Hello! Just talking about me for a second here.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

Hello, just here making myself known.

ASL: 18, male, Michigan in the US of A (sadly...)

World View: Existential deist (a.k.a. I'm a member of the Society of Friends [Quakers])
There is a god ("Christian" God), we have complete free will, we have to deal with the consequences of that.

Education: Standard crap that public schools purport to be "essential" to our well being throughout our lives. With that said, I have taken three years of physics courses, and I will be pursuing a bachelors and subsequently a masters in physics at university come fall. [And 'someday' a Ph.D]

Main thing is, I'm not a "Christian." I dislike Christians[edit: ,in the common sense of the word]. I have worked to 'convert' Christians in the interests of letting them meet the Christian god who they have formed a religion over. Religion is bad, faith is not. Screw religion with their candles and wars.

In other news... I enjoy reading, writing and long walks on the beach - along with paintball/airsoft.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:07 am

Hi Syrtd and welcome!

Could you help me out please? Obviously I've heard about the Quakers, but I don't know a whole lot about them. Perhaps you could give a brief description of their history, what they believe in and why, to fill in the gaps of my ignorance?

Thanks.

BAA.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

The Wikipedia article on Quakers is generally acceptable to me, so go ahead and check that out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

A Quaker is not very well defined by any means, except the thought process common. A flat out atheist can be a Quaker.

It's a thoughtful man's process, it really is. As said, while Quakers are generally "Christian," members of all faiths/nonfaiths are welcome to participate in the worship services. it requires a very mature ability to reason communally and especially respect others views. Criticizing their actions is not something exceedingly common except for those in a mutual discipleship relationship. Rather the focus, if any, on reproaching others is to ascertain that they indeed truly believe what they believe, whatever it is, and are not deluding themselves.

A few beliefs of George Fox, generally regarded as the found[er] in the mid 1600s:
- That every man and woman has direct access to God; no priestly class or "steeple houses" (churches) are needed
- That every person - male or female, slave or free is of equal worth
- That there is no need in one's religious life for elaborate ceremonies, rituals, gowns, creeds, dogma, or other "empty forms."
- Following the inward light would lead to spiritual development and towards individual perfection.

Quakers have never been that populous and/or popular. However, some random historical points:
Quakers instrumental in providing support for William Wilberforce in abolishing slavery in British lands.
Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for relief efforts after and throughout WWII.
Produce scientists out of proportion with world population share.
A few: Dalton (Basic atomic theory), Lister (Antiseptics in surgery), Bartram (Eminent biologist), Ellis ( The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking), Young (Light and Medicine, plus some other stuff)

The most important thing is that being a Quaker is whatever you make of it. Inner experience is encouraged, and as such, can sometimes not be [edit: easily explained to others] [Also, I am perfectly aware that it makes it sound like a cult.]

End Note: There is a very serious dedication to drinking Dr. Pepper among Quakers. I believe this is because of our ability to appreciate the fine things in life. I'm not even kidding, it's almost a universal trait among all those I have met.

I'm just going to leave it as this for the moment. If you're still curious, try a few more specific questions. The ability to specify your uncertainty is something that I would really appreciate.

Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:17 pm

If all those people meditating and tuning themselves to the functions of their bodies while simultaneously fully embracing world experiences happened to agree, then I'd start to think that I was missing something in life that a finely tuned thinker like yourself is perceiving. As it stands, I'm going to take the Dr. Pepper thing as a joke.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

First off, sure, meditating, is part of it, but it's not really the whole deal. To be Quaker is just to be honest with yourself. That's the main thing. The structure of the 'denomination' is provided as it is felt that it best facilitates the dissemination of experiences and to protect from misguided isolated thought. We as humans are not called to be monkish or hermetic. Also, usually a Sunday meeting only lasts about an hour, so meditation doesn't cover a large amount of our time anyhow.

A part of the article that could have lead to some of your concerns are the splits that it illustrated. I believe they mostly they separated due to an attachment to a certain individual's wisdom, in believing that they were right in all things. In general, all groups that have split from the main have self destructed and do not number very highly today. With that said, a split is not at all bad for a church, and sometimes is needed to allow progress for people of different talents.

Yes, the Dr. Pepper thing was a joke, albeit lame, but I still maintain that it is quite good.

I believe I have given answer mostly to your concerns? I hope I will be able to address any further ones.

Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:06 am

Syrtd wrote:

To be Quaker is just to be honest with yourself. That's the main thing. The structure of the 'denomination' is provided as it is felt that it best facilitates the dissemination of information and experiences.

I don't think that is true.
I feel that I am "true to myself", and I am an atheist. I do not need a church or a bible to facilitate the dissemination of this information and experience.

Isn't it more true that "Quaker" (or any other religion) is a system of maintaining control over a population by providing a system/infrastructure for the dissemination of dogma?

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Syrtd wrote:

To be Quaker is just to be honest with yourself. That's the main thing. The structure of the 'denomination' is provided as it is felt that it best facilitates the dissemination of information and experiences.

I don't think that is true.
I feel that I am "true to myself", and I am an atheist. I do not need a church or a bible to facilitate the dissemination of this information and experience.

Isn't it more true that "Quaker" (or any other religion) is a system of maintaining control over a population by providing a system/infrastructure for the dissemination of dogma?

Alright, fair questions that are well formed.

First Statement:
First, the Bible is not properly used analogously to a textbook or other form of medium for conveying informatio. Furthermore, I don't believe I have never impugned upon you that you're not being true to yourself - I have freely admitted elsewhere the knowledge that others have had experiences I have not had, and vice versa.

In the recent past here, I primarily have been spending my time simply portraying a different view of "Christianity" that in itself does not propagate hypocrisy, 'mind control' by an elite or consortium, or simply self destruct itself. I do not rely upon a bible or my denomination's publications as proof for the faith. I can recognize however the place for a god in the construction of the universe and can conceptualize a being of sufficient magnitude to have been responsible for it.

The best parallel I can give for at least for the purpose of my Quaker denomination and churches is that they are most like the classic Greeks who gathered together to discuss thoughts freely. Honestly, in most things they were wrong, but they accepted what they felt was the most correct theory based upon their observations and 'what made sense' to them. [edit, 9Dec10: Notice the use of "most." Notice the word "freely." Notice what remains a loose comparison. Added to defuse a bit of misplaced vehemence regarding my usage of the comparison.]

I suppose what I'm saying in brief is that I'm attempting to show something that would be worth defending. Most forms of Christianity can simply be shot down based upon the intrinsic virtues held, I do not believe so about the Quaker approach, and I have yet to be shown differently.

Perhaps we can continue our dialogue on another forum sometime on the foundation of faith. I will freely admit and remind that I am but eighteen years of age, so my general knowledge base is most likely not as expansive as (edit: many here) - not that that can be considered an excuse. If it so happens to come about, I would both be pleased and honored to be 'enlightened' of my false beliefs.

Second Statement:
The numerical value of a Quaker church's control on its members equals "0." Avoiding dogma was the precise reason for the Quaker 'religion' to come about. We attempt to avoid being given to dogmatic errors, though unfortunately some do encroach. Such things as the 'plain dress' code - which is about dead today - was a common agreement between members in the attempt to show that we should not pay extra for clothing beyond the cost of the material, labor and some profit for the vendor; also, of course, that we should not attempt to dress ourselves The churches did not mandate all must wear plain clothing, but rather served as a rallying point for a statement made en masse, in which most did participate freely. They only rewarded the necessary human sacrifice (not referring to slavery, of course) that went into producing the clothing. (Side note: Plain cloth as discussed DNE cheap cloth - just clothing without gaudiness)

Another example is a strict adherence to honesty. In the current Law we are under - love God, love others - it is not explicitly stated that one must be honest in all things. However, by common agreement or something to that accord, honesty was considered an earthly virtue and the best course of action. This does not extend to stating truths that would somehow condemn an innocent person. As would seem right, supporting such an occurrence by stating truth would be supporting falsehood. Again, wisdom needs to come in and be used to discern the proper course of action.

[Note to GreatestIam if he reads this: Moral code applies here. It has influence due to its existence and what it tells us we should follow. It singularly and exclusively of itself has no value, but once set in play it does have value in following it. I have no idea if 'telling lies' would ever occur if a moral sense was not present - the necessity and cause may not be there. I'm not good enough to make that call. I believe that actions such as feeding the poor would still occur through self interest, but again, I don't know if poor people would even exist if no definitive moral code was there. This is a full conversation of itself, and appropriate elsewhere.]

Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm

Dear Srytd,

If one were to start a reformist religion, would it not be necessary to identify oneself as being in opposition to the existing churches. How to market this new church to converts? Would you have to create a new dogma? I would argue yes. I would say that the Quaker opposition to standard christian faith is as much a dogma as any other religion. When one can not base a decision in fact, then that one must "create fact". This is dogma. This is religion. This is faith.

I find it admirable that you model your perception of the Quaker faith on the great thinkers of Attic antiquity; however, I do not find it to be an accurate parallel at all. Almost all of the Attic thinkers rejected or ignored the gods. (Epicurus: "The gods exist, but they are irrelevant.") They sought to circumnavigate dogma by relying on solid, evidence-proven fact. If my knowledge of the Quaker "meeting" is accurate, you present your ideas in the context of a religious gathering. "God" inspires your ideas.

Now, your eloquence betrays you as an intelligent person who seems to give a damn about other people. Why are you not able to conduct an intellectual conversation without the presence of a "god"? Why do you need to be "inspired" to think?

My two cents: if less people needed to be inspired before thinking, then this world would be a far better place. Your eloquence and intelligence is not yet matched by your experience and knowledge of the great thinkers. Get a book. (Not that one!) Read some more. Put this religious nonsense behind you.

Sincerely,

DA

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

DigitalAtheist wrote:

If one were to start a reformist religion, would it not be necessary to identify oneself as being in opposition to the existing churches. How to market this new church to converts? Would you have to create a new dogma? I would argue yes. I would say that the Quaker opposition to standard christian faith is as much a dogma as any other religion. When one can not base a decision in fact, then that one must "create fact". This is dogma. This is religion. This is faith.

You would state, and I would disagree. There is no definitive creed held by Quakers. The only 'dogma' we have is the belief that under no circumstances should dogma be established by an institution.

Initially, there were a few street preachers, but that was due to that Quakerism was a new thing back then. After a certain respectable population was reached, the focus from then on was to concentrate on one-on-one encounters in public areas. Talk briefly about it over lunch, have a beer at the pub with someone, stuff like that.

Analogy of the Greeks was to show the spirit of engagement, regardless of the outcome. The spirit of debate during a meeting is not encouraged, rather statements are made and listened to. The point of the 'opposition to standard Christian faith' wasn't a position held, but rather just was? Opposition to the establishment wasn't the point to the whole thing; rather than saying a return to the basics, I should have said an attempt to establish what is right according to the Bible and reason, regardless of the past actions of others. Please state other concerns you have regarding dogma, if you feel that it is still existent.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

I find it admirable that you model your perception of the Quaker faith on the great thinkers of Attic antiquity; however, I do not find it to be an accurate parallel at all. Almost all of the Attic thinkers rejected or ignored the gods. (Epicurus: "The gods exist, but they are irrelevant.") They sought to circumnavigate dogma by relying on solid, evidence-proven fact. If my knowledge of the Quaker "meeting" is accurate, you present your ideas in the context of a religious gathering. "God" inspires your ideas.

Now, your eloquence betrays you as an intelligent person who seems to give a damn about other people. Why are you not able to conduct an intellectual conversation without the presence of a "god"? Why do you need to be "inspired" to think?

My two cents: if less people needed to be inspired before thinking, then this world would be a far better place. Your eloquence and intelligence is not yet matched by your experience and knowledge of the great thinkers. Get a book. (Not that one!) Read some more. Put this religious nonsense behind you.

Initially, I will clarify that meetings are not organized after the tradition of the Greeks, but rather simply arrived at somewhat of the same forum.

To quote myself from elsewhere: "I believe in three things: Love God, Love others, go on with the rest of your life." To offer some more definition regarding what I said, a meeting is short. It represents a very small amount of time in our lives. During that time is usually the only time that we sit and listen. Also, the vast majority of statements given are not ones that are 'divinely inspired,' but rather just observances that are felt should be shared. I personally will admit that I have never had a 'divine encounter,' but there are others that I trust almost explicitly that have asserted they have. Blah, blah, blah - I hope you get the picture.

A little more dialogue before I end here:
In my quote, I was saying that 'Loving God' is the most important, but it is not what occupies my time. Loving God is not an act, but is evidenced through "Lov[ing] others." And loving others is done during the "rest of your life." Love should not require or take special actions except in circumstances such as what just occurred in Haiti - it should just be a part of your life. You make it part of your life, and then it just is. That's what Quakerism is about: You are attempting to make yourself into something that is pleasing to God and others. Again, the point is absolutely not to be worrying, fretting, and on your knees every second singing praises to an idea. You evidence faith through action, not through an active attempt to demonstrate to others how you can be more Godly than them. If there comes another post exchange, I believe I will then go to discussing 'holistic missions.'

I think I've said a little more than enough now, so till later.

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:40 pm

Syrtd wrote:

You would state, and I would disagree. There is no definitive creed held by Quakers. The only 'dogma' we have is the belief that under no circumstances should dogma be established by an institution.

Initially, there were a few street preachers, but that was due to that Quakerism was a new thing back then. After a certain respectable population was reached, the focus from then on was to concentrate on one-on-one encounters in public areas. Talk briefly about it over lunch, have a beer at the pub with someone, stuff like that.

I would state, you would disagree, and I will restate. Reformation is indeed creed. Ask Martin Luther. He said it 97 times. The quakers merely lack the eloquence of Luther.

Your creed it to not have a creed. Allow me to provide an analogue for the purpose of illustration.
In the late seventies, rock music was a puffy, bloated catholic church of an institution. Picture Elvis Presley, still crooning in Las Vegas in sequined plastic pants to a googol of gah-gah grandmas. Pathetic, no? Then came punk rock, the reformer, to shake things up. The punkers delivered the raw essence of everything that Elvis claimed to be about, but did not deliver. They vomited on stage, they killed their girlfriends in drug-addled hazes, they didn't even tune their guitars or know how to play them. They brought the raw passions that Elvis could never deliver.

And then, punk became popular. And punk icons arose. They became stars. Worshipped by the lowly, humble peasants in the field.
How could the commitment to essence that was the Stiff Little Fingers turn into something so corporate and smarmy as Green Day?
Punk rock came about as a inevitable reaction to worship, and then the culture of worship invaded punk rock itself. Funny, eh what?

I think that when you sit here, preaching about what a great thing is quakerism, you are worshipping. Furthermore, you are not even worshipping god; you are worshipping quakerism (and ultimately, yourself). Tell me, Syd, why do you really need this church, this community? You can certainly be a good person without it. Does it make you feel better to know that you are one of "a certain respectable population," rather than those dirty, unwashed heathens? Tell me, what really drives you to prosthelytize quakerism?

Syrtd wrote:

Please state other concerns you have regarding dogma, if you feel that it is still existent.

I assume that you mean "your" dogma. Here is my concern, in a nutshell.

Your three things – love god, love others, go on with the rest of your life – can really be condensed down to one thing.
Indeed, if you were only to dispense with the first point – loving god – then you would be far better off. Loving a non-existent god is only diluting and corrupting the other two components of your mission. If you were to dispense with god, then you could still love others. If you were to dispense with god, then you could still get on with your life. In fact, you could do those things much easier, because your judgment would not be clouded by mystical hoo-haw.

The other two points – love others, and go on with your life – can so easily be blended in with each other. You can love others and life your life all in one go – they are essentially the same thing. To use words that might better synthesize the concept(s), let's change them to "have respect".

When you come to me spitting and blathering about how some god is telling you how to think, that certainly isn't very respectful to neither you nor me. It is deserving of my derision. Think about it. It will do you a world of good.

***EDITED to remove one offensive point.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

Godwin's Law has been confirmed.

We're done here.

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:13 pm

Syrtd wrote:

Godwin's Law has been confirmed.

We're done here.

Oh, bollocks!

It seems that if you are to unjustifiably play the "just like the greeks" card, it is duly matched with the godwin card. A natural assumption, if you really think about it.

In any case, I went back to delete the offensive point, in its entirety, even though I believe it to be valid, in these circumstances, Godwin be damned. (Keep in mind this is a forum on the subject of free-thinking.)

This will easily allow you to answer my remaining concerns without unnecessary prevarication.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jan 26, 2010 Posts: 44

[edit, 9Dec10: Useless as it was a preface explaining the rant section]
[rant]
[edit, 9Dec10: Removed as it was out of character and really didn't contain anything more than mildly useful]
[/rant]

[civil conversation]

Quote:

I would state, you would disagree, and I will restate. Reformation is indeed creed. Ask Martin Luther. He said it 97 times. The quakers merely lack the eloquence of Luther.

However... Luther's followers (Protestants) have held a decent few wars over their religion. Religion. You're Catholic, therefore you are sinful. Change, or go die. Religion.

