Miracle Of Healed Vision Or A Hoax?

[trueagnostic]

My uncle, one of the most dedicated, and loving xians one could ever meet just died of bone cancer after immeasurable suffering that lasted more than 5 years. He truly believed until the end that he would be healed. He named it, he claimed it, he believed it and he suffered worse than the Jesus character ever could have. Believers aren't immune, IOW.

I agree that happens. In my church I have witnessed the whole church praying for a woman with cancer, and she eventually died . There are mute and deaf people and other sick people coming to church every sunday who don't and possibly never will get healed. Does that rule out the possibility of existance of miracles?No. In mathematics to prove that there exists some quantity you just have to demonstrate it and that's enough. For example to prove that there exists a triangle with equal sides you just have to demonstrate (by measuring all three sides) that it exists. (Mind me, the claim is not that ALL triangles have equal sides --that is, that miracles ALWAYS happen--but that such triangles exist -- that is miracles SOMETIMES happen). To prove that miracles happen you just need to witness a miracle, and of course a real miracle, something like I described earlier.

Another question is why do most chiristians don't see miracles. One answer according to the bible could be, because it is not always God's will. You can see how bible supports this when you read the story of Daniel's friends threatened to be thrown into fiery furnace. They chose not to bow the idol and they said thay would rather be thrown in to the furnace "And IF it is God's will to save us He will do so." That is it could be not God's will to save them and they could have died. The bible is full with references to christians who died and were not helped by God, it calls them "the heros of faith" Apostle Paul, who supposedly healed lots of people himself suffered from some eye disease. He writes that he many times asked God to heal him, but did not receive the healing. Second biblical answer for why miracles don't happen is because of lack of faith and/or the unrepentance of the sick. Jesus, it says could not heal people in his native town because of their lack of faith. As for the unrepentance of the sick, I can't recall an example from the bible that supports this, but I know that is the christian teaching in this area.

 

I know I probably sound like a hard-core christian when I write all of this. Nope I am not, I have lot's of doubts, and have yet to be proven real miracles happen. The point was only to show that bible is pretty consistent when it comes to miracles not happening. Perhaps those arguments are just excuses built into christian belief system to save face when miracles don't happen? Could be.

[Raul]

I myself could claim,that I was faith-healed...In fact,I've "witnessed" this in the сommunity,I attended (I'll probably make a separate topic about this story today or a bit latter) ,but if something doesn't make sense it just doesn't make sense... Well,Bible doesn't.

[Neon Genesis]

Does that rule out the possibility of existance of miracles?No. In mathematics to prove that there exists some quantity you just have to demonstrate it and that's enough. For example to prove that there exists a triangle with equal sides you just have to demonstrate (by measuring all three sides) that it exists. (Mind me, the claim is not that ALL triangles have equal sides --that is, that miracles ALWAYS happen--but that such triangles exist -- that is miracles SOMETIMES happen). To prove that miracles happen you just need to witness a miracle, and of course a real miracle, something like I described earlier.

Prove to us that a miracle has happened at all at any point in history. And since when is the only evidence needed to prove a miracle is a person witnessing it? Did you not read the quote from Thomas Paine that I posted earlier in the thread?

 

 

Another question is why do most chiristians don't see miracles. One answer according to the bible could be, because it is not always God's will.

So, you're saying that the reason why god doesn't answer prayers and allows a child to be raped by a priest is because it was god's will? You realize that with this answer, you've just justified murder, rape, abuse, and countless other numbers of sins, right?

[R. S. Martin]

I haven't read the answers yet but I read the OP. If that guy had any serious near-sightedness like I do, or three of my siblings and a few other people I know, there is NO WAY he could have done what he claims to have done. You say he claims that for about three weeks he lived with near-sightedness after he threw out his glasses. My siblings and I would be legally blind without glasses. We could not pretend to see. We would not be safe on the street. We could not function in a sighted school. However, with glasses and contact lens our vision can be corrected enough so that we could drive if we wanted to. Thus we are not blind, or even nearly so. I asked an optometrist what the regulations are.

