Min's Spiritual IQ Test. Is it sincere or pulling our legs?

[Ladewig]

http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/danieljosephmin/Mins_Spiritual_IQ_Test.htm

100 questions related to spirituality and religion - every affirmative answer adds two points to one's overall spiritual intelligence quotient and every negative answer subtracts two points from the total.

When I first started reading through the test, it became obvious that the writer held the postion that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God, but when I got to questions about crop circles, alien trans-dimensional spaceships, and genuine psychics (including "such as greats like [sic] James Van Praagh and Derek Acorah) I began to wonder if the whole thing is a joke.

The only way to acheive a perfect score is to hold contradictory beliefs (e.g. Heaven and Hell are physical locations and souls are reincarnated).

The scoring scale also seemed a bit over the top:

Scores over 180 indicate an especially enlightened soul, a spiritual adept.
Scores from 140 to 180 means you’re erudite, but could use more refinement.
Scores below 140 are borderline neurotic, even psychotic, aberrant psyche.
Scores below 100 betrays inveterate incapacity for independent thought.
Scores below 50 indicates severe, basket-case dissociation from reality.
Scores of 0 and below can only be described as sociopathic, the antichrist.

The vast majority of the posters at JREF would fall well below negative 90.

So is this guy serious or is it all a joke?

[Ladewig]

Opps. I posted this thead in the wrong forum. I had meant to put it in Religion and Philosophy

[Rob Lister]

You'd think the website would use the tools god gave them...like controls.

[c4ts]

Oh my lack of god, he's invented the false trichotomy! Either you completely accept everything without thought, you reject it without thought, or you are in this place called "limbo" which has the paranormal ability to screw up correct punctuation.

[Apathia]

This isn't a test of spirtuality. It's just a test of beliefs.
If you can believe six impossible things before breakfast, your an Adept and a total flake.

[Kopji]

Sincere.
Needs a name though.

[Beady]

Ah, yes. Daniel Joseph Min, the internet's most-failed prophet. I once had to go to extraordinary lengths to get his anonymous remailer to stop sending me spam. You will, too, if you do anything to draw his attention.

See here (http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Buffoon.html) and here (http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2005/05/19/daniel-joseph-min.html).

[Beerina]

3) Do you support the United States dominating the freeworld--even the

whole world--by spreading freedom of religion and freedom of speech,

democracy, technology, peace and prosperity to all nations on Earth?



[ ] A - Yes (I’m an American patriot with moderate-to-conservative values)

[ ] B - No (“freedom”, “democracy”, it’s all just wishful-thinking garbage)

[ ] C - Unsure (but what if I’d rather stay neutral on the matter, maybe?)


I fail to see how yes and no are particularly spiritual or not -- the test appears to be trying to align spiritual woo-wooism with being a right winger in politics.

One wonders how blocking Joe from punching Frank in the nose because Frank thinks some wood nymph is named "Bubble" instead of "Bubbel" is "imposing our arbitrary worldview" on anyone. Frank, for one, thanks us. Joe, for one, waxes indignant about the value of self-determination, attempting to take advantage of the shaky, weak philosophies of Western "useful idiots", who derive certitude in their positions from the moral approval of others.

[Beerina]

30) Do you believe in the power of victory and divine self-confidence, in

the self-preservation and self-propagation of every species of life;

and not only in the physical, but in the realms of spirit as well?



[ ] A - Yes (victory, divine-self, is one of the ten supreme powers of God)

[ ] B - No (only Atheists are self-confident; everyone else is brain-dead)

[ ] C - Unsure (I think that I might be self-confident, sometimes, maybe?)

[X] D - WTF are you talking about?!?!?!?

[Ladewig]

I found this thread while I was looking for something else.

Why so many Planet X votes?

[Beerina]

As usual, some of the questions are clownish and aren't even properly aligned, so to speak:

3) Do you support the United States dominating the freeworld--even the

whole world--by spreading freedom of religion and freedom of speech,

democracy, technology, peace and prosperity to all nations on Earth?



[ ] A - Yes (I’m an American patriot with moderate-to-conservative values)

[ ] B - No (“freedom”, “democracy”, it’s all just wishful-thinking garbage)

[ ] C - Unsure (but what if I’d rather stay neutral on the matter, maybe?)

So if I choose A, a perfectly rational answer for an athiest, I'm somehow more spiritual? Indeed, that this goofball sees no rationality in freedom for its own sake (to say nothing of the brutal observation that it works to advance prosperity) is somwhat telling, and scary.


Oh well, there goes my 0 antichrist score. :mad:


Did anybody else get this feeling while reading it?

Janine: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?

Winston: If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Oh well, there goes my 0 antichrist score. :mad:
You can still get the 0 antichrist score, since every B answer actually deducts points from your total. I didn't bother keeping an exact count, but I am well over 100 points negative.

