Is It Me Or Is There Something A Bit Illogical Here?

[Angrboda]

You're missing the point. There is no single way to define the bible, and your interpretations are not automatically more valid than anyone else's. Every Christian claims to be a bible-based Christian, and you all interpret it differently.

Actually no, you just assume that you are speaking to someone repersenting a specific denomination view. (again you did not ask any questions.)http://atheistforums.org/thread-12406.html

as you can see from this thread I do not believe in any one denominational view as being correct. Meaning Christ ensured us with his attonement offered to give us the freedom to center our worship on Him, the best way we know how to.. So long as it does not conflict with the 'thou shalt nots' assoceiated with the Christian religion.

It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche

No, Drich, it's you that don't understand. There is no such thing as a "neutral interpretation" of a text. All interpretations are biased, it just depends on whether you agree with someone's biases whether you interpret it the same way or not. And consistent with what's termed "the bias blindspot," our biases often operate below the level of consciousness, or subconsciously; thus, your biases are often invisible to you because there's no fact of the matter in consciousness to be introspected. And as I've already observed, you suck at biblical exegesis; I wouldn't trust you on the bible as far as I can throw you. You know nothing of the larger context of textual interpretation and hermeneutics, so you apply a more or less arbitrarily picked set of principles, completely ignorant of other equally valid principles and larger issues, and so you end up practicing what, to borrow your phrase, might best be termed "red flag hermeneutics" — you abide by the principles which seem reasonable to you, that yield a result consistent with your prior belief, and that are applied with complete obliviousness to the larger philosophical and practical context of textual analysis.

Now, back to the question at hand. I'm reminded of a conversation I once had with a fellow moderator on IRC. He's a liberal Christian, and I had been spamming the channel with juicy bits from an anti-creationist website, and he decided he'd "take me out." What proceeded was a conversation which yielded the classic gem, "My belief in God isn't based on the bible." I took this to mean that he knew God in his heart, as Christians often say. I had to think a moment, as it was patently obvious to me that people, him included, wouldn't have an idea of God without the bible first, and the religions that make use of it second. It isn't as if you walked outside to get the paper one morning and said, "Whoah, look. A savior. Hey mom, can we keep him?" No, you were introduced to Christ through religion and your beliefs are still tainted by that source, whether you like to think of yourself as an "independent thinker" or not. You aren't. Matter of fact, you're not even particularly original. Just a little blinder and more arrogant than some (with your "work" and "challenging others" with questions and/or statements aimed to divine whether the person is worthy of your wisdom or not). You are one of the least humble and least correct people I know.

---

For what it's worth, my favorite from that list of so-called 'bad religions' is "Pagan Mumbo-Jumbo (Yin Yang)". I'm guessing they mean Taoism, but it's hard to be sure. Not sure whether to be offended or not.

---

For an interesting slice on some classical hermeneutics, read the Wikipedia article on Talmudic Hermeneutics and note the several inconsistent principles, and that they're often applied in a thoroughly ad hoc fashion, sometimes even within the same analysis or author.