 

All the same, in a classroom setting we have to sit as close to the blackboard as possible because we can't see from further back. We do have impaired vision. I like having text enlarged to point 14 or 16. That gives you some idea of the kind of near-sightedness I'm talking about. That is when wearing glasses. Without glasses I cannot recognize faces across the room. I would not throw out my glasses to prove god's existence or a miracle or anything else. Perhaps I would do it to save my life but not unless all other last resorts had been exhausted.

 

If I were taken into some kind of concentration camp where glasses were not allowed I'd probably try to sneak them in even at the risk of my life. So there!

 

My guess is that guy just learned how to cope without glasses. That can happen. Other senses compensate for weak ones. There is more than one way to "see" the words on the printed page. When the brain no longer could use the normal visual pathways it developed other pathways still available. I've never done any studies in this but I know from personal experience over a lifetime of trying to read all I can possibly read. If you can't see the details of each individual letter you can still see the shape and size--the silhouette--of the word. Since no two words have the exact same silhouettes, this works remarkably well for reading...I dunno--that's just a theory of what might have happened because I know how much other senses can compensate for weak ones.

 

Most people don't realize how low my vision is when I'm in my regular routine because I know my way around so well and have accommodated myself to the situation. I go by touch and sound a LOT. I was born this way. I've seen blind people walking confidently down the street so fast that I could not believe they were blind. The only cue was the cane they moved back and forth across the sidewalk in front of themselves to be sure the pathway was clear. Thus, I'm not putting it past a Christian with an ax to grind that he might have been faking it--given that his vision wasn't terribly low to begin with. He probably has medium near-sightedness to begin with so losing his glasses was not such a big deal as it would be for me or my siblings. And three weeks' time might well have been enough for him to adjust to new ways of reading so that he thought his vision was healed. I dunno.

 

I think even eye examinations can be illusory. I'm getting to the point where I've memorized the chart for eye examinations. And if I know what the chart says I can read it a lot better than if I don't know. They should shuffle those letters every few years. The main thing is that he can get along in life. I think there's ways to disprove God's existence without miracles. Sounds like you've got the knowledge you need on that.

[R. S. Martin]

I've read the answers now and I learned a lot.

[trueagnostic]

  How do they explain the brutality of nature?  Did disease magically emerge when Adam ate an apple?  Did tigers suddenly give up their vegan diet when the snake hissed in Eve's ear?  Did male lions begin brutally slaughtering the cubs of their conquered elders

 

Very good point against creationism. Supports my doubts. Sometimes you ask a christian how come the nature has so much cruelty and bloodshed, they will answer it's because the sin corrupted it. On another occasion, the same christian will note to you how wonderfull and perfectly balanced the ecosystem is and will attribute this delicate system to the intelligence of the creator (forgetting at the same time that the delicate balance is only due to the predator pray mechanism --killing weaker by stronger) Combinging the two answers together we can conclude that corruption caused God to design a very cruel but smart system almost from the scratch.

 

 

Just trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the Judeo/xtian idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing god creating people without the ability to understand right and wrong, and then telling them to obey (a concept they can not understand) then getting angry when they did exactly as he knew they would (he is all-knowing, remember) and damning not just them, but all of humanity for 2 of them doing exactly what he knew they would do, makes sense to you?

 

What you say makes sense. Again, this too supports my doubts. Still, unlike many already converted atheists, I remain objective to all evidence. Despite the seeming stupidity and irrationality of christian faith, I cannot completely deny the evidence. I called up my friend whose story I wrote here. He told me he did have a prescription written for glasses here in US, and he could check his vision again. (Actually, knowing him personally I don't need hard evidence, his word is sufficient for me.) A prescription for serious nearsightedness and no prescription later would account for some evidence of a miracle. Would that sway me to believe into God? Probably not yet, I wrote earlier that I would require a more dramatic miracle to actually be convinced. My point is that I tend to be open to all arguments and all evidence on both sides of the issue of God's existance.

