Yes, but only if the Christian him or herself is claiming that it makes a difference.
Well that's when it comes up. For me it's usually in the context of a discussion of homosexuality or gay marriage. The Christian will assert that these actions would be sins, according to their Bible. Then I have to point out to them certain facts about their Bible, of which they were ignorant. Their preacher or equivalent told them it was a sin; they didn't read the Bible themselves to find out.
I think we're conflating several levels/issues here: You've talked about how Christians should know how their bible was "written" (it was actually redacted). And you've talked about how Christians should know what's actually in the bible. Those are two different things.
Yes.
My position is this:
If there's a Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord and tries to be like Jesus and tries to do good, I see no reason to say that he or she is not a "good" Christian because she or he thinks Moses was one of the 12 apostles. And I certainly see no basis upon which to say that he or she is not a good Christian because she or he doesn't know that the gospels weren't recorded until decades after Jesus' death.
I would never presume to pass judgment on whether someone is a "good" Christian, nor do I care. I care whether they are a good person and how they treat me. Remember, to me a good Christian may be someone who does a thorough job of burning down my village, so that doesn't interest me much. *see below. Anyway, it seems to me that if they want to be like Jesus, they obviously need to learn at a minimum what Jesus was like, no? But to me there's always a meta-question: How do we know that there was a Jesus, what, if anything, He actually did, His nature, relationship to God, etc. So if you're saying that we know all that stuff because the Bible tell us, then I would think your next questions would be about the Bible, who wrote it, how we know it's true, etc.
If there's a Christian who is out preaching that abortion is a sin (moral issue), then I think it perfectly legitimate to point out that the bible carries no such injunction and that he or she ought to be more familiar with the text from which she or he is moralizing.
Exactly. This usually comes up in the context of a discussion of issues such as that. I can't count how many times Christians have told me that homosexuality, including lesbianism, is strictly prohibited by their religion, and I have pointed out to them that lesbianism is not prohibited at all, unlike say remarriage after divorce, which clearly is. Everyone here is sick of hearing it from me, no doubt. Furthermore, I've had Christians tell me that it doesn't matter, they know it's a sin anyway!
(1) It's a sin because the Bible says so.
(2) Actually, the Bible doesn't say so.
(3) It's a sin anyway.
What?
And if there's a Christian who is out preaching that the world was created in six days because the bible says so (science issue), then I think it perfectly legitimate to point out the history of the bible, its multiple authors, redactions, problems with translations, etc.
Yes, true. But the main way this comes up for me is in a discussion about the existence of God and validity of their religion. The Christian will argue that, for example, they know that God exists because of the Bible. So obviously they're relying on the Bible as their source/authority for the assertion that God exists and is named Yahweh, created the earth, gave us commandments, gave His only begotten son, etc. So then the next obvious question is: why believe the Bible? So it follows that they should have some knowledge about why they consider the Bible to authoritative. But what you find is that it's axiomatic; they've never asked the question. They just assume that the Bible is the word of God, as well as evidence of God. Say what?
*re: good Christian. This reminds me of an internet interaction with a very well known contributor to TWeb, jpholding. He is a real schmuck who insults and derides anyone who takes issue with Christianity as he sees it, and when challenged, asserts that it is Biblical to call non-believers rude names, and then cites scripture in support of being a jerk in this way. I always agreed heartily with him that his religion requires him to act like a jerk, but that being an atheist I am free from such a requirement.
