Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

[George the 3rd]

Quote:
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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions

Mike,

Above is a link to wikipedia's "List of Religions". While I do not claim, nor neither do they, that it is final, it is extensive, to say the least.

Lest you might claim that Masonry was over looked, consider some of the religions, even those listed as "Alien-based" and "Parody or Mock Religions" that made the list. Surely, if Masonry met the criteria for religion that even the "Alien-based" ones did, it would be on the list!

As an example of some of the more obscure religions that made the list, consider the following:

Syncretic and eclectic Pagan religions

• Church of All Worlds
• Discordianism
• Neo-druidism (Some Neo-druids are eclectic, some are Reconstructionist)

• Wicca
  • Alexandrian Wicca
  • Dianic Wicca (Feminist Wicca)
  • Faery Wicca
  • Feri Tradition
  • Gardnerian Wicca
  • Reclaiming (Starhawk is one of the founders)
  • Seax-Wica (Founded by Raymond Buckland)

Left-Hand Path religions

• Luciferianism
• Satanism
• Setianism

Alien-based religions

• Aetherius Society
• Chen Tao
• Heaven's Gate
• Raelism
• Scientology
  • Church of Scientology
  • Scientology In Australia
    • Free Zone (Scientology)
• Universe people
• Unarius Academy of Science

Mysticism

• Christian mysticism
• Hindu mysticism
  • Tantra
    • Ananda Marga Tantra-Yoga
• Kabbalah (also part of Judaism)
  • Kabbalah Centre
• Martinism
• Merkabah (also part of Judaism)
• Meher Baba
• Sufism

Magic (religion)

• Hoodoo (Rootwork)
  • New Orleans Voodoo
• Kulam - Filipino witchcraft
• Magick
  • Chaos magic
  • Enochian magic
  • Demonolatry
    • Goetia
• Pow-wow
• Seid (shamanic magic)
• Tarot
• Vaastu Shastra (Hinduism)
• Witchcraft

On the page entitled "List of Christian Denominations",

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

we find the following:

Religious movements related to Christianity


Christian/Wicca


Manichaeism

(extinct as a distinct and modern group)

The New Church also called Swedenborgianism


Episcopal

• General Church of the New Jerusalem
• The Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma

Congregational

• General Conference of the New Church (England)
• Swedenborgian Church of North America formerly General Convention of the New Jerusalem (USA)
• The New Church in Australia
• The New Church in South Africa

New Thought

• Divine Science
• Religious Science (Science of Mind)
• Unity (Unity School of Christianity)
• Universal Foundation for Better Living

Christian mystery movements

• Esoteric Christianity
• The Rosicrucian Fellowship
• Lords Resistance Army

Funny, what is so clear to you seems to have escaped such an extensive and inclusive list!

 

[O.F.F.]

sorry

Thanks, apology accepted. Now that sounds a lot quieter.

 

[O.F.F.]

Give me a break . . . can't you can see, you're drivin' me nuts?

I'll see y'all in a month or two . . . Bye for now

Mike out!

 

[Rev Wayne]

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?

As a matter of fact, I am. And I will do so with Mackey's own words, who was the author of what you quoted.

Since Mackey based this opinion on ideas of sun-worship, where do you suppose he got it? Check his encyclopedia, and you will find that much of it came from what he observed from ancient Egypt.

But to make his case, Mackey is appealing, NOT to MASONRY'S interpretation of the symbol, but to EGYPT'S interpretation. Why? Because at the time he wrote that, Mackey was of the opinion that they were one and the same, that Masonry's use of the symbol was a derivation from the interpretation of the symbol as found in ancient Egypt.

But is he correct?

Not according to Henry Wilson Coil:

Of all the symbols of Craft Masonry, this one offers the greatest problem for the symbologist. It came into the ritual quite late without explanation, and no one has ever developed a satisfactory one for it. (Coil’s Encyclopedia, p. 479)

Coil appears to be correct. I have tried to trace it back before 1800, and I can't seem to find it. The most common form is from Webb's Monitor, 1818. But there are earlier versions than this. Dermott's Ahiman Rezon, however, from 1805, has no mention of it whatsoever.

And I DO find it significant that every appearance of it that I COULD locate, has the same Christian interpretation that was criticized by Mackey. And the ONLY reference I could find that might be a precursor, also has a decidedly Christian interpretation:

N.B. “The reason why they denominate themselves of the Holy Lodge of St. John’s, is, because he was the Fore-runner of our Saviour, and laid the first Parallel Line to the Gospel.” (Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, 1730, p. 24)

But there is an even more significant point that has been missed. (Remember, I said I would show the error by Mackey's own words?)

ANTIQUITY OF FREEMASONRY
Years ago in writing an article on this subject under the impressions made upon me by the fascinating theories of Doctor Oliver, though I never completely accepted his views, I was led to place the organization of Freemasonry, as it now exists, at the building of Solomon's Temple. Many years of subsequent research have led me greatly to modify the views I had previously held.
Although I do not rank myself among those modern iconoclasts who refuse credence to every document whose authenticity, if admitted, would give to the Order a birth anterior to the beginning of the last century, I confess that I cannot find any incontrovertible evidence that would trace Freemasonry, as now organized, beyond the Building Corporations of the Middle Ages. In this point of view I speak of it only as an architectural brotherhood, distinguished by signs, by words, and by brotherly ties which have not been essentially changed, and by symbols and legends which have only been developed and extended, while the association has undergone a transformation from an operative art to a speculative science.

In other words, with this statement, Mackey retracted many years' worth of opinions about the existence and nature of Masonry before the Middle Ages. That would necessarily include speculation that Mackey offers in Ahiman Rezon about the point within a circle with parallel lines, which was attributed to a form of worship that FAR preceded the medieval guilds.

Your insistences about "official" Masonic opinion on the matter is thus refuted, and we must turn elsewhere than to Mackey.

That leaves little recourse, since every other source I can find expresses some form or other of the same thing I have quoted from Dr. Oliver. For even if they have a few differences here and there, they ALL have an essentially Christian interpretation.

 

[G19]

sorry

 

[George the 3rd]

Okay, I need a break from you Masons for awhile, you're getting on my nerves . . .

Mike,
While you're gone I'll be speculating on why you really couldn't take it any more.
G3

 

[O.F.F.]

Okay, so I am back! I realized all it takes is a day or two to get over the affects of Masonic annoyance; not a month or two. Besides, after reading the following I could not resist sharing it with the readers here.

Not only does this refute Wayne's notion of "Love thy Neighbor," it turns out to be a very good challenge to the whole Masonic idea of the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God, and is added proof of the incompatibility of Freemasonry and Biblical Christianity.

"...And who is my neighbor?"

The true answer to that question is a matter of life and death for all Christians because Jesus said that to have eternal life we must love our neighbor as ourselves. How can we possibly obey Jesus if we do not know who our neighbor is? The scriptural answer to that question may surprise you...

In the book of Luke, we find a man who asked Jesus this question: "Master what shall I do to inherit eternal life?". Jesus responded by asking the man what had been written in the law about receiving eternal life. The man then quoted the following verses from the books
of Deuteronomy and Leviticus:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and all thy mind; AND THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF".

Jesus told the man that he had answered correctly and that if he would do those things he would inherit eternal life. The man then asked "And who is my neighbor?"....

There are three general answers to that question. To determine the legitimate answer we need to compare the words brother and neighbor because they are often used as synonyms in the scriptures. In order to simplify this study I have expressed the three opinions in the form of equations:

Opinion # 1.

NEIGHBOR = BROTHER = MANKIND

In this view neighbor and brother are equal terms and may be applied to all human beings; thus all men are my neighbors.

Opinion # 2.

NEIGHBOR = SOMEONE NEAR and BROTHER = CHRISTIAN

Here, neighbor and brother are different. The neighbor is anyone who is geographically near, while the word brother applies only to one who is a fellow Christian.

Opinion # 3.

NEIGHBOR = BROTHER = CHRISTIAN

Finally, neighbor and brother are synonymous terms that apply only to fellow believers. Thus my neighbor is my brother in Christ and no one else.

In order to determine which of these views is correct we must let the scriptures define and explain themselves. One of the first rules of biblical interpretation is to examine the verse in context and determine what it meant to the people it was spoken to. When Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself" he was quoting from Leviticus 19:18. Here is that verse in context:

16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among THY PEOPLE: neither shall thou stand against the blood of THY NEIGHBOR. I am the Lord.

17 Thou shalt not hate THY BROTHER in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke THY NEIGHBOR, and not suffer sin upon him.

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the CHILDREN OF THY PEOPLE, but thou shalt love THY NEIGHBOR as thyself.

It is easy to see that the terms "neighbor", "brother" and "thy people" were used as synonyms. That usage is especially clear in verse:18, where "children of thy people" is used in parallel with "thy neighbor". The command was not to bear any grudge against fellow Israelites but to love them "as thyself". This command, in its original context, applied only to the people of God; that is, those who lived in the land and obeyed the laws of God.

The following articles from standard reference works emphatically point out that the words neighbor and brother referred specifically to fellow Israelites:

BROTHERLY LOVE Gk. philadelphia, means, not figurative brother-like love, but the love of those united in Christian brotherhood...In the OT 'brother' like neighbor, means fellow Israelite (Lv 19:17f.) New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Press

NEIGHBOR. Five Hebrew words are rendered "neighbor" in the AV of the OT, the principal one being rea'....In the OT one's neighbor is clearly a fellow Israelite as indicated by the statement: "You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18 RSV). The parallelism of this verse identifies “neighbor" with sons of your people." A different code of conduct was prescribed towards the foreigner in contrast to ones fellow countrymen. (Deut 23:19, 20) -- Baker's Dictionary Of Theology, Baker Press

The article from Baker's Dictionary of Theology above points out that there was indeed a different code of conduct towards those who were not of the Israelites. That distinction can be clearly seen in these verses from Deuteronomy 23:19-20

"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to THY BROTHER; ... "Unto a STRANGER thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury,"

The formula for defining neighbor and brother in the verses we have looked at would be:

NEIGHBOR = BROTHER = ISRAELITE

STRANGER = ALL OTHERS

The sharp eyed Bible student will quickly say "Stop! there is another class of people. What about the stranger who dwells in the land?" He (or she) would point to Leviticus 19:33- 34 which says:

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF;"

To that vigilant student I would say thank you - for proving my point that the people whom Israelites were to love as themselves were the people who followed the law of God. Although the stranger who sojourned in the land was not a fellow Israelite, he was to be treated as a brother ("as one born among you") because God said the sojourner was required to obey the laws of God just as the Israelite:

"ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgements, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, NOR ANY STRANGER THAT SOJOURNETH AMONG YOU: (Lev 18:26)

"The sojourner could be circumcised (Exod 12:48) and enjoy all the privileges of true religion: the Passover (Exod 12:49) the Atonement feast (Lev 16:29) presenting offerings (Lev 17:8) all the feasts (Deut16:11) and share in the sabbath rest (Lev 25:6)" -- Vine's Dictionary of Biblical Words

It is obvious that if the sojourner was to be treated the same as "one who is born among you", then there was a distinct difference between those who were born among the Israelites and all others who were not "born among you". In the Old Testament, the neighbor was not just someone who was near, he was a brother by birth or by choice.

The question we must now ask is:

Did the meaning of the word "neighbor" change in the New Testament?

In reference to the book of Luke, where Jesus told the man to "love thy neighbor as thyself" the word neighbor must retain the same meaning as the original text from which it was quoted (Lev 19:18) unless we find biblical evidence to the contrary. If this Old Testament definition of neighbor is brought forth into the New Testament it would mean that the neighbors we are commanded to love as we love ourselves would apply only to the brethren in Christ, that is, those who are born of God. If that is true we can expect to find unquestionable proof in the New Testament epistles that the term neighbor is used as a synonym for brethren in Christ.

The word "neighbor" as used by Christ comes from the Greek word: plesion. It is used eight times by Luke, Paul and James. As you will see, in six of those verses the word neighbor and brother or brethren were parallel in meaning. Here are those six verses:

1. Acts 7:26-27

"And the next day he [Moses] showed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying Sirs, ye are BRETHREN; why do ye wrong to one another? But he that did his NEIGHBOR wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?"

2. Galatians 5:13-15

"For, BRETHREN, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by LOVE serve ONE ANOTHER. [not the world] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shalt love thy NEIGHBOR as thyself. But if ye bite and devour ONE ANOTHER, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another".

3. Ephesians 4:25

"Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his NEIGHBOR: for we are members ONE OF ANOTHER".

4. James 2:1-15 (For brevity's sake I will quote only the verses in this passage which are directly relevant to the question in order to provide context.)

2:1 "My BRETHREN, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

2:5 Hearken, my beloved BRETHREN, hath not God chosen the poor in this world

2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy NEIGHBOR as thyself, ye do well:

2:9 But if ye have RESPECT to persons, [in your assembly] ye commit sin,

2:14 What doth it profit, my BRETHREN, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works...

2:15 If a BROTHER OR SISTER be naked and destitute of daily food. [brethren, not the world]

2:16 And...ye give THEM not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?"

"Do not speak against one another, BRETHREN. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law... There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you to judge your NEIGHBOR". -- James 4:11-12 (New American Standard)

It is abundantly clear that the Old Testament concept of neighbor = brother was carried over into the thinking of the apostles in the New Testament. Jesus carefully defined who our brothers in Christ are. He said:

"My mother and my BRETHREN are these which hear the word of God and do it." -- Luke 8:21 Therefore, the New Testament formula for neighbor would be:

NEIGHBOR = BROTHER = THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND DO IT.

Just as in the Old Testament, the neighbor is one who obeys the law of God. Why then did the Jewish lawyer who certainly understood that principal ask Jesus: "Who is my neighbor?". And why did Jesus answer the lawyer by telling him the parable of the good Samaritan?

In order to understand both the question and the answer, we must consider the historical background:

"The Jews hated them [the Samaritans] and would have nothing to do with them. Over the centuries the Assyrians intermarried with Jews to form the hybrid group known as the Samaritans. The Jews did not accept them as their neighbors and it was with this in view that Jesus spoke to the Jews the parable of the good Samaritan".

The Jewish lawyer knew that Jesus had made converts among the Samaritans (Luke 9:52) and wanted to justify himself in his hatred of them, even though they were related by race and religion. (The Samaritans kept the Torah) Jesus responded to the lawyer by telling the parable and then asking him which of the three who passed by the hurt man proved to be neighbor unto him. The lawyer said: "He that showed mercy on him".

Jesus proved to the lawyer that the Levite and the priest did not prove to be neighbor to the victim because they did not really obey God's law. On the other hand, the Samaritan whom the lawyer hated, proved to be his neighbor because he did obey God's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself". Again we see the principle that our neighbor in the biblical sense is not simply someone who is near, but one who is a believer in God and keeps His commandments.

When one stops to think about it, the expression "love thy neighbor as thyself" is telling us "how much" we are to love. In other words,"as thyself" is the measure of service to our brethren that God expects. If my brother or sister needs something and I am not as generous to him as I would be to myself, then I am a "respecter of persons".

To say that we are to love anyone who "is near" in this same manner would place a terrible burden upon the believer. If that were true, then we would be required to share our homes,our clothes, and our food with any wretched person we happened to come across. That was never the intent of God.

I challenge anyone who says differently to prove from the history of the church in the book of Acts or the epistles that the church EVER was told to use its assets for anyone who was not a member of the body of Christ!

Having said these things let me also say that we are to "love our enemies" and to do good to all men as we have opportunity. But we are not required to love them as "ye love yourself". With the people of the world we are to follow the rules of love set forth by Paul in 1st Corinthians 13, "Love is patient and kind" etc. And yes, we are to do unto all men as we would that men would do unto us. Those are the everyday standards that God expects of us in our dealings with those outside the church. But to love another as I love myself is a privilege reserved for those who are my brethren in Christ - the children of God.

DECEPTION #5, ALL MEN ARE NEIGHBORS by Harold Kupp

 

[Rev Wayne]

All I have to say in reading this unbelievable piece of spin and redefinition is, you really should have considered taking the two months.

Your challenge is not much of one, but it certainly will be answered. The first thing that comes to mind is, when Jesus said to love our enemies, he clearly said, "For if you love only those who love you, then what do you do that is any different than the Gentiles do?"

I think this guy, whoever he is, is stretching things way beyond all ability to define even the simplest terms, whether in the English or in the original, if he truly believes what you have just posted.

I challenge anyone who says differently to prove from the history of the church in the book of Acts or the epistles that the church EVER was told to use its assets for anyone who was not a member of the body of Christ!

That's a simple enough challenge, and it can be answered by a verse that is often cited in Masonry:

"Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good unto ALL MEN, but especially to those of the household of faith." (Galatians 6:10)

Guess what my study Bible, which just happened to be the first Bible I had in arm's reach, has to say in the footnote about "do good to all men?"

6:10 do good to all: The practical application of "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (5:14).

I never heard of this guy as far as I know, and from what he has to say, I am glad of it. Personally, I think the guy's out in left field, and perhaps when I have had the time to check out his so-called "exegesis," I will have further proof of it. Sounds to me like he's just trying to justify a discrimination that even God Himself does not practice. Has he totally forgotten that we are to show the same love of Christ that was shown to us, and that He "loved us while we were yet sinners??"

If we are to love as He loves, and since He loved us before we were of the "household of faith," how are we to follow that love by loving only those who are already His?

 

[Rev Wayne]

I had it in mind to consult a slew of commentaries and show you what an overwhelming disagreement you would find between them and what you posted. But after pulling up only two, I realized they were sufficient, because they said essentially the same thing I said in my initial response:

36. Which . . . was neighbour? -- a most dexterous way of putting the question: (1) Turning the question from, "Whom am I to love as my neighbour?" to "Who is the man that shows that love?" (2) Compelling the lawyer to give a reply very different from what he would like--not only condemning his own nation, but those of them who should be the most exemplary. (3) Making him commend one of a deeply hated race. And he does it, but it is almost extorted. For he does not answer, "The Samaritan"--that would have sounded heterodox, heretical--but "He that showed mercy on him." It comes to the same thing, no doubt, but the circumlocution is significant.
(Jamieson-Faussett-Brown)

I agree. Jesus did not use the example of the Samaritan in order to pick someone "of the faith." For one thing, Mr. Kupp is SEVERELY stretching it when he makes the assumption that the hypothetical Samaritan of Jesus' story was meant to be one of the REAL Samaritans who was converted by Jesus' ministry to the woman at the well. For another thing, a parable is not like an anecdote, the characters in the story are hypothetical, and the story is a construct, and designed to illustrate a truth. Everywhere I have ever consulted commentaries on this story, they are exactly in agreement with the sources I now quote here, that Jesus chose the Samaritan for exactly the OPPOSITE reason, that they were a HATED race and were considered as bad as, if not worse than, the Gentiles, whom they considered "dogs." That's why the man who asked this question could not even bring himself to answer Jesus' question by saying "The Samaritan"--he simply could not bring himself to acknowledge that even this despised race could be considered his neighbor.

If we speak of eternal life, and the way to it, in a careless manner, we take the name of God in vain. No one will ever love God and his neighbour with any measure of pure, spiritual love, who is not made a partaker of converting grace. But the proud heart of man strives hard against these convictions. Christ gave an instance of a poor Jew in distress, relieved by a good Samaritan. This poor man fell among thieves, who left him about to die of his wounds. He was slighted by those who should have been his friends, and was cared for by a stranger, a Samaritan, of the nation which the Jews most despised and detested, and would have no dealings with. It is lamentable to observe how selfishness governs all ranks; how many excuses men will make to avoid trouble or expense in relieving others. But the true Christian has the law of love written in his heart. The Spirit of Christ dwells in him; Christ's image is renewed in his soul. The parable is a beautiful explanation of the law of loving our neighbour as ourselves, without regard to nation, party, or any other distinction. It also sets forth the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward sinful, miserable men. We were like this poor, distressed traveller. Satan, our enemy, has robbed us, and wounded us: such is the mischief sin has done us. The blessed Jesus had compassion on us. The believer considers that Jesus loved him, and gave his life for him, when an enemy and a rebel; and having shown him mercy, he bids him go and do likewise. It is the duty of us all , in our places, and according to our ability, to succour, help, and relieve all that are in distress and necessity.
(Matthew Henry)

Can I get an “amen?”

 

[chaoschristian]

Amen.

I've never seen that parable so horribly twisted.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I've never seen that parable so horribly twisted.

I agree, what Kupp has done, basically, is take it and turn it on its head, making it a pattern for exclusion and claiming it to be "what Jesus said," when everything about it clearly indicates He was doing the same in this passage as He was in Matthew 7, clarifying and more broadly defining and applying OT truth.

I challenge anyone who says differently to prove from the history of the church in the book of Acts or the epistles that the church EVER was told to use its assets for anyone who was not a member of the body of Christ!

I responded to this once, of course, but there is a much clearer point of reference than the one I suggested, since the passage in Galatians 6 says nothing other than to “do good,” and suggests nothing about the “use of one’s assets,” as was stated in the challenge.

This one actually should have been more obvious to me, since I am preaching from the passage tomorrow (Romans 12:9-21). There Paul says:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” (v. 20)

to love another as I love myself is a privilege reserved for those who are my brethren in Christ.

Had that been Jesus’ intent, He would never have chosen a hated Samaritan as the protagonist of the parable.

Besides, as we have already shown earlier, with begrudging acknowledgment of the point from you as well, this truth was being taught centuries before Christ walked the earth, and in cultures far removed from Israel. Thus it was pre-Christian and was learned and taught independentlty of other traditions.

So there is no way it could be reserved only for those who name the name of Christ.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Having said these things let me also say that we are to "love our enemies" and to do good to all men as we have opportunity. But we are not required to love them as "ye love yourself". With the people of the world we are to follow the rules of love set forth by Paul in 1st Corinthians 13, "Love is patient and kind" etc. And yes, we are to do unto all men as we would that men would do unto us. Those are the everyday standards that God expects of us in our dealings with those outside the church. But to love another as I love myself is a privilege reserved for those who are my brethren in Christ - the children of God.

This follows a rather bizarre logic by which an assertion is made about some sort of difference between loving someone, and loving them as we love ourselves.

Clearly this is a false dichotomy, as can be shown in Jesus' words in the sermon on the mount. In that discourse, He was describing the love of those who love us as incomplete. The completion of love is to love one's enemies as well. That being the case, then
"loving your enemies" has to be a higher form of love than loving only those who love us.

And on that point as well, we find out that Kupp has things reversed.

The same is true of his estimation of 1 Corinthians, often considered one of the premier treastises on love that can be found in the world. Yet this also, Kupp relegates to the realm of the mundane.

 

[George the 3rd]

1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

This would explain those loud clanging noises I hear in my head when I read some of Mike's posts!

Rev. Wayne,
Thanks for your excellent response. I was afraid that I might have to change my signature at the bottom if Mike were right!

(Mike,
Now that we've read this gem of an argument you've just posted, see you in a couple of months?)

 

[G19]

Mike,

The essay you posted sounds a lot like something David Duke would preach. I've heard Fred Phelps (google him) preach a very similar message.

I'm sure you didn't mean it the same way, but any 1st year bible student would be able to tear that guy a new one fairly easily. Wayne went above and beyond to point out his error, and did so quite well.

Unless you believe that the lodge is more powerful than Christ, I don't see why you continue with your efforts. If you would have spent your time just living out your faith WITHIN your lodge, I think you would have been able to influence a lot of people for Christ. Instead, you've set up, like Wayne mentioned, a false dichotomy and you actually put up a wall between some masons and Jesus by making them think they have to choose.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Fred Phelps? Gee, what a nice guy.

If that assessment of Kupp is true, then at least we can see this for what it truly is.

Posting Phelpsian material and calling it Christianity is a pretty fair equivalent to posting P2 stuff and calling it "Masonic."

 

[chaoschristian]

I've heard my own pastor teach a similar lesson in Bible study, and he certainly is no Phelps.

I think the common denominator is a rejection of Christian participation in organized social justice, that the point of engaging with the non-faithful must necessarily be only to seek conversion. This is a paradigm that affronted my sensibilities when I first encountered it, and one that ran against all the teachings of my former UMC church.

 

[G19]

Harold Kupp's website.

 

[G19]

I've heard my own pastor teach a similar lesson in Bible study, and he certainly is no Phelps.

I think the common denominator is a rejection of Christian participation in organized social justice, that the point of engaging with the non-faithful must necessarily be only to seek conversion. This is a paradigm that affronted my sensibilities when I first encountered it, and one that ran against all the teachings of my former UMC church.

Agreed. It's the difference between the doctrines of christian exclusivism and christian inclusivism. Separationists, especially dominionists, favor a theocracy.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I've heard my own pastor teach a similar lesson in Bible study, and he certainly is no Phelps.

Yeah, painting this as "Phelpsian" certainly is a broad generalization, but the seeds of a Phelps are always present in any statement like:

But to love another as I love myself is a privilege reserved for those who are my brethren in Christ - the children of God.

From that point begin the development of all the self-justifications for not loving anyone at all who does not fall within that common bond. If we ask the common "what would Jesus do," we do not get the same answer at all. Jesus praised the faith of a Gentile woman; He called the faith of a centurion "greater than anyone in all Israel"; He pointed out that the only two people to whom prophets were sent to heal them, were both Gentiles--and the crowd tried to throw Him over a cliff for it; He identified with the poor without putting any limitation upon it when He said, "If you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"; He defended a woman caught in adultery when a crowd following the Jewish law was about to stone her to death; He ministered to a woman who was despised by Jews for her Samaritan heritage, who was living in sin by living with a man who was not her husband; He was criticized for allowing a woman to anoint Him at Simon's house; He healed 10 lepers, who would have been outcasts in Israel; He went to the house of Zacchaeus, a despised tax-collector; I could name quite a few more, but that should be enough to get the point.

It seems to me that if you follow the accounts of who Jesus ministered to, you find quite a number of them along the way who were way beyond the pale of what Kupp insists as the boundary of whom we are to show the love of God.

Moreover, following what he has said, we must assume that Jesus was not ministering according to any precept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" when He did any of these things. I think that is an appalling assessment (1) of the love of God as shown in Jesus, and (2) of the love we are exhorted to show to others in Jesus' name.

Kupp's idea would preclude any of the tremendous outpouring of love shown to the victims of Katrina in the days following that catastrophe--or it would at least require any Christians involved in such giving, to first make sure exactly where the money was going, so they could make sure it wasn't going to non-Christians.

Either choice would be lose-lose.

 

[G19]

Kupp provides a lot more exegetical gymnastics on his web site. Including:

"In our opinion, the evidence from Romans and Zechariah demands a verdict for Sabbath observance. The church must obey the Fourth Commandment - that is the only decision that will uphold the Law of God." CASE CLOSED!

" Remember, John said: "...whosoever is born of God SINNETH NOT". (1 John 5:18) As sin is revealed by the Holy Spirit those who really are born of God quit doing it. Eventually all sin is revealed and thus they quit doing all sin. On the other hand, the Christian who continues to disobey even one of God's Ten Commandments (including the Sabbath) is in rebellion. There will be no rebels in God's kingdom."

"The sinning Christian has been repeatedly told that: "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life!" ...Sadly, nothing could be farther from the truth, for their end shall be eternal destruction."

"The Devil wants us to commit sin and "sin is the transgression of the law." Those who knowingly choose to disobey any part of God's Ten Commandment Law (including the Sabbath) are obeying the Devil. They are his servants and will share his fate on Judgement day."