Why doesn't God cure amputees?

[Magic Man]

He did make the lame walk.

That's not quite the same thing. I take that to mean that he helped people who couldn't walk walk, not people who didn't have legs walk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And while we're at it, why aren't blind people being cured with spit and mud anymore these days?

"Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea"
- Bad Religion

 

[sandy whitelinger]

An organism has to be the right species and have the right disease in order to be miraculously cured. You see, God is a lot like a doctor and a vet. Some things about cats, he can fix, but some things he can't, but he can fix those things in humans, but not always. He can do miracles, but not all of the miracles. Only some of them.

Fantasy.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Poppycock, there is a tremendous amount of needless suffering in this world, just open your eyes.

Like listening to you.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?"

Why should He?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

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

It's technically contradictory, but meant in the more poetic sense that when you set yourself on a path of learning, you come to a realisation of just how much there is to know, and with this fresh perspective the amount of knowledge you have appears smaller in comparison.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should He?

No reason at all, but this still leaves two possibilities:

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2. God heals some people, but not amputees.

Possibility 2 has two possible explanations:

a) God has no reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions, but does so anyway.
b) God has a reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions.

This can be re-phrased:

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2a) God is irrational or arbitrary (which, IMO, implies that God is not just).
2b) There is a substantive difference between amputees and the people that God does heal that is at the root of His decision not to heal them.

There's no inherent logical contradiction in any of these positions, but each one creates implications that people may or may not agree with, and claiming that 1 isn't true implies that either 2a) or 2b) must be true.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You certainly raise a valid point, though it is simply an offshoot of that perpetual question of why God allows human suffering. But I seek to address a specific point you made about prayers going unanswered.

God has never promised to us that he will answer all our prayers in a fashion that gives us all that we desire. It is important to remember the context in which promises in scripture are made, and determining the context can be difficult. Many of the more powerful promises are addressed specifically to disciples and prophets, and also for specific things. We have a tendency to generalise these promises and wonder why they do not work when we apply them. They were never ours in the first place.

The promises made to us tend to be far more conditional. We must be worthy, have faith, be humble. The desire has to be in line with the will of God. There are times when we must accept with faith the tragic aspects of life (death, illness and injustice) as a necessary aspect of our mortal experience. Sometimes it is given to us that God will give us what we want, the rest of the time He will give us the comfort and strength to deal with the harsher elements of life, provided we remain faithful.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Apparently god does cure some amputees:

Newt Limb Regeneration Time-Lapse Pictures

Maybe newts will inherit the earth?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

:

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2a) God is irrational or arbitrary (which, IMO, implies that God is not just).
2b) There is a substantive difference between amputees and the people that God does heal that is at the root of His decision not to heal them.

There's no inherent logical contradiction in any of these positions, but each one creates implications that people may or may not agree with, and claiming that 1 isn't true implies that either 2a) or 2b) must be true.

Good summing up, and I will explain why I believe 2b. With a question.

If solid evidence was presented to you that an individual had a limb restored via prayer, would this not form a basis for undeniable proof of the existence of the supernatural?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No reason at all, but this still leaves two possibilities:

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2. God heals some people, but not amputees.

Possibility 2 has two possible explanations:

a) God has no reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions, but does so anyway.
b) God has a reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions.

This can be re-phrased:

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2a) God is irrational or arbitrary (which, IMO, implies that God is not just).
2b) There is a substantive difference between amputees and the people that God does heal that is at the root of His decision not to heal them.

There's no inherent logical contradiction in any of these positions, but each one creates implications that people may or may not agree with, and claiming that 1 isn't true implies that either 2a) or 2b) must be true.

Okay I'll run with this for a moment:
God heals some people, but not amputees. God has a reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions.

Now back to the beginning. Why should He heal amputees?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Now back to the beginning. Why should He heal amputees?

I think that 9-10ths Penguin has summed up quite nicely why there is potentially a case to answer for in response to the very same question you are repeating. Either you are going to run with it and answer, or you are not. At the moment it looks like you are starting an infinite loop.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think that 9-10ths Penguin has summed up quite nicely why there is potentially a case to answer for in response to the very same question you are repeating. Either you are going to run with it and answer, or you are not. At the moment it looks like you are starting an infinite loop.

Um, whatever you said. Yet asking why God doesn't heal amputees implies that He should. Why? It goes to why He doesn't when He heals other things. That is assuming that He does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good summing up, and I will explain why I believe 2b. With a question.

If solid evidence was presented to you that an individual had a limb restored via prayer, would this not form a basis for undeniable proof of the existence of the supernatural?

Heh... I've got issues with the word "supernatural". I think it's used to describe things in one of two categories:

- natural things that we don't know or don't understand.
- things that don't exist.

So, yes, if that happened, it probably would undeniably indicate that something strange was going on. Whether that would constitute "proof of the existence of the supernatural" probably depends on how you define "supernatural".

Okay I'll run with this for a moment:
God heals some people, but not amputees. God has a reason for treating amputations differently from other afflictions.

Which would be what, exactly?

Is it difficulty? But for God, all things are possible, aren't they?

Is it out of a desire not to deny faith? I've heard you say that we all know our creator anyhow, but apparently this doesn't deny faith, so presumably that can't be it.

Is it merit of amputees versus merit of people with other conditions? I suppose this is possible, but it's never seemed to me that amputees are generally worse people than, say, lepers or the visually impaired.

Now back to the beginning. Why should He heal amputees?

Why not heal amputees if he's healing people with all sorts of ailments anyhow?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which would be what, exactly?

Personally, I'm not sure God is actively practicing such miracles right now. There is some Scripture to indicate that it is useless as a witnessing tool.

Why not heal amputees if he's healing people with all sorts of ailments anyhow?

I'd be most impressed if the healed amputaion was head. Why limit it to a few maladies though. God can heal every affliction and in a way He will. When one believes in Him they will recieve a new body in the ressurection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Um, whatever you said. Yet asking why God doesn't heal amputees implies that He should. Why?

Because the assumption that God goes around healing other people, and the assumption that God is good and just implies that there's some rational reason for making a distinction between amputation and most other ailments.

Mainly, though, I think it underscores the fact that - except in legend - God is only ever credited for healing a person when there's at least a slim chance that the person's condition could get better on its own or could have been misdiagnosed in the first place.

People claim that God cures cancer, but never amputations. People claim that God brings people back from the dead, but never after they've been embalmed. It all just strikes me as way too much to be coincidence.

It goes to why He doesn't when He heals other things. That is assuming that He does.

And, like I said, there's nothing inherently illogical about simply assuming that God doesn't heal amputees because God doesn't heal anyone and all the people who thought that God cured their cancer, leprosy or indigestion were just mistaken.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Heh... I've got issues with the word "supernatural". I think it's used to describe things in one of two categories:

- natural things that we don't know or don't understand.
- things that don't exist.

So, yes, if that happened, it probably would undeniably indicate that something strange was going on. Whether that would constitute "proof of the existence of the supernatural" probably depends on how you define "supernatural".

Yeah, I first wrote 'proof of God', then realised it logically needed to be a broader term. The context for which I was using supernatural was to imply that it was a miracle. It couldn't have happened by natural causes, and so must have come by something outside of the natural laws.

I actually think your response to the question is quite telling - it sounds like to you the spontaneous reappearance of a limb would not be sufficient to inspire faith in God. But I think you can appreciate I am getting at the Babel Fish argument:

"God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exist.

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

 

[DallasApple]

God cures amputees by creating our brains big enough to develop thechnology to make prothesis.

Love

Dallas

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because the assumption that God goes around healing other people, and the assumption that God is good and just implies that there's some rational reason for making a distinction between amputation and most other ailments.

Mainly, though, I think it underscores the fact that - except in legend - God is only ever credited for healing a person when there's at least a slim chance that the person's condition could get better on its own or could have been misdiagnosed in the first place.

People claim that God cures cancer, but never amputations. People claim that God brings people back from the dead, but never after they've been embalmed. It all just strikes me as way too much to be coincidence.


And, like I said, there's nothing inherently illogical about simply assuming that God doesn't heal amputees because God doesn't heal anyone and all the people who thought that God cured their cancer, leprosy or indigestion were just mistaken.

Personally, I'm seriously doubtful He is actively performing healing miracles. The question could still arise as to when He was, why didn't He heal everyone and everything. Then expanding further, why doesn't He save everyone.

As I said though, in the end He will heal all that ails the Believer. There is evidence that He might give the unbeliever new teeth, "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I'm not sure God is actively practicing such miracles right now. There is some Scripture to indicate that it is useless as a witnessing tool.

IOW, God might just not be healing anyone at all right now; God could be just as keen to heal amputees as anyone else, but maybe He's not healing anyone at the moment.

That position is fine and (on its own, anyhow) logically consistent, but it implies that people who believe in things like faith healers or the curative powers of the shrine at Lourdes are just plain wrong. There are people who believe that miracles of healing are happening in the world today.