Hey Guys, First post. I have been an atheist for a long time now, since leaving Christianity. I still read the bible occasionally, because I believe unless we know what it says, then we can't build a strong defense against it. I'm sure the title of this thread got a lot of eye rolls, because it is obviously a cliche question. Christians never have a good answer for it and it seems like a trumper of a question. Here's the thing though. I was reading the bible earlier this week, and came across a passage in Matthew. It made me pause, and then wonder if "Why doesn't god heal amputees" can no longer be used as a trump card.
Here's why. When the question is posed, it is usually meant in other words, "why doesn't go heal those who are missing limbs". This is according to the current definition of "amputee".
amputee (n.)
1910, perhaps on a French model; see amputation
amputation (n.)
1610s, "a cutting off of tree branches, a pruning," also "operation of cutting off a limb, etc., of a body," from Middle French amputation or directly from Latin amputationem (nominative amputatio), noun of action from past-participle stem of amputare "to cut off, lop off; cut around, to prune," from am(bi)- "around" (from PIE root *ambhi- "around") + putare "to prune, trim" (from PIE root *pau- (2) "to cut, strike, stamp").
So the word amputation officially became part of our language in the early 1600s, and amputee, even later than that. But of course people have been missing limbs since the beginning of humanity, so what was the word they used prior to amputation/amputee.
The word "maim" appears throughout the bible.
verb (used with object)
1) to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple:
2) to impair; make essentially defective:
noun Obsolete.
1) a physical injury, especially a loss of a limb.
2) an injury or defect; blemish; lack.
In Greek, (early translation of the Hebrew biblical texts) the words "Kullos" and "Cholos" are used, and these words both refer to maiming, or losing a limb. So it seems the bible does mention amputees.
Matthew 5:30-31 (KJV) "And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them: Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel."
This passage says Jesus healed this group of men, including the maimed and made them whole.
So dear fellow atheists. What can be made of this? Do we have to give up using the 'Amputee's Dilemma' once and for all?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
As far as I can determine, "God" is less able to heal amputees than I am.
"As far as I can determine, "God" is less able to heal amputees than I am."
Why? What have you determined that proves this point? I mean, sure, the only proof we have is that the bible says so, but if you are debating a Christian, then it is useful to quote the bible. So considering my OP, it doesn't seem to you that Jesus healed amputees?
I've not been persuaded that the account you gave has been independently verified, nor have I been persuaded that Jesus was "God".
Similarly, I have not been persuaded that Zeus has thrown thunderbolts at humans he has disagreed with, based on written accounts that have recorded such alleged incidents.
You can't offer an unevidenced anecdotal claim from a book ...as evidence. Why do theists never understand this? No book can evidence it's own claims, that is axiomatic. Do you believe the legends of Hercules are real, or Harry Potter?
@Sheldon
If I start talking about Dumbledore riding Shadowfax across middle earth or Gandalf fighting off the death eaters from Hogwarts then maybe you would have a point.
No, I made a point, and you have ignored it yet again. The intent behind the claim doesn't tell us anything about it's validity. Quoting the bible at atheists is inane, the bible contains claims, not evidence. Else Harry Potter would validate wizardry.
@Sheldon
Sheldon . . . hey! Sheldon! Not interested.
Then take you own advice for once, and shut the fuck up.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/determinism#comment-13...
@Sheldon
I did. For about the first 50 times. Then I thought, maybe I have to try another tactic with you. 'Cause you wouldn't shut the fuck up. Over and over and over and over and over - like you couldn't ever bear the possibility that someone would disagree with you or have another opinion or believe something you don't believe.
"Waaaaa!" You cried at ever possible turn. "Waaaaaaaaaaa!!!!"
Shut the fuck up.
I'm not interested, because you're not interesting.
@Sheldon
I am not a theist, Sheldon. I am simply saying that if the bible were accurate, then there are claims that god healed amputees. Of course, we don't have evidence that the bible is correct, so the argument should never get to this point.
...if the bible could be shown to be accurate, then non-Christians would not be able to use it as a "trump card".
@Sapporo
Well . . . that isn't entirely true. Let's say that a non-Christian says something like there isn't such a thing as a soul. Well, first of all what's a soul? There is a difference between what the Bible says and what Aristotle or Socrates or Plato said. As it turns out Christianity adopted the immortal soul concept from them, who got it from ancient Babylon. So, there is no such thing as the soul as the superstitious pagan thought, who would bind the hands and feet of the dead to prevent the un-dead from doing harm to the living, or that Socrates thought about some invisible part of you that left your body and went on to heaven to live with the gods.
In the Bible the soul is the blood, life, the breath, the experiences, the desire of any breathing living creature, and it dies.
So, all of that sort of has to be sorted out.
I'm not sure I'm following your argument.
You seem to be saying that the "soul" is at best, a redundant word that describes something real that is adequately defined by another name.
I don't see how that is relevant to my post.
@Sapporo
No, I'm saying that you can't judge the Bible by contrary teachings later adopted by the apostate church or theology during the dark ages, which is often the case. In order to accurately criticize the Bible you have to distinguish these pagan influences. The soul was an example of that.
This thread is about whether or not event\s occurred. I don't see what relevancy that has to "teachings".
@Sapporo
Same thing. Teachings or events. Same thing.
You said: "...if the bible could be shown to be accurate, then non-Christians would not be able to use it as a "trump card"."
How could it be thought of as accurate if you associate it with the immortal soul of Greek philosophy rather than what it actually taught? You would dismiss it immediately. If you think that the Genesis account has the universe being created in 144 hours 6,000 years ago why would you bother to find out if Jesus healed amputees? Which he didn't by the way but I thought the question was to establish not if he had but why he doesn't now. But I'm sort of lost in this crazy format. I remember now that's why I left. Twice. First as Earthling Man and then as Pathway Machine.
ThinkTank: "I am simply saying that if the bible were accurate, then there are claims that god healed amputees."
Nope. Nowhere in the Bible. Healed everything else such as leprosy, cripples, resurrection, but never grew a new limb. Sorry it ain't in the Bible. This means that the god of the Bible is not Omnipotent.
rmfr
Whoa whoa. That took a leap.
"Nope. Nowhere in the Bible. Healed everything else such as leprosy, cripples, resurrection, but never grew a new limb. Sorry it ain't in the Bible. "
I stated in my OP that he did heal amputees too. Did you even read it?
"This means that the god of the Bible is not Omnipotent"
Im surprised you would make such a poor conclusion, arakish. I thought you were better than this. Even if he DIDN'T heal amputees, it does not necessarily follow that he COULDN't do it.
Before, you were saying that the existence of a biblical account meant that atheists could not ask Christians "Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?"
...now you are saying that atheists cannot ask that question because the lack of evidence does not mean that "God" does not heal amputees.
@ ThinkTank
Yes I read your OP. And as far as I can remember, neither the sky faerie, nor the magic lich virgin ever healed any amputees.
I Shall be the first to admit I may wrong about this in the Bible, but I do not think I am.
ThinkTank: "Im surprised you would make such a poor conclusion, arakish. I thought you were better than this. Even if he DIDN'T heal amputees, it does not necessarily follow that he COULDN't do it."
Because as all the Religious Absolutists are always saying, "If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't true."
Also "Even if he DIDN'T heal amputees, it does not necessarily follow that he COULDN't do it." This is your claim. Not mine. Did I say any such thing? I never said it could not heal an amputee. I just stated there are NO bliblical recordings of any amputee being given a new limb.
Utliize critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought before you assume a person meant more than they actually wrote.
My point is exactly as I wrote it. Since there are NO biblical recordings of ANY amputee being given a new limb, then their sky faerie ain't omnipotent.
No leap needed. Instead, Occam's Razor. Also Arakish's Razor.
rmfr
I don't know why I find it necessary to correct you, except that I don't like that instead of just saying "ya, my bad", you continue to argue your point while maliciously using insults to prove your point. This is the attitude that makes these conversations (and politics) so difficult to make ground.
"Sorry it ain't in the Bible. This means that the god of the Bible is not Omnipotent."
