Crosswords4 mins ago
The Quakers
75 Answers
They see God as the spirit of the universe (you are free to interpret that in whatever way you wish), not as some big beardie in the sky ready to smite us with a thunderbolt for being naughty.
They see Jesus as a cool dude, a sound bloke, not God in human form.
They don't tell you what you mustn't do. You can smoke, drink, eat red meat or whatever.
They have a liberal attitude to contraception and sexual matters.
They believe in evolution and science.
They support world peace, equality and an end to poverty.
Sounds like the religion for me (atheism didn't work for me). Should I give them a try?
They see Jesus as a cool dude, a sound bloke, not God in human form.
They don't tell you what you mustn't do. You can smoke, drink, eat red meat or whatever.
They have a liberal attitude to contraception and sexual matters.
They believe in evolution and science.
They support world peace, equality and an end to poverty.
Sounds like the religion for me (atheism didn't work for me). Should I give them a try?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JockSporran. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I kept quiet as I did not want to change the subject of this question as I know when I say one word, the other people say ten and that changes the topic. Jake, Yes I really meant what Octavius emphasized on. There are few similarities and few things are different from my belief. As I think is the case in any belief systems as over the period of time people came up with different ideas and few concepts in religions and beliefs changed where few just kept their original concepts. That is exactly the case in two example you gave me (Bahai and Sufi). Bahai�s are not considered Muslims but Sufi�s are OK as they do not differ from the basic and compulsory beliefs. But I will leave it there.
No towards pacifist bit as even in Jock�s last post that seems to be the central point. I think that you should be a peace loving but not aggression sufferer and calling that peace loving. As Jock himself said that sometimes Wars or retaliation I should call is not only justified but necessary. If someone slaps you on one cheek then in my mind you should not ask him to do the same to the other side. What if he did? So aggression is not allowed but suppression should not be allowed either.
No towards pacifist bit as even in Jock�s last post that seems to be the central point. I think that you should be a peace loving but not aggression sufferer and calling that peace loving. As Jock himself said that sometimes Wars or retaliation I should call is not only justified but necessary. If someone slaps you on one cheek then in my mind you should not ask him to do the same to the other side. What if he did? So aggression is not allowed but suppression should not be allowed either.
Thank you Jock. What a nice thing to say.
And Octavius, hard and crackly you may perceive me to be, but fattening? Never!
In a Pickle, you've advised Jock to ask any questions he would like to ask, so I hope you don't mind if I ask you one on what seems to be the sticking point between many people and Quakerism - pacifism - but please don't answer if you'd rather not. Here goes.
Whilst I very much admire the stance that Quakers take, and I truly wish the whole world felt the same as they do, because then there would be no war, the reality is it doesn't, so what would have happened if Hitler, for example, had never been opposed? He would have conquered the world, and just how many Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and countless others would have been slaughtered? Anyone who wasn't Ayrian, and therefore a member of the 'master race', would have been doomed. It's a frightening thought, so how does Quakerism rationalise this fact of life with its blanket pacifism? Would its adherents have preferred no one to stand against the Nazis, or is their conviction confined to themselves only? I hope this makes sense.
And Octavius, hard and crackly you may perceive me to be, but fattening? Never!
In a Pickle, you've advised Jock to ask any questions he would like to ask, so I hope you don't mind if I ask you one on what seems to be the sticking point between many people and Quakerism - pacifism - but please don't answer if you'd rather not. Here goes.
Whilst I very much admire the stance that Quakers take, and I truly wish the whole world felt the same as they do, because then there would be no war, the reality is it doesn't, so what would have happened if Hitler, for example, had never been opposed? He would have conquered the world, and just how many Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and countless others would have been slaughtered? Anyone who wasn't Ayrian, and therefore a member of the 'master race', would have been doomed. It's a frightening thought, so how does Quakerism rationalise this fact of life with its blanket pacifism? Would its adherents have preferred no one to stand against the Nazis, or is their conviction confined to themselves only? I hope this makes sense.
In the 1940s, the Quakers helped Jews, Poles, Japanese and others in war-torn regions. They organised mass feeding programmes, clothing distribution, refugee aid and rescue operations to spirit thousands of Jewish children to havens in Britain and elsewhere.
They worked so unobtrusively that they were dubbed "Quiet Helpers" and in 1947 the Friends Service Council (now the British Friends Service Committee) and the American Friends Service Committee were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in Germany.
Today, in Britain, the Quakers run a campaign called "Turning the Tide" which aims to show how cycles of conflict can be broken through negotiation and peace strategies.
They worked so unobtrusively that they were dubbed "Quiet Helpers" and in 1947 the Friends Service Council (now the British Friends Service Committee) and the American Friends Service Committee were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in Germany.
Today, in Britain, the Quakers run a campaign called "Turning the Tide" which aims to show how cycles of conflict can be broken through negotiation and peace strategies.
Octavius, Your contribution did not address the question, since it doesn't relate to Quakers helping anyone during wartime, or at any other time. And yes, I did know that. I've been looking on the internet too.
Incidentally, I also knew a Quaker (he's dead now) who was imprisoned as a conscientious objector during World War II. His wife, a lovely lady, who is now 90, was a nurse, and did her bit caring for victims of the blitz.
Incidentally, I also knew a Quaker (he's dead now) who was imprisoned as a conscientious objector during World War II. His wife, a lovely lady, who is now 90, was a nurse, and did her bit caring for victims of the blitz.
-- answer removed --
Thanks, In a Pickle. Quite honestly I don't think it's an easy question to answer. In fact think it's an incredibly difficult one, which I why I said please don't answer if you don't want to.
Naive? No, I wouldn't say that. Idealistic would be my preferred description - but as we know, with human nature being what it is, idealism is, sadly, an unattainable goal. If only everyone could see life the way the Quakers see it, I have no doubt the world would be a better place. I have to agree - there are many religions, with a lot more followers, that have far, far dafter ideas!
Naive? No, I wouldn't say that. Idealistic would be my preferred description - but as we know, with human nature being what it is, idealism is, sadly, an unattainable goal. If only everyone could see life the way the Quakers see it, I have no doubt the world would be a better place. I have to agree - there are many religions, with a lot more followers, that have far, far dafter ideas!
I think the issue is (or certainly was during the World Wars) that when such crises arise, that pacifism and conscientious objection were seen as cowardice. So when one�s life, and freedoms were at threat many people could not bring themselves to �do as the Quakers do� because that would have appeared cowardly or sacrificing their freedom for the sake of not defending themselves and their loved ones.
Octavius - conscientious objection is NOT cowardice. Many people have suffered persecution rather than kill their fellow human beings. I don't normally take the side of Jehovah's Witnesses, but they suffered in the Nazi concentration camps because of their refusal to fight for Hitler's Germany, and I admire them for that.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
