Believers in faith healing: why doesn't God restore amputated limbs?

[Skald the Rhymer]

A few days back I started a post about my brother-in-law's attempt to treat his high blood glucose with the power of prayer; here's a link. In that thread, kanicbird has asserted that God may, in fact, answer my brother-in-law's prayers, if so He/She/It/They desire. As the original source of my vexation is no longer a live issue (my niece persuaded her father to go to the doctor by by being cute, weepy, and fourteen), I thought I'd open a thread for a debate, and do it here in the hopes that it would be a mite, ah, calmer than in the Pit.

So, to kanicbird (and even Polycarp, who has also chimed in in the original thread):

If an omnipotent, benevolent, interventionst Deity exists, why doesn't He/She/It/They restore amputated limbs?
I have friends who are amputees. If either of them regrew their missing feet and attested the healing to the power of Jesus, or Dionysus, or Galactus, I'd abandon my skepticism. Hell, I think even Sam Harris, under such circumstances, would say "Holy crap!"

So why doesn't this happen? Why don't people even PRAY for this to happen? Of the two amputees I know, one is a Pentecostal Christian who has, in my presence, participated in intercessory prayer sessions for miraculous healing, and been the recipient of such prayers. I've NEVER heard anyone suggest that God bring his leg back.

Thoughts?

[runner pat]

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[Hazle Weatherfield]

Originally Posted by runner pat

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Oh, my God!

This site is what I've been looking for. I've gotta bookmark it for now and really spend some time with it. Thank you!

From runnerpat's link:

"In a similar vein, many believers will say, "God always answers prayers, but sometimes his answer is 'no.' If your prayer does not fit with God's will, then God will say 'no' to you." This feels odd because God's answer to every amputee is always "no" when it comes to regenerating lost limbs. Jesus says, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it." He does not say, "If you ask anything in my name, I will do it, unless you are praying about an amputated limb, in which case I will always reject your prayer." Jesus also says, "Nothing will be impossible to you," and regenerating a limb should therefore be possible. The fact that God refuses to answer every prayer to regenerate a lost limb seems strange, doesn't it?"

Yup!

[puddleglum]

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is. So unless someone on the board is omniscient(Sam Stone?) you will not get an answer.
What is so special about an amputated limb? Why is that your cutoff? Why not a healing from cancer or a broken leg?

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

What is so special about an amputated limb? Why is that your cutoff?

Heh, heh.

[hotflungwok]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is.

How do you know that?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is. So unless someone on the board is omniscient(Sam Stone?) you will not get an answer.
What is so special about an amputated limb? Why is that your cutoff? Why not a healing from cancer or a broken leg?

Originally Posted by Pat Conroy, except that I'm misquoting, because I'm doing it from memory and the book is ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE ROOM and my feet hurt

"When my friend went to Vietnam, he had two good legs. When he came back he did not. I connected the two events."

[jackass off/]

A missing limb is easy to see; its restoration would be trivial to verify. ("Hey, Skaldimus, look!" my friend could yell. "I'm doing the foxtrot with Mrs. Rhymer!") Tumors are frequently not. Were my friend to suddenly regrow his missing leg, I would, as I wrote in the OP, be convinced that something preternatural was going on, whereas a seeming remission of cancer is not nearly as persuasive, as it is impossible for the layman to verify and as it sometimes happens on its own.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

A missing limb is easy to see; its restoration would be trivial to verify.

It's also something the human body cannot do, even with the best efforts of medical science.

Tumors can go away just because your body wins the fight. Sometimes yolur immunse system loses, and sometimes it wins; you don't know if it was a miracle or just white blood cells. The case of "a miracle" cited in the linked web site of a teenager who recovered from symptomatic rabies (normally invariably fatal) was a case where an extremely unusual and aggressive method of medical treatment was attempted, which appears to have been the likely reason the girl survived. MAYBE it was a miracle. But you don't know for sure. It could have been the treatment.

But if you grow back a damn leg, it's a miracle, unless you're a salamander.

