|
I think you're right, upland. The minute someone decides words on a page cannot be flawed, what they're really fooling themselves into thinking is that their own personal understanding of the text is therefore flawless. Thinking yourself in any way capable of a flawless all-knowing opinion is shutting yourself off to any further insight.
It's a presumptuous and limited way of worshiping our own flawed human minds which is actually very opposite of what Christianity teaches.
I think the key is that you have to think for yourself to establish moralistic guidelines, but you can never get too sure that what you think can't be challenged.
If our politics stayed on moral grounds debated by didactic conversations, we'd probably see more agreement throughout many different religious orientations.