Debunked: Fundamentalism vs. Legalism

What many, many people consider "Fundamentalism" is actually something putrid known as "Legalism".

Egad!  What are these long words!  What do they mean?  That is a fair question, of course, and naturally I will explain myself.

I will start with the term most people are familiar with:

Fundamentalism:

I am a Christian Fundamentalist.  As a Fundamentalist, I am concerned with the essentials or the basic function of Christianity.  The basic function of Christianity is to live like Christ.  In fact, the very word "Christian" means "to live in Christ" in Greek.  By this, I am concerned with living like Christ.

So, how did Christ live?  He followed two rules: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love everyone.  In order to live like Christ, I should strive to live by these principles as well.

That is Christian Fundamentalism in a nutshell, but maybe that's too simplistic for your taste.  I shall summarize what the majority of Fundamentalists believe.  The following are the Five Fundamentals of Christianity as they were established by the Niagara Bible Conference and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church:

1. The Bible was inspired by God, and is inerrant as a result.
2. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.
3. Christ's death was the an atonement for sin.
4. Christ was bodily resurrected.
5. Christ's miracles are historically real.

That's it.  That's Christian Fundamentalism.  The first point listed understandably generates the most controversy, for not everyone believes the Bible is divinely inspired, but take a look at something:

• Christian Fundamentalism says nothing about homosexuality.
• It says nothing about abortion.
• It says nothing about Evolution.
• It says nothing about politics or government.
• It says nothing about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
• It says nothing about religion vs. irreligion.

What does it say?  Love God and love people.  If you can do those things, then, in theory, everything else will fall into place.  Your mission will become serving God and serving others, rather than dictating their morality or forcing beliefs down their throat.  This doesn't sound like the Fundamentalism people are used to hearing about.  Who are these people that keep getting called "fundies"?

Legalism:

Christian Legalism is the over-emphasis on discipline of conduct.  The symptoms of Legalism are as follows:

• Misguided rigor
• Religious pride
• Superficiality
• Hypocrisy
• Noted neglect of compassion or mercy
• Ignorance of the grace of God
• Emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law
• Asserting the view that obedience to the "laws" of the Bible, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption

A colleague of mine presented an interesting point regarding obeying the "laws" of the Bible.  He pointed out that only ten of all the "rules" stated in the Bible were directly from God.  The rest were created by man.  Moses authored the Mosaic Laws which are found in the Old Testament and followed by many Jews to this day.  Trying to adhere to all of these laws poses a risk of missing the whole point of Christianity: having a personal relationship with God.

It also puts you at risk of becoming an unpopular Bible-Thumper.  Jesus Christ was very frustrated with the Legalists of His day: the Pharisees.  He constantly called them out on their distortion of God's commandments and their pride in their religion.  This does not make all Christian Legalists judgmental bigots, of course.  However, the risk of becoming a bigot, or a modern day Pharisee, is very high.

What can bigotry do?  It can give you and the platform on whose behalf you are speaking a bad name.  A loud minority is a minority that is heard, and a minority that is heard can affect the opinion of the majority in the eyes of the third party.  In reality, not all Christians are bigots; likewise, not all bigots are Christians.  The Christians who are bigots, though, are the ones who are more ready to condemn and judge other people.  People generally respond negatively to such attacks, and therefore the platform these bigots represent (Christianity in this example) is given a negative connotation.

In the same way, Fundamentals are given a bad name—"Fundie"—because Legalists operate underneath that title.  So when you say that someone is a "Fundamentalist", what are you really saying about them?

The Problem of Good vs. Evil: Revisited

I feel compelled to further expound on the Good/Evil duality.

In my first Ruminations post, I briefly touched on the subject, but I wish to go deeper.  I believe I left some crucial points unmentioned, so I am going to dissect my first post and expand upon its ideas.  I'll start now:

What is Evil?  What is Good?

According to moral relativism, good and evil don't exist.  That's complete foolishness, because relativism disproves itself.  It is simply one's excuse to exempt oneself from responsibility and accountability.  It doesn't matter if you don't believe in a right and a wrong, because the country in which you live does.  No matter how relativistic your paradigm is, morality is imposed on you by society.  You are raised from birth being indoctrinated that morality is a thing, that it exists.  Most accept this indoctrination without question.  I, ever the Devil's Advocate, will gladly question this notion!

Let me ask you something: do you believe in morality?  Why?  What justification do you have for believing in morality?  By what standards to you base your morals?

If you answer was something along the lines of, "I believe in subjective morality", then you are, in my very humble opinion, making a paramount mistake.

The Illogic of Moral Subjection

Moral subjection is what happens when a person defines their own standards of what is "right" and what is "wrong".  It is very similar to moral relativism, and it is just as illogical.  To be frank, if you adhere to moral subjection, you have no justification to oppose rape, murder, thievery, dishonesty, or anything else that is popularly deemed "wrong".  At this point, you are probably wondering where I found the gall to make such a shocking claim.  Forthcoming: my explanation!

A person with a subjective morality has to set their own standards of "right" and "wrong".  This is something they must do on their own.  It is a personal thing.  Therefore, those standards are personal standards, and consequently can only be personal standards.  To impose your own arbitrary standards of morality on another person makes no sense!

Where do your morals come from?  From where did they first derive?  Did you make them up yourself?  That's moral subjection.  Did you obtain them from someone else?  That's moral subjection.  Did you acquire them from your parents or your culture?  That's moral subjection.  These sets of morality are entirely concocted by human beings, who are entirely arbitrary creatures.  If your morality is influenced by your opinion, it is subjective an unreliable due to its overwhelming lack of factuality (for opinions can never be nor become facts).

What comes about as a result?  Laws and political definitions.  Here in America (for I am an American), we have laws that prohibit certain courses of action.  Murder is a crime, for example.  My government has defined murder as a "wrong".  I have a few options, but I shall focus on the two most common: I can use my subjective opinion and agree with this definition of murder as a "wrong", or I can use my subjective opinion and disagree with this definition of murder as "wrong".  However, both scenarios do not in any way alter the true nature of murder.  The rightness or wrongness of murder (or any other action) is never for me to decide.

Where does morality come from?

Most of the time, it is made up.  The government of our respective nations tell us what is wrong and what is right, and we either comply or rebel.  Social acceptability tells us what is right and what is wrong, and we either conform or deviate.

There are those among us, though, who derive their sense of morality from higher, objective standards.  For Christians, these objective standards are found in the Bible as the Ten Commandments; and as we see in Exodus, the Bible and the government are in agreement that murder is in fact wrong, so subjective morality is certainly superior to total lack of morality.  Greater still, though, is objective morality.  Muslims find it in the Qur'an, Buddhists find it in The Eightfold Path.  Hindus find it through the study of karma.  Jews find it in Mosaic Law.

Those who do not affiliate with any religion, perhaps, find federal law to be their objective morality.  Even so, one should not define their morality solely by what they feel should be right or wrong.  That would make it far to easy to justify any sort of action, no matter how radical it was.  Rather, before any action is committed, contemplate it and anticipate the consequences.  Determine how your actions will affect yourself and others, and act accordingly.

In conclusion, I have but two questions:

1. Do Good and Evil exist?
2. Says who?

If you know the answers, then any research conducted will surely agree with you.  The truth is only found by those who go looking for it.

The Truth About Judgment and Forgiveness

There are two things that the Mind of Modern Culture either fails or refuses to understand: the actual natures of Judgment and Forgiveness.

And so, I have taken it upon myself to debunk the rumors concerning them both.  Contrary to popular belief, both—when used correctly—can be beneficial and even necessary to one's growth and maturity.

And, as always, I shall explain what I mean, and then you can come to your own conclusion as you see fit.  Isn't freedom of thought amazing?

First off, I feel I should address how judgement should not manifest itself.  If you are making an objective declaration about a person's character, once might say you have judged them.  If a person stole a wallet, and I called them a "lowly thief", I have judged that person based upon one action that they have committed.  In this way, defining a person by one action is judgment.  Likewise, condemning a person based upon their actions is judgment.

So, why should we not judge others?  Christianity and other world religions give that privilege to their respective deities.  The right to judge others belongs to God alone.  If you are irreligious, then you would not want to judge others simply because it is rude and frankly quite ignorant.  Who can know the heart of another?  Who are we to say we know enough about a person and their story to make judgement calls on them?

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  For in the way that you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."—Matthew 7:1-2 (NASB)

In other words, if you don't judge others, then chances are that people won't judge you, and God will also not judge you for being condemning (which is technically a privilege that only God possesses, so by condemning others, you're stealing).  It's common courtesy to be free of pretension, but unfortunately common sense is not so common.  But I digress!  Now that I have demonstrated what bad judgment looks like, what does good judgment look like?

 Judgment as Discernment: How to Forgive

discernment

noun

The act of showing insight and understanding something

In other words, perception is a proper application of judgment.  Seeing things for what they really are is good judgment.  Exposing lies for what they are is an application of good judgment.  Discernment is used by many philosophers (or simply by people who enjoy thinking) to search for and discover truths.  In many ways, judgment is a necessary thing.

Forgiveness, for example.  Judgment is necessary for forgiveness.  So...what's forgiveness?

Forgiveness is what happens when you give up resentment.  Forgiveness is what happens when you call off a debt.  Forgiveness is an act of mercy.  It is much more awesome than the Mind of Modern Culture thinks it is.  If a person has a debt owed to you, you call it off.  If a friend betrays your trust, you shake their hand and make an effort to restore that trust.  If a person has wronged you, you do not hold it against them for the rest of their days.

So, why is judgment necessary for forgiveness?

Let's say you stole my wallet and took the money out of it.  Naturally, I am going to want my wallet back, but let's say I don't care about the money.  You return my wallet, but you keep the money, and you say, "I am sorry."  If I answer you saying, "It's okay.  You've done nothing wrong," then I have not forgiven you.

First off, I haven't forgiven you because my statement was false.  You have done something wrong.  You've stolen! I didn't use very good discernment, did I?  Also, if I told you that you did nothing wrong, then I am basically telling you that it's okay for you to steal from me.  In order for forgiveness to take place, a wrong has to be committed, acknowledged, and then amends can be made.

Now, let's say this time you've stolen my wallet and have taken the money.  Now let's say you return both the wallet and the money, and say, "I'm sorry for stealing from you.  This belongs to you."  I can do two things at this point.  I can accept the wallet and the money back from you and say, "I forgive you; do not do it again," or I can accept the wallet back but say, "I forgive you, but you keep the money.  Just don't go stealing from anyone else."

So now my question for you is this: which scenario do you think best demonstrates forgiveness, and from which scenario would you be more likely to have learned something about forgiveness if you were the wallet-snatcher?

Well, there you have it: my explanations concerning the importance of judgment and forgiveness.  Use them well!

Addressing the Pursuit of an Abstract Idea

"Follow your dreams".

I am just going to tell you straight off: that is a bad idea.  Read on to see my explanation, for today I'm going to challenge the widely-accepted notion that is this popular phrase.

Follow your dreams.

Well, right from the start, you see this statement is a command.  The subject, You, is understood.  "(You) follow your dreams".  The speaker, the issuer of this command, is addressing you, commanding you to follow the dreams that belong to you, the dreams that are in your possession.

So, what is a "dream"?

Well, no one is quite sure what a dream is.  It appears to be your brain's attempt at processing random information in a logical fashion as you sleep.  Dreams serve no practical purpose.  They also, unless you are a prophet, are never seen to come to fruition─they never come true.

And someone wants you to follow dreams?  Don't listen!  They are commanding you to follow something that is intrinsically incapable of leadership!  A dream has no sense of direction, no awareness that you are following it, and no motivation to lead you anywhere.

This is with the context of following a literal dream, however.  What if we interpret "dream" as a metaphor?  "Dream" as a metaphor represents a desire housed within you.  It is a goal that you want to accomplish, usually a big goal.  "Dreams" are often manifested as the thing that you want to do for the rest of your life: something paramount and pivotal and moving, like becoming a famous author or musician or performer or movie star or politician, et cetera.

This type of dream is an abstract idea of something in the projected future that has no justifiable quantification.  You cannot guarantee that such a dream that such a dream will be fulfilled, and yet someone is commanding you to follow one!  Who in their right mind would follow an abstract idea?  That's like me asking you to follow the number one!  A number is simply an abstract idea that represents quantity and value.  It has no physical form, no mental capabilities, no metacognition, and, as before, no leadership skills.  This is the case with dreams.  You would be following something that hasn't even happened yet─something that might never happen─and people say "follow these"!  That is sheer folly!

And even worse than this is a similar phrase:

"Follow your heart".

Let me ask you something: Who wants to follow a blood-pumping organ that is totally useless unless it is trapped inside one's rib cage and attached to a web of blood vessels?  If you follow your heart, you will die. This is not a recommended course of action.

I'm being facetious, of course.  "Heart" is metaphorical here as well, like with "dreams".  Indeed, the heart is the metaphorical seat of human emotion.  In this sense, one's heart is all their feelings and emotions.  Thus, "follow your heart" really means "be completely dependent on and/or influenced by your illogical, irrational emotions".  Letting your emotions determine your choices is extremely immature and incredibly unwise.  Your heart cannot accomplish higher thinking.  It cannot even think for itself, so what brings you to believe it can think for you?  That's pure foolishness!

I think modern culture has it backwards.

Don't follow your heart.  Lead your heart.

Let your logical and rational brain make the important choices in harmony with your moral convictions─your "heart", so to speak.  If you feel something is good or right, your brain will understand this as a message of the heart, and accordingly come up with an appropriate action to take.  Think with your head; feel with your heart.

The same goes for following dreams.  That's backwards!  Don't chase after an idea that hasn't happened yet.  Make it happen!  Don't sit around and expect fate to suddenly bless you one day.  Make your dreams chase after you.  Like before: use your brain to discover what things you want to see happen in your life.  Ask yourself, "Are these goals reachable, even if they might be difficult or risky?"  If the answer is "yes", then your heart will send a message to your brain saying, "This is a good thing; I have a passion for this", and your brain will execute the proper decision-making tactics.

So, "follow your brain?"

Of course, this is all counting on your brain's reliability.  Indeed, at face value, a blob of grey matter on its own isn't capable of leadership either.  This is why I do not follow my heart, nor my dreams, nor my head.  I follow God, or, at least, I try to follow God.

Now, you might not believe in God, and that's fine.  If this is the case, you will not want to follow something that doesn't exist.  That is understandable, rational, and logical as well.  However, if you do believe in God, as I do (or if you pray to Buddha or Allah or Brahman or another deity), I would encourage you to follow Him (or them) as I am striving to do as well.

A heart should not be followed; it should be caged (hence your rib cage).  Dreams should not be followed; they should be lived, propelled into fruition by your merits.  Your merits will not fall into your lap, however.  You will have to earn your merits, earn your qualifications, earn the skills you need to see your dreams fulfilled.  Your determination and work should be such that they send your dreams hurling towards you in the single cataclysmic moment that is known as achievement.

Tragedy Exploitation, and Why It Is Evil

Suicide and September 11th have something in common: NO ONE CARES.

Now, what do I mean by that?  I mean that the majority of people merely pretend to have any shred of compassion for the dead.  They pretend to care when it is convenient, when it gives them a feeling of self-satisfaction and a misplaced feeling better about themselves.

It's all an act.  It's a façade.  It's hypocrisy.  It's revolting.

Words mean virtually nothing when placed next to actions.  Wanna show the world that you care about suicide victims?  Then start loving people.  Everyone.  Even people you hate.  Physically get in the way of bullies and their prey.  Don't let adults slap kids around.  Know what I'm saying?

Do something, you putrid insipid hypocrite.

Now, you might be thinking, "But Nic!  I'm not a hypocrite!  I actually do care for victims of tragedy!"  If that's you, then hooray!  This post is not directed at you.  This post is for me to rant and once again call out the hypocrisy of the pop-culture bandwagon.  For starters:

One "Like" does not equal one prayer.

