Submitted for your consideration...
- Thread starter cnorman18
- Start date
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
You're welcome, but after reading all about what that religion isn't, could you enlighten me about what it IS? I mean, only halfway through your "A religion that ..." list, I started thinking: Is that a religion at all?
Hans
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
#6, maybe...
I suspect that your question is based on the proposition that since there is no God, there can be no genuine prophets, and I am tempted to refer you to canned answer #6 and leave it at that; but since that proposition is not explicit in your question, I will simply answer it.
Yes, that definition does apply to liberal Judaism. The only prophets recognized as genuine by Jews (whether liberal, Orthodox, or whatever) are the prophets in the Jewish Scriptures. None have been recognized since the Scriptural canon was closed.
Their messages, for the most part, involved demanding that the Jewish people renounce idolatry and/or other "unrighteous" behavior and return to the standards of monotheism, justice, peace, mercy and liberty as prescribed in the Torah.
(Some may notice that "charity" is not mentioned. That is because there is no precisely analogous concept in Judaism, i.e., that of a morally optional giving to the needy that is commended as particularly praiseworthy. In Judaism, aid to poor and otherwise needy people is expressed by the term "tzedakah" which translates literally as "justice". It is required, not optional, and the prophets spent much time and energy pressing that point.)
Another note: Some seem to think that Jesus is or was recognized as a prophet by Jews, though not as the Messiah. He is not and was not.
I suspect that your question is based on the proposition that since there is no God, there can be no genuine prophets, and I am tempted to refer you to canned answer #6 and leave it at that; but since that proposition is not explicit in your question, I will simply answer it.
Yes, that definition does apply to liberal Judaism. The only prophets recognized as genuine by Jews (whether liberal, Orthodox, or whatever) are the prophets in the Jewish Scriptures. None have been recognized since the Scriptural canon was closed.
Their messages, for the most part, involved demanding that the Jewish people renounce idolatry and/or other "unrighteous" behavior and return to the standards of monotheism, justice, peace, mercy and liberty as prescribed in the Torah.
(Some may notice that "charity" is not mentioned. That is because there is no precisely analogous concept in Judaism, i.e., that of a morally optional giving to the needy that is commended as particularly praiseworthy. In Judaism, aid to poor and otherwise needy people is expressed by the term "tzedakah" which translates literally as "justice". It is required, not optional, and the prophets spent much time and energy pressing that point.)
Another note: Some seem to think that Jesus is or was recognized as a prophet by Jews, though not as the Messiah. He is not and was not.
I'll give you Gandhi -- but again, he's more a political leader than a spiritual leader; the Indian independence movement is the only reason anyone knows about him. Cmpare that with the "great spiritual leaders" of earlier ages, such as Mamoinides or Calvin -- who are most noted as spiritualists, not as politicians....
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
Wow. Okay, but...
You're asking more than you know, but I'll give it a try. I'm working on it and will post my attempt here either late tonight or tomorrow. (You have no idea how difficult it is to type out these long posts on a BlackBerry Pearl.)
Be prepared for some degree of disappointment. Judaism is literally impossible to summarize in anything shorter than a small book, but I'll give it a (wholly inadequate) try.
You're asking more than you know, but I'll give it a try. I'm working on it and will post my attempt here either late tonight or tomorrow. (You have no idea how difficult it is to type out these long posts on a BlackBerry Pearl.)
Be prepared for some degree of disappointment. Judaism is literally impossible to summarize in anything shorter than a small book, but I'll give it a (wholly inadequate) try.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
No sir, you have been here long enough to know that is not the way it works. You do not prove negative claims, such as the UU is not religion.
Rather you and all of those involved with UU make the claim that it is a religion, rather than just philosophy.
So please explain, what makes UU a religion instead of just philosophy?
Many of those links simply say that UU supports:
Treating others with respect and acknowledging their rights, which is simply following the philosophy of Ahimsa
Freedom to express different ideas and beliefs with others, which is simply having your own thoughts conserning different philosophical topics and the free exchange of ideas.
And its not like people in UU all share the same beliefs. In fact it's quite the opposite. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs so long as they respect each other. It's just a place to gather to discuss and practice your philosophical beliefs.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
It isn't quite as cut and tried as asking you to prove a negative because there is a positive equivalent claim: show that UU fails to meet the criteria required to be a religion.
Actually, by asking me to prove that UU is a religion, you are putting me in a similar dilemma is proving a negative. For whatever criteria I use to show that UU is a religion, you can simply state "but that doesn't make it a religion."
I need a target to aim at.
What definition of "religion" do you claim UU does not meet?
Not true at all. UU's do share common beliefs, just not common supernatural beliefs.
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
?
Oh, stop it.
Only the followers of a movement get to decide if it's a "religion" or not. IMHO, that's part of what "Freedom of Religion" means.
If I want to found a "religion" that declares, "Wile E. Coyote is God and I am his Prophet," and base our sacraments on single-malt Scotch, cashew nuts, and watching the WWF, it's no one's place to question it. Who is anyone to say that Wile E. isn't an omnipotent, drunken wrestling fan? You can't PROVE it...
Buddhism, as I understand it, has nothing to say about God, but I don't see anyone moving to revoke their tax exemptions.
