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over scripture these days, it comes mostly from people who can't keep up with the scholarship and therefore teach the out-of-date stuff they learned in seminary.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."
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I believe heresy is self-evident from the tradition of the Church, and it is formally identified when necessary by the Church hierarchy collectively. But I'm not sure how that is relevant to our discussion. We're straying from my original brief point, so I'll try to return to it:
Historically, when people have read and interpreted the Bible for themselves, most of them have not become atheists, but heretics - i.e., idiosyncratic, often weird, Christians or quasi-Christians. That latter group includes most of the Christian nationalists and fundamentalists who support Trump. Reading the Bible for oneself is more likely to cause our current problems than to solve them.
Again, who gets to define what is тАЬhereticтАЭ behavior and what the тАЬchurch hierarchyтАЭ is supposed to be? It seems this always comes back to certain men in power within whatever church making decisions based on their interpretations of the bible and which parts count and which parts donтАЩt and establishing тАЬhierarchyтАЭ and definitional behavior from there. тАЬSelf-evident from the traditionтАЭ you say, but then *whose* tradition? The EOCтАЩs tradition? The catholic churchтАЩs tradition? This circle argument stuff can go on and on with you folks. It always does.
You are ignoring my point and trying to pick a fight over irrelevant details. I'm not taking the bait again.
I usually eschew online theology discussions because, as someone with an actual theology degree, I find arguing with non-theologians a waste of my time.
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?
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I believe heresy is self-evident from the tradition of the Church, and it is formally identified when necessary by the Church hierarchy collectively. But I'm not sure how that is relevant to our discussion. We're straying from my original brief point, so I'll try to return to it:
Historically, when people have read and interpreted the Bible for themselves, most of them have not become atheists, but heretics - i.e., idiosyncratic, often weird, Christians or quasi-Christians. That latter group includes most of the Christian nationalists and fundamentalists who support Trump. Reading the Bible for oneself is more likely to cause our current problems than to solve them.
Again, who gets to define what is тАЬhereticтАЭ behavior and what the тАЬchurch hierarchyтАЭ is supposed to be? It seems this always comes back to certain men in power within whatever church making decisions based on their interpretations of the bible and which parts count and which parts donтАЩt and establishing тАЬhierarchyтАЭ and definitional behavior from there. тАЬSelf-evident from the traditionтАЭ you say, but then *whose* tradition? The EOCтАЩs tradition? The catholic churchтАЩs tradition? This circle argument stuff can go on and on with you folks. It always does.
You are ignoring my point and trying to pick a fight over irrelevant details. I'm not taking the bait again.
I usually eschew online theology discussions because, as someone with an actual theology degree, I find arguing with non-theologians a waste of my time.
*circular argument