Why does God NEVER answer the prayers of amputees?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]406759[/snapback]</div>

Then you're able to read minds, and anyone else here that didn't agree with your perception of the question's meaning is wrong? By your own first post you claimed that because of burritos' earlier posts you "once thought of you as a genuine, sincere contributor to the various issues on Priuschat". If you're suddenly wrong about that, perhaps you're wrong about your perception of his intent on this topic as well...

BTW, I'm not defending burritos. I just think to assume your interpretation of his intent is the only correct one says more about you than burritos.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Mar 15 2007, 07:33 PM) [snapback]406389[/snapback]</div>

Well that needs to stop. Everything should be questioned.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]406759[/snapback]</div>

If it's a complete waste of time, then why even participate in this thread? I agree with you if you mean it's a complete waste of time to think you can change someone's viewpoint (esp. on religion).

I am older. I have studied history, philosophy, world religions, etc. both scholastically and privately.

As I said before, I believe the OP used the amputees as the most visible sector to prove what he was trying to say, but that's just my perception; I won't presume to know his mind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]406822[/snapback]</div>

No comment -

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar 16 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]406819[/snapback]</div>

While I thoroughly agree that everything needs to be questioned, I do think this thread is premised on a straw man (and I tend to agree with burritos, both the poster and the meal, most of the time).

I do question that amputees pray to have their limbs back. I just like to see some data, survey, interview, anything supporting this. The one legless girl I've known got around so well on her artificial legs that it took me a couple days to realize she didn't just have a stiff knee or something. Now what she might have prayed is that, with her artificial legs off, people wouldn't find it odd to see her scrambling about on the floor, as she was remarkably agile while doing so. But I just can't for a moment imagine her praying to God in any serious way to have legs.

If you want to accept this thread's premise though, one could also answer that God's working on it, and maybe after a century more of stem cell and or cloning research, regrown limbs may well be possible.

After all, we couldn't always fly.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 16 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]406837[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 16 2007, 01:12 PM) [snapback]406837[/snapback]</div>

But we don't really - the planes and other methods we've designed and develop do; we're just kinda along for the ride...
Unless the statement means, as with the prosthetics reference, that science's developments are directly a function of prayers to god or are all as a result of him in some other way. Interesting concept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar, 10:43 AM) [snapback]406862[/snapback]</div>

That's not amazing. It's consistent. Religion inherently disregards logic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 16 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]406885[/snapback]</div>

Yep. I would put religion in the camp of instinctual/irrational/emotional thinking rather than logical thinking. I don't think this makes it any less potent btw.

I would, just once, like to see a losing NFL player interviewed after a game say, "We lost because God hates us."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Mar 16 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]406862[/snapback]</div>

I used the wrong term here; instead of "concept" it should have been "thought process". I find the differing thought processes of all but a select few (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) interesting; the remainder are too fanatical for me to find interesting. I think it's interesting the way people "choose" to think and I'm curious why they choose that path even if they are unaware or resistant to the idea that it's a choice. Interest to me does not necessarily equate to agreement.

I'm more in agreement with your thought process on this subject, based upon my personal experiences and observations. I could choose to believe otherwise; it's up to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 16 2007, 12:18 AM) [snapback]406657[/snapback]</div>

We hear occasionally of people who have "firmly rejected this world," but they are few and far between. People who give up all their worldly possessions and go to the inner-city slums or to under-developed countries to work with the poorest of the poor, or the social outcasts.

But most Americans who call themselves Christians:

1. Work for a living and have ambitions of higher pay.

2. Own a house or want to.

3. Have savings in the bank, often investments in the stock market, which they hope will take care of them in retirement, or which, in some cases, allow them to live in leasure.

4. Own more than the basic needs of life, and strive to own more than they do.

None of these qualifies as "a firm rejection of this world." It is for this reason that I have often said there are no more than a dozen actual Christians in the country.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 16 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]406739[/snapback]</div>

The point is that countless numbers of people claim to have witnessed or experienced things far more "miraculous" than a re-grown limb. Cancer eats away and destroys the body's internal organs. Re-growing a hand would be far less surprising than the miraculous cure of an advanced case of cancer.

But the only time we hear of "miraculous" cures are cases where a disinterested observer would have no way of knowing whether there was ever really an infirmity to begin with. There are no claims of miraculous cures of people who can be genuinely documented to have had an infirmity to begin with.

That's the point of the OP: Infirmities that actually exist never receive miraculous cures. Therefore, skeptics view claims of miraculous cures as bunk.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 08:24 AM) [snapback]406759[/snapback]</div>

Hardly!

The intent of the OP was clearly to point out that the only time we hear of "miraculous" cures are for people who were perfectly healthy to begin with, and only pretended to be sick in the first place.

He made reference to amputees because we know the amputee actually is/was missing a limb. The OP's purpose was to point out that there are never "miraculous" cures of real, existing infirmities. Only of fake ones.

None of this disproves the existence of god. None of this speaks to the belief in a god who provides emotional support rather than supernatural cures. But it does clearly demonstrate that faith-healers are charlatans, who exploit gullible people for their own reasons, often nothing "higher" than monetary gain.

 

Not reading minds (but I wish I could; which reminds me of that movie with Mel Gibson, "What Women Want"), but forming and stating my opinion based on the available material presented. However, it is only my perception/opinion, not necessarily yours or some other people on this board.

Not wrong per se, but deceived would have been a better choice. When a poster acts rationally and posts rational questions and responses on a regular basis, it is only human nature to develop a trust in that person. But if that person somehow snaps or posts an irrational question as burritos did in this post, then it is natural for ones perception of that person to change to the negative. It would indeed be wrong of me not to change my perception of burritos after reading such a ludicrous and cruel question regarding the degradation of amputees to mere pawns of a pointless theological debate. I no longer think of burritos as a rational or contributing member of this community.

Everyone has interpretations regarding a myriad of subjects of which they assume to be correct assumption. That does not make those people necessarily right, wrong, evil, correct... It makes them decisive and able to go through life as they see fit.

To be clear, yes, it is my sincere belief/perception/opinion that burritos was absolutely wrong to use the plight of amputees to rouse interest in a question of theological debate and those who think conversely are indeed wrong. I have yet to see and an argument since posted which could even remotely cause me to think otherwise.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Daniel, we know all that. I think my 10 year old could have figured out the premise of the original question.

My thoughts and points stated previously on this subject have had nothing to do with existence or non existence of God, Allah, miracles, faith healers, or whatever. I am stating I was truly offended by the OP's statement using amputees to prove his/her point. It wasn't necessary and really shows a deep lack of respect for those who may be less privileged than us.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 09:30 PM) [snapback]407144[/snapback]</div>

And right here is where my amputee friend would have taken offense at ANYTHING posted in this thread.

I could hear him say "What the eff? Who's less privileged? Definitely not me!"

You just achieved what you accused the OP of.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 07:30 PM) [snapback]407144[/snapback]</div>

If your points had nothing to do with the existence of god, then they were off-topic. Which is not to say you can't post off-topic. We do it all the time. But if you are off-topic, then you are not responding to the OP.

The topic was (as you say anybody could see) that "miracles" are never claimed for people who have clearly-visible infirmities. That is a valid point. But since you cannot make that point without mentioning a class of clearly-visible infirmities, then the reference to amputees is justified. If you are going to ban the mention of all classes of infirmities, you are trying to ban the argument itself.

Object all you like. You have that right. Get offended if you like. You have that right too. But the point was a legitimate one, and the way it was made makes fun of nobody except people who believe in miraculous cures.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Mar 16 2007, 10:30 PM) [snapback]407144[/snapback]</div>

Can you offer a suggestion for a "better" example (besides amputees) the OP could have used to illustrate his point as dramatically/effectively that would not have offended you so?

And I agree with livelychick's observation - I find your reference to amputees more offensive than burritos; you infer they are less than us - burritos's post imo never slighted amputees.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Mar 16 2007, 07:50 AM) [snapback]406739[/snapback]</div>

Well said daron well said. But I would add in the popular opinion section that God is who He is and not who popular or unpopular opinion says He is. Personally these types of attacks are just frightened and/or hateful people looking for affirmation of their unbelief or hate.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 16 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]407228[/snapback]</div>

How true! God is who he is: a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and nobody's opinion is going to change that. We can argue over whether he has meatballs or not, but it's still his noodly appendages that keep us from flying off into space. So let's just all have a plate of spaghetti and a beer and agree to worship the FSM in peace and stop fighting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 17 2007, 12:19 AM) [snapback]407228[/snapback]</div>

Or it was someone asking for a rational answer to a valid question concerning what some view an irrational concept.

How does one affirm their "unbelief" anyway? If it's a lack of belief, what needs affirming?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 09:35 PM) [snapback]407238[/snapback]</div>

You are naïve, it wasn't a valid question looking for a rational answer. It was merely an intolerant person trying to cast dispersions upon other people’s beliefs. <_<

Wildkow