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

[Fascination]

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'.

The Amish make AWESOME candy!

 

[crimresearch]

Over the past 40 some years, ranging from knowing Quaker faculty and their families at one of the colleges associated with them, through many years of working with them on social justice issues, and several years as a member or attender of meetings, I've met exactly 2 that wore clothes re-enacting 'Friendly Persuasion'.
The rest seem to take the admonition to not wear attention getting clothes to mean plain, simple, attire in a modern sense.

The ones that don't have TVs, or who live off the grid, become vegetarians, ride bikes, etc. do so as a personal choice, not because there is any 'Quaker rule' saying you must do certain things.

And that is supposed to be the only real rule about the RSOF... no dogma, no creed, as much as is possible, There are guidelines about Harmony, Integrity, Simplicity, Equality, and so forth that are often interpreted by the majority to mean certain things, but holding a different interpretation doesn't mean automatic banishment, or any of the other disciplinary tactics of more credal religious groups.

Anything that could be generalized about them is liable to run into striking exceptions. There are Friends who own guns, work as police, go to war, run very successful businesses, enjoy hi-tech... and consider themselves as Buddhists, Jews, or even atheists who have found a spiritual home in the RSOF

On the OP's specific question about identifying as Christians ('Friends' means Friends of Jesus), much of that is in fact because the founder considered himself to be so.

As with the other guidelines, individuals may interpret 'God', 'believe in Christ' and so forth as they wish, and the meeting that they want to be part of with may go through a great deal of internal reflection to see if they can deal with that.

Many have, some haven't.

http://www.quakerinfo.org/quakerism/beliefs

 

[Darth Rotor]

Explorer, suggest you take the time and effort to meet an actual Quaker in real life. Then, get some coffee or some such friendly beverage, and have a discussion with said person, with you in listening mode, about where a Quaker is coming from.

Are you up to it?

 

[Explorer]

Explorer, suggest you take the time and effort to meet an actual Quaker in real life. Then, get some coffee or some such friendly beverage, and have a discussion with said person, with you in listening mode, about where a Quaker is coming from.

Are you up to it?

Oh yes of course!

Having struggled with Mormon belief on my late sister's side of the family since my own childhood, listening to another's beliefs is not a problem.

As far as the Quakers are concerned, for me the interest lies in the apparent contradiction of the seeking of "truth", and the basic requirement to be truthful and have integrity, yet at the same time believe in a supernatural being taken from a book which they themselves deem unreliable.

How can this be, I simply ask? The answer that some have given above, namely, that they were formed out of a Christian doctrine (where any truths are apparently subservient), so don't be surprised, seems a little unsatisfactory. As for the rest of their beliefs, they seem to me to be good humanists in the main, so why continue to carry the baggage of a flawed book, when personal conscience is doing a fine job on its own?

 

[Explorer]

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.

I am simply asking a valid question. I have no opinion, only questions that I am hoping will have some articulate and sensible answers. This is genuine enquiry, and has nothing to do with any strawman point.

Please think about the subject matter a little more before you reply with your own stereotypical responses

 

[Explorer]

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 ...

Totally agree with your last paragraph!

 

[Explorer]

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

Thanks for that post David. It seems that this answers my question pretty well. The article from Wiki states there is a tradition of non-theistic Quakers dating back to the 1930s, which eventually formed the American Humanist Association.

They are tackling my fundamental question of the contradiction I described above, in that they are questioning the "divine light" cause and effect, and saying that there could be another non supernatural explanation for this central part of the traditional teaching.

 

[crimresearch]

I am simply asking a valid question. I have no opinion, only questions that I am hoping will have some articulate and sensible answers. This is genuine enquiry, and has nothing to do with any strawman point.

Please think about the subject matter a little more before you reply with your own stereotypical responses

I answered your questions fully and in detail from my long experience with and as an atheist Quaker, who doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and who does not fit the false image you've projected onto me. Your condescending response after getting valid answers is at odds with your claims of merely asking a question.

 

[hgc]

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.

Richard Nixon was born and raised a Quaker.

 

[the PC apeman]

Is this going to become a "What do you think about _________?" thread? 'cuz those have been working reeeeeaaally well lately.

 

[Explorer]

I answered your questions fully and in detail from my long experience with and as an atheist Quaker, who doesn't believe in any supernatural being, and who does not fit the false image you've projected onto me. Your condescending response after getting valid answers is at odds with your claims of merely asking a question.

Ahh Crimsreseach, you have now said something with total clarity, and that is you are one of the elusive Quakers that I have been seeking.

If you had started from that clarity no confusion on my part would have been forthcoming.

Ok, now we can start from a valid premise. Why do you differ from perhaps the majority of your fellow Quaker colleagues, in as much as you do not believe in a supernatural deity?

I refer back to my original logic. Is it becuase you seek the truth, and you do not find that in the Bible of the OT, or the NT?

I shall ignore the rest of your criticisms of my previous posts as I do not wish to impose any label on anyone. I seek, like you, only the truth and truthful information.

If you feel I have painted you as an individual with a false image, then I suggest that you have a persecution complex, and one that I have never intentionally wanted to take advantage of.

Can we now please get back to a normal exchange of information without label sticking and personal abuse, which seems to be out of character with the beliefs of mainstream Quakers, which I admire, apart from the supernatural bit, that is!

 

[varwoche]

Richard Nixon was born and raised a Quaker.

There's an informal(?) split in Quaker religion, which at one time was an east coast / west coast thing. The east coast branch is the peaceniks and the west coast is more in line with traditional protestant.

 

[joesixpack]

There's an informal(?) split in Quaker religion, which at one time was an east coast / west coast thing. The east coast branch is the peaceniks and the west coast is more in line with traditional protestant.

Kinda' like that whole Rap music thing?

 

[epepke]

Quakers seem a lot more like Gnostics to me.

 

[crimresearch]

Ahh Crimsreseach, you have now said something with total clarity, and that is you are one of the elusive Quakers that I have been seeking.

If you had started from that clarity no confusion on my part would have been forthcoming.

Ok, now we can start from a valid premise. Why do you differ from perhaps the majority of your fellow Quaker colleagues, in as much as you do not believe in a supernatural deity?

I refer back to my original logic. Is it becuase you seek the truth, and you do not find that in the Bible of the OT, or the NT?

I shall ignore the rest of your criticisms of my previous posts as I do not wish to impose any label on anyone. I seek, like you, only the truth and truthful information.

If you feel I have painted you as an individual with a false image, then I suggest that you have a persecution complex, and one that I have never intentionally wanted to take advantage of.

Can we now please get back to a normal exchange of information without label sticking and personal abuse, which seems to be out of character with the beliefs of mainstream Quakers, which I admire, apart from the supernatural bit, that is!

Oh, I wouldn't dream of subjecting you to any 'personal abuse' by contradicting your assumptions.

 

[Explorer]

Oh, I wouldn't dream of subjecting you to any 'personal abuse' by contradicting your assumptions.

What assumptions. All of the content cited in the opening post was taken from the UK Quaker website. The rest of it was some questions, so where are my assumptions?

By the way, with your superior knowledge, are you actually going to answer any of those questions and/or correct the Quaker website for its errors and ommissions?

http://www.quaker.org.uk/

 

[crimresearch]

@Explorer

Really? The UK Quaker website said that there were no Quakers who use pastors and hold services? That non-Christians were 'elusive'?

"The worldwide family of “Friends” is very diverse indeed. It encompasses on the one hand churches with Pastors and programmed services, often with a very evangelical message, and silent, unprogrammed Meeting for Worship, where traditional Christians are often in a minority, and sit with humanists, atheists and non-theists and some Friends who identify as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Pagans."

http://www.quaker.org.uk/european-conference-church-and-peace-message-and-marisa-johnsons-address



I think you are bearing false witness. And straw.

 

[Explorer]

@Explorer

Really? The UK Quaker website said that there were no Quakers who use pastors and hold services? That non-Christians were 'elusive'?

"The worldwide family of “Friends” is very diverse indeed. It encompasses on the one hand churches with Pastors and programmed services, often with a very evangelical message, and silent, unprogrammed Meeting for Worship, where traditional Christians are often in a minority, and sit with humanists, atheists and non-theists and some Friends who identify as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Pagans."

http://www.quaker.org.uk/european-conference-church-and-peace-message-and-marisa-johnsons-address


I think you are bearing false witness. And straw.

To answer your first point. Here is what the introductory paragraph says on the UK Quaker website under "worship":

"Quakers worship at local meetings. These usually happen once a week and we meet in silence. There are no paid ministers to run the meetings and ministry is given by anybody who feels moved to do so."

Now there may very well be paid or unpaid pastors in America, but this is not what I am being told in the UK.

Secondly, I said quite clearly in my opening post, (and sourced from the same site) that there is a mix of differing beliefs within RSOF, even Humanists. So I was already aware when you first mentioned the point, that the religion accepts many different beliefs, often unstated.

In your efforts to pull me up on your stupid strawman cliche, you have totally missed the crucial question that I was asking, and that is essentially, why does god feature at all in any of the members beliefs if they don't take the Bible seriously?

If you are simply saying that to be a Quaker, you can believe in anything you like, and still be accepted into the fold then that is fine, but you still have the problem of truthfulness and integrity, and I was genuinely interested as to how Quakers who do believe in a supernatural being, perhaps the majority(and this IS an assumption), reconcile this apparent contradiction.

You of all people could have helped me with this, but for some strange reason you have remained aloof and defensive, and seemingly wish to continue with that approach.

If you wish to continue to take that same hostile approach, then please do not bother to respond again. I shall be content to wait for another to educate me in a civil and friendly manner.

 

[Rara]

i am an atheist Quaker..well actually an attender.


Strangely,the group that meets at our house every Wednesday,consists of two atheists(me and another quaker) and one agnostic(attender)..my husband.

I started to attend after the death of a friend feeling the need for..not so much spiritual (the word is too loaded)but a thinking space.

As a couple we find it is a useful discipline...because i know without it i would not have that hour in a week to just sit and think...i might start with good intentions but it would fall away.

There are Christian quakers within the island....which has lead to many interesting debates.

There is certainly no need to profess anything,as far as i can tell. The other atheist quaker has attended meetings in larger population centres,and he says meetings vary so much,but that's no different to any interest group.

I enjoy being with like minded people,and I would say I have always been a quaker by intention..but not conviction.

It is very much in line with my politics,including among other things , their stance on war, equality,prison reform etc

 

[Explorer]

i am an atheist Quaker..well actually an attender.


Strangely,the group that meets at our house every Wednesday,consists of two atheists(me and another quaker) and one agnostic(attender)..my husband.

I started to attend after the death of a friend feeling the need for..not so much spiritual (the word is too loaded)but a thinking space.

As a couple we find it is a useful discipline...because i know without it i would not have that hour in a week to just sit and think...i might start with good intentions but it would fall away.

There are Christian quakers within the island....which has lead to many interesting debates.

There is certainly no need to profess anything,as far as i can tell. The other atheist quaker has attended meetings in larger population centres,and he says meetings vary so much,but that's no different to any interest group.

I enjoy being with like minded people,and I would say I have always been a quaker by intention..but not conviction.

It is very much in line with my politics,including among other things , their stance on war, equality,prison reform etc

Thanks Rara, another enlightening and helpful post. You mention the interesting debates with your Christian Quaker friends, do the questions I have asked above crop up in those debates, and what sort of responses do you get, if any?