Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 - " The Stewarts " <stews9 Saturday, February 15, 2003 2:35 AM Response The reason that Pixy hasn't really discussed dogma is because Quakers aren't big on it. We have no creeds or dogmas and that is why it causes people headaches when one tries to explain Quakerism to them. '...Quakers are individualistic and have no authoritative creed or standard of action, no statement can be true of all Quakers, in all meetings, in all parts of the world. Yet there are, naturally, some common norms...' > And then you go on to contradict that no, don't you? Where did she contradict the lack of " must " in a liberal Quaker setting? What she said was that it would seem pretty pointless to want to be a Quaker unless one believed that all are equal - that doesn't mean that one couldn't mount a case for membership and it doesn't mean that one would be turned away. I would come close to calling it a " must " , but it isn't, really. If you are wondering what God may be, Looking for a purpose in life, Craving company or seeking solitude, Come to our Meeting for Worship! We shall not ask you to speak or sing, We shall not ask you what you believe, We shall, simply offer you our friendship And a chance to sit quietly and think; And perhaps somebody will speak, And perhaps somebody will read, And perhaps somebody will pray; And perhaps you will find here That which you are seeking ... - - - - - We are not saints, We are not cranks, We are not different ---- Except that we believe That God's light is in all persons Waiting to be discovered. > Strictly, pagan simply means rural, meaning not in town; it was applied to > non-stains essentially by Roman slobs and it means unsophisticated rubes > who didn't know any better. So what? You know, I suspect, that she was talking about a modern understanding of Paganism. > Rosicrucians and other esoteric groups also speak of the light, and in > fact that's one of the meanings of the phrase " the Christ " . Again, so what? > This is appealing but one wonders why they have meeting houses Because it makes it easier for people to congregate in one place. Meeting doesn't have to be held in a meeting house and can just as easily be held outside or in a private home. However, having a meeting house means that people can know where there will be a Quaker meeting and can get there without having to be " in the know " so much. It is just for convenience. I have been to meetings in private homes, in God's own chapel (I.em. outside) and in a couple of different meeting houses. A meeting isn't about the building, it is about the people and the spirit of God within them. and why the > " quaking " is a standard feature. *laugh* *chortle* Quaking is not a " standard feature " . 'In its earliest days the Society of Friends was subject to persecution because of its dissent from the established church. During one court trial George Fox, the movement's leader, told the judge that he feared no temporal punishments but did quake and tremble lest he failed to obey God's commands, The judge's terming of Fox and his followers as " Quakers " was taken up by the group ...' Lee-Gwen http://www.quakercapecod.org/quakerintro.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 ? I received this post offlist directly to me, with a time stamp one hour prior to this one, and with a totally different subject line~ so I am rather confused as to why it is here. I already responded offlist, and wont go into all the detail as to my original response~ but suffice it to say that I did not contradict myself, as the operative word in the question was *must*. Pixx On 14 Feb 2003 at 9:35, The Stewarts wrote: > On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 12:28 AM, Pixx wrote: > > *must*?? Given that word, and a liberal Meeting, I would say no. > > And then you go on to contradict that no, don't you? > > But unless one felt that *all* are equal, I would think one would feel > it pointless to be there. > > There's one. > > The Quakers were integral to the Underground Railroad freeing > many slaves, and to women's rights. > > I know this. > > Quakers were the first > primarily Christian organization [and still one of only few] to accept > same sex relationships as being valid. > > Yes indeed, and admirable. There's two: Christian. > > Quakers are 'behind the > scenes' every day in areas and situations where people are not > being treated equally. > > As are Rosicrucians and other esoteric organizations, yes. Good > advertizing for Quakers but not pertinent to the question of dogma. > > > What difference than anyone else? To draw on my own > experience....There have been much time when it has been too > great a distance for me to be in a Friends Meeting, and I have > spent time in many different churches and religious circles. I have > been a complete misfit in all of them. I am too open minded for most > christians, and my reverence for nature and animals tends to 'scare' > many by thinking I am pagan. > > Strictly, pagan simply means rural, meaning not in town; it was > applied to non-xtians essentially by Roman slobs and it means > unsophisticated rubes who didn't know any better. > > pagan circles don't want me > because I am Christian. > > As you may know, the Gospel of Thomas, expunged from the Roman > Catholic books at the Council of Nicea, gives the directly quoted > sayings of Jesus, > and interestingly these sayings are anti-clerical, > anti-hierarchical, > anti-church, and decidedly pagan. Constantine had to suppress them in > order to preserve the Roman Caesars through the papal succession. > Thus Ancient Rome lives on in the Vatican. > > Other's worship in ways and to individuals > that I am uncomfortable with for myself. In Quaker settings all are > equal. No matter who you are or what you believe. That of The Light > in everyone. > > Rosicrucians and other esoteric groups also speak of the light, and in > fact that's one of hte meanings of the phrase " the Christ " . Trace it > back to Prometheus and Odin / Woden and so on; amazingly parallel > myths. > > I am also drawn to the style of worship. Quiet Contemplation. No one > particular person giving a 20-40 minute sermon. But all actively > participating in what one might describe as a meditative state. Each > speaking their thoughts as he or she is lead. > > This is appealing but one wonders why they have meeting houses and why > the " quaking " is a standard feature. > > If I were to say what *should* one believe before considering the > Quaker faith:..........That all are equal. > > Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood -- the French national motto -- stems > directly from the same basic set of principles that buttress the > Quakers and the Rosicrucians, etc. > > Interesting stuff; thanks for writing. > > Gassho. > > --Gene Stewart > www.genestewart.com > > Pixx > > On 13 Feb 2003 at 12:20, The Stewarts wrote: > > Are there any items of faith one must believe to be a Quaker? > > If so, what? > > If not, then what difference between a Quaker and anyone else? > > > > > “Doubt of the real facts, as I must reveal them, is inevitable; yet if > I suppressed what will seem extravagant and incredible there would be > nothing left.” —H. P. Lovecraft, “At the Mountains of Madness” > > > > > " We are mystics and believers and children to our dying day. " > --Rod Serling in " The Messiah on Mott Street " , a NIGHT GALLERY episode > starring Edward G. Robinson, Yaphet Kotto, and Tony Roberts. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 Thank you Lee-Gwen. Much of that was in my offline post, but you put it so eloquently! ;~) Pixx On 15 Feb 2003 at 8:19, Lady Sappho wrote: > - > The reason that Pixy hasn't really discussed dogma is because Quakers > aren't big on it. We have no creeds or dogmas and that is why it > causes people headaches when one tries to explain Quakerism to them. > > '...Quakers are individualistic and have no authoritative creed or > standard of action, no statement can be true of all Quakers, in all > meetings, in all parts of the world. Yet there are, naturally, some > common norms...' > > > And then you go on to contradict that no, don't you? > > Where did she contradict the lack of " must " in a liberal Quaker > setting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 - Pixx > Thank you Lee-Gwen. Much of that was in my offline post, but you > put it so eloquently! ;~) > Pixx Thank you! I haven't been to Meeting for years now, but I am a Quaker at heart and trying to explain it to people is one of those things I do ... Oh, sorry about calling you Pixy - my spell checker insisted. Lee-Gwen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2003 Report Share Posted February 14, 2003 No harm done. I've been called worse. ;~) On 15 Feb 2003 at 16:42, Lady Sappho wrote: > > Oh, sorry about calling you Pixy - my spell checker insisted. > > Lee-Gwen > == http://pixxart.com the Art of Living in Health, Peace, & Light Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 > The reason that Pixy hasn't really discussed dogma is because Quakers aren't > big on it. We have no creeds or dogmas and that is why it causes people > headaches when one tries to explain Quakerism to them. > Hi - I just want to say that explaining quakerism to nonquakers is probably pointless. That's probably not the reason why quakers don't proselytize ;=) but it certainly goes a long way to explaining why there aren't more quakers. To the world's loss. I am not myself a quaker - guess i'd fall into the category of secular humanist if I were keen on labels - but I have the highest admiration for quakers as a group. Why anyone would start picking at quakers and quakerism, even for the sake of an argument, is totally beyond me. A little respect goes a long way. best, pat sant -- SANTBROWN townhounds/ http://www.angelfire.com/art/pendragon/ ---------- * " Until he extends the circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace. " - Albert Schweitzer * " The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men " - Leonardo da Vinci * " The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men. " - Alice Walker ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 - pat > Hi - I just want to say that explaining quakerism to nonquakers is > probably pointless. *grin* You may be right there. It's funny, because I see it absolutely as a religion for this age, for all its perceived " quaintness " . My history teacher, at a Catholic school, once turned a class into a question/answer session about Quakerism (for the life of me, I can't think why) and the other girls had real trouble understanding what I was saying. " Who tells you what to do? " was a question I remember quite clearly. They really couldn't grasp that there is no " on high " authority who decrees stuff. In other conversations, I have been told that Quakers are clearly hedonists (hmmm - that would come as a shock to many of the Quakers I know) and people have got bogged down in how the decision making process works or the whole question of discerning the movement of the Spirit without grasping the whole and I don't think that Quakerism can easily be dissected that way. That's probably not the reason why quakers don't > proselytise ;=) but it certainly goes a long way to explaining why there > aren't more quakers. I think you may be onto something here. Hard to proselytise when there are no set creeds or dogmas *laugh*. However, I think that Quakers tend to respect other people's paths as being right for them (okay, I am a Universalist Quaker at heart, but I think it applies to many Liberal Quakers whether they consider themselves Universalist or not) and so the idea of preaching just doesn't seem right. They also tend to be more practical than spiritual - more Margaret Fell than George Fox, for those who know their Quaker history - and much more interested in deeds than words. > but I have the highest admiration for quakers as a group. I find that is a very common reaction from people who know anything about Quakers - and those who don't confuse them with Shakers or the Amish *laugh*. Why > anyone would start picking at quakers and quakerism, even for the sake > of an argument, is totally beyond me. *grin* Lee-Gwen (the verbose ...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 An off-list email showed up on-list?? Most of the time when I do an off-list response I Add " ***OFF-LIST*** " to the subject line of the private message. Doing this makes it immediately clear to the receiver what's happening, and the chance of it them going " back " onto the list is not likely by accident. Just another one of those " pesky " rules/protocols that makes life a bit easier. DaveO Pixx [lists] ? I received this post offlist directly to me, with a time stamp one hour prior to this one, and with a totally different subject line~ so I am rather confused as to why it is here. I already responded offlist, and wont go into all the detail as to my original response~ but suffice it to say that I did not contradict myself, as the operative word in the question was *must*. Pixx On 14 Feb 2003 at 9:35, The Stewarts wrote: > On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 12:28 AM, Pixx wrote: > > *must*?? Given that word, and a liberal Meeting, I would say no. > > And then you go on to contradict that no, don't you? -----clipped----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 I am not sure as to what the intentions were....... I received it both on list and off list, with two *different* subject lines. I usually add " off list " as well, when I take something offlist. Pixx On 15 Feb 2003 at 7:30, daveo wrote: > > An off-list email showed up on-list?? > > Most of the time when I do an off-list response I Add " ***OFF-LIST*** > " to the subject line of the private message. Doing this makes it > immediately clear to the receiver what's happening, and the chance of > it them going " back " onto the list is not likely by accident. > > Just another one of those " pesky " rules/protocols that makes life a > bit easier. > > DaveO > > > > > Pixx [lists] > > ? > I received this post offlist directly to me, with a time stamp one > hour prior to this one, and with a totally different subject line~ so > I am rather confused as to why it is here. > > I already responded offlist, and wont go into all the detail as to my > original response~ but suffice it to say that I did not contradict > myself, as the operative word in the question was *must*. > > Pixx > > On 14 Feb 2003 at 9:35, The Stewarts wrote: > > > On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 12:28 AM, Pixx wrote: > > > > *must*?? Given that word, and a liberal Meeting, I would say no. > > > > And then you go on to contradict that no, don't you? > -----clipped----- > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 And, may I say, it takes a lot of courage to get out there and protest against a popular war. But Friends I