Peaceful Response to the Question asked Why Won't God Heal Amputees

[Doctor X]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but according to the bible, Luke was a doctor, right?

No.  First, the author of "Luke-Acts" is unknown.  He is called "Luke" out of convenience.  Second, the author admits to being a non-witness, he uses other sources such as Mk, and is too late and in the wrong language to be reliable.

Since this story does not appear in other "Garden" narratives--including one of his sources--this is another expansion on the basic story most likely by Lk.  Just an "FYI."

Or, perhaps the person who wrote that book was a lying sack of crap.  :/

DING!Ding!DING!Ding!

--J.D.

[ParkingPlaces]

If the OP is right, then nothing is ever wrong, under any set of circumstances, and we humans should just be happy to be alive as we get swallowed up by the ground in an earthquake or drowned in a tsunami or cooked alive by pissed catholics.

"There is nothing to pray here." should be their motto and those of us not yet lacking in body parts or cancers or bullets in the head are no different than those who are experiencing that natural state of existence and there is no need to differentiate in any way.

Now that I understand the concept "Jesus loves whatever is left of you", I understand the religion better.

This helps.

[velkyn]

Gadget,

Given today's medical technology, surgeons can reattach severed body parts as long as the reattachment conditions are optimal and adequately met within a certain time frame.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but according to the bible, Luke was a doctor, right? I studied Latin language in high school and did a research project on surgical procedures during the classical Roman era.  It seems possible that Luke helped the man, and gave Jesus credit for the miracle.  So perhaps, if it even happened, there's a more reasonable explanation behind the smoke and mirrors.  Did anyone ever bother to follow up with this guy whose ear was healed? No.  Not to my knowledge at least.

Or, perhaps the person who wrote that book was a lying sack of crap.  :/

well that's certainly creative    Luke as a "doctor" and knowing how to repair amputations when that was beyond people far into the late 19th and early 20th century? 

[GamerGirl]

Far-fetched! I know--that's part of the reason why I said the author of Luke was probably a lying sack of crap.  However, it was just an ear, so maybe it was sutured back on and proclaimed as healed, the details, having been written about years after that event, likely have been lost to tales of miracles and mysticism. 

The earliest reports of surgical suture date back to 3000 BC in ancient Egypt, and the oldest known suture is in a mummy from 1100 BC. The first detailed description of a wound suture and the suture materials used in it is by the Indian sage and physician Sushruta, written in 500 BCE. The Greek "father of medicine" Hippocrates described rudimentary suture techniques, as did the later Roman Aulus Cornelius Celsus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgical_suture

Luke is mentioned in Colossians 4:14 as the beloved physician. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul is reported as saying, "Luke is with me."
...
On the scholarly view, the Epistles that mentioned Luke were not really written by Paul. Paul did not know anyone called Luke, and we can not say whether Luke was a physician, or even whether there was a person called Luke in the early Church

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Luke_according_to_the_Bible#ixzz17Ye9gSdM

If a rudimentary suture reattachment procedure happened, the ear likely fell off, but the bible never mentions this soldier again. 

Then again, the more reasonable explanation is:

the author was probably full of crap, or was told some fable about Jesus, and the author wrote down that fable as fact. 

[laxbro]

I'm not here to try and convince you that God is real (which I believe, meaning I am a Christian) because it's the internet and only a face to face conversation can come close to tackling such questions.

But I would like to provide a holistic view of Christianity and not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

You will most likely say rude mean things, but here it goes anyway.

Everyone sins against God and the wages of sin is death. As soon as the first sin was committed, our world became a sinful place. Anything that seems out of place is because people sin. Why do I deserve to have a good life while an amputee has pain and suffering to live with? The answer is I don't deserve a good life. I have troubles of my own just like everyone does. Can I compare my troubles with an amputees? No, but bad things are all bad. How can I say why some people have seemingly worse lives than others when we all deserve death?

Graciously, God gives us all a choice to believe in Him. In that way, He is just. I know amputees who are Christian and say their lives are great because Jesus has saved their eternal souls. When we are redeemed, we will all be whole again. So God does heal amputees if they believe in Him. It may not be the way you see fit, but God does and I trust his judgment much more than anybody else.

