Religious Forbearance

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

Quakers were mentioned by Ken Starr in yesterday's Washington Post -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-i-vote-for-a-mormon/2012/01/06/gIQAodWBkP_print.html
- "The Founders also made clear that religious dissenters (such as the
Quakers) should not be compelled to take an oath if doing so would be
a violation of conscience." How stood the Quakers of Britain in 1776
and was there discrimination this late in the game? How about the
doffing of hats? Any general critique of this editorial?

Chris

[Alec]

==> How stood the Quakers of Britain in 1776 and was there

discrimination this late in the game?

Time to link to Amos J Peaslee again:

http://tinyurl.com/2fno4dp

As for the question posed in the link Chris gave, I'd have no problems
in voting for someone I agreed with and who was a Mormon. I do think,
however, it's pertinent to ask why Mitt Romney presents himself as a
Christian despite adhering to a faith which arguably is not.


~alec




On Jan 9, 10:04 pm, "Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA"
<keynoteservi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[simon gray]

On 13 January 2012 17:28, Alec <praisegd...@aol.com> wrote:

> I'd have no problems
> in voting for someone I agreed with and who was a Mormon.  I do think,
> however, it's pertinent to ask why Mitt Romney presents himself as a
> Christian despite adhering to a faith which arguably is not.

that one's easy to answer - because as far as mormons are concerned,
they *are* christians.

--
www.star-one.org.uk ~ www.winterval.org.uk ~ www.birmingham-alive.com

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

Alec,

There are some that could have the same view of Friends too, arguably not Christian, that is. The problem with Mitt isn't his religion but his political views. 
-ASR

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

--
Holding you in the Light, ASR

[Alec]

==> that one's easy to answer - because as far as mormons are
concerned, they *are* christians.

Do they say that, or is it a wider call to focus on the life and work
of Jesus Christ? That aint necessarily the same thing.

The position is that when it's thought expedient, individuals like
Romney might present themselves as Christian to a socially and
religiously conservative US voter-base but a consideration of the
theology they follow - that is, the ideas and precepts which define
their religion as whatever it is - shows something distinctly non-
Gospelly; not least the belief that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers
completing for their father's affection.

Essential to Mormonism is an acceptance of the Book of Mormon, which
was written in "reformed Egyptian" and revealed to proven con-artist,
Joseph Smith less than two centuries ago with a magic eyeglass which
could have come out of a book by Philip Pulman. The ONLY other
religious groups which have any time for the Book of Mormon are
offshoots of Mormonism.

At best, I'd describe Mormonism as to Christianity what the Baha'i
faith is to Shia Islam.


~alec


On Jan 13, 10:37 pm, simon gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:

[Alec]

Abigail, our comments passed like rubber ducks in the bath. Yes, I
was thinking precisely the same thing about some Friends not being
described as Christian (or describing themselves as such).

If that's such an unremarkable statement, why is it contentious to
observe that Mormonism has major differences with conventional
Christianity? I could stick a feather in my cap and call it macaroni,
but it would be up to people with knowledge of millinery to decide.


~alec

On Jan 13, 11:16 pm, Amelia Schafer-Rutherford

<ameliascha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alec,
> There are some that could have the same view of Friends too, arguably not
> Christian, that is. The problem with Mitt isn't his religion but his
> political views.
> -ASR
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:37 PM, simon gray <si...@star-one.org.uk> wrote:

> > On 13 January 2012 17:28, Alec <praisegdbareb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'd have no problems
> > > in voting for someone I agreed with and who was a Mormon.  I do think,
> > > however, it's pertinent to ask why Mitt Romney presents himself as a
> > > Christian despite adhering to a faith which arguably is not.
>
> > that one's easy to answer - because as far as mormons are concerned,
> > they *are* christians.
>
> > --
> >www.star-one.org.uk~www.winterval.org.uk~www.birmingham-alive.com
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Quaker-B" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.
>
> --

> Holding you in the Light, ASR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Alec]

Amelia, sowwy.


~alec

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[John]

I describe myself as Christian.

At 11 years of age I remember realizing that I had no belief
in the supernatural. Later that year I did a survey of my classmates
(boys' school) to discover that whereas about 2/3 were skeptical I
was the only one who was a convinced non-supernaturalist. It was
later in the year when I came home from the Methodist Sunday school
telling my father who was hard at work building a deep keeled ocean
going yacht,that I intended to give it up. He told me He would like
me to continue and I did. A few years later as a teenager I made
many friends in that church. It was very close to the University of
Western Australia and attracted many students who lived or boarded
nearby. 3 of my friends became Methodist, (later Uniting) Church
ministers when the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational
Churches united. I have always regretted the loss of an independent
Congregational Church because my ancestors of both sides were of that
faith and it had a liberal wing closer to my position.

