Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Rev Wayne]

If a Mason, who claims to be a real Christian, 'read the Bible correctly' there is no way they would remain in the Lodge. Unless of course they ignored, don't understand, never read or don't really give a damn about Exodus 20:3, where it says "You shall have no other gods before, in addition to, along side with those who worship false gods or any other besides Me." (emphasis added)

I don't worship any other God than the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, same as you. Wake up and smell the coffee.

During Masonic ritual, the candidates are asked, "In whom do they put their trust?" They are required to answer, "In God" who they are taught is the "Great Architect of the Universe." They are also informed during ritual that all Masons are to bow before the sacred name of Deity, and are told that all Masons of every country, religion, and opinion are united in the belief that they have been created by one Almighty Parent. But is this Almighty Parent or Great Architect and God of the Masonic Lodge, also the God of the Bible? The answer is clearly a resounding NO!

Are you trying to say God did NOT create everyone in every country, despite their religion or opinion? And how, pray tell, do you figure that just because their religion is different from yours, that this somehow means that God created you, but not them? You really need to get back to the basics, get out your Bible, and start all over again at Genesis 1. You really seem to have some SERIOUS gaps in your understanding of it.

In the Holman "Masonic Bible" Masons are told this "Almighty Parent" is the one true God that all men worship; regardless of the name by which they identified him or it. Be it "Higher Power," Jehovah, Krishna, Buddha, Allah, "the Great First Cause," Brahma, Vishnu or some other name a Mason may choose.

I’ve never even seen a Holman Masonic Bible, and it’s my understanding they no longer make them anyway, and haven’t for some time. Couldn’t you find anything current? I don’t care what any other person, any other Mason, or YOU believe in, it does not alter ONE WHIT the fact that I believe in, love, and live to serve the triune, One and Only True God, who has revealed Himself in three Persons, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

While we have gone over this time and time again, it needs to be stressed again, since you two Masons have the audacity to pat yourselves on the back, about how the Lodge made you better Christians.

I said that?? I thought I made my remarks about someone of my acquaintance, not me? In fact, I'm sure I did:

I remember one in particular, a member of a church I formerly served. She told me how her (then deceased) husband had many years earlier been a habitual drinker. After he joined the lodge, the drinking habit stopped almost immediately. Later, after he had begun reading his Bible in accord with the Masonic encouragement to "make it the rule and guide for your life," he announced to her one day: "If I'm reading this book correctly, then we need to be in church on Sunday. And from that point he was a regular at church with his family every week.

better get your eyes checked, Mr. Magoo can read better than that.

On the contrary, you have compromised your faith, because you are members of an organization that compromises as to who God truly is, by taking a neutral position on the matter. Genuine Christians will NOT tolerate such a compromise.

And I have gone over this time and time again with you, and it needs to be stressed again, I can’t do anything about whatever situation exists, potentially or actually, other than in any of the lodges where I now attend or have attended in the past. So far I have not met anyone who was anything other than a professing Christian. Get over it.

As for “compromise” concerning being part of an organization which “takes a neutral position” on who God is, I suppose you’d better find yourself another country to live in. This nation qualifies as an "organization," and it certainly does not set forth any particular religion or any belief about God to which anyone has to adhere before they may become a citizen. While you’re at it, you’d better kick your bosom buddy out of the O.F.F. organization, since both he and his denomination are supporters of Scouting, an organization which also “takes a neutral position on who God is.”

So, for the sake of new readers of this thread, let's review this again. When a Muslim Mason prays to Allah, or a Hindu Mason prays to Vishnu or Shiva, are they all really praying to Jesus? When Buddhist Masons, Jehovah's Witness Masons, and Mormon Masons pray in lodge together during ritual, are they really praying to the God of the Bible?

Stop pontificating about "readers," you do this primarily for yourself.

And consider: when all of them in a lodge are Christians as they are in the lodges I have attended so far, when they pray, who are they praying to? And what principle have they violated in doing so in a gathering where all present are Christians? And don't go objecting about it being "connected," as usual, making us guilty even tho we're not, because you are criticizing a practice, and so far in lodges I've attended, the practice is definitely not the one you describe, so yes, it most certainly is different.

But certainly if a genuine Christian joined a religious fraternity, shouldn't he want it to care about which God truly is the Supreme Being? And after learning that it doesn't care, shouldn't a real Christian resign and renounce such an organization? If they don't, what does that tell you about the sincerity of their faith?

I think you missed one of your highlights, “Freemasonry cares not.” It is not the place or intent of the lodge to declare who God is for any man. And even though in the lodge meetings I have attended, all have been Christians, I still would not consider it a violation of anything I believe, or any Christian principle I can think of, to engage in any of the prayers of the lodge. Maybe you’ve forgotten it, but since, as you so vehemently reminded us in the past, the huge majority of the prayers are pre-written anyway: how do they violate anything for the Christian who hears expressions in the prayers that are derived from Christian theology?

For instance, there’s the opening prayer, which directly quotes the words of Jesus:

Most holy and glorious Lord God, the great Architect of the Universe, the Giver of all good gifts and graces! Thou hast promised that "where two or three are gathered together in Thy name Thou wilt be in the midst of them and bless them."

There is the prayer at raising, which carries numerous biblical and/or Christian phrases like “downsitting and uprising,” understanding “our thoughts afar off,” “shield and defend us,” vale of tears:

Thou, O God, knowest our downsitting and uprising, and understandest our thoughts afar off; shield and defend us from the evil intention of our enemies, and support us under the trials and afflictions we are destined to endure, while travelling through this vale of tears.

The prayer at the laying of a cornerstone:

Bless, we pray Thee, all the workmen who shall be engaged in the erection of this edifice; keep them from all forms of accident and harm, and grant them health and prosperity while they live. And finally, we pray that when our earthly toils and labors are ended we may all, through Thy mercy, wisdom and forgiveness, attain everlasting joy and felicity in the mansions prepared for us in that temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Amen.

And throughout ALL of these, the language of KJV English prevails, and the same general Christian prayer content offering praise, adoration, and petition is also present.

Since by your own acknowledgment, these are primary prayers of Masonry, and not some isolated case, where in any of this do you find objections based on Christianity? Where in any of this do you see any “prayer to Allah or Vishnu or Shiva,” per your claims? The only place such a name would be named would be in the heart of an individual who is already a member of whichever religion you hypothetically pick, and even then it only takes place in that individual’s heart.

In my OWN heart, I will be praying to the Christian God as I always have.

I have challenged you again and again and again in the past: show me ANYWHERE in these pre-written prayers in Blue Lodge, where anything that derives from any other religion than the Christian religion may be found. I have also challenged you similarly, to show me ANYWHERE in the rituals of Blue Lodge, where there is ANY content in the rituals themselves that derives from any other religion than the Christian religion.

On BOTH these counts, I have received nothing from you in reply than your CONTINUED, OBVIOUS, and DEAFENING SILENCE!! So scream all you wish about these things, you have not once shown the content of “other religions” in any of this at all. As I have said before, and I reiterate, the only people who REALLY ought to be upset and be trying to get their members to refrain from joining the lodge, are those of OTHER religions.

So as you can see, Freemasonry teaches that all people of all the various faiths in the world are really praying to the One True God; the universal Father of mankind, regardless of the name they choose to call him.

All I see, despite your false claims, is that CARL CLAUDY “teaches” these things. You might find an occasional place where Carl Claudy is mentioned, perhaps even where something he wrote may appear on a reading list. But until you can show me any general, overall pattern of Grand Lodges adopting Carl Claudy’s opinions as their official Grand Lodge teachings, you are spitting into the wind (hope you’re ducking, it’s all coming your way, not ours).

As a Christian, if your God is really so important to you, since He is the One and only True Living God, then wouldn't you want your fraternity to specify to its adherents to follow and worship the God of your creed?

I didn’t join the lodge to make it my religion, nor to seek to make it anyone else’s. I have been a Mason for four years, I have been a Christian all my life. I still follow the Christian God, and I preach and teach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the Redeemer in whom I trust and put my faith. None of your accusations alter that in the least. In fact, most of your accusations do not even apply to any situation in which I have personally been involved in lodge. Perhaps you need to seek someone else as your primary target, my lodge associations in our jurisdiction so far have been with Christians.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Given the context of my post, those that do not compromise the truth of Scripture by allowing anyone to tell them that all men pray and worship the same deity regardless of what religion they come from or what name they choose to call Him.

I don't allow anyone to tell ME that. You apparently seem to think that every Mason accepts the opinions of Carl Claudy without question and without reservation. I can tell you, from what I've clearly observed in the lodges here, I doubt very seriously there are very many Masons who have even READ Carl Claudy, much less swallowed his opinions hook, line, and sinker.

Why do you always appeal to the obscurest and least-read authors of Masonry you can find in making accusations?

 

[HisdaughterJen]

I thought it was Napoleon who did away with the Holy Roman Empire?

Or is this a metaphor for some other earthly or spiritual kingdom?

Well, I think that the Roman Empire who destroyed and scattered Israel/Jerusalem is still around (in an evolved form) and Zech refers to it as "the four horns", "the land of the North" and "Daughter of Babylon". I think that this is "Mystery Babylon" of Rev 17 & 18 that the beast/10 horns gets rid of, much to the delight of God.

I think that the "craftsmen" of Zech 1 refers to the beast/10 horns and I think that calling them "craftsmen" might be symbolic as to who they are/what they believe.

The symbolism of Freemasonry is telling of their beliefs and who their god is. It is the basis of a dangerous ideology that replaces God with seeking divine "light" through alternate and evil means.

From the beginning, it appears that there have always been two choices. God's way or the way of the fallen angels who have incomplete wisdom according to God. Born again Christians follow God's Way. All others try to find the knowledge of God through alternate means and set themselves up as gods under "Lucifer".

 

[wayseer]

Imagination and speculation seem to be the driving factor in much of the dialogue. I have yet to see any constructive argument developed that suggests Freemasonry is somehow 'dangerous'. I would suggest many of the so-called anti-FM posts are themselves dangerous and inflammatory. It appears the mods are quite happy for this parody of name-calling to continue.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Well, I think that the Roman Empire who destroyed and scattered Israel/Jerusalem is still around (in an evolved form) and Zech refers to it as "the four horns", "the land of the North" and "Daughter of Babylon". I think that this is "Mystery Babylon" of Rev 17 & 18 that the beast/10 horns gets rid of, much to the delight of God.

I think that the "craftsmen" of Zech 1 refers to the beast/10 horns and I think that calling them "craftsmen" might be symbolic as to who they are/what they believe.

You are free, of course, to believe what you wish. But I can’t help but wonder, did you make all this up on your own, or did you have help? That is, are you simply parroting what you read somewhere? This is one instance where I sincerely hope so, because if this is not your own fabrication, there is still hope for you.

If anyone would bother to read the things that people declare about the Bible, and learn to think for themselves instead of regurgitating every conspiracy-minded opinion they find plastered all over the internet, our task in forums such as this would be much easier. But let me point out a few things:

Yes, Zechariah refers to four horns, and I would not be so bold as to try to interpret exactly who or what is represented by each horn. But it is clear from the context in chapter 1 that these were four nations who had troubled Jerusalem greatly. But the real puzzle is, how could these horns get associated with Freemasonry in any way? Apparently the conspiracy buffs happened to pick up on what they saw as a linking word, “craftsmen.” That kind of “association” is nothing short of bizarre.

But even more bizarre is the comment in your post that somehow these FOUR craftsmen could somehow represent the TEN horns of “mystery Babylon.” I mean, generally prophecy interpretations have specific numbers linked with the same corresponding specific number in reality. For example, pharaoh’s dream of SEVEN fat cattle and SEVEN lean cattle corresponded in Joseph’s interpretation to SEVEN years of plenty and SEVEN years of famine. To link a prophecy with FOUR craftsmen to a prophecy of TEN horns is rather weak, because it really shows no correspondence.

But there is an even more direct reason for rejecting these claims of a link between the craftsmen of Zechariah 1 with the “craft” of Freemasonry. The irony is, the error could have been avoided by simply reading the text for oneself. For that reason alone, I have to assume you were parroting someone else’s opinions, and not offering your own reading of Zechariah 1. See for yourself what is stated in Zechariah 1:18-21, where the four horns are found:

Then I looked up—and there before me were four horns! I asked the angel who was speaking to me, "What are these?"
He answered me, "These are the horns that scattered Judah, Israel and Jerusalem."Then the LORD showed me four craftsmen. I asked, "What are these coming to do?"
He answered, "These are the horns that scattered Judah so that no one could raise his head, but the craftsmen have come to terrify them and throw down these horns of the nations who lifted up their horns against the land of Judah to scatter its people."

