Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Archivist]

Thanks for answering my questions. Given your reply, that explains it! You believe Freemasonry is 'good' because of the people you know who are or were in it. That makes perfect sense. If I, even as a former Mason, were to judge Freemasonry based solely upon my experience with those involved in it, I too would conclude that "they" are a 'good' organization.

However, our (O.F.F./Ex-Masons for Jesus) contention is NOT against Masons. It is against the TEACHINGS of Freemasonry. I trust if you were fully aware of "its" teachings as compared to biblical Christinity, then you too would oppose 'it,' not 'them.'

I had many long talks with my father before he died regarding the teachings of Masonry and Christianity, and his explanations convinced me that there is no conflict between the two. He was a District Deputy Grand Master so I believe that he knew what he was saying.

Please note, I don't doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs concerning Freemasonry.

BTW, my reason for not joining the Masons are twofold: 1) Some lodges in the southern US still practice segregation, and I would never join an organization that allows such practice to continue, and 2) The Masons do not allow women to join, and I won't join an organization that is not open to both sexes (just as I would not join a church that refused to ordain women). Actually I could add a third reason--I am heavily involved in various church, community and charitable activities, and I don't have time for another organization.

 

[Rev Wayne]

To Archivist,
Now why would Freemasonry require people to believe in a god? If GAOTU is God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then why not say that?
Ok but their god isn’t a supreme being then is he, freemasonry just allows some to be deceived into thinking it is. So Freemasonry doesn’t then know or share a supreme being some of them just think they do.
So back to my question, what is the point of supreme being and GAOTU if its not clear to some, and why ask people to believe in a god?

The question, and the difficulty you seem to have in accepting an answer, no matter what it may be, lies in the mistaken notion upon which it is built--namely, that Freemasonry is "a" religion. Masonry is not a religion and therefore does not make any requirement about what God's name is. In that regard, it is much more like many civic organizations, which may engage in worthwhile endeavors that could be taken to be "religious" in nature, while the organization itself may be made up of members from more than one religion.

The only difference, then, has to do with your other question, about requirement of a belief in God. In that regard, there is only one comparative organization that naturally comes to mind, and one we have previously noted, that of Scouting.

The difference that sets Freemasonry apart from the religions is, religions deal with matters required by each of the various religions, seeking to establish a pattern for formulating one's relationship with God. On the contrary, Freemasonry, being concerned with the moral rather than the religious, seeks to establish a pattern for formulating relationships with one another.

Yet at the same time, Masonry, like scouting, recognizes that morality, if not established upon an objective standard beyond ourselves, can be extremely subjective, and different from one culture to another. And since its principles are intended for application within a broader target area than simply the followers of one religion, some means must exist for implementing such an application. Every religion, after all, has its own set of moral requirements, and these are often taken as, and presented as, absolutes.

That "objective standard beyond ourselves," of course, is God. But being made up of members who may come from various religions, how do you then overcome the difficulty faced by the exclusive claims of each one, that only they have the "correct" name for God? The only sure way to do so, is to maintain a focus upon only those things that they all share in common. On the matter of "God," the most solid tenet upon which they would all agree, is that God is the Creator of all things that exist. In their selection of "Architect," Masonry has managed to select a concept (1) which represents that creative attribute of God that is shared by all religions, and (2) which has a point of distinction that relates specifically to Freemasonry, by selecting a term which is in accord with the operative trade from which speculative Masonry sprung.

In bridging the other gap, of differently expressed standards/expectations for moral behavior, Masonry maintains focus only upon those things held in common, with its over-arching principle that holds it all in focus is what it refers to as the "royal law" (referred to in this manner by James in his epistle), of doing unto others only those things that one would wish done to oneself.

Thus Masonry actually affirms nothing more nor less than: we are all created beings who were placed here by the same Creator, and it is our Creator to whom we owe our primary duty and obligation; and as people who share this human existence, and who were all created by the one Creator, we have an obligation as well to implement that "royal law" which is the requirement of our Creator, by treating one another no differently than we would wish to be treated.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,
Nope. You haven’t addressed my question, all you have done is discuss your view as to why freemasonry is not a religion, that’s not something I asked. I suggest it is a religion, it requires belief in a god and implies the GAOTU is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But if the supreme being is God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then it isn’t Allah or Brahma so its no good saying it is to people of other faiths, the fact is it isnt.... hence there being no point in asking some whether they believe in God when it is obvious when some say yes they dont.

 

[Archivist]

To Archivist, Now why would Freemasonry require people to believe in a god?

I've answered this question before. It is a private organization and as such it can set its own membership requirements.

If GAOTU is God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then why not say that?

Again, answered this before. Do you actually read what gets posted????? GAOTU would be God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to Masons who are Christian. GAOTU would be Allah to Muslim Masons. GAOTU would be the Great Spirit to those who parctice Native American religions.

Ok but their god isn’t a supreme being then is he, freemasonry just allows some to be deceived into thinking it is. So Freemasonry doesn’t then know or share a supreme being some of them just think they do.

You really need to be more clear. I presume that when you say "their god" you are refering to the Masons. The Masons don't have their own "god." They require their members to believe in god, just like the Boy Scouts require their members to believe in god. Obviously for a Christian Mason, God would be the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

So back to my question, what is the point of supreme being and GAOTU if its not clear to some, and why ask people to believe in a god?

Again, the Masons are a private organization. They can set their own membership requirements. The concept of believing in god is clear. I don't understand why you can't get this concept. God is what the individual members see god to be.

 

[Rev Wayne]

BTW, my reason for not joining the Masons are twofold: 1) Some lodges in the southern US still practice segregation, and I would never join an organization that allows such practice to continue, and 2) The Masons do not allow women to join, and I won't join an organization that is not open to both sexes (just as I would not join a church that refused to ordain women). Actually I could add a third reason--I am heavily involved in various church, community and charitable activities, and I don't have time for another organization.

On those lines, I would raise certain points.

For one, it's hard to separate out the whole history of racial bias and point a finger at one institution and not another, for it clearly permeated the whole. The churches in the south have been as guilty as any other institution, and we still have the phenomenon on Sunday mornings described as "the most segregated hour of the week." (I tend to think, though, that there are other more practical reasons that this is the case.)

