Does God heal amputees?

[darknova]

Hi,

I know this is quite a common objection to healings, but I don't ask it as an angry atheist, because I am genuinely wanting a good answer.

I have heard of many people being healed, people being raised from the dead, even somewhat know or seen people who have claimed to be healed, but in all the cases there never seems to be a healing where something very obviously impossible has happened. I have heard of blind and deaf people being healed, but without a doctor who knew the previous reason for the condition it isn't possible to know if the healing was a healing or a very powerful placebo.

So why arn't people such as amputees healed, where in a short amount of time an arm or leg is grown? All you would need is one of these caught on camera and it would be one most important things ever to happen.

I am happy to hear any answer, even if it sounds 'religious', as long as it is a well reasoned answer and not simply, Gods ways are mysterious.

Thanks

 

[drich0150]

What kind of "religious" answer are you looking for? Are looking for biblical example?

Because i would suggest any and all modern day healing of this type would be more likely attributed to science than to God.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

What kind of "religious" answer are you looking for? Are looking for biblical example?

Because i would suggest any and all modern day healing of this type would be more likely attributed to science than to God.

I think he's asking if there are any documented examples of an amputee being prayed for and subsequently a new limb spontaneously reappearing without the aid of modern science.

 

[darknova]

What kind of "religious" answer are you looking for? Are looking for biblical example?

Because i would suggest any and all modern day healing of this type would be more likely attributed to science than to God.

By this I just ment that I am open to answers to the question that someone non-christians might consider too religious. For example, 'God doesn't do it because if he totally proven himself there would be no need for faith'. But a better more fuller answer than that.

I think he's asking if there are any documented examples of an amputee being prayed for and subsequently a new limb spontaneously reappearing without the aid of modern science.

That would be nice too

 

[drich0150]

To my knowledge the only thing close to the reattachment of severed limbs happened before the eyes of Ezekiel in chapter 37 (in his book) where God assembles an army before him out of dry bones and covers them in flesh.

Most "healing" today don't get the same attention as medical procedures do. The medical community is not set up to document nor accept "miracles." Anything not reproducing a verifiable or predictable result is discarded, and simply view at as a curiosity. It maybe well known to the people directly involved with a miracle, but is not taken seriously by the medical community in large because by definition a miracle can not meet the criteria set by the medical establishment to be recognized.

You are attempting to hold "miracles" to a standard that will not accept or even has a way to document or verify if a miracle even had taken place.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

To my knowledge the only thing close to the reattachment of severed limbs happened before the eyes of Ezekiel in chapter 37 (in his book) where God assembles an army before him out of dry bones and covers them in flesh.

Most "healing" today don't get the same attention as medical procedures do. The medical community is not set up to document nor accept "miracles." Anything not reproducing a verifiable or predictable result is discarded, and simply view at as a curiosity. It maybe well known to the people directly involved with a miracle, but is not taken seriously by the medical community in large because by definition a miracle can not meet the criteria set by the medical establishment to be recognized.

You are attempting to hold "miracles" to a standard that will not accept or even has a way to document or verify if a miracle even had taken place.

An amputee would be easy enough to verify. For instance, on Monday, Dave is missing a right at the knee. The very next day, Tuesday, Dave's friend's and family pray for him. The next day, Wednesday, Dave has a whole and complete leg and foot made of bone, musle, tendon, nerves and blood vessels made up of his own DNA, without the benefit of surgery or medical science.

This is the question presented by the OP. In exploring Christianity, this is indeed a fair question.

It does seem to be that the 'miraculous healings' of medical conditons are often those conditions that have precedence of being self limiting or occasionally spontaneously heal.

I truly would like to understand why a benevolent and loving father creator chooses to heal some afflictions, and seemingly categorically refuses to heal others, such as amputees.

 

[elman]

Hi,

I know this is quite a common objection to healings, but I don't ask it as an angry atheist, because I am genuinely wanting a good answer.

I have heard of many people being healed, people being raised from the dead, even somewhat know or seen people who have claimed to be healed, but in all the cases there never seems to be a healing where something very obviously impossible has happened. I have heard of blind and deaf people being healed, but without a doctor who knew the previous reason for the condition it isn't possible to know if the healing was a healing or a very powerful placebo.

So why arn't people such as amputees healed, where in a short amount of time an arm or leg is grown? All you would need is one of these caught on camera and it would be one most important things ever to happen.

I am happy to hear any answer, even if it sounds 'religious', as long as it is a well reasoned answer and not simply, Gods ways are mysterious.

