Believe It or Not

[Faithofchristian]

It pretty obviously means "the hope produced BY YOUR BELIEF". This isn't me ruminating on some vague wording, it is the widely accepted and understood meaning of the passage.

The widely accepted, is man's teachings, and not according to God's word. Nice try, but it will not work, there is no where in 1 Peter 3:15, that say belief, only the only the hope that is within me, and the hope that is within me, is knowing that when Christ returns that I shall be with him, that is my Hope.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The widely accepted, is man's teachings, and not according to God's word.

And you alone know what God intended - nobody else. Right?

Nice try, but it will not work, there is no where in 1 Peter 3:15, that say belief, only the only the hope that is within me, and the hope that is within me, is knowing that when Christ returns that I shall be with him, that is my Hope.

Nope. It clearly and explicitly states that you have to provide the reason for your belief when asked. No amount of mangled interpretation will change that.

Shame you don't know your Bible as well as I do.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It pretty obviously means "the hope produced BY YOUR BELIEF". This isn't me ruminating on some vague wording, it is the widely accepted and understood meaning of the passage.

Wrong again, it means exactly what it means, the hope that is within me, you keep doing like all others, twisting it around to fit your Agenda, which will not work with me, 1 Peter 3:15, Stands as is ( Hope ) not belief.as you would for it to say, nice try though.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you alone know what God intended - nobody else. Right?


Nope. It clearly and explicitly states that you have to provide the reason for your belief when asked. No amount of mangled interpretation will change that.

Shame you don't know your Bible as well as I do.

Ok, so do tell, in the book of Mark 13 Christ Jesus gave what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is and when it will happen and by who can commit it.
So as you say, you know the bible well. So do tell what Christ has given in the book of Mark 13 ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you alone know what God intended - nobody else. Right?


Nope. It clearly and explicitly states that you have to provide the reason for your belief when asked. No amount of mangled interpretation will change that.

Shame you don't know your Bible as well as I do.

Quite the coincidence. I just brought up this verse in Faithofchristian's thread on the ages of the Earth.

 

[taykair]

I think this thread took a detour some time back...

In an attempt to get back on track, let me ask a few related questions:

Do you believe that you are qualified to evaluate (my new favorite word) the truths of a view which is not your own?

Do you believe that those who do not believe as you do are qualified to evaluate your truths?

And...

If you answered one of the above questions "yes" and the other "no", then how do you justify the inconsistency?

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you alone know what God intended - nobody else. Right?


Nope. It clearly and explicitly states that you have to provide the reason for your belief when asked. No amount of mangled interpretation will change that.

Shame you don't know your Bible as well as I do.

So you say, which doesn't amount to much.

There is no where in that Verse 15 of Chapter 3 of 1 Peter that the word
( Belief ) is found. thanks

The meaning of Hope = A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.

That's the meaning of Hope, not belief as you would like it to say.

Therefore my expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen, is knowing that I will be with Christ. That is the Hope that is within me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

The Bible does not need science to confirm it, but one does need to be able to test and confirm ones beliefs properly. Too often I have seen Christians merely reinterpret the Bible when reality disagrees with it too much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

The Bible does not need science to confirm it, but one does need to be able to test and confirm ones beliefs properly. Too often I have seen Christians merely reinterpret the Bible when reality disagrees with it too much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say, which doesn't amount to much.

There is no where in that Verse 15 of Chapter 3 of 1 Peter that the word
( Belief ) is found. thanks
Nice try.

It does not need to be. The meaning is crystal clear.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Science ends up being an attempt to study and catalog all of the actions and interactions in the universe between its physically manifested contents of matter, energy, etc. to establish or work upon a foundation of what can reliably be considered "real" to any or all of us. The scrutiny that scientists apply to one another is required to keep the reliability of their agreed-upon foundation as tightly bound to "reality" as possible.

Religion is a completely different animal. It ends up being whatever anyone wants it to be at any given time, and there cannot be any sort of rigor applied to interfaith scrutiny of any kind - "judge not, lest ye be judged." You want to believe your brand of fiction? Then you have to play nice and let everyone else believe in theirs also. (Not to say there aren't systems like "peer-review" WITHIN an individual religion or between members of the same religion)

So, while you are correct that there is little in the purview of one that should be applied to the other - there exists an infinite disparity in the amount of evidence either brings to the table to support their claims. Hence the reason they end up being at odds. Science explaining parts of the physical world that have been, more or less, "black box" to the religious community - or (worse) whose observable properties are in direct opposition to the fundamentals of some belief or practice of the religion - cause the religious community to call into question "science". And, when taking this sort of "fire", those who value and support "science" tend to fire back. And vice versa. With a very short experience with human nature, this should be of no surprise.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

Divine truth and our personal reality we call our truth are two different things.
Please don’t confuse them.

Divine truth never changes, our perception of truth changes constantly.

That being said I agree with your op.

Religion may occasionally contain a divine truth.
Science may as well.

As a person who seeks divine truth, I ask ‘what is their fruit?’.

I find the ‘fruit’ of religion has given us the dark ages, inquisitions, crusades, bigotry, intolerance, and a lot of hate.

