Re: Re there is no such thing as Quakerism

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:32:07 UTC, ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Ian Davis) wrote:

: In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-MpUOCBdnGEmH@localhost>,
: Ian Johnston <ian.groups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:26:52 UTC, ijdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: >(Ian Davis) wrote:

: >This is
: >: to my mind a graver error than those who not being members of meeting
: >: still think of themselves as Quakers.
: >
: >I think it is a little arrogant of you to suggest that non-members who
: >think of themselves as Quakers are in error.

: Then I think you think I am arrogant in error. I was doing no more than
: stating a position...

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I thought your words - quoted
above - implied clearly that you saw "those who not being members of
meeting still think of themselves as Quakers" as being in error. Sorry
if I read somethuing into it which was not intended - if you are
saying that it's not who is a Quaker that matters but how people who
see themselves as Quakers behave then I am with you completely.

: I am not a Quaker so the issue of where I am is largely irrelevant.

However, where you are will have influenced your experience and view
of Quakers.

: You may not have been here long enough to understand the background
to this
: debate, and I think on balance you and others better informed of this
: background up front than continue to labor under a certain amount of necessary
: confusion regarding it merely because you might remain ignorant of the past.
:
: <someone> and <someone else> exchanged very angry words on this subject.

To be honest, frank, and plain, I don't really care. I don't have
anyone here killfiled at the moment, but there are clearly
longstanding, circular and - to me as a newcomer - futile arguments
which don't interest me in the slightest. When threads turn in that
direction I just shrug "Here they go again" and click "Mark thread as
read". It's a bit like hearing married couples fight - embarassing and
unedifying, however much it means to the particpants. The participants
can go on having hissy fits at each other if they want, but I'm not
playing and I'm not taking sides.

Ian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: William Penns Sword
    ... Many Quakers, I assume, would also agree with the above. ... members to believe the above, the non creedal one does not. ... then *non-creedalism* becomes the creed. ... the Richmond Declaration of Faith of 1887 is a creed. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: William Penns Sword
    ... Many Quakers, I assume, would also agree with the above. ... members to believe the above, the non creedal one does not. ... then *non-creedalism* becomes the creed. ... I largely submerged my inner quakerism for the sake of our marriage. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: When is a Quaker a Quaker?
    ... >>>Attenders also do not entirely act as Quakers act. ... >>because they are attenders and not members... ... you really should use the Merriam-Webster definitions of "church" ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: When is a Quaker a Quaker?
    ... "Any group that calls itself Quakers and which you yourself ... repeated assertion that only members of the RSOF are Quakers. ... Do GFM members call themselves Quakers? ... Does John call members of GFM Quakers? ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: William Penns Sword
    ... Is it your opinion that the majority of 'Quakers' are 'creedal'? ... members to believe the above, the non creedal one does not. ... then *non-creedalism* becomes the creed. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)