The debate "If a religious text is open to interpretation then it is inadequate at conveying information" was started by
February 18, 2015, 1:02 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
liamjosephcash posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
rickrollross posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
liamjosephcash, navabeans, sickboyblonde, LucaGames, Hjkp98, BloodyCarousel, Mr_Anonymous, Aakanksha, I_Voyager, resiliently, Razzakel, sonaybitch and 8 visitors agree.
rickrollross, PsychDave, ameliajane, Haelaeif and 7 visitors disagree.
If an author says that a pen is blue, and the book becomes a classic, people will ascribe meaning to the fact that detail. The author may really have just meant that there was a blue pen, bit people will say is is a reference to the freedom in the blue sky, or a sign of the sadness of the character. Literature is interpreted to have almost infinite meaning and nuance. Word choice, description, characterization and dialogue are combed through for meaning and, while lots of that meaning would be intentional if the author is good, at least some is just over analysis. The same is true of religious texts.
good point but if it has a pronouncement about reality then accuracy and clarity is invaluable
why can't literature have many layers of meaning? not just religious ones
but any text at all. to say it shouldn't be open to interpretation is denying us humans our ability to think. I'm not religious by the way