Do masons build?

[Skip Sampson]

The more you write, the more you show how little you truly know about Freemasonry.

Feel free to show me where I've made errors about Freemasonry in the post you cited.

Until you actually join and know the inside, you will forever be an outcast.

An outcast? From what? I was never a Mason nor have ever desired to be one. Do you consider all non-Masons to be 'outcasts?' As well as 'profane?' Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

... we see the Masons as a group that is Haram.

What is it about Freemasonry that makes it so in your eyes? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Simpleman25]

Feel free to show me where I've made errors about Freemasonry in the post you cited.An outcast? From what? I was never a Mason nor have ever desired to be one. Do you consider all non-Masons to be 'outcasts?' As well as 'profane?' Cordially, Skip.

Is that how your learning about Freemasonry these days? You make an erroneous comment then when called on it ask us for an explanation? Neat way to learn.

No, not all non masons are outcast. I place you in that category based on your history.

We've gone over the whole profane thing once already. You were wrong then, and youre wrong now.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Is that how your learning about Freemasonry these days?

Nope, just highlighting what we all know about you: you make charges that you simply cannot back up. For you, it's a lot easier than actually debating in an open forum. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Simpleman25]

Nope, just highlighting what we all know about you: you make charges that you simply cannot back up. For you, it's a lot easier than actually debating in an open forum. Cordially, Skip.

In a private email, two brothers mentioned the same thing to me. Your obvious error that is. Quite apparent to anyone that was a real mason and had done any of the work required. But, continue with your playbook answers.

Since when have you EVER engaged a mason in an open forum? Let me rephrase that for you. When have you ever engaged a mason openly and honestly in an open forum?

 

[smaneck]

That must be why she has a Ph. D. in Mid-Eastern studies and teaches the same in a university.

I'm not sure how relevant to Christian doctrine that would be. But my PhD is actually in history with the Middle East and South Asia as my major areas of focus. But I also have a field in Church History having studied with the famous Luther scholar, Heiko Oberman for a number of years.

Founder Heiko A. Oberman | The Division for Late Medieval and Reformation Studies

 

[smaneck]

I
No, not all non masons are outcast. I place you in that category based on your history.

But there is such a thing as outcasting I take it?

 

[smaneck]

Part, yes; Masons, no. Freemasonry has affiliated bodies for their female relatives, but these are not considered Masonic bodies, so to speak.

Co-Masonry does admit women, but these are not considered 'regular' bodies among Freemasons. Cordially, Skip.

So do you believe women should be allowed into the ministry? Are they allowed to preach at your church? Are women considered equal in the marriage relationship or are they expected to be submissive to their husbands?

 

[smaneck]

Claiming to be educated and rejecting Christianity is far far sillier.

I don't reject it. I left the church because I believed more than Christianity has room for, not less.

 

[smaneck]

I kindly said nope, I'm proud to be a Muslim and we see the Masons as a group that is Haram.

On what basis?

 

[smaneck]

Don't concern yourself over this cult members comments. He is what my uncle called a self proclaimed know it all. !

Oh, but that can't be! He insists that it is Masons who are all peacocks and parrots. We've never seen a Christian behave that way.

 

[smaneck]

Both comments are untrue. The amendment to Oklahoma's Constitution would have prevented state courts from considering Sharia and international law in their decisions. It is seen as a necessary move to prevent judges from looking beyond state Constitutions in reaching their conclusions.

Necessary why? What judge in the State of Oklahoma ever tried to incorporate the Shariah into his rulings?

If that has never happened in the state of Oklahoma then hatred towards Muslims in the only possible motivation. This was seen recently when a stink was put up about there supposedly being a sink in the restroom for Muslims to perform ablutions. As it turned out the sink in question was for washing mops. But that says something about how deep this xenophobia runs.

If they were *really* interested in protecting the wall of separation between religion and state they would have included prohibitions on the Torah being considered, prayer in any government sponsored function, etc. But only Muslims were singled out. That's called prejudice. That's called bigotry.

There is no hatred in such a move nor is it unreasonable considering some of the judges we have.

