It is as straightforward as I propose. Many make hay about interpretations of the Bible. But it isn't interpretation.
People argue interpretation so that they may hide behind false constructs. When John Grisham tells us in the Partner that the woman in the end took the money and disappeared, we don't need to interpret that to know what he's saying. We need to read and understand the language in it's context. And that is the problem, not people's reading skills; but, their willingness to apply them in the face of people telling them that they are too 'stupid' or 'unlearned' to understand written language. If they convince you that you're too dumb and that you need them, they can tell you anything they want and you've subjected yourself to willfull ignorance rather than using your own capable capacities.
No, it isn't about interpretation. Scripture tells us plainly in numerous places all the marks which define followers of Christ. The terms are unambiguous and specific. And anyone can look at them and tell by their own
capacities whether the claim fits what they are following or whether it fits scripture or both - or neither. It is not beyond your capacity to know.
Well, I dont agree with much of what you say, simply because all it takes it one look at the big range of 'Christian' religions that exist...and there are so many that exist, because all of them 'interpret' many things from the Bible, differently...if they all agree upon interpretations, there would not be all of these different 'Christian' religions...if the Bible was as clear cut and straightforward as you suggest, there would be only one Christian religion, where all Christians agreed with each other...I just dont see that existing today...
Anyway, altho we disagree on this, thanks for the conversation...