Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[O.F.F.]

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.

B.S. and YOU know it! Me and millions, upon millions, of other Christians have enough familiarity with the Bible to stay the hell out of Freemasonry. The ironic thing is, despite the fact that YOU are supposedly a seminary-trained pastor, YOU are obviously either too biblically ignorant or too biblically disobedient to even give a damn; because you persist in the idolatry of Freemasonry and insist on defending it every chance you get.

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...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...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...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.

TAKE YOUR CHALLENGE AND SHOVE-IT UP YOUR MASONIC APRON! All you have shown comes from Masonic rituals in US lodges -- a Christian country -- but you CANNOT use that to try to make a CLAIM that it exist in every ritual in ALL of Masonry!!!!

Perhaps, unlike US Masons, YOUR foreign brethren have done a better job of securing the content of their rituals. But despite that, it's been shown HERE where the Qu'ran is open during the first three degrees in Masonry in Muslim countries. Therefore, it stands to reason that THEIR ritual specifies that, just as Masonic rituals in the US specify biblical passages for the first three degrees. When you couple that with your own declaration that, "many direct comparisons that can be found among the religions of the world," then it IS fair to ASSUME THAT THEIR MASONIC RITUALS CONTAIN CONTENT FROM THE QU'RAN, just as we can suffice to say that the same applies to Hindu content in Masonic rituals for Masons from India, as well as Masonic rituals from other NON-CHRISTIAN countries.

If I said it once, I've said it a thousand times, but I will NOT say it again. I DON'T HAVE A MASONIC RITUAL FROM A NON-CHRISTIAN COUNTRY IN ORDER TO SATISFY YOUR "CHALLENGE," BUT I DON'T NEED TO. THE CONTENT YOU WANT ME TO SHOW MAY VERY WELL BE THERE IN THOSE FOREIGN RITUALS. BUT UNTIL YOU CAN FIND ONE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT THERE, OR I FIND ONE TO PROVE THAT IT IS, YOU CANNOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT DECLARING THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet if we were to follow YOUR foolish logic, since you like to often compare Freemasonry to the Boy Scouts, which YOU know is also multi-faith, we are to assume that everything taught in Scouting ONLY comes from a Christian source; which is equally absurd as what you are claiming in Masonry.

But since YOU are SO insistent on CHALLENGES, then accept MINE. Show US from some NON-CHRISTIAN country where the CONTENT of THEIR Masonic rituals are exactly the SAME as those from US lodges; and I will concede. But far you haven't, so until then YOUR CHALLENGE IS MOOT and I refuse to accept it or discuss it any further!!!

 

[Rev Wayne]

B.S. and YOU know it! Me and millions, upon millions, of other Christians have enough familiarity with the Bible to stay the hell out of Freemasonry. The ironic thing is, despite the fact that YOU are supposedly a seminary-trained pastor, YOU are obviously either too biblically ignorant or too biblically disobedient to even give a damn; because you persist in the idolatry of Freemasonry and insist on defending it every chance you get.

With the majority of Masons being Christians, there are obviously millions of Christians who disagree with you. And the ones I’ve had any contact with, have the added advantage, that they’re not even potty-mouths.

TAKE YOUR CHALLENGE AND SHOVE-IT

There's the Mike we've all come to know and love. Spoken like one whose true colors are coming out more with every post. And to think, you came to this thread pretending to be a gentleman.

All you have shown comes from Masonic rituals in US lodges -- a Christian country -- but you CANNOT use that to try to make a CLAIM that it exist in every ritual in ALL of Masonry!!!!

That wasn’t the challenge, of course, and it really wasn’t a “claim”; all I tried to do was get you to name even ONE where it was as YOU claimed. I’ve tried to go back and locate the exact point where it began, but the closest I managed to come was a reference to it from you. But even then, you made it clear that it began with YOUR statement:

However, you seem to be avoiding the problem that it presents for YOU in this discussion, when I posed the hypothetical assumption that the rituals are identical.

And from the point when you posted that assumption, I have refuted the only instance in which you have tried to claim this for any specific Grand Lodge, when you tried it with India. The only other thing you have tried, is the vague generality expressed in the idea that your claim would hold true for “Muslim countries.” Now, if you can tighten that up a bit and give us a SPECIFIC claim such as, you know, a specified Grand Lodge of which this would be true, and some kind of statement from them to that effect, that would be very helpful. But I’m afraid that until you do, vague generalities won’t cut it. I have to smile just thinking about what you would say if I tried to support any claim with “Well, this is the case in Christian countries. . .”

Perhaps, unlike US Masons, YOUR foreign brethren have done a better job of securing the content of their rituals. But despite that, it's been shown HERE where the Qu'ran is open during the first three degrees in Masonry in Muslim countries.

No, it hasn’t been “shown” by you, it has only been STATED. Given the many false claims that have already been proven coming from you, I don’t have to tell you how little that one is worth without some kind of verification—you know, something from a Grand Lodge, or some kind of link?

Therefore, it stands to reason that THEIR ritual specifies that, just as Masonic rituals in the US specify biblical passages for the first three degrees. When you couple that with your own declaration that, "many direct comparisons that can be found among the religions of the world," then it IS fair to ASSUME THAT THEIR MASONIC RITUALS CONTAIN CONTENT FROM THE QU'RAN, just as we can suffice to say that the same applies to Hindu content in Masonic rituals for Masons from India, as well as Masonic rituals from other NON-CHRISTIAN countries.

Wow, talk about a “leap of faith!” Well, so far you have not shown this for “Muslim countries,” and for India your claim was DISproven. Or maybe you missed it where I posted from Grand Lodge of India articles from the Grand Lodge website, specifically addressing the degree rituals, and describing the Bible as the “Great Light of Masonry,” and even quoting, some of them citing directly from the Bible throughout the entire article? One of them even directly referenced the Psalm 133 passage, a likely indicator that it holds the same position there as here, being read in the first degree. Since you like trying to portray what can be “assumed,” don’t you think it stands to reason that if India changed the ritual to remove the biblical content, that calling the Bible the “Great Light of Masonry” would have been one of the FIRST things they changed?? (By the way, if you or the readers need to review them again, they were posted on p. 94.)

If I said it once, I've said it a thousand times, but I will NOT say it again. I DON'T HAVE A MASONIC RITUAL FROM A NON-CHRISTIAN COUNTRY IN ORDER TO SATISFY YOUR "CHALLENGE," BUT I DON'T NEED TO.

And if I said it once, I said it once, but that was all that was needed, that neither do I need a Masonic ritual from India to show that the content is apparently the same as ours.

THE CONTENT YOU WANT ME TO SHOW MAY VERY WELL BE THERE IN THOSE FOREIGN RITUALS. BUT UNTIL YOU CAN FIND ONE TO PROVE THAT IT'S NOT THERE, OR I FIND ONE TO PROVE THAT IT IS, YOU CANNOT MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT DECLARING THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where, pray tell, did I make this “blanket statement?” This is just another straw man from you, I never tried to make any such blanket statement. In fact, I distinctly recall describing this consistently as a “challenge” for YOU to back up YOUR claim. Shifting the burden of proof At this late point will serve no useful purpose for you—especially since I will not be letting you get by with it anyway. So far, I have refuted the only specific Grand Lodge (India) for which you have made a claim on this forum. And I refuted the only one you ever attempted at CARM forums (Turkey). In both instances, all it took was a simple examination of materials from their Grand Lodge websites. Turkey was easy, they were straightforward in detailing that theirs is the same as the modern emulation working as used in the Grand Lodge of Scotland. India was fairly easy, too, as you shall see a bit further on in this post.

Yet if we were to follow YOUR foolish logic, since you like to often compare Freemasonry to the Boy Scouts, which YOU know is also multi-faith, we are to assume that everything taught in Scouting ONLY comes from a Christian source.

That's where you and I differ, you may depend on what (you think, anyway) you can determine from "assumptions." I never said any such thing as you just claimed, I have been consistent in pointing out that their principles are almost directly corollary to those of Masonry.

Show US from some NON-CHRISTIAN country where the CONTENT of THEIR Masonic rituals are exactly the SAME as those from US lodges. So far you haven't, so until then YOUR CHALLENGE IS MOOT and I refuse to accept it or discuss it any further!!!

I can certainly give you a statement from India’s Grand Lodge website, from an article by the District Grand Secretary of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal, who will tell you the same thing I’ve been saying:

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)

Apparently you missed this the first time around. Or maybe you just ignored it.

But either way I must say, you do dance divinely.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Thanks O.F.F and Rev Wayne,
Your debate has not only convinced me freemasonry is pluralistic syncretism, but it should be avoided at all cost.
It is interesting that the side that is pluralistic syncrestism is being promoted presumably from a position of leadership within the Anglican church.

 

[O.F.F.]

With the majority of Masons being Christians, there are obviously millions of Christians who disagree with you. And the ones I’ve had any contact with, have the added advantage, that they’re not even potty-mouths.

