Do masons build?

[circuitrider]

I'd say that, IMO, his tracts are hate literature. You don't to advocate violate to advocate bigotry and hate.

 

[smaneck]

I think that calling them a "hate group" may be going too far. Jack Chick does not advocate violence against anyone, he merely states they will go to hell.

One does not have to advocate violence to spread hatred. When it comes to Islam Jack Chick liberally quotes Robert Spencer's fear mongering about the coming Islamization of America.

I'm not a fan of most of Jack Chick's work, and his writings on Catholics, Muslims are exceptionally ignorant. He does though state he writes these things with the hope they find salvation in Jesus.

There is still enough of a Christian in me, TG that I find spreading hatred in Jesus' name especially objectionable.

I do believe all non-Christians need to find salvation in Jesus and we should be willing to preach the Gospel and engage in debate

I know, but in your case your passion for social justice demonstrates that you are not driven by hatred. In my experience this is all too rarely the case among American evangelicals.

,

but misrepresenting others' beliefs like Chick does to Muslims and Catholics is dishonest. I wouldn't say it is hatred.

Personally, I think it crosses the line.

I'm no fan of sites like </title> <TITLE>Answering Christianity. Islam's Answers To Trinitarian Beliefs. but I recognize it is not a hate site.

Answering-Christianity is not really answering Christianity at all. It is answering Answering-Islam.

Debating a religion is not hate speech in my opinion, unless you begin to call for its adherents to be harmed.

Misrepresenting a religion can easily spill over into hatred.

Jack Chick in my humble opinion is a moron and a bigot and an ignoramus. However, accusing him of writing "hate literature" is inaccurate.

Bigotry equals hatred in my vocabulary.

 

[smaneck]

You HAVEN'T seen his site???

Chick Publications

Enjoy!

I guess I've seen it. I just haven't spent any time there. When you are stuck in bus station or laundromat you are more of a captive audience.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't Arminianism just a sub-set of Calvinism? The former was developed out of the latter, right? They share a "common ancestry", theologically speaking, even if they've parted ways at some point.

It's kind of interesting that John Calvin exerted such a lasting and universal influence on anglophone Christianity, whereas Martin Luther's decidedly more humane protestantism never played a huge part in the history of Britain and its colonies.

It's a bit fuzzy.

It would be more accurate to refer to the Reformed wing the Reformation--Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, etc.

Jacob Arminius and the Remonstrants were part of this Reformed tradition. As such Arminianism comes out of the Reformed tradition, while Orthodox Calvinism was defined at the Synod of Dordrecht with TULIP as the "official" response to counter the Remonstrants five points.

Thus Calvinism (that is, Five Point Calvinism) and Arminianism share a common heritage as having both come out of the Reformed tradition of which Calvin is usually considered the unofficial founder.

As such Reformed Protestantism best describes the rather larger spectrum of modern Protestantism--from Presbyterians to Baptists (both Reformed and Free Will); and through John Wesley the entire Wesleyan and post-Wesleyan traditions (everything from Wesleyan Methodism to the Holiness and Pentecostal churches).

Even Anglicanism has been shaped considerably by the Reformed tradition (e.g. the 39 Articles of Religion).

Making, of course, Lutheranism something of the Protestant black sheep. Ironically.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I like them, though the one on Masonry contains common errors. I don't use them in my ministry as they are more of the 'blunt instrument' type of outreach. I also don't use Jim Shaw's testimony due to the lies contained therein, should the question arise. Cordially, Skip.

If you're using anything published by Chick Publications then I'd say the entire "ministry" you have is immediately suspect.

Chick Publications is an ignorant hate cult.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's kind of scary that anyone actually embraces the theology of Chick Publications.

Calling it "theology" at all is somewhat generous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What theology does he embrace, and why do you find it scary? Cordially, Skip.

I personally find is his brand of Fundamentalism rather objectionable on theological grounds.

But the problem with Chick Publications is that it apparently has no scruples and is entirely willing to believe and pass on anything that furthers it's agenda, including parroting and spreading outright lies about anything and anyone.

Atop its mountain of lies and its spectacular brand of idiosyncratic Fundamentalism it seems to imagine that such is de facto Christianity. It's not. It's a peculiar strain of religion that exists uniquely within the framework of the 20th century and can't be found outside of that framework.

But theologically where are my objections raised?

KJV-Onlyism
Sacramentarianism (the rejection of the Sacraments)
Decision Theology and Finneyism
Pietism and Moralism

Just for starters.

Others may have other objections, but those are my rather specific theological objections to Chick's brand of religion.

Of course on moral grounds I already addressed Chick Publications' rather over-willingness to lie.

But theologically many of the moralistic outgrowths of Chick Publications theology is one in which Christianity isn't about the Cross and Resurrection, but about personal piety--say this prayer, do this thing, don't touch, don't taste (Dungeons and Dragons, Fantasy novels, and Rock and Roll music O My!).

The whole point of Chick Tracts is to instill fear that one hasn't become a member of the right club and thus the illuminated, faceless Jesus is going to burn yo' bum.

But that isn't Christianity. Christianity is about the God who has condescended to meet the world in the Person of Jesus, the God-Man, by whose death and resurrection He has destroyed the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil and has done so in His body; and thereby giving promise to you and me that in Him is found the same--the overcoming of sin, death, hell, and the devil because by grace God has taken us and turned us toward Him through faith, thereby justifying us, and giving us His solemn promise that we stand in Christ, the righteousness of God, and will be raised up on the Last Day and be found with Christ. As the Master says, "That where I am, there might you also be."

And Christian living isn't about moral self improvement, it's not about a list of moralistic rules in order to make one feel pious or moral. It's about repentance. For in Baptism God has taken us and nailed our dead, dying, sinful humanity to the cross of His Son, and subsequently raising us up to new life together with Him, a life found through faith ("For I have been crucified with Christ and yet I live, and yet it is not I who lives but Christ lives through me, and the life that I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God who loves me and gave His life for me"). And thus repentance. Repentance because knowing what God has done for us in and by Christ, having forgiven us all our sins, and set us dead to sin and alive to Him we confess our sins knowing and believing there is forgiveness, and these promises we have from God keep us and secure us until the Final Day, when we are raised up, when this mortal flesh is clothed with immortality and this perishable flesh is clothed with incorruption--when at last it will be said, "Where O Death is your sting? Where O Death is your victory?"

That's Christianity. And you can't find that in a cheap set of paper slips about how Islam was started by time-traveling Jesuits or how rolling 20-sided dice will send my soul to hell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Skip Sampson]

That God sends to hell anyone who doesn't believe their specific narrow theology.

Well, that does reflect Christianity 101, that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation. They are not alone in that view. More to the point, God does not send anyone to hell; rather, they are already going there and he has offered a way out. It's an important distinction.

Insist on the King James Bible

Which is their right. I do not agree with the KJ only movement, but I understand what drives it. I think those insisting on just one translation do not understand the process by which scripture was preserved down the ages and I think such people are in real danger of worshiping the version. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

The Southern Poverty Law Center views Chick Publications as a hate group.

I'd not use that group as a source of information. They have certain views and feel that all those opposed to those views are hate groups. So if a group wants to enforce immigration laws, they are branded as a hate group. So to those groups who oppose homosexual marriage. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

When I became a Master Mason my mentor (the one who taught me my lesson) informed me that I was equal to every Master Mason. Regardless of who long they had been masons and how short I had. We do our best to treat all Masons the same. Also all of mankind. One of the first lessons in Masonry assisting others, Masons and non-Masons alike.

Within every structure there is a hierarchy of rank, such as the WM. In the Master Mason charge, this statement is commonly made (btw, I do not recall your jurisdiction):

To preserve the reputation of the fraternity unsullied must be your constant care: and for this purpose it is your province to recommend to your inferiors, obedience and submission; to your equals, courtesy and affability; to your superiors, kindness and condescension. (GL KY, MM Degree ritual, Charge to the new MM)

In a sense, all Master Masons are equal; in another they are not, as that quote shows. Submission to authority is a key attribute in Masonry, as, I suppose is in all groups, to one degree or another. In such matters, a man's Masonic record would demand a certain amount of deference on the part of less-experienced Master Masons. After all, the purple of the fraternity would be resting on his shoulders, so to speak.

As to your implied claim to treat all mankind the same, I think you mean this: treat all Masons the same; treat all non-Masons the same. You took obligations to treat brother Masons differently, in a preferential way. This is the part of the obligation to which I refer:

I furthermore promise and swear that I will not cheat, wrong, or defraud a lodge of Master Masons, or a brother of the degree, knowingly or wittingly, but will give them due and timely notice, that they may ward off all approaching danger. I furthermore promise and swear that I will not violate the chastity of a Master Mason's wife, his mother, sister, or daughter, knowing them to be such. (GL KY ritual, MM degree)

I've always found it interesting that such an obligation would be required. One would have thought that the lodge would have concluded that he would not act in such a manner before accepting him as a candidate. Too, such restrictions are merely on other Master Masons. EA's, FC's, and the rest of the world do not follow under that umbrella. General Masonic law would cover such offenses, one presumes.

As to assisting others, you are referring to the Rite of Destitution, which does call a Mason to assist others in need to the degree possible; however, it is commonly mentioned that such relief should be especially given when a brother Mason is involved, which highlights my earlier comment.

At any rate, by your obligations you prefer Masons over nonMasons as a general attitude, but your comments, in general, show that you've taken the MM charge's command to practice universal benevolence to heart. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Back in the day when I frequented those places.

lol; I can relate to that! Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

If you're using anything published by Chick Publications then I'd say the entire "ministry" you have is immediately suspect.

Notice from my post that I do not use them. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

Well, that does reflect Christianity 101, that faith in Jesus is the only path to salvation.

Chick Publications sends Catholics to hell as well and they make up the bulk of Christians.

They are not alone in that view. More to the point, God does not send anyone to hell; rather, they are already going there and he has offered a way out. It's an important distinction.

It is a distinction which may make Christians feel better but it is meaningless to everyone else. If there is any such thing as hell, it didn't create itself. The penalty for Adam's sin was death, not burning for eternity. There is no hell in that sense in the Tanakh.

Which is their right. I do not agree with the KJ only movement, but I understand what drives it.

What drives it is bibliolatry.

 

[circuitrider]

Chick Publications sends Catholics to hell as well and they make up the bulk of Christians.

It is a distinction which may make Christians feel better but it is meaningless to everyone else. If there is any such thing as hell, it didn't create itself. The penalty for Adam's sin was death, not burning for eternity. There is no hell in that sense in the Tanakh.

What drives it is bibliolatry.

The idea of an eternal hell and eternal punishment for finite sins is an idea out of Dante's Inferno rather than the Bible.

I agree with you smaneck that Chick tracts basically consign anyone whose theology doesn't fit independent fundamantalists Baptists with premillenial dispensational views of the second coming and a KJV only view to hell.

Chick represents a small far right wing splinter group of the Christian faith and does not represent basic Christian orthodoxy.

Making an English translation of the Bible the one true Bible does verge in idolatry. Jesus didn't speak English.

 

[smaneck]

The idea of an eternal hell and eternal punishment for finite sins is an idea out of Dante's Inferno rather than the Bible.

It goes back further than that. St. Augustine certainly believed in an eternal hell. But I think the way it gets articulated today is largely derived from Anselm's theology which I've discussed elsewhere in this forum. He had a neo-platonic conception of a God as necessarily possessing both perfect justice and mercy which must be satisfied. Because of His perfect justice He cannot forgive sins without satisfaction. And because He is merciful the means had to provided for making that satisfaction. Living in the hierarchical world of early medieval Europe, Anselm felt the gravity of a sin or crime was measured by the station of the one against whom the crime or sin had been forgiven.God being exalted above all stations, it stood to reason that a sin against Him was of infinite gravity with eternal repercussions. It therefore incurred a debt which man could not hope to satisfy. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was for God Himself to make the satisfaction as a man.

In my opinion this formula seems to have more to do with 'fire insurance' than a relationship, except if one is seeing 'relationship' in cold, legalistic terms. It seems to me this is necessarily so, because when God's attributes are seen these kinds of static categories of justice and mercy we are trying to look at God in Greek terms of essence rather than Hebrew sense of conception of God
as a Living God, a Person. And we can only have a relationship with
the latter, not the former.

I agree with you smaneck that Chick tracts basically consign anyone whose theology doesn't fit independent fundamantalists Baptists with premillenial dispensational views of the second coming and a KJV only view to hell.

Is Chick IFB? Is that what you are as well, Skip? My recollection is that this denomination has been associated with a lot of child abuse. I think Anderson Cooper's Ungodly Discipline was largely based on them.

Chick represents a small far right wing splinter group of the Christian faith and does not represent basic Christian orthodoxy.

American Evangelical theology in general has very little to do with historic Christianity.

Making an English translation of the Bible the one true Bible does verge in idolatry. Jesus didn't speak English.

What???

You mean he wasn't from Houston, Texas?

Another one of those 'foreign' religions penetrating our shores!

Next you are going to tell me He was Asiatic.

By the way, Dante's Inferno is largely based on Muhammad's Night Journey which in turn owes a lot to the Arda Viraf, a Zoroastrian text. Hell in Zoroastrianism, however, is not eternal.

We used to have a graduate course at the University of Arizona entitled "The History of Hell." It was taught by Alan Bernstein: http://history.arizona.edu/alan-bernstein

 

[circuitrider]

Interesting. I'd not thought about a relationship between Zorastrianism and Dante.

Wikipedia stated that Chick is IFB. That isn't proof. But it fits his work.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Is Chick IFB? Is that what you are as well, Skip?

Nope. My church belongs to the SBC. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

Wikipedia stated that Chick is IFB. That isn't proof. But it fits his work.

Wiki is more accurate than people often give it credit for. And I say that as a university professor. Their bio does identify him as an Independent Baptist and you are right, it fits.

 

[smaneck]

Nope. My church belongs to the SBC. Cordially, Skip.

Ah, yes. Largest fundamentalist church in America, but not as over the top as the Independent Baptists. Good to see they recently came out against predatory lending practices as unbiblical. I was wondering if the religious right would ever notice this.

Faith and Credit

As I tell my students, if you don't want to stay poor, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't rent furniture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Notice from my post that I do not use them. Cordially, Skip.

You said you don't use the ones about Masonry, while indicating that you do find at least some of the tracts CP publishes informative/helpful.

My point is that none of them are informative or helpful. None of them have anything relevant to say about anything.

-CryptoLutheran