Really? Name one Oklahoma judge that uses the shariah to make his rulings?

It is my guess that the majority of U.S. Muslims would not want to live under Shariah law. Very few Muslim countries apply the law in full in their legal systems. Cordially, Skip.

Then there is absolutely no need to outlaw it. Which goes to prove that bigotry is the only motivation here.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Your obvious error that is.

So, from all I said, your fellow Masons found a single error, which you don't want to share with anyone? An interesting approach, though it does have a name: intellectual cowardice.

When have you ever engaged a mason openly and honestly in an open forum?

Since the old CompuServe days in the 90's, plus the E-511 forum, plus CARM, plus this forum, plus 3 Masonic fora. The latter did not like me quoting from GL documentation, so they banned me from commenting. Standard Masonic practice is to keep folks like me out of their fora, and to avoid any embarrassing discussions in fora they cannot control.

Masons have had great opportunities to engage in Masonic discussions on this forum, but, with very few exceptions, have refused to do so. They'd rather complain about others than deal with the criticisms via rational and open debate. Quite simply, Masons cannot defend their craft from the charges laid at their door, so they hide and complain in private.

I made the offer to you before and I'll make it again: you claimed to want to debate in an open forum, so start here. Address my comments on the spiritual temple and show where I have it wrong. Otherwise, we can assume I'm right about it, and you can merely keep on griping. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

So do you believe women should be allowed into the ministry? Are they allowed to preach at your church? Are women considered equal in the marriage relationship or are they expected to be submissive to their husbands?

Every religion has an authority for what it teaches. It is that authority which forms the basis of the main doctrines of the religion in question. As a fundamental Christian, my authority is the Bible and I believe that it contains the fundamental truths of God, life and salvation.

In answer to your questions:
1. Women are active in the ministry of my church, but they cannot hold the offices of pastor or deacon. This is black-letter Bible, that both offices are reserved for men. Many protestant denominations do not follow that rule, which they are free to ignore. I would not belong to such a church, nor would I participate in a service featuring a female pastor.

2. In a Christian marriage, women are called to submit to their husbands, and men are expected to lead the household. But I'd say the pressure is actually on the man, as it is he who has the most difficult job. Here's what the husband is directed to do:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husband ought to love their wives as their own bodies. ... However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians ch 6)

Wives are called to submit to their husbands as they do the Lord, and, in return, the husband must love his wife in the same measure as Jesus loves him.

What wife would not want a husband who loves her in such a Godly manner? What wife really wants a husband who will not lead and protect the family?

I also believe the linkage is so complete, that the violation of one part violates the other as well. If they both perform their roles, there will be a happy marriage; if not, there will not. No woman is required to submit blindly, against all reason, against all her Christian beliefs to a man who does not accept his responsibilities as well. The marriage must match the biblical ideal or the whole deal is off. Both husband and wife must fulfill their assigned roles, and must work as one flesh to do so.

As to equality, we need to remember that all men and women are equal in God's sight, and his love, though he does make distinction between the saved and the lost. For the saved, God sees them as his children; for the lost, he sees them all as under condemnation, but his free gift of eternal life is always held out to them.

Finally, I think the Biblical doctrines noted above are also rooted in our genetics. Examine the difference between the genders and you will start to see that they are designed for different things. Feminists used to claim that, aside from the sexual differences, men and women were the same. We now know that the claim is quite false, and men and women are genetically prepared for their roles in God's world. I'd suggest the book Why Gender Matters, by Leonard Sax as a place to start if you are interested in that topic.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Necessary why?

See this article for a good review of the topic: We need to keep foreign law out of U.S. courts | The Daily Caller

At issue here is the fact that the Constitution forms the basis of our laws. Too, judges everywhere have shown the propensity for looking beyond the Constitution to find rulings more to their liking. Actions such as in Oklahoma and elsewhere are pre-emptory, given the threat. Better to ensure it never happens than to have to play catch-up ball when it does.

Our founders shared one main concern: dictatorship. That is why they came up with three separate branches of government, each with controls over the other, none with the potential in a moral nation to usurp power. People being what they are, it was a wise move. But the threat always remains, as we see today. We have a President who doesn't see himself constrained by the laws of the land, a Congress who is largely supine and a Judiciary that in too many cases rules via personal opinion than by rule of law. When our judiciary start making rulings on a basis other than the Constitution, we are seriously in trouble. And that has already started.

If that has never happened in the state of Oklahoma then hatred towards Muslims in the only possible motivation.

And I do not agree. Name the nation that lives under shariah law that you think is the best example of that law in action, and let's see how it stacks up to our Constitutional law. Bear in mind that most muslim nations do not want that law imposed, and when it is, violence results. And, of course, tell us this: do you want to live under shariah law?

If they were *really* interested in protecting the wall of separation between religion and state they would have included prohibitions on the Torah being considered, prayer in any government sponsored function, etc.

You make several errors here. First, there is no 'wall of separation' between religion and state in this country. The Constitution makes no such distinction. If it had done so, there wouldn't be the phrase 'In God we trust" on our currency. It is the government that is restricted from influencing religion in this nation.

Secondly, Shariah is the greatest threat to our freedom, which was why it was singled out. In both England and in the U.S. we have muslims who are calling for the implementation of shariah law, which is justification for such amendments as the Oklahoma one. Again, it's not prejudice, but precautionary. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Godisgood12]

It's a fraternity, a brotherhood which views itself as a place for men to congregate and learn its principles. Thus it limits itself to men.

That sounds sexist. I demand equal rights.

 

[Godisgood12]

Until you actually join and know the inside, you will forever be an outcast.

So it is secretive?

 

[Godisgood12]

Well, I must admit, I did not expect so many straight forward answers. Friends are friends.

 

[smaneck]

In answer to your questions:
1. Women are active in the ministry of my church, but they cannot hold the offices of pastor or deacon. This is black-letter Bible, that both offices are reserved for men.

True for elders (pastors). Not true for deacons. Priscilla and Phoebe were both deacons.

I would not belong to such a church, nor would I participate in a service featuring a female pastor.

Interesting. So why criticize Masons in this regard?

 

[smaneck]

See this article for a good review of the topic: We need to keep foreign law out of U.S. courts | The Daily Caller

If that were really the issue then the bill would have excluded all "foreign laws" and not singled out the shariah. Singling out shariah was clearly constituted an attack against a specific religious community.

Better to ensure it never happens than to have to play catch-up ball when it does.

Perfect formula for xenophobia.

And I do not agree. Name the nation that lives under shariah law that you think is the best example of that law in action, and let's see how it stacks up to our Constitutional law.

This isn't an issue of comparing the shariah to our Constitution. Our Constitution already precludes many of the elements of the shariah. It is an issue of singling out a specific religious community for discriminatory treatment.

You make several errors here. First, there is no 'wall of separation' between religion and state in this country. The Constitution makes no such distinction.

The phrase itself is from Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution but that was clearly the intent of those who composed it.

If it had done so, there wouldn't be the phrase 'In God we trust" on our currency.

Not necessarily. A lot of our Founding Father's were Deists not Christians but they didn't consider Deism a separate religion. I'm sure they felt that acknowledging God did not constitute support for religion per se.

It is the government that is restricted from influencing religion in this nation.

Here is what Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Secondly, Shariah is the greatest threat to our freedom, which was why it was singled out.

Nonsense. It is no threat whatsoever.

In both England and in the U.S. we have muslims who are calling for the implementation of shariah law

Show me a single Muslim doing this in Oklahoma.

,

Again, it's not prejudice, but precautionary. Cordially, Skip.

It is plain, unadulterated bigotry. But if you want to give Muslims an excuse to wage jihad, laws like this will certainly provide them with one. The purpose of a jihad is to establish a just government where people are free to live as Muslims. If you prohibit them from doing so, as this law does, you are basically declaring war against them.
This law doesn't just prohibit the cutting off of hands or stoning people to death (which no one was going to do here anyhow) it means that women can be prohibited from wearing a head scarf and Muslims not being allowed to say their daily prayers.