Thank God things are changing, and by that I mean on all fronts, not just the lodge. In my first church appointment, there was one African-American family, who were one of the most dearly-loved families in our congregation, and a wonderful thing to see. In a recent conversation with the Grand Secretary of our jurisdiction (SC), after he had called me in response to some concerns I had expressed in an email to the Grand Lodge, he affirmed what I had already known, that there are several African-American members in our lodges, and their number is increasing.

As for women in the lodges, it must be remembered that modern Freemasonry hails from an era in which it was standard practice in American churches for women to sit on one side of the church and men on the other. Many or most educational institutions of the same era were structured in similar fashion. Masonry, therefore, developed within the same culture, and with the same cultural features as any other institution. The fact that women were not allowed to join, then, could probably more easily be described as a cultural feature than it could an exclusionary one.

And with certain of the degree features, it would hardly be practical to conceive of having a woman go through the degree work. For instance, entering the lodge "with my naked left breast exposed" would only open the door for Masonry's accusers to have a field day.

And Masonry does have avenues for female involvement. In the U.K., there is co-Masonry, in the U.S. the Eastern Star, etc.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Archivist,

I've answered this question before.

No you haven’t, you have told me it is a private organization and as such it can set its own membership requirements, you haven’t told me why it requires a belief in god?

Again, answered this before. Do you actually read what gets posted????? GAOTU would be God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to Masons who are Christian. GAOTU would be Allah to Muslim Masons. GAOTU would be the Great Spirit to those who parctice Native American religions.

No, you need to tell me who GAOTU is, not who people think he might be or who he would be if people think a certain way. God is real not a varying concept.

You really need to be more clear. I presume that when you say "their god" you are refering to the Masons.

No, you were describing how a gaotu concept could be different things to people of different religions, so I presumed you meant people of different religions.

The Masons don't have their own "god”

The Masons do have their own god because some masons believe it is Allah others Brahma and apparently its neither. God is real, He isn’t a concept that varies according to what people think he should be like.

 

[Archivist]

On those lines, I would raise certain points.

For one, it's hard to separate out the whole history of racial bias and point a finger at one institution and not another, for it clearly permeated the whole. The churches in the south have been as guilty as any other institution, and we still have the phenomenon on Sunday mornings described as "the most segregated hour of the week." (I tend to think, though, that there are other more practical reasons that this is the case.)

Thank God things are changing, and by that I mean on all fronts, not just the lodge. In my first church appointment, there was one African-American family, who were one of the most dearly-loved families in our congregation, and a wonderful thing to see. In a recent conversation with the Grand Secretary of our jurisdiction (SC), after he had called me in response to some concerns I had expressed in an email to the Grand Lodge, he affirmed what I had already known, that there are several African-American members in our lodges, and their number is increasing.

As for women in the lodges, it must be remembered that modern Freemasonry hails from an era in which it was standard practice in American churches for women to sit on one side of the church and men on the other. Many or most educational institutions of the same era were structured in similar fashion. Masonry, therefore, developed within the same culture, and with the same cultural features as any other institution. The fact that women were not allowed to join, then, could probably more easily be described as a cultural feature than it could an exclusionary one.

And with certain of the degree features, it would hardly be practical to conceive of having a woman go through the degree work. For instance, entering the lodge "with my naked left breast exposed" would only open the door for Masonry's accusers to have a field day.

And Masonry does have avenues for female involvement. In the U.K., there is co-Masonry, in the U.S. the Eastern Star, etc.

And I don't have any disagreement with this. I remember when I was young there were still black lodges and white lodges here in the northeastern US. Obviously the Masons have come a long way since then. Now segregation seems to be limited to a single geographic area of the US.

And since I believe that women should have the right to go topless anywhere that men can go topless, having women enter the lodge "with my naked left breast exposed" wouldn't be an issue for me!

BTW, my grandmother and my father's sister were both very active in Eastern Star.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You haven’t addressed my question, all you have done is discuss your view as to why freemasonry is not a religion, that’s not something I asked.

There's a real good reason I wasn't addressing your question: as presented, it is based upon a false presupposition that Masonry is a religion. Therefore it needs to be either discarded or reworked. I was more than clear in stating at the outset of the response to which you refer, that rather than addressing the question, I was addressing the underlying presumption behind it. And the same is true with practically every antimasonic accusation that gets made (and CERTAINLY with all of the ones you have raised), they are all permeated with this idea that Masonry is a religion; therefore, the questions are skewed before they even get asked, because they are asked on the basis of a false presumption.

Not only is it a difficult task to respond to a question which has a false presumption as its basis, it is impossible to do so. It's standard debating fare, that we understand that the truth of any matter cannot be arrived at through faulty or false premises. All one can really do when that is the case, is first to address the assumption and remove it from consideration, so a more accurate understanding of Masonry as it IS can be the basis for questions, rather than allowing accusers of Masonry to set up a straw man of their choice, of Masonry as they WISH it to be, so they can knock it down more easily.

I suggest it is a religion, it requires belief in a god and implies the GAOTU is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You should be able to show me, then, a citation where you feel this is done. So far all you have offered us are your own words, and your own accusations. The truth is, you may "suggest" anything you wish, but your mere suggestion of it does not make it so. You may have gone off on a bender on this one because of what I presented earlier, concerning the description of "He who was taken to the pinnacle of the temple." You have to understand, that comes from a time earlier in Masonry, when it was almost a given that a Mason was a Christian, for the simple fact that the only religion of the only country it had been located in up to that point (England), was Christianity.

I was merely trying to establish the foundation for the origin of its use of "Architect" in relation to God. But that can hardly be described as an attempt to "imply" anything at all, because in that venue, it was much more akin to, "taking it for granted," because it had never really known any other. (You have to realize, too, that there was a later split over some of these issues, as some Masons were certain that Anderson had gone too far in opening Masonry's doors to those of any other religion.)

All religions have a concept of a "Supreme Being." Masonry's requirement, then, other than what was already presented to you concerning objective standards to define morality, also has the desired result of weeding out, at the very start, anyone who may be atheistic in their beliefs. Since one of Masonry's goals is to foster understanding among "those who otherwise may have perpetually remained at a distance," it goes without saying that those who tend to remain at the greatest distances from one another, are those of different religions. The whole idea of "Supreme Being" or "GAOTU" or "God" or whatever other expression could be used for it, is simply to provide SOMETHING to use as an expression of Deity, which could be generic enough in nature that ALL may use it without relinquishing anything of their own beliefs, nor on the other hand feeling they are being required to make any concessions toward the beliefs of any other.

Masonry is simply different than what you experience in church. Unfortunately, there are so many who misunderstand ideas of being "separate from the world" that no venue is available in their church, where this would ever be a matter that had to be approached in the first place. But really, it is no different than, say, a discussion forum such as this one, where people of divergent ideas, and yes, even divergent faiths, come together to discuss issues related to their own faith and any intersection it might have with Christianity.

I invite you to simply look around on the forum here, at areas where "Allah or Brahma" might be discussed directly with people who profess those beliefs. I think you will find, as I have, that the tendency in those discussions is, to speak of simply "God" or "the Deity," or some other expression which is of sufficient neutral bearing to permit discussion without the unnecessary distraction of constantly having to deny the assertions others will see automatically implied by the use of any of the various names for God in the various religions.

But if the supreme being is God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then it isn’t Allah or Brahma

Spoken as a true Christian. Now if we can just get you to recognize that Masonry is not the Christian church nor trying to be, nor for that matter is it trying to be any other religion--or any religion at all, really; so it can hardly be expected that its expressions or the understanding of them has to conform exclusively to Christian interpretation.

so its no good saying it is to people of other faiths, the fact is it isnt.... hence there being no point in asking some whether they believe in God when it is obvious when some say yes they dont.

You are imposing upon Masonic ideas your own restrictions and requirements. You are trying to require Masonry, in its references to God, to restrict them to Christian terminology. Masonry is not the Christian church, but then neither is it any other religion. So the fact is, its expressions of Deity will not be confined to ANY one religion's concepts.

Masonry's concepts are very similar to philosophical or metaphysical concepts. To say they require "a belief in God," therefore, is not a "religious" requirement. You are getting the cart in front of the horse, then, with this tirade about specifics. Masonry does not try to assert specifics for anyone. It's almost like you try to require them to be the church before they can make even the simplest statement on any subject, which is just plain absurd.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Masons do have their own god because some masons believe it is Allah others Brahma and apparently its neither. God is real, He isn’t a concept that varies according to what people think he should be like.

There's the whole problem once again, in a nutshell. Masonry is not a religion, nor do they have their own God. What you just gave examples of is NOT "Masons have their own GOD," but "Masons, individually, have their own GODS," and the only reason they do is, what has already been stated as a given in the discussion, that they come from different religions.

You can't say, "Masons have their own 'GOD,'" and then in your example list TWO gods as "proof," because in so doing you have just engaged in self-refutation. You say "Masons have their own god" as though all Masons renounce their own religion, and turn to a different "god" when they join. But what you have managed to show, is nothing more than, "religions have their own god," because what you gave us by example are clearly the god of Islam and the god of Hinduism.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And since I believe that women should have the right to go topless anywhere that men can go topless, having women enter the lodge "with my naked left breast exposed" wouldn't be an issue for me!

Careful, now! You know how Masons are about "innovations."

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,

There's a real good reason I wasn't addressing your question: as presented, it is based upon a false presupposition that Masonry is a religion.

No that’s a subsequent issue and a straw man to my question. The dictionary definitions such as the freeonline dictionary give the high level definitions of religion as a belief in a supernatural creator, so many would argue it already falls into the category of religion by definition with gaotu.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

The whole idea of "Supreme Being" or "GAOTU" or "God" or whatever other expression could be used for it, is simply to provide SOMETHING to use as an expression of Deity, which could be generic enough in nature that ALL may use it without relinquishing anything of their own beliefs, nor on the other hand feeling they are being required to make any concessions toward the beliefs of any other.

Sorry but a false god isn’t Deity, there is only one true God Father Son and Holy Spirit. God isn’t generic in nature.
The problem is freemasonry allows false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe and supreme being, when they aren’t.
It is called syncretism.

Spoken as a true Christian.

Ok so I know who God is, Christian just means I know who it is.

so it can hardly be expected that its expressions or the understanding of them has to conform exclusively to Christian interpretation.

Why not that’s the truth isnt it. What do you mean by Christian interpretation, do you not agree that God is Father Son and Holy Spirit rather than Allah or Brahma?

There's the whole problem once again, in a nutshell. Masonry is not a religion, nor do they have their own God. What you just gave examples of is NOT "Masons have their own GOD," but "Masons, individually, have their own GODS," and the only reason they do is, what has already been stated as a given in the discussion, that they come from different religions.

So Freemasonry has a blanket gaotu to encompass God and gods as though they are all God.
Seems like that’s breaking the first commandment.

You can't say, "Masons have their own 'GOD,'" and then in your example list TWO gods as "proof,"

That exactly what I am doing by showing you that a Muslim mason thinks gaotu is Allah, a Hundu thinks gaotu is Brahma and the truth is God is Father Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[O.F.F.]

No, you need to tell me who GAOTU is, not who people think he might be or who he would be if people think a certain way.

BMS, what Archivist described to you is very accurate:

GAOTU would be God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to Masons who are Christian. GAOTU would be Allah to Muslim Masons. GAOTU would be the Great Spirit to those who practice Native American religions.

Up until your latest post, you seemed to be focused on the trees, rather than the forest. But I think you got it based on your well written comments in your last post.

However, to ensure other readers get it, here's an analogy that should further answer the question, Who is the Masonic GAOTU? The Masonic god is the forest, and each Mason's concept of deity is an individual tree in that forest. Do you see the analogy? Therefore, GAOTU is the forest – so to speak – and again, each Mason's concept of GAOTU is an individual tree in that forest.

Freemasonry doesn't care what name you attribute to their idea of the Supreme Being, because it is implied in their teachings that "the" (singular) Supreme Being is one deity called by the different names of the various religions of the world. The Grand Lodge of Indiana said it this way:

Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of "the" (singular) Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality. (emphasis added)

Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

In other words, the Masonic GAOTU is 'one' god with many different names.

You have learned that Freemasonry calls God, 'The Great Architect of the Universe" (G.A.O.T.U.). This is the Freemason's special name for God, because he is universal. He belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. All wise men acknowledge His authority. In his private devotions a Mason will pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus or the Deity of his choice. In a Masonic Lodge, however, the Mason will find the name of his Deity within the G.A.O.T.U. (emphasis added)

The Craft and Its Symbols by Allen E. Roberts - Page 6

The Grand Lodge of Minnesota describes it this way:

Masons believe that there is one God and that people employ many different ways to seek and to express what they know of God. Masons primarily uses (sic) the appellation, "Grand Architect of the Universe," and other non-sectarian titles, to address Deity. In this way, persons of different faiths may join together in prayer, concentrating on God (SINGULAR) rather than on differences among themselves. (emphasis added)

Masonic Manual of Minnesota, p16, 1998

A prominent Past Worshipful Master from the state of Oregon put it this way:

We, as Masons, believe that there is only one Supreme Being. You may refer to that Supreme Being as you please. You may ask the blessings of Jehovah, Allah, Yod, Mohammad, or any other Supreme Being that you believe in. We make no distinctions in what you believe that Supreme Being's name is. This is your preference and the preference of all Masons everywhere.

William Larson, 33° Kenton Lodge #145 of the Grand Lodge of Oregon

Let me give you another analogy. Think of the Masonic GAOTU as a huge umbrella and underneath this one umbrella are several deities, which represent the concepts of "God" held by individual Masons. Here is an illustration:

As you can see, Freemasonry symbolizes this syncretistic, all-encompassing, canopy-conglomerate false god with the letter "G" and the name, Great Architect of the Universe (G.A.O.T.U.). Though it is a phrase stolen from John Calvin who initially coined it (since I doubt they ever asked his permission to use it) it is a symbol made by Freemasonry to represent their false god.

As Christians, we know biblically that man-made symbols that represent God are pure idolatry. Therefore, whether they believe they are or not, Masons are guilty of idolatry. As it has clearly been shown throughout this post, the object of prayer in the Masonic Lodge – GAOTU – is not actually the God of the Holy Bible, but rather a mere symbol; as indicated by both the Grand Lodge of Nevada and the Grand Lodge of Indiana:

Great Architect or Grand or Great Artificer of the Universe (G.A.O.T.U.) are titles under which Freemasonry refers to deity. One fundamental of Freemasonry is its non-sectarian character. Any man may offer his devotions to the Deity he reveres, under the Masonic title, no matter what name he may use in his religious worship. Thus, Great Architect of the Universe (or any of its variations) is a symbol of Deity as named and worshiped in all religions.

To BMS' point, biblically educated, spiritually-discerning Christians who accurately understand the Masonic paradigm of God will never become a Mason. And, those who become aware of this Masonic paradigm after joining the Lodge will renounce Freemasonry, as many of us have.

The Holy Bible speaks of pagan gods (the gods of other nations/religions) as IDOLS (Psalms 96:5) and DEMONS (1 Cor 10:19-21). Yet as we can see from the quotes above, as far as the Masonic Order is concern, there is no such thing as a false god; since ALL ARE ONE.

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. – Max Müller

Quoted in the Grand Lodge of Louisiana Masonic Monitor

So Freemasonry has a blanket gaotu to encompass God and gods as though they are all God.
Seems like that’s breaking the first commandment.

Again, you are absolute right! Genuine Christians will not knowingly worship at a pagan altar, be it a Masonic one or otherwise. Those that remain in Masonry, despite this false paradigm about God, are in denial and will answer to God for violating His First Commandment.

So the real question of this thread ought NOT be, "Can a Christian be a Freemason," but Should a Christian be a Freemason?

 

[Archivist]

Careful, now! You know how Masons are about "innovations."

 

[Rev Wayne]

No that’s a subsequent issue and a straw man to my question. The dictionary definitions such as the freeonline dictionary give the high level definitions of religion as a belief in a supernatural creator, so many would argue it already falls into the category of religion by definition with gaotu.

"The lady protests too much, methinks."

Every time you respond to this, you only further prove exactly what I've stated, that every accusation you have raised, is predicated on that underlying supposition that Masonry "is" a religion. If it were not true, you would not be defending it so vehemently every time it gets mentioned.

And no, I'm sorry, but you cannot call Masonry "a" religion, and defend it with a dictionary description of "a belief in a supernatural creator," because that is only one of several definitions listed, and only one of those definitions fits what you are doing. That would be the second definition offered, which has to do with "a formal or institutionalized expression of such belief."

You are, after all, trying to call the INSTITUTION of Freemasonry "a" religion, so like it or not, you are stuck with the definition appropriate to the context, NOT the one of your choosing, just because your straw man choice is easier to knock down.

Sorry but a false god isn’t Deity, there is only one true God Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Amen! No argument here. But then, there is no "false god" in Masonry. All Masonry has is a generic designation for the Creator. RELIGIONS are the ones who flesh that term out with names for that God, so save your accusations for them.

God isn’t generic in nature.

Nobody said He was. All I ever referred to as "generic" was the generic phrase "Architect of the Universe," which is CLEARLY a generic TERM used to refer to the Creator. In the English language, as you were shown earlier, "God" is a generic as well, even though it gets used almost like a proper "name" for God in our language. In the Greek from which we get our New Testament, "God" as used there is ALSO a generic, it was used to interpret "Elohim." And "Lord" as used in the NT is ALSO a generic, it was used to interpret "Yahweh." You really need to read my posts more carefully, we could avoid the need for such repetition.

The problem is freemasonry allows false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe and supreme being, when they aren’t.

The problem is, you don't seem to get it, that Masonry isn't in the business of affirming religions. Religions don't join Freemasonry, MEN do. Some of those men may just happen to be from other religions.

And you don't even realize how ridiculous your argument is beginning to sound with each new spin you put on it to try to prevent having to concede your failed point. "Freemasonry allows false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe?" What the heck is that? If someone is "considering something privately," how in the world do you propose to make FREEMASONRY responsible for it? Or for THAT matter, how, if it is done "privately," is "Freemasonry" even supposed to know about it when it DOES occur?

