I heard a Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek making a claim that God designed Jupiter that big so He would protect us from destructive meteorites, because the gravity of Jupiter (which is twice as strong as the earth's) pulls these objects to crash on its surface. Photographic evidence has shown that very huge meteorites, some even bigger than the size of the earth, have crashed on the surface of Jupiter thereby making Jupiter a planet that saves lives according to the plan of God. If so, how do they then reconcile this with how another meteorite *did* crash on the Gulf of Mexico which caused the dinosaurs to be extinct?

Consider the following examples: Imagine a Christian mother driving her car with her children in the back seats when suddenly, they are surrounded by robbers intent on stealing everything and possibly harming her kids. In such a terrifying situation, would it make sense for her to pray for angelic protection? Or consider a scenario where a Christian encounters a pit bull 100 meters away that suddenly charges toward them with aggression. In that moment of imminent danger, would it be reasonable for the Christian to pray for angelic intervention? Lastly, picture an elderly Christian man in a bedroom with a baby when a fire unexpectedly breaks out, blocking all exits. In such a desperate and life-threatening situation, would it make sense for him to pray for angelic protection, hoping for divine intervention to save them?

The site: [Why Won't God Heal Amputees?](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/) Relevant quotes: > #### Is God real, or is he imaginary? > Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions you can ask yourself. > > If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance. > > On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional. > > But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? > > Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, **"Why won't God heal amputees?"** > > If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of God, you owe it to yourself to ask, "Why won't God heal amputees?" > > ([source](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)) > **Explaining the case of amputees** > > Just for a moment, I would ask you to consider the possibility of > another explanation. If you believe in God, then this explanation will > initially appear to be complete nonsense. However, it is interesting > in light of the conversation we will be having in this book. > > One explanation for the evidence that we see before us is this: > > God exists, and God answers prayers, but for some reason God chooses > to ignore the prayers of amputees. We don't have a good explanation > for why God acts this way, and it does seem to contradict what Jesus > teaches about prayer in the Bible, but clearly God has his divine > reasons. **Now let's look at the situation with amputees from another** > **point of view. This explanation is more straightforward**: > > **God is imaginary**. Let's look at what happens when we consider this > explanation and see how it stacks up. Assume that God is imaginary. > **The beauty of this explanation is that it fits the facts perfectly. In** > **the case of amputees, it is a valid way to explain the reality that we** > **see in our world. The logic goes like this:** > > **If God is imaginary, then he does not answer any prayers. Therefore,** > **the prayers of amputees would go unanswered too. The thing that is so** > **appealing about this explanation is that there is no hand waving.** > **There are no contradictions. It is completely fair. There is no** > **paradox. This explanation makes complete sense in light of the** > **evidence we see in our world.** [...] > > ([source](https://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)) Feel free to visit the site to read the author's full exposition of their arguments. **Question**: Have any Christian apologists published refutations of the objections posited by the site "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"? If so, what are the most common counter-arguments? **Note**: answers just sharing links without summarizing the main counter-arguments from notable Christian apologists are discouraged. ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89886/how-do-christians-rebut-matt-dillahuntys-objection-that-the-resurrection-of-jes

I simply can't reason about it. When let's say 1 month old child gets killed and dies in horrible pain, there was nothing for him to learn from this "lesson". He also had no possibility to commit any sin to be punished with pain for his sins. This is plain not right. If there's an omnipotent, all knowing , good being, then that being should intervene. In the end most of us - sinful humans - would try to help as much as we can in such situation.

According to non-Trinitarians, if God's nature is *not* adequately portrayed by trinitarian theology, then why did God allow such an erroneous understanding of His nature to become so widespread among the members of the Church, the Bride of His Son? If God has the power and the prerogative to intervene in historical events, then why hasn't God made use of His divine privileges to ensure that the correct doctrine about His nature achieves widespread acceptance?

I don't know if this is a "good" question for Christianity Stack Exchange, but it's weighing heavily on my mind, and this seems as good a place as any. So here goes. I grew up as a Christian child in a church-going Christian family. This faith feels like home to me. Yet with each passing year of my adult life, I find it increasingly difficult to believe that it’s true. I was taught that God is working in the world every day. But surely, if an infinitely powerful being who wants things to be better did so much as lift a finger in that pursuit, the world would be fixed instantly. Yet it clearly isn’t. I was taught that God loves everyone, and wants each and every person to come to him. Yet when I and others like me try to look objectively at our daily lives, we see no sign of him. And yet there are still people in the world who have heard very little, if anything, about him. I was taught that the Bible is true, and yet some of its most central teachings are nonsensical at best, and horrifying at worst. Why is he angry at us for being imperfect, when he himself created us that way? Why would he punish us so brutally as a result? And why would he order the slaughter of massive populations of people, specifying that even the most vulnerable individuals should not be spared? For these reasons and others, I think if I heard about Christianity for the first time as an adult, it would seem fundamentally and hopelessly flawed. But the people I trust most in my life simply accept these issues as tolerable mysteries, and apologists try to explain them away with mental gymnastics that never quite seem to work. I realize I’ve brought up a number of issues here that atheists and apologists like to address separately. I don’t really know what kind of response I’m expecting. I guess the TL;DR here is that when I look at reality, and look at Christianity, they don’t really seem compatible. And if there’s anyone who’s interested in a frank discussion with a jaded quasi-believer, I’d be grateful.

My question is NOT about how [soul sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) advocates interpret Luke 16:19-31 -- that's an exegetical question that has already been asked [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/59681/50422) . Rather, my question is about understanding, from the soul sleep perspective, why God would, in His providence, let a parable like [the rich man and Lazarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) be part of the canon, knowing in advance that it would mislead so many people to the wrong conclusion (that the dead are conscious). God, being omniscient and all powerful, surely knew that millions of Christians would take elements of the parable at face value and would wrongly conclude that the spirit of a person remains conscious after death. Why would God let an inspired parable mislead so many people like that? _______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83846/50422 Similar question, but about a different controversial topic: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83092/50422 _____ #### Am I asking a [loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) ? From Wikipedia: *"A loaded question is a form of [complex question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question) that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)."* My question certainly has an assumption, namely, that Luke 16:19-31 has led possibly millions of Christians to conclude that the dead are conscious. Is this assumption controversial? I don't think so. Whenever I've asked people for the biblical basis for the dead being conscious, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is easily in the top 3 most cited passages (see for example [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/25699/38524) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89009/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89016/50422)) . Similarly, the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Afterlife_doctrine) on the parable says: > **Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul** and particular judgment and see the story as consistent with it, or **even refer to it to establish these doctrines like St. Irenaeus did**. Therefore, the assumption is warranted, and thus the question is not loaded. _______ UPDATE: user 'Hold To The Rod' has recently made a very solid case [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74082/38524) for viewing the setting of the parable as realistic, including supporting quotes from a copious number of ante-Nicene Fathers who openly advocated a conscious intermediate state. In the same line, I also suggest the curious reader to take a look at the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 & https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 . This reinforces the premise of my question: if Soul Sleep is true, then the early Church was **MASSIVELY** misled.

It's a matter of fact that God's actions can be seen tangibly in the Old Testament and New Testament. Why did God so favor the ancient ancestors but seems to have left us now? How does God communicate with us today? An overview of how different denominations answer this question would be helpful.

According to believers in modern miracles, what is the biblical basis for expecting modern miraculous / supernatural interventions by God? Are there any passages in Scripture that can justify one's expecting miracles to continue to happen after the apostolic age? **Note 1**: I'm not necessarily talking about sign gifts. Belief in sign gifts does not follow (necessarily) from belief in miracles. There are many Cessationists who believe in miracles but lack a belief in the continuation of the sign gifts. **Note 2**: By 'miracle' I mean the definition suggested by the ['miracles'](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/miracles) tag: *Actions of God not explained by normal laws of physics, chemistry, biology, or the natural sciences*. If you disagree with this definition and have the sufficient privileges, feel free to [edit the tag info](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/175) for 'miracles'. ___ To bring some balance to the force, here is the link to the opposite view: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90089/50422

Essentially the opposite of this question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/87159/50422 Some Christians believe that miracles ceased after the apostolic age -- or at least that miracles from God did, since many believe that counterfeit miracles from Satan have continued. What is the biblical basis for NOT expecting Godly miracles after the apostolic age? **Note 1**: By 'miracle' I mean the definition suggested by the ['miracles'](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/miracles) tag: *Actions of God not explained by normal laws of physics, chemistry, biology, or the natural sciences*. If you disagree with this definition and have the sufficient privileges, feel free to [edit the tag info](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/175) for 'miracles'. **Note 2**: Notice that I'm not talking about sign gifts. Belief in sign gifts does not follow (necessarily) from belief in miracles. There are many Cessationists who believe in miracles but lack a belief in the continuation of the sign gifts (e.g. see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10020/50422) ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/10041/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86488/50422

In looking at historical cases of revival it seems like most seem to occur right in the midst of some disaster or general societal upheaval. Of course, the occasion for revival taking place shouldn't be confused with the source of revival. That would be a genetic fallacy. The source of revival is God and the power of his word. But if the occasion is important to remove obstacles for God to work than that's another story.

