It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Shakers - Once the biggest sect in the US.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Where are the addresses to these perversion verses.

1 Cor 7: 8-9; 32-34



Not the context and not the doctrine.


The context, as it relates to the Shakers, the subject of this thread, is celibacy. Paul explains the concept of celibacy and the need for the weak to marry, lest they succumb to "passion". He warns that marriage leads to worldly goals, while the unmarried and celibate have no need to worry about pleasing their wives and husbands and can focus on pleasing "the lord" free from distraction.

Paul couldn't be clearer. Sorry if it doesn't fit your narrative of evil and perverted celibate men and women.




posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

What? I know you are not without some understanding of English. I spoke of the contest of the Bible verses not the shakers a perverse group are best who forbade eating of meant and from Marrying,

Paul did not in any sense forbid any from marrying he gave advice to singles but you failed to show one verse on his support of marriage. Like the MSM you created a fake doctrine (fake news) based on personal bias with verses out of context of the Bible scriptures, and left out the truth so as to give the impression Paul forbade people to marry, something he never did.

The MSM do this to Trump all the time. They like you learned this from the public school systems and colleges in the US and abroad.


edit on 19-3-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

This thread has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

There's nothing out of context in those verses from I Corinthians. Paul didn't forbid marriage, but he recommended against it. Like the Essene, Shakers, also, didn't forbid marriage, they actually had religious accommodations for those among them who chose marriage. But, for the most part, Shakers were a sect that attracted those who, like Paul, thought it better for their spirituality to avoid the physical entanglement of marriage and sex.



Also, abstaining from meat is not biblically forbidden, and vegetarianism isn't perverted. The Essene were vegetarians.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I must say, the music in my opening post really gripped me.
That is good stuff.

Since then I've watched more clips and documentaries on the Shakers, although I'm still sorting through a substantial amount of information.

It's perhaps not fair to say they are quite extinct, and there's a few oldtimers and Shakers about.

On the celibacy issue (the lady who founded them lost four babies), I understood the law applied in their communities, which strike me as similar to Hare Krishna ashrams.
The men and women had different quarters, and even separate staircases and doorways.
However congregational members who lived outside the "compounds" also attended the services, and they were not celibate.
The Shakers also adopted orphans, especially as many adults died on the frontier.
Of course teaching celibacy and implementing it can be two different things, and the fields back then were wide.

They had a good reputation, from almost all the commentators of the time.
When their neighbors stole their vegetables, they grew an extra field for them, because "even thieves and crows must eat".
In winter the homeless would pretend to be Shakers to be taken in by them, and in spring they would leave again.
The Shakers knew this ruse, and called them the "winter Shakers".
However, they always admitted them.

There seems to have been an element of spiritualism and mediumship added to Christian teachings, and they also claimed to channel "Indian spirits".
They were non-racial for the context of the time, and at times protected runaway slaves (even purchasing their freedom, in one case at least).

I think (must re-check), but it was ultimately Nathaniel Hawthorne who predicted their coming problems.
A religious community that works hard from dawn till dusk (they got up at 4:30 in summer, and did a day's work before breakfast) will ultimately become very prosperous, and that prosperity is at odds with communal living and their professed non-material ideals.
Eventually people want a bit of the "good life" for their labors.
Especially young people.
Towards their decline their estates were worth considerable sums, although the details are bit sketchy.
But it seems most are museums, and home to a few oldtimers.

Strangely, unlike the Amish who attract culinary tour groups, the Shakers were never famous for their cooking, although they manufactured and sold a variety of foodstuffs (as well as booze and opium - but that was a legal medicine in the 19th century).
Most visitors described their food as "bland" at best.
But, I guess the music makes up for it.
edit on 19-3-2017 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Bland food?
I believe that's just not gonna fly for long in the US.

Even today I often find the first thing US visitors ask when sharing a meal: "Where's the sauces?"

As Bill Bryson points out in his book Made In America (1998), the diet of even the lower middle class in the US in the 19th century was far superior to that of the average (never mind the poor) Europeans.
Even the slaves in the US generally ate better and had better housing than the proletariat in Britain.

Oh well, I guess too much work with kill you, just as sure as none at all.
Same with sex, I suppose.


edit on 19-3-2017 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman



Bland food?


I wonder if their bland food was a result of ancient stoic philosophy about salt and the evils of spicy seasonings?


The priests so greatly dislike the nature of excrementitious things, that they not only reject most kinds of pulse, and the flesh of sheep and swine, as producing much superfluity of nutriment, but during the fasts they even banish all salt from their meals, assigning many other reasons for so doing, and particularly that salt makes people more fond of drinking and of eating, by sharpening the appetite: for to consider, as Aristagoras pretends, that salt is not pure because multitudes of little insects are caught and die in it as it is congealing, is mere folly. They are said also to give the Apis drink out of a well of his own, but to keep

www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

A good question.

Today the Western World often forgets what hunger is like, and what it means to have a wolf in your belly.

edit on 19-3-2017 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman
Alternatively, the blandness could just be the side-effect of growing their own food. Spices would have to be bought in.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Although they were famous for their pickles and preserves, and other delicacies they produced for sale to outsiders.

Maybe one of those anti-materialistic things which ultimately brought in too much money - the love of which is the old Christian enemy.

But if I was a young Shaker, I'd also wonder.
We sell these things, but generally don't eat them.
Too sensual.
Stuff that, I rather make them and cash in for myself.

Although, apparently by the time their neighbors woke up, the Shaker brothers had already fed the livestock and worked the fields, and they were hungry as wolverines.
They had prodigious amounts of apple pie for breakfast.
Perhaps it's also just people visiting for supper, which was not the main Shaker meal.
They should have rather visited for breakfast.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
A bit of a grim joke, but it was once widely told about young Afrikaner brothers in South Africa.

Why do young Shakers sometimes leave and join the army?

So that they can sleep an hour later and grow their hair a centimeter longer.

edit on 19-3-2017 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Just bringing you up to date with how men handle things deceitfully as you handled the word of God deceitfully concerning the word's of Paul. He did not recommend it for everyone but a chosen few, and very few of that few took his advice.

you best learn more Bible and dropped all that Essene nonsense. The essenes died out just like the shakers because their form was a perversion.



edit on 19-3-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
The Shakers - music:

Shaker hymns:


Once the biggest Christian sect in North America.

Seventeen communities, with thousands of members.

Now just a history museum.

What happened?


Nice thanks for sharing



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



The essenes died out just like the shakers because their form was a perversion.


Your hatred has been noted. Persistence doesn't equal righteousness. You'd be hard pressed to find any true "Christians" in this day and age, your judgmental and condemning self included.


edit on 20-3-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Not one word of hatred did I utter just stating a fact.
edit on 20-3-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Debate my friends.

The Scriptures are not entirely clear on many things.

But it's clear on one thing: Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


This thread has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

And --- Did Paul write either letter to the Corinthians? I was taught that the letter of 1st Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Timotheus.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



And --- Did Paul write either letter to the Corinthians? I was taught that the letter of 1st Corinthians was written from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Timotheus.


Does it matter in the context of this thread, about the Shakers and their penchant for celibacy? It's in the New Testament of the Bible, a work that Christians follow and refer to.
edit on 20-3-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Does it matter in the context of this thread, about the Shakers and their penchant for celibacy? It's in the New Testament of the Bible, a work that Christians follow and refer to.

Yes it certainly does matter when specifics are entailed. You don't credit or discredit one person's accountability with another person's name regardless of the context of any literature. That is disingenuous to say the least. I believe you posted the very opposite when you said "This thread has nothing to do with Donald Trump." Why then does that not apply to the apostle Paul?

The Shakers were mixed religious groups of very misguided 18th century protestants who called themselves Christians. There was no connection between them and the doctrine of Jesus through the NT or the Nazarene congregation of James. They were a religion among themselves that led them into total confusion.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede





You don't credit or discredit one person's accountability with another person's name regardless of the context of any literature.


When did I do that? I said that Paul wrote I Corinthians. That's a pretty wide belief, even though I don't think anyown can prove it's true or untrue. If you think that claiming Paul authored that epistle is an insult, then you're going to mad at a LOT of people!


The book of 1st Corinthians is a Pauline Epistle (letter from Paul). The Apostle Paul wrote it about 56 A.D. The key personalities of this book are the Apostle Paul, Timothy and also Chloe’s household. Paul’s purpose in writing this letter to the church in Corinth was to address and correct the immorality and divisions that had arisen among them.

In chapters 5-11, Paul exposes all of the immorality that was occurring in the church at Corinth. These include sexual immorality, issues of marriage, and lawsuits with other believers. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9). Paul warns believers to be careful how you live, "For you have been bought with a price" (vs 20),
biblehub.com...


I've never met a person professing to be a Christian that wasn't confused and misguided.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


I've never met a person professing to be a Christian that wasn't confused and misguided.

The letter of which most bibles call 1st Corinthians is actually not the first letter to the Corinthians of the epistles of Paul but the second letter written in Paul's behalf. This letter, that is probably in your bible, is a Qorintiym Ri'shon Pseudepigraphal Cepher written from Philippi by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Timotheus. In other words it was written in behalf of Paul by Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus and Timotheus. Scholars are divided somewhat as to why it was not defined as pseudepigraphal. This should not be confused with the letter to the Corinthians of Clement. Clement was a disciple of the apostle John and died in 110 CE. Clement of Rome's letter is, at times, confused with the first Corinthians of which most bibles are accredited.

So why all this confusion? Well, for the most part there is a vast difference in a letter that is written and then credited to another person than that same letter being written by the accredited author. That is almost the same as - he said - she said type of literature. In other words one cannot quote a person who is not the author of that word as saying that word. Especially when that word is a derogatory word or used in a debate. It simply is not fair debate.

There are actually only seven letters that Paul wrote of which we have today. He is accredited with 14 letters by most Christians but in reality 7 of those 14 letters are not written by Paul. 1st and 2nd Corinthians happen to be two of those 14 epistles. Internet sources are often very inaccurate.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join