Does God heal amputees?

[darknova]

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.

That seems very strange considering the activity of God in Acts and the claims of pentecostals and charismatics. You tend to hear of alot of healings from them, but I've never heard of someones arm growing back. I've even heard of people being raised back to life, but not anything like an arm or leg growing back.

Though the Catholic church is the largest, it doesn't seem healings in the same way does it? Anyway it might be good to look at the evidence the Catholic church has. Does it have documentation on the internet of healings?

 

[aiki]

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.

And this is part of the problem with God doing the miraculous in order to prove Himself. We see what we expect or desire to see in the miraculous. An atheist will look at a miracle and offer some naturalistic explanation or, if he is unable to do so, will beg for time for science to expand sufficiently to be able to explain the miracle. For him, the admission of a miracle is not an option because of the attendant implications of doing so. The record of Scripture testifies to this kind of myopia in the response of the Pharisees to Christ's miracles. Though the Pharisees saw miracles performed, and examined those who were healed, they refused to acknowledge Christ's divinity. Any other explanation was preferable -- even one that charged Christ with the power of devil -- than to admit that Christ was who he said he was. People are no different today: many want any other explanation than that the miraculous happens; for if it does, it points powerfully to the presence of God.

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.

Implicit in this question seems to be the idea that since amputees are not known to have been miraculously healed God does not therefore exist. But this is a non-sequitur; the absence of healed amputees does not prove that God does not exist. THere are very strong arguments in favor of God that are not in the least contingent on the absence or presence of miracles.

I would think it far more impressive to have someone rise from the dead than to have a missing limb regenerate. But although there is eye-witness testimony to resurrection it is dimissed as impossible rather than hailed as the most important thing ever to happen.

You see, the problem people have with God isn't really an intellectual one. The evidence (or lack thereof) for God isn't the issue. The heart of the matter is control. People want to be the masters of their own fate, they want to be their own boss, they want to do more or less as they please. God interferes profoundly with us in this regard, however. And many people just won't have it. They know on the most fundamental gut-level that God is, but throw up all manner of reasons to suppress and/or deny this awareness. Not even the miraculous will persuade such people from their determination to live by their own rules, interests, and proclivities. In light of this, it is rather naive to think that the presence of healed amputees would serve any significant role in persuading people who are working hard to deny their own innate sense of God's existence that He truly exists.

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.

Are God's ways not mysterious? Do you think you should be able to fully comprehend God? If you could, would you not then be on par with God? Personally, a God I could completely comprehend would not be much of a God.

Selah.

 

[MattRose]

...I would think it far more impressive to have someone rise from the dead than to have a missing limb regenerate. But although there is eye-witness testimony to resurrection it is dimissed as impossible rather than hailed as the most important thing ever to happen...

...You see, the problem people have with God isn't really an intellectual one. The evidence (or lack thereof) for God isn't the issue...

Well actually it is, in fact the issue. I'm dismayed that most people, who support the case that God performs miracles, won't admit that seeing a limb grow back is more of a miracle than cancer remission. The whole point of this thread is that there are no miracles, because these supposed miracles are all easily explained away as misdiagnoses, fraud, placebo effect, etc. "Eye-witness testimony to resurrection" is not as good a miracle as a limb regrowing. Many cases of premature burial are documented. Were these miracles? Better late than never? Not so sure you would want the term "miracle" assigned to one of these poor chaps who was found to have revived after his burial. You do have a point in one regard. A documented limb regrowing would be immediately dismissed by science. Then again that's due to the way science is performed. Give me a dozen or so cases of limbs regrowing that are sufficiently documented and I'll be sitting beside you next Sunday morning.

 

[Faulty]

Give me a dozen or so cases of limbs regrowing that are sufficiently documented and I'll be sitting beside you next Sunday morning.

That's doubtful. The scriptures are filled with documented healings, but they are still easily discarded by those who find excuses not to take them at face value.

In Luke 16, Jesus told a story of a rich man, and a poor man named Lazarus. The rich man died and went to Hades, while Lazarus died and went to Paradise at Abraham's side.

In the course of the story, the rich man, upon learning there would be no comfirt given to him in his torment, says to Abraham, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment."

Abraham responded, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them."

The rich man replied, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent."