 

Prove to us that a miracle has happened at all at any point in history. And since when is the only evidence needed to prove a miracle is a person witnessing it? Did you not read the quote from Thomas Paine that I posted earlier in the thread?

I am not an evangelist of miracle existance, I just don't deny they may exist. I agree with Thomas Paine quote that you cannot take someone's revelation at face value. If someone tells me he saw an angel yesterday I will not be convinced angels exist but will make a note that since a rational human being says he experienced something supernatural, then there is a chance that supernatural things exist.

Trying to keep my mind open to all channels of information. Weighing the evidence for and against. Not enough evidence on either side to be deconverted from agnosticism.

[Neon Genesis]

Why did you bother to post this thread then since you've already made up your mind to believe your friend is right to begin with? Why bother wasting our time responding to something you were already convinced was true when you yourself you don't need evidence to convince yourself it's true? And it's hypocritical for you to say there's no evidence on either side to disprove this miracle claim yet you yourself say you don't care about evidence. Which one is it? Either evidence is important to you or it isn't and you're wasting our time. Also, remember that Occam's Razor is your friend.

[Amethyst]

An agnostic is one who searches for truth, not one who has his mind made up and wishes to convince others of it.

 

Keep in mind that many have prayed for healing and were not healed. Just read the anti-testimonies here and you will see them.

[florduh]

I put Christian god for "any gods" because that's the only god I am considering for possible existance.

 

 

The Christian god (Jehovah) is probably the most absurd version of a god fantasy. It is simply the one you're most familiar with.

 

Many people here can embrace a deist or pantheistic notion, but all can easily dismiss Jehovah because of the sheer absurdity.

 

If you must latch on to this eyesight anomaly as a "miracle" you must be very desperate to believe in that most unlikely deity. A god of his purported abilities and perfect love would do real miracles that are of some importance. When there are blind people in need of healing, whether or not some kid needs glasses is irrelevant.

[trueagnostic]

Why did you bother to post this thread then since you've already made up your mind to believe your friend is right to begin with? Why bother wasting our time responding to something you were already convinced was true when you yourself you don't need evidence to convince yourself it's true? And it's hypocritical for you to say there's no evidence on either side to disprove this miracle claim yet you yourself say you don't care about evidence. Which one is it? Either evidence is important to you or it isn't and you're wasting our time. Also, remember that Occam's Razor is your friend.

My final word here:

 

I asked for help from Exchristian audience to come up with theories that would explain the story I heard from my friend as natural phenomenon. Yes, I don't need an evidence from that person that he didn't lie to me. I am sure if your good friend told you something you would trust him/her knowing they never lied before. I guess what I wanted is for people to assume the story is true and still find a way to explain it as a natural phenomenon.

Unfortunately the theories I heard here don't accomplish the task. I will sum up and give my objections to them.

 

1. Natural therapy can improve vision.

Natural therapy cannot account for radical improvement in vision that he experienced. Moreover he did not do any excercises that are present in such therapy.

 

2. Hypothesis and resolution of conflicts improve vision.

Same as above -- it cannot fix a bad case of bad vision.

 

3. Farsightedness can cancel the effect of nearsightedness, bringing the bad vision to normal.

Yes, but it happens at an old age, he was an adolescent. Also he does not have symptoms of farsightedness -- he can see well at far and close distances without glasses.

 

4. Imagination that you have good vision makes you feel that you see well, when in fact you don't.

Judge this one for yourself.

 

I perfectly understand that no one is supposed to believe me that the story is true. You don't know me or my friend and I admit that it is hard to take this story at face value. I want to thank everyone for their time. Your comments were very valuable. Feel free to contact me by e-mail, I am open to reasonable discussion (I don't make promisses that the individual in the story can be contacted, he is a busy person and has no connection with the exchristian.net as far as I know.)

Appreciate your time again.

[Vigile]

I think trueagnostic is on the way out, but still struggling with the meme.

