If Jesus cured the blind, why didn't he just cure blindness?

For the lulz, of course.

He cured the blind to fufill prophesies..There's a reason people are blind.

It's actually not really that good of a question. If you honestly knew anything at all about Jesus, then you'd know why. I admit, I'm kind of new to this myself, but I even know this. Stop trying to point out errors. "Oh man, there's clearly no God because bad things happen." Fail.

Because he didn't exist.

No that is why we wear prescription glasses and reading glasses

Good question!

What are you trying to prove?

Jesus wore eye glasses

There are many reasons for blindness. Generally speaking, a person that has a bad liver accounts for 95% of bad eye sight..

Only God has the answers.

Because that wasn't his job. His job was to teach people how to heal themselves.

TO TEST OUR FAITH

Good Question!

2 Corinthians 12:9 - KJV
"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Because he didn't cure the blind!

> What are you trying to prove?

That he didn't cure the blind!

So?

Since I'm not Jesus, I can't say for sure. I'll add this to my list of questions to ask once I'm in Heaven.

> So?

Then it's just a story!

because the whole world hadn't repented. individual curing was meant for individuals of faith, Wicksy

> He cured the blind to fufill prophesies..There's a reason people are
> blind.
>
> It's actually not really that good of a question. If you honestly
> knew anything at all about Jesus, then you'd know why. I admit, I'm
> kind of new to this myself, but I even know this. Stop trying to
> point out errors. "Oh man, there's clearly no God because bad things
> happen." Fail.


I think it's a perfectly logical question.

Jesus healed the blind people he met for what purpose?

Surely that purpose could be used to cure all blindness.

After all, his father created all life and matter, curing blindness is no major feat, right?

> because the whole world hadn't repented. individual curing was meant
> for individuals of faith, Wicksy

Ah I see. Therefore, Jesus is judgemental. Even I, an Athiest, am not judgemental.

Athiesm 1 Religion 0

God's job is to pass judgement.

Your job is fudging horses.

God: 1; retard: 0

> God's job is to pass judgement.
>
> Your job is fudging horses.
>
> God: 1; retard: 0

So nice of you to lower the tone, thank you Matty.

And who made the retard then?

Did you even read what I wrote?

> Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes

> He cured the blind to fufill prophesies..

How do you know this? You read it in the bible?

Because he wants people to know that he hates them. He just doesn't want them to know why yet.

Of course it is.

I don't accept the premise of your question - I don't think that Jesus did cure the blind, unless he was doing some very early corneal transplants!

> There's a reason people are blind.

Could you possibly clarify this point a little? Do you mean that it's part of God's (presumably unknowable) plan, or do you mean that certain people deserve to be blind, or something else?

Yes. Everything that Jesus did was done to fufill prophesies.

It's part of his unknowable plan. Humans from birth are sinners. I presume that that's why some people are blind.

> Yes. Everything that Jesus did was done to fufill prophesies.

And you hold this view from a book written by humans hundreds of years after Jesus was alive.

You trust them very much - why is that?

> It's part of his unknowable plan. Humans from birth are sinners.
> I presume that that's why some people are blind.

I'm sorry but this comment makes me want to choke. Such an ignorant statement in my book.

All humans from birth are sinners...what a bunch of crap!

The only sinners are the people that believe this crap.

because what many of them were alive when he was.

Are you trying to get me to believe what you do (or don't rather)? It's not going to work at all, and it's certainly not going to work by you calling me ignorant.

> Are you trying to get me to believe what you do (or don't rather)?
> It's not going to work at all, and it's certainly not going to work
> by you calling me ignorant.

No, just debating with you. Why is it that it is almost always the religious member of the argument that takes offence during a debate?

I didn't call you ignorant. I called your statement ignorant!

> because what many of them were alive when he was.

Were they?

And even if it were true, so what? What does that prove except that 'some' people took Jesus' word for granted! What happened at Waco again?

Because they are bigger sinners, or somehow more deserving of punishment?

I take offense because it sounds like you're attacking me. Making broad generalizations is bad.

I don't feel comfortable debating you.

There is a reason for everything. They aren't bigger sinners.

So the reason for some bad things is that they are part of God's plan, and the reason for other bad things is that human sin allowed the entry of evil into the world? How do you decide which is which? (Because presumably one can be combated, and one should be embraced).

I don't want to debate you, sorry.

I wasn't trying to debate with you. I was interested in what your perspective was, not in challenging it with my own... The psychology of religion interests me even more than the actual theology.