The easy thing to see in this passage is, the “craftsmen” are the GOOD GUYS!! These are the defenders of Judah who have come to throw down the “horns” who had troubled them!

The fact is, the entire accusation, as it stands, is without foundation or merit. But I think perhaps I can see where the error arose. In v. 19, the angel has just told Zechariah, "These are the four horns. . ." Then in v. 21, in response to Zechariah's question concerning the craftsmen, the angel replies, "These are the horns that scattered Judah. . ."

On a quick read of the text without giving careful consideration to what is being said, it would be easy to see v. 19 and v. 21 as parallel with one another, since they both begin with practically the same words. But for whatever reason, the angel's answer encompasses both horns and craftsmen, and in reading the entire verse, it quickly becomes apparent that it is impossible for both "horns" and "craftsmen" to refer to the same thing.

Chalk this one up to a cursory examination of the Word, and let's start hoping people will treat this Book of all books with greater care and precision.

 

[O.F.F.]

. . . Probably one of the most absurd claims which "Christian" Masons regularly make is that they are members of a "CHRISTIAN Lodge." "All of the members in my Lodge are Christians," they claim; "Prayers in my Lodge are closed in the name of Jesus." "There may be some bad things about Freemasonry in other states, or in foreign countries, but none of that goes on in my Lodge.", they explain.

Many mature Christians are able to see that any claim that all the members of a Lodge are Christians must be doubted, based on common sense. In Matthew 13, Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares. Mature Christians know that all "members of the church" are not genuine Christians - how could the Lodge attain a higher standard? . . .

To learn more about this myth, click on the following link:

The Myth of the Christian Lodge

 

[Jester4kicks]

. . . Probably one of the most absurd claims which "Christian" Masons regularly make is that they are members of a "CHRISTIAN Lodge." "All of the members in my Lodge are Christians," they claim; "Prayers in my Lodge are closed in the name of Jesus." "There may be some bad things about Freemasonry in other states, or in foreign countries, but none of that goes on in my Lodge.", they explain.

Many mature Christians are able to see that any claim that all the members of a Lodge are Christians must be doubted, based on common sense. In Matthew 13, Jesus spoke of the wheat and the tares. Mature Christians know that all "members of the church" are not genuine Christians - how could the Lodge attain a higher standard? . . .

To learn more about this myth, click on the following link:

The Myth of the Christian Lodge

Sorry, I stopped reading after they referred to Hiram Abiff as "the masonic savior".



C'mon Mikey, even you had to see how rediculous their claims were.

 

[HisdaughterJen]

You are free, of course, to believe what you wish. But I can’t help but wonder, did you make all this up on your own, or did you have help? That is, are you simply parroting what you read somewhere? This is one instance where I sincerely hope so, because if this is not your own fabrication, there is still hope for you.

If anyone would bother to read the things that people declare about the Bible, and learn to think for themselves instead of regurgitating every conspiracy-minded opinion they find plastered all over the internet, our task in forums such as this would be much easier. But let me point out a few things:

Yes, Zechariah refers to four horns, and I would not be so bold as to try to interpret exactly who or what is represented by each horn. But it is clear from the context in chapter 1 that these were four nations who had troubled Jerusalem greatly. But the real puzzle is, how could these horns get associated with Freemasonry in any way? Apparently the conspiracy buffs happened to pick up on what they saw as a linking word, “craftsmen.” That kind of “association” is nothing short of bizarre.

But even more bizarre is the comment in your post that somehow these FOUR craftsmen could somehow represent the TEN horns of “mystery Babylon.” I mean, generally prophecy interpretations have specific numbers linked with the same corresponding specific number in reality. For example, pharaoh’s dream of SEVEN fat cattle and SEVEN lean cattle corresponded in Joseph’s interpretation to SEVEN years of plenty and SEVEN years of famine. To link a prophecy with FOUR craftsmen to a prophecy of TEN horns is rather weak, because it really shows no correspondence.

But there is an even more direct reason for rejecting these claims of a link between the craftsmen of Zechariah 1 with the “craft” of Freemasonry. The irony is, the error could have been avoided by simply reading the text for oneself. For that reason alone, I have to assume you were parroting someone else’s opinions, and not offering your own reading of Zechariah 1. See for yourself what is stated in Zechariah 1:18-21, where the four horns are found:



The easy thing to see in this passage is, the “craftsmen” are the GOOD GUYS!! These are the defenders of Judah who have come to throw down the “horns” who had troubled them!

The fact is, the entire accusation, as it stands, is without foundation or merit. But I think perhaps I can see where the error arose. In v. 19, the angel has just told Zechariah, "These are the four horns. . ." Then in v. 21, in response to Zechariah's question concerning the craftsmen, the angel replies, "These are the horns that scattered Judah. . ."

On a quick read of the text without giving careful consideration to what is being said, it would be easy to see v. 19 and v. 21 as parallel with one another, since they both begin with practically the same words. But for whatever reason, the angel's answer encompasses both horns and craftsmen, and in reading the entire verse, it quickly becomes apparent that it is impossible for both "horns" and "craftsmen" to refer to the same thing.

Chalk this one up to a cursory examination of the Word, and let's start hoping people will treat this Book of all books with greater care and precision.

You said a lot without saying anything at all.

I never said that the horns and the craftsmen are the same thing. It's obvious that the craftsmen destroy the horns.

I suspect that the horns of Zech 1 & 2 are the Roman Empire/the land of the North/Daughter of Babylon and it relates to Mystery Babylon of Rev 17 & 18. The one that destroys Mystery babylon is the beast/10 kings. THAT's how I, myself, put it together. If I am wrong, I will readily admit it but I want to be proven wrong.

In fact, now that I'm looking at it, the craftsmen could easily be the four horsemen described earlier in Zech 1 which is the same as the four horsemen ("of the Apocalypse")of Rev 6 which is the same as God's four judgments mentioned in Ezek 14:21. If so, pardon me for interupting the thread.

Who do you think the four horns are and who do you think the craftsmen are, Reverend?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I never said that the horns and the craftsmen are the same thing. It's obvious that the craftsmen destroy the horns.

I suspect that the horns of Zech 1 & 2 are the Roman Empire/the land of the North/Daughter of Babylon and it relates to Mystery Babylon of Rev 17 & 18. The one that destroys Mystery babylon is the beast/10 kings. THAT's how I, myself, put it together. If I am wrong, I will readily admit it but I want to be proven wrong.

In fact, now that I'm looking at it, the craftsmen could easily be the four horsemen described earlier in Zech 1 which is the same as the four horsemen ("of the Apocalypse")of Rev 6 which is the same as God's four judgments mentioned in Ezek 14:21. If so, pardon me for interupting the thread.

Sell this to someone interested in Arizona beachfront property, I'm certainly not buying it. If you had no interest in making insinuations about the lodge with this, you would not be posting it where you are.

If I am wrong, and you are interested merely in discussing the theology of the passage, I invite you to take it somewhere relevant.

 

[O.F.F.]

Are you trying to say God did NOT create everyone in every country, despite their religion or opinion?

No, that is not what I said at all. I am saying that He is NOT what YOU and Freemasonry are saying; which is that He is the 'Almighty Parent' of everyone He created, period. That's like saying He is the Parent of trees, land, water, air, stars, planets, galaxies, rats, jackals, or maggots, etc. He is the CREATOR of everyone, and all things seen and unseen. He is NOT the Parent of everyone or all things.

If He were, then why does Jesus talk about the coming separation when He will separate the "wheat from the tares" in Matthew 13? In verse 38 He makes a clear distinction, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one." How can a a person be both a child of God and a child of the wicked one? Yet YOU and Freemasonry contradict what Jesus said with the absurdity of insisting that He is the 'Almighty Parent' of us ALL.

What kind of father would keep some of his children forever, yet eternally separate himself from his other children? If we are ALL God's children, then why will He place some in eternal unquenchable burning fire, where they will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth (verse 42)?" The answer is, because everyone is NOT His child. If they were, why did Jesus tell some of them they belong to their father, the devil (John 8:44)? Again, one can't be a child of God and a child of Satan at the same time.

You apparently seem to think that every Mason accepts the opinions of Carl Claudy without question and without reservation. I can tell you, from what I've clearly observed in the lodges here, I doubt very seriously there are very many Masons who have even READ Carl Claudy, much less swallowed his opinions hook, line, and sinker.

So you are claiming that what I posted from Claudy is merely his opinion and not Masonic facts? Let's carefully review each one I mentioned:

1. Is it not a fact that a Mason must declare his faith in a Supreme Being before he may be initiated? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.
   
2. Is it not a fact that a Mason is not required to say, then or ever, what God he believes in? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.
   
3. Is it not a fact that a Mason may name his god as he will, think of him as he pleases; make him impersonal law or personal and anthropomorphic; and that Freemasonry cares not? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.
   
4. Is it not a fact that Masonry does not ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" or "Do you believe in Buddha," or any other specify god by its name? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it asks its candidates if they believe in a specific god.
   
5. Is it not a fact that Masonry does not specify any God of any creed; and that she requires merely that you believe in some Deity, give him what name you will? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.
   
6. Is it not a fact that a belief in God is essential to be a Mason, but any ol' god will do, so long as he, or it, is his god? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

That is all of what I quoted from Claudy. So are you going to go on record saying that this is merely his opinion and not Masonic facts? I don't think wayseer, J4K, sacerdote or any other so-called "upright man and Mason" on the planet will let you get away with lying about these Masonic truths.

Why do you always appeal to the obscurest and least-read authors of Masonry you can find in making accusations?

By what Grand Lodge criteria do you use to determine which Masonic authors are obscure or the least-read? In other words, by what Masonic working tool do you measure this in order for you to make such a ridiculous claim?

The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania is the oldest in the U.S. and here are links to their extensive Masonic library which has enjoyed a growth and patronage that distinguishes it as one of the greatest collections of Masonic books, manuscripts and documents in the world. It contains all the recommended readings they provide Masons in their jurisdiction. Given the vastness of all the Masonic education material they provide, certainly theirs is an excellent model for any Grand Lodge library to follow. This first link is to a list specifically recommended for newly made Masons.

http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/clc/newmasn.html

At first I thought the list of books were arranged in alphabetically order by author, but it clearly is not. Notice that one of the books I quoted from Claudy is at the very TOP of the list. He is also at the top of the list for books recommended for preparatory work for lodge officers.

http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/clc/preprtry.html

Those are just two lists where he is recommended. However, I found his name on at least four of the comprehensive lists they provide. I didn't take the time to search them all, but he may be on more. My point is this; if he is such an obscure author, as you seem to suggest, certainly the oldest Grand Lodge in America wouldn't recommend him first to newly made Masons, or to those who aspire Masonic leadership as lodge officers, now would they? Apparently, the views of Carl H. Claudy are far more highly regarded than you would have us think.

 

[Jester4kicks]

No, that is not what I said at all. I am saying that He is NOT what YOU and Freemasonry are saying; which is that He is the 'Almighty Parent' of everyone He created, period. That's like saying He is the Parent of trees, land, water, air, stars, planets, galaxies, rats, jackals, or maggots, etc. He is the CREATOR of everyone, and all things seen and unseen. He is NOT the Parent of everyone or all things.

Um... isn't a parent, is a sense, a creator? Ergo, would the "almighty parent" be the creator of all things? I'll admit that some of my biblical references are a bit rusty... but I'm pretty sure it started with a book called Genesis... which started with a lot of things all coming from god...

If He were, then why does Jesus talk about the coming separation when He will separate the "wheat from the tares" in Matthew 13? In verse 38 He makes a clear distinction, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one." How can a a person be both a child of God and a child of the wicked one? Yet YOU and Freemasonry contradict what Jesus said with the absurdity of insisting that He is the 'Almighty Parent' of us ALL.

What kind of father would keep some of his children forever, yet eternally separate himself from his other children? If we are ALL God's children, then why will He place some in eternal unquenchable burning fire, where they will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth (verse 42)?" The answer is, because everyone is NOT His child. If they were, why did Jesus tell some of them they belong to their father, the devil (John 8:44)? Again, one can't be a child of God and a child of Satan at the same time.

I'll let the good Reverend handle this one. I could start making comments about how there are a wide variety of perspectives regarding "god's children"... but I think I will be much more content spending this time appreciating the fact that I left christianity a long time ago. (No offense, Wayne)

So you are claiming that what I posted from Claudy is merely his opinion and not Masonic facts? Let's carefully review each one I mentioned:

I don't see where he said that....

That is all of what I quoted from Claudy. So are you going to go on record saying that this is merely his opinion and not Masonic facts? I don't think wayseer, J4K, sacerdote or any other so-called "upright man and Mason" on the planet will let you get away with lying about these Masonic truths.

I would say Claudy is pretty much correct with those statements... although I can only speak for the lodges that I have personnaly visited. His comments are a little more off-the-cuff than you usually hear from a mason... but I like brutal honesty, it's just my thing.

By what Grand Lodge criteria do you use to determine which Masonic authors are obscure or the least-read? blah blah blah blah blah....

Wayne can address that if he wants. I'll wrap it up with a single thought that will help me sleep soundly tonight....

Mike, you've continually demonstrated a bigoted attitude toward anyone with even a slightly different understanding of their faith than your own. You obviously would not have fit in as a mason, since Freemasonry requires a certain level of equality, compassion, understanding, and friendship. You do not seem to be capable of even sharing dinner at a table with people who do not share your beliefs.

All of this... coming from the same person who would presume to cite verses like "love thy neighbor...", "do unto others...", "judge not...", "let he who is without sin....", etc etc etc.

It's a shame that your faith has made you so divided... and an even bigger shame that you didn't take some of the lessons of Freemasonry with you when you "left".

 

[wayseer]

]Is it not a fact that a Mason must declare his faith in a Supreme Being before he may be initiated? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

No. The answer required is not supreme being - it is, God. (UGLQ ritual)

Is it not a fact that a Mason is not required to say, then or ever, what God he believes in? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

True. Remember Freemasonry is not a religion. The ritual also makes it clear that religion and politics are not topics for discussion in Lodge. (UGLQ ritual) - but you already know that, so why ask?

Is it not a fact that a Mason may name his god as he will, think of him as he pleases; make him impersonal law or personal and anthropomorphic; and that Freemasonry cares not? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

A the risk of yet again repeating what has been said a number of times earlier - Freemasonry is not a religion - no one is permitted to raise his beliefs in Lodge.

Is it not a fact that Masonry does not ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" or "Do you believe in Buddha," or any other specify god by its name?

True - say reason as above.

Is it not a fact that Masonry does not specify any God of any creed; and that she requires merely that you believe in some Deity, give him what name you will? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

She? Of course. Freemasonry is free of dogma and doctrine - it is not a religion.

Is it not a fact that a belief in God is essential to be a Mason, but any ol' god will do, so long as he, or it, is his god? If not, please show us from your Grand Lodge where it states differently.

Well, 'any 'ol god' is not God.

That is all of what I quoted from Claudy.

I would be interested in the full text - not your selection.

By what Grand Lodge criteria do you use to determine which Masonic authors are obscure or the least-read?

Unless it comes from Ars Quatuor Coronatorum I treat all Masonic writing with caution. You could well do the same. There are any number of authors of Masonic books, as there are on Christianity. Taking selected discontinuous text to use for your selective argument is questionable to say the least. If you wish to trouble me please find a quote from Quatuor Coronati to support you accusations.

 

[wayseer]

Mike, you've continually demonstrated a bigoted attitude toward anyone with even a slightly different understanding of their faith than your own. You obviously would not have fit in as a mason, since Freemasonry requires a certain level of equality, compassion, understanding, and friendship. You do not seem to be capable of even sharing dinner at a table with people who do not share your beliefs.

Oh dear - I hope you are not 'reported' for flaming - like I was - for speaking truth.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So you are claiming that what I posted from Claudy is merely his opinion and not Masonic facts? Let's carefully review each one I mentioned:

Waste your time all you wish, it’s your dime. What I object to with anything and anyone you cite is never the material itself, and ALWAYS the spin you put upon it, which is generally patently untrue. With the Claudy quotes, it was no different than always. In fact, I notice in this instance, you even inserted your own commentary in between the words of the Claudy quotes, making it difficult to even separate what you said from what he said—despite your highlighting tricks.

Your questions about Claudy are irrelevant, because as always, you ask them under the false presupposition that Masonry is a religion, which it is not. And in the basic objections you raise about requirement of belief in a Supreme Being without specifics, you criticize a principle that is also the basic approach of the Boy Scouts. Have you dismissed your Tennessee friend from the O.F.F. organization yet, for supporting a group that holds to the same principle you find unacceptable in Masonry?

And HERE is the PROOF that you have MANGLED any concept of “Claudy said” with your (mis)interpretive “helps”:

As a Christian, if your God is really so important to you, since He is the One and only True Living God, then wouldn't you want your fraternity to specify to its adherents to follow and worship the God of your creed? How then can any Christian remain in a fraternity that says instead that, any ol' God will do?

“A fraternity that says” THIS???? Well, you certainly have yet to document THAT one!!

“Any ol’ God will do” was NOT what Claudy said, that was what YOU inserted in your attempt to mischaracterize both Claudy’s remarks and the Masonic position.

Notice that one of the books I quoted from Claudy is at the very TOP of the list.

Big deal. You mean to tell me you didn’t notice that the list to which you refer was titled “For the Newly Made Mason,” and that the Claudy book was titled “Introduction to Freemasonry?” And in this brief (15-book) list, how many others did you see that related so closely to that heading? Sorta explains itself, doesn’t it?

And what I notice is, you’ve cited one Grand Lodge list with Claudy as “recommended” material. We always got “recommended” reading lists in every English class I ever took. It was never expected that we would consider any of them required reading, nor was it expected that we would in any way be able to read every single one of them either. I think you are making more of this than your “evidence” suggests. And by the way, did you catch the one titled “Let There Be Light: A Study in Anti-Masonry?” Nice to see they’re preparing Masons to be equipped to deal with your mischaracterizations.

Apparently, the views of Carl H. Claudy are far more highly regarded than you would have us think.

Oh, believe me, I “got” your point, all right, and then some. You think you can make some kind of assumption that Claudy’s views are “highly regarded” by posting ONE Grand Lodge’s reading list that includes something he wrote? I bet you could sell swimsuits in the Arctic if you can pull that one off.

In our jurisdiction, and in several others as well (perhaps PA included), Albert Mackey is a well-known name. Much of what he has written is INCLUDED IN MONITORIAL MATERIAL. Can you make that kind of claim for Claudy? I highly doubt it (and I think you know that was what I meant with my comments about Claudy).

After all, wasn’t it YOU who made this statement more than once in the past?:

Masonic ritual issued by Grand Lodge authority is the only official documentation that applies here. Your view, and the opinion of Masonic scholars, is irrelevant if what you, or they say, cannot be substantiated by Masonic ritual. (Your own words, September 2007, “Freemasonry is Compatible With Christianity?” thread, Christianforums)

So, are you prepared to substantiate what you posted “from Claudy” with direct quotes of the same material in ritual? And particularly the part about “any ol’ God will do.” I want to SEE your DIRECT QUOTE from Masonic sources where you find this statement. After all, YOU are the one who made this bizarre, baseless, and patently absurd claim.

You’re playing a liars’ game with this, and your dishonesty has been detected and exposed. Old habits die hard, eh?

You may continue to rave and rant and prevaricate and pontificate all you wish, I have no intention of engaging you in your pretense. When I first encountered you five years ago, you were quoting the same material and making the same arguments you do now, despite having your arguments refuted over and over, and having your lies exposed on more than one occasion. I seriously doubt I will be back to continue to engage this useless and repetitive haranguing.

Besides, I’m involved in a much more interesting discussion with JW’s on another forum at the moment, and it seems much more preferable to deal with their errors there than with yours here.

 

[Rev Wayne]

What kind of father would keep some of his children forever, yet eternally separate himself from his other children? If we are ALL God's children, then why will He place some in eternal unquenchable burning fire, where they will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth (verse 42)?" The answer is, because everyone is NOT His child. If they were, why did Jesus tell some of them they belong to their father, the devil (John 8:44)? Again, one can't be a child of God and a child of Satan at the same time.

Man, how short can your memory be? Have we not explained this over and over and over to you, and you STILL act like it's valid even NOW? A long time ago, I pointed out to you the four different aspects in which God is said in Scripture to be "Father": (1) Father of the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Father of the Jews by covenant relationship with them; (3) spiritual Father of those who are "in Christ"; and (4) Father by virtue of Creation, as expressed in Acts 17 and Malachi 2:10.

The only one of these four to which your comments even apply would be #3. Some time ago, you posted this same type of argument, and upon my reply, tried to support what you said by quoting a John Murray article, "Adoption." Interestingly, Murray takes exactly the same position I do, that there are four aspects of God's Fatherhood, all different from one another at key points:

ADOPTION is concerned with the Fatherhood of God in relation to the redeemed. But it is necessary to preface our discussion by distinguishing the several kinds of divine Fatherhood found in Scripture.
1. Intertrinitarianism
This is the exclusive property of the Father in relation to the Son in the mystery of the Trinity. It is immanent, eternal, and exclusive. No other person of the Trinity shares it and in reference to the Sonship involved no man or angel participates in it. This uniqueness is expressed in the monogenes title as applied to Christ and in such expressions as the Father’s own Son (Rom. 8:3, 32). This is the only Fatherhood that obtains in the opera ad intra and to think of it as belonging to the opera ad extra would deny its immanent and eternal character.
2. Creative
This is very seldom stated in terms of God’s Fatherhood. But since it appears in such passages as Acts 17:28, 29; Hebrews 12:9; James 1:17, 18, we shall have to reckon with the fact that it is not improper to speak of God’s creative relationship in terms of Fatherhood. Since all three persons of the Godhead were the agents of creation we cannot restrict this Fatherhood to the first person of the Trinity but we must think of the Godhead as sustaining this relation to angels and men.
Other texts, besides those cited, might appear to express this same truth. But some of these are clearly irrelevant and others cannot be shown to have the creative relation in mind.
In Matthew 5:45-48 God is not called the Father of all. He is called the Father of the disciples and it is true that he as their heavenly Father bestows his kindness upon just and unjust. But the text carefully refrains from stating or implying that it is because God is the Father of all that he sends rain and makes his sun to rise upon evil and good.
In I Corinthians 8:6 — ‘but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him’ — there is no mention of a fatherly relation to all men. It is simply an identification of the first person of the Godhead by his distinguishing trinitarian name, and there is in the text indeed no necessary reflection upon his fatherly relation to men. In accord with Paul’s usage it is the relation to the Son that is in view and, when he reflects on the fatherly relation to men, he calls him our Father.
Ephesians 3:1 — ‘the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named’ — indicates that this cannot contemplate all mankind because it is restricted to the family of God.
Ephesians 4:6 — ‘One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all’, must refer to the saints for of those specified as enjoying this relationship Paul proceeds to say, ‘But to each one of us has been given grace according to the measure of the free gift of Christ’. Besides, in verse 4 the delimitation is clearly indicated — ‘One body and one Spirit even as ye were called in one hope of your calling’.
Malachi 2:10 — ‘Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?’ — might seem to refer to creation and therefore to universal fatherhood. But it is characteristic of the Old Testament to use the language of creation with reference to the work of redemption. Compare especially Isaiah 43:1, 7, 9 where bara and yatsar are used plainly in a restrictive and redemptive sense (cf. Isaiah 64:8, 9). Besides, the latter part of Malachi 2:10 refers to the covenant of the fathers and indicates that the theocratic relationship to Israelis in view in the earlier part of the verse.
It is noteworthy, therefore, how infrequently the creative relation is expressed in terms of fatherhood. Nowhere is God expressly called the Father of all men. Hence the concept of universal fatherhood, if used at all, must be employed with great caution and it is particularly necessary not to confuse this rare use of the term Father with the frequent use of the same term as it is applied to the redeemed.
In Luke 3:38 the word huios does not actually occur but it may be understood as carried over from verse 24 where the genealogy begins with on huios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph, tou Elei tou Matthat. This does not prove however that God may be regarded as the Father of all men in the sense in which he was the Father of Adam, for two reasons.
(i) The emphasis seems to be upon the fact that Adam owed his origin to God as no other man did. Adam was not generated by a human father.
(ii) Adam might have been a son of God by creation, but not in his fallen state. We might concede that Adam as created was a son of God without conceding that all men since the fall are sons of God. We must distinguish between Adam’s sonship and the sonship of adoption. The latter entails a security that Adam did not possess.
3. Theocratic Fatherhood
This refers to God’s adoption of Israel as his chosen people. It is the prototype of redemptive adoption as the Old Testament counterpart. Exodus 4:22, 23; Deuteronomy 14:1 2; cf. 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:5, 6, 20; Isaiah 43:6; cf. Isaiah 1:2; Isaiah 63:16; Hosea 11:1; Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:10; Romans 9:4.
This is not the exclusive property of the first person.
4. Adoptive Fatherhood
This must be distinguished from the fatherhood of the preceding caption, not because it is principially different but because it is the full-fledged sonship in distinction from the nonage sonship in the Old Testament period. The distinction is clearly drawn by Paul in Galatians 3:23-4:6. The difference is in line with the difference in general between the Old Testament and the New; the Old is preparatory, the New is consummatory. The Old is prepadeutic, the New is graduatory. The children of God in the Old Testament were as children under age. The grace of the New Testament appears in this that by redemption accomplished and by faith in him all without exception are introduced into the full blessing of sonship without the necessity of undergoing a period of tutelary preparation corresponding to the tutelary discipline of the Old Testament period. That is to say, New Testament believers from among Gentiles do not have to undergo in the realm of their individual development a preliminary period which corresponds to the Old Testament period in the broad sphere of progressive revelation and realization. There is no recapitulation in the individual sphere of what obtained in the realm of dispensational progression.

So unless you have come up with something different, or have come up with any convincing counter, you are only being exceedingly redundant.

 

[O.F.F.]

A long time ago, I pointed out to you the four different aspects in which God is said in Scripture to be "Father": (1) Father of the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) Father of the Jews by covenant relationship with them; (3) spiritual Father of those who are "in Christ"; and (4) Father by virtue of Creation, as expressed in Acts 17 and Malachi 2:10.

Freemasonry makes no spiritual distinction whatsoever about Masons. Instead, it implies that all Masons are of one spiritual brotherhood; with its "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man" doctrine. It tells Masons that God is the "Almighty Parent" of them all, period. During Masonic ritual, they even go so far as to ask this 'Almighty Parent,' in prayer, to sanctify each candidate by the principles of Freemasonry. And, it tells them that ALL good Masons can expect to gain admission into the Celestial Lodge above (heaven).

If Freemasonry were strictly concerned with viewing God only as 'Father by virtue of Creation,' and not spiritual Father as well, it would not make any spiritual references at all, such as "sanctification" or "heaven." And, they apply these spiritual references to ALL Masons, including those who are NOT "in Christ."

That is a biblical lie, and you know it. Yet you tacitly support it by your membership, your financial dues and your vehement Masonic apologetics; even if you don't characterize it in the same way as they do. So unless you can come up with something different, or any convincing counter, you are only being extremely dishonest.

As with the Claudy quotes, you know damn well what I posted is Masonic truth. You cannot prove from any Grand Lodge source, in the U.S., that it isn't. You, pastor, are a LIAR and the truth isn't in you! But at least one Mason who frequents this thread confirms Claudy's statements as Masonic fact. And, wayseer is not far away from agreeing either.

I would say Claudy is pretty much correct with those statements ... but I like brutal honesty, it's just my thing.

Apparently 'the good Rev' prefers brutal dishonesty. As for you leaving, I wish you were referring to Freemasonry. I firmly believe that if a Mason is truly "in Christ" he surely would not remain in the Lodge.

I have no intention of engaging you . . . I seriously doubt I will be back to continue . . .

Good riddance! And, I hope you never return to propagate your Masonic lies.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Freemasonry makes no spiritual distinction whatsoever about Masons. Instead, it implies that all Masons are of one spiritual brotherhood; with its "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man" doctrine. It tells Masons that God is the "Almighty Parent" of them all, period. During Masonic ritual, they even go so far as to ask this 'Almighty Parent,' in prayer, to sanctify each candidate by the principles of Freemasonry. And, it tells them that ALL good Masons can expect to gain admission into the Celestial Lodge above (heaven).

That is a biblical lie, and you know it. Yet you tacitly support it by your membership, your financial dues and your vehement Masonic apologetics; even if you don't characterize it in the same way. So unless you can come up with something different, or any convincing counter, you are only being exceedingly dishonest.

So... god ISN'T the father of all things? Might want to check Genesis... yet again.

Oh, and I'm not sure that there's anything in any masonic prayer that says "all good masons can expect to gain admission into heaven"... there are certainly points about the qualities which are necessary to get into heaven... but an expectation? I don't think so.

As with the Claudy quotes, you know damn well what I posted is Masonic truth. You cannot prove from any Grand Lodge source that it isn't. You, pastor, are a LIAR and the truth isn't in you! But at least one Mason who frequents this thread confirms Claudy's statements as Masonic fact.

Um... where did he say the quotes weren't true? I believe what he said was that he objected to the way you spun the quotes and injected your own words into them.

Apparently 'the good Rev' prefers brutal dishonesty. As for you leaving:

Good riddance! And, I hope you never return to propagate your Masonic lies.

Oh snap! You sure showed him!

Once again Mike, I think you're a shining example of why I left christianity. Thank you.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Freemasonry makes no spiritual distinction whatsoever about Masons. Instead, it implies that all Masons are of one spiritual brotherhood; with its "Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man" doctrine.

If that’s true, then blame the Christian Church. Or have you forgotten the abundance of information I have provided you in the past, showing that the source of the idea of “Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man” is Christianity?

Just because there has been a time lapse between the last time you made the accusation and the last time I provided this information for you, does not mean it is no longer true. And it certainly doesn’t mean I’m going to dig it out of my files just to post it again, simply because you have a short range of retention.

It tells Masons that God is the "Almighty Parent" of them all, period.

Better make that a question mark, because you are wrong again. Masonry’s statement on the matter is still as clear as it ever was. Your making the accusation 20 times and my responding 20 times may not have made it any clearer to you, but it is still the truth of the matter nonetheless. (And I sure do hope you plan on challenging the claim that you have been told this 20 times, because I actually think I can provide the evidence to support it.)

Masonry’s only claim in that regard is a fraternal one, as per their statement:

By the exercise of brotherly love, we are taught to regard the whole human species as one family, the high and low, the rich and poor; who, as created by one Almighty Parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support and protect each other. On this principle, masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion, and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance. (Manual of the Lodge, Entered Apprentice Degree, this particular citation of it is from the current (2003) Ahiman Rezon from SC)

Some things you have never been clear about, and which even after umpteen posts and explanations and posts of this statement, you STILL are not clear about, but Masonry IS clear about:

“Masonry unites men”—there it is, plain and simple. Masonry does NOT unite religions, it unites men. They come together DESPITE their differences.

“of every country, sect, and opinion”—the clearest evidence that no one is expected to surrender or alter their beliefs in any way. That is not the purpose of the lodge at all, and it is ludicrous to suggest any differently.

“conciliates true friendship”—NOT “religious affiliation” or whatever it is you are trying to create, as usual, for Masonry is not a religion. Masonry only tries to create friendship among those who may happen to be of different opinions on many things.

“created by one Almighty Parent”—the connection here is not on the basis of any idea of whether one is considered to be a child of God spiritually; it is, JUST AS STATED, based on our creational connection to every other human being, and our all having originated from the same original set of parents.

On the basis of these CLEAR and SIMPLE statements, Masonry clearly is not suggesting what you claim concerning the idea of God as parent. Your objections to the contrary are unfounded, and once again, are probably attributable to your false perception of the lodge as “a religion.”

If Freemasonry were strictly concerned with viewing God only as 'Father by virtue of Creation,' and not spiritual Father as well, it would not make any spiritual references at all, such as "sanctification" or "heaven." And, they apply these spiritual references to ALL Masons, including those who are NOT "in Christ."

Masonry makes GENERAL references to such things, simply because ALL religions do. It is not out of order, therefore, to speak of things which every Mason will understand, regardless of the fact that he will understand it in his own way and not necessarily in the way YOU feel you can dictate that he must. Masonry, after all, is a "system of MORALITY," not of religion. Even so, morality by necessity entails the mention of religious terms in its expression of moral principles, for morality is essentially religious in its ultimate aims. But its moral principles are not exclusive to any one religion, as is the case with most or perhaps all moral principles.

That is a biblical lie, and you know it. Yet you tacitly support it by your membership, your financial dues and your vehement Masonic apologetics; even if you don't characterize it in the same way as they do. So unless you can come up with something different, or any convincing counter, you are only being extremely dishonest.

You are wrong in at least one regard: all pastors in SC jurisdiction are exempt from dues, so there is no requirement in that regard. And I support it with apologetics because of the proliferation of anti-Masonic lies, most of them DELIBERATE, which I have also proved beyond any doubt in many past exchanges.

I have explained the concept to you over and over, and you still refuse to see it. No one can understand that which he categorically rejects in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I can only present the true statements showing your errors, documented from citations directly from Masonry as I always have, and simply let your ad hominem bluster roll off like water off a duck, as always.

As with the Claudy quotes, you know damn well what I posted is Masonic truth. You cannot prove from any Grand Lodge source, in the U.S., that it isn't. You, pastor, are a LIAR and the truth isn't in you! But at least one Mason who frequents this thread confirms Claudy's statements as Masonic fact. And, wayseer is not far away from agreeing either.

Since you don’t seem to be paying attention in the least, and are only interested in blowing off steam, I suggest you go back and read my post. I clearly told you in the most recent post that I did not reject Claudys comments, nor have I even attempted any assessment of whether it was "Masonic fact." I reject YOUR MISCHARACTERIZATION of what you read there.

More specifically, I reject your FALSE CLAIM that Claudy ever said “Any ol’ God will do.” That WAS what you said, and in my last reply, I quoted your remark DIRECTLY from your post!!!! And THAT statement is a lie. Claudy does not, and Masonry does not state anywhere--and I defy you to find it and post it with source reference--that “Any ol’ God will do.”

Masonry urges belief in the Supreme Being, and defines this Supreme Being as the God who created all things. For me that is the Triune God, and Masonry does not deny me that belief in any way, shape, form, or fashion. YOUR problem is that neither does Masonry deny that right to anyone belonging to any other religion. Therefore:

Your beef is with those who do NOT believe in the Triune God, NOT WITH MASONRY, and NOT WITH ME, and NOT WITH CHRISTIANS WHO BELONG TO THE LODGE.

Masonry’s position is a neutral one, one which is directly paralleled in the Scouting organization, and one which was applied in principle—though without the requirement aspect of it—in the establishment of this nation’s constitution.

Good riddance! And, I hope you never return to propagate your Masonic lies.

Not so fast, I only said I “seriously doubt” it, after all. And how many times in the past have I seriously doubted I would do so? And how many times have you managed to overcome my serious doubts with your full-blown temper tantrums? Naturally I couldn’t leave just yet when you were trying to slam the door in my face, now could I? Besides, the JW's I spoke of on the other forum appear to be taking a break, after being thoroughly refuted in their assertions that Athanasius supported certain of their positions. Apparently they are one step ahead of you, because at least THEY can comprehend when their arguments have been shot down (and it doesn't take them twenty times, either).

Take your three-ring circus somewhere else if you can’t understand the simple English explanations we have given you, and some of us for several years now. You make it abundantly clear you are not interested in truth in any measure, for you reject every true statement presented about Masonry. You make it equally clear your primary interest is in slamming Masons and pastors. Your pathological proclamations give every appearance of having become an obsession, and possibly even borders on psychotic. Why don’t you just give all this a long, long rest, if for no other reason, for your own health?

And for the record, I do not "propagate" anything. I defend against anti-Masonic lies, prevarications, and mischaracterizations.

 

[Rev Wayne]

By way of follow-up to the last post:

The statement on "Brotherly Love" supplied in the previous post from the manual, is nothing new. The statement goes back as far as Webb's Monitor without ANY alteration in wording at all. And it actually derives from the "Old Charges" in Anderson's Constitutions (1723). In fact, there is very little that has changed in the wording even since then. It is one of the few principles of Masonry that may be found practically anywhere in Masonry without significant alteration from one place to another. It is very simple and very direct in what it affirms, and I find it to be one of the clearest refutations of anti-Masonic claims about Masonry's position on FOG-BOM.

 

[Poverello78]

I only have one question: What is lacking in Christianity that would compel someone to be a Freemason?