Why does God NEVER answer the prayers of amputees?

It sounds like you're just looking for a provable miracle. I had a coworker ask about the statistics of Christians vs. Non-Christians getting in accidents. It's typical modern binary thinking. We wanna push a button and have X happen. I'd love to see some concrete proof too, I've tried what seemed like great reasons to me out on Him, but apparently God's into this "faith" thing. I blame a lot of it on free will. If God fixed everything all the time, what would be the point? Why eat my broccoli to prevent cancer in 30 years, if I can just wait until then and then say a quick prayer? From nothingness, I am now here, and I have limbs, but I guess that's commonplace, so it must not be a miracle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 16 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]407300[/snapback]</div>

It's not the question that is objectionable it is the poster, the method, and the style of his query. As far as I know no one has been raised from the dead as framed in the New Testament. Using that example could have resulted in as valid a discourse and answers for your query. Instead you stooped to an insulting and denigrating level for shock value, which is lame IMHO. <_<

Wildkow

 

Threads like this... which are basically inflammatory in nature, however clothed in the semblance of rational debate... tend to make me take several month hiatuses from this site.

Come on, guys. Are the Christians or the non-Christians, or the Pastafarians, for that matter, going to ever convert each other on an Internet forum?



Y'all need to grow up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 16 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]407278[/snapback]</div>

Or it was an enlightened person who is tired of intolerant people casting "dispersions" on everyone who does not share their own intolerant beliefs.

(I imagine "aspersions" was actually the word you were looking for. But who cares? This is Fred's after all, where free speech allows people to abuse both logic and language.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 16 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]407300[/snapback]</div>

My spaghetti monster? He's not My spaghetti monster, he's The Flying Spaghetti Monster. And the difference is that we Pastafarians do not claim that praying to him accomplishes anything at all. Everyone will go to heaven, whether you believe in him or not, but bad people will have to be servants of those they hated in life, and really bad people will have very distasteful jobs, like cleaning toilets. We don't pray for special favors because we're not naive enough to think that the FSM cares what happens to us.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 16 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]407303[/snapback]</div>

The more clear and concise the refutation of an irrational belief, the more objectionable are the questioner and his method in the mind of the believer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 16 2007, 10:44 PM) [snapback]407300[/snapback]</div>

Most conservative Christians, especially creationists or proponents of "intelligent design" have a philosophical construct to answer this: God had a period of creation, set natural laws in motion, and rarely violates those natural laws. Sure, the sun goes backwards once in all of history, and a few people were raised from the dead. But those are exceptional miracles for a specific purpose, and God must have accounted for them in setting the whole she-bang in operation. Re-growing a limb is not done, as it is a special act of creation since it doesn't happen naturally, and "breaks the rules" God has made (and God cannot be inconsistent). Directing natural processes, such as shrinking of a tumor, curing people's headaches, bringing peace to a person's soul as they lie in pain, etc. are all done within the natural laws God has set up, as God doesn't violate any of those laws, but simply speeds up or slows down the natural forces.

Mind you, I don't agree with this, but that is the answer you would get. It is philosophically consistent, even though I think its wrong. While the creationists and ID proponents are wrong, they are not idiots, as you would suppose. That's why they keep getting so close to winning.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 17 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]407462[/snapback]</div>

Fshagan, you and I don't know each other at all. That said -- I identify myself as a Christian (ie, one who tries, with human failings, to follow Christ's teachings).

You're including me in your "they." I am not "they," in all likelihood. And what are "they" trying to "win?"

The term "conservative Christian" is just about as offensively and meaninglessly imprecise, at least to me, as the term "fundamentalist Muslim." You are really trying to describe a group of people that is oppressive, violent in some way. You are correct; I'm not an idiot. Nor am I violent, though.

Again, I raise my (ignored) plea to shut this useless thread up. Nothing is solved here. And I'll quit posting in this thread as I have nothing more to say that is constructive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Mar 17 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]407478[/snapback]</div>

I've looked into some of these religious threads on occasion, but you're right, there's nothing I could say that's going to change anyone's mind, nor is anyone likely to change mine. I'm quite capable of posting some highly inflammatory comments, but as you say, that wouldn't be constructive. Nobody's really interested in my beliefs, except to feel threatened by them and throw threats back at me. Which is sad, because if any of us truly believed in the concept of Freedom of Religion, we might be able to carry on a respectful, fruitful discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ Mar 17 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]407478[/snapback]</div>

Well, you've taken my response to Burritos out of context, and made it seem like I was saying something I wasn't. You do know that every written word is not written specifically to you, don't you? I even quoted Burritos, so you should have had a clue as to the reason for my statement.

Burritos first questioned why some Christians believe in an active, miracle producing God who does all manner of healings, who answers "whatsover ye ask" of Him, etc., but in all the claims of miracles, there is not one regrowth of a limb. It is a good challenge, but one not answered in this very long thread. So even though it is not a belief of mine, I gave Burritos what the response would be from the group of people he identified. I never meant it to include you specifically, or any other specific person.

The term "conservative Christian" is a well understood sociological term used to describe a certain group of people who have gained and exercised political power in the country in a specific and meaningful way since the mid 1980s with the "Moral Majority" movement. I like the phrase better than "Religious Right" because the term "Religious Right" includes people of faith groups that do not support creationism or ID (one of Burritos main reasons for posing the challenge). "Conservative Christian" is not an insult or offensive when used this way, any more than the terms "Democrats," "labor unions", or "peace activists" is offensive. If you are offended by it, you are being hyper-sensitive, but don't worry, your discomfort is only a feeling and it will pass. It is a term I apply to myself, even though I am more socially liberal as a result of my theology than most conservative Christians.

