- You walk into the home of a friend in the Ancient Near East. He says, "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." What do you do?
A. Burn down his house and kill his children, just like the man says.
B. Call the police and the mental hospital to pick up this obviously sick man.
C. Run screaming from the house.
D. Reply, "I am unworthy of
your honor and of being a guest in your home."
D. 10 pts
- You need to know something about the social world of the New Testament. Who should you ask?
A. No one, because you don't plan on listening to what anyone has to say anyway.
B. Farrell Till
C. One of your Skeptical friends who once attended a speech by Marcus Borg, and even helped set up his sound equipment
D. Bruce Malina or Richard
Rohrbaugh
D. 10 pts. Richard Rohrbaugh was my
instructor at Lewis and Clark College, a great scholar, and good person, who
understands more about honor-shame cultures than most people. However, as an aside, I
know that Dick is left rather cold by the way apologists press the work of the
Context Group into evangelical service.
Fair enough; I'm sure he's also left cold by the way fundy atheists pretend to be able to question his competence as a couple did here -- and I assume he doesn't mind if I use his work to correct their errors. Rosson is referring here to the work of David deSilva -- I think he somewhat overplays deSilva's emphasis on "evangelism"...but it's not that big a deal.
- There is evidence that the pagan deity Mithra was thought to have been crucified and resurrected, but the evidence dates around 400 AD. What does this mean?
A. Obviously, Mithra was an influence on the story of Jesus, and the Christians destroyed or tampered with all the evidence showing this.
B. You have to find a liberal professor of history who will date the evidence earlier.
C. Christians must have been actually followers of Mithra at one time.
D. Mithraism was influenced by
Christianity, if anything.
D. 10 pts
- Luke
A. That's obvious. We're supposed to hate our family. Any other interpretation is an excuse for what the text plainly says.
B. We're supposed to hate our family, but love God. That's kind of masochistic.
C. It's God's 'freebie' because it is the only commandment that I can keep.
D. It's
extremist language typical of ancient writers like Poimanes, who said:
"If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love
yourself." In other words, it's hyperbole.
D. 10 pts
- Why did God order the Amalekites exterminated?
A. Because if left to exist, the Amalekites would later provide scientists with genetic evidence of the 'missing link.'
B.
Because
C. Because God is a vengeful and spiteful idiot.
D. Because the Amalekites were ruthless warriors and had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade.
D. 10 pts
- What sort of religious practices did the Canaanites engage in for hundreds of years?
A. They didn't need to practice because they were already good enough.
B. It doesn't matter. Their religion was as
good as anyone else's.
C. They went to church, right?
D. Orgiastic rites, incest, bestiality, and child sacrifices.
B. 2 pts
Rosson presumably means, "no more true than anyone else's" which is nothing more or less than we'd expect within the Skeptical paradigm (in other words, it's a fair response).
- Matthew
A.
Hosea mistakenly called Israel God's son when he really
should have said God's daughter
B. Matthew obviously used the text dishonestly.
C. Matthew was using Hosea carelessly.
D. Matthew was using a typical Jewish
exegetical procedure.
D. 10 pts
- According to Gen. 30-31, what was the actual cause of Jacob's goats being striped or spotted?
A. Oil paint.
B. Sympathetic magic.
C. Stock market trends.
D. Direct divine intervention as
a means of countering Laban's trickery against Jacob.
D. 10 pts
- The OT law has a rule about having barriers around your roof. Why?
A. It was to prevent injury to would-be, sue-happy robbers.
B. Because it's just some stupid rule they thought up.
C. It was to make money for the priests, who had a roofing business on the side.
D. It was because ancient people went out on
their roof for work and recreation; the barrier was like a balcony railing.
D. 10 pts
- In Matt. 6:19-34 Jesus talks about not storing up treasures on earth. This means:
A. Nothing, because Jesus didn't exist.
B. Jesus irresponsibly encouraged us not to save for our retirement.
C. Benny Hinn is in big trouble.
D. 10 pts
- What do you think of Luke 6:29-30? ("Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.")
A. I think it means I'm gonna find me a Christian and take all his money.
B. I think it's a little unreasonable.
C. I think passages like this make Benny Hinn very joyful.
D. I think it makes sense in a time when there were no police to administer justice for the average person and the only recourse would have initiated a cycle of violence.
B. and D. (10+2)/2
= 6 pts. They are equally valid answers
by ancient standards.
I don't see how myself, but if D is part of the answer, hey....
- Lev.
A. The Bible is clearly in error. A bat is a mammal.
B. Bats are actually birds, or secretly want to be.
C. Jesus didn't exist.
D. 10 pts
- What was a primary source for language and concepts describing the doctrine of the Trinity?
A. Pagan religions.
B. Overactive imaginations.
C. The Nicene Creed.
D. Pre-NT Jewish
Wisdom traditions.
D. 10 pts. I
would have chosen both B. and D., but since the question emphasizes a
"primary" source, I'll leave B. alone. Ben Witherington (Jesus the
Sage: A Pilgrimage of Wisdom), Richard Bauckham (God Crucified), and others
have done a fine job showing that certain personifications were included in the
identity of the Jewish God, and that the time was ripe in the first century for
equating a human being with Yahweh. (Overactive imaginations no doubt helped
facilitate such a move.)
Of course, we'd dispute that....but that's another topic. :-) Just the fact that he reads Bauckham and Witherington, when most Skeptics don't even know who they are, is a tribute.
- In 1999, a Biblical scholar wrote a paper for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal of Biblical studies in which he argued for a new and better understanding of a certain Hebrew word. How should we react?
A. Ignore it, because it is obviously impossible that anyone could have new linguistic insights into an ancient language.
B. Ignore it, because the 1611 KJV says what the word means, and that's good enough for me.
C. Check to see if the author teaches at a fundamentalist Bible college.
D. Attempt to find contrary evidence if we
can.
D. 10 pts
- What does Proverbs 26:4-5 tell us?
A. The writer was suffering from bipolar disorder
B. The writer was a mean-spirited person who called people fools
C.
Proverbs was written by at least three sources: the
Mind Your Own Business source, the Loud and Obnoxious source, and a later
redactor, all dating to at least to after the Council at
D. The passage is describing a dilemma, not two absolutes.
D. 10 pts
- According to the Bible, how big are stars?
A. It depends on the size of their egos.
B. About 2 foot by 4 foot.
C. They're tiny objects that could easily fall
onto the ground of Earth.
D. Some of them are tiny objects that could fall to Earth, because the ancients also used the word for "stars" to refer to meteorites, but the Bible doesn't offer a detailed cosmology otherwise that shows it to be in error (though it does use non-literal, poetic imagery and language at times).
C. 3 pts. D. is simply an attempt to
make ancient beliefs compatible with modern ones.
Of course we disagree -- and consider it rather an an attempt to ascribe to the ancients levels of ignorance and knowledge that they did not have and would not know what to do with anyway.
- According to the Bible, when was Jesus born?
A. He wasn't. He didn't exist.
B. 0 A. D.
C. 6 or 7 A. D.
D. 8-4 B. C.
D. 10 pts
- One Gospel says that Heli was Joseph's father. The other says Jacob. What's the deal?
A. Obviously, these people can't keep simple
facts straight.
B. It's like one of those "Heather has Two Mommies" things.
C. His Dad's name was "Jacob Heli Smith."
D. They are from different sides of the family and both are legimately used in accord with the proper ancient use of genealogies and other relevant social factors.
A. 1 pt. The ancients had powerful
memories and recited genealogies diligently, but some things do get lost and
changed through transmission. That we take oral tradition seriously doesn't
necessitate a "fundamentalism of genealogies".
We agree. Our own answer at the link does not necessitate it either. :-)
- You find a Hebrew manuscript showing a discrepancy in the number of horse stalls Solomon had between the Kings and Chronicles accounts. The obvious conclusion is:
A. Christianity has been thoroughly refuted. In fact, Jesus did not exist.
B. This only proves Solomon did not exist.
C. This proves writers were beefing up Solomon's accomplishments, since having so many horse stalls shows what a great king he was and they were trying to make him look better by adding a zero.
D. There was a minor scribal
error, in which the evidence
suggests an extra zero was added. This does not affect critical
doctrines.
D. 10 pts
- What shape is the Earth, according to the Bible?
A. Flat as a pancake.
B. Square as Farrell Till.
C. Hexagonal as the Pentagon.
D. The Bible's language is equivocal and non-specific about such things, as we would expect.
A. 1 pt. D. is an (implicit) attempt
to make ancient beliefs compatible with modern ones.
See above question.
- A hypothetical group of self-styled scholars forms a seminar of sorts and, beginning with the assumption that Jesus could not have said anything eschatological in nature, uses colored beads to sift through the gospels and declare which passages are probably not the actual words of Jesus. In the end, they are left with a thoroughly non-eschatological Jesus. They are:
A. Gods whose word is not to be doubted under any circumstances.
B. Brilliant, mainstream scholars who dispassionately and objectively glean the truth of the Bible.
C. A brave, minority voice for rational
tolerance in our modern era, making contributions to the quest of finding the
historical Jesus.
D. Probably still in kindergarten.
C. and D. (10+3)/2
= 6 pts. The Jesus Seminar cannot be
taken seriously as a collective body (i.e. the silly publications, The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus), but some of its
scholars, as individuals, have done important work.
Our question is meant to apply only to the collective, so we'll award those extra 5 points.
- According to the Bible, how are we saved?
A. In little plastic baggies.
B. Faith alone.
C. Works.
D. A real faith that produces works, expressed in line with the Semitic Totality Concept.
None of the above. I appreciate that different figures like
Paul and James are closer on the faith-works issue than most believe, but there
is still no one doctrine of "faith salvation" that can be derived
uniformly from the NT. The only answer to this question is, loosely speaking,
"by believing in Christ, that he died and rose again for the benefit of
humanity".
I'm going to award myself 5 pts.
He could have had 10 -- that analysis is actually spot on for D.
- Christmas celebrations include trees. Which of the following is true?
A.
Jesus was crucified on a Christmas tree, just like Odin
and
B. Christmas is a thoroughly pagan holiday, proving that Christianity copied all of its ideas from a pagan religion.
C.
Jeremiah prophesied about the use of the trees, proving
it was written long after
D. This is completely irrelevant to any
discussion of Christian beliefs.
D. 10 pts
- Enuma Elish provides a creation account of Apsu and Tiamat giving birth to Anshar and Kishar, who bears Anu, who bears Ea, but Ea kills Apsu, Marduk is born, Tiamat takes Kingu as husband, Ea loses to Tiamat, as does Anu, and Marduk cuts Tiamat's body in half, forming the sky and earth. Which of the following is true?
A. Obviously, the entire Genesis account is copied from it.
B. In fact, the name Marduk spelled sideways in some ancient language is Yahweh.
C. Indeed, there is no way anyone could have written a creation story without copying it from somewhere.
D. Genesis is nothing like this story
and may have even been written to counter the false notions of its contemporary
pagan creation myths.
D. 10 pts
- Hume noted that a savage who had never seen ice would be rational not to believe its existence. Which conclusion is true?
A. Relativism is absolute truth.
B. Empirical truth always leads to proper conclusions.
C. Experience is a great teacher.
D. Maybe we should reevaluate his definition
of "rational".
C. and D. (10+3)/2
= 6 pts. C. and D. are both correct. The
savage would be rational to an extent, but unreasonable if persisting in the
face of contrary reliable testimony.
- Christians must all be wrong because they cannot agree on something like the procedures for and recipients of baptism. Applying this same standard, which conclusion is produced?
A. Fish cannot exist because we cannot decide
whether to use English or Latin names for them.
B. The weather does not exist because we cannot agree on accurate prediction of it.
C. Chocolate cake does not exist because no one can agree on how many cups of flour to use.
D. Evolution cannot be right because scientists do not agree on the mechanism for natural selection and ancestry of various species.
A. 1 pt. Rites of baptism are
determined not by scientific inquiry (as evolution, D.) but by societies and
cultures.
Actually, this answer reflects the spirit of the question accurately and the point I was trying to make, so I'm going to give him the other 9 points.
- 1 Corinthians 7:1 says it is good for a man not to touch a woman. This means:
A. Paul did approve of men touching other men.
B. We should stone men who accidentally touch women.
C. As they say in kindergarten, "Keep your hands to yourself."
D. It is a figure of speech for sexual
intercourse.
D. 10 pts
- 1 Samuel 20:41 says, "And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they (i.e., Jonathan and David) kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded..." This means:
A. David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
B. David and Jonathan were talking about the latest episode of The Young and the Restless.
C. David and Jonathan were weirdos who cried in public.
D. David and Jonathan were expressing the sort of intense emotion typical of Easterners even today.
D. 10 pts
- A man on the street is running around with a sign that says, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!" The obvious conclusion is that:
A. All Christians run around with signs that say, "JESUS IS COMING! YOU WILL BURN!"
B. Some law in the Bible requires people to type with all capital letters.
C. If Jesus does not come in the next 5 minutes, Christianity must be false.
D. One should stay a few hundred feet away
from this individual, whose eschatology is not
particularly sophisticated anyway.
D. 10 pts
- A skeptic remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of religions and is applauded for his rationalism. A Christian remarks on the intellectual bankruptcy of skepticism and is:
A. Mentally ill.
B. A judgmental, intolerant, hateful fanatic.
C. Resorting to ad hominem attacks.
D. Contending for rational faith.
D. 10 pts
- In one place Jesus says the
disciples can take a staff (Mark 6:8); elsewhere he says they can't (Matt.
A. These people can't even keep something this simple straight.
B. Staves were out of fashion when Matt and
Luke wrote.
C. Someone had stolen all of the Christians' staves at Mark's time.
D. We need to look more closely at the linguistic data.
B. 2 pts. D.
involves artificial harmonization of clearly different accounts. The Markan
community addressed itinerancy, and it was dangerous to travel without a staff.
So it's not so much that "staves were out of fashion" in the Matthean
and Lukan communities, only that staves were unnecessary. But the gist of B. is
correct.
We of course disagree and find the linked answer sufficient....though we would agree that the wording may have been affected by these considerations.
- A Christian tells you that willful sin is open rebellion that will lead to eternal damnation unless you repent. Your response is:
A. "Good. I plan on breaking each one of
the Ten Commandments."
B. "Phooey! Sin is an artificial construct created by authority figures to keep the masses in line."
C. "Why can't God just forgive sin?"
D. "Well, that makes sense, because any sin is infinitely evil before an infinitely holy and just God, though at least the punishment will be according to deeds done in life."
A. 1 pt. See Stephen R. Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, which tells us, profoundly, that righteousness is impotent, and only the sinful and damned can be ultimately effective for good.
Hmmm. I'll take pardon for not accepting an author of science fiction as an authority on that subject....
- A spacecraft, clearly not from earth, is found on the moon. Some claim that it must have been designed by aliens. You respond by saying:
A. "That is not a scientific explanation, since there is no scientific evidence that aliens exist. That aliens exist is just some people's unverifiable belief. Science cannot comment on what is not verifiable."
B. "If we accept that aliens exist, then any unexplained phenomenon can be attributed to aliens and scientific progress will stop. It will literally be alien-of-the-gaps."
C. "Aliens are just something you imagine as a psychological crutch."
D. "Only aliens could have designed this,
so obviously aliens exist."
D. 10 pts
- What is a 'straw man'?
A. A good accusation to make when you become confused during a debate.
B. A farmer who sells it.
C. A man without a brain.
D. Something frequently burned by Skeptics.
D. 10 pts (though it's also something frequently burned by fundamentalists).
- How much of a skeptic are you? When you suddenly smell smoke, you...
A. Doubt that there is a fire, and to avoid dealing with the conclusion that there is one, hypothesize that you suddenly have a rare disease.
B. Tell the fireman who informs you that your house is on fire, "Yeah, right," and return to your TV program.
C. Accuse the fireman of threatening you with the fire because he told you that you will burn unless you vacate.
D. Assume that your wife is done cooking
dinner. (Our special thanks to the woman who contributed this answer. 
)
D. 10 pts (or that I'm done the cooking).
- What do you consider sufficient proof of evolution?
A. It's so obvious that some animals look like other animals. That's all the proof I need.
B. All the scientists say that's what happened and I doubt that they could be wrong about such a thing.
C. The fossil record.
D. A fast forward videotape of Australopithecus evolving into my next-door neighbor.
C. 3 pts (fossil record among other things).
- What do you consider sufficient proof of Christ's resurrection?
