…and you deserve to burn in hell for eternity. It really doesn’t matter what you’ve done — you’re damned. Take The Good Person Test and find out! It’s standard evangelical Christian nonsense in which they hammer on any niggling divergence from absolute perfection, followed by quotes from the Bible that prove that if you fibbed once, you deserve eternal torment.
One fun thing about this “test” is that you don’t have to take the bait — go ahead, deny committing any of the sins they want to accuse you of, and then it will announce “The Bible says all men are sinners, until you’re ready to admit that you can’t continue this test.” So what do we need the test for?
What a lovely belief system: everything you do is in every way fucked.
Of course, the Bible contradicts itself on this.
Luke 1
5In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly.
It is amazing what trouble Christian evangelists have with clear statements that some people obeyed *all* the Lord’s commandments and regulations *blamelessly*
I guess they were blamed anyway….
Huh…I thought it was a major sin to judge others. So…uh, yeah.
Poe’s law: I was convinced it was a joke, up to the end. Ok, if I understand well, even if you are good, you are bad.
“Warning!
You are about to embark on a truth experience.
It could alter your view of yourself and eternity.”
I like the little face with the bowtie that looks progressively angrier as the quiz goes on. Was it supposed to be God getting angry at me, or the other way around? Or God just getting angry because that’s what he does?
It’s also lovely that the quiz ends with a form where you can request bible-spam from them. Too bad I can’t think of anybody particularly deserving at the moment…
Don’t worry, everyone: anything Mary Magdalene did is OK. You’re not, but she is.
Couldn’t get past the first question: Do I consider myself a good or bad person?
Neither, doofus brain, I consider myself a person. PERIOD.
I like the message I get if I say, “No, I am not a good person”:
Yeah. ‘Cause an internet quiz is the best way to come to a better understanding of personal morality.
Jeeze! I went in with that whole robotic-serial killer mindset, and I’m still going to some place called hell.
How is that fair?
I hope I’m not divulging too much information when I say that I had a rather freaky URL in the address bar by the time I’d finished the quiz:
goodpersontest.com/test/conclusion/?path=start_good_lie_liar_liar2_steal_thief_adultery_
adulterer_murder_murderer_blasphemy_blasphemer_admission_innocent/guilty_guilty_
heaven_stillheaven_hope_gospel_repent_refuse_trust_receive_conclusion
I never once clicked the “hope”, “trust”, or “receive conclusion” buttons, dammit!
Lieing, adultery, blasphemy – but murder? Thats just too much. Of course if I TRUST in Jeezus I get off scott free. Cute.
Just for general FYI, a new book out here is ‘The Sistine Secrets’ by Benjamin Blech & Roy Doliner – it proves the majority of the Sistine Chapel is covered in blasphemy, homoerotic art, and direct insults to the popes. Some of you might enjoy it as a vacation read. er…no, that might be a sin…
Um, I don’t get this test. If I borrow a pen and return it then I’m a thief. So every time I fill out a form at the bank for depositing a check and borrow one of those pens and put it back then I’m committing a crime.
If I have biological desires to reproduce then I’m committing adultery.
If someone punches me in the face and I respond by feeling upset about that then I’ve essentially murdered someone. So according to Christian dictates it’s okay to kill that person since I’ve already committed the crime by being upset with them.
Christian morality is really messed up. I think I’ll stick with common sense.
@ #4
Unfortunately, it’s not a joke. The “Good Person Test” is right out of televangelist Ray Comfort’s playbook, and Comfort is the real deal. There are hours of footage of him accosting people on the street with this silliness.
He’s a horribly obnoxious, tiny little man.
It all has to do with free will, you see.
If you look at a woman with lust, then you can make a free will choice to commit adultery, or you can make a free will choice not to commit adultery.
God will send you to Hell whatever way you choose, but at least you get to make a free will choice.
If looking at another person with lust is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.
So I’m a liar/thief/adulterer/murderer/blasphemer? Wow, I’m more interesting than I thought!
Wait, so if I look at ANYONE with lust I’m committing adultery? That means I committed adultery with my husband like twelve times already today! I hope he’s not going to be too upset to realize that he’s married to an adulteress.
So if I tell a lie then I’m a liar.
Does that mean if I tell the truth then I’m honest?
How can I be an honest liar?
If sinning is a violation of a religious law and Atheists don’t have a religious law to break, can an Atheist be a sinner?
OK, the test sucks, but if you make it right to the end, they promise to send you a free bible (just fill in a mailing address – not necessarily yours). Nice way to make them pay for their idiocy, I thought.
“By your own admission and the standard of God’s law, the Ten Commandments, you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murderous, adulterer at heart. ”
Except that the set of commands listed in Exodus 34:28, which the Bible itself calls the Ten Commandments, don’t say anything about murder, or lying, or thieving, or blasphemy.
P.S. I tried a foreign country.