The fruit of science as given us penicillin, airplanes, the internet, and millions of other wonders.

My opinion only.

 

[blü 2]

If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

The difference would seem to be that different definitions of 'truth' are being used.

'Truth' is not a scientific term as such, and its use in logic and occasionally maths follows a secondary definition of 'truth' (that is, 'correctly derived according to the rules of the particular formal system').

The definition of truth I use is, 'Truth is correspondence with reality', usually called the 'correspondence' definition. And 'reality' here refers to the world external to the self, the world which the senses reveal to us, where things have objective existence and so exist independently of whether the concept of them is present in your brain or not.

In my view it's fair to use that definition in connection with science.

I've asked, on various occasions in these forums and threads, what definition of 'truth' my believing colloquist is using, but so far I haven't received a clear answer.

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

That comes down to the definition of truth you're using. After all, our understanding of what's true in reality is very usually the consensus of the best-informed experts at a particular time. So 'truth' isn't fixed; it changes as our understanding changes.

But at least in science it changes out in the open, according to a background of rules designed to maximize objectivity when we explore, describe, and seek to explain reality.

So to start with, I'd like to see a clear statement of the definition of 'truth' that believers use.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I think this thread took a detour some time back...

In an attempt to get back on track, let me ask a few related questions:

Do you believe that you are qualified to evaluate (my new favorite word) the truths of a view which is not your own?

Do you believe that those who do not believe as you do are qualified to evaluate your truths?

And...

If you answered one of the above questions "yes" and the other "no", then how do you justify the inconsistency?

To give the reply, it's not my words, , therefore ask again.

 

[taykair]

Science ends up being an attempt to study and catalog all of the actions and interactions in the universe between its physically manifested contents of matter, energy, etc. to establish or work upon a foundation of what can reliably be considered "real" to any or all of us. The scrutiny that scientists apply to one another is required to keep the reliability of their agreed-upon foundation as tightly bound to "reality" as possible.

Religion is a completely different animal. It ends up being whatever anyone wants it to be at any given time, and there cannot be any sort of rigor applied to interfaith scrutiny of any kind - "judge not, lest ye be judged." You want to believe your brand of fiction? Then you have to play nice and let everyone else believe in theirs also. (Not to say there aren't systems like "peer-review" WITHIN an individual religion or between members of the same religion)

So, while you are correct that there is little in the purview of one that should be applied to the other - there exists an infinite disparity in the amount of evidence either brings to the table to support their claims. Hence the reason they end up being at odds. Science explaining parts of the physical world that have been, more or less, "black box" to the religious community - or (worse) whose observable properties are in direct opposition to the fundamentals of some belief or practice of the religion - cause the religious community to call into question "science". And, when taking this sort of "fire", those who value and support "science" tend to fire back. And vice versa. With a very short experience with human nature, this should be of no surprise.

It's not a surprise. Not one bit. But it's all so... well... unnecessary.

There's only one bit I take issue with in your otherwise very good post. I don't see an "infinite disparity" in the amount of evidence. Only piles of different kinds of evidence. Granted, some of it may not convince you or me. We may not even wish to grant it with the title of "evidence". But it is such, for those who accept it as such.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok, so do tell, in the book of Mark 13 Christ Jesus gave what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is and when it will happen and by who can commit it.
So as you say, you know the bible well. So do tell what Christ has given in the book of Mark 13 ?

I didn't say I know the Bible well, I said you didn't know it as well as I did. As evidenced by your complete misinterpretation of 1 Peter 3:15. But I'm unwilling to continue derailing this thread further, so I'll just drop it at this point.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's only one bit I take issue with in your otherwise very good post. I don't see an "infinite disparity" in the amount of evidence. Only piles of different kinds of evidence. Granted, some of it may not convince you or me. We may not even wish to grant it with the title of "evidence". But it is such, for those who accept it as such.

Agreed... and that was my particular bias showing, unfortunately. Perhaps I could have referenced a disparity in the quality or caliber of evidence, rather than a plea to quantity.

Even this would have been insensitive, obviously, however there is one thing I feel supports being "insensitive" in this way - and that is that only one among the types of evidence to be found between the scientific and the religious would hold up in court. This makes complete sense, and it is simply interesting to mull over why this is, and why it does make such good sense.

 

[BSM1]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

Ergo my continuous mantra:
"Everyone has to find their own truth".

 

[Grandliseur]

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

At the moment, I have to agree. If then the 'End prophecies' were fulfilled and God's kingdom established on earth under a theocracy, there would be a change in this being a personal truth only to becoming a universal truth. Sorry about my previous misunderstanding.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I didn't say I know the Bible well, I said you didn't know it as well as I did. As evidenced by your complete misinterpretation of 1 Peter 3:15. But I'm unwilling to continue derailing this thread further, so I'll just drop it at this point.

That means, that you didn't know it at all, if you did, Then you would haved know the definition of Hope means.

The definition of Hope means -- feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen.

Therefore my hope and desire is to know that when Christ returns I shall be with him. That's the Hope that is within me.

Hope and belief have two different definitions meaning to them. That do not mean the same thing, as you think they do.