There can be many interpretations of all texts, including both religious and scientific texts. Those multiple interpretations come from being different people with different backgrounds, experiences, and cultural upbringing - rather than convenience or zealotry by necessity.

The biggest difference, however, is that you can test a scientific interpretation, repeat a study, etc. You can be proven wrong or validated as right.

But with religion, there are no checks and balances. You are quite literally able to make up whatever interpretation you like, and you'd be neither right nor wrong. This is a massive conflict of what (organized) religion is.

You see, it really doesn't make any sense that the literal word of god would even need to be interpreted, since it should be clear as day for all to understand. At least, that's what I'd expect out of an all powerful god. And if enough people are misinterpreting the text, well, Mr. Bossman needs to come down and sort that shit out, right?

Scientists read the same texts, and study the same subjects all the time and come to different conclusions and that’s seen as a positive - arguably because the only way to deeply understand anything is from multiple perspectives. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs happen when alternatives to deeply established ideas emerge.

Again, if God himself says "X is true", there is absolutely no room for re-interpretation or a change in perspective. In science, it's EXPECTED and WELCOMED that theories will evolve, be improved, be found to be wrong, be found to have more evidence in support of it, etc.

For example, if X religion states that gays are bad, then you'd either have to believe that as the word of god, or ignore it.

If you ignore it, then do you really have faith in that religion? Of course not.

But if you choose to follow that belief, even if it goes against what you know to be true, then it makes you look foolish.