Yeap, I too am a liar, thief, adulterer, murderer and blasphemer.
Well the last one I will happily own up to. Fuck God. Fuck Jesus. Oops, did it again!
But seriously, any ethical system that cannot differentiate between robbing a bank and taking a pen and a few sheets of paper from work, or lying for financial gain as opposed to oiling the wheels of social discourse, or loosing your temper at someone who is acting an idiot as opposed to killing them, or thinking about having sex with someone as opposed to pinning to them to the floor and raping them, is seriously screwed.
That good person test abuses some psychological principles in quite insidious ways.
This test is the same shtick that Kurt Cameron and the Banana guy take to the streets: that each and everyone of us is a sinner. Bollocks. Give me evidence that sin exists. And if it does, which God’s/Religion brand offers the best relief?
Don’t forget that we can all say that all Christians are lying, murderous, cheating swindlers.
It isn’t slander, if it is true.
I wouldn’t trust a lying, murdering , cheating swindler one inch.
So I’m not giving money to them.
Yup. Long before Mr. thalarctos met me and got dragged into fighting the good fight against creationist idiocy, he was raised fundie (his entire nuclear family is recovering quite nicely now, thank you). From those long ago days, he remembers Ray Comfort’s “ministry”. Apparently, one of Comfort’s trademarks is to ask probing questions, looking for psychological weaknesses, and then to strike those weak spots like a cobra.
It’s really quite reprehensible to see him badgering a child about whether the child really is a good person, as s/he thinks, or so I’m told. I haven’t witnessed it myself, but I’ve always found Mr. thalarctos to be a most reliable source.
Going slightly off topic, has anyone taken the “Philosophical Health Check”? It tests the consistency of your world view, and it is… tricksy!
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
Re #28 – Hmm, I found it impossible to either agree or disagree with the first proposition “There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures”, because I consider the first half of it true, the second false.
Fear not! I have requested a “Bible Study” to be sent to:
God
1 Heavenly Way
Up There-upon-Clouds
Heaven
We are truly saved…
Actually, I mean, what a crock! I got angry at my supervisor the other day, so apparently I’ve just murdered her. Madness. Sheer, unadulterated bobbins.
Cue Kenny: We’re not better than you, we’re just forgiven! Hurrrr!
“I hope he’s not going to be too upset to realize that he’s married to an adulteress.”
With any luck, it might turn him on more.
Sadly, I’m turned on by pretty much any noun that ends in “ress”.
Damn, why do they only ask about five of the ten commandments? I wanted to collect the whole set! :P
Cue Kenny: We’re not better than you, we’re just forgiven! Hurrrr!?
Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!
Yup, I’m screwed. Guess being human is enough to send me to hell. Just getting angry is murder though? That’s going too far. I’ve never killed anyone and the interpretation that I have, is ludicrous. What better way to prey on the weak though? Attack them where they are most vunerable. IMO it makes these people more reprehensible than the ones they bark so loud about. I hate these fucks but I suppose that’s a sin too.
I consider the first half of it true, the second false.
I’d call it the other way.. there are objective moral standards (emergent properties of being a social species), but moral *judgements* are more likely to be cultural and not based on the those standards.
Anyhow, the test said I was completely consistent. I think they catch a *lot* of people with the tax question.
#17: Wow! Happy man!
Damn, I commit adultery like 50 times a day.
I love this. It never asks if you BELIEVE in God, just goes straight to taking his name in vain. If you don’t believe, you wouldn’t take his name in vain, right? It skips right over what I would think would be a VERY major sin, unbelief, to get to the minor sin of cursing…LOL…
Well, as their main hopes are guild and fear this was quite a good peace of entertainment for you and me, but somewhere in the good old US of A gullible and susceptible young kids are now trembling (needless to say unnecessarily) with horror.
Wasn’t this the stuff of “Carry”?
poke (#50):
Be careful. That could lead to dancing.
Going slightly off topic, has anyone taken the “Philosophical Health Check”? It tests the consistency of your world view, and it is… tricksy!
7%! Do I win anything? The only contradiction I had was with environmental stewardship and people should never drive cars if there’s another alternative. I thought of too many possibilities as to why driving a car might be a better choice than public transport or walking.
Damn, I commit adultery like 50 times a day.
That’s an awful lot of eye-babies.
Funny test.
I don’t tell lies (to much hassle) I prefer partial truth, much more effective, and they can’t claim you didn’t tell the truth, so I passed that one (and no I don’t do little white lies either). Can rile people who don’t know me though.
Taking something from someone else is conflated to theft, regardless if the someone else gave you permission to take it.
Looking at someone in lust makes you an adulterer. What if this person you look at is your wife/husband?
Being angry is conflated to being angry without cause. And then because being angry without cause is the same as murder you are a murderer.
Then the taking Gods name in vain. Well the only reason something is a curse is that the recipient considers it so.
On that mental health thingie.
It is not completely consistent.
For example I agree as a personal opinion that we humans shouldn’t damage the environment needlessly but at the same time I acknowledge the fact that people should decide for themselves how they move around. For me they are not mutually contradictory as the test claims if you believe in individual responsibility.
Oh no! I’m a sinner… I’m doomed! Thank you internet test, you’ve convinced me that I was wrong all this time.
Just think, before this I thought internet tests were just for telling me which Autobot I was most like. But now I know that Jesus uses them to save people.
there are objective moral standards (emergent properties of being a social species)
I agree the human moral standards are non-arbitrarily related to our nature as a social species, but for most if not all serious moral questions, I don’t think you can use that fact to define an objectively correct answer. So I’d say moral questions do not have such answers (unlike questions of fact) – but they are not simply “expressions of the values of particular cultures”, because they do have a biological origin, and can be assessed for consistency, and in terms of the effects of adopting them.
That was the most idiotic test I’ve ever taken, if you’re not going to let people answer the way they want to answer, why have a test at all?
Well, I may be going to hell (if only for wanting to punch the irritating guy in the bow tie!) but I have 0% contradiction in my philosophical beliefs…
It intrigues me that by their definition Jesus was a murderer because of getting angry with the money changers in the temple. If he ever borrowed his father’s saw then he’s probably a thief too. I’m sure someone more familiar with the bible could find evidence for the other terrible sins as well.
Far more entertaining is this one:
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm
“You are invited to select from the list below the attributes which you believe God must have (or the attributes that a being deserving of the name God must have). Metaphysical engineers will then model this conception of God to check out its plausibility.”
This stuff really reminds me of the Free Personality Test… Different bucket, same… I can only hope that in a hundred years our descendants will look back upon us and wonder that we allowed such blatantly abusive conduct. Mind you, I did have to laugh at the ridiculously warped world-view underlying the test. So, being angry with someone is morally equivalent with blowing their head off? It’s amazing there aren’t more Christians saying “What the hell, that’s where I’m off to anyway!” and trying to shoot the neighbour whose dog keeps pooping on their lawn.
The belief that all people are automatically sinners is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian. This is one of the most psychologically damaging aspects (in my opinion) of fundamentalist Christianity. It leads one to very low self-esteem, since *everything* one does is worthless. I have been out of the faith now for almost 2 years, and I am still questioning my own worth.
Luckily for me, it’s only all men who are sinners. Clearly, women are perfect.
It’s interesting how they require a person to lie even to finish the test.
After initially admitting that I’d lied, since I’m hardly vicious enough to tell the truth all of the time (what about the Golden Rule, Jesus-haters?), I made myself into the most sappy Xian ever, never having looked on another with lust, etc.
So then I said that I would go to heaven as a liar (you know, if you’ve ever lied, you’re “a liar” in their mindless absolutism). They had to ask if I really thought I could go to heaven if I had lied, then allowed no choice but to admit that I knew I would go to hell.
Suppose that instead of just seeing how fucked the survey was, though, and I were a born-again Xian of any number of sects, I would indeed believe I was saved whether or not I had lied. But no, I either have to lie and say that I’d go to hell, in spite of “Christ’s cleansing blood”, or I don’t finish the test.
Hence they’re Satanic tempters, for while they can’t make me finish the test, they still deliberately tempt me to lie. Meaning that while I’m on neither God’s side nor Satan’s (except in their lying hearts), they’re solidly on the side of Satan.
Not surprising, really.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
but for most if not all serious moral questions, I don’t think you can use that fact to define an objectively correct answer.
“Objective” is not the same thing as “absolute”, although they often get used s though they were interchangable.
Thus it is entirely self-conistent for me to regard the prohibition against killing another human being as objective, but still have no problem with someone killing in self-defense.
A murderer for getting angry? Somebody should have given that Jesus a dictionary.
I got about halfway through when I reached the conclusion that his God is an insufferable prick.
I think this quiz needs an alternate ending: “Yes, God is an asshole”.
I’m with Konrad. This is eerily similar to the Scientologists’ personality tests. No matter how you answer, you’re a desperate screw-up who needs Scientology/ Jesus to drag you out of the mire.
This is a ripoff of another quiz that I believe PZ posted several months ago:
livingwaters.com/good
“Have you ever been angry with another person?”
“Yes, I have.”
“Well, that makes you a murderer!”
“Whoa, whoa… Don’t I have to… you know… actually kill a person to be a murderer?”
“No. Jesus said that whoever is angry with his brother without cause is guilty of murder.”
“Oh. What do I do then?”
“You must accept Jesus as your savior and ask for His forgiveness.”
“And that way I get away with being a murderer?”
“That way you won’t go to Hell for it.”
“Then, why shouldn’t I kill you right now?”
“Er… What?”
