NationStates Jolt Archive

I found a rather interesting quiz, and thought I'd share it with you.

http://ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

I got 48 correct out of 50. I love how I know more about the Bible than Christains do..

woohooo i got a passing grade!
25 out of 50!!

What a suprise, a test on the most obscure and irrelevent parts of the bible is brought to us by a militant atheist group! How open minded of them

The only things I know about the Bible are that Charlton Heston really likes guns, and that Jesus really likes S&M.

It's all the Mosaic Law which is not needed anymore now that we dwell continually in God's presence through Christ Jesus His Son. He is the Life that is the light of men. I didn't finish the test because most of those questions are loaded. It's taken as if we are supposed to live like this today.

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.
9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.
16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

You see we were never supposed to make decisions on whether something was Good or Evil, yet we chose that instead of living in God's presence forever which was the Tree of Life. The Ten Commandments show what you need to do to follow the path of righteousness and to show you that you can't make those decisions at all. You cannot be righteous for without God you do not know what you are doing. Who is the Life now?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

John 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The question should not be how well you know the Law. It should be how well do you know God?

I didn't finish the test because most of those questions are loaded. It's taken as if we are supposed to live like this today. Well, the use of "Jehovah" as a name of god might give a hint.
And many of the questions do not provide the truly right answer that should be given if one is not already a slave to christian fundamentalism.

BTW Paul does not count.

Wow, that site is creepy . . . they could definetly use some more fluffles :) .

:fluffle:

I found a rather interesting quiz, and thought I'd share it with you.

http://ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

I got 48 correct out of 50. I love how I know more about the Bible than Christains do..

Perhaps you're a little more obsessed with the Bible than these so-called Christians fanatics that atheists seem to scorn... how ironic..

I quit half way through when no answer given was bendable to fit the Bible, (according to Mosaic law pubshment for being handicapped . . .). Actually there were several others that only a truely perverted reading of the bible could provide a justification for the answer choices given. I'd have to say it is just a typical case of bible bashing and not a very good one, shows a decided lack of scholarship and a great deal of animosity towards religon. I suppose bigots might enjoy something like this as it can reinforce their prejudices and make them feel superior, but rational people can at best be amused by this type of thing.

12/50 ! Rock on. I especially like the breakdown of wrong answers at the end

47. Should Christians always give what they have to anyone who asks for it?
Answer: Yes

Yes. --In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Luke 6:30, repeated in Matthew 5:42) Try asking Christians for their houses and possessions, and see how faithful they are to the teachings of Jesus. Borrow a Christian's car and see if they ever ask for it back. Modern believers know that Jesus was wrong and the bible is not to be taken literally. :p

Do you REALLY know the Bible?

Not in the biblical sense. :)

I thought that maybe a site dedicated to "freethinking" would at least have a forum.

11/50 hurray! :)

What a suprise, a test on the most obscure and irrelevent parts of the bible is brought to us by a militant atheist group! How open minded of them

Yet you fail to realize that it is still in the bible. You can say it's obscure/irrelevent all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's in the bible.

15.

Not bad considering the only Bible I've ever read was the one with Lego illistrations.

30/50.

Guessing, Sunday School, and imagining what a bunch of Jews 2 to 5 millenia ago would say kind of helped.

Yet you fail to realize that it is still in the bible. You can say it's obscure/irrelevent all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's in the bible.Except that I looked up the answer key and a good chunk of it isn't, some is even a complete reversal of what is in the bible, used by taking sections completely out of context. Take the one I gave up the test on, the test refers to the requirment that members of the priesthood be free of defect (handicapped) and takes this to be a punishment that the handicapped cannot go to Church (I cannot even figure out how they managed that one). I also note that somehow they believe that because it is cheaper to buy the blessing of G*d for for women, that women were valued less than men, while it would seem to opposite to me on it's face and I belive it was probably more a means based test to ensure men and women recieved blessings in equal proportion, since the culture tended to value women less. There are more than few problems in the bible, but this test is just an excuse for bigots to feel superior to Christians.

I thought that maybe a site dedicated to "freethinking" would at least have a forum.

"Free thought" only applies if you are a stern atheist with no second thoughts about religion.

Yet you fail to realize that it is still in the bible. You can say it's obscure/irrelevent all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's in the bible.
So? Just because it'd in the bible doesn't mean it's right. Hell, shitloads of different groups are STILL debating which books should actually go in the bible, and still we have no clear answer.
Focus on these obscure ideas is pointless- they are beliefs that are outdated and shouldn't be taken seriously today.

38/50, a passing grade.

So much crap in there. They almost admit it with the answer guide, "it says all of these answers at different times, we just chose this one as correct because it seemed most offensive."

21!
I got a lot of the stoning ones right.

...Actually there were several others that only a truely perverted reading of the bible could provide a justification for the answer choices given...

Maybe that was the idea? If you can misquote/QOOC the bible to prove that handicapped people shouldn't be allowed in churches, why should we take people seriously when they use the bible to, say, back up their homophobia?

("There you go, bringing class into it again...")

What a suprise, a test on the most obscure and irrelevent parts of the bible is brought to us by a militant atheist group! How open minded of them

Well its in the Bible, doesn't that mean its the word of God? How is the word of God ever irrelevant?

Meh, I wasn't impressed. A lot of things on it were just openly mocking Christians without a second thought. Don't take this stuff too seriously, Hell it came from athiests who said that the most offensive answer is the one they picked. And people say they're open minded. :headbang:

What a suprise, a test on the most obscure and irrelevent parts of the bible is brought to us by a militant atheist group! How open minded of them
truly.
It's notable that there *are* some serious problems in the Bible, but athiests never seem to find them; they just come up with crap like this. [shrugs] a good reason to only discuss the Bible with other Christians and/or Jews, I suppose.

hmmm... well how many useful questions were ther in that lot??? i got 8/50 n i've been goin 2 church since i was a new born... im christian 2... oh well i know the important stuff

That was the most loaded bible quiz ive ever taken. Everything was so insanely scewed to be hugely anti-christian or jewish. What junk.

Some of their interpretations I have no idea how they came up with. Also they ignored TONS of other passages that suggest the exact opposite view than that which they presented.

How sickening.

After about the 3-4th question i knew it was all anti. With that in mind I managed to pull a 30ish/50.

stoning people to death is always the answer :D

i got bored at question 8... probably didnt get any of them right anyway *shrugs*

So? Just because it'd in the bible doesn't mean it's right. Hell, shitloads of different groups are STILL debating which books should actually go in the bible, and still we have no clear answer.
Focus on these obscure ideas is pointless- they are beliefs that are outdated and shouldn't be taken seriously today.
Well how do you know what is outdated by gods point of view?
I mean he might have ment thoes "irelevent" passages

The bible was suposedly devinly inspired ... so you are saying god is wrong?

IAnd if it is all suposed to be taken as a general moral framework how can specific points such as gay marrage and abortion be taken out (or quotes pertaining to them)

btw I got a 40 out of 50 :-P and I am agnostic lol

That was the most loaded bible quiz ive ever taken. Everything was so insanely scewed to be hugely anti-christian or jewish. What junk.

Some of their interpretations I have no idea how they came up with. Also they ignored TONS of other passages that suggest the exact opposite view than that which they presented.

How sickening.

After about the 3-4th question i knew it was all anti. With that in mind I managed to pull a 30ish/50.
amazing ... sounds honestly like what a lot religious people do to support a point

really is ironic

29/50
I knew quite a few, but mostly I just picked the most offensive one, since they were obviously trying to prove a point.

It makes me wonder why they seem angry. If they thought Christianity was a joke, they would dismiss it and move on. Atheists make me angry b/c of their generally militant religious fervor against religion. I respect agnostics because they (at least the ones I've met) just don't know.

my score was 15... the average

I tended to pick the most brutal ones but then thought:"Nah... it can't be that bad".... I was wrong most of the time

29/50
I knew quite a few, but mostly I just picked the most offensive one, since they were obviously trying to prove a point.

It makes me wonder why they seem angry. If they thought Christianity was a joke, they would dismiss it and move on. Atheists make me angry b/c of their generally militant religious fervor against religion. I respect agnostics because they (at least the ones I've met) just don't know.
Yeah atheism in its true form is really a belief in and of itself ... and you know what happens when beliefs conflict ... they believe there is no god ... another group believes there is... about as bad as two different god's colliding.


Most people when not religious are actually agnostic (though more people know the term atheist so that’s what they always attribute themselves to)

What a suprise, a test on the most obscure and irrelevent parts of the bible is brought to us by a militant atheist group! How open minded of them

Yes, laws like selling an unbethrothed former virgin to her rapist are certainly irrelevent.

Yes, laws like selling an unbethrothed former virgin to her rapist are certainly irrelevent.
Lol they don’t like what the bible says … rather then parting from following what god says

They just change what he says to fit what they want it to nowadays

Silliness, no?

Lol they don’t like what the bible says … rather then parting from following what god says

They just change what he says to fit what they want it to nowadays

Silliness, no?

Yes, but they mostly just ignore i. Or else they agree with it: adultery is a capital property crime, rape is too, bad kids should be stoned, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but they mostly just ignore i. Or else they agree with it: adultery is a capital property crime, rape is too, bad kids should be stoned, etc. etc. etc.
but it doesn’t fit with "today’s world" so therefore god must not want it to be a rule anymore

It's full of mosaic laws. Not applicable today because Jesus had already died for our sins.

What next? We aren't supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

I almost found this amusing, except that it occurs to me that a lot of people take it quite literally.

Those of us who understand the Scriptures know the contexts and the meanings and we're not phased by this sort of tripe. It's the people who don't who are at risk of falling into the trap of taking these people at face value. If you got a high score on this quiz, then you either tow the party line well or you anticipated the party line well enough to predict it. Either way it certainly had little to do with the actual meaning of Scripture.

Irony: Atheism is a religion. Look up the word religion in the dictionary. According to Miriam-Webster online definition 4 says:

religion : 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

That's Atheism too, folks. Atheists defend their belief as ferevrently as any Christian or Muslim or anyone else. It's clear that whoever designed this little online quiz, they were NOT reading the Bible objectively. And honestly, if someone DID read it with true open mindedness and objectivity, would you expect them to still have enough angst in their heart to put up a site like that? Likely not.

For the record, I respect the right of any Atheist to believe in whatever he or she chooses to and they should have that right without criticism from us. The problem is that a site like this is an example of a select few who have chosen to attack Christianity. I wonder what their rationalization was?

It's full of mosaic laws. Not applicable today because Jesus had already died for our sins.

What next? We aren't supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
naw thats impossible ... we got bounced out of there so fast it made us sin ourselves

religion : 4 : snip
. I wonder what their rationalization was?
probably just tired of being attacked lol I know I am and i am agnostic not athiest lol

You scored 0 correct out of 50.

0 - 9: Don't feel bad. You may be better off not knowing much about the bible

probably just tired of being attacked lol I know I am and i am agnostic not athiest lol

And you know, if that's the case... If they've been attacked, and if you have as well, then the individuals who did so are way out of line. I know what it is to be Bible-bashed. I've had people from different flavors of Christianity from my own come up and try everything from open hostility to intense kindness to get me to align myself with their system.

The difference is that I know these individuals don't represent what Christianity truly is, and they don't represent the majority.

I'm disappointed that the people who built this site failed to realize that and have now launched an attack on Christianity in general, and by extension, Judaism with it.

but it doesn’t fit with "today’s world" so therefore god must not want it to be a rule anymore

Not true at all, because as everyone knows today's world is ruled by Satan.

As an agnostic, i would have to say that was the most one-sided test i've ever seen, clearly written by athiests as a propoganda tool.

Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe everything in the Bible (that would make you an idiot, not a Christian). Considering the athiest groups constantly point out the arrogance and one-sidedness of the Christians, I would have thought that the athiests wouldn't have been so hypocritical.

As an agnostic, i would have to say that was the most one-sided test i've ever seen, clearly written by athiests as a propoganda tool.

Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe everything in the Bible (that would make you an idiot, not a Christian). Considering the athiest groups constantly point out the arrogance and one-sidedness of the Christians, I would have thought that the athiests wouldn't have been so hypocritical.
oh i agree ... but this brings up the point ... what parts of the bible ARE you suposed to believe ... if your religious text is flawed how can you know you are not following the wrong parts?

As an agnostic, i would have to say that was the most one-sided test i've ever seen, clearly written by athiests as a propoganda tool.

Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe everything in the Bible (that would make you an idiot, not a Christian). Considering the athiest groups constantly point out the arrogance and one-sidedness of the Christians, I would have thought that the athiests wouldn't have been so hypocritical.

I have no idea why you would have thought that, except that as an Agnostic you have an open mind (I assume) and you are innocent enought to project that upon others. Atheists are just as dogmatically religious as Fundementalists. They believe what they believe on faith, with an uncritical mind, and this can lead to hypocricy.

oh i agree ... but this brings up the point ... what parts of the bible ARE you suposed to believe ... if your religious text is flawed how can you know you are not following the wrong parts?

You can't pick and choose, good point. Either your faith is strong enough to believe all of it or it is pointless.

I do realize there are may areas in Scripture that seem pretty out there, but everything has its context. Do you read it like a history book? Some parts, but not all. Do you read it like an instruction manual? Some parts, but bot all.

The way to read it and understand it is to accompany your reading with prayer, openness and guidance from those who know more about it than you.

Personally, I have found it very helpful to also study world history and archaeology to go along with my reading of Scripture, because it puts things into a much clearer context.

You both raise good points.

I would think that if I were a Christian, I wouldn't rely on the Bible at all, but base my ideas of God on how I think he would be, but of course I wouldn't be a Christian then.

It is undoubtedly a common misconception that the Athiest's are any more or less hypocritical than the church.

...we're still just dating. For some reason though, I can't seem to get any action. Maybe if I left my gorilla suit and handcuffs at home...

It's amazing how many people know so much about the Bible, and yet know so little.

As an agnostic, i would have to say that was the most one-sided test i've ever seen, clearly written by athiests as a propoganda tool.

Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you have to believe everything in the Bible (that would make you an idiot, not a Christian). Considering the athiest groups constantly point out the arrogance and one-sidedness of the Christians, I would have thought that the athiests wouldn't have been so hypocritical.
It's not the hypocracy that bothers me as much as the distortion, there is a lot in the bible to be offended by, but twisting it to make it seem worse is just wrong.

You can't pick and choose, good point. Either your faith is strong enough to believe all of it or it is pointless.

One word of warning there. Definitely we can't pick and choose.

However you have to take note of the different covenants (promises,decree's).

Like the difference between the new testament and the old testament. Christians (new testament) live in the redemption of Jesus Christ, is far different from Jews living in the old testament mosaic laws.

It's might as well, we be wary that we don't eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. :D

Different covenants you know. :)

50 out of 50. Not bad. It was extremely easy to tell what I needed to do to get a high score on a quiz on the "Freedom From Religion" site. All I had to do was pick the most damning or ridiculous answer, and I was right. Yay!

This is rubbish. Those questions are so slanted they are worthless.
For instance, just because a certain practice is described as going on at the time does not mean it was endorsed.

You can't pick and choose, good point. Either your faith is strong enough to believe all of it or it is pointless.

I do realize there are may areas in Scripture that seem pretty out there, but everything has its context. Do you read it like a history book? Some parts, but not all. Do you read it like an instruction manual? Some parts, but bot all.

The way to read it and understand it is to accompany your reading with prayer, openness and guidance from those who know more about it than you.

Personally, I have found it very helpful to also study world history and archaeology to go along with my reading of Scripture, because it puts things into a much clearer context.
I agree it all has its context but assuming what it is and changing your interpretation really means you are following the human concept (which is flawed) rather then gods concept

Hard to believe he divinely inspired certain laws that only make since in a narrow time frame but not put an expiration on it … hmmm he must have forgot

One word of warning there. Definitely we can't pick and choose.

