The Light

[Jstwebbrowsing]

and dont talk about the Light as if you understand it, please. if you want to know more about the Light, open a thread. otherwise you should stick to what you do know.

"Inward light, Light of God, Light of Christ, Christ within, That of God, Spirit of God within us, Light within, and inner light are related phrases commonly used within the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) as metaphors for Christ's light shining on or in them.  It was propagated by the founder of the Quaker movement, George Fox, who "preached faith in and reliance on 'inward light' (the presence of Christ in the heart)".[1][2] The first Quakers were known to sit in silence and meditate on the words of the Bible until they felt the inward light of God shining upon them and the Holy Spirit speaking." (Wiki)

I said, "'The Light' is contained within the teachings of the Bible."  What I mean is the "Spirit of God within us" is contained within the teachings of the Bible.  This seems to be the proper usage.

"The Key to the Faith and Practice of the Religious Society of Friends states that the Inward Light is "both the historical, living Jesus, and as the Grace of God extended to people that simultaneously makes us conscious of our sins, forgives them, and gives us the strength and the will to overcome them" and "teaches us the difference between right and wrong, truth and falseness, good and evil".[6][7] As such, the word light is commonly used by Christians (including Quakers) as a metaphor for Christ, derived from many Biblical passages including John 8:12" (Wiki)

I guess what I am recommending is the practice of the first Quakers.

How is my usage of "The Light" incorrect?

[kevin]

I guess what I am recommending is the practice of the first Quakers.

there is a lot in ^^^there. please be aware that when i am talking about the Light, i am mostly talking about ^^^this, as that is my primary understanding. but i dont speak for other quakers, and we are very diverse. some will depart significantly from the early witness, and i will too. but when i do i will call it out so you can see the departure from tradition in what i might be saying now.

I said, "'The Light' is contained within the teachings of the Bible."  What I mean is the "Spirit of God within us" is contained within the teachings of the Bible.  This seems to be the proper usage.

actually, no. the Light is much larger than the bible, and has aspects that are not dealt with in scripture. to early friends, the bible was the bare minimum of what was necessary to follow christ. it didnt cover things that were considered essential guidance for optimal practice of chistianity.

i could quote extensive discussions in early quaker writings about it, but i will spare you. the lesson is basically that the bible was first, minimally adequate, and second, inessential to the practice of  christianity. i suspect you would disagree with that, and that is why i suggest your understanding of the Light is not the same as what the early quakers meant by the term.

this part from wiki is certainly wrong:

. . . The first Quakers were known to sit in silence and meditate on the words of the Bible . . .

^^^thats not what they were doing, then or now.

next,

[the Light is] both the historical, living Jesus, and as the Grace of God extended to people that simultaneously makes us conscious of our sins, forgives them, and gives us the strength and the will to overcome them" and "teaches us the difference between right and wrong, truth and falseness, good and evil".

^^^this is correct, but its incomplete. i know this because i wrote it. a definition from one of my websites has found its way into wikipedia and then into your post.

what is left out is that the Light is also a direct guide to the everday life of the christian, both in his spiritual jpouirney and in the day to day decisions that a christian faces and should ideally look to the guidance of god for direction. for example, if a christian is considering a ministry abroad, the bible has nothing to offer him in the way of advice, except in the most vague and general sense. the Light can assist the christian specifically in where to go, when to go, who to take, and what to take. or perhaps there are specific questions a christian might have sbout a family emergency. the bible offrs nothing in many cases, whereas the Light can be specific.

these aspects of the Light can also be satisfied through prayer.

but this is key:

. . . simultaneously makes us conscious of our sins, forgives them, and gives us the strength and the will to overcome them

quakers held that the Light extended from god was able to completely counter the effects of original sin, allowing the friend to live a life in sinless accordance to the will of god, according to his or her measure. most christians deny this pretty violently. reformed protestans especially deny that a man or woman can live a sinelss life, but quakers nonetheless asserted that it could be done.

like i said, i am the author of this passage, so of course i believe it accurate.  but the topic bears more discussion.

[dutchy]

quakers held that the Light extended from god was able to completely counter the effects of original sin, allowing the friend to live a life in sinless accordance to the will of god, according to his or her measure. most christians deny this pretty violently. reformed protestans especially deny that a man or woman can live a sinelss life, but quakers nonetheless asserted that it could be done.

i also believe this, but the topic bearsmore discussion.

I came to the same conclusion without knowing about 'quakers'.

The only different opinion i have, is that i dismiss 'original sin' all together.
In my opinion humanity is on a trajectory from 'survival of the fittest/ temporary selfishness' to a 'spiritual co-worker of God/Jesus'....each on his own level, ability and unique way to reflect the light of God.

[kevin]

original sin is a concept that quakers mostly rejected.

the idea was equated to a powerful man throwing a child over a cliff, then blaming the child for causing his own death, because it was the momentum of the fall that killed him, and not the earlier action of throwing him over the edge.

yoyur idea of "each on his own level" corresponds to the quaker idea of ones measure, where potentials differ but everyone can be 100 percent faithful to what one is given.

[kevin]

nbfef

[Jstwebbrowsing]

actually, no. the Light is much larger than the bible,

I did not mean to imply otherwise.  I also called it the spirit of God within.  A better choice of words is the Light is present within the teachings of the Bible.  The Light appears to me to be a metaphor taken from the Bible.

what is left out is that the Light is also a direct guide to the everday life of the christian, both in his spiritual jpouirney and in the day to day decisions that a christian faces and should ideally look to the guidance of god for direction. for example, if a christian is considering a ministry abroad, the bible has nothing to offer him in the way of advice, except in the most vague and general sense. the Light can assist the christian specifically in where to go, when to go, who to take, and what to take. or perhaps there are specific questions a christian might have sbout a family emergency. the bible offrs nothing in many cases, whereas the Light can be specific.

Yes, I understand that.  Other than the terminology, I don't see anything different from my own Bible based beliefs.  I believe the Holy Spirit does those things.

quakers held that the Light extended from god was able to completely counter the effects of original sin, allowing the friend to live a life in sinless accordance to the will of god, according to his or her measure. most christians deny this pretty violently. reformed protestans especially deny that a man or woman can live a sinelss life, but quakers nonetheless asserted that it could be done.

I certainly agree with that insofar as following the Light means obeying God according to your knowledge and ability.

I have found that regularly reading the Bible has certain effects on me.  It sensitizes my conscience and awareness of sin and helps focus my mind on the things of God.  It contains both encouragement and discipline.  I see it as food for my mind and spirit, to keep them healthy.  It is not an alternative to following the Spirit, but aids me in doing so.  It also helps me distinguish God's light from some other deceptive lights that are in the world. 

[kevin]

welcome back, jst

you are correct in observing that the Light metaphors are scriptural, and that it is present in scripture. but there have been lots of disagreements over whether chrisianity fully encompasses the Light. this argument dates back at least 200 years in my own meeting, and lots of modern quakers are explicitly non-christian, or even non-theist. theres lots of variety.

another word for the Light--in my opinion-- is the Logos. this is a greek term that appears throughout the NT in reference to grace, Light, and the christ. in some ways they are interchangeable, and the implications of that are pretty important, imo.

you might consider setting the bible down sometime, and then sitting quietly and just listening. it may be that god has some things to say to you that you cant easily hear while your attention is focused on the bible.