Two whole additional pages worth of posts and Radrook has still failed to qualify what he means by principles of biblical interpretation, failed to provide specific examples of the straw claims he was railing against in his original post, failed to state his own credentials despite placing such a high importance on them, and failed to demonstrate his own capacity to carry on a productive civil discussion. His tactics are cowardly and arrogant, his claims are hypocritical and dishonest, and the only purpose any given discussion serves is for him to project his failed reasoning onto others while declaring superiority and victory.
Why on Earth would Jehovah's Witnesses knock on your front door if they're disinterested or even afraid of being exposed to opinions, beliefs, or interpretations that differ from theirs in the slightest? Why on Earth would anyone come to a skeptic's forum, where you know people are going to have a huge variety of different beliefs, and then act surprised or offended when not everyone agrees with them at face value? Nobody has a right not to be offended, or to have their opinions exalted at the expense of all others. If we're going to talk about attitudes that make discussion impossible, let's start with the attitude that people with a difference of opinion are a waste of time, therefore one should only thump one's chest and hurl petulant insults, as opposed to stating or explaining one's position.
The validity of principles for biblical interpretation ought to be evaluated based on the conclusions they lead to. I think Radrook's conclusions, that death is no worse than suspended animation, or that slaughtering children is no worse than putting them to sleep, speak volumes about the validity of his principles, as well as his credentials. This not a personal attack; he has repeatedly cited himself as his primary source, therefore he is the one who has drawn fire onto his own credibility. Consider a Muslim theologian who has studied his Qur'an for a lifetime and comes to the conclusion that it's justified to suicide bomb people for having different beliefs. It does not matter that he has followed rigidly defined principles for interpretation. His conclusions blow his credibility out of the water. The same goes for a Christian theologian who has years of study and teaching under his belt, and comes to the conclusion that divinely ordained slaughter, executions, wars, and genocide are justifiable "in a biblical context." The obvious problem with this sort of "biblical context" is that it effectively renders the bible dangerous, if not useless, as a guide for how to live one's life.
If the bible is at all like other works of literature, then it stands to reason that there would be multiple valid interpretations:
Consider Shakespeare's Hamlet. Is Hamlet merely a disturbed individual feigning insanity to entrap those around him, or is he genuinely insane? Just how far does his madness extend, and does his affection for his mother constitute an Oedipus complex? Also, does the play have to strictly be a tragedy, or could it also be done as a dark comedy or action thriller? The thing is, none of these interpretations are necessarily incorrect.
Consider the character of Dumbledore following the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Was he simply a good natured mentor who wanted what was best for Harry and the school? Or was he a fanatic who took his good intentions too far, manipulating both friends and enemies like a chessmaster, even from beyond the grave? Either interpretation could be valid.
To get back to the topic of the bible, consider the character of Judas. While frequently villified as a prime example of treacheary and betrayal, to the point where Dante portrayed him as one of three irredeemably evil souls that Lucifer is chewing on for all eternity on the bottom layer of hell, Judas has frequently been given sympathetic alternate interpretations. In the rock musical Jesus Christ Superstar the story is actually told from Judas's perspective. He turned Jesus over because he was afraid that Jesus's following would lead to increasing extremism and eventually violent suppression at the hands of the Romans, so he tried to stem these events before things got out of hand. He wasn't interested in the blood money he was offered. Another possibility is that Judas was acting on secret orders from Jesus, who believed the crucifixion to be part of the divine plan, which would therefore make Judas an instrument of destiny and divine purpose.
Not only are different views, opinions, and interpretations necessary to make a discussion possible, they're also what makes it interesting and worthwhile. If only one point of view were allowed to be dictated, then it isn't really a discussion at all. If anything truly kills a discussion, it's closed-minded bigots who are only interested in preaching themselves at you at the expense of all other points of view.