 

TA, rejecting claims that have no foundational evidence and that are on their face absurd does not make one closed minded. You have a lot of good questions. IMO, you just need some time to study and research things a bit more until you come up with answers that you find intellectually satisfying. There are a lot of good resources on this site, but you are not limited to this either. Keep on asking questions and seeking knowledge. Keep on questioning the easy answers and keep on digging a little deeper. I doubt you will ever find the Truth™, but you will certainly gain a better understanding of what it is that you are willing to accept. Whether you end up an atheist or whatever is yet to be seen. Only the future will tell where you ultimately end up. You have a fine inquisitive mind and that counts for a lot.

[florduh]

You initially said, "help me debunk his testimony."

 

That indicates you had a bias toward disbelieving his story, but in fact the opposite was true. You don't want it debunked.

 

He doesn't have to be lying for there to be a non-miraculous answer. I'm sure he believes he received a miracle. He wants/needs to, and so do you apparently.

 

It's a pretty minor "miracle", but you have to take what you can get.

 

Atheists, Buddhists, Jews and others routinely surprise doctors with spontaneous healings of serious and life-threatening diseases. Broken bones mend too fast, cancers vanish, and even the blind sometimes regain their sight. All these unusual things happen without, or in spite of, praying to your god.

 

Honestly, it's just silly.

[Ouroboros]

You initially said, "help me debunk his testimony."

 

That indicates you had a bias toward disbelieving his story, but in fact the opposite was true. You don't want it debunked.

If you don't mind, I'm gonna come to his defense. Maybe he's taking the opposite side, just to draw out the better arguments against. (I tend to do that in debates sometimes. Play the devil's advocate a bit... to some members frustrations. )

[florduh]

Got it, Mr. Solo, but this doesn't seem like a debate. It looks like a Christian in disguise.

[Ouroboros]

Got it, Mr. Solo, but this doesn't seem like a debate. It looks like a Christian in disguise.

More than that: he admits he's a Christian in the "any gods" field. But my explanation is mere conjecture. He should give his own explanation to why he seems to defend the positive affirmation.

[Casey]

Ruby has made some good points in her reply to this thread. Before I had LASIK, I had medium level myopia or short-sightedness. Please bear in mind I'm no expert on this subject, yet the following may be of interest. What we are talking about in this alleged miracle is Visual Acuity. This is measured by the use of a Snellen Card or its equivalent for illiterates. Other cards are also used where indicated. This is a standard Snellen Card.

 

When this card or its equivalent is used, it is positioned 20 feet from the subject, who then reads the card, firstly using one eye at a time, then both eyes together. The results (decided by the lowest line you can read unaided) are expressed as a fraction, for example 20/20. If this were your Visual Acuity, then you would see at 20 feet what a normal eye should see at the same distance. If it were 20/10, you would see at 10 feet what a normal eye should see at 20 feet. The latter case however does not mean you have only one half of normal vision. It would be more accurate to say this result indicates you have about 85% of normal vision, because:

 

The Snellen fractions, 20/20, 20/30, etc., are measures of sharpness of sight. They relate to the ability to identify small letters with high contrast at a specified distance. They give no information about seeing larger objects and objects with poor contrast (such as steps and curbs); it also does not inform us as to whether or not meaning is obtained from visual input, how much effort is needed to see clearly or singly, and whether or not vision is less efficient when using both eyes as opposed to each eye individually. In short, visual acuity measures only the smallest detail we can see; it does not represent the quality of vision in general.

 

Moreover:

 

[C]ontrary to popular belief, 20/20 is not actually normal or average, let alone perfect, acuity. Snellen, [August Colenbrander, MD] says, established it is a reference standard. Normal acuity in healthy adults is one or two lines better. Average acuity in a population sample does not drop to the 20/20 level until age 60 or 70. This explains the existence of the two lines smaller than 20/20: 20/15 and 20/10.

