]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1748448' date='Jan 11 2009, 08:55 AM']I dunno if this has been mentioned, but incense and essential oils have been scientifically proven to calm one down and elevate the mood. Including frankincense and myrrh. Imagine that... I recently bought some. I have some incense and it seemed to have a sedating effect on me instantly.[/quote]

As a matter of fact, I have no difficulty in imagining the calming effect of incense. Here, where I live, it is quite common to light an incense stick during prayer time. In fact, in many Churches here, right after the Consecration prayer of the Eucharist, there is a small period of adoration during which reverence is paid to the Real Presence of Christ with flowers, incense, and light (usually an oil lamp).

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1748448' date='Jan 11 2009, 08:55 AM']If something's used for medicinal purpose and it works for that person, and it's not used to channel spirits or oppose a Catholic belief, I don't see what the problem would be with it.[/quote]

Catholicism, as Pope Benedict said once is "the great both-and." Catholicism has successfully synthesised into itself several portions of the philosophia perennis. However there are certain portions or schools of thought of the philosophia perennis that the Church does not take up into herself because they are at some point use metaphysical theories incompatible with the Catholic Tradition. Gnosticism is one ancient school of philosophy which the Church has rejected.

Now, before someone jumps on me, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying that Homeopathy = Gnosticism. It was just an example for something that can't be synthesised by Catholicism.

The use of incense in prayer and meditation is not inextricably tied to a metaphysics that is incompatible with Catholic Theology. Now, I'm also not saying that Homeopathy is explicitly diabolic. All I'm saying is that it's possible to make a claim that the basic principles of Homeopathy were derived from metaphysical theories prevalent in masonry, as said in the first page, and thus we must approach this field with at least a minimal amount of caution. That's all.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1748460' date='Jan 10 2009, 10:37 PM']As a matter of fact, I have no difficulty in imagining the calming effect of incense. Here, where I live, it is quite common to light an incense stick during prayer time. In fact, in many Churches here, right after the Consecration prayer of the Eucharist, there is a small period of adoration during which reverence is paid to the Real Presence of Christ with flowers, incense, and light (usually an oil lamp).[/quote]

I was just in my kitchen in a high strung mood. Then I lit a stick of incense. Note that it should be the kind dipped in 100% natural, God-made oils, rather than the perfumey man-made fragrances. Bang... mellow yellow. Could carry on with chores.

[quote]Catholicism, as Pope Benedict said once is "the great both-and." Catholicism has successfully synthesised into itself several portions of the philosophia perennis. However there are certain portions or schools of thought of the philosophia perennis that the Church does not take up into herself because they are at some point use metaphysical theories incompatible with the Catholic Tradition. Gnosticism is one ancient school of philosophy which the Church has rejected.

Now, before someone jumps on me, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not saying that Homeopathy = Gnosticism. It was just an example for something that can't be synthesised by Catholicism.

The use of incense in prayer and meditation is not inextricably tied to a metaphysics that is incompatible with Catholic Theology. Now, I'm also not saying that Homeopathy is explicitly diabolic. All I'm saying is that it's possible to make a claim that the basic principles of Homeopathy were derived from metaphysical theories prevalent in masonry, as said in the first page, and thus we must approach this field with at least a minimal amount of caution. That's all.[/quote]

Ah, ok. I just keep in mind that Jesus' first gifts were ones that I intend to try to help with my anxiety/depression. My reason for ordering was not tied to meditation or anything contrary to Catholic belief. But yes, the field in general, if you pursue it more and more, you will probably encounter some people who are of very new age belief systems, since often it is these people who seek earthly remedies before any Godly remedies. I hope eventually that there will be more orthodox Catholics dabbling in natural medicine who will be able to discern which might actually benefit people therapeutically while at the same time keeping it unopposed to and spiritually safe for fellow Catholics.

Edited January 11, 2009 by lilac_angel

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:57 AM']Oh please- it works! You have to TALK to people who have experience. It [i]works[/i]. And the great thing is, it's diluted so much that even if you didn't believe it worked, you can't possibly argue that it would hurt you- it doesn't have anything left in it! You're taking a sugar pellet.
...[/quote]
Let me be clear that I look at this with a critical eye because I don't want to (continue to) believe/support a superstition (if it is so). If the universe is tangible and understandable, and this form of medicine is true, then it will stand firmly against scrutiny every time.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1748451' date='Jan 10 2009, 09:26 PM']Is this the Homeopathic flu medicine you are referring to? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum"]Wikipedia: Oscillococcinum[/url][/quote]
Yes, My mother has taken it for years so the placebos workin' out just fine for her,Mind over matter is fine with me. Yet on a side note some of that HP medicine has such miniscule amounts it makes you wonder if it can be doing anything? Isn't it true that even if it is the placebo effect at 80 years old she still kickin' so who cares.

Edited January 11, 2009 by jckinsman

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1745444' date='Jan 7 2009, 08:38 PM']Peppermint is also good for the stomach.[/quote]
I've heard this. I suffer from a harsh stomach condition (the doctors still don't really know what it is) that involves diarrhea, crippling pain, and some other stuff. I tried different solutions for months - diet altering, schedule altering, lots of the natural stuff - and one of the things suggested was to try peppermint capsules. I tried that stuff - nothin.
So I finally went to a specialist at Nemour's here in town. He prescribed Dicyclomine (yep, synthetic, body poison) for me, and it cleared up my symptoms in three days. I've been able to lead a mostly-normal life since. It is for this reason that I am predisposed toward medicine.
[quote name='chloeaustyn' post='1748098' date='Jan 10 2009, 03:57 AM']Oh please- it works! You have to TALK to people who have experience. It [i]works[/i]. And the great thing is, it's diluted so much that even if you didn't believe it worked, you can't possibly argue that it would hurt you- it doesn't have anything left in it! You're taking a sugar pellet.[/quote]
Anecdotal evidence.
[quote]First there's a thread about how Yoga is effectively dancing with the devil and making us bad Catholics, and now we're afraid of being cured from our illnesses? Heaven forbid we embrace the gifts God has given us through fellow man rather than throw our money at pharmaceutical companies that are slowly killing us through "medication".

We believe in the Great Physician. Let's give some credit that He'll work through His creation to heal His creation and stop with the conspiracy theories! They're annoying![/quote]
Lots to address here.
One: You clearly didn't read any of the threads on Yoga. The consensus arrived at was that the positions/stretches by themselves are ok. Doing them as a "spiritual" exercise is NOT.
Two: Because people have pointed out that homeopathic (not NATUROpathic) medicine is bogus - which it probably is, considering that it is not based on science or logic - does not mean they're afraid of being cured. I have no doubt that herbal medicines can be beneficial - Eastern and Western cultures have been using them successfully for centuries. But the entire foundation of homeopathic "medicine" makes no sense at all.
Three: Do you honestly believe that the pharmaceutical corporations are killing us, with such
"medicines" like beta-blockers, heparin, NSAIDs, and of course all of the others, like AIDS medication and what not?
Four: That last paragraph sounds suspiciously anti-science. There's no doubt from any one of us on the power of prayer, I think, but did He not also give us minds, and knowledge, with which to explore and discover and create on our own? Also, a conspiracy theory "...alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities". These are not conspiracy theories; they are discussions.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.