http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their legacy
lives on forever.
todd:
> I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of your
> assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you assume they
> are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
But Todd, Buddist monks do not comprise all of Buddism. There are
practicing Buddists among clerks, computer programmers, trash
collectors, etc. The monks are the celibate priesthood of the religion
but
NOT the religion itself. Same with Catholic priests (no jokes about
the recent scandels please!). And we all know that neither Catholicism
and Buddism is dying. Whereas the Shakers as a whole are
celibate. They have to rely on conversions for growth and as
it was previous noted, adoption to have children to be raised in the
society.
Sad to see them die out like this. They live(d) gently on this
land and we are the worse as a people to see go.
MJ Wallace
In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their stupidity.
> Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
The first is true, and I think the last is true. I ain't sure about the
one in the middle.
Any religious sect maintains itself by gaining adherents. This is
either done by recruitment or reproduction.
The fact the Shakers have been unable to recruit is not necessarily a
comment about those they have failed to recruit.
In article <[email protected]>, todd
<[email protected]> wrote:
> And
> if you believe that society as a whole values the things the Shakers value,
> I think you're kidding yourself.
Did I say such a thing? Don't think I did... I think I said that I
ain't sure that (what you said) "Their demise speaks more to our
society than their stupidity" is true. I'll leave it as an exercise for
the reader to decipher exactly what is, was, or could be meant by that.
> Add on top of that that, unlike other religious sects, it doesn't appear to me that Shakers do a lot of active
> recruitment.
From what I read they don't actively recruit at all. That's their
choice, and they are certainly aware that the four of them may be the
last. Again, their choice.
In article <[email protected]>, Lee Michaels
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
> >> little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He
> >> would
> >> want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
> >
> > Ah. The Church of Convenience. We have one of those here.
> > They have a special "2 Sins for 1" deal on Saturdays.
> >
> >
> This religion thing gets everybody worked up doesn't it?
>
> I notice that you did not address the real issue that was being discussed.
>
> Which was, is it a sign of intelligence that all members of a particular
> religion dies? Do you consider adapting to the world a sign of stupidity or
> intelligence?
>
> Is convenience a bad thing?? Particularly if it prevents death?
>
> Would you rather be "pure" and dead?
Well, me being dead is a 100% certainty. I should compromise my beliefs
so that those compromised beliefs outlast me?
"Bruce Barnett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
>> little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He
>> would
>> want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
>
> Ah. The Church of Convenience. We have one of those here.
> They have a special "2 Sins for 1" deal on Saturdays.
>
>
This religion thing gets everybody worked up doesn't it?
I notice that you did not address the real issue that was being discussed.
Which was, is it a sign of intelligence that all members of a particular
religion dies? Do you consider adapting to the world a sign of stupidity or
intelligence?
Is convenience a bad thing?? Particularly if it prevents death?
Would you rather be "pure" and dead?
"Ross Hebeisen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> my gosh you guy's are sure getting shook up over the shakers. is this
> what happens if ya get to close? remember we still have moony's out
> there. i hope because of the mention people don't start, well you know
> the rest.
> ross
...and the Moonies make guns, not furniture, seeds, and wooden boxes. ;~)
Justin Moon, son of the Reverend, runs Kahr (or did... haven't been paying
much attention lately). They make various handguns, Thompson sub-machine
guns, etc.
John
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
>>> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their
>>> stupidity. Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>>>
>> Have a good cry todd. In my youth, I actively researched various
>> religions and cults. I got a closeup look at over 50 active,
>> nontraditional religious organizations. And I can tell you that whatever
>> the beliefs or practices, there are those who survive and those who self
>> destruct.
>
> I'm not crying about anything. I have no stake in whether the Shakers
> survive or not. What I do have a problem with is people labeling them as
> "stupid" because they don't behave as they expect they should.
>
>> What is amazing is the claptrap you are spewing about folks who are
>> commiting professional and religious suicide. Suicide is ultimately
>> selfish. If they can not survive, they will die. And moaning and
>> complaining about it is not a solution.
>
> I don't see this as a problem in search of a solution.
