Jain Gods

Jainism believes that window and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end with survey to time. Introduce is no implore of some one to augment or handling the interaction of the window. Nature in run own its own harmony by its own cosmic laws. As a result Jainism does not acknowledgment in God as a originator, survivor, and destroyer of the window.On the other hand Jainism does acknowledgment in God. When a living entity destroys all his karmas, he possesses spotless knowledge, feel about, power, and enjoyment. He becomes omniscient and deafening. This living entity is a God of Jain religion. As a result Jains do not acknowledgment in one God. Gods in Jain religion are limitless and the amount is on top of growing as untouchable living beings tone with deliverance. Both living entity has a vision to become God of the Jain religion.Like travelling on the path of spiritual pick up, a human being destroys all eight types of his karmas in the subsequent to series.Fundamental Mohaniya (fancy), after that Jnana-varaniya (knowledge), Darasna-varaniya (feel about), and Antaraya (natural guise) all three together.In the end the lasting four namely Nama (remains), Ayu (life span), Gotra (sociable standing), and Vedniya (appreciate and depress of the remains). He after that attains deliverance.The first four karmas are called Ghati karmas seeing as they dense the natural guise of the principal. The final four karmas are customary as aghati karmas seeing as they are associated to the remains of the principal. Following a human being destroys all Ghati karmas, automatically he impulse rest all his Aghati karmas at the end of his up to date life. No fall back can stand up.A human being who destroys all eight types of karmas is called Siddha. A human being who destroys perfectly four ghati karmas is called Arihanta (Tirthankara, Jina etc). Each Arihantas and Siddhas are furtive as Gods in Jainism.Arihanta:When a human being destroys his ghati karmas, he attains keval-jnana. He has regained the primary attributes of his principal which are spotless knowledge, feel about, power, and enjoyment. He is omniscient of the aforementioned, up to date and to be forms of all entities (living and nonliving beings) of the window. He is stationary a whatsoever entity. He preaches the religion and defense in the maintain of spiritual pass by for the rest of his life. He is customary as an Arihant.Arihantas move two categories: * Tirthankara * Ordinary-kevali Tirthankara:Currently time was attaining keval-jnana, if a human being establishes the four-fold moral order of monks, nuns, sravaks (male laypeople), sravikas (female laypeople) is customary as Tirthankara.He preaches the Jain philosophy, religion, doctrine, etc. to his followers.Twenty-four Tirthankaras are untrained inside this downstairs part of the time operate (Avasarpini Kaal) of this spot (Bharat Kshetra) of the window. No two Tirthankaras move lived at the extremely time in this spot. With brute force a Tirthankara is untrained the same as the religion is at its drop maintain. He revives the extremely philosophy and religion at that time. Sometimes he gives a plain form to the religion depending upon the time, place, and whatsoever expression.For idiom, Lady Mahavir preached five loud vows, so Lady Parshva preached four loud vows. The vow of celibacy was included in the non-possession range inside Parshav's time.Tirthankaras are also customary as Jina or Nirgrantha.Jina gadget one who has routed his inner passions worship pray and scandal.Nirgrantha gadget one who has gotten rid of all attachmentsOrdinary-kevaliThe perfectly margin along with Tirthankara and ordinary-kevali is that the subsequent does not way the moral order. He defense in the maintain of spotless spiritual pass by for the rest of his life time was attaining Keval-jnan.In the moral scriptures the name Arihantas and Tirthankaras are interchangeably used seeing as ordinary-kevalis do not act a weighty scope in the moral order.SiddhaAll Tirthankaras and ordinary-kevalis rest their lasting Aghati karmas, and tone with deliverance at the end of their up to date life. Now they are customary as Siddhas. They are totally free. They do not stand remains. They are free from the flinch and death operate. They do not sip appreciate and depress, or joy and grief. They come to pass in an ever fixed spiritual pass by at the top of Lokakas customary as Moksha. All siddhas stand the extremely boundary of principal, and their attributes are extremely. On the other hand, they stationary maintain their exact identity.For Chunk, Lady Mahavir's principal as a siddha has a plain form than the principal of Lady Bahubali.Each Arihants (Tirthankaras and ordinary-kevalis) and Siddhas are deliberate Gods of Jain religion.Q. In the Namokar Recite we pray to the Arihants (Tirthankara) first and after that to the Siddhas spare. Reliable in spite of this the Siddhas are spotless souls and move destroyed all Ghati and Aghati Karmas, and Arihantas move destroyed perfectly Ghati Karmas.A. It is seeing as Arihants time was attaining keval-jnana (time was destroying ghati-karmas), preach the Jain philosophy and religion. They add footnotes to the path of deliverance and attributes of Siddhas. Not up to standard the help of Arihantas we would not move customary Siddhas. For this consult we pray Arihantas first and Siddhas spare.The Four-Fold order * Monks and Nuns: They practice manage and move of a nature up all desires and earthly wealth become the spiritual practicers and teachers.They trace close up five maha-vrats. * Sravaks and Sravikas (Lay followers): They are not required to renounce the world, but are standard to tetragon household duties by pure gadget and come to pass a cutting edge honest life. They the trace twelve vows of lay persons. Moreover read this ebooks:Anonymous - Pagan HolidaysFrancesca De Grandis - Be A GodBasil Hunch - Goblin Gold barsTags: terrific magick healing not in favor of spain witchcraft symbols futhark rune stav scribbling pad guide three well-known witches

Reference: candle-magic.blogspot.com

Read More

I Know More Than You Do Na Na Na Na Na Na Or You Dont Know Jack Shit

Christians have faulted the so-called New Atheists with ignorance. They do the same thing with me. If only I knew this or that I would see the error of my way and believe again. But think about this. How much philosophy should Richard Dawkins know to rationally reject religion? How much science should Christopher Hitchens know? How much Bible should Daniel Dennett know? How much theology should Sam Harris know? How much should we know to rationally reject religion? How much? What if we know very little? What if all we know is that God did not save our child and she died from Leukemia? What if a scientist rejects religion because s/he cannot adequately test supernatural hypotheses? What if a historian rejects the claims of a religion because as a historian s/he must assume a natural explanation for the events in the past? What then? Are they culpable for doing so when this is all they know to do? When can it be said that a person can rationally reject a religion? Surely the theist cannot possibly demand that nonbelievers must know all that can be known before their rejection of religion is warranted.

To put it in terms of the "Outsider Test for Faith", how much should someone know in order to reject Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, to name a few. HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW OF THEM?

Reference: thelema-and-faith.blogspot.com

Read More

Why Doesnt Pascal Wager Apply To Christians Too

But what if you are wrong about God?You've undoubtedly heard this question from Christians many times. They begin a conversation by assuming that you believe in their god. You correct them, explaining that you do not. They then ask you this question, determined to show you the error of your ways. They point out that if you are wrong about their god, you will be tortured forever in their hell.

Eventually, they'll get around to some version of Pascal's Wager (i.e., the idea that you should believe in their god to protect yourself in case you end up being wrong). These Christians do not seem to realize that there are at least two serious problems with this argument.

As I have previously stated, Pascal's Wager is not in any way specific to Christianity and could be used on Christians to suggest that they believe in other gods. There is no reason why you couldn't turn the argument around and ask the Christian why he or she doesn't believe in [insert any particular god here]. If the wager is really about self-protection, the logical extension would be that one would need to simultaneously be an adherent of all religions.

Second, it does not take a genius to realize that belief does not work like Christians imply when they use the wager. Suppose for a second that I became genuinely concerned about the possibility of roasting in Christian hell. Even if I wanted to, it isn't as though I could simply flip a switch and start believing in the Christian god. The best I could do would be to feign belief. Perhaps that would be enough to appease the Christian, but it hardly saves my "soul."

Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright (c) 2013 Atheist Revolution.

Read More

The Tragic Nature Of Life In A Fallen World Reflections On The Dangers Of Pacifism To One Own Soul

If we try to think of life in this world as either tragedy or as comedy, we will never be able to capture its true essence completely. Christians are the most pessimistic of all men and Christians are the most hopeful of all men - to play off Luther's famous statement of paradox. Only a worldview that includes both extreme pessimism and extreme hope can possibly do justice to the nature of Biblical revelation.

When serious Christians try to figure out whether it is right to engage in violence in response to moral evil, a strong current of contemporary thinking tends to assume that if we surrender to the pessimism of using force to destroy the evildoer that we thereby abandon Christian hope. So this tendency of thought - call it Neo-Anabaptism or Liberal Pacifism or the Evangelical Left or whatever - concludes that there is a conflict between resorting to violence and putting our faith in God. This creates a horrible dilemma: believe and let evil work its will or abandon faith. No wonder so many decide to act justly and forfeit their faith.

For years I myself struggled with this dilemma. Can I be a Christian if being a Christian means that I can never resort to force, even to punish evildoers who wish to attack innocent men, women and children? It was a question of trying to summon enough heroic virtue to be able to do what seemed morally counter-intuitive because of an inflexible rule that must be upheld even at the cost of death. I see many others struggling with this burden and I am convinced that it leads to one of two outcomes: either the loss of faith in God or the loss of faith in goodness.

If one remains passive in the face of great evil, one loses one's ability to believe in the goodness of this world. Paradoxically, one can only believe in the goodness of the world if one is ready to fight evil. No one is talking about glorifying violence or war for the sake of war. But in certain instances, when one confronts true moral evil one must be willing to use force to resist it and protect the innocent. Otherwise, I think one tends to lose one's appreciation for the reality of goodness and begins to view all of life as grey and all actions as morally equivalent. To slip into moral relativism in order to retain one's belief in God is too high a price to pay because moral relativism inevitably, and in short order, distorts and ruins one's concept of God. To be a moral relativist is to cease to believe in the One, True God anyway.

I am convinced now that liberal pacifism - the belief that Christians are called to be non-violent in all situations and to try to convince others to be non-violent in all situations as well - is corrosive of faith and morality. I suppose I have gone to the opposite extreme and some will assume that, since the truth always lies in the middle that I must be wrong. But the problem is that truth does not always lie in the middle of every dilemma; sometimes one extreme is right. But how is pacifism corrosive of faith?

I think we see it in the left-wing attitude toward the Arab-Israeli conflict and also in the liberal multiculturalism that regards all cultures as equally good and therefore shrinks from imposing Christian cultural norms even when they are right and from defending them when they are under attack. There is an unwillingness to confront serious moral evil lest it lead to unbridgeable divisions and this spawns a false moral equivalence, which justifies evil behavior by equating opposition to evil with evil itself.

In the case of Israel, there is a tendency to equate Israeli military defensive actions to try and nullify the attackers' capacity to inflict violence on Israeli civilians with the firing of rockets into Israeli towns. Pacifists call on Israel to refrain from reacting to attacks on its population but pacifism not only is unable to stop the Arabs from attacking Israeli civilians, it also equates such attacks with Israeli attacks in retaliation, thus losing its ability to distinguish between good and evil.

What this leads to eventually is a moral relativism that pleads "can't we all just get along" but really means "let the most determined and the most hate-filled get their way rather than using force to stop them." I am convinced that this kind of pacifism is soul-destroying and faith-destroying because it forces a person to choose between decency and the right, on the one hand, and Christian faith, on the other.

This kind of pacifism tries to pretend that life is a comedy and that eventually everything will work out and we will be able to build the kingdom of God. Different people come to realize that this is a fairy tale devised by the human imagination as it struggles to avoid accepting the reality of moral evil at different points in their lives. When I realized it, I was blessed to do so in the company of St. Augustine, a man who was deeply hopeful precisely in the midst of his pessimism. He understood that it is precisely at our point of deepest need and greatest hopelessness that God's grace encounters the fallen sinner. Those who believe life is a comedy and who are actively engaged in building a Utopia have no need of what the Bible means by grace. They want Divine help, to be sure, but that is not quite the same thing as wanting grace.

