God's Messenger

[Cap'n Awesome]

Why is it that god is always talking to Ministers and Priests and such in order to try to convert us Heathens. Then the douche (I mean Priest or Minister) will tell us that he has a message from God (Followed by a request for money). If god really wants to convert me, but can't go through all the effort of speaking to me personally, I'll tell you who he should talk to: Choobus.

Having a Christ-pychotic with a vested self-interest (money) in my believing in his god tell me that he has a message from god just isn't impressive any more. If Choobus suddenly started recieving messages from God, and telling everyone he knew; Shit would get done. A die-hard Atheist would be the best messenger from God. If Choobus converts to Islam or Cal converts to Christianity, that would at least give me enough pause to think that something might be out there. Why does this never happen?

Christians say that it's because these people aren't close to God. So again, God would rather have people suffer in hell then give a message to someone that we might actually believe? Do you expect me to believe that God, who is all powerful and loving wouldn't give the message to someone else? If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Why is it that god is always talking to Ministers and Priests and such in order to try to convert us Heathens. Then the douche (I mean Priest or Minister) will tell us that he has a message from God (Followed by a request for money). If god really wants to convert me, but can't go through all the effort of speaking to me personally, I'll tell you who he should talk to: Choobus.

Having a Christ-pychotic with a vested self-interest (money) in my believing in his god tell me that he has a message from god just isn't impressive any more. If Choobus suddenly started recieving messages from God, and telling everyone he knew; Shit would get done. A die-hard Atheist would be the best messenger from God. If Choobus converts to Islam or Cal converts to Christianity, that would at least give me enough pause to think that something might be out there. Why does this never happen?

Christians say that it's because these people aren't close to God. So again, God would rather have people suffer in hell then give a message to someone that we might actually believe? Do you expect me to believe that God, who is all powerful and loving wouldn't give the message to someone else? If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?
Hell, even St. Paul once made a living throwing Christians to the lions.

[Tenspace]

If Choobus started receiving messages from God and telling everyone he knew, I would personally schedule his PET scan.

[postbicameral]

The whole reason that god "talks" to ministers and priests is simple: If you get to your god through them, then they are in control. They have the power.

Within the context of human interest, you are either a net producer or a net consumer. A plumber, for instance, helps you by providing running water in your home. In turn, you help the plumber by paying him (or her). There is a tangible exchange of something useful going on here, and at the end of the day, both parties are better off.

A minister or priest, on the other hand, is a parasite. And, in a classic parasitical move, convince you, the host, that the relationship is symbiotic. It certainly is not. Religions sell you something that you already own. They attempt to convince you that you need them (although somehow you managed all of these years without them) to make it through life, and to make it to the "correct" afterlife. The "afterlife", by definition, is undefinable, so therefore you must exhibit "faith" in what the shaman parasite is telling you, further reinforcing the shaman's connection to the god.

What does the shaman get out of this?

- Money. A life where all of their expenses are paid, and they really don't have to think too much or produce anything.

- Feelings of power. I suspect many shamans have real self-esteem problems, and as a result go on power-trips and attempt to control others.

- Hiding from reality. This is the classic reason that paedophiles (for instance) often join the priesthood. This way, they can avoid getting help, and possibly use their "profession" as a cover for their crimes.

- Guilt. This is the priest that actually believes the religion's bullshit. What a waste of a life...

[Quaker]

If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?
Quakers believe that it DOES happen. They believe that God speaks to everyone, and everyone has an equal ability to know God's will. Even atheists.

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.

The whole reason that god "talks" to ministers and priests is simple: If you get to your god through them, then they are in control. They have the power
Hence the reason Quakers are generally against having paid ministers. It is considered wrong to receive money or favors in exchange for ministry, as you would be charging for what God has freely given to you.

[postbicameral]

If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?
Quakers believe that it DOES happen. They believe that God speaks to everyone, and everyone has an equal ability to know God's will. Even atheists.

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.

The whole reason that god "talks" to ministers and priests is simple: If you get to your god through them, then they are in control. They have the power
Hence the reason Quakers are generally against having paid ministers. It is considered wrong to receive money or favors in exchange for ministry, as you would be charging for what God has freely given to you.
Hey Quaker, that top quote doesn't belong to me man!

