1st Test Quiz Questions To Comparative Religious Studies 101

[Irn-Bru]

Several comments:

1. If histories like those by Livy and Tacitus contained divine mysteries and miracles, revelations, etc., they would not be classified as histories, but rather as books of myths or relgious books.

2. The Bible is a books of myth, religion, revelation, some history, poetry, fantasy, allegory, literature, etc. centered on metaphysical matters that are ultimately supported by faith not by science. You cannot support metaphysical realities by citing footnotes nor books no more than you can, at the present time, prove them in the lab.

1. Probably correct. But my point still stands that what we have in the New Testament is probably far closer to the original text than anything coming from Roman historians (or Homer, or Caesar, etc.)

2. I don't think anyone is arguing this point. What you are saying isn't controversial.

3. Many ancient books of history are flawed, but the Bible is far removed from just being flawed as history-- it's a sacred, religious book and in no way written objectively by dispassionate sources. I mean no offense to the Bible. It's just simply not a book of history.

. . .and the Roman historians are notorious for their cool objectivity in reporting history, right?

4. The concept emerging of what a "Christian" is is becoming distorted on this thread. Many Christians, world wide, do not accept Christ as a redeemer yet accept his moral teachings. They are also called Christians. There are also many Christian Jews in the Middle East. There are millions of followers of Islam who accept the teachings of Christ. There are also Christian witches, who do accept Christ as a redeemer, and those who do not.

Those who think that there is some sort of consensus about what a Christian really is and what actually happened two thousand years ago just hasn't gotten out much.

As has been understood for the last 2,000 years, orthodoxy--or, that is, what it means to be a Christian--is defined by the adherence to core beliefs.

I'm sure that you know 90 people who don't think this is so, but I hardly find a handful of Americans who reject an objective standard on Christianity some kind of definition-altering force. Let them be wiccan (or whatever) should they so choose, but if they aren't in agreement with Christian dogma then they simply are not Christians.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Wiccan's are not required to worship a particular metaphysical entity as such. They worship the supreme power in whatever persona they choose. Witches born into the Christian faith often lend their spirits to the figure of Christ so as to bring about the coming of God's will. Most wiccans go to other churches as well. Historically speaking, England was both Pagan and Christian (as shown by Beowulf)
from the first century to the time of King James. In 1066, knights were sworn on both Pagan and Christian altars. Even after the split of the two faiths, Wiccans worshipped Christ as they wished, and still do. Most wiccans today also go to other churches.
Also, it is highly probable that the most common theological position in the United States today involves skepticism sbout atonement and the trinity but acceptance of Christian morality. You could put about ninety percent of the people I know in that category. Also, there are plenty of Christian churches who seerve as particular places for such persons. If they choose to call themselves Christian, they are Christian. Ther're under no obligation to meet anyone else's definition.

If they choose to call themselves Christian, they are Christian. Ther're under no obligation to meet anyone else's definition.

Well starting today Im going to classify myself as a white male. NOBODY CAN'T TELL ME IM NOT WHITE!

The Bible speaks out against witch craft in the following ways.

Deuteronomy 18:10-13
1 Samuel 15:23
Exodus 22:18

Then if you think back to Moses, God showed his power over witchcraft when Pharoah (spelling: its still early) has his magicians try to compete with God.

I looked up the word Christian and its definition in the American Heritage dictionary isn't as concise as what I've been taught. I was told that a Christian is someone who is aiming to be "Christ-like". Of course nobody can be like Him but you're purpose/aim in life is to be like him. To practice in sorcery/witchcraft/paganism as you've described isn't "Christ-like" as he didn't need anything but the power of God and the Holy Spirit to do his works.

Anyway, its been fun. I think Im done with this thread, I dont tend to engage in these things on a message board.

[ii7-V7]

Its looks to me like there are two definitions of Christianity; a secular and a biblical definition. I ascribe to the biblical definition of Christianity which is reserved to those who profess Christ as thier savior. I know that there are several others who follow the basic tenents of Christianity but don't believe in the resurrection. They define themselves as Christians....the bible on the otherhand would disagree.

Chad

[cvillehog]

Its looks to me like there are two definitions of Christianity; a secular and a biblical definition. I ascribe to the biblical definition of Christianity which is reserved to those who profess Christ as thier savior. I know that there are several others who follow the basic tenents of Christianity but don't believe in the resurrection. They define themselves as Christians....the bible on the otherhand would disagree.

Chad

I think it is being overly pedantic to try to separate it out to two definitions. Everyone may not be able to agree on exactly what "Christian" is down to the individual belief (I've had Baptists tell me Catholics aren't "real Christians"), but I think we can all agree on what it is not -- and what it is not includes wiccans who think Jesus was a swell guy.

