Quoting Joozey. (Quick, delete 'your' post.
...and there a taste of the sensation, for slice of self, and reply to missing post.)
I believe understanding can only be achieved when both parties ask eachother what they don't understand about the opposite party's point of view.
'I' could agree with that.
(What are 'your' views on submission of expressions by one slice, and removal a bit later by another? (1.post 2. is garbage 3. dispose )
Never mind, that is off-topic.
'I' hope it isn't too bothersome.)
Perhaps, neither active party seeks understanding from the other.
Maybe both are deeply rooted in 'their' trenches, while playing a fine game of "Discussion & Verbal-Assault TM".
An interesting question would be how the Christian party knows that this bible is a stable source.
Maybe, it is just choice. One party may choose to believe a book is this, and another may choose to believe it is that.
Probably the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Genetic makeup, environment, upbringing, experience, company, other choices, etc. differ.
Here, the book in question may be very well-circulated and often hotly debated.
It almost seems some amount of 'training' or 'practice' is necessary to defend certain choices well.
