"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[hcour]

archimedes,

You continually debunk and refute your opponents w/o malice, but rather with insight, intelligence, and eloquence. You're one of the best debators I've ever seen on the internet. Remind me never to get in an argument w/you. You're the real reason this thread is still going, not the OP. Keep up the good fight!

H

 

[qwiktrade]

Quote from archimedes:

If there are 100,000 documented cases in Spokane alone, then miracles must be so abundant they are practically commonplace... or at least more frequent than a statistically uncommon but unremarkable event, like the birth of twins. (Having been in the church for ten or twenty years myself, you'd think I'd have come across one or two. Miracles, not twins.)

Spokane was declared the healthiest city in America by the government during John Lake's ministry. Its a matter of historical record.

As for your personal experience in church, i cant speak to that. It seems odd that you have gone to church for 10-20 (you cant remember which) years but do not believe in God.

Quote from archimedes:
The only way genuine miracles could occur in such abundance, yet with no compelling evidence available, is if the biggest and most powerful evidence suppression scheme in history was operating full time, around the clock, to keep the documentation of these miracles under wraps.

In order to get around this obvious contradiction, those who believe in these miracles suggest that doctors and scientists simply don't want to believe... that their hearts are too hard to accept the evidence presented to them. [/B]

You have not been paying attention. Compelling evidence does exist. This is not an uncommon occurrance despite your personal ignorance of it.

And there is no conspiracy. A miracle is simply not a crisis. It is interesting and fascinating and quite wonderful for the person involved but does not tend to hold the attention of the medical community in my opinion, because studying it will do little to advance their profession.

Quote from archimedes:
But this explanation falls apart on multiple levels.

For one thing, there is the existence of religious doctors and religious scientists. If they had conclusive proof of miracles occurring--or even just enough proof to elicit a 'holy cow'--one would think these religious physicians and scientists would be falling over themselves to spread the word and have that proof documented. You would also think there would be a lot of spluttering atheists out there, presenting weak explanations for their take on phenomena that can't be explained. Why isn't this happening? [/B]

Again, this does happen. Miracles do get documented. Perhaps the reason atheists like yourself dont more commonly address this issue is because they immediately dismiss facts that do not agree with their beliefs.

My sisters doctor was amazed at what he saw. His conclusion was that it was a miracle. How would you explain her recovery?

Quote from archimedes:
For another thing, the idea that a non-religious doctor or scientist would actively seek to suppress evidence of a miracle is ludicrous. In the presence of an incredible phenomenon, any physician or scientist worth his (or her) salt would first exhaust all possibilities of investigation before using the 'M' word, and would call on all his colleagues, journals, professional associations etcetera to help investigate. As a result, news of this strange phenomena would spread throughout all the medical journals and scientific journals. IF miracles were popping off like popcorn, there would be a great deal of excited head scratching going on. But there isn't. At least, not of the "it's a miracle" variety. [/B]

Miraculous, unexplained recoveries are probably not of great value from a scientific point of view for the simple reason that they dont provide information that can further develop the practice of medicine. But in many cases, doctors do take an interest in these things and there is alot of excited head scratching .

Quote from archimedes:
You can share your personal experience of miracles as commonplace, but the real possibility exists that you are deluded. It isn't pleasant to speak that way, but when your claims fly in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, delusion is the more likely prospect. It's either you or the entire medical and scientific establishment which is off the reservation... and if the second, that still would not explain the deafening silence of Christian doctors and scientists.

Your testimony is interesting and informative regardless, because it highlights people's capability to say and believe stupendously amazing things. There is something fascinating going on here no matter how you slice it... either your willingness to deceive for some utterly bizarre reason, or your genuine belief in a reality that simply does not exist, or (gulp) the validity of a medical / scientific conspiracy theory bigger and grander than all other conspiracy theories put together. [/B]

Why am I deluded? Because of my experience? If I can be deluded by an experience then it stands to reason that you could be equally deluded by your lack of experience.

You have provided no "overwhelming evidence" of your position. You simply believe that what you think about the world must be true. Like those "scientists" many years ago who proclaimed that the world was flat and anyone who thought otherwise was a fool. Or medieval peasants who thought it was ridiculous that germs you cant see could kill you.

In the end it is a simple matter. If you were truly objective, you would want investigate and inform yourself before drawing conclusions. But it seems that you simply want to pretend that God doesnt exist.

There is a proverb that says something to the effect of "..as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool to his folly..". And that is where I will leave you..

all the best,
-qwik

 

[acronym]

Here's an idea.........

