Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

165 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
What percentage of those

What percentage of those asserting they believe he was an historical figure are theists, with a massive amount invested in that religious belief? What you seem to be missing here as a lot of theists do is that the evidence such as it is does not support a definitive position on whether Jesus existed or not. For me as an atheists it doesn't matter, as absolute proof Jesus existed doesn't in any way evidence any claim he was anything but human. You could prove unequivocally he existed, and you'd still be left holding an empty bag with all your work before you.

I started a thread asking theists for their best objective evidence for any deity, and not one theists could offer anything approaching objective evidence for a deity, yourself included.

Sapporo's picture
I don't find the contemporary

I don't find the contemporary claim that Julius Caesar was a god to be plausible. Other details from contemporary records are more plausible.

I don't find the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a god to be plausible. I'm not aware of any contemporary records about "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, this does not mean I can say he did not even exist as a man. But it should be said that the Jews of that time were especially fond of Messianic cults.

Philo of Alexandria actually reveals in his accounts that there was a belief in a celestial being named Jesus before the time of the "Jesus of Nazareth" cult:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philo

This means that "Jesus of Nazareth" the man could just have been invented by some Jews engaging in wish-fulfillment. Hence my view is that nothing can be meaningfully determined about whether or not "Jesus of Nazareth" actually existed.

Sheldon's picture
You've entirely missed the

@ JoC

You've entirely missed the point of the exchange.

There is no special treatment for Jesus from atheists, only theists. That is axiomatic.

If you mean why is contemporary evidence important, then this depends whats being claimed. For example, I was responding to the author of the thread's erroneous claim that contemporary evidence was documented for Jesus as an historical figure.

The absence of that evidence isn't that important to me. As I don't care if he existed or not, because there is zero evidence for any of the supernatural claims, or that he was anything but human if indeed he existed at all.

The insignificance of his alleged visit seems an odd fact for you to assert though?

AJ777's picture
The books titled Matthew,

The books titled Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc... are all contemporary documents containing eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection.

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

HUGE PILE of BULLSHISTE and HORSE HOOWHEE!! You are so full of it ain't you? So damned arrogant. You have just proven you have done no research into anything biblical except as this meme states (bold text)…

Scientists/Atheists read many books and still feel they have a lot to learn.
Religions Absolutists barely read one book and feel they know everything.

AJ777, why don't you go away and do some actual research. Actually learn something worthwhile. Then come back in about 20 years after you have finally earned a Baccalaureate in something.

The books titled Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc... are all contemporary documents containing eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection.

Do you even know what the word “contemporary” means? Actually, why am I even asking. 7734! You do not even know what “atheism” means. HELL! you don't even know the definition for ANY words.

contemporary
[kuhn-tem-puh-rer-ee]

adjective
• existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time.
• of about the same age or date.
• of the present time; modern.

noun, plural con·tem·po·rar·ies.
• a person belonging to the same time or period with another or others.
• a person of the same age as another.

The gospels were far from being comtemporary. According to ALL biblical scholars, and averaging their determined dates…
      • Heysoos died in 32 CE.
      • Gospel of Mark was written in 61 CE.
      • Gospel of Matthew was written in 72 CE, and was plagiarized from gospel of Mark.
      • Gospel of Luke was written in 76 CE, and was plagiarized from gospels of Mark and Matthew.
      • Gospel of John was written in 92 CE.

Using today's date as the reference point, I want you to specifically tell me with exquisite detail everything that happened on the below listed dates. And do not use any research to find out. Rely only and wholly upon your fallacious memory.

  • Tuesday 29 January 1989
  • Tuesday 29 January 1978
  • Tuesday 29 January 1974
  • Tuesday 29 January 1969

I have $100 on that you CANNOT do it. Human memory does not work that way. The plagiarizers who wrote the gospels had to rely on at least about 30 years of "Chinese Whispers" about this story getting bigger and bigger and finally so blown out of proportion. It is also exactly like that "Fish That Got Away" stories. It gets bigger and bigger and bigger…

AJ777, why don't you just quit making a fool of yourself?

rmfr

ThinkTank's picture
@arakish

@arakish

Wouldn't your comment suggest that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WERE contemporaries? They claimed to have walked with Jesus. They lived at the same time as Jesus. They spoke to Jesus. Then wrote down what they saw 40, 50, 60 years later. That is still within the definition of contemporary that you so graciously provided us.

The second half of your comment does nothing but suggest we should expect some ill remembered accounts, or some small differences in recounting an event that they all wrote about; which there is...

Nyarlathotep's picture
ThinkTank - Wouldn't your

ThinkTank - Wouldn't your comment suggest that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WERE contemporaries?

Perhaps, but the books that bear their names (by tradition only) are not.

Sapporo's picture
ThinkTank:

ThinkTank:

@arakish

Wouldn't your comment suggest that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John WERE contemporaries? They claimed to have walked with Jesus. They lived at the same time as Jesus. They spoke to Jesus. Then wrote down what they saw 40, 50, 60 years later. That is still within the definition of contemporary that you so graciously provided us.

The second half of your comment does nothing but suggest we should expect some ill remembered accounts, or some small differences in recounting an event that they all wrote about; which there is...

Actually, the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are anonymous accounts and there is no good evidence they actually physically met Jesus.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Aj777

@ Aj777

The books titled Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc... are all contemporary documents containing eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection.

LOL...which apologist fed you THAT line of horse shit? The synoptic gospels were mainly copies of Mark, early versions of Matthew and Luke did not contain the Nativity guff. John was written by up to 4 people in a period extending from the beginning of the 2nd Century CE to the late middle of the century.

Lets get some facts together: ( I know you don't like facts, but hey junior, medicine has to be taken):

"a) The Synoptic gospels are all anonymous, and, are not contemporary at all. The earliest fragment being P137 dating from 160 CE. Although there is mention of the 3 synoptic gospels before then (Even at the turn of the 1st Century) we have no idea of the original content. The current versions we have cannot “evidence” the Jesus figure.

b)The Gospel of John. Earliest known fragment,(P52) earliest possible date is 125CE. Most scholars now agree that 'John” is the work of up to four authors over a period of years. Not evidence.

c)The 1st and 2nd Century CE, Gnostic, Ebionite, Syriac and Marcionite gospels we know had considerable difference to, and with, the finally accepted (4th Century) versions of the Roman gospels. This further casts doubt on any content of the current version synoptic gospels and that of John.

d)The Epistles. i) the Epistles are anonymous. We do not know who 'Paul' was ii) Only the first three Epistles can be confidently assigned to the same writer. ii) The rest of The Epistles excluding the final three are either 'mash ups' of many letters, some interpolations, but all unreliable. iv). Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy and Hebrews are NOT by the same author and appear to be much later forgeries.
This renders most of the contents especially when describing the Jesus figure, as unreliable at best. And is certainly not evidence for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels.

e) A comparison of Acts and the Epistles quickly shows up glaring contradictions. Almost as if Acts is describing a different person. One can confidently disallow The Epistles as “evidence” of any Jesus figure.

In conclusion the best that we can say is, as I have stated many times: “There is no contemporary evidence for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None.”
That some people may take this as a starting point to mythicise the Jesus figure is understandable, others may deny the existence. Absence of evidence can, indeed, be 'evidence of absence.' However I prefer the Scottish verdict in Law ”Not Proven”.

(Edit tags)

Sheldon's picture
PMLMAO. I hope for your sake

PMLMAO. I hope for your sake that you're trolling again.

"The four Gospels... are all anonymous, written in the third person about Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative, or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness.

Sometime in the second century, ( over 200 yrs after the fact) when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,"

http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html#Anon

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

Why do I never get an answer from you?

Sheldon's picture
Fri, 02/01/2019 - 03:15

Fri, 02/01/2019 - 03:15 (Reply to #82)
Old man shouts ...