To which Abraham stated, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

In the end, there will be none of us who will be able to say to God, "I didn't see enough signs with my own eyes to believe", because He would simply respond in like manner, "I gave you Moses and the Prophets. I gave you the writings and accounts of the Apostles, and most of all I gave you the words and deeds of my own Son", and with that, many men will stand justifiably condemned before Him.

 

[darknova]

And this is part of the problem with God doing the miraculous in order to prove Himself. We see what we expect or desire to see in the miraculous. An atheist will look at a miracle and offer some naturalistic explanation or, if he is unable to do so, will beg for time for science to expand sufficiently to be able to explain the miracle. For him, the admission of a miracle is not an option because of the attendant implications of doing so. The record of Scripture testifies to this kind of myopia in the response of the Pharisees to Christ's miracles. Though the Pharisees saw miracles performed, and examined those who were healed, they refused to acknowledge Christ's divinity. Any other explanation was preferable -- even one that charged Christ with the power of devil -- than to admit that Christ was who he said he was. People are no different today: many want any other explanation than that the miraculous happens; for if it does, it points powerfully to the presence of God.

How does God prove Himself to be real then, or is it take on blind faith? Couldn't God prove Himself to be real without doubt to believers to help those who have doubt?

Implicit in this question seems to be the idea that since amputees are not known to have been miraculously healed God does not therefore exist. But this is a non-sequitur; the absence of healed amputees does not prove that God does not exist. THere are very strong arguments in favor of God that are not in the least contingent on the absence or presence of miracles.

I know that God could be real reguardless of miracles. I was just wondering why God didn't prove Himself this way, or at least like to heal people from this.

I would think it far more impressive to have someone rise from the dead than to have a missing limb regenerate. But although there is eye-witness testimony to resurrection it is dimissed as impossible rather than hailed as the most important thing ever to happen.

Resurrections from the dead can be explained away sometimes though. A limb regrowing is literally impossible without God or future technology.

You see, the problem people have with God isn't really an intellectual one. The evidence (or lack thereof) for God isn't the issue. The heart of the matter is control. People want to be the masters of their own fate, they want to be their own boss, they want to do more or less as they please. God interferes profoundly with us in this regard, however. And many people just won't have it. They know on the most fundamental gut-level that God is, but throw up all manner of reasons to suppress and/or deny this awareness. Not even the miraculous will persuade such people from their determination to live by their own rules, interests, and proclivities. In light of this, it is rather naive to think that the presence of healed amputees would serve any significant role in persuading people who are working hard to deny their own innate sense of God's existence that He truly exists.

So you think there is good evidence for God, but those who don't believe don't believe because they would rather sin than turn to God? How do you think someone turns from wanting to sin to God?

What sort of good evidences prove God then? I don't need a full explaination for the ideas if you don't want to.

Are God's ways not mysterious? Do you think you should be able to fully comprehend God? If you could, would you not then be on par with God? Personally, a God I could completely comprehend would not be much of a God.

Maybe Gods ways are mysterious, but for that to be a good reply I think it has to be explain why saying 'it is mysterious' is a good answer in this case, but not in other cases.

 

[MattRose]

That's doubtful. The scriptures are filled with documented healings, but they are still easily discarded by those who find excuses not to take them at face value...

...In the end, there will be none of us who will be able to say to God, "I didn't see enough signs with my own eyes to believe", because He would simply respond in like manner, "I gave you Moses and the Prophets. I gave you the writings and accounts of the Apostles, and most of all I gave you the words and deeds of my own Son", and with that, many men will stand justifiably condemned before Him.

I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that you are able to "easily discard" other religions' claims of miracles, prophets, etc. I'll even go as far to say that you "find excuses" and don't "see enough signs with my own eyes to believe" in all other religions except for christianity. We are so alike. I just lump in christianity with all the others.

I've always thought that old adage If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything would be more accurate if it were instead If you fall for something, you're more likely to fall for anything.

Anyway your argument is just a distraction from regrowing a limb. This forum has many threads dealing with all the other "proof" that God is real. Those topics are not part of this thread. Let's keep it to amputees please.

 

[aiki]

How does God prove Himself to be real then, or is it take on blind faith? Couldn't God prove Himself to be real without doubt to believers to help those who have doubt?

The word "prove" can be a tricky thing. I think a better word might be "evidence. God gives plenty of evidence for His existence in the physical universe in which we live, in His direct intervention into human history in the person of Jesus Christ, through simple logic, and in personal interaction with those who believe in Him.

Could God prove Himself to be real to genuine believers? Yes, He could -- and does. This has been my experience, to be sure. He didn't convince me with a personal appearance, or a miraculous healing, but with the things I've mentioned above.

I know that God could be real reguardless of miracles. I was just wondering why God didn't prove Himself this way, or at least like to heal people from this.

As the Bible says, "With God all things are possible." He could - and very well may have - healed an amputation. I cannot say, though, that I'm aware of any such miracle. But, then, there are many incredible things God has done for people of which I am completely unaware.

Our requests for "proof" of God's existence often amount to hoop jumping. If God will jump through my personal set of "proof hoops," then I will believe in Him. The problem with this is that I am setting the agenda for God; I'm telling Him what to do rather than the other way 'round. But what gives me the right to command God this way? What kind of a God would allow Himself to be so ordered? Its not like God hasn't given any evidence for His existence whatsoever. As I noted above, there are many good reasons God has already provided to us upon which to rest our belief in Him. In light of this, its seems highly inappropriate to demand my own special proof, just one more miracle just for me. Making this sort of demand of God turns the right dynamic between creature and Creator on its head. It makes the creature the one who determines the grounds upon which a relationship with their Creator may begin. But God cannot be God when He is subject to His own creation in this way. He is God; He is the One who is all-powerful and all-knowing; we need Him, but He does not need us; He says what goes and we obey (or not, as the case may be). And this is the problem so many have with trusting in Him: a relationship with God is predicated upon submission to Him. But this submission requires our acknowledging our need, our weakness, and our rebellion toward our Maker.

So you think there is good evidence for God, but those who don't believe don't believe because they would rather sin than turn to God? How do you think someone turns from wanting to sin to God?

I don't think the equation in most people's minds is: Denying God = wanting sin. I think it is more like: Denying God = doing what I want. As far as God is concerned, however, the equation is: Denying God = evil, sinful rebellion. Unfortunately, we are so steeped in sin, so comfortable with its presence in our lives, that we cannot win free of its grip on our own. We are inclined to sin and only God can alter this inclination. We cannot reform ourselves; we cannot make ourselves desire God; only He can do that.

What sort of good evidences prove God then? I don't need a full explaination for the ideas if you don't want to.

Liebniz's Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3.The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The Design Argument:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

The Moral Argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

These are just a few of the arguments one can make in favor of a belief in God. I could post more, but I think these ones will give you plenty to consider and challenge me on.

Selah.

 

[chris4243]

Does growing a new bladder count?

On a Scaffold in the Lab, Doctors Build a Bladder - New York Times

 

[Arcademus]

Does growing a new bladder count?

On a Scaffold in the Lab, Doctors Build a Bladder - New York Times

... I think that's science, not God.

 

[s_s]

Does God heal amputees?

Yes.

It has been mentioned already, plenty of dismissed instances in the Bible and in other aspects of history.
But, FWIW, I've met people that it's happened to, was common (as common as finding an amputee was) in my previous church, and I've experienced first-hand similar healings. I say similar - not specifically amputees - but body parts growing.

 

[Exial]

Yes.

It has been mentioned already, plenty of dismissed instances in the Bible and in other aspects of history.
But, FWIW, I've met people that it's happened to, was common (as common as finding an amputee was) in my previous church, and I've experienced first-hand similar healings. I say similar - not specifically amputees - but body parts growing.

I think a very relevant quote here is "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Its all well and nice you saying that you've met people who have witnessed amputee healings and that you have witnessed similar things yourself but can you actually prove it? (and if so, can you do it over a internet forum) because although you asserted that God heals amputees at the very beginning of your post but actually you showed 0 evidence of him doing so in your rest of your response, you just simply continued claiming that he did.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I've never seen it happen.

 

[darknova]

Yes.

It has been mentioned already, plenty of dismissed instances in the Bible and in other aspects of history.
But, FWIW, I've met people that it's happened to, was common (as common as finding an amputee was) in my previous church, and I've experienced first-hand similar healings. I say similar - not specifically amputees - but body parts growing.

I've heard of peoples legs growing longer by a few inches. One of my friends has seen it happen and I don't think he is purposely lying. But I am asking about things that can't be mistaken.

So you have meet people who you trust who literally had no arm/half an arm or leg and it grew back as they were prayed for? What else have you seen?

