Do masons build?

[americanvet]

So it is secretive?

Many things are like this, unless you experience them you cannot fully understand them. For us males childbirth would be one. I am sure that I will never fully understand it and most women would probably agree. Just saying that you don't fully understand because you haven't been through it does not make it secretive. It at best makes it private.

 

[Godisgood12]

Many things are like this, unless you experience them you cannot fully understand them. For us males childbirth would be one. I am sure that I will never fully understand it and most women would probably agree. Just saying that you don't fully understand because you haven't been through it does not make it secretive. It at best makes it private.

Well that makes no sense.

Comparing childbirth to a secret?

Since when is anything worthy of God willing to lie?

I understand keeping secrets for the wicked want to destroy them, but pretending secrets are a means for prideful power?

For growths sake, the Holy Spirit already reveals all things unto Gods own.

 

[smaneck]

For growths sake, the Holy Spirit already reveals all things unto Gods own.

Hmm.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13)

 

[BruceDLimber]

I've worked with some really incompetent teachers who had Ph.D's in education.

None of which makes HER incompetent, please note!

Nor is her Ph. D. in education, as I pointed out.

Mere ad hominem so far as I can see....


Bruce

 

[Skip Sampson]

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

1 Timothy 3:8 limits the office of a deacon to men. I see in Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is described as such, but I think it more likely it was a reference to her role as a servant in such places where it would make more sense for a woman to serve.

I do not see where Priscilla is described as such, and my references make no mention of her as one. She is always mentioned with her husband, Aquila, and undoubtedly served in the early church in significant ways.

Interesting. So why criticize Masons in this regard?

I do not. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

It is an issue of singling out a specific religious community for discriminatory treatment.

As already noted, I do not agree. One does not directly equate sharaia with the desires of all U.S. Muslims. it would be interesting to know on which side of the argument muslims were on. I've seen no polls, but I'd guess shariah law is the last thing U.S. muslims would want to live under.

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

You used the phrase in a constitutional context, which was incorrect, as I noted. It was not the intent of the founders, who recognized in many places the guiding hand of God in our development and successes.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. We are, and have always been, a nation under God. The wisdom of the structure is that we do not 'officially' define God's nature nor do we allow our government to prefer one belief over another. Regardless of their religious beliefs, the founders generally agreed with what I've noted.

Nonsense. It is no threat whatsoever.

I think it is. Conceptually, it is designed to determine divine will by studying the Koran and other Islamic scripture, then to judge people accordingly. Nothing is more dangerous to a free society that to have its judicial system convinced they are acting in accordance with divine will.

But what nation do you think has instituted shariah law correctly? And would you want to live there?

But if you want to give Muslims an excuse to wage jihad, laws like this will certainly provide them with one.

They don't need an excuse; Allah has commanded it.

The purpose of a jihad is to establish a just government where people are free to live as Muslims.

So you believe governments currently under shariah are just? Amazing; simply amazing.

Any Muslim, as such, is free to practice his religion in the U.S. up until his practice interferes with another's rights. I can swing my fist all I want, so to speak, until it interferes with your nose. Muslims in the U.S. are freer than Muslims in nearly all other countries. If anyone wishes to live under shariah, feel free to emigrate to a country that already has it in place and have a good time. Me, I prefer the freedoms of this country to the chains of any muslim state.

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.

That is ridiculous, and gloriously highlights the unserious nature of your complaint. The Constitution already guarantees the rights of people to engage in both practices. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Godisgood12]

Hmm.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13)

All is from God alone.

Romans 15:14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.

 

[Godisgood12]

None of which makes HER incompetent, please note!

Nor is her Ph. D. in education, as I pointed out.

Mere ad hominem so far as I can see....


Bruce

How is that response inconsistent with the "argument", and or "emotions"?

Is it true that "ad hominem" is a word for accussing others of not thinking, and instead getting emotional and irrational?

Is it also true that using the word "ad hominem" is a cowardly way of accussing another instead of stating it plainly?

 

[Godisgood12]

Im reminded of the great balance.

Do unto others...

Who wants to be eternally left in the dark after inflicting it upon others in a temporary existence?

To much is given, much is required.

Mercy beckons.

 

[americanvet]

Well that makes no sense.

Comparing childbirth to a secret?

Since when is anything worthy of God willing to lie?

I understand keeping secrets for the wicked want to destroy them, but pretending secrets are a means for prideful power?

For growths sake, the Holy Spirit already reveals all things unto Gods own.

I did not compare it to a secret. I compared it to understanding an experience. I have not told any lies about Masonry. We do have parts of our ritual that we are asked not to discuss with non-Masons. Masonry does not give me any power.

 

[Godisgood12]

I did not compare it to a secret. I compared it to understanding an experience. I have not told any lies about Masonry. We do have parts of our ritual that we are asked not to discuss with non-Masons. Masonry does not give me any power.

Will you discuss those rituals? How come you have rituals? Is that initiation?

Surely Masonry gives you some kind of benefit.

Where is my apron of acceptance. I feel like paul pleading my cause to the Jews of his time. Minus the killing of Masons/and or Christians.

 

[smaneck]

1 Timothy 3:8 limits the office of a deacon to men.

"Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money"

Nothing about them having to be men. Indeed 1 Timothy 3:11 explicitly refers to women:

11 Women -- in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things.

Some (mis)translations say wives, but in fact that is not what the Greek says.

