paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What is Quakerism?
I am not familiar with it.
Anybody, please
Regards
I am not familiar with it.
Anybody, please
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Quakerism?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
The Quakers are a specific movement within Christianity. A very sympathetic one. They tend to have a very down-to-Earth lifestyle, little in the way of centralized authority, and a very fraternal and modest way of life.
Historically, they split away from the Church of England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers
Historically, they split away from the Church of England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers
@paarsurrey as I explained to you over on the other thread, they originated as a radical, mystical Christian sect in the 17th century, with a strong egalitarian and pacifist social message: founded by the Englishman George Fox, who experienced Christ as an inner light and taught that anyone of any faith, nationality or gender could as well.
However, while the majority remained orthodox Chtistians (believing all the conventional dogmas of the incarnation, Trinity and so on), the movement also developed in time (long after Fox's death) to encompass Nontheist Quakers whose spiritual practice is not reliant on the existence of a Christian God but who retain the morality, mysticism and social activism of the Christian message.
Much of the early abolitionist, anti-slavery movement and push for better working conditions for the urban poor was spearheaded by Quaker Christians in the english-speaking world. They were also incredibly entrepreneurial, creating jobs and opportunities for uncountable numbers of disadvantaged people. They founded banks and financial institutions, including Barclays, Lloyds, and Friends Provident; manufacturing companies, including shoe retailer C. & J. Clark and the big three British confectionery makers Cadbury, Rowntreeand Fry etc.
Beyond doubt, they come closest to the example set by Jesus himself, they and the Catholic/Anglican/Eastern Orthodox mystics and saints, as well as the early church fathers IMHO.
George Fox was one of the greatest Christian mystics. He picked up many of the same themes first articulated by the medieval Catholic mystics who preceded him (like Blessed Julian of Norwich in England) but furthered them to their logical conclusion.
Quakerism - or the Religious Society of Friends as they prefer to be known - is certainly my favourite branch of Christianity after the contemplative/mystical tradition in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, of which it is actually an outgrowth by way of Anglicanism (a non-Roman, non-papal catholic denomination, people often forget that) from which it broke.
If Catholicism/Orthodoxy were no longer options for me, I'd probably be a Quaker myself before anything else (my next options would be in no-particular order Jainism, Buddhism and Vaishnavite Hinduism or Secular Humanism).
Oddly enough, every time I've done that beliefnet quiz I've got a slightly different answer. Usually I am either 100% Roman Catholic, Orthodox Quaker, or Eastern Orthodox followed by Hinduism. Always those three near the top (but interchangeably in terms of order) with Hinduism following.
However, while the majority remained orthodox Chtistians (believing all the conventional dogmas of the incarnation, Trinity and so on), the movement also developed in time (long after Fox's death) to encompass Nontheist Quakers whose spiritual practice is not reliant on the existence of a Christian God but who retain the morality, mysticism and social activism of the Christian message.
Much of the early abolitionist, anti-slavery movement and push for better working conditions for the urban poor was spearheaded by Quaker Christians in the english-speaking world. They were also incredibly entrepreneurial, creating jobs and opportunities for uncountable numbers of disadvantaged people. They founded banks and financial institutions, including Barclays, Lloyds, and Friends Provident; manufacturing companies, including shoe retailer C. & J. Clark and the big three British confectionery makers Cadbury, Rowntreeand Fry etc.
Beyond doubt, they come closest to the example set by Jesus himself, they and the Catholic/Anglican/Eastern Orthodox mystics and saints, as well as the early church fathers IMHO.
George Fox was one of the greatest Christian mystics. He picked up many of the same themes first articulated by the medieval Catholic mystics who preceded him (like Blessed Julian of Norwich in England) but furthered them to their logical conclusion.
Quakerism - or the Religious Society of Friends as they prefer to be known - is certainly my favourite branch of Christianity after the contemplative/mystical tradition in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, of which it is actually an outgrowth by way of Anglicanism (a non-Roman, non-papal catholic denomination, people often forget that) from which it broke.
If Catholicism/Orthodoxy were no longer options for me, I'd probably be a Quaker myself before anything else (my next options would be in no-particular order Jainism, Buddhism and Vaishnavite Hinduism or Secular Humanism).
Oddly enough, every time I've done that beliefnet quiz I've got a slightly different answer. Usually I am either 100% Roman Catholic, Orthodox Quaker, or Eastern Orthodox followed by Hinduism. Always those three near the top (but interchangeably in terms of order) with Hinduism following.
Last edited:
By the way, I should note that another source for Quaker ideas was one of my heros-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Chelčický
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Chelčický
Petr Chelčický[1] (Czech pronunciation: [ˈpɛtr̩ ˈxɛltʃɪtskiː]) (c. 1390 – c. 1460) was a CzechChristian spiritual leader and author in the 15th century Bohemia (in what is now the Czech Republic).
Petr Chelčický's teachings included ideas later adopted by the Moravians, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Baptists. He was the first pacifist writer of the Renaissance, predating Erasmus and Menno Simons by nearly 100 years.
He argued that capital punishment and other forms of violent punishment were wrong. His positions on government are similar to the Christian anarchist principles of Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy praised Chelčický's work in his 1894 book The Kingdom of God is Within You.
"The man who obeys God needs no other authority (over him)." — Petr Chelčický
Chelčický criticized the nobility, the clergy, and the middle class. In it he described how they subjected the common people and rode them "as if they were beasts". His most comprehensive work, written around 1443 and one of his last, was Sieť viery pravé ("The Net of True Faith"). In it he showed how the apostles treated all people as equals, and considered Christ as the only head.
As early as 1420 Chelčický taught that violence should not be used in religious matters. Chelčický used the parable of the wheat and the tares[6] (Matthew 13:24–30) to show that both the sinners and the saints should be allowed to live together until the harvest.
He thought that it is wrong even to kill the sinful, and that Christians should refuse military service. He argued that if the poor refused, the lords would have no one to go to war for them. He believed war was the worst evil, and thought soldiers were no more than murderers. He even opposed defensive war. He believed the example of Jesus and the Gospel was an example of peace.
Communal living
Chelčický was a communalist in the original Christian sense, and thought that there must be complete equality in the Christian community. He said there should be no rich or poor, since the Christian relinquished all property and status.
He believed in equality, but that the State should not force it upon society, and went so far as to proffer that social inequality is a creature of the State, and rises and falls with it.
Chelčický criticized the use of force in matters of faith. He taught that the Christian should strive for righteousness of his own free will, that he must not force others to be good, and that goodness should be voluntary. He believed that the Christian must love God and one's neighbor, and that this is the way to convert people rather than by compulsion. He maintained that any type of compulsion is evil, and that Christians should not participate in political power struggles.
Petr Chelčický's teachings included ideas later adopted by the Moravians, Anabaptists, Quakers, and Baptists. He was the first pacifist writer of the Renaissance, predating Erasmus and Menno Simons by nearly 100 years.
He argued that capital punishment and other forms of violent punishment were wrong. His positions on government are similar to the Christian anarchist principles of Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy praised Chelčický's work in his 1894 book The Kingdom of God is Within You.
"The man who obeys God needs no other authority (over him)." — Petr Chelčický
Chelčický criticized the nobility, the clergy, and the middle class. In it he described how they subjected the common people and rode them "as if they were beasts". His most comprehensive work, written around 1443 and one of his last, was Sieť viery pravé ("The Net of True Faith"). In it he showed how the apostles treated all people as equals, and considered Christ as the only head.
As early as 1420 Chelčický taught that violence should not be used in religious matters. Chelčický used the parable of the wheat and the tares[6] (Matthew 13:24–30) to show that both the sinners and the saints should be allowed to live together until the harvest.
He thought that it is wrong even to kill the sinful, and that Christians should refuse military service. He argued that if the poor refused, the lords would have no one to go to war for them. He believed war was the worst evil, and thought soldiers were no more than murderers. He even opposed defensive war. He believed the example of Jesus and the Gospel was an example of peace.
Communal living
Chelčický was a communalist in the original Christian sense, and thought that there must be complete equality in the Christian community. He said there should be no rich or poor, since the Christian relinquished all property and status.
He believed in equality, but that the State should not force it upon society, and went so far as to proffer that social inequality is a creature of the State, and rises and falls with it.
Chelčický criticized the use of force in matters of faith. He taught that the Christian should strive for righteousness of his own free will, that he must not force others to be good, and that goodness should be voluntary. He believed that the Christian must love God and one's neighbor, and that this is the way to convert people rather than by compulsion. He maintained that any type of compulsion is evil, and that Christians should not participate in political power struggles.
Last edited:
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
74x12
Well-Known Member
I was reading a book on their history awhile back. (Never finished it ... but it was interesting) They were apparently largely despised by the other groups of their day such as the Puritans and yes the church of England. They had peculiar beliefs but I liked some things about them because they were more spiritual than other groups of Protestants. They believed in the "gifts of the Spirit" being in operation basically in every gathering. I don't know if they still believe that way; but that's what they did believe. I think modern churches could learn a thing or two from them.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Some questions for their religious beliefs:
- Do they follow some scripture?
- Do they believe in Trinity?
- Do they believe Jesus to be God or Son of God?
- Do they believe that Jesus died on the Cross?
- Do they believe that Jesus died on the Cross to save Christians from their sins?
Regards
Going by this website
http://www.quakermaps.com/info
it would appear that the average Quaker is very much a Trinitarian Christian (and therefore the answers would be "The Bible", yes, yes,yes and yes) but there is also a wide acceptance of discordant opinions.
This part deserves some attention:
Universalist Liberal
Friends of this perspective, while recognizing that Quakerism has historically been a branch of the Christian Church, do not believe that Quakerism is or should be limited to a Christian – or Western – understanding. Friends who hold this perspective often see Quakerism as a meeting ground for followers of various world religions – and of none at all. The Friends practice of worship in expectant silence is often seen as particularly conducive to interfaith dialogue, as people of all faiths can benefit from contemplation and grounded sharing.Universalist Liberal Friends tend to put little or no emphasis on religious beliefs as a basis for membership in the local Meeting. Instead, adherence to Friends practices – however interpreted by the individual – is the cornerstone of participation in the Society of Friends.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So Universalism have another name of Quakerism, is it so, please?Going by this website
http://www.quakermaps.com/info
it would appear that the average Quaker is very much a Trinitarian Christian (and therefore the answers would be "The Bible", yes, yes,yes and yes) but there is also a wide acceptance of discordant opinions.
This part deserves some attention:
Universalist Liberal
Friends of this perspective, while recognizing that Quakerism has historically been a branch of the Christian Church, do not believe that Quakerism is or should be limited to a Christian – or Western – understanding. Friends who hold this perspective often see Quakerism as a meeting ground for followers of various world religions – and of none at all. The Friends practice of worship in expectant silence is often seen as particularly conducive to interfaith dialogue, as people of all faiths can benefit from contemplation and grounded sharing.
Universalist Liberal Friends tend to put little or no emphasis on religious beliefs as a basis for membership in the local Meeting. Instead, adherence to Friends practices – however interpreted by the individual – is the cornerstone of participation in the Society of Friends.
Regards
No.
There is an Universalist Liberal movement within Quakerism. They are a part of Quakerism much in the same way as, say, the Twelvers are a part of the Shia.
There are also non-Quaker Universalists, with a degree of similar beliefs. The best known such group is probably the Unitarian Universalists.
But what seems to unite Quakers, far as can tell, are not really their beliefs regarding scriptures or even God, but rather a sense of fraternity and certain social values that are often but not always attributed to the example and teachings of Jesus and the Bible.
To the best of my understanding, the best comparison in Muslim words would be if a group of Muslims decided to develop their own Sira and feel very responsible for it and its practice in everyday life, perhaps giving a bit less weight to the Ahadith, the Qur'an and even the belief in God's existence.
1. Yes, the Bible. In fact they traditionally believed in scriptural inerrancy, just like Protestants but they place more emphasis upon the inward experience of the Holy Spirit.
2. Yes, the majority of Quakers are Trinitarian - although they are tolerant of and accept people who think differently, even atheists, so long as they subscribe to the movement's values. They are not a creedal denomination.
William Penn (1644-1718), the founder of the state of Pennsylvania in America and a famous Quaker, wrote a book called "Sandy Foundations Shaken" wherein he rebutted some misconceptions about Quaker Christianity:
"Perversion 9: The Quakers deny the Trinity. Principle: Nothing less. They believe in the holy three, or trinity of Father, Word, and Spirit, according to Scripture. And that these things are truly and properly one [spirit]; of one nature as well as will. But they are tender of quitting Scripture terms and phrases for schoolmen's, such as distinct and separate persons or subsistences are, from which people are apt to entertain gross ideas and notions of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They judge that a curious inquiry into those high and divine revelations, or into speculative subjects, though never so great truths in themselves, tends little to godliness and less to peace, which should be the chief aim of true Christians. Therefore, they cannot gratify that curiosity in themselves or others. Speculative truths are, in their judgment, to be sparingly and tenderly declared, and never to be made the measure and condition of Christian communion. Men are too apt to let their heads outrun their hearts, and their notions exceed their obedience, and their passions support their conceits, instead of a daily cross, a constant watch, and a holy practice.
3. Again, the majority do but they tolerate differences of opinion.
4. Yes
5. Yes but again tolerate other viewpoints
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So from our , Muslim, stand point they are no different from other Christians.
Regards
Don't you think that an emphasis on a certain practice and on certain values is a significant difference?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Tolerance and and to do no harm to others is another thing, and Quran/Islam/Muhammad promote and support them in the most exemplary way.
The Truthful religious path is another thing.
Since they intend generally to follow G-d's message revealed on Jesus, so they are within the parameters of a revealed religion as per Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
In the rest four points they are as wrong as other Christians as these are the basis of Pauline Christianity, and not of Jesus' truthful religion revealed by G-d.
Please correct me if I am wrong, with reason and arguments, if any.
Do we have follower of Quakerism Christianity, here on the forum?
Regards
That, I fear, is a very bold claim that meets a fierce challenge from the known facts - including the very text of the Qur'an, as well as the traditions from Islaam itself.
I beg to somewhat differ. The truthful religious path can only develop and blossom in the nurturing of virtue, including those of pacifism, tolerance and peace of mind when confronted with diversity (including diversity of belief).
The realization that the Qur'an and its traditions are sorely ill-equiped to even acknowledge that is a big part of the reason why I can no longer think of Islaam as a religion.
That is a valid claim.
But to the great merit of the Quakers, they realized that they should not allow their practice to be defined by that claim. Or, at the very least, they are courageous enough to allow themselves to transcend those parameters when their hearts lead them so.
That, my friend, is a very welcome and very religious virtue.
Perhaps. Ultimately, that is only (and can only be) important if they fail to develop the ability to transcend inherited tradition when transcendence is called for.
Which, as we just saw, they did not.
Apparently not.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"fierce challenge from the known facts - including the very text of the Qur'an"That, I fear, is a very bold claim that meets a fierce challenge from the known facts - including the very text of the Qur'an, as well as the traditions from Islaam itself.
I beg to somewhat differ. The truthful religious path can only develop and blossom in the nurturing of virtue, including those of pacifism, tolerance and peace of mind when confronted with diversity (including diversity of belief).
The realization that the Qur'an and its traditions are sorely ill-equiped to even acknowledge that is a big part of the reason why I can no longer think of Islaam as a religion.
That is a valid claim.
But to the great merit of the Quakers, they realized that they should not allow their practice to be defined by that claim. Or, at the very least, they are courageous enough to allow themselves to transcend those parameters when their hearts lead them so.
That, my friend, is a very welcome and very religious virtue.
Perhaps. Ultimately, that is only (and can only be) important if they fail to develop the ability to transcend inherited tradition when transcendence is called for.
Which, as we just saw, they did not.
Apparently not.
Please quote from Quran in this connection to support one's viewpoint. If one quotes a verse, then please also give the context verses, some verses preceding and some following.
Also one kindly mention if one has observed it in the natural study of Quran from cover to cover, please.
Right, please?
Regards
You may look at the Skeptic's Annotated Quran if you want. Or take a look at the Political Islam website. There is no shortage of critics of the Qur'an, and I humbly include myself among them.
Unfortunately, they are immediately branded "hate speech" by the average Muslim, apparently out of nurtured instinct.
Unfortunately, they are immediately branded "hate speech" by the average Muslim, apparently out of nurtured instinct.