Author Topic: If neither the blind boy nor his parents sinned, why did Jesus have to come?  (Read 1585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Couldnt yahweh just have sacrificed one of the three, two of the three, or all three and not gone through the whole Mary thing?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9

Offline OldChurchGuy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1480
  • Darwins +97/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • One of those theists who enjoys exchanging ideas
What is the "Mary thing" you are asking about?

Confused,

OldChurchGuy
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
A child and parent without sin means a sinless sacrifice could have been made by God without the need of a sinless Jesus,if God needed to sacrifice someone who had not sinned.

 Of course none of it is real,IT'S A STORY.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Couldnt yahweh just have sacrificed one of the three, two of the three, or all three and not gone through the whole Mary thing?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9

Jesus meant that neither the blind man or his parent's sin directly caused his blindness. He did not mean that they never sinned at all.

Edit to add analagy:

A man discovers a broken window in his house and asks his kids which one of them threw a ball through it.

the kids answer that neither of them threw a ball, the window was broken by a bird flying into it.



You wouldn't read that and assume those kids never threw a ball in their lives, neither should you read the passage you reference and assume that no sin was ever committed.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 04:12:09 PM by magicmiles »
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Couldnt yahweh just have sacrificed one of the three, two of the three, or all three and not gone through the whole Mary thing?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9

Jesus meant that neither the blind man or his parent's sin directly caused his blindness. He did not mean that they never sinned at all.

Edit to add analagy:

A man discovers a broken window in his house and asks his kids which one of them threw a ball through it.

the kids answer that neither of them threw a ball, the window was broken by a bird flying into it.



You wouldn't read that and assume those kids never threw a ball in their lives, neither should you read the passage you reference and assume that no sin was ever committed.
This is,of course,your translation of the incident? Jesus would have stated no sin caused the blindness,but that is not what he says,it's your interpretation.

 If Jesus,as some of us view it,is stating these people have not sinned,the view you have must change,so you see it as you want to for it to work.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Context makes Jesus words quite clear. He was asked what sin caused the blindness, and he answered in that context.

Somebody with quite low intelligence might not see that. I am surprised The Gawd doesn't see it.



 
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Context makes Jesus words quite clear. He was asked what sin caused the blindness, and he answered in that context.

Somebody with quite low intelligence might not see that. I am surprised The Gawd doesn't see it.
Here is the passage he in NO WAY asks if they never sinned or infers they have,he asks who sinned to cause the blindness Jesus even states he is blind so he may show the power of God

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9


 Leads us to another Question,why is there still blindness in the world if Jesus paid the price for ALL sin?......Jesus clearly implies that SIN causes blindness,since he has cleared the slate of all sin (past and future) the world should have no people blinded from birth
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 08:08:48 PM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Context makes Jesus words quite clear. He was asked what sin caused the blindness, and he answered in that context.

Somebody with quite low intelligence might not see that. I am surprised The Gawd doesn't see it.
Here is the passage he in NO WAY asks if they never sinned or infers they have,he asks who sinned to cause the blindness

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9

That's exactly my point.  &)

Jesus answered with regard to the question: who sinned to cause the blindeness? Not the man, or his parents.

You can't take it any further than that, and say that none of them sinned ever.

The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Answer the rest of the question,if sin caused the blindness,(as Jesus infers it to be the cause)and Jesus has paid the price in full for ALL sin(past and future) why is there still blindness from birth?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Backspace

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
  • Darwins +47/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • IXNAY
Curious why Jesus had to make a poultice of spit & mud to heal the mans sight when elsewhere in the Bible the mere touch of Jesus supposedly healed others.  Clearly, some at the gathering weren't taken in by Jesus' miraculous "healing"...

Quote
Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”

Also curious about this line from John 9:4-5,

Quote
Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Jesus is no longer of this world, yet candles, torches, and oil, gas, and electric lights have slowly allowed man to work during all hours of darkness.  Perhaps Thomas Edison was Jesus incarnate, and mankind was too blind to see it?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2013, 08:37:04 PM by Backspace »
There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.
-- Bernie Katz

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Answer the rest of the question,if sin caused the blindness,(as Jesus infers it to be the cause)and Jesus has paid the price in full for ALL sin(past and future) why is there still blindness from birth?

Sin is not eliminated from the world, and won't be until Jesus returns as described in the bible. But He certainly has paid for the sin of those who trust in His death and resurrection: sins past and future.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • Darwins +39/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Sin is not eliminated from the world, and won't be until Jesus returns as described in the bible. But He certainly has paid for the sin of those who trust in His death and resurrection: sins past and future.

Lol yeah when everything that isn't Christian is destroyed. Benevolently destroyed.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Curious why Jesus had to make a poultice of spit & mud to heal the mans sight when elsewhere in the Bible the mere touch of Jesus supposedly healed others.  Clearly, some at the gathering weren't taken in by Jesus' miraculous "healing"...

Quote
Others said, “No, he only looks like him.”


I love that sort of strange detail. Why did he heal with that method, on that occasion? Who knows...




The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Answer the rest of the question,if sin caused the blindness,(as Jesus infers it to be the cause)and Jesus has paid the price in full for ALL sin(past and future) why is there still blindness from birth?

Sin is not eliminated from the world, and won't be until Jesus returns as described in the bible. But He certainly has paid for the sin of those who trust in His death and resurrection: sins past and future.
Sin is a human construct,it matters not that it exists,if it was PAID for by Jesus,that would eliminate conditions,like blindness. Jesus said the blindness is caused by sin,with the sins paid for,the penalty of blindness no longer is a reality. your response is little more than a dismissal of the point that illness is caused by "sin" and penalty for sin (illness) should no longer exist. Sin is not eliminated,but if you believe in Jesus and his sacrifice (paying for ALL sin) the illness caused by sin IS.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
You illogically conclude that sin is eliminated by Jesus paying the price of it. Why do you conclude this? When you pay for fuel does fuel suddenly disappear?

The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6238
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Did not the sacrifice of Jesus remove all of our sins? If not, then what was the point?

Your fuel analogy does not work, because if someone else pays your gas (sin) bill, the gas company (god) can't also collect from you because it is already paid.

Right?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
The fuel analogy is to demonstrate that something can be paid for, yet still exist.

My sins have been paid for. You've heard the word justified used in connection with Jesus I assume? I still sin, but because of Jesus it is 'just if I'd' never sinned.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
The fuel analogy is to demonstrate that something can be paid for, yet still exist.

My sins have been paid for. You've heard the word justified used in connection with Jesus I assume? I still sin, but because of Jesus it is 'just if I'd' never sinned.
Read carefully,I never stated sin was eliminated,just paid for. As a result of sin being "payed for" ailments,conditions,sickness,disease and other conditions that resulted from sin should no longer exist.The Jesus sacrifice ends all negative effects God imposed on humans pre-sacrifice. No mire ailments as a result of sin,past,present,future.

 as you state it is like the sin is washed away,so NO child should ever die of lukemia,as all ailments according to Jesus are a result of SIN
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Read carefully,I never stated sin was eliminated,just paid for. As a result of sin being "payed for" ailments,conditions,sickness,disease and other conditions that resulted from sin should no longer exist.

Why not? Says who?


The Jesus sacrifice ends all negative effects God imposed on humans pre-sacrifice. No mire ailments as a result of sin,past,present,future.

Says who?


as you state it is like the sin is washed away,so NO child should ever die of lukemia

There is simply no basis for this. It isn't what the bible says, and it isn't what Christianity teaches.


 
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • Darwins +39/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Before Jesus was crucified no one went to heaven right? After the sacrifice of Jesus Christians are able to go to heaven because Jesus was the messiah.
As I understand what MM is saying is that we still sin. Sin is still around but the original sin of Adam is what will be lifted. Jesus work on the cross has not yet come to be realized because he is preparing the new perfect kingdom ect...

Or I am totally wrong and everything other Christians on the internet have told me is wrong.

Online 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4415
  • Darwins +97/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Jesus states or implies that SIN is the CAUSE of illness,is that yes or no?

 Sin being PAID for (not eliminated) means that no sickness should be caused by sin,yes or no?

 Did the "sacrifice of Jesus" pay for all sin(past present future) yes or no?

 You can either answer yes to all 3 questions or no to all 3 but they cant have a mix of yes or no.

 If you can answer both yes and no to any question it leaves you seeing Jesus as a false Prophet,or clearly wrong as we know for a fact that SIN never caused illness.

 If you believe (as Jesus states) that sin causes illness,with Jesus paying the debt for all sin,sickness CAUSED by sin is eliminated,yes or no?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 10:23:42 AM by 12 Monkeys »
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
  • Darwins +39/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Jesus states or implies that SIN is the CAUSE of illness,is that yes or no?
I don’t know. But it is said the wages for sin is death. So if sin causes death I suppose it can cause illness. Although to my knowledge children are not punished for the sins of their parents and vice versa. So being born blind shouldn’t have anything to do with sin... I guess.

Quote
Sin being PAID for (not eliminated) means that no sickness should be caused by sin,yes or no?
Original sin is lifted/paid for. One day when Jesus comes back it won't hurt to have babies, we won't have to work so hard for food, and maybe snakes will get to talk again. However you are still a dirty sinner. You are still held accountable for sinning.

Quote
You can either answer yes to all 3 questions or no to all 3 but they can't have a mix of yes or no.
Why is that? Jesus didn’t get rid of sin altogether. Even if he did his work on the cross hasn’t come to be yet. I guess we won't know what happens with sin until Jesus shows up.

Quote
If you believe (as Jesus states) that sin causes illness,with Jesus paying the debt for all sin,sickness CAUSED by sin is eliminated,yes or no?
I assume you are mainly talking to MM/an actual Christian. I contributed to the topic so I thought I would answer. Lol my responses in no way represent the views of MM. 


Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
What is the "Mary thing" you are asking about?

Confused,

OldChurchGuy
Sending Jesus down through her to be crucified.

@magicmiles

I am afraid your answer does not suffice as to the blind kids circumstances. It is inferred that sin causes blindness, not a sin in particular. Theyre not asking how it happened. Its clear to Jesus that sin in and of itself causes blindness. Now when Jesus states neither the child nor the parents sinned he again did not reference any sin in particular, only sin in general. The three of them, according to Jesus, were sinless and thus candidates for the crucifixion and saving us all.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Jesus states or implies that SIN is the CAUSE of illness,is that yes or no?

Not in that specific passage he doesn't, but illness is caused by sin, ultimately. That is correct.


 Sin being PAID for (not eliminated) means that no sickness should be caused by sin,yes or no?

No, not at all. The effects of sin are still very real. People sin constantly. That hasn't changed, yet.


 Did the "sacrifice of Jesus" pay for all sin(past present future) yes or no?

Yes, for those who repent from it and trust in Jesus.


 You can either answer yes to all 3 questions or no to all 3 but they cant have a mix of yes or no.

If you look carefully, you'll see that I can.


 If you can answer both yes and no to any question it leaves you seeing Jesus as a false Prophet,or clearly wrong as we know for a fact that SIN never caused illness.

No, it simply means that you have a poor understanding of Christianity.


 If you believe (as Jesus states) that sin causes illness,with Jesus paying the debt for all sin,sickness CAUSED by sin is eliminated,yes or no?

No. As explained above.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1809
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
It is so frustrating having discussions like this with Christians b/c it is so easy for them to make-up their own theology to avoid refutation. It's very easy to spin, rationalize, ignore, toss-away, or forget about clear contradictions and irrational beliefs when those beliefs are based upon non-demonstrable, invisible, non-verifiable, alleged 'supernatural' stuff. This is especially frustrating with Christians because they practice confirmation bias (having started with their conclusion first and trying to work backwards). Nearly every religion does this. The tactics are very much the same with nearly all people of this kind (i.e. - the practicers of superstition).

The very beginning of theology is an epic fail - starting with the assumption that the bible is 'perfect', "God breathed", or "the inerrant inspired Word of God" and then continuing on (like it's cool) interpreting or re-interpreting every passage in a favorable or desirable light. This practice of 'giving it the benefit of the doubt' is the problem. You wouldn't do that with any other religion, nor would you do it with any other claim to the supernatural or miraculous in life - and yet here you are (I'm speaking generically to religious believers now) doing it with the holy book you just so happen to have grown up around. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 04:05:02 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male

@magicmiles

I am afraid your answer does not suffice as to the blind kids circumstances. It is inferred that sin causes blindness, not a sin in particular. Theyre not asking how it happened. Its clear to Jesus that sin in and of itself causes blindness. Now when Jesus states neither the child nor the parents sinned he again did not reference any sin in particular, only sin in general. The three of them, according to Jesus, were sinless and thus candidates for the crucifixion and saving us all.

You are quite simply wrong about this. The disciples quite plainly asked Jesus whether the blind man or his parents caused the blindeness through their sin. Jesus responded in that context. He said that the specific sins of none of them had directly caused the blindness.

All sickness and imperfection is due to the world we live in being corrupted with sin, from the very beginning till now. In that sense, the mans blindness is a result of sin. But Jesus is saying that the man wasn't struck blind becauuse of some specific sin committed.

He actually goes on to show that God can work all things to His purposes, by restoring the mans sight.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
It is so frustrating having discussions like this with Christians b/c it is so easy for them to make-up their own theology to avoid refutation. It's very easy to spin, rationalize, ignore, toss-away, or forget about clear contradictions and irrational beliefs when those beliefs are based upon non-demonstrable, invisible, non-verifiable, alleged 'supernatural' stuff. This is especially frustrating with Christians because they practice confirmation bias (having started with their conclusion first and trying to work backwards). Nearly every religion does this. The tactics are very much the same with nearly all people of this kind (i.e. - the practicers of superstition).

Yeah, whatever. Do you have this post saved somwhere and just paste it in every few days?

How about you address the passage being discussed and show that I am wrong, if that is what you think?

Edit to add: I just smited Median's generic, boring, repetitive post. I wait with bated breath to see which of my posts he smites in retaliation.

Edit to add: he chose this one!!
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 04:15:45 PM by magicmiles »
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Online median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1809
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
It is so frustrating having discussions like this with Christians b/c it is so easy for them to make-up their own theology to avoid refutation. It's very easy to spin, rationalize, ignore, toss-away, or forget about clear contradictions and irrational beliefs when those beliefs are based upon non-demonstrable, invisible, non-verifiable, alleged 'supernatural' stuff. This is especially frustrating with Christians because they practice confirmation bias (having started with their conclusion first and trying to work backwards). Nearly every religion does this. The tactics are very much the same with nearly all people of this kind (i.e. - the practicers of superstition).

Yeah, whatever. Do you have this post saved somwhere and just paste it in every few days?

How about you address the passage being discussed and show that I am wrong, if that is what you think?

That bold part is the main reason why I am not inclined at this time. You clearly have done exactly what I stated (started with your conclusion, are working backwards towards confirmation, and refuse to view the bible in any other mind-frame than "the infallible Word of God"). This is, by definition, intellectual dishonesty. It shows that you don't care whether or not your beliefs are actually true. You just want to keep believing and confirming/defending. That is the height of hubris. If a Muslim practiced this toward you, how would you feel about it?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
It is so frustrating having discussions like this with Christians b/c it is so easy for them to make-up their own theology to avoid refutation. It's very easy to spin, rationalize, ignore, toss-away, or forget about clear contradictions and irrational beliefs when those beliefs are based upon non-demonstrable, invisible, non-verifiable, alleged 'supernatural' stuff. This is especially frustrating with Christians because they practice confirmation bias (having started with their conclusion first and trying to work backwards). Nearly every religion does this. The tactics are very much the same with nearly all people of this kind (i.e. - the practicers of superstition).

Yeah, whatever. Do you have this post saved somwhere and just paste it in every few days?

How about you address the passage being discussed and show that I am wrong, if that is what you think?

That bold part is the main reason why I am not inclined at this time. You clearly have done exactly what I stated (started with your conclusion, are working backwards towards confirmation, and refuse to view the bible in any other mind-frame than "the infallible Word of God"). This is, by definition, intellectual dishonesty. It shows that you don't care whether or not your beliefs are actually true. You just want to keep believing and confirming/defending. That is the height of hubris. If a Muslim practiced this toward you, how would you feel about it?

Address the passage or piss off. We know how you feel about the bible generally. But a specific passge is being discussed here.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.