Religion 101 Final Exam

[Mark Lapierre]

Religion 101 Final Exam

(to give fair warning don't take this test if you're a devout Christian with high blood pressure or a family history of heart disease)

[maclinda]

...or a person with a soft heart. I know awful things occur, but I don't seek out the experience. I don't watch many popular movies, either.

But you did give fair warning.

[Angela]

Brilliant. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

[Nelson]

hahaha

I'm a Christian and I enjoyed this one. While I like your view from a humorous perspective it's a little flawed in the sense that:

1) You don't take Karma into account, so many of these examples uch as the man's house being burnt to the ground could have easily been his fault. God is just as well as loving.

2) Your view of the Christian religion is extremly fundamentalist. I believe that the bible is a series of lessons that teach us to be good to one another and to realize that we are all in need of grace. If you look throughout religions of the world almost all of them teach a need for a savior from damnation - even the ancient egyptians believed that they must have certain spells cast upon them so that they would not be judged for their deeds in the afterlife.

Christianity is a sereis of lesons that will help you to lead a good life and to accept the grace you need in the afterlife. It can also provide you with a strong loving community if you select a good church.

Whatever you believe is up to you, but please don't judge Christianity by a point of view that is inherently negative about the entire religion.

[Mark Lapierre]

Hi Nelson,

I didn't actually write that and I agree with you, there were many points while I was reading it at which I thought it was a little over the top.

[Nelson]

Oi! Sorry for assuming, makes a you-know-what out of you-know-who.

[Matthew Shea]

This, in large part, left me dumbfounded. The author of that "exam" quite obviously doesn't get it. It's no wonder he's Atheist.

[rant]
It seems to me that Atheism only serves to demean itself and give power to that in which it supposedly lacks belief when people purporting to be Atheists write this sort of drivel. In large part, it's really not even funny, although I did laugh at the essay question, specifically the contrast between Catholics and Baptists. If you want to convince people that your way of life is superior, show me what's superior about it, don't demean the competition, especially when the competition has a 2,000 year head start.
[/rant]

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

It seems to me that Atheism only serves to demean itself and give power to that in which it supposedly lacks belief when people purporting to be Atheists write this sort of drivel. In large part, it's really not even funny, although I did laugh at the essay question, specifically the contrast between Catholics and Baptists.

Well, speaking as an atheist, I didn't find it that funny either. Mostly it's just spiteful.

If you want to convince people that your way of life is superior, show me what's superior about it, don't demean the competition, especially when the competition has a 2,000 year head start.

When atheists make up jokes about Christians, we usually aren't trying to convert anybody our show that our "way of life is superior." We just think a lot of Christians are funny in the mental twists and turns they follow to tie themselves up in their beliefs. Since atheism is a negative position, after all, you can't "support it", because there's no belief to support, only beliefs to question and deny. So when we want to show that our system of thought/way of life is superior, we try to show what we believe to be flaws in religious people's reasoning.

[Angela]

From the same website, a very well-written article, Ebon Musings: The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists, a fairly long list of things that would convince me that a given religion is true. If god is all-powerful, it does not seem at all unreasonable to me that he could pick one item from the menu and serve it up graciously.

[Matthew Shea]

Thanks for the clarification, Aidan. That makes complete sense.

Before I go any further, I truly hope to offend no one with what I'm saying here and I have the utmost respect for people's free will, which gives them every right to believe whatever they wish for any reason they wish. Now...

I suppose my biggest beef with many Atheists is that many have some very skewed impressions of what Christians believe as evidenced by this "exam." If you want to question someone's belief, you should at least be clear about what it is you're questioning. I get the impression that if most Atheists understood the true nature of Christianity, they might not think it's so crazy.

Before I end, I'll clarify that I consider myself to be friends with my Atheist co-worker. I find him to be very reasonable and logical in his beliefs and what has truly gained my respect is that he'll never hesistate to ask me what Christians really believe or to get my take on a certain piece of scripture. As a result, we respect each other's positions, even though we disagree. To be honest, we agree on many, many issues, although not always for the same reasons. I unfortunately can't say the same about most Atheist material I see on the 'net. Most of it, and I must admit that Christians frequently do the same thing when proselytizing, is amateurish and poorly reasoned.

[Angela]

Matthew, what specific evidence of skewed christian belief do you see demonstrated in the 'exam'?

You say that if I want to question someone's belief, I should at least be clear about what it is I'm questioning. But understanding christianity is like understanding the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you gone out of your way to achieve deep understanding of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or have you pretty much made up your mind from whatever evidence you've seen about whether or not He exists? Many people find both stories helpful in their lives, but that doesn't make either one true.

[Matthew Shea]

Take question 2. Is the author implying that a devout Catholic should let their spouse die if they have a medical emergency? Look at this teaching from the Catholic Catechism.

Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted.

Also, look at question 4. Here's a quote from the same web page:

Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

The answer to question 13, of course, is E. None of the above:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

source

I realize that this question is referring to the Spanish Inquisition, which the church has since requested forgiveness for.