Perhaps my religion can be summarized by 1 Corinthians
13.4-12. I expect to be judged by these criteria (Matthew 7.21).

As far as I can determine neither Albert Schweitzer (who
never lost his status as a Lutheran Minister), nor Bishop Spong of
New York believed in the super-natural but I admit such opinions are
considered abnormal.

You may be surprised that as a a continuing
non-supernaturalist, now 81 years of age, I have continued to attend
church. For some years I have attended a small non-denominational
church which meets in a hired hall and in which members volunteer for
rosters to ether conduct services or to preach. Occasionally we
invite outside preachers. A reasonable choice for a Quaker disowned
for raising a point of "right ordering" which the clerks declared
insulting to them. After the Clerks left, one back to the USA and
the other to the UK, I asked the Elders to reconsider but they simply
repeated that an insult to the Clerks was an insult to the Meeting
and the verdict stood.

I wonder if disbelief in the supernatural would disqualify
one from membership of BYM. I suspect there would only be a problem
if the disbelief was stated in writing.

John Taplin
Perth Australia

[RKSilipo]

At 06:41 14/01/2012,John Taplin wrote:
I wonder if disbelief in the supernatural would disqualify one from membership of BYM.  I suspect there would only be a problem if the disbelief was stated in writing. [end]


There are quite a few atheists who attend meetings for worship in the UK. I don't know if any are members. Also, disbelief has been codified to some extent already: Some years ago, the editors of the BYM's book of faith and practice made a concerted effort to eliminate language that refers to God or Jesus, thereby, it seems to me, declaring the word "religious" in the full name of the organization, irrelevant.

Mona Silipo
Member, Strawberry Creek Monthly Meeting, Berkeley, California
Now living in the wilds of Northamptonshire

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

Well Alec, we are passing one another like rubber ducks. My question
was whether the slightly defensive Quakers of 1661 remained
discriminated against in Britain as late as 1776 to the point that
they fled to the home of the brave and land of the free. For that
matter, could a party with a Mormon (or Quaker) at the head be voted
into power in 2012 Britain? I'm not sure what Buzz Peaslee's dad has
to do with it.

Chris

[Rosalind Mitchell]

On Saturday 14 Jan 2012 11:52:47 RKSilipo wrote:
> At 06:41 14/01/2012,John Taplin wrote:
> I wonder if disbelief in the supernatural would disqualify one from
> membership of BYM. I suspect there would only be a problem if the
> disbelief was stated in writing. [end]

Mona! Am I right in thinking you haven't been around for a while? Or have I
not been paying attention?

Rosie

[RKSilipo]

At 13:08 14/01/2012, Rosalind Mitchell wrote:

Mona!  Am I right in thinking you haven't been around for a while?  Or have I
not been paying attention?

You've been paying attention.  The new quaker-b list had degenerated into the exchange of acrimonious one-liners and long tirades about "how the Quakers done me wrong," and I just decided to take a break.  Then when I really thought about it, the several  mailing lists I was on were taking up so much time, I made the decision to stop doing them all for a while. I still read from time to time, but force myself not to engage in pointless back-and-forthing. I just don't have to put my two cents on absolutely every point discussed.

The other element of my absence is that I have been training and studying for the past year to become a spiritual companion. This has required a lot of reading time, meditation time, reflecting time, writing time and generally a lot of quietening the mind. My mind was never quiet when participating in online mailing lists!  >>For more on spiritual companions, see http://www.f4hs.org/spiritual-companions/

I still keep in touch with some people individually, including Olwen, who has generally been persona non grata on these mailing lists. Ultimately, relationships are more key in my world view than debates.

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

Mona,

I can see what you are talking about. I am interested in how much Quakers can use the web to dialog freely in a way that is free ministry. You have mentioned relationship you have built, despite the back-and-forth you see as destructive(as I understand you to be saying). Where is the fine line of bring forth difficult Truths into the Light of day? There are quite a few people on this list and other forum that are saying things about the state of the world and the condition of the Friends Society world wide I am not sure we would know about without this tool.  I am not defending this format as much as trying to explore how and what Friends are getting out of the internet as well as what is happening for Friends on the ground. Plain Speaking seems to be a much more difficult thing to actually do for any of us, why? George Fox and early Quaker where seen to be quite rude by their surrounding society and I think this unrest with this opennesss excited even then. Look at the relationship with James Naylor. 

@ John, have you looked into nontheist and the Miriam Yagud?

-ASR

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[Alec]

Mona, I'm glad to see you commenting and never have had personal
problems with you, but as you've chosen to make the following
comments, I'll respond:

==> The new quaker-b list had degenerated into the exchange of

acrimonious one-liners and long tirades about "how the Quakers done me
wrong,"

==> I still keep in touch with some people individually, including

Olwen, who has generally been persona non grata on these mailing
lists.

Of course she's not. She did, however, make some quite extraordinary
personal attacks on an individual list-member, including ugly sexual
remarks. I appreciate she's your friend and have no desire to deny
this to you, but motes and logs spring to mind.


~alec

On Jan 14, 1:44 pm, RKSilipo <lightwri...@wordworks-uk.com> wrote:
> At 13:08 14/01/2012, Rosalind Mitchell wrote:
>
> >Mona!  Am I right in thinking you haven't been around for a while?  Or have I
> >not been paying attention?
>
> You've been paying attention.  The new quaker-b list had degenerated
> into the exchange of acrimonious one-liners and long tirades about
> "how the Quakers done me wrong," and I just decided to take a
> break.  Then when I really thought about it, the several  mailing
> lists I was on were taking up so much time, I made the decision to
> stop doing them all for a while. I still read from time to time, but
> force myself not to engage in pointless back-and-forthing. I just
> don't have to put my two cents on absolutely every point discussed.
>
> The other element of my absence is that I have been training and
> studying for the past year to become a spiritual companion. This has
> required a lot of reading time, meditation time, reflecting time,
> writing time and generally a lot of quietening the mind. My mind was
> never quiet when participating in online mailing lists!  >>For more

> on spiritual companions, seehttp://www.f4hs.org/spiritual-companions/

[John]

I am intrigued that Mona Silipo seems to equate non-belief
in the supernatural with atheism. By my reading the Lutheran
minister and professor of Theology (among his many qualifications)
Albert Schweitzer did not subscribe to the super-natural and was not
an atheist. I think Bishop Spong of New York city was in the same
category. There are many ways of defining God. At one limit there
was the 18th century Unitatian who said he spelled God with a double
O and the Devil without a D.

Your old heretic
John Taplin

[Vicky Chapman]

Australia's PM, Julia Gillard, is a self-confessed atheist - and the
media doesn't seem to make a fuss about her religious beliefs or lack
thereof. Even the fact that she lives in a defacto relationship hasn't
caused that much of a stir (except perhaps when she continues to deny
gay people the right to marry their beloved 'because of our Christian
heritage')

[John]

I am not at all surprised that there is no fuss that our
Prime Minister is a self confessed Atheist or that she is not married
the man with whom she lives in the Prime Minsters official residences
in Canberra and Sydney. Australia is a tolerant country. Compare
for example the USA. When I attended the Friends' meeting for
worship in a mountain village in North Carolina my hostess advised me
not mention this to her neighbours who were universally of
fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion and might react
violently, possibly damage her house, if they became aware of her activities.

I think I understand the legal difficulty in recognsing same
sex partnerships as marriages. The obvious solution is to have legal
recognition of "partnerships" as they do in New Zealand. Such
partnerships can be heterosexual. I believe I met both kinds of
legal partnership when visiting New Zealand. This may have been the
time I attended NZ YM but may have been one of the times when
attending Meetings for worship when visiting NZ for to lecture on
proportional representation or for another reason.

John Taplin,
disowned by Perth Regional Meeting of Australia YM. I insist on
the Testimony to speak the truth as I understand it. I do not accept
a caveat that one must first ascertain that the truth will not offend anyone.

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

John,

Was that Celo North Carolina? - ASR

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[John]

Yes

John Taplin

At 01:58 AM 17/01/2012, Amelia Schafer-Rutherford wrote:
>John,
>Was that Celo North Carolina? - ASR
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM, John

><<mailto:jhta...@iinet.net.au>jhta...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> ***** When I attended the Friends' meeting for worship in a

> mountain village in North Carolina my hostess advised me not
> mention this to her neighbours who were universally of
> fundamentalist evangelical Christian persuasion and might react
> violently, possibly damage her house, if they became aware of her activities.
>
>

>--
>Holding you in the Light, ASR
>

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "Quaker-B" group.
>To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Alec]

JOHN ==> I am intrigued that Mona Silipo seems to equate non-belief in

the supernatural with atheism. By my reading the Lutheran minister
and professor of Theology (among his many qualifications) Albert
Schweitzer did not subscribe to the super-natural and was not an
atheist. I think Bishop Spong of New York city was in the same
category.

As I recall, Mona had a strongly Roman Catholic upbringing, so it’s
quite possible this has informed her understanding of the concept in
contrast to our resident Grave Digger’s (presumably) Wesleyean
grounding.

It would be interesting to know how individual list members define
this concept, be it a belief in miracles and the intercession of
Saints following prayer or Grace or, even, the Trinity itself.

==> When I attended the Friends' meeting for worship in a mountain

village in North Carolina my hostess advised me not mention this to
her neighbours who were universally of fundamentalist evangelical
Christian persuasion and might react violently, possibly damage her
house, if they became aware of her activities.

I’m a bit unclear, here. Would they have targeted her house ‘cos she
was allowing such activity under her roof, or simply ‘cos there was a
citizen of a country whose Prime Minister practiced it?

CHRIS ROBERTS ==> My question was whether the slightly defensive

Quakers of 1661 remained discriminated against in Britain as late as
1776 to the point that they fled to the home of the brave and land of
the free.

Not being aligned with the Established CofE, they would have been
barred from certain offices. In 1759, Quakers in Birmingham had their
windows smashed ‘cos they didn’t place candles in ‘em to celebrate
British victories in Canada. In the mid-18th Century, Brum was a fun,
fun, fun place to be full-of bunting, beggarly, brass-making, brazen-
faced, brazen-hearted, blackguard, bustling, booby Brummie rioters.

Things had calmed-down by the Priestly Riots in 1791 when Quaker
properties were spared on the grounds that their occupants “never
trouble themselves with anything, neither on one side nor the other”,
and the rioters did the appropriate thing... and trashed Joseph
Priestley's gaff.

==> For that matter, could a party with a Mormon (or Quaker) at the

head be voted into power in 2012 Britain?

The question hasn’t been posed, but my feeling is, why not?

==> I'm not sure what Buzz Peaslee's dad has to do with it.

It was to show that some Quakers of the period absolutely were
involved in state affairs.


~alec

[Jennifer Doughty]

==> When I attended the Friends' meeting for worship in a mountain

village in North Carolina my hostess advised me not mention this to

her neighbours who were universally of fundamentalist evangelical

Christian persuasion and might react violently, possibly damage her

house, if they became aware of her activities.

I wonder how many of those were of the variety of Americans that worship the Founding Fathers and the Constitution next only to God, and if so what they would make of the Jefferson Bible. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/thomas-jefferson-revolutionary-bible-reissued

Jenny

[John]

At 10:22 PM 17/01/2012, Alec wrote:
>JOHN ==> I am intrigued that Mona Silipo seems to equate non-belief in
>the supernatural with atheism. By my reading the Lutheran minister
>and professor of Theology (among his many qualifications) Albert
>Schweitzer did not subscribe to the super-natural and was not an
>atheist. I think Bishop Spong of New York city was in the same
>category.
>
>As I recall, Mona had a strongly Roman Catholic upbringing, so it's
>quite possible this has informed her understanding of the concept in
>contrast to our resident Grave Digger's (presumably) Wesleyean
>grounding.

I do not understand _ whose grave? - am I the resident grave digger?

>It would be interesting to know how individual list members define
>this concept, be it a belief in miracles and the intercession of
>Saints following prayer or Grace or, even, the Trinity itself.

Is Supernatural the concept referred to?

>==> When I attended the Friends' meeting for worship in a mountain
>village in North Carolina my hostess advised me not mention this to
>her neighbours who were universally of fundamentalist evangelical
>Christian persuasion and might react violently, possibly damage her
>house, if they became aware of her activities

>I'm a bit unclear, here. Would they have targeted her house 'cos she
>was allowing such activity under her roof, or simply 'cos there was a
>citizen of a country whose Prime Minister practiced it?

My friend attended Meeting for Worship about a mile away. I
understood my friend to mean that she feared her neighbours would be
hostile to her if they knew she was a Quaker or attended Quaker worship.

>CHRIS ROBERTS ==> My question was whether the slightly defensive
>Quakers of 1661 remained discriminated against in Britain as late as
>1776 to the point that they fled to the home of the brave and land of
>the free.

William Penn was an admiral under Cromwell and continued under
Charles 2. Samuel Peyps in his fascinating, warts and all diary,
records how the Admiral sent his son to Paris for education as a
Gentleman and how William put on airs when he returned. It was
inheriting a debt from the King to his father that enabled William
Penn to acquire an interest in Pennsylvania (and part of
Delaware?). My party piece at concerts at Quaker Yearly Meetings
used to be William Penn's account of his trial with William Mead for
preaching in the streets of London. (See "The peace of Europe, "The
Fruits of Solitude and other writings by William Penn, it is
hilarious. To avoid taking off their hats when the Judge entered the
court, the Friends took them off before hey entered the
building. Noticing this the Judge ordered them to put them on again
so they could take them off to honour him. Modern Friends ignore
this "hat honour" part of the tradition. They also ignore the
tradition of refusing to use titles and the use of plain
speech. Conservative Friends in the USA try to preserve a semblance
of plain speech by using "thee" but have forgotten "thou".
***

Your disowned Friend

John Taplin

In my attempt to understand the varieties of Friends I have attended
meetings (including YMs in most) in Australia, New Zealand, USA,
Canada, Gt Britain, India, South Africa, (Georgia?)

[Alec]

JOHN ==> I do not understand _ whose grave? - am I the resident grave
digger?

'Twas intended as a lighthearted pun. You are a Digger (albeit
civilian), and your demeanor comes across as serious.

==> Is Supernatural the concept referred to?

That was my query. Its mention arose from in a discussion about
points of Christian theology and belief, so I assumed it wasn't being
used to indicate the paranormal or pixies and fairies (at least the
sanitized 20th Century view of pixies and fairies) but a concept which
your and Mona's differing religious grounding would have informed the
pair of you in different ways.


~alec

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

John,

I find it hard to believe she meant being a Quaker, Celo has been in existence for a long time, as well as Quakers in that part of NC. They are known and well regarded by their surrounding community(no everyone of course but, ...). I think possible she might have been thinking others might interpret what you are saying as being a complicated way of describing atheism.  Not to put words in the mouth of someone I have never met. - ASR 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

John,

Possibly because I am an American Friend (now a part of BYM) that I still DO NOT take oaths, use titles (that are not available to all), the "hat honour" does not mean as much as hat are not as much apart of everyday social activity, just as plain dress is difficult (yet not). But all these Quakerism are still talking points for Friends everywhere, just look at all the blogs that it appears on. My father (lifelong Friend) never thought much of WM Penn. Oh, and I find it VERY disturbing that quite a few of BYM have taken titles that are not available for all to use!! Not just conservative Quaker in the State still use thee and thou. 

-ASR 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM, John <jhta...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[John]

It is my understanding that the refusal
to take oaths is universal among Friends of all
kinds. This is no problem in nations such as Gt
Britain and Australia where the law provides the
alternative of a solemn declaration. I suppose
the same objection could be raised to solemn
declarations because they could be taken to imply
that otherwise one was telling untruths or
jesting. I suppose in the refusal use titles one
exempts functional titles such as Mr or Madam
Chairman or President in a meeting. I have
avoided using titles Sir, Lord etc, titles
bestowed by the monarch (after recommendation by
an elected government) in the UK, Australia etc
but I am not sure of the official position of
Britain YM, Australia YM etc on addressing such
people by their honorary titles. Perhaps some one
can inform me. I believe Judth Dench the Quaker
woman actress is a member of the House of
Lords. Do British Friends call her Dame?

The USA does not have merit titles
unless it is used for retired professors, presidents etc

I have no objection to the use of the
now archaic thee, thou and ye but am amused by
those who use thee in the nominative when they
should use Thou. The use of the once plural ÿou
in the singular instead of thou and thee is a
loss to English which I understand is not lost in
most other languages. I also find it curious that
hymn writers continued to use the archaic forms
long after they had fallen into disuse. Were
they trying to make their hymns sound older than they were?

I assume Amelia is using BYM for
Baltimore YM rather than Britian YM. In my
travels I twice attended the yearly meeting
sessions of the first but the second only once.

John Taplin

[Amelia Schafer-Rutherford]

John,

No love I do mean Britain Yearly Meeting for BYM. I do not call anyone Dame and my father never asked people to call him Dr. or even Prof. thought out his long academic career. I don't mind call someone President as this is a title that tends to open to all that want the position and has been earned.    For all the degree I have I never put the letter behind my name, much to frustration of my non-Quaker husband. I don't say the pledge of allegiance either and didn't in school - ooohhh, that was a nice bit of stick in school. This topic has been discussed here before too. 

-ASR
- 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[Henry S. Thompson]

John writes:

> I have no objection to the use of the now archaic thee, thou and ye
> but am amused by those who use thee in the nominative when they

> should use Thou. The use of the once plural �ou in the singular

> instead of thou and thee is a loss to English which I understand is
> not lost in most other languages. I also find it curious that hymn
> writers continued to use the archaic forms long after they had
> fallen into disuse. Were they trying to make their hymns sound
> older than they were?

In the 1960s in Philadelphia several well-established Quaker families
of my acquaintance used 'thee' within the family, and I even adopted
it myself for a brief, self-conscious, while. My sense of it at the
time was that it was a straight-up swap of 'thee' for 'you' when the
addressee was sufficiently close to the speaker, not a reversion to an
early pattern, so not really a "loss" as such. . .

ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: h...@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]

[T. Michael Staynes]

John wrote:

> I have no objection to the use of the now archaic thee, thou and ye
> but am amused by those who use thee in the nominative when they
> should use Thou. The use of the once plural �ou in the singular
> instead of thou and thee is a loss to English which I understand is
> not lost in most other languages. I also find it curious that hymn
> writers continued to use the archaic forms long after they had
> fallen into disuse. Were they trying to make their hymns sound
> older than they were?

Sin I wor browt up in t'West Riding o Yorksha, ah've no problem wi t'reight
use o thi an tha - an noan o mi mates were Quakers!!

As another Yorkshire man famously said to a Quaker using thee to him,
"Diven't (don't) tha thee me, Tha thee them as thees thee"

Mike S

[John]

Just out of curiosity can you remember the form
of address they sued to several persons, i.e. the plural of thee?

John Taplin

At 07:40 PM 24/01/2012, you wrote:
>John writes:
>
> > I have no objection to the use of the now archaic thee, thou and ye
> > but am amused by those who use thee in the nominative when they

> > should use Thou. The use of the once plural ÿou in the singular

> > instead of thou and thee is a loss to English which I understand is
> > not lost in most other languages. I also find it curious that hymn
> > writers continued to use the archaic forms long after they had
> > fallen into disuse. Were they trying to make their hymns sound
> > older than they were?
>
>In the 1960s in Philadelphia several well-established Quaker families
>of my acquaintance used 'thee' within the family, and I even adopted
>it myself for a brief, self-conscious, while. My sense of it at the
>time was that it was a straight-up swap of 'thee' for 'you' when the
>addressee was sufficiently close to the speaker, not a reversion to an
>early pattern, so not really a "loss" as such. . .
>
>ht
>--
> Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
> 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
> Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: h...@inf.ed.ac.uk
> URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this --
> mail without it is forged spam]
>

>--
>You received this message because you are
>subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
>To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Alec]

These?


~alec

[Henry S. Thompson]

John writes:

> Just out of curiosity can you remember the form of address they used

> to several persons, i.e. the plural of thee?

'thee all', if memory serves.

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

Perhaps in Philadelphia they say thees guys.

Chris

[John]

This morning I was thinking of a man carrying a cross to a Roman crucifixion. I remember a clergyman telling me that what was carried was the piece of wood that was nailed to a tree, not an upright with a cross piece already nailed to it as shown in medieval paintings. This seemed reasonable because of the usual English language meaning of cross as in "I crossed the road". Besides which, an upright with a cross piece already nailed and strong enough to hold a man high enough to hold a man clear of the ground would be quite heavy. An what about the crosses on which the other two men were crucified?
Not knowing any New Testament Greek, I looked up cross in Clinton Morrison's "An Analytical Concordance to the RSV of the New Testament". I am puzzled to find that the Greek word for cross as in Mt 10.38 "..who does not take up his cross and follow me.." and in Mt 16.24 etc is stauros and the meaning given is upright pale, stake.
So what was it that Simon of Cyre'ne carried in Luke23:26 ?

John Taplin,
Perth, Australia
disowned Friend