Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................

[orpat]

Applicable to Confucianism and Buddhism?

Want to know.

[blue]

Yes, at least in spirit. Depends on the denomination of Buddhism or Confucianism, and whether or not they claim reality changing actions from their theistic sources. If someone says Buddha heals, Buddha'd better pony up the evidence, same as Yaweh.

[orpat]

Yes, at least in spirit. Depends on the denomination of Buddhism or Confucianism, and whether or not they claim reality changing actions from their theistic sources. If someone says Buddha heals, Buddha'd better pony up the evidence, same as Yaweh.

Buddhism and confucianism both are religions without the notion of a God.
Check this line from Theravada Buddhism

One begins to see that one's future well-being is neither predestined by fate, nor left to the whims of a divine being or random chance. The responsibility for one's happiness rests squarely on one's own shoulders.

[blue]

Buddhism and confucianism both are religions without the notion of a God.
Check this line from Theravada Buddhism

One begins to see that one's future well-being is neither predestined by fate, nor left to the whims of a divine being or random chance. The responsibility for one's happiness rests squarely on one's own shoulders.

Indeed they are in some denominations. Zen is particularly nontheisitic. Mah?y?na Buddhism is chock full of the supernatural though. So if a Buddhist or a Confuciust (sp?) makes a claim that their faith and particular supernatural beliefs affect the real world like Christianity/Islam/Judaism claims for healing, the question still applies. All of Buddha's miraculous claimed powers (here is a good summary overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#Miraculous_Powers^Wiki would be subject to the same line of  inquiry as the question WWGHA?

 

[sun_king]

Buddhism and confucianism both are religions without the notion of a God.

You shouldn't have answered your own question so early on. It spoils the fun of your plan to shoot yourself in the leg later.

WWGHA is applicable to all milk jugs.

[orpat]

You shouldn't have answered your own question so early on. It spoils the fun of your plan to shoot yourself in the leg later.

WWGHA is applicable to all milk jugs.

Shoot my leg with what? Air or water?

But I am sorry my question is still  unanswered.

So could  you stop gleefully coming to a sudden conclusion out of nowhere and instead search for answers?

[orpat]

Buddhism and confucianism both are religions without the notion of a God.
Check this line from Theravada Buddhism

One begins to see that one's future well-being is neither predestined by fate, nor left to the whims of a divine being or random chance. The responsibility for one's happiness rests squarely on one's own shoulders.

Indeed they are in some denominations. Zen is particularly nontheisitic. Mah?y?na Buddhism is chock full of the supernatural though. So if a Buddhist or a Confuciust (sp?) makes a claim that their faith and particular supernatural beliefs affect the real world like Christianity/Islam/Judaism claims for healing, the question still applies. All of Buddha's miraculous claimed powers (here is a good summary overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#Miraculous_Powers^Wiki would be subject to the same line of  inquiry as the question WWGHA?

I am sorry but the link you are providing is not working.

[orpat]

Even if we consider that Mahayana Buddhism does talk about miracles, but doesn't Buddhism also state that  "Believing in miracles shouldn't be the reason for following Buddhism?"

It is all up to the person  to change his or her future. Your life is at your own hands. No supernatural deity will come and help you!

[sun_king]

My apologies, I thought user "blue" gave the answer. And the milk jug is symbol for all supernatural claims. The answer was there.

If someone says Buddha heals, Buddha'd better pony up the evidence, same as Yaweh.

Have you come across anyone insisting that Buddha heals? As in faith healing, not some cockamamie tiki that is supposed to ward off evil, sold at insane prices.

(Here is the working link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha)

[orpat]

My apologies, I thought user "blue" gave the answer. And the milk jug is symbol for all supernatural claims. The answer was there.

If someone says Buddha heals, Buddha'd better pony up the evidence, same as Yaweh.

No, he didn't.

[orpat]

Have you come across anyone insisting that Buddha heals? As in faith healing, not some cockamamie tiki that is supposed to ward off evil, sold at insane prices.
(Here is the working link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha)

No, I haven't come across anyone who says Buddha heals.

[Grimm]

Orpat -

Bluntly, frankly, the question generally doesn't apply, no.  In order for it to apply, you need to have both a 'god' and miracle claims from that entity that involve nonspecific healing.