@ AJ777

Why do I never get an answer from you?
---------------------------------------------------

I feel your pain, he's one of the most dishonest posters I've seen on here since John Breezy left.

Diotrephes's picture
AJ777,

AJ777,

"The books titled Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc... are all contemporary documents containing eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection."

So are books about Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Hercules, Frankenstein, Dracula, Jack and the Bean Stalk, and Harry Potter. We even have actual movies to prove that they were real.

Sheldon's picture
"The books titled Matthew,

"The books titled Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, etc... are all contemporary documents containing eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection."

Not even remotely correct. You perhaps don't know what contemporary means? Not one word was written about Jesus until long after he was purported to have died.

Claiming that an unknown author, was citing (unevidenced and unverifiable) eye witness accounts, decades or even centuries after the fact, shouldn't need explaining, even to a theist.

Your post is either risible nonsense or outright duplicity. Or both of course.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Think Tank

@ Think Tank

The Tacitus reference is not proof or contemporary evidence. It is only an account of what Jewish Christians reportedly believed. It was written some 30 to 40 years after the 60CE Great Fire and so is hearsay.

If you want a list of "evidence", by means of mentions by writers in the 1st and 2nd Century CE that theists mistakenly use I can supply you with the accurate references. ( Done see post above)

The fact is there is no contemporary evidence(as Sheldon correctly pointed out) for a Jesus figure as described in the gospels. None.

(Edit to note point replied and spelling)

arakish's picture
@ ThinkTank

@ ThinkTank

Also, think on this. "Maimed" does not necessarily mean "lost limbs." I literally maimed my foot by pushing one those underbed storage tubs under my couch. I did not know there was a steel spur sticking from the couch's frame. I maimed my foot, but did not lose my foot. Think Critically about it.

rmfr

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
@think tank Arakish brings a

@think tank Arakish brings a good point here. The quote you use for reference does not specify that the people had any lost limbs. It used other words to describe injury and it would be wrong to interpret that without any supportive content.

JoC's picture
I think the amputee question

I think the amputee question is more of, "Why won't God heal amputees today?" The argument goes that if God exist and He says you can ask anything of Him, why won't He heal amputees today? And so what if the Bible says Jesus healed amputees. Even if it's true, it doesn't diminish the original argument of why God won't heal amputees today.

Note: Yes, I'm still a Christian.

Sapporo's picture
@JoC I think that is part of

@JoC I think that is part of the common intent of such a question, but I think the root of the question is "Why doesn't God perform unambiguous acts of healing?"

JoC's picture
I get it. Like things that

I get it. Like things that would erase absolutely all doubt. Like asking God to cure a cold and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal cancer and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal an amputated limb and it instantaneously grows back. Is that right?

Sapporo's picture
JoC: I get it. Like things

JoC: I get it. Like things that would erase absolutely all doubt. Like asking God to cure a cold and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal cancer and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal an amputated limb and it instantaneously grows back. Is that right?

Most conditions are such that they are either not visible apparent or they exist in degrees of severity that are not readily discernible to an observer.

It is also known that many conditions can be alleviated, at least for a short period of time, via something similar to a placebo effect, something a conman or a well-meaning person can exploit. (arguably, this includes medical professionals).

I do not know how easy it would be to tell whether a cold or a cancer has instantaneously disappeared. I only know that such conditions naturally get better some of the time.

However, in the case of a limb, they are not known to grow back. Although I do not see any physical reason why science cannot do such a thing some day.

CyberLN's picture
Sapporo, you wrote, “However,

Sapporo, you wrote, “However, in the case of a limb, they are not known to grow back. Although I do not see any physical reason why science cannot do such a thing some day.”

Given the rate at which manufactured limbs are improving, it may not be worth spending the resources to learn how to regrow them.

Sapporo's picture
CyberLN: Sapporo, you wrote,

CyberLN: Sapporo, you wrote, “However, in the case of a limb, they are not known to grow back. Although I do not see any physical reason why science cannot do such a thing some day.”

