What would Dawkins do?
Fundamentalists do not see that the phrase 'sacred text' is self-contradictory - that no text can be sacred because every piece of writing is profaned by a plurality of meanings.
The possible conflicting interpretations of a 'sacred text' are a bounded set of permutations. Only a subset have been thought about by human minds and and only a subset of those are or have been argued about. Certainly there are many pending arguements, and forgotten ones too. Fine, whatever, but the actual demoninations of Christianity are defined by the subsets which have become the points of conflict. How? Because someone charismatic or powerful individual decided they should be, or maybe they wanted the bring glory to themselves with their own sect. The journey from unknown Biblical contradiction to TV evangelist is not one of rationale but of dirty politics. Hardly transcendental, but I suppose this is just another minor insensibility in a sea of theistic confusion.