Does your religion say what the greater world needs or doesn't need, or is its wisdom inward

[amorphous_constellation]

I am addressing the arguments in your OP, it seems you are unable to justify them as anything more than personal opinion which is what i said at the start.

You OP and subsequent posts did not really identify with hypothetical ideas but were more of a - this is how it is, so there - with no evidence to back up any claim

Anyway, as hypothetical ideas they dont fly in the world of reality

The op provides the framework to the thread, which is supposed to provide enough space within it to work with, you want to question the framework itself instead of the things in it, I think. It's more interesting to me to explore frameworks than to tear them down. That way, I think everyone can learn something and develop ideas. But if there is no framework, then there really is nothing to discuss

 

[ChristineM]

The op provides the framework to the thread, which is supposed to provide enough space within it to work with, you want to question the framework itself instead of the things in it, I think. It's more interesting to me to explore frameworks than to tear them down

And its more interesting to me to deal in evidence, facts and reality. When a claim is made i iike to see substance behind that claim, something to promote education and research.

However regards the OP, i think we may have different concepts of our understanding of "world".

 

[stvdv]

Nicely formulated OP. Very peaceful

I see two impulses that religion can have, an inward one, and one that wants to put ideas on a market. But which of these is really the greater virtue in a religion.

I do not have a religion but my preference is to follow inward path (what religion says, would be "outward path" for me).
Even if the outward path would be the alleged greater virtue, I would stick to the inward path.

Many religions do become evangelical on some level, in other words they are concerned with selling something to the world.

I noticed this "strange" phenomena too.

Implicit in this we might identify different possible issues, conflict with the natural 'other' on some level, and a supposed wielding of this thing we call 'truth.'

Football without "goal challenge" is no fun
Truth without "conflict challenge" is too easy

To invert that, a religion might also be inward. It doesn't then have anything to sell to the world as it isn't more 'right' than another spiritual style

Very senang lifestyle

It works on what is specifically within its own end-user. Ideally it might not say a single thing about the greater world, for doing so is to judge the world.

And for a moment outward path was taken

 

[Audie]

I see two impulses that religion can have, an inward one, and one that wants to put ideas on a market. But which of these is really the greater virtue in a religion.

Many religions do become evangelical on some level, in other words they are concerned with selling something to the world. Implicit in this we might identify different possible issues, conflict with the natural 'other' on some level, and a supposed wielding of this thing we call 'truth.'

To invert that, a religion might also be inward. It doesn't then have anything to sell to the world as it isn't more 'right' than another spiritual style. It works on what is specifically within its own end-user. Ideally it might not say a single thing about the greater world, for doing so is to judge the world.

Which has more virtue.
I wonder why you think there is any virtue at
all in either?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Which has more virtue.
I wonder why you think there is any virtue at
all in either?

Where do you best associate virtue? In a belief that believes it knows something that the world might learn or recognize, or in a belief that only goes inward. One of these two selections might be more commendable in virtue, if you have a more common view of what virtue is

 

[Quagmire]

I see two impulses that religion can have, an inward one, and one that wants to put ideas on a market. But which of these is really the greater virtue in a religion.

Many religions do become evangelical on some level, in other words they are concerned with selling something to the world. Implicit in this we might identify different possible issues, conflict with the natural 'other' on some level, and a supposed wielding of this thing we call 'truth.'

To invert that, a religion might also be inward. It doesn't then have anything to sell to the world as it isn't more 'right' than another spiritual style. It works on what is specifically within its own end-user. Ideally it might not say a single thing about the greater world, for doing so is to judge the world.

Have to go with inward. If there's a God, and He/She/It is all powerful, I think it naturally follows that the world is already exactly as it should be, and the only thing to work on is how we react to it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Have to go with inward. If there's a God, and He/She/It is all powerful, I think it naturally follows that the world is already exactly as it should be, and the only thing to work on is how we react to it.

And going only inward would arguably give one enough to work with, for one lifetime

 

[Audie]

Where do you best associate virtue? In a belief that believes it knows something that the world might learn or recognize, or in a belief that only goes inward. One of these two selections might be more commendable in virtue, if you have a more common view of what virtue is

Religions co opt ethics, morality from
their cultural mileau and then pretend
it came from god. Sometimes there is
some merit-honour parents, say- in the
"virtues" they claim. More often the religion
is just about woo woo to which people
are compelled or attracted. "Virtue" is not
even an issue, then,

I think it would be terrif if people would
keep inside instead of flying airplanes into
buildings. By no means is every "idea" some
theist wants to spresd a good one, or welcom.

Maybe you know of the exception-in- a-haystack.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

By no means is every "idea" some
theist wants to spresd a good one, or welcom.

In that case it sounds like you are answering that the inward model is better than the outward. I would interpret that as reflecting a virtue of inwardness I suppose.

More often the religion
is just about woo woo to which people
are compelled or attracted. "Virtue" is not
even an issue, then,

The supernatural content in particular is not really what this thread is concerned with, the content could be anything. Any spiritual content however, is concerned with either inwardness or outwardness in relation to the world. Most religions however, do seem to say at least a little bit of something about the world as opposed to the individual

 

[stvdv]

Where do you best associate virtue? In a belief that believes it knows something that the world might learn or recognize, or in a belief that only goes inward. One of these two selections might be more commendable in virtue, if you have a more common view of what virtue is

The beauty of Hinduism is, that they have different paths. One path is not better than the other (or in your words not more/less virtue). They are just different; no need to judge the path of the other (as long as it is respectful; if not just stay away).

Some people are born with the predisposition to eat bananas, others to eat apples. Same as regards to which path to follow. For some the way is 'inward path' for others the way is 'outward path'.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The beauty of Hinduism is, that they have different paths. One path is not better than the other (or in your words not more/less virtue). They are just different; no need to judge the path of the other (as long as it is respectful; if not just stay away).

Some people are born with the predisposition to eat bananas, others to eat apples. Same as regards to which path to follow. For some the way is 'inward path' for others the way is 'outward path'.

I guess the difference between the outward and inward is a wish to alter the greater world, as I've said. I'm talking about the difference between believing this apple is good for me, or the world needs this apple, because it would be great for everyone. Even if it would be great for everyone, is it virtuous to thereby dismiss what the world formerly thought of as being great

 

[stvdv]

I guess the difference between the outward and inward is a wish to alter the greater world, as I've said. I'm talking about the difference between believing this apple is good for me, or the world needs this apple, because it would be great for everyone.

How to alter outward if not altered inward first?

Even if it would be great for everyone, is it virtuous to thereby dismiss what the world formerly thought of as being great

Greatness will triumph, no need to dismiss

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How to alter outward if not altered inward first?

The inward may altered first, but if it wishes to alter what is outward, it remains an imposition whether it first went inward or not.

Greatness will triumph, no need to dismiss

In even defining greatness, do I make a mistake, for who is to say that greatness is not particulate in definition? Therefore, in even saying what is great, is that not an imposition on the greater world?

 

[Jim]

I think that there’s a kind of light in some religions, not in the beliefs associated with them, but in their stories, their scriptures, and the community life of people following that light. There is not more virtue in one or the other of inward and outward, because they are inseparable. There is no virtue in either one without the other. Learning to trust and follow that light is the best thing that can happen to anyone, and what the world needs most of all, to stop the cruelty and violence, and improve the world for all people everywhere, now and into the future. The inward part is each person consciously and continually making efforts to improve their own character and the way they live their lives, following that light. The outward part is that the self-Improvement is aimed at helping to improve the world for all people everywhere.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think that there’s a kind of light in some religions, not in the beliefs associated with them, but in their stories, their scriptures, and the community life of people following that light. There is not more virtue in one or the other of inward and outward, because they are inseparable.

Well when you think about it, any religion that uses 'light as a metaphor can never really be totally 'inward,' can it? Many religions do talk about 'the light,' I'm sure. And it's just not the nature of light to ever really focus on going inward, is it. Therefore, any talk about 'the light' is at least tacitly looking to influence the greater world.

 

[stvdv]

The inward may altered first, but if it wishes to alter what is outward, it remains an imposition whether it first went inward or not.

The more inward, the less desire to alter outward.

In even defining greatness, do I make a mistake,

No

for who is to say that greatness is not particulate in definition?

I am not saying

Therefore, in even saying what is great, is that not an imposition on the greater world?

Yes. Some Saints remain silent, their impact is even greater.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see two impulses that religion can have, an inward one, and one that wants to put ideas on a market. But which of these is really the greater virtue in a religion.

Many religions do become evangelical on some level, in other words they are concerned with selling something to the world. Implicit in this we might identify different possible issues, conflict with the natural 'other' on some level, and a supposed wielding of this thing we call 'truth.'

To invert that, a religion might also be inward. It doesn't then have anything to sell to the world as it isn't more 'right' than another spiritual style. It works on what is specifically within its own end-user. Ideally it might not say a single thing about the greater world, for doing so is to judge the world.

We could choose to act in silence by helping each other with no selfish motives.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I see two impulses that religion can have, an inward one, and one that wants to put ideas on a market. But which of these is really the greater virtue in a religion.

Many religions do become evangelical on some level, in other words they are concerned with selling something to the world. Implicit in this we might identify different possible issues, conflict with the natural 'other' on some level, and a supposed wielding of this thing we call 'truth.'

To invert that, a religion might also be inward. It doesn't then have anything to sell to the world as it isn't more 'right' than another spiritual style. It works on what is specifically within its own end-user. Ideally it might not say a single thing about the greater world, for doing so is to judge the world.

For my religion, it's all about the inward. No reason to sell anything.