Final Blog Project- Quakerism

A Brief History of the Quakers:
   
George Fox, Founder of Quakerism 
 
                In the Mid 17th century George Fox started questioning why he had to go to a priest or pastor to make a connection with God. Fox went around England and found people who shared similar beliefs; this is where Quakerism started to bloom. Quakers were persecuted in England under the Quaker Act of 1662 (later this was stopped by the Act of Toleration in 1689). During the time of persecution some Quakers were able to escape to America where they were semi-accepted in Rhode Island and West Jersey. A huge step for Quakers was in was in 1682 when William Penn founded Pennsylvania on Quaker principles, shortly after he signed a peace treaty with the Delaware tribe.

What Quakers Believe in:

             Quakers are considered a Christian Denomination but do not use the sacraments (baptism the Eucharist). Quakers call themselves "Friends" and believe in simplicity. Cutting out the ancillary things in life (like shopping, material things) helps a friend focus more on their inner light. Unlike Catholosism, Quakers do not have life size statues or stained glass windows in their church, instead they have benches in an unadorned room. Friends reject symbolism, but by rejecting symbolism in itself is symbolic. Quakers believe that symbols distract from the main focus which is the inner light.
A common meeting house set-up.

                    Not only do Quakers believe in simplicity in their church, but also within themselves. Many Quakers choose to keep their look simple with no make up, hair dye, or flashy outfits. Often people today do not know a lot about Quakers and think they dress like suto-pilgrims. Friends dress just like everyone else that you may see strolling down a street.
 Stereotypical Quaker (You may recognize him from the oatmeal tin) 

 

                 Meeting houses would be the equivalent to a church but are much smaller and are simply houses (no groin vaults or arches).
 Friends Meeting House, Uxbridge MA


So, what is a Quaker meeting?

                    Most Quaker meetings are held in complete silence for about an hour each week. Some groups read the bible  before silence. Silence is a time to reflect and open yourself up to the Holy Spirit. If someone feels compelled to stand up and say something they may, but instead of the congregation responding everyone stays in silence to reflect on what they have heard. Many Quakers have had experiences where they felt the overwhelming power of God during silence. For someone who has never been to a silent meeting before they may feel uncomfortable, often not knowing what to do when suddenly all stimulants are taken away.

Here's a video from England I found where Friends explain what Quakerism is to them and about meeting:

             Like many religions, Quakerism has different sects; Liberal Friends, Conservative Friends, Pastoral Friends, and the Evangelical Friends.

            Liberal Friends: are a sect of friends who are much less structured than other groups. They simply sit in silence without any scripture reading. They welcome anyone in, whether they are Christian or not. Liberal friends also involve themselves in community service.

            Conservative Friends: : "Conserve" the Quaker traditions from the 19th century. Like Liberal Friends, Conservative Friends have an un-programmed service. Some also choose dress and speak plainer.

             Pastoral Friends: Have a Pastor lead their worship, unlike Conservative and Liberal Friends. They also emphasize the scriptures during their services. Pastoral friends are also known for their missionary work.

             Evangelical Friends: Put a lot of emphasis on the scriptures, they also have a programmed service and practice at a church instead of a meeting house. They are also known for being missionaries.

                Although singing is not popular among the Friends' services, there are some songs that do reflect values and are taught in Quaker schools. This one's called Simple Gifts and here, it is sung by Jewel. This song is pretty straight forward it talks about finding true simplicity, very Quaker.

                  Quakers believe in peace and oppose war and violence. They were famous during the Vietnam War for their anti-war protests. Quakers were also extremely famous in history for their work against slavery. In fact George Fox spoke out against slavery when he visited America. In 1688 in Philadelphia (once called Germantown) Quakers protested against slavery. Then in 1974 John Woolen used his influence in the Friends society to explain the horrors of slavery. Friends were famous for harboring run away slaves, giving a helping hand for those who were breaking free from injustice.
Susan B Anthony

                  A very famous Quaker who embodied much of what friend hold important was Susan B Anthony. Anthony was widely know for her work to push for women's suffrage. She also played an important role in New York's anti-slavery movement. Anthony worked for human rights and equity; prominent beliefs in Quakerism.

Quaker T-shirt design

            Peace within one's self is central to Quaker belief, because, without inner-peace, one cannot share and create peace with others. Some Quaker groups explore how to become a peaceful society, here is a peace testimony that a group of students developed at a Quaker all girls school in Providence, RI.

Peace Testimony

Lincoln School

                 We don’t know if universal peace is possible. We don’t even know if it’s possible for each of us to become a completely peaceful person. But we do know that these two are connected. We know that we cannot be a peaceful community without being people of peace.

                  It is not enough to make rules so we can get along, while in our hearts we carry hard feelings or ill will. We must each start with ourselves, not just saying we want peace, but taking action every day to make peace with ourselves and those around us. This means being truthful and trustworthy even when it is difficult. It means being respectful of each other even when we do not like each other or are angry. It means living with kindness and humility rather than criticism or judgment. It means speaking out when we witness actions that divide rather than unite. It means listening past our differences until we can hear and know the inner goodness we all share. We know we are not many and most of us are young, but we also know that every act of trust, honesty, kindness, and love increases the trust, honesty, kindness, and love in the world.

           We believe these are the seeds of peace.



            This is a really striking idea, even if one does not agree with Quakerism or holds other religious principles, everyone can learn from this and if we all tried to add these qualities to our lives society would be much more peaceful. Quaker's hold some important central values; peace, simplicity, equity and love for others, these are not widely outrageous views, but ones that go unpracticed very often. Hopefully this entry will educated people on Quakerism and perhaps persuade them to adopt a few Quaker principles of their own.

Taking What Isn't Yours

For the week 10 blog post, read the Book of Abraham passed out in class (which you could also find online I'm sure). Then discuss how you might go about assessing a document like this. Are there any fine points in this text that lead you to think it is not from the supposed time of Abraham (2000BC?). In studying religion we have been surrounded by all kinds of claims about the world, and I am curious if there is any kind of critical approach that you can define through a discussion of this text.


                     Wow, where to begin. When I first started reading this it sounded like  a lot of other texts we have looked at, then I read closer and noticed somethings which REALLY made me doubt that Abraham wrote this. At some points when I was reading I had to re-read a sentence one or more times to see if I actually read it correctly because it seemed so outlandish. In chapter one what really stood out to me was that it said when Egypt was first discovered it was underwater...I'm fairly certain that is blatantly false and was during John Smith's time as well. 


                 Also, just like in the book of Mormon the book of Abraham was written messily so nothing was straight forward, "And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called ^anight; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night." (chapter 4). It just seems to be rambling and not getting to the point which is important so people know what they are choosing to believe and follow. 

              I looked up the hieroglyphics that John Smith translated and they were reviewed later on when people had the ability to properly translate them, turns out they are believed to be common funerary writing. It seems like John Smith acquired these papers and turned them into a religious writing to help his cause when really they already had a specific purpose for Egyptians.

Too Big for being SO New

                   After reading through all the assigned texts this term and now reading through the book of Mormon I definitely feel differently about the book of Mormon. I just feel as though it was written in a manner that needed so badly to convince people, so it threw in all sorts of miracles that happened in America. I understand that the point of religious texts is to reach out and convince people to have faith but the book of Mormon is sometimes way over board.
                  I feel like John Smith wrote this book to convince and appease people so they would join his religion. Instead of being truthful he was shoving things down people's throat he thought they would want to hear.   Yes, a lot of things were seriously embellished in other religious texts but with Mormonism being so new, and claiming such big things like Jesus coming down from heaven and all sorts of other things, it seems unrealistic. I'm not trying to say that Mormons are wrong or that people should ignore the book of Mormon because it seems outlandish. I just think if we all took and appreciated the book of Mormon with a grain of salt we'd all be golden.

Pride over Fact

            I read through the Third Book of Nephi and within the text was a section which discussed Jesus Christ descending from heaven in front of a group of people. Jesus calls Nephi out from the crowed and speaks to him about spreading his message and baptizing people. "And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words, because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know who I am." -488.
 
            In the 19th and 20th century America was rapidly developing in medicine and population as well as definitively establishing itself as a powerful country. Even so America was a relatively new country that had no roots to any biblical tales or Christianity. When people heard that Jesus had come to America they would have felt a closeness to Jesus that they could not all the way from Israel. Jesus being in America it also may have stirred up so national pride. Mormonism would be appealing for the reason that it would not only create nationalism but also a closeness with Jesus.

