Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Floatingaxe]

Who said any such thing? Did you totally bypass what I said about REMEMBERING the name from an earlier time, and the memory being recalled as NEGATIVE? The search simply pulled up, as the FIRST site pulled, as CONFIRMATION of what I already remembered from a discussion at an earlier time.

You don't know him, or his excellent anointing in the area of his ministry of helping people gain spiritual freedom.

From what I've seen in the past, you work from nothing but your own spoon-fed imagination.

Untrue.

Interesting that this was all you had to offer, in defense of a username and a picture which are a misrepresentation of Scripture. The point being, of course, if you can't even get that right, then on what basis do you presume to criticize other Christians and claim to base it on "the Word of God?"

It is comical that you harp on my username an less than perfect photo-rendering of it. Big deal! I'm a member of a message board, not the president of a company using it as my name stamp!

 

[Rev Wayne]

the whole discussion on Anderson's credentials is pointless. each of you is working off of a falacy. what he said stands. giving extra weight to his words because he has a doctorate is an appeal to authority and claiming that he doesn't have one is Ad Hominem.

Sorry, I can't go with you on this one. No blood-bought, Spirit-filled Christian is "demon-possessed." Sure, I quote-marked the "Dr.," but that was NOT my main point in the matter, nor was I "appealing to authority." I simply pointed out, we'd been there before and there had been discussions indicating his ideas were questionable, and merely noted that the first site pulled seemed to confirm my recollection of it, being a negative take also.

But if there was a main point I made that could be lifted out as the gist of what I would contend with concerning his ideas, it would be the main premise which undergirds his work, the idea that Christians can be demon-possessed. I think every witness you can find in the NT dealing with demons or demonic possession, you will not find anything to support his claim.

 

[god's_pawn]

I have always posted in bold and will continue. Sorry that it annoys you.

it's not necessarily that it's annoying but more so that it's rude. it's like you're shouting all the time when you obviously don't need to. bold will not necessarily encourage someone to read your post, and trying to encourge that is unfair to other posters and a bit of a pride issue since it automatically assumes that what you are saying is blatant truth which is not always the case. it is a courtesy you could well afford to act upon. I have no doubt that that is what Jesus would do. He rarely shouted and when He did He had good reason to. your posts rarely if ever have the need for shouting in them.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Sorry, I can't go with you on this one. No blood-bought, Spirit-filled Christian is "demon-possessed." Sure, I quote-marked the "Dr.," but that was NOT my main point in the matter, nor was I "appealing to authority." I simply pointed out, we'd been there before and there had been discussions indicating his ideas were questionable, and merely noted that the first site pulled seemed to confirm my recollection of it, being a negative take also.

But if there was a main point I made that could be lifted out as the gist of what I would contend with concerning his ideas, it would be the main premise which undergirds his work, the idea that Christians can be demon-possessed. I think every witness you can find in the NT dealing with demons or demonic possession, you will not find anything to support his claim.

That's funny, seeing as so many Christians come forward in churches for the release of demonic strongholds. The unsaved don't care about spiritual freedom. Christians do. It is the modern Christian church that has allowed compromise to settle in to such an extent that Satan has a toehold on many.

 

[Floatingaxe]

it's not necessarily that it's annoying but more so that it's rude. it's like you're shouting all the time when you obviously don't need to. bold will not necessarily encourage someone to read your post, and trying to encourge that is unfair to other posters and a bit of a pride issue since it automatically assumes that what you are saying is blatant truth which is not always the case. it is a courtesy you could well afford to act upon. I have no doubt that that is what Jesus would do. He rarely shouted and when He did He had good reason to. your posts rarely if ever have the need for shouting in them.

The rule is that capital letters signifies shouting. If you wish, you may take it to the moderators. Thanks.

 

[god's_pawn]

It is comical that you harp on my username an less than perfect photo-rendering of it. Big deal! I'm a member of a message board, not the president of a company using it as my name stamp!

um, no axe, he made a good point there. his issue with your profile pic is just plain stupid, but you need to work on the issue being discussed not the person you disagree with. also, saying "Off-topic deflection! That's a sign of hiding behind a weak argument" and then failing to explain it is rather pointless. he may have made an off-topic deflection, but the rest of what you said means nothing without explanation. you need to put forth your own arguments not just attack everyone else's.

 

[Floatingaxe]

um, no axe, he made a good point there. his issue with your profile pic is just plain stupid,

You got THAT right!

 

[god's_pawn]

Sorry, I can't go with you on this one. No blood-bought, Spirit-filled Christian is "demon-possessed." Sure, I quote-marked the "Dr.," but that was NOT my main point in the matter, nor was I "appealing to authority." I simply pointed out, we'd been there before and there had been discussions indicating his ideas were questionable, and merely noted that the first site pulled seemed to confirm my recollection of it, being a negative take also.

But if there was a main point I made that could be lifted out as the gist of what I would contend with concerning his ideas, it would be the main premise which undergirds his work, the idea that Christians can be demon-possessed. I think every witness you can find in the NT dealing with demons or demonic possession, you will not find anything to support his claim.

you're still using that fallacy. he may be wrong on his demon possession deal (which i'm not going to discuss here), but that in no way affacts what he said about freemasonry. unless you can disprove the statement with your own arguments you must take it as it is. also, using the fact that it was the frst page is another fallacy. 1: your using the appeal to authority argument (in assuming that the first post is the most visited one), 2: assuming that because it was first that the majority are arguing the same thing, and/or 3: it is quite often the case where the first page seen in a google search is from the site that paid the most to be put there. you saw one site, that's all the evidence you really had.

 

[god's_pawn]

The rule is that capital letters signifies shouting. If you wish, you may take it to the moderators. Thanks.

i'm not going by the rules, i'm going by the natural conception of your attitude. also, you failed to answer the other points i made. and ignoring them doesn't make them go away either.

 

[god's_pawn]

You got THAT right!

you're taking my words a little out of context there, you should've dropped the "um, no axe, he made a good point there." part

also, most people will take the emoticons you are using as a form of mocking them. i would suggest that you desist from such usages.

 

[Floatingaxe]

i'm not going by the rules, i'm going by the natural conception of your attitude. also, you failed to answer the other points i made. and ignoring them doesn't make them go away either.

You are mistaken about my attitude. All my 14,370 plus posts have been in bold typeface. It is my choice, just as others choose light blue Verdana size 3, which I find hard to read. Oh, well--I like them just the same.

 

[Floatingaxe]

you're taking my words a little out of context there, you should've dropped the "um, no axe, he made a good point there." part

also, most people will take the emoticons you are using as a form of mocking them. i would suggest that you desist from such usages.

It is allowed. Once again, take it to the moderators. Thanks, and stick to the topic, rather than personally addressing posters, which is against the TOS.

 

[god's_pawn]

You are mistaken about my attitude. All my 14,370 plus posts have been in bold typeface. It is my choice, just as others choose light blue Verdana size 3, which I find hard to read. Oh, well--I like them just the same.

it's not about what you meant but how people conceive it. and you still haven't answered my other points.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It is comical that you harp on my username an less than perfect photo-rendering of it. Big deal!

It's even more comical that you think misrepresenting Scripture while criticizing others based on your understanding of Scripture is something to make light of and treat as "big deal" as though it is of no import. If you are this far off the mark with a Scripture which is eminently plain, how far off the mark will you be with those that are not so plain and simple? And it matters very much when you profess to be criticizing others "based on the Word of God," when the primary example we have of your biblical interpretation is a username that goes against what Scripture says, I don't care how many laughing mice you post with your defense of it.