 

One can't simply test oneself against a Snellen Card however, then use the Snellen fraction to order a pair of eyeglasses; it's not as simple as that. Where the focal length of the eye is too short (presbyopia) a convex or magnifying lens is required to correct the condition. The strength of the correction is expressed in positive Diopters. Where the focal length is too long (myopia), a concave lens is required, the strength of same being measured in negative diopters. To take myself as an example, my (uncorrected) Visual Acuity required -3 Diopters left eye and -6 Diopters right eye. In practical terms this meant that without my glasses there was no way I could fake normal vision unless under carefully staged circumstances or unless I were a bloody sight better actor than I could ever hope to be.

 

What Ruby has said about memorising eye charts is also worthy of some consideration. A practical example of this point is the case of Adolf Galland, who was one of Germany's Second World War air aces. In his memoirs entitled The First And The Last he recalls that after two pre-war crashes he had sustained scarring to the cornea of one of his eyes to the point where his Visual Acuity was reduced below that required of a fighter pilot. Nonetheless in the first case he obtained a copy of the particular Snellen card (as observed previously, they are not all the same) he knew would be used and passed the test. After his second crash he couldn't do that again; however, because of his combat experience (in the Spanish Civil War), his CO "sat on" his results. Again, no miracle needed.

Casey

 

Visual Acuity reference

[trueagnostic]

I think trueagnostic is on the way out, but still struggling with the meme.

 

TA, rejecting claims that have no foundational evidence and that are on their face absurd does not make one closed minded. You have a lot of good questions. IMO, you just need some time to study and research things a bit more until you come up with answers that you find intellectually satisfying. There are a lot of good resources on this site, but you are not limited to this either. Keep on asking questions and seeking knowledge. Keep on questioning the easy answers and keep on digging a little deeper. I doubt you will ever find the Truth, but you will certainly gain a better understanding of what it is that you are willing to accept. Whether you end up an atheist or whatever is yet to be seen. Only the future will tell where you ultimately end up. You have a fine inquisitive mind and that counts for a lot.

 

Thank you Vigile for understanding. I really am not a "disguised christian" as some think. If you read closely my posts, I am judging each argument on the grounds of logic and not some bias. If I asked "to help debunk his testimony" (that is if you are gracious enough to assume for a while it is true) I asked so to encourage as many contra arguments as possible, and to analyze them rationally afterwards.

My Christian family, whom I love, is praying hard for me (and possibly will my church too) to stop doubting and "just believe it". But I CAN'T "just believe it" because I don't want to trick my mind into believing something I am not yet sure about. Vigile, I really can't bear a thought that I may never find the Truth, and that I will have to settle for something that will be "intelectually satisfyig" and that I will "be willing to accept". Boy, the struggle I feel is sometimes so bad that I want to die. This sounds really irrational, but I wish I had two lives: I would dispose of the first one immediately so I can find out the TRUTH and live the second one in peace.

I guess that's enough about the story. Thanks again everybody.

Meanwhile I intend to keep "digging deep" into everything that seems to support BOTH sides. And I will try to remain objective while looking at the info. On the christian side, I am willing to meet with serious christians, who can think logically, are practicing what they believe, and have facts to support their faith. I also try to read as much about creationism and the weak sides of evolution as I circumstances allow.

On the other side I am researching biblical contradictions (have learned a lot about them, actually some good ones from here), I like reading testimonies of deconverted christians, and read about evidence for evolution. I wish I had more background in biology to really understand evolution on a deep level. Can someone suggest a sound book or site that makes the most convincing arguments for evolution? I had just a college course in biology and have not read any books just on this topic.

Speaking of my seeking the truth objectively, can someone tell me the reason why Christians (some at least) oppose so much the open quest for knowledge? Like, even though my family knows about my doubts, they frown upon me reading articles about evolution or atheism. They say my faith will suffer and this will prevent me from getting to know God. But if God is real, then no amount of contradicting information should make him unreal, right? On the contrary, by seeing how weak the other side is, my faith should grow! Their fear of me learning opposing point of view prompts me to suspect that faith in God may really be nothing more than a self-imposed belief. For my christian audience if you read this and recognize me, don't worry too much, I am honestly seeking the answer, plus, I don't want to be a church hypocrite, I have been one for too long. Understand me, pray about me, be proactive if you want to help, and try not to judge me.