It's the PERFECT test of the power of prayer.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is. So unless someone on the board is omniscient(Sam Stone?) you will not get an answer.
What is so special about an amputated limb? Why is that your cutoff? Why not a healing from cancer or a broken leg?

The only ailments that seem to be cured by faith healing are "invisible". You can't see the cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, migraine headache, etc. Visible injuries like amputations, severe burns or scarring are never healed. Even with the person onstage in a wheelchair, you can't "see" the paralysis.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by runner pat

The only ailments that seem to be cured by faith healing are "invisible". You can't see the cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, migraine headache, etc. Visible injuries like amputations, severe burns or scarring are never healed. Even with the person onstage in a wheelchair, you can't "see" the paralysis.

If a visible healing occured would you believe then?

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If a visible healing occured would you believe then?

I've realize that you're asking runnerpat, and I've already said that I would be persauded that something preternatural was going on, but I'm going to answer as it gives me the opportunity to call you a Narnian.

Why, yes I would, my Narnian friend. Any honest Marsh-wiggle would.

Why don't we get such healings?

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If a visible healing occured would you believe then?

Yes, if I saw it or it was verified in a reputable journal or news agency.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Yes, if I saw it or it was verified in a reputable journal or news agency.

A short bit of googling provides CNN as a reputable news agency. From Transcript of CNN Impact/March 16, 1997:

Some of Hinn's healings are indeed documented and defy medical explanations. He's even published a book listing these cases, with doctors' notes included. Hinn provided IMPACT with two dozen documented healings from people suffering a variety of illnesses. All of the people contacted were true believers who claimed to have significantly improved since attending a healing crusade

Two dozen healings documented by CNN, is this enough?

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If a visible healing occured would you believe then?

Probably not.

First, even is such an event could be attributed only to some unknown transnatural force, it doesn't tell us anything about that force. It sheds absolutely no light on the correctness of, say, the Five Points of Calvinism, or Dispensational Theology, or Allah's prophet, Mohammed, or yin and yang, etc.

Second, as others have pointed out, there are critters that can, with no outside help, regenerate limbs they have misplaced. If this ever happened with a human, I'd look for a series of odd genetic mutations that led up to that unique event before I'd hit the sawdust trail.


I sometimes wonder if one reason overly-religeous folks oppose stem-cell research is the possibility that mere mortals may someday be able to do things that God Himself cannot do.

[Strinka]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is. So unless someone on the board is omniscient(Sam Stone?) you will not get an answer.
What is so special about an amputated limb? Why is that your cutoff? Why not a healing from cancer or a broken leg?

Because people of all faiths survive cancer and heal broken bones at about the same rate, which implies that healing from cancer or broken bones is not (at least not always) miraculous. Which means that any single case of someone being cured by prayer for one of those things could be a coincidence, rather than a miracle.

However, since no one has ever regrown an amputated limb, that would be, well, pretty miraculous. I'm sure other diseases/ailments could be chosen, but lost limbs are good because they're very well understood.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is.

We're not asking to understand 100%. Just one thing. One grain of sand on a beach the size of the galaxy.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by puddleglum

If we could understand 100 percent about God then he would not be God or we would have to become omniscient like God is.

So how, then, can the faithful assert other things about Him? Thinks like "prayer works." Or "God healed me."

You can't claim to know how He's operating when good things happen and then turn around and say it's impossible to understand God when bad things happen.

[Nava]

I recommend using Google's translation services (read: I'm not going to translate all this): Milagro de Calanda. It's a double amputee healed.

The Novena de la Gracia (Nine days of Grace), celebrated every year from Match 3rd to 12th, commemorates a miracle from St Francis Xavier, who restored the usage of his arm to a blacksmith who'd lost it (he hadn't lost the arm, "only" the ability to use it after a serious wound, but still it was beyond the ability of the time's medics to heal it and therefore it was reckoned a miracle) after the man prayed for 9 days asking for this grace.

I have a lot less problems believing the second than the first, but both are recognized as miracles by the RCC.

[Uzi]

Originally Posted by Nava

I have a lot less problems believing the second than the first, but both are recognized as miracles by the RCC.

