intentional

[Charles Doyle]

Yeah, and most of my Presbyterian students have never even HEARD OF predestination--so they are unable to appreciate the joke about the elder who fell down the stairs . . . .

--Charlie
_____________________________________________________________

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:51:47 -0400
>From: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>Subject: Re: intentional
>
>At 3:24 PM -0400 7/16/07, Charles Doyle wrote:
>>That definitely IS opposite THEOLOGICALLY! A Quaker (an "orthodox"
>>one, at least) believes firmly in an omnipotent Biblical God and a
>>historical (as well as in-dwelling) Savior, whereas a Unitarian (as
>>the quip goes) is someone who believes there is at most one god--to
>>be addressed as "May We." (Actually, that's TWO quips.)
>>
>>Well, I suppose a Unitarian CAN believe in Quaker theology, is he wants to!
>
>That's certainly true, but the opposite isn't obviously false, at
>least not according to the Universal Authority (I refer, of course,
>to wikipedia;
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends)
>
>================
>Unlike many other groups that emerged within Christianity, the
>Religious Society of Friends has tended away from creeds, and in
>modern times away from hierarchical structure.
>
>The various branches have widely divergent beliefs and practices, but
>the central concept to many Friends is the "Inner Light".
>Accordingly, individual Quakers may develop individual religious
>beliefs arising from their personal conscience and revelation coming
>from "God within"; further, Quakers feel obliged to live by such
>individual religious beliefs and inner revelations.
>
>Many Quakers feel their faith does not fit within traditional
>Christian categories of Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, but is an
>expression of another way of experiencing God.
>
>Although Quakers throughout most of their history and in most parts
>of the world today consider Quakerism to be a Christian movement,
>some Friends (principally in some Meetings in the United States and
>the United Kingdom) now consider themselves universalist, agnostic,
>atheist, nonrealist, humanist, postchristian, or nontheist, or do not
>accept any religious label. Calls for Quakerism to include
>non-Christians go back at least as far as 1870, but this phenomenon
>has become increasingly evident during the latter half of the 20th
>century and the opening years of the 21st century, and is still
>controversial among Friends. An especially notable example of this is
>that of Friends who go beyond simply being non-christian, but
>actively identify as a member of another faith, such as Islam or
>Buddhism.
>================
>Not *that* different from Unitarians, for the most part.  Now try
>substituting "Baptist", "Lutheran", or "Roman Catholic" for "Quaker"
>or "Friend" in these paragraphs and you'll see what I mean about
>antonymy...
>
>LH
>
>
>>
>>My point was that the two groups are NOT "opposite" ethically or practically.
>>
>>--Charlie
>>_____________________________________________________________
>>
>>---- Original message ----
>>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:27:55 -0400
>>>From: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>>>Subject: Re: intentional
>>
>>>
>>>At 1:17 PM -0400 7/16/07, Charles Doyle wrote:
>>>>It's interesting how Quakers and Unitarians--so opposite theologically
>>>
>>>Opposite theologically?  How so?  From which theory of antonymy
>>>does this follow?  If it's just that Quakers are necessarily
>>>theists while Unitarians aren't, that doesn't yield oppositeness.
>>>Unless, of course, Nixon is taken to be the prototypic Quaker...
>>>
>>>--LH, intentional Unitarian
>>
>>>
>>>>--can still turn out to be the same "sort of people": that is,
>>>>"ethically-focussed, politically progressive, humanist" (in one
>>>>sense of "humanist," at least).
>>>>
>>>>--Charlie
>>>>_____________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>---- Original message ----
>>>>>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:05:25 -0400
>>>>>From: sagehen <sagehen at WESTELCOM.COM>
>>>>>Subject: Re: intentional
>>>>>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>>>
>>>>>You are quite right about the intentional community.  I should have
>>>>>enlarged on that.  Instead, I got to thinking about "intentional"
>>>>>as it functions in the larger community of  the ethically-focussed,
>>>>>politically progressive, humanist, unitarian, quakerish  sort of
>>>>>people among whom a
>>>>lot of my life has been spent.
>>>>
>>>>>AM
>>>>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>  >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org