Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[Son]

There was a really good discussion on this about 10 months ago (I think it ended up being about 15 pages). Iâ??ve tried searching for it, but I fear it may have been lost during the â??hiccupâ? that the board had.

Perhaps someone else will have better luck finding it?

IMO, miracles have to follow the laws of nature (albeit higher laws that we don't comprehend in many instances). I think the replacement of a limb is a bit too much like resurrection for it to occur while having the constraints of a mortal body (our human DNA in this imperfect state could not support such a miracle... unless we were of course fused with some lizard DNA).

To you who can believe all things are possible.

[Pahoran]

In case anyone is still labouring under the delusion that I favour some variation of the ridiculous "God hides from science" blather, the closest thing to a correct answer is, "God does heal amputees."

That is not to say that God spectacularly and ostentatiously restores amputated limbs for the idle amusement of the wicked and adulterous, as the OP intended, but rather that he causes amputees' operation scars to heal quickly and without complications so that they can get on with their lives, secure in the faith that the day will come when "both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame."

Regards,

Pahoran

[SleepingWillow]

That is not to say that God spectacularly and ostentatiously restores amputated limbs for the idle amusement of the wicked and adulterous, as the OP intended

I doubt amputees would consider the restoration of their limbs "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."

P.S., I am neither wicked nor adulterous.

[Tarski]

I doubt amputees would consider the restoration of their limbs "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."

P.S., I am neither wicked nor adulterous.

Don't you know that anyone who seeks a sign is in fact an adulterer? Of course, this would mean that I was an adutlerer before I was 10 years old.

[Pahoran]

I doubt amputees would consider the restoration of their limbs "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."

Perhaps not, but that's what you're asking for.

P.S., I am neither wicked nor adulterous.

Jesus says it, and you deny it. Hmmm, who has more credibility? What a dilemma!

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

I believe they have chosen to be amputees, and God would be infringing on their free agency if he were to heal them. (When in doubt, I always play the "free agency" card.)

[SleepingWillow]

Perhaps not, but that's what you're asking for.

I am not asking amputees to consider restoration of their limbs to be "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."

Jesus says it, and you deny it. Hmmm, who has more credibility? What a dilemma!

You're not Jesus.

[grego]

Aah, the favorite "prove God's in a test tube" question...

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Unless you have Peter with a sword at your side...

Don't you know that anyone who seeks a sign is in fact an adulterer? Of course, this would mean that I was an adutlerer before I was 10 years old.

Either that, or wicked. But I won't be the judge of what.

[Irondukesteve]

I am just going to be blunt....the options there were rubbish.

Other---it all has to do with Free Agency and coming to an imperfect and material world.

[Pahoran]

I am not asking amputees to consider restoration of their limbs to be "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."

Clever straw man. You really do show a unique talent for them.

As you perfectly well know, I did not suggest or suppose that you were "asking amputees to consider restoration of their limbs to be 'idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous.'" As you perfectly well know, I was commenting upon the fact that your OP is asking why God does not perform spectacular, ostentatious miracles for your idle amusement.

You're not Jesus.

You're right. I'm also not the one who revealed that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks for signs; Jesus did that.

And I have no reason to conclude, or even suspect, that he was wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hammer]

Alma 11: 43

43 The spirit and the body shall be areunited again in its bperfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, cknowing even as we know now, and have a bright drecollection of all our eguilt.

I voted that God does give back limbs: I just didn't qualify it as to when.

Alma 11: 43

43 The spirit and the body shall be areunited again in its bperfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, cknowing even as we know now, and have a bright drecollection of all our eguilt.

[Tarski]

Clever straw man. You really do show a unique talent for them.

As you perfectly well know, I did not suggest or suppose that you were "asking amputees to consider restoration of their limbs to be 'idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous.'" As you perfectly well know, I was commenting upon the fact that your OP is asking why God does not perform spectacular, ostentatious miracles for your idle amusement.

Since he did not ask for that in any way, you are doing much worse than setting up a straw man, you are just fabricating.

He asked why God does not perform the miracle that the amputees would much apreciate the way the supposed recipients of miraculous cancer cures do.

Here is a rule of thumb: If there really is no other way for something to happen except by miracle, then that even just doesn't happen under controlled uncontroversial circumstances.

For example, since spontaneous remission of cancer is possible we can expect it to be claimed that God often heals cancer patients. On the other hand, since spontaneous remission of the absence of a limb is not possible, we expect no such miracles from God either.