“Yeah. You say I’m already a murderer, and God will forgive me for that. So, I could accept him as my savior and ask for his forgiveness now or after I have killed you, right?” (Pulls out a knife)
“Stop! Don’t do that!”
“Why? What difference would it be?”
“Huh… Er…”
(Runs away.)
Re #52 No disagreement there, but there are also questions like:
When if ever is it right to perform painful experiments on non-human animals to save human life?
Could it ever be right to use nuclear weapons?
When is it permissible to steal to feed yourself?
We can debate these questions rationally, our decisions are not arbitrary or purely based on our cultural background, but the “right answers” don’t exist in the same way as they do for questions of fact.
Well, I don’t what’s wrong with all you people. Personally I was SAVED by this quiz and I THANK the makers of it for showing me my way out of ETERNAL DAMNATION. When I am in Heaven I shall think of you all in Hell for ALL ETERNITY.
Of course I’m a little shocked it only took one little quiz to finally open my eyes but the writers of it obviously know what they are doing and my evil deeds have now become clear to me. All I need now is a few lessons in how to format the perfect fundie email (I’ve already signed up for Lesson 1- which font when, Lesson 2- judicious use of the exclamation mark)and my conversion is total.
Total knobs.
The funny part about this, and Ray Comfort, is that they are easily defeated.
Case in point:
“have you ever lied?”
“No.”
“you’ve never told a lie?”
“I answered you. Next question.”
“have you ever stole anything?”
“no.”
“never?”
“You’ve been answered, next question.”
“have you ever looked at a woman with lust?”
“yes, my wife. Next question.”
About there, they shut up and look for an easier target.
“have you ever looked at a woman with lust?”
I can honestly say, “No. I have never looked at a woman with lust.” I don’t think it helps me much with their skidmark deity though.
Anthony – it gets better. It’s amazing to actually be able to feel proud of yourself and not immediately feel worse for thinking something good. It grows on you.
MAJeff – Ha! :)
“The belief that all people are automatically sinners is one of the reasons I am no longer a Christian. This is one of the most psychologically damaging aspects (in my opinion) of fundamentalist Christianity. It leads one to very low self-esteem, since *everything* one does is worthless. I have been out of the faith now for almost 2 years, and I am still questioning my own worth.”
As I understand it this idea is not even to be found in the Bible, but rather was an invention of St Augustine (a Brit, for which I apologise on behalf of my nation).
It’s like a “Choose your own adventure” Chick tract, except all the choices land you in hell. Remind me again why people actually buy into this religion? Oh right — they think they’re the ones who get to party with Jesus in the afterlife and everyone else has to go to hell.
MAJeff,
One rather gets the impression that they did not have the idea gay men might take the test in mind when they “designed” it. maybe like Queen Victoria was said to have done when asked to sign legislation into law criminalising lesbianism, they simply could not conceive of the idea of a woman lusting after another woman.
I have seen conflicting reports on the Queen Victoria story, and so I have no idea if it is actually true or not.
“So I’d say moral questions do not have such answers (unlike questions of fact) – but they are not simply “expressions of the values of particular cultures”, because they do have a biological origin, and can be assessed for consistency, and in terms of the effects of adopting them.” – Nick Gotts
That might be a little redundant. Wouldn’t you say that culture has a biological origin as much as morality does? I would say that biology constrains and propels culture which is in part comprised of morality.
Then there’s the problem of “simple”. What’s so “simple” about cultural expression? Human diversity is almost completely confined to the sphere of culture. The amazing disparity of moral values found among humans can only really come from (I would say with) culture. Relatively speaking, our biology is almost completely uniform. Only culture can produce Nazi Doctors, and those who are mortally offended by them.
Re #66 Wouldn’t you say that culture has a biological origin as much as morality does?
Yes, but that neither conflicts with what I wrote, nor makes it redundant AFAICS. By “simply”, I meant “merely” or “purely” – i.e. I’m saying there’s more to it than that.
One rather gets the impression that they did not have the idea gay men might take the test in mind when they “designed” it. – Matt Penfold
Or straight women.
Wow. I think I took a course in law school that taught us how to ask those questions on cross examination.
Doug at #18:
By being honest with yourself, when possible. I told my kids; “Never tell a lie without a good reason.” Because anyone, given what they feel is sufficient reason, will lie. It’s just a question of what constitutes a good reason and therein lies the real discussion.
Pretending it’s an inflexible rule is the core idea behind zero tolerance, which leads to absurdities.
I have seen conflicting reports on the Queen Victoria story, and so I have no idea if it is actually true or not.
I do rather like that story. Thinking about sex makes people a little crazy and stupid sometimes, and thee deities are even more crazy and stupid than the people who create them.
I actually forgot I was wearing my “Thanks Masturbation” t-shirt to buy a bottle of wine a while ago. You should have seen the looks I got. Hilarious! (I also wore the t-shirt to class on valentines day)
They’re wise not to allow public feedback.
One rather gets the impression that they did not have the idea gay men might take the test in mind when they “designed” it. – Matt Penfold
Or straight women.
Shit–you just described the entertainment I’ve left the house and paid for recently. A Kathy Griffin concert and Sex and the City movie–I’m a cliche! Oh no!
This answer on the Philosophical Health Check caused me “tension”:
You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history’s finest artists
Explain my tension disconnect here. In the first statement I agree that it’s a matter of taste. In the second, it’s MY matter of taste in re: Michelangelo. Where’s the tension?
I am straight, and I rather liked Sex in the City. Does that mean I am stuck in some kind of closet without realising it ?
I am going to have to add, which will no doubt result in my loosing all credibility (as if I had any!) that I do not know who Kathy Griffin is.
I will admit to it being Miranda I lusted after, except when I had been down the pub, in which case it was Samantha.
Hey, MAJeff, it’s okay, at least you’re kind of a cute stereotype – it’s better than being the fugly nerd girl like me.
Re: this test and others like it. I was at the movies a year ago and these two Crazies for Christ came up with these little dollar bills with that verse about “looking at a woman with lust” on them. They proceeded to ask me if, according to this verse, I was an adulteress. I asked them if that meant that straight girls (the team that I bat for) were free and clear of ADULTERY OH NOEZ charges. They waffled for a bit, but I suspect the answer they really wanted to give was “Of course not, because women (and especially straight women) should and do feel no sexual desire WHATSOEVER.” That seems to be the assumption made by this test. I’ve noticed that a lot from bullshit like this: women only ever exist as desirees, not the desirers – lesbians are only fooling themselves, or something. And gay men are just choose to feel the wrong kind of desire, and anyway it’s not legit because only girl-on-boy fucking leads to a baby, which is the nec plus ultra for these wackazoids.
I am straight, and I rather liked Sex in the City. Does that mean I am stuck in some kind of closet without realising it ?
Nope. Just part of the 2%.
If I ever ran into Kirk Cameron on the streets here in LA I would turn it around and ask him if he ever masturbated. When I finally got him to admit that he did, I’d ask, “So what does that make you? A jagoff.” Then I would walk away knowing I did my little bit for sanity.
If there were a god, she’d be embarrassed as hell by Kirk and Mr Banana.
“Nope. Just part of the 2%.”
Just as well. I have never felt happy being in the majority!
I will admit to it being Miranda I lusted after, except when I had been down the pub, in which case it was Samantha.
I will admit to having a personality that is a combo of the two personalities.
The American Family Association (AFA), one of the many Christian based hate groups, has been redirecting links from sites they hate to that stupid Good Person Test. For example, the blog GoodAsYou sometimes links to AFA articles, but the links won’t work and instead you are redirected. The only way of getting to the article being linked is to copy and paste the the link into the browser’s address bar. Here’s a page at GoodAsYou that talks about this: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/03/how-ungrateful.html
“I will admit to having a personality that is a combo of the two personalities.”
Half sophisticated intelligent erudite, and half tart ? I like it!
@74 That’s exactly how I looked at the Art/Michaelangelo question. I too don’t see any tension disconnect.
The God test (#47) was more fun – I checked no boxes and was engineered a god that is consistent with the universe (the quotient thingie was 1.0).
i`m pure as the driven snow ,this test is a crock of hayzeus`s shit.
Yeah, this bit of deplorable theology is right out of the early Protestant writers like Luther and Calvin whose cherry-picking of scriptures lead them to pull out things like “there is not one righteous, no not one” and “all come short of the glory of God” from Romans 3:10 & 23.
This kind of extreme view of the sinfulness of man is quite common among hardcore evangelicals. Not just Ray Comfort, but there’s an “argument” along these lines from the Left Behind series, and you can hear the same sort of thing listening to Family Radio broadcasts.
Pretty warped stuff.
There is this, from Paul’s letter to the Romans:
This is part of Paul’s argument that the grace of God is necessary for salvation, because no one is capable by his own efforts of following God’s law perfectly (“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”)
By the way, St. Augustine a Brit? Certainly not; he was Algerian.
heh, that’s a funny story, Matt, and it reminds me of another one from Cambodian-language class, where I saw that same process unfold.
(which is not at all to downplay the larger problem of homophobia in the developing world, because a lot of people are getting hurt or killed over it in societies that combine this kind of covert or overt homophobia with anti-human-rights stances. but in the class, this one day, “we were amused”, so to speak.)
anyway, in the advanced-level classes, we’d often talk about US current events in Cambodian, to stretch our vocabulary and conversational skills. Once I brought in a Weekly World News tabloid with the cover story announcing that space aliens were backing Ross Perot for president, for example (which kind of places this story in time, too: early 1990s).
We were discussing something in US current events, when we ran out of vocabulary and asked the teacher how to say “gay” in Cambodian. The teacher, not long in the US at all, did not know the word in English when we asked, so we decided to explain in Cambodian.
