Yes, I've taken my Catechism courses; the Christain/Catholic questions were a cinch, and the other questions were basic knowledge. You want a true level of measuring, make it a fully amalgamated quiz, all religions, all aspects, all rules/commandments/teachings, all regions, and see how much you
really know of all things religion. If the media believes Athiests are such know-it-alls about religion, bring it on. I bet you they'll fail just as bad as anyone else dedicated to other religions because they can't answer all the questions in other faiths since that wasn't what they were taught, or following depending on how long, and how dedicated to their faith they were. They should also be more in-depth about the type of person, region, gender, age, race, location, if they recently joined a faith (like a fad) or were raised in one (like most other people), the works. Some people have been raised in a faith, only to drop out of them either by losing faith, or somehow debunking it, or fooling themselves otherwise (each religion, and if you would count Atheism would have their losses. There's no such side as no side). Oh yeah, and this test should have at minimum 1 million participants (of each major faith) to yield some sort of conclusive result; with the results coming up after the last person of the lagging one submits their quiz (with more/less an additional week or 2 post-mil for it not look like it was the intention to add more buffer zone (media would have a field day with that); plus, having more exact numbers at that scale would look more believable as a time-limit-ish thing).
I hate to sound like a zealot, but this looks like fake crap that you could buy at a Spencer's outlet. I'm not sold, but the ignorant masses obviously were. I demand a recall and revamp of this test to make it less biased. BTW, with what I propose, I'm giving just about all religions a chance to be glanced at, understood somewhat, and maybe even rethought by the end by just about anyone from any (or lack of) faith.
Despite being a Catholic (born and raised), I'm tolerant of other faiths and religions (despite how some so-called "ambassadors" tend to get their message across (I mean no offense)). Heck, I'm even open to them as a means of understanding where they're coming from. I'm just not a fan of how the media and/or masses just decide to try and piss everyone off as much as possible by deciding to make mountains out of pebbles and floods out of spills when it comes to even the slightest flaw exposed from any of them (I know a good handful that would be mentioned from all different religions on the spot; prominently Christianity and the whole common fiasco that is an oldie but goldie for comedians to mention non-stop), and worshipping ignorance and bashing as a means to enlightenment (and I know some would speak the same about individual religions doing the same). Religions are essentially traditions that have stood for up to thousands of years; somehow they have a reason for why they lasted for so long, and why there are so many followers that would even die for their faith.
I don't research religions to point out the flaws, I research religions because that's part of history too.
Probably the best summary as to my point as well.
Basically, if anyone were to master the kind of test I mentioned above, it would have to be historians, regardless of origin of faith. Or at least the highest scores to ever be recorded would be priests (or equivalent) of each individual religion involved and/or historians of those faiths. That would also limit the bias as well. What job is the applicant? Are they a servant of their faith (like a priest), or are they a casual follower (like someone who goes to weekly mass), or a really casual follower that only goes during the holidays, or to make up for a night of binge drinking and going wild, or to hook up with a right-wing conservative?
BTW, the time limit should help prevent people from depending on wikipedia for all their answers since it would require getting the quotes just right (for the typing quizzes) or have more than 4 answers to choose from to make it so those who actually DO understand what the question is asking can get the answer correct. Of course, there could possibly be a variable of correctness. Like getting the line right, though getting a names wrong (like knowing the meaning or moral of a parable, but forgetting the people involved). You still get points, just not as many for getting it precisely correct.
Unfortunately, thinking of that, it would probably take too much time to not only get made (research and compiling), but it would probably turn away too many people (faithful or not) for being too complex, or "supporting or advertising people to join other faiths" (or something equally stupid), or the pride of people would get the best of them and they don't want to be regarded as unfaithful, or (despite anonymity) attacked by other websites (like 4chan) or programs (like Daily Show or Real Time) for either being too smart or too dumb, or just being a blind follower of a faith or some stupid crap like that. All I can say about that is grow some damn balls.
Author
Topic: Test Your Religious Knowledge (Read 6406 times)