Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think brownie meant that line to be against you, Lief - I took it as since you claim faulty judgement, etc. is involved, then he is unable to argue in a valid way. Something like that.

Maybe you're right. That's not how I interpreted it, obviously, but we'll see when he responds.

It sounded to me like he was saying that I was stating my conclusions about the evidence rather than showing the evidence on which those conclusions are based, and hence he couldn't argue with me. If that was all I did, and the claims of mine he quoted were all I said, then his response is fully valid. But I explained my failure to present evidence in my post, so criticizing it without mentioning my explanation is not particularly fair.

That's just my own interpretation of what he meant, though. I might indeed be wrong.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, we were ... I don't understand what you mean ...

I say that you can't understand someone else's worldview, so how can you evaluate it from the inside?

A worldview is more than a bumpersticker list. It's not "Honk if you love Jesus" and "I brake for animal rights activists".

So when you say you "take a person's worldview beliefs", I say, you are only generalizing from a tiny slice of them. So you can't use them to evaluate their applicability to reality.

It's like food (LOL, I can make anything into a food discussion ). You hear me say "Carrot juice is good for you" and start saying, "carrots are very high in sugars, for a vegetable. Carrots have too much Vitamin A for a steady diet." You don't see everything ELSE I eat.

So it is with worldviews. They're not only composed of the things we know we bwlieve, but of our life experiences, against which they've been tested. Without those, you don't have the whole picture.

People born on a boat don't believe in deserts.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I gotta say that your definition of "faith" is different than mine, then, and I suspect different than Lief's, too.

Having faith in something that is illogical is silly.

There is a certain truth to that definition of faith. Faith is an intellectual assent to a proposition, the logical reason for which is not seen, though this does not mean that it is illogical. So that, even if you can prove that God exists, you can believe that he exists on faith, so long as it has not been proven to you.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I believe in limited, wave/particle, dolphin/eagle, knife-wielding free will.

Thanks for clarifying.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Maybe you're right. That's not how I interpreted it, obviously, but we'll see when he responds.

It sounded to me like he was saying that I was stating my conclusions about the evidence rather than showing the evidence on which those conclusions are based, and hence he couldn't argue with me. If that was all I did, and the claims of mine he quoted were all I said, then his response is fully valid. But I explained my failure to present evidence in my post, so criticizing it without mentioning my explanation is not particularly fair.

That's just my own interpretation of what he meant, though. I might indeed be wrong.

I was just poking fun a bit.

I get the feeling sometimes that you are so married to your view of reality that any alternative will always be something less, or just plain wrong, in your view. Add to this the fact that any so-called "logic" in these kind of debates is completely relative to what unprovable premises one chooses to accept, and you end up in a place where one is simply championing their own point of view and trampling upon those of others.

I certainly have my own point of view, that there is no creator or greater meaning, and all that we are is the result of natural interactions of matter and energy with no intelligence behind it. That said, I don't view my life, or those of others, as "meaningless". My meaning doesn't rely on where we came from, or where we are going to, but on the day to day interaction with one another. It's like enjoying a book by a wonderfully talented writer, even if you don't particularly like the ending.

All that said, I still try to respect those who choose to believe in things like god and free will (with varying success ). They are perfectly acceptable premises that give those belief systems an internal logic of their own, much like mine. It's why I can firmly disbelieve such ideas, yet not call them "terribly faulty" or "clouded". They are simply different interpretations of the unknown.

In the recent discussion, I can even accept your idea of what is more or less a completely predetermined universe. As I said, it is close to my own belief, other than the god part. My problem was more with your idea of applying both predestination and responsibility to humanity. If humans are predestined to either receive salvation or not receive salvation, that's fine. It would certainly be crazy for any human to claim credit for his own salvation in such a universe. But it would also be crazy for any human to claim any true responsibility in such a universe.

So, I guess what I was really debating wasn't so much your premises, as I can accept them while not believing them, but the internal logic, if you accept those premises.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Thanks for clarifying.

Just exercising my womanly prerogative to be difficult ...

But since I have both the time and the inclination today ...

1. limited - this is in reaction to people who say "we can do anything we set our minds to!" and seem to believe it in other than a poetic sense. Come on, now! Just plain untrue. Although we can do an incredible amount of things, though. I think I should change it from "limited" to "grand smorgasbord", though, because that's closer to how it is


2. wave/particle - From my physics classes at uni, where sometimes it's handy to view light as a wave (wavelengths, frequency, etc) and sometimes as a particle (photoelectric emission). Wiki worded it well - "In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that all objects in our universe exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects."

It seems to me that free will is like that - in order to be fully and meaningfully described, it needs to be defined in terms of things that are supposedly opposites. And it seems a reasonable thing to me to hold a duality position that we do indeed have free will, but an all-knowing God who is outside of time and space knows what we're going to do, and even "predestines" it (technically, by his very act of creating).

It's also kind of like riding a bike - you can know that the pedals have to be pushed by your feet, but if you say, "I'll push one inch at a time and then stop and analyze it for a few seconds, then push another inch," it ain't gonna fly! It seems like free will is kind of like that - a fluid, moving thing that needs to be analyzed on the fly, as it were. It's like trying to fully understand an animal by dissecting a dead one - can't be done.


3. dolphin/eagle - this is where my practical mother side kicks in. One should only be allowed to angst over this so much before receiving a sound smack upside the head and a stern injunction to "get out there and LIVE!" If a person just wants to complain that things are predestined so there's no free will, then to me it's like an eagle complaining that he wasn't made a dolphin and refusing to fly ("I can't swim and jump in the waves like that dolphin! I'm just going to sit here on the cliff and complain!") Our lives are glorious things, and to our understanding, we have choices - go out and MAKE 'em! and make 'em for glorious things!


4. marriage-bed - This wasn't in the original list, but I'm adding it. Lief and I have talked about this subject before, and one of the biggest objections I have to his author/character analogy is this: as far as I can remember, God doesn't use it when He talks about His relationship with us. The analogy that God uses most often? Marriage, and very often the sexual aspect of it. He uses it time and again. Really, what a mind God has! (I just bust up when people think God is a prude - hey, who INVENTED those parts, after all?! )

When I am in a certain, er, mood, and I walk into a room and see the man I love and am married to, and also see some books, I go for my husband, not the books And that's why I think Lief's analogy, though somewhat illustrative, is a pretty poor one for the total picture. I want someone that interacts with me; not someone that I control every move of. I think the author/character illustration totally loses the forest for one pretty small tree.


5. little/much - also an addition, but I think an important one. I think when reading the Bible, you need to apply "interpret the few in light of the many" rule. And the references to predestination are very few - but the references to choice are many, MANY, MANY. I bet I could point out at least an indirect reference to choice on every page of the Bible, and could point out thousands of direct references to choice.


6. knife-wielding - This is a true story that I think is applicable here.

As most of you know, our middle son has some physical disabilities and is in a wheelchair. He is the cutest thing, though - blonde hair, BIG blue eyes (once a total stranger walked up to him and said, "Look at the orbs on that guy!") and just very cute (tho I do say it myself! )

Anyway, people will often come up to him when we're out and about (like the "orb" guy). One day, I was out with him, and this man walked up to us. Fine - that's totally normal, like I said. But that's where the normal stopped - the guy pulled out a knife and went for my son. I'm talkin' KNIFE - sharp, scary, dangerous.

What would you guys have done in my place?

[Rían]

and a general comment on the logic/God and the faith/illogical thing:

I like how R.C. Sproul puts it -

by R.C. Sproul
Christianity is based on far more than naked human reason but by no means upon less. Though divine revelation carries us beyond the limits of rational speculation, it does not sink below the bar of rational intelligibility.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But that's where the normal stopped - the guy pulled out a knife and went for my son. I'm talkin' KNIFE - sharp, scary, dangerous.

What would you guys have done in my place?

Gotten between crazy knife guy and son, screaming my threatening head off.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"get out there and LIVE!"

I agree with this 100%. The rest will work itself out in time.

[Tessar]

When I am in a certain, er, mood, and I walk into a room and see the man I love and am married to, and also see some books, I go for my husband, not the books And that's why I think Lief's analogy, though somewhat illustrative, is a pretty poor one for the total picture.

Maybe Lief is into kinky book-love. Who do you think you are to deny him that, Rian?!!?! o(>.<)O




I'm sorry, I really have nothing to add. I just couldn't help it.

[Rían]

*bops Tessar with a ... book!*

[Tessar]

o.O

O.o

o.o

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I was just poking fun a bit.

I get the feeling sometimes that you are so married to your view of reality that any alternative will always be something less, or just plain wrong, in your view. Add to this the fact that any so-called "logic" in these kind of debates is completely relative to what unprovable premises one chooses to accept, and you end up in a place where one is simply championing their own point of view and trampling upon those of others.

Depends which of my opinions we're talking about. Some of them, I'm less rigid on than others. I'm pretty rigid in my belief that my brothers exist, for I have a lot of daily experience with them. Of course, who can prove it to the degree that one knows it's true? No one. But humbug. I'll continue to believe it anyway because the evidence is very strong, and I have to work within this universe and based upon certain assumptions such as God not being haywire and transcending logic, and us not being in the Matrix. If I were to refuse to make those assumptions, I might as well stop breathing. I might as well try to sit down on thin air rather than on where my eyes tell me a chair is, for I rationally distrust my eyes, don't I?

I have to live in this world, so I have to assume that what I experience makes a kind of logical sense. That's my assumption, and I think not making that assumption and instead saying to myself, "hey, the world might be flat!" would get me nowhere fast.

I'm pretty rigid in my belief that God exists for the same reason as I'm pretty rigid in my belief that my brothers exist. I have had ample daily experience with him of a very compelling nature. There are many other reasons too, why I'm rigid in this particular belief.

As for other beliefs that I hold, beliefs that aren't derived from Christianity, on most of them I'm less rigid and could conceivably be talked out of my position. I believe that lack of bias means lack of opinion, and lack of opinion means lack of education. So though I know I'm now biased toward one perspective, a Christian worldview, I think that that's rational and the result of education. This doesn't mean that I can't think over opposing arguments rationally, I hope.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I certainly have my own point of view, that there is no creator or greater meaning, and all that we are is the result of natural interactions of matter and energy with no intelligence behind it. That said, I don't view my life, or those of others, as "meaningless". My meaning doesn't rely on where we came from, or where we are going to, but on the day to day interaction with one another. It's like enjoying a book by a wonderfully talented writer, even if you don't particularly like the ending.

The meaning will die with you, though, or at least with humanity, so it's strictly temporary. So in the long run, it's meaningless. It only has meaning to you and in the short term.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All that said, I still try to respect those who choose to believe in things like god and free will (with varying success ). They are perfectly acceptable premises that give those belief systems an internal logic of their own, much like mine. It's why I can firmly disbelieve such ideas, yet not call them "terribly faulty" or "clouded". They are simply different interpretations of the unknown.

Everything is "unknown," though some things are proven "beyond reasonable doubt." I assumed God and some of his general characteristics in the predestination debate we went over. To me, predestination is rather like debating communion or baptism or something. It's a matter of doctrine, at least from the angle I was approaching it, so I assume Christianity in debating it. Rather like if you were debating different mathematical equations, you might assume geometry, even if you actually accept geometry not as an assumption but because of a lot of evidence.

In the same way, I don't take God as a premises in reality, but only took him and some of his attributes as a premises for the sake of that discussion. I find the existence of God and his nature and personal qualities to be very strongly supported by evidence, however, and assuming them is not necessary.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In the recent discussion, I can even accept your idea of what is more or less a completely predetermined universe.

It is completely predestined, according to my worldview. I'm not trying to escape that.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As I said, it is close to my own belief, other than the god part. My problem was more with your idea of applying both predestination and responsibility to humanity. If humans are predestined to either receive salvation or not receive salvation, that's fine. It would certainly be crazy for any human to claim credit for his own salvation in such a universe. But it would also be crazy for any human to claim any true responsibility in such a universe.

So, I guess what I was really debating wasn't so much your premises, as I can accept them while not believing them, but the internal logic, if you accept those premises.

From my perspective, God, in his wisdom and righteousness, has the right to create some people for destruction and others for paradise. He is high enough, as all-knowing and loving Creator, to have the knowledge to make some creations for higher purposes and others for lower purposes. If he makes some creations to be evil and deserving of wrath because of their twisted personalities and actions, and then he destroys them afterward, that is his sovereign right.

God might make people deserving of destruction, and bear their contemptibleness. He might create people to be deserving of judgment and hard justice because their natures absolutely reject God and goodness. If he makes people evil and deserving of judgment because of being evil, he has the right. He has the right to have mercy on whom he will, and to harden whom he will, for his purposes. He is fully loving and good, and all-knowing, and so knows that this course of action is best and will have very good results.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But since I have both the time and the inclination today ...

Good to see you entering the discussion at last! Unfortunately, my spring break has ended and so I have less time now than I did, but I'll post when I have the time and inclination. Like today, for instance .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1. limited - this is in reaction to people who say "we can do anything we set our minds to!" and seem to believe it in other than a poetic sense. Come on, now! Just plain untrue. Although we can do an incredible amount of things, though. I think I should change it from "limited" to "grand smorgasbord", though, because that's closer to how it is

What I'd like to know is what part of us makes decisions, in your opinion? How is that decision made, and where does it come from?

When I believed in free will, I always said the soul. But what is the soul? Don't get me wrong, I still believe in it and I suspect that I believe in it in the same sense that you believe in it. I think of it as including the personality, emotions, decision-making faculties, intelligence, etc. Even if I'm wrong about some of these parts of what's in the soul, and I may well be, it's irrelevant to the point I'm going to make.

My belief is that our predestination is to behave in accord with who we are, with our own personalities, that our personalities determine who we are and what we will decide. "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks." Do you believe that factors such as personality, genetics, environment and other such parts of us that make us up merely influence our decisions, or, in your opinion, do they actually determine it?

If things like personality and the rest do not determine our choices, how are our decisions made? How are our decisions made, if all the different aspects of us that impact our decision-making don't determine our decisions, but only influence them?

Originally Posted by Tessar

Maybe Lief is into kinky book-love. Who do you think you are to deny him that, Rian?!!?! o(>.<)O

YEAH!

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It seems to me that free will is like that - in order to be fully and meaningfully described, it needs to be defined in terms of things that are supposedly opposites. And it seems a reasonable thing to me to hold a duality position that we do indeed have free will, but an all-knowing God who is outside of time and space knows what we're going to do, and even "predestines" it (technically, by his very act of creating).

It doesn't make any logical sense that I can understand, and you've never tried to explain it to me in terms of logic. It's more a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

this is where my practical mother side kicks in. One should only be allowed to angst over this so much before receiving a sound smack upside the head and a stern injunction to "get out there and LIVE!" If a person just wants to complain that things are predestined so there's no free will, then to me it's like an eagle complaining that he wasn't made a dolphin and refusing to fly ("I can't swim and jump in the waves like that dolphin! I'm just going to sit here on the cliff and complain!")

I agree with you thus far.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Our lives are glorious things, and to our understanding, we have choices - go out and MAKE 'em! and make 'em for glorious things!

I'd agree with you if rather than "to our understanding," you said, "from our perspectives." In my view, our decisions come from who we are, "from the overflow of the heart," determined by our personalities, our backgrounds, genetics, etc., all the factors that make up who we are. So we will always make the decisions that are most in accord with who we are, and so each "decision" is actually an expression of identity.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

4. marriage-bed - This wasn't in the original list, but I'm adding it. Lief and I have talked about this subject before, and one of the biggest objections I have to his author/character analogy is this: as far as I can remember, God doesn't use it when He talks about His relationship with us.

First of all, I'll just point out that the Bible was written before the printing press . So an author analogy wouldn't have been meaningful to that many people.

But some scriptural analogies are pretty close, and the author analogy is actually used on rare occasion. Here's an example of a passage that's pretty close:

Originally Posted by Romans 9:18-21

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

The comparing of us to pottery is that of creator to creation, him having absolute power to mold us in the way he chooses for us to come out. I agree with you that analogies such as this aren't as common as marriage, and I'm glad they aren't, not because this analogy isn't valuable, accurate and important, but because the other is of keener importance for human understanding and exploration in their personal experience.

As for the book example:

Originally Posted by Psalm 139:16

All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

The word "ordained" mean more than foreknowledge is involved. Direct predestining, as in a book, is described. Which isn't a bad thing at all. It's not a common scriptural analogy. Predestination is less emphasized in scripture than relationship, because it's not of such important for us to grasp, IMO, and the other is just more important for us to focus on and realize in our experience. Though I think that understanding predestination brings with it the potential of improving people's relationships with God in certain ways, one can be in a very close relationship with God and not believe in predestination. One who believes in predestination, though, is not necessarily therefore in a very close relationship with God.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

When I am in a certain, er, mood, and I walk into a room and see the man I love and am married to, and also see some books, I go for my husband, not the books

I would be pretty absurd if I claimed that man-made books can equal God-made man.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And that's why I think Lief's analogy, though somewhat illustrative, is a pretty poor one for the total picture. I want someone that interacts with me; not someone that I control every move of. I think the author/character illustration totally loses the forest for one pretty small tree.

One can interact with someone that one also controls absolutely. But you're comparing human control with divine control, which IMO is invalid. You're describing a person controlling a person. That doesn't work at all, for humans haven't anywhere near the creative capacity of God to do the job right!

A human controlling a human would undoubtedly produce a very meager result from his efforts. He isn't anywhere near imaginative, knowledgeable, powerful or good enough. The result would be pathetic.

I don't know if you're understanding what I mean by divine control. God creates people's personalities and leaves people the freedom to act in accord with those personalities. People have the freedom to be themselves. They don't have the freedom to be other than themselves, however. I can't think fully like you and speak fully like you and act fully like you. Our physical bodies aren't the only differences between us- our whole psychologies, souls and everything else are different. We may have some similarities, but we will each behave like ourselves and not like one another. We do not have the freedom to be one another, but only to do what is natural to our personalities and who we are to do.

Divine control is in the fact that while we do everything we want, God does everything he wants through us simultaneously. God is in complete control and we are in complete control. Our control cannot defy God's power, because he is supreme and in the final analysis, he is the one who decides exactly what everyone will do and what they will be. God makes each person for a purpose and that person will accomplish God's purpose to the final detail, but as the person fulfills God's purpose, the person also is doing exactly what he or she wants. What he or she wants and chooses comes from God.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

5. little/much - also an addition, but I think an important one. I think when reading the Bible, you need to apply "interpret the few in light of the many" rule. And the references to predestination are very few - but the references to choice are many, MANY, MANY. I bet I could point out at least an indirect reference to choice on every page of the Bible, and could point out thousands of direct references to choice.

From our perspectives, we have choices to make. From our perspectives, we live in the present. From God's perspective, our choices are already made. From God's perspective, we could just as easily be referred to at any point in history as in the past or the future, for God is in every time. Instead of talking to us in past tense though, which would be fully valid considering that he is in all times, he refers to us in the tense that we will grasp because it's where we are. He doesn't talk to us in future or past tense, except on occasion through prophecies and a few other means.

God may know everything and have planned everything, but he couldn't interact with us if he just said, "you will do this and this and this, and I will do this, and then you will do this." Neither can he tell you right now, "congratulations, you will get married next year!" For even though he right now IS back in the time a year before you got married presently, it would be meaningless from your current perspective, where you are now. So God can't speak to us where he is and make sense. He has to speak to us where we are and speak in a way that's meaningful to us, within the finite limitations he has created for us.

God can't speak to us in past or future tense, as even though it's all now from his perspective, our perspectives are very different. And even though from his perspective we have made our choices (IMO, in accord with his will and our own, and not really choices at all, but expressions of who we are), from our perspective we have not, so he'll speak to us where we are. Except occasionally when he gives prophecies and other such words.

God could say to us, "you chose to reject me three years from 'now', or where you presently see yourself to be, so I punished you with a plague and then you repented, and for the next three years you obeyed, but then you sinned again! Shame on you!" From his perspective, it has all already happened, but his talking to us in that way wouldn't have much meaning for us. It would be very weird to us.

God talks to us in the present tense almost all the time (prophecies are an exception) and talks as if we have choices because that is what we experience, and it is where we are. From our limited reference frames and perspectives, we have choices. From God's perspective, those choices are already made, and IMO, they aren't really choices. They are from our perspectives though, and he speaks to us where we are. Conversation would be impossible if he spoke to us fully from where he is rather than from where we are.

None of the choice passages you've ever shown me have implied to me that free will, as the term is currently used, exists. It's more a matter of God in his omniscience speaking to those he has made where they are, rather than where he is, as you already know he does by not referring to us in past or future tense, which he could do with equal validity from his eternal perspective.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Fine - that's totally normal, like I said. But that's where the normal stopped - the guy pulled out a knife and went for my son. I'm talkin' KNIFE - sharp, scary, dangerous.

What would you guys have done in my place?

Prayed and moved over there quite quickly. Though I don't know if I would do that if I was you, seeing as you're a woman and not necessarily physically strong enough to have much chance of success if tangling with him. If I was you, I guess I'd call for my husband if he was around and also pray, if I thought he was menacing. Did he look menacing?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe that lack of bias means lack of opinion, and lack of opinion means lack of education.

This is the original "anti-science" statement.
If you haven't pre-judged something, if you wait for evidence, you lack education.
I'm sure it's a sin, and I believe it should be illegal, to leave a child with this level of ignorance as part of his/her worldview.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The meaning will die with you, though, or at least with humanity, so it's strictly temporary. So in the long run, it's meaningless. It only has meaning to you and in the short term.

This is an interesting assumption, particularly from someone who argues the existance of a chair (which is here today, and tomorrow kindling). And again, pretty sad. Brownjenkin's 'meaning' is temporary if humanity dies, but Lief's 'meaning' is Eternal, because it doesn't really belong to him anyway. Kind of sour grapey, isn't it? How envious would you have to be of someone who dares to create meaning in their life, that you'd cast your mind forward to the collective death of the species, in order to diminish that accomplishment.

How about the possibility that any generation of "meaning" increases the total amount, and so moves the curve, as it were, towards Heaven. It's the spiritual response to Entropy.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Prayed and moved over there quite quickly. Though I don't know if I would do that if I was you, seeing as you're a woman and not necessarily physically strong enough to have much chance of success if tangling with him. If I was you, I guess I'd call for my husband if he was around and also pray, if I thought he was menacing. Did he look menacing?

Thinking that "chance of success" looks kinda puny as a consideration next to "threat to my child". And I like the gratuitious sexism, too. Really takes me back.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And I like the gratuitious sexism, too.

And I dislike the PC-ness, although I agree with you that "save my kid" has more weight than "I'm weaker than that guy". I hope you would agree that men, in general, are stronger than women. Even "scientifically". That's why they have to LOWER the standards for women to get into elite military groups. That's why some women's collegiate sports teams practice with ... MEN (there was a stink about this recently). I doubt if men's teams practice with women. If I was standing in a hall between two rooms - one filled with typical males and the other with typical females - and was physically threatened, I'd run into the room with the men - PC-ness be hanged! Wouldn't you?

Lief - the guy was definitely going for my son, and my husband (all 6'2" of him, and very strong and savvy) wasn't there.

[Insidious Rex]

Geez I would sure hope my wife would do whatever it took to keep a man from attacking my child with a knife whether shes big or small or blind as a bat for that matter. I dont even see where calling for your husband would even enter into it even if he was right next to you... Its definitely a sexist way of thinking. Not everything is "PC" just because you think its ok you know.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Anyway, people will often come up to him when we're out and about (like the "orb" guy). One day, I was out with him, and this man walked up to us. Fine - that's totally normal, like I said. But that's where the normal stopped - the guy pulled out a knife and went for my son. I'm talkin' KNIFE - sharp, scary, dangerous.

What would you guys have done in my place?

I would have kicked him in the balls. Dirty fighting trumps strength any day of the week, as does the element of surprise.

The question is, what did you do?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And I dislike the PC-ness

This isn't 'PC-ness', if that was a word. It's a statement of fact. The idea that any woman, standing next to a threatened child, would "pray and call for her husband" is sexism. If I were a woman in that position, I'd sure be hollering, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference if my husband, a bell-ringer from the Salvation Army, or a Lavendar Menace Dance Troup showed up, I'd be grateful for their help. And it's sexist because it's a ridiculous question, as well. When you ask, "What would you do?" it might (by a rational person, and I know that leaves some of the current company out) be reasonable to assume that answers won't be followed by your retort, "Well, wrong! I stood there like a good woman, praying, because, hah hah, my mighty husband was standing next to me, and he does all the ass-kicking in this Godly family."

I know 20 woman who could take Lief in a fight. No contest. So, although I might seek refuge with men if I needed assistance, the word "Tailhook" should tell you why I might not. @@

[Rían]

"if that was a word"? I'm well aware that it's not a word, thank you, but "PC-ness" is a good enough term for our friendly conversations at Entmoot. I would highly doubt that anyone had difficulty understanding what I meant by that term.

Thankfully, friendly conversations are the norm here at the Moot, and I just get irked by the personal insults and condescension that I sometimes see from you (things like "by a rational person, and I know that leaves some of the current company out") and not from the other people in this conversation. *shrug* So no, I won't "Get over it, sister".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So when you say you "take a person's worldview beliefs", I say, you are only generalizing from a tiny slice of them.

Obviously. Maybe I should have made it more clear that I wasn't talking about the entirety of their worldview contained inside their head. It just seemed so obvious that I was talking about only the beliefs that I have heard from them, because I can't see the thoughts (and not all worldview beliefs are even formed into coherent thoughts, IMO) inside their heads.

So you can't use them to evaluate their applicability to reality.

Sure I can - I can evaluate those that I hear.

It's like food (LOL, I can make anything into a food discussion ). You hear me say "Carrot juice is good for you" and start saying, "carrots are very high in sugars, for a vegetable. Carrots have too much Vitamin A for a steady diet." You don't see everything ELSE I eat.

True (and hooray for food! ) And if you say something like, "Carrots are very high in sugars, for a fruit," then I can evaluate that. And for the second one, I can ask a question like, "do you eat other things besides carrots?" to aid my evaluation.

So it is with worldviews. They're not only composed of the things we know we bwlieve, but of our life experiences, against which they've been tested. Without those, you don't have the whole picture.

And you seem to be saying that since you can't see everything in a person's head, that you shouldn't bother analyzing what you HAVE heard them say. Is that what you're saying? If so, as I said, I prefer to think on what IS available to think on instead of throwing in the towel since I don't know everything the person is thinking. I'm not interested so much in if a particular person is correct in everything he/she is thinking, because I'll never know everything he/she is thinking. But I am interested in analyzing things that a person says.

People born on a boat don't believe in deserts.

This assumes a worldview belief that there is no higher being out there that can put a longing to search for deserts (which DO exist in reality) in a person's heart, and an ability to find them within their grasp.