If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

[Pegg]

Because it's not the job or ability of Christ to heal blindness in toto. He healed the blind as a miracle for the people around him.

It will be his job when, as King of Gods kingdom, he extends those blessings to obedient mankind.

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.” 5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true.”

 

[Koldo]

I answered that question. Each soul's karmic history is different so it makes sense that they are treated differently. Every life experience on earth is unique and different for many reasons (including karmic issues). So things happen to some people and not to others.

That was a rhetoric question to elucidate it was not about the problem of evil strictly. I have given a reply to the OP that doesn't even touch the problem of evil if you bother to check it.

I was fast forwarding the debate in my mind and could see what it would come down to, the Problem of Evil.

Give time for each step to be done. Don't rush things, you may mess things up.

I've never heard a satisfying rebuttal to my rebuttal. Perhaps you can paraphrase a rebuttal to my rebuttal that we can discuss.

The Problem of Evil isn't really a problem in eastern thought. Challenges and suffering are part and parcel of involvement on the physical plane. At the least, decrepitude, old age and death are certainties. We are striving to liberate ourselves from this plane.

Once you actually offer a proper reply to the problem, we will talk about it.
So far you have only been dismissing the problem. And the worst of all is that you actually believe it is reasonable to accept your conclusion as it is presented.

Let's make a deal. You formulate a proper rebuttal, enumerating your propositions, and then showing how your conclusion follow from your premises, and we will talk about it.

 

[George-ananda]

That was a rhetoric question to elucidate it was not about the problem of evil strictly. I have given a reply to the OP that doesn't even touch the problem of evil if you bother to check it.



Give time for each step to be done. Don't rush things, you may mess things up.



Once you actually offer a proper reply to the problem, we will talk about it.
So far you have only been dismissing the problem. And the worst of all is that you actually believe it is reasonable to accept your conclusion as it is presented.

Let's make a deal. You formulate a proper rebuttal, enumerating your propositions, and then showing how your conclusion follow from your premises, and we will talk about it.

No offence but, I think you're stalling because you have no substantive rebuttal to me.

The issue is: If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

My reply is that God doesn't want to remove all 'temporary suffering' from the physical plane. (Blindness in one body is short and temporary in the grand scheme). In eastern thought, the world is designed to be a place of both good and bad things as both are needed for the souls learning experience. Hence there is no 'Problem of evil'.

The OP is thinking like blindness was a flaw in God's creation that he could correct but doesn't. There are no flaws in creation.

Substantive responses only please.

 

[Koldo]

No offence but, I think you're stalling because you have no substantive rebuttal to me.

I am not stalling anything.
I am waiting for a proper reply, that's all.

The issue is: If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

My reply is that God doesn't want to remove all 'temporary suffering' from the physical plane. (Blindness in one body is short and temporary in the grand scheme).

I have already explained that it doesn't matter if it is temporary or not, the problem of evil applies even in this case. If you want to follow this reasoning, please elaborate HOW temporary only suffering gets the problem of evil solved.

That is what i would call a proper reply.

The problem of evil was designed with the christian God in mind, and there is a concept of heavens in christianity, and therefore, temporary only suffering was taken into account when elaborating this argument. If something as simple as this could undermine it, the problem of evil would have no value whatsoever.

In eastern thought, the world is designed to be a place of both good and bad things as both are needed for the souls learning experience. Hence there is no 'Problem of evil'.

This soul learning experience is exactly what is called the soul-making theodicy.
It has its own set of shortcommings. For starters, if God is omnipotent, he could have created us in such a manner that we wouldn't need to undergo this process.

But you need to elaborate on your argument. Otherwise, it becomes a silly guess game where i have to engage in a quest to actually get to know what are the specifics of your reasoning.

The OP is thinking like blindness was a flaw in God's creation that he could correct but doesn't. There are no flaws in creation.

If you are talking about the problem of evil, it is about logical contradiction.

Substantive responses only please.

Why don't you do as you request as well?

 

[1robin]

See, again just because the propaganda says that this God is the highest of high does not make it so, that is the point of propaganda. If God said "I am the demiurge, creator of the physical world who wishes to enslave your soul and there is another reality far more divine than me" he would hardly have your approval, would he?

Even in Atheist bizarro world that is ridiculous. I have no idea what that was, you will have to clarify.

Haha you are just proving the point further. God could have come down here and liberated the slaves, but instead he allowed them to suffer, which in turn drove them into his arms. Then, once man (who you seem to see as evil or something) frees them, we once again give credit to God who did absolutely nothing.

So God using a Christian president and 300,000 Christian citizens to free 9 million slaves who prayed to him for deliverance is proof God is mean? How does that work? Prove using the Bible that God should have acted differently. So far about all you have managed to illustrate is that you wish he would act differently. There is not one verse that says God will prevent all suffering, misery, or death, nor that he will ask the doors of perception what to do. God is only required by himself to obey his revelation and he has.

