Raison d'etre

Comment by Emma Green on 1stMo. 11, 2011 at 6:50

Hi tony,

My husband and I agree wholeheartedly with you.  We are blessed in that our individual meeting in West Yorkshire is Christ centred, but we are shunned by the rest of AM because of it.  We have had to endure caustic comments about the God people etc. 

I think the Society has undoubtedly lost its way and Atheists and other minority interest groups have hijacked the Society for their own ends.  That's the trouble with being non-credal, we really have no doctrinal defence against the tide of Athiesm, some of it in my humble opinion quite agressive.

However, take heart. I keep thinking of the passage in the old testament " a remnant will remain".  Perhaps we in NFF and in Quaker Fellowship in Christ are that remnant. You know, Ecclesiastes is full of "a time to" and may be this is a time to "break down and a time to build up".

When i was young my family and i used to have boating holidays each year for about 20 years.  Its my dream to live on a narrow boat, but my landlubbing husband won't hear of it - ah well, dream on.

Be blessed

 

Comment by Peter Glass on 1stMo. 26, 2011 at 4:27

Am puzzled as to the difference between a "non-theist' and an "a-theist?"

Comment by Tony Haynes on 1stMo. 26, 2011 at 19:47

So am I.

Comment by Peter Glass on 1stMo. 27, 2011 at 1:11

As far as I can tell, the two terms are synonymous to the point of identical. The difference is mostly cosmetic: nontheist sounds better in polite company. The term atheist may sound too jarring to some, too conclusive. People who describe themselves as atheists are people who can draw definitive conclusions and make a bold stand upon them. I sense a certain lack of nerve behind this dissembling-sounding term of nontheist. Perhaps that's a good thing, over the long haul. Perhaps there is hope that God may still eventually reach them, and when He does, perhaps these erstwhile "nontheists" may also acquire some boldness along with it, and then even they may dare to take a definitive stand. Is anything too hard for God?

Comment by Emma Green on 1stMo. 27, 2011 at 10:27

I completely agree.  Its interesting to note that despite our testimonies to equality etc, the majority of  Friends today are white middle class and fairly well off and move in similar circles.  I wonder then if non-theist is just a more middle class way of expressing the term Athiest within their circles.  

Comment by Peter Glass on 1stMo. 28, 2011 at 0:42

Fox spoke often of "confounding deceit." It seems that the use of proper terms rather than euphemism would be a good way to do this. Hiding under cover of euphemism to disguise one's true thoughts concerning God seems out of phase with the testimonies of Integrity, Truthfulness.

Comment by Tony Haynes on 1stMo. 28, 2011 at 13:23

I've pondered this. 

I think what I mean when I use the terms is, an atheist is one who does not believe that God exists. A non-theist is one who denies God. There is a subtle difference, not substantiated by dictionary definitions. But, in the above I did use both terms as interchangeable.

 

But words are often inadequate when it comes to expressing what we really feel. Maybe we shouldn't get too hung up on them?

 

I subscribe to the Quaker forum. http://forum.quaker.org.uk/  There has been an interesting exchange on the subject of 'God language- how do you feel about it?'

 

It has highlighted again how much the RSoF is being changed by universalist and atheist thought. 'God language' is upsetting for some. I am doing my best to witness to the beliefs of our founders, but it is hard work especially when someone says that our society is evolving away from the beliefs of our founders, as if that is a good thing!

 

Tone

Comment by Michael Langford on 1stMo. 29, 2011 at 19:08

""We are a small CHURCH qith a RADICAL history and CHRISTIAN ROOTS."   "Radical" means "true to its roots".l  That is what thw "Long-term Framework" says with the fiull weight of Britain Yearly Meeting  behind it.  British Friends however have got rather good at pretending that words do not mean what they say, or at at making joint decisions and the.  Some atheists must be gardeners so how do they manage to grow plants without roots?

Comment by Tony Haynes on 1stMo. 29, 2011 at 22:42

Thank you Edward, for that reminder of where we stand. It is very encouraging.

 

I am not popular with some for defending the use of 'God language' in the RSoF. Some who deny God are made to feel uncomfortable. (There is a kind of irony there.)

 

I am reminded that I should consider whether 'I might be wrong.'

 

I think it likely that we all are, in this life.

 

But God isn't. Neither is Jesus, His Word.

 

Our understanding of Him may be limited, but our calling is not.

 

"Follow me.... " he said.

 

"Aye  aye, skipper!"

 

Tone

Comment by Michael Langford on 1stMo. 30, 2011 at 19:18

This is a correect distinction. What makes this kind of atheist uncomfortable is you are sure of something whereas theyare unsre of of themselves. An atheist who who felt secure in his atheism would not have joined a relifious society in the first place. We get the ones who have an emotional problem and are trying to work it out in terms of verbal belief/disnelief. I was told long ago that my ministry was an insult to the intelligence of the Meeting. Forty years on and my Christiah faith is unchanged althoufh my beliefs have changed quite a bit. Twenty years ago I was theonly one interested in ecumenial dialogue. Now the Meeting would not think of cutting itself adrift from the othe other chuches in our district, with whom we have signed a covenant.
ost are still far from sure as to what they believe but they have accepted that there is something to nelieve in that they can call God and that it has somehing to do with Jesus and the Ninle.

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page