The "Are you a good person" quiz

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually it's not. Read Romans 10:10-17. Actually read any of these verses http://www.openbible.info/topics/evangelism

If no one told me the Gospel i'd still be lost so I personally disagree with you, and scripture doesn't seem to back up your opinion either.
Tell you what then. You tell people they are liars, murderers and thieves like in the test, and I will do my best to exemplify a loving and merciful God which I believe is the central message of Christianity.
 
Do you believe that the Bible is inspired by God?
GIS, I think what PLR is getting at is that the exercise is attempting to use the hyperbolic words of the Bible and apply it where it would not apply.

To date I've seen no Churches advocating for men to blind themselves in order to avoid looking at women lustfully, and let's be honest, 98% of men do. And that's what the Bible commands.

What my friend is getting at here is that this test is pretending to be a judicial survey, but its methodology is so utterly hyperbolic that no reasonable person is going to be moved by it. These passages in question had particular purposes that are not necessarily best understood in the legal context.

Let me put it to you this way. If your angry with someone, should you just go ahead and murder them since you're technically a murderer anyway? Or is there some real difference between anger and actually commissioning murder? Is it not murder if you kill someone without being angry?
 
Last edited:
While I don't think this is particularly the best approach of evangelism (not because it's offensive--offending people is bound to happen--but because it's so watered down and simplistic rather than direct and simple), the concept is right.

Someone already mentioned that this is the Ray Comfort/Living Waters approach. It is--verbatim in fact--and while I often get annoyed by the Ray Comfort crew, the idea isn't wrong. Actually, I'd defend Ray Comfort on it. The problem is the approach. It is offered so generally that it doesn't speak to the individual but to the stranger if that makes sense. But even more so, it really avoid the act of repentance and what that is, which probably ought to have much more of a focus than what not to do.

When my wife and I were in Ocean City last month, we were stopped by someone on the boardwalk. He was trained by Ray Comfort. We were asked these very questions and when we answered them and tried to turn the second part of the questions on him (not to corner, but to get some serious dialog going), he continued to dodge. He didn't want to discuss grace and faith, he didn't want to discuss reverence of worship. It was very bizarre.
 
Last edited:

Huntingteckel

Inactive
I don't find this type of evangelizing to have any worth. Honestly, even talking on a street corner generally does nothing for people. How often has a complete stranger made you completely change your life? I would say it doesn't happen often. If that doesn't happen often then I'd say a quiz calling you a murderer and liar would be even less effective, possibly to the point of being damaging.
 
Simple really,
Mark 10:18. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
Luke 18:19. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
So unless we are God, we can not be called good.
Simple really.
 
I can't condemn someone too harshly for trying to convince people of their need for a Savior. I will give the person/people who created this quiz the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were not trying to be obnoxious but were actually trying to help people.

HOWEVER...

An online quiz like this seems like a very ineffective method of evangelism. I tried to answer the questions the way a non-Christian would and it left me feeling, maybe not offended, but definitely frustrated and annoyed. It was like being on the receiving end of a sales pitch with no way to ask honest questions or discuss anything in greater detail. Plus the cartoon face that changed from a smile to a frown was annoying.

I would rather have an honest discussion with someone about faith and let them ask questions and go at their own pace rather than essentially reciting the same evangelism script to everyone no matter what their situation is.
 

Huntingteckel

Inactive
I can't condemn someone too harshly for trying to convince people of their need for a Savior. I will give the person/people who created this quiz the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were not trying to be obnoxious but were actually trying to help people.

HOWEVER...

An online quiz like this seems like a very ineffective method of evangelism. I tried to answer the questions the way a non-Christian would and it left me feeling, maybe not offended, but definitely frustrated and annoyed. It was like being on the receiving end of a sales pitch with no way to ask honest questions or discuss anything in greater detail. Plus the cartoon face that changed from a smile to a frown was annoying.

I would rather have an honest discussion with someone about faith and let them ask questions and go at their own pace rather than essentially reciting the same evangelism script to everyone no matter what their situation is.
Good post. I agree.
 
I can't condemn someone too harshly for trying to convince people of their need for a Savior. I will give the person/people who created this quiz the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were not trying to be obnoxious but were actually trying to help people.

HOWEVER...

An online quiz like this seems like a very ineffective method of evangelism. I tried to answer the questions the way a non-Christian would and it left me feeling, maybe not offended, but definitely frustrated and annoyed. It was like being on the receiving end of a sales pitch with no way to ask honest questions or discuss anything in greater detail. Plus the cartoon face that changed from a smile to a frown was annoying.

I would rather have an honest discussion with someone about faith and let them ask questions and go at their own pace rather than essentially reciting the same evangelism script to everyone no matter what their situation is.
Thank you. That is a very well balanced reply IMO.
A few years ago we were 'trained' to go out and hit on people with the "Two ways to live" program. It used commercial hype like "closing the deal" and so on. It failed to relate the gospel to the person. It was just a packaged product.
Ohh well.....Jesus will continue to build His Church despite our 'helpful' input.
 
Simple really,
Mark 10:18. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
Luke 18:19. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
So unless we are God, we can not be called good.
Simple really.
Good is one thing. Murderer is another.
 
Simple really,
Mark 10:18. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
Luke 18:19. And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
So unless we are God, we can not be called good.
Simple really.

We can have good in us though. God is the source of goodness, but it can reflect from us and eminate in us if we have the Spirit in us.

My problem with it is that it doesn't actually appeal to justice. It tries to, because most people think well, I'm probably going to heaven because I stay away from the major sins. So they're trying (ineffectively) to convict us of those. Problem is I am simply never going to believe that stealing a paper clip warrants external torment in hell.

I was reading the book 23 minutes in hell today and it struck me that the author uses practically identical apologise to defend hell. I'm sure both him and others have good intention but honestly I don't feel like they really give individuals who question hell the proper attention and they're not justifying it well. I personally hear of more people loosing their faith because of the doctrines about it.
 
We can have good in us though. God is the source of goodness, but it can reflect from us and eminate in us if we have the Spirit in us.

My problem with it is that it doesn't actually appeal to justice. It tries to, because most people think well, I'm probably going to heaven because I stay away from the major sins. So they're trying (ineffectively) to convict us of those. Problem is I am simply never going to believe that stealing a paper clip warrants external torment in hell.

I was reading the book 23 minutes in hell today and it struck me that the author uses practically identical apologise to defend hell. I'm sure both him and others have good intention but honestly I don't feel like they really give individuals who question hell the proper attention and they're not justifying it well. I personally hear of more people loosing their faith because of the doctrines about it.
That's because you don't understand sin then. I'm sure Adam and Eve didn't think eating a fruit would cause so many problems but as we can see even a 'tiny' sin ended up leading to the murder of Abel by his own brother. Sin is sin and although you may think a 'tiny' sin is not something worth eternal punishment you have to take into consideration that you have been corrupted and once that seed of sin is planted it only gets worse. It goes a lot deeper than what you think. When you have defied God you have in effect defied what is good for what is evil. You have in effect already killed yourself at the first 'tiny' sin because we know the horrid things sin leads to and that God said sin leads to death. What is stopping a sinner from eventually getting worse if they can't even follow God who is good on a tiny thing? I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top