Quakers: Woolly-minded liberals?

Are Quakers woolly-minded liberals and, if so, why?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• liberal
• quaker
• quakers
• soft
• social
• action

[srekauq]

marklg4 I like the sound of your Meeting!

[9Fabian]

When I think of the term woolly liberals I think of the British newspaper - The Guardian. If the Church of England is the "Tory Party at prayer", are Quakers "Guardian readers at prayer"?

:-)

Nice lot though.

[srekauq]

Fair comment!

[Bronzewhaler82]

Fundamentalism is dangerous. I think Quakers have the right idea about God and worship. They are on the right track!

[iamanonymousify]

Quakers don't believe in formal creeds but they have always had doctrines that they accept, including believing in God and Jesus Christ as His Son. Nobody ever said anything of creeds from what I could tell on this board.

[DetroitUrbanTV]

@iamanonymousify

In Quaker meeting in Detroit Michigan USA - We are unprogrammed or LIBERAL and doctrines such as Jesus being God is not at all in the reality of my experiences. The doctrine of Jesus as God can be found in a conservative or evangelical branch of Quakers. The only way to understand this is to clearly see differences between both groups. The evangelical Quakers have churches and deeply believe in Jesus as God. The liberal Quakers do not teach this and meet in silence.

[marklg49]

Per chance I am a Woolly minded liberal, maybe I am a dyed in the wool conservative, that is for me to attempt to know, and this quest for knowledge is but a part of me and my Quakerism. I am an American liberal un-programmed Quaker, in my Monthly Meeting we have people from the extreme left to the extreme right, but what matters to me, is that there is God in each of us. If I open my ears and try to listen, my quest for knowledge might be helped along a bit.

[c00505]

Folks, all this bickering is sort of missing one of the main points of Quakerism in the 1st place...

As for 'are Quakers wooly minded Liberals?'; yes, if their reading of the Gospels and the guidance of the holy spirit (apologies for the incorrect terminology, I'm sort of new at this) suggests that they should be so.

[phantomsuccour]

Quakers were the only denomination in America against slavery long before others, so I trust that they have their heads screwed on right.

[bangura4uk]

@truthinlifeful I don't know what videos thequakerchannel commented on either, apart from this one. I was only referring to the comments here and the views and attitudes expressed in them. Possibly the person has thought better of the name and taken on a different one...

[bangura4uk]

@truthinlifeful As you started by replying to my post and saying you agree with thequakerchannel, I made an assumption that you agree with theqch's posts in general. In my opinion many of those posts tend to excluding/alienating because they mainly suggest that he/she has arrived at the truth and in particular, that his/her understanding of what it means to be a Quaker is the only "true" one. The monikers people choose can sometimes be indicative of the attitudes shown in what they write.

[bangura4uk]

@truthinlifeful I've no idea why you think I'm implying any such thing. Perhaps you could consider your own advice about making assumptions? Still curious to know on what authority or for what reasons you and thequakerchannel assume such names. I'll tell you about mine if you tell me about yours! Lets see if we can learn something...starting by resisting the temptation to exclude or alienate other seekers by the way we proclaim truth.

[bangura4uk]

@truthinlifeful Okay. As he/she calls themself "THE" quakerchannel and you give yourself a name with a similar finality, that might seem to be the end of any discussion!