Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football4 mins ago
Why Cant God Cure Amputees ?
58 Answers
If God/Jesus can supposedly , cure blindness, cure cripples , cure disease in humans etc. why can't he regrow a little finger let alone an arm or leg ?
Could it be you can't fake a missing arm or leg !
I have seen many supposedly blind and crippled beggars in the Middle East being apparently cured but never an amputee .
I remember a similar question several years ago which no one could answer but now we have you goodlife so maybe this time we will get an answer,
Could it be you can't fake a missing arm or leg !
I have seen many supposedly blind and crippled beggars in the Middle East being apparently cured but never an amputee .
I remember a similar question several years ago which no one could answer but now we have you goodlife so maybe this time we will get an answer,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hypognosis, my chuckle emanated from the incongruity of atheists who want a god they don't believe in to conduct himself in a manner satisfying to themselves... if that isn't humorous, not much is. Let me ask... what are you[i doing to help the African mother? Actually, thousands of wells have been drilled and powered with pumps all supplied by Christian charities of one order or another. Many such wells are also supplied by non-Christian organizations... but what have you done?
JJ... You, also, apparently missed the intent of my post which was to simply state Yahweh of the Old and New Covenants cares deeply about [i]all] humans and desires a relaitonship on a daily basis with us. Look... I was, not that long ago, in the same place as most other athiests... one of either not thinking much about God or denying His existence... but through circumstances to long to describ fully here, that all changed... in the twinklng of an eye, so to speak. Strangely (or not, depending on ones perspective) most of the believers I know came thorugh the same route. All were mature adults and seriously came to consider the evidence as well as the peace experienced by others in their family or friends.
As I've said numerous times, most athiests unbelief is caused by other Christians... not the message itself, which is a real pity.
Naomi, you're the one that raised the issue of mental illness associated with "hearing voices"... I fully and gladly believe that a voice I hear in my spirit, which is often louder than one I hear in my ear, is from te Spirit of the Living God... just as Scripture explains. I thought I made that clear in my very first post... sorry you missed it.... no, sincerely sorry.
Additionally, you're the one that raised the issue of the Gospel of John being an anonymous writing, so it's your duty to provide your proofs for such statements... and while we're at it whence cometh your moral sense as in "...I simply possess a moral sense of right and wrong."? Is it the same moral sense as your neighbors? As the policeman on the corner? If not, who's is right or wrong?
BTW... many people describe their consience as an inner voice... but, nu I accept that your's doesn't produce such a phenomenon...
JJ... You, also, apparently missed the intent of my post which was to simply state Yahweh of the Old and New Covenants cares deeply about [i]all] humans and desires a relaitonship on a daily basis with us. Look... I was, not that long ago, in the same place as most other athiests... one of either not thinking much about God or denying His existence... but through circumstances to long to describ fully here, that all changed... in the twinklng of an eye, so to speak. Strangely (or not, depending on ones perspective) most of the believers I know came thorugh the same route. All were mature adults and seriously came to consider the evidence as well as the peace experienced by others in their family or friends.
As I've said numerous times, most athiests unbelief is caused by other Christians... not the message itself, which is a real pity.
Naomi, you're the one that raised the issue of mental illness associated with "hearing voices"... I fully and gladly believe that a voice I hear in my spirit, which is often louder than one I hear in my ear, is from te Spirit of the Living God... just as Scripture explains. I thought I made that clear in my very first post... sorry you missed it.... no, sincerely sorry.
Additionally, you're the one that raised the issue of the Gospel of John being an anonymous writing, so it's your duty to provide your proofs for such statements... and while we're at it whence cometh your moral sense as in "...I simply possess a moral sense of right and wrong."? Is it the same moral sense as your neighbors? As the policeman on the corner? If not, who's is right or wrong?
BTW... many people describe their consience as an inner voice... but, nu I accept that your's doesn't produce such a phenomenon...
