Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Christians and Criticism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:31:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity?
While acknowledging that your question is not directed to non-Christians, VV, and while not seeking to answer the question myself, can you please state for the record what you hold 'doctrinally pure' Christianity to be, and how it can be independently authenticated?

Else if you can't authenticate it, how can anyone recognise invalid criticism?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:41:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:31:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity?
While acknowledging that your question is not directed to non-Christians, VV, and while not seeking to answer the question myself, can you please state for the record what you hold 'doctrinally pure' Christianity to be, and how it can be independently authenticated?

Else if you can't authenticate it, how can anyone recognise invalid criticism?

Each Christian has a different view on different issues. However, the following are generally considered to be mainstream Christian doctrine:

-Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
-Belief in the Trinity
-Belief that all have sinned, have a sinful nature, and in their natural state are headed for eternal damnation
-Belief that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way that a person may be saved
-Belief in a Hell for all who are not saved
-Belief in a Heaven where those who are saved will spend eternity
-Belief that marriage in God's eyes is between one man and one woman
-Belief that any sexual activity outside of marriage as defined above is sinful
-Belief that Jesus will one day come for His Church as described in the Book of Revelation
-Belied that God created the Earth
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:43:42 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:41:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:31:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity?
While acknowledging that your question is not directed to non-Christians, VV, and while not seeking to answer the question myself, can you please state for the record what you hold 'doctrinally pure' Christianity to be, and how it can be independently authenticated?

Else if you can't authenticate it, how can anyone recognise invalid criticism?

Each Christian has a different view on different issues. However, the following are generally considered to be mainstream Christian doctrine:

-Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
-Belief in the Trinity
-Belief that all have sinned, have a sinful nature, and in their natural state are headed for eternal damnation
-Belief that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way that a person may be saved
-Belief in a Hell for all who are not saved
-Belief in a Heaven where those who are saved will spend eternity
-Belief that marriage in God's eyes is between one man and one woman
-Belief that any sexual activity outside of marriage as defined above is sinful
-Belief that Jesus will one day come for His Church as described in the Book of Revelation
-Belied that God created the Earth
-Belief in the existence of Satan, demons, and angels
-Belief that the Bible is the Word of God
-Belief in sanctification through the works of the Holy Spirit
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:44:06 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

I'm critical of Atheism for pushing an agenda, a philosophy, an ideology by manipulation of facts or data, if need be, in order to secire the faith, a faith that's underlying reward is you can just die and that's it. I critisize a belief that automatically races to "you're stupid if you dare hypothesize a creator". I critisize the ideology that is the responsible "lack of believe" that has the highest suicide rate. I critisize the "lack of belief" that doesn't have the guts to hope for the best, if not fpr one's self, at least for your children. I critisize the "lack of belief" that focuses on the worst possible scenario then smuggly hopes for a random lights out scenario that will seperate them eternally from their loved ones and from the possibility of life. I critisize the motive because there is no good one. How do you feel about that?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 10:51:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:43:42 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:41:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:31:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity?
While acknowledging that your question is not directed to non-Christians, VV, and while not seeking to answer the question myself, can you please state for the record what you hold 'doctrinally pure' Christianity to be, and how it can be independently authenticated?

Else if you can't authenticate it, how can anyone recognise invalid criticism?

Each Christian has a different view on different issues. However, the following are generally considered to be mainstream Christian doctrine:

-Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
-Belief in the Trinity
-Belief that all have sinned, have a sinful nature, and in their natural state are headed for eternal damnation
-Belief that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way that a person may be saved
-Belief in a Hell for all who are not saved
-Belief in a Heaven where those who are saved will spend eternity
-Belief that marriage in God's eyes is between one man and one woman
-Belief that any sexual activity outside of marriage as defined above is sinful
-Belief that Jesus will one day come for His Church as described in the Book of Revelation
-Belied that God created the Earth
-Belief in the existence of Satan, demons, and angels
-Belief that the Bible is the Word of God
-Belief in sanctification through the works of the Holy Spirit
-Belief in the complementary roles of men and women
-Belief that the Jews are God's chosen people even though all may be saved
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 11:40:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:41:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:31:02 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity?
While acknowledging that your question is not directed to non-Christians, VV, and while not seeking to answer the question myself, can you please state for the record what you hold 'doctrinally pure' Christianity to be, and how it can be independently authenticated?
Else if you can't authenticate it, how can anyone recognise invalid criticism?
Each Christian has a different view on different issues. However, the following are generally considered to be mainstream Christian doctrine:

-Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ
-Belief in the Trinity
-Belief that all have sinned, have a sinful nature, and in their natural state are headed for eternal damnation
-Belief that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way that a person may be saved
-Belief in a Hell for all who are not saved
-Belief in a Heaven where those who are saved will spend eternity
-Belief that marriage in God's eyes is between one man and one woman
-Belief that any sexual activity outside of marriage as defined above is sinful
-Belief that Jesus will one day come for His Church as described in the Book of Revelation
-Belied that God created the Earth

Source and authentication, VV?

Here's an English translation of the original Nicene Creed, for example, which dates from the First Council of Nicaea in 325CE:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.
But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'" they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.


And here's how it was amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381CE:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds ("ons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;
whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


Those are the oldest documented ecumenical Christian creeds I know of. Yet, separated by only a few generations, they're substantially different, and your version is different again.