I'm sure you've seen these fluttering around Facebook (if you have a Facebook account, that is).  It's usually a picture of someone who is sick, injured, dead, or dying.  They appear vulnerable to invoke pity in the people who view the picture.  The scenario in the picture might be real, or it might be a hoax.  The caption will talk about the victim and their current tribulation.  Again, sometimes it is real, and sometimes it is a hoax. But then it gets better: they ask for "Likes" and "Shares", promising that if you "Like" or "Share" their picture, then God will hear some imaginary prayer that just pops into existence!

As if that does anything.  In my eyes, the people who do this are sadomasochistic sociopaths who care only for their immediate and shallow desires.  They are exploiting the tragedy of another person or people just to satisfy their petty wants.  It's mortifying to me.  It disrespects God, it disrespects the victims, and it disrespects anyone unfortunate enough to view the picture.  It has to stop before I go postal.

Remember 9/11, but also move on.

...WHAT?!  NIC!  YOU HATE SOLDIERS!  YOU HATE AMERICA!  YOU HATE JESUS!

Yes, I've been accused of such things because I have my own opinion on 9/11.  It's just another example of tragedy exploitation.  News Flash: 9/11 was eleven years ago.  I guarantee you that the families of the victims got over it after the first couple years.  I say that because the grieving process usually takes about that long.  By keep bringing it up every year and clogging the internet with insipid drivel, you are basically saying that moving on is unhealthy.  You are suggesting that we are to pick at those wounds and let them bleed again every year.

You are disrespecting the people who lost their lives and their families.  Leave 9/11 back in 2001, where it belongs.  It was a tragedy.  Tragedies are sad.  I get that.  But get this: you need to move on.  We got over Pearl Harbor, and Pearl Harbor was equally as tragic!

I'm not Anti-America.  I'm not Anti-Soldier.  I'm Anti-War.  Therefore, I do not support the idea that 9/11 can be used as our grudge against the terrorists in the Middle East.  The Taliban and Al-Qaeda kill more Muslims every day than they ever did during 9/11.  We've even shot dead Osama bin Laden, for crying out loud!

I remember 9/11.  Modern culture will never allow me to forget.  I also remember that 60 Muslims who were law-abiding American citizens were killed in those attacks as well.  The 9/11 hype is a testament to human stupidity and immaturity.  It's disappointing.

Now, back to suicide...

People really over-think the motivations behind suicide.  It is never an act of cowardice; it is almost always an act of despair or a cry for attention or help.  Cowards are way too afraid of death to deliberately take their own lives.  Suicidal people are too scared and confused and sad to consider that they might be leaving a family and friends behind, or that their might be a God who might not want them to die.  They aren't saying, "I think I know what's best for me, and God doesn't."  They aren't saying, "I feel like making my family and friends suffer because of my passing."

They are saying, "I'm in pain.  Will someone help me?"

So, as a young man who has attempted suicide twice and had to bury three grandparents, I never want to see anyone exploiting another person's tragedy ever again.  I never want to hear someone say, "Suicide victims go to hell" or "Suicide victims are cowards".  No one benefits from hearing those words, so please keep them to yourselves and get some help, you sad and twisted and pathetic excuse for a human being.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're guilty of the problems I have addressed in this post, then the blood of every victim of tragedy is on your hands.

Laws and Law-Givers

In order for there to be law, there must be a law-giver.

What I say is true, because laws by nature are things given.  This is because laws are the result of a deprivation.

There are are three things that every human being is inherently entitled to: life, liberty, and property.  A human must have life, otherwise he is not alive and therefore dead.  A human is by nature a self-sovereign, self-governing entity; therefore, a human must have liberty in order to function properly.  A human must have property--things that are his, that belong to him--in order to satisfy his needs and wants.

There are four basic things that are necessary for life.  These four things are food, water, shelter, and love.  I include love because human beings are social beings, and because studies have shown that when love is completely absent from a person's life, they do not function properly as human beings.  I mean completely absent, i.e., complete ambivalence from every human being they come into contact with.

There are three basic things that are necessary for liberty.  These things are free-will, self-sovereignty, and metacognition.  A person must be aware that they exist if they are to experience liberty, so metacognition is important.  They must also be capable of making their own decisions, so free-will is also a must.  Finally, a person requires self-sovereignty so that they can execute the decisions that they made using their free will.

Property ties into the necessities of life.  Food, water, and shelter are all pieces of property.  If a person lacks these things, their lifespan decreases significantly.

When a person has one or more of these needs taken away, therein lies our deprivation that I mentioned earlier.  Now, people are naturally self-seeking; they look out for themselves instinctively.  That means that when faced with deprivation, people naturally take steps toward relieving or satisfying that deprivation.  This is where laws come into play, but before I discuss laws, I think I should address what happens when there are no laws.

Introducing a little Anarchy:

An anarchy is the total absence of government.  No rules, laws, or restrictions; just people protecting their own lives, liberties, and property.  Anything goes in an anarchy, so what is stopping someone from interfering with the life, liberty, or property of another?  Nothing!  Sure, the defender could attempt to protect his needs or exact revenge afterwards, but in so doing would be infringing on the offender's life, liberty, and property.  This is why anarchy is almost nonexistent in today's world.

Therefore, laws are issued.  Laws protect one's life, liberty, and property by defining one's liberties.  Laws give a person a framework in which their liberties can operate.  They outline the Cans and Can Nots of our liberties.  When we overstep these boundaries, then the enforcers of these laws step in and exact countermeasures so that we will be dissuaded from attempting to overstep these boundaries in the future.

And now, to really drive my point home:

Now, what about the Laws of Physics?

The Laws of Physics outline the Cans and Can Nots of the universe, as opposed to a person's personal liberties.  These laws apply to our physical liberties.  These laws cannot possibly be broken because they permeate the very fabric of the universe.  The universe itself is our "enforcer", in a sense.

So, who was the Law-Giver?

Well, that's the problem.  According to scientists, there isn't one.  These laws have just always existed.

...WHAT?!

Sorry, I don't buy that.  There has to be a Law-Giver, and I'll show you why.

In the beginning, there was nothing, and this nothing became everything.

How did the universe enter existence?  "The Big Bang," you might say.  There's a problem with that answer, though.  My chemistry teacher describes it thus: In order for there to be a Big Bang, you need a Big Banger.  He was being facetious, of course, but he has a good point.  In order for there to be a Big Bang, the Laws of Physics would have had to already been present, otherwise the laws that allow the Big Bang to happen would not have been there, which means no Big Bang.

And, as scientists have proven, time did not exist before the Big Bang.

That means there was no time for these laws to come into existence--let alone come into effect.  This means that these laws would have to predate time itself, which is impossible.  These laws could only exist after time began, because before time began, there was nothing at all for these laws to govern, thus rendering these laws superfluous!  Unnecessary!

Therefore, there must have been a Law-Giver.

This Law-Giver is above the Laws of Physics, and can easily violate, bend, or change these Laws at will.  It predates both existence and time itself, and why not?  It is not bound by the same rules that we are.  This Law-Giver can be infinite, limitless, timeless, and completely and infinitely powerful.  Why?  Because it makes the rules.  It defines, interprets, and executes the laws of the universe.  This Law-Giver transcends both the natural and the supernatural.  It is above all things, both existence and non-existence.  Why not?  It makes the rules.  It is completely independent and, if you look, you will see that it, too, has life, liberty, and property.

This Law-Giver, I believe, is the Christian God.

God does not require food, water, or shelter, but is the embodiment of love.

God is self-aware, capable of making His own decisions, and does so all the time.

The universe is God's property.  We, along with the rest of the universe, are His.  This makes Him easily qualified to be our Law-Giver.  It is the only way the universe makes sense to me.  The universe is not an anarchy, nor is it a democracy, a republic, a dictatorship (though many would call it that), an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a parliament.

This universe that we inhabit is nothing short of the total Theocracy.  The very laws by which we all abide are proof of this compelling idea.

Artistic Criticism

What is "Art"?

If I say, "Artist!" to someone, they might think of your average Frenchman with a crooked beret with a paint brush and pallet stroking water lilies on a canvas.  Other's might think of their Asian friend who can make armies of dragons from a piece of charcoal.  And then there are others still who think of the quirky kid they refuse to understand who can create anything with a pen and paper.

I, on the other hand, think of band geeks.

So what is "art"?  That's a tough question, so I decided to ask my good friend Wikipedia (who has become much more reliable from four years ago), and he told me that art was a very diverse range of human activities.  Not only activities, but also the products of these activities.

• Painting
• Sculpture
• Printing and Printmaking
• Photography
• Architecture
• Music
• Theater
• Film
• Dance
• Literature

These are just the umbrella terms for what "art" can describe!  If I were any more specific (and I'm not being specific at all), then the list could be limitless!  But I did not start writing this thing to talk about art.  I came here to talk about artistic criticism.

I think professional criticism is a crime against humanity.

Here's why: let's say that you are a visual artist.  You have just created a masterpiece in an awesome display of creativity and self-expression (which is why art is so wonderful, in my opinion).  Your friends love your artwork; this piece is no exception.  You yourself are feeling pretty good about this one as well.

Enter Mister Critic: not a constructive critic, mind you, but a professional or certified critic; someone who is paid to make value judgments on other people's work based on their own subjective opinion.

...WHAT?!

This critic gets money to either praise or degrade your work.  He's paid to tell you what you did well, or how you could have been better, or how terrible you are as an artist.  Due to the self-expressionism associated with art, it is almost impossible for the artist to not take such criticism personally.  As a result, the critic isn't merely judging the artwork; they are judging the artist.  Not only that, but what they say can either expedite or curtail your progress in the artistic community, depending on their influence!  What is that if not blatant robbery?

Do not judge, so that you will not be judged; for in the same way you judge others, you will also be judged.

I am a musician.  I compose scores, write tracks, string together lyrics, and then perform and showcase all my hard work myself.  I never pay attention to critics who try to correct what I am doing, because they are totally ignorant of the sound or the message I am attempting to get across.  Such ignorance, I find, is wholly disgusting and putrid, and should be disregarded unless, of course, you specifically asked for critique.

I have no problem with artists (or anyone, for that matter) asking for constructive criticism.  I personally do not ask for it myself.  My issue lies with the professional critics who receive income for spouting their unwarranted opinions.  I don't want to hear what they have to say, because judgments are selfish by nature.  When a journalist provides an editorial, it is biased towards his views, his opinions, and his wants.  This is simply human nature.  Critics are the same way.  They judge artists based on their tastes, their interpretation of the art, and their own personal bias.  This kind of bias is unavoidable, as it permeates your default line of thought.  How you interpret facts influences every decision you make, and bias influences how you interpret facts.

Now, maybe you enjoy a healthy dose of criticism.  Perhaps you do not.  Either way, I would like to empart to you my two cents:

You are your toughest critic.

Don't try to impress anyone.  Anyone.

Why not?  Because no one can be as hard on yourself as you can.  No one can judge you more harshly than you can judge yourself.  This is because you, as a self-aware individual, can readily see the things that you don't like about yourself almost on demand.  If this is true (and I have no reason to doubt myself), then if you are able to impress yourself, others will be impressed as well.  If you're trying only to make something, as an artist, that you will be happy with, then you will have reached the pinnacle of self-expression, which I believe is paramount in the world of art.

I have been told by my friends and family that I am an accomplished composer.  This is a positive critique.  I have also been told that my drumming style (for I am a drummer) is sloppy and basic.  This is a negative critique.  I equally disregard both of these criticisms, because neither of them are objectively true.  Since neither of them are objectively true, then they have no bearing on reality, and therefore I would be wise to disregard them when it comes to self-analyzation and personal growth.  I think I am an accomplished composer for my age, and I also think I am an accomplished drummer for the short amount of time that I have been playing.

Critics are flawed because they are completely incapable of making educated judgments on your works, because they cannot understand the context of the work, how it was created, and the inspiration and/or story behind its conception.  A critic can only give you their opinion: an uneducated and narrow opinion.  That, to me, is not something I should take into consideration.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but everyone has a responsibility to have an educated opinion.  This rules out critics.  Critics have my permission to silence themselves in my presence.