Why Does God Not Cure Amputees? (pt 1 of 2)

[serious123]

I generally just fob off the atheists with this:

Healing a limb is a blatantly obvious sign of divine intervention of some degree [or deity]. If it was knwon 100% that person A with no legs thanks to a car accident and then suddenly they grew back, and it was said it was “God” who did it, and it could be proven beyond any doubt that no other incident healed the limbs, then a lot of people would beleive in God, not out of love for Him, not out of a willing cchoice, but out of fear and awe. That’s not a good reason to beleive in God. We shoudl beleive in him because we love him and want to please him, not because he magically fixed some guy’s stumps.
.

BINGO
That is exactly right. In fact its so obvious that it just displays how inept atheist are at Logic and how they have no understanding of Divine Hiddenness.

I mean, this is just embarrassing. This guy should hang up philosophy and go back to his day job.

Goodness gracious…God could go on CNN right now if he wanted to be OVERT.
One thing I would add is some would actually attribute a limb being healed to the devil. Thats exactly what some of the religious leaders said when Jesus was healing more overtly—but as Christ said…while he was IN the world he was going heal most anyone who desired it. Which shows God’s heart. He may have been actually going against what he knew was best out of compassion.(thats debatable of course)

Faith is the vehicle people. It cannot exist fully in the face of the Obvious. All Christians know for a fact that Jesus was exactly who he said he was because the Holy Spirit dwells in our minds–but that wasnt the case when we turned to God and its obviously not the case for the awesome philosopher who posed the amputee question so he’s gonna have to turn to God of his own freewill without seeing an arm grow out of a stump.

Maybe this guy would rather have God move into his house with him. We’ll see how honest he is being God’s little coerced puppy but then God would have to judge him by his deeds instead of something as easy as faith. I think we all know that not a single one of us would be left standing if God judged by Works.

Look, these guys are so afraid they may might be wrong, Even if its just a tiny doubt its enough to have them litter forums all over the internet everyday. It doesn’t matter how small the doubt is because the consequences of them being wrong are Eternal. That’s a powerful bias. I say, why not just turn to God and ask him, with their whole sincere heart, about Christ? Why play this psychological game tormenting themselves. They’re not tormenting us-- as we want them to be saved–we want them as brothers not enemies.

 

[serious123]

Yes, but I believe that God is a good enough craftsman that He doesn’t need to have magic in the system to make it self-perpetuating.

Putting it another way,
If we were simply solid clay walking around and talking, there would be no explanation besides magic as to why we are animated.
But God didn’t choose to make a system that depended on a constant influx of magic, He made a system where things appear to follow logical rules that are self-sufficient.
I think God is a brilliant enough craftsman that He doesn’t need to resort to magic to make His system work.

I refuse to prove the existence of a perfect Creator by looking for mistakes He made.

I understand your line of reasoning but none of us can be so bold to claim exactly what God’s methods are in this matter.
We shouldnt build a construct and force God into it. So it doesnt seem correct to call it magic if God chooses to direct his creation to precisely where he wants it to go.

Its all speculation. For instance, God is pure non material Mind----Thought. Which means that wood is not hard to him—in fact it has no substance at all to Him. In our dreams our worlds dont have real substance either, we dont imagine the atoms inside the ground we walk on in our dreams but we do make contact with the ground none the less

God could have just made us full of jelly or nothing at all but he designed it so it will *work, break down, age, and be fixed. Chemistry can be used to help our 7 billion inhabitants. BTW I dont think its a coincidence that all these inventions popped up when the population needed them to support itself better.

But what about things we cant manipulate to help us with our lives? Maybe there is no reason for certain things to have actual mechanisms because they cant be used by us anyway.
Isnt it clear that consciousness is just a copy of a process that is happening spiritually? Certainly we cannot argue that Christ could be explained solely by mechanism. The Son was thinking through a human brain. Yes the brain was a huge bottleneck to His thoughts–for instance when Jesus was 2 he was thinking about the best way to suck his thumb not of eternal things.

But its obvious that the Son was immaterial which is a decent argument that we are also, at our core, immaterial as well. When looking at Freewill alone–there is a good argument that choices may not be made in the physical realm at all. That would be a gap that cant be plugged by the natural world and certainly couldnt be called magic anymore than Christs miracles. Its not magic when I fly in my dreams and neither was it when Christ ascended into the air in ACTS.
God is not in the universe-- the universe is In and sustained by God’s thoughts. I think if we step back away from our constructs and really understand what our material world truly is TO God himself–we can break out of this materialist box we put everything into.

I dont claim to know exactly where God moves things by his thought. You may right about many of things you’re saying. But when you understand that the very computer screen you looking at is represented by some type of grouping of thoughts in God’s mind it easy to see that even the clearly explainable mechanisms invented and designed by us are held together by Him–so how much more the things he created and designed.

It may be that anything that is usable, or helps our understanding has clear mechanisms and some things just dont help in the way God wants so they dont have secondary causes. Its important to understand there is certainly a balance of Doubt verses Evidence required for faith and God is directing that balance so may be a better way to look at it is------
-hypothetically, if Evolution(which I accept a form of BTW) upsets that balance too much in the favor of Doubt, God in his foreknowledge purposely leaves parts which cannot be explained–ever–to maintain proper balance. Again, we dont know. Maybe in the future, Gods plan may move toward almost total doubt for unbelievers–revelation suggest a massive hardening coming. But either way I dont think we should be dogmatic about it.

 

[wheels10]

Yes, but I believe that God is a good enough craftsman that He doesn’t need to have magic in the system to make it self-perpetuating.

That’s Good that you believe in the existence of God. And you also believe that God has created everything in this world, either directly or indirectly?

 

[LJH_80]

I understand your line of reasoning but none of us can be so bold to claim exactly what God’s methods are in this matter…

Its all speculation…

It may be that…

hypothetically…

etc.

This seems like a lot of speculation. It presumes that the gaps we currently have are all mystery, but the gaps that we had 150 years ago were all things that God wanted us to fill in. I can’t say that that’s not true, but I don’t particularly agree with it.
But the only evidence I have to support my view is annecdotal. If somebody says “the appocalypse is coming next Tuesday,” but says that for 3 years straight, you stop giving credence to their theories. Likewise, people have been using God to fill in gaps in understanding for years, and thought that we knew all that we were ever going to know.

God could have just made us full of jelly or nothing at all but he designed it so it will *work, break down, age, and be fixed. Chemistry can be used to help our 7 billion inhabitants. BTW I dont think its a coincidence that all these inventions popped up when the population needed them to support itself better.

This warranted special mention. Because I simultaneously agree fully with what you said, but completely disagree with what you were trying to say.
It isn’t a coincidence that the population exploded when the access to food, medical care, and sanitation became better, just like it’s not an accident that there are lots of firefighters around when there’s a big fire.
It sounded like you were trying to say that God made all these developments in response to the population exploding, which is like saying that the fire broke out in response to having lots of firefighters around.

I’m going to alter your post slightly by adding one word. “yet.”

But what about things we cant YET manipulate to help us with our lives? Maybe there is no reason for certain things to have actual mechanisms because they cant be used by us anyway.

You’re right, there may be things we never fully understand, but why would you choose to put your eggs in that basket? You seem thrilled by what science has accomplished so far by filling in its gaps, why are you now betting on the gaps? Sure there may be things we never figure out, but I’d rather keep trying than just shrug and say “well maybe God doesn’t want us to know this stuff.”

Isnt it clear that consciousness is just a copy of a process that is happening spiritually? Certainly we cannot argue that Christ could be explained solely by mechanism. The Son was thinking through a human brain. Yes the brain was a huge bottleneck to His thoughts–for instance when Jesus was 2 he was thinking about the best way to suck his thumb not of eternal things.

But its obvious that the Son was immaterial which is a decent argument that we are also, at our core, immaterial as well. When looking at Freewill alone–there is a good argument that choices may not be made in the physical realm at all.

This is getting to an actual argument (with assertions, evidence, and implications).
I am using the term “magic” to denote “tinkering” with the system. The system normally works as sperm+egg->baby. Jesus’ virgin birth was obviously an exception to that, and likely involved some intervention and tinkering with the system. Perhaps “magic” is not the most reverent term, but I think it fits.
The fact that Jesus had divine aspects does imply that the divine can coexist in the material. But as was mentioned before, He was a “rule-breaker” from the start, so there’s no reason to assume that the states that applied to Jesus automatically apply to us.

It may be that anything that is usable, or helps our understanding has clear mechanisms and some things just dont help in the way God wants so they dont have secondary causes.

Again, it may indeed be that way, but the only way for us to know which parts we’re supposed to figure out is to try and figure out everything we can… so in practice functions identically with the concept of an understandable universe.

Its important to understand there is certainly a balance of Doubt verses Evidence required for faith and God is directing that balance so may be a better way to look at it is—

Again, this suggests that there is an ideal level of ignorance for believing in God. But since we don’t know for certain we are currently at that ideal level, it still directs us to assume that there is no limit and keep trying to figure things out until we can’t figure anything out anymore.

 

[LJH_80]

That’s Good that you believe in the existence of God. And you also believe that God has created everything in this world, either directly or indirectly?

The quote you cited says as much, does it not?

I get the distinct impression I’m being led into a trap. Not that this is a bad thing, I welcome challenges.

 

[Ancient1]

To get back to the question, all suffering is a result of original sin.

 

[wheels10]

The quote you cited says as much, does it not?

I get the distinct impression I’m being led into a trap. Not that this is a bad thing, I welcome challenges.

Since God has created everything in this world, does that not make God the owner of all things in this world? If you agree, then is there anything that is truly our very own?

 

[LJH_80]

Since God has created everything in this world, does that not make God the owner of all things in this world? If you agree, then is there anything that is truly our very own?

“Ownership” is getting into issues of language, where it means different things to different people in different contexts.

I know people who “own” cats; they paid money for the cat, and, if it were hurt, could sue for destruction of property. That doesn’t mean that the cats consider themselves to be “owned” by the people whose houses they inhabit.

Likewise, I own a dog, who has a bone that he considers his “own.” If another dog comes over and wants to chew on it, my dog informs him of the error of his ways. In that, somebody owns something to the extent that he can maintain control of it (either through force or paperwork).

Perhaps the best example is that you never “own” the land your house is on, sure you paid money for it from someone else, but the land belongs to the country you’re inhabiting. I say that because they have the power to take it away, charge me for its use, or modify it as they see fit.
By this definition of “ownership,” there is little that God cannot take away. According to Romans 9, he can even take away our free will and make us sin, if it’s convenient for Him, so we down’t even own responsibility for our actions. Therefore, Biblically, I’d say we own nothing.

I’m curious what your definition of “ownership” is, though

 

[ivebeenshown]

To get back to the question, all suffering is a result of original sin.

Of course the majority of atheists living in Evangelicalprotestantville won’t hear about original sin and justice, and will instead hear about how God “creates light and darkness, good and evil” and how everything is ultimately predestined and choices are illusions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’d make one modification to your statement.

Of course the majority -]of atheist/-]s living in Evangelicalprotestantville won’t hear about original sin and justice, and will instead hear about how God “creates light and darkness, good and evil” and how everything is ultimately predestined and choices are illusions.

Even when I was a Christian the phrase “Original Sin” was not one I ever heard used until it was the title of a movie (I’m in Southern Baptist territory). The local Jehovah’s Witnesses will speak of the concept but they never use that term.

Though I am just speaking of my own experience. I don’t know that it’s the majority experience in this environment.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I’d make one modification to your statement.

I would too. I must have been mixed up with another discussion, mentioning atheists specifically was really not called for.

 

[wheels10]

“Ownership” is getting into issues of language, where it means different things to different people in different contexts.

I know people who “own” cats; they paid money for the cat, and, if it were hurt, could sue for destruction of property. That doesn’t mean that the cats consider themselves to be “owned” by the people whose houses they inhabit.

Likewise, I own a dog, who has a bone that he considers his “own.” If another dog comes over and wants to chew on it, my dog informs him of the error of his ways. In that, somebody owns something to the extent that he can maintain control of it (either through force or paperwork).

Perhaps the best example is that you never “own” the land your house is on, sure you paid money for it from someone else, but the land belongs to the country you’re inhabiting. I say that because they have the power to take it away, charge me for its use, or modify it as they see fit.
By this definition of “ownership,” there is little that God cannot take away. According to Romans 9, he can even take away our free will and make us sin, if it’s convenient for Him, so we down’t even own responsibility for our actions. Therefore, Biblically, I’d say we own nothing.

I’m curious what your definition of “ownership” is, though

You have provided a very good definition of ownership. And I agree that God owns everything in this world and can take it away at anytime with one exception, and that is our free will, ie. the ability to choose Good or evil. You mentioned that Romans 9 seems to contradict this understanding, though that is not my understanding of this text.

 

[LJH_80]

You have provided a very good definition of ownership. And I agree that God owns everything in this world and can take it away at anytime with one exception, and that is our free will, ie. the ability to choose Good or evil. You mentioned that Romans 9 seems to contradict this understanding, though that is not my understanding of this text.

Well then, let’s go to the text… Romans 9 is talking about Exodus 9,10 and 11. In Exodus, God explicitly states that

1. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them. 2. that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”

It is said that He does it in Exodus 9:12 also, but 10:1 is where He actually admits to doing it. In Exodus 10:16-20, Pharaoh is convinced and begs Moses for his God’s forgiveness… and then God hardened Pharaoh’s heart again.

16. Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. 17. Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me.”

1. Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the LORD. 19. And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea.** Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. 20. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
   **

Finally, when it came to killing firstborn sons,

9 The LORD had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.” 10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

This all sounds like God meddling in free will to me. And it must have sounded like that to the people who talked to Paul because he addressed the issue in Romans 9. He answers this by saying, essentially, “Shut up! God can do this if He wants to!”

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

I don’t see him denying the accusation that God tampers with free will, just saying that God has the right to do it if He wants to.

If you (or the Catholic Church) has a different interpretation, please let me know.

 

[ivebeenshown]

In the case of Pharaoh, and any others like him:

God may withdraw his grace from men as he so pleases, as man has no certain right to it. He may also, of course, distribute it as he pleases. Man can harden his own heart – as the Scriptures record Pharaoh doing – by using his own free will to reject grace, and God can effectively harden the heart of man by withdrawing his grace. This is not akin to directly controlling the decision-making faculties of man; it does not in any way violate the free will of man.

 

[LJH_80]

I read your statement as saying, “Man has free will the harden his own heart or not to. But God also has the ability to harden a person’s heart by withdrawing grace.” Thus, something that should be subject to free will is also subject to the will of God.

Perhaps my understanding of the term “grace” is incorrect/inadequate. Since my Catholic education is not always what it should be, could you please define the term for me?

 

[HailStarofSea]

Well, I don’t call myself an atheist, but I will probably do until one turns up. The claim, I understand, is that this lady ate nothing but the Eucharist for years and remained alive. How was the fact established, and by whom? remember that to meet the sort of critieria that will impress anyone who is not already a believer, the possibly of fraud must be excluded, along with self-delusion. In testing claims of paranormal phenomenon, skeptics generally try to enlist the support of conjurers, who are wise to the ways people can be led to believe in the unbelievable.

She has already convinced some who were not believers. She is mentioned in the book Autobiography of a Yogi.

Paramahansa Yogananda visited her and wrote about her case in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, published in 1946. He wrote an entire chapter, Therese Neumann, The Catholic Stigmatist of Bavaria, which reverently gives a vivid first-hand description of one of her Friday Passion trances.

According to Paramahansa Yogananda, Therese Neumann said during his visit: “One of the reasons I am here on earth today is to prove that man can live by God’s invisible light, and not by food only.” His judgement was: “I realized at once that her strange life is intended by God to reassure all Christians of the historical authenticity of Jesus’ life and crucifixion as recorded in the New Testament, and to dramatically display the ever-living bond between the Galilean Master and his devotees.” When Paramahansa Yogananda questions the notion that Therese Neumann had lived eating only a daily eucharistic wafer for the past 12 years, she states that she lives by God’s light. The renowned yogi then suggests, “I see you realize that energy flows to your body from the ether, sun, and air.” Therese then smiles and expresses her happiness that he understands the way she lives.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therese_Neumann

No, for me to be correct all I must say is that I have seen nothing, and been referred to nothing in this thread that constitutes evidence acceptable in a scientific context. It is up to those making extraordinary claims to provide the extraordinary evidence needed to support such claims. People can believe things without being liars or fools. It is one of the reasons that belief interests me, and why I myslef attemt to avoid belief, but to reply on conclusions from evidence. a simple test of whether all this ‘evidence’ is in fact evidence it to ask who, without prior faith, has been convinced by it. The answer is, very, very few. Are the unconvinced people all liars or fools?

Some of the best evidence for religion comes from former atheists who set out to debunk religion; as they examined the evidence, they became convinced. “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel is the best book that I’ve seen thus far. I have read about ex-nuns and ex-priests; generally, these people were members of the Church who had a superficial faith before joining the convent or seminary. I have yet to read a story of someone who truly grasped the faith, joined, and then left.

You are off to a good start by visiting this forum, but I myself did not learn about most of what I know simply from asking people questions and hoping they were both kind enough and well informed enough to answer me. One is better off searching themselves than expecting to be spoon-fed the evidence. In the secular world, one would generally have to pay a high amount to get a tutoring in the best answers.

Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74.
[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)].
[Article in Italian]
Linoli O.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729

 

[wheels10]

Well then, let’s go to the text… Romans 9 is talking about Exodus 9,10 and 11. In Exodus, God explicitly states that

It is said that He does it in Exodus 9:12 also, but 10:1 is where He actually admits to doing it. In Exodus 10:16-20, Pharaoh is convinced and begs Moses for his God’s forgiveness… and then God hardened Pharaoh’s heart again.

Finally, when it came to killing firstborn sons,

This all sounds like God meddling in free will to me. And it must have sounded like that to the people who talked to Paul because he addressed the issue in Romans 9. He answers this by saying, essentially, “Shut up! God can do this if He wants to!”

I don’t see him denying the accusation that God tampers with free will, just saying that God has the right to do it if He wants to.

If you (or the Catholic Church) has a different interpretation, please let me know.

Here is another interpretation:

