Female Rabbi ordained.

[Last Conformist]

Since you insist of speaking of these different groups as if they were well-known entities, could you give a quick rundown or post a link to same?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Tanks for the explanation

but you really have puzzled me - you seem to have

Conservatives
Orthodox
Traditionals
Reformatives
those that not take it too seriously

I might be wrong, but I would put the three first in the same group - that is, same thing, different labels. Is it the translation to english that make a hickup ?

No, an English speaking gentile would probably be similary confused. The Conservative movement in the US was founded as an alternative to Reform, and originally Orthodox and Conservative were used by it interchangeably. However the leaders of this movement were still too "Reform" for many eastern european immigrants, who founded there own movement which they called Orthodox. Its further confusing cause of overlap with German and British Jewish nomenclature.

Traditional is also confusing - while the UTJ - Union for Traditional Judaism - has positioned itself between CJ and OJ, the Conservative movement in Israel calls itself "Masorti" which translates as "traditional"

[BlackCat]

I begin to understand why jews are such big survivalists - even without external interference they have a challenging environment .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Since you insist of speaking of these different groups as if they were well-known entities, could you give a quick rundown or post a link to same?

Reform Judaism - we're modern now, the Torah is the product of human beings (maybe inspired by G-d), we must follow its ethical injunctions, guided by conscience, but as to ritual, each jew may choose for himself

Conservative Judaism - we're modern now, the Torah MAY be the product of human beings inspired by G-d, but those human beings were acting as a people, creating a civilization. Tinkering with an organic tradition is dangerous (see Edmund Burke) so it should be done slowly and by folks who are trained experts in the law -there fore ritual laws must still be considered binding (IE individual jews cant just choose what they want - not if they want to follow an authentic Judaism) Of course the ritual law must change - but this must be done by rabbis, and they must do so following traditional methods of jurisprudence. They can, and indeed SHOULD look to laity and its behavior to see where the law needs changing, but should focus on the generally observant laity ("Catholic Israel" wierd term, I know - remember Catholic means universal) to keep from changing too fast.

Orthodox - what do you mean "inspired by G-D"???? Its the literal word of G-d, and Jews MUST follow it - not to be "authentic" but cause G-d expects it. And yes, rabbis can change the law, but they generally shouldnt let the laity lead that - they should change only where the old law is not clear in a new circumstance, generally speaking. Oh, and rabbis who dont believe the torah is the literal word of G-d are NOT qualified to interpret it.

Modern Orthodox - all the above being said, its still proper to live a thoroughly modern life to the extent the law allows.

Ultra Orthodox - no its NOT, leading a modern life, even to the extent the law allows, will sooner or later lead to Reform and C heresies, secularism etc. We should observe the customs of our ancestors, and keep away from modern life, except as the need to make a living requires it.

Hassidic - same as ultra O, except we differ on range of things having to do with mysticism (which we like) and forms of leadership,etc.


Reconstructionism - there is NO G-d, and Kaplan is his prophet.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


"Not sure what you mean by ahistorical. There have been examples of the laity directing the clergy, and reform within the clergy."

Something about being a catholic and defying the pope making no sense. I think alot of medieval Cardinals, abbots, etc would have found that amusing.There was a time when the Papacy had a much more limited role in the RCC.

"It is an interesting discussion though, about the balancing between the clergy and the laity, how the clergy has a responsibility to care for their flock, just as the laity has a responsibilty to obey the church. "

In CJ the clergy are not just to care for the laity, but to look to them to see where the law needs changing. It being accepted by CJews that the interpretation of the law was something human "it is not in heaven ...." and that rabbis can adjust it to follow the minhag, the customs, of lay jews, the question comes up of how to do so - if most lay jews are more or less completely unobservant, does that mean complete non-observance is licit? Solomon Schecter, first chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, looked at Jewish legal history, and derived the concept of "Catholic Israel" - the broad (universal, hence "Catholic") body of the laity that is essentially observant, observant in MOST particulars, but that in practice changes or drops certain past observances. When such change among the laity occurs, it is the duty of the rabbinate to actively SEEK a textual justification. When no such justification can be found, of course, the laity must defer. But when textual justification CAN be found, the rabbinate must follow the laity.

[Last Conformist]

So, your Conservatives are modernists?


I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Last Conformist
"So, your Conservatives are modernists? "

I would say so, but cautious, Burkean modernists. Perhaps we need to define modernist. Some Reform jews would say that conservative judaism is orthodoxy-lite. Others would say that CJudaism is Reform without the courage of its convictions. In practice, Cjudaism tends to maintain a very traditional approach to the ritual of prayer, etc - and is close to OJudaism - but on theology, and the hot button questions of gender, etc is closer to Reform. In some ways i see parallels to Anglicanism. IN practice most Lay Cjews tend to act like what Reform says THEIR laity should do - taking ritual observance seriously, but making individual choices about what to follow.


"I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?"


This is about the only thing all the Jews, even the atheist ones, are pretty much agreed on.

[St Leo]

I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?

This is about the only thing all the Jews, even the atheist ones, are pretty much agreed on.

What has the vast majority agreed on? That monotheism is yawnalicious?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo

I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?

This is about the only thing all the Jews, even the atheist ones, are pretty much agreed on.

What has the vast majority agreed on? That monotheism is yawnalicious?

that we aint interested in polytheism.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?

We marry everyone. With the Sun.

[Last Conformist]

By "modernist", I meant folks who want to adapt tradition to the modern world, rather than vice versa.

I'm starting to think R. Hubbard had the right idea. Maybe I should start my own religion. It'll definitely rec'nize polygyny.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
By "modernist", I meant folks who want to adapt tradition to the modern world, rather than vice versa.

I would say C Jews, serious ones, want to see a compromise between tradition and the modern world. I mean theres plenty in the modern world that aint so good, no?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Seriously, we've a whole bunch of Protestants and atheists discussing the affairs of the RCC. And a certain Catholic who want to discuss the affairs of the anglican/episc. church. If y'all are really interested in seeing how a religious tradition deals with this issue, and not just scoring points off each other

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I mean theres plenty in the modern world that aint so good, no?

Certainly, but that doesn't mean it goes away if one pretends nothing's happened since 70 AD.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Certainly, but that doesn't mean it goes away if one pretends nothing's happened since 70 AD.

Which is why I say compromise. Saying simply adapt tradition to modernity, seems to say modernity should trump tradition wherever they conflict. Tradition should give us a base from which to critique modernity, as well as the other way around. Perhaps a dialogue between tradition and modernity is what im looking for.

And of course the 70 AD doesnt apply to Jews. Even the Ultra Orthodox have plenty of stuff that originated later. I guarantee you, nobody in 70 AD Judea was walking around in fur hat.