I am definitely atheist, I don't believe in god, I believe in science. But as far as I can tell from my quaker grandparents and this video, it is one cool religion.
It's beautifully accepting, and reminds me to some extent of Bhuddism. I can't say this about most religion, but Quakerism garners my respect.
I am what you could call a nondenominational Christian, but I am also closer a Deist in most beliefs. I have become interested in Quakerism, in the Society of Friends, but is "liberal Quakerism" all that still exists?
It seems much more like a secular-humanist napping club than anything else from this video, and it is so in conflict with what I read about the Quakers of history like the great William Penn.
@ParadigmShiftr I think Quakerism has evolved from its historical roots but there is much which has remained. The idea that Christianity is a "way" rather than a "notion" has led to Quakers being involved in issues of social justice from the beginning. Personal belief is seen as a private matter and there are no creeds in Quakerism.
@quakersonline As a "Christ centered" Quaker myself I was sad to read this aggressively hostile and rather unchristlike comment. BYM are not promoting anything on YouYube: these videos reflect the views of some Friends in Watford Local Meeting who don't seem to have any difficulty in explaining their beliefs. I doubt whether they would presume to pass judgement on the beliefs of others.
@quakersonline As a "Christ centered" Quaker myself I was sad to read this aggressively hostile and rather unchristlike comment. BYM are not promoting anything on YouYube: these videos reflect the views of some Friends in Watford Local Meeting who don't seem to have any difficulty in explaining their beliefs. I doubt whether they would presume to pass judgement on the beliefs of others.
@BTC141 A pastor can never tell you what is in YOUR heart. Granted, it's hard to be silent and still and to wait for God to speak directly to you through your heart. But it is a terrible shame for any person to live their entire life and to die without ever having made this effort. "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" (Matt 26:40)
@Silenus6 I agree, if we are truly believers we must have a personal relationship with the Lord. I suppose alot of the learning and understanding of the bible takes place for Quakers by themselves or amongst themselves in terms of fellowship? Am I right in saying this? A pastor can't tell you your heart, I agree. But if Quakers have questions regarding scripture who do they talk to? It is important to know the bible especially the New Testament but I just didn't see
@BTC141 any reading or drawing from scripture when I went to the Quaker church. The bibles were unopened on a coffee table in the center of the group. I think the Quakers are Ecumenical in their approach toward belief system. Is this right? Are the Quakers proactive in terms of protesting wars, helping those in povertyand spreading the word of God? From my understanding we are to spread the word of Christ and share it with those who are willing to listen. Take care and God bless.
@BTC141 i just have a few more questions, do Quakers plead the blood of jesus christ? where do Quakers stand with salvation? As a Christian I know that only Christ can give us salvation not buddha, not allah, not shiva not anyone else. Christ is the only figure to be resurrected from the flesh and he brought Lazzarus back from the dead. Where do Quakers stand with the ten commandments? are we here to do the will of God or the will of humanity? Thank you again.
@BTC141 There's no single approved doctrine. Quakers interpret scripture individually, according to the spirit of God which is in them. "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cor.3:5-6) A set doctrine would be dead, not open to reinterpretation. But we interpret for ourselves...
@BTC141 So Christ and his words can mean different things to different people and yet there is no contradiction. God is THAT mysterious. Christ may even be a Holy Spirit of Love, present in Buddha, not only in the man Jesus. And, yes, this Spirit may also be in YOU. "You will say, 'Christ saith this', and 'the apostles say this', but what canst thou say? Art thou a Child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from the Lord?" (~George Fox, founder)
@Silenus6 I see, but scripture is there as food for the spirit as well as food for life. We are living sacrifices of Christ. What about Satan? Where do Quakers stand on the issue of sin and Satan's influence on human will? I have seen people come to the church and get delivered of demonic possession. When I got saved I lost all desire to drink, do drugs or brawl with people in the street. I wouldn't say all people are children of Christ. I have seen some who are hell bound, and self destructive.
@BTC141 Quakerism seems like it has embraced New Age philosophy to me, but I might be wrong. Does Quakerism weave other belief systems and doctrines into its teachings?
@BTC141 Having studied many religions, I know that God is present in many religions; dramatic healings are common; people turn their lives around. We are all children of God and we are all sinners; it's not black and white; none are perfect, none are entirely corrupt. Even the prodigal son was still his father's son when he squandered his fortune. Each person can weave whatever they like into Quakerism, if it brings peace. The essence is silent worship and the test is love. Who has love has God.
@Silenus6 Ok, cool. Yes, peace of mind, stillness of mind is priceless I agree but for me it also knowing the teachings of Jesus and taking the time to read the bible and continuing to grow my personal relationship with the Lord. Do you feel that God is growing in much the same way human consciouness is growing? Would you say that Quakerism is kinda like a Christian version of Eastern buddhist philosophy? Thanks.
@BTC141 Jesus is a great teacher, and for me he is central; he is my chosen "guru". But I also find great teachers among the Buddhists, Hindus, and others. The Dhammapada, The Adi Granth, The Bhagavata Purana, the writings of Sri Ramakrishna and Rumi all contain priceless wisdom. These teachers have more in common with Christ than the vast majority of Christians do. Ram Dass's Hindu guru used to say to westerners (often hippies) who came to him, "What are you doing here? Christ is your guru." :)
@BTC141 "Is God growing... ?" It's fun to speculate on the many possibilities, but we don't want to fool ourselves into thinking we know something which we don't know. Perhaps there are great saints who know the answer. Personally, I prefer to think of God as fully "grown", in the sense that Truth is fully Truth and Love is fully Love, but that the manifestation of His will on earth is still taking place and depends upon the awakening of human consciousness. This is just a working theory though.
@Silenus6 I know that many inspirational speakers and such fall back on the teachings of Christ. Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew is one that stands out in particular. But all the other speakers you mentioned have accepted nothingness as their path? I like to place my faith in a higher power. The vast majority of Christians if not all are sinners at the moment of conception. I think the guru was having a poke at the lack of faith Westerners place in Christ lol.
First we Quakers are expected to know and to read the bible. So it's not that we just believe what ever we want. Second the quiet time that we enjoy in church is for us to allow God to speak to our hearts. It's time to center our thoughts so we are prepared to listen and understand the word. Third we believe in a minimalistic life style, including our surroundings. And how we approach the world. I joined the Quakers in my late thirties, and I promote their simple life style.
God can be known directly. God is beyond all names and transcends the descriptions offered by man-made doctrine and religion. It is up to the individual to come to an understanding of the Divine. God is not defined by ancient scriptures or a person's faith or belief system. I choose to experience God directly, not "believe" in some barbaric concept of God that many blindly have faith in.
What struck me about these people's view's, and I'm a follower of Jesus, was the variety of ideas which directly mirror the occult. Search up the meaning of occult; and God's view of it according to his word in the Bible.
I don't believe God dwells in every person - only if they have received the 'infilling' of the Holy Spirit (God Himself, not some 'force' or 'energy'!) do they have this honour, and at God's decision, to bless his children (that is, those who do his will/trust in his Son Jesus
I wouldn't kill anyone, but if someone kills me, they're doing me a favor, sending me to God's home and removing me from this nasty world! Why would I care? I am alive if God wants me to be, and when my time comes, there won't be much you or I can do. God never lies, but sometimes we just don't understand well.
BTW, I do think it would be wrong for me to judge someone who kills me due to his beliefs!! But I do believe that God would take care of my children, as He has done so far, and that only because I try to BEHAVE correctly so I get that as my 'salary'- but even if God decided to take any of my kids, I don't bury the dead- I let them bury themselves, as Christ said to do. I'm not a crybaby! If you knew what I've been through and seen in my life, you wouldn't comment this way.
Vanessa, you've revealed from your comments that you are just as illogical and Scripturally inept as the Quakers in the video. First, I'm not sure why anything that's happened to you in your life would have anything to do with my comments. I'm very sorry if you've had bad experiences in, but that doesn't change the truth.
Further, you quote a portion of Scripture without any regard for what it says elsewhere. God clearly condemns murder as sin. Yet you wouldn't tell someone that they were wrong to do so? Tell me, how do you decide which parts of the Bible you quote. Apparently only the parts you're comfortable with. If you wouldn't "judge" someone for murder when God clearly condemns it, what makes you so sure that your quote from Christ is to be regarded as true?
Finally, you state you wouldn't judge the Muslim fundamentalist if he kills you as a result of his beliefs? Why? Because he hasn't come to the same conclusions you have? Read Romans 2:12-16. Paul stated that each man will be judged by God's law because, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts." Men will be judged by God for things like murder regardless of their deeply held beliefs or personal conclusions. I hope people can see the folly of this way of thinking.
When your die......your brains dies, and then there is only nonexistence. Just like before you were born. Magic Heaven world is a myth of many religions. But that's it.
So try and live your life here.................It's the only one you have.
And can you explain for us what makes you so certain that a naturalistic material existence is the only existence? You seem to be making knowledge claims about things that you couldn't possibly know for sure. If one can accept the reality of a Divine uncaused cause of the material universe, then it is not hard to understand that there could be a metaphysical existence beyond our material universe and even beyond death.
I wonder if Josh below would be able to recognize contradictions in a chaos theory course (that`s advanced math, FYI) or in theoretical physics. I`m a Quaker in Venezuela, and have received and given extreme blessings when walking in the Quaker way. God can define Himself for each one of us, if He couldn`t, He wouldn`t be GOD!
So let's get this straight. When faced with an objection to your belief system, your response is, "Bet you don't know math!" Well, vanessadd, I have not attempted to claim any knowledge in chaos theory, so that is not pertinent to our discussion. Anyone should be able to recognize the contradictions in this video.
Even if God defined himself differently to each person, He wouldn't make contradictory statements. One of the statements would have to be untrue, and then God would be liar. And who would want to worship such a dishonest being?
WIth your openness to relativistic definitions of God, I suppose you have no problem with the Muslim fundamentalist who feels it's his God-given right to kill you. On what authority would you tell him he is wrong for doing so? You certainly couldn't invoke God's authority because God may have defined Himself in that way to the killer. It would then be wrong for you to judge him. That's just one of many ways your religious views are self-referentially incoherent.
you would rather worship a being that creates people who will go to hell, who doesn't take responsibility for the suffering of the world they created. you are welcome to your dreadful, evil god, very welcome
A God who sends dreadful, evil creatures to hell is the only God Who would be worthy of worship. His justice will not have it any other way. He would also be wrong to take responsibility for the suffering that came as a result of those creatures' sin. But this same God went beyond justice in the person of Jesus Christ so that those who believe can escape the awful fate that the rest of humanity is damned to face. So, yes, I will worship a God who lavished his grace on me while in my sin.
God. Without the faith people have in God, God would be just antoher fictional character. God is love. and God does dwell in and on the Earth. God is every individual and every thing. Just look to the stars and tell me you can't see god in sky or in a rose and not see at least the artistry of God. I am a Quaker and i have a deep beliefe in God. But i believe he or she is Everyting and ANything.
I agree that you can see the artistry of God in a rose or in the sky. However the very things that you point out that show the artistry or perhaps creative power of God, also show that God cannot be everything and anything. For instance, the rose demonstrates that God is the originator or creator, correct? Then what if I said that God actually does not create? Someone would have to be wrong. You know a God Who creates roses. Someone else may claim to know that God does not create roses.
