Guest guest Posted February 19, 2003 Report Share Posted February 19, 2003 On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 06:23 PM, wrote: > " Lady Sappho " <ladysappho > Re: New Coat, Folks? > > - > The Stewarts > >> This merely referred to the suspicion that perhaps it can't or isn't >> supposed to be articulated. Nothing conspiratorial or nefarious. lol > > Fair enough. I would argue that it can't be articulated because it doesn' > t > exist. The ineffable cannot be articulated but most certainly exists. > >> It puzzles me, and rather delights me in fact, that the Quakers, once one >> of the Puritan sects, has now dropped so much dogma as to be so >> free-thinking that it's actually difficult to define them. > > It isn't entirely accurate to say that dogma has been dropped from a > Puritan > sect. In the beginning of Quakerism, it was not exactly a Puritan sect > (and > Quakers were, in fact, persecuted by Puritans). Haven't we all been? Ask the poor witches and Wiccans, etc. Freethinking is always a threat to control freaks. > > Quakers did get caught up in a form of Puritanism in the 18th and 19th > centuries and that seems to me to have included many dogmatic elements, > but > it wasn't that way in the beginning and dropping this was simply, IMO, > returning to the heart of Quakerism. Fundamentalist and charismatic xtians argue the same thing, yet seem quite removed from standards to most. I do take your point, however, and agree. How they were categorized by others is not their responsibility, after all. > > Lee-Gwen > D. H. Lawrence said, " The real masturbation of Englishmen began only in the 19th century. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.