My question is inspired by the extraordinary example set by the early Church as recorded in Acts 4:23-31 (ESV): > 23 When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, **they lifted their voices together to God and said**, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, > > “‘Why did the Gentiles rage, > and the peoples plot in vain? > 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, > and the rulers were gathered together, > against the Lord and against his Anointed’— > > 27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 **And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness**, 30 **while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”** 31 **And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness**. In this passage we see how God responded in extraordinary fashion to the communal prayer of the early Church, by filling them (again) with the Holy Spirit and empowering them with boldness to preach the gospel. This divine empowerment was, without question, the key to the early Church's success in their missionary and evangelistic endeavors, in the midst of an adverse and hostile world. Do any mission agencies follow a similar pattern, namely, wait for divine empowerment in communal prayer *before* embarking on actual evangelism and missionary efforts? ___ Similarly asked or related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84210/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83176/50422 ____ UPDATE: Based on challenges to the question's assumption that the early Church was *waiting for* God's response, I asked the following on BH.SE: [Was the early Church waiting for divine intervention in Acts 4:23-31?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70383/38524)

The Bible has tons of accounts where angelic beings paid a visit to our physical realm to carry out specific assignments. Concerning angels, Satan himself, while tempting Jesus in the desert, cited a promise from Psalm 91: > 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle > of the temple 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw > yourself down, for it is written, > > **“‘He will command his angels concerning you,’** > > and > > **“‘On their hands they will bear you up,** > **lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”** > > 7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord > your God to the test.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high > mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. > 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall > down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For > it is written, > > “‘You shall worship the Lord your God > and him only shall you serve.’” > > 11 **Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were** > **ministering to him**. > > [Matthew 4:5-11, ESV] In Acts 10 we find another example, when an angel visited Cornelius in a vision: > At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, 2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. 3 About the ninth hour of the day **he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, “Cornelius.”** 4 And he stared at him in terror and said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.” 7 **When the angel who spoke to him had departed**, he called two of his servants and a devout soldier from among those who attended him, 8 and having related everything to them, he sent them to Joppa. [Acts 10:1-8, ESV] And the most clear angelic intervention in my opinion took place in the liberation of Peter, in Acts 12: > 6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 **And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands.** 8 And the angel said to him, “Dress yourself and put on your sandals.” And he did so. And he said to him, “Wrap your cloak around you and follow me.” 9 And he went out and followed him. He did not know that what was being done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 10 When they had passed the first and the second guard, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them of its own accord, and they went out and went along one street, and immediately the angel left him. 11 When Peter came to himself, he said, **“Now I am sure that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting.”** [Acts 12:6-11, ESV] **Question:** Which denominations believe that angels still intervene in our physical realm today?

Ezekiel 22:29-31 (ESV): > 29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice. 30 **And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none**. 31 Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord God.” Why did God seek for someone to intercede for the land? Why is intercessory prayer so important to God? Why does God condition his divine intervention and mercy on human intercession (or lack thereof)? I'm interested in theological explanations, with no preference for any particular denomination or school of thought, although citations of reputable sources would be a plus and certainly appreciated.

The title of this question has an element of humor but is very real. On my way home, I was listening to a pastor's sermon on KWAVE. This pastor stated that God is like a Shepherd and that we are His sheep... More specifically, that in the old days, if the Shepherd had a sheep that was prone to wandering off from the herd or out of the protection of the pen, the Shepherd would actually break the sheep's leg and reset it, so that it would not wander and be killed by a prowling predator. So, because the Shepherd so loved His sheep, He would break their legs to keep them alive. Next, the pastor stated that this is what God does with us because He loves us. Now, he did not go into detail or give examples, so my question is: **Does God inhibit us in ways that are to keep us from going to Hell?** If so, does He do this for some people or for everyone? Lastly, what would be some examples of this? Would God try to keep someone humble and **alive** ***for eternity*** by giving them depression? Or if God knew someone could not control their lust make them unattractive, to preserve them? Any info on how this works is greatly appreciated. In addition, if this pastor's message is wrong, please do explain. Thank You.

A few days ago a family member who is religious told me about an event in her life that she thinks is a miracle. She witnessed a car wreck in front of her, and believes that it is a miracle that it was not them because they had stopped to pray beforehand. The details are not particularly important to this question. I know many people of various religions, but I've only heard similar statements from Christians. I live in the USA so I'm wondering if this is something that is largely cultural (being the most popular religion here) or if there is something particular about Christianity that encourages this? Are there any verses in the Bible which support this kind of hyper-involvement in your life by God? And is there a specific movement or denomination that is particularly supportive of this idea?