O.F.F. said:
"Christian educators" could mean lots of things. It could mean some theologians, some professors at a seminary, or even a philosophy professor at a university who includes comparative religions as part of their curriculum. If so, who cares what their 'personal' libraries contain?
So you prefer ignorance, then? Hmmmm…..
O.F.F. said:
If your statement had any real validity, to refute my earlier evidence to the contrary in like manner, instead of saying "just as Christian educators" you would have said, "just as most Christian denominations;"
You’re laying way more significance on the choice than I ever gave it. All it has to be to be a valid point is, some significant segment of Christian thinking. I simply chose the expression because educational facilities are the most likely to have suggested reading lists, DUH.
and you would have shown proof that such "recommended" reading list exist among them.
Gee, Mike, I took it as such a given, I figured anybody reading would understand the truth of it. Are you trying to suggest that educational facilities do not provide recommended reading lists for courses they offer at their particular institution? I have had recommended reading in every class I ever took, some refer to it as such, others simply provide a fairly comprehensive bibliography covering the particular subject being taught.
Besides, we already had this conversation not too long ago, and as I pointed out then, a comparative religions course, or a course on religious movements, or a course on cults, will have as “recommended reading” some of the materials put out by the various groups being studied. I have in my possession a Book of Mormon used in a class which covered some of its materials. I also possess several of Mary Baker Eddy’s writings, others by Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell, Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and others. Owning them and/or reading them hardly makes me a Mormon, a Christian Scientist, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a supporter of the Jesus Seminar beliefs. It just means that, unlike some Christians who think we should just stick our noses in the sand and remain ignorant, I take an interest in seeing such things for myself, and forming opinions based on the content, and not on what someone else interprets from them.
It is the same way with Freemasonry, and you really don’t seem to have a clue about the purpose of reading lists, regardless of what group or institution compiles them. Maybe instead of just making ridiculous claims off the top of your head, you should get your head out of the sand long enough to READ what people have to say, This is ABUNDANTLY true in the case of Masonic reading lists, they are no different than any other group who would have you make informed opinions after reading both sides of whatever the issue may be. Perhaps if you were to consider them with anything resembling intellectual honesty, rather than perusing them merely to pick out your next comment to target, you wouldn’t have missed THIS from the PA. Grand Lodge page that appears before you even get to anything on the reading list:
This book list for the recommended reading is composed of books that the committee feels have the potential to provide Masonic Knowledge to the readers, but even more significant will stimulate the reader to think.
Please note that the appearance of these books on the recommended list is not to be taken as an endorsement by the committee of either the authors or the contents. Indeed there are books, or parts thereof, on this list with which probably all members of the committee would find fault.
It is the firm belief of the members of the Committee that all books read should stimulate the reader to think and, thus, books that appear here and with which you may disagree, are recommended for that purpose.
Many thousands of books concerning Freemasonry have been written during the past 300 years, with additional titles published every month. This list merely scratches the surface and is not intended to confine the reader to these titles alone. Where the participant has found a work that he feels worthy, the Committee would appreciate his comments regarding possible future inclusion.
And please have the honesty not to deny ever seeing this.
So unless you can provide a similar "recommended" list of damaging books that perpetuate the theory of the link between Christianity and ancient pagan mysteries, published by 10 or more Christian denominational authoritative bodies, your point is not only moot, it's pointless and you have no case at all.
Say what? You’ll have to explain your direction with this one, you totally went off the deep end and lost me with that one.
No sir, Freemasonry requires for membership belief in the immortality of the soul, just as they require belief in any Supreme Being of choice. And, just like they do not specific which Supreme Being one must believe in to become a Mason, they do not specify the mode of immortality one must believe in either. So unless you can provide something that shows that a bodily resurrection cannot "Masonically" be viewed as "reincarnation" or any other form of immortality of the soul from a Hindu Mason's perspective, I'm afraid you have a LONG way to go to make your case.
The fact is, I’ve looked for a bodily resurrection in the beliefs of other religions, and have not found it anywhere. And I have no case to make, because in the citation I already provided, you HAVE the “Masonic” understanding of it, that “in the glorious morn of the resurrection, his body will rise and become as incorruptible as his soul.” I’m surprised you don’t recognize it, it’s from 1 Corinthians 15: “The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.” (v. 42) “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pas the saying that is written, ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.” (v. 52-54)
In fact, come to think of it, how would you NOT know this, since this Corinthian passage is commonly found in Masonic burial rituals?
The fact that you seem to think this came from somewhere else, or can be understood differently, just shows that you do not recognize the source. Once again I say to you, the biggest problem you seem to be having with all of this is your apparent lack of any familiarity with the Bible.
No Mason would question it, but a truly devoted Christian would, especially a pastor, and would deem it unacceptable; because the principles found in the Holy Bible, NOT the Bhagavad-gita or any other false teaching, are the ONLY acceptable principles to follow.
Are you totally ignorant of the many direct comparisons that can be found among the religions of the world, or do you just automatically make comments like this without having the least clue what you’re talking about? Most religious “sacred books” have a code of laws or “commandments” very similar to the Decalogue. There are also many points of comparison between what they teach. This was shown to be so on this very forum, though a different thread, not all that long ago, concerning that which we call a central tenet of the Christian faith, the Golden Rule. After having been presented with the evidence of it, you yourself acknowledged it:
I concede, the Ethic of Reciprocity [Mike’s chosen name for the Golden Rule] is a moral virtue found in many religious systems. Your point has been established, so now let's move on from there.
Yet now you try to tell us there are no principles in any other sacred books that are comparable to the principles found in the Bible—even though we have your direct statement to the contrary?
One or the other claim is necessarily false, adding one more to this total of false claims you keep racking up.
Therefore, finding DIRECT CITATIONS IN MASONRY FROM ANY OTHER SACRED BOOK THAN THE BIBLE, is a MOOT POINT!
And to arrive at this facetious conclusion, the ironic part of it is, that your “PROOF” of your point is none other than the illustrious Albert Pike. This is just too comical for words.
Every symbol of a Lodge is a religious teacher, NOT a "Christian" teacher.
I never made any such statement, so I have no idea why you’re tossing this one at me at all. I think your problem is, you are STILL treating everything you choose to respond with, from the standpoint of “interpretation,” which has nothing to do with the challenge that was presented; while I have consistently pointed to the CONTENT and its SOURCE, which has been undeniable. There has been no "interpretation" of the content I have presented, I have simply recognized the Bible as the source, and presented it as such. You can keep talking past my comments till you’re blue in the face, but you will not change the standpoint upon which I have made my remarks. I will make SURE the readers are not fooled by your attempted deception, and will continue to keep before you (and them) the facts of the matter. You are still trying to bumfuddle your way around having to produce anything that will serve as a REAL response to the challenge to show something from some other religious source than the Bible, and I will continue to call you on it as long as you continue to do so.
Who cares what YOU think Claudy understood of his own writing; Masonic authoritative bodies understand him enough to carry his work in their libraries and feature them as recommended Masonic education material.
Now if you REALLY want a “MOOT” point, this would certainly be the one. What “Masonic authoritative bodies” put on their reading lists, as already shown from the citation from Pa. Concerning theirs, does not automatically “prove” anything about what they “understand” about it at all.
As the readers can clearly see, the BIBLE is what is proclaimed by Masonry to be a symbol of all holy books of all faiths.
As the readers can clearly see, you are STILL all over the map with this, in your attempt to deal with ANYTHING but what I challenged. What Masonry proclaims ABOUT the Bible is irrelevant to what I challenged, to show something of content from any other sacred book. What Masonry CONTAINS was the basis of my statement and my challenge, and will continue to be so. You can huff and puff all you wish about who SAYS this and who SAYS that, I will continue to stand on what Masonry CONTAINS, and NOT on what HE says, SHE says, or YOU say.
No sir, it is YOU who have totally blown by the fact that the last declaration made by Freemasonry is that regardless of the name of "God" used by a Mason, he can find his own deity under the NAME, Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU). Again, this is unacceptable to truly devoted Christians and their pastors, and it represents a dilemma for any Mason who professes to be a Christian.
I’m not blowing by anything. It has already been shown to you that it works the same with the generic Christian word "God," and that despite that fact, you CONTINUE to speak of the Christian "God." Well, if you can do that, then you are inconsistent with it yourself and have no room to criticize.
No, I’d just like to see you try to come up with something directly from some other sacred book, anywhere in the rituals or monitorial content of Masonry. So far you have not.