Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Sarcasm by nature indicates that the statements themselves are idiotic. I didn't mean to "blaspheme God" but express the ridiculousness of the statements commonly used by the atheist crowd. So my apologies if you thought otherwise.

 

Ie. Caporal works of Mercy and Caporal works of Charity?

 

The question I believe is why He doesn't heal amputees today; or why we can't see the types of miracles recorded long ago (which of course can't be proven as they are removed from us in time).

Just so everyone knows; the promoter of the "Why Won't God Heal Amputees" site is Marshall Brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Brain who also does the "howstuffworks.com" site.

His motivation is the promotion of the science called "transhumanism", which involves discovering how to regrow missing limbs using stem cells. So now; the underlying issue should start to take shape to you. Theism is seen as standing in the way of this science; with its opposition to cloning and stem cell research. That is what they see as the future hope for mankind; including a prospect of physical immortality.

 

I realize that. I answered in response to a few other posts as to what Jesus did. Jesus healed all that came to him, regardless of what their infirmity was. And though it be speculation we can probably assume that many of those that were "lame" had some missing limbs.

If Christianity was simply a panacea or cure-all for those who are seriously sick and for those with missing limbs and such, then people would be coming to Christ for the wrong reason. It is not God's will to heal everyone. Not even Paul healed everyone, though he did have the gift of healing. "Trophimus have I left sick at Miletus," he said. It wasn't God's will for Trophimus to be healed.

The purpose of Christianity is to glorify Christ and follow Him no matter what state the believer finds himself him. "We wait for the redemption of our bodies," Paul said. The early believers suffered intense persecution under the reign of Nero. Peter writes his first epistle to those that are suffering. "Though your faith be tried as fire," he says. The persecution they faced was worse then the suffering that an amputee in our society faces.

 

There is no statistical evidence that God heals anyone. Miracles are statistically improbable events. Sick person asks for prayer. Next Sunday he returns and says he was healed. Sick person asks for prayer. He dies and never returns to complain/report back.

 

Good grief.

 

Another interpretation would be that God refuses to heal as many praying people as he heals thus his activity can't be detected.

 

In the days of Christ - God raised the dead and healed lepers. The Lepers were suffering from withered and destroyed limbs - made perfectly "new" by the touch of Christ.

It is not entirely true. In Matt 17 and 18 we see a case of disciples "given the ministry of casting out demons" (in Matt 10) that could not solve the problem for a child at the foot of the mount of transfiguration. When they asked Christ why they could not cast out that demon (after all - God does not "want anyone to be demon possessed" as the argument goes) Christ answered "this kind comes not out but by prayer and fasting".

In the book of Acts we have the case of Dorcas - the local church prayed for her - and she did not get well - then after she died Peter comes to "help" and raises her from the dead.

We see the same thing in John 11, the prayers of Mary and Martha and of Lazarus do not "get the result" until Christ shows up - and then even though by all accounts it is "too late" because Lazarus has died - Lazarus is raised from the dead.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Wow.

I'd be pretty miserable if I spent my energy looking for reasons to discredit God at work. Do what you wish...but if it were me, I'd find another hobby.

 

OK, this one will get me in trouble...but here goes: A true story...

I have a dear friend who years ago, lost an arm up to mid-bicep due to a motorcycle accident.

I asked him the OP question--"Why doesn't God 'heal' amputees?

His response...... "I don't know. That one's got me stumped."

Then he started laughing hysterically.

Gotta love a sense of humor, eh?

 

Funny.............

 

Jesus preached that healings and miracles were rare and only for theological/teaching reasons, not because of pity on the subject. If Jesus was concerned with universal suffering, he could have universally poofed every sick person healed.

 

If Jesus was NOT concerned he could "poof" every Biwald into a pillar of salt with no trouble at all.
We relish in the mercy of God each day.

 

Certainly the limbs of the lepers would have been deformed - and some were said to have suffered with that disease for many years.

The Gospels state clearly that "Christ had compassion" on those who were sick.

1. Matthew 20:34
   Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him.
   
2. Mark 1:41
   Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, "I am willing; be cleansed."
3. Matthew 14:14
   When He went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them and healed their sick
4. Luke 7:13
   When the Lord saw her, He felt compassion for her, and said to her, "Do not weep." 14And He came up and touched the coffin; and the bearers came to a halt. And He said, "Young man, I say to you, arise!" 15The dead man sat up and began to speak. And Jesus gave him back to his mother.

In Matt 10 Christ comissions the 12 disciples with the same ministry of healing.

In Luke 10 Christ comissions the 70 with the same ministry of healing.

In Acts 5 Peter has the gift to such a degree that "even his shadow" passing over someone would heal them.

In Acts 19 Paul has the gift to such a degree that a handkerchief passed from him to others resulted in their healing and if they had demons that possessed them - those demons were forced to flee.

The atheist argument is that confronted with such overwhelming evidence all mankind would instantly "believe".

but in the case of Lazarus - raised from the dead, the truly dedicated wicked person simply chose to find an excuse to kill Lazarus and thus avoid the embarassing situation of one who was well known to have died - being raised from the dead by the very Christ whom the wicked rejected.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Jesus only knew about sick people he "saw?"

 

There was a purpose to the miracles that Jesus did. The quantity, quality, and characteristics of his miracles clearly demonstrated his deity. No man could do the things that he did, as Nicodemus testified.

There were only certain periods in history where miracles (in abundance) were performed.
First, they were performed during the time of Moses.
Second, they were performed during the time of the prophets (especially Elijah and Elisha).
Third, they were performed during the time of Christ, and then of the Apostles.

What do all of these have in common? These were times of revelation. To Moses was the Law given: "The Books of Moses."
Elijah and Elisha were representative of all the prophets--a good portion of the Old Testament.
The Apostles wrote the NT.

Miracles testified of the validity of the revelation that was given to them.

2 Corinthians 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

 

Very true statement that. It's less than five years ago that Islamic extremists blew up 53 people on buses and trains in London and yet militant atheists in the UK still seem to devote more time to hating and mocking Chrstians, even liberal Christians, than they do Islam or Muslims.

I think part of it is the idea that nobody can become good in God's sight without belief in Jesus. They are often humanist-minded and therefore find this offensive. I can see why, but if they thought about it more deeply, the fact that nobody is perfect is pretty obvious whether you believe in a deity or not.