[Agga]

But I would like to provide a holistic view of Christianity and not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

Interesting statement.  Do you think it's possible that you have a (christian-based) opinion on most of the atheists here?

[laxbro]

But I would like to provide a holistic view of Christianity and not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

Interesting statement.  Do you think it's possible that you have a (christian-based) opinion on most of the atheists here?

Well of course I do because I am a Christian. I did read many posts so I like to think I gained a workable opinion of the atheists in this thread at least. I think atheists have an atheist based opinion of Christian points. I'm not saying that is wrong. I'm saying that I would prefer you would read what I'm saying instead of arguing against media fed opinions of Christianity. And every person is different so all I have to judge how people perceive Christians is from what they say on the thread.

[Agga]

^^ Are you aware that most of us here were once christians?  What makes you assume that our opinions are media-based, and not experience-based?

And if your own assumptions are christian-based (not, as in our case, experience-based), what makes your arguments any better than ours?

[Doctor X]

. . . only a face to face conversation can come close to tackling such questions.

No.  Evidence is evidence, and you should be able to provide it.  You are correct it is easier to browbeat and cajole people face to face.

. . . not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

WARNING!!! There are strawmen about!  Be warned of the fire-hazard!

Most of us base it on the texts and resulting traditions.  The fact that the texts are myths--the Earth is not actually flat nor did it end about 1,850 years ago--sort of force us to stick with reality.

You will most likely say rude mean things, but here it goes anyway.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam: methinks you will consider mere rebuttal "rude."

Everyone sins against God

No.

Was that it?  FAIL.

Which god by the way?  You should specify.  Different rules, preferences, et cetera.

*Preaches*

Sorry, not evidence.

Graciously, God gives us all a choice to believe in Him.

Not according to the NT.  In Jn you must be "from the above."  If you are "from the below" you are scrod to use the pluperfect subjunctive.  In Mk, Junior PREVENTS people from being saved.  So not much of a choice there.

I know amputees who are Christian and say their lives are great because. . . .

I know people who think the coffee maker speaks to them.  I know people who are amputees through no fault of their own recognize that fairy tales do not make things better.  So I see your anecdotes and raise you reality.

Would suggest you stop preaching, son.  We have seen it before.  It is vain and unseemly.

Every child dying in every cancer ward demonstrates the impotence of your fairy tales.

Welcome to the forums!


Two drink minimum. . . .

--J.D.

[Agga]

^^ Strawmen... isn't that the thing where I present a false view of your argument and then try and knock that down, instead of actually addressing what you really think?

Did I get that right Doc?

[Ambassador Pony]

This online forum is a medium. So as not to be "media-based", I will ignore your obviously invalid (because it is "media-based") argument.

Oh, and, dear, the bible is also media.

[Operator_011]

^ = +1.

[Doctor X]

Did I get that right Doc?

Yes, though fallacies often blend.  For example, he quote:

. . . not the biased (media-based) opinion most of you seem to have.

is a strawman, but it is also a Poisoning of the Well fallacy--you can just forget all of our rebuttals since they are clearly "media-biased" [Boo.  Hiss.--Ed.] and mere "opinions," whereas, of course, he has the Truth [Tm.--Ed.].

If I parsed all his fallacies this would become a mega-thread. 

He should be able to present some simple evidence--if it exists. 

--J.D.

[Operator_011]

is a strawman, but it is also a Poisoning of the Well fallacy--you can just forget all of our rebuttals since they are clearly "media-biased"

^ = +1.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Agga]

If I parsed all his fallacies this would become a mega-thread. 

Crack on mate.  I think it's important - in the name of fair play - for us all to avoid using fallacies if we're going to tell others' how fallacious their arguments are.

He should be able to present some simple evidence--if it exists. 

Naturally.  I'm sure he will, too.

[laxbro]

Well I will try to respond to everything everyone said, but I am only human.

Assuming media when I said it means every form of media is a straw man fallacy. If I cannot say media and you understand that I mean mostly news on TV than you should probably not read anything I say because you won't be happy with anything I say (you won't be happy with anything I say regardless).

I did not use a strawman fallacy because the strawman fallacy you alluded to wasn't in my argument (I explain my supposed use of the strawman fallacy in the last paragraph) Perhaps you should look at the two lower paragraphs in my original post to actually see what I was talking about.

Talking about proof of God face to face is loads better because I can explain everything in words I can make sure you understand because you can give me direct feed back. We can sit here arguing back and forth and get no where, or we can sit face to face and have a civil hour long conversation. Maybe getting somewhere maybe not, but we would better understand each other. With the advent of the internet people seem to get more and more suspicious of face to face conversing.

And I'm sorry if you were a Christian and choose now not to believe.

If you read everything I write including my second post, you will see that I can only judge what you think about Christianity by what you have posted on this thread because I do not know you personally. So from what I see on this thread most of you have a "News TV" based view of Christianity. If that is not the case, then I would love for you to explain how you really think Christians believe.

I will bring up a simple argument for the existence of God. It is how massive the universe is. When I see how amazing natural life is I cannot help but see a maker behind it all. It all works so well together. The laws of nature are so simple but everything hinges upon them. You may see something else, but I see a design.

My God is the God of the Bible. "I am" He calls himself to Moses. You would find that most Christians who follow Christ closely have all the major beliefs the same. That is the only way to be redeemed and have eternal life is through Jesus. The minor differences between denominations are just that; minor. People are not perfect so their beliefs may vary. If you really want to know all my beliefs then you can ask. But some of you seem to think it is preaching so I will refrain for now.

[Positiveaob]

"Gives us all a choice to believe in him", eh?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the first commandment say that (if you believe this story is true) he is our god and we shall have no others before him?  That was supposedly carved into stone himself!  The first one!  To be obeyed as much as though shalt not kill, or lie!  If you believe the bible to be a true story, you have to believe the god in the story sure didn't want to stay hidden.

Of course, now he just relies on word of mouth.  So you sort of just have to hope to be born into a culture that got it right.

[Operator_011]

Hello laxbro,

Have you read our Rules and Etiquette guide yet?

[laxbro]

"Gives us all a choice to believe in him", eh?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the first commandment say that (if you believe this story is true) he is our god and we shall have no others before him?  That was supposedly carved into stone himself!  The first one!  To be obeyed as much as though shalt not kill, or lie!  If you believe the bible to be a true story, you have to believe the god in the story sure didn't want to stay hidden.

Of course, now he just relies on word of mouth.  So you sort of just have to hope to be born into a culture that got it right.

He is there whether you like it or not. So when I say you can choose to believe in Him or not, I mean you can choose to accept He is your God or you can ignore Him. And God judges the heart, not me. So people in cultures not born in Christianity can still go to Heaven.

[Positiveaob]

And I'm sorry you're a christian and choose now to remain delusional.

How in the world does any argument we make here represent a "news TV " based argument?  That's asinine.  What news organization do you see any of this on?  The largest, by viewership, news organization we have in the US is fox news, and that sure as hell doesn't have a non-xtian slant to it.  Where on CNN or MSNBC do you see any of the arguments we make here???? Where?

Sounds to me like you heard that buzz phrase somewhere and that's all you really have.

With regards to your "size of the universe" proof, why don't you look up "argument from ignorance" as your next lesson in logical fallacies.

[laxbro]

Hello laxbro,

Have you read our Rules and Etiquette guide yet?

Yes I have. Are you saying I'm not following them? I think I have been very courteous so far and feel more attacked than attacking.

[Operator_011]

Yes I have. Are you saying I'm not following them? I think I have been very courteous so far and feel more attacked than attacking.

I just watched you in the Onlist list spend all of ten seconds in the Etiquette guide. That does not qualify.

And yes, I'm saying that you're not following them:

Discussion threads are for discussion of the topic at hand, not simply advertising one's opinions. As such, forum members are expected to back up assertions they make, and not engage in stonewalling, shifting goalposts, changing the subject, or employing similar tactics to avoid addressing points raised against them.