[Philboid Studge]

They believe that God speaks to everyone, and everyone has an equal ability to know God's will. Even atheists.
can you flesh this out a bit please? How can an atheist know Gawd's will? Or, how can an atheist be an expression of God's will? In either case, the atheist would have to be wrong (by incorrectly interpreting Gawd and His evidence) from your POV, no?

[Quaker]

If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?
Quakers believe that it DOES happen. They believe that God speaks to everyone, and everyone has an equal ability to know God's will. Even atheists.

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.

The whole reason that god "talks" to ministers and priests is simple: If you get to your god through them, then they are in control. They have the power
Hence the reason Quakers are generally against having paid ministers. It is considered wrong to receive money or favors in exchange for ministry, as you would be charging for what God has freely given to you.
Hey Quaker, that top quote doesn't belong to me man!
Oops! Fixed! :thumbsup:

[Cap'n Awesome]

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of picking Choobus (and Cal) It's because they are mighty Atheists. I see no reason that they would ever convert from Atheisim other then a direct experience with the supernatural. It might not automatically convert me, but it would at least make me think. (Hell, the same thing goes for me, if god wants to convert people, he should talk to me.)

[DontBeStupid]

If a die hard atheist suddenly started to get messages from something he perceived as god, i would question his current mental state. If I had a direct experience with something that appeared to be supernatural I would question my own sanity and seek professional help. The same goes for so called messengers, i view them as being either mentally ill or lying con artists. If there was a god and it wanted or needed people to believe in and worship it then I am sure this god could come up with a better way to spread its message than secret conversations with select individuals.

[DontBeStupid]

If he's giving messages to anyone, it messes with Free-will just as much (or little) to give it to an Atheist as to a Christian. Gee, why could this not happen?
Quakers believe that it DOES happen. They believe that God speaks to everyone, and everyone has an equal ability to know God's will. Even atheists.

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.


Hence the reason Quakers are generally against having paid ministers. It is considered wrong to receive money or favors in exchange for ministry, as you would be charging for what God has freely given to you.
Hey Quaker, that top quote doesn't belong to me man!
Oops! Fixed! :thumbsup:
try again, that's still not his quote.

[Quaker]

It is interesting that you see Choobus as a source of wisdom. Choobus doesn't speak for you, but you have a level of respect for him which leads you to more deeply consider Choobus' wisdom over others. This is exactly the way Quakers work, in that everyone has their own personal revalation, but there are those who make you think more deeply, and who have a high level of respect.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of picking Choobus (and Cal) It's because they are mighty Atheists. I see no reason that they would ever convert from Atheisim other then a direct experience with the supernatural. It might not automatically convert me, but it would at least make me think. (Hell, the same thing goes for me, if god wants to convert people, he should talk to me.)
Actually, I understood perfectly. You are an atheist, and have your own freedom of belief (or thought, if you don't like the belief term). Choobus and Cal are atheists you hold in esteem. They don't think for you, but they stir your brain pan. My point was that Quakers also have their personal freedom of belief, and also have Quakers (and non-Quakers) whom they hold in esteem. Everyone is equal, but we give respect to those whom we see as wise.

And as I have said, Quakers would generally hold that God does speak to you, the same as God speaks to Quakers or anyone else.

[Quaker]

Oops! Fixed! :thumbsup:
try again, that's still not his quote.
Good grief. :wall: :wall: :whiteflag:

Should be fixed now.

[postbicameral]

Oops! Fixed! :thumbsup:
try again, that's still not his quote.
Good grief. :wall: :wall: :whiteflag:

Should be fixed now.
Not a problem, sometimes those tags get confusing.

:cheers:

[Cap'n Awesome]

Actually, I understood perfectly. You are an atheist, and have your own freedom of belief (or thought, if you don't like the belief term). Choobus and Cal are atheists you hold in esteem. They don't think for you, but they stir your brain pan. My point was that Quakers also have their personal freedom of belief, and also have Quakers (and non-Quakers) whom they hold in esteem. Everyone is equal, but we give respect to those whom we see as wise.

And as I have said, Quakers would generally hold that God does speak to you, the same as God speaks to Quakers or anyone else.
Ugh, this isn't want I'm saying at all, I don't particularly hold Cal in esteem, but his Atheism is unquestionable hence if he had a godly experience I would go "Gee, why is this die-hard Atheist suddenly talking Jesus-talk? (Or Allah talk, or whatever)", if suddenly he converted it would be give me far more of a reason to think something was up. Let me try to go a diffrent dirrection with this one. Do you believe that God speaks more or less to diffrent people? If god is really interacting with me, how come I don't know about it? How come some people claim greater experiences then others? Finally how come Atheists never or almost never have these godly revelations, it would seem like Strong Atheists would be the best targets since they are the most in need and would hear from God the most.

