"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 “heretic” behavior and what the “church hierarchy” 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 don’t and establishing “hierarchy” and definitional behavior from there. “Self-evident from the tradition” you say, but then *whose* tradition? The EOC’s tradition? The catholic church’s 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.
"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 “heretic” behavior and what the “church hierarchy” 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 don’t and establishing “hierarchy” and definitional behavior from there. “Self-evident from the tradition” you say, but then *whose* tradition? The EOC’s tradition? The catholic church’s 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