5 kinds of Christians........

[Dr Drunkenstein]

.......I would be interested in knowing which group you fall in if you consider yourself a Christian:

Group #1: The entire Bible is infallible. Any perceived errors by a reader who is a non-believer are the fault of the reader.

Group #2: The Old Testament my have some flaws and/or errors but the New Testament is infallible.

Group #3: There are flaws and/or errors in both the Old and New Testaments but the basic message is correct and Jesus is the Son of God and he did rise from the dead.

Group #4: I don't know if there are flaws and/or errors in the Bible. I don't have enough knowledge about the Bible to confidently make such a statement but I would like to have that knowledge and to learn more about the Bible.

Group #5: I don't know if there are flaws and/or errors in the Bible and I have no desire to study the Bible to find out. I am a Christian and I believe what I believe and I trust others who have studied the Bible enough to rely on their opinions.

[brandymac27]

I would fall into #3, even though I'm not sure that the basic message is in fact 100% correct due to the errors.

[RammsteinSkins]

Group #3. I think the Bible doesn't clarify enough on some topics.

[Mickalino]

We're #1 !

[spjunkies]

I think I fall more into the #5 group.

[LaxBuddy21]

Group 3 as well. The bible was written by man and is therefore flawed but the message in the bible regarding being a good person and helping others and being selfless etc... is good and more people should pay attention to it rather than getting caught up in the semantics of religion.

[jobaga]

If the bible is God's words spoken to man and then written down. How is man supposed to understand everything? Shouldn't there be mistakes and misinterpretations based on the fact that man is incapable of truly understanding the word of God?

[LaxBuddy21]

If the bible is God's words spoken to man and then written down. How is man supposed to understand everything? Shouldn't there be mistakes and misinterpretations based on the fact that man is incapable of truly understanding the word of God?

The Bible is perfect crowd will say that man was inspired by the holy spirit removing the flaws in the Bible. I think its pretty obvious there are flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible for the reasons you states above. Plus, the books that were chosen for the Bible were chosen by a group of men. I also dont think the Pope is super holy either. He is elected by men and is brought up through an organization run by men. Religion itself is flawed no matter what religion you are. Its the belief that its not that causes so much hate in the world.

[CPortJGibbs89]

I think I fall more into the #5 group.

Ditto.

[Burgold]

About a year ago I met someone who told to me that he was an atheist Rabbi. It was a really strange thing to me. I can handle atheists. I can handle devout scholars. A scholar and shepherd of a religion that includes the concept of "G-d" who doesn't believe in one is very weird to me.

Now, I know there are many varieties of "cultural" Jews. Jews that are primarily Jewish because of their heritage, but who don't relieve believe, study, or follow the teachings of Judaism, but would never give up the religion that they don't follow.

Is this also true in Christianity? Is there a sixth branch. A cultural Christian who is one due to heritage and tradition, proud of his religion, but secular in almost all ways other than name?

[jobaga]

Religion itself is flawed no matter what religion you are. Its the belief that its not that causes so much hate in the world.

Not to change the subject: I don't believe it is religion that causes so much hate, its the leaders that use religion for their benefit that causes so much hate. Religion essentially tells us to treat each other with respect and kindness. Leaders will use religion to serve their agenda

[twa]

Somewhere between 3 and 1

Are we talking the original word delivered (and a full understanding of the context) or a certain version/translation existing today?

Hard for me to declare absolute infallibility when both the readers and the methodology are not.

Even if the original meaning was translated perfectly you still need to understand the occasion,customs,subject being addressed,who it is addressing and on and on.

Even a perfect translation would fall on a imperfect understanding.

The old how do you describe color to a blind man thing.

Yes Bur there are some that do so

[chipwhich]

Should be a group #6. The basic message is correct, but to try and take anything in it literally is insane. Keeping in mind, there are many translations of the bible, and they are after all translations...sometimes stuff gets lost in translation.

[brandymac27]

Somewhere between 3 and 1

Are we talking the original word delivered (and a full understanding of the context) or a certain version/translation existing today?

Hard for me to declare absolute infallibility when both the readers and the methodology are not.

Even if the original meaning was translated perfectly you still need to understand the occasion,customs,subject being addressed,who it is addressing and on and on.

Even a perfect translation would fall on a imperfect understanding.

The old how do you describe color to a blind man thing.

Yes Bur there are some that do so

There are definitely many variables to take into consideration, and the point you made about "an imperfect understanding" is definitely one of the variables.

I sometimes wonder if textual criticism is even worth studying any further b/c no matter how close to perfect we can get to the originals, not only will they still NOT be the originals, but there will always be groups/denominations that will stick to their own philosophy regardless of the work that was put into it (eg. Mormons, JW's, etc).

OTOH, I believe that textual critics should continue their work b/c I believe we all have a right to see what was in the original texts. And, hopefully, one day we may be able to have that privilege.

[brandymac27]

Is this also true in Christianity? Is there a sixth branch. A cultural Christian who is one due to heritage and tradition, proud of his religion, but secular in almost all ways other than name?

I would say definitely yes. I know quite a few "Christians" who fall more into the agnostic/atheist category than anything else. I also believe (my 2 cents) the reason why they don't denounce their religion is b/c of the backlash they'll probably receive from their friends and family. I will say though, I'm not sure if they're necessarily "proud" of their religion. I think they're more scared than anything else.

[Destino]

The fallible argument is strange because my first question is "why assume the text is wrong as opposed to your interpretation of it". Either way there is entirely too much biblical legalism at the cost of the big picture and Christianity today is more likely swayed by politics than it is specifics in the text. We just went through the economic crisis of our lifetimes and the churches barely uttered the word greed. We went right on fighting over abortion and gays instead. Sex and family values is the message of the day... as the entire world suffers under the crushing weight of greed.

As for me I'm the type of Christian that believes the bible loses tremendous value when taken literally. I prefer to just take Jesus seriously when he said, love God and love thy neighbor and the rest will work itself out.

[GhostofSparta]

Is this also true in Christianity? Is there a sixth branch. A cultural Christian who is one due to heritage and tradition, proud of his religion, but secular in almost all ways other than name?

New England Catholics. My wife is from VT and she had a few friends who went to church as kids, hit confirmation, and were excited when it happened so that they never had to go to church again. Or only to Christmas/Easter mass.

I'd say I'm around #3 myself.

[chipwhich]

The fallible argument is strange because my first question is "why assume the text is wrong as opposed to your interpretation of it". Either way there is entirely too much biblical legalism at the cost of the big picture and Christianity today is more likely swayed by politics than it is specifics in the text. We just went through the economic crisis of our lifetimes and the churches barely uttered the word greed. We went right on fighting over abortion and gays instead. Sex and family values is the message of the day... as the entire world suffers under the crushing weight of greed.

As for me I'm the type of Christian that believes the bible loses tremendous value when taken literally and takes Jesus at his word. Love God and love thy neighbor and the rest will work itself out.

Nice post.

[DeanCollins]

This smells like "you're not really a christian if you're not a number 1" to me. Only an evangelistic fundamentalist would even think like that. Why, with all the hate against Christians, from Islamic extremists and Atheists, would ECs or FCs or whatever they wish to call themselves, continue to pick fights with the rest of Christianity? Why can't you folks go about your faith without poking your righteous bible thumping finger in other people's chest?

edit: Nice post Destino, agree completely.

[stevenaa]

This smells like "you're not really a christian if you're not a number 1" to me. Only an evangelistic fundamentalist would even think like that. Why, with all the hate against Christians, from Islamic extremists and Atheists, would ECs or FCs or whatever they wish to call themselves, continue to pick fights with the rest of Christianity? Why can't you folks go about your faith without poking your righteous bible thumping finger in other people's chest?

edit: Nice post Destino, agree completely.

Maybe a reach considerig the OP's screen name. Not likely one chosen by a Fundamentalist.

[Zguy28]

I'm a number 1. The bible, in its original manuscripts is inspired and inerrant. Jesus believed it and so did the Apostle Paul.

If it is not from God, and therefore truth, what authority does it have? The answer: none.

Without the objective authority of the Scriptures, people are free to do whatever they like without suffering any kind of ultimate consequences. This is the path to idolatry and unbelief.

[chipwhich]

I'm a number 1. The bible, in its original manuscripts is inspired and inerrant. Jesus believed it and so did the Apostle Paul.

If it is not from God, and therefore truth, what authority does it have? The answer: none.

Without the objective authority of the Scriptures, people are free to do whatever they like without suffering any kind of ultimate consequences. This is the path to idolatry and unbelief.

Yeah but you left out the fact that you have never read a single thing from the bible. You have only read the americanized/roman empire translation.

You have have to understand what you are reading.

God didn't write english for you.

[Zguy28]

Yeah but you left out the fact that you have never read a single thing from the bible. You have only read the americanized/roman empire translation.

You have have to understand what you are reading.

God didn't write english for you.

You can access the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts also.

[Mickalino]

So if a person doesn't trust the Bible completely simply due to the fact that it was penned by man, that means they are trusting their own intellect instead.....which was derived by man.....see the contradiction ?

If you can't trust someone else's translation because they're man, then how can you trust your own translation if you are a man ?

[chipwhich]

You can access the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts also.

Sure but you have to understand them and be able to translate their meaning. To get the real truth you would have to read the original manuscripts. That's not what the majority of Americans do.