Who to blame for modern culture

R.C. Christian wrote

What's Anabaptists' general opinion on Jews?

I don't think they have much opinion.  I have never heard them talk about this.  With their lifestyle, they never deal with Jews.

umit wrote

fschmidt wrote

Here are my estimates of how misguided current groups are:  Modern culture (including most Christians) 90% in error.  Jews 80% in error.  Muslims 60% in error.  Traditional Anabaptists 40% in error.  And that is the best group.  So correctly following a scripture that is only 10% in error would be a vast improvement over any current group.

You understand that this is a claim with zero credibility, right?

Usually I respect you for your intellect and your objectiveness. But when I see statements like this, I get a bit dissapointed.

90% in relation to what?
Measured against which reference?
Where do these numbers come from? even an estimation should be based on something.
besides, when do you count something as an "error"...is for example everything that goes against your opinion immediately an error or is there a standard somewhere?

The context here is lost.  Your original question was:

umit wrote

Why would we settle with a scripture that contains 10% errors in it?

The act of choosing is fundamentally subjective.  We choose based on our values, and that includes choosing scripture.  And since this is subjective, I can express my subjective opinion of how much different groups are in error to explain why I would choose a scripture that contains 10% errors (or whatever small percentage).

Any scripture that contains error loses its credibility totally, because it can no more be trusted which part is true and which part is false. it totally loses its value and authority.

Why?  Just because Newton's laws are imperfect, does that make them worthless?

My view is that nothing maintained by people deserves absolute trust.  Maybe the Quran is perfect, or maybe not.  I don't know.  So for me, skepticism is still required.  I see nothing wrong with this because I don't seek certainty.  I only seek improvement.

Have you read Al-Ghazali's Path to Sufism?  He wanted certainty in interpretation, and found that no form of reasoning produces certainty, so he chose Sufism as a means to certainty.  I think his fundamental error was to seek certainty in the first place.  We don't need certainty, we just need enough confidence based on evidence and reason.

CONTENTS DELETED

I don't understand why anyone would care about the opinion about Christians when they have been practising idolatry and blasphemy for the best part of 2000 years.  

They either did so knowingly and recklessly, or they were suffering from a learning disability making them unable to grasp the concept of idolatry.  

Idolatry is the worship of anything that isn't God and Jesus, being a man, is not God.  

If they want to claim that Jesus is God, what is their evidence or argument?

Christian kingdoms that have given  up the practice of heretic burning have not been able to give any satisfactory answers to these questions.

The practice of heretic burning had the effect of discouraging awkward questions about the idolatry of the Trinity but since that practice was given up, the floodgates of disbelief have opened.