Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[god's_pawn]

Why, thank you, god's pawn!

you're welcome, and i thank you for your last reply to Rev Wayne. by informing him that you had no better picture and that the better name was already taken you cleared things up nicely he should have no further quarel with you on that point which is good because it was all pointless and futile anyway ("like chasing after the wind..." as Solomon would put it). and i apologize for making an issue of your, um, "boldness" (pun intended), it was rather childish of me.

 

[Floatingaxe]

you're welcome, and i thank you for your last reply to Rev Wayne. by informing him that you had no better picture and that the better name was already taken you cleared things up nicely he should have no further quarel with you on that point which is good because it was all pointless and futile anyway ("like chasing after the wind..." as Solomon would put it). and i apologize for making an issue of your, um, "boldness" (pun intended), it was rather childish of me.

You are forgiven.

 

[Rev Wayne]

there is absolutely no relevance to theological issues in determining which one it was!

As pointed out, I disagree, and for the reasons stated.

Floatingaxe is in no danger of loosing salvation because of a slight misconception.

That's just bizarre if you think I suggested any such thing.

stick to the topic at hand, this misinterpretation does not in any way lessen the value of Axe's points.

Well, it will if she ever gets around to actually posting anything "based on the Word of God" as claimed, because so far the only instance of direct mention we have from her, despite claiming to base her comments on the Word of God, is this one, which not only has nothing to do with Freemasonry (nor would anyone expect it to), it is also incorrect in what it portrays. By your logic, it would not matter at all if we put some other word in place of the word stated, in practically any instance of miracles performed. Would it make a difference, for example, if Moses parted the waters by raising his bouquet of flowers above the waters? Sure it would. Would it make a difference if we substitute in another place and declare that Naaman was told to go wash in the Abana or the Pharpar, rivers of his choosing, rather than the Jordan? Or if he had been told to wash 5 times instead of 7?

I think you not only make too much of an issue of criticizing me for pointing this out, you also make too little of the issue of accuracy of detail.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I am intimately acquainted with the event. I have, however, no pic of an axehead that gives it justice, and the name, "Floatingaxehead" is owned by someone already.

And with this your assurance, I will let the matter rest, but only with the further notation that there is no username in use on this forum by the name of "Floatingaxehead." Not that I couldn't take your word for it and simply leave it there rather than check the memberlist, but I'm of the old school, which abides by the slogan, "Trust; but verify."

 

[Brennin]

You are making assumptions, unless you have incontrovertible proof this took place. The accounts by MASONS at the time, which everyone naturally chooses to ignore, told of a clandestine sneaking away into Canada by Morgan, even perhaps by arrangement that may have even involved Masons. The only thing anybody knows for sure is that nobody knows for sure.

It's not like it had any lasting impact. There were some people who demitted here and there, but Masonry was back and thriving in a couple of decades. What was it Gamaliel advised? Be careful what you do regarding these men, for if it is not of God, it will come to naught. But if it IS found to be of God, then you will find yourselves fighting against God.

Yes, Morgan escaped to Canada, where he lives with Elvis, Bigfoot, and Hitler. Give me a break.

What's even more absurd, is for anyone to be making disparaging remarks about anyone else's apron while ""Wielding the Holy Cudgel of Faith."

That's figurative, but even if it were not, I would still rather wield a cudgel than wear a ridiculous apron in a super secret club.

 

[god's_pawn]

As pointed out, I disagree, and for the reasons stated.

That's just bizarre if you think I suggested any such thing.

Well, it will if she ever gets around to actually posting anything "based on the Word of God" as claimed, because so far the only instance of direct mention we have from her, despite claiming to base her comments on the Word of God, is this one, which not only has nothing to do with Freemasonry (nor would anyone expect it to), it is also incorrect in what it portrays. By your logic, it would not matter at all if we put some other word in place of the word stated, in practically any instance of miracles performed. Would it make a difference, for example, if Moses parted the waters by raising his bouquet of flowers above the waters? Sure it would. Would it make a difference if we substitute in another place and declare that Naaman was told to go wash in the Abana or the Pharpar, rivers of his choosing, rather than the Jordan? Or if he had been told to wash 5 times instead of 7?