As a general rule, Bhuddism has neither - I'm not familiar enough with Confucianism to have any real ability to answer your question.

Note that if your particular brand of Bhuddism has in it the sort of belief that says faith cures illnessess, then the question may again apply.  The notion, however, of "live well and search" is as humanistic and atheistic as it comes.

[screwtape]

Applicable to Confucianism and Buddhism?

Want to know.

No.  It applies to religious people who claim their godbeliefs are based on "miraculous" healing.  If you are a xian who does not think people are miraculously healed by god, jesus H christ or the holy spirit, then the question does not apply to you either.

Neither does the question "prove" there is no god, even when directed at the right kind of believer.  It simply poses an array of difficult conclusions for the believer.

[orpat]

Orpat -

Bluntly, frankly, the question generally doesn't apply, no.  In order for it to apply, you need to have both a 'god' and miracle claims from that entity that involve nonspecific healing.

As a general rule, Bhuddism has neither - I'm not familiar enough with Confucianism to have any real ability to answer your question.

Thanks for that blunt but honest reply

The notion, however, of "live well and search" is as humanistic and atheistic as it comes. ]

I guess Budsdhism is more on the Deismic side than atheistic. Buddhism does have concept of God, albeit non-intervening one.

[orpat]

Applicable to Confucianism and Buddhism?

Want to know.

No.  It applies to religious people who claim their godbeliefs are based on "miraculous" healing.  If you are a xian who does not think people are miraculously healed by god, jesus H christ or the holy spirit, then the question does not apply to you either.

Neither does the question "prove" there is no god, even when directed at the right kind of believer.  It simply poses an array of difficult conclusions for the believer.

Exactly

[joebbowers]

WTF just happened? He clearly just posted a question he already knew the answer to. For what?

[orpat]

WTF just happened? He clearly just posted a question he already knew the answer to. For what?

What do you mean by "WTF just happened?" I didn't clearly just post a question I already knew the answer to.

Why should it make you so agitated?

[Grimm]

Orpat -

Bluntly, frankly, the question generally doesn't apply, no.  In order for it to apply, you need to have both a 'god' and miracle claims from that entity that involve nonspecific healing.

As a general rule, Bhuddism has neither - I'm not familiar enough with Confucianism to have any real ability to answer your question.

Thanks for that blunt but honest reply

The notion, however, of "live well and search" is as humanistic and atheistic as it comes. ]

I guess Budsdhism is more on the Deismic side than atheistic. Buddhism does have concept of God, albeit non-intervening one.

Sort of?  I think the different sects of Bhuddism have different takes on the idea of a deity - Zen, the one I'm most familiar with, uses terms like 'universal unconsciousness' to try to explain the sort of central guiding principle at hand in searching for truth, but it doesn't claim that it's even remotely classifiable as a deity. 

The trouble, I think, with Bhuddism is that there's a philosophical and a spiritual construct intertwined with each other in the basic tenets of it, and its sects argue over how far toward each end of the continuity the 'truth' is.  As a philosophy, it has much that is admirable - including and embracing of science that is absolutely foreign to every other major religion.  As an atheist, I find Bhuddism lacking when we begin to discuss the idea of 'what happens after', when one moves beyond raw philsophy and into the speculation that comes with 'purpose' or 'agency'.

Anyway - I think where you fall on the idea of deism in bhuddism is based largely on the sect and practice you follow - but a solid deist isn't that much different than an atheist, at least in terms of both getting along and sorting out how the world works.

Birds of a feather - there's not much difference between a non-interfering agency and a non-existent one. Interesting to ponder, though - I should probably go back and dust off my reading on it. 

[pbaylis]

God does heal amputees, if you call intestine removal and amputation. See here. http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Bruce-van-Natta-112410.aspx

[Quartinium]

If one accepts as a principle that we are all composed of atoms and that those atoms cannot be created or destroyed then buddhisms idea that we are all moving towards a nirvanic state upon death is in principle correct. As mortals we are 'aware' that we are separate when in reality we are "the same decaying organic matter as everything else". Only in death do we come to the "realization" that we are part of a greater whole and return to that state. Sadly that realization is not our 'self' which comes to it but buddhism's reasoning is that there is no self. My understanding is that we are already in nirvana and in fact cannot leave it.

[screwtape]

God does heal amputees, if you call intestine removal and amputation. See here. http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Bruce-van-Natta-112410.aspx

Seriously? 

[Zankuu]

Seriously?

screwtape, did you read the article? It's pretty funny. Guy gets his intestines crushed by a truck, has all but 100cm of intestines, then someone at the hospital prays some Jesus into him and he magically gains 9ft of small intestine.

[screwtape]

Seriously?

screwtape, did you read the article?

I did.  It is on the 700 club website.  Which is quite the peer reviewed science site.  Totally believable and throroughly documented.  (I'm rolling my eyes.)

pbaylis obviously needs some help with critical thinking skills.  Or has an excellent sense of sarcasm.

[Anfauglir]

WTF just happened? He clearly just posted a question he already knew the answer to. For what?

What do you mean by "WTF just happened?" I didn't clearly just post a question I already knew the answer to.

I think its easy to see where the confusion lies, when you said (my bold)....

(Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?) "Applicable to Confucianism and Buddhism?

and

Buddhism and confucianism both are religions without the notion of a God.

....thus making your OP question:

"Does the question 'why won't GOD heal amputees' apply to religions without a GOD?"

[kaziglu bey]

God does heal amputees, if you call intestine removal and amputation. See here. http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Bruce-van-Natta-112410.aspx

No, I don't consider crushed intestines to be an amputation. Additionally, I think that the best proof of miraculous faith healing would be the complete recovery of someone who was decapitated  in such a fashion that there was no remains of the head (i.e. head exploded or mutilated beyond recovery in some fashion). That could ONLY be done by a divine being. Yet, it has NEVER happened. I can't imagine why that could be. God (and the followers of Jesus) are supposed to be capable of incredible healing miracles. Jesus was alleged to have raised the dead[1], and said his followers would do even sweeter stuff than that. Believers should be capable of healing decapitations in seconds.

1.

How come we don't hear any more about Lazarus? Surely such a deed would be momentous and inexplicable. Surely Lazarus would want to tell everyone. What happens to Lazarus after being raised from the dead? Does he just wander around like a zombie forever, or does he live a little longer and then die another natural death? What does a dude who has been resurrected do? If he had been married, his brother would have been obligated to marry and impregnate his widow, wouldn't that be awkward? If God calls people to him at the right time, he must have called Lazarus, so why have Jesus interfere in God's Special Plantm? Jesus is such a show off.

[Anfauglir]

How come we don't hear any more about Lazarus? Surely such a deed would be momentous and inexplicable. Surely Lazarus would want to tell everyone. What happens to Lazarus after being raised from the dead? Does he just wander around like a zombie forever, or does he live a little longer and then die another natural death? What does a dude who has been resurrected do? If he had been married, his brother would have been obligated to marry and impregnate his widow, wouldn't that be awkward? If God calls people to him at the right time, he must have called Lazarus, so why have Jesus interfere in God's Special Plan?

Back in '09 I wrote:

The people "raised from the dead" are the biggest lie to the Bible there could be.  Not because of the act of raising (though that is a biggie) but because we hear nothing from them ever again (apart from Lazarus, who has a small party a few weeks later).

Consider: these people were DEAD.  They had first-hand experience of what comes afterwards.  They were in heaven, or hell. 

If the former, they would be doing everything they could to make sure they went back there - and, incidentally, what a bastard Jesus was for bringing them BACK to this life so they could run the risk of sinning again!

And if they had been in hell.....well then, even more reason for them to drop everything and make damn sure (pun intended) that they never went back there again.  Why do we hear nothing more from those returnees, either in the Bible or from any other source?

Remember - these are not the "near death experiences" we hear of today.  These people were quite, quite dead - and either in salvation or purgatory.  So why did they all (apparently) just shuffle back into their previous humdrum lives as if nothing had happened?

[kaziglu bey]

Back in '09 I wrote:

The people "raised from the dead" are the biggest lie to the Bible there could be.  Not because of the act of raising (though that is a biggie) but because we hear nothing from them ever again (apart from Lazarus, who has a small party a few weeks later).

Consider: these people were DEAD.  They had first-hand experience of what comes afterwards.  They were in heaven, or hell. 

If the former, they would be doing everything they could to make sure they went back there - and, incidentally, what a bastard Jesus was for bringing them BACK to this life so they could run the risk of sinning again!

And if they had been in hell.....well then, even more reason for them to drop everything and make damn sure (pun intended) that they never went back there again.  Why do we hear nothing more from those returnees, either in the Bible or from any other source?

Remember - these are not the "near death experiences" we hear of today.  These people were quite, quite dead - and either in salvation or purgatory.  So why did they all (apparently) just shuffle back into their previous humdrum lives as if nothing had happened?

I totally agree. You would think that people raised by the Lord and Savior from the dead would be the centerpiece of the story. Just think of all of the opportunities there would be to convert people based on the testimony of formerly dead, now living people. All of that salvation potential squandered. It also kind of reduces the significance of Jesus rising from the dead, since we already have an example of this happening to someone who did NOT claim to be of divine origin. If ordinary dudes can be raised from the dead, what's the big deal about Jesus doing it too, especially if he was divine? You would expect him to be able to do that. I think that if being resurrected from death is proof of divine origin, then Christians must also accept Lazarus as the son of God. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[pbaylis]

No, I don't consider crushed intestines to be an amputation. Additionally, I think that the best proof of miraculous faith healing would be the complete recovery of someone who was decapitated  in such a fashion that there was no remains of the head (i.e. head exploded or mutilated beyond recovery in some fashion). That could ONLY be done by a divine being. Yet, it has NEVER happened. I can't imagine why that could be. God (and the followers of Jesus) are supposed to be capable of incredible healing miracles. Jesus was alleged to have raised the dead[1], and said his followers would do even sweeter stuff than that. Believers should be capable of healing decapitations in seconds.

I don't consider "crushed" intestines to be amputations either. But, we aren't just talking about crushed intestines are we. They were surgically removed. When we use the word "amputation", we generally mean "limb", so the word doesn't really cover organs - hearts, lungs or intestines. But, you would be hard-pressed to say that the regrowth of a heart is not on a par with regrowth of a leg.  We need a better word to cover any human tissue that is lost or removed and which is not expected to regenerate. The regrowth of removed intestines absolutely meets the criteria for unexpected regrowth. Your only way out is to discredit the person or the story.

By the way, my take on decapitations is that God genuinely intends this person to be dead. If you have seen any of the near-death experience testimonies on YouTube, where people claim to have gone to heaven etc and been told they need to go back, there is usually an injury or condition that one could imagine might reasonably be recovered from, e.g. the woman who tried to shoot herself in the heart, but missed by a quarter inch, went to hell, but was allowed back.  Or other types of conditions that one could reasonably suppose to be scientifically possible to come back from. So, it's possible that God designs the clean loss of something like a limb as an intention of permanency.

But now and again, the envelope gets stretched, e.g. this intestine example and others such as the window cleaner who fell 47 stories and survived with relatively minor injuries. Somehow he knew it wasn't his time to go.

[pbaylis]

I totally agree. You would think that people raised by the Lord and Savior from the dead would be the centerpiece of the story. Just think of all of the opportunities there would be to convert people based on the testimony of formerly dead, now living people. All of that salvation potential squandered. It also kind of reduces the significance of Jesus rising from the dead, since we already have an example of this happening to someone who did NOT claim to be of divine origin. If ordinary dudes can be raised from the dead, what's the big deal about Jesus doing it too, especially if he was divine? You would expect him to be able to do that. I think that if being resurrected from death is proof of divine origin, then Christians must also accept Lazarus as the son of God. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Testimonies of the formerly dead: Type "near death" in YouTube for all the testimonies you'll ever need. Note first the misnomer "near"-death. In most cases, the subjects were in fact clinically dead. Here's one to start with "".

.. if being resurrected from death is proof of divine origin,...

I'm glad you said "if". Being raised from the dead is obviously not the benchmark for divinity. And it's pretty poor logic to say that because Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that Lazarus must be automatically divine because Christ was also raised from the dead and IS divine. So no... no cake having + eating going on here.