[Hammer]

The LDS Church believes miracles are ongoing and can be performed through faith and the power of the priesthood. I do not know a faithful LDS member who claims they have never witnessed a miracle. The most common type of miracle mentioned is a healing miracle, where a blessing was given and the person's ailment ameliorated.

Unfortunately, these miracles are exclusively limited to diseases we do not completely understand (e.g. cancer, diabetes, someone in a wheelchair, etc.), or illnesses one would expect to recover from eventually regardless (e.g. a cold, or the flu). If someone regenerated a limb in response to a blessing, this would be relatively easy to demonstrate as a miracle, because there is nothing in ordinary experience that has people spontaneously regenerating lost limbs.

So my question to you is: Why doesn't God heal amputees?

He does when it suites HIS PURPOSES. Does everyone who asks for these blessings gain them? NO. Expediency is the key. God says do not ask for anything that is not expedient.

Also, if you read the scriptures, especially the NT you will find that healing is not just physical. It is also spiritual. Is those asking for these blessings humble enough to repent fully, come to Christ with no expectations and be healed inside first?

"whether I say your sins are forgiven or arise and walk, it is the same."

I would think that those who are getting testy about not getting a miracle are not fully repentent. And those who are repentent, are so humble they will submit to the trials of this life and carry on with joy and rejoicing in their Lord even if they are left without a limb.

[Tarski]

I am just going to be blunt....the options there were rubbish.

Other---it all has to do with Free Agency and coming to an imperfect and material world.

Why is cancer different then? Doesn't God cure cancer? Hint: Spontaneous remission.

[awyatt]

If I asked another person "Why doesn't Fred eat spinach," unless the person I was talking to intimately knew Fred, it would be completely speculative for the person to posit a reason. The proper response would be "If you want to know, go ask Fred yourself."

So here we have Sleeping Willow asking a question about why another (God) doesn't do a certain thing. What would be the proper answer?

-Allen

(PS: Did anyone notice the implication implicit in the question itself: that God doesn't heal amputees? Does Sleeping Willow, asking the question in this way instead of "Does God heal amputees," give his own expected answer? It would appear so.)

[Hammer]

Since he did not ask for that in any way, you are doing much worse than setting up a straw man, you are just fabricating.

He asked why God does not perform the miracle that the amputees would much apreciate the way the supposed recipients of miraculous cancer cures do.

Here is a rule of thumb: If there really is no other way for something to happen except by miracle, then that even just doesn't happen under controlled uncontroversial circumstances.

For example, since spontaneous remission of cancer is possible we can expect it to be claimed that God often heals cancer patients. On the other hand, since spontaneous remission of the absence of a limb is not possible, we expect no such miracles from God either.

This just isn't true. Ask any doctor.

[juliann]

So here we have Sleeping Willow asking a question about why another (God) doesn't do a certain thing. What would be the proper answer?

The donkey obviously has the answers. And they look scientific. That would be a good start for Willow.

[charity]

Talking about the senses which have real world input, as opposed to "feelings" which may be spiritual is very appropriate here on a topic disucssing amputees. The real world sensation of the "phantom limb?" Very real world, isn't it?

[koakaipo]

My answer would be who knows?

I don't know why.

Cinepro's post made me laugh out loud, but I do think that Mormon theology squares down that we enter mortality with the understanding that with free agency comes risk. Because freedom is always accompanied by risk. Nothing's a sure thing here.

That's why I personally don't like trying to figure out what was a blessing or a curse or a miracle, cause we don't know how to look at things alot of the times. I don't for one minute think anyone chose to be an amputee for instance, but I don't think everything is our choice in the end. Other people get to make their own choices too, and sometimes that infringes on our own will and agency.

[grego]

Here is a rule of thumb: If there really is no other way for something to happen except by miracle, then that even just doesn't happen under controlled uncontroversial circumstances.

May I ask, if it happened, what would you do?

No wonder Jesus waited three days. Got a whole bunch of believers from that, too.

Amputations restored? Would a healing by God like that leave a detectable scar?

Frankly, I'm glad, for the sakes of some here, that they don't have this "proof" to worry about.

Tarski, I remember your ridiculous scientific proof setup for testing. If you want to test God's existence in a test tube, you're just not going to get far. It doesn't bother some, either, I guess.

[Tarski]

This just isn't true. Ask any doctor.

