Talk:Christian worldview

message: I agree with everyone here. The fact that these comments are so old, and my own recent experiences with trying to be a good "doo-bee" on Wikipedia and getting squashed and peedon by super touchy super-users makes me a bit gunshy. I'd love a little affirmation before I take it on. Can I get an amen or two? Is the original author still watching? Does he or she care if we work on this page a bit?  (Does anyone know how you can find out who the original author is?)  I honestly mean well. I want a page that's informative and fair and easy to read...(Konastephen (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--someone should do that.  :) --Locarno 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style edits 

message: Someone editted Template:Christianity for sentence structure and changed it to Christian worldview thus breaking this link... so, I had to move it there since it is the proper capitalization anyways gren 22:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Has anyone considered rewriting the article to reflect the different worldviews depending on different Christian denominations? Off the top of my head, I can think of:
* The Protestant worldview. Described by Max Weber in his essay.
* The Puritanical worldview. Pilgrims; Winthrop; early American New English life.
* Millenialism. Held by early church, and by current sects fearing the apocalypse.
* Ecumentalism - modern Protestant.
* Revivalist movement (American)
* Fundamentalism, American (modern).
* Roman Catholicism - Liberation Theology.
* Secular Catholicism (much of modern Europe).
In short - I have never heard of a "Christian worldview." I have heard of the "Protestant ethic" and the above listed items.
:I agree that it should be divided along some lines. Without having thought much about it, I'm not sure about those particular divisions. For example, many fundamentalists also emphasize millenialism. Revivals were only a part of the protestant Christian movement and, I believe, held to the same basic tenets. Maybe we can make it into a tree?
* Protestantism
# Puritanism
# Fundamentalism - Would this be legalism, as thought of today?
# Evangelicalism - What used to be called Fundamentalism.
* Catholicism
# Roman Catholicism
# Secular Catholicism
* Eastern Orthodoxy
ElAmericano 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Sharp Division?

message: This article is utterly useless, has been hijacked by someone to express his personal worldview (inspite of the edits, it still does this), and, as far as I can see has no analogous article in any of the either series of of articles for a particular religion.  Can someone justify this article's existance?  I don't know how to propose that an article be deleted, but if someone agrees with me who does know how to do this, please start the process.
:I would say that it's purpose is to show that a certain group, commonly associated with a single aspect of life - theology - has a comprehensive view on life, in such areas as
:* Theology
:* Cosmology
:* Biology
:* History
:* Sociology
:* Psychology
:* Philosophy
:* Ethics
:* Law
:* Economics
:I believe that articles on the worldviews of other major groups should also be a part of Wikipedia if they aren't. For example, Marxists/Leninists, secular humanists, and cosmic humanists/new-agers are not one dimensional believes either. Regarding this article, I agree that it should be divided up, possibly with each major section pointing to a whole article on that division's worldview. ElAmericano 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article. 

message: I'll be glad to rewrite the article as a synthesis of what's there (I haven't yet read the entire text, so I'm not sure as to POV and that mess), a new division scheme, and an inclusion of specific worldview topics, such as history, law, etc. (I named the ten major ones above.) Advice is always welcome. I'll rewrite it when I have the time. ElAmericano 22:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rewrite 

message: This article contains a few useful elements but on the whole is probably not worth salvaging. It purports to discuss "Christian Worldview" in a scholarly fashion, even correctly refering to Dooyeweerd for example, but fails to meet any standard of scholarly objectivity or fairness in the manner in which the topic is addressed throughout. The hostility of the author towards Christianity in general is evident in his opening charicaturization of the Judeo-Christian understanding of reality to consist of more than the material as a "three-storey" view of the world. This sort of disrespectful cartoonishness would I'm sure be just as offensive if applied to the tenets of the author's own faith as it was doubtless intended to be towards Christians.
Basically, the issue here is that this is meant to be an article on Christian *worldview* not denominationalism or sectarianism.
A more serious and useful effort ought to trace the history and usage of the term "worldview" in Christian discourse; perhaps starting with the German and Dutch thinkers who coined the term ("Weltanschauung") and even, for the sake of context, referring to its use by thinkers in the stream of dialectical materialism where it was quite popular in the mid and late 20th century. Unfortunately, the word has lost much of its original content in common contemporary usage, succumbing to the relativizing pressure of more subjectivist, anthropocentric streams of thought. The word really refers to a set of fundamental philosophical assumptions, the "a priori" basis of thought, which underlies any person's belief system and hence lifestyle.  
Using the word "worldview" correctly in this manner, as a term of art rather than a synonym for "perspective" or "point of view", it is possible to speak of a single Biblical Christian or Judeo-Christian worldview, just as it is possible to speak of a socialist (i.e. dialectical materialistic) worldview or humanist or hedonist or eastern mystic or pagan worldview. Variations in doctrine and practice within the numerous facets of Christendom are on a completely different level from historical, orthodox Christianity's basic answers to questions of ontology, epistemology, teleology and axiology. A discussion of "Christian Worldview" ought to focus on this level and perhaps explore some of the major historical implications in societies where Christianity has been the dominant social force.
Several excellent works already exist. I also will try to work on distilling some of them into something suitable for this venue. Konastephen 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics of "worldview" need clarification 

message: Please note the changes made to the article. Hopefully they will be seen as positive changes. Most of the previous sections have been put under one major heading, "Background." Then a "Key People and Literary Works" section has been added. A "Notes" section has been added. The Resources section has been given a name change to "Other Relevant Sources," and an "External Links" section has been initiated. I hope you don't mind me joining your article project and as always I'm open for discussion :-) --Awinger48 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Material

message: There are close to a million entries on "Christian Worldview" on the most popular search engine.  I have not read them all, but most of what is presented as "Christian Worldview" though it proclaims the classic popular Christian Gospel, fails to make the distinction between the Old and New Testament of the Bible.  The Old Testament was based on the Law and Justice, whereas in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ presented the New Testament which was based on mercy- Loving others unconditionally as God loves us.  This is the worldview a true Christian would have. To love enemies, not destroy them.  Jesus said "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Old Testament Legalism), but Jesus goes on to say "But I say to you love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, turn the other cheek."  The true "Christian Worldview" is that- seeing the lost as Jesus sees them and loving others the way He loves us- this is absent in popular "Christianity" which is no different than the warring world.
February 15, 2007 entry by Ron Decuir goodnuz.com
207.69.137.21 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Material

message: I noticed the NPOV tag was added but after reading the article it's not clear what the issues is? It cam see how the article could use some structure changes and expansion but I don't see how the info that's currently there is not violates NPOV. If someone thinks the NPOV tag still belongs them please explain w3hy you think so? --Cab88 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for the NPOV Tag? 

message: This article has issues.  Th largest being there was no link to World view which addresses many of the comments above.  I fixed this.
The second problem is it did not define World view - I  copied from the referenced page what seemed appropriate for a definition and then provided a link to a good chapter in a book that discusses the specific topic of Biblical Worldview.
The article still needs work.  Seems like people have noted this, but not followed thru?  Is anyone watching this page??
The term "Biblical Worldview" is used extensively (even in wikipedia).  This article needs more community support from knowledgable folks on the topic.
If I don't see some activity on this page I am going to remove the box (2007) since it is now 2011!
--CCeducator (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The date in the tag was misleading. It was actually added in 2005. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the non-neutrality flag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christian worldview. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831113714/http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml?page=1 to http://www.kuyper.org/main/publish/books_essays/article_17.shtml?page=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified