An ex exclusive brethren made the comment, quote:
Don’t all ideologies and all religions lie somewhere on a broad spectrum between beneficial and harmful? To suggest in an unqualified way that religions are harmful is rather like saying chemicals are harmful or ideas are harmful. Some are and some aren’t.
end quote (my bold)
We human will happily fairly promptly attend to harm caused by chemical ? . And most ideas
But not so, with regard of harm caused by religion (IE:religion is treated far differnly with protectionism of taboo )
I’m not sure why the educated person ,who made the comment, had decide to dismiss this big difference ? . Or overlook it perhaps?
Due to being overcome with an overwhelming sense of preference perhaps ? (IE: prefer to believe that religion is approached in the same manner in which we approach chemical harm, or other harmful ideas)
But fairly easy to do, perhaps ,if you’d far rather not need to admit that in fact religion is indeed being treated entirely differently (IE: a sense of taboo still surrounds religious practice)
Someone else goes on to talk about whats happening in China, with regard of atheist dictator. And so on. Rada rada rada. As if finding how there is two wrong ,can then help make the other then seem all quite ok too ?
What kind of argument is that . School ground philosophy 101?
Christian will do this all the time. Perhaps even the exclusive brethren may look at faith abuses happening elsewhere, within some other Christian church groups too,and then say to themselves, well see how there is faith abuse is also happening somewhere else as well too
IE = Abuses promptly excused within Brethren
That then also means, it’s not thought to be half as bad, to think that their own group has also been involved in it too as well themselves = conscience appeased
Little wonder they ,still, as yet, never ever actually got around to addressing widespread faith abuses?
The Christian spend more time, trying to think of some fang-dangled intricate way in which to help excuse themselves
They far rather try and figure out how to excuse it
Even so far as bowling on ahead making a hash job of arguing for it
So blindly intent on doing so ?
Usually its “the children” who’ll be apt to want to come up with the (excuse) idea that perhaps acknowledging the existence of two wrongs, can then somehow help make it seem all alright and quite ok
It’s usually the children whom are most commonly involved in happily proposing to use that line of argument ?
A little surprising, perhaps though, considering that the Catholic church didn’t “try it on” ,too, and try pointing out how there was in fact also sex abuse in secular society as well too = IE: therefore the Catholic church abuses should also then be excused
However, perhaps they never bother to have “tried it on” , because its a silly line of argument?
I’d guess so. Im fairly sure they’d understand how silly it would be, to try and argue ,like that
Two wrongs don’t help to make it right
Christianity should stop trying to sidestep the faith abuse issue. And begin to get on with finally addressing the harm
They are not doing their own group any favour, by not bothering to do so