Which part? (I said a lot)

You aren't suggesting that a doctor will tell me that remission of cancer is impossible are you?

Perhaps you think any doctor will tell me that amputees spontaneously grow back limbs.

I can't figure out what the heck you are talking about.

[SleepingWillow]

Clever straw man. You really do show a unique talent for them.

As you perfectly well know, I did not suggest or suppose that you were "asking amputees to consider restoration of their limbs to be 'idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous.'" As you perfectly well know, I was commenting upon the fact that your OP is asking why God does not perform spectacular, ostentatious miracles for your idle amusement.

So now, instead of responding to what you actually say, I'm supposed to divine what I think you mean and then respond to that as if that's what you said?

You're right. I'm also not the one who revealed that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks for signs; Jesus did that.

And I have no reason to conclude, or even suspect, that he was wrong.

Jesus didn't reveal that. The scribes who translated what Jesus supposedly said hundreds of years prior revealed that.

Besides, you're contorting that scripture far beyond its original intent. You're trying to make it say that no evidence is ever expected to be found for God's existence (a catch-all clause), whereas it seemed to clearly apply to people who were asking that God do this or that thing right in front of their eyes, specifically as proof without any other purpose. Jesus supposedly healed people all the time (even raised people from the dead), but he did these things primarily to heal people. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the same thing to happen with amputees.

[juliann]

Talking about the senses which have real world input, as opposed to "feelings" which may be spiritual is very appropriate here on a topic disucssing amputees. The real world sensation of the "phantom limb?" Very real world, isn't it?

Well...let's not try to remove their faith in anything but religion. Unless you have a "spiritual" category all "feelings" are sensory...unless they really do think that some alien force is controlling their brain. The scientific way to dismiss any religious interpretation of NDEs is to blame it on the same thing that produces the rest of our senses.

[Pahoran]

Since he did not ask for that in any way, you are doing much worse than setting up a straw man, you are just fabricating.

You know that accusation to be false.

That's why you made it.

Everyone who ever asks for a sign always demands something they suppose is impossible, because they have absolutely no intention of being shown up. The sneering, mocking tone of the OP and the poll options make it clear that Mister Willow is merely amusing himself at our expense. My summation, therefore, is a valid conclusion on the evidence.

As you perfectly well know, and contrary to your accustion.

He asked why God does not perform the miracle that the amputees would much apreciate the way the supposed recipients of miraculous cancer cures do.

And he deliberately chose a spectacular, ostentatious, showy miracle.

Here is a rule of thumb: If there really is no other way for something to happen except by miracle, then that even just doesn't happen under controlled uncontroversial circumstances.

Here is another rule of thumb: if such miracles did happen, even under uncontrolled controversial circumstances, the sign seekers would deny them until such time as they were forced to accept them, and then they would immediately find some means to explain them away.

IOW, it's only because these kinds of things don't happen that you think they are such a "gotcha." If they did happen, you'd find some way to brush them under the carpet, while issuing similar sign seeking questions about something else.

For example, since spontaneous remission of cancer is possible we can expect it to be claimed that God often heals cancer patients. On the other hand, since spontaneous remission of the absence of a limb is not possible, we expect no such miracles from God either.

For example, you dismiss miraculous cancer cures with a label, "spontaneous remission." If severed limbs were miraculously restored, you'd likewise dismiss them with a similar label, "spontaneous regeneration."

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

Jesus didn't reveal that. The scribes who translated what Jesus supposedly said hundreds of years prior revealed that.

Besides, you're contorting that scripture far beyond its original intent. You're trying to make it say that no evidence is ever expected to be found for God's existence (a catch-all clause), whereas it seemed to clearly apply to people who were asking that God do this or that thing right in front of their eyes, specifically as proof without any other purpose. Jesus supposedly healed people all the time (even raised people from the dead), but he did these things primarily to heal people. It's perfectly reasonable to expect the same thing to happen with amputees.

Willow, your game is growing tiresome.

Here you protest that Pahoran is twisting scripture and that the Bible itself isn't evidence because it's been filtered through so many people.

Yet everyday on these boards, you have people offering you first hand testimonies- the witness of Christ in their own lives- and you summarily reject them with an airy wave of the hand.

It seems to me that not only are you demanding a sign (as did other notable and ill-fated apostates in the Scriptures) but that you are also bound and determined to fulfill scripture and prove that no witness will be sufficient to the willful disbeliever.