           It's an appealing idea to have someone who a group worships be in that certain place. That's why so many religions want a piece of Israel because the land has meaning it just happens to have a lot of meaning to many different groups. By saying Jesus appeared in America it gives a sense of pride to Mormons.

So, why should I believe YOU'RE my prophet?

                  What has been eating at me a little about the Baha'i and other religions is that their prophet is the only one or they put a warranty for 1000 years until there can be a new one. It's odd that people can accept certain prophets but be so quick to dismiss others. So now I want to think about what makes one prophet that can be followed, and if it has to do a lot with the individual or what the people want.

                   What makes someone a convincing enough prophet that people will believe what they say? Is it that they preform miracles and cure lepers? Or do they just need to represent the people and their needs to a certain degree? It's become troubling to me that there seems to be some kind of mold for a prophet, they must be wise, charismatic, represent the trials and tribulations of the people that follow them, and many other characteristics. I also find it pretty aggravating that people are willing to give their full believe to a certain prophet at the time but find it almost blasphemous that there could possibly be anyone else after that. Obviously, besides the first prophet ever, the prophets later were not first, it seems really unfair to say there cannot be any after that. The Baha'i do not say there cannot be another prophet...they just put a 1000 year barrier.

                  I'm not saying every person yelling on the sidewalk that the end is tomorrow is the next prophet, I just don't like the fact that only certain people can be fully accepted and others rejected based on timeline. What if someone who fits all the criteria for what is considered a great prophet shows up tomorrow? So, because they are a few hundred year too early they won't be recognized by one group and just in general will not be seen as legitimate by other groups.

Anything can be turned into positive energy

             I watched Charter for Compassion and found it not only very compelling but a breath of fresh air. The short video was about religions showing their peaceful and kind sides and being depicted as that, rather than angry and violent (which we see so often in the media). People in the video spoke of kindness they had received or witnessed. The Baha'i are peaceful people even though different groups around them are extremely brutal and show no mercy to them.

             Baha'u'llah is at the center of this peaceful idea "In these letters, Baha'u'llah both proclaims his mission and claims and also advises the rulers of the world on how to arrange their affairs so as to bring peace and improve the condition of their subjects." p. 102. Even though the Baha'i are persecuted and thrown into prison (where Baha'u'llah was when he wrote the letters) Baha'u'llah cares for other groups who worship different things than he does, he cares enough to write to very powerful leaders (the pope and Napoleon III were mentioned) about how to improve their followers' lives and how to bring peace. There isn't anything in it for him he simply does it to help.

               Many people in Baha'u'llah's place would want to punish other's and be vengeful but he uses his energy for good and spreading kindness, something people could learn from. It amazes me how many people do hurtful and bad things to others for no reason and here is a group of people who have had terrible atrocities happen to them and they keep on going trying to spread peace.

From Sacred to Lawn Decor

 I think it's safe to say just about everyone has seen this picture (or a variation of it) on poster in dorm rooms, on t-shirts, even key chains and necklaces. Like many people I didn't know much about Bob Marley I knew he smoked marijuana and sang in a thick Jamaican accent but that was about it. What was really interesting to me was how a religion can be assimilated into modern culture, and a long the way can lose the true roots. So, I did some thinking about what elements of religion are seen, and found this.


                   As we can see in the picture above this is a necklace of Jesus, it is white gold and encrusted with diamonds, clearly this does not reflect Christianity. Instead of representing Christianity it shows of wealth and affluence.


                       These to statues are the ancient Greek goddesses Hebe and Aphrodite, they are lawn ornaments. Although ancient Greek religion is not very prominent today it is still kind of disconcerting
 in a way that goddesses that were so significant have become cheesy lawn decor.

             I feel as though religion has lost some of the sacredness that it once had. At least people should try and learn things they wear or display in their home or lawn.

The Significance of Ethiopia in the orden boboshanti

       I found the ways that the orden boboshanti lived was very interesting. They do not simply go to church once a week or pray when they need something, but rather incorporate religion into their everyday routine. They live at the top of the mountain to be closer to God, but also wake up at 3am to pray as well as 9am and a few other times during the day. This reminded me of Islam in the sense of a having a strict schedule of prayer throughout the day. I took a screen shot of the mountain, but what I wanted to focus on were the little house that were painted in Ethiopia's colors. It is considered a privilege to be allowed to live on the mountain with the sect, there is also no electricity so living there means one must have a big spiritual commitment. Ethiopia is also talking about a few times and the importance of it as well as preparing "for the journey across the Atlantic." We see Ethiopia's colors a few time in this short video and I thought the house was a good representation of Ethiopia's significance in the orden boboshanti's everyday lives. I don't remember ever seeing someone painting their house red and green during Christmas...or any other time of the year. Multiple factors show just how dedicated the people of the orden bobshanti really are..

The Kebra Nagast seems very similar to the bible. Just in the way it is structured like "And then this happened. And then this was a result. And then something else took place." There were also aspects of the Kebra Nagast that reminded me of the bible like how all of the queen's slaves, servants, and court fallowed her on her quest for wisdom, to Israel, was sort of like Jesus and his apostles.

The Kebra Nagast seems to serve a clear function; justifying the worship on a monotheistic god. The original religion is depicted as sloppy and unorganized with no set rules or gods. Solomon can easily persuade the queen to have her people worship the "god of Israel" because he is wise and respected with a clear cut religion. Solomon also throws his power around when he tricks the queen into having sex with him thereby producing a child. Christianity is then imprinted on Ethiopia not only by the queens word, but also by her lineage. Basically, this story is an explanation why Christianity is a more suitable and "smart" religion than the previous disordered one.

Ambiguity and literal interpretations

In book 3 of Saint Augustine he talks a lot about sifting through the “ambiguity” of the bible. What I found especially interesting in book three was on page 85, “The greatest care must be taken to determine whether the expression that we are trying to understand is literal or figurative.” This is a question that is consistently argued about.

Different sects take the entire bible literarily while other groups try and take the readings with a grain of salt. I personally appreciate the fact that Augustine thought that looking at things and deciding whether they should be taken as literal or figurative is important when studying the bible. A lot of groups like creationists do not use this tactic and prefer looking for methods that disprove Darwin’s theory of evolution. I included a link to a page that lists all the ways and reasons that evolution is false and impossible.http://signsofthelastdays.com/archives/how-to-disprove-evolution  I have actually heard a discussion before about the story of Jonah and the whale, where one girl told another (the other girl believed the bible to be completely literal in all ways) that it was physically impossible for the whale to have swallowed Jonah. The other girl proceeded to lists reasons how it happened, the discussion ended with two very frustrated individuals. I think it is kind of sad in a way that evolution in schools is almost “taboo”, that talking about it can lead to lots of repercussions from families.

I believe that if Augustine’s idea of distinguishing literal from figurative in the bible was followed than a lot of other things would come together more evenly. Obviously, people are bound to interpret things differently and will be more closed minded or open minded than others.  

A Wealth of Knowledge

After reading through book II in Augustine and How to Read the Bible I’ve found that there are some differences but a few similar traits. Both texts discuss how to properly interpret and understand the scriptures.

In How to Read a Bible, Billings talks about all different ways to decipher the bible and what different scholars think are the best ways to interpret it. In the end the consensus is that one does not need a perfect understanding but rather the willingness and ability to rejoice and love God and our neighbors. Basically, an individual will never stop learning and finding new things in the bible but they should be satisfied in not fully understanding but rather getting enjoyment and peace from the readings.

Augustine disagrees with being satisfied with limited knowledge. He says that the best way to start interpreting the scriptures is to have a perfect understanding in Latin. Augustine says a true brilliant person will not nit-pick about the exact translation but will understand the bigger picture. A person who is well educated but does not dwell on small details will get the most out of the texts. 

Interpretation vs. exaggeration

The discussion of the psalms and different translations has gotten me thinking about symbolism and how people interpret it differently, based on their own beliefs. Everyone sees things and reacts to things differently. For instance, if two friends are listening to a new song that comes on the radio they each will interpret it in unique ways, which relates to them personally. If one boy just got dumped the song may remind him his recent heart break and if the other’s parents recently divorced, the song to him may relate to the separation. Psalms work just like modern songs in that they have a meaning but there is leeway for interpretation. Symbols are also open to interpretation.

               

             When Christians looks at a cross they see at a symbol that represents Jesus, God, and their religion as a whole. For a minute let’s pretend that we have an individual who has never heard of Christianity or seen a cross and we gave him a definition like this: A ‘t’ shaped device made out of wood where individuals had their hands and feet hammered into the boards for torture or execution.  Now, let’s tell him that a certain religion uses the cross as a divine symbol, what kinds of things do you think he would assume about a religion that celebrates a torture device? It is basically like telling a person now that a new religion started worshipping the guillotine or a noose.

                

                 The man would probably have some pretty wild notions, but we did not give him any information about why the cross is significant or any information about Jesus, all he knows is that the cross is one of the main symbols of Christianity. So, without giving the reasons why a symbol is significant, different interpretations will misconstrue its actual meaning. Symbols have a lot of meaning when it comes to religion but without the understanding that backs that symbol’s significance, the interpretation will be extremely far off. Interpretation is good but there is a point where it can be so far off that the original given meaning is completely lost.

Differences of Circumstances

The Hymn to the Aten and Psalm 104 are strangely similar in some aspects. “Tree and plants grow, birds fly up to their nests their wings in praise for your Ka. ”  6     

“the trees of the lord drink their fill, the Lebanon cedars he planted, where the birds make their nest, the stork whose home is the cypresses.” Psalm 104 16-18

It is clear from these two excerpts that some of the psalm was borrowed from the ancient Hymn to the Aten.  Although there are some similarities there are some technical differences pertaining to the times they were written.  The hymn to Aten incorporated things like the Nile, the pharos of the time, as well as not just Aten but the embodiments of him (it?). The hymn to Aten is much longer and more descriptive and is constantly praising Aten and what he is able to do and provide, we see a little bit of this in the psalm but not nearly as much. The psalm is much more condenced and seems to give off the feeling of a close relationship to God that anyone can have as opposed to that relationship only being possible through divine kingship in the Hymn. At the end of the Hymn there is a very long drawn out praise for Aten and everything/everyone relating to him, the Psalm simply ends with “bless, o my being, o lord, hallelujah!” 35 The psalm is much shorter and to the point but clearly draws from the Egyptian hymn. 

Interpretation and adaptations

                 An aspect of the Psalms the grabbed me is the interpretation adaptations that happen based on the changes of the world. Previously, when I thought about the Psalms they seemed very set in stone with zero leeway but after going over two different translations and mulling it over for a few days they seem far stagnant. Today when we think of very old things they seem unchangeable but the two translations of the Psalms were fairly different. This idea kind of makes me wonder what the true original sounded like; I guess without having a full understanding of Hebrew I will never get the full effect. I also am curious as to what are things I think I know that was originally very different. I believe if something is broad enough than everyone will interpret it their own individual way. Psalms were meant to be sung so everyone would be able to be unified, often when we sing things we aren’t doing an in-depth analysis, just singing along. Maybe the interpretations happen when someone sits and really digs deep and thinks about each line and then adds in their own personal beliefs maybe even un-intentionally.

A Loving God is more accepted

I found the comparison of this kind of difficult at first until I went through line by line and analyzed two like that. I think the book of Bay Psalms was a lot harsher in wording. The 1600s were a time where God was to be feared, the “almighty smiting” type one may say. The much newer translation has a much softer way to it and the flow is far more poetic with less emphasis on direct translation.

 “Serve yee the lord with reverence rejoice in him with fear”, Bay Psalm 2:11. http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn48yVYkqvAC&pg=RA1-PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3nQF7hb6PnANH_I8yvxf4rfX_BNQ&ci=264%2C1083%2C485%2C70&edge=0 here basically it is saying that one needs to look to God with the upmost respect and fear. In the newer addition the line is much softer. http://books.google.com/books?id=Fn48yVYkqvAC&pg=RA1-PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U3nQF7hb6PnANH_I8yvxf4rfX_BNQ&ci=191%2C796%2C502%2C134&edge=0 in this part it is totally different from the Alter translation. In the Bay translation the word “Heathen” is used but has no place in the newer version.

                I definitely prefer the Alter translation; it’s much softer and more relatable. The idea of fearing God is no longer as relevant as a more giving one.  

We could learn something from the builders of mounds

Through the book there was a sense of closeness and community throughout the Native American community that I found very interesting. Today there is not very much emphasis in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities that we should spend time with the people around us. Before agriculture was settled in one place, small clans had to travel gathering and hunting food but every year or so all the clans would gathering to build mounds. Building the mounds was not an easy task and required many hands, so all the clans had to work together complete them. Even when there was warfare between the clans and people were killed each side treated the dead from their enemies dead as one of their own, and buried them the same. Today there is a lot less respect between and for people. I honestly don’t know anyone’s names that live on my floor in my dorm, never mind building an effigy mound with them. Countries now (for the most part) are not going to haul bodies back, that were their enemies, burry them, and put up a gravestone with flowers. Obviously our society is more advanced in medicine, government and especially technology, but that’s probably the issue. Although we feel like we are able to reconnect with people using facebook, twitter, and texting we are actually closing ourselves off to the people immediately around us.

Reasoning for Effigy Mounds

I found the chapters on effigy mounds pretty interesting. Obviously they are very symbolic but what is interesting is that there isn’t just one animal or human figure to represent the mounds but there are all different kinds that mean various things. There is “a system of symbols” but they don’t represent someone important who died (like pyramids in Egypt for pharos), but rather their surroundings. Hawks and falcon effigy mounds were made near areas with cliffs that had raptors and water spirit effigies near bodies of water. Usually when we see big statues or carvings in other cultures, it has been erected in the likeness of an important person or deity. The effigy mounds had evolved from earlier mounds because in the beginning the mounds were used for burying and marking the dead, although some effigy mounds were used for burying a lot were just simply designed mounds of dirt, so, they clearly had some other purpose. These mounds were not simply dumped onto the ground the mound makers had to calculate using the curves and grooves of the land and work with what was already there. There was clearly a strong purpose for building these more stylized mounds because there was a lot of effort put into them. The symbolism is clear and obviously very important since the mound makers went to such great lengths to make them.

Religion Through History

I read through the Paleolithic Art and Religion and was intrigued. It was interesting how even the very earliest civilizations began forming religion and worshiping. Also I thought it made sense how religion and politics/government would go together because at that point they were one in the same, probably because both systems were far less complex than present day.  I couldn’t help but compare this with the idea that religion is an inherent part of human nature, if religion was not a naturally occurring or developed evolutionary trait, than why has it been around just about as long as humans? Religion has had such a big part in just about everything because it seems to be semi essential to mankind’s ability to thrive. I also have thought about how a government would work if it was involved with religion? Would it create more unified groups or cause a lot more issues. The world has many different types of people it seems hard to believe that church and state would not have negative effects and be too restricting. After seeing so many examples of how big a part religion played in all civilizations I am pretty convinced that there is some need for religious practice. I’m not sure exactly what that need is though.

The Need for Religion

After watching the clip on YouTube by Same Harris Why We Should Ditch Religion and reading the article Why We Believe I have done some critical thinking on whether or not it is conceivable for an individual to completely brush-off of religion, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is impossible for someone to wright off religion because something (and I’m not sure exactly what) is hardwired in our brains to make us search out something that has more control and a hire existence than ourselves.

I’ve done some reflecting and feel deep down that I want some things; good or bad, to have some sort of meaning. It is easier to grasp a strange situation or outcome by believing that some divine entity has had a hand in it. I especially find myself thinking about God when I need consoling or am frightened, and although I think I am a rational person a part of me hopes that God will intervene in some way. In Why We Believe the author mentions that he crosses his fingers or prays when there is bad turbulence on a plane, and I definitely can relate to that same feeling in those sorts of situations.

Although I am no longer very involved in Catholicism I still understand that, for whatever reason, the need for religion is burnt into our mind. I have no idea what the evolutionary purpose is or even if there is a purpose, but I do know that just about everyone has experienced the need for either religion or a divine being(s). It is also comforting to believe that there is some kind of afterlife because to me, the idea of unmitigated nothingness is the most terrifying thing I can imagine.