Mike Rosoft

I have encountered this quiz (referenced on WinAce's site). Just for the hell of it, I have started working on a serious, point-by-point response.

Can anybody help me with it? I am done with some of the questions; the ones I need help the most are number 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 20, 24 (looking for myths similar to Genesis), 25, 31, 40 (how much evidence is there for Jesus?), and 41.

If anybody desires, I may post the responses I have worked out so far.


Mike Rosoft

lpetrich

I've seen several responses to this quiz already, so it may be a good idea to construct some definitive response from them.

Toto

This isn't a serious quiz. There are 3 obviously wrong and flippant answers, and then the approved JPHolding explanation.

pz

I agree with Toto, it's garbage that isn't even worth consideration, let alone the serious effort of putting together solid responses.

I mean, really...this is a guy who seriously argues that murdering their parents, raping them, and reducing them to slavery is a way to "mercifully absorb" young girls into a population. Holding is so far gone into lunacy that there is no rational reply possible.

Toto

But why don't you outline what you've got. There might be some value in it.

keyser_soze

Yeah, like I am going to give more than fleeting thought to something put out by a spineless ex prison librarian, who is currently involved in a televangelist style money making scheme on the web...uh huh. yep. Sure enough. BTW, his name is turkel if anyone is interested. No problem using pseudo's with me, but he protects his real name like it's fragile...And fearful? Me? My name's William Bishop Hi everyone! Welcome to encounter. See how easy it is to just put your name out there? You can place it with my location(huntsville), and do a search for my name to get my profession, my income, what kind of cars I drive, what kind of house I own, etc....And I don't mind in the least.

But back to turkel...The gymnastics he makes to avoid points of topic, and the lengths he will go to to insult people is pretty extreme. My advice? Just leave the loon to his followers, he'll pull a hovind soon enough.

Mike Rosoft

2. 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

My answer: E and a sort of B

Being a Czech atheist, Farrell Till is the only name on this list that I am familiar with. In general, I would consult a moderate, liberal, or a secular scholar (including Till), rather than a Biblical fundamentalist.

5. 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 Israel wanted their land (called "Amalekiteland"). "God" was just a sick excuse to take it.
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.

My Answer: B

And a bit of C, with a reservation "as described in the Bible". I am not going to accept D for an answer; not until you persuade me that U.S. army ought to exterminate the population of Iraq.

I'll say more on Amalekites bellow.

6. 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.

My answer: E

I can readily imagine that the propagandists of ancient Israel would accuse them of similar practices as described in the option D in order to justify an attack against them. The question is: did they do what you (and they) accuse them of? And if so, then to what extent? (By the way, fundamentalists falsely accuse modern Pagans of similar things even today. Does that indicate anything abut the ancients?)

While there probably were some cases of human sacrifice, they may not have been as widespread as you imply. In addition, some passages of the Bible seem to describe human sacrifice as acceptable; the stories of Abraham and Jephthah are the prime example, and an order that "You shall give your first-born son to me" of Exodus 22:29 another one.

Sex with animals is disgusting and morally wrong to me, though probably for a different reason than to you. Again, was it such a common thing as you describe?

[More info needed]

What does incest have to do with the rituals?

Finally, I don't find ritual sexuality (to use a less loaded term) unacceptable.

7. Matthew 2:15 cites Jesus fulfilling a verse in Hosea in his trip to Egypt. But Hosea was talking about Israel. What's up?
A. Hosea mistakenly called Israel God's son when he really
should have said God's daughter Israel.
B. Matthew obviously used the text dishonestly.
C. Matthew was using Hosea carelessly.
D. Matthew was using a typical Jewish exegetical procedure.

My answer: a sort of D

Matthew was reinterpreting the text to mean something else than it says. While this may have been an usual Jewish practice, you are missing the point, which is that the Old Testament doesn't actually predict anything about Jesus, and not that Matthew is wrong.

8. 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.

My answer: E

I'll prefer to say that this reflects an ancient belief that an animal's colouring could have been affected by having its mother look at an coloured object. You may say that it was God who caused that, but the Bible says nothing about a divine intervention.

9. 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.

My answer: D

And the point is ... ?

12. Lev. 11:19 says that the bat is a bird. This means:
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. Translators have unwittingly anachronized by imposing a category of distinction upon the text that didn't exist at the time.

My answer: D

Yes, the word can also refer to an insect. I assume that it can also be used to mean a flying mammal, and should probably be translated "flying creature". (In fact, it is in the Czech Ecumenical translation, though not in the corresponding verse of Deuteronomy 14.) By the way, how will you explain the four-legged insects of Leviticus 11:20-23?

14. 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.

My answer: D and a sort of C

Being atheist, I am biased against fundamentalists. If a such a person argues for some meaning of a word, I'll check non-fundamentalist sources if his arguments are covered there.

Additionally, let's look at Isaiah 7:14 and at evidence that "almah" means "young woman", rather than "virgin". Now replace answer C with "Check to see if the author is involved in an atheist organization" - can you say "pot, kettle, black" ?

15. 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 Carthage.
D. The passage is describing a dilemma, not two absolutes.

My answer: D

In other words, these two verses contradict - and so what? (There is a similar conflicting pair of Czech proverbs, one saying "speaking is silver, silence is golden," and another one being "lazy mouth is a disaster.") This particular contradiction is not very useful for discussions about Biblical errancy, except to test if your opponent is being honest or if he'll go to invent some far-fetched reinterpretation.

17. 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.

My answer: E

Around the break of the common era; the narratives in the two gospels cannot be used to exactly date Jesus' birth since they are at odds with the historical facts and with each other.

[More info needed]

21. 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.

My answer: E

This "hypothetical" group of scholars looks suspiciously like a straw man of the Jesus Seminar. In addition, the first three options say that I agree with them, while the last one says that their opinion has absolutely no merit. For these reasons, I refuse to choose an option.

Now I might admire them, but the search for historical Jesus seems pretty much pointless to me, given the very low amount of evidence we have. (See bellow.)

22. 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.

My answer: E

Using the Bible, you can argue for either of B, C, or D, together with other ways of salvation. In addition, you can argue for eternal punishment in hell, or for a temporary one, or for annihilation, or whatever. Your interpretation is no better than anyone else's.

24. 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.

My answer: E

Quoting any number of myths different from Genesis will not prove that there are no similar ones. [More info needed]

What do I think about the myth you refer to? It has no more resemblance to true origins of the universe than Genesis.

27. 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.

My answer: D

And what are you trying to prove? That Paul was teaching that people ought to abstain from sex and marriage because he believed in an imminent end of the world?

28. 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.

My answer: A or a sort of D

So David had a homosexual relationship. Or perhaps he didn't; what the Bible says is an indication, rather than a proof. Since I - presumably unlike you - don't condemn homosexual behavior, I have no problem with either. (And I have many more reasons to dislike David anyway.)

29. 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.

My answer: D and E

Well, Christians (note that I am not saying all Christians) were claiming that Jesus is about to come for the past two thousand years, and all these predictions have failed. Why should I be bothered by another one?

(In fact, so did the early Christians, including Jesus and Paul. [Some verses to show that, anyone?])

30. 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.

My answer: E

Arguing for atheism or pointing out problems with religions doesn't necessarily constitute saying that all religion is intellectually bankrupt. And a skeptic who does (I can't say that I know any) will not gain any applause from me.

Now a Christian who argues for Christianity (or against atheism etc.) may be expressing his intolerance and hate (such as demanding death penalty for non-believers based on the Bible), may be completely clueless of what he is talking about (such as saying that atheists hate God), or may be simply stating a view I don't agree with. And no matter how I disagree, and even though his chance of making me believe in God is most likely nil, I don't deny a possibility of him being right in some details.

32. 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."

My answer: E (and a small bit of B)

"This is what you believe. I have my own beliefs, my own morality, and my own conscience. And my conscience tells me that hell is an ultimate injustice and that if such a God existed, we would have to abolish him."

In addition, I don't accept your attempt to justify hell by claiming that "any sin is infinite because it is committed against God". Should we base our decisions how to punish criminals on against whom it was committed, rather than how serious the crime was? Is stealing from a king a greater crime than killing a homeless? And, ultimately, are to God all crimes equally deserving eternal punishment in hell? Is this called justice?

33. 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."

My answer: E

"Well, somebody claims that a spacecraft has been found on the Moon. Should I believe him? Even though I believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, I am rather skeptical of this claim because life - and sufficiently developped civilizations even more so - is probably rather rare, and it's VERY unlikely that they would reach this solar system by chance. Let's analyze their photos and samples - perhaps we'll find out that they are fake, or that what looked like an alien artifact was in fact a natural structure. Or perhaps we'll discover that they are genuine, but I wouldn't bet on it."

If this is to be a parallel to existence of God, I am not aware of any such piece of evidence - and no, life doesn't qualify.

34. 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.

My answer: E

A fallacy of misinterpreting of your opponent's position, in order to make it easier to argue against. Like this test, for example.

35. 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.)

My answer: E

These options are misguided. Try "Look for a source of the smoke and act accordingly", as opposed to "Run around screaming: 'Fire! Fire!'"

38. 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. Israel was letting little girls join the army.
C. The Israelites needed someone to cook dinner for them after D0 years of manna.
D. The Israelites were mercifully absorbing these young girls into their population.

My answer: very close to A

According to Numbers 31, Moses and his troops committed an extreme atrocity. Since God - if I am to believe the Bible - ordered it, he is responsible as well. While I would never call you a "perverted sicko", it does no good to my opinion of you or of your respect of life.

I mean, was the Holocaust wrong only because it wasn't ordered by God? If you believed that it is the will of God (say, if "God told you"), would you participate in an act of genocide?

39. 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.

My answer: D

And in this test, evangelical Christianity fails miserably. In fact, no religion I have ever encountered has passed it, even though a few (such as Unitarian Universalism and Neopaganism) are appealing to me.

40. 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.

My answer: E

This is some very strong claim: no historian doubts existence of Jesus ... Care to back it up?

Now how much evidence do we have for Jesus? Several (both canonical and noncanonical) gospels conflicting each other, each written more than thirty years after Jesus died, an obviously forged passage in Josephus, a few more mentions which may only be a descriptions of Christian beliefs, and exactly zero references from the time when he supposedly lived. Really overwhelming, isn't it? [Is this accurate?]

Additionally, even if existence of Jesus were proven, what would it say about the miracles that he allegedly performed? Nothing!

42. 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.

My answer: D

Of course, nobody says that science (or any part thereof) is infallible; in fact, an exact opposite is true: it is a constant process of correcting errors and increasing accuracy. Do you see the difference from religion?

43. 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 <mission.html>. That proves everything on it is worthless.
B. Note that this site solicits financial support <doninst.html>. 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 1,000 items on this site as much as you can.
D. All of the above, because you can't refute actually refute any of it.

My answer: E

Please go to Hell (in Norway) with these bogus accusations. And you are very confident that your positions cannot be refuted, aren't you?!?

Seriously, this post is the action I take.


Mike Rosoft

Mike Rosoft

Oh yes, I have forgotten to add my response to the Amalekite massacre. I already used it (in a slightly different form) on the SAB Board:

The first conflict between Amalekites and Israelites took place in Exodus 17:8+. The Amalekites attack the Israelites, and are defeated. Now look what God orders: "... for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven" and "[T]he LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." He repeats this order in Deuteronomy 25:17-19: "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt ... [T]hou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."

Now we have it. A single incident like that is enough for God to order permanent war and total destruction of the Amalekites. And guess what? Yes, they were still in war in 1 Samuel 14:49.

Now in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 Samuel tells Saul that it is God's will that Amalekites must be totally destroyed. What reason he gives for this genocide? That they were at war with Israelites? (Is it a sufficient reason for their total destruction?) Or that they were committing evil, such as human sacrifice? (All of them? Even the "infant and suckling" ?) No! That their ancestors ambushed the Israelites when they were leaving Egypt.

This is the "justice" of God.

Now on the specific issues:

"(1) they had plenty of access to 'truth' (at LEAST 400 years since Jacob and Land-promise), plus enough information about the miraculous Exodus to know where/when to attack Israel"

Oh yes. I see them saying to each other: "Some tribe of Israelites is coming, and they claim that our land belongs to them by God's decree. We ought to pack up and leave." No, of course they they will fight. (And I don't believe that the Exodus took place; at least, not as it is described in the Bible.)

"(2) even their war conduct was cruel by current standards"

And that's why the Israelites committed an even worse cruelty on them.

"(3) the semi-annihilation was a judgment"

... for something they didn't do, but what their ancestors did hundreds of years before. ("I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.")

And "semi-annihilation"? I would say "complete genocide"!

"(4) God was willing to spare the innocent people--and specifically gave them the opportunity to move away"

It wasn't God, it was Saul. And he didn't spare the innocent Amalekites (the children weren't innocent?), he spared the Kenites.

"(5) children living in the households of stubbornly-hostile parents"

In what sense were the parents hostile? The Amalekite leaders who were responsible for any attacks against Israelites, not ordinary people.

"died swiftly in the one-day event" [snip]

Interesting kind of logic. When Amalekites attack the Israelites and kill helpless civilians, "their war conduct [is] cruel by current standards." When Israelites attack the Amalekites and kill all of them, including helpless civilians, it is merciful.

Sorry, but if you call this mercy, I don't.

"(6) the innocent members of the community (Kenites)"

I have already commented on the Kenites.

"and any change-of-heart Amalekites who fled are delivered (along with their children of the household)."

Where is anything like that said? The bible says an exact opposite - all the Amalekites were to be killed.


Mike Rosoft

GunnerJ

Careful- he says "no classical historians," meaning historians from ancient times. And he's probably correct, in as much as no ancient historians specifically denied the claims of the Christian cult.

Mike Rosoft

Careful- he says "no classical historians," meaning historians from ancient times. And he's probably correct, in as much as no ancient historians specifically denied the claims of the Christian cult.

Thanks for a clarification. Changing my original comment to:


As if existence of another would-be messiah of another obscure Jewish movement was important enough for anybody to study in detail. And as if anyone would bother writing down a statement like "Christians believe in Jesus whom they consider a Messiah, or Christ. I was unable to find any evidence that he even existed".

A more appropriate question is how many contemporary or near-contemporary statements about Jesus do we have. And the answer is: not much. We have exactly zero references from the time when Jesus supposedly lived, several (both canonical and noncanonical) gospels conflicting each other written more than thirty years after his death, an obviously forged passage in Josephus, and few more mentions from an even later time which may only be a descriptions of Christian beliefs. Really overwhelming evidence, isn't it?

Additionally, even if existence of Jesus were proven, what would it say about the miracles that he allegedly performed? Nothing!


Mike Rosoft (looking forward to more corrections)