Hello! Just talking about me for a second here.

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

First off, thanks for the itemized list. It does verily make my heart leap for joy.

Just to clarify, the correct name for Quakerism is the Religious Society of Friends (Society), and a member is a Friend. It was easier to just use the slang Quaker. From now on, I will also be try to be more formal and refer us as Friends. Quaker is just a term people are more familiar with.

History of "Quaker" term, Loose quote.
To a judge at a trial: "You should quake with fear [me: respect] for God" The ones known for actually 'quaking' or shaking at worship meetings are the Shakers, and they have almost all died out. (They didn't believe in reproduction; I question that belief since all life reproduces. They don't believe they are life?)

1. Non-theist Friends:
I feel a non-theist can be counted as a Friend, since what what a theist friend does is look for the Good in God's wisdom, creation, our granted wisdom, etc. and they look for the Good in nature, our natural wisdom, etc. Non-theist Friends are welcome (by me) irregardless, but just draw from a different well, if you will. I don't believe that if they are truly being rational they will offer statements that are radical or subversive to the group in nature. They won't mention God, but their presence won't harm the system and they are more than welcome. There are some extremely ignorant atheists who just do it out of a counter-culture sense, but I would never see one interested in the Society. What we can agree upon: there is a significant volume of information that belongs to the proof category of "It's obvious." A non-theist wouldn't go against this. (Ex. Slavery being bad)

What I've done is offer my view that is in general consistent throughout theistic Friends. Someone disagrees with me, so be it.

Thomas Paine wrote:

I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

Links for more opinions on this subject:

A site, just read the address:
http://www.nontheistfriends.org/

An excellent dialogue over this controversy:
http://lightwithspirit.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/quakers-atheists-in-the-religious-society-of-friends/

From a non-theist Friend:
http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue1-4.html

A couple more:
I like the title of the Blog (Reference to "City on a Hill," I think):
http://acitycanbemoved.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-atheism-is-found-among-friends-but.html
http://robinmsf.blogspot.com/2007/06/clearness-for-membership-goes-both-ways.html

2. God, Inner Light, Holy Spirit:
1^st question: I believe in the Christian God described in the Bible. Others hold differing views, but 'in great generality,' the Society was Christian founded, and remain Christian based.
2^nd question/s: Yes, and no. The Holy Spirit as understood provides interpretation of origin, whether through active influence or simply by virtue of its existence. In other words, It helps to discern whether the statement is actually coming form egotistical grounds. Insight is on our own, but before offering a Testimony, or speaking during a meeting, it is asked that the origin be reviewed personally. Also, it is common practice to sometimes confer with other Friends about the issue. Just to be frank, however, I'm actually not quite sure what to really think about the Holy Spirit.

3. YEC, Literal Interpretation of Bible:
Here something I offered another that was attempting to do so on this site:

Quote:

[Some] believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God made everything; only in Genesis will you find that God made the universe. You are basing that assumption on nothing more than a guess, actually. The general idea behind Genesis can possibly be accepted, but to rely on it word for word isn't explicitly permissible. I find that trusting a primitive people for two thousand years to keep the story perfectly straight via oral tradition passed down through generations would be almost insulting to God, and would at best create quite an untenable position to base a belief system upon. 2,000 years. That's a lot of time in the human time frame. Think about how much we don't know about the Romans - they had a sizable empire, they wrote quite a lot down and left many other material evidences.

I'm not going to go through the whole Bible here, as that would be both ridiculous and redundant. To the letter, the historical events in the OT cannot be assumed to be accurate. There was a flood, but we don't know that it flooded all the way to the top of Mt. Everest. Just high enough to create a universal unsurvivable environment.

On the prophets of the OT: They were bona fide the real thing. Much of what they said came true in a manner that wasn't self fulfilling or caused by the prophecy. Also, they do not conflict. Another incredible feature is that all of the 104 different prophecies concerning the Messiah were met in one man. Professor Peter Stoner mathematically computed the probability of Jesus meeting only 48 of these, and arrived at 1:10^157, an incomprehensibly massive number.
Link to a page concerning that: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

The NT is full of good and proper teaching. However, it was decided by man what should be considered Scripture. Much of the NT is simply letters written to churches for the purpose of presenting an interpretation, generally Paul's, of Jesus's teachings of love. There are quite a few of such letters that were not included. I do no believe in Sola Scriptura , or absolute Scriptural authority. Nothing I believe happens to conflict with the Bible, but it is not the end-all for all spiritual knowledge. It is a start; if you can understand what I say here, while it is not necessarily an explicit vessel of truth, I've never found it to be wrong - it's like a man. While a woman is always right, a man can claim to be 'not wrong,' and it does not mean the same thing. [Another attempt at humour]

I respect your intelligence enough not to have to continue ad nauseum .

4. Perfection
Simple, just take a look at the word "towards." Perfection an ideal you should strive for, with the knowledge that it most likely cannot be achieved. Why should you not be as good as you can get to be? Approaching perfection is the effect of purposefully doing what you believe is true and right. This also does not extend to becoming monastic or cloistered. (a.k.a. Boring) Just do the best you can.

