Pros and cons of religions with lots of doctrine

[MargotQuaker]

(As an advocate of a religion with minimum doctrine I would say this, wouldn't I?) BUT the snag about a religion with lots of doctrine is that if you start having difficulty with any bit of it you risk starting to have difficulty with the whole thing. If your religion is sort of minimalist, and can be minimalist even as regards ideas of God, you can hang onto it like grim death when many forms of confidence desert you.

On the other hand it can sometimes be useful to have some structure to hang on to ?

(depends on the person, their personality and their situation as to whether a lot of doctrine or a little suits them best I suspect)

I mean - I find in my own prayer life that things can get very intense and it?s useful (for me) to have the accumulated wisdom of a couple of thousand years doctrine as a handrail to hold on to.

I agree - if there's a lot of doctrine and an "all or nothing" attitude, then as soon as you have a problem with one detail, you have a problem with the whole structure. Which either means you have to carry on with doubts you don't dare try to talk through, or give up on the whole thing even though you're still in agreement with 99% of it.

Whereas if you have a small number of "required beliefs" and a lot of "areas up for debate" then you can question parts of it, while not throwing out the whole thing.

But many on here make accusations of a "pick & mix" attitude if you advocate that approach, probably because their experience of religion has been the more doctrine-heavy variety!

A long enough list of doctrine means everyone in your church 'gets it' when you have a few doubts.

Pix and mix: if I achieve some consistency between my principles and my actions that's all the consistency I aim for. As regards religious stories, I think I can avail myself of them without having to consider them factual.