�INSULTING TO ISLAM� Thousands of Muslims demand Nike recall �offensive� Air Max trai

[Mountain Man]

I have pointed out that different interpretations exist and have existed and that they differ to a large extent...

That's only a problem if you assume that all interpretations are on equal footing, but since you claim to reject that premise then there's no problem.

[Charles]

That's only a problem if you assume that all interpretations are on equal footing, but since you claim to reject that premise then there's no problem.

That is where you make it way too simple. Your response makes it quite obvious that you are still not aware that you yourself are basing your views on interpretations even when you think you are just readings words that have a particular meaning.

Different interpretations exist in all forms and sorts. The fact that so many people reading the Bible intensely understand it in very different ways shows this very clearly. The point is that though some interpretations are very hard to justify quite many other interpretations are though they contradict each other. Jeff Sessions and Sanders tried to make the case that the family separations were justified by the Bible while others have called it clearly unchristian. Some claim you have to believe in a litteral interpretation of Genesis while others claim that is wrong. Quite many different ideas on the relation between the new and the old testament exist. As can be easily seen on tweb - there are quite many things on which Christians disagree. And history proves the point to a much larger extent. To believe one is just reading the clear message is very, very naive. To become aware of the level of interpretation involved is very important.

[Mountain Man]

That is where you make it way too simple. Your response makes it quite obvious that you are still not aware that you yourself are basing your views on interpretations even when you think you are just readings words that have a particular meaning.

In that case, it would be your burden to show that, for example, Luther's interpretation is more correct than the one I hold to.

Hop to it!

[Charles]

In that case, it would be your burden to show that, for example, Luther's interpretation is more correct than the one I hold to.

Hop to it!

I never claimed it was. And you conveniently skipped all the stuff that you find in the grey zones:

The point is that though some interpretations are very hard to justify quite many other interpretations are though they contradict each other. Jeff Sessions and Sanders tried to make the case that the family separations were justified by the Bible while others have called it clearly unchristian. Some claim you have to believe in a litteral interpretation of Genesis while others claim that is wrong. Quite many different ideas on the relation between the new and the old testament exist. As can be easily seen on tweb - there are quite many things on which Christians disagree. And history proves the point to a much larger extent. To believe one is just reading the clear message is very, very naive. To become aware of the level of interpretation involved is very important.

[Mountain Man]

I never claimed [Luther's interpretation was more correct than traditional views].

Then why did you bring it up?

[One Bad Pig]

Then why did you bring it up?

...because, in his view, all that matters is that someone, somewhen, found it to be a reasonable interpretation.

[rogue06]

Then why did you bring it up?

He's a troll who tries to use every thread as a platform to attack Christianity. But I'll bet you already knew that.

[Mountain Man]

...because, in his view, all that matters is that someone, somewhen, found it to be a reasonable interpretation.

Oh, I know, but as I said, that's only a problem if you assume that all interpretations are on equal footing, but since Chuck claims to reject that premise then there's no problem.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, I know, but as I said, that's only a problem if you assume that all interpretations are on equal footing, but since Chuck claims to reject that premise then there's no problem.

I don't see why one needs to make that assumption to make it a problem.

[Mountain Man]

I don't see why one needs to make that assumption to make it a problem.

Because it doesn't matter if there are dozens of suggested interpretations if the range for a correct interpretation is narrow.

[Cow Poke]

That is where you make it way too simple.

He's trying to explain it in a way you'll understand.

[Sparko]

So you conveniently ignored the fact that those ideas were also present in the nazi era. And those old quotes were from a Christian who has been very important for protestantism and played a huge role in church history. To try to make the case that pointing to that is hateful or trolling is simply lack of understanding of church history.

Your complaints about Christianity in a thread about Islam is just whataboutism Chuck. Take your off topic rant somewhere else.

[One Bad Pig]

Because it doesn't matter if there are dozens of suggested interpretations if the range for a correct interpretation is narrow.

How does that follow?

[Mountain Man]

How does that follow?

Once we've narrowed down the range of potentially correct interpretations then we can dismiss all the obviously incorrect interpretations, even if they were to number in the dozens.

[One Bad Pig]

Once we've narrowed down the range of potentially correct interpretations then we can dismiss all the obviously incorrect interpretations, even if they were to number in the dozens.

But they're not obviously incorrect to everybody if someone holds them.