5. "Inner experience is encourage..."
A. "It has to make sense," is the first stop gate. I'm don't believe I will ever be called to give up eating yogurt. That just would not make sense. This question is a good one for me to explore further myself. As I've said, I'm not a life-long Friend, and I'm still getting the hang of the system. I joined because my beliefs matched with theirs, and I saw the structure as a good convention for interchanging ideas. I'm going to asking for a hiatus on this one, and probably the next few.
B. The difference doesn't necessarily have to be reconciled, if they aren't causing conflict, such as some believe in vegetarianism, some don't. Not really a conflict, and most of the time is simple to supply for both sides. If there is conflict and resolution is desired, then it is taken before the assembly in a special time. Discussion and honesty of opinion is always welcomed, and is expected to be welcomed. Sometimes there is actually a split in the body, but as I've said somewhere, the splits generally don't last more than a few generations. I'm also going to ask for more time on this, and maybe answer later.
C. I've never heard of inner experience ever directly contradicting scripture, so I can't really look to any 'case law' for that. I just don't know. However, As I've said before, most Friends and I do not believe in Sola Scriptura anyhow. The gospels are held true, as they are concerned only with Jesus and his time on Earth - Jesus's word is 'law,' but an acceptable one. The others are just letters written by men, and must be taken as suspect of possible inaccuracy. Again, I've never heard of anything coming up that went against "Scripture," but if it does, and the meeting feels the personal experience is more correct than that of Scripture, they are entitled to believe that. Quakers do create a pamphlet usually called "Faith and Practice," or some derivative thereof. For that pamphlet to be altered, an absolute consensus is required, both showing that many believe it and that none are being forced into it. Also, this pamphlet is periodically reviewed; it is just there as a statement of the "faith and practice" of the group, but is not binding in any way. A rule book, not a book of law.
-------
I know I haven't directly addressed everything, but hopefully I may have in a roundabout way, or are within the links I provided. Please continue, this is good for me to have to answer questions such as these, and you've expressed your own desire as well.

Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:35 am

Syrtd wrote:

I've definitely said more than enough for the moment…

Noted. I have pored over this litany, and will make an effort to answer with concision.

It should be noted that I too am a pacifist. You can scan my past posts, and verify with many of the regular contributors – many of my postings come back to this point. Pacifism.

So x=x. It's a nice place to start from. From whence it goes is what concerns me gravely.

What originally compelled me to respond to your post, and what compels me to now continue our dialogue is what I view as an apparent contradiction in both your religious sect's beliefs, and your post comparing your religious group to the Attic philosophers.

Your comparison to these philosophers is rendered null when you introduce a god. Rational does not equal irrational. I don't think that you yet understand it, but this is the first (arguably, perhaps the only) truely insulting thing that has been said in this ~~post~~ thread [edit].

My concerns with the quakers extend from this argument. You may have one view of your god, but I would have to argue it to be a very blinkered view if you can not acknowledge that that same god has been used to justify every crime of war that the human mind could ever conjure. This is where I see the irony and the offense. If quakers could cast off their god, then and only then would they be a good people.

That is about as condensed as I can condense it. I am sorry if you find these words harsh. My creed runs deep in my rhetoric.

Syrtd wrote:

I actually do like The King a little...

Are you sure you're only eighteen?

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

Alright, cool, I like pacifists.

The attic thinkers comparison, again, was just to say that as they did, Friends try to learn from one another - no more. Their forum was the concern of the comparison, not their basis for understanding. Please understand that, and to not interpret it further.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

My concerns with the quakers extend from this argument. You may have one view of your god, but I would have to argue it to be a very blinkered view if you can not acknowledge that that same god has been used to justify every crime of war that the human mind could ever conjure. This is where I see the irony and the offense. If quakers could cast off their god, then and only then would they be a good people.

You just made an 'If and Only If' statement. You mean to say that a theist can never be a truly "good" person? Friends have never started a war, but have opposed war and suffering. Friends have strongly supported social reform, such as that concerning prisoners, slavery, women, the mentally ill, and so on. In addition, Friends were often the first to denounce such abuses as a group capable of making a difference.

Wikipedia (a.k.a. The Authority Upon all Things) wrote:

The British campaign to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of the Quakers' antislavery committees, and their presentation to Parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783.

That's the second sentence from "Abolitionism." Why would a religious group be mentioned above other exceedingly more populous groups if they had not done something "very good?" This shows that when theists act properly according to their religion, they can indeed be quite good people.

In addition, nine of the twelve original members of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, a major supporter of William Wilberforce's antislavery efforts, were Friends, while they represented a percentage of the population far from that proportion.

Your statement cannot be defended. It need not necessarily be withdrawn, but it is of little worth. Tell me, please, why it is 'If and only If' that after we cast aside such 'constraints' as our beliefs supposedly are, that we will become universally good people.

Elvis: Yes, I am only 18, but I still like him; deal with it. However, I said "a little," and I meant that. I also like Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller, etc. (Except I despise playing Glenn Miller's music, as I play trombone primarily as he did and the 1^st part is obnoxiously high for prolonged periods of time. Playing should not be painful.)

