"What Kind of Christian Are You"— Quiz Results

So I stumbled across this Quiz Farm site and discovered that they have a couple of quizzes designed to show you where you fit in the spectrum of theologies that people have. Mind you, these are amateur quizzes, nothing professional, but fun to look at anyway. So I took the "What type of "Christian" theology do you hold?" Quiz. Here's what I learned about my theological position among the churches:

You Scored as A New Kind of Christian or Emergent Liberal Hippie
(aka dangerously close to not being a Christian at all)

Sigh...you are a liberal/emergent type. You tends to be suspicious of systematic theology. Why? Not because you don't read systematics, but because the diversity of theologies alarms you, and no genuine consensus has been achieved, God didn't reveal a systematic theology but a storied narrative, and no language is capable of capturing the Absolute Truth who alone is God. You tend to be very critical of traditional Christians and like to think or Christianity more like a "save the world" club then as a relationship w/God. Beware, you have found yourself in a dangerous place. Doctrine matters, truth matters, and when you leave those behind you may be very close to leaving Christianity behind with you.

82% New Kind of Christian or Emergent Liberal Hippie (aka dangerously close to not being a Christian at all)

80% Fundamentalist

72% Classic American Evangelical

70% Reformed Protestant

62% Roman Catholic

Those who know me might find that very, very funny. But I do think it shows, albeit in garbled fashion, the effect of all the NT Wright I've been reading, and the intensive study of Mark that i've been engaged in over the past year. Of course, the preachments at the end of the narrative assessment— 'Beware, you have found yourself in a dangerous place. Doctrine matters, truth matters, and when you leave those behind you may be very close to leaving Christianity behind with you'— pretty much tell you where the quiz author is coming from.

So then I thought, well, just for balance i should take the other "Theology" quiz. Here are the results of that one:

You Scored as Calvinism

You are a Calvinist. You hate eveyone that does not believe like you, you are hateful and proud. You do not witness. God can save the world without you.

80% Calvinism
75% Atheist
20% Arminian

Again, the Buddhist in me thinks this is very, very funny. Again though— it's interesting that I would score both times fairly high on the "fundamentalist" or "calvinist" index. i think the NT Wright influence shows up, and the Gospel of Mark. Only problem is, i strongly believe the bible is more literary than historical, and I don't believe in creationism or in penal substitutionary atonement. So I guess i'm not a very good fundie or calvinist. "Hateful and proud" though? "75% Atheist"? Well, perhaps in the same sense that the early Christians were persecuted for being "atheists"— didn't believe in the state/cultural gods.

So there was one more quiz on offer, the "Eucharistic Theology" Quiz. Almost to my surprise (after the other two):

You Scored as Orthodox

You are Orthodox, worshiping the mystery of the Holy Trinity in the great liturgy whereby Jesus is present through the Spirit in a real yet mysterious way, a meal that is also a sacrifice.

Orthodox— 100%
Calvin— 63%
Catholic— 50%
Zwingli— 31%
Luther— 25%
Unitarian— 0%

So there ya go! Certified "100%" Orthodox when it comes to "eucharistic theology". Interesting that a quiz about eucharistic theology would get it right— and I guess the question is, Is there really any other kind? Of theology, i mean.

Anyway, you answer most questions on a scale of 1 to 7 or some such. In almost every instance, my responses were instantaneous and were either 1, or 7— almost no "in between". Since i know the theory, history, etc behind the phrasing of many of the questions, and can't always agree with either side (Protestant or Catholic)— or do agree to some extent with both— i occasionally backed off from a full 'yes' or 'no', possibly leaning towards one side or another, but often just choosing the middle as a kind of both/and or neither/nor. For instance, "The priest transforms bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ": As we say in the prayer, 'I believe, O Lord, and I confess that this bread is truly thine own most pure body and that which is in this cup is truly thy most precious blood'— but I don't believe the priest does any "transforming" of bread and wine into anything else. More like, "I am only a witness", as he says in confession: "Send down thy holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts and make this bread to be the precious body..." etc: God does it, not the priest. So i marked the middle option: yes and no, but also neither/nor. But on the other hand, I flatly denied that 'The "accidents" remain, but the "substance" is changed.' It's not that i don't believe that the eucharist is really the body of Christ; I just totally don't buy such metaphysical constructs to "explain" anything.

Interestingly, the "What is your true religion" quiz tells me i'm 83% buddhist and only 72% christian— and at the same time, 72% atheist/agnostic!

Well, you could waste a lot of time on these things. There are 155 different religion quizzes, not counting the theology ones, I think. And though i am pretty strictly Orthodox, i'm sure at the same time i do escape most people's easy categorizations, for better or worse.

Beyond Mesopotamia: A radical new view of human civilization reported

Well, I don't know about the "radical new view". Sure, science is sober and wants to stick just with the facts— but we've had enough facts for a long time to show us that there's always been a lot more civilization in the Age of Mesopotamia and before, than just in Mesopotamia. Have major cities ever existed without major international trade? When the Third Millennium gives us not just Sumeria, Babylon, and Egypt but Ebla, Mohenjo-Daro (and see here), and others)— obviously there had to be a lot more than Mesopotamia before that. Those ancients got around! Mesopotamia: always the Middle East, not the "Near" East, as if Europe (which didn't even exist at the time!) were the center of the Universe— in fact, it's bad enough to call it the "East", in the first place— maybe we should call it the Center!

Anyway, new integrated views now about the 5th Millennium:

Beyond Mesopotamia: A radical new view of human civilization reported

A radically expanded view of the origin of civilization, extending far beyond Mesopotamia, is reported by journalist Andrew Lawler in the 3 August issue of Science.

Mesopotamia is widely believed to be the cradle of civilization, but a growing body of evidence suggests that in addition to Mesopotamia, many civilized urban areas existed at the same time— about 5,000 years ago— in an arc that extended from Mesopotamia east for thousands of kilometers across to the areas of modern India and Pakistan, according to Lawler.

“While Mesopotamia is still the cradle of civilization in the sense that urban evolution began there,” Lawler said, “we now know that the area between Mesopotamia and India spawned a host of cities and cultures between 3000 B.C.E. and 2000 B.C.E.”

Evidence of shared trade, iconography and other culture from digs in remote areas across this arc were presented last month at a meeting in Ravenna, Italy of the International Association for the Study of Early Civilizations in the Middle Asian Intercultural Space. The meeting was the first time that many archaeologists from more than a dozen countries gathered to discuss the fresh finds that point to this new view of civilization’s start. Science’s Lawler was the only journalist present.

Archaeologists shared findings from dozens of urban centers of approximately the same age that existed between Mesopotamia and the Indus River valley in modern day India and Pakistan. The researchers are just starting to sketch out this new landscape, but it’s becoming clear that these centers traded goods and could have shared technology and architecture. Recovered artifacts such as beads, shells, vessels, seals and game boards show that a network linked these civilizations.

Researchers have also found hints, such as similar ceremonial platforms, that these cultures interacted and even learned from one another. A new excavation near Jiroft in southeastern Iran, for example, has unearthed tablets with an unknown writing system. This controversial find highlights the complexity of the cultures in an area long considered a backwater, Lawler explained.

These urban centers are away from the river valleys that archaeologists have traditionally focused on, according to Lawler. Archaeologists now have access to more remote locations and are expanding their studies.

Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science. This news is brought to you by PhysOrg.com.

You can kiss that Perrier goodbye... someday

Restaurants, schools tap into local water supplies

You've heard of eating locally, but the latest fad may be drinking locally. Some restaurants and schools are starting to serve filtered tap water instead of bottled water, citing the eco-impacts of packaging and shipping a product that's already available right thar in the kitchen. But it seems that pushing pints of Perrier is such a moneymaker that only some restaurants, mostly snooty ones, can afford to quit; cutting-edgers include Alice Waters' Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and Mario Batali's Del Posto in New York. "Serving tap water is a great idea that we'd all love to be able to do, but it's not going to happen all at once," says one Manhattan restaurateur. Rockin' lunch lady Ann Cooper led Berkeley's schools to make the switch, and experts say it just makes sense. "The rationale for buying bottled water is a fantasy that has a destructive downside," says Gina Solomon of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These companies are marketing an illusion of environmental purity."

source: The New York Times, Marian Burros, 30 May 2007 via Grist Environmental News and Commentary

Pretty amazing, actually: i'm sure many of my readers remember when a glass of cold tapwater was standard at any restaurant from Woolworth's to Manhattan's best prix fixe. Now, "we'd all love to be able to do [it], but it's not going to happen all at once"! And as far as i know, the water hasn't changed much.

In fact I get pretty angry about this. One restauranteur praised Alice Waters, but said “I think she gets carried away sometimes”. Why? He wondered where he would make up the lost revenue if he eliminated bottled water.

Geoffrey Zakarian, the chef and an owner of Country in Manhattan, described the ban as “a worthy thing to do.” But he added, “You have to make a profit.”

Tom Colicchio, the chef and an owner of Craft restaurant and several spinoffs, was incredulous that restaurants would contemplate such a change. “This is the first I’ve heard of it,” he said. “Why would you do that — not from a money standpoint, but from a service and hospitality standpoint? Fifty to 60 percent prefer bottled water, especially sparkling.”

In fact, “We have been marketed to the point that [school-] children believe they can’t drink water out of the tap.” Yet "there is no reason to believe that bottled water is safer than tap water". (NYTimes)

And i read a while back that every day americans throw out enough plastic water bottles to fill Yankee Stadium!

Biologists Convert Protein Sequences into Classical Music

Check this out! UCLA molecular biologists have turned protein sequences into original compositions of classical music....

In the Shadow of Saturn

One of the most amazing things I've ever seen— The robotic Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn recently drifted in giant planet's shadow for about 12 hours and looked back toward the eclipsed Sun to see a sight unlike any other. First, the night side of Saturn is seen to be partly lit by light reflected from its own majestic ring system. Next, the rings themselves appear dark when silhouetted against Saturn, but quite bright when viewed away from Saturn and slightly scattering sunlight, in the above exaggerated color image. Saturn's rings light up so much that new rings were discovered, although they are hard to see in the above image. Visible in spectacular detail, however, is Saturn's E ring, the ring created by the newly discovered ice-fountains of the moon Enceladus, and the outermost ring visible above. Far in the distance, visible on the image left just above the bright main rings, is the almost ignorable pale blue dot of Earth.

Well, while we're at it, you might enjoy this worm's eye view of Mars. Boring!

Click either picture to view big.

Jury-Rigging the Trolls

got a newletter today from a science news feed (physorg.com) which mentioned spammers who are "trolling the Internet and collecting millions of e-mail addresses".

interesting, this word "trolling". Of course, the behavior in question is the cyberian analog of "trawling", a form of fishing in which a boat moves along slowly, dragging a net, usually to "harvest" large quantities of fish. A "troll" is an ugly short guy who lives under a bridge and grabs passers-by; there is no verb "to troll", but if there were one, presumably it would mean to be and to do what trolls are and do. But could there be such a thing as a "troller"? The mind reels... But the secretaries who type all the documents of the world of business and law, as well as those of science publications, don't know anything about trawling, so they think of "trolling" because they've read all the fairy tales, and internet spammers and the like can readily be imagined as creepy short people who hide under bridges with malicious intent, or at least as very similar to such persons.

Another example of the same kind of malapropism is "jury-rigged". In WW2, GI's would say that something patched up or cobbled together out of bubble gum, bailing wire, and spare parts was "Jerry- [i.e., 'German'] rigged". But again, no secretary/typist knows anything about WW2 GI slang, so when they hear "Jerry-rigged" on the Dictaphone, they interpret it as "jury rigging", the practice of suborning the members of a jury so as to procure a favorable verdict. So, patching something up with loose parts and bubble gum becomes an act of "jury rigging".

Suppose it's a jury of trolls?

Drives me crazy!

The Spread of Born-Againism

Interesting report here from the Pew Forum on Latino religion in the US. "About a third of all Catholics in the U.S. are now Latinos, and... more than half... identify themselves as charismatics, compared with only an eighth of non-Hispanic Catholics." About 23% of all US Hispanics are some kind of Protestant, usually evangelical, and "Latinos who are evangelicals are twice as likely as those who are Catholics to identify with the Republican Party."

None of it, here in Africa, or elsewhere, is about doctrine. People are hungry for an experience: "many of those who are joining evangelical churches are Catholic converts. The desire for a more direct, personal experience of God emerges as by far the most potent motive for these conversions. Although these converts express some dissatisfaction with the lack of excitement in a typical Catholic Mass, negative views of Catholicism do not appear to be a major reason for their conversion."

Born-againism is emerging as the face of Christendom in the 21st century, throughout the world. It certainly and completely defines Christianity in Africa, no matter what church you belong to.