Christians believe that God answers prayers and does miraculous healings...but why does he never ever heal an amputee?

@SW-User

I think this misses the point on two counts.


If you believe that god answers prayers and does miraculous healings then "do not test the lord your god" does not apply here and the question remains why not one of these miraculous healings has ever been something as incontrovertible as a regrown limb.


This is not about what man is made to do on his own but about intercessory prayer, healing and the fact that god appears to heal things which sometimes heal on their own but never things that are impossible to heal on their own.

@Pikachu Regrowth is not what was promised to you, but what was promised was the healing of sickness and disease. I mean we could go into the utterly ridiculous and question why we can't miraculously become young again. That's not in the realms of possiblity naturally, but healing of disease is.

@SW-User


Is it possible for the dead to rise from the grave naturally?
Because Lazarus did.
He was dead four days and then god brought him back to life.
Sorry, this argument that god's healing miracles only do what can be achieved naturally just isn't consistent with the Bible.

So since we know this....why do the healings ostensibly done by god only number those things which can heal naturally?
How then is it a miracle and not just a statistical anomaly?

@Pikachu I am the resurrection and life

So yeah, that's scriptural. I repeat, nowhere are you promised a newly grown limb in the scriptures.

"How then is it a miracle and not just a statistical anomaly"

A natural man will always seek for natural answers to supernatural matters.

@SW-User


That's a bit of a non sequitur since I don't think i ever claimed it was.
But let me as you this: Is physical healing promised in the Bible?
Because if yes, then there's no reason a regrown limb is outside of that remit for it is physical healing.
If no, then there is no promise of healing and yet god ostensibly heals all the time...just never a missing limb and only things which can heal naturally...which is problematic for the conclusion that this is miraculous.


Supernatural? But you said yourself before i reminded you of Lazarus that god heals only what is in the realm of natural possibility. So how odes one justifiably conclude that such natural healing is in fact supernatural healing?
Like i said, if someone prayed for an amputee to regrow a limb and the limb grew back...i'd be pretty likely to give this god thing a second thought because that is indeed supernatural.

@Pikachu
This not about what you said, it's about what was promised and why your question makes no sense based on scripture.


Yes there is, for the very reason you cannot change back to being young again. Hence I brought up the don't test the Lord your God bit which you misunderstood. Don't ask foolishly. You don't pray to fly because you you aren't set up to fly, nor do limbs grow back. That's not how the human body works. A healing of a severed limb doesn't need prayer, the body is set to fix itself up by closing up at the point it was dismembered.


I'm replying to your choice if words statistical anomaly . That's what every miracle is to to a natural man. For example, someone comes and says I had a severed limb "but now it has grown back" , what's the conclusion everytime to any natural man to whom God is a fantasy friend in the sky?

@SW-User


...but people aren't set up to rise from the dead after decomposing for 4 days either and yet apparently this is a healing god is willing and able to perform. Your "you can't pray for what isn't natural" argument makes no sense based on scripture.


And is physical healing promised or is it not?
And why isn't a missing limb an injury which could be miraculously healed? If you want to exclude such a thing from the sort of healing that god can perform then you need to address the healing of Lazarus which is even more unnatural than a human having a an arm grow back. Until you do that you can't use the "it's not how humans are made" argument because it is inconsistent with the scripture.

@Pikachu
No they aren't unless God Himself addresses them to do so. Again I have to repeat myself...as is said in the scriptures . I am the resurrection.


Lazarus wasn't prayed for. He was command to rise.


I have numerous times now but as always you circle back to points already addressed.

@SW-User


Irrelevant because all you're saying is that if god wills it so then it can be done whether or not it's how humans are made to work.
That may be to prove a point or it may in response to a prayer. It still undermines your claim that regrowing limbs isn't done because it's not how humans are made to work. That is not a barrier if god chooses to intervene.
So....why hasn't he ever intervened in that way? Why is it ONLY things which can heal naturally?


I suppose it's fair to say you have addressed it but you haven't reconciled the claim with the scriptures in a parsimonious way.

Is physical healing promised or is it not?
And why isn't a missing limb an injury which could be miraculously healed?
If it is an injury that could be miraculously healed, why has it never been done?

@Pikachu
Because your interpretation of healing is that a limb should grow back which is nonsense. That's not how the human body works and is not scriptural.

To address other things that God could do but doesn't, well why does the sun not talk? Why doesn't the moon sing ? Why don't fish walk on two feet? Is there anything else you'd like to add that God could do but chooses not to?

@SW-User


Ok, so the "that's not how the human bod works" argument is nonsense because we've got scriptural evidence that this is not a barrier to the kind of healing god can perform.
Unless you can refute that point logic demands that you stop deploying this argument.

As for regrowing a limb not being recorded in the Bible, are you arguing that only healings which are specifically mentioned in the Bible are ones which god will perform today?


Reductio ad absurdum fallacy noted.
Do people pray for that? No, people pray for healing and god ostensibly answers those prayers and heals...just never something like a missing limb or eye or even so much as a little toe.

@Pikachu

Why do you leave out the not scriptural bit of the quote?



Aaahh so Is your argument that if people pray for it it should happen?

@SW-User


I didn't. I've separated these arguments because they are distinct. The "not natural" argument is one you must abandon because it is not supported by scripture.
The "not in scripture" argument is one i asked you to elaborate on. I'll repeat my question here:

As for regrowing a limb not being recorded in the Bible, are you arguing that only healings which are specifically mentioned in the Bible are ones which god will perform today?


lol no, my argument was that no one is praying for the moon to sing but they are praying for healing.
Even Christians who believe in intercessory prayer don't think it should work every time.
But if it works at all then surely there should be at least ONE example in history of such a miraculous healing like a regrown limb. Or hell, even an earlobe lol

@Pikachu
But it is you that chose to separate them. But I'll give that one to you for the sake of moving on.

So no the bible does not name all ailments under the sun however we know what healing means. The issue is you want to redefine healing from a severed limb as one that grows back which isn't how that works. How it works is that the limb would close up at the point at which dismemberment occured.



Yes and by that logic if I then should pray to fly it should happen yes? If that doesn't follow with your logic why not. ?

@SW-User


Sure. But that wouldn't be a miracle. A regrown limb would be.
So we agree that regrowing a limb isn't natural but in what way would (were it to occur) not be considered a healing?


Well no, we agree that not every prayer is answered. But giving superpowers is not something that we are told god does while we are explicitly told that he does heal.
That is a different category or prayer altogether.
Although if you have faith even the size of a mustard seed you can move mountains, so who knows. Keep praying😉

@Pikachu
No that wouldn't, but a healing from cancer might be, AIDS perhaps or numerous other so called incurable disease.


So not scriptural.


Scriptural. So we agree. The issue then is your desire to redefine healing as it pertains to a severed limb.

@SW-User


Yes, unlike healing which is scriptural.


I agree that the issue is now what can be considered healing since we've dealt with the other arguments.
But i think at this point you are the one attempting to redefine what healing is.


With the terms layed out before us, I'd like to see you answer that earlier question a little more directly:
We agree that regrowing a limb isn't natural but in what way would (were it to occur) [i]not be considered a healing?[/i]

How is regrowing a limb that has been cut off not making someone whole or restoring them to health or making them free of an injury?

@Pikachu
Edit: pardon I misread the question I will reply soon

@Pikachu Nothing in that definition is outside of my definition of healing. In fact it proves it. heal a wound . As I expressed earlier.

The problem isn't that you can't define that as healing, the issue is that that's not how healing occurs in the reality we live in hence I say you are trying to redefine healing as it pertains to a severed limb. So that falls under asking foolishly as it doesn't happen.

@SW-User


lol my dude. That's cherry picking and you know it.
In addition to heal a wound: to make sound or whole, to make free from injury.

Are you whole without your arm? No.
Are you free from injury without your arm? No. In fact that is a permanent injury from which you cannot fully heal.
You seem to be making the argument that since growing back a limb is not a way in which humans can naturally heal it cannot then be considered healing which is absurd because it meets every requirement of the term.

Let's say it DID occur. Someone's lost arm is restored. What would you call it if not a healing of their injury?


Indeed. But nothing in that definition is outside my definition of healing either.
Since my definition does not exclude yours this presents no problem for my argument.
But since your definition does exclude mine, it presents a problem for yours.


Don't. You already conceded this point, even if just for the sake of moving on. No takesies backsies😜. Rotting in a tomb for 4 days and then coming back to life does not occur in the reality we live either but you consider that to be true.

@Pikachu
A severed limb can be reattached or "make whole" if that's how you want to define it physically, that still does not apply to your definition.


Yes it is as it pertains to a severed limb unless you want to claim that that definition should also apply to a severed head.


Thanks for the laugh but you yourself have agreed with me:

[quote]We agree that regrowing a limb isn't natural but in what way would (were it to occur) not be considered a healing?[/quote].

@SW-User


Yup. I'd certainly consider that to meet the "make whole" aspect of healing.
But that doesn't exclude a miraculous regrowth from that definition of healing.


...yes, we agree that it wouldn't be natural. But you already conceded in the Lazaraus example that natural isn't a prerequisite if god wills it so.


Which part of the definition of healing would you cite which excludes the regrowth of a limb? Or even a head?
Again, you seem to be making the argument that if it cannot heal naturally then it can't be considered healing. Is that accurate? If so, can you explain your reasoning?

@Pikachu
Not that it cannot be considered healing but outside of the realms of reality. And again, yes Lazarus waking from the dead isn't natural but it is scriptural. It's not that it's impossible for God to do So then what you are doing is questioning the will of God. Why he does things this way but not that way, which you'd have to have a one on one conversation with Him about.


The issue is not the definition, the problem is how you want to apply it to things that simply don't happen. So if you ask a doctor could I heal from a severed limb I'd guess she'd answer in the positive. If you then asked how that process would occur she'd more likely give an answer akin to mine and not regrowth.

Edit: I edited my reply please read again.

@SW-User


So you agree that there is nothing which excludes the regrowth of a limb from being healing, just that it doesn't happen.


Why is that a problem?
"It doesn't happen" is not an answer to the question in my OP, it's a recognition of that question.
WHY doesn't it happen? You've now agree that it can be considered healing, unnatural though it is and you've agreed that natural is not a prerequisite if god wills it so.....so why doesn't it happen?