moonshadow wrote:Those are good points Carl, but I will say (and I'll be the first to admit, I may be wrong), I think what you're calling "worldliness" and the "conservative-religious" type are calling it are different.
My 1974 Webster's New World Dictionary defines "worldly" as: "of or limited to this world; temporal or secular 2. devoted to or concerned with the affairs , pleasures, etc. of this world 3. worldly-wise; sophisticated
I suppose with that definition, you're both correct, I just depends on context I suppose. The religious type are probably referring to definition 1 and 2, you seem to be aiming at 3.
I'm definitely aiming at "3" above, with caveats. That being said, you've made me reach for my go-to book when it comes to matters of words (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary
, 1971, a Christmas present from my parents when I was ten) and it shows the thing as "world-ly n
1: of, relating to, or devoted to this world and its pursuits rather than to religion or spiritual affairs 2: worldly-wise". "Worldly-wise" is defined as "adj
: wise as to things and ways of this world".
Given that this is the only world we have at the moment -- and likely ever will -- I'd call being worldly a compliment. But I'm not a religious "conservative", much less a fundamentalist, and I'm also a free-thinker.
I don't like the '74 dictionary's call-out of "worldly-wise" being a synonym of "sophisticated" as "sophisticated" has some pretty nasty connotations to it. Wisdom in the ways of the world better speaks to the language I know (viz the "evolution of the language" and sometimes the "usurpation of the language").
On that note, I can't really further dissect the rest of your comment, because of the different meanings of the word (worldly) being applied. It would be like comparing apples to oranges.
I hope to have settled that.
But, suffice it to say, I believe in this matter, "worldly" would be an opposite of humility, and/or preoccupied with things and matters that have no real value on the metrics of the soul and spirit, nor on the afterlife (if there is such a thing).
Not necessarily, and I do not believe that the two are fundamentally opposed. They can -- and should -- coexist.
e.g. The notion of "keeping up with the Joneses" would be a "worldly" endeavor.
I'd be tempted to call that "asinine". What possible good can come from that
endeavour? Honestly, I cannot rebut the second thesis without being unnecessarily offensive. However, I do assert that there should be no conflict with becoming wise in the ways of the world and one's belief-system.
To the article at hand, I wholeheartedly agree with the author's assertion that there is no fundamental incompatibility between her belief-system and women wearing trousers. To extend that, I also see no fundamental conflict with guys going without an inseam. Putting it simply down to prevailing conditions, sometimes one mode is better than another.