would that mean all christian religions have it right or wrong then?

I was waiting for someone to ask that. And I knew it'd be the first question asked.

I'm saying that, whilst the Bible itself contains the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the actual interpretation of the Bible is never above question. Interpretation is a human act, and as humans are not infallible, there is no way to be sure that we've interpretted correctly.

So they have questionable interpretations, none of which can be assumed to be without flaw. Orthodox is questionable, allegory is questionable, and left to our own uninhibited devices (in other words, NO BLOODY FUNDAMENTALISTS TELLING US HOW TO READ IT) we come to different (though sometimes similar) interpretations.

So no interpretation is infallible. Would you trust a bunch of over-evolved babboons to tell you what Eternal Truth is supposed to be? I wouldn't.

Questionable, as a matter of principle, yes.  But Questionable in principle is not the same as 'doubtful.'  Some interpretations are clearly better then others.

Better, yes, naturally (it has to make some kind of sense and has to coincide with everything else in the Bible, for starters). But still fallible. The only way we'll truely know what the truth is and God's plans are is to wait and see what happens.

It's just that certain people (*cough*fundamentalists*cough*) think they have the truth when in truth no one has the perfect truth. All we have various images of varying blurriness.

how could we know which is right if neither are wrong?

  Ah... minor slip-up in propounding my point. Just more proof of the infallibility of humans! But you get the picture, right? No interpretations can be assumed to be flawless. Post editted... there.

Quote from: Sir Somebody Something

No interpretations are infallibly correct.

still doesnt answer the question, it just means that no interpretation is for certain correct. it still would leave room for error upon the moral basis of religion, therefore negating the objective moral OF religion.

Aiyaaah...! How do I explain this?! No interpretation of the Bible can be assumed to be without flaw! There.

"Aiyaaah...! How do I explain this?! No interpretation of the Bible can be assumed to be without flaw! There."

Still no good.  I agree, lets not assume that an interpretation is without flaw.  Let's perhaps even agree that no interpretation is complete- ie, there is almost certainly more to it then we know.  But then what is to stop us from arriving at what we think is the best interpretation possible, given those caveats?

Absolutely nothing. I only warn against thinking that the interpretation arrived at is infallibly flawless (complete).

But then what is to stop us from arriving at what we think is the best interpretation possible, given those caveats?

that IMO is what happens when a church is formed.
thus why even if i ever return to the christian faith(highly doubtful), i would never return to one single church.

the embodiment of faith is accepting that which you do not fully understand.

i can think of no better way to say it than as it was said in dogma by Chris Rock's character Rufus, the 13th apostle:
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."
"Once a religion sets something "into stone" and cannot accept to change it, said religion stops seeking the true knowledge of any possible God, and becomes something far worse." -my last words to the clergy of my ex-catholic church, as said in a room full of 200+ devout followers including a bishop, 3 priests, 4 sisters, and a deacon.

while everyone was murmuring about my statement i was walking out the door, so i'm not exactly sure.

one of my friends from the bible study there told me the bishop would not address the question i had brought up whatsoever, even after others had asked him also.

the question in question had to do with transubstantiation.  i had(may still have, will look later) several references to old & new testement, along with areas of catholic doctrine(from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) that disputed the belief, and wanted to know why the catholic church still adhered to something itself saw as non-divine.

the bishop answered the question with a run around, how he had not properly prepared to answer such a specific and detailed question without the proper materials in front of him(even though this asked during a session specifically MEANT to have the bishop, the sisters and all answer anyone's questions on the faith, or the church) he passed it off to a sister who's 900 years old that along with not being able to understand well, could not answer the question either.

when they where done deciding they could not answer the question, i asked "If the catholic church finds itself to be in error, can and will it take the correct actions necessary to right the wrong?"(i had practiced these follow-up questions so they looked "off the cuff", the main question being nearly a paragraph in length, hence why i recall them with such clarity)
the bishop began into something on the vatican II and how they fixed so many errors and problems with the faith blah blah blah... when he was completed with his babbling(not answering the question again) i stared directly at him, and spoke the above quoted line, and then proceded to walk out the door. the exact quote as said that day goes like :

"Once the catholic church sets something "into stone" and cannot accept to change it, then you stop seeking the true knowledge of any possible God, and becomes something far far worse."
had it in my "quotes" txt file for about 5 years almost now, one of my favorite religious quotes, takes all religions into account and calls them wrong in one fell swoop. debate & forensics class > all

to elaborate more upon how i make this assumption:
to have an objective moral would mean that it is based in god, the only text, writings, or knowledge of god, and his actions, thoughts, or deeds would be thru the bible.
the old testament says it's ok to murder when it's justifiable, or when enacting certain punishements as according to law therein.
yet, the ten commandments says "thou shalt not kill"[Ex 20:13] it doesnt say 'thou shalt not murder' the entire interpratation of those verses could be completely wrong, and it could be taken that it was meant that "cold blooded killing" is the only wrong, but to murder thousands for a religious reasons would be ok. how could we know which is right if neither are wrong?

Actually, some translations have the commandment prohibiting "murder."  Strong's literal translation has the word as "ratsach".  There is another word "harag" that is translated as "kill".  There are a few other words translated as "kill", but those two seem to be the prevalent ones.  So, it doesn't due to take advantage of the ambiguities of English in raising questions about the Bible.  Consulting multiple English translations can often give you a clue on how to resolve an issue that might stump you if you consulted one alone.  And of course, it can be helpful to consult the original language (or a literal translation such as Strong's).

that's what i have you guys for =)

as i am only privy to two different languages of bible(Enlish and hebrew, of which i dont speak hebrew) most others i would need others to tranlaste for me anyway.

i have heard translations of thou shalt not murder, but i was unable to find a written copy.

again, my point still stands, even moreso now, you cannot absolutly accept any one translation as absolute fact, as translation even can reveal a different meaning of any number of certain words.
i was only using kill/murder as an example, of which you've strengthened my point.