# Does God favor some healings over another? A serious question posed to Ravi Zacharius



## footjunior (Feb 26, 2009)

The question was posed tonight to both Ravi and John, yet they failed to answer the question. They answered other, similar questions, but they failed to answer the specific question that was asked during the Q & A.

Here is the question.

Why do we see God "healing" cancer patients but do not see Him growing back limbs for equally deserving amputee Christians?

Both are nothing to God, right? Growing a limb back is not more "difficult" to God than healing someone of cancer. Surely there are Christian amputees that are just as deserving of a healing than cancer patients. Why the disproportionate distribution of healings? Does God favor healing people of cancer over growing limbs back?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 26, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The question was posed tonight to both Ravi and John, yet they failed to answer the question. They answered other, similar questions, but they failed to answer the specific question that was asked during the Q & A.
> 
> Here is the question.
> 
> ...




Are you referring to the God whom you don't believe in?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 26, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Are you referring to the God whom you don't believe in?



Yes.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 26, 2009)

But god does answer the prayers of amputees and the paralyzed:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812


----------



## footjunior (Feb 26, 2009)

RThomas said:


> But god does answer the prayers of amputees and the paralyzed:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812



 The Onion strikes again! I love it. Do you watch their Youtube channel? It is hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/user/theonion?blend=1


----------



## RThomas (Feb 26, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The Onion strikes again! I love it. Do you watch their Youtube channel? It is hilarious.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/theonion?blend=1



Yeah, their "news" is incredible.  "The Onion" was one of my daily "must read" websites...  until my work place blocked the entire site a few weeks ago.  
I guess they expect me work, or something.


----------



## DouglasB. (Feb 27, 2009)

Sir... 

I actually think this is a very valid question. One that you deserve an answer to. I hope this will suffice.

No... in "regrowing" a limb is nothing to God. He does it every day with trees. I can't even pretend to know WHY God chooses to not do so. I can only give you what I think.

Cancer is foreign to the Human body. It's not something that is supposed to be there. It is a sickness. A body that is born with an arm is ment to have that arm. Once it is lost, it is lost. Its not a matter of life and death if it is lost. The bible teaches us that Jesus lead the blind to see, the lame to walk, and even the dead to breathe again. Regrowing an arm wasn't in there. Think about the time frame too that it takes to grow that arm. 9 months in the womb to develope it, years to learn to control it, and years to match it to your body. God has no time. 7 days it took him to create the heavens and the Earth. However, we don't know if a day is hour 24 hours. That is left to assumption. Perhaps the time involved has something to do with it. We are given this body, and are told to treat it as our temple. Most of the time the cancers that are cured are things that we have no control over. However lung cancer from smoking isn't cured as often. Medical advances have made it to where you can survive, but its not as likely over something you couldn't control. Smoking is a direct disobedience over the teachings of the Lord. Being born without an arm or losing an arm sometimes has nothing to do with YOU, but it could come down to what took place while you were being developed. You were once inside that temple, if your mother smoked and drank alcohol, that has a lot to do with fetal growth. 

You can't tell me that a prostetic leg isn't an answered prayer... a bionic arm... or even a caretaker. Sickness doesn't compare to the lack of a limb.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> Sir...
> 
> I actually think this is a very valid question. One that you deserve an answer to. I hope this will suffice.
> 
> ...



Well, my question was,

Why do we see God "healing" cancer patients but do not see Him growing back limbs for equally deserving amputee Christians?

Can God regrow a limb? Of course, he is God. Why doesn't he?


----------



## DouglasB. (Feb 27, 2009)

I don't see how I didn't answer that question... 

Cancer kills. Not having an arm doesn't. Living and having two arms aren't equal. Living definately outweighs having 4 limbs. Ask any bear thats chewed a leg off to get out of a trap.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> I don't see how I didn't answer that question...
> 
> Cancer kills. Not having an arm doesn't. Living and having two arms aren't equal. Living definately outweighs having 4 limbs. Ask any bear thats chewed a leg off to get out of a trap.



Oh ok. I think I understand now. You're saying that since curing cancer is more important than having two arms, God chooses to cure cancer. I agree, living is definitely more important than having all of your limbs.

But... if what you say is true, then why does God choose to answer less important things like miraculously providing money to help pay a bill? Isn't having all 4 limbs more important than having to pay a late fee on a bill? You're not going to die if you fail to make a payment, but yet God miraculously answers that prayer. At the same time he does not regrow someone's limb even though he is more than capable of doing so. It seems to me that God has singled out amputees.

Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Mark 11:24 - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 12:13-14 - And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Surely there are Christian amputees out there that have the faith required and want to be healed. Why does God not answer their prayers? I'm trying to understand.


----------



## THREEJAYS (Feb 27, 2009)

If you are looking for logic it's not always to be found.If folks don't believe w/ the miricles he chooses to give then I don't think regrowing a limb would really change anything.


----------



## SPITCAN (Feb 27, 2009)

If you knew that this happened, would you then be a believer?


----------



## fivesolas (Feb 27, 2009)

I would have to say...it's a stupid question.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Every person that Christ healed in the New Testament died. Even Lazarus died. Is it the healing that was the important part?


Ding Ding Ding!!!!

Dominic! You nailed it! It wasn't the healing that was important it was the message involved in it! THE lessons taught! The revelation of who He is.


Fivesolas- not a stupid question. Maybe not a sincere one but nonetheless a good question.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

SPITCAN said:


> If you knew that this happened, would you then be a believer?



Of course not. He's already passed on all the others. Why would one more matter?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

*Fj,*

You weigh things in human terms as if having limbs is a thing to be desired and to lack is to be cursed or punished. Indeed, some never get past the stage of asking "Why me?" or saying, "Woe is me!"

Ultimately, it comes down to this:
God is more concerned for our spiritual condition than our physical one. The answer to the "Why?" that you ask may be that such healing may not be beneficial to His plan to reconcile sinful man to Himself. If it were to happen, even to you, would you give God the glory for the restoration of a limb? Or would you look for some scientific medical explanation for regrowth? Would you attribute instantaneous regeneration to God or would you question whether you had been hallucinating? Would you be so bitter at the basic "unfairness" of losing a limb that you would continue to reject God regardless? God is under no obligation to do "parlor tricks" to prove His existence, presence, or His love. He has already done enough that  those who seek Him, in faith, "see" Him for the God He is and "see" His "fingerprints" on all that is. They bow down and worship Him.

I have a friend who has one leg amputated above the knee and part of the opposite foot removed due to an accident. He praises God not only for bringing him through that, but for allowing him the privilege of meeting others similarly afflicted that he might be a witness. He has no regrets for God having allowed the accident because God has blessed others and him also. 

Pray that God gives you eyes to see Him as others do.

Matthew 5:29

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into heII."


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You weigh things in human terms as if having limbs is a thing to be desired and to lack is to be cursed or punished. Indeed, some never get past the stage of asking "Why me?" or saying, "Woe is me!"
> 
> Ultimately, it comes down to this:
> God is more concerned for our spiritual condition than our physical one. The answer to the "Why?" that you ask may be that such healing may not be beneficial to His plan to reconcile sinful man to Himself. If it were to happen, even to you, would you give God the glory for the restoration of a limb? Or would you look for some scientific medical explanation for regrowth? Would you attribute instantaneous regeneration to God or would you question whether you had been hallucinating? Would you be so bitter at the basic "unfairness" of losing a limb that you would continue to reject God regardless? God is under no obligation to do "parlor tricks" to prove His existence, presence, or His love. He has already done enough that  those who seek Him, in faith, "see" Him for the God He is and "see" His "fingerprints" on all that is. They bow down and worship Him.



This is the same answer that was given by Ravi and John last night. But the same things can be said about God's healing cancer or miraculously providing money to pay bills. Why does God perform these "parlor tricks"? What does paying the bills have to do with your spiritual life?

I am speaking of good, devout Christians who have a relationship with Jesus Christ, who are not looking for "parlor tricks," who are asking for healing through prayer and faith, who have more than just a mustard seed of faith, and who are equally deserving than those Christians with cancer that God seems to heal all the time. Why the disproportionate healings? Does the scripture above just not apply to amputees? That's what it looks like.

"Well, sir, I can't heal you. You see... that would look too miraculous. It would make it seem like I'm having to do 'parlor tricks' in order to get people to believe. And just because of those reasons, No you shall not be healed." But God you miraculously removed the tumor off that ladies brain! How is that any less of a "parlor trick" than just regrowing my limb? I love you and serve you faithfully. I'm not going to go show off my new limb if you don't want me to. I just want my limb back, and I believe you can do it. "Unfortunately for amputees it looks more like a parlor trick than removing cancer and tumors. You see, tumors can go away on their own or with the use of medicine and surgery, but no one's arm has ever miraculously grown back. It would be an unprecedented move in this modern era and would cause many people to come to Christ, and we don't want that, do we? No. We don't. Your non-healing will serve as a source of doubt for believers everywhere. You're doing a good job. Good day, sir."


----------



## SPITCAN (Feb 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You weigh things in human terms as if having limbs is a thing to be desired and to lack is to be cursed or punished. Indeed, some never get past the stage of asking "Why me?" or saying, "Woe is me!"
> 
> Ultimately, it comes down to this:
> God is more concerned for our spiritual condition than our physical one. The answer to the "Why?" that you ask may be that such healing may not be beneficial to His plan to reconcile sinful man to Himself. If it were to happen, even to you, would you give God the glory for the restoration of a limb? Or would you look for some scientific medical explanation for regrowth? Would you attribute instantaneous regeneration to God or would you question whether you had been hallucinating? Would you be so bitter at the basic "unfairness" of losing a limb that you would continue to reject God regardless? God is under no obligation to do "parlor tricks" to prove His existence, presence, or His love. He has already done enough that  those who seek Him, in faith, "see" Him for the God He is and "see" His "fingerprints" on all that is. They bow down and worship Him.
> ...




That's Awesome! Exactly the same as I see it! Thank You.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 27, 2009)

hmm... have you ever wondered it is God's blessing that you never get Cancer, or you never have to get amputated.. etc?

DB BB


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This is the same answer that was given by Ravi and John last night. But the same things can be said about God's healing cancer or miraculously providing money to pay bills. Why does God perform these "parlor tricks"? What does paying the bills have to do with your spiritual life?
> 
> I am speaking of good, devout Christians who have a relationship with Jesus Christ, who are not looking for "parlor tricks," who are asking for healing through prayer and faith, who have more than just a mustard seed of faith, and who are equally deserving than those Christians with cancer that God seems to heal all the time. Why the disproportionate healings? Does the scripture above just not apply to amputees? That's what it looks like.
> 
> "Well, sir, I won't heal you. You see... that would look too miraculous. It would make it seem like I'm having to do 'parlor tricks' in order to get people to believe. And just because of those reasons, No you shall not be healed." But God you miraculously removed the tumor off that ladies brain! How is that any less of a "parlor trick" than just regrowing my limb? I love you and serve you faithfully. I'm not going to go show off my new limb if you don't want me to. I just want my limb back, and I believe you can do it. "Unfortunately for amputees it looks more like a parlor trick than removing cancer and tumors. You see, tumors can go away on their own or with the use of medicine and surgery, but no one's arm has ever miraculously grown back. It would be an unprecedented move in this modern era and would cause many people to come to Christ, and we don't want that, do we? No. We don't. Your non-healing will serve as a source of doubt for believers everywhere. You're doing a good job. Good day, sir."



Love the way you try to put words into God's mouth.....NOT. 

You see, God has, not just a better plan, but the best plan, and sometimes it does not have physical healing as a component. God gets to make the call because He is God.

They should be praying that God's will for them be revealed and that they be responsive to it.

I think David Ring titled his sermon, "Quit Your Belly-aching"

And it might be worth remembering that God will ultimately heal all His reconciled children, here or in eternity!


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I think David Ring titled his sermon, "Quit Your Belly-aching"



Tell that to your Christian amputee brothers who are fervently praying for a healing and see everyone else getting healed around them.



> And it might be worth remembering that God will ultimately heal all His reconciled children, here or in eternity!



Yep. He also chooses to heal some while they're here on this Earth... unless you're an amputee.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Tell that to your Christian amputee brothers who are fervently praying for a healing and see everyone else getting healed around them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. He also chooses to heal some while they're here on this Earth... unless you're an amputee.



Have you ever considered that they are placing their will above His? Bad way to approach God with any petition. 

God's grace is sufficient for everyone in all circumstances, unless you have refused His grace.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 27, 2009)

> Cancer kills. Not having an arm doesn't. Living and having two arms aren't equal. Living definately outweighs having 4 limbs.



But a severed limb could be life threatening.  What if a leg were blown off by a bomb?  Unless treated, the victim would likely bleed to death or die from shock.  Why not regrow the limb right then and there?  It never happens.


----------



## SPITCAN (Feb 27, 2009)

My personal opinion is that God did not design the human body to do this. As a child, when you lost a tooth, one grew back. Your body will run a fever to fight infection. A human body can reproduce another human body. When God designed all of this, I don't think that He said "Oops I forgot something." Again, this is a personal opinion.


----------



## gilbertbeebe (Feb 27, 2009)

1. I would question the emphasis of the question. Healing and receiving benefits from God is not because of merit or for the "deserving" but rather bestowed according to God's own pleasure and will apart from our worth and desert. "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up" (1 Sam. 2:6). Why did God allow James to suffer martyrdom and Peter to escape martyrdom (Acts 12) ? God sovereign purpose is the only response I know of.

2. The question relates to willingness and not to ability. God can do whatever He desires.God can perform whatever is logically possible. However, there are seemingly many things God has not yet determined to perform as far as we understand. I am not sure I know of an instance in the Bible where limbs have grown back. The indication is that God has not intervened in this way as of yet. "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?" (Matthew 6:27). Surely God can but it is intimated that this is an occurrence that has not happened. The same is true concerning permanent teeth, hair growth, reversal of aging process, etc. Other events could be considered as to what God can do but has chosen to refrain from.

3. I do know in the resurrection we will be raised to immortality and without corruption. Obviously, some (maybe all) who have lost limbs will regain them. So it is a matter of timing and when rather than ability and if God will.

Interesting question,
Jamey




Here is the question.

Why do we see God "healing" cancer patients but do not see Him growing back limbs for equally deserving amputee Christians?

Both are nothing to God, right? Growing a limb back is not more "difficult" to God than healing someone of cancer. Surely there are Christian amputees that are just as deserving of a healing than cancer patients. Why the disproportionate distribution of healings? Does God favor healing people of cancer over growing limbs back? [/FONT]


----------



## SBG (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> I don't see how I didn't answer that question...
> 
> Cancer kills. Not having an arm doesn't. Living and having two arms aren't equal. Living definately outweighs having 4 limbs. Ask any bear thats chewed a leg off to get out of a trap.



Bravo!

It ain't rocket science.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

Check this out, if you think arms and legs make the man.....or the man of God.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LtCrlXdd2E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LtCrlXdd2E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## RThomas (Feb 27, 2009)

> Originally Posted by DouglasB.
> I don't see how I didn't answer that question...
> 
> Cancer kills. Not having an arm doesn't. Living and having two arms aren't equal. Living definately outweighs having 4 limbs. Ask any bear thats chewed a leg off to get out of a trap





SBG said:


> Bravo!
> 
> It ain't rocket science.



Check out my post above in response to this.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Surely there are Christian amputees that are just as deserving of a healing than cancer patients.



I understand what you're asking.  But I want to clarify a fundamental error in your understanding first.

