The way it was described to me was “A” Christian lens not multiple. When I asked about multiple Christian denominations and beliefs, he quit responding. However when I came here, they spoke of multiple Christian beliefs
This is why I asked;
Why would you jump to the conclusion that there is only one “Christian lens” to look through?
You understand that Christian belief varies from person to person,…
Also, you can’t take a single person’s opinion as
the definitive viewpoint on a subject, (including mine and yours) it’s important to remember that an opinion is subjective to that individual and can be wrong or misspoken.
Particularly when the distinctive difference comes down to the precise (or interpreted) meaning of a word in context.
Of course I do! I call those my opinions.
Here is a perfect example.
“Opinions” are are often
influenced by, or rooted in ones worldview…from ones perspective.
As I pointed out previously, “opinion” is not generally accepted as a synonym of “worldview”….
If you consult multiple dictionaries or thesauruses, “opinion” is not listed as synonymous with “worldview”.
And in those where it is listed, it is way down on the list indicating it to be a weak synonym
and becomes very dependent on context.
Those strong synonyms listed are usually “perspective,” or “viewpoint,” or “standpoint.”
Each of these words shares the overarching concept of how an individual views the world, interprets information, and makes decisions based on their beliefs.
Which might then be described as
due to that perspective, or viewpoint, or standpoint, that they have come to their opinion.
As I attempted to illustrate to you with my scenario… how their “opinion” of how sexy the woman walking by is influenced by their perspective; their opinion is often a result (at least in part) of their perspective.
(think worldview)
If you were to somehow change their perspective, (say from heterosexual to homosexual) it is likely that their opinion would be different.
In other words an opinion is often the
result of their perspective. (again, think worldview)
Take a fundamentalist, bible literalist, who may well describe his as a Christian worldview.
His “opinion” on whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is viable and his “opinion” concerning the age and origin of the earth would be due to, caused by, rooted in his fundamentalists, bible literalist, young earth creationist (what he would merely label as “Christian”) world view.
Now suppose down the road, he loses his faith and becomes an atheist…..
In all likelihood he would no longer hold those same “opinions” concerning those subjects…
His opinions would have been altered
because, due to, as result of, no longer seeing the world through his previous fundamentalist, bible literalist, young earth creationist (what he had merely labeled as “Christian”) worldview….
he would now be seeing things through a different perspective.
He may still be politically conservative, he may still hold to the same economic theories, he may still be family oriented, same work ethic, same hobbies, etc., all of which may contribute to his overall amalgamated worldview, which he would probably no longer label as a “Christian” worldview since the part of his identity that he may have placed forefront and central while he held that point of view has changed and he no longer sees it as his central outward identity.
He would have updated that portion of his worldview and dispelled his opinions on evolution and the age of the earth in favor of new opinions concerning those subjects enabled by the change in that portion of his worldview which he wouldn’t have considered while still viewing them from his previous fundamentalist, bible literalist, young earth creationist perspective.
He still has a worldview, an amalgamated overall view of the world, with many of the same influences and thus opinions as previously, yet with the exception of his opinions concerning evolution and earth origin due to that updated portion.
How he labels that worldview is his prerogative, as it was before.
He may not give it a name beyond “my worldview”, due to his realization that it no longer aligns with one he perceives to be easily identified or understood by a single word or phrase.
I see your point; however I suspect had I substituted “opinion” for “perspective” I would have gotten the same resounding “NO” from those people. If worldview were described as your opinion or perspective, that would make perfect sense to me.
This is not a suggested course of action.
Remember the old saying…. “When you
ASSUME, you make an “A##” of “U” and “ME”?
This is the very sort of scenario being warned about.
Especially when the assumption concerns a key pivotal “lynchpin” of a concept.
You’ve
assumed the same outcome by
assuming that
they don’t perceive a distinction in the same way that
you don’t perceive a distinction between “opinion” and “perspective”, when that distinction is the hinge point of the concept…
the linchpin, the crux of the differing concepts.
This is unfruitful grounds.
This is why I pointed out the differing interpretations of the different words discussed in the previous post (moral, evil, science etc).
If you fail to take into account
their interpretation of these words….
(for instance how the responder didn’t take
your lack of distinction between “opinion” and “perspective” into account)….
and
assume they share your concept of words, when in fact they don’t, you end up talking past one another and not having a fruitful conversation.
IMO what you say makes perfect sense. However; I suspect many I’ve discussed with here would not consider “heterosexual male” as a worldview, perhaps a part of a worldview, but not the entirety.
Again, assuming can be dangerous.
Worldviews are generally considered to be an amalgamation of perspectives concerning various subjects, interpretations of information, and beliefs combined to determine the vantage point from how a person views and interprets the world from which he may form opinions and his perception of things within the world.
How they view politics may come from the perspective (worldview) of a conservative, or liberal, or progressive, etc.
How they view religion may come from the perspective (worldview) of a Christian, or Buddhist, or Muslim, etc.
How the view culture may come from the perspective (worldview) of a conformist, or a non-conformist, or an anarchist, etc.
How the view sexual attractiveness may come from the perspective of a heterosexual, or a homosexual, or a bisexual, etc
All of these perspectives (worldviews) can and generally are combined into an amalgamated, overarching worldview of a single individual whose various individual components add together to form a worldview unique to that individual.
Since some of these perspectives (which combined constitute the whole) may very well influence some of the other perspectives.
(for example their religious perspective often influences their political and/or cultural perspectives)
If one perspective is more dominant over their other perspectives and more foremost or central to their identity and given more emphasis over others…..they may well identify themselves with that worldview to others, as a shortcut for them to understand and quickly assimilate their understanding of what they mean.
So when, in my example above, the person who self identified as having a “Christian worldview”
(believing that “real” Christians would share
his interpretation of “Christian”)
and by understanding him to be a fundamentalist, bible literalist, young earth creationist…. its not a far leap to understand his opinions about evolution and the age of the earth.
It’s also not rare for a person to specify which part of their overall worldview they are tapping into when discussing a particular topic.
So if someone where talking about politics they may say something like “from my conservative worldview that law creates unnecessary regulatory burden and will likely be a drag on business”.
Even if that person were a heterosexual male, it is unlikely that would preface a conversation about politics with “from my heterosexual world view”, because that is not the perspective they are bringing to bear on the subject.
They may preface their opinion on the attractiveness of a person with that perspective though…..”speaking as a straight guy, that girl is hot!”
Or even more likely as a qualifier to emphasize what they see as an objective fact…
“Speaking as a straight guy, I must concede that’s a good looking man!”
Which is declaring a heterosexual male worldview, but not in as many words.