Quaker and myself: No religion. No wars. Tell me differently. Religion is creed and binding interpretation applied to a bit of faith.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Your creed it to not have a creed . Allow me to provide an analogue for the purpose of illustration.
In the late seventies, rock music was a puffy, bloated catholic church of an institution. Picture Elvis Presley, still crooning in Las Vegas in sequined plastic pants to a googol of gah-gah grandmas. Pathetic, no? Then came punk rock, the reformer, to shake things up. The punkers delivered the raw essence of everything that Elvis claimed to be about, but did not deliver. They vomited on stage, they killed their girlfriends in drug-addled hazes, they didn't even tune their guitars or know how to play them. They brought the raw passions that Elvis could never deliver.

Again, I will use something common to both of us to illustrate why I said my 'creed' is to have no creed: your atheism. Your belief is that there is no god/s. You don't not believe in a god. You believe there isn't one, and only discuss gods when trying to disprove one. Creed does not exist naturally; it is a human construct. It does not exist within faith. It is an extension of attempting to appease and/or control others. It doesn't exist by itself. I say we should hold no creeds, because creeds are things we make up, similar to fashioning an idol of wood.

I stated it with the 'rant' tags, so I will say outside of it as well, so you can respond. I'm a pacifist. I don't do extreme things for either the purpose of garnering attention or making a buck. Also, that is something. Many musicians do it for the money. If someone does it for money, what they're doing is called a stage act...

DigitalAtheist wrote:

And then, punk became popular. And punk icons arose. They became stars. Worshipped by the lowly, humble peasants in the field.
How could the commitment to essence that was the Stiff Little Fingers turn into something so corporate and smarmy as Green Day?
Punk rock came about as a inevitable reaction to worship, and then the culture of worship invaded punk rock itself. Funny, eh what?

I think that when you sit here, preaching about what a great thing is quakerism, you are worshipping. Furthermore, you are not even worshipping god; you are worshipping quakerism (and ultimately, yourself). Tell me, Syd, why do you really need this church, this community? You can certainly be a good person without it. Does it make you feel better to know that you are one of "a certain respectable population," rather than those dirty, unwashed heathens? Tell me, what really drives you to prosthelytize quakerism?

I do not find this comparison insulting, but still misplaced. To quote myself from within the 'rant' tags: "I am presenting an idea across a few threads to see if the Quaker view holds up. I am not proselytizing. I'm not going to 'convert' anyone here. Again, I would wish that before it is wanted to prove something's external validity that it makes sense within itself." I don't worship Quakerism, but I mention it often to give a name to what I'm saying - a title to a collection. It is for the sake of convenience, if nothing else. I'll say this also, I was not raised as a Quaker. I've attended a Quaker 'church' gathering for just under two years now, without the guidance of my mommy and daddy. I came because I had disillusionment with "Normal Christianity." I happened to agree with them, the group provides structure and identification, nothing else.

I apologize again for the amount of references to Quakerism, but my prior explanation still stands. To 'Tell [you] what really drives [me] to [speak of] quakerism,' is again a thought experiment at the moment. Test an idea. That's all. I respond directly to statements, and try to stay roundabouts on the current topic of the thread.

I'm not sure if this will really be the best way to go about it, but here we are: I would like to talk a bit about holistic missions, as said in a prior post. What that means is that you go about your life doing what you think is good and right. If there ends up being a question, you answer it. You don't look for one, you don't try to force one. Just do what you do. As it is perceived to be 'better' to be right with God, answering such questions is an extension of just doing what is right.

I Googled for something that I could just copy & paste that would illustrate this:

Sometimes it takes radical changes in our physical and spriritual environment to rivet our attention on our ultimate purpose. And so it was that a friendly Muslim man walked alongside us one day as we examined the deep well project in his village, and he asked the questoin, one I shall never forget.
"We have Muslim brothers and sisters who have not helped us. You are what they call...Christians," he said hesitantly. "Why have you come?"
That question allowed us to get right to our purpose, or rather God's purpose--to love, relieve suffering, to forgive and heal, to reconcile us through Christ. So far as we know, our Muslim friend had never heard about the compassion of Christ for all people or about personal salvation; he could hardly believe the part about grace and mercy and assurance of forgiveness. But he listened. And God's purpose for him began to make sense.

That was from a relief effort in western Africa sponsored in part by EFC-ER, a denomination who we are loosely affiliated with - my group financially supports their international efforts, as we're too small to do anything by ourselves.

I've definitely said more than enough for the moment, so I'll just shut up and let you have your turn.

