There seems to be a grammar mistake in your title. "Religion" has no leader. What you meant was "Religious leaders."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I see it as such:
- the leader is not supposed to be perfect, there is no such thing as perfect.
- if religious leaders engage in practices that are in direct contrast to their teachings, they are hypocrites. While hypocrisy may just be a fun term to throw around on the internet, in terms of an actual crime I find it extremely egregious. There is hardly a worse way of life than that of a hypocrite.
- I would not lose faith because my faith does not rest in men and women, it rests in the divine.
I welcome any direct discussion with my points as long as it's respectful, otherwise someone gets to officially be the first person I mute on B.Next.
English
-
Hypocrite, blasphemer, heretic. Words that are thrown around that shouldn't. Sorry, that was my original title but I changed it because it looked weird.
-
Noted! I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything, I just didn't want people making false assumptions based on the title.
-
It's cool, I understand. So you're saying if your leader went and molested a child you wouldn't second guess anything?
-
I would second guess that leader, yeah. But the doctrine never said "go ye and molest thy children," so my issue wouldn't be with doctrine. I would just take issue with those interpreting the doctrine at the highest level.