Your proposition becomes more and more indefensible with every new twist you give it as you beat a hasty retreat away from your first claims.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I see the umbrella man has returned. One correction to the umbrella, "Lucifer" doesn't belong, that's part of the Taxil Hoax, famously perpetrated and just as famously confessed, over a century ago. In other words, refuted long before you were ever born.

Let me give you another analogy. Think of the Masonic GAOTU as a huge umbrella and underneath this one umbrella are several deities, which represent the concepts of "God" held by individual Masons.

Yes, and now let's give the explanation that you always leave out, of WHY these are the concepts held by them:

Baal--name of an OT false idol god. Not held by anyone I have ever met in our times, nor am I aware of any religion which currently worships Baal.

Allah--god of Islam. Some Masons (though very few in number, since Freemasonry is outlawed in most Islamic countries) would profess belief in Allah, for one very good reason: they happen to be MUSLIMS.

Buddha--deity of Buddhism. Some Masons might profess a belief in Buddha, for one very good reason: they happen to be BUDDHISTS.

Jehovah--God of the Old Testament (though it is a mispronunciation). Even we as Christians accept this name for God, generally understood to be the "Father" of the the three-Person Christian Trinity, along with Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Some Masons, however, would profess a belief in Jehovah ONLY, for one good reason: they happen to be JEWISH.

Jesus Christ--worshipped by Christians. MOST Masons will profess belief in Jesus Christ, for one very good reason: MOST Masons ARE CHRISTIANS.

Krishna/Vishnu--along with Brahma, the three-fold manifestation of the Hindu god. Some Masons might profess a belief in these, for one good reason: they happen to be HINDUS.

Ra--god of the sun in ancient Egypt. As with baal, I never met anyone who professed to be a follower of Ra, nor am I aware of any current religion which currently worships Ra.

So you are only partially correct, Mike. This umbrella as a whole is not one which "represents the concepts of God held by individual Masons," for two of them, as far as I know, are not even in current usage. Also, Masonry has a list of specific monotheistic religions which are considered valid for Masonic lodges (for purposes of regularity) and "baal" and "ra" are not among them.

the object of prayer in the Masonic Lodge – GAOTU – is not actually the God of the Holy Bible, but rather a mere symbol

Bullpuppies. Two GL statements, in your estimation, constitutes "proof?" And still citing that illustrious Masonic "authority," William Larson, who to me is an unknown except in your continual re-post of this mantra. Where on earth did you get it? I can't find a Masonic site ANYWHERE with this statement on it--Oregon Grand Lodge included. For all we know, it's an antimasonic invention. Care to provide a link, Mike? (Not saying it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't seem to show up anywhere.)

GAOTU is not "a name," it is not "a symbol," and it is not "a god." It is a five-word nominal phrase descriptive of the one Creator.

As you can see, Freemasonry symbolizes this syncretistic, all-encompassing, canopy-conglomerate false god with the letter "G" and the name, Great Architect of the Universe (G.A.O.T.U.). Though it is a phrase stolen from John Calvin who initially coined it (since I doubt they ever asked his permission to use it) it is a symbol made by Freemasonry to represent their false god.

Not a symbol, it is in fact one of the most direct statements you will find in Masonry. It has been portrayed as something other than a straight-up statement only by those who misunderstand it, whether they be Masons or elsewise.

And you miss the boat, Mike, when you say it was "stolen." John Calvin never used the full phrase, only the concept. And he was clearly not the first to use the concept of God as an architect. The writer of Hebrews (ch. 11) says in regard to the heavenly city, "whose maker and BUILDER is God." (Some versions have "architect" here.) Paul also spoke of the wise "masterbuilder," which in the Greek is architekton, from which we directly get our loan-word "architect."

I'd say Paul was PLENTY before Calvin, are you also going to accuse Calvin of "stealing" it from Paul?

 

[O.F.F.]

To BMS:

It appears a respondent is either deliberately misleading other readers of this forum, or mistakenly substituted a word in an online definition that simply is NOT there. The link you provided was (click on the underlined here > religion - definition of religion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.). Yet Wayne would have you, and all other readers, believe that in order for Freemasonry to be "a" religion it must me ALL the definitions listed:

...because that is only one of several definitions listed, and only one of those definitions fits what you are doing.

Yet when, or by what authority, does ALL dictionary definitions have to apply to a term in order for it to MEAN that term? My understanding is that as long as it meets one definition than it fits. What's worse is how it seems he purposely CHANGED one of the definitions there to make it appear as though 1) it is there; and 2) that it is the one you really intended:

That would be the second definition offered, which has to do with "a formal or institutionalized expression of such belief."

If anyone clicks on the above link, they will see that the second definition actually uses the word "personal" rather than "formal." We know 'formal' would refer to specific religions or denominations, but 'personal' does not necessarily mean formal, nor does it have to; though 'institutionalised' may. Yet since Masons insist that each Mason's concept of deity is PERSONAL, than it stands to reason that this definition would apply as well as the first.

What is significant is the first definition that you did use; for it is more in line with the Masonic concept of "creator or governor of the Universe:"

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

My point, of course, is that this sounds much more like it relates to Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU) than any of the other definitions listed there. But why do you suppose Wayne would deliberately avoid it over another? Under the circumstances, the only logical answer is that he vehemently wants to distract readers away from the idea that Freemasonry is a religion, though not recognized as a 'formal' one, or he is deliberately being deceptive. What a shame for one who claims to be a 'Christian' pastor.

One correction to the umbrella, "Lucifer" doesn't belong...

I strongly disagree! If someone believes that "Lucifer" is the Supreme Being, that person would satisfy the requirement for Masonic membership of 'belief' in "a" Supreme Being. And no Grand Lodge would reject him, including yours of South Carolina, because no Grand Lodge is going to inquire about a candidate's specific religious beliefs beyond knowing that he believes in some form of deity, and the immortality of the soul.

. . .Masonry has a list of specific monotheistic religions which are considered valid for Masonic lodges (for purposes of regularity) and "baal" and "ra" are not among them.

Please share with us this Masonic edict, because from my former Masonic experience no such required list of deities (for purposes of regularity) even exist. Perhaps you could cite this specific regulation from your own Grand Lodge of South Carolina, since no other would apply to you.