Clanad, //I thought I made that clear in my very first post... sorry you missed it....//
I said I didn't miss it, but your introduction of the conscience into the equation confused the issue. In my experience a 'conscience' doesn't lead its owner to the discovery of missing items.
//you're the one that raised the issue of the Gospel of John being an anonymous writing, so it's your duty to provide your proofs for such statements...//
No, it isn't. The simple fact is if authorship had been substantiated, there would be no disagreement. We would know - but we don't. Therefore, the onus is upon you to provide evidence to support your claim.
//Is it the same moral sense as your neighbors? As the policeman on the corner? If not, who's is right or wrong?//
I can't say what my neighbours are thinking, nor the policeman on the corner.
//As I've said numerous times, most atheists unbelief is caused by other Christians... not the message itself, which is a real pity.//
I'm not sure you're right about that. Firstly atheism isn't a disease - it isn't 'caused' by anything. It is the default position of every human being. Secondly, in my experience people who abandon religion usually reach their conclusions through rational examination of the evidence before them. For some, like me, that evidence is contained within the bible, but far more I would guess observe the world around them and see no indication of the existence of the loving, compassionate God religion promotes - and I can't blame them really. Neither do I.
I said I didn't miss it, but your introduction of the conscience into the equation confused the issue. In my experience a 'conscience' doesn't lead its owner to the discovery of missing items.
//you're the one that raised the issue of the Gospel of John being an anonymous writing, so it's your duty to provide your proofs for such statements...//
No, it isn't. The simple fact is if authorship had been substantiated, there would be no disagreement. We would know - but we don't. Therefore, the onus is upon you to provide evidence to support your claim.
//Is it the same moral sense as your neighbors? As the policeman on the corner? If not, who's is right or wrong?//
I can't say what my neighbours are thinking, nor the policeman on the corner.
//As I've said numerous times, most atheists unbelief is caused by other Christians... not the message itself, which is a real pity.//
I'm not sure you're right about that. Firstly atheism isn't a disease - it isn't 'caused' by anything. It is the default position of every human being. Secondly, in my experience people who abandon religion usually reach their conclusions through rational examination of the evidence before them. For some, like me, that evidence is contained within the bible, but far more I would guess observe the world around them and see no indication of the existence of the loving, compassionate God religion promotes - and I can't blame them really. Neither do I.
I have read all the 'answers ' to my question :
( why can't he regrow a little finger let alone an arm or leg ? ) .
I kept it simple because I knew any elaboration would have spawned masses of so called irrelevant miracles. Irrelevant to my basic question that is.
Unfortunately its simplicity didn't stop digression .
I would however point out to you Clanad that most atheists do not totally deny the existence of a god but rather the total lack of 'testable proof 'that one exists. You can chuckle as much as you like but all your 'good work ' has been done by man ( believers and non believers ) . Not by prayer and magic wands ! You can claim and imagine what you like but the bottom line is your
'evidence' is what you 'want ' and 'desire ' it is not admissible as evidence .
You refer to a Christian message ! Frankly that doesn't matter . Nor any other religious message. No matter how commendable or other wise they may be . They are ALL man made !
I repeat if god exists ( why can't he regrow a little finger let alone an arm or leg ? ) or as Sandy says why wont he ?
( why can't he regrow a little finger let alone an arm or leg ? ) .
I kept it simple because I knew any elaboration would have spawned masses of so called irrelevant miracles. Irrelevant to my basic question that is.
Unfortunately its simplicity didn't stop digression .
I would however point out to you Clanad that most atheists do not totally deny the existence of a god but rather the total lack of 'testable proof 'that one exists. You can chuckle as much as you like but all your 'good work ' has been done by man ( believers and non believers ) . Not by prayer and magic wands ! You can claim and imagine what you like but the bottom line is your
'evidence' is what you 'want ' and 'desire ' it is not admissible as evidence .
You refer to a Christian message ! Frankly that doesn't matter . Nor any other religious message. No matter how commendable or other wise they may be . They are ALL man made !
I repeat if god exists ( why can't he regrow a little finger let alone an arm or leg ? ) or as Sandy says why wont he ?
Well, Modeller, you missed a key element in my first response or just wish not to address it; that being, where is your proof that a cured amputee does not exist. You're making an assumption to bolster an argument for which you produce no evidence… the exact malady you accuse me or other Christians of, and has an air of oblong circularity as well…
Additionally, your 'testable proof' theory falls apart when applied to other historical events. Where's the proof that your great-grandfather (assuming he's deceased) existed… where's the proof that any event that you have not personally witnessed occurred and beyond that how do you "prove" such an event happened to other people? No, special application is made when the subject is Christianity and only because the subject is Christianity.
If we were discussing Vercingoterix or some other supposedly historical character, the proof that exists in a few papers written some 1,200 years later would be sufficient. Call me ultracrepidarian, but that just seems to embody all that's subjective…
Same is essentially true applicable to naomi… A statement made my her that the writings of the Apostle John are anonymous without a shred of footnote or reference to back up the statement and then, magically, it becomes my duty to provide proof for her closely held belief or philosophy, for which she has provided no proofs… I think we've been around this country road before.
Then, to make a statement that atheism is the "default ' position… I'm sure there must be hundreds of references for studies that can support that thesis… sorry I haven't found one yet.
Lastly the issue of making a statement that her position on all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense… not surprisingly, a question about where that comes from is provided with no basis… meaning, of course, that it can be whatever she wants it to be and so can everyone else's.
Gotta be gone for a while… I'll check back as time permits, but we've probably reached the end of the discussion, since we're beginning to repeat ourselves...
Additionally, your 'testable proof' theory falls apart when applied to other historical events. Where's the proof that your great-grandfather (assuming he's deceased) existed… where's the proof that any event that you have not personally witnessed occurred and beyond that how do you "prove" such an event happened to other people? No, special application is made when the subject is Christianity and only because the subject is Christianity.
If we were discussing Vercingoterix or some other supposedly historical character, the proof that exists in a few papers written some 1,200 years later would be sufficient. Call me ultracrepidarian, but that just seems to embody all that's subjective…
Same is essentially true applicable to naomi… A statement made my her that the writings of the Apostle John are anonymous without a shred of footnote or reference to back up the statement and then, magically, it becomes my duty to provide proof for her closely held belief or philosophy, for which she has provided no proofs… I think we've been around this country road before.
Then, to make a statement that atheism is the "default ' position… I'm sure there must be hundreds of references for studies that can support that thesis… sorry I haven't found one yet.
Lastly the issue of making a statement that her position on all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense… not surprisingly, a question about where that comes from is provided with no basis… meaning, of course, that it can be whatever she wants it to be and so can everyone else's.
Gotta be gone for a while… I'll check back as time permits, but we've probably reached the end of the discussion, since we're beginning to repeat ourselves...
Clanad, your reasoning is askew. You say we can't prove that historical characters actually existed, but that doesn't mean your claims must therefore be considered accurate - because they're not. There is no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of John - and we don't know who wrote 'John'. As I said before, if we did there would be no dispute, so it's just silly to continue to insist otherwise.
Babies are born without belief in God. There can be no question about that. If that wasn't so then all children would believe in your God without being schooled in the subject - but they don't. You said // More than thirty years ago I said… "Ok… let's have a go at this…" // Where was your belief before that? Someone taught you about the God of Abraham. That knowledge wasn't inherent.
As I've said before, however much as you want it to be true, believing it is doesn't make it so.
//Lastly the issue of making a statement that her position on all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense…//
I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I make such a statement?
Babies are born without belief in God. There can be no question about that. If that wasn't so then all children would believe in your God without being schooled in the subject - but they don't. You said // More than thirty years ago I said… "Ok… let's have a go at this…" // Where was your belief before that? Someone taught you about the God of Abraham. That knowledge wasn't inherent.
As I've said before, however much as you want it to be true, believing it is doesn't make it so.
//Lastly the issue of making a statement that her position on all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense…//
I don't know what you're talking about. Where did I make such a statement?
Naomi, at &:44, Jun26th last, you stated "I simply possess a moral sense of right and wrong".
You still haven't provided a reference for your statement "...There is no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of John - and we don't know who wrote 'John'…", so, apparently any reader is just supposed to accept your pronouncement sans a footnote somewhere that you can quote.
I'm still awaiting (hopelessly, probably) that you'll provide a similar reference to a study or something similar that babies are born atheists. You say "...Babies are born without belief in God. There can be no question about that…" Why can't there be a question about what you believe to be true without a shred of evidence. My own experience notwithstanding, may well have relied on an inherent knowledge of something far greater than myself.
Obviously you haven't read recent examinations of the 'God Gene' a book by Dean Hamer… if he's correct belief in a "god" is genetically imprinted, which I personally disagree with, but I do believe even very young children, without any help from adults recognize the supernatural… maybe even more profoundly that many adults...
You still haven't provided a reference for your statement "...There is no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of John - and we don't know who wrote 'John'…", so, apparently any reader is just supposed to accept your pronouncement sans a footnote somewhere that you can quote.
I'm still awaiting (hopelessly, probably) that you'll provide a similar reference to a study or something similar that babies are born atheists. You say "...Babies are born without belief in God. There can be no question about that…" Why can't there be a question about what you believe to be true without a shred of evidence. My own experience notwithstanding, may well have relied on an inherent knowledge of something far greater than myself.
Obviously you haven't read recent examinations of the 'God Gene' a book by Dean Hamer… if he's correct belief in a "god" is genetically imprinted, which I personally disagree with, but I do believe even very young children, without any help from adults recognize the supernatural… maybe even more profoundly that many adults...
Clanad, //you stated "I simply possess a moral sense of right and wrong".//
….and where did I say //all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense//? Still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Any reader may, if he wishes, accept my ‘pronouncement’, or he can believe without evidence, or in an effort to establish the truth he can conduct a futile search for authenticated references to John. I wish him luck with that.
I had a quick google and came across one academic who postulates (and like the suggestion you say Dean Hamer – whose book I haven’t read - offers, it is only postulation) that children have a propensity to believe that everything is designed and therefore conclude that a designer God exists, but that doesn’t indicate innate ‘belief’. If he’s right in saying that, without prompting, children reach the conclusion that a designer God exists – and I have serious reservations about that - it can be no more than an indication of the nature of a child’s innocent thought processes. Personally I think it’s another case of wishful thinking.
//I do believe even very young children, without any help from adults recognize the supernatural…//
I don’t believe that anything is ‘supernatural’, and I doubt very much that any young child escapes adult influence.
//Why can't there be a question about what you believe to be true without a shred of evidence.//
But you ARE questioning me. Show me authentic evidence to support your claims and I’ll change my mind. You know the expression … ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. I make no extraordinary claims because I see no authentic evidence – extraordinary or otherwise.
….and where did I say //all things religious are based on an undefined moral sense//? Still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Any reader may, if he wishes, accept my ‘pronouncement’, or he can believe without evidence, or in an effort to establish the truth he can conduct a futile search for authenticated references to John. I wish him luck with that.
I had a quick google and came across one academic who postulates (and like the suggestion you say Dean Hamer – whose book I haven’t read - offers, it is only postulation) that children have a propensity to believe that everything is designed and therefore conclude that a designer God exists, but that doesn’t indicate innate ‘belief’. If he’s right in saying that, without prompting, children reach the conclusion that a designer God exists – and I have serious reservations about that - it can be no more than an indication of the nature of a child’s innocent thought processes. Personally I think it’s another case of wishful thinking.
//I do believe even very young children, without any help from adults recognize the supernatural…//
I don’t believe that anything is ‘supernatural’, and I doubt very much that any young child escapes adult influence.
//Why can't there be a question about what you believe to be true without a shred of evidence.//
But you ARE questioning me. Show me authentic evidence to support your claims and I’ll change my mind. You know the expression … ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. I make no extraordinary claims because I see no authentic evidence – extraordinary or otherwise.
@Sandy Roe
"There is nothing that God can't do. If a worm was cut in half both ends regenerate."
Today's challenge is to find a friend or relative who has not, perhaps in their childhood, inflicted this on a worm, because they found it so hard to believe that they wanted to see it happen with their own eyes?
It's now known to be a myth. Occasionally one half survives but, more often than not, both halves die.
Being atheist, I only have my conscience to wrestle with, regarding experimentation of that sort. If the pearly gates do exist, remember to say "yes" when challenged about whether you did cruel things to your god's creatures.
@Clanad
what did I do, to help famine-struck Africans? Sadly I lack magical god-like powers. There is nothing I can do beyond sending money but then the food aid truck convoy all-too-easily gets intercepted by the local warlord, to feed his troops (or so the investigative journos said) so, back in the day, it felt futile to try.
These days, of course, aid agencies are more savvy, delivering aid in a more roundabout manner - they will help build a school or install clean water for one community at a time. Not items the army would consider stealable. With water-borne disease problems done away with, farm output increases and food supply problems don't return.
There is a (rather unkind and, likely, staged) internet meme where a white, well fed, man and woman are handing a bible to a thin-looking African who (the caption tells us) is asking for food and water, the headline being that this is the kind of 'practical assistance' dished out by the typical Christian missionary. If I was a skeptic worth my salt, I would disbelieve this image, pending proof.
Instead, it just made me… chuckle. (Which, coincidentally, was its intended purpose). :-b
"There is nothing that God can't do. If a worm was cut in half both ends regenerate."
Today's challenge is to find a friend or relative who has not, perhaps in their childhood, inflicted this on a worm, because they found it so hard to believe that they wanted to see it happen with their own eyes?
It's now known to be a myth. Occasionally one half survives but, more often than not, both halves die.
Being atheist, I only have my conscience to wrestle with, regarding experimentation of that sort. If the pearly gates do exist, remember to say "yes" when challenged about whether you did cruel things to your god's creatures.
@Clanad
what did I do, to help famine-struck Africans? Sadly I lack magical god-like powers. There is nothing I can do beyond sending money but then the food aid truck convoy all-too-easily gets intercepted by the local warlord, to feed his troops (or so the investigative journos said) so, back in the day, it felt futile to try.
These days, of course, aid agencies are more savvy, delivering aid in a more roundabout manner - they will help build a school or install clean water for one community at a time. Not items the army would consider stealable. With water-borne disease problems done away with, farm output increases and food supply problems don't return.
There is a (rather unkind and, likely, staged) internet meme where a white, well fed, man and woman are handing a bible to a thin-looking African who (the caption tells us) is asking for food and water, the headline being that this is the kind of 'practical assistance' dished out by the typical Christian missionary. If I was a skeptic worth my salt, I would disbelieve this image, pending proof.
Instead, it just made me… chuckle. (Which, coincidentally, was its intended purpose). :-b
It would be a frustraneous oversight to let this thread die without firstly commending Ratter for such an insightful and illuminating posting. It's truly refreshing to be comforted in the rock solid knowledge that Mr./Mrs. Ratter will almost always live up to the highest expectations… we're all the better for it.
My husband is an amputee and when he first applied for DLA he was rejected on the grounds that he might get better. Needless to say we appealed.
Later he applied for a blue badge, but with a prosthetic leg people often see you walking and wonder why you need the blue badge.
This is not your answer and I agree that maybe the cures were an illusion, but just thought I'd mention it.
Later he applied for a blue badge, but with a prosthetic leg people often see you walking and wonder why you need the blue badge.
This is not your answer and I agree that maybe the cures were an illusion, but just thought I'd mention it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.