Okay, "Mr. Insisting-on-Context" man, YOU claimed there was a finite list of RELIGIONS that a man must come from in order to become a Mason, NOT a list of 'holy' WRITIINGS to be obligated on! How did you put it. . .oh yeah:
Like I said, NO SUCH LIST EXIST!
Okay, "Mr. Weasel-Out-of-it-Any-Way-I-Can," you obviously didn't look at the list very well. Let me offer some assistance:
If a man does not wish to be obligated on the Holy Bible, he must select alternate Holy Writings from a list promulgated from time to time by the Grand Master of the Holy Writings of those
recognized religions whose theology is not inconsistent with a belief in a Supreme Being and a future existence. The Grand Master's list shall at all times include the al-Kitab al-Aqdas of Bahaism, the Tripitaka of Buddhism, the Analects of Confucianism, the Vedas of Hinduism, the Koran of Islam, the Tanach of Judaism, the Koji-ki of Shintoism, the Adi Granth of Sikhism, the Tao-te Ching of Taoism and the Zend Avesta of Zoroastrianism.
It is the RELIGIONS that are "recognized," and not just the sacred writings themselves. Clearly, before any book could make the list, it first had to qualify as the "sacred writings" of a "recognized religion whose theology is not inconsistent with a belief in a Supreme Being and a future existence"--in other words, exactly what the statement says.
But hey, you can't claim bragging rights either, since (1) you forgot all about a list that YOU came up with in the first place, and (2) in your original comment about it, YOU didn't get it straight either, saying:
O.F.F. said:
Please share with us this Masonic edict, because from my former Masonic experience no such required list of deities (for purposes of regularity) even exist.
As anyone can see, it is not a list of "deities," nor did I claim it to be, as you earlier tried to accuse me of saying. So while you're huffing and puffing about it, huff and puff at least a time or two in your mirror.
And take another look at my comment as originally stated, because I still don't see anything about the list that is inconsistent with what I said:
Rev Wayne said:
Also, Masonry has a list of specific monotheistic religions which are considered valid for Masonic lodges (for purposes of regularity) and "baal" and "ra" are not among them.
And here's how the list corresponds with what I stated:
"specific"--specifically named in the list are
Bahaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism.
"monotheistic"--directly stated in the words, "whose theology is not inconsistent with a belief in a Supreme Being. . ."
"religions"--"religions"
"which are considered valid for Masonic lodges (for purposes of regularity)"--"recognized"
"and 'baal' and 'ra' are not among them"--I don't see them on the list, do you?
So there is NOT ONE THING I stated about the list's content, that was not CLEARLY presented in the statement in the California Code.
And, apparently NO SUCH LIST EXIST IN South Carolina.
Which is EXACTLY why I was clear in pointing out before posting it, that the list was YOURS. I never made any such claim about a list "in South Carolina." That is YOUR straw man.
You are NOT from the Grand Lodge of California
I am in constant awe, sir, of your incredible powers of discernment. Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you require help?
so what you supplied is not only irrelevant to YOUR claim, it doesn't even apply to YOU in the first place.
I never said this was about South Carolina, that was YOUR straw man.
As for this "not applying to ME in the first place": are you reading my posts? I have to believe you're not, otherwise you would know that I myself stated, when you first began this specious attempt to hinder my responses with your artificial limitations:
Well, if you REALLY want to deal with it as it applies in SC, I would be happy to cite for you once again the NUMEROUS proofs that VSL is never used in reference to it in Ahiman Rezon, only Holy Bible; that Holy Bible is defined as our Great Light; that Holy Bible is the only book on our altar, that the lodge cannot be opened without the Holy Bible present there; citations of all the direct passages from the Bible that are read here during the degrees, etc. etc., the whole nine yards.
SO it's pretty much up to you, if you wanna talk about SC Masonry, I have no problem with going there with you--in fact, as you can see, I already have. But if you'd rather talk about Masonry outside of SC, and if your posts indicate that's the direction you are going, then I will talk about that with you as well.
If you don't like the approach, then go back to that mirror I referenced earlier, and make your complaint, for I have long ago tired of your inconsistencies and double standards on the matter, of trying to broaden your allowable target for discussion while trying to limit mine. You should know by now, that dodo won't fly--which has nothing to do with ability, and everything to do with the fact they don't exist. Neither does the artificial, one-sided standard you continually try to impose.
And in your "stupidity" you must have forgot about Theistic Satanism, also known as Traditional Satanism or Spiritual Satanism, which is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force worthy of reverence or worship. They certainly worship Lucifer as god; and therefore meet the prerequisite for Masonic membership.
I "forgot" nothing of the sort. If someone is a satanist, it will be known of them, and they won't even get their foot in the door. It falls in that category of "irreligious Libertine."
But in defense of Masonic heresy, and its membership, you provide a list acknowledging Bahaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism.
That list "acknowledges" no such thing. It "acknowledges" that the BOOKS are allowable for the obligation for candidates who are members of those religions.
Again, this is one of your inconsistencies. You are obviously fond of trying to make this kind of accusation stick on the one hand; yet, let anyone remind you that the VSL of all U.S. lodges is the Holy Bible, and you immediately revert to ridiculing it as "only a symbol" (in fact, I see already where in this very same post, you have resorted to that one again).
Once again, you need to quit straddling all the fences, and make up your mind which argument you wish to try to make stick, because when you try to make it work both ways, you end up not establishing either one.
I am certain ANY real Christian, especially a seminary-trained pastor, should have enough spiritual discernment to know that the god of Bahaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism are NOT God! Yet by furnishing this list that is pretty much what you're saying, now aren't you?
I never stated, suggested, implied, or even hinted anything of the sort. Misrepresent my words again, and I will simply let the mods handle it.
You know as well as I do, that the Holy Bible is the VSL for all U.S. lodges, and that any other book which appears on that list, is STRICTLY for the purpose of an individual candidate to take HIS obligation on the book of HIS CHOICE, and for the purpose that HE may thereby "consider it more binding." The practice is no different than the same practice approved by a ruling for U.S. courts, that someone being sworn in for testimony in a courtroom, may do so on the "sacred book" of THEIR choice, so that they will not be forced to give credence/acknowledgment to a book which is not the book of their own faith.
But since YOU proudly provided the list, we can assume YOU attribute godhood to them.
Nope. Assume if you must, but you assume falsely, which thereby becomes presumption. I neither stated nor in any other way indicated any such thing. So obviously the idea came from your fertile imagination.
Nor did I provide the list "proudly." In case you have forgotten, it was YOU who DEMANDED the list, and it was YOU who provided the list in the FIRST PLACE. Just as it is NOW you who misrepresent its purpose. Why should I be "proud" of YOUR list??
As for Satanists becoming Masons, you know darn well an investigative committee is not going to inquire beyond asking a candidate, "Do you believe in a Supreme Being?" That's all that is required, and that is all that was asked when I joined at the time.
I "know" no such thing. If they choose to do so, and/or if it is considered warranted, our investigative committees may request a SLED (State Law Enforcement Division) background check. My denomination does the same thing before ordaining pastors. (In fact, they make us pay the fee it costs to have one done!) Naturally, I speak for SC only in saying this, I have no idea how standard or common this would be. I do know I had this conversation on a forum with Masons from other jurisdictions present, and there was general assent that it was the same in their location as well.
So if a Pagan Witch can become a Mason, surely a Satanist can too! It would be very naive, at best, to think he can't.
No, what's "naive" is thinking that a "satanist" is the same thing as a "pagan."
But I am appalled that YOU, a Christian (or at least a said one), consider it a valid proposition, that a satanist can be considered a believer in God. And even worse, as "proof" of that proposition, you offer the stated positions of satanists themselves! But to top it all, after having done all that, then you have the gall to turn around and call ME "naive???"
Oh well, I should know by now not to put even the most ridiculous notion past you. Especially not after that one.
As for your totally disregarding what was presented in refutation of your earlier claims of what you "never" said, I will take your silence as a tacit admission of your attempted deception on that point.