It IS in the bible, I quoted it in the OP. I am not assuming anything. I AM "Utlilize(ing) critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought" to conclude that your conclusion is incorrect. You literally said it. 'It's not in the bible so that means god is not omnipotent.' And you said it twice. So I will say it twice, "Even if he DIDN'T heal amputees, it does not necessarily follow that he COULDN't do it." No evidence needed.
@ ThinkTank
Then prove it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say any amputees were given "new limbs."
rmfr
@ThinkTank
Welcome to atheist republic forums! At least on my end I always welcome more atheist and theist to chat with here.
When I bring up that "god has never healed amputees," I am not stating that the bible never mentions it, honestly I could care less if the bible mentions it or not. I have learned long ago that pointing out the bibles many many flaws rarely if ever convinces someone perhaps their god is made up.
I point out god does not heal amputees to point out that the miracles people give "god" credit for beating cancer or something, but this same "god" has never been shown to have amputees regrow lost limbs.
I have come across many theist that will talk about how great god is, and part of the proof of god is the miracles he performs. A way to disprove the miracles people give god credit for, is, when we are talking miracle range and god being all powerful, god should be able to cure "limbs" just like he could cure cancer, but a god never has done so. Why is that? Perhaps because people are giving credit to a non existent god for normal every day random chance, or more likely: not well understood occurrences.
In a sense I am kicking out one of the "legs" the theist platform stands on, making it hopefully more and more unstable in a theist apologist mind about the likelihood of their god idea being real. I know I am unlikely to change minds, (especially theist that visit here to defend their god ideas.) But I do like to see how they respond to it. I learn a lot about people in general, especially theist based on how they deal with stumbling blocks like that.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Interesting reply, LogicFTW, thank you.
I understand now, that the argument is in response to cancer being cured by god. This makes sense! Soooo, let's delete this thread! lol
My apologies I see you are an atheist, but as you say the biblical claims are not evidence of anything.
ThinkTank,
The Jesus character said that you should cut off body parts if they cause you to sin (Matthew 5:29-30). So why would Jealous grow them back for you if you have cut them off?
Don't you think it would be painful to grow a full and complete adult leg or arm? Imagine how many calories and how much water that would require. And if animals could regrow limbs you could just keep cutting them off and eating them without having to kill the entire animal. Maybe that happens in another galaxy.
@Diotrephes
We are on the same side here, so it pains me to write anything that disagrees. But this doesn't really address the OP.
"The Jesus character said that you should cut off body parts if they cause you to sin (Matthew 5:29-30). So why would Jealous grow them back for you if you have cut them off?"
How do you conclude the second statement from the first?
"Don't you think it would be painful to grow a full and complete adult leg or arm? Imagine how many calories and how much water that would require. And if animals could regrow limbs you could just keep cutting them off and eating them without having to kill the entire animal. Maybe that happens in another galaxy."
First of all, you are describing the natural regeneration of limbs, not addressing a miraculous healing. I imagine the latter would be simultaneous and not in the least bit painful. According the other claims from the bible, I would actually imagine it to be the exact opposite of painful. Second, regrowth of body parts isn't painful. For one, animals in nature that regrow limbs do not appear to experience any pain associated with regrowth. Secondly, do you feel your bones growing as you age? Or a cut heals itself? There is no pain there.
ThinkTank,
If the God character exists as described why would he go through the trouble of restoring missing limbs when he could have simply made it impossible for anyone to lose body parts in the first place?
"If the God character exists as described why would he go through the trouble of restoring missing limbs when he could have simply made it impossible for anyone to lose body parts in the first place?"
There are two main reasons for this. First, because it would be in contradiction to the Christian belief in free will. Second, there is a lesson to be learned in the passage you mentioned above about god telling people to cut off their own limbs. God found it important to give this instruction (an elaborated response can be given, but I'd rather not ) for reasons that Christians can justify.
So again, in acknowledgement of the OP, I don't see this response or your first to be an adequate justification that god didn't heal amputees. Questions "why" god does something does not negate that he did it, even if it seems he is taking the long way around...
Pages