I mean, the majority of USAan Christians are hypocrites who have never studied (let alone read) their holy texts
It’s not surprising that they instead follow the civil religion of the USA where the apostles are the founding fathers and the body and blood of Christ is cold hard cash
I usually place this into a different perspective.
Many Christians in the U.S. do study their holy texts. However, it is extremely, extremely rarely that they do so with an attempt to understand the context in which it was written and how to understand and apply the advice that it gives in a modern context, and almost always about agreeing and confirming their in-group biases, often relying on increasingly absurd justifications as to how their religion is in fact historically universal, and simultaneously trying to argue that faith is the only thing necessary for salvation, but also to that there is a bunch of historical evidence that everything that happened in the Bible is real, and that the prophecies will come true.
It’s basically like trying to argue about if Goku could beat Superman. People will throw out hundreds of citations, contradict themselves with the canon, as the canon is also contradictory, but it ignores the fundamental issue that neither Superman or Goku are real, therefore it is completely up to the individual’s imagination who would win, and arguing about it is an exercise in futility.
Like there are Christians out there who will openly profess to studying ‘apologetics’, not realizing that that was the term their detractors historically used to make fun of them, because they are constantly ‘apologizing’ for issues from the scriptures.
But again these are often people who think that the Bible is the Word of God, but also reject the entity (the Catholic Church) that compiled it.
It doesn’t matter how much they study their holy book because they aren’t actually interested in a rational discourse around it.
this particular view is professed only by the Catholics themselves. Orthodox and Miaphysite Christians see the Roman Church as having split from the original Christian community, viewing themselves as the unbroken continuation.
most Protestants, meanwhile, though accepting the Western dictum of seeing the Eastern churches as schismatics, usually believe that the Latin Patriarchate has been corrupted over time or, in the case of some more radical groups, is the product of usurpation altogether.
However, my overall point still stands. The Orthodox and Miaphysite Churches, while viewing themselves as non-schismatic, still don’t make the fundamental error of viewing the Bible as the end-all, be-all document on what it means to follow a Christian tradition, that American Protestants do. They at least understand that a document, even one as important and foundational as the Bible, that comes out of a human institution, one that could produce a schism such as the Catholic Church, is probably not the sole end product which only then requires interpretation to receive divine knowledge.
It’s all good, I should have expected someone would bring that up, I just rarely deal with believers in the Orthodox Church and never the Miaphysite Church, here in the U.S., even though I used to regularly attend Orthodox mass for about a year (had a buddy who grew up in the Church and didn’t have a car).
Hi. You bring some relevant information, but I believe your initial point is misleading. Another poster already argued, but I want to add that the Eastern schism occurred much later than the compilation of the Bible. Also, the doctrinal differences between East and West are much smaller (AFAIK) than the difference between Catholics and Sola Scriptura literalists. I used this expression because AFAIK not every Protestant is literal in their Sola Scriptura.
true, both the Chalcedonian schism (split between Monophysites and Miaphysites) and the great schism of 1054 (split between the Orthodox and Roman Churches) occurred long after the Bible was completed. however, all resulting entities view themselves as the unbroken continuation of what they consider to be the one true church, seeing all other branches as offshoots. i was talking less about theological (dis-)similarity and more about conflicting historiographies and claims of universal legitimacy.
the various Protestant currents do in fact have vastly different approaches to sola Scriptura, with differences being primarily along the lines of what should count as scriptural authority in the first place, how doctrine is derived, and what role (if any) traditions/confessions ought to play. though, honestly, Protestantism is such a broad umbrella term encompassing such a vast array of conflicting teachings that generalisations are impossible. Baptist/Evangelical and Anglican views are essentially wholly incompatible, despite theoretically being based on some common principles.
generally, i think were broadly in agreement here, i just couldn’t control my inner pedant, sorry.
I mean, the majority of USAan Christians are hypocrites who have never studied (let alone read) their holy texts
It’s not surprising that they instead follow the civil religion of the USA where the apostles are the founding fathers and the body and blood of Christ is cold hard cash
I usually place this into a different perspective.
Many Christians in the U.S. do study their holy texts. However, it is extremely, extremely rarely that they do so with an attempt to understand the context in which it was written and how to understand and apply the advice that it gives in a modern context, and almost always about agreeing and confirming their in-group biases, often relying on increasingly absurd justifications as to how their religion is in fact historically universal, and simultaneously trying to argue that faith is the only thing necessary for salvation, but also to that there is a bunch of historical evidence that everything that happened in the Bible is real, and that the prophecies will come true.
It’s basically like trying to argue about if Goku could beat Superman. People will throw out hundreds of citations, contradict themselves with the canon, as the canon is also contradictory, but it ignores the fundamental issue that neither Superman or Goku are real, therefore it is completely up to the individual’s imagination who would win, and arguing about it is an exercise in futility.
Like there are Christians out there who will openly profess to studying ‘apologetics’, not realizing that that was the term their detractors historically used to make fun of them, because they are constantly ‘apologizing’ for issues from the scriptures.
But again these are often people who think that the Bible is the Word of God, but also reject the entity (the Catholic Church) that compiled it.
It doesn’t matter how much they study their holy book because they aren’t actually interested in a rational discourse around it.
this particular view is professed only by the Catholics themselves. Orthodox and Miaphysite Christians see the Roman Church as having split from the original Christian community, viewing themselves as the unbroken continuation.
most Protestants, meanwhile, though accepting the Western dictum of seeing the Eastern churches as schismatics, usually believe that the Latin Patriarchate has been corrupted over time or, in the case of some more radical groups, is the product of usurpation altogether.
This is very true.
However, my overall point still stands. The Orthodox and Miaphysite Churches, while viewing themselves as non-schismatic, still don’t make the fundamental error of viewing the Bible as the end-all, be-all document on what it means to follow a Christian tradition, that American Protestants do. They at least understand that a document, even one as important and foundational as the Bible, that comes out of a human institution, one that could produce a schism such as the Catholic Church, is probably not the sole end product which only then requires interpretation to receive divine knowledge.
true, true. i agree with you, just couldn’t stop myself from bringing up that particular quibble, sorry.
It’s all good, I should have expected someone would bring that up, I just rarely deal with believers in the Orthodox Church and never the Miaphysite Church, here in the U.S., even though I used to regularly attend Orthodox mass for about a year (had a buddy who grew up in the Church and didn’t have a car).
Hi. You bring some relevant information, but I believe your initial point is misleading. Another poster already argued, but I want to add that the Eastern schism occurred much later than the compilation of the Bible. Also, the doctrinal differences between East and West are much smaller (AFAIK) than the difference between Catholics and Sola Scriptura literalists. I used this expression because AFAIK not every Protestant is literal in their Sola Scriptura.
true, both the Chalcedonian schism (split between Monophysites and Miaphysites) and the great schism of 1054 (split between the Orthodox and Roman Churches) occurred long after the Bible was completed. however, all resulting entities view themselves as the unbroken continuation of what they consider to be the one true church, seeing all other branches as offshoots. i was talking less about theological (dis-)similarity and more about conflicting historiographies and claims of universal legitimacy.
the various Protestant currents do in fact have vastly different approaches to sola Scriptura, with differences being primarily along the lines of what should count as scriptural authority in the first place, how doctrine is derived, and what role (if any) traditions/confessions ought to play. though, honestly, Protestantism is such a broad umbrella term encompassing such a vast array of conflicting teachings that generalisations are impossible. Baptist/Evangelical and Anglican views are essentially wholly incompatible, despite theoretically being based on some common principles.
generally, i think were broadly in agreement here, i just couldn’t control my inner pedant, sorry.
Haha yeah power scaling is pretty dumb