However you have to take note of the different covenants (promises,decree's).

Like the difference between the new testament and the old testament. Christians (new testament) live in the redemption of Jesus Christ, is far different from Jews living in the old testament mosaic laws.

It's might as well, we be wary that we don't eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. :D

Different covenants you know. :)

Quite so, but at the same time a big element that often gets overlooked, IMHO is that the Old Testament and the New testament are two iterations of the same Gospel, but at different levels of cultural and societal development.

In the old days of Mosaic Law, a lot of things were stricter and often spelled out in explicit detail because the spirituality of the people wasn't advanced enough to teach them any other way. As it was, most of the time they dind't get it and as a consequence were not ready to enter the Promised Land until practically the entire generation of original refugees from Egypt had died off.

Later, in the time of Christ, people were ready for a much more spiritual and advanced presentation, which is what Jesus came to teach. His teachings do not contradict the message of the Old Testament, but advances it to the next level.

I agree it all has its context but assuming what it is and changing your interpretation really means you are following the human concept (which is flawed) rather then gods concept

Hard to believe he divinely inspired certain laws that only make since in a narrow time frame but not put an expiration on it … hmmm he must have forgot

The problem is the Bible isn't in and of itself complete. Think about this; toward the end of the Old Testament the entire region was conquered by Babylon, which was subsequently conquered by Persia, which was later conquered by the Macedonians, etc etc etc all the way up until the time of Roman occupation. How many books and documents were lost? Who knows?

There are surely hundreds of volumes that by rights should have been included in Scripture and aren't because they were either destroyed or still lie hidden in a vault somewhere.

So despite the snide nature of your last remark, my response is that there may well have been a more explicit explanation of why things are the way they are. The Pharisees certainly followed a much different interpretation of Mosaic Law than what's presented in the Old Testament, much of which probably was set forth during the time of the Maccabees.

Even if there isn't, Jesus explained these concepts when He spoke, so that should be more than enough even for the casual reader.

The problem is the Bible isn't in and of itself complete. Think about this; toward the end of the Old Testament the entire region was conquered by Babylon, which was subsequently conquered by Persia, which was later conquered by the Macedonians, etc etc etc all the way up until the time of Roman occupation. How many books and documents were lost? Who knows?

There are surely hundreds of volumes that by rights should have been included in Scripture and aren't because they were either destroyed or still lie hidden in a vault somewhere.

So despite the snide nature of your last remark, my response is that there may well have been a more explicit explanation of why things are the way they are. The Pharisees certainly followed a much different interpretation of Mosaic Law than what's presented in the Old Testament, much of which probably was set forth during the time of the Maccabees.

Even if there isn't, Jesus explained these concepts when He spoke, so that should be more than enough even for the casual reader.
Again I agree but some people don’t get that

That there are such things as translation errors (some parts of revelations being bastardized Greek … like going from English to Hebrew but not starting out with standard English … starting out with Ebonics would be closer)

Errors to start with transferring oral history through the ages


Contextual errors

But through all these possibilities the need to have faith (as proscribed) in the teachings

Logically looking at them and understanding that some of them may be false can be considered a lack of faith … a built in failsafe against people on a large scale (and still included in the religion)to understand things

Because lack of faith is supposedly a bad thing … so looking for the truth and yes possibly debunking some of the stuff is a lack of complete faith

Again I agree but some people don’t get that

That there are such things as translation errors (some parts of revelations being bastardized Greek … like going from English to Hebrew but not starting out with standard English … starting out with Ebonics would be closer)

Errors to start with transferring oral history through the ages


Contextual errors

But through all these possibilities the need to have faith (as proscribed) in the teachings

Logically looking at them and understanding that some of them may be false can be considered a lack of faith … a built in failsafe against people on a large scale (and still included in the religion)to understand things

Because lack of faith is supposedly a bad thing … so looking for the truth and yes possibly debunking some of the stuff is a lack of complete faith

True that's a big problem. I think a lot of fanatics are people who, deep down, are afraid to really analyze this stuff and understand it for what it is, so they tend to dismiss out of hand anything but the actual text itself. This isn't unique to Christianity, but it tends to stand out more because of the nature of our culture.

At the same time, I've seen Christians who insist that absolutely 100% of the assertions of the Bible are historically, archaeologically and scientifically provable, and that is what they base their faith upon. This, to me is a mistake just as big, because once you have this sort of proof then faith becomes meaningless. It's really not faith at all.

Not everything in Scripture is provable, and well it should not be. Our knowledge and understanding of the Universe is not complete, and it's far from perfect. Assuming God's is, then why should we be so arrogant as to assume that everything in Scripture must match 100% with our understanding of everything else?

People talk about Mosaic Law as if it were just silly arbitrary rules, but have you noticed that a number of them, even the insiginificant seeming ones, tend to be really good advice for sanitation and health? Examples include washing, keeping waste out of the camp, etc. The sorts of things that people of the period might not have understood the reasoning for, but because of faith they did it anyway. Now, thousands of years later we know about bacteria, sanitation and infection. It's another piece of the puzzle.

But... that puzzle isn't complete yet.

On the topic of "all or nothing" treatment of the Bible: these are only the only options when you agree that belief in the Bible requires belief in biblical inerrency and in the idea that every word in the Bible is directly from the mouth of G-d. As a gnostic Christian, I do not believe that. The christian Bible was compiled by Jerome on the orders of the Council of Nicea in the late 4th century. I find it amusing that even Fundementalists who call Catholicism the "Whore Church of Rome" accept Jerome's compliation as a holy dispensation from G-d.

I started to really answer the first ten questions...but then I looked aheasd and realized the website owner had a serious agenda. So I just bought into whatever I thought the most outrageous and I got between 30 and 39. Wow. really predictable, especially from Chodolo as of late.

This sort of thing really makes me want to shoot someone.

I just got STUPID!

On the topic of "all or nothing" treatment of the Bible: these are only the only options when you agree that belief in the Bible requires belief in biblical inerrency and in the idea that every word in the Bible is directly from the mouth of G-d. As a gnostic Christian, I do not believe that. The christian Bible was compiled by Jerome on the orders of the Council of Nicea in the late 4th century. I find it amusing that even Fundementalists who call Catholicism the "Whore Church of Rome" accept Jerome's compliation as a holy dispensation from G-d.

I have been Biblethumped by my sister frequently who is vehemently against any brand of Christianity that differs from hers, and she frequently beats up on Catholics. (Especially in front of our mom, who is Catholic) The problem she doesn't realize, or maybe backburners, is that a great many defining concepts adhered to by Evangelical Christianity have their origins in ancient Catholicism, including the Trinity and the set of books chosen for the Bible. (Admittedly, the King James Bible omits many books found in the Catholic Bible, but there are none in King James that are not found in the Catholic version.)

The Bible is indeed a document that has been slanted somewhat by translators and scribes, but keeping that in mind and reading it with prayer and instruction from others can help avoid many pitfalls.

The Trinity is pauline, so if Paul was truly inspired it should probably be in there, Catholicism or no.

The Trinity is pauline, so if Paul was truly inspired it should probably be in there, Catholicism or no.

The Trinity was not derived by Paul. It was presented as doctrine in about AD 380 in Constantinople by Augustine and Athanasius.

The Trinity was not derived by Paul. It was presented as doctrine in about AD 380 in Constantinople by Augustine and Athanasius.

He may not have used the word, but I believe he did speak of the tripartate G-d. I gtg work soon, though... I will find it later if your need. :)

He may not have used the word, but I believe he did speak of the tripartate G-d. I gtg work soon, though... I will find it later if your need. :)

Hey I'd me more than happy to continue the chat. Feel free to telegram me since I may or may not keep up with the postings. I'd be interested in knowing the reference you cite.

Okay I actually TRIED it...and got a rating of 19. Not bad considering halfway through I began punching random buttons. Not bad at all.

Where's my gorilla suit and handcuffs got to, now...