As I said, if there were no "weaknesses" why would we need a crutch?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?
- Thread starter kassault37
- Start date
As I said, if there were no "weaknesses" why would we need a crutch?
Me Myself
Back to my username
This.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Jesus didn't heal the blind man because he felt sorry for him. He healed him to make a point.
EDIT: To clarify why I said this.
The OP seems to come from the position that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to remove the man's struggles. And if he was so compassionate, why didn't he show the same compassion to everyone that is blind?
The thing is, that Jesus didn't heal the blind man out of compassion (the story doesn't say anything about compassion) he did it out of his duty to God. Shortly after the man is healed the pharisees run around town trying to get someone to admit that it was a trick. And no one does. Jesus healed the blind man so that this could all take place. Then Jesus talks about making the blind see and the sighted blind. He is speaking metaphorically about the Pharisees refusing to believe no matter how many people told them the same story. So what use would healing all of the blind be in demonstrating that? None at all. He only needed that one man at that one time. So that's all he did.
EDIT: To clarify why I said this.
The OP seems to come from the position that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to remove the man's struggles. And if he was so compassionate, why didn't he show the same compassion to everyone that is blind?
The thing is, that Jesus didn't heal the blind man out of compassion (the story doesn't say anything about compassion) he did it out of his duty to God. Shortly after the man is healed the pharisees run around town trying to get someone to admit that it was a trick. And no one does. Jesus healed the blind man so that this could all take place. Then Jesus talks about making the blind see and the sighted blind. He is speaking metaphorically about the Pharisees refusing to believe no matter how many people told them the same story. So what use would healing all of the blind be in demonstrating that? None at all. He only needed that one man at that one time. So that's all he did.
Last edited:
Muizz, what does this topic have to do with whether or not Jesus is God?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead to life, fed the hungry, cured the sick and even repaired the deformed and crippled
Why didnt he cure those things back in the first century? Because he had not yet been made King of the Earth.
When he establishes his kingly rule over the earth, he will cure all these infirmities completely and bring mankind back to the perfect state that God first created us.
Revelation 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.
22:1 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 ...[there were] trees of life producing twelve crops of fruit,...And the leaves of the trees [were] for the curing of the nations. 3 And no more will there be any curse....
Under the Messiahs reign, mankind will be healed, and that is why Christians were told to keep praying for that heavenly kingdom to come... it will restore all to perfection so the mankind can live forever in a beautiful paradise earth.
"Thy Kingdom Come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven"
Me Myself
Back to my username
Blackdog22
Well-Known Member
I think all people can do is guess at why Jesus healed some people and completely ignores others.
Perhaps he was making a point and oh what a lucky blind man to have been the core of that point, how unfortunate for everyone else?
Perhaps Jesus isn't all powerful and thus isn't God and just tricked everyone similar to what Outhouse said.
Perhaps Jesus enjoys suffering or perhaps he wants to see us overcome our suffering (even though people die or are killed because of these ill effects and thus sometimes overcome nothing).
Too many ideas, too many opinions just tell me one thing. None of the answers you get speak to truth, but to what we can assume. God never made any sense to me anyways..
Perhaps he was making a point and oh what a lucky blind man to have been the core of that point, how unfortunate for everyone else?
Perhaps Jesus isn't all powerful and thus isn't God and just tricked everyone similar to what Outhouse said.
Perhaps Jesus enjoys suffering or perhaps he wants to see us overcome our suffering (even though people die or are killed because of these ill effects and thus sometimes overcome nothing).
Too many ideas, too many opinions just tell me one thing. None of the answers you get speak to truth, but to what we can assume. God never made any sense to me anyways..
I remember my cousin once said that he tried to believe in God but when he prayed for a car, and one didn't fall out the sky for him, he didn't believe anymore. 
No, I am not making fun of anyone, I am trying to say that when someone believes, they don't use the fact that there are blind people, deaf people, autistic people, etc. to not believe in God. The reason that the author of the OP doesn't believe in God isn't clear, but I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that there are blind people- I am pretty sure it is much deeper than that. I have no reason to believe, I just believe. I would assume the same of other theists. And my guess would be that atheists don't have any reason to not believe, just that they don't believe- at least that's what most of them say. (I am not saying everyone doesn't have or no one does have a reason, but I believe that most don't by my observation)
My cousin, for example, didn't believe in God when he prayed for a car- of that I am certain.
No, I am not making fun of anyone, I am trying to say that when someone believes, they don't use the fact that there are blind people, deaf people, autistic people, etc. to not believe in God. The reason that the author of the OP doesn't believe in God isn't clear, but I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that there are blind people- I am pretty sure it is much deeper than that. I have no reason to believe, I just believe. I would assume the same of other theists. And my guess would be that atheists don't have any reason to not believe, just that they don't believe- at least that's what most of them say. (I am not saying everyone doesn't have or no one does have a reason, but I believe that most don't by my observation)
My cousin, for example, didn't believe in God when he prayed for a car- of that I am certain.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am not sure why people feel the need for miracles to prove or believe anything.
Certainly many healings are unexplained and always have been.
It is said Jesus gave the power of healing to his disciples, while he always credited his own power to God.
God can and does heal but it is always according to his will not ours.
Miracles are not produced to order.
Certainly many healings are unexplained and always have been.
It is said Jesus gave the power of healing to his disciples, while he always credited his own power to God.
God can and does heal but it is always according to his will not ours.
Miracles are not produced to order.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How so?
You were saying we can thrive even when we are handicapped.
I was pointing out that, given this is true, it was redundant to heal the blind man.
After all, he could thrive whilst being blind.
Or do you believe it would be better not to be handicapped? Do you believe that although we can thrive under such conditions it would be better to don't live under them, in which case your entire post is irrelevant?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I think the paragraph explains itself:
3 Neither this man nor his parents sinned, said Jesus, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
This specific blind man was blind strictly because God wanted to show off his powers. That's why he was healed.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
To be fair though, the man in the story was born blind.
This is not the same as healing a wound.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If you import the context God comes with then things start to make more sense. God is not intent on fixing a world broken by our rebellion. He permits evil things to exist as evidence of the "wrongness" of our reality. He occasionally steps into reality and reverses the corruption but it has a spiritual purpose more than a physical one. In fact one of the greatest incentives for faith is the presence of evil and death. That is why after big disasters or problems there is always a rise in Church attendance. Even a hardened atheist might relax and think a bit at a funeral. We need evidence of thing being broken as much as we need evidence of God's capacity to fix them. The inevitable result is that God acts at times and allows evil at times. The only question is an unanswerable one about the ration. Your argument is basically this. God either has to fix every problem on Earth or I can’t believe he ever fixed any if I understand correctly. I do not think that is a valid argument. Keep this in mind it only requires a single claim of the miraculous to be true out of millions of claims to make God real.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The answer is that religion is inherently convoluted and inconsistent. If you need to things to be structured, logical, and consistent, then religion probably isn't for you. Of course, I assume that you already know this.
As I said, politics. Even pointed out by a follower of God, why would we give our souls to God, how would God gain power and control, if he didn't allow us to suffer? He's not about love so much as being the manipulative "friend" who used weakness to gain control over you. So it would be silly for God to improve our lives.
Funny how a believer can directly show this yet be oblivious to the malicious intent behind it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Boy you can sure twist and warp until you get back whatever needed to justify whatever you wished. When my parents said something I wanted to do was bad I never believed them until they eventually let me do it anyway and I saw the destruction it produced. It isn't complex, it isn't diabolical, it isn't politics, and it does not justify dismissal actually made based on preference.
So what, God tells a fetus "don't be blind", the fetus decides being blind sounds awesome, and the loving parent can only stand by saying "told you so?" No, there is no such choice in the matter, there are natural and physical causes for things like blindness due to humans being biological beings. As shown, God can fix all this but chooses not to because, as you said, pain and suffering drive us right into his arms.