You used the word "deserving" when talking about healing.  FJ, there is no such thing in regard to salvation or to healing.  

"Deserve" is not why some people are healed and others aren't.  His glory....


Just wanted to make sure we understood that as the conversation progresses.  You may have just inadvertantly used that word.  But I wanted to make sure you didn't think that God heals a person because they "deserve" it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

DouglasB. said:


> Sir...
> 
> I actually think this is a very valid question. One that you deserve an answer to.



I agree.



fivesolas said:


> I would have to say...it's a stupid question.



Why would you say it's stupid five?  I think it's a great question.  Have you ever seen someone's arm grow back?  We attribute cancer cure to God often.  Why doesn't he re-grow arms?


If I'm honest, I don't know why.  I do know that GT is right about the fact that whether he heals one illness and not another is not what's most important.  God is most concerned with your eternal situation.

BUT, I agree, the question is interesting.  I've never heard of anyone being given a new arm through regeneration.  My thought is that, since the resurrection and ascention, God had chosen not to reveal himself in the "in your face" ways that he did pre-resurrection.

He sent the Holy Spirit in his place after that and he is the one (IMO) doing the work with us on earth.  Now, that being said, I would also say that curing cancer is kind of "in your face".  But it IS possible (because of the way the body works...white blood cells and all that) that cancer can be biologically cured.  It is not biologically possible for an arm to grow back.  

I'm not, honestly, sure that's a good enough answer though.  It sounds a lot like what a scientist would say.  "Well, it wasn't God and it wasn't a miracle.  The body healed itself in this case."

I will just say this and then leave you with a story for you to explain biologically.  God IS capable.  He CAN re-grow an arm and he CAN cure cancer.  I'm not certain, though, that he actually reaches down and touches every single person who is cured of cancer.  He created a miracle in the human body itself.  It is able to cure itself of all kinds of things.  Typically, there are certain kinds of cancers that are more likely than others to "disappear".  I think the miracle of life; of the body itself is important as well.  I do think that we, as Christians, need to be more careful about throwing out the phrase "IT'S A MIRACLE!". 

Now here's the story that I'd ask you to consider.  Verify it if you want.  It's true and, as far as I can tell, there is no way to explain it any other way than "miracle healing".  I'm sure there are others like it.  But this is the one I know.

_A premature infant, Iyanna, was born not breathing and without a heartbeat. Despite the doctor's best attempts, she could not be revived, and the doctors left the dead infant in the mother's arms. For 35 minutes the mother cradled her lifeless baby. 

Then suddenly, after more than 65 minutes without a heartbeat, little Iyanna began to breathe on her own! 

On day 15, Iyanna left the hospital being hailed by everyone as the Miracle Baby. Two years later a smiling Iyanna walked out on Oprah's stage a perfectly normal little girl. Dr. Clemons, the physician who had tried to revive the limp infant in the very beginning, said this on national television: "This has to be in the works and acts of God. I really believe there's no other explanation for it."_

How would you explain that other than miracle?  It is medical FACT that a brain without oxygen for 65 minutes is dead.  It will never function.  At the very best....it will be so damaged that the owner will be a "Veggi-Tail" for their entire.  We're not talking about someone who wouldn't know that a heart actually was beating or someone who wouldn't know that someone was just taking shallow breaths.  We are talking about a Dr. (actually a team of Dr.'s and nurses) who examined this child while she was hooked up to all kinds of machines that also said she was dead.......and then she woke up.  Don't you think that's more miraculous than giving someone an arm?

*Praise God.  I don't understand why FJ.  I don't know.  That's my answer.  *


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

Nick has your answer. See post #28 above.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you say it's stupid five?  I think it's a great question.  Have you ever seen someone's arm grow back?  We attribute cancer cure to God often.  Why doesn't he re-grow arms?



There are stories from missionaries about that happening in Africa. IMO the greatest miracles take place where the greatest trials are. Everyone in America can turn on a TV or open up a computer page to get the Gospel anytime. Not there.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

> Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
> 
> Mark 11:24 - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
> 
> John 12:13-14 - And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.




The key to all of these verses is held in the last one.  You have to understand that God's purpose is that we be in line with his will....that his will be our will.  

If your will is God's will then you want what he wants; his glorification; his magnification.  He will give those who are his children and who are in the center of his will what they want.  

What will seem somewhat circular and ironic to you is that if that is the case we will ask for what he already wants to give.  That is why is will be given.  He will not give what is not in his will.  Those verses are speaking directly to those who are seeking his will....it's not just a wishing well.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Have you ever seen someone's arm grow back?  We attribute cancer cure to God often.  Why doesn't he re-grow arms?



Exactly. The answers so far have not addressed the disproportionate distribution of healings between growing limbs back and other stuff like curing cancer, miraculously providing money for bills, removal of tumors, etc. The answers provided have been the same ones Ravi and John provided last night. Neither the ones here nor Ravi's nor John's have explained the disproportionate healings.

Some may say, it's not about the physical healings it's about spiritual healings. Ok, then why does he heal other physical ailments? Is there something intrinsically different about the physical ailment of not having a limb? I think not. It is a physical ailment like any other. I see no reason why God wouldn't want to cure it since he seems to want to cure other ailments all the time.

Some may say that regrowing a limb isn't as big of a deal to the person as say... removing cancer. I agree, you can live without a limb, but cancer kills. But why does God miraculously cure a toothache? Why does God miraculously provide money for bills? Are these things more important than a limb? I would think not, and I have a feeling that amputees think so the same way. This brings up a larger question: Does God choose what and who to heal based on how "important" or how "serious" the ailment is? I don't think so. Look at the scripture above. There isn't a limitation on God's ability. He has the power to regrow limbs just as easily as he can cure a headache. But why does he not do so? Why would he choose to heal your headache but not heal an amputee?

As gilbertbeebe said above, "Healing and receiving benefits from God is not because of merit or for the 'deserving' but rather bestowed according to God's own pleasure and will apart from our worth and desert."

So it pleases God to heal cancer patients, but not to heal amputees?

gtparts has postulated, "Have you ever considered that they are placing their will above His? Bad way to approach God with any petition. God's grace is sufficient for everyone in all circumstances, unless you have refused His grace."

To say that all amputees that have asked for healings are doing so because they are placing their will above His is quite a claim. Yet couldn't the same be said in reverse? Have you ever considered that there are amputees out there who do not place their will above God's, and who are truly seeking His will? There are many amputees out there, as there are many cancer patients out there. Surely there are amputees out there who only want God's will, but are at the same time asking for their limbs. Why doesn't God will it?

Remember these verses:

Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Mark 11:24 - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

John 12:13-14 - And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Are there not Christian amputees, who have faith, and who only want God's will, and are asking God for a healing? They know what the Bible says.

Why does God not heal them?


----------



## SPITCAN (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Exactly. The answers so far have not addressed the disproportionate distribution of healings between growing limbs back and other stuff like curing cancer, miraculously providing money for bills, removal of tumors, etc. The answers provided have been the same ones Ravi and John provided last night. Neither the ones here nor Ravi's nor John's have explained the disproportionate healings.
> 
> Some may say, it's not about the physical healings it's about spiritual healings. Ok, then why does he heal other physical ailments? Is there something intrinsically different about the physical ailment of not having a limb? I think not. It is a physical ailment like any other. I see no reason why God wouldn't want to cure it since he seems to want to cure other ailments all the time.
> 
> ...



Why not pray about this and ask God to reveal an answer to you?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 27, 2009)

Good question.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 27, 2009)

The Word Says, "But without faith it is impossible to please God"
The NT says of Yeshuah when he visited his own village of Nazareth that he couldn't perform certain miracles only a few because they were without faith.
Faith is the conduit where God performs through, maybe these amputees have  desire and hope ,but not faith to be healed ?.
I have prayed for many with very bad illnesses such and meningitis
to whom the doctors have given them hours to live and just a few hour later they came out of a coma and were totally healed, and I have also prayed for many with less damage and they have died.
My own grandson of 18 years was prayed for constantly for his protection, yet he died in a car crash back in August.
God is sovereign, he says in psalms that he saw our embryo and in his book of life our days were written, It is his will and his will alone that counts.
Who cares about an arm or a leg, or age of death when we know death is temporary, this life is just seconds in the scheme of eternity. and when we will be resurrected it will be in perfection for eternity.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Exactly. The answers so far have not addressed the disproportionate distribution of healings between growing limbs back and other stuff like curing cancer, miraculously providing money for bills, removal of tumors, etc. The answers provided have been the same ones Ravi and John provided last night. Neither the ones here nor Ravi's nor John's have explained the disproportionate healings.
> 
> Some may say, it's not about the physical healings it's about spiritual healings. Ok, then why does he heal other physical ailments? Is there something intrinsically different about the physical ailment of not having a limb? I think not. It is a physical ailment like any other. I see no reason why God wouldn't want to cure it since he seems to want to cure other ailments all the time.
> 
> ...



Why is it so difficult to understand that God does not find it to be part of His perfect plan to re-grow limbs like some lizard tails. And why isn't the regeneration of a lizard tail miraculous enough to draw you to your knees before Holy God?


God is not obligated to conform to your sense of proportionality. Get over it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Remember these verses:
> 
> Matthew 21:22 - If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
> 
> ...



I answered this part in the above.


Disproportionate?  I don't think that's the issue man.  Who's keeping score?  That's like asking why he cures more colon cancer than pancreatic.  I understand what you're saying.  I think the issue is that he doesn't do it AT ALL as far as I can tell.

The deeper question that you're asking is "why is there sickness at all in the Christian community?"

Think of it on that scale.

Ultimately, if he grew one arm back, they would ALL grow back if it just happened because we asked....or because it was OUR will.  If those verses mean "I (God) will do whatever you tell me to do because I conform to what you want.", then there would be no sickness in the Christian community.  In fact, none of us would ever physically die, we'd all be billionaires, there would be no divorce, etc. 

BUT, that's not what those verses say.  What they say is "I (God) will make MY will YOUR will....and I will give you what is MY will when you ask for it....because my will is your will.".  

Make a little better sense?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> BUT, that's not what those verses say.  What they say is "I (God) will make MY will YOUR will....and I will give you what is MY will when you ask for it....because my will is your will.".
> 
> Make a little better sense?



I understand. I think my entire point is that why is it God's will to heal cancer patients and not regrow limbs? Now obviously a human cannot "know" God's will, I'm just asking for your opinion.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

The healing is part of a larger plan IMO.  It's not that he heals for the sake of healing.  He heals for the sake of his will being fulfilled.

I'll give you a simple example.  If it's his plan for me that I discover a cure for all cancers and I develop cancer, he may heal me to fulfill that purpose. 

Now, that's VERY simplistic.  I don't want you confuse what I'm saying.  What I'm getting at is that the healing is not just done for the sake of the healing.  He is furthing his purpose and his will through that healing.  It's not always just that he has to save that person so they'll "cure cancer".  It may be that the healing affects someone else in such a way to bring them to him.

In fact, that may be why he DOESN'T heal someone...for the very same reason.

But you're right, I can't know why he heals one person and doesn't heal another.  I don't know why he doesn't regenerate limbs.  My thought, as I said before, is that the HS doesn't work that way and he is our intercessor now.

God, the Father performed lots of "in your face miracles".  Jesus, the Son, did the same while he was here.  But he sent the HS after he left.  I can only assume that the HS doesn't work in that manner (at least not often).

What did you think about the story I posted?  I assume one of your assumptions is that the things we would attribute to God as "miracles" are actually just biological abnormalities.  If that's the case, and God doesn't exist and perform miracles, how would you start to explain that story?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> What did you think about the story I posted?  I assume one of your assumptions is that the things we would attribute to God as "miracles" are actually just biological abnormalities.  If that's the case, and God doesn't exist and perform miracles, how would you start to explain that story?



I would have to know more about the situation to be honest. My knowledge in data structures and computer algorithms doesn't do me any good when it comes to medical problems. This is what I have learned about these so called medical miracles (and it's close related to why God doesn't heal amputees): There is always a more parsimonious, natural explanation. Would it require an extremely rare medical event to allow this baby to survive without brain damage? Perhaps. People also win the lottery all the time. Worldwide, there are 4 babies born every second. Most live, many die, and a few barely make it, often with tales of "miracles" from their mothers and doctors. There has never been a supernatural miracle recorded in the modern era. If you consider a baby being born a miracle, then miracles happen 4 times a second. I do not. For something to be a miracle it must go beyond any naturalistic explanation. It must be, in a sense, magical.

I know you probably do not want to, but if you would, watch this video from 4:40 through 8:00. It gives an insight into the amputee problem and all of these supposed "miracles."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_1Gpt6dKFo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I_1Gpt6dKFo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

I'll watch it at some point.  I can't watch it while I'm at work....blocked.

I think you're stretching though to say that this was "an extremely rare medical event".

Ask every doctor on the face of the planet whether a person can physically survive 65 minutes without oxygen or a heartbeat (assuming they haven't heard this story).  See what they say.  You're going to get 100% NO responses.

Was it god?  That, I don't know.  But I do know that it is not possible....but it happened.  It's well documented.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll watch it at some point.  I can't watch it while I'm at work....blocked.
> 
> I think you're stretching though to say that this was "an extremely rare medical event".
> 
> ...



Do unprecedented things happen? Obviously yes. Now just because it is unprecedented, does that mean that it was a miracle and devoid of all naturalistic explanations? No.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

You mean, unprecedented....like BEING DEAD FOR OVER AN HOUR AND COMING BACK TO LIFE WITH NO AFTEREFFECTS AT ALL??????  Unprecedented like that?

No....uh....those things DON'T happen.  That's what I'm saying.  Ask all the MD's or biological scientists in the world.  Heck, ask Richard Dawkins if it's his opinion as a professor of biology that a human can live and be normal after not taking a breath for 65 minutes.

Come on.  At least make a concession when presented with overwhelming evidence.  Just once.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 27, 2009)

> The deeper question that you're asking is "why is there sickness at all in the Christian community?"
> 
> Think of it on that scale.
> 
> ...



BTW...this is the answer to your question.  I hope you're not asking us to convince you of the truth of it.  We all know you've already made your conclusions.


----------



## pnome (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> *I don't know.  That's my answer.  *



Oh, I think you know.  Your faith just wont allow you to admit it.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 27, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You mean, unprecedented....like BEING DEAD FOR OVER AN HOUR AND COMING BACK TO LIFE WITH NO AFTEREFFECTS AT ALL??????  Unprecedented like that?
> 
> Come on.  At least make a concession when presented with overwhelming evidence.  Just once.



Unprecedented things only have to happen once for them to not be unprecedented anymore. 

I wouldn't exactly call it overwhelming evidence. Overwhelming evidence that something rare happened, not overwhelming evidence that God reached down his hand and healed this girl.

This is a prime example and opportunity to show how theist minds work compared to atheists.

We are presented with a situation like the one above, where there is not enough evidence to provide support to any currently existing theories on how this girl could have survived and at the same time not suffer brain damage. The atheist simply says, I don't know how it happened. The theist claims that since we have no natural explanations, it must be a miracle from God. This is in itself an assertion that must be proven true since it is claiming a positive. Until we have some sufficient evidence that God performed a miracle, we simply assume the logical default which is that he did not perform a miracle. The fact that we don't know how it could have naturally happened is not considered as evidence that God performed a miracle.

