Reason why Jesus told that blindness is because of grace of God...

[Iwannaplato]

It was connected with him being anointed, I believe. Mary Magdalene had gone out and bought some really expensive oil and was criticised for wasting the money rather than giving it to the poor, but Jesus leapt to her defence by saying that the poor will always be around, to give money to another day. Or something like that.

That's the part I'm remembering.

[iambiguous]

I do think that reincarnation is quite likely, but I don't believe in karma.

What we think and feel about these things is one thing, what we can demonstrate is in fact true about them, another thing altogether.

Even to ourselves.

We all die. And most of us here and now don't want to believe that death = oblivion. So, either indoctrinated as children or existentially given the life we live as adults, we are confronted with any number of possible alternatives. For most it's a God, the God. If you behave righteously on this side of the grave, you will be rewarded with both immortality and salvation. So, for many, they believe in this because they want to believe in it. It comforts and consoles them to believe that death is not just nothing at all except a mindless, lifeless trek back to star stuff.

Reincarnation here can be tricky because it is often anchored to a "spiritual" One True Path...but not anchored in turn to a God, the God. But it stills soothes one to believe that death isn't oblivion. We come back again and again and again. Still, karma here makes sense [to me] because it provides us with a reason to explain why we come back as another human being [a Brahmin this time] and not a dung beetle.

But, again, believing in it and providing actual hard evidence that it is the real deal...?

In fact the whole ridiculous superstructure of karma is a very good example of the human tendency to take something that is grasped intuitively, that is, reincarnation, and invent a whole load of rules to pin it down. It's how all religions get started.

Yes, that's often true enough. That way the ecclesiastics get to sustain their own power. The caste system for example:

"Brahmins (priests, teachers), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors), Vaishyas (landowners, merchants) and Sudras (servants), and the 5th group is the group of the untouchables, called Dalits"

Karma becomes part of it all because it allows the ecclesiastics to justify their fate and our fate given a spiritual Reality that transcends anything thought up by mere mortals regarding justice on this side of the grave.

But in particular, I object to the notion that blindness is something that people should take pity on and explain in terms of punishment. I certainly don't see it that way.

Yes, I agree. That certainly seems to be a reasonable way to look at it. But, as you once noted to me, you see being born blind as an actual blessing. But I suspected this revolves in turn around the fact that you were born blind. In other words, it's the only world you have never known. You are comfortable and fulfilled living the life you do. It's not like you were once sighted and then lost your sight...and were devastated by this. Like the woman in the film Blind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_(20 ... 20Sundance.

Here is my one review of the film from ILP:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/posting ... &p=2631307

Me, sure, if I can't believe in immortality and salvation through a more tradition religious faith, I'll take my chances with reincarnation? But how realistic is it to believe that it is the real deal?

I don't have any committed belief in reincarnation, still less can I demonstrate it. If it were possible to do so, it would have been done thousands of years ago.

Fair enough. But you know me. What we come to believe as individuals is embedded existentially in all of the very different factors that unfold in our very individual lives. Predisposing us to believe in lots and lots of very different things. So, in my view, what then becomes crucial [especially in a philosophy forum] is the extent to which we can demonstrate [even to ourselves] that what we believe about something "in our head" is, in fact, true.

Reincarnation in particular because few things are more important to most of us than what becomes of "I" after we are dead. Here, it seems, with so much at stake, many believe what they want to believe. What makes death the least scary.

So, anytime I bump into someone in a philosophy venue who does believe in one or another possibility of life after death, I'm curious as to why they do. Can they, perhaps, convince me to believe in it as well. I would certainly like to. But that always starts first [for me] in grappling with how they have managed to convince themselves to believe what they do.

[Maia]

What we think and feel about these things is one thing, what we can demonstrate is in fact true about them, another thing altogether.

Even to ourselves.

We all die. And most of us here and now don't want to believe that death = oblivion. So, either indoctrinated as children or existentially given the life we live as adults, we are confronted with any number of possible alternatives. For most it's a God, the God. If you behave righteously on this side of the grave, you will be rewarded with both immortality and salvation. So, for many, they believe in this because they want to believe in it. It comforts and consoles them to believe that death is not just nothing at all except a mindless, lifeless trek back to star stuff.

Reincarnation here can be tricky because it is often anchored to a "spiritual" One True Path...but not anchored in turn to a God, the God. But it stills soothes one to believe that death isn't oblivion. We come back again and again and again. Still, karma here makes sense [to me] because it provides us with a reason to explain why we come back as another human being [a Brahmin this time] and not a dung beetle.

But, again, believing in it and providing actual hard evidence that it is the real deal...?



Yes, that's often true enough. That way the ecclesiastics get to sustain their own power. The caste system for example:

"Brahmins (priests, teachers), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors), Vaishyas (landowners, merchants) and Sudras (servants), and the 5th group is the group of the untouchables, called Dalits"

Karma becomes part of it all because it allows the ecclesiastics to justify their fate and our fate given a spiritual Reality that transcends anything thought up by mere mortals regarding justice on this side of the grave.



Yes, I agree. That certainly seems to be a reasonable way to look at it. But, as you once noted to me, you see being born blind as an actual blessing. But I suspected this revolves in turn around the fact that you were born blind. In other words, it's the only world you have never known. You are comfortable and fulfilled living the life you do. It's not like you were once sighted and then lost your sight...and were devastated by this. Like the woman in the film Blind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_(20 ... 20Sundance.

Here is my one review of the film from ILP:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/posting ... &p=2631307

Me, sure, if I can't believe in immortality and salvation through a more tradition religious faith, I'll take my chances with reincarnation? But how realistic is it to believe that it is the real deal?

I don't have any committed belief in reincarnation, still less can I demonstrate it. If it were possible to do so, it would have been done thousands of years ago.

Fair enough. But you know me. What we come to believe as individuals is embedded existentially in all of the very different factors that unfold in our very individual lives. Predisposing us to believe in lots and lots of very different things. So, in my view, what then becomes crucial [especially in a philosophy forum] is the extent to which we can demonstrate [even to ourselves] that what we believe about something "in our head" is, in fact, true.

Reincarnation in particular because few things are more important to most of us than what becomes of "I" after we are dead. Here, it seems, with so much at stake, many believe what they want to believe. What makes death the least scary.

So, anytime I bump into someone in a philosophy venue who does believe in one or another possibility of life after death, I'm curious as to why they do. Can they, perhaps, convince me to believe in it as well. I would certainly like to. But that always starts first [for me] in grappling with how they have managed to convince themselves to believe what they do.

I only believe what I experience with my own senses, or, secondarily, what I hear from sources I trust. Reincarnation comes into a third category, of what seems intuitively right, but for which actual belief or disbelief don't really apply.

[iambiguous]

Fair enough. But you know me. What we come to believe as individuals is embedded existentially in all of the very different factors that unfold in our very individual lives. Predisposing us to believe in lots and lots of very different things. So, in my view, what then becomes crucial [especially in a philosophy forum] is the extent to which we can demonstrate [even to ourselves] that what we believe about something "in our head" is, in fact, true.

Reincarnation in particular because few things are more important to most of us than what becomes of "I" after we are dead. Here, it seems, with so much at stake, many believe what they want to believe. What makes death the least scary.

So, anytime I bump into someone in a philosophy venue who does believe in one or another possibility of life after death, I'm curious as to why they do. Can they, perhaps, convince me to believe in it as well. I would certainly like to. But that always starts first [for me] in grappling with how they have managed to convince themselves to believe what they do.

I only believe what I experience with my own senses, or, secondarily, what I hear from sources I trust. Reincarnation comes into a third category, of what seems intuitively right, but for which actual belief or disbelief don't really apply.

Yes, and here you and I overlap in some respects...but are very different in other respects.

We both recognize that what we think about things like reincarnation are rooted existentially in the lives we live. One life brings us to believe in it, another life brings us to disbelieve in it. And given the sheer complexity of all the countless variables in our lives -- this part: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc -- we only have so much understanding and control over who we do eventually come to think we are.

But the part I no longer possess is the intuitive, intrinsic Self. The ofttimes mysterious "deep down inside me" spiritual grip on the world. Or for gib -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=525 -- an emotional grip.

Though what I wouldn't give to have the sort of communication breakthrough with you that allowed me to embody it once again myself. Or, perhaps, to have you embody mine?

[Maia]

Fair enough. But you know me. What we come to believe as individuals is embedded existentially in all of the very different factors that unfold in our very individual lives. Predisposing us to believe in lots and lots of very different things. So, in my view, what then becomes crucial [especially in a philosophy forum] is the extent to which we can demonstrate [even to ourselves] that what we believe about something "in our head" is, in fact, true.

Reincarnation in particular because few things are more important to most of us than what becomes of "I" after we are dead. Here, it seems, with so much at stake, many believe what they want to believe. What makes death the least scary.

So, anytime I bump into someone in a philosophy venue who does believe in one or another possibility of life after death, I'm curious as to why they do. Can they, perhaps, convince me to believe in it as well. I would certainly like to. But that always starts first [for me] in grappling with how they have managed to convince themselves to believe what they do.

I only believe what I experience with my own senses, or, secondarily, what I hear from sources I trust. Reincarnation comes into a third category, of what seems intuitively right, but for which actual belief or disbelief don't really apply.

Yes, and here you and I overlap in some respects...but are very different in other respects.

We both recognize that what we think about things like reincarnation are rooted existentially in the lives we live. One life brings us to believe in it, another life brings us to disbelieve in it. And given the sheer complexity of all the countless variables in our lives -- this part: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc -- we only have so much understanding and control over who we do eventually come to think we are.

But the part I no longer possess is the intuitive, intrinsic Self. The ofttimes mysterious "deep down inside me" spiritual grip on the world. Or for gib -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=525 -- an emotional grip.

Though what I wouldn't give to have the sort of communication breakthrough with you that allowed me to embody it once again myself. Or, perhaps, to have you embody mine?

You don't need me to convince you of anything. I can't, and it's not my job to, either. But you have the power to change your own mind, just by choosing to.

As for you convincing me that your worldview is correct, that's not going to happen. The quicker you drop the subject, the better.

[iambiguous]

Fair enough. But you know me. What we come to believe as individuals is embedded existentially in all of the very different factors that unfold in our very individual lives. Predisposing us to believe in lots and lots of very different things. So, in my view, what then becomes crucial [especially in a philosophy forum] is the extent to which we can demonstrate [even to ourselves] that what we believe about something "in our head" is, in fact, true.

Reincarnation in particular because few things are more important to most of us than what becomes of "I" after we are dead. Here, it seems, with so much at stake, many believe what they want to believe. What makes death the least scary.

So, anytime I bump into someone in a philosophy venue who does believe in one or another possibility of life after death, I'm curious as to why they do. Can they, perhaps, convince me to believe in it as well. I would certainly like to. But that always starts first [for me] in grappling with how they have managed to convince themselves to believe what they do.

I only believe what I experience with my own senses, or, secondarily, what I hear from sources I trust. Reincarnation comes into a third category, of what seems intuitively right, but for which actual belief or disbelief don't really apply.

Yes, and here you and I overlap in some respects...but are very different in other respects.

We both recognize that what we think about things like reincarnation are rooted existentially in the lives we live. One life brings us to believe in it, another life brings us to disbelieve in it. And given the sheer complexity of all the countless variables in our lives -- this part: https://youtu.be/mTDs0lvFuMc -- we only have so much understanding and control over who we do eventually come to think we are.

But the part I no longer possess is the intuitive, intrinsic Self. The ofttimes mysterious "deep down inside me" spiritual grip on the world. Or for gib -- https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=525 -- an emotional grip.

Though what I wouldn't give to have the sort of communication breakthrough with you that allowed me to embody it once again myself. Or, perhaps, to have you embody mine?

You don't need me to convince you of anything. I can't, and it's not my job to, either. But you have the power to change your own mind, just by choosing to.

This has nothing to do with your own motivation, much less your "job" here. The fact is that I respect both your intelligence and your capacity to articulate it. Such that if anyone might be successful in bringing me up out of the hole I'm in it will be you or someone like you.

And suggesting that I just choose to change my mind? Well, how does that not sound a whole lot like a Christian here telling me to just choose God?

As for you convincing me that your worldview is correct, that's not going to happen. The quicker you drop the subject, the better.

How can I drop something that I once argued myself to those who first introduced me to dasein? Sure, here and now, you are convinced that there is this "spiritual" Maia that, as with gib's emotional sense of reality, will always provide you with an anchor to keep moral nihilism -- the hole -- at bay. And, yeah, you may well go to the grave comforted and consoled by that.

But, unlike you, I am not able to dismiss the part where neither one of us have control over the future. We simply do not know what new experiences, new relationships and/or new information and knowledge might have a profound impact on what we think and feel.

From my frame of mind, even your spiritual Self is not immune to what we know nothing about down the road.

Only believing in a wholly determined universe renders the past, the present and the future "at one" with the only possible reality.

[Gary Childress]

Reason why Jesus told that blindness is because of grace of God...

Just a note on grammar. The word "told" is a transitive verb, meaning it requires a direct object when it is used in a sentence.

[iambiguous]

Reason why Jesus told that blindness is because of grace of God...

Just a note on grammar. The word "told" is a transitive verb, meaning it requires a direct object when it is used in a sentence.

Not to worry, dattaswami. I doubt very much if that's an actual Sin.