>
>> I have met and talked to many people of various and diverse religious
>> practices. The ones who did not meet the needs of their followers and
>> were too dogmatic always have a way of crashing and burning. It isn't
>> right. It isn't smart. And it is so predictable.
>
> The Shaker religion appears to be more suited to an 1800s society than
> today's. If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it dying out.
> What do you want them to do? Change their whole belief system to be more
> palatable to today's society?
>
Animals in the forest don't think in terms of palatable. They think in terms
of survival. There is the quick and the dead. Change and adaptaability is
not only a sign of intelligence. It is a sign of survivability. (It is
also an evolutionary function.)
If the shakers have something of value, and I think they do, it can survive
a little change and updating. If they don't change, they can not share
their uniqness with the rest of us.
Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He would
want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>>>>
>>>> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
>>>> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
>>>> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their
>>>> legacy
>>>> lives on forever.
>>>>
>>> I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of
>>> biology. Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce.
>>> And like all good religions, they don't want to change traditional
>>> practices. Apparently their God would not approve of any changes. The
>>> net result is very predictable.
>>
>> I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of
>> your assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you
>> assume they are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
>>
> Don't get all upset.
Sorry about that. Ignorant people tend to piss me off.
> There are other obvious problems. Bhuddists can continue to exist because
> it is attractive enough to draw in converts. The Shaker religion is not.
>
> Whatever religion it is, if you can not sustain it, there is something
> wrong. Did God create the sect so it could die out? That seems like a
> good definition of stupid to me.
The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their stupidity.
Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
todd
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>>
>> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
>> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
>> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their legacy
>> lives on forever.
>>
> I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of
> biology. Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce. And
> like all good religions, they don't want to change traditional practices.
> Apparently their God would not approve of any changes. The net result is
> very predictable.
I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of your
assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you assume they
are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
todd
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
>> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their stupidity.
>> Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>>
> Have a good cry todd. In my youth, I actively researched various religions
> and cults. I got a closeup look at over 50 active, nontraditional
> religious organizations. And I can tell you that whatever the beliefs or
> practices, there are those who survive and those who self destruct.
I'm not crying about anything. I have no stake in whether the Shakers
survive or not. What I do have a problem with is people labeling them as
"stupid" because they don't behave as they expect they should.
> What is amazing is the claptrap you are spewing about folks who are
> commiting professional and religious suicide. Suicide is ultimately
> selfish. If they can not survive, they will die. And moaning and
> complaining about it is not a solution.
I don't see this as a problem in search of a solution.
> I have met and talked to many people of various and diverse religious
> practices. The ones who did not meet the needs of their followers and were
> too dogmatic always have a way of crashing and burning. It isn't right.
> It isn't smart. And it is so predictable.
The Shaker religion appears to be more suited to an 1800s society than
today's. If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it dying out. What
do you want them to do? Change their whole belief system to be more
palatable to today's society?
todd
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:280720062243020811%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, todd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
>> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their stupidity.
>> Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>
> The first is true, and I think the last is true. I ain't sure about the
> one in the middle.
>
> Any religious sect maintains itself by gaining adherents. This is
> either done by recruitment or reproduction.
>
> The fact the Shakers have been unable to recruit is not necessarily a
> comment about those they have failed to recruit.
Well, I wasn't going to waste this on Mr. Michaels, but there are probably
multiple factors resulting in the decline of the Shakers. First, even at
their zenith, there weren't really all that many...only about 6000. There
has also been a migration of the population away from rural areas where the
Shakers operated into the cities. Although Shakers don't procreate, they
did adopt orphans. New laws passed in 1960 barred them from adoption. And
if you believe that society as a whole values the things the Shakers value,
I think you're kidding yourself. Add on top of that that, unlike other
religious sects, it doesn't appear to me that Shakers do a lot of active
recruitment.
Lots of good ideas end up failing for one reason or another, but it doesn't
automatically make the idea stupid, as Mr. Michaels seems to think.
todd
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:53:53 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
>>>> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their
>>>> stupidity. Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>>>>
>>> Have a good cry todd. In my youth, I actively researched various
>>> religions and cults. I got a closeup look at over 50 active,
>>> nontraditional religious organizations. And I can tell you that whatever
>>> the beliefs or practices, there are those who survive and those who self
>>> destruct.
>>
>> I'm not crying about anything. I have no stake in whether the Shakers
>> survive or not. What I do have a problem with is people labeling them as
>> "stupid" because they don't behave as they expect they should.
>>
>>> What is amazing is the claptrap you are spewing about folks who are
>>> commiting professional and religious suicide. Suicide is ultimately
>>> selfish. If they can not survive, they will die. And moaning and
>>> complaining about it is not a solution.
>>
>> I don't see this as a problem in search of a solution.
>>
>>> I have met and talked to many people of various and diverse religious
>>> practices. The ones who did not meet the needs of their followers and
>>> were too dogmatic always have a way of crashing and burning. It isn't
>>> right. It isn't smart. And it is so predictable.
>>
>> The Shaker religion appears to be more suited to an 1800s society than
>> today's. If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it dying out.
>> What do you want them to do? Change their whole belief system to be more
>> palatable to today's society?
>>
>Animals in the forest don't think in terms of palatable. They think in terms
>of survival. There is the quick and the dead. Change and adaptaability is
>not only a sign of intelligence. It is a sign of survivability. (It is
>also an evolutionary function.)
>
>If the shakers have something of value, and I think they do, it can survive
>a little change and updating. If they don't change, they can not share
>their uniqness with the rest of us.
>
>Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
>little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He would
>want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
>
>
From what I read about the Shakers they welcomed change and
experimented with new methods and tools. No wonder so many inventions
were traced back to the Shakers. I visited the museum in Kentucky and
the meetinghouse was amazing--no middle supports. Masters at herbal
medicine, genetics, neutrality and equality. Supposedly they had the
first plumbing too. Not sure if they invented milk paints, but that
is one tough wood finish.
Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>>>>
>>>> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
>>>> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
>>>> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their
>>>> legacy lives on forever.
>>>>
>>> I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of
>>> biology. Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce.
>>> And like all good religions, they don't want to change traditional
>>> practices. Apparently their God would not approve of any changes. The
>>> net result is very predictable.
>>
>> I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of
>> your assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you
>> assume
>> they are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
>>
> Don't get all upset.
>
> There are other obvious problems. Bhuddists can continue to exist because
> it is attractive enough to draw in converts. The Shaker religion is not.
???? Buddhists make more Buddhists the old fashioned way. There is nothing
in Buddhism that requires celibacy. It's not even required for monks in
all orders.
> Whatever religion it is, if you can not sustain it, there is something
> wrong. Did God create the sect so it could die out? That seems like a
> good definition of stupid to me.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Phisherman wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:53:53 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy,
>>>>> and
>>>>> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their
>>>>> stupidity. Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>>>>>
>>>> Have a good cry todd. In my youth, I actively researched various
>>>> religions and cults. I got a closeup look at over 50 active,
>>>> nontraditional religious organizations. And I can tell you that
>>>> whatever the beliefs or practices, there are those who survive and
>>>> those who self destruct.
>>>
>>> I'm not crying about anything. I have no stake in whether the Shakers
>>> survive or not. What I do have a problem with is people labeling them
>>> as "stupid" because they don't behave as they expect they should.
>>>
>>>> What is amazing is the claptrap you are spewing about folks who are
>>>> commiting professional and religious suicide. Suicide is ultimately
>>>> selfish. If they can not survive, they will die. And moaning and
>>>> complaining about it is not a solution.
>>>
>>> I don't see this as a problem in search of a solution.
>>>
>>>> I have met and talked to many people of various and diverse religious
>>>> practices. The ones who did not meet the needs of their followers and
>>>> were too dogmatic always have a way of crashing and burning. It isn't
>>>> right. It isn't smart. And it is so predictable.
>>>
>>> The Shaker religion appears to be more suited to an 1800s society than
>>> today's. If that's the case, there's nothing wrong with it dying out.
>>> What do you want them to do? Change their whole belief system to be
>>> more palatable to today's society?
>>>
>>Animals in the forest don't think in terms of palatable. They think in
>>terms
>>of survival. There is the quick and the dead. Change and adaptaability is
>>not only a sign of intelligence. It is a sign of survivability. (It is
>>also an evolutionary function.)
