It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Jaina theosophy, unlike Hindu and Buddhist theosophies, asserts that each soul passes through 8,400,000 birth-situations, as they circle through Saṃsāra.
Jain philosophy accepts three reliable means of knowledge (pramana). It holds that correct knowledge is based on perception (pratyaksa), inference (anumana) and testimony (sabda or the word of scriptures)
A male human being is considered closest to the apex with the potential to achieve liberation, particularly through asceticism. In the Digambara traditional belief, women must gain karmic merit, to be reborn as man, and only then can they achieve spiritual liberation
It is always amuses me how religious people seem unbothered by contradictions - by which I mean - contradictions between their fairy-tales and the fairy-tales of other religious perspectives.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
I can go on all day detailing all the annoying contradictions
If two beliefs directly contradict each other, both of them cannot be true, no matter how "tolerant" we become. This means it is false to say that every religion is true, or that every religion leads to God. When people make such claims they show that they have not taken the time to study the world's religions, because a brief reading of the sacred texts of only a handful of religions quickly reveals contradictions on the most fundamental levels.
They could all be false, but they can't all be true. Are any of them true? This is the most important question anyone can ask. Recognize religious contradictions. Embrace them. Test them. Seek the truth.
Contradict: They Can't All Be True
But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So we might as well choose meaningful
Either you live a divine life or one based on nihilism. Choose.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
All religions are true. The contradictions do not matter. The purpose of religion is to answer the four great existential questions:
1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to me when I die?
These questions cannot be answered objectively based on evidence. They are essentially unanswerable questions. People generally uncomfortable with unanswerable questions so people invent religion so they can be comfortable.
It really doesn't matter how your answer these questions. On the cosmic timescale everything we do is meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So we might as well choose meaningful. So what people do when they invent religion is they choose answers to these questions that give them greatest possible amount of divine meaning in their lives.
When people answer these questions they do so with an article of faith. An article of faith is taken to be true without any supporting evidence. An article of faith is assumed to be true. Then bases on a set of articles of faith, a person will live their life as if those articles of faith are proven to be true.
For some people, they cannot accept articles of faith. For some people, they want to choose a religion based on evidence. What they are looking for is to make a "decision" on how to answer the great existential questions. Where as most spiritual or people more open to religion "choose" to believe what they belief. The difference between a choice and a decision is very important.
Is it "right", is it "wrong", who knows, who cares. Either you live a divine life or one based on nihilism. Choose.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
Thus, the only rational response to contradictions with contemporary sciences is to understand them as suboptimal attempts to acquire knowledge - but sometimes we humans are way off the mark, and end up believing entirely in untruthful even as we cultivate "spiritual powers".
“Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible.”—The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.
BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.
“I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion,” says Francis Collins, a molecular biologist. He continues: “When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, ‘Wow, only God knew before.’ It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me.”
What will help one to reconcile science and religion?
An Enduring Quest
Accept the limits: No end is in sight in our quest for answers about the infinite universe, space, and time. Biologist Lewis Thomas noted: “There will be no end to this process, being the insatiably curious species that we are, exploring, looking around and trying to understand things. We’re not ever going to get it solved. I can’t imagine any terminal point where everyone will breathe a sigh and will say, ‘Now we understand the whole thing.’ It’s going to remain beyond us.”
Similarly, when it comes to religious truth, the reach is boundless. One of the Bible writers, Paul, stated: “Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror . . . My knowledge now is partial.”—1 Corinthians 13:12, The New English Bible.
Partial knowledge concerning both scientific and religious questions, however, does not prevent us from reaching sound conclusions based on the facts we have. We don’t need a detailed knowledge of the origin of the sun in order to be absolutely sure that it is going to rise tomorrow.
Let the known facts speak: In the quest for answers, we need to be guided by sound principles. Unless we stick to the highest standards of evidence, we can easily be misled in our search for scientific and religious truth. Realistically, none of us can begin to evaluate all scientific knowledge and ideas, which today fill huge libraries. On the other hand, the Bible provides a manageable compendium of spiritual teachings for our consideration. The Bible is well supported by known facts.
For example, when we understand that the Bible uses the term “day” to represent various periods of time, we see that the account of the six creative days in Genesis need not conflict with the scientific conclusion that the age of the earth is about four and a half billion years. According to the Bible, the earth existed for an unstated period before the creative days began. (See the box “The Creative Days—24 Hours Each?”) Even if science corrects itself and suggests a different age for our planet, the statements made in the Bible still hold true. Instead of contradicting the Bible, science in this and many other cases actually provides us with voluminous supplemental information about the physical world, both present and past.
Faith, not credulity: The Bible provides us with knowledge of God and his purposes that cannot be gleaned from any other source. Why should we trust it? The Bible itself invites us to test its accuracy. Consider its historical authenticity, its practicality, the candor of its writers, and its integrity. By investigating the accuracy of the Bible, including statements of a scientific nature and, even more convincingly, the unerring fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies throughout the ages and into our present day, one can acquire firm faith in it as the Word of God. Faith in the Bible is not credulity but a proven confidence in the accuracy of Scriptural statements.
However, concerning knowledge in general, earnest effort is required to distinguish between fact and speculation, between reality and deception—in both science and religion. As the Bible writer Paul advised, we need to reject “the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1 Timothy 6:20) To reconcile science and the Bible, we must let the facts speak for themselves, thereby avoiding conjecture and speculation, and examine how each fact supports and adds to the other.