We came up with the description “proh dael sralanh proh, neng srey dael sralanh srey” (“men who love men, and women who love women”), and explained it to him that way. It was funny to watch, because he had a very expressive face.
First, with a blank look, he repeated the phrase a couple of times, trying it on for size, but the individual words clearly didn’t make sense in sequence–to him, it sounded like just blah blah blah.
But you could see on his face when the words finally did get traction–his eyes widened, and he got the most amazing expression on his face, like he was trying to do all the stages (denial, anger, bargaining, etc.) all at once. “No, no, we do not have that in Cambodia”, he insisted loudly over and over.
The transformation as the new idea got across was really funny to watch, but we thought the better part of valor was to change the subject at that point. After all, after denial the next stage is anger, you know. But it was the same thing you describe in the Queen Victoria story–you could see that he had never even conceived of the possibility, to the point where the straightforward Khmer description in simple elementary words took several moments to even get traction.
The RCC had it wayyyy before the Protestants.
The Philosophical Health Check is built around a false dichotomy. The “tensions” they discover are built around the assumption that to make an aesthetic, value, or even factual judgement one needs an “objective” (non-cultural, non-individualistic, non-contingent) standard by which to make it.
There is simply no tension when one says, “The Holocaust wa real” one means, “According to the best tests of evidence we currently have the Holocaust happened as the history books tell us it did.” Indeed, science, and most other forms of inquiry are built around the assumption that when once makes a reality claim, that is exactly what one is saying.
We have never needed an idea of of fixed, eternal, Capital “T” TRUTH, to make such claims.
But you could see on his face when the words finally did get traction–his eyes widened, and he got the most amazing expression on his face, like he was trying to do all the stages (denial, anger, bargaining, etc.) all at once. “No, no, we do not have that in Cambodia”, he insisted loudly over and over.?
One of the most interesting phenomenon in the global politics of sexuality is an insistence that homosexuality is a “white thing.” In some ways–in how we organize sexuality by typing people based on the sex of their objects of desire–they’re right. However, what they usually mean is, “we didn’t have people of the same sex getting it on with each other until Europeans arrived” which is universally nonsense. “Gayness” might be Western, but same-sex eroticism is universal.
By the way, St. Augustine a Brit? Certainly not; he was Algerian.
That’s St. Augustine of Hippo, who was indeed a grouch of the most pronounced description, particularly on the subject of sex. There was also a St. Augustine of Canterbury, first Archbishop of Canterbury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury), which I imagine is the source of Matt’s confusion. Even he wasn’t a Brit by birth, though, he was sent to convert the heathens of Kent by Pope Gregory I, and died there.
I will now get all prescriptivist on everyone’s asses.
It is not a good test, so stop calling it one. Call it the good–person test. The person is good, not the test. I hope it’s visible that the hyphen is in boldface.
…grrrr…
——————-
Comment 5:
Urgh. Whenever necessary, please remind me to never, ever, ever piss pcarini off.
———————-
His name?
How many people have ever tried to pronounce his name? Traditionally, Christians and Jews don’t use it and instead use “God” as if it were a proper name, and in Islam the name doesn’t figure at all.
———————
LOL!
There is a long and widespread tradition there, heightened by the disproportionately male death toll and subsequent shortage of eligible men during and after the Pol Pot years, of widowed women or single women without prospects moving in together to share a household with each other for friendship, mutual support, raising children together. It’s so common and accepted as to be taken for granted as a kind of alternate social structure for women who don’t have a traditional family.
But of course, there are no lesbians in Cambodia, or so I hear tell.
I am a lying, blasphemous, murderous, adulterer at heart! Cool!
@wjv #28:
I took that test, and it was quite interesting. I scored a 20% Philosophical tension, which I took to mean that I don’t have too many conflicting opinions floating around in my subconsious (I disagreed with myself on only 3 issues).
and the last question is an essay. (they forgot to include it.) WHY CAN’T JESUS DO TEXT MESSAGING???
A point thats funny is that at some point, the test asks you:
That essentially asks you to presume what God would do? Isn’t that a bit… blasphemous in itself?
I call ENTRAPMENT!
They would do this by looking at the “referrer” HTTP header of requesting browsers.
There’s a couple of things GoodAsYou could do. One is to include a “rel=noreferrer” (IIRC) attribute in the anchors, which not all web browsers would respect. Another is to link via a web redirector.
tinyurl.com
anonym.to
norefer.net
More clunky end user solutions include a personal proxy (e.g. Privoxy) or personal firewall (e.g. Sunbelt) that strip referrer headers, or to use an extension for Firefox, of which there are probably several.
Woo Hoo!!! 5 out of 5 for me! Well, I look forward to meeting some of you in the lake of fire… along with Gahndi, Jenner, the Dali Lama ect…
I especially enjoyed the part where it states that no matter what I do on Earth, I cannot erase my sin. So why bother being a “good person”, if my works will not absolve my sin? I can be selfish and evil, so long as I “do not look upon another person with desire”, and put my faith in Jesus!