met, first, back in the 'sixties/'seventies were patiently (and some not so patiently ;=)) doing their bit against an unjust war - at great risk to themselves. That's really and literally putting one's money where one's mouth is. But I'm escalating here, and I don't really mean to. It's just that I've just been watching the news, and . . . Anyway, if I had a belief in a supreme being, I'd probably see you at meeting. As it is, I meet you here and extend warmest feelings without prejudice, as the lawyers like to say. best, pat sant > pat > > > Hi - I just want to say that explaining quakerism to nonquakers is > > probably pointless. > > *grin* You may be right there. It's funny, because I see it absolutely as a > religion for this age, for all its perceived " quaintness " . > > My history teacher, at a Catholic school, once turned a class into a > question/answer session about Quakerism (for the life of me, I can't think > why) and the other girls had real trouble understanding what I was saying. > " Who tells you what to do? " was a question I remember quite clearly. They > really couldn't grasp that there is no " on high " authority who decrees > stuff. In other conversations, I have been told that Quakers are clearly > hedonists (hmmm - that would come as a shock to many of the Quakers I know) > and people have got bogged down in how the decision making process works or > the whole question of discerning the movement of the Spirit without grasping > the whole and I don't think that Quakerism can easily be dissected that way. > > That's probably not the reason why quakers don't > > proselytise ;=) but it certainly goes a long way to explaining why there > > aren't more quakers. > > I think you may be onto something here. Hard to proselytise when there are > no set creeds or dogmas *laugh*. However, I think that Quakers tend to > respect other people's paths as being right for them (okay, I am a > Universalist Quaker at heart, but I think it applies to many Liberal Quakers > whether they consider themselves Universalist or not) and so the idea of > preaching just doesn't seem right. They also tend to be more practical than > spiritual - more Margaret Fell than George Fox, for those who know their > Quaker history - and much more interested in deeds than words. > > > but I have the highest admiration for quakers as a group. > > I find that is a very common reaction from people who know anything about > Quakers - and those who don't confuse them with Shakers or the Amish > *laugh*. > > Why > > anyone would start picking at quakers and quakerism, even for the sake > > of an argument, is totally beyond me. > > *grin* > -- SANTBROWN townhounds/ http://www.angelfire.com/art/pendragon/ ---------- * " Until he extends the circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace. " - Albert Schweitzer * " The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men " - Leonardo da Vinci * " The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men. " - Alice Walker ---------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2003 Report Share Posted February 15, 2003 , " Pixx " <lists@p...> wrote: > I am not sure as to what the intentions were....... I received it both > on list and off list, with two *different* subject lines. Perhaps it was to give you the option of how or where you might feel more comfortable in responding or not? Just a thought. > I usually add " off list " as well, when I take something offlist. > Pixx That is a good idea. I think I will adopt it. ~ PT ~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 Good luck with the response article. I hope they run it. I'm sorry so many believe everything they read in the NYT, making a response so necessary. LVX, Corry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Yes true .. but I doubt they will print any , but I have found boycotts very effective in the past against many wrongs .. I plan to boycott the times and get anyone I can to do the same .. everyone counts ..Good luck to you too ..Corry <apocalypse888 wrote: Good luck with the response article. I hope they run it. I'm sorry so many believe everything they read in the NYT, making a response so necessary.LVX,Corry Get the free toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 hi everyone, thanks for all the advice, I did sent my letter after making some of the changes. I doubt they will print it, but I hope that they print someone elses vegan viewpoint Dr. Magdougalls's at least! , connie bell <caromiotk wrote: > > Yes true .. but I doubt they will print any , but I have found boycotts very effective in the past against many wrongs .. I plan to boycott the times and get anyone I can to do the same .. everyone counts ..Good luck to you too .. > > Corry <apocalypse888 wrote: Good luck with the response article. I hope they run it. I'm sorry so > many believe everything they read in the NYT, making a response so > necessary. > > LVX, > > Corry > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.