Both cannot be right. Therefore, God cannot be anything or else God's very existence would be contradictory and illogical on many levels. Thus, I would suggest that God's existence is not defined by our intellect or understanding or our own interpretation. He is much greater than that, and He has revealed what He wants us to know about Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. He defines Himself. We do not define Him.
its not a matter of whether god creates, but that he is and someone must be a fool to see that whether its nature or god, he just is...thats my point. not whether god makes roses... that was hypothetical``
I understand that your point was hypothetical. However, you seem to find any and all definitions of God to be acceptable. My question is: What about those definitions that contradict one another? The real issue lies in whether or not God and His attributes are knowable and definite. Or, are they open to anyone's interpretation and opinion like that of the Quakers in this video?
The church has you in their shackles. You live your life by a book that preaches hate and wraps its jealous meanings in words like "love", "life", "heaven". You should see through the ruse Catholics has shrouded your vision with. But, i am not telling you to not believe in God. You have you're beliefs, i have mine. Just wanted to give my opinion about it.
First, I am not Catholic nor am I associated with Catholics in any way. I am a Protestant Christian of the Wesleyan faith. So unless you can demonstrate how I have been influenced by Catholicism to the extent that it has shrouded my vision, you have made a claim with no basis about someone you don't know. Second, I'm not in the shackles of any church. I am follower of Jesus Christ, and I am in fellowship with His body of believers known as the Church.
Further, you have also made claims about a book and offered no reference or words from that book to support them. Is this honest? Are you willing to demonstrate from the actual words of the Bible what you are claiming?
These Quakers are as confused about God as they are illogical. The problem with all their comments boils down to the simple principle of contradiction. Two contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time. To say that God is a singular person and then for someone else to says He is the oneness of being are contradictory statements. Someone is wrong! Logically at least one person at this Quaker meeting believes in a false god. It's disturbing that they don't care.
I think there's something very disturbing about this contest that's playing out to be "the best kind of Christian" within the messages here. What's important is the combination of faith and actual acts. I ask you--are these acts aligned with your faith? How can you know what's in another man's heart? Why fight so desperately to hold onto a label? That's sacrilege. :(
Quakers have their arch conservatives and their lunatic fringe. Even if you define the Light as being Jesus or the Christ Within, you still have to accept the concept of continuing revelation. Something that Jesus communicates directly to you in the present day may supersede what someone else wrote ABOUT Jesus 1900 yrs ago. To deny the legitimacy of the Light Within is to reject the basis of Quakerism. If you do this, you may be a Christian but not a Christian Quaker. The 1827 schism deja vu.
I thought that for many many years.God puts what you believe in,in you! If you think about it,its the only thing that really stands true to whats around you. Its only when certain religions try to indoctranate people that problems occur. It interferes with Gods way so to speak. You are what you are and no religion has the right to change that. Be wary of religions that say theirs is the only way! After all God made you all individual! Another Good Video!
My experience of visiting a British Quaker meeting (quite possibly not typical) is that there seemed to be common political and social views & a common way of "worship", but quite varied faith beliefs. I'd guess that there wouldn't be many (any?) Conservatives there or readers of the Telegraph.
Many churches around the world are just like that though, I guess people with common political & social views like to worship together. Perhaps not a problem.
too bad you don't have the revelation of Jesus Christ given to us through the Spirit of truth and communicated by the word of truth the bible. You are in darkness read 2 Cor.4:1-6 They preached Jesus Christ , crucified, glorified, and revelation to those who come unto him..get the truth in Christ made real by the Holy Spirit..new creation reality
True Quakers believe in what you wrote, including 2 Cor. 4: 1-6. We believe the Bible contains the words of God. We also believe that Jesus is the Word of God.
And let`s remember the orginal meaning of the 'word of God'- it meant in ancient languages that it was God being ACTIVE in this world, so Jesus is God when he showed up as a man in this world. He`s the VERB- a word that implies actions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
TLS you are attempting a dialogue with someone who peppers his own argument with unexplained (or even misspelt) jargon while scorning the lack of precision in Quaker language, who blatantly seeks to antagonise but acts the injured party and protests innocent enquiry when he succeeds. I have given up trying to understand his game. Learn from my naively mistaken persistence and just dont play.
more passive aggression from you? A bit snooty now about the spelling too eh? The issue all along was that you have not been able to explain anything about your faith, relying upon jargon instead. I can only wonder what your faith is truly based on? perhaps a mere need to belong? An unchallenging club? Vague notions of spirituality of which you are too lazy to explore more deeply? Maybe a feeling of smug superiority in a small pond where your vagueness wont be seriously challenged?
You seem to be on an angry, desolate quest for something that frantic intellectualising will never allow you to find. You predetermine that all answers to your sarcastic questions are wrong (apart from your own) but continue to post them. To distinguish "flippant.....jargon" from "profound insight" (and much in between) open yourself to the possibilities inherent in 'that of God in each' and even 'spiritualised Humanism' before applying your hostile 'crap detectors' to every phrase.
You are a very hostile person arent you? I'm simply not prepared to blindly or emotively accept your idolatry of jargon. if you are prepared to cover your idolatry with anger, thats your choice, but yopu use these loaded terms and clealy have no idea what you mean by them, as if deliberate confusion is enough. Thats not faith, thats just an emotional dependence hiding behind language of obfuscation.If actions flow from what is not understood then the integrity of the action is deeply suspect.
But of course the principle flaw of contemporary Quakerism, both liberal and conservative, is that it is nothing more than a spirtiualized Humanism. This is one of the many legacies of that flippant piece of theological jargon "that of God in each". A potentially profound insight, but left to gather cobwebs in the mere celebration of individual ego that is contemporary Quakerism.
'God' is a very different from each person. Many Quakers are theistic (Having a personal God), whereas others are Nontheistic (God is a different idea embodying usually the peace and love of Quakerism). There are millions of in-betweens, but that's more or less a premise for most Friends.
Thankyou WeSpeak for your post. Unfortunately much jargon is still being employed. I'm particularly troubled by your description of God as an idea embodying Quakerisms peace and love. Frankly, this is constructing God from a particular comfortable and comforting liberal persepctive (not that conservative fundamentalism is a viable option either).
We dont Quake before such a construct, so tame, so middle class. We truly have lost the needful 'fear' of God in such comforting sentiments.
I try my best not to define what God is to each Quaker. But, I know there are people who claim to be Quakers, yet have witnessed to Nontheism (No-God), Paganism(Nature-Religion), etc.
I too Believe in a Personal God, as many many Friends do. We all witness to the Inner Christ differently. Who can say Nontheist Friends (Coming from ALL walks of life) have not experienced the Inner Light; that God wants them to see Him this way? I say, none.
WeSpeak, yet you do the very thing you criticise by saying that such experiences may have legitimacy. Your method has a double edge :)
The problem with the relativism you and many others here essentially espouse is that it functions in a vacuum, as if the broader historical and Traditional encounter with God has never existed and that any new light is valid. Well many have claimed divine inspiration and commit atrocities.george Bush for one. Is this of God? If so why? If not why not?
My Steve Halpern CD's have just arrived!!! 'Gifts of the Angels' and 'Tonal Harmony'. Im so excited ... however, I dont know if i'll be able to appreciate this beautiful music ...
Halpern has never clearly defined 'gifts', 'of the', 'angels', 'tonal' or 'alchemy'. Maybe I should just listen to the music ...
rather silly point you make there jamzmagick. I suggest that you may not appreciate the music so much if you didnt understand much of the meaning that pervades it.
Lights enable us to see in a particular space, ignorance being a metaphor for 'cowboy electricians' ... truth is when we speak without thinking, heads are illusory constructs whose purpose is to make you aware of their uselessness, heart is humour ... divine make gorgeous chocolates and sacred is the 'seed' of an academic's pride. Soul, often confused with Blues, has produced some of the world's finest music ...
I sincerely hope that my lack of integrity does not need further definition
May those who know teach those who are unaware by their being in the world. May their light, which is untouched by ignorance, shine truth over all. May love fill the hearts of the men and women whose heads are full and may light fill the minds of those whose hearts are closed. All things are divine and sacred, no argument is needed, no war will achieve peace. Hold each and every one in the light and God will touch their soul.
Hold in the light especially, those who are sure of themselves
Here is a perfect example of Quaker dogmatism,smugness and condescension disguised by obfuscating jargon and pretence of prayer. Rather than clarify, attack. What utter bad faith to disguise a put down within prayerful wishes.Are you really so unaccountable that you hide behind your wall of dogma and pretense of piety? What hypocrisy.
Again, if you actually knew what the jargon you employ meant you wouldnt use such signifiers in such a low and self satisfied way.
Leaving your attitude aside jamzmagick, perhaps you could clearly state what is meant by "being in the world", "light", "light untouched by ignorance", "truth", "heads", "heart", "all things divine and sacred", "divine", "sacred", "soul" ?
I find the idolatry of jargon boring, I really want to see if a Quaker such as yourself knows what is meant.
that are righteous are still in need of the letting go of that self sufficiency that keeps them from Grace, from the offer of the Kingdom. The rich young man is such an example. The danger for Quakers is that their self sufficiency and inability to see themselves as crippled in sin without Grace is the rejection of God. God (or any other vagueness asserted by Quakers) is merely an extra. This is the danger of the ignorant embrace of "that of God within". You simply dont know what it means.
I fear that by the strictures of this kind of theology 99.9% of humanity have never grasped "what it means" and will forever remain "crippled in sin without Grace". A danger in such thinking, in my opinion, is in its tendency to nourish and legitimise self appointed elites or hermetic withdrawl. Some adherents of other Christian churches are content for the thinking to be done for them and for faith to be expressed in more or less diligent outward ritual and recitation. tbc
Yes one of the great losses for Quakers is their loss of ritual. Such needless reactionary haste in tossing out so much! Ritual is not empty. If enacted properly it speaks to much deeper levels of our psyches. Quakers have lost this, have lost so much of humanity's long histories of religious practice. Quakers have never understood ritual.
What "strictures" do you mean? Actually its freedom to let go of such self sufficiency and pride and be open to Grace. Consciousness of sin is freedom...
it is freedom in facing our intrinsic limit and the subsequent burden of living without such recognition. Amplifying nothingness is wearying!! To face our limit and to then respond to loving Grace (in its many guises) is to be born again, not misshapen, but in right ordering.
It has become fashionable to no longer address sin, we are all wonderful as we are!! What slavery!
Maybe the reason why so many let their thinking be done for them is because they arent allowed to face themselves first.
Quakers dont choose this option. A genuine committment to communion with that of God within each other person is quite the reverse of the self sufficiency and egocentricity you allege. An excessive pre-occupation with sin and personal salvation may possibly be a way to avoid the promptings of the spirit to work with each other for Peace on Earth today. Thanks for prompting me to read more on Elias Hicks btw.
Again, what is "that of God within"? How is it different to self sufficiency?
Awareness of sin , and the condition of sin, is not excessive preoccupation. What awareness of sin is about is of our intrinsic and then habit fuelled limitation, in which condition we need God, we are insofar as we accept incompleteness and respond to Grace. We are not insofar as we, through diverse means, declare our self sufficiency, relish our ground of nothingness.
A more illuminating discussion. Where to start...? You may be surprised by the depth of respect many Quakers hold for the rituals of other faiths but presumably would accept that rituals can become empty, obfuscating and divisive, particularly where their observance or non-observance is in itself claimed to be virtuous or sinful. The Christian concept of sin has an extraordinary history (deriving from biblical mistranslation from the Greek) but its way past my bedtime....maybe tomorrow.
Hmm, thats odd, a day ago you had quite a dismissive attitude to ritual.
Yes the term sin has had a diverse conceptual history, christianity isnt static, but yet repentance from "sin", leaving the inviolate self and abandoning to the Kingdom of God is central.
The offer of the Kingdom and the demand for unreserved embrace of it is central. Repentance, baptism,forgiveness of sins.
Not sure how you read my comment on "some adherents" use of ritual as dismissive of ritual and all its layers of meaning and symbolism for many believers. For Quakers to place greater emphasis on stillness, reflection and silent communion it is not necessary to devalue other forms of worship. Quakerism is not static either. Some but not all Quakers would now share your view of God as "always other". Less 'stacatto' forums might be more rewarding for you. Google "Quakers and sin" to find one.
You would not expect me to answer this question on behalf of "the rest" since you are already aware of the absence of credal statements and deplore the associated lack of precision in Quaker theology. My experience of Quakers is that there is room for considerable diversity of belief and tolerance of uncertainty, alongside unity in a living witness rooted in Christian teaching.
If this is too fuzzy/undisciplined for you then possibly so is Quakerism but you are welcome to seek further with us.
hmm, but here we are back at the initial problem: how can there be such unity rooted in Christian teaching if because of the elevation of subjective authority and interior "feeling" core Christian teachings are not known or blatantly disagreed with?
Unity in diversity is hard work, and requires a deep, yes intellectual, comprehension of teachings so to listen for resemblances that may superficialy contradict. Without such rigor there is no actual unity in diversity but complacency .
Some find Quakers after a lifetime on the receiving end of various orthodox Christian teaching, others with virtually none. Dramatic Pauline conversions aside, spiritual revelation can be understood as a lifelong journey on which we are at different stages and rates of progress and may not even reach identical destinations. Without Quakers Christian teaching would be no more than a 'cultural footnote' in my own life so no problem with people finding unity via testimonies first either.
I do agree with everything you say here, but the necessity to still grapple and then integrate Christian thought in a much more open space isnt negated. Thought as integral to the person isnt discarded upon association with Quakers. I suggest too that there is far more of an onus on Quakers to understand and articulate their theological positions given that many are contra the mainstream. It is simply arrogance to contradict but not to clearly explain. Contemporary Quakers have retreated.
The "onus...to understand and articulate..." is implicit in the idea of a "priesthood of all believers" and manifest in initiatives like "Quaker Week" to which this film was only one contribution. Not everyone is equally articulate. Perhaps we can integrate Christian thought by sometimes giving more thoughtful energy and attention to Christian practice than Christian dogma? In which regard I may not be setting a good Quaker example here.....!
Its not a question of being "articulate" but of effort to understand rather than simply babble dogmatic jargon, and to do so with integrity. There is dogma at play in Quakers as seen in your repeated turn to "practice" as means to eveade understanding, or to make understanding secondary. But action without understanding is devoid of integrity for a human. It is mindless and mechanical.I perceive a dogma of practice for its own sake.
Thanks but I'm tired of responding to the bait. Since nothing I say appears to mitigate your predetermined scorn it must be time to take a break. Have a peaceful Christmas.
its a shame that you choose to dismiss genuine enquiry and challenge as bait. I've simply and persistently asked for what Quaker jargon actually means, but it seems that Quakers, and not only Quakers, are content with an idolatry of concept at best and possible utter ignorance of of the very grounds of their belief at worst.
Quakers simply cant get away with the ersatz mysticism they peddle. In their chosen exile from the Tradition they have lost all basis of what their terminology means.
Genuine enquiry and challenge is welcome. Listening for it above the noise of sneering provocation becomes wearying (and fallible humans are vulnerable to the temptation to respond in kind). Nor in my opinion is the "babble[of]dogmatic jargon" illuminated by theological pyrotechnics as much as by Christian patterns and examples of living which can be known and followed with or without great scholarship. But I'm getting repetetive....
and for my part, respite from an overheated debate will be enforced by lack of access to a computer for the next week. If you are seeking a platform there must be bigger ones with larger windows than this. You dont indicate the extent of your reading of Quaker literature but to pursue your genuine enquiry I recommend titles by Harvey Gillman, Douglas Gwyn and David Boulton which should be borrowable from Aussie Quaker sources.
LOL, goodness, if you think this has been "overheated" you obviously havent ventured far into the world of Youtube or of blogging generally.
Bangura4uk, I have simply and forcefully wanted clarification of the signifiers used. You and others cannot do this and resort to vague dismissals of knowledge in preference to a sort of mindless action, or stubbornly celebrate jargon.
Faith without works is dead, and works without understanding is slavery.
Thanks for presuming my innocence of other internet forums. Sadly I'm probably as familiar as you are with 'discussions' that are no more than intellectual posturing or expire in a blaze of pointless insults with nothing learned on either side. Hence (rather than satirising your own jargon) my suggestion to read further on the extensive debate within Quakerism. Your latest posts make this esp relevant in relation to theism and non-theism among Quakers.
Hmm, then I can only put your amplifying our exchange to "overheated debate" as a bit of tetchiness on your part :)I am aware of the limited debate that goes on in Quakers in regards to this issue. I have also found the understanding of atheism amongst Quaker adherents to it as naive and limited. Quakers find themselves in so many dire situations at this time due to laissez faire culture, which has resulted in utter paralysis at best, atrophy the norm.How will Quakers learn to Quake once more?
You still make no substantiating reference to anything you have read (beyond youtube comments)on Quaker thought. So its difficult to guess what you might find less "limited" and I am left wondering if your interest is mainly polemical and your protestations of "genuine enquiry" are somewhat rhetorical. Do your comments on "works without understanding" "paralysis" etc refer to all current Quaker conflict resolution projects for example?
I guess that your reference to "limited" is my reference to the shallowness of Quaker understandings of 'atheism', and of how there can be Quaker 'atheists". As for other areas of Quaker thought I have read Faith and Practice, A Quaker Book of Wisdom, An Introduction to Quakerism, Quaker Spirituality (I do quite like Carolin Stephen, but nothing original), and the Quaker Reader. Also an odd little book on Quaker atheism, testimonies of such, this was particularly shallow.
As for works without understanding, and even in such projects you mention, the work itself is all well and fine, but has no qualitative difference to that of others IF not grounded within and manifesting of Quaker responsiveness to God. What is done flows from what is understood. If no understanding, if all of the person is not incarnate in what is done, then surely the action is deficient? In the presence of God a work is worship, always, otherwise it is self serving and adoring.
Of course the texts I referrred to are just some (I have forgotten the titles of a few other works I have read. Also a smattering of journal articles and newsletters too. But more to the point, I have sought to find what thou canst say, from where it is that Quakers speak? I fear that the worship of self has taken over Quakers and that there is need to call them back to facing their God, to tremble in the face of Brilliance, to be stripped bare and found wanting. Quakers have tamed their deity.
Thanks for clarifying the extent of your enquiries. They can hardly be matched in a forum like this and have clearly left you very disappointed. Every reply seems only to further confirm for you that Quakers are unoriginal, without spiritual understanding and beyond redemption in their empty idolatory of self etc. There must be many other Christian avenues for your search. Yet something is keeping you here, rapidly posting as many as 3 replies to 1 over many weeks....What is it?
Well, not, or ever, without redemption :)) What I see in Quakers is what could be. Once they seemed alive to the Presence of God. Trembled at it. Then, gradually a rigamortis set in, becoming as gradually dogmatic and rigid as other Christian sects. Now, they are largely dominated by a lukewarm and safe spirituality largely reactive to past rigidity, secondary to mere activism, contained by a bourgoise feminism and assorted liberal decadences. Even in Silence God is secondary to mild musings.
Somehow God has become an embarrasment, and only activism speaks truth. I do perceive a deep resentment to diverse constructions of masculinity as behind much of Quaker's current demise. But thats another discussion. Even though Quakers were born at a time of reaction I see the prophetic at work, at its heart. Maybe the prophetic Spirit has moved from Quakers, buried under respectability and feminization, but the Quaker as holy fool tembling in face of awe of the Divine is a needed voice.
Again there could be elements of a relevant critique here among the multiple hyperbolic and sweeping generalisations (presented as factual statements but impossible to justify, answer or adequately discuss in this format). Almost every one of your terms is unexplained but you are surely aware that Quakers were challenging "constructions of masculinity" long before "bourgeoise feminism" came along? Read Douglas Gwyn's 'Covenant Crucified' to understand the roots of Quakerism.
I've read enough by Quakers to know that one persons writing and perspective will stay just that. I'll keep an eye out for Gwyn though. While challenging such constructions at one time was needful,now is far beyond that brief. Quakers had provided a space in which women gave voice and give leadership. But has an ideology redefined this offereing? Has a feminist ideology drained the sacred, the numinous, the trembling from Quaker life? Has all become familiar,feeling, nice and interest laden ?
Hmm...hard to keep up with this scattergun approach in which the target changes so rapidly. If 'feminist ideology' is now to blame for Quaker spiritual anaemia; are you saying that gender inequality has receded to the point of irrelevance (in religion and/or the world in general) or that social testimony has no part in a spirit led Christianity? Presumably Quaker witness against slavery, nuclear weapons etc can be similarly dismissed? cont...
Ideology in any manifestation is an idolatry. A hybrid feminism has eroded much Quaker vitality of worship. Just as many men for too long had a perverese idea of 'woman' that neurosis is now reversed, and so worship is now a caring and sharing session in which the big bad male deoty is morphed with lovely nature and happy thoughts. Theology dismissed as not 'of the heart'. As long as people see others as object of desire then inequality will continue, but worship is not the place cont...
for such ideological battles, whether launched by one gender distortion or the other.. As for social testimony, huh? So feminism is "spirit led christianity'? Very sloppy. Such is the problem when theological jargon replaces actual theological thought, any ol' ideology can be disguised as "spirit led". Bizarre line of argument to then claim, in effect, that to dismiss feminism is to then dismiss Spirit leading, and then dismiss other spirit led actions. I'll let you stew in that jumble alone.
I fear the jumble is created in your own imagination. Re-read my last post and then consider if you have honestly answered either of the questions asked or just set off on another flight of polemical generalisations without substantiating any of them - difficult in 500 or even 1500 spaces I know but you could develop one point at a time or write a book instead!
I assert that a hybrid feminism has drained Quakerism of encounter with God and replaced it with mild sympathies, stripping it of whatever smacks of the masculine. You take the discussion into a question of whether women have achieved equality in religion. I dont think a healthy feminism is about the anaemia that has become the norm for Quaker worship, the control, the tepidity. So again I say to you that worship is not the place for such idolatrous agenda. What do YOU mean by "spirit led"?
I am unable to understand how anything I have said could be so crudely or ridiculously construed as an assertion that "feminism is spirit led Christianity"! I am challenging not only this kind of distortion in your arguments but also your apparent attempt to compartmentalise some kind of apparently 'pure' theology from issues (inequality for example) that have messy political dimensions. Quaker testimony asserts (however imprecisely) that there is no such division between worship and life.
You do get yourself worked up dont you? I didnt say that feminism is spirit led christianity, I dont know why you put that in italics. Due to lack of space I simply added in a separate sentence my wanting some clarification on what YOU meant by the jingoistic "spirit led". As for lack of division between worship and life, thats actually what I've been saying, however my contention is that Quakers dont know what they worship (nature,spirit,nothing) so how can there be harmony in life and worship?
Your own previous post reads: "So feminism is "spirit led christianity"? Very sloppy." It might be very sloppy if I had actually said any such thing. If lack of space is the excuse for such distortions what is the point in my seeking here to further explain to you my understanding of something as (conventionally) "untheological" as the unity of worship and social testimony? How could any action be literally shown, to your satisfaction, to be spirit led?
I did not say it was said, it was implied in my reading of your high status response.Dont squirm out of explaining yourself due to lack of space,simply add more posts if need be.There is nothing unconventional in what you are saying, I just want some calrity from you So I patiently ask you again: what do you mean by "spirit led", and what is the actual substance of your worship from which social testimony manifests. If you dont know just say so rather than continual obfuscation. and evasion.
I'm sorry that I cannot claim to know much in the absolute and literal sense that you seem to want. I am probably misunderstanding you and I'm sorry too if my clumsy attempts have increased your annoyance. Maybe we can learn something about spiritual leading from James Nayler back in 1660: "There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong....Its hope is to weary out all exaltation and cruelty....It takes its kingdom with entreaty and not with contention..."
Quaking and trembling are common in revivalist movements even today but seldom sustained over centuries unless in a hyped or ritualised form. Messianic leadership invoking supernatural authority is difficult (for me) to trust in its 21C forms and nor am I able to roll back the rational infusions through which Quaker faith has evolved since the 17C. Familiar but still dynamic, changing and challenging to the human condition as we find it.
This is classic rationalization from you. So you are happy for "rational infusions" to strip away vital openness to overwhelming encounter with God , but not happy for actual theological scrutiny of the jargon that peppers Quaker belief. Why is integrity not part of worship? As I have said, Quakers have tamed their deity, how else can you sit in such cocooned comfort mulling over random thoughts? You may sneer at quaking and trembling, but a faith of mild sympahies is mere idolatry.
Not clear what you mean by "subjective authority" ('sinful disobedience' perhaps?)or why you place the word "feeling" in quotes while apparently placing much greater trust in intellect. It might be inferred that acheiving 'Grace' is primarily an intellectual endeavour while feeling is mainly to be endured as suffering or rejected as leading to sin. This is of course comforting to the tiny literate elites that have held sway for most of the last 2000 years.....
"Subjective authority" as "I know, by authority of that of me divine". As I have said before: a legitimated solipsism. Nothing that you have said has convinced me otherwise. It truly is one of the great flaws of Quakers more and more isolates itself from engagement with the thought of the Traditional continuum. Rather than face the flaw, constructs as a nebulous "feeling" and persecuting and exclusive "tiny literate elites" are constructed to legitimate elevated intellectual isolation,
I can know almost nothing from "subjective authority" or alienated self-reference. Most of what I know is through a more or less spiritual connection to others. This can be powerfully experienced (particularly sometimes in gathered silent worship) in a way that is variously described - often as the presence of God - but is also beyond words and intellect alone. By reference to 'tiny literate elites' I mean to query how illiterate people (the rest) would intellectualy explore their theology.
LOL, Quakers cant hekp but fall back into their jargon can they? What on earth is this "spiritual connection to others"? What is "presence of God"? Be careful with the inadvertant Quaker hubris of mystical experience "beyond words and intellect alone". Quaker worship is too often a deluded mockery of authentic mystical encounter. The inderstanding is abandoned only when exhausted. Quakers have yet to exhaust it!!
Quakers arent alone in this either, generally symptomatic of experientialism.
I've actually made no comment about the interviewees per se, I've simply indicated the vacuity of what has been said as if it passes for substance. What I have sought is clarity. Instead what is offered is vague allusion, dogmatic in its use and in its deliberate obfuscations.
In regards to metanoia, Quakers make a critical mistake in dogmatically asserting that change is not a fundamental criterion of response to Grace. We are not OK as we are. The Gospels show very clearly that even those
I've actually made no comment about the interviewees per se, I've simply indicated the vacuity of what has been said as if it passes for substance. What I have sought is clarity. Instead what is offered is vague allusion, dogmatic in its use and in its deliberate obfuscations.
In regards to metanoia, Quakers make a critical mistake in dogmatically asserting that change is not a fundamental criterion of response to Grace. We are not OK as we are. The Gospels show very clearly that even those
Hicks' nonsense is just another way of saying that people are great as they are and that they dont need to change, that there is no need for metanoia when responding to the Kingdom of God.
But there is.
The Gospels show God as loving us as we are, but the Kingdom asks for radical change, see our sin and turn to God for healing.
Quaker banality obstructs such recognition, mistaking the Kingdom of God is within/amongst you as an excuse for complacency and alienation from the demands of Grace.
The film does not pronounce any of its comments as being a unanimous Quaker viewpoint because THERE ISNT ONE! Thats the whole point in the faith, personal journeys and understandings are respected. Look for a quote by Elias Hicks regarding 'the Law being written on every heart, according each to their condition'. Condition refering to level of spiritual awareness, in my interpretation. YOU be ashamed of yourself, for pseudo intellectually antagonising a faith without knowing anything about it.
Missing the point bangura4uk. If Quakers are putting themeselves in a public forum for a change but spouting inanities about "God" as "universal" "energy" and other jinoisms such as this film pronounces, as if wotevah someone thinks of God (when not pondering their shopping lists or day activities) is valid, then ridicule is the needful response. More than this: identifying the lazy ego worship of such a sect which elevates conceptual idols as worthy merely by virtue of having been thought.
Since you have also put yourself in this public forum with your comments on the interviewees, it seems reasonable to ask what your own answers might be with as much time as you want for a carefully scripted response.
Ridicule may sometimes be a 'needful response' of otherwise powerless people facing immovable oppression. If you were seeking to further a constructive dialogue, spiritual transformation, repentance (or even "metanoia") ridicule might be less useful?
So following the waffle logic of all this, is my faith in the five legged pink bunny whose oracle I am fine? Does each persons view of 'God' valid no matter what it is?
Actually what all this is about is self and imagings amplified to worship.
Nothing more than idolatry of the ego.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for such hubris and laziness.
Everyone expressed themselves so well. Whoever made this video did a wonderful job. I'm very impressed with you British Quakers. You really seem to have it together. American Quakers could learn a lot from you guys!!
I stand corrected, glokkpod. They were possibly the most progressive group of people in America. I'm just saying lately there is so much theological bickering and disagreement among Quakers in the states whereas the British Quakers seem pretty much on the same page. I wanted to join but have been really turned off by all the fighting between and within groups. We will see. I know no one is perfect.
Its true Quakers are not big on theology. "Let your life speak" is as often quoted as passages from the bible.Written by men and translated and interpreted by many other men for different purposes at different times, the bible is an important source of inspiration and guidance. If there is 'that of God' or 'an inner light' in every person the reliance on fallible human authority as a source of absolute spiritual truth recedes and truth is found beyond as well as within the Christian tradition.
But these people in this video say that God is only what you perceive him to be. Sounds like what George Fox says, obviously, outweighs what God has spoken in his word. I hear NOTHING biblical in this.
OMG... this is frightening! i know well enough my Jewish Bible (Tanach) and there's not a word about a "new" testament nor about a "hell" waiting for those who don't believe this and that. Get a life!
"Old" is written, if I'm not wrong, in the letter to Hebrews, one of the most contradictory parts of the NT, of most dubious origin (you don't even know exactly who wrote it) and it was accepted to the NT canon only after fierce discussions.
You need to repent from one thing. imposing your idolaty (Jesus-Trinity) to truly monotheistic believers.
icartoon: you may not hear anything Biblical in this, but here's the thing....even among those who DO place the Bible first, there's no AGREEMENT. Baptists do not always agree with Lutherans, for example. So using the Bible isn't even a very good "test." At least the Quakers come by the "I don't know" HONESTLY.
Boy, I don't even need reply as you guys show your distaste and distrust of God all over your comments. It's obvious you don't believe God has given us His word. Well, here it is again, nonetheless...
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
My Mate John is in a mental hospital as a result of being raped by his Father who is a quaker,he is a well respected figure at Winchmore Hill, North London, he owns a lot of property in London, I will not name this man.
A disturbing comment. Are you saying that it was Quaker beliefs that led this man to rape his son or that the Quakers in Winchmore Hill respected him for it? I presume not. Being a 'respected figure' in any religion or community is sadly no guarantee of good behaviour. If your friend has not reported his abuse to anyone except you I advise you to help him do this. Others could be at risk from his father.
If most Quakers have different beliefs in god or no belief at all, then why the meetings? Couldnt you connect with your god on your own? Just trying to understand.
Quakers do believe in God, they also believe that when they congregate together to worship that it pleases God & he blesses them with the presence of the Holy Spirit
I am definitely atheist, I don't believe in god, I believe in science. But as far as I can tell from my quaker grandparents and this video, it is one cool religion.
It's beautifully accepting, and reminds me to some extent of Bhuddism. I can't say this about most religion, but Quakerism garners my respect.
Keep on quakin.
ueiwqoak 3 months ago
I am what you could call a nondenominational Christian, but I am also closer a Deist in most beliefs. I have become interested in Quakerism, in the Society of Friends, but is "liberal Quakerism" all that still exists?
It seems much more like a secular-humanist napping club than anything else from this video, and it is so in conflict with what I read about the Quakers of history like the great William Penn.
ParadigmShiftr 3 months ago
@ParadigmShiftr I think Quakerism has evolved from its historical roots but there is much which has remained. The idea that Christianity is a "way" rather than a "notion" has led to Quakers being involved in issues of social justice from the beginning. Personal belief is seen as a private matter and there are no creeds in Quakerism.
srekauq 3 months ago
@quakersonline As a "Christ centered" Quaker myself I was sad to read this aggressively hostile and rather unchristlike comment. BYM are not promoting anything on YouYube: these videos reflect the views of some Friends in Watford Local Meeting who don't seem to have any difficulty in explaining their beliefs. I doubt whether they would presume to pass judgement on the beliefs of others.
srekauq 4 months ago
@quakersonline As a "Christ centered" Quaker myself I was sad to read this aggressively hostile and rather unchristlike comment. BYM are not promoting anything on YouYube: these videos reflect the views of some Friends in Watford Local Meeting who don't seem to have any difficulty in explaining their beliefs. I doubt whether they would presume to pass judgement on the beliefs of others.
srekauq 4 months ago
The Quakers is my favorite church...for taking a nap :)
BTC141 10 months ago
@BTC141 Well, you're not the first to drop off during Meeting.
srekauq 10 months ago
@srekauq No offense against the Quakers, in fact their beliefs mirror some of my own but I'm not use to worship without a pastor.
BTC141 10 months ago
@BTC141 A pastor can never tell you what is in YOUR heart. Granted, it's hard to be silent and still and to wait for God to speak directly to you through your heart. But it is a terrible shame for any person to live their entire life and to die without ever having made this effort. "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" (Matt 26:40)
Silenus6 5 months ago
@Silenus6 I agree, if we are truly believers we must have a personal relationship with the Lord. I suppose alot of the learning and understanding of the bible takes place for Quakers by themselves or amongst themselves in terms of fellowship? Am I right in saying this? A pastor can't tell you your heart, I agree. But if Quakers have questions regarding scripture who do they talk to? It is important to know the bible especially the New Testament but I just didn't see
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 any reading or drawing from scripture when I went to the Quaker church. The bibles were unopened on a coffee table in the center of the group. I think the Quakers are Ecumenical in their approach toward belief system. Is this right? Are the Quakers proactive in terms of protesting wars, helping those in povertyand spreading the word of God? From my understanding we are to spread the word of Christ and share it with those who are willing to listen. Take care and God bless.
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 i just have a few more questions, do Quakers plead the blood of jesus christ? where do Quakers stand with salvation? As a Christian I know that only Christ can give us salvation not buddha, not allah, not shiva not anyone else. Christ is the only figure to be resurrected from the flesh and he brought Lazzarus back from the dead. Where do Quakers stand with the ten commandments? are we here to do the will of God or the will of humanity? Thank you again.
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 There's no single approved doctrine. Quakers interpret scripture individually, according to the spirit of God which is in them. "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cor.3:5-6) A set doctrine would be dead, not open to reinterpretation. But we interpret for ourselves...
Silenus6 5 months ago
@BTC141 So Christ and his words can mean different things to different people and yet there is no contradiction. God is THAT mysterious. Christ may even be a Holy Spirit of Love, present in Buddha, not only in the man Jesus. And, yes, this Spirit may also be in YOU. "You will say, 'Christ saith this', and 'the apostles say this', but what canst thou say? Art thou a Child of the Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest, is it inwardly from the Lord?" (~George Fox, founder)
Silenus6 5 months ago
@Silenus6 I see, but scripture is there as food for the spirit as well as food for life. We are living sacrifices of Christ. What about Satan? Where do Quakers stand on the issue of sin and Satan's influence on human will? I have seen people come to the church and get delivered of demonic possession. When I got saved I lost all desire to drink, do drugs or brawl with people in the street. I wouldn't say all people are children of Christ. I have seen some who are hell bound, and self destructive.
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 Quakerism seems like it has embraced New Age philosophy to me, but I might be wrong. Does Quakerism weave other belief systems and doctrines into its teachings?
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 Having studied many religions, I know that God is present in many religions; dramatic healings are common; people turn their lives around. We are all children of God and we are all sinners; it's not black and white; none are perfect, none are entirely corrupt. Even the prodigal son was still his father's son when he squandered his fortune. Each person can weave whatever they like into Quakerism, if it brings peace. The essence is silent worship and the test is love. Who has love has God.
Silenus6 5 months ago
@Silenus6 Ok, cool. Yes, peace of mind, stillness of mind is priceless I agree but for me it also knowing the teachings of Jesus and taking the time to read the bible and continuing to grow my personal relationship with the Lord. Do you feel that God is growing in much the same way human consciouness is growing? Would you say that Quakerism is kinda like a Christian version of Eastern buddhist philosophy? Thanks.
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 Jesus is a great teacher, and for me he is central; he is my chosen "guru". But I also find great teachers among the Buddhists, Hindus, and others. The Dhammapada, The Adi Granth, The Bhagavata Purana, the writings of Sri Ramakrishna and Rumi all contain priceless wisdom. These teachers have more in common with Christ than the vast majority of Christians do. Ram Dass's Hindu guru used to say to westerners (often hippies) who came to him, "What are you doing here? Christ is your guru." :)
Silenus6 5 months ago
@BTC141 "Is God growing... ?" It's fun to speculate on the many possibilities, but we don't want to fool ourselves into thinking we know something which we don't know. Perhaps there are great saints who know the answer. Personally, I prefer to think of God as fully "grown", in the sense that Truth is fully Truth and Love is fully Love, but that the manifestation of His will on earth is still taking place and depends upon the awakening of human consciousness. This is just a working theory though.
Silenus6 5 months ago
@Silenus6 I know that many inspirational speakers and such fall back on the teachings of Christ. Jesus' sermon on the mount in Matthew is one that stands out in particular. But all the other speakers you mentioned have accepted nothingness as their path? I like to place my faith in a higher power. The vast majority of Christians if not all are sinners at the moment of conception. I think the guru was having a poke at the lack of faith Westerners place in Christ lol.
BTC141 5 months ago
@BTC141 "And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" (Matt 26:40)
Silenus6 5 months ago
First we Quakers are expected to know and to read the bible. So it's not that we just believe what ever we want. Second the quiet time that we enjoy in church is for us to allow God to speak to our hearts. It's time to center our thoughts so we are prepared to listen and understand the word. Third we believe in a minimalistic life style, including our surroundings. And how we approach the world. I joined the Quakers in my late thirties, and I promote their simple life style.
onemarktwoyou 11 months ago
God can be known directly. God is beyond all names and transcends the descriptions offered by man-made doctrine and religion. It is up to the individual to come to an understanding of the Divine. God is not defined by ancient scriptures or a person's faith or belief system. I choose to experience God directly, not "believe" in some barbaric concept of God that many blindly have faith in.
LivingMindfully1975 1 year ago
What struck me about these people's view's, and I'm a follower of Jesus, was the variety of ideas which directly mirror the occult. Search up the meaning of occult; and God's view of it according to his word in the Bible.
I don't believe God dwells in every person - only if they have received the 'infilling' of the Holy Spirit (God Himself, not some 'force' or 'energy'!) do they have this honour, and at God's decision, to bless his children (that is, those who do his will/trust in his Son Jesus
Unmanditory 1 year ago
Comment removed
SpikeHammer182 2 years ago
I wouldn't kill anyone, but if someone kills me, they're doing me a favor, sending me to God's home and removing me from this nasty world! Why would I care? I am alive if God wants me to be, and when my time comes, there won't be much you or I can do. God never lies, but sometimes we just don't understand well.
vanessadd 2 years ago
BTW, I do think it would be wrong for me to judge someone who kills me due to his beliefs!! But I do believe that God would take care of my children, as He has done so far, and that only because I try to BEHAVE correctly so I get that as my 'salary'- but even if God decided to take any of my kids, I don't bury the dead- I let them bury themselves, as Christ said to do. I'm not a crybaby! If you knew what I've been through and seen in my life, you wouldn't comment this way.
vanessadd 2 years ago
Vanessa, you've revealed from your comments that you are just as illogical and Scripturally inept as the Quakers in the video. First, I'm not sure why anything that's happened to you in your life would have anything to do with my comments. I'm very sorry if you've had bad experiences in, but that doesn't change the truth.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
Further, you quote a portion of Scripture without any regard for what it says elsewhere. God clearly condemns murder as sin. Yet you wouldn't tell someone that they were wrong to do so? Tell me, how do you decide which parts of the Bible you quote. Apparently only the parts you're comfortable with. If you wouldn't "judge" someone for murder when God clearly condemns it, what makes you so sure that your quote from Christ is to be regarded as true?
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
Finally, you state you wouldn't judge the Muslim fundamentalist if he kills you as a result of his beliefs? Why? Because he hasn't come to the same conclusions you have? Read Romans 2:12-16. Paul stated that each man will be judged by God's law because, "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts." Men will be judged by God for things like murder regardless of their deeply held beliefs or personal conclusions. I hope people can see the folly of this way of thinking.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
I've got news for you.
When your die......your brains dies, and then there is only nonexistence. Just like before you were born. Magic Heaven world is a myth of many religions. But that's it.
So try and live your life here.................It's the only one you have.
bigboy45454545 2 years ago
And can you explain for us what makes you so certain that a naturalistic material existence is the only existence? You seem to be making knowledge claims about things that you couldn't possibly know for sure. If one can accept the reality of a Divine uncaused cause of the material universe, then it is not hard to understand that there could be a metaphysical existence beyond our material universe and even beyond death.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
I wonder if Josh below would be able to recognize contradictions in a chaos theory course (that`s advanced math, FYI) or in theoretical physics. I`m a Quaker in Venezuela, and have received and given extreme blessings when walking in the Quaker way. God can define Himself for each one of us, if He couldn`t, He wouldn`t be GOD!
vanessadd 2 years ago
So let's get this straight. When faced with an objection to your belief system, your response is, "Bet you don't know math!" Well, vanessadd, I have not attempted to claim any knowledge in chaos theory, so that is not pertinent to our discussion. Anyone should be able to recognize the contradictions in this video.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
Even if God defined himself differently to each person, He wouldn't make contradictory statements. One of the statements would have to be untrue, and then God would be liar. And who would want to worship such a dishonest being?
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
WIth your openness to relativistic definitions of God, I suppose you have no problem with the Muslim fundamentalist who feels it's his God-given right to kill you. On what authority would you tell him he is wrong for doing so? You certainly couldn't invoke God's authority because God may have defined Himself in that way to the killer. It would then be wrong for you to judge him. That's just one of many ways your religious views are self-referentially incoherent.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
you would rather worship a being that creates people who will go to hell, who doesn't take responsibility for the suffering of the world they created. you are welcome to your dreadful, evil god, very welcome
dw2626 2 years ago
A God who sends dreadful, evil creatures to hell is the only God Who would be worthy of worship. His justice will not have it any other way. He would also be wrong to take responsibility for the suffering that came as a result of those creatures' sin. But this same God went beyond justice in the person of Jesus Christ so that those who believe can escape the awful fate that the rest of humanity is damned to face. So, yes, I will worship a God who lavished his grace on me while in my sin.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
God. Without the faith people have in God, God would be just antoher fictional character. God is love. and God does dwell in and on the Earth. God is every individual and every thing. Just look to the stars and tell me you can't see god in sky or in a rose and not see at least the artistry of God. I am a Quaker and i have a deep beliefe in God. But i believe he or she is Everyting and ANything.
killhannahsboy2 2 years ago 4
I agree that you can see the artistry of God in a rose or in the sky. However the very things that you point out that show the artistry or perhaps creative power of God, also show that God cannot be everything and anything. For instance, the rose demonstrates that God is the originator or creator, correct? Then what if I said that God actually does not create? Someone would have to be wrong. You know a God Who creates roses. Someone else may claim to know that God does not create roses.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
Both cannot be right. Therefore, God cannot be anything or else God's very existence would be contradictory and illogical on many levels. Thus, I would suggest that God's existence is not defined by our intellect or understanding or our own interpretation. He is much greater than that, and He has revealed what He wants us to know about Himself through the person of Jesus Christ. He defines Himself. We do not define Him.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
its not a matter of whether god creates, but that he is and someone must be a fool to see that whether its nature or god, he just is...thats my point. not whether god makes roses... that was hypothetical``
killhannahsboy2 2 years ago
I understand that your point was hypothetical. However, you seem to find any and all definitions of God to be acceptable. My question is: What about those definitions that contradict one another? The real issue lies in whether or not God and His attributes are knowable and definite. Or, are they open to anyone's interpretation and opinion like that of the Quakers in this video?
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
The church has you in their shackles. You live your life by a book that preaches hate and wraps its jealous meanings in words like "love", "life", "heaven". You should see through the ruse Catholics has shrouded your vision with. But, i am not telling you to not believe in God. You have you're beliefs, i have mine. Just wanted to give my opinion about it.
nitter123 2 years ago
First, I am not Catholic nor am I associated with Catholics in any way. I am a Protestant Christian of the Wesleyan faith. So unless you can demonstrate how I have been influenced by Catholicism to the extent that it has shrouded my vision, you have made a claim with no basis about someone you don't know. Second, I'm not in the shackles of any church. I am follower of Jesus Christ, and I am in fellowship with His body of believers known as the Church.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
Further, you have also made claims about a book and offered no reference or words from that book to support them. Is this honest? Are you willing to demonstrate from the actual words of the Bible what you are claiming?
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
These Quakers are as confused about God as they are illogical. The problem with all their comments boils down to the simple principle of contradiction. Two contradicting statements cannot be true at the same time. To say that God is a singular person and then for someone else to says He is the oneness of being are contradictory statements. Someone is wrong! Logically at least one person at this Quaker meeting believes in a false god. It's disturbing that they don't care.
JoshRatliff 2 years ago
What is the opposite of faith?
Not disbelief. Too final, certain, closed. Itself a kind of belief.
Doubt.
The human condition...
Hyrshau 2 years ago
I think there's something very disturbing about this contest that's playing out to be "the best kind of Christian" within the messages here. What's important is the combination of faith and actual acts. I ask you--are these acts aligned with your faith? How can you know what's in another man's heart? Why fight so desperately to hold onto a label? That's sacrilege. :(
lildstryr 2 years ago
So ther beliefs of god changes wen they r influenced by wat any other persons belief of god is....
thatz rly pointles, they could convert to christian in a split second bcoz of that
timmyboy303 2 years ago
Comment removed
easternshorequaker 2 years ago
What I do to be saved? What must I do to continue in the faith and not be lost in the end? I'm interested in your thoughts.
tjg2008 2 years ago
Quakers have their arch conservatives and their lunatic fringe. Even if you define the Light as being Jesus or the Christ Within, you still have to accept the concept of continuing revelation. Something that Jesus communicates directly to you in the present day may supersede what someone else wrote ABOUT Jesus 1900 yrs ago. To deny the legitimacy of the Light Within is to reject the basis of Quakerism. If you do this, you may be a Christian but not a Christian Quaker. The 1827 schism deja vu.
duranbing 2 years ago
I thought that for many many years.God puts what you believe in,in you! If you think about it,its the only thing that really stands true to whats around you. Its only when certain religions try to indoctranate people that problems occur. It interferes with Gods way so to speak. You are what you are and no religion has the right to change that. Be wary of religions that say theirs is the only way! After all God made you all individual! Another Good Video!
Colin24Astonwood 2 years ago
My experience of visiting a British Quaker meeting (quite possibly not typical) is that there seemed to be common political and social views & a common way of "worship", but quite varied faith beliefs. I'd guess that there wouldn't be many (any?) Conservatives there or readers of the Telegraph.
Many churches around the world are just like that though, I guess people with common political & social views like to worship together. Perhaps not a problem.
9Fabian 2 years ago
Just to add that my opinion is probably a very superficial one.
9Fabian 2 years ago
If they read the Telegraph it is probably because of the sports pages!
I think the observations you make are generally true. Perhaps one difference is that Quakers tend to be very tolerant of others' ideas and beliefs.
srekauq 2 years ago
You can be as good as you think you can, but you still will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus is the only way, do not rely on your good works. God bless
SalvationEternity777 2 years ago
too bad you don't have the revelation of Jesus Christ given to us through the Spirit of truth and communicated by the word of truth the bible. You are in darkness read 2 Cor.4:1-6 They preached Jesus Christ , crucified, glorified, and revelation to those who come unto him..get the truth in Christ made real by the Holy Spirit..new creation reality
tjg2008 2 years ago
True Quakers believe in what you wrote, including 2 Cor. 4: 1-6. We believe the Bible contains the words of God. We also believe that Jesus is the Word of God.
stampguy01 2 years ago 2
And let`s remember the orginal meaning of the 'word of God'- it meant in ancient languages that it was God being ACTIVE in this world, so Jesus is God when he showed up as a man in this world. He`s the VERB- a word that implies actions.
vanessadd 2 years ago
Comment removed
aussiewasteland 2 years ago
Comment removed
TruthLightSeeker 3 years ago
Comment removed
aussiewasteland 2 years ago
Comment removed
TruthLightSeeker 2 years ago
Comment removed
aussiewasteland 2 years ago
Comment removed
TruthLightSeeker 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
TLS you are attempting a dialogue with someone who peppers his own argument with unexplained (or even misspelt) jargon while scorning the lack of precision in Quaker language, who blatantly seeks to antagonise but acts the injured party and protests innocent enquiry when he succeeds. I have given up trying to understand his game. Learn from my naively mistaken persistence and just dont play.
bangura4uk 2 years ago
more passive aggression from you? A bit snooty now about the spelling too eh? The issue all along was that you have not been able to explain anything about your faith, relying upon jargon instead. I can only wonder what your faith is truly based on? perhaps a mere need to belong? An unchallenging club? Vague notions of spirituality of which you are too lazy to explore more deeply? Maybe a feeling of smug superiority in a small pond where your vagueness wont be seriously challenged?
aussiewasteland 2 years ago
You seem to be on an angry, desolate quest for something that frantic intellectualising will never allow you to find. You predetermine that all answers to your sarcastic questions are wrong (apart from your own) but continue to post them. To distinguish "flippant.....jargon" from "profound insight" (and much in between) open yourself to the possibilities inherent in 'that of God in each' and even 'spiritualised Humanism' before applying your hostile 'crap detectors' to every phrase.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
You are a very hostile person arent you? I'm simply not prepared to blindly or emotively accept your idolatry of jargon. if you are prepared to cover your idolatry with anger, thats your choice, but yopu use these loaded terms and clealy have no idea what you mean by them, as if deliberate confusion is enough. Thats not faith, thats just an emotional dependence hiding behind language of obfuscation.If actions flow from what is not understood then the integrity of the action is deeply suspect.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
But of course the principle flaw of contemporary Quakerism, both liberal and conservative, is that it is nothing more than a spirtiualized Humanism. This is one of the many legacies of that flippant piece of theological jargon "that of God in each". A potentially profound insight, but left to gather cobwebs in the mere celebration of individual ego that is contemporary Quakerism.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
This is my understanding
1) God is Inner
2) You can commune with God
'God' is a very different from each person. Many Quakers are theistic (Having a personal God), whereas others are Nontheistic (God is a different idea embodying usually the peace and love of Quakerism). There are millions of in-betweens, but that's more or less a premise for most Friends.
WeSpeak 3 years ago
Thankyou WeSpeak for your post. Unfortunately much jargon is still being employed. I'm particularly troubled by your description of God as an idea embodying Quakerisms peace and love. Frankly, this is constructing God from a particular comfortable and comforting liberal persepctive (not that conservative fundamentalism is a viable option either).
We dont Quake before such a construct, so tame, so middle class. We truly have lost the needful 'fear' of God in such comforting sentiments.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Thankyou, Friend, for your reply
I try my best not to define what God is to each Quaker. But, I know there are people who claim to be Quakers, yet have witnessed to Nontheism (No-God), Paganism(Nature-Religion), etc.
I too Believe in a Personal God, as many many Friends do. We all witness to the Inner Christ differently. Who can say Nontheist Friends (Coming from ALL walks of life) have not experienced the Inner Light; that God wants them to see Him this way? I say, none.
WeSpeak 3 years ago
WeSpeak, yet you do the very thing you criticise by saying that such experiences may have legitimacy. Your method has a double edge :)
The problem with the relativism you and many others here essentially espouse is that it functions in a vacuum, as if the broader historical and Traditional encounter with God has never existed and that any new light is valid. Well many have claimed divine inspiration and commit atrocities.george Bush for one. Is this of God? If so why? If not why not?
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
My Steve Halpern CD's have just arrived!!! 'Gifts of the Angels' and 'Tonal Harmony'. Im so excited ... however, I dont know if i'll be able to appreciate this beautiful music ...
Halpern has never clearly defined 'gifts', 'of the', 'angels', 'tonal' or 'alchemy'. Maybe I should just listen to the music ...
jamzmagick 3 years ago
rather silly point you make there jamzmagick. I suggest that you may not appreciate the music so much if you didnt understand much of the meaning that pervades it.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Lights enable us to see in a particular space, ignorance being a metaphor for 'cowboy electricians' ... truth is when we speak without thinking, heads are illusory constructs whose purpose is to make you aware of their uselessness, heart is humour ... divine make gorgeous chocolates and sacred is the 'seed' of an academic's pride. Soul, often confused with Blues, has produced some of the world's finest music ...
I sincerely hope that my lack of integrity does not need further definition
jamzmagick 3 years ago
More sollipsistic nonsense from you jamzmagick, once again showing that Quakers pander too much to those who simply worship themselves.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
May those who know teach those who are unaware by their being in the world. May their light, which is untouched by ignorance, shine truth over all. May love fill the hearts of the men and women whose heads are full and may light fill the minds of those whose hearts are closed. All things are divine and sacred, no argument is needed, no war will achieve peace. Hold each and every one in the light and God will touch their soul.
Hold in the light especially, those who are sure of themselves
jamzmagick 3 years ago
Here is a perfect example of Quaker dogmatism,smugness and condescension disguised by obfuscating jargon and pretence of prayer. Rather than clarify, attack. What utter bad faith to disguise a put down within prayerful wishes.Are you really so unaccountable that you hide behind your wall of dogma and pretense of piety? What hypocrisy.
Again, if you actually knew what the jargon you employ meant you wouldnt use such signifiers in such a low and self satisfied way.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Leaving your attitude aside jamzmagick, perhaps you could clearly state what is meant by "being in the world", "light", "light untouched by ignorance", "truth", "heads", "heart", "all things divine and sacred", "divine", "sacred", "soul" ?
I find the idolatry of jargon boring, I really want to see if a Quaker such as yourself knows what is meant.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
that are righteous are still in need of the letting go of that self sufficiency that keeps them from Grace, from the offer of the Kingdom. The rich young man is such an example. The danger for Quakers is that their self sufficiency and inability to see themselves as crippled in sin without Grace is the rejection of God. God (or any other vagueness asserted by Quakers) is merely an extra. This is the danger of the ignorant embrace of "that of God within". You simply dont know what it means.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I fear that by the strictures of this kind of theology 99.9% of humanity have never grasped "what it means" and will forever remain "crippled in sin without Grace". A danger in such thinking, in my opinion, is in its tendency to nourish and legitimise self appointed elites or hermetic withdrawl. Some adherents of other Christian churches are content for the thinking to be done for them and for faith to be expressed in more or less diligent outward ritual and recitation. tbc
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Yes one of the great losses for Quakers is their loss of ritual. Such needless reactionary haste in tossing out so much! Ritual is not empty. If enacted properly it speaks to much deeper levels of our psyches. Quakers have lost this, have lost so much of humanity's long histories of religious practice. Quakers have never understood ritual.
What "strictures" do you mean? Actually its freedom to let go of such self sufficiency and pride and be open to Grace. Consciousness of sin is freedom...
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
it is freedom in facing our intrinsic limit and the subsequent burden of living without such recognition. Amplifying nothingness is wearying!! To face our limit and to then respond to loving Grace (in its many guises) is to be born again, not misshapen, but in right ordering.
It has become fashionable to no longer address sin, we are all wonderful as we are!! What slavery!
Maybe the reason why so many let their thinking be done for them is because they arent allowed to face themselves first.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Quakers dont choose this option. A genuine committment to communion with that of God within each other person is quite the reverse of the self sufficiency and egocentricity you allege. An excessive pre-occupation with sin and personal salvation may possibly be a way to avoid the promptings of the spirit to work with each other for Peace on Earth today. Thanks for prompting me to read more on Elias Hicks btw.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Again, what is "that of God within"? How is it different to self sufficiency?
Awareness of sin , and the condition of sin, is not excessive preoccupation. What awareness of sin is about is of our intrinsic and then habit fuelled limitation, in which condition we need God, we are insofar as we accept incompleteness and respond to Grace. We are not insofar as we, through diverse means, declare our self sufficiency, relish our ground of nothingness.
God is always other despite being "within".
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
A more illuminating discussion. Where to start...? You may be surprised by the depth of respect many Quakers hold for the rituals of other faiths but presumably would accept that rituals can become empty, obfuscating and divisive, particularly where their observance or non-observance is in itself claimed to be virtuous or sinful. The Christian concept of sin has an extraordinary history (deriving from biblical mistranslation from the Greek) but its way past my bedtime....maybe tomorrow.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Hmm, thats odd, a day ago you had quite a dismissive attitude to ritual.
Yes the term sin has had a diverse conceptual history, christianity isnt static, but yet repentance from "sin", leaving the inviolate self and abandoning to the Kingdom of God is central.
The offer of the Kingdom and the demand for unreserved embrace of it is central. Repentance, baptism,forgiveness of sins.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Not sure how you read my comment on "some adherents" use of ritual as dismissive of ritual and all its layers of meaning and symbolism for many believers. For Quakers to place greater emphasis on stillness, reflection and silent communion it is not necessary to devalue other forms of worship. Quakerism is not static either. Some but not all Quakers would now share your view of God as "always other". Less 'stacatto' forums might be more rewarding for you. Google "Quakers and sin" to find one.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Hmm, so if only some Quakers would understand God as always Other, what do the rest think?
Yes I had overlooked the emphasis upon SOME adherents.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
You would not expect me to answer this question on behalf of "the rest" since you are already aware of the absence of credal statements and deplore the associated lack of precision in Quaker theology. My experience of Quakers is that there is room for considerable diversity of belief and tolerance of uncertainty, alongside unity in a living witness rooted in Christian teaching.
If this is too fuzzy/undisciplined for you then possibly so is Quakerism but you are welcome to seek further with us.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
hmm, but here we are back at the initial problem: how can there be such unity rooted in Christian teaching if because of the elevation of subjective authority and interior "feeling" core Christian teachings are not known or blatantly disagreed with?
Unity in diversity is hard work, and requires a deep, yes intellectual, comprehension of teachings so to listen for resemblances that may superficialy contradict. Without such rigor there is no actual unity in diversity but complacency .
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Some find Quakers after a lifetime on the receiving end of various orthodox Christian teaching, others with virtually none. Dramatic Pauline conversions aside, spiritual revelation can be understood as a lifelong journey on which we are at different stages and rates of progress and may not even reach identical destinations. Without Quakers Christian teaching would be no more than a 'cultural footnote' in my own life so no problem with people finding unity via testimonies first either.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I do agree with everything you say here, but the necessity to still grapple and then integrate Christian thought in a much more open space isnt negated. Thought as integral to the person isnt discarded upon association with Quakers. I suggest too that there is far more of an onus on Quakers to understand and articulate their theological positions given that many are contra the mainstream. It is simply arrogance to contradict but not to clearly explain. Contemporary Quakers have retreated.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
The "onus...to understand and articulate..." is implicit in the idea of a "priesthood of all believers" and manifest in initiatives like "Quaker Week" to which this film was only one contribution. Not everyone is equally articulate. Perhaps we can integrate Christian thought by sometimes giving more thoughtful energy and attention to Christian practice than Christian dogma? In which regard I may not be setting a good Quaker example here.....!
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Its not a question of being "articulate" but of effort to understand rather than simply babble dogmatic jargon, and to do so with integrity. There is dogma at play in Quakers as seen in your repeated turn to "practice" as means to eveade understanding, or to make understanding secondary. But action without understanding is devoid of integrity for a human. It is mindless and mechanical.I perceive a dogma of practice for its own sake.
You do set a good example by actually engaging.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Thanks but I'm tired of responding to the bait. Since nothing I say appears to mitigate your predetermined scorn it must be time to take a break. Have a peaceful Christmas.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
its a shame that you choose to dismiss genuine enquiry and challenge as bait. I've simply and persistently asked for what Quaker jargon actually means, but it seems that Quakers, and not only Quakers, are content with an idolatry of concept at best and possible utter ignorance of of the very grounds of their belief at worst.
Quakers simply cant get away with the ersatz mysticism they peddle. In their chosen exile from the Tradition they have lost all basis of what their terminology means.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Genuine enquiry and challenge is welcome. Listening for it above the noise of sneering provocation becomes wearying (and fallible humans are vulnerable to the temptation to respond in kind). Nor in my opinion is the "babble[of]dogmatic jargon" illuminated by theological pyrotechnics as much as by Christian patterns and examples of living which can be known and followed with or without great scholarship. But I'm getting repetetive....
bangura4uk 3 years ago
and for my part, respite from an overheated debate will be enforced by lack of access to a computer for the next week. If you are seeking a platform there must be bigger ones with larger windows than this. You dont indicate the extent of your reading of Quaker literature but to pursue your genuine enquiry I recommend titles by Harvey Gillman, Douglas Gwyn and David Boulton which should be borrowable from Aussie Quaker sources.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
LOL, goodness, if you think this has been "overheated" you obviously havent ventured far into the world of Youtube or of blogging generally.
Bangura4uk, I have simply and forcefully wanted clarification of the signifiers used. You and others cannot do this and resort to vague dismissals of knowledge in preference to a sort of mindless action, or stubbornly celebrate jargon.
Faith without works is dead, and works without understanding is slavery.
Peace to you at this season of Grace.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Thanks for presuming my innocence of other internet forums. Sadly I'm probably as familiar as you are with 'discussions' that are no more than intellectual posturing or expire in a blaze of pointless insults with nothing learned on either side. Hence (rather than satirising your own jargon) my suggestion to read further on the extensive debate within Quakerism. Your latest posts make this esp relevant in relation to theism and non-theism among Quakers.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Hmm, then I can only put your amplifying our exchange to "overheated debate" as a bit of tetchiness on your part :)I am aware of the limited debate that goes on in Quakers in regards to this issue. I have also found the understanding of atheism amongst Quaker adherents to it as naive and limited. Quakers find themselves in so many dire situations at this time due to laissez faire culture, which has resulted in utter paralysis at best, atrophy the norm.How will Quakers learn to Quake once more?
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
You still make no substantiating reference to anything you have read (beyond youtube comments)on Quaker thought. So its difficult to guess what you might find less "limited" and I am left wondering if your interest is mainly polemical and your protestations of "genuine enquiry" are somewhat rhetorical. Do your comments on "works without understanding" "paralysis" etc refer to all current Quaker conflict resolution projects for example?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I guess that your reference to "limited" is my reference to the shallowness of Quaker understandings of 'atheism', and of how there can be Quaker 'atheists". As for other areas of Quaker thought I have read Faith and Practice, A Quaker Book of Wisdom, An Introduction to Quakerism, Quaker Spirituality (I do quite like Carolin Stephen, but nothing original), and the Quaker Reader. Also an odd little book on Quaker atheism, testimonies of such, this was particularly shallow.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
As for works without understanding, and even in such projects you mention, the work itself is all well and fine, but has no qualitative difference to that of others IF not grounded within and manifesting of Quaker responsiveness to God. What is done flows from what is understood. If no understanding, if all of the person is not incarnate in what is done, then surely the action is deficient? In the presence of God a work is worship, always, otherwise it is self serving and adoring.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Of course the texts I referrred to are just some (I have forgotten the titles of a few other works I have read. Also a smattering of journal articles and newsletters too. But more to the point, I have sought to find what thou canst say, from where it is that Quakers speak? I fear that the worship of self has taken over Quakers and that there is need to call them back to facing their God, to tremble in the face of Brilliance, to be stripped bare and found wanting. Quakers have tamed their deity.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Thanks for clarifying the extent of your enquiries. They can hardly be matched in a forum like this and have clearly left you very disappointed. Every reply seems only to further confirm for you that Quakers are unoriginal, without spiritual understanding and beyond redemption in their empty idolatory of self etc. There must be many other Christian avenues for your search. Yet something is keeping you here, rapidly posting as many as 3 replies to 1 over many weeks....What is it?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Well, not, or ever, without redemption :)) What I see in Quakers is what could be. Once they seemed alive to the Presence of God. Trembled at it. Then, gradually a rigamortis set in, becoming as gradually dogmatic and rigid as other Christian sects. Now, they are largely dominated by a lukewarm and safe spirituality largely reactive to past rigidity, secondary to mere activism, contained by a bourgoise feminism and assorted liberal decadences. Even in Silence God is secondary to mild musings.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Somehow God has become an embarrasment, and only activism speaks truth. I do perceive a deep resentment to diverse constructions of masculinity as behind much of Quaker's current demise. But thats another discussion. Even though Quakers were born at a time of reaction I see the prophetic at work, at its heart. Maybe the prophetic Spirit has moved from Quakers, buried under respectability and feminization, but the Quaker as holy fool tembling in face of awe of the Divine is a needed voice.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Again there could be elements of a relevant critique here among the multiple hyperbolic and sweeping generalisations (presented as factual statements but impossible to justify, answer or adequately discuss in this format). Almost every one of your terms is unexplained but you are surely aware that Quakers were challenging "constructions of masculinity" long before "bourgeoise feminism" came along? Read Douglas Gwyn's 'Covenant Crucified' to understand the roots of Quakerism.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I've read enough by Quakers to know that one persons writing and perspective will stay just that. I'll keep an eye out for Gwyn though. While challenging such constructions at one time was needful,now is far beyond that brief. Quakers had provided a space in which women gave voice and give leadership. But has an ideology redefined this offereing? Has a feminist ideology drained the sacred, the numinous, the trembling from Quaker life? Has all become familiar,feeling, nice and interest laden ?
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Hmm...hard to keep up with this scattergun approach in which the target changes so rapidly. If 'feminist ideology' is now to blame for Quaker spiritual anaemia; are you saying that gender inequality has receded to the point of irrelevance (in religion and/or the world in general) or that social testimony has no part in a spirit led Christianity? Presumably Quaker witness against slavery, nuclear weapons etc can be similarly dismissed? cont...
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Ideology in any manifestation is an idolatry. A hybrid feminism has eroded much Quaker vitality of worship. Just as many men for too long had a perverese idea of 'woman' that neurosis is now reversed, and so worship is now a caring and sharing session in which the big bad male deoty is morphed with lovely nature and happy thoughts. Theology dismissed as not 'of the heart'. As long as people see others as object of desire then inequality will continue, but worship is not the place cont...
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
for such ideological battles, whether launched by one gender distortion or the other.. As for social testimony, huh? So feminism is "spirit led christianity'? Very sloppy. Such is the problem when theological jargon replaces actual theological thought, any ol' ideology can be disguised as "spirit led". Bizarre line of argument to then claim, in effect, that to dismiss feminism is to then dismiss Spirit leading, and then dismiss other spirit led actions. I'll let you stew in that jumble alone.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I fear the jumble is created in your own imagination. Re-read my last post and then consider if you have honestly answered either of the questions asked or just set off on another flight of polemical generalisations without substantiating any of them - difficult in 500 or even 1500 spaces I know but you could develop one point at a time or write a book instead!
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I assert that a hybrid feminism has drained Quakerism of encounter with God and replaced it with mild sympathies, stripping it of whatever smacks of the masculine. You take the discussion into a question of whether women have achieved equality in religion. I dont think a healthy feminism is about the anaemia that has become the norm for Quaker worship, the control, the tepidity. So again I say to you that worship is not the place for such idolatrous agenda. What do YOU mean by "spirit led"?
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I am unable to understand how anything I have said could be so crudely or ridiculously construed as an assertion that "feminism is spirit led Christianity"! I am challenging not only this kind of distortion in your arguments but also your apparent attempt to compartmentalise some kind of apparently 'pure' theology from issues (inequality for example) that have messy political dimensions. Quaker testimony asserts (however imprecisely) that there is no such division between worship and life.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
You do get yourself worked up dont you? I didnt say that feminism is spirit led christianity, I dont know why you put that in italics. Due to lack of space I simply added in a separate sentence my wanting some clarification on what YOU meant by the jingoistic "spirit led". As for lack of division between worship and life, thats actually what I've been saying, however my contention is that Quakers dont know what they worship (nature,spirit,nothing) so how can there be harmony in life and worship?
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Your own previous post reads: "So feminism is "spirit led christianity"? Very sloppy." It might be very sloppy if I had actually said any such thing. If lack of space is the excuse for such distortions what is the point in my seeking here to further explain to you my understanding of something as (conventionally) "untheological" as the unity of worship and social testimony? How could any action be literally shown, to your satisfaction, to be spirit led?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I did not say it was said, it was implied in my reading of your high status response.Dont squirm out of explaining yourself due to lack of space,simply add more posts if need be.There is nothing unconventional in what you are saying, I just want some calrity from you So I patiently ask you again: what do you mean by "spirit led", and what is the actual substance of your worship from which social testimony manifests. If you dont know just say so rather than continual obfuscation. and evasion.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I'm sorry that I cannot claim to know much in the absolute and literal sense that you seem to want. I am probably misunderstanding you and I'm sorry too if my clumsy attempts have increased your annoyance. Maybe we can learn something about spiritual leading from James Nayler back in 1660: "There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong....Its hope is to weary out all exaltation and cruelty....It takes its kingdom with entreaty and not with contention..."
bangura4uk 2 years ago
Quaking and trembling are common in revivalist movements even today but seldom sustained over centuries unless in a hyped or ritualised form. Messianic leadership invoking supernatural authority is difficult (for me) to trust in its 21C forms and nor am I able to roll back the rational infusions through which Quaker faith has evolved since the 17C. Familiar but still dynamic, changing and challenging to the human condition as we find it.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
This is classic rationalization from you. So you are happy for "rational infusions" to strip away vital openness to overwhelming encounter with God , but not happy for actual theological scrutiny of the jargon that peppers Quaker belief. Why is integrity not part of worship? As I have said, Quakers have tamed their deity, how else can you sit in such cocooned comfort mulling over random thoughts? You may sneer at quaking and trembling, but a faith of mild sympahies is mere idolatry.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Not clear what you mean by "subjective authority" ('sinful disobedience' perhaps?)or why you place the word "feeling" in quotes while apparently placing much greater trust in intellect. It might be inferred that acheiving 'Grace' is primarily an intellectual endeavour while feeling is mainly to be endured as suffering or rejected as leading to sin. This is of course comforting to the tiny literate elites that have held sway for most of the last 2000 years.....
bangura4uk 3 years ago
"Subjective authority" as "I know, by authority of that of me divine". As I have said before: a legitimated solipsism. Nothing that you have said has convinced me otherwise. It truly is one of the great flaws of Quakers more and more isolates itself from engagement with the thought of the Traditional continuum. Rather than face the flaw, constructs as a nebulous "feeling" and persecuting and exclusive "tiny literate elites" are constructed to legitimate elevated intellectual isolation,
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I can know almost nothing from "subjective authority" or alienated self-reference. Most of what I know is through a more or less spiritual connection to others. This can be powerfully experienced (particularly sometimes in gathered silent worship) in a way that is variously described - often as the presence of God - but is also beyond words and intellect alone. By reference to 'tiny literate elites' I mean to query how illiterate people (the rest) would intellectualy explore their theology.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
LOL, Quakers cant hekp but fall back into their jargon can they? What on earth is this "spiritual connection to others"? What is "presence of God"? Be careful with the inadvertant Quaker hubris of mystical experience "beyond words and intellect alone". Quaker worship is too often a deluded mockery of authentic mystical encounter. The inderstanding is abandoned only when exhausted. Quakers have yet to exhaust it!!
Quakers arent alone in this either, generally symptomatic of experientialism.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've actually made no comment about the interviewees per se, I've simply indicated the vacuity of what has been said as if it passes for substance. What I have sought is clarity. Instead what is offered is vague allusion, dogmatic in its use and in its deliberate obfuscations.
In regards to metanoia, Quakers make a critical mistake in dogmatically asserting that change is not a fundamental criterion of response to Grace. We are not OK as we are. The Gospels show very clearly that even those
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
I've actually made no comment about the interviewees per se, I've simply indicated the vacuity of what has been said as if it passes for substance. What I have sought is clarity. Instead what is offered is vague allusion, dogmatic in its use and in its deliberate obfuscations.
In regards to metanoia, Quakers make a critical mistake in dogmatically asserting that change is not a fundamental criterion of response to Grace. We are not OK as we are. The Gospels show very clearly that even those
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Hicks' nonsense is just another way of saying that people are great as they are and that they dont need to change, that there is no need for metanoia when responding to the Kingdom of God.
But there is.
The Gospels show God as loving us as we are, but the Kingdom asks for radical change, see our sin and turn to God for healing.
Quaker banality obstructs such recognition, mistaking the Kingdom of God is within/amongst you as an excuse for complacency and alienation from the demands of Grace.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
The film does not pronounce any of its comments as being a unanimous Quaker viewpoint because THERE ISNT ONE! Thats the whole point in the faith, personal journeys and understandings are respected. Look for a quote by Elias Hicks regarding 'the Law being written on every heart, according each to their condition'. Condition refering to level of spiritual awareness, in my interpretation. YOU be ashamed of yourself, for pseudo intellectually antagonising a faith without knowing anything about it.
jamzmagick 3 years ago
Missing the point bangura4uk. If Quakers are putting themeselves in a public forum for a change but spouting inanities about "God" as "universal" "energy" and other jinoisms such as this film pronounces, as if wotevah someone thinks of God (when not pondering their shopping lists or day activities) is valid, then ridicule is the needful response. More than this: identifying the lazy ego worship of such a sect which elevates conceptual idols as worthy merely by virtue of having been thought.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Since you have also put yourself in this public forum with your comments on the interviewees, it seems reasonable to ask what your own answers might be with as much time as you want for a carefully scripted response.
Ridicule may sometimes be a 'needful response' of otherwise powerless people facing immovable oppression. If you were seeking to further a constructive dialogue, spiritual transformation, repentance (or even "metanoia") ridicule might be less useful?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
So following the waffle logic of all this, is my faith in the five legged pink bunny whose oracle I am fine? Does each persons view of 'God' valid no matter what it is?
Actually what all this is about is self and imagings amplified to worship.
Nothing more than idolatry of the ego.
You should be ashamed of yourselves for such hubris and laziness.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Heavy on the sarcasm but perhaps you would risk saying something about your own "view of God"?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Everyone expressed themselves so well. Whoever made this video did a wonderful job. I'm very impressed with you British Quakers. You really seem to have it together. American Quakers could learn a lot from you guys!!
kinksfan1 3 years ago
That's not really fair. :(
American Quakers were involved in the Underground Railroad, woman's rights and have been in recent movements in response to our government's actions.
glokkpod84 3 years ago
I stand corrected, glokkpod. They were possibly the most progressive group of people in America. I'm just saying lately there is so much theological bickering and disagreement among Quakers in the states whereas the British Quakers seem pretty much on the same page. I wanted to join but have been really turned off by all the fighting between and within groups. We will see. I know no one is perfect.
kinksfan1 3 years ago
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
(II Timothy 3:5)
GodRaised 3 years ago 3
Quaker theology is as unstable as water
FirebrandNIRE 3 years ago
Its true Quakers are not big on theology. "Let your life speak" is as often quoted as passages from the bible.Written by men and translated and interpreted by many other men for different purposes at different times, the bible is an important source of inspiration and guidance. If there is 'that of God' or 'an inner light' in every person the reliance on fallible human authority as a source of absolute spiritual truth recedes and truth is found beyond as well as within the Christian tradition.
bangura4uk 3 years ago 2
But these people in this video say that God is only what you perceive him to be. Sounds like what George Fox says, obviously, outweighs what God has spoken in his word. I hear NOTHING biblical in this.
icartoon2 3 years ago 5
amen
kiekie84 3 years ago
Nothing Biblical in this? May I ask: who cares??? The Quakers have much higher spitirual and moral standards than many "Biblical" fundamentalists do.
chanteur73 3 years ago
Galatians 6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
(I Peter 5:5)
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
(I Corinthians 1:25)
Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.
(Proverbs 3:7)
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
(Isaiah 5:21)
icartoon2 3 years ago 4
1) I don't believe in NT.
2) These believers are wiser in their hearts than anyone who reads religious books literally and hit the others in the head with selected texts.
3) The Quakers' general principles of morality show perfect adherence to Prov. 3:7.
chanteur73 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"1) I don't believe in NT."
then you are going to hell. isn't that a shame. I hope you repent and have faith before its too late for you.
galaxydreams 3 years ago
OMG... this is frightening! i know well enough my Jewish Bible (Tanach) and there's not a word about a "new" testament nor about a "hell" waiting for those who don't believe this and that. Get a life!
chanteur73 3 years ago
Is there anything about an "Old" testament?
I do you YOU get a life, and the only way to get that is to repent. God Bless.
galaxydreams 3 years ago
"Old" is written, if I'm not wrong, in the letter to Hebrews, one of the most contradictory parts of the NT, of most dubious origin (you don't even know exactly who wrote it) and it was accepted to the NT canon only after fierce discussions.
You need to repent from one thing. imposing your idolaty (Jesus-Trinity) to truly monotheistic believers.
chanteur73 3 years ago
How is me disagreeing with your religious beliefs imposing my beliefs on you or anyone else?
You are awfully judgmental sir. You don't even know me or anything I have done with my life. Shame on you.
galaxydreams 3 years ago
I apologize for my tune. yet, I've studies the NT well and this is the reason why I continue to be a Jew. I wish you all the best.
chanteur73 3 years ago
icartoon: you may not hear anything Biblical in this, but here's the thing....even among those who DO place the Bible first, there's no AGREEMENT. Baptists do not always agree with Lutherans, for example. So using the Bible isn't even a very good "test." At least the Quakers come by the "I don't know" HONESTLY.
floridaredhead 3 years ago
Boy, I don't even need reply as you guys show your distaste and distrust of God all over your comments. It's obvious you don't believe God has given us His word. Well, here it is again, nonetheless...
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
(Romans 1:28)
icartoon2 3 years ago 4
You're being a troll, icartoon. Go away.
floridaredhead 3 years ago
This is pathetic nonsense. Poor deceived souls.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
(Hebrews 11:6)
icartoon2 3 years ago
My Mate John is in a mental hospital as a result of being raped by his Father who is a quaker,he is a well respected figure at Winchmore Hill, North London, he owns a lot of property in London, I will not name this man.
blackeconomics 3 years ago
A disturbing comment. Are you saying that it was Quaker beliefs that led this man to rape his son or that the Quakers in Winchmore Hill respected him for it? I presume not. Being a 'respected figure' in any religion or community is sadly no guarantee of good behaviour. If your friend has not reported his abuse to anyone except you I advise you to help him do this. Others could be at risk from his father.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I thank the goddess for the Quakers - blessed be x
mayanchild 3 years ago
Thank you for your reply. I now have a better understanding.
2255661 3 years ago
If most Quakers have different beliefs in god or no belief at all, then why the meetings? Couldnt you connect with your god on your own? Just trying to understand.
2255661 4 years ago
Quakers do believe in God, they also believe that when they congregate together to worship that it pleases God & he blesses them with the presence of the Holy Spirit
Bronzewhaler82 4 years ago