Then I guess you're NOT one of them, because even though you presumably wear the title "rev" YOUR mouth is apparently pretty dirty too!

Yada, yada, same BS, different day.

YOU made this comment 32 posts ago, so it seems you were the one who set this poor example as a minister LONG before I did, which shows your TRUE colors. Not that it excuses me, of course, for I'll admit when I did it, you ticked me O.F.F. at the time as usual. But given your response to my "potty-mouth" it makes you now sound a bit hypocritical; readers, wouldn't you agree?

However, for now I need to take a break from your nonsense. But by all means, don't mistake my refusal to reply to any of your posts for awhile as conceding to your position on the matters we've discussed; or as some sort of acquiescence.

The bottom line is, in the past 6 years you've seen enough evidence to prove that, no matter how much YOU glean Christianity from Freemasonry, what remains is an abundance of questionable eerie, leery, mysterious ways of giving credence to false teaching, false religions and false gods along with Christianity. That should be enough to cause a true Christian to, not only cringe away from it, but for a genuine Christian pastor to oppose it vehemently.

YOU can persist in Freemasonry and embrace the Blue Lodge, along with all other aspects of it until you are 'blue' in the face, but whether you choose to believe it or not and remain in denial, as long as you hold the title "Christian pastor" while you do it, this puts YOU -- and all others like you -- in oxymoronic position at best.

Good-bye for now "Masonic Reverend" and may the One True Living God of the Bible have mercy on your soul.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The bottom line is, in the past 6 years you've seen enough evidence to prove that, no matter how much YOU glean Christianity from Freemasonry, what remains is an abundance of questionable eerie, leery, mysterious ways of giving credence to false teaching, false religions and false gods along with Christianity. That should be enough to cause a true Christian to, not only cringe away from it, but for a genuine Christian pastor to oppose it vehemently.

Well, let's see: if you want a "bottom line" for our most recent exchange, yours is not too impressive. You started out with personal accusations from the moment you returned here, accusing me of “changing” a dictionary definition from a link someone else posted. That accusation was proven false.

You followed that up with a claim that you have “never said that Masons will go to hell.” That accusation was also proven false, by your own words, in several citations from over the past 6 years.

You claimed never to have seen a Grand Lodge list of VSL’s that are the only ones considered acceptable for use as a substitute if the candidate chooses. That claim was not only shown to be false, but to have been initially posted by YOU, despite your claim never to have seen it.

You offered a supposed citation of a well-known Pike quote, “Masonry, like all other religions,” accompanied by an insistence that the “all other” was the key point of the sentence. That “quote” was shown to have been falsified, and that Pike only say, “Masonry, like the religions. . .”

You insisted I address a question from the standpoint of South Carolina jurisdiction; then you complained when I did as you requested, suddenly taking the opposite position that what SC said on the matter was not important.

Next you attacked the idea of referring to the Bible as a symbol, calling it “ridicule.” That accusation was shown to be false, by citing from several Christian sources which ALSO refer to it as a symbol.

You claimed that nowhere in Masonry is any Mason told to believe in the Bible or any part of it. This was shown to be a false claim, by repeating to you your own words in your Masonic testimony, declaring that it was that very exhortation in Masonry that led you to begin reading the Bible regularly. Not surprisingly, after you were shown this, you tried to pull a rabbit out of the hat spin job by accusing me of “mocking” your testimony, a ridiculous assertion.

You tried to play the “race card,” which was refuted after a phone conversation I had with Ray Marsh, our Grand Lodge secretary, who gave further confirmation of what I already knew, that those barriers have been being dismantled for quite some time now.

You claimed not to have followed me here, yet your own statement of a few years ago vowing to follow me on the internet wherever I post, puts that claim in doubt.

You tried to claim that I address Masonry as I do solely because “most of my livelihood” comes from Masons. This was refuted by crunching the numbers to show that even if every Mason were a Methodist, they would still constitute only one person out of every five people in U.S. Methodist churches.

This was accompanied by a claim that “90-95% of Methodists are Masons,” which naturally was also shown to be false.

I spoke of Christians worshiping Christ, while followers of other religions worship “God as they see him,” and somehow you couldn’t tell the difference between “Christ” and “God as they see him.”

You quoted material ruminating on something about Dionysius, and falsely tried to attribute it to SC by placing it alongside a citation from Ahiman Rezon.

You went off on a bender about the “ancient mysteries,” trying to attribute it to paganism, all the while ignoring the fact that every single Masonic author you cited, were unanimous in appealing to St. Augustine’s opinion that there was a line of descent from within the ancient mysteries all the way down to Christianity.

You cited materials which listed opinions from pseudo-Masonry and tried to pass it off as “Masonic” quotes. In doing so, you also plagiarized quite a substantial amount of material.

Then, after you had been caught red-handed in the very act, you tried to go back and edit the post, in the same manner you did some time ago, to make it appear as though you actually had posted the attribution to the source. But in this situation, you were shown to have done the same thing you did before, editing after the fact and then lying about it to try to cover up your first mistake. And in like manner as well, the second mistake of covering it up, wound up being much worse than the first.

You followed that one up by trying to claim that the appearance of books on Masonic reading lists constitutes an endorsement of any book on the list. This was shown to be false by posting the disclaimer from one of those lists that most commonly gets mentioned by you (GL of PA), which clearly affirmed what I had already told you, that Masonry encourages the informing of oneself of ALL opinions on any matter, and then weighing the material from a much better-informed viewpoint.

Then you tried to criticize my use of “Cowan” in reference to you, when the word clearly has a derivational usage meaning simply “coward.”

Next you posted material which you tried to use to make a claim of Hinduism being found in the rituals. Since you specifically referenced India, the claim was refuted by citing from the GL of India website showing that their rituals reference the Bible as the “Great Light” of Masonry, same as ours do, along with other citations from articles about the ritual on their site, which given due consideration, make a convincing case that their ritual differs not one whit from what might be found here.

You then tried to make the same claim for “Muslim countries”’; but you never came across with a source for your claims on this one, despite it being repeatedly requested of you.

Then you tried to claim that the biblical references I posted from our monitor, did not actually derive from the Bible. This I refuted by posting the materials side by side with the biblical references, so you could easily see the comparison. You also tried to claim that Bible references to chapter and verse never appear in Masonic rituals and monitorial materials. This I easily refuted by quoting more extensively and including some of the longer references I had omitted originally, and pointing out that the references were CLEARLY contained in the monitor.

To my comparison of Christian reading lists with non-Christian materials included, you scoffed and tried to challenge with a ridiculous request of “ten or more Christian denominational authoritative bodies” before you would consider the comment valid. It was almost ridiculous enough to be its own refutation.

At that point, you gave up on the deceit, the manipulations, the plagiarism, the off-the-wall and out-of-thin-air imaginations, and went off on a potty-mouth display of belligerence, as if you could bully your way through the impasse that all your falsehoods and deceptions could not. And when called on it, you once again tried to take your own indiscretions and turn them on their head to make them appear to be mine. The incredible thing about it is, you took exception to the “BS” comment, even though it had been abundantly clear that this was the best description for everything you had presented to that point—and actually, to this point as well. Not that it would have mattered, you would have criticized it no matter what it was called, you’ve done so in the past even when the euphemism “male bovine excrement” was used. Seems to me, by comparison, that it should be a simple thing to get your point across without having to resort to the potty-mouth response. Initial it, letter it, euphemize it, or whatever, no need to resort to cheap display as if bluster wins arguments rather than substance.

So yeah, you wanna talk “bottom line,” you have one that has definitely reached bottom with this particular exchange. Can’t say I blame you for bowing out.

My question is, though, that if you really are so convinced of the things you try to tell everybody about Masonry, why do you have to continually resort to falsehoods to try to “prove” it? Is the case so weak that it has to be shored up with your “help?” Why do you feel the need, which you apparently do, given the repeated instances of it, to present materal as if it is yours, when you know good and well you copied it from someone else and merely presented it as though it were your own?

The truth will stand on its own—if you would ever try it that is. But false claims like those you have resorted to, don’t have a leg to stand on—which is the most obvious reason why they need your help to get around.

Sorry, but when I see Christians going to such inordinate lengths that they will willingly distort, manipulate, and totally misrepresent the truth, I make sure to steer a wide berth around it. If you truly do follow through on your expressed intent to leave off responding, it will definitely be welcomed, but I’ve heard too many of these before to take it seriously.



"Have nothing to do with the fruitless claims of antimasons, but rather expose them."

 

[O.F.F.]

Your debate has not only convinced me freemasonry is pluralistic syncretism, but it should be avoided at all cost.
It is interesting that the side that is pluralistic syncrestism is being promoted presumably from a position of leadership within the Anglican church.

BMS, we know that church leadership really starts at the local level with that of pastors and priests; regardless of their denomination. I don't know about the leadership within the Anglican church, but one thing that has been made abundantly clear, given the testimony of one here on this forum, is that your statement I highlighted above is most definitely true of the leadership within the United Methodist Church!

 

[Rev Wayne]

Mike, you recently cited this from Wilmshurst:

Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. Allowing for differences of time, place and form of expression, both taught exactly the same truths and inculcated the necessity for regeneration. In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times. And hence too it is that both the Roman Church and Masonry, although so widely divergent in outlook and method, have this feature in common, that each declares and insists that no alteration or innovation in its central doctrine is permissible and that it is unlawful to remove or deviate from its ancient landmarks. Each is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul, obscured in the one case by theological and other accretions foreign to the main purpose of religion, and unperceived in the other because its symbolism remains uninterpreted.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 209

And this:

The Christian Master's affirmation "Ye must be born again" is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries. Popular religion may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 212

Now let's show the readers what is wrong with your misread of Wilmshurst.

First of all, in your first citation from p. 209, you started at the beginning of that particular paragraph, and you cited a fairly large amount of material. But the fact is, you stopped short, and did not finish the paragraph, and Wilmshurst's finishing comments in that particular paragraph are essential to understanding what he is saying with the whole:

To clear vision, Christian and Masonic doctrine are identical in intention though different in method. The one says "Via Crucis"; the other "Via Lucis"; yet the two ways are but one way. The former teaches through the ear; the latter through the eye and by identifying the aspirant with the doctrine by passing him personally and dramatically through symbolic rites which he is expected to translate from ceremonial form into subjective experience. As Patristic literature shows, the primitive method of the Christian Church was not that which now obtains, under which the religious offices and teaching are administered to the whole public alike and in a way implying a common level of doctrine for all and uniform power of comprehension by every member of the congrega­tion. It was, on the other hand, a graduated method of instruction and identical with the Masonic system of degrees conferred by reason of advancing merit and ability. To cite one of the most instructive of early Christian treatises (Dionysius : On the Eccle­siastical Hierarchy), with which every Masonic student should familiarize himself, it will be found that admission to the early Church was by three ceremonial degrees exactly corresponding in intention with those of Masonry. "The most holy initiation of the Mystic Rites has as its first Godly purpose the holy cleansing of the initiated; and as second, the enlightening instruction of the purified; and finally and as the completion of the former, the perfecting of those instructed in the science of their appropriate instructions. The order of the Ministers in the first class cleanses the initiated through the Mystic Rites; in the second, conducts the purified to light; and, in the last and highest, makes perfect those who have participated in the Divine Light by the scientific contemplations of the illuminations con­templated." This brief passage alone suffices to show that originally membership of the Christian Church involved a sequence of three initiatory rites identical in intention with those of the Craft to-day. The names given to those who had qualified in those Rites were respectively Catechumens, Leiturgoi, and Priests or Presbyters; which in turn are identifiable with our Entered Apprentices, Fellow Crafts and Master Masons. Their first degree was that of a rebirth and purification of the heart; their second related to the illumination of the intelligence; and their third to a total death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness, in which the candidate died with Christ on the cross, as with us he is made to imitate the death of Hiram, and was raised to that higher order of life which is Mastership.

This makes it clear that he is putting the two side by side and declaring that they teach the same things, just by different methods. But really, even in the first quote you entered (for those who could manage to wade through all your irrelevant highlights to even find it), it should have already been clear even to you:

In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times.

The second quote you offered was even more butchered from its context than the other one. You totally blew past the opening comments of the paragraph that set the tone and context of the "opening" sentence of your citation. You see, the way you presented it, though clever, is easily discernible as a deception for anyone with the whole of the work before them. The paragraph opens:

When Christianity became a state-religion and the Church a world-power, the materialization of its doctrine proceeded apace and has only increased with the centuries. Instead of becoming the unifying force its leaders meant it to be, its associa­tion with "worldly possessions" has resulted in making it a disintegrative one. Abuses led to schisms and sectarianism, and whilst the parent ­body, in the form of the Greek and Roman Churches, still possesses and jealously conserves all the original credentials, traditions and symbols in their superb liturgies and rites, more importance is attached to the outer husk of its heritage than to its kernel and spirit, whilst the Protestant communities and so-called "free" churches have unhappily become self-severed altogether from the original tradition and their imagined liberty and independence are in fact but a captivity to ideas of their own, having no relation to the primitive gnosis and no understanding of those Mysteries which must always lie deeper than the exoteric popular religion of a given period. Regeneration as a science has long been, and still is, entirely outside the purview of orthodox religion.

It is only after reading all of the paragraph that the reader can determine that what you just cited was NOT Wilmshurst's opinion of the matter, but a description of the state of things as they transpired over a course of several centuries. The doctrines of the church became materialized; abuses led to schisms and sectarianism (which we know to be true, basically he describes the Protestant Reformation); the parent Greek & Roman churches preserved the traditions and interpretations, but more in its "outer husk" than in its spirit; regeneration is "outside the purview of orthodox religion." And as it relates to the Roman and Greek traditions, all of what he said is true.

But he does NOT then break from that discussion and launch into a tirade of personal opinion, with the comment with which you began. The most easily-seen indicator that he did NOT, is, there is no paragraph break. The opening statement of your citation is a continuation of the previous thoughts, NOT a separate thought of his own.

Which brings us to the comments you made:

Never did Jesus teach that being "born again" was merely a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character (works righteousness). In other words, He taught that it (being born again) is the only way to become a child of God.

Well, the simple truth is, neither did Wilmshurst teach it to be so, either. When he says, "The Christian Master's affirmation 'Ye must be born again' is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries," he is not expressing his own thoughts, he is describing one more point in his discussion of the church's variance, over time, from what was originally taught. So yes, "works righteousness" pretty much is correct, and that is what Wilmshurst was pointing out as one factor in the state or condition of the church that had become the unfortunate result of straying from the original emphasis on regeneration. The only error you made was in either skipping past the first part of that paragraph, or ignoring it, whichever was the case. And anyway, it would be hard to accuse Wilmshurst of "works righteousness" when he had already stated previously in that same chapter:

The New Testament is full of passages in Masonic terminology and there is not a little irony in the failure by modern Masons to recognize its supreme importance and relevancy to their Lodge proceedings and in the fact that in so doing they may be likening themselves to those builders of whom it is written that they rejected the chief Corner Stone. They would learn further that the Grand Master and Exemplar of Masonry, Hiram Abiff, is but a figure of the Great Master and Exemplar and Saviour of the world, the Divine Architect by whom all things were made, without whom is nothing that hath been made, and whose life is the light of men. If, in the words of the Masonic hymn
"Hiram the architect
Did all the Craft direct
How they should build,"
it is equally true that the protagonist of the Christian Scriptures also taught universal humanity "how they should build" and reconstruct their own fallen nature, and that the method of such building is one which involves the cross as its working tool and one which culminates in a death and a raising from the dead. And, of those who attain their initiation and mastership by that method, is it not further written there that they become of the household of God and built into a spiritual temple not made with hands, but eternal and in the heavens and of which "Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone, in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple builded for an habitation of God ?"

If Jesus was the one "teaching them how they should build," and if that process of building "involved the cross as its working tool," then we're not talking about "works righteousness" at all. What that DOES suggest, I will get to in a moment, but first, there is still the matter of this from you:

He most certainly did NOT teach that it was a means to produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership (godhood).

The fact is, what Wilmhurst also actually 'concluded,' was that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the necessity for regeneration (being born again). The difference is, biblical it means becoming a child of God; but Masonically it means becoming a god. This is what Masonic authors like Wilmhurst taught, and it may very well be what Masons like Wayne believe; but as we can see, it's really just more false doctrine and Masonic heresy.

This is just one more prime example where lack of knowledge of anything but your own narrow focus of Christianity, leads you to make conclusions that have no basis in fact.

More on this in my next post.

 

[yourstrulyjulie]

I don't know much about it, but I know a guy who was, who was also a deacon at my church. Maybe that is why he quit?

 

[Rev Wayne]

One thing that is clear from what has been provided from Wilmshurst so far is, that he was very much aware of the main strands of Christianity as they developed and divided in the earliest days of the church, into "eastern" and "western" traditions, "east" being seated in Constantinople ane "west" being seated in Rome. Naturally, the traditions to which we have become accustomed are the traditions which, though not of Rome directly as in the Roman Catholic Church, are nonetheless derivative of western traditions.

For that reason, when some church members see ideas of "circumambulation" in Masonry, they balk at it, having no point of reference to which it relates. To those in the eastern churches, it is hardly an issue. Many eastern churches use various processionals which incorporate circumambulation in one form or another. Eastern Orthodox weddings would be one example, during which the minister and the couple to be wed make three trips around the altar as they enter, before taking their places for the wedding itself.

There are some Christians who, though being from western traditions, have read or studied some of the details peculiar to eastern church practices, and would have no problem with such things. But much more subtle, and more difficult to get one's head around, is the tremendous differences of expression that pertain to eastern Christian churches in contrast to western. In many cases, the entire terminology is different, and if we apply a western construct to our thinking as we look at eastern church matters, we can easily misunderstand what we find.

This is true also of the basic language of theology. The two can be saying quite the same thing, and yet sound as though they are miles apart. I would submit to you, and to our readers, that this is what has happened in your citing of Wilmshurst. When Wilmshurst speaks of the mysteries having been "subsumed" into Christianity, he appeals in the matter to Augustine, a theologian more closely associated with the western churches. Yet in this same chapter, in his comparison of the three degrees of Masonry to the early church practice of teaching catechumens in three distinct stages, he appeals to Dionysius' "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy," an author and treatise which would be much more familiar to churches of the eastern traditions. So even though I can't say for sure what tradition Wilmshurst himself may have hailed from, I have to figure it was a tradition which would have a more intimate knowledge of the eastern traditions than one might expect from someone hailing from the west.

But there is another reason to make this suggestion, and that is, the very language which you have made the focal point of your criticism of Wilmshurst. "Divinization" is actually not a subject that is totally foreign to the Christian church or its theology. The theological term for it is "theosis," and it was actually, to some degree, very familiar to the early church fathers. For example:

Clement of Alexandria:

They become pure in heart, and near to the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.

Origen:

If the heavenly virtues, then, partake of intellectual light, i.e., of divine nature, because they participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human souls, have partaken of the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one nature and of one essence, — then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible and immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and incorruptible.

Gregory of Nazianzus:

He Who is now Man was once the Uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself. In the beginning He was, uncaused; for what is the Cause of God? But afterwards for a cause He was born. And that came was that you might be saved, who insult Him and despise His Godhead, because of this, that He took upon Him your denser nature, having converse with Flesh by means of Mind. While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man.

But now, consider this description of the doctrine, as presented on an apologetics website:

Theosis, or the deification of humankind is a subject of growing interest in contemporary theology. For the most part this is because of a expanding influence brought on by Russian theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, as seen in this paper, theosis was taught and believed by many deemed to be Church Fathers of the Early Christian Church. Primarily, though, those Church Fathers resided in the East where a difference in hermeneutical method led them to interpret certain Scriptures differently than that in the West. Yet, despite the differences in interpretation, when observed more closely, the gap that appears due to linguistic understanding is not as broad as the terms might convey.

For even though the Early Church Fathers in the East may have taught that man may become “gods” or divinized, when understood in the context of Western thoughts of sanctification, it becomes readily apparent that both parties were closely thinking about the same thing with the exception of the terminology used. This is not to say that either group necessarily agreed on all things theological, or that they necessarily agreed on all things when speaking on the subject of theosis. What it does mean is that even when two individuals are speaking the same language it may take time to understand what each other is saying. And that is exactly what is going on here with this doctrine. The East and the West are both advocating nearly the same thought in growing as believers more like unto God. It is just that one party has approached the subject more openly that the other, while the other is perhaps more hesitant in using terms that are less obvious, and yet is saying the same thing. ("Theology of the Early Church Fathers," CAPRO Apologetics Project website)

That description nails it as to the differences, and it puts the Wilmshurst comments in quite a different light. With wilmshurst's seeming preoccupation with an eastern symbolic understanding of Christianity, with his appeal to the treatise by Dionysius, with his terminology of "divinization" rather than the term "sanctification" which we as westerners are used to hearing, there is a strong case to be made that Wilmshurst was saying nothing any different with his mention of "divinization" than what we signify with the term "sanctification." If you look again at the paragraph I cited about "having the cross as its working tool," and compare what is stated there with the expressions commonly used in reference to sanctification, the comparison can easily be seen.

It is also essential to remember, that Wilmshurst was not talking about "pagan" elements being introduced into either Masonry or Christianity; he was simply expressing the commonly held idea (one shared by Augustine) that what were referred to as "mysteries" were sublimated to and subsumed within the teachings of Christianity, and that they were the true teachings that had been handed down since the time of Noah to the time of Christ.

Therefore I consider this comment by you to be untenable:

The fact is, what Wilmhurst also actually 'concluded,' was that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the necessity for regeneration (being born again). The difference is, biblical it means becoming a child of God; but Masonically it means becoming a god.

Nowhere does Wilmshurst make even the first reference to man "becoming a god." That is your own construct, and a false one. Wilmshurst's language and expressions are those of one well-versed in eastern church thinking. He can hardly be described as setting something up to run counter to Christian thinking, when he has clearly stated that Christianity and Masonry are "identical in intention though different in method," and has affirmed that " there cannot be a diversity of doctrine."

And really, Wilmshurst describes the state of Masonry in similar terms as those with which he describes the church, having had the true teachings but somewhere along the line having allowed them to become obscured by other interests:

If, in comparison with other witnesses, Masonry is but a glimmering ray rather than a powerful beam of light, it is none the less a true ray; a kindly light lit from the world's central altar-flame, and sufficing to lead at least some of us on amid the encircling gloom, until the night is gone. Light is granted in propor­tion to the desire of our hearts, but for the majority of Masons their Order sheds no light at all, because light is not their desire, nor is initiation in its true sense understood or wished for. They move among the symbols, simulacra and substituted secrets of the Mysteries without comprehending them, without wishing to translate them into reality. The Craft is made to subserve social and philanthropic ends foreign to its purpose and even to gratify the desire for outward personal distinction; but as an in­strument of regeneration it remains wholly ineffective.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To O.F.F.
I I know, I got chucked out of a cathedral once which was full of masons with their regalia and their banners because they were about to have their annual celebration.

 

[O.F.F.]

Wayne, perhaps you are simply doing this to show that you can urge me to give in and retract my last comment of taking a break from your nonsense. If so, it only works because I see you really have NOT broken your self-proclaimed "habit" of stretching the truth to the limit, usually with something with an element of truth, to tell an outrageous lie, in an effort to give it a ring of credibility. This is precisely what you have just done here, and in that case, I'll gladly call you on it every single time!

However, I could care less about how much you pontificate on the history of the man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. You know that my position on Vatican heresy is not much different than my position on Masonic heresy.

The points you quoted from my earlier post was, and is, NOT about the teachings of Catholicism vs. Freemasonry. It's about the teachings of biblical Christianity vs. the teachings of Freemasonry. There is a huge difference and your two most recent posts simply underscore that fact.

So I stand on what I posted earlier. Based on his own words, NOT YOURS, Wilmhurst concludes that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Mysteries and, that they both are designed to deify their adherents.

Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant, therefore, can be rightly viewed without reference to their relation to the Christian evangel, into which the pre-Christian schools became assumed. The line of succession and evolution from the former to the latter is direct and organic. Allowing for differences of time, place and form of expression, both taught exactly the same truths and inculcated the necessity for regeneration. In such a matter there cannot be a diversity of doctrine. The truth concerning it must be static and uniform at all periods of the world's history. Hence we find St. Augustine affirming that there has never existed but one religion in the world since the beginning of time (meaning by religion the science of rebinding the dislocated soul to its source), and that that religion began to be called Christian in apostolic times. And hence too it is that both the Roman Church and Masonry, although so widely divergent in outlook and method, have this feature in common, that each declares and insists that no alteration or innovation in its central doctrine is permissible and that it is unlawful to remove or deviate from its ancient landmarks. Each is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul, obscured in the one case by theological and other accretions foreign to the main purpose of religion, and unperceived in the other because its symbolism remains uninterpreted.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 209 (emphasis added)

But again, as to what you've posted, believe what YOU want about the teachings of Freemasonry and the historical traditions of Roman Catholicism, but Jesus nor the Bible teaches that the Church (the true Body of Christ) originated from the Ancient Mysteries, nor does He or the true Church teach the divinization of the human soul. If that is what they taught you in seminary, then apparently you didn't attend a biblical one, so if you couple that with your Masonic indoctrination, no wonder, like Wilmhurst, you too are a heretic!

Furthermore, I stand on my point that Wilmhurst also concluded that Christianity and Freemasonry teach the necessity for regeneration (being born again).

The Christian Master's affirmation "Ye must be born again" is regarded as but a pious counsel towards an indefinite improvement of conduct and character, not as a reference to a drastic scientific revolution and reformation of the individual in the way contemplated by the rites of initiation prescribed in the Mysteries. Popular religion may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.

Wilmshurst, Meaning of Masonry, page 212 (emphasis added)

But again, the difference is, biblically it means becoming a child of God; but according to Wilmhurst, Masonically it means becoming a god.

As for this comment:

First of all, in your first citation from p. 209, you started at the beginning of that particular paragraph, and you cited a fairly large amount of material. But the fact is, you stopped short, and did not finish the paragraph, and Wilmshurst's finishing comments in that particular paragraph are essential to understanding what he is saying with the whole

I have NOTHING to hide in terms of context. Interested readers can simple click here to read the entire HERETICAL book. The portion we are discussing again comes from Chapter 5, with the appropriate title, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES;" NOT Catholicism and its relation to the Ancient Mysteries. Now Wayne, this is YOUR second time around on this. Man, talk about "circumambulation" ... are you sure you want to -- like Masonic ritual -- go around it a third time?

