Here is an interesting test to show how philosophically consistent your viewpoints are. Bearing in mind that this test was probably written by a moonbat who cares little for Calvinist doctrine, I will still answer the questions.
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures.
This quote is patently stupid to any person who is not a postmodernist dork or a wishy washy AnarcHippy named something like “Storm”. Of course there are objective moral standards; the Ten Commandments are empirically the greatest objective moral standards. Holding these values as true let the Europeans be the dominant force in the world ever since the Battle of Lepanto; defiance of the 10 Commandments is a recipe for your nation to be saturated with fornication, disrespect, violation of property, and murder.
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends.
This statement is also foolish, and the reasoning is perfectly obvious to anyone who is a Christian. The only purpose you serve with your life is to satisfy God; any deviation from His Word is morally, ethically, and rationally incorrect, and ought to be met with severe punishment. For example, man-on-sex doll fornication is not harmful to others in the physical or libertarian sense, but his inability to contain his lust damages his soul.
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead.
If people want to journey by car, let them. There are many good reasons to go by car; you spend less time going from Point A to Point B, you avoid government inefficiency (in terms of trains), you have greater security from erratic motorists (in terms of walking and cycling), you have less worry about being attacked by an urban thug, and you also get to have fun and be proud that you have accomplished more than the lazy pedestrians which riddle the sidewalk. Ridding people of their automobiles is the height of misanthropy, as is the entire “global warming” movement. Indeed, bicyclists happily murder pedestrians in San Francisco as part of the bicycle industry’s desire to force every American to own bikes and the tools needed to maintain them; Washington DC deliberately overcharges you for its Metro, then subjects you to smelly homeless people who want to urinate on you.
It is always wrong to take another person’s life.
Not always; the Bible demands that we execute people for certain crimes (the Mosaic Law is NOT repealed by the New Testament). A simple reading of the Bible should convince you, but this should convince any holdouts who are not Cafeteria Christians or heathens. Furthermore, those who actively work against Christianity deserve the death penalty, as the erosion of values is one of the greatest assaults you can commit on the body politic.
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives.
Obviously not. If you were to agree with this statement, you would have to justify every big-government spending program which came your way, since you are not allowed to consider cost efficiency. This is often used to justify irresponsibility; for example, liberals love to bleat about “criminal rehabilitation”, but fail to acknowledge that rehabilitation takes up money and time from the body politic, who should have no obligation to assist in programs which do not give a return on capital. The best answer to crime is usually execution.
There is a saying, “Give a man a fish, he’ll become a needy welfare queen. Teach a man to fish, he’ll be able to fish for the rest of his life.” Some men or women simply cannot learn how to fish; if they cannot provide compensation through other means, it is God’s will to let them perish. Failure to pay back your debts is punishable by Hellfire.
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal.
Absolutely true. You do not ultimately have the authority on whether or not to kill yourself, as it is a cowardly retreat from your Earthly duties. Only Emos, Goths, Muslims, and certain variants of New Agers want to kill themselves, anyways.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s..
Ecclesiastes 7:17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?
Homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.
Yes, although this needs explanation. While the main reason to oppose homosexuality is because God says so, He says so because of reasonable prohibitions. It is not natural to fornicate for purposes beyond procreation, but liberals like to spend their entire recreational time fornicating with various people, animals, and objects.
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence.
Absolutely. In terms of Biblical arguments, this is known as presuppositional apologetics. From a practical view, it is useless to attempt to understand liberal grievances when they ultimately seek to destroy America; even if there is no tangible evidence that Iraq Hussein Osama wants to destroy America with nuclear weapons, his actions and opinions suggest that he certainly does.
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalised.
Absolutely not. While you can legitimately argue that liberals are trying to destroy the tobacco industry through fallacious claims that tobacco causes cancer and that second hand smoke kills, other drugs were created with the intention to kill.
1 Corinthians 3: 16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
For example, alcohol is explicitly prohibited (Titus 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world); in another example, marijuana has been proven to cause degradation of the Protestant Work Ethic. Every moment spent with a drug at hand is a moment not spent creating capital or studying the Word of God.
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God.
Presuppositional apologetics says yes. Remember that God’s definition of loving and good is probably different than yours.
The second world war was a just war.
Yes. While this war may have been altruistic and was led by two largely incompetent buffoons, the main reason it was just is because it protected American interests abroad. Liberals cried and moaned about the Iraq War when we were simply trying to secure oil for ourselves; compare this to Hussein Osama’s release of America-hater Sgt. Bergdahl in exchange for 5 terrorists; both of these factions are out to deny Americans and Christians freedom. It makes you wonder why the Islamists didn’t bother to initiate the exchange earlier (perhaps because President Bush was a good man, unlike Hussein Osama).
Having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise.
No. Predestination is the only logical way to view an omniscient being. Multiverses and non-linear storytelling are thought up with the express intent of blasphemy.
It is not always right to judge individuals solely on their merits.
Incorrect. If you want to create capital, you hire people who help you create capital. Furthermore, God and Christ judge people solely on their merit to Him (faith). If you don’t accept Christ as your savior, you burn in hell, no matter how highly secular values exalt you. Given that devout Christianity is the greatest merit a person can have, a society which properly recognizes this merit will thrive to a greater extent than a society which rejects Christianity.
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste.
Piss Christ, Banksy grafitti, pornography, rap music, jazz music, video games (especially the Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout, Metal Gear Solid, and Witcher series), Dungeons & Dragons, Mecca, George Carlin, Bill Hicks… I could go on, but I think you get the point. There is plenty of anti-Christian art out there.
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form.
Yes, a basic tenant of Christianity cannot be wrong. That most scientists insist on using a materialist dichotomy should suggest their methods and their institution to be suspect.
The government should not permit the sale of health treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety.
No, the federal government has no legitimate right to examine anything unless it goes against the Bible. The free market is the best judge of such matters _ people who live by poison will die by poison, people who live by honesty will die an honest death. The FDA and other bureaucracies only exist to force a Communist agenda on market loving people.
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; “truth” is always relative to particular cultures and individuals.
Jesus is the only way. Anything which questions the wisdom established by the Bible is suspect. Truth cannot, in fact, ever be relative; we must be critical of everything within our lives, from the children’s television shows we show our kids to the highway lane to drive in.
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God.
Yes. In fact, atheists know God exists, they just choose to hate Him.
Proper sanitation and medicines are generally good for a society.
I said “disagree”, because that implies that there is an authoritative measurement of medicine beyond the Bible. “Proper sanitation” means “flouride and soy” by liberals; “proper medicines” implies that other treatments do not work, which is false. It is important to note that Hippocrates, the “founder of modern medicine”, was an ardent abortionist. Do you really want to be taking your medical doctrine by someone who didn’t hold innocent life as sacred?
In certain circumstances, it might be desirable to discriminate positively in favour of a person as recompense for harms done to him/her in the past.
No; God and God alone can compensate you for past grievances. Reparations are actually a wealth redistribution plot, ardently supported by Black Liberation Theology and Iraq Hussein Osama.
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine.
Absolutely true. Homeopathy and chelation therapy are certainly more trustworthy than vaccines, for example. Inquisitive people should look past the fact that alternative medicine is normally associated with the Left, and realize that many of the drugs labeled as “mainstream medicine” are mandated as part of Osamacare. Why else would Osamacare mandate medicine and vaccinations, if not to brainwash the body politic? If homeopathy and chelation therapy are destructive, why doesn’t Osamacare mandate them?
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood.
Terri Schiavo says no. Liberalism may suggest otherwise, but those people may not even be human, anyways.
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible.
God may have intended for the child to suffer, and perhaps grant it easier access to heaven. Man cannot hope to comprehend true justice. Indeed, people of good Christian faith who are destroyed by tornadoes, avalanches, and other disasters through no fault of their own should be considered blessed _ they are on the fast track to heaven. Keep in mind that deliberately exposing yourself to dangerous scenarios in the interest of gaining access to Heaven will be noticed by God, and will be punished by Hellfire.
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends.
The environment cannot actually be damaged, as God will provide. The assertion that the environment can be damaged is only really used by people who want us to live as gatherers (but not hunters, since suddenly meat is murder). Specifically, the Bible tells us that we are to exercise dominion over the land (Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.); if we are prevented from burning coal, we are not exercising our dominion over the land.
Michaelangelo is indisputably one of history’s finest artists.
Yes. Even though he worked for the Papists, he still had a noble Christian goal; his works are far better and more moral than those of the MTV layabouts and the rest of the idiots who comprise “pop culture”.
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies.
Not if it interferes with your own life or your unborn child’s life. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man’s ability to do great evil.
Genocide can occasionally be a good thing. Would anyone during the Cold War really be against the extermination of Communists? Would anyone really argue that the Crusades were a bad thing? If genocide was the only way to get rid of liberalism, would you not do it? I answered “disagree” precisely because genocide cannot reasonably be seen as a moral wrong in all cases.
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report.
I’m not a Holocaust denier, but historians in general cannot be trusted, as most of them disagree with James Ussher’s Biblical chronology and Ken Ham’s baraminology. Furthermore, why do historians agree upon a figure of 6 million Jewish deaths, and not 5,999,999 or 6,000,001? Did they manage to track the fate of every last Jewish person? Did they account for the Jewish people who were going to die of natural causes anyways, regardless of the Holocaust? I put “disagree”, because it’s really the only way you can deal with so called “historical realities” that you weren’t there to witness down to precise detail and which weren’t recorded in the Bible.
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.
No. If private sources or God don’t want to save lives in the developing world, those lives aren’t worth saving. I don’t want to accidentally fund the next Osama bin Laden, as the government is wont to do. Furthermore, a government only has a legitimate interest in the lives of its own citizens, and not those abroad. If a government wants to have a legitimate claim in dictating the fate of another nation in any way, it needs to conquer it or threaten it first.
The future is fixed, how one’s life unfolds is a matter of destiny.
Yes, predestination mandates this. God knows every action you will have in the future as well as your moral outcome (by definition of “omniscient”), but you probably don’t. Maybe you were predestined to be a Calvinist hater, only to accept the Truth at the end of your life. Maybe you claim to be a Christian or conservative, but start to doubt your convictions because Hussein Osama started indoctrinating you through the usage of liberal artifacts such as the American dime. Either of these are possibilities, but far from the only possibilities.
And my result?
As you’ve probably already figured out, the Philosophical Health Test has identified no tensions in your beliefs.
That’s certainly better than many of the Leftist commentators I’ve had in the past, for sure. If you are conservative and the test alleged you had cognitive dissonance, post the issue(s) the test claimed you have and either admit your wrongdoing or argue against it. If you are a liberal, libertarian, socialist, anarchist, centrist, Environmentalist, Islamist, or any other proclaimer of a degenerate political view, post your issue(s) if the test claimed you had it/them, and either admit your irrational viewpoints or let freedom lovers laugh at you.
Finally, if you want to express your disagreements on this topic, please do so by the question organization of the test.