Thanks

I speculate that God does not appear to us and demonstrate His existence because His presence would be so overwhelming as to take away our ability to freely chose to love Him. I think God does act within this world to heal people and help people, but perhaps never in such a way that we no longer need faith in our decisions to follow His will. Obviously we all die, so God does not heal us everytime we ask. This world is such that it rains on the just and the unjust and both suffer to some degree.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I speculate that God does not appear to us and demonstrate His existence because His presence would be so overwhelming as to take away our ability to freely chose to love Him. I think God does act within this world to heal people and help people, but perhaps never in such a way that we no longer need faith in our decisions to follow His will. Obviously we all die, so God does not heal us everytime we ask. This world is such that it rains on the just and the unjust and both suffer to some degree.

This kind of equivocation simply begs the question then; Why does god heal anyone at all? Why would god choose only to heal the trivial or menial afflictions but not the abjectly horrific conditions, including amputees?

Ultimately, this discussion is venturing into the 'problem of pain', and how a loving father/creator can stand by and allow such pain to happen on his creation/children. I have read C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain," and I was not swayed by his argument. IMO, the burden of intervention is incumbant on those in a position to alleviate intolerable pain, suffering, and injustice.

 

[darknova]

To my knowledge the only thing close to the reattachment of severed limbs happened before the eyes of Ezekiel in chapter 37 (in his book) where God assembles an army before him out of dry bones and covers them in flesh.

Most "healing" today don't get the same attention as medical procedures do. The medical community is not set up to document nor accept "miracles." Anything not reproducing a verifiable or predictable result is discarded, and simply view at as a curiosity. It maybe well known to the people directly involved with a miracle, but is not taken seriously by the medical community in large because by definition a miracle can not meet the criteria set by the medical establishment to be recognized.

You are attempting to hold "miracles" to a standard that will not accept or even has a way to document or verify if a miracle even had taken place.

Some conditions could be proven without a doubt that God did it simply by the fact that the condition is gone. Such as gaining an arm.

I speculate that God does not appear to us and demonstrate His existence because His presence would be so overwhelming as to take away our ability to freely chose to love Him. I think God does act within this world to heal people and help people, but perhaps never in such a way that we no longer need faith in our decisions to follow His will. Obviously we all die, so God does not heal us everytime we ask. This world is such that it rains on the just and the unjust and both suffer to some degree.

Isn't revealing His existance different from the full weight of his presence?

For some reason this makes me think God would be more like the force of goodness rather than being more like a person.

 

[elman]

This kind of equivocation simply begs the question then; Why does god heal anyone at all? Why would god choose only to heal the trivial or menial afflictions but not the abjectly horrific conditions, including amputees?

Ultimately, this discussion is venturing into the 'problem of pain', and how a loving father/creator can stand by and allow such pain to happen on his creation/children. I have read C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain," and I was not swayed by his argument. IMO, the burden of intervention is incumbant on those in a position to alleviate intolerable pain, suffering, and injustice.

That is true because you believe this world is the sum total of all there is. If however this world is a place where people can become loving or unloving beings by choice, then the burden of intervention is not incumbant.

 

[elman]

Isn't revealing His existance different from the full weight of his presence?

For some reason this makes me think God would be more like the force of goodness rather than being more like a person.

It may not be that different. The full weight of HIs presence may necessarily come with revealing His existence. I think God is both the force for goodness and a separate intelligent being from His creation.

 

[drich0150]

An amputee would be easy enough to verify. For instance, on Monday, Dave is missing a right at the knee. The very next day, Tuesday, Dave's friend's and family pray for him. The next day, Wednesday, Dave has a whole and complete leg and foot made of bone, musle, tendon, nerves and blood vessels made up of his own DNA, without the benefit of surgery or medical science.

This is the question presented by the OP. In exploring Christianity, this is indeed a fair question.

It does seem to be that the 'miraculous healings' of medical conditions are often those conditions that have precedence of being self limiting or occasionally spontaneously heal.

Would HIV/AIDS be something one could spontaneously heal themselves from? (later stages?)

I truly would like to understand why a benevolent and loving father creator chooses to heal some afflictions, and seemingly categorically refuses to heal others, such as amputees.

Who would be served more by the reattachment of a limb?

If this happened Wouldn't that just underline or emphasize your understanding of God?

Do you think your understanding of God is the understanding God wants us all to have of Him? What if the God of the universe was not a signs and wonderment kind of God? What if for some strange reason God work through the same "natural" processes that instituted at the beginning of time? That's why i asked who would be served by the reattachment of a limb?

Just because 2000 years ago we saw what Christ did as a sign or wonder does not mean it would still be that way today. It also does not mean that just because we tend to hold on to our 2000 year old interpretation of God means He is bound to that stereotype.

So Again who would be served by the reattachment of a limb?

 

[drich0150]

Some conditions could be proven without a doubt that God did it simply by the fact that the condition is gone. Such as gaining an arm.