One thing is for sure: it sucks to be an agnostic. I hope it will be worth it someday.

[mwc]

Prove to us that a miracle has happened at all at any point in history. And since when is the only evidence needed to prove a miracle is a person witnessing it?

One day I prayed that my penis would get larger. It did. Then I sinned. It got small again.

 

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

 

mwc

[Vomit Comet]

One day I prayed that my penis would get larger. It did. Then I sinned. It got small again.

 

Why would the Lord give you a bigger dick if He ain't gonna let you use it?

[.god]

Help me debunk this "miracle".

 

Bah, that's not a "miracle"!

I seriously thought this was common knowledge, but maybe not.

 

It's pretty well known that children (especially young children) born with far-sightedness have a pretty good chance of having their vision progressively become better as they age. If you're born with near-sightedness as a young child (as one of my siblings was) then you're pretty much fucked for life because your vision will never become better naturally.

 

Why is this?

Because as we age, our eyeballs tend to flatten, the lens hardens and the eye muscles become weaker. Generally for most people this causes them to become more and more nearsighted as their eyes age. Also the lens (as it loses elasticity) is less and less able to compensate for the misshapen globe you call your eyeball =)

 

So while many of us may start with 20/20 vision, the natural process of aging causes many people to become nearsighted. Eventually though your eyes will stabilize and your nearsighted prescription may not change much - that of course is the point at which it is best to get Lasik surgery, when your eyes have stabilized.

 

So in other words, imagine that your eyes start off as a perfectly symmetrical sphere (though few rarely do), and as you age it sort of elongates and flattens out.

 

Now what this means is that for those lucky few children who may be born with severe far-sightedness, their eyeballs are "squished" the other way, horizontally. As they age, their eyeball will slowly elongate as the rest of us do, but by the time their eyes stabilize it may be near a perfect sphere. And thus they may be lucky enough to achieve 20/20 vision or close enough to it when that happens. The unlucky part for them is that they will need corrective glasses starting at a very young age.

 

3. Farsightedness can cancel the effect of nearsightedness, bringing the bad vision to normal.

Yes, but it happens at an old age, he was an adolescent. Also he does not have symptoms of farsightedness -- he can see well at far and close distances without glasses.

 

Uh... no, no, no. Farsightedness does not "cancel" nearsightedness. It's not black and white, but rather a sliding grayscale range. Everyone's eye shape is on a scale that deviates from a perfect sphere.

And why must you wait until "old age" before your eyes become nearsighted? I had pretty good vision as a kid, but started becoming nearsighted enough to need glasses by the time I was 21 or so. My vision has pretty much stabilized now 10 yrs later and my vision, while not great, is still good enough to not require lenses for driving.

 

According to this website, most farsightedness often corrects itself by adolescence.

http://www.drgreene.com/21_1086.html

 

Although to say that it "corrects" itself would be technically incorrect. It's more that the eyes are worsening and aging like the rest of us, but because they did not start with a nice spherical eyeball, their eyes approach the near perfect round shape on its natural journey towards a misshapen "flattened" eye.

 

How did I decide your friend had farsightedness? Well, according to your story he could not see objects that were near him (eg. the odometer) even though you quote him as believing himself to be "nearsighted". You can only be one. I assume that at one time he saw a optometrist, and received a prescription. I'm curious what his prescription was. As far as I know, only starting with farsightedness can your vision become better with age.

 

 

So I see nothing wrong with your friend having his vision become better by the time he was 19. It could have happened earlier without his awareness.

 

I went around ever since high school just getting by with my vision, it never occurred to me that I needed glasses. I sure would have been able to see the damn chalkboard better from the back row if I did though! It wasn't until college that I realized, hey, I could use some glasses! And wow, what a difference, I never realized just how blurry things were before!

 

For all we know, your friend perhaps started realizing that the glasses weren't really helping him anymore, or that he could see a little better without them on. When you take off your glasses after wearing them for a while, your brain has to adjust and pretty soon you don't notice that things aren't that sharp anymore. But initially, everything feels really blurry for me when I take of my glasses. But I have a very light prescription compared to most people so I usually forgo my glasses.

 

If your friend had been wearing these glasses ever since he was a young kid, his brain and eyes will compensate for the view thru the lenses - even if the prescription is completely wrong! So when he removes his glasses, everything is going to look pretty fucked up and blurry because his eyes have adjusted to seeing the world thru his prescription glasses that may no longer be right for his eyes. Eventually his eyes will adjust and no longer automatically compensate, and his vision will seem to "clear up". No doubt his incorrect prescription was causing headaches and dizziness if it was a strong one -possibly what caused him to remove the glasses in the first place.

 

I would assume by then your friend's eyes had been "normal" with excellent vision for quite a while and he finally realized the glasses weren't helping him out and tossed them.

So it's not like there was a sudden shift of corrective vision in 3 weeks from crummy to 20/20. It just took him 3 weeks to realize that his vision was good.

 

So how old is he now? There's no guarantee that his vision will get any worse with age. For many of us our vision is fairly stable. Even if your friend starts to become nearsighted, it happens so slowly that he may not notice it or it may never become an issue. That lucky bastard =)

 

Sadly, for the rest of us nearsighted folks, we can only look forward to the degeneration of our vision. Add to that complications of old age - strain on the eyes, glaucoma, weakened eye muscles, eye strain, and it's not a pretty picture.

 

Although my vision is stable now, I have astigmatism which my glasses can not really correct that well, and there isn't really anything that can be done for it. I've had it all my life though and I never even knew until I saw an optometrist in college. So that explains why I could read distant writing better if i tilted my head! my astigmatism blurs things sideways.

 

Anyway, I seriously thought this was a well known phenomenon and I'm surprised not more people have brought it up. I used to be told this all the time by my mom when I was a kid, but then my family has had a history of not-so-great vision.

 

But there you have it.. I'm sorry, but I call BS on this "miracle"

 

Don't take my word for it though, do your own research, or ask your optometrist! You should really be asking this question on a medical or optometry website, they are much better qualified professionals to answer you. I'm certainly not a optometrist.

 

Here's some websites to get you started:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS...frn/u14l6e.html

http://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/hyperopia.htm

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...frn/u14l6d.html

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/fa...ightedness.aspx

http://www.eyeseerichards.com/eye-problems...stigmatism.html

 

 

I'm sorry this is so long, but hopefully this enlightens you on your friend's situation. A little education goes a long way so they say.

[florduh]

Agnostic my ass.

[Amethyst]

[i put Christian god for "any gods" because that's the only god I am considering for possible existance. I probably sound subjective, but all other gods just absolutely seem to be a clear nonsense: millions of pagan idols, even buddha and alla. Since agnostic means "the one who doesn't know", I guess that is me. I don't know if Christian God exists. And I trully don't know. So, if I misunderstood the purpose of that option, I will go and add this explanation to it.

 

"Any gods" means what god, if any, do you believe in now.

 

It has happened before that people have misinterpreted it, but considering your responses on this thread, I have to admit it looks unlikely. And we have had Christians come here in disguise before. This is not a very trusting site when it comes to Christians, as most who come here are out to try and convert us back.

 

Why, if you want to consider yourself an agnostic, would you only consider one particular god when you admit that the rest are all nonsense? Surely you realize that if you grew up in Asia, you would most likely be considering Buddha now? The Christian god is an aspect of Western culture. That is the only reason people still believe in it today, because they have been brainwashed from birth like most of us. An agnostic should be willing to consider the existence of other deities besides the Christian one. Truth seeking should not be limited to one particular religion.

 

Perhaps you are simply a Christian on the way out? Again, that's not a bad thing, but given your name that you picked and the answer you chose for any gods, people are bound to be skeptical here.

[.god]

[i put Christian god for "any gods" because that's the only god I am considering for possible existance. I probably sound subjective, but all other gods just absolutely seem to be a clear nonsense: millions of pagan idols, even buddha and alla. Since agnostic means "the one who doesn't know", I guess that is me. I don't know if Christian God exists. And I trully don't know. So, if I misunderstood the purpose of that option, I will go and add this explanation to it.

 

"Any gods" means what god, if any, do you believe in now.

 

It has happened before that people have misinterpreted it, but considering your responses on this thread, I have to admit it looks unlikely. And we have had Christians come here in disguise before. This is not a very trusting site when it comes to Christians, as most who come here are out to try and convert us back.

 

Why, if you want to consider yourself an agnostic, would you only consider one particular god when you admit that the rest are all nonsense? Surely you realize that if you grew up in Asia, you would most likely be considering Buddha now? The Christian god is an aspect of Western culture. That is the only reason people still believe in it today, because they have been brainwashed from birth like most of us. An agnostic should be willing to consider the existence of other deities besides the Christian one. Truth seeking should not be limited to one particular religion.

 

Perhaps you are simply a Christian on the way out? Again, that's not a bad thing, but given your name that you picked and the answer you chose for any gods, people are bound to be skeptical here.

 

Ironically, it seems as if "trueagnostic" is not a True Agnostic.

As a clever man once said, "I've never met anyone agnostic about Zeus"

 

That's why I think the only people who can be agnostic are ones who have been previously programmed with some flavor of religion. It's a position that makes no sense to me.

[Guest]

Here's a thought I just had about miracles themselves...don't they kinda imply that god's laws of nature are incomplete in and of themselves? I mean, genesis tells us that god said everything was "good", yet miracles, by definition, are violations of natural law. So I guess if miracles are possible, god did not create a perfect universe.

 

That's at least going by what the definiation of a miracle is, an example would be regrowing a lost limb or being raised from the dead. But any miracle that is ever claimed is never that kind of miracle. The ones we are always hearing about are the banal ones like restored vision of a freind of a friend, or people in some 3rd world country getting undead.

 

TA, don't you think a god that is so powerful that he can speak the universe into existance can provide somthing a little more amazing than someone telling you they used to have bad vision? Also, how would your friend react if you asked him to go to a team of doctors with you so they can verify that a miracle occured. I'm not saying to do that, or even if medical science could determine that. I would like to know what kind of a reaction your friend would have though.

 

The reason I'm asking this is that if my vision was healed like this, I would have gone myself to doctors and been written up in medical journals. I would want the evidence of the miracle to be documented in science texts, not just told to some kids in my local youth group. How come the people who recieve these miracles never try to get science to verify it? Could it be that they know there is a natural explination for it and that would ruin their story?

[.god]

Is it accurate to say, ignorance begets miracles?

 

Why is it always that miracles are attributed to something that can't be seen or verified easily without cutting someone open, or circumstances in which the something might naturally heal, or something that isn't well understood.

 

No one ever says, guess what? I prayed and prayed, and look! My arm grew back! That's why I believe.

 

Or, I lost an eye, but now look, a new one has grown back!

 

It's ironic that the religious will put so much faith in the infallibility of doctors and their diagnosis for their problems when it assists in proving a miracle.

And yet at the same time scoff at science and the scientists who study and develop the tools and knowledge that those same doctors use to arrive at a diagnosis.

 

Doctors can be wrong, diagnosis's can be inaccurate, and yet they are attributed as seemingly infallible when a diagnosis supports the perception of a "miracle"

 

Compound that with the willful ignorance of most religious people who don't even bother educating themselves and woot, it's another miracle!

 

I think most extreme height of such behavior culminates in the inevitable deaths due to those who try to heal the very sick via prayer and faith when the sick really should be in a hospital.

 

Bah, the hour is late and I'm waning incoherent.