In what aspect? About religion in general or about the role of churches?
If you care to tell me where you believe I am in error I will listen.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
In a Biblical sense, the false doctrine that your post implies is that there is a correct way of interpreting scripture and a wrong of interpreting scripture while all you have to back up your claims about it is informed opinion at best. Why do you think your interpretation should be viewed as correct while someone else's shouldn't?
The more general false doctrine I am not in favor of is the idea that the Bible should be interpreted as something positive and meaningful while it is full of morally reprehensible acts ( for examples genocides) and ideas ( for example regulating how slavery should be carried out instead of banning it and instead banning something clearly less consequential like shellfish). Additionally, I don't think it's reasonable to treat it as correct either as its objective truthfulness remains unproven. Simple questions like how do you know that the Bible is correct while the Quran or the Book of Agita are false come to mind.
The most general false doctrine that you are implying indirectly is the there is merit in believing in something on faith.
The main reason I decided to comment was the fact that you can see how churches use sneaky tactics to keep you hooked and scared not to comply, but failed to see that religion in general is doing the exact same thing even when there are not churches involved. The exact holy book you are quoting has that built-in.
In what aspect? About religion in general or about the role of churches?
Thank you, I appreciate that.
In a Biblical sense, the false doctrine that your post implies is that there is a correct way of interpreting scripture and a wrong of interpreting scripture while all you have to back up your claims about it is informed opinion at best. Why do you think your interpretation should be viewed as correct while someone else's shouldn't?
The more general false doctrine I am not in favor of is the idea that the Bible should be interpreted as something positive and meaningful while it is full of morally reprehensible acts ( for examples genocides) and ideas ( for example regulating how slavery should be carried out instead of banning it and instead banning something clearly less consequential like shellfish). Additionally, I don't think it's reasonable to treat it as correct either as its objective truthfulness remains unproven. Simple questions like how do you know that the Bible is correct while the Quran or the Book of Agita are false come to mind.
The most general false doctrine that you are implying indirectly is the there is merit in believing in something on faith.
The main reason I decided to comment was the fact that you can see how churches use sneaky tactics to keep you hooked and scared not to comply, but failed to see that religion in general is doing the exact same thing even when there are not churches involved. The exact holy book you are quoting has that built-in.