That's a few examples of the low hanging fruit. Should I continue? All of these questions represent either misunderstanding or attempts to skew Christian belief and portray it in a bad light. Question 5, for example, talks about two of Jesus' miracles as if they were the most important thing he ever did. If that question was fair, D. would read "Die for you to ensure forgiveness of all your sins and to give you salvation and eternal reward in heaven." That's a bit more important than a cure for cancer in my book, especially considering we're all going to leave this world eventually anyway.

[Angela]

Well, you might be right about the guy skewing christianity and portraying it in a bad light (or, as he might put it, pointing out its absurdities throught satire) in questions 2 and 4.

Regarding the torture, however, there's a lot more "low-hanging fruit" than just the Inquisition! So many many many instances in history of christianity (and other religions) performing or condoning torture! Have they apologized for their part in these crimes? In fact, they've gone to a lot of trouble to hush up damage they've done. I find this reprehensible and hypocritical, in the extreme.

I understand that for you and others, religion has been a positive force. But does that mean they should be immune to criticism and satire? Maybe if they took responsibility for the harm they have perpetrated, they would appear to be less of a target. The catholic church and Paris Hilton -- two peas in a pod.

[Mark Lapierre]

Satire, like sarcasm, affects people in different ways (including sometimes providing no amusement to those who might be expected to find it funny) and almost always puts those who are the target of the humour on the defensive.

I had thought it was clear that the "exam" was not intended to be an accurate representation of Christian beliefs, or of any of the other religions mentioned. But I did raise a warning in the expectation that some believers would not see it that way.

As you acknowledged, Matthew, both sides (if I can refer to the distinct groups in that way) are guilty of poorly reasoned proselytising, and even when not proselytising poor reasoning is clearly evident. Yet because it is clearly evident it is easy to counter and therefore frustrating only if allowed to be frustrating.

[Matthew Shea]

Angela, the link I provided refers to an apostolic letter, which is essentially an official church teaching, that Pope John Paul II wrote requesting forgiveness for all the Church's sins of the past (see paragraph 33). It is true that there were many. The failure of Pius XII to condemn the Holocaust is another biggie. What counts, though, is that the institution moves forward, admits their wrong and takes steps to avoid a repeat.

Mark, you have a good point and I suppose my failure to see the humor in this shouldn't stop other people from having their fun, but it frustrates me to no end when I see my church maligned by someone who doesn't even understand what they're maligning. I'm fine with valid criticisms, but this is just irritating. To understand my point of view, if the tables were reversed and Atheists were portrayed as soulless, godless, immoral heathens destined to spend eternity in a lake of fire, what would your reaction be? Would it matter that the web page was supposed to be funny? I'd guess that you'd fail to find the humor in it, too.

[terrence]

Matthew, I'd like to be like your friend and get "your take" on some Scripture, specifically

Isaiah 36:12
2Kings 6:29
Ezekiel 4:12
Leviticus 26:29

What's so bad about burning babies, anyway?

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by terrence

Matthew, I'd like to be like your friend and get "your take" on some Scripture, specifically

Isaiah 36:12
2Kings 6:29
Ezekiel 4:12
Leviticus 26:29

What's so bad about burning babies, anyway?

My take is that you can quote 4 specific verses out of any book that describe something bad happening and attempt to make things look like much worse than they would if the rest of the story was understood.

Have you only read these verses? Surely you've read the rest of the chapters these verses come from, right? In my humble opinion, those stories speak for themselves. The verses specifically speak of a threat made in the context of a battle, an incident during an extended siege, a prophesy of another siege and a prophesy of what would happen as the result of extended disobedience on Israel's part. Those are all part of a larger history of Israel.

Perhaps if you explain more about what you're looking for, I could give a better answer. At this point, all I can say is that there are a lot of horrible things described in the bible but it's a mistake to make a judgement about any of it without understanding the whole picture. I'll also point out that the essence of Christianity is contained in the New Testament, not the Old. The Old Testament is history and background and is essential to understanding the New Testament, but a Christian choosing to live his life based on it would be tantamount to denying that Jesus was sent by God to be the Messiah and ignoring all of his and his disciples' instructions on how to relate to God and your fellow humans.

[terrence]

I thought he WAS God..maybe this could clear things up......

http://www.russellsteapot.com/comics...goes-to...html

[terrence]

oops thats


russellsteapot.com/comics/2007/and-the-lordy-goes-to....html

[Matthew Shea]

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[terrence]

The most singularly fascinating thing to me about Christians is their belief that the faith contains anything new -- do they not know that if they had been educated, literate contemporaries of Augustus and Pilate, they would have been well aware of many god/men/saviors born of virgins who were the light of the world who preached and had disciples and who died but in the end didn't really die, etc etc etc.

James Frazier
Joseph Campbell

would be a good start

[Matthew Shea]

Given that Christianity came about thousands of years after humans started walking the earth and thousands of years after the advent of some other religions, it's unsurprising that it reuses concepts from earlier religions. That doesn't lessen its relevance or its effectiveness as a moral compass and as a guide for how to live your best life.

[terrence]

Truly. I especially try to follow "Bring mine enemes before me that I may slay them."

[Matthew Shea]

Well good for you, then. You focus on that, I'll focus on this:

Originally Posted by Matthew 22:36-40

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[terrence]

Just can't resist. Can you help Alice?

Russell's Teapot - God Gab