Free masons
- Thread starter Link_Blue
- Start date
- Status
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Still don't get it, do you? Nobody said anything about "all concepts" being the same except you--and it is definitely not a Masonic description. Masonry defines only two attributes, which you were nice enough to quote for me so I don't have to repeat myself.
So, rather than your claim that I believe "all" concepts are the same, I have consistently and repeatedly affirmed only two--are you trying to suggest that only two concepts of God can be formulated?
But for a Masonic statement on the matter:
You simply misunderstand Masonry as coming together as one on religious grounds. They do not. In fact, they affirm the value of freedom to choose one's religion, and they come together in fraternal relationship in spite of those differences:
Sectarian missionary spirit and its exercise have been of incalculable value to the human race. However much it may be our duty to give it our encouragement and support as individuals or as members of other organizations it is our duty within the Fraternity to see to it that no man may truthfully accuse us of bigotry and in our Lodge-room upon this single bond of belief in Deity to conciliate true friendship among men of every country, sect, and opinion.
I hope you don't miss it, "Mike": "Sectarian missionary spirit and its exercise have been of incalculable value to the human race." And far from attempting to be a religion, they insist that a man must retain his religion, and seek only to "conciliate true friendship."
The man has a point with this one. When I kneel to pray, I commonly begin it "O God," as do a lot of Christians. And even though "God" is not His name, I still know He hears me.
Nobody said they do. Can't you see that once you have stated it in terms of "Book of Koran" and "Book of Confucius" and all the other terms you just used, you have gone beyond a Masonic description? Masonry did not coin the word "Koran" or "Upanishads." What you are doing is begging the question.
And there still is no difference between the two phrases:
(1) "a generic representation of any concept of God,"
Actually, the way you worded it originally is the key: a generic representation of any concept of "God."
So the concept you spoke of was generic itself, "God" generally being understood as meaning "a monotheistic deity."
(2) "a phrase to describe God."
"A phrase to describe God" is no different, since God is described by the phrase in question according to His attributes: "Supreme" and "Creator"--in other words, also "a monotheistic deity."
It's simple. Masons affirm there is one God. Beyond this they do not go, at least not when they come together as Masons. Christian Masons affirm that this one God is triune in nature, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But this is a Christian affirmation, not a Masonic one.
In my varied roles, I am a pastor, a husband, and a father. But my family does not view me as their pastor, although since they attend church with me it would not be an inaccurate statement. With my wife, I am her husband. Beyond that I do not go. The attribute of being a father does not apply to our relationship. So even though as an individual I recognize my own attributes as being pastor, husband, and father, the only one of these attributes my wife would affirm as directly applicable to our relationship together, is the one attribute of husband.
Man, talk about your own invented rationalizations! Masonry does no such thing. It affirms monotheism, which is a belief there is only one True God. As for Masons of different persuasions, Masonry neither affirms nor denies that the religion of any single one of them, in comparison with the others, is the "true" religion. Beyond the common link among monotheistic religions that God is Supreme Creator, Freemasonry tells no man who God has to be. That is left to his religion, not his fraternity.
And no matter how much you persist in unmasonic definitions, they do not wash. Prayer in the Lodge is not a "conglomerate" or corporate prayer such as one may expect to find in church. (Funny how you keep denying Christian Masons any connection with the Christian God and yet keep making comparisons using a Christian template.) Prayer in the Lodge, as you have been told many times, is much more comparable to a group bowing at a football game as someone leads in prayer over the intercom. If the person praying were not a Christian, I would still bow in prayer and either affirm silently to my God the words he shares, or reject in my spirit that with which I would have to disagree as a Christian.
Well, I'm still waiting for some "facts" to appear, which so far have not been forthcoming from you. Nothing but red herrings and more red herrings from the master of disguises.
Upvote
0
O.F.F.
An Ex-Mason for Jesus
That sounds a lot like the kind of dogma that should be held by a religion, not a fraternity, doesn't it pastor? Besides like I said, and you seem to agree, Masons are required to believe in "a" Supreme Being, rather than "the" Supreme Being.Wayne said:
If Freemasonry is not a religion, then why do you suppose this thread on the topic is found here under the heading of NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION?Wayne said:
Are you going to quote your source, or take credit for this statement as your own? Besides, Freemasonry is a racially segregated organization, especially in the South where YOUR Grand Lodge is located. Therefore, it most certainly can be accused of bigotry!Wayne said:
Click here to learn more about the "Separate, But Equal Brotherhood."
Your misuse of the term attribute is duly noted. However, an attribute is an inherent characteristic. You are NOT inherently a pastor, husband, or father. Those roles are merely titles render to you as a result of the circumstances of your life.Wayne said:
On the other hand, the attribute of "Sovereign Creator" is an inherent characteristic of the One True Living God of the Bible, and NOT of the many FALSE gods you tolerate as you bow down in prayer to the grotesque conglomerate Masonic representation of them all (GAOTU) as you "conciliate true friendship" with the world.
As for prayer in the lodge, you said:
As a former Mason, I beg to differ:Wayne said:
In the context of this Masonic Prayer notice:
* One deity is petitioned
* By one person
* On behalf of all Masons assembled in the lodge, and throughout the world for that matter, regardless of their religious persuasion (believers and nonbelievers, Christians and non-Christians alike).
God is described, and prayer is for sanctification (holiness) of the candidate by the principles of Freemasonry, NOT by biblical principles and the Spirit of God. Moreover, to your point, this prayer DOES sound more like ones we hear in church. For example, as part of an infant "dedication" or baptismal ceremony.
It sounds NOTHING like what might be said at a football game as someone leads in prayer over the intercom. Besides the National Anthem, when was the last time you heard someone conduct corporate prayer before a football game, let alone one that asked for santification for the fans or players and their dedication to serve God?
But let's get to the crux of the matter.
This is not a spelling class, nor is it a language lesson on the pronunciation of the words "Our God." It's about acknowledging the One True Living God for who He truly is, and worshipping Him in spirit and in TRUTH. So, since in one of your "varied roles" as a pastor you probably have learned about the differences of some of the most common world religions, let me ask a series of questions posed to you elsewhere, which you never really answered:Wayne said:
Does the Muslim Mason believe in the God of the Bible, or a false god?
Does the Hindu Mason believe in the God of the Bible, or a false god?
Does the Mormon Mason believe in the God of the Bible, or a false god?
Does the Jehovah's Witness Mason believe in the God of the Bible, or a false god?
Does the Buddhist Mason believe in the God of the Bible, or a false god?
Your credibility as a Christian pastor hangs in the balance as you respond to these questions. And, as you ponder them, remember what you were told before. "If a man, who claims to be in Christ, cannot recognize a false god when he examines Islamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism or the Watchtower Society, why should anyone think he would be able to recognize the false god of Freemasonry?"
Upvote
0
Every Grand Lodge in the World states very clearly ( don't take my word for it , try any Grand lodge web site at random) EACH MEMBER HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HIS RELIGION. There is no ambiguity, no possible doubt.
Unted Grand Lodge of England, Mother of all Lodges.
Absolutely no area of doubt.
Unted Grand Lodge of England, Mother of all Lodges.
Absolutely no area of doubt.
Upvote
0
C
cwebber
Guest
Mike you need to get a grip before you start trying to fix racial problems in Freemasonry. You Sir need to try to fix Racial problems in the CHURCH!
Jesus said don't try to take the splitter out of your brothers Eye when you have a Plank in your own Eye.
In others words do not try to fix the racial problems of Freemasonry and if it is as you say only the Southern States out of all of Freemasonry has problem with rasism that I say Freemasonry is doing a better job than the Church over Racism!
I wonder what is the Ratio of Black Lodge to White Lodges compared Black Churches to White Churches.
We all see there is an issue with Racism in the Lodge and we all are trying to combat that issue. But Freemasonry can nto change the Heart of a Man only Jesus Christ can do that so it must start with the Church First not with Freemasonry.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
I've answered the same question from you already, p. 14 this thread:
Well, at one time it was under the Christians only heading, so I assume the moderators got as tired of your belligerence as everyone else does, and simply removed it to a place where they would not be bothered by you.
I already did cite the source when I first quoted it, Michael, but since you missed it, or more likely, since you are simply tryint to create a false accusation:
"Ibid."
Once aagin, you try to confuse issues by playing semantic games with my comments. A simple web search, and the first definitions pulled up, from Houghton-Mifflin, clearly show the limitations of your tunnel vision ideas of "This means that, and ONLY that!"
See #1? "Inherent in OR ascribed to." It is not limited to that which is inherent.
See #2? "Serving to identify a character, personage, or OFFICE"????
I commonly hear the role of pastor defined as an "office."
The attribute of being a father is inherent in the fact that I have children.
The attribute of being a husband is inherent in the fact that I have a wife.
So once again, I am amused when you try to teach me the subject I majored in.
Gee, Mike, I'm surprised. Up until now, you've tried your best to convince us otherwise. But since you bring it up:
This deity is described as: Almighty Father of the Universe.
So tell me:
(1) Is God, or is He not, the "Father of the Universe?"
(2) How many "Fathers of the Universe" are there?
Nobody said a single word about the content. Your point was that prayer was being offered in the presence of those who were of other faiths. My point was that prayer at a football game is exactly the same.
And as for your comment, "Besides the National Anthem...."
Exactly when did the National Anthem become a "prayer?" Your ideas seem to be getting more and more bizarre.
Try to keep up with your own arguments and you won't be so confused.
As for the sanctification, it is said to be by "the pure principles of our fraternity." You claim that is not according to biblical principles; I deny your claim. The only "holy book" you will find used and quoted in Masonry, or any principles derived from it as found in Masonry, is the Holy Bible. Brotherly love, relief, truth, strength, beauty, humility, loving your neighbor as yourself, considering your body as a temple, building according to the Master's instructions, the "pure and undefiled religion" of caring for orphans and widows--I could go on and on--where do you find that these are not biblical principles?
For your claim to hold any merit, you must first show that they have quoted some other "holy book" in ritual, or derived their principles from another one. Are you prepared to do so? If so, you have discovered (or more aptly, created) something that no one else has ever found.
My Bible says "judge not," and I am content to believe Jesus meant it when He said it. In another place, Peter was asking Jesus about another disciple, "What about him?" Jesus answered simply, "What is that to you? You follow me."
I just don't put much stock in a religion like yours that spends all its time trying to make sure the "other guy" gets it right. There was a time when I did, and would teach or preach the information a lot of people supply concerning other religions, and concerning cults. But praise God, the day came when I was reminded that is not my primary calling. I am called to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I witness the Christian faith, I preach it, I teach it, and I teach Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the light. I can and do encourage it to the best of my ability, but in the end I can force no man, and I am commanded to judge no man. God never called me to go beat anybody over the head with His message. In fact, He has instructed through Peter's writing to "be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." (1 Peter 3:15-17)
So now that this has come to pass, and I am defamed as an evildoer for following the path laid out for me by my Savior, it comes as no surprise. The only real surprise is that it comes from one who names himself as a fellow Christian.
Maybe in your eyes, but not in the eyes of God. My credibility hangs on the credibility and reliability of the one who called me, and his credentials are impeccable. And thank God for that.
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Ah, yes, playing the race card. Strange, it seems you don't understand the dynamics of that situation either. After all, North Carolina, the state where you yourself became a Mason, was the site of a recent vote on recognition between the regular lodges and the Prince Hall Lodges, and it was reported that the Prince Hall Lodges were the ones that voted it down.
Also, a huge majority of the Lodges now recognize Prince Hall. At last count, only 14 of the 51 still do not. Personally, I have seen nothing to indicate that the continued separation has anything to do with racism. The average Mason among those I've met here are far more likely not to be prejudiced, percentage-wise, than any other group you could name. And yes, with that remark I do include the church.
But I have to assume you are only attempting to distract from the subject at hand, since your comment was based on a passing of-topic comment. But any port in a storm, eh? Sort of reminds me of the inanity of news anchors pointing fingers at the inordinate number of blacks who seemed to be affected by the situation, in a city where 75% of the population (2000 census) is black. Don't know how they could miss the obvious, that we may conclude blacks were three times as likely to be affected, by sheer numbers alone.
But really--
Are you suggesting that a Lodge located in the south is particularly susceptible to being racist?
If so, then aren't you guilty of racial profiling?
Upvote
0
O.F.F.
An Ex-Mason for Jesus
"Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people." -- Kin Hubbard
The following article, from a NC magazine, was featured at the time:
Right and Wrong, One Mason's Stand
However, it appears this might be about to change during the next Annual Meeting of NC A. F. & A. M., taking place at the end of this month on September 23-24. The following link from their website cites the resolution:
NC 2005 Amendments
Nevertheless, whether they are Prince Hall or non-Prince Hall, there are some Masons who would argue, "There are black men in some lodges, therefore there is no racism in Masonry." Such logic lends itself more to tokenism rather than fact. Conversely, there are those non-Masons who would say "There are no black men in some lodges, therefore all Masonry is segregated."
If active Masons would be honest, they would affirm that both of these statements are false. Yet, even if they are not honest, we know they are not true based on the personal testimony of men who have left Freemasonry.
But the bottomline is, even if all Grand Lodges on both sides recognized the other, they will still forever remain racially segregated. Why? Because neither Grand Master, of any state, is going to humble himself to relinquish his "gavel of authority" in order for the fraternity to be truly recognized as ONE. The social and political power of a Grand Master is on the same magnitude as that of a U.S. Governor.
The problem is due, in part, to the fact that in the United States and Canada each jurisdiction is aligned primarily by state and province. As a result, there is a Prince Hall and a non-Prince Hall Grand Master in every state and province. A possible solution argued, is to have all Grand Lodges in each respective country unite as one jurisdiction in that country, much like it is elsewhere in the world (i.e. the Grand Lodge of India, the Grand Lodge of Turkey, etc. and of course, the United Grand Lodge of England). However, the likelihood of this happening is remote, in my opinion, for three reasons:
1. First of all, as a starting point, I believe there must first be unanimous "recognition" across the fraternal "Tressel Board" before there could ever be an unanimously united jurisdiction in the US or Canada.
2. Secondly, Prince Hall Masons are a minority in numbers compared to the rest of Freemasonry, and to relinquish control to the majority would result in the likelihood of a future African-American Grand Master to have the same probability of there ever being an African-American U.S. President. White Masonic votes will never let that happen. Additionally, there is too much rich African-American history rooted in Prince Hall Masonry to risk it being marginalized by the white majority.
3. Finally, there is too much racism rooted in Southern states like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Carolina to allow racial reconciliation among black and white Masons to ever exist.
Unfortunately, as it relates to the issue between black and white Masonic fraternal relations in America, "Recognition" is simply a Masonic term that ultimately means "Separate, but Equal," much like the concept of "separate restrooms and drinking fountains" during the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, the oxymoron of "segregated fraternity" is a permanent scar against Freemasonry. As you can see, the resolution in the link posted above reads like most other similar resolutions:
But, as Freemasonry in America has been in the business of "making good men better," one should expect that they, of all people, should have been at the forefront of change in the 1930's and beyond. In fact, Freemasonry should have set the example for society even long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1960's. Indeed, they should have set that example during the Slavery period of the 18th century when Freemasonry first arrived in America. But instead, many colonialists at that time -- who were also Masons -- including George Washington, own slaves themselves.
Masons love to point out that lodges exist to promote Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth, as in the following mission statement of the Grand Lodge in NC:
This is simply not true, and you know it. This same issue was debated extensively on thelodgeroom.com at the time the White NC Grand Lodge voted against recognition of Prince Hall (Black) Masons of NC. And, due to racism on the part of some WHITE Masons who frequent his Masonic website, trying to justify the NC decision in ugly ways, Stephen Dafoe (the website's owner) nearly shut the site down permanently, until Masons (racists & non-racists alike) begged him not to.Wayne said:
The following article, from a NC magazine, was featured at the time:
Right and Wrong, One Mason's Stand
However, it appears this might be about to change during the next Annual Meeting of NC A. F. & A. M., taking place at the end of this month on September 23-24. The following link from their website cites the resolution:
NC 2005 Amendments
Nevertheless, whether they are Prince Hall or non-Prince Hall, there are some Masons who would argue, "There are black men in some lodges, therefore there is no racism in Masonry." Such logic lends itself more to tokenism rather than fact. Conversely, there are those non-Masons who would say "There are no black men in some lodges, therefore all Masonry is segregated."
If active Masons would be honest, they would affirm that both of these statements are false. Yet, even if they are not honest, we know they are not true based on the personal testimony of men who have left Freemasonry.
But the bottomline is, even if all Grand Lodges on both sides recognized the other, they will still forever remain racially segregated. Why? Because neither Grand Master, of any state, is going to humble himself to relinquish his "gavel of authority" in order for the fraternity to be truly recognized as ONE. The social and political power of a Grand Master is on the same magnitude as that of a U.S. Governor.
The problem is due, in part, to the fact that in the United States and Canada each jurisdiction is aligned primarily by state and province. As a result, there is a Prince Hall and a non-Prince Hall Grand Master in every state and province. A possible solution argued, is to have all Grand Lodges in each respective country unite as one jurisdiction in that country, much like it is elsewhere in the world (i.e. the Grand Lodge of India, the Grand Lodge of Turkey, etc. and of course, the United Grand Lodge of England). However, the likelihood of this happening is remote, in my opinion, for three reasons:
1. First of all, as a starting point, I believe there must first be unanimous "recognition" across the fraternal "Tressel Board" before there could ever be an unanimously united jurisdiction in the US or Canada.
2. Secondly, Prince Hall Masons are a minority in numbers compared to the rest of Freemasonry, and to relinquish control to the majority would result in the likelihood of a future African-American Grand Master to have the same probability of there ever being an African-American U.S. President. White Masonic votes will never let that happen. Additionally, there is too much rich African-American history rooted in Prince Hall Masonry to risk it being marginalized by the white majority.
3. Finally, there is too much racism rooted in Southern states like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and South Carolina to allow racial reconciliation among black and white Masons to ever exist.
Unfortunately, as it relates to the issue between black and white Masonic fraternal relations in America, "Recognition" is simply a Masonic term that ultimately means "Separate, but Equal," much like the concept of "separate restrooms and drinking fountains" during the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, the oxymoron of "segregated fraternity" is a permanent scar against Freemasonry. As you can see, the resolution in the link posted above reads like most other similar resolutions:
The sad commentary about Freemasonry is the fact that they claim to "make good men better," yet even after nearly 300 years of existence in America, the Lodge is far behind mainstream society when it comes to racial reconciliation. The fact is, admission of blacks into "regular" Masonry, and the 'recognition' of Prince Hall (black) Masonry, is a recent phenomenon, which began only as recent as 1987.
But, as Freemasonry in America has been in the business of "making good men better," one should expect that they, of all people, should have been at the forefront of change in the 1930's and beyond. In fact, Freemasonry should have set the example for society even long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1960's. Indeed, they should have set that example during the Slavery period of the 18th century when Freemasonry first arrived in America. But instead, many colonialists at that time -- who were also Masons -- including George Washington, own slaves themselves.
Masons love to point out that lodges exist to promote Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth, as in the following mission statement of the Grand Lodge in NC:
But in the final analysis, the Truth of the matter is, this is as hypocritical a statement for ALL of Freemasonry as it is for North Carolina.
Upvote
0
O.F.F.
An Ex-Mason for Jesus
"Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people." -- Kin Hubbard
As a pastor, you of all people should know, that if we take a verse or a part of a verse out of context, we can make the Word of God appear to teach something it really doesn't. And, you should know, that those who do this will not escape the judgment of God for twisting His Word to suit ones own purpose (2 Peter 3:16).
You piously quote, "Judge not" out of its biblical context, in order to defend that which you know is incompatible with God's Word. In doing so, you fail to see your own inconsistency by judging those who try to obey God's Word about sincerely judging false teaching as compared to the teachings of the Bible.
Therefore, since you are now so spiritual blinded, I rest my case. As I posted earlier, if a man who claims to be in Christ, cannot recognize a false god when he examines Islamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism or the Watchtower Society, why should anyone think he would be able to recognize the false god of Freemasonry?
Yes, I am prepared to do so, and you obviously haven't taken the time to look before you speak. How foolish to do so.Wayne said:
Now to address your cop-out comments to avoid answering my questions about non-Christian Masons believing in the God of the Bible, or false gods:
Although you are a seminary-trained pastor, it's interesting to notice that you often quote Scripture out-of-context, as most Masons do. However, for the time being, I will challenge the first one.Wayne said:
Despite your seminary training, you often boast about being a college English major. Yet you fail to notice that this passage is addressed to a hypocrite, not to those who sincerely desire to discern whether a teacher or teaching is consistent with God's Word. Rather than speaking against honest judgment, which I asked of you, it is a solemn warning against hypocritical judgment. In fact, the last statement of this passage demands sincere judgment. ". . .then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
As a pastor, you of all people should know, that if we take a verse or a part of a verse out of context, we can make the Word of God appear to teach something it really doesn't. And, you should know, that those who do this will not escape the judgment of God for twisting His Word to suit ones own purpose (2 Peter 3:16).
You piously quote, "Judge not" out of its biblical context, in order to defend that which you know is incompatible with God's Word. In doing so, you fail to see your own inconsistency by judging those who try to obey God's Word about sincerely judging false teaching as compared to the teachings of the Bible.
Therefore, since you are now so spiritual blinded, I rest my case. As I posted earlier, if a man who claims to be in Christ, cannot recognize a false god when he examines Islamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism or the Watchtower Society, why should anyone think he would be able to recognize the false god of Freemasonry?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
"Criticism is prejudice made plausible."--H.L. Mencken
"Criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting."--Emmet Fox
This is a paper written by a man in India. My request was for another "holy book" quoted in ritual. Huge difference.
I don't see how you could have missed it, but the "context" you speak of here began back in chapter five of Matthew and the audience to which the remarks are addressed just happens to be a multitude of people on a hillside, all of whom presumably were gathered there, not for the annual meeting of the Hypocrites' Club, but out of a "sincere desire" to hear what this Teacher had to say.
Consider, for instance, Coffman's Commentary upon the passage:
Then consider yourself warned by your own words. You are clearly presenting this facetious commentary in an atttempt to create something you can use to accuse me. Not only that, but now you turn from offering your hypothetical questions presuming judgment upon others, and turn to a frontal assault in which you are clearly attempting the same judgment aimed at me. And IMO you are way out of line to use the Scripture in such a manner. But that's just my opinion--after all, I'm not your judge.
And my answer to your question was answered the way it was because that is exactly the way I approach the issue. Since your question had to do with the truth/falsehood of another's beliefs, and hence with whether they will "stand or fall" when it comes to their eternal destiny, I am in no position to decide that. I leave the decision on such matters to God, pure and simple.
Boast? Where did you see such a thing? I simply pointed out that if you wish to attack, you'd do well to limit your attacks to the subject matter, and try to exploit some weakness, rather than assailing me in an area which obviously would be one of my stronger points. You might take the same admonition about your frivolous use of Scripture in a vain attempt to belittle others. But that's what's at the heart of the matter anyway, isn't it, Michael? Since your arguments hold no weight, you resort to personal attacks once again, the same old ploy that has been your ace-in-the-hole from the beginning. And for your personal attack to be successful in belittling, naturally you will not attack a person's weaknesses, you will go for their strengths, in hopes that should you succeed in the belittlement, it will be that much more severe--which explains your attempt to portray me as "boasting" about the English issue, when all I was doing was defending against your use of it as an attack strategy. And since that one didn't work (I notice you quickly left the definitions alone when your error became obvious), now you must go for another area that would be more of a strong point than a weak one. You make that obvious by your continued reference to "seminary-trained pastor." The main reason being, that if you are to be successful in your belittlement, you must be sure to point out for everyone who reads this, that your attack has put down someone in their chosen (not by me) area of expertise. But once again you failed, since the passage you insist is addressed to "a hypocrite," is clearly and firmly entrenched in the middle of a passage addressed to sincere seekers who have come to hear this wonderful new man of God, of whom they have heard so much. There certainly were enough passages where scribes and Pharisees and others came with other purposes in mind, but this clearly was not one of them. And so it concludes:
"And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (7:28-29).
You see, I understand all about context, as most "seminary-trained pastors" do.
First of all, I think your statement is a misperception. I've seen no one stating the matter as you claim. It would be more akin to, "There are black men in some lodges, therefore if there is racism in Freemasonry, it obviously is not institutional, else they would not be there--and equally obvious is the fact that things are changing."
So what kind of numbers do you require before you will drop your accusations? Naturally, with a change that you yourself admit is fairly recent in developing, the numbers are going to start small. What do you expect, a half-and-half count overnight? You can play the numbers game and skew things pretty much any way you like, but the fact remains the change is occurring and will encourage and influence more of the same kind of change, and it is a good thing. And I haven't met a single Mason who does not agree that this would be a welcome change. In fact, when the subject came up at Lodge, and several of us were in dialogue about it (all positive), one young man pulled from a notebook he had brought, a dog-eared copy of a newspaper report that had appeared before the NC vote was taken, anticipating its passage. This being quite some time afterward, I definitely got the impression that this was an issue of great importance to him, and doubtless to many other Masons here. Don't be surprised if it winds up being voted on here--and don't be surprised if it passes here before it does in NC. There are definitely a large number of Masons agreeing on this matter that a change is in order and would be a positive thing.
Well, I have never frequented the Lodgeroom.com all that much, and I never really saw or understood what the ruckus was all about. But I think you need to deal only with what I said, and not with what you wish I had said. All I said was, "It was reported. . ." And the fact is, there were some reports that said exactly that. Your assertion that what I said "is simply not true" is an assertion that no one reported the matter as I stated it. Thus your counter-claim is itself untrue.
Can the Church claim any better with its "most segregated hour of the week?" There are many more factors at work than racism, the main one being, people tend to gravitate to those who are like them, not unlike. Even at functions that have been provided in our churches for dialogue and interaction, when they have the meal or serve the refreshments, watch where they all gravitate to when they go sit down. The same is true among groups where race is not a factor. When I used to travel with a college choir, we would visit at churches where we knew no one. When mealtime came, the choir would mostly be in their own little huddle, and the same with the parishioners. It will take a lot more than you seem to acknowledge before people will break out of long-established patterns.
He did his job well, and our school was at the forefront in our district in achieving desegration goals.
(1) You asked a question, I answered it.
(2) I gave the biblical basis for my answer, you attacked it.
(3) Your question was not about "judging false teaching." Your question pertained to specific PERSONS: the "Muslim Mason," the "Jehovah's Witness Mason," etc. etc.
(4) In awareness of my presence on a thread in which there may very well be persons present from many of the religions you mentioned, I was very much aware of the fact also that to simply answer your question dogmatically and emphatically would be perceived by them as condemning, harsh, and judgmental. Thus I was even more cautious than usual in how I chose to respond.
So help me here: exactly wherein does that constitute my "judging" anyone?
"Criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting."--Emmet Fox
This is a paper written by a man in India. My request was for another "holy book" quoted in ritual. Huge difference.
I don't see how you could have missed it, but the "context" you speak of here began back in chapter five of Matthew and the audience to which the remarks are addressed just happens to be a multitude of people on a hillside, all of whom presumably were gathered there, not for the annual meeting of the Hypocrites' Club, but out of a "sincere desire" to hear what this Teacher had to say.
Consider, for instance, Coffman's Commentary upon the passage:
Clearly Coffman places the issue squarely in the same context in which I responded, the matter of judging matters related to another person's salvation. And did you catch his comment on verse 3? "One who judges others is compared to a person presuming to cast a splinter out of his brother's eye while a plank is in his own eye." Jesus is not calling anyone a hypocrite who was present at the gathering. He commonly taught by comparison or contrast, this is one example of it.
Then consider yourself warned by your own words. You are clearly presenting this facetious commentary in an atttempt to create something you can use to accuse me. Not only that, but now you turn from offering your hypothetical questions presuming judgment upon others, and turn to a frontal assault in which you are clearly attempting the same judgment aimed at me. And IMO you are way out of line to use the Scripture in such a manner. But that's just my opinion--after all, I'm not your judge.
And my answer to your question was answered the way it was because that is exactly the way I approach the issue. Since your question had to do with the truth/falsehood of another's beliefs, and hence with whether they will "stand or fall" when it comes to their eternal destiny, I am in no position to decide that. I leave the decision on such matters to God, pure and simple.
Boast? Where did you see such a thing? I simply pointed out that if you wish to attack, you'd do well to limit your attacks to the subject matter, and try to exploit some weakness, rather than assailing me in an area which obviously would be one of my stronger points. You might take the same admonition about your frivolous use of Scripture in a vain attempt to belittle others. But that's what's at the heart of the matter anyway, isn't it, Michael? Since your arguments hold no weight, you resort to personal attacks once again, the same old ploy that has been your ace-in-the-hole from the beginning. And for your personal attack to be successful in belittling, naturally you will not attack a person's weaknesses, you will go for their strengths, in hopes that should you succeed in the belittlement, it will be that much more severe--which explains your attempt to portray me as "boasting" about the English issue, when all I was doing was defending against your use of it as an attack strategy. And since that one didn't work (I notice you quickly left the definitions alone when your error became obvious), now you must go for another area that would be more of a strong point than a weak one. You make that obvious by your continued reference to "seminary-trained pastor." The main reason being, that if you are to be successful in your belittlement, you must be sure to point out for everyone who reads this, that your attack has put down someone in their chosen (not by me) area of expertise. But once again you failed, since the passage you insist is addressed to "a hypocrite," is clearly and firmly entrenched in the middle of a passage addressed to sincere seekers who have come to hear this wonderful new man of God, of whom they have heard so much. There certainly were enough passages where scribes and Pharisees and others came with other purposes in mind, but this clearly was not one of them. And so it concludes:
"And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (7:28-29).
You see, I understand all about context, as most "seminary-trained pastors" do.
First of all, I think your statement is a misperception. I've seen no one stating the matter as you claim. It would be more akin to, "There are black men in some lodges, therefore if there is racism in Freemasonry, it obviously is not institutional, else they would not be there--and equally obvious is the fact that things are changing."
So what kind of numbers do you require before you will drop your accusations? Naturally, with a change that you yourself admit is fairly recent in developing, the numbers are going to start small. What do you expect, a half-and-half count overnight? You can play the numbers game and skew things pretty much any way you like, but the fact remains the change is occurring and will encourage and influence more of the same kind of change, and it is a good thing. And I haven't met a single Mason who does not agree that this would be a welcome change. In fact, when the subject came up at Lodge, and several of us were in dialogue about it (all positive), one young man pulled from a notebook he had brought, a dog-eared copy of a newspaper report that had appeared before the NC vote was taken, anticipating its passage. This being quite some time afterward, I definitely got the impression that this was an issue of great importance to him, and doubtless to many other Masons here. Don't be surprised if it winds up being voted on here--and don't be surprised if it passes here before it does in NC. There are definitely a large number of Masons agreeing on this matter that a change is in order and would be a positive thing.
Well, I have never frequented the Lodgeroom.com all that much, and I never really saw or understood what the ruckus was all about. But I think you need to deal only with what I said, and not with what you wish I had said. All I said was, "It was reported. . ." And the fact is, there were some reports that said exactly that. Your assertion that what I said "is simply not true" is an assertion that no one reported the matter as I stated it. Thus your counter-claim is itself untrue.
Can the Church claim any better with its "most segregated hour of the week?" There are many more factors at work than racism, the main one being, people tend to gravitate to those who are like them, not unlike. Even at functions that have been provided in our churches for dialogue and interaction, when they have the meal or serve the refreshments, watch where they all gravitate to when they go sit down. The same is true among groups where race is not a factor. When I used to travel with a college choir, we would visit at churches where we knew no one. When mealtime came, the choir would mostly be in their own little huddle, and the same with the parishioners. It will take a lot more than you seem to acknowledge before people will break out of long-established patterns.
The Church is in the transformation business also, you may say the same of them as well. Or rather, since you will not, I will remind you of it.
And what does that say for the church, which has basically done no better? I don't know how it occurred elsewhere, but speaking only from the situation as it existed at the time in my own world: when the changes of the 60's began to occur, and schools began to be desegregated, the main one leading the charge and actively pursuing the matter at our own high school was the principal. I'm sure you're familiar with what I've said of the man elsewhere, that he was a Mason and a Sunday School teacher and a man who influenced a tremendous number of people for Christ by living a consistent Christian witness in every area and aspect of his life. This one was no different, he was head of a committee that coordinated the first steps of transition, seeking to match students and situations to facilitate acceptance and minimize resistance.
He did his job well, and our school was at the forefront in our district in achieving desegration goals.
(1) You asked a question, I answered it.
(2) I gave the biblical basis for my answer, you attacked it.
(3) Your question was not about "judging false teaching." Your question pertained to specific PERSONS: the "Muslim Mason," the "Jehovah's Witness Mason," etc. etc.
(4) In awareness of my presence on a thread in which there may very well be persons present from many of the religions you mentioned, I was very much aware of the fact also that to simply answer your question dogmatically and emphatically would be perceived by them as condemning, harsh, and judgmental. Thus I was even more cautious than usual in how I chose to respond.
So help me here: exactly wherein does that constitute my "judging" anyone?
And if a man who claims to be in Christ, consistently and continually engages in personal attack rather than debate; uses Scripture and/or interpretation of it to belittle other Christians; makes comments to other Christians hinting at God's judgment of condemnation upon them, based mainly on the fact that he differs in his opinions; makes injudicious and derogatory comments about other religions and their adherents on a forum in which many people of those faiths are likely to read them; then exactly how sincere do you suppose such a man's profession will appear to be?
Upvote
0
O.F.F.
An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Again, you are being dishonest. There was more to your request than that:Wayne said:
We have the testimony of Ex-Masons for Jesus from India who have told us that they use multiple VSLs on Masonic altars in India and derive their Masonic principles from the Vedas, Gitas, and Upanishads, just as this MASON from India did in his paper. You are foolish to think Hindu Masons conduct their Masonic ritual quoting the Bible, when it isn't even considered their "great light." Yet, the others mentioned are. They can easily maintain the elements of each degree, just as Madhavan's paper does, to include the Legend of the Third Degree, without quoting the Bible. Afterall, even you've admitted that the Legend isn't of the Bible, it's an allegory.Wayne said:
My series of questions had nothing to do with judging ones salvation!Wayne said:
Furthermore, I was not judging PERSONS:O.F.F. said:
I was asking you to discern whether or not they believe in the God of the Bible, based upon your "seminary-trained" knowledge of their TEACHINGS! But, since you insist I'm judging people, let me ask it another way -- not that I expect you to answer honestly.Wayne said:
For a moment, take me out of the picture and pretend that a member of your church walked up to you after Sunday service and asked:
"Based upon your understanding and knowledge of world religions, would you say the teachings of Islamism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism and the Watchtower Society reveal the One True Living God of the Bible, or do these teachings reveal a false god(s)?"
Upvote
0
Rev Wayne
Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
No dishonesty about it. A simple oversight.
But since you bring it up, all I can say is, you have just proven the very thing you have tried to deny for quite some time now--that the symbols of Freemasonry are open to a variety of interpretations, depending on the individual and his religion. You know as well as I do that the Bible is the only book that is foundational in Masonry. It is the only book you will find quoted in ritual, and it is the book described as the "Great Light of Masonry" by the overwhelming majority of Lodges.
But the fact is, Masonic principles are not principles of religion, they are principles of morality, and morality is not religion-specific in nature. There are basic moral precepts that form the basis of practically all religions. For instance, they all prohibit theft, murder, adultery, etc. So protest all you will, you have made no point.
Am I? Then perhaps you need to read the quotes I found expressed in an article written by a Hindu Mason on the subject of Masonic symbolism:
"Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward." (Job 5:7)
"Know ye not that ye must be born again." (John 3:3---notice he even uses King James language)
"Bible in Genesis (1:26-27) states "and G. said: Let us make man in our own image after our own likeness. The triune nature of G. is well known, especially to us in India." (And in this one he even gives the reference!)
"The triune nature of man formed in the mirror image of G.., is therefore not difficult to understand, though diverse symbols and interpretations have been ascribed to it. One such and the most accepted is that triune nature represented by the body, soul ad spirit, which finds extensive and symbolic usage in Masonic rituals; three degrees, three knocks, three greater and three lesser lights, three principal officers, three ruffians, three perambulations, three rosettes in the apron, the triangle with three sides and the like symbolic examples ." (Same thing we've been telling you ad infinitum)
"We are confronted daily by the same three ruffians who accosted our Master H.A, to extort the secrets. They are symbolic of three great tormentors of the human flesh in our existence on this terrestrial globe - earth i.e.; kama, krodha and moha lust, anger and desire. The Holy Bible ( 1 John, 2:16) names them 'the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life'. " (How much more direct can you get?)
(MASONIC SYMBOLISM
by Bro.Dr.K.Jyothindra Kumar
Master Mason of Lodges Ananthapadmanabha.(No.280), Aruvi(No.294) Grand Lodge of India)
Well, gee, this wasn't even ritual, which even further negates your argument, because the Bible as quoted in ritual might be done so by a Hindu without his knowledge even that it was the Bible. Also, someone could counter that a Hindu giving rote repetition of a ritual Bible quote, and that perhaps without knowledge, would not mean as much, since he does not do so out of willingness or purpose. But this is not ritual, and is a paper freely written by a Hindu, and freely quoting and affirming direct Bible truths.
Besides, in arguments in the past when I have tried to assert that there are differences in rituals from one Grand Lodge to another, you have adamantly denied it, claiming that there are very few differences between them. That being the case, then it stands to reason that the Hindu version of the Entered Apprentice ritual retains the full direct quote of Psalm 133, just as every other version of the ritual I have ever seen; it would also retain the full quote of Matthew 7:7; and it would make direct reference to the content of 2 Chronicles 2:16, 1 Kings 6:7, and Ruth 4:7. We can also assume that the ritual of the Fellowcraft degree will retain the mention of the plumbline, along with the direct attribution of it to Amos 7:7-8; and it certainly wouldn't omit the direct re-telling, in the Fellowcraft lecture, of the account found in Judges 12 about pronouncing shibboleth/sibboleth as a password of recognition. Nor would the recitation of Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 in the Master Mason degree be omitted. The degree simply would not be the same if the candidate did not hear upon entry, "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. . . "
You're pretty subtle, but you are fooling no one. Perhaps there are some who don't know you as well, who may be fooled by your pretense, but I caught the way you stated:
I guess they could "easily maintain" them if they chose to do so, but you have not SHOWN it to do so by quoting a Hindu writer and then claiming that Hindu Masonry "can" do the same "just as Madhavan's paper." A little sleight-of-hand there, but easily intercepted by the wary eye. What you have offered is not proof. What I have offered showing direct reference to the Bible comes straight from the rituals themselves, which contain the direct quotes I have indicated.
Sure it did! Your whole purpose in asking was to try to pin some accusation concerning association with those you choose to label--whether you use the term pagan, or heathen, or unbeliever, or whichever term you commonly use to describe them. And as usual, it isn't what you state so much as what you try to imply, full of subtlety as you always choose to be.
But after all, the Hiramic Legend is definitely NOT all of Masonic ritual. Masonic rituals quote directly from several Bible passages, as I have already indicated. Same ole attempt from you again, taking the part and portraying it to be the whole.
Going the depersonalization route, I see. So you would have us believe that:
a Hindu Mason is not a person?
a Muslim Mason is not a person?
a Jehovah's Witness Mason is not a person?
a Mormon Mason is not a person?
a Buddhist Mason is not a person?
I can only imagine how many mirrors you'll have to use to pull that one off.
Besides, I thought you always said Freemasonry was a religion in itself. So whence come these Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, and Buddhist Masons? How can you miss such self-contradiction of your own arguments?
Nice pretense, but I've never even had you IN the picture, I've simply shown the fallacy of your arguments.
I've answered this for you so many times it's tedious, but once again:
The Bible has no deadbolt lock on truth. Probably all these religons have something of the truth, and being of the truth, its source can only be the one true God. I've pointed out to you many times before, for example, that Confucius stated the Golden Rule almost exactly as it appers in Christ's statement of it, and the Persians wrote the same truth in practically the same words, perhaps 1,000 years before Confucius did. But that makes it no different, and no less true, and its source no less God. As usual, your blankets and umbrellas do not adequately cover the matter. To you everything is an either/or, but truth is not found in such terms. Where you find truth, you find God--yes, the one true and living God--but elements of truth are found, just as God is, even in the farthest reaches. As David wrote, "Even if I make my bed in hell, you are there." As Mother Teresa said, "I see God in every human being."
But some folks are different, and have God all wrapped up in their tidy little box. As if He could ever be so.
So for a moment, take me out of the picture, and instead of plying your traps, ask yourself, "Do I really think God has to jump through all my hoops before He can truly be God?" If so, I'm afraid your God is far too small for me.
Think about it: the scribes and Pharisees were just as you are now, all certain that they were the only ones who had God or even deserved Him. How hard do you imagine it would be to throw out everything in your entire belief system, especially when "it is written" and encoded as the direct Word of God?
That's basically what the Jews had to do to accept Christ, and many of them never got past the part about "Cursed is he who hangs on a tree." And a lot of them never got past the part about Gentiles being "dogs." It appears to be the same with you: like them, you are so caught up in deciding who's in and who's out that you have departed far from anything resembling the true message of Christ.
Upvote
0
C
cwebber
Guest
Mike
You kept quoting Freemasonry as racist. Yet you do not acknowledge the facts that some PH Lodges do not recognize Regular Freemasonry does that make them racist. Fo0r example Delaware voted to recognize PH Masonry and PH Masonry refused it.
And besides all of this you are being a Big Hypocrite you keep talking about the racism in Freemasonry when the real issue is Racism in the Church. Freemasonry has rules that all men are created equal and it does not say Black Men can not join. Even thou one vote from someone can keep you out but that does not mean the whole Lodge is racist.
In the passage you quote remove the Plank from your own Eye before you try to remove the splitter from your brothers you really need to read that. Before you try to remove the Splitter from the Eye of a Fraternity you need to remove the Plank from the Churches Eye. Racism is still alive in Churches and if you want to change Racism in Freemasonry you must first start with the Church because that is were they learned it. Freemasonry can not change the Heart of a Man only Jesus can so start with the racism in the Church First that PLANK which is in your own eye before trying to remove the splitter from Freemasonry.
You kept quoting Freemasonry as racist. Yet you do not acknowledge the facts that some PH Lodges do not recognize Regular Freemasonry does that make them racist. Fo0r example Delaware voted to recognize PH Masonry and PH Masonry refused it.
And besides all of this you are being a Big Hypocrite you keep talking about the racism in Freemasonry when the real issue is Racism in the Church. Freemasonry has rules that all men are created equal and it does not say Black Men can not join. Even thou one vote from someone can keep you out but that does not mean the whole Lodge is racist.
In the passage you quote remove the Plank from your own Eye before you try to remove the splitter from your brothers you really need to read that. Before you try to remove the Splitter from the Eye of a Fraternity you need to remove the Plank from the Churches Eye. Racism is still alive in Churches and if you want to change Racism in Freemasonry you must first start with the Church because that is were they learned it. Freemasonry can not change the Heart of a Man only Jesus can so start with the racism in the Church First that PLANK which is in your own eye before trying to remove the splitter from Freemasonry.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
C
cwebber
Guest
Are these Ex-Masons from a Regular Lodge of Freemasonry?
And besides I have a question for you Mike. An Athiest once asked me about the Golden Rule. He siad the Golden Rule has been around lond before Jesus Said it.
There are some truths to all religions the above is an example it is on these basic truths that Freemaosnry meets not on Salvation but on the Golden Rule and that there is a God. The we do not agree on who God is we do agree on how to threat one another "The Golden Rule"
You say India Masons use Vedas, Gitas, and Upanishads as their VSL. And they use lessons from it. In order for them to be able to used those vesres they would have had to matched up with the same meaning behind what the Bible was trying to get across or else they would not have been accepted as Ritual.
You see Freemasonry is not pushing a religion it is pushing the Golden rule threat others as you wish to be threat show Brotherly Love and Charity to all. This simple action is in all religions.
Can you send a copy of the India Ritual to me via Email Mike?
Upvote
0
O.F.F.
An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Not necessarily! From my firsthand experience as a Prince Hall (PHA) Mason, I can point to two incidents of racism I encountered from both sides. So, in those cases, racism did come into play.cwebbrer said:
Generally speaking, however, when it comes to "recognition" the racism comes from White Lodges, not Black, and it all started when Freemasonry arrived in America nearly 300 years ago. The same is true of mainstream society in the US. Racism in America has primarily come from the White majority, starting against native American Indians and continued against blacks since Slavery. But you know it wasn't due to the fact that either group didn't want to be accepted by Whites or that they did not want to accept them in return.
By the same token, typically PHA Grand Lodges do not recognize those Grand Lodges that do not want to recognize them, which again, usually starts with them; that is, White Grand Lodges like your own in Tennessee who refuse to recognize these predominately black members of the Craft.
But, it won't matter if they did. Go back and read my post again regarding "recognition," because you know perfectly well it means acceptance with a caveat; that is, "Separate, but Equal." You are old enough to remember the Jim Crow laws imposed by Tennessee and other Southern states during the Civil Rights Era, aren't you? "Recognition" is the same concept in Masonic terms.
So now you are resorting to name calling, huh? Have I called you any names Corey? But talk about hypocrisy, you are the one who claims to be in Christ, yet who remains in a "segregated fraternity" that worships a false god, while submitting yourself under the jurisdiction of a RACIST Grand Lodge.
If Freemasonry is not a religion, why do you and Wayne insist on comparing it to the Chruch? Besides, I can no more remove racism from the Church than you can remove it from Freemasonry. But, hypothetically speaking, even if you attended a racist church and Wayne was a pastor of one, I trust that no one would prevent an African-American from attending if they chose to, despite the racism. You can't say the same for any Masonic lodge in either of your jurisdictions, because with or without a current dues card, they would stop a black Mason before he could even walk through the door.
As Christians, therefore, the best thing we can do is to have nothing to do with Freemasonry, and nothing to do with a racist church. I resigned and renounced Freemasonry, and I attend a spiritually healthy, culturally and ethnically diverse church, why don't you do the same thing, and stop the name calling!!!
Upvote
0
C
cwebber
Guest
Hypocrite. Yep you fuss and moan over Racism in the Church and equate it to White people. Always the White people than you try to justufy the PH Masonry not recognizing Regular Freemaosnry because of the White People.
How can you say that we are racist when you are blaming it on the White People. I will have you know Mr. Gentry my Great Great Grandfather was a Mason in the South in North Carolina as a matter of fact and help Slaves escape to the North. Those Racist Masons. Albert Pike wrote that the Prince Hall Masons are no different than Regular Masons.
You need to get over the racism that has been ingrained in you against White people. It was not the White People who brought Racism it has been around long before it came to america. In Africa Black Tribes sold Black tribemen they defeated in battle to Slave traders. So as fare as that goes it started out Blacks selling blacks to whites.
The teachings of racism did not start withWhite people it started with Satan. He brought this lie with Him from continent to continent. He used Christian Ministers to spread the Lie of the Curse of Ham or the Curse of Cain being turned Black. Thru the teachings of Evolution he brought about that men were seperate species that the Black people were a lessor race. Many of the churches bought this lie. You Sir and I need to work on the problem in the Church before trying to fix the small amount of racism in the Lodge. I garuntee there are more racist churches in the world than racist Lodges.
Funny I just heard a Lecture not two months ago on Seperate but Equal by a WHITE Mason who thought it was one of the worst dissons in the History of the US.
Because the same problem you are getting onto Freemasonry about goes on in Church as far as some issues But not worship.
Stop a Black Mason from entering the Lodge. Hmmm? I wonder why were they at the Annual Grand Lodge meeting during open Lodge than? And I wonder than why a Black man was allowed to visit a Local Lodge near me on his way passing thru Tennessee?
Are you going to renounce Christ because some of His follwers are stupid and think just because of a man's skin shade he is not equal. I hope not in the same manner I will not renounce Freemasonry it is a good fraternity with good moral teachings of equality and brotherly Love. Just because some of its member are ignorant does not mean it is racist.
I will not give up on the Church just because it has some racist members I will show those members love and try to show them what the Scripture says about the issue.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
