Worldviews

[gunmum]

Quite a hot topic, everyone has an opinion
I challenge all of you to listen to this so that you have a better understanding of what the real debate should be about. You can argue and argue your facts, but until you realize that we all have a worldview that shapes our beliefs, you won't get anywhere with proving yourself!

There is more to it, but I'll start you off with this. It's slow to start, but worth it:
http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3...MP20100109.mp3

[Mistagin]

Ravi - a good, nah, make that 'great' man!
I'll have to listen to it later when I have more time.

Be interesting to see what what comes out on this thread!

Now it's supper time and then off to see the movie "Courageous". I have to see how it fits with my worldview (which parallels Ravi's .

[Arachnodisiac]

For real? A thread on world views is being started with the suggestion that everyone first listen to a Christian evangelist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

[Okotokian]

HUH? What? Sorry, I was out standing in my phenomenal field.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

For real? A thread on world views is being started with the suggestion that everyone first listen to a Christian evangelist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

Who listened?

Yeah, that comment should get a few going!

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

For real? A thread on world views is being started with the suggestion that everyone first listen to a Christian evangelist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

So I just find it interesting that you've pointed me in the direction of wikipedia twice now. Wikipedia is written by man, but then again, so was the bible

You are quick to point out that it is a Christian evangelist, but did YOU actually listen to what he's saying here?? Please don't discredit what he is saying until you actually hear what he says.

[Arachnodisiac]

Yes, I understand his philosophy.

And by and large, he certainly comes across as one of the most reasonable Christian evangelists.

But, the fact remains that in his estimation, if you look at your own world view and analyze them "correctly," Christianity is the only logical path to end up on.

Is this a reasonable one-sentence summary of his position relating to world views?

Edit: I find Wikipedia a relatively reliable source for neutral information, which also has easily-accessed references to cross-check information and to scan for distortions and misuse and in general, is a good starting ground for basic debate and discussion whereby people require quick information.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

Yes, I understand his philosophy.

And by and large, he certainly comes across as one of the most reasonable Christian evangelists.

But, the fact remains that in his estimation, if you look at your own world view and analyze them "correctly," Christianity is the only logical path to end up on.

Is this a reasonable one-sentence summary of his position relating to world views?

Edit: I find Wikipedia a relatively reliable source for neutral information, which also has easily-accessed references to cross-check information and to scan for distortions and misuse and in general, is a good starting ground for basic debate and discussion whereby people require quick information.

No. One sentence cannot summarize his world view.

So, I take it you've heard from some unreasonable Christian evangelists? Reasonableness is not what should be judged. How would an unreasonable Christian Evangelist become reasonable in your mind? By some denunciation of faith? That would not be a reasonable course for any Christian. Not that Christians have never denounced there faith........but that is what is to be judged......faith, as opposed to reasonableness.

You may have read the wiki pages on him but I do not believe, by the content of your text, that you actually listened to the recording. Granted, it is rather longish, but it is not about proclaming Christianity as the logical path.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by gunmum

So I just find it interesting that you've pointed me in the direction of wikipedia twice now. Wikipedia is written by man, but then again, so was the bible

You are quick to point out that it is a Christian evangelist, but did YOU actually listen to what he's saying here?? Please don't discredit what he is saying until you actually hear what he says.

If I recall a few months ago we were plauged by statements such as this concerning Lady Gaga....ahh Boberama have you been reincarnated?

[pophouseman]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

If I recall a few months ago we were plauged by statements such as this concerning Lady Gaga....ahh Boberama have you been reincarnated?

X2

[Fisherpeak]

I see Jim Bakker is out of jail and back on T.V.,shearing the sheep again.

Does that count as a resurection?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by gunmum

So I just find it interesting that you've pointed me in the direction of wikipedia twice now. Wikipedia is written by man, but then again, so was the bible

Where else would she refer you to but a source written by man? A source written by monkeys?

And glad you acknowledge that the bible is written by man and no more authoritative than Wikipedia. LOL

waitin' for the llightning bolt anytime now LOL

[Mistagin]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Where else would she refer you to but a source written by man? A source written by monkeys?

And glad you acknowledge that the bible is written by man and no more authoritative than Wikipedia. LOL

waitin' for the llightning bolt anytime now LOL

Written by the hand of 'man' (maybe a woman or 2 had a hand in it too), but Christian belief acknowledges that it was inspired by God. Can't say that about Wikipedia.

[gunmum]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Written by the hand of 'man' (maybe a woman or 2 had a hand in it too), but Christian belief acknowledges that it was inspired by God. Can't say that about Wikipedia.

Thank-you Mistagin, I'm glad you picked up on that I was getting to the point that people are so quick to disprove the Bible and God's word, but seem to think that Wikipedia is the be all and end all of reliable information.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Written by the hand of 'man' (maybe a woman or 2 had a hand in it too), but Christian belief acknowledges that it was inspired by God. Can't say that about Wikipedia.

Because the bible tells you so right? Circular logic.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Written by the hand of 'man' (maybe a woman or 2 had a hand in it too), but Christian belief acknowledges that it was inspired by God. Can't say that about Wikipedia.

There is about as much proof to support a claim that wiki info is inspired by god as the bible. In both cases its all pure speculation. There is absolutely no way to know. "Believing" and "trusting" doesn't make it so except in one's own mind. If it makes one feel good to believe in the bible and a church leaders interpretation of that book then I'm happy for that person. But the reality is that any one of us will only KNOW the actual truth of any higher power and afterlife when we pass on.

[rogo]

Originally Posted by gunmum

So I just find it interesting that you've pointed me in the direction of wikipedia twice now. Wikipedia is written by man, but then again, so was the bible

You are quick to point out that it is a Christian evangelist, but did YOU actually listen to what he's saying here?? Please don't discredit what he is saying until you actually hear what he says.

Ravi is not an Evangelist, he is an Apologist. There is a difference.

[Sneeze]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

everyone first listen to a Christian evangelist?

Ha, definately a journalist. Nothing safer than to attack then Christianity!

Don't get me wrong... I am definately not going to heaven and believe in it as far as I can spit a rat... but, to each their own. You wanted us to look at pictures of poop, she wants us to listen to some wako for 5 minutes. Is there a difference?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Ha, definately a journalist. Nothing safer than to attack then Christianity!

Don't get me wrong... I am definately not going to heaven and believe in it as far as I can spit a rat... but, to each their own. You wanted us to look at pictures of poop, she wants us to listen to some wako for 5 minutes. Is there a difference?

I thought attacking Muslims was more kosher?

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by Sneeze

Ha, definately a journalist. Nothing safer than to attack then Christianity!

Don't get me wrong... I am definately not going to heaven and believe in it as far as I can spit a rat... but, to each their own. You wanted us to look at pictures of poop, she wants us to listen to some wako for 5 minutes. Is there a difference?

Except that, to me at least, 'World Views' implies a neutral beginning of a thread.

Thus, when I found the link to the video (which is actually over 25 minutes long) and when I realized it was merely Christian evangelism in secular clothing, I was somewhat surprised.

To be fair, no one opened my scat thread and instead found a plea for members to join a quilting club. Had it been named for what is is, I likely would not have opened it, much less posted on it.

Edit: as for journalists attacking Christianity... I hold all faith in equal esteem.

I absolutely believe in freedom of religion, because it is only that right which protects my right to disbelief and therefore, I would fight for it because of that fundamental reason that places us all in the same boat.

By the same token, and for the same reason (to ensure that freedom) I will fight to keep all religion from the public life, including our schools, courts and government.

[gunmum]

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises."

Pretty much my first point, in different words.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I was just sayin' that sometimes its futile in arguing on who's right about this or that when its a persons preconceptions that drive their beliefs. So no matter what I say, you may think it wrong.
Did you hear what he said about the skeptical man? Sound familiar? It's too bad that some people try to pick the bible apart using this sentence here and that sentence there without reading it in context. If that's what you need to prove your point, it just reiterates what I'm saying.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by gunmum

According to Michael Lind, "a worldview is a more or less coherent understanding of the nature of reality, which permits its holders to interpret new information in light of their preconceptions. Clashes among worldviews cannot be ended by a simple appeal to facts. Even if rival sides agree on the facts, people may disagree on conclusions because of their different premises."

Pretty much my first point, in different words.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I was just sayin' that sometimes its futile in arguing on who's right about this or that when its a persons preconceptions that drive their beliefs. So no matter what I say, you may think it wrong.
Did you hear what he said about the skeptical man? Sound familiar? It's too bad that some people try to pick the bible apart using this sentence here and that sentence there without reading it in context. If that's what you need to prove your point, it just reiterates what I'm saying.

It intrigues me that proponents of the bible as literal fact and history are the first to quote chapter and verse. Most have never read the whole thing, nor studied concordances of the whole. Their "knowledge" is based on oft repeated readings by priests/preachers and internet searches.

Hardly an indepth knowledge, isn't it?

As the Pew Forum study shows, and I quote from the executive summary,

"Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions."

Perhaps if apologists were more knowledgeable about what they are proselytizing about, one could take them more serious.

It is only when anyone else suggests there are contradictory inclusions in the bible, that your argument of "your talking it out of context" comes up.

[Mistagin]

Arachnodisiac said, "By the same token, and for the same reason (to ensure that freedom) I will fight to keep all religion from the public life, including our schools, courts and government."

So if you win the fight, then we will be ruled by those with an atheistic worldview (if there is such a thing). Hmmm not so sure that would be any better than what we've got now. Nations ruled by atheistic governments / rulers haven't exactly given the world anything to desire! One thing about it, to truly have an atheistic worldview government / schools / courts mean there would be a small pool to draw leaders from!

For one thing, we'd have to scrap the entire legal / justice system - since ours is rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and society still seems to hold to the validity of at least some of the 10 Commandments and their inherent principles.

And how would you propose to keep religious people out of all public life? Put them in prisons? Isolate them from society somehow? Make them slaves?

I think, no - I believe, that there have been immense contributions to creating good societies and a lot of very good things to enhance life by people who have dearly held religiously based worldviews. And there still are. In fact, I would go so far as to say the roots of our Western civilization were very heavily shaped and influenced by people with religious worldviews. Has that been so bad it now requires, in your estimation, the dis-allowance of religious peoples' voices in vital areas of society like government, education, and the courts?

I thought that in the post-modern worldview era (which I would presume is the worldview you would espouse), the worldview which supplanted the modern era worldview a couple of decades or so ago, holds as a strong tenet the principle of tolerance that every view, every voice, bar none, is of equal value and validity. So why then is it okay to voice an opinion that a religious person's worldview is invalid and has no role in public life?

By the way, I hold to a Biblical worldview shaped by the Reformed Christian theological tradition - and I'm proud to say so!

[fish gunner]

so the zealots on all sides. killing each other for the last 5000years is ok,cause the christians have come out on top in this last go round. I for one have walked the streets with no name,and stood between people that thought there god was on there side.culture has been shaped by religion thru waging war. there has been no true peace in our life time ,most of these small conflicts have religion at their core.i would give the non believers a swing at the bat, may save a few lives.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

.....
So if you win the fight, then we will be ruled by those with an atheistic worldview (if there is such a thing). Hmmm not so sure that would be any better than what we've got now. Nations ruled by atheistic governments / rulers haven't exactly given the world anything to desire! One thing about it, to truly have an atheistic worldview government / schools / courts mean there would be a small pool to draw leaders from!

Religious leaders of nations have done such a great job over history, haven't they? Iran - religious leaders run it, Hitler, practicing Catholic, endorsed by Pope Pious the what ever number he was, King Henry the Eight, established Church of England, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition.

All religious people. And let us not forget those wonderful religious leaders who sent children on a Crusade to get slaughtered.

Yeah, I feel really comfortable with the precedence set by leaders who are religious and use their religion to run their countries.

For one thing, we'd have to scrap the entire legal / justice system - since ours is rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, and society still seems to hold to the validity of at least some of the 10 Commandments and their inherent principles.

Code of Hammurabi was in fact much more comprehensive as a civil law instrument then the 10 Commandments or many of the Moses statements. Much of the 10 commandments and Moses subsequent statements mirror the Code of Hammurabi.

Your argument falls apart; lots of moral law available prior to the bible, laws that are still applicable today.

I think, no - I believe, that there have been immense contributions to creating good societies and a lot of very good things to enhance life by people who have dearly held religiously based worldviews. And there still are. In fact, I would go so far as to say the roots of our Western civilization were very heavily shaped and influenced by people with religious worldviews. Has that been so bad it now requires, in your estimation, the dis-allowance of religious peoples' voices in vital areas of society like government, education, and the courts?

Actually, as I indicated above, yeah, lots of harm is done in the name of religion. Many religious people do good, and so do some of the organizations, but that does not detract from the fact that much of the world's wars are and have been because of religious differences.

By the way, I hold to a Biblical worldview shaped by the Reformed Christian theological tradition - and I'm proud to say so!

I assume that means you hope to be one of the 144,000? Wasn't Calvin the one who copied Vlad Dracul of Transylvania and tortured some of those opposed to him, and then put their heads on a stake? Nice guy to model a religion after.

[Arachnodisiac]

Originally Posted by Mistagin

Arachnodisiac said, "By the same token, and for the same reason (to ensure that freedom) I will fight to keep all religion from the public life, including our schools, courts and government."

Nations ruled by atheistic governments / rulers haven't exactly given the world anything to desire! One thing about it, to truly have an atheistic worldview government / schools / courts mean there would be a small pool to draw leaders from!

By and large, I am happy with the way government, courts and education function now in Canada, with regard to secularism. Occasionally, something crops up that I find grossly disturbing, but Canada is light years ahead of our American counterparts, at least.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear – I do not care what people choose to believe, and whether they hold public office or teach my children, as long as their beliefs are private –*much like their sex life.

Hopefully, my position is better understood now.

[30Cal]

Originally Posted by Arachnodisiac

For real? A thread on world views is being started with the suggestion that everyone first listen to a Christian evangelist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Zacharias

This opening presentation seems more than adequate considering that this thread, if I am correct, was started as a result of the spiritual issues that were being discussed earlier in the Freemasonry thread. I believe the intention was to continue in the discussion of spiritual or religious viewpoints, providing the members of AO the opportunity to express their views and opinions (even debate if necessary), regardless of the content of their beliefs. Please correct me if I’m wrong and have misunderstood if that is what this thread entitled Worldviews was agreed upon?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by gunmum

Quite a hot topic, everyone has an opinion
I challenge all of you to listen to this so that you have a better understanding of what the real debate should be about. You can argue and argue your facts, but until you realize that we all have a worldview that shapes our beliefs, you won't get anywhere with proving yourself!

There is more to it, but I'll start you off with this. It's slow to start, but worth it:
http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3...MP20100109.mp3

What should the real debate be about?

It certainly should not be which religious view is better (your speaker seems to think the only valid one is the Judeo-Christian one).

Your attempting to define the debate fails right off the bat.

The larger spiritual question should look more at the commonalities of how the modern religious views developed, rather then pointing out the differences and why whose ever book you think is holy is the one and only way to view spirituality.

Taking such a viewpoint ends up in people being close minded, and as Jew, Christians and Muslims have shown, wars. Religious wars are never justified, and if your god thinks they are, I don't even want to smell his B.O. never mind get to know him/her/it.

In fact, any god that promulgates a religious war probably has a B.O. that has a rather sulpheric smell to it.

Offensive? You bet. And I am offended by those that would suggest obliterating another human group in the name of religion is a holy thing.

Taking your texts literally has caused untold human suffering, and continues to this day.

Start looking at the deeper, human and spiritual messages contained even in the bible. They are the ones that are inerrant, and have been for many more thousands of years then just the past 2 millennium.The truths are there, but the moment you start literalizing those mythical and allegorical texts, you get caught in a trap that has cost millions an early death. Your faith, rather then being a spiritual journey, becomes a gateway to acceptance of mistreatment, de-humanizing others and death.

Too many have justified it because "it is written".

Is that the faith you want to adhere too? Or would you prefer that your spiritual journey is something that is uplifting, and gives you a closer connection with the universal truth? Does nature speak to you? Most here will say yes, to some degree or other. You already have experienced some of that universal truth. It doesn't need to be codified in some book, it doesn't need to be preached by some person up front, and it certainly doesn't require untold funds to be contributed to an institution.

It just needs to be your journey. Just make sure your journey doesn't start stepping on others toes.

[Little Red Man]

GOOD GOD (pun intented)...I could not have said it better myself. BRAVO!

Originally Posted by avb3

What should the real debate be about?

It certainly should not be which religious view is better (your speaker seems to think the only valid one is the Judeo-Christian one).

Your attempting to define the debate fails right off the bat.

The larger spiritual question should look more at the commonalities of how the modern religious views developed, rather then pointing out the differences and why whose ever book you think is holy is the one and only way to view spirituality.

Taking such a viewpoint ends up in people being close minded, and as Jew, Christians and Muslims have shown, wars. Religious wars are never justified, and if your god thinks they are, I don't even want to smell his B.O. never mind get to know him/her/it.

In fact, any god that promulgates a religious war probably has a B.O. that has a rather sulpheric smell to it.

Offensive? You bet. And I am offended by those that would suggest obliterating another human group in the name of religion is a holy thing.

Taking your texts literally has caused untold human suffering, and continues to this day.

Start looking at the deeper, human and spiritual messages contained even in the bible. They are the ones that are inerrant, and have been for many more thousands of years then just the past 2 millennium.The truths are there, but the moment you start literalizing those mythical and allegorical texts, you get caught in a trap that has cost millions an early death. Your faith, rather then being a spiritual journey, becomes a gateway to acceptance of mistreatment, de-humanizing others and death.

Too many have justified it because "it is written".

Is that the faith you want to adhere too? Or would you prefer that your spiritual journey is something that is uplifting, and gives you a closer connection with the universal truth? Does nature speak to you? Most here will say yes, to some degree or other. You already have experienced some of that universal truth. It doesn't need to be codified in some book, it doesn't need to be preached by some person up front, and it certainly doesn't require untold funds to be contributed to an institution.

It just needs to be your journey. Just make sure your journey doesn't start stepping on others toes.