1. But since we acknowledge the God who spoke by Moses to be not only just, but also good, let us carefully inquire how it is in keeping with the character of a just and good Deity to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh. And let us see whether, following the example of the Apostle Paul, we are able to solve the difficulty by help of some parallel instances: if we can show, e.g., that by one and the same act God has pity upon one individual, but hardens another; not purposing or desiring that he who is hardened should be so, but because, in the manifestation of His goodness and patience, the heart of those who treat His kindness and forbearance with contempt and insolence is hardened by the punishment of their crimes being delayed; while those, on the other hand, who make His goodness and patience the occasion of their repentance and reformation, obtain compassion. To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he says, “For the earth, which drinks in the rain that comes oft upon it, and brings forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, will receive blessing from God; but that which bears thorns and briers is rejected, and is near unto cursing, whose end is to be burned.” Now from those words of Paul which we have quoted, it is clearly shown that by one and the same act on the part of God— that, viz., by which He sends rain upon the earth— one portion of the ground, when carefully cultivated, brings forth good fruits; while another, neglected and uncared for, produces thorns and thistles. And if one, speaking as it were in the person of the rain, were to say, “It is I, the rain, that have made the good fruits, and it is I that have caused the thorns and thistles to grow,” however hard the statement might appear, it would nevertheless be true; for unless the rain had fallen, neither fruits, nor thorns, nor thistles would have sprung up, whereas by the coming of the rain the earth gave birth to both. Now, although it is due to the beneficial action of the rain that the earth has produced herbs of both kinds, it is not to the rain that the diversity of the herbs is properly to be ascribed; but on those will justly rest the blame for the bad seed, who, although they might have turned up the ground by frequent ploughing, and have broken the clods by repeated harrowing, and have extirpated all useless and noxious weeds, and have cleared and prepared the fields for the coming showers by all the labour and toil which cultivation demands, have nevertheless neglected to do this, and who will accordingly reap briers and thorns, the most appropriate fruit of their sloth. And the consequence therefore is, that while the rain falls in kindness and impartiality equally upon the whole earth, yet, by one and the same operation of the rain, that soil which is cultivated yields with a blessing useful fruits to the diligent and careful cultivators, while that which has become hardened through the neglect of the husbandman brings forth only thorns and thistles. Let us therefore view those signs and miracles which were done by God, as the showers furnished by Him from above; and the purpose and desires of men, as the cultivated and uncultivated soil, which is of one and the same nature indeed, as is every soil compared with another, but not in one and the same state of cultivation. From which it follows that every one’s will, if untrained, and fierce, and barbarous, is either hardened by the miracles and wonders of God, growing more savage and thorny than ever, or it becomes more pliant, and yields itself up with the whole mind to obedience, if it be cleared from vice and subjected to training.

newadvent.org/fathers/04123.htm

I know that God is always Good and always Just. If someone starts to say that He is not, I know that something is not being understood correctly.

 

[Tigress]

Perhaps you could say something like thisto counter his last post:

“The laws of the universe are just that. Laws of the universe! The God in my belief system is the founder and creator of the world we live in. My religion runs on faith and trust and so in order to assert this God shall play by the same rules we do. God does not bypass rules of our universe because he hopes for us to follow our hearts and trust in Him without having to see Him with our own eyes. It is up to us as his children so to speak to have faith in his power without him having to prove it. That is the magic of Christianity. That’s the whole point of it; having faith. Because of this it would be foolish for Him to spontaneously spawn a new limb every now and then as though we’re all a clowder of starfish.”

At least that’s what I would say

 

[ivebeenshown]

I read your statement as saying, “Man has free will the harden his own heart or not to. But God also has the ability to harden a person’s heart by withdrawing grace.” Thus, something that should be subject to free will is also subject to the will of God.

Not quite. God has his own free will, and he is not obligated to give his grace to anyone in particular. Now, God’s free will decision may ultimately influence man’s free will decisions, but not by a direct coercion that can be said to violate free will.

For instance, if a child wanted their parent to purchase for them a toy, but the parent decided with their own free will to not purchase the toy, the child may then decide to play with something else – whereas if the parent decided with their own free will to purchase the toy, the child would have decided with their own free will to play with that toy. In neither case was the free will of the child violated.

Perhaps my understanding of the term “grace” is incorrect/inadequate. Since my Catholic education is not always what it should be, could you please define the term for me?

I would be glad to define the term for you. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1996:

Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

 

[LJH_80]

The example of the parent and the child does not seem to fit. Pharaoh did not have the option of compliance removed from him, the way the child had the option of playing with that toy removed from him.
Additionally, it seems like Pharaoh is agreeing to Moses’ demands, and then God steps in and things change, see Exodus 10:16-20.

Thank you for the definition of Grace. It makes this and other conversations easier.