Christians criticizing other christians

robindch

This question kinda sank in yesterday's 'extreme christianity' thread, but I think the question's worth an answer:

Why, on boards specifically, but in wider christianity, are christians apparently so reluctant to criticize the social views, the modus operandi etc, of other christians?

In yesterday's post, I pointed out that Ken Ham of AIG and publications like Alive, are clearly and unrepentantly less than honest. Ham takes home a large salary and his organization makes millions by selling lies about biology. While Alive's Brian McKevitt, well, he doesn't make millions, but he does seem able to scare the bejesus out of a lot people by telling lies or having his publication support the telling of lies, for example, about the EU. There are plenty of other examples out there, and it's not worth getting bogged down in the specifics of either Ham, Alive or any other example, but can we take it for the sake of argument, that at least some people out there who use religion to sell anti-social views of one kind or another?

I wouldn't only expect decent christians to suggest (or even get quite excited) that what Ham and Alive say is dishonest, but I would expect at least some to suggest that Ham and Alive are dishonest themselves, and perhaps even somebody to criticize a poster for buying into whatever dishonesty was being sold at the time.

But almost no christians do -- why not?

Run_to_da_hills

robindch wrote: »

While Alive's Brian McKevitt, well, he doesn't make millions, but he does seem able to scare the bejesus out of a lot people by telling lies or having his publication support the telling of lies, for example, about the EU.

Could you explain what lies in Brian McKevitt in Alive publication ? Source appreciated.

Is this a justification to ban this paper from the Catholic Church? Is the Irish Catholic not just as responsible for deceiving the public and hiding the truth from the other side?

What about all the lies and deceptions we get from state politicians in the run up to any election, all these false election promises we get that they know will never happen.

The Yes campaigner are just as responsible for deceiving the public about this forthcoming EU/Global dictatorship that will inevitably flush Ireland's constitution & moral laws down the toilet and usher in the age of the Antichrist.

We are all entitled to freedom of speech and any biased media censorship whatsoever is out of order.

JimiTime

Why would I? You are confident that they are knowingly peddling lies and that they're dishonest. I don't read any of their work, nor do they represent me. If you as a non-christian can see plainly that these people are dishonest, then why do you want other christians backing up that view? Unless of course you think christianity is in itself dishonest? If you conclude however, that honesty is a core of Christianity, then you will know that any real Christian will condemn dishonesty. 'A tree will be known by its fruits', 'Satan is the father of the lie'; these are just a couple of quotes from within the Christian theology. Should I vocally condemn the acts of 'Islamic' suicide bombers as if they've got something to do with me too?

Here's an idea, post a lie that they've knowingly told and ask the christians here if they condemn it. I think you'll find any Christian will condemn dishonesty, however we don't go looking at every preofessing Christian organisation for untruths. If there is an issue you believe is against the core Christian value of honesty, but you believe that Christians support it, post it up and see what happens.

Fanny Cradock

In my case it's ignorance. I don't believe I have heard of Alive until it was mentioned here yesterday. So I can't comment on it. Similarly, the name Ken Ham has only been used in a disparaging manner on the creationism thread, sort of like a dirty word. Given that most of the large denominations of Christianity (Catholicism and Methodist etc.) accept evolution, I would see their position as automatically critical of Ham and co.

Most honest and truthful Christians will speak out against lies and hypocrisy they may see within their church and religious community, and it is very possible that much of this is kept in-house, so to speak. However, there may also be a reticence to speak out speaking out against these things, especially when at times the church and it's members (correctly or otherwise) feels that they are under unjustified attack from the outside. Circling the wagons may not always be the appropriate response because it make introspection difficult, but it seems that it is a human, rather than a religious, failing.

TBH, stepping outside the mod issue, I believe that in certain cases I would take my criticisms of views expressed by fellow Christians to PM.

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's an idea, post a lie that they've knowingly told and ask the christians here if they condemn it. I think you'll find any Christian will condemn dishonesty, however we don't go looking at every preofessing Christian organisation for untruths. If there is an issue you believe is against the core Christian value of honesty, but you believe that Christians support it, post it up and see what happens.

As an aside, I have no problem with this aspect of Jimi's post. But lets couch any replies in terms of the failings of the Christian church (whatever denomination) with regards to it's own morality and not simply to sink the knife in. Robin's question is a good one and it could be useful for all sides to understand each other, so let's keep it civil.

--amadeus--

OK, let's move it to another context.

I am a Liverpool fan, I follow the team and am massively proud of teh club, team and supporters. I feel privledged to follow a team whose supporters have such a magnificent reputation aroiund teh world. As such when people make false attacks or claims on certain subjects I get angry and my sense or proportion goes out of teh window.

However if Liverpool fans were to riot, or when those claiming to be Liverpool fans attacked an ambulance carrying an injured Man Utd player i was disgusted and strongly agreed with anyone who critisised it. No matter my empathy with the supporters thier actions put them outside the pale, I no longer considered myslef affiliated with them

So I would expect - for example - that other christias would be vitriolic of the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church (reasons here). I can't think of a clearer example of hate and lies than the Reverend Phelps and his cronies.

I assume that every christian would join me in wholeheartedly and without reservation condemming thier actions?

Fanny Cradock

Yes, I believe that there has been countless rebukes on this forum towards Fred Phelps and his egregiously twisted brand of Christianity.

Gareth37

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Could you explain what lies in Brian McKevitt in Alive publication ? Source appreciated.

Is this a justification to ban this paper from the Catholic Church? Is the Irish Catholic not just as responsible for deceiving the public and hiding the truth from the other side?

What about all the lies and deceptions we get from state politicians in the run up to any election, all these false election promises we get that they know will never happen.

The Yes campaigner are just as responsible for deceiving the public about this forthcoming EU/Global dictatorship that will inevitably flush Ireland's constitution & moral laws down the toilet and usher in the age of the Antichrist.

We are all entitled to freedom of speech and any biased media censorship whatsoever is out of order.

I agree 100% with this.

Also antisocial; opposing the EU (Dragon) is antisocial??? Surely its not antisocial but a political view, is that what man made democracy preaches?

Forgive me if my views appear ignorant, hypocritical or judgemental for its truly only an opinion.

Gareth37

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In my case it's ignorance. I don't believe I have heard of Alive until it was mentioned here yesterday.

Yes, the past week or two has been great for publicity for Alive. The banning of Alive by the Irish Government will be great beacuse more and more young people especially will now take an interest in the truth.

Regardless of your stance or position on Alive and the political views they have one thing is for sure that Alive will be stronger and more powerful as a result of the actions of the Irish Governemnt ban (in a supposed democracy).

eoin5

Gareth37 wrote: »

Yes, the past week or two has been great for publicity for Alive. The banning of Alive by the Irish Government will be great beacuse more and more young people especially will now take an interest in the truth.

Regardless of your stance or position on Alive and the political views they have one thing is for sure that Alive will be stronger and more powerful as a result of the actions of the Irish Governemnt ban (in a supposed democracy).

If people take an interest in the truth then they might find out that they dont have to feel sorry for people who masturbate, contrary to what was published in Alive.

Gareth37

eoin5 wrote: »

If people take an interest in the truth then they might find out that they dont have to feel sorry for people who masturbate, contrary to what was published in Alive.

I don't understand your post but imo masturbation is caused by corruption of the mind caused by the influences of the beast, creating a manufactured society where people are blind to the truth. Just like drugs, casual sex, prostitution, booze and other filth introduced into this country by the manufactured dream of the Beast.

Thats just my opinion after reading scripture and finding the Holy Spirit.

Malari

Gareth37 wrote: »

I don't understand your post but imo masturbation is caused by corruption of the mind caused by the influences of the beast, creating a manufactured society where people are blind to the truth. Just like drugs, casual sex, prostitution, booze and other filth introduced into this country by the manufactured dream of the Beast.

Thats just my opinion after reading scripture and finding the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to see another christian refute this! What could possibly be wrong with masturbation? It's fun and you do it on your own. Nobody hurt.

Casual sex...booze...what is filthy about this? Is pre-meditated sex ok? And who is this beastie you speak of?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that most of the large denominations of Christianity (Catholicism and Methodist etc.) accept evolution, I would see their position as automatically critical of Ham and co.

Yes, automatically. But not explicitly, and why that happens to be is what I'm wondering.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Circling the wagons may not always be the appropriate response because it make introspection difficult, but it seems that it is a human, rather than a religious, failing.

On the contrary, I believe it's a human failing and therefore, it's a religious failing too. Religion, in the sociological sense that I tend to use the term, is comparable to ideaware, or software that runs on human hardware and it's difficult to separate the two. I take your point about circling the wagons and there's certainly an element of truth to that.

But turning the question on its head may be useful. At what point would people who self-describe as christians publicly complain about other people who self-describe as christians and who use this perceived common identity for some nefarious end or other?

As I said in another post somewhere recently, it suggests that christian claims to having, or having access to, a higher morality are less than convincing if their own house is not in order first. Alternatively, one could look at public calls to anti-social behaviour as darkening the good name of christianity and I'm reminded here of the old saying that for evil to prosper, all it takes is for good men to do nothing. Either way, there's little public censure, or even comment, and almost none of it self-generated that I can see, outside of the egregiously awful Fred Phelps.

BTW, stepping away from Alive, I have in mind here anything stretching from the fairly mild unpleasantness of Ken Ham's call for christians to reject marriage to non-christians, to Stephen Green's (aka "Christian Voice") distinctly unpleasant public threat of disorder and violence in the name of christianity, because he knows that threats work.

Have any christians come out and publicly said "No, Stephen Green does not represent me" or contacted Green to explain that he is falsely claiming to speak in the name of all christians?

.

Gareth37

Malari wrote: »

I'd like to see another christian refute this! What could possibly be wrong with masturbation? It's fun and you do it on your own. Nobody hurt.

Casual sex...booze...what is filthy about this? Is pre-meditated sex ok? And who is this beastie you speak of?

All these things distort the mind. That part of your body is there to reproduce but through manipulation of the mind by the Beast (USA's manufactured social policy) people begin to build their lives around it.

Do dogs, sheep, chickens, pigs, goats, horses etc masturbate - no because their minds cannot be manipulated by media/society which is a manufactured human concept.

Why is it bad? Because people become obsessed with that part of their lifes and abuse it and forget about what they are on here to do - to spread and practise the word of the Gospel.

Thats my opinion from reading scripture and attempting to understand it and life with help of the Holy Spirit. I expect a lot of disagreement with this point of view as I know that these views will not be shared by the majority but you should never follow a crowd.

BrianCalgary

As for the OP, I have no idea what Alive is to speak out against it.

I don't read Ken Ham either, but I'd probably agree with what he does say as evolution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt so I would presume that there is nothing to criticise as being dishonest.

As for Phelps, yes I have spoken out against him as many other posters here have.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

BTW, stepping away from Alive, I have in mind here anything stretching from the fairly mild unpleasantness of Ken Ham's call for christians to reject marriage to non-christians, to Stephen Green's (aka "Christian Voice") distinctly unpleasant public threat of disorder and violence in the name of christianity, because he knows that threats work.

Have any christians come out and publicly said "No, Stephen Green does not represent me" or contacted Green to explain that he is falsely claiming to speak in the name of all christians?

.

No, because I have no idea who Stephen Green is.

Malari

Gareth37 wrote: »

All these things distort the mind. That part of your body is there to reproduce but through manipulation of the mind by the Beast (USA's manufactured social policy) people begin to build their lives around it.

Do dogs, sheep, chickens, pigs, goats, horses etc masturbate - no because their minds cannot be manipulated by media/society which is a manufactured human concept.

Why is it bad? Because people become obsessed with that part of their lifes and abuse it and forget about what they are on here to do - to spread and practise the word of the Gospel.

Thats my opinion from reading scripture and attempting to understand it and life with help of the Holy Spirit. I expect a lot of disagreement with this point of view as I know that these views will not be shared by the majority but you should never follow a crowd.

Humans are not the only primate to masturbate or have casual sex for that matter. That part of your body's function is to reproduce - in fact if you see it that way, every other organ in your body just contributes to the overall function of the body to make more of itself. The stomach digests food, but that doesn't mean you must only feed it nutritious items only and can't eat nice food because you might enjoy it too much, just for the sake of it.

And not everyone is "on here" to preach the word of the gospel. Do you mean earth? So your god invented people to tell each other about god? That is a little circular, isn't it?

Gareth37

Malari wrote: »

Humans are not the only primate to masturbate or have casual sex for that matter. That part of your body's function is to reproduce - in fact if you see it that way, every other organ in your body just contributes to the overall function of the body to make more of itself. The stomach digests food, but that doesn't mean you must only feed it nutritious items only and can't eat nice food because you might enjoy it too much, just for the sake of it.

And not everyone is "on here" to preach the word of the gospel. Do you mean earth? So your god invented people to tell each other about god? That is a little circular, isn't it?

Hes not my God, He is our God.

Im not going to argue with you for I accept your point of view in the social contex of this world. There is no point trying to compare a man made world with the views of true Christians because they are totally in contradiction. We just have to agree to disagree on this forum.

Malari

Gareth37 wrote: »

Hes not my God, He is our God.

I don't have a god, but thanks for the offer of sharing yours.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Im not going to argue with you for I accept your point of view in the social contex of this world. There is no point trying to compare a man made world with the views of true Christians because they are totally in contradiction. We just have to agree to disagree on this forum.

OK, you can disagree with me if you want, I can't say the same about your views as I have no idea what you are talking about.

Mark Hamill

Gareth37 wrote: »

All these things distort the mind. That part of your body is there to reproduce but through manipulation of the mind by the Beast (USA's manufactured social policy) people begin to build their lives around it.

Have to say, pretty sure people masturbated before USA ever existed. And can you point to the part of USAs social policy that encourages masturbation?

Gareth37 wrote: »

Do dogs, sheep, chickens, pigs, goats, horses etc masturbate - no because their minds cannot be manipulated by media/society which is a manufactured human concept.

I am not aware of any of those animals masturbating, but I have heard of bears, apes and dolphins masturbating.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Why is it bad? Because people become obsessed with that part of their lifes and abuse it and forget about what they are on here to do - to spread and practise the word of the Gospel.

You seem to be a little mixed up here, masturbation (like anything in life) is only bad if you become obsessed with it and forget about the rest of your life. Just because someone masturbates doesn't mean they are automatically obsessed with it.

Gareth37 wrote: »

Thats my opinion from reading scripture and attempting to understand it and life with help of the Holy Spirit. I expect a lot of disagreement with this point of view as I know that these views will not be shared by the majority but you should never follow a crowd.

I find its often quite a bad a idea to deal in absolutes. Its true that you shouldn't follow a crowd just because a crowd is there to follow, but sometimes, a large group of people believe something because it is the right thing to believe.

NB: I realise this is wildly off topic, maybe a new thread is in order?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Yes, automatically. But not explicitly, and why that happens to be is what I'm wondering.On the contrary, I believe it's a human failing and therefore, it's a religious failing too. Religion, in the sociological sense that I tend to use the term, is comparable to ideaware, or software that runs on human hardware and it's difficult to separate the two. I take your point about circling the wagons and there's certainly an element of truth to that.

Well, I think that there may be a little bit of clearing up to do. I would certainly agree with you that religion is a construct of man and it is open to all the abuses of it's adherents. I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. However, I think we have a very different opinion when it comes to what exactly constitutes a religion beyond the textbook definition. For my part (and others I know), I would not necessarily consider myself religious yet I'm a Christian who attends a church. Can you see the difference?

robindch wrote: »

But turning the question on its head may be useful. At what point would people who self-describe as christians publicly complain about other people who self-describe as christians and who use this perceived common identity for some nefarious end or other?

I don't know really. In the greater sense, while I may be of the opinion that most of the Christian denominations have the essentials in common, and to this end, I would feel a certain bond with its members (brothers in Christ etc.), I don't necessary feel a great connection with the religion of the denomination. Consequently I don't necessarily (important emphasis there) feel a weight on me to rebuke it.

For instance, I don't oppose gay marriage outside the Church. We should look at the implications arising from it (specifically the financial and legal consequences to the State), but aside from that - no problem. However, if a particular denomination feels the need to rage against it, well, there is probably little that I can do other than express my opinion on the matter. I just don't feel passionately enough on the matter.

However, going to the extreme of the nastiness scale: The Phelps' and Friends. I would probably be far more vocal in actively expressing my criticism and disgust at their message then the previous example, or for that matter, somebodies opinion on creationism. Everything is weighted on a scale and some injustices or opinions push my button more so than others.

robindch wrote: »

As I said in another post somewhere recently, it suggests that christian claims to having, or having access to, a higher morality are less than convincing if their own house is not in order first. Alternatively, one could look at public calls to anti-social behaviour as darkening the good name of christianity and I'm reminded here of the old saying that for evil to prosper, all it takes is for good men to do nothing. Either way, there's little public censure, or even comment, and almost none of it self-generated that I can see, outside of the egregiously awful Fred Phelps.

Agreed with in part. While I do believe there is a higher morality (we wont agree where this comes from), I certainly don't subscribe to the notion this means that we (Christians) are more moral than a raging heathen like yourself, robin. Indeed, I think it is quite dangerous and ultimately self-defeating to automatically put a person or an institution (religious and others) on this higher moral ground.

robindch wrote: »

Have any christians come out and publicly said "No, Stephen Green does not represent me" or contacted Green to explain that he is falsely claiming to speak in the name of all christians?

I think I may have seen him and his merry band very briefly on C4. Not enough to know what he is about, though. If he is preaching hate, then, yes, I would condemn his message. However, given that I don't know anything about him, it would be foolish of me to go off on a rant.

Run_to_da_hills

Gareth37 wrote: »

I agree 100% with this.

Also antisocial; opposing the EU (Dragon) is antisocial??? Surely its not antisocial but a political view, is that what man made democracy preaches?

Forgive me if my views appear ignorant, hypocritical or judgemental for its truly only an opinion.

Interesting trivia on the EEC from a Biblical prospective.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/seat_666.htm

Gareth37

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Interesting trivia on the EEC from a Biblical prospective.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/seat_666.htm

Thanks and maybe its time we discussed the possible fraud that is global warming and cows destroying the planet.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=185

Im sure the Dragon and the Beast will make plenty of silver from the possible hoax that is global warming.

Fanny Cradock

Guys, this is going way off topic. The next person that posts some conspiracy theory drivel about the EU, the Beast or global warming gets slapped around by the mods.

Gareth37, I've deleted your post because it hasn't got anything to do with this thread and it the picture also annoyingly resizes the entire page.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

But almost no christians do -- why not?

I did
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57849074#post57849074

I'd say a lot of Christians do not even bother anymore. Tried too many times to no avail.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

As I said in another post somewhere recently, it suggests that christian claims to having, or having access to, a higher morality are less than convincing if their own house is not in order first. Alternatively, one could look at public calls to anti-social behaviour as darkening the good name of christianity and I'm reminded here of the old saying that for evil to prosper, all it takes is for good men to do nothing. Either way, there's little public censure, or even comment, and almost none of it self-generated that I can see, outside of the egregiously awful Fred Phelps.

I agree that any claims to a higher morality must be backed by higher moral behaviour. Real Christians will not be perfect, given that they will only attain that in heaven, but they will be characterised by godliness. The general tone of their life, their overall conduct, will be moral.

It is a complicated world, however, and knowing what is right in God's sight sometimes is hidden by social norms and mere worldly-wise ways of reacting. For example, striking back against a wrong done to oneself, rather than committing it to God and praying for the offender.

It gets even more problematic when we see the wrong is done to other innocents - what ought we to do in response? At times we can use our rights of citizenship to enforce justice, at others we can only properly object and suffer with them.

BTW, stepping away from Alive, I have in mind here anything stretching from the fairly mild unpleasantness of Ken Ham's call for christians to reject marriage to non-christians,

Ken's call is THE Christian position:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

to Stephen Green's (aka "Christian Voice") distinctly unpleasant public threat of disorder and violence in the name of christianity, because he knows that threats work.

Have any christians come out and publicly said "No, Stephen Green does not represent me" or contacted Green to explain that he is falsely claiming to speak in the name of all christians?

Yes, he seems to hint at disorder and violence to stop blasphemous displays. That is a worldly tactic, very common in Western and Eastern society: in strikes, protests, intimidation of opponents. Deplorable. Who does he think he is, an unbeliever?

I have not contacted him (yet), as I never heard of this statement until you posted it. I don't know much about him at all. But I will make enquiries.

Demonique

Gareth37 wrote: »

Do dogs, sheep, chickens, pigs, goats, horses etc masturbate - no because their minds cannot be manipulated by media/society which is a manufactured human concept.

I suggest you do some research on the subject, animals DO masturbate, and what's more there is documented video evidence!

>Snip< link removed >Snip<

PDN

If people want to discuss masturbation then go to After Hours.

This thread is about Christians criticising other Christians. If posters can't keep on topic then the thread will be locked.