Welcome to Gaia! ::

Try this quiz to see what theological figure your views of Christianity are closest to.

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=44116

You may not have heard of all the guys, so I have linked to their Wiki pages below my own results, in the order I scored for them. You should know a couple by name at least. Calvinism is a very popular and hated (depending on who you ask within each church) school of thought within Christianity. Martin Luther was the father of the Protestant movement and Lutherism. Augustine was a core writer of the Catholic Church and centerpost of the Protestant doctines on salvation. He inspired most of the others on the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jürgen_Moltmann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grandison_Finney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury

Interesting. Would you say you were Calvinist at all? Your top one was Calvin based.

It is strange that on another forum there were about twenty Christians from various churches who took this. None Scored very highly for Finney, although a few got good marks on Calvin.

I lost the data thingie...but it sayd that i was 100% Anselm (i think) and that I was a passionate person about God and knew the meaning of the cuxification of Christ

something like that ^^||

Moltmann-----73%
Luther---------73%
John Calvin----67%
Anselm---------67%
Charles Finney-53%
Karl Barth-------53%
Johnathan Edwards---47%
Augustine---------47%
Friedrich Schleiemacher---40%
Paul Tillich---------7%


Theirs mine. biggrin

Grr.. Me NO CALVIN!!! GRR>>>

You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'
I disagreed with much of the questions, mainly becuase they could be taken more than one way. I really just consider myself myself, and only a follower of Christ. I come up with the theology as I need to, instead of finding someone's elses theology and using that. In other words, I believe what I believe, but I don't know what I believe untill it is time for me to know.


Note- it seemed not to copy and paste correctly.

That is the problem. His most famous argument for God was an argument from oversimplify the case and missing steps in the logic. If you look at it, the argument is;

1) I can imagine a God that is more perfect than anything else.
2) Assume that this being only exists in my mind.
3) Anything that exists in reality is more perfect than anything that only exists as a concept.
4) Therefore anything with a real existance is more perfect than that concept of God.
5) As 1) and 4) are contradictions, because of 2), there must be a falicy within these arguments.
6) I can conceve of God, so 1) is true.
7) Therefore 2) must be false, and so God must be real.

Problems here include the concept of perfect. Why should something that exists instantly be more perfect than something that doesn't? Whats more, how do you know that this concept of God that you can hold in your head is equal to any real God? Your concept may not be correct, so 1) is the false argument, not 2).

And using such an argument is an instant dismissal of your whole argument from any decent debate.

I must recomend this site. It lists 42 common logical falicies, any one of which will destroy any argument it is included in;
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Common Creationist errors that I have seen used, although many are used by low quality evolutionary debators as well;
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html - Attacking the person rather than the argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html - Claiming that a particular scientist or indervidual in a particular position has a certain view, so that view is correct.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html - Claiming a belief as a fact.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html - Claiming that something commonly accepted must be true or factualy based/moral.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html - Claiming that there will be definate consiquences of taking a certain viewpoint, so it should be abandoned.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html - Claiming majority opinion dictates reality.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html - Just laughing at an argument rather than actualy understanding or countering it.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html - Claiming that something that has survived for a long time must be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html - Claiming that everyone who wants to be recognised in a certain group must have a certain viewpoint. Often used, cruely, to force Christians to deny evolution, even if they understand the theory and would otherwise accept it. The cause of the Dover court case.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html - The basis for all arguments again Radiocarbon dating. Only taking a sample from an area where the data is not going to fit what you claim are the predictions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html - Shifting the burdon of proof to the other side when it is on you.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html - Claiming it is in someones best interest to take a certain viewpoint, and so they can't be trusted and must be lieing.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html - Confusing causality with correlation.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html - Where you claim that a part of something has the same properties as the whole.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html - Claiming that there is a definate and direct choice between two opposed options when there is really no black and white answer there.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/gamblers-fallacy.html - Claiming that the odds always work out exactly along the average, so any random streaks of luck or the like will even out on the shortterm as well as long term.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html - Claiming the argument you are using is the arguments own evidence.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html - Basicaly the case of claiming that evil or disliked people believed something, so it must be wrong or rejected out of hand. Hitler argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html - Making a claim about a large group from a small sample. For example, one small amount of coallike substance was created quickly, so all coal was made quickly.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html - The argument that, with two polar opposite views, there must be a middle ground where the truth rests. Sometimes the truth is one of those polar opposites. An ID/theistic evolution/old earth creationist argument.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html - A claim that because an unlikely event happened once, it can't be that unlikely after all.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html - Claiming that a particular indervidual must be lieing for any reason, forcing them out of the debate before they can start.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html - Distracting an argument from a certain area by bringing in a marginaly related topic you prefer to argue. For example, bringing in the Big Bang when arguing evolution.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html - Claiming that something objective is relative, so can be dismissed by your own opinion as validly as a belief.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html - Claiming that accepting an idea will lead through a series of certain steps, leading to some undesireable conclusion - normaly something like evolutionary thinking will lead to eugenics.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html - Claiming that, while everyone else is subject to certain rules, you aren't.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/spotlight.html - Claiming that because something is well known or very publicised, it must be true or the publicised version is the only version out there.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html - Building a theory that resembles that that you are arguing against, but which contains falicies you created yourself to knock down with arguments later. Claims about evolution here include the classic Monkey to Man concept of evolution.

You scored as Anselm.

Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm 87%

Friedrich Schleiermacher 80%

Martin Luther 80%

Jonathan Edwards 67%

Charles Finney 67%

J�rgen Moltmann 60%

John Calvin 53%

Karl Barth 47%

Augustine 40%

Paul Tillich 27%

That is not right. neutral

Thought I hit Preview...