I'm not even arguing from an atheistic perspective right now. And I cannot imagine what I have done to bring my problems upon myself, what a blind child has done, what a starving population has done. Hold us responsible for someone else's crimes and say the only way to stop suffering is to swear my soul to you. Yeah, that's not politics or manipulation, its love.

I did not say every problem was visited on a person because of a sin by that person and neither does the Bible. The Bible says creation is broken and until the end it will not be restored. God has to a great extent abandoned us to nature’s whims. The innocent are blind, the sinful gain wealth, and the brutal gain power many times. This happens with God or without, but with God there is hope for temporal restitution and a promise of eternal restitution and this is what you wish to condemn. What kind of logic is it that would claim doctors (God) and medicine (Holy Spirit) only exist to enslave us? That certainly does not come from the Bible or rationality.

The Bible declares:
New International Version (©2011)
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,
Yeah let’s stop this oppressive being.
Whatever it is your argueing against it isn't the Bible we actually have nor God.

And rationality says an immediate possible solution and a guaranteed eternal solution is better than no solution. The same problems exist in both world views only an ultimate solution exists in mine.

Says who? Perhaps we have great worth. If we have worth I am sure it is more than to be enslaved to the will of a deity, how is that meaningful?

You do not debate these issues much do you? Stalin eliminated religion from Russia and by doing so eliminated the only source that can assign actual worth to human life. How wrong was it for the atheist Stalin to kill 20 million biological anomalies without any inherent worth? In fact prove murdering every life form on Earth is actually wrong without God. Good luck.

If you think your soul is worth so much why not embrace life rather than sacrificing said soul to your God?

In what way have I not done the former or have done the latter. Stuff you invent that is not true, an argument does not make.

As stated, where do you get this information? Biased sources. Why are the Jews evil? Well, Hitler says so, and we know Hitler knows best because he told us so (and if we disagree we're going to Hell!!!).

I get it from the most studied book in human history and my claims are comparative propositions not proof claims. Only with God can humanity be assigned worth, dignity, equality, and sanctity. The potentiality does not even exist in atheism. Hitler was a very faulty man who displayed not a single reason to believe he is a moral authority for anything. Since you brought him up I will use him to illustrate the moral bankruptcy of atheism.

Richard Dawkins said: What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.

Demonstrate even the slightest error in Dawkin's accurate estimation of atheistic morality. Also let's say Hitler won WW2 and killed everyone that did not go along with his philosophy on what basis could an atheist say he was wrong?

Before I have to illustrate the difference, the problem with atheistic morality is a ontological problem not a epistemological problem. Atheists can apprehend a moral dimension they just can't explain its existance without God. That was to avoid the tried and true appeal to sympathy always used by atheists in a moral debate even after clarified many times.

 

[Ken Brown]

I am asking this question in order to figure it out, trying to make sense of it and it seems like most Christians just attack me right away as soon as I raise a question. So please help me understand the reason, and please give me a good reason, not something under the lines of because God wants millions of blind children suffering out there so we appreciate our eyes.
Thank you

Hi kassault37, a good question. There is a very specific answer and I hope you will consider it. The man born blind from birth represents the blind condition that all of mankind is in with respect to seeing and understanding things about Elohim. What Yeshua did, was to show us a way to be healed from blindness, and I'm not speaking of physical blindness, but rather Spiritual blindness. Yeshua said that the man born blind from birth was born that way to show or manifest the work of Elohim. What is Elohim's WORK?:

(Jn 6:29) Yeshua answered and said unto them, This is the work of Elohim, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.

Elohim wants everyone to come out of their blindness and believe in the One whom He has sent. There is a process involved for healing blindness. It requires several things.

1. The first thing is to have spittle added to dust, and that be placed upon a blind persons eyes. This act that Yeshua did to the blind man represents how we first need to have the dead body of Yeshua (dust/ashes) resurrected to Life with Living Water (the spittle) added to His dead body (Num 19:17). That is mixing spittle with dust-Living Water with the dead body of Yeshua.

2. Once you have the spittle added to dust placed on your eyes (the death, burial, and 3rd day resurrection of Yeshua), then you are required to go and WASH in the Pool of Siloam (which by interpretation means "Sent"). This represents how a new convert is to be washed or baptized INTO the One whom Elohim has SENT, Yeshua. And this is spoken about here-Num 19:19.

So hopefully you can see that the man born blind from birth is just a mirror image of blind mankind, and Yeshua is in the process of curing or healing blindness, that is IF you can believe in the One whom Elohim has Sent. KB

 

[George-ananda]

In your immediately preceding posts the quote below from you is the only one that has substance.

Am I supposed to provide an argument that there is no 'Problem of Evil'? The burden of proof is on the person asserting something.

For starters, if God is omnipotent, he could have created us in such a manner that we wouldn't need to undergo this process.

In Hindu philosophy, creation is Lila (divine play). As in any great play there is (intended by the author) drama along the way. In God's play there is a happy ending for all the characters although there may plenty of drama along the way. In God's wisdom, learning and struggling and achieving is greater than living forever in static-state changeless perfection.

 

[Sleeppy]

I am asking this question in order to figure it out, trying to make sense of it and it seems like most Christians just attack me right away as soon as I raise a question. So please help me understand the reason, and please give me a good reason, not something under the lines of because God wants millions of blind children suffering out there so we appreciate our eyes.
Thank you

The best answer I can give is - it's the same reason for any other individual trait or characteristic in the universe. I'm Christian so I'll put it in that context.. God formed lesser beings than Himself, using varying characteristics and traits, and varied the degrees of these characteristics and traits among all creation. When man was created we were alienated to these things but still susceptible. Why? To have an awareness that results from interaction. Moving, splitting, rearranging, etc. We move, we breathe, we eat, and we had sexual relations with that woman. If we were content at all times, having no hunger, no breath, no desire to move or have sex, we would be completely similar to each other in these ways, in that we no longer know them. The answer is, so that people like you ask questions and perhaps even desire, move, work to cure blindness by your own hand, which is an inheritance from God.

 

[Koldo]

In your immediately preceding posts the quote below from you is the only one that has substance.

Because i want a proper rebuttal from you. I have said this far too many times already.

Am I supposed to provide an argument that there is no 'Problem of Evil'? The burden of proof is on the person asserting something.

The problem of evil does that by itself.

In Hindu philosophy, creation is Lila (divine play). As in any great play there is (intended by the author) drama along the way. In God's play there is a happy ending for all the characters although there may plenty of drama along the way. In God's wisdom, learning and struggling and achieving is greater than living forever in static-state changeless perfection.

Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, as it puts the drama above our well-being.

 

[George-ananda]

Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent, as it puts the drama above our well-being.

Succeeding in the drama is better for us than a forever of no-changes.

 

[Sleeppy]

In Hindu philosophy, creation is Lila (divine play). As in any great play there is (intended by the author) drama along the way. In God's play there is a happy ending for all the characters although there may plenty of drama along the way. In God's wisdom, learning and struggling and achieving is greater than living forever in static-state changeless perfection.

An agreement! Between your Hindu philosophy and my Christianity. Good to see.

 

[Koldo]

Succeeding in the drama is better for us than a forever of no-changes.

1) How so? How do you measure this?
2) Doesn't succeeding in the drama leads to a forever of no-changes? Isn't that what you mean by happy ending?

 

[George-ananda]

1) How so? How do you measure this?
2) Doesn't succeeding in the drama leads to a forever of no-changes? Isn't that what you mean by happy ending?

In the end we are merged with God and all separation ends. We do not experience time then, time is an aspect of creation. What it's like for humankind to understand God is like a plant trying to understand an animal, or an animal trying to understand humans.

 

[Koldo]

In the end we are merged with God and all separation ends. We do not experience time then, time is an aspect of creation. What it's like for humankind to understand God is like a plant trying to understand an animal, or an animal trying to understand humans.

1) Why don't we start being merged with God? Why is there a need for this process?
2) A forever of no-change is, actually, a timeless state.

 

[George-ananda]

1) Why don't we start being merged with God? Why is there a need for this process?
2) A forever of no-change is, actually, a timeless state.

I believe I heard one sage explain it that God has a creative nature.

Just like an animal cannot understand why man would create literature, we can never fully understand why God created the universe.

 

[dgirl1986]

*blind post*

Fixing a symptom and preventing the cause are two different things.

 

[Koldo]

I believe I heard one sage explain it that God has a creative nature.

Just like an animal cannot understand why man would create literature, we can never fully understand why God created the universe.

Therefore, God's creativeness is above his benevolence.
Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.

 

[George-ananda]

Therefore, God's creativeness is above his benevolence.
Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.

You already claimed that once already in this thread and my refutation was post #70.

Or my point is we don't have the perspective to judge his omnibenevolence.

 

[Koldo]

You already claimed that once already in this thread and my refutation was post #70.

And it somehow lead to the same problem. Incredible, isn't it?
That should be a hint to you...

You said God created the drama, and it is better for us as such.
Why is it better for us? You said it is because God has a creative nature.

That is a non-answer. It doesn't explain why/how it is better for us.
As such, i reiterated my point that if God puts something ( such as his creativeness ) over its benevolence, it is not omnibenevolent.

 

[Prophet]

Maybe you don't have a clear vision of what blindness is.