What's wrong with this logic?

Taking advice from a different person of expertise then being accused of knowing better than God because I didn't take advice from a religious leader of perceived expertise. Guilt tripped from taking antidepressants was equated with not trusting God or his word according to scripture. 

There are several logical fallacies and poor reasoning present in this scenario:

1. **Appeal to Authority Fallacy (Ad Verecundiam):** The original argument implies that a religious leader's expertise is automatically more valid than that of other experts, such as medical professionals, when it comes to mental health. This overlooks the fact that expertise is context-specific. A religious leader may have authority on spiritual matters, but not necessarily on medical treatments or mental health.

2. **False Dichotomy (False Dilemma):** The argument sets up a false dichotomy, suggesting that one must choose between trusting medical advice and trusting God or scripture. This simplistic binary ignores the possibility that individuals can believe in and trust both religious teachings and medical science.

3. **Guilt Tripping (Emotional Manipulation):** Using guilt to dissuade someone from following medical advice is a form of emotional manipulation. It attempts to influence behavior by making someone feel bad or ashamed rather than providing a rational argument.

4. **Straw Man Fallacy:** The argument may be misrepresenting the position of those who take antidepressants, suggesting they don't trust God, which is likely not their stance at all. This builds a distorted version of the opposing argument to make it easier to attack.

5. **Non Sequitur:** The conclusion that taking antidepressants equates to not trusting God does not logically follow from the premise of consulting different experts for different issues. Trust in medical solutions for health issues does not necessarily negate one's spiritual beliefs or trust in God.

6. **Cognitive Bias - Confirmation Bias:** Those presenting this argument might be suffering from confirmation bias, paying attention only to information that supports their religious viewpoint while dismissing evidence-based medical practices.

7. **Black-and-White Thinking:** The argument presents an oversimplified black-and-white perspective, ignoring the complexities and nuances of both faith and medical treatment. Many people find a way to integrate both into their lives.

Overall, the argument dismisses the validity of specialized knowledge in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach and manipulates emotions rather than engaging in logical reasoning.

Two different arguments here:

1) Taking advice from a religious leader

2) Not interpreting the Bible the same way as the one making the argument.

As for #1, I would just ask "So are you saying [religious leader] is God?" Then talk about how do we know this religious leader accurately represents a god (this words as either a theist or atheist).

As for #2, this is the Biblical interpretation argument. As an atheist, you can argue why anyone should believe that book is the word of a perfect god. As a theist, you can ask for the scripture that advises against antidepressants (spoiler, there is none). They will likely return some generic scripture which you can then find an example that applies showing the fault in their logic. For example, Psalm 118:8 "It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in humans." Does this mean if your hand got chopped off, you would simply "trust in the LORD" rather than a human doctor at the hospital? Then discuss.