Why cant religious people see that using their religious text as *proof* is ridiculous?

Question

is there a word for it in psychology?

Answer 1

Schizophrenic delusion

Answer 2

most people would call it mental insanity, but here's some more theology for you:

If the bible is found to be falliable in any way shape or form, then it would not be the word of God, because God can not tell something that is not true. So let's say that Noah really carried two of every animal onto the boat. How did he do it? How did he know every species? How did he command them to follow him?

Does the bible explain how? If not, then it is not telling the whole truth. Does this mean that it is falliable? No, not necessarily. So, a book then, be it the bible or whatever, is only telling part of the truth, never the whole truth. Meaning it could still be considered the word of God, since the word contains the meaning, which is true, but not every thought of God, which would be telling the whole truth. If the bible told the whole truth, then it would literally be the never ending story. So, then, what is the never ending story? Life.

Therefore, the true bible, that which is never falliable, and always truthful, which also tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is Life.

Answer 3

Actually, there is a word for it.... In Christian apologetics (and for many scientists as well), it's called "testability."

Scientists often claim that truths regarding religion and spirituality are not "testable" like natural observations or experiments which can under some set of controlled conditions be recreated and tested to see if in fact they reoccur. This is generally the basis for the scientific method -- producing a claim, testing it under certain circumstances, and seeing if you get a similar result. If you don't, you re-examine the claim and/or conditions and see what else can explain what occurred.

But obviously, "religious people" use their particular religious texts in a similar way in the sense that what THEY believe can be examined in the context of a set of conditions and see if the "truth" of what is claimed is valid or invalid. Religious texts form an objective groundwork for people with a similar faith experience to "test" what other believers experience subjectively through their own life circumstances to see if what someone has experienced is "true" or "false". For example, if someone said they actually audibly heard Jesus say "kill every Muslim you see," a believer could test that experience with scripture to see if in fact Jesus WOULD say that absed on what we know about him from an objective source. (i would venture to say most Christians would say to the above question, "NOT")

The problem lies in trying to answer different questions with different methods. A scientist would not try to split an atom to determine the solubility of salt crystals. Trying to understand what is supernatural and "prove" it with the natural just doesn't work. But if we have open minds and view religions critically through their texts, testing them to see if what they say leads to a higher and affirmed truth, we have understood another part of the whole of knowledge about universe just a bit better.

Answer 4

I don't know if there is a word for what you are talking about. But religious people believe that their religious text is truth. And anybody who desn't believe in it, is foolish and has nothing. So, if you supported science very much, and you use it, they will probably use the same exact argument against you. Why do you see that using science is proof? So, everyone does it, I'm just as guilty. I try to give a good answer without using religious text.

Hope this helped.

Answer 5

It isn't ridiculous, however, using the text without to prove
itself without explaining what it means is kinda dumb. I don't
do that nor do I argue a religious point. Arguing only indicates
that you are unsure of what you believe.

Nor do I merely believe, I know.

Answer 6

Roman historian Tacitus wrote: Nero fixed the guilt . . . on a type hated for his or her abominations, called Christians via the inhabitants. Christus, from whom the call had its foundation, suffered the severe penalty in the process the reign of Tiberius on the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a maximum mischievous superstition, as a consequence checked for the 2d, back broke out no longer in straightforward terms in Judaea, the 1st source of the evil, yet even in Rome i understand which you do no longer discover authority interior the Bible yet finding at it in basic terms as a historic rfile it evaluate somewhat precise to the originals. because of the fact of ways it became perserved and the ammount that have been got here across dating back to early century. that's seen a correct representation of activities. Even liberal pupils provide credence to the accuracy at something ninety 8% or extra.

Answer 7

They can`t even make up the semantic and try to explain in their own words, what is all about! Robots have more leeway than this!! But do not worry about them, as it takes every kinds of peoples to make a world, and I do know one thing, you better served by yourself as waiting for a miracle is like waiting to have peace all over the world!

Answer 8

Yes there is a big contradiction there. In a lot of instances they use "faith" as thier superiority in ther arguements and then in others it is proof. You cant have both.

If it is proof it takes away the element of faith. So which one is it?

Answer 9

"Self Delusion" is a good term.

I don't know why Christians do this. The recent book Misquoting Jesus proves that a majority of the bible is falsified and made up...and that the rest is just borrowed from Paganism and the story of Mithra's. What is even more sad is that they refuse to even listen and educate themselves.

Answer 10

Delusional