[Livingstrong]

I know what Cal is going to say in response to this. Let's see if I have learned well from his posts:

1. One must know that the christ-psychotic idiots are sick and infected with a terrible mental disease that makes them hear and see hallucinations, therefore they think god is 'communicating' or talking to them with them in some way.

Even the christ-psychotic infected people who are not big preachers or priests -I am talking about the regular church religious idiot goers- think that god has talked to them or tell them things in their dreams.

2. As the contrary, us Atheists are not infected with their mental disease of neurotic hallucinations, therefore we don't 'think' or 'see' god.

Cal, did I do a good job? :cool:

[evolve]

Even if God talked to you, would you follow what he said?

[thenormalyears]

Even if God talked to you, would you follow what he said?
If I had absolute proof it was god and not the tequilla.

[Quaker]

I know what Cal is going to say in response to this. Let's see if I have learned well from his posts:

1. One must know that the christ-psychotic idiots are sick and infected with a terrible mental disease that makes them hear and see hallucinations, therefore they think god is 'communicating' or talking to them with them in some way.

Even the christ-psychotic infected people who are not big preachers or priests -I am talking about the regular church religious idiot goers- think that god has talked to them or tell them things in their dreams.

2. As the contrary, us Atheists are not infected with their mental disease of neurotic hallucinations, therefore we don't 'think' or 'see' god.

Cal, did I do a good job? :cool:
Cal's hypothesis is a fringe theory. It is not the accepted view of the psychology establishment.

Cal (2006) -- Anyone who believes in God is, without exception, possessed by insanity, and should be cured.

Church (1006) -- Anyone who denies God's existence is, without exception, possessed by the Devil, and should be cured.

Okay, the church preferred torture to modern medication, but the argument is the same. :P:lol:

[Quaker]

If a die hard atheist suddenly started to get messages from something he perceived as god, i would question his current mental state. If I had a direct experience with something that appeared to be supernatural I would question my own sanity and seek professional help. The same goes for so called messengers, i view them as being either mentally ill or lying con artists. If there was a god and it wanted or needed people to believe in and worship it then I am sure this god could come up with a better way to spread its message than secret conversations with select individuals.
You are picturing the idea of visions and voices, which is not what I am talking about.

Let me ask a basic question. How do you, as an atheist, determine what is right and wrong. If you have a tough moral question in your life, how do you answer it? This is not invoking God, or saying you can't tell right from wrong, it is simply asking how you personally choose.

I would guess it would be such things as talking to friends you respect, thinking about it, maybe reading about it, perhaps even meditating on it. Eventually, you come to a decision. And I would argue that even with all the rationalizing, talking, thinking and so on, when you come to your decision you have a sense of rightness in it.

It FEELS right to you. It doesn't mean you can't provide rational arguments to support it. That is the heart of your sense of rightness. Now, as an atheist, you would say that sense of rightness is simply a biological construct evolved in primates as part of a survival mechanism. Fine. Quakers would say that your sense of rightness is the inner light, that it is a connection to God.

They are different descriptions for a perception which exists in all of us.

[thenormalyears]

So your concious is god?

[Mog]

Actually, I understood perfectly. You are an atheist, and have your own freedom of belief (or thought, if you don't like the belief term). Choobus and Cal are atheists you hold in esteem. They don't think for you, but they stir your brain pan. My point was that Quakers also have their personal freedom of belief, and also have Quakers (and non-Quakers) whom they hold in esteem. Everyone is equal, but we give respect to those whom we see as wise.

