Why doesn't God cure amputees?

[DallasApple]

Is god going to get us all to heaven by creating our brains big enough to develop technology to make rocket ships?

Why would you need a rocket ship to go to heaven?

Love

Dallas

 

[Willamena]

Why would you need a rocket ship to go to heaven?

Aye: "What does God need with a starship?" ~Captain Kirk

 

[misanthropic_clown]

"I think that amputee healing...to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God" I know I just quoted it above but I had to say it again because it is such an amazing statement.

How is Jesus appearing to the "violent christian persecutor" Saul on the road to Damascus not a "danger"? How is the conversion of Alma the Younger "a very wicked and idolatrous man" which occurred with the appearance of an angel and an EARTHQUAKE(!) not "dangerous"? How is a flipping BURNING BUSH not a "danger"?!?

Saying miracles strong enough to convert people to god don't happen is not backed up by scriptural history. It's nice to say miracles happened in the past or just to people who would believe, except their are plenty of miraculous things which happened not only to non-believers, but to people who actively fought against god's chosen people.

Perhaps it is my fault for not stressing the point, but an element of my premise was that this bringing to belief to the faithless would be widespread. If God were to heal an amputee and this were documented, everyone could potentially know about it. Granted, it would not bring everybody to belief, but it would still undermine the principles of faith that I have stated by causing many to believe without them having had to demonstrate faith.

The two perfectly valid examples you cite (burning bush to Moses would simply be another example of God revealing himself to someone faithful) distinguish themselves from this premise in two ways
1- They were not miracles so much as interventions, and so were not demonstrative in purpose. Both the examples relate to stopping people from destroying the church. This is, in my view, a completely different category than what I would consider limb regeneration to be in.
2 - They were both small scale affairs. P/Saul was alone [I think] and Alma was with a small group. This makes it a rather personal encounter which indicates to me these events would have a specific and individual purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My premise is that miracles are not intended to be proof of God, but as a reward for those with faith in circumstances when God sees it necessary to intervene. It is my view that God would not perform a miracle in the presence of, or provide a mechanism by which a miracle can be proven to, someone who does not have faith in God.

But why? It seems like this implies that if some faithful person is in need of that miracle, God would withhold it if a non-believer is watching. Does that make sense?

It is my view that an amputee healing would be, in effect, too obviously miraculous to be reconciled with the concept that men are given free will to choose faith in God.

Now... this is a line of argument I've never really understood. How does the mere act of giving evidence so compelling that the person's choice is obvious negate free will?

As an analogy: while I'm driving along the road, I have free will. If I wanted, I could turn the wheel and put my car in the ditch at any time. Absolutely nothing is stopping me; I just know that staying on the road and getting where I want to go is eminently preferable to wrecking my car. Even though my choice is clear and you could predict with very high precision that I won't do this, I do have free will and the choice is open to me.

I think I see the situation you describe as something similar. Having a choice so obvious that anyone would half a brain would take it does not mean that you don't have free will. Even if one option is infinitely preferable to everything else, it doesn't mean there are no other options.

Thus to answer the premise made by 9-10ths_Penguin, I do not think that the old time miracles qualified as definite proof to the non-faithful either. The resurrected Jesus appeared to those who already believed in His divine nature. The raising of Lazarus occurred in the presence of those who had faith in Him, and even then some of those went afterward to His enemies to plot His downfall. Moses turning the water to blood was dismissed by Pharaohs magicians causing the Pharaoh to reject Moses.

But there are countless others: the walls of Jericho falling down... the Tower of Babel collapsing... the sun going out when Jesus died... and on, and on, and on. The Bible is filled with stories of miracles happening in full view of non-believers, even when there would be no natural explanation for what happened.

I think that amputee healing, particularly in this modern age where it could easily be documented to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God

This is another line of argument that I've always had trouble with: why would convincing non-believers be a bad thing? Heck... isn't this precisely what countless missionaries are trying to do all the time?

I mean, it seems like you're taking it as given that God doesn't want people to be sure He exists... why? How do you arrive at the idea that it would be a bad thing for God to show Himself?

 

[Magic Man]

I actually want to pick up on a premise "Why would an amputee healing miracle have any more evidence than any other kind?" first. Primarily, I made that case given that it would be less dismissible than other 'miracle' healings. Our understanding of the workings of the human body are by no means complete, which means that many medical miracles can be dismissed (often rightly) as simply chance events. I think that spontaneous limb regeneration would be too much of an outlier for an individual to as easily reconcile it as a natural process by the human body, particularly if it were to occur either quickly or instantaneously. As with any event it would be deniable as people would put it down to other things or dismiss it as a scam, but it is my view that there would be faithless people brought to belief if such a miracle did occur that was document sufficiently to prove that it had happened.

My premise is that miracles are not intended to be proof of God, but as a reward for those with faith in circumstances when God sees it necessary to intervene. It is my view that God would not perform a miracle in the presence of, or provide a mechanism by which a miracle can be proven to, someone who does not have faith in God. It is my view that an amputee healing would be, in effect, too obviously miraculous to be reconciled with the concept that men are given free will to choose faith in God.

Thus to answer the premise made by 9-10ths_Penguin, I do not think that the old time miracles qualified as definite proof to the non-faithful either. The resurrected Jesus appeared to those who already believed in His divine nature. The raising of Lazarus occurred in the presence of those who had faith in Him, and even then some of those went afterward to His enemies to plot His downfall. Moses turning the water to blood was dismissed by Pharaohs magicians causing the Pharaoh to reject Moses.

I think that amputee healing, particularly in this modern age where it could easily be documented to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God

That's the thing. Things like turning water into wine or healing the blind and lame, etc. are all examples of things that, even if not intended to serve as proof to others, would certainly be dangerous, as you say. Why risk proving it to people by healing some injuries/ailments, but not others? Do you really think Jesus or God was thinking "Well, we'll cure this blind guy because most people will just disbelieve it anyway"?

The point is that the authenticity of such "miracles" is called into question by the fact that nothing like the healing of an amputee has ever been reported. That would be too hard to fake or discredit, so it's not even suggested.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's the thing. Things like turning water into wine or healing the blind and lame, etc. are all examples of things that, even if not intended to serve as proof to others, would certainly be dangerous, as you say. Why risk proving it to people by healing some injuries/ailments, but not others? Do you really think Jesus or God was thinking "Well, we'll cure this blind guy because most people will just disbelieve it anyway"?

The point is that the authenticity of such "miracles" is called into question by the fact that nothing like the healing of an amputee has ever been reported. That would be too hard to fake or discredit, so it's not even suggested.

To understand the miracles of Jesus you need to put them in the context of what He was setting out to prove. The water to wine miracle proved He was the God of creation.

Another example was the calming of the seas. He proved to the disciples that he was the Lord of the elements prior to crossing the Sea of Gallilee and confronting the supposed god of the elements.

 

[painted wolf]

Or he really liked his wine...

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

To understand the miracles of Jesus you need to put them in the context of what He was setting out to prove. The water to wine miracle proved He was the God of creation.

Another example was the calming of the seas. He proved to the disciples that he was the Lord of the elements prior to crossing the Sea of Gallilee and confronting the supposed god of the elements.

OK, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Spiritone]

Sure! How about Matthew 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Don't tell me you think there has never been some faithful christian amputee, somewhere it history, who has asked a faithful and fervent prayer to Jesus to heal their amputated hand (or foot or whatever). I'll bet a lot of believing christians who bled to death on the battle field from a severed arm or leg. I'm sure they were praying pretty hard to be cured before they died.

I think the key word is believe. If you believe you can..... But who could actually believe totally that they could move a mountain--just an example.
What about "Ye shall be as Gods." A lot of what Jesus said was to come about after we/humans followed him by living right. To make it short, I think that eventually we will be able to do "miracles " by the use of DNA to grow limbs and cure just about anything. Misunderstandings have come about because of translations and changes made etc. but the day will come when all those things will become a reality.

 

[Sententia]

The two parts of your sentence strictly contradict each other. Learning is gaining knowledge. Do explain yourself.

Again? I think I addressed this once already.

Simply: You can't know how much you have yet to learn until you learn how much you really don't know yet.

Thus if you think you know something then you study it to become an expert and in the course of this study you realize while you know quite a bit if you were to compare what you know with what you dont know you would realize that the more you understand and comprehend the less you really know. However there was no way to really know just how much you have yet to learn without gaining knowledge of what there is yet to learn.

My original response was more in context of this thread:

Perhaps you'd prefer the ancient greek version of the expression when socrates first uttered it?

When I said the more I learn the less I know it was meant to call into question the idiocy of claiming you will find the truth. Just keep looking and when you find something that speaks to you, then right there, give up, call that the truth and live according to the teachings of Yeshuas, Budhas, Satans or whoever you find as truth for you.

Pure lunacy to me. If you consider what is brought to bear as the truth and the why behind it then perhaps you'd see it more clearly. The men who crashed planes into our towers had the truth. They searched and they found that they must fly planes into our buildings for their truth. Needless to say I dont hold self professed truth without proof in high regard. (Obviously they did not have the truth but rather they thought they did as so many self deluded people neckup in the quicksand they call their religion will tell you about their faith and their truth)

If you want to prove to me genies dont exist its not on me to rub every damn lamp on the planet to prove it to myself. Its on you to show me the genie. (Jerry McGuire screaming) In general, you dont have to show me the genie just because you believe in them... but if you want to fly a plane into my buildings or change the way of life for my fam and peeps then you should probably come genie in hand rather then being merely self deluded and the forevermore optimist. (Pascal wager's lab rat?)

God doesnt cure amputees because amputees were born in a natural world where god is no more then Jack or Jill who went up the hill or a larger then life Ra sun god. Simply put... I wouldnt leave it or look to god to provide the answer... That seems to be lazy to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is negating the theory that god is divine because your are saying that he is unable to fix what he has created himself.

There's a big difference between divine and omnipotent.

. He most likely dosent cure amputees because it was humans who made them amputees in the first place and so god cannot simply repair any problem created by humans because he theoretically gave us free will, and to repair our problems cancels our free will. .

How exactly does healing after an injury "cancel our free will"? Does it also "cancel our free will" to provide amputees with prosthetic limbs?

Also, I think that this speaks as strongly about God curing, say, lung cancer caused by smoking. Now, I don't think this creates any sort of logical contradiction, but lung cancer remissions are one of the things that God is sometimes credited with.

 

[rockondon]

Strangely, God seems able to only cure injuries/disease that can heal naturally. And when they heal naturally....goddidit.

 

[Sonic247]

I just heard this question posed the other day:

"If god can miraculously cure people who are suffering from disease, why doesn't god cure amputees?"

I heard this from the guys over at whywontgodhealamputees.com and I was amazed at why I never thought of that before. If god has special powers and can do "miracles" why does he/she/it NEVER cure amputees? What is it about people with disease which makes them candidates for god's mercy but not amputees? Are starfish more loved by god than humans?

I'm curious for theists' and deists' answers to this question.

He can Jesus cured Malchus's ear after Peter cut it off. Anyway all the other healings you healing you hear about nowadays are probably fake.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Or he really liked his wine...

wa:do

That was Jeremiah...the bullfrog.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

OK, what does that have to do with anything?

Well, I suppose we're talking about miracles. That's just a hunch though.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I suppose we're talking about miracles. That's just a hunch though.

Yes, we are. I was wondering how it was relevant because there's no need to put those things in context. Jesus performed miracles as did others in the Bible. They just happened to never cure an amputee. I'm guessing it was because that would be too easily verifiable, and so could be disproved.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I'm pretty sure that we all know why God doesn't cure amputees.

 

[painted wolf]

God is bored with people wanting him to do party tricks?

wa:do

 

[jtartar]

I just heard this question posed the other day:

"If god can miraculously cure people who are suffering from disease, why doesn't god cure amputees?"

I heard this from the guys over at whywontgodhealamputees.com and I was amazed at why I never thought of that before. If god has special powers and can do "miracles" why does he/she/it NEVER cure amputees? What is it about people with disease which makes them candidates for god's mercy but not amputees? Are starfish more loved by god than humans?

I'm curious for theists' and deists' answers to this question.

Terran,
God's purpose is for all people to regain perfection again, but since mankind has rejected the rule of God for the rule of Satan, the restoration of all things will not take place until God's Kingdom is in full power, John 12:31, 2Cor 4:3,4, 1John 5:19, Rev 12:9. Isaiah prophesied about the conditions under The Messianic Rule of Christ, Isa 35:5,6.
When Jesus was was on earth he demonstrated the power that God gave him, to heal any sort of illness, even to bring people back from the dead, Luke 6:17-19, John 11:43,44.
Since all Bible prophecys prove that we are living in the last days of this system of things, it will not be very much longer before Jesus will put the Messianic Kingdom in operation, 2Tim 3:1-5, 2Pet 3:3,4, Matt 24:3-15, Luke 21:10,11,28,31.
All those who want to receive the benefits of the kingdom MUST learn about God and His son, and exactly what He requires of each of us, John 17:3.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, we are. I was wondering how it was relevant because there's no need to put those things in context. Jesus performed miracles as did others in the Bible. They just happened to never cure an amputee. I'm guessing it was because that would be too easily verifiable, and so could be disproved.

Or it could be that there was nothing to prove by curing an amputee.