Why not, ONLY belong to , a church that proves its goodiness every damn day, none of this sporadic miracle bollocks.
Miracles occur, all the time.....great.
You DO NOT need a church, a house, a BOOK for miracles people-nor will absent minded faith produce results.

That church is'nt contained in no book, no house no nothing, just real deal spirituality.

JC said so, it must be right.

 

[lkh]

Quote from qwiktrade:

I can tell you many such stories. One cool and unusual story happened about 4 weeks ago at my church. I play acoustic guitar in our worship band and during our last song for the night I heard a loud shout. I turned to see who was shouting and everyone in the congregation was sitting down (it had been a long session) and only one person on the team was singing. Then I heard a chorus of 15-20 voices singing loudly from behind the drums which continued until the end of the song. I heard it, the drummer heard it, and two of the vocalists heard it. Two people in the congregation heard it. The next week the voices started singing with us again but this time from the congregation area and everyone heard it.

My church has a healing room ministry where sick people come in to be prayed for. Most of them hear an advertisement on the radio and are not part of our church. One such lady came in with exema (sp), a bad skin condition that looks like a rash. It was quite severe around her mouth and on her hands. She came back about a month later and the condition was completely gone.

We have had 3 people with cancer who have come for prayer and been healed. One person had his hearing restored.

If it really interests you so much, why not get involved with a church that has a healing ministry.

-qwik

This is not documented evidence of prayer working. This is simply emotional testimony. Surely with all of these miracles wou speak of one must have been documented so we can research it? I am waiting for real evidence.

 

[lkh]

Proof #18 - Imagine heaven

If you talk to a Christian about heaven, you can clearly understand that the notion of heaven and everlasting life is imaginary. Each conversation will be different, but a typical conversation might go something like this:

Chris: Jesus transcends death and promises eternal life to all who believe in him! Lift up your heart to the Lord Jesus Christ and he will give you eternal life!
Norm: How will he do that?

Chris: Have you ever read the book called "Left Behind?"

Norm: No.

Chris: You should! They have sold over 20 million copies of the book, because it is the truth! It describes exactly what will happen. One day the Lord Jesus calls his children home, and they are carried straight to heaven! Airplanes crash because their pilots have vanished. Cars run into phone poles. This is exactly what is described in the Bible.

Norm: The people completely vanish?

Chris: Yes. All that is left behind is their clothes, their jewelry and their hearing aids! The believers are transported directly to heaven!

Norm: Their naked bodies are transported to heaven?

Chris: Yes!

Norm: There are six billion people on the planet. They each weigh about 150 pounds or so. Are you telling me that God lifts a trillion pounds of human flesh off the planet in an instant?

Chris: Absolutely not! Only the believers are transported!

Norm: OK, half a trillion pounds?

Chris: Yes!

Norm: And where does this half a trillion pounds of flesh go?

Chris: To heaven!

Norm: To heaven... where is that?

Chris: It is in another dimension, of course! God lives in heaven!

Norm: How do all the bodies get to this "other dimension" called "heaven"? Do they float up into the sky and then travel through the vacuum of space?

Chris: No, silly! They are dematerialized and then rematerialize in heaven!

Norm: So you are saying that half a trillion pounds of naked human flesh are somehow "dematerialized" out of our universe, and then they "rematerialize" in "another dimension" called "heaven?" And the "dematerializing" process somehow distinguishes between natural human flesh and unnatural things like clothing and hearing aids?

Chris: Yes!

Norm: So... what if the person has artificial heart valves, a couple of stents and two titanium hip joints? Are those ripped out of his body and left behind with his jewelry?

Chris: Yes!

Norm: And what happens to that poor person, whose heart collapses and whose legs are now flopping around detached from his pelvis?

Chris: The book doesn't really talk about that... I imagine God would fix them up!

Norm: And what about all the people whose bodies are wracked with cancer and AIDS and emphysema?

Chris: God fixes them all up too!

Norm: And what about all the decrepit 80-year-old bodies?

Chris: God gives them new, young, beautiful bodies!

Norm: And what about all the people whose bodies have died and decomposed?

Chris: God gives them young, new, beautiful bodies too!

Norm: So why bother transporting the bodies of the believers to heaven? Why not just give everyone a new, young, beautiful body and leave their old bodies on earth?

Chris: The Bible says that your body is transported to heaven! It is right there in black and white in the "Left Behind" books! That is God's will!

Norm: OK, so heaven is full of people whose bodies or corpses or whatever have been "dematerialized" from earth, and then "rematerialized" in "heaven." And then the dematerialized/rematerialized bodies are discarded, and they are replaced with new, young, beautiful bodies?

Chris: Yes! Now you understand the power of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Norm: What happens next?

Chris: The believers all live in heaven in peace, harmony and joy for eternity!

Norm: What is heaven like?

Chris: We get to reunite with all of our dead friends and family members! We get to meet our ancestors for the first time!

Norm: Really?

Chris: Absolutely!

Norm: What about people like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin?

Chris: Everyone is there! You can talk to anyone all through history! Plus you get to meet God and Jesus. I can't wait to meet Jesus!

Norm: That sounds like fun. What else?

Chris: Well, the streets are paved in gold! It says so in the Bible! And everyone has a big house! And you can eat whatever you want and not get fat! And really, you just do anything that makes you happy! Everyone is always happy!

And so on.
After listening to a conversation like this, it should be obvious to all of us: Heaven is imaginary. It is all completely imaginary.

Simply talk to Christians about heaven. Ask them to describe what heaven is like, and how they will get there. You will be able to feel the absurdity of this notion in two different ways:

There is the direct absurdity as in the dialog above, where the creation of entirely new and completely imaginary "dimensions" and "materialization processes" tells you everything you need to know about how delusional things can get.

There is also the absurdity that comes when you compare any two people's views of heaven. Everyone's fabrication of heaven is different. For some it involves harps and clouds and halos. For others it involves hot and cold running virgins. For some people, the actual body is transported magically to heaven as described in the "Left Behind" books. For others, your "soul" floats out of the body and makes it way to St. Peter. And so on. People make up anything they like, because heaven is a completely imaginary place.
Heaven is a fairy tale invented by human imagination. And each person's fairy tale is different.
We imagine that we have "souls," fabricate the concept of "eternal life" and then fantasize a place called "heaven," complete with streets of gold, calorie-free foods, frolicking virgins and whatever else we can come up with. Christians imagine it so vividly and repeat the fantasy so often that they actually believe it to be reality.

How bizarre can the fantasies get? Fly to Cairo and take a look at the Great Pyramid. There is the pyramid itself -- still one of the largest man-made objects on earth. In addition there is the whole mummification process, the disassembled boats, the sacred artwork and so on. All of this was designed to help the pharaoh reach the afterlife. We look at it now and we all know, with absolute certainty, that it was a complete and total waste of time. The Egyptian notion of the afterlife was a fantasy.

The Christian notion of the afterlife is a fantasy in exactly the same way. Heaven is completely imaginary, just like God.

 

[lkh]

Quote from qwiktrade:


If it really interests you so much, why not get involved with a church that has a healing ministry.

-qwik

I am actually involved with a church. As i said i was a believer for many years and still keep in contact with members and friends. The church has a prayer ministry has a very good claimed success with prayers for simple things that doctors heal every day but a 100% failure rate for terminal cases. The pastors own wife even died from cancer at a young age. Why do you think that is?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from archimedes:

That's a bunch of horseshit.

You're talking about the same God of the bible that knocked Saul / Paul down on the side of the road with a blinding white light and a booming voice to make him believe.

The same God of the bible, in human form, that delivered a full-on miracle in front of the apostles (Luke Chapter 5, the nets bursting with fish) to make them truly believe.

The same God of the bible, again in human form, who got thousands of onlookers to believe through concrete demonstrations of his divinity, and who instructed the apostles to go out and do faith-inducing miracles in his name.

Furthermore, your statement is inconsistent with the supposed reality of miracles and the logical profession from evidence to faith. These people who are supposedly getting miraculously healed must have unsaved relatives. Those unsaved relatives have to be affected somehow when medical miracles take place within the family.

But if "knowledge damns if it occurs before faith," as you say, then Paul, and the apostles, and any unbeliever in near proximity of a miracle, or anyone who gets their hair blown back by concrete evidence of a divine experience while they are still outside the faith, should be automatically damned. Ridiculous. You just stone cold made that shit up.

When someone asks for evidence that miracles occur, they are asking for a stronger dose of evidence than that which they've gotten so far, usually zilch. For you to say they can't have it because it might damn them is completely asinine.

The theological connection between faith and works is hotly debated. Ever looked at Calvinists vs Arminians? Ever read the book of James? The bible does not clarify the issue, it blatantly obfuscates it. (As with a great many other things.) Furthermore, you have no idea what might or might not improve someone's "salvation status." (All this guy needed to see was a weird photo of a dude with a moon on his chest.) What IS abundantly clear at this point is that you're an armchair philosopher quite willing to talk out of your ass.

Hmmm... really. Is that what you think miracles were for.


Paul - already believed in God. Was a high level member of the hebrew religious establishment. That clearly means the he was looking for a messiah. He just didn't believe Jesus was the actual messiah prophecied. But on the road to Damacus, as you refered, which is found in Acts 9, you don't see a process of one who starts to believe, but as one who acknowledges the truth when told it.