It’s funny that all the “sins” are of a relatively minor nature. Like, it doesn’t ask if you’ve ever killed someone, only if you’ve ever been angry at someone or lusted or fibbed. Is that so as not to offend the myriad Christian evangelicals in the US military who might take the test?
It didn’t seem to give the option, what am I saying here, that if I met the bastard that drew up these rules, I’d blow him to kingdom err…come?
That’d be God that did it?
The goal posts keep moving!
‘Have you ever been angry with someone?’
Yes
‘whoever is angry with his brother without cause is guilty of murder’
Ok, but I’m pretty sure that all the recipients of my wrath were deserving of it, but they don’t have an opton for that, even though god apparently does – just because I’m surrounded by dickheads, I’m a murderer? And I don’t even have a brother.
no fair!
Somebody at the White House needs to get the good person test up on the Google and let Howdy Doody have a go at it.
Eh, maybe not. He’d just get pissed and bomb something.
I love this:
If you answer yes:
(Emphasis mine)
Taking “cherry picking” to a whole new level…..
((Incidentally and somewhat related: the Uncyclopedia article on Christian Logic is hilarious.))
I took the quiz and sent a note. I’m a really really big sinner, but god is love, so I’ll be forgiven and get into heaven! However they’d better watch out, being judgmental will send them all to hell!
What a load of moose pocky!
Thanks for the interesting(?) and fun(?) links!!
So, if you’re blind is it impossible for you to commit adultery?
Taking “cherry picking” to a whole new level…..
namely, it’s called quotemining.
and I have yet to see ANY fundie site that doesn’t engage it in liberally.
of course both are subsets of lying.
so is a liar lying to get someone else to tell the truth so they won’t lie lying? If the quiz takes it’s own quiz, wouldn’t the quiz find itself to be a liar?
The quiz itself is going to hell unless it accepts Jeebus, RIGHT NOW!
NOMAD – execute primary function…
sterilize! ster-i-liiiizzzzeeeeee….
You have been very, very naughty…
first response:
Thank god someone finally noticed!
It’s not like I haven’t been working my ass off at it or anything.
call me “Mr. Nice Guy” will they?
HA!
Anthony Jeffries (#49):
Having been raised in a secular household, I don’t have experiences of my own to offer you, but I know a good many people who have climbed out of oppressive faiths. It’s hard, but it’s within human power. Hang in there!
I sent mine to the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-Bak. Not that I have anything against his august personage, but I think that south korea is probably the furthest distance possible to send such a thing from the U.S. I would have chosen Bhutan, but I don’t know that they have a postal service. :)
Y halo thar, Catholic Guilt!
I started suffering it when I was 5. Or, that’s when I first remember consciously recognizing it. I’d just started Catholic school and the librarian was a nun, about nine thousand years old… Anyway, I don’t think my brand of Roman Catholicism is exactly “fundamentalist,” but I definitely got the Catholic Guilt – because everything is a sin and it’s impossible to lead a healthy life as a five year old without accidentally sinning. And I was terrified that I would sin.
Catholic Guilt (and whatever it’s called for fundies) is especially detrimental for those of us with mental disorders like OCPD. Not only are we obsessed with perfectionism (well, for example), but we’re convinced that we can never be perfect thanks to Religion, and even 1% not-perfect is enough to damn us forever, which means it’s useless to try, which leads to guilt and depression for being so not-perfect (or sinful).
Fun times!
And totally, this is why I’m agnostic. I couldn’t get better if I stayed in the faith. Of course, now my mom is reconverting from Catholicism back to her childhood evangelical fundy self and making everything worse. Awesome job, mom.
@84 – When I was reading the questions, I just knew that those two would oppose each other and create that tension. So, even though I think Michaelangelo was a fantastic artist and did loads of amazing things, I disagreed with that statement (he’s not one of my favorites, anyway).
My lone tension was between the regulation of mainstream medicine one and the one about alternative/complementary medicine. They didn’t seem to allow for the possibility that I think the complementary medicine should be regulated, too, because though some of it is beneficial, there’s a lot of crap out there that’s passing simply because of the lack of regulations.
But, then, internet quizzes can’t read our minds or anything.
“So what do we need the test for?”
Exactly! It’s not so much a test as it is an exercise in humiliation. It is based on the premise that the teachings of the Bible are always right. If that premise cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the whole point of the test falls apart.
Just told them to send their literature to
Beelzebub
666 Fire and Brimstone Ct
Burning Flesh Province
Hell
We’re definitely saved now – if the devil converts, we’re set…
My reaction at the end was, “what bu*lsh*t!”
I sent them the following message on their contact form:
“I took your test on behalf of my child and I am disgusted that the test insists he is guilty of sins he is incapable of committing. I could not complete the test for him without lying by admitting guilt he does not have. Since I would be lying on his behalf, that guilt would be presumed to be his.”
“The test is clearly flawed since it relies heavily on dictates that were proclaimed long before he was born. Just because God declared everyone on earth centuries ago to be sinners does not mean that every new born child is a sinner. I’m severely disappointed with your test since it deems innocent children to be guilty without trial. What a despicable message to spread.”
Hmmm, may have a problem. I answered truthfully and the bow tie guy started to cry and then ran away. I am now blocked from the site and cannot finish the test. Sigh.
Ciao y’all
Wow. I didn’t know I was a lying, thieving, blaspheming murderer and adultress at heart. I guess that big scarlet A will have a double meaning for me now, huh?
What a load of dung. Still, it was sort of entertaining, until I remembered there are actually people who believe it.
Go to heaven for the climate; go to hell for the company. -Mark Twain
This test. QED
“Marge, have you even read this thing?” [holds up bible]
“Technically, we cannot even go to the toilet!”
— Rev. Lovejoy.
(back when the Simpsons were good)
Christianity: inspiring irrational self-loathing and guilt in decent people since 36 AD!!!
#53 “A murderer for getting angry? Somebody should have given that Jesus a dictionary.”
Or the people who translatd a translation.
I tried to answer the whole thing as if I was perfect. Clearly, they don’t expect enough of us to try:
It would be at this point where they should capitalize and launch into a “nobody is perfect, so obviously you’re lying. And what does THAT make you?”
But… I guess that’s… too much thought.
This is cute… it asks, even though I said I was guilty under God’s law, “When judged, do you think you would go to heaven or hell?”
I chose Heaven.
I got
“Error 500 – Internal server error
An internal server error has occured!
Please try again later.”
I think I made them blow up!
#74: I had the exact same problem. And that was the only point of “psychological tension” I got in the whole thing, too. I don’t see why MY liking Michaelangelo’s work means that I think there are absolute aesthetic standards! If I had been raised in a different cultural environment, I very well might find the Italian Renaissance figure style horribly affected.
Okay, boys and girls, let’s go over this one more time.
Does that mean “thou shalt not like”? No, not at all! It means that you mustn’t lie in a way that damages others’ reputation and standing within the community. Which others? All others? No, only “thy neighbor”–only members of your own community. How God defines the scope of your community is unclear in the new covenant; at the broadest, it refers to all Christians (which means that, as far as this commandment goes, they’re perfectly free to lie about atheists and pagans).
So if I say, “No, your butt doesn’t look big in those pants” or “Yes, I read your terrible goth poetry,” it does NOT qualify as false witness. Similarly, “I’m sick today and can’t come to work” doesn’t qualify.
OMG you guys, I’ve just taken the spanish version and it is hilarity, with nothing like “this will change your eternity” (esto cambiara tu eternidad) to begin with.
HAHAHAHAHHA, instead of asking “have you ever lied?” it asks “have you just lied?”, for a moment I wondered if they meant my previous answer (have you been a good person) and got all confused.
WTF? These guys shouldn’t have done this test in the first place, but they *definitely* shouldn’t have made it in Spanish. I know it’s laudable that they know (ish) a second language, but the test is asking me absolute gibberish:
“if someone lied to you, what would you call them?” gives me a single option: “proximo”, which means “nearby”, so, erm, wtf? It doesn’t make sense in so many levels.
“have you ever been angry at someone? Jesus says that that makes you a killer” HAHAHAHAH, ok, this is not good PR for their wako beliefs, it shows how seriously indoctrinated you have to be in order to swallow that BS.
Ohhh, and I figured out what “proximo” meant, o man, they meant “next”, which should be “siguiente”. I’m wondering if that could be a regional thing but I strongly doubt it, although the phrase “el proximo tren” is indeed “the next train” just saying “proximo” does not, in any spanish dialect I know of, mean “next”. The rest was not bad (Spanish grammar-wise) but it is absolutely ridiculous anyway.
This test is very helpful to help identify which sins will send you to hell from that other sign with the list. Kind of like verifying, “yep, I am definitely going to hell.”
Can’t we just take those fundy nuts and put them in their own isolated island someplace?
How can I be an adulterer if I’m not in a romantic relationship? Furthermore, isn’t desire kind of the main thing that separates a platonic relationship from a romantic relationship in the first place?
…Now I’m actually pretty curious. Do fundamentalists really think it’s wrong to be even the least bit sexually attracted to anyone, even if that person is married to you?
I got up to the anger question and couldn’t continue. The whole thing is a patronizing load of crap.
It was probably a KJV Bible anyway — I’ve been looking for an NRSV + apocrypha.
Rebecca at #50:
Yup. That’s why us menfolk tend to look at you with lust and desire. (MAJeff and the blind excepted, of course.)