Oh, well. As long as it is a 'recognized' miracle it must be true then.

Poor amputees. NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[The Weird One]

Originally Posted by Nava

I recommend using Google's translation services (read: I'm not going to translate all this): Milagro de Calanda. It's a double amputee healed.

The Novena de la Gracia (Nine days of Grace), celebrated every year from Match 3rd to 12th, commemorates a miracle from St Francis Xavier, who restored the usage of his arm to a blacksmith who'd lost it (he hadn't lost the arm, "only" the ability to use it after a serious wound, but still it was beyond the ability of the time's medics to heal it and therefore it was reckoned a miracle) after the man prayed for 9 days asking for this grace.

I have a lot less problems believing the second than the first, but both are recognized as miracles by the RCC.

To sum up: in 1637, a young man named Miguel Juan Pellicer fell off a cart, and his leg was run over. A few days later, he was taken to a hospital. The leg developed gangrene and was amputated. In 1640, the leg suddenly reappeared while Miguel slept, complete with some scars he'd had since childhood.
Here is an article about the event in English, referencing this Italian book about it. The author of the book says he "...discovered that the fact is documented in a way to satisfy even the most skeptical and rigorous historian." He doesn't specify what the documentation is, though, except for this:

Just two days later[after the miracle], a royal notary (not a churchman), coming from nearby Mazaleón, prepared an official affidavit, questioning just hours after the event the eyewitnesses and those who that evening had seen Miguel Juan with only one leg and then a few hours later saw him with two.

Only how did he question witnesses "just hours after the event" when he arrived "two days later"? I suppose that's probably an error on the part of the article's author, not the historical record, but it would be nice to know which it was. And what the rest of the documentation amounts to.
Here is another article in English, admittedly from a Catholic site, that has some more information on the events surrounding the "miracle," but no cites. It does contain this interesting bit:

However, the leg did not look good at first—it was a purplish-blue color, the toes were bent, the muscles atrophied, and above all, it was shorter than the left leg by several centimeters. It would be three days before the leg took on its normal appearance, with its flexibility and strength.

I am skeptical in the extreme that God miraculously made his leg grow back. Still, it is a puzzler.

[villa]

Originally Posted by The Weird One

Here[/url] is another article in English, admittedly from a Catholic site, that has some more information on the events surrounding the "miracle," but no cites. It does contain this interesting bit:

I am skeptical in the extreme that God miraculously made his leg grow back. Still, it is a puzzler.

What you call "the interesting bit" is what makes me scream "fake" the most. If you are omnipotent, restoring someone's leg, why would it not be perfect straight away? This isn't the nurse in Harry Potter restoring bones. This is point and click, new leg time.

What the recovery time seems to say to me is an attempt to add a level of "healing process" to the story.

[hotflungwok]

Originally Posted by The Weird One

To sum up: in 1637, a young man named Miguel Juan Pellicer fell off a cart, and his leg was run over. A few days later, he was taken to a hospital. The leg developed gangrene and was amputated. In 1640, the leg suddenly reappeared while Miguel slept, complete with some scars he'd had since childhood.

So, it's exactly as if his leg was not really run over and people made a mistake about what was seen.

Just two days later[after the miracle], a royal notary (not a churchman), coming from nearby Mazaleón, prepared an official affidavit, questioning just hours after the event the eyewitnesses and those who that evening had seen Miguel Juan with only one leg and then a few hours later saw him with two.

From this, the royal notary just interviewed people and wrote down what they said. This is not an investigation, nor is it proof of anything.

1637? We have to go all the way back to 1637 for something? C'mon, is that the best god can do? Why is it that there are more miracles the further back in time you go, when people were more ignorant about science and less than rigorous in their investigations, and none now, when we can give them a good going over?

Seriously, we have no answer to this. Why doesn't god restore amputated limbs?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by The Weird One

To sum up: in 1637, a young man named Miguel Juan Pellicer fell off a cart, and his leg was run over. A few days later, he was taken to a hospital. The leg developed gangrene and was amputated. In 1640, the leg suddenly reappeared while Miguel slept, complete with some scars he'd had since childhood.

Miracles yesterday, miracles tomorrow, but never miracles today.

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by Nava

I recommend using Google's translation services (read: I'm not going to translate all this): Milagro de Calanda. It's a double amputee healed.

The Novena de la Gracia (Nine days of Grace), celebrated every year from Match 3rd to 12th, commemorates a miracle from St Francis Xavier, who restored the usage of his arm to a blacksmith who'd lost it (he hadn't lost the arm, "only" the ability to use it after a serious wound, but still it was beyond the ability of the time's medics to heal it and therefore it was reckoned a miracle) after the man prayed for 9 days asking for this grace.

I have a lot less problems believing the second than the first, but both are recognized as miracles by the RCC.

Perhaps the question needs to be refined just a bit to clarify why we are skeptical of any miracles: Why doesn't God restore amputated limbs as commonly as other "miracles" such as curing chronic pain syndromes?

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

Perhaps the question needs to be refined just a bit to clarify why we are skeptical of any miracles: Why doesn't God restore amputated limbs as commonly as other "miracles" such as curing chronic pain syndromes?

He does cure chronic pain as often as restoring limbs.

[G0sp3l]

Originally Posted by runner pat

He does cure chronic pain as often as restoring limbs.

I used to always argue why 'miracles' were always performed in obscure places or the distant past. I actually heard a bishop tell is congregation not to argue god with reason but with fire (by which he meant passion btw). What kind of dysfunctional universe do we live in where logic and reason are not coin of the realm?

[kanicbird]

The way to God through Jesus works entirely on faith. God so perfectly controls the universe that he can heal anything and even raise the dead in a way that the general population never realizes. God wants to reveal Himself personally to people who seek.

There are many many things that are hidden, I'm not sure how it works, but I know it exists as I've seen it, not healing/restoring of limbs, but things that only certain people, people of strong faith, can remember, while others don't remember, even one reported extreme memory loss that blocked out the entire event.

I can assure you that the scriptures about the power of God is very real and happening today, just as in the early church.

The way is to seek the Lord Jesus, make Him your king and you His subject, live to serve Him. He will give you His work to do and set you on a journey which may or may not include healing.

As for faith healing, the motivation of the heart is wrong, seeking a cure/restoration can not be your motivation, though you can ask the Lord, and He certainly may grant your request.

But you will NOT find it in a reputable journal, if you did it would not be of God. God provides it through the scriptures, which is through His Prophets and Saints, to quote one:

Originally Posted by Luke 16:31

"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'

"

If you don't listen (by you heart) to the Word of God, you will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (and is made known through a 'reputable' journal.

And how reputable can a journal be next to the Word of God?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

The way to God through Jesus works entirely on faith. God so perfectly controls the universe that he can heal anything and even raise the dead in a way that the general population never realizes. God wants to reveal Himself personally to people who seek.

There are many many things that are hidden, I'm not sure how it works, but I know it exists as I've seen it, not healing/restoring of limbs, but things that only certain people, people of strong faith, can remember, while others don't remember, even one reported extreme memory loss that blocked out the entire event.

I can assure you that the scriptures about the power of God is very real and happening today, just as in the early church.

This strikes me as along the lines of:

"Only those who share my delusions can see the delusions."

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

The way to God through Jesus works entirely on faith. God so perfectly controls the universe that he can heal anything and even raise the dead in a way that the general population never realizes. God wants to reveal Himself personally to people who seek.

How do you know this? It seems to have access to such information would be nearly god-like itself. I am just a normal mortal and as such have no way to know of the lives and ways of the gods (other then through my senses and logic and no god information has presented itself so far).

This puny human doesn't see any evidence that faith healing has ever occurred. But what do I know? I'm not a god.

Aren't you theists about ready to throw in the towel yet? (Sigh.... "It's Taking Longer Than We Thought." Indeed.)

[Ann Onimous]

Matthew 5, 29 and 30:

"29": And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

"30": And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

AFAIK, nowhere in the Bible does it mention praying for the restoration of said body parts.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Juliana

Matthew 5, 29 and 30:

"29": And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

"30": And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

AFAIK, nowhere in the Bible does it mention praying for the restoration of said body parts.

Well, there you have it. THE LORD is a big fan of amputation; regeneration----eh, not so much.

[LouisB]

In my post #25; I am now aware that Jenkins has the given name of Leroy. Sorry.

[Jenaroph]

ETA: LEEEEEROOOOOYYY JENNKINNNNNS!

Does that set off anyone else's BS meter?

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

ETA: LEEEEEROOOOOYYY JENNKINNNNNS!

Does that set off anyone else's BS meter?

It just makes me want to hear a violin solo.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

ETA: LEEEEEROOOOOYYY JENNKINNNNNS!

Does that set off anyone else's BS meter?

ahem. post #28

[begbert2]

As much as I like jumping into a religion-spiking discussion, it's hard to get excited when the complaint is covered by the stock answer "mysterious ways".

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

Reading over the above, I'm sure kanicbird and our resident marsh-wiggle may quote something to the effect that those who ask for signs are beign sinful. I counter that, according to Acts, Paul of Tarsus--notorious sinner and accomplice to murder--received a quite dramatic sign that brought him to the side of goodness, hugs, kittens, & homophobia. Why can't this happen to others?

Paul live for Jesus, and the signs accompanied them as God worked through Him.

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

This strikes me as along the lines of:

"Only those who share my delusions can see the delusions."

Or it sounds like God means exactly what He says.

[Ann Onimous]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Paul live for Jesus, and the signs accompanied them as God worked through Him.

Saul wasn't exactly living for Jesus when he experienced the Damascus Road conversion. He was actively persecuting Jesus' followers. If God can speak to and touch Saul, why can't He speak to and touch others who may not be living for Him?

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Juliana

Saul wasn't exactly living for Jesus when he experienced the Damascus Road conversion. He was actively persecuting Jesus' followers. If God can speak to and touch Saul, why can't He speak to and touch others who may not be living for Him?

He does, and He does it in different ways, Jesus Himself came to many people while He walked the world as man. How and when He chooses to awaken us is up to Him.

[cwthree]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

He does, and He does it in different ways, Jesus Himself came to many people while He walked the world as man. How and when He chooses to awaken us is up to Him.

How do you square this with your earlier assertion?

Originally Posted by kanicbird

The way is to seek the Lord Jesus, make Him your king and you His subject, live to serve Him. He will give you His work to do and set you on a journey which may or may not include healing.

Either G-d delivers miracles (be it healing or conversion) at G-d's discretion and at G-d's discrection alone, or G-d delivers miracles as a reward for perfect faith and devotion. Which is it?

And it still doesn't address Skald's original question: Why doesn't G-d restore amputated limbs? So far, you've suggested that G-d simply chooses not to, or that G-d does so, but rigs it in such a way that no one knows. But both of these beg the question why (not)?

[Ann Onimous]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

He does, and He does it in different ways, Jesus Himself came to many people while He walked the world as man. How and when He chooses to awaken us is up to Him.

Then why wouldn't God/Jesus choose to heal someone who doesn't "live for Him" as you suggested? I wonder if you can understand just how you're coming across, and how flawed and contradictory your posts sound.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Juliana

Then why wouldn't God/Jesus choose to heal someone who doesn't "live for Him" as you suggested? I wonder if you can understand just how you're coming across, and how flawed and contradictory your posts sound.

Jesus does heal the unbelievers and though it is usually done through a believer. I would assume that it is done to help bring the unbeliever to believe and to strengthen the faith of the believer who He used to preform the healing.

Here is a scripture about 10 leprods cured

Originally Posted by Luke 10

17Jesus asked, "Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine? 18Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" 19Then he said to him, "Rise and go; your faith has made you well.

"

But the main purpose is stated above, to bring praise to God, not to cure man.

Miracles just don't have the effect that Jesus wanted, bringing people to Him. Teachings seemed to work better. But that does not mean He doesn't use them, even if it only works for 1 in 10.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

Or it sounds like God means exactly what He says.

Except you'd have to tack on a few codicils:

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. (except nobody else will be able to see it)

Ask, and it will be given you. (unless you ask for a limb back, or for anything that can be physically documented)

Nothing will be impossible to you. (excepting of course, those things that are physically impossible)

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. (again, sorry about the limb thing, no can do.)

[Trepa Mayfield]

Personally, I just don't think God is omnipotent. But then again, I'm not a Christian either.

[billfish678]

True story... I WAS there!

There was a physics major in our physics department. Most of us were straight out of high school into the program. This guy was 5 to 10 year older. Wisdom does NOT come automatically with age.

Seemed to do respectable with the material. Also seemed very nice.

But the more you got to know him the odder he seemed.

You eventually realized he was a religious fundamentalist.

I learned that halloween was one EVIL holiday, no matter HOW you celebrated it.

He believed in faith healing.

He even SWORE to us (and you know who) that he had actually SEEN a limb regrown at a revival !

So, there is at least one of em that both believes it happens AND has seen it.

I also recall he was falsely accused of rape (or something close), which I don't believe he did if I'd have to bet.

Interesting times indeed...

Then there was the guy who practiced "kung foo" moves in slow motion in the department lounge and the incident with the nitrogen tri iodide.......

[gonzomax]

Why would god who is in charge of everything change his mind. he had some noodley reason to take someones limb away. Now you want him to put it back. Not likely.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Why would god who is in charge of everything change his mind. he had some noodley reason to take someones limb away. Now you want him to put it back. Not likely.

This is an argument against faith healing in general, not amputee-healing. Actually it is an argument against God intervening in his universe in any way.

According to the Bible though, God changes his mind pretty regularly. I believe you might have heard of this Jesus person who God sent to change everything? Floods, lepers, loaves and fishes, etc. Apparently, God likes to shake things up now and then.

[hotflungwok]

Originally Posted by DrCube

According to the Bible though, God changes his mind pretty regularly. I believe you might have heard of this Jesus person who God sent to change everything? Floods, lepers, loaves and fishes, etc. Apparently, God likes to shake things up now and then.

Um, didn't god know all about this stuff before it happened? An omniscient being can't change it's mind.

[DrCube]

Originally Posted by hotflungwok

Um, didn't god know all about this stuff before it happened? An omniscient being can't change it's mind.

So why did he build a planet full of people only to destroy them all later in a flood? Why did he decide to scrap the Old Covenant with the Jews in favor of the New Covenant with Jesus and all that? Why even turn water into wine? God made that water, presumably that's what he intended it to be.

Gonzo's argument was that if God did it right the first time, he wouldn't have to come back and "fix" it later. I'm saying, whether he knew about it before hand or not, God does come back and fix stuff all the time. He can heal lepers and raise Lazarus from the dead. What is stopping him from healing amputees isn't his unwillingness to change things he directly or indirectly caused in the first place.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Originally Posted by DrCube

So why did he build a planet full of people only to destroy them all later in a flood? Why did he decide to scrap the Old Covenant with the Jews in favor of the New Covenant with Jesus and all that? Why even turn water into wine? God made that water, presumably that's what he intended it to be.

Gonzo's argument was that if God did it right the first time, he wouldn't have to come back and "fix" it later. I'm saying, whether he knew about it before hand or not, God does come back and fix stuff all the time. He can heal lepers and raise Lazarus from the dead. What is stopping him from healing amputees isn't his unwillingness to change things he directly or indirectly caused in the first place.

Face it. We're not the final product of creation.
God made man and woman (A) then rested (B), then made man (C) and woman (D) again.

God scubs most of the project and starts again with a small inoculum of people and animals (E).

Then there's the new covenant with Jesus, and the final revelation with Mohammed.

It seems to me we're at best in a beta version. Maybe when the final product is shipped we'll be able to regrow limbs, or perhaps it will come as a patch, and suddenly we'll all be growing new arms.

Refernces:
(A) Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

(B) Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

(C) Genesis 2:7-8 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

(D) Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

(E) Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.