Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
They come across a blind man and the disciples ask Jesus whether the man sinned or if it was his parents who made him blind. Jesus says neither, but instead he is blind so that God's might could be displayed in him.
So the guy was blind so Jesus could show off and heal him? That is garbage.
Jesus spits on the ground and anoints the guy's eyes with the resulting mud. When he washes it off he can see. Everyone who knows the guy is surprised he can see and he tells them what happened. They try to find Jesus but fail. They went to the Pharisees and told them the story, they pointed out that the day the guy was healed was the Sabbath and Jesus must therefore not be from God. But others pointed out that he must be because of what he can do.
Jesus again demonstrates that he doesn't think keeping the Sabbath is all that important, I like that.
They don't believe the man had been blind so they ask his parents and they verified that he was born blind. They ask the man once again and he said that Jesus healed him. They said Jesus was a sinner and the man, he said that may be so, but he was healed by Jesus. He asked them if they wanted to be disciples of Jesus and they were mad because they were disciples of Moses who they know talked to God. He said he was blind but now he can see so the man must be from God to be able to do such things.
Jesus heard of all of this happening and found the man he had healed. Jesus asks if he believed in the son of man and the guy said yes. Jesus said many people could become blind. A Pharisee nearby asks if he is blind and Jesus said if he was blind he would be guilt free.
Does this last bit show that we are talking about being blind to sin or something?