And the scoring system blows. It's a silly pet peeve of mine, I know, but I hate scoring systems in which every response is worth the same absolute value (or zero) and the value is anything other than 1. There's no reason to have a -200 - 200 scale when a -100 - 100 scale would cover all outcomes with a nice neat integer.

[Ladewig]

As usual, some of the questions are clownish and aren't even properly aligned, so to speak:

It is a simple task to find many questions that are completely nutty.

I was interested in determining if it was written by a sincere nutjob who thinks his questions are accurate and insightful or by someone parodying that type of nutjob. I now think he is completely sincere.

[Ladewig]

You can still get the 0 antichrist score, since every B answer actually deducts points from your total. I didn't bother keeping an exact count, but I am well over 100 points negative.

And the scoring system blows. It's a silly pet peeve of mine, I know, but I hate scoring systems in which every response is worth the same absolute value (or zero) and the value is anything other than 1. There's no reason to have a -200 - 200 scale when a -100 - 100 scale would cover all outcomes with a nice neat integer.

I think he noticed that people with high IQs have scores between 150 and 200 and tried, very unsuccessfully, to copy that range.

[Mister Earl]

Considering that I.Q. stands for "Intelligence quotient", which is a method of measuring the capacity of an individual to learn, I would think that a "higher spirituality" would actually give you a negative score.

[Nogbad]

My spirituality must be very low - I was bored to tears by the third question and gave up. :rolleyes:

[Cactus Wren]

He's also written a ten-question Christian Litmus Test (http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/Mins_Xian_Litmus_Test.htm). Sample questions:

3) Do you support abolishing hard-line, Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion, and replacing it
with law-abiding freedom of speech and law-abiding freedom of
religion, such that all responsible, civilized and respectful
beliefs, theories, opinions, observations, tests, conclusions,
sciences, textbooks, etc., be included in the curriculum of
all public schools in all 50 States of the United States of
America, beginning in kindergarten, using kindergarten-level
curriculum, and all the way through high school, using high-
school level curriculum, adding college, postgraduate, or even
doctorate level for highly-gifted students, the point being to
help each student nurture and develop their own, unique talent
and skills, to realize their full potential, and do so without
any exception for anyone, meaning that the religious beliefs,
opinions, theories etc. of even law-abiding orthodox Atheists
must be included and respected by non-Atheists, and this must
be instituted nationwide, entirely without exception bar none?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
--------------------------------------------------------------
4) Do you, as a self-professed "Christian", support and respect
the tremendous diversity of law-abiding speech and law-abiding
religion within and outside of the global "Christian" community,
realizing that, because no two people ever agree on everything,
then each law-abiding individual human being is in fact his or
her own, walking, talking (excepting the handicapped), living,
breathing religion-in-the-flesh, such that no version, brand,
sect, or schism of Christianity, or of any other religion for
that matter, Atheism included, should ever become a monopoly
in government, as Atheism has become in America, since 1947
when Atheism was first ruled to be America's official State
religion, thereby effectively barring all other, non-Atheist
beliefs, views, opinions, religions, teachings, sciences etc.
from government, this, by ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[Beerina]

Someone resurrected this thread, and I forgot about it and responded to the exact same idiotic question. I prefer my answer from a year and a half ago to my recent one. :)

[biomorph]

looks like i got a "pass"
i got so far and gave up at "minus 100+"

Scores of 0 and below can only be described as sociopathic, the antichrist.

I'm not sure about the sociopathic bit, the rest i can live with........:duck:

[Darth Rotor]

The following test should take less than one hour to complete, and no more than fifteen minutes to score and summarily evaluate
Life's too short to measure one's spirituality with a dipstick created by a dipstick.

DR

[Fnord]

" ... souls are reincarnated ... "

No, souls are ressurrected. Spirits are reincarnated.

At least, that's what it says in my Dungeon Master's Guide...

;)

[Fnord]

Why so many Planet X votes?

It's just a guess, but I voted "Planet X" because the poll did not include an answer that said:

[X] "It's totally bogus, and the motivations for it are irrelevant."

[Ladewig]

It's just a guess, but I voted "Planet X" because the poll did not include an answer that said:

[X] "It's totally bogus, and the motivations for it are irrelevant."

O.K.

Everyone else, what were your reasons for Planet X?

[Lord Emsworth]

O.K.

Everyone else, what were your reasons for Planet X?

Because someone in this thread kept on bringing up the Planet X option. :p

On a more serious note, I chose that option as a substitute for the (non-existent) I don't have the slightest clue option. See also: Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poe%27s+law)

[Ladewig]

See also: Poe's Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poe%27s+law)


Yes, I am familiar with it. In fact, I started the thread hoping to learn something about how to distinguish authentic fundamentalist ideas from parody fundamentalist ideas.

[Fnord]

It another form, Poe's Law states: "Any sufficiently adept parody of religion is indistinguishable from religion."

... I started the thread hoping to learn something about how to distinguish authentic fundamentalist ideas from parody fundamentalist ideas.

1) If the religion hasn't changed much for about 1000 years then it is "authentic".

Christianity v. Scientology

2) If any of its original apostles (or anyone who knew them personally) are still alive, then it is a parody.

The apostle Paul (ne Saul of Tarsus) v. L. Ron Hubbard

These aren't absolute rules, but they seem to work most of the time.

[Lord Emsworth]

It another form, Poe's Law states: "Any sufficiently adept parody of religion is indistinguishable from religion."

Where do you have that from? It mentions fundamentalists or fundamentalism (political or religious) and not religion per se.

[Fnord]

Where do you have that from? It mentions fundamentalists or fundamentalism (political or religious) and not religion per se.

"Any sufficiently adept parody of religion is indistinguishable from religion."

This is the "General Theory" form as I originally learned it back in the 1970's. The form that mentions fundamentalism is the newer "Special Theory" form. The latter addresses a subset of the former. Both work.

HOWEVER, in it's actual, original form, "Poe's Law" is a Christian theological principle that states: "Elements of the Gospel speak to different levels of spiritual concern in different cultures at different times." It is taught to modern evangelists as a way to better target the message of the Gospel to different audiences for maximum salvific efficacy. The law was named after theologian Dr. Harry Lee Poe, a cousin of Edgar Allan Poe, who promoted the concept in his book "The Gospel and Its Meaning: A Theology for Evangelism and Church Growth."

According to the original form of Poe's Law, evangelists should emphasize the radical aspect of Jesus in order to appeal to today's spirited youths.

It has since been appropriated ("jacked") by Internet users into its current form, which states: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

So you see, what we both currently know as "Poe's Law" originated in the Christian evangelical movement of the 1800's. Both forms that we know today as "Poe's Law" are derived -- however remotely -- from a statement made by a Christian evangelist over a century ago.

[Ladewig]

"Any sufficiently adept parody of religion is indistinguishable from religion."

This is the "General Theory" form as I originally learned it back in the 1970's. The form that mentions fundamentalism is the newer "Special Theory" form. The latter addresses a subset of the former. Both work.

HOWEVER, in it's actual, original form, "Poe's Law" is a Christian theological principle that states: "Elements of the Gospel speak to different levels of spiritual concern in different cultures at different times."

How do you know that the parody version of the law is related to the Gospel version of the law? It strikes me a being very possible that we are talking about two different Poes.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: the linked site in Lord Emsworth's post says that the newer version is named after Nathan Poe.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
p.s. to L.E. Them are some nice pigs you have there.

[Lord Emsworth]

"Any sufficiently adept parody of religion is indistinguishable from religion."

This is the "General Theory" form as I originally learned it back in the 1970's. The form that mentions fundamentalism is the newer "Special Theory" form. The latter addresses a subset of the former. Both work.

HOWEVER, in it's actual, original form, "Poe's Law" is a Christian theological principle that states: "Elements of the Gospel speak to different levels of spiritual concern in different cultures at different times." It is taught to modern evangelists as a way to better target the message of the Gospel to different audiences for maximum salvific efficacy. The law was named after theologian Dr. Harry Lee Poe, a cousin of Edgar Allan Poe, who promoted the concept in his book "The Gospel and Its Meaning: A Theology for Evangelism and Church Growth."

According to the original form of Poe's Law, evangelists should emphasize the radical aspect of Jesus in order to appeal to today's spirited youths.

It has since been appropriated ("jacked") by Internet users into its current form, which states: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.

So you see, what we both currently know as "Poe's Law" originated in the Christian evangelical movement of the 1800's. Both forms that we know today as "Poe's Law" are derived -- however remotely -- from a statement made by a Christian evangelist over a century ago.

It is just chance that the two laws bear the same name, they are completely and utterly unrelated. Nathan Poe is a poster on Christian Forums, and somehow (don't ask me for exact details) the phenomenon of not being able to tell the parodies from the real things (esp. with creationists) has become known as Poe's Law over there. But the inspiration is the username Nathan Poe, and not that older theological Law, which we can safely (continue to) forget anyway.

[Fnord]

The linked site in Lord Emsworth's post says that the newer version is named after Nathan Poe.

Gwarsh! I dun bin ejimikated!

Thanks!

[Fnord]

... the inspiration is the username Nathan Poe, and not that older theological Law, which we can safely (continue to) forget anyway.

Not so safely ... for evangelicals, it's one of their favorite tools, and they'd be less effective without it. For the rest of the world, it would be better to remember how evangelicals operate, in order to better thwart their methods.

[Lord Emsworth]

Not so safely ... for evangelicals, it's one of their favorite tools, and they'd be less effective without it. For the rest of the world, it would be better to remember how evangelicals operate, in order to better thwart their methods.

I guess I should have used a smiley with that last sentence above. :p