Are you backing up your claims? No.

1. The purpose of this forum.

This forum's purpose is to discuss Marshall Brain's online material Why Won't God Heal Amputees? and God Is Imaginary. By extension, it is to discuss issues surrounding religion and the effect of religious beliefs in our society and culture. It is not a venue for preaching or evangelism. People who come here to preach or evangelise will quickly find that they have outstayed their welcome.

Are you preaching? Yes.

You'd do well to avoid playing the victim as it won't wash. You agreed to abide by our rules when you created your account. Don't let us stop you from doing so.


Eleven.

[laxbro]

How in the world does any argument we make here represent a "news TV " based argument?  That's asinine.  What news organization do you see any of this on?  The largest, by viewership, news organization we have in the US is fox news, and that sure as hell doesn't have a non-xtian slant to it.  Where on CNN or MSNBC do you see any of the arguments we make here???? Where?

Sounds to me like you heard that buzz phrase somewhere and that's all you really have.

With regards to your "size of the universe" proof, why don't you look up "argument from ignorance" as your next lesson in logical fallacies.

I mean all Christians are not like Westboro Baptist Church. None of this has anything to do with my argument. It was the reason for me posting not the post itself. Please forget I said it. I'm sorry, I may have spoken hastily, but again it has nothing to do with my argument.

At some point you have to believe. You can believe in the multiple universe theory or something else but science cannot tell you why the universe is. I cannot prove there is a God 100% just like you cannot prove there is not a God 100%. I see how marvelous the universe and choose to believe that God made it all.

I suggest you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or something by Augustine if you want to see proof of God. People much smarter than me have written whole books about it. I certainly can't explain it to you in a simple internet thread.

[Positiveaob]

He is there whether you like it or not. So when I say you can choose to believe in Him or not, I mean you can choose to accept He is your God or you can ignore Him. And God judges the heart, not me. So people in cultures not born in Christianity can still go to Heaven.

So now it's the "because I say so" argument.  Tell me again what separates your god beliefs from that of any other society throughout history?  Aside from what those in those around you in the culture you grew up in (and in the news media) told you?

[Agga]

He is there whether you like it or not.

Proof please.

So when I say you can choose to believe in Him or not, I mean you can choose to accept He is your God or you can ignore Him.

Please provide proof that he exists.

And God judges the heart, not me.

Proof please.

So people in cultures not born in Christianity can still go to Heaven.

Proof please, since scripture disagrees with you.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Thanks.

[Positiveaob]

At some point you have to believe. You can believe in the multiple universe theory or something else but science cannot tell you why the universe is. I cannot prove there is a God 100% just like you cannot prove there is not a God 100%. I see how marvelous the universe and choose to believe that God made it all.

I suggest you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or something by Augustine if you want to see proof of God. People much smarter than me have written whole books about it. I certainly can't explain it to you in a simple internet thread.

And he sticks the landing with a combination argument from incredulity and appeal to authority!  Why don't you throw in an argument ad populum while you're at it?

[laxbro]

He is there whether you like it or not. So when I say you can choose to believe in Him or not, I mean you can choose to accept He is your God or you can ignore Him. And God judges the heart, not me. So people in cultures not born in Christianity can still go to Heaven.

So now it's the "because I say so" argument.  Tell me again what separates your god beliefs from that of any other society throughout history?  Aside from what those in those around you in the culture you grew up in (and in the news media) told you?

I was simply explaining what I meant by belief.

[laxbro]

At some point you have to believe. You can believe in the multiple universe theory or something else but science cannot tell you why the universe is. I cannot prove there is a God 100% just like you cannot prove there is not a God 100%. I see how marvelous the universe and choose to believe that God made it all.

I suggest you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis or something by Augustine if you want to see proof of God. People much smarter than me have written whole books about it. I certainly can't explain it to you in a simple internet thread.

I appeal to authority on whether God exists. I came into this saying I was not going to prove God exits. I guarantee nothing I can say will convince you anyway so why try?
And he sticks the landing with a combination argument from incredulity and appeal to authority!  Why don't you throw in an argument ad populum while you're at it?