QuakerQuaker migration starting soon, can you help?
Hi QuakerQuaker fans,It's time to start the migration of QuakerQuaker to a new online platform. It…See More
QuakerQuaker
Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
A Notion of Zalman Schachter-Shalomi's
He said and/or implied this in several places... This was the foundation of it: “I realized that all forms of religion are masks that the divine wears to communicate with us. Behind all religions there’s a reality, and this reality wears whatever clothes it needs to speak to a particular people.”
Another idea he drew from this was that the various religions of the world [atheism included?] all had a place and a function in God's intentions. Sometimes he compared these to an ecosystem in which the various parts were all needed. That was implied in this short prayer I found recently: "My God, I aspire to perfect faith in the mission of each path as an organ of the the collective being that comprises all existence; that through your compassion on all creatures it be revealed to us how integral each Message is to the health of all the species of our collective being."
That seems to include some Messages which not only were "probably not addressed to us" (as some Friends will say about an unpromising Message heard in Meeting) but which strike us as downright weird & ugly, as products of minds that have gone out far past their Guide...
There is supposed to have been a rabbinical debate once about the Commandment that, if a child proved to be utterly uncontrollable, the community should take him out and stone him. That struck everyone as unduly harsh. They had all lost children at one time or another, and had a very hard time imagining any child this could really apply to. Finally they concluded that there was no such child; that this Commandment would never in fact be carried out. "So why did Hashem put that one in," one rabbi wondered. Another answered, "So we could have the pleasure of arguing about it!"
That is, of course, the kind of passage that literalists of all religions have an unfortunate tendency to insist on. Okay, Literalism is probably the One False Religion... but then, if we're going to pick and choose what to follow and what to ignore (and everybody, admittedly or not, must in fact do this) -- then "Where?" -- our Literalists will insist -- "is that to end? We can't just interpret everything away to Nothing, to 'Just What We Like'!"
So, where do pig-headed people and dubious precepts fit into this? Do they?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on
-
My mantra is "the best religions are yet to come" as that reminds us of our responsibility to stay inventive and open to new revelations. To freeze in the posture of venerating past authorities, because we want to be seen as a part of some lineage, is to avoid the call to create. Accept generous gifts and wisdom from the past, yes, but don't feel your "religion" has to always fit any given hand-me-down mold.
-
Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on
-
That's been a hard comment to address. "
If this is an update; what was wrong with the previous version?"
Almost always an innovation will be introduced as a development of some traditional predecessor, as of course it almost always is. If it doesn't begin that way, it will soon become so, as each new person to take it up morphs it into conformity with his own culture and the notions he came in with.
No, its proponents won't even call it a development, but rather 'a return to' the tradition, as that existed in some mythical past. [What is the subtitle of this site...?]
"Things only grow where they grow; you can't grow wheat on stones." You can propose any belief system which sounds like a good idea -- but you can't make it take root unless something previous has prepared the soil for it. Even Scientology, invented by a science fiction writer (allegedly) "to make a lot of money" had Doc Fraud to first introduce its basic myth into the common cultural baggage.
Part of that preparation is the existence of an environmental niche and a culture able to sustain itself in it -- one which an innovation fits into at least harmlessly, & probably advantageously. Religion is a spiritual phenomenon, not a sociological one -- but religions don't survive if they can't be embodied in some sort of social physiology...
Also -- Who is a "better" religion to be "better" for? You can probably come up with a religion which some subset of humanity will like better, but I don't think this is "just about us" -- It's certainly "for our sake," but not just for our short-term benefit. A religion has to bring us (even if only indirectly) towards connecting more securely with God (or whatever else you might call the spiritual center and foundation of the universe)
or it will merely lead to more suffering; and need to be replaced.
If the existing religions (probably including atheism as well) each serve that function for some people, for some time... That doesn't mean that some new species of belief-system couldn't substitute for any of them...
except that too much revelation, too suddenly, makes people giddy in a sense. At first, in such periods, it has got to be utterly intoxicating... and then, well,
once you give people a little hope then their demands are going to escalate: "Hey, God, how's about one of those golden thrones, huh? I think I'd like mine upholstered in purple velvet if that's okay..."
So far as people want spiritual goods, we can all be satisfied -- but we've also got physical and social needs and greeds; those can grow without limit, without any lasting satisfaction. A religion thus needs to answer some questions of distribution; and if it doesn't point people's hearts towards the spiritual goods, those won't be resolved.
-
-
A lot depends on how we define "religion" -- what qualifies?
The fence with philosophy is especially full of gaps. I discovered in my early twenties how intensely metaphysical the business world gets, in seeking management philosophies. A Quakerism of the 1700s gets caught up in this vortex, with its company towns, worker utopias (why not?). Quakernomics is a strain to this day, feeding what I call "GST" (general systems theory) through such as Kenneth Boulding, Joe Havens, and my dad.
Lets consider recent "designer religions", created self-consciously by their founders in our own time. You mention Hubbard's, but then Bahai is fairly recent, as is Wicca, by a guy named Gardner (good book: Triumph of the Moon).Some designer religions seem more "spoof" like the religion of "Bob" (Subgenius) or FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) but even these create community, a sense of belonging, a sense of friendship among peers (very valuable).
In the twilight zone is the Forum, deriving historically from est. We may call these "cults" but what does that mean really and is the Forum a cult any more than IBM or Rackspace or Fastly or Walmart or... back to Walter Wink and his Powers (corporate persons). Aren't corporations cults?
My English teacher's husband said he was more a citizen of Nestle than of the Philippines, and I believed him. The meaning of "nation", like "religion", like "race" is in peril, of not meaning much in today's world. Good riddance?
I write about my own citizenship in Python Nation, our cult having gathered here in Portland for a Pycon just two weeks ago. Cult? Religion? Who's to say? We have a benevolent dictator. His name is Guido and he was recently invited to the Dutch Embassy in San Francisco, a representative of his people.
My conclusion is our very concept of "religion" has been outgrown.
Is Zen a religion? I'd argue it's Gestalt Psychology just as surely.
As a philo guy, I compete with theologians to claim their turf. Now that Zurich and Vienna have given us Depth Psychology, I'm happy enough to say religion is over and done with if you like.
There's philosophy (including atheism), and science fiction.
Religion? Yeah, we used to have that, and many still use the word. Don't assume I believe in "religion" though, just because I profess the Quaker business philosophy.
-
-
I don't "believe in religion;" I know God.
I know God, to my limited extent, because I got some powerful nudges in that direction, back when I was a "looking-over-my-shoulder young atheist. SynchroniciDaddy was tying some remarkable knots in my life, for awhile... and though that could have been My Old Buddy Probability at work, I eventually had to admit that I knew it wasn't.
Some exposure to Methodism as a kid (because my atheist father had liked to sing in church, way back) may have gotten me thinking along those lines... but so did reading Mark Twain. I could see there was something definitely screwy about common images of God -- but it wasn't God at fault there, only limited human thinking.
For a long time I lost hope that there was anything 'out there' except physical processes following inexorable tracks towards the ultimate death of the universe -- couldn't see how God could be "good" and have power, could both have power over the universe and be good.
With the US war against Vietnam just starting its big escalation under LB Johnson, and LSD circulating though the colleges like mono, these were excessively interesting times... but everything kept falling into place, even though that was seldom the place I'd had in mind.
--------
Anyway. You could probably define 'a cult' as 'a religious group whose members really believe in it.' Inevitably these are small groups, not always well-wrapped, and their reputations among the larger population tends to be dubious. (Literally the word means something like 'a worship practice', ie whatever set of priests & rituals were established in some temple or shrine.)
-------------------
Something agricultural 'experts' often find (if they're paying attention) is that introducing new methods to a region doesn't always improve matters. Unreasonable traditional practices turn out to fit the weather and soil conditions of a place; the new methods have side effects that either cause immediate harm (soil drying out when you remove the rocks) or damage the soil over the long term. Disruption of local climates and soils has happened just from long time use of traditional irrigation; what's been happening these last few centuries has been way out of control.
Probably we can, should, must tinker with the religions we've received -- but there's One we need to consult in the process. (And that's almost a unique advantage of Friends' ways, yes?)
-
-
I'm a believer in the maxim that we define ourselves by defining our relationships with others.
Quakers remain tiny, obscure and uninteresting to the extent they don't engage with non-Quakers in the work of healing the world.
However Quakers have not so remained, being among the most active of networkers, and making up for their tiny numbers.
These days I'm especially interested in the Quaker-Sufi connection, especially in light of early Quaker interactions with Ottomans. I was just tweeting a couple links to those stories this morning.
https://twitter.com/thekirbster/status/745297033179725824
https://twitter.com/thekirbster/status/745297946409730050
-
-
I don't know if there was Sufi involvement in gaining an audience the Turkish ruler back in the day... but since the Sufis are the most closely analogous groups to us in the Moslem world, they would have been the most likely to sympathize with the request.
There are hints of some contact between the Sufis and St Francis, who could well be considered among our spiritual ancestors... (I don't know if this happened or is simply legend.)
But the Inquisitors along the way just roughed up all the traveling Friends they could catch and concluded we were nuts, too mad to really be heretics...
Offhand, though, I'd say that others get to mutually define our relationships with them; that's why we call others 'others' and relationships 'relationships.' As for our relationship with God, God gives us considerable slack... but however much we'd rather 'define' otherselves or that relationship, it is as it is...
-
-
I'm looking at Quakers putting an emphasis on practice, which extends to business. We still might hear of a "Sufi bank" but what "Quaker banks" still exist? They used to.
Islam is likewise built around practice (per Karen Armstrong etc.), more so than on "beliefs in the head" such as many Protestants profess (called a "creed" and sometimes recited out loud as a part of the service).
Religions got pushed out of having banks somehow, I think because a certain military-minded brand of secularist doesn't trust corporations that aren't a part of his "complex"? Religions have to stay on the nonprofit side of the fence at least. The arrangement feels forced to many.
In the Pacific Northwest, we've had some pacifist founders of high tech industries, I'm thinking of Doug Strain in particular. Though not a Quaker himself, his company helped Multnomah Meeting get started. Linus Pauling, Nobel Peace Prize, and his wife Ava (active in WILPF) figure in to this tableau (Doug one of Linus's students).
My point: the idea that religious values might have institutional expression, including around healthcare, finance and so on, should be no more "radical" than that philosophies might as well. Schools of thought have their businesses, including gift shops, what could be more natural. Sufis, like Quakers, are not prohibited from doing business together, maybe co-owning some stuff.
To be continued...
-
-
The reason for specifically Islamic banks is that there are services which people often need banks for -- but loans at interest aren't one of them, and can't be one of them for any institution run on a Koranic basis.
You could make a similar moral argument against interest on a Christian basis -- but so far as I know, that was not a principle of Quaker banking.
The principles on which the current financial system operates (I suggest you read _The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One_, and/or _F.I.A.S.C.O._ if you doubt this) are even further removed from any Christian nor even ethical grounding -- and the driving mechanism of it all is what the late Hyman Minsky called 'a ponzi market', a situation which makes the whole economic niche intrinsically criminogenic...
That is, there is no straight and narrow course available in the financial occupations, aside from a course that takes a person directly out of them via failing to satisfy the demands of supervisors or customers dissatisfied with their rate of return.
To keep up with the market and not actually lose money requires investments which are risky -- from the sorts of toxic securities the firm depicted in FIASCO commonly unloaded on their pension fund clients -- or worse -- directly fraudulent, akin to betting at a trackwhere the ticket seller can decide after the race which horse you've bet on... The significant money is not in whether a business effectively provides worthwhile goods or services, but in how the price of its stock can be most profitably manipulated.
You can, of course, potentially start a(n extremely-tiny) small business yourself and engage in some form of right livelihood -- I did that myself for a few years -- but with the 'real economy' in a shambles, this isn't a time I'd recommend trying that. And at best, as Galbraith once said, anybody making a living that way survives, so far as they do, through what he called 'self-exploitation', ie You eliminate payroll expenses by becoming your own slave.
-
-
Interestingly, The Bank of Whittier (old Quaker town) is one of those practicing halal riba-free banking, and according to my mom (who lives there half the year), lots of churches and church members put their savings there. It's a popular bank, valued by its community.
Banking of the more "western" sort likes to demonize Sharia as that means less competition for them, and only one set of rules for the playbook. Bank Asaya is one of those "Sufi banks" that suffered at the hands of fearful secularists afraid of a level playing field.What I'm seeing in the banking world is Grameen Bank style idealism about "micro-credit" now spilling over into "micro-payments", thanks to advances in mathematics. Yes, I'm talking about crypto-currencies such as bitcoin. Even mainstream bankers effuse about spreading their services to the "unbanked" using blockchain technology.
Quakers' Right Sharing of World Resources ethics may be consistent with Sufi business practices such that we might someday have Quaker meetings for business, and worship, on the 47th floor of some Islamic bank tower in Singapore and/or Kuala Lumpur (quiet / muted, no "wood stove" unless on the LCD). I'm looking in my crystal ball here.
-
-
Well, the "old Quaker" history of Whittier is actually from the "Indiana Quaker" tradition, a significantly different flavor than yours or mine (although it is what you see in 'Friendly Persuasion'.)
Likewise, there are complications I don't entirely grok about the functional kinds of 'interest' which in fact are permitted in traditional 'riba-free' banking; but the sort of predatory behavior common to Western-style 'investment' is verbotten, which I like.
"microcredit" can be used to describe some excellent, beneficial financial practices -- but also for various rip-off scams that have proliferated under that label since the initial successes were publicized.
"Bit-coin" is, to the best of my knowledge, simply another abstract "asset" capable of having its "price" inflated like any other abstract "asset". It does not cure cancer and I frankly don't care whether or not you're fond of it.
We can certainly maintain a long tradition of peaceful contacts with Islamic people and institutions; however I'm not at all sure that peace with Western governments is possible. (We really haven't had all that much influence on these since Quakers withdrew from the government of colonial Pennsylvania long ago, despite our obvious wish to do so and our illusions of wielding such influence despite all evidence that we're a barely-tolerated, at best patronized minority.)
-
-
"Bit-coin" is, to the best of my knowledge, simply another abstract "asset" capable of having its "price" inflated like any other abstract "asset". It does not cure cancer and I frankly don't care whether or not you're fond of it.
Yeah, you've got a lot of opinions. I frankly don't care about them. I'll take my banking business elsewhere.
Support Us
Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.
Latest Activity
"Hi Christopher, thanks for your ongoing support all this time; I understand needing to slow down…"
In person gathering - Friends of the Light
7th mo. 22, 2023 all dayFriends of the Light - Online worship
6th mo. 4, 2023 from 7pm to 8pm
"Hi Martin,
I hope other users have been making occasional/regular donations. I am…"
© 2023 Created by QuakerQuaker.
Powered by