The liberal pacifist believes that there is a solution to every problem; but what if some problems are insoluble? What if life really is tragic? What if some moral evil will not yield to reason's pleas? What if there is no good and perfect choice in a given situation? What if God allows us to experience hopelessness - does that mean there is no God or that God's grace is sufficient even in hopeless situations?

Life is a comedy for the Christian, but not life in this world. In this world, we face true moral evil that is as intractable as it is unavoidable. Some of this evil is within ourselves. And we can no more escape it by Utopian schemes than we can flap our wings and fly to the moon. The question is not whether we can figure out a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict - maybe there is none - but the question is, rather, will we love the good, hate evil and trust God no matter what happens?

Source: witchnest.blogspot.com

Read More

Theodicy Redux

You'll need some background before you read the following response to Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges.It all began with Malcolm Pollack's recent citation of my and Bill Keezer's exchange on theodicy with Roman Dawes, over at Bill's fine blog. Here's the link to Malcolm's post, Evil Still a Problem, Apparently, which links back to Bill's original post and comment thread on theodicy. Malcolm's comment thread includes a response by Dr. Hodges, who reposted his response on his own blog, with some additional remarks. See here: The Logical Problem of Evil?Dr. Hodges had commented that there exists a general consensus among philosophers (of religion) that the supposed contradictions highlighted by the original formulation of the theodicic problem are not provably contradictory. In my reply, I asked for references to this broad agreement, which led Dr. Hodges, on his own blog and by way of example, to link to a passage from William L. Rowe's "God and the Problem of Evil"-- specifically, a section titled "The Logical Problem of Evil." Rowe, in the introduction to Part II of his book, highlights the now-classic "free will defense" formulated by Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga as a way of laying out the logical problem. [NB: whether Rowe agrees with Plantinga is another matter, since Rowe is an atheist who has formulated his own arguments against the existence of God.]What follows is a response that I began writing on Malcolm's blog (before I saw Dr. Hodges's subsequent blog post), and finished writing only a few minutes ago.
Jeff,Thank you. You write:BUT WHY IS THIS A CONTRADICTION? THE CONTRADICTION NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED, BUT SUCH A CONTRADICTION CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATIVELY SHOWN, FOR GOD'S OMNISCIENCE AND OUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL SITUATION OF LIMITED KNOWLEDGE LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT GOD HAS A GOOD REASON FOR ALLOWING EVIL THAT WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW AND PERHAPS CANNOT EVEN UNDERSTAND.This does indeed sound like an appeal to the "hidden harmony" argument, or something similar, given that it reaches for some occult justification of the existence of evil and suffering, thereby obliquely referencing a perspective unavailable to us here below.Most refutations of the hidden harmony argument hinge on the definition of divine omnibenevolence. If the term has any meaning at all, it has to mean that God desires "maximal" fulfillment for "all" his creatures. It cannot mean anything less than this, for anything less would entail less-than-maximal fulfillment for at least one creature. God's "good reason" for creaturely suffering, whether occult or simply unknowable, necessarily violates this definition of omnibenevolence, even if we restrict the discussion merely to what God desires, without considering how the universe has actually turned out (i.e., execution of that desire). The epistemological question -- whether we can know God's "good reason" -- is thus irrelevant, and I think the only possible response is aggressively to question the meaning of the term "omnibenevolence." Alvin Plantinga's "free will defense" leans in this direction, without actually exploring what such divine omnibenevolence might look like. For Plantinga (whom William Rowe quotes), it is enough to demonstrate that such divine reasoning is logically possible. Implied in this move is a justification for a less-than-maximally-good state of affairs, which is by implication a defense of a radically different (I would say radically "deficient") notion of omnibenevolence. Is it satisfactory? Many thinkers believe so, but as Allen Stairs notes in his "A Thinker's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion," Plantinga has teased out his defense to a potentially ridiculous extreme (p. 209):LIKE THE FREEWILL [SIC] THEODICY, A MAJOR OBJECTION TO THE FREEWILL DEFENSE IS THAT IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR NATURAL EVIL. PLANTINGA POINTS OUT THAT IT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THAT NATURAL EVIL IS CAUSED BY SATAN OR LESSER DEMONS. THIS MIGHT SOUND WILDLY IMPLAUSIBLE...BUT REMEMBER THAT BECAUSE PLANTINGA IS GIVING A DEFENSE AND NOT A THEODICY, ALL HE NEEDS TO SHOW IS THAT IT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (I.E., INVOLVES NO CONTRADICTION) THAT ALL NATURAL EVIL IS CAUSED BY MALEVOLENT SPIRITUAL BEINGS. IF HE'S RIGHT, THE FREEWILL DEFENSE ACCOUNTS FOR NATURAL EVIL BY COLLAPSING IT INTO MORAL EVIL.Plantinga's "solution" seems either to push the problem back a step (instead of asking about the existence of evil, we're now focused on the existence of Satan and his minions), or to render the matter circular: his claim is, after all, that the source of evil is evil (by which I mean the noun, not the predicate adjective).Switching gears: even if we do bring epistemology into the equation, we see right away that it doesn't require a divine mind to note the existence of human evil and suffering. The deliverances of the senses provide enough evidence that this world is less than maximally fulfilling. Everything else then follows: God knows of this state of affairs (omniscience) yet does nothing to rectify it (unexercised omnipotence). All of this militates against God's being omnibenevolent -- a stance implicitly taken by Elie Wiesel in "Night." Allen Stairs, in his "Thinker's Guide," calls this argument from observed facts "the abductive argument," i.e., an argument that makes the best possible sense of the evidence at hand. The force of the empirical evidence (or so it is contended) is such that no coherent theology can both explain reality as it is and posit an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God.I should step back for a second and note that the so-called "argument from evil" is generally used to "prove" that God doesn't exist. I agree with John Hick that the cosmos presents itself as "religiously ambiguous," as he puts it, thus making it impossible to prove or disprove God's existence through logic. For myself, the argument from evil strikes me as an argument about the self-contradictory ways in which God is conceived. At best, it's one argument in support of a more general one about the incoherence of personalistic theism, but can't be counted as a forceful disproof of God's existence.Final remark: the fundamental "problem" in the "problem of evil" arises from the idea that an originally pristine, harmonious moral and physical cosmos cannot possibly give rise to anything less than that perfect initial state of affairs. See John Hick, "Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion" (2010 edition of 2001 volume), page 8:BUT MORE BASICALLY, THE IDEA THAT GOD INITIALLY CREATED A PERFECT UNIVERSE -- IN THE SENSE OF A DEPENDENT UNIVERSE THAT WAS AS GOD WANTED IT TO BE -- WHICH THEN WENT RADICALLY WRONG THROUGH THE CHOICES OF FREE BEINGS WITHIN IT, IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY. FINITELY PERFECT BEINGS IN A FINITELY PERFECT ENVIRONMENT, ALTHOUGH FREE TO SIN, WILL NOT DO SO. IF THEY DO, THEY WERE NOT PERFECT AFTER ALL. AND SO IF GOD IS THE CREATOR "EX NIHILO" OF EVERYTHING OTHER THAN GOD, THEN GOD CANNOT ESCAPE THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE, INCLUDING THE 'FALL' OF THE CREATURES WHO ARE PART OF IT.This is, I think, the basic point being made by people who reject theodicies. God, especially as classically conceived, can't be exculpated when it comes to the question of evil and suffering. Either there exists a morally deficient (or non-classical) God, or God simply doesn't exist.

Read More