Ham, Galling and UpChurch

(A. Peter Galling, John UpChurch and Ken Ham, in no particular order)

A. Galling Peter and John UpChurch from Answers in Genesis have decided to finally explain why among God's glorious miracles there is not a single healing of an amputee in their article: "Feedback: Why doesn't God heal amputees?" The question comes from SS in Canada, who, by his/her typing, I can tell is a double-arm amputee. Heheh.

Thank you for your question. We first want to note that none of our answers should be construed as us not empathizing with or downplaying the loss of those who have lost a limb.

"It's GOD who's not empathizing." Oh, Jesus. I thought I was politically correct. But first I wanted to note an important point [silently edited for readability] that SS made in their question:

I'm really curious to see how do you TWIST this one too, 'cause lots of your answers are twisted and NEVER give answers to the question of the article.

Never! Banish the thought! Oh wait:

Your question seems to merely be a very specific re-articulation of the general argument against God due to the existence of evil. Formally restating your argument:

1. An omnipotent God would heal amputees.
2. Amputees are not healed.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent God does not exist.

You could just as easily replace the major premise with anything else unpleasant: why do people lose limbs in the first place? The ultimate question you’re really asking is Why Does God’s Creation Include Death & Suffering?

NO, YOU SPINELESS, DISHONEST MOTHERFUCKERS! THAT'S NOT, ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT THE FUCK THEY ASKED, YOU GODDAMNED... KOALA... HERPES. There. Congrats. I finally ran out of insults for you.

Oh wait, found some more. Let's continue.

What part of "why the fuck doesn't God heal amputees" didn't you understand, you morons? Even assuming that there WAS a Fall, and that the Fall, by unknown mechanisms, is the cause of all suffering, the question remains, why among the tricks in God's "bag of holding" is there never a "heal amputees" spell? People with lesser ailments are constantly crediting Jesus/God with healing them. Why never amputees?

If you already believe that flaws in the world disprove God, then naming any flaw that God doesn’t fix—or any good deed God doesn’t do—will just reaffirm your perspective.

No! Again, you vomitous pigeons, even if there is a god, like I just said, the question still remains. Also, you have goolies the size Maine Coon kittens to accuse someone of wearing blinders.

But once you understand that the problems in this world are a result of sin—tracing back to the Fall in Genesis 3—we can reconcile the existence of a perfectly good and loving God with the existence of death and suffering.

Well, you can. Your standards are shit. And again, I grant you that for the sake of illustrating how ridiculous your assertions are.

The Curse is actually the punishment for sin necessitated by God’s role as perfect Judge. Knowing that, it is nonsensical to blame God for the consequences of our own sin.

Did they just say, "Every amputee deserves it"? You suck. You can rationalize anything. Way to go!

Answering your question completely requires a few tangential comments:

(Translation: "Here are answers to other questions you didn't ask.")

Miracles aren’t a grab-bag of goodies for us to enjoy; rather, God uses miracles in particular points of time for very specific purposes. God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us. When He does bless us, it is entirely out of mercy.

(Translation: "God has no mercy for amputees.")

God has done greater works than restoring limbs. If He created the entire universe out of nothing, spoke all plants and animals into existence, sculpted and breathed life into the first two humans, and raised His Son from death, it is clear that He has the power to heal amputees if and when it is His will.

(Translation: "We believe lots of weirder shit. Why even ask the amputee question? Duh!")

If there is no God, why should we care if people have lost limbs? To borrow from C. S. Lewis, in a truly godless world, amputations wouldn’t be “good” or “bad”; they would simply be, a fact of life no different from a tree shedding leaves. Attacking theism on a moral basis undermines the argument.

(Translation: "We assert that morality comes from religion despite global evidence that there can be morals without Yahweh. We simply give our puny God credit for something he stole credit for.")

You qualify your own question with “[e]xcept the ear that Jesus put it back.” You may as well ask, “If God is all-powerful, why did He never part the Red Sea—except for that one time in Exodus?" And not only is your argument qualified; it is also, essentially, an argument from silence. Even if the Bible doesn’t record the healing of an amputee, that doesn’t mean God never has.

(Translation: "Give us an inch, and we'll take a mile. That'll show you for conceding a single goofy, improbable point. Also, even though we're going to suggest that God does heal amputees, but that does not oblige us to provide evidence. I mean, what are we, scientists?")

So far we have conceded your point that, other than the scene in Luke 22, “never, ever in all Bible was a case of an amputation healed.” But is this so? First, it may be that there was no biblical Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word for “amputee”; it is possible that some passages referring to individuals as “lame” or “crippled” (Matthew 15:30, 21:14; John 5:2–9a) are actually referring to those who had lost limbs.

(Translation: "We've stopped caring and now are clearly just making shit up. Fuck you.")

Besides, how is healing a totally useless limb any less miraculous than restoring an amputated limb?

(Translation: "How is standing on a foot you have less miraculous than standing on a foot you don't have?" Dumbasses. These people go to magic shows and accuse performers of wizardry, I'm sure.)

Second, because of the nature of leprosy, the healings of lepers in the Bible actually does imply the restoration of some body parts, such as fingers.

(Translation: "So what if it doesn't say that Jesus performed reconstructive surgery?" So what if he did? Why has nobody else been healed?)

The next argument is unbelievable. Truly astounding.

Even if there were amputees in Bible times, there may not have been as many. Many amputees nowadays lose a limb because of diabetes, dysvascular diseases, or cancer; doctors in Bible times would not likely have known to amputate for such reasons. Also, machinery—more powerful and more widely used than in Bible days—is the leading cause of accidental amputations. Finally, while some amputees surely survived their wounds in Bible times, modern medicine and emergency services no doubt increase the percentage of people who are able to survive the loss of a limb.

Yep: There weren't all that many amputees for Jesus to cure. Also, what is this "Bible times" and "Bible days" shit? You sound like fourth graders.

[...] But when you accept God and His Word, you can understand how Genesis explains the death and suffering as a result of the failure of humanity, not God.

(Translation: "This is the type of shit you need to believe to understand instead of understand to believe.") Fuck you. (Translation: "Fuck you.")

HJ