Believe it or not this is closely related to the discussion of the origin of the singularity. As an atheist, I simply say, I don't know where the singularity came from, if it even had a creator. It is the theist who claims to have the answer: God created it. This is an assertion, and therefore must be proven. The fact that we do not know the origin of the singularity is not considered as evidence that God created it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> Oh, I think you know.  Your faith just wont allow you to admit it.



did you read ANY of my other posts?  I think I explained my thoughts pretty well.  I don't know and can't know everytime God does something.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Unprecedented things only have to happen once for them to not be unprecedented anymore.
> 
> I wouldn't exactly call it overwhelming evidence. Overwhelming evidence that something rare happened, not overwhelming evidence that God reached down his hand and healed this girl.



I never said that God reached down and touched that girl.  I told you earlier, I don't know what happened.  You, however, who claim "new atheism" and the possibility that God exists cannot admit to the possibility that this was a supernatural event.  I think that's pretty dang ironic and contrdictory to your belief.

You are presented with a case which has never before happened in medical history and medicin says CANNOT happen.  There are lots of things in medicine that have not yet happened, but are left open to the possibility.  DEATH TO LIFE IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

You are presented with a case that defies the LAWS of nature, medicine and about a dozen other things....and you cannot even admit that something supernatural might have happened.  

I didn't say that God reached down.  I asked you to provide me an explanation OTHER than that.  "Unprecedented" is pretty weak.

There are not stages of "dead".  This girl was as dead as someone who had been in the ground for a month.  The only difference was the degree of decomposition.

Dead is dead in physical terms.  According to you, when you die, that's it.  So what happened here?  If she was dead and then alive, where was she in the interim?

You say I'm making a positive assertion that God reached down and brought her back (which I'm not necessarily doing).  You and I both say "I don't know".  I lean toward supernatural....you lean toward natural.  So the positive assertion you imply is either "she wasn't dead", or "modern science brought her back".  There are always two positive assertions in an argument.  It simply depends on which side you're on.

I love that default defense of atheism.  "You make the positive assertion, so you have to prove it.  I don't have to do anything but sit here and deny."


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> There are always two positive assertions in an argument.  It simply depends on which side you're on.



Incorrect.


There two positions.  Both separate.  One the contender or prosecutor, and the defender or defendant.  The defender has the presumption of innocence. Or the default position of "no."

The contender states a premise:  "God exists" "God did it" "That guy murdered his wife"

Then the contender must provide evidence to support the premise before we declare him the winner, or the defendant guilty.  It is the role of the defender to challenge the evidence brought by the contender.

What evidence do you have that:

1st This "God" character you speak of exists.
2nd, This same "God" saved this girls life.

You've got a long road to travel before you've proved any of that I fear.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

There is only one positive position IF the defender does not offer an alternative explanation.  Sorry sir, there are OFTEN two positive positions.   We're not in a debate club debate where there is a "resolved" position and a defense.  If you offer an alternative, you have entered a positive position.  People do it all the time.  You and FJ definitely do it often in an effort to avoid the possibility of God.

I have no evidence.  Never said I did and I never claimed to know that God did it.  What I said was, there is not a possible scientific or medical explanation.  What I asked was whether there was a possibility that something supernatural happened.  You guys are too scared to admit that possibility because it leaves the possiblity of a god open....and that just can't be.  As I said before, there are lots of things that have never happened before that science leave open for possibility....death to life is not one of those things.  It's just not.  So, what I asked was, how did this happen?

"New Atheism".....I see no evidence that God exists.  But it's possible (but I can't admit that because it means it might actually be possible!!!).

We all know what the def of New Atheism is.  But it seems to just be lip service so as to cover the hardline of the reality.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

I said this earlier.  But the question itself shows the short sightedness of the asker.

The broader (and better) question for an atheist to ask is "Why is there ANY sickness, poverty, or any other "affliction" in the Christian community?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I said this earlier.  But the question itself shows the short sightedness of the asker.
> 
> The broader (and better) question for an atheist to ask is "Why is there ANY sickness, poverty, or any other "affliction" in the Christian community?


Very true...


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> There is only one positive position IF the defender does not offer an alternative explanation.  Sorry sir, there are OFTEN two positive positions.   We're not in a debate club debate where there is a "resolved" position and a defense.  If you offer an alternative, you have entered a positive position.  People do it all the time.  You and FJ definitely do it often in an effort to avoid the possibility of God.



Once the defense starts to offer alternative explanations, they are no longer the defense.  

FJ and I offer natural, simple explanations whenever possible.   If we don't know, as is the case here I think, we don't offer an explanation. 



> I have no evidence.  Never said I did and I never claimed to know that God did it.  What I said was, there is not a possible scientific or medical explanation.  What I asked was whether there was a possibility that something supernatural happened.



There is a possibility.  



> You guys are too scared to admit that possibility because it leaves the possiblity of a god open....and that just can't be.  As I said before, there are lots of things that have never happened before that science leave open for possibility....death to life is not one of those things.  It's just not.  So, what I asked was, how did this happen?



I don't presume to know.  Careful that you don't fall into worshiping "The God of the Gaps" here.   

You assert that because we have no natural explanation, at this time, we must assume it's God.  We may never know the answer to your question, but let me pose a hypothetical.  Let's say we find out the answer and it turns out to be natural.  What would that imply for your God?

Let me ask you this, if God did indeed save this girl.  Why do you suppose he didn't just prevent the initiator of her condition?  Sure would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. 

BTW: God doesn't heal amputees because he can't.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

At least you're not too scared to say it.  But your statement, "God doesn't, because he can't" is silly in terms of who you understand God to be....

Either he exists or he doesn't.  There's no issue of whether he can or can't.  If he exists, then he is all of the "omni's" and all powerful....so he can.

If he doesn't, then he can't do anything...because he doesn't exist.  

I don't believe in the God of the gaps.  I believe in the God who created the gaps and everything else.  He is, he was and he always will be.  He created the laws that this case violates and he is the ONLY one who can suspend them.  That's my evidence.  But I don't bring to the table because you don't believe he exists.  It doesn't resonate with you.  My evidence is simply that it happened.  The only possible way it happened is if someone suspended the laws of nature.  God is the only one who can do that.....he did it.  NOW, I've said it.  





Let me ask you this since you've said it is possible that something supernatural happened.  Be honest.

Knowing what you know about medicine, science and how the brain and body work.....you're smart.....you think through things.  I know you do because you've put a lot of thought into your beliefs.

Honestly.  Which do you think is more likely?  She was dead for 65 minutes and somehow, biologically came back to life?  She's a newborn.  She's already very fragile and extremely weak.  Something that has been biologically unprecedented happened?  

Or is it more likely that something or someone supernaturally intervened and restored that life.  

Don't tell me about the god of the gaps theory.  I'm not trying to get you to admit that god exists.  I'm just asking in this case, honestly which do you think is more likely?


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> "God doesn't heal amputees because he doesn't exist."  That's what you meant I'm sure.



Do you think that's a _possibility_?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

No.  I don't.  I actually took that statement out because it wasn't necessary. 

You don't believe because you've never had an experience with him.  For all you know I could be fake....you've never met me.  I've met him.  I know he's real and, like I have said before....the dude I encountered was the God of the Bible.  Not because I wanted him to be or because that's what I was trained to believe.  There is only one god who fits the description of the one I did encounter and continue to know and he is Yahweh.  So no, I do not leave that possibility open.  It doesn't make me closed minded.  It makes me certain.

Do you mind to go back and read the part I added?  I'm curious.


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Let me ask you this since you've said it is possible that something supernatural happened.  Be honest.
> 
> Knowing what you know about medicine, science and how the brain and body work.....you're smart.....you think through things.  I know you do because you've put a lot of thought into your beliefs.



I know enough about those fields to know I don't know much.  I wouldn't call them "beliefs"



> Honestly.  Which do you think is more likely?  She was dead for 65 minutes and somehow, biologically came back to life?  She's a newborn.  She's already very fragile and extremely weak.  Something that has been biologically unprecedented happened?
> 
> Or is it more likely that something or someone supernaturally intervened and restored that life.



