• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

criticizing Christianity

lunamoth

Will to love
Ðanisty said:
I'm not a Christian, yet my religion is based off of the same mythology as yours. It may not be the same, but it is still valid. In fact, I don't believe that there is a belief that's invalid. I'm having a hard time seeing your opinion on this as being more than a bias.
Of course it is a bias. We are discussing criticizing a religion based upon it's scripture. If you want to understand Christianity then you need to look at the Bible in a Christian context. I'm not trying to say your mythology is invalid. I'm not trying to say you can't use the Bible in a way that is valid to you.

Afterall, the bible does have historical value outside of Christianity. Nothing is crippled...it's just a different point of view and it just happens to irritate Christians that someone can read the bible and gain an entirely different insight from what Christianity teaches.
It does not irritate me that people form a different point of view from mine based upon the Bible. Why would you assume this? But you can't form a valid opinion about Christianity reading the Bible from a context outside of Christian tradition. :shrug:
 

lunamoth

Will to love
JamesThePersian said:
I see that others are misunderstanding what lunamoth wrote. This thread is about criticising Christianity and not who may or may not interpret the Bible. Lunamoth is correct to suggest that to criticise Christianity based on a non-Christian interpretation of the text is invalid, as I attempted to explain in my last two posts. That is not arrogance, in fact it ought to be pretty obvious.

James
Thank you James. I forgot about this thread and then found all these replies but this is exactly what I meant.

I have no issues with others having different interpretations of the Bible, whether they be Muslim, Baha'i, Gnostic or Luciferian. Have at it!

luna
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Pah said:
I don't belive it is a question of which has more validity. What I read is the recognition of the weight or power of the criticism. The specification or operative "if true" is applicable to any who say it.

What does change is how it is received, as if truth is not truth if uttered by a non-Christian.

Oh for goodness sake, this is really making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If a non-Christian (if anyone!) reads the Bible and takes the time to understand Christian tradition then their views will have just as much validity as anyone else's.

And of course it is possible and reasonable to have valid criticisms of Christianity after studying the Bible and Christian tradition. and if you want to criticize Roman Catholcism you need to understand RC tradition, not LDS, Anglican, or Baptist tradition and theology. :)
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
It does not irritate me that people form a different point of view from mine based upon the Bible. Why would you assume this? But you can't form a valid opinion about Christianity reading the Bible from a context outside of Christian tradition. :shrug:
Please explain to me why you think this isn't possible. Someone could read the bible with no knowledge of Christianity and still form a valid opinion. It might not be a favorable opinion, but it's still valid. I'm "assuming" that an opposing viewpoint bothers you because what you're posting suggests that unless someone is coached to understand the bible from the Christian point of view, they're understanding of the bible isn't good enough.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Ðanisty said:
Please explain to me why you think this isn't possible. Someone could read the bible with no knowledge of Christianity and still form a valid opinion.
Sure, you could form a valid opinion of the Bible. But not of Christianity.


It might not be a favorable opinion, but it's still valid.
No, it would not be a valid opinion of Christianity, although it very well could be a valid opinion of the Bible.

I'm "assuming" that an opposing viewpoint bothers you because what you're posting suggests that unless someone is coached to understand the bible from the Christian point of view, they're understanding of the bible isn't good enough.
No an opposing viewpoint does not bother me. If you read the Bible and understand the Christian tradition you are critical of, your opinion is well-informed and valid. If you read the Bible and you are critical of Christianity because it promotes war (I bring not peace but a sword), then your opinion is not valid because you've read the Bible out of the context of Christian tradtion.

I'm sure our Muslim members say the same thing when non-Muslims unfamiliar with their religion read the Quran and say Islam promotes violence.

It's even true in reverse. Your religion is based upon the Bible yet you do not see Satan as evil (I think). So, if based upon the Bible I say Luciferianism is evil because that's how I read it, my opinion on Luciferianism would be invalid.
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
Sure, you could form a valid opinion of the Bible. But not of Christianity.


No, it would not be a valid opinion of Christianity, although it very well could be a valid opinion of the Bible.


No an opposing viewpoint does not bother me. If you read the Bible and understand the Christian tradition you are critical of, your opinion is well-informed and valid. If you read the Bible and you are critical of Christianity because it promotes war (I bring not peace but a sword), then your opinion is not valid because you've read the Bible out of the context of Christian tradtion.

I'm sure our Muslim members say the same thing when non-Muslims unfamiliar with their religion read the Quran and say Islam promotes violence.

It's even true in reverse. Your religion is based upon the Bible yet you do not see Satan as evil (I think). So, if based upon the Bible I say Luciferianism is evil because that's how I read it, my opinion on Luciferianism would be invalid.
I think we're having a problem with the word opinion. If you read the bible and find that your opinion is that Luciferianism is evil, then that is your opinion and it's valid. It might not be factual, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Ðanisty said:
I think we're having a problem with the word opinion. If you read the bible and find that your opinion is that Luciferianism is evil, then that is your opinion and it's valid. It might not be factual, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

Danisty, is Satan evil in Luciferiansim?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Actually, nevermind that because I can't stay online long enough right now to follow up. But please don't think that I am saying your opinion of Christianity is not valid. I'm sure you know enough about it to form a valid opinion. I probably am being a bit pedantic at this point. All I'm trying to get across is that Christianity is more than just the Bible, so reading and understanding the Bible alone does not give anyone enough information to make an informed (and thus valid) opinion about Christianity.
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
Danisty, is Satan evil in Luciferiansim?
Satan isn't really relevent to Luciferianism.

lunamoth said:
Actually, nevermind that because I can't stay online long enough right now to follow up. But please don't think that I am saying your opinion of Christianity is not valid. I'm sure you know enough about it to form a valid opinion. I probably am being a bit pedantic at this point. All I'm trying to get across is that Christianity is more than just the Bible, so reading and understanding the Bible alone does not give anyone enough information to make an informed (and thus valid) opinion about Christianity.
I think you're forgetting why I posted in the first place. What I was responding to was specifically about the bible. I believe a person can read the bible by itself and make an informed (and thus valid) opinion of Christianity. My problem though was that it was suggested that it might be preferable for people to learn about Christianity from someone else instead of through reading the bible. I think this breeds some ignorance. Some people think they know what the bible says, but they don't. They end up knowing what other people tell them the bible says and those people may or may not see things that way you would. I think people should read the bible without taking other people's opinions into account. They should see for themselves what it says and then decide for themselves what it means. How else are you going to know what you really believe? The points I've been making are specifically about the bible...that's what I've been addressing. I think you've been addressing something more complex than that.

When I'm talking about forming an opinion on something, I'm talking about deciding whether it's good, bad, funny, sad, etc. I'm not talking about telling people what they believe (as you are implying above with your Satan question). For instance, it is my opinion that Christianity is naive. I'm not telling you what you believe. You obviously believe it's enlightened. You can tell me over and over again that it is your opinion that Lucifer is evil. That's fine and it's a valid opinion. You can't, however, tell me that I believe Lucifer is evil. Does this clear things up at all?
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Hi Danisty,

Peace. I'd like to reply in detail to your post just so that I can feel like we've heard each other. I feel like I've heard you, and I'd like for you to hear me.

Ðanisty said:
Satan isn't really relevent to Luciferianism.

This is what I am referring to. If I were to just read the Bible from my Christian perspective and never speak to a Luciferian or read what Luciferianism is really all about, I would not be informed and my opinion that Luciferianism worships Satan and is evil (BTW, I do not think this at all, I'm just using it as an example) would not be valid. I would not know what I'm talking about. You can't form a valid opinion if you don't have all the information. Sure, you can have an opinion, but it would not be based in the facts so it would not be valid.

This thread is about criticizing a religion, not about criticizing Scripture. That's where I am coming from.

I think you're forgetting why I posted in the first place. What I was responding to was specifically about the bible. I believe a person can read the bible by itself and make an informed (and thus valid) opinion of Christianity.
And this is where I disagree. Christianity does not equal just the Bible, no matter how much you've read and studied it, research it's history and learned the original languages. All of that is great for understanding the Bible, but it is not going to give you the whole picture for understanding Christianity. Christianity = Bible + God + Jesus + lots of other varying doctrines, traditions and theology. You should read the Bible as part of understanding Christianity, but reading the Bible alone does not give you all you need to know about Christianity.

My problem though was that it was suggested that it might be preferable for people to learn about Christianity from someone else instead of through reading the bible.
Reading the Bible is part of it. But if you want to know about Christianity you will need to find out more, either by talking to people or finding other resources of information about Christianity. You can read about it as there is much written, you can take a religious studies course or speak to a non-Christian professor of religious studies, or you can ask the people who practice that religion as we do here at RF.

I hope you do not think I suggested that it is preferable for a person to not read the Bible, because I don't beleive that at all. But that's just a start.

I think this breeds some ignorance. Some people think they know what the bible says, but they don't.
Well, I agree. If you have never read it yourself then you don't know for sure what it says.

They end up knowing what other people tell them the bible says and those people may or may not see things that way you would.
Very true.

I think people should read the bible without taking other people's opinions into account.
I think this is impossible. But, even if it were possible and a person created a religion based upon a totally independent reading of the Bible, I highly doubt that religion would look anything at all like Christianity or Luciferianism.

They should see for themselves what it says and then decide for themselves what it means.
Yes, that's a good idea. But their views are going to be very very influenced by what they have already learned and what they want to believe about the Bible and Christianity.

How else are you going to know what you really believe?
Excellent point. I think it comes down to choosing what you trust.

The points I've been making are specifically about the bible...that's what I've been addressing. I think you've been addressing something more complex than that.
Yes, I think we are at missing each other to some extent. I was addressing the idea in the OP about criticizing Christianity, not just forming an opinion about the Bible.

Once Christianity was no longer tied to the Orthodox/Catholic authority of tradition, there was nothing to stop it from fragmenting into a million different flavors of Christianity, each based upon independent interpretations of the Bible.

Please know that I am not criticizing this fact...just observing it. It's a catch 22: Orthodox are criticized for not independently reading the Bible, and everyone else is criticized for splintering into a lot of different denominations because they read the Bible independently. :shrug:

When I'm talking about forming an opinion on something, I'm talking about deciding whether it's good, bad, funny, sad, etc. I'm not talking about telling people what they believe (as you are implying above with your Satan question).
But forming a criticism about a religion is forming an opinion about what people beleive. Forming an opinion about a Book, what it says, is different and in that case I agree with everything you said.

For instance, it is my opinion that Christianity is naive.
And I'm sure you know enough about Christianity to form this opinion. <---(added) this is not a sarcastic remark! I say this because I recall you did grow up in a Christian tradition so you know what you are talking about. In general, I hope you read nothing I've written as sarcastic because that is not at all where I am coming from. I think perhaps we just don't know each other very well.

I'm not telling you what you believe.
Thank you.

You obviously believe it's enlightened.
Well, we've never talked about what I believe so you could not know this. There is no way I would make the blanket statement that Christianity is enlightened.

You can tell me over and over again that it is your opinion that Lucifer is evil.
Well, we've never talked about this either so you don't know that this is my opinion. We can talk about it some time which I would find very interesting. Let me assure you for now that based upon what little I know about Luciferianism, I don't think it is 'evil.'

That's fine and it's a valid opinion.
Well, it might be an opinion, but it would not be fine, informed, or valid.

You can't, however, tell me that I believe Lucifer is evil.
Again, just to be clear, I never did. If I wanted to know what you believe I'd need to ask you. I could not criticize Luciferianism just based upon my own reading of the Bible.

Does this clear things up at all?
Yes, I think so. I hope sometime we can talk to each other about what we believe.

luna
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
lunamoth said:
This is what I am referring to. If I were to just read the Bible from my Christian perspective and never speak to a Luciferian or read what Luciferianism is really all about, I would not be informed and my opinion that Luciferianism worships Satan and is evil (BTW, I do not think this at all, I'm just using it as an example) would not be valid. I would not know what I'm talking about. You can't form a valid opinion if you don't have all the information. Sure, you can have an opinion, but it would not be based in the facts so it would not be valid.
We're obviously having a problem agreeing on what makes an opinion valid. I'm very reluctant to say that opinions can be invalid because they don't have to be based on fact.

This thread is about criticizing a religion, not about criticizing Scripture. That's where I am coming from.
This entire discussion that you and I are having right now comes from my response to Scott1's statement:
Scott1 said:
It might make things better or worse... look at how many people read the Bible and get it twisted..... a better idea is an honest exchange between people... I think I can explain the Bible to a non-Christian better by talking about it rather than just flopping the thing in front of him/her.... but your results may vary.
My problem with this statement is that it is not just non-Christians that get it twisted. With the various beliefs out there regarding what the bible is really saying, I think it's best for someone to pick up the bible and read it for themselves and form their own opinions.

And this is where I disagree. Christianity does not equal just the Bible, no matter how much you've read and studied it, research it's history and learned the original languages. All of that is great for understanding the Bible, but it is not going to give you the whole picture for understanding Christianity. Christianity = Bible + God + Jesus + lots of other varying doctrines, traditions and theology. You should read the Bible as part of understanding Christianity, but reading the Bible alone does not give you all you need to know about Christianity.
I agree and disagree with what you're saying here. I agree because it takes more than just reading the bible to have faith and without the faith, you'll never completely understand. However, if someone were to read the bible and have faith, then they probably wouldn't be criticizing Christianity.

Reading the Bible is part of it. But if you want to know about Christianity you will need to find out more, either by talking to people or finding other resources of information about Christianity. You can read about it as there is much written, you can take a religious studies course or speak to a non-Christian professor of religious studies, or you can ask the people who practice that religion as we do here at RF.
Talking with people on RF, for me, has been much more about why people believe than what they believe. If all I needed to know is what they believe, I'd go pick up their religious texts and read.

I hope you do not think I suggested that it is preferable for a person to not read the Bible, because I don't beleive that at all. But that's just a start.
I was never addressing what you prefer in the first place. I was addressing Scott1's comment

I think this is impossible. But, even if it were possible and a person created a religion based upon a totally independent reading of the Bible, I highly doubt that religion would look anything at all like Christianity or Luciferianism.
I'm sure non-denominational Christians do this all the time. As far as Luciferianism goes, it is something that I found for myself by reading the bible. Most Luciferians come to the religion by themselves and as strange as it may sound, most of them believe the same things.

Yes, that's a good idea. But their views are going to be very very influenced by what they have already learned and what they want to believe about the Bible and Christianity.
Then they aren't reading it objectively which is exactly what I suggested people should do.

Excellent point. I think it comes down to choosing what you trust.
This may be a uniquely Luciferian take on this, but the person you should trust should be yourself. When you read the bible, trust what you learn. Everyone may learn something different, but I promise there's something there for everyone.

Once Christianity was no longer tied to the Orthodox/Catholic authority of tradition, there was nothing to stop it from fragmenting into a million different flavors of Christianity, each based upon independent interpretations of the Bible.
Which is beautiful, if you ask me. Lots of people deciding for themselves what they believe. Unfortunately history is repeating itself in a lot of ways with some authority figures in these new denominations trying to place their own authority on Christianity.

But forming a criticism about a religion is forming an opinion about what people beleive. Forming an opinion about a Book, what it says, is different and in that case I agree with everything you said.
I am talking about forming an opinion on a book, but that naturally also ties to what people believe.

And I'm sure you know enough about Christianity to form this opinion. <---(added) this is not a sarcastic remark! I say this because I recall you did grow up in a Christian tradition so you know what you are talking about. In general, I hope you read nothing I've written as sarcastic because that is not at all where I am coming from. I think perhaps we just don't know each other very well.
Well, I grew up in unique circumstances, I think. My father was raised Seventh Day Adventist, but that's not how I was raised. He broke from that church before I was born (after my older brothers had a bad experience with the church). My mother considers herself Christian, but she has no religious background. The only times she went to church growing up are times she went with her best friend who was Catholic. While I know this isn't specifically religion-related, my great-grandfather was a Knight Templar and my great-grandmother was in the Eastern Star. My uncle Jim is a 33rd degree Mason.

Now, my father taught me about religion (he took theology in college, so he wasn't oblivious to beliefs outside of SDA) when I was young, but I was never made to go to church. He was the choir director at the Methodist church next to our house, so I did spend a couple of years in the kid's choir so I did learn some things through music as well. Also, growing up in a small town in Georgia, it would be impossible to be completely without the influence of religion.

I suppose people could've have handled it in many ways, but my way was to generally ignore religion altogether until I got into high school and found an interest in LaVeyan Satanism. I grew away from that though and I was left believing nothing at all. It was at this point that I decided to pick up a bible and decide for myself what it said. In doing this, I found myself Luciferian. It wasn't until a couple years later that Luciferianism started popping up on the net.

Well, we've never talked about what I believe so you could not know this. There is no way I would make the blanket statement that Christianity is enlightened.
I wasn't referring specifically to you and I wasn't making a blanket statement. If person A believes in Christianity then person A will obviously believe it is an enlightened path. That's all I'm saying.

Well, we've never talked about this either so you don't know that this is my opinion. We can talk about it some time which I would find very interesting. Let me assure you for now that based upon what little I know about Luciferianism, I don't think it is 'evil.'
Again, I wasn't referring specifically to you. I was just saying that you could do that and it wouldn't bother me. I wasn't trying to say that you were doing that.

I hope this clears things up even further...lol.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Ðanisty said:
I hope this clears things up even further...lol.

Yes, I do see where you are coming from. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post and for the interesting conversation.

:)

luna
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Ðanisty said:
I mean no offense by this,
None taken.:D
but what you're suggesting is to prevent people from reading the bible objectively. If you explain the bible to them, then they learn your interpretation of the bible. I think it would be better for everyone to interpret the bible for themselves.
I understand what you are saying... and I believe anyone who has an interest in the Bible should read it... but remember, I believe Christianity to be MORE THAN THE BIBLE.

Read it all you want, you still won't understand my personal faith. If you'd prefer a "book study", fine.... but I don't believe a non-Christian can read the Bible and get anything but confused.

It is meant to be read and understood in the same Spirit by which it was written--- in other words, if you don't believe, you won't "get it".
 

luenhoek

New Member
comprehend said:
In that case, you would be criticizing those who follow a chosen philosophy, not the philosophy itself. For example, many people say that Islam is a violent religion. In order to find that out, you would have to actually read the Koran and other Muslim writings to determine whether or not it is true. However, you could say there are Muslims who are violent (just like there are violent Christians) but the statement would only be addressing the actions of the individuals not the characteristics or teachings of the religion itself. likewise, you could not assess Christianity by the actions of it's followers. What if the followers had all perverted what their religion actually teaches? How would you know?

Very well stated. I believe that people sometimes confuse the actions of an individual or group of individuals with a particular religion, and therefore lump the religion in with those individuals. I believe that in order to truly understand a religion or faith, should that be your desire, is to do a little research. Go to the source - their holy book; talk to people who practice that particular faith and have an intelligent conversation. :D
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Scott1 said:
Read it all you want, you still won't understand my personal faith. If you'd prefer a "book study", fine.... but I don't believe a non-Christian can read the Bible and get anything but confused.
So you don't think the Jews understand their Tanakh or Torah, the pre-Christian part of your Christian Bible? Do they get confused with OT?

The Jews don't use the NT, so I would understand if they don't understand the gospels and the letters. But the NT is only half of the whole Bible that actually belonged to the Christians, but the rest belonged to the Jews. I think they understand their part better than any Christian or Muslim.

Do you think you understand the Tanakh/OT better than the Jews?
 

wmam

Active Member
Scott1 said:
I believe Christianity to be MORE THAN THE BIBLE.

I have to agree with this statement. For I totally agree that there is no way that what is written alone in scriptures, could in any way, be responsible for all that christianity claims to be without adding to, and taking away from.
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
Scott1 said:
It is meant to be read and understood in the same Spirit by which it was written--- in other words, if you don't believe, you won't "get it".
I agree with you there and said something similar earlier. It's just that people who do believe the bible and "get it" are probably Christian and probably not criticizing Christianity as a whole. The same applies to all beliefs. People should definitely be careful criticizing other people's beliefs because they cannot fully understand them. I'll admit that I don't understand why people believe in Christianity (other than that it works for them), but I feel that from reading I can gain knowledge of what they believe. Christianity is going to appeal to some people through reading the bible and not others. Those that don't find it appealing from reading the bible will probably not find it appealing from talking to Christians either...but that's just my opinion.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
Do you think you understand the Tanakh/OT better than the Jews?
As it relates to CHRISTIANITY? Well, of course.... what would lead you to believe otherwise?
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Ðanisty said:
Christianity is going to appeal to some people through reading the bible and not others. Those that don't find it appealing from reading the bible will probably not find it appealing from talking to Christians either...but that's just my opinion.
Not that I doubt your conclusion... but I still don't think you've grasped what I'm trying to say. There are HUNDREDS of other texts to be read for people looking to educate themselves about Christianity, not just the Bible.... I think when a person tries to reduce 2,000 years of history and theology to the Bible, they are almost bound for confusion... it would be my hope that talking to a person would at least assist them in forming a plan for study that would be beneficial to the person.

Peace in Christ,
S
 

Pah

Uber all member
It is meant to be read [the bible] and understood in the same Spirit by which it was written--- in other words, if you don't believe, you won't "get it".
I guess that would mean it would not be good for missionary work. So how does one "get it"? Does faith come first and then you pursue the bible? Is it the words of the missionary that gives faith before he or she gives a copy to the one to be convinced?

I would say, and without there being contrary truth, the bible "spirit" was man writing, creating the tales of the bible.
 
Top