If your world view does not include a way of living, it’s an incomplete world view.
Not the point. One's worldview might include a way of living, but the question posed in the thread is whether or not this requires community.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If your world view does not include a way of living, it’s an incomplete world view.
Is your world no larger than you?
What are you ingesting, if not other living things? Or are not part of the community?
sojourner said:Right. I get that part. But does your world view (how you fit into the world) include other people who are also in the world?
sojourner said:(And the bulk of the rest of your posts ITT.)
At its most basic level, one’s religion is how one lives within one’s world view. My contention is that one cannot have a world view that doesn’t take under consideration other people, for the world does contain other people.Not the point. One's worldview might include a way of living, but the question posed in the thread is whether or not this requires community.
And yet, the world is necessarily larger than just the individual. Even a baby recognizes that. And one’s religion is, by definition, how one makes meaning of that world.This depends on how one might perceive their temporal world based on one's experiences.
“Community” wasn’t defined at the outset. Nonetheless, a society is, by definition, community.Again, we're clearly confusing "community" with "society."
Help me to understand why this is needed in some belief structures.
At its most basic level, one’s religion is how one lives within one’s world view. My contention is that one cannot have a world view that doesn’t take under consideration other people, for the world does contain other people.
And yet, the world is necessarily larger than just the individual. Even a baby recognizes that.
And one’s religion is, by definition, how one makes meaning of that world.
“Community” wasn’t defined at the outset. Nonetheless, a society is, by definition, community.
That’s not what I said, though. One always lives in the world that one perceives. One’s world view doesn’t necessarily define how one lives. But it does inform one’s perception.One's worldview does not necessarily define how one lives
No, I’m making a statement based on what we know of developmental psychology.You are, again, making a statement based on your experiences (and perhaps this baby you know) and not mine
Again, so what? “Making meaning” and “behavior” are two different things.Again, no. I know many that go to church on Sunday (or simply do not even though their religion directs it) that sing the Lord's praises, step over the threshold of the church's door after the service and behave hypocritically
Here (from Google):Though community wasn't given a hard definition in the OP, the context was clear that its intended definition had to do with a group with similar worldviews, beliefs, or religion, and it was given a specific definition on page two of this thread, thus negating everything you wrote after the word "nonetheless."
That’s not what I said, though. One always lives in the world that one perceives. One’s world view doesn’t necessarily define how one lives. But it does inform one’s perception.
No, I’m making a statement based on what we know of developmental psychology.
Again, so what? “Making meaning” and “behavior” are two different things.
Here (from Google):
com·mu·ni·ty
/kəˈmyo͞onədē/
noun
- 1.
a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.
so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīədē/
noun
- 1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Notice how the word “community” appears in the definition for “society.” Thus, by definition, a society is community.
IOW, “I clearly did not win the argument, so I’m going to blame it all on you, pick up my marbles, and go home.”I've defined and redefined for you both the terms "worldview" and "community" using dictionary definitions for the purpose of this thread. Since you are clearly here stubbornly inject your own dictionary definitions and argue based on those rather than contribute something useful to the actual topic presented by the OP, we can be done now.
Since religion is generally a cultural expression, I’d say that, generally, religion includes community, as it’s an outgrowth of community, in several different ways.A community is a subset of a society... so of course society and community are tied together in this way, but not the same thing.
Yes, I would agree. I was just using my faith and others as counterexamples as faiths that do not require community.Since religion is generally a cultural expression, I’d say that, generally, religion includes community, as it’s an outgrowth of community, in several different ways.
Your use of the word “require” is interesting. I suppose it would depend on what you mean by “require.” I would argue that, while no others may be necessary to perform ritual, to formulate and put into practice belief, to identify core tenets and motivations for some religious systems, those systems do, on some level, depend upon community, because each individual is inexorably part of some community, whether it be a tightly-defined and identifiably unique grouping, or a very broad identification, such as “member fo the human race.” Additionally, because each is part of some community, that community acts as a reflector of the individual to that individual — even if the individual is a “loner.” S/he still identifies and defines her or himself based upon such a community, and that identity and definition inform and influence religious belief/practice, if even on an intuitive, or even genetic level. IOW, I don’t think one can escape the human community on every level that affects one. Therefore, I’d conclude that community — as an inseparable aspect of one — is “required” on some level for all religious expressions.Yes, I would agree. I was just using my faith and others as counterexamples as faiths that do not require community.
I refer to my original point that, in order to follow my particular faith, others are not required. Others are not required for a G-d belief, or the ability to follow the Laws, albeit some will not be applicable.Your use of the word “require” is interesting. I suppose it would depend on what you mean by “require.” I would argue that, while no others may be necessary to perform ritual, to formulate and put into practice belief, to identify core tenets and motivations for some religious systems, those systems do, on some level, depend upon community, because each individual is inexorably part of some community, whether it be a tightly-defined and identifiably unique grouping, or a very broad identification, such as “member fo the human race.” Additionally, because each is part of some community, that community acts as a reflector of the individual to that individual — even if the individual is a “loner.” S/he still identifies and defines her or himself based upon such a community, and that identity and definition inform and influence religious belief/practice, if even on an intuitive, or even genetic level. IOW, I don’t think one can escape the human community on every level that affects one. Therefore, I’d conclude that community — as an inseparable aspect of one — is “required” on some level for all religious expressions.
But, that being said, I’d also say that my first sentence is also true: some religious expressions do not require a tightly defined community of like-practicing people in order to function, at least externally.
Can you believe in G-d on a desert island?
There you go.
I think you are confusing the terms "community" and "society." They are not the same.
Yes but that's not the point. The point is that it is possible to believe in G-d without other people. We agree on this!The isolation from community will drive you crazy. There are plenty of scientific studies that support this.