[ii7-V7]

While I don't think its pedantic I do agree with your point.

Chad

[tazlah]

Thank you both for increasing my vocabulary!

[Fios]

Thank you both for increasing my vocabulary!

I like pizza

[tazlah]

Nice Try -- but I know ALL those words -- you haven't helped me to learn anything new today... try again.

[redskins12287]

Wiccan's are not required to worship a particular metaphysical entity as such. They worship the supreme power in whatever persona they choose. Witches born into the Christian faith often lend their spirits to the figure of Christ so as to bring about the coming of God's will. Most wiccans go to other churches as well. Historically speaking, England was both Pagan and Christian (as shown by Beowulf)
from the first century to the time of King James. In 1066, knights were sworn on both Pagan and Christian altars. Even after the split of the two faiths, Wiccans worshipped Christ as they wished, and still do. Most wiccans today also go to other churches.
Also, it is highly probable that the most common theological position in the United States today involves skepticism sbout atonement and the trinity but acceptance of Christian morality. You could put about ninety percent of the people I know in that category. Also, there are plenty of Christian churches who seerve as particular places for such persons. If they choose to call themselves Christian, they are Christian. Ther're under no obligation to meet anyone else's definition.

What churches "serve" wiccans?

To simply go to church does not make one a "christian."

You can choose to call yourself whatever you want, that does not make it true.

[Fios]

Nice Try -- but I know ALL those words -- you haven't helped me to learn anything new today... try again.

Canada is anachronistic =)

[crazyhorse1]

Wiccan's are not required to worship a particular metaphysical entity as such. They worship the supreme power in whatever persona they choose. Witches born into the Christian faith often lend their spirits to the figure of Christ so as to bring about the coming of God's will. Most wiccans go to other churches as well. Historically speaking, England was both Pagan and Christian (as shown by Beowulf)
from the first century to the time of King James. In 1066, knights were sworn on both Pagan and Christian altars. Even after the split of the two faiths, Wiccans worshipped Christ as they wished, and still do. Most wiccans today also go to other churches.
Also, it is highly probable that the most common theological position in the United States today involves skepticism sbout atonement and the trinity but acceptance of Christian morality. You could put about ninety percent of the people I know in that category. Also, there are plenty of Christian churches who seerve as particular places for such persons. If they choose to call themselves Christian, they are Christian. Ther're under no obligation to meet anyone else's definition.

What churches "serve" wiccans?

To simply go to church does not make one a "christian."

You can choose to call yourself whatever you want, that does not make it true.

A follower of Christ or one who follows the teachings of Christ is a Christian by definition.

I didn't say particular churches serve Wiccans. I said, or should have said more completely, that there are many non-denominational churches that do not emphasize particular creeds that serve Americans who do not have doctrinaire views of Christ but do follow or accept his teachings. In my own area, there are, for instance, the Metaphysical Church, the Unitarian Church, and various church groups that have grown up from the Association for Research and Enlightenment and other Christian groups interested in holistic or other healing.
What I said is that many Wiccans also go to other churches. A Wiccan who is also a Christian will tell you that all things have power (Wiccans are anamists) and that Wiccans worship by releasing their personal power to the will of the Supreme Being, their focal point being Jesus Christ. They believe in doing this they emulate Christ, who also released his will to the Supreme Being and merged with Him. Thus, they are Christian...both in what they do as worship and in their morality.
A Wiccan will not pray against the will of the Supreme Being.
One who does is a sorcerer, according to Wiccans. Wiccans also say the Biblical injunction, "Suffer not a witch to live," is a mistranslation, and point out the line actually says, "Suffer not a poisoner to live."

By the way, I'm not a Wiccan. I'm not an animist, which is requirement one, I think. Nor do I believe in most of what I've learned about pagan theology.

[Chris Luva Luva]

who also released his will to the Supreme Being and merged with Him. Thus, they are Christian...both in what they do as worship and in their morality.

Who is "supreme being"? I've never seen God called "supreme being" in the Bible.

Acutally when I looked up this Micca, I got the following definition.

A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft.

There isnt a "mother goddess" in Christianity. The Bible directly refers to God as a He. According to this definition its not even a Christian religion but inspired by MULTIPLE PRE-CHRISTIAN beliefs.

Herbal magic and benign witchcraft are also a no go according to scripture in the Bible.

So IMO, Micca is not Christianity as according to this defintion it opposes many things from scripture which I proved in earlier posts and listed scripture.

and that Wiccans worship by releasing their personal power to the will of the Supreme Being

Personal power? According to the Bible and I can find exact scripture if you'd like, no human has any power until they've been filled with the Holy Spirit. So what is this personal power that they're releasing to this "Supreme Being"?

