Can a Christian be a Freemason???

[Rev Wayne]

How dare you try to mischaracterize my testimony, and Coil's statement from his encyclopedia. But to answer your questions, yes what I said is in the ritual; but since as Coil pointed out, the Bible is merely "a symbol" of ALL VSL's, that portion of ritual essentially tells the non-Christian Mason that he should “faithfully direct his steps through life by the Light he there shall find” in the BOOK he deems as his VSL (Volume of Sacred Law).

How dare YOU mischaracterize YOUR OWN testimony? This is the most cockamamie copout you have ever invented!

Are you saying then, that you were NOT told to read your Bible? If not, then either you're lying about it now, or you were lying about it in your testimony, because you clearly stated:

the primary thing I felt I had to obey was the fact that, if the Holy Bible is indeed the "Great Light" of Freemasonry and therefore, my "rule and guide for my faith and practice," then I had better obey the command found in the 1° degree of the ritual, where it says we should "faithfully direct our steps through life by the Light we there shall find."

Since you CLEARLY seem to have been telling us in that testimony, WHAT YOU WERE TOLD during that first degree, why would you backtrack on a testimony you have had posted for a number of years now, to contradict it by trying to claim you were told to make "the book you deem your VSL" the rule and guide for your faith and practice? This makes no sense at ALL.

Some things that are extremely plain, and upon which you CANNOT prevaricate:

You obviously were told the Bible was the Great Light of Freemasonry.
You obviously were ALSO told that it was to be your "rule and guide for your faith and practice."
You ALSO stated, and just now affirmed, that you were told in the first degree of the ritual to "faithfully direct your steps through life by the Light you there shall find."

Not only that, there is the matter also of whether or not a non-Christian was present during that lodge meeting. If there WERE none, then what you just claimed is totally irrelevant and non-applicable, for there would have been NO "non-Christian" present to interpret the matter in that fashion. Funny thing is, you never ONCE mentioned any such thing being the case before, even with the many times that this and other material from your testimony has come up, both from us and from you, so I would HAVE to be skeptical if you were to try to claim it NOW just to win a point.

Also, since you affirmed that the language IS INDEED in the ritual, then you have proven Coil was WRONG in stating “NO RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY has held that a Freemason must believe the Bible or any part of it.” It's pretty obvious that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in which you took the first degree, DOES tell Masons to believe the Bible, to "make it the rule and guide for your faith and practice, and to "faithfully direct your steps through life by the Light you there shall find."

SO I REPEAT: BY YOUR OWN WORDS IN THIS VERY REPLY IN THIS POST, ADMITTING THAT THE THINGS YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY WERE INDEED TO BE FOUND IN THE RITUAL OF THE PH FIRST DEGREE--COIL'S STATEMENT HAS THEREBY BEEN DISPROVEN.

THEREFORE: SINCE COIL WAS WRONG ON THE POINT: You CANNOT come back in response to this by once again citing Coil on the matter. The only way you CAN do that, is to renege on your statement affirming these things to be in the ritual as you undertook it, or to declare for us that the Grand Lodge under whose jurisdiction you took that degree, is NOT a "RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY." Otherwise, you need to simply bite the bullet, admit to the implications that arise from your affirmation of your testimony, acknowledge that Coil was wrong and quit trying to defend this junk, and move on.

Now that you've gone on record as telling the truth in that testimony, which means that you WERE told to believe the Biible, contrary to Coil's claim, how can you even THINK of trying to slip this ill-conceived falsehood by the readers?

I don't know, Mike, I've really seen some bizarre posts from you before, but this one? Man, you don't really seem to have thought this through before you posted this nonsense at all.

[QUOTEquote=O.F.F.;54338706]We certainly can give it a try, but my observation has been, that YOU are the one more inclined to relish the last word. [/QUOTE]

And yet, here you are, still making every effort to be the one who obtains it.....

And what will make compliance to our truce most difficult is the fact that you often label nonresponsiveness to your false claims as, "I will take your silence as a tacit admission" that what you claim is true. However, I will try to comply nonetheless.

No, what will make the truce MOST difficult, is your CONTINUED evasion with this ridiculous falsification.

As for what you term "false claims," it's an old adage that "silence implies consent," and in YOUR case I have found that to be DOUBLY true. If there had been no truth to that list of direct quotes from you, believe me, you would have been up to your ears in denials IMMEDIATELY! Instead, you said NOTHING! And now you want to minimize it and downplay it in an attempt to make it go away?

No, if you choose not to challenge it, that's your business. But calling it "false claims" without the least thing to corroborate it, ESPECIALLY since it was in your own words and thoroughly documented as to dates and locations, is WAY BEYOND my usual practice of calling such tactics "disingenuous." It absolutely REEKS, to tell you the truth--as if truth mattered to you at all.

And I stand corrected on my statement that you simply wish to get the last word. Judging from your (non-)response on that particular issue, and from your lame attempt to pull the legs out from under the issue between your testimony versus Coil's remark, you now look like your greatest interest is in protecting against losing face--which is, up to this point, clearly a losing battle. That approach, by the way, until you begin to be honest with yourself about it, has a way of becoming an increasingly slippery slope the further you go with it. Do take extreme caution here, won't you, if for no other reason, then at least for the sake of the Christ who bought you?

Seems like quite a dilemma for you, and until I can get some clarification of this muddied water you provided here, I see no need in going through the rest of your post to answer ANYTHING--because if you will stoop to THIS level to try to defend against this muddled morass of contradictions, the good Lord only knows what ELSE you are doing as well.

 

[O.F.F.]

Also, since you affirmed that the language IS INDEED in the ritual, then you have proven Coil was WRONG in stating “NO RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY has held that a Freemason must believe the Bible or any part of it.” It's pretty obvious that the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in which you took the first degree, DOES tell Masons to believe the Bible

It's enough that you are spiritually blind as it relates to Freemasonry, but in your growing old, it appears you are physically blind as to what is said in Masonic ritual. Nowhere in any Prince Hall ritual, or any non-Prince Hall ritual, or anywhere else in Masonry for that matter, does it say that a Freemason MUST believe the Bible or any part of it!!!!

So Coil is RIGHT and YOU are WRONG, period! Here is your morass; seems like quite a dilemma for YOU, because until you can SHOW us where in Masonry one is told they MUST believe the Bible or any part of it, YOU remain as WRONG on that point as you are in becoming a Mason in the first place.

My obedience to read my Bible at the time, was prompted by the Holy Spirit, who as a result ultimately led me OUT OF THE LODGE; which is the gist of my testimony you continue to mock. If you were obedient to God, then you would do the same thing I did and get the heck out of Masonry. Until you do, as far as I'm concern, you are in deliberate rebellion against Him and are no better than your Satanic Masonic brethren listed in my previous post.

 

[Rev Wayne]

My obedience to read my Bible at the time, was prompted by the Holy Spirit

AFTER you heard the words you did in lodge, encouraging you to read it. It was that exhoration, according to you, that the Holy Spirit apparently used to bring it about. If it was otherwise, then why did you even bring it up and appear to give credit elsewhere, rather than giving full glory to God?

Besides, did you completely ignore that "slippery slope" I warned you about? So don't get angry with ME since I gave you fair warning, but what you are claiming now is CLEARLY just another evasion on your part, and yet another attempt to save face.

YOU YOURSELF SAID THESE WORDS IN YOUR MASONIC TESTIMONY:

I truly believed that if I wanted to be the best Mason I could, it was imperative for me to adhere to what I was taught in the Lodge. With that goal in mind at that time, the primary thing I felt I had to obey was the fact that, if the Holy Bible is indeed the "Great Light" of Freemasonry and therefore, my "rule and guide for my faith and practice," then I had better obey the command found in the 1° degree of the ritual, where it says we should "faithfully direct our steps through life by the Light we there shall find."

YOU called it a command, not me. YOU said it was "the primary thing" and that you "had to obey" it.

I really thought you had made as big a farce as could possibly be made in your continued evasive, waffling posts. But NOW you come back and top it, by trying to convince us that a "command" that you "had to obey" was somehow a thing that was not considered a "must."

Why don't you give it up before that slippery slope opens up and swallows you completely, dude? I mean, this does provide some much needed comic interlude, at least on this side of the exchange, but I would have thought you'd never willingly submit to it as you have.

So Coil is RIGHT and YOU are WRONG, period! Here is your morass; seems like quite a dilemma for YOU, because until you can SHOW us where in Masonry one is told they MUST believe the Bible or any part of it, YOU remain as WRONG on that point as you are in becoming a Mason in the first place.

Sorry, but I still stand where I already stood on this, on YOUR OWN WORDS TO THE CONTRARY. According to what you said in your testimony, as already pointed out, Coil was clearly WRONG. I have shown you where in Masonry YOU YOURSELF said was a "MUST" ("I had to") to "faithfully direct your steps through life according to the light you there shall find."

 

[AoDoA]

I think its really disgusting to try and defend Masonry like this

its not like you don't realize what its really about

you have access to the information and you've had plenty of time to figure it out

what your doing is despicable and you will have to answer for it

just so you know

 

[Rev Wayne]

My obedience to read my Bible at the time, was prompted by the Holy Spirit, who as a result ultimately led me OUT OF THE LODGE; which is the gist of my testimony you continue to mock. If you were obedient to God, then you would do the same thing I did and get the heck out of Masonry. Until you do, as far as I'm concern, you are in deliberate rebellion against Him and are no better than your Satanic Masonic brethren listed in my previous post.

I suppose I should have read more carefully before leaving off response where I did. But perhaps it's just as well to respond to this one separately.

First, I have not "mocked" your testimony at all. Like anything else, it is what is, and it ain't what it ain't, and the is and ain't are as clear there as anywhere else. All I have done is point out where there are issues that come up in your CURRENT exchanges which sometimes seem to conflict with that testimony. Given that you were shown to be telling less than the truth when you claimed you never said certain things (and by your own words were shown to be less than truthful in the matter), there's no question we have a sufficient basis for questioning it when ANYTHING you say seems to conflict with the truth.

Second, a claim of "mocking" cannot be sustained when it's eminently clear I have not attacked the testimony in any way, just presented what you yourself said, presented the POSSIBILITIES which anyone could have done for themselves by applying the most rudimentary logic to follow the implications of your own words. It was a simple thing, e.g., to figure out that both you and the Coil statement you cited could not be right. The odd thing is, that though I cited with you throughout my analysis of it, and considered Coil wrong, you come back with a response of "mocking" it. I clearly did no such thing.

Which leads me to the reason for my current further reply. You came back claiming that it was the Holy Spirit who led you out of the lodge, almost as if you were trying to downplay the statements you made attributing it to the "command" given in the lodge, causing you to reflect upon it, and then act.

So once again, and pointing out for the readers, that I am not "mocking the testimony," just comparing it with the current claims, and, finding that something said in this exchange is simply not borne out by your current claims, I do the gentlemanly (and the scriptural) thing to do, by coming to you directly with it.

What you just said, I'm afraid, about the Holy Spirit leading you, is not borne out in your testimony. Any reader here who seems to feel that what I am doing is so unseemly, may do exactly what I just did when I noticed the remark and felt it was worth verifying, by going to the O.F.F. website, finding the page "Our Founder's Testimony," and doing whatever page search is featured in your browser, of the word "Spirit."

What they will find, as I did, is that "Holy Spirit" does not appear even ONCE on the entire page, which means there was no such witness given in the entire testimony. I go on record, of course, telling you this is not an attack on your testimony, because it's not your testimony I question, it's your current CLAIMS about it. I'm sure you were very sincere as you wrote that testimony, and gave it as faithfully as possible according to the way it happened. But I just don't see there what you are claiming here. And the question has to be asked: How on earth could something be the "gist of your testimony" which never once appears in it?

And that's not all. There is this matter as well:

as far as I'm concern, you are in deliberate rebellion against Him and are no better than your Satanic Masonic brethren listed in my previous post.

So now you're claiming satanic involvement on the part of Masons. That also goes against what you have stated at another time, only in this case, it was on another thread on this very website. You said there, that in your experience--and this was in regard to all 32 degrees which you took, that:

I have never personally witnessed deliberate Wiccan, Satanism or Witchcraft. But, that has never been my contention. You and I know that those issues exist, and have existed among some Masons, but if so, they are the exception and not the rule.

My question to you now is: if that has "never been your contention," as you stated THEN------then why on earth is it such a sticking point with you NOW, to try to make a case for something you already stated was NEVER a part of your experience in Masonry?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think its really disgusting to try and defend Masonry like this

In case you hadn't noticed, I don't "defend Masonry," I attack anti-Masonry.

That is why (and if you have paid close attention, you would know) I rarely ever post anything on initiative. It is almost entirely posting in response. Wrong opinions/interpretations get presented, I seek to correct them.

 

[O.F.F.]

I think its really disgusting to try and defend Masonry like this. Its not like you don't realize what its really about. You have access to the information and you've had plenty of time to figure it out. What your doing is despicable and you will have to answer for it; just so you know.

Thank you my brother for telling it like it is. What is really despicable is that this MASON who claims to be a "Christian" pastor -- whom the Bible says are held to a higher standard -- would go to such great lengths to ridicule one's personal testimony.

In case you hadn't noticed, I don't "defend Masonry," I attack anti-Masonry.

You do nothing of the kind. This thread is designed to answer the question, Can a Christian be a Freemason? Or more appropriately, I believe, it really means to ask, Should a Christian be a Freemason? At the point when you & I recently returned, it went from discussing what Freemasonry teaches, and/or not teach, to what is contained in Masonic ritual, and/or what it does not contain, to you NOT being able to show what it doesn't contain.

And since you can't find where it says a Mason MUST believe the Bible and any part of it, you suddenly turned into a hypersensitive Mr. Hyde and made it personal; with the futile attempt to establish my personal testimony as the "RESPONSIBLE Masonic AUTHORITY" in place of the one you can't find! No sir, you haven't attacked anti-Masonry, you've attacked one's personal testimony, and by the witness of one of the readers it's making you NOW look like an insensitive jerk! But you do have a choice. You can acquiesce by stopping this nonsense, and get back on topic, or you can continue showing your true colors.

So now you're claiming satanic involvement on the part of Masons.

What I cited from a 32° Mason, on a well-Masonically-respected website, was the Satanic involvement of Masons from Regular 'white' Lodges, in response to your sarcastic remark that only Prince Hall Masons can be duped by Satanists. And, yes, I never personally witnessed direct Satanic involvement on the part of any Prince Hall Masons I knew then.

However, I do witness such Satanic activity on YOUR part NOW. Because what makes your Satanic involvement MOST DESPICABLE, is that you are in such cahoots with Satan, that you can't even discern the Holy Spirit when you see Him. And you have the audacity to tell people that He led you into the Masonic Lodge.

What they will find, as I did, is that "Holy Spirit" does not appear even ONCE on the entire page, which means there was no such witness given in the entire testimony.

What they will find is the following, but too bad your cohort (the devil) has blinded you from seeing it:

So, as I began to diligently study the Bible the Light I found therein was the Light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. . .

So as it turned out, rather than Freemasonry leading me to know God better as I initially thought, it was God leading me out of the lodge and into a right relationship with Him. . .

However, God taught me, through the Bible that, Jesus is the Great Architect of the Universe, as it says in Colossians 1:15-17: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and, in him, all things hold together."

Jesus tells us Himself in John 11:25-26 when speaking to Martha, sister of Lazarus whom Christ raised from the dead, "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die..."

My prayer is that all Masons we come in contact with would come to know Jesus for who He really is. And that these men may enjoy the full riches of a complete understanding of Him, in order that they may know the greatest mystery of all, namely — "Christ in you, the only hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27), and in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, knowledge, and truth.

If you can't see the Holy Spirit in this, then you truly are a despicable pawn of Satan's. By the way, the song "Amazing Grace" doesn't contain the words "Holy Spirit," or even "Jesus" either for that matter, in its lyrics. But according to your sick Satanic logic, the song has nothing to do with Him, because in absence of the specific words He isn't even there. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself.

 

[Rev Wayne]

What is really despicable is that this MASON who claims to be a "Christian" pastor -- whom the Bible says are held to a higher standard -- would go to such great lengths to ridicule one's personal testimony.

I meant no negative inference by it when pointing out that your current claim of being "led by the Holy Spirit" was not in your testimony at the time. The simple fact is, it was not made EXPLICIT when you wrote that testimony. I referred only to the explicitly stated points, and in that regard, all your references were to either "God" or "Jesus Christ," not "the Holy Spirit." And I fully recognize and realize, that when you say

the primary thing I felt I had to obeywas the fact that, if the Holy Bible is indeed the "Great Light" of Freemasonry and therefore, my "rule and guide for my faith and practice," then I had better obey the command found in the 1° degree of the ritual, where it says we should "faithfully direct our steps through life by the Light we there shall find"

you were giving testimony to the Holy Spirit at work, directing you to the Word and to Christ. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure."

But here's the problem with what you stated, which prompted the response I gave. You claimed:

My obedience to read my Bible at the time, was prompted by the Holy Spirit, who as a result ultimately led me OUT OF THE LODGE; which is the gist of my testimony. . . .

That did not resonate with:

gist: the main point or part (Merriam-Webster)

My only point was, how can you claim that the Holy Spirit was "the main point or part" of your testimony, when you never once in it SAID anything about the Holy Spirit? And just because it was in your thinking, does not mean it was STATED.

Of course, "gist" has a secondary meaning of "essence," and perhaps the current recast of your remark is a reflection of that understanding of the word.

But if that was in your thinking, allow me to show you why that understanding of "gist" may not be a direction you want to go:

The next time a discussion comes up where we're talking about ritual content, and I start pointing out things like "He who was taken to the topmost pinnacle of the Temple," or "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them," or "the Lion of Judah, who has prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof," or " I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord," and other phrases that can only be attributed to Christ, you will not be able to offer any denials based on the fact that they are not direct, because as anyone can see, the "gist" of every single one of them is Jesus Christ.

And the next time we start talking about a "list of sacred books" and somebody refers to it as a "list of recognized religions," and you start squawking about it, they will have every right to remind you of the "gist" of your own words here, and will point out to you that even though it was not DESIGNATED as such, yet the context of what was said about it made it eminently clear, that "a list of both the VSL's AND the religions from which they originate, was the "gist" of it.

Still wanna go there?

with the futile attempt to establish my personal testimony as the "RESPONSIBLE Masonic AUTHORITY" in place of the one you can't find!

Like someone recently stated:

Only an idiot would think someone would demand what they already have.

Likewise, only an idiot would think somebody has to "find" something that is already right there in front of them. Such is the case with refuting Coil's claim. I have shown, in YOUR OWN WORDS, that it does exist there in RITUAL, and when presented with it, YOU YOURSELF CONFIRMED IT:

yes what I said is in the ritual

Or did you hope nobody saw that, so you can squeeze your way out of it?

And where on earth did you get the ridiculous notion that this was somehow pointing at your testimony as the "responsible Masonic authority?" I clearly showed that it was your statement about what is in the RITUAL, which you just HAPPENED to declare in your testimony, affirming that you were taught in Masonry that the Bible is the Great Light, and that you were given the instructions you stated you were given.

Be honest, now, Mike, and recognize that I have not "ridiculed," I have only questioned. Your testimony itself was not the focus of my comments, it was the fact that you gave ASSENT in that testimony to some things you have repeatedly DENIED in conversations on Masonry.

For instance:

You have denied that the Bible is the "Great Light" of Masonry; but in your testimony it was clear that you were taught the same thing in lodge.

You posted the Coil quote and tried to set it up as true; yet your testimony and your subsequent affirmation of its appearance in ritual, show that the lodge does indeed teach a Mason to read that Bible and to "follow the light that he shall find therein."

So the appeal to what you posted in the testimony is NOT the object; the object of it instead was to show where you have contradicted that testimony elsewhere.

And I can only figure you were being facetious in suggesting anyone was trying to point to your testimony as the "responsible Masonic authority," for I was COMPLETELY CLEAR in showing it to be the RITUAL, and you provided us with the AFFIRMATION that what you stated in the testimony about the ritual DOES INDEED APPEAR THERE.

I'm sure you didn't realize when you were affirming that material, that you were establishing the fact that Coil was WRONG, and your current belligerence is just sour grapes because you know you've been had.

I stand on record with what I have said. I took your Masonic testimony as the standard, I took IT as true, and your current remarks as being in contradiction of it. Now, if your current remarks are not inconsistent by comparison, I invite you to show them not to be so. You indicated there that you were taught that the Bible is the Great Light of Masonry. I did not deny it, because I was taught the same thing. You stated that you were told it was to be the "rule and guide for faith and practice," and I did not deny it, because I was taught the same thing, by both church and lodge. You stated that you were directed to follow the light of truth that you found in its pages, and I did not deny it, for I received the same directive.

Where in that do you find "ridicule?"

The Coil quote was introduced by you, not me. When Coil stated what he did, I saw that it does not match up with what any Mason can tell you, that directions are clearly there in the rituals telling us to accept and believe the Bible. You can hardly "make it the rule and guide of faith and practice" or "follow the light you find therein" without BELIEVING it, now can you?

No, it didn't have to be your testimony, I could just as easily have gone to the ritual sources where that information is contained. But when I happened to notice that you refer in that testimony to things that you were told in the ritual, I chose to use your own words to show you this, because that way you really don't have your standard option of denial, when it was YOU who gave the witness in the first place.

And it also follows YOUR pattern, established by both declaration and by practice, of focusing as much as possible, in any direct conversation with any Mason, on the particular statements and bylaws that are a part of his own particular jurisdiction. Since you don't have a "jurisdiction," I visited the next best thing, the O.F.F. website.

Now that I've shown:

(1) that I have NOT "ridiculed" your testimony, but have upheld and affirmed it, and showed only where your CURRENT claims have contradicted it;
(2) that the ritual under which you became a Mason truly does have instructions there to the Mason to "make the Bible the rule and guide of your faith and practice";
(3) that you have AFFIRMED this in your testimony, AND in your earlier response;
(4) that the Coil quote has thereby been shown to be false;

Perhaps you can get around to "acknowledging" it.
But denial in the face of such proofs will get you nowhere.

However, I do witness such Satanic activity on YOUR part NOW. Because what makes your Satanic involvement MOST DESPICABLE, is that you are in such cahoots with Satan, that you can't even discern the Holy Spirit when you see Him. And you have the audacity to tell people that He led you into the Masonic Lodge.

I'm not quite sure how to take this, Michael. First you accuse me of "ridiculing" YOUR testimony, which I in no way did; and then you turn around and start making THIS kind of accusation about MINE????

Do you not see that you have just offered the simplest proof in the world, that it is YOU who are "ridiculing" MY testimony, and not the other way around?

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."

Good advice to follow. So what are these "fruitless deeds?" For one thing, we know that the devil is the "Father of Lies."

So when you claim not to have "EVER" said Masons are going to hell, and you are subsequently proven to have said it quite frequently;

When you post a quote by Coil and try to make cannon fodder from it, even though YOU YOURSELF in your testimony give evidence that refutes what Coil claimed;

When you claim a certain list does not even exist, and are subsequently shown to have been the very person whose post it I had recalled in speaking of it;

When you emphatically quote Pike saying "other religions" in a remark regarding Freemasonry, only to have it subsequently shown that Pike did not say that at all;

and when there are countless others like the above inconsistencies, which, if I were to track through all the conversations between us where you have exhibited them, would make this list so long it would take several posts:

Then do you not see, that I have no choice in the matter but to "have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them?"

Let's face it, the evidence is stacked up pretty high against your claims; and all you seem to be able to offer by way of response, is an ad hominem campaign built on false accusations and an unsuccessful attempt to play the race card.

 

[O.F.F.]

Let It Be Known To All Readers,

The Infamous PSEUDO "rev Wayne" Has Chosen To Remain an Apostate, Unrepented, Insensitive, Heretic, and Supporter Of The Idolatrous Masonic Faith. From This Day Forward, I Choose To Place Him On My Ignore List, And Would Advice All Others To Avoid This Satanic Fool!!!

 

[Rev Wayne]

Let It Be Known To All Readers,

The Infamous PSEUDO "rev Wayne" Has Chosen To Remain an Apostate, Unrepented, Insensitive, Heretic, and Supporter Of The Idolatrous Masonic Faith. From This Day Forward, I Choose To Place Him On My Ignore List, And Would Advice All Others To Avoid This Satanic Fool!!!

Let it be known to all readers that I have no quarrel with this man other than he has created in his own mind. I have been extremely clear in presenting points on which he has been less than truthful, and I have done so in the interest of truthfulness. I have shown the points upon which he has said one thing at one point, and later said something which totally contradicts things he has said before.

What he has characterized as "ridiculing" his testimony is a false claim. I said nothing against the testimony itself, and was very clear in articulating exactly what was pointed out from his own words there concerning what he himself reveals about Prince Hall ritual. Far from being ridicule, this provides for any reader to see, that things he has denied in the past (concerning the Bible as the "Great Light" of Masonry, and the charge to the Mason to "make it the rule and guide of your faith," etc., we now know from his own words in his testimony, to be genuine statements from Masonic ritual; and not only that, we now know it to be true also as affirmed in Prince Hall ritual, and we have Mike's own added confirmation that "yes, what I said is in the ritual."

And until we have either an admission or a denial, rather than this ad hominem barrage aimed at me as a smokescreen, we can safely assume that his earlier claim about "never" saying Masons will go to hell, was also a false claim--not that we didn't know it already, from seeing it in his very own words from this forum and elsewhere.

As for the current spate of claims, "unrepentant?" Unrepentant of what, Michael, telling the truth about your claims? That hardly needs repentance, at least not on my part.

"Insensitive?" Well, let's address that one for a moment. This, I'm sure, has to do with the blast you aimed at my comment about Prince Hall. All you were doing with it was trying to play the "race card," by trying to sully it with a mischaracterization as "racist." Truth is, I had no such thing in mind at all. We have discussed matters freely in the past without you feeling you needed to make that kind of characterization, so I hardly think you can hope to make it stick with this attempt. When we have had those discussions in the past, I have pointed out to you that I am in favor of Prince Hall recognition and always have been. I simply am not in a position as one man to be able to put that into motion. And there are many others who would be in favor of it as well. In fact, during the recent telephone conversation with our Grand Secretary Ray Marsh, which I shared with you on the CARM boards, he told me (though I already knew) that we have many African-American members of our lodges, and the prospect is that in the future this trend will continue to grow exponentially. Other lodges may get hung up on the showcase public relations move of aiming for "recognition," a situation which actually still winds up more like "separate but equal"; to me the displayed acceptance afforded by "recognition" hardly holds a candle to the real and tangible acceptance provided, not by "recognition," but by full and equal membership permitted for African-Americans in our lodges.

So save your pronouncements, Mike, give up the smear campaign and the smokescreen, and just accept the fact that you yourself have been the only one guilty of being "unrepentant" here. You have not admitted to one single point that has been shown here detailing the inconsistencies exhibited when comparing your words in one time or place, with things you say in another time or place. Instead of doing so, you have resorted to name-calling and vilification. So be it.

Earlier you tried to turn the tables, so to speak, by trying to offer a "truce" in a battle that never had to start in the first place. You came here, apparently, for the sole reason, that you noticed I had returrned to this thread after some months away, and you couldn't resist the temptation to cast a few more insults around. The fact is, I had left off engaging you in anything at CARM, and chose to leave off discussions there when they switched over to the new boards. Apparently a few others made the same decision, and posting there came to a practical standstill. My primary posting area there for at least the past month has been in the Jehovah's Witnesses area, where I have been delighted to put the skids on the rantings of an arrogant poster there who reminds me of a bit gentler version of yourself. And there I would have been content to stay, had I not been looking for a particular point that could also be applicable in principle, in some of our Freemasonry discussions. That led me back to this thread, where I found antimasonic conspiracy nonsense running amok, and chose to address it.

Then you came here, even after having announced your intent at CARM never to address me directly again anywhere ever. Yet, here you are, a very short time later, doing the very thing you said you didn't come here to do.

Not that I was surprised by that anyway, because even as you made the claim at CARM, I didn't believe it, having received a very different pronouncement from you some time ago, on this very forum:

I am not following you or Bill around the Internet, I don't believe in coincidence, for the God I serve is soveriegn. He led me to this website, and you & other compromisers of the Christian faith, happen to be here.

However it happen, you can rest assured, should our paths cross on the World Wide Web or anywhere else in the world and I find you spreading your poison to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you can bet I will call you on it everywhere I find it. That is not a threat, it's a promise! (Christianforums, "Christianity and Freemasonry," post #153, 4/4/04)

Uh-huh, sure. I don't believe in coincidence, either. Too much water under the bridge for that, and too much declaration of intent from you to believe it either. We got tired of the self-appointed insulting crew at E-5 and left, winding up here, and you "just happened" to find us here. You came over to Bill's "M.o.M." website, and "just happened" to find us there. You came to Bill's later site at LodgeroomUK, and "just happened" to find us there. Now, after vacating this forum for almost exactly the same length of time as I did, and then shortly after my return here, you ALSO "just happened" to return here and find me, not just on the same forum, but on the very same thread, which had been inactive for months.

I think it's easy to see which of your self-contradicting claims has held true in this case:

"I have no intention of addressing you directly,ever again?" Hardly.

"I will stalk you pretty much wherever you post?" From where I sit, it sure looks that has been the case. One of those self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I find it helpful, in situations where people try to "talk past" each other on issues, to break it down to exactly where one stands, at the most basic levels. For the Christian, there ought to be some basic worldview assumptions that set them apart as Christians.

My basic worldview can be described in regard to nine questions, and the world view assumptions I make to them:

I. METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS

1. What is the most real thing or being in existence?
2. What is the nature, character, structure of external reality?
3. What is a human being? Who am I?
4. What happens to a person at death?
5. What is the meaning of history?

II. EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

6. Why is it possible to know anything?
7. Can we know the nature of Ultimate Reality?

III. AXIOLOGICAL QUESTIONS

8. How do we know what is right and wrong?
9. How do we know what is good and/or beautiful?

ASSUMPTION ONE:

A. The most real thing is God, who is the loving, personal, Ground of all existence.
B. God became man in His Son, Jesus Christ.

ASSUMPTION TWO:

External reality is orderly, both material and spiritual, and objective.

ASSUMPTION THREE:

A. Human beings are persons made in the image of God.
B. The human race is fallen.
C. Human beings are offered redemption and restoration through God’s grace revealed in Jesus Christ.

ASSUMPTION FOUR:

Human beings live on after death to face reward or recompense.

ASSUMPTION FIVE:


History is the realization of God’s plan for human beings.

ASSUMPTION SIX:

Human beings are able to receive/achieve knowledge because they are made in the image of the all-knowing God.

ASSUMPTION SEVEN:

A. We can know Ultimate Reality because God reveals Himself.
B. Our best understanding of God is revealed in His Son Jesus Christ.

ASSUMPTION EIGHT:

Human beings can know right from wrong because they are made in the image of God and because God has revealed goodness through the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ.

ASSUMPTION NINE:

God has revealed certain guidelines for judging values in the Bible, in His Son, and in human nature

 

[brightmorningstar]

What you have described in your post above is what Christians would affirm, freemasons might not if they believe in a god who doesn’t have the person of the Son Jesus Christ.
So you seem to be switching between Christianity and freemasonry to continue the deception.

 

[AoDoA]

what does freemasonry even mean?

to me it means free builders or free architects

using various blocks(or parts) to manifest the vision of a united whole

so what are they free from?

God? rules? boundaries? conformity?

so now instead of submitting to the divine will of God they expect us to conform to their human will

hypocritical and ironic

and what are they building? the New World Order(their vision of man perfecting himself through a technological dictatorship)

I know that freemasonry was not always Anti-Christ but obviously the structure was in place from the beginning to become one of Satan's chosen vehicles to usher in his vision for our world

 

[Archivist]

I know that freemasonry was not always Anti-Christ but obviously the structure was in place from the beginning to become one of Satan's chosen vehicles to usher in his vision for our world

Do you believe that the Boy Scouts are also "one of Satan's chosen vehicles to usher in his vision for our world?" After all, they also require that their members believe in God. So do the Girl Scouts. Maybe there is something evil in those cookies...

 

[AoDoA]

Do you believe that the Boy Scouts are also "one of Satan's chosen vehicles to usher in his vision for our world?" After all, they also require that their members believe in God. So do the Girl Scouts. Maybe there is something evil in those cookies...

I am not involved in the discussion concerning the membership requirements and God

my reasons are because of reality and what the organization is actively doing

like I said the information is widely available and obvious to those who have eyes too see

 

[Rev Wayne]

What you have described in your post above is what Christians would affirm, freemasons might not if they believe in a god who doesn’t have the person of the Son Jesus Christ.
So you seem to be switching between Christianity and freemasonry to continue the deception.

What "deception?" Most Masons ARE Christians, and would profess the same things. The deception comes from Masonry's accusers, who try to make it look like Masonry is "one-size-fits-all," surrender your faith at the door and believe something else conglomeration.

That is pure absurdity.

 

[AoDoA]

YouTube - Boy Scouts were Founded by Freemasons

YouTube - what could be more wholesome?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Rev Wayne,

Most Masons ARE Christians, and would profess the same things.

No, Christians profess the same things as the personhood of Jesus Christ, that’s what makes them Christians, you cant say freemasons do that as apprently not all do, the only ones who do are Christians.
The only thing that matters is Christ in all, freemasonry is a human construct and irrelevant.

 

[Rev Wayne]

To Rev Wayne,

No, Christians profess the same things as the personhood of Jesus Christ, that’s what makes them Christians, you cant say freemasons do that as apprently not all do, the only ones who do are Christians.

Nice straw man reply, but of course "Freemasons do that" was never my point. But I assume you knew that, since I was pretty clear in what I stated.

And honestly, your reply has the appearance of exactly the error I was addressing, of thinking that Masonry for some strange reason has to be "one-size-fits-all." Masonry has never professed nor attempted to be simply an arm of the church.

But with an estimated 90-95% of Masons being professing Christians, it's a pretty safe statement to say that MOST Masons believe the same things I stated in my worldview. That was all that was intended by me, and your attempted reframe, though duly noted, neither addresses nor denies it.

The only thing that matters is Christ in all, freemasonry is a human construct and irrelevant.

Sure, but take away all the Masons and you would have a void to fill that would be completely unmanageable. Masons for one thing are among the most active church members you will find anywhere. Of course, we bring that up and somebody automatically pushes the "Things That Don't Count for Salvation" button, as if Christians can't lift a finger to do anything for fear of trying to "earn" salvation. So let me be clear: in any organization there are tasks to be done, there's no getting around it. As a pastor, I am very much aware of what we call the "80-20" dynamic. Out of the total church membership, there is always a core or nucleus of around 20% who do 80% of the work of the church. What I have found--and this is observation only, but it has, for me at least, proven to be accurate--that if there are Masons in the church, most of them will be found in that 20% core. That's why I say, take away the Masons and you'd have an unmanageable void to fill.
At one church I served, there was an elderly Mason who came in early on Sunday mornings and took care of several tasks which, taken separately, might have been considered relatively minor (other than the fact he printed out the church bulletins, which is not exactly "minor"). All of those things he did: opening up the church, getting lights on, turning on the heat or air, starting the sound system, putting the remote mike on the pulpit where I would more readily remember to put it on, and a host of other tasks I could mention. Then one Sunday he was unexpectedly not in attendance, which never happened before, and it took three people moving at frantic pace, to fill in for him.

As for "human constructs," it is the same. Masonry encourages volunteerism, particularly as it involves civic-mindedness. Take away the Masons, and some civic groups would be severely downsized. Rotary Interenational is one organization which (at one time anyway) was characterized as having a large Masonic presence. These days there seem to be quite a number of Masons in Lions International, myself included. Our group is not very large, so there isn't much we can take on of any significant scale, but I'm sure the little we try to do is appreciated by those who benefit from it. I've only been on board a short while and don't know the extent, but I do know they help out in our town and our sister town five miles down the road, in providing eyeglasses for people who can't afford them, or occasionally in helping out on an electric bill or other need when someone runs into difficulties they can't manage.

So I'm afraid I still must disagree with you, there are an awful lot of organizations around that are of "human construct" which provide many very much-needed services in the community, meeting needs that otherwise may have gone unnoticed and unmet.

 

[brightmorningstar]

No Rev Wayne it is not a straw man at all, it’s the heart of the syncretism that is freemasonry.

thinking that Masonry for some strange reason has to be "one-size-fits-all."

as opposed to Christianity where one size does fit all in that respect.

Masonry has never professed nor attempted to be simply an arm of the church.

Never thought it could, why do you suggest it cant be something it cant be?

But with an estimated 90-95% of Masons being professing Christians,

Well if they are professing Christians they are Christians not masons. Being a Mason isn’t a requirement of Christ.

Sure, but take away all the Masons and you would have a void to fill that would be completely unmanageable.

If the only thing that matters is Christ then it doesn’t matter whether all the Masons are taken away or not and there cant be a void unless something is taken away.

"Things That Don't Count for Salvation" button, as if Christians can't lift a finger to do anything for fear of trying to "earn" salvation.

Christians do lift a finger, it’s a response they do because of the Holy Spirit. Christians work out their salvation. Christians don’t need freemasonry to do that, God should take the glory from Christ’s church not from a separate human organisation.
Freemasonry is irrelevant to a Christian, a Christian is in fellowship with the church, the body of believers.