Quakers - Are They Christians?

[Petr]

Besides Jews, what other sect today seems to be a quite untouchable darling of the mainstream media, and gets treated only in the most respectful manner?

I posit myself that Quakers are, doctrinally speaking, wolves in sheeps' clothing par excellence! Ever since their beginning in the 17th century, they have done a very significant pioneering work in transforming the Western Christendom into that gutless, egalitarian, syncretic mess it generally is today. Very successful infiltrators.

In a word, they have been carriers of the virus of democratic heresy that R.J. Rushdoony nicely described here as a "humanist parody of Christianity, (where) man's experience has priority over God's word."

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3530&highlight=tocqueville



http://www.christiandoctrine.net/doctrine/outlines/outline_00027_quakers_are_they_christians_web.htm


Quakers - Are They Christians?

By: K. B. Napier


Some readers will say "What a stupid question! Of course Quakers are Christians!" Almost all Believers will say this. But is it true? To put it bluntly, it does not really matter what your opinion is on the issue. Come to that, it does not matter what my opinion is, either! In fact, the same principle applies to all Biblically-based truths. What matters is WHAT GOD SAYS IN HIS WORD. God's Word is declared with authority. It is never offered as a possible answer, but as THE answer. And this is the way we must always approach the question of whether or not somebody (or a group) is Christian. In other words, what God says is law. If we say something different to that law, then what we think is irrelevant, if not sinful.

With that in mind...are Quakers Christians? If they are not, then Quakerism is a cult and Quakers are cult members. Quakers are usually represented on major Christian committees, but that is no guarantee of their Christian status. In this Outline paper, we will show that mainstream Quakerism is not Christian, but is a cult. (There are other forms of Quakerism, which claim to be Christian and which would disassociate themselves from mainstream Quakers. They would also not accept the doubts expressed in this paper).

The founder of Quakerism, George Fox, did not set out to call his followers 'Quakers'. His concern was with the falsity and stagnation within the churches of his day. So he travelled Britain warning people of their spiritual danger. A problem arises because we cannot be all that sure about his personal salvation or about his real motives. For example, in his own writings he refers to the 'light (of God) in every man'...but does not appear to differentiate the saved and the unsaved. When he talks about being saved and unsaved, it seems he is saying that to be saved is more or less a matter of not doing bad things. At other times, he appears to talk in orthodox gospel terms. The confusion may just be in the way the writer of this Outline interprets the work of Fox...but a similar confusion of ideas seems to run throughout Fox's writings. There are other problems with what Fox does and says, too, and I am not the only writer to see them.

Today, there are several different types of Quakerism, which could easily be called 'denominations'. One even refers to itself as being 'evangelical'...but the official U.K. form of Quakerism is a cult from top to toe! Why say this? Just a brief examination of its basic beliefs should be sufficient to convince the reader...

In official Quakerism, few Quakers believe in the need for Biblical-salvation. This is because few of them accept the reality of Satan, or of sin. Obviously, if there is no sin, there is no need for salvation! To many Quakers, 'sin' is merely a vestigial remain within a man which can be removed by doing good. Satan is said to be a figment of the imagination and Jesus Christ is said to have been just a very good man.

With this as a basis, there is no need to repent either! If we do not sin, then what is there to repent of? As for the Bible, well, individual Quakers may take it or leave it. However, some Quakers may, if they wish, read certain texts at their meetings, just for 'inspiration'. The Bible is viewed as just one of many books of inspiration. Any 'uplifting' piece of literature will do - even that of a pagan Roman emperor known for his savagery against early Christians!

Modern Quakers specialise in doing good works and encouraging peace initiatives. This they see as of vital importance. Many are archetypal New Agers for they mix their good works/peace ideas with ancient Eastern beliefs and all kinds of esoteric/occult teachings. (Note: 'Many' not 'all'!).

Those who call themselves 'evangelical Quakers' complain when they are referred to as 'cult members'. But this is a problem of their own making. Even if they are real Believers, they have no business being amongst those who are predominantly unbelievers. The Bible clearly tells us that we are to mark those who pretend to be of God but who, by their actions and words, defy Him. We are told that we must separate from them immediately and must then shun them. The reason for this is that their beliefs and teachings are 'works of darkness' and are of Satan and they can corrupt the best of men.

Thus, for a saved person to be a part of Quakerism (or any other cult) which, by definition, is predominantly evil, is to oppose God's commands. There is no reason whatever for a Believer to be known by any other names than those found in scripture eg 'Believer' or 'Christian'...for any other title is superfluous. Indeed, to be called by the title 'Quaker' is to indicate one's real loyalty - a loyalty to a man-made organisation and not to the authentic relationship between a person and God which has been effected through the salvation given by Jesus Christ.

In a very real sense, then, the movement/denomination of 'Quakerism' is a foe of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ. Do not be misled by its outward show of goodness. As for genuine Believers in the Quaker camp - they must come out from it! There is no alternative for a Believer.


(See O-00085, a testimony against Quakerism by an ex-Quaker and SpiraBook ‘Quakers’, published by Petra Press/BTM)

---oOo---

Bible Theology Ministries

© June 1992

PO Box 415, SWANSEA SA5 8YH

Wales

United Kingdom

[Petr]

I actually believe that the basic Quaker ideology of egalitarian tolerance directly and indirectly influenced the American culture in the 19th century almost as strongly (and perniciously!) as the Jewish "culture of critique" did in the 20th century.

As this Amazon reviewer of David Fischer's book Albion's Seed puts it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0195069056/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-5738686-5812848?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155


"To close: Fischer's admiration for the Quakers. After you absorb this culture and its Midlands English dialect, it will be obvious which of the four seed cultures dominates middle class America today: commerce, philanthropy, and forms of local government; attitudes towards literacy, education, and children; relations between the sexes; religious pluralism; and the standard "middle" (mid-Atlantic) American speech. Much that is wrongly attributed to the Puritans is really due to the Quakers and their remarkable leader, William Penn. The Quakers' reciprocal liberty is just an application of the Golden Rule, yet it is sad that what many people want for themselves they often fail to extend to others. The Quaker culture is the one that a modern American could be transported back into with the least disorientation. And yet Penn and his Quakers are given too little attention in American history books, which tend to be consumed with Puritans and Virginians and their quarrel over slavery - Roundheads and Cavaliers again. That's a pity."


The modern "pluralistic American culture" is to a great extent a Quaker creation, and that is not a compliment!

There is a clear line of progress from Quakerism to this pernicious "cult of niceness" that I attack against in here:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3808


Petr

[Pablo Escobar]

What do you propose? How do we end this Quaker plague?
Is it necessary to kill all of them, or can at least the children be saved
( and converted to proper Christianity ) ?

[Petr]

What do you propose? How do we end this Quaker plague?
Exposing their pseudo-Christian cover is the first step.

I'm being dead serious here. Quakerism has had a very negative influence on the Western culture. It is one of the ancestors of this suffocating ideology of "totalitarian tolerance" that surrounds us today.


Petr

[Pablo Escobar]

Exposing their pseudo-Christian cover is the first step.

I'm being dead serious here. Quakerism has had a very negative influence on the Western culture. It is one of the ancestors of this suffocating ideology of "totalitarian tolerance" that surrounds us today.


Petr

Seriously though... how did you identify Quakers as the guilty party?

So what if they held/hold beliefs which resemble what you call "totalitarian tolerance", but, what historical evidence is there of Quaker INFLUENCE on
modern society?

What historical Quakers have been activists, lawgivers, media magnates etc.
who imposed their worldview onto millions?

[SteamshipTime]

I would say of the pseudo-Christian doctrines, the Deists and Unitarians have been the worst in terms of their pernicious effect on American politics and culture.

[il ragno]

I'm being dead serious here.

Yes, of course - it's why you're so funny.

Boycott Quaker Oats and burn all copies of FRIENDLY PERSUASION! Tear down the Nixon Library! Drive around, never through, Pennsylvania! Modern Quakers specialise in doing good works - in total defiance to Jesus' teachings, who demanded we flick lit cigarettes at the poor and downtrodden!

Fight QUOG - no blood for oats!! And send me some freakin' money. (Hey, you never know...somebody might.)

And don't bother putting down your unflavored yogurt to type your furious response, Petr Flanders - let me save you some time.

Making fun of Petr is making fun of God! It's the exact same thing, like it or not. If you doubt, you can read it right there in the Bible - New Helsinki Translation, of course. Agree in shamed silence, or burn forevermore.

[Petr]

I would say of the pseudo-Christian doctrines, the Deists and Unitarians have been the worst in terms of their pernicious effect on American politics and culture.
Amen, and Quakers were forerunners of them both. We are exploring the poisonous genealogy of liberalism here, folks.

(It is well known that militant abolitionism was originally started by Quakers)

Puritans knew how to deal with these guys, and of course modern liberal scholarship wails and mourns to no end how they persecuted the oh-so-righteous Quakers.


Really, IMHO Quakers deserve a big bashing. In these apostate times, they are addressed only in the most darling terms imaginable by mainstreamers - a certain sign of rottenness.


Petr

[Petr]

Making fun of Petr is making fun of God! It's the exact same thing, like it or not. If you doubt, you can read it right there in the Bible - New Helsinki Translation, of course. Agree in shamed silence, or burn forevermore.
Don't put words to my mouth.


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

"Totalitarian tolerance" Translation: they won't let us roast people we disagree with anymore.

[Petr]

"Totalitarian tolerance" Translation: they won't let us roast people we disagree with anymore.
Including Negro rapists. Quakers are great champions against death penalty.

Yeah, we have become so wonderfully tolerant and liberal that we cannot even protest against fag parades marching through our neighborhood.

Quakers did a great work in making "mealy-mouthed hypocrisy" synonymous with Christianity: check out their take on abortion and euthanasia:

http://www.quaker.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=90273


Petr

[sainte-marthe]

Petr, do you have any evidence of a causal link between Quakerism and current totalitarian tolerance? Most of what you note here simply shows that they share some similarities. That Quaker toleration was voluntarily and current tolerance is "totalitarian", in your own words, sort of works against a theory of direct relation.

[Petr]

Petr, do you have any evidence of a causal link between Quakerism and current totalitarian tolerance?
Read David Hackett Fischer's magnum opus Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America to a get picture of the extent of Quaker influence on America.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195069056/002-5738686-5812848?v=glance&n=283155

And like I said, Quakers started the militant abolitionist movement, so we can indirectly blame them for the American Civil War too. They were the classic do-gooders with whose good intentions the road to Hell is paved.


Petr

[sainte-marthe]

Read David Hackett Fischer's magnum opus Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America to a get picture of the extent of Quaker influence on America.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195069056/002-5738686-5812848?v=glance&n=283155

And like I said, Quakers started the militant abolitionist movement, so we can indirectly blame them for the American Civil War too.


Petr


I don't see a Quaker influence on America. Even in Pennsylvania where there were Quakers, we still have the death penalty, unlike all of Europe and certain states of the USA. And the state is certainly not known for San Franciso or Amsterdam style tolerence.

Why can't we blame the slave owners, without whom there would have never been abolitionists? This is the point no one ever wants to see. The presence of blacks occured because some people were willing to own them, and the anti-abolitionist position, as correct as it was about some things, in my experience, will almost never concede that the slaverowners were either immoral or shortsighted in their decision to keep large numbers of negroes on the American continent. There could not have been slavery without slaveowners. That's not to say I think the South deserved what they got in the Civil War, but we cannot and should not ignore the responsibility of those who had the slaves in the first place. It was a tragedy waiting to happen.

[Basil Fawlty]

Including Negro rapists.In a society under the rule of law, that would be a matter for a court to decide, not a mob. Quakers are great champions against death penalty.Such kill-joys.
Yeah, we have become so wonderfully tolerant and liberal that we cannot even protest against fag parades marching through our neighborhood.Don't mistake that for tolerance. These things are encouraged by forces which seek to enslave us all under the mask of "tolerance."

My favourite Quaker (who converted to Catholicism later in life) was the man who helped keep Ireland Judenrein, the Charge d'Affaire to Berlin in the 1930's, Charles Bewley (http://www.four-courts-press.ie/cgi/bookshow.cgi?file=mrbewley.xml)

[Petr]

I don't see a Quaker influence on America. Even in Pennsylvania where there were Quakers, we still have the death penalty, unlike all of Europe and certain states of the USA. And the state is certainly not known for San Franciso or Amsterdam style tolerence.
One must see the hidden connections. For example, America's first big-time anti-Christian, Thomas Paine, had a Quaker background:

From Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason: (Chapter III, Conclusion)

"The only sect that has not persecuted are the Quakers; and the only reason that can be given for it is, that they are rather Deists than Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus Christ, and they call the scriptures a dead letter.

[This is an interesting and correct testimony as to the beliefs of the earlier Quakers, one of whom was Paine's father. -- Editer.]

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/painet02.html


More on the connections between Quakers, Deism and abolitionism/socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Views

Some believe Paine may have begun to form his early views on natural justice while listening to the Puritan mob jeering and attacking those punished in the stocks. Others have argued that he was influenced by his Quaker father. In The Age of Reason – Paine's treatise in support of deism – he writes:

The religion that approaches the nearest of all others to true deism, in the moral and benign part thereof, is that professed by the Quakers … though I revere their philanthropy, I cannot help smiling at [their] conceit; … if the taste of a Quaker [had] been consulted at the Creation, what a silent and drab-colored Creation it would have been! Not a flower would have blossomed its gaieties, nor a bird been permitted to sing.

Paine advocated a liberal world view, considered radical in his day. He dismissed monarchy, and viewed all government as, at best, a necessary evil. He opposed slavery and was amongst the earliest proponents of social security, universal free public education, a guaranteed minimum wage, and many other radical ideas now common practice in most western democracies.

With regard to his religious views, in The Age of Reason, Paine stated:

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

...


Why can't we blame the slave owners, without whom there would have never been abolitionists? This is the point no one ever wants to see. The presence of blacks occured because some people were willing to own them, and the anti-abolitionist position, as correct as it was about some things, in my experience, will almost never concede that the slaverowners were either immoral or shortsighted in their decision to keep large numbers of negroes on the American continenent.
I actually agree, both militant abolitionists and southern slave-hoarding plutocrats were worthy of condemnation.

I think that the thorny issue of Southern slavery is approached from a relatively impartial, Biblical perspective in here:

http://www.freebooks.com/docs/html/gncf/Chapter02.htm


"Never did the Old School invoke ecclesiastical sanctions on the basis of the biblical passages on slavery relating to the South's practices: no legal marriages for slaves; the widespread legalized adultery--no negative sanctions--and fornication of white owners with slave girls; the absence of any appeals court above the masters, either Church or State, contrary to Exodus 18 and Matthew 18:15-18; the absence of any State-legislated means for a slave to buy his way out; legalized maiming of slaves, contrary to the Mosaic law;(33) and the annulment of the inter-generational slave law of Leviticus 25:44-46 by Jesus' fulfillment of, and therefore annulment of, the Mosaic law's jubilee year (Luke 4:18-21).(34) The Old School sat as the three pagan monkeys sit: hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Evil rejoiced in the South. This silence delivered the North after 1860 into the hands of the Unitarian-abolitionist crusaders. After 1865, it delivered the South into Reconstruction's judicial revolution against the Constitution and Social Darwinism's revolution against Christendom. Evil rejoiced in the North. It is still rejoicing."


Petr

[il ragno]

If only we could maneuver the Quakers into a battle to the death with the Freemasons, sell tickets to the Jews, and then gas the whole stadium as soon as the Anthem finishes playing.....

[A. Radek]

Hilarious thread. Thanks, Petr.

[Petr]

Hilarious thread. Thanks, Petr.
It takes courage to attack Quakers, but someone's got to do this dirty business. :)

(Only half-kidding. These guys have managed to build a deceptively pristine front for themselves. Scientologists don't have anything on them.)


Petr

[Petr]

Boycott Quaker Oats and burn all copies of FRIENDLY PERSUASION! Tear down the Nixon Library! Drive around, never through, Pennsylvania! Modern Quakers specialise in doing good works - in total defiance to Jesus' teachings, who demanded we flick lit cigarettes at the poor and downtrodden!

Fight QUOG - no blood for oats!!

Well ragman, so it happens that Walter Yannis made on OD forum some very poignant comments on this topic:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22302

I am reading now a book called Slaughter of the Cities (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587317753/qid=1139999000/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-7227969-2500038?s=books&v=glance&n=283155), the author of which lays most of the blame for the planned destruction of the Irish, Italian, Polish and other white-ethnic neighborhoods of our great cities on the Quakers.

According to the author, the Quakers did more than any other group to encourage MLK Jr. to switch from his "Southern Strategy" to his "Chicago Strategy."

The author argues that the Quakers wanted to take these often-Catholic communities, move them to the 'burbs where they could be WASP-ified. It was part of a social engineering strategy that started at least in the New Deal. Negroes were to move in as replacements.

The results are clear. Detroit is a fine example of a "slaughtered" white city.

Whatever their weird neo-Christian doctrines may be, the Quakers masked a murderous leer behind a nice, social-worker smile.

And indeed, we can find some online material from E. Michael Jones on this Quaker conspiracy:


"During the fiscal year 1962-63, the American Friends Service Committee spent $97,137, much of it supplied by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, to "bring about more democratic living patterns" by having white front men buy up houses in all-white ethnic neighborhoods and then turn them over to blacks, causing in most instances financial panic and mass exodus. The practice is generally known as blockbusting, and is hugely profitable to real estate speculators, but the Quakers saw it as having a deeper purpose. "Diversified neighborhoods," the AFSC wrote in its 1961 pamphlet Homes and Community,

...have "built-in" lessons in democracy. Lessons in the dignity of the individual and respect for his contributions to society. Such communities build citizens more secure in their knowledge of democracy and better able to share its responsibilities.

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/ethniccleansing.html


Still want to make jokes about QUOG?


Petr

[Jimbo Gomez]

If only we could maneuver the Quakers into a battle to the death with the Freemasons, sell tickets to the Jews, and then gas the whole stadium as soon as the Anthem finishes playing.....

Not a bad idea, which stadium should we use?

[il ragno]

Still want to make jokes about QUOG?

More than ever.

Any other Yannis quotes, btw? Like his perverted murder fantasies of dashing the heads of the infant children of infidels against rocks?

Wouldn't it simply be easier to catalogue those religions and individuals who you don't want eradicated rather than reading off a list of the five billion or so that you do?

[Petr]

Any other Yannis quotes, btw? Like his perverted murder fantasies of dashing the heads of the infant children of infidels against rocks?
Humanistic softie. Btw, how would that be essentially any more horrible than an "ordinary" abortion procedure?


Wouldn't it simply be easier to catalogue those religions and individuals who you don't want eradicated rather than reading off a list of the five billion or so that you do?
Ultimately, I want every single religion besides the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ to be eradicated off the face of this planet, but not necessarily through violence.


Petr

[il ragno]

Yes but wouldn't it be a pleasant change of pace if you for once had something nice to say about - ohhh, forget it.

Humanistic softie.

Yeah. You'd think I was maybe a human being or something! Born-of-woman and all that corrupt, decadent tripe.

[Felix the Cat]

Nah, it was Khrushchev who killed Detroit

The city was the industrial capital of the US in the 1960s, and so would have been plastered by nukes in the first minutes of WWIII

Sputnik was a big wake-up call, and the Cuban business in 1962 was the final straw. No sane person would want to raise a family in Detroit after that

It makes you wonder about the motives of the Quakers, moving Negroes into a place where they would be likely killed en masse ;)

[Petr]

Yeah. You'd think I was maybe a human being or something! Born-of-woman and all that corrupt, decadent tripe.
Weikel once pointed out on this forum: "humans are more savage than you think." I agree with that, making only a slight correction: "fallen humans"

As "War Nerd" put it:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_12_19/review1.html


"The key fact about the ancient Athenians is that they weren’t like us—at all. I admit, Hanson has a quote from Thucydides himself claiming that “human nature is unchanging across time and space and thus predictable.” Well, Thucydides was wrong. We worship those Athenians—and they deserve it—but face it, they said and did a lot of stuff that was just plain wrong.

One thing historians have learned in the two-and-a-half-thousand years since Thucydides wrote is that people change deeply from one time and place to another. That’s why no modern military historian with a conscience would peddle the old notion that there’s a standard-issue “human nature” that applies to Genghis Khan and Woody Allen. And the differences are central to our problems in Iraq. Take the question of killing civilians in towns that resist attack. No ancient army had a problem wiping out the whole male population of sacked cities and divvying up the females for use or sale."


It is only quite recently that parts of mankind acquired this aversion towards bloodshed - partly because of Christian teaching on the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:6), and partly because of Epicurean softness that instinctively dreads to see pain and misery.

The people in the latter category congratulate themselves for their humanitarian instincts, but their simultaneous acceptance of abortion-on-demand shows that it is largely just a "please-get-this-mess-out-of-my-sight" reaction, like a story of Himmler dreading the sight of blood. Likewise, we can pull off stuff like Dresden and Hiroshima because we don't have be there personally to cut throats.


Petr

[Kodos]

No ancient army had a problem wiping out the whole male population of sacked cities and divvying up the females for use or sale

I think waging war against muslims may require a revival of this ethic... they've certainly never given it up. Dashing heads of infants is a bit much though... give them to evangelical and mormon families...

[Die]

Ultimately, I want every single religion besides the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ to be eradicated off the face of this planet, but not necessarily through violence.


Petr

:rofl:


Anyone who professes any kind of religion at all immediately puts their sanity into question. It's only natural.

[Björn]

My hats off to you Petr. Nothing like ranting on sissy Christians to start the day off on a good note.

[Petr]

:rofl:


Anyone who professes any kind of religion at all immediately puts their sanity into question. It's only natural.
Dear simpleton, all people have some sort of religion or idolatry going on. Yours is the religion of godlessness.


Petr

[Petr]

My hats off to you Petr. Nothing like ranting on sissy Christians to start the day off on a good note.
Just nitpicking, but my whole point is that Quakers are not genuine Christians. :)


Petr

[Die]

Die: Anyone who professes any kind of religion at all immediately puts their sanity into question. It's only natural.

Petr: Dear simpleton, all people have some sort of religion or idolatry going on. Yours is the religion of godlessness.


Godlessness is not a religion Petr, it is a gift, a grace, a fortuitous chance.

If you possessed this natural blessing, you would not presume to imagine that
all people have got what you yourself happen to have 'going on'.

[Petr]

Godlessness is not a religion Petr, it is a gift, a grace, a fortuitous chance.
Yeah right, you pretentious teenaged nerd. :rolleyes:


Petr

[Die]

As a christian Petr, I implore you to consider-- would Jesus have called me a pretentious teenage nerd?

Of course not. He would have saved it for the real geeks, the sheep-eyed fawning idolatrous following that clung to his bum like tots to a mum. Scabs getting their bunyons burnt off in his brilliance, mealy-mouthed mendicants chirruping their syrupy sycophantic sickliness, the hangers-on who throughout history have hounded out every hope of holy happenings, in short, cornered cowards of every kind unwittingly forwarding him to the cross.

Petr Petr Petr, you could have made best man at his wedding. Now instead you'll be ironing the devils petticoats lest he decide the time has come to test if pigs have wings.

[Petr]

Some of you may have thought that I have been hard on Quakers.

Well, I can at least say that orthodox Christians back in the 17th century did not have any particular trouble in discerning the utterly heretical nature of their teachings - they allegorized practically the whole Christian doctrine away in the name of their "inner light." They had no more respect for Scriptures and historical creeds than today's "liberal Christians," whose spiritual ancestors they truly are.

Quoting the autobiography of John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim's Progress:


"123. Also, besides these teachings of God in His Word, the Lord made use of two things to confirm me in these things; the one was the errors of the Quakers, and the other was the guilt of sin; for as the Quakers did oppose His truth, so God did the more confirm me in it, by leading me into the scriptures that did wonderfully maintain it.

124. The errors that this people then maintained were: 1. That the holy Scriptures were not the Word of God. 2. That every man in the world had the spirit of Christ, grace, faith, etc. 3. That Christ Jesus, as crucified, and dying 1600 years ago, did not satisfy divine justice for the sins of the people. 4. That Christ's flesh and blood was within the saints. 5. That the bodies of the good and bad that are buried in the churchyard shall not arise again. 6. That the resurrection is past with good men already. 7. That that man Jesus, that was crucified between two thieves on Mount Calvary, in the land of Canaan, by Jerusalem, was not ascended up above the starry heavens. 8. That He should not, even the same Jesus that died by the hands of the Jews, come again at the last day, and as man judge all nations, etc.

125. Many more vile and abominable things were in those days fomented by them, by which I was driven to a more narrow search of the Scriptures, and was, through their light and testimony, not only enlightened, but greatly confirmed and comforted in the truth; and, as I said, the guilt of sin did help me much, for still as that would come upon me, the blood of Christ did take it off again, and again, and again, and that too, sweetly, according to the Scriptures. O friends! cry to God to reveal Jesus Christ unto you; there is none teacheth like Him."

http://bible.christiansunite.com/bun/grace05.shtml


Petr

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

Quakers ranged from people who worked the underground railroad to people who joined the ku klux klan. There are different branches of quakerism. I find the theology of quakerism to be very intersting, that is, the orthodox branch, not the more liberal ones.

Make sure you understand that there are various branches of quakerism. It's only the liberal quakers who believe a lot of the things you are saying. So this thread isn't valid towards orthodox quakerism...just hope you realize that.

[Petr]

Make sure you understand that there are various branches of quakerism. It's only the liberal quakers who believe a lot of the things you are saying. So this thread isn't valid towards orthodox quakerism...just hope you realize that.
Sorry, but I disagree. The point I'm trying to make on this thread is that Quakerism was a rotten movement from the very beginning.

As the head article puts it:

"Those who call themselves 'evangelical Quakers' complain when they are referred to as 'cult members'. But this is a problem of their own making. Even if they are real Believers, they have no business being amongst those who are predominantly unbelievers."


Petr

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

You're confusing "evangelical" with "orthodox." Evangelicals want to spread. Fundamentalists want to stay pure.

All quakers believe in inner light and direct experience with god, the more liberal ones twist this into a form of universalism, but it would simply not be true to say that this applies to every single branch.

[Petr]

Pinging

Boycott Quaker Oats and burn all copies of FRIENDLY PERSUASION! Tear down the Nixon Library! Drive around, never through, Pennsylvania! Modern Quakers specialise in doing good works - in total defiance to Jesus' teachings, who demanded we flick lit cigarettes at the poor and downtrodden!

Fight QUOG - no blood for oats!! And send me some freakin' money. (Hey, you never know...somebody might.)
It might warm Il Ragno's heart to know that our venerable, reserved Macrobius has now put out an anti-Quaker rant more ferocious than anything I myself could come up with:

The Puritans hanged Quakers with good reason. In the middle of King Philips' War (an attempt by 'Native Americans' to exterminate other Native Americans -- specifically the White ones, along with certain other native Americans who happened to be old tribal enemies and allies of the Whites), during the lead up to this carnage and even during the carnage itself, the Quakers agitated for Indian Rights and talked about the Universality of Man. Great stuff -- but when the other guy is trying to scalp you, rape your wife, and steal everything you own, it is maybe not exactly the right moment to bring it up.

The Quakers, in protest, used to line up outside Puritan churches, and singing and chanting loudly their hymns, in protest to the intolerant goings on inside. Sound familiar? 'We Shall Overcome' is gang warfare, complete with tribal chants, primate hooting, and a scrimmage line at the edge of the other tribe's sacred precincts. Also, shall we say, they employed 'tactical obscenities' directed against all the other tribe held dear. In other words, they were the first America Haters.

All these techniques: 'protests', disruption, obscenity towards the sacred, universalism, reversal of the friend-enemy distinction, claiming persecution, 'reparations', tolerance combined with an insane and unforgiving memory of past wrongs -- all these were with us from the beginning.

The Puritans were a kindly folk, and rather tolerant in their own way. They didn't much like hanging Quakers and after four or five of them, they couldn't even make their own lynch crowds do a sixth. The Quakers, of course, claimed moral victory -- see, not even you can bring yourselves to hate us -- we love you so much. By the way, 'hey ho, Established Religion has got to go. Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Cotton Mather's in a Garbage Bin!'

In short, Quakers are Whites Chimping out. Liberalism is Quakerism pursued by other means.
http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8081


Petr

[Gull]

I think quakers where great. If they didn't fight for true humanistic right in America womans and other races will still be slaves.
And for that guy about Jesus, it's imaginary to think he is sweet and good, that's why you don't believe him anymore because they made that idealistic since than only for kids, like in cartoons where is all good. Now since you're grown up, that is stupid cause you got to work, get money and in life is hard so you got to be bad and mean. Got my point, they make it idealistic so you want do that, it's for gods.
But Jesus wasn't that, he told to politicians and priests that they are snakes so he would say someone that he is pretentious teen. He would break casino like he broke traders in temple.
And of course moral people would condemn him for misleading children, like what they done to Socrates and all people alike.
Truth hurts.

[Petr]

Some of you may have thought that I have been hard on Quakers.

Well, I can at least say that orthodox Christians back in the 17th century did not have any particular trouble in discerning the utterly heretical nature of their teachings - they allegorized practically the whole Christian doctrine away in the name of their "inner light." They had no more respect for Scriptures and historical creeds than today's "liberal Christians," whose spiritual ancestors they truly are.
I have found another old anti-Quaker pamphlet, written at the beginning of the 18th century, that does not mince words:

http://www.archive.org/details/mystryfoxcraft00leedrich

p. 14

Nay, I could shew wherein the Jews own more of Christ then the Quakers own; for the Quakers would make nothing of Christ but moral virtues. "What is Christ" (says W. Penn) "but Meekness, Justice, Mercy, Patience", &c. Address to Protestants, pag. 119. where also he declares moral men to be Christians; and you see before, he calls it a deadly Poison to make any distinction between Christian and Moral. Thus the Quakers are forced upon this shift to allow moral heathens, Turks and Jews to be Christians, because they have no other way in the world to prove themselves Christians; there is only this difference, the Jews and Infidels are the better, as being more free from deceit, because they make no pretence to Christianity, and the Quakers do.

But how strange is their delusion, who cannot see that at this rate there was no need at all of the holy Apostles being sent to the Jews and Heathens to preach the Gospel of Peace and Salvation by Christ crucifyed. Nor indeed could there be any need of Christ's coming, and being crucifyed. But the Quakers plainly say as much, for their Books tell us that his coming in the flesh, and being crucifyed was but a figure, and for our example, as I have formerly shewed.

Again it seems that the Quakers have pioneered in the miserable liberal project of turning Christianity into mere mealy-mouthed do-gooderism and politically correct moralizing.


Petr

[Gull]

I thought Quakers were good.

They are virtuous, their wives are chaste and man hard-working.

Also they help those oppressed, like teaching the Blackman slaves and helping in escape during civil war, trying to buy Jews from Hitler.

I don't think you should be fallen into trap how they are bad. From their beginning in America they are political streams who are against them.

And that babbling about them as cult which is against society is as old as burning witches in America.

And only president of their society, Nixon had worst affair, which is very debatable, was he doing right or wrong.

[Columnist]

No ancient army had a problem wiping out the whole male population of sacked cities and divvying up the females for use or sale

I think waging war against muslims may require a revival of this ethic... they've certainly never given it up. Dashing heads of infants is a bit much though... give them to evangelical and mormon families...
It would be more tit for tat than bombing them to oblivion.