I see in Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is described as such, but I think it more likely it was a reference to her role as a servant in such places where it would make more sense for a woman to serve.

I see you *really* want to keep women in their place. When Paul wanted to denote servanthood as a holy characteristic of Christian life, he usually used the word doulos, the Greek word for bondslave, not diakonos which is the term applied to Phoebe.

I do not see where Priscilla is described as such, and my references make no mention of her as one. She is always mentioned with her husband, Aquila, and undoubtedly served in the early church in significant ways.

Among them remonstrating with Apollo over his views. Funny she never said, I'll let you handle this Aquila while I come home and fix supper like a good wivey. In fact women were leaders of the church in Philippe was well.

I do not. Cordially, Skip.

Ah, okay then I misunderstood you. I am not opposed to boy's clubs and as far as I'm concerned that is what the Masons are.

 

[americanvet]

Will you discuss those rituals? How come you have rituals? Is that initiation?

Surely Masonry gives you some kind of benefit.

Where is my apron of acceptance. I feel like paul pleading my cause to the Jews of his time. Minus the killing of Masons/and or Christians.

I will discuss the parts of the ritual I have not given my word to keep secret. I did not say Masonry does not give me a benefit. It benefits me greatly.

If you feel like Paul that is of your own doing as I am a fellow Christian. If you don't have a Masonic apron. This simply means you are not a Mason and nothing else.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Nothing about them having to be men.

Here's the section in entirety (older NIV translation; other translations differ):

Deacons (diakonous/plural, male), likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons (diakoneitOsan??). In the same way, their wives (gunaikas/plural, female) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon (diakonoi/plural, male) must be must be the husband of but one wife (gunaikos/singular female) and must manage his children and his household well. (1 Tim 3:8 - 12)

I think the context clearly shows that males are being referred to in these passages. I have no understanding of Greek, but my interlinear, if I'm reading it right, clearly indicate males are being referred to in the usage of diakonous/diakonoi. Finally, "husbands of one wife" pretty much closes the case.

I see you *really* want to keep women in their place.

Indeed I do, and it's a place of honor. Personally, I think women are only useful for one thing: to make a man's life worth living. We are terribly incomplete without them.

Among them remonstrating with Apollo over his views. Funny she never said, I'll let you handle this Aquila while I come home and fix supper like a good wivey. In fact women were leaders of the church in Philippe was well.

Of course they were, as I myself pointed out. But it's an inferential leap to call her a deacon, as she is no where described as such in the Bible. This is especially so given Paul's description of the requirements of a deacon as noted above.

Ah, okay then I misunderstood you. I am not opposed to boy's clubs and as far as I'm concerned that is what the Masons are.

It can be one, I am sure. But their doctrine makes them something far bigger than that. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

Here's the section in entirety (older NIV translation; other translations differ)

Yes, I realize the older translations said wives instead of women. But the Greek didn't say wives. It was a mistranslation and a reference to women deacons not to the wives of deacons.

:I think the context clearly shows that males are being referred to in these passages.

Yes, if you go with the mistranslation.

I have no understanding of Greek, but my interlinear, if I'm reading it right, clearly indicate males are being referred to in the usage of diakonous/diakonoi.

If that were the case it would not have referred to the qualifications of the women (not the wives.)

Finally, "husbands of one wife" pretty much closes the case.

That simply means a deacon can't be polygamous, an issue that never arises except with the men.

Personally, I think women are only useful for one thing: to make a man's life worth living.

O my gosh. I think I should let Jane the Bane respond to that one.

Of course they were, as I myself pointed out. But it's an inferential leap to call her a deacon, as she is no where described as such in the Bible.

And when Phoenix is explicitly called that, you want to explain it away.

This is especially so given Paul's description of the requirements of a deacon as noted above.

I won't even get into the whole argument of whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And when Phoenix is explicitly called that, you want to explain it away.

The question pertained to Priscilla. You read more into her role than was stated.

I won't even get into the whole argument of whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy.

Very wise of you. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

In a private email, two brothers mentioned the same thing to me.

Who were they? Maybe they'll be kind enough to state the error I'm supposed to have made. Cordially, Skip.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Is it true that "ad hominem" is a word for accussing others of not thinking, and instead getting emotional and irrational?

Not in the least:

It's a standard term for someone who issues a personal attack on someone else instead of discussing the subject in question.

 

[Zstar]

From what I understand they do...

Sorry about the lack of the quote - I was referring to structures have been built with certain geometric patterns.

Namely the Pentagram, which we find in Venus transits - on a map.

Maybe unknown to some or many members, or the lower ranks...

Seen it documented on History or Science channel, sorry about no references.

Something to consider in debating this I think...

 

[smaneck]

Not in the least:

It's a standard term for someone who issues a personal attack on someone else instead of discussing the subject in question.

Literally it means 'against the man.' In other words you discredit the person who makes the argument instead of establishing that the argument itself is flawed.

In other words if I say that Skip's arguments shouldn't be taken seriously because he is a Fundamentalist, that would be ad hominem. If I say his arguments about women not being able to serve as deacons doesn't hold water because Paul clearly speaks of women deacons and nowhere does the Bible explicitly exclude them, that would be addressing argument, not the person.