It's ok. Maybe you just don't know the bible.

Next up, the apostles. Miracles weren't done so that they would believe in God. They already did believe. Miracles were done as a sign that they might KNOW that propechy is being fulfilled before their eyes. If you understood Judaism and its associated culture or read the old testament especially the prophets, you'd have figured out the purpose of miracles. Because if they were made for believing, the Sanhedren and Pharasees would have believed. (which soundly contradicts your idea that miracles are for a stonger dose of evidence. Pharasees asked Jesus to show this this and that. Do you recall Jesus's reply?) But what did they say about JEsus's miracles? They swore it was done by the power of the devil.

Miracles are not faith inducing, they're faith affirming. Forget about the Benny Hinns, et al. Biblical miracles, Specifically Jesus's and his disciples, are for the purpose I stated.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.


As far as the theological conncetion between faith and works... There's no debate anywhere in Christianity that works without faith saves. (see James, Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews.) Bible is stringently clear on that issue.

So what improves one's salvation status: (remember, you're either saved or not. There's no middle ground. As Jesus says, "hot or cold. Lukewarm and I spit you out.")

Philippians 2:12-13

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. "

As far as the debate between Calvs and Armins, that's primarily a debate on the sovereignty of God. Known to the lay person as freewill v. determinism. Not much to do with works. Only the calvs accuse the armin platform of "choosing" to have faith a "work." No one chooses to have faith. You can't choose to believe anything. You either believe or you don't. If you could choose to believe something, you should be able to choose to believe something you KNOW to be false. But you can't.


Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny how obnoxiously bold you came across yet not really knowing the bible and then only in the end to submit as support of your idea a fictional account in a chick track.

Anyway, you may have the last word.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Hmmm... really. Is that what you think miracles were for.


Paul - already believed in God. Was a high level member of the hebrew religious establishment. That clearly means the he was looking for a messiah. He just didn't believe Jesus was the actual messiah prophecied. But on the road to Damacus, as you refered, which is found in Acts 9, you don't see a process of one who starts to believe, but as one who acknowledges the truth when told it.

It's ok. Maybe you just don't know the bible.

Next up, the apostles. Miracles weren't done so that they would believe in God. They already did believe. Miracles were done as a sign that they might KNOW that propechy is being fulfilled before their eyes. If you understood Judaism and its associated culture or read the old testament especially the prophets, you'd have figured out the purpose of miracles. Because if they were made for believing, the Sanhedren and Pharasees would have believed. (which soundly contradicts your idea that miracles are for a stonger dose of evidence. Pharasees asked Jesus to show this this and that. Do you recall Jesus's reply?) But what did they say about JEsus's miracles? They swore it was done by the power of the devil.

Miracles are not faith inducing, they're faith affirming. Forget about the Benny Hinns, et al. Biblical miracles, Specifically Jesus's and his disciples, are for the purpose I stated.

Heb 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.


As far as the theological conncetion between faith and works... There's no debate anywhere in Christianity that works without faith saves. (see James, Ephesians, Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews.) Bible is stringently clear on that issue.

So what improves one's salvation status: (remember, you're either saved or not. There's no middle ground. As Jesus says, "hot or cold. Lukewarm and I spit you out.")

Philippians 2:12-13

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. "

As far as the debate between Calvs and Armins, that's primarily a debate on the sovereignty of God. Known to the lay person as freewill v. determinism. Not much to do with works. Only the calvs accuse the armin platform of "choosing" to have faith a "work." No one chooses to have faith. You can't choose to believe anything. You either believe or you don't. If you could choose to believe something, you should be able to choose to believe something you KNOW to be false. But you can't.


Anyway, I thought it was pretty funny how obnoxiously bold you came across yet not really knowing the bible and then only in the end to submit as support of your idea a fictional account in a chick track.

Anyway, you may have the last word.

ddunbar,
It is noticeable the way in which all your reasons must inevitably rely only on the cast of characters and their adventures within a story book.

Paul said this, did that, because it says so in the narrative of a fictional account. Ok, you will consider the Bible to be a factual documentation of events - no doubt. A book however, has in fact, the same faith, belief, reality, historicity, real life circumstances events and characters as the bible does , but which people cannot say is not factually true. Reasons to rely on that book over the Bible are obvious. It's because of the characters in Grimms tales, that we know for sure fairies really do exist..right?

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

ddunbar,
It is noticeable the way in which all your reasons must inevitably rely only on the cast of characters and their adventures within a story book.

Paul said this, did that, because it says so in the narrative of a fictional account. Ok, you will consider the Bible to be a factual documentation of events - no doubt. A book however, has in fact, the same faith, belief, reality, historicity, real life circumstances events and characters as the bible does , but which people cannot say is not factually true. Reasons to rely on that book over the Bible are obvious. It's because of the characters in Grimms tales, that we know for sure fairies really do exist..right?

Well, if one is going to refer to things pertaining to the bible, you might as well use the bible as a reference. Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant in the context of all the discussions I had here.

Someone says, "god is this." Ok, so which god are they refering to? Oh, the bible God. Ok then. Now the discussion is forced to stick to the script, if you will. The bible God is only known via the bible. I can't discuss Allah in the context of a discussion surrounding the bible's God. They are radically different. If I attempt to, I'll be forced into a comparative. Or I'll just be arguing out of context.

For instance, this issue of miracles. Since miracles in this discussion's context are related to the God of the bible, the rules and use/purpose of miracles must be gleaned from the bible. The bible both tells and illustrates that miracles are for the purpose of confirming God's word. Therefore, it does not "make" believers. Never has. Look at the rebelling Hebrews in Exodus. Pharoah in Exodus. The prophets of Baal. The Pharasees. Etc. Etc. If miracles were for making people believe, these individuals should have believed.

Or take the discussion we had about God needing existence to exist. Your point of view is that of a general, philosophical view of God. But you refered to the bible God at one point. Since you did that, I was forced to "stick to the script." And the script says you are wrong in your conceptualization. Outside the script, in a purely philosophical sense, you could very well be right. And I believe I had stated that.

It's as if were we discussing Shakespeare. Certain aspects of some of his works allow you to make certain definitive conclusions about the characters and their intents/motivations. I wouldn't quote Voltaire to prove a point about, say, Othello. I'd stick to the script.

As to your second paragraph, while you're trying to make a salient point from your POV, it is merely an opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with you having the opinion you do. It's yours and you're entitled to it and therefore I respect it. But there's a radical difference between the Brother's Grimm tales and the bible. And between Unicorns and Leprechauns and all the other misplaced comparisons to Jesus/God/Bible. The difference is scale, scope and claims.

You compare God tales with God tales. Fairy tales with fairy tales.

Can I compare a Porsche with a horse and buggy as if they're in the same category? Sure, the category of methods transportation. (As Bible and B. Grimm can be categorized as communicated stories.) But it stops there. Any further comparisons would make me look silly. Like, hey a Porsche Carrera 4 GT can do 0-60 in 3s. But the horse and buggy, starting at the top of a hill which has a 50% grade can do 0-60 in 5 mins. People would say, "dude, what's up with you?" But that faulty comparison right away, inadvertently places the Porsche well above the horse and buggy. Why? Because the scope, scale, claim of the Porsche over the H&B. And that's why it's a faulty comparison. Well, likewise, the bible is placed well above the brother's Grimm and Dr. Suess inadvertently by your faulty comparison.

So to say, why should someone believe the bible over B. Grimm, is a pointless question.

All an atheist need do is simply state that there's no tangible proof that the bible is true and move on. Go any further and apologists will have a strong answer to atheists claims that the bible is self-contradictory, full of error, or vicious. I never get why atheist bother themselves with getting down in the mud with some theists. It ends up in an agree to disagree moment at best. At worse, an insult slugfest like this thread has had. The usual, "you must be angry at God or hurt as a child" or "you're delusional. A moron."

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:


You compare God tales with God tales. Fairy tales with fairy tales.

All an atheist need do is simply state that there's no tangible proof that the bible is true and move on. Go any further and apologists will have a strong answer to atheists claims that the bible is self-contradictory, full of error, or vicious. I never get why atheist bother themselves with getting down in the mud with some theists. It ends up in an agree to disagree moment at best. At worse, an insult slugfest like this thread has had. The usual, "you must be angry at God or hurt as a child" or "you're delusional. A moron."

You make some very relevant points and they are well taken. But surely your suggestion stifles debate and leaves no room for the evaluation of much at all. One side says true the other false and the debate ends with no more information or clarification on either side. If one's argument can only resort to insult, then that in itself might offer some information about the value of the point being put forward.

As to categories, well yes you can compare a Porsche to a horse and buggy. You will see the likenesses and differences in order that advantages and disadvantages can be understood. Were someone insisting that a horse can go faster than a car and we should rely on that as fact, base our moral standards against that as fact, institutionalize that statement as fact, teach our children that as fact, insist to the world that is a fact, encourage society at large to exclude those who don't consider it to be fact, rely on all that as fact then say debate is pointless, seems to be very disadvantageous to everyone, in my view at least.