What worldview?

[makesends]

Here I wish to discuss how one's worldview affects the way a person thinks, causes him to think what he does, and turns his speculations into conclusions.

But worse, by concluding, he sees no alternative in learning more or thinking farther. He is satisfied that now he understands.

----------------------

Mainly, I divide our worldviews into two categories: That of a God-centered World "...for from him and through him and to him are all things."; and that of a Man-centered world "God has made us so he can serve us and love us". The difference is stark --huge.

Among those both are, (remarkably, it seems to me), two further divisions: Those who assume that their words are actual meaning and capable of substance --even capable of truth-- vs those who throw words, no matter how carefully composing and aiming them, at or toward the truth, hoping to come close.

I would hope that I should be able to be skeptical of my conclusions, and not take myself so seriously that I consider my conclusions to represent the truth, even if, at present, they are the best I can come up with, both by authority of Scripture and by boundaries of logic. In our discussions on Christian (or, actually, pretty much any other) forums, I see two types of people, both who claim to be "here to learn" (or at least to be willing to learn). Yet only the one seems to be willing to change their mind upon better evidence --the ones who don't take themselves so seriously.

We hear, "Words mean things", and it is true enough. The problem is that WE don't know what they mean --we hardly even know what they mean to US-- and, what is worse, most of us have a hard time even understanding the principle, (nevermind accepting the principle), that we are only using words --not quite describing fact, but at best, describing what we see as fact the best we currently can.

 

[Arial]

Here I wish to discuss how one's worldview affects the way a person thinks, causes him to think what he does, and turns his speculations into conclusions.

But worse, by concluding, he sees no alternative in learning more or thinking farther. He is satisfied that now he understands.

----------------------

Mainly, I divide our worldviews into two categories: That of a God-centered World "...for from him and through him and to him are all things."; and that of a Man-centered world "God has made us so he can serve us and love us". The difference is stark --huge.

Among those both are, (remarkably, it seems to me), two further divisions: Those who assume that their words are actual meaning and capable of substance --even capable of truth-- vs those who throw words, no matter how carefully composing and aiming them, at or toward the truth, hoping to come close.

I would hope that I should be able to be skeptical of my conclusions, and not take myself so seriously that I consider my conclusions to represent the truth, even if, at present, they are the best I can come up with, both by authority of Scripture and by boundaries of logic. In our discussions on Christian (or, actually, pretty much any other) forums, I see two types of people, both who claim to be "here to learn" (or at least to be willing to learn). Yet only the one seems to be willing to change their mind upon better evidence --the ones who don't take themselves so seriously.

We hear, "Words mean things", and it is true enough. The problem is that WE don't know what they mean --we hardly even know what they mean to US-- and, what is worse, most of us have a hard time even understanding the principle, (nevermind accepting the principle), that we are only using words --not quite describing fact, but at best, describing what we see as fact the best we currently can.

Even worse is two people involved in a conversation, both using the same words, one is coming from a man centered world view and the other from a God centered world view. For example: "Cause has a theological meaning, and also an ordinary meaning. One person (we will call them X) is using the theological definition and the other (aka Y) is using it as "made (forced) something happen." X comes to realize that is what Y is doing and so points it out to him. Y gets angry and thinks he is being attacked and misunderstood and misrepresented, saying he is doing no such thing. And keeps on saying if God causes something (sin for example) then God is responsible for evil, not the sinner therefore God does not cause sin. Which of course, is not what X is saying or believes. And Y supports his position(s) using worldly, human examples.

He insists that God is not the cause of evil, which is true, but adds the only way he cannot be the cause of evil is if man has free will to decide whether to accept the gift of salvation or not. It all comes down to man. God left the room.

There are many examples that could be given of this being done with all the theological terms contained in salvation.

 

[makesends]

Even worse is two people involved in a conversation, both using the same words, one is coming from a man centered world view and the other from a God centered world view. For example: "Cause has a theological meaning, and also an ordinary meaning. One person (we will call them X) is using the theological definition and the other (aka Y) is using it as "made (forced) something happen." X comes to realize that is what Y is doing and so points it out to him. Y gets angry and thinks he is being attacked and misunderstood and misrepresented, saying he is doing no such thing. And keeps on saying if God causes something (sin for example) then God is responsible for evil, not the sinner therefore God does not cause sin. Which of course, is not what X is saying or believes. And Y supports his position(s) using worldly, human examples.

He insists that God is not the cause of evil, which is true, but adds the only way he cannot be the cause of evil is if man has free will to decide whether to accept the gift of salvation or not. It all comes down to man. God left the room.

There are many examples that could be given of this being done with all the theological terms contained in salvation.

Hopefully not off topic, but notice that the thinking is a mechanical sort of manipulating-the-facts-to-produce-the-outcome. Those insisting on self-determinism see the principle of God saving the world, and, wishing to obtain it for themselves, think it depends on them to reach for it. Here we have, integral to the most beautiful fact of this temporal world, God's giving himself to us, and they must pervert it with the same error that describes witchcraft —which is called "-craft" for a reason. Witchcraft is treating the supernatural mechanically, manipulating principles outside the material. And the self-determinist in effect is doing the same with the gift of God, which manipulating/controlling by man God has denied in one word —Grace.

Look how hard they work —how far they must reach— to explain how Grace must depend on man's choosing! We hear them explaining 'God's love', 'relationship', 'responsibility', etc. and making up all sorts of intuitive axioms, as though humans can be the purveyors of truth by mere posit.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Those insisting on self-determinism see the principle of God saving the world, and, wishing to obtain it for themselves,

Different shepard's? Different use of reason? Different perception of language? Different desires?

 

[Josheb]

Here I wish to discuss how one's worldview affects the way a person thinks, causes him to think what he does, and turns his speculations into conclusions.

But worse, by concluding, he sees no alternative in learning more or thinking farther. He is satisfied that now he understands.

----------------------

Mainly, I divide our worldviews into two categories: That of a God-centered World "...for from him and through him and to him are all things."; and that of a Man-centered world "God has made us so he can serve us and love us". The difference is stark --huge.

Among those both are, (remarkably, it seems to me), two further divisions: Those who assume that their words are actual meaning and capable of substance --even capable of truth-- vs those who throw words, no matter how carefully composing and aiming them, at or toward the truth, hoping to come close.

I would hope that I should be able to be skeptical of my conclusions, and not take myself so seriously that I consider my conclusions to represent the truth, even if, at present, they are the best I can come up with, both by authority of Scripture and by boundaries of logic. In our discussions on Christian (or, actually, pretty much any other) forums, I see two types of people, both who claim to be "here to learn" (or at least to be willing to learn). Yet only the one seems to be willing to change their mind upon better evidence --the ones who don't take themselves so seriously.

Hmmmmm..... Does truth exist?

We hear, "Words mean things", and it is true enough. The problem is that WE don't know what they mean....

Who is "we"? If all other people, or even all other members of this forum, are the "we" then are you saying @Arial, or @Hazelelponi, does not know what they mean, or I do not know what I mean, when we post? Might you be generalizing a personal experience to others who do not share that experience?

 

[makesends]

Different shepard's? Different use of reason? Different perception of language? Different desires?

Yes. different worldview.

 

[makesends]

Hmmmmm..... Does truth exist?

Of course. Are you going to posit that we understand it more than simply functionally?

Who is "we"? If all other people, or even all other members of this forum, are the "we" then are you saying @Arial, or @Hazelelponi, does not know what they mean, or I do not know what I mean, when we post? Might you be generalizing a personal experience to others who do not share that experience?

Humanity, and not even just the lost. We will not understand even our own words, as CS Lewis put it, "til we have faces". I love his phrase, "...the words we think we mean".

I grant that we do the best we can —well, some times we do, when we are trying to be honest and not fronting.

 

[Josheb]

Of course.

How do you know truth exists? Upon what basis is that affirmative statement made?

Are you going to posit that we understand it more than simply functionally?

No, but I do think that is correct and true.

Humanity, and not even just the lost. We will not understand even our own words, as CS Lewis put it, "til we have faces". I love his phrase, "the words we think we mean".

That is a misrepresentation of Lewis. The simple fact is we all manage to meaningfully communicate, and the entirety of scripture is built upon the implicit premise of words being understandable and understood. In point of fact, what is the meaning of the following?

The problem is that WE don't know what they mean....​

Presumably you knew what you meant posting those words and you assumed we would understand the meaning of those words, as well as what you wanted us to understand reading them. Yes?

Humanity, and not even just the lost................ I grant that we do the best we can —well, some times we do, when we are trying to be honest and not fronting.

Well, since all the questions asked in Post 5 were not answered I do not think you are doing your best. I'll ask the unanswered questions again.

• Are you saying @Arial, or @Hazelelponi, does not know what they mean, or I do not know what I mean, when we post?
• Might you be generalizing a personal experience to others who do not share that experience?

Can you see how these questions, and the answers you provide, will evidence your worldview and pay into this op? You mentioned your "hope" of skepticism. I would describe myself as a skeptic, maybe even a cynic in some cases, but I am not sure I can lay claim to sharing the same skepticism you or someone else might have. Maybe, therefore, I should start with an even more foundational inquiry.

What do you think is your "worldview"? What do you call it? (I'm kinda surprised that hasn't already been asked)

.

 

[makesends]

How do you know truth exists? Upon what basis is that affirmative statement made?

Because God exists.

makesends said:
Are you going to posit that we understand it more than simply functionally?

No, but I do think that is correct and true.

Let me ask a more definite question then —do you think that we understand God's words? Or only just a little bit? Enough for what we need now?

makesends said:
Humanity, and not even just the lost. We will not understand even our own words, as CS Lewis put it, "til we have faces". I love his phrase, "the words we think we mean".

That is a misrepresentation of Lewis. The simple fact is we all manage to meaningfully communicate, and the entirety of scripture is built upon the implicit premise of words being understandable and understood. In point of fact, what is the meaning of the following?

The problem is that WE don't know what they mean....​

Presumably you knew what you meant posting those words and you assumed we would understand the meaning of those words, as well as what you wanted us to understand reading them. Yes?

Well, since all the questions asked in Post 5 were not answered I do not think you are doing your best. I'll ask the unanswered questions again.

• Are you saying @Arial, or @Hazelelponi, does not know what they mean, or I do not know what I mean, when we post?
• Might you be generalizing a personal experience to others who do not share that experience?

You miss my point, that we are not even close to the infinity of meaning in God's words. I don't say our words are meaningless, but that we are engaged in child's prattle, so to speak (no pun intended).

Can you see how these questions, and the answers you provide, will evidence your worldview and pay into this op? You mentioned your "hope" of skepticism. I would describe myself as a skeptic, maybe even a cynic in some cases, but I am not sure I can lay claim to sharing the same skepticism you or someone else might have. Maybe, therefore, I should start with an even more foundational inquiry.

What do you think is your "worldview"? What do you call it? (I'm kinda surprised that hasn't already been asked)

It's been asked several ways. But I hope my worldview is rational —so far it seems to me to be— in that God is omnipotent, first cause, and all else descends causally from that. My worldview, but for my sinfulness and self-centeredness and their habits of thinking, is that God is the center of all fact, he is "brute fact", default. There is therefore no such thing as another first cause, nor anything besides God truly autonomous nor spontaneous, that comes from nothing.

Probably one could go into the Grace of God and the Gospel, since they color my worldview immensely, but that, too, is dependent on God being default fact —the only first cause.

If it is worth mentioning, I also think that temporal man is WAY down the line of causation, (God's decree working through means, though God does also deal directly with man.)

 

[His clay]

Here I wish to discuss how one's worldview affects the way a person thinks, causes him to think what he does, and turns his speculations into conclusions.

But worse, by concluding, he sees no alternative in learning more or thinking farther. He is satisfied that now he understands.

----------------------

Mainly, I divide our worldviews into two categories: That of a God-centered World "...for from him and through him and to him are all things."; and that of a Man-centered world "God has made us so he can serve us and love us". The difference is stark --huge.

Among those both are, (remarkably, it seems to me), two further divisions: Those who assume that their words are actual meaning and capable of substance --even capable of truth-- vs those who throw words, no matter how carefully composing and aiming them, at or toward the truth, hoping to come close.

I would hope that I should be able to be skeptical of my conclusions, and not take myself so seriously that I consider my conclusions to represent the truth, even if, at present, they are the best I can come up with, both by authority of Scripture and by boundaries of logic. In our discussions on Christian (or, actually, pretty much any other) forums, I see two types of people, both who claim to be "here to learn" (or at least to be willing to learn). Yet only the one seems to be willing to change their mind upon better evidence --the ones who don't take themselves so seriously.

We hear, "Words mean things", and it is true enough. The problem is that WE don't know what they mean --we hardly even know what they mean to US-- and, what is worse, most of us have a hard time even understanding the principle, (nevermind accepting the principle), that we are only using words --not quite describing fact, but at best, describing what we see as fact the best we currently can.

If you have not already read it, then I recommend a book from Vern Poythress called "Inerrency and Worldview." There might actually be a free copy at the Poythress/Frame website. Poythress also has a book titled "God-Centered Biblical Interpretation." I did just check, and I do believe that you can get a pdf free copy of the worldview book, but the other book is an extended webpage. I don't agree with everything that Poythress writes, but that is just common knowledge of anyone one reads in a discerning way.

 

[QVQ]

Mainly, I divide our worldviews into two categories: That of a God-centered World "...for from him and through him and to him are all things."; and that of a Man-centered world "God has made us so he can serve us and love us". The difference is stark --huge.

If you have not already read it, then I recommend a book from Vern Poythress called "Inerrency and Worldview."

I recommend the Book of Job.

Note: I did a quick scan of "Inerrency and Worldview." It is an interesting read but per the Op, I assume the "worldviews" are within Christianity rather than a comparison of world religions and secular world views.

 

[Josheb]

I ask. Because I think of my kids. I did not have kids to serve me

Well, it's nice to have at least one son so you can have someone to mow the lawn for a few years.

, I had kids so i could love and serve them

me too. And now they're grown, married, and........ (dad? o yeah, I got one of those )


.

 

[Arial]

I also can not understand how reaching out to God, or better yet God reaching his hands out to us. and pulling us our of our death and despair sand saving us is self determination/

Because the automatic implication is that he can't reach you unless you put your hands out first. Or, if he could reach you he won't unless you put your hands out.

 

[Josheb]

I do not know anyone that thinks God is there to serve them.. (even though that is what God said he desires to do. to take care of us. to love us the Cherish is to feed us to help us learn and grow

??????

If God desires to serve us, to take care of us, to love us, feed us, help us learn, and grow...... then why would someone, anyone, not think God is there to serve them? And how is that related to one's worldview and how worldview effects our conduct?

.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So God pulls us out without any reaction on our part meaning you did not will to be saved

But God does not force you to be saved.

Now there is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one

 

[Arial]

So God pulls us out without any reaction on our part meaning you did not will to be saved

But God does not force you to be saved.

Now there is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one

The logical fallacy is:

"So God pulls us out without any reaction on our part meaning you did not will to be saved."

This is a logical fallacy because it does not express anything anyone has said. It is not even addressed to anything anyone has said.

"But God does not force you to be saved."

If the first sentence to which this is attached has no valid reference, then neither does the second.

 

[Josheb]

So God pulls us out without any reaction on our part

That is incorrect.

you did not will to be saved

That is correct

But God does not force you to be saved.

LOL. There's no force involved. That's an enormous misconception

Now there is a logical fallacy if I ever saw one

That is not correct.


Would you like to know how and why?

 

[Arial]

That is correct.

That is not exactly correct (depending on what he meant by "reaction" I guess. Maybe he meant "action" or "kicking and screaming."). We most definitely have a reaction to being pulled out of the kingdom of darkness. But we did not will to be saved until he regenerated us, and he did not force us to be saved. He graced us with salvation.

 

[Josheb]

That is not exactly correct (depending on what he meant by "reaction" I guess. Maybe he meant "action" or "kicking and screaming."). We most definitely have a reaction to being pulled out of the kingdom of darkness. But we did not will to be saved until he regenerated us, and he did not force us to be saved. He graced us with salvation.

I have amended my post, but I still find those posts flirting with digression and, perhaps, an (intentional) attempt to hijack the op. What has Post 16 to do with worldview(s) and its effect on thought and conduct?

 

[makesends]

I recommend the Book of Job.

Note: I did a quick scan of "Inerrency and Worldview." It is an interesting read but per the Op, I assume the "worldviews" are within Christianity rather than a comparison of world religions and secular world views.

Yes. I should have been more clear. Actually, though they don't realize they are doing it, even atheists can be anthropocentric, though some at least intellectually agree that man is insignificant in the larger reality of things.