Religion has always been a form of govt... A way to control the people because god said so....(Leviticus, Sharia)
OK, but that’s a rather narrow view and hardly a viable definition of what religion is.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I’m rather thinking in what ‘institution’ – family, friends, club, community, country, political affiliation, trade union – has not shown a tendency to do as you say, that is, for someone to dictate to others the way to conduct themselves?
That issue is not with religion per se, that issue is one of human nature. To lay the problem at religion’s door is to miss the point.
Don't know about the rest of the world; here in America religion is mostly used as a bludgeon to batter the opinions of anyone who wants to believe differently.
Yes, sadly hypocrisy seems endemic to the human condition. Reading my Scriptures, Our Lord rarely seems so incensed as when he’s confronted by hypocrisy.
As usual, the local gang of mindless anti-religion proselytizers take every opportunity to attack faith.
Again, narrow and, I would say, unfair. I would neither Wil nor DA are anti-religious, nor are either ‘narrow minded’ or ‘shallow’ as I might suggest in this response. all I’m doing here is highlighting the issues sometimes stand in the way of objectivity. In my experience the ‘core’ discussion is usually buried under a broader socio-political debate, in which the object of criticism happens to be the Catholic Church (in my case) but could equally be the Conservative Party …
Personally, I'm against radical blanket affirmations as they don't achieve anything in a forum discussion.
Quite. Those expressed here don’t really address the question.
We have these walled gardens... Not simply kneejerk bigotry.
OK, and you’re the last person here I would accuse of bigotry (in a fairly big group at the mo’, I’m happy to say) but the view expressed at the head above is a stereotypical slur …
Anyone who believes any form of creation as described in Genesis for example. Instant contempt and automatic labeling.
I agree. And that mindset obscures what Genesis actually is.
At the same time though, there's only so much anti-religious claptrap and ridicule a bloke can take before lashing out.
Yep. We’re all human. And if it was anti-race, anti-colour, anti-gender orientation, of course we’d be applauded for speaking out, but ‘anti-religionism’ is the last area of acceptable social critique, which would only occur in a largely atheist society.
s to the question posed by the thread, for me it's a resounding yes to both questions.
Ah, an answer to the question!
Perhaps God hears sincere prayer, in whatever 'religion' and responds personally to every sincerely seeking soul.
Makes sense to me.
Religion is essentially an institution.
Yes … but then so is every form of human community … and in these post-modern days, even a term like ‘institution’ is layered with pejorative overtones!
An institution substitutes rules for having to think independently.
Oh, I’m not so sure I agree with that. Seems to me said institutions produce awesome thinkers … some of the greatest minds belong in one way or another to an institution …
We should tread carefully here. It seems to me sometimes there’s a tendency to scoff at the majority of humanity who seek simple assurances rather than profound intellectual arguments. That has its negatives, as recent elections have shown on both sides of the pond. But again, that is human nature. We should not criticise or ridicule people because they lack our critical intellectual skills (or think they do, or we think we have), there’s a whole raft of reasons why people look for security … nor should we assume that because we lack faith, faith is empty of content, or that what constitutes faith is simply a deficit of knowledge.
This (God hears sincere prayer) is a wonderful statement. It takes away all the rigamarole surrounding the religion aspect itself. It would even work for a deist like me outside of theist circles. Well said.
OK, but it side-steps the question then, doesn’t it?
The problem with ticking the boxes is this: God reveals His truth in the Bible and only the Bible, because the God of the Bible says in the Bible that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the Truth: every word true, and if you can't agree, you're not a good person and bye bye?
Er, that in itself needs qualification.
The Jews don’t believe in inerrancy — quite the reverse! LOL, what’s that comment, where there’s three Jews there’s half a dozen views? and Traditional Christian doctrines don’t argue inerrancy quite the way it’s argued by – dare I say it – some American Christian denominations?
The problem with ticking the boxes is this: God reveals His truth in the Bible and only the Bible, because the God of the Bible says in the Bible that the Bible, and only the Bible, is the Truth: every word true, and if you can't agree, you're not a good person and bye bye?
+++
So my answer to the question:
Can we know with certitude a God exists?
We can, but that does not mean we all do. But if, for you, certitude depends on empirical evidence, then no, we can't.
And His intention for the human race?
Yes — to be one with Him. Beyond that is speculation.
With reference to the question, to me it hinges on a question of faith.
Faith is neither deficit of knowledge nor an over-abundance of certitude, faith is substantially something in and of itself.
“Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1
The Greek term for ‘substance’ is
hypostasis, which is now a profoundly rich term in both the Platonic and Christian philosophical lexicons. The word is a composite of
hypo ‘under’ and
stasis ‘stand’.
For Aristotle hypostasis refers to that which is ‘essential’ to a nature, to what constitutes “this person" or "that ox", as opposed to that which changes in the person or ox. Plato spoke of the inner reality as opposed to its outer appearance (cf
Allegory of the Cave)
Neoplatonists argue that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are the higher spiritual principles (hypostases), each one more sublime than the preceding: the soul, Mind and the One.
In Christian theology hypostasis is used specifically of Christ, as one who in His human nature is the corporeal embodiment of the Divine Principle. From there, as St Paul speaks of constantly, by our union with Him, we participate in that hypostatic union, a real participation in the Divine, no matter how dimly it is perceived. A union not apparent to the physical senses.
Faith then is not an empirical negative, but rather a transcendent positive.