And so far it's a quite noticeable feature of every post you have entered so far, that you have yet to even "base one thing on the Word of God." It has all been your comments, belligerently declared as though they were actually true.

his issue with your profile pic is just plain stupid

Well, gee thanks for the vote of confidence, but I disagree. This has been pointed out before, that we are told that "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." That "rightly dividing" is correct interpretation and representation of Scriptural truth, and has a lot of applications and a lot of good, sound reasons for why one must be diligent. In this particular instance, an axehead had been borrowed and its borrower had lost the axehead from the handle, dropping it into the river. The prophet Elisha threw a stick in the spot, and this iron axehead came floating to the surface. As a miracle, it was a bit unusual.

The problem with the matter is, it is beyond comprehension to understand an iron axehead to float in such a manner. Given the scoffers and deniers that we have in our current time, it would be much simpler for someone to suggest (as is often done in regard to miracles) that an axe--particularly one with the long and large wooden handle like the one in the picture--could float by natural means. I've read of the same thing being done to explain the parting of the Red Sea by an east wind, and the crossing of the Red Sea in "three inches of water" after the waters parted. But anyone familiar with the Word will know the response to such things. (1) If someone scoffing at this suggested a "floating axe," and the wood of the handle as the reason for it, I would point out that it specifically says axehead. (2) The "east wind" explanation still doesn't explain how the waters "stood on either side of them in a heap," and that "heap" of water then fell in on the Egyptians. (And a "heap" is hardly "three inches.") (3) The Bible specifically says they crossed "on dry land," not in standing water.

Perhaps you and FloatingAxe can accept this level of interpreting the Word, but I beg to differ.

 

[Rev Wayne]

it's not about what you meant but how people conceive it. and you still haven't answered my other points.

It's not an issue I would ever have raised, but any time anyone posts in all bold, it has a tendency when I cite such a post, to "leak" over into parts that I did not intend to embolden. But it's a simple thing to de-bold it, so I've never seen any reason to raise it as an issue. I am curious, though, why such a personal quirk would become such an issue for you? After all, if every post is bold, it's not like anything is being implied by it, like any particular emphasis or anything. I think you over-state the matter with "how people perceive it," since we have a total of one who has perceived anything by it worth mentioning.

 

[god's_pawn]

It is allowed. Once again, take it to the moderators. Thanks, and stick to the topic, rather than personally addressing posters, which is against the TOS.

permission doesn't make it good (1 Corinthians 10:23 -- "All things are legitimate [permissible--and we are free to do anything we please], but not all things are helpful (expedient, profitable, and wholesome). All things are legitimate, but not all things are constructive [to character] and edifying [to spiritual life]." -- Amplified Bible) and i'm not debating you, i'm debating your posts/methods

 

[Floatingaxe]

It's even more comical that you think misrepresenting Scripture while criticizing others based on your understanding of Scripture is something to make light of and treat as "big deal" as though it is of no import. If you are this far off the mark with a Scripture which is eminently plain, how far off the mark will you be with those that are not so plain and simple? And it matters very much when you profess to be criticizing others "based on the Word of God," when the primary example we have of your biblical interpretation is a username that goes against what Scripture says, I don't care how many laughing mice you post with your defense of it.

How very puerile.

And so far it's a quite noticeable feature of every post you have entered so far, that you have yet to even "base one thing on the Word of God." It has all been your comments, belligerently declared as though they were actually true.

I have stated my opinion as have many. I am not locking "horns" with you, because you get ugly.

Well, gee thanks for the vote of confidence, but I disagree. This has been pointed out before, that we are told that "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." That "rightly dividing" is correct interpretation and representation of Scriptural truth, and has a lot of applications and a lot of good, sound reasons for why one must be diligent. In this particular instance, an axehead had been borrowed and its borrower had lost the axehead from the handle, dropping it into the river. The prophet Elisha threw a stick in the spot, and this iron axehead came floating to the surface. As a miracle, it was a bit unusual.

I am intimately acquainted with the event. I have, however, no pic of an axehead that gives it justice, and the name, "Floatingaxehead" is owned by someone already.