As to your effort to stifle debate, it fails miserably. Debate is not intended "solve" anything and gain agreement among the debaters. When is the last time you saw two candidates for an elected office debate, and mid way through one says "You know, my opponent's absolutely right. I withdraw my nomination and urge everyone to throw their support behind my opponent." That won't happen, because debate isn't intended to change any of the minds of the people involved in the debate.

Public debate is intended to show the audience different beliefs, and the audience decides who "wins" the debate. They then adopt those positions.

If you don't like debate, don't participate. That is certainly your right. You do not have a right to tell me what to do, however.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 17 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]407481[/snapback]</div>

I think it is more accurate to say that their philosophy is shaped by their belief; very close to what you said, but with an important distinction .... the philosophy (or theology) is an outgrowth of what they already believe, rather than an attempt to prop up something that is untenable. That probably makes it less "rational" to you, but I think that's closer to the truth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 17 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]407462[/snapback]</div>

[Emphasis toward the end of the paragraph is mine.]

If all these "cures" are merely natural processes, running a little faster than average, but still within the natural laws, then there is no need to invoke god as a cause of them. And if there is no need to invoke god as a cause, then, although it may please a believer to imagine that god did it, they actually have no basis to claim that "god must have done it."

In other words, such cures are useless in the debate over religion. Yet there are Christians (at least one of whom is a regular on PC) who assert that they have witnessed such cures, and that these cures are demonstrations that god exists.

But for cures to be evidence of god, they must be supernatural. Otherwise they are evidence of nothing. And if they are supernatural, then the question in the OP remains valid and unanswered: Why are there unsubstantiatable cures, but never substantiatable ones?

Fshagan: While your view is certainly more rational, it doesn't seem to be the view of many fundamentalists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 16 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]406892[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

So would I.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 16 2007, 08:11 PM) [snapback]407025[/snapback]</div>

1. I have no higher pay ambitions. I don't get paid for being a Preacher.
2. I own a house, but I don't want to...worse thing I ever did.
3. Okay, that I have.
4. Not really. I don't want to own more then I need.

Do I qualify as one of the actual Christians, or do I fail??


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 16 2007, 08:11 PM) [snapback]407025[/snapback]</div>

Okay, I was born deaf in the left ear. I was once walking down the aisle of church, and I asked God, in a simple way, 'It sure would be nice to hear again in that ear'. And just like that, I could hear in that ear. I was not faking it. I went to the very same doctor that had been my ear doctor, my audiologist, and he ran all sort of tests on me, blind sound tests, where I could not see what he was doing...and I could hear. With the same damage in the ear, I could hear.

That to me is a miracle, and I don't know why I got it, nor do I know how else to explain it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 17 2007, 01:44 AM) [snapback]407300[/snapback]</div>

Impossible huh? Maybe in our lifetime.. Certainly not impossible. Don't be so short sighted.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 17 2007, 10:40 AM) [snapback]407379[/snapback]</div>

What kind of afterlife is it where you have toilets that need cleaned? No wonder nobody believes in your spaghetti god.

How do you know if you've been good, bad or really bad? are there any guidelines for this, or is it the usual American determination... I'm better than 95% of everyone else around me and 100% of them believe they are also better than 95% of the rest of the people.

Same rules apply for how good of drivers we think we are too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Mar 17 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]407771[/snapback]</div>

TJ, I think you're old enough that medical science has improved considerably since you were 11 years old (I think that's what your other post said - correct me if I'm wrong). I had an ear infection as a kid that was unfortunately misdiagnosed when it was still small enough to have been knocked out with an antibiotic and so as a result, after the infection spread, had to have the inner ear bones between the eardrum and cochlea surgically removed along with a massive chunk of infected mastoid bone. The point here is a misdiagnosis made back in the 1960s, and from what my ear doctors tell me, the practice of ENT was pretty primitive compared to what it is today, with misdiagnosis of infection fairly common. I'd be willing to bet that if you took your complete medical history today to, say, the Califonia Ear Institute, which specializes only in the "E" of ENT and does pioneering work in inner ear reconstruction, they would be able to come up with not one but SEVERAL plausible explanations for your restored hearing.

Perhaps it really was a miracle. And if believing it was a miracle is an important aspect of your self image, leave your medical records unexamined and carry on your good works.

I'm not cut out that way: my first impulse would be to find out what REALLY happened, if what really happened could be determined, to forestall the risk of whatever caused the deafness from COMING BACK.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

What if god's answer were to give us the means to create better and better artificial limbs? Perhaps we are meant to work for some things.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 18 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]407908[/snapback]</div>

Could be that there is a God out there who can heal TJ's ear and at that moment in time did so that 20 years later, he'd be able to come here and tell you that he's experienced the healing hand of God first hand.... To which, you can easily explain his walk down that church aisle actually clearing up a life long ear infection.

Which of those is more easily plausable?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Mar 17 2007, 11:35 PM) [snapback]407771[/snapback]</div>

Addendum -

You leave out of your story what your otolaryngologist (your ENT Dr., not the audiologist) thought had happened. Even back then, I doubt very much he/she thought a miracle had occurred. Even if perplexed as to explanation, your doctor probably thought what occurred had a perfectly natural explanation that just happened to be beyond the boundaries of knowledge at that time. What DID your doctor think?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA