Submitted for your consideration...

[drkitten]

we have survived longer than any religion on Earth-

Have you? My understanding is that Hinduism can be traced back to the Harrapan civilizations of about 8000 BCE, and that there is no archeological evidence for the Judaism prior to about 1200 BCE. (And, no, stuff like "building the pyramids" doesn't count -- in fact, we're fairly sure that Jews were never "slaves in Egypt." Exodus, like Genesis, is a myth, not a documentary.)

 

[plumjam]

Judge them by their fruits.

How many great spiritual figures has mainstream non-orthodox Judaism produced? I'm not implying I know the answer; it's just that I haven't heard of any.
Whereas orthodox Judaism has produced plenty.

 

[drkitten]

How many great spiritual figures has mainstream non-orthodox Judaism produced? I'm not implying I know the answer; it's just that I haven't heard of any.
Whereas orthodox Judaism has produced plenty.

Given that it typically takes at least two centuries for someone to be recognized as a "great spiritual figure" as opposed to a cult leader.... and non-orthodox Judaism has only been around for a hundred and fifty years, I would not expect ANY.

By the same token, I can only think of one widely recognized "great spiritual leader" from the 20th century, and Martin Luther King, Jr. is more associated with politics than with spirituality. C.S. Lewis might qualify as well; he's at least widely known and respected. even among the non-religious. But every other candidate I can think of (e.g. Mother Theresa) is generally only regarded as "great" by participants in that particular religion. You say "Mother Theresa," I say "L. Ron Hubbard."

 

[cnorman18]

Good, but no

This seems difficult to reconcile with your canned responses #2 and #3. Are you sure you're not involving in a double standard with respect to historical Judaism?

Thanks, but no. Those were "canned" in anticipation of questions about animal sacrifice and prohibitions against contact with Gentiles, respectively, both of which I have been asked about repeatedly.

 

[plumjam]

Given that it typically takes at least two centuries for someone to be recognized as a "great spiritual figure" as opposed to a cult leader.... and non-orthodox Judaism has only been around for a hundred and fifty years, I would not expect ANY.

By the same token, I can only think of one widely recognized "great spiritual leader" from the 20th century, and Martin Luther King, Jr. is more associated with politics than with spirituality. C.S. Lewis might qualify as well; he's at least widely known and respected. even among the non-religious. But every other candidate I can think of (e.g. Mother Theresa) is generally only regarded as "great" by participants in that particular religion. You say "Mother Theresa," I say "L. Ron Hubbard."

Orthodox judaism has produced plenty in the last 150 years.. whereas mainstream non-orthodoxy... none that I know of. I suspect this is because the latter is a bit like modern Anglicanism - verging on secularism.. and often more of a religion in name than in substance.
There are plenty of genuine great spiritual figures from the 20th Century.. I don't know where you get Martin Luther King from.. he was a good speaker, but IIRC he had kids with a few different women (and not in an open polygamous marriage arrangement kind of way)
Look at hinduism and buddhism.. dozens and dozens of genuine recognised spiritual figures in the 20th Century. The same with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Bringing an obvious fraud like Hubbard into it just muddies the water.

 

[drkitten]

Look at hinduism and buddhism.. dozens and dozens of genuine recognised spiritual figures in the 20th Century. The same with Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Yup. The vast majority of whom are compelely ignored by the outside world.

I submit that Catholicism has not had a single "great spiritual figure" in the 20th century, if you ask anyone other than a practicing Catholic.

 

[cnorman18]

Hmmm...

"Have you? My understanding is that Hinduism can be traced back to the Harrapan civilizations of about 8000 BCE, and that there is no archeological evidence for the Judaism prior to about 1200 BCE."

Well, this is easy; I stand corrected. I confess my ignorance about Hinduism. We're second, then. Jews prefer silver to gold anyway--the Calf and all that.

1200 BCE sounds about right. We wouldn't have left much evidence behind much before that, having been nomadic shepherds and/or slaves..

"(And, no, stuff like "building the pyramids" doesn't count -- in fact, we're fairly sure that Jews were never "slaves in Egypt." Exodus, like Genesis, is a myth, not a documentary.)"

"We"? Who's "We"?

Yeah, I know that Jews didn't build the
Pyramids. We're not too skilled, collectively speaking, at the construction trade. If we'd built them, they'd probably have fallen down by now.

Seriously, get were built at the wrong time, and Exodus talks about our using bricks, not stone. Don't be so sure about the Exodus, anyway. There was an enormous volcanic eruption on the island of Thera (also called Santorin) in the 15th century BCE that could account pretty neatly for the Plagues: fire from the sky, days of darkness, tidal anomalies, and so on. SOMETHING happened, anyway, and the memory of those events were apparently passed down to whoever wrote the book. Garbled, maybe, but a germ of truth might remain. Maybe more than a germ.

You might take a look at some of my posts on the Bible Codes thread. Most Jews today don't have a big investment in the absolute historicity of the Torah. My rabbi likes to say, "The Torah is true, and some of it may even have happened." (Mt apologies if I've already said that here; I like it.)

"You mean Moses never lived? Oy, gevalt! So what's for dinner?"

 

[Upchurch]

My roommate likes to joke that "UU is for atheists with kids."

Ha, shows what you know! My wife and I don't have any kids.



But, yes, that is one reason we joined.

That's "Highball Glass Worshipping Cult!"

Ha! That does show what you know! You're obviously familiar with my people.

Agreed. I would not consider that a religion, nor do I consider Universal Unitarianism a religion. A religion is a set of specific beliefs. What you are refering to is called philosophy.

UU's would disagree. Here in the states, our perception of religion is dominated by the orthodoxy approach to religion, but there is also a long tradition of liberal religion. (Not to be confused with liberal politics, although they often draw the same kinds of folks.)

 

[plumjam]

Yup. The vast majority of whom are compelely ignored by the outside world.

I submit that Catholicism has not had a single "great spiritual figure" in the 20th century, if you ask anyone other than a practicing Catholic.

Whether the outside world ignores them or not is irrelevant to the point. Attaining a high level of spiritual development isn't done by ballot.

 

[Upchurch]

Whether the outside world ignores them or not is irrelevant to the point. Attaining a high level of spiritual development isn't done by ballot.

Of course not. Nor is it attained through orthodoxy. It is, at its heart, a personal development.

 

[plumjam]

Of course not. Nor is it attained through orthodoxy. It is, at its heart, a personal development.

I agree; except that particular types of orthodoxy in living and spiritual practice have come about over centuries in order to facilitate spiritual development.. which is why systems like non-orthodox judaism and modern anglicanism have greater difficulty in producing more spiritually developed people.

 

[Upchurch]

I agree; except that particular types of orthodoxy in living and spiritual practice have come about over centuries in order to facilitate spiritual development.. which is why systems like non-orthodox judaism and modern anglicanism have greater difficulty in producing more spiritually developed people.

I beg to differ. Orthodoxy can only ever provide a single path of spiritual development. If that path is not exactly right for a particular person, that person is SOL.

Heretical* religious, on the other hand, exposes people to a wide variety of spiritual paths so that they can find what is right for them and, ultimately excel at it.




* "heresy" meaning "choice" or "to choose"

 

[drkitten]

Whether the outside world ignores them or not is irrelevant to the point. Attaining a high level of spiritual development isn't done by ballot.

No, but recognition as a "great" spiritual figure is. I see no reason to trust either your assessment of who has and has not achieved "a high level of spiritual development," nor your ability to enumerate them effectively.

 

[cnorman18]

Well said

Given that it typically takes at least two centuries for someone to be recognized as a "great spiritual figure" as opposed to a cult leader.... and non-orthodox Judaism has only been around for a hundred and fifty years, I would not expect ANY.

By the same token, I can only think of one widely recognized "great spiritual leader" from the 20th century, and Martin Luther King, Jr. is more associated with politics than with spirituality. C.S. Lewis might qualify as well; he's at least widely known and respected. even among the non-religious. But every other candidate I can think of (e.g. Mother Theresa) is generally only regarded as "great" by participants in that particular religion. You say "Mother Theresa," I say "L. Ron Hubbard."

Very well put. I might nominate Abraham Joshua Heschel, though; he's best known for his writing--astonishing stuff--but he also marched with Dr. King (You can see him in the videos, next to him. Big guy. Old. Beard.) He might be famous in a couple hundred years.

Martin Buber--oh, wait, he was a Chasid. Well, we read his stuff, too.

Really, it's hard to think of ANY world-class, great spiritual leaders from among the Jews, not since Jesus (we, uh, don't usually count him). I suspect that's because until recent times, no one much listened to our guys but other Jews. Maybe the Baal Shem Tov and his contemporary, the Vilna Gaon (who hated each other's guts, by the way). See, you've never heard of them.

As for liberal Jews hardly being religious--well, what to say? When we wore yarmulkes, tzitzit, and beards with earlocks, we were dumped on for being TOO religious and parading our faith too publicly. Some of us gave all that up and now practice our religion privately and unobtrusively like everyone else--and now, we're not religious ENOUGH.

"Ach. Goyim." (shakes head)

For the Catholics, we kind of liked John XXIII--Vatican II, you know. He won us over when he greeted the first Israeli delegation to the Vatican in centuries with open arms--literally--and the words, "I am your brother Joseph." (His given name was Joseph Roncalli.) John Paul II was a favorite of ours, too, for many reasons, but one stands out: when he was a parish priest in Poland, he was asked to baptize a Jewish boy who had been hidden from the Germans and whose parents were dead. He refused.

We liked Mother Teresa, too, but...

"A wonderful woman, but--Oy! So THIN! Someone should give her something to EAT!"

On the other hand, L. Ron Hubbard was a putz.

 

[The_Animus]

UU's would disagree. Here in the states, our perception of religion is dominated by the orthodoxy approach to religion, but there is also a long tradition of liberal religion. (Not to be confused with liberal politics, although they often draw the same kinds of folks.)

I'm sure they would. You don't get as many followers, nor can you shoot for tax exempt status by being a group of philosophers.

But I am willing to listen. Could you please explain how UU or liberal religion is different from philosophy?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Most educated people know that Jews, as a whole, are the least offensive and least dangerous religious group.

Unless you're a Palestinian, then you're either target practice or tank tread grease for the IDF.

 

[cnorman18]

Right.

Unless you're a Palestinian, then you're either target practice or tank tread grease for the IDF.

Canned answer #7:

"My post has nothing whatever to do with Israel. Israeli policy is not determined on a religious basis, and liberal Judaism has little or no influence there anyway. Religious life in Israel is dominated by the Orthodox."

I guess you missed that.

 

[Upchurch]

Could you please explain how UU or liberal religion is different from philosophy?

Well, it isn't different from philosophy. All religion, liberal or otherwise, is a subset of philosophy.

What I was taking issue to was your contention that UU isn't a religion.

 

[six7s]

Consider a religion like this:

A religion that does not tolerate snake-oil salesmen; e.g. phony "prosperity ministries", "faith healers", fake "prophets" and "seers", sellers of "miracles", millionaire "reverends" and "evangelists", or religious con men of any sort.

OK... "no fake prophets" implies that there is or has been at least one genuine prophet

Mechon Mamre.org / Torah 101 / Prophets and Prophecy

A prophet is basically a spokesman for God, a person chosen by God to speak to people on God's behalf and convey a message or teaching
<snip/>

Source

If that definition does not apply to "liberal Judaism", please explain what the liberal definition is

If the defintion does apply to "liberal Judaism", please:

• name one (or more) genuine prophet(s) in the eyes of liberal Judaism
• and describe one (or more) message(s) that has (have) been conveyed from your god via said prophet(s)

Thanks

 

[The_Animus]

Well, it isn't different from philosophy. All religion, liberal or otherwise, is a subset of philosophy.

What I was taking issue to was your contention that UU isn't a religion.

This still doesn't tell me what the distinction is between the two. What is it that makes UU a religion and not just philosophy? Surely there must be a difference other than that they call themselves a religion.