Be informed, already...

The problem with the matter is, it is beyond comprehension to understand an iron axehead to float in such a manner. Given the scoffers and deniers that we have in our current time, it would be much simpler for someone to suggest (as is often done in regard to miracles) that an axe--particularly one with the long and large wooden handle like the one in the picture--could float by natural means. I've read of the same thing being done to explain the parting of the Red Sea by an east wind, and the crossing of the Red Sea in "three inches of water" after the waters parted. But anyone familiar with the Word will know the response to such things. (1) If someone scoffing at this suggested a "floating axe," and the wood of the handle as the reason for it, I would point out that it specifically says axehead. (2) The "east wind" explanation still doesn't explain how the waters "stood on either side of them in a heap," and that "heap" of water then fell in on the Egyptians. (And a "heap" is hardly "three inches.") (3) The Bible specifically says they crossed "on dry land," not in standing water.

Perhaps you and FloatingAxe can accept this level of interpreting the Word, but I beg to differ.

 

[god's_pawn]

Well, gee thanks for the vote of confidence, but I disagree. This has been pointed out before, that we are told that "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." That "rightly dividing" is correct interpretation and representation of Scriptural truth, and has a lot of applications and a lot of good, sound reasons for why one must be diligent. In this particular instance, an axehead had been borrowed and its borrower had lost the axehead from the handle, dropping it into the river. The prophet Elisha threw a stick in the spot, and this iron axehead came floating to the surface. As a miracle, it was a bit unusual.

The problem with the matter is, it is beyond comprehension to understand an iron axehead to float in such a manner. Given the scoffers and deniers that we have in our current time, it would be much simpler for someone to suggest (as is often done in regard to miracles) that an axe--particularly one with the long and large wooden handle like the one in the picture--could float by natural means. I've read of the same thing being done to explain the parting of the Red Sea by an east wind, and the crossing of the Red Sea in "three inches of water" after the waters parted. But anyone familiar with the Word will know the response to such things. (1) If someone scoffing at this suggested a "floating axe," and the wood of the handle as the reason for it, I would point out that it specifically says axehead. (2) The "east wind" explanation still doesn't explain how the waters "stood on either side of them in a heap," and that "heap" of water then fell in on the Egyptians. (And a "heap" is hardly "three inches.") (3) The Bible specifically says they crossed "on dry land," not in standing water.

Perhaps you and FloatingAxe can accept this level of interpreting the Word, but I beg to differ.

you are debating Floatingaxe, not the issue. who cares about whether it was an axe or an axehead? there is absolutely no relevance to theological issues in determining which one it was! Floatingaxe is in no danger of loosing salvation because of a slight misconception. stick to the topic at hand, this misinterpretation does not in any way lessen the value of Axe's points.

 

[Floatingaxe]

you are debating Floatingaxe, not the issue. who cares about whether it was an axe or an axehead? there is absolutely no relevance to theological issues in determining which one it was! Floatingaxe is in no danger of loosing salvation because of a slight misconception. stick to the topic at hand, this misinterpretation does not in any way lessen the value of Axe's points.

Why, thank you, god's pawn!

 

[god's_pawn]

It's not an issue I would ever have raised, but any time anyone posts in all bold, it has a tendency when I cite such a post, to "leak" over into parts that I did not intend to embolden. But it's a simple thing to de-bold it, so I've never seen any reason to raise it as an issue. I am curious, though, why such a personal quirk would become such an issue for you? After all, if every post is bold, it's not like anything is being implied by it, like any particular emphasis or anything. I think you over-state the matter with "how people perceive it," since we have a total of one who has perceived anything by it worth mentioning.

it's annoying and a waste of effort. plus, there are guests who read these and i don't want them to get the wrong impression. however, i have made my point and i shall desist from discussing it. it's obviously not going to change anything, but hopefully others will see it and get the point.