 

[Rev Wayne]

The points you quoted from my earlier post was, and is, NOT about the teachings of Catholicism vs. Freemasonry.

Are you for real? Or did you just figure that since what I posted is now on a previous page and not immediately before us, that you could get away with this farce? What I just posted, as you probably are fully aware, was NOT about "Catholicism vs. Freemasonry" at all. Did you even READ anything I posted???? How in the world did you get THAT out of anything I said???? (I already have my suspicions, you probably read no more than the first paragraph of either post, and just ignored the rest, and chose to respond to what you ASSUMED I had said.)

EITHER QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM MY POSTS WHEN MAKING REFERENCE TO MY POSTS, OR DO NOT EVEN BOTHER ANSWERING. I've said that enough times, you ought to have it memorized by now. But at least you've pretty much revealed why you never pay it any attention: because you never pay my posts any attention either, and thus can't quote from what you never saw!

If what you got from my posts was, "the teachings of Catholicism vs. Freemasonry," then clearly you didn't even READ the posts. What I was discussing was, the difference between western and eastern churches, and the fact that Wilmshurst's ideas are more reflective of eastern church thinking than western.

So I stand on what I posted earlier.

That's going to be problematic for you, since you can't "stand" on something that has just been refuted.

Maybe you'd better go back and re-read what I posted, because you can be sure that until you acknowledge it or deal with it, it will continue to come back to you.

But again, the difference is, biblically it means becoming a child of God; but according to Wilmhurst, Masonically it means becoming a god.

I guess you must have missed my entire second post, or you wouldn't be repeating this false nonsense:

Theosis, or the deification of humankind is a subject of growing interest in contemporary theology. For the most part this is because of a expanding influence brought on by Russian theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, as seen in this paper, theosis was taught and believed by many deemed to be Church Fathers of the Early Christian Church. Primarily, though, those Church Fathers resided in the East where a difference in hermeneutical method led them to interpret certain Scriptures differently than that in the West. Yet, despite the differences in interpretation, when observed more closely, the gap that appears due to linguistic understanding is not as broad as the terms might convey.

For even though the Early Church Fathers in the East may have taught that man may become “gods” or divinized, when understood in the context of Western thoughts of sanctification, it becomes readily apparent that both parties were closely thinking about the same thing with the exception of the terminology used. This is not to say that either group necessarily agreed on all things theological, or that they necessarily agreed on all things when speaking on the subject of theosis. What it does mean is that even when two individuals are speaking the same language it may take time to understand what each other is saying. And that is exactly what is going on here with this doctrine. The East and the West are both advocating nearly the same thought in growing as believers more like unto God. It is just that one party has approached the subject more openly that the other, while the other is perhaps more hesitant in using terms that are less obvious, and yet is saying the same thing. ("Theology of the Early Church Fathers," CAPRO Apologetics Project website)

Therein lies the difference, the East speaks of "divinization" while the West speaks of "sanctification," with the intent being basically identical.

And my response along with that citation:

That description nails it as to the differences, and it puts the Wilmshurst comments in quite a different light. With Wilmshurst's seeming preoccupation with an eastern symbolic understanding of Christianity, with his appeal to the treatise by Dionysius, with his terminology of "divinization" rather than the term "sanctification" which we as westerners are used to hearing, there is a strong case to be made that Wilmshurst was saying nothing any different with his mention of "divinization" than what we signify with the term "sanctification." If you look again at the paragraph I cited about "having the cross as its working tool," and compare what is stated there with the expressions commonly used in reference to sanctification, the comparison can easily be seen.

In a nutshell, western churches look at 2 Peter 1:4 on becoming "partakers of the divine nature," and call it "sanctification"; eastern churches look at the same passage, and in the theological language of the east, call it "divinization." But the meaning in each case is the same, if you understand each according to their own theological expressions and defintions.

And my response to YOU remains the same as well, just as I already stated:

Nowhere does Wilmshurst make even the first reference to man "becoming a god." That is your own construct, and a false one. Wilmshurst's language and expressions are those of one well-versed in eastern church thinking. He can hardly be described as setting something up to run counter to Christian thinking, when he has clearly stated that Christianity and Masonry are "identical in intention though different in method," and has affirmed that " there cannot be a diversity of doctrine."

Find someplace where Wilmshurst couches his remarks about "divinization" in the language you just claimed, "becoming 'a god,'" rather than in terms more akin to the western understanding of "sanctification," or simply continue to stand refuted on that point, it's as simple as that.

I have NOTHING to hide in terms of context. Interested readers can simple click here to read the entire HERETICAL book. The portion we are discussing again comes from Chapter 5, with the appropriate title, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES;" NOT Catholicism and its relation to the Ancient Mysteries.

Nobody said you were "hiding" anything at all. I merely pointed out the reason your take on Wilmshurst wound up being short-sighted, which is, you were only addressing about half the paragraph in which those remarks were contained. The remainder of the paragraph itself is the surest refutation of what you claimed. Whether your partial consideration was intentional or not, I simply leave up to you and your conscience--hypothetically speaking, of course.

Again, nobody was talking about Catholicism at all. You really need to read more than just the first paragraph of my posts. If you do, maybe you won't make such unintelligible responses. My remarks all had to do with the difference between western and eastern church theological language, and the fact that Wilmshurst's language is the language of the eastern church, and therefore was misunderstood by you, just as it would be by MANY western Christians who are unfamiliar with the differences.

You're so predictable, it was easy to see where you made your error this time: you scanned over the first paragraph of my second post of my two-part response, your eyes picked up on the words "Roman Catholic Church," and without reading anything else, you started in with a mantra of "this is not about Catholicism vs. Freemasonry," and thus totally MISSED what the ENTIRE POST was about. I can't speak for anyone else on this thread, but I find it appalling that someone can make a response here on the false pretense that they read my responses to you, and so TOTALLY miss the mark as to characterize a discussion of eastern church beliefs and expression, as a discussion of Roman Catholicism! That is just bizarre beyond words, and how you could have gotten "Catholicism" out of my comments on "western churches," is a real mystery.

I know you won't take any advice, but you really need to go back and re-read both posts, so you can hopefully respond to something that was actually said. Or, failing that, you can continue to post foolish-looking responses like this one.

As it stands, since so far you have not even BEGUN to counter my refutation of your earlier posts on this matter, what I posted still stands.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In Christian theology, particularly in Eastern Orthodox theology, theosis (written also: theiosis, theopoiesis, theōsis; Greek: Θέωσις, meaning divinization, deification, or making divine) is the process of transformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel. In particular, theosis refers to the attainment of likeness to or union with God, that is the final stage of this process of transformation and is as such the goal of the spiritual life. Theosis is the third of three stages; the first being purification (katharsis) and the second illumination (theoria). By means of purification a person comes to illumination and then sainthood. Sainthood is the participation of the person in the life of God. According to this doctrine, the holy life of God, given in Jesus Christ to the believer through the Holy Spirit, is expressed through the three stages of theosis, beginning in the struggles of this life, which increases in the experience of the believer through the knowledge of God, and is later consummated in theresurrection of the believer, when the power of sin and death, having been fully overcome by the atonement of Jesus, will lose hold over the believer forever. This conception of salvation is historical and foundational for Christian understanding in both the East and the West. (Wikipedia, "Theosis")

There you have it, so you don't have to take my word for it. As always, there are more things to be found in both Christianity and in Masonry, than you will ever be aware of, or admit.

 

[O.F.F.]

Let's first get one thing straight:

EITHER QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM MY POSTS WHEN MAKING REFERENCE TO MY POSTS, OR DO NOT EVEN BOTHER ANSWERING.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW I RESPOND TO YOUR POSTS, THEN DON'T BOTHER ADDRESSING THEM TO ME. I DON'T CARE IF I NEVER TALK TO YOU EVER AGAIN! BUT IF I DO, I'LL QUOTE WHATEVER I WISH AND CALL IT HOWEVER I SEE IT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH ME OR NOT.

Secondly, I see you really have NOT repented from your self-proclaimed "habit" of stretching the truth to the limit, usually with something with an element of truth, to tell an outrageous lie, in an effort to give it a ring of credibility. In this case, the 'element of truth' is your rebuttal regarding the concept of "Theosis." And, of course, the 'outrageous lie' in this case is trying to convince anyone that if they were to put the two -- Christianity and Freemasonry -- side by side you can see that they teach the same things, just by different methods.

If that were true, then that would make Freemasonry a religion. But then there is a much deeper problem with your premise. Despite the full context you wish to employ from Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry, though I am not sure if I agree he meant "divinization" in the same way as the 'eastern churches,' one sentence within that context sticks out like a sore thumb, and fatally wounds your assessment of what he is trying to convey.

First he says on page 209, Each (Christianity and Freemasonry) is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul (emphasis added). This, of course, would further indicate that Freemasonry is a religion, but that is not the sentence in question. The pivotal sentence comes later on page 212 when he said this: Popular religion (in this case, Christianity) may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it (Christianity) is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained (emphasis added).

So even if we are to understand 'divinized men' as 'sanctified men' and not men becoming gods; then Wilmshurst is saying that though they both teach the same things, but by different methods, Christianity cannot produce sanctification, but Freemasonry can, because it is NOT 'ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.'

We know that by the power of the Holy Spirit, the authority of Scripture and by the authority of Jesus Christ Himself, that the Church (Christianity) and every believer can, and will, be sanctified. But the question is, by what authority does Freemasonry have to accomplish what Wilmshurst (and you apparently agree) says this 'popular religion' cannot produce?

As a side note, I discovered another problem you have to face, though I guess you were hoping I'd miss it. You used a Christian source to try and make your point of agreement with Wilmshurst that Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things. Yet that very same source would vehemently disagree with you.

Although Freemasonry is seen by most on the outside as simply another fraternal order whose sole goal is one of benevolence, clearly Freemasonry is much, much more than a fraternity, and its goals are not merely for altruistic purposes. It is a religion that expresses religious ideas, although in many cases in a very haphazard way.

From the preliminary findings in these few pages it should be clear that Freemasonry and Christianity are not compatible by any stretch of the rational imagination. From the Freemasonry view of the Bible, to its view of God, Jesus, and Salvation, to name only a few of the major doctrines that could have been discussed, Freemasonry and Christianity are as far apart in agreement as heaven is in distance from hell. Freemasonry, despite all its benevolent deeds, offers those deeds as an attractive counterfeit for the Christian message of redemption. Adherents are taught they can work their way up the celestial ladder and yet remain a part of the Christian church, which teaches its members that to be associated with such thinking is to also associate light with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14). It's not that the members of the Lodge are intrinsically evil, per sé, but that their message is eternally fatal, and hence has nothing in common with the Jesus (not Hiram Abiff) who died for them. Therefore, the only warning that is apropos in terms of Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge is to beware of her. For though she may disguise herself outwardly with beautiful works of the finest of human quality, inwardly she is an odiferous sepulchre that is full of dead men's bones. (emphasis added)

CAPRO Apologetics Project website Cults/Freemasonry

In fact, in the same article, the author attacks Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry several times.

Such a [Masonic] view of the Bible has led to some rather creative, if not erroneous, interpretations of it. For instance, while alluding to two verses in Scripture which speak of God's angels as "His ministers of a flame of fire" and "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:7, 14)— the former of which is drawing a contrast between the person of Jesus and his superior rank to the angels, and the latter as servants of the saved—W. L. Wilmshurst believes that "the members of Masonry emblematize on earth the angels and archangels and all the company of Heaven."

. . .

Instead a character by the name of Hiram Abiff has taken the place of Jesus, as Jesus, except with a different name. Hiram Abiff is the third of the three pillars or personifications of "the indissociable triadic constituents of the Divine Unity." (Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry) More specifically, Hiram Abiff is the Christ-principle immanent in every soul…Consistently with Christ-like humility, Hiram Abiff (literally, "the teacher from the Father") is not described as a "king" as are Solomon and Hiram of Tyre, but as one "of no reputation," a "widow's son"; a beautiful touch of Gnostic symbolism referable to the derelict or widowed nature of the Divine Motherhood or Sophia owing to the errancy and defection from wisdom of her frail children. (Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry)

If one believes that description is esoteric or fantastic, then one would be correct. That's because Hiram Abiff is legend. Some have tried to associate him with Hiram of Tyre, the Old Testament character employed by Solomon to help build his Temple (cf. 1 Kg. 7:13), but as Waite concludes, the Masons "have sought…to reconcile certain trifling discrepancies in the two accounts [1 Kgs 7 and 2 Chr. 2] by the help of gratuitous assumptions, but the work is worthless." Others (Wilmshurst), see Hiram Abiff as the "the Great Master and Exemplar and Saviour of the world,"

. . .

Salvation in Masonry essentially involves an escape from the material world. The body and soul are distinct, with the soul representing the actual person who is more or less imprisoned and must be liberated to return to Deity as an emanation of it. The escape itself takes work or depends on the artisan "shaping himself into a living and precious stone for the cosmic temple of a regenerate Humanity unto which, when completed and dedicated, Deity will again enter and abide." (Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry) Such effort is based on the Ancient Mysteries and must take place during one's lifetime, lest upon dying one "remain suspended in the more tenuous planes of this planet until such time as it is once again indrawn into the vortex of generation by the ever-turning wheel of life." (Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry) In other words, Masonic doctrine stipulates that one must take it upon oneself to "reconstruct [one's] own fallen nature," (Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry) and when that occurs one is reabsorbed back into the "God" from which he came. (emphasis added)

So there you have it; you don't have to take my word for it. As always, there are more despicable things to be found in Freemasonry, than you are aware of, or are willing to admit.

 

[Medievalarmy]

Freemasonry is a entirely different religion. So, a Christian CANNOT be a Freemason too.

 

[Rev Wayne]

IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW I RESPOND TO YOUR POSTS, THEN DON'T BOTHER ADDRESSING THEM TO ME. I DON'T CARE IF I NEVER TALK TO YOU EVER AGAIN! BUT IF I DO, I'LL QUOTE WHATEVER I WISH AND CALL IT HOWEVER I SEE IT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH ME OR NOT

Since I'm very much aware that you know exactly what I'm talking about, I will take this as you serving notice that you will continue to misrepresent my comments at will--in other words, that you have no intention of discontinuing any of your lies, and will continue to miscast what I say. Duly noted.

So go ahead, make my day. Exposing the many lies you've told since returning here is certainly no reflection on me.

side by side you can see that they teach the same things, just by different methods.

If that were true, then that would make Freemasonry a religion.

No, Freemasonry is not a religion, it is a system of morality. And its teaching methods are by "veiling in allegory" and "illustrating by symbol." I know of no religion that teaches solely by the indirection of symbolism and allegory; nor do I know of any religion that tells its adherents they are free to believe or not believe as they choose. Those two factors alone would be enough to undermine any system of religion, for a religion will be direct about what it teaches, and its adherents will be required to believe what it teaches, otherwise it loses its following very quickly. Surely you recognize this from the control aspect that is one of the characteristics of a cult? Much is done to isolate followers from those who would tell them any differently; but Freemasonry engages in no such practices.

First he says on page 209, Each (Christianity and Freemasonry) is right in its insistence, for in the system of each is enshrined the age-old doctrine of regeneration and divinization of the human soul (emphasis added). This, of course, would further indicate that Freemasonry is a religion, but that is not the sentence in question. The pivotal sentence comes later on page 212 when he said this: Popular religion (in this case, Christianity) may indeed produce "good" men, as the world's standard of goodness goes. It does not and cannot produce divinized men endued with the qualities of Mastership, for it (Christianity) is ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained (emphasis added).

So even if we are to understand 'divinized men' as 'sanctified men' and not men becoming gods; then Wilmshurst is saying that though they both teach the same things, but by different methods, Christianity cannot produce sanctification, but Freemasonry can, because it is NOT 'ignorant of the traditional wisdom and methods by which that end is to be attained.'

Why do you continue to rail in this manner, when I have already refuted what you said, several posts ago?

Once again I remind you, you have to read it as a WHOLE, and not just pick out the parts that you can decontextualize for the purpose of criticism:

If, in comparison with other witnesses, Masonry is but a glimmering ray rather than a powerful beam of light, it is none the less a true ray; a kindly light lit from the world's central altar-flame, and sufficing to lead at least some of us on amid the encircling gloom, until the night is gone. Light is granted in propor­tion to the desire of our hearts, but for the majority of Masons their Order sheds no light at all, because light is not their desire, nor is initiation in its true sense understood or wished for. They move among the symbols, simulacra and substituted secrets of the Mysteries without comprehending them, without wishing to translate them into reality. The Craft is made to subserve social and philanthropic ends foreign to its purpose and even to gratify the desire for outward personal distinction; but as an in­strument of regeneration it remains wholly ineffective.

I figured you were familiar with the material, and so the reference was omitted, but since apparently you were not, the page is 214. If you will follow the context, you will find that the paragraphs are back to back. In the one concerning Christianity, it begins on p. 211 and concludes on p. 212. This I have already addressed, citing the paragraph in the place where it began, in post #967, after you had first posted a small portion of the paragraph and made incorrect conclusions from the isolated comment you sliced from the whole.

Wilmshurst was describing the state of things in the church that led it away from direct teachings of regeneration into other interests, a lot of it being focus on worldly concerns. The paragraph began with "When Christianity became a state religion. . ." So he was clearly taking his remarks all the way back to Constantine's declaration making Christianity the official religion of the empire. In this, Wilmshurst is not at variance with general historical opinion on the matter, in stating that the church's decline began the moment it became accepted or "official." (The mantra I always heard in every Christian history course I ever took was, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.") So I don't find a problem with what he says here, in fact, it gives every indication that Wilmshurst took an avid interest in church history that he gives the assessment that he does.

But what you seem to have missed is, what he does in THIS paragraph concerning the church on regeneration, he also does in the NEXT paragraph concerning Masonry on the same issue. The paragraph begins on p. 212 immediately after the other one, and concludes on p.214. Certainly, he has some erroneous ideas about Masonic origins. (Not everyone accepted Gould's work as readily as Mackey, and what had been a popular and widespread opinion that speculative Masonry had much earlier origins than history can account for, has persisted even to this day in some circles.) So his comments about the "suppression of the mysteries" from the sixth century forward, and their being carried forward by Masonry from that point, are to be taken with a grain of salt. But clearly, as you can see from the citation repeated above, he says the same thing about BOTH.

So again, in response to what you just said above, I simply say once again, maybe if you were to actually start reading my posts, you could save yourself the trouble of making objections which were already addressed.

You used a Christian source to try and make your point of agreement with Wilmshurst that Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things. Yet that very same source would vehemently disagree with you.

This is why I posted the notice to you once again to CITE DIRECTLY FROM MY COMMENTS OR DON'T CITE ME AT ALL. And here you are, once again, pursuing the same idiotic course of trying to manipulate my posts to suit YOUR AGENDA.

I DID NOT cite this source to try to show that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things." What I DID cite the source for, was to PROVE to you the point about the differences between eastern and western Christianity, and show that Wilmshurst's comments on the concept of "divinization" are consistent with eastern Christian thinking.

Readers, pay no attention to the blatant, vicious LIES posted by this deceiver, with nothing but malicious intent. HERE is the citation I posted from the site in question:

Theosis, or the deification of humankind is a subject of growing interest in contemporary theology. For the most part this is because of a expanding influence brought on by Russian theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, as seen in this paper, theosis was taught and believed by many deemed to be Church Fathers of the Early Christian Church. Primarily, though, those Church Fathers resided in the East where a difference in hermeneutical method led them to interpret certain Scriptures differently than that in the West. Yet, despite the differences in interpretation, when observed more closely, the gap that appears due to linguistic understanding is not as broad as the terms might convey.

For even though the Early Church Fathers in the East may have taught that man may become “gods” or divinized, when understood in the context of Western thoughts of sanctification, it becomes readily apparent that both parties were closely thinking about the same thing with the exception of the terminology used. This is not to say that either group necessarily agreed on all things theological, or that they necessarily agreed on all things when speaking on the subject of theosis. What it does mean is that even when two individuals are speaking the same language it may take time to understand what each other is saying. And that is exactly what is going on here with this doctrine. The East and the West are both advocating nearly the same thought in growing as believers more like unto God. It is just that one party has approached the subject more openly that the other, while the other is perhaps more hesitant in using terms that are less obvious, and yet is saying the same thing. ("Theology of the Early Church Fathers," CAPRO Apologetics Project website)

As anyone can see, what I posted was about the "Theology of the Early Church Fathers." My post of it had NOTHING to do with the subject of Freemasonry, and EVERYTHING to do with establishing that Wilmshurst's comments are completely consistent with eastern church theology.

Try selling your male bovine excrement to a farmer, maybe he can at least use it for fertilizer.

In fact, in the same article, the author attacks Wilmshurst's Meaning of Masonry several times.

So what? Since I wasn't making any point about Freemasonry, but rather about differences between eastern and western Christianity, your new accusation is irrelevant. Even a site that got it that wrong about Freemasonry might still manage to get things straight on the differences between eastern and western Christianity, and they certainly did. You forget, too, that the reason for citing from it to show the basis of Wilmshurst's comments, was that it was necessitated by your own ignorance of eastern Christianity and the differences of expression.

You don't seem to believe that the difference is significant--which is to be expected from someone who tries to ignore it in an attempt to pretend it doesn't even exist. But the difference is really monumental. The eastern church is, in many ways, vastly different in many ways from the west. The eastern church, for one thing, underwent no Protestant Reformation, which was primarily a western event; so the doctrine of salvation by faith is pretty much in absence in eastern thinking. That makes all of their statements about what it means to be "saved" appear to be akin to "works righteousness," because the process as a whole has the appearance of having bypassed the whole idea of faith being at the heart of it.

As already pointed out, Wilmshurst's Christianity had its primary influences in eastern Christian thought, which is why you misunderstood him. One of the most obvious indicators of it can be found in the very beginning of the book, on the title page:

“We must, then, demonstrate that ours is a Hierarchy of inspired, divine and deifying science, of efficacy and of consecration for those initiated with the initiation of the revelation derived from the hierarchical mysteries.


Head of this Hierarchy is the Fountain of Life, the Essence of Goodness, the one Triad, Cause of things that be, assimilation to and union with Whom, as far as attainable, is deification.


And this is the common goal of every Hierarchy, - persistent devotion towards God and divine things divinely and uniformly ministered ; prior to which there must be a complete and unswerving removal of things contrary; a knowledge of things as they are in themselves; the vision and science of sacred truth; the inspired communication of the uniform perfection of the One Itself, as far as attainable; the banquet of contemplation, nourishing intelligibly and deifying every man elevated towards it."


DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITICUS,


De Eccles. Hierarch., I, t-3.​

​

Maybe if you had read this at the beginning, and had seen him citing from a church treatise on the subject of "deification," your errors might have been avoided.

 

[O.F.F.]

I DID NOT cite this source to try to show that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things."

Yeah you DID, and I'll show you in moment.

What I DID cite the source for, was to PROVE to you the point about the differences between eastern and western Christianity, and show that Wilmshurst's comments on the concept of "divinization" are consistent with eastern Christian thinking.

That's right, to ultimately the try to prove that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things." No one asked you to prove the differences between eastern and western Christianity. Our sole concern here is to discuss the differences between Freemasonry and biblical Christianity.

Once again I remind you, you have to read it as a WHOLE...

Then maybe you should follow your own advise and read your posts as a WHOLE. After all, it was YOU who started this WHOLE absurd notion about "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things" in the first place. And all I've done is stuck with it to PROVE you WRONG. But since you are obviously growing senile, let me help remind you where YOU started this mess. It began in post #861 when you quoted Wilmshurst after telling poster "AoDoa" this:

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions, where he shows the point of the whole argument to be, an assertion that the lodge teaches the same things as Christianity, though it teaches them by different methods

See, you started this garbage about "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things." And, as far as I'm concern, since YOU stated in this same comment several pages ago that, this is the point of the WHOLE argument, my assumption from that point forward has been that this is ULTIMATELY why you posted whatever you DID, from whatever source it came from, since then. And, until YOU recant this preposterous claim, I'll presume this is the goal of every post you make on the matter from now on.

At the time, in response to your ridiculous assertion, I corrected you with what Wlimshurst actually concluded:

Apparently you didn't read the whole book and follow his argument to its conclusions either, because nothing could be further from the truth of what Wilmshurst actually "concludes." What he actually concludes is that Freemasonry is a descendant of the Ancient Mysteries...

Talk about NOT following his argument to its conclusion, for crying out loud, the title of the CONCLUDING chapter of HIS book is, "FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO THE ANCIENT MYSTERIES." That alone should have spoken LOUD and CLEAR to anyone who read the book, that this was THE conclusion HE intended to make. But if that wasn't enough, in that very chapter he declares, "Neither the Ancient Mysteries nor Modern Masonry, their descendant..." Yet you want to white-wash or discount it with some absurd idea that we should take his comments about the connection with a grain of salt; while expecting us to embrace his comments about "divinization" as if they were the gospel.

So his comments about the "suppression of the mysteries" from the sixth century forward, and their being carried forward by Masonry from that point, are to be taken with a grain of salt.

Get the heck out of here! But then, over 100 posts later, you reiterated your fixation that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things" when you said:

First of all, in your first citation from p. 209, you started at the beginning of that particular paragraph, and you cited a fairly large amount of material. But the fact is, you stopped short, and did not finish the paragraph, and Wilmshurst's finishing comments in that particular paragraph are essential to understanding what he is saying with the whole

You followed this with a quote from Wilmshurst again, and then declared:

This makes it clear that he is putting the two side by side and declaring that they teach the same things, just by different methods.

So don't tell me that this is about the differences between eastern and western Christianity, YOUR GOAL is to claim that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things," yet nothing could be further from the truth!!!

As anyone can see, what I posted was about the "Theology of the Early Church Fathers." My post of it had NOTHING to do with the subject of Freemasonry, and EVERYTHING to do with establishing that Wilmshurst's comments are completely consistent with eastern church theology.

This thread is about Freemasonry, therefore since you are a high-ranking Mason, whatever you post has EVERYTHING to do with ULTIMATELY defending it. But as I have shown, readers can see that the source you cited from denounces Freemasonry.

Although Freemasonry is seen by most on the outside as simply another fraternal order whose sole goal is one of benevolence, clearly Freemasonry is much, much more than a fraternity, and its goals are not merely for altruistic purposes. It is a religion that expresses religious ideas, although in many cases in a very haphazard way.

From the preliminary findings in these few pages it should be clear that Freemasonry and Christianity are not compatible by any stretch of the rational imagination. From the Freemasonry view of the Bible, to its view of God, Jesus, and Salvation, to name only a few of the major doctrines that could have been discussed, Freemasonry and Christianity are as far apart in agreement as heaven is in distance from hell. Freemasonry, despite all its benevolent deeds, offers those deeds as an attractive counterfeit for the Christian message of redemption. Adherents are taught they can work their way up the celestial ladder and yet remain a part of the Christian church, which teaches its members that to be associated with such thinking is to also associate light with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14). It's not that the members of the Lodge are intrinsically evil, per sé, but that their message is eternally fatal, and hence has nothing in common with the Jesus (not Hiram Abiff) who died for them. Therefore, the only warning that is apropos in terms of Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge is to beware of her. For though she may disguise herself outwardly with beautiful works of the finest of human quality, inwardly she is an odiferous sepulchre that is full of dead men's bones. (emphasis added)

CAPRO Apologetics Project website Cults/Freemasonry

This may be irrelevant to you, but I am sure the readers who are devoted Christians would agree that this is very significant to this discussion. And, only a fool would quote one section of a website, in order to help build his case of Masonic compatibility with Christianity, when that same website refutes this premise in another section.

Try selling your male bovine excrement to a farmer, maybe he can at least use it for fertilizer.

And, if you would stop acting like the body part from whence it came, maybe we'd all be better O.F.F. But, pastor, if this exchange frustrates you to the point of becoming such a potty-mouth, perhaps you ought to just concede.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In any debate there is always a main point, and there are subpoints that get involved in the discussion as well. And when someone introduces something into the mix that is false or misleading, it is wise, and should be considered incumbent upon any good debater, to produce the counterpoint that shows what is wrong with it. So here's what happened: you introduced into a discussion which really at that point had no focus upon Wilmshurst, an accusation that was apparently made in ignorance of the particular Christian viewpoint from which Wilmshurst addresses matters; I left it alone for the sake of continuing upon the point that was currently at hand, considering it a minor distraction at best; you later got miffed after your arguments went nowhere; at which point I went back and picked it up just to show what was wrong with your claim as presented, for the purpose of clearing the air so nothing would be left giving readers any wrong impressions after your departure--in the past I have found this to be wise, especially if there is any such remark that appeared in any discussion that was in proximity to the point where a thread gets left off. Quite often in later discussions, I have had readers come back with comments about such matters as this one, as though something had been proven when it was not, simply because most people's general assumption (though a false one) is, that "silence implies consent." You already got nailed for it, you're just making a futile effort to slough it off. To illustrate:

And, as far as I'm concern, since YOU stated in this same comment several pages ago that, this is the point of the WHOLE argument, my assumption from that point forward has been that this is ULTIMATELY why you posted whatever you DID, from whatever source it came from, since then. And, until YOU recant this preposterous claim, I'll presume this is the goal of every post you make on the matter from now on.

What is preposterous, is this bluster about something which was precipitated, NOT by the discussion, but by YOUR false claims. Had you not made the ridiculous assertion that Wilmshurt's comment about "divinization" was about man becoming "a god," none of this whole response on my part would have ever been posted in the first place. So allow ME to show YOU where "it started":

W.L. Wilmshurst Teaches Human Divinization

This was the heading for your post #870 all the way back on page 87. It was so asinine I ignored it for quite some time. Eventually it appeared you had gotten wise and left it alone. At the point I brought it back up, you had all but left, and had announced your intent to refrain from further comment, and I was simply clearing the air to leave no unresolved issue that anyone could come back later and claim to be something that was "shown" when it had actually not even been addressed by me. Apparently you considered it a point worth sticking around for, and have not left yet, so my assessment of the matter was correct, it WAS a point which probably would have been re-presented later with a triumphal announcement that "Masons were not able to refute this," when the truth of the matter was, Masons didn't consider it worth the attention it takes to refute it.

See, you started this garbage about "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things."

Actually, Wilmshurst did. I merely pointed out where he says it. And while that has been a main point in the discussion, it was NOT why I brought up the quote from the Capro website. That citation was brought in while I was engaging in counterpoint to refute YOUR CLAIM that "Wilmshurst teaches that man becomes 'a god.'"

So don't tell me that this is about the differences between eastern and western Christianity, YOUR GOAL is to claim that "Christianity and Freemasonry both teach the same things,"

YOU were the one making the "CLAIM." It's right there in the heading of your post, #870, page 88 of this thread. YOUR CLAIM is that "Wilmshurst teaches human divinization," which later became further fleshed out as "Wilmshurst teaches that man becomes 'a god.'" I think to the readers that's pretty obvious. And it's probably equally obvious to them, that the sophistry you are now engaging in, is taking the citations I have presented from Wilmshurst that COUNTER that claim, and trying to make them out to be the main plank of the debate, and also trying to pretend that this current conversation is all about ME making assertions, when in actuality, the ENTIRETY of what I've posted since I introduced your citation of Wilmshurst, has been to refute YOUR CLAIM.

Part of the process in doing that was to show that Wilmshurst's declared position is that Masonry and Christianity teach the same thing but by different methods, the citation of via crucis versus via lucis being pivotal.

Another part of the counterpoint involved showing the differences between eastern and western Christianity, to establish for all to see, that Wilmshurst's Christian influences obviously had more of an eastern flavor to them.

This was to establish the larger counterpoint, that because many western Christians are unaware of the theological differences between the two, the terminology can be misleading to them, with the term "divinization" being one of the key terms upon which western Christians are prone to error, not seeing that it is more similar to our ideas of "sanctification."

Another part of the counterpoint was the citation that appears on the title page of the book, which clearly shows that Wilmshurst's comments were based directly upon a Christian document, and one which he made a frontispiece for the book--and one which, apparently, you summarily IGNORED right at the very outset as you began reading the book!!

In other words, my COUNTERPOINT, to your POINT, falsely accusing Wilmshurst of teaching that "man becomes 'a god.'"

Now, it's pretty clear, if you can't keep up with the course of the debate any better than that, that you start confusing counterpoint with the main point, what are you doing debating this in the first place?

But, pastor, if this exchange frustrates you to the point of becoming such a potty-mouth, perhaps you ought to just concede.

Well, thank the Lord, so far it has not, and I've been able to confine myself to recognizable euphemisms rather than outbursts of potty-mouth rage like we've seen from you. But as anyone can see, I have nothing to "concede." In much the same manner that some people try to shift the burden of proof, you have tried the seismic shift of presenting a point, and following it up with an attempt to label the counterpoint to your claim as being the main point. I would think even the most novice debater knows better than your little parlor tricks, but just in case there could possibly be even one here that wouldn't know better, I figured it was worth the effort to spell this out for them so they can see your deception.

 

[O.F.F.]

I've been able to confine myself to recognizable euphemisms rather than outbursts of potty-mouth rage like we've seen from you.

Unless you can show otherwise, mine have been just as euphemistic as yours, pastor. But since euphemisms ULTIMATELY mean the same as the real phrase or term(s), just because you use a euphemism to keep from using profanity doesn't make you any less a potty-mouth. If I told you to "kiss where the sun don't shine" does it make you feel any better about where your lips are meant to go?

Like I trust both our parents have told us at some point, if you can't say anything nicely, then don't say anything at all. So may I suggest we simply stop talking to each other for awhile.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Unless you can show otherwise, mine have been just as euphemistic as yours, pastor. But since euphemisms ULTIMATELY mean the same as the real phrase or term(s), just because you use a euphemism to keep from using profanity doesn't make you any less a potty-mouth.

Well, the fact that you can't see the difference sure explains your lack of discretion earlier.

Sorry, but I will continue to disagree, and if one of my kids comes to tell me something a visiting neighbor kid said to them, I will expect them to say "s-word" or "d-word" or whichever is appropriate--and I will still ask the kid who said it to go home. If the neighbor kid comes to me because one of mine did the same thing, I will expect the same, and will discipline my child accordingly--and will send the neighbor kid home if he does NOT euphemize it in telling me.

So you can pretend there's no difference all you wish. But I will continue to extend the common courtesy of speaking plainly without speaking bluntly. You, on the other hand, may continue your potty-mouth ways to your heart's content, since you apparently see no difference.

If I told you to "kiss where the sun don't shine" does it make you feel any better about where your lips are meant to go?

It sure prevents feeling any worse about it than I might if you had used the vernacular. Or didn't you notice, that when I was told to shove it up my apron, no return comment was made, for the simple reason that you chose not to be coarse about it?

Like I trust both our parents have told us at some point, if you can't say anything nicely, then don't say anything at all.

Actually, it was Thumper, but yeah.

So may I suggest we simply stop talking to each other for awhile.

I thought you already said you were going to do that? It doesn't seem to have worked out for you. As for my part, it will depend on what you do from this point. I stand on what I just said in the previous post, concerning where the discussion stands at this point, which means I believe the case has been made that you got the wrong read on Wilmshurst. Naturally I have no problem leaving it there.