Worship according to the Bible.

Ps. 29:2
Ps. 95:6
Isa. 29:13
John 4:20-24 - Now this is the closest thing I can find that even remotely resembles "personal power" BUT its clearly not what the Wiccans are reffering to. Basically it says worship God in spirit and in truth.

You can look back to Exodus 35:21 and see what the basic meaning of "sprit" is as it relates to the Bible. For those of you who can't it basically means your God given will.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells you exactly where your spirit comes from. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them.

Not your "personal" spirit but His spirt.

So basically I take back my earlier comment that it resemables what you said and I will now say that I can't find anything that resembles what you said.

Here is one for the Miccans specifically. In Ezekiel 13 God tells Ezekiel to speak to the false prophets of Israel. A false prophet can fall into 1 of 2 categories. One who represents a false god aka that mother goddess of the Miccans, or one who spoke false things in the name of the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!

There's that "personal" spirit you were reffering to.

Can you point anywhere in scripture and prove your claims?

[tazlah]

Canada is anachronistic =)

I'm intrigued... Please elaborate...


(Chris, turn your keyboard around, you keep typing M when you mean W! Vat is dis Micca you talk about?)

[crazyhorse1]

who also released his will to the Supreme Being and merged with Him. Thus, they are Christian...both in what they do as worship and in their morality.

Who is "supreme being"? I've never seen God called "supreme being" in the Bible.

Acutally when I looked up this Micca, I got the following definition.

A polytheistic Neo-Pagan nature religion inspired by various pre-Christian western European beliefs, whose central deity is a mother goddess and which includes the use of herbal magic and benign witchcraft.

There isnt a "mother goddess" in Christianity. The Bible directly refers to God as a He. According to this definition its not even a Christian religion but inspired by MULTIPLE PRE-CHRISTIAN beliefs.

Herbal magic and benign witchcraft are also a no go according to scripture in the Bible.

So IMO, Micca is not Christianity as according to this defintion it opposes many things from scripture which I proved in earlier posts and listed scripture.

and that Wiccans worship by releasing their personal power to the will of the Supreme Being

Personal power? According to the Bible and I can find exact scripture if you'd like, no human has any power until they've been filled with the Holy Spirit. So what is this personal power that they're releasing to this "Supreme Being"?

Worship according to the Bible.

Ps. 29:2
Ps. 95:6
Isa. 29:13
John 4:20-24 - Now this is the closest thing I can find that even remotely resembles "personal power" BUT its clearly not what the Wiccans are reffering to. Basically it says worship God in spirit and in truth.

You can look back to Exodus 35:21 and see what the basic meaning of "sprit" is as it relates to the Bible. For those of you who can't it basically means your God given will.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 tells you exactly where your spirit comes from. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them.

Not your "personal" spirit but His spirt.

So basically I take back my earlier comment that it resemables what you said and I will now say that I can't find anything that resembles what you said.

Here is one for the Miccans specifically. In Ezekiel 13 God tells Ezekiel to speak to the false prophets of Israel. A false prophet can fall into 1 of 2 categories. One who represents a false god aka that mother goddess of the Miccans, or one who spoke false things in the name of the Lord.

Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!

There's that "personal" spirit you were reffering to.

Can you point anywhere in scripture and prove your claims?

Supreme Being is my term and is not from Bible or Wicca. I was merely trying to find a term that more or less stood for God in both religions. Wiccans don't have a particular name for a principal goddess; however, it is true that the White Goddess of the ancient Pagan faith is often envisioned as a personification of a Supreme Being by Wiccans.

I hope not to confuse anyone here. But, when a Wiccan worships the White Goddess or the moon he doesn't literally believe in the personification-- he believes metaphorically. That is why a modern Wiccan might well choose to use Christ or another deity as the object of his worship.

Wiccan is Wiccan. It is certainly not a Christian religion. It is a religion that allows its members to believe in any Supreme Being they wish to believe in. Thus, many Wiccans accept the teachings of Christ and worship him as the Supreme Being or God.

You seem to be trying to pass rules for Wiccans or claim ownership of Christ. The Wiccan usually doesn't care what the Bible says; the Bible is not the holy book of Wicca and Wicca doesn't care what the Christian church thinks or doesn't think. If a Wiccan wants to believe in Christ, he is simply going to believe in Christ. He might, for instance, believe in Christ from his reading of Christ in the Book of Phillip, or because Christ spoke to him when the two were walking together on the astral plane.