... This presupposes two things. One God wants to be known as the God you perceive Him to be, and two that Modern "science" will never come to the point that we are able to regenerate a limb. Otherwise wouldn't even a miracle on a scale such as this just be reduced to the common place if we knew how to do this?

Isn't revealing His existence different from the full weight of his presence?

What if his existence, and the revelation of it do not coincide with His plan for us? Do you think He would be compelled to give signs and wonders if He did not want to be known as a signs and wonders God?

For some reason this makes me think God would be more like the force of goodness rather than being more like a person.

Probably because God does not want to be known as just another person

 

[drich0150]

Oh I totally forgot, Jesus put an ear back on a gaurd that Peter had lopped off.

(thanks to my wife)

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Would HIV/AIDS be something one could spontaneously heal themselves from? (later stages?)


Who would be served more by the reattachment of a limb?

If this happened Wouldn't that just underline or emphasize your understanding of God?

Do you think your understanding of God is the understanding God wants us all to have of Him? What if the God of the universe was not a signs and wonderment kind of God? What if for some strange reason God work through the same "natural" processes that instituted at the beginning of time? That's why i asked who would be served by the reattachment of a limb?

Just because 2000 years ago we saw what Christ did as a sign or wonder does not mean it would still be that way today. It also does not mean that just because we tend to hold on to our 2000 year old interpretation of God means He is bound to that stereotype.

So Again who would be served by the reattachment of a limb?

As for who would be 'served' for the spontaneous regeneration of a limb, that would be for the recipient to decide. Much in the same way a football player credits Christ with the victory, or the way an old lady might credit Jesus for finding a parking spot in a crowded mall parking lot.

The question is not who would or should receive credit, but why do we see supposed healings of some afflictions that have been known to be self limiting or known spontaneous remissions, but not real, clear cut objective healings, such as spontaneous regeneration of a limb. Why would an omnipotent supernatural being capable of ending suffering not? Are there categorical sufferings or conditions that are beyond the effects of prayer? Is the deist view a better understanding of god?

If you personally were witness to a horrible crime, and you had the power to stop it, and elected not to. What should we say of you? Incompetent at the least and morally reprehensible at the most. An author whom I enjoy reading states it thusly; "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity."

As for Jesus reattaching a lopped off ear, not at impressive as spontaneously regenerating a new one. Frankly, given some thread and a needle, I could give it the 'ol college try and sew an ear back on.

 

[drich0150]

As for who would be 'served' for the spontaneous regeneration of a limb, that would be for the recipient to decide.

Actually, no. It would be to all who are faced with the knowledge of the regenerated limb, "to decide" how they perceived God. My point was what if God didn't want us to view Him in that way? It would be pretty hard to change our antiquated view of God, if He was pandering to it.

Much in the same way a football player credits Christ with the victory, or the way an old lady might credit Jesus for finding a parking spot in a crowded mall parking lot.

But when others look at these accreditations they are dismissed.

The question is not who would or should receive credit, but why do we see supposed healing of some afflictions that have been known to be self limiting or known spontaneous remissions, but not real, clear cut objective healing, such as spontaneous regeneration of a limb.

Because "healing" outside the time of Christ are not meant to be taken as signs that underline the authority of the "Healer." Nor do they establish anyone as a prophet, nor are they needed to underscore the power of God. "Healing" served that purpose, and now have been given another.

Why would an omnipotent supernatural being capable of ending suffering not?

Because of this:

There are categorical sufferings or conditions that are beyond the effects of prayer

"suffering" is just a matter of perspective. Why would a righteous God "heal" a superficial suffering, and yet not address a behavior or an attitude that will attribute itself to much greater suffering in the end?

Is the deist view a better understanding of god?

In part yes.

If you personally were witness to a horrible crime, and you had the power to stop it, and elected not to.

What if I specifically knew that this "horrible crime" would spawn a far better situation for all parties involved? What if i knew beyond all doubt that this horrible crime would save millions more than it hurt? What if the crime was against boy Hitler? or the next boy Hitler?

What should we say of you? Incompetent at the least and morally reprehensible at the most.

Then I would gladly wear that badge if I knew that my actions served the greater good rather than popular expectation.

An author whom I enjoy reading states it thusly; "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity."

Perhaps a loving father allows a degree of unfairness or some stupidity to enter the lives of his children in order for them to grow beyond a thou shall and a thou shall not relationship. Hardship= life experience. Real word life experience if properly directed is far more valuable than an "absolute" based on another man's thoughts. Properly directed life experiences begets wisdom. Wisdom is a commodity in this day and age that is far more
valuable, than anything else we can obtain on our own.

As for Jesus reattaching a lopped off ear, not at impressive as spontaneously regenerating a new one. Frankly, given some thread and a needle, I could give it the 'ol college try and sew an ear back on.