Another thing, though: I will never be found listening to 'praise & worship' music. I find the anthems that are being shouted just as obnoxious as most people in the world do. Check out "Carman," if you need to know what I mean. Generally, my musical tastes are for more European styled metal bands such as Kamelot, Blind Guardian, Sonata Arctica, Serenity, etc. - I shy away though from such subgenres as thrash (Slipknot) and doom as I feel there is very little artistry and skill involved.

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:59 pm

Hello Syrtd.

Thanks for the informative response. Sadly I'm time-pressured today and can only reply with a brief message concerning item #1, 'Squaring Atheism with Quakerism'.

Is George Amoss, Jr. really an Athiest?
He's moved from Roman Catholicism to Quakerism, via Buddhism. Yet, if he talks about 'real spiritual power' and 'participating in worship', surely he's still a super-naturalist? My understanding of Atheism is that all aspects of supernaturalism are rejected by it. There are no Gods, deities, spirits, angels, demons or anything like that. There's only the cold, dead matter and energy of the universe, arranged into patterns and ordered by it's own physical laws, nothing more. No guiding forces, agencies or personalities. Period.

Ramona Silipo's words seem more appropriate.
There is no 'spiritual' fellowship between Atheists and Quakers, because the former do not accept the supernaturalism of the latter. Yes, these two groups may meet to bring about positive social change (peace, equality, justice, etc.), but that's as far as it goes.

I find the NonTheistFriends page perplexing, but that may be just a function of the terminology used.
Is a NonTheist taken to be the same as an Atheist?
If so, then these expressions...
"Together we (the Theists and NonTheists) worship and love and cooperate, even as we differ opn the particulars of our religious experience."

"We are all part of this living faith."

...do not describe the activities of Atheists, imho.

Perhaps it would be helpful, Syrtd if you and I could agree on just what Atheism actually is? Then we can compare what these linked sites say and see if there really is any fellowship between Quakerism and Atheism.? Ok?

Thanks.

BAA.

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:33 pm

Hi Syrtd!

Just a quick update on some of those other points, to get them out of the way, so to speak.

Syrtd wrote:

First off, thanks for the itemized list. It does verily make my heart leap for joy.

2. God, Inner Light, Holy Spirit:
Just to be frank, however, I'm actually not quite sure what to really think about the Holy Spirit.

Me too! Confused

Thanks for the refreshing honesty.

3. YEC, Literal Interpretation of Bible:
Here something I offered another that was attempting to do so on this site:

Quote:

[Some] believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God made everything; only in Genesis will you find that God made the universe. You are basing that assumption on nothing more than a guess, actually. The general idea behind Genesis can possibly be accepted, but to rely on it word for word isn't explicitly permissible. I find that trusting a primitive people for two thousand years to keep the story straight via oral tradition passed down through generations would be almost insulting to God, and would at best create quite an untenable position to base a belief system upon. 2,000 years. That's a lot of time in the human time frame. Think about how much we don't know about the Romans - they had a sizable empire, they wrote quite a lot down and left many other material evidences.

I'm not going to go through the whole Bible here, as that would be both ridiculous and redundant. To the letter, the historical events in the OT cannot be assumed to be accurate. There was a flood, but we don't know that it flooded all the way to the top of Mt. Everest. Just high enough to create a universal unsurvivable environment.

Would you find yourself agreeing with one of the major options on the subject of Creation Timescales? If not Young Earth Creationism, then the Old Earth option, or Gap Theory or perhaps Theistic Evolution? I ask because Astronomy and Geology are big interests of mine, so knowing what timescale you hold to is relevant, imho.

On the prophets of the OT: They were bona fide the real thing. Much of what they said came true in a manner that wasn't self fulfilling or caused by the prophecy. Also, they do not conflict.

Hmmm.... ...I can see that we need to discuss the topic of prophecy some more. There's the awkward question of interpretation of prophecy. Also, they do not conflict... ...with what? The words of one prophet do not conflict with those of another? A prophet's words do not conflict with historical events, Biblical or otherwise? Much to talk about, I'd say.

Another incredible feature is that all of the 104 different prophecies concerning the Messiah were met in one man. Professor Peter Stoner mathematically computed the probability of Jesus meeting only 48 of these, and arrived at 1:10^157, an incomprehensibly massive number.
Link to a page concerning that: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

The NT is full of good and proper teaching. However, it was decided by man what should be considered Scripture. Much of the NT is simply letters written to churches for the purpose of presenting an interpretation, generally Paul's, of Jesus's teachings of love. There are quite a few of such letters that were not included. I do no believe in Sola Scriptura , or absolute Scriptural authority. Nothing I believe happens to conflict with the Bible, but it is not the end-all for all spiritual knowledge. It is a start; if you can understand what I say here, while it is not necessarily an explicit vessel of truth, I've never found it to be wrong - it's like a man. While a woman is always right, a man can claim to be 'not wrong,' and it does not mean the same thing. [Another attempt at humour]
I respect your intelligence enough not to have to continue ad nauseum .

Ok, Syrtd. I can see that we can drop Literalism and Absolutism from the itinerary, when we debate the Bible. That's fine by me.

4. Perfection
Understood!

5. "Inner experience is encourage..."
Thanks. That clarifies things.
-------
I know I haven't directly addressed everything, but hopefully I may have in a roundabout way, or are within the links I provided. Please continue, this is good for me to have to answer questions such as these, and you've expressed your own desire as well.

Yes, I endorse that notion. Metal striking on metal makes for a sharper edge, right?

Thanks.

BAA.

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:20 pm

Syrtd wrote:

Your statement cannot be defended.

Now who is talking about absolutes? My argument is at the very least as defensible as yours. I think it is more defensible.

Syrtd wrote:

DigitalAtheist wrote:

My concerns with the quakers extend from this argument. You may have one view of your god, but I would have to argue it to be a very blinkered view if you can not acknowledge that that same god has been used to justify every crime of war that the human mind could ever conjure. This is where I see the irony and the offense. If quakers could cast off their god, then and only then would they be a good people.

You just made an 'If and Only If' statement. You mean to say that a theist can never be a truly "good" person? Friends have never started a war, but have opposed war and suffering.

The divide here, seems to be a big-picture versus details paradigm.

I certainly admire people who go out into their community, or the world and attempt to make fundamental changes for the "better". These people who sacrifice their time, energy, and security are the real "heroes" of our age.

I do not (I hope that this has been obvious) admire god.

So, if the "heroes'" details work comes back to a "god" big picture, then the good work is voided by (and indirectly supports) the catastrophic acts done in the name of mysticism (god, by any other name).

So, is this an "if and only if" statement? Hmm. It depends. For myself, I have made the decision to think about the big picture whenever I make an important decision. Who will this affect? What are the benefits for those people? What are the drawbacks? Notably, those who benefit from religious-based missions to Africa seem to be the religions, and not the Africans. That is a rather complex investigation for the space of this thread, but history seems to have borne it out. Have the quakers never directly started a war? Probably not. Have they indirectly started or supported a war? Maybe.

All this talk of music – though I am a musician, and do love music – should be saved for another thread. It's a bit off topic. I think that there are posts on religious rock already, or you can start another.

But, the Greeks…
Oh, you keep on about the Greeks, and it is such a weak and bad comparison. Night and day. Why?

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

Sorry I've been slow in responding, in combination with my school hours, I've been working ridiculous hours at my job (McDonald's...). I just managed to hack into my school's network, so I'm hopefully going to have some more time during study hall (Legit, since I have a philosophy class). I'll just answer your first post now, and the other later. (Only five hours at work tonight! "I'm lovin' it!")

Post from 08Feb10

For these first few, I'm going to assumed you merely skimmed them as I did. I had to go back to pull out some of these quotes. My main goal was just to throw some other people's opinions out there.

Amoss:
First off, his Buddhist phase was included just for the sake of narration and progression. Throughout, he then details how he lost faith utterly, but still believed in the teachings of love that Jesus gave.

Amoss wrote:

Over some years, my experiences and studies came together in a synthesis that I expressed in an ancient image: "being Christ." Jesus was not a supernatural being, I'd concluded, and his resurrection was a scripture-based myth born of desperate hope; nevertheless, in his willingness to give himself to and for the Kingdom, Jesus did incarnate a holy spirit, a deeply human spirit that dares to envision and work toward a loving world.

Here he states that Jesus was a good guy, who had good things to say, and some people attribute properties to him that are nothing more than fake hopeful wishing. The spirit I think is just referring to Jesus's essence, something that we can attempt to obtain for ourselves.

Amoss wrote:

I knew that Jesus's spirit can live in human beings; I'd met that spirit among the Friends, and I'd felt it stir within me in response to their "answering that of God" in me. To learn to live in that spirit, to join with others as the heart and hands of Christ in the world, would, I decided, be the finest thing any human being could do. Quakerism focused directly on that challenge, letting everything else fall away; while the churches looked for Christ primarily in ritual and scripture, Friends quietly worked to make the Christ-spirit actively present here and now.

Silipo:
True. Though as Amoss above detailed, some nontheists still believe in Jesus the man, and his teachings concerning Earthly human interaction. To some, Jesus is just an amalgam of multiple teachers, but the essence of the teachings combined together is something that is worthwhile in examining.

Nontheist Friends website:

Zach Alexander wrote:

Hi Daniel – I sympathize with your perplexity.

Really though, the word “worship” has been inapt for describing Quaker meeting long before nontheist Friends came on the scene. If you asked 100 liberal Quakers (even theistic ones) what they do in meeting for worship, virtually none of them would use “worship” as a transitive verb. Likely a majority would say something like “listening” – e.g. listening for the “promptings of love and truth” in my heart, and listening to the words of others.

Most Friends would identify these promptings as coming from God, but one can also identify them as simply a natural part of being human in the world.

The way nontheism throws Friends’ peculiar usage of the word into starker relief perhaps provides an opportunity to all Friends to consider whether we are speaking plainly, or clinging to the word out of traditionalism

To state something: I don't believe worship is an act of itself. You can't worship something by just saying loudly "Yay for you!" Worship is carried out through actions, not an entity of itself. Worship is probably not the most specific word for what the point to a meeting is.

Atheist=Nontheist=No belief in God/s. That's really all there is... I believe I've said this elsewhere, but a nontheist merely draws from a different well to contribute to the meetings, and if they're being sincere, I would more than welcome their input.

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:38 pm

Syrtd wrote:

Sorry I've been slow in responding, in combination with my school hours, I've been working ridiculous hours at my job (McDonald's...). I just managed hacked into my school's network, so I'm hopefully going to have some more time. I'll just answer your first post now, and the other later. (Only five hours at work tonight! "I'm lovin' it!")

Post from 08Feb10

For these first few, I'm going to assumed you merely skimmed them as I did. I had to go back to pull out some of these quotes. My main goal was just to throw some other people's opinions out there.

Amoss:
First off, his Buddhist phase was included just for the sake of narration and progression. Throughout, he then details how he lost faith utterly, but still believed in the teachings of love that Jesus gave.

Amoss wrote:

Over some years, my experiences and studies came together in a synthesis that I expressed in an ancient image: "being Christ." Jesus was not a supernatural being, I'd concluded, and his resurrection was a scripture-based myth born of desperate hope; nevertheless, in his willingness to give himself to and for the Kingdom, Jesus did incarnate a holy spirit, a deeply human spirit that dares to envision and work toward a loving world.

Here he states that Jesus was a good guy, who had good things to say, and some people attribute properties to him that are nothing more than fake hopeful wishing. The spirit I think is just referring to Jesus's essence, something that we can attempt to obtain for ourselves.

Amoss wrote:

I knew that Jesus's spirit can live in human beings; I'd met that spirit among the Friends, and I'd felt it stir within me in response to their "answering that of God" in me. To learn to live in that spirit, to join with others as the heart and hands of Christ in the world, would, I decided, be the finest thing any human being could do. Quakerism focused directly on that challenge, letting everything else fall away; while the churches looked for Christ primarily in ritual and scripture, Friends quietly worked to make the Christ-spirit actively present here and now.

I think I see what's going on here.
Amoss, when talking about 'Jesus' spirit' isn't actually talking about anything supernatural. He's talking about putting the principles of behavior that Jesus advocated into practice. A more secular parallel would be a group coming together to put Mahatma Gandhi's principles into action, within their community.

Amoss' words are somewhat confusing, because they still retain religious language and phraseology. However, Syrtd, with your fresh input, I think I now understand. Thanks.

Silipo:
True. Though as Amoss above detailed, some nontheists still believe in Jesus the man, and his teachings concerning Earthly human interaction. To some, Jesus is just an amalgam of multiple teachers, but the essence of the teachings combined together is something that is worthwhile in examining.

Nontheist Friends website:

Zach Alexander wrote:

Hi Daniel – I sympathize with your perplexity.

Really though, the word “worship” has been inapt for describing Quaker meeting long before nontheist Friends came on the scene. If you asked 100 liberal Quakers (even theistic ones) what they do in meeting for worship, virtually none of them would use “worship” as a transitive verb. Likely a majority would say something like “listening” – e.g. listening for the “promptings of love and truth” in my heart, and listening to the words of others.

Most Friends would identify these promptings as coming from God, but one can also identify them as simply a natural part of being human in the world.

The way nontheism throws Friends’ peculiar usage of the word into starker relief perhaps provides an opportunity to all Friends to consider whether we are speaking plainly, or clinging to the word out of traditionalism

To state something: I don't believe worship is an act of itself. You can't worship something by just saying loudly "Yay for you!" Worship is carried out through actions, not an entity of itself. Worship is probably not the most specific word for what the point to a meeting is.

Atheist=Nontheist=No belief in God/s. That's really all there is... I believe I've said this elsewhere, but a nontheist merely draws from a different well to contribute to the meetings, and if they're being sincere, I would more than welcome their input.

Right, so Quakers can be considered as a purely secular force for social change, with aspects of supernaturalism still present in their terminology, history and practices. They could drop all references to anything supernatural tomorrow and still function as a force for good within the world. Is that going too far?

Thanks.

BAA.

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

DigitalAtheist

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Syrtd wrote:

Your statement cannot be defended.

Now who is talking about absolutes? My argument is at the very least as defensible as yours. I think it is more defensible.

I gave an absolute, because it was a truth. Good people do good things. Good things evidence good people. Good things are often done by good people. There are usually good reasons for doing good things. Therefore, a good person who does good things for a good reason is not a good person?

DigitalAtheist wrote:

So, if the "heroes'" details work comes back to a "god" big picture, then the good work is voided by (and indirectly supports) the catastrophic acts done in the name of mysticism (god, by any other name).

How so? Faith in religion, and not in God, has led to 'catastrophic acts.' That is a true statement. However, for some reason, you blew over my statement that Friends have not as a group supported travesties of justice. Your statement doesn't have any meat to it. If your premise is not true, your analysis and further synthesis can't be accepted.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

So, is this an "if and only if" statement? Hmm. It depends. For myself, I have made the decision to think about the big picture whenever I make an important decision. Who will this affect? What are the benefits for those people? What are the drawbacks? Notably, those who benefit from religious-based missions to Africa seem to be the religions, and not the Africans. That is a rather complex investigation for the space of this thread, but history seems to have borne it out. Have the quakers never directly started a war? Probably not. Have they indirectly started or supported a war? Maybe.

First off, I will admit that I really don't follow your leadings as to why the missions receive a greater benefit than those served. I agree, look at the 'pros and cons' of your actions. If someone didn't do that, I would see them making a great number of stupid decisions; that's a given. As to indirectly supporting a war: It is undeniable that some actions will have effects that are unforeseen. You do the best you can. The only support of war (somewhat) that I know of is the Friend's disaster and relief programs dedicated to addressing the suffering caused by the wars of others.

If you find the time, please read the presentation speech for the Nobel Peace Prize granted in 1947 to two of these such organizations: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html

It is a bit gushing at times, but aren't all award speeches by default supposed to be?

DigitalAtheist wrote:

All this talk of music – though I am a musician, and do love music – should be saved for another thread. It's a bit off topic. I think that there are posts on religious rock already, or you can start another.

I spoke of music perhaps a bit out of place, but I suppose I can now use it to again illustrate the above points further. I placed much emphasis on the "get on with your life" part of the three things I believe in. I like music, I enjoy playing music, I enjoy learning about music; my life is not monastic. I 'socialize' overwhelmingly with nontheists in my daily life, and am fine with that. Also, not a single one of those bands were a "Christian rock band." Some will explore the effects of religion on the masses (Vision Divine's 'The Perfect Machine'), but none of them are faith based. I listen to them because they make you think. Everything in my life need not shout "ILUVGOD!"

DigitalAtheist wrote:

But, the Greeks…
Oh, you keep on about the Greeks, and it is such a weak and bad comparison. Night and day. Why?

Again, I said that the Greeks tried to understand each other. Learn from each other. Respected each other. Even if they didn't agree, they still tried to understand the other's opinion. Same for Friends. I'm almost to the point of thinking, sorry, that you have religiousized the Greeks. They're untouchable. Naught can be compared to them. If you won't allow me to do so with my reasons, I believe that statement stands. I believe that unless you allow me to use the comparison, we will require a mediator to determine whether the comparison is inappropriate and requires withdrawal, as your reasons don't merit it.

I'll see if I can get BAA answered during AP physics tomorrow~~, instead of sleeping~~. [edit][edit: Yay for assemblies...]

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

Post from 09Feb10
First off, AP Physics ended up getting monopolized by a school assembly where we got to learn about 'good sportsmanship' and 'appropriate cheers' for the student section at games. It was indeed incredibly lame... but I suppose we did deserve it. Very Happy

So... Here I am at past 1:30 in the morning... here goes:

BAA wrote:

Would you find yourself agreeing with one of the major options on the subject of Creation Timescales? If not Young Earth Creationism, then the Old Earth option, or Gap Theory or perhaps Theistic Evolution? I ask because Astronomy and Geology are big interests of mine, so knowing what timescale you hold to is relevant, imho.

YEC is out, no doubt about that. What does science tell us? That's how old I believe my Earth to be. Furthermore, Gap Theory cannot be defended. Placing an indefinite amount of of years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 defeats itself. Carbon based entities - Leavers of fossils - weren't created till later. This isn't the LHC where it creates such an unstable environment that it can be sabotaged from the future. (Sorry if anyone doesn't know the reference, just Google LHC & bread from the future) Therefore, by default (and hopefully something else), I find that Theistic Evolution is my little pet theory. I go with that probably creatures were introduced down to the class/order levels and then branched out from there.

BAA wrote:

Hmmm.... ...I can see that we need to discuss the topic of prophecy some more. There's the awkward question of interpretation of prophecy. Also, they do not conflict... ...with what? The words of one prophet do not conflict with those of another? A prophet's words do not conflict with historical events, Biblical or otherwise? Much to talk about, I'd say.

I was just saying prophecies don't internally conflict, and many of them point to things that just couldn't be arranged. Such as gambling over Jesus's clothes, that his garments wouldn't be torn, etc. (He was dead) And yes, much to talk about.

I'll give a brief anecdote on the 1:10^157 chance I talked about. That chance brings us to a few possibilities. Either Jesus was the real deal, he was a total fake, or he was real and people just attributed characteristics to him that weren't true. So pretty much we're looking at that since we can assume Jesus wasn't insane, he wouldn't be wrong about his being God, or he just never was. [edit: Just realized that that sounds quite a lot like Lewis's Trilemma. Just mentioning that for the sake of familiarity.]

Post from 11Feb10

BAA wrote:

I think I see what's going on here.
Amoss, when talking about 'Jesus' spirit' isn't actually talking about anything supernatural. He's talking about putting the principles of behavior that Jesus advocated into practice. A more secular parallel would be a group coming together to put Mahatma Gandhi's principles into action, within their community.

Yes indeed. Gandhi's a great example, thanks for that. For the theist Friend, though, action is an evidence of faith. Faith cannot be considered alive without action, without improvement, without exercise. While it comes off as an intellectual thing, the Society is more concerned with actively integrating the teachings of Jesus into our lives.

BAA wrote:

Right, so Quakers can be considered as a purely secular force for social change, with aspects of supernaturalism still present in their terminology, history and practices. They could drop all references to anything supernatural tomorrow and still function as a force for good within the world. Is that going too far?

Not at all. As I've tried to say, the Society is a structure for the implementation of a personal faith. If those of faith were removed and others came in as replacements [edit: ,or just the Christian theistic majority dropped their faith, as you said],they should still be quite capable of inducing public good using the merely mundane conventions of Quakerism.

Your first sentence though is an interesting one. It really does make it seem that Quakerism is directed towards personal and social betterment, and just so happens to be dominated by Christian theists. By expanding on what's been said, Christians created the Religious Society of Friends as an entity to allow them to best pursue personal and social betterment, and their methods just happened to include references to drawing from supernatural sources. Convoluted, but here's the short: Christians happened to be the ones who made Quakerism, but there is no reason that any other people could not have created an almost perfectly parallel organization.

Sorry for any grammar, spelling, logical, etc. errors. I'm dead tired, and I'm going to go sleep for a very long time.

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:41 pm

Syrtd wrote:

I'll see if I can get BAA answered during AP physics tomorrow~~, instead of sleeping~~. [edit][edit: Yay for assemblies...]

Syr,

I just noted that you responded. Sorry for the delay, as there is a lot going on right now... I want to look at your post and respond appropriately, but it may be a week from now.

Thanking you for your patience.

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

Deleted by poster, maybe a mod with a second of free time could actually clear it? Please and thank-you.

Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:22 pm

Syrtd,

Again, apologies for the long wait on this response. Life presented what life tends to present. I think, however, that I have kept this (mostly) fresh in my mind.

I have been re-reading sections of this thread, and it is a truly hideous head-bashing of an enterprise. Despite your articulate prose, I can't be sure that you understand a damned thing of what I am saying. You certainly have the tenacity of a religious convert.

You said that you came here to "test an idea" to see how quakerism stands up. I offered a few criticisms, and lo the head bashing begins.

So, here I try to essentialize this conversation. We need to make some concessions, seal up some loose arguments, and look at the core questions.

I vote to drop this thread regarding the belief of the quakers supporting the work of other, pernicious, religions. I don't change my opinion, I merely feel that it is not worth the time to argue in this forum. I recommend that you read Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation". It contains a close approximation of the argument, though not a complete overlap with my opinion on the matter.

If I am to make an honest concession, I do feel that yes, the quakers are less evil than other religious groups, because there is some form of pacifist principle in their agenda (written, and/or unwritten). Perhaps a great deal less evil.

The worst crime that I see you (Syrtd) committing is recitation (by rote, perhaps) of a dogma, quaker or otherwise. Check it out:

Syrtd wrote:

I gave an absolute, because it was a truth. Good people do good things. Good things evidence good people. Good things are often done by good people. There are usually good reasons for doing good things. Therefore, a good person who does good things for a good reason is not a good person?

This is the vapid simplification of reality that comes from dogmatic conviction. Here's a start for your thoughts on the matter: Can a "good" person be compromised in any way? Who's definition of "good" are you using, and how does this differ from the "good" that others may define? If you can develop further premises from these thoughts, then how are your conclusions modified? Think about this for a few days or so, then get back to me.

And here we go…

Syrtd wrote:

The attic thinkers comparison, again, was just to say that as they did, Friends try to learn from one another - no more. Their forum was the concern of the comparison, not their basis for understanding. Please understand that, and to not interpret it further.

It is always going to be "interpreted further" because of the implication that it harbours. Your initial statement tacitly sets up the quakers and the attic philosophers as equals. They are not equals. The greater part of what we think of as "western" thought (that is "thought," not "belief") can be traced back to Attic forum. This is not me "religiousizing the Greeks". This is the expected basic knowledge that anyone entering this conversation should understand.

When I qualified these differences, you prevaricated, but still held that the original statement could be used. I believe that you like the potential that Greek thought has for providing your religious meetings with credence, and that you exploit the comparison to this end. But I maintain that it is a dishonest – even pernicious – comparison, for reasons that I have stated above. Bad Syrtd! Bad!

All right. I will try to keep up to date on this thread, but please forgive me if it takes a while to respond. Things are still a bit hectic.

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

DigitalAtheist wrote:

So, here I try to essentialize this conversation. We need to make some concessions, seal up some loose arguments, and look at the core questions.

Agreed, fair enough, etc. Neither of us were progressing anywhere, so a moment taken for repatriation of direction is good for both of us.

One note before I begin. My style in responding is to respond to the person writing the post. I don't consider myself here dealing with the masses, but holding public conversation with a few individuals. Anything I've said to BAA, I was not saying to you. However, hopefully I never contradicted myself in the cross exchanges? If so, please point it out. Also, I'll address some of your post now, and, if necessary, deliberate further on some more pointed articles.

First off, sorry, I'll have to get around to reading "Letter to a Christian Nation" after awhile. I just 'inherited' three novels from my AP English teacher (Slaughterhouse-Five, I Know Why the Cage Bird Sings and Frankenstein). Those readings are due in three weeks, so I've lost some of my free time. Also, I think your terms 'pernicious' and 'religion' are out of place since I was under the impression there was discussion concerning the compatibility of atheism and Friends, not some pagan cult? Your words, not mine. (Meant in jest, I have a love for language) However... agreed, we'll (You and I) not speak of this again unless it's directly pertinent. (BAA and I were more on this topic, so if he/she jolly well feels like it, we'll have another go around with it)

DigitalAtheist wrote:

Syrtd wrote:

I gave an absolute, because it was a truth. Good people do good things. Good things evidence good people. Good things are often done by good people. There are usually good reasons for doing good things. Therefore, a good person who does good things for a good reason is not a good person?

This is the vapid simplification of reality that comes from dogmatic conviction. Here's a start for your thoughts on the matter: Can a "good" person be compromised in any way? Who's definition of "good" are you using, and how does this differ from the "good" that others may define? If you can develop further premises from these thoughts, then how are your conclusions modified? Think about this for a few days or so, then get back to me.

The good spoken of, since I added no clause, should be assumed to be my definition of good. Simply acting in a nondestructive (beneficial is optional) manner towards society either through altruism, egotism (Ayn Rand's Objectivism), or some composite of the two. "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, visit the prisoner." Those are all undeniably, to me, good things. However, I believe much more in the act of 'teaching a man to fish,' rather than feeding a man a fish. I believe that my 'good' generally coincides with the great majority's of opinions as well. Furthermore, good is done because 'it should be done.' I fail to understand the cause for concern on this issue. Could you perhaps pose a short series of pointed *specific* questions?

On this, before I move on, I want to remind you of the context in which it has regard. You had stated that Iff 'good' theists gave up their deities could they become universally good people. My response had been to reduce your statement of supposed fact to a mere assertion with opinion as its ground. In return, your reply was again to assert your opinion without accompanying fact or discourse.

Also, your accusation on this being a held dogma: Why is it bad to say that good people do good things and good things are done by good people? That just doesn't make sense to me. This also does not mean a 'bad' person can't do good things. A thing is good, based upon its effects. Feeding a rich man is not a good thing. It is a thing only. It is an action without representative cause and is sourced only from disorder. Furthermore, in response to your prompt, a good person can most definitely be compromised in some manner. Good is not tantamount whatsoever to perfect. A good person is one who is mostly good, not necessarily transcendent to the ills of this world - even if such a thing were possible.

Yet another thing: You called this a "vapid simplification of reality that comes from dogmatic conviction." Tell me why someone, an atheist who is supposedly free from doctrinated ideas, should disagree with it? Why does it need to arise from a God? I don't think the above statement because I was told to, it seems like the right thing to me. I will end with this: Good is done because it should be. That's it.
Discussing the Grecian comparison, again. For the fourth time now?

DigitalAtheist wrote:

It is always going to be "interpreted further" because of the implication that it harbours. Your initial statement tacitly sets up the quakers and the attic philosophers as equals. They are not equals. The greater part of what we think of as "western" thought (that is "thought," not "belief") can be traced back to Attic forum. This is not me "religiousizing the Greeks". This is the expected basic knowledge that anyone entering this conversation should understand.

You state that it is not a fair comparison because of the implication it carries. To address this, here is the text of the initial comparison and several further comments given by me on it:

Syrtd wrote:

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.

Analogy of the Greeks was to show the spirit of engagement, regardless of the outcome.

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.

And so forth.

DigitalAtheist wrote:

When I qualified these differences, you prevaricated, but still held that the original statement could be used. I believe that you like the potential that Greek thought has for providing your religious meetings with credence, and that you exploit the comparison to this end. But I maintain that it is a dishonest – even pernicious – comparison, for reasons that I have stated above. Bad Syrtd! Bad!

Well, that was politically correct... Anyhow...
I did not prevaricate ever. I stated my confusion as to how you had arrived at your conclusion. This has not changed. I did not do so for the sake of giving "credence" to my religious meetings, they don't need an external source for that. They have value, because they allow free though to flow. That is a bad thing? I gave the comparison because most people here have knowledge of the Attic thinkers, but not Quaker meetings. I briefly said that opinions were respected and opinions weren't attacked. A different take on things was given, and the listener chose between the two. That is all. Please, please, please, stop making me repeat myself. The comparison stands.

P.S. You have all the time you need. I'm going to need it, too.

I'm done with this silly thing; I'm off.

Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:18 pm

Sigh.

Incredible.
I really don't think that you are even reading my responses. Not very carefully anyway. You certainly don't seem to give consideration to the opinions that you asked for.

I think that you have heard my opinion well enough. If you are left with questions, I beg of you to reread some of my posts above. (Especially where you claim I, "stated that Iff 'good' theists gave up their deities could they become universally good people." I can't find the quote, and it certainly isn't my opinion.)

In short, does quakerism "stand up?" I don't think so. That's the opinion that you requested. There you have it.

Please do not expect a response to anything that you submit which is repeated in word or spirit from your above posts. They have been adequately addressed, if you do care to read carefully. Let's not torture any further those who have actually read this far.

All that I can do now is wish you the best. I hope that your studies lead to clarity and insight. Incidentally, all of those books are good reading. Enjoy.


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