The Most Obnoxious Dogma

I was raised in church.
I consider myself a follower of Christ, and endeavor to love everyone as I believe He loves us.

But there are certain dogma and doctrines which too many church people cling to like they're Christ's undergarments, and which make my life so much more difficult when dealing with and relating to people who weren't raised in church (such as my wife), or were raised in church and eventually abandoned Christianity because of church people.

1) Biblical literalism
This single philosophy has caused the spread and solidification of so much deliberate ignorance over the centuries, especially when church officials had the power to hand down death sentences to anyone who questioned it (like, say, scientists), and today when politicians make a show of pandering to church people by refusing to act on the scientific community's findings.
To say nothing of leading to believing in a church-conjured bogeyman from Job's story (the accuser), and inflicting that interpretation upon the rest of the anthology, and upon all recorded history as well.

This has led to an abandonment of common sense (while ironically declaring the philosophy to BE common sense), and the demonization of anyone who wishes to delve into the cultural, historical, and literary contexts of the various texts included in the anthology, because we tend to reach different conclusions than the church-people-approved catechism.

2) Sola Scriptura
In conjunction with #1, this becomes all the more obnoxious.
For those playing the home game, this is a Latin phrase meaning "scripture alone".
Originally, this doctrine was codified in the midst of many church publications and tracts assuming the same authority as the Bible, to say nothing of Papal Bulls and the Roman Catholic policy of indulgences, and the codifiers (among them Martin Luther) wished to wipe the slate clean and return to the basics.
Which to a point is all well and good, but too many church people have interpreted the doctrine to mean that the Bible is the ONLY THING CHRISTIANS CAN READ. EVER.
Church people don't just want to tell you how to read the sacred anthology, they want you to ONLY read the sacred anthology. So any writings of historical contemporaries of the authors included in the sacred anthology, interpretations of those writings, new ideas and conclusions regarding the sacred anthology or any contemporaries or any later works, entertaining works of fiction, scientific research.........the list is endless, and its repression varies from church to church and within churches.

3) "Fallen" humanity
Church people like to point to the Garden of Eden story and its references throughout the anthology for this one, but even cursory research of creation myths across different cultures (ya know, the kind of research that literalists run screaming from) demonstrates that the Garden story is just like any other culture's story to answer the fundamental questions of the ancient world:
"Why is there a world?"
"Why are we here?"
"Why are we cruel to each other?"
Nearly every creation myth in every ancient culture answers these three questions in ways unique to that particular culture, and the Eden story is no different, demonstrating the priorities of a nomadic people who frequently interacted with agrarian societies.
I can easily imagine a young Hebrew boy walking with his family's herds past a city at night, and turning to his father to ask, "Why don't we live in cities and plant crops?"
And his father answering, "Back before your grandfather's grandfather, there was no need to plant crops or herd animals..."
And so on, into the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience, which forced everyone to work the soil and herd animals. And maybe the father also tells the Cain and Abel story, in which the obviously non-Hebrew farmer is rejected by God while the obviously-Hebrew herdsman is blessed by God...and then subsequently killed by the farmer.
Which sounds quite similar on a microcosmic level to the Egyptian oppression and enslavement of the Hebrews.
Hmm.
But facts and hard evidence (talking snake anyone?) do not come into these stories, because the stories weren't based on facts or hard evidence.
So extrapolating some kind of factual relationship between a story of two people disobeying God and every human ever being automatically "tainted" makes no sense, and furthermore is dangerous because it can and has led to a philosophy in which we avoid taking care of each other as fellow humans.
Either because we as the caregivers are "fallen" and use that fallen-ness as an excuse to do nothing, or because those of whom we should take care are "fallen," and thus unworthy of our care.



These are just a few that I can think of at the moment, and yes I realize that #1 seems to have caused the problems in #2 and #3.
I've interacted with so many church people online who treat these as foundational precepts of Christianity, yet my own life without them has been so much more fulfilling and abundant since I concluded that they were spiritual deadweight.
Especially in forming relationships with people of different (or no) spiritual traditions.