`  == Comments (2005) moved from Pages needing attention/Religion ==  :The paragraphs below (Apr-May 2005) were moved here from PNA/Religion. * Christian Worldview - This article is full of esoteric and awkward language, and isn't NPOV.    :Reply:  I wrote the present entry for Christian Worldview (which should be entitled ``Christian worldviews`` since there are many; out with the misnomer, please). I look forward to it being further exanded and improved, but by people who know what a worldview is.  I am in agreement with the material the evangelist PSzalapski presented; however, he plagiarized his schematic - Creation, Fall, Redemption - which is the work of the philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and which the latter published in Dutch in 1935-1936, and then in English in 1953-57 (both of these being philosophical trilogies). Dooyeweerd and perhaps 1,000 Christian philosophers on all continents but Antarctica warmly acquainted with HD's work use the schematic mentioned, not for ``worldview,`` but to indicate the content of the Christian religious ground motive C(RGM) in relation to three other main RGM's that have contested the shaping of the history of Western culture and civilization from within - the Form/Matter RGM of the Greeks, the Synthestist RGM of the Christianized Roman Empire after Constantine the Great, the Nature/Grace RGM of the Western Middle Ages, and the Nature/Freedom RGM of the Englightenment. Mr PSzalapski plagiarizes (zero attribution to HD and his whole school of philosophy), PS alters HD's schematic by inserting his own additional category into the rubric (which is fine, as long as he identifies the originator and what he's altering and why), PS makes a category mistake by not even examining the outstanding works in worldview studies (Naugle, Smart, Habermas, etc) so that in his ignorance he fails to recognize the difference between a worldivew (he dismisses all the scholarship and employs ``worldview`` as a buzzword for his project of evangelization) and religious ground motive (it's a technical term, but it is not esoteric). What I wrote indeed needs to be expanded and perhaps conrrected, because in my final section I concentrate on the revival and dissemination of the term in the last decades where it has come to especial prominence among evangelical Christians in North America. This American religious community has consequently experienced a rash of ``worldview books`` which vary considerably in their understandings. There is no one Christian worldview as my detractor ignorantly insists. Both Mr PSzalapinski and I have connection to the same large religious community.  I just want him to be honest to the data and the meaning of the word, both generally and in the Christian context.  Since other Christain religious communities do not use the term ``worldview`` nearly so widely, and because I don't pretend to know well what has been occurring in their contexts, I used a quote referring to Naugle's history of the concept to live-link to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity Wiki sites.  I'm hoping people from these two Christian communities who have studied and reflected on the varieties of worldviews in each, including the shifts in the last few decades, will come forward to enhance this page.   ::With all due respect to Reformatikos's impressive scholarship (and verbiage P), I think this article is inappropriate as a Wikipedia entry and that he doesn't understand the nature of the critiscim of the article, as indicated by the comments in his reply.  First of all, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is not'' to expound exhaustively upon a single claim.  It is to present ``objective fact`` on a single subject, or, where that is impossible or insufficient (as it is almost always, except for articles on the sciences or math), to present a plurality of views upon a single subject.  If there is no single Christian Viewpoint, then at the very least the article should presnet a number of Christian viewpoints that coexist in modern times and have existed historically.  In this manner, the thesis of the current article, namely, the non-existance of a single, unified Christian viewpoint, would be implied by the article's content and structure rather than stated explicitly.  Indeed, that the article begins with a thesis rather than with some sort of definition is a reflection of the problems of this article.  ::At any rate, the Christian viewpoint article is particularly important, as reflected in its position in the Christianity sidebar.  It is not an auxilliary article; it is the leading article in the Christianity article group.  As such, it should provide, at a glance, the worldviews of the largest modern Christian religions in such a way that would be comprehensible to a person wit