Natural explanations are always more likely than supernatural explanations.  

The data so far....


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

ok....I just don't know where else to go with this if you think there is a possible natural explanation for that.


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> ok....I just don't know where else to go with this if you think there is a possible natural explanation for that.



That's ok.  I just don't know where else to go with this if you think a natural explanation is not possible. 

You know, here's a possibility I hadn't thought of before.  It could have been Satan.  Maybe she's going to be a pawn in one of his dastardly plots, yet to unfold.  

Yeah, it was Satan.  Prove me wrong!


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> That's ok.  I just don't know where else to go with this if you think a natural explanation is not possible.
> 
> You know, here's a possibility I hadn't thought of before.  It could have been Satan.  Maybe she's going to be a pawn in one of his dastardly plots, yet to unfold.
> 
> Yeah, it was Satan.  Prove me wrong!



Maybe you should ask him to prove he can do that...


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Maybe you should ask him to prove he can do that...



Do you believe he can do that?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

You know what?  I honestly don't know.  That's a dang good question.


I'll tell ya this though.  He's not powerful enough to make someone STAY dead that God wants alive!


----------



## thedeacon (Mar 2, 2009)

If a person doesn't believe in God its hard to convince him of anything because the works of God defies all reason.

Convienceing an atheist that God is real is like chasing a shadow, you just can't catch it. On the other hand if you are an atheist running from God is like running from your shadow, you just can't outrun it. 

One day God will catch up with you because he is always right behind you, persuing you every step of the way. 

In answer to the question, there is no answer, you can't out figure God and I can't explain it to you, because you don't believe you just as you can't convince me because I don't believe you.

Jesus didn't come to earth to heal the sick. The body is an insugnificant container made of clay that is housing the soul of man. 

Like I said, to convince an atheist of this is like chasing a shadow.

THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 2, 2009)

Like I have said it's not about EVIDENCE. These guys can explain anything away. 

I just don't know how they explain anything given their set of commitments. In an ever changing, evolving world why should X be X tomorrow or the day after that. I mean, I would like to know how the laws of uniformity have a place in a atheist worldview. 

Like one apologist explained. An unbeliever is like a child sitting on the fathers lap slapping him in the face. Without sitting on his lap the child could not have reached the father to slap him. Thus, the father supports the child while providing insult.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> Do you believe he can do that?



No. Spend a little time studying and you can see that only God has the power to create.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You know what?  I honestly don't know.  That's a dang good question.
> 
> 
> I'll tell ya this though.  He's not powerful enough to make someone STAY dead that God wants alive!



HF- You know the answer to this one!!! Man I'm going to come take your slate calls away...


----------



## gordon 2 (Mar 2, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The question was posed tonight to both Ravi and John, yet they failed to answer the question. They answered other, similar questions, but they failed to answer the specific question that was asked during the Q & A.
> 
> Here is the question.
> 
> ...



Cancer is systemic, crushing and subjective. A missing limb is like an athiest at a mason meeting: odd, nerving, but not as serious.

Plain as lemon marange pie. With coffee. 

PS. Speaking of coffee, I sure miss Woody.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> HF- You know the answer to this one!!! Man I'm going to come take your slate calls away...



Well, I don't know man.  You said only God has the power to create.  I'm totally with ya on that.  But is raising from the dead really creating?

I mean, he WAS given power over everything on the earth, wasn't he?

My inclination is that he can't do it.  But I just answered honestly.  I've not thought about it or asked anyone who would know better than me.




But, I'll tell ya this man.  You think it'd be hard to come get my guns???

Try comin' after my turkey calls!


----------



## Israel (Mar 2, 2009)

I'll take a little different tack.
There is an assumption that simply because one hasn't seen something done...it's not being done.
I am sure Herod was severely disappointed because Jesus wouldn't "perform" for him...
May have thought he was a complete fraud, and able to be dismissed with impunity...so be it.
I have felt and tasted the terror of a mind touched by the horror of the fragmented one, and I have touched and tasted the unity of the mind of the God who is one.
Flee the one who denies the other for the one who will open your eyes to what is forsaken.
Be not forsaken.
And don't be so proud to think that all you have ever seen is all that has ever been.
God could raise a corpse up before your eyes, yet apart from his willing you to see and understand, you would continue to eat your bread in despair.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Well, I don't know man.  You said only God has the power to create.  I'm totally with ya on that.  But is raising from the dead really creating?
> 
> I mean, he WAS given power over everything on the earth, wasn't he?
> 
> ...



Yeah but Satan can't raise the dead or make creatures. Not and bring them back to life. Jesus not only raised Lazarus but he brought him back to life. I have the feeling that the best Satan could do is imitate. Such as zombies if you want to got to voodoo and santarini style religions.


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yeah but Satan can't raise the dead or make creatures. Not and bring them back to life. Jesus not only raised Lazarus but he brought him back to life. I have the feeling that the best Satan could do is imitate. Such as zombies if you want to got to voodoo and santarini style religions.




All right then. I will concede the point.  It definitely wasn't Satan, since he doesn't have that kind of power.  

It must have been Osiris!!  (ya'll see where I'm going with this?)


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> (ya'll see where I'm going with this?)



Yep!



Same place you're goin in every other post.


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Yep!
> 
> 
> 
> Same place you're goin in every other post.




So true.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Mar 2, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Maybe you should ask him to prove he can do that...



Why would you suggest that for satan and not for God?


----------



## gtparts (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> Yeah, it was Satan.  Prove me wrong!



Don't have to! You stated that as a fact. The burden of proof is on you, son.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> All right then. I will concede the point.  It definitely wasn't Satan, since he doesn't have that kind of power.
> 
> It must have been Osiris!!  (ya'll see where I'm going with this?)




Burden is on you.....still.


----------



## pnome (Mar 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Don't have to! You stated that as a fact. The burden of proof is on you, son.




I think we've made a breakthrough gt.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 2, 2009)

pnome said:


> All right then. I will concede the point.  It definitely wasn't Satan, since he doesn't have that kind of power.
> 
> It must have been Osiris!!  (ya'll see where I'm going with this?)



Yep. Nowhere.


----------



## footjunior (Mar 3, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I never said that God reached down and touched that girl.  I told you earlier, I don't know what happened.  You, however, who claim "new atheism" and the possibility that God exists cannot admit to the possibility that this was a supernatural event.  I think that's pretty dang ironic and contrdictory to your belief.



I'm open to the possibility that God healed the girl. But for me to simply accept this as true would be blind faith. I'm simply saying that the much more probable explanation is a natural one.

As Pnome said above, this is very similar to the God of the Gaps. If the current medical technologies cannot detect or explain it, should we automatically apply the healing to God?



> You are presented with a case which has never before happened in medical history and medicin says CANNOT happen.  There are lots of things in medicine that have not yet happened, but are left open to the possibility.  DEATH TO LIFE IS NOT ONE OF THEM!



People get brought back from death all the time.



> You are presented with a case that defies the LAWS of nature, medicine and about a dozen other things....and you cannot even admit that something supernatural might have happened.



Of course I can admit that something supernatural might have happened. I just don't see any evidence for it, so why should I go from admitting the possibility that it was supernatural to actually fully believing that it was a supernatural healing?



> I didn't say that God reached down.  I asked you to provide me an explanation OTHER than that.  "Unprecedented" is pretty weak.



Well my goodness if the doctors don't know what happened how do you expect me to give you an alternate explanation? What I mean is that I cannot give a hypothesis with specifics because I don't have the medical knowledge to give specific details. My only way of explaining it is that it could have been a perfectly natural healing that has not been recorded before.



> There are not stages of "dead".  This girl was as dead as someone who had been in the ground for a month.  The only difference was the degree of decomposition.
> 
> Dead is dead in physical terms.



I have to disagree with you. Being dead for 65 minutes is a little different than being dead for a month.



> According to you, when you die, that's it.  So what happened here?  If she was dead and then alive, where was she in the interim?



That's a great question. Her brain stayed right there inside her, so that's where her consciousness was too. Of course, this is a newborn, so it's not like she will ever remember it.



> You say I'm making a positive assertion that God reached down and brought her back (which I'm not necessarily doing).  You and I both say "I don't know".  I lean toward supernatural....you lean toward natural.  So the positive assertion you imply is either "she wasn't dead", or "modern science brought her back".  There are always two positive assertions in an argument.  It simply depends on which side you're on.



I understand. But this goes back to the God of the Gaps. How many times in history have we seen something being attributed to the supernatural, and then later on we realize that it has a perfectly natural explanation? The mountain is smoking, so that must mean that the great Jubu God is upset. Or... it could be a volcano about to erupt, a perfectly natural phenomenon. Of course, the great Jubu God might really be upset and that is what's causing the mountain to smoke, but which theory is more probable? I guess it depends on if you ask a scientist or a Jubu believer.


----------



## gtparts (Mar 3, 2009)

pnome said:


> I think we've made a breakthrough gt.



Very good. Now, consider this!

You say their is no god and since that sentence expresses the negative perspective, it can not be proven. I disagree. However, in order to prove it to be absolutely true, one would have to examine the infinite range of possibilities until all possibilities were exhausted and the results recorded and verified. The fact that it can not be done is not the problem of someone taking the positive position, but the one making the negative claim. One can make that claim on general grounds (possibility of it being true, high probability of it being true), but not on an absolute basis. To state such, on an absolute basis, is absurd and intellectually dishonest. The one and only offensive round in the atheist's battery is a dud

Since one can not prove the negative, the only successful inquiry into the existence of a god or lack thereof can be found in the positive expression of the premise.


Now, when one says, "There is a god", it must necessarily arise from one of several scenarios dealing with evidence presented  and applied reasoning.

1a) I understand the evidence to be true but by reasoning, I conclude that there is another explanation I find more compelling than  the assertion of a god being responsible for the event(s) and result(s).

1b)I understand the evidence to be true and, by reasoning, I conclude that there is no other explanation I find more compelling than  the assertion of a god being responsible for the event(s) and result(s). 

1c)I understand the evidence to be true and, by reasoning, I conclude that there one or more explanations I find more or less compelling than  the assertion of a god being responsible for the event(s) and result(s). 

1d)I understand the evidence to be true and, by reasoning, I conclude that there is no other explanation. I, by reasoning, can only conclude that there is a god responsible for the event(s) and result(s). 


2) I recognize the evidence presented, but find the evidence to be in question. That is, I can not determine whether the evidence is in fact true or false, so I can not, by reasoning, conclude anything concerning the existence or non-existence of a god.

3) I understand the evidence to be false and therefor I, by reasoning, conclude that a god does not exist.



1a  allows for the possibility of a god, though this evidence does not support it

1b  allows for the possibility of a god, this evidence does support it

1c  allows for the possibility of a god, this evidence is inconclusive

1d  confirms the existence of a god

2   allows for the possibility of a god, this evidence is inconclusive

3   allows for the possibility of a god, but this evidence is rejected


At this point, do you not see the futility of the atheist position? You can not prove the negative and nothing you present can remove the possibility of the existence of a god.

The other thing that is apparent to me is that simply by asserting the belief that any effort to prove the existence of a god must necessarily require extraordinary proof would have to concede that extraordinary proof exists. Otherwise, why make that requirement? Secondly, the term "extraordinary proof" would need to be defined so as to conform to the existence thereof. If Lucy is going to trick Charlie Brown into kicking at the football, the football must be real and the opportunity must truly be given to kick it. The atheist is just as disingenuous as Lucy, having no intention of allowing the possibility of a successful attempt. The ball is withdrawn at the last instant, i.e. "That is not extraordinary." 

The changes that have taken place in the lives of millions of Christians over thousands of years are dismissed even when the change is so dramatic and awe inspiring that the testimony of witnesses to the extraordinary nature is overwhelming. That the changes are disregarded, attests to the deceitful nature of the challenge.

Those who represent themselves as atheists on this form, play this "game" all the time. 

If there is an "empty chair" on a discussion of atheism, from now on I will take a pass, thank you.


Peace. 

gtparts


----------



## pnome (Mar 3, 2009)

This may be the best post I've read from you.



gtparts said:


> Very good. Now, consider this!
> 
> You say their is no god and since that sentence expresses the negative perspective, it can not be proven. I disagree. However, in order to prove it to be absolutely true, one would have to examine the infinite range of possibilities until all possibilities were exhausted and the results recorded and verified. The fact that it can not be done is not the problem of someone taking the positive position, but the one making the negative claim. One can make that claim on general grounds (possibility of it being true, high probability of it being true), but not on an absolute basis. To state such, on an absolute basis, is absurd and intellectually dishonest.



Correct and agreed.  Proving the negative is for all intents and purposes impossible.  



> Since one can not prove the negative, the only successful inquiry into the existence of a god or lack thereof can be found in the positive expression of the premise.



Correct and agreed.  It's why the burden of proof lays with the positive.




> Now, when one says, "There is a god", it must necessarily arise from one of several scenarios dealing with evidence presented  and applied reasoning.
> 
> 1a) I understand the evidence to be true but by reasoning, I conclude that there is another explanation I find more compelling than  the assertion of a god being responsible for the event(s) and result(s).
> 
> ...



Correct.  I can neither prove that God exists nor that God does not exist.



> The other thing that is apparent to me is that simply by asserting the belief that any effort to prove the existence of a god must necessarily require extraordinary proof would have to concede that extraordinary proof exists. Otherwise, why make that requirement?



Such proof may not exist _yet_.  However, at any time, God may prove his existence in an extraordinary way (i.e. unambiguously).  Thus providing the extraordinary evidence.  



> Secondly, the term "extraordinary proof" would need to be defined so as to conform to the existence thereof. If Lucy is going to trick Charlie Brown into kicking at the football, the football must be real and the opportunity must truly be given to kick it. The atheist is just as disingenuous as Lucy, having no intention of allowing the possibility of a successful attempt. The ball is withdrawn at the last instant, i.e. "That is not extraordinary."



Not so.  I would love nothing more than for God to prove himself to me.  The evidence must be unambiguous and extraordinary.  But, I'm not moving the football.   For example:  If God appeared before me and talked to me (consciously) I would accept that proof.  Answered my questions and maybe one or two demonstrations of cosmic power.  Whereas, some atheists may just chalk such an experience up to bad dreams, or really good drugs, etc....   I assure you I would not.  If I was having a mad hallucination, well, it's one I want to be true anyway, so I can live with that.



> The changes that have taken place in the lives of millions of Christians over thousands of years are dismissed even when the change is so dramatic and awe inspiring that the testimony of witnesses to the extraordinary nature is overwhelming. That the changes are disregarded, attests to the deceitful nature of the challenge.



That is not something that is singular to Christians.  Many people find many different faiths and those faiths have an objectively positive influence on them.  Now, if _every_ Christian had such an experience then you might have something.  Further, if every Christian improved, but every non-Christian had a hard time, you might have something extraordinary.  

This may be just anecdotal, but I used to be a Christian, and my life has improved dramatically since I gave up religion.  Now, to be honest, I don't attribute the improvement in my life to my atheism, or lack of religion, rather, I think that just happens to be a coincidence.  But if what you offer as evidence were true, then my life should have taken a drastic turn for the worse.  No?


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 3, 2009)

pnome,

I won't pretend to know what was in your heart when you "used to be a Christian".  I will only try to answer your last question.  I'll have to make some assumptions, so forgive me in advance.

I think many Christians (including myself) would say that no, your life shouldn't have taken a drastic turn for the worse when you left Christianity behind.

Why, you ask?  Because (here's where the assumptions start...but they are grounded in biblical principle) your condition most likely did not change.  You gave up religion and you gave up what you understood to be Christianity.  But you did not, IMO, give up a life that was 100%, completely and totally turned over to God.  You were in control and you claimed Christianity...but you were still trying to control things.  So, no, I wouldn't expect your life to be any different after leaving your church and claiming God doesn't exist.

Please don't read this as insult or condemnation.  I'm not intended that to be the case and I'm not intending to make judgment on your soul.  I'm just telling you why I wouldn't expect your life to take a drastic turn for the worse.

I would argue that ALL who turn their lives over to Christ, 100% and no longer live for anything but him DO have the experience that you've described above.  Unfortunately there are millions out there who live 80%, 90%.....20% that way and they continue to wonder "what's wrong?"



I can tell you this from personal experience.  I don't want to try to project my experiences onto you.  But, I lived as the son of a preacher....I knew all the secret handshakes inside and out....I knew all the verses and I knew how to perform.  I avowed Christianity for a long time and honestly thought that I had turned over everything that I could.  But I was wrong.

The day that he pretty forcefully showed that to be the case was a horrible day.  But it will most likely turn out to be the best day of my life.  I'm not that far out from it.  But it was the most painful day of my life....and I can tell you only this far away from it that it was the best thing that has ever happened to me.

So, if that was the case (and I can only assume that it was since you didn't have a "good life" with God), then no, I wouldn't have expected your life to get any worse when you left.


----------



## letsgohuntin (Mar 3, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Why do we see God "healing" cancer patients but do not see Him growing back limbs for equally deserving amputee Christians?



_Grow_ is the key word here... I guess God doesn't see the need for a 45 year old man to be running around with an infants limb hanging from his shoulder or hip, so he took care of that problem by blessing some smart guy with the ability to design prosthetics  !!  Really quite simple actually !!


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 3, 2009)

letsgohuntin said:


> _Grow_ is the key word here... I guess God doesn't see the need for a 45 year old man to be running around with an infants limb hanging from his shoulder or hip, so he took care of that problem by blessing some smart guy the ability to design prosthetics  !!  Really quite simple actually !!



NO!!! He used science to help us??? SURELY not...

Good post!!!


----------



## pnome (Mar 3, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> pnome,
> 
> I won't pretend to know what was in your heart when you "used to be a Christian".  I will only try to answer your last question.  I'll have to make some assumptions, so forgive me in advance.
> 
> ...



Interesting.  I think you are correct in this assumption.  I was a regular church goer and I was involved in lots of the activities and social aspects of my church community.  However, the religion part never really connected with me.  I prayed, but never lost myself in it.  Certainly for the last few years in which I regularly attended services it felt like I was "just going through the motions" (there are a lot of those if your a Catholic) 



> I would argue that ALL who turn their lives over to Christ, 100% and no longer live for anything but him DO have the experience that you've described above.



Well, if they no longer "live for anything but" then certainly, no matter how bad their life gets, there is always heaven's silver lining to the dark clouds, if you get my meaning.  If all you care about is worshiping God then it only stands to reason that the more you worship him the happier you are.  However, that has no bearing on the truth of your religion.   Take the Islamic suicide bomber for example.  His life is short and brutal.  But he doesn't care.  All he cares about is religion, his paradise after this world.  Religion in that sense has made him happier, but it certainly hasn't improved his short life. 



> I can tell you this from personal experience.  I don't want to try to project my experiences onto you.  But, I lived as the son of a preacher....I knew all the secret handshakes inside and out....I knew all the verses and I knew how to perform.  I avowed Christianity for a long time and honestly thought that I had turned over everything that I could.  But I was wrong.
> 
> The day that he pretty forcefully showed that to be the case was a horrible day.  But it will most likely turn out to be the best day of my life.  I'm not that far out from it.  But it was the most painful day of my life....and I can tell you only this far away from it that it was the best thing that has ever happened to me.



Well, I'm not going to project myself on you either.  But it seems that whatever happened to you was painful in some way.  Now, if I were you, that experience would have had the opposite effect.



> So, if that was the case (and I can only assume that it was since you didn't have a "good life" with God), then no, I wouldn't have expected your life to get any worse when you left.



I didn't say I didn't have a "good life."  My life was fine while I was Catholic.  Only, that after I stopped going to mass, I met a girl, fell in love, found a good career, got married, had a kid..etc...  Like I said though, I think that is completely a coincidence.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 3, 2009)

There's a lot of people on this board who will jump on the fact you just said you were Catholic. 

Personally I don't think it was coincidence.


----------



## Huntinfool (Mar 4, 2009)

> If all you care about is worshiping God then it only stands to reason that the more you worship him the happier you are.



You got THAT right! 



> However, that has no bearing on the truth of your religion.



You got that right too.  Although, since truth, morality and lots of other things are local....it's as true as it gets because it's true to me, right?  (I'm kidding) 




> Well, I'm not going to project myself on you either.  But it seems that whatever happened to you was painful in some way.  Now, if I were you, that experience would have had the opposite effect.



I know!  You'd think so wouldn't you?  I will say this.  Go read the first chapter of Romans.  That's similar to what happened to me.  He'd "had enough" and gave me over to what I continued to want to do....

I've posted this before.  I had a choice (yes folks...A CHOICE!) at that moment.  I could either get angry and tell him to go to He||....or I could break.  It was going to take something that drastic to do it.  It was going to take something that painful to wake me up and he obviously knew it.

I laid on the bathroom floor that day.  My world had completely crumbled around me and everything that I held dear was on the verge of destruction.

I simply laid there hanging over the edge of the bathtub sobbing and I told him "Kill me...".....and he didn't.

Eventually, I asked him "Kill me....or change me"

After a while, I realized that all I needed to do was ask "Change me.."

So yeh, man, it was incredibly painful.  Short of losing a child, I cannot imagine anything worse than what happened that particular day.  But God clearly knew that the short term pain was for the benefit of long-term happiness.  It's not been that long ago and I can't imagine life getting a whole lot better than it is right now.

I can understand why you would think that you might have had the opposite response.  But, do you not sometimes do things that your children think are "mean" because you know that it's in their best interest long term?

Anyway....no need to respond to that.  I just need you to understand that it's not made up.  I am probably the biggest "doubter" you'll ever meet.  I don't take anything at face value.  It's not just some psychological manifestation that I had that day (and continue to have).  It was as real as you and me.  I wish I could go back in time and show you.  I wish I could make that real experience happen for everybody.  But that's not entirely up to me.


----------



## reformedpastor (Mar 4, 2009)

For what it's worth I was not raised in Church or a christian home. Now a pastor by God's grace. Christianity didn't come easy, I had to count the costs and there were many . Nevertheless, if was wasn't a Christian I would be a professional cynic. 

Grace and Peace


----------



## letsgohuntin (Mar 8, 2009)

footjunior said:


> John 12:13-14 - And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
> 
> Surely there are Christian amputees out there that have the faith required and want to be healed. Why does God not answer their prayers? I'm trying to understand.



I personally doubt that anyone has actually _seriously_ prayed, "God, please grow my legs back for me."  What I am sure of is that people pray "God, let me walk again" and of course that prayer is answered every day.


----------



## farmasis (Mar 8, 2009)

I don't understand the question. God has healed a person with a missing limb. I have proof.

<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23499 value="9">9</SUP>Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23500 value="10">10</SUP>and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 
 <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23501 value="11">11</SUP>He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23502 value="12">12</SUP>How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."  <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23503 value="13">13</SUP>Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-23504 value="14">14</SUP>But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. (Matt 12)

Why doesn't God heal more people that have had amputations? Heck, I don't know why he doesn't heal more cancer. I suggest you ask him.

Just like the Pharisees in the synagogue, it wasn't about what Jesus could do, it was about him fitting into their preconcieved ideas of what God was. When he didn't they plotted to kill him. That same spirit in in some here.

If God routinely healed those with amputations, people would still deny and claim their is no God.


----------