>>
>>If the shakers have something of value, and I think they do, it can
>>survive
>>a little change and updating. If they don't change, they can not share
>>their uniqness with the rest of us.
>>
>>Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
>>little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He would
>>want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
>>
>>
>
> From what I read about the Shakers they welcomed change and
> experimented with new methods and tools. No wonder so many inventions
> were traced back to the Shakers. I visited the museum in Kentucky and
> the meetinghouse was amazing--no middle supports. Masters at herbal
> medicine, genetics, neutrality and equality. Supposedly they had the
> first plumbing too.
You mean there were Shakers around before the time of Jesus?
> Not sure if they invented milk paints, but that
> is one tough wood finish.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>>>
>>> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
>>> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
>>> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their legacy
>>> lives on forever.
>>>
>> I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of
>> biology. Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce.
>> And like all good religions, they don't want to change traditional
>> practices. Apparently their God would not approve of any changes. The net
>> result is very predictable.
>
> I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of
> your assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you assume
> they are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
>
Don't get all upset.
There are other obvious problems. Bhuddists can continue to exist because it
is attractive enough to draw in converts. The Shaker religion is not.
Whatever religion it is, if you can not sustain it, there is something
wrong. Did God create the sect so it could die out? That seems like a good
definition of stupid to me.
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>
> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and this
> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their legacy
> lives on forever.
>
I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of biology.
Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce. And like all
good religions, they don't want to change traditional practices. Apparently
their God would not approve of any changes. The net result is very
predictable.
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2006/07/23/the_last_ones_standing/?page=full
>>>>>
>>>>> Only four Shakers are left in the world, all living in southern Maine.
>>>>> But if they can't attract converts to their celibate lifestyle and
>>>>> this
>>>>> really is the end for them, they have a plan to ensure that their
>>>>> legacy
>>>>> lives on forever.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose that the shakers have a very good understanding of
>>>> biology. Since they follow absolute celibacy, they can not reproduce.
>>>> And like all good religions, they don't want to change traditional
>>>> practices. Apparently their God would not approve of any changes. The
>>>> net result is very predictable.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you slapped yourself on the back after posting this because of
>>> your assumed semi-humorous content. Because they are celibate, you
>>> assume they are stupid? Do you believe the same about Buddhist monks?
>>>
>> Don't get all upset.
>
> Sorry about that. Ignorant people tend to piss me off.
>
>> There are other obvious problems. Bhuddists can continue to exist because
>> it is attractive enough to draw in converts. The Shaker religion is not.
>>
>> Whatever religion it is, if you can not sustain it, there is something
>> wrong. Did God create the sect so it could die out? That seems like a
>> good definition of stupid to me.
>
> The Shakers are devoutly religious and believe in honesty, celibacy, and
> hard work. Their demise speaks more to our society than their stupidity.
> Your attempt to belittle them is repugnant.
>
Have a good cry todd. In my youth, I actively researched various religions
and cults. I got a closeup look at over 50 active, nontraditional religious
organizations. And I can tell you that whatever the beliefs or practices,
there are those who survive and those who self destruct.
What is amazing is the claptrap you are spewing about folks who are
commiting professional and religious suicide. Suicide is ultimately
selfish. If they can not survive, they will die. And moaning and
complaining about it is not a solution.
I have met and talked to many people of various and diverse religious
practices. The ones who did not meet the needs of their followers and were
too dogmatic always have a way of crashing and burning. It isn't right. It
isn't smart. And it is so predictable.
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes:
> Well, me being dead is a 100% certainty. I should compromise my beliefs
> so that those compromised beliefs outlast me?
Well, the Shakers probably felt that if they compromised their
beliefs, they would risk their eternal soul.
I guess if one don't believe in a soul, one would consider this
decision stupid.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> writes:
> Would shakers be better if they are "pure" and dead? How about change a
> little and enrich all of us? Oh, I know, God wouldn't want that. He would
> want them to die, right? Part of a bigger plan, right?
Ah. The Church of Convenience. We have one of those here.
They have a special "2 Sins for 1" deal on Saturdays.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.