If the UUs call themselves religious, they are. No one has any warrant to say otherwise. Period, full stop.
Oh, stop it.
Only the followers of a movement get to decide if it's a "religion" or not. IMHO, that's part of what "Freedom of Religion" means.
If I want to found a "religion" that declares, "Wile E. Coyote is God and I am his Prophet," and base our sacraments on single-malt Scotch, cashew nuts, and watching the WWF, it's no one's place to question it. Who is anyone to say that Wile E. isn't an omnipotent, drunken wrestling fan? You can't PROVE it...
Buddhism, as I understand it, has nothing to say about God, but I don't see anyone moving to revoke their tax exemptions.
If the UUs call themselves religious, they are. No one has any warrant to say otherwise. Period, full stop.
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
Biting the bullet
I have decided to bite the bullet and post my answer to this question as a separate thread. See you there, amid the flak, fatuous questions, and ridicule...
I have decided to bite the bullet and post my answer to this question as a separate thread. See you there, amid the flak, fatuous questions, and ridicule...
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
"Liberal" religionists. "Orthodox religionists." Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. They're both are supersticious barbarians who believe in something that isn't there.
I didn't miss that. I just don't give a damn about the excuses you make for your religion.
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
I apologize. I thought your objections had something to do with Israel.
Other than that, I feel no need to respond to outright hostility and unprovoked insults.
Peace to you.
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
They do. However, every religion, no matter how liberal or peaceful it claims to be, will eventually find apostates, blasphemers, and other unbelievers to put to the sword. Especially when their imaginary friend tells that a piece of land belongs to them and they may use any means at their disposal to keep to keep it that way.
Fine by me. Just don't come around a forum dominated by atheists and other people who are critical of religion, start evangelizing, and not expect "hostility."
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
Yes I agree. Honestly I have a hard time understanding the difference between any religion and philosophy. The only thing I can really think of is that a religious group all hold the same general set of supernatural beliefs or codes.
What is your definition of religion and philosophy? What you think separates the two words?
Well as I said above they do not have a set of supernatural beliefs or codes that the members of this 'religion' follow. While they do have other common beliefs, these beliefs are not supernatural in nature. Many of them follow along the lines of the philosophy of Ahimsa. Common belief in the right to have what supernatural beliefs you want isn't religion. It is the philosophical belief in freedom of religion, or freedom of spirituality.
I don't really know what else would constitute a religion other than having a creed of like supernatural beliefs.
Also please know that I have nothing against UU. I think many of their policies and beliefs are a very good thing, and I agree with almost all of them myself. I just do not believe it should be called a religion.
Last edited:
cnorman18
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 304
Ooookay...
"They do. However, every religion, no matter how liberal or peaceful it claims to be, will eventually find apostates, blasphemers, and other unbelievers to put to the sword. Especially when their imaginary friend tells that a piece of land belongs to them and they may use any means at their disposal to keep to keep it that way."
Whatever.
Like I said, my post had nothing at all to do with Israel, and I have no intention of getting into a POLITICAL debate on that subject or any other. Those, I can find anywhere.
"Fine by me. Just don't come around a forum dominated by atheists and other people who are critical of religion, start evangelizing, and not expect "hostility."
My intention was explicit: Religion is often criticized on grounds other than a mere belief in God, AND RIGHTLY SO. I intended to demonstrate that those contemptible practices have no place in Judaism. No more, no less.
If you truly think I came to a skeptics' forum seeking converts, I can only conclude that you must think me an imbecile. I'm not, but you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.
On the other hand, if you think I was seeking converts AT ALL, my own opinion--to which I am equally entitled--is that you need to learn how to read. "Evangelizing" is one of the activities that Jews find repugnant--as if I haven't already made that clear.
I shall post whatever I choose, wherever I choose to post it. You may, of course, do the same--but if you reveal that you're more interested in throwing rocks than in actually responding to anything that I actually SAID, don't be surprised if I feel free to call you on it.
Peace.
"They do. However, every religion, no matter how liberal or peaceful it claims to be, will eventually find apostates, blasphemers, and other unbelievers to put to the sword. Especially when their imaginary friend tells that a piece of land belongs to them and they may use any means at their disposal to keep to keep it that way."
Whatever.
Like I said, my post had nothing at all to do with Israel, and I have no intention of getting into a POLITICAL debate on that subject or any other. Those, I can find anywhere.
"Fine by me. Just don't come around a forum dominated by atheists and other people who are critical of religion, start evangelizing, and not expect "hostility."
My intention was explicit: Religion is often criticized on grounds other than a mere belief in God, AND RIGHTLY SO. I intended to demonstrate that those contemptible practices have no place in Judaism. No more, no less.
If you truly think I came to a skeptics' forum seeking converts, I can only conclude that you must think me an imbecile. I'm not, but you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.
On the other hand, if you think I was seeking converts AT ALL, my own opinion--to which I am equally entitled--is that you need to learn how to read. "Evangelizing" is one of the activities that Jews find repugnant--as if I haven't already made that clear.
I shall post whatever I choose, wherever I choose to post it. You may, of course, do the same--but if you reveal that you're more interested in throwing rocks than in actually responding to anything that I actually SAID, don't be surprised if I feel free to call you on it.
Peace.