• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Freemasonry is compatible with Christianity?

Status
Not open for further replies.

George the 3rd

Prestidigitator
May 2, 2004
107
1
✟234.00
Faith
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 Left-Hand Path religionsAlien-based religionsMysticismMagic (religion)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


EpiscopalCongregationalNew ThoughtChristian mystery movementsFunny, what is so clear to you seems to have escaped such an extensive and inclusive list!
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?)


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.
 
Upvote 0

O.F.F.

An Ex-Mason for Jesus
Jan 22, 2004
1,422
49
USA
Visit site
✟16,848.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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:

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.


Can I get an “amen?”
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

chaoschristian said:
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.


O.F.F. said:
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)


Kupp said:
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.

 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

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.
 
Upvote 0

George the 3rd

Prestidigitator
May 2, 2004
107
1
✟234.00
Faith
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?)
 
Upvote 0

G19

Active Member
Aug 14, 2007
41
1
✟22,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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."
 
Upvote 0

chaoschristian

Well-Known Member
Dec 22, 2005
7,439
352
✟9,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
 
Upvote 0

G19

Active Member
Aug 14, 2007
41
1
✟22,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Agreed. It's the difference between the doctrines of christian exclusivism and christian inclusivism. Separationists, especially dominionists, favor a theocracy.
 
Upvote 0

Rev Wayne

Simplicity + Sincerity = Serenity
Sep 16, 2003
4,128
101
73
SC
Visit site
✟28,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

 
Upvote 0

G19

Active Member
Aug 14, 2007
41
1
✟22,651.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.