Too bad you nor anyone who knew what collage was around back then... Which kinda points to what I said to the OP.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Actually, no. It would be to all who are faced with the knowledge of the regenerated limb, "to decide" how they perceived God. My point was what if God didn't want us to view Him in that way? It would be pretty hard to change our antiquated view of God, if He was pandering to it.


But when others look at these accreditations they are dismissed.


Because "healing" outside the time of Christ are not meant to be taken as signs that underline the authority of the "Healer." Nor do they establish anyone as a prophet, nor are they needed to underscore the power of God. "Healing" served that purpose, and now have been given another.


Because of this: "suffering" is just a matter of perspective. Why would a righteous God "heal" a superficial suffering, and yet not address a behavior or an attitude that will attribute itself to much greater suffering in the end?


In part yes.

What if I specifically knew that this "horrible crime" would spawn a far better situation for all parties involved? What if i knew beyond all doubt that this horrible crime would save millions more than it hurt? What if the crime was against boy Hitler? or the next boy Hitler?

Then I would gladly wear that badge if I knew that my actions served the greater good rather than popular expectation.


Perhaps a loving father allows a degree of unfairness or some stupidity to enter the lives of his children in order for them to grow beyond a thou shall and a thou shall not relationship. Hardship= life experience. Real word life experience if properly directed is far more valuable than an "absolute" based on another man's thoughts. Properly directed life experiences begets wisdom. Wisdom is a commodity in this day and age that is far more
valuable, than anything else we can obtain on our own.

Too bad you nor anyone who knew what collage was around back then... Which kinda points to what I said to the OP.

Which begs the question... why pray at all. Could it be that prayer is an act that changes a persons mental and emotional perspective, rather than an expected actual supernatural intervention?

 

[drich0150]

Which begs the question... why pray at all. Could it be that prayer is an act that changes a persons mental and emotional perspective, rather than an expected actual supernatural intervention?

Exactly!

Prayer is not the way we are meant to have our "wishes" granted as some in the faith would have us believe. Because God is not a Genie granting wishes to the faithful. Prayer as Jesus describes and modeled is a way for us to learn to accept His will, not for us to be able to force our will upon Him.

That is why we have been given this model of prayer:
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
“ ‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,

We acknowledge God and His authority in our life, We also reverence His very name
​

10 your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.

God's Kingdom come, asks for the end of the reign of man. and, His Kingdom, His authority, His will, be the will of everyone as if earth were another Heaven.

11 Give us today our daily bread.

If any part of this model prayer allows for personal request it is this. But even in doing so we are only asking for what God wants for us to ask for. Daily bread, not a surplus or even a measure greater than what we need for just the day.

12 Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
If there was a condition to our forgiveness/salvation this would be it. Again, we are still praying for God's will and not our own.

13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.a’
...So that we maybe able to be in God's expressed will. no where in this famous model does it provide a soap box for us to petition God for endless wishes..
That said know it is not a sin to ask God for "wishes." Just know He is not obligated to grant them just because you see Him as a benevolent Genie.

​

 

[HisHomeMaker]

I truly would like to understand why a benevolent and loving father creator chooses to heal some afflictions, and seemingly categorically refuses to heal others, such as amputees.

I would never suggest that someone deserves to loose a limb. I wonder, though, if those who suffer aren't being used by God for something higher. I have gone through a time of suffering and coming out of it a much better person. I believe God wanted my attention and is using me for the purpose he intended.

Why would an omnipotent supernatural being capable of ending suffering not? Are there categorical sufferings or conditions that are beyond the effects of prayer? Is the deist view a better understanding of god?

If you personally were witness to a horrible crime, and you had the power to stop it, and elected not to. What should we say of you? Incompetent at the least and morally reprehensible at the most. An author whom I enjoy reading states it thusly; "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity."

As for Jesus reattaching a lopped off ear, not at impressive as spontaneously regenerating a new one. Frankly, given some thread and a needle, I could give it the 'ol college try and sew an ear back on.

We the people are to care for one another. Absolutely, sew an ear back on if you know how.

Matthew 25:35
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

In The Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us to care for the poor, the sick and the needy.

"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity."
If we do not speak out over something that is wrong, then we are wrong, also.

 

[bibleblevr]

The Catholic Church has recognised less then 13,000 miracles over the past 2000 years, they are the largest organization who examines and documents miracles, and yet only 13,000 are found. Weed out those that don't have to do with medical problems and that leaves you with fewer. I would say that given the fact that amputation is fairly rare, and that major miracles are less common then smaller ones, it is reasonable to think that not seeing amputees healed is simply because the probability of them being healed then documented is very low. keep a look out for the next 1000 years and maybe we will have a case, God doesn't do huge miracles that regularly.