Why Do Atheists Criticize People's Beliefs?

[Harry Nevis]

If I delivered a doctrine and then said that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with my doctrine is accursed, would you just take my word for it or would you think that perhaps I was making a power play?

Paul's doctrine does not contradict the Scriptures, in fact it lines up perfectly with the rest of the bible.

Any doctrine that Matches up with the scriptures must be accepted as true.

Therefore if Paul's doctrine is sound, any contradicting doctrine makes that doctrine false.

---

Matches up with the other edited stories? Wow.  Why must it be accepted as true?

---

Perfectly? That's interesting. Jews seemed to have regarded the Law as a burden to be embraced and celebrated, not as something that revealed how utterly depraved they were. Admitting fault, making such amends as possible, observing the stipulations of the Law, maintaining ritual purity, and beseeching the Lord to forgive us was deemed sufficient for righteousness -- no gory sacrifice of some god/man, much less uncritical belief that such a thing happened, was required. Paul's doctrines, though consonant with scripture (after all, what else would you have expected from a Pharisee?), are hardly the last word on the subject and certainly debatable.

Not in the position to answer that in detail atm since I am still traveling.

In any case, if his doctrines match up with the scriptures they must be accepted as true? Um, no.

Really?

If there is no contradiction then what basis do you have to define any falsehood?

What basis do you have for saying it's true?  You're going about it back assward, just like most believers.  Basing truth on continuity in books that we have no originals of shows that truth is not what you're after.