My 'civil conversation' tag is still open. Kindly don't close it and let it apply to the rest of whatever transpires here. Also, I actually do like The King a little...

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:56 am

Syrtd wrote:

The Wikipedia article on Quakers is generally acceptable to me, so go ahead and check that out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

A Quaker is not very well defined by any means, except the thought process common. A flat out atheist can be a Quaker.

It's a thinking man's game, it really is. As said, while Quakers are generally "Christian," members of all faiths/nonfaiths are welcome to participate in the worship services. it requires a very mature, "grown-up" ability to reason and especially respect others views. Criticizing their actions is not something common except for those in a mutual discipleship relationship. Rather the focus, if any, on reproaching others is to ascertain that they indeed truly believe what they believe whatever it is, and are not deluding themselves.

A few beliefs of George Fox, generally regarded as the found in the mid 1600s:
- That every man and woman has direct access to God; no priestly class or "steeple houses" (churches) are needed
- That every person - male or female, slave or free is of equal worth
- That there is no need in one's religious life for elaborate ceremonies, rituals, gowns, creeds, dogma, or other "empty forms."
- Following the inward light would lead to spiritual development and towards individual perfection.

Quakers have never been that populous and/or popular. Some random historical points:
Quakers instrumental in providing support for William Wilberforce in abolishing slavery in British lands.
Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for relief efforts after and throughout WWII.
Produce scientists out of proportion with world population share.
A few: Dalton (Basic atomic theory), Lister (Antiseptics in surgery), Bartram (Eminent biologist), Ellis ( The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with Stephen Hawking), Young (Light and Medicine, plus some other stuff)

The most important thing is that being a Quaker is whatever you make of it. Inner experience is encouraged , and as such, can sometimes not be [edit: easily explained to others]
[edit: I just realized I never finished that sentence... that speaks well to my intelligence. Also, I am aware that it makes it sound like a cult.]

End Note: There is a very serious dedication to drinking Dr. Pepper among Quakers. I believe this is because of our ability to appreciate the fine things in life. I'm not even kidding, it's almost a universal trait among all those I have met.

I'm just going to leave it as this for the moment. If you're still curious, try a few more specific questions. The ability to specify your uncertainty is something that I would really appreciate.

Hello again Syrtd.

Yes, I'm still curious and a little puzzled by a few things Quaker-related. So yes please, I'd like to ask a few specific questions, as you suggest. Ok then, in no particular order...

1. "A flat out atheist can be a Quaker."
How does this square with the phrase, 'Love God, love others, go on with the rest of your life'? Surely a flat out atheist has no God to love? Perhaps you can resolve this apparent contradiction for me?

2. The God referred to above is, presumably, the Christian God as described exclusively in the Bible? The 'inner' illumination you receive (from the Holy Spirit?) also provides insight and guidance about God too?

3. Our recent discussions in another thread tell me that you do not hold with the Young Earth Creationist, 'literalist' method of interpreting the Bible. So what is your take on the historicity of the Bible as a whole? Putting this question another way, what parts of scripture should be taken metaphorically/symbolically and what should be seen as an accurate record of real historical events?

4. About, ' spiritual development... ...towards individual perfection '.
Some Christian hold to the doctrine that they will be perfected by God only when they are raised from dead on the Day of Judgement. Yes, they must strive to improve themselves in this life, but seeking to attain perfection in this life is not on their agenda. In fact, some would maintain that it is a mistake, bordering on sinful pride, to even consider the possibility that perfection of any kind is possible before God's Judgement of all. Perfection is not for mortals and is only found in God. Where do the Quakers stand on this issue?

5. "Inner experience is encouraged..."
As an ex-Evangelical Christian I mixed with others who had a keen interest in ensuring that the 'inner experiences' of believers were expressly and only those of God's Holy Spirit.
Given that, ". ..Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. " (2 Cor 11: 14) and the Apostle John advises believers to 'test the spirits' (1 John 4:1-6), how do the Quakers go about the following?
A. Ensuring that their inner experiences do come from God and not from another spiritual source?
B. When the inner experiences of two or more Quakers appear to conflict, how are the differences resolved/reconciled?
C. When inner experience appears to contradict scripture? What happens then?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:59 am

Whoops!

Sorry, Syrtd. Clicked too soon.

I'd meant to write that my questions spring from curiosity, not criticism. There's also not great hurry, so feel free to take your time answering them.

Thanks.

BAA.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile