Here's Johnny!

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Greetings people. My name is Johnny Spunkypants. I don't follow any religion. I believe in peace, harmony, and I believe in me. I believe in all of you too. You are all wonderful individual souls and I bless you all. I am not here to preach my views to any of you, but I am here to listen, and to give my two cents as and when. I don't feel the need to defend my views as my views are not under threat, I am perfectly secure in what I believe, however I'm open minded and ready to change my mind if I feel the need to. I'm also a very positive person, so I will often end my posts with a blessing. I do this partly for myself, as this is an extension of who I am, but also for you. Take it any way you want, this is me, this is who I am.

I hope you are also open minded, and by that I mean ready to challenge everything you think is true. I trust that you are all brave enough for that.

As for the question, why won't god heal amputees, well, think about it. Why would god heal amputees? If you're missing a leg or an arm, maybe there's a reason for that.

May you all prosper and may you all fulfill your ambitions in life.

[Historicity]

I believe in all of you too.

I'm a figment of your imagination.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

I'm a figment of your imagination.

Spooky.

Peace.

[Emily]

Welcome.

As for the question, why won't god heal amputees, well, think about it. Why would god heal amputees? If you're missing a leg or an arm, maybe there's a reason for that.

I really do hope you understand the point of the question "Why Wont God heal Amputees?". Believe it or not amputees getting healed have little to do with the answer the question is looking for.

-M

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Welcome.

I really do hope you understand the point of the question "Why Wont God heal Amputees?". Believe it or not amputees have little to do with the answer the question is looking for.

-M

Hi Emily. That's a lovely name, one of my favourites. What is the concept behind the question?

Peace and blessings.

[Historicity]

I don't feel the need to defend my views...

I hope you are also open minded, and by that I mean ready to challenge everything you think is true. I trust that you are all brave enough for that.

I see a little contradiction there.  You are laying a ground rule for any discusssion that you won't defend your views which means you won't answer questions.  On the other hand we have to answer yours or you'll call us cowards.

Of course this is easily resolved if, in fact, someone died and made you king.

[Emily]

Hi Emily. That's a lovely name, one of my favourites.

Thanks. 

What is the concept behind the question?

Let me quote ex-forum member Hermes. He summed it up pretty well.

Awakekings, the issue brought up by the question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" is not if your deity Yahweh heals anyone, but why it can't seem to perform unambiguous miracles on a regular basis.  This is in direct contradiction to the Christian Bible.  As such, the Bible is not reliable and so all of it's other claims are suspect or mythic.  Note that 'amount of faith' is not something that appears in the parts of the Bible that deal with intercessory prayers.

Check a Bible or a dozen for yourself;

http://www.biblegateway.com

    * If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

    * If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

    * Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

    * Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

    * Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

Details ....


The intent of the videos is to lay out the facts quickly, and offer a conclusion that is consistent with those facts.  The other resources such as the forums and the web site book are available to flesh out those facts.

Behind the question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" is this;

Is the Christian Bible reliable as a guide to reality?

From that, as the investigation given in the videos and the other more detailed resources show, we get to the clear conclusion that it is not.  As such, one of the conclusions is that the deity Yahweh of the Christian Bible is imaginary.

I realize that conclusion may seem like a stretch to you, but let's take the first part first;

Is the Christian Bible reliable as a guide to reality?

To draw out that main question -- is the Bible reliable -- the videos focus on the Why won't God heal amputees? question, though it can be seen in different ways.  For example;

Why won't the Christian deity Yahwey/Jesus restore the limbs of amputees or perform other unambiguous miracles here and now?

... or ...

If the Bible is correct,
amputees getting restored limbs
and other supernatural miracles
should be as plentiful as confetti
on the sidewalk after a parade.

A look at reality shows this is not the case,
thus the Bible and any conclusions in it
can not be used as a reliable guide to reality.

Yet, that's a conclusion.  An assertion.  One that I think is well supported, but you may disagree in part or in whole or depending on the context.

So, why do I say the Bible is unreliable?  The basics are simple;

1. The Christian Bible has promises in it.

2. The promises are said to be kept in ambiguous situations; found keys, cancer remissions, ... .

3. The promises are not kept in unambiguous situations, such as but not limited to amputees.

What promises?  The web site's author mentions some of them;

You can see that the amputee experiment reframes our conversation. No longer are we talking about "religion" or "faith" or "God's existence". What we are talking about here is the basic human ability to process factual information. Jesus makes a number of promises about prayer in the Bible:

    * If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

    * If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

    * Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

    * Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

    * Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

Are Jesus' promises true or false? By looking at amputees we can see that they are false. Jesus/God never answer prayers to spontaneously restore lost limbs, despite the promises in the Bible.

If you are a believer, and if this is the first time you have thought about the situation faced by amputees seriously, you may have a set of rationalizations and excuses swirling through your head right now.

So, what can we say is possible based on comparing the promises made in the Christian Bible to the what we see in reality?  A few potential conclusions come to mind;

1. The book is wrong, but the Christian deity Yahweh exists.

2. The book was right, but the Christian deity Yahweh no longer honors the book though it could.

3. The book was right, but the Christian deity Yahweh no longer honors the book because it can't.

4. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because the Christian deity Yahweh doesn't exist.

5. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because some other deity or deities exist, not the Christian one, and that deity or deities don't honor what they did not sign up for.

6. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because some other deity or deities exist, not the Christian one, and that deity or deities do honor similar promises to those who pray to them or offer some other communication or gift as a bribe for the miracle.  (Example: Hindu miracles.)

I'm going with #4.  What about you?

**Please note that this is an old post by Hermes. No one reply to this post. IMO Hermes summed the question up very well and it's worth remembering. This post by him is just the first one I found after searching his comments. The link to the thread of this post by him is irrelevant.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

I see a little contradiction there.  You are laying a ground rule for any discusssion that you won't defend your views which means you won't answer questions.  On the other hand we have to answer yours or you'll call us cowards.

Of course this is easily resolved if, in fact, someone died and made you king.

Yes let me clarify. I don't feel the need to defend my views because I am not defensive about my views. I go with the flow. If someone says something that makes me question my views, I most certainly will do that. Or, if I otherwise find myself doubting a view that I have, I will reconsider. Yes of course I am willing to answer questions, what I meant was that I'm not coming from a position of having to stick to any particular view for the sake of it. I am interested in sharing views with each other in an open minded fashion, and in the spirit of curiosity. I'm certainly not here to preach or convince and I don't really expect that anyone will attempt to preach to me.

Peace.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Emily, I take it the question related to the christian concept of god. If that's the case I can't say I agree with the idea that the god of the bible answers prayers. I don't believe god is anything like the bible describes.

Peace.

[Ambassador Pony]

Hi Johnny.

Internets say you are....special.

What meds are you currently on? If I may ask. Also, when was your last visit to a mental health professional? What was the outcome?

[Emily]

If that's the case I can't say I agree with the idea that the god of the bible answers prayers. I don't believe god is anything like the bible describes.

So you believe in some sort of a god then.

Describe it's qualities.

And yes, the question is related to the christian concept of god. This is evident because it uses the christian holy book as source for the questions regarding yhwh. One reason (I believe) the question is aimed at the christian god is because christianity is the more dominant religion with a majority of the earth's population worshiping it using at least some of the bible as their reason for doing so.

If there is a supernatural 'reason' behind someone missing a leg then you believe in some sort of a personal god; if you don't believe in a personal god but instead believe in something generic. The reason why someone is missing their limb is just as cruel compared to why yhwh wont restore that limb even though scripture says it should.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

So you believe in some sort of a god then.

Describe it's qualities.

Yes I do. I don't always call it god, but I'm comfortable with the word. Unfortunately however it comes with a lot of negative baggage and therefore common misconceptions.

Qualities : Loving, infinite, superbly creative and playful, self existent, mysterious, perfect, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, lovely and pretty damn sexy.

Peace and blessings.

[Ice Monkey]

Greetings people. My name is Johnny Spunkypants. I don't follow any religion. I believe in peace, harmony, and I believe in me. I believe in all of you too. You are all wonderful individual souls and I bless you all. I am not here to preach my views to any of you, but I am here to listen, and to give my two cents as and when. I don't feel the need to defend my views as my views are not under threat, I am perfectly secure in what I believe, however I'm open minded and ready to change my mind if I feel the need to. I'm also a very positive person, so I will often end my posts with a blessing. I do this partly for myself, as this is an extension of who I am, but also for you. Take it any way you want, this is me, this is who I am.

I hope you are also open minded, and by that I mean ready to challenge everything you think is true. I trust that you are all brave enough for that.

As for the question, why won't god heal amputees, well, think about it. Why would god heal amputees? If you're missing a leg or an arm, maybe there's a reason for that.

May you all prosper and may you all fulfill your ambitions in life.

I have no idea why anyone thinks God does anything, so you got me there.

Welcome to the board, Johnny.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

I have no idea why anyone thinks God does anything, so you got me there.

Welcome to the board, Johnny.

Life is full of mysteries. And living life is about learning and evolving. Thanks for the welcome.

Peace.

[Dante]

What do you mean when you say your god is "self existant"?

[Johnny Spunkypants]

What do you mean when you say your god is "self existant"?

God is self existent, this means that it isn't created, it's not a creation.

Peace.

[Dante]

God is self existent, this means that it isn't created, it's not a creation.

Peace.

How do you come to this conclusion?

[velkyn]

welcome, Johnny.  How do you bless me?

I'd say we are quite open minded. We aren't idiots though.  Just give evidence when making ridiculous claims.   

As for the question, why won't god heal amputees, well, think about it. Why would god heal amputees? If you're missing a leg or an arm, maybe there's a reason for that.

  Yep, often it's a IED or a railroad car or a disease.  Nothing that needs any god.  I do love to see that your god, (which one is it?) has to harm people for a "reason".  I'd be a better god than that. 

[Seppuku]

Yes, that's the main thing that bugs me. With infinite power God's so-called plan has to continue suffering on a seriously screwed up scale, what exactly necessitates the suffering of many innocent people in the world? An all powerful God can't achieve his goals without the pain and suffering and torture of his children? I don't buy it, unless one of his goals is pain and suffering, in which case he is not worthy of worship. I've seen people defend it with analogies of parenting, punishing your kids when they misbehave or allowing them to make their own mistakes so they may learn. If parents were like any gods out there, they would be considered negligent. If parents were like Bible-God, they'd be considered sick and twisted, abusive and a danger to their children, they would be locked up and in some parts of the world given the death penalty (especially if they've killed any of their kids) and they wouldn't be allowed anyway near their children again. Said children would probably receive a lot of counselling.

It amuses me (though at the same time I find it sad) that parents are considered responsible for the well being and upbringing of their kids, but a god isn't.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

I'm not a christian for the very reasons mentioned above. That is not god. That's a fairy tale (or possibly a twisted version of historical events) that uses the concept of a creator but which has nothing to do with what god is. I'm sure there are many atheists who used to be christians and then stopped when they realised that the bible's concept of god doesn't sound right. I don't blame them. As I say I'm not interested in religion because religion twists the truth about god. God is light years away from what religion says it is. Virtually nothing like it at all.

Peace and blessings.

[Seppuku]

Is your idea of god capable of divine intervention?

[Dante]

God is light years away from what religion says it is. Virtually nothing like it at all.

Again, I ask, how did you reach this conclusion?

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Is your idea of god capable of divine intervention?

I don't see god as something that exists outside of the universe and then perhaps chooses to intervene. I see god as something that is the universe, god is the conscious universe. So no, there's no intervention, no separation, rather a conscious universe expressing itself. The late Bill Hicks put it well when he said words to the effect that that we (as in you and I) are the universe experiencing itself subjectively. It's a good question, but it's a no, techinically, because there's no separation. Individuality yes, but ultimately we're all the universe. It's like a hologram, the whole contains the parts and the parts contain the whole.

Peace.

[Seppuku]

Whilst that is very poetic, what is it based on? You're talking about a conscience universe. I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion. Is it an idea that best fits how you look at the world? Or something that can be confirmed?

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Whilst that is very poetic, what is it based on?

It's based on gut feeling. My sense of knowing tells me that this is the nature of the universe. It's not unusual, it's very common and very natural. Meditation (quietening the mind and its constant automatic and prejudiced chatter) and philosophy are extremely underrated.

Peace.

[Alzael]

Meditation (quietening the mind and its constant automatic and prejudiced chatter) and philosophy are extremely underrated.

Peace.

Please don't even bother trying to pretend that you actually know anything about philosophy.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

Please don't even bother trying to pretend that you actually know anything about philosophy.

I'm happy to learn about any subject from those who have knowledge and understanding of it. It would be arrogant to assume one knows more than one does.

Peace.

[HAL]

It's based on gut feeling. My sense of knowing tells me that this is the nature of the universe.

Gut feelings eh?

You ever heard of Jim Jones^Wiki? The trouble going with gut feelings is that they can get you killed.

[Seppuku]

I meditate. As for philosophy, particularly that which comes from gut feeling is often flawed and shown to be inaccurate. If you're a philosophy buff, I respect the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Their philosophy is very much different to that to the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Thomas Aquinas and Descartes, in that instead of believing knowledge can be sought through the mind, but is achieved through experience, or what you might call 'Pure Reason', hence Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason', it's not a light read...in fact, it's something that'll hurt your brain (not implying anything about you, but it hurt mine).

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Whilst I do not wholly see eye to eye with Kant as he makes room for belief, but it is interesting how he says it though:

I had therefore to remove knowledge, in order to make room for belief.

He removes some of his own knowledge just so that he is able to believe. Now, I am unsure as to what belief he is referring to, but I know that Kant was a believer of God, it may well be the case he removed knowledge to make room for his belief in God. However, Kant is very much influential when it comes to empiricism.

Now, for Wittgenstein, on the simplest level, as he opens his book:

The world is all that is the case.
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
...snip...
The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.

Anyway, if we based our knowledge on pure reason or gut feeling and not what can be experienced, facts or  even empiricism then we would not be where we are today and unfortunately it's still people's idea of reason, of faith, of belief, of trusting what 'feels' right that endangers some people in the world[1]. Science is empirical, science is based off of facts, science uses what we can measure, it is through science that we get medicine, it is through science we get our technology, it is through science that we are able to see a much more accurate picture of the Universe, even if it's but a mere fragment of it.  Having gut feeling can mean anything and it could be so, so, so wrong. If anything, gut feeling is based on our own prejudices, how we perceive things and not necessarily with how things really are.

I suppose you may ask why I meditate? To calmly process my thoughts. To think about what I know and my experiences.

1.

why would I say this? Because people still don't believe in medical science, because people still believe things that could kill them are a myth because they reject reality for their own beliefs, people act on beliefs that lead to others being harmed. Whilst you may or may not be one of of those kinds of believers, but you are on the same spectrum and you must see the flaw in trusting your gut.