whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Why Won't God Heal Amputees? => Topic started by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 02:15:22 AM

Title: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 02:15:22 AM
Applicable to Confucianism and Buddhism?

Want to know.

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: blue on March 16, 2012, 02:42:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 02:47:55 AM
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: blue on March 16, 2012, 03:06:08 AM

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

Quote
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 [wiki]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?

 
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: sun_king on March 16, 2012, 03:11:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 04:23:18 AM
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? :)
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 04:30:02 AM

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

Quote
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 [wiki]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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 04:37:06 AM
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!
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: sun_king on March 16, 2012, 04:41:53 AM
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)
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 04:48:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 16, 2012, 04:50:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Grimm on March 16, 2012, 10:24:57 AM
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. :)

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: screwtape on March 16, 2012, 11:22:20 AM
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.

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 17, 2012, 10:46:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 17, 2012, 10:49:25 AM
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
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: joebbowers on March 17, 2012, 10:36:22 PM
WTF just happened? He clearly just posted a question he already knew the answer to. For what?
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: orpat on March 20, 2012, 08:04:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Grimm on March 21, 2012, 09:59:06 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: pbaylis on April 02, 2012, 02:47:31 AM
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 (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Bruce-van-Natta-112410.aspx)
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Quartinium on April 02, 2012, 05:28:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: screwtape on April 02, 2012, 07:02:27 AM
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 (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing/Bruce-van-Natta-112410.aspx)

Seriously? 

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Zankuu on April 02, 2012, 07:16:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: screwtape on April 02, 2012, 07:23:39 AM
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.

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Anfauglir on April 02, 2012, 07:24:27 AM
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?"
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 02, 2012, 07:29:01 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Anfauglir on April 02, 2012, 07:41:54 AM
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?
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 02, 2012, 07:58:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: pbaylis on April 03, 2012, 02:35:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: pbaylis on April 03, 2012, 03:18:28 AM
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 "Howard Storm - Former atheist near death (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwBEerA4_uY)".

.. 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.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Anfauglir on April 03, 2012, 03:40:51 AM
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.

Actually, its more than that, thinking about it.  Whenever we disparage the "sacrifice", we get told that Christ had no idea what was going to happen.  The Lazarus story makes that a lot feebler an argument.  Jesus was well aware that - through his god - people were being brought back to life, so he must have had at least a good suspicion that HE would be brought back too.

Like....he healed a lot of lepers as well.  If you could heal lepers, you'd be a lot more blase about shaking their hands.  So if you knew you had the power to make the dead live again, you'd be a lot more sanguine about doing anything that might lead to your "death".
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: sun_king on April 03, 2012, 03:44:25 AM
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.

Are there any other examples Jesus being divine? That is, example that won't automatically qaulify Criss Angel or David Copperfield as divinity?

Ever heard of the phrase "Saved by the bell", one of it probable origins is linked to premature burial. Look it up, maybe JC didn't die at all.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2012, 07:50:19 AM
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.

We are talking about a story on a website owned by a company that is notorious for being a front for scam artists and frauds.  We have no idea whether this story is fact or fiction.  And given the history of the 700 club, I think it is most likely fiction.

But, you would be hard-pressed to say that the regrowth of a heart is not on a par with regrowth of a leg. 

Sure.  Please show evidence of a heart regenerating.

The regrowth of removed intestines absolutely meets the criteria for unexpected regrowth.

It might if it actually happened.  As it stands, we have no way to know if it actually happened. We just have a story on a website that has been associated with frauds like Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson.  Please pardon us if we do not take it as rock-solid evidence or the "god's honest" truth.

Your only way out is to discredit the person or the story.

I think we are coming at it from different perspectives.  You have accepted the story at face value without any kind of investigation or critical analysis.  Our goal is not to discredit it, though it seems pretty easy to do. Our goal is to make sure that what is presented is actual and true.  I want to believe what is true.  I do not want to believe what is untrue.  You should want those things too.  You should be rigorous about it.  Do you or do you not care about the truth?

So, it's possible that God designs the clean loss of something like a limb as an intention of permanency.

So you are saying god has a plan?  How does that square with free will?

Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 03, 2012, 11:43:45 PM
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.

I think you're on to something there.
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: pbaylis on April 04, 2012, 02:20:48 AM
Here's another one for you. Complete and total atheist with his tail between his legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=w-v1Fppjlvc&NR=1
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: pbaylis on April 04, 2012, 02:27:08 AM
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.

We are talking about a story on a website owned by a company that is notorious for being a front for scam artists and frauds.  We have no idea whether this story is fact or fiction.  And given the history of the 700 club, I think it is most likely fiction.

But, you would be hard-pressed to say that the regrowth of a heart is not on a par with regrowth of a leg. 

Sure.  Please show evidence of a heart regenerating.

The regrowth of removed intestines absolutely meets the criteria for unexpected regrowth.

It might if it actually happened.  As it stands, we have no way to know if it actually happened. We just have a story on a website that has been associated with frauds like Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson.  Please pardon us if we do not take it as rock-solid evidence or the "god's honest" truth.

Your only way out is to discredit the person or the story.

I think we are coming at it from different perspectives.  You have accepted the story at face value without any kind of investigation or critical analysis.  Our goal is not to discredit it, though it seems pretty easy to do. Our goal is to make sure that what is presented is actual and true.  I want to believe what is true.  I do not want to believe what is untrue.  You should want those things too.  You should be rigorous about it.  Do you or do you not care about the truth?

So, it's possible that God designs the clean loss of something like a limb as an intention of permanency.

So you are saying god has a plan?  How does that square with free will?

Your signature talks about the "The Basic Con". The self-con would be the finest example of this. An example of someone indulging in this most basic and dishonest of cons would be someone who says things like "I want to know the truth and not believe a lie", while at the same time looking to find every possible way to not have to believe something which might in fact be true. I took the time to verify with the guy himself, by email, his personal experience. I don't yet have access to the medical records and reports. I have done something to verify the truth so I do not believe a lie. What, may I ask, have you done to ensure that you don't believe a lie, but only get the truth?


<<Mod: Edited Quotes>>
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Anfauglir on April 04, 2012, 02:43:16 AM
I took the time to verify with the guy himself, by email, his personal experience.

Gosh!  You mean, the story that he put on the website, he also said was true in an email?  Well, that's convincing.  I mean, when you email someone and ask if something is true, they'll immediately cave in and crack if they're lying, right?  They'd NEVER be so bold as to reply and say "yes, it really is true!"

I don't yet have access to the medical records and reports......

And I'm sure we'll all be delighted when they appear.  Not to mention astounded.  Be sure and post here when they arrive.

I have done something to verify the truth so I do not believe a lie. What, may I ask, have you done to ensure that you don't believe a lie, but only get the truth?

Have you?  You honestly regard emailing the same person who tells you the original story as trying to verify the truth?  Though to be fair, I doubt there is any way this story can be verified one way or the other - they're quite careful that way.

As far me.....hard to say in the general.  Did you have a specific lie you were concerned with? 
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Alzael on April 04, 2012, 11:17:55 AM
Here's another one for you. Complete and total atheist with his tail between his legs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=w-v1Fppjlvc&NR=1

From the video.

"And I checked into Whatley hospital in Texarkana, Texax in February of 1975.  I checked in with electrolytes, which means that the chemicals in my body were so far out of balance that they had to give me IVs to build me up.  "

This is pure gibberish. One does not "check in" with electrolytes. Electrolytes are a natural part of the body process. The closest condition that he could mean is a water-electrolyte imbalance. However the symptons that he describes do not match up with such a thing. And it certainly is not a condition that requires surgery. Either he's lying about what was wrong with him initially, or he's a terrible doctor.

"At that time of my life, I was atheist.  I was hard core atheist and was living for myself.   Atheists are self centered, they live for themselves. "

This statement is not only wrong, it's stupidly wrong. This does however sound exactly like what Christians try to claim about atheists.


[color=blue"]I knew I had a condition which is that was called Acute hemorrhagic narcotic pancreatitis.  You don’t live with this disease.  You could live with pancreatitis.  You could even live with Acute pancreatitis, but you do not live with Acute hemorrhagic narcotic pancreatitis.  Dunkon had told my two sons that I would be dead before morning."

Not true. While it certainly is a serious condition, the mortality rate (even in the seventies) was not extremely high and mostly due to complications with the surgical treatments than the disease itself (as per Wikipedia). Also interesting to note this from the medical section of the Free Dictionary "a condition due to autolysis of pancreatic tissue caused by escape of enzymes into the substance, resulting in hemorrhage into the parenchyma and surrounding tissues. Seen most commonly in dogs, rarely in horses and pigs."

While we're on the subject, this supposedy hit him and was threatening to kill him within the space of about four or five days, which is much faster than this normally works. Also while he doesn't (conveniently) describe the symptoms that he had what he does say about what happened to him does not really seem to measure up.

"I was laying there, a professed atheist.  I didn’t believe in God.  I believed in the power of the universe because I’ve seen it.  As a physician, I’ve dealt with life and death.  I believed in something, but don’t talk me about God. And surely don’t talk to me about resurrection, virgin birth or these type of things because I am in research and science.  The Majority of PHDs in research and science don’t believe in God.  They do not believe a supreme being.  They are beginning to believe there is an order in the universe because the further along we go, we see the order. "

These are not really the typical words of an atheist.

"But it is very difficult to be an atheist when you are lying on the death bed, because you began thinking "what if these people are right?" "

This is a common "foxholes" argument used by Christians. Matched alongside Pascal's Wager. Again this does sound like the thought process of an atheist. What it sounds more like is that he did have a belief in some kind of god, just not a defined religious god.

"When I was lying on my death bed and knowing that I was going to die, guess who I thought about?  I thought, "what if Ron is right? What if there is a Heaven and a Hell."  Almost immediately the most pressing thought in my mind is how do I get saved.  What is saved? How do I get saved? "

Again, Pascal's Wager. He came to Christianity out of fear. Not out of any genuine belief.

"There are people that talk about a light, or floating above, a feeling of warmth or love.  I didn’t feel any of that.  I felt none of that.  I felt untold terror, untold terror.  I knew that if I went all the way, if I slipped all the way, I would never get back.  In my being of beings I knew that.  So I fought all night long.

They told me later on that I not only pull the mattress cover off the mattress, I put the mattress upon me.  I had to stay, I had to wait till Ron got there.  Whatever he had to do, I had to wait.

But again when I would leave my body, I would be going down into deep dark terror.  My skin began to get cold.  Not the kind of cold you feel when you walk out in the air, no, this was bone chilling cold.  And I could feel the coldness began to come up my legs.

Again I would begin to leave my body and would be in the darkness, in that void.  I remember one time entering back my body, I felt my body thud, my physical body thud.  Believe me, believe me, that was the most horrifying terrifying experience that I had ever encountered.  "

This indicates nothing but the possibility of a bad dream, or a hallucination brought on by his condition. This is especially true in comparison to how sketchy the rest of what he's said has been.

"I fought all night long.  The next morning around 9:30 or 10 o’clock, Ron came in.  He said, “Dr.  Whitaker, what do they say are your chances?”  I said, “Ron, they tell me I have none.” He said, “Now is the time.” I said, “You're right.”

Before, I had cursed him, I had spit on him, but now it was the time because I had to have whatever he had.  I had a short period of time left on earth and I didn’t have any idea when I might make that trip and go all the way.  "

Note the bold. This is interesting because previously he says this about Ron.

"I would debate him and I liked him, because he did what he said he was going to do.  He was the only one that I saw that profess to be Christian and lived what he said he was going to do.  I really respected him.  I didn’t believe what he said but I respected him.  "

This presents two very contradictory views as nowhere in his narrative is it ever indicated that he had ever been unkind to Ron in anyway. However now he had suddenly been cursing and spitting on him. Thinking back this narrative seems like it was actually done by two different people and pieced together. It's very inconsistent.

It's basically the testimony of a man who saw something while he was ill and feverish (that is very poorly described) who already had some semblance of a god belief, that became a believer after he miraculously survived from a condition that a lot of other people survive from that hit him much faster than it normally would and behaved differently from the condition he claimed to have. Then while he was sick and feverish a man came to him and told him to pray and accept god, despite the fact that his mind is confused and highly vulnerable....... do I need to go on?
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2012, 12:13:53 PM
Your signature talks about the "The Basic Con". The self-con would be the finest example of this. An example of someone indulging in this most basic and dishonest of cons would be someone who says things like "I want to know the truth and not believe a lie", while at the same time looking to find every possible way to not have to believe something which might in fact be true.

Are you accusing me of lying?  Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite?  It sounds that way to me, but it sounds like you are trying to do it in a way that gives you plausible deniability.  So, if that is what you are saying, spit the marbles out of your mouth and say it. 

I've been direct and more or less cordial with you.  I've accused you at the worst of being... not all that bright.  There are worse things to be.  For example, dishonest.  Which you seem to have accused me of being.  This conversation can go a couple of ways.  Right now, I don't like the way you are taking it.  I suggest you take a minute and get your head screwed on right.  Because the tone going forward is up to you.

I took the time to verify with the guy himself, by email, his personal experience.

Right.  Because a guy who posted a story on a site owned by thieves and liars certainly wouldn't lie to you in an email. 

If he were lying or even exaggerating in his story, why do you think he would tell you the whole truth personally?  Why do you think the 700 Club is a reputable source?

What, may I ask, have you done to ensure that you don't believe a lie, but only get the truth?

Science.  I've done science.  Have you?


Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: velkyn on April 04, 2012, 01:52:56 PM
Your signature talks about the "The Basic Con". The self-con would be the finest example of this. An example of someone indulging in this most basic and dishonest of cons would be someone who says things like "I want to know the truth and not believe a lie", while at the same time looking to find every possible way to not have to believe something which might in fact be true. I took the time to verify with the guy himself, by email, his personal experience. I don't yet have access to the medical records and reports. I have done something to verify the truth so I do not believe a lie. What, may I ask, have you done to ensure that you don't believe a lie, but only get the truth?

Oh, I look for evidence, like medical records and reports.  If this was true, the claimant should have no problem with presenting you with contact information for his doctor, the hospital he was at, and his medical records.  He should be showing this to everyone if it's true.  However, since all people like this never do anythign of the kind, there is no reason to think they are telling the truth.  I do like the attempt to use the same old lies that theists try to spread about atheists.  I wonder, just how strongly you believe in your god if you are so willing to put your immortal soul on the line for something so petty. 

Alzael has done his usual fine job with tearing apart the lies of theists.  Now, I wonder are you honorable enough to apologize for trying to lie to everyone with such ridiculous video? 
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Historicity on April 04, 2012, 01:56:36 PM
I knew I had a condition which is that was called Acute hemorrhagic narcotic pancreatitis.
Did he say "narcotic"??

There is a condition called necrotizing pancreatitis (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/necrotizing+pancreatitis).  So did he say "narcotic pancreatitis" or "necrotic pancreatitis"?
Title: Re: Is this question "Why Won't God Heal Amputees? " ..................
Post by: Alzael on April 04, 2012, 02:12:00 PM
I knew I had a condition which is that was called Acute hemorrhagic narcotic pancreatitis.
Did he say "narcotic"??

There is a condition called necrotizing pancreatitis (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/necrotizing+pancreatitis).  So did he say "narcotic pancreatitis" or "necrotic pancreatitis"?

He said narcotic. I was quoting directly from a written copy of the same testimony that was being said in the video from another Christian site. I assumed that he had meant necrotizing in my post, however. He really isn't a very good speller. A lot of his written testimony contains errors like that. I checked other sites too and the mistakes are in his original writings.