So, again, what is 'doctrinal purity', and how does it invalidate critique of Christian values and beliefs, when Christians themselves have critiqued one anothers' values and beliefs since before they had an oficial, documented ecumenical creed?

Don't you have the thumb on the scales of this conversation from the outset with your original post?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 12:02:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

Human nature is what it is, and many "christians think that human nature is wonderful and the way to God and heaven and fulfillment in God. Which makes their hopes and desires no different then those who are not christian. As in, no matter how much you polish a turd, it"s still a turd.

God"s Nature and Ways are not the nature and ways of men, nor are men"s ways and nature like God"s but most churches these days teach and encourage fulfillment in human nature rather than God"s nature. And is not what those who walk with the Lord care for.

Man"s nature may or may not be intrinsically evil depending on your view, but it is most definitely contrary to God"s nature, which is the supposed focus of the christian Church looking to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of God"s nature in the flesh that they will receive fulfillment in.

So evil churches? Yea, because they are using what is for the fulfillment in Christ for fulfillment in things other then Christ according to their own judgement of what is good.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 1:03:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

i left christiany because of the lack of evidence of your god.
i found that i preferred evidence over faith, so faith has no value to me.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 1:19:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 10:44:06 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

I'm critical of Atheism for pushing an agenda, a philosophy, an ideology by manipulation of facts or data, if need be, in order to secire the faith, a faith that's underlying reward is you can just die and that's it.

Atheism, by definition, doesn't push an agenda, a philosophy, or any of that.

I critisize a belief that automatically races to "you're stupid if you dare hypothesize a creator".

Again, the belief doesn't, some people within the belief do, and even at that I would argue that most of them aren't criticizing hypothesizing a deity, so much so as they criticize things like the god-of-the-gaps and other such jumps to conclusions.

I critisize the ideology that is the responsible "lack of believe" that has the highest suicide rate.

Citation needed.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that doesn't have the guts to hope for the best, if not fpr one's self, at least for your children.

A philosophy does not have the capability to have cowardice.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that focuses on the worst possible scenario then smuggly hopes for a random lights out scenario that will seperate them eternally from their loved ones and from the possibility of life.

I don't know, I would argue that the Christian belief in hell is a worse possible scenario than ceasing to exist.

I critisize the motive because there is no good one. How do you feel about that?

What motive?

Seriously, this post is nothing but a giant strawman.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 1:35:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 1:19:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:44:06 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

I'm critical of Atheism for pushing an agenda, a philosophy, an ideology by manipulation of facts or data, if need be, in order to secire the faith, a faith that's underlying reward is you can just die and that's it.

Atheism, by definition, doesn't push an agenda, a philosophy, or any of that.

I critisize a belief that automatically races to "you're stupid if you dare hypothesize a creator".

Again, the belief doesn't, some people within the belief do, and even at that I would argue that most of them aren't criticizing hypothesizing a deity, so much so as they criticize things like the god-of-the-gaps and other such jumps to conclusions.

I critisize the ideology that is the responsible "lack of believe" that has the highest suicide rate.

Citation needed.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that doesn't have the guts to hope for the best, if not fpr one's self, at least for your children.

A philosophy does not have the capability to have cowardice.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that focuses on the worst possible scenario then smuggly hopes for a random lights out scenario that will seperate them eternally from their loved ones and from the possibility of life.

I don't know, I would argue that the Christian belief in hell is a worse possible scenario than ceasing to exist.

I critisize the motive because there is no good one. How do you feel about that?

What motive?

Seriously, this post is nothing but a giant strawman.

Keep telling yourself that. Ahem...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2016 1:42:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/23/2016 1:35:00 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/23/2016 1:19:13 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:44:06 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/22/2016 10:25:55 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Okay, so...ever since the Western world has lost its sense of Christian-ness, criticism of the Church has abounded.
By this I'm not talking about the "Christianity doesn't make scientific sense" kind of criticism. Rather, the "people are leaving the Church in droves because of X and Y!" kind of criticism.

Christians, whenever you receive such criticism, how do you determine what is valid criticism and what is simply the difference in values between the world and doctrinally pure Christianity? How much truth do you think there is to the "Christians are hypocrites/bigots/horrible people!" allegations? Should criticism from the world be accepted at all?
What are your thoughts on this?

I'm critical of Atheism for pushing an agenda, a philosophy, an ideology by manipulation of facts or data, if need be, in order to secire the faith, a faith that's underlying reward is you can just die and that's it.

Atheism, by definition, doesn't push an agenda, a philosophy, or any of that.

I critisize a belief that automatically races to "you're stupid if you dare hypothesize a creator".

Again, the belief doesn't, some people within the belief do, and even at that I would argue that most of them aren't criticizing hypothesizing a deity, so much so as they criticize things like the god-of-the-gaps and other such jumps to conclusions.

I critisize the ideology that is the responsible "lack of believe" that has the highest suicide rate.

Citation needed.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that doesn't have the guts to hope for the best, if not fpr one's self, at least for your children.

A philosophy does not have the capability to have cowardice.

I critisize the "lack of belief" that focuses on the worst possible scenario then smuggly hopes for a random lights out scenario that will seperate them eternally from their loved ones and from the possibility of life.

I don't know, I would argue that the Christian belief in hell is a worse possible scenario than ceasing to exist.

I critisize the motive because there is no good one. How do you feel about that?

What motive?

Seriously, this post is nothing but a giant strawman.

Keep telling yourself that. Ahem...

Rejecting all arguments doesn't refute them.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown