My belief system

I think its less a matter of location, and more of each persons interpretation of the rules and terms of use. The Terms of Use we have now in addition to the rules introduced some subjective room on what was appropriate and what was not......seemingly with the intent for people to understand the forum was meant to be supportive and exploratory, not critical and mocking. And being supportive and exploratory is not necessarily enabling stagnation or falsehood, but when you get forum areas like Faith then I see them as enabling a deeper support which could be considered more belief and less reality. Rather then open discussion being open slather and Faith (and Jediism) areas being where beliefs go.

I was arguing late last year that the Faith forum should be less open to critique, but I don't think that means its the only place belief needs to be understood in practical terms for its role, and treated fairly despite its differences.

So I tend to feel that when a person posts a thread in Open Discussions called 'My belief system' and says they believe in something and post an article that explains it.... that its a chance to explore the topic rather then attack the topic and person sharing it, no matter where it is... even in Open Discussions. But perhaps I always just saw the Faith area as a working group type of environment for interested people to go into greater depth. Either way the forum layout is also open to interpretation seemingly :silly:

ZealotX wrote:

ren wrote: It was posted in 'open discussions'. If it wasn't open for debate, it should not have been posted here.

By it, I assume you mean his belief system. But it wasn't posted as "let's discuss the truth and accuracy of everything I'm about to say because what I'm about to say is true". Debating the historical validity could have been viewed as off topic. If anything, I think the OP should get to control what he or she wants to discuss and what their thread is about. I'm not sure everyone is so informed about the implications of the term "open" discussion. Open Discussions can still have rules, protocol, guidelines, regulations just as we still expect folks to display manners, ethics, decorum. And I don't think one should suffer the consequences of posting on the "wrong forum" if indeed that's what happened.

At all times I think we should treat all members and visitors alike the same way we would want to be treated. Lenny did an admirable job keeping his cool and trying to respond to everyone but, being present from page 1, at some point it started looking more like target practice and we must always be mindful of our motives and act with humility and nobility. If one stops caring about the other person's feelings then what is the true reason for the continued discourse? I mean don't we want to encourage different perspectives, thoughts, ideas? Trying to kill them in infancy isn't exactly welcoming.

There is nothing preventing your posts in this thread from being encouraging of Lenny, or inquisitive of his perspectives, thoughts and ideas. Feel free to do that.

I found this sermon

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/sermons/1263-dont-blindly-follow-be-mindful-sunday-sermon

I should point out I am not the author of that sermon. Thanks Ros.

In my little project there are quite a few which are unattributed

ZealotX wrote: I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

You can rest assured that I am not hypocritical in this regard. I do not limit criticism in any way to any false belief and in particular the Abrahamic ones. They are some of the most prolific and most destructive belief systems to ever exist. It’s the mainstream-ness of these that allow them to be some of the most dangerous. They waste lives and steal money and build grand cathedrals all in the name of some false god. They have evolved from what once might have been religion to a set of some of the biggest for profit businesses to ever exist, all perfectly disguised as a benevolent belief system. All the while their leaders live in the lap of luxury and worship while their constituents starve. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

Beyond that, there has been no religious persecution here. Far from it. This has been a meaningful discussion, not one of hostility or ill intent as you imply. The fact that people feel attacked over such probing questions has no bearing on the asker, it has to do with the conviction of the believer. If they feel uncomfortable when questioned about belief, then they need to reevaluate that belief. Sadly they often times will not do this and instead resort to victim mentality and claim they were attacked when that fact is nowhere in evidence. This is designed only to deflect the discussion, not further it.

The idea of simply believing something without exploring or knowing why you actually believe it is just lazy. It is a sheep mentality that only serves to put people to sleep. This never has a good ending as it leads people to radicalism in a myriad of forms instead of allowing them to actually know who they are and what they stand for. They become convinced of all sorts of garbage and they never even stop to ask why? Instead they cherry pick and shun evidence and never face their true selves in an honest fashion.

These “stories” people cling too are a highly effective method of this sort of indoctrination. It matters not whether any shred of it is true or not. People love to step outside of their normal lives because they don’t want to take any responsibility for what is actually happening to them. Instead they put that responsibility in the hands of Gods and supernatural beings and in doing this they can blame others for their circumstances instead of themselves. “Oh it’s in God’s hands”, or “It was Gods will”, or “He works in mysterious ways” or “all the glory to god”. Insert whatever supernatural divine entity you desire for God in these quotes, it matters not, the results are the same. Ignorant bliss instead of taking up the responsibility of the self-pursuit of your true bliss, as Campbell puts it.

Ren is right, this was posted in an open discussion forum. And as a result it shall be discussed within the boundaries of the rules of this forum. I see no need to pull any points of discussion just because the post “Might have been put in the wrong section”. That was not my responsibility, it was the OPers. I will hold him to that responsibility and take no shame in any of my responses here just because of “benefit of the doubt.” I have no control over anyone’s reactions to anything said here either. Instead each of us must that that responsibility for ourselves. People can either choose to see these responses in the way they were meant - honest discussion of ideas and constructive criticism, or They can resort to victim hood mentality and play the oppressed one. The difference is in how well each of us knows ourselves.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: I'm a little disappointed with some of the responses in this thread. I think at some point I tried to make the point how is Lenny's belief system different from others? The point of that question is that I think we all try to take some measures in limiting our criticism, especially of Abrahamic religions, in an effort to avoid unnecessary offense. Maybe it's because these religions are more "mainstream" and stranger ideas represent more "extreme" views. But why? Why do we not treat all religions equally? Shouldn't they be? Or is it because many people believe in them and thus, mob rule, creates the boundaries where we respect the belief simply because it is believed?

You can rest assured that I am not hypocritical in this regard. I do not limit criticism in any way to any false belief and in particular the Abrahamic ones. They are some of the most prolific and most destructive belief systems to ever exist. It’s the mainstream-ness of these that allow them to be some of the most dangerous. They waste lives and steal money and build grand cathedrals all in the name of some false god. They have evolved from what once might have been religion to a set of some of the biggest for profit businesses to ever exist, all perfectly disguised as a benevolent belief system. All the while their leaders live in the lap of luxury and worship while their constituents starve. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

Beyond that, there has been no religious persecution here. Far from it. This has been a meaningful discussion, not one of hostility or ill intent as you imply. The fact that people feel attacked over such probing questions has no bearing on the asker, it has to do with the conviction of the believer. If they feel uncomfortable when questioned about belief, then they need to reevaluate that belief. Sadly they often times will not do this and instead resort to victim mentality and claim they were attacked when that fact is nowhere in evidence. This is designed only to deflect the discussion, not further it.

The idea of simply believing something without exploring or knowing why you actually believe it is just lazy. It is a sheep mentality that only serves to put people to sleep. This never has a good ending as it leads people to radicalism in a myriad of forms instead of allowing them to actually know who they are and what they stand for. They become convinced of all sorts of garbage and they never even stop to ask why? Instead they cherry pick and shun evidence and never face their true selves in an honest fashion.

These “stories” people cling too are a highly effective method of this sort of indoctrination. It matters not whether any shred of it is true or not. People love to step outside of their normal lives because they don’t want to take any responsibility for what is actually happening to them. Instead they put that responsibility in the hands of Gods and supernatural beings and in doing this they can blame others for their circumstances instead of themselves. “Oh it’s in God’s hands”, or “It was Gods will”, or “He works in mysterious ways” or “all the glory to god”. Insert whatever supernatural divine entity you desire for God in these quotes, it matters not, the results are the same. Ignorant bliss instead of taking up the responsibility of the self-pursuit of your true bliss, as Campbell puts it.

Ren is right, this was posted in an open discussion forum. And as a result it shall be discussed within the boundaries of the rules of this forum. I see no need to pull any points of discussion just because the post “Might have been put in the wrong section”. That was not my responsibility, it was the OPers. I will hold him to that responsibility and take no shame in any of my responses here just because of “benefit of the doubt.” I have no control over anyone’s reactions to anything said here either. Instead each of us must that that responsibility for ourselves. People can either choose to see these responses in the way they were meant - honest discussion of ideas and constructive criticism, or They can resort to victim hood mentality and play the oppressed one. The difference is in how well each of us knows ourselves.

So let me get this straight.

If a Christian posts "Footprints in the Sand" for example, on the Open Discussion forum, does that give any and all persons the license to go all in on that topic, including language such as "lazy" and "garbage"?



What if the OP isn't a Christian and yet we know we have Christian Jedi among us who might be personally offended? I guess my question is, where do we draw the line?

And if the reaction/feelings of the OP aren't a factor of consideration for how we respond then for what purpose are we responding and for whom are our responses for?

I'm simply looking for clarity at this point because there is no sticky thread in the Open Discussion forum that lays out any ground rules or lack thereof. And if there is no way for the OP to know he's about to post in a free-for-all melee of criticism then, IMHO, it is unfair to treat the subject as such. It's like if I play an online shooter and people on a particular server allow all kinds of racist language and I come in not knowing that. If there was some kind of notice then yeah... it'd be my responsibility (even though the language still isn't right) to have chosen a different server to play even though it could be argued public server vs private server, etc. However, if no such warning exists then I have no protection from the offenses that might follow and I don't think I should have to be subject to that.

The description of Open Discussions is simply "Open Discussion about Jediism or anything else!"

That does not specify what "open discussion" means to you or Ren, with all due respect to you both. And if your interpretation = no holds barred flame war, that's fine but I don't think everyone would naturally come in sharing that opinion or expecting that kind of content; especially since it mentions Jediism specifically. So are we inviting the world to come in and critically bash Jediism and flame us for using a name tied to a fictional franchise? Because by the logic I'm hearing this seems to be the case and anyone from any religion can come to this forum and make multiple threads to attack Jediism, whether it's your brand or mine or Lenny's or Ren's.

And I don't think that was ever the intent of this website.

Hm, the OP doesn't seem to be having an issue with what is going on here: One person (and a guest at that), sharing their views and questions on the topic, based on what is simply the principle of critical thinking. I'm just observing that someone who is not the OP seems more distressed over this than than OP themselves. And this is something that sounds like its stemming from some fear of something that is not actually a threat, because it is being interpreted through a personally biased filter. I don't see any kind of oppression going on, or a flame war. Like Jestor would have said "We're just talking"... really guys, it's okay...

Proteus wrote: Hm, the OP doesn't seem to be having an issue with what is going on here: One person (and a guest at that), sharing their views and questions on the topic, based on what is simply the principle of critical thinking. I'm just observing that someone who is not the OP seems more distressed over this than than OP themselves. And this is something that sounds like its stemming from some fear of something that is not actually a threat, because it is being interpreted through a personally biased filter. I don't see any kind of oppression going on, or a flame war. Like Jestor would have said "We're just talking"... really guys, it's okay...

Except that the OP requested the thread be locked on page 12 because he felt it had gotten out of hand. I simply agree with that sentiment and marvel at the fact that he withstood so many criticisms. He is the only one on this site who holds these beliefs and the only one who can defend them. But should he have to? If it were as you said, "just talking" I doubt the OP would have made that request. The fact is that once he made that request or even hinted that the opposition to his ideas was getting to be too much that's when people should have started backing off. He made only a couple of responses after that which I would expect in keeping with his desire to be forthcoming. But the truth is it should have ended on page 12 when he requested the thread to be locked. And now I'm being seemingly accused of being in distress when in reality I only acted in his defense. Not only did I actually read what he had to say but I agree with his right to believe whatever he chooses without prejudice or intellectual molestation. He also stated twice that he was fully aware that everything was not 100% accurate and that it was to reinforce his understanding and belief in the Force. He also talked about how it helps him personally. Need I continue? My disappointment stems from the fact that I don't think everyone was interested in his reasons or motivations, but rather saw blood in the water. And even when he gave clear indication that it had gotten out of hand, that too was ignored. So again I ask, where do we draw the line?

Yes, I just saw his response on page 12, which I didn't catch the first time around. Apologies. That does unfortunately change the scene here in this instance I think.

Proteus wrote: Yes, I just saw his response on page 12, which I didn't catch the first time around. Apologies. That does unfortunately change the scene here in this instance I think.

no worries. I was once entirely driven by the desire for truth. It took me interacting with people to understand how those points of contention were more than just ideas to them, but rather fond memories, comfort "in the time of storm", and footprints in the sand.