Given the rate at which manufactured limbs are improving, it may not be worth spending the resources to learn how to regrow them.

That could certainly be true!

Sheldon's picture
"things that would erase

"things that would erase absolutely all doubt. Like asking God to cure a cold and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal cancer and it instantaneously happens. Or asking God to heal an amputated limb"

I'd say only the last one is unambiguous evidence that natural phenomena are unlikely to be involved. Its interesting to me you'd accept the first two as unambiguous evidence something supernatural occurred.

Incidentally if you apply rational principles of validation, none of them could be argued as evidence for anything. What you'd have is something you couldn't explain, thus making assertions based on that ignorance is the very definition of an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Its edifying to see how much lower theists set the bar for belief thanthe average atheists, but shouldn't really surprise us given their opposing positions on belief in a deity.

However, far more significant to me is that theists don't apply the same standard in an open minded and unbiased way. The way I've seen most atheists do. For example and for the sake of argument....

If someone lost a limb and prayed to the aztec deity of gluttony to grow it back and it grew back, would you leave christianity to worship that deity? How about cancer going completely into remission? Or a cold being instantly cured?

These were your examples after all of unambiguous proofs or evidence?

I'm guessing not, I'm also guessing you'll obfuscate now with a chirpy, but ironic appeal for evidence it's actually happened. Which of course would miss the point entirely.

How do theists resolve so much cognitive dissonance? With rationalisations and a lot of handxwaving and a slew of logical fallacies usually.

Diotrephes's picture
JoC,

JoC,

"...it doesn't diminish the original argument of why God won't heal amputees today."

If God restored limbs today he would get sued for practicing medicine without a license. Think of all of the people he would put out of work with his magic tricks.

Suppose you had paid attention in school and learned some useful scientific knowledge and discovered how to regrow lost limbs. You would be a genius but your technique only gave the person the limb the size of a newborn baby and it took decades for the limb to be equal to what was lost. Would you be happy?

The Jesus character said that people should cut off body parts if they cause them to sin. If that is true then why would the biblical God want to restore lost limbs and other body parts? Doctors can already do organ transplants so why not limbs? Get a chicken carcass and start practicing.

arakish's picture
Ultimately, no matter how

Ultimately, no matter how hard cry and whine and yell and holler, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE the magic lich virgin known as Heysoos ever existed. Even the gospels are crap because none of them can get time of its birth correct, the place of its birth correct, nothing. The only one that may be considered to honest is the gospel of John. And that is only because it was written without using any of the other three and half dozen other gospels as a basis of plagiarism.

As for Tacitus, the only thing he ever wrote is about a bunch of heathenistic barbarian goat herders worshiping someone named Heysoos. In fact, that is all any of the Roman records some 50 to 150 years later say. And the gospels themselves are NOT contemporary, being written 35, 45, 50, and 70 years after this supposedly magic lich virgin lived and died.

rmfr

rat spit's picture
“There’s no pleasing some

“There’s no pleasing some people.”

https://youtu.be/REUukm_WQJI

doG's picture
Well, aside from the fact

Well, aside from the fact that when certain cells are damaged, they do not regenerate, which is a fact of human physiology and reality, jeebus never existed. Also using a book or documents about a specific document to validate that same document is a failure in logic...please rephrase your question so it is no longer annoying.

AJ777's picture
Here’s a long read on why God

Here’s a long read on why God isn’t more obvious, or chooses to remain hidden.

http://pmoser.sites.luc.edu/idolanon/GodMoreObvious.pdf

arakish's picture
@ AJ777

@ AJ777

And we would read any bullshit from a link you provide why? The answer is simple. God is not more obvious perhaps because your make-believe imagiment of fignation does not exist?

I ain't reading that bullshit paper you link. I am through reading anything any religious person has to say simply due to the fact I have heard ABSOLUTELY every possible apologetic bullshit lie any of you theists can even think of. Not a one of you can even think for yourself. Not a one of your can think of anything new. At least in science, there is always something new every day.

Damn, I am getting on a rant.

rmfr

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.