A. No amount of evidence would be sufficient because everyone knows that dead people never come back to life.
B. A videotape that recorded the event.
C. All the Christians believe in it and I doubt that many people could be wrong about such a thing.
D. The gospel accounts, which were written within the lifespan of those who would easily be able to dispute such an extraordinary claim and which would have been seriously challenged in the social world of the NT, had it not occurred.
B. 2 pts. It’s
the only way such an event can be "proven".
Naturally, we don't think so. :-)
- In Numbers 31, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females, but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. This means:
A. Moses was a perverted sicko, and so is God,
and so are you for believing this stuff.
B.
C. The Israelites needed someone to cook dinner for them after 40 years of manna.
D. The Israelites were mercifully absorbing
these young girls into their population.
A. and D. (10+1)/2
= 5 pts. There is an element of
truth to D., though it would be naïve to overplay it and deny what is true about
war in all times and places -- that many troops will want the expected spoils
of a victorious army. But A. is cheaply phrased. Moses and the Israelites were
no more (or less) sick than anyone else for taking spoils in war.
Of course the "cheap" phrasing is taken from actual answers by fundy atheists. :-) And since Rosson declares all persons so equitable, we'll give him the other 5 points.
- You live in a world with multitudes of vastly different belief systems with many different kinds of beliefs within those systems, one of which happens to be evangelical Christianity. What does this mean?
A. Atheism, by its rational existence, automatically renders all other worldviews false and irrational.
B. We should throw our hands up in the air and say, Why bother? We'll never know what is really true and what isn't.
C. It is only truth if you can feel it.
D. We should systematically investigate the
claims of each worldview, from the monotheistic religions to atheism to eastern
religions and others, and deduce from the evidence which belief system is most
logical and has the "ring of truth" to it.
D. 10 pts
- Since there is no classical historian at all that believes Jesus Christ was a myth, which of the following is true?
A. Skeptic philosophers and professors of German are more qualified to comment on history than those who have spent almost a decade learning history and the methodology of assessing historical claims
B. Degrees in historical studies must be written on toilet paper
C. Christmas trees prove that Christianity is a pagan mythology!
D. This is a valid appeal to authority, so
they are probably right that there was a historical Jesus
D. 10 pts
- Hume taught that it is irrational to believe in something that doesn't conform to personal experience. Your reaction should be:
A. Preach on, brutha Hume!
B. Hume is a god!
C. I certainly can't disagree with that
D. The "uniform experience" Hume
decided on was based on circular reasoning, since in order to establish it, he
had to assume a priori that miracle eyewitness testimonies where false.
D. 10 pts
- You find that, so far, Theoretical Physicists are unable to reconcile Quantum Physics and Relativity. What do you do?
A. You decide all science is bogus, and join a New Age, pantheistic cult.
B. You decide that science is really only a social construct designed to keep straight, white, European males in power as an excuse to oppress everyone else.
C. Look for an essay by Isaac Asimov on the subject
D. You decide that more research by scientists
will eventually find the deeper truths underlying both theories.
10 pts
- You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What is the proper course of action?
A. Quote this site's mission statement. That proves everything on it is worthless.
B. Note that this site solicits financial support. That proves everything on it is worthless.
C. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,500+ items on this site as much as you can.
D.
All of the above, because you can't refute actually
refute any of it.
None of the above. 0 pts.
_____________________________________
Scoring: Award yourself 1 point for each A answer, 2 points for each B answer, 3 points for each C answer, and 10 points for each D answer.
Grade:
- 43-90 points: Not bad, if you're trying to earn membership in the Ku Klux Klan.
- 91-170 points: You used a cheat sheet on a few, didn't you? Maybe you Christmas-treed it?
- 171-230 points:: Well, there's some hope for you. Get your nose out of that Robert Miller stuff and try a little Ben Witherington.
- 231-330 points: Now THAT is an open mind. Good show!
- 331-430 points: You're way too intelligent to be a Skeptic. Consider converting.
My score: 324 (right
on the cusp)
We award Rosson an extra 24 points for answers which we take as sufficient, plus the 10 for item 43, since he would not do A, B or C there. Add 34 for a total of 358! We'll see you in church, Mr. Rosson. ;-)