These "ideas" that we sometimes debate are not just ideas. They are the inspiration on which people build on and grow from. I agree 1000% with Kyrin on Abrahamic religions (because I hate what certain biblical characters did and the systems they put in place); however... I also know what Christianity means to my mother. These are not just a set of ideas. They are hopes and dreams. I could continue to try to crush these ideas every time my mother asks me about attending church, but who am I to crush her hopes and dreams? Who are any of us?

So I'm not saying Argument A, B, or C is wrong. I'm not saying everything Lenny believes is right. I'm simply saying we should respect what people believe and hope they afford us that same courtesy so that we can all feel welcome.

ZealotX wrote: So let me get this straight.

If a Christian posts "Footprints in the Sand" for example, on the Open Discussion forum, does that give any and all persons the license to go all in on that topic, including language such as "lazy" and "garbage"?

Why would it not? It is after all an “open” discussion. If it’s not to be discussed openly then put it in the Abrahamic studies forum and qualify the nature of the discussion. That is the reason for the different boards. I also wonder why you would take such offense at the term lazy and then turn right around and use an equally offensive term like “intellectual molestation’ or accuse someone of conducting a “flame war” when that is clearly not the case?

ZealotX wrote: What if the OP isn't a Christian and yet we know we have Christian Jedi among us who might be personally offended? I guess my question is, where do we draw the line?

They can be just as offended as they like. I see no reason why my opinion of a subject matter would be any less valid than theirs. You see Christianity in general is rather offensive to me and yet I can still have intelligent discourse and even be friends with Christians because I don’t confuse the individual with the idea. I can discuss ideas such as Christianity and still go have a beer with the individual that I otherwise admire, trust or even love. That is where I draw the line, so many others can’t even see this line though. That is the real issue.

For example, take this quote,

Proteus wrote: One person (and a guest at that), sharing their views and questions on the topic, based on what is simply the principle of critical thinking.

I find his characterization of “guest” as personally quite offensive. There was absolutely no reason to include that except to belittle someone. It comes across as elitist, especially since I have held many ranks here and even been up for Knighthood multiple times. However this is a known character flaw for Proteus and even though I will take exception and point it out to him whenever I see it, I can still have civil conversations with him in other areas. In other words it does not cause me to become unglued and freak out… or whatever. It’s something we all must accept about others, that we all have flaws. At that point it becomes simply a choice to interact in spite of those or not. No reason to burn a cross over it though.

ZealotX wrote: I'm simply looking for clarity at this point because there is no sticky thread in the Open Discussion forum that lays out any ground rules or lack thereof. And if there is no way for the OP to know he's about to post in a free-for-all melee of criticism then, IMHO, it is unfair to treat the subject as such. It's like if I play an online shooter and people on a particular server allow all kinds of racist language and I come in not knowing that. If there was some kind of notice then yeah... it'd be my responsibility (even though the language still isn't right) to have chosen a different server to play even though it could be argued public server vs private server, etc. However, if no such warning exists then I have no protection from the offenses that might follow and I don't think I should have to be subject to that.

I find these comments to be the most ridiculous. (No offense ) This demand for safe spaces for people to retreat too and trigger warnings to help protect a “fragile psyche” is quite frankly not only unrealistic it’s just preposterous! This growing trend in the call for time outs and safe spaces and cultural language rules by societal snowflakes is just not attached to reality in any way. There are no such things in real life and to pretend we can fix the world and stop the offenses just by fantasizing these vacuous creations do anything for us is just inane. The world does not work this way. Just because you feel you shouldn’t have to be subject to such offenses has no bearing on the fact that you potentially will be over and over every single day. I say instead of avoiding such things, learn how to deal with them or get over them or you will be in real trouble when the actual shit hits the fan.

ZealotX wrote: The description of Open Discussions is simply "Open Discussion about Jediism or anything else!" That does not specify what "open discussion" means to you or Ren, with all due respect to you both.

So are we inviting the world to come in and critically bash Jediism and flame us for using a name tied to a fictional franchise? Because by the logic I'm hearing this seems to be the case and anyone from any religion can come to this forum and make multiple threads to attack Jediism, whether it's your brand or mine or Lenny's or Ren's.

And I don't think that was ever the intent of this website.

What if it means something different to me than it does to you or Ren? So what? What makes your opinion of what it means more valid than mine? Why do you get to assume the high moral ground in this? As for welcoming others to come in and critically [critique] Jediism, I say HELL YES! Let them come, let them bring all guns to bear, I won’t cry foul nor run to a safe space, nor claim victim hood or plead for them to stop. This is not an attack when done in the spirit of honest debate, it is a challenge to defend and to grow and reinforce and to evolve as Jedi or whatever else may come out of it! In fact I have been accused many times over of this sort of thing. It has brought me to some interesting places and evolved my beliefs in incredible ways. So don’t be afraid of such things, seek them out and make the cry to “bring it on”!!

ZealotX wrote:

Proteus wrote: Yes, I just saw his response on page 12, which I didn't catch the first time around. Apologies. That does unfortunately change the scene here in this instance I think.

no worries. I was once entirely driven by the desire for truth. It took me interacting with people to understand how those points of contention were more than just ideas to them, but rather fond memories, comfort "in the time of storm", and footprints in the sand.

These "ideas" that we sometimes debate are not just ideas. They are the inspiration on which people build on and grow from. I agree 1000% with Kyrin on Abrahamic religions (because I hate what certain biblical characters did and the systems they put in place); however... I also know what Christianity means to my mother. These are not just a set of ideas. They are hopes and dreams. I could continue to try to crush these ideas every time my mother asks me about attending church, but who am I to crush her hopes and dreams? Who are any of us?

So I'm not saying Argument A, B, or C is wrong. I'm not saying everything Lenny believes is right. I'm simply saying we should respect what people believe and hope they afford us that same courtesy so that we can all feel welcome.

I very much agree here.

Just an understanding I have developed over sometime, is the necessity to be very careful when interacting with people about their beliefs because of the very flaws humans have with them that one could easily try to hold against them. For instance, I had a best friend who's Christian beliefs were the fragile string left keeping her from killing herself. If I were to question her out of the validity of those beliefs, I seriously doubt she would have had the mental/emotional fortitude to work herself through it if she were that close to the edge as it was. Another one is someone I have met recently who spent 26 years in prison for murder. While there, he adopted conservative baptist beliefs. He's still mentally quite unstable, but he uses his beliefs (even in the complete ignorance of knowing what he's talking about most of the time) as his one and only handle for keeping himself in check or else he has confessed multiple times, he could do it again. Obviously, it would not seem right for me to question him out of those beliefs because of the very understandably human flaws that directed him to those beliefs and have him rely on crutching on it just to keep himself together.

The thing is, these kinds of situations can be present with anyone online, at this temple, who you don't personally know. For all you know, while you think you're digging out "truth" for the better of the person you are questioning and/or debating, you could very well be risking directing them toward a possibly destructive end of some kind.

This is why, no matter how ridiculous someone else's beliefs may seem to me, I've learned not to confront them about it. I created a separate thread asking about this for others, but I will just say for myself, I don't feel it is my responsibility to do that with others. It's just dangerous, even if you think you're only asking seemingly innocent questions. It's very important to understand the psychology of people when it comes to religious beliefs. I can usually tell when someone really does by how they interact with others when it comes to these kinds of things.

Just for fun.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efTwYSuqIgo

Bethany: What's He like?

Rufus: He likes to listen to people talk. I remember the old days when we were sittin' around the fire. You know, whenever we were goin' on about unimportant shit, He'd always have a smile on his face. His only real beef with mankind is the shit that gets carried out His name. Wars. Bigotry. Televangelism. The big one though, is the factioning of the religions. He said, "Mankind got it all wrong by takin' a good idea and building a belief structure out of it."

Bethany: So you're saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?

Rufus: I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. The whole of existence is in jeopardy right now because of the Catholic belief system in this Plenary Indulgence bullshit. Bartleby and Loki, whether they know it or not, are exploiting that belief, and if they're successful, you, me, all of this ends in a heartbeat. All over a belief" --Chris Rock as Roofus, Dogma written by Kevin Smith

Much Love, Rspect and Peace,
Kobos

Proteus wrote:
The thing is, these kinds of situations can be present with anyone online, at this temple, who you don't personally know. For all you know, while you think you're digging out "truth" for the better of the person you are questioning and/or debating, you could very well be risking directing them toward a possibly destructive end of some kind.

There is that flaw again. This idea of superiority you feel you have over others. If these individuals are in that bad of shape why dont you get them some help instead of ignoring them. In the end it is not your influence that will cause them to choose anything. You are not the dictator of their free will. Only they have that choice and only they have the ability to use one biased excuse or another to justify poor decisions. You have nothing to do with it.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote:
The thing is, these kinds of situations can be present with anyone online, at this temple, who you don't personally know. For all you know, while you think you're digging out "truth" for the better of the person you are questioning and/or debating, you could very well be risking directing them toward a possibly destructive end of some kind.

There is that flaw again. This idea of superiority you feel you have over others. If these individuals are in that bad of shape why dont you get them some help instead of ignoring them. In the end it is not your influence that will cause them to choose anything. You are not the dictator of their free will. Only they have that choice and only they have the ability to use one biased excuse or another to justify poor decisions. You have nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me. I don't know if you're trying to disagree with me, because what your'e saying is precisely what I was pointing out. All I know is that you managed to create an assumption that you know how I feel and that I somehow feel superior over others based on some text.

The doctrine isn't above criticism. It encourages free thought, free speech, the ethic of reciprocity, and the pursuit of knowledge.

There is no need to lock threads because someone doesn't like what is being discussed and no taboo as long as what is being said isn't legally problematic to us.


I'm surprised you guys don't criticize your own beliefs. How do you refine them?

ren wrote: I'm surprised you guys don't criticize your own beliefs. How do you refine them?

For me, one thing I used was apprenticeship. The process of going through apprenticeship (twice) was a process of critical analysis of my beliefs and their subsequent refinement. I don't know if this is the case for everyone but if its not I see no reason why anyone would ever undertake such a mission.

ren wrote: The doctrine isn't above criticism. It encourages free thought, free speech, the ethic of reciprocity, and the pursuit of knowledge.

There is no need to lock threads because someone doesn't like what is being discussed and no taboo as long as what is being said isn't legally problematic to us.


I'm surprised you guys don't criticize your own beliefs. How do you refine them?

Did you really mean criticize? To criticize something is not a synonym with critical AFAIK. Criticizing something doesn't necessarily refine it, but it might. A valid criticizm might refine it, but I think a Jedi uses more efficient ways to refine then blunt instruments.

But who says we don't anyway!! Assumptions are half the problem, people make them and then characterize people with them... on paper it would be 50/50 that the assumption if incorrect would be insulting, but for some reason when certain folk here make these assumptions in this way its 100% insulting. Your thoughts betray you, as the saying goes. It speaks to issues with the assumptions being made and how they are used, which if repeated enough seems to constitute intent and method.

The actual issue IMO seems to be how some people are over critical, ie attacking, rather then whether someone is necessarily being critical. There is an exporative and supportive way to break things down and reveal failings, and their is a mocking and insulting way.... the later is a problem in a lot of peoples eyes, but not for a few... seemingly. I obviously go with the former, but just because it works better IMO to achieve real progress.

In reference to above. Conotation vs denotation I suppose

criticize
Read in another language

Watch this page
Edit
English
Edit
Alternative forms
Edit
criticise (UK)
Etymology
Edit
critic +‎ -ize; first element from Ancient Greek κριτικός (kritikós, “of or for judging, able to discern”), from κρίσις (krísis, “crisis”)

Pronunciation
Edit
IPA(key): /ˈkɹɪtɪsaɪz/
Hyphenation: crit‧i‧cize
Verb
Edit
criticize (third-person singular simple present criticizes, present participle criticizing, simple past and past participle criticized) (transitive, intransitive)

To find fault (with something).
To evaluate (something), assessing its merits and faults.
Synonyms
Edit
(find fault with): censure, pick at
(evaluate): appraise, judge
Hyponyms
Edit
The terms below need to be checked and allocated to the definitions (senses) of the headword above. Each term should appear in the sense for which it is appropriate. Use the templates {{syn|en|...}} or {{ant|en|...}} to add them to the appropriate sense(s).

From : https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/criticize