I think you not only make too much of an issue of criticizing me for pointing this out, you also make too little of the issue of accuracy of detail.

ok, so just hypothetically speaking, say that moses did indeed use a bouquet of flowers. does this change things? perhaps the artists description of the incident, but ultimately no. the waters still would've parted in just the exact same way (atom for atom) as it did indeed do with the staff. suppose Naaman was told 5 times or in a different river, would that change the fact that he was healed? nope. now, using the Jordan was important for the sake of the fact that it was dirty, but this is only one exception out of many good examples . we could even use the cross. suppose Jesus died by being crushed by a mill-stone. does this change the fact that He died for our sins? no, he still would've done it just as effectively. the major changes would be again the artists depiction of the event and the fact that we would be called upon to care our mill-stones daily. you are debating a method of how something was done, not the thing that was actually done. God can use anything to do anything. so adding a stick to the axe can be used agaist the validity of the passage, does this make it less valid to God or to us? no. there are many other passages where there could be natural explanatiuons given yet you fail to complin about these. by using Axe's picture against her you accomplish nothing. if it's not of eternal value then it is worthless (comparatively speaking as the eternal issues are beyond comparison to anything that isn't)

she has already explained the issue for why she has the name and picture now seen so we can drop this whole thing now, but i thought i would point out what i have written above anyway with your benefit in mind.

 

[Brennin]

I do have one observation Wayne. You are a preacher, posting on a Christian forum and 174 out of your last 175 posts are in defense of masonry. Does this give a little insight to where your heart really is?

Can I get an amen?

 

[Rev Wayne]

you're still using that fallacy. he may be wrong on his demon possession deal (which i'm not going to discuss here), but that in no way affacts what he said about freemasonry. unless you can disprove the statement with your own arguments you must take it as it is.

Now see, right there, without knowing it, you have really hit the bull's-eye, when you ask that question, concerning what is wrong with FA's approach to "discusssion." You see, so far, she has said nothing at all that has been substantiated. Now, four short pages later, a remark she makes about Neil Anderson, in which she again cited nothing, nor provided a link to any real information (as usual), somehow you have gone from what was actually said, to a declaration that somehow it is incumbent upon ME to "disprove" something that NEVER WAS SAID in the first place!!

For reference, the comment was:

In fact, when one is going through Neil Anderson's or any other's material on gaining spiritual freedom in Christ, one is brought to face and renounce any affiliation with Freemasonry.

See, not one word of anything about Freemasonry from anything by Neil Anderson. The only thing about Freemasonry is HER comment connecting the "spiritual freedom" idea which Anderson probably DID say, with "renouncing affiliation with Freemasonry," which was her OWN assertion. Whether Anderson says/does not say anything at ALL about Freemasonry, we haven't the slightest clue.

And such will always be the case in the nebulous world of the "I-don't-have-to-support-my-claims" poster. We dealt with it extensively on another thread, so I already knew what to expect. And like before, sooner or later she will make my ignore list, just not yet, becase I don't automatically consider anyone beyond change.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Spiritual Freedom Manual--Checklist/ Set Free Ministries http://www.setfreeministries.com/New_Steps_1.pdf

? Astrology /horoscopes
?Psychic readings
?Transcendental Meditation TM
? Automatic writing
? Reikki / touch therapy/massage
? Unification Church (Moonies)
? Blood pact
? Seance
? Unitarianism/Universalism
? Clairvoyance (seeing the unseen)
? Sorcery
? Buddhism (including Zen)
? Crystal ball / crystal gazing
? Spirit Guides
? Mormonism/(Latter- Day Saints)
? Crystal ball / crystal gazing
? Tarot cards
? New Age-- medicine/herbs/books
? Fortunetelling
? Telepathy (mind reading)
? Black Muslim
? Hypnosis (by self or another person)
? Trance
? Cabala/kabala
? Levitation / Lifting (body/table)
? Voodoo
? Eastern religions
? Magic (black or white)
? Witchcraft / Wicca
? Hinduism
? Magic 8 ball
? Yoga
? I Ching (Chinese philosophy)
? Medium, Spiritist, or channeler
? Christian Science
? Islam
? Mystical meditation
? Hare Krishna
? Martial arts
? Ouija board
? Jehovah Witness (Watchtower)
? Mind control philosophies
? Palm reading
? Church of Scientology
? Native religions
? Spirit worship
? Harry Potter
? Masons
? Bahai faith

 

[god's_pawn]

Now see, right there, without knowing it, you have really hit the bull's-eye, when you ask that question, concerning what is wrong with FA's approach to "discusssion." You see, so far, she has said nothing at all that has been substantiated. Now, four short pages later, a remark she makes about Neil Anderson, in which she again cited nothing, nor provided a link to any real information (as usual), somehow you have gone from what was actually said, to a declaration that somehow it is incumbent upon ME to "disprove" something that NEVER WAS SAID in the first place!!

For reference, the comment was:


See, not one word of anything about Freemasonry from anything by Neil Anderson. The only thing about Freemasonry is HER comment connecting the "spiritual freedom" idea which Anderson probably DID say, with "renouncing affiliation with Freemasonry," which was her OWN assertion. Whether Anderson says/does not say anything at ALL about Freemasonry, we haven't the slightest clue.

And such will always be the case in the nebulous world of the "I-don't-have-to-support-my-claims" poster. We dealt with it extensively on another thread, so I already knew what to expect. And like before, sooner or later she will make my ignore list, just not yet, becase I don't automatically consider anyone beyond change.

excellent, i'm glad you see my point; however, you failed to support your own possition which is the fact that your own reply had issues. pointing out problems of someone else's post doesn't allow your own problem to be forgotten. i didn't ask for a criticism on FA's post, i already said the same things to her, i wanted you to fix up your own post. indeed for i was talking about your post not hers, don't redirect my posts to someone i wasn't responding to.

 

[Rev Wayne]

ok, so just hypothetically speaking, say that moses did indeed use a bouquet of flowers. does this change things? perhaps the artists description of the incident, but ultimately no. the waters still would've parted in just the exact same way (atom for atom) as it did indeed do with the staff. suppose Naaman was told 5 times or in a different river, would that change the fact that he was healed? nope. now, using the Jordan was important for the sake of the fact that it was dirty, but this is only one exception out of many good examples . we could even use the cross. suppose Jesus died by being crushed by a mill-stone. does this change the fact that He died for our sins? no, he still would've done it just as effectively. the major changes would be again the artists depiction of the event and the fact that we would be called upon to care our mill-stones daily. you are debating a method of how something was done, not the thing that was actually done. God can use anything to do anything. so adding a stick to the axe can be used agaist the validity of the passage, does this make it less valid to God or to us? no. there are many other passages where there could be natural explanatiuons given yet you fail to complin about these. by using Axe's picture against her you accomplish nothing. if it's not of eternal value then it is worthless (comparatively speaking as the eternal issues are beyond comparison to anything that isn't)

The problem with this critique is pretty obvious: nobody was discussing methods God COULD have used. I was speaking of things which God DID use, and the ACTUAL misrepresentation of them. Sure, God COULD have done this with an axe, but He didn't, He did it with an axehead.

she has already explained the issue for why she has the name and picture now seen so we can drop this whole thing now, but i thought i would point out what i have written above anyway with your benefit in mind.

And once again, I will point out "for your benefit," that apparently there is no "floatingaxehead" username in use on this forum. I'll leave any implications this might have to you, since obviously if I spell it out for you, the details will be sorted through in a search for cannon fodder.

I'm actually with you, let's get down to real discussion, if anyone actually HAS any. But if you're looking for me to initiate it, I'm waiting for some sign that there is any interest in it, on your part OR hers. Besides, I'm generally not the instigator here, and usually have a habit of responding only as issues are raised, and even then only if there is something which I feel I have that will contribute to the search for the truth--even to the point of taking a 2 and a half month absence while the thread rested. If you have issues, by all means raise them, but you aren't really succeeding in your quest to function as a mediator here. You lost me on that one the minute you took us to task for dealing with meaningless trivialities while you yourself engaged in meaningless trivialities.

The question is and has ever been, on this thread, Can a Christian be a Freemason? As others have already responded, of course they can, most Masons ARE in fact Christians--by FAR. No doubt the direction has actually been more toward "SHOULD a Christian be a Freemason," but the title still works.

 

[Floatingaxe]

The question is and has ever been, on this thread, Can a Christian be a Freemason? As others have already responded, of course they can, most Masons ARE in fact Christians--by FAR. No doubt the direction has actually been more toward "SHOULD a Christian be a Freemason," but the title still works.

Christians need to flee the occultic Freemasonry.

http://www.godonthe.net/cme/links/masons.htm

 

[god's_pawn]

The problem with this critique is pretty obvious: nobody was discussing methods God COULD have used. I was speaking of things which God DID use, and the ACTUAL misrepresentation of them. Sure, God COULD have done this with an axe, but He didn't, He did it with an axehead.

i believe there is infinitely more importance to the fact that God did and why God did it then there is for how He did it.

And once again, I will point out "for your benefit," that apparently there is no "floatingaxehead" username in use on this forum. I'll leave any implications this might have to you, since obviously if I spell it out for you, the details will be sorted through in a search for cannon fodder.

there isn't now, but there is a very good chance that there was one when FA first joined. i prefer that explanation to blatantly calling FA a liar. i would think that a pastor would know better than that and i also think that you owe Floatingaxe an apology for such an implication.

I'm actually with you, let's get down to real discussion, if anyone actually HAS any. But if you're looking for me to initiate it, I'm waiting for some sign that there is any interest in it, on your part OR hers. Besides, I'm generally not the instigator here, and usually have a habit of responding only as issues are raised, and even then only if there is something which I feel I have that will contribute to the search for the truth--even to the point of taking a 2 and a half month absence while the thread rested. If you have issues, by all means raise them, but you aren't really succeeding in your quest to function as a mediator here. You lost me on that one the minute you took us to task for dealing with meaningless trivialities while you yourself engaged in meaningless trivialities.

The question is and has ever been, on this thread, Can a Christian be a Freemason? As others have already responded, of course they can, most Masons ARE in fact Christians--by FAR. No doubt the direction has actually been more toward "SHOULD a Christian be a Freemason," but the title still works.

very well, if you desist then so shall i. but if you continue on anything that i have mentioned i have every right to defend myself.

 

[Rev Wayne]

excellent, i'm glad you see my point; however, you failed to support your own possition which is the fact that your own reply had issues. pointing out problems of someone else's post doesn't allow your own problem to be forgotten. i didn't ask for a criticism on FA's post, i already said the same things to her, i wanted you to fix up your own post. indeed for i was talking about your post not hers, don't redirect my posts to someone i wasn't responding to.

In my previous post I addressed your tendency to presume yourself some kind of mediator. In this one I will simply state to you, you will not direct my posts, at least not until someone dies or steps down and makes you a moderator. I will respond as I choose to respond, as your comments/challenges may require. I was not trying to duck any problem at all, I was pointing out to you, just as I expect you will observe the same liberty.

But in reality, I think it is YOU who are trying with this belligerence to cover up your OWN gaffe. What you said to me was:

but that in no way affacts what he said about freemasonry. unless you can disprove the statement with your own arguments you must take it as it is.

That still stands as what you stated to me. You told me I needed to "disprove the statement," and if I could not, I had to "take it as it is."

The GLARING PROBLEM with your insistence is:

NO STATEMENT BY NEIL ANDERSON ABOUT FREEMASONRY WAS POSTED.

I was simply trying to point out to you your own error, trying to shift the burden of proof to me, when there was nothing there for me to either prove or disprove. Sheesh!

Yeah, I know the rules about caps, but you seem to have a hearing problem, and the natural tendency around such a person is to speak louder.

 

[Floatingaxe]

there isn't now, but there is a very good chance that there was one when FA first joined. i prefer that explanation to blatantly calling FA a liar. i would think that a pastor would know better than that and i also think that you owe Floatingaxe an apology for such an implication.

FYI and especially for the elucidation of the "reverend"......There was at one time. Not sure if it was here or at another site. I use this name at different sites.

 

[Rev Wayne]

i believe there is infinitely more importance to the fact that God did and why God did it then there is for how He did it.

So you don't find the fact that He did it by a miracle to be important? In the case of Naaman, too, seven is ALWAYS a significant number in Scripture, the symbolism itself points to the fact "that God did it" and even "why He did it." If the passage includes a "how He did it," I think it is negligence to disregard it as insignificant. But maybe you've discovered a new set of hermeneutical principles I've never heard of.

there isn't now, but there is a very good chance that there was one when FA first joined. i prefer that explanation to blatantly calling FA a liar. i would think that a pastor would know better than that and i also think that you owe Floatingaxe an apology for such an implication.

"Blatantly calling FA a liar?" Gee, I never said any such thing. Like I said, I left any implications up to you. Certainly I am aware there is that chance, as you say, that there was at the time she registered. But I also am aware that only the mods would know that for sure, which is why I made no such "blatant" accusation at all. But I am also aware that I have three different usernames that are still registered on this forum, despite the fact that I have probably not used a couple of them in over two years, simply because I have not found a "deregistration" feature that I can locate anywhere on the forum. If FA thinks this has implications as well, she can determine the implications and respond accordingly. I revoke my offer allowing you to make implications from my posts, since you thus abuse the privilege.

And I thing Floatingaxe can handle herself. Feigning the part of protector after going full guns after her for her bold print, seems a bit disingenuous at best on your part.

As for an apology, FA can speak for herself on that one also, because as I already stated, I reject your self-appointed mediatorship. Besides, who needs implications when we still have the totally obvious fact that FA has posted nothing that contains the least smidgin of substance? In that regard, I do not wish to single her out either, because NO ONE is posting anything worth discussing. Unsubstantiated opinions will probably be ignored as they have been so far, because they lack substance or foundation.

If you have problems with this, find a mirror and have it out, and let's reserve space here for any actual discussion--or do you have any?

very well, if you desist then so shall i. but if you continue on anything that i have mentioned i have every right to defend myself.

That was my understanding all along, why would I expect anything less?

 

[Rev Wayne]

FYI and especially for the edification of the "pastor"......There was at one time. Not sure if it was here or at another site. I use this name at different sites.

Hmmmm......the law of dimishing returns?

 

[god's_pawn]

In my previous post I addressed your tendency to presume yourself some kind of mediator. In this one I will simply state to you, you will not direct my posts, at least not until someone dies or steps down and makes you a moderator. I will respond as I choose to respond, as your comments/challenges may require. I was not trying to duck any problem at all, I was pointing out to you, just as I expect you will observe the same liberty.

But in reality, I think it is YOU who are trying with this belligerence to cover up your OWN gaffe. What you said to me was:


That still stands as what you stated to me. You told me I needed to "disprove the statement," and if I could not, I had to "take it as it is."

The GLARING PROBLEM with your insistence is:

NO STATEMENT BY NEIL ANDERSON ABOUT FREEMASONRY WAS POSTED.

I was simply trying to point out to you your own error, trying to shift the burden of proof to me, when there was nothing there for me to either prove or disprove. Sheesh!

Yeah, I know the rules about caps, but you seem to have a hearing problem, and the natural tendency around such a person is to speak louder.

just to clarify things, i do not presume myself as some kind of mediator, i know full well that i'm not, but how does that affect what i am saying? is it less true? no it isn't. it's not about responding as you will, it's responding in a way that is good and beneficial to all, this is not necessarily true with your posts and i'm not saying that it is so with mine. you are wlecome to point out any error i have made and i have every right to defend my possition.

i concede the fact that no "statement" of his was made, but it was very clearly implied that Neil Anderson was against freemasonry.

if i have made other error than this (for which i gave evidence that it was not an error) please show me, or else respond appropriately to my posts. there are still parts of my last reply to you that you have not addressed, i specifically call to mind the apology that is do Floatingaxe.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Substance.

 

[god's_pawn]

So you don't find the fact that He did it by a miracle to be important? In the case of Naaman, too, seven is ALWAYS a significant number in Scripture, the symbolism itself points to the fact "that God did it" and even "why He did it." If the passage includes a "how He did it," I think it is negligence to disregard it as insignificant. But maybe you've discovered a new set of hermeneutical principles I've never heard of.

it's a miracle no matter how he did it. yes, i will agree that the symbolism is important but again, this is the one exceptional case out of many acceptable ones

"Blatantly calling FA a liar?" Gee, I never said any such thing. Like I said, I left any implications up to you. Certainly I am aware there is that chance, as you say, that there was at the time she registered. But I also am aware that only the mods would know that for sure, which is why I made no such "blatant" accusation at all. But I am also aware that I have three different usernames that are still registered on this forum, despite the fact that I have probably not used a couple of them in over two years, simply because I have not found a "deregistration" feature that I can locate anywhere on the forum. If FA thinks this has implications as well, she can determine the implications and respond accordingly. I revoke my offer allowing you to make implications from my posts, since you thus abuse the privilege.

And I thing Floatingaxe can handle herself. Feigning the part of protector after going full guns after her for her bold print, seems a bit disingenuous at best on your part.

As for an apology, FA can speak for herself on that one also, because as I already stated, I reject your self-appointed mediatorship. Besides, who needs implications when we still have the totally obvious fact that FA has posted nothing that contains the least smidgin of substance? In that regard, I do not wish to single her out either, because NO ONE is posting anything worth discussing. Unsubstantiated opinions will probably be ignored as they have been so far, because they lack substance or foundation.

If you have problems with this, find a mirror and have it out, and let's reserve space here for any actual discussion--or do you have any?


That was my understanding all along, why would I expect anything less?

we appear to have 1 conversation over 2 different posting patterns so i apologize ahead of time for not realizing that saying some things that are not relavent do to the just mentioned fact

but to continue, i have already answered you claims of me putting myself in the place of a moderator. you seem to have this habit of pointing to one possibility and claiming that as the fact. perhaps you just didn't look in the right place for a remove account link, or perhaps floatingaxehead was removed from the site by an admin. as a christian, you should give people the benefit of a doubt, more particulariy so as a pastor.

lastly. how dare you assume me to be a stupid, prideful, double-minded, person that would attack someone about one thing and then befriend them on another. yes i certainly did go at it with axe about her bold type but then i apologized for it when i saw how stupid it was. yes, axe can take care of herself for asking for an apology and i'll let her do that if she so desires. but now i demand an apology for what you said there. i don't care what you meant, i was definitely insulted by it.