Mankind has always been a species to believe anything it wants, even to the point where we'll accept a comforting truth (such as "Jesus loves you"), but reject the not-so-comforting truths (such as "all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death"), even when both come from the same source. We are often committed to things that are not true, and even once we find out they are not true, it's hard to let it go.
This is, sadly, not an attitude that is limited to unbelievers. Paul warned Timothy of a time when men would not endure sound doctrine, but turn aside to myths and fables and whatever their itching ears want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Looking at the Church today, you see many examples. A compromise on Genesis to appear intelligent, a compromise on marriage to appear "progressive", a compromise on the sanctity of life to appear "compassionate". These are just examples of when Christians compromise with the world, whether out of fear of worldly attacks, or even out of a desire to partake in the same sins. And it's not just modern Christians who compromise on the word of God. Various denominations have risen since the day Christ rose from the dead. These denominations claim the name of Jesus, but are demonstrably false.
On top of heretical and apostate Christians, unbelievers seeking to attack the Bible are also prone to twist it. Why wouldn't you? Aside from having the wrong starting assumptions that naturally lead one to misinterpret the text, someone seeking to prove the Bible wrong is motivated to force a bad interpretation upon it so it sounds wrong.
All of these people have one thing in common: When you show them that they are wrong about what the Bible teaches, they are likely to respond with "that's just your interpretation!"
In the minds of the unsaved, the Bible is not the inspired and/or authoritative word of God, but the word of man. No matter how much truth each one might believe the Bible contains, their respect for it, both as the word of God, and as a written document, jumps out the window the moment it casts doubt on their most cherished beliefs. In the past, the attitude would have typically been one of intolerance. When a Christian calls out a heretic on their bad hermeneutics, the heretic might respond violently. But in the modern day, the devil has devised a new strategy: Make the Christian look like the intolerant jerk.
Absolute truth absolutely exists. It is not intolerant to say so. In fact, if you say it is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true, you are contradicting yourself. So no, it is not intolerant to say "the Bible absolutely says X, and it isn't Christian to say otherwise". It is even less intolerant when the absolute truth affects the Gospel. Contrary to popular belief, not all interpretations are equal.
When I studied law, my favorite subject was statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is the practice of understanding the law. Now, obviously, laws aren't always perfectly clear. It is, after all, a man-made thing. God does not inspire earthly laws like He did the Bible, and thus no law will ever be perfect. So, a judge has to interpret the law. Here in England, there are four ways a judge can approach a law: The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule and the Purposive Approach.
The Literal and Golden Rules
The Literal Rule is fairly straight forward: The law means what it says. It doesn't look for allegory, it doesn't even really look for justice, it just applies an unthinking, unfeeling, cold, hard woodenness to the law, taking it word for word with no exceptions. The problem with the Literal Rule is that it often leads to injustices. This is where the Golden Rule comes in. The Golden Rule is essentially the same as the literal rule, but effectively allows the law to be "broken" if following it literally would be repugnant to the law. As an example, there is the case of Re Sigsworth (1935). Under the Administration of Justice Act 1925, if a person dies without leaving a will, the next of kin would inherit everything. But in Re Sigsworth (1935), Sigsworth had actually murdered his mother. It is repugnant to the law for a person to benefit from a crime, and thus although the law did say Sigsworth could legally inherit his mother's estate, he was prevented from doing so.
The Mischief Rule
The third rule, the Mischief Rule, is more flexible than either of the previous two, enabling the judge to ignore, in a sense, the wording of the law. Rather than looking at the wording of the law itself, the judge looks instead at the mischief the law intended to stamp out. Effectively, the judge looks for "gaps" in the previous law that the new law intends to cover. This is a personal favorite of mine, not because it is the approach I prefer to apply, but because of the hilarious event that occurred while I was being taught. My tutor decided to use the example of a law that prevented prostitutes from soliciting on the street corner. Some prostitutes hoped the Literal Rule would apply when they simply went inside and solicited through a window instead, however the judge ruled that prostitutes soliciting in the first place is the issue that the law was trying to tackle, and thus they were prosecuted anyway. To really make sure this example stuck in our heads, my tutor played a rather inappropriate song (not dangerously so, but not something you'd expect to find in a classroom), and the head mistress walked in to talk to him about some business or other. She looked mortified, he looked mortified, and his reaction when she left the room was to tell us "I think I'll have some explaining to do later..."
The Purposive Approach
The Purposive Approach is much less reputable, and is generally frowned upon in British law. It is by far the most liberal method of interpretation, and instead of paying attention to the law itself, it attempts to figure out why the law was made. In many ways, it is similar to the Mischief Rule because it seeks to understand the mind of the legislative body, but rather than taking the wording of the law to its logical conclusion, it selectively applies the law according to what the judge thinks the law is intending to do. As many merits as the Purposive Approach has, it is heavily criticised because it effectively allows the judiciary to usurp the authority of the legislature, either nullifying the law, or worse, allowing the unelected judiciary to effectively create legislation.
All four of the methods of statutory interpretation naturally lead to some very similar legal conclusions. There is obviously some disparity between results, but generally speaking, especially as each approach is linked in several ways, the law will usually be applied correctly.
I strongly contend that the Bible ought to be interpreted in much the same way as British law. In the KJV, the word "law" appears a grand total of 529 times. Now, they obviously do not all refer to the law. I'm not going to read through every single one and tell you how many times it does apply in such a way, but a legal system is a very common theme within the Bible. In fact, it is so tightly woven into Scripture that many unbelievers mistakenly interpret Christianity as just a list of rules to follow to get into Heaven. The Torah is often referred to as the law, and when the law was fulfilled, it didn't get thrown out completely, but was instead replaced with the laws of liberty, of faith, of God, of the Spirit, and of Christ.
Let's look at the final time the word "law" is used in the New Testament. In 1 John 3:4, we read "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." We see, then, that the Bible does see itself as a rather important book. It is akin to a legal document: Obey it and be rewarded, disobey it and be punished. There's none of this "I interpret it differently" nonsense! There is one correct interpretation, and thousands of incorrect interpretations.
Let us take the issue of marriage as an example, as this is a "hot topic" in our day. It is a fact that the Bible describes marriage as when a man shall leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife and the two become one flesh. This automatically discounts all homosexual or paedophilic relationships as a marriage, and casts some doubt on polyamory as well. It is when a man (the first gender) leaves (i.e. must be an adult) his father and mother (the previous marriage) and is joined to his wife (singular, also the other gender) and the two shall become one flesh (i.e. each gender has the body parts the other does not, allowing the two to produce children).
But marriage is an extremely controversial topic today. Sexual immorality is running rampant, and so homosexuality is being celebrated, polyamory is being tolerated, and there have even been some (thankfully thus far unsuccessful) attempts to normalise pedophilia. With the whole "my body, my choice" narrative floating around, Christians are called intolerant for merely abstaining from this depravity, even to a point where Christian bakers have had to defend themselves in court for refusing to cater to a gay "wedding". Because of course, it's very tolerant to steal thousands of dollars from an innocent couple just because they don't want to bake a specific cake due to it being against their religious convictions...
But what is especially tragic is the large number of Christians(?) who actually support this kind of thing. I put the question mark there in brackets because although I do believe it is possible to be a Christian and struggle with homosexuality, or even support it, the fact is supporting it is a blatantly anti-Christian thing to do. The Bible clearly tells us that homosexuality is a sin, for which we must repent, and it will be counted against anyone who dies without having confessed the death, resurrection, and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But to these Christians, their support of homosexuality isn't anti-Christian, but is simply a different interpretation of the Bible. And yes, it is a different interpretation. The wrong interpretation. Having come from a background of homosexuality myself, I can sympathise with Christians who wish to merge homosexuality with the Bible. My heart goes out to those who struggle with this specific sin, and I do admire the compassion that some Christian LGBT advocates have. But I also remember the searing of my conscience as I grew closer to God. As I studied His word, my excuses became more pitiful, even in my own eyes, until finally I realised there is no possible way to reconcile homosexuality with God. To put a twist on the song by Green Day, I fought the Lord and the Lord won.
But the doom and gloom of the above can end here, because the Lord's victory, in a weird way, was a victory for me, too. Why? Because His way is far better. When you misinterpret His word, you're no better off than those who don't have it at all. You might as well just throw your Bible in the bin if you're going to define Christianity so loosely as to have no way to discern between true believers and heretics/apostates. But when you take the Literal Rule and the Golden Rule and apply them to God's word as to a law, you have the most liberating truth that ever graced mankind. You have the Gospel!
The Gospel begins with the bad news: You have broken the law. And we're not just talking the spiritual equivalent of pinching a penny from mommy's purse. You are a hardened criminal sitting on death row, waiting for the day God finally throws the book at you. The sexual immorality, the lying, the stealing, the cheating, the disrespect, the hatred, the blasphemy, every sin you have ever committed demands an answer, and that answer is death.
But then the Gospel continues. All sin deserves death, but there is a "loophole" in that it doesn't have to be your death. A worthy substitute can take your place, and thank God, quite literally, because such a substitute does exist. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, left His Heavenly throne, became a human being, lived a perfect life, and died a sinner's death. With no sin of His own to bear, Jesus was able to bear your sin, and being Himself God, a finite punishment was more than enough to replace the infinite punishment you deserve. Your sins, through Jesus, can be forgiven. But it doesn't stop there. Jesus didn't stay dead. On the third day, Jesus got up and walked. God raised Him from the dead. So also is He able to raise you at The Resurrection. With no sin to separate you from Him, and with Christ's righteousness credited to you, God is willing and able to grant you an eternal inheritance in His Kingdom forever.
To you unbelievers, I ask if it's worth giving that up for your favorite sin? To you heretics, and to you apostates, I ask if it's worth the comfort you find in watering down the more difficult doctrines of Christianity? I would hope that you would answer "no". And you'd be right. It's not worth it. The truth may be hard in this life, but the reward for it is far greater. It is greater than the burden of accepting it, it is greater than we deserve, and it is greater than we imagine. So please, don't interpret the Bible differently to how it was intended. Read it as it is! Read it as the message from God that makes you wise unto salvation! Take the rough with the smooth, the sour with the sweet, the freedom from sin with the freedom from its consequences. Take God as He is, not how you would want Him to be if you could rule over Him.