And as I have said, Quakers would generally hold that God does speak to you, the same as God speaks to Quakers or anyone else.
Ugh, this isn't want I'm saying at all, I don't particularly hold Cal in esteem, but his Atheism is unquestionable hence if he had a godly experience I would go "Gee, why is this die-hard Atheist suddenly talking Jesus-talk? (Or Allah talk, or whatever)", if suddenly he converted it would be give me far more of a reason to think something was up. Let me try to go a diffrent dirrection with this one. Do you believe that God speaks more or less to diffrent people? If god is really interacting with me, how come I don't know about it? How come some people claim greater experiences then others? Finally how come Atheists never or almost never have these godly revelations, it would seem like Strong Atheists would be the best targets since they are the most in need and would hear from God the most.
In a way, this question is practically unknowable. If god is talking to you, is there a clear-cut way to determining that his voice is different from a voice in your head manufactured by your brain? Furthermore it would probably be in god's power to make his voice completely indistinguishable from your own thoughts, meaning that we could be hearing god all the time, but for god's own reasons he chooses not to reveal this. Now this idea should be disturbing, since this suggests that god could be making us slaves all the time, but we would never know it. In the latter case though, you could conclude that it is definitely god's will that we be atheists, but all of us are indeed the butt of god's jokes.

[postbicameral]

If a die hard atheist suddenly started to get messages from something he perceived as god, i would question his current mental state. If I had a direct experience with something that appeared to be supernatural I would question my own sanity and seek professional help. The same goes for so called messengers, i view them as being either mentally ill or lying con artists. If there was a god and it wanted or needed people to believe in and worship it then I am sure this god could come up with a better way to spread its message than secret conversations with select individuals.
You are picturing the idea of visions and voices, which is not what I am talking about.

Let me ask a basic question. How do you, as an atheist, determine what is right and wrong. If you have a tough moral question in your life, how do you answer it? This is not invoking God, or saying you can't tell right from wrong, it is simply asking how you personally choose.

I would guess it would be such things as talking to friends you respect, thinking about it, maybe reading about it, perhaps even meditating on it. Eventually, you come to a decision. And I would argue that even with all the rationalizing, talking, thinking and so on, when you come to your decision you have a sense of rightness in it.

It FEELS right to you. It doesn't mean you can't provide rational arguments to support it. That is the heart of your sense of rightness. Now, as an atheist, you would say that sense of rightness is simply a biological construct evolved in primates as part of a survival mechanism. Fine. Quakers would say that your sense of rightness is the inner light, that it is a connection to God.

They are different descriptions for a perception which exists in all of us.
But at the end of the day your way of doing things involves an omnipotent super-being laying down the law from on-high, whereas the atheist version described above is simply the atheist saying, "I dunno, hey Fred, what do you think?"

[Quaker]

So your concious is god?
Quakers would argue that your conscience is your personal connection to God, or at least a central part of that connection. If everyone has that connection, who are you to say that your conscience is better than someone else's? Put in non-religious terms, essentially Quakers believe that everyone has a right to their own conscience.

[Quaker]

But at the end of the day your way of doing things involves an omnipotent super-being laying down the law from on-high, whereas the atheist version described above is simply the atheist saying, "I dunno, hey Fred, what do you think?"
There is a difference between God telling humans what to do, and humans seeking the wisdom of God. Quakerism is about the latter, not the former.

[postbicameral]

But at the end of the day your way of doing things involves an omnipotent super-being laying down the law from on-high, whereas the atheist version described above is simply the atheist saying, "I dunno, hey Fred, what do you think?"
There is a difference between God telling humans what to do, and humans seeking the wisdom of God. Quakerism is about the latter, not the former.
And there is also a difference between humans seeking the wisdom of god, and humans realizing they need to spend more time participating in reality. Atheism is about the latter, not the former.

[Quaker]

But at the end of the day your way of doing things involves an omnipotent super-being laying down the law from on-high, whereas the atheist version described above is simply the atheist saying, "I dunno, hey Fred, what do you think?"
There is a difference between God telling humans what to do, and humans seeking the wisdom of God. Quakerism is about the latter, not the former.
And there is also a difference between humans seeking the wisdom of god, and humans realizing they need to spend more time participating in reality. Atheism is about the latter, not the former.
Quakers also strongly believe in being in the world, and helping change things for the good. Quakers have been active in the movements of suffrage, abolition, pacifism, and gay rights, just to name a few. So, Quakerism is about the latter as well.

[Philboid Studge]

It FEELS right to you. It doesn't mean you can't provide rational arguments to support it. That is the heart of your sense of rightness. Now, as an atheist, you would say that sense of rightness is simply a biological construct evolved in primates as part of a survival mechanism. Fine. Quakers would say that your sense of rightness is the inner light, that it is a connection to God ...
I disagree with this characterization of my (or anybody else's) feelings. In fact, the more difficult a decision, the more likely I'm going to 'feel' doubts about it, even after the decision's been made. So, is my 'sense of doubt' (which I suspect most people feel) also inner light? Or is the whole concept of 'sense of rightness' bullocks? Not that it's an either/or proposition...

[DontBeStupid]

But at the end of the day your way of doing things involves an omnipotent super-being laying down the law from on-high, whereas the atheist version described above is simply the atheist saying, "I dunno, hey Fred, what do you think?"
There is a difference between God telling humans what to do, and humans seeking the wisdom of God. Quakerism is about the latter, not the former.
So is a man that seeks wisdom from an imaginary friend better than one who is told what to do by his imaginary friend?

[postbicameral]

Quakers also strongly believe in being in the world, and helping change things for the good. Quakers have been active in the movements of suffrage, abolition, pacifism, and gay rights, just to name a few. So, Quakerism is about the latter as well.
I'm not trying to offend, Quaker, you're alright with me. All of the things that you've listed above are good causes. For me, however, I feel that while those causes are good, they don't require the existence of a supernatural being to be good.

[DontBeStupid]

If a die hard atheist suddenly started to get messages from something he perceived as god, i would question his current mental state. If I had a direct experience with something that appeared to be supernatural I would question my own sanity and seek professional help. The same goes for so called messengers, i view them as being either mentally ill or lying con artists. If there was a god and it wanted or needed people to believe in and worship it then I am sure this god could come up with a better way to spread its message than secret conversations with select individuals.
You are picturing the idea of visions and voices, which is not what I am talking about.
Not what you're talking about? GOOD! my post was in response to Cap'n Awesome's original thread topic. Not your hijacked version of it.

[Quaker]

Quakers also strongly believe in being in the world, and helping change things for the good. Quakers have been active in the movements of suffrage, abolition, pacifism, and gay rights, just to name a few. So, Quakerism is about the latter as well.
I'm not trying to offend, Quaker, you're alright with me. All of the things that you've listed above are good causes. For me, however, I feel that while those causes are good, they don't require the existence of a supernatural being to be good.
I would never claim that you need God to support any of these. I don't claim that somehow theists are more moral than atheists. People view the world in different ways.

[DontBeStupid]

They are different descriptions for a perception which exists in all of us.
Exactly! Now that you understand that, do you see why religion is not needed?

[Quaker]

Not what you're talking about? GOOD! my post was in response to Cap'n Awesome's original thread topic. Not your hijacked version of it.
Sorry. Didn't mean to offend.

[Quaker]

They are different descriptions for a perception which exists in all of us.
Exactly! Now that you understand that, do you see why religion is not needed?
Some people see a benefit to religion. Not everyone needs or wants it, but some do. They have a right to their faith, just has you have a right not to.

[Quaker]

It FEELS right to you. It doesn't mean you can't provide rational arguments to support it. That is the heart of your sense of rightness. Now, as an atheist, you would say that sense of rightness is simply a biological construct evolved in primates as part of a survival mechanism. Fine. Quakers would say that your sense of rightness is the inner light, that it is a connection to God ...
I disagree with this characterization of my (or anybody else's) feelings. In fact, the more difficult a decision, the more likely I'm going to 'feel' doubts about it, even after the decision's been made. So, is my 'sense of doubt' (which I suspect most people feel) also inner light? Or is the whole concept of 'sense of rightness' bullocks? Not that it's an either/or proposition...
Your sense of doubt would also be a part of that. We all struggle with decisions, and if a decision is important to you, you still seek out a sense of the right decision, even if you never find it.

[DontBeStupid]

Not what you're talking about? GOOD! my post was in response to Cap'n Awesome's original thread topic. Not your hijacked version of it.
Sorry. Didn't mean to offend.
you didn't.

[DontBeStupid]

It FEELS right to you. It doesn't mean you can't provide rational arguments to support it. That is the heart of your sense of rightness. Now, as an atheist, you would say that sense of rightness is simply a biological construct evolved in primates as part of a survival mechanism. Fine. Quakers would say that your sense of rightness is the inner light, that it is a connection to God ...
I disagree with this characterization of my (or anybody else's) feelings. In fact, the more difficult a decision, the more likely I'm going to 'feel' doubts about it, even after the decision's been made. So, is my 'sense of doubt' (which I suspect most people feel) also inner light? Or is the whole concept of 'sense of rightness' bullocks? Not that it's an either/or proposition...
Your sense of doubt would also be a part of that. We all struggle with decisions, and if a decision is important to you, you still seek out a sense of the right decision, even if you never find it.
I don't understand quaker, could his sense of doubt just be a sense of doubt? Why do quakers feel a need to give it a mystical sounding name like inner light?

[Quaker]

I don't understand quaker, could his sense of doubt just be a sense of doubt? Why do quakers feel a need to give it a mystical sounding name like inner light?
Yep, it could be nothing but doubt. But Quakers view this in a religious context. They (generally) believe in God, and in this connection to God. People are Quakers because they see this paradigm as useful to their lives.

[DontBeStupid]

I don't understand quaker, could his sense of doubt just be a sense of doubt? Why do quakers feel a need to give it a mystical sounding name like inner light?
Yep, it could be nothing but doubt. But Quakers view this in a religious context. They (generally) believe in God, and in this connection to God. People are Quakers because they see this paradigm as useful to their lives.
But why? why do they view it in religious context, and how is it useful?

I'm not saying they shouldn't, or that its not useful. But I still wonder why not just call it doubt

[Quaker]

I don't understand quaker, could his sense of doubt just be a sense of doubt? Why do quakers feel a need to give it a mystical sounding name like inner light?
Yep, it could be nothing but doubt. But Quakers view this in a religious context. They (generally) believe in God, and in this connection to God. People are Quakers because they see this paradigm as useful to their lives.
But why? why do they view it in religious context, and how is it useful?

I'm not saying they shouldn't, or that its not useful. But I still wonder why not just call it doubt
Part of the idea is to recognize an essence of humanity which is divine. Religion is about a lot of things, but one of the primary aspects of religion is about determining moral conduct. How do we know what is right?

You can take the concept of strict rationalism, and try to come up with first postulates, basic premises, etc., and then try to develop some rational argument for a particular moral decision. Of course there are moral questions which rationalists are divided on. Each side will make rational arguments trying to support their side, but what it really comes down to is the fact that each side is trying to find some rational way to claim victory. Each side is trying to appeal to an authority. I'm right, you're wrong. By both agreeing to rationalism, each side has an even chance, but usually for difficult and controversial questions, both sides just go round and round, each believing that they are right, and trying to convince the other side.

A usual theological postulate is that there exists a perfect sense of rightness "out there", that rightness being God's will. It doesn't matter what you call it, it is seen as THE authority. Most religions then go further to say that their particular dogma is closer to this authority than anyone else. In other words, they claim the rightness of their authority as an act of faith. This is an application of power upon others, and is how religion justifies all sorts of evil. It is this concept of dogma as power which Quakers reject.

Like most other religions, Quakerism also postulates the concept of perfect absolute rightness (God). But they hold that EVERYONE has a sense of this, as a reflection of God, and that sense is the same for everyone. So if two Quakers differ on a difficult moral choice, neither can claim authority over the other. By invoking God, each agrees that there is at least some kernel of rightness in the opposite view. So one can ask "Why do I choose A? What is the good I see in it? What is the good my friend sees in choice B?" If rationalism is fair and external, then Quakerism is fair and internal.

It is a different way of seeking right decisions. It may, or may not, be any better than rationalism. But it is a way of "seeking the light" which many people find useful.

[Lurker]

How ya doing Quaker? Your post sparked some questions that I’d like to ask.

Quakerism also postulates the concept of perfect absolute rightness (God). But they hold that EVERYONE has a sense of this, as a reflection of God, and that sense is the same for everyone.
What does it mean when you say everyone has a “sense of this”? Does that mean everyone has some idea, come inkling, some vague understanding of perfect rightness? If so, is it possible that one person has a better understanding – a better sense of it - than another person?

The reason I ask is it seems obvious to me that certain people have a better understanding of “perfect rightness” as you like to call it. According to Quakerism, am I imagining that or is there a real difference in understanding between people?

[Quaker]

How ya doing Quaker?
Hiya, Lurker! I'm well, hope you are too.

Quakerism also postulates the concept of perfect absolute rightness (God). But they hold that EVERYONE has a sense of this, as a reflection of God, and that sense is the same for everyone.
What does it mean when you say everyone has a “sense of this”? Does that mean everyone has some idea, come inkling, some vague understanding of perfect rightness? If so, is it possible that one person has a better understanding – a better sense of it - than another person?

The reason I ask is it seems obvious to me that certain people have a better understanding of “perfect rightness” as you like to call it. According to Quakerism, am I imagining that or is there a real difference in understanding between people?
There is a vagueness to everyone's meaning of this idea. There is also a differing opinion on whether this "inner light" is more powerful than Biblical scripture. Orthodox Quakers assert that when one's inner light is in contradiction to the Bible, the Bible wins and one must re-examine one's conscience. Hicksite Quakers (like myself) believe that while the Bible may be a source of wisdom one's inner light is not constrained by it.

But I digress.

Basically the idea is that everyone has the same capability to perceive this absolute rightness. It is rooted in the sense of equality, and in the idea that one cannot force a view upon another. What you believe is between you and God alone. Of course, that is not to say that everyone's opinion is held in equal esteem. Within any Quaker community there are those who are seen as more wise.

[Zarathustra]

I'm very much surprised that up until now no one has mentioned RA. He was a long time hard core atheist who earned the respect of many people on this board. Now that there is the suspicion that he has converted, everyone, instead of rethinking their own positions, has taken to thinking that he is a sellout. Is this germane to your question Cap'n? Did the Raving Atheist's self doubt make you think about your beliefs, or would he have to come straight out of the closet and start preaching and trying to convert the rest of us?

[Zarathustra]

There is a vagueness to everyone's meaning of this idea. There is also a differing opinion on whether this "inner light" is more powerful than Biblical scripture. Orthodox Quakers assert that when one's inner light is in contradiction to the Bible, the Bible wins and one must re-examine one's conscience. Hicksite Quakers (like myself) believe that while the Bible may be a source of wisdom one's inner light is not constrained by it.
I'm really curious about how Quakers view the bible. You did mention that it was written down, translated, and interpreted by priests who are "imperfect humans" (on another thread) and here you say that it is a source of wisdom in its own right, but I get the impression that you don't believe it to be an authoritative document. Just one source not as trustworthy as the one we internalize. Does this mean that a Quarker must use their own judgment in determining what from the bible is truth and what parts are fabrications or misrepresentations made by us 'falible humans'?

[Quaker]

There is a vagueness to everyone's meaning of this idea. There is also a differing opinion on whether this "inner light" is more powerful than Biblical scripture. Orthodox Quakers assert that when one's inner light is in contradiction to the Bible, the Bible wins and one must re-examine one's conscience. Hicksite Quakers (like myself) believe that while the Bible may be a source of wisdom one's inner light is not constrained by it.
I'm really curious about how Quakers view the bible. You did mention that it was written down, translated, and interpreted by priests who are "imperfect humans" (on another thread) and here you say that it is a source of wisdom in its own right, but I get the impression that you don't believe it to be an authoritative document. Just one source not as trustworthy as the one we internalize. Does this mean that a Quarker must use their own judgment in determining what from the bible is truth and what parts are fabrications or misrepresentations made by us 'falible humans'?
Let me start off by saying I am not a Quaker historian, so what follows is merely one Quaker's understanding of this.

Quaker views on the Bible vary widely, from viewing it as absolute cover-to-cover literal truth to viewing it as mere folklore. This range is largely due to the fact that the Quaker faith does not recognize any form of theological hierarchy. Catholicism, for example has a definite line of authority, leading up to "ex cathedra" proclamations, which are infallible and cannot be questioned. In other words, for Catholics, you are told what to believe by people who say they understand the "mind of God" better than you.

Protestant groups rejected this infallibility argument, though many introduced their own authority structure, usually through a specific creed. However, Quakers took protestantism to its logical conclusion. By rejecting the infallible nature of the Church, one rejects the concept of infallibility entirely. This means that everyone is imperfect in their understanding of the Bible. Some may be more learned or insightful than others, but no person or group of people are perfect. Quakers have no creed, or statement of faith. So, as you say, everyone must use their own judgement in determining the meaning or truth of the Bible. This does not mean you simply believe anything you want, but rather that you seek truth and develop your own best understanding of it, knowing that your understanding is imperfect.

Within Quakerism, there is the schism between the orthodox and Hicksite camps, as I mentioned earlier. Essentially, all Quakers accept the fallibility of humans, but orthodox Quakers hold that the Bible itself is infallible. Perhaps not literal, but it is the "true word as God intended." So orthodox Quakers seek revelation through the inner light, but feel one's understanding of the truth cannot contradict Biblical truth. Hicksite Quakers disagree with this limitation. Personally, I am in the Hicksite camp, since I don't see where such a limitation could be. Even if one assumes the Bible is "as intended", it can be quoted, misquoted, turned and twisted to whatever you want it to say. So either you accept someone else's interpretation as to the Bible's intent without question, thus granting infallibility, or you keep looking at things and strive for your own imperfect understanding.

Basically, Catholicism is "rules based", in that you are told from on high what is and is not an acceptable understanding of the Bible. In rules based religion you stay within the boundaries of the rules. How well you adhere to the rules determines your reward or punishment in this life or the next. Quakerism is "path based", wherein one seeks the wisdom of God, always searching for deeper understanding, and applying what wisdom you gain to your daily life. That in itself is its own reward.

[Zarathustra]

That sounds like pretty rational way of approaching religious doctrines.

Even if one accepts the Bible as absolute truth when turning to it for wisdom it seems that one is still facing the problem of interpretation. Relying on anothers interpretations seems an intellectual default. But are you certain that Quakerism the end antithesis of Catholocism? It seems to me that the complete opposite end of the spectrum would be to cast off all previous forms of knowledge and return to the kernel of religious thought; inquiring the nature of reality. I suppose the only means of approaching the question would be to use that internal faculty for recognizing truth, but I don't think that makes necessary the assumption of God's existence, though I could see the argument leading to it somewhere along the way (given the appropriate definitions).

[Choobus]

I'm really curious about how Quakers view the bible.
I think they use their eyes

[TK]

I'm really curious about how Quakers view the bible.
I think they use their eyes
Choo - That implies they are open!

:whistle:

[Choobus]

I'm not sure if it is physically possible to keep your eyes shut while being anally violated. Lurker, can you clear this up?

[TK]

I'm not sure if it is physically possible to keep your eyes shut while being anally violated. Lurker, can you clear this up?
I thought it was the other way around. (can't keep them open while...) Well that remeinds me I think I am late for my appointment for a high colonic.

:thumbsup:

Peace and Love
TK :rock:

[Quaker]

That sounds like pretty rational way of approaching religious doctrines.
I think so. :)


Even if one accepts the Bible as absolute truth when turning to it for wisdom it seems that one is still facing the problem of interpretation. Relying on anothers interpretations seems an intellectual default. But are you certain that Quakerism the end antithesis of Catholocism? It seems to me that the complete opposite end of the spectrum would be to cast off all previous forms of knowledge and return to the kernel of religious thought; inquiring the nature of reality. I suppose the only means of approaching the question would be to use that internal faculty for recognizing truth, but I don't think that makes necessary the assumption of God's existence, though I could see the argument leading to it somewhere along the way (given the appropriate definitions).
There ARE Quakers who do not believe in God. They are atheists, nontheists, humanists, etc. who are part of Quaker communities. One can be atheist and Quaker, and be actively welcomed into a Quaker community. That pretty much is as antithetical to Catholicism as you can get.

[Choobus]

can you be a nontheist quaker and declare that the bible is a big book of lies believed by gullible fools, and still hangout with the other quakers?

[evolve]

Do Quakers eat alot of oatmeal?

[Quaker]

can you be a nontheist quaker and declare that the bible is a big book of lies believed by gullible fools, and still hangout with the other quakers?
I can picture it now. Quakers sitting in silence. Choobus is called to speak, and rises saying "Do we do anal?"

[Quaker]

Do Quakers eat alot of oatmeal?
Do rationalists eat a lot of MREs ?

[Tenspace]

Do Quakers eat alot of oatmeal?
Do rationalists eat a lot of MREs ?
:lol:

Good one. Pastafarians would've been too easy.

[Professor Chaos]

Do Quakers eat alot of oatmeal?
Do rationalists eat a lot of MREs ?
:lol::lol:

[Quaker]

Do Quakers eat alot of oatmeal?
Do rationalists eat a lot of MREs ?
:lol:

Good one. Pastafarians would've been too easy.
Yeah, I try not to go for the low branches. I prefer to use my noodle.

[Lurker]

I'm not sure if it is physically possible to keep your eyes shut while being anally violated. Lurker, can you clear this up?
Nope (answering the last question). :bop: