tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497531321890746707.post6803545494540051766..comments2024-01-31T15:10:55.111+00:00Comments on Transition Quaker: A Contemporary Quaker LanguageCraig Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16201061939693242954noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497531321890746707.post-33584820153432308652016-07-12T19:10:44.995+01:002016-07-12T19:10:44.995+01:00The unity of 17th c. Friends was a result of the f...The unity of 17th c. Friends was a result of the faith that they were given by God through Christ Jesus. As the source of their faith was the same, so was their faith the same. For this reason, primitive Friends were in unity with primitive Christians, though separated by 17 centuries and different cultures. If indeed we have received faith from God, we feel complete unity with their testimony (both Friends and Apostles) today. The one who speaks to our condition is one: even the Word of God, the same yesterday, today, and forever. <br /><br />There is no unity among Friends today because the source/author of faith is different from that source of early Friends faith: it is instead the individual's intellect and/or feelings, rather than the Lord our God who is one (Mk. 12:29). <br /><br />We know--as early Friends knew--that Christ is the Author of our faith, and as Author(ity) to be heard and obeyed in all things. In our alienated, fallen state, our authority resides in our autonomous selves, who cannot help but make mental images (ideas), which then are likely to be worshiped, along with their maker (2 Thess. 2:4). Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915369728649066397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497531321890746707.post-55772082861503738542016-07-11T21:10:15.132+01:002016-07-11T21:10:15.132+01:00Hi Forrest, Yes, by 'reality' I mean somet...Hi Forrest, Yes, by 'reality' I mean something (I call it God) existing in its (His) own right. I also mean to suggest that our knowledge of God is primarily through our own experiences, which are very various, perhaps indicating something of the many-faceted nature of God. <br />So when we want to talk about the reality of God, we have to talk about it on the basis of our experience of that reality, which will of course be only a partial reflection of the whole of God's nature. So it may be helpful to also bear in mind the other aspects of God that may be revealed through others' different experiences.<br />In Friendship,<br />CraigCraig Barnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16201061939693242954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497531321890746707.post-16746859319910107272016-07-11T09:42:13.311+01:002016-07-11T09:42:13.311+01:00Thanks for this Craig. An important message that n...Thanks for this Craig. An important message that needs to be heard.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11897220214876462462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4497531321890746707.post-35344784319048264122016-07-09T19:39:18.779+01:002016-07-09T19:39:18.779+01:00Where you say:
"Quaker practices open us to t...Where you say:<br />"Quaker practices open us to the possibility of encounter with a reality that may be experienced as personal and impersonal, masculine, feminine, immanent, transcendent or otherwise. So words and symbols such as ‘God’, ‘the Guide’ or ‘Inward Christ’ might be recognised as valid ways of expressing the personal nature of some of our experiences," <br /><br />what about the case where what we want to talk about is not "the personal nature of some of our experiences," but rather about whatever "reality" these emanate from? <br /><br />When you say "reality", you do mean a ___ existing in it's own right, which "we" and "our experiences" do not define, but which arguably instead defines whatever 'reality' we may have to imagine ourselves in?forresthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13861950371962268402noreply@blogger.com