Thread: Why won't God heal amputees?

I think this is really ignorant - and overlooking the message the Bible tries to send without giving it any consideration.

I am not a Christian and I don't follow any part of the Bible, nor have I read it, but to me the Bible does try to send a message underneath it's stories, fluent throughout most religions and that is if you believe it, you can achieve it. This isn't supposed to say 'Hey, if you pray real hard anyone can regrow an arm!'

If you want to speak about the ability to re-grow a limb, to me it's less about God and more about the power of will, intent and belief and honestly I think if someone had enough control over their body and a strong mastery of healing it sure could be possible to regrow a limb. Rapid healing of wounds has been demonstrated before through meditation and Qi Gong - would this extend to being able to heal an amputee? If I was missing a limb I'd be damned if I'd let poopman tell me I couldn't try.

It's doubtful a limb could ever be regrown by the power of thought alone but the point is pretty clear. Taking the bible literally and finding criticism is easy but also dismissive of the lessons that the book teaches.

Granted I suppose it's only an understandable interpretation since most of our exposure to the bible is from people who literally believe Jesus died for our sins and we must only believe him to escape a literal lake of fire and that he rose from the dead three days later as proof that he was the son of God. If that's your opinion, you should delve deeper. If it's your opinion that the bible is completely false because some literal interpretations don't make sense, you should also delve deeper.

Most people do not have much faith, and most people do not know what they want. There is a lesson in missing a limb that those people chose to learn, even if they didn't know that was the way to learn it or even remember making the choice in the first place.

Originally Posted by Dark_Merlin

I am not a Christian and I don't follow any part of the Bible, nor have I read it, but to me the Bible does try to send a message underneath it's stories, fluent throughout most religions and that is if you believe it, you can achieve it. This isn't supposed to say 'Hey, if you pray real hard anyone can regrow an arm!'

The original point is that there are those out there who credit various gods for a recovery from an illness, in some cases very serious conditions such as cancer. The amputee case is very nice for demonstrating why this is a bunch of shit, and credit is misplaced.

Who are you quoting, photolysis? I didn't see anyone say that here.

Believing that you can regenerate a limb is a much bigger leap of faith than believing that you can cure yourself of cancer. Cancer is on the inside, and is only real to the sufferer in a visceral way through their symptoms. Its a lot easier to believe in the remission of symptoms than to believe in the spontaneous creation of new tissue. Just because it has never happened, doesn't mean that it is impossible; maybe its just that no one has wanted it enough yet.

Quote tag added. Yes I'm lazy when quoting

Actually, I missed that bit in Dark_Merlin's post; I actually thought it was supposed to be a strawman representation of someone's position since out of context it sounds really ignorant (no offense Dark_Merlin; you did say you don't know anything about the bible)

Originally Posted by Dark_Merlin

I am not a Christian and I don't follow any part of the Bible, nor have I read it, but to me the Bible does try to send a message underneath it's stories, fluent throughout most religions and that is if you believe it, you can achieve it.

It really doesn't. This kind of vague, sloppy thinking may pass as wisdom in pop culture, but in truth it's just nonsense. The Bible is largely just a compendium of disparate ramblings, many of which are pretty disgusting and certainly contrary to any of the wishy washy, sanitised messages you ascribe to it. Any coherent message that you do erroneously ascribe to it is in fact just a reflection of your own views.

Because they all lost their limbs in acts of gay fisting gone horribly wrong.

What does it mean to heal from an amputation? For the stump to be successfully sealed and the bleeding stopped and the skin grow back together is healing. After having a limb cut off, this is a pretty remarkable recovery, no? All thanks to the miracle that is modern medicine.

Omg you guys really are stupid. Check out Why Won't God Heal Amputees? I don't have the patience to actually respond to you mongoloids

You're pretty cool.... I only heard about that site, like.... 8 years ago.

Originally Posted by poopman

pray all you want, youll never regenerate limbs. this does not bode well for the bible thumpers out there

Not at all. Since God is claimed to be omniscient, it could be argued that he intentionally made the amputees and they're the ones he doesn't want to heal, for whatever reason.

The mistake the OP has made is taking this argument out of context. It is meant to respond to people who claim that god has healed them from their illnesses because they prayed to him to do so. The point being that if god is able and willing to physically cure people, why will he not use the same magic to regrow limbs?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Believing that you can regenerate a limb is a much bigger leap of faith than believing that you can cure yourself of cancer. Cancer is on the inside, and is only real to the sufferer in a visceral way through their symptoms.

It's also real in the sense that the cancer and it's consequent symptoms are the result of cancer cells. How is the spontaneous destruction of cells any more harder to believe (which as well all know is a good measurement of how true something is) than the spontaneous regeneration of them? The fact that "they're inside" is so profoundly irrelevant that I just don't even know how to finish this sentence.

Originally Posted by cmind

Not at all. Since God is claimed to be omniscient, it could be argued that he intentionally made the amputees and they're the ones he doesn't want to heal, for whatever reason.

I believe in an all-powerful god who wants to destroy the sun but he doesn't do it for some reason.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

I believe in an all-powerful god who wants to destroy the sun but he doesn't do it for some reason.

Care to elaborate? I don't get your point.

I can't believe I have to say this, but I'm an atheist. I thought people sort of knew that. And as an atheist, the one thing that's more annoying to me than fundamentalist religious types is fellow atheists using really bad logic to support their (lack of) beliefs. So I think it's important to point out the flaws in their reasoning.

If God is assumed to exist and is an omniscient and thinking entity with intention, then amputation can be explained by saying that God doesn't want them to be healed. The argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by cmind

If God is assumed to exist and is an omniscient and thinking entity with intention, then amputation can be explained by saying that God doesn't want them to be healed. The argument is invalid.

no




no









no





noononono


no


It's not invalid at all. It exposes an inconsistency in the idea that god heals the sick. Some people believe that god cured them of cancer or whatever disease. But if god is going around healing diseases then why wouldn't he go around restoring limbs? If he's omniscient then he should know who's going to get sick, too. You'd have to believe that he also wanted those people to become sick. So why does he let some people become sick and heal them, but the same is not true of amputees? Saying "well, he just doesn't want to for some reason" is a completely thoughtless excuse and exactly the kind of self-deluded hand-wave that makes these beliefs so completely ridiculous in the first place.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

It's also real in the sense that the cancer and it's consequent symptoms are the result of cancer cells. How is the spontaneous destruction of cells any more harder to believe (which as well all know is a good measurement of how true something is) than the spontaneous regeneration of them? The fact that "they're inside" is so profoundly irrelevant that I just don't even know how to finish this sentence.

If someone is able to heal themselves through faith, then it is the power of belief we are talking about is it not?

I don't see my cancer. I feel sick. I've felt sick before, and I got over it; I can get over this.

I see that my leg is gone. I've never grown a new limb before, and no one else ever has either. I will regrow my leg.

Which statement, from the perspective of of personal subjective experience is easier to believe? Curing oneself of any ailment through faith is much like the real and documented placebo effect except you have to start out knowing its a placebo and convince yourself that it is real and working so thoroughly that it does.

but when you feel sick because cancer is destroying your body

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If someone is able to heal themselves through faith, then it is the power of belief we are talking about is it not?

I don't see my cancer. I feel sick. I've felt sick before, and I got over it; I can get over this.

I see that my leg is gone. I've never grown a new limb before, and no one else ever has either. I will regrow my leg.

Which statement, from the perspective of of personal subjective experience is easier to believe? Curing oneself of any ailment through faith is much like the real and documented placebo effect except you have to start out knowing its a placebo and convince yourself that it is real and working so thoroughly that it does.

you sound like a crazy person. this sort of thinking is absurd and ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

It's not invalid at all. It exposes an inconsistency in the idea that god heals the sick.

No, they would say that God heals the ones he wants to heal. Not all of them. Remember, everyone who dies (who's not evil) goes to heaven. So it's no skin off God's back to let certain people die if it helps the rest of humanity. Perhaps the living learn lessons from the sickness and death around them.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

So why does he let some people become sick and heal them, but the same is not true of amputees?

You're committing a non-sequitur. God chooses who gets internally sick and who gets amputated, right? That's the assumption of theists. So he knows ahead of time that he never intended the amputees to regain their lost limbs.

The point is, if your goal is to convince theists to stop believing in their god, then this particular argument about amputees will fall flat on its face. Even worse, by presenting such a poor argument, you make the theists think that all of our arguments are just as weak, thus solidifying their belief.

Read Genesis Chapter 3. It talks about the original sin, and the curse humans got after eating from the tree of knowledge. In verse 22 it says "And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, least he put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever".

If Adam would have eaten from the tree of life instead, he would probably would have been granted immortality. Instead, humans gained intellect and lost access to having a chance at the tree of life, which probably included the "regenerate limbs" perk. Also, humans were cursed with things like hunger disease and other types of suffering...which probably includes most of those things mentioned in any "Why does God let people die/suffer of x, y and z" questions most people tend to ask.

Originally Posted by cmind

No, they would say that God heals the ones he wants to heal. Not all of them.

But he does heal some of them but none of the amputees.

Originally Posted by cmind

So he knows ahead of time that he never intended the amputees to regain their lost limbs.

Only if you accept that it's impossible for limbs to be regenerated, which if you believe in a god that heals people it is not.

Keep in mind that we're talking about people who believe god can heal amputees and disease but for some reason only heals diseases. Amputation is not a permanent, unfixable condition to this god as it is to us. You're making the same mistake and oversight this argument is meant to address.

Originally Posted by Auron

Instead, humans gained intellect and lost access to having a chance at the tree of life, which probably included the "regenerate limbs" perk.

The argument is in response to people who believe that god used his power to heal the sick. It's not about why god gave us bodies that can fight of sickness but cannot regenerate limbs, but rather why god uses his power for the sick but not amputees.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

The argument is in response to people who believe that god used his power to heal the sick. It's not about why god gave us bodies that can fight of sickness but cannot regenerate limbs, but rather why god uses his power for the sick but not amputees.

I was responding to the OP.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Only if you accept that it's impossible for limbs to be regenerated, which if you believe in a god that heals people it is not.

Keep in mind that we're talking about people who believe god can heal amputees and disease but for some reason only heals diseases. Amputation is not a permanent, unfixable condition to this god as it is to us. You're making the same mistake and oversight this argument is meant to address.

If you can stretch your brain enough to believe in a theistic god, it's not difficult to go one step further and believe that he has a special plan for amputees (ie. to not heal them).