Perhaps I am moving too fast for you. Some things are obvious to me so I'm moving ahead with it...but I'll go back to the original point. Your arguments come down to this:

1. The reformation resulted in many different viewpoints on important matters.
2. Contradictory viewpoints on important matters cannot all be correct
3. Therefore, how can the reformation have validity?

You can view it like science. The reformation was a breaking down of long held doctrine, where people decided to look at the truth for themselves, without being subject to the interpretations of others. This is just like a lawyer looking at a judge's original judgement instead of a case brief, a scientist looking at the basis for Aether rather than believing in aether itself (as espoused by others), or a judge interviewing witnesses rather than listening to hearsay.

Many different opinions might come out of this process, but usually the process results in a more informed interpretation of the original material. Unfortunately, the bible is ambiguous, which makes the process harder.

Moving on:

[ QUOTE ]
Both of the two posts above do not notice my use of the qualification "or precisely one of them is correct", and the arguement for why their can only be one true denomination either among them or in the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no logical reason for this. I think your confusion comes from this belief:

[ QUOTE ]
What isn't logical, is for their to be no true church that is entirely correct, because otherwise God doesn't care whether His message is intrepreted correctly or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big stretch. It assumes:

- You know what God cares and does not care about
- God's desire is to have to his message interpreted correctly.
- God cares that specific doctrinal points are interpreted correctly, rather the overall 'message'.

Do you see why you're assuming far too much with this belief?

As I said before, if God wanted his message interpreted correctly, one would think he'd ensure a clearer and less contradictory bible had been written.

The other stuff I wrote, was about the possiblity of Catholic doctrine being correct in the first place, given the glaring errors they've made interpreting the bible (which shouldn't happen if they are one true interpreter of such things, right?)