Okay, I'll take the test...
Do You Think You're a Good Person?
- Yes, I'm a Good Person.
- No, I'm not a Good Person.
Well, yes. Most people do.
Have you ever told a lie?
Even for a good purpose?
- Yes, I've told a lie.
- No, I've never told a lie.
Yes, everyone has.
What does that make you?
If someone lied to you, what would you call them?
That would depend on the nature of the lie and the circumstances surrounding it. Where are my options? I certainly wouldn't call them "Next". Clearly this is a rhetorical question intended to force the question-taker to label themself a liar.
That makes you a liar.
We might not like that word - we like to say we're 'just human', or that we 'stretched the truth'. But the truth is - if we've told a lie, we're a liar.
Um, nope. Having told lies in the past no more makes a person a liar than having being drunk in the past makes a person a drunkard. A liar is someone who frequently tells lies, the same way that a drunkard is someone who is frequently drunk.
Where's my option for this answer? This test has already invalidated itself by forcing me to answer incorrectly.
Have you ever taken anything that did not belong to you?
Even something small?
Okay, I can see where this is going. The same shtick as the "lying" question before.
That makes you a thief.
It sounds harsh, but the truth is - if we've ever stolen anything, we're a thief.
My answer to this one is similar to the "liar" question, and once again it doesn't provide me with an option to answer according to my true opinion.
Have you ever looked at another person with lust or desire?
- Yes, I've looked with lust.
- No, I've never looked at another person with desire.
Almost everyone who isn't prepubescent has. So what? There's nothing wrong or bad with that.
Jesus said, that makes you an adulterer.
Jesus said in Matthew 5 that to look at someone with lust is to have committed adultery with them.
That makes Jesus a liar. An adulterer is a married person who has sexual intercourse with a person who is not their spouse. Looking at someone with lustful desire is not the same thing.
Where's my option for "No, I'm not an adulterer because Jesus was wrong"?
This test has invalidated itself once again.
Have you ever been angry with another person?
- Yes, I've been angry with another person.
- No, I've never been angry with another person.
Of course. Everyone has. So what?
Jesus said, that makes you a murderer.
Jesus said in Matthew 5 that whoever is angry with his brother without cause is guilty of murder.
- Okay, according to God's standard, I'm a murderer.
And Jesus lies again. Where's the option for "No, I'm not a murderer"?
I mean, seriously. How can this be a valid test question when the answer is already pre-selected whether you agree with it or not?
Have you ever taken God's name in vain?
Have you ever used God's name as a curse word or to express disgust?
- Yes, I've used God's name in vain.
- No, I've never done that.
Assuming by the biblical quotes from previous questions that you're referring to the Christian God, then no I haven't. I've never in my life used the name Yahweh, or even Jehovah, as a curse word or to express disgust.
Are you sure??
Taking God's name in vain also means to use God's name lightly or without thought. Are you positive you've never done that?
- You're right, I have used God's name in vain.
- I'm sure, I've never used God's name in vain.
Damn straight I'm sure.
You may not realize this...
...but those are just five of the Ten Commandments.
By your own admission and the standard of God's law, the Ten Commandments, you are a lying, thieving, murderous, adulterer at heart.
And you have to face God on judgment day!
Um, nope. I am not by my admission (or in fact) murderous or adulterous at heart. And that stuff about lying and thieving is on pretty shaky ground.
And how is that five of the Ten Commandments? None of the Commandments prohibits telling lies. One Commandment does prohibit giving false testimony, but that's more than simply lying. And none of the Commandments prohibits being angry at someone else.
If God were to judge you by His law, would you be innocent or guilty?
Be honest with yourself and God
- I would be Guilty.
- I would be Innocent.
That's a bit like asking "If Santa Clause were to judge you, would you have been naughty or nice?" but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument.
This question seems to be somewhat fragmentary. But assuming it is intending to ask "If God were to judge you according to his law, would you be innocent or guilty of breaking any of them?", then probably yes. There's a
lot of laws handed down by God in Exodus, some of them quite absurd.
Based on your guilty verdict, would you go to heaven or hell?
The Bible says that all murderers, adulterers, thieves, and liars will have their place in the lake of fire - Revelation 21:8.
- I would still go to heaven.
- I guess I would go to hell.
Neither. There is no heaven and no hell, so would not go to either. Where's my option for that?
Since neither option is acceptable, I'll just pick the first option.
Why?
Do you think God should overlook your sin?
Should God allow murderers, thieves, and adulterers into heaven?
Colossians 1:21 says you are an enemy of God by your wicked works.
- I still think I would go to heaven.
- Based on my sin, I guess I would deserve hell.
Isn't the Christian god supposed to be infinitely forgiving, merciful and compassionate (according to Christians)? Viewing God in this light would still mean going to heaven.
But, if you knew a human judge who would not punish a guilty rapist for his crimes, would you describe him as a just judge??
No, He would be a corrupt judge.
God could never be a corrupt judge.
Because of His holiness and justice, he must judge sin.
- You're right, I guess I would deserve hell.
Not necessarily. For example, what about a case of statutory rape, where a 17 year old boy has been seduced by a 15 year-old girl and been caught in the act? If the local laws had a mandatory life imprisonment for the crime of rape of any kind, any sane judge would dismiss the case and let the boy go because the punishment is so greatly disproportionate to the crime.
This would not make the judge corrupt, just compassionate. Only a truly wicked judge would condemn a person to so harsh a punishment for so minor an offense.
Is God a truly wicked judge that he would condemn a person to eternal suffering and torment for no greater crime than being subject to human nature?
But since this test does not allow this answer, I can only choose "deserve hell", which takes me to the same point in this "test" as if I had chosen it back in the "Based on your guilty verdict, would you go to heaven or hell?" question.
The Bible offers hope.
II Peter 3:9 says that God is "not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
Imagine you are standing in front of a judge, GUILTY of serious crime. All the evidence has been presented and there is no doubt of your guilt. Your apologies and good works cannot erase your crimes; therefore you must be punished. The fine for your crime is $250,000 and you have no money.
The judge is about to pass sentence when someone you don't even know rushes in and pays your fine for you! The court accepts the money and declares that you are free to go.
That is exactly what God did for you on the cross 2000 years ago.
Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Jesus loved you so much that he paid the penalty for your sin, so you wouldn't have to!
The Bible offers hope? Against what? Certainly not against Hell. Hell doesn't exist, so there's no chance I'll ever end up there, so why should I care what the Bible says?
And that whole $250,000 which you don't have penalty thing is a bad analogy. If you accept the Christian mythos, then you
can pay the fine by suffering in hell for all eternity. And Jesus didn't suffer an eternity in hell to pay for your sins, only a couple of days.
So a better analogy would be, you're about to be fined $250,000, which is the value of everything you own, including your house, and some guy comes in and offers to give the judge, who also happens to be his dad, $2.50 of his own money to overlook your offense and not fine you, but you have to do whatever he tells you for the rest of your life or his dad will fine you the full amount.
God has provided a way of escape.
And that is through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Ohhh, I know the answer to this one...
Nothing. Because you don't need to do anything to escape an imaginary threat.
Do I pass the test?
What exactly is this test supposed to prove? it certainly doesn't test a person's "goodness" in any measurable way. It simply plays on the fears of Christian believers in order to convince them to accept the teachings of Christ. A somewhat redundant endeavor.
How about the loving your neighbor and being meek and humble and all the other admirable virtues that these idiots ignore? What happened to those? If heaven is filled with smug, judgmental, self-righteous types, hell would be the real heaven. (Hey, look, yet another contradiction.)