But then, there is no "false god" in Masonry.

That's because as far as Masonry is concern, there is no such thing as a "false god," remember this:

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. – Max Müller

Grand Lodge of Louisiana Masonic Monitor

P.S. Wayne, before this gets out of hand as usual, let's form a truce:

If you didn't notice, I returned here with the goal NOT to address you or your posts specifically. The reason being is because it's been shown here and elsewhere that when we do begin addressing each other, they end up taking up most of the posts made and/or we end up fighting each other. You know this has been very unproductive, and I don't think either of us produce anything fruitful from the exchange (though no one argues about the opposing issues as well as we do) . Although I do think Duane & Skip can handle you far better than I can; but they aren't on the boards we are on nearly as much as before.

Nevertheless, we both know where each other stands on the issues. In all fairness to others here, why don't you just please ignore me and stand on your position with other posters, and I will do the same for you. Can we agree to do that from now on? It will be so much more peaceful if we do. And Lord knows, for the past six years, we accomplish absolutely nothing going at each other. Please just state your position to other posters, and I will state mine. Let's please stop wasting time and bandwidth attacking each other as we have in the past.
Agreed, as gentlemen?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Yet when, or by what authority, does ALL dictionary definitions have to apply to a term in order for it to MEAN that term? My understanding is that as long as it meets one definition than it fits.

Where on God's green earth did you get the silly notion that I said "all" dictionary definitions have to apply? I never said anything so absurd as that. I was simply pointing out that when there are SEVERAL definitions, one must CONSIDER all of them before the correct one may be selected. The correct one, of course, will depend on the context in which it is being used. When you try to claim Masonry is "a" religion, that puts it squarely within the range of the very one I stated.

What's worse is how it seems he purposely CHANGED one of the definitions there to make it appear as though 1) it is there; and 2) that it is the one you really intended:

Make up your mind, am I "he" or "you?" You seem to be pronominally-challenged all of a sudden. And that's not all, you also seem to have gone off the deep end in comprehension. "Changed" a definition? I did no such thing. Anyone can see for themselves, all they have to do is go back and click the link and look at it for themselves. But since you obviously missed it, here it is, by copy & paste, exactly as I found it at the link supplied:

1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief the Christian religion

I'll kindly request that you make sure you're better informed next time you toss such false accusations around with such loose abandon.

If anyone clicks on the above link, they will see that the second definition actually uses the word "personal" rather than "formal."

No, if they click on that link, they will find that the American Heritage dictionary that YOU keep trying to substitute for what I was referring to, has an "a" and a "b" under the FIRST definition, and the definition YOU keep trying to substitute falls under "b" under #1. The SECOND definition was something totally different--yet amazingly, you don't seem to have even noticed.

Too bad you apparently never learned to scroll a page. Had you done so, you would have found the definition I was ACTUALLY referring to, from the Collins English Dictionary, which appears exactly as I posted it, both the first time and the second time with expansion.

Really, I can't believe you would miss this much. You apparently went ballistic at the first word you saw that did not match what I posted, and instantly created your own little scenario of what happened. Amazingly, because you jumped on it so quickly, you failed to notice that wasn't the only difference (the one I posted has "expression," whereas the one you substituted for it says "system").

We know 'formal' would refer to specific religions or denominations, but 'personal' does not necessarily mean formal, nor does it have to; though 'institutionalised' may. Yet since Masons insist that each Mason's concept of deity is PERSONAL, than it stands to reason that this definition would apply as well as the first.

Interesting spin, but since we now know that "formal" WAS indeed the word that appears in the definition I posted, this is irrelevant. And even if you DID try to make hay where there is none, the difference I just noted, that it says "SYSTEM" rather than "expression," renders your comments invalid as well. You simply cannot validate a claim that the lone factor of one's "concept of deity" somehow constitutes a "personal system."

What is significant is the first definition that you did use; for it is more in line with the Masonic concept of "creator or governor of the Universe:"

Au contraire, Michael. If that were the case, then it would be "religion" and not "A religion." Huge difference. The accusation being made here was very specific, and very clear: Though BMS has not made the direct claim "Masonry is a religion," the presupposition breathes within every post. Every opportunity has been taken to make comparisons between "THE God" of Christianity and "A God," and every comparison or analogy that has been offered, consisted of comparisons between Christianity and the things taught by other religions. In the particular instance that led to the exchange, the reference was to "Allah and Brahma," clearly a comparison made on the basis of what RELIGIONS--that is, "institutions" or "systems"--believe about God. He may not realize it, perhaps it's unintentional, but it is unmistakably, incontrovertibly THERE, lying underneath every claim as the foundation and infrastructure upon which the accusations are built.

If someone believes that "Lucifer" is the Supreme Being, that person would satisfy the requirement for Masonic membership of 'belief' in "a" Supreme Being. And no Grand Lodge would reject him, including yours of South Carolina, because no Grand Lodge is going to inquire about a candidate's specific religious beliefs beyond knowing that he believes in some form of deity, and the immortality of the soul.

Been there, done that, guess you forgot about this one. Heck, I didn't even have to look it up, it comes up so foolishly and so often, I have it marked:

Atheist. No atheist can be made a Mason, nor has the institution a fitting place for one who, after acceptance, shall be found to be or to have become an atheist. Hence the fact that one who has been received as a Mason is an atheist is a Masonic offense, and upon conviction thereof he shall stand expelled. (Ahiman Rezon, p. 417, Code of the Grand Lodge)

Please share with us this Masonic edict, because from my former Masonic experience no such required list of deities (for purposes of regularity) even exist. Perhaps you could cite this specific regulation from your own Grand Lodge of South Carolina, since no other would apply to you.

Well, if you REALLY want to deal with it as it applies in SC, I would be happy to cite for you once again the NUMEROUS proofs that VSL is never used in reference to it in Ahiman Rezon, only Holy Bible; that Holy Bible is defined as our Great Light; that Holy Bible is the only book on our altar, that the lodge cannot be opened without the Holy Bible present there; citations of all the direct passages from the Bible that are read here during the degrees, etc. etc., the whole nine yards.

But if you are willing to allow proper answer to a proper question, recognizing that all these other VSL's MUST be referenced elsewhere, then I can easily respond.

First of all, I never said anything about a list of "deities." I said "religions." Since there is no name for the religion of "baal" or "Ra" that I am aware of, naturally I couldn't reference religions in my comment and had to state that "baal and ra are not among them." And they're not. So as I stated, your umbrella is false.

As for a list, you can find a list of religions/sacred books that appear in various lodges around the world, at bessel.org.

You will also find some unusual entries among them, which belong to no religion at all.

There never was a false god, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man. – Max Müller

CONTEXT, please? Sure, you say Louisiana cites this, but you provide no other context. And the Max Muller comment, as you were shown some time ago, becomes much clearer when the letter in which he wrote the comment, is taken into consideration as well.

But you know these things--or you're presumed to know them, you've certainly seen them enough times you SHOULD know by now.

Nevertheless, we both know where each other stands on the issues. In all fairness to others here, why don't you just please ignore me and stand on your position with other posters, and I will do the same for you. Can we agree to do that from now on? It will be so much more peaceful if we do. And Lord knows, for the past six years, we accomplish absolutely nothing going at each other. Please just state your position to other posters, and I will state mine. Let's please stop wasting time and bandwidth attacking each other as we have in the past.
Agreed, as gentlemen?

Wow, what a magnanimous gesture on your part. First you dive into my last post, attacking it mercilessly, accusing me of "changing" the definition at BMS's link, being your usual disingenuous self, making all the false claims you always make--and then, having done all that, have the audacity to imagine that after splashing around in the mud for your entire post, you can put your smiley face on, take the high road, and extend the hand of "gentlemanly" agreement to be civil????

Gee, Mike, I'm so underwhelmed I hardly know what to say. But I think not. For one thing, you've hardly shown yourself a "gentleman" in my book, I think that's a HUGE stretch. For another, you've managed to post, in the short space since you showed up, at least half the stuff that I've already refuted for the last several encounters with you--which makes me wonder, how anyone can have their arguments refuted so many times and still keep coming back as though it never registered.

And with your continuing string of posts like this most recent one, in which you exhibit one of the longest ongoing cases of foot-in-mouth disease on record: why would I quit now and spoil the fun?

But the most significant reason I will have to decline the offer:

I simply have not forgotten the mantra you and your "former" Mason buddies have been fond of chanting:

"Either your apron will fall off, or it will burn off."

You've implied, hinted, stated outright, and otherwise indicated over the years that Masons will go to hell. What I cannot get around is, that impugns the character and incredible Christian witness of some of the most exemplary Christians I have ever met or expect to meet. While I would have to say, beyond question, is that I do not expect to see these men in heaven--but the reason I do not is, they will be so near to the throne, I'm afraid I'll never be close enough to reach them.

So with all due respect, thanks but no thanks.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,
What O.F.F is telling me fits with the deception you are describing to me.
For the record,…

Every time you respond to this, you only further prove exactly what I've stated, that every accusation you have raised, is predicated on that underlying supposition that Masonry "is" a religion.

Whether it is a religion or not makes no difference to my argument which is about how it fits in with Christ. But according to the dictionary freemasonry requiring a belief in god does fall into the category of religion. You therefore seem to be telling me that the words you are putting in my mouth aren’t true when they are.

And no, I'm sorry, but you cannot call Masonry "a" religion, and defend it with a dictionary description

No I am not calling it a religion, that’s your straw man.

Amen! No argument here. But then, there is no "false god" in Masonry.

Sorry but you cant have it both ways. If this gaotu character is supposed to be God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then for Muslim and Hindu members who think gaotu is Allah and Brahma there is a false god or freemasonry is dishonest in deceiving some of its memebers.
The problem is freemasonry allows false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe and supreme being, when they aren’t.

The problem is, you don't seem to get it, that Masonry isn't in the business of affirming religions. Religions don't join Freemasonry, MEN do. Some of those men may just happen to be from other religions.

The problem is you don’t seem to get it, Freemasonry obviously is in the business of affirming religions by requiring members to believe in a god and then having a gaotu to encompass all the gods.

And you don't even realize how ridiculous your argument is beginning to sound with each new spin you put on it to try to prevent having to concede your failed point.

Which is spin, I am clear, Freemasonry is a clear deception and I can see what O.F.F is saying, I also note the contempt you treat him with as the umbrella man.

I agree with O.F.F, gaotu looks like Lucifer to me. Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

 

[Rev Wayne]

But according to the dictionary freemasonry requiring a belief in god does fall into the category of religion.

But not "A" religion, you seem to keep dodging that distinction. And yes, it IS a distinction with a difference. When James wrote, "True religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to care for orphans and widows, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world," he was talking about the practice of religion, NOT about a theological system comparable to any of the systems we would refer to as "A" religion. Besides the fact that the construction "True 'a' religion" would be awkward and not even grammatical, it's pretty doggone clear that it JUST DOESN'T FIT.

No I am not calling it a religion, that’s your straw man.

I never said you were, that response is YOUR straw man avoidance. I said more than once, I was addressing the underlying presupposition. And if it were not so, you would not be continually comparing this to "Allah and Brahma" as you have done. If you are not in any way implying it to be "a religion," then why keep drawing religions into your (mis)characterizations?

You can rave on till the cows come home, your every post shows what you are doing. And yet you would have us believe you're blissfully unaware of it all.

Sorry but you cant have it both ways.

Nor do I wish to. I have asserted only one way. It is you who try to have it both ways, making accusations over practices that are followed by the Boy Scouts, while criticizing Freemasonry but not them. You need to be more consistent. Who knows, it might even bring you a little credibility, which you haven't had so far.

If this gaotu character is supposed to be God the Father Son and Holy Spirit then for Muslim and Hindu members who think gaotu is Allah and Brahma there is a false god or freemasonry is dishonest in deceiving some of its memebers.

Well, there we are: same nonsense, different day. Nobody said what GAOTU is "supposed" to be but YOU. You are interjecting into it what Masonry in no way declares. Straw man, plain and simple. There is no gaotu "character," it is only a descriptive phrase referring to the Creator. And there is no deception at all. Masonry affirms only one main attribute of God, that He is Architect, that is, Creator. There is only one Creator, do you or do you not agree?

With only one Creator who created all things, Masonry is not wrong, then, in declaring "God" to be Creator. The problem does not come in with Masonry, the problem comes in (from a Christian standpoint) when someone asserts that God is Allah or Brahma. But when they do that, they are making assertions BEYOND what Masonry teaches. You are playing the shell game of trying to make Masonry guilty for what Islam does, or for what Hinduism does. That dog just ain't gon' hunt, I don't care how good you feed him.

The problem is freemasonry allows false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe and supreme being, when they aren’t.

Well, you've repeated that lame accusation umpteen times already, and you blame it on the use of the generic. So I will repeat it for the umpteenth time as well, you can say the same thing about the Christian Church with the use of the common generic word "God"--or don't you know by now, that "God" is not His "name?" That word has the same potential, of "allowing false gods to be privately considered the same creator of the universe and supreme being, when they aren't."

And since whoever you are referring to is doing this "privately," perhaps you can enlighten us just exactly how you propose that Masonry can prevent them doing so? Masonry didn't tell them that "Allah or Brahma" were the Creator, they got it elsewhere. It is totally FALSE to attribute to Masonry something that Masonry never taught, nor hinted, nor implied in any way. What they do "privately" has nothing to do with Masonry.

When some prominent televangelists played loose in their personal lives and caused the downfall of their ministries, did you blame the church for what they did "privately?" Then why blame Masonry for what individuals do "privately" and apart from the organization? Your claim makes absolutely no sense at all.

Freemasonry obviously is in the business of affirming religions by requiring members to believe in a god and then having a gaotu to encompass all the gods.

Not quite accurate, Masonry's description and affirmation of God is an affirmation of a CREATOR. And that's all. They don't require anyone to "encompass" anything beyond that much at all. And like I said already, go do your yammering at the Boy Scouts, and show yourself consistent on the matter. No need in picking on one target, when there are other guilty parties out there. A double standard is actually NO standard.

I can see what O.F.F is saying, I also note the contempt you treat him with as the umbrella man.

Awww, poor wittle puppy, that big bad pweacherman kicking you awound again? C'mere, wittle fella, I'll pwotect you.

Pardon the humor, but having experienced Mike at his flat level worst for so often in the past, this goes beyond comedy, into farce. You obviously have seen nothing of the history of the exchange, believe me when I say, Mike has earned a whole lot more than I will ever manage to give back, even if it took a lifetime. He's employed every dirty tactic in the book, whether this is a clean break or just another tactic in his game, is something he will have to sort out. I've seen enough of this kind of "clean break" or "new leaf" to know, that skepticism is the wise choice in response. I know, people can and do change, but some show themselves so incorrigible that you'd never suspect it of them.

But time has taught me, I don't really have to worry too much about Mike, sooner or later he inevitably sticks his foot squarely in the cowpies without any help. The most recent example is a perfect illustration of it, with his own failure to examine what is presented, causing him to wrongly accuse me of things I never did.

As for the umbrella, heck, it's about TIME someone called him on it. I've seen it so often I never really paid it any attention before. So this time when I did really look at it, I noticed for the first time just how off the mark it truly is. Two of them have no real existence in our present day; two of them are not problematic anyway, Jehovah and Jesus Christ, which are both part of Christian tradition; and one of them is not a "god" at all, and relates to Masonry only as a part of an admitted hoax about Masons that Leo Taxil tried to perpetrate upon the Catholic Church.

I agree with O.F.F, gaotu looks like Lucifer to me.

You of course are entitled to your opinion. But I hardly think an opinion that "Lucifer is the Creator of the universe" is a sustainable premise, so I strongly advise you to reconsider. And by your use of that particular scriptural reference, you join the host of others who have already used that misapplication of Scripture. Paul spoke of humans in that passage about angels of light, not about names of false gods.

Maybe you'd be better off wasting your time elsewhere, you haven't exactly been effective here. In fact, you give every appearance of being only one more in a string of "yes-men" that seem to surround Mike everywhere he goes. You exhibit the same patterns too: immediately challenging every single comment, flat denials rather than anything of substance, making assertions without the least thing to support them; and those are only the obvious ones.

I will close for now, with a comment by you that I figured would be best saved for last:

You therefore seem to be telling me that the words you are putting in my mouth aren’t true when they are.

Now that's a classic if I ever saw one!

And with this post, I think I shall simply let you continue to pontificate at your leisure. I sure wouldn't want to be guilty of saying anything that might cause you to do something privately that would be unseemly.

 

[Rev Wayne]

P.S. Wayne, before this gets out of hand as usual, let's form a truce:

If you didn't notice, I returned here with the goal NOT to address you or your posts specifically. The reason being is because it's been shown here and elsewhere that when we do begin addressing each other, they end up taking up most of the posts made and/or we end up fighting each other. You know this has been very unproductive, and I don't think either of us produce anything fruitful from the exchange (though no one argues about the opposing issues as well as we do) . Although I do think Duane & Skip can handle you far better than I can; but they aren't on the boards we are on nearly as much as before.

Nevertheless, we both know where each other stands on the issues. In all fairness to others here, why don't you just please ignore me and stand on your position with other posters, and I will do the same for you. Can we agree to do that from now on? It will be so much more peaceful if we do. And Lord knows, for the past six years, we accomplish absolutely nothing going at each other. Please just state your position to other posters, and I will state mine. Let's please stop wasting time and bandwidth attacking each other as we have in the past.
Agreed, as gentlemen?

It didn't occur to me immediately last night when I responded to this, but a thought occurred to me this morning:

Before our most recent exchange on this thread, if you check p. 63, you will find that the last time I posted here was December 2008. That's 15 months ago. Since then I have not posted anything, nor have you, until this exchange.

Yet, now you would try to convince us that it was mere coincidence that you "happened" to wander back in here, the minute you noticed I had posted here? And you would have us believe that the REASON you did so was "with the goal not to address me or my posts specifically???"

Your talent is wasted here, my friend. You need to broaden your horizons, expand your thinking, and shoot for the stars, for the sky truly is the limit.

I think a wonderful place to start, would be selling swimsuits in the arctic. That should be small potatoes for a man who can come up with inventive comments like the above.