I hope you will be able to tell me truthfully how sure you can be of the things you are talking about if I am willing to accept you are making things up. What church group was your previous church in? Just interested.

 

[berachah]

The problem is that God chooses to work through people and the great hindrance is humanity's lack of faith. With God all things are possible, but with man just about nothing is possible anymore.

There is a documentated case of a man who lost both feet in a landmine explosion. While visiting the noted healing evangelist, Smith Wigglesworth in the 1940's, Smith told the man to go buy himself a pair of shoes the next morning.

Considering the comment to be a case of poor humor he ignored Smith, but later that night had a dream wherein he was convinced God told him to "listen to my servant, Smith."

The shop attendent, after noticing his missing feet, sheepishly asked what size shoes he required. As he spoke out his response, his stumps began to grow into feet before both of them. Smith was well known for 1000's of dramatic healings in the early half of the 20th century including bringing 6 people back to life. (one of those being his wife who pleaded with him to allow her to return as "it was her time")

God pretty much responds according to our faith and expectation of Him and sadly most Christians cannot even believe these stories, never mind trust God for any type of healing for themselves...

 

[darknova]

The problem is that God chooses to work through people and the great hindrance is humanity's lack of faith. With God all things are possible, but with man just about nothing is possible anymore.

There is a documentated case of a man who lost both feet in a landmine explosion. While visiting the noted healing evangelist, Smith Wigglesworth in the 1940's, Smith told the man to go buy himself a pair of shoes the next morning.

Considering the comment to be a case of poor humor he ignored Smith, but later that night had a dream wherein he was convinced God told him to "listen to my servant, Smith."

The shop attendent, after noticing his missing feet, sheepishly asked what size shoes he required. As he spoke out his response, his stumps began to grow into feet before both of them. Smith was well known for 1000's of dramatic healings in the early half of the 20th century including bringing 6 people back to life. (one of those being his wife who pleaded with him to allow her to return as "it was her time")

God pretty much responds according to our faith and expectation of Him and sadly most Christians cannot even believe these stories, never mind trust God for any type of healing for themselves...

I have actually heard of all these stories of Smith Wigglesworth before. I just don't know if there is any reason to believe them.

 

[joyusdays]

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.

I believe in God...yet I have not seen the miraculous healings like limbs growing. The miracle I see though is the human Body and how it is made to heal, such as the liver can regenerate cells, etc. I do know that if God created the human body, which I have to believe someone greater than a spark made this amazing body, than I have to believe He chooses not to grow limbs. Do I understand it? No, but I don't understand why science can change from day to day either...it just is.

 

[Cieza]

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.

Are there any modern examples of God regrowing the limbs of people?

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.

On a regular basis you will hear people claim that a person was cured of cancer because of prayer. But you never hear about a person whose limb regrew because of prayer.

Reading between the lines, it suggests that a person being cured of cancer can happen through natural causes and is not a miracle, while it is physiologically impossible for a person's amputated limb to regrow. So to suit their agenda, Christians will credit a person's cancer going away to prayer and/or God. But when confronted with the question of why amputees don't have their limbs regrown, they'll back into their "God works in mysterious ways" fogging technique.

 

[Cieza]

The problem is that God chooses to work through people and the great hindrance is humanity's lack of faith. With God all things are possible, but with man just about nothing is possible anymore.

There is a documentated case of a man who lost both feet in a landmine explosion. While visiting the noted healing evangelist, Smith Wigglesworth in the 1940's, Smith told the man to go buy himself a pair of shoes the next morning.

Considering the comment to be a case of poor humor he ignored Smith, but later that night had a dream wherein he was convinced God told him to "listen to my servant, Smith."

The shop attendent, after noticing his missing feet, sheepishly asked what size shoes he required. As he spoke out his response, his stumps began to grow into feet before both of them. Smith was well known for 1000's of dramatic healings in the early half of the 20th century including bringing 6 people back to life. (one of those being his wife who pleaded with him to allow her to return as "it was her time")

God pretty much responds according to our faith and expectation of Him and sadly most Christians cannot even believe these stories, never mind trust God for any type of healing for themselves...

What Smith Wigglesworth did was likely a hoax of some kind.

From Wikipedia:

Fraud
Skeptics of faith healers point to fraudulent practices either in the healings themselves (such as plants in the audience with fake illnesses), or concurrent with the healing work supposedly taking place and claim that faith healing is a quack practice in which the "healers" use well known non-supernatural illusions to exploit credulous people in order to obtain their gratitude, confidence and money.[19] James Randi's The Faith Healers investigates Christian evangelists such as Peter Popoff, who claimed to heal sick people and to give personal details about their lives, but was receiving radio transmissions from his wife, Elizabeth, who was off-stage reading information that she and her aides had gathered from earlier conversations with members of the audience.[19] The book also questioned how faith healers use funds that were sent to them for specific purposes.[64] Physicist Robert L. Park[43] and doctor and consumer advocate Stephen Barrett[58] have called into question the ethicality of some exorbitant fees.
There have also been legal controversies. For example, in 1955 at a Jack Coe revival service in Miami, Florida, Coe told the parents of a three year old boy that he healed their son who had polio.[65] Coe then told the parents to remove the boy's leg braces.[65] However, their son was not cured of polio and removing the braces left the boy in constant pain.[65] As a result, Coe was arrested and charged on February 6, 1956 with practicing medicine without a license, a felony in the state of Florida. A Florida Justice of the Peace dismissed the case on grounds that Florida exempts divine healing from the law.[66][67][68] Later that year Coe was diagnosed with bulbar polio, and died a few weeks later at Dallas' Parkland Hospital on December 17, 1956.[69][70][71]

 

[s_s]

I think a very relevant quote here is "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Its all well and nice you saying that you've met people who have witnessed amputee healings and that you have witnessed similar things yourself but can you actually prove it? (and if so, can you do it over a internet forum) because although you asserted that God heals amputees at the very beginning of your post but actually you showed 0 evidence of him doing so in your rest of your response, you just simply continued claiming that he did.

That is fair enough, I will accept that. I have no reference to make you trust what I say, so in theory I could very easily be lying. I only have my devour Christian faith to say that I would/will not knowingly lie... but then, you'd have to believe that. I'm sorry, but no, these things happened previous to me joining this forum. It's not something I ever thought about before - usually the only people that ask for proof are the people that can see it first-hand. Sorry.

I've heard of peoples legs growing longer by a few inches. One of my friends has seen it happen and I don't think he is purposely lying. But I am asking about things that can't be mistaken.

So you have meet people who you trust who literally had no arm/half an arm or leg and it grew back as they were prayed for? What else have you seen?

I hope you will be able to tell me truthfully how sure you can be of the things you are talking about if I am willing to accept you are making things up. What church group was your previous church in? Just interested.

Yes, I've watched a womans leg grow longer while I've been praying for her (along with another woman also praying).
yes, I would trust the people I have met and have made statements to this effect. What else have I seen? Cancers and tumours vanishing, leukemia receding overnight, things like that.
I have not witnessed a limb growing back with my own eyes - I will categorically state that. I now wish that I had, for this post, but then, you'd still have to believe me! If I'd filmed it, no doubt it would be claimed as a fake by someone
I myself suffered from a twisted back with muscular alignment problems since I was 19 after a car crash. A man I know with the gift of healing prayed for me back in March or so - literally an hour of heavy prayer to fix me. As I tried my hardest to stand straight, I was involuntary rotated and twisted from the lower back, up through my shoulders and chest, and now I can pick things up off the floor again without pain, and jump out of bed instead of crawling and massaging myself into shape. Again, this requires you to believe me. Although there are doctors records and insurance/solicitors letters detailing the pain I was in and the therapy I underwent (unsuccessfully).
HOWEVER, that has nothing to do with amputees, but I thought I'd present the best example of total healing I have; that is, me.

My previous church where I saw many of these things is outside of denomination, but governed by "IGO". My current church falls under "Elim" but is somewhat outside of denominational decree as well, and many of the members see these things in their lives and through them, but not so many in the church assembly itself (not a church geared towards the gift of healing unlike my last one). Not that it matters IMO, but you asked!

 

[s_s]

What Smith Wigglesworth did was likely a hoax of some kind.

From Wikipedia:

How annoying, someone disproves your thoughts, I know!, lets call it a hoax. It was not a hoax. It was documented. Less of your nay-saying, more admitting your only here to bait.

And please don't tell me you're quoting from Wiki. if that's your source, we can all go home now, no intellectual debate here folks.