It is good that Friends shortened their name from the older "Friends of Truth" because true friends of Truth are by no means restricted to one society. Many are walking around loose, unaffiliated.

Views: 535

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 1, 2011 at 11:10pm

We could have  lengthened our name to "Some Friends of Truth," which would have satisfied your objection well enough. But nonQuakers would have said, "Well, yes, but we never thought you were the only Friends of Truth, or thought even you thought so."

 

At this point, I fear we are not really Friends of anything much. "Truth" is one of those traditional names for God, whom many current Friends have not recognized (and don't want to recognize, imagining that 'the God Who Is' must mean 'the distorted image people have assembled over the millenia...') So I would much prefer we could have kept the earlier version. "Friends of Love and Truth", while redundant (if you think about it) would be even better. If only we all were...

Comment by Rickey D. Whetstone on 2nd mo. 2, 2011 at 12:43pm

Well written my amigo.   Having left my old religious society . . .  my  wife yearns to return . . . I however love the freedom in God.  No chains . . . no rules . . . no dress codes . . . just enjoying the blessings of God.

 

God is not rules and regulations.

Comment by Stuart Greene on 2nd mo. 3, 2011 at 10:47pm
Forrest - The discernment of old can be revisited and if it is still vital it will stand.
Rickey - I'm sure the true author appreciates your good taste.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Keith Saylor replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Christ's living appearance within me has drawn me out of the reflective nature and the process…"
6th day (Fri)
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"God is also more than anyone's experience of God. It's not that we can contain God in a…"
6th day (Fri)
Keith Saylor replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Hello Thomas, Through the immanent appearance of eternal life itself inshining upon me, I am drawn…"
6th day (Fri)
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"I'd rather encourage people to examine the Bible sympathetically than discourage them from…"
2nd month 23
William F Rushby replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Instead of floundering and thrashing around to find a way to conceptualize God, Turn to the Bible…"
2nd month 23
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Masculine _nouns_? A word like "Godd-ess" would imply that 'God's were normally…"
2nd month 22
Patty Quinn replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"To hear God referred to in masculine nouns and pronouns feels to me like a slap in the face to the…"
2nd month 22
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"It's probably best to talk about many Biblical concepts of God. What they have in common is…"
2nd month 20

© 2021   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service