I love reading Peter's writings in The Atlantic and agreed with everything he said here in today's conversation. The one place I'd push back a little as an atheist lefty is that even though a lot of us aren't familiar with the evangelical world from a personal standpoint--outside of those who have left that community and became atheists as a result--I'd still say that it is often easier to see what is wrong with a community from the outside as opposed to those inside of it who can become oblivious to their community's downward trajectories. Outside of the obvious example of the Bulwark hosts themselves who couldn't see the rot forming within the GOP until it was too late and Trump was their nominee, I've had my own personal experiences with this in taking a look back at the progressive movement that I used to be knee-deep inside of. It wasn't until stuff like the Gaza protests we're seeing on campuses today that I can now look back at Charlie's warning about the antisemitism on the left--well before the 10/7 attacks I should note--with the greater alarm I should have had back then. Like I said, normally it's easier for people on the outside of these in-groups to see the rot than it is for those on the inside. What I do know is that lots of what hard lefties have long said about the religious nationalism in the evangelical movement turned out to be quite right when you look at things like the rise of church militias, pushing Christianity harder into schools/politics, and the post-Dobbs state-level actions around abortion/IVF.
I'll add a final funny thing I always here from those who leave the Evangelical/Southern Baptist churches and find atheism afterwards, and it's that they find their atheism after reading the bible themselves without a preacher in the middle. It's like Isaac Asimov used to say (paraphrasing): "the fastest way to make an atheist is to have them read the bible."
Reading the Bible for oneself without proper guidance is the source of most heresies. Most people who read the Bible don't become atheists; rather, they pick out their favorite parts and build their own versions of Christianity based on stupid interpretations of peculiar verses taken out of context.
The same could be said of reading it with "proper guidance," since there are so many sects/variations of Christianity whose priests all have different interpretations themselves. They can't all be right, but they *can* all be wrong. "Cafeteria Christianity" comes directly from the preachers, priests, and pastors of all the different sects, not just from unguided followers.
Among biblical scholars, there is not all that much conflict these days. Biblical scholarship is a Judeo-Christian collaborative effort that crosses denominational lines. And it is always advancing, as we gain more access to ancient texts and reconstruct the ancient worldview(s) behind the scriptural texts. If there is disagreement over scripture these days, it comes mostly from people who can't keep up with the scholarship and therefore teach the out-of-date stuff they learned in seminary. But even that is a minor source of conflict.
Most religious conflict comes not from actual interpretation of scripture, but from would-be teachers who put their worldly concerns above scripture. That is, essentially, what fundamentalism is.
"Most religious conflict comes not from actual interpretation of scripture, but from would-be teachers who put their worldly concerns above scripture."
So when people find "guidance"--even in the churches, it ain't always the right sort of guidance.
"Among biblical scholars, there is not all that much conflict these days."
So Catholicism and Protestantism have finally squared that circle? I'm doubtful.
You are showing why it is difficult for an outsider to offer valid critiques of religious practice. You seem to be under the impression that churches use the Bible - and their interpretations thereof - as the actual basis of everything they believe and do. Only a few Protestants even claim to do that, and even they don't actually do it.
Moreover, we live in a neo-Protestant culture where Christians - often including Catholics - have been reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves for a few centuries. They do not always look for any guidance at all, let along scholarly guidance or official denominational guidance. Do-it-yourself American religion did not start with New Agers. Christians have been doing it since colonial times, and continually inventing new heresies. That is, historically, what happens when people interpret scripture for themselves.
The remaining conflicts between Catholics and Protestants have little to do with interpretation of Scripture.
"Do-it-yourself American religion did not start with New Agers. Christians have been doing it since colonial times, and continually inventing new heresies."
I love reading Peter's writings in The Atlantic and agreed with everything he said here in today's conversation. The one place I'd push back a little as an atheist lefty is that even though a lot of us aren't familiar with the evangelical world from a personal standpoint--outside of those who have left that community and became atheists as a result--I'd still say that it is often easier to see what is wrong with a community from the outside as opposed to those inside of it who can become oblivious to their community's downward trajectories. Outside of the obvious example of the Bulwark hosts themselves who couldn't see the rot forming within the GOP until it was too late and Trump was their nominee, I've had my own personal experiences with this in taking a look back at the progressive movement that I used to be knee-deep inside of. It wasn't until stuff like the Gaza protests we're seeing on campuses today that I can now look back at Charlie's warning about the antisemitism on the left--well before the 10/7 attacks I should note--with the greater alarm I should have had back then. Like I said, normally it's easier for people on the outside of these in-groups to see the rot than it is for those on the inside. What I do know is that lots of what hard lefties have long said about the religious nationalism in the evangelical movement turned out to be quite right when you look at things like the rise of church militias, pushing Christianity harder into schools/politics, and the post-Dobbs state-level actions around abortion/IVF.
I'll add a final funny thing I always here from those who leave the Evangelical/Southern Baptist churches and find atheism afterwards, and it's that they find their atheism after reading the bible themselves without a preacher in the middle. It's like Isaac Asimov used to say (paraphrasing): "the fastest way to make an atheist is to have them read the bible."
Reading the Bible for oneself without proper guidance is the source of most heresies. Most people who read the Bible don't become atheists; rather, they pick out their favorite parts and build their own versions of Christianity based on stupid interpretations of peculiar verses taken out of context.
The same could be said of reading it with "proper guidance," since there are so many sects/variations of Christianity whose priests all have different interpretations themselves. They can't all be right, but they *can* all be wrong. "Cafeteria Christianity" comes directly from the preachers, priests, and pastors of all the different sects, not just from unguided followers.
Among biblical scholars, there is not all that much conflict these days. Biblical scholarship is a Judeo-Christian collaborative effort that crosses denominational lines. And it is always advancing, as we gain more access to ancient texts and reconstruct the ancient worldview(s) behind the scriptural texts. If there is disagreement over scripture these days, it comes mostly from people who can't keep up with the scholarship and therefore teach the out-of-date stuff they learned in seminary. But even that is a minor source of conflict.
Most religious conflict comes not from actual interpretation of scripture, but from would-be teachers who put their worldly concerns above scripture. That is, essentially, what fundamentalism is.
"Most religious conflict comes not from actual interpretation of scripture, but from would-be teachers who put their worldly concerns above scripture."
So when people find "guidance"--even in the churches, it ain't always the right sort of guidance.
"Among biblical scholars, there is not all that much conflict these days."
So Catholicism and Protestantism have finally squared that circle? I'm doubtful.
You are showing why it is difficult for an outsider to offer valid critiques of religious practice. You seem to be under the impression that churches use the Bible - and their interpretations thereof - as the actual basis of everything they believe and do. Only a few Protestants even claim to do that, and even they don't actually do it.
Moreover, we live in a neo-Protestant culture where Christians - often including Catholics - have been reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves for a few centuries. They do not always look for any guidance at all, let along scholarly guidance or official denominational guidance. Do-it-yourself American religion did not start with New Agers. Christians have been doing it since colonial times, and continually inventing new heresies. That is, historically, what happens when people interpret scripture for themselves.
The remaining conflicts between Catholics and Protestants have little to do with interpretation of Scripture.
"Do-it-yourself American religion did not start with New Agers. Christians have been doing it since colonial times, and continually inventing new heresies."
And who determines what is or isn't a heresy?