Are Quakers really atheists with a respectable "god" front?go

[Explorer]

I have been reading up on the Quakers recently, and am very interested in their beliefs. It seems that a kind of god, by implication, the god of the OT, is experienced mainly through personal revelation, but they also believe that one's conscience should be the guide for personal morality.

They believe that the Bible is not necessarily the only book for guidance, and is fallible in that it is not the direct word of god, but that which is interpreted by human beings.

They do not have clergy, or an elitist structure. They have meetings, not services, which are usually silent and only broken by an individual who is inspired to say something through personal revelation (his/her god speaking directly inside the head).

Most do not concern themselves with an afterlife and believe that this life is the most important one to find redemption and the "kingdom of heaven".

Their members are made up of a mix of "friends" with differing personal beliefs. They even have humanists within their ranks, apparently.

They seek and promote truth and personal integrity in life and in work, that is how they helped develop scientific methodology in the eighteenth century.

So for me they are very close to humanists, but with a 350 year old history and still linked to the OT and NT.

The question I ask any Quakers on this site and for others outside the religion is, if there is a duty to seek out truth and integrity, and they believe the Bible is not necessarily the "truth", then why do they accept the god and Jesus contained therein, so willingly? Would not the obvious stance for them to take in their search for truth, at least move them towards the agnostic end of the belief spectrum? Or is the god and Jesus still a necessary marketing front to attract members who may be put off by any trace of agnosticism/atheism?

I suppose I am asking, if truth is all, where is that compelling truth? If it is only through that voice in your head and personal conscience, why bother with the god of the OT at all? Why not just say the power comes from an unknown but tangible ethereal spiritual source that connects directly with the human mind.

 

[Mudcat]

No. The Quakers live in an antiquated lifestyle and go through a lot of unnecessary burdens, trial and tribulations that provides no practical benefits for doing so. Who else besides the Religious would do so?

 

[joesixpack]

No. The Quakers live in an antiquated lifestyle and go through a lot of unnecessary burdens, trial and tribulations that provides no practical benefits for doing so. Who else besides the Religious would do so?

I think you're confusing them with the Amish

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Yeah, I've not known any Quakers that live an antiquated lifestyle. The Friends church in my neck of the woods has essentially become an Evangelical Christian church and is distancing themselves from The Society of Friends. BTW, it used to be Richard Nixon's church, after Watergate.

 

[Explorer]

Any chance of any of my questions being answered folks?

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I don't know if we have any Quakers here. This might not be the best place to ask.

 

[joesixpack]

All of the Quakers I know (one) believe in God. She's a very nice person. I can't say much besides that.

Oh! She has red hair!

 

[crimresearch]

I think that people who learned about Friends would be very surprised by how few of the stereotypes are even close to accurate,

As far as the notion that they are *any* one thing, that simply isn't the case.

Some of them do have preachers, some hold services, some cite Scriptural morality.


That makes the OP's questions strawmen.

 

[Explorer]

The Quaker website and other sites where I gleaned the information were English, perhaps it differs a bit in America and elsewhere

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I have been reading up on the Quakers recently, and am very interested in their beliefs. It seems that a kind of god, by implication, the god of the OT, is experienced mainly through personal revelation, but they also believe that one's conscience should be the guide for personal morality.

They believe that the Bible is not necessarily the only book for guidance, and is fallible in that it is not the direct word of god, but that which is interpreted by human beings.

They do not have clergy, or an elitist structure. They have meetings, not services, which are usually silent and only broken by an individual who is inspired to say something through personal revelation (his/her god speaking directly inside the head).

Most do not concern themselves with an afterlife and believe that this life is the most important one to find redemption and the "kingdom of heaven".

Their members are made up of a mix of "friends" with differing personal beliefs. They even have humanists within their ranks, apparently.

They seek and promote truth and personal integrity in life and in work, that is how they helped develop scientific methodology in the eighteenth century.

So for me they are very close to humanists, but with a 350 year old history and still linked to the OT and NT.

The question I ask any Quakers on this site and for others outside the religion is, if there is a duty to seek out truth and integrity, and they believe the Bible is not necessarily the "truth", then why do they accept the god and Jesus contained therein, so willingly? Would not the obvious stance for them to take in their search for truth, at least move them towards the agnostic end of the belief spectrum? Or is the god and Jesus still a necessary marketing front to attract members who may be put off by any trace of agnosticism/atheism?

I suppose I am asking, if truth is all, where is that compelling truth? If it is only through that voice in your head and personal conscience, why bother with the god of the OT at all? Why not just say the power comes from an unknown but tangible ethereal spiritual source that connects directly with the human mind.

I think it may simply be that de facto the Quakers are Christianity based. And not because there are any such doctrines. (I hope I said that right.)


Fun fact ... Just yesterday I watched "Friendly Persuasion" again. How do you explain that??

 

[jiggeryqua]

No. The Quakers live in an antiquated lifestyle and go through a lot of unnecessary burdens, trial and tribulations that provides no practical benefits for doing so. Who else besides the Religious would do so?

Perhaps you're confusing them with the Amish? I've associated with quakers in several parts of the UK and found them to be decent, socially-responsible people with no interest in imposing a particular set of beliefs on anyone. They come together in recognition of a shared humanity and ask "What can I do, now, to make the world a better place?". You may prefer the company of adolescent 'you're not the god of me' atheists. I don't.

It's possible that, by and large, quakers own less ipods and ferraris than the population average, and several I've known personally have preferred lives of relative simplicity ('what can I do' etc...), but they do not live 'antiquated lifestyles'. I don't know what 'burdens' you might consider 'unneccesary' (caring for strangers? not grasping for every material advantage?), or quite why you despise (and capitalise) 'the Religious', but you'll find quakers to be quite unlike what is generally proffered round here as 'Religious'.

 

[Explorer]

I think it may simply be that de facto the Quakers are Christianity based. And not because there are any such doctrines. (I hope I said that right.)

So are you saying is that perhaps they are immune from, and dislike change, as with other religions?

 

[Explorer]

........ but you'll find quakers to be quite unlike what is generally proffered round here as 'Religious'.

Yes, that is what I thought, hence the purpose of this topic and my questions.

 

[crimresearch]

Throughout the world, the RSOF falls into (roughly) 2 groups... those that follow the model set by George Fox, and those that have their own ideas.

The meetings that wait in silence for a message from God trend toward more liberal social and personal aspects, and those churches that hold programmed services and are led by pastors often share more conservative values. The former tend to have larger groups, and are what many people think of as Quakers.

The question about the Bible is less than useful to the unprogrammed meetings, because there is no Quaker Bible. For example, Bible study may consist of several people taking turns reading a section aloud from whatever book ( King James, Catholic, Good News, New Age, etc.) they brought with them.
While they are doing so, the others get to compare the wording of different texts (and hopefully learn something other than the dogma of the editors/publishers).

This can appear confusing at first glance. Penn Gillette has a video segment where he gets wound up about how it should be impossible for a Christian denomination to have atheist members... LOL!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So are you saying is that perhaps they are immune from, and dislike change, as with other religions?

I am not sure how you got that from what I said. Maybe you misunderstood. There is no compulsion to believe so-and-so in the Society of Friends, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Agatha]

All the Quakers I know (that will be two, then) have a belief in the NT God, not so much in the OT God. They do a lot for charity and feel that they are called upon to do so, otherwise they are not so different to any other religious believer. They don't live any kind of antiquated lifestyle although they don't go in much for flashy cars and gadgets; it's more that they live a sustainable eco-friendly lifestyle.

 

[Gazpacho]

if there is a duty to seek out truth and integrity, and they believe the Bible is not necessarily the "truth", then why do they accept the god and Jesus contained therein, so willingly?

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin accepted the idea of "Jesus the teacher" while rejecting that his teachings had divine authority. This is not far from the position expressed by many Quakers.

 

[Minoosh]

I suppose I am asking, if truth is all, where is that compelling truth? If it is only through that voice in your head and personal conscience, why bother with the god of the OT at all? Why not just say the power comes from an unknown but tangible ethereal spiritual source that connects directly with the human mind.

Is that last sentence supposed to sound less "religious"? I'm kind of seeing a big collision amongst those words "tangible" and "spiritual" and "ethereal."

Anyway, if I catch the meaning, it seems you are asking, why should the experience of God as "that voice in your head and personal conscience" necessarily be a Christian denomination, and the answer is ... because? It started as a Christian denomination? There are scads of Christian denominations that buy into the voice-in-your-head-personal-conscience theme, don't take the Bible literally, don't do all kinds of things associated with forceful fundamentalist evangelism. It surprises me that this surprises people.

However, I find the core principles of the OT to be more comprehensible than the NT. A God that says "honor me or I shall make you wish you'd never been born" I get. But I've never been able to identify with Christian beliefs, unless the whole core doctrine is supposed to be an extended metaphor. I mean even as a theological construct I have a hard time getting my head around it. In my opinion Christianity would be a much better religion if it turned out there was this poor sweet guy who was executed for his subversive teachings, who didn't rise from the dead, and yet people still remember him for trying to do the right thing ...

 

[Dancing David]

I have been reading up on the Quakers recently, and am very interested in their beliefs. It seems that a kind of god, by implication, the god of the OT, is experienced mainly through personal revelation, but they also believe that one's conscience should be the guide for personal morality.

Um, sorry, I know many quakers and they are not atheists. many believe that the spirit of jesus is present when they speak at church.

 

[Dancing David]

So are you saying is that perhaps they are immune from, and dislike change, as with other religions?

No, the quakers that exist are christian, now there may be others who follow other paths, but they seem to be silent on the matter.

ETA: There is a definition here and four people who are Friends without a belief in god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Friend#Notable_Nontheist_Friends