Actions speak LOUDER than words!
If you truly think actions speak louder than words, then why are you constantly using bold print, all caps, underlining, and every other formatting tool you can get your hands on, to draw attention to your words?
...using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible
That's pretty disingenuous of you, particularly since you enjoy quoting your late brother from South Carolina, Albert G. Mackey so much, to defend your position.
Treating the readers as though you think they're idiots again, are you? Do you think none of them read my post and know exactly what you just ellipsed out of that context?
But I'll play along, if for no other reason than to show your deliberate misrepresentations. To do so, it will be necessary, first, to determine exactly what was said (since you obviously don't know), and second, to determine whether what I said was true.
Here is the full paragraph from which you lifted this one phrase:
So despite your protest, what I stated is true also of the Grand Lodge of India: their version of Masonry is ALSO based upon biblical principles, complete with the biblical accounts; and not only do they accept that to be so, they declare it to be so. These articles show them speaking of the Bible as Masonry's "first great light," using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible, and declaring that every principle of Masonry derives from the Bible. Not only that, you have these things stated not just by the rank and file, but by a District Grand Secretary, by a Grand Chaplain, and by the Grand Master himself.
I highlighted "These articles show them" with good reason: it starts the sentence and shows what the rest of the sentence is about.
These articles show them:
(1) speaking of the Bible as Masonry's "first great light"
(2) using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible; and
(3) declaring that every principle of Masonry derives from the Bible.
Following the pattern I just described above,
(1) Determine exactly what was said.
It will be clear to any reader that "I" said nothing at all by way of declaration. I was simply pointing out, in this specific instance Mike has cited, what was said by THE ARTICLES I CITED FROM THE GLOI WEBSITE. So all I REALLY said was,
"These articles I cited from show members of that jurisdiction doing these three things."
So now, following the second part of the pattern I chose to follow in this rebuttal:
(2) Was what I said true?
Let's take them one at a time and examine this question:
(1) speaking of the Bible as Masonry's "first great light"
Here is the specific citation to which I referred:
The Wisdom of Masonry is exemplified in establishing her basis on the immutable foundation of Truth. Her cardinal principle is belief in the existence of God. All other truths correlative with belief in a Deity have a place in her system. The Bible, as the source and standard of Truth, is exalted on her altars as her first great light, and all her moral teachings, are but beams of its brightness. (From " Freemasonry & ITS Principles," an oration delivered by W. Bro. S.G. Lovelace at the foundation stone of the new Masonic temple at Dehradun)
Yes, what I said on this point was true.
(2) using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible
Boy, did YOU ever pick the wrong one. There were more examples of this one than either of the other two. Observe:
(a) It is interesting to note that in every Degree of Freemasonry the words and incidents associated with them are found in the bible which is considered to be the Volume of the Sacred Law by Freemasons, though when any person who does not have faith in the Bible takes his Oath of Secrecy on the Volume considered by him to be sacred, and an oath taken on it makes it binding upon him.
He states matter-of-factly, "The Bible which is considered to be the Volume of the Sacred Law by Freemasons."
(b) The Building of the Holy Temple is recorded in great detail in the Volume of the Sacred Law, i.e. in the Old Testament of the Bible. As I have said above every Degree in Freemasonry is derived from some part of the Bible. It includes the New Testament also. ("Some Thoughts on Freemasonry," By W. Bro. Rev. P. A. KRISHNASWAMI, M.A. P.A.G. Chap., District Grand Secretary, District Grand Lodge of Bengal)
Here he references "Volume of the Sacred Law," and adds, "i.e. ("that is"), in the Old Testament of the Bible." In other words, he is clarifying VSL by identifying his point of reference to be the OT of the Bible.
(c) But what about Relief ?
Regarding this also certain verses from the Volume of the Sacred Law come to my mind: St. James writes in his Epistle, Chapter 2, Verses 15 and 16 as follows:-
"If a brother or a sister is without clothing and in need of food,
"And one of you says to there, Go in peace, be warm and full of food; but you do not give them the things of which their bodies have need, what profit is there in this ?"
Also in I John, Ch. 3:17 it is said:
"But if a man has this world's goods, and sees that his brother is in need, and keeps his heart shut against his brother, how is it possible for the love of God to be in him?"
He states that he is referencing "verses from the VSL." Where the verses come from, I hope that I don't have to identify for you as a Christian, to be the NT of the Bible. So yes, when he was referring to "verses from the VSL," he clearly was referring to the NT of the Bible.
So in all three parts of this second rebuttal point, the answer is yes: what I said on this point was true, they WERE using the term "Volume of Sacred Law" in reference to the Bible, and they did so very specifically.
(3) declaring that every principle of Masonry derives from the Bible
For this one we also have multiple examples:
(a) It is interesting to note that in every Degree of Freemasonry the words and incidents associated with them are found in the bible which is considered to be the Volume of the Sacred Law by Freemasons, though when any person who does not have faith in the Bible takes his Oath of Secrecy on the Volume considered by him to be sacred, and an oath taken on it makes it binding upon him.
The Building of the Holy Temple is recorded in great detail in the Volume of the Sacred Law, i.e. in the Old Testament of the Bible. As I have said above every Degree in Freemasonry is derived from some part of the Bible. It includes the New Testament also. ("Some Thoughts on Freemasonry," By W. Bro. Rev. P. A. KRISHNASWAMI, M.A. P.A.G. Chap., District Grand Secretary, District Grand Lodge of Bengal)
(b) The preparation is accompanied by ceremonies which, to a superficial thinker may appear trifling and undignified, although they embody a series of references to certain sublime matters, which constitute the very essence of the institution, and contribute to its stability and permanent usefulness everything to be done decently and in order. But ceremonies, considered abstractedly, are of little value, except as they contribute their aid to impress upon the mind scientific beauties and moral truths, and this is the peculiar characteristic of our Order, which although its rites and observances are studiously complicated throughout the whole routine of its consecutive degrees, does not contain a single ceremony that is barren of intellectual improvement, for they all bear a direct reference to certain ancient usages recorded in the Bible, which is always expanded on the pedestal in the East. (From "Masonic Preparations," H. Geffen, P.F.S., in Square & Compasses, May/June 2002, p. 2)
Again, the answer is yes: what I said about this point was also true, just as with the other two points.
Which is to say, since they ARE NOT CHRISTIANS, it implies that historically from a Masonic stand point, it may be the "FIRST" but NOT the ONLY GREAT LIGHT in Masonry.
Well DUH-UH! Ask any Mason, he can tell you what the other two are: the square and compasses. But the Bible is FIRST, and the only one of the three to ever be called "THE Great Light."
But that has nothing to do with whether they are Christians or not. In fact, it has a lot more to do with them being Masons, to know what the three Great Lights are, and which of them would be considered "first."
You know perfectly well that in Masonry, the term "Volume of Sacred Law" can refer to, not ONLY the Bible, but any writing from any religion deemed "sacred" by that religion.
Of course. And I also know perfectly well that's not what I said. WHAT I SAID WAS, "THESE ARTICLES refer to the Bible as the Volume of Sacred Law." And since I have just PROVED that they do, you have no case. Why you want to treat this as some kind of statement from ME on what the VSL is, I do not have the least clue. But the post is still there on p. 49 where it stood originally, and I still say the same thing here as I said there: my comment was about what the ARTICLES said. And I have demonstrated that everything I stated in that paragraph was TRUE.
That has already been determined centuries ago. It is the false god, and ungodly spirit of Freemasonry, that binds you all together as one spiritual brotherhood, which is not purely Christian, and therefore NOT of the One True Living God of the Bible according to His divine plan.
Masonry in India was planted from Great Britain. The account of it is still on record in the minutes of the Grand Lodge in London, where it tells that Freemasonry was established there "the 6th day of February 1728/9 and in the year of Masonry 5732
." The record, then, exhibits (by "5732") the use of Usher's Chronology, which was common at the time in British Lodges, and which in fact, the Grand Lodge of Scotland uses even to this day. Moreover, most of the lodges in India still use the ritual that is in use in the modern Grand Lodge of Scotland.
By the way, thanks for the update on your brother Frank, in the other thread. But if I were you,
I thank God every day that you're not me, and that I'm not you. For you to make this statement only reaffirms it and makes me even more thankful.
You see, it doesn't escape me that if you really and truly had prayer for my brother as a genuine concern, you would not be going back five pages to dredge up and rehash a matter that was already discussed at the time, nor would you be making the blatant misrepresentations you just made, when you know I will reply. After all, when have I ever not replied to falsehood from you?
No, I just take this as one of your usual shallow comments, and a typical attempt to use anything and everything to make fodder for your cannon. No doubt, you will use it for fodder anyway, and mock me further with feigned innocence.
For that reason, of those who were intended some time back when I first began to use the signature in my posts, you are most to be pitied.
So go ahead, be my guest, fire away. But point your cannon in someone else's direction, you won't get anything further from me. Unfortunately, that also includes updates.