I didn't say Christians had personal power. I said that Wiccans believe Wiccans and others have personal power and that they worship God by cooperating with his will and adding their power to his. They also think that Christ did the same.

The Virgin Mary is a mother goddess, a very clear example of one. Some Wiccans worship the Virgin Mary.

Personal power for a Wiccan means personal spiritual power...usually thought of as psychic power.Witches believe in all the gifts charismatics believe in, as well as others.

[NikiH]

Interesting side note.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060601/ap_ ... ent_scroll

[ii7-V7]

"In a way, it was a precursor of Christianity," Pierris said. "Orphism believed that man's salvation depended on his knowledge of the truth."

Well spoken by someone who doesn't understand christianity, or even the timetable of the written old testament.

Chad[/quote]

[crazyhorse1]

"In a way, it was a precursor of Christianity," Pierris said. "Orphism believed that man's salvation depended on his knowledge of the truth."

Well spoken by someone who doesn't understand christianity, or even the timetable of the written old testament.

Chad

[/quote]

Speaking of understanding Christianity, I've personally never known a Christian who could correctly answer all five of the questions below:

Of the six virtues-- justice, power, wisdom, righeousness, love, and wealth-- which three did Jesus hold held sway over the others?

Did Jesus believe there should be in the family:
obedience, harmony, or division?

Which did Jesus believe most likely to reach heaven:
The entrepreneur who provides jobs for others?
The hard-working man who makes ends meet?
The beggar?

What was Jesus's real name?

When Jesus enjoins man to become like a little child to be saved, what exactly is he talking about: social rank, innocence, or children under eight?

[Irn-Bru]

Did you make the first question up? Where did you pull those "The Six Virtues(c)" from? (Don't answer that question. . .this is a PG forum after all).

Just for general interest, Christianity has long defined virtue as being built on four cardinal virtues: Prudence (wisdom), justice, fortitude (moral courage), temperance (moderation).

Your other questions are strange ones, as well, but I don't particularly feel like typing another few paragraphs. However, judging by the Christians that you seem to know (and judging by how you define the term "Christian"), it doesn't surprise me that you would receive varied answers for these questions of yours.

[Redskin in Canada]

Just for general interest, Christianity has long defined virtue as being built on four cardinal virtues: Prudence (wisdom), justice, fortitude (moral courage), temperance (moderation).

Plus three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. The set of seven go hand in hand.

But I am surprised that this thread is still around.

Someone must have a lot of time in their hands or simply underestimate the intelligence and education of many members in this board. The name of this thread should change to:

"first test quiz questions to comparative religious studies 101"

Boring. But I guess it could be worse. It still might.

[crazyhorse1]

Just for general interest, Christianity has long defined virtue as being built on four cardinal virtues: Prudence (wisdom), justice, fortitude (moral courage), temperance (moderation).

Plus three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. The set of seven go hand in hand.

But I am surprised that this thread is still around.

Someone must have a lot of time in their hands or simply underestimate the intelligence and education of many members in this board. The name of this thread should change to:

"first test quiz questions to comparative religious studies 101"

Boring. But I guess it could be worse. It still might.

I maintain that most Christians know Christian dogma very well but don't know the teachings of Christ or have real concern even with his identity, brothers, sisters, etc. I'm not talking about virtues other than the ones I've named. Christ is clear throughout his teaching that three of those named trump the other three.
The questions only seem strange because Churches rarely teach the teachings of Christ The questions are not just pulled from a hat. The answers reflect the core of Christ's thought.
This is not a 101 course, This is a graduate course almost no one passes, and I assure you the answers are far from boring. No takers?

[Fios]

Just for general interest, Christianity has long defined virtue as being built on four cardinal virtues: Prudence (wisdom), justice, fortitude (moral courage), temperance (moderation).

Plus three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity. The set of seven go hand in hand.

But I am surprised that this thread is still around.

Someone must have a lot of time in their hands or simply underestimate the intelligence and education of many members in this board. The name of this thread should change to:

"first test quiz questions to comparative religious studies 101"

Boring. But I guess it could be worse. It still might.

I maintain that most Christians know Christian dogma very well but don't know the teachings of Christ or have real concern even the his identity. I'm not talking about virtues other than the ones I've named. Christ is clear throughout his teaching that three of those named trump the other three.
The questions only seem strange because Churches rarely teach the teachings of Christ The are not just pulled from a hat. The answers reflect the core of Christ's thought.
This is not a 101 course, This is a graduate course almost no one passes, and I assure you the answers are far from boring. No takers?

OK, I'll bite

[crazyhorse1]

Oh Once and Future Pink Flexi-straw, how does thy wisdom speak to the first question?