An interesting post ! I'm not Christian, but have respect for those who believe. As a historian, I find it helps to understand the past if I have a little bit of theological understanding.
Logic tells me that appealing to the Bible as the final authority doesn't make sense, because it's a text that has grown and evolved over time, and can differ from denomination to denomination. There are quite a few books that were previously included that are now just part of various apocrypha - often based on inter-denominational politics.
Looking from the outside in, I feel that the Church has historically been most effective when united. Unless we resort to the techniques of the Inquisition, perhaps a more charitable solution might be to stop worrying about the (often minor) differences between denominations and approach things with a bit of mutual forgiveness and open-mindedness. In a sense, agree that unity and love of Christians of whatever denomination is more important than the details of doctrine.
@alonicus, thanks for your well thought out comment. You're right that history is more easily understood with some backing in religious studies. After all, much of history has to do with the intersection and conflicts between faiths.
Another great insight about the interdenominational differences regarding the importance of biblical and apocryphal literature. Which books should be included in the Canon is still an ongoing discussion that will never be resolved.
This particular line made my heart flutter:
That is, in essence, the point of my post. Christ expressed this sentiment when he exhorted his followers in John 17:20-23 to be united so that unbelievers would see God's love among them. We express the love of Christ best when we put aside our differences and focus on what we have in common. I'm glad you see that, and thanks, once again, for your awesome comment.
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
More info - Support @topcomment - Discord