Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[O.F.F.]

I don't suppose that the square or compass would be considered incompatible wtih Christianity since both were used in Christian art as implements used by God long before there was Freemasonry.

I don't suppose you can provide us an example, can you? A biblical context would be most desirable.

With other accusations, it's simply a matter of knowing a little bit about the symbol being targeted. Most symbols have quite a rich and varied history, and are not by any means limited to the one interpretation accusers try to limit it to.

A general Masonic rule is the fact that, no individual can speak on behalf of Freemasonry, an individual may only express a personal view which may, or may not, be shared by other Masons. In the same way, as an institution, Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols. Therefore, as a Mason, you can't impose your so-called "Christian interpretation" based on the cited opinions of other Masons.

Simply because something is interpreted as being what it appears to be, in the eye of the beholder, does not render that interpretation conclusive. By the definition of "conclusive," for Masonic symbolism to be conclusively Christian, it would have to be admittedly so without a doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only that one conclusion -- that it's Christian!

Since Masonic symbolism can be viewed more than one way, it may be highly suggestive, but not conclusive. So what does this mean? Something is either compatible with another thing, or it isn't. I'm not aware of any criteria, other than the essential doctrines of our faith, to measure the "degree of compatibility" for determining if Masonic teaching or its symbolism, is completely compatible with biblical Christianity. As it has been shown here on several pages on this and other threads, that when stacked up against biblical doctrine, Freemasonry fails the test.

Being compatible in a few areas, i.e. purporting the Golden Rule, doesn't make it compatible. In other words, partial compatibility presented here does not equal compatibility. And, since Masonic symbolism can be equally viewed as "compatible" with false religions, that should make it suspect enough for discerning Christians to steer far away from it.

Did you have any specific symbols in mind . . .?

Why don't we start with the Compass: "to circumscribe their desires and keep their passions in due bounds with all mankind." What is the "Christian" interpretation of this Masonic symbol?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I don't suppose that the square or compass would be considered incompatible wtih Christianity since both were used in Christian art as implements used by God long before there was Freemasonry.

I don't suppose you can provide us an example, can you?

Probably the most well-known, and therefore one that immediately comes to mind, is William Blake's Ancient of Days:

A biblical context would be most desirable.

Being a bit disingenuous here, aren't we?

Christian art only emerged relatively late, and the first known Christian images emerge from about 200 AD. (Andre Grabar, Christian Iconography: A Study of its Origins, Princeton UP, 1968, p. 7)

Also:

Over the centuries, Christian art has had three primary purposes: Depicting the actual events of the Bible, depicting the events of the Christian life or communicating the message of Scripture in a visual form. ("Christian Art," Wikipedia)

Seems rather strange to be looking for a "biblical context" for Christian art, which developed LATER, and with a purpose of depicting Bible events.

First you want proof that Martin Luther's name appears on a Grand Lodge roll in the pre-Grand Lodge era; and now you want a "biblical context" for that which did not even develop until centuries later, and did not fully flourish until the medieval period?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Simply because something is interpreted as being what it appears to be, in the eye of the beholder, does not render that interpretation conclusive.

Wonderful! Now take that newfound insight and apply it to all those interpretations you've been trying to force upon Freemasonry like a square peg in a round hole, and any difficulties we may have had over the years can all be resolved. Surely you realize that this means that your interpretations of incompatibility “do not therefore render those interpretations conclusive?”

By the definition of "conclusive," for Masonic symbolism to be conclusively Christian, it would have to be admittedly so without a doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only that one conclusion -- that it's Christian!

Gee, I thought you were doing so well, and immediately after you make one statement of seeming insight, you show signs of struggle.

No one is trying to say "the interpretations of Masonry are specifically Christian, with no other interpretation possible."

That seems to be the point at which you stumble. No one is trying to show that Masonry “IS” Christian. All anyone has tried to show here is that since a Christian can find so much of the Bible quoted in ritual, since the principles are founded on biblical principles just as Masonry states they are, and since the symbols are so easily interpreted within a Christian worldview, there is no question the two are compatible. What you fail to see is that just because the terms and symbols may also be compatible with someone else’s religion as well, does not thereby negate the compatibility it has with Christianity, any more than we would abandon the symbology of the cross simply because it was used earlier in pre-Christian Egyptian symbology and worship.

If you somehow believe that we are saying the interpretations of Masonry are EXCLUSIVELY Christian, then either (1) you have misunderstood us, or (2) you have misunderstood compatibility. I can't help but feel it's that same misunderstanding of compatibility that is clouding the issue for you, since it has been an issue more than once in other discussions. You simply have to realize, you seem to be the only person discussing this issue who feels that in order to show Masonry to be compatible with Christianity, it must first be shown to be identical. That is a false representation of "compatibility."

Earlier, I used the idea of a computer and its accessories in an effort to help, but the effort was ridiculed. Still, I know no easier way to explain it. But I will adjust the analogy a bit this time. I have found that on most computers, when using one of the old 3.5-inch floppy disks for the first time, the computer will invariably notify me that the disk has not been formatted. It will then give me a y/n query whether I want it formatted. If I answer affirmatively, then it will then format the disk for use. But something else I have found is, occasionally a disk that I have formatted on one computer will not function properly in a computer of another brand. This was particularly noticeable when I had both a Compaq and a Gateway, the Compaq just did not want to accept a disk formatted by the Gateway. The Gateway, however, had no problem with a disk formatted by the Compaq.

Consider Freemasonry the disk, and Compaq and Gateway as two different religions, and the analogy becomes clear. Take the basic principles of Masonry and "format" it for the Christian--that is, take the "Supreme Architect" and interpret Jesus Christ; take the belief in an afterlife and interpret heaven, with Jesus Christ as the way; take the lambskin apron lecture and interpret the pure white as the sinless Christ, the lamb symbol as Jesus the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, interpret the "rectitude of conduct" as sanctification of the Spirit through the life of Christ dwelling within; interpret the Common Gavel as the same indwelling of the Spirit, particularly as relates to the 9th spiritual fruit of "self-control"; interpret the beehive as Paul's admonition to be "always abounding in the work of the Lord"; interpret the square as the admonition to "as much as possible, live in peace with all men"; but you get the idea, I don't want to try to do a comprehensive analogy here.

The thing is, once Masonry is thus "formatted," it works ONLY for Christianity. Someone from another religion will take the same elements and format them for his own religion, and when he has done so, it will work ONLY for that religion.

As it has been shown here on several pages on this and other threads, that when stacked up against biblical doctrine, Freemasonry fails the test.

Gee, I must have missed that one. As I just showed, the symbols completely connect. Where you have made this erroneous conclusion of "failing the test" is a mystery for sure, you have not shown this here or anywhere else, nor has anyone else. Again, you are trying to re-frame the compatibility issue to make it an issue of conformity. And again I say, you are the only person, apparently, who sees that as any part of this discussion.

Being compatible in a few areas, i.e. purporting the Golden Rule, doesn't make it compatible. In other words, partial compatibility presented here does not equal compatibility.

As I pointed out in that particular discussion, that was only the BEGINNING point. From there I went on to show that purity was another common point among religions, and then from that point you and others began to derail the thread. When that happened, at first I could only guess at the purpose. But now you have made it clear, rather than allow me to continue and show one point after another after another after another, and establish the proofs as I intended, apparently you chose first to try to derail it, and now to use that derailment as leverage and try to insist that only a "partial compatibility" was shown.

You really have no concept of what an extensive undertaking you are insisting upon. I am fully convinced by all I have read in Masonry, that an effort to comprehensively address all its symbolism and show the compatibility of each with the Christian system, would be completely successful. The reason it is not feasible in a forum format such as this is, there would undoubtedly be a collective diminution of every single point, the most minor ones, conducted by the accusers of Masonry, which then would draw the proofs into such excruciatingly minute details as to require more of the effort than is justified by the results. The two points undertaken show exactly what I'm talking about: Yes, I got a begrudging admission from you on the point of the Golden Rule, but how many pages did that take?? And I did the same in making the case on the purity issue, but even after establishing the point many times over, the discussion was abandoned for a couple of pages, and then challenges were re-issued as if the discussion never took place, and as if the proofs of its being found in all religions were never made. At that point the case was made on two points, but it had become abundantly clear that you were willing to play hardball by deliberation and denial of every point, just to keep from having to make any more such admissions, until the effort would feel like dragging an anvil through mud.

At that point, I simply chose to let the derailment take its natural course, and figured the project was very much worth pursuing--the great amount of energy expended by the challengers to refute and/or derail the discussion CLEARLY proves that much, at least--but by the same token, that same resistance shows it is not a project that would be pursued very profitably in a debate format. For one thing, it is almost impossible to stay focused when someone at every turn is turning the slightest and most insignificant remark into fodder for accusations, or failing that, tossing in irrelevancies to distract and derail, or failing that, resorting to personal attacks.

So even though I definitely WILL be pursuing more comprehensive discussion of the specifics, I will not be so foolish as to accept a challenge to attempt it here. It would fill a volume as large as Mackey's Encyclopedia to do something that extensive even WITHOUT trying to do it here, I can't begin to imagine how many volumes it would fill if it were done here with all the extraneous stuff going on.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Why don't we start with the Compass: "to circumscribe their desires and keep their passions in due bounds with all mankind." What is the "Christian" interpretation of this Masonic symbol?

I always thought this was one symbol that pretty well speaks for itself. But since you ask, one place I find the same being said is:

"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." (1 Peter 3:8-9)

I also see a comparison between what this says, and what is said of the point within a circle and the two parallel lines. For the Christian interpretation of that symbol, I don't see how we could do any better than George Oliver's description:

The point is supposed to symbolize an individual mason circumscribed by the circle of virtue; while the two perpendicular parallel lines by which the circumference is bounded and supported, are the representatives of FAITH and PRACTICE. This is the definition. The point represents an individual brother, and the circle is the boundary line of his duty to God and man; beyond which he ought never to suffer his passions, prejudices, or interests to betray him. The two parallel lines represent St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, who were perfect parallels in Christianity as well as in masonry; and upon the vertex rests the holy bible, which points out the whole duty of man. In a progress round this circle, the two lines and the Bible restrict us to a certain path, and if this path be steadily persevered in, it will enable us to mount the ladder, through the gates of Faith, Hope, and Charity; and finally to take our seat in the blessed regions of immortality. (The Symbol of Glory, Showing the Object and End of Freemasonry, 1850, p. 138-39)

 

[Albion]

I don't suppose you can provide us an example, can you? A biblical context would be most desirable.

You see, this is one reason why the anti-Masons don't come off very well in discussions like this. While the Masons answer everything thrown at them, the anti-Masons make accusations and almost never back them up.

The point was made that Masonic symbols are supposedly INCOMPATIBLE with Christian ones. "Cannot be mixed" was the exact language. So I asked for some examples of that.

There apparently being none, you decided to use a little slight of hand and demand symbols that are not only not incompatible but are compatible! In fact, you ask for them to be Biblical.

But if a hypothetical organization uses, let's say, a peace sign for its logo, it is not necessary for it to be derived from the Bible for it to be neutral, not posing any conflict--and that's the point you wanted to sidestep.

In the same way, as an institution, Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols. Therefore, as a Mason, you can't impose your so-called "Christian interpretation" based on the cited opinions of other Masons.

...a good example of what I pointed out above, i.e. answering to a question other than the one asked. I appreciate that you were not the one making the claim here, but you have stepped into try to finesse an answer for that poster.

Why don't we start with the Compass: "to circumscribe their desires and keep their passions in due bounds with all mankind." What is the "Christian" interpretation of this Masonic symbol?

Why don't we first address the question you are doing your best to have us forget--what symbols do you know of that Masons use which are not compatible with or can't be mixed with Christianity?

That was what was claimed, and that is what I asked for examples of.

Got any?

 

[O.F.F.]

I also see a comparison between what this says, and what is said of the point within a circle and the two parallel lines. For the Christian interpretation of that symbol, I don't see how we could do any better than George Oliver's description:

Talk about being disingenuous. It's interesting that you would use Oliver's description, rather the one found in your own ritual from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina. In an article entitled, The Temple of the Lodge, a former Mason from Tennessee wrote this:

"OUR ANCIENT BRETHREN DEDICATED their Lodges to King Solomon, because he was our first Most Excellent Grand Master; but modern Masons dedicate theirs to St. John the Baptist, and St. John the Evangelist, who were two eminent patrons of Masonry; and since their time, there is represented, in every regular and well-governed Lodge, a certain point within a circle, embordered by two perpendicular parallel lines, representing St. John the Baptist and St.John the Evangelist; and upon the top rests the Holy Scriptures. The point represents the individual brother; the circle is the boundary line of duty, beyond which he is never to suffer his prejudices or passions to betray him. In going around this circle, he necessarily touches upon these two lines, as well as the Holy Scriptures; and while a Mason keeps himself thus circumscribed within these due bounds, it is impossible that he should materially err." (Kentucky Monitor, p.48, 49).

Tennessee Craftsmen is almost identical, save the opening paragraph: "Our ancient brethren dedicated their Lodges to King Solomon; but since the introduction of Christianity, they are dedicated to the memory of St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist in all Christian countries."(p. 29, 30).

Since Freemasonry can hardly said to be exclusively Christian, such symbology is mere window-dressing for palatability by unlearned Christians in Masonry. Surprisingly, if the Mason will explore the several Monitors, Grand Lodge statements, and recommended books upon Masonry, he will find the same. From the South Carolina Monitor, Ahimon Rezon we readily learn:

"The point within a circle is an interesting and important symbol in Free Masonry, but it has been so debased in the interpretation of it given in the modern lectures that the sooner that interpretation is forgotten by the Masonic student, the better will it be. The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the old sun-worship.

The two parallel lines, which in the modern lectures are said to represent St. John the Baptist and St, John the Evangelist, really allude to particular periods in the sun's annual course. At two particular points in this course the sun is found on the zodiacal signs Cancer and Capricorn, which are distinguished as the summer and winter solstice. When the sun is in these points, he has reached respectively his greatest northern and southern limit. These points, if we suppose the circle to represent the sun's annual course, will be indicated by the point where the parallel lines touch the circle. But the days when the sun reaches these points are the 21st of June and the 22d of December, and this will account for their subsequent application to the two Saints John, whose anniversaries the Church has placed near those days.

So the true interpretation of the point within the circle is the same as that of the Master and Wardens of a Lodge. The reference to the symbolism of the world and the Lodge is preserved in both. The Master and Wardens are symbols of the sun - the Lodge, of the universe or the world; the point also is the symbol of the same sun, and the surrounding circle of the universe, while the two parallel lines really point, not to two saints, but to the two northern and southern limits of the sun's course."(p.99-102) -- emphasis added

The Temple of the Lodge by William D. Rice, former Master Mason now an Ex-Mason For Jesus

So official documentation from your own Grand Lodge (GL) sets the record straight. Most poignantly against the "Christian interpretation" they say, "it has been so debased in the interpretation of it given in the modern lectures that the sooner that interpretation is forgotten by the Masonic student, the better will it be."

They provide the correct Masonic interpretation, and tell YOU, the Masonic student to forget the "Christian interpretation." Obviously your view of it has been a delusion on your part, as well as for Oliver and others. The fact is, as your GL puts it, the symbolism shown below really points to Sun Worship.

Are you now going to attempt to refute the authoritative teachings of your very own Grand Lodge?

 

[Albion]

Very seriously now, isn't that a lot like saying since Druids used trees, the Christian use of Christmas trees is anti-Christian?

And some few Christians do say that, as we know.

But the point is this--

IF every Mason is free to place whatever interpretation on this or another symbol he wants--which is the case--and the symbols are not used in worship--which they are not--then what's the complaint?

At the same time, I personally acknowledge a weakness in the idea that all these symbols are meant by the Craft to represent something specifically Christian.

I don't think that is the case and so don't sympathize with that argument even though there is much in Masonry, as you must admit, that IS specifically Christian (or Hebrew) in origin. All the King Solomon and Temple references are not, after all, representative of kings in general or just any 'ol building.

 

[G19]

Way to pick cherries Mike.

To me, the two Johns represent Jesus the logos and Jesus the eschaton. We, the point within the circle, are in the interim, guided by the bible.

It may have reference to ancient sun-worship, but it is corrected by, and properly understood in light of the incarnation. To me, that is the most plausible understanding and no mason, monitor, or antimason can tell me differently.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Talk about being disingenuous. It's interesting that you would use Oliver's description, rather the one found in your own ritual from the Grand Lodge of South Carolina.

Instead they provide the correct Masonic interpretation, which negates you and Oliver's "Christian interpretation." The fact, as they put it, is that the symbolism shown below really points to Sun Worship.

Wow, talk about being MISTER Disingenuous!!

From one post to the next, such TOTAL inconsistency!

May I remind you, you just had said in the post at the top of this very page, IN YOUR OWN WORDS:

A general Masonic rule is the fact that, no individual can speak on behalf of Freemasonry, an individual may only express a personal view which may, or may not, be shared by other Masons. In the same way, as an institution, Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols. Therefore, as a Mason, you can't impose your so-called "Christian interpretation" based on the cited opinions of other Masons.

(1) Since Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols, who are YOU to try to do with Masonry's symbols what Masonry itself does NOT?????

(2) The second part of what you said, that I can't impose Christian meanings based on the cited opinions of other Masons, is a farcical portrayal of anything I have said.

LET'S GET THIS CLEAR, AND LET'S GET IT CLEAR NOW, SO THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER MISUNDERSTANDING AND FALSE PORTRAYALS OF MY POSITION COMING FROM YOU:

Masonry does NOT impose meanings of its symbols on ANY Mason, in that you spoke true the FIRST time, in post #361.

I do NOT impose my own interpretations upon anyone else, particularly not on any other Mason.

I do not portray my own interpretations of the symbols of Masonry in any way that can be construed or interpreted as, "Wayne is trying to speak for all of Masonry."

I DO interpret the symbols of Masonry from a CHRISTIAN point of view, and my Christian point of view is orthodox, evangelical, and Nicene.

I DO interpret the symbols of Masonry ONLY for MYSELF and NO ONE else. My point of view is my own, and I have consistently made the statements that I make for myself and for no one else.

Heck, Mike, you even ASKED:

Why don't we start with the Compass: "to circumscribe their desires and keep their passions in due bounds with all mankind." What is the "Christian" interpretation of this Masonic symbol?

So I have to ask you in return:

(1) Since you CLEARLY REQUESTED that I provide a Christian interpretation, WHY do you go spouting all this nonsense about a "correct" MASONIC interpretation?

(2) Since I chose Oliver SPECIFICALLY because his is a CHRISTIAN interpretation of masonry, which was what you SPECIFICALLY asked for--why do you go blowing that interpretation off and calling it "incorrect?"

(3) Since you CLEARLY stated in the very post in which you made this request, that there IS no official "Masonic" interpretation, which is the natural inference to be made from a statement that "Masonry does not impose meanings of its symbols," why do you now begin railing about "official" interpretations, rather than accepting EXACTLY what you asked for, a CHRISTIAN interpretation?

The only determinant for what any Masonic symbol means, lies ultimately with the individual, who is to decide for himself what it will mean TO HIM.

I said nothing to give you any reason to suggest I was trying to impose this upon "Masonry" or upon any Mason.

I said nothing to give you any reason to suggest I might be trying to assert Oliver's opinion as opposed to any "official" position (as if there WAS such a thing) or as opposed to any other opinion expressed anywhere else.

You asked a question, you asked for a specific interpretation of Masonry, I responded with exactly what you asked for. The Oliver quote was chosen (1) because it is a Christian interpretation, (2) because that was what you asked for, and (3) because I am in agreement with it.

You forget that I am not writing in any official capacity for Masonry, and Mackey was. Mackey, therefore, tries to stick with neutral viewpoints. But even Mackey did not take certain things into account, as I shall point out in a separate post, as it would be too lengthy to include here.

Your post is just one more example that shows you have no real concept of compatibility, and you have no real concept that Masonry even HAS a Christian interpretation, else you would not be claiming it has been "negated" at your say-so.

 

[George the 3rd]

Rev. Wayne,

Maybe Mike is just confused. When one talks out of both sides of one's mouth, sometimes all that comes out is gibberish!

 

[O.F.F.]

I DO interpret the symbols of Masonry ONLY for MYSELF and NO ONE else. My point of view is my own, and I have consistently made the statements that I make for myself and for no one else.

How foolish and childishly naive this sounds.

"Since Freemasonry says I can view its teachings and symbolism anyway I choose, I can ignore the authority of my own Grand Lodge, who said that the sooner my Christian interpretation is forgotten, the better it will be."

Since Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols, who are YOU to try to do with Masonry's symbols what Masonry itself does NOT?

Don't get mad at me. Take it up with your Grand Lodge, they are the ones who are imposing their view in YOUR ritual, not me!

All I will say for now is, the moderators may as well close this thread down. Since the Lodge permits its teachings and symbolism to be open to any and all interpretations, than who are YOU to try to refute the interpretations of those who oppose Freemasonry? According to Freemasonry, neither its opponents nor its proponents are wrong about its teachings or symbolism. And, G3 wants to suggest that I'm confused.

What Christian in his right mind would want to be part of such nonsense?

For more confounding confusion regarding the symbolism of Freemasonry here a Masonic source to consider; from one of George's brothers from Ohio:

FURTHER SPECULATION ON THE SYMBOL OF THE SQUARE AND COMPASSES by Bro. William Steve Burkle KT, 32° Scioto Lodge No. 6, Chillicothe, Ohio

 

[Rev Wayne]

How foolish and childishly naive this sounds.

"Since Freemasonry says I can view its teachings and symbolism anyway I choose, I can ignore the authority of my own Grand Lodge, who said that the sooner my Christian interpretation is forgotten, the better will it be."

How foolish and self-contradictory this sounds:

Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols.

They provide the correct Masonic interpretation

Your double-speak does not work. You must retract one or the other view, you cannot hold both.

Don't get mad at me.

Mad? Nobody's mad. I was simply pointing out to you that you are contradicting yourself when you tell me (1) that Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols, and then (2) that I must accept what Masonry supposedly "imposes," as you see it in the Ahiman Rezon.

You've contradicted yourself as usual, Mike, either get over yourself, backtrack and start over, or retract one of the contradictory statements you made, or whatever, but don't be so silly as to try to attribute the error to ME.

Take it up with your Grand Lodge, they were the ones who are imposing their view in YOUR ritual, not me!

Now you are contradicting youself once AGAIN! You just told me a bit ago, "Freemasonry does not impose meanings of its symbols." Now you are telling me it does, and that I must not only abide by it, but that if I disagree, I must contend with the Grand Lodge about it.

MAKE UP YER MIND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, Mr. Double-speak.

All I will say for now is, the moderators may as well close this thread down.

Not the first time you've tried that tactic when you were caught in similar circumstances. What you are REALLY saying is, "Help! Moderators! I'm in a fix, PLEASE come bail me out!"

G3 wants to suggest that I'm confused.

"Suggest?" Heh, heh. That has to be the understatement of the year. I thought he stated it pretty clearly and emphatically. After all, "both sides of one's mouth" and "gibberish" is pretty well beyond "suggestion."

What Christian in his right mind would want to be part of such nonsense?

Quite frankly, I would. And I say that not just because of Freemasonry, I say it as a Christian as well. No one person or group in Christianity has the definitive answer on every question that can be asked about Christianity, any more than any one person or Grand Lodge does concerning Masonry. Personally, I would not want to see either the Jesus Seminar or the Fundamentalists as the sole arbiters of what constitutes Christian faith. In some things, people will call me a liberal, in some things they will call me a conservative or even a fundamentalist. But in all things, I am only me, and I have the right to interpret my Christian faith according to the way my guide the Holy Spirit teaches me as I study the doctrines of the faith and God's Holy Word. I am not so limited in my thinking that I consider my opinion more valid than those of others, nor am I so paranoid in my thinking that I feel I have to teach others only my own opinion. Typically in teaching the Word, when there are matters of more than one opinion, I share the entire range with those I teach, and we discuss them all. There are generally disagreements on some points, but we all disagree amiably and we all profit from the broader range of discussion. learning to see things with other eyes than our own, and learning to respect others and their right to interpret differently if they wish to do so.

Masonry does no differently.

 

[George the 3rd]

FURTHER SPECULATION ON THE SYMBOL OF THE SQUARE AND COMPASSES by Bro. William Steve Burkle KT, 32° Scioto Lodge No. 6, Chillicothe, Ohio

spec·u·la·tion n.1. a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.

Freemasonry is considered under two denominations; Operative and Speculative. We are Speculative Masons only.

Therefor, we SPECULATE! (see definition, above)

 

[Albion]

How foolish and childishly naive this sounds.

"Since Freemasonry says I can view its teachings and symbolism anyway I choose, I can ignore the authority of my own Grand Lodge, who said that the sooner my Christian interpretation is forgotten, the better it will be."

Don't get mad at me. Take it up with your Grand Lodge, they are the ones who are imposing their view in YOUR ritual, not me!

All I will say for now is, the moderators may as well close this thread down. Since the Lodge permits its teachings and symbolism to be open to any and all interpretations, than who are YOU to try to refute the interpretations of those who oppose Freemasonry?

Honestly, this is useless. If the Lodge imposed one interpretation or even taught (without imposing) one interpretation, you'd have a point. But if it comes right out and states that the individual is 1) not to compromise his own beliefs, and 2) interpret the symbols, etc. as he sees fit...

...there is nothing here to condemn.

Your only grievance is that all of this doesn't unequivocally teach your own beliefs. And not just that it may not reflect a Christian POV, just that it isn't your version of Christianity.

 

[Albion]

Thought of a single Masonic symbol yet that is in conflict with Christianity?

 

[O.F.F.]

Freemasonry is considered under two denominations; Operative and Speculative. We are Speculative Masons only.

Therefor, we SPECULATE! (see definition, above)

Dude, do you have to be so LOUD? Screaming your point doesn't necessarily make it better. It irritates my listening.

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion -- a religious organization [in this case Freemasonry] whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary -- emphasis added

So stop "speculating" nearly 300 years of nonsense and get with the real world.

Your double-speak does not work.

Under the circumstances, I hope you are beginning to realize that Freemasonry's "double speak" doesn't work either. After all it is your fraternity that allows a smorgasbord of interpretations of what it is or is not.

The most critical question for the Christian in this debate is, how does this all relate to the spiritual battle mankind is in based on Ephesians 6? As a Christian pastor you should have a heart-felt desire to bring EVERYONE you encounter to an ACCURATE and SAVING knowledge of Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior of their lives.

How does being part of an organization that has created a "format" or "template," as you perceive it, supposed to lead to the ultimate cause of Christ; namely, that NONE should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but that all would come to KNOW Him for who He really is?

In your Masonic quest to be one of its modern day apologists, do you even care that everything you are dealing with, including Freemasonry, has to do with the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm that war against your call as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God, that you present your arguments with this goal in mind. Otherwise, you undermine you position and responsibility as a Christian pastor. You need to ask yourself, is what I am doing bringing more glory to God, and more unbelievers to His kingdom, or to the "Masonic ideal" of "religious templates or formats," which has nothing to do with bringing people to an accurate and saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their souls?

 

[Rev Wayne]

Thought of a single Masonic symbol yet that is in conflict with Christianity?

Well, it certainly is not the compasses.

FURTHER SPECULATION ON THE SQUARE AND COMPASSES

It didn't take a very long look at this one, just one glimpse of the word "gematria," which in my book is simply another word for "nonsense," and there was nothing else to see.

George is right, anyone may speculate. What did you do, just go hunting for the most bizarre thing you could find? And how does a move like that have anything to say about Masonry? Doesn't any group you can name have its share of Bizarros? How are such persons or factions in any way representative of the whole?

If you come across an article by Marcus Borg with some wild speculations about Jesus, do you automatically characterize his position as mainstream Christian thinking? If not, why do you pursue such nonsensical trivialities and try to pass it off as the "truth" about Freemasonry, which you have so often claimed to be doing?

 

[Rev Wayne]

How does being part of an organization that has created a "format" or "template," as you perceive it, supposed to lead to the ultimate cause of Christ; namely, that NONE should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but that all would come to KNOW Him for who He really is?

As Jesus said, before you can remove the speck from someone else's eye, you must first remove the plank from your own eye. Masonry is all about building the temple of God, that is, your OWN building, which is your own character and witness. IMO, Masonry is proactive in this regard, and actively keeps the whole idea of encouraging sound moral framework on the front burner in all that it does.

But this thread is not about "does Freemasonry 'ultimately lead to the cause of Christ,'" it is about whether or not Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity.

In your Masonic quest to be one of its modern day apologists, do you even care that everything you are dealing with, including Freemasonry, has to do with the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm that war against your call as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

I am very much aware of it, just as I am also very much aware that every man in my life who had a significant influence in drawing ME away from those spiritual forces and into the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, were ALL Masons, to a man.

You seem to be able to deal simply with abstract ideas, and to be able to twist and turn them around to make them what you wish. I don't have that luxury, I am the product of men whose lives and witness VERY MUCH influenced me in coming to Christ, and who in spite of your protests that they cannot even be Christians, were not only Christians, but were (and not just in my own estimation) some of the most outstanding Christian men you could imagine.

I can't deny their incredible Christian witness, I can't deny their influence on me and on many others, and I can't deny the fact that they were all Masons. From what I've observed in churches I have served, I have no doubt now that they were what they were for having been Masons. I can state unequivocally that when it comes to locating who are the most active people in the church, and who can best be depended on if called on to serve in any capacity, Masons have got a leg up on anyone else any day. I haven't had quite as much experience with Eastern Star people, but in the previous appointment, we would have been hurting for women's leadership in the church had it not been for them. When I arrived there, the church was in a mess because of the poor attention to detail of a former treasurer. Our financial secretary and our treasurer, both Eastern Star, pretty much single-handedly sorted out the mess and got us back on more certain footing.

And if past experience means anything, you will probably attempt to use this to create a new accusation, in true antimason fashion, like the Hydra that grows two heads for every one you cut off.

I beseech you therefore, by the mercies of God, that you present your arguments with this goal in mind. Otherwise, you undermine you position and responsibility as a Christian pastor.

Nice. REAL nice. Your accusations take on new and fascinating twists every day. You are beginning to toe the antimason line with the pros, who knows, you may even be an Ankerberg one day if you keep coming up with novelties like this one.

And apparently, with this latest post, you are once again running out of anything substantial in the way of addressing the argument? As I pointed out only a few short posts ago, ad hominem is ALWAYS the last resort of an antimason when their arguments are going down for the third time.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You need to ask yourself, is what I am doing bringing more glory to God, and more unbelievers to His kingdom

Funny, I was thinking you might ask yourself the same thing.

 

[George the 3rd]

Dude, do you have to be so LOUD? Screaming your point doesn't necessarily make it better. It irritates my listening.

sorry