Take the quiz here:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/do_you_have_biblical_morals

I scored a zero percent... but now I'm curious about some of those answers.

I got a zero per cent too -- not particularly surprising, in my case....!

HAHAHAHAHA, I am still lauging, thats a great one.

you should put that in General Religion...

Hi Lex, good to see you! (we don't seem to cross paths much).

Bushido, yeah, that quiz had me laughing, too, half the time! And the other half the time I was rather numbed, trying to wrap my head around the atrocities which the quiz implies was advocated by the bible.

I would have liked links to scripture quotes and commentary, to put it in context.

Arcamedes, maybe that would be good for getting a conversation going that would address my questions... but I think just posting the quiz up would be too much like taunting/insulting to my taste.

I scored a whopping 54 percent.

My beacon in selecting answers was not entirely my own moral code alone; I eliminated answers that were anachronistic, i.e. courses of action that the respondent could not possibly take given the real Biblical time. For instance, right on the first question, you cannot say "I'd call the police" because there was no such thing as police, and there were no telephones, obviously. So the best answer was one that could actually be performed at the time of the bible, which was unfortunately to give up my daughter to be raped. Not nice that they left me with only that alternative.

I said "six years" after which I had to free a slave that I had bought. Reason: Most baseball and hockey players have six-year-long contracts with their teams. The question never mentioned slavery; he called the slaves "servants".

What to do with my daughter when someone bought her from me? How long could they keep her? I answered, as long as they can feed and clothe her. My reasoning went to modern marriages when the father takes the bride on his arm to the altar or to the civic marriage officiant to give her up; and the husband of this now wed woman must keep her in his proper care. This is not true at all for our society in North America, but in my heritage it was certainly true, in a central-European country (actually, in all of them) : A man was supposed to keep his wife, no ifs buts and ends. This custom only has started to change after the second world war, and all my relatives in the generations preceding me practiced it. So it was a valid way of life, almost up to the point when I was born, in the locale where I was born. I think it's a real concern, albeit historical.

The worst thing of the three of slavery, rape or seafood dinner is the last of course. It has caused way more many deaths than the first two. Due to food poisoning, true, but that alone would not raise the death toll higher than each of slavery and rape. More importantly a seafood diet is a killer because it increases the eater's cholesterol levels, his resistance to insulin, etc. etc.

The toughest questions were the first two. For instance, "What is your sex?" It is indeed a truly almost unanswerable moral question. Is it more moral to be "male" or to be "female"? True, I have no choice in the matter, so if choosing a course of action is a pre-requisite to a moral dilemma, it is not a moral dilemma. Then this is an unanswerable question (because it had to be according to the respondent's moral code, not according to facts, as it was said in the preamble.)

But it can go deeper. In a way the question is not asking, "what's your sex", if we believe that it's part of the "morality" questinnaire, but by asking this question it really asks, "what is the more moral way to be: Female, or male? Which gender is morally superior to the other?"

The same with the age questions.

My biggest objection to the test was that it did not tackle moral questions at all. It tackled articled points in law. If, again, we hold part of being ethical to a choice, then we cannot call a question a question in morals that asks us about law, which all must obey, so there is no choice in there. If you want to keep your slaver over the maximum allowed six years, you break the law, not morals. It is a different question whether breaking the law is moral or not. That's not the issue. The issue is that there were no choices presented to the man in Biblical times in answering any of these questions. We, in the democratic humane societies of the advanced Western civilizations in the twenty-first century, look at these questions, and we see moral discrepancies and easy choices. To the man in the times of the Bible these choices were not presented. He had to give up his Hebrew slave after six years of servitude, whether he wanted or not, and at exactly the six year anniversary, not a day earlier or later.

This means to me that there was not one quesiton on the questionnaire that dealt with moral issues or the ethical choice. That's so because there were no choices in these matters to the man in the times of the Bible.

Really? Showing people what they really believe in and support would be insulting? hrumpth

Well I think that is just it, its not something they really believe in or support.

There is only designer Christians anymore. I mean you do get your rare groups like Westboro baptists church where they actually accept what the bibles says at face value.

Wux I see your point, but I raise you a point in that the idea that the bible can guide moral actions in modern day requires that we see the bible from a modern perspective, I think most moderate Christians understand that and freely admit it, however it forces them to relinquish the idea that the bible is the word of god, and not just the word of man in his best attempt to speak with god ect . .

So we get a sea of moderate cherry pickers with the rare literalist camp.

wux said:

The bane of multiple choice, taken to a new level!

You mention baseball players' contracts... . At this time, in the US, you say 'slavery' and it immediately brings to mind a massive & disgusting collection of crimes against black people. Its hard for me to dissociate 'slavery' from 'the slavery of blacks in US history', complete with the 'right' to rape and murder your 'property'.

But slavery's close cousin, indentured servitude, is only slightly removed from many arrangements we see as 'okay' in the modern world. And how much freedom do a lot people realy have, working at minimum wage and 9/10 of their income going to rent/car/food?



I was just expressing my personal taste. An 'insult' is a matter of perspective. I do see some educational value in the topics raised in this quiz, but the format is all wrong (to my mind).

I'm thinking most people who "believe" do so because parents and peers told them to and thinking for themselves is not something they would normally do. Perhaps being smacked in the face, as it were, with the facts of their belief system would do 'em some good.

umm...scratch that. Now that I think about it, it seems as if most people hate, above all things, being thought wrong on something....

Interesting quiz...although it doesn't make much sense to me. It includes non-religious, old religion and christianity answers...I got 0%

I received a 0%!!! F-?