Ok, then I can try to answer your questions. As I said earlier, I'm new to this..so sorry if my answers aren't "good".

God lets bad things happen because we sin.

Over to you Biggles!

> |> There's a reason people are blind.
>
> Could you possibly clarify this point a little? Do you mean that it's
> part of God's (presumably unknowable) plan, or do you mean that certain
> people deserve to be blind, or something else?
>

The question of why bad things happen is a popular one. My attempt at an answer would go something like this: The first man, Adam, represented the entire human race. When he sinned (rebelled against God, by disobeying His clear Word of instruction) he told God in essence that he wanted life without God. He (and thus we) wanted autonomy—to be independent of God.
So humankind sinned, and God, being a righteous God, had to judge that rebellion - which, ultimately, leads to death. Because humankind bought that judgment on itself, it's humankinds fault that death, suffering and evil are rampant in this world.

So, being descendants of Adam, and being part of the human race, we have to live with disease, sickness, and death. Why some people are blind and others are not, why some people get cancer and others do not, I don't know. But we can't pick and choose how sickness may affect us, or who is affected by what.

If I wanted "good" answers, I would head for some textbook of theology I was interested because your original comment struck me as so "harsh" (for you) - it looked like you were saying "blind people deserve to be blind", which you weren't! But the way that Christians think about the problems of theology fascinates me. Many of my closest friends are Christian. I know that they are good, loving, kind people. And yet they are quite happy to accept that not only am I going to go to Hell and suffer torment for all eternity, but that such a fate, being decided by God (who they believe to be utterly good and infallible) is just. They are willing to accept that people who lived before Jesus, or who never heard of him, may go to Hell despite never being given the chance to be saved - and that's okay too. Now, I know that my friends are good people, so what is interesting to me, is how they can be good, and yet still believe things that seem terrible to a non-believer. I'm interested in the actual theology too, but the really interesting thing is how individuals think, what they are willing to accept on faith alone, and why. In a way, getting "raw" answers from someone like you, speaks a lot more to that than highly polished answers ever could

I don't believe in God. That's a pretty big sin! I have a nice life, good friends, no terrible diseases - no lightning strikes just yet... Okay, so I'm going to go to Hell, but I don't seem to be experiencing (particularly) bad things in this life. There are God-fearing people everywhere, experiencing awful things - don't I deserve it more? I suppose my question (really, trying not to "debate" here ) is: I know what the usual argument is for evil being in the world. But why are some people singled out?

I'm fairly familiar with the usual theological argument on this What interests me more (I posted about this after you wrote this comment I think), is *why* some people accept these ideas and others reject them. Anyone can read that argument in any theological text, or hear that sermon given from any pulpit, or be taught it at Sunday school. What fascinates me, is why some people feel that it is sufficient explanation for them to put aside their doubts completely, others accept it but struggle with it their whole life (like many of the great theologists) and yet others reject it entirely - either coming up with an alternative theological explanation, or reject the idea of God entirely. Many of my closest friends are Christians, and I've had a lot of discussions on this topic One thing that comes up over and over again, is that if you read the Bible as a non-Christian, you get a picture of a violent, petty, unforgiving, cruel God. I simply don't understand worshipping a being like that (even if I believed). But my friends, who are Christian, have "God is good" as starting point. So everything He does is for the best, regardless of how it might appear. He wants to burn non-believers in Hell for all-eternity? Well, there must be a good reason for that, because God is good and therefore good Christians should accept His judgements no matter how hard that may seem.

It's interesting - cuts right to the heart of human psychology

Thank you
I don't think that not knowing about God sends you to Hell. Only those who don't accept God go to Hell.

To test their faith? Because God knows that they'll stick by Him?

Because then there wouldn't be any blind people for him to cure.

> Then it's just a story!

To you, this may be proof that God doesn't exist, but you don't seem to realize that it doesn't say the same thing to a person who believes in God. Someone whose faith depends on a completely literal understanding of the Bible might eventually lose their faith if you manage to convince them that the Bible is self-contradicting and a product of human imagination (and I agree with you that this is undeniably the case). But there is a long tradition of understanding the Bible in an allegorical fashion, which doesn't depend on a literal reading of it. For these people--by far the majority of believers--you probably just look like you're ranting about something you don't understand. You can't accept the idea that religion is about faith, not about proof and facts. It's apples and oranges--you're trying to argue that everything is apples, and believers in God and the sanctity of the Bible are unlikely to take this view.

Also, most of the New Testament was written decades, not centuries, after the life of Jesus. The question of who Jesus was, as a historical figure, and how the different gospels portray him and develop a theology about him that changes from the earliest to the latest gospels, is a very interesting one. I suggest you read something about Jesus if you're really interested, and if you want to be able to engage in interesting conversations with people on the topic. As it is, you're picking out silly examples of things that look like glaring theological holes to you, without having a deeper understanding of the complexities of Christian theology.

> I don't think that not knowing about God sends you to Hell.

So anyone who doesn't get the chance to know anything about God/Christ gets an automatic pass to Heaven?

I'm not sure. I remember reading something about that..but I don't remember what it said, sorry.

Gold Star!

I feel a little presumptuous saying what Christians/believers might think, as I'm not one, so I'm glad you said that! This is just my impression of the situation, given my own experiences with it.

Well, I believe (as do many Christians) that those are true events in the Bible. But yes, a lot of it is open for interpretation. But he does point out things that are ridiculous and he should learn more before shooting everything fown.

> No that is why we wear prescription glasses and reading glasses


My parents told me there was another reason I had to wear glasses...

> They are willing to accept that people who lived before Jesus,
> or who never heard of him, may go to Hell despite never being given
> the chance to be saved - and that's okay too.

Ever read Dante's Divine Comedy? I must admit, I only made it through to halfway through the journey through heaven. Purgatory and Heaven are crashing bores compared to the Inferno. But the Inferno speaks to this very problem, talking about an episode in Divine History called the Winnowing of Hell. Apparently, after Christs' crucifixion, He went down to Hell and took away many of the Patriarchs and others who had led just lives away with Him to Heaven. Virgil, Dante's guide through the Nether regions, alas, was not included in this process and was condemned to spend Eternity wandering around the First Circle of Hell.

> |> No that is why we wear prescription glasses and reading glasses
>
>
>
> My parents told me there was another reason I had to wear glasses...
>
>

Ah ok another reason will do and gee my whole family wears glasses runs in dee family

Because he didn't cure the blind.

> Because he didn't cure the blind.

That's what I said, and look at the hassle I got!

I gave you a plus for it.

I don't think that's why you got hassled though. I think some people here felt that you were either trying to change their minds or make them look stupid with the conversation that followed your original post.

I guess we'll know...... if I get hassled.

Thanks.

I think you're probably right though.

However, I have noticed that some people on this site aren't prepared to debate topics that they hold close to their hearts. I am only ever interested in debates, I have never told anyone NOT to believe in anything.

If you can't do this on survey central, where can you?

I mostly think people are just too sensitive in general. This is just another example.

People are very sensitive about religion for some reason. Maybe if I could comprehend blind faith, I'd understand why.

> I mostly think people are just too sensitive in general. This is just
> another example.
>
> People are very sensitive about religion for some reason. Maybe if
> I could comprehend blind faith, I'd understand why.

It's interesting that if you slag off their favourite celebrity, car, clothing, music, film, they accept it. Even politicians.

Yet when you slag off their religion, it's suddenly very different!

The only way I come close to understanding it is to think of the disgust and hate I feel when dealing with someone who is trying to shove christianity down my throat.

It's one of the only issues I'm really sensitive about also..... just with opposite ideas.

> The only way I come close to understanding it is to think of the disgust
> and hate I feel when dealing with someone who is trying to shove christianity
> down my throat.
>
> It's one of the only issues I'm really sensitive about also..... just
> with opposite ideas.

Same with me, but add animal rights to the equation also.

I haven't. It's on my to-read list, along with about 10,000 other titles! Hopefully I'll get to it one of these days

It would have lost its dramatic effect as everyone that wasn't around to see him do it would ascribe all blindness cures to the same natural phenomenon. All subsequent generations would take the tale of blindness as a lie as there isn’t any blindness for them to know and can't imagine having it around in their populations.

Jesus was an enlightened individual. Jesus was such an enlightened individual that there was no separation between what is God and Jesus...they were one and the same. We live in the flesh on a material plane. The nature of our reality is of creation and destruction. To take away blindness in all people would have been a changing of the entire structure of our world and the laws that govern it. To cure one person whom Jesus was in contact with would have just been an extension of the God within him into another. Also, take note that Jesus told the people that he healed that he had not